Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 31097
An Investigation on the Accuracy of Nonlinear Static Procedures for Seismic Evaluation of Buckling-restrained Braced Frames

Authors: An Hong Nguyen, Chatpan Chintanapakdee, Toshiro Hayashikawa


Presented herein is an assessment of current nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) for seismic evaluation of bucklingrestrained braced frames (BRBFs) which have become a favorable lateral-force resisting system for earthquake resistant buildings. The bias and accuracy of modal, improved modal pushover analysis (MPA, IMPA) and mass proportional pushover (MPP) procedures are comparatively investigated when they are applied to BRBF buildings subjected to two sets of strong ground motions. The assessment is based on a comparison of seismic displacement demands such as target roof displacements, peak floor/roof displacements and inter-story drifts. The NSP estimates are compared to 'exact' results from nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA). The response statistics presented show that the MPP procedure tends to significantly overestimate seismic demands of lower stories of tall buildings considered in this study while MPA and IMPA procedures provide reasonably accurate results in estimating maximum inter-story drift over all stories of studied BRBF systems.

Keywords: Buckling-restrained braced frames, nonlinearresponse history analysis, nonlinear static procedure, seismicdemands

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1623


[1] ATC Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings: Volumes 1 and 2, ATC-40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, 1996.
[2] ASCE Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of building, FEMA-356, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000.
[3] C. Chintanapakdee and A.K. Chopra, "Evaluation of modal pushover analysis using generic frames," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 417-442, 2003.
[4] A.K. Chopra and R.K. Goel, "A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 561-582, 2002.
[5] A. Gupta and H. Krawinkler, "Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures (SAC Task 5.4.3)," Report No. 132, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, California, 1999.
[6] H. Bobadilla and A.K. Chopra, "Modal pushover analysis for seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete special moment resisting frame buildings," Report no. EERC 2007-01, Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, Berkeley, California, 2007.
[7] H. Krawinkler and G.D.P.K. Seneviratna, "Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation," Engineering Structures, vol. 20, no. 4-6, pp. 452-464, 1998.
[8] S.K. Kunnath and E. Kalkan, "Evaluation of seismic deformation demands using nonlinear procedures in multistory steel and concrete moment frames," ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 159-82, 2004.
[9] A.K. Chopra and C. Chintanapakdee, "Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analyses: vertically "regular" and irregular generic frames," Earthquake Spectra, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 255-271, 2004.
[10] A.K. Chopra, R.K. Goel, and C. Chintanapakdee, "Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands," Earthquake Spectra, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 757-778, 2004.
[11] M. Jianmeng, Z. Changhai, and X. Lili, "An improved modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands of structures," Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 25-31, 2008.
[12] S.P. Kim and Y.C. Kurama, "An alternative pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic displacement demands," Engineering Structures, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 3793-3807, 2008.
[13] S. Akkar and A. Metin, "Assessment of improved nonlinear static procedures in FEMA-440," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 133, no. 9, pp. 1237-1246, 2007.
[14] G.R. Kumar, S.R.S. Kumar, and V. Kalyanaraman, "Behaviour of frames with non-buckling bracings under earthquake loading," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 254-262, 2007.
[15] C.M. Uang and M. Nakashima, "Steel buckling-restrained braced frames. Earthquake engineering: Recent advances and applications," CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2003.
[16] R. Sabelli, S.A. Mahin, and C. Chang, "Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling restrained braces," Engineering Structures, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 655-666, 2003.
[17] B. Asgarian and H.R. Shokrgozar, "BRBF response modification factor," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 290-298, 2009.
[18] C. Chintanapakdee, A.H. Nguyen, and T. Hayashikawa, "Assessment of modal pushover analysis procedure for seismic evaluation of bucklingrestrained braced frames," The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 174-186, 2009.
[19] V. Prakash, G.H. Powell, and S. Campbell, "DRAIN-2DX: Base program description and user guide," Report no. UCB/SEMM-93/17, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1993.
[20] P. Somerville, N. Smith, S. Punyamurthula, and J. Sun, "Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project," Report no. SAC/BD-97/04, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California, 1997.
[21] N. Shome and C.A. Cornell, "Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures," Report No. RMS-35, Stanford University, California, 1997.