Subassemblage tests and numerical analyses of buckling-restrained braces under pre-compression

Guo, Yan‐Lin; Tong, Jing-Zhong; Wang, Xiao-An

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.02.046

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The material properties for the core was validated by sub-assemblage tests of BRB members (Guo et al, 2017a). A combination of the CHAB nonlinear kinematic hardening rule and the BISO isotropic hardening rule in ANSYS is adopted (ANSYS, 2015).…”

Section: Examination Of Design Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…where e pl is the equivalent plastic strain; n the superimposed number of kinematic hardening models; and C k and g k the kinematic parameters obtained from cyclic coupon tests. The CHAB kinematic parameters are set as C 1 = 16 GPa, g 1 = 300; C 2 = 6 GPa, g 2 = 150; and C 3 = 0.5 GPa, g 3 = 20 to be corresponding to the design parameters in Section 4.1 (Guo et al, 2017a).…”

Section: Examination Of Design Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To define the BISO isotropic hardening rule, a maximum change in the yield stress of Q N = 90 MPa and a rate factor of 4.2 are used. A strain hardening effect corresponding to the design parameters v = 1.598 and b = 1.017 in Section 4.1 could be achieved (Guo et al, 2017a), if the specimen exhibits a stable hysteretic response (i.e. without any degradation in the resistance during the loading process).…”

Section: Examination Of Design Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this BRB design example, the following parameters are assumed: (i) overall target BRB characteristics, L = 3000 mm, Py = 1620 kN, ω = 1.598, and β = 1.017 (Guo et al, 2017a); (ii) material properties, E = 200 GPa, f yr = 400 MPa, f yc = 235 MPa; and (iii) initial geometrical imperfection, v 0 / L = 0.002, for example (Guo et al, 2017a; Takeuchi, 2018; Takeuchi and Wada, 2017).…”

Section: Design Example To Illustrate the Design Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two design cases are considered: Case 1-BRB comprising core and restraining member with circular cross-sections as shown in Figure 7(a), and Case 2-BRB comprising core with an I-shaped cross-section and restraining member with a square cross-section as shown in Figure 7(b). For this BRB design example, the following parameters are assumed: (i) overall target BRB characteristics, L = 3000 mm, Py = 1620 kN, v = 1.598, and b = 1.017 (Guo et al, 2017a); (ii) material properties, E = 200 GPa, f yr = 400 MPa, f yc = 235 MPa; and (iii) initial geometrical imperfection, v 0 /L = 0.002, for example (Guo et al, 2017a;Takeuchi, 2018;Takeuchi and Wada, 2017).…”

Section: Design Using the Established Design Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A new stiffness-strength-relationship-based design approach for global buckling prevention of buckling-restrained braces

Pan

Tong

2020

Advances in Structural Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a new stiffness-strength-relationship-based design approach that can pinpoint the target design solution for steel buckling-restrained braces (BRB). First, a stiffness–strength requirement interaction curve (the design criterion) with a very simple and easy-to-use form is derived based on a second-order analysis. This interaction curve clearly illustrates the opposing stiffness and strength requirements of the restraining system. Second, based on the geometrical parameters and material properties, a stiffness–strength relationship curve of the BRB restraining system is established. This second relationship curve is expressed by a linear function for a uniform steel BRB. By using the two analytical curves, the point of intersection defines the target design point. A straightforward design procedure for steel BRBs is then developed. A design example of steel BRBs is considered to demonstrate this easy-to-use design procedure for obtaining economical BRB designs. The design is verified and discussed by a rigorous finite element analysis.

show abstract

Section: Examination Of Design Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Examination Of Design Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Examination Of Design Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%