Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

r
Fo

On the fragility of 3D reinforced concrete structure retrofitted with

buckling-restrained braces (BRB) based on modal incremental dynamic
analysis

Re

Journal: Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

vi

Manuscript ID: EEEV-12-104

Manuscript Type: Original Article

ew

Keywords:

Buckling-Restrained Brace, Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Modal

Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Fragility Curve, Retrofitted R/C St

ly

On

Seismic retrofit < Structural engineering, Reinforced concrete

Specialty Area: structures < Structural engineering, Structural dynamic Analysis <
Structural engineering

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Page 1 of 16

On the fragility of 3D reinforced concrete structure retrofitted with

buckling-restrained braces (BRB) based on modal incremental
dynamic analysis
Abstract: The moment frame system is one of the most common seismic resistance systems in the world. The structures
constructed by this system have a major problem which is the great flexibility of the structure and high story drift. This causes a force,
which is higher than the components capacity, which results in the destruction of the structural and non-structural components. In this
paper, the seismic performance of the mid-rise R/C building in high seismic areas, retrofitted by the (BRB) has been studied.
Retrofitting of R/C building has been accomplished by performing the non-linear static analysis, incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)
and the modal incremental dynamic analysis (MIDA) on three-dimensional structural models. Fragility curves base on the results of
the (IDA) and (MIDA) methods have been used for seismic evaluation of the existing R/C-building and retrofitted by the BRB. The
results indicate that the BRB systems have been efficient to retrofit the R/C moment frames through high-potential capability of
energy-dissipating. It was further revealed that the MIDA method based on the modal pushover analysis provides results to a
reasonable degree of accuracy over elastic behavior to global dynamic instability, and at the same time decreases the computational
effort remarkably.

r
Fo

Keywords:

Buckling-Restrained Brace, Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Modal Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Fragility Curve,
Retrofitted R/C Structure

1.

Introduction1

yielding and buckling-restrained transition segments,

and non-yielding and unrestrained end zones (Sahoo
and Chao, 2010). Although in 2009, extensive
researches have been conducted for the application of
the BRB in structural retrofitting (Di Sarno et al.,
2009; Gilmore et al., 2010; Gneyisi, 2011), but most
of these researches have been related to steel
structures. Hence, more research is required to be
accomplished in this field in order to use these braces
in concrete structures.
Performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE)
requires accurate estimation of the seismic demand
and capacity of structures. One of the methods which
has been proposed to undertake this task is the
incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) (Han et al., 2006;
Vamvatisikos et al., 2002). This procedure requires
non-linear response history analyses (RHA) of the
structure for a collection of earthquake records each
scaled to many intensity. By examining the results of
such computations, it is possible to determine
structural capacities (or ground motion intensities)
corresponding to various limit states such as
immediate occupancy (IO), collapse prevention (CP),
or global instability (GI). Levels have been selected to
cover an extensive range of structural response all the
way from elastic behaviors to global instability (Han
et al., 2006; Vamvatisikos et al., 2002). Furthermore,
considering the necessity of evaluation the seismic
behavior of structures in collapse and conducting
incremental non-linear dynamic analysis, in order to
estimate the collapse of structures, it is essential to
take a proper approach to decrease the computation

vi

Re

Earthquakes as one of the most destructive natural

phenomena have caused a great deal of financial and
life loses in the past fifty years. Iran, as a country with
high risk of earthquakes, has been greatly influenced
by this phenomenon and its consequences. Due to the
natural ground conditions of Iran, and also design
buildings which seismic loading rules and regulations
have been ignored, or due to the changes made in
these rules, seismic loads have been underestimated.
Hence seismic evaluation and retrofitting of the
existing structures are necessary. Today, one of the
most common of structural systems in Iran and Middle
East countries is R/C moment frames. Studies related
to existing R/C moment frames in the past reveal that,
due to ignoring seismic loads, the designed structures
are not resistant. Therefore, retrofitting of these
structures against future earthquakes is inevitable.
Buckling-restrained brace frames (BRBFs) are
appearing to be as the systems utilized as primary
lateral load resisting systems for structures in the highrisk seismic area. The main features of BRBs are
enhanced energy dissipation potential, remarkable
ductility, and nearly symmetrical hysteresis response
in tension and compression. Different types of BRBs
have been developed and tested in developed countries
since 2007 (Lopez and Sabelli, 2004). A typical BRB
consists of a yielding steel core encased in a mortar
filled steel hollow section to restrain buckling, non-

ew

ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

time. An incremental dynamic analysis approach

which is used in estimating structural response is time
and money consuming for 2 reasons: First, it is
compulsory to analysis the structure under a set of
different records in order to estimate collapse capacity.
Second, it is necessary to analyze the structure in
terms of different acceleration to reach the collapse in
order to reach collapse. Therefore, regarding the
aforementioned points, the MIDA approach, (based on
modal pushover analysis, which requires less
computation time and further has efficient accuracy in
the range of elastic response to global dynamic
instability) is suggested and used.
Considering the effect of the accidental nature of
earthquakes
over
collapse
probability
and
consequently developing the fragility curves, it is
necessary to pay attention to statistical and
probabilistic approaches in order to quantify the
collapse capacity. The probability of collapse structure
is evaluated by fragility curve. These curves are
convenient tools for evaluation of the seismic
performance of the structural systems and exact
estimation of the amount of probable damage by
probabilistic IDA and MIDA. In addition, they reveal
the probability of exceeding from a specific engineer
demand (structural response) from a specific amount
for a specific criterion of earthquake intensity. Seismic
analysis of fragility curves is not only used in bridges,
steel and masonry structures, but they are employed
for seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete
structures rehabilitated by different retrofitting scheme
(Yakut et al., 2005; Jeong et al., 2007; Guneyisi et al.,
2008; Guneyisi et al., 2011). In this study, the
probabilistic evaluation of collapse in three
dimensional reinforced concrete building and the
retrofitted with the BRB through exact evaluation of
fragility curves for earthquake demand parameters
(EDP) is accomplished by means of a collection of
selected records. The goals of this research are as
follows:

r
Fo

R/C building before and after retrofitting by

incorporating the BRB through the IDA and
MIDA methods.

2.

The representative structure

An actual building located in Ray region, a suburb

of Tehran, is selected as a building sample since it is
deemed to be highly representative of the many
buildings in Tehran and its vicinity. The building is a
typical R/C 6-storey building founded on III soil
according to the description in the current Iranian
seismic design code. It was designed according to the
1987 version of the Irans seismic design code. Thus,
the seismic coefficient in the current code is
approximately 1.2 times greater than the previous
code.
The main structural system of the building consists
of moment resisting R/C frames in two directions. The
gravity loads are considered according to the common
domestic code. The dead load of the story floor equals
500kg/m2 and in the roof, it equals 550kg/m2.
Furthermore, the live load on the story floor equals
200kg/m2 and in the roof, it equals 150kg/m2. Fig. 1
presents a view of the typical plan and details of
beams and columns of a frame of the representative
building.
A three dimensional linear model of structure is
produced by the structural finite-element software in
order to evaluate the primary seismic performance of
the structure. The seismic performance evaluation is
assessed in terms of two principal quantities: drift and
demand/capacity ratio of the columns. The current
Irans seismic code limits the story drift to 0.5% for
the R/C MRF buildings and requires adequate load
carrying capacity of the column (the demand-capacity
ratio must be less than 1.0). Table 1 shows the results
of the primary evaluation due to the 3rd edition of
Irans seismic code (Standard No3 2800, 2006). These
findings indicate that the inter-story drift ratios for
both X and Y directions have exceeded the determined
value. In addition, the moment ratio demands to the
capacity of columns occasionally exceed 1.3;
consequently, the existing building is vulnerable to
earthquake and needs retrofitting in order to enhance
its seismic performance.

ew

vi

Re

Seismic retrofitting of three dimensional

retrofitted R/C building by the BRBs.
Studying the MIDA method in estimating the
IDA curves for the existing and retrofitted
building.
Development of fragility curves in order to
compare the seismic vulnerability of the existing

ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Page 2 of 16

Page 3 of 16

(a)

(b)
Fig. 1 A layout for (a) elevation, and (b) first floor plan of existing building and the member dimensions.

r
Fo

Table 1 The results of the primary evaluation of the existing structure.

Re

Inter-story drift ratios and column flexural demand-capacity ratios of the existing building
Story no

Inter-story drift ratio

X

1st Story

Range of demand capacity

ratio
1.071 - 1.35

0.0027

0.003

2nd Story

16

1.071 - 1.36

0.0069

0.0076

3rd Story

10

1.071 - 1.30

0.0078

0.0088

4th Story

14

5th Story

6th Story

Direction

ew

Nonlinear static analysis

0.0075

0.0082

0.0062

0.0059

1.071 - 1.2

0.0043

0.0034

pattern. According to the FEMA356 in seismic

rehabilitation of buildings, in order to satisfy the
desired performance level for a particular ground
shaking severity, plastic hinge rotation in structural
element should occur beyond the target displacement.
As it can be seen, in the capacity curve, due to the fact
that before the structure has reached the target drift
several plastic hinge have been formed in collapse
prevention limit; therefore, the existing structure did
not satisfy the performance level and needs to be
rehabilitated.
The values for the different performance levels of
the existing structure components under different
lateral load patterns correspond to the deformationcontrolled components according to the FEMA356 are
presented in Table 2.

ly

In order to evaluate the stiffness and strength

characteristic of the structure in two directions, the
nonlinear pushover analysis was used by considering
all the nonlinear properties of structural elements
(beams and columns) according to NEHRP guidelines
for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 356
2004). The plastic hinges at the end of beams and
columns have been modeled by trilinear, kinematically
hardening moment-rotation springs with post-yield
stiffness equal to 3% of the initial stiffness a, b and c
numerical values have been taken from FEMA356
columns. Fig. 2 shows the capacity curve, target
displacement for life safety performance as well as
plastic hinge in different performance levels for the
existing structure due to the triangular lateral load

1.071 - 1.28
1.071 - 1.23

On

3.

Flexural capacity check

Number of columns with demand/capacity

ratio. 1.0
20

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

Fig. 2 Capacity curves and different performance levels under triangular lateral loading pattern in X and Y direction

r
Fo

Table 2 Performance limits under different loading patterns for available structure in X and Y direction
Load pattern in X direction
Modal
Uniform
triangular
0.7815
2.134
0.8067
0.2647
0.5882
0.2689
0.1891
0.4622
0.2017

IO
LS
CP

Column

4.44
2.226
1.107

4.488
2.239
1.12

4.046
2.029
1.017

4.227
2.101
1.059

4.017
2.008
1.012

IO
LS
CP

Beam

0.0166

0.01634

0.0167

0.0163

0.0167

0.0166

Limit states

Target drift

ew

The retrofitting strategy

4.277
2.143
1.067

vi

4.

Load pattern in Y direction

Modal
Uniform
triangular
1.155
2.085
1.025
0.3571
0.6282
0.3193
0.2738
0.4825
0.2437

Re

Various parts of the BRB component are shown in

fig. 3.

ly

Generally, seismic retrofitting of a building is

achieved by upgrading the existing lateral seismic
resistant system, due to enhancement of strength,
stiffness and ductility. As seen in the previous
sections, the studied building suffers from general
weakness due to inadequate lateral seismic resistance
components; therefore, in the proposed retrofitting
strategy, the main scheme is to increase the seismic
performance of structures by adding new seismic
components to the existing system. For this purpose,
the buckling-restrained brace (BRB) has been used.
Retrofitting has been evaluated by nonlinear static
analysis, the IDA and MIDA method.
The seismic parameters and requirement regulation
of designing the BRB elements have been used from
the AISC-2005 and FEMA-450 as well. In designing
these braces the length of the yielding zone for
diagonal form is considered to be equal to 0.7 of the
total length of bracing. Fig. 4 illustrates the location of
braces in the existing building.

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 4 of 16

(a)

(b)
Fig. 3 (a) Diagram of Buckling-Restrained Brace, (b)
Modeled the nonlinear backbone curve of the BRBs

The strength adjustment factor and the

specifications of the braces design for the existing
structure have been presented in Table 3 and 4.

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Page 5 of 16

Fig. 4 Layout and the way of buckling-restrained brace (BRB) connection

Table 3 Calculation of strength adjustment factor and resistant parameters needed for designing the buckling-restrained
brace (BRB) for BRB-Y
Lysc

Asc

Pbx

Pysc

Tmax

Cmax

6th
5th

4.862355

2.25807

12344753.58

1.043024

1.112575

62868233.9

65573085.5

69945617.6

4.862355

2.25807

12756245.36

1.047948

1.121164

62868233.9

65882657.3

70485603.1

4th

4.862355

2.903233

20986081.08

1.090624

1.195603

80830586.5

88155788.7

96641327.9

23866523.58

1.117433

1.242367

80830586.5

90322791.7

100421226

28187187.34

1.109948

1.229309

98792939

109654990

121447089

28187187.34

1.09206

1.198109

107774115

117695838

129125097

4.862355

2.903233

4.862355

3.548396

1st

4.55

3.870978

ew

vi

3rd
2nd

Re

STORY

r
Fo

Table 4 Calculation of strength adjustment factor and resistant parameters needed for designing the buckling-restrained
brace (BRB) for BRB-X
Lysc

Asc

Pbx

Pysc

Tmax

Cmax

6th

4.862355

2.25807

12344753.58

1.043024

5th

4.862355

2.903233

18311384.47

1.047948

1.112575

62868233.9

65573085.5

69945617.6

1.121164

80830586.5

84706273.7

90624346.8

4th
3rd

4.862355
4.862355

3.548396
3.870978

27158457.87
32302105.2

1.090624
1.117433

1.195603
1.242367

98792939
107774115

107745964
120430389

118117179
133894968

2nd

4.862355

4.193559

34976801.81

1st

4.55

4.838722

34976801.81

1.109948

1.229309

116755292

129592261

143528378

1.09206

1.198109

134717644

147119797

161406371

5.
Comparison of the capacity curves on
existing and retrofitted buildings
Structure capacity curves, before and after adding
braces as well as different performance levels due to
the triangular lateral load pattern are presented in fig.
5. Adding the BRBs to existing moment frame has
improved the seismic performance of the main
components of the structure and a significant decrease
is observed in the rotation of the plastic joint of
columns and beams. The decrease is due to the decline
of the inter-story drift rather than the bare moment
frames. Incorporation of the BRB into the existing
structure has increased the structure stiffness and

ly

STORY

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

decreased the fundamental period of the structure

which increases the base shear of the structure.
Moreover, the target displacement has further
decreased in the retrofitted structure in compared with
the existing structure.
Table 5 shows the performance limits under
different lateral load patterns in target displacement
for retrofitted structure with the BRB. This is obvious
compared with the presented table for the existing
structure which adding the BRB to the buckling frame
system has caused the improvement of the condition
of the main members of the structure and significant
reduction in the columns and beams plastic joints as
well as target drift.

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

Fig. 5 Capacity curves of the existing and retrofitted structure

r
Fo

Table 5 Performance limits under different lateral load patterns for the retrofitted structure in the X and Y direction
Load pattern in Y direction
Modal

Uniform

0.02801
0.0112
0.0056

0.5644
0.1866
0.1411

1.294
0.6499
0.3249

1.775
0.8876
0.4415

0.08378

0.00819

Load pattern in X direction

triangular

Modal

Re

Uniform

triangular

Limit states

0.03389
0.01232
0.009234

0.3746
0.1261
0.09454

0.6555
0.2143
0.1639

0.5567
0.1856
0.1401

IO
LS
CP

Column

1.288
0.644
0.3235

1.289
0.6373
0.3186

1.693
0.8403
0.4202

1.579
0.7808
0.3887

IO
LS
CP

Beam

0.00925

0.008978

0.00925

ew

0.008392

vi

Target drift

ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 6 of 16

Fig. 6 Comparison of the performance limit of beams for the existing structure and retrofitted structures under different
loading patterns in target drift in X direction

Fig. 7 Comparison of the performance limit of columns for the existing structure and retrofitted structures under different
loading patterns in target drift in X direction

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Page 7 of 16

As shown in fig. 6 and 7, the existing structure

illustrates higher performance levels in comparison
with the structure rehabilitated with the BRB in target
drift. This means that adding the BRB to the buckling
frame system improves the condition of the main
members of the structure and significantly reduces the
rotation of the columns and beams plastic joints.

6.

Nonlinear dynamic analysis

Performance-based
earthquake
engineering
(PBEE) requires accurate estimation of the seismic
demand and capacity of structures. One of the
methods which has been proposed to undertake this
task is the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) (Han
et al., 2006; Vamvatisikos et al., 2002). This
procedure requires non-linear response history
analyses (RHA) of the structure for a collection of
earthquake records each scaled to many intensity. By
examining the results of such computations, it is
possible to determine structural capacities (or ground
motion intensities) corresponding to various limit
states such as immediate occupancy (IO), collapse
prevention (CP), or global instability (GI). Levels
have been selected to cover an extensive range of
structural response all the way from elastic behaviors
to global instability (Han et al., 2006; Vamvatisikos et
al., 2002).

r
Fo

earthquake records is satisfactory for accurate

estimation of seismic demand. As a result, a set of 20
earthquake records which lack the near fault effects
are selected and listed in Table 6.
Performance levels or limit state are the significant
components in performance base design and the IDA
curves containing the essential information for their
evaluations. Performance levels should be defined in a
way to express the sense of structural performance
type. For instance, with a rule or a certain relationship,
in the satisfactory event, represents the seismic level
(Vamvatisikos and Cornell 2002). As shown in fig 8,
the performance limits can be defined on the IDA
curve. Immediate occupancy (IO) is transgress when
max exceeds 1% and the collapse prevention (CP) is
reached when the local slope of the IDA curve is 20%
of the slope of the IDA curve in the elastic range or
max=10%, whichever occurs first, i.e. at lower
intensity. The main idea is to place the CP limit state
at a point where the IDA curve is softened towards the
flat-line. Eventually, global dynamic instability (GI) is
distinguished by characteristic flattening of each IDA,
termed as the flat-line, where the seismic demand
increases greatly with the slightest increase in ground
motion intensity (Vamvatsikos, Jalayer, and Cornell
2003).

vi

Re

The IDA curves derived from incremental dynamic

analysis for the existing building before and after
retrofitting in both X, Y directions have been
illustrated in fig. 8. According to the curves, it is
clarified that IDA curves is very sensitive to the
characteristic of the selected earthquake record in
order to simplify and summarize the behavior
dispersion of the structure under the selected
earthquake records. The IDA curves have been
summarized into three curves by selecting the 16%,
50% and 84% fractile values. For instance, to explain
the summarization of the IDA curves of the retrofitted
structure in X direction (Fig. 8(b)), it is obvious when
an earthquake with a maximum spectral acceleration
of 1.7g occurs, 84% of structures similar to the
retrofitted structure will have a maximum inter-story
equals to 0.023 and 50% of the similar structures.
They will have a relative maximum drift inter-story
equals to 0.032 and 16% of the similar structures will
collapse, since the curve becomes horizontal and
smooth with zero slop. Moreover, the performance
limits of (IO) and (CP) for each earthquake according
to the aforementioned method in the previous section
are determined and presented in fig. 8. Due to the
three-dimensional modeling and applying earthquake
ground motions in two perpendicular directions (X,Y)
simultaneously, the results in X direction are
influenced by Y directions as well and vice versa.

ew

ly

During the IDA procedure, the ground motion

records were scaled to different intensity levels and
the dynamic time history analysis is performed for
each scaled ground motion record. They should be
scaled in such a manner that they are able to fulfill the
linear, nonlinear behavior limit, and eventually overall
collapse (instability) of the structure. The outcomes of
this analysis for an earthquake ground motion leads to
an IDA curve. This is acquired from graph of the
intensity of ground motion versus the seismic demand
parameter. Intensity of ground motion is distinguished
by A (T1, 5%), the spectral pseudo-acceleration
corresponding to the first-mode elastic vibration
period and 5% damping ratio. Demand parameters can
be determined from
, the relative maximum drift
of the roof obtained by dividing the roof displacement
by the building height, or
, the maximum over all
stories of the peak inter-story drift ratio, defined as the
story drift divided by the story height (Han and
Chopra 2006).
Former study (Cornell et al., 1999; Vamvatisikos
et al., 2002) have revealed that for the mid-rise
structures, ten to twenty records are usually adequate
to provide sufficient accuracy to estimate seismic
demands, assuming a relatively efficient IM, such as
Sa (T1,5%), is used. Normally, the analysis of 10 to 20

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

Table 6. Properties of selected earthquake records

Record
Imperial Valley 1979
Imperial Valley 1979
Northridge 1994
San Fernando 1971
Super Stition Hills 1987
Super Stition Hills 1987
Super Stition Hills 1987
Landers 1992
Cape Mendocino 1992
Coalinga 1983
Northridge, 1994
Imperial Valley, 1979
Loma Prieta, 1989
Loma Prieta, 1989
Loma Prieta, 1989
Loma Prieta, 1989
Imperial Valley, 1979
Loma Prieta, 1989
Imperial Valley, 1979
Loma Prieta, 1989

(M)
6.5
6.9
6.7
6.6
6.3
6.7
6.7
7.3
7.1
6.4
6.7
6.5
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.5
6.5
6.9

Distance (Km)
28.7
28.7
25.5
21.2
24.7
21
28.3
36.1
18.5
36.4
31.3
18.2
21.4
28.2
21.4
22.3
23.6
28.8
21.9
25.8

PGA,g
0.254
0.27
0.231
0.21
0.134
0.186
0.247
0.135
0.385
0.164
0.239
0.143
0.244
0.159
0.24
0.18
0.31
0.21
0.14
0.27

Duration ,sec
40
40
40
28
29.805
22.23
22.11
40
36
40
40
39
39.6
40
39.6
40
40
39.25
39.50
39.65

ew

vi

Re

N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

r
Fo

ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 8 of 16

Fig. 8 IDA and fractile IDA curves accomplish by limit-state capacities for the existing and retrofitted structure

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Page 9 of 16

Fig. 9 shows the summarized IDA curves of the

existing structure before and after retrofitting in both
X, Y directions. It is obvious that incorporation of
buckling restrained brace significantly increases the
capacity and seismic performance of the existing
structure in both directions. It is observed that the
retrofitting enhances the ability of structure to tolerate
greater inter-story drift from 0.012 to 0.016. The IDA
curves of the existing structure in both directions are
nearly the same. The limit state capacities for the
summarized IDA curves of the existing building
before and after retrofitting in both directions are
presented in Table 7. For immediate occupancy (IO)

in the 50% curve, retrofitting causes an increase about

75% in the intensity measure (IM). Retrofitting of the
structure at the collapse prevention level (CP)
increases the intensity measure and further the damage
measure of the structures. The retrofitted structure has
the tolerance of relatively larger drifts at the collapse
prevention level in comparison with the existing
structure. For collapse prevention level (CP) in the
50% curve of the retrofitted structure, in addition to
the two and half-fold increase of intensity measure,
the inter-story drift has further increased by 37
percent.

r
Fo
ew

vi

Re
Fig. 9 The summarized IDA curves of existing and retrofitted structure

CP

IO

CP

IO

On

0.025
0.029
0.033

0.01
0.01
0.01

0.49
0.60
0.70

0.19
0.2
0.21

16%
50%
84%

Existing
Structure

0.031
0.040
0.054

0.01
0.01
0.01

1.4
2.05
2.57

0.51
0.73
0.85

16%
50%
84%

Retrofitted
Structure

0.026
0.029
0.033

0.01
0.01
0.01

0.49
0.6
0.7

0.17
0.18
0.19

16%
50%
84%

Existing
Structure

0.026
0.04
0.059

0.01
0.01
0.01

1.7
2.31
2.67

0.61
0.76
0.95

16%
50%
84%

Retrofitted
Structure

Table 7 Limit states for the fractile IDA curves of the existing and retrofitted structure
DM

IM

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

X
Direction

Y
Direction

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

7. Modal incremental dynamic analysis

method (MIDA)
Despite all the advantages of the IDA method
compared with previous methods, however, due to the
use of multi degree of freedom model, non-linear
dynamic time history analysis is relatively
complicated and requires several time consuming
analyses. By the future investigation, it became
apparent that there is a need for a method which is
similar to the IDA and has two features, namely,
simplicity and acceptable accuracy. Mofid and Zarfam
suggested a method which provided the desired
objectives (Mofid et al., 2005; Zarfam et al., 2011).
This method which is called modal incremental
dynamic analysis (MIDA), was a combination of the
two previous methods, i.e. the IDA and MPA, so that
instead of non-linear RHA in the IDA method, the
MPA is used. Thus the available advantages of both
methods such as the use of single-degree of freedom
equivalent system and further the application of the
scaled earthquake records at different levels will be
utilized. By applying the MIDA, one can extract the
simple approximation curves related to the real linear
and non-linear seismic behavior of the structure due to
the use of earthquakes different scaled levels easily.
In the MIDA method, computation of each of the
modal demands rn requires two analyses. The first one,

r
Fo

(1) nonlinear static analysis of the given structure

which is under the force distribution of s*n = mn,
leading to the push-over base shear-roof displacement,
Vbn - urn, . The second one, (2) RHA nonlinear analysis
of the nth-mode inelastic SDF system. Fig. 10 shows
the push-over curves for the first mode in the six-story
building and the idealized modal pushover curve. It is
observed that the post yield slope of the first mode of
the pushover curves is negative due to the P- effects
and the reduced resistance in the members. The forcedeformation relation for the initial loading of the
modal SDF system is determined by appropriately
scaling both axes of the idealized modal pushover
curve and plotting Vbn / Mn* versus urn / nrn, in
which Mn* is designated as the effective modal mass
and rn is assigned as n value at the roof (Han et al.,
2006; Chopra et al., 2002).
Fig. 12 and 13 shows the IDA and MIDA curves
corresponding to 16%, 50% and 84% fractile values
for the existing and retrofitted buildings with
buckling-restrained brace. The approximate IDA curve
estimated by the MIDA procedure including one mode
is presented together with the exact IDA curves
determined by nonlinear RHA. The ideal selection for
ground motion intensity is A (T1,5%), the spectral
pseudo-acceleration corresponding to the first-mode
elastic vibration period and 5% damping ratio.

ew

vi

Re

ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 10 of 16

Fig. 10 Static pushover curves for the first natural vibration mode and their idealization of the existing and retrofitted
structure

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Page 11 of 16

r
Fo
vi

Re
Fig. 11 MIDA curves of the existing and retrofitted structure

The comparison of the presented figures shows that

the MIDA curves is fairly accurate over the entire
range of drift ratios, even close to the collapse.
Moreover as observed in the curves, the accuracy of
the MIDA method is not reduced for the existing
structure compared with the retrofitted structure with
the BRB. In addition, due to the fact that in the exact
method of IDA, the nonlinear RHA has been
employed, the MIDA method requires much less
computational effort compared with the exact method
of the IDA.

The structural capacities, defined in terms of the

IM index, have been already estimated for the limit
states (IO, CP). In Fig. 11, it is observed that the
intensity index corresponding to max=0.01 for the
fractile IDA curves is accurate and perfect. Although
CP limit state points do not lay on the fractile IDAs,
however they are highly close to the IDA curves. The
fractile point corresponding to the CP limit state is
determined when the local slope of the IDA curve is
20% of the slope of the IDA curve in the elastic range
or max=10%, whichever occurs first, i.e. at lower
intensity.

ew

ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

Fig. 12 Comparison of the curves 16, 50 and 84% with accurate method of IDA and approximate method of MIDA for existing
structure

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

Fig. 13 Comparison of the curves 16, 50 and 84% with accurate method of IDA and approximate method of MIDA for
retrofitted structures

r
Fo

Tables 8 and 9 present the structural capacities

determined by the intensity index of the IM
(A(T1,5%)), for the existing and retrofitted structure
with the BRB. In these tables, two values are provided
for the structural capacities, one of which is the result

Re

of accurate IDA curves and the other has been derived

from the MIDA curves. The results reveal that the
precision of the MIDA method for the existing
structure and the retrofitted structure is highly
satisfactory for each performance level.

Table 8 Comparison of the intensity index corresponding with the performance limits for the existing structure and the
structure retrofitted with the buckling-restrained brace (BRB) in X direction
16%
Limit state

ew

vi

50%

84%

IDA

MIDA

IDA

MIDA

IDA

MIDA

Existing

IO

0.191434

0.168793

0.1966

0.182815

0.209706

0.195163

Structure

CP

0.487573

0.500008

0.599095

0.648875

0.699159

0.802576

Retrofitted

IO

0.512926

0.463312

0.72926

0.626886

0.845632

0.734333

Structure

CP

1.40352

1.58916

2.05

2.0025

2.56576

2.501456

ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 12 of 16

Table 9 Comparison of the intensity index corresponding with the performance limits for the existing structure and the
structure retrofitted with the buckling-restrained brace (BRB) in Y direction
16%

50%

84%

Limit state
IDA

MIDA

IDA

MIDA

IDA

MIDA

Existing

IO

0.174432

0.156746

0.183671

0.170132

0.19406

0.189394

Structure

CP

0.493524

0.4988

0.598845

0.60015

0.69914

0.801893

Retrofitted

IO

0.610415

0.533737

0.763981

0.722529

0.955378

0.830525

Structure

CP

1.709768

1.801088

2.31

2.5866

2.696

3.078528

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Page 13 of 16

Fig. 14 Comparison of the structural capacities determined with IDA curves and MIDA curves in X direction

8.

r
Fo

Fragility curves

Fragility curves express the probability of

structural damage due to earthquakes as a function of
ground motion indices. A random point on the
fragility curve shows the conditional probability that
the damage under an earthquake of a given intensity
will exceed a certain damage state. In this study,
fragility curves are founded in terms of Sa, It is
assumed that the fragility curves can be expressed in
the form of two-parameter lognormal distribution
functions. Based on this assumption, the cumulative
probability of the incidence of damage, equal to or
higher than damage level D, is expressed as:

capacity of the structure can be expressed. The

fragility curves express the probability of structural
damage due to earthquakes as a function of ground
motion indices. A random point on the fragility curve
indicates the conditional probability which the damage
under an earthquake of a given intensity will exceed a
certain limit state. In this paper, the peak ground
acceleration corresponding to the collapse limit and
immediate occupancy are selected as the given
parameter with respect to the curves obtained from the
IDA and MIDA analysis. Fig. 15 shows the fragility
curves for the existing and retrofitted structure for the
collapse limit state. The slop of fragility curve
represents the rate of change of the probability of
exceedance which is different among the curves, so
that at the existing structure is much higher compared
with the retrofitted structure.

LnX
P ( D ) =

ew

vi

Re

(1)

Fig. 16 and 17 show the fragility curves for the

existing and retrofitted structure in the different
damage states. For all damage states, the physical
improvement of the seismic vulnerability due to
incorporation of the BRB elements becomes obvious
in terms of enhanced fragility curves shifting toward
those associated with the existing building to the right
when plotted as a function of spectral acceleration
(Sa). It is further observed that the curves become
flatter as the limit states shifts from immediate
occupancy to collapse prevention due to the nature of
the statistical distribution of ground motion index (Sa).
Moreover, the fragility curves become flatter in
retrofitted structure. Therefore, small variations in low
(Sa) values resulted in marked differences in the
probability of exceedance of the damage states.
Consequently, the structure is more sensitive to the
changes under low seismic intensity compared to high
intensity levels.

ly

Where is the standard normal distribution, X is

the lognormal distributed ground motion index (e.g.,
Sa, Sd, PGA), and and are the mean and standard
deviation of ln X. The mean and standard deviation of
ground motion indices for each damage level are
obtained, which is a lognormal plot of ln X and the
corresponding standard normal variable. This method
is based on plotting ln X versus the corresponding
standard normal variable on a lognormal scale and
performing a linear regression analysis to determine
the mean and standard deviation of ln X for each
damage level (Guneyisi and Altay 2008).
With respect to the dispersion of the curves
obtained from the IDA and MIDA method, it is
necessary that these changes be stated quantitatively
for evaluation of the structure at the limit states of
collapse prevention and immediate occupancy. For
this purpose, application of fragility curves, despite
the use of the IDA and MIDA analyses, the collapse

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

Fig. 15 Fragility curves of the existing and retrofitted structure for the collapse prevention limit state in X and Y directions in
terms of Sa

r
Fo

ew

vi

Re
Fig. 16 Fragility curves of the existing structure for immediate occupancy and collapse prevention limit.

ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 14 of 16

Fig. 17 Fragility curves of the retrofitted structure for immediate occupancy and collapse prevention limit

Fig. 18 and 19 shows the fragility curves obtained

from the fitting of the maximum horizontal
acceleration values proportionate with the collapsing
limit with Lognormal Cumulative distribution function
in the existing structure. The retrofitted structure
which has been determined by two methods, namely,
nonlinear RHA based on exact analysis and push over
modal static analysis (MPA) based on an approximate
analysis for the first mode.

Evidently, the results of approximate analysis

(MIDA) is relatively accurate and the accuracy of the
MIDA method in estimating fragility curves of
collapse (CP) for the existing structures and the
structure
retrofitted
with
the
bucklingrestrained brace (BRB) is appropriate. The MIDA
method provides a reasonable estimation of the
necessary magnitude of the earthquake due to the
structure collapse and its calculations size lower than
the IDA method.

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Page 15 of 16

Fig. 18 Fragility curves determined by exact IDA and MIDA approximate method for the existing structure for collapse
prevention limit state

r
Fo
ew

vi

Re
Fig. 19 Fragility curves determined by exact IDA and MIDA approximate method for the retrofitted structure for collapse
prevention limit state

9.

On

(4)

Conclusion

In the present study effectiveness of application of

buckling restrained braces in seismic retrofitting of the
existing R/C structure has been studied. Results
indicate that:
(1) The incremental dynamic analysis is the suitable
tool for qualitative and quantitative evaluation of
the seismic performance of the existing structure
before and after retrofitting.
(2)
Incorporation of the BRB
elements to the existing structure lead to enhance
capacity of structure and drift on immediate
occupancy and collapse prevention performance
level respectively.
(3)
The retrofitted structure
has the higher ability to tolerate inter-story drift
in collapse prevention level than the existing
structure.

With regard to the 50%

fractil IDA curve of the retrofitted structure that a
two and a half- fold increase in intensity measure
accomplish by the inter-story drift about 37
percent have been observed.
(5) Estimation of the seismic demands for buildings,
by the MPA, using the MIDA method instead of
the accurate method of non-linear RHA with the
IDA method leads to a highly efficient method.
The amount of the computational operation
needed in the MIDA method is a small
percentage of the similar operation in the IDA
method. Furthermore, the MIDA curve is
relatively accurate in the whole range of drift,
even in the areas near the collapse. And In both
buildings of the existing structures and the
retrofitted structures, the accuracy of the MIDA
method is satisfactory. Moreover, this method
can be employed to estimate the capacities of
structure performance limit including the
immediate occupancy, collapse prevention and
global dynamic instability.

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

(6) In determination of the ground motion intensity

(Sa) by the MIDA method only the first mode of
vibration of the structure needs to be considered,
consequently, the fragility curve can be
developed by IDA of the first-mode inelastic
SDF system derived by a first-mode pushover
analysis of the structure.
(7) The developed fragility curves for two damage
states help to get the excellent viewpoint
relative to the R/C buildings design, retrofit, and
performance in future seismic events; showing
that the simulated fragility curves for retrofitting
cases with buckling restrained braces show
excellent improvement (less fragile) compared to
those before retrofit.

REFERENCES

r
Fo

AISC (2005), Seismic provisions for structural steel

building. American Institute of Steel Construction
Inc. (AISC), Chicago, IL.
Chopra AK and Goel RK (2002), A modal pushover
analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for
buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 31(3): 561-582.
Di Sarno L and Elanashai AS (2009), Bracing
systems for seismic retrofitting of stell frames,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 452-465.
FEMA 450 and 356 (2004), NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings
and Other Structures, FEMA 450, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Gilmore AT and Garca JR (2010), Comparative
Seismic Performance of Steel Frames Retrofitted with
Buckling-Restrained Braces Through the Application
of
Force-Based
and
Displacement-Based
Approaches, Soil Dynamic and Earthquake
Engineering 31(3): 478-490.
Gneyisi EM (2011), Seismic Reliability of Steel
Moment Resisting Framed Buildings Retrofitted with
Buckling-Restrained
Braces,
Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics.
Guneyisi EM and Altay G (2008), Seismic fragility
assessment of effectiveness of viscous dampers in R/C
buildings under scenario earthquakes, Struct Safety
30: 461-80.
Guneyisi EM and Ozel AE (2011), Effects of
eccentric steel bracing systems on seismic fragility
curves of mid-rise R/C buildings: A case study,
Struct Safety 33:82-95.
Han SW and Chopra AK (2006), Approximate
incremental dynamic analysis using the modal
pushover
analysis
procedure,
Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 135: 18531873.

Jeong S and Elnashai AS (2007), Fragility

relationships for torsionally-imbalanced buildings
using three-dimensional damage characterization,
Eng Struct 29:2172-82.
Lpez WA and Sabelli R (2004), Seismic design of
buckling-restrained braced frames, Steel tips. Moraga
(CA): Structural Steel Educational Council.
Mofid S, Zarfam P and Raeisi Fard B (2005), On the
modal incremental dynamic analysis, The Structural
Design of Tall and Special Buildings 14(4):315-329.
Sahoo, DR and Chao S (2010), Performance-based
plastic design method for buckling-restrained braced
frames, Engineering Structures 32:2950-2958.
Shome, N and Cornell CA (1999), Probabilistic
seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures,
Reliability of Marine Structures Report No. RMS-35,
Dept. of Civil. And Environmental Engineering.,
Standford University.
Standard No3 2800 (2006), Iranian Code of Practice
for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, Building
&Housing Research Center.
Vamvatisikos D and Cornell CA (2002), Incremental
dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 31: 491-514.
Vamvatsikos D, Jalayer F and Cornell CA (2003),
Application of incremental dynamic analysis to an
RC structure, Proceedings of the conference: FIB
Symposium, Concrete structure in seismic regions,
Athens, Greece.
Yakut A, Gulkan P, Bakir BS and Yilmaz MT (2005),
Re-examination of damage distribution in
Adapazari, structural considerations. Eng Struct
27:990-1001.
Zarfam, P and Mofid M (2011), On the modal
incremental dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete
structures, using a trilinear idealization model,
Engineering Structures 33:1117-1122.

ew

vi

Re

ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 16 of 16

http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev