ارزیابی خسارت لرزه‌ای قاب‌های خمشی وی‍ژه فولادی مجهز به میراگر ویسکوز سوپرالاستیک

ارکوازی, فاطمه; قاسمی, عباس; شکیب, حمزه

doi:10.22065/jsce.2022.339015.2795

ارزیابی خسارت لرزه‌ای قاب‌های خمشی وی‍ژه فولادی مجهز به میراگر ویسکوز سوپرالاستیک

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

¹ دانشجوی دکتری، دانشکده مهندسی عمران و منابع زمین، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکزی

² استادیار، دانشکده مهندسی عمران و منابع زمین، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکزی

³ استاد، دانشکده عمران و محیط‌زیست دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

10.22065/jsce.2022.339015.2795

چکیده

میراگر ویسکوز سوپر الاستیک (SVD) در واقع یک سیستم دوگانه غیر فعال می باشد که از ترکیب میراگرویسکو الاستیک و آلیاژ حافظه دار (SMA) به صورت موازی تشکیل شده است. این میراگر در واقع یکی از به روزترین میراگر ها در استهلاک انرژی می باشد که با افزایش خاصیت ارتجاعی و ظرفیت اتلاف انرژی بالا به عنوان یک میراگر کاربردی مطرح شده است. در این مقاله سعی گردید میزان خسارت لرزه‌ای قاب‌های فولادی خمشی مجهز به میراگر ویسکوز سوپرالاستیک در مقایسه با سیستم قاب خمشی ویژه فولادی و قاب مهاربندی کمانش ناپذیر مورد ارزیابی قرار گیرد. تحلیل غیرخطی دینامیکی افزاینده(IDA) سازه‌ها توسط نرم افزارOpensees انجام گردید. در این تحقیق قاب‌های 5 و 9 طبقه در سه حالت قاب خمشی ویژه، قاب مهاربندی کمانش ناپذیر و قاب خمشی مجهز به میراگر ویسکوز سوپر الاستیک مورد تحلیل و ارزیابی خسارت لرزه‌ای قرار گرفتند. نتایج نشان می‌دهد نرخ فراگذشت سالیانه به ازاء حداکثر جابجایی نسبی ماندگار (MRD) معادل %2/0و %5/0در قاب‌های 9 طبقه برای سازه‌های دارای بادبند کمانش‌تاب (BRB) و میراگر ویسکوز سوپر الاستیک (SMA) به‌طور قابل توجهی کمتر از قا‌ب‌های خمشی ویژه دارای مقطع کاهش‌یافته (RBS) می‌باشد و عملکرد لرزه‌ای سازه‌های مذکور با استفاده از بادبند BRB و میراگر SMA ارتقاء می‌یابد. مقادیر احتمال شکست ناشی از جابجایی ماندگار در سازه‌هایSMA ، BRB و RBS در قاب 9 طبقه به ترتیب 45/1، 75/1 و05/1 برابر مقادیر احتمال متناظر در قاب‌های 5 طبقه می‌باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

مرمت و مقاوم سازی سازه ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Steel Special Moment Frames having Superelastic Viscous Damper

نویسندگان [English]

Fatemeh Arkavazi ¹
Abbas Ghasemi ²
Hamzeh Shakib ³

¹ Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Earth Resources Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University

² Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Earth Resources Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University

³ Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University

چکیده [English]

The superelastic viscous damper (SVD) relies on shape memory alloy (SMA) cables for re-centering capability and employs a viscoelastic (VE) damper that consists of two layers of a high damped (HD) blended butyl elastomer compound to augment its energy dissipation capacity. An analytical model of a five-story and nine-story steel special moment frames building with the installed SVDs and BRBs are developed to determine the dynamic response of the structure. Nonlinear response history analyses are conducted to evaluate the behavior of controlled and uncontrolled buildings under 44 ground motion records. All the buildings are subjected to incremental dynamic analysis (IDA), so the effects of SMA on seismic performance of the buildings would be investigated through seismic concepts. Based on the results, utilizing SMA connections in smart buildings not only could keep interstory drift control performance almost similar to conventional buildings but also could substantially reduce economic loss with significant control of unwanted residual deformations in structural fuses due to their unique ability of induced recentering behavior in structural performance. The results probabilistically determine the seismic performance acceptability of studied smart buildings based on the impact of key structural response parameters (i.e., maximum interstory drift, residual interstory drift, and energy dissipation) on the seismic performance of the structure.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Superelastic Viscous Damper
Incremental dynamic analysis
Fragility Curves
Steel Special Moment Frames
Seismic Performance

مراجع

[1] Dolce M., Cardone D., Ponzo F.C., Valente C. (2005). Shaking table tests on reinforced concrete frames without and with passive control systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn, 34(14),1687–717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.501.

[2] Andrawes B., DesRoches R. (2007). Comparison between shape memory alloy seismic restrainers and other bridge retrofit devices. J Bridg Eng, 12(6), 700–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:6(700).

[3] Bonci A., Carluccio G., Castellano M.G., Croci G., Infanti S., Viskovic A.A. (2001). Use of shock transmission units and shape memory alloy devices for the seismic protection of monuments: the case of the upper Basilica of San Francesco at Assisi. International Millennium Congress more than two thousand years in the history of architecture, vol. II.

[4] DesRoches R., Smith B. (2004). Shape memory alloys in seismic resistant design and retrofit: a critical review of their potential and limitations. J Earthq Eng, 08(03),415–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1363246904001298.

[5] Esfandiari J., Khezeli Y.) 2019). Seismic behavior evaluation of zipper braced steel frames based on push-over and incremental dynamic analyses. World J Eng, 16(3), 401-411.

[6] Esfandiari J., Zanganeh E., Esfandiari S.) 2022). Experimental and Numerical Investigation on RC Moment-Resisting Frames Retrofitted with NSD Yielding Dampers. Adv Conc Constr, 13(2), 329-337.

[7] Rahimi H., Esfandiari J., Roudsari M.T. (2022). Numerical and Experimental study using NSD metal damper has been used in reinforced concrete moment frames. Am J Civ Eng, 12(2), 40-46.

[8] Zanganeh E., Esfandiari J.) 2021). Experimental Investigation on Retrofitted RC Moment-Resisting Frames using NSD Yielding Dampers. Iran J Sci Tech Trans Civ Eng, 22(1), 120-129.

[9] Dolce M., Cardone D., Marnetto R. (2000). Implementation and testing of passive control devices based on shape memory alloys. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn,29(7),945–68.

[10] McCormick J., DesRoches R., Fugazza D., Auricchio F. (2006). Seismic vibration control using superelastic shape memory alloys. J Eng Mater Technol, 128(3),294–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2203109.

[11] Auricchio F., Fugazza D., DesRoches R. (2006). Earthquake performance of steel frames with nitinol braces. J Earthq Eng,10(spec01),45–66.

[12] Speicher M., Hodgson D.E., DesRoches R., Leon R.T. (2009). Shape memory alloy tension/ compression device for seismic retrofit of buildings. J Mater Eng Perform; 18(5–6), 746–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11665-009-9433-7.

[13] Wilde K., Gardoni P., Fujino Y. (2000). Base isolation system with shape memory alloy device for elevated highway bridges. Eng Struct, 22(3), 222–9. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/S0141-0296(98)00097-2.

[14] Attanasi G., Auricchio F. (2011). Innovative superelastic isolation device. J Earthq Eng , 15(Suppl. 1),72–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2011.562406.

[15] DesRoches R., Delemont M. (2002). Seismic retrofit of simply supported bridges using shape memory alloys. Eng Struct, 24(3),325–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0141- 0296(01)00098-0.

[16] Cismașiu C., Amarante dos Santos F.P. (2012). Towards a semi-active vibration control solution based on superelastic shape memory alloys. Lisbon, Portugal: WCEE.

[17] Maji A., Negret I. (1998). Smart prestressing with shape-memory alloy. J Eng Mech , 124(10), 1121–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124: 10(1121).

[18] Deng Z., Li Q., Sun H. (2006). Behavior of concrete beam with embedded shape memory alloy wires. Eng Struct, 28(12), 1691–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006. 03.002.

[19] Silva E.D. (2007). Beam shape feedback control by means of a shape memory actuator. Mater Des ,28(5), 1592–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2006.02.021.

[20] Ozbulut O.E., Hurlebaus S., Desroches R. (2011). Seismic response control using shape memory alloys: a review. J Intell Mater Syst Struct, 22(14), 1531–49.

[21] ASTM. (2007). “Standard test method for tension testing of nickel-titanium superelastic materials.” F2516-07, West Conshohocken, PA.

[22] Saiidi, M. S., O’Brien, M., Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M. (2009). Cyclic response of concrete bridge columns using superelastic nitinol and bendable concrete. ACI Struct. J., 106(1), 69–77.

[23] Saiidi, M. S., Wang, H. (2006). Exploratory study of seismic response of concrete columns with shape memory alloys reinforcement. ACI Struct. J., 103(3), 436–443.

[24] Youssef, M. A., Alam, M. S., Nehdi, M. (2008). Experimental investigation on the seismic behavior of beam-column joints reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloys. J. Earthq. Eng., 12(7),1205–1222.

[25] SAES Company. (2012). ⟨http://www.saesgetters.com/product-groups/ shape-memory-alloys⟩ (Aug. 20, 2014).

[26] SAES Company. (2013). ⟨http://www.saesgetters.com/product-groups/ shape-memory-alloys⟩ (Aug. 20, 2014).

[27] McCormick, J. P. (2006). Cyclic behavior of shape memory alloys materials characterization and optimization. Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta

[28] Frick, C. P., Ortega, A. M., Tyber, J., Gall, K., and Maier, H. (2004). Multiscale structure and properties of cast and deformation processed polycrystalline NiTi shape-memory alloys. Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 35(7), 2013–2025.

[29] Haber, Z. B., Saiidi, S. M., Sanders, D. H. (2014). Seismic performance of precast columns with mechanically spliced column-footing connections. ACI Struct. J., 111(3), 639–650.

[30] OpenSees 2.4.1 [Computer software]. Berkeley, CA, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.

[31] Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., Park, R. (1988). Theoretical stressstrain model for confined concrete. J. Struct. Eng., 8(1804), 1804–1826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) 0733- 445(1988)114:8(1804).

[32] ASCE. (2010). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.” SEI/ASCE Standard No. 7-10, Reston, VA.

[33] Ramirez, O. M., Constantinou, M. C., Gomez, J. D., Whittaker, A. S., Chrysostomou, C. Z. (2002). Evaluation of simplified methods of analysis of yielding structures with damping systems. Earthquake Spectra, 18(3), 501–530.

[34] FEMA P695. (2009). Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[35] Kitayama S., Constantinou M.C. (2016). Probabilistic collapse resistance and residual drift assessment of buildings with fluidic self-centering systems. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn, 45(12):1935–53.

[36] FEMA P58. (2012). Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[37] Silwal B., Ozbulut O.E., Michael R.J. )2016.( Seismic collapse evaluation of steel moment resisting frames with superelastic viscous damper. J Constr Steel Res, 126, 26–36.

[38] McGuire, R. K. (1978). FRISK: A computer program for seismic risk analysis using faults as earthquake sources, U.S. Geol. Surv. OpenFile Rept. 90, 76-67.

[39] Wang W., Fang C., Yang X., Chen Y., Ricles J., Sause R. (2011). Innovative use of a shape memory alloys: a review. J Intell Mater Syst Struct, 22(14), 1531–49.

[40] Wang W., Fang C., Yang X., Chen Y., Ricles J., Sause R. (2017). Innovative use of a shape memory alloy ring spring system for self-centering connections. Eng Struct, 153, 503–15.

[41] Sepulveda J., Boroschek R., Herrera R., Moroni O., Sarrazin M. (2008). Steel beam–column connection using copper-based shape memory alloy dampers. J Constr Steel Res, 64(4), 429–35.

[42] Shi F., Saygili G., Ozbulut O.E. (2018). Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of SMAbraced steel frames considering SMA brace failure. Bull Earthq Eng ,1–26.

[43] Moradi S., Alam M.S., Asgarian B. (2014). Incremental dynamic analysis of steel frames equipped with NiTi shape memory alloy braces. Struct Des Tall Spec Build, 23(18), 1406–25.

[44] Sultana P., Youssef M.A. (2018). Seismic performance of modular steel-braced frames utilizing superelastic shape memory alloy bolts in the vertical module connections. J Earthquake Eng, 1–25.