Life‐cycle benefits estimation for hybrid seismic‐resistant self‐centering braced frames

Abstract

The hybrid self-centering braced frames (HSBFs) with shape memory alloybased braces (SMABs) and viscous dampers (VDs) are an emerging structural system developed for improving the seismic resilience of traditional braced frames (e.g., buckling restrained braced frames [BRBFs]) and self-centering braced frames (SCBFs) by reducing residual inter-story drifts (RIDs) and floor acceleration responses simultaneously. Nevertheless, the excellent performance of HSBFs is captured by introducing high initial construction costs. This paper aims to highlight the benefits of HSBFs compared with BRBFs and SCBFs by investigating the earthquake-induced life-cycle costs. To this end, 6-story BRBF, SCBF, and HSBF are designed separately to achieve the same maximum inter-story drifts under design basis earthquakes (DBE) for a fair comparison. The advanced numerical models of the considered systems were developed, and nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted to obtain the structural seismic responses under various intensities. Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) was adopted for considering the modeling uncertainty. The life-cycle costs were subsequently estimated based on the revised HAZUS loss estimation method. The influence of RIDs, initial construction costs of SMABs and VDs, and values of contents inside buildings were comprehensively investigated. It has been found that HSBF can achieve better performance in reducing seismic loss than BRBF and SCBF due to its excellent capability of controlling structural and nonstructural damage. SCBF may show higher seismic loss than BRBFs, given high RID limits for demolition or high building contents' value, highlighting the importance of controlling floor acceleration responses of SCBFs. The life-cycle benefits of BRBFs, SCBFs, and HSBFs are highly influenced by the RIDs, initial construction costs of SMABs and VDs, building contents' values, and building's lifetime. HSBFs show better life-cycle benefits than SCBFs when the building's lifetime is not lower than 50 years. Compared to BRBF, the life-cycle cost effectiveness of SCBF can be only achieved when the initial cost of SMABs is lower than 1.21 times that of BRBs for the building with 50 years' lifetime; the life-cycle cost effectiveness of HSBF6 can be only achieved when the initial cost of SMABs or VDs is lower than 1.84 times that of BRBs for the building with 50 years' lifetime. It has been concluded that reducing the initial costs of SMABs and VDs is critical and essential for

Seismic Response and Damage Analysis of Large Underground Frame Structures without Overburden

“…In the elastic analysis of the model, the amplitude of seismic acceleration on the bedrock surface is adjusted to 0.2 g. When the structure is subjected to elastic-dynamic analysis, the seismic propagation directions are all upward along the Z-axis and the vibration direction is the X-direction. In this case, the earthquake record is selected according to China's Code for Seismic Design of Urban Railway Structures (GB 50909-2014), and nine natural earthquake records are selected for elastic time-range calculations [29][30][31][32][33], which comprise three low-frequency earthquake records (L-1~3), three medium-frequency earthquake records (I-1~3), and three high-frequency earthquake records (H-1~3) [34][35][36]; the information of the earthquake records is shown in Table 4. The time-range curves and Fourier spectra are shown in Figure 4.…”

Experimental-Numerical Assessment of Mechanical Behavior of Laboratory-Made Steel and NiTi Shape Memory Alloy Wire Ropes

“…Both studies concluded that these bracing systems have promising potential for enhancing the seismic resilience of buildings. Although the cost of SMA components is higher than that of traditional components, the latest investigations confirmed the life-cycle span benefits of SMA-based braces with reduced initial costs [12]. Alternative configurations for SMA-based superelasticity-assisted sliders (SSS) were proposed by Narjabadifam et al [13].…”