Advertisement

SN Applied Sciences

, 2:74 | Cite as

Using concentric and zipper steel braces by comparison of effect on improved seismic performance level of concrete moment frame structures with moderate ductility

  • Kaveh NezamisavojbolaghiEmail author
Research Article
  • 139 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Engineering: Frontiers in Engineering Sciences

Abstract

Recent earthquakes have revealed that, in many cases, the design codes may not guarantee the integrity of all structures for the life safety performance level. Therefore, it seems necessary to study the performance of designed buildings in order to complete, develop and amend the codes. In this paper, the performance level was investigated using the nonlinear static analysis in concrete buildings with moderate ductility and designed according to the latest regulations. Then, as the life safety performance level was not achieved and due to the ease of implementation of steel braces, the concentric chevron brace was used to improve the performance level of these buildings in large bays, and the zipper steel brace was used. The results show that the zipper brace used for strengthening the reinforced concrete structures will increase the performance as well as the stiffness, without the need to strengthen the beams and columns.

Keywords

Nonlinear analysis Plastic hinges Performance level Retrofitting Concrete structures Zipper brace 

1 Introduction

The purpose of the national building codes and regulations considering the seismicity of Iran is to provide the life safety level of the structure in the mild to moderate earthquakes and to prevent the collapse of structure. Recent earthquake related research and experiences show that the national codes and regulations may not guarantee the integrity of all structures for the life safety performance level. However, the purpose of the national building codes and regulations is to provide the life safety level of the structure in earthquakes and to prevent the collapse. The damages in a number of reinforced concrete structures in recent earthquakes such as Sar Pole Zahab earthquake are caused by the unmet goals of the regulations. A number of performance objectives other than life safety, such as controlled damage, cannot be achieved by the existing design regulations for many buildings. For this reason, many researchers believe that the seismic design methods should be revised and, in other words, the performance based design methods should be replaced so as to specify the designed structures with the performance of structural and nonstructural components according to the location and seismicity of the site. In this way, designers can design the structures for the expected damage corresponding to the seismicity of the site [1, 2].

In the structures constructed according to the regulations, the life safety performance is assumed and it is expected to achieve this performance level, while in the performance based design, the damage to the structure is evaluated at certain levels of earthquake hazard in comparison with the established criteria [3, 4]. A significant point to note in the design based on national codes and regulations is that there is no relationship between the strength and the safety based on the expected performance level and the cost of design and implementation of the structure [5, 6, 7].

The study of braced frames has long received the interest of researchers, but the study of reinforced concrete braced frames is relatively recent and does not have much research background. The history of strengthening the concrete moment frames with bracing dates back to the study of Sugano and Fujimura [8], which performed the experiments on a number of reinforced concrete frames with K and X braces and the similar frames strengthened by masonry and concrete infills. The purpose of these studies was to determine the effect of each system on the increased in-plane strength and ductility of frames [8]. The researchers have found that steel braces have many non-structural advantages over other designs and can be installed with minimal disruption and also do not occupy much space. From the structural point of view, the steel bracing is also very suitable for the lateral strengthening or hardening of multi-story reinforced concrete structures. The bracing system should be designed for the elastic response and be detailed for the ductile behavior. To restrict the non-elastic buckling, the slenderness ratio of braces should be kept low. The use of braces without the buckling (very low slenderness) or with elastic buckling (Very high slenderness) should be taken into account. In the frames with weak columns and strong beams, the combination of steel bracing with beam modification can greatly improve the frame behavior. Wyllie et al. [9] presented a report on strengthening the concrete building with the steel bracing in the University of California, Berkeley. The method used in this project is the application of braced steel frames inside the reinforced concrete (RC) frames. The report states that the used steel bracing method was the most economical method for strengthening [9].

Tagawa et al. [10] in a paper titled ‘‘Experimental Study of New Seismic Strengthening Method for Existing RC Structure’’ described the use of steel frames braced with the K bracing inside the RC frames. The test was carried out on one-story single-bay RC frames on 1:2 scale. Finally, it was found that the ultimate shear strength of the strengthened RC frame can be easily obtained by summing the shear strength of steel elements and existing RC frame based on the conventional computational methods [10].

Sugano [11] in a paper titled ‘‘Research and Design for Seismic Retrofit of Existing Buildings in Japan’’ described the methods used to strengthen the RC structures severely damaged by recent destructive earthquakes. In this paper, reviewing the information obtained from existing research, the techniques and methods for the strengthening and the behavior of strengthened structures are investigated. Also, the practical design described by some design examples for the strengthening of existing buildings is proposed before the earthquake. In this paper, different strengthening methods are compared which show the proper behavior of braced RC frames. Different designs of RC frame bracing are also compared. From this comparison, the X bracing increases the strength of structure more than other designs. It should be noted that the bracing method in this study is the use of braced steel frames in concrete frames [11].

Nateghi [12] presented a report on the real strengthening in a paper titled “Seismic retrofit of 8-story RC building”. In that research, after examining several strengthening methods, the steel bracing of concrete frame was recognized and used as the most suitable method. The analysis of braced building shows good results from reducing the horizontal displacement. The details of bracing connection to the frame used in this paper were specific to Iran and not found in other papers [12]. Some studies have been conducted on the performance level of reinforced concrete structures. For example, Tasnimi and Bashiri investigated the performance levels and strengthening of reinforced concrete moment frames with moderate ductility by different methods. The results showed that the frames with lower bays and higher seismic risk had poor performance and did not meet the life safety performance level (Tasnimi, Abasali; Bashiri, Ayoub, 2009) [13].

Godínez-Domínguez and Tena-Colunga [14] used a nonlinear static method to evaluate the behavior of the dual ductile concrete moment frame and special concentric bracing system. The researchers designed the 4 to 24 story frames by the capacity design method based on the Mexican design regulations. The moment frames were designed for different shares of the base shear (25, 50,75) and the bracing system was designed for the rest of the earthquake force. According to the research, the design method was appropriate and the performance of frames was suitable for the case where the moment frame and braces were individually designed for 50% of the earthquake force. In this context, Godínez-Domínguez and Tena-Colunga [14] published their findings on the seismic performance of the frames. The result of this study was the high ductility and overstrength capacity and good seismic performance [14].

Ozcelik et al. [15] had studied about Comparison of chevron and suspended-zipper braced steel frames and the results appear to indicate that the lateral load capacity and drift demands for both low-rise chevron and suspended-zipper braced frames are very similar; however, the mid-rise chevron braced frame has a better performance compared to the mid-rise suspended-zipper braced frame. Also, in the latest studies, Nezamisavojbolaghi and Karimi investigated the effect of the existence and modeling of infills on the performance level of reinforced concrete structures with moderate moment frame and asymmetric bays. In this research, the results showed that the performance level is affected by not modeling the infill [16].

Nassani et al. [17] in a paper titled “Comparative Response Assessment of Steel Frames With Different Bracing Systems Under Seismic Effect’’ described the use of different bracing system in steel frames. The results showed a good improvement in the seismic resistance of frames with the incorporation of bracing. The results revealed that the bracing elements were very effective in diminishing drifts since the reduction of inter-story drifts with respect to unbraced frames were on the average 58%. Also steel braces considerably reduced the global damage index [17].

The recent research Vahedi et al. [18] in a titled “seismic Evaluation of a Non ductile Soft-First-Story RC Building Retrofitted with Steel-Braced Frames” described the seismic evaluation in RC building retrofitted with steel-braced frames. The results showed that, in the strength-type retrofit, because of lack of required ductility, premature shear and/or axial failures of RC columns are more likely to occur than those failures in nonretrofitted ones. Also, it was found that the variation of the axial and shear forces in the boundary RC columns and the slenderness ratios of the steel braces are the critical factors influencing the seismic responses of the buildings retrofitted using the steel-braced frames [18].

In this study, the performance level of RC structures with the moderate-ductility moment frame system designed based on the Standard No. 2800, fourth edition [19] and the Chapter IX of National Building Regulations [20] is evaluated as the existing structures using the nonlinear static or pushover analysis. Then, due to the failure to achieve the life safety performance level obtained from the pushover analysis to improve the performance level of selected structures using the zipper steel bracing in the 7 m bays which have less been considered in the previous research, the stiffness, ductility, inter story drift and the performance levels are compared with those of chevron braces.

2 Specifications of study models

In this research, the seismic behavior of concrete buildings with moderate ductility strengthened with zipper steel braces based on the performance level is studied and determined, which were loaded according to the provisions of Chapter VI (loads applied to building), designed according to the Chapter XI concrete regulations of Iran and strengthened by “Guideline for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Journal No. 360, Revision 2013, Iran”. The specifications of concrete are considered as C20 grade with S400 rebar, steel yield stress of 2400 kg/cm2 and failure stress of 4000 kg/cm2. For this purpose, the RC buildings with the moderate ductility, 6 story with 4 bays in the both x and y directions in a region of high seismicity were studied and strengthened. In the both directions, two types of bracing layout were used. The considered buildings with the residential occupancy are located in Mahabad with type III soil and allowable soil stress of 1.2 kg f/cm2. The gravity loading is based on the Iranian Regulations (Chapter VI), and the Iranian Standard No. 2800, fourth edition is used for the lateral loading. The typical elevation of stories is 3.20 m. The 25 cm block joist ceiling is used. The building has exterior (peripheral) walls with the thickness of 20 cm and interior partitions with the thickness of 10 cm. Also, two southern and eastern sides of structure have veneered walls, and the northern and western sides have the non-veneered walls. The chevron and zipper braces are also designed according to the seismic provisions of Chapter X of National Regulations.

The structural analysis and design are done by the limit state method using the ETABS 2015 software [21].

The plan of buildings in six and ten story models and the three dimensional façade of six story buildings are selected according to Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Centerline plan of columns in analysis models and 6-story model view

The dimensions of beams and columns (cm) in the models after the design by the final limit method and considering the seismic design criteria are listed in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1

Dimensions of 6-story model beam and column

Beam

Column

Story

50 × 40

55 × 55

1

50 × 40

55 × 55

2

45 × 40

50 × 50

3

45 × 40

50 × 50

4

40 × 40

45 × 45

5

40 × 40

45 × 45

6

Table 2

Dimensions of 10-story model beam and column

Beam

Column

Story

60 × 45

60 × 60

1

60 × 45

60 × 60

2

55 × 45

55 × 55

3

55 × 45

55 × 55

4

50 × 45

50 × 50

5

50 × 45

50 × 50

6

40 × 40

45 × 45

7

40 × 40

45 × 45

8

40 × 40

40 × 40

9

40 × 40

40 × 40

10

3 Non-linear static analysis and review and improvement of performance level of models

After the linear analysis and the initial design according to the National Regulations, the models were considered as existing structures. Therefore, after determining the life safety performance level and predicting the behavior of structures in accordance with the guideline, the existing seismic rehabilitation was done by nonlinear static analysis [22]. After the nonlinear static analysis of models, it was found that the 6 and 10 story models do not meet the objectives of national regulations and do not result in the life safety performance level. Figure 2 shows the formation of plastic hinges where the red color represents the collapse threshold for the members in the ten story model.
Fig. 2

Formation of plastic hinges in ten story model in two different axes (1, D)

Regarding the results of nonlinear static analysis for improving the performance level of models in the 7 m bays in two axes (1, D), the chevron and zipper steel braces were used for the strengthening. The chevron brace sections were 2UPN80 in the 6-story models and 2UPN100 in the ten story models, and the zipper brace sections were 2UPN80 in the sex story models and IPE100 in the ten story models. Also, the 2UPN100 brace with the IPE100 zipper section was used in the ten story models.

In Table 3, the parameters of target displacement and the static nonlinear analysis of the sex story structure are summarized for three cases.
Table 3

Target displacement parameters and static nonlinear analysis of 6-story structure

\(\partial_{t}\) (cm)

\(S_{a}\).g

\(C_{0}\)

\(C_{1}\)

\(C_{2}\)

\(C_{m}\)

\(V_{y} ton\)

\(W_{e}\) ton

\(T_{e}\) sec

Poush01

6-story structure

33.96

0.385

1.33

1

1

1

214.4

2819.4

1.62

Push1

Without brace

22.24

0.655

1.3

1.1

1

1

255.95

2828.82

0.974

Push1

With zipper braces

20.96

0.781

0.817

1.45

1.12

1

376.73

2827.03

0.817

Push1

With concentric brace

4 Analysis of results

After adding the zipper braces and chevron braces and performing the static nonlinear analysis, the results of the analysis can be explored. Due to the distribution and formation of plastic hinges, the expected performance level, namely life safety, can be studied in both cases.

As shown in Fig. 3, the use of chevron brace provides the life safety performance level and the performance level of the initial structure is improved. The formation and distribution of plastic hinges at the base of floor columns are evident.
Fig. 3

Plastic hinge formation in ten story model using chevron bracing

As shown in Fig. 4, the use of zipper brace does not form any hinge at the base of the columns while improving the performance level of the initial structure, which is an important and significant issue. Also, according to the analysis results, it is possible to compare the inter-story drifts in the buildings and models in the both strengthened and non-strengthened cases with the both chevron and zipper bracing systems. As shown in Fig. 5, the inter-story drift in the both cases, strengthened with zipper brace and non-strengthened cases, shows that the numerical values and the results of inter-story drift in the 6-story model are given in Table 4. The results show that the presence of the zipper bracing reduces the inter-story drift, and the values obtained from the zipper bracing are more effective than those of the chevron brace.
Fig. 4

Plastic hinge formation in ten story model using zipper brace

Fig. 5

Diagram of effect of inter-story drift in structure strengthened by zipper steel bracing, blue margin

Table 4

Decrease in inter-story drift with zipper brace in sex story model

Story

Elevation

Location

X-Dir

Y-Dir

X-Dir

Y-Dir

Story6

1900

Top

0.3401

0.0772

0.2752

0.0235

Story5

1600

Top

0.3077

0.0699

0.2535

0.0212

Story4

1280

Top

0.251

0.057

0.2145

0.0181

Story3

960

Top

0.1803

0.0411

0.1633

0.0136

Story2

640

Top

0.103

0.0236

0.1031

0.0088

Story1

320

Top

0.0357

0.0083

0.0414

0.0037

Base

0

Top

0

0

0

0

The bold column shows the reduced values of inter-story drift. For example, in the 19 m level in the Y direction, the inter-story drift was decreased from 0.077 to 0.023.

5 Conclusion

According to the analysis, the results of the analysis showed that:
  1. 1.

    The steel zipper bracing in concrete structures increases the stiffness and reduces the period of structure. This increase in stiffness and the reduction in period increases the base shear in the structure, but due to the proper structural behavior using a dual system and the good ductility of the zipper steel bracing system, the overall performance level of the models is improved.

     
  2. 2.

    By comparing the performance of beams and columns of the above structures, it is observed that in the structure strengthened by the zipper steel bracing, fewer plastic hinges are formed in beams and columns and the structure has a better condition.

     
  3. 3.

    The inter-story drift is decreased in all strengthened models.

     

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Krawinkler H (1999) Challenges and progress in performance-based earthquake engineering. In: International seminar on seismic engineering for tomorrow, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holmes Consulting Group Ltd. (2001) Performance based evaluation of buildings, nonlinear push over and time history analysis. Reference Manual, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krawinkler H (1995) New trends in seismic design methodology. In: Proceedings of 10th European conference on earthquake engineering, Vienna, Austria, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, vol 2, pp 821–830Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghobarah A (2001) Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of development. Eng Struct 23(8):878–884.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00036-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fajfar P (1998) Trends in seismic design and performance evaluation approaches. In: Proceedings of 11th European conference on earthquake engineering, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 237–49Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tassios TP (1998) Seismic design: state of practice. In: Proceedings of 11th European conference on earthquake engineering. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 255–67Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Priestley MJN (1998) Displacement-based approaches to rational limit states design of new structures. In: Proceedings of 11th European conference on earthquake engineering, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 317–35Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sugano S, Fujimura M (1980) Seismic strengthening of existing reinforced concrete building. In: Proceedings of 7th World conference on earthquake engineering, Turkey, vol 4, pp 449–456Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wyllie LA, Dal Pino JA, Cohan J (1991) Seismic upgrade preserves architecture. Modern Steel Construction, Permit No. 4, pp 20–23Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tagawa Y et al. (1992) Experimental study of new seismic strengthening method existing RC structure. In: Proceedings of 7th World conference on earthquake engineering, Madrid-Spain, 19–24, pp 5193–5198Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sugano S (1992) Research and design for seismic retrofit of existing buildings in Japan. In: Memoria proceedings, pp 91–106Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nateghi AF (1994) Seismic strengthening of eight-story reinforced concrete building. In: Proceeding of 10th European conference on earthquake engineering, vol 3, Vienna-Austria, 28 August–2 September, pp 2235–2240Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tasnimi A, Bashiri A (2009) Performance levels of concrete moment frames with moderate durability and strengthening in different methods. Modares Tech J No 36Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Godínez-Domínguez EA, Tena-Colunga A (2010) Nonlinear behavior of code-designed reinforced concrete concentric braced frames under lateral loading. Eng Struct 32(4):944–963.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ozcelik Y, Saritas A, Clayton PM (2016) Comparison of chevron and suspended-zipper braced steel frames. J Constr Steel Res 119:169–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.12.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nezamisavojbolaghi K, Karimi S (2017) Investigation of effect of modeled infills on period and performance levels of reinforced concrete structures with moderate moment frames and asymmetric bays. In: 5th International congress on civil engineering, architecture and urban development, Shahid Beheshti UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nassani DE, Hussein AK, Mohammed AH (2017) Comparative response assessment of steel frames with different bracing systems under seismic effect. Structures 11:229–242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2017.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vahedi S, Javadi P, Hosseini MH (2019) Seismic evaluation of a non ductile soft-first-story RC building retrofitted with steel-braced frames. J Perform Constr Facil 33(6):1.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Regulations for Design of Buildings under Earthquakes (2014) 4th Edition, Building and housing research center, Ministry of housing and urban planning, Standard No. 2800Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iranian National Building Regulations (2013) Chapter IX, 4th Edition, Building and housing research center, Ministry of housing and urban developmentGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Computers and Structures Inc (2000) ETABS2015, version 15.2.0, Integrated structural analysis and design software. Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guideline for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Structures (2013) J No. 360, 1st Revision, President deputy of strategic planning and supervision, Technical System AffairsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Mahabad BranchIslamic Azad UniversityMahabadIran

Personalised recommendations