Performance assessment of innovative seismic resilient steel knee braced frame

Abstract

Buckling restrained knee braced truss moment frame (BRKBTMF) is a novel and innovative steel structural system that utilizes the advantages of long-span trusses and dedicated structural fuses for seismic applications. Steel trusses are very economical and effective in spanning large distance. However, conventional steel trusses are typically not suitable for seismic application, due to its lack of ductility and poor energy dissipation capacity. BRKBTMF utilizes buckling restrained braces (BRBs) as the designated structural fuses to dissipate the sudden surge of earthquake energy. This allows the BRKBTMF to economically and efficiently create large span structural systems for seismic applications. In this paper, a prototype BRKBTMF office building located in Berkeley, California, USA, was designed using performance-based plastic design procedure. The seismic performance of the prototype building was assessed using the state-of-the-art finite element software, OpenSees. Detailed BRB hysteresis and advanced element removal technique was implemented. The modeling approach allows the simulation for the force-deformation response of the BRB and the force redistribution within the system after the BRBs fracture. The developed finite element model was analyzed using incremental dynamic analysis approach to quantify the seismic performance of BRKBTMF. The results show BRKBTMF has excellent seismic performance with well controlled structural responses and resistance against collapse. In addition, life cycle repair cost of BRKBTMF was assessed using the next-generation performance-based earthquake engineering framework. The results confirm that BRKBTMF can effectively control the structural and non-structural component damages and minimize the repair costs of the structure under different ranges of earthquake shaking intensities. This studies conclude that BRKBTMF is a viable and effective seismic force resisting system.

Keywords

buckling restrained brace / innovative structural system / collapse simulation / seismic assessment

References

[1] Wongpakdee N, Leelataviwat S, Goel S C, Liao W C. Performance-based design and collapse evaluation of buckling restrained knee braced truss moment frames. Engineering Structures, 2014, 60: 23–31

[2] Yang T Y, Li Y, Leelataviwat S. Performance-based design and optimization of buckling restrained knee brace truss moment frame. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2014, 28(6): A4014007

[3] Yang T Y, Li Y, Goel S. Performance evaluation of long-span conventional moment frames and buckling-restrained knee-braced truss moment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2015, 142(1): 04015081

[4] Goel S C, Chao S H. Performance-Based Plastic Design: Earthquake-Resistant Steel Structures. International Code Council, USA, 2008

[5] PEER. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2000

[6] Talaat M, Mosalam K M. Modeling progressive collapse in reinforced concrete buildings using direct element removal. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2009, 38(5): 609–634

[7] ASCE. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. SEI/ASCE 7–10. Reston, VA, USA, 2010

[8] UCB. U.C. Berkeley Seismic Guideline. University of California, Berkeley, 2003

[9] Merritt S, Uang C M, Benzoni G. Subassemblage Testing of CoreBrace Buckling Resitrained Brace. Report No. TR-2003/01, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA, 2003

[10] López W A, Sabelli R. Seismic design of buckling-restrained braced frames. Steel tips, 2004

[11] PEER. PEER Strong Motion Database. University of California at Berkeley, 2010 (Retrieved from http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database)

[12] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C A. Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31(3): 491–514

[13] Yang T Y, Moehle J P, Stojadinovic B. Performance Evaluation of Innovative Steel Braced Frames – PEER Report 2009/103. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2009

[14] Yang T Y, Moehle J P, Stojadinovic B, Der Kiureghian A. Seismic performance evaluation of facilities: Methodology and implementation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2009, 135(10): 1146–1154

[15] Applied Technology Council. Development of next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures for new and existing buildings, 2012 (https://www.atcouncil.org/projects-sp-1235934887/project-atc58)

Acknowledgements

This work was funded in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) jointly with the Steel Structures Education Foundation (SSEF). The authors would like to acknowledge David MacKinnon of the SSEF for making this project possible. The authors would also like to thank: Prof. S. C. Goel form University of Michigan, Prof. S. Leelataviwat from King Mongkut’s University of Technology and Mr. John D. Hooper from MKA for their valuable advice during this study. Any opinions, findings and conclusion or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada or the Steel Structures Education Foundation.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2016 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg