Seismic Performance of RC Frame with Shape Memory Alloy Bracing Bars

Abstract:

Article Preview

In this study, high seismic performance RC frames have been proposed to have Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) bars acting as a kind of structural bracing system at both sides of a frame to increase the energy dissipation capacity of the RC frame. The type of SMA bar used in the study is the Superelastic SMA bar. The force-displacement hysteretic loops of the RC frame with SMA bars under seismic loading are presented and compared with the test results of the bare RC frame. Test results show that the SMA bars can effectively reduce the maximum story drift of the tested frame. It was found that the reduction of story drift and base shear was depending on the characteristic of the input ground motions.

Info:

Periodical:

Edited by:

Dongye Sun, Wen-Pei Sung and Ran Chen

Pages:

37-40

Citation:

W. I. Liao, "Seismic Performance of RC Frame with Shape Memory Alloy Bracing Bars", Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vols. 71-78, pp. 37-40, 2011

Online since:

July 2011

Authors:

Export:

Price:

$38.00

[1] H. Tamai, K. Miura, Y. Kitagawa and T. Fukuta, Application of SMA rod to exposed-type column base in smart structural system, Proceedings of SPIE. 5057 (2003) 169-177.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.482395

[2] M. Indirli, Demo Application of Shape Memory Alloy Devices: The rehabilitation of S. Georgio Church Bell Tower, Proceedings of SPIE. 4330 (2001) 262-272.

[3] K. Wilde, P. Gardoni, and Y. Fujino, Base isolation system with shape memory alloy device for elevated highway bridges, Engineering Structures. 22 (2000) 222-229.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0141-0296(98)00097-2

[4] R. DesRoches, and M. Delemont, Seismic retrofit of simply supported bridges using shape memory alloys, " Engineering Structures, (2002) 325-332.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0141-0296(01)00098-0

[5] R.T. Leon, R. DesRoches, J. Ocel, and G. Hess, Innovative beam column using shape memory alloys, Proceeding of SPIE. 4330 (2001).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.434122

[8] 396.

[11] 664.

72 EL200(PGA=0. 186g).

[18] 220.

[21] 131.

86 EL300(PGA=0. 280g).

[29] 435.

[45] 466.

65 Kobe Kobe100(PGA=0. 111g).

[4] 798.

[10] 950.

44 Kobe200(PGA=0. 181g).

[7] 984.

[21] 506.

37 Kobe300(PGA=0. 262g).

[12] 397.

[39] 451.

31 TCUF TCUF100(PGA=0. 096g).

[2] 124.

[7] 041.

30 TCUF200(PGA=0. 199g).

[3] 809.

[14] 823.

26 TCUF300(PGA=0. 328g).

[5] 731.

[27] 586.

21 TCUN TCUN100(PGA=0. 082g).

[14] 612.

[16] 663.

88 TCUN200(PGA=0. 197g).

[48] 918.

[32] 136.

[1] 52 Table 2. Maximum base shear of the braced frame and bare frame. Seismogram No. of test run Maximum base shear (t) ratio with SMA bracing Bare frame EL Centro EL100.

[1] 12.

[1] 10.

[1] 02 EL200.

[2] 22.

[1] 96.

[1] 13 EL300.

[3] 90.

[3] 09.

[1] 26 Kobe Kobe100.

[1] 25.

[1] 62.

77 Kobe200.

[2] 12.

[2] 55.

83 Kobe300.

[3] 63.

[2] 80.

[1] 30 TCUF TCUF100.

[1] 14.

[1] 15.

99 TCUF200.

[2] 23.

[2] 14.

[1] 04 TCUF300.

[3] 41.

[2] 41.

[1] 41 TCUN TCUN100.

83.

63.

[1] 32 TCUN200.

[2] 07.

[1] 33.

[1] 56 Fig. 1 Drawing of test frame specimen(unit: cm) Fig. 2 Test set-up (a) (b) Fig. 3 The hysteretic loop of the (a) frame with SMA bracing and (b) bare frame by input Kobe earthquake (PGA=0. 2g). (a) (b) Fig. 4 The hysteretic loop of the (a) frame with SMA bracing and (b)bare frame by input seismogram TCUF (PGA=0. 3g). (a) (b) Fig. 5 The hysteretic loop of the (a) frame with SMA bracing and (b)bare frame by input El Centro earthquake (PGA=0. 3g). (a) (b) Fig. 6 The hysteretic loop of the (a) frame with SMA bracing and (b)bare frame by input near-fault seismogram TCUN of Chi-Chi earthquake (PGA=0. 1g).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.9756/bijmmi.8160