Probabilistic seismic evaluation of buckling restrained braced frames using DCFD and PSDA methods

  • Received : 2013.10.27
  • Accepted : 2015.11.16
  • Published : 2016.01.25


In this paper, using the probabilistic methods, the seismic demand of buckling restrained braced frames subjected to earthquake was evaluated. In this regards, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14-storybuildings with different buckling restrained brace configuration (including diagonal, split X, chevron V and Inverted V bracings) were designed. Because of the inherent uncertainties in the earthquake records, incremental dynamical analysis was used to evaluate seismic performance of the structures. Using the results of incremental dynamical analysis, the "capacity of a structure in terms of first mode spectral acceleration", "fragility curve" and "mean annual frequency of exceeding a limit state" was determined. "Mean annual frequency of exceeding a limit state" has been estimated for immediate occupancy (IO) and collapse prevention (CP) limit states using both Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis (PSDA) and solution "based on displacement" in the Demand and Capacity Factor Design (DCFD) form. Based on analysis results, the inverted chevron (${\Lambda}$) buckling restrained braced frame has the largest capacity among the considered buckling restrained braces. Moreover, it has the best performance among the considered buckling restrained braces. Also, from fragility curves, it was observed that the fragility probability has increased with the height.


  1. Asgarian, B. and Shokrgozar, H.R. (2009), "BRBF response modification factor", J. Constr. Steel Res., 65(2), 290-298.
  2. Bozorgnia, Y., Bertero, V.V., Uang, C.M. and Nakashima, M. (2003), Earthquake Engineering From Engineering Seismology To Performance-based Engineering, CRC press, New York, USA.
  3. Clark, P., Aiken, I., Tajirian, F.F., Kasai, K., Ko, E. and Kimura, I. (1999), "Design procedures for buildings incorporating hysteretic damping devices", Design Procedures for Buildings Incorporating Hysteretic Damping Devices, 1(1), 1-21.
  4. FEMA 350 (2000), Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings, SAC Joint Venture, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC., Report No. FEMA-350.
  5. Guneyisi, E.M. (2012), "Seismic reliability of steel moment resisting framed buildings retrofitted with buckling restrained braces", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 41(5), 853-874.
  6. Hoveidae, N. and Rafezy, B. (2012), "Overall buckling behavior of all-steel buckling restrained braces", J. Constr. Steel Res., 79, 151-158.
  7. International Building Code (2009), International Building Council, Inc.
  8. Iranian building codes and standards (2005), Iranian code of practice for seismic resistance design of buildings, Standard no. 2800-05 (3rd edition), Tehran.
  9. Iranian National Building Code (2008), 10th part, steel structure design. Tehran (Iran): Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.
  10. Jalayer, F. and Cornell, C.A. (2003), "A technical framework for probability-based demand and capacity factor (DCFD) seismic formats", RMS.
  11. Ju, Y.K., Kim, M.H., Kim, J. and Kim, S.D. (2009), "Component tests of buckling-restrained braces with unconstrained length", Eng. Struct., 31(2), 507-516.
  12. Kumar, G.R., Kumar, S.S. and Kalyanaraman, V. (2007), "Behaviour of frames with Non-Buckling bracings under earthquake loading", J. Constr. Steel Res., 63(2), 254-262.
  13. Lin, K.C., Lin, C.C.J., Chen, J.Y. and Chang, H.Y. (2010), "Seismic reliability of steel framed buildings", Struct. Saf., 32(3), 174-182.
  14. Luco, N. and Cornell, C.A., (1998), "Seismic drift demands for two SMRF structures with brittle connections", Structural Engineering World Wide 1998, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, England, Paper T158-3.
  15. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M.H., Fenves, G.L. and Jeremic, B. (2007), "Opensees Command Language Manual".
  16. Park, Junhee, Lee, Junho and Kim, Jinkoo (2012), "Cyclic test of buckling restrained braces composed of square steel rods and steel tube", Steel Compos. Struct., 13(5), 423-436.
  17. Rai, D.C. and Goel, S.C. (2003), "Seismic evaluation and upgrading of chevron braced frames", J. Constr. Steel Res., 59(8), 971-994.
  18. Research Report (2011), "Probabilistic Seismic hazard analysis phase I - greater Tehran regions final report".
  19. Sabelli, R., Mahin, S. and Chang, C. (2003), "Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces", J. Eng. Struct., 25(5), 655-666.
  20. Tsai, Keh-Chyuan, Weng, Yuan-Tao, Lin, Sheng-Lin and Goel, Subhash (2004), "Pseudo-dynamic test of a full-scale CFT/BRB frame, part 1- performance based specimen design", 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
  21. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2002), "Seismic performance, capacity and reliability of structures as seen through incremental dynamic analysis", Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford university, Stanford, USA.