Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Fig. 2. (a) Layout of Studied Retrofit Scheme; (b) General Pushover curve.
The first tests in the United States were conducted in 1999 [25]. event are stronger that the design earthquake, or for small
Fig. 1 shows a schematic mechanism of the BRB. bridge columns for which the axial forces coming from the fuses
Results from a parametric study conducted to develop an reduced their flexural strength if that flexure-axial interaction was
understanding of the impact of various factors on helping to accidentally not taken into account. However, again emphasizing
achieve the desired structural fuse behavior is presented, followed that this is a fail-safe system, for ductile columns, the only problem
by a simplified design procedure to achieve and implement that would occur is that after removal of the BRB, the yielded RC
a structural fuse concept, validated by nonlinear time history frame would not return to its original undamaged position.
analyses. In other instances though, yielding in the RC columns is not
desirable and exceeding µmax could be more problematic. This
2. Parametric formulation could be the case in non-ductile bridge columns that either cannot
sustain large plastic deformations to ensure energy dissipation,
Fig. 2 schematically shows a simple two column RC bridge bent or that lack adequate transverse reinforcement and could suffer
retrofitted using an inverted V (chevron) BRB system, a general sudden shear failure.
pushover curve corresponding to this idealized structural system, In this perspective, µf , is defined as the maximum displacement
and some of the important parameters used in this study. The ductility that the frame can withstand, and is given by the ratio
bare frame and the BRBs are represented by bilinear models of between the system displacement reached for the maximum
respective Vyf and Vyb , and the total curve is tri-linear with an initial credible earthquake (target displacement), δt , and ∆yf .
lateral stiffness, Ktot , calculated by adding the effective lateral δt
stiffness of the RC frame, Keff , to the lateral stiffness of the BRB µf = . (2)
system, Kb . ∆yf
For the structural fuse concept, it is required that the BRB yield The BRB displacement ductility, µb , is given by:
displacement, ∆yb , be less that the yielding displacement of the
δt
frame, ∆yf . As a result, the BRB stiffness and strength must be µb = . (3)
chosen to limit the demand on the structure such that the system ∆yb
displacement reached for the maximum credible earthquake is less It is effectively the global displacement ductility of the retrofitted
than ∆yf , concentrating energy dissipation in the BRB yielding, structure, and should not exceed the maximum displacement
keeping the bare frame elastic. In this concept, the parameter ductility, µmax , to meet the performance objectives.
represents the maximum displacement ductility that the system The BRB maximum strain demand, εb , is a relation between δt ,
can withstand to ensure that the BRB acts as a structural fuse the BRB total length, Lb , and the yielding ratio of the BRB, c, and the
without yielding the RC bare frame, and is defined as: BRB angle, θ , which can be written as
∆yf δt cos θ
µmax = . (1) εb = . (4)
∆yb cLb
Note that exceeding the µmax limit could occur for different Shear failure is a brittle failure mode that must also be considered.
reasons, mostly notably if the earthquake excitations in an actual It can occur when inadequate transverse reinforcement is provided
S. El-Bahey, M. Bruneau / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1052–1061 1055
strains. The upper dashed horizontal line represents the BRB strain
that is selected as the design limit (1.5% in this particular example).
Although recent research have proven that a BRB could sustain
cyclic plastic strains of up to 3% before fracture, this 1.5% limit was
chosen as it is often cited in the literature as a common practical
strain limit. The vertical dashed lines correspond to various values
of µf , obtained for specific values of α , for a constant value ξ .
The region of admissible values of α and η to achieve the
structural fuse objectives is illustrated by the shaded area for a
Fig. 3. Relation between shear and flexural failure.
RC bridge bent having a typical flexural failure mode. The upper
limit represents the maximum brace strain that can be achieved so
such that shear failure would precede or prevent full development that no fracture occurs in the brace, and the lower limit (µb = 1)
of ductile flexural hinging. To take into account the possibility is the point below which the BRB will behave elastically and the
of shear failure as a part of the structural fuse concept, the benefits of having it dissipate energy will not exist. This region
shear strength of the frame columns, Vi , must be compared is vertically defined to the left by the value of µf corresponding
to the shear force consistent with the Load producing Flexure to the applicable failure mode—here, µf = 1 for flexural values,
Failure, Vn . Shear failure will occur if Vi < Vn , while flexural and lesser values if shear failures governed. The zone of admissible
failure will occur if Vi > Vn ; Fig. 3 schematically shows the solution is unbounded to the right.
relationship between shear and flexural failure for the first case. If It can be seen that the region of admissible solutions decreases
brittle shear failure is the governing failure mode, then the limited when increasing the values of ξ and fyBRB . This can be explained
displacement frame ductility at which the column remains elastic, by considering that whenever the frame strength ratio increases,
µf , (which would be less than 1 as illustrated in Fig. 3) is defined as: the strength of the bare frame decreases and, for a given stiffness
ratio, α , the value of the frame yield displacement will decrease
Vi
µf = . (5) followed by a decrease in the allowable ductility of the system,
Vn µmax . Independently, increasing the value of BRB yield strength,
If δt is in the constant velocity region of the spectrum, it can be fyBRB , for a constant value of α , increases the value of the BRB yield
estimated using the equal displacement theory as: displacement, resulting in a reduction of the allowable ductility of
the system and a proportional reduction in the value of µb when
Ve the strain limit of 1.5% is reached.
δt = (6)
Ktot It can be seen that for a given value of stiffness ratio, increasing
the BRB ductility would result in increasing the BRB strength ratio
where Ve is the elastic base shear, defined as the seismic demand
and accordingly decrease the BRB strength, which is expected
on the total system if the system behaved elastically.
because in order to increase the BRB ductility while preserving the
Three parameters are introduced to simplify the above equa-
stiffness, a reduction in the BRB strength is required in order to
tions, namely: the frame strength ratio, ξ , which relates the elastic
decrease the BRB yielding displacement and accordingly increase
base shear to the yield base shear of the bare frame; the stiffness
the BRB ductility. It can be seen that increasing the stiffness ratio
ratio of the retrofitted frame, α , which is the ratio between the lat-
corresponds to decreasing the frame stiffness, and for a given
eral stiffness of the BRB and the lateral stiffness of the bare frame,
frame strength ratio, decreasing the frame stiffness would result
and; the BRB strength ratio, η, which is the ratio between the elas-
in increasing the frame yielding displacement and also the frame
tic base shear and the yield base shear of the BRB.
ductility.
Ve
ξ= (7)
3. Modification factors
Vyf
Kb The previous plots were presented for cases for which the
α= (8)
Kf period was always considered to be in the constant velocity zone
(i.e. Rd = 1 per AASHTO LRFD [26] or C1 = 1 per NEHRP [27]). The
Ve
η= . (9) correction factors are a period dependant parameter (i.e. depends
Vyb on the mass and stiffness for each individual case). As a result,
Using these three new parameters, if the period lies in the constant the transition point between the constant velocity and constant
velocity region of the spectra, µf and µb can be rewritten as: acceleration regions of the spectra is not tied to specific values
of α , which is why it was not considered in the previous plots.
1 For design purposes, the effect of the correction factor should be
µf = ξ (10) calculated separately and used to magnify the BRB ductility and
1+α
frame ductility values found from the above plots.
α
For example, the effect of adding the correction factor is illus-
µb = η . (11)
trated for a RC bent configuration of mass equal to 33 kg s2 /mm,
1+α
η = 6 and ξ = 6, in Figs. 5 and 6 which show the corrected
The maximum ductility can be expressed in terms of the new BRB ductility and frame ductility values for different values of α
parameters as: respectively.
η
µmax = α. (12) 4. Nonlinear dynamic validation
ξ
Shown in Fig. 4 are plots utilizing different values of ξ considering To validate the above predicted system response based on
steel grades A36 and A572 Gr.50. The horizontal axis is α , while pushover properties for retrofit using BRB structural fuses, a
the vertical axis is µb . Each solid line curve in the figure represents set of 9 artificial spectra-compatible accelerograms were gener-
a constant value of η. The horizontal dashed lines correspond to ated using the TARSCTHS code [28]. The time histories matched
specific values of µb , which can be converted into equivalent BRB the target acceleration response spectrum of the AASHTO LRFD.
1056 S. El-Bahey, M. Bruneau / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1052–1061
Fig. 4. Regions of admissible solutions for different ξ (dimensionless parameter) and fyBRB .
Time history analysis was performed using the ABAQUS soft- a smooth transition from the elastic to the post-yielding regime,
ware [29] on a number of RC bents retrofitted by a chevron BRB and K = 0.025).
bracing system configured. The total system mass was set to a con- A concrete damaged plasticity model [34,35] in ABAQUS
stant value of 33 kg s2 /mm for all cases. Note that the chosen mass was chosen to simulate the behavior of concrete. The model
value was chosen as equal to that for a prototype bridge example defined in ABAQUS is a continuum plasticity-based damage
presented in Priestley et al. [30]. concrete model that assumes two main failure mechanisms;
A Bouc–Wen model [31] was chosen to represent the behavior namely tensile cracking and compressive crushing of the concrete
of the BRBs which were modeled as truss elements. In particular, material, and for which the uni-axial tensile and compressive
the model parameters (‘‘n’’, which is a dimensionless quantity that response of concrete is characterized by damaged plasticity.
control the shape of the hysteretic loop, and the post-yield to A typical A572 Gr.50 steel stress–strain curve was chosen to
elastic stiffness ratio ‘‘K ’’) were assumed to have values equal to represent the re-bars and the BRB’s yielding core material.
those usually suggested for BRBs [32,33] (i.e. n = 1, which implies The steel material nonlinearity was defined using the nonlinear
S. El-Bahey, M. Bruneau / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1052–1061 1057
Fig. 8. Comparison between time history and push-over analysis results for BRB
ductility at η = 2 and ξ = 2.
Fig. 5. Effect of adding the correction factors on the BRB ductility for η = 6 and
ξ = 6.
Fig. 9. Comparison between time history and push-over analysis results for frame
ductility at η = 2 and ξ = 2.
Fig. 6. Effect of adding the correction factors on the frame ductility for η = 6 and
ξ = 6.
Fig. 10. Comparison between time history and push-over analysis results for BRB
ductility at η = 6 and ξ = 6.
Fig. 7. Typical finite element model.
velocity zone of the spectra. Different values of α ranging between
combined kinematic/isotropic hardening plasticity model. The 1 and 8 were used and the corresponding values of frame and
re-bars’ material nonlinearity was defined using the nonlinear BRB ductilities were calculated and compared to those from the
combined kinematic/isotropic hardening plasticity model. C3D8R proposed static procedure. Figs. 8 and 9 show a comparison
brick elements were used to model the concrete columns between the individual values obtained from all the synthetic
with embedded truss elements representing the re-bars and records and the push-over analysis predictions for BRB and frame
stirrups. Meshing of the concrete columns varied according to its ductility respectively.
dimensions. A typical finite element model is presented in Fig. 7 for For the second set of analyses, the values of ξ and η was set
a case with 1.25 m diameter columns with a 2% reinforcement ratio to be equal to 6 for all cases. These values were chosen to show
and typical 300 mm spacing stirrups. The height of the bent was the effect of adding the correction factors for the cases in which
equal to 6.25 m and span equal to 12.5 m and a 75 mm × 75 mm the fundamental period of the total systems is in the constant
mesh. However, note that plastic behavior of the concrete is not acceleration zone of the spectra. Different values of α ranging
significant here as the main intent is to keep the concrete columns between 1 and 8 were also used and the corresponding values of
in their elastic range. frame and BRB ductilities were calculated and compared to those
Two sets of analyses were performed with a total of 72 time from the push-over analysis predictions taking into account the
history analyses per set. For the first set of analyses, the values correction factor. Figs. 10 and 11 show a comparison between
of ξ and η were chosen to be 2 for all cases. These values were the individual values obtained from all the synthetic records and
chosen to ensure that all the system periods were in the constant the push-over analysis predictions for BRB and frame ductility
1058 S. El-Bahey, M. Bruneau / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1052–1061
Fig. 12. Procedure to retrofit RC bridge bents satisfying the structural fuse concept.
Again if this area is impractical, step (11) is repeated until a (18) Check for BRB strain according to the following equation:
/ /
reasonable value is obtained for Ab and Lmax . fyBRB µb
The value of η/ is then calculated as εb = ≤ 1.5%. (26)
Es
cos θ If not, go back to (step 12) and iterate.
/ 1 Ab
η =η /
. (24)
n Ab cos θ ∗
6. Design example
(14) Calculate the total stiffness, the effective period of the
retrofitted frame, and the actual spectral acceleration. An arbitrary RC bridge bent was selected with dimensions
(15) Determine if the calculated spectral acceleration does not fall L = 12 700 mm and H = 6350 mm. Columns were chosen to
in the originally assumed ‘‘constant acceleration region’’. If so, be circular with diameter D = 1270 mm having a longitudinal re-
then assume a new spectral acceleration and go to step (8) inforcement ratio ρ = 2%, and a transverse reinforcement similar
and iterate until Saassumed = Saactual . to that of most bridges built prior 1970 (i.e. #4 bars spaced at
/
(16) Calculate the values of µb and µf , if the actual spectral accel- 305 mm). Concrete strength, fc , was assumed to be 4 kg/mm2 . The
eration lies in the constant acceleration zone, a modification superstructure was assumed to be rigid so that the bent acted as
must be applied to these values to take into account the equal a SDOF system with a lumped mass, m, of 33 kg s2 /mm acting at
energy theory as it was mentioned before that the charts was the top of the columns. A material strength, fyBRB , of 28 kg/mm2
formed assuming the equal displacement theory. New values was chosen for the BRBs. A response spectrum was constructed
of µb and µf can be calculated as: based on the AASHTO for LRFD for a site with soil-type class B.
The site was chosen to represent an area exposed to severe ground
1.25Ts shaking. A moment curvature analysis has been performed for the
1 1
Rd = 1− + . (25) RC column and the calculated bare frame properties are: Vyf =
µD Teff µD
307.3 t, ∆yf = 45 mm, Keff = 4407 t mm, Teff = 0.43 s,
(17) Recalculate the values of µf and µb , and the value of µmax , Vi = 529.3 t (indicating that flexural yielding is dominating the
µ
which would be equal to µb .
f
response of the frame), and δt = 86 mm (indicating that yielding
1060 S. El-Bahey, M. Bruneau / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1052–1061
[13] Schiff A. Hyogoken–Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake of January 17, 1995: lifeline [25] Aiken I, et al. Large-scale testing of buckling restrained braced frames.
performance. Amer Society of Civil Engineers; 1998. In: Proceedings, Japan passive control symposium. Japan: Tokyo Institute of
[14] Ranf R, et al. Post-earthquake prioritization of bridge inspections. Earthq Technology; 2002. p. 35–44.
Spectra 2007;23:131. [26] Aashto L. Bridge design specifications, customary US units, with 2009 interim
[15] Saeki E, et al. Experimental study on practical-scale unbonded braces. J Struct revisions. Washington (DC): American Association of State Highway and
Constr Eng AIJ 1995;476:149–58. Transportation Officials; 2009.
[16] Hasegawa H, et al. Experimental study on dynamic behavior of unbonded [27] BSSC NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new
braces. J Arch 1999;114:103–6. buildings and other structures. Report no. FEMA 368. Building Seismic Safety
[17] Iwata M, et al. Buckling-restrained braces as hysteretic dampers. In: STESSA. Council; 2003.
Rotterdam: Balkema; 2000. p. 33. [28] Papageorgiou A. et al. TARSCTHS, a computer program for target acceleration
[18] Black C, et al. Component testing, stability analysis and characterization spectra compatible time histories. New York: Department of Civil, Structural
of buckling-restrained unbonded braces. Pacific Earthquake Engineering and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo; 2001.
Research Center; 2002. [29] ABAQUS, I. ‘‘ABAQUS/CAE user’s manual.’’ Electronic version, 6. 2005. p. 4–5.
[19] López W, et al. Lessons learned from large-scale tests of unbonded braced [30] Priestley M, Seible F, Calvi G. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley-
frame subassemblages. In: Proceedings, 71st annual convention, structural Interscience; 1996.
engineers association of california; 2002. p. 171–83. [31] Wen Y. Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems. J Eng Mech Div
[20] Sabelli R, et al. Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with 1976;102(2):249–63.
buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2003;25:655–66. [32] Black C, Makris N, Aiken I. Component testing, stability analysis and
[21] López W, Sabelli R. Seismic design of buckling-restrained braced frames. Steel characterization of buckling restrained braces. PEER report 2002/08. Pacific
Tips, Structural Steel Education Council. 2004. www.steeltips.org. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley;
[22] Iwata M, Murai M. Buckling-restrained brace using steel mortar planks; 2002.
performance evaluation as a hysteretic damper. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2006; [33] Tsai KC, Lai JW, Hwang YC, Lin SL, Weng YT. Research and application of
35:1807–26. double-core buckling restrained braces in Taiwan. In: Proceedings of the 13th
[23] Clark P, et al. Large-scale testing of steel unbonded braces for energy world conference on earthquake engineering. 2004.
dissipation. In: Advanced technology in structural engineering: proc., 2000 [34] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete
structures congress. Reston, VA: ASCE; 2000. structures. J Eng Mech 1998;124:892.
[24] Fujimoto M, et al. A study on the unbonded brace encased in buckling- [35] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Onate E. A plastic-damage model for concrete.
restraining concrete and steel tube. J Struct Constr Eng, AIJ 1988;34:249–58. Internat J Solids Struct 1989;25(3):299–326.