Optimised Strategies for Seismic‐Resilient Self‐Centring Steel Moment Resisting Frames

Abstract

In recent years there have been significant advancements in the definition of innovative minimal damage structures chasing the urgent requirements of more resilient societies against extreme seismic events. In this context, a type of seismic‐resilient moment resisting frames (MRFs) is based on the use of Self‐Centring Damage‐Free (SCDF) devices in column bases and beam‐to‐column joints. However, when these devices are widespread across the whole structure, the details' complexity increases significantly with respect to conventional solutions, thus limiting their practical application. To overcome this drawback, current research works are focusing on the definition of optimum locations for SCDF devices such that their effectiveness is maximised. Within this context, the present study investigates optimum locations for a limited number of SCDF devices to be used within mid‐ and high‐rise MRFs. An 8‐storey structure is selected for case study purposes and nineteen configurations are investigated considering different positions of SCDF joints. Numerical models of the selected configurations are developed in OpenSees and Incremental Dynamic Analysis are performed. The seismic responses of the case‐study structures equipped with different layouts of SCDF devices are evaluated and compared. Some considerations in terms of optimal distributions of SCDF devices are made with the aim of maximising the efficiency of the solution and the seismic performance of mid‐ and high‐rise MRFs.

Experimental and numerical study of a damage‐free self‐centring link for seismic resilient EBFs

“…Self-centring structures have been developed over the year to control structural damage and improve self-centring capabilities [8]- [13]. Self-centring solutions for EBFs have been proposed only recently.…”

Seismic performance assessment of self‐centering hybrid coupled walls: an 8‐story case study structure

“…Case study building and HCW/SC-HCW An eight-story building with the plan view shown in Figure 1(a) was considered as the case study [16]. The permanent (dead) and live gravity loads were assumed equal to 4.5 and 2 kN/m 2 , respectively.…”