Design of steel frames equipped with BRBs in the framework of Eurocode 8

Bosco, Melina; Marino, Edoardo M.; Rossi, Pier Paolo

doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.05.016

Cited by 37 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The full description of the uniaxial material proposed by Zona and Dall'Asta requires that values be assigned to the following parameters: the initial elastic stiffness ( k B0 ), the postyield stiffness ( k B1 ), the yield stress ( f yB ), the maximum yield stress in tension for the fully saturated isotropic hardening condition ( f yB,max ), and the maximum yield stress in compression for the fully saturated isotropic hardening condition ( f yB,min ), the coefficient δ B that rules the rate of the isotropic hardening, and the coefficient α B that controls the trend of the transition from the elastic to plastic response. In keeping with results reported in Bosco et al and suggestions by Zona and Dall'Asta, the above parameters are fixed here as k B0 = E , k B1 = 0.03 k B0 , f yB = f yBc A Bc / A Beq , f yB, max = 1.15 f yB , f yB, min = f yB, max , δ B = 0.20, and α B = 0.60.…”

Section: Numerical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The maximum axial force N Ed,B is evaluated by means of the following relationship based on regression analysis of laboratory test data:

N_{Ed, normalB} / N_{yB} = 1.15 + 0.0316 ((), μ_{B} - 1),

where N yB is the yield strength of the BRB and μ B is the ductility demand of the BRB. In the way of other researchers, no difference is considered between the ultimate compressive and tensile axial forces of the BRBs.…”

Section: Displacement‐based Design Of Rbrbfsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The behaviour factor q adopted for the V‐CBFs is equal to 2.5, whereas that adopted for EBFs is equal to 5. The BRBFs and the SZBFs are designed according to procedures proposed in the past by the authors . In particular, the BRBFs are designed assuming a design storey drift angle Δ d equal to 1.5% and a behaviour factor q equal to 5.875, as resulting from the relationship proposed in Bosco et al for the fulfilment of the SD limit state on the occurrence of seismic events with probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years.…”

Section: Rbrbfs Vs Other Braced Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The maximum axial force N Ed,B is evaluated by means of the following relationship based on regression analysis of laboratory test data 15 :…”

Section: First-mode Response At the Design Top Displacement Demandmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A design procedure for pin‐supported rocking buckling‐restrained braced frames

Bosco

Marino

Rossi

2018

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The paper describes a design procedure for a special type of chevron braced frame endowed with ties between the upper ends of the braces of adjacent storeys. Unlike conventional or suspended zipper braced frames, the braces on one side of the braced span—along with the adjacent columns and ties—are part of a vertical truss system that is hinged at the base and designed to remain elastic until the near collapse limit state has been reached. The braces on the other side of the braced span consist of buckling‐restrained braces and are designed to provide energy dissipation. The design procedure stems from a design method proposed in the past for rocking eccentrically braced structures and applies capacity design principles. The accuracy of the procedure is proved by means of nonlinear dynamic analysis of multistorey systems with different geometric and mechanical properties. To highlight further the qualities of the examined type and evaluate the cost‐effective range of application, a comparison is made with other braced types in terms of cost of structural steel and seismic performance.

show abstract

Section: Numerical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The maximum axial force N Ed,B is evaluated by means of the following relationship based on regression analysis of laboratory test data:

N_{Ed, normalB} / N_{yB} = 1.15 + 0.0316 ((), μ_{B} - 1),

Section: Displacement‐based Design Of Rbrbfsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rbrbfs Vs Other Braced Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The maximum axial force N Ed,B is evaluated by means of the following relationship based on regression analysis of laboratory test data 15 :…”

Section: First-mode Response At the Design Top Displacement Demandmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A design procedure for pin‐supported rocking buckling‐restrained braced frames

Bosco

Marino

Rossi

2018

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The safety level of all the other members (top storey braces, columns, zipper columns and beams) against flexural buckling is evaluated by means of the ratio B

B = max \frac{N_{Ed} ((),, t)}{N_{normalb, Rd, ((),, M)} ((),, t)}

where N Ed is the design axial force of the member and N b,Rd (M) is the design buckling resistance due to combined axial force and bending moment. The expressions of N b,Rd (M) are derived from the interaction formulae specified in EC3 .…”

Section: Numerical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A design procedure for suspended zipper‐braced frames in the framework of Eurocode 8

Rossi

Quaceci

2017

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary In the recent past, suspended zipper‐braced frames were proposed to avoid one‐storey collapse mechanisms and dynamic instability under severe ground motions. In this paper, the design procedure suggested by Yang et al. is first slightly modified to conform to the design approach and capacity design rules stipulated in Eurocode 8 for concentrically braced frames. The procedure is applied to a set of suspended zipper‐braced frames with different number of storeys and founded on either soft or rock soil. The structural response of these frames is analysed to highlight qualities and deficiencies and to assess the critics reported by other researchers with regard to the design procedure by Yang et al. Then, improvements are proposed to this procedure to enhance the energy dissipation of the chevron braces and the response of the structural system as well. The effectiveness of the design proposals is evaluated by incremental dynamic analysis on structures with different geometric properties, gravity loads and soil of foundation. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

11.36: Influence of type of loading protocols and restraining parameters on cyclic response of steel BRB

Ghowsi

Sahoo

2017

ce papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) are the special type of braces capable of yielding in both tension and compression under axial loading. These BRBs provide the nearly symmetrical hysteretic response and the higher energy dissipation potential as compared to the conventional steel braces. However, the use of relatively slender core plates in BRBs results in the smaller elastic and post-elastic axial stiffness and the possibility of end plate rotation at the transition zone resulting in the unexpected premature damages. One of the possible way to change the stiffness of BRBs is to change the yielding core slenderness ratio to an acceptable limit. The range of reduction of yielding core ratio of BRBs depends on the required magnitude of hysteric energy dissipation as well as maximum and cumulative displacement ductility levels. This research is focused on the influence of core cross-sections, friction between the core and restrainers, gap between core and restrainers, loading protocols, and core slenderness ratio on the cyclic performance of steel BRBs. A numerical study has been conducted for a series of BRB elements using the finite element software ABAQUS. Numerical models are validated by comparing the predicted results with the findings of a past experimental study on six numbers of steel BRBs subjected to different types of loading protocols. The energy dissipation potential of BRBs did not change significantly with the nature of loading protocols. However, the cyclic response of BRBs was significantly influenced by magnitude of friction and gap between the core and restraining elements. Moreover, the strength adjustment factors are unaffected by the different types of loading and as core cross-sections.

show abstract

Design of steel frames equipped with BRBs in the framework of Eurocode 8

Cited by 37 publications

References 37 publications

A design procedure for pin‐supported rocking buckling‐restrained braced frames

A design procedure for pin‐supported rocking buckling‐restrained braced frames

A design procedure for suspended zipper‐braced frames in the framework of Eurocode 8

11.36: Influence of type of loading protocols and restraining parameters on cyclic response of steel BRB

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About