Evaluating effects of brace configuration and structure height on seismic

performance of buckling restrained braced frames based on probabilistic

seismic analysis

Abstract:

The brace configuration and structure height are two factors that have
substantial effect on seismic behavior. Moreover, there are various uncertainties
in structural capacity and demand variables that play considerably in assessment
of seismic behavior. Therefore, in this paper to consider impact of brace
configuration and structure height as well as different uncertainties on them
probabilistic analysis has been employed for structures with various brace
configurations and heights. Based on this, seismic probabilistic performance of
buckling restrained braces (BRB) in two configurations (chevron and inverted
chevron) has been compared by using incremental dynamic analysis. Hence, after
designing 4, 6 and 10-story structures, fragility curves, mean annual frequency of
exceeding immediate occupancy (IO) and collapse prevention (CP) states by
utilizing probabilistic seismic analysis and fragility curves concept and drift hazard
curve were calculated. Thus, inverted chevron buckling restrained brace has
better performance than chevron buckling restrained brace. Furthermore, fragility
probability increases with height in spite of the fact that drift hazards diminish.

Key words: buckling restrained brace, incremental dynamic analysis, mean annual
frequency, seismic demand hazard.
 1-Introduction
Due to the buckling restrained brace (BRB) conducts symmetrically in tension
and compression as well as high capacity to absorb energy in comparison with
conventional brace (Figure 1) it has been employed commonly in diverse
structures as the supplementary dissipative energy system or the main resistant
element against lateral loads as well as for seismic retrofit of RC structures
especially after the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe earthquakes in the United
States and Japan, respectively. (Uang and Nakashima 2004).

Fig 1) distinct behaviors of Buckling restrained brace and conventional brace (Mahmoudi and Zaree 2013)

BRB has been composed of restrained yielding steel core to dissipate cyclic
loads energy, restrained non-yielding segment with larger transverse section than
it to be safe form elastic response, unrestrained non-yielding segment to join
brace to frame, an unbonding material or a gap between the core and restrained
segment to eliminate or reduce the convey of shear force between them and
resistant mechanism against buckling. (figure 2). (Uang and Nakashima 2004)
 Figure 2) the component of BRB (Talebi, Tahir and Zahmatke 2014)

To grasp well its performance widespread analyses have been implemented

that some of them are mentioned chronologically as following:

In 2015, Jiang et al. the impact of stiffness and strength of exterior

supported segment, core length and other geometric parameters on BRB
performance probed by employing modified finite element method. (Jiang, et al.
2015) In 2014, the influence of steel core strain hardening ratio of BRB on drift
demand by using probabilistic seismic demand analysis methodology was
evaluated by Mahdavipour and Deyalmi (Mahdavipour and Deylami 2014). In this
year, Sutcu et al. assessed BRB and its joined frame performances for retrofit of
RC buildings. As a result, it was realized that frame drift for RC buildings retrofit
with BRB in comparison with original buildings and buildings retrofit with
conventional brace relatively declined (Sutcu, Takeuchi and Matsui 2014). In
addition, in 2014, seismic behavior of an innovative BRB called hybrid buckling
restrained brace (HBRB) was investigated by Atlayan et al.. Steel with various
proporties was utilzed for each segment of HBRB. The result depicted that its
behavior amended especially in the reduction of residual displacement in
comparison with prevailing BRB. (Atlayan and Charney 2014). Moreover, the
seismic performance buckling restrained superelastic shape memory alloy brace
used for 4-story with four diverse configurations was assessed through
incremental dynamic analysis. Its implication has showed that this type of BRB can
be more advantagous than common BRB in severe ground motions. (Moradi,
Alam and Asgarian 2014). Based on incremental dynamic analsis, the performance
of BRB and Dual system (BRB-special moment resisting frame) have been
estimated by Ariyaratana. So, the result have demonstrated that reserve strength
have played a vital role in its seismic behavior and performance (Ariyaratana and
Fahnestock 2011).

Due to earthquakes vary with time It has been realized that the methods of
nonlinear dynamic analysis have estimated realistically structure behavior.
Furthermore, thanks to uncertainties in the earthquake and the structural
demand and capacity, diverse methods of probabilistic analysis like probabilistic
seismic analysis have been suggested to consider them. In this method, structural
behavior and its performance have obtained by using the fragility curves acquired
by the result of incremental dynamic analysis and seismic hazard analysis.

2) Fragility function and mean annual frequency of exceeding drift

demand and
Fragility function for each limit state has been defined as following (Ibarra
2005):

,, () = [ , | = ] = [, ] (1

Where, ,, (), the value of fragility function for spectral acceleration

associated with each limit state. Since demand variable and capacity is statistically
independent fragility function can be expressed as a [, ]. In this paper,
log-normal cumulative distribution function to determine fragility function has
been used for each limit state (Baker 2011). Therefore:

ln
,, () = ( ) (2

Where, (. ), lognormal cumulative distribution function, and are

mean and standard deviation from ln respectively. (Baker 2011)

Probabilistic seismic demand analysis has been applied to estimate mean

annual frequency of exceeding limit states as well as drift hazard. Mean annual
frequency of exceeding limit states has been defined as the product of the mean
rate of happening of events with seismic intensity larger than a definite minimum
level, , and the probability of increase demand () from capacity (), [ > ]
(Cornell and Jalayer 2003). Therefore:

= . [ > ] (3

The earthquake engineering methodology based on the performance has

been applied through equation 2 to estimate mean annual frequency of
exceeding drift demand (Porter 2003). So:

= , (). (4
=0

Where, , the hazard differential of intensity measure and , (), is

a fragility function associated with different drifts that will be explained how to be
computed in later sections. In the present study, to obtain the hazard of intensity
measure in equation 2, the power expression proposed by Luco has been
employed (Luco 1998). Based on this:
 = 0 () (3

Where 0 and are seismic parameters assessed from the seismic hazard
analysis of considered region.

By repeating this procedure for other maximum intorstory drifts, hazard

drift can be calculated so that the curves of mean annual frequency versus
maximum interstory drift can be ploted.

3) Structures design
Based on UBC97 code, structures have been designed for 3 diverse heights
(4, 6 and 10-story) and 2 different BRB configurations (chevron V and inverted
chevron, ) with symmetric and regular plans (UBC, Uniform Building Code 1997).
(Figure 3). Above structures have been assumed to be located in Tehran with the
high seismic intensity and residential function. To design them allowable stress
method has been used as well as the BRBs designed bear entire lateral loads.
Seismic parameters required to design building have been shown in table 1. It
should be pointed that all of the connections have been considered as the hinge.
Furthermore, ST-37 has been utilized for member designing as well as dead load
and live load applied on the story have been taken account 6.5 2 and

2 2 respectively. The story height and span have been also considered 3.2m

and 6m respectively.

Table 1) seismic parameters required for designing

Z I S R Ca CV Na NV
0.4 1 SC 10 0.4 0.56 1 1
 4) structures modeling with OpenSees software
In this article, OpenSees software which is very potent to evaluate the seismic
performance of structures has been employed to model and incremental dynamic
analysis. (Mazzoni, et al. 2007) All steel materials considered in here, have been
assumed that their yielding stress, ultimate stress and strain hardening ratio have
been 235MPa, 363 MPa and 2% respectively. To model behavior of steel material
uniaxial hysteretic material that exists in the software library has been used.
Moreover, all connections employed for mentioned models and roof diagram
have been assumed hinge and rigid respectively. Besides, nonlinear beam column
element based on displacement and fiber section have been exploited to model
beam, column and BRB.

Figure 3) Plan and different BRB configuration

 It should be pointed that, Corotational transfer method has been used to
consider geometrical nonlinear behavior for this modeling. In addition, to
consider in-plane buckling for columns under axial loads as well as initial
imperfection in the plane of column, the eccentricity equal to 1/1000 of the
element length has been supposed. In addition, Rayleigh damping matrix has
been employed to consider energy absorption. Therefore damping ratio has been
assumed 5%.

5) Incremental dynamic analysis

To estimate probabilistic quantities such as fragility curves and mean annual
frequency, incremental dynamic analysis have been employed. Therefore, 13
strong ground motions as shown in table 2 have been chosen so that structural
behavior have been probed form linear elastic to global instability.

Table 2) selected ground motions for incremental dynamic analysis.

No Location year Station time (sec) R (Km) M PGA (g)

1 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 TCU070 90 19.1 7.6 0.255
2 Victoria, Mexico 1980 6604 Cerro Prieto 24.45 34.8 6.1 0.587
3 Whittier Narrows 1987 116th St School LA -14403 40 22.5 6 0.396
4 Northridge 1994 24605 LA - Univ. Hospital 40 34.6 6.7 0.493
5 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999 Mecidiyekoy 44 62.3 7.4 0.068
6 Northridge 1994 24607 Lake Hughes #12A 40 22.8 6.7 0.257
7 Northridge 1994 90021 LA-N Westmoreland 30 29 6.7 0.401
8 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 TCU045 90 24.06 7.6 0.512
57504 Coyote Lake Dam
9 Loma Prieta 1989 39.95 22.3 6.9 0.16
(Downst) LOMAP/CLD195
Northridge 90014 Beverly Hills - 12520
10 1994 Mulhol(NORTHR/MU2035) 23.98 20.8 6.7 0.617
11 Imperial Valley 1979 286 Superstition Mtn Camera 28.28 26 6.5 0.195
13123 Riverside
12 N. Palm Springs 1986 25 71.1 6 0.04
Airport(PALMSPR/RIV270)
13 Morgan Hill 1984 57007 Corralitos 36 22.7 6.2 0.109
 Based on the results, since maximum story drift in chevron BRB (CBRB) was
more than that in inverted chevron BRB (IBRB) so it is evident that the behavior of
CBRB is softer in comparison with IBRB as shown in figures 5- 13. Moreover, soft
story mechanism has been demonstrated in both of them.

Figure 5) maximum story drift for 4-story with CBRB under chosen strong ground motions
 Figure 6) maximum story drift for 6-story with CBRB under chosen strong ground motions

Figure 7) maximum story drift for 6-story with CBRB under chosen strong ground motions

Figure 8) maximum story drift for 4-story with IBRB under chosen strong ground motions

To implement incremental dynamic analysis in this study intensity measure

parameter (IM) spectral acceleration corresponding with first structural mode
period and 5% damping ratio( (1 , 5%)), and damage measure parameter
(DM) maximum inter-story drift ( ) has been considered. Furthermore,
haunt and fill algorithm has been used to continue and finish it. The results
have been illustrated in figures 14-19.

Figure 9) maximum story drift for 6-story with IBRB under chosen strong ground motions

Figure 10) maximum story drift for 10-story with IBRB under chosen strong ground motions
 Diverse limit states have been suggested to evaluate seismic structural
behavior by different seismic provisions. In this article, it has been focused on IO
and CP states. Based on FEMA 350, IO and CP were associated respectively with
= 2% and minimum of = 10% and associated with 20% initial
elastic slope. (FEMA 350 2000)

Figure 11) the comparison of statistical median results for 4-story buildings

Figure 12) the comparison of statistical median results for 6-story buildings
 Figure 13) the comparison of statistical median results for 10-story buildings

Figure 14) the results of incremental dynamic analysis for 4-story building with CBRB

For each limit state, Sa(16%), Sa(50%) and Sa(84%) have been obtained through
statistical summarizing. (figures 20 and 21). Based on the results, it has been
realized that the amount of Sa(50%) called structure capacity of in earthquake
engineering diminishes with increase of heights of building. Moreover, the
capacity of IBRB is more than the capacity of CBRB.

Figure 15) the results of incremental dynamic analysis for 4-story building with IBRB

Figure 16) the results of incremental dynamic analysis for 6-story building with CBRB
Figure 17) the results of incremental dynamic analysis for 6-story building with IBRB

Figure 18) the results of incremental dynamic analysis for 10-story building with CBRB
 Figure 19) the results of incremental dynamic analysis for 10-story building with CBRB

Figure 20) the value of corresponding with different probabilities of occurrence for CP performance
level
 Figure 21) the value of corresponding with different probabilities of occurrence for IO performance
level

6) Fragility curves and mean annual frequency

In accordance with equations 1 and 2 as well as the results obtained incremental
dynamic analysis, fragility functions buildings designed can be evaluated at IO and
CP limit states. They were compared in two states: 1) the height of building is
considered constantly and the BRB configuration varies. 2) The BRB configuration
is constant and the height of buildings diversifies.

Figure 22) Fragility curves for 4-story buildings with different BRB configurations in various limit states a)
CP b) IO
Figure 23) Fragility curves for 6-story buildings with different BRB configurations in various limit states a)
CP b) IO

Figure 24) Fragility curves for 10-story buildings with different BRB configurations in various limit states
a) CP b) IO

Based on figures 22-24, it has been found that the probability of fragility for
CBRB is more than the other in both limit states so that the average of relative
spectral acceleration difference associating first mode and 5% damping ratio in
50% cumulative probability of fragility for both of various BRB configuration in
two limit states is equal to 12.5% and 13% respectively.
 Figures 25) Fragility curves for CBRB in different heights for various limit states a) CP b) IO

Figures 26) Fragility curves for IBRB in different heights for various limit states a) CP b) IO

According to figures 25 and 26, it can be realized that fragility probability

rises at both of limit states if the height of building goes up.

To estimate mean annual frequency of exceeding a limit state (MAF)

equation 4 should be applied. Therefore, using probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis seismic parameters ( and 0 ) were calculated for an area with 36.37
longitude and 52.33 latitude. (Gholi pour , et al. 2011) (See table 3)
Table 3) seismic parameters related with seismic hazard

1 () 0.66788 0.764 0.96977 1.07062 1.59049 1.73973

0 2.62E-03 1.88E-03 1.02E-03 7.18E-04 1.57E-04 1.23E-04

2.3066 2.2173 2.2920 2.2902 2.2802 2.2468

After calculation of these parameters, numerical integration can be utilized

to assess MAF at IO and CP limit states. They are depicted in figures 27a, b.

Figure 27) Mean annual frequency of exceeding various limit states a) CP b) IO

Based on these figures, it could be evaluated that MAF rises as the height of
building increases. Moreover, in both of limit states, inverted chevron BRB has
better performance than chevron BRB.

As mentioned, drift hazard curves can be plotted through repeating above

procedure as shown in figures 28 and 29. Based on them, it was realized that in
both limit state if the height of building increases, drift hazard will decrease.
 Figure 28) drift hazard for chevron BRB

Figure 29) drift hazard for inverted chevron BRB

 7) Conclusions
Due to prevailing application of buckling restrained brace in different
configurations especially chevron and inverted chevron, their seismic
performance in this paper is probed. Based on this, first of all 4, 6 and 10-story
buildings with diverse configurations (chevron and inverted chevron) were
designed. Besides, using the results of incremental dynamic analysis fragility
curves, mean annual frequency of exceeding IO and CP limit states and drift
hazard are assessed. Therefore, following results have been obtained:

1) In both BRB configurations, maximum interstory drift that has happened

at first story in chevron BRB is more than the other. Moreover, softening
story mechanism has triggered in both brace configuration.
2) Due to brace configuration the capacity of for inverted chevron BRB
is more in comparison with chevron BRB. Whats more, in both of BRBs
if the height of building increases, the capacity will diminish.
3) Without consideration of seismic hazard analysis, for two brace
configurations, fragility probability in both of limit states will decline if
the height of structure rises. it demonstrates that earthquakes play
more destructive role in tall buildings.
4) In the same height, fragility probability of chevron is more than the
other. it is attributed to initial elastic stiffness and ductility.
5) For both of brace configuration, MAF will decrease if the height of
building rises. it is resulted from the impacts of seismic hazards for the
area that buildings has been located. Furthermore, in the same height,
in both of limit states, inverted chevron BRB has better performance
than chevron BRB.
 6) For two brace configurations, if the height of building rises, drift hazard
will severely diminish so that the power function could be fitted to
them.

References
Ariyaratana, Christopher, and Larry A Fahnestock. "Evaluation of buckling-restrained braced frame
seismic performance considering reserve strength." Engineering Structures, 2011: 77-89.

Atlayan , Ozgur, and Finley A Charney. "Hybrid buckling-restrained braced frames." Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 2014: 95-105.

Baker , J. "Fitting Fragility Functions to Structural Analysis Data Using Maximum Likelihood Estimation ."
Baker Research Group - Stanford University. 2011.
http://www.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/fragility.html.

Cornell , C. Alli, and Fatemeh Jalayer. A Technical Framework for Probability-Based Demand and Capacity
Factor Design (DCFD) Seismic Formats. PEER Report 2003/08, California: Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Center College of Engineering University of California Berkeley, 2003.

FEMA 350. Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings. Report No.
FEMA-350, SAC Joint Venture, Washington, DC.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000.

Gholi pour , Yaghoub, Yousef Bozorgnia , Manuel Berberian, and Mohsen Rahnama. Probabilistic Seismic
hazard analysis phase I greater Tehran regions final report. Tehran: College of Engineering
University of Tehran, 2011.

Ibarra, Luis. F., Krawinkler, Helmut. Global Collapse of Frame Structures under Seismic Excitations. PERR
Report 2005/06 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center , California: College of Engineering
University of California Berkeley , 2005.

Jiang, Ziqin , Yanlin Guo, Bohao Zhang, and Xuqiao Zha. "Influence of design parameters of buckling-
restrained brace on its performance." Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2015: 139-150.

Luco, N., and Cornell, C. A. "Seismic drift demands for two SMRF structures with brittle connections."
Structural Engineering World Wide 1998, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, England, 1998: 158-163.

Mahdavipour, M.A., and A Deylami . "Probabilistic assessment of strain hardening ratio effect on
residual deformation demands of Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames." Engineering Structures,
2014: 302-308.
Mahmoudi, Mussa, and Mahdi Zaree. "Determination the Response Modification Factors of Buckling
Restrained Braced Frames." The 2nd International Conference on Rehabilitation and
Maintenance in Civil Engineering. Elsevier, 2013. 222-231.

Mazzoni, S, F McKenna, M.H. Scott, G.L Fenves, and B Jeremic . "command manual." OpenSees. 2007.
http://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index.php/Command_Manual.

Moradi, Saber, M. Shahria Alam, and Behrouz Asgarian. "Incremental dynamic analysis of steel frames
equipped with NiTi shape memory alloy braces." The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, 2014: 1406-14025.

Porter, K.A. "An overview of PEERs performance-based earthquake engineering methodology." Ninth
InternationalApplications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering (ICASP9). San
Francisco, CA. : Civil Engineering Risk and Reliability Association (CERRA), 2003.

Sutcu, Fatih, Toru Takeuchi, and Ryota Matsui. "Seismic retrofit design method for RC buildings using
buckling-restrained braces and steel frames." Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014:
304-313.

Talebi, Elnaz , Mahmood Md Tahir, and Farshad Zahmatke. "Comparative study on the behaviour of
Buckling Restrained Braced frames at fire." Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014: 1-12.

Uang, Chia-Ming, and Masayoshi Nakashima. "Steel Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames." In Earthquake
Engineering From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering, by Yousef
Bozorgnia and Vitelmo V Bertero. New York: CRC PRESS, 2004.

"UBC, Uniform Building Code." International Conference of Building Officials. Whittier, California, , 1997.