-

361005)

200036)

: ,

,
, ,
, , ,

, , K
:

SEISMIC RESPONSE AND STORY- DRIFT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

FRAME WITH ECCENTRIC STEEL BRACE
Shi Jianguang
( Department of Civil Engineering, Xiamen University

Xiamen 361005)

Ye Zhiming
( Department of Civil Engineering , Shanghai University

Shanghai 200036)

Abstract : Depending on the experiment results analysis of the reinforced concrete frame eccentrically braced with steel
( EBF structure) and drift limit comparison of performance- based design and three- stage seismic design, the deflection and
behavior of EBF structure under seismic motion is discussed. From the point of three- stage principle of seismic design and
performance- based design, the story-drift limit of EBF structure should be more strict than the pure frame. Because of the
action of steel brace, the shear force of column in EBF structure is reduced and lateral stiffness of EBF structure is
increased. The rupture of column and larger lateral deformation are avoided. It is also found that maximum deformation,
acceleration, velocity and column shear of the EBF structure are obviously decreased comparing with the pure frame. The
K-type brace is advantageous for the earthquake resistance.
Keywords : reinforced concrete frame

eccentric steel brace

deflection aseismic behavior

SEAOC Vision 2000

ATC 40 FEMA

273 FEMA 274 [ 6] ,

[ 1]

, ,

: 1)

[ 6]
[ 7] 1

, ; 2) ; 3)

1 ,

( OA )

[ 2- 3]

( AC) ( CD) B ,
,

DePhDpPh DyPh, De Dp Dy

, h

[ 4]

( EBF ) [ 5] ,
* ( 1997)

1962 2

E- mail: jgshi798@ sohu. com

: 2005- 12- 07

106 Industrial Construction Vol138, No11, 2008

2008 38 1

DePh,

AT C- 3

DpPh, DyPh ,

1P150, 1P100 1P200[ 9]

, ,

[ 10] 1P550,

1P50
, ATC- 3 DpP

h, DePh DyPh
1

Table 1 The structural sway control and seismic level needed by different behavior levels

< 1P500
< 1P200
< 1P67
< 1P40
> 1P40

43
72
475
970
2 475

2,

Pa

30a 50%
50a 50%
50a 10%
50a 5% 100a10%
50a 2%

50( )
475( )
1 600~ 2 400( )

1P690~ 1P986, 1P126~ 1P

h , Dp ,

230, 1P53~ 1P126K ( )

, Dy / 0

,Du

, X ,

15% , 1 Du

, ,

2 ,

DePhDpPh DyPh

[ 8]

, ,
[5]

Table 2 The tested and measured lateral deformations of EBF structure

DePmm

DePh

DpPmm

DpPh

DyPmm

DyPh

DuPmm

DuPh

1( Z )
2( X )
3( X )
4( K )

2. 5
1. 9
1. 4
1. 4
2. 0

1P552
1P726
1P986
1P986
1P690

13
8
6
7
11

1P106
1P173
1P230
1P197
1P126

32
25
11
15
26

1P43
1P55
1P126
1P92
1P53

61
47
25
30
65

1P23
1P29
1P55
1P46
1P21

1 -
Fig. 1

Struct ural load- sway curve

:
3 ,
,
1)

x - x :
N Ex =

P2 EI x
l2

N Ey =

P EI y
l2

a- ; b- 1;

( 1)

c- 2; d- 4
2

y - y :
2

( 2)

- ) ) ) ,

Fig. 2 Lateral load-displacement curve

107

 ,
,

4 De
3

Table 4

Fig. 3 Braced section

2
1 P EI w
+ GI t
2
i0
l2

( 3)

3)
1
N0 =
[ N w + N Ey 2K
y0
i0

K = 1-

DeP

RP

NP

mm

MPa

kN

1( Z )

1. 9

151

49. 8

0. 37

2( X )

1. 4

103

34. 0

0. 25

3( X )

1. 4

103

34. 0

0. 25

4( K )

2. 0

105. 2

34. 7

0. 26

2)
Nw =

The brace stress and load of interlayer sway De

NPN u

( N w + N Ey ) 2 - 4KN w N Ey ] ( 4)

i0 =

Ip
+ y 20
A

Ip = Ix + Iy

, E ; G ; I x

, ,

x - x ; Iy y - y ; I t

DYNA2E [ 11] ,

; I w ; A ; L

, 5

:
( 1) ~ ( 4) , 3

, N u 3 , y - y
, y - y
, 01 17 01 24
,
4 , , Es
D :
Es =

( b + D) 2 + h 2 -

b 2 + h2

b2 + h 2
3

Table 3

( 5)

Fig. 5 Model of dynamic analysis

1) - ,

Buckling load of brace

N ExPkN N EyPkN N wPkN N 0PkN N E yPN u

[ 12]
:

1( Z )

23. 69

22. 67 9 158. 4 22. 65

0. 17

23. 69

22. 67 9 158. 4 22. 65

0. 17

5 y = ( 1+ 019Ny ) @ 10- 3

( 6)

3( X )

23. 69

22. 67 9 158. 4 22. 65

0. 17

5 u = ( 8- 18Nu ) @ 10- 3

( 7)

4( K )

34. 8

33. 27 9 158. 6 33. 24

0. 24

, Ny Nu

2) ,
,
3) ,
, ,

4
Fig. 4 The bracing deformation-int erlayer sway

4) El Centro 1940 NS
5) Newmark- B
6)

2 ( 5)
, 4 ,
01 37~ 0126, 4 K ,

7) 31145mPs2

5 , ,

, ,

1) , X

108

2008 38 1

 01238, K 01435
2) , X

014,
016

01213, K 01385
3) ,

5) , K

4) , Z
K

. : , 2000

014, 016,
2

5
Table 5

2nd Seminar on Repair and Retrofit of Structures. Sendi and Tsukuba:

The maximum seismic response of the

1981: 120- 125

structure under earthquake

P
mm

( mm#

( mm#

s- 1 )

s- 2 )

Kawamata, Shigeya, Ohnuma, et al. Strengthening Effect of Eccentric

Steel Braces to Existing Reinforced Concrete Frames MProceedings of the

, , , .

Bouadi A , Engelhardt M D, Jirsa J O, et al. U se of Eccentric St eel

Bracing for Strengthening of RPC Frames MProceedings of the Symposium

on Structural Engineering in Natural Hazards Mitigat ion. Irvine, CA,

kN

kN

0. 070

5. 474

327. 6

0. 773

0. 295

0. 030

1. 991

311. 5

0. 342

0. 415

0. 017

1. 157

311. 5

0. 236

0. 209

0. 017

1. 157

311. 5

0. 236

0. 209

0. 031

2. 088

311. 3

0. 287

0. 070

USA : 1993: 34- 41

4

Shunasuke Otani . Lessons Learned from Past Earthquakes MProceedings

of Fourth Turkish National Conf erence on Earthquake Engineering.
Ankara, Turkey: 1997: 67- 72

. ( EBRCF) M
. : , 2003: 28- 34

Ahmed

Ghobarah.

Performance- Based

Design

in

Earthquake

Engineering: State of Development . Engineering Struct ures , 2001( 23) :

878- 884

1) ,

. , 2003( 2) : 36- 39

,
DePh 1P690~ 1P986DpPh 1P126~ 1P230DyPh

Structures, 2001( 23) : 537- 547

9

0126~ 0137 ,
De Dp
3) X 01238, K
01435X 01213,

Lu Yong, Hao Hong, Arydis P G, et al. Seismic Performance of RC

Frames Designed for Three Different Ductility Levels. Engineering

1P53~ 1P126 K
2) ,

, , .

Minoru Wakabayashi . Design of Earthquake-Resistant Building. New

York: McCraw-Hill Book Company, 1986

10 GB 50011- 2001

11 CRC Research Institut e. DYNA2E V612. 1999

12 . : [ ] . :
, 1985

K 01385
4) K
( 75 )

3 , ,

, ,
, ;
,
3

1 , , , .
. , 1999( 6) : 28- 41
2 Housel W S, Burkey J R. Invest igation to Det ermine the Driving
Characteristics of Piles in Soft ClayP
PProc, Conf S M & F E. N ew York:
1948: 146- 154

1) ,
1 ~ 2 , 3 ~ 6

3 Cummings A S, Kerkhoff G O, Peck R B, Effect of Driving Pil es in Soft

Clay. Trans ASCE, 1950, 115: 275- 286
4 Randolph M F, Steenfelt J S , Wort h C P. The Eff ect of Pile Type on

Design Parameter for Driven PilesPPProc, Seventh European Conf on Soil

Mechanics and Foundation in Engineering. Brighton: 1979: 114- 207

2) ,
, , ,
1 ~ 2 ,
6% ~ 8%
3) ,
- ) ) ) ,

Steenfelt J S, Randolph M F, Worth C P. Instrumented Model Piles

Jacked into ClayP
PProc, 10th Int Conf on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
in Engineering. St ockholm. Sweden: 1981: 857- 864

6 , , , . .
, 2000, 21( 3) : 235- 238

109