Optimization of design parameters for controlled rocking steel braced dual-frames

Ghasemi, Sobhan; Nezamabadi, Maryam Firoozi; Moghadam, Abdolreza S.; Hosseini, Mahmood

doi:10.1007/s11803-022-2134-z

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…22 This paper is dedicated to evaluating the functional recovery of a specific type of seismic-resilient archetype designed to minimize structural damage during earthquakes by preventing plastic deformation and permanent displacements. Examples of such systems encompass self-centering braced frames, [26][27][28][29] controlled rocking-core systems, [30][31][32][33][34] multiple rocking joints, 35,36 and isolated rocking cores. 37,38 While these innovative structural systems are designed to withstand seismic forces with minimal damage, they encounter challenges related to functional recovery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional recovery evaluation of hybrid self‐centering piston‐based braced frames

Rahgozar,

Alam

2023

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Severe earthquakes possess formidable destructive potential, leading to substantial damage, widespread disruptions, and tragic loss of life. In response, researchers and policymakers strive to develop innovative solutions to quantify the seismic resilience of structures. This study aims to evaluate the post‐earthquake functional recovery of two types of braced frames: Self‐Centering Piston‐Based Braced Frames (SC‐PBBFs) and Buckling Restrained Braced Frames (BRBFs). The SC‐PBBFs are designed to mitigate structural damage by incorporating Self‐Centering Piston‐Based Bracings (SC‐PBBs) equipped with Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) bars and Friction Springs (FS). A set of building prototypes, representing low‐, mid‐, and high‐rise archetypes in seismic regions, are subjected to comprehensive analyses under 44 far‐field ground motions. This thorough examination incorporates seismic hazards, structural demands, and component damages to quantify the earthquake‐induced losses and repair timelines. The study findings indicate that BRBFs suffer more significant collapse losses than SC‐PBBFs. However, BRBF systems incur lower repair costs, mainly due to limited damage to acceleration‐sensitive non‐structural components. Additionally, the FEMA P‐58/ATC‐138 framework is employed to estimate re‐occupancy, functional recovery, and full repair time, identifying systems and components that exert a significant impact on functional recovery.

show abstract