Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI: 10.1002/tal.1493
RESEARCH ARTICLE
KEY W ORDS
1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N
Recent research has revealed the advantages and disadvantages of various lateral load‐resisting systems in withstanding seismic excitations. A few
alternatives can be considered given the current practice in steel construction. The ability of moment frame (MF) systems to undergo seismic exci-
tations through stable hysteretic behavior makes them an appealing alternative. However, the dependence of this system on the details of the
beam–column connections make it susceptible to poor‐controlled construction conditions.[1–3] On the other hand, concentrically braced frames
(CBFs) benefit from high stiffness even as their hysteretic behavior is characterized by buckling of the compressional member. Buckling leads
to asymmetric behavior, which is also subject to cyclic deterioration brought about by low‐cycle fatigue.[4] Various efforts have been made to alle-
viate the asymmetric behavior of conventional bracing members and reduce the extent of behavioral deterioration.[5,6] One of these efforts has led
to development of buckling‐restrained braces (BRBs).[7] In BRB members, compressional buckling is eliminated by providing confinement and
enhancing the lateral stability of the brace section.[8,9]
Golafshani et al.[10] proposed RBS as a new and innovative solution for buckling. The initial idea of RBS was attaching a supplemental part
(see Figure 1a) to a conventional bracing system (see Figure 1b), which could release compressional actions and resist tensional forces. The sup-
plemental device provided a one‐way ribbed interaction between a cylinder and a shaft. The axial force acting on either side of the brace mem-
ber was transferred through the adjoined device. Under tension, the device ribs stuck together and allowed the internal force to be transferred
between brace parts. Therefore, the brace yielded and effectively absorbed the input seismic energy by plastic deformation. When the loading
changed to compression, the ribbed shaft slid freely into the ribbed cylinder to prevent compression force and buckling of the brace.
Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2018;e1493. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 16
https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1493
2 of 16 ARZEYTOON AND TOUFIGH
FIGURE 1 The configuration of the ribbed bracing system (RBS)[10]: (a) general idea and (b) frame equipped with RBS
Previous experimental and numerical studies have approved the feasibility of the idea behind RBS and its advantages as a passive control sys-
tem. Before testing RBS specimens, the efficiency of a hypothetical RBS in improving the seismic performance of frame structures was assessed
by Tabeshpour et al.[11,12] These researchers approved the potential of RBS for reducing the seismic base shear experienced by the frame in com-
parison with conventional braces and MFs. In addition, the seismic input energy was found to decrease in RBS‐equipped structures due to the
shift in the fundamental period of structure. In line with the previous study on assessing RBS potentials, Arzeytoon et al.[13] presented nonlinear
time history analysis of braced frames and showed that RBS‐equipped frames reduced seismic demands even compared with BRB frames. They
also demonstrated that a large portion of seismic input energy was absorbed by the RBS system, and it minimized the hysteretic energy dissipated
in beams and columns. After proving the RBS idea through numerical investigation, the first experimental programs were conducted on RBS by
Sahafipour[14] and Fallah[15] using cyclic axial loading of RBS specimens with alternative axial mechanisms—these are illustrated in the forthcoming
sections of this article. As shown in Figure 2, RBS specimens were subjected to cyclic axial loading. The test results showed that the specimens
could behave as expected theoretically and that a close match was observed between theoretical and experimental hysteretic curves of RBS
specimens.
Further assessment of RBS potentials when used within a laterally loaded frame is the objective of this study. Before conducting experimental
studies, collaborative performance of two RBS devices used for bracing a frame was assessed through a conceptual and numerical study. In other
words, special characteristics of ribbed braces at various stages of reversal loading provide a rather complicated behavior for the frame assembly.
This behavior is first elaborated mathematically and is then used for representing the system using finite element (FE) modeling. FE modeling is
considered a powerful numerical tool whose calibration is aimed in this study. Incorporating the FE method, performance evaluation can be
achieved for systems that cannot be affordably tested. Two alternative RBS configurations were considered in this regard, and their behavioral
aspects were numerically studied prior to performing experimental tests.
At the experimental phase, two half‐scale MFs equipped with RBS devices were fabricated and instrumented with necessary sensors. The
specimens were then subjected to quasistatic cyclic loading, and their lateral response was measured at different deformation levels in terms
of resisted lateral forces. The force–deformation hysteresis curves so obtained were used finally for assessing the validity of previous numerical
predictions. For this purpose, the previously developed FE models were modified to exactly match the specimens' condition.
2 | T HE O R E T I CA L S TU D Y O F R BS BE H A V I O R
As stated above, a theoretical study was performed on RBS devices and assemblies prior to conducting an experimental program. The details of
this study for various configurations and load transfer mechanisms are presented in this section.
reversing the load to compression, the ribbed shaft slides into the jaw until the created gap is neutralized and the boxes are in contact again. From
this stage on, due to the contact between the rod and jaws boxes, the axial compression is directly transmitted through the jaws box. Movement
of the jaws box, in turn, leads to nearly free shortening of the end spring. This spring is designed to allow faster return of the jaws box on load
reversal. In this mechanism, the ribbed shaft is completely released from axial compression: This prevents the ribs from sliding into one another.
On reversing the load to tension, the spring force returns the jaws box to the initial position where the gap had just reached 0. Tensile forces can
be stimulated again in RBS after reaching this position.
During this loading cycle (Figure 5d), the permanent length reduction occurring in the RBS device is equal only to the plastic elongation of
the energy rod. This value is considerably smaller than the permanent shortening occurring in a similar loading cycle of CC‐RBS. As can be seen
from the experimental load reversal in Figure 6,[15] a great recentering is provided by the IC‐RBS mechanism. Nevertheless, the energy dissipa-
tion capability of this mechanism is lesser than CC‐RBS. Cyclic loading in both CC‐ and IC‐RBS continues until the energy rod reaches its ulti-
mate strength and fails.
FIGURE 6 Experimental hysteresis loops of (a) completely closed ribbed bracing system and (b) improved‐centering ribbed bracing system[15]
6 of 16 ARZEYTOON AND TOUFIGH
FIGURE 7 (a) Forces and deformations experienced by members at various loading stages of a completely closed ribbed bracing system
assembly and (b) the idealized hysteresis loops of a completely closed ribbed bracing system assembly
Assuming an idealized elastoplastic behavior for braces behavior, brace 1 was driven into inelastic behavior at the end of the second reversal
(point g). The idealized hysteresis obtained by repeating the cycles with increasingly enlarging amplitudes is shown in Figure 7b. After surpassing
the members' plastic limits, the assembly reacted to lateral loading with a constant stiffness of 2k.
FIGURE 8 Comparison between load reversals of improved‐centering ribbed bracing system (IC‐RBS) and completely closed ribbed bracing
system (CC‐RBS) assemblies
ARZEYTOON AND TOUFIGH 7 of 16
macroelements such as beam–columns and trusses. To concentrate on braces behavior and obtain results comparable with the theoretical curves
derived above, the models were simplified and idealized. The OpenSees[16] program was used for this purpose. The geometry of the models devel-
oped is shown in Figure 9.
For modeling the assembly evaluated in the previous section, the braces and the pin‐ended columns were represented using truss elements.
However, an elastic beam–column element represents the beam by using a truss element in order to prevent the occurrence of a geometrical sin-
gularity. To resemble the pin‐ended condition, the inertia moment of the utilized beam–column element was set to a negligible value. To make the
assembly behavior independent from the beam and columns behavior, an infinite cross‐sectional area was used for the beam and the columns. As
stated before, this could simplify assembly behavior by eliminating the contribution of beam and column elements in lateral deformation of the
assembly. The details used in the idealized OpenSees model are illustrated in Figure 9a.
For modeling the idealized CC‐ and IC‐RBS assemblies, the braces behavior was represented by using elastoplastic and elastoplastic‐with‐gap
materials. For CC‐RBS braces, immediate yielding of material in compression generated the physical behavior. The IC‐RBS braces, however,
showed an elastic (reversible) behavior in compression. To represent zero strength of these braces, a zero stiffness was assigned to them in com-
pression loading.
A symmetric elastoplastic material represented the axial behavior of BRB. Nevertheless, modeling compressional buckling of conventional
braces required additional effort. Previous researchers have proposed various methods for modeling axial behavior of buckling struts.
Uriz and Mahin[17] proposed a method to divide the strut into a number of distributed plasticity (fiber) beam–column elements with an initially
imperfect geometry. Considering the internal second‐order moments caused by axial loading becomes possible at this geometry by employing a
corotational geometric transformation method. This method was examined in this study and was found to be computationally expensive; gener-
ated results were also found to be highly dependent on model properties. The affected model properties included imperfection ratio, fineness of
FIGURE 9 Idealized OpenSess assembly used for comparing the behavior of various brace types: Modeling details and stress–strain of
completely closed ribbed bracing system (CC‐RBS), improved‐centering ribbed bracing system (IC‐RBS), and buckling‐restrained brace (BRB)
FIGURE 10 Axial force–deformation of a strut with kl/r = 80: (a) Simulated through an empirical method using SNAP 2D‐X program[17] and (b)
obtained from experiment[18]
8 of 16 ARZEYTOON AND TOUFIGH
fiber meshing, rotational stiffness considered at the end of strut, and the formulation (i.e., force or displacement) used for the distributed plasticity
elements. Another method that tries to avoid the complexity of the first method is based on empirical axial stress–strain relationships calibrated
versus the experimental results. An example is the axial stress–strain behavior employed by SNAP‐2DX for a strut having slenderness (kl/r) equal
to 80: This is shown in Figure 10 along with the experimental results obtained for the specimen.
This method is preferable over the first method due to the simplicity it provides regarding the purpose of this study. The OpenSees software,
however, does not provide an implementation for the phenomenological axial stress–strain suggested for a buckling strut. To compare the behav-
ior of a typical CBF with RBS and BRB, a new uniaxialMaterial object, named BucklingStrut, was developed into the OpenSees program. The force–
deformation reversals of this material are shown in Figure 11 for loading cycles, which started from different directions.
The normalized lateral load–displacement hysteretic curves obtained using the idealized OpenSees model for different brace types are shown
in Figure 12. The buckling strength of the conventional brace was assumed to equal 50% of their tensional yield strength as a typical brace
characteristic.
The model results obtained for the CC‐ and IC‐RBS models match well with the descriptive curves given above. The hysteretic response of
CC‐RBS demonstrates the completeness of its hysteresis curve and its high energy absorption, similar to that of the BRB. According to this figure,
maximum energy absorption was provided by the CC‐RBS and BRB assembly. The energy absorption of IC‐RBS and CBF are approximately 26%
and 31% of the CC‐RBS and BRB, respectively. Minimum residual displacement was experienced by the IC‐RBS assembly. The IC‐RBS assembly
also absorbed the minimum hysteretic energy within all brace types.
3 | EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
As previously noted, previous experimental studies on RBS included only axial testing of individual RBS specimens. An experimental program was
conducted in this study to validate performance of this system when used as part of a frame structure. Two half‐scale frames equipped with CC‐
and IC‐RBS members were tested for this purpose. This experimental program attempts to validate the theoretically derived assessment presented
in the previous section. The details of this study are presented in this section.
FIGURE 12 Comparison between idealized hysteretic curves and brace behavior of the completely closed ribbed bracing system (CC‐RBS) and
improved‐centering ribbed bracing system (IC‐RBS) assemblies with those of the buckling‐restrained braces (BRBs) and concentrically braced
frames (CBFs)
An overview of the test setup is shown in Figure 13. The specimen was fastened to a reaction frame and loading was applied using two jacks
placed between the specimen and the reaction frame at two ends of the top beam.
The dimensions and manufacturing details of the two specimens are provided in Figure 14 and Figure 15, respectively.
Linear variable displacement transducers were placed on the frame to record the displacements. Additionally, individual strain gauges were
placed at RBSs at the columns, in the beam, and on gusset plates (Figure 16) in order to monitor their performance.
The mechanical properties of the materials used in fabricating the specimens are shown in Table 1; the springs properties are tabulated in
Table 2. The specimens were subjected to a displacement‐controlled quasistatic cyclic loading.
FIGURE 14 Details of ribbed bracing system (RBS) frame specimen (dimensions in centimeters)
FIGURE 16 Test frame and typical locations of the instrumentation devices. LVDT = linear variable displacement transducer; SG = strain gauge
ARZEYTOON AND TOUFIGH 11 of 16
Details of the connection are presented in Figure 17. All the materials used for frame elements—including beam, columns, pinned base, and
connection plates—were steel ST‐37. The electrode E7018, according to AWS classification, was used for welding column plates and beam–col-
umn–brace joint components, and E6013 was utilized for other connections.
Bolted flange plate moment connections utilize plates welded to column flanges and bolted to beam flanges as a prequalified connection
according to AISC 358‐10. Flange plates are welded to the column flange using complete joint penetration groove welds and beam flange connec-
tions are made with high‐strength bolts. The beam web is connected to the column using a bolted shear tab with bolts in short‐slotted holes.
FIGURE 20 Validating the numerical model developed for the completely closed ribbed bracing system assembly by comparing against test
results. (a) Hysteresis curves and (b) Normalized hysteretic energies (NHEs) absorbed at different cycles
The hysteretic response of the IC‐RBS specimen is shown in Figure 21. As before, the IC‐RBS specimen was also loaded up to a story drift of
4%. The specimen responded elastically up to a story drift of approximately 1%. After this drift level, significant inelastic behavior was observed.
The specimen continued to carry the load with the mechanism envisioned in the design concept. At this point, a slight out‐of‐plane curvature was
observed at the beams but the system was able to maintain its stability. The cumulative plastic strain of the energy rod was approximately 20.2%
(158 mm).
As can be seen, a flag‐shaped hysteretic response was developed and the braced frame constantly returned to a displacement near to 0 on
load removal. A slight pinching could also be observed for the IC‐RBS specimen before commencement of the free displacement corresponding to
the IC‐RBS behavior. This pinching could be identified at the unloading branch where stiffness reduction started before the hysteresis curves
reached the horizontal axis.
FIGURE 22 Axial force versus displacement for completely closed ribbed bracing system (CC‐RBS) and improved‐centering ribbed bracing
system (IC‐RBS)
14 of 16 ARZEYTOON AND TOUFIGH
FIGURE 23 Validating the numerical model developed for the completely closed ribbed bracing system (CC‐RBS) assembly by comparing against
test results. (a) Hysteresis curves and (b) NHEs absorbed at different cycles
Hysteretic response of IC‐RBS was similar to tension‐only bracing. But, IC‐RBS showed improvements over a tension‐only system. A major
disadvantage of a tension‐only bracing system is the absence of resistance to lateral forces in the reversed compressive loading at the interface
between the end of the tensile performance of a brace and the beginning of the strain in the other brace. This resulted in impact loading on the
connections and the structural elements. In addition, the accumulated residual deformations in the structure led to an increase in lateral displace-
ment in each cycle. This can lead to failure of the bracing member, increase in the lateral displacement of the structure, and, consequently, damage
to nonstructural elements. However, under reversed compressive loading in the IC‐RBS brace, sliding of ribs occurs until the plastic elongation of
the brace is neutralized. In this situation, further compressive loading yields in a movement of the jaws box and compression of the restoring
spring. Neutralizing the plastic brace elongation provides a self‐centering ability to this configuration. The self‐centering ability and the reduced
residual drifts of an IC‐RBS prevented accumulation of plastic drifts in sequential cycles of inelastic loading. Therefore, smaller maximum drifts
were experienced by IC‐RBS under severe ground motions.
Regarding the force–displacement diagrams obtained for the CC‐RBS and IC‐RBS braces (Figure 22), the participation rate of the braces in
bearing the lateral force was about 67%: The force of the braces was 80 kN relative to the total force of the braced frame of 120 kN. This reflects
the high contribution of RBS braces to total frame resistance and energy absorption, as well as prevention of plasticity in beams and columns.
4 | S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I ON S
The lateral behavior of RBS used in conjunction with a portal frame was assessed in this study. The study composed of a numerical and an exper-
imental phase. The experimental program was considered as a validation for the established numerical methods and the findings obtained using
them. Two different RBS configurations offering different load‐carrying mechanisms were considered throughout the study. The first configura-
tion, called CC‐RBS, was characterized with an irreversible length reduction when subjected to compressional loading. Having increased lateral
stiffness, this configuration did not provide self‐centering under plastic loading. The second configuration, named IC‐RBS, did not undergo perma-
nent length reduction and offered an ideal self‐centering capability. The validated numerical model was also used to compare the performance of
CC and IC configurations against CBFs and BRBs.
The key findings of the experimental and numerical investigations performed on CC‐ and IC‐RBS configurations can be listed as
• Cyclic loading of a CC‐RBS assembly in its pre‐yield regime reveals an inherent self‐pretensioning feature for this configuration. This feature
provides the assembly with a remarkable energy dissipation capability even in the elastic range. This feature also brings about an increased
lateral stiffness.
• The stiffness of IC‐RBS is half of the CC‐RBS due to the contribution of only one brace in carrying the lateral loads. The self‐centering feature
of this configuration, although ideal for eliminating post‐earthquake repairs, leads to a minimal energy absorption capability. The lower stiff-
ness of this configuration is also responsible for reducing its energy absorption index.
ARZEYTOON AND TOUFIGH 15 of 16
• The hysteretic response of CC‐RBS demonstrates the completeness of its hysteresis curve and its high‐energy absorption, similar to that of
the BRB assembly.
• Compared against CBF, CC‐RBS benefits from larger energy absorption. Although the stiffness of a CBF fluctuates by occasional buckling of
the compressional member, the overall stiffness of this system is comparable with that of a CC‐RBS. Nonetheless, CBF suffers from a highly
asymmetric behavior due to compressional buckling. Buckling is also expected to adversely affect the performance of a conventional brace by
imposing low‐cycle fatigue and the behavioral deterioration caused by it.
After validating the lateral performance of RBS assemblies, a future study may employ the verified numerical models for accurate investigation
of multistory RBS frames. Various structural response parameters need to be evaluated for such structures. The response modification and deflec-
tion amplification factors also need to be evaluated by accounting seismic uncertainties.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
This research work was supported by funding from the Road, Housing, and Urban Development Research Center of Iran. The authors gratefully
acknowledge the support from this agency.
ORCID
RE FE R ENC E S
[1] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment‐frame buildings. FEMA‐350, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000.
[2] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Recommended specifications and quality assurance guidelines for steel moment‐frame construction
for seismic applications. FEMA‐353, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D, 2000.
[3] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames for seismic applications.
ANSI/AISC 358‐05, AISC, Chicago, 2005.
[4] Sabelli R. Research on improving the seismic behavior of earthquake‐resistant steel braced frames. EERI/FEMA NEHRP Professional Fellowship Rep.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 2001.
[5] H. Tamai, T. Takamatsu, J. Constr. Steel Res. 2005, 61(9), 1301.
[6] X. Y. Hao, H. N. Li, G. Li, T. Makino, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. 2014, 23, 1064.
[7] C. M. Uang, M. Nakashima, Steel buckling‐restrained frames. 16, in Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance‐Based
Engineering, (Eds: Y. Bozorgnia, V. V. Bertero), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 2004.
[8] C. Black, N. Makris, I. D. Aiken, ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 2004, 130(6), 880.
[9] D. H. Kim, C. H. Lee, Y. K. Ju, S. D. Kim, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. 2015, 24, 243.
[10] A. A. Golafshani, E. Kabiri Rahani, M. R. Tabeshpour, Eng. Struct. 2006, 28(14), 1972.
[11] M. R. Tabeshpour, A. A. Golafshani, M. Monzavi, Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2011, 12(3), 375.
[12] M. R. Tabeshpour, A. A. Golafshani, A. Masrour Shalmani, Adv. Struct. Eng. 2012, 15(15), 1083.
[13] A. Arzeytoon, A. A. Golafshani, V. Toufigh, H. Mohammadi, J. Vib. Control. 2015, 23, 2926. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546315623876
[14] Sahafipour Fard MA. Design and fabrication function of RBS sample. Master thesis. Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, 2013.
[15] Fallah S. Experimental evaluation of ribbed bracing system (RBS). Master thesis. Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, 2014.
[16] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation user command‐language manual—OpenSees
version 2.0, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA. 2009.
[17] Uriz P, SA Mahin. Toward earthquake‐resistant design of concentrically braced steel‐frame structures. PEER rep no. 2008/08. Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering. Univ. of California, Berkeley 2008.
[18] G. R. Black, B. A. Wenger, E. P. Popov, Inelastic Buckling of Steel Struts Under Cyclic Load Reversals. UCB/EERC‐80/40, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Berkeley, CA 1980.
[19] BHRC (Building and Housing Research Center), Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. Standard No. 2800, 4rd ed., BHRC,
Tehran 2005.
Ali Arzeytoon is currently a PhD student in Sharif University of Technology. He received his MS degree in structural engineering from Uni-
versity of Tehran in 2012 and his BS degree in civil engineering from University of Tehran in 2009. His research interests include structure
repairs and rehabilitation, seismic resistant steel buildings, passive control of structures, and analytical and experimental evaluation on seismic
performance of ribbed bracing system. He can be reached through email: arzeytoon@mehr.sharif.ir.
16 of 16 ARZEYTOON AND TOUFIGH
Vahab Toufigh is an associate professor in Civil Engineering Department in Sharif University of Technology. He received his BS in civil engi-
neering in University of Arizona in 2007. He also received his MS and PhD in University of Arizona. He has published papers in different areas
of civil engineering. His research interests are rehabilitation and strengthening as well as laboratory testing of structural components. He is
also working on innovative passive control systems in Structural Engineering. He is a registered professional engineer in the state of Arizona.
He can be reached through email: toufigh@ sharif.edu.
How to cite this article: Arzeytoon A, Toufigh V. Experimental and numerical studies on ribbed bracing system. Struct Design Tall Spec
Build. 2018;e1493. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1493