Seismic performance of HWBBF considering different design methods and structural heights

Abstract

Previous research has shown that using buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) at hinged wall (HW) base (HWBB) can effectively mitigate lateral deformation of steel moment-resisting frames (MRFs) in earthquakes. Force-based and displacement-based design methods have been proposed to design HWBB to strengthen steel MRF and this paper comprehensively compares these two design methods, in terms of design steps, advantages/disadvantages, and structure responses. In addition, this paper investigates the building height below which the HW seismic moment demand can be properly controlled. First, 3-story, 9-story, and 20-story steel MRFs in the SAC project are used as benchmark steel MRFs. Secondly, HWs and HWBBs are designed to strengthen the benchmark steel MRFs using force-based and displacement-based methods, called HWFs and HWBBFs, respectively. Thirdly, nonlinear time history analyses are conducted to compare the structural responses of the MRFs, HWBBFs and HWFs in earthquakes. The results show the following. 1) HW seismic force demands increase as structural height increases, which may lead to uneconomical HW design. The HW seismic moment demand can be properly controlled when the building is lower than nine stories. 2) The displacement-based design method is recommended due to the benefit of identifying unfeasible component dimensions during the design process, as well as better achieving the design target displacement.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

hinged wall / moment-resisting frame / seismic design / displacement-based design / nonlinear time-history analysis

References

[1] Xia G, Shu W, Stanciulescu I. Efficient analysis of shear wall-frame structural systems. Engineering Computations, 2019, 36(6): 2084–2110

[2] ZeynepT. Seismic performance, modeling, and failure assessment of reinforced concrete shear wall buildings. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, 2012

[3] Kurama Y, Pessiki S, Sause R, Lu L W. Seismic behavior and design of ubonded post-tensioned precast concrete walls. PCI Journal, 1999, 44(3): 72–89

[4] Holden T, Restrepo J, Mander J B. Seismic performance of precast reinforced and prestressed concrete walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2003, 129(3): 286–296

[5] Henry R S, Aaleti S, Sritharan S, Ingham J M. Concept and finite-element modeling of new steel shear connectors for self-centering wall systems. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2010, 136(2): 220–229

[6] Restrepo J I, Rahman A. Seismic performance of self-centering structural walls incorporating energy dissipators. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2007, 133(11): 1560–1570

[7] Lu X L, Wu H. Study on seismic performance of prestressed precast concrete walls through cyclic lateral loading test. Magazine of Concrete Research, 2017, 69(17): 878–891

[8] Cui H, Wu G, Zhang J, Xu J. Experimental study on damage-controllable rocking walls with resilient corners. Magazine of Concrete Research, 2019, 71(21): 1113–1129

[9] ZhangZ. Analytical investigation of inertial force-limiting floor anchorage system for seismic resistant building structures. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Tucson: University of Arizona, 2017

[10] Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Strengthening of moment-resisting frame structures against near-fault ground motion effects. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2004, 33(6): 707–722

[11] Pan P, Wu S, Nie X. A distributed parameter model of a frame pin-supported wall structure. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2015, 44(10): 1643–1659

[12] Zhou Y, Yao D, Chen Y, Li Q. Upgraded parameter model of frame pin-supported wall structures. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2021, 30(8): e1852

[13] Qu Z, Wada A, Motoyui S, Sakata H, Kishiki S. Pin-supported walls for enhancing the seismic performance of building structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2012, 41(14): 2075–2091

[14] Sun T, Kurama Y C, Ou J. Practical displacement-based seismic design approach for PWF structures with supplemental yielding dissipators. Engineering Structures, 2018, 172: 538–553

[15] Takewaki I, Akehashi H. Comprehensive review of optimal and smart design of nonlinear building structures with and without passive dampers subjected to earthquake loading. Frontiers in Built Environment, 2021, 7: 631114

[16] Akehashi H, Takewaki I. Bounding of earthquake response via critical double impulse for efficient optimal design of viscous dampers for elastic−plastic moment frames. Japan Architectural Review, 2022, 5(2): 131–149

[17] Akehashi H, Takewaki I. Resilience evaluation of elastic−plastic high-rise buildings under resonant long-duration ground motion. Japan Architectural Review, 2022, 5(4): 373–385

[18] Feng Y, Wu J, Chong X, Meng S. Seismic lateral displacement analysis and design of an earthquake-resilient dual wall-frame system. Engineering Structures, 2018, 177: 85–102

[19] Xie Q. State of the art of buckling-restrained braces in Asia. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2005, 61(6): 727–748

[20] Bai J, Chen H, Zhao J, Liu M, Jin S. Seismic design and subassemblage tests of buckling-restrained braced RC frames with shear connector gusset connections. Engineering Structures, 2021, 234: 112018

[21] Feng Y, Zhang Z, Pan Z. Seismic performance of high-rise dual modular wall-frame systems. Engineering Structures, 2022, 264: 114458

[22] Wang X, Wang T, Qu Z. An experimental study of a damage-controllable plastic-hinge-supported wall structure. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2018, 47(3): 594–612

[23] Jiang Q, Zhou Y, Feng Y, Chong X, Wang H, Wang X, Yang Q. Experimental study and numerical simulation of a reinforced concrete hinged wall with BRBs at the base. Journal of Building Engineering, 2022, 49: 104030

[24] Zhang Z, Fleischman R, Restrepo J, Guerrini G, Nema A, Zhang D, Shakya U, Tsampras G, Sause R. Shake-table test performance of an inertial force-limiting floor anchorage system. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2018, 47(10): 1987–2011

[25] WiebeLChristopoulos C. Mitigation of higher mode effects in base-rocking systems by using multiple rocking sections. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2009, 13(Sup 1): 83−108

[26] Wiebe L, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Leclerc M. Mechanisms to limit higher mode effects in a controlled rocking steel frame. 1: Concept, modelling, and low-amplitude shake table testing. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2013, 42(7): 1053–1068

[27] Li T, Berman J W, Wiebe R. Parametric study of seismic performance of structures with multiple rocking joints. Engineering Structures, 2017, 146: 75–92

[28] Khanmohammadi M, Heydari S. Seismic behavior improvement of reinforced concrete shear wall buildings using multiple rocking systems. Engineering Structures, 2015, 100: 577–589

[29] Chen L, Tremblay R, Tirca L. Modular tied eccentrically braced frames for improved seismic response of tall buildings. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2019, 155: 370–384

[30] Chen L, Tremblay R, Tirca L. Practical seismic design procedure for steel braced frames with segmental elastic spines. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2019, 153: 395–415

[31] Patricia M C, Jeffrey W B, Laura N L. Seismic performance of self-centering steel plate shear walls with beam-only-connected web plates. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2015, 106: 198–208

[32] Gaxiola-Camacho J R, Azizsoltani H, Villegas-Mercado F J, Haldar A. A novel reliability technique for implementation of performance-based seismic design of structures. Engineering Structures, 2017, 142: 137–147

[33] Abbasnia R, Davoudi A T, Maddah M M. An improved displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure for the analysis of frame buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2014, 18(7): 987–1008

[34] Rakesh G, Anil C. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analyses: SAC buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 2004, 20(1): 225–254

[35] Zaghi A E, Soroushian S, Itani A, Maragakis E M, Pekcan G, Mehrraoufi M. Impact of column-to-beam strength ratio on the seismic response of steel MRFs. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 13(2): 635–652

[36] Ohtori Y, Christenson R E, Spencer B F Jr, Dyke S J. Benchmark control problems for seismically excited nonlinear buildings. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2004, 130(4): 366–385

[37] GuptaAKrawinkler H. Seismic Demands for Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, 1999

[38] ASCE7-10. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 2013

[39] Anil C, Goel R. Direct Displacement-based design: Use of inelastic vs. elastic design spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 2001, 17(1): 47–63

[40] PriestleyM J NCalviG MKowalskyM J. Direct displacement-based seismic design of structures. In: Proceedings of the 2007 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) Annual Conference. 2007

[41] Kalapodis N A, Muho E V, Beskos D E. Seismic design of plane steel MRFS, EBFS and BRBFS by improved direct displacement-based design method. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 153: 107111

[42] Noruzvand M, Mohebbi M, Shakeri K. Modified direct displacement-based design approach for structures equipped with fluid viscous damper. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2020, 27(1): e2465

[43] Shalmaee M M, Pourzeynali S. A modal displacement-based design method for irregular building frames equipped with elastomeric bearings. Structures, 2022, 41: 541–552

[44] Sarno L D, Manfredi G. Seismic retrofitting with buckling restrained braces: Application to an existing non-ductile RC framed building. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2010, 30(11): 1279–1297

[45] Computers & Structures, Inc. CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000, 2016

[46] SilviaMFrank MMichaelH SGregoryL F. OpenSees Command Language Manual, 2006

[47] FEMA356. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000

[48] Feng Y L, Wu J, Wang C L, Meng S P. Evaluating the effect of buckling-restrained brace model on seismic structural responses. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 2016, 11(2): 1750002

[49] FEMAP695. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. California, CA: Applied Technology Council, 2009, 695

[50] Wieser J, Pekcan G, Zaghi A E, Itani A, Maragakis M. Floor accelerations in yielding special moment resisting frame structures. Earthquake Spectra, 2013, 29(3): 987–1002

[51] Rodriguez M E, Restrepo J I, Carr A J. Earthquake-induced floor horizontal accelerations in buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31(3): 693–718

[52] Wu S, Pan P, Zhang D. Higher mode effects in frame pin-supported wall structure by using a distributed parameter model. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2016, 45(14): 2371–2387

[53] Fleischman R B, Farrow K T, Eastman K. Seismic performance of perimeter lateral-system structures with highly flexible diaphragms. Earthquake Spectra, 2002, 18(2): 251–286

Abbreviations

MRFs represent MRF-3, MRF-9, and MRF-20

MRF-3 represent 3-story moment resisting frames, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story

HWFs represent HWF-3, HWF-9, and HWF-20

HWF-3 represent 3-story hinged wall (without BRBs at hinged wall base) strengthened moment resisting frames, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story

HWBB-3 represent HWBB (hinged wall with BRBs at base) used for 3-story structure using both force based design and displacement based design, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story structures

HWBBF-FBs represent HWBBF-FB-3, HWBBF-FB-9, and HWBBF-FB-20

HWBBF-FB-3 represent 3-story HWBB strengthened moment resisting frames using the force based design method, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story

HWBBF-DBs represent HWBBF-DB-3, HWBBF-DB-9, and HWBBF-DB-20

HWBBF-DB-3 represent 3-story HWBB strengthened moment resisting frames using the displacement based design method, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story

HWBB-FBs represent HWBB-FB-3, HWBB-FB-9, and HWBB-FB-20

HWBB-FB-3 represent 3-story HWBB designed using the force based design method, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story

HWBB-DBs represent HWBB-DB-3, HWBB-DB-9, and HWBB-DB-20

HWBB-DB-3 represent 3-story HWBB designed using the displacement based design method, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story

HWBBF-3 represent HWBBF-FB-3 and HWBBF-DB-3, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story structures

HWBBFs represent HWBBF-FB-3, HWBBF-FB-6, HWBBF-FB-20, HWBBF-DB-3, HWBBF-DB-9, and HWBBF-DB-20

Acknowledgements

The research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51708166), and the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province (No. 2208085ME150).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2023 Higher Education Press