Investigation of steel buildings response equipped with buckling-restrained braces against progressive collapse

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D., Civil Engineering Department, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran,

2 M.Sc., Civil Engineering Department, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

Abstract

In the present study, the use of buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) has been evaluated as a research innovation aimed at reducing the potential of progressive collapse in steel braced frames. These braces prevent the overall buckling of brace and provide much more energy absorption than conventional convertible bracing systems. For this purpose, three-dimensional finite element models of 4, 8, and 12-story buildings were simulated in two modes using ordinary and buckling braces and their response against progressive collapse was evaluated. The progressive collapse analysis was carried out using an alternative load path method and the response of the structures to column removal was investigated. Simulation of models was done using ABAQUS software. Also, the accuracy of the finite element method used in simulating the models was evaluated and a suitable agreement between the results was observed. The most significant results show that in steel frames that have BRBs, less stresses have been created compared with conventional steel braces. In all cases, BRBs with internal energy absorption of the structure have caused lower stresses to other structure member, thereby reducing the potential of progressive collapse. Also, the use of BRBs has reduced the rotation of the beam to column connection, compared to conventional bracing. This effect is especially noticeable in buildings with higher altitudes; the maximum amount of joint rotation corresponding to the 12-story building with BRBs has been reduced by 21% compared with the conventional braces. The reason for this is that, in buckling-restrained braces, the members are able to withstand a pressure above the tensile yield strength, and, unlike ordinary systems, the inherent ductility is due to the occurrence of yield in pressure before it begins to buckle.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Burkholder, M. C. (2012). Performance Based Analysis of a Steel Braced Frame Building With Buckling Restrained Braces. A Thesis presented to the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.
[2] Stephen, D., Lam, D., Forth, J., Ye, J., & Tsavdaridis, K. D. (2019). An evaluation of modelling approaches and column removal time on progressive collapse of building. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 153, 243-253. DOI org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.07.019
[3] Suwondo, R., Cunningham, L., Gillie, M., & Bailey, C. (2019). Progressive collapse analysis of composite steel frames subject to fire following earthquake. Fire Safety Journal, 103, 49-58. DOI org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2018.12.007.
[4] Meng, B., Zhong, W., Hao, J., Song, X., & Tan, Z. (2019). Calculation of the resistance of an unequal span steel substructure against progressive collapse based on the component method. Engineering Structures, 182, 13-28. DOI org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.053.
[5] Hoveidae, N. (2019). Comparison of Progressive Collapse Capacity of Steel Moment Resisting Frames and Dual Systems with Buckling Retrained Braces. Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering, 7(3), 61-70.
[6] Karimian, A., Armaghani, A., & Behravesh, A. (2019). Performance of Low-yield Strength Plates in Beam-column Connections against Progressive Collapse. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 23(1), 335-345. DOI //doi.org/10.1007/s12205-018-0653-y.
[7] Shirinzadeh, M., & Haghollahi, A. (2019). Rehabilitation in Simple Steel Connections against Progressive Collapse due to Column Removal. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 1-7. DOI org/10.1007/s12205-018-0935-4.
[8] Naghavi, M., Rahnavard, R., Thomas, R. J., & Malekinejad, M. (2019). Numerical evaluation of the hysteretic behavior of concentrically braced frames and buckling restrained brace frame systems. Journal of Building Engineering, 22, 415-428. doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.12.023.
[9] Xie, L., Wu, J., Huang, Q., & Tong, C. (2019). Analysis of the Seismic Demand of High-Performance Buckling-Restrained Braces under a Strong Earthquake and Its Aftershocks. Advances in Civil Engineering. DOI org/10.1155/2019/1482736
[10] Zaruma, S., & Fahnestock, L. A. (2018). Assessment of design parameters influencing seismic collapse performance of buckling-restrained braced frames. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 113, 35-46. DOI org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.05.021
[11] Esfandiari, J., & Soleimani, E. (2018). Laboratory investigation on the buckling restrained braces with an optimal percentage of microstructure, polypropylene and hybrid fibers under cyclic loads. Composite Structures, 203, 585-598. DOI org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.07.035
[12] Palmer, K. D., Roeder, C. W., Lehman, D. E., Okazaki, T., & Shield, C. (2012). Experimental performance of steel braced frames subjected to bidirectional loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(8), 1274-1284. DOI org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000624.
[13] Hosseini, S. M., & Amiri, G. G. (2017). Successive collapse potential of eccentric braced frames in comparison with buckling-restrained braces in eccentric configurations. International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(2), 481-489. DOI org/10.1007/s13296-017-6008-6.
[14] Faghihmaleki, H., Nejati, F., Zarkandy, S., & Masoumi, H. (2017). Evaluation of Progressive Collapse in Steel Moment Frame with Different Braces. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, 11(2).
[15] Bagheripourasil, M., Mohammadi, Y., & Gholizad, A. (2017). A proposed procedure for progressive collapse analysis of common steel building structures to blast loading. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 1-9. DOI org/10.1007/s12205-017-0559-0.
[16] Akbarinia, F., Adinehfar, Y., Davashi, H., Jalili, D., Beiranvand, P., & Hosseini, M. (2018). Investigating the effect of column removal on progressive collapse of buildings designed by buckling restrained braced and bending frames. Engineering Solid Mechanics, 6(1), 83-88. DOI 10.5267/j.esm.2017.10.001.
[17] Abaqus theory manual.Version,Hibbitt. 2016. Pawtucket (RI): Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc.
[18] Feng Fu. (2012) Response of a multi-storey steel composite building with concentric bracing under consecutive column removal scenarios. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 70 115–126. DOI org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.10.012.
[19] ETABS, C. (2015). 15.0. Berkeley. CA: Computers and Structures inc.
[20] DOD, (2013), Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-03, Department of Defence, Washington, DC, 2013.
[21] Tsai, K. C. (2013). Buckling restrained braces: Resear chand implementation in Taiwan. In Steel Innovations Conference. Steel Innovations Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.
[22] AISC, (2010). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.
[23] Song BI. (2010). Experimental and analytical assessment on the progressive potential of existing buildings. Master’s thesis. The Ohio State University; 2010. p. 125.
[24] Kaafi, Pouya Ghodrati Amiri, Gholamreza, (2014), Investigation of the Progressive Collapse Potential in Steel Buildings with Composite Floor System, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol:1, No:8.
[25] GSA. (2003), Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for federal office buildings and major modernization projects.The U.S.General  Services Administration.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 20 October 2018
  • Revise Date: 06 April 2019
  • Accept Date: 21 April 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics