Evaluating response modification factors of concentrically braced steel frames

Mahmoudi, Mussa; Zaree, Mahdi

doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.04.004

Cited by 61 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some research studies investigate the seismic response of steel frames with BRBs in order to suggest adequate values of the behaviour factor [21][22][23][24][25]. However, these studies refer to frames designed according to seismic codes different from EC8 (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these studies refer to frames designed according to seismic codes different from EC8 (e.g. Iranian Earthquake Resistance Design Code or FEMA 302/303) and are sometimes carried out by means of pushover analysis [25], which is not always accurate in the prediction of the seismic response [26][27][28]. Moreover, the modelling adopted in these research studies for BRBs casts a shadow on the accuracy of the obtained results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, BRBs are commonly modelled as elasto-plastic truss elements with kinematic hardening defined by means of a specified post-yield stiffness ratio. In some studies, the post-yield stiffness ratio is conservatively assumed equal to zero [21,22,29], while in others it is set equal to 1% or 2% [23,25,30,31]. These latter values of the post-yield stiffness ratio are effective to avoid the numerical instability that may occur if a null value of the post-yield stiffness ratio is considered [32].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Bosco

Marino

Rossi

2015

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Bosco

Marino

Rossi

2015

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The R value based on the Indian standard code is higher than the actual R value obtained in the study; such difference is potentially dangerous [12]. Mahmoudi and Zaree [13] evaluated the response modification factors for congenital CBFs and buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs). Their results revealed that a conventional pushover analysis (CPA) cannot count high mode outcomes and member stiffness changes, whereas an adaptive pushover analysis (APA) can overcome these drawbacks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Response Modification Factors for Reinforced Concrete Structures Equipped with Viscous Damper Devices

Abdi

Hejazi

Jaafar

et al. 2017

Period. Polytech. Civil Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The response modification factor is one of the seismic design parameters that determine the nonlinear performance of building structures during strong earthquakes. Most IntroductionThe response modification factor is one of the main parameters in seismic construction design. Equivalent static analysis is the technique for evaluating the seismic response of structures. This technique can be implemented by determining the response modification factor. Current structural design codes focus on complete safety and sturdiness even during earthquakes. However, such endeavor is impossible to achieve. Nevertheless, certain structural and nonstructural damages can be studied to economically achieve a high level of life safety in structural design by applying an inelastic energy dissipation system. The designed lateral strength of structures must be kept within the elastic range according to seismic codes. Hence, the designed lateral strength is usually lower than the required lateral strength. Maintaining the inelastic range of a structure means that all the structural and nonstructural members of this structure that are subjected to lateral motion are assured to return to their initial state without permanent deformations and damages. Preserving this state is far from being feasible and rational in many cases. On the contrary, going beyond the elastic frontier in an earthquake event may lead to the yielding and cracking of structural members, which can lead to catastrophic results unless these inelastic actions are limited to a certain degree. Thus, inelastic behavior definitely decreases overall construction costs by reducing member sizes and thus reducing materials and construction time. It also facilitates operability and construction.According to the International Building Code [1], a response modification coefficient (R), including the effect of inelastic deformations, must be applied to evaluate the design of the seismic forces of structures that have been reduced and to evaluate the deflection amplification factor (Cd) for converting elastic lateral displacements to total lateral displacements. The values of the R factor and Cdset in the IBC [1] are based on observations of the performance of different structural systems in previous strong earthquakes, on technical justification, and on tradition [2]. The R coefficient is proposed to explain ductility, over strength, and energy dissipation through the soil foundation system [2].

show abstract

“…They found that overstrength, ductility and response modification factors are decreased as the number of stories are increased. Mahmoudi and Zaree (2010) evaluated the response modification factors of conventional concentric braced frames and buckling restrained braced frames. They found that response modification factors have different values for brace configuration types, number of bracing bays and buildings height.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New approach to evaluate the response modification factors for steel moment resisting frames

Kang

Choi

2011

Int J Steel Struct

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The design force levels currently specified by most seismic codes are calculated by dividing the base shear for elastic response by the response modification factor (R). This is based on the fact that the structures possess significant reserve strength, redundancy, damping and capacity to dissipate energy. This paper proposed the evaluation methodology and procedure of the response modification factors for steel moment resisting frames. The response modification factors are evaluated by multiplying ductility factor (R µ ) for SDOF systems, MDOF modification factor (R M ) and strength factor (R S ) together. The proposed rules were applied to existing steel moment resisting frames. The nonlinear static pushover analysis was performed to estimate the ductility (R µ ), MDOF modification (R M ) and strength factors (R S ). The results showed that the response modification factors (R) have different values with various design parameters such as design base shear coefficient (V/W), failure mechanism, framing system and number of stories.

show abstract

Evaluating response modification factors of concentrically braced steel frames

Cited by 61 publications

References 25 publications

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

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

Response Modification Factors for Reinforced Concrete Structures Equipped with Viscous Damper Devices

New approach to evaluate the response modification factors for steel moment resisting frames

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About