Comparison of the performance of the structure with a Chevron braced frame with Zipper braced frame

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Semnan University

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

Abstract

In Chevron braced frame, due to the buckling of brace on one story, an unbalanced force arrives perpendicularly in the middle of the beam, causing the destroy of the floor and, at the end, causes structural failure. On the lower floor, due to the buckling of the compression member, an unbalanced vertical force has arrived at the location of the upper beam of the braces, which results in a large displacement in the middle of beam. The result is a very strong and uneven beam with other members of the structure. To deal with this situation, Zipper column members are used. In the zipper braced frame, when the zipper mechanism is formed in the frame, the lateral load capacity of the frame is reduced and unstable, which can be remedied by applying a suspended braced zipper frame. In this study, for the comparison of the Chevron braced frame and Zipper braced frame from the 4, 7, 10, 15 and 20 stories of the structures under 7 records in the OpenSees software, a analysis dynamic of time history was performed and the maximum parameter required the drift angle of story and the maximum requirement rotation of story for comparison was selected. At the end, it is concluded that the average records in the index of drift angle in the 4 and 7 story frame are about 30%, in the 10-story frame of about 10%, and in the frame 15 and 20 stories less than 5% of the zipper brace frame is lower than the chevron braced frame on the roof. Also, it is deduced from the angles of rotation, Zipper bracing frame Average records on the roof is 30% in the 4-story frame, , less than 5% in the 15-frame frame and less than 3% In the 20-story frame dropped.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1]        Khatib I. F., Mahin S. A. and Pister K. S. (1988). "Seismic Behavior of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames", Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
[2]        Sabelli R. (2001). "Research on Improving the Design and Analysis of Earthquake-resistant Steel-braced frames", The NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report.
[3]        Tremblay R. and Tirca L. (2003). "Behavior and Design of Multi-story Zipper Concentrically Braced Steel Frames for the Mitigation of Soft-story Response", Proceedings of the Conference on Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, pp. 471-477.
[4]        Yang C. S. (2006). "Analytical and Experimental Study of Concentrically Braced Frames with Zipper Struts", Georgia Institute of Technology.
[5]        Yu H., Guo Y., Zhang Y. and Wang X. (2016). "Design and Seismic Response of Modified Suspended Zipper Braced Frames", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 120, pp. 8-24.
 [6]       Yang C. S., R. T. Leon and R. DesRoches. (2008). "Design and Behavior of Zipper-Braced Frames", Engineering Structures, vol. 30, pp. 1092-1100.
[7]        Yang C. S., Leon R. T. and DesRoches R. (2008). "Pushover Response of a Braced Frame with Suspended Zipper Struts", Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 134, pp. 1619-1626.
[8]        Ozcelik Y., Saritas A. and Clayton P. M. (2016). "Comparison of Chevron and Suspended-Zipper Braced Steel Frames", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 119, pp. 169-175.
[9]        Tirca L. and Chen L. (2012). "The Influence of Lateral Load Patterns on the Seismic Design of Zipper Braced Frames", Engineering Structures, vol. 40, pp. 536-555.
[10]      Pourbabaa, M., et al. (2013). "Behavior of Zipper Braced Frame (ZBF) Compared With Other Concentrically Braced Frame (CBF)".

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 18 February 2018
  • Revise Date: 07 July 2018
  • Accept Date: 02 September 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics