Seismic Performance of Chevron-Braced Steel Buildings with Beam Yielding Mechanism Using FEMA P695 Methodology

Abstract

Current seismic design provisions for chevron-braced frames require that the chevron beams resist the unbalanced force due to simultaneous brace buckling and tensile yielding, leading to deep heavy chevron beams. Results of large-scale chevron braced frames have demonstrated that allowing limited chevron beam yielding reduces this unbalanced force and is not detrimental to the lateral resistance of chevron-braced buildings. This proposed design reduces the size of beams in chevron-braced frames. This study evaluates the seismic performance of 3-story and 9-story prototype buildings with the proposed design. The novelty of this research lies in applying FEMA P695 seismic provisions for performance and collapse risk assessment, and ASCE 41 modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for nonlinear brace, beam, and column elements in the numerical building models. Results indicate compelling evidence that the proposed design with reduced sized chevron beams offer seismic performance comparable to frames designed according to current AISC provisions. The collapse risk in 50 years remains within acceptable limit of 2% for both designs. Additionally, the proposed design also provides a more economical solution, reducing structural weight of the braced-frame by up to 8%, thus enhancing the applicability in practice for chevron-braced steel buildings.

Keywords

• Chevron braced frames
• SCBF
• seismic response
• steel braced frames
• FEMA P695

References

1. Alqahtani, H., Elgizawi, L.S., The Effect of Openings Ratio and Wall Thickness on Energy Performance in Educational Buildings. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol., 15(2), 155-163, 2020.
2. Zheng, L., Dou, S., Zhang, C., Wang, W., Ge, H., Ma, L., Gao, Y., Seismic Performance of Different Chevron Braced Frames. J. Constr. Steel Res., 200, 107680, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2022.107680
3. Li, H., Zhang, W., Zeng, L., Seismic Assessment of Chevron Braced Frames with Differently Designed Beams. Struct., 49, 1028-1043, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.02.002
4. Costanzo, S., D'Aniello, M., Landolfo, R., Seismic Design Criteria for Chevron CBFs: European vs North American Codes (Part-1). J. Constr. Steel Res., 135, 83-96, 2017.
5. Roeder, C.W., Sen, A.D., Terpstra, C., Ibarra, S.M., Liu, R., Lehman, D.E., Berman, J.W., Effect of Beam Yielding on Chevron Braced Frames. J. Constr. Steel Res., 159, 105817, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.04.044
6. Asada, H., Sen, A.D., Li, T., Berman, J.W., Lehman, D.E., Roeder, C.W., Seismic Performance of Chevron-Configured Special Concentrically Braced Frames with Yielding Beams. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 49(15), 1619-1639, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3320.
7. CSI, Perform 3D-Nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures, User guide, Version 4, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, California, 2006.
8. Kumar, P.C.A., Sahoo, D.R., Kumar, A., Seismic Response of Concentrically Braced Frames with Staggered Braces in Split-X Configurations. J. Constr. Steel Res., 142, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.12.005

9. Hassanzadeh, A., Gholizadeh, S., Collapse Performance Aided Design Optimization of Steel Concentrically Braced Frames. Engineering Structures, 197:109411, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109411
10. Seker O., Seismic Response of Dual Concentrically Braced Steel Frames with Various Bracing Configurations, J. Construc. Steel Res., 188: 107057, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.107057
11. FEMA, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, in: FEMA P695, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2008.
12. ASCE, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, in: ASCE/SEI 41-13, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784414248.
13. AISC, Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, in: ANSI/AISC 341-16, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2017.
14. ASCE, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, in: ASCE/SEI 7-16, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784414248.
15. AFAD, Turkish Seismic Code, Specifications for Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Ankara, 2018.
16. Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI). SAP2000 Version 23.0.0. Berkeley, California: Computers and Structures, Inc., 2021.
17. Orgev, A. A., Selamet, S., Vatansever, C., Seismic Performance of Multistory Chevron‐braced Steel Structures with Yielding Beams. CE/papers, 6 (3-4), 2238-2243, 2023.
18. TSE, Design Loads for Buildings, in: TS498, Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara, 1997.
19. AFAD, Turkish Earthquake Hazard Map, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Ankara, https://tdth.afad.gov.tr/, 2017 (accessed in January 2023).
20. Costanzo, S., D’Aniello, M., Landolfo, R., The Influence of Moment Resisting Beam-to-Column Connections on Seismic Behavior of Chevron Concentrically Braced Frames, Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 113, 136-147, 2018.
21. PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center), Next Generation Attenuation-West2, http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/, 2013 (accessed in January 2023).
22. Vamvatsikos, D., Cornell, C. A., Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 491-514, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141.
23. Erochko, J., Christopoulos, C., Tremblay, R., Choi, H., Residual Drift Response of SMRFs and BRB Frames in Steel Buildings Designed According to ASCE 7-05, J. Struct. Eng., 137(5), 589-599, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000296
24. USGS (United States Geological Survey), Risk-targeted ground motion calculator, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/rtgm/, (accessed in December 2022).
25. Luco, N., Ellingwood, B. R., Hamburger, R. O., Hooper, J. D., Kimball, J. K., Kircher, C. A., Risk-Targeted Versus Current Seismic Design Maps for the Conterminous United States, 2007.