Topology optimization and seismic collapse assessment of shape memory alloy (SMA)-braced frames: Effectiveness of Fe-based SMAs

Abstract

This paper presents a seismic topology optimization study of steel braced frames with shape memory alloy (SMA) braces. Optimal SMA-braced frames (SMA-BFs) with either Fe-based SMA or NiTi braces are determined in a performance-based seismic design context. The topology optimization is performed on 5- and 10-story SMA-BFs considering the placement, length, and cross-sectional area of SMA bracing members. Geometric, strength, and performance-based design constraints are considered in the optimization. The seismic response and collapse safety of topologically optimal SMA-BFs are assessed according to the FEMA P695 methodology. A comparative study on the optimal SMA-BFs is also presented in terms of total relative cost, collapse capacity, and peak and residual story drift. The results demonstrate that Fe-based SMA-BFs exhibit higher collapse capacity and more uniform distribution of lateral displacement over the frame height while being more cost-effective than NiTi braced frames. In addition to a lower unit price compared to NiTi, Fe-based SMAs reduce SMA material usage. In frames with Fe-based SMA braces, the SMA usage is reduced by up to 80%. The results highlight the need for using SMAs with larger recoverable strains.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

topology optimization / shape memory alloy / Fe-based SMA / steel braced frames / performance-based seismic design / collapse assessment

References

[1] Auricchio F, Fugazza D, DesRoches R. Earthquake performance of steel frames with nitinol braces. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2006, 10( Suppl1): 45–66

[2] McCormick J, DesRoches R, Fugazza D, Auricchio F. Seismic assessment of concentrically braced steel frames with shape memory alloy braces. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2007, 133( 6): 862–870

[3] Qiu C, Zhu S. Shake table test and numerical study of self-centering steel frame with SMA braces. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2017, 46( 1): 117–137

[4] Asgarian B, Moradi S. Seismic response of steel braced frames with shape memory alloy braces. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2011, 67( 1): 65–74

[5] Miller D J, Fahnestock L A, Eatherton M R. Development and experimental validation of a nickel–titanium shape memory alloy self-centering buckling-restrained brace. Engineering Structures, 2012, 40 : 288–298

[6] Eatherton M R, Fahnestock L A, Miller D J. Computational study of self-centering buckling-restrained braced frame seismic performance. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2014, 43( 13): 1897–1914

[7] Hu J W, Choi E. Seismic design, nonlinear analysis, and performance evaluation of recentering buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs). International Journal of Steel Structures, 2014, 14( 4): 683–695

[8] Qiu C, Li H, Ji K, Hou H, Tian L. Performance-based plastic design approach for multi-story self-centering concentrically braced frames using SMA braces. Engineering Structures, 2017, 153 : 628–638

[9] Qiu C X, Zhu S. Performance-based seismic design of self-centering steel frames with SMA-based braces. Engineering Structures, 2017, 130 : 67–82

[10] Qiu C, Zhao X, Zhang Y, Hou H. Robustness of performance-based plastic design method for SMABFs. International Journal of Steel Structures, 2019, 19( 3): 787–805

[11] Alaneme K K, Okotete E A, Anaele J U. Structural vibration mitigation—A concise review of the capabilities and applications of Cu and Fe based shape memory alloys in civil structures. Journal of Building Engineering, 2019, 22 : 22–32

[12] Alaneme K K, Okotete E A. Reconciling viability and cost-effective shape memory alloy options—A review of copper and iron based shape memory metallic systems. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 2016, 19( 3): 1582–1592

[13] Fang C, Wang W, Ji Y, Yam M C H. Superior low-cycle fatigue performance of iron-based SMA for seismic damping application. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2021, 184 : 106817

[14] Hou H, Li H, Qiu C, Zhang Y. Effect of hysteretic properties of SMAs on seismic behavior of self-centering concentrically braced frames. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2018, 25( 3): e2110

[15] Wang W, Fang C, Shen D, Zhang R, Ding J, Wu H. Performance assessment of disc spring-based self-centering braces for seismic hazard mitigation. Engineering Structures, 2021, 242 : 112527

[16] Fang C, Ping Y, Chen Y, Yam M C H, Chen J, Wang W. Seismic performance of self-centering steel frames with SMA-viscoelastic hybrid braces. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 1–28

[17] Fang C, Ping Y, Zheng Y, Chen Y. Probabilistic economic seismic loss estimation of steel braced frames incorporating emerging self-centering technologies. Engineering Structures, 2021, 241 : 112486

[18] Ozbulut O E, Roschke P N, Lin P Y, Loh C H. GA-based optimum design of a shape memory alloy device for seismic response mitigation. Smart Materials and Structures, 2010, 19( 6): 065004

[19] Liu M, Burns S A, Wen Y K. Multiobjective optimization for performance-based seismic design of steel moment frame structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2005, 34( 3): 289–306

[20] Kaveh A, Farahmand Azar B, Hadidi A, Rezazadeh Sorochi F, Talatahari S. Performance-based seismic design of steel frames using ant colony optimization. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2010, 66( 4): 566–574

[21] Fragiadakis M, Lagaros N D, Papadrakakis M. Performance-based multiobjective optimum design of steel structures considering life-cycle cost. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2006, 32( 1): 1–11

[22] Liang Q Q, Xie Y M, Steven G P. Optimal topology design of bracing systems for multistory steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2000, 126( 7): 823–829

[23] Stromberg L L, Beghini A, Baker W F, Paulino G H. Application of layout and topology optimization using pattern gradation for the conceptual design of buildings. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2011, 43( 2): 165–180

[24] Bobby S, Spence S M J, Kareem A. Data-driven performance-based topology optimization of uncertain wind-excited tall buildings. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2016, 54( 6): 1379–1402

[25] Gholizadeh S, Poorhoseini H. Seismic layout optimization of steel braced frames by an improved dolphin echolocation algorithm. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2016, 54( 4): 1011–1029

[26] Hassanzadeh A, Gholizadeh S. Collapse-performance-aided design optimization of steel concentrically braced frames. Engineering Structures, 2019, 197 : 109411

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

[28] Hsiao P C, Lehman D E, Roeder C W. Evaluation of the response modification coefficient and collapse potential of special concentrically braced frames. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2013, 42( 10): 1547–1564

[29] Moradi S, Alam M S, Asgarian B. Incremental dynamic analysis of steel frames equipped with NiTi shape memory alloy braces. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2014, 23( 18): 1406–1425

[30] Shi F, Ozbulut O E, Zhou Y. Influence of shape memory alloy brace design parameters on seismic performance of self-centering steel frame buildings. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2020, 27( 1): e2462

[31] Gholizadeh S, Ebadijalal M. Performance based discrete topology optimization of steel braced frames by a new metaheuristic. Advances in Engineering Software, 2018, 123 : 77–92

[32] Gholizadeh S, Hassanzadeh A, Milany A, Ghatte H F. On the seismic collapse capacity of optimally designed steel braced frames. Engineering with Computers, 2020, 1–13

[33] FEMA-P695. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009

[34] ASCE41-13. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2014

[35] McKennaFFenvesG L. OpenSees: The Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. Berkeley, CA: Regents of the University of California, 2013

[36] MathWorks Inc. MATLAB, The Language of Technical Computing. 2019

[37] DesRoches R, McCormick J, Delemont M. Cyclic properties of superelastic shape memory alloy wires and bars. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2004, 130( 1): 38–46

[38] Tanaka Y, Himuro Y, Kainuma R, Sutou Y, Omori T, Ishida K. Ferrous polycrystalline shape-memory alloy showing huge superelasticity. Science, 2010, 327( 5972): 1488–1490

[39] FugazzaD. Use of shape-memory alloy devices in earthquake engineering: Mechanical properties, advanced constitutive modeling and structural applications. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Pavia: University of Pavia, 2005

[40] Qiu C, Du X. Seismic performance of multistory CBFs with novel recentering energy dissipative braces. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2020, 168 : 105864

[41] PhamH. Performance-based assessments of buckling-restrained braced steel frames retrofitted by self-centering shape memory alloy braces. In: Georgia Tech Theses and Dissertations. Athens, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, 2013

[42] Beiraghi H, Zhou H. Dual-steel frame consisting of moment-resisting frame and shape memory alloy braces subjected to near-field earthquakes. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2020, 29 : e1784

Rights & permissions

Higher Education Press