0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

50 vues23 pagesPortal Frame Pier

Sep 26, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

Portal Frame Pier

© All Rights Reserved

0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

50 vues23 pagesPortal Frame Pier

© All Rights Reserved

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 23

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227759213

portal frame piers with hysteretic dampers

Impact Factor: 2.31 DOI: 10.1002/eqe.643

CITATIONS READS

14 188

4 authors, including:

Meijo University Kumamoto University

110 PUBLICATIONS 953 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 75 CITATIONS

Retrieved on: 21 April 2016

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

Published online 5 October 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.643

with hysteretic dampers

1Department of Civil Engineering, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Meijo University, 1-501, Shiogamaguchi Tenpaku-ku, Nagoya 468-8502, Japan

SUMMARY

A simplified seismic design procedure for steel portal frame piers installed with hysteretic dampers is

proposed, which falls into the scope of performance-based design philosophy. The fundamental goal

of this approach is to design a suite of hysteretic damping devices for existing and new bridge piers,

which will assure a pre-defined target performance against future severe earthquakes. The proposed

procedure is applicable to multi-degree-of-freedom systems, utilizing an equivalent single-degree-of-

freedom methodology with nonlinear response spectra (referred to as strength-demanded spectra) and a

set of formulae of close-form expressions for the distribution of strength and stiffness produced in the

structure by the designed hysteretic damping devices. As an illustrative example, the proposed procedure is

applied to a design of a simple steel bridge pier of portal frame type with buckling-restrained braces (one of

several types of hysteretic dampers). For the steel portal frame piers, an attempt is made to utilize not only

the displacement-based index but also the strain-based index as pre-determined target performance at the

beginning of design. To validate this procedure, dynamic inelastic time-history analyses are performed using

the general-purpose finite element program ABAQUS. The results confirm that the proposed simplified

design procedure attains the expected performance level as specified by both displacement-based and

strain-based indices with sufficient accuracy. Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: simplified seismic design; performance-based design; steel bridge; hysteretic damper;

time-history analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

Extensive damage during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake has since led to widespread

research efforts to improve the performance of steel bridges against future severe earthquakes in

Correspondence to: Hanbin Ge, Department of Civil Engineering, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8603,

Japan.

E-mail: ge@civil.nagoya-u.ac.jp

E-mail: chen@civil.nagoya-u.ac.jp

E-mail: Kasai@civil.nagoya-u.ac.jp

E-mail: usamit@ccmfs.meijo-u.ac.jp

542 Z. CHEN ET AL.

Japan. These research efforts include applying hysteretic damping technologies to new bridges or

existing ones and developing performance-based seismic design approaches.

Seismic upgrading methods utilizing hysteretic damping technologies are based on the concept

of replacing some critical components of a structure with hysteretic damping members at points

where notably large strains or deformations are likely to be caused by strong earthquakes. These

members are intended to ensure energy dissipation. During an earthquake, the energy induced will

be dissipated through plastic metal deformation in these members. As a result, the dampers will

sustain the main damage while the main structural members remain in an elastic state or suffer

only limited damage. These energy dissipation members are replaceable after an earthquake and

are sometimes called sacrifice members. The advantages of using hysteretic damping technologies

have long been recognized [14]. The technologies are widely applied in building structures,

however, less work of this kind has been done with steel bridge structures [5, 6].

On the other hand, performance-based seismic design is further advanced. It can be viewed

as a verification method, namely, an assessment process in which a structural system and its

components are evaluated according to whether they can withstand the damage level expected for a

particular scale of earthquake, as summed up in performance objectives. Sometimes, performance

objectives are referred to as required performance, with different requirements laid down for

structural performance under different earthquake intensities. Most past research studies focus on

rigorous approaches, for example, dynamic nonlinear time-history analysis, to assist in subsequent

assessment. However, for simple bridge structures such as bridge piers of a cantilever or portal

frame type, which are commonly used in the urban transportation systems in Japan, direct design

without subsequent assessment is a preferable option to reduce the design work. In this way, several

performance parameters can be pre-defined as expected performance objectives at the beginning

of the design stage.

The main purpose of this study is to bring together these two research topics by proposing a

simple performance-based procedure which is applicable to the design of steel bridge piers with

hysteretic damping devices.

The study is organized as follows: first, a performance-based verification method is reviewed,

in which displacement and strain indices are introduced as parameters for performance evaluation.

Then, a simplified seismic design procedure is presented, which has been developed mainly for

multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) bridge systems. This procedure begins with the selection of a

required performance based on either a displacement index or a strain index. The basic properties

of a damped equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (ESDOF) system can then be determined using

strength-demanded spectra. The procedure is followed with some design examples and validation

studies, conducted by dynamic inelastic time-history analyses using the general-purpose finite

element program ABAQUS [7]. The proposed procedure can also be applied to single-degree-of-

freedom (SDOF) bridge systems by simply ignoring all the processes involved in the transformation

between a MDOF system and its ESDOF system.

In past earthquake engineering, three performance levels were commonly used, namely, no require-

ment for repair following a minor earthquake, repairable damage from a moderate earthquake, and

safety against collapse in the event of a severe earthquake. However, these levels were described

in a purely qualitative sense. Considering the importance of bridges in the urban transportation

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC DESIGN APPROACH 543

Table I. Performance levels for bridge structural members and elements [10].

Performance level (damage state)

Verification method (negligible) (light) (moderate) (severe)

Displacement based max u

Strain based Steel section in compression: a max u

Steel section in tension: a max 0.05

Concrete-filled section: a max 0.011

Displacement based max y max 1.7y Not concrete-filled

max 4.0y

Partially concrete-filled

max 8.0y

Note: a max = maximum average compressive strain along the compressive side plate of critical member

segments, u = ultimate strain, and y = yield strain of the steel.

H

H

Hy

y y y m u

system, qualitatively defined performances lead in practice to a one-phase design, namely, with

the aim of safeguarding bridge structures against failure during a severe earthquake. In the current

performance-based design philosophy, it is preferable that bridges not only be designed for the

prevention of collapse (i.e. for safety) but also so as to ensure that they can go on serving their

main function even after a severe earthquake (i.e. for post-earthquake serviceability).

With this in view, a set of four-level performance indices of a quantitative nature has recently

been proposed based on the work of a task committee of the Japanese Society of Steel Construction

(JSSC) [8] and on research by Usami and Oda [9]. Table I shows the four performance levels,

which correspond to different states of damage (negligible, light, moderate, and severe) and,

consequently, to differences in the time required for restoration [10]. The performance levels for

structural members in terms of displacement are depicted in Figure 1, in which a forcedisplacement

curve is plotted up to failure point.

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

544 Z. CHEN ET AL.

In the performance-based verification method, dynamic analyses are carried out to verify the

foreseeable performance of bridge structures under strong ground motions. As seen from Table

I, the safety check confirms that the maximum seismic responses of bridges will not exceed ulti-

mate limit values of the structure (structural capacity). The post-earthquake serviceability check,

on the other hand, ensures that the damage suffered will remain within acceptable limits. In

both checking processes, two performance indices (displacement and strain) can be employed,

these two approaches being referred to as the displacement-based verification method and the

strain-based verification method, respectively. This concept is similar to the one reported in Ref-

erence [11].

The displacement-based verification method is straightforward and connected with ductility

design, which has long been conceptually accepted. It is also rational and applicable to structural

systems in which a single fundamental mode predominates, for example, steel bridge piers of a

cantilever type, single-deck portal frame piers, and continuous bridges in the direction of the bridge

axis [12, 13]. In addition, it is also suitable for double-deck portal frame piers or continuous bridges

in the direction perpendicular to the bridge axis, provided the ratio of the effective mass of the

fundamental mode is greater than 0.75 [9]. However, for structural systems in which fundamental

mode is not predominant, such as arch bridges in the direction of the bridge axis, this method is

not well suited because of the influence of the change of shape mode. In addition, the selection

of reference points from which to monitor the state of damage is also difficult for complicated

bridge structures. In such cases, an alternative methodthe strain-based verification methodis

desirable [14]. The applicability of the strain-based verification method has been discussed and

validated for steel bridge piers of the cantilever type and for single-deck portal frame piers by

Morishita et al. [15].

Currently, the above performance indices are used in the last assessment phase of performance-

based verification for bridge structures [12, 14]. However, in the simplified seismic design approach

to be presented below, these performance indices are selected as pre-defined performance goals at

the start of the design procedure.

WITH HYSTERETIC DAMPERS

As mentioned previously, the structures are designed based on the concept of dual strategies. The

first strategy involves a preliminary elastic design against moderate earthquakes and the second

involves an ultimate limit state design to safeguard against strong earthquakes, which would allow

structures to undergo some acceptable degree of inelastic deformation. The current JRA code

recommends that dynamic analysis should be conducted on the ultimate behaviour of existing and

new bridge structures. If seismic requirements are not met, the bridges should be redesigned for

seismic performance upgrading. There are two options available for upgrading bridge performance.

One is to improve aseismatic measures, for example, by enlarging the cross-section of structural

members or reinforcing the plate components. The other is to introduce energy dissipators into the

bridge structure. This paper deals with the latter option, especially with the utilization of hysteretic

damping devices. A procedure is proposed for determining the stiffness and the lateral yield strength

of hysteretic dampers as supplemental energy dissipation devices based on the properties of the

main structure as known from the preliminary design. The basic steps are outlined schematically

in Figure 2 and will be described in detail below.

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC DESIGN APPROACH 545

(a) (b) (c)

Strain-based

ESDOF System

n

Displacement-based

*

max

n

(e) (d)

Strength-demanded spectra

Ad,i

Figure 2. Flow chart for design of MDOF system to be fitted with hysteretic damping devices: (a)

preliminary design; (b) pushover analysis; (c) idealized bilinear model; (d) establishment of ESDOF

system; (e) verification of seismic demand by performance-based method and selection of target value;

(f) design equivalent stiffness of damped frame; (g) design stiffness of damping devices; and (h) design

yield strength of damping devices.

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

546 Z. CHEN ET AL.

Step 1: Prepare a preliminary design of the main portal frame pier. The main portal frame pier

refers to the bare frame without hysteretic damping devices. The preliminary design of the main

frame takes account of gravity loads and lateral seismic forces. The purpose of the preliminary

design is to ensure the elastic behaviour of the main frame under moderate earthquakes. The

seismic coefficient method specified in the JRA code [16] may be used as shown in Figure 2(a),

in which kho represents the seismic coefficient (the ratio of the lateral inertia force acting on the

deck to the deck weight) specified in the code. The general structural parameters (including the

geometrical and material properties of the steel portal frame and its components, structural masses,

etc.) are established at this preliminary design stage.

Step 2: Perform the pushover analysis. The purpose of the pushover analysis (Figure 2(b)) is

to obtain the base sheartop displacement (Vb ) and the base shearaverage compressive strain

(Vb a ) curves of the main frame as shown in Figure 2(c). The main frame is monotonically

loaded up to the ultimate state. A failure criterion proposed by Usami et al. [13] is used to identify

the ultimate state which is considered to be attained when a reaches u in the critical member

segments. The effective length of the critical member segments is denoted by le , taking the smaller

of the lateral diaphragm spaces and 0.7 times the flange width of a box-sectional member. The

basic properties, estimated according to the Vb curve, are the initial and ultimate values of base

in and V , and the initial and ultimate value of top displacement, in and . Of these,

shear, Vy,f u,f y,f u,f

in

y,f will be employed to determine the target performance displacement in Step 6.

Step 3: Idealize the base sheartop displacement relationship as a bilinear curve. The Vb

relationship can be idealized as a bilinear curve using the equivalent energy procedure provided

by Usami et al. [13] as shown in Figure 2(c). The values of bi bi

y,f and Vy,f obtained at the turning

point will be used together with Equations (1)(7) to formulate the ESDOF system.

Step 4: Establish the ESDOF system for the main frame. The formulation of an ESDOF sys-

tem deduced by Krawinkler and Seneviratna [17] is employed in this study. According to their

formulation, the MDOF system is assumed to respond predominantly in a single shape mode,

and the deflected shape remains constant throughout the earthquake. Several shape vectors are

available, such as the one at demand level or ultimate state (capacity level) and the elastic first

mode shape vector. The parametric study done by Usami et al. [13] demonstrated that the influence

of these shape vectors on the seismic performance of double-deck bridge piers could be neglected.

Considering that the use of such a shape vector is simply a recommendation, with no theoretical

justification behind it, the elastic first shape vector, {}, is adopted for this study. Consequently,

the displacement vector, {X }, can be obtained by multiplying {} with the top displacement, , as

{X } = {} (1)

and the equation of motion of a ESDOF system can be written as

M + C + H = M xg (2)

in which

{}T [M]{}

= (3)

{}T [M]{1}

H = {}T {H } (4)

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC DESIGN APPROACH 547

{}T [M]{1}

C = {}T [C]{} (6)

{}T [M]{}

M Hy

T = 2 , K = (7)

K y

where {H } is the lateral force vector; [M] and [C] are mass and damping matrices, respectively; x g

is ground motion acceleration; and {1} is the unity vector. The superscript in the above formulas

represents corresponding properties of the ESDOF system. T represents the equivalent period of

the ESDOF system.

Since this step concerns the establishment of the ESDOF system with regard to the main frame,

all the properties are denoted with the subscript, f, as shown in Figure 2(c) and (d).

Step 5: Verify seismic demands of the ESDOF system by performance-based method. Referring

to the inset on the right side of Figure 2(e), dynamic analysis is performed on the simple mass-

spring model to estimate the top displacement demand, max , of the ESDOF system subject to a

particular ground motion. Alternatively, max can also be estimated by elastic response spectra.

For the displacement-based verification method (inset on the bottom left side of Figure 2(e)), max

is transformed to the maximum top displacement of the main frame, max , using Equation (3), and

max is compared with the value of required performance specified in Table I. For the strain-based

verification method (inset on the top left side of Figure 2(e)), the Vb a curve needs to be used

together with the Vb curve to find a max because a simple ESDOF model of this sort is not

capable of evaluating local deformations. If the demand (max or a max ) is below the allowable

limit value as specified in Table I, there is no need for hysteretic damping devices to be installed.

If it is above the limit value, the following proposed steps can be applied to design hysteretic

damping devices for seismic upgrading.

Step 6: Select performance levels. This includes selection of a target value for the performance

index (t or t ) and selection of an expected future ground motion. The selection of a target

performance index for a damped frame design can be based on the levels and values provided in

Table I with reference to the known basic properties of the main frame. For displacement-based

design, Equation (3) can be applied to transform t to the equivalent target displacement, t . For

strain-based design, the corresponding displacement at t first has to be determined with the help

of the Vb curve as mentioned in Step 2. Then this displacement is transformed to t using

Equation (3).

Considering that the main function of a hysteretic damping system is to enhance both stiffness

and the damping of the main structure against the risk of a severe earthquake, the strong ground

motions presented in Table II usually serve for this purpose. All of the waves are modified

from ground motions recorded in the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake and are adopted in Japanese

codes [16].

Step 7: Determine lateral stiffness and yield strength of ESDOF through strength-demanded

spectra. Strength-demanded spectra are one of various types of nonlinear response spectra. Figure 3

shows one example generated on Ground Type II (a site other than rock or soft soil), referring

to the work of Nishimura and Murono [18]. The smoothed curves are generated by means of a

nonlinear least-squares procedure based on the actual earthquake spectra (the unsmoothed curves).

These curves are presented for ductility demands = 1, 2, 3, with yield strength Hy (normalized by

an oscillator weight, W ) as the ordinate and the period as the abscissa. The relationship between

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

548 Z. CHEN ET AL.

Ground motion identifier Location Ground Type PGA (g)

JMA-EW-M Kobe Marine Meteorological Observatory (JMA), N90E I 0.78

INA-NS-M Inagawa Bridge, Kobe, N00E I 0.80

JRT-EW-M JR West Japan Takatori (JRT), Kobe, N90E II 0.69

JRT-NS-M JR West Japan Takatori (JRT), Kobe, N00E II 0.70

FUKIAI-M Fukiai Supply Station, Osaka Gas Corp., Kobe, N30W II 0.75

HKB-NS-M Higashi Kobe Bridge, Kobe, N00E III 0.60

PIS-NS-M Port Island, Kobe, N00E III 0.57

PIS-EW-M Port Island, Kobe, N90E III 0.63

Note: Ground Type I represents a rock site, Ground Type III represents soft soil, and Ground Type II represents

sites other than Ground Types I and III. PGA stands for peak ground acceleration.

1

Hy / W

0.5

0.1

0.1 0.5 1 5

T (s)

Table III. Standard acceleration spectra SII0 for strong ground motions [16].

Ground Type SII0 (g) relative to natural period T (s)

T <0.3 0.3T 0.7 0.7<T

II SII0 = 3.290T 2/3 SII0 = 1.786 SII0 = 2.419/T 5/3

T <0.4 0.4T 1.2 1.2<T

III SII0 = 2.430T 2/3 SII0 = 1.531 SII0 = 3.008T 5/3

T <0.5 0.5T 1.5 1.5<T

the gravity constant. f (T ) represents the elastic response spectra provided in the current JRA

code [16], whose standard values for acceleration response spectra are summarized in Table III.

t represents the target ductility (= t /y , where t and y represent the target displacement and

yield displacement, respectively). is a parameter expressed in the function of the natural period

depending on the ground type as shown in Figure 3.

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC DESIGN APPROACH 549

Equation (12)

H y, fd

1 W Equation (8)

with regard to t

Hy / W

0.5

T fd

0.1

0.1 0.5 1 5

T (s)

In the analysis of an ESDOF system, the above parameters should be replaced by the properties

of a damped ESDOF system. Thus, the spectra are then rewritten as

Hy,fd /M g = f (Tfd )/t (8)

and T represent the expected lateral resistance of a damped ESDOF system and its

where Hy,fd fd

natural period, respectively; t is redefined as

t = t /y,fd (9)

where t is the displacement already established in Step 6; y,fd denotes the equivalent yield

displacement of the expected damped ESDOF system, which can be calculated from y,fd together

with Equation (3). Here, y,fd represents the yield displacement of a damped MDOF system

when yielding starts in the hysteretic damping device. Since the hysteretic damping device can

be expected to yield prior to the main frame, y,fd is the same as the yield displacement of

the hysteretic damping device, y,d , i.e. y,fd = y,d . Selection of y,d also involves selecting an

optimum displacement ratio, , associated with the original MDOF system and the damping

system. This issue will be discussed later.

For an ESDOF system at the yield point, we have

Hy,fd /M g = K fd y,fd /M g (10)

In its elastic range, the initial stiffness is related to the natural period,

42 M

K fd = (11)

Tfd

By substituting Equation (11) into Equation (10), it can be rewritten as follows:

42 1

Hy,fd /M g = y,fd 2 (12)

g Tfd

This equation is plotted in Figure 4. As can be seen, it is a straight line intersecting with the

spectrum curve. For a required ductility, reading down to the abscissa gives the design natural

period of the damped frame, Tfd (or the corresponding elastic lateral stiffness, K fd

) while reading

left to the ordinate gives the design yield strength coefficient for the damped frame, Hy,fd /W .

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

550 Z. CHEN ET AL.

Alternatively, Equations (8) and (12) can also be solved simultaneously to obtain Tfd (or K fd )

.

and Hy,fd

Step 8: Distribute lateral resistances of hysteretic damping devices at each level of MDOF

system. Having established the basic properties of the damped ESDOF system (Figure 2(f)), the

next step is to transform the damped ESDOF system into the damped MDOF system, that is, to

distribute the yield strengths and stiffnesses of the hysteretic damping devices at each level of the

original MDOF system (Figure 2(g) and (h)).

In the case of an elastic MDOF structure installed with hysteretic damping devices, the lateral

stiffness matrix of the hysteretic damping system, [K d ], relates the vector of the shear forces

resisted by the damping devices at different levels, {Hd }, to the vector of the relative lateral

displacements of the damping devices, {X d }, as

Note that [K d ] is a diagonal matrix consisting of the elastic lateral stiffness of the hysteretic

damping device at the ith level, K d,i , and having a dimension of n n, where n is the number of

levels.

To determine {X d }, {X } can be formulated by substituting the top displacement, , derived from

Equation (3) into Equation (1). This yields

{X } = {} or {X } = { } (14)

{}T [M]{} {}T [M]{}

where {X } represents the relative displacement vector and { } represents the relative shape

vector. Theoretically, the deflected shape concerned in this step represents that of the damped

MDOF system. But because this shape vector is not known at this stage, an iteration process will

have to be involved. The analysis presented later will indicate that the difference between the shape

vector of an undamped structure and that of a damped structure is not significant. For simplicity,

as mentioned above, the first mode shape vector of the undamped MDOF system, {}, is therefore

adopted at this step.

Assuming that the large plastic deformation is confined in hysteretic dampers, {X d } can then be

approximated to {X },

{}T [M]{1}

{X d } = {X } = { } (15)

{}T [M]{}

To determine {Hd }, the lateral force vector of a damped frame, {Hfd }, is first derived. It can be

written as

where q is constant and will be defined later; {H } is the normalized lateral force vector, which

represents the distribution of inertia forces and may be assumed identical to the lateral load pattern

employed in the pushover analysis of the main frame.

Substituting Equation (16) for {H } in Equation (4) and replacing H with Hfd , it can be obtained

that q = Hfd /({} {H }). Substituting q back into Equation (16) and expressing the total shear

T

force resisted by the damped ESDOF system, Hfd , as a product of the elastic lateral stiffness of

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC DESIGN APPROACH 551

the damped ESDOF system, K fd

x

K fd x

K fd

{Hfd } = {H }

or {Hfd } = {H } (17)

{}T {H } {}T {H }

where {Hfd } is the shear force vector of the damped frame in different levels and { } is the

H

normalized shear force vector in different levels. Regarding the ESDOF system as a single-deck

damped frame, K fd can be expressed as a linear combination of K and K . Thus, Equation (17)

d f

is rewritten as

(K d + K f )

{Hfd } = {H } (18)

{}T {H }

The right-hand side of Equation (18) can be divided into two terms, denoting the shear resistance

of the damping devices and that of the main frame. The former, which is denoted by {Hd }, is

therefore given by

K d

{Hd } = {H } (19)

{}T {H }

Consequently, the yield strength of the hysteretic damping devices at each level is given by

K d

Hd,i = H,i (20)

{}T {H }

By substituting Equations (15) and (19) for {X d } and {Hd }, respectively, in Equation (13) and

solving for K d,i , the expression of the elastic lateral stiffness of the hysteretic damping device in

the ith level is finally obtained as

H,i K d {}T [M]{}

K d,i = (21)

i {}T {H } {}T [M]{1}

Step 9: Design hysteretic damping devices. Once the yield strength and stiffness of the hysteretic

damping devices at each level are established by Equations (20) and (21), the hysteretic damping

devices can be designed. In this study, a buckling-restrained brace (BRB) with a flat core plate is

employed as shown in Figure 5. In such a configuration, the required core plate cross-section area

of one BRB member, Ad,i , can be calculated from geometrical conditions as

3

2lBRB

Ad,i = K d,i (22)

E L2

where lBRB is the length of the BRB, and L is the span of the portal frame. The required yield

tensile strength of the material, y,d , is given by

EL

y,d = 2

y,d (23)

2lBRB

where the yield displacement of the damping devices, y,d , is as designated in Step 7. From

Equations (22) and (23) it can be seen that the strength and stiffness of a BRB member of this

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

552 Z. CHEN ET AL.

T-shaped

restraining members

RB

lB

H

BRB Bolt Bolt

Core plate Unbonding material

L

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Sample portal frame piers installed with buckling-restrained braces (BRB):

(a) elevation; and (b) cross-section of BRB.

type are mutually dependent. That is to say, given the steel material, a sole parameter Ad,i is

sufficient to adjust its strength and stiffness.

4. DESIGN EXAMPLES

The simplified seismic design approach as described in the preceding section is applied to single-

deck and double-deck portal frame piers to obtain the design for the added hysteretic damping

devices. Figure 6(a) and (b) shows the finite element models. The preliminary design is performed

in accordance with the Seismic Coefficient Method [16, 19], assuming Regional Class A and

Ground Type II. The entire frame is made of SM490 grade steel with y = 314 MPa, E = 206 GPa,

u = 506 MPa, and = 0.3. The piers and girders have uniform stiffened box cross-sections, the

design information for which is presented in Table IV. Schematic diagrams are shown in Figure 6(c)

and (d). For simplicity, the stiffened piers and girders are simplified as equivalent beamcolumn

elements of unstiffened box section [13]. Since this type of portal frame is commonly subject to

heavy loading, the plates at the piergirder connections should be strengthened by doubling the

plate thickness in order to avoid shear failure as shown in Figure 6(e).

As an illustrative example, the design process for the double-deck piers only is presented below.

The design results of added damping devices are summarized in Table VI for single-deck piers

and in Table VII for double-deck piers.

The general FEM program ABAQUS [7] is employed in the pushover analysis. A two-dimensional

Timoshenko beam element of type B21, provided in the ABAQUS element library, is used to model

the piers and girders of the main frame. The B21 element takes account of shear deformation.

Because of the equal deck mass and uniform cross-section of the present portal frame, the force

distribution pattern can be taken as uniform, as is recommended by the JRA code [16]. The

uniform force pattern is also used as {H } in Equations (16)(21). Consequently, {H } is [1, 2]T .

The pushover analysis results are presented in Table IV. At the same time, an eigenvalue analysis is

also performed to obtain the first mode shape vector {}. For the pier presented, {} is [1, 0.52]T

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC DESIGN APPROACH 553

Figure 6. Finite element models and member sections: (a) single-deck piers; (b) double-deck piers;

(c) pier section; (d) girder section; and (e) details of strengthened parts.

and { } is [0.48, 0.52]T . {} is then used to establish the ESDOF system, and the computed

properties are presented in Table V. Considering the inherent simplification of the method, it is

worth noting that, for the pier presented, a linear variation of the deformations along the pier

height could be used instead of {}, at least in the first design trials.

The global displacement demand of the ESDOF system, max , is 0.475m. max can be transformed

to max using Equation (3). It is found that max (= 0.569 m) of the original portal frame pier

exceeds its ultimate capacity, u (= 0.518 m). Therefore, damping devices need to be employed

to reduce structural damage in the case of a strong earthquake.

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

554

Copyright q

Table IV. Structural parameters and basic properties of the main frames.

Main frame Pier Girder

Dimensions or parameters SDOF MDOF Dimensions or parameters Value Dimensions or parameters Value

Steel grade SM490 SM490 Width, Bc (mm) 2000 Width, Bb (mm) 2000

Height, H (m) 12 12 2 Depth, Dc (mm) 1000 Depth, Db (mm) 1000

Length, L (m) 12 12 Thickness, t (mm) 32 Thickness, t (mm) 32

Total deck mass, M (ton) 2042 2034 Flange slenderness, Rfc 0.34 Flange slenderness, Rfb 0.34

Initial yield displacement, iny,f (m) 0.078 0.137 Web slenderness, Rwc 0.34 Web slenderness, Rwc 0.78

in (kN)

Initial yield strength, Vy,f 6758 5939 Aspect ratio of flange, fc 1.0 Aspect ratio of flange, fb 0.5

0.418 0.518 0.5 0.83

Z. CHEN ET AL.

Ultimate displacement, u,f (m) Aspect ratio of web, wc Aspect ratio of web, wb

Ultimate strength, Vu,f (kN) 11 836 10 884 No. of flange sub-panels, n fc 2 No. of flange sub-panels, n fb 4

Bi yield displacement, bi y,f (m) 0.112 0.211 No. of web sub-panels, n wc 4 No. of web sub-panels, n wb 1

bi (kN) 9645 9318 Stiffener slenderness, sc 0.89 Stiffener slenderness, 0.72

Bi yield strength, Vy,f sb

Period, Tf (s) 0.97 1.23 Stiffener width, bs (mm) 140 Stiffener width, bs (mm) 140

First mode shape vector, {} [1, 0.52]T Stiffener thickness, ts (mm) 32 Stiffener thickness, ts (mm) 32

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC DESIGN APPROACH 555

Lateral load distribution M (kg) C (kg/s) y,f (m) (kN)

Vy,f Tf (s)

t (m) y,d (m) Hy,fd /Mg Tfd (s) Ad (m2 ) y,d (MPa)

Strain-based design

0.1 0.104 0.008 0.223 0.375 0.079 54

0.3 0.104 0.023 0.511 0.430 0.057 161

0.5 0.104 0.039 0.764 0.453 0.050 268

0.7 0.104 0.055 1.009 0.467 0.046 375

1.0 0.104 0.078 1.366 0.480 0.043 536

Displacement-based design

0.1 0.133 0.008 0.166 0.435 0.055 54

0.3 0.133 0.023 0.378 0.500 0.038 161

0.5 0.133 0.039 0.582 0.519 0.035 268

0.7 0.133 0.055 0.782 0.530 0.033 375

1.0 0.133 0.078 1.077 0.540 0.031 536

In this design example, Performance Level 2 is assumed, which is the most common level used

for expressway bridge structures in Japan. For strain-based design, the target strain performance,

t (= 2.0y ), corresponds to a displacement value of 0.181 m. For displacement-based design,

t (= 1.7iny,f ) is equal to 0.233 m, and the corresponding strain magnitude equals 4.20y .

Table VII summarizes the design results. In this table, the lateral yield displacement of the BRB,

y,d , is designed according to the yield displacement ratio (= y,d /in y,f ). is assigned values

of 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0, within the perfect limiting range from 0.0 to 1.0. Of the range of values

for single-deck portal frames in Table VI, the case of = 0.1 is excluded for double-deck portal

frames due to the difficulties encountered in solving the equations. t and y,d are transformed

to the corresponding displacements t and y,fd of the ESDOF system. Using strength-demanded

spectra and solving Equations (7) and (20)(23), Hy,fd /M g, T , A , and

fd d y,d are easily calculated,

as presented in Table VII.

It should be noted that an arbitrary designation of will result in a variation of y,d as shown

in Table VII. This is because the strength and stiffness of a BRB member of this type are mutually

dependent as shown in Equations (22) and (23). For practical design purposes, the issue can be

resolved by selecting the steel material first, corresponding to the unique value of y,d obtainable

from Equation (23). Then y,d can be used to determine the target displacement ductility in Step 7.

It should be noted, also, that the designed value of y,d covers 133473 MPa. This indicates that

at least one available commercial steel grade could be used here.

However, the present numerical studies do not yet take account of practical yield strength

because the dependence between strength and stiffness is a specific feature of the BRB. That is

not the case for other kinds of hysteretic dampers.

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

556 Z. CHEN ET AL.

Hy,fd (s)

Tfd Level Ad (m2 ) y,d (MPa) {fd }

Strain-based design

1

0.3 0.181 0.041 0.151 0.034 0.517 0.565 Second 0.029 133

0.44

First 0.054 142

1

0.5 0.181 0.069 0.151 0.057 0.835 0.577 Second 0.027 221

0.44

First 0.051 237

1

0.7 0.181 0.096 0.151 0.080 1.137 0.583 Second 0.027 309

0.44

First 0.050 331

1

1.0 0.181 0.137 0.151 0.115 1.591 0.589 Second 0.026 442

0.44

First 0.048 473

Displacement-based design

1

0.3 0.233 0.041 0.195 0.034 0.301 0.675 Second 0.018 133

0.46

First 0.033 142

1

0.5 0.233 0.069 0.195 0.057 0.508 0.673 Second 0.018 221

0.46

First 0.034 237

1

0.7 0.233 0.096 0.195 0.080 0.715 0.672 Second 0.018 309

0.45

First 0.034 331

1

1.0 0.233 0.137 0.195 0.115 1.031 0.671 Second 0.018 442

0.45

First 0.034 473

In order to verify the accuracy of the proposed design approach in terms of meeting pre-defined

performance responses, dynamic nonlinear analyses are performed. The modified two surface

model [20] is employed to simulate the hysteretic behaviour of steel frame material for more

accuracy. The BRB is modelled using a truss element provided by ABAQUS, which is assumed

to be subject only to axial tension and compression without local buckling. One end of the BRB

is pinned at the pier base and the other at the midpoint of the girder. A bilinear hysteretic model

with a kinematic hardening rule is suggested for a BRB of this kind made of conventional steel

material [21, 22]. Rayleigh damping, which is usually utilized in dynamic analysis, consists of

mass proportional damping and stiffness proportional damping. Here, mass proportional damping

of 5% is used, whereas the inherent stiffness proportional damping is taken as zero since it is

negligible if compared with the significant amount of equivalent viscous damping due to yielding

of the hysteretic dampers.

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC DESIGN APPROACH 557

A first series of time-history analysis results for single-deck steel piers designed with strain and

displacement-based methods is presented in Figure 7. The maximum top displacement, max ,

and the maximum average compressive strain, a max , will now be discussed. In order to verify

the accuracy of the design approach in terms of meeting the pre-defined target performances, the

analysis results are first normalized by the target values. The horizontal dashed line at max /t = 1.0

represents perfect attainment of the target displacement or strain performance. For each , the

piers are subject to the three strong ground motions on Ground Type II given in Table II (i.e.

JRT-EW-M, JRT-NS-M, and FUKIAI-M). As each model is designed with smoothed strength-

demanded spectra while the time-history analysis was conducted with recorded ground motions,

a certain amount of scatter in the resulting responses can be anticipated. To remove this variation,

the average of the demands from three ground motions is taken for each .

Figure 7(a) represents the maximum seismic responses obtained from a strain-based design,

plotted against . As can be seen, max /t approaches 1.0 with increasing in all three cases.

The same trend is also observed in the a max /t curves. The approximation in terms of curve

shape indicates that the proposed strain index is as useful as the displacement index in predicting

the structural damage state. The displacement index is the measure currently most widely accepted

in ductility design philosophy.

5 5

Average Average

JRT-EW-M JRT-EW-M

4 4

JRT-NS-M JRT-NS-M

FUKIAI-M FUKIAI-M

a max/t

3 3

max/t

2 2

1 1

0 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

(a)

5 5

Average Average

JRT-EW-M JRT-EW-M

4 4

JRT-NS-M JRT-NS-M

FUKIAI-M FUKIAI-M

a max/t

3

max/t

2 2

1 1

0 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

(b)

Figure 7. Accuracy of design approach for single-deck piers: (a) strain-based, t = 0.104 m, t = 2.0y ; and

(b) displacement-based, t = 0.133 m, t = 3.49y .

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

558 Z. CHEN ET AL.

= 0.3, L = 0.7, L

1 1

/ y

/ y

0 0

-1 -1

(a) / y / y

= 0.3, L = 0.7, L

1 1

/ y

/ y

0 0

-1 -1

(b) / y / y

and (b) displacement-based design. Note: L represents the left BRB.

Seen from the average responses, both max and a max give reasonably good agreement with the

target performance except for the case of = 0.1. Here, the seismic responses are significantly

larger than expected. The excessively large responses suggest that there may be an optimum range

for the choice of the yield displacement ratio, . Although its theoretical range is from 0.0 to

1.0, a bottom-of-the-range value of results in a lower steel yield strength for the BRB (see

Table VI) and hence in a smaller lateral yield force also. This causes the BRB to enter into a

state of plasticity prior to the main shock of an earthquake. Furthermore, the deformation of the

BRB exceeds the limit strain of the steel material during strong ground motions. It is presumable

that BRB fails to work. Because of the disabling of the BRB, the remaining energy induced by a

earthquake has to be dissipated through the plasticization of the main frame. This is the cause of

the large seismic responses in the case of = 0.1. On the other hand, when approaches 1.0,

the designed yield strength of the BRB material increases (see Table VI). This high yield strength

causes almost simultaneous yielding in the BRB and the main frame. As a result, in the case of

= 1.0, the BRB displays hardly any plastic behaviour at all.

The above statements can be easily verified from the normalized stressstrain responses of BRB

shown in Figure 8. It should be noted that the axial strain responses presented in Figure 8 are

twice as large as those obtained directly from analyses because the actual length of the steel core

plate that undergoes a large deformation is only about half of the geometric element length used in

the FEM model [6]. Clearly, the peak deformation of the BRB decreases rapidly with the increase

of .

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC DESIGN APPROACH 559

For displacement-based design, seismic responses in terms of top displacements, average com-

pressive strains and local deformation of the BRB are similar to those for strain-based design. It

can be concluded that both a strain-based and a displacement-based methods give a good basis for

the design of single-deck steel piers provided is greater than 0.3. It also needs to be noted that

in this limiting range the displacement response seems to achieve its target value slightly better

than the strain response. The average error remains within 10% for max /t , while it is about 20%

for a max /t .

A second series of analysis results, for double-deck steel piers designed with strain-based and

displacement-based design, is presented in Figure 9. The stressstrain curves of BRB members

subjected to JRT-EW-M ground motion are shown in Figure 10 in a similar manner as before. It

can be seen from Figure 9 that the time-history analysis results obtained using both indices give

good agreement over the range from 0.5 to 1.0. In the case of = 0.3, significant differences

of seismic response are found between the three ground motions. Especially, the estimate for the

maximum average compression strain is somewhat larger than target performance values. However,

the BRB members appear to dissipate energy normally in this case (Figure 10).

5 5

Average Average

JRT-EW-M JRT-EW-M

4 4

JRT-NS-M JRT-NS-M

FUKIAI-M FUKIAI-M

a max/t

max/t

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

(a)

5 5

Average Average

JRT-EW-M JRT-EW-M

4 4

JRT-NS-M JRT-NS-M

FUKIAI-M FUKIAI-M

a max/t

3 3

max/t

2 2

1 1

0 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

(b)

Figure 9. Accuracy of design approach for double-deck piers: (a) strain-based, t = 0.181 m, t = 2.0y ;

and (b) displacement-based, t = 0.233 m, t = 4.20y .

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

560 Z. CHEN ET AL.

1 1

/ y

/ y

0 0

-1 -1

(a) / y / y

1 1

/ y

/ y

0 0

-1 -1

(b) / y / y

Figure 10. Stressstrain curves of BRB in double-deck piers: (a) strain-based design; and

(b) displacement-based design. Note: S2-L represents the left BRB in the second level.

3.0 3.0

Average Average

2.5 JRT-EW-M 2.5 JRT-EW-M

JRT-NS-M JRT-NS-M

2.0 2.0

Ed,2 / Ed,1

Ed,2 / Ed,1

FUKIAI-M FUKIAI-M

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

(a) (b)

Figure 11. Comparison of dissipated energy ratio for dampers in double-deck piers:

(a) strain-based; and (b) displacement-based.

A further characteristic of the energy dissipation behaviour of the BRBs is shown in Figure

11, through a comparison of the dissipated energy ratio of BRBs between the first and the second

levels. Here, E d,2 and E d,1 denote the hysteretic energy dissipated by BRBs in the upper and the

lower levels, respectively. As can be seen, E d,2 /E d,1 is almost constant under the three ground

motions when is small. But when becomes larger, E d,2 /E d,1 increases with the increase

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC DESIGN APPROACH 561

in , indicating that the dissipated energy comes to be concentrated in the upper level. The

non-uniform distribution of dissipated energy can be traced back to the assumption of a uniform

load pattern in the design phase. The structural system so designed suffers from a rigid lateral

stiffness in the lower level compared with the upper one. As a result, when is close to 1.0, the

damping device in the upper level attracts proportionally more energy than that in the lower level.

It seems, therefore, that displacement-based design gives a more satisfactory capacity for uniform

distributed energy dissipation.

6. CONCLUSIONS

A simplified seismic design procedure for steel bridge piers to be fitted with hysteretic damping

devices was proposed in the present study, using equivalent single-degree-of-freedom methodology

and nonlinear response spectra. Not only displacement, but also strain was selected as a target

performance index. The procedure was successfully applied to single-deck and double-deck steel

portal frame piers. Inelastic dynamic time-history analysis confirms that both design indices enable

a structure fitted with hysteretic damping devices to keep damage down to an expected level during

a severe earthquake. The optimum range of the yield displacement ratio was also discussed

for the portal frame pier examples. It was found that a range of from 0.3 to 1.0 results in

successful design results for single-deck piers, and that a range from 0.5 to 1.0 allows the same

for double-deck piers.

While the approach presented here will enable much more efficient seismic design of simple steel

bridge structures, such as the portal frame piers discussed above as an example, its applicability

to more complicated bridge forms (e.g. steel arch bridges and cable bridges) remains unknown.

For such complicated bridge structures, the applicability of ESDOF techniques, the optimum

distribution of hysteretic dampers, and the applicability of displacement-based and strain-based

indices are issues that need further study.

REFERENCES

1. Watanabe A, Hitomi Y, Saeki E, Wada A, Fujimoto M. Properties of brace encased in buckling-restraining

concrete and steel tube. Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Kyoto,

Japan, 1988.

2. Bergman DM, Goel SC. Evaluation of cyclic testing of steel-plate devices for added damping and stiffness.

Report No. UMCE 8710, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1987.

3. Tsai KC, Chen HW, Hong CP, Su YF. Design of steel triangular plate energy absorbers for seismic-resistant

construction. Earthquake Spectra 1993; 9(3):505528.

4. Tena-Colunga A, Vergara A. Comparative study on the seismic retrofit of a mid-rise steel building: steel bracing

vs energy dissipation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1997; 26:637655.

5. Zahrai SM, Bruneau M. Ductile end-diaphragms for seismic retrofit of slab-on-girder steel bridges. Journal of

Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1999; 125(1):7180.

6. Usami T, Lu ZH, Ge HB. A seismic upgrading method for steel arch bridges using buckling-restrained braces.

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34:471496.

7. ABAQUS. ABAQUS/Analysis Users Manual-version 6.4. ABAQUS, Inc.: Pawtucket, RI, 2003.

8. Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) and Japanese Society of Steel Construction (JSSC). Performance-Based

Design for Steel Structures. JSCE and JSSC, Tokyo, 2000.

9. Usami T, Oda H. Numerical analysis and verification methods for seismic design of steel structures. Structural

Mechanics/Earthquake Engineering (JSCE) 2001; 668(I-54):116.

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

562 Z. CHEN ET AL.

10. Usami T. (ed.). Seismic Performance-Based Verification Procedures and Upgrading Measures for Civil Engineering

Steel Structures. Subcommittee for Seismic Design of Steel Bridges, Task Committee of Performance-Based

Seismic Design Methods for Steel Bridges, JSSC, October 2003.

11. Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE). Dynamic Design of Bridges for Earthquake. Earthquake Engineering

Committee, JSCE, March 2003.

12. Lu ZH, Usami T, Ge HB. Seismic performance evaluation of steel arch bridges against major earthquakes. Part 2:

simplified verification procedure. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33:13551372.

13. Usami T, Zheng Y, Ge HB. Seismic design method for thin-walled steel frame structures. Journal of Structural

Engineering (ASCE) 2001; 127:137144.

14. Usami T, Lu ZH, Ge HB, Kono T. Seismic performance evaluation of steel arch bridges against major earthquakes.

Part 1: dynamic analysis approach. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33:13371354.

15. Morishita K, Usami T, Banno T, Takahashi M. Applicability on dynamic verification method for seismic design

of steel structures. Journal of Structural Engineering (JSCE) 2002; 48A:779788.

16. Japan Road Association (JRA). Design Specifications of Highway BridgesPart V Seismic Design. JRA: Tokyo,

Japan, 2002.

17. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation.

Engineering Structures 1998; 20:452464.

18. Nishimura A, Murono Y. Evaluation of non-linear earthquake response of bridges using strength demanded

spectra. RTRI Report 1999; 13(2):4750.

19. Japan Road Association (JRA). Design Specifications of Highway BridgesPart II Steel Bridges. JRA: Tokyo,

Japan, 2002.

20. Shen C, Mamaghani IHP, Mizuno E, Usami T. Cyclic behaviour of structural steels. II: theory. Journal of

Engineering Mechanics (ASCE) 1995; 121(10):11651172.

21. Usami T, Kasai A, Kato M. Behavior of buckling-restrained brace members. Proceedings of the Conference on

Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas. STESSA, Naples, Italy, 2003.

22. Kato M, Usami T, Kasai A, Chusilp P. An experimental study on cyclic elasto-plastic behaviour of buckling

restrained brace members. Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Ductility Design Method for Bridges. Ductility

Design Subcommittee, Earthquake Engineering Committee, JSCE, Tokyo, Japan, 2003.

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:541562

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.