Premium
Seismic retrofit of low‐rise steel buildings in Canada using rocking steel braced frames
Author(s) -
Mottier Paul,
Tremblay Robert,
Rogers Colin
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
earthquake engineering and structural dynamics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.218
H-Index - 127
eISSN - 1096-9845
pISSN - 0098-8847
DOI - 10.1002/eqe.2953
Subject(s) - structural engineering , engineering , braced frame , seismic retrofit , stiffness , low rise , seismic hazard , framing (construction) , bracing , geotechnical engineering , structural load , dissipative system , reinforced concrete , frame (networking) , brace , civil engineering , telecommunications , physics , quantum mechanics
Summary This article examines the use of rocking steel braced frames for the retrofit of existing seismically deficient steel building structures. Rocking is also used to achieve superior seismic performance to reduce repair costs and disruption time after earthquakes. The study focuses on low‐rise buildings for which re‐centring is solely provided by gravity loads rather than added post‐tensioning elements. Friction energy dissipative (ED) devices are used to control drifts. The system is applied to 2‐storey and 3‐storey structures located in 2 seismically active regions of Canada. Firm ground and soft soil conditions are considered. The seismic performance of the retrofit scheme is evaluated using nonlinear dynamic analysis and ASCE 41‐13. For all structures, rocking permits to achieve immediate occupancy performance under 2% in 50 years seismic hazard if the braces and their connections at the building's top storeys are strengthened to resist amplified forces due to higher mode response. Base shears are also increased due to higher modes. Impact at column bases upon rocking induces magnified column forces and vertical response in the gravity system. Friction ED is found more effective for drift control than systems with ring springs or bars yielding in tension. Drifts are sufficiently small to achieve position retention performance for most nonstructural components. Horizontal accelerations are generally lower than predicted from ASCE 41 for regular nonrocking structures. Vertical accelerations in the gravity framing directly connected to the rocking frame are however higher than those predicted for ordinary structures. Vertical ground motions have limited effect on frame response.