Estimating Seismic Performance Factors for a Dual System Comprising Buckling Restrained Brace Frames and Intermediate Moment Frames

• Autorzy: Yavarian Sipan , Ahmad Rais

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29227/IM-2024-02-30

Warianty tytułu

PL

Szacowanie czynników wydajności sejsmicznej dla układu dualnego składającego się z ram z usztywnieniami zapobiegającymi wyboczeniu oraz ram o pośrednich węzłach momentowych

• Konferencja: 9th World Multidisciplinary Congress on Civil Engineering, Architecture, and Urban Planning - WMCCAU 2024 : 2-6.09.2024
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Dual structural system is referred when two different lateral systems are combined together to provide the lateral force resisting system for a building structure. For different structural and architectural reasons, dual systems are used in building structures. The most common types of dual systems include special moment resisting frames (SMRF) combined with eccentric braced frames (EBF) or buckling restrained braced frames (BRBF) in steel buildings and special reinforced concrete moment frames combined with special reinforced concrete shear walls in reinforced concrete buildings. Buckling restrained braced frame is a lateral framing system that are being used in high seismic zones. According to American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), a dual system is permitted between buckling restrained braced frames (BRBF) and special moment resisting frames (SMRF) where SMRFs must be capable of resisting at least 25% of prescribed seismic force. Conventionally, dual systems are utilized at high seismic zones. For moderate seismic zones intermediate moment resisting frames (IMF) can be used instead of SMRF. But, ASCE does not provide any guideline to assess the structural responses when a dual system combining BRBF and IMRF are used in buildings located at moderate seismic zones. This research, shows a methodology to calculate the seismic parameters like Response Modification Coefficient (R), Over-strength Factor (Ωo) and Deflection Amplification Factor (Cd) which are not described by ASCE or FEMA guideline. Several archetypes of building structures are designed following FEMA guidelines with modified R as trial values for different seismic zones. To validate the trial values for R, system over-strength and period-based ductility, nonlinear 3D static (pushover) analyses were performed.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

buckling restrained braced frame (BRBF); response modification factor; over strength factor; deflection amplification factor; dual system; pushover analysis

PL

rama usztywniona (BRBF); współczynnik modyfikacji odpowiedzi; współczynnik wytrzymałości; współczynnik wzmocnienia ugięcia; podwójny system; analiza przesunięcia

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Przeróbki Kopalin
• Czasopismo: Inżynieria Mineralna
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: Vol. 1, no. 2
• Strony: art. no. 30
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 10 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Yavarian Sipan

• Project Management Advisors, Inc., 1 Tower Place, Suite 200, South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA

autor

Ahmad Rais

• California State University, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge California, 91330, USA

Bibliografia

• 1. Fahnestock A.L., Sause R., Ricles M.J. and Lu L.W., “Ductility Demands on Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames Under Earthquake Loading”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 1671-3664, 0255-1, 2003.
• 2. American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-22), American Society of Civil Engineers, USA, 2005.
• 3. American Society of Civil Engineers, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-06), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA, 2006.
• 4. Uang C.M., “Establishing R (RW) and CD Factors for Building Seismic”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 117, 19-28, 1991.
• 5. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors (FEMA P695), Federal Emergency Management Agency, California, 2009.
• 6. Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design examples (FEMA 451), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2006.
• 7. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2003) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, (FEMA 450-2), Prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
• 8. Krawinkler H., “Shear design of steel frame joints”, Engineering Journal, AISC, 15(3), 1978.
• 9. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center/Applied Technology Council, Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings (PEER/ATC-72-1), 2010.
• 10. Moehle J., Bozorgnia Y., Jayaram N., Jones P., Rahnama M., Shome N., Tuna Z., Wallace J., Yang T. and Zareian F., “Case Studies of the Seismic Performance of Tall Buildings Designed by Alternative Means”, PEER Center, Berkeley, California, 2011.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr POPUL/SP/0154/2024/02 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki II" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2025).