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

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this paper was financially supported by the Ryerson University Faculty of Engineering and Architectural Science and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through Discovery Grant. The authors gratefully acknowledge these financial supports.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2022 Higher Education Press