Hysteresis and Seismic Analysis of Self-Reversible Buckling Braces with Polymer Tendons in Steel Frames

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 M.Sc. Graduate, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Structural Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

One of the main aims of structural seismic design is to control structural damage due to severe earthquakes. A feasible solution to control and deplete earthquake energy is to use a bracing system. When the bracing is in the process of cyclic deformation or seismic load, the plastic deformation of the compressive and tensile cycles will occur in the restrained parts of the core plates, which will create a suitable energy absorption capacity in the brace. Among them, Buckling-Restrained Brace (BRBs) are widely used due to their stable hysteresis behavior. BRB braces usually have two main parts: a core that withstands the axial force, and a lateral restraint shell to prevent the core from buckling under compressive force. In the event of a severe earthquake, the core surrenders, but still reduces structural damage by absorbing seismic energy. However, due to the fact that the stiffness after the surrender of the brace is relatively low and it is not able to return to the conditions before the surrender, the structural frame faces damage and deformation of the residue after severe earthquakes. In this regard, the buckling brace with the ability to return to the original position known as Self-Centering Buckling-Restrained Brace (SC-BRB) has recently been considered by researchers. In this type of braces, the return phase is provided by polymer tendons. Since the numerical study of SC-BRB behavior measurement has not been done so far, so the present study tries to evaluate the behavior of this type of brace and compare it with steel bending frame and braced frame. For this purpose, Abaqus software has been used.
In the present study, the results of the laboratory study of Zhou et al. (2015) in the analysis of the self-returning buckling system reinforced by SC-BRB basalt fibers have been used to validate the finite element model and the specifications of the brace to the steel frames of the case. The discussion in this study is generalized. The development of numerical model has been based on laboratory study. Then, a single-story, single-span frame in four different modes, simple bending frame, frame with simple bracing, frame with non-buckling brace, and frame with self-returning buckling brace was subjected to hysteresis and the results were compared. Then, design in ETABS software and seismic analysis in Finite element Abaqus software for 5-story structures with and without bracing against far and near Landers and Northridge earthquake faults.
Comparisons were also made between the performance of a simple bending frame, a braced frame, a buckle with a buckling brace, and a braced frame with the SC-BRB system. Finally, the seismic performance of the frame was performed with SC-BRB bracing. The general results obtained from this study are as follows: Using appropriate behavioral models of materials, very accurate answers in the analysis of non-buckling irreversible buckling by basalt polymer fibers by finite element modeling using Abaqus. A very good approximation of the results obtained from the numerical model with the research model of Zhou et al. has been able to prove the accuracy of the results of the present numerical model. The results generally indicate the very good behavior of SC-BRB braces, the use of which in the structure has significantly increased the load-bearing capacity and ductility of the structure. The application of SC-BRB bracing in the bending frame increased the lateral bearing capacity of a single-story single-span frame from 1248 kN with a 2.8-fold increase to 3576 kN. Also, the strength of the five-story structure using SC-BRB braces installed in the two modes of middle openings and side openings was 21% and 38% higher than the simple bending frame, respectively.

Keywords


  1. Hacker, Th., Eigenmann, R., and Rathje, E. (2013) Advancing earthquake engineering research through Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(7), 1099-1111.
  2. Dyke, Sh. (2010) 2020 Vision for Earthquake Engineering Research: Report on an Openspace Technology Workshop on the Future of Earthquake Engineering.
  3. Dyke, S.J. et al. (2012) Community Workshop: 2020 Vision for Earthquake Engineering Research in the USA. Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE), 1582.
  4. Hambleton, J.P., Makhnenko, R., and Budge, A.S. (2020) Geo-Congress 2020: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Special Topics. In American Society of Civil Engineers Reston, VA.
  5. Garlock, M.M., Ricles, J.M., and Sause, R. (2005) Experimental studies of full-scale posttensioned steel connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(3), 438-48.
  6. Christopoulos, C., Filiatrault, A., Uang, C.-M., and Folz, B. (2002) Posttensioned energy dissipating connections for moment-resisting steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering 128(9), 1111-20.
  1. Rojas, P., Ricles, J.M., and Sause, R. (2005) Seismic performance of post-tensioned steel moment resisting frames with friction devices. Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(4), 529-40.
  2. Priestley, M.J., Sritharan, N.S., Conley, J.R., and Pampanin, S. (1999) Preliminary results and conclusions from the PRESSS five-story precast concrete test building. PCI Journal, 44(6), 42-67.
  3. Dusicka, P. and Tinker, J. (2013) Global restraint in ultra-lightweight buckling-restrained braces. Journal of Composites for Construction, 17(1), 139-50.
  4. Tremblay, R., Bolduc, P., Neville, R., and DeVall, R. (2006) Seismic testing and performance of buckling-restrained bracing systems. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33(2), 183-98.
  5. Fahnestock, L.A., Ricles, J.M., and Sause, R. (2007) Experimental evaluation of a large-scale buckling-restrained braced frame. Journal of Structural Engineering, 133(9), 1205-14.
  6. Fahnestock, L.A., Sause, R., and Ricles, J.M. (2007) Seismic response and performance of buckling-restrained braced frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 133(9), 1195-1204.
  7. Watanabe, A. et al. (1988) Properties of brace encased in buckling-restraining concrete and steel tube. Proceedings of Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 719-24.
  8. Erochko, J., Christopoulos, C., Tremblay, R., and Choi, H. (2011) Residual drift response of smrfs and brb frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7-05. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(5), 589-99.
  9. Kiggins, S. and C.-M. Uang (2006) Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a dual system. Engineering Structures, 28(11), 1525-32.
  10. Sabelli, R., Mahin, S., and Chang, C. (2003) Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces. Engineering Structures, 25(5), 655-66.
  11. Zhou, Z. et al. (2014) Development of a novel self-centering buckling-restrained brace with BFRP composite tendons. Steel and Composite Structures, 16(5), 491-506.
  12. Dong, H. et al. (2017) Performance of an innovative self-centering buckling restrained brace for mitigating seismic responses of bridge structures with double-column piers. Engineering Structures, 148, 47-62.
  13. Xie, Q., Zhou, Z., and Meng, S.-P. (2020) Behaviour of BFRP tendon systems under cyclic loading and its influence on the dual-tube SC-BRB hysteretic performance. Construction and Building Materials, 259, 120388.
  14. Ghowsi, A.F. and Sahoo, D.R. (2020) Near-field earthquake performance of SC-BRBs with optimal design parameters of SMA. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 175, 106321.
  15. Zhou, Z. et al. (2015) Experimental investigation of the hysteretic performance of dual-tube self-centering buckling-restrained braces with composite tendons. Journal of Composites for Construction, 19(6), 4015011.
  16. Miller, D.J., Fahnestock, L.A., and Eatherton, M.R. (2012) Development and experimental validation of a nickel–titanium shape memory alloy self-centering buckling-restrained brace. Engineering Structures, 40, 288-98.