Evaluation of the Effect of Connection Stiffness on the Failure Probability of Zipper Bracing Frames under the Near- and Far-Fault Earthquakes, Performance Levels Approach

Document Type : Research Article


1 Ab Khak Energy Jonoub Counsalting Engineers, Ahvaz, Iran

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Shoushtar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shoushtar, Iran

3 Department of Civil Engineering, Institute for Higher Education ACECR, Khouzestan, Iran

4 Department of Civil Engineering, Abadan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadan, Iran


Vertical elements between the beams can be used to control the failure of the chevron braces due to the post-buckling behavior. Zipper bracing is a new bracing system which expected to recover chevron bracing defects. By applying the vertical element to the chevron bracing and converting it to a zipper frame, it improves frame resistance, ductility and energy absorption. In this thesis, the seismic behavior of zipper brace frames is investigated for different percentages of beam-to-column connection stiffness under near- and far-field earthquakes. For this purpose, two types of pre-designed 4 and 8-story steel frame with 0, 25, 75 and 100 stiffness percentages are analyzed using the IDA method in OpenSEES. Finally, the fragility curves are compared at 4 performance levels. According to the results obtained from IDA analysis and the fragility curves, the effect of different stiffness percentages under near-fault earthquakes is more noticeable than far-fault earthquakes, which decreases the percentage of structural collapse by articulation the retention and articulation of joints. This probability also depends on the height of the frame. On the other hand, it can be obtained that the rigidity of the connections does not significantly change the structural capacity and performance levels.


Main Subjects

[1] A. Ghobarah, Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of development, Engineering structures, 23(8) (2001) 878-884.
[2] M. Movasat, Behavior of Hollow-Core Two-Way Flat Slab with Slender Type Void Former under Gravity Loads Using Full-Scale Experimental Test and Analytical Modeling, Building Engineering & Housing Science, 13(24) (2020) 31-42 (in Persian).
[3] V. Sharma, M.K. Shrimali, S.D. Bharti, T.K. Datta, Behavior of semi-rigid steel frames under near-and far-field earthquakes, Steel and Composite Structures, 34(5) (2020) 625-641.
[4] E.M. Hassan, S. Admuthe, H. Mahmoud, Response of semi-rigid steel frames to sequential earthquakes, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 173 (2020) 106272.
[5] H. Shakib, S.D. Joghan, M. Pirizadeh, A.M. Musavi, Seismic rehabilitation of semi-rigid steel framed buildings—A case study, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 67(6) (2011) 1042-1049.
[6] M. Razavi, M. Sheidaii, Seismic performance of cable zipper-braced frames, Journal of constructional steel research, 74 (2012) 49-57.
[7] S.N.A. Saruddin, F.M. Nazri, Fragility curves for low-and mid-rise buildings in Malaysia, Procedia Engineering, 125 (2015) 873-878.
[8] A. Kiani, B. Mansouri, A.S. Moghadam, Fragility curves for typical steel frames with semi-rigid saddle connections, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 118 (2016) 231-242.
[9] L. Hofer, P. Zampieri, M.A. Zanini, F. Faleschini, C. Pellegrino, Seismic damage survey and empirical fragility curves for churches after the August 24, 2016 Central Italy earthquake, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 111 (2018) 98-109.
[10] S. No, 2800 “Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings”, Third Revision, Building and Housing Research Center, Tehran,  (2005) (in Persian).
[11] H.a.U.D. Committe, National Building Regulations of Iran, 6th Chapter: Loading on structures, 2015 (in Persian).
[12] H.a.U.D. Committe, National Building Regulations of Iran, 10th Chapter: Specification for steel structures design, 2015 (in Persian).
[13] V. Etabs, Ultimate, Integrated Software for Structural Analysis &Design, Computers and Structures Inc,  (2019).
[14] A. Committee, Specification for structural steel buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-10), American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago-Illinois,  (2010).
[15] F.N.I.o.B. Sciences, HAZUS‐MH MR1, Multi‐hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Earthquake Model, in, 2003.
[16] M. Sekulovic, R. Salatic, Nonlinear analysis of frames with flexible connections, Computers & Structures, 79(11) (2001) 1097-1107.
[17] F. McKenna, OpenSees: a framework for earthquake engineering simulation, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13(4) (2011) 58-66.