Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 2715–2739 | Cite as

A new energy-absorbing system for seismic retrofitting of frame structures with slender braces

  • Vahid Mohsenian
  • Alireza MortezaeiEmail author
Original Research


Past earthquakes experience regarding frame structures with slender braces, i.e. tension-only concentrically braced frames, has demonstrated poor seismic behavior of these systems. In these buildings, the bracing system does not have sufficient buckling strength, and the sudden buckling causes rapid drops in the structural stiffness and strength. In the present study, to improve the seismic performance of slender braces in frame structures, adding new, replaceable shear-flexural yielding hinges in the central yielding dampers is proposed. In the new system, by transforming the axial force of braces to shear force and flexural moment in the hinges, the seismic energy will be dissipated. In this regard, the influences of the proposed dampers on the seismic response, as well as response modification factor (R-factor), are evaluated along with the seismic reliability analysis for different performance levels. The results show that the proposed damper has an acceptable energy dissipation capacity and considerably increases ductility of the system. The response modification factor and corresponding acceleration for the frame structures equipped with the new damper are derived as 8.5 and 0.775 g, respectively. Also, it is observed that the proposed energy-absorbing system provides acceptable reliability, such that the bracing system remains in the immediate occupancy performance level in the case of design earthquake level.


Energy-absorbing system Central yielding brace Slender brace Response modification factor Seismic reliability 



  1. ABAQUS (2014) Version 6.14, ABAQUS users manual. SIMULIA World Headquarters, ProvidenceGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbasnia R, Vetr MG, Ahmadi R, Kafi MA (2010) Laboratory and analytical review ductile steel ring. Sharif J Civ Eng 51:41–48 (in Persian) Google Scholar
  3. ATC (1992) Guidelines for seismic testing of components of steel structures report-24. Applied Technology CouncilGoogle Scholar
  4. ATC (1995) Structural response modification factors. ATC-19 Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  5. ATC (1996) Seismic evaluation of concrete buildings, vol 1, ATC-40. Applied Technology Council, RedwoodGoogle Scholar
  6. Beheshti-Aval SB, Mahbanouei H, Zareian F (2013) A hybrid friction-yielding damper to equip concentrically braced steel frames. Int J Steel Struct 13(4):577–587Google Scholar
  7. Beheshti-Aval SB, Mohsenian V, Sadegh Kouhestani H (2018) Seismic performance-based assessment of tunnel form buildings subjected to near- and far-fault ground motions. Asian J Civ Eng 19(1):79–92. Google Scholar
  8. Bertro VV (1989) Evaluation of response reduction factors recommended by ATC and SEAOC. In: Proceedings of 3rd U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, South Carolina, pp 1663–1670Google Scholar
  9. Brahmavrathan D, Arunkumar C (2016) Evaluation of response reduction factor of irregular reinforced concrete framed structures. Indian J Sci Technol 9(23):1–8. Google Scholar
  10. Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M, Rutenberg A (2006) Multi-dimensional fragility of structures: formulation and evaluation. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, MCEER-06-0002Google Scholar
  11. Cofie NG, Krawinkler H (1985) Uniaxial cyclic stress–strain behavior of structural steel. J Eng Mech 111(9):1105–1120Google Scholar
  12. Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI) (2015) Structural and earthquake engineering software, ETABS, Extended three dimensional analysis of building systems nonlinear. Version 15.2.2. Berkeley, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI) (2016) Structural and Earthquake Engineering Software, PERFORM-3D Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3-D Structures. Version 6.0.0, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  14. Deihim M, Kafi MA (2017) A parametric study into the new design of a steel energy-absorbing connection. Eng Struct 145:22–33Google Scholar
  15. Di Cesare A, Ponzo FC, Nigro D (2014) Assessment of the performance of hysteretic energy dissipation bracing systems. Bull Earthq Eng 12(6):2777–2796Google Scholar
  16. Elnashai AS, Mwafy AM (2002) Over strength and force reduction factors of multi storey reinforced concrete buildings. Struct Des Tall Build 11:329–351Google Scholar
  17. Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 116(3):573–592Google Scholar
  18. Fanaie N, Afsar-Dizaj (2014) Response modification factor of the frames braced with reduced yielding segment BRB. Struct Eng Mech 50(1):1–17Google Scholar
  19. Filiatrault A, Tremblay R (1998) Design of tension-only concentrically braced steel frames for seismic induced impact loading. Eng Struct 20(12):1087–1096Google Scholar
  20. Giannuzzi D, Ballarini R, Huckelbridge A, Pollino M, Valente M (2014) Braced ductile shear panel: new seismic-resistant framing system. J Struct Eng 140(2):1–11. Google Scholar
  21. Hancock J, Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ, Markatis A, McCoy E, Mendis R (2006) An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets. J Earthq Eng 10:67–89Google Scholar
  22. Hosseinpour F, Abdelnaby AE (2017) Fragility curves for RC frames under multiple earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 98:222–234Google Scholar
  23. Institute of National Building Regulations (2008) Design and construction of steel structures, Topic 10, Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, IranGoogle Scholar
  24. Jurukovski D, Simenov B (1998) Effectiveness of energy absorbing elements in composite steel frame structures. In: Proceedings of 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo, Kyoto, vol 4, pp 291–296Google Scholar
  25. Jurukovski D, Petkovski M, Pakicevic Z (1995) Energy absorbing in regular and composite steel frame structures. Eng Struct 17:314–333Google Scholar
  26. Ko E, Field C (2003) The unbounded brace: from research to Californian practice, SEAOC conventionGoogle Scholar
  27. Lia SP, Biggs JM (1980) Inelastic response spectra for seismic building design. J Struct Div (ASCE) 106(ST6):1295–1310Google Scholar
  28. Liel AB, Haselton CB, Deierlein GG, Baker JW (2008) Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings. Struct Saf 31(2):197–211. Google Scholar
  29. Miranda E (1991) Seismic evaluation & upgrading of existing buildings. Phd thesis, University of California @ BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  30. Mises RV (1931) Mechanics of solid bodies in the plastically-deformable state. Nachrichten von der KoeniglichenGesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Gottingen, Math-Phys, Klass 4:582–592Google Scholar
  31. Moghaddam H, Karami Mohammadi R (2001) Ductility reduction factor of MDOF shear-building structures. J Struct Eng ASCE 5(3):425–440Google Scholar
  32. Mohsenian V, Gharehbaghi SA, Beheshti-Aval SB (2016) Seismic reliability assessment of two case-study tunnel form buildings considering the effect of soil–structure interaction. Bull Earthq Sci Eng 3(3):11–29 (in Persian) Google Scholar
  33. Mortezaei A (2013) Plastic hinge length of RC columns considering soil–structure interaction. Earthq Struct 5(6):679–702Google Scholar
  34. Mortezaei A, Ronagh HR (2013) Effectiveness of modified pushover analysis procedure for the estimation of seismic demands of buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions having fling step. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(6):1579–1593Google Scholar
  35. Mosleh A, Razzaghi MS, Jara J, Varum H (2016) Development of fragility curves for RC bridges subjected to reverse and strike-slip seismic sources. Earthq Struct 11(3):517–538Google Scholar
  36. Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2002) Calibration of force reduction factors of RC buildings. J Earthq Eng 6(2):239–273Google Scholar
  37. Nakashima M (1995) Strain-hardening behavior of shear panels made of low-yield steel. I: test. J Struct Eng 121(12):1742–1749Google Scholar
  38. Pall AS, Pall R (1996) Friction-dampers for seismic control of buildings—a Canadian experience. In: 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Mexico, paper no. 497Google Scholar
  39. PEER Ground Motion Database, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
  40. Permanent Committee for Revising the Standard 2800 (2005) Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings, 3rd edn. Building and Housing Research Center, TehranGoogle Scholar
  41. Preciado A, Sperbeck ST, Ramirez-Gaytan A (2016) Seismic vulnerability enhancement of medieval and masonry bell towers externally prestressed with unbonded smart tendons. Eng Struct 122:50–61Google Scholar
  42. Preciado A, Ramirez-Gaytan A, Gutierrez N, Vargas D, Falcon JM, Ochoa G (2018) Nonlinear earthquake capacity of slender old masonry structures prestressed with steel, FRP and NiTi SMA tendons. Steel Compos Struct 26(2):213–226Google Scholar
  43. Sadeghi M, Gafory-Ashtiany M, Pakdel-Lahiji N (2015) Developing seismic vulnerability curves for typical Iranian buildings. J Risk Reliab 229(6):1–14. Google Scholar
  44. Saeed Monir H, Fazlalipoor N (2016) Application of a new cylindrical slit damper for mitigation of structural vibrations. J Civ Environ Eng 45(81):29–43 (in Persian) Google Scholar
  45. Santa-Ana PA (2004) Estimation of strength reduction factors for elastoplastic structures: modification factors. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada, paper no. 126Google Scholar
  46. Sarno LD, Elnashai AS (2002) Seismic retrofitting of steel and composite building structures. Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, ReportGoogle Scholar
  47. Technical Criteria Codification & Earthquake Risk Reduction Affairs Bureau (2014) Instruction for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, no. 360, 1st edn, Management and Planning Organization, IranGoogle Scholar
  48. Tekie PB, Ellingwood BP (2003) Seismic fragility assessment of concrete gravity dams. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(14):2221–2240Google Scholar
  49. Tremblay R, Filiatrault A (1996) Seismic impact loading in inelastic tension-only concentrically braced steel frames: myth or Reality? Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25:1373–1389Google Scholar
  50. Vezina S, Pall RT (2004) Seismic retrofit of MUCTC building using friction dampers. PALAIS DES CONGRES, MONTREAL. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada, Paper no. 1946Google Scholar
  51. Whittaker A, Hart G, Rojahn C (1999) Seismic response modification factors. J Struct Eng 125:438–444Google Scholar
  52. Zahrai SM, ArmanNikoo S (2015) Comparing seismic performance of yielding damped braced frames with mild and low-yield steel in typical steel buildings. Modares Civ Eng J 14(4):39–52 (In Persian) Google Scholar
  53. Zareian F, Krawinkler H, Ibarra L, Lignos D (2010) Basic concepts and performance measures in prediction of collapse of buildings under earthquake ground motions. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 19:167–181. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Seismic Geotechnical and High Performance Concrete Research Centre, Civil Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Semnan BranchIslamic Azad UniversitySemnanIran

Personalised recommendations