Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507

Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Engineering Structures journal

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct Design and analysis of braced frames with shape memory alloy

Design and analysis of braced frames with shape memory alloy and energy-absorbing hybrid devices

Chuang-Sheng Walter Yang , Reginald DesRoches, Roberto T. Leon

School of Civil and Env. Engineering, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 9 December 2008 Received in revised form 23 October 2009 Accepted 26 October 2009 Available online 19 November 2009

Keywords:

Steel frames Seismic design Hybrid devices Steel Shape memory alloy Energy-absorbing devices Re-centering devices Nonlinear analysis Earthquake resistance structures

a b s t r a c t

A hybrid seismic device that provides both energy-absorbing and re-centering capabilities to overcome external forces is developed and evaluated. The hybrid device is composed of three main components:

(1) a set of re-centering wires fabricated from shape memory alloy (SMA) material, (2) two energy- absorbing struts, and (3) two high-strength steel tubes to guide the movement of the hybrid device. The SMA wires are located within the guiding high-strength steel tubes and designed to be sufficiently long such that their deformation strain is within the 6% target strain limit. A conservative value of 6% strain, instead of 8%, or 10%, is adopted to (1) avoid the SMA stiffening phase that increases strength up to 5 times that of its forward transformation yield forces, resulting in a serious damage to the adjacent structural members, and (2) to retain the full re-centering capability of the SMA wires even when the hybrid device is under large displacement. The energy-absorbing struts are pin-connected outside of the guiding steel tubes and may be fabricated of mild steel or low strength aluminum. To reduce the possibility of buckling in the energy-absorbing struts when subjected to compression, they are designed to be stocky and seismically compact, or buckling restrained. An optimal proportion of the SMA wires and energy-absorbing struts is formulated such that the hybrid device retains re-centering capability, while maximizing energy dissipation. Results obtained through the seismic analysis reveal that the hybrid braced frame system exhibits a similar energy dissipation capacity to the buckling restrained braced system, while also having excellent re-centering capabilities.

© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

A seismically well designed building is expected to remain elastic under small seismic disturbances, to display an acceptable small level of structural and nonstructural damage when subjected to a moderate earthquake, and to prevent collapse in an extreme event by utilizing its inherent ductility and strength. However, moderate to severe seismic excitation often causes significant damage to the primary lateral load-resisting members in a structure. Due to the dynamic nature of environmental disturbances such as seismic waves and wind, new and innovative concepts for energy dissipation devices for use as part of structural protection systems have been proposed and are at various stages of development. These devices are often classified as either active or passive; in this article, only passive systems will be discussed. Passive energy dissipation systems utilize a wide range of materials and technologies to enhance the damping, stiffness and strength characteristics of structures either by the conversion of kinetic energy to heat or by transferring energy among vibrating modes [1].

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 404 395 9214. E-mail address: cs.walter.yang@ce.gatech.edu (C.-S. Walter Yang).

0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Although passive devices provide the advantage of minimizing damage to nonstructural and structural systems under moderate seismic demands, their use will often result in a large permanent residual deformation after a seismic event. If a device that not only dissipates energy efficiently but also provides satisfactory re-centering capability can be developed, the damage resulting from an earthquake event and the associated cost for repairs after the event for a building equipped with these hybrid devices can be substantially reduced. In this article, we will refer to devices capable of both dissipating energy and providing re-centering capabilities as hybrid devices. Passive energy dissipation systems can be broadly divided into three types based on the performance objectives: (1) hysteretic devices that dissipate energy and enhance strength through yield- ing of metals or frictional sliding; (2) viscoelastic devices that dis- sipate energy and enhance stiffness by means of deformation of viscoelastic solids or fluids flowing through orifices; and (3) dy- namic vibration absorbers that increase damping by introducing supplemental oscillators, i.e., additional mass, stiffness, and damp- ing systems. Hysteretic devices dissipate energy with no significant rate dependence effects, while the viscoelastic devices exhibit con- siderable rate dependence [1]. The 1990s noticed a number of attempts to develop re- centering devices for seismic hazard mitigation. In 1990, Richter

C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507

a b
a
b
et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507 a b Fig. 1. Arrangement of hybrid devices:

Fig. 1.

Arrangement of hybrid devices: (a) Configuration 1 and (b) Configuration 2.

499

et al. [2] proposed a device in which a piston rod surrounded

by frictional wedges at its two ends slides to dissipate energy and a preloaded spring encloses the middle portion of the piston rod to provide the device with restoring capability. Detailed description of the use of this type of re-centering devices for seismic hazard mitigation is provided in Nims et al. [3]. Instead of using restoring springs, in 1994, Tsopelas and Constantinou [4] employed compressive characteristics of silicone fluid to produce an initial preload that can move the device toward its undeformed configuration upon removal of the external load. More recently, concepts utilizing new materials have become popular. One such class of materials is known as shape memory alloys (SMAs). SMAs are a class of smart metallic alloy materials, capable of recovering within 8–10% strain, spontaneously (supere- lastic effect) or through heating above a transformation tempera- ture (shape memory alloy effect) [5]. This inherent property has led to many unique applications in medicine, aerospace, mechanics, and civil engineering [5–10].

In recent years, Dolce et al. [11] have employed the properties of

Ni–Ti SMA wires to conceive, design, manufacture, and test several re-centering bracing and isolation devices for seismic protection of buildings. The device consists of SMA wires that are wound around cylinders in two freely moving coaxial steel tubes. During the mutual movements between the tubes, the cylinders always move away from each other for any positive or negative displacement of the device, resulting in a device in which the wires are always in tension and that exhibits double flag-shaped hysteresis. More recently, in order to optimize the implementation of SMA dampers into concentrically braced frames, Motahari et al. [12] proposed an optimal proportioning of the austenite and martensite phase areas in a damper. The optimum point can be found at the threshold in which the damper exhibits re-centering capability, while its dissipation capacity is maximized. A portion of martensite phase SMAs in a damper is used because austenite phase SMAs, which can provide re-centering capability, have a very low energy dissipation capacity, particularly under high rate loadings. In 2002, DesRoches and Delemont [13] described SMA restrainers as a means of seismic retrofit for highway bridges.

A hybrid device that combines energy-absorbing and re-

centering systems would be extremely useful for structures to ef- fectively respond to a large seismic event. In 2008, Shook et al. [14,15] investigated the behavior of a superelastic semi-active damping system which incorporates SMA wires with magnetorhe- ological (MR) dampers. Zhu and Zhang [16,17] proposed a self-

centering friction damping brace which is capable of re-centering through SMA strands and features enhanced energy dissipation ca- pacity through friction.

In this article, another type of device is described. The hybrid

device proposed herein consists of two mild steel tube struts for energy dissipation that are attached outside of a set of two freely floating high-strength steel tubes. The device reduces the seismic

response of a building by means of the hysteretic characteristics of steel, and SMA wires for re-centering capability that are wound

within the freely floating high-strength steel tubes, exhibiting a double flag-shaped hysteretic behavior. This hybrid device for seismic applications can be installed between a beam and braces of a building (Configuration 1, see Fig. 1(a)), or utilized simply as a brace along a diagonal of a building (Configuration 2, see Fig. 1(b)), to dissipate energy and provide re-centering capabilities. In order to maximize both the energy absorption and re-centering capacities, the reverse transformation yielding force provided by the SMA wires has to be greater than the yielding force developed by the energy-absorbing struts. A theoretical optimal proportion for these forces will be presented later in the article. Although SMAs can exhibit re-centering properties for strain values in the 8–10% range, a conservative value of 6% strain is used herein for two reasons. First, this stricter limit is enforced to avoid the second stiffening phenomenon that can increase SMA stresses from 2 to 5 times the forward transformation stress, which will probably result in a serious damage to the adjacent structural members. Second, this limit is used to retain the re-centering capacity of the SMA wires even after the hybrid device reaches large displacements. For maximum energy absorption, the potential for buckling in the struts has to be minimized when they are subjected to large compression cycles. A short stocky steel strut with a specified compact section provides an ideal way to create such a strut at minimum cost, while providing the desired performance. An alternative to this approach is using buckling restrained braces for the long struts. Finally, hybrid devices in two types of configurations in a 3- story benchmark building are designed according to the proposed methodology for hybrid devices, and analyzed through nonlinear static and time-history analyses in OpenSEES [18].

2. Proposed hybrid devices

2.1. Hysteresis of hybrid devices

Fig. 1 illustrates a structure incorporating a set of two hybrid devices which are located between the top of a chevron brace configuration and beam, or installed as braces in a building frame bay. The key design parameters for the hybrid devices include the maximum force capacity, device length, and residual displacement of the hybrid devices. A set of two hybrid devices in Configuration 1 in a story create a hysteretic curve bounded by these design parameters, such as shown in Fig. 2(c). A force of 5100 kN (1145 kips) moves the hybrid devices up to 25.4 mm (1.00 in.), along with the maximum residual displacement of 2.8 mm (0.11 in.), in this example. The shape of the hysteretic curves depends upon the physical characteristics of the hybrid devices. The goal of the hybrid devices is to absorb building response energy associated with a seismic event, while returning the building back to its original state after the event. The struts are required to be able to provide a significant energy- absorbing capacity, such as shown in Fig. 2(b). The maximum residual

500

C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507

a
a
b
b

c

c
c
c
c
c
c
et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507 a b c Fig. 2. Hysteresis: (a) SMA
et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507 a b c Fig. 2. Hysteresis: (a) SMA
et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507 a b c Fig. 2. Hysteresis: (a) SMA
et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507 a b c Fig. 2. Hysteresis: (a) SMA

Fig. 2.

Hysteresis: (a) SMA wires; (b) strut; and (c) hybrid device (β = 0.50).

displacement of the hybrid devices induced by strut material plasticity is limited by means of the sufficient re-centering capacity

a
a

from the SMA wires with superelastic effects, such as shown in Fig. 2(a).

2.2. Optimal proportion of the SMA wires and struts

The relative relationship between the SMA reverse transforma- tion yielding force, V SMA,r , (Figs. 2(a) and 3(a)) and the strut yield-

ing force, V S,y , (Fig. 3(b)) plays an important role in the re-centering capacity for a hybrid device. For energy-absorbing struts having a full-loop hysteresis with kinematic hardening of a 0% strain hard- ening ratio (Fig. 3(b)), when the hybrid device is unloaded down to a deformation, δ r , that corresponds to the SMA reverse trans- formation yield force (Fig. 2(a)), the SMA wires are in tension with

a force of V SMA,r (Fig. 3(a)); meanwhile, the struts are in compres-

sion with a force of V S,y (Fig. 3(b)). The overall strength in the hybrid device is V SMA,r + (V S,y ). In order for the hybrid device to have a flag shape hysteresis with a re-centering characteristic, the SMA reverse yielding force should accommodate the extra yielding force induced by the struts; i.e., V SMA,r V S,y 0. In the illustra- tive example of Fig. 3(c), V SMA,r V S,y = 0. The requirement for a re-centering hybrid device with the SMA wires and such energy- absorbing struts is as follows:

(1)

V SMA,r V S,y .

It is noted that the maximum residual displacement of this type of

hybrid devices, r , is simply the SMA reverse transformation yield displacement.

(2)

r = δ r = βε SMA,y l SMA

where the conversion factor of β is the ratio of the reverse transformation yielding force to forward transformation yielding force (V SMA,f ) for the SMA wires used (Fig. 2(a)). However, if the energy-absorbing struts exhibit kinematic hardening with a non-zero strain hardening ratio shown in

d
d
b e c f
b
e
c
f

Fig. 3.

Illustration of the re-centering requirement.

C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507

501

Fig. 3(e), the strut strength has not reached V S,y yet when the unloading deformation reaches δ r . The remaining deformation for the strut strength to decrease to V S,y is δ S,y + δ r , in which δ S,y is the yielding displacement of the struts. The strength difference between V S,y and the strut strength at δ r in the unloading path is called an addition strength of V a (Fig. 3(e)) and can be written as follows:

(3)

V a = S,y + δ r )S S,h

in which S S,h is the strain hardening stiffness for the strut. The overall strength in the hybrid device with an unloading

deformation of δ r is V SMA,r + (V S,y + V a ). The requirement for

a re-centering hybrid device with the SMA wires and such energy- absorbing struts is as follows:

(4)

V SMA,r V S,y V a .

It is interesting to note that the residual displacement of the hybrid device decreases with increase in the additional strength V a , as shown in Fig. 3(f), and the predicted value of the residual displacement of the hybrid device is modified as

r = δ r V a

S

2

(5)

in which S 2 represents the second stiffness for the hybrid device following strut yielding and prior to SMA yielding, i.e., (EA/l) Strut, hardening +(EA/l) SMA . From Eq. (3), the additional strength

is directly proportional to the SMA reverse transformation yielding

displacement and the strut strain hardening ratio. Insofar as re-centering is concerned, Eq. (5) demonstrates that a larger additional strength and smaller second stiffness of the hybrid device can decrease the residual deformation of the hybrid device. However, the SMA reverse transformation yield displacement is still the dominant cause for the residual displacement of the hybrid device. Therefore, a hybrid device with a smaller reverse transformation yield displacement has a larger re-centering capacity. For this reason, the effect of the additional strength V a is ignored in the following sections. The design of the force distribution between the energy- absorbing strut and re-centering SMA components in a hybrid device is related to the design yielding force of the hybrid device, V , and the ratio (β) of the reverse transformation yielding force to forward transformation yielding force. The relation between V SMA,r and V SMA,f is written as:

(6)

Based on Eqs. (1) and (6) and the fact that the designed yielding force V is overcome by V SMA,f and V S,y , the fraction of forces distributed to the SMA wires needs to be at least 1/(1 + β) such that the hybrid device has a minimum re-centering capacity and satisfies the force demand for the hybrid device, i.e.,

V SMA,r = βV SMA,f .

V SMA,f

V S,y =

1

1 + β V

β

1 + β V .

(7a)

(7b)

The percentage of force distribution between the SMA wires and struts under various β values are listed in Table 1.

2.3. Design of hybrid steel-SMA devices

A cost-effective hybrid device that both dissipates energy and recenters can be designed using energy-absorbing mild steel struts and a set of SMA wires, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. This hybrid device also contains two freely floating high-strength steel

Table 1 Force distribution for hybrid devices.

β

SMA wire (%)

Strut (%)

1/(1 + β)

β/(1 + β)

0.00

100.0

0.0

0.25

80.0

20.0

0.50

66.7

33.3

0.75

57.1

42.9

0.95

51.3

48.7

1.00

50.0

50.0

Fig. 4. Energy-absorbing strut.
Fig. 4.
Energy-absorbing strut.

Fig. 5.

SMA wires inside a hybrid device with clevis pins for Configuration 2.

inside a hybrid device with clevis pins for Configuration 2. Fig. 6. Overview of a hybrid

Fig. 6.

hybrid device with clevis pins for Configuration 2. Fig. 6. Overview of a hybrid device with

Overview of a hybrid device with clevis pins for Configuration 1.

tubes that are mounted in the frame bay and guide the struts and SMA wires. An overview of a hybrid device is shown in Fig. 6. The two energy-absorbing mild steel struts are mounted outside of the freely floating high-strength steel tubes through two strut ends with pin-type blocks, limiting external moments. The design length of the energy-absorbing struts is as short as possible to increase the stiffness and to reduce the slenderness ratio, or increase the compression strength. However, the length is dependent on the design seismic event as it is necessary to prevent excessive strain in the steel components. The dimensions of the cross section are also required to be as compact as possible, reducing local buckling tendencies in the struts and significant degradation in the post-buckling strength if strut buckling occurs. The shape of the struts can be either a hollow circle or a hollow square tube; however, the potential strut deflection should be outward in order to prevent collision with the freely floating high- strength steel tubes. Given the designed force for the struts from Eq. (7b), their size can be proportioned by considering the member maximum compression strength. The set of SMA wires are surrounded by the freely floating high-strength steel tubes, which are wound by two cylinder-type blocks inside of the freely floating high-strength steel tubes. The determination of SMA wire length is dependent on a 6% strain limitation and the expected deformation from the design seismic

502

C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507

Table 2 Member sizes for the three 3-story braced frame models.

Story

R = 4

R = 7

R = 7

Configuration 1

Configuration 2

BRBF

Steel brace

Column

Beam

Column

Beam

Column

Beam

Buckling restrained braces

 

Tension capacity

Axial stiffness

(kN)/(kip)

(kN/m)/(kip/in.)

3

HSS8 × 8 × 1/2

W10 × 68

W12 × 96

W12 × 50 W12 × 50 W12 × 50

W10 × 68 W10 × 77 W10 × 77

W12 × 50 W12 × 50 W12 × 50

W10 × 68 W10 × 77 W10 × 77

1001/225

172 251/982

2

HSS9 × 9 × 5/8

W10 × 68

W12 × 106

1341/301

261 946/1494

1

HSS10 × 10 × 5/8

W10 × 68

W12 × 106

1513/340

304 492/1736

event. As noted earlier, the 6% strain limitation for SMAs is to prevent the loss of the re-centering capacity when the SMA wire is stretched beyond 6% and damages to the adjacent supporting structure members such as braces and columns because of the unexpected high strength induced by the SMA second stiffening phenomenon. In order to lower the strain demand for the SMA wires, the SMA wires need to be sufficiently long. However, excessively long wires have to be avoided in order to retain initial stiffness of the SMA wires. The area for the SMA wires can be computed through the force distribution concept (Eq. (7a)), once the pertinent design values (design force for the hybrid device, β factor, and forward transformation yielding stress of SMAs) are set. The two freely floating steel tubes are installed in a pinned manner in one story of the resisting frame bay, transferring the forces induced by an external disturbance into the energy- absorbing and re-centering components.

3. Numerical models

3.1. Benchmark building

SAC was a joint venture of Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAoC), Applied Technology Council (ATC), and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) that studied steel connections and structural systems in the aftermath of the Northridge and Kobe earthquakes. Theme structures designed as part of SAC are commonly used as references when assessing performance of new or improved structural systems. A 3-story steel braced frame building with hybrid steel-SMA devices (Fig. 7 (for the case of hybrid devices in Configuration 1)) is designed to carry the same masses and use the same number of seismic-resisting bays as the 3-story SAC moment resisting frame (6 seismic-resisting bays for the 3-story model in the N–S direction) [19] designed for downtown Los Angeles. In the Los Angeles area, for the 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, the mapped spectral accelerations for the short period and the 1 s period are 2.16 g and 0.72 g, respectively, with a PGA of 0.90 g. The building is designed as if located on stiff soil (site class D as per ASCE 7-05 [20] definitions). An importance factor of 1.25 is assigned to the building in accordance of Occupancy Category III. The design code documents used are the 2005 ASCE-7 for loads and the AISC LRFD 2005 for member design.

3.2. Seismic weight

The response modification coefficients, R, selected for this new system are set at 4 and 7 for hybrid devices in Configuration 1 and in Configuration 2, respectively. For hybrid devices in Configuration 1, the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced bay is 4828 kN (1084 kips), which corresponds to one-sixth of the entire building seismic weight. The design seismic base shear is calculated as 0.45W in accordance with the equivalent lateral force procedure as per ASCE 7-05. For hybrid devices in Configuration 2 (hybrid braces), the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced

braces), the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced Fig. 7. 3-story steel braced frame
braces), the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced Fig. 7. 3-story steel braced frame
braces), the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced Fig. 7. 3-story steel braced frame
braces), the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced Fig. 7. 3-story steel braced frame
braces), the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced Fig. 7. 3-story steel braced frame
braces), the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced Fig. 7. 3-story steel braced frame
braces), the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced Fig. 7. 3-story steel braced frame
braces), the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced Fig. 7. 3-story steel braced frame
braces), the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced Fig. 7. 3-story steel braced frame
braces), the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced Fig. 7. 3-story steel braced frame

Fig. 7.

3-story steel braced frame building with hybrid devices.

bay is also 4828 kN (1084 kips). However, the design seismic base shear is 0.26W due to the use of R = 7. The adoption of a larger value of R for a building with hybrid braces is meant to enable direct comparisons with the structural performance of a buckling restrained braced frame (BRBF, see Table 2) and hybrid braced frame systems.

3.3. Frame members in the three braced frame models

Two 3-story braced frame models are studied, including a braced frame with hybrid steel-SMA devices in Configuration 1 and a braced frame with hybrid steel-SMA devices in Configuration 2; one 3-story BRBF frame model is established as a comparison with the braced frame with hybrid steel-SMA devices in Configuration 2. The members in the three 3-story braced frame models, except the hybrid devices, are listed in Table 2 and conform to the AISC Seis- mic Provisions [21]. The beams and columns are designed using A572 Grade 50 steel [nominal F y = 345 MPa (50 ksi), an expected yield factor R y = 1.1, and F u = 448 MPa (65 ksi)]. For the frame with hybrid steel-SMA devices in Configuration 1, the design forces for the conventional steel braces adjacent to the hybrid devices are increased to take into account the effects of the forward transfor- mation plateau prior to the SMA second stiffening in the hybrid de- vices. The required force for the conventional steel brace is twice the original design force obtained from seismic design procedure, i.e., an overstrength factor 0 = 2 is employed in the brace de- sign. The conventional steel braces are cold-formed welded hollow structural section (HSS) made of ASTM A500 Grade B steel [nomi- nal F y = 317 MPa (46 ksi), an expected yield factor R y = 1.4, an expected tensile factor R t = 1.3, and F u = 400 MPa (58 ksi)].

C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507

Table 3 Sizes of the SMA wires and struts in a hybrid device.

503

β

SMA wires

 

Struts

1st floor

 

2nd floor

3rd floor

1st floor

2nd floor

3rd floor

A

(mm 2 )

m

A (mm 2 )

m

A (mm 2 )

m

0.00

4881

 

1.86

3616

1.64

2474

1.82

– HSS2 × 2 × 1/4 HSS2.5 × 2.5 × 5/16 HSS3 × 3 × 5/16

– HSS2 × 2 × 3/16 HSS2.25 × 2.25 × 1/4 HSS3 × 3 × 5/16

– HSS2 × 2 × 1/8 HSS2 × 2 × 3/16 HSS2.5 × 2.5 × 1/4

0.25

4177

1.99

3297

1.87

2329

2.14

0.50

3255

1.86

2410

1.64

1652

1.82

0.95

2139

1.59

2135

1.89

1271

1.82

Table 4 Effects of β on the hybrid devices satisfying the requirements.

 

β

SMA

Strut

Hybrid device

 

Model frame

L (mm)/(in.)

 

ε p (%)

L (mm)/(in.)

p (mm)/(in.)

r (mm)/(in.)

r (predicted)

T (s)

0.00

1219/48

5.58

68.1/2.68

0.0/0.00

0.0/0.00

0.408

0.25

533/21

5.96

254/10

31.8/1.25

1.1/0.04

1.3/0.05

0.364

0.50

686/27

5.74

254/10

39.4/1.55

2.8/0.11

3.4/0.14

0.363

0.95

914/36

5.83

254/10

53.3/2.10

8.7/0.34

8.7/0.34

0.360

All structural members, including columns, beams, and con- ventional steel braces, are simulated by using the force-based distributed plasticity nonlinear beam–column element with the fiber section function in the OpenSEES platform. The command to construct this type of nonlinear beam–column element in the OpenSEES program is ‘‘nonlinearBeamColumn’’, which is based on the non-iterative or iterative force formulation and considers the spread of plasticity along the element. The command of ‘‘steel 02’’ is used to construct steel material. The detailed usage and expla- nation of the element and cyclic model of steel are described in the OpenSEES users manual, which is free and can be downloaded from the website [18]. The conventional steel brace model [22] implemented in the OpenSEES program has an additional node at midspan with a small initial imperfection and two rotational springs at the ends to simulate the buckling and post-buckling be- havior of a conventional steel brace under compression. A detailed description of the method for the numerical steel brace to approach the experimental behavior and satisfy the strength in the specifica- tion can be found in Yang et al. [22,23]. The beams are continuous in the chevron-braced configuration, with the ends connected with pinned joints to the columns. The columns are continuous with fixed column bases.

3.4. Hybrid steel-SMA devices in Configuration 1

A numerical model of one braced bay of the 3-story frame building with hybrid devices in Configuration 1 was analyzed (Fig. 8(a)). The energy-absorbing struts used are assumed to be cold-formed welded HSS with ASTM A500 Grade B steel [nominal F y = 317 MPa (46 ksi), an expected yield factor R y = 1.4, and F u = 400 MPa (58 ksi)]. The modulus of elasticity and strain hardening ratio are assumed to be 200 GPa (29 000 ksi) and 0.8%, respectively. The energy-absorbing strut model is similar to the brace model which can take into account the buckling of a strut under compres- sion [22,23], except that the ends of a strut are hinges without ro- tational springs. The superelastic behavior of the re-centering SMA wires is simulated using an 1D constitutive model proposed by Au- ricchio and Sacco in 1997 [24]. The hysteretic loop is represented by a series of straight lines whose extension depends on the trans- formation experienced, as shown in Fig. 2(a). Further assumptions are that no strength degradation occurs during cycling [25,8]. Ad- ditionally, it can be assumed that the SMA bars or wires are pre- viously mechanically trained in order to minimize any property degradation due to cycling [26]. Details as to the model formula- tion can be found in the works by Fugazza [27,28]. The numerical

SMA model is implemented in OpenSEES by using the command of the ‘‘SMA’’ material, which was included in the previous OpenSEES developer source. The SMA wires used in this study have a forward transformation yield stress of 414 MPa (60 ksi). The modulus of elasticity and strain hardening ratio are set as 41.4 GPa (6000 ksi) and 10%, respectively [26,8]. Based on the design methodology for hybrid devices described in Section 2, the sizes for the energy- absorbing struts and the re-centering SMA wires are proportioned as listed in Tables 3 and 4. Static hysteretic loops of the first-story hybrid devices with β = 0.50 and their components are shown in Fig. 2. Conventional steel struts of moderate to high slenderness exhibit an asymmetrical behavior as the compression strength is less than the tension strength. Thus, the compression strength is critical for design of the conventional steel struts. During the selection of the steel strut members, the design compression strength of the chosen strut member needs to be greater than or equal to the demand force, that is the force distributed to the strut. Therefore, the steel strut chosen from the existing sizes of steel members available in industry may provide excessive strength. Due to this reason and the use of the expected yield strength for the strut in these simulations, an overstrength factor, m , (ratio of the expected yield strength of the selected strut member to the demand force of the strut) is taken into account for the strut and is used for the design of the corresponding SMA wires (Table 3). As a result of the multiplier m in the strut, the area of the corresponding SMA wires needs to be magnified by the same multiplier. This adjustment intends to retain the same force distribution fractions (Table 1), ensuring that the designed hybrid device meets the requirement of the minimum re-centering capacity.

3.5. Effects of the β parameter on hybrid devices

As derived in Eq. (7), the requirement of the minimum re- centering capability for a hybrid device is that the SMA wires provide at least a force of 1/(1 + β) of the design force for the hybrid device when the struts sustain β/(1 + β) of the design force. As shown in Table 1, with increasing β from 0.00 to 1.00, the force distribution fraction for the SMA wires decreases from 100.0% to 50.0%, while the force distribution fraction for the struts increases from 0.0% to 50.0%. In order to investigate the effect of the β parameter on behavior of hybrid devices, several hybrid devices are designed with various β values, as listed in Table 4.

504

C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507

a b
a
b

Fig. 8.

Numerical models: (a) Configuration 1 and (b) Configuration 2.

Table 5 Length effects for the case of β = 0.00.

L (mm)/(in.)

ε p (%)

T (s)

Brace buckling

305/12

7.33

0.367

1st story

610/24

7.29

0.379

914/36

6.53

0.393

1219/48

5.58

0.408

For the LA21 ground motions (1995 Kobe, [29]) and β = 0, Table 5 compares several devices having SMA devices with vari- ous lengths of wires. The braced bay with the shortest length SMA devices (305 mm) shows that the maximum peak strain, ε p , in the three SMA devices is 7.33%, which is greater than the strain premise of 6.00%. In addition, one of the first-story braces buckles signif- icantly. Although an SMA device with short length has relatively large stiffness and small stroke, the large strain hardening (10% for SMA wires) generates relatively high post-yielding strength, re- sulting in significant buckling in the adjacent member. In order to reduce the experienced strain within 6.00%, their lengths need to increase up to 1219 mm (48 in.). For other values of β, the lengths of the SMA wires in the hybrid devices are adjusted in the same way to meet the strain limitation, as shown in Table 4. The peak stroke, p , in the three hybrid devices in a braced bay increases as β increases. The maximum residual deformation, r , shows the same tendency. The theoretical maximum residual deformation obtained through Eq. (2) gives an upper bound and approaches the actual value from the numerical model. In general, the hybrid device with higher proportion of SMA wires exhibits better performance in terms of both lower maximum peak deformation and residual deformation. The reason is that SMA wires not only provide a re-centering capacity, but also have an extremely high strain hardening ratio (10% used in this article) that is much greater than the steel strain hardening (0.8% used here). However, devices with only SMA wires lose the energy dissipation capacity significantly, leading to extensive strain beyond the specified strain limit.

3.6. Hybrid steel-SMA braces (Configuration 2)

Another numerical model of one braced bay of the 3-story frame building with hybrid devices in Configuration 2 is analyzed. Its elevation is depicted in Fig. 8(b). Since hybrid devices installed in the brace position are much longer than those in Configuration 1, it is difficult for long struts with pure steel tubes to have sufficient post-buckling strength. To gain more energy dissipation capacity, the energy-absorbing struts incorporated in this hybrid brace model are assumed to be buckling restrained. Using R = 7 and the force distribution formula with β = 0.5, hybrid braces in the 3-story braced bay were designed. The sizes of the SMA wires and yielding forces of the buckling restrained struts are listed in Table 6.

4. Numerical study

The numerical models described above are used to investigate the behavior and performance of a braced bay with hybrid devices by means of both nonlinear static analyses (pushover analyses) and nonlinear dynamic analyses using the OpenSEES program.

4.1. Pushover analysis—Global lateral load vs. drift behavior

A 2D pushover analysis was performed using OpenSEES to investigate the nonlinear static behavior for the 3-story model with hybrid braces. The resulting curve for the 3-story hybrid braced model, plotted as the roof drift ratio vs. the base shear, is shown in Fig. 10. The pushover curve indicates the sequence of yielding in the hybrid braces. First, compression yielding (CY) occurs in the 3-story right energy-absorbing struts (symbolized by x), followed by tension yielding (TY) in the 3-story left energy-absorbing struts (symbolized by o). Subsequently, the right SMA wires start to yield in tension sequentially from the third to the first-story (x), followed by TY in order of the second-, third-, and first-story left SMA wires (o). During the TY of the SMA wires, the column bases also yield. The model continues being pushed into the hardening range and reach the target roof drift ratio of 3.5%. CY occurs in the right struts (designated as CY-right struts) beginning at a roof drift ratio of 0.05% (Fig. 10), corresponding to a base shear of 512 kN (115 kips). The first occurrence in CY- right struts begins in the third-story energy-absorbing strut that has a member overstrength factor of 1.26 (Table 6). By using the designed seismic base shear of 1242 kN (279 kips) for the model with hybrid braces and the force distribution fraction of 0.33 for the struts in the hybrid braces, the theoretical base shear corresponding to the first CY-right struts is 516 kN (116 kips = 279 kips×1.26×0.33). This simplified base shear calculation gives results very close to the simulation result. As the model reaches the occurrence of the first TY in the left struts (TY-left struts) at the roof drift ratio of 0.20%, the base shear is 1170 kN (263 kips), which is 94% of the design seismic base shear. Afterwards, the third-story right SMA wires yield under tensile forces at a roof drift ratio of 0.59%, with a corresponding base shear of 2109 kN (474 kips). When the model starts to enter the range of TY in the left SMA wires (TY-left SMA wires) at a roof drift ratio of 1.12%, the base shear is 2679 kN (602 kips), or 2.16 times the design seismic base shear. At the target roof drift ratio, the base shear approaches 3613 kN (812 kips), or 2.91 times the design seismic base shear.

4.2. Nonlinear dynamic analysis

2D nonlinear dynamic analyses are performed using OpenSEES to investigate the dynamic behavior of the frames. In order to provide a conservative assessment of structural performance,

C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507

Table 6 Sizes of the SMA wires and strut in a hybrid brace.

505

SMA wires

Strut

L (mm)/(in.)

ε p (%)

1st floor

 

2nd floor

3rd floor

L (mm)/(in.)

1st floor

2nd floor

3rd floor

 

A

(mm 2 )

m

A (mm 2 )

m

A (mm 2 )

m

F (kN)/(kip)

F (kN)/(kip)

F (kN)/(kip)

1981/78

7.33

2665

1.35

2232

1.32

1400

1.26

610/24

548/123

463/104

291/65

1.26 610 / 24 548 / 123 463 / 104 291 / 65 Fig. 9. Performance

Fig. 9.

Performance of numerical models with various hybrid devices (Configuration 1).

5% Rayleigh damping is specified in the first and last modes of vibration, which ensures that the damping ratios between the two extreme modes are less than 5%. The frames are first subjected to a suite of 20 ground motions (LA21–LA40) [29], which were used to subject SAC model buildings designed for the downtown Los Angeles area in 1995. These ground motions were representative of a 2%-in-50-year probability of exceedance, or maximum considered earthquake in 1995 (MCE shaking in 1995), for the downtown Los Angeles area, with the spectral response accelerations of 1.61 g and 1.19 g for periods of 0.3 and 1.0 s, respectively. The interstory drift demand ratios and

residual interstory drift ratios (IDRs) are evaluated statistically. Subsequently, the ground motion ensemble is further scaled so as to match the design response spectrum for the downtown Los Angeles area (1.44 g and 0.72 g for short period and 1 s period, respectively), and the nonlinear analyses are repeated. The fundamental periods of the models studied from eigenvalue analysis are shown in Table 4. The resulting peak IDRs and residual IDRs for the original and modified ensemble of the ground motions (LA21–LA40) are presented as circular symbols in Figs. 9 and 11. Characteristic values (i.e., median and 84th percentile) as described in FEMA

506

C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507

Fig. 10. Static hysteretic loop for the 3-story model with hybrid braces.
Fig. 10.
Static hysteretic loop for the 3-story model with hybrid braces.

355C [19] are also shown. The median is defined as the geometric mean of the data points, and 84th percentile as the median times the exponent of the standard deviation of the natural log of the data points. For the hybrid device models in Configuration 1 with three different β values, the maximum peak IDR for each case is around 2.0%, as shown in Fig. 9. All the 84th percentile and median lines for the peak IDRs are within 1.5% and 1.0%, respectively. In the residual aspect of IDRs, the maximum residual IDRs are 0.24%,

0.17%, and 0.12% for β = 0.25, 0.5, and 0.95, respectively. All the 84th percentile lines for the residual IDRs are less than 0.1%. For the purpose of comparing the performance of a 3-story hybrid braced frame in Configuration 2 with a 3-story BRBF (Table 2), the 3-story hybrid braced frame in Configuration 2 (Tables 2 and 6) is designed to carry the same seismic loads as the BRBF. As shown in Fig. 11(a), the hybrid braced model under the MCE shaking in 1995 shows the maximum peak IDR of 3.9%, close to that of the BRBF model, 3.5%. The 84th percentile line is around 2.5%, exhibiting a fairly uniform distribution over the height as compared with the BRBF system. The hybrid braced system has extremely small residual deformation—the maximum residual IDR is only 0.06%, less than that of 0.74% of the BRBF model. When the 3-story hybrid braced frame in Configuration 2 is

subjected to the design ground motions, all the median and 84th percentile lines for the peak IDRs are less than 1.5% and 2.5%, respectively, as shown in Fig. 11(b). The hybrid braced model shows an uniform distribution over the height as compared with the BRBF system. The hybrid braced system has extremely small residual deformation—the maximum residual IDR is only 0.05%. In terms of demand, Fig. 12 indicates that all the strain demands in the SMA wires are less than the specified strain limit of 6% and all the strain demands in the struts are less than 18%. The columns remain elastic except for the bases slightly yielding with a peak strain of 2% in the tip of a column flange. The beams remain intact with peak demands of axial strain ductility 0.34 and curvature ductility 0.25. These results verify the adequacy of the proposed optimal proportion of the SMA wires and struts and the design procedure for the frame system with hybrid devices.

a
a
design procedure for the frame system with hybrid devices. a b Fig. 11. and (b) design
design procedure for the frame system with hybrid devices. a b Fig. 11. and (b) design
b
b
procedure for the frame system with hybrid devices. a b Fig. 11. and (b) design ground
procedure for the frame system with hybrid devices. a b Fig. 11. and (b) design ground

Fig. 11.

and (b) design ground motions.

Comparison of performance between the hybrid braced frame in Configuration 2 and BRBF under: (a) 2%-in-50-year SAC ground motions (MCE shaking in 1995),

C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498–507

507

Fig. 12. Strain demands in the hybrid braces under design ground motions.
Fig. 12.
Strain demands in the hybrid braces under design ground motions.

5. Summary and conclusions

An innovative SMA based device called a hybrid device, which combines energy dissipation and re-centering systems, is proposed in order to mitigate structural damage induced from seismic hazards. A design methodology for these hybrid devices is also provided. Three-story models with hybrid devices in two different configurations were designed according to the proposed design procedure, and their behaviors were investigated using both pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses. The following conclusions are drawn based on the results and observations presented herein.

1. When designed according to the proposed formula of force distribution for SMA re-centering and energy dissipation systems, the hybrid devices exhibit re-centering capacity, while maximizing energy dissipation.

2. The 3-story model with hybrid braces in Configuration 2 (R = 7) shows comparable performance to the BRBF system in terms of peak interstory drifts, while also exhibiting excellent re- centering capability. The statistical value of the first-story peak IDRs for the hybrid braced frame is slightly smaller than that for the BRBF, while the values of the other peak interstory drifts for the hybrid braced frame are a little larger than those for the BRBF. In general, the 84th percentile line for the hybrid braced frame is a relatively uniform distribution over the height of the building, indicating a capability to repress the formation of a soft story mechanism.

3. The hybrid devices in Configuration 1 (R = 4) can be designed with a short length, limiting the amount of SMA material required, while still showing good behavior in terms of both peak interstory drift and residual deformation.

References

[1] Constantinou MC, Soong TT, Dargush GF. Passive energy dissipation systems fro structural design and retrofit. Buffalo (NY): Research Foundation of the State University of New York and Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research; 1998. [2] Richter PJ, Nims DK, Kelly JM, Kallenbach RM. The EDR energy dissipating restraint. In: Proceedings of the structural engineers association of California convention. 1990.

[3] Nims DK, Richter PJ, Bachman RE. The use of the energy dissipating restraint for seismic hazard mitigation. Earthq Spectra 1993;9:467–89. [4] Tsopelas P, Constantinou MC. Experimental and analytical study of a system consisting of sliding bearings and fluid restoring force/damping devices. Technical report NCEER-94-0014. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Buffalo, NY. 1994. [5] Duerig TW, Melton KN, Proft JL. Engineering aspects of shape memory alloys. Guildford, (UK): Butterworth-Heineman; 1990. [6] Chandra R. Acitve shape control of composite blades using shape memory actuation. Smart Mater Struct 2001;10:1018–24. [7] Bank R, Weres O. In: Perkins J, editor. Shape memory effects in alloys. NY:

Plenum Press; 1976. [8] Andrawes B, DesRoches R. Effect of hysteretic properties of superelastic shape memory alloys on the seismic performance of structures. Struct Control Health Monit 2007;14:301–20. [9] Wilde K, Gardoni P, Fujino Y. Base isolation system with shape memory alloy devices for elevated highway bridges. Eng Struct 2000;22:222–9. [10] Speicher M, DesRoches R, Leon RT. Analytical study of SDOF systems with superelastic shape memory alloy properties. In: Proceedings of the 18th analysis and computation specialty conference. 2008.

[11]

Dolce M, Cardone D, Marnetto R. Implementation and testing of passive control devices based on shape memory alloys. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2000;29:

945–68.

[12] Motahari SA, Ghassemieh M, Abolmaali SA. Implementation of shape memory alloy dampers for passive control of structures subjected to seismic excitations. J Constr Steel Res 2007;63:1570–9. [13] DesRoches R, Delemont M. Seismic retrofit of simply supported bridges using shape memory alloys. Eng Struct 2002;24:325–32.

[14]

Shook D, Roschke P, Lin PY, Loh CH. Experimental investigation of super-elastic semi-active damping for seismically excited structures. In: Proceedings of the 18th analysis and computation specialty conference. 2008.

[15]

Shook D, Roschke P, Lin PY, Loh CH. GA-optimized fuzzy logic control of a large-

[16]

scale building for seismic loads. Eng Struct 2008;30:436–49. Zhu S, Zhang Y. Performance based seismic design of steel braced frame system with self-centering friction damping brace. In: Proceedings of the 18th analysis and computation specialty conference. 2008.

[17] Zhu S, Zhang Y. Seismic analysis and design of steel concentrically braced frames with self-centering friction damping brace, ATLSS report 07–09. Lehigh University. Bethlehem, PA. 2007. [18] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. OpenSEES command language manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2006. http:// opensees.berkeley.edu. [19] FEMA-355C. State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subjected to earthquake ground shaking. FEMA 355C/September 2000. Washington (DC): Building Seismic Safety Council; 2000.

[20]

Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE/SEI 7-05. 2006.

[21] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), AISC Seismic. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago. 2005.

[22] Yang CS, Leon RT, DesRoches R. Design and behavior of zipper-braced frames. Eng Struct 2008;30:1092–100. [23] Yang CS, Leon RT, DesRoches R. Pushover response of a braced frame with suspended zipper struts. J Struct Eng-ASCE 2008;134:1619–26.

Auricchio F, Sacco E. A one-dimensional model for superelastic shape-memory

[24]

alloys with different properties between martensite and austenite. Int J Non- Linear Mech 1997;32:1101–14. [25] Bruno S, Valente C. Comparative response analysis of conventional and innovative seismic protection strategies. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2002;31:

1067–92.

[26] McCormic JP. Cyclic behavior of shape memory alloys: Material characteri-

zation and optimization. Ph.D. dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology.

2006.

[27] Fugazza D. Shape-memory alloy devices for earthquake engineering: Me- chanical properties, constitutive modeling and numerical simulations, Mas- ters’ thesis. European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, Pavia, Italy; 2003. http://www-1.unipv.it/dms/compmech/dissertations/

FugazzaMSc.pdf. Fugazza D. Use of shape-memory alloy devices in earthquake engineering: Me- chanical properties, advanced constitutive modeling and structural applica- tions. Ph.D. dissertation. European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk. Pavia, Italy; 2005. http://www-1.unipv.it/dms/compmech/ dissertations/FugazzaPhD.pdf.

[29] Somerville PG, Smith N, Punyamurthula S, Sun J. Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project. SAC background document. Report no. SAC/BD 97/04. 1997.

[28]