Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Shock and Vibration
Volume 2016, Article ID 6808137, 15 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6808137
Research Article

Effect of Buckling Restrained Braces Locations on Seismic Responses of High-Rise RC Core Wall Buildings

1Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2The University of Lahore, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
3GC University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan

Received 4 June 2015; Revised 14 September 2015; Accepted 27 September 2015

Academic Editor: Marcello Vanali

Copyright © 2016 Munir Ahmed et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Conventionally, a flexural plastic hinge is designed and detailed at the core wall base and coupling beams ends to control the seismic responses. This strategy is based on allowing the damage to be concentrated on main structural components. To avoid such damage, an alternative strategy using energy dissipating devices (EDDs) such as buckling restrained braces (BRBs) is being studied and implemented nowadays. In this study, effect of BRBs locations on forty- (40-) story high-rise RC core wall case study building has been studied in detail using Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NLRHA) for seven spectrally matched ground motions. BRBs have been installed at critical locations identified with respect to the maximum DBE elastic modal racking shear deformation demands and force (shear and moment) demands in three different options. The force, deformation, and energy demands on structural components are compared for conventional design and different options of BRBs. The comparison with conventional design shows that BRBs not only are effective for reducing shear force demand along wall height, bending moment demand at mid height, and deformation demands by 10%, 45%, and 45%, respectively, but significantly reduce the rotation and energy demands in the core wall by 90% and 250%, respectively.