NUMERICAL MODEL FOR BUCKLING RESTRAINED

BRACES USING AN ALTERNATIVE

CONFINING MATERIAL

Matías Morral, Ricardo Herrera, Juan Beltrán,

María Ofelia Moroni, Marlena Murillo

Santiago, January 10th 2017

1
 Outline
• Introduction
• Objectives
• Numerical Model
• Validation
• Parametric analysis
• Conclusions

2
 Introduction
Buckling Restrained Braces (BRBs) components:
• Steel core
• Debonding material
• Confining material

Conventional and BRB behavior:

3
 Objectives

• Establish a range of mechanical properties

required for a material to be used as
confining material in a BRB.
• Predict the behavior of the brace
subjected to cyclic loads using numerical
models (3D FEM).

4
 Analytical Procedure

(Black et al, 2002)

For a brace with buckling length L,

π2
Pcr = Pe = E I + E0 I0
KL 2 i i

𝑃𝑐𝑟 ≥ 𝜎𝑢 𝐴𝑖

Pcr = 2 βEi Ii
σ2𝑢 b
β≥3
Et t

5
 Stiffness of confining material
Generalized Lame-Hooke Law
Boundary Conditions

𝜖𝑦𝑦 = 𝜖𝑧𝑧 = 0 (steel casing)

Material elastic stiffness
𝜖𝑥𝑦 = 𝜖𝑥𝑧 = 𝜖𝑦𝑧 = 0 (Confining
material)

1−𝜈 𝐸𝑐 1−𝜈
𝛽𝑒 = 𝐸𝑐 + 𝐺 = = 𝛽𝑒 = 2𝐺
(1 + 𝜈)(1 − 2𝜈) 2(1 + 𝜈) 1 − 2𝜈

Elastic, linear and

isotropic Material

6
 Numerical Model: Materials
Constitutive Laws

Bilinear Model: Steel ASTM A36 Neo-Hookean Model of Confining

Material
𝐺0 = 15 [𝑀𝑃𝑎],
𝜅 = 2000 [𝑀𝑃𝑎] 7
 Numerical Model: FEM

3D Solid186

Confining material
Element Geometry [mm]
Properties Range
Steel core 𝐸 107 −Rectangular
429 𝑀𝑃𝑎100X10
3 mm. initial Confining material 190X190X90X45
imperfection 𝜈 0,49 −
Steel Casing 𝐺 36 − HSS
144200X200X5
𝑀𝑃𝑎
8
𝛽𝑒 1,8 − 7,3 𝐺𝑃𝑎
 Boundary Conditions
Plate Steel
Ux=Uy=Uz=0 • Loading history used:
rx=ry=rz=0
20
𝑓 𝑥 = 𝐴 𝑥 ∙ sin 𝑏 𝑥
15
𝐴 𝑥 = x/4

Displacement [mm]
10 𝑏 𝑥 =72∙x
5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-5

-10

-15

-20
Step [x]
f(x)
Plate Steel
Ux=f(x)
Uy=Uz=0
rx=ry=rz=0
9
 Validation
Newell et al 2006: “Subassemblage Testing of Corebrace Buckling
Restrained Braces” University of California San Diego, Report N° TR 2006/01

Geometric
Material Properties
Properties
L (mm) ASTM6.607
Core A36
Lc (mm)ASTM A500
HSS 4.683 B
Ly (mm)
Confining 3.366
Concrete
f’c (mm) 61
HSS 356x356X8
MPa
Core
Ec (mm) 17,5203X38
GPa
10
 Validation
Normal stresses in BRB
Numerical Model v/s experimental results
longitudinal direction
2000
Numerical Model 1500

Resultant Force [kips]

1000
500
0
-4 -2 0 2 4
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000

Asymmetric compression hardening Brace Deformation [in]

11
 Validation
Hardening

Hysteretic behavior experimental test and numerical model 12

 Parametric analysis
Variables considered:

Shear Bulk Friction Confined

Modulus Modulus coefficient Length
𝑮 𝜿 𝝁 𝑳𝒄

𝑮 = 𝟑𝟎 𝑴𝑷𝒂
𝜿 = 𝟏𝟒 𝑴𝑷𝒂 𝝁 = 𝟎, 𝟏 𝑳𝒄 = 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎
𝑮 = 𝟓𝟎 𝑴𝑷𝒂
𝜿 = 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝑴𝑷𝒂 𝝁 = 𝟎, 𝟓 𝑳𝒄 = 𝟐𝟓𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎
𝑮 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝑴𝑷𝒂

Capacity of the alternative Adherence

elastoplastic material

13
 Effect of G and 𝜿 variation, Monotonic Loading

• Prevent premature
buckling of BRB
- 𝜅 = 2000 𝑀𝑃𝑎
- 𝐺 ≥ 50 [𝑀𝑃𝑎]

14
 F𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝝁
G100 [MPa] G50 [MPa] G30 [MPa]

16
 F𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝝁
G100 [MPa] G50 [MPa] G30 [MPa]

17
 BRB Stability
Confining material properties
404 KN
Variable Value
𝜇 0,1 -
𝐺 >50 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝜅 2000 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝐿𝑐 2000 𝑚𝑚

426 KN

𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 𝑀6

18
 Compression

≈ 5 MPa

≈460 MPa

< 250 MPa

19
 Conclusions
• FE model should be considered as a tool to help future design of BRB.
• Isotropic hardening is not able to completely represent the behavior of BRB.
Kinematic hardening needed to have a better representation of the BRB.
• Model predicts larger strength, higher axial stiffness and asymmetric
compression hardening. Effects less pronounced for softer confining material.
Numerical model useful to identify main variables that influence the BRB
response.
• Shear and bulk moduli directly affect the rigidity of the confining material and
core confinement. Larger ductility and strength as both moduli increase.
• Larger 𝜇 values => lower relative displacements and larger transmitted forces.
Effect produces increase in post yield stiffness, increasing asymmetry in
tension and compression.
• Important variables: initial imperfection and mode shape assumed. Buckling
mode number 10 and 3 [mm] imperfection amplitude are recommended.

20
Acknowledgments

Funding by Fondef IDeA grant CA13I10026 and

University of Chile is greatly appreciated.

21