Poster SafeerSahoo
Poster SafeerSahoo
net/publication/235789030
CITATIONS READS
3 514
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Muhamed Safeer Pandikkadavath on 02 June 2014.
Force/Yield Force
[email protected] m
Base Shear (kN)
INTRODUCTION 5000
ALL BRACES YIELDED
5.50 m
• The main disadvantage of buckling-restrained braced frames 0
HBF
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
2 BRBF 2 BRBF
CBF CBF
HBF
• To control the excessive post-earthquake residual drift (as 1 1
HBF
0 1 2 3 0 2 4 6
observed in case of BRBFs), Maximum ISDR (%) Maximum ISDR (%)
6 6
• To avoid the brace fracture (as observed in CBFs) in the DBE MCE
event of earthquakes, 5 5
Story
23.35 m.
HSS section
[email protected] m
CONCLUSIONS
• All beam-to-column • Both interstory and residual drift response of braced frame is
connections are rigid significantly reduced in HBF as compared to BRBF.
BRB
except the top story. • The drift response of HBF is nearly same as that of the CBF.
• the plastic hinging in columns and brace fracture, as
5.50 m
Paper No. RRS DIS-114, International Conference on Rehabilitation and Restoration of Structures, February 13-16, 2013, IIT Madras, Chennai, India
View publication stats