Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Evaluation of buckling-restrained braced frame seismic performance considering reserve strength

Christopher Ariyaratana a , Larry A. Fahnestock b,
a b

Arup, Edison, NJ 08837, USA Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

article

info

abstract
Buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) systems are used extensively for resisting lateral forces in high seismic regions of the United States. Numerical and large-scale experimental studies of BRBFs have shown predictable seismic performance with robust ductility and energy dissipation capacity. However, the low post-yield stiffness of buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) may cause BRBFs to exhibit large maximum and residual drifts and allow the formation of soft stories. Thus, reserve strength provided by other elements in the lateral-force-resisting system is critical to improving seismic performance of BRBFs. This reserve strength can be provided in two primary ways: (1) moment-resisting connections within the BRBF and (2) a steel special moment-resisting frame (SMRF) in parallel with the BRBF to create a dual system configuration. These two approaches to providing reserve strength can be used together or separately, leading to a variety of potential system configurations. In addition, special attention must be given to the connections within the BRBF since moment-resisting connections have been observed experimentally to limit drift capacity due to undesirable connection-related failure modes. This paper presents nonlinear dynamic analysis results and evaluates performance of BRBF and BRBFSMRF systems using momentresisting and non-moment-resisting beamcolumn connections within the BRBF. Reserve strength is shown to play a critical role in seismic behavior and performance of BRBFs. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 15 January 2010 Received in revised form 15 September 2010 Accepted 16 September 2010 Available online 2 November 2010 Keywords: Buckling-restrained braced frame Dual system Reserve strength Seismic performance Residual drift

1. Introduction 1.1. Background Tests of buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) have consistently demonstrated stable and robust behavior under cyclic loading [1,2]. Since the steel core of a BRB cannot buckle, it yields in compression as well as in tension and develops significant inelastic deformation and energy dissipation. These characteristics have made BRBs an attractive alternative to conventional steel braces in high seismic regions of the United States. In response to the widespread interest in concentrically braced frames (CBFs) with BRBs, which are called buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs), BRBF design provisions are now included in Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures: SEI/ASCE 7-05 [3] and the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings [4]. Although these provisions were developed to be both practical and sufficiently rigorous to provide a level of reliability equivalent

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 217 265 0211; fax: +1 217 265 8040. E-mail address: fhnstck@illinois.edu (L.A. Fahnestock).

to that of other earthquake-resistant structural systems [5], they do not explicitly address the low post-yield stiffness of BRBs and the resulting effect on residual drift and soft story formation. After the BRBs in a given story have yielded under seismic excitation, their low post-yield stiffness provides minimal restoring force and drift can easily concentrate in the story. As a result, residual drift is inherently unpredictable and highly dependent on the ground motion characteristics. Numerical studies of BRBFs have shown residual drift with a mean value greater than 0.005 rad for the design basis earthquake (DBE), which corresponds approximately to a seismic hazard with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, and greater than 0.01 rad for the maximum considered earthquake (MCE), which corresponds to a seismic hazard with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years [6,7]. Large-scale hybrid earthquake simulations of BRBFs produced residual story drifts of 0.013 and 0.027 rad for the DBE and MCE, respectively [8]. Although limits on residual drift are not clearly established, it is typically expected that residual drift less than 0.005 rad would be tolerable and would permit a building to be returned to service with little difficulty (e.g., doors, windows and elevators would still be functional). Given that BRBF residual drift after a DBE could exceed this threshold, postearthquake repair costs arising from residual drift may make BRBFs less attractive.

0141-0296/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.09.020

78

C. Ariyaratana, L.A. Fahnestock / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789

Recent research has demonstrated the influence that beamcolumn connections within BRBFs have on the overall system performance. Large-scale tests of a one-bay one-story BRBF [9] showed that, although the BRBs performed well, the momentresisting beamcolumn connections induced unanticipated demands within the frame that eventually led to out-of-plane BRB failure at a story drift around 0.025 rad. Similar undesirable BRB failure modes were observed in other large-scale BRBF tests [10,11]. Large-scale tests of a one-bay four-story BRBF [8] showed that creating a non-moment-resisting beamcolumn connection by introducing a bolted splice in the beam adjacent to the beamcolumn connection significantly reduced demands and prevented out-of-plane BRB failure while still maintaining good seismic performance of the BRBF system. Wigle and Fahnestock [12] conducted parametric numerical studies that demonstrated the variations in local and global behavior for BRBFs with momentresisting and non-moment-resisting connections. The AISC Seismic Provisions [4] require stability to be considered when designing gusset plates in BRBFs, but the type of beamcolumn connection (moment-resisting or non-moment-resisting) is not identified as a critical parameter affecting behavior and performance, and no guidance is given for design. 1.2. Reserve strength and dual systems Prior research has demonstrated the importance of reserve strength for reducing maximum and residual drift demands in buildings. This reserve strength can be provided by column continuity [1315] or by secondary moment-resisting frames [1618]. As defined in SEI/ASCE 7-05 [3], a dual system combines a stiff primary seismic force-resisting system (a braced frame or shear wall) with special moment-resisting frames (SMRFs) capable of resisting at least 25% of prescribed seismic forces. In a dual system, the total seismic force resistance is to be provided by the combination of the primary system and the SMRFs in proportion to their rigidities. Since the primary system is much stiffer than the SMRFs, the primary system is typically designed for the full seismic force with the SMRFs providing reserve strength that enhances seismic performance. Using this approach, Kiggins and Uang [16] investigated three-story and six-story BRBFSMRF dual systems with numerical earthquake simulations. This study built on a prior study by Sabelli et al. [6] that investigated isolated BRBFs. It was shown that the BRBFSMRF dual systems reduced residual story drift by approximately 50% while maximum story drift was reduced by approximately 10% when compared to the isolated BRBF systems. Although the elastic stiffness of the dual systems was only slightly larger than the isolated BRBFs due to the addition of the SMRFs, it was concluded that the additional global post-yield stiffness provided by the SMRFs introduced enough re-centering to significantly reduce the effect of the low inelastic BRBF stiffness. A more novel system configuration, which was labeled a dual system by its developers, used BRBs on one side of a chevron CBF, whereas the other side of the CBF was designed to remain elastic and distribute inelastic demand (i.e., BRB yielding) over the height of the frame [19]. This elasticinelastic CBF dual system configuration is much different from the BRBFSMRF dual system configuration described above since it is a braced frame with distinct components that cannot support loads independently, but it appears to provide promising results. Numerical earthquake simulations showed that by distributing inelastic demand, the elasticinelastic CBF dual system developed 50% larger resistance to collapse than an isolated BRBF. Residual drift comparisons were not presented in this study. Although this new system configuration is an important advance in the use of BRBs, it is a significant departure from the conventional BRBFSMRF dual system configuration, which still requires further study.

1.3. Research motivation Although numerical and experimental studies of BRBFs have demonstrated reasonable seismic performance, the low post-yield stiffness of BRBs may cause BRBFs to exhibit large maximum and residual drifts and allow the formation of soft stories. In addition, premature failure of some types of beamcolumn connections may hinder the performance of the BRBs and reduce the effectiveness of the BRBF system. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate system configurations that economically mitigate BRBF residual drift, limit soft story formation, and prevent undesirable failure modes in the beamcolumn connection regions. The research described in this paper explores the implications of reserve strength in the context of these needs. An investigation of isolated BRBFs and BRBFs that are combined with SMRFs to form a dual system was conducted with the objective of assessing their seismic behavior and performance using numerical earthquake simulations. Nonlinear time-history analysis for ground motions scaled to two seismic hazard levels was conducted along with incremental dynamic analysis. BRBFs with moment-resisting and non-moment-resisting beamcolumn connections were studied. Moment-resisting connections within a BRBF provide redundancy and reserve strength, but may reduce the drift capacity of the BRBF. Conversely, non-moment-resisting connections within a BRBF reduce redundancy and reserve strength, but allow for larger drift capacity since connection-related failure modes can be prevented. Thus, this research focuses on the impact of reserve strength in BRBF systems, whether provided by BRBF connections or parallel SMRFs, and assesses the design provision in SEI/ASCE 7-05 [3]. 2. Prototype designs 2.1. Design provisions SEI/ASCE 7-05 [3] includes provisions for isolated BRBF systems and BRBFSMRF dual systems. For isolated BRBF systems, two sets of design parameters are defined, with the variation based on the type of beamcolumn connection. For a BRBF with momentresisting beamcolumn connections, the response modification coefficient, R, system overstrength factor, 0 , and deflection amplification factor, Cd , are defined as R = 8, 0 = 2.5, and Cd = 5. For a BRBF with non-moment-resisting beamcolumn connections, the system parameters are R = 7, 0 = 2, Cd = 5.5. When a BRBF is combined with a SMRF capable of resisting at least 25% of the prescribed seismic forces, the system parameters are equivalent to those of an isolated BRBF with moment-resisting beamcolumn connections. 2.2. Model building A prototype building located in a high seismic region of California was used as the basis for this research to assess the impact of reserve strength on the performance of BRBFs. As noted above, this reserve strength can be provided internally (i.e. through flexural strength of BRBF beamcolumn connections) or externally (i.e. through parallel SMRFs). Fig. 1 shows frame elevations for the prototype building. The BRBF, which was extracted from a fictitious seven-story building with a 37.3 m 23.6 m floor plan, represents one-half of the lateral-force-resisting system in one direction and is based on a prior BRBF design [20]. For the dual system (DS) configurations, the BRBF was combined with a SMRF. These 7-story systems are labeled BRBF7 and DS7, which is BRBF7 combined with SMRF7. In these frames, the beams and columns are A992 steel wide-flange sections and the BRB core plates are A36 steel. The prototype designs were based on the equivalent-lateralforce procedure in SEI/ASCE 7 and the AISC Seismic Provisions. The

C. Ariyaratana, L.A. Fahnestock / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789 Table 1 Prototype frame member sizes. Level/story BRBF Column Roof 7 6 5 4 3 2 Ground W14 74 W14 74 W14 74 W14 145 W14 145 W14 211 W14 211 Beam W16 50 W16 50 W16 50 W16 50 W16 50 W16 50 W16 50 BRB (cm2 ) 19.4 35.5 45.2 54.8 61.3 67.7 71.0 SMRF Column W24 76 W24 76 W24 76 W24 94 W24 94 W24 131 W24 131 Beam

79

W18 55 W18 55 W18 60 W21 73 W24 76 W24 84 W24 94

Fig. 1. Prototype frame elevations: (a) BRBF7-MR; (b) BRBF7-NMR; (c) DS7-MR; (d) DS7-NMR.

isolated BRBFs were sized for the design base shear and in the dual systems, the BRBF portions were also sized for the design base shear with the SMRF portions sized for 25% of the design base shear as required for dual systems in SEI/ASCE 7. The base shear used to size the BRBF portion of a dual system is the full design base shear since the BRBF portion is so much stiffer than the SMRF portion and in the elastic analysis of the equivalentlateral-force procedure, the SMRF portion carries almost no base shear. The equivalent lateral forces were determined using a design spectra with short period design spectral response acceleration parameter, SDS , equal to 1.03g and one-second design spectral response acceleration parameter, SD1 , equal to 0.89g. The ratio of design base shear to building seismic weight was 0.13. Member sizes for the prototype designs are listed in Table 1 and the fundamental natural period, T1 , for each system is listed in Table 2. For the isolated BRBF and the dual system, two configurations were considered: moment-resisting and non-moment-resisting beamcolumn connections within the BRBFs. Although SEI/ASCE 7 specifies that BRBFs with non-moment-resisting connections be designed using R = 7, R = 8 was used for all designs considered in this research. This decision was based on the prior findings that BRB demands varied little between designs with R = 6 and 8 [6], and that a BRBF with non-moment-resisting connections designed using R = 8 performed well [7,8]. Fig. 1(a) shows the prototype BRBF with moment-resisting (MR) connections (BRBF7MR), Fig. 1(b) shows the prototype BRBF with non-momentresisting connections (BRBF7-NMR), Fig. 1(c) shows the prototype dual system with moment-resisting connections in the BRBF (DS7MR), and Fig. 1(d) shows the prototype dual system with nonmoment-resisting connections in the BRBF (DS7-NMR). 3. Analysis framework 3.1. Numerical model OpenSEES [21] was the analysis platform used for this research. Nonlinear beamcolumn elements with fiber sections were used to model BRBF beams, columns, braces, and SMRF beams and columns. The gusset plates in the beams and

Fig. 2. Calibrated OpenSEES stressstrain response.

columns were also incorporated in the fiber sections near the beamcolumn connections. Beams were continuous between columns for the BRBFs with moment-resisting beamcolumn connections, and pins were introduced in the beams adjacent to the gusset plates for BRBFs with non-moment-resisting beamcolumn connections. In all BRBFs, the ends of the top floor beams were pinned to model the shear connections. These are simplified representations of the non-moment-resisting connections since there is some rotational restraint due to the typical connection details. Although connection-related failure modes can play a role in BRBF performance, these localized failures were not included in the models. Steel stressstrain properties were calibrated to cyclic test data [22] and implemented using the MenegottoPinto material model. Fig. 2 shows the cyclic stressstrain response for the material that was assigned to the beams and columns in the model along with the test data used for calibration [22]. Each BRB was modeled with a truss element and the effect of the various regions contained between brace ends (e.g., BRB connection region, non-yielding BRB core region, and yielding BRB core region) was represented by employing an equivalent elastic modulus. This was based on a BRB length that was taken as 70% of the work point length, a yielding core length that was taken as 70% of the BRB length, and a non-yielding BRB core region that was assigned an area three to six times that of the yielding core, which is consistent with practice [6]. Thus, the truss element area was constant over the BRB length and equal to the area of the yielding BRB core region. All of the BRB truss elements were attached to elastic elements representing the gusset plates. BRB forcedeformation response was validated against large-scale test data [8] as illustrated in Fig. 3(a). Fig. 3(b) shows the good agreement in energy dissipation between the BRB model and the test data. Kinematic hardening is small since post-yield stiffness of BRBs is minimal and isotropic hardening dominates the cyclic response. The isotropic hardening parameter for the compression region is larger than that of the tension region to account for the higher compression strength typically observed in BRBs due to core confinement.

80

C. Ariyaratana, L.A. Fahnestock / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789

Fig. 3. Calibrated OpenSEES BRB response: (a) forcedeformation; (b) energy dissipation. Table 2 Prototype system natural periods. Frame T1 (s) Connection type MR BRBF7 DS7 0.93 0.89 NMR 0.94 0.90

global collapse when ground motions are scaled beyond the MCE. Other potential BRB failure modes, such as internal bearing under extreme compressive deformation or out-of-plane buckling in the connection region, are not included in the model. 3.2. Ground motion records The selection of ground motions from the PEER Center strong motion database [26] was based on three fundamental parameters: site class, source distance, and magnitude. These are the parameters that are known to have the strongest influence on ground motion characteristics [27]. Although recent research [28] has demonstrated the influence of epsilon on nonlinear structural response, it was not considered in this research. Ground motions associated with site class D, as defined in SEI/ASCE 7-05 [3], a source distance greater than 15 km, and a moment magnitude in the range 5.0 MW 7.5 were chosen. Table 3 summarizes the 31 ground motion records that were used in this research. 4. Nonlinear time-history analysis Nonlinear time-history analysis was conducted to assess the performance of BRBF and BRBFSMRF systems when subjected to ground motion records scaled to DBE and MCE seismic hazard levels. Scale factors for the 31 selected ground motion records were calculated so that the elastic response spectra for the records matched the target spectra (DBE or MCE), which were defined by SEI/ASCE 7-05 [3], at the first natural period, T1 , of the structural system. The DBE scale factors are shown in Table 3, and the MCE scale factors are 50% larger. 4.1. Single time-history response case study The responses of BRBF7 and DS7, with both moment-resisting (MR) and non-moment-resisting (NMR) beamcolumn connections, to the Loma Prieta-57382 Gilroy Array #4 (G04000) ground motion record scaled to the DBE hazard level have been selected to highlight the behavioral characteristics of each system. When scaled to the DBE hazard level, the peak ground acceleration for this record is approximately 0.5g, and it produces demands that are near the median level for the analysis suite described below. Fig. 4 illustrates the roof drift response of BRBF7 and DS7. Considering the difference between the moment-resisting and non-moment-resisting connection cases, it is observed that BRBF7 with moment-resisting connections (BRBF7-MR) exhibits a 13% smaller maximum roof drift and a 70% smaller residual roof

A detailed model of the SMRFs used in the dual systems was also created, including the effects of panel zone yielding and potential strength degradation at the reduced beam sections. The panel zones were modeled using four rigid links with two bilinear rotational springs placed in parallel at one corner to obtain trilinear behavior. The elastic and inelastic properties of the panel zones were based on the adjacent members using established procedures [23]. Strength degradation at the reduced beam sections was based on test data and associated modeling recommendations for SMRFs [24] and was implemented using a fiber section beamcolumn element with negative isotropic hardening to simulate the loss of strength in the member that occurs due to inelastic cycling. As recommended, the strength degradation ratio, which represents the loss of the strength at each plastic excursion, was defined as 0.83 [24]. A pinned-base leaning column was included in all models to account for the second-order effects due to the prototype building gravity loads. The leaning column was modeled using fiber section beamcolumn elements with properties based on the sum of the cross-sectional properties of the gravity columns associated with the BRBF. The leaning column was connected to the primary frame at the floor levels by rigid links and gravity loads and masses were lumped at the floor-level nodes of the leaning column. These values were based on the structural self-weight, superimposed dead load, curtain wall load, and 25% of the live load. Rayleigh damping was used with a viscous damping ratio of 2% assumed in the first and second modes. The BRB models incorporated in the prototype frames include a remaining capacity model that tracks the cyclic deformation histories of the BRBs and allows for the possibility of core fracture based on accumulated damage. The remaining capacity model is a function of BRB core geometric and material properties along with a running count of cumulative and maximum ductility demands [25]. The remaining capacity model tracks BRB demands during the analysis and when the model indicates zero remaining capacity for a BRB, it is considered to have fractured and the element is removed from the model. Although fracture of the BRB core is not expected at the DBE or MCE hazard levels, implementation of the remaining capacity model plays an important role for incremental dynamic analysis, which evaluates

C. Ariyaratana, L.A. Fahnestock / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789

81

Fig. 4. Roof drift time histories for BRBF7 and DS7 under ground motion G04000 scaled to the DBE.

Table 3 Ground motion record summary. # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Earthquake Livermore Loma prieta Loma prieta Loma prieta Loma prieta Loma prieta Loma prieta Loma prieta Loma prieta Loma prieta Morgan Hill Northridge Northridge Northridge Northridge Northridge Northridge Northridge Northridge Northridge Northridge San fernando Superstition hills Whittier narrows Whittier narrows Whittier narrows Whittier narrows Chi-Chi, Taiwan Chi-Chi, Taiwan Duzce Duzce Station 57187 San Ramon - Eastman Kodak 1028 hollister city hall 1028 hollister city hall 57382 Gilroy array #4 57382 Gilroy array #4 57425 Gilroy array #7 57425 Gilroy array #7 1601 palo altoc - SLAC Lab 1695 Sunnyvale - Colton Ave. 1695 Sunnyvale - Colton Ave. 47380 Gilroy array #2 24303 LA - hollywood stor FF 24,303 LA - hollywood stor FF 90053 Canoga park - topanga can 90053 Canoga park - topanga can 90063 glendale - las palmas 90054 LA - Centinela St 90054 LA - Centinela St 90091 LA - Saturn St 90091 LA - Saturn St 90095 Pasadena - N Sierra Madre 135 LA - hollywood stor lot 5061 Calipatria fire station 90,078 Compton - castlegate St 90,078 Compton - castlegate St 90,063 Glendale - las palmas 90,084 Lakewood - del amo blvd NST NS Bolu Bolu Component KOD180 HCH090 HCH180 G04000 G04090 GMR000 GMR090 SLC360 SVL270 SVL360 G02090 HOL090 HOL360 CNP106 CNP196 GLP177 CEN155 CEN245 STN020 STN110 SMV180 PEL090 CAL315 CAS000 CAS270 WHN177 DEL000 CHNSTE CHNSTN BOL000 BOL090 Mw 5.4 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.6 7.6 7.1 7.1 R (km) 17.6 28.2 28.2 16.1 16.1 24.2 24.2 36.3 28.8 28.8 15.1 25.5 25.5 15.8 15.8 25.4 30.9 30.9 30 30 39.2 21.2 28.3 16.9 16.9 19 20.9 36.95 36.95 17.6 17.6 PGA (g) 0.301 0.247 0.215 0.417 0.212 0.226 0.323 0.278 0.207 0.209 0.212 0.231 0.358 0.356 0.42 0.357 0.465 0.322 0.474 0.439 0.245 0.21 0.247 0.332 0.333 0.296 0.277 0.309 0.388 0.728 0.822 DBE scale factor 3.29 1.54 1.48 2.91 2.65 7.41 9.16 2.54 3.93 3.16 8.02 4.93 1.86 1.85 1.72 10.36 5.36 2.78 2.56 1.94 7.44 3.99 6.92 2.09 4.61 10.06 2.10 6.36 4.07 1.13 0.73

drift than BRBF7 with non-moment-resisting connections (BRBF7NMR). As noted in Table 2, the fundamental periods of these frames are within 3% of one another, thus it is clear that the change in elastic stiffness between these cases is not significant and the dominant effect is the reserve strength provided by the continuous beams (i.e., the configuration with moment-resisting connections). Just as BRBF7-MR experienced smaller drifts than BRBF7-NMR, drift reduction is observed when comparing the DS7 configurations with moment-resisting and non-moment-resisting connections to their isolated BRBF counterparts. In these cases, the reserve strength provided by the parallel SMRFs is the dominant factor leading to drift reduction. There is only a slight increase in elastic stiffness between the isolated BRBFs and the corresponding BRBFSMRF dual systems. However, DS7-MR almost completely eliminates residual drift while DS7-NMR reduces residual drift by over 70% when compared to BRBF7-NMR. The SMRFs are still elastic at drifts that yield the BRBF, leading to a slightly

higher yield base shear and increasing the post-yield stiffness of the system, which creates a restoring force that re-centers it. These characteristics are depicted in Fig. 5, which illustrates the differences in cyclic behavior between the two frames with nonmoment-resisting connections in the BRBF. Relative to BRBF7NMR, DS7-NMR is slightly stronger and stiffer in the inelastic range while the elastic stiffness is essentially equivalent. It should also be noted that the SMRF in DS7-NMR provides an excellent means of compensating for the lower inelastic stiffness and strength that result when moment releases are introduced in the BRBF beams near the beamcolumn connections. Fig. 6, which depicts the residual displacement profiles of the four frames, shows that the SMRF is capable of reducing residual drift for BRBF7-NMR to levels close to that for BRBF7-MR and, more importantly, to levels significantly less than 0.005 rad, which is commonly accepted as the threshold below which residual drift should not be problematic.

82

C. Ariyaratana, L.A. Fahnestock / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789

Fig. 5. Base shear vs. roof drift for BRBF7-NMR and DS7-NMR under ground motion G04000 scaled to the DBE.

non-moment-resisting connections are likely to develop excessive residual drift under DBE-level ground shaking, whereas BRBFs with moment-resisting connections are much less susceptible to problematic residual drift. Despite this clear advantage associated with moment-resisting connections in BRBFs, the difference in maximum story drift capacity between moment-resisting and non-moment-resisting connection configurations must also be considered to obtain a complete view of system performance. For the BRBFSMRF dual systems, appreciable reduction in residual story drift is seen in comparison to the isolated BRBF systems. Under the DBE, DS7-MR reduces median response by almost 50% when compared to BRBF7-MR and DS7-NMR reduces median response by almost 60% when compared to BRBF7-NMR. 84th percentile residual story drift response under the DBE is below 0.005 rad for BRBF7-NMR and below 0.004 rad for BRBF7MR. Although residual drift under the MCE will typically not be a critical consideration, it is noteworthy that median residual story drift under the MCE is below 0.005 rad for DS7-MR and only slightly above 0.005 rad for DS7-NMR. 4.2.1.2. Maximum drift. In current seismic design provisions [3], inelastic story drift is typically limited to 0.02 rad, which is also the threshold above which BRBFs with moment-resisting connections have exhibited undesirable failure modes in the connection region. As such, it is the primary criterion used for evaluating maximum story drift in this research. Of the four cases considered, median maximum story drift response under the DBE exceeded 0.02 rad only for BRBF7-NMR. Although large-scale tests indicate that BRBFs with non-moment-resisting connections can easily sustain story drift much greater than 0.02 rad [8], this level of response does not satisfy the typical code-based design criterion. 84th percentile maximum story drift response exceeded 0.02 rad for all four configurations, which is most notable for the configurations with moment-resisting connections within the BRBF since large-scale tests indicate that connections limit states may become critical in this range of demand. Under the MCE, median maximum story drift is above 0.02 rad for all systems. 84th percentile maximum story drift response under the MCE shows that isolated BRBFs with non-momentresisting connections can experience drift greater than 0.04 rad and that BRBFs with moment-resisting connections can experience drift greater than 0.03 rad. Thus, based on large-scale test data [9 11], some connection-related failures are expected under MCElevel demands for BRBFs with moment-resisting connections. Maximum story drift response is affected by changes in connection type (moment-resisting vs. non-moment-resisting) and system type (isolated BRBF vs. BRBFSMRF dual system) but not to the same degree that residual story drift is. When moment-resisting connections were used in the isolated BRBFs instead of non-moment-resisting connections, maximum story drift reduction was in the range of 15%20%. When isolated BRBF systems are compared to the corresponding BRBFSMRF dual systems, maximum story drift reduction ranges widely depending on the connection type and system configuration, but the reduction can be near 30%. The BRBFSMRF dual systems lead to more uniform drift profiles when compared to the isolated BRBFs but do not alleviate concentrations in drift demand. Fig. 11 depicts the median maximum story drift profiles for the four system configurations. In all cases, the first story is subject to the least demand. The influence of higher mode effects is seen, particularly for the isolated BRBF configurations, and these effects are exacerbated by the increased flexibility of the top story due to shear connections between the roof beam and the columns. The large demands in the top story are significantly reduced by the dual systems. Although the traditional dual system configuration reduces drift concentration, the more novel configuration proposed by Tremblay and Poncet [19] appears to provide the best resistance to soft story formation in BRBFs.

Fig. 6. Residual displacement profiles under ground motion G04000 scaled to the DBE.

4.2. Ground motion suite performance evaluation Performance evaluation of the isolated BRBF systems and BRBFSMRF dual systems is presented below in terms of the median and 84th percentile response values under the DBE and MCE seismic hazard levels. These summaries for response to the full suite of selected ground motion records further illustrate the trends discussed above for the single ground motion case study. 4.2.1. Story drift Table 4 provides a statistical summary of the story drift response under the DBE and MCE for all prototype systems considered in this research. Figs. 710 plot maximum and residual story drift under the 31 ground motion records scaled to the DBE. These plots also illustrate the median and 84th percentile values for maximum and residual drift. 4.2.1.1. Residual drift. As discussed above, limiting residual story drift after a large earthquake is critical for returning buildings to service quickly and economically so that the impact on affected communities is minimized. In this research, residual story drift of 0.005 rad was used as a practical threshold below which residual drift is deemed to be tolerable. This threshold was primarily considered for the DBE. As seen in Table 4, under the DBE only BRBF7-NMR had median residual story drift exceeding 0.005 rad. Comparing BRBF7-MR to BRBF7-NMR, median residual story drift under the DBE was reduced by more than 50% and 84th percentile residual story drift for BRBF7-MR was only slightly above 0.005 rad. Thus, these results indicate that BRBFs with

C. Ariyaratana, L.A. Fahnestock / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789

83

Fig. 7. BRBF7-MR story drift summary (records scaled to DBE).

Fig. 8. DS7-MR story drift summary (records scaled to DBE).

Fig. 9. BRBF7-NMR story drift summary (records scaled to DBE).

84 Table 4 Story drift response summary. Frame Connection type

C. Ariyaratana, L.A. Fahnestock / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789

Maximum drift (rad) DBE Median 84th perc. 0.024 0.020 0.030 0.022 MCE Median 0.025 0.023 0.030 0.025 84th perc. 0.034 0.029 0.042 0.034

Residual drift (rad) DBE Median 0.0031 0.0016 0.0066 0.0027 84th perc. 0.0054 0.0034 0.011 0.0049 MCE Median 0.0059 0.0036 0.0099 0.0052 84th perc. 0.013 0.0081 0.025 0.0096

BRBF7 DS7 BRBF7 DS7

MR NMR

0.019 0.016 0.022 0.017

Fig. 10. DS7-NMR story drift summary (records scaled to DBE).

Fig. 11. Median maximum story drift profiles (records scaled to DBE).

4.2.2. System overstrength Quantification of system overstrength, which is defined as the ratio of maximum base shear to design base shear, is critical for seismic design since this ratio is used to capacity protect key elements in the system when employing the equivalentlateral-force procedure. SEI/ASCE 7-05 [3] specifies the following values for system overstrength factor, 0 : 2 for isolated BRBFs with non-moment-resisting beamcolumn connections, 2.5 for isolated BRBFs with moment-resisting beamcolumn connections, and 2.5 for BRBFSMRF dual systems regardless of beamcolumn connection type in the BRBF. As discussed above, the elastic properties of a BRBFSMRF dual system vary little in comparison to the corresponding isolated BRBF, but inelastic response is appreciably different. Similarly, changes in connection type have little impact on elastic properties but also affect inelastic response.

The current system overstrength factors attempt to capture the variation in maximum lateral force capacity due to connection variation, but do not treat the impact of dual systems on overstrength. Table 5 provides a statistical summary of system overstrength for the suite of analyses. The broad conclusion is that the current values for 0 underestimate the potential overstrength. For BRBF7-MR the median system overstrength under the DBE is almost 15% greater than the code-prescribed value for 0 . For BRBF7-NMR the median system overstrength under the DBE is over 30% greater than the code-prescribed value for 0 . For the dual systems, the median system overstrength under the DBE is around 30% greater than the code-prescribed value for 0 . Although 0 is used to represent overstrength at the DBE, it is instructive to note that median system overstrength is greater than 3.0 under the MCE, with the largest value of median system overstrength equal to 3.9 for DS7-MR. While these results do not cover the full range of potential BRBF and BRBFSMRF system configurations, it is apparent that the current system overstrength factors are inadequate. Since underestimation of system overstrength may lead to unconservative design of critical elements such as connections and collectors, a thorough reevaluation of system overstrength factors for isolated BRBFs and BRBFSMRF dual systems is needed. Table 5 also shows base shear ratios for the SMRF portions of the dual systems, which are calculated as SMRF base shear divided by the BRBF base shear. This ratio is between 25% and 30%, which is consistent with the design approach that proportions the SMRF component of a BRBFSMRF dual system for 25% of the BRBF base shear. 4.2.3. Deflection amplification factor The equivalent-lateral-force design procedure in SEI/ASCE 705 [3] requires that inelastic displacements of the structure be

C. Ariyaratana, L.A. Fahnestock / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789 Table 5 Base shear response summary. Frame Connection type System overstrength DBE Median BRBF7 DS7 BRBF7 DS7 MR NMR 2.85 3.35 2.73 3.24 84th perc. 3.21 3.80 3.09 3.70 MCE Median 3.34 3.91 3.24 3.81 84th perc. 3.86 4.55 3.80 4.45 Base shear ratio for SMRF DBE Median 26.5 27.2 84th perc. 29.4 30.5 MCE Median 28.2 29.3

85

84th perc. 28.8 29.3

Table 6 Roof deflection response summary under the DBE. Frame Connection type Roof deflection amplification ratio Median BRBF7 DS7 BRBF7 DS7 MR NMR 7.1 6.6 7.5 6.8 84th percentile 10.6 8.9 10.5 8.9

estimated through the amplification of elastic displacements, which are obtained through linear analysis. The linear elastic static approximation of nonlinear dynamic response at the design level greatly simplifies calculations, but proper calibration of the factors that estimate nonlinear dynamic response are critical to ensure that the structure remains stable and that it adheres to appropriate story drift limits. SEI/ASCE 7-05 [3] specifies the following values for deflection amplification factor, Cd : 5.5 for isolated BRBFs with nonmoment-resisting beamcolumn connections, 5 for isolated BRBFs with moment-resisting beamcolumn connections, and 5 for BRBFSMRF dual systems regardless of beamcolumn connection type in the BRBF. Table 6 lists a statistical summary of the roof deflection amplification ratio, which is defined as the maximum roof deflection divided by the roof deflection under the force profile used to check drift in the equivalent-lateral-force procedure, for all system configurations under the DBE. The broad conclusion is that the current values for Cd underestimate lateral deflections for both isolated BRBFs and BRBFSMRF dual systems. For BRBF7-MR the median roof deflection amplification ratio at the DBE is almost 30% greater than the code-prescribed value for Cd . For BRBF7-NMR the median roof deflection amplification ratio at the DBE is 50% greater than the code-prescribed value for Cd . For the dual systems, the median roof deflection amplification ratio at the DBE is around 20% greater than the code-prescribed value for Cd . As a result of underestimating inelastic lateral displacements, the brace strains will subsequently be underestimated. An accurate approximation of brace deformations is a key parameter when evaluating brace overstrength factors, which are typically determined using backbone forcedeformation relationships developed from brace qualification tests [4]. Underestimating brace strain may lead to inadequate capacity design of the gusset connection regions, which may be especially problematic considering the sensitivity of these connection regions [911]. In addition, underestimation of brace forces may lead to beams being undersized, which may allow premature yielding and decrease the seismic performance of the system [6]. Considering the criticality of estimating inelastic displacements, the deflection amplification factor for both isolated BRBFs and BRBFSMRF dual systems should be reevaluated. The results of the present research are consistent with prior research [8] and the latest guidelines [29], which recommend that Cd should be set equal to R. 4.2.4. BRB demands BRB force and deformation demands are important parameters for capacity design and estimation of BRB fatigue life [25]. Tables 7

and 8 provide statistical summaries of BRB force and ductility demands, respectively. The force and deformation demand ratios are defined as follows: , which is called the strain hardening adjustment factor in the AISC Seismic Provisions [4], is the ratio of maximum brace tension force to brace yield force; , which is called the compression strength adjustment factor in the AISC Seismic Provisions [4], is the ratio of maximum brace compression force to maximum brace tension force; max , maximum ductility demand, is the ratio of maximum absolute brace deformation to brace yield deformation; c , cumulative ductility demand, is the ratio of brace cumulative plastic deformation to brace yield deformation. As shown in Table 7, the impact of reserve strength on BRB force demands is small. Moment-resisting connections in the BRBF slightly reduce BRB force demands compared to configurations with non-moment-resisting connections in the BRBF, and dual systems exhibit slightly lower BRB force demands compared to isolated BRBFs. For either source of reserve strength, the maximum observed reduction in BRB force demand is around 5%, which has minimal impact on design. As shown in Table 8, the impact of reserve strength on BRB deformation demands is more appreciable than on force demands. Using moment-resisting connections instead of non-momentresisting connections or a dual system instead of an isolated BRBF system can reduce BRB maximum ductility demand by close to 30% in some cases. However, the reduction in cumulative ductility demand is not as significant. The dual system configuration can reduce cumulative ductility demand by close to 15%, but the use of moment-resisting connections only provides a reduction of less than 5%. Although BRBs must have a minimum cumulative ductility capacity based on qualification testing [4], cumulative ductility demand is not checked in the design process. The remaining capacity of a BRB after a seismic event is largely dependent upon cumulative ductility demand [25] and it can be concluded that the dual system may slightly increase the service life of BRBs. However, due to the very large cumulative ductility capacity that is typical for BRBs, this effect is minimal. 5. Incremental dynamic analysis To assess system behavior across a wider range of seismic demands and to evaluate seismic performance against critical limit states, incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) was employed. A procedure similar to that described by Vamvatsikos and Cornell [30,31] was used to perform the analysis and summarize the data. Each of the 31 natural ground motion records that was used in the nonlinear time-history analysis described above was also used for the IDA. The results from the IDA are presented in the subsequent discussion. 5.1. Limit state definition The IDA procedure produces curves where a structural response damage measure (DM) is plotted as a function of a ground motion intensity measure (IM). Limit states are then defined to evaluate

86

C. Ariyaratana, L.A. Fahnestock / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789

Table 7 Buckling-restrained brace force response summary. Frame Connection type

DBE Median 84th perc. 1.23 1.21 1.27 1.22 MCE Median 1.25 1.23 1.28 1.25 84th perc. 1.32 1.28 1.35 1.31

DBE Median 1.30 1.25 1.34 1.27 84th perc. 1.36 1.32 1.41 1.35 MCE Median 1.38 1.35 1.42 1.38 84th perc. 1.47 1.43 1.53 1.47

BRBF7 DS7 BRBF7 DS7

MR NMR

1.20 1.17 1.21 1.18

Table 8 Buckling-restrained brace ductility response summary. Frame Connection type

max
DBE Median 84th perc. 11.6 9.7 14.9 10.8 MCE Median 11.8 10.5 14.4 12.0 84th perc. 15.8 13.9 20.0 16.2

c
DBE Median 258 223 259 228 84th perc. 422 366 419 374 MCE Median 336 299 340 308 84th perc. 532 489 533 500

BRBF7 DS7 BRBF7 DS7

MR NMR

9.4 7.3 11.2 8.1

selected performance levels. In this research, the following two performance levels were considered: collapse prevention (CP) and immediate occupancy (IO). The CP performance level was evaluated using story drift response. Per FEMA 450 [32], CP is defined by the following:

A structure has sustained nearly complete damage. The structure has lost most of its original lateral stiffness and
strength and little resistance to collapse remains.

The structure may have significant residual displacements. Nonstructural elements are non-functional and may pose a
threat to occupants.

The structure is not safe for continued occupancy and repairs

are not likely to be practical. In IDA, there are two indicators for incipient collapse that are defined in FEMA 350 [33]. The first indicator is taken to be the point where the slope of the IDA curve is less than or equal to 20% of the elastic slope of the IDA curve. The elastic slope is defined as the slope of the IDA curve at intensity levels that produce elastic response. As the slope of the curve decreases, a small increase in intensity produces a significant increase in demand and the structure is judged to be at incipient collapse due to global dynamic instability. The second indicator for incipient collapse is when the drift of the structure exceeds 0.1 rad. This limit originates from studies of SMRFs [33], however, it is extended to BRBFs for this research with the assumption that any structure, regardless of lateral system, experiencing story drift of 0.1 rad would sustain heavy damage that could lead to global instability. Although no specific guidelines exist for establishing residual drift limit states and relating them to performance levels, the approach for evaluating collapse prevention using maximum story drift as the DM [32] is adapted for evaluating residual story drift. The IO performance level was used as the pertinent limit state linked to the residual story drift response. A residual story drift level of 0.005 rad is related to the IO performance level since it is anticipated that buildings meeting this limit could be returned to service without major repairs. 5.2. Single record case study The response of BRBF7 and DS7, with both moment-resisting and non-moment-resisting beamcolumn connections in the

BRBFs, to the Loma Prieta-1695 Sunnyvale-Colton Avenue (SVL360) ground motion has been selected to highlight the behavioral characteristics of each frame as its response progresses towards collapse. Figs. 1215 show the drift profiles of the BRBF7 and DS7 systems, with moment-resisting and non-moment-resisting connections, as the seismic intensity is scaled to multiples of the DBE level. The drift profiles for BRBF7-MR and DS7-MR in Figs. 12 and 13 show that although the drifts are reduced in the dual system at the 1.0 DBE and 1.5 DBE (MCE) levels, the drift profiles along the height of the building are of similar shape with the middle stories exhibiting larger drifts than the first and upper stories. The distinction between the two systems becomes more apparent at twice the MCE level (3.0 DBE) where a concentration of drift is observed in the lower stories for the isolated BRBF compared to the dual system, in which drift is more uniform over the height of the system. Although the maximum drifts for the isolated BRBF and the dual system at 3.0 DBE are quite similar, the concentration of drift in BRBF7-MR indicates a greater likelihood of dynamic instability [19]. While it was noted above that the dual system does not appreciably change the resistance to drift concentration under the DBE, IDA reveals that at intensities greater than the DBE, the dual system effectively maintains relatively uniform drift over the height of the system such that no story has significantly larger drift than any other. Figs. 14 and 15 show that BRBF7-NMR and DS7-NMR exhibit behavioral trends similar to their counterparts with momentresisting connections in the BRBFs, but the drift magnitudes are larger owing to the lack of rotational restraint at the BRBF connections. Comparison of BRBF7-MR and DS7-NMR indicates that the dual system configuration with non-moment-resisting connections in the BRBF distributes demand over the height of the structure at large seismic intensity more effectively than the isolated BRBF configuration with moment-resisting connections in the BRBF. The performance improvement obtained by combining a SMRF with a BRBF to create a dual system is slightly greater for the BRBF with non-moment-resisting connections. 5.3. Response summary to full ground motion suite The IDA response of the prototype frames to the full suite of selected ground motion records is discussed in the following section. Since there is large variability between the individual IDA curves for a given structure, the results are presented using median curves.

C. Ariyaratana, L.A. Fahnestock / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789 Table 9 Incremental dynamic analysis summary. Frame Connection type Reference, IM SDS (g) BRBF7 DS7 BRBF7 DS7 MR NMR 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 SMS (g) 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 Collapse prevention Immediate occupancy Sa,CP /SMS 2.43 2.86 2.15 2.71

87

CP (rad)
0.099 0.098 0.096 0.099

Sa,CP (g) 3.76 4.44 3.34 4.20

IO (rad)
0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005

Sa,IO (g) 1.02 1.50 0.54 1.24

Sa,IO /SDS 0.99 1.46 0.52 1.20

Fig. 12. BRBF7-MR maximum story drift profiles for ground motion SVL360.

Fig. 13. DS7-MR maximum story drift profile for ground motion SVL360.

5.3.1. Maximum story drift Fig. 16 shows the median maximum story drift IDA curves for all four system configurations, and Table 9 lists the drift values, CP , from these curves where incipient collapse is indicated by the procedure described above. Consistent with the results presented above, BRBF7-NMR is the most susceptible to collapse as a result of the lack of reserve strength after the yielding of the BRBs. As shown in Table 9, BRBF7-NMR reaches the CP performance level at the lowest input intensity (Sa,CP ) and the CP margin at the MCE, Sa,CP /SMS is 2.2. However, when the isolated BRBF is combined with a SMRF to create DS7-NMR, the values for Sa,CP increase by 26% and the CP margin is increased to 2.7. Figs. 16 and 17 and Table 9 show that the performance of the dual system with non-moment-resisting connections is similar to the isolated BRBF with moment-resisting connections. The best performance is observed in the dual system with moment-resisting connections. However, it should be noted that at higher seismic intensities, which produce drifts in excess of 0.02 rad, systems with moment-resisting beamcolumn connections in the BRBF will likely experience localized failure modes while the non-momentresisting beamcolumn connection will not [812]. Despite the reduction in collapse capacity from DS7-NMR to DS7-MR, DS7NMR still provides a significant improvement over BRBF7-NMR. Considering that non-moment-resisting connections eliminate the undesirable localized failure modes observed in isolated BRBFs with moment-resisting connections, BRBFs with non-momentresisting connections are best suited for use in a dual system configuration. 5.3.2. Residual story drift As mentioned previously, there are no explicit guidelines specifying residual drift limit states, therefore the IO performance level, which as discussed above is bounded by a residual story drift of 0.005 rad, is evaluated with respect to the design level intensity measure, Sa,DBE . This approach provides insight into the potential for returning a building to service after a DBE-level seismic event. Fig. 17 shows median IDA curves of residual story drift for all four systems configurations. Table 9 shows that the dual systems

Fig. 14. BRBF7-NMR maximum story drift profile for ground motion SVL360.

Fig. 15. DS7-NMR maximum story drift profile for ground motion SVL360.

significantly improve IO performance, as measured by the intensity measure, Sa,IO , at which the IO residual drift limit is reached.

88

C. Ariyaratana, L.A. Fahnestock / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789

a broader range of prototype buildings with realistic variations would be valuable to expand the findings from the current research.

BRBFs with non-moment-resisting beamcolumn connections

experience the largest maximum and residual story drifts. Under the DBE, median and 84th percentile residual story drift can be greater than 0.005 rad and 0.01 rad, respectively. Thus, residual story drift for this system configuration is expected to make post-earthquake repair difficult and costly. However, no connection-related failure modes are anticipated since the non-moment-resisting beamcolumn connections can accommodate very large drift. BRBFs with moment-resisting beamcolumn connections experience reduced residual story drifts. Under the DBE, median residual story drift is less than 0.004 rad and 84th percentile residual story drift is slightly greater than 0.005 rad. Thus, residual story drift for this system configuration is not expected to be problematic. However, since 84th percentile maximum story drift under the DBE and median maximum story drift under the MCE are greater than 0.02 rad, connection-related failure modes may occur under the DBE and will likely occur under the MCE. The dual system configurations reduced residual story drift appreciably, with 84th percentile response under the DBE below 0.005 rad. The reduction due to the dual system was greatest when the BRBF had non-moment-resisting connections, but the smallest drifts occurred when the BRBF had moment-resisting connections. Dual systems with moment-resisting connections in the BRBF have 84th percentile maximum story drift less than or equal to 0.02 rad under the DBE, so no connection-related failure modes are expected. Under the MCE, 84th percentile maximum story drift can be greater than 0.025 rad, so connection-related failure modes may occur. Dual systems with non-moment-resisting connections in the BRBF are judged to be the most favorable configuration since residual drift is controlled effectively, even under the MCE with median residual drift at worst only slightly greater than 0.005 rad, and connection-related failure modes are not expected owing to the small flexural demands in the connection region. System overstrength for both isolated BRBFs and BRBFSMRF dual systems is under-predicted by current code provisions. The isolated BRBFs had median base shear overstrength under the DBE greater than 2.7 and 2.8 for non-moment-resisting and moment-resisting beamcolumn connections, respectively. The dual systems had median base shear overstrength under the DBE greater than 3.2 and 3.3 for non-moment-resisting and moment-resisting beamcolumn connections in the BRBF, respectively. Estimation of inelastic lateral displacements using the deflection amplification factor multiplied by elastic lateral displacements, as specified in current code provisions, is unconservative. The deflection amplification factor should be set equal to the response modification coefficient. When a BRBF with non-moment-resisting connections is used as part of a dual system, the collapse prevention margin under the MCE is increased by more than 25% in comparison to the corresponding isolated BRBF case. When a BRBF with nonmoment-resisting connections is used as part of a dual system, the immediate occupancy margin under the DBE is increased by more than 100% in comparison to the corresponding isolated BRBF cases.

Fig. 16. Median maximum story drift IDA curves and collapse points.

Fig. 17. Median residual drift IDA curves.

The increase in Sa,IO as a result of the dual system is nearly 50% when the BRBF has moment-resisting connections and nearly 130% when the BRBF has non-moment-resisting connections. BRBF7NMR exhibits the worst performance, with IO margin, Sa,IO /SDS , of 0.5, indicating that the IO performance level is not met for median response under the DBE. However, when BRBF7-NMR is combined with a SMRF to create DS7-NMR, the IO margin increases to 1.2. BRBF7-MR has an IO margin similar to DS7-NMR. DS7MR has the best residual drift performance, with an IO margin of 1.5. Although a BRBFSMRF dual system with moment-resisting connections in the BRBF offers the best performance at the DBE level, it likely would exhibit less favorable performance at the MCE level due to connection-related failure modes at the momentresisting connections in the BRBF. 6. Conclusions The nonlinear dynamic analysis results presented in this paper show that reserve strength has a significant impact on seismic behavior and performance of BRBFs. This reserve strength can be provided by moment-resisting connections within the BRBF and/or a SMRF in parallel with the BRBF to create a dual system configuration. However, potential limitations of moment-resisting connection within BRBFs must be recognized. Nonlinear timehistory analysis and incremental dynamic analysis of prototype isolated BRBFs and BRBFSMRF dual systems provide the key conclusions summarized below. It should be noted that these conclusions are based on the study of a single prototype building, which is regular in plan and elevation. Further studies considering

Acknowledgements The authors recognize the advice of Walterio Lopez, Associate Principal at Rutherford & Chekene, in developing prototype system designs. This research was supported by an allocation through the TeraGrid Advanced Support Program. All opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the authors.

C. Ariyaratana, L.A. Fahnestock / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 7789

89

References
[1] Black CJ, Makris N, Aiken ID. Component testing, seismic evaluation and characterization of BRBs. J Struct Eng 2002;130(6):88094. [2] Merritt S, Uang CM, Benzoni G. Subassemblage testing of star seismic BRBs. Structural systems research project report No. TR-2003/04. San Diego: University of California; 2003. [3] ASCE. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 705; 2005. [4] AISC. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago (IL): AISC; 2005. [5] Sabelli R. Recommended provisions for buckling-restrained braced frames. AISC Eng J 2004;(4th quarter):15575. [6] Sabelli R, Mahin S, Chang C. Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2003;25:65566. [7] Fahnestock LA, Sause R, Ricles JM. Seismic response and performance of buckling-restrained braced frames. J Struct Eng 2007;133(9):1195204. [8] Fahnestock LA, Sause R, Ricles JM. Experimental evaluation of a large-scale buckling-restrained braced frame. J Struct Eng 2007;133(9):120514. [9] Uriz P, Mahin SA. Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentricallybraced steel-frame structures. PEER report 2008/08. Berkeley: University of California; 2008. [10] Tsai KC, Hsiao BC, Lai JW, Chen CH, Lin ML, Weng YT. Pseudo-dynamic experimental response of a full-scale CFT/BRB composite frame. In: Proceedings. joint NCREE/JRC workshop. 2003. [11] Christopulos AS. Improved seismic performance of BRBFs. M.S. thesis. Seattle: University of Washington; 2005. [12] Wigle VR, Fahnestock LA. Buckling-restrained braced frame connection performance. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66:6574. [13] Tremblay R, Stiemer SF. Back-up stiffness for improving the stability of multistory braced frames under seismic loading. In: Proceedings, structural stability research council annual technical session. 1994. [14] MacRae GA, Kimura Y, Roeder C. Effect of column stiffness on braced frame seismic behavior. J Struct Eng 2004;130(3):38191. [15] Ji X, Kato M, Wang T, Hitaka T, Nakashima M. Effect of gravity columns on mitigation of drift concentration for braced frames. J Constr Steel Res 2009; 65:214856. [16] Kiggins S, Uang CM. Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a dual-system. Eng Struct 2006;28:152532. [17] Pettinga D, Christopoulos C, Pampanin S, Priestley N. Effectiveness of simple approaches in mitigating residual deformations in buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36:176383.

[18] Xie Q. Dual system design of steel frames incorporating buckling-restrained braces. In: Proceedings, fourth international conference on advances in steel structures. 2005. [19] Tremblay R, Poncet L. Improving the seismic stability of concentrically-braced steel frames, In: Proceedings, structural stability research council annual technical session. 2004. [20] Lopez WA, Sabelli R. Seismic design of buckling-restrained braced frames, Structural steel educational council steel tips; 2004. [21] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSEES) user command-language manual (opensees.berkeley.edu). Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 2009. [22] Kaufmann EJ, Pense AW. Characterization of cyclic inelastic strain behavior on properties of A572 Gr. 50 and A913 rolled sections. AISC-PITA project progress report. Bethlehem (PA): ATLSS Research Center, Lehigh University; 1999. [23] Federal Emergency Management Agency. State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment resisting frames subject to earthquake ground shaking. FEMA 355C; 2000. [24] Federal Emergency Management Agency. State of the art report on performance prediction and evaluation of steel moment resisting frame buildings. FEMA 355F; 2000. [25] Andrews BM, Fahnestock LA, Song J. Ductility capacity models for bucklingrestrained braces. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:171220. [26] PEER strong motion database (peer.berkeley.edu/smcat). Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 2000. [27] Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV. Earthquake engineering: from engineering seismology to performance-based engineering. CRC Press; 2004. [28] Baker JW, Cornell CA. A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2005; 34:1193217. [29] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Quantification of building seismic performance factors, FEMA P695; 2009. [30] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2002;31:491514. [31] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Applied incremental dynamic analysis. EERI Spectra 20 (2) 523553. [32] Federal Emergency Management Agency. NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for buildings and other structures. FEMA 450; 2003. [33] Federal Emergency Management Agency. recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings. FEMA 350; 2000.