Steel and Composite Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cable-pulley brace to improve story drift distribution of MRFs with large openings

  • Zahrai, Seyed Mehdi (School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, the University of Tehran) ;
  • Mousavi, Seyed Amin (School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, the University of Tehran)
  • Received : 2016.01.19
  • Accepted : 2016.06.20
  • Published : 2016.07.20
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to introduce a new bracing system by which even super-wide frames with large openings can be braced. The proposed system, hereafter called Cable-Pulley Brace (CPB), is a tension-only bracing system with a rectilinear configuration. In CPB, a wire rope passes through a rectilinear path around the opening(s) and connects the lower corner of the frame to its opposite upper one. CPB is a secondary load resisting system with a nonlinear-elastic hysteretic behavior due to its initial pre-tension load. As a result, the required energy dissipation would be provided by the MRF itself, and the main intention of using CPB is to contribute to the initial and post-yield stiffness of the whole system. Using a stiffness calibration technique, optimum placement of the CPBs is discussed to yield a uniform displacement demand along the height of the structure. A displacement-based design procedure is proposed by which the MRF with CPB can be designed to achieve a uniform distribution of inter-story drifts with predefined values. Obtained results indicated that CPB leads to significant reductions in maximum and residual deformations of the MRF at the expense of minor increase in the maximum base shear and developed axial force demands in the columns. In the case of a typical 5-story residential building, compared to SMRF system, CPB system reduces maximum amounts of inter-story and residual drifts by 35% and 70%, respectively. Moreover, openings of the frame are not interrupted by the CPB. This is the most appealing feature of the proposed bracing system from architectural point of view.

Keywords

References

  1. Abaqus (2011), V 6.11, DassaultSystemesSimulia Corp.; Providence, RI, USA.
  2. ACI 318 (2008), Building code requirements for structural concrete, American Concrete Institute; MI, USA.
  3. AISC 341 (2005), Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, American Institute of steel construction Inc.; Chicago, IL, USA.
  4. ASCE 7 (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society American Society of Civil; Reston, VA, USA.
  5. ASCE 41 (2006), Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers; Reston, VA, USA.
  6. Baiguera, M., Vasdravellis, G. and Karavasilis, T.L. (2016), "Dual seismic-resistant steel frame with high post-yield stiffness braces for residual drift reduction: Numerical evaluation", J. Construct. Steel Res., 122, 198-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.03.019
  7. Cheng, C.T. and Chen, F.L. (2014), "Seismic performance of a rocking bridge pier substructure with frictional hinge dampers", Smart Struct. Syst., Int. J., 14(4), 501-516. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2014.14.4.501
  8. Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D. (1987), Prestressed Concrete Basics, Canadian Prestressed Concrete Institute (CPCI), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
  9. Connor, J.J. (2003), Introduction to Structural Motion Control, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
  10. Das, S. and Gupta, V.K. (2010), "Scaling of response spectrum and duration for aftershocks", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 30(8), 724-735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.03.003
  11. Erochko, J., Christopoulos, C., Tremblay, R. and Choi, H. (2011), "Residual drift response of SMRFs and BRB frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7-05", J. Struct. Eng., 137(5), 589-599. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000296
  12. Eurocode 8 (2003), Design of structures for earthquake resistance- Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
  13. Hou, X. and Tagawa, H. (2009), "Displacement-restraint bracing for seismic retrofit of steel moment frames", J. Construct. Steel Res., 65(5), 1096-1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.11.008
  14. Kiggins, S. and Uang, C.M. (2006), "Reducing residual drift of buckling restrained braced frames as a dual system", Eng. Struct., 28(11), 1525-1532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.10.023
  15. Kim, H.J. and Christopoulos, C. (2009), "Numerical models and ductile ultimate deformation response of post-tensioned self-centering moment connections", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 38(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.836
  16. McCormick, J., Aburano, H., Ikenaga, M. and Nakashima, M. (2008), "Permissible residual deformation levels for building structures considering both safety and human elements", Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, October.
  17. Molaei, A. and Saatcioglu, M. (2013), "Seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete frames with diagonal prestressing cables", Research Report; Ottawa-Carleton Earthquake Engineering Research Center, OT, Canada.
  18. Mousavi, S.A. and Zahrai, S.M. (2016), "Contribution of pre-slacked cable braces to dynamic stability of non-ductile frames; An analytical study", Eng. Struct., 117, 305-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.03.013
  19. Pincheira, J.A. (1992), "Seismic strengthening of reinforced concrete frames using post-tensioned bracing systems", Ph.D. Dissertation; The University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA.
  20. Ruiz-Garcia, J. and Miranda, E. (2005), "Performance-based assessment of existing structures accounting for residual displacements", John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Report No. 153; Stanford University, CA, USA.
  21. Sabelli, R., Mahin, S. and Chang, C. (2003), "Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckle restrained braces", Eng. Struct., 25(5), 655-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00175-X
  22. Salari, N. and Asgarian, B. (2015), "Seismic response of steel braced frames equipped with shape memory alloy-based hybrid devices", Struct. Eng. Mech., Int. J., 53(5), 1031-1049. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2015.53.5.1031
  23. SAP 2000 (2010), Version 14.2.2, Computers and Structures, Inc., CA, USA.
  24. Shalouf, F. and Saatcioglu, M. (2006), "Seismic retrofit of non-ductile reinforced concrete frames with diagonal prestressing", Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA, April.
  25. Sheliang, W., Xindong, Z., Wang, S. and Junqiang, Z. (2004), "The seismic response analysis of isolation structure with shape memory alloy recentering dampers", Proceedings of the 10th JSSI Symposium On Performance of Response Controlled Buildings, Yokohama, Japan, November, Paper No. 111.
  26. Tremblay, R., Lacerte, M. and Christopoulos, C. (2008), "Seismic response of multistory buildings with self-centering energy dissipative steel braces", J. Struct. Eng., 134(1), 108-120. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:1(108)
  27. Welter, J.E. (1991), "Retrofit strengthening of a seismically inadequate reinforced concrete frame using prestressed cable bracing systems and beam alteration", M.Sc. Thesis; The University of Oklahoma, OK, USA.
  28. Zhou, Z., He, X.T., Wu, J., Wang, C.L. and Meng, S.P. (2014), "Development of a novel self-centering buckling-restrained brace with BFRP composite tendons", Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J., 16(5), 491-506. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2014.16.5.491
  29. Zhu, S. and Zhang, Y. (2008), "Seismic analysis of concentrically braced frame systems with self-centering friction damping braces", J. Struct. Eng., 134(1), 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:1(121)

Cited by

  1. Seismic performance assessment of steel frames with slack cable bracing systems vol.250, pp.None, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113437