Collapse Safety Assessment of Steel Multi-storey Buildings with Friction Sliding Braced Frames and Backup Moment Resisting Frames as a Dual System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the early 1980’s, Concordia University’s library building saw the first application of cross-braced Pall friction dampers (PFD). Although PFDs have evolved and improved, including the friction material used, development of the design procedure has been limited. Using a recently proposed force-based design method and considering detailed computational and modeling techniques, three types of seismic force resisting systems are presented herein: the bare Friction Sliding Braced Frame (FSBF), Friction Sliding Braced Frame with Continuous Columns including gravity columns (FSBF-CC) and Dual FSBF system (D-FSBF). Installing backup MRFs in parallel with a primary FSBF can provide the structure with load path redundancy and elastic-frame action, while taking advantage of the large energy dissipation capacity of PFDs. \n \nThe objectives of this research are three-fold: 1) to develop an accurate nonlinear model for PFD that is capable of bearing and failure, 2) to quantify the ductility-related force modification factor, Rd, for the proposed seismic force resisting systems: bare FSBF, FSBF-CC, and D-FSBF and 3) assess fragility and collapse safety of low-rise and middle-rise buildings braced with the proposed seismic force resisting systems subjected to crustal and subduction ground motions. \n \nThese objectives are carried out using 2-D numerical models developed in OpenSees for 4- and 8-storey prototype buildings located on Site class C in Vancouver, B.C. A force-based design method was developed in line with NBCC 2015 and CSA/S16-14 standard requirements. Considering the similarity with buckling restrained braced frames (BRBF), design was conducted for RdRo=4 and RdRo=5. All buildings were subjected to short duration crustal and long duration subduction ground motions, and a discussion regarding the slip length demand of PFD was provided. \n \nFrom nonlinear response history analysis of 4 and 8-storey FSBF buildings (RdR0=4), it was found that the bare FSBF was structurally unstable and reached collapse prior to design level under the ground motion suites. Therefore, using the bare FSBF is not recommended. The 4-storey FSBF-CC building (RdR0=4) prevented collapse at design level, however experienced excessive residual drift, while the 8-storey FSBF-CC building reached collapse at design level under both crustal and subduction ground motions. Thus, the FSBF-CC system can be used only for low-rise buildings, but caution should be taken. \n \nUsing the Dual FSBF system composed of FSBF and a backup MRF, designed for an additional 25% base shear and two sets of RdR0 =4 and 5, it resulted that both 4-storey and 8-storey D-FSBF buildings showed sufficient margin of safety under both ground motion suites. Subsequently, when increasing the building height (e.g. the 8-storey building), the ductility-related force modification factor, Rd = 4 is recommended. The Dual FSBF system is recommended to brace low-rise and middle-rise buildings located in subduction zone, as Cascadia subduction zone, where megathrust earthquakes could occur.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».