SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STEEL FRAMES WITH BILINEAR AND

FLAG-SHAPED HYSTERETIC BRACES

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STEEL FRAMES WITH BILINEAR AND

FLAG-SHAPED HYSTERETIC BRACES

By
JAMES BEDFORD MCINERNEY, B.Se., B.CS., B.Se.Eng.

A Thesis
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Applied Science in Engineering

McMaster University
Copyright by James McInerney, June 2010

DESCRIPTIVE NOTE
MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE (2010)
(Civil Engineering)

McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario

TITLE:

Seismic Response of Steel Frames with Bilinear and FlagShaped Hysteretic Braces

AUTHOR:

James Bedford Mclnerney, B.Sc., B.CS., B.Sc.Eng.

(University of New Brunswick)

SUPERVISOR:

Dr. John C. Wilson

NUMBER OF PAGES:

xi,95

11

ABSTRACT
The goal of seismic response modification is to elicit more favourable behaviour from
structures during earthquakes. A popular means for this modification is through the use of energy
dissipation devices (EDDs), which effectively lower the seismic demand on main structural
components by absorbing a portion of the seismic input energy. This energy is often absorbed
through the yielding of metallic components within these devices. Examples of traditionally used
metals are steel and lead which exhibit bilinear hysteretic behaviour. The introduction of shape
memory alloys (SMAs) into the realm of seismic energy dissipation has occurred fairly recently
and has occurred in large part due to their exceptional characteristics for earthquake engineering
applications, including hysteretic properties. SMAs exhibit flag-shaped hysteretic behaviour
creating the potential for relatively simple yet effective EDDs.
In this study, the non-linear time history analysis of 1, 2, 4, and 8 storey chevron-braced
steel frame models was carried out using the program Ruaumoko. The braces in each frame
were modelled to emulate EDDs exhibiting flag-shaped hysteresis. For comparison, the same
frames were analyzed with braces modelled to emulate EDDs exhibiting bilinear behaviour with
full hysteresis loops. Each frame was subjected to an ensemble of ground motions to determine
their mean responses as measured by several response indices. A parametric approach was
adopted to determine the effect of various parameters on response and the parameter values
resulting in advantageous behaviour. Tension-compression (T-C) and tension-only (T-O) braces
were studied to illustrate their effect on response as well. Pushover tests on the frames were also
performed, using the program SAP2000, to help validate the results.
The behaviour of the frames in this study was generally governed by the backbone curve
of the brace hystereses defined by post-yielding stiffness parameter, a, normalized yield force,ll,
and normalized stiffness, 8. Increasing these parameters generally decreased interstorey drift,
residual interstorey drift, column ductility demand, beam ductility demand, and absorbed energy.
However, this also had the effect of increasing acceleration and base shear. The energy
dissipation parameter, ~, had little effect on response. In general, the responses of the frames
with flag-shaped hysteretic braces, as measured by interstorey drift, column ductility demand,
beam ductility demand, base shear, and absorbed energy, were very similar to those frames with
the bilinear hysteretic braces - in both magnitude and trend. However, the frames with bilinear
braces tended to have lower accelerations, and the frames with flag-shaped braces tended to have
lower residual drifts. The T-C braces were generally more effective than the T-O braces in
enhancing seismic performance. However, the frames with T-O braces had a resultant lower
lateral stiffness - suggesting that T-O braces of sufficient stiffness could be used to garner similar
responses offered by T-C braces.

III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge and thank the following people and patties
for their assistance throughout the process of completing this thesis. He would especially
like to thank his supervisor Dr. John C. Wilson for his continual guidance and assistance
throughout this project. He would like to thank Read Jones Christoffersen for their
accommodation and support. He would also like to thank NSERC for their financial
support, for which he was greatly honoured to receive. Finally, he would like to thank
the Department of Civil Engineering at McMaster University for their financial support.

tV

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTIVE NOTE

ii

ABSTRACT

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGy

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1

SEISMIC RESPONSE MODIFICATION

2.2 SHAPE MEMORY ALLOYS

10

2.3 FRAMES WITH SHAPE MEMORY ALLOY BRACES

13

METHODOLOGy
3.1

15

INTRODUCTION

15

3.2 NON-LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

16

3.2.1

FRAME MODELS

16

3.2.2

EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS

19

3.2.3

PARAMETRIC STUDY

22

3.3 PUSHOVER ANALySIS

28

3.4 SUMMARy

31

RESULTS OF PARAMETRIC STUDY

4.1

INTRODUCTION

33
33

4.2 RESULTS FROM NON-LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

33

4.2.1

33

INTERSTOREY DRIFT

4.2.2

RESIDUAL INTERSTOREY DRIFT

4.2.3

COLUMN DUCTILITY DEMAND

4.2.4

BEAM DUCTILITY DEMAND

51

4.2.5

STOREY ACCELERATION

56

4.2.6

BASE SHEAR

61

4.2.7

ABSORBED ENERGY

66

.46

4.3 RESULTS FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSES

71

4.3.1

FRAME BEHAVIOUR

71

4.3.2

EFFECT OF PARAMETERS

79

4.4 SUMMARY

41

80

CONCLUSIONS

84

5.1 NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

84

5.2 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

85

5.3 SEISMIC APPLICATIONS

85

FUTURE WORK

87

REFERENCES

89

VI

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1

Frame member properties

18

Table 3.2

Earthquake data set (after Krawinkler et al 2000)

20

Table 3.3

Summary of models and system values used in parametric study

24

Table 3.4

First mode elastic periods T a and higher mode effect coefficients 0.07Ta

30

Table 4.1

Summary ofNLTHA Results

81

Table 4.2

Summary of Pushover Results

83

VB

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1

Typical hystereses for bilinear (left) (Robinson 1982) and flag-shaped

(Krumlne et al 1995) EDD

Figure 1.2

Idealized hysteresis for bilinear (left) and flag-shaped EDD (after

Christopoulos et al 2002)

Figure 3.1

Frame models (after Dicleli and Mehta 2006)

Figure 3.2

5% damped elastic response spectra of 20 scaled accelerograms

17

(Christopoulos et al 2002) along with NBCC design spectra for selected Canadian
21

sites
Figure 4.1

Example of flag-shaped (above) and bilinear hystereses response of

tension-compression (T-C) bracing for I-storey frame for 1987 Superstition Hills
(scaled PGA=0,49g) earthquake

34

Figure 4.2a

Mean normalized maximum interstorey drift (I-storey)

37

Figure 4.2b

Mean normalized maximum interstorey drift (2-storey)

38

Figure 4.2c

Mean normalized maximum interstorey drift (4-storey)

39

Figure 4.2d

Mean normalized maximum interstorey drift (8-storey)

40

Figure 4.3a

Mean normalized residual interstorey drift (I-storey)

42

Figure 4.3b

Mean normalized residual interstorey drift (2-storey)

43

Figure 4.3c

Mean normalized residual interstorey drift (4-storey)

44

Figure 4.3d

Mean normalized residual interstorey drift (8-storey)

45

Figure 4,4a

Mean normalized column ductility demand (I-storey)

47

Figure 4,4b

Mean normalized column ductility demand (2-storey)

48

Figure 4,4c

Mean normalized column ductility demand (4-storey)

49

Figure 4,4d

Mean normalized column ductility demand (8-storey)

50

Figure 4.5a

Mean normalized beam ductility demand (I-storey)

52

Figure 4.5b

Mean normalized beam ductility demand (2-storey)

53

Figure 4.5c

Mean normalized beam ductility demand (4-storey)

54

Figure 4.5d

Mean normalized beam ductility demand (8-storey)

55

VIII

Figure 4.6a

Mean normalized maximum storey acceleration (i-storey)

57

Figure 4.6b

Mean normalized maximum storey acceleration (2-storey)

58

Figure 4.6c

Mean normalized maximum storey acceleration (4-storey)

59

Figure 4.6d

Mean normalized maximum storey acceleration (8-storey)

60

Figure 4.7a

Mean normalized maximum base shear (I-storey)

62

Figure 4.7b

Mean normalized maximum base shear (2-storey)

63

Figure 4.7c

Mean normalized maximum base shear (4-storey)

64

Figure 4.7d

Mean normalized maximum base shear (8-storey)

65

Figure 4.8a

Mean normalized absorbed energy (i-storey)

67

Figure 4.8b

Mean normalized absorbed energy (2-storey)

68

Figure 4.8c

Mean normalized absorbed energy (4-storey)

69

Figure 4.8d

Mean normalized absorbed energy (8-storey)

70

Figure 4.9

Final pushover state of 4-storey frame with T-C braces, 11=0.12,8=5.6,

and a=O.O. Sequence of brace yielding and hinge formation is shown in square
brackets

72

Figure 4.10a

Normalized base shear vs. mean normalized interstorey drift (I-storey) 75

Figure 4.1 Ob

Normalized base shear vs. mean normalized interstorey drift (2-storey) 76

Figure 4.1 Oc

Normalized base shear ys. mean normalized interstorey drift (4-storey) 77

Figure 4.1 Od

Normalized base shear ys. mean normalized interstorey drift (8-storey) 78

IX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

A
B
6.
6. res
E
Eabs

Ey
EDD
ESFM
F
Ft
Fy
g
h
hx

Ix
k
My
Mw
N
NBCC
NiTi
NLTHA
PGA
S
SMA
SME
SEE
SRMD
Ta
1.

td
T-C
T-O
TIR
V

Wx
y
a

cross sectional area of member

bilinear
normalized maximum interstorey drift
normalized residual interstorey drift
modulus of elasticity
normalized absorbed energy
work done to laterally yield I-storey frame = 6068 Nm
energy dissipation device
Equivalent Static Force Method in NBCC
flag-shaped
higher mode force used in ESFM
yield force
gravitational constant = 9.81 m/s 2
storey height
height of storey x from ground in the ESFM
strong axis moment of inertia
initial stiffness
yield moment
moment magnitude
number of storeys
National Building Code of Canada 2005
nickel titanium (nitinol)
non-linear time history analysis
peak ground acceleration
normalized maximum base shear
shape memory alloy
shape memory effect
super elastic effect
seismic response modification device
.fundamental period
specific time during ground motion
duration of ground motion
tension-compression
tension-only
transformation temperature range
base shear used in ESFM
'" weight of frame = 1638 kN
weight of storey x in the ESFM
distance to extreme fibre (in a beam cross section)
post-yielding stiffness parameter
x

o(t)
E(td)
11

e
A
A(t)
Ilbeam
/-leol

v(t)

cry
<p(t)

<fly

energy-dissipation parameter
.interstorey drift at time t
energy absorbed up to time td
normalized yield force (yield force parameter)
normalized initial stiffness (initial stiffness parameter)
normalized maximum storey acceleration
storey acceleration at time t
normalized beam ductility demand
normalized column ductility demand
base shear at time t
yield stress
curvature at time t
yield curvature

XI

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

INTRODUCTION

1.1

BACKGROUND
The goal of seismic response modification is to elicit more favourable behaviour

from a structure during an earthquake. Three principal modification strategies are

strengthening, energy dissipation, and isolation. The latter two strategies are generally
achieved through seismic response modification devices (SRMDs) that can be passive,
active, or hybrid - a combination of both. Passive SRMDs are devices that do not require
the input of energy from an external source during an event. Examples of such devices
are isolation bearings, which lengthen the period of the structure and decouple its motion
from the motion of the ground, and metallic dampers, which absorb energy put into the
structure from an earthquake. Both of these strategies effectively lower the seismic
demand on main structural members. Active control devices require the input of energy
- for example electricity - from an external source during an event.

Three main passive energy dissipation schemes include friction systems, metallic
systems, and viscous/viscoelastic systems. Friction systems cause the dissipation of
energy when work is done to overcome the sliding friction between the surfaces of two
structural elements. Metallic systems achieve energy dissipation when work is done in
straining the metallic element into its post elastic range. Viscous/viscoelastic systems
dissipate energy when work is done to overcome the viscous force provided by a fluid.

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Achieving energy dissipation through metallic yielding has been a very common
means of seismic response modification of structures. Metals such as steel provide high
initial stiffness and strength - both qualities effective in controlling response at service
load levels. At high load levels during earthquakes, metals such as steel also exhibit
reasonably high ductility. This post elastic behaviour is also characterized by a bilinear
shaped hysteresis curve indicative of large energy absorption capacity illustrating
traditional metal's utility in seismic applications.

The introduction of shape memory alloys (SMAs) into the realm of metallic
energy dissipation devices (EDDs) has occurred fairly recently and has occurred in large
part due to their exceptional earthquake engineering characteristics - including their high
corrosion and fatigue resistance, high strength, high energy dissipation, and most
importantly, their highly advantageous hysteretic properties which include recentring
capability. SMAs exhibit two principal mechanical hystereses through which energy is
dissipated - the shape-memory effect (SME), and the superelastic effect (SEE). The
SME occurs when the alloy is strained at a temperature below a characteristic
transformation temperature range (TTR) where the strain can be accommodated up to a
particular critical strain. When the SMA is unloaded, this strain can be fully recovered
by heating the alloy above the TTR and then letting it cool. Alternatively, the SEE
occurs when the alloy is strained at a temperature above its TTR. When the stress in the
alloy is then reduced to a particular stress level known as the reversion stress, the alloy
exhibits a full and spontaneous recovery of strain. This is the property of SMAs often
2

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

sought in earthquake engineering applications. In fact, SMAs have been observed to

fully recover strain in excess of 8%. This is in contrast to the hysteretic behaviour of
more conventional metals like steel or lead which possess residual strain after being
plastically worked. Figure 1.1 illustrates typical hystereses for both SMA and traditional
metal based EDDs.

By far the most common SMA used for eatihquake engineering applications is the
nickel-titanium (NiTi - nitinol) family. Most of the proposed SMA energy dissipation
devices have utilized NiTi in a wire form and therefore engage NiTi in tension only.
Even in this relatively simple form, many feasible structural arrangements of SMAs have
been developed. For example, it is possible to utilize SMA-based EDDs in the braces of
frames as means to improve structural response. There have also been many material
(phenomenological) models developed to capture the uniaxial stress-strain behaviour of
NiTi. In fact, the relatively simple flag-shape hysteresis has proven to be useful and
effective in modelling many SMA behaviours in the past. Depending on the specific
flag-shape parameter values used, one can expect different structural responses. The
utility of the flag-shaped hysteresis - typical of SMAs - also becomes more apparent
when these responses are compared to the responses of the same structures modeled with
bilinear hysteretic EDDs - typical of traditional metallic behaviour. Figure 1.2 illustrates
idealized hystereses, with parameters describing them, for both traditional metals and
SMAs. This is a key figure in this thesis.

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

,.,
300
!J

....
"0

IV

3 200

0.1

0.2

OJ

0.4

Displacement linl
Lead-rubber isolation bearing

Figure 1.1

SMA-based damper

Typical hystereses for bilinear (left) (Robinson 1982) and flag-shaped

(Krumme et a11995) EDD

Load

Load

.......... a8
1

11

..

........ a8

P11 1

-~~-~--~~----.Deflection

Figure 1.2

~:J8

..' 1

----~~-------.

Deflection

Idealized hysteresis for bilinear (left) and flag-shaped EDD (after

Christopoulos et al 2002)

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

1.2

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

In this study, the non-linear time history analysis (NLTHA) of several braced

steel frame models was carried out using the program Ruaumoko (Carr 2007). The
braces in each frame were modelled to emulate flag-shaped hysteretic EDDs - to
demonstrate SMA behaviour in this application. For comparison, the same frames were
also analyzed using braces modelled to emulate bilinear hysteretic EDDs - to
demonstrate traditional metallic behaviour in this application. In all, there were 4 single
bay frames studied - a I-storey, 2-storey, 4-storey, and 8-storey frame. For each frame,
chevron braces at each storey were active in tension and in compression (T-C). For
comparison, the same frames were also investigated with tension-only (T-O) chevron
braces. For each frame and bracing type a unique set of parameters was used to describe
the flag-shaped and bilinear hysteretic models of the braces.

Using the hysteretic models in Figure 1.2, a parametric study was performed on
the four frames consisting of two values for the post-yielding stiffness parameter, a, two
values for the energy-dissipation (flag depth) parameter,

p, four values for the normalized

yield force of the brace, 1'], and three values for the normalized initial stiffness of the
brace, 8. For the case with bilinear braces, there was no flag depth parameter. A total of
576 unique models were analyzed. Each frame was subjected to an ensemble of20
ground motions to determine their mean responses as measured by several response
indices. Therefore, 11,520 individual non-linear analyses were conducted using

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Ruaumoko. This parametric approach was adopted to determine the effect of the
various hysteretic and non-hysteretic parameters on response, to more fully explore the
difference in behaviour of fames with flag-shaped and bilinear hysteretic braces, to more
fully explore the difference in behaviour of frames with T-C and T-O braces, and to
determine parameter values resulting in advantageous responses.

Pushover analysis was also performed on the frames to help validate results from
the NLTHA. This method involved simulated non-linear static pushover tests conducted
using the program SAP2000 (CSI 2009). Each of the four frames was monotonically
loaded laterally using an inverted triangular load pattern suggested in the Equivalent
Static Force Method (ESFM) for seismic design in the 2005 National Building Code of
Canada (NBCC) (NRC 2005). This loading pattern was chosen to give an approximation
to the actual inertial force pattern experienced by multi-storey structures during
earthquakes. For each of the four frames, the same values for

cx"

11, and

e as in the

parametric study were used along with both T-C and T -0 braces, making a total of 192
pushover analyses.

1.3

ORGANIZATION OF THESIS
The results in this thesis are presented in two major sections. The first section

describes the details pertaining to the NLTHA of the four frames. The second major
section presents details of the non-linear static pushover analyses of the frames. Figures
are presented on the next page nearest their corresponding reference.

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

SEISMIC RESPONSE MODIFICATION

The problems that builders face in constructing buildings to withstand

earthquakes date back to ancient times. The palace at Knossos on the island of Crete and
other ancient structures in the region - dating back as far as 2000 BCE - exhibit various
earthquake resistant components including a very early form of timber-laced masonry
known to enhance seismic performance (Schaal' 1974, Driessen 1987, Kienzle 1998).
This type of construction served to strengthen the structure and facilitated in the
dissipation of energy by increasing the integrity of the unreinforced masonry. More
modern examples of this type of traditional construction used around the Mediterranean
and their seismic benefits are given by Porphyrios (1971), and Gulkan and Langenbach
(2004). The Roman author Pliny the Elder, who lived between 23 ACE and 79 ACE,
wrote that the temple of Artemis at Ephesus - completed circa 550 BCE - was
constructed on marshy land so that it could escape the damaging effects of ea11hquakes
(Bostock and Riley 1855). This indicates that at this time people were at least thinking
about ways to isolate a structure from ground shaking.

More recently, ideas of modifying the response of a structure to elicit more

favourable behaviour under earthquake loading date to 1885 when John Milne described
an isolation system providing a roller mechanism between a building structure and its
foundation by use of iron balls. Later, in 1909, J. A. Calantarients described a system

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

providing a sliding mechanism between a building structure and its foundation by use of
sand (Naeim and Kelly 1999). Many of the early ideas of modifying the seismic response
of structures involved the idea of providing a flexible link between a structure and the
ground - effectively isolating a structure from many of the damaging effects of
earthquakes. Various early patents describing devices or systems relating to the seismic
isolation of structures have been filed with the United States Patent Office (Stromborg
1926, Cavaglieri 1936, Jones 1954). An interesting early patent for a seismic isolation
system for a pipeline also exists in Canada (Kaigler et al 1979). Other early patents also
filed in the United States describe devices or systems that claim to modify the response of
structures through strengthening and energy dissipation (Pieri 1929, Ruge 1936). In fact,
the patent by Ruge (1936) proposed the addition of diagonal braces into frame structures;
where the braces contained elements capable of yielding under seismic loads resulting in
dissipation of seismic energy - a concept popularly employed today.

More recently, SRMDs have become the focus of much study and have become
much more frequently used. Some examples of more recently developed and employed
devices are the rubber isolation bearing and the lead-rubber isolation bearing (LRB)
(Robinson 1982). In these types of bearings, rubber provides horizontal flexibility and, in
the case of the LRB, the lead provides energy absorbing capacity. In fact, the first
application of the rubber isolation bearing was in a building in Yugoslavia in 1969
(Naeim and Kelly 1999). Another type of isolation bearing developed was the friction
pendulum bearing (FPB). The book by Naeim and Kelly (1999), and papers by Buckle
8

MA.Sc. Thesis -J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

and Mayes (1990) and Kundle and Jangid (2003) provide an insightful overview on the
history of seismic isolation of buildings and bridges and the devices used. The
widespread study and acceptance of SRMDs, which primarily began in the 1970s, has
since become much more common - especially in New Zealand, Japan, and the United
States - and several SRMDs and structures employing them have been studied and
described in detail (Constantinou et al. 1998, Naeim and Kelly 1999, Buckle 2000,
Filiatrault et at 2001). A significant motivating factor for the increased attention on
seismic response modification in the 1980s and 1990s was the occunence of several very
destructive earthquakes such as the 1985 Mexico City, 1989 Loma Prieta, 1994
Northridge, and 1995 Kobe events.

The advantages of seismic response modification have now been realized to such
a degree that many guidelines for the design and implementation of devices such as
LRBs, FPBs, and passive energy dissipation devices like friction dampers, metallic
dampers, and viscous/viscoelastic dampers have been developed (FEMA 2000, FIB
2005). Several books have also been written on this topic (Soong and Dargush 1997,
Constantinou et al. 1998, Naeim and Kelly 1999, Christopoulos and Filiatrault 2006).
Concurrent with the development of such guidelines has been the development of
SRMDs utilizing advanced materials. Because of the stringent performance demand on
the primary components of SRMDs, many have sought to utilize advanced materials in
various types of SRMDs.

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

2.2

SHAPE MEMORY ALLOYS

One example of an advanced material that has seen recent introduction into newly

developed devices is the SMA known as NiTi. SMAs have many characteristics
beneficial to earthquake engineering - including high corrosion and fatigue resistance,
high strength, high energy dissipation, the shape memory effect, and the superelastic
effect - providing the ability to fully and spontaneously recover large strains.

The SME was first observed by Olander in 1932. This effect was later observed
in the alloy NiTi in the late 1950s and early 1960s by Buehler and others at the United
States Naval Ordnance Laboratory (Kauffmann and Mayo 1993). The name nitinol was
given to this metal from an acronym for nickel titanium Naval Ordnance Laboratory.
This effect was first explained from a material science point of view by Wang in the
1960s (Kauffmann and Mayo 1993). The discovery of the SME in NiTi inspired
numerous U.S. patents beginning in the 1960s (Beuhler et al. 1965, Rozner and Beuhler
1967). A notable early patent by Andreassen was for braces for straightening misaligned
teeth (1977). Some early research on the physical properties ofNiTi was performed by
Jackson et al (1972). Since then, much work has been done in studying various
properties and behaviours of SMAs, including its SEE. However, the majority of this
work has been performed in the realm of material science (Hodgson 2002, Predki and
Kloenne 2002).

10

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

The application of SMAs to earthquake engineering emerged primarily in the

early 1990s and the paper by Wilson and Wesolowsky (2005) provides a good overview
of SMAs for seismic response modification. Much research has been performed to
determine properties of SMAs palticularly relevant to earthquake engineering (Dolce and
Cardone 2001, McCormick et al. 2005, McCormick and DesRoches 2006). Of central
importance in being able to utilize SMAs in seismic applications is the capacity to
effectively model SMA behaviour. Various material or phenomenological models have
been proposed for this purpose. An early model by Graesser and Cozzarelli (1991) was
developed. This model, like many others, only accounts for the one-dimensional stressstrain behaviour of the SMA. This is because, due to manufacturing limits, SMAs are
commonly provided in wire form and hence their utility in SRMDs has been, at least in
the past, envisaged as a tension-only element. The Graesser and Cozzarelli model
describes the macroscopic behaviour which captures the basic flag-shaped hystereses of
the SMA. An extension of this model to include post transformation martensitic
hardening characteristics of SMAs was developed by Wilde et al (2000). An extension of
this model to include ambient temperature, strain rate, and strain amplitude effects was
developed by Wesolowsky (2006). Other models as well as variations of these models
have also been developed (Bondonet and Filiatrault 1996, Auricchio et al. 2007).

The largest body of research on the use of SMAs in seismic engineering exists on
the application of SMAs to structures. Most of this work involves analyzing structures
utilizing a conceptualized model of an SMA device. However, there is some work
11

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Ovd Engineering

detailing the development of actual SMA devices. Papers by Krumme et al (1995), Dolce
et al (2000), and Dolce and Cardone (2006) outline studies performed where SMA
devices are experimentally tested in structures. The devices studied here generally
utilized SMA in a wire form where it was wrapped around posts so that the SMA was
always engaged in tension whether the device was compressed or extended. Leon et al
(2001) and Ocel et al (2004) have performed studies where SMA rods or tendons have
been implemented into the connections of frames. These frames were then tested
experimentally and their response was determined. Indirli et al (2001) and Castellano et
al (2001) discuss the utilization of SMAs in historical structures in Italy and mention a
case of the application of a SMA into an actual structure - the S. Giorgio Church BellTower.

A large amount of work has also been done to help understand, analytically, the
response of structures utilizing SMA-based devices. Due to the lack of implementation
of SMA-based devices into existing structures to date, these analytical studies form the
majority of work on the response of structures with SMA-based devices. Wilde et al
(2000) and Bondonet and Filiatrault (1996), have analytically studied the response of
bridges with SMA-based isolation systems. There has also been work done in
analytically studying the response of bridges with SMA-based hinge restrainers
(DesRoches 1999, DesRoches and Delemont 2002, DesRoches and Andrawes 2002).
Bruno and Valente (2002) have also analytically studied the seismic response of frames
with isolation and energy dissipation devices.
12

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

The basic hysteretic shape exemplified by a SMA device is the flag-shaped

hystereses. The exact character of these hystereses has an impOliant effect on the final
response of the structure and examples of studies regarding this are from Andrawes et al
(2004), Andrawes and DesRoches (2005), and Andrawes and DesRoche (2006). These
studies investigated the effect of exact hysteretic properties on structural response.
Similar studies have also been performed in the context of flag-shaped hysteretic
elements which share many hysteretic propeliies with SMAs (Christopoulos et al 2002,
Christopoulos and Filiatrault 2003, and Kam et al 2006).

2.3

FRAMES WITH SHAPE MEMORY ALLOY BRACES

Much work has been done contributing to the understanding of the seismic

behaviour of frames specifically modified with SMA braces. Numerous studies have
involved the analytical modelling of an SMA brace, or component thereof, and then
subsequent analysis of a framed structure with this SMA component incorporated
(Auricchio et al 2006, Iyer et al 2009, and McCormick et al 2007). Most of the research
on the seismic response modification of frames using SMA-based braces involves
application of SMAs in simple form like bar or wire. Examples of experimental studies
that have involved the use of SMAs in their simple form to modify the response of frames
are Boroschek et al (2006), Choi and Ohi (2006), Lafortune et al (2007), McCormick et al
(2006), Tarefder et al (2006), and Van et al (2007). In fact, the work by Tarefder et al
(2006) involves passing electrical current through SMA wires that are used for bracing a
frame in order to further control response. There have also been experimental studies
13

lYJA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

conducted involving the development and/or implementation of SMA-based devices for

use in frames (Bartera and Giacchetti 2004, Bruno and Valente 2002, Dolce et al 2000,
Dolce et al 2005, Ozbulut and Roschke 2008, and Yang et al 2010). Experimental work
has also been conducted involving flag-shaped hysteretic devices (Christopoulos et al
2006 and Christopoulos et al 2008).

14

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

METHODOLOGY

3.1

INTRODUCTION
In this study, non-linear time history analyses (NLTHA) of chevron braced steel

frame building models were carried out using the program Ruaumoko. The braces were
modelled to emulate flag-shaped and bilinear hysteretic EDDs. For each frame, a
chevron bracing system active in both tension and compression (T-C) was studied. For
comparison, a tension-only (T-O) chevron bracing system was also investigated for each
frame. Each frame model was subjected to twenty earthquake ground motions. The
responses from each analysis were summarized with seven response indices. These
response indices were mean normalized maximum interstorey drift, mean normalized
residual interstorey drift, mean column ductility demand, mean beam ductility demand,
mean normalized maximum storey acceleration, mean normalized maximum base shear,
and mean normalized absorbed energy.

Non-linear pushover analysis using the program SAP2000 was also performed
on each frame to help validate results from the NLTHA. Each of the four frames was
monotonically loaded laterally using an inverted triangular load pattern suggested in the
Equivalent Static Force Method for seismic design in the National Building Code of
Canada (NBCC) 2005.

15

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

3.2

NON-LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

3.2.1

FRAME MODELS
The four frames studied in the NLTHA were taken from Dicleli and Mehta (2006)

and their details are summarized in Figure 3.1. The frames were proportioned to provide
a decreasing lateral strength as the number of stories increases, allowing the frames to
exhibit non-linear behaviour under moderate to high intensity ground motions per current
practice (Dicleli and Mehta 2006). The lower storeys of each taller frame in the series
were comprised of the previous shorter frame. The total weight of each frame was
assumed identical (the 163 8kN total frame weight was evenly distributed to each storey
level) in order to determine the effect of number of stories on response. For example, the
4-storey frame was comprised of the 2-storey frame for its two lower most stories and the
weight at each storey level was 1638/4 = 41 OkN. The resulting fundamental periods of
the frames ranged from 0.13s to 1.42s as will be shown in Table 3.4.

To determine force levels at which members yielded, a yield stress, 0 y, of the steel
used in this study was assumed to be a conservatively low value of 250MPa. Following
from this, the corresponding yield moment was determined from My = 0 yI/y and the axial
yield load from F y = 0 yA. The subsequent yield curvature was determined from <jly =
MyiEl. A summary of the member properties is given in Table 3.1.

The beams and columns in the frame models were assumed to give zero shear
deflection, and were modeled to have a plastic hinge length equal to the depth of the

16

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Member No
I
2
3
4

Member Size
W310Xl58
W310Xl29
W310X118
W310X97
W310X52
W310X45
W250X45
W250X39

5
6
7

Typical EDD
Arrangement
2

1<

6.0m
I-storey

>1

Figure 3.1

1<

6.0m
2-storey

>1

1<

6.0 m
4-storey

>1

1<

6.0 m
8-storey

Frame models (after Dicleli and Mehta 2006)

17

>1

MA.Sc. Thesis - i.E. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Table 3.1

Frame member properties

Member

Ix (10 6 mm 4)

A (mm)

d (mm)

Mv
(kN-m)

F y (kN)

<p y(l0-6 mm l)

W310XI58
W310XI29
W310XI18
W310X97
W310X52
W310X45
W250X45
W250X39

386
308
275
222
119
99.2
71.1
60.1

20100
16500
15000
12300
6670
5690
5720
4920

327
318
314
308
318
313
266
262

590
484
438
360
187
158
134
115

5025
4125
3750
3075
1668
1423
1430
1230

7.65
7.86
7.96
8.12
7.86
7.99
9.40
9.54

18

MA.Sc. Thesis - i.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

given member. Each column and beam was modeled to exhibit perfect elasto-plastic
behaviour where yielding occurred at the corresponding

My

and Fy values and no further

increase in loads occurred. The braces used in each frame were fully described by a
unique set of hysteretic parameters and were modelled to exhibit axial behaviour only with both T-C and T-O braces being studied.

3.2.2

EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS

The earthquake ensemble used in this study consisted of20 historical California

ground motions and was taken from Christopoulos et al (2002). These records are free
from near-fault effects and have hypocentral distances ranging between 13km and 25km.
Other details are summarized in Table 3.2. The 5% damped smooth design elastic
acceleration response spectrum used by Christopoulos et al (2002) was used here as the
target spectrum. Each record was scaled to minimize the square of the error between the
smooth target spectrum and its own 5% damped response spectrum at five period values
of 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0s (Christopoulos et al 2002). The scaling factors for each
record are listed in Table 3.2. The resulting ensemble had a mean peak ground
acceleration (PGA) of0.43g. Figure 3.2 shows the target spectrum and the range of
scaled elastic response spectra of the 20 accelerograms. The mean of the scaled spectra
matches the target spectrum reasonably well over the 0.1 s to 2.0s range. Also shown are
NBCC 2005 spectra for several cities and site conditions. The target spectrum is
essentially an upper bound to all the NBCC spectra except for the short-period end of the
Victoria site C spectrum. The Montreal and Ottawa spectra are essentially the same as

19

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Table 3.2
Earthquake
Event
Superstition
Hills
Superstition
Hills
Superstition
Hills

Earthquake data set (after Krawinkler et a12000)

Station

Duration
(s)

Scaling
Factor

Scaled
PGA(g)

6.7

Brawley

220

2.7

0.313

1987

6.7

EI Centro
[mp. Co. Cent.

40.0

1.9

OA90

1987

6.7

Plaster City

22.2

2.2

OA09

Northridge

1994

6.7

30.0

0.9

0.374

Northridge

1994

6.7

25.0

1.2

OA27

Northridge

1994

6.7

30.0

I I

0.393

Northridge

1994

6.7

40.0

1.9

OA39

Northridge

1994

6.7

30.0

2.2

0.601

21.9

1.7

OA61

30.0

2.2

0.345

Year

Mw

1987

Beverly Hills
14145 Mulhol
Canoga ParkTopanga Can
GlendaleLas Palmas
LA-Hollywood
Storage FF
LA-N Faring Rd
N. HollywoodColdwater Can
SunlandMt Gleason Ave

Northridge

1994

6.7

Northridge

1994

6.7

Lorna Prieta

1989

6.9

Capitola

40.0

09

OA76

Lorna Prieta

1989

6.9

Gilroy Array # 3

39.9

0.7

0.389

Lorna Prieta

1989

6.9

Gilroy Array # 4

40.0

13

0.542

40.0

2.0

OA52

39.6

13

0.363

40.0

lA

OA65

44.0

3.8

OA41

36.0

1.2

OA62

50.0

2.7

OAI6

44.0

2.2

0.334

Lorna Prieta

1989

6.9

Gilroy Array # 7

Lorna Prieta

1989

6.9

Hollister

Lorna Prieta

1989

6.9

1992

7.1

1992

71

Landers

1992

7.3

Landers

1992

7.3

Cape
Mendocino
Cape
Mendocino

SaratogaW Valley CoiL

Fortuna
Fortuna Blvd
Rio Dell
Overpass-FF
Desert
Hot Springs
Yermo
Fire Station

20

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

2.0

it

\, ",
,

,, ' ,,,
,,

1.5

.-.
CIJ
'-"

..

~
~
~

4:i
Cj
Cj

<

.....

1.0

c;

Cj
~

Q.

00

,,

.".

."
.".

0.5

-"
0.0

-I-

+----'----+-----'----f-----'-----+-----'--~__+-

0.0

1.0

0.5

1.5

2.0

Period (s)
-

Mean of20 Scaled Records

-

Target Spectrum

--1M-

Victoria, Soil E

Min and Max of20 Scaled Records

~Victoria, Soil

-+- Vancouver, Soil C

~MontrealandOttawa,Soil

...... Vancouver, Soil E

C

Montreal and Ottawa, Soil E

Figure 3.2
5% damped elastic response spectra of 20 scaled accelerograms
(Christopoulos et al 2002) along with NBCC design spectra for selected
Canadian sites
21

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

the minimum spectral values from the twenty scaled records. The maximum spectral
values from the twenty records, however, substantially exceed the target spectrum,
typically by a factor of about two.

3.2.3

PARAMETRIC STUDY
Figure 1.2 illustrates the bilinear and flag-shaped hystereses and their

characteristic parameters. The bilinear hysteresis is fully characterized by three

parameters: the normalized yield force, 11, the normalized initial stiffness, 8, and the postyield stiffness parameter, ex. The flag-shaped (SMA) hysteresis is fully characterized by
the three parameters: 11, 8, ex, plus an energy-dissipation parameter,

that describes the

depth of the flag loop in the hysteresis.

A parametric study was performed that consisted of four values for the

nOlmalized brace yield force, 11, three values for the nOlmalized initial stiffness of the
brace, 8, two values for the post-yielding stiffness parameter, ex, and two values for the
energy-dissipation

parameter,~.

For the flag-shaped braces, this made a total of 48

unique brace models for each frame and bracing type. There was no energy-dissipation
parameter for the frames with bilinear hysteretic braces; therefore, this made another total
of24 unique brace models for each frame and bracing type. Since each of the four
frames was studied comprising T-C braces and T-O braces, a total of 576 unique models
were analyzed. Each frame was subjected to an ensemble of twenty ground motions to

22

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

determine their mean responses (and standard deviations) as measured by several

response indices. In total, 11,520 individual analyses were conducted using Ruaumoko.

For realistic hystereses, values ofF y and k have a range over which the hysteresis
is effective in controlling response. For the braces used in this study, Fy took on values
from 50kN to 550kN. When these values were normalized, by dividing them by the
weight of the frame (W=1638kN), 11 ranged from about 3% to 34% ofW. In this study, k
took on values from 50kN/mm to 500kN/mm. When these values were nOlmalized, by
dividing them by the initial lateral stiffness of the un-braced 1-storey frame
(=22.3kN/mm),

e ranged from about 2 to 22 times this stiffness.

to be 0% (elasto-plastic) and 25%. A lower limit on

Values of a were taken

is 0% which creates a non-linear

elastic hysteresis. An upper limit on the value of ~ is 100% which ensures the recentring
quality of the hysteresis. In this study the values for

were taken to be 50% and 100%.

A value of 5% damping was used throughout this study. Table 3.3 summarizes the
models and system values used in this study.

For each NLTHA corresponding to one ground motion, the response index of
interest was recorded for each storey in each frame. These maximum values were
averaged to give a mean maximum value for that particular frame and ground motion.
This was done so that comparisons of the response index could more easily be made
between different frames. Note that base shear and absorbed energy did not have values
for each storey level, only values for each frame. The 20 mean maximum values for each

23

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Table 3.3
Frame

I-Storey
2-Storey
4-Storey
8-Storey

Summary of models and system values used in parametric study

Bracing for each frame

Hysteretic parameters for each frame

Hysteresis

Configuration

(1

Flag-Shaped
Bilinear

T-C
T-O

0.0
0.25

0.5
1.0

24

11

0.03
0.12
0.21
0.34

2.24
5.60
22.39

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

frame (one for each of the 20 ground motions) were then averaged to give a final single
mean maximum value for the frame characterized by a unique combination of the 11,8,

(x,

and ~ parameter set. The seven response indices were as follows:

[1] Mean normalized maximum interstorey drift

Limiting interstorey drift has shown to be effective in achieving a more favourable
structural performance during eat1hquakes, as inelastic excursions are limited.
Normalized maximum interstorey drift, 6., was defined as follows:

t:.

maxOststd I<set) I
h

where td is the duration of the ground motion, 8(t) is the interstorey drift at time t, and h is
the interstorey height (h=3.6m).

[2] Mean normalized residual interstorey drift

Limiting residual interstorey drift is also desired to achieve better seismic performance.
A key characteristic of the flag-shaped hysteresis is its self-centring quality. In order for
self-centring to be achieved, the unloading plateau of the hysteresis must be sufficiently
high to overcome residual forces. Normalized residual interstorey drift, 6. res , was defined
as follows:

Ll res

25

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

[3] Mean normalized column ductility demand

Essential to a structure's ability to sustain seismic loads is its ability to behave in a ductile
fashion. The response of a structure imposes a ductility demand on its constituent
members and the capacity of these members must thus be assessed. The normalized
column ductility demand, ~lco" was defined as follows:

where <pet) is the curvature of the member at time t and <py is the yield curvature of the
member.

[4] Mean normalized beam ductility demand

In this study the normalized beam ductility demand, ~beam, was detelmined in the same
manner as the normalized column ductility demand.

[5] Mean normalized maximum storey acceleration

This index gives an indication of the force levels experienced by the structure at given
stories; it provides insight into potential damage to certain non-structural building
components; and indicates potential effect on occupants (Christopoulos et al 2002). The
normalized maximum storey acceleration, A, was defined as follows:
maXOststd IA(t) I
A= --_....:::....-_-

where A(t) is the storey acceleration at time t and g is the gravitational constant.

26

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

[6] Mean normalized maximum base shear

This index provides an indication of the total seismic force experienced by a structure,
and is taken as the mean for the twenty earthquakes. The normalized maximum base
shear, S, was defined as follows:

s=

maxO:St:Std Iv(t)1
W

where vet) is the base shear at time t and W is the weight of the frame (W= l638kN).

[7] Mean normalized absorbed energy

The amount of energy absorbed by a structure during ground shaking can be used as an
indication of expected damage. The total energy absorbed was determined by observing
the plastic work done by the frame over the complete course of its vibration. The motion
of each frame was observed for a total of one minute leaving a minimal free vibration
time of 10 seconds for each frame. NOlmalized absorbed energy, Eabs , was defined as
follows:

where E(td) is the energy absorbed or dissipated hysteretically (unrecoverable strain

energy) up to time td and Ey is the amount of energy absorbed in laterally yielding the unbraced I-storey frame (E y =6068Nm).

27

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

3.3

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
The frames studied in the pushover analysis were the same as those studied in the

NLTHA. The non-linear static pushover tests were conducted using SAP2000.
Potential plastic moment hinges with the corresponding My values were assumed to be
located at the ends of the beams and columns where moments were greatest. Potential
plastic axial force behaviour was also assumed to occur in the beams and columns. The
frames were monotonically loaded one-way and so only the a, 'Il, and

e hysteretic brace

parameters were needed to fully describe the behaviour of the braces. This also meant
that the frames with bilinear hysteretic braces and the frames with flag-shaped hysteretic
braces were described by the same pushover curve.

In the Equivalent Static Force Method (ESFM) outlined in the 2005 NBCC, an
inverted triangular loading pattern is suggested for use in the seismic analysis and design
of multi-storey buildings. This pattern approximates a first mode loading during an
earthquake. The following expression gives the equivalent static force, Fx, to be placed
laterally at each storey level, x, in the building:

28

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

where V is the base shear to be used, W x is the weight of level x, and hx is the height,
from ground, to level x. F t is a force to be placed at the uppermost level of the building
to emulate the effect of higher modes on the response. It is set as:

Ft

= 0.07Ta V :::; 0.25V

where T a is the fundamental period of the building. The NBCC specifies that if the
fundamental period of the building is less than or equal to 0.7s then F t equals zero. Table
3.4 gives a summary of the fundamental periods of the frames used in this study along
with percentage values for 0.07Ta used in the pushover analyses.

At each time step during the non-linear static pushover tests, the average
interstorey drift (averaged over all floors) of the frame was determined and used with the
associated base shear at that load step to form one point on the load-deflection curve.
Note that the base shear values were normalized by dividing them by the weight of the
frame (W=1638kN) and interstorey drift values were normalized by dividing them by the
interstorey height (h=3.6m). The pushover test for each frame was halted as soon as any
one of the following occurred: a collapse mechanism formed leaving the frame, or part
thereof, with zero lateral stiffness; the interstorey drift developed at any level reached
3%; the total lateral force placed on the frame reached 1.6W; or the axial capacity in any
column was reached. The NBCC 2005 recognizes a maximum allowable interstorey drift
of2.5% and so an interstorey drift of3% was chosen as maximum. A value of 1.6W was

29

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Table 3.4

First mode elastic periods Ta and higher mode effect coefficients O.07T a
Brace

(}

T-C

22.39
5.60
2.24

T-O

22.39
5.60
2.24

To (s) and O.07T a(%)

I-Storey

2-Storey

4-Storey

8-Storey

0.13
0.23

0.16
0.28

0.24

0.33
0.42
0.44
0.47

0.4
0.5
0.54

0.38
0.54
0.71/5.0

0.52
0.65
0.84/5.9
1.26/8.8

0.77 / 5.4
0.84/5.9

1.33/9.3
1.42/9.9

0.59

30

MA.Sc. Thesis - i.E. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

chosen as the maximum reasonable lateral force expected considering the uncertainty in
ground accelerations. For each of the four frames, T-C and T-O braces were used along
with the same three values for

e, four values for 11, and two values for ex as in the

parametric study, making a total of 192 pushover analyses.

3.4

SUMMARY
This chapter described the methodology for the study. The non-linear time

history analysis of several braced steel frame models were carried out using the program
Ruaumoko. The same four single-bay frames - I-storey, 2-storey, 4-storey, and 8storey - were used in all analyses - the only difference being with the braces. Flagshaped hysteretic braces were used in one suite of frames while bilinear hysteretic braces
were used in a corresponding suite of frames for comparison. For each frame, a chevron
bracing system active in both tension and compression (T-C) was studied. Also for
comparison, a tension-only (T-O) chevron bracing system was also investigated for each
frame. For each frame and bracing type a unique set of parameters was used to describe
the flag-shaped and bilinear hysteretic models of the braces. For each frame, all storeys
had the same bracing system described with the same unique parameter set.

A parametric study was performed using a range of values for each hysteretic
parameter. Each frame was subjected to an ensemble of twenty ground motions to
determine their mean responses as measured by seven primary response indices - mean
maximum interstorey drift, mean residual interstorey drift, mean column curvature

31

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

ductility, mean beam curvature ductility, mean maximum storey acceleration, mean
maximum base shear, and mean absorbed energy. The parametric approach was adopted
to more fully explore the difference in flag-shaped and bilinear hysteretic behaviour, to
determine the effect of the various hysteretic and non-hysteretic parameters on response,
to more fully explore the difference in T-C and T-O brace behaviour, and to determine
parameter values resulting in advantageous responses.

Pushover analysis was also performed on the frames to help validate results from
the NLTHA. This method involved simulated non-linear static pushover tests where each
of the four frames was monotonically loaded laterally using an inverted triangular load
pattern suggested in the Equivalent Static Force Method for seismic design in the NBCC
2005. This loading pattern was used to give an approximation to the first mode loading
experienced by multi-storey structures during earthquakes.

32

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

RESULTS OF PARAMETRIC STUDY

4.1

INTRODUCTION
The results are presented in two sections: one for the NLTHA and the other for

the pushover analyses. The NLTHA results for each response index are presented in
separate sections. The plots for response index results were scaled for presentation. The
effect of a,

~,

l1, 8, N, brace type (T -C or T -0), and hysteresis type (F or B) on response

are summarized and discussed. The sensitivity of many of these parameters on response
is also discussed. Both the NLTHA and pushover results are summarized at the end of
this chapter and comparisons are made between these two analyses.

4.2

RESULTS FROM NON-LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

4.2.1

INTERSTOREY DRIFT
Figure 4.1 shows, as an example, a comparison of flag-shaped and bilinear

hysteretic behaviour of the I-storey frame and its T-C brace for a single ground motion.
In this figure, the hysteretic parameters were Fy=350kN (11=0.21), k=125kN/mm
(8=0.08), a=O.O, and

~=0.5.

Note that axial force versus axial elongation is shown for the

brace and lateral force versus lateral deflection is shown for the frame. Because the brace
behaviour alone was altered, there were limitations in the potential global response
modification.

33

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Ann
.,VVV

.-..

nAA

uvv

C'I

vvv

.--r1

/;

vv

/'/[ "
I I

~.
~vv

- 5

- 0

~,.-

LI---

II

~
-

------~

I
~

Defl~

IP

1)

tion (mm)

20

~v

IA w

- /l ~/
,

VI
----7M-

"0

-,vv

"

vvv

nnn

-uvv

,
AM'
-J. .. vvv

- 0

- 5

- 0

--Frame

- - - - Brace

Figure 4.1
Example of flag-shaped (above) and bilinear hystereses response of
tension-compression (T-C) bracing for 1-storey frame for 1987 Superstition
Hills (scaled PGA=O.49g) earthquake
34

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Detailed Observations:
Figures 4.2a-d show the mean normalized maximum interstorey drift for the four
frames and all of the parameter values. Responses of the frames with flag-shaped
hysteretic braces are in the left two columns and the responses for the frames with
bilinear hysteretic braces are in the right column. The responses for the frames with T-C
braces are in the top two rows while the responses for the frames with T-O braces are in
the bottom two rows. The individual plots show drift versus normalized yield force
(FylW), and there is a separate line on each plot for each normalized stiffness. Variability
in the data, resulting from the 20 ground motions used in each analysis, is quantified
through the use of vertical bars for plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean.

For the range of parameters studied, all cases indicated that interstorey drift
decreased for increasing values of 11 and 8. In most cases, interstorey drift decreased for
increasing a except for the T-C case with large 11, where a had little effect on interstorey
drift. In all cases,

B(the energy-dissipation parameter for the flag-shaped hysteresis) had

very little effect on drift. Interstorey drift was very similar for the flag-shaped and
bilinear cases except for the T-O case with large 11, where interstorey drift was less for the
bilinear case. Interstorey drift was also greater for the frames with T-O braces compared
to those with T-C braces. In all cases, interstorey drift decreased for increasing number
of storeys, N. Interstorey drift also became less sensitive to 11 as 11 increased and it
became less sensitive to both 11 and 8 as the number of storeys increased.

35

MA.Sc. Thesis - J B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Overall Behaviour:
In general, increasing

e was most effective in reducing drifts.

This resulted in

larger pre-yield and post-yield lateral stiffness of the frames. The T-C braces were more
effective than the T-0 braces in reducing interstorey drifts. Also, the braces with flagshaped hystereses tended to be just as effective in reducing drifts as the braces with
bilinear hystereses.

36

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

1.6

1.2

II

k.
f'\.

1.6

I.2t-'1'<---t----j------t-----i

!
!

~08 +--+~--Hllr--"'hI.=--+--+----l

~~~0.4

...

0.8

'it '\ ~ r--~

~~h1

.~

e
E

Bilinear

13 = 1.0

1.6

l"l'---.,[

0'"

13 = 0.5

r~~

0.0
0.2

0.3

0.4

0.0
0.1

~J

0.1

0.4

0,2

0.3

.j---4---I---+-~

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

811(;1.66--:;:==:::::;;::::==:;:::==::::;::==::::;----rlI.66--:;:====;::::==:;:::==::::;::==::::;-lcl.~6--;::===;:===;:====;===:;-1
I
s::

1.2
'Vi
s::
(1)
~
E-<<n'"
C"! ~08

~
~

..

1.2

1.2

~T

0.4

0.0

.j---l---l---l-"'-~
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.0

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

1>:s::

0.0

1.6

.\---l---l---l----l
0.1

02

0.3

0.0

+---.........- - 1 - - - + - - 4

0.4

0.1

0.2

./---+---1----1-'''-'-'"''"

0.4

1.6

h---t----j------t-----i

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.0

0.4

I-T(;1.6,-;:==:::::;;::::==:;:::==::;:::===,-I):;1.6",,-:==:::::;;::::==:;:::==::::;::==::::;-IC1.66-;===:::;:===r====r===,---1

'Vi
s::
<I)

E-<

1.2

1.2

0.8

l'

Ii.....

r--;.t--r..........-----t------t------J

t-r~

0.4

0.0

.J----l----l---l----1
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.'1

Figure 4.2a

0.8

I " T - -....
~
....

0.4

...

0.0

0.0
0.1

0.2
'1

---9 = 5.6

0.3

~l
T
L~ 't--Y----

+-...---l-"'
.....' ---Hr------t-. .---1

"
-'-9=2.2

~--~~

1.2

0.4

I!

rt

I"!'--i

+---+4f--+.,--------'=I'....---1

4t---~'

+---1---1----1---4
0.1

0.2

0.3

'1

-8=22.4

Mean normalized maximum interstorey drift (I-storey)

37

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped
13= 0,5
1.6

1.6

T
;

1.2

1.6

T
~
ti
ij ~ ~~

1.2

0
II

s::

v"'-..

'eVJn
0

Q
E
0

0.0
0

UI

0.1

0.4

~~

0.2

O.J

0.0
0.4
1.6

1.2

1.2

l~

0.8

T
.l.

0: ~
$'\

0.4

~i

""i

~j-itc

"'-

OJ

'"

0.0
0

1.6

IT

~ ~ It

.;.

~T

0.8

N.

0.4

,,

T
1.2

'" 08

Bilinear

13= 1.0

0.1

02

O.J

0.4

0.1

0.2

O.J

0.4

1.6

t:

VJ

s::
0

t-

'"
C'!
0

II
0

l,

'"~O.8

0.0
0
1.6

0.1

s::
0I

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.4

"

0.0

.l.

1'1.

O.J

1.2

0.8

T
-.

~4

*-- I-loL
0.4

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.2

-:
rh
... W

~J

0.8

'et:n

0.'

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.'

1.6

1.2

'"

'"<5

II

~
oS

N
0

+t-
.... ~

~O.8

hIi...

0.4

+--

--

0.4

0.0

0.0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

"

....

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1.2

0.'

0.'

0.0
0.1

0.2

"

-+-6=2.2

Figure 4.2b

0.'

.1

k r+

0.8

....,.+

0.4

1.6

1.2

03

0.0

t-

f' rts t+--"i-- h

t:

.i.

I-k

...

1.6

I!!'

1.2

0.0
0.1

0.1

...

I.

J
t:::
f'

0.4

0.0
0

R*

1.6

0.4

*-- I.-

,...

11

0.8

1.6

... --- ~
...

;:-0.8

i
O.J

0.2

~~

0.4

0.8

0.0

+I

'"<5

--

I-1IlI.

1.2

II

'.

J ~ ~ 1*
0.4

0
0

1.2

-'-6 = 5.6

0.3

0.'

It--- ~

---

'--

0.1

r]

Ii

r-:

7'\

0.2

0.3

"
-6=22.4

Mean normalized maximum mterstorey dnft (2-storey)

38

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped
~=0.5

Bilinear

f3 = 1.0

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.6

1.2

" ~
j t

1.2

'Co

"
~.
e

0
0

II
t::

1'i- :

0.4

~t

0.4

"-"I

0.0

UI

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1.
"?\

0.0
0

0.4

~"- !

.i.

0.0
0

0.8

~li

I"

e
E

R
~~
~

.it

~ l.t..

C/J
C/J
<I)

0.'

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

0.1

.1

Po

r\

0.2

0.3

OA

t::

C/J

t::

" r

<I)

E-<

'Co

V)

"

C"1

II

r--- .l

.s

!
I~

~ ~t

I~

~~

0.4

0.1

0.2

t::
+
L :--

0.4

,.

0.0
0

0.8

IT

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

~8

lEo-

0.4

IV

0.8

"'~

0.8

T
~

0.4

Il

.it

00

l'

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.2

0.3

OA

I'V

~ ~r

I"!'

I ...........

0.0
0

..c
t::

I,~

0.1

1.2

04

1.6

r--.

,.

1.2

"

II

0.4

0.0

r
0

Ii

1.6

1.2

0
0

~!

0.0

1.6

0.8

IV

0.0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

OA

t::

.2
C/J

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

t::

<I)

E-<

g
V)

C"1

~8

t- ~ ,
i.. ...

II .s~
0

!-

0.4

I-

...A

0.8

~ :

r-- .1

0.4

...

0.0

I-

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Figure 4.2c

;..

I,~

'"

-0-

Ii,.,

0.0
0

0.1

"

02

"

-+--8 = 2.2

t-.

0.4

0.0
0

0.8

-'-8 = 5.6

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

"
-8=22.4

Mean normalized maximum interstorey drift (4-storey)

39

OA

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

13 = 0.5
1.6

1.6

1.2

8
~
j

::..0.8

0
II
t::::

tl

0.4

t
~

VJ

0.'

0.4

&T
W

0.'

I-

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.0
0.1

UI

1.2

0.0

1.6

1.2

'00
~

Bilinear

13= 1.0

~
..............

.1
I

...
~

....

0.0

0.4

01

02

0.3

0.4

0.1

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

02

0.3

0.4

t::::

VJ

t::::

t-<

tr)

<'

i
]

C"! ~o.
II
tl

T
T

............
0.4

r.i..

0.'

f--

I"

0.4

'"

0.1

0.2

t- "

~
;;

II

tl

0.4

0.4

.A.

'"

I':--

0.1

0.2

r;

t
0.'

""- .A
I
~

"
0.1

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.'

~
-......: ..:r

11

.....i.

1);\

I"

"

'!

0.4

"If

.i..

0.0

0.4

t::::

I....

0.0

0.0

.....

I.

0.2

~
t::::

.1

1.2

0.4

"If

1.6

1.2

t-

.....!

0.0

1.6

<'

... "

0.4

0.3

1.6

~ ~0

0.'

0.0

0.0

1.2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

0.2

0.3

0.4

'00
t::::

f-

tr)

N
0

II
tl

~.

r r

T
t-

J .l
+
0.4

If\

r
T

0.4

"

0.0
0.1

02

o.,

0.3

.,

Figure 4.2d

0.'

0.4

I"

0.0

0..-

!
~

't'

I"

...

0.0
0.1

02

"

"
~S=2.2

-'-S = 5.6

03

0.4

0.1

02

03

"
-S=22.4

Mean normalized maximum interstorey drift (8-storey)

40

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

4.2.2

RESIDUAL INTERSTOREY DRIFT

Detailed Observations:
Figures 4.3a-d show mean normalized residual interstorey drift. Residual
interstorey drift tended to decrease for increasing values of T] except for the bilinear case
with a large number of storeys where 11 had a varied effect on residual interstorey drift.
In almost all cases residual interstorey drift decreased for increasing 8. In all cases,
residual drift decreased for increasing u. Also in all cases,

had very little effect on

residual interstorey drift. In almost every case, residual interstorey drift was less for the
flag-shaped case and was also generally larger for the frames with T-O braces. Residual
interstorey drift tended to decrease for increasing number of storeys except for the
bilinear case with large 11 where it tended to increase with increasing number of storeys.
Residual interstorey drift became less sensitive to

T]

as

T]

increased and it became less

sensitive to both 11 and 8 as the number of storeys increased.

Overall Behaviour:
Increasing 8 or u was generally most effective in reducing residual drifts. The TC braces tended to be more effective than the T-O braces in reducing residual interstorey
drifts. The braces with flag-shaped hystereses were also more effective in reducing
residual drifts compared to the braces with bilinear hystereses. In fact, residual drifts
were effectively zero for most of the frames with flag-shaped hysteretic braces.

41

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped
~=O.5
0.'

0.4

~.3

O.J

'"
;1
0

0
II

s::

tS

.9
Vl

'E~.2

0.0
0

UI
s::

.9
Vl
s::
Q)

E-

~ It0.1

[\\ I~ ........

0.1

~~

0.0
0.'

~\

0.2

.\

O.J

0.2

l\

O.J

~\
~~

0.1

1\

02

L ,~

Vl

e
6

0.4

Q)

Bilinear

~ = 1.0

0.1

O.J

0.2

~ -.,~

1\ "--

0.0
0.4

004

0.4

0.4

~.]

O.J

O.J

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

O.J

0.2

0.4

'"
;1
VI

C"! fO.2
~

II ~

tS ~1

r---- J.

0.0
0

0.1

O.J

0.2

.......... -1.

O.

.\ "-...

:5

0
0

1
02

II

tS ~
~O.I

""

s::
0I
s::

0.0
0

---

0.1

l\\

l00.1

0.0
0.2

0.3

0.'

-l

IA

0.0
0

0.'

0.1

'\\

0.3

'"

0.2

r--

O.J

02

r--....... .l

0.4

O.J

0.2

0.4

O.J

.....

0.1

0
0.'

0.'

~.3

0.0

......

I0.2

"'-...

'"

.~

0.1

"""""-

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.'

0
'{ji

0.'

0.4

0.'

E-

~.J

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

'" '"
0.1

~ r--.
.............

0.2

0.3

0.4

s::
Q)

VI

N
0

II
tS

8iI'

~02
]

~O.l

0.1

0.1

""--

"0.0

00
0

0.\

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

"
Figure 4.3a

0.2

"

-+-8=2.2

r----- ItIi

0.0

-+-8 = 5.6

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

"
-8=22.4

Mean normalized residual interstorey drift (I-storey)

42

0.3

0.'

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

B=

B=0.5

ci
II

s::

.S

0.4

0.'

0.'

~o.]

0.3

0.3

0.2

02

8'"'
f
jO.2

etO.1

en
en

Q,

0.0

s::
V

t-

0.\

~lt

t
0.0

0.\

0.2

0.3

0.'

0.1

~.!

0.1

~
H

"

0.0

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.'

~.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.\

0.\

UI
s::

0
.;;;

Bilinear

1.0

0.\

0.2

0.3

0.4

o.n

C'!

;s

e-

~J.2

II ~
C J,.\

"'-- ~

0.0
0

It

0.1

0.2

It
03

0.0
0

0.'

0.'

0.4

~.3

0.3

""

-t

I.

t
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.'

II
C

f001

O&l.l

r--

...:c
s::

'--

0.0

0I

s::

0.1

0.2

0.2

"'"I-.l::::--..

.......
0.\

I
0.3

"'--

N
0.1

0.0
0

1\ ~
"'~V"
r---.......

0.0

OA

0.3

0.'

0.2

.......

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.'

0.'

0.'

0.'

~.3

0.3

0.3

~2

0.2

0.2

II ]
C "
~.1

0\

0.1

00

0.0

0.0

.S

0.2

0.3

0.1

-jt

0.'

;s
0
0

"'"

JW'"

0.1

./"

.......

....-:. ~

0.2

iI
0.3

0.'

en

s::

to.n

N
0

8
e-

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

"

"

--+-0 = 2.2

Figure 4.3b

0.2

--+-0 = 5.6

0.3

0.'

i"-..
0

0.\

IT

0.2

"
-0=22.4

Mean normalized residual interstorey drift (2-storey)

43

d
0.3

0.'

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

Bilinear

B= 1.0

B=0.5
0.4

0.4

D.

~.3

O.l

O.l

0.2

02

t?

0
0

II

c
0
'00

.-

~.I

~ \l

VJ
<I)

~
E

10-

0.0

1\

0.1

~M

t
0.0

0.1

0.2

D.

O.l

0.1

It
0.2

t
O.l

"-

0.0
0

0.'

0.'

004

0.4

~.3

O.l

O.l

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

UI

1\

0.1

0.1

0.2

O.l

0.4

O.l

0.4

VJ

=
;

<I)

f-<

<r)

C'!

II

~.2

0 ~.1

0.0
0

II

0.1

0.0

0.1

02

O.l

D.

O.l

O.l

~.

&.2

0.0
0

-- Pi
.::::

..........

02

0.1

0.1

0.2

"" V

I'---

0.1

/'

./

./

/.

.....
~

....-0::::

10-

0.0
0

0.'

0.2

'\

........

0.0

O.l

0.1

0.2

1\ ...-

t ...............

A
0.0

~.3

.2
VJ

0.4

O.l

It

0.4

il.1

0.2

0.4

0 ~

it

0.4

8
0
0

0.1

0.2

O.l

0.'

0.'

0.'

0.4

@l.J

O.l

O.l

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.2

O.l

0.4

<I)

f-<

'"
;
<r)

C'!
0

II
0

:;1

~I

0.1

t It1.1.
1.

0.0
0

0.1

0.2

0.1

tL

t
J"

O.l

00
0.4

0.1

~8=2.2

....

1.1.
0.2

"

"
Figure 4.3c

IT

-8=5.6

It

0.0
O.l

0.'

0.1

0.2

"
--8 =22.4

Mean normalized residual interstorey drift (4-storey)

44

-1

O.l

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

p = 0.5

Bilinear

P= 1.0

0.4

OA

0.4

~u

0.3

0.3

0.2

02

f2

0
0

II

s::

r
~

1.1

0.1

~~

ell
ell
(!)

Q-

00

>J

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

.-

0.1

1\1
0.2

'>I
0.3

"'"

.......

........

r-....

0.0
0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

~.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

UI

0.1

0.0

/
~~

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

s::
0

'Vi

s::
(!)

E-< o.n
C'!
0

II
~

is'"

f2
l

9.0.1

0.0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

\I

0.0
0

0.4

\I
0.1

II

H
0.3

0.2

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

~]

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

II
~

t.2
]

_6

....

~
J.l

r-- V
V
~

0.1

l.,../

~~

I~/

V
1

s::

0.0

0.0

0I

0.1

s::

0.2

0.3

0.4

0..

0.0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.04

0.4

0.4

e.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

~.1

0.1

0.1

/'
.......

0.1

0.3

0.2

is'"
0
0

---

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0..

'Vi

s::

(!)

E-<
o.n

C"l

8
f

II ]
~

0.0
0

+
0.1

!t
0.2

0.3

0.0

OA

0.1

"
Figure 4.3d

IT

1'-... .-

0.2

-.-e = 5.6

............: [}o,--cr:

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

"
--e=22.4

Mean normalized residual interstorey drift (8-storey)

45

...-1

0.0

"

--+-e = 2.2

0.3

0"

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

4.2.3

COLUMN DUCTILITY DEMAND

Detailed Observations:
Figures 4.4a-d show mean normalized column ductility demand. Overall, the
effect of the various parameters on column ductility demand was similar to that for drift.
In almost every case, column ductility demand decreased for increasing values of11 and
in all cases it decreased for increasing values of 8. Column ductility demand decreased
for increasing a except for the T-C case with large 11 where a had no effect on column
ductility demand. In all cases,

had very little effect on column ductility demand. This

demand was also very similar for the flag-shaped and bilinear cases except for the T-O
case with large 11, where it was less for the bilinear case. Column ductility demand was
also smaller for the frames with T-C braces and it tended to decrease for increasing
number of storeys. Like interstorey drift, column ductility demand became less sensitive
to 11 as 11 increased and it became less sensitive to both 11 and 8 as the number of storeys
increased.

Overall Behaviour:
Increasing 8 or a was generally most effective in reducing the column ductility
demand. The T-C braces tended to be more effective than the T-O braces in reducing
column ductility demand. The braces with flag-shaped hystereses were also just as
effective in reducing ductility demands on the columns as the braces with bilinear
hystereses. The column ductility demands in many cases were less than 1.0 indicating
elastic response of the columns.

46

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

B=

B=0.5
4

\\

~3

0
0

II
t:

~2

e
~ U

'"

'\

VJ
<I)

l5.

UI

0.\

"" r---

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.\

0.2

r\ ~

........
\

H(

~ r-"i,
~

r-- '-

l\

--

'Vi

\
v\ ~ ~ ......

~.

Bilinear

1.0

0.3

t-.

0
0.4

0.1

0.2

IK
0.3

0.4

0.3

0.4

t:

.9
VJ

t:

<I)

E-<

l()

'2

a 8
II
~

~
e

u\

0
4

0.1

a
II
~

'"

~2

<5

eU

i--..

0.3

0.4

0.2

t:

.9
VJ

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

f\-

'\

0.2

~ ~r---..
~

II

r-

'" "-

I-

....... r---

0.4

0
0

!'I~

It

0.3

r-~

0.\

~ "'",

~
t:

r'\.

l--.

"'"""- h

'--- I-

If--

l""

..........

0.2

~ ~

.,,3

r--

............

It

1"'-0

~hit

0
0

0.\

0.2

0.3

0.4

.,,3

J r--..... r-- ..-.

'"
~l

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

t:

<I)

E-<
l()

a
II
~

<5

r--.

~
81

r--

l'--- !'-If'-i--.

t-

t-

0
0

0.\

0.2

0.3

0.4

Figure 4.4a

r-- t.... t-

--

0
0

0.1

"

0.2

03

0.4

"

-+-8 = 2.2

0.\

0.2

"

-'-8 = 5.6

-8=22.4

..

Mean normalized column ductility demand (l-storey)

47

0.3

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

B=0.5

Bilinear

B= 1.0

~3

0
.;;;

@2
g

II

Cl

~ u"0
1

en
Q)

]'1~

it

l'lt::::....11-

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

IT
III

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-g3

UI

~~
N'

0
0

l'..

1"""':

......" r-- .~

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.4

en
~

Q)

r-<

'"
C"!

II
~

.q
~

<5

"0
U

....

r--

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

........

..t

""- x-

II

If
11.

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-t

~ .~
~
0 <5

0.1

0.2

E
c3

II

~ r-.I'---

~
t-

r-......

~
81

r--

-.C
~

0
0

.2
en

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

~ .f

r- -I::-...

I~

....

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

~
Q)

r-<

'"
0
C'l

II
~

.~

<5

r--

'--- I-<~

81

f'....

r--0

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Figure 4.4b

llot

:"I

0
0

0.1

0.2

"

"

--+--8 = 2.2

I'-- It

--+--8 = 5.6

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

"
-8=22.4

Mean normalized column ductility demand (2-storey)

48

0.3

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped
13=0.5

Bilinear

13 = 1.0

~3

0
II

s::
.9
<:Il

.q
~

<5

..

8,

<:Il
0

It

0
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

..

I..

0
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

<:Il

,,3

is

UI

..

.t
0.1

.(')

0.2

0.3

0.4

s::
0

s::
V

tr)

.f'

C'l ~
0 <5

II
~

8I

1....

It

t-

iii

I.

1.

0
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0
0

01

0.2

03

0.4

,,3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

cs

0
II
~

.~

<5

81

I - _1

s::
0
s::

0
0

0.1

...

....

...

0.3

0.4

0.1

L .....

...

0
0.2

0
0.2

0.3

0.4

~3

0.1

,..,
0.2

0.3

0.4

'Vi

s::

V
~

tr)

C'!

II
~

.~.

<5

~
~\

0
0

It

.-

I.

0
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0
0

0.1

0.2

-+-0=2.2

Figure 4.4c

..L

-+-0 = 5.6

0.3

0.4

0.1

I ..

0.2
~

--0=22.4

Mean normalized column ductility demand (4-storey)

49

-'"-

0.3

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

p = 0.5

P=

~3

Bilinear

1.0
4

<:'S

0
0

II
t:

<5

I:S ;3

.2

<f)
<f)

eE

0
0

*
0.1

I.

0
0.2

0.3

0
0

0.'

UI

~~

I.

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.'

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.2

0.3

0.4

t:

<f)

,,3

t:

t-<

l{")

II

is

f
~

I:S ;3 I

.l-

0
0.1

0.2

0.3

i..

-*-

0
0

0.'

~3

0
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.'

0.1

<:'S
.~

g,

II

<5

I:S 8
1

... ...

1>:t:

0.1

t:

~
0.2

1&

.2

...

0.4

0.3

I
0.2

0.1

0.3

1&

....

0
0

0.4

-A

10.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

<f)

t:

t-<

l{")

M
0

II
I:S

is

~,

t<5
~

8I

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.'

Figure 4.4d

0
0

0.1

0.2

"

"
~e=2.2

~e=5.6

0.3

0.'

0.1

0.2

"
-e=22.4

Mean normalized column ductility demand (8-storey)

50

0.3

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

4.2.4

BEAM DUCTILITY DEMAND

Detailed Observations:
Figures 4.5a-d show mean normalized beam ductility demand. For the frames
with T-C braces, beam ductility demand decreased for increasing values of 11 and for the
frames with T-O braces, 11 had a varied affect on this demand. In all cases, beam ductility
demand decreased for increasing values of e and it decreased for increasing a except for
the T-C case with large 11 where a had virtually no effect on this demand. In all cases,

had very little effect on beam ductility demand and this demand was virtually the same
for the flag-shaped and bilinear cases. However, for the T-O case with large 11 beam
ductility demand tended to be less for the bilinear case. Beam ductility demand was
lower for the frames with T-C braces compared to those with T-0 braces, except for very
small 11, where this demand was similar for both cases. Beam ductility demand tended to
decrease for increasing number of storeys. This demand became less sensitive to 11 as 11
increased and it became less sensitive to both 11 and

e as the number of storeys increased

except for the T-O case with a=O.O where the sensitivity of 11 and

e remained essentially

unchanged.

Overall Behaviour:
Increasing e or a tended to be the most effective in reducing the ductility demand
placed on the beams. The T-C braces were more effective than the T-O braces in
reducing beam ductility demand. The braces with flag-shaped hystereses were just as
effective in reducing beam ductility demand as the braces with bilinear hystereses.

51

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped
~=0.5

"2

0
0

II
t:

~
<'I

'"

32

i:l ~

;--......

en

e
E

Nf::::

UI

0.1

~ i--l

I\.

~ Nr--...,

8E

0
'C;;

Bilinear

f3 = 1.0

0.2

t--=:
r--::

0
0.4

0.3

v--......

0.1

---

0.2

"

I'"'"';

0
0.3

0.4

I.

t::::::::: l!~
0.1

0.2

""
0.3

0.4

t:

en
t:

Eo-

"2

j
VI
N '"
0 8

32

II
i:l

r---

r--

-:

"""i.
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

02

0.3

04

- ....-

~3

--

~.

II

.2

,.-

t:

0
0

t:

.2
en

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

"~

'"

I.
0.2

~
0.4

0.3

I.

"-

3z
0 8
E
i:l ~

0
0

"1

I.....

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

."J

VI .
~

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

t:

Eo-

C"!

II
i:l

<5

to--

--

i--I

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

"

-+-8 = 2.2

.
til
~

"

0
0

"
Figure 4.5a

Iii

0
0.1

I.

7'\

0
0

P-- -.t

t--

-+-8 = 5.6

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

"
--8=22.4

Mean normalized beam ductility demand (I-storey)

52

0.3

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped
13 = 0.5

Bilinear

13 = 1.0

,,3

~
0

0
II
t::

tS

.f'

~2

<5

Ii

OJ

Q
E
0

0
0

c:
0
.;;;
t::

<I)
IF)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

II

I.

t
A

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

-.t

0.2

0.3

0.4

.~.

<5

j
I

.........

hl.

It

11

r- .A

"I

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
4

]3

V L--

!".

0 8fu

t:::::

OJ

-;>-

t::

02

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

V --

I-'

0.1

I.
I.
0.2

t
~

0.4

0.3

V
V
~

It __ ~

r-:

t
0.4

..A

It

=--

0
0

.2
en

I.

0.1

j,....

~ ...1

t
0

t::

It

0
0

............ ..t

tS

LA

r- 1*
~

II

0.1

,..t
4

tS

It

C"! '52

UI

E-

t
"Y

1"1~~1\

en

<I)

~
~

~ ~~1

';;;

I~

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

~3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

t::

<I)

EIF)

N
0

<5

II
tS

'"

~2

L---

j,....

l---

i.-'

--

i--'

Ii--

I.

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0
0

0.1

0.2

"

"

--.-e = 2.2
Figure 4.5b

--.-e = 5.6

0.3

0.4

0.1

...

0.2

"

--e = 22.4

Mean normalized beam ductility demand (2-storey)

53

....t

IX

0.3

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped
~

0.5

Bilinear

l.0

,,3

<'I

0
II

s:: tl

@;
~

ffl

;.it

~ -......:::
~

<I)

e-

.9
ffl

UI
s::

~ h,t

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.4

t
A

0
0

0
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

~3

I.

11\

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.4

.U;

s::

<I)

t-

V)

<'I

C"'!

S2

II

;:.

8
j

tl

It

r-- ..1

! - - _il.

1.1.

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

t--- -A

.U;

0.1

02

0.3

0.4

-'

- ..----

..--'

>/

....

.......... -'

,/

-- /

P--

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

It

02

It

0.3

0.4

..--'

~ t

0
0

s::

_"l

~3

I.

0
0.4

k:

III
4

~
s::

It

'"
0 32
8
tl

r-- ot

II

.... .or...

t ...........

....
~

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

,,3

j
'"

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

s::

<I)

t-

V)

N
0

~2

II

tl

<5

-- ~

0.1

0.2

0.3

Figure 4.5c

to--

-i

0.4

0
0

0.1

0.2

"

"

--+-8=2.2

.....

0
0

-'-8 = 5.6

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

"
-8=22.4

Mean normalized beam ductility demand (4-storey)

54

0.3

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

B=0.5

~3

Bilinear

B= 1.0
4

0 <5~
II

c:

J
I

~
E

It

I.

t::-- ~

0.1

0.2

0.3

I.

0
0

0.'

UI

~ .t

.~ J

VJ
VJ

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

c:

.2
VJ

~3

E-

c:
v

If)

'"
C"'! :';2
0
8
II

-.t

It

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

~3

II
0

VV

'" 1

,It

1-

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.2

0.1

~V
V

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.3

/ :/

J..,.;

/ 1/

0.1

i-It

0
0

--

I.

0
'c;:j

<'I

c:
0I
c:

0.'

0
0

!:::

-e-

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

c:

E-

,,3

If)

J
'"

C"'!

~2
<5

II

0:;-

I.

Il<

.t

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Figure 4.5d

11

0
0

0.1

0.2

"

"

~e=2.2

.1

0
0

I.

-.-e = 5.6

0.3

0.'

0.1

0.2

"

--e = 22.4

Mean normalized beam ductility demand (8-storey)

55

0.3

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

4.2.5

STOREY ACCELERATION

Detailed Observations:
Figures 4.6a-d show mean normalized maximum storey acceleration in terms of g.
In most cases, storey acceleration increased for increasing values of 11 and, for the frames
with flag-shaped hysteretic braces, also increased for increasing values of e. For the
frames with bilinear hysteretic braces,

e had only a minor effect on storey acceleration.

In most cases, storey acceleration tended to increase for increasing a; however, this
increase was not as pronounced for large 11. Most cases exemplified a minor decrease in
storey acceleration for

increasing~.

In most cases, storey acceleration was lower for the

frames with bilinear braces. Storey accelerations were lower for the frames with T-O
braces compared to the T-C case accept for very small 11, where it tended to be similar for
both of these cases. In most cases, storey acceleration tended to increase for increasing
number of storeys, although this increase was less pronounced for the bilinear case.
Storey acceleration exhibited less sensitivity to 11 and
sensitivity to 11 and

e for the flag-shaped case -

e for the bilinear case, and a greater

especially as the number of storeys

increased.

Overall Behaviour:
Storey acceleration was most effectively reduced by decreasing

e, for the flag-

shaped case, and by decreasing 11, for the bilinear case. T-O braces were generally more
effective in reducing storey acceleration compared to T-C braces. The bilinear braces
were more effective in reducing accelerations compared to the flag-shaped braces.

56

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped
~=0.5
1.4

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.0

1.0

3
.gt.o
0

0
II

tS

tog

0.6

'{;j

.....

0.8

Ii

0.6

'it

0.4

0.4

UI

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1-

V>
<l)

Q
E
0

Bilinear

13= 1.0

0.1

I .............

~
!

0.8

0.6

~
0.2

~
0.3

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.2

1.2

.~

t-

0.4
0.4

~A
~
I';'
:

0.1

0.2

>it

0.3

0.4

t:

.2
V>
C

<l)

E-

I.()

C"'!

II
tS

.gl.o
S

...

~
";0.8

1.0

h.

0.8

0.6

;;
0.6

1*
~

~
0.4
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.8

l-

0.4
0

1.0

0.4

0.1

Ir

0.6

0.2

"I

~
0.3

~ rt

"

0.4
0.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.2

1.2

0.1

rr
0.2

-~

>it

0.3

0.4

.gLO

0
0

II

?8

0.6

0.8

tS ~

,
.- -.

1.0

II

0.4

0I

0.2

0.3

0.8

0.4

0.1

0.6

0.4
0.1

1.0

0.6
~

','

0.3

0.4

0.4
0.2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

t:

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.2

1.2

'{;j
t:
<l)

E-

I.()

C"'!

II
tS

.g1.0

t !

'1

~8

;;

10

i
....

0.6

1.0

~
I.i.

0.8

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

'it

'it

Figure 4.6a

r--

'it
0.4

0.1

"
--+-8 = 2.2

ro.....

0.6

0.4
0

.~

0.4

I.

0.8

.Ii-.

0.6

"I

...

0.2

"
--+-8 = 5.6

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

rl

0.3

"
-8=22.4

Mean normalized maximum storey acceleration (l-storey)

57

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped
I"

1.4

I>lc

1/:

.gl.o

a
0 j
II
t:

t-i

~rr

0.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

1~

l'

Q)

0.4

0.1

02

0.3

0.4

1.4

UI

I:

0.8

0.6

F rr~

0.4
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1.4

1.4

L2

1.2

1.0

~\

.- ~ ~ ~-V

0.4
0

-&

en
en

Q.

Uho""

.,..:::::;--

0.6

1.0

l>i:.

;..-

1.2

&

1.0

i,,,,,,,-::::: ~

tl

~8

T T

L2

Bilinear

B= 1.0

B=0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

t:

L2

'(';j

t:

Q)

E-o

lI")

C'!
a
II

. t ~

3
.gt.o

t~

~
[8

.-...-

0
0.6

0.1

0.2

0.3

~/

1.2

.gl.O

"

I,!,

1?rF

[8

0
0.6

0.4

08

~
,

0.1

0.2

-V

-V

IL- ~

-V
0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1.4

l/f

1.2

~ .
1'/ + H
..J.

1.0

V;
k::

0.8

0.3

~i

-V

rl

IT

I:

--:::: ~

r---....:

0.6

'

It..----:: .

0.6

1.0

0.8

0.6

1.4

'"-

0.4
0

0.4

0.4
0

1.2

0.4

t:

...... ~

1.4

~
t:

I!

IJ'

0I

-l,

0.6

Vf

t/ ~

II

1.0

It

0.4

1.4

0.8

0.4

'!'

0.1

02

0.3

0.4

1.4

.J
:.

;.

0.1

0.2

-V
0.3

0..

1.4

'(';j

t:

Q)

1.2

E-o

lI")

C'!
a
II
0

...

to

...-

0.6

1.2

A
1.0

f""""

.- V

~.8

1.2

0.8

rt

It

V
I.i.

0.6

1.0

I--"

I-

02

0.3

"

-.-e = 2.2
Figure 4.6b

.L

0.6

004
0.1

!~

T
-V

'

0.4
0

0.8

0.4

0..
0

0.1

0.2

"
-'-e = 5.6

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

"

--e = 22.4

Mean normalized maximum storey acceleration (2-storey)

58

0..

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped
1.4

1.2

0
0

II
I:

.9
en

3
.gl.O

IT

.i..

II!

["!"

~/ V ~

>.

0.

1.4

1.2

-f-*
....

1.2

1+

0.'

0.

I
0.'

eE

OA

OA
0

0.1

UI

0.3

0.4

1.2

I:

:;

V)

II
0

1- /

I'

'.

~T

0.1

1A

L2

JI.O
~
~

:7i

0.3

0.4

'9'

J.

0.1

0.2

0.3

t',/'

I:
V

L2

E-3
V)

l'
'r/

~I.O

;;0.'

II .

0.

1.0

-'

0.\

0.2

1.2

It

'if

1-

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.'

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.4

1.0

IV I.
,"f? ll--

0.4

OA

It

F 1"i

0.

L4

\.4

1.2

1.2

1.0

..1

./

..---

0.

1.0

l-*

08

--- +

i/

0.'

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.

~e=2.2

0r-

I::d'

'

)'

0.4
0

0.\

"
Figure 4.6c

1.2

0.

0.2

P""" iJ,

o.

0.4
0.1

0.'

OA

0.3

i'!""

0.4
0

0.4

1.4

0.'

+,

0.3

W:

..-/

<

02

1.2

1.4

0.4

0.\

OA
0

1.0

l.4

/;\

OA
0

.9
en

0.4

.-0::

V~

0.'1

I:

ik-

0.

/ 1

0.

I:

0.2

-"

..

0I

0.3

1-

I')'

0.'

/ T f+- IY
~~

II

02

0.4
0

0.\

It ~

1.4

1.0

OA

1.2

1
t

.gl.O

0.

0
0

OA

1A

I:

.9
en
E--

02

l.4

a.....-::

0.

en

I.O

1.4

y/ IV I.rIV

1.0

Bilinear

B= l.0
I~
+i

B=0.5

02

"
~e=5.6

0.3

0.4

0.\

0.2

0.3

"
--e=22.4

Mean normalized maximum storey acceleration (4-storey)

59

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

13 = 0.5
1.4

1.2

:;
0

0
c

II
t3

~1.0

.~
li

(;0.8

"

V
+

i.-

t...+.
.~

r-.

1.4

I":
1.2

1.0

r-.

0.6

<I)
<I)

T/

0.8

0.6

1.4

J+ ~
I

+ 11

1.2

r-...

-....

1.0

V Ii

I

;;:;

.S:

""

Bilinear

13 = 1.0

CI)

e-E

0.4
0.1

1.4

UI

c
0

1.2

'Vi

cCI)
t-

0.4

:;
V)

C'J
0

II
t3

.1.0

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.4

..............

1.2

N
1.0

0.8

~.

0.4
0.1

~
1.2

.1.0

~
'8

II ~8
t3 ~
0.6

~
C

0.2

0.3

0.8

I.

0.6

OA

01

0.8

~
0.1

1.0

06

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.3

./

1-

I!\

~ ir

0.8

A
0.6

0.4
0.\

0.2

0.2

0.3

0"

1.0

0.1

1.2

t),-

0..

1.4

I";'

Jlt

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.4
0.1

0.2

0.4

1.2

0.1

1.0

~
/

1.2

r--- --J
--. j

1.4

0.4

.i.

/'"

~~

1-

~y

0.3

.~

1.4

~/ ~

0.4

Itt-

/
'"

0.2

0.6

0.4

1.4

0.\
1.4

~,,\ .

~/

0.4

0.8

0.6

I"!'

11

0.3

0.4

1-

l'

.k-"

't
0.\

0.2

0..

0.3

.S:

1.4

c
CI)
t-

1.2

<I)

V)

N
0

II
t3

tl

1.4

t---N

1.0

K r--

'f

0.8

'8

l~ -t- If

"'!'

I"!'

0.6

0.6

0.4

1-

1.2

3
_11.0

1.4

1-

i ___

1-

1.2

1.0

V
r-+
-It
t:::= rr
I""
!'or

'Y

0.8

0.2

0.3

0.4

Figure 4.6d

1-

0.6

1"-

\.

......

0..
0.\

"
-+-8 =2.2

1IT

0.4
01

0.2

"
-+-8 = 5.6

0.3

0.4

0.1

02

0.3

"
-8=22.4

Mean normalized maximum storey acceleration (8-storey)

60

0..

MA.Sc. Thesis - i.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

4.2.6

BASE SHEAR

Detailed Observations:
Figures 4.7a-d show mean normalized maximum base shear in terms of frame
weight. In most cases, base shear increased for increasing values of 11. For a=O.O, 8 had
little effect on base shear except for the T-C case for the lower storey frames with large 1"1
where base shear decreased for increasing 8. For a=O.25, base shear increased for
increasing values of 8 in most cases. In all cases, base shear increased for increasing a,
and

had no effect on base shear. Base shear was the same for the flag-shaped and

bilinear cases except for the T-O case with a=O.25 and large 11, where base shear was
slightly less for the bilinear case. Base shears were lower for the frames with T-O braces
compared to the T-C case accept for very small '1, where they tended to be similar for
both of these cases. Base shear tended to decrease for increasing number of storeys. The
sensitivity of base shear to 11 tended to remain constant with increasing number of
storeys. For the a=O.O case, base shear became less sensitive to 8 with increasing number
of storeys and for the a=O.25 case, the sensitivity of base shear to 8 remained constant.

Overall Behaviour:
For the case where a=O.O, decreasing 11 was most effective in reducing base
shears. For the case where a=0.25, decreasing 8 was most effective in reducing base
shears. The frames with T-0 braces tended to be more effective in reducing base shears
compared to the frames with T-C braces. The braces with flag-shaped hystereses were
just as effective in reducing base shear as the braces with bilinear hystereses.

61

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

B=0.5

Bilinear

B= 1.0
0.9

0.'

0.'

o a5

01
C

o
.;;;

0.3

0.7

0.7

./~4

~~ ~-v
r-V~

VJ
4)

Q.
E

0.1

0.1

0.1
0.1

0.2

0.3

02

0.1

0.4

0.3

0.4

02

0.1

0.3

0.4

o r-+-Qio.i""T=:;::=:;::::==;:::==;:==,---j~0 .i""T=::;::=:;::::=::::;::=::::::;==,h:0.9,--:;::::;:::=;:==:;::::=::::;::=::::::;11

,A,'.

r:...t

~ :...dd.

.2

07 tir~~~t;;..>"~~..,.ell---r-I

~ ~ ~s

T
~

os

O.J+---+----j--+-----l

0.3

0.1

0.\

.....

:K.

;:r~,......,.. ,...~~r~:.::::---_-+-'!!t

0.7

+--"L--+"--t..:r--+I_y,,-:---j

,
_/~

el

0.7

O.s!

II

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.9

0.'

0.7

0.7

0.3

0.4

+---+----j--+----t

0.3

0.1

0.1
0.1

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.3

4)

0.7

~-- ~

'i---

tnn

r--'.

N ~s
Od!

0.7
~

0.5

0.'

r-TQio.i""T==r=:;::r:==ii==;:==~~o,'G:::Y:=:;::::=::::;::=::::::;i=='too.:.-.

.;;;c . . . . . . .

'

rl

0.1

0.4

0.3

OA

0.7

0.5

...t
y
~

0.3

0.9

1..1

0.2

0.1

.
.... i.-

.+'-~-~~-

0.1

0.2

0.3

"~~

OA

1=r:::::r==:;===;===i1
'l'
:l.,'
.!. ...........
0.7
__ '.....~ I I

0.5

II
~

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1
0.1

02

0.3

0'

01

"

"

-+-8=2.2

Figure 4.7a

02

-'-8 = 5.6

0.3

0'

0.1

0.2

03

"
-8=22.4

Mean normalized maximum base shear (i-storey)

62

OA

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

B=

B=

0.5

Bilinear

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

.i.

0.7

. ./. ~

0 d!~5

~
~
~~

II

C
0
.(jj

tS

t1

~ ...Ii

./

/~

?,e f

Ie.- ~

0.3

./
~V
,

0.5

~~

0.3

0.7

0.5

..

0.3

0.7

V>
Q)

e
E

0.1

0.1
0

0.0

:k
:.

0.7

c
Q)
E-

If)

C"'!

0.2

P,.

0
0{jj

0.1

0.3

~.5

O!

0.7

0.2

0.3

0_9

0.7

tS

~s

O!

~
C

"'lit.

'V

C
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

E-

r--

0.7

If)

M
0

0.7

,
It

~5

O!

......",

,k

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

02

0.3

0.4

'='

Figure 4.7b

0-"

1..-:: lJ-~

0.1

0.2

0.3

0-"

P,.

*..

0.7

t=- +

~
t-

f-'
0.5

0.3

o........- i,i~

1J.

'"-

11

0.1
0

0.1

"

0.2

"

-+-8 = 2.2

0.3

0.0

0.1
0

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.1

f" I

l'

0.1
0

0.:5

0.3

J:7"

0.5

0.7

.....,

~ :

II
tS

0.7

0.0

cQ)

0.'
0.9

0.'

0.'

0{jj

0.3

0.1
0

0.2

0.'

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.5

~ ~~

t"'?":

0.3

I.d
I-

0.1
0

0-"

0-"

0.3

0.1
0.1

0.3

~ J~ ~

0.5

0.3

II

0.7

0.3

0.2

;,..

1+

0.1

0.0

I.
~
: ./"'. 1--ll

0.5

0.'

0.1

0
0

0.3

...........

II
tS

0.2

1-

V
f--=
:

0.1

0.0

+I

0.1
0

0.'

-'-8 = 5.6

0.3

0.'

0.1

02

03

"
- 8 = 22.4

Mean normalized maximum base shear (2-storey)

63

0-"

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped
~=0.5
0.9

0.9

0.7

~O.5

II

c::
.2
en

0
0

al

i:S

0.3

~V

0.7

c::

0.2

dl

0.3

........

r
T

C"J J-o. s

::l'"

L/

0.3

0.1

0.2

...~

0.5

h-

0.7

0.5

It~ ~
G""

-;,;'

I~

OA

j
~O.5

0.3

"!'

F f"i
0.1

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.3

~.
0.3

11'

0.1
0.2

0.3

0.4

0
0.9

T
.....-

~~5

1-

al

II

:
0.3

~
:

- r

0.5

.I

0.2

0.1

0.2

l'

0.3

0.4

Figure 4.7c

rr

0.1

0.2

'1"::-

r
0

0.1

0.3

0.4

.k:::::: ~

0.2

0.3

0.4

r
...

...-

0.5

0.7

.....- J-*

..I---

0.3

.!.....

-r

'f

0.1
0

0.1

"

0.2

"

-+-8 = 2.2

0.3

AI

l'

'f

0.3

0.4

0.3

-:

0.1
0

0.4

0.9

0.1

1 _~
i"- I'!'""
........

0.1

0.3

0.5

I-

+
r-- :

0.5

Ii
0.1

0.7

0.2

0.1

0.7

al

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.7

0.7

i:S

0.4

07

0.3

0.'

C"J

0.2

~
...,

I~

0.9

0.7

0.9

lJj

0.1

0.9

0.1

f-<

0.3

0.9

c::
0I
c::
.2
en
c::

0.4

I
0

i:S

0.5

0.1

0.3

0.1

II

II

~
0

~
. J~
....

0.3

.i..

lJj

i:S

0.5

0.7

0.9

0.1

l'
+

c::

0
en

0.1

0.9

UI

0.9

0.7

0.1

f-<

Lf'

en

8E

Bilinear

~ = l.0

-+-8 = 5.6

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

"
-8=22.4

Mean normalized maximum base shear (4-storey)

64

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JR. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

B= 0.5
0.9

0.9

0.9

0.7

0.7

0.7

~-o.s

0.5

0
0

II

c:

cil

...-7

0.3

0
en
en

eE

0.1
0

~~

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.9

UI

t
~~ -4-.i.
t

0
0

lrl

Ii

C'! ~O.5
0

cil

I---

II
~

''-

0.3

0.1
0

0
0

II
~

0.2

II\'

T
-i.-- ~ r

0.5

0.7

~
1

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.7

~O.5

0.5

OS

.....

~-- ~

~
~

:
t'
~ .......

0.7

1'-'

0.1
0.1

0.3

!
0

~
.,.....

r,

0.5

t-:: P 1
T

0.3

0.'1

0.3

0.9

0.1
0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

]
cil
0.3

II _ ~

0.1

0.2

0.3

~ rv I'
0

0.1
0.4

0.3

~ rt"
0

0.1

0.3

11- ~

0.2

0.3

0.7

0.4

II
0.3

0.1
0

0.1

0.5

0.7

'-

0.2

03

...-

0.3

0.1
0.4

0.1

Figure 4.7d

r-

02
~

--+-8 = 2.2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

f t t k1T
J *::= ~
1 i'
.1.

0.5

i--'

r r-

0.9

0.7

cil

....i.

r
t
r I
+ t

~i1.5

0.1

0.9

c:

0.'1

03

0.7

0.9

M
0

0.2

0.1
0.1

0.9

0.1

lrl

~.b

0.3

0.9

c:

E-

0.9

.iii

0.7

}:;Fl"~

0I
c:

1-

0.7

c:

0.9

c:

.iii

0.1

0.1

0.5

.A

0.3

if

E-

Bilinear

B= 1.0

-+-8 = 5.6

'!'"

i--'

"-'

0.3

0.1
0.3

0.4

0.1

'!'

0.2

0.3

--8 = 22.4

Mean normalized maximum base shear (8-storey)

65

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

4.2.7

ABSORBED ENERGY

Detailed Observations:
Figures 4.8a-d show mean normalized absorbed energy (no units). As previously
discussed, absorbed energy was normalized using the amount of work required to
laterally yield the single-storey unbraced frame used in this study. Absorbed energy
decreased for increasing values of 11 and
In all cases,

e, and in most cases, decreased for increasing a.

had no effect on absorbed energy. Absorbed energy was the same for the

flag-shaped and bilinear cases except for the T-O case with large 11, where absorbed
energy was less for the bilinear case. The amount of absorbed energy was lower for the
frames with T-C braces compared to the T-0 case accept for very small.." where it
tended to be similar for both of these cases. Absorbed energy tended to increase for
increasing number of storeys. The sensitivity of both.., and

e on absorbed energy tended

to remain constant as the number of storeys increased.

Overall Behaviour:
Increasing

e or a was generally most effective in reducing absorbed energy.

The

T-C braces were, in most cases, more effective in reducing absorbed energy than the T-O
braces. The braces with flag-shaped hystereses were just as effective in reducing
absorbed energy as the braces with bilinear hystereses.

66

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

0
II

Bilinear

B= 1.0

P=O.5

""

40

""

30

30

30

]20

l"\r-.'--

is

.B
<

.......

10

0
0V;

""'-

VJ
tl)

t:::

10

""'-

'-

0.1

01

0.3

0.4

VJ

30

30

C"'!

II

i<

t'\ r-r--..

10

~ 1-..&

r-- N

0
0

40

l::"-.....

20

40

UI

~'

~ t-<

20

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.4

40

tl)

t-<

<r)

]20

20

'-

.........

'0

r-

'""'"

r--

10

I':---

r--

r-I~

0.'

02

0.3

0.4

10

0.1

0.2

0.3

OA

0
40

30

30

30

~
20

]20

............

10--

10

10

10

0.1

20

.B
<

.2
VJ

0.1

01

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

40

40

40

30

30

30

0.2

r--.:::: r-- rr-,

~
--..
l-

c
0I

r--

40

t---.

I""""

40

'"'""--

.........

r-

0
0

II

20

~I

r--.

0
0

30

0.1

0.2

'i

0.3

0.4

tl)

t-<
<r)

N
0

II
~

]20

20

20

t--

<
10

10

0
0

0.1

02

0.3

0.4

~
10

l!-

Figure 4.8a

r-

r-- t-""-

r.

0
0

0.1

"
-+-8 = 2.2

t--

P--

0.2

"
-+-8 = 5.6

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

"
-8=22.4

Mean normalized absorbed energy (l-storey)

67

0.3

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

p =0.5

Bilinear

P= 1.0

40

40

40

30

30

30

0
II

c:: t3

'"

<
10

CIl
CIl
<l)

e-E

1\ .............. "'-

:-....

10

r--- N

c::
<l)

li")

C'J
0

II

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.4
40

30

30

"".............

]20

<

t3

0
0.3

0.4

40

30

II
t3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

r---

10

..............

':---

0.3

0.4

03

0.4

'='--

0.1

0.2

03

0.4

40

30

30

'---

0.1

0.2

~ .....

"" :--::
~

20

10

10

~
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

10

.S
CIl

0.2

........

'---

40

20

<

c::

0.1

............

c::

-J

I'

]20

0I

30

20

--

r--0.2

...........

~H

",I
r-...

10

0.1

"--

W
10

--

10

r-t

40

20

0
0

I',r--- .....

0
0

40

.S
CIl

'"

r-t

20

r--

0
0

UI
c::

20

E-

--

]20

"""-

r-<

~N

.....N

0.1

0.2

0.3

OA

40

40

40

30

30

30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

c::

<l)

ElI")

N
0

II
t3

'---

]20

r---

'--

20

'--

i'-.....

20

r---

r--

<
10

10

10

II
0

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0
0

0.1

"
---8 = 2.2
Figure 4.8b

0.2

"
-'-8 = 5.6

0.3

0.4

.....
'---

0.1

"'-

0.2

"
-8=22.4

Mean normalized absorbed energy (2-storey)

68

-.

0.3

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped

p = 0.5

e
e
II
C
0

Bilinear

B= 1.0

'0

.0

'0

JO

JO

JO

j
:f0

1
<

f:::::

"'-

10

~~

20

"r-,

.....

10

20

7\--"'- t"I~

""-

10

{/)

{/)

9E

0
0

UI

0.1

0.2

O.J

0.4

0
0

.0

'0

JO

JO

0.1

{/)

0.2

O.J

0.'

0.1

0.2

O.J

0.4

02

OJ

0.4

'0

.2

I--;

JO

E-< <n .

C"!

]20

e 1
II <
0

r-.

10

20

............

t-.

t-

10

r--;

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

JO

0.1

0.2

OJ

.0

JO

JO

II
0

li-

]20

10

0I

0.1

0.2

O.J

20

I'...

10

10

II

D.

20

0
0

0.1

.....
~

1>:c

.2

0.'

10

r--

.0

....

.g

r--...

0
0

0.'

'0

e
e

20

....,

l-

r--- h

r--

0
0

0.1

0.2

O.J

0.4

'0

.0

'0

JO

JO

JO

0.1

0.2

O.J

0.'

{/)

c
v

E-<
<n

C"!

20

e 1
<
II
0

Ui

1'0

t:..::::

20

--J-

II-

10

I'---

10

10

0
0

0.1

0.2

O.J

0.4

0
0

0.1

"
~e=2.2

Figure 4.8c

r-

0.2

"
~e=5.6

O.J

0.4

0.1

0.2

"
~e=22.4

Mean normalized absorbed energy (4-storey)

69

O.J

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Flag-Shaped
.0

0
0

~
'"]20

\I ]<
0

.0

'\

30

40

\1

30

"'---

I.::::::

Bilinear

3 = 1.0

3 = 0.5

:-.........

30

'r:=:=

P'---r-.
20

-I-

10

"--

--

20

t-

10

F---

10

Vi

en

<I)

5-

E
0

0
0

0.2

0.'

0.3

'0

UI

0
0

0.'

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.'

0.2

0.'

0.3

0.4

03

0.4

40

'0

0
en

30

t-

30

;;;

<I)
l)

C'!
0

\I
0

]20

...............

<
10

30

P--

"-

.....,
20

...........
20

.....,

r--

t10

10

i
0

0
0

02

0.'

0.3

0.4

.0

0.2

0.'

0.3

O.

.0

30

0
0

0
0

l(

]20

r-

0.1

0.2

40

rf'--.-.

30

30

V
or

I'

20

20

E:::::: ~ ..
r-:::

r---...::

II ]<

10

>,

10

.2
en

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0
0

0.'

10

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.'

.0

.0

.0

30

30

30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

<I)

t-

r---.

~
l)
C"l ~
]20

II
0

r-...

"-

20

20

10

10

"--'"--

r-<

1<
10

0
0

0.'

0.2

0.3

"
~8=2.2

Figure 4.8d

0.'

0
0

0.1

0.2

"
---'-8 = 5.6

0.3

0.'

0.'

0.2

"
--8=22.4

Mean normalized absorbed energy (8-storey)

70

0.3

0.4

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

4.3

RESULTS FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSES

4.3.1

FRAME BEHAVIOUR
As an example, Figure 4.9 illustrates the final pre-collapse state of a palticular 4-

storey frame with T-C braces during its pushover analysis. The deflected shape shown is
exaggerated five times. The lateral loading at this final state was 75kN, 150kN, 225kN,
and 300kN at the top of the first, second, third, and fourth storeys, respectively. The dots
on the braces indicate that axial yielding has occurred while those on the columns and
beams indicate flexural yielding or hinging. For this particular analysis, the sequence of
yielding was as follows: [1] braces at the two lower storeys, [2] braces at the third storey,
[3] braces at the fourth storey, [4] beam at the second storey, [5] column bases at the first
storey, [6] beam at the third storey, and [7] beam at the fourth storey. The final hinge
formation (not shown on the figure) that created a collapse state was hinging of the tops
of the second storey columns.

71

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

300kN

[7]

Figure 4.9

225kN

Final pushover state of 4-storey frame with T-C braces, 11=0.12, 9=5.6,
and a.=0.0. Sequence of brace yielding and hinge formation is shown in
square brackets.

72

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Figures 4.10a-d show the normalized lateral load (or equivalently, normalized
base shear), in terms of frame weight, versus mean normalized interstorey drift plots. In
these analyses, there was no flag-shaped or bilinear case and so each model was uniquely
described using only the a, 11, and 8 parameters. Each of the three columns in the figures
represents a different value for 8 and each of the four lines on each plot represents a
different

l(

value. In general, the first yield was characterized by yielding of the braces,

and subsequent yields were characterized by the flexural hinging in the columns and
beams. However, the sequence in which the plastic hinges yielded became increasingly
complicated as the number of storeys - and hence the number of plastic hinges increased.

The lateral stiffness and lateral force capacity apparent from the pushover curves
tended to decrease with increasing number of storeys. Virtually all of the frames
containing elasto-plastic braces (a=O.O) were able to fully develop their collapse
mechanisms before the ultimate interstorey drift of 3%, at anyone storey, or ultimate
lateral load of 1.6W was reached. The shorter frames containing braces with post-yield
stiffness (a=0.25) generally reached, or came close to reaching, a mean drift over all
storeys of 3% or 1.6W lateral load. However, the taller frames containing braces with

a=0.25 did not reach such limits. The termination of the pushover analyses for the taller
frames with a=0.25 braces generally occurred when the interstorey drift at one particular
level reached 3%. The interstorey drift at this level was thus the maximum experienced
at any level and so the average interstorey drift at the termination of the analysis was

73

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

always less than 3%. However, in the case of the 8-storey frames with T-C braces and
0.=0.25, virtually all of the pushover analyses terminated when the columns at the lowermost storey reached their axial load capacity.

74

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

8=2.2

0
0

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

J.o 8
~.

\I
0

0.4

CIl
CIl
<l)

Q
E
0

0.0

,-

0.8

,-

0..

J::::

ciI

P
0.0

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

1.2

<l)
l)

../'

~ ~O.8
0 ciI

\I
0

0.4

0.0

\I
0

~ ~~

0.0

~
0

0.0

1.2

0.6

0.4

0.0
2.4

1.8

3.0

2.4

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

1.2

1.8

2.4

1.0

0.8

0.4

'I

0.0
0.0

3.0

0.0

1.2

0.0
1.8

~ ::::.
~

1.6

~
rI'

1.2

0.8

0.4

1.2

0.6

...-

0.8

~ ::::.
,~

1.6

C
0
CIl

...-

0.0

0.6

1.6

UI

t-

8=22.4

8=5.6

1.6

1.2

0.6

24

1.8

3.0

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.2

12

~O.8

0.8

0.8

]
OJ
04

c
0

00

~
0.0

C
0

0.6

04

00

1.2

1.8

2..

1.0

1/
0.0

04

"""..

00

1.2

0.6

2.4

1.8

1.0

0.0

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.2

I.Z

1.2

0.6

CIl

<l)

t-

l)

~08

~
0 OJ

\I
0

04

00

V
0.0

06

0.4

0.0

1.2
18
Intcrstorey Drift ("'/.)

--+-T\=O.03
Figure 4.10a

2.4

3.0

.-

0.8

04

I
0.0

0.8

00
1.8
I.Z
Inlerstorey Drift (~.)

0.6

-&-T\=O.12

2.4

3.0

-T\=O.21

/
0.0

~'"
0.6

"

rtf"

12
1.8
lnterstorc)'Driftl%)

-&!r-

24

30

T\=O.34

Normalized base shear vs. mean normalized interstorey

drift (I-storey)

75

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

8=2.2

II

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

0.4

.9
CIl
CIl
<l)

0.0

0.0

,.....
~

0.'

t ....--

1.8

l.O

2A

1.6

. / ....

1.2

<l)

lr)

d5

~ ~O.8

-./~

A~

II
i:!

0.'

0.0

II

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.'

l.O

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.'

l.O

0.0

0.

1.2

1.8

2..

l.O

1.2

1.8

2"

l.O

1.2

0.8

0.'

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.'

l.O

1.2

1.2

~O.8

0.8

0.8

0.0
1.6

1.2

d5

00

0.0

s::
0
'Vi
s::
<l)
E-<

0 .

0'

00

1.2

1.8

l.O

2A

0.0

0'

00

0.6

1.2

1.8

2"

l.O

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

j
~O.8

0.8

OA

0.0

I
0.0

0..

r'"

0.0
06

1.2

1.8

lnterstorey Drift (%)

-'-11=0.03
Figure 4.10b

2.'

lO

0.4

1I
0.0

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

lnlerstorey Drift (%)

-&-11=0.12

2.'

0.6

08

t1I!!!J'

d5

~
0.0

1.6

II
i:!

lO

2A

1.8

I..

~
s::

0.'

1.2

I..

0'

0.8

0.6

1.6

i:!

lr)

If
0.0

c:
0

1.2

~
~
~

Ir'

!""""-

0.0
0.0

t ~
I""'"'

,....

0.'

~~

10'

.9
CIl

0.8

0.0

1.2

0.6

1.6

UI
s::

s::
E-<

....

1/

0.8

i"'""'"

d5

s:: i:!

8=22.4

1.6

5
~O.8

0
0

8=5.6

1.6

l.O

-11=0.21

~~

.....A

V
0.0

0.

1.2

1.8

lnlerstorey Drift (%)

2.'

l.O

-6-11=0.34

Normalized base shear vs. mean normalized interstorey

drift (2-storey)

76

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

8=2.2

II

1.6

1.2

1.1

1.2

~O.8

0.8

0.8

cB

I:S

0.4

.2
CIl
CIl
<I)

0.0

t
,.
~
0.0

0.4

1.2

0.6

1.8

2-'

3.0

./

1.2

<I)
lr)

C"'!

]
~O.8

ell

II
I:S

0.4

0.0

/.

-t

0.0

II

0.'

~ """""

0.0

0.0

1.2

0.6

1.6

C
0

'00

0.0

1.6

UI

f-<

8=22.4

1.6

0
C

8=5.6

1.6

06

~ ~~

1.2

1.2

1.8

2.'

3.0

2.4

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2A

3.0

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2-'

3.0

1.2

1.8

2-'

3.0

1.2

0.8

0.8

0.'

0.'

3.0

1.6

0.0

0."
1.8

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.'

3.0

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.2

L~

1.2

~O.8

0.8

0.8

]
ell

I:S

04

c
0I

00

~~
0.0

C
0

0.6

04

00
1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

0.0

0.6

04

00
1.2

1.8

2.'

3.0

It*
0.0

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

~O.8

0.8

0.6

'00
C

<I)

f-<
lr)

C'!

]
ell

.- Ii

II
I:S

0-'

0.'

0.0

/
00

~
0.0
0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

0.8

-~

Figure 4.10c

:;;-'

0'

0.0

0.6

00

1.2
1.8
Interslorey Drill (%)

IntersloreyDrift(%)

-+-T]=0.03

.,.,

~.!t.

-e-T]=0.12

2.'

30

-T]=0.21

'"

.....

I;

I
0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

24

3.0

Interstorey Drift (%)

-.!r-T]=0.34

Normalized base shear vs. mean normalized interstorey

drift (4-storey)

77

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

8=2.2

II

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

01

0.4

'r;;
{/)

eE

8=22.4

1.6

!i
~O.8

0
0

8=5.6

1.6

<I)

0.0

t
0.0

UI

~
",...

0.8

...

o.~

0.0
0.6

1.8

1.2

3.0

2A

/.

0.8

,,-r-"...

0.'

It;0.0

0.6

_____ f06

/.

",..

~I"""

0.0
1.2

1.8

2.'

3.0

0.0

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.'

0.6

1.2

1.8

2A

3.0

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

1.2

1.8

2A

3.0

2.4

3.0

C
0
{/)

~ ~~

<I)

E-<

V)

C"'1 ~O.8

Ol

II
~

O.

00

~~ ~

00

.",

0.0

06

1.8

1.2

2.~

3.0

0.0
0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.'

3.0

JU

,I
0.0

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

~O.8

0.8

0.8

0.6

0
0

II

0.'

c
0
c
.2

0.0

~
0.0

0.4

!!!!'"

0.0

0.6

I.,

1.2

2A

3.0

..~
0.0

o.

0.0

0.6

1.2

2.4

1.8

3.0

~
0.0

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

~O.8

0.'

0.8

0.6

{/)

<I)

E-<
V)

j
01

II
~

0.'

0.0

~
0.0

lIP"""

0.6

0.4

IIIIII!

0.0
1.8
lnterstoreyDrift(.'Y,)
1.2

~T\=O.03

Figure 4.10d

2.4

3.0

O.

II!!!'>

l/
0.0

00

0.6

1.2
1.8
Intcrstorey Drift (%)

~T\=O.12

2.'

3.0

-T\=O.21

l/
0.0

0.6

"""".

1.8
1.2
InterstoreyDrift(%)

--.!r-T\=O.34

Normalized base shear vs. mean normalized interstorey

drift (8-storey)

78

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

4.3.2

EFFECT OF PARAMETERS

Detailed Observations:
As seen in Figures 4.1 Oa-d, mean normalized interstorey drift decreased and
normalized base shear increased for increasing values of 11. For a=O.O, 8 had little effect
on interstorey drift or base shear except for large 11 where interstorey drift decreased and
base shear increased for increasing 8. For a=O.25, interstorey drift decreased and base
shear increased for increasing 8. Interstorey drift decreased and base shear increased for
increasing a. Interstorey drift was lower for the frames with T-C braces and base shear
was lower for the frames with T-O braces except for the a=O.O case with small 11 where
drift and base shear were essentially the same for the frames with T-C and T-O braces. In
most cases, interstorey drift and base shear tended to decrease for increasing number of
storeys. For a=O.O, the sensitivity of interstorey drift and base shear to 11 remained
constant with increasing 8 and number of storeys; while for a=O.25, the sensitivity of
interstorey drift and base shear to 11 decreased with increasing

e and number of storeys.

Interstorey drift and base shear was also less sensitive to 11 and 8 for the T-0 case
compared to the T-C case.

Overall Behaviour:
For a=O.O, increasing 11 was most effective in minimizing interstorey drift; while
for a=0.25, increasing 8 was most effective in minimizing interstorey drift. For a=O.O,
decreasing 11 was most effective in minimizing base shear; while for a=O.25, decreasing 8
was most effective in minimizing base shear drift. The T-C braces were more effective in

79

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

reducing interstorey drifts than the T-0 braces, and the T-0 braces were more effective in
reducing base shear compared to the T-C braces.

4.4

SUMMARY
Table 4.1 contains a summary of the results from the NLTHA. It was found that

had little or no effect on response. However, increasing

did result in a minor

reduction in storey acceleration. In most cases, increasing a, r1, or e decreased interstorey

drift, residual interstorey drift, column ductility demand, beam ductility demand, and
absorbed energy. However, increasing a, 11, or e also had the effect of increasing
acceleration and base shear. The responses of the frames with flag-shaped hysteretic
braces, as measured by these response indices, were very similar to those frames with the
bilinear hysteretic braces - in both magnitude and trend. However, the frames with
bilinear braces tended to have lower storey accelerations. Also, a notable advantage
inherent in the flag-shaped case was that these frames exhibited lower residual drifts.
These residual interstorey drifts were actually close to zero in many cases. The T-O
braces only exhibited a one-sided hysteresis with zero stiffness in compression - hence
limiting their effectiveness. In most cases, the frames with T-O braces did not perform as
well as the frames with T-C braces; however, the storey accelerations and base shears for
the frames with T-0 braces were less than in their T-C counterparts. Response index
values tended to decrease for increasing number of storeys except for storey acceleration
and absorbed energy where responses tended to increase for increasing number of
storeys.

80

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Table 4.1

Summary of NLTHA Results

Effect of Increasing Parameter Values on Response

Indices
Response
Index

[I]
Maximum
Interstorey
Drift
[2]
Residual
Interstorey
Drift
[3]
Column
Ductility
Demand
[4]
Beam
Ductility
Demand
[5]
Storey
Acceleration

J3

(minor
reduction)

[6]
Base
Shear

[7]
Absorbed
Energy

Symbols:

*
F

B
F=B
T-C>T-O

*
~

*
~

*
~

t t t F

F=B
T-C>T-O

F>B
T-C>T-O
(F:::::O in most
cases)

F=B
T-C>T-O

F=B
T-C>T-O

B>F
T-O>T-C

* *

t t - t

u=O.O u=O.25 u=O.O u=O.25

*
~

Effectiveness
ofF, B, T-C,
and T-O in
Reducing
Response
Index

F=B
T-O>T-C

F=B
T-C>T-O

Decrease for an increase in response parameter

Most influential hysteretic parameter in reducing response index
No effect
Flag-shaped system
Bilinear system
Means flag-shaped system was as effective as bilinear system in reducing response index
Means T-C system was more effective than T-O system in reducing response index

81

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Table 4.2 contains a summary of the results from pushover analyses. In most
cases, interstorey drift decreased and base shear increased for increasing values of a, 11,
and 8. Interstorey drift was lower for the frames with T-C braces and base shear was
lower for the frames with T-O braces. Interstorey drift and base shear tended to
decreased for increasing number of storeys. Results indicated that most of the inelastic
behaviour in the frames occurred after the braces yielded but before the columns or
beams yielded.

In terms of interstorey drift and base shear, the pushover analyses gave a good
representation of what happened in the NLTHA. The effect that the parameters had on
these quantities was very similar for both types of analyses. The pushover analyses
indicated that 8 had little effect on interstorey drift for a=O.O - particularly for small
values of 11. However, this trend was less evident from the NLTHA results. A particular
limitation of the pushover analyses was their inability to explore other response indices
dependant on full hystereses.

82

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Table 4.2

Pushover
Quantity

Summary of Pushover Results

Effect of Increasing Parameter Values on Pushover

Quantity

[1]
Interstorey
Drift

[2]
Base
Shear

11

u=O.O u=O.25

*
t
~=O.O

u=O.O

u=O.25

*
t

u=O.25 u=O.O

u=O.25

83

Effectiveness
ofT-C and T-O
in Reducing
Pushover
Quantity

T-C>T-O

T-O>T-C

MA.Sc. Thesis - J.B. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

CONCLUSIONS

5.1

NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

The responses of the frames were more significantly affected by 11 and

compared to u

and~.

It was also observed that

had little effect on response. Increasing

u, 11, or e tended to decrease interstorey drift, residual interstorey drift, column ductility
demand, beam ductility demand, and absorbed energy. However, increasing u, 11, or e
also had the effect of increasing acceleration and base shear. The responses of the frames
with flag-shaped hysteretic braces, as measured by drift, column ductility, beam ductility,
base shear, and absorbed energy, were very similar to those frames with the bilinear
hysteretic braces. However, the frames with bilinear braces tended to have lower storey
accelerations, and the frames with flag-shaped braces tended to have lower residual drifts.
The frames with T-O braces, in most cases, did not perform as well as the frames with TC braces. However, the frames with T-O braces were more effective in reducing storey
accelerations and base shears. For the frames in this study, response index values tended
to decrease for increasing number of storeys except for storey acceleration and absorbed
energy where responses tended to increase for increasing number of storeys.

The version of the program Ruaumoko used in this study did not have a
graphical user interface. It required the user to create and manipulate several files both
for input and output. The prior development of an adequate programme would serve to
greatly ease file management.

84

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

5.2

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
As with the NLTHA,

(x,

lj,

and 8 were the dominant factors affecting drift and

base shear in the pushover analyses. Interstorey drift tended to decrease and base shear to
increase for increasing values of (X,lj, and 8. Interstorey drift was lower for the frames
with T-C braces and base shear was lower for the frames with T-O braces. Interstorey
drift tended to increase and base shear to decrease for increasing number of storeys.
Typically, the first yield was characterized by yielding of the braces, and subsequent
yields were characterized by the flexural yielding of the columns and beams. The trends
observed in pushover analyses were the same as those observed in the NLTHA.

In this study, the range of parameter values was defined prior to conducting any
pushover analyses. The prior use of relatively simple pushover tests would result in a
better understanding of overall behaviour and general effect of certain parameters. It
would also serve to help define useful parameter ranges.

5.3

SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
In this study, the seismic responses of frames were modified through the use of

chevron braces of varied description. The following are conclusions regarding the
overall behaviour and utility of such braces in enhancing seismic performance:

I. The hysteretic seismic behaviour of chevron braced frames is largely

governed by the backbone curve of the brace hystereses. This was evidenced
85

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

by the strong effect that a, 11, and

e, and the very weak affect that ~, had on the

response.

2. In general, the flag-shaped and bilinear brace systems performed with equal
efficiency in controlling the seismic response of the frame structures.
However, the flag-shaped braces were found to be more effective in reducing
residual interstorey drifts and the bilinear braces were more effective in
reducing accelerations. This suggests that mixed bracing systems may be
used to advantage, where flag-shaped braces could be used to control residual
displacements and bilinear braces to reduce accelerations.

3. T-C braces are generally more effective than T-0 braces in enhancing seismic
performance. However, T-O braces were more effective in reducing storey
acceleration and base shear. In this study, the frames with T-O braces had a
resultant lower lateral stiffness - suggesting that T-0 braces of sufficient
stiffness could be used to garner similar responses offered by T-C braces.

86

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

FUTURE WORK
At various points throughout the process of completing this thesis, many potential

new directions for this work became apparent. The following are suggestions for future
work:

1. Much related work has been performed using the concentric, or chevron,
bracing arrangement as was the case in this thesis. Other common bracing
arrangements could be examined such as diagonal bracing.

2. In this study, the a parameter was simply a proportion of the initial stiffness,
8, and thus dependent on it. a could be defined independent of 8 allowing, for
example, the possibility of a high initial stiffness with low non-zero postelastic stiffness.

3. The plastic hinges of the given members in this study had constant properties.
Theses could be varied to study their effect on response.

4. Four unique single-bay frames, used in at least one other study, were chosen
for use in this study. Different frame members and frames could be studied.

87

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

5. The hysteretic models used in this study were very simple. More
sophisticated hystereses could be used for materials like steel and SMA, and
devices containing them, in order to study their effect on response.

6. Records here were all far-field records. Another set of records could be used
to study near-field effects.

7. The parameters used in this study were kept constant at each storey level.
Different parameter values could be used on different floors to optimize
response.

88

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

REFERENCES

Andrawes, B., McCormick, J., and Desroches, R. (2004). Effect of Cyclic Modeling
Parameters on the Behavior of Shape Memory Alloys for Seismic Applications.
Proceedings ofSPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering, Smart
Structures and Materials 2004 - Smart Structures and Integrated Systems, v 5390,
p 324-334.
Andrawes, B., and DesRoches, R. (2005). Effect of Ambient Temperature on the
Performance of Shape Memory Alloy Seismic Devices. Proceedings ofSPIE The International Society for Optical Engineering, Smart Structures and
Materials 2005 - Smart Structures and Integrated Systems, v 5764, p 451-459.
Andrawes, B., and DesRoches, R. (2007). Effect of Hysteretic Propelties of
Superelastic Shape Memory Alloys on the Seismic Performance of Structures.
Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2007, v 14, p 301-320.
Andreasen, G. F. (1977). Method and System for Orthodontic Moving of Teeth. United
States Patent Office, U.S. Patent 4,037,374.
Auricchio, F., Fugazza, D., and DesRoches, R. (2006). Earthquake Performance of
Steel Frames with Nitinol Braces. Journal ofEarthquake Engineering, v 10, n S 1,
p 45-66.
Auricchio, F., Fugazza, D., and DesRoches, R. (2007). A 10 Rate-Dependent Viscous
Constitutive Model for Superelastic Shape-Memory Alloys: Formulation and
Comparison with Experimental Data. Smart Materials and Structures, Institute of
Physics Publishing, v 16, S39-S50.
Bartera, F., and Giacchetti, R. (2004). Steel Dissipating Braces for Upgrading Existing
Building Frames. Journal ofConstructional Steel Research, v 60, n 3-5, p 751769.
Bondonet, G., and Filiatrault, A. (1996). Shape-Memory Alloys for Seismic Isolation
of Bridges. Proceedings of 11 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
June 23-28, Acapulco, Mexico, paper 1443.
Boroschek, R. L., Farias, G., Moroni, 0., and Sarrazin, M. (2007). Effect of SMA
Braces in a Steel Frame Building. Journal ofEarthquake Engineering, v 11, n 3, p
326-342.
Bostock, J., Riley, H. T. (1855). Pliny the Elder, The Natural History (English
Translation), Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London.

89

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Bruno, S., and Valente, C. (2002). Comparative Response Analysis of Conventional and
Innovative Seismic Protection Strategies. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, v 31, n 5, p 1067-1092.
Buckle, I. G. (2000). Passive Control of Structures for Seismic Loads. 1i h World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE), January 30 - February 4,
Auckland, New Zealand.
Buckle, I. G., and Mayes, R. L. (1990). Seismic Isolation: History, Application, and
Performance - A World View. Earthquake Spectra. v 6, n 2, p 161-201.
Buehler, W. J., and Wiley, R. C. (1965). Nickel-Base Alloys. United States Patent
Office, U.S. Patent 3,174,851.
Carr, A. J. (2007). Ruaumoko, Inelastic Dynamic Analysis Program. Department of
Civil Engineering, University ofCanterbury. Christchurch, New Zealand.
Castellano, M. G., Indirli, M., and Martelli, A. (2001). Progress of Application,
Research and Development and Design Guidelines for Shape Memory Alloy
Devices for Cultural Heritage Structures in Italy. Proceedings ofSPIE - The
International Society for Optical Engineering, v 4330, p 250-261.
Cavaglieri, G. (1936). Earthquake Protected Building Construction, United States Patent
Office, U.S. Patent 2,035,143.
Choi, J.-H., and Ohi, K. (2006). Sub Structure On-Line Tests on Braced Frames with
Self-Returning Joint Mechanism. Proceedings ofSPIE - The International Society
for Optical Engineering, Smart Structures and Materials 2006 - Smart Structures
and Integrated Systems, v 6173.
Christopoulos, c., and Filiatrault, A. (2003). Post-Tensioned Energy Dissipating
(PTED) Steel Frames for Seismic Regions. Proceedings ofthe 2003 ASCEISEI
Structures Congress and Exposition: Engineering Smarter, p 155-157.
Christopoulos, c., and Filiatrault, A. (2006). Principles of Passive Supplemental
Damping and Seismic Isolation. IUSS Press (Editor), 480 p.
Christopoulos, c., Filiatrault, A., and Folz, B. (2002). Seismic Response of SelfCentring Hysteretic SDOF Systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, v 31,p 1131-1150.

90

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Christopoulos, c., Kim, H.-J., Tremblay, R, and Lacerte, M. (2006). An Innovative

Bracing Member with Flag-Shape Hysteretic Response for Enhanced Structural
Seismic Performance. Proceedings ofthe 5th International Conference on
Behaviour ofSteel Structures in Seismic Areas - Stessa 2006, p 197-203.
Christopoulos, c., Tremblay, R, Kim, H.-J., and Lacerte, M. (2008). Self-Centering
Energy Dissipative Bracing System for the Seismic Resistance of Structures:
Development and Validation. Journal ofStructural Engineering, v 134, n I, P 96107.
Constantinou, M. C., Soong, T. T., Dargush, G. F. (1998). Passive Energy Dissipation
Systems for Structural Design and Retrofit. MCEER, University at Buffalo, New
York, 297 p.
Computers and Structures Inc (CSI). (2009). SAP2000. Berkeley, CA.
DesRoches, R (1999). Seismic Mitigation of Bridges Using Smart Restrainers.
Proceedings ofSPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering,
Bellingham, Washington, v 3671, P 11-20.
DesRoches, R, and Andrawes, B. (2002). Seismic Retrofit of Bridges Using Shape
Memory Alloy Restrainers. Proceedings of3rd National Seismic Conference &
Workshop on Bridges & Highways, April 28-May 1, Portland, Oregon, p 43-52.
DesRoches, R, and Delemont, M. (2002). Seismic Retrofit of Simply Supported
Bridges Using Shape Memory Alloys. Engineering Structures, v 24, p 325-332.
Dolce, M., and Cardone, D. (2001)a. Mechanical Behavior of Shape Memory Alloys for
Seismic Applications: 1. Martensite and Austenite NiTi Bars Subjected to
Torsion, International Journal ofMechanical Sciences, v 43, p 2631-2656.
Dolce, M., and Cardone, D. (2001)b. Mechanical Behavior of Shape Memory Alloys for
Seismic Applications: 2. Austenite NiTi Wires Subjected to Tension,
International Journal ofMechanical Sciences, v 43, p 2657-2677.
Dolce, M., and Cardone, D. (2006). Theoretical and Experimental Studies for the
Application of Shape Memory Alloys in Civil Engineering. Journal of
Engineering Materials and Technology, Transactions ofthe ASME, v 128, n 3, p
302-311.
Dolce, M., Cardone, D., and Marnetto, R (2000). Implementation and Testing of
Passive Control Devices Based on Shape Memory Alloys. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, v 29, n 7, p 945-968.

91

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Dolce, M., Cardone, D., Ponzo, F. c., and Valente, C. (2005). Shaking Table Tests on
Reinforced Concrete Frames Without and With Passive Control Systems.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, v 34, n 14, p 1687-1717.
Driessen, J. M. (1987). Earthquake-Resistant Construction and the Wrath of the "EarthShaker". The Journal ofthe Society ofArchitectural Historians, v 46, n 2, p 171178.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2000). Prestandard and
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA, Washington,
DC, n 356.
FIB TG7.4 Seismic Design and Assessment Procedures for Bridges. (2005). Structural
Solutions for Bridge Seismic Design and Retrofit - A State of the Art. 6th Meeting,
Kobe, Japan. http://seismic.cv.titech.ac.jp/committee/FIB/6th meeting.html.
Graesser, E. J., and Cozzarelli, F. A. (1991). Shape-Memory Alloys as New Materials
for Seismic Isolation, Journal ofEngineering Mechanics, v 117, p 2590-2608.
Gulkan, P., and Langenbach, R. (2004). The Earthquake Resistance of Traditional
Timber and Masonry Dwellings in Turkey. 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering August 1-6, Vancouver, BC, Canada, n 2297.
Hodgson, D. E. (2002). Damping Applications of Shape Memory Alloys. Materials
Science Forum, v 394-395, p 69-74.
Holmes, W. T. (2000). 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings and Other Structures. Earthquake Spectra, v 16, n 1, p 101114.
Indirli, M., Castellano, M. G., Clemente, P., and Martelli, A. (2001). DemoApplication of Shape Memory Alloy Devices: The Rehabilitation of the S.
Giorgio Church Bell-Tower. Proceedings ofSPIE - The International Society for
Optical Engineering, v 4330, p 262-272.
Iyer, M., Kiranmayi, L., Chandrasekhar, A. S., and Sivakumar, S. M. (2009).
Analysis for Damping in Structures Braced with Superelastic SMA Wires.
Journal ofStructural Engineering (Madras), v 36, n 2, p 106-113.
Jackson, C. M., Wagner, H. J., and Wasilewski, R. J. (1972). 55-Nitinol- The Alloy
With a Memory: Its Physical Metallurgy, Properties, and Applications.
Technology Utilization Office National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Washington, DC, p 86.

92

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Jones, C. B. (1954). Earthquake Resistant Concrete Structure. United States Patent

Office, U.S. Patent 2,690,074.
Kaigler, N. B., Hochstein, S. L., and Maple, J. A. (1979). Aboveground Sliding
Support Assembly for a Pipeline. Canadian Patent Office, Canadian Patent
1,056,790.
Kam, W. Y., Pampanin, S., Palermo, A., and Carr, A. J. (2006). Advanced FlagShaped Systems for High Seismic Performance. First European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (ajoint event ojthe 13th ECEE & 30th
General Assembly oj the ESC) September 3-8, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kauffmann, G. B., and Mayo, I. (1993). The Metal with a Memory. Invention and
Technology Magazine. v 9, i 2.
Kauffmann, G. B., and Mayo, I. (1993). Memory Metal. Chem Matters Magazine. p 4-7
Kienzle, P. (1998). Conservation and Reconstruction at the Palace of Minos at Knossos.
DPhil Thesis, IAAS, York, UK, p 117-135.
Krawinkler, H., Parisi, F., Ibarra, L., Ayoub, A. and Medina, R A. (2000).
Development of a Testing Protocol for Woodframe Structures. CUREE
Publication, Richmond CA, No.W-02.
Krumme, R, Hayes, J., and Sweeney, S. (1995). Structural Damping with ShapeMemory Alloys: One Class of Device. Proceedings ojSPIE-The International
Society jor Optical Engineering, Smart Structures and Materials: Passive
Damping, March 1-2, San Diego, CA, v 2445, P 225-240.
Kunde, M. C., and Jangid, R S. (2003). Seismic Behavior of Isolated Bridges: A-Stateof-the-A11 Review. Electronic Journal ojStructural Engineering, v 3, p 140-170.
Lafortune, P., McCormick, J., Desroches, R, and Terriault, P. (2007). Testing of
Superelastic Recentering Pre-Strained Braces for Seismic Resistant Design.
Journal ofEarthquake Engineering, v 11, n 3, p 383-399.
Leon, R T., DesRoches, R, Ocel, J., and Hess, G. (2001). Innovative Beam Column
Connections Using Shape Memory Alloys. Proceedings ojSPIE - The
International Society jor Optical Engineering, v 4330, p 227-237.
McCormick, J., Barbero, L., and DesRoches, R (2005). Effect of Mechanical Training
on the Properties of Superelastic Shape Memory Alloys for Seismic Applications.
Smart Structures and Materials, Proceedings ojSPIE-The International Society
jor Optical Engineering, Bellingham, WA, v 5764, p 430-439.

93

MA.Sc. Thesis - lB. Mclnerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

McCormick, J., and DesRoches, R (2006). The Effect of Training, Pre-Straining, and
Loading History on the Properties ofNiTi Shape Memory Alloys for Protective
Systems in Civil Structures. Proceedings ofthe 2006 Structures Congress:
Structural Engineering and Public Safety. St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
McCormick, J., DesRoches, R, Fugazza, D., and Auricchio, F. (2006). Seismic
Vibration Control Using Superelastic Shape Memory Alloys. Journal of
Engineering Materials and Technology, Transactions ofthe ASME, v 128, n 3, p
294-301.
McCormick, J., Desroches, R, Fugazza, D., and Auricchio, F. (2007). Seismic
Assessment of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames with Shape Memory Alloy
Braces. Journal ofStructural Engineering, v 133, n 6, p 862-870.
Naeim, F., and Kelly, J. M., (1999). Design of Seismic Isolated Structures: From
Theory to Practice. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Chichester, UK, 289 p.
National Research Council of Canada (NRC). (2005). National Building Code of
Canada (NBCC).
Olander, A. (1932). An Electrochemical Investigation of Solid Cadmium-Gold Alloys.
Chemical Laboratory ofthe University ofCalifornia, p 3819-3833.
Ozbulut, O. E., and Roschke, P. (2008). Optimization of Multiple Shape Memory Alloy
Devices by a Genetic Algorithm for Seismic Response of a Tall Structure.
Proceedings of 18th Analysis and Computation Speciality Conference - Structures
Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders, v 315.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). (2005). Strong Ground
Motion Database (available online). Berkeley, CA.
http://peer.berkeley.edu/products/stronggroundmotiondb.htm!.
Pieri, P. (1929). Earthquake and Tornado Proof Building, Unites States Patent Office,
U.S. Patent 1,706,496.
Porphyrios, D. T. G. (1971). Traditional Earthquake-Resistant Construction on a Greek
Island. The Journal ofthe Society ofArchitectural Historians, v 30, n 1, P 31-39.
Predki, W., and Kloenne, M. (2002). Damping of Superelastic NiTi-Alloys Under
Torsional Loading. Materials Science Forum Volumes (2002), v 394-395 P 115118.
Robinson, W. H. (1982). Lead-Rubber Hysteretic Bearings Suitable for Protecting
Structures During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, v 10, P 593-604.

94

MA.Sc. Thesis - JB. McInerney, McMaster University - Civil Engineering

Rozner, A. G., Buehler, W. J. (1967). High Strength Nickel-Base Alloys. Unites States
Patent Office, U.S. Patent 3,351,463.
Ruge, A. C. (1936). Earthquake Resistant Structure. Unites States Patent Office, U.S.
Patent 2,053,226.
Schaar, K. W. (1974). Traditional Earthquake-Resistant Construction: The Mycenaean
Aspect. The Journal ofthe Society ofArchitectural Historians, v 33, nIp 80-81.
Skinner, R I., Robinson, W. H., and McVerry, G. H. (1993). An Introduction to
Seismic Isolation. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY, 300 p.
Soong, T. T., and Dargush, G. F. (1997). Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in
Structural Engineering. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, UK,
356 p.
Stromborg, O. (1926). Device for Protecting Structures Against Earthquake Damage.
United States Patent Office, U.S. Patent 1,572,574.
Tarefder, R A., Ma, N., and Song, G. (2006). Dynamic Behavior of a Two-Story
Building Frame Braced with SMA for Vibration Contro!' Earth and Space 2006 Proceedings ofthe 10th Biennial International Conference on Engineering,
Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments, v 2006, p 140-149.
Walter Yang, c.-S., DesRoches, R, and Leon, R (2010). Design and Analysis of
Braced Frames with Shape Memory Alloy and Energy-Absorbing Hybrid
Devices. Engineering Structures, v 32, n 2, p 498-507.
Wesolowsky, M. J. (2006). Hysteretic Modelling of Shape Memory Alloys for Seismic
Applications. McMaster University, Department ofCivil Engineering, PhD Thesis
254 p.
Wilde, K, Gardoni, P., and Fujino, Y. (2000). Base Isolation System with Shape
Memory Alloy Device for Elevated Highway Bridges, Engineering Structures, v
22, p 222-229.
Wilson, J. c., Wesolowsky, M. J. (2005). Shape Memory Alloys for Seismic Response
Modification: A State-of-the-Art Review. Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, May 2005, v 21, n 2, p 569-601.
Yan, S., Song, G., Huo, L., and Gu, H. (2007). Seismic Response Control of Frame
Structure Braced with SMA Tendons. Proceedings ofSPIE - The International
Society for Optical Engineering, Sensors and Smart Structures Technologiesfor
Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems 2007, v 6529 part 2.

95