In the last century, seismic design has undergone significant advancements. Starting from the initial concept of designing structures to perform elastically during an earthquake, the modern seismic design philosophy allows structures to respond to ground excitations in an inelastic manner, thereby allowing damage in earthquakes that are significantly less intense than the largest possible ground motion at the site of the structure. Current performance-based multi-objective seismic design methods aim to ensure life-safety in large and rare earthquakes, and to limit structural damage in frequent and moderate earthquakes. As a result, not many recently built buildings have collapsed and very few people have been killed in 21st century buildings even in large earthquakes. Nevertheless, the financial losses to the community arising from damage and downtime in these earthquakes have been unacceptably high (for example; reported to be in excess of 40 billion dollars in the recent Canterbury earthquakes). In the aftermath of the huge financial losses incurred in recent earthquakes, public has unabashedly shown their dissatisfaction over the seismic performance of the built infrastructure. As the current capacity design based seismic design approach relies on inelastic response (i.e. ductility) in pre-identified plastic hinges, it encourages structures to damage (and inadvertently to incur loss in the form of repair and downtime). It has now been widely accepted that while designing ductile structural systems according to the modern seismic design concept can largely ensure life-safety during earthquakes, this also causes buildings to undergo substantial damage (and significant financial loss) in moderate earthquakes. In a quest to match the seismic design objectives with public expectations, researchers are exploring how financial loss can be brought into the decision making process of seismic design. This has facilitated conceptual development of loss optimisation seismic design (LOSD), which involves estimating likely financial losses in design level earthquakes and comparing against acceptable levels of loss to make design decisions (Dhakal 2010a). Adoption of loss based approach in seismic design standards will be a big paradigm shift in earthquake engineering, but it is still a long term dream as the quantification of the interrelationships between earthquake intensity, engineering demand parameters, damage measures, and different forms of losses for different types of buildings (and more importantly the simplification of the interrelationship into design friendly forms) will require a long time. Dissecting the cost of modern buildings suggests that the structural components constitute only a minor portion of the total building cost (Taghavi and Miranda 2003). Moreover, recent research on seismic loss assessment has shown that the damage to non-structural elements and building contents contribute dominantly to the total building loss (Bradley et. al. 2009). In an earthquake, buildings can incur losses of three different forms (damage, downtime, and death/injury commonly referred as 3Ds); but all three forms of seismic loss can be expressed in terms of dollars. It is also obvious that the latter two loss forms (i.e. downtime and death/injury) are related to the extent of damage; which, in a building, will not just be constrained to the load bearing (i.e. structural) elements. As observed in recent earthquakes, even the secondary building components (such as ceilings, partitions, facades, windows parapets, chimneys, canopies) and contents can undergo substantial damage, which can lead to all three forms of loss (Dhakal 2010b). Hence, if financial losses are to be minimised during earthquakes, not only the structural systems, but also the non-structural elements (such as partitions, ceilings, glazing, windows etc.) should be designed for earthquake resistance, and valuable contents should be protected against damage during earthquakes. Several innovative building technologies have been (and are being) developed to reduce building damage during earthquakes (Buchanan et. al. 2011). Most of these developments are aimed at reducing damage to the buildings’ structural systems without due attention to their effects on non-structural systems and building contents. For example, the PRESSS system or Damage Avoidance Design concept aims to enable a building’s structural system to meet the required displacement demand by rocking without the structural elements having to deform inelastically; thereby avoiding damage to these elements. However, as this concept does not necessarily reduce the interstory drift or floor acceleration demands, the damage to non-structural elements and contents can still be high. Similarly, the concept of externally bracing/damping building frames reduces the drift demand (and consequently reduces the structural damage and drift sensitive non-structural damage). Nevertheless, the acceleration sensitive non-structural elements and contents will still be very vulnerable to damage as the floor accelerations are not reduced (arguably increased). Therefore, these concepts may not be able to substantially reduce the total financial losses in all types of buildings. Among the emerging building technologies, base isolation looks very promising as it seems to reduce both inter-storey drifts and floor accelerations, thereby reducing the damage to the structural/non-structural components of a building and its contents. Undoubtedly, a base isolated building will incur substantially reduced loss of all three forms (dollars, downtime, death/injury), even during severe earthquakes. However, base isolating a building or applying any other beneficial technology may incur additional initial costs. In order to provide incentives for builders/owners to adopt these loss-minimising technologies, real-estate and insurance industries will have to acknowledge the reduced risk posed by (and enhanced resilience of) such buildings in setting their rental/sale prices and insurance premiums.
The nonlinear dynamic soil-foundation-structure interaction (SFSI) can signifi cantly affect the seismic response of buildings, causing additional deformation modes, damage and repair costs. Because of nonlinear foundation behaviour and interactions, the seismic demand on the superstructure may considerably change, and also permanent deformations at the foundation level may occur. Although SFSI effects may be benefi cial to the superstructure performance, any advantage would be of little structural value unless the phenomenon can be reliably controlled and exploited. Detrimental SFSI effects may also occur, including acceleration and displacement response ampli cation and differential settlements, which would be unconservative to neglect. The lack of proper understanding of the phenomenon and the limited available simpli ed tools accounting for SFSI have been major obstacles to the implementation of integrated design and assessment procedures into the everyday practice. In this study concepts, ideas and practical tools (inelastic spectra) for the seismic design and assessment of integrated foundation-superstructure systems are presented, with the aim to explicitly consider the impact of nonlinearities occurring at the soil-foundation interface on the building response within an integrated approach, where the foundation soil and superstructure are considered as part of an integrated system when evaluating the seismic response, working synergically for the achievement of a target global performance. A conceptual performance-based framework for the seismic design and assessment of integrated foundation-superstructure systems is developed. The framework is based on the use of peak and residual response parameters for both the superstructure and the foundation, which are then combined to produce the system performance matrix. Each performance matrix allows for worsening of the performance when different contributions are combined. An attempt is made to test the framework by using case histories from the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, which are previously shown to have been severely affected by nonlinear SFSI. The application highlights the framework sensitivity to the adopted performance limit states, which must be realistic for a reliable evaluation of the system performance. Constant ductility and constant strength inelastic spectra are generated for nonlinear SFSI systems (SDOF nonlinear superstructure and 3DOF foundation allowing for uplift and soil yielding), representing multistorey RC buildings with shallow rigid foundations supported by cohesive soils. Different ductilities/strengths, hysteretic rules (Bi-linear, Takeda and Flag-Shape), soil stiffness and strength and bearing capacity factors are considered. Footings and raft foundations are investigated, characterized respectively by constant (3 and 8) and typically large bearing capacity factors. It is confi rmed that when SFSI is considered, the superstructure yielding force needed to satisfy a target ductility for a new building changes, and that similarly, for an existing building, the ductility demand on a building of a given strength varies. The extent of change of seismic response with respect to xed-base (FB) conditions depends on the class of soils considered, and on the bearing capacity factor (SF). For SF equal to 3, the stiffer soils enhance the nonlinear rotational foundation behaviour and are associated with reduced settlement, while the softer ones are associated with increased settlement response but not signi ficant rotational behaviour. On average terms, for the simplifi ed models considered, SFSI is found to be bene cial to the superstructure performance in terms of acceleration and superstructure displacement demand, although exceptions are recorded due to ground motion variability. Conversely, in terms of total displacement, a signi cant response increase is observed. The larger the bearing capacity factor, the more the SFSI response approaches the FB system. For raft foundation buildings, characterized by large bearing capacity factors, the impact of foundation response is mostly elastic, and the system on average approaches FB conditions. Well de fined displacement participation factors to the peak total lateral displacement are observed for the different contributions (i.e. peak foundation rotation and translation and superstructure displacement). While the superstructure and foundation rotation show compensating trends, the foundation translation contribution varies as a function of the moment-to-shear ratio, becoming negligible in the medium-to-long periods. The longer the superstructure FB period, the less the foundation response is signifi cant. The larger the excitation level and the less ductile the superstructure, the larger the foundation contribution to the total lateral displacement, and the less the superstructure contribution. In terms of hysteretic behaviour, its impact is larger when the superstructure response is more signifi cant, i.e. for the softer/weaker soils and larger ductilities. Particularly, for the Flag Shape rule, larger superstructure displacement participation factors and smaller foundation contributions are recorded. In terms of residual displacements, the total residual-to-maximum ratios are similar in amplitudes and trends to the corresponding FB system responses, with the foundation and superstructure contributions showing complementary trends. The impact of nonlinear SFSI is especially important for the Flag Shape hysteresis rule, which would not otherwise suffer of any permanent deformations. By using the generated peak and residual inelastic spectra (i.e. inelastic acceleration/ displacement modifi cation factor spectra, and/or participation factor and residual spectra), conceptual simplifi ed procedures for the seismic design and assessment of integrated foundation-superstructure systems are presented. The residual displacements at both the superstructure and foundation levels are explicitly considered. Both the force- and displacement-based approaches are explored. The procedures are de fined to be complementary to the previously proposed integrated performance-based framework. The use of participation factor spectra allows the designer to easily visualize the response of the system components, and could assist the decision making process of both the design and assessment of SFSI systems. The presented numerical results have been obtained using simpli ed models, assuming rigid foundation behaviour and neglecting P-Delta effects. The consideration of more complex systems including asymmetry in stiffness, mass, axial load and ground conditions with a exible foundation layout would highlight detrimental SFSI effects as related to induced differential settlements, while accounting for PDelta effects would further amplify the displacement response. Also, the adopted acceleration records were selected and scaled to match conventional design spectra, thus not representing any response ampli cation in the medium-to-long period range which could as well cause detrimental SFSI effects. While these limitations should be the subject of further research, this study makes a step forward to the understanding of SFSI phenomenon and its incorporation into performance-based design/assessment considerations.
A buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) is a structural bracing system that provides lateral strength and stiffness to buildings and bridges. They were first developed in Japan in the 1970s (Watanabe et al. 1973, Kimura et al. 1976) and gained rapid acceptance in the United States after the Northridge earthquake in 1994 (Bruneau et al. 2011). However, it was not until the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010/2011, that the New Zealand construction market saw a significant uptake in the use of buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) in commercial buildings (MacRae et al. 2015). In New Zealand there is not yet any documented guidance or specific instructions in regulatory standards for the design of BRBFs. This makes it difficult for engineers to anticipate all the possible stability and strength issues within a BRBF system and actively mitigate them in each design. To help ensure BRBF designs perform as intended, a peer review with physical testing are needed to gain building compliance in New Zealand. Physical testing should check the manufacturing and design of each BRB (prequalification testing), and the global strength and stability of each BRB its frame (subassemblage testing). However, the financial pressures inherent in commercial projects has led to prequalification testing (BRB only testing) being favoured without adequate design specific subassemblage testing. This means peer reviewers have to rely on BRB suppliers for assurances. This low regulation environment allows for a variety of BRBF designs to be constructed without being tested or well understood. The concern is that there may be designs that pose risk and that issues are being overlooked in design and review. To improve the safety and design of BRBFs in New Zealand, this dissertation studies the behaviour of BRBs and how they interact with other frame components. Presented is the experimental test process and results of five commercially available BRB designs (Chapter 2). It discusses the manufacturing process, testing conditions and limitations of observable information. It also emphasises that even though subassemblage testing is impractical, uniaxial testing of the BRB only is not enough, as this does not check global strength or stability. As an alternative to physical testing, this research uses computer simulation to model BRB behaviour. To overcome the traditional challenges of detailed BRB modelling, a strategy to simulate the performance of generic BRB designs was developed (Chapter 3). The development of nonlinear material and contact models are important aspects of this strategy. The Chaboche method is employed using a minimum of six backstress curves to characterize the combined isotropic and kinematic hardening exhibited by the steel core. A simplified approach, adequate for modelling the contact interaction between the restrainer and the core was found. Models also capture important frictional dissipation as well as lateral motion and bending associated with high order constrained buckling of the core. The experimental data from Chapter 2 was used to validate this strategy. As BRBs resist high compressive loading, global stability of the BRB and gusseted connection zone need to be considered. A separate study was conducted that investigated the yielding and buckling strength of gusset plates (Chapter 4). The stress distribution through a gusset plate is complex and difficult to predict because the cross-sectional area of gusset plate is not uniform, and each gusset plate design is unique in shape and size. This has motivated design methods that approximate yielding of gusset plates. Finite element modelling was used to study the development of yielding, buckling and plastic collapse behaviour of a brace end bolted to a series of corner gusset plates. In total 184 variations of gusset plate geometries were modelled in Abaqus®. The FEA modelling applied monotonic uniaxial load with an imperfection. Upon comparing results to current gusset plate design methods, it was found that the Whitmore width method for calculating the yield load of a gusset is generally un-conservative. To improve accuracy and safety in the design of gusset plates, modifications to current design methods for calculating the yield area and compressive strength for gusset plates is proposed. Bolted connections are a popular and common connection type used in BRBF design. Global out-of-plane stability tends to govern the design for this connection type with numerous studies highlighting the risk of instability initiated by inelasticity in the gussets, neck of the BRB end and/or restrainer ends. Subassemblage testing is the traditional method for evaluating global stability. However, physical testing of every BRBF variation is cost prohibitive. As such, Japan has developed an analytical approach to evaluate out-of-plane stability of BRBFs and incorporated this in their design codes. This analytical approach evaluates the different BRB components under possible collapse mechanisms by focusing on moment transfer between the restrainer and end of the BRB. The approach have led to strict criteria for BRBF design in Japan. Structural building design codes in New Zealand, Europe and the United States do not yet provide analytical methods to assess BRB and connection stability, with prototype/subassemblage testing still required as the primary means of accreditation. Therefore it is of interest to investigate the capability of this method to evaluate stability of BRBs designs and gusset plate designs used in New Zealand (including unstiffened gusset connection zones). Chapter 5 demonstrates the capability of FEA to study to the performance of a subassemblage test under cyclic loading – resembling that of a diagonal ground storey BRBF with bolted connections. A series of detailed models were developed using the strategy presented in Chapter 3. The geometric features of BRB 6.5a (Chapter 2) were used as a basis for the BRBs modelled. To capture the different failure mechanisms identified in Takeuchi et al. (2017), models varied the length that the cruciform (non-yielding) section inserts into the restrainer. Results indicate that gusset plates designed according to New Zealand’s Steel Structures Standard (NZS 3404) limit BRBF performance. Increasing the thickness of the gusset plates according to modifications discussed in Chapter 4, improved the overall performance for all variants (except when Lin/ Bcruc = 0.5). The effect of bi-directional loading was not found to notably affect out-of-plane stability. Results were compared against predictions made by the analytical method used in Japan (Takeuchi method). This method was found to be generally conservative is predicting out-of-plane stability of each BRBF model. Recommendations to improve the accuracy of Takeuchi’s method are also provided. The outcomes from this thesis should be helpful for BRB manufacturers, researchers, and in the development of further design guidance of BRBFs.
