Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic performance of HWBBF considering different design methods and structural heights

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous research has shown that using buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) at hinged wall (HW) base (HWBB) can effectively mitigate lateral deformation of steel moment-resisting frames (MRFs) in earthquakes. Force-based and displacement-based design methods have been proposed to design HWBB to strengthen steel MRF and this paper comprehensively compares these two design methods, in terms of design steps, advantages/disadvantages, and structure responses. In addition, this paper investigates the building height below which the HW seismic moment demand can be properly controlled. First, 3-story, 9-story, and 20-story steel MRFs in the SAC project are used as benchmark steel MRFs. Secondly, HWs and HWBBs are designed to strengthen the benchmark steel MRFs using force-based and displacement-based methods, called HWFs and HWBBFs, respectively. Thirdly, nonlinear time history analyses are conducted to compare the structural responses of the MRFs, HWBBFs and HWFs in earthquakes. The results show the following. 1) HW seismic force demands increase as structural height increases, which may lead to uneconomical HW design. The HW seismic moment demand can be properly controlled when the building is lower than nine stories. 2) The displacement-based design method is recommended due to the benefit of identifying unfeasible component dimensions during the design process, as well as better achieving the design target displacement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

MRFs:

MRF-3, MRF-9, and MRF-20

MRF-3:

3-story moment resisting frames, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story

HWFs:

HWF-3, HWF-9, and HWF-20

HWF-3:

3-story hinged wall (without BRBs at hinged wall base) strengthened moment resisting frames, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story

HWBB-3:

HWBB (hinged wall with BRBs at base) used for 3-story structure using both force based design and displacement based design, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story structures

HWBBF-FBs:

HWBBF-FB-3, HWBBF-FB-9, and HWBBF-FB-20

HWBBF-FB-3:

3-story HWBB strengthened moment resisting frames using the force based design method, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story

HWBBF-DBs:

HWBBF-DB-3, HWBBF-DB-9, and HWBBF-DB-20

HWBBF-DB-3:

3-story HWBB strengthened moment resisting frames using the displacement based design method, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story

HWBB-FBs:

HWBB-FB-3, HWBB-FB-9, and HWBB-FB-20

HWBB-FB-3:

3-story HWBB designed using the force based design method, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story

HWBB-DBs:

HWBB-DB-3, HWBB-DB-9, and HWBB-DB-20

HWBB-DB-3:

3-story HWBB designed using the displacement based design method, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story

HWBBF-3:

HWBBF-FB-3 and HWBBF-DB-3, also applicable to 9-story and 20-story structures

HWBBFs:

HWBBF-FB-3, HWBBF-FB-6, HWBBF-FB-20, HWBBF-DB-3, HWBBF-DB-9, and HWBBF-DB-20

References

  1. Xia G, Shu W, Stanciulescu I. Efficient analysis of shear wall-frame structural systems. Engineering Computations, 2019, 36(6): 2084–2110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zeynep T. Seismic performance, modeling, and failure assessment of reinforced concrete shear wall buildings. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, 2012

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kurama Y, Pessiki S, Sause R, Lu L W. Seismic behavior and design of ubonded post-tensioned precast concrete walls. PCI Journal, 1999, 44(3): 72–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Holden T, Restrepo J, Mander J B. Seismic performance of precast reinforced and prestressed concrete walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2003, 129(3): 286–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Henry R S, Aaleti S, Sritharan S, Ingham J M. Concept and finite-element modeling of new steel shear connectors for self-centering wall systems. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2010, 136(2): 220–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Restrepo J I, Rahman A. Seismic performance of self-centering structural walls incorporating energy dissipators. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2007, 133(11): 1560–1570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lu X L, Wu H. Study on seismic performance of prestressed precast concrete walls through cyclic lateral loading test. Magazine of Concrete Research, 2017, 69(17): 878–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cui H, Wu G, Zhang J, Xu J. Experimental study on damage-controllable rocking walls with resilient corners. Magazine of Concrete Research, 2019, 71(21): 1113–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang Z. Analytical investigation of inertial force-limiting floor anchorage system for seismic resistant building structures. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Tucson: University of Arizona, 2017

    Google Scholar 

  10. Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Strengthening of moment-resisting frame structures against near-fault ground motion effects. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2004, 33(6): 707–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pan P, Wu S, Nie X. A distributed parameter model of a frame pin-supported wall structure. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2015, 44(10): 1643–1659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhou Y, Yao D, Chen Y, Li Q. Upgraded parameter model of frame pin-supported wall structures. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2021, 30(8): e1852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Qu Z, Wada A, Motoyui S, Sakata H, Kishiki S. Pin-supported walls for enhancing the seismic performance of building structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2012, 41(14): 2075–2091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sun T, Kurama Y C, Ou J. Practical displacement-based seismic design approach for PWF structures with supplemental yielding dissipators. Engineering Structures, 2018, 172: 538–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Takewaki I, Akehashi H. Comprehensive review of optimal and smart design of nonlinear building structures with and without passive dampers subjected to earthquake loading. Frontiers in Built Environment, 2021, 7: 631114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Akehashi H, Takewaki I. Bounding of earthquake response via critical double impulse for efficient optimal design of viscous dampers for elastic–plastic moment frames. Japan Architectural Review, 2022, 5(2): 131–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Akehashi H, Takewaki I. Resilience evaluation of elastic–plastic high-rise buildings under resonant long-duration ground motion. Japan Architectural Review, 2022, 5(4): 373–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Feng Y, Wu J, Chong X, Meng S. Seismic lateral displacement analysis and design of an earthquake-resilient dual wall-frame system. Engineering Structures, 2018, 177: 85–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Xie Q. State of the art of buckling-restrained braces in Asia. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2005, 61(6): 727–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bai J, Chen H, Zhao J, Liu M, Jin S. Seismic design and subassemblage tests of buckling-restrained braced RC frames with shear connector gusset connections. Engineering Structures, 2021, 234: 112018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Feng Y, Zhang Z, Pan Z. Seismic performance of high-rise dual modular wall-frame systems. Engineering Structures, 2022, 264: 114458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang X, Wang T, Qu Z. An experimental study of a damage-controllable plastic-hinge-supported wall structure. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2018, 47(3): 594–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jiang Q, Zhou Y, Feng Y, Chong X, Wang H, Wang X, Yang Q. Experimental study and numerical simulation of a reinforced concrete hinged wall with BRBs at the base. Journal of Building Engineering, 2022, 49: 104030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang Z, Fleischman R, Restrepo J, Guerrini G, Nema A, Zhang D, Shakya U, Tsampras G, Sause R. Shake-table test performance of an inertial force-limiting floor anchorage system. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2018, 47(10): 1987–2011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wiebe L, Christopoulos C. Mitigation of higher mode effects in base-rocking systems by using multiple rocking sections. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2009, 13(Sup 1): 83–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wiebe L, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Leclerc M. Mechanisms to limit higher mode effects in a controlled rocking steel frame. 1: Concept, modelling, and low-amplitude shake table testing. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2013, 42(7): 1053–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li T, Berman J W, Wiebe R. Parametric study of seismic performance of structures with multiple rocking joints. Engineering Structures, 2017, 146: 75–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Khanmohammadi M, Heydari S. Seismic behavior improvement of reinforced concrete shear wall buildings using multiple rocking systems. Engineering Structures, 2015, 100: 577–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen L, Tremblay R, Tirca L. Modular tied eccentrically braced frames for improved seismic response of tall buildings. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2019, 155: 370–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen L, Tremblay R, Tirca L. Practical seismic design procedure for steel braced frames with segmental elastic spines. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2019, 153: 395–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Patricia M C, Jeffrey W B, Laura N L. Seismic performance of self-centering steel plate shear walls with beam-only-connected web plates. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2015, 106: 198–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gaxiola-Camacho J R, Azizsoltani H, Villegas-Mercado F J, Haldar A. A novel reliability technique for implementation of performance-based seismic design of structures. Engineering Structures, 2017, 142: 137–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Abbasnia R, Davoudi A T, Maddah M M. An improved displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure for the analysis of frame buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2014, 18(7): 987–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rakesh G, Anil C. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analyses: SAC buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 2004, 20(1): 225–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zaghi A E, Soroushian S, Itani A, Maragakis E M, Pekcan G, Mehrraoufi M. Impact of column-to-beam strength ratio on the seismic response of steel MRFs. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 13(2): 635–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ohtori Y, Christenson R E, Spencer B F Jr, Dyke S J. Benchmark control problems for seismically excited nonlinear buildings. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2004, 130(4): 366–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Seismic Demands for Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, 1999

  38. ASCE 7–10. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 2013

    Google Scholar 

  39. Anil C, Goel R. Direct Displacement-based design: Use of inelastic vs. elastic design spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 2001, 17(1): 47–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Priestley M J N, Calvi G M, Kowalsky M J. Direct displacement-based seismic design of structures. In: Proceedings of the 2007 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) Annual Conference. 2007

  41. Kalapodis N A, Muho E V, Beskos D E. Seismic design of plane steel MRFS, EBFS and BRBFS by improved direct displacement-based design method. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 153: 107111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Noruzvand M, Mohebbi M, Shakeri K. Modified direct displacement-based design approach for structures equipped with fluid viscous damper. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2020, 27(1): e2465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Shalmaee M M, Pourzeynali S. A modal displacement-based design method for irregular building frames equipped with elastomeric bearings. Structures, 2022, 41: 541–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sarno L D, Manfredi G. Seismic retrofitting with buckling restrained braces: Application to an existing non-ductile RC framed building. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2010, 30(11): 1279–1297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Computers & Structures, Inc. CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000, 2016

  46. Silvia M, Frank M, Michael H S, Gregory L F. OpenSees Command Language Manual, 2006

  47. FEMA 356. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  48. Feng Y L, Wu J, Wang C L, Meng S P. Evaluating the effect of buckling-restrained brace model on seismic structural responses. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 2016, 11(2): 1750002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. FEMA P695. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. California, CA: Applied Technology Council, 2009, 695

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wieser J, Pekcan G, Zaghi A E, Itani A, Maragakis M. Floor accelerations in yielding special moment resisting frame structures. Earthquake Spectra, 2013, 29(3): 987–1002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rodriguez M E, Restrepo J I, Carr A J. Earthquake-induced floor horizontal accelerations in buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31(3): 693–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wu S, Pan P, Zhang D. Higher mode effects in frame pin-supported wall structure by using a distributed parameter model. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2016, 45(14): 2371–2387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Fleischman R B, Farrow K T, Eastman K. Seismic performance of perimeter lateral-system structures with highly flexible diaphragms. Earthquake Spectra, 2002, 18(2): 251–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51708166), and the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province (No. 2208085ME150).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, 230009, China

    Yulong Feng

  2. Thornton Tomasetti, New York, NY, 10271, USA

    Zhi Zhang

  3. College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China

    Zuanfeng Pan

Authors
  1. Yulong Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhi Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zuanfeng Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhi Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feng, Y., Zhang, Z. & Pan, Z. Seismic performance of HWBBF considering different design methods and structural heights. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 17, 1849–1870 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-023-0020-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-023-0020-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation