Researchers in the field of earthquake engineering are always looking for new ways to improve the seismic behavior of structures. The buckling-restrained brace (BRB) is one of these exciting innovations that are employed to increase the ductility capacity of traditional steel braced frames. Understanding the nonlinear response of these novel systems in estimating maximum displacements due to an earthquake has been of significant importance for structural designers. Accordingly, this research is carried out to study of deflection amplification factor (Cd) in BRBs, which have recently been presented in seismic design provisions as one of the seismic lateral-resisting systems. To this end, five 3-, 5-, 7-, 10-, and 15-story BRBs are modeled in the software framework of OpenSees. Ground motion simulation is performed by selecting several scaled earthquake records, and the values of elastic and ultimate displacements of structural systems are computed through pushover and nonlinear time-history analyses. The results showed that the deflection amplification factor suggested within famous building codes (such as ASCE-7-16) compared to the obtained values is, in some cases, for certainty; conversely, it is underestimated under some conditions. In fact, the findings indicate that the magnitude of Cd in these systems is strongly related to the height of the building.
AbdiHHejaziFJaafarM, et al. (2016) Evaluation of response modification factor for steel structures with soft story retrofitted by viscous damper device. Advances in Structural Engineering19(8): 1275–1288.
2.
Abou-ElfathHShamel FahmyAMohamed KhalifaK (2018) Response modification factors of buckling-restrained braced frames designed according to the Egyptian code. Alexandria engineering journal57(4): 2851–2864.
3.
ANSI/AISC-360 (2016) Specification for Structural Steel Buildings.
4.
AISC 341 (2005) Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings.
5.
ASCE-7 (2016) Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.
6.
ASCE/SEI-41 (2017) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings.
ClarkPW (1999) Design procedures for buildings incorporating hysteretic damping devices. In: International post-SMiRT conference seminar on seismic isolation, Korea, 1999, International Post-SMiRT Conference Seminar on Seismic Isolation.
11.
DehghaniMTremblayR (2018) Design and full-scale experimental evaluation of a seismically endurant steel buckling-restrained brace system. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics47(1): 105–129.
12.
DizajEAFanaieNZarifpourA (2018) Probabilistic seismic demand assessment of steel frames braced with reduced yielding segment buckling restrained braces. Advances in Structural Engineering21(7): 1002–1020.
13.
Eurocode (1988) Seismic Design of Building.
14.
FahnestockLASauseRRiclesJM (2007) Seismic response and performance of buckling-restrained braced frames. Journal of Structural Engineering133(9): 1195–1204.
15.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2003) NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. Washington: Building Seismic Safety Council.
16.
FEMA-356 (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.
17.
GhowsiAFFaqiriASahooDR (2019) Numerical study on cyclic response of self-centering steel buckling-restrained braces. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering1: 589–598.
18.
GuerreroHJiTEscobarJA, et al. (2018) Effects of buckling-restrained braces on reinforced concrete precast models subjected to shaking table excitation. Engineering Structures163: 294–310.
19.
HaseltonCBWhittakerASHortacsuA, et al. (2012) Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012, 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, pp. 4207–4217.
20.
International building code (2000). International code council.
21.
Iranian seismic code (1997).
22.
Ebadi JamkhanehMHomaioon EbrahimiAShokri AmiriM (2019) Investigation of the seismic behavior of brace frames with new corrugated all-steel buckling restrained brace. International Journal of Steel Structures19(4): 1225–1236.
23.
KaravasilisTLKerawalaSHaleE (2012) Hysteretic model for steel energy dissipation devices and evaluation of a minimal-damage seismic design approach for steel buildings. Journal of Constructional Steel Research70: 358–367.
24.
LamNWilsonJHutchinsonG (1998) The ductility reduction factor in the seismic design of buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics27(7): 749–769.
25.
MahmoudiMHoodinshadMJalili Sadr AbadM (2020) The effects of foundation uplift on seismic response of diagonally braced steel frames. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering21(5): 885–902.
26.
MahmoudiMMontazeriSSadr AbadMJ (2018) Seismic performance of steel X-knee-braced frames equipped with shape memory alloy bars. Journal of Constructional Steel Research147: 171–186.
27.
MahmoudiMZareeM (2013b) Determination the response modification factors of buckling restrained braced frames. Procedia Engineering54: 222–231.
28.
MahmoudiMZareeM (2013a) Performance based design using force reduction factor and displacement amplification factors for BFS. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering14: 577–586.
29.
MateusJASTagawaHChenX (2019) Buckling-restrained brace using round steel bar cores restrained by inner round steel tubes and outer square steel tube. Engineering Structures197: 109379.
30.
MazzoniSMcKennaFScottMH, et al. (2006) Opensees Command Language Manual Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center 264.
31.
Mexican Building Design Code (1987).
32.
MirandaEBerteroVV (1994) Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthquake spectra10(2): 357–379.
33.
MoniMMoradiSAlamMS (2016) Response modification factors for steel buckling restrained braced frames designed as per the 2010 national building code of Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering43(8): 702–715.
34.
National Building Code of Canada (1990).
35.
NewmarkNMHallWJ (1982) Earthquake Spectra and Design. Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
36.
O'DonnellAPKuramaYCKalkanE, et al. (2013) Ground motion scaling methods for linear-elastic structures: an integrated experimental and analytical investigation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42(9): 1281–1300.
37.
OzkilicYOBozkurtMBTopkayaC (2018) Evaluation of seismic response factors for BRBFs using FEMA P695 methodology. Journal of Constructional Steel Research151: 41–57.
38.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2020). Available at: www.peer.berkeley.edu (accessed 10 May 2020).
39.
PanYAnRBaiJ, et al. (2019) Seismic design and performance analysis of buckling‐restrained braced RC frame structures. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings28(15): 1–15.
40.
PrinzGSRichardsPW (2012) Seismic performance of buckling-restrained braced frames with eccentric configurations. Journal of Structural Engineering138(3): 345–353.
41.
SabelliRMahinSChangC (2003) Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces. Engineering Structures25(5): 655–666.
UangCM (1991) Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors for building seismic provisions. Journal of structural Engineering117(1): 19–28.
44.
UangCMMaaroufA (1994) Deflection amplification factor for seismic design provisions. Journal of structural engineering120(8): 2423–2436.
45.
UangCMNakashimaMTsaiKC (2004) Research and application of buckling-restrained braced frames. International Journal of Steel Structures4(4): 301–313.
46.
Uniform Code for Building (1991).
47.
Uniform Code for Building (1994).
48.
Uniform Code for Building (1997).
49.
WadaA (1992) Damage tolerant structure. In: Fifth US Japan workshop on the improvement of building structural design and construction practices, San Diego, California, September, 1992, Japan Structural Consultants Association.
50.
WakabayashiMNakamuraTKatagiharaA, et al. (1973) Experimental study on the elastoplastic behavior of braces enclosed by precast concrete panels under horizontal cyclic loading-Parts 1 and 2. In: Summaries of technical papers of annual meeting, Tokyo, 1973‐03, Architectural Institute of Japan, pp. 1041–1044.
51.
XieQ (2005) State of the art of buckling-restrained braces in Asia. Journal of Constructional Steel Research61(6): 727–748.
52.
YavarianSAhmadR (2016) Evaluation of seismic performance factors in high rise steel buildings with dual lateral systems consisting of buckling restrained braced frames and intermediate moment frames. Procedia Engineering161: 680–686.
53.
ZarumaSFahnestockLA (2018) Assessment of design parameters influencing seismic collapse performance of buckling-restrained braced frames. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering113: 35–46.
54.
ZsarnoczayA (2013) Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Buckling Restrained Braced Frames for Eurocode Conform Design Procedure Development. Budapest, Hungary: Budapest University of Technology and Economic.
55.
ZsarnóczayÁBudaházyVVighLG, et al. (2013) Cyclic hardening criteria in EN 15129 for steel dissipative braces. Journal of Constructional Steel Research83: 1–9.
56.
ZonaADall'AstaA (2012) Elastoplastic model for steel buckling-restrained braces. Journal of Constructional Steel Research68(1): 118–125.
