Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1570–1579

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Risk-based seismic performance assessment of Yielding Shear Panel

Device
Md Raquibul Hossain a, Mahmud Ashraf b,⇑, Jamie E. Padgett c
a
School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
b
School of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2610, Australia
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, MS-318, Houston, TX 77005, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Yielding Shear Panel Devices (YSPDs) have recently been proposed to facilitate passive energy dissipation
Received 31 January 2012 of building frames during seismic activity and hence protect major structural components from excessive
Revised 21 July 2013 stress. A YSPD is composed of a thin steel diaphragm plate encapsulated within a square hollow steel
Accepted 23 July 2013
tube, which is bolted to the structure to utilize the inelastic shear deformation capability of the steel dia-
Available online 26 August 2013
phragm plate for energy dissipation and for consequent modification to the structural response. This
paper conducts probabilistic performance evaluation to assess the appropriateness of YSPDs given uncer-
Keywords:
tainty in the occurrence and intensity of earthquakes, material strength, stiffness, structural response,
Bouc–Wen–Baber–Noori (BWBN) model
Earthquake
etc., and evaluate performance based on size, number and configuration of YSPDs. A fragility analysis
Seismic energy dissipation is conducted, which identifies the probability of exceeding a structural damage level depending on
Probabilistic seismic performance ground motion intensity, along with a limit state probability analysis to quantify the annual exceedance
Seismic fragility probability of a specified damage level. A mathematical model to represent YSPDs in a finite element code
Yielding Shear Panel Device is developed and the model is used for analyzing a case study steel moment frame with alternative YSPD
designs. The study reveals the potential for considerable reduction in the median fragility and annual
limit state exceedance probability due to the inclusion of YSPDs through a V-brace system. However,
the effectiveness of different YSPD orientations is varied and their relative performance levels are dis-
cussed in detail. Overall, the study shows the suitability of YSPD as a passive energy dissipation device
and the potential to utilize this device to help achieve performance-based objectives for buildings in seis-
mic zones.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction added damping and stiffness (ADAS) device [1–3], triangular added
damping and stiffness (TADAS) device [4,5], steel plate shear wall
Recent seismic activities around the globe have revealed the (SPSW) [6,7], among others. These metal yielding devices utilise
need to identify sustainable solutions for reducing the catastrophic the stable hysteretic response of the constituent materials to dissi-
impacts of earthquakes. Researchers have introduced a variety of pate energy.
active, semi-active and passive energy dissipation devices to The Yielding Shear Panel Device (YSPD) [8,9] is another recently
diminish the damaging seismic effects. Passive control mecha- proposed metal yielding energy dissipating device as shown in
nisms received attention due to their simplicity in design as well Fig. 1. YSPD dissipates energy by taking advantage of its stable hys-
as some additional unique advantages over other control mecha- teretic in-plane shear deformation of the steel diaphragm plate.
nisms. For example, passive control devices are generally more YSPD is composed of a steel diaphragm plate welded inside a steel
reliable due to their independence of external power, are easy to square hollow section (SHS). SHS provides the supporting bound-
rehabilitate, economical and less complex. Some commonly used ary for the diaphragm plate as well as connectivity with the V-
metal yielding passive energy dissipating devices include the brace and the beam through bolted connection. Previous studies
have focused on the device development, numerical modelling
and response assessment in a deterministic fashion [9–12]. Uncer-
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Room 127, Building 20, Australian Defence tainties arising from the occurrence and intensity of earthquakes,
Forces Academy, School of Engineering and Information Technology, The University material strength and stiffness, structural response and conse-
of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2610, Australia. Tel.: +61 2 6268 8334; fax: +61
2 6268 8450.
quences were not considered for the performance evaluation of
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.R. Hossain), mahmud.ashraf@unsw. YSPDs. Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation techniques,
edu.au (M. Ashraf), [email protected] (J.E. Padgett). such as seismic fragility analysis and limit state probability

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.032
 M.R. Hossain et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1570–1579 1571

Thickness = T
Thickness = t
S = 50mm

D d

Elevation Top View

Fig. 1. Yielding Shear Panel Device (YSPD) [5].

analysis, consider these uncertainties and have been used to eval- North–South lateral load-bearing moment resisting frame of this
uate the performance of various seismic retrofit techniques for benchmark structure is chosen to evaluate the performance of
buildings and bridges [13,14]. This paper uses a probabilistic ap- YSPD. Fig. 2 shows the floor plan and the moment resisting frame
proach to assess the performance of YSPDs using a benchmark of the three storey SAC model structure. Ohtori and Spencer [16]
structure to provide insights into the relative performance of an provided a detailed description of the structural design, loadings
as-built and YSPD retrofitted structure. Uncertainties associated and evaluation model for this benchmark structure. The funda-
with seismic intensity and structural responses are considered mental frequency of the first mode was found to be 0.99 Hz and
for probabilistic performance evaluation of YSPDs. Probabilistic spectral acceleration (Sa) for a time period of T1 = 1.0 s is used as
tools such as fragility curves and point estimates of risk of damage the earthquake intensity measure.
are used to uncover the impacts of these uncertainties and subse- The North–South lateral load-bearing frame of the three storey
quently identify the performance of YSPDs for different design con- Los Angeles SAC structure is modelled as a 2-dimensional frame
figurations. Obtained results provide some useful insight into using Opensees [21]. The slab system is assumed sufficiently stiff
changes in the probabilistic performance of a structure as a result for preventing the lateral movement in the normal direction of
of change in the device size and their relative positioning within the frame. The columns and the far end simply supported beams
the structure. It is worth noting that for other building configura- are modelled as elastic beam–column elements. Zero-length
tions the probabilistic performance may vary based on the building springs with negligible stiffness are used as the connecting ele-
design and the arrangement of YSPDs. ments between the column joints and simply supported beams.
Fixed supported beams are modelled as elastic beams with hinges.
The plastic hinge is modelled by concentrated plasticity over a
2. Structural model for seismic performance assessment
hinge length of 10% beam length at the end of all beams [20]. A
uni-axial bilinear strain hardening material (1% kinematic harden-
The moment resisting frame of the Los Angeles (LA) three storey
ing with an yield strength of 345 MPa) is used to model the plastic
SAC model structure, designed for the SAC Phase II Steel Project
hinge as a fibre section [10]. The inherent damping is modelled as
[15,16] has been used by many researchers for performance evalu-
Rayleigh damping with a damping ratio of 2% and has been
ation of various seismic control devices [17–20]. The four bayed

4 @ 30ft

Hinge Connection Rigid Link

13ft
6 @ 30ft

13ft

13ft

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. (a) Floor plan of the Los Angeles three storey SAC model structure and (b) analytical model of the North–South lateral load-bearing moment resisting frame [11,12].
1572 M.R. Hossain et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1570–1579

Table 1 element with large axial and bending stiffness and a hinge with
Member sizes of the North–South lateral load-bearing frame [12]. negligible stiffness is introduced at the beam ends to simulate
Storey Columns Beams similar moment release as rigid links. The stiffness contributions
With one With two Other Fixed ends Hinged of the gravity columns are neglected whilst the P–D effects are
fixed beam fixed column ends considered by following the above mentioned procedure.
beams (weak axis)
1 W14  257 W14  311 W14  68 W33  118 W21  44
2 W14  257 W14  311 W14  68 W30  116 W21  44 3. YSPDs within the moment resisting frame
3 W14  257 W14  311 W14  68 W24  68 W21  44
Hossain and Ashraf [12] used the Bouc–Wen–Baber–Noori
(BWBN) model [23] to represent the pinching hysteretic force
deformation relationship of YSPDs and provided closed-form rela-
assigned to the first and the third mode of the frame [22]. Table 1 tionships among the physical parameters and model parameters.
summarizes the beam and the column sections of the North–South Haukaas and Der Kiureghian [24] implemented the BWBN model
lateral load-bearing frame. in Opensees [21] as a uni-axial material model excluding the
Gravity load of the entire structure is 10,142 kN for the top floor pinching effect. This existing code is modified to incorporate the
whilst 9376 kN for the other floors [15]. Each lateral load bearing pinching effect herein for probabilistic seismic performance
frame carries half of this seismic load as the interior frames are assessment of YSPDs. A detailed explanation of the BWBN model
considered as gravity frames. The seismic load is applied to the and incremental algorithm for Opensees implementation is pre-
frame as a combination of distributed load and point load. A dis- sented in Appendix A. YSPDs are modelled as spring elements con-
tributed load is applied to the beams calculated from the tributary nected between the beam and the V-brace. The BWBN material
area of the adjacent East–West Bay. Remaining seismic load is ap- model is used as the constituent material model for these spring
plied to a dummy gravity column (known as ‘leaning column’) as elements.
point load for considering the P–D effect. The dummy column is YSPDs are installed in the North–South lateral load-bearing mo-
pin connected with the lateral force resisting frame using rigid ment resisting frame of the SAC three storey building for improv-
links. A rigid link considers the translational constrains between ing its seismic performance. YSPDs are installed in the each
the two connected nodes and it is moment released at its ends. storey of one interior bay as shown in Fig. 3 (Case 1) and all mo-
The dummy column is modelled as an elastic beam–column ment resisting bays as shown in Fig. 3 (Case 2). Three different

YSPD Hinge Connection Rigid Link

13ft

13ft

13ft

30ft 30ft 30ft 30ft

Case 1

YSPD Hinge Connection Rigid Link

13ft

13ft

13ft

30ft 30ft 30ft 30ft

Case 2
Fig. 3. Analytical model of the North–South lateral load-bearing moment resisting frame equipped with YSPDs.
 M.R. Hossain et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1570–1579 1573

Table 2
BWBN model parameters for the YSPDs [7].

YDPD (D  T  t) fy (MPa) kt (kN/mm) Fi (kN) A b c n q f1o p w0 dw k

100  4  2 250 0.33 26.76 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.213 0.52 0.96 0.018 0.41 0.00001 0.0300
110  5  3 300 0.42 54.22 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.544 0.38 0.95 0.015 0.27 0.00001 0.0014
120  6  4 350 0.49 93.51 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.300 0.30 0.95 0.012 0.22 0.00001 0.0002

D is the Size of YSPD (mm).

T is the thickness of SHS plate (mm).
t is the thickness of diaphragm plate (mm).
fy is the yield strength of SHS and diaphragm plates (MPa).
kt is the tangential stiffness of YSPD after tension field formation (kN/mm).
Fi, A, b, c, n are hysteretic parameters and q, f1o, p, w0, dw, k are pinching parameters (See Appendix A for detail description).

120
4. Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation

Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation identifies the re-

60 sponse of a structure considering the uncertainties associated with
the seismic events and the subsequent structural responses. The
Force (kN)

limit state, which is denoted by damage state (DS), probability of

0 the seismic risk assessment is defined by Eq. (1) assuming seismic
intensity demand (Q) and structural capacity (R) as random vari-
ables [25].
X
-60 PLS ¼ P½DSjQ ¼ x  P½Q ¼ x ð1Þ
YSPD 100X4X2 x
YSPD 110X5X3
where P[DS|Q = x] represents the seismic fragility of the structure
YSPD 120X6X4
-120 and P[Q = x] represents the seismic hazard. Seismic fragility incor-
-25 -12.5 0 12.5 25 porates uncertainties associated with structural response, which is
Displacement (mm) affected by the response modification device or retrofit. Seismic
hazard estimates, on the other hand, are characterized from proba-
Fig. 4. Cyclic force displacement relationship of the YSPDs generated using the bilistic seismic hazard analyses and are often represented on the ba-
BWBN models proposed by Hossain et al. [7].
sis of mean earthquake occurrence rates. Combination of this
information yields estimates of probabilities of different levels of
damage state risks.
Table 3
Size of the braces used in the current study.
Appropriate definition of damage state measure and earthquake
intensity measure is one of the vital steps for probabilistic seismic
YSPD Steel Brace assessment. Researchers proposed several displacement-based, en-
YSPD 100  4  2 HSS4  4  1/8 ergy-based and hybrid damage measures for structures subjected
YSPD 110  5  3 HSS4  4  1/4 to earthquake but there is no specific guideline to choose the most
YSPD 120  6  4 HSS4  4  1/2
appropriate damage measure [26]. FEMA 356 [27] suggests using
the maximum drift ratio for assessing the structural performance
levels and the corresponding damage to structural components.
The inter-storey drift ratio (h) is used as the damage measure in
sizes of YSPDs are considered for the evaluation of seismic perfor- the present study by following the FEMA guideline. h is measured
mance. Table 2 summarizes the BWBN model parameters calcu- as the ratio of the relative displacement between the adjacent
lated from the closed form equations recently proposed by floors and the storey height. FEMA 356 [27] proposed three struc-
Hossain and Ashraf [12] and Fig. 4 shows the force displacement tural performance levels, i.e. Collapse Prevention (CP), Life Safety
relationships for the corresponding YSPDs. Cold-formed welded (LS) and Immediate Occupancy (IO) performance levels with corre-
hollow structural section (HSS) made of ASTM A500 Grade B steel sponding maximum allowable drift ratios of 5%, 2.5% and 0.7%.
is used as the V-braces for connecting the YSPDs at the middle of Spectral acceleration (Sa) at the fundamental period of structure
the beam. The braces are designed to remain elastic by considering (T1 = 1.0 s for SAC moment frame) is considered as the earthquake
a design force of 2Fi and the brace sizes are summarized in Table 3. intensity measure for the current study.
The inclusion of the YSPD will alter the structural response of the The fragility Fr(x) is estimated as a lognormal distribution indi-
parent frame since the device will introduce hysteretic damping cating probability of exceedance of different damage stages by Eq.
and some stiffness [11]. The seismic energy will be dissipated (2) and the seismic hazard H(x) is approximated using Eq. (3),
through the inelastic shear deformation of the diaphragm plate. which offers the annual exceedance probability of a specific level
The added stiffness by the V-brace system will increase the storey of earthquake intensity [25].
elastic stiffness until the YSPD response becomes inelastic. As h  i
YSPD’s response becomes inelastic quickly after experiencing small F r ðxÞ ¼ U ln x  ln b
S a =bR ð2Þ
deformation, the added initial stiffness will not significantly alter
the structural response. After becoming inelastic, YSPD dissipates
HðxÞ ¼ k0 xk ð3Þ
energy through hysteretic damping connected between the beam
and the V-brace system as they provide necessary support condi- where b S a is the median value of the fragility of the structure in units
tion. This hysteretic damping will significantly reduce the seismic of Sa, bR is the lognormal standard deviation of the system fragility,
response of the structure. U is the standard normal cumulative distribution function, k0 and k
1574 M.R. Hossain et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1570–1579

Table 4 2
Selected ground motion records used in the current study.

PGMD Earthquake Year Station Earthquake Distance to

record name name magnitude rupture
1.5
no. (km)
1838 Hector Mine 1999 Whitewater 7.13 62.9
Trout Farm

Sa (g)
1153 Kocaeli, 1999 Botas 7.51 127.1 1
Turkey
1511 Chi-Chi, 1999 TCU076 7.62 2.8
Taiwan
2112 Denali, 2002 TAPS Pump 7.90 104.9 0.5
Alaska Station #08
169 Imperial 1979 Delta 6.53 22.0
Valley-06
804 Loma Prieta 1989 So. San 6.93 63.1 0
Francisco, 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Sierra Pt. θmax
880 Landers 1992 Mission 7.28 27.0
Creek Fault Fig. 6. IDA curve of YSPD 100  4  2 (Case 2) for Tabas Earthquake (PGMD No.
143 Tabas, Iran 1978 Tabas 7.35 2.1 143).
719 Superstition 1987 Brawley 6.54 17.0
Hills-02 Airport
284 Irpinia, 1980 Auletta 6.90 9.6
Italy-01

Normalized Median θ max (%)

-3.3%
100.0 -6.0%
(0.32)
(0.32) -9.1%
5 -11.0% (0.31)
75.0 (0.30) -18.0%
Mean Spectrum (0.29) -23.6%
4 (Geometric) 50.0 (0.29)
Spectra Acceleration (g)

Design Spectrum
(ASCE/SEI-7-05) 25.0
3 Case 1
0.0
Case 2
YSPD 100X4X2
2 YSPD 110X5X3
Posted Values on Bar Chart: YSPD 120X6X4
Drift demand reduction%
(βD|Sa)
1
Fig. 7. Reduction in inter storey drift demands (%) and dispersion of seismic
demand (bD|Sa) for ground motions with design hazard level of LA.
0
0 1 2 3
Time Period (s)

Fig. 5. Response spectrum of the scaled ground motion records and the design Table 5
response spectrum at downtown Los Angeles for the site class D (stiff soil). Seismic demand statistics and median fragility values for frames with and without
YSPDs.
are constants that depend on the site of the building. The dispersion YSPDs bDjSa bR b
S a ðgÞ
parameter bR reflecting uncertainties associated with seismic de-
mand and structural capacity is calculated as following equation IO LS CP IO LS CP

[25], No YSPD 0.34 0.42 0.42 0.37 0.12 0.49 0.90

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi YSPD 100  4  2 (Case 1) 0.35 0.43 0.43 0.38 0.13 0.52 0.92
YSPD 110  5  3 (Case 1) 0.34 0.42 0.42 0.37 0.15 0.53 0.94
bR ¼ b2DjSa þ b2c ð4Þ YSPD 120  6  4 (Case 1) 0.34 0.42 0.42 0.37 0.16 0.55 0.97
YSPD 100  4  2 (Case 2) 0.32 0.41 0.41 0.35 0.17 0.55 1.02
where uncertainty in seismic demand bDjSa is represented by the YSPD 110  5  3 (Case 2) 0.30 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.19 0.60 1.03
dispersion in hmax and uncertainty in structural capacity bc depends YSPD 120  6  4 (Case 2) 0.29 0.38 0.38 0.33 0.21 0.64 1.08
on different structural damage states. bc is set equal to 0.25 for IO
and LS limit states, whilst 0.15 for CP limit state [25,28]. The limit
state annual exceedance probability is approximately defined by
integrating the fragility and seismic hazard as shown in following by considering aforementioned uncertainties. YSPDs of different
equation [25]. sizes and combinations are considered for the risk-based seismic
" # performance evaluation. The methodology provides necessary
2
ðkbR Þ guidelines for risk-based retrofit design for structures. A series of
PLS ¼ k0 b
S k
a exp ð5Þ
2 nonlinear time history analysis (NTHA) known as incremental dy-
namic analysis (IDA) [29] is carried out with a range of ground mo-
where k0 bS k
a represents the seismic hazard with zero dispersion and tion records for the probabilistic performance evaluation. Ten
the exponential term is a correction factor for considering the var- scaled earthquake records are chosen from the PEER Ground Mo-
iability of seismic demand and structural capacity. tion Database (PGMD) [30] based on spectral matching with the
Seismic fragility analysis and limit state probability analysis of design spectrum provided by ASCE/SEI-7-05 design code [31]. PEER
the SAC three storey building with and without installing YSPDs Ground Motion Database searches and identifies historical earth-
will identify the reduction in fragility and limit state probability quake records that match with the seismic design spectrum for a
 M.R. Hossain et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1570–1579 1575

1 1
Probability of Exceedance Immediate Occupancy Life Safety

Probability of Exceedance
0.75 0.75

0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Sa (g) Sa (g)

1
Collapse Prevention
Probability of Exceedance

0.75

0.5

0.25

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Sa (g)

Fig. 8. Fragility curves for the North–South lateral load-bearing frame of the SAC three storey LA building with and without YSPDs.

1.0E-01 Table 6
Annual Probability of Exceedance, H(Sa)

Annual exceedance probability of different performance limit states (PLS) with and
-k
H(Sa) = k0 Sa without YSPDs.

k0 = 3.03×10-4 PLS for different performance limit states

1.0E-02
k = 2.69 IO LS CP
No YSPD 1/6 1/250 1/1550
YSPD 100  4  2 (Case 1) 1/7 1/290 1/1560
1.0E-03 YSPD 110  5  3 (Case 1) 1/10 1/310 1/1680
YSPD 120  6  4 (Case 1) 1/13 1/350 1/1860
YSPD 100  4  2 (Case 2) 1/15 1/360 1/2206
YSPD 110  5  3 (Case 2) 1/22 1/480 1/2360
1.0E-04 YSPD 120  6  4 (Case 2) 1/29 1/585 1/2760

the design spectrum). The IDA curve of YSPD 100  4  2 (Case

1.0E-05
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2) for Tabas Earthquake (PGMD No. 143) is presented in Fig. 6.
Sa (g)
5. Seismic performance evaluation of YSPDs
Fig. 9. Annual spectral hazard curve of LA Downtown (T1 = 1.0 s and 2% damping).

5.1. Performance based on seismic drift demand assessment

The drift demand for design ground motion intensity for LA

structure. Ten earthquake records identified by PGMD are scaled (Sa = 0.72 for T1 = 1 s) are compared to identify the reduction for
through scalar multiplication to match the target spectrum at the various size and configurations of YSPDs and plotted in Fig. 7. A sig-
time period of T1 = 1.0 s. The building is assumed to be located nificant reduction in the seismic drift demand is observed after
on stiff soil (site class D based on ASCE/SEI-7-05). Table 4 summa- introducing YSPDs. The dispersion of seismic demand (bDjSa ) is also
ries the list of earthquake records used for IDA and Fig. 5 shows the shown for these configurations. The minimum median demand
fault normal and the fault parallel spectral acceleration spectrum reduction of 3.3% is attained by YSPD 100  4  2 (Case 1) and a
of these earthquakes (scaled to match the mean spectrum with maximum reduction of 23.6% of the seismic drift demand is
1576 M.R. Hossain et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1570–1579

achieved by installing YSPD 120  6  4 (Case 2). The dispersion of Table 7

seismic demand (0.33 for the frame without YSPDs) is also reduced Seismic hazard parameters k and k0 (T1 = 1 s and 2% damping) [21].

to 0.32 and 0.29 respectively, although this impact on dispersion is Site k k0

rather minimal. The reductions in the demands in particular sug- Charleston, SC 0.81 2.66  104
gest the applicability of YSPD as a passive seismic control device Memphis, TN 1.00 1.85  104
that can improve the probabilistic structural performance. It is Seattle, WA 2.14 1.44  104
worth mentioning that larger YSPDs have shown greater reduction Los Angeles, CA 2.69 3.03  104

Immediate Occupancy Limit State

Annual Probability of Exceedance, H(ds)

2.00E-03 2.00E-03 2.50E-02 2.00E-01

1.00E-03 1.00E-03 1.25E-02 1.00E-01

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Charleston, SC Memphis, TN S ea t t l e , W A L o s A n g el e s , C A

Life Safety Limit State

Annual Probability of Exceedance, H(ds)

6.00E-04 5.00E-04 1.25E-03 5.00E-03

3.00E-04 2.50E-04 6.25E-04 2.50E-03

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Charleston, SC Memphis, TN Seattle, WA Los Angeles, CA

Collapse Prevention Limit State

3.50E-04 3.50E-04 3.50E-04 7.00E-04
Annual Probability of Exceedance, H(ds)

1.75E-04 1.75E-04 1.75E-04 3.50E-04

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Charleston, SC Memphis, TN Seattle, WA Los Angeles, CA

Fig. 10. Annual performance limit state exceeding probability (PLS) for regions of moderate seismicity and high seismicity. (Note: scales vary per limit state and site.)
 M.R. Hossain et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1570–1579 1577

due to the higher elastic stiffness and larger energy dissipation Seismic hazard characteristics significantly vary between high-
capability. The configuration of YSPDs applied to all bays produce seismic zones and regions of moderate seismicity as the hazard
more favourable results than the configuration of applying YSPDs curves in moderate-seismic zone are relatively flat with a lower k
in a single bay. value compared with steeper hazard curves of high-seismic zones
[25]. Four sites are chosen in the current study to identify the effect
of seismic hazard on the performance of YSPDs; two of them are
5.2. Performance based on fragility analysis
from moderate-seismic zone (Charleston, SC and Memphis, TN)
and the other two are from high-seismic zones (Seattle, WA and
Seismic fragility analysis determines the exceedance probabil-
Los Angeles, CA). Seismic hazard parameters for these cities are
ity of a damage state for a structure against earthquakes of a par-
summarized in Table 7. Fig. 10 shows the limit state annual
ticular intensity. hmax is chosen as the damage state indicator for
exceedance probability of SAC frame for different performance lim-
fragility analysis and three drift limits (i.e., 0.7%, 2.5% and 5.0%)
its of these sites. Reduction of the limit state probability is higher
are defined based on FEMA performance levels, i.e. IO, LS and CP
for high-seismic zones when compared with moderate-seismic
levels. The uncertainties associated seismic demand and structural
zones for increasing size and number of YSPDs. The higher value
capacity is considered for the fragility analysis, whilst uncertainties
of k indicates a higher reduction in annual exceedance probability
of material strength and stiffness is ignored for their insignificant
of all performance limit states for the same YSPD configuration.
role [25]. Table 5 summarizes the values of bDjSa and bR for frames
This phenomenon indicates a better performance of YSPDs in the
considered with and without YSPDs.
high-seismic zones compared with regions of moderate seismicity.
The median fragility ð Sba ) in terms of spectral acceleration for
frames with and without YSPDs is calculated based on Eq. (2). Ta-
ble 5 summarizes the median fragility values whilst the fragility
6. Conclusion
curves are shown in Fig. 8 for each performance levels. Significant
reduction in fragility is observed after introducing YSPDs. One
Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation techniques are
measure of the improvement of the performance is revealed by
employed herein to assess the suitability of Yielding Shear Panel
the increase of the median value of the frame’s fragility. The med-
Device as a passive control device. An incremental dynamic analy-
ian value of fragility is increased from 0.49 g to 0.52 g by introduc-
sis has been conducted using a suite of available earthquake re-
ing YSPD 100  4  2 (Case 1), whilst the value is further increase
cords and a finite element model of the SAC building [16] with a
to 0.64 g for YSPD 120  6  4 (Case 2) for the life safety perfor-
recently calibrated BWBN model [23,33] introduced in the Open-
mance level. Similar increments are also observed for immediate
Sees platform to reflect the behaviour of the Yielding Shear Panel
occupancy and collapse prevention levels. The improved perfor-
Device. Results obtained from the nonlinear dynamic analyses
mance of the North–South lateral load-bearing frame of the SAC
are used for probabilistic assessment of the effectiveness of YSPD
three storey LA building in terms of fragility after introducing
in terms of seismic fragility and limit state probability analysis.
YSPDs is a clear evidence of the appropriateness of YSPDs as seis-
The fragility analysis evaluates the exceedance probability of vari-
mic energy dissipating device. YSPDs of larger size and thickness
ous levels of damage, defined on the basis of inter storey drift,
have a higher initial stiffness, yield strength and larger energy dis-
whilst the limit state probability analysis calculates the annual
sipation capability. As a result, bigger YSPDs show better seismic
probabilities of damage state exceedance at a given site.
performance (Fig. 4). The larger sized YSPD has more energy dissi-
The presented case study evaluates six different YSPD configu-
pation potential which is well demonstrated as the installation
rations including three different YSPD sizes; obtained results re-
YSPD 120  6  4 increases the median value of fragility more
veal that the performance varies with change in size, number
compared with same number of YSPD 100  4  2. Regardless of
and configuration of YSPDs. Median fragility and limit state annual
YSPD size, The dispersion in the frame fragility is also reduced
exceedance probability are used for evaluating the probabilistic
for YSPDs in all moment resisting bays by limiting the drift demand
performance. Increasing the size of YSPDs reduced the median fra-
but the reduction is insignificant when YSPDs are installed in a sin-
gility, limit state annual exceedance probability and caused a small
gle bay.
reduction of seismic demand dispersion for both single bay and all
moment resisting bays YSPD installations. Due to their higher ini-
5.3. Performance based on limit state exceedance probability tial stiffness and yield strength as well as larger energy dissipation
capability, larger YSPDs showed better seismic performance. The
A seismic hazard curve provides the annual exceedance proba- effect of seismic zone on the retrofitted building in different hazard
bility of earthquakes with a particular intensity. Hazard curves for conditions has also been evaluated by considering moderate and
fundamental period of 0, 0.2 and 1.0 s and 5% damping are readily high seismic zones for limit state probability analysis. The results
available from USGS [32]; and the seismic hazard curve for 2% reveal that YSPDs show better damage state risk reduction in the
damping may be easily generated using available information. high-seismic zone when compared against its performance at the
The hazard curve (T1 = 1.0 s and 2% damping) for LA downtown is moderate-seismic zones.
shown in Fig. 9 by fitting a line (defined by the parameters k and Two different configurations are used for the probabilistic per-
k0) to the points representing annual probability of exceedance formance evaluation; single bay installation (Case 1) and all mo-
for different spectral accelerations (Sa). ment resisting bay installation (Case 2). For the same size of
The annual probability of exceedance of drift demand corre- YSPD, the increasing number of YSPDs in the all moment bay
sponding to different performance limit states for the SAC frame installation significantly reduced the median fragility and limit
equipped with or without YSPDs is calculated based on Eq. (5) state annual exceedance probability compared with those for sin-
and summarized in Table 6. The annual exceedance probability gle bay installation. A small reduction in the seismic demand des-
of life safety limit state, or damage state, decreased from 1/250 peration is also observed. A comparison of single bay and all
to 1/290 for YSPD 100  4  2 (Case 1) and to 1/585 for YSPD moment bay YSPD installation shows that YSPD 120  6  4 (Case
120  6  4 (Case 2). Similar reductions are also observed for 2) has a similar performance in terms of median fragility and limit
immediate occupancy and collapse prevention limit states. This state probability as the YSPD 100  4  2 (Case 1) configuration
reduction in damage state exceedance probability indicates the with a small reduction of the seismic demand dispersion, which
capability of YSPDs for use as an effective seismic control device. indicates all moment resisting bays has lower uncertainties for
1578 M.R. Hossain et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1570–1579

seismic demand when compared with single bay installation. where p controls the rate of initial drop in the slope, f1o is the total
Although this study explores alternative YSPD configurations for slip, w0 contributes to the amount of pinching, dw controls the rate
a benchmark structure, the results suggest the prospect of utilizing of pinching spread, k controls the rate of change of f2 as f1 changes.
YSPDs for performance based seismic design. Future research is re- The rate of hysteretic energy is given by following equation,
quired to explore alternative structural geometries and to develop
appropriate performance based design guidelines for YSPDs.
e_ ¼ ð1  aÞF i zd_ ð12Þ

Appendix A. Pinching hysteretic model for YSPDs A.2. Incremental algorithm for finite element implementation

A.1. Hysteretic model for YSPDs Using Eq. (6), the force at time tn+1 becomes,
F n þ 1 ¼ aF i dnþ1 þ ð1  aÞF i znþ1 ð13Þ
The restoring force F produced in the YSPD as shown in Fig. 11 is
expressed according to BWBN model [23,33] is given in following The rate equation of z is discredited using the Backward Euler meth-
equation, od as follows,
F ¼ F e þ F h ¼ aF i d þ ð1  aÞF i z ð6Þ
znþ1 ¼zn
where Fe and Fh are the elastic and hysteretic component of the   
ðdnþ1  dn Þ ðdnþ1  dn Þ
restoring force respectively; Eq. (6) provides a nonlinear force dis- þ Dthnþ1 A  c þ bsgn znþ1 jznþ1 jn
Dt Dt
placement (F–d) relationship based on the parameters Fi, a and z.   
ðdnþ1  dn Þ n
Fi is defined here as the force representing the intersecting point ¼ zn þ hnþ1 A  c þ bsgn znþ1 jznþ1 j ðdnþ1  dn Þ
Dt
of the bilinear envelope of the force displacement relationship at
a unit displacement of di. kt is the tangential stiffness of YSPD whilst ð14Þ
a = kt/Fi. The non-degrading pinching hysteretic response depends
on the hysteretic displacement z, which is defined by the following en+1 is found by discrediting Eq. (15) with the Backward Euler meth-
first order nonlinear differential equation [23,34], od as follows,
n h i o ðdnþ1  dn Þ
_
z_ ¼ dhðzÞ _ jzjn
A  c þ bsgnðdzÞ ð7Þ enþ1 ¼ en þ Dtð1  aÞF i znþ1
Dt
where A, b, c and n are hysteretic model parameters which control ¼ en þ ð1  aÞF i znþ1 ðdnþ1  dn Þ ð15Þ
_ depends on the sign of dz
the shape of the curve. Value of sgnðdzÞ _
_ _
and the value becomes +1 if ðdzÞ is positive or becomes 1 if ðdzÞ where zn, dn and en are the history variables and these values should
is negative. The a pinching inducing function h(z) is expressed by be stored for the next step after each incremental step. The above
following equations as [34,35], incremental equations is solved by Newton–Raphson method for
 2 2
 incremental strain (dn+1  dn).
_
hðzÞ ¼ 1:0  f1 e ðzsgnðdÞqzu Þ =f2 ð8Þ The incremental algorithm of the pinching hysteretic model is
presented below,
 1
1 n
zu ¼ ð9Þ 1. While ðjzold new
bþc nþ1  znþ1 j > tolaranceÞ
(a) Evaluation function f(zn+1):
where 0 6 f1 < 1 controls the severity of the pinching, f2 causes the
pinching region to spread, zu is the ultimate value of z and q are enþ1 ¼ en þ ð1  aÞF i znþ1 ðdnþ1  dn Þ
model parameters. Depending on the hysteretic energy (e), f1, f2
are expressed by following equations as, f1nþ1 ¼ f1o 1:0  eðpenþ1 Þ
ðpeÞ
f1 ¼ f1o 1:0  e ð10Þ
f2nþ1 ¼ ðw0 þ dw enþ1 Þðk þ f1nþ1 Þ
f2 ¼ ðw0 þ dw eÞðk þ f1 Þ ð11Þ
ððznþ1 sgnðdnþ1 dn Þqzu Þ2 =f22 Þ
hnþ1 ¼ 1:0  f1nþ1 e nþ1

a1 ¼ c þ bsgnððdnþ1  dn Þznþ1 Þ

a2 ¼ A  a1 jznþ1 jn

f ðznþ1 Þ ¼ znþ1  zn  hnþ1 a2 ðdnþ1  dn Þ

Force (F)

(b) Evaluation of function derivatives with respect to zn+1:

e0nþ1 ¼ ð1  aÞF i ðdnþ1  dn Þ

f01nþ1 ¼ f1o peðpenþ1 Þ e0nþ1

f02nþ1 ¼ w0 f1nþ1 þ kdw e0nþ1 þ dw enþ1 f01nþ1 þ dw f1nþ1 e0nþ1

ððznþ1 sgnðdnþ1 dn Þqzu Þ2 =f22 Þ

a3 ¼ e nþ1

Displacement (δ) 2f1nþ1 ðznþ1  sgnðdnþ1  dn Þ  qzu Þsgnðdnþ1  dn Þ

a4 ¼
Fig. 11. Nonlinear force displacement (F–d) relationship of YSPD.
f22nþ1
 M.R. Hossain et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1570–1579 1579

2f1nþ1 ðznþ1  sgnðdnþ1  dn Þ  qzu Þ2 References

a5 ¼
f32nþ1
[1] Whittaker AS et al. Seismic testing of steel plate energy dissipation devices.
Earthquake Spectra 1991;7(4):563–604.
0
hnþ1 ¼ a3 ðf01nþ1  a4 þ f02nþ1 a5 Þ [2] Soong T, Spencer Jr B. Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-art and
state-of-the-practice. Eng Struct 2002;24(3):243–59.
[3] TenaColunga A. Mathematical modelling of the ADAS energy dissipation
a02 ¼ na1 jznþ1 jn1 sgnðznþ1 Þ device. Eng Struct 1997;19(10):811–21.
[4] Tsai KC, Hong CP. Steel triangular plate energy absorber for earthquake-
resistant buildings. In: Constructional steel design: world developments.
0
F 0 ðznþ1 Þ ¼ 1:0  ðhnþ1 a2 þ hnþ1 a02 Þðdnþ1  dn Þ Elsevier Applied, Science; 1992. p. 529–40.
[5] Tehranizadeh M. Passive energy dissipation device for typical steel frame
(c) Trial value in the Newton–Raphson method: building in Iran. Eng Struct 2001;23(6):643–55.
f ðznþ1 Þ [6] Timler P, Kulak GL. Experimental study of steel plate shear walls. Structural
znew
nþ1 ¼ znþ1  Engineering Report No. 114, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta;
f 0 ðznþ1 Þ 1983.
[7] De Matteis G, Landolfo R, Mazzolani FM. Seismic response of MR steel frames
(d) Update zn+1: with low-yield steel shear panels. Eng Struct 2003;25(2):155–68.
zold new
nþ1 ¼ znþ1 and znþ1 ¼ znþ1
[8] Williams M, Albermani F. Monotonic and cyclic tests on shear diaphragm
dissipators for steel frames. Adv Steel Constr 2006;2(1):1–21.
2. Compute force: [9] Chan RWK, Albermani F, Williams MS. Evaluation of yielding shear panel
F nþ1 ¼ aF i dnþ1 þ ð1  aÞF i znþ1 device for passive energy dissipation. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65(2):260–8.
[10] Hossain MR, Ashraf M, Albermani F. Numerical modelling of yielding shear
3. Update parameters: panel device for passive energy dissipation. Thin-Walled Struct
2011;49(8):1032–44.
enþ1 ¼ en þ ð1  aÞF i znþ1 ðdnþ1  dn Þ [11] Li Z et al. Pinching hysteretic response of yielding shear panel device. Eng
Struct 2011.
f1nþ1 ¼ f1o 1:0  eðpenþ1 Þ [12] Hossain MR, Ashraf M. Mathematical modelling of Yielding Shear Panel device.
Thin-Walled Struct 2012;59:153–61.
[13] Padgett JE, DesRoches R. Methodology for the development of analytical
f2nþ1 ¼ ðw0 þ dw enþ1 Þðk þ f1nþ1 Þ fragility curves for retrofitted bridges. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam
2008;37(8):1157–74.
[14] Wong KKF, Harris JL. Seismic damage and fragility analysis of structures with
ððznþ1 sgnðdnþ1 dn Þqzu Þ2 =f22 Þ
hnþ1 ¼ 1:0  f1nþ1 e nþ1 tuned mass dampers based on plastic energy. Struct Des Tall Special Build
2010.
4. Compute algorithmically consistent tangent: [15] FEMA, 355-C: State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment
frames subject to earthquake ground shaking. Federal Emergency
a1 ¼ c þ bsgnððdnþ1  dn Þznþ1 Þ
Management Agency, Washington, DC; 2000.
[16] Ohtori Y, Spencer Jr B. Benchmark control problems for seismically excited
a2 ¼ A  a1 jznþ1 jn nonlinear buildings. J Eng Mech 2004;130:366.
[17] Walter.Yang CS, DesRoches R, Leon RT. Design and analysis of braced frames
with shape memory alloy and energy-absorbing hybrid devices. Eng Struct
ððznþ1 sgnðdnþ1 dn Þqzu Þ2 =f22 Þ
a3 ¼ e nþ1 2010;32(2):498–507.
[18] Bitaraf M, Hurlebaus S, Barroso LR. Active and semi active adaptive control for
undamaged and damaged building structures under seismic load. Comput
2f1nþ1 ðznþ1  sgnðdnþ1  dn Þ  qzu Þsgnðdnþ1  dn Þ Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 2011.
a4 ¼ [19] Ozbulut OE, Hurlebaus S. Seismic control of nonlinear benchmark building
f22nþ1
with a novel re-centering variable friction device. In: Ninth Pacific conference
on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand; 2011.
[20] Christenson R et al. Large-scale experimental verification of semiactive control
2f1nþ1 ðznþ1  sgnðdnþ1  dn Þ  qzu Þ2
a5 ¼ through real-time hybrid simulation. J Struct Eng 2008;134(4):522–34.
f32nþ1 [21] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Fenves GL. OpenSees command language
manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center; 2005.
[22] FEMA, 440: Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures.
b1 ¼ ð1  aÞF i zn þ 1 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC; 2005.
[23] Baber T, Noori M. Modelling general hysteresis behavior and random vibration
application. J Vib Acoust Stress Reliab Des 1986;108:411–20.
b2 ¼ f1o peðpenþ1 Þ b1 [24] Haukaas T, Der Kiureghian A. Finite element reliability and sensitivity methods
for performance-based earthquake engineering. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake
b3 ¼ w0 b2 þ kdw b1 þ dw enþ1 b2 þ dw f1nþ1 b1 Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California;
2004.
[25] Ellingwood BR, Kinali K. Quantifying and communicating uncertainty in
b4 ¼ a3 ðb2 þ b3 a5 Þ seismic risk assessment. Struct Saf 2009;31(2):179–87.
[26] Park J et al. Seismic fragility analysis of low-rise unreinforced masonry
structures. Eng Struct 2009;31(1):125–37.
b5 ¼ ð1  aÞF i ðdnþ1  dn Þ [27] FEMA, 356: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC; 2000.
b6 ¼ f1o peðpenþ1 Þ b5 [28] Kinali K, Ellingwood BR. Seismic fragility assessment of steel frames for
consequence-based engineering: a case study for Memphis, TN. Eng Struct
2007;29(6):1115–27.
b7 ¼ w0 b6 þ kdw b5 þ dw enþ1 b6 þ dw f1nþ1 b5 [29] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dynam 2002;31(3):491–514.
[30] PGMD; 2011. <http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/>.
b8 ¼ a3 ðb6  a4 þ b7 a5 Þ [31] ASCE/SEI, ASCE/SEI-7-05: Minimum design loads for buildings and other
structures; 2005.
b9 ¼ na1 jznþ1 jn1 sgnðznþ1 Þ [32] USGS. <http://earthquake.usgs.gov>.
[33] Wen Y. Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems. J Eng Mech Div
1976;102(2):249–63.
@znþ1 a2 ðh  b4 Þ [34] Foliente GC, Singh MP, Noori MN. Equivalent linearization of generally
¼ pinching hysteretic, degrading systems. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam
@dnþ1 1:0  ðb8 a2 þ hnþ1 b9 Þðdnþ1  dn Þ
1996;25(6):611–29.
[35] Foliente GC. Hysteresis modeling of wood joints and structural systems. J
@ rnþ1 @znþ1 Struct Eng 1995;121(6):1013–22.
Consistent Tangent; ¼ aF i þ ð1  aÞF i
@dnþ1 @dnþ1