Nonlinear modeling of concentrically braced frames

Sen, Andrew D.; Roeder, Charles W.; Lehman, Dawn E.; Berman, Jeffrey W.

doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.02.007

Cited by 34 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Detailed information, including force-deformation relationships, of the SelfCentering material can be found. 21 The numerical model of the frames uses the modeling methodology proposed by Hsiao et al 22 and Sen et al, 23 which has been used to model the three-story SAC building and validated by experiments. 24 The numerical model for the ninestory example building is shown in Figure 4.…”

Section: Numerical Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proportioning of self‐centering energy dissipative braces

Xiao

Eberhard

Zhou

et al. 2021

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-centering energy dissipative (SCED) braces are designed to limit the maximum story drifts in buildings during earthquakes and to nearly eliminate residual drifts. The key properties of conventional braces (eg, strength, stiffness) can be determined with current seismic design procedures, but additional criteria are needed to select the hysteretic properties of SCED braces (eg, prestressing level, fuse activating deformation). Past investigations of the seismic performance of the SCED braced frames selected brace characteristics to match the hysteretic characteristics of buckling restrained braces (BRB). However, those characteristics may not be achieved because the performance of the SCED system is constrained by the elongation capacity of the post-tensioned tendons. To develop recommendations for proportioning SCED braces, the researchers conducted a parametric study on the properties of two typical SCED systems, using a ninestory steel braced frame office building. The seismic performances of the SCED systems were then compared with that of a BRB system including an analysis without property uncertainty and an analysis with uncertainty using Monte Carlo simulation. Based on the cost and seismic performances of SCED systems designed using various characteristics, recommendations are proposed for proportioning the SCED systems. Besides having much smaller residual drifts, the SCED systems had a smaller likelihood of exceeding a maximum story drift of 3% and less drift concentration compared with the BRB system, though they generated larger floor accelerations and forces in connections and adjacent members.The property uncertainty increased the residual drift of the SCED systems.

show abstract

Section: Numerical Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proportioning of self‐centering energy dissipative braces

Xiao

Eberhard

Zhou

et al. 2021

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The spring constitutive behavior was also modeled using the Steel02 uniaxial material with rotational stiffness (K g ) and flexural strength. The brace fibers lost strength to simulate tearing and fracture using a maximum strain range (MSR) material wrapper, 20,21 where the MSR is the maximum difference between the maximum and minimum strains throughout the deformation history. Strength of the fiber is lost once this value exceeds the MSR limit, MSR f,disp , as given in 20 the expression and OpenSees implementation was updated by Sen et al 21 to account for asymmetry in deformation demand; compression-biased asymmetric is characteristic of braces in chevron configurations, which elongates the fracture life of the brace as observed in recent tests.…”

Section: Braced Frame Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The brace fibers lost strength to simulate tearing and fracture using a maximum strain range (MSR) material wrapper, 20,21 where the MSR is the maximum difference between the maximum and minimum strains throughout the deformation history. Strength of the fiber is lost once this value exceeds the MSR limit, MSR f,disp , as given in Equation .…”

Section: Braced Frame Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Strength of the fiber is lost once this value exceeds the MSR limit, MSR f,disp , as given in Equation . Originally developed by Hsiao et al, 20 the expression and OpenSees implementation was updated by Sen et al 21 to account for asymmetry in deformation demand; compression‐biased asymmetric is characteristic of braces in chevron configurations, which elongates the fracture life of the brace as observed in recent tests 12,15

{MSR}_{f, italicdisp} = 0.554 {(\frac{b}{t})}^{- 0.75} \cdot {(\frac{L_{c}}{r})}^{- 0.47} \cdot {(\frac{E}{R_{y} F_{y}})}^{0.21} \cdot {(\frac{δ_{c \max}}{δ_{t \max}})}^{0.008}

…”

Section: Braced Frame Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seismic performance of chevron‐configured special concentrically braced frames with yielding beams

Asada

Sen

et al. 2020

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current seismic design requirements for special concentrically braced frames (SCBFs) in chevron configurations require that the beams supporting the braces be designed to resist the demands resulting from the simultaneous yielding of the tension brace and degraded, post-buckling strength of the compression brace. Recent research, including large-scale experiments and detailed finite-element analyses, has demonstrated that limited beam yielding is not detrimental to chevron braced frame behavior and actually increases the story drift at which the braces fracture. These findings have resulted in new expressions for computing beam demands in chevron SCBFs that reduce the demand in the tension brace to be equal to the expected compressive capacity at buckling of the compression brace. In turn, the resultant force on the beam is reduced as is the required size of the beam. Further study was undertaken to investigate the seismic performance of buildings with SCBFs, including chevron SCBFs with and without yielding beams and X-braced frames. Prototype three-and nine-story braced frames were designed using all three framing systems, that is, chevron, chevron with yielding beams, and X SCBFs, resulting in six building frames. The nonlinear dynamic response was studied for ground motions simulating two different seismic hazard levels. The results were used to characterize the seismic performance in terms of the probability of salient damage states including brace fracture, beam vertical deformation, and collapse. The results demonstrate that the seismic performance of chevron SCBFs with limited beam yielding performs as well as or better than the conventionally designed chevron and X SCBFs.

show abstract

“…1994 yılında Northridge ve 1995 yılında Kobe depremleri sonrasında hasar gören birçok yapı incelenmiş ve deprem yönetmeliklerinde ciddi revizyonlar gerçekleştirilerek yapıların sünek tasarım yaklaşımlarının temelleri atılmıştır. Bu yıllardan sonra deprem yönetmelikleri özellikle deneysel [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] ve analitik çalışmaların [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] 1.0…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Comparison on Dynamic Performance of CBFs Designed as per TEC2007 and TEC2018

Bozkurt

Serin

2021

Teknik Dergi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

9 katlı toplam altı adet ters-V ve parçalı-X tipi merkezi çaprazlı çelik çerçevelerin (MÇÇÇ'lerin) dinamik performansları karşılaştırılmıştır. DBYBHY-2007 ve TBDY-2018'de tanımlanan 50 yılda aşılma olasılığı %2 olan en büyük deprem yer hareketine göre ölçeklendirilen uzak alan kayıtlı 44 adet deprem yer hareketi altında Opensees yazılımı kullanılarak toplam 1056 adet zaman tanım alanında doğrusal olmayan analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, hem ters-V hem de parçalı-X tipi MÇÇÇ'lerde TBDY-2018 esaslarına göre boyutlandırılan yapıların daha güvenilir olduğunu göstermiştir.

show abstract

Nonlinear modeling of concentrically braced frames

Cited by 34 publications

References 40 publications

Proportioning of self‐centering energy dissipative braces

Proportioning of self‐centering energy dissipative braces

Seismic performance of chevron‐configured special concentrically braced frames with yielding beams

Comparison on Dynamic Performance of CBFs Designed as per TEC2007 and TEC2018

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About