Improving the torsional response of asymmetric buildings with self-centering controlled rocking steel braced frame system

Abstract

Self-centering controlled rocking steel braced-frame (SC-CR-SBF) is proposed as an earthquake-resistant system with low damage. Pre-stressed vertical strands provide a self-centering mechanism in the system and energy absorbing fuses restrict maximum displacement. Presence of asymmetry in structures can highlight the advantages of employing this structural system. Moreover, these days designing and constructing asymmetric and irregular structures is inevitable and as a result of architectural attractiveness and requirements of different functions of buildings, they are of great importance. Consequently, in these types of structures in order to minimize seismic responses, particular measures should be taken into consideration. Proper distribution of strength and stiffness throughout the plan of structures with self-centering systems can play a considerable role in resolving problems associated with asymmetry in these structures. In this study, the asymmetric buildings with 10% and 20% mass eccentricities and having different arrangements of centers were simulated. The models were analyzed under a set of 22 bidirectional far-field ground-motion records and corresponding responses of maximum roof drift, acceleration and rotation of the roof diaphragms of the structures with different arrangements of the center of mass, stiffness and strength were computed and studied. Results show that proper distribution of stiffness and strength throughout the plan of the structures with SC-CR-SBF system reduces the maximum roof drift as well as the rotation of the roof diaphragm. With appropriate arrangement of the centers, maximum drift response of the asymmetric structure decreases as much as roughly 20% and the ratio of the maximum drift response of the asymmetric structure to the response of the similar symmetric structure with the same overall stiffness and strength was 1.1. In other words, maximum drift response of the asymmetric structure with SC-CR-SBF system is acceptably close to the one for the symmetric building.

Keywords

asymmetric building self-centering controlled rocking steel braced-frame maximum drift response ratio

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Applied Technology Council and United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Washington, DC: FEMA: US Department of Homeland Security.

ASCE (2010) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, Virginia: ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Aziminejad

Moghadam

(2010) Fragility-based performance evaluation of asymmetric single-story buildings in near field and far field earthquakes. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14(6): 789–816.

Azuhata

Midorikawa

Ishihara

(2008) Earthquake damage reduction of buildings by self-centering systems using rocking mechanism. In: The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.

Azuhata

Midorikawa

Ishihara

(2006) Seismic response reduction of buildings by rocking structural systems with adaptive dampers. In: Smart Structures and Materials 2006: Damping and Isolation. Bellingham, Washington: International Society for Optics and Photonics, Vol. 6169, p. 61691B.

Deierlein

Krawinkler

, et al. (2011) Earthquake resilient steel braced frames with controlled rocking and energy dissipating fuses. Steel Construction 4(3): 171–175.

De Stefano

Faella

Ramasco

(1993) Inelastic response and design criteria of plan‐wise asymmetric systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 22(3): 245–259.

Eatherton

Hajjar

Deierlein

, et al. (2008) Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, pp. 12–17.October). Controlled rocking of steel-framed buildings with replaceable energy-dissipating fuses

Eatherton

Hajjar

, et al. (2010) Seismic design and behavior of steel frames with controlled rocking—part I: concepts and quasi-static subassembly testing. Structures Congress 2010: 1523–1533.

10.

Eatherton

(2010) Large-scale Cyclic and Hybrid Simulation Testing and Development of a Controlled-Rocking Steel Building System with Replaceable Fuses. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

11.

Eatherton

Krawinkler

, et al. (2014) Design concepts for controlled rocking of self-centering steel-braced frames. Journal of Surgical Education 140(11): 04014082.

12.

Fardis

(ed.) (2010) Advances in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science and Business Media, Vol. 13.

13.

Georgoussis

Mamou

(2018) The effect of mass eccentricity on the torsional response of building structures. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 67(7): 671–682.

14.

Georgoussis

Mamou

(2019) Mass eccentricity effects on the torsional response of inelastic buildings. Vibroengineering Procedia 23: 66–71.

15.

Gupta

Krawinkler

(1998) Seismic Demands for the Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.

16.

Borchers

Pena

, et al. (2010) Design and behavior of steel shear plates with openings as energy-dissipating fuses. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Technical Report. 173.

17.

Krawinkler

Deierlein

(2011) Seismic design and behavior of self-centering braced frame with controlled rocking and energy dissipating fuses. Blume earthquake Eng, vol. 174. Center TR, University of Stanford.

18.

Mansoori

Moghadam

(2014) Controlling torsional responses of structures under one and two directional excitations using dampers. In: Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, 25 August 2014.

19.

Mazza

(2016) Nonlinear seismic analysis of unsymmetric-plan structures retrofitted by hysteretic damped braces. Bull Earthquake Engineering 14: 1311–1331. DOI: 10.1007/s10518-016-9873-z.

, et al. (2019) Performance evaluation of gravity-controlled rocking braced frames for low-rise steel buildings. In: 12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Quebec City, 17–20 June 2019.

21.

Myslimaj

Tso

(2002) A strength distribution criterion for minimizing torsional response of asymmetric wall‐type systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31(1): 99–120.

22.

Myslimaj

Tso

(2005) A design-oriented approach to strength distribution in single-story asymmetric systems with elements having strength-dependent stiffness. Earthquake Spectra 21(1): 197–212.

23.

OpenSees (2011) Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. Los Angeles, California: Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California. Available at: http://opensees.berkeley.edu (Accessed 5 February 2011).

24.

Paulay

(2001) Some design principles relevant to torsional phenomena in ductile buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 5(03): 273–308.

25.

Peruš

Fajfar

(2005) On the inelastic torsional response of single‐storey structures under bi‐axial excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34(8): 931–941.

26.

Roy

Chakroborty

(2013) Seismic demand of plan-asymmetric structures: a revisit. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 12(1): 99–117.

27.

Steele

Wiebe

(2016) Dynamic and equivalent static procedures for capacity design of controlled rocking steel braced frames. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 45(14): 2349–2369.