This research is aimed at studying the seismic response of a single story non-buckling eccentrically braced steel frame (NBF) in relation to conventional moment resisting frame (MRF) and concentrically braced frame (CBF). The NBF is intended to combine the advantages of MRF and CBF and eliminate most of the disadvantages pertinent to these frames. Nonlinear static pushover and time history analyses are conducted to assess the performance of the NBF compared to the performance of MRF and CBF. The analyses results have revealed that the NBF has a more stable lateral force-deformation behavior compared to CBF. The energy dissipation capacity of the NBF is comparable to that of the MRF. The maximum drift of the NBF at small to medium intensity ground motions is comparable to that of the CBF and smaller than that of the MRF. At high intensity ground motions, the maximum drift of the NBF is smaller than those of both CBF and MRF. Furthermore the NBF is found to experience less damage to its essential structural components compared to other frames.
AISC (2005), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 341–05, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
3.
BlackG.R.WengerB.A. and PopovE.P. (1980). “Inelastic buckling of steel struts under cyclic load reversals”, Report No: UCB/EERC-80/40, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
4.
BruneauM.UangC.M. and WhittakerA. (1998). Ductile Design of Steel Structures, McGraw Hill, New York. NY.
5.
BuckleI.DusickaP. and ItaniA. (2005). “Development of built-up shear links as energy dissipators for the seismic protection of long-span bridges”, Bridge Structures, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 19–27.
6.
ChenC.-C.ChenS.-Y. and LiawJ.J. (2001). “Application of low yield strength steel on controlled plastification ductile concentrically braced frames”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 823–836.
7.
ClarkP.AikenI.KasaikK.KoK. and KimuraI. (1999). “Design Procedures for Building Incorporating Hysteretic Damping Devices”, Proceedings, 68th Annual Convention, Structural Engineers Association of California, Santa Barbara, CA.
8.
DicleliM. and AlbhaisiS. M. (2004). “Effect of cyclic thermal loading on the performance of steel H-piles in integral bridges with stub-abutments”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp.161–182.
9.
DicleliM. and BuddaramS. (2006). “Effect of isolator and ground motion haracteristics on the performance of seismic-isolated bridges”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 233–250.
10.
DicleliM. and MehtaA. (2007). “Simulation of inelastic cyclic buckling behavior of steel box sections”, Computers and Structures, in-print.
11.
HjelmstadK.D. and PopovE.P. (1983). “Cyclic behavior and design of link beams”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. 10, pp. 2387–2403.
12.
IkedaK. and MahinS.A. (1984). “Refined physical theory model for predicting the seismic behavior of braced steel frames”, Report No: UCB/EERC-84/12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
13.
JainA.K. and GoelS.C. (1978). “Inelastic Cyclic behavior of bracing members and seismic response of braced frames of different proportions”, Report No: UMEE78R3, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
14.
KasaiK. and PopovE. P. (1986a). “General behavior of WF steel shear link beams”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 2, pp. 362–382.
15.
KasaiK. and PopovE. P. (1986b). “Cyclic web buckling control for shear link beams”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 2, pp. 362–382.
16.
KhatibI.F.MahinS.A. and PisterK.S. (1988). “Seismic behavior of concentrically braced steel frames”, Report No: UCB/EERC-88/01, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
17.
LeeK. and BruneauM. (2005). “Energy dissipation demand of compression members in concentrically braced frames”, Steel and Composite Structures, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 345–358.
18.
McDanielC.C. and UangC-M. U. (2003). “Cyclic testing of built-up steel shear links for the New Bay Bridge”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 6, pp. 801–809.
19.
OkazakiT.ArceG.RyuH-C. and EngelhardtM. D. (2005). “Experimental study of local buckling, overstrength, and fracture of links in eccentrically braced frames”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 10, pp. 1526–1535.
20.
ParkC.H.LeeD.G. and KimJ.K. (1997). “Effect of gravity load on seismic response of steel-framed structures”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 439–451.
21.
RaiD.C. and GoelS.C. (2003). “Seismic evaluation and upgrading of chevron braced frames”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 59, No. 8, pp. 971–994.
22.
RoederC.W. (1989). “Seismic behavior of concentrically braced frame”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 8, pp. 1837–1855.
23.
SamM.T.BalendraT. and LiawC.Y. (1997). “Earthquake-resistant steel frames with energy dissipating knee elements”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 334–343.
24.
TedescoJ.W.McDougalW.G. and RossC.A. (1999). Structural Dynamics: Theory and Applications, Addison Wesley, CA.
25.
TremblayR. and RobertN. (2001). “Seismic performance of low-and medium-rise chevron braced steel frames”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 699–714.
