Evaluation of buckling-restrained braced frame seismic performance considering reserve strength

Abstract Buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) systems are used extensively for resisting lateral forces in high seismic regions of the United States. Numerical and large-scale experimental studies of BRBFs have shown predictable seismic performance with robust ductility and energy dissipation capacity. However, the low post-yield stiffness of buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) may cause BRBFs to exhibit large maximum and residual drifts and allow the formation of soft stories. Thus, reserve strength provided by other elements in the lateral-force-resisting system is critical to improving seismic performance of BRBFs. This reserve strength can be provided in two primary ways: (1) moment-resisting connections within the BRBF and (2) a steel special moment-resisting frame (SMRF) in parallel with the BRBF to create a dual system configuration. These two approaches to providing reserve strength can be used together or separately, leading to a variety of potential system configurations. In addition, special attention must be given to the connections within the BRBF since moment-resisting connections have been observed experimentally to limit drift capacity due to undesirable connection-related failure modes. This paper presents nonlinear dynamic analysis results and evaluates performance of BRBF and BRBF–SMRF systems using moment-resisting and non-moment-resisting beam–column connections within the BRBF. Reserve strength is shown to play a critical role in seismic behavior and performance of BRBFs.

[1]  Blake M. Andrews,et al.  Ductility capacity models for buckling-restrained braces , 2009 .

[2]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Incremental dynamic analysis , 2002 .

[3]  Larry Alan Fahnestock,et al.  Buckling-restrained braced frame connection performance , 2010 .

[4]  W. J. Hall,et al.  Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings , 2001 .

[5]  J. Baker,et al.  A vector‐valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon , 2005 .

[6]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Seismic Response and Performance of Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames , 2007 .

[7]  Nicos Makris,et al.  Component Testing, Seismic Evaluation and Characterization of Buckling-Restrained Braces , 2004 .

[8]  Vitelmo V. Bertero,et al.  Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology To Performance-Based Engineering , 2020 .

[9]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces , 2003 .

[10]  Masayoshi Nakashima,et al.  Effect of gravity columns on mitigation of drift concentration for braced frames , 2009 .

[11]  Yoshihiro Kimura,et al.  Effect of Column Stiffness on Braced Frame Seismic Behavior , 2004 .

[12]  Didier Pettinga,et al.  Effectiveness of simple approaches in mitigating residual deformations in buildings , 2007 .

[13]  Chia-Ming Uang,et al.  Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a dual system , 2006 .

[14]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Applied Incremental Dynamic Analysis , 2004 .

[15]  N. Null.  Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures , 2003 .

[16]  Qiang Xie.  Dual system design of steel frames incorporating buckling-restrained braces , 2005 .

[17]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Experimental Evaluation of a Large-Scale Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame , 2007 .