Abstract
The main purpose of this paper is to evaluate the structural response of composite steel-concrete eccentrically buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs). The finite element (FE) software ABAQUS is employed to nonlinearly analyse the BRBFs. Comparing the modelling and experimental test results validates the FE modelling method of the BRBF. Three different strong earthquake records of Tabas, Northridge, and Chi-Chi are selected for the nonlinear dynamic analyses. A BRBF is then designed having a shear link. Afterwards, the designed BRBF is analysed under the selected earthquake records using the validated modelling method. The lateral displacements, base shears, and energy dissipations of the frame and shear link rotations are achieved from the analyses of the BRBF. The results are compared and discussed. The obtained BRBF results are also compared with their corresponding steel eccentrically braced frame (EBF) results. It is concluded that the BRBF can generally accomplish the improved structural response compared with the EBF under the earthquake records. Meanwhile, the BRBF has larger base shear capacity than the EBF. Moreover, the BRBF dissipates more energy than the EBF.
Highlights
Buckling-restrained brace (BRB) is one of the latest advances in lateral-resistant structures
The effects of the records as the lateral displacement, base shear, and energy dissipation of the frame and the shear link rotation are discussed for the buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs)
The structural response of the composite steel-concrete eccentrically BRBFs was examined under three different earthquake records
Summary
Buckling-restrained brace (BRB) is one of the latest advances in lateral-resistant structures. The validated modelling method is utilised for the analyses of the designed BRBF under three different earthquake records of Tabas, Northridge, and Chi-Chi. The results of the analyses are demonstrated as the lateral displacements, base shears, and energy dissipations of the frame and shear link rotations. As can be witnessed from the table, the obtained maximum compressive and tensile forces from the modelling are a little different from their corresponding experimental test forces. These approximations are within the acceptable accuracy. MW, PGA, PGV, and PGD are respectively as the magnitude of the earthquake, peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and peak ground displacement
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
