Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회논문집)

Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Study of Effectiveness of Buckling-Restrained Braces Versus Steel Braces on Seismic Rehabilitation of School Buildings

학교 건물 내진보강에서 철골가새 대비 비좌굴가새의 효율성 비교 연구

  • Lee, Yong Geun (Department of Energy and Infra Integrated System, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Kim, Taewan (Department of Energy and Infra Integrated System, Kangwon National University)
  • 이용근 (강원대학교 에너지인프라 융합학과) ;
  • 김태완 (강원대학교 에너지인프라 융합학과)
  • Received : 2024.08.07
  • Accepted : 2024.09.23
  • Published : 2024.11.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Steel brace is a popular option among seismic rehabilitation methods for school buildings, but it has a weakness in that the section area must be large enough to prevent buckling, so stiffness and strength are highly increased locally, and foundation reinforcing is required. On the contrary, BRB has strength that the steel core may be negligible since buckling is restrained, so the increase of stiffness and strength is insignificant, and foundation reinforcing may not be required. This study compared the effectiveness of both reinforcing methods for the seismic performance of school buildings by conducting both pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses. Steel brace and BRB reinforcing may not be satisfied by nonlinear dynamic analysis, even by pushover analysis. This result is due to the school buildings' low lateral resistance and high column shear strength ratio. Suppose BRB can be regarded as a general rehabilitation method. In that case, BRB reinforcing is a favorable and economical option for school buildings with low column shear strength ratio since it can better satisfy performance objectives than steel brace by pushover analysis with a small steel core and no foundation reinforcing.

Keywords

References

  1. Ministry of the Interior and Safety. A white paper on Pohang earthquake; c2017.
  2. Ministry of Education. Seismic design code for school buildings; c2020.
  3. Ministry of Education. Seismic performance evaluation and rehabilitation manual for school buildings; c2021.
  4. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Korean building code-structural (KDS 41 00 00); c2022.
  5. NIST. Seismic design of steel buckling-restrained braced frames: A guide for practicing engineers. Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology; c2015. 30 p. GCR 15-917-34.
  6. Sabelli R, Mahin S, Chang C. Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct. 2003 Apr;25(5):655-66.
  7. Lopez A, Sabelli R. Buckling-restrained braced frames. North American Steel Construction Conference. 2008 Apr;252-262.
  8. Yoshino T, Karino Y. Experimental study on shear wall with braces: Part 2, In Summaries of technical papers of annual meeting. Architectural Institute of Japan. 1971;11:403-404.
  9. Watanabe A, Hitomi Y, Saeki E, Wada A, Fujimoto M. Properties of brace encased in buckling-restraining concrete and steel tube. Proceedings of ninth world conference on earthquake engineering; 1988 Aug 2-9; Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan;719-724.
  10. Yoon BI, Shin DH, Jung HS, Kim HJ. Design of restrainers for novel steel-assembled buckling-restrained braces. Proceedings of the Annual Conference Korean Society of Steel Construction; 2019 May 29; Korean Society Of Steel Construction; 2019;30(1):97-98.
  11. Kim JK, Park JH, Lee KH, Lee J. Seismic performance of buckling restrained braces using steel plates and channel sections. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Structure & Construction. 2007 Oct;23(10):19-26.
  12. Lee SJ, Moon HS, Park BT. An experimental study on seismic reinforcement of dry type buckling restrained braces laterally using buckling restrained rings. J Earthq Eng Soc Korea. 2022 Jul;26(4):165-172.
  13. Zsarnoczay A, Budahazy V, Vigh LG, Dunai L. Cyclic hardening criteria in EN 15129 for steel dissipative braces. J Constr Steel Res. 2013 Apr;83:1-9.
  14. Black RG, Wenger WAB, Popov EP. Inelastic buckling of steel struts under cyclic load reversals. Berkeley(CA): Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California at Berkeley; c1980. 166 p. Report No. UCB/EERC-80/40
  15. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Seismic design code for buildings (KDS 41 17 00); c2022.
  16. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Seismic design code for steel structures (KDS 14 31 60); c2024.
  17. Lee HS, Kim T. The efficiency of steel brace strengthening of school buildings according to the failure mode of columns. J Earthq Eng Soc Korea. 2023 Mar;27(2):101-109.
  18. Lee HS. Comparison of seismic performance of steel brace reinforcement in school buildings according to analysis method. [Master]. [Chuncheon]: Kangwon National University; c2022. 43 p.
  19. MIDAS IT. MIDAS GEN User's Manual, ver 940; c2023.
  20. CSI. Perform-3D, Ver. 6.0. Computers and Structures, Inc. Walnut Creek, CA; c2016.
  21. Kim HS, Kim SY. Analysis of seismic performance characteristics for school buildings on the bracing configuration of steel frame system reinforcement. J Korean Assoc Spat Struct. 2023 Dec;23(4):59-69
  22. Di Sarno L, Manfredi G. Seismic retrofitting with buckling restrained braces: Application to an existing non-ductile RC framed building. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2010 Nov;30(11):1279-1297.
  23. Korea Authority of Land and Infrastructure Safety. Seismic performance evaluation and rehabilitation guidelines of existing buildings; c2021.
  24. Kim J, Kim T. Seismic fragility function for existing low-rise piloti-type buildings reflecting damage from Pohang earthquake. J Earthq Eng Soc Korea. 2021 Nov;25(6):251-259.
  25. Joo C, Kim T. Seismic fragility of low-rise piloti buildings designed according to KDS 41 17 00. J Earthq Eng Soc Korea. 2022 Mar;26(2):49-58.
  26. PEER Ground Motion Database. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Berkeley, California. Available from: https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/