Buckling-restrained braces are able to provide significant energy dissipation along with large ductile capacity through their excellent hysteretic behavior. However, due to their lack of recentering capability, buckling-restrained braced frames experience large residual drifts following a strong earthquake, leading to enormous repair costs. To overcome this shortcoming, super-elastic shape memory alloy braces with excellent recentering capacity have been introduced as a viable alternative to steel braces. Nevertheless, their energy dissipation capacity is usually low for seismic applications. This article proposes a robust self-centering energy-dissipative brace to be used in structural frames. The brace is capable of providing adequate energy dissipation capacity in the structure while simultaneously bringing the structure to its original configuration after the earthquake.
AizawaSKakizawaTHigasinoM (1998) Case studies of smart materials for civil structures. Smart Materials and Structures7: 617–626.
2.
ANSI/AISC 341-16 (2016) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings.
3.
ANSI/AISC 360-16 (2016) Specification for structural steel buildings.
4.
ASCE/SEI 7–16 (2016) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures.
5.
AuricchioFFugazzaDDesrochesR (2006) Earthquake performance of steel frames with nitinol braces. Journal of Earthquake Engineering10: 45–66.
6.
CardoneDDolceMPonzoFC (2004) Experimental behavior of R/C frames retrofitted with dissipating and re-centering braces. Journal of Earthquake Engineering8: 361–396.
7.
ChristopoulosCTremblayRKimHJet al. (2008) Self-centering energy dissipative bracing system for the seismic resistance of structures: development and validation. Journal of Structural Engineering134: 96–107.
8.
FarmaniMAGhassemiehM (2016) Shape memory alloy-based moment connections with superior self-centering properties. Smart Materials and Structures25: 075028.
9.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000) Federal Emergency Management Agency prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 356). Wood Dale, IL: Paperbackshop.
10.
FugazzaD (2005) Experimental investigation on the cyclic properties of superelastic NiTi shape-memory alloy wires and bars. Degree Dissertation, Rose School, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, Pavia.
11.
GraesserEJCozzarelliFA (1991) Shape memory alloys as new materials for seismic isolation. Engineering Mechanics117: 2590–2608.
12.
JohnsonRPadgettJEMaragakisMEet al. (2008) Large scale testing of nitinol shape memory alloy devices for retrofit of bridges. Smart Materials and Structures17: 035018.
13.
KariAGhassemiehMAbolmaaliSA (2011) A new dual bracing system for improving the seismic behavior of steel structures. Smart Materials and Structures20: 125020.
14.
KigginsSHUangCH (2006) Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a dual System. Engineering Structures28: 1525–1532.
15.
KimJChoiH (2004) Behavior and design of structures with buckling-restrained braces. Engineering Structures26: 693–706.
16.
KimJSeoY (2004) Seismic design of low-rise steel frames with buckling-restrained braces. Engineering Structures26: 543–551.
17.
McCormickJDesRochesR (2004) Damping properties of shape memory alloys for seismic applications. In: Proceedings of the 20 structures congress’04, Nashville, TN, 22–26 May, pp. 747–757. Reston, VA: ASCE.
18.
MirzaeifarRDesRochesRYavariRet al. (2013) on superelastic bending of shape memory alloy beams. International Journal of Solids and Structures50: 1664–1680.
19.
MotahariSAGhassemiehMAbolmaaliSA (2007) Implementation of shape memory alloy dampers for passive control of structures subjected to seismic excitations. Constructional Steel Research63: 1570–1599.
20.
SaadatSSalichsJNooriMet al. (2002) an overview of vibration and seismic applications of NiTi shape memory alloy. Smart Materials and Structures11: 218–229.
21.
SabelliRMahinSChangC (2003) Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces. Engineering Structures25: 655–666.
22.
El-BaheySBruneauM (2011) Buckling restrained braces as structural fuses for the seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete bridge bents. Engineering Structures3: 1052–1061.
23.
SommervillePGSmithNFPunyamurthulaSet al. (1997) Development of ground motion time histories for Phase 2 of the FEAM/SAC steel project. SAC Background Document, No. SAC/BD-91/04, October. Sacramento, CA: SAC Joint Venture.
24.
TaftaliB (2007) Probabilistic seismic demand assessment of steel frames with shape memory alloy connections. PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
25.
Teran-GilmoreARuiz-GarciaJ (2011) Comparative seismic performance of steel frames retrofitted with buckling restrained braces through the application of force-based and displacement-based approaches. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering31: 478–490.
26.
TremblayRBolducPNevilleRet al. (2006) Seismic testing and performance of buckling-restrained bracing systems. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering33: 183–198.
WangHNieXPanP (2017) Development of a self-centering buckling restrained brace using cross-anchored pre-stressed steel strands. Constructional Steel Research138: 621–632.
29.
WildeKGardoniPFujinoY (2000) Base isolation system with shape memory alloy device for elevated highway bridges. Engineering Structures22: 222–229.
30.
ZhuSZhangY (2008) Seismic analysis of concentrically braced frame systems with self-centering friction damping braces. Journal of Structural Engineering134(1): 121–131.
