Economic Feasibility Study of Self-Centering Concentrically Braced Frame Systems
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 144, Issue 8
Abstract
Self-centering concentrically braced frame (SC-CBF) systems have been developed to increase the drift capacity of conventional concentrically braced frame (CBF) systems prior to damage to reduce postearthquake damages. However, due to special details required by the SC-CBF system, the construction cost of a SC-CBF is expected to be higher than that of a conventional CBF. Although recent experimental research has shown better seismic performance of SC-CBF systems subjected to design-basis earthquakes, the benefit of this system must be demonstrated from an economic benefit point of view through investigating whether the higher construction cost of the SC-CBF system can be paid back by lower earthquake-induced losses during the building service life. In this study, the economic effectiveness of the SC-CBF system is assessed by comparing the life-cycle cost of the SC-CBF system with that of the CBF system in three building configurations (6-story, 8-story, and 10-story buildings). Specifically, nonlinear time history analysis is conducted in OpenSEES by subjecting the buildings to ground motion excitations. Probabilistic demand formulations are then developed for engineering demand parameters using the numerical results. Next, annual probability of exceeding damage states, the expected annual loss, and the expected economic benefit are calculated for prototype buildings considering both direct and indirect losses and prevailing uncertainties in all levels of loss analysis. In addition, this paper examines the impact of two different ground motion sets and two seismic hazard levels. The results show that the SC-CBF system is significantly beneficial over the conventional CBF for 6-story and 8-story buildings when subjected to a high seismic hazard, even with a relatively high construction cost amplification over the CBF. The 10-story SC-CBF system, however, shows no economic benefit over the conventional CBF system. The selection of ground motions has a significant influence on the loss values for both systems, but does not change whether the SC-CBF system is beneficial given the seismic hazard and building configuration. In addition, the SC-CBF system has significantly lower displacement-related damage, but higher acceleration-related damage compared to the CBF system.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CMMI 1235327. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
References
AISC. 2010a. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago, IL: AISC.
AISC. 2010b. Steel construction manual. 14th ed., Second Printing. Chicago, IL: AISC.
Akkar, S., and Ö. Özen. 2005. “Effect of peak ground velocity on deformation demands for SDOF systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34 (13): 1551–1571. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.492.
ASCE. 2000. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA 356. Washington, DC: ASCE.
ASCE. 2007. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. ASCE 41-06. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASCE. 2010. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7-10. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ATC. 2012. Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Vol. 1: Methodology. FEMA P-58-1. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.
Baker, J. W. 2007. “Probabilistic structural response assessment using vector-valued intensity measures.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 36 (13): 1861–1883. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.700.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2005. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. I: General rules and rules for buildings. EN 1993-1 1. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
Chancellor, N. B., M. R. Eatherton, D. A. Roke, and T. Akbaş. 2014. “Self-centering seismic lateral force resisting systems: High performance structures for the city of tomorrow.” Buildings 4 (3): 520–548. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings4030520.
Chancellor, N. B., R. Sause, J. M. Ricles, and D. Roke. 2010. Laboratory testing and hybrid simulations of self-centering steel concentrically-braced frame test structure. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh Univ.
Chandra, A., Q. Huang, D. Roke, and K. Sett. 2017. “Improving precision in earthquake loss estimation.” Sustainable Resilient Infrastruct. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1365231.
Dyanati, M., Q. Huang, and D. Roke. 2013. “Seismic performance evaluation of self-centering concentrically braced frame system.” In Safety, Reliability, Risk and Life-Cycle Performance of Structures And Infrastructures, edited by G. Deodatis, B. R. Ellingwood, and D. M. Frangopol, 4145–4152. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Dyanati, M., Q. Huang, and D. Roke. 2014. “Structural and nonstructural performance evaluation of self-centering, concentrically braced frames under seismic loading.” In Structures Congress 2014, 2393–2404. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Dyanati, M., Q. Huang, and D. Roke. 2015. “Seismic demand models and performance evaluation of self-centering and conventional concentrically braced frames.” Eng. Struct. 84: 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.11.036.
Dyanati, M., Q. Huang, and D. Roke. 2016. “Cost-benefit evaluation of self-centering concentrically braced frames considering uncertainties.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 13 (5): 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1173070.
Dyanati, M., Q. Huang, and D. Roke. 2017. “Sensitivity analysis of seismic performance assessment and consequent impacts on loss analysis.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 15 (11): 4751–4790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0150-6.
Eatherton, M., J. Hajjar, X. Ma, H. Krawinkler, and G. Deierlein. 2010. “Seismic design and behavior of steel frames with controlled rocking. Part I: Concepts and quasi-static subassembly testing.” In Proc., 2010 ASCE Structures Congress. Reston, VA: ASCE.
FEMA. 2014. HAZUS-MH 2.1 technical manual: Earthquake model. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Goggins, J., and S. Salawdeh. 2012. “Validation of nonlinear time history analysis models for single-storey concentrically braced frames using full-scale shake table tests.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (8): 1151–1170. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2264.
Gunturi, S. K. V., and H. C. Shah. 1992. “Building specific damage estimation.” In Vol. 10 of Proc., 10th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 6001–6006. Brookfield, VT: A.A. Balkema.
Huang, Q., P. Gardoni, and S. Hurlebaus. 2010. “Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete highway bridges with one single-column bent.” J. Eng. Mech. 136 (11): 1340–1353. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000186.
Jeong, S. H., A. M. Mwafy, and A. S. Elnashai. 2012. “Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of code-compliant multi-story RC buildings.” Eng. Struct. 34: 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.10.019.
Katsanos, E. I., A. G. Sextos, and G. D. Manolis. 2010. “Selection of earthquake ground motion records: A state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 30 (4): 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.10.005.
Li, Q., and B. R. Ellingwood. 2007. “Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel frame buildings under main shock-aftershock earthquake sequences.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 36 (3): 405–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.667.
Mazzoni, S., F. McKenna, M. H. Scott, and G. L. Fenves 2006. OpenSees command language manual. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center.
Nielson, B. G., and R. DesRoches. 2007. “Analytical seismic fragility curves for typical bridges in the central and southeastern United States.” Earthquake Spectra 23 (3): 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2756815.
Nikellis, A., K. O. Eshun, M. Dyanati, D. A. Roke, Q. Huang, A. Chandra, and K. Sett. 2016. “Effect of site-specific soil nonlinearities and uncertainties on ground motion intensity measures and structural demand parameters.” GeoRisk. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2018.1456666.
Park, Y. J., and A. H. S. Ang. 1985. “Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete.” J. Struct. Eng. 111 (4): 722–739. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:4(722).
Porter, K. A., et al. 2004. “Effect of seismic risk on lifetime property values.” Earthquake Spectra 20 (4): 1211–1237. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1810536.
Roke, D., R. Sause, J. M. Ricles, and N. B. Chancellor. 2010. Damage-free seismic-resistant self-centering concentrically-braced frames. Bethlehem, PA: ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Lehigh Univ.
Roke, D., R. Sause, J. M. Ricles, C.-Y. Seo, and K.-S. Lee. 2006. “Self-centering seismic-resistant steel concentrically-braced frames.” In Proc., 8th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. New York: Curran Associates, Inc. Red Hook.
RS Means. 2013. RS means square foot costs. Kingston, MA: RS Means Company.
Sabelli, R., S. Mahin, and C. Chang. 2003. “Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces.” Eng. Struct. 25 (5): 655–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00175-X.
Somerville, P., S. Smith, S. Punyamurthula, and J. Sun. 1997. Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project. Sacramento, CA: SAC Joint Venture.
Uriz, P., and S. Mahin. 2008. Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentrically braced steel-frame structures. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California.
USGS. 2014. “Database of U.S. Geological Survey for ground motion hazards.” Accessed December 1, 2016. http://www.usgs.gov/.
Wiebe, L., and C. Christopoulos. 2009. “Mitigation of higher mode effects in base-rocking systems by using multiple rocking sections.” Supplement, J. Earthquake Eng. 13 (S1): 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460902813315.
Wiebe, L., and C. Christopoulos. 2011. Accelerations in systems with abrupt stiffness changes. Toronto, ON: Centre for Resilience of Critical Infrastructure, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Toronto.
Yanev, P., and A. Yanev. 2011. “Lessons for insurance: Risk management and engineering in the major earthquakes of 2010–2011.” Accessed December 1, 2016. http://www.scor.com/images/stories/pdf/library/newsletter/pandc_earthquake_01122011_en.pdf.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 144 • Issue 8 • August 2018
Copyright
©2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Dec 1, 2016
Accepted: Jan 26, 2018
Published online: May 24, 2018
Published in print: Aug 1, 2018
Discussion open until: Oct 24, 2018
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.