Incremental dynamic analysis of steel frames equipped with NiTi shape memory alloy braces

SUMMARY This paper determines the seismic performance of four-storey concentrically braced frames equipped with either steel buckling-restrained braces or buckling-restrained superelastic shape memory alloy (SMA) braces through incremental dynamic analysis. The incremental dynamic analysis technique is used to examine the behaviour of four-storey braced frames with four different bracing configurations (including diagonal, split-X, chevron-V and inverted-V) under 20 different ground motion records. The study reveals a satisfactory performance at the design intensity level for both types of braced frames. The results show that the SMA braces lead to a uniform distribution of inelastic response over the height of the buildings, as well as mitigating seismic response in terms of maximum inter-storey drift and residual roof displacement. By comparing the responses of SMA and buckling-restrained braced frames under higher intensities of earthquake loading, it is found that the SMA braces can be more beneficial especially under severe ground motion excitations. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

[2]  Reginald DesRoches,et al.  Seismic Assessment of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames with Shape Memory Alloy Braces , 2007 .

[3]  Roberto T. Leon,et al.  Design and analysis of braced frames with shape memory alloy and energy-absorbing hybrid devices , 2010 .

[4]  Davide Fugazza,et al.  Use of Shape-Memory Alloy Devices in Earthquake Engineering: Mechanical Properties, Advanced Constitutive Modelling and Structural Applications , 2005 .

[5]  S. Hurlebaus,et al.  Seismic Response Control Using Shape Memory Alloys: A Review , 2011 .

[6]  Songye Zhu,et al.  Seismic Analysis of Concentrically Braced Frame Systems with Self-Centering Friction Damping Braces , 2008 .

[7]  Reginald DesRoches,et al.  Shape Memory Alloy Tension/Compression Device for Seismic Retrofit of Buildings , 2009, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance.

[8]  Reginald DesRoches,et al.  EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE OF STEEL FRAMES WITH NITINOL BRACES , 2006 .

[9]  Behrouz Asgarian,et al.  A comparison of dynamic nonlinear behavior of ordinary and buckling restrained braced frames subjected to strong ground motion , 2008 .

[10]  Reginald DesRoches,et al.  Effect of cyclic modeling parameters on the behavior of shape memory alloys for seismic applications , 2004, SPIE Smart Structures and Materials + Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring.

[11]  Reginald DesRoches,et al.  CYCLIC PROPERTIES OF SUPERELASTIC SHAPE MEMORY ALLOY WIRES AND BARS , 2004 .

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

[13]  S. Bruno,et al.  Comparative response analysis of conventional and innovative seismic protection strategies , 2002 .

[14]  Behrouz Asgarian,et al.  Seismic response of steel braced frames with shape memory alloy braces , 2011 .

[15]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines , 2002 .

[16]  Alessandro Reali,et al.  AN ISO GEOMETRIC ANALYSIS APPROACH FOR THE STUDY OF STRUCTURAL VIBRATIONS , 2006 .

[17]  Christoph Czaderski,et al.  Applications of shape memory alloys in civil engineering structures—Overview, limits and new ideas , 2005 .

[18]  Behrouz Asgarian,et al.  BRBF response modification factor , 2009 .

[19]  Gangbing Song,et al.  Applications of shape memory alloys in civil structures , 2006 .

[20]  Moncef L. Nehdi,et al.  Utilizing shape memory alloys to enhance the performance and safety of civil infrastructure: a review , 2007 .