Sustainable Earthquake-Resisting System

Grigorian, Mark; Grigorian, Carl E.

doi:10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001900

Cited by 36 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because extent of damage can be related to progression of plasticity, then the order of failure of components of the RCMF can be controlled through the implementation of the basic rule of sequential failures, which states that; “while the maximum displacement at incipient collapse is the same as that of the last standing system or member, the maximum displacement of any intermediate stage is that of the first member of remaining resilient members which develop the first plastic hinge of that stage”. In other words, if there are n components or structures acting in parallel against the same external force, then the progression of the sequential failures can be formalized as

ϕ_{1}^{P}, ϕ_{2}^{P}, ϕ_{3}^{P},_{..} {ϕ_{j}^{P}}_{, \dots} ϕ_{n}^{P}

. And because

ϕ_{j - 1}^{P} < ϕ_{j}^{P} < ϕ_{j + 1}^{P}

, it may be concluded that ϕ 1 < ϕ 2 < ϕ 3 , … < ϕ j < , … ϕ n or.…”

Section: Conceptual Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The RRC imposes uniform drift and racking shears upon the MF, which in turn responds as a SDOF system. From a practical design point of view, this presents an opportunity to optimize material consumption by selecting beams and columns of equal capacity (strength and stiffness) and similar response (identical deformations) regardless of their location within the MF . The ( m = 7) × ( n = 8) MF of Figure a consists of four different groups of ductile beams signified by

((),, M_{1}^{P}, K_{1})

red,

((),, M_{2}^{P}, K_{2})

blue,

((),, M_{3}^{P}, K_{3})

green, and

((),, M_{4}^{P}, K_{4})

orange and identical columns

((),, {\overset{true¯}{M}}_{i, j}^{P} = {\overset{true¯}{M}}^{P}, {\overset{true¯}{K}}_{i, j} = \overset{K}{true})

; here, K = 6 Ek and

\overset{K}{true} = 6 E \overset{k}{true} .

The elastoplastic response of each representative beam is shown as an independent plot in Figure c.…”

Section: Assisted or Manual Realignmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of REDMCs and similar devices is not a new idea. What is new is the possibility to use such devices in conjunction with CP and PERR technologies, otherwise PERR would be as challenging as rebuilding the entire structure. Although the example architype is nonprescriptive in nature, its behavior is easy to understand and promises many advantages over its conventional counterparts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Methodology for developing earthquake‐resilient structures

Grigorian¹,

Moghadam

Mohammadi

et al. 2018

Structural Design Tall Build

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a methodology for developing earthquake-resilient structures (ERSs). This is achieved by following principles of full cycle performance control and embracing a holistic approach to design led analysis (DLA) of ERS. Collapse prevention (CP) and postearthquake realignment and repairs (PERRs) are the basic traits of ERS.Despite the availability of several systems involving combinations of gap opening link beams (GOLBs), rigid rocking cores, buckling-restrained braces, replaceable energy dissipating moment connections, and so forth, neither CP nor PERR are addressed in any code of practice. Although most of these devices have passed several tests of experiments and time-history analysis they have rarely been examined as integral parts of actual buildings. Real buildings cannot be ideally recentered unless specifically designed and detailed for CP and PERR. Almost all simple beam-column joints, especially standard hinged supports absorb small but sufficient amounts of residual strains that hinder PERR. The proposed methodology is introduced by way of developing an earthquake-resilient rocking core-moment frame, as the lateral resisting component of a gravity resisting structure that has been detailed not to develop residual effects while sustaining large lateral deformations.

show abstract

ϕ_{1}^{P}, ϕ_{2}^{P}, ϕ_{3}^{P},_{..} {ϕ_{j}^{P}}_{, \dots} ϕ_{n}^{P}

. And because

ϕ_{j - 1}^{P} < ϕ_{j}^{P} < ϕ_{j + 1}^{P}

, it may be concluded that ϕ 1 < ϕ 2 < ϕ 3 , … < ϕ j < , … ϕ n or.…”

Section: Conceptual Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

((),, M_{1}^{P}, K_{1})

red,

((),, M_{2}^{P}, K_{2})

blue,

((),, M_{3}^{P}, K_{3})

green, and

((),, M_{4}^{P}, K_{4})

orange and identical columns

((),, {\overset{true¯}{M}}_{i, j}^{P} = {\overset{true¯}{M}}^{P}, {\overset{true¯}{K}}_{i, j} = \overset{K}{true})

; here, K = 6 Ek and

\overset{K}{true} = 6 E \overset{k}{true} .

The elastoplastic response of each representative beam is shown as an independent plot in Figure c.…”

Section: Assisted or Manual Realignmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methodology for developing earthquake‐resilient structures

Grigorian¹,

Moghadam

Mohammadi

et al. 2018

Structural Design Tall Build

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Drift control and prevention of soft story failure can be addressed either theoretically 35 or, by purpose, specific physical arrangements, leading to sustainable earthquake resisting systems. [36][37][38][39][40][41] Relatively rigid rocking cores tend to impose straight-line drift profiles upon the parent structures and absorb the entire lateral force at failure. The scope of the current article is limited to the study of the behavior of some of the most common MLRCs under different loading profiles and boundary support conditions.…”

Section: Rocking Core Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Soft story failure and DS in multistory buildings are influenced by many factors. Drift control and prevention of soft story failure can be addressed either theoretically or, by purpose, specific physical arrangements, leading to sustainable earthquake resisting systems . Relatively rigid rocking cores tend to impose straight‐line drift profiles upon the parent structures and absorb the entire lateral force at failure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the analysis of multilevel rocking cores—A bioinspired analogy

Grigorian¹,

Kamizi

2019

Engineering Reports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a simple analogy, with practical applications, between the human spine and multilevel rocking cores (MLRCs) under similar loading conditions. The use of energy dissipating rocking cores in general and MLRCs in particular is a relatively new concept for reducing earthquake damage in new and existing buildings. The literature on the subject is rather scant. There are neither official guidelines nor educational materials for practical design of MLRCs. The first step toward rational design of MLRCs is to understand their elastic state static/dynamic behavior as part of a gravity and/or earthquake resisting system. The purpose of the current paper is not to reiterate the merits of various rocking systems but to provide reliable formulae for the preliminary design of simple MLRCs. Suffice to note that the multitude of gap movements in MLRCs results in increased damping and elongated periods of vibrations. Several parametric examples have been provided to demonstrate the applications, the validity, and the simplicity of the proposed solutions. All solutions are exact within the bounds of the theoretical assumptions. All results have been verified by independent computer analysis.

show abstract

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

Sustainable Earthquake-Resisting System

Cited by 36 publications

References 20 publications

Methodology for developing earthquake‐resilient structures

Methodology for developing earthquake‐resilient structures

On the analysis of multilevel rocking cores—A bioinspired analogy

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About