Comparative seismic performance analysis of steel braced frames with resilient slip-friction joint braces and buckling-restrained braces

Abstract

Self-centering systems are increasingly studied after devastating earthquakes in the 2010s that caused irreparable damage to buildings. Currently, there is conflicting evidence as to whether the re-centering (restoring) capabilities are gained at the expense of hysteretic damping, potentially leading to larger peak displacements and damage to non-structural elements. This study examines the earthquake response of self-centering and non-self-centering systems through analyses of 4-storey and 8-storey steel-braced frames. The Resilient Slip Friction Joint (RSFJ) dampers, combined with steel braces in series, represent the self-centering bracing system, whereas the Buckling Restrained Braces (BRBs) represent the non-self-centering bracing system. Results suggest that peak displacements, base shears, and floor accelerations were comparable between the two systems. A possible explanation is that the peak response occurs on the first major excursion; similar peaks result from similar backbone curves in the run-up to the peak. Conversely, the amount of hysteretic damping only begins to affect the post-peak behavior. For instance, the RSFJ system reintroduces seismic energy into the structure post-peak (rather than dissipating it like the BRB). Subsequently, it leads to larger vibration amplitudes about the central position, increasing the risk of secondary peaks. This contrasts with the BRB system, which exhibits smaller vibration amplitudes about an increasingly deformed position due to seismic ratcheting. Unsurprisingly, residual deformations were high for the BRBs (1.7 % on average) and negligible for the RSFJ. However, RSFJ produced smaller peak inter-storey drifts between 13 %-18 % but higher peak accelerations by 4 %-5 %. The results suggest that multi-storey braced frames could be designed with similar or smaller forces when self-centering systems are used.

Keywords

Comparative analysis / Buckling-restrained braces / BRB / Resilient slip-friction joint / RSFJ

Relevance to resilience

Conventional steel braces used as seismic force-resisting systems in multi-story steel structures are prone to experience significant strength and stiffness degradation, which makes the system vulnerable to aftershocks. This paper presents the seismic performance of steel framed structure comprising of the renowned Buckling Restrained Braces and state-of-the-art Resilient Slip Friction Joint (RSFJ) Damper with steel braces acting as a seismic force-resisting system in a 4-story and 8-story steel framed structure. Damage indices such as base shear, peak inter-story drift, residual drifts, and floor acceleration were compared for the two systems. Both the systems displayed superior performance in terms of absorbing the seismically induced energy. In contrast, the system with RSFJ braces acting as the main seismic force-resisting system displayed a superior seismic performance by significantly reducing the force demands while ensuring that the structure fully self-centers (without sustaining any permanent displacement) following a major event that aligns with the goal for the seismic resilient design of structures. The self-centering capability mitigates the social and economic downtime since no major maintenance is required following an earthquake.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Rajnil Lal: Writing - original draft, Validation, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Ashkan Hashemi: Writing - review & editing. Nicholas Chan: Writing - review & editing, Validation. Setu Agarwal: Writing - review & editing, Validation, Investigation. Pierre Quenneville: Supervision, Methodology, Investigation.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability statement

Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude for the support provided by the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Auckland to administer this research.

References

[1] Crandall SH. The role of damping in vibration theory. J Sound Vib 1970; 11(1):3-18.

[2] Calvi G, Priestley M, Kowalsky M. Displacement-based seismic design of structures. New Zealand conference on earthquake engineering. IUSS press; 2007.

[3] Zhong C, Christopoulos C. Self-centering seismic-resistant structures: historical overview and state-of-the-art. Earthq Spectra 2022; 38(2):1321-56.

[4] Kaiser A, et al. The Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake of February 2011: preliminary report. N Z J Geol Geophys 2012; 55(1):67-90.

[5] Filippova O., K. Elwood and T. Collins, Re-emerging from the rubble: what is delaying regeneration of Christchurch CBD? 2021.

[6] Colbert J, Sila-Nowicka K, Yao J. Driving forces of population change following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, New Zealand: a multiscale geographically weighted regression approach. Popul Space Place 2022; 28(8):e2583.

[7] Hashemi A, et al. Seismic strengthening of conventional timber structures using resilient braces. Structures 2021;32:1619-33.

[8] Hashemi A, et al. Damage avoidance self-centering steel moment resisting frames (MRFs) using innovative resilient slip friction joints (RSFJs). Key Eng Mater 2018;763:726-34.

[9] Engineers ASoC. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers; 2016.

[10] Yousef-beik SMM, et al. A new self-centering brace with zero secondary stiffness using elastic buckling. J Constr Steel Res 2020;169:106035.

[11] Bagheri H, et al. New self-centering tension-only brace using resilient slip-friction joint: experimental tests and numerical analysis. J Struct Eng 2020; 146(10) 04020219.

[12] Lal R, Hashemi A, Quenneville P. An innovative connection system for platform-type mass timber buildings. Resilient Cities Struct 2025; 4(2):14-29.

[13] Lal R., A. Hashemi and P. Quenneville, Seismic performance of prefabricated modular mass timber structures with inter-story isolation. 2024.

[14] Freddi F, Dimopoulos CA, Karavasilis TL. Experimental evaluation of a rocking damage-free steel column base with friction devices. J Struct Eng 2020; 146(10):04020217.

[15] Elettore E, et al. Pseudo-dynamic testing, repairability, and resilience assessment of a large-scale steel structure equipped with self-centering column bases. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2024; 53(9):2756-81.

[16] Lettieri A, et al. Damage-free self-centring links for eccentrically braced frames: development and numerical study. J Constr Steel Res 2023;201:107727.

[17] Zhou Y, et al. Application of buckling-restrained braces to earthquake-resistant design of buildings: a review. Eng Struct 2021:246.

[18] Mayes RL, et al. Comparative performance of buckling-restrained braces and moment frames. WCEE; 2004.

[19] Berman JW, Bruneau M. Cyclic testing of a buckling restrained braced frame with unconstrained gusset connections. J Struct Eng 2009; 135(12):1499-510.

[20] Siah Mansour A, Hosseini SA, Toulabi HMaleki. Evaluation of blast-induced progressive collapse in steel structures with conventional braces, moment-resisting braces, and buckling-restrained braces using LS-DYNA software. J Eng Appl Sci 2024; 71(1):200.

[21] Huang Y, Wu Q, Tang T. Seismic performance and design of the fully assembled precast concrete frame with buckling-restrained braces. Buildings 2022; 12(11):1818.

[22] Li C-H, et al. A procedure for assessing low-cycle fatigue life of buckling-restrained braces. J Struct Eng 2022; 148(2):04021259.

[23] Gutiérrez-Urzúa F, Freddi F, Tubaldi E. Seismic risk and failure modes assessment of steel BRB frames under earthquake sequences. Struct Saf 2025;115:102598.

[24] Hussain H, Kim D-K. Advancements and future prospects of buckling restrained braces for corrosive-environments: a comprehensive literature review. Buildings 2023; 13(9):2156.

[25] Zhang C, et al. Seismic performance of steel braced frames with innovative assembled self-centering buckling restrained braces with variable post-yield stiffness. J Build Eng 2023;64:105667.

[26] Chan N, et al. Damping-ductility relationships for flag-shaped hysteresis. J Struct Eng 2021; 147(7):04021093.

[27] Christopoulos C, Filiatrault A, Folz B. Seismic response of self-centring hysteretic SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2002; 31(5):1131-50.

[28] Abou-Elfath H, Ramadan M, Elhout E. Evaluating the ductility reduction factors of SDOF self-centering earthquake-resisting structural systems. Bull Earthq Eng 2021;19:1605-24.

[29] Zhang R, et al. Approximate seismic performance of full and partial self-centering systems based on spectral analysis of SDOF systems Structures. Elsevier; 2022.

[30] Asgarian B, Shokrgozar H. BRBF response modification factor. J Constr Steel Res 2009; 65(2):290-8.

[31] Chen C-H. Performance-based seismic demand assessment of concentrically braced steel frame buildings. University of California, Berkeley; 2010.

[32] Fahnestock LA, Sause R, Ricles JM. Seismic response and performance of buckling-restrained braced frames. J Struct Eng 2007; 133(9):1195-204.

[33] Mahmoudi M, Zaree M. Evaluating response modification factors of concentrically braced steel frames. J Constr Steel Res 2010; 66(10):1196-204.

[34] Dowden DM, Baker AM. Seismic performance and collapse assessment of a steel boundary frame with non-gapping beam-to-column rocking connections with buckling- restrained brace structural fuses. J Constr Steel Res 2024;218:108705.

[35] Rahgozar N, Alam MS. Seismic collapse assessment of hybrid self-centering piston- based braced frames equipped with SMA bars and friction springs. J Constr Steel Res 2023;208:108003.

[36] Rahgozar N, Moghadam AS, Aziminejad A. Quantification of seismic performance factors for self-centering controlled rocking special concentrically braced frame. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2016; 25(14):700-23.

[37] Steele TC, Wiebe LD. Collapse risk of controlled rocking steel braced frames with different post-tensioning and energy dissipation designs. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2017; 46(13):2063-82.

[38] Hu S, Wang W, Qu B. Seismic evaluation of low-rise steel building frames with self- -centering energy-absorbing rigid cores designed using a force-based approach. Eng Struct 2020;204:110038.

[39] Ma X, Krawinkler H, Deierlein G. Seismic design and behavior of self-centering braced frame with controlled rocking and energy dissipating fuses. Blume Earthq Eng 2011;174.

[40] MERAL E., Relationships of ground motion parameters and energy demands for SDOF and MDOF systems in RC buildings. 2023.

[41] Speicher MS, Harris J. Assessment of first generation performance-based seismic design methods for new steel buildings, 4. Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames; 2019.

[42] Harris JL, Speicher MS. Assessment of first generation performance-based seismic design methods for new steel buildings volume 1: special moment frames. NIST Tech Note 2015:18631-1.

[43] Hashemi A, et al. Proposed design procedure for steel self-centring tension-only braces with resilient connections Structures. Elsevier; 2020.

[44] Hashemi A, Masoudnia R, Quenneville P. Seismic performance of hybrid self-centring steel-timber rocking core walls with slip friction connections. J Constr Steel Res 2016;126:201-13.

[45] Priestley M, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ. Direct displacement-based seismic design of structures. in NZSEE conference. Citeseer; 2007.

[46] Gutiérrez-Urzúa F, Freddi F. Influence of the design objectives on the seismic performance of steel moment resisting frames retrofitted with buckling restrained braces. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2022; 51(13):3131-53.

[47] Computers and Structures Inc, E., Computers and Structures Inc, ETABS. 2021: Berkeley, California.

[48] Hashemi A, et al. Seismic performance of a damage avoidance self-centring brace with collapse prevention mechanism. J Constr Steel Res 2019;155:273-85.

[49] Kalkan E. and A.K. Chopra, Practical guidelines to select and scale earthquake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures. 2010.

[50] Christopoulos C, et al. Self-centering energy dissipative bracing system for the seismic resistance of structures: development and validation. J Struct Eng 2008; 134(1):96-107.

[51] MacRae GA, Kimura Y, Roeder C. Effect of column stiffness on braced frame seismic behavior. J Struct Eng 2004; 130(3):381-91.

[52] Sahoo DR, Chao S-H. Stiffness-based design for mitigation of residual displacements of buckling-restrained braced frames. J Struct Eng 2015; 141(9):04014229.

[53] Ramirez CM, Miranda E. Significance of residual drifts in building earthquake loss estimation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012; 41(11):1477-93.

[54] MacRae G. and M. Hussain, Seismic ratcheting considerations. 2024.

[55] Ramirez C, et al. Expected earthquake damage and repair costs in reinforced concrete frame buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012; 41(11):1455-75.

[56] Council A.T. and N.E.H.R. Program. Seismic performance assessment of buildings, 1. Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2018.

[57] Patil DM, Sangle KK. Seismic behaviour of different bracing systems in high rise 2-D steel buildings. Structures. Elsevier; 2015.