Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 10, pp 4861–4892 | Cite as

Response surface analysis and optimization of controlled rocking steel braced frames

  • Saber MoradiEmail author
  • Henry V. Burton
Original Research Paper


As an alternative to conventional seismic force resisting systems, controlled rocking steel braced frames (CRSBFs) can effectively eliminate permanent structural damage after earthquakes. Together with the rocking action in the braced frame, post-tensioning (PT) elements and fuse members are used to provide self-centering and energy dissipation, respectively. This study firstly aims to assess the influence of design parameters related to the fuse and PT materials on the seismic response of CRSBFs. These factors include the yield strength, initial stiffness, and strain hardening ratio of the fuse, the initial force and modulus of elasticity of the PT strands, and the gravity load on the rocking column. Additionally, different analysis cases are considered to include the effects of frame aspect ratio and earthquake intensity level. Nonlinear response history analyses are performed with factor combinations generated using a design of experiment methodology. The second goal of the study is focused on optimizing the seismic response of CRSBFs with respect to the influential factors identified in the sensitivity analyses. Using a response surface methodology and desirability approach, multiple-response optimization is applied to determine the design variable values needed to simultaneously minimize the maximum transient and residual roof drift ratio and peak floor acceleration. Among other results, it is found that the fuse strain hardening ratio and PT strand modulus of elasticity do not significantly influence the seismic response demands in CRSBFs. The results of the multi-response optimization demonstrate that the initial PT force is most useful for minimizing all three seismic response demand parameters.


Steel controlled rocking braced frame Seismic demand Sensitivity Optimization Design of experiment Response surface model 



This research is supported by National Science Foundation Award No. 1554714. The financial support from the Faculty of Engineering and Architectural Science at Ryerson University provided to the first author is also acknowledged.


  1. Akbas T, Sause R, Ricles JM et al (2017) Analytical and experimental lateral-load response of self-centering posttensioned CLT walls. J Struct Eng 143:4017019. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2005) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Illinois, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Azuhata T, Midorikawa M, Wada A (2003) Study on applicability of rocking structural systems to building structures. In: Agnes GS, Wang KW (eds) Smart structures and materials. Damping and Isolation. International Society for Optics and Photonics. Proceedings of SPIE, vol 5052. pp 287–296Google Scholar
  4. Chancellor N, Eatherton M, Roke D, Akbaş T (2014) Self-centering seismic lateral force resisting systems: high performance structures for the city of tomorrow. Buildings 4:520–548. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Derringer G, Suich R (1980) Simultaneous optimization of several response variables. J Qual Technol 12:214–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dowden DM, Clayton PM, Li C-H et al (2015) Full-scale pseudodynamic testing of self-centering steel plate shear walls. J Struct Eng. Google Scholar
  7. DX10 (2016) Design-Expert® Software Version 10Google Scholar
  8. Eatherton MR, Hajjar JF (2010) Large-scale cyclic and hybrid simulation testing and development of a controlled-rocking steel building system with replaceable fuses. Newmark Structural Engineering Laboratory Report, Newmark Structural Engineering Laboratory Report Series, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  9. Eatherton MR, Hajjar JF (2011) Residual drifts of self-centering systems including effects of ambient building resistance. Earthq Spectra 27:719–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eatherton MR, Hajjar JF (2014) Hybrid simulation testing of a self-centering rocking steel braced frame system. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43:1725–1742. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eatherton MR, Fahnestock LA, Miller DJ (2014a) Computational study of self-centering buckling-restrained braced frame seismic performance. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43:1897–1914. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eatherton MR, Ma X, Krawinkler H et al (2014b) Quasi-static cyclic behavior of controlled rocking steel frames. J Struct Eng 140:4014083. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eatherton MR, Ma X, Krawinkler H et al (2014c) Design concepts for controlled rocking of self-centering steel-braced frames. J Struct Eng 140:4014082. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erochko J, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R (2014) Design, testing, and detailed component modeling of a high-capacity self-centering energy-dissipative brace. J Struct Eng. Google Scholar
  15. Fang C, Yam M, Ma H, Chung K (2015) Tests on superelastic Ni–Ti SMA bars under cyclic tension and direct-shear: towards practical recentring connections. Mater Struct 48:1013–1030. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors, FEMA P695. Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings. FEMA P-58, Volumes 1 and 2. Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Guo T, Xu Z, Song L et al (2017) Seismic resilience upgrade of RC frame building using self-centering concrete walls with distributed friction devices. J Struct Eng 143:4017160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gupta A, Krawinkler H (1999) Seismic demands for the performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures. Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Hajjar JF, Sesen AH, Jampole E, Wetherbee A (2013) A synopsis of sustainable structural systems with rocking, self-centering, and articulated energy dissipating fuses. Northeastern University.
  21. Hall KS, Eatherton MR, Hajjar JF (2010) Nonlinear behavior of controlled rocking steel-framed building systems with replaceable energy dissipating fuses. Newmark Structural Engineering Laboratory. University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  22. Hassanli R, Youssf O, Mills JE (2017) Seismic performance of precast posttensioned segmental FRP-confined and unconfined crumb rubber concrete columns. J Compos Constr 21:4017006. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ho TX, Dao TN, Aaleti S et al (2017) Hybrid system of unbonded post-tensioned CLT panels and light-frame wood shear walls. J Struct Eng 143:4016171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Housner GW (1963) The behavior of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 53:403–417.
  25. Kelly JM, Tsztoo DF (1977) Earthquake simulation testing of a stepping frame with energy-absorbing devices. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin Y-C (2015) Steel sliding-controlled coupled beam modules: development and seismic behavior for a moment resisting frame. Eng Struct 99:726–736. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ma X, Krawinkler H, Deierlein GG (2011) Seismic design and behavior of self-centering braced frame with controlled rocking and energy dissipating fuses. Blume Earthquake Engineering CenterGoogle Scholar
  28. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL et al (2013) OpenSees [Computer Software]: The open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. Meek JW (1978) Dynamic response of tipping core buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 6:437–454. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Midorikawa M, Azuhata T, Ishihara T et al (2002) Earthquake response reduction of buildings by rocking structural systems. In: SPIE’s 9th Annual international symposium on smart structures and materials. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 265–272Google Scholar
  31. Miranda E (2000) Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm sites. J Struct Eng 126:1150–1159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Montgomery DC (2013) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, Eighth EdiGoogle Scholar
  33. Moradi S, Alam MS (2014) Feasibility study of utilizing superelastic shape memory alloy plates in steel beam-column connections for improved seismic performance. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 26:463–475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moradi S, Alam MS (2017) Lateral load-drift response and limit states of posttensioned steel beam–column connections: parametric study. J Struct Eng 143:4017044. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moradi S, Alam MS, Asgarian B (2014) Incremental dynamic analysis of steel frames equipped with NiTi shape memory alloy braces. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 23:1406–1425. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2009) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Preciado A, Sperbeck ST, Ramírez-Gaytán A (2016) Seismic vulnerability enhancement of medieval and masonry bell towers externally prestressed with unbonded smart tendons. Eng Struct 122:50–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Preciado A, Ramírez-Gaytan A, Gutierrez N et al (2018) Nonlinear earthquake capacity of slender old masonry structures prestressed with steel, FRP and NiTi SMA tendons. Steel Compos Struct 26:213–226Google Scholar
  39. Ruiz-García J, Miranda E (2010) Probabilistic estimation of residual drift demands for seismic assessment of multi-story framed buildings. Eng Struct 32:11–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rutenberg A, Jennings PC, Housner GW (1982) The response of veterans hospital building 41 in the San Fernando earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 10:359–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sause R, Ricles JM, Roke DA et al (2010) Seismic performance of a self-centering rocking concentrically-braced frame. In: Proceedings, 9th US National and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering. Toronto, ON, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  42. Sperbeck ST (2008) Seismic risk assessment of masonry walls and risk reduction by means of prestressing. Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany and University of Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  43. Tremblay R, Poirier LP, Bouaanani N et al (2008) Innovative viscously damped rocking braced steel frames. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China, pp 12–17Google Scholar
  44. Wang W, Kong J, Zhang Y et al (2018) Seismic behavior of self-centering modular panel with slit steel plate shear walls: experimental testing. J Struct Eng 144:4017179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiebe L, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Leclerc M (2013) Mechanisms to limit higher mode effects in a controlled rocking steel frame. 1: concept, modelling, and low-amplitude shake table testing. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:1053–1068. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringRyerson UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations