Computational study of self‐centering buckling‐restrained braced frame seismic performance. (14th April 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Eatherton, Matthew R.; Fahnestock, Larry A.; Miller, David J.
• Is Part Of: Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics. Volume 43:Number 13(2014:Nov.)
• Page Start: 1897
• Page End: 1914
• Publication Date: 2014-04-14
• Subjects: Structural dynamics -- Periodicals; Earthquake engineering -- Periodicals; 624.1762
• DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2428
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0098-8847

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>SUMMARY</title> <p>Recent research developed and experimentally validated a self‐centering buckling‐restrained brace (SC‐BRB) that employs a restoring mechanism created using concentric tubes held flush with pretensioned shape memory alloy rods, in conjunction with a buckling‐restrained brace (BRB) that dissipates seismic energy. The present computational study investigated how the SC‐BRB can be implemented in real buildings to improve seismic performance. First, a computational brace model was developed and calibrated against experimental data, including the definition of a new cyclic material model for superelastic NiTi shape memory alloy. A parametric study were then conducted to explore the design space for SC‐BRBs. Finally, a set of prototype buildings was designed and computationally subjected to a suite of ground motions. The effect of the lateral resistance of gravity framing on self‐centering was also examined.</p> <p>From the component study, the SC‐BRB was found to dissipate sufficient energy even with large self‐centering ratios (as large as 4) based on criteria found in the literature for limiting peak drifts. From the prototype building study, a SC‐BRB self‐centering ratio of 0.5 was capable of reliably limiting residual drifts to negligible values, which is consistent with a dynamic form of self‐centering discussed in the literature. Because large self‐centering ratios can create significant overstrength, the most efficient SC‐BRB frame designs had a self‐centering ratio in the range of 0.5–1.5. Ambient building resistance (e.g., gravity framing) was found to reduce peak drifts, but had a negligible effect on residual drifts. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p> </abstract>