Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems
8
Seismic Design of Steel Special
Concentrically Braced Frame
Systems
A Guide for Practicing Engineers
NIST GCR 13-917-24
Rafael Sabelli
Charles W. Roeder
Jerome F. Hajjar
About The Authors
Rafael Sabelli, P.E., S.E., is Director of Seismic Design at Walter P
Moore, a structural and civil engineering frm with offces nationwide.
He is a member of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
Task Committee 9 Seismic Provisions, AISC Seismic Design Manual
Committee, the Building Seismic Safety Councils 2014 Provisions
Update Committee (PUC), and the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) Seismic Subcommittee for ASCE 7.
Charles W. Roeder, Ph.D., P.E., is a Professor of Civil Engineering at
the University of Washington. He has performed extensive research
on the seismic performance of steel and composite structures, and his
research has focused on the seismic performance and rehabilitation
of braced frames for the past several years. He is a member of AISC,
Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), and Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute (EERI), and serves on the ASCE 41 and AISC 358
standards committees.
About the Review Panel
The contributions of the three review panelists for this publication are
gratefully acknowledged.
Michel Bruneau, Ph.D., P.E., is Professor in the Department of Civil,
Structural, and Environmental Engineering at the University at Buffalo,
the State University of New York, and an ASCE Fellow. He is a member
of several AISC and Canadian Standards Association committees
developing design specifcations for bridges and buildings, and he served
as Director of the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research. He has conducted extensive research on the design and
behavior of steel structures subjected to earthquake and blast and has
received many awards for his work. He has authored over 400 technical
publications, including co-authoring the textbook Ductile Design of Steel
Structures and three fction books.
John A. Rolfes, P.E., S.E., is a Vice-President with Computerized
Structural Design in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a consulting engineering
frm that provides structural engineering services throughout the United
States. He is a member of the American Institute of Steel Construction
Task Committee 9 Seismic Provisions, AISC Seismic Design Manual
Committee, AISC Industrial Buildings and Non-Building Structures
Committee, and the Association of Iron and Steel Technology (AIST) Mill
Buildings Committee.
C. Mark Saunders, P.E., S.E. is Senior Consultant and past President of
Rutherford + Chekene Consulting Engineers in San Francisco and has
been involved in seismic design and code development for more than 40
years. He has been a member of the AISC Task Committee 9 - Seismic
Provisions, for more than 20 years and is currently its Vice Chair. He has
served on the PUC for the NEHRP Provisions and is a past president of
both the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California and ATC.
National Institute of
Standards and Technology
NIST is a federal technology agency within the U.S. Department of
Commerce that promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness
by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways
that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. It is the
lead agency of the NEHRP. Dr. John (Jack) R. Hayes, Jr., is the Director
of NEHRP within NISTs Engineering Laboratory (EL). Dr. John (Jay) L.
Harris, III, managed the project to produce this Technical Brief for EL.
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture
This NIST-funded publication is one of the products of the work of
the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture carried out under Contract
SB134107CQ0019, Task Order 12-335. The partners in the NEHRP
Consultants Joint Venture are the Applied Technology Council (ATC) and
the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
(CUREE). The members of the Joint Venture Management Committee
are James R. Harris, Robert Reitherman, Christopher Rojahn, and
Andrew Whittaker, and the Program Manager is Jon A. Heintz.
NEHRP Seismic Design
Technical Briefs
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Technical
Briefs are published by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) as aids to the effcient transfer of NEHRP and other
research into practice, thereby helping to reduce the nations losses
from earthquakes.
Jerome F. Hajjar, Ph.D., P.E., is a Professor and the Department Chair in
the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northeastern
University. He serves on the AISC Committee on Specifcations and
several of its task committees and is a member of the SEI Technical
Activities Division Executive Committee. He is a fellow of ASCE and
SEI and the winner of the 2010 Popular Mechanics Breakthrough
Award, the 2005 AISC T. R. Higgins Lectureship Award, the 2004 AISC
Special Achievement Award, and the 2000 ASCE Norman Medal. He is
a registered professional engineer in Illinois and Minnesota.
Consortium of Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering (CUREE)
1301 South 46th Street - Building 420
Richmond, CA 94804
(510) 665-3529
www.curee.org email: [email protected]
Applied Technology Council (ATC)
201 Redwood Shores Parkway - Suite 240
Redwood City, California 94065
(650) 595-1542
www.atcouncil.org email: [email protected]
CUREE
By
Rafael Sabelli
Walter P Moore
Charles W. Roeder
University of Washington
Jerome F. Hajjar
Northeastern University
July 2013
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Engineering Laboratory
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600
Seismic Design of Steel Special
Concentrically Braced Frame Systems
A Guide for Practicing Engineers
NIST GCR 13-917-24
U.S. Department of Commerce
Penny Pritzker, Secretary
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for
Standards and Technology and Director
Disclaimers
This Technical Brief was prepared for the Engineering Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Earthquake Structural and Engineering Research Contract SB134107CQ0019,
Task Order 12-335. The statements and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily refect the views
and policies of NIST or the U.S. Government.
This report was produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council (ATC) and the
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE). While endeavoring to provide practical and accurate
information, the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, the authors, and the reviewers assume no liability for, nor express or imply any
warranty with regard to, the information contained herein. Users of the information contained in this report assume all liability arising
from such use.
The policy of NIST is to use the International System of Units (metric units) in all of its publications. However, in North America in the
construction and building materials industry, certain non-SI units are so widely used instead of SI units that it is more practical and less
confusing to include measurement values for customary units only in this publication.
Cover photo Entrance lobby of the Kirsch Center for Environmental Studies, De Anza College, Cupertino, CA.
How to Cite This Publication
Sabelli, Rafael, Roeder, Charles W., and Hajjar, Jerome F. (2013). Seismic design of steel special concentrically braced frame systems:
A guide for practicing engineers, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 8, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture,
a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, NIST GCR 13-917-24.
Introduction ..............................................................................................1
The Use of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frames ....................................2
Principles for Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frames..................3
Analysis Guidance...................................................................................10
Design Guidance......................................................................................14
Additional Requirements...........................................................................23
Detailing and Constructability.....................................................................25
References.............................................................................................27
Notations and Abbreviations......................................................................29
Credits....................................................................................................31
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Contents
1
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
Concentrically Braced Frames (CBFs) are a class of structures
resisting lateral loads through a vertical concentric truss
system, the axes of the members aligning concentrically
at the joints. CBFs tend to be effcient in resisting lateral
forces because they can provide high strength and stiffness.
These characteristics can also result in less favorable seismic
response, such as low drift capacity and higher accelerations.
CBFs are a common structural steel or composite system in
areas of any seismicity.
Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs) are a special
class of CBF that are proportioned and detailed to maximize
inelastic drift capacity. This type of CBF system is defned for
structural steel and composite structures only.
The primary source of drift capacity in SCBFs is through buck-
ling and yielding of diagonal brace members. Proportioning
and detailing rules for braces ensure adequate axial ductility,
which translates into lateral drift capacity for the system.
Special design and detailing rules for connections, beams, and
columns attempt to preclude less ductile modes of response
that might result in reduced lateral drift capacity.
This Guide addresses the seismic design of steel SCBFs in
typical building applications. While the emphasis here is
placed on steel SCBFs, some aspects are also applicable to
composite SCBFs. Where appropriate, experimental and
analytical studies are described, and observations from past
1. Introduction
Items not covered in this document
A number of important issues related to the topic of
steel concentrically braced frames are not addressed
in this document; these include:
Classes of braced frames other than SCBFs, such
as Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames, Eccentrically
Braced Frames, and Ordinary Concentrically Braced
Frames; (separate Technical Briefs are planned for
these systems);
Self-centering systems with braced frames;
Diagrid systems and other braced frames in which
braces are additionally required to support substantial
gravity loads;
Multi-tier concentrically braced frames requiring
special stability considerations;
The use of Special Concentrically Braced Frame
(SCBF) design methods in other components, such
as in a horizontal diaphragm; and
Special configurations of concentrically braced
frames designed to engage multiple stories in a single
yielding mechanism (e.g., the Zipper confguration).
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
2
The SCBF system is generally an economical system to
use for low-rise buildings in areas of high seismicity. It is
sometimes preferred over Special Moment Frames because of
the material effciency of CBFs and the smaller required beam
and column depths. SCBFs are only possible for buildings that
can accommodate the braces in their architecture. Buildings
for which this a problem may be well suited for Special
Moment Frames.
Up to the present, SCBFs have been used more extensively
than Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames (BRBFs). BRBFs
generally offer cost and performance advantages for buildings
three stories and higher, but SCBFs continue to be popular
because of the level of experience designers and fabricators
have with the system.
The desired performance of the SCBF system is based on
providing high levels of brace ductility to achieve large
inelastic drifts. It is not particularly well suited for applications
in which the seismic demands are low. The capacity design
rules for connections can be uneconomical in cases where brace
sizes are governed by wind loads or by slenderness limits.
SCBFs are designed using capacity design procedures, with
the braces serving as the fuses of the system. Optimal design
of SCBFs entails careful selection and proportioning of braces
so as to provide limited overstrength and avoid a concentration
of inelastic demands. Designers should strive for a small
range of brace demand-to-capacity ratios so that the resulting
system is proportioned to spread yielding over multiple stories
rather than concentrating it at a single location. Overstrength
can be benefcial, but care should be taken to maintain a
well-proportioned design in order to avoid concentration of
ductility demands.
Braced frames are most effective at the building perimeter,
where they can control the buildings torsional response. ASCE
7 allows buildings to be considered suffciently redundant (and
thus avoid a penalty factor) with two braced bays on each of
the presumed four outer lines (assuming a rectangular layout).
Such a layout is good for torsion control as well.
In mid-rise or high-rise buildings, SCBFs are often used in the
core of the structure, with a perimeter moment frame used to
provide additional torsional resistance.
Stacked braced frames (frames in which the braces occupy the
same plan location at each level) can have high overturning
forces. In many cases it is advantageous to spread the
overturning forces out over several bays to reduce foundation
and anchorage forces. The design of elements interconnecting
these frames is critical to ensure that brace ductility remains
the primary source of inelastic drift.
2. The Use of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frames
Seismic Retroft
Braced frames can be an effective system for seismic
retrofit due to their high stiffness and because
they can be assembled from pieces of relatively
small size and weight. SCBFs may be considered
for seismic retroft in cases in which the building
deformations corresponding to brace axial ductility
are not detrimental to the building performance. In
many retroft projects this is not the case due to the
presence of brittle, archaic materials and sensitive
fnishes not detailed to accommodate signifcant drift.
In such cases, the added drift capacity provided by
the careful proportioning and detailing required for the
SCBF system is of little beneft, and a conventional
braced frame system or other stiff system should be
considered instead.
3
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
system should normally be brace fracture. The evaluation of
building collapse is an inexact science, but it is clear that brace
fracture does not immediately trigger structural collapse. The
gusset plate connections are designed conservatively relative to
the brace resistance, and experimental and analytical research
has shown that the capacity-based design of the gusset plate
results in signifcant lateral resistance after brace fracture
because of moment frame behavior. Experiments and analysis
suggest that this lateral resistance after initial brace fracture
may be the range of 20 % to 40 % of the original braced frame
resistance. Limited guidance is available on the behavior of this
resulting moment connection for seismic assessment of SCBFs.
General System Performance
Current trends in practice places increasing emphasis upon
performance-based design, and more in-depth predictions of
damage, structural performance, and collapse are required.
Fragility curves are often used as an aid in this process
(Roeder et al. 2011). Recent research (Hsiao et al. 2012, 2013a)
has developed nonlinear analytical models on the OpenSees
computer platform that accurately predict buckling, tensile
yielding, and post-buckling behavior of rectangular hollow
structural section (HSS) braces and provide verifed prediction
of brace fracture and frame behavior beyond brace fracture.
This model also provides an approximate prediction of local
damage to beams and columns, but this prediction of local
behavior is inherently more limited with this analytical
platform. Hsiao et al. (2013b) performed nonlinear dynamic
analyses on braced frames designed to the minimum SCBF
design standards and with increased and decreased R factors.
All designs used the equivalent lateral force method, and the
analyses were performed with seismic excitations scaled to the
2 % in 50-year and the 10 % in 50-year seismic levels. Potential
collapse was estimated at the point where the analysis became
mathematically unstable or when the maximum story drift
reached 5 %. The 5 % drift limit was arbitrarily chosen because
this is a deformation where the gusset plate connections are
expected to start to lose their integrity as moment frame
connections. These analyses clearly showed that brace buckling
will occur and may be quite common even for 10 % in 50-year
earthquake hazard, but brace fracture in SCBFs designed to
current standards should not occur during this event. Once
brace fracture occurs, the building retains signifcant structural
integrity, but inelastic deformations concentrate in the stories
with fractured bracing. The potential for brace fracture during
2 % in 50-year events is signifcantly larger for shorter (short
period) buildings than it is for 20-story (long period) buildings.
Taller buildings more commonly experience reduced brace
buckling deformation and signifcantly fewer brace fractures,
but the buckling damage more commonly occurs in the upper
stories of taller systems because of the contribution of higher
modes to the dynamic response. Collapse potential was small
for well-designed SCBFs, but it was larger for shorter (three-
SCBFs economically develop the lateral strength and stiffness
needed to assure serviceable structural performance during
smaller, frequent earthquakes, but the inelastic deformation
needed to ensure life safety through collapse prevention during
extreme earthquakes is dominated by tensile yielding of the
brace, brace buckling, and post-buckling deformation of the
brace. The ductility and inelastic deformations required by
this second design goal vary in magnitude depending upon
the seismic hazard level and the seismic design procedure. For
areas of low seismicity, ASCE 7 allows steel framing systems
to be designed with a Response Modifcation Factor, R, of 3.0
with no special detailing requirements to improve ductility.
ASCE 7 also allows the use of Ordinary Concentrically
Braced Frames (OCBFs). However, SCBFs are designed with
relatively large R factors, and as a consequence are expected
to experience relatively large inelastic deformation demands
during extreme ground shaking. A story drift of approximately
2.5 % is commonly assumed as a target inelastic deformation
to be achieved by SCBFs prior to brace fracture. As a result,
ductile detailing and proportioning requirements are needed
to ensure that SCBFs can achieve the required inelastic
deformations. Corresponding inelastic fexural deformation
in beams, columns, and connections will occur during these
large inelastic excursions. The inelastic deformations in the
beams and columns are not primary effects because they are
not specifc goals of the design process. Nevertheless, they
infuence the seismic performance of SCBFs and contribute
to the cost of repair. Local slenderness limits for beams and
columns are required by AISC 341 in recognition of these local
inelastic deformations.
To achieve the desired performance, a number of ductile
detailing requirements are applicable to SCBF design. The
current procedure is generally rational, but recent research
demonstrates increased inelastic deformation capacity may
be developed with some modifcations to the connection
design; these potential modifcations are discussed later in
this document.
3.1 Success versus Failure
The design method described in general terms above is
a multilevel design approach. It is expected to achieve
serviceabilit y during the more frequent design basis
earthquake through the elastic behavior provided by the initial
factored load design. Capacity-based design limits essentially
address life safety through collapse prevention limit states for
the infrequent, maximum considered design event. As a result,
a successful design is expected to have signifcant inelastic
deformation and associated structural damage during larger
earthquakes, but structural collapse and associated loss of life
are not expected. The primary inelastic deformation occurs
within the brace, and therefore, the initial failure within the
3. Principles for Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frames
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
4
story) SCBFs than for taller structures. This work suggests
that improved or more consistent SCBF design may be possible
with changes in the current R factors because reduced R values
reduce the potential for brace buckling, brace fracture, and
structural collapse, particularly for short period systems.
This suggests that shorter period buildings require a smaller
R value than longer period buildings to achieve comparable
structural safety. Further, the research results suggest that
the OCBF and R=3 concepts that are used in braced frame
design are unlikely to ensure elastic performance during the
maximum considered earthquake.
3.2 Intended Behavior
The prior discussion has shown that brace buckling, tensile
yielding, and post-buckling performance are the predictably
intended behaviors for the SCBF system. Brace fracture is
the preferred initial failure mode, but it does not in itself
trigger immediate collapse. However, it is important to get
the maximum possible inelastic deformation capacity from the
brace because, once brace fracture occurs, severe concentration
of inelastic deformation in the damaged story also occurs.
System Behavior
System performance is strongly infuenced by aspects of brace
behavior (Lehman et al. 2008). Brace buckling places large
inelastic demands on the brace at the middle of the brace,
typically resulting in a plastic hinge at midspan (Figure 3-1a).
Brace buckling also places signifcant demands on gusset plate
connections (Figure 3-1b) and adjacent framing members
(Figure 3-1c). Limited cracking of the welds joining the gusset
plate to the beams and columns generally is expected because
of gusset plate deformation. These cracks normally initiate
at story drifts in the range of 1.5 % to 2.0 %, but the cracks
remain stable if the welds meet size and demand-critical weld
requirements in AISC 341. Current design criteria encourage
conservative gusset plate design, but overly conservative
gusset plate design can increase the inelastic deformation in
the beams and columns adjacent to the gusset plate and does
not signifcantly reduce the deformation of the gusset plate or
the demands on the weld. Gusset plate damage and the weld
cracking are largely driven by the brace end rotations and the
opening and closing of the right angle of the connection.
Confguration Issues
The confguration of braces also affects system performance.
Multiple configurations of bracing are used, and these
confgurations are identifed in Figure 3-2. Braces buckle
in compression and yield in tension. The initial compressive
buckling capacity is smaller than the tensile yield force, and
for subsequent buckling cycles, the buckling capacity is further
reduced by the prior inelastic excursion. Therefore, bracing
systems must be balanced so that the lateral resistance in
tension and compression is similar in both directions. This
means that diagonal bracing (Figure 3-2) must be used in
matched tensile and compressive pairs. As a result, diagonal
Figure 3-1 Various aspects of braced frame behavior.
(a) Brace buckling deformation
(b) Deformation of gusset plate
(c) Local yielding in beam and column
5
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
bracing (Figure 3-2) must be used in opposing pairs to
achieve this required balance. Other bracing confgurations,
such as the X-brace, multistory X-brace and chevron brace
directly achieve this balance. X-bracing is most commonly
used with light bracing on shorter structures. Research shows
that the buckling capacity of X-bracing is best estimated by
using one half the brace length when the braces intersect and
connect at mid section (Palmer 2012). However, the inelastic
deformation capacity of the X-braced system is somewhat
reduced from that achievable with many other braced frame
systems because the inelastic deformation is concentrated in
one-half the brace length because the other half of the brace
cannot fully develop its capacity as the more damaged half
deteriorates. The compressive buckling resistance of most
other brace confgurations is best estimated by considering
true end-to-end length of the brace with an effective length
factor, K, of 1.0 (i.e., neglecting rotation stiffness of the brace-
to-gusset connection.)
Concentration of inelastic deformation in a limited number
of stories occurs with braced frames. Experiments suggest
that multistory X-bracing offers a slight advantage in that it
provides a somewhat more robust path for transferring story
shear to adjacent stories even after brace buckling and fracture
because the remaining tension brace may directly transfer its
force to the next story. Chevron or inverted-chevron bracing
(inverted V- or V-bracing) has intersecting brace connections
Figure 3-2 Various braced frame system confgurations.
Diagonal bracing X-bracing Multistory X-bracing Inverted V-bracing
(Chevron)
V-bracing
at midspan of the beam (Figure 3-2). Large unbalanced forces
and bending moments on the beam occur because the buckling
load is smaller than the tensile yield resistance and decreases
with increasing damage. The bending moment increases
as the compressive resistance deteriorates, and AISC 341
requires that the beam be designed for these bending moments.
Research shows that the beam deformation associated with
the unbalanced forces in chevron bracing increases the axial
compressive deformation of the brace and reduces the inelastic
deformation capacity prior to brace fracture (Okazaki et al.
2012). However, fexural yielding of the beam increases the
damping of dynamic response.
Other bracing configurations are possible, and some are
expressly prohibited in AISC 341. K-braces intersect at mid-
height of the column. They have the same unbalanced force
problem as noted with chevron bracing, but bending moments
and inelastic deformation will occur in the column and may
fail, triggering collapse. As a result, K-bracing is not permitted
for the SCBF system. In addition, tension-only bracing has had
relatively poor performance during past earthquakes because the
lack of compressive brace resistance leads to inelastic behavior
with slack braces that have no stiffness until the slack is taken
up. The slack braces may lead to progressively increasing drift
and impact loading on the brace, and early brace fracture may
occur. Consequently, tension-only bracing is also prohibited
for the SCBF system.
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
6
Figure 3-3 Earthquake damage to CBFs.
(e) CBF connection failure (d) Base plate fracture (f) Fracture of CBF box column
(b) HSS brace fracture at mid-length (a) Buckled brace (c) HSS brace fracture at net section
Observed Earthquake Damage
Braced frames have sustained damage in prior
earthquakes (Figure 3-3). However, the SCBF design
concept was frst presented in the frst edition of the
AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings
(AISC 1997), and the SCBF requirements have evolved
steadily since then. As a result, past braced frame
earthquake damage is relevant to concentrically braced
frames, but it does not specifcally refect current
SCBF behavior. This brief discussion focuses on the
more recent 1989 Loma Prieta, the 1994 Northridge,
and the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe, Japan)
Earthquakes. SCBFs are more commonly used in
todays building construction than were CBFs prior to
these three earthquakes, but nevertheless, there was
a substantial number of CBFs in service during those
three earthquakes, and brace buckling (Figure 3-3a)
was observed.
Limited CBF damage was reported from the 1989
Loma Prieta Earthquake. Buildings generally suffered
little damage except for locations on soft soil (EERI
1990a), and no discussion of braced frame damage in
buildings was noted. Several braced frames in power
generating plants were noted to have signifcant brace
buckling (EERI 1990b). These braces were typically
light T-sections in chevron or inverted-V braced frames.
Yielded and deformed gusset plate connections and
fractured bolted connections were also noted in a few
cases.
Somewhat more defnitive braced frame damage was
noted after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, but no
braced frames collapsed or appeared near incipient
collapse from this damage (EERI 1996). Brace buckling
was noted for both rectangular HSS tube bracing as
well as light steel strap bracing. Rectangular HSS
tubes sometimes had substantial plastic hinges at mid-
length and near their end connections, and severe local
buckling was observed. Fracture occurred at the net
section of the connection to the gusset plate (Figure
3-3c) and at the mid-length plastic hinge (Figure 3-3b).
Column base plate fracture because of the applied loads
and deformations was also observed (Figure 3-3d).
Extensive damage to braced frames was also noted
during the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake, and
a few older low-rise braced frames collapsed during
this seismic event (AIJ 1995). A large portion of the
collapsed structures had light tension-only strap
bracing. The vast majority of the CBFs damaged in
this earthquake have design details quite different
from the SCBF details commonly used in the U.S.
Brace buckling, brace fracture, and connection fracture
occurred in a number of buildings (Figure 3-3e).
Signifcant problems in the columns of some new high-
rise CBFs occurred, and complete fracture of heavy
built-up columns was noted (Figure 3-3f). Figure 3-3e
and Figure 3-3f show connection and box column
failures respectively.
7
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
Element Behavior
Inelastic deformation of the brace dominates the inelastic
performance of SCBFs during moderate and large earthquakes,
and fracture of the brace at mid-length is clearly the anticipated
initial failure mode of the braced frame system. A number
of brace design issues affect the inelastic deformation and
ultimate fracture of the brace as illustrated in the sketch of
Figure 3-4. The inelastic story drift of SCBFs is mostly due
to axial shortening and elongation of the brace, as shown in
the fgure, but this axial shortening and elongation are caused
primarily by the geometric effects of the brace buckling
deformation. Plastic hinging due to buckling deformation
occurs at the center of the brace and at each end. The plastic
hinges at the brace ends preferably occur in the gusset plate,
although plastic hinging may occur in the brace itself adjacent
to the connection if the gusset plate is stiffer and stronger than
required, if the gusset plate does not have proper allowance
for rotation, or if the brace is rigidly connected to the framing
members. Prior to brace buckling, tensile yielding along the
length of the brace is possible, but after initial buckling, most of
the tensile elongation and plastic strain occurs within the plastic
hinge region because of the residual stress, imperfections, and
P-d effects. As a consequence, the large strains caused by
cyclic load reversal in this region cause the brace to fracture.
The sequence of localization of inelastic deformation amplifes
the local strains in the fracture region as illustrated for a
rectangular HSS brace in the sequence of photos for Figure
3-5. Figure 3-5a shows the localized strain and deformation
that occurs at the plastic hinge. After multiple inelastic cycles
of strain, tearing initiates at the corners of the tube (Figure
3-5b), tearing progresses across the fange (Figure 3-5c), and
fracture ultimately occurs (Figure 3-5d). The local strain
concentration initiates at smaller deformations and is more
severe in rectangular tubes than for many cross sections
because the rectangular shape concentrates the local strains
(Figure 3-5). Therefore, brace fracture occurs at smaller story
drift and inelastic deformation for rectangular HSS tubes
than for comparable wide fange sections. Wide fanges and
other open sections do not localize the strain as quickly and
as severely as rectangular tubes. Hence, wide fange braces
typically provide approximately 25 % larger inelastic story
drift than rectangular HSS braces prior to brace fracture if all
other factors are equal.
Local slenderness (b/t) of fanges and webs of various structural
shapes is also important because smaller local slenderness
values delay initiation of local buckling and permit larger
local strains prior to initiation of tearing. These smaller values
facilitates development of larger story drifts prior to fracture
or failure.
Global slenderness of the brace (Kl/r) also affects the
inelastic performance. In general, braces with smaller Kl/r
ratios dissipate signifcantly more energy through inelastic
deformation prior to brace fracture than do slender braces,
but stockier braces tend to fracture at a smaller story drift
because the story drift is largely as result of the geometry,
which causes the brace to fracture (Figure 3-4). Stocky braces
are relatively short and require larger plastic rotation and local
strain at the plastic hinge to achieve a given story drift than
a longer (more slender) brace. At the same time, engineers
may prefer braces with smaller Kl/r ratios because they have
smaller differences between the magnitude of the tensile and
compressive resistance. These goals are somewhat divergent,
and so intermediate Kl/r ratios, which are not extremely small
(less than about 40) nor overly large (more than about 100),
are commonly used.
Secondary Strength and Stiffness
SCBFs develop most of their lateral stiffness and resistance
from the axial stiffness and resistance of the brace. Recent
experiments on a three-story braced frame showed that
approximately 85 % to 90 % of the original elastic stiffness
and resistance was provided by the bracing (Lumpkin 2009).
After the initial cycle of brace buckling, the stiffness and
compressive resistance of the brace are reduced, and frame
action through bending of the beams and columns plays an
increasing role. For a three-story frame at approximately 1 %
story drift, the braces resisted approximately 75 % to 85 %
of the lateral load, and at 2 % story drift, the bracing resisted
approximately 60 % to 70 % of the lateral load. The braces
role decreased rapidly as brace tearing initiated. Experiments
also show that the braced frame may retain 20 % to 40 % of
its maximum resistance after all braces in a given story have
fractured. This secondary resistance is again contributed by
moment frame action developed by the beam-column and
Figure 3-4 Geometric shortening of the brace and locations of local yield deformation.
Heavily strained and
deformed region
Original brace length
Geometric
shortening
Signifcant strain and
deformation at end of the
brace or in the gusset
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
8
gusset plate connections (Roeder et al. 2011). The specifc
distribution clearly depends on the specifcs of the design, but
this comparison illustrates the importance of the gusset plate
and beam-to-column connection in developing the resistance
and deformation capacity of the SCBF and the subsequent
moment frame behavior developed after brace buckling and
fracture.
3.3 Modes of Behavior to be Avoided
Ductile system behavior is needed to ensure good SCBF
performance. Brace fracture is relatively sudden and brittle,
but SCBFs are designed with the goal that it occurs only after
signifcant inelastic deformation and ductile tearing at the
plastic hinge location. Avoiding other brittle failure modes
prior to developing the inelastic deformation of the system
is essential.
Figure 3-5 Progression of local strain to fracture for HSS brace.
(a) Local strain concentration (b) Initiation of tearing
(c) Progression of tearing (d) Fracture
Elements with Insuffcient Ductility
Capacity-based design principles are used to design the
connections of braced frames because connections are one
major potential source of abrupt, nonductile failure. Although
essential, this requirement does not mean that connections
should be designed to avoid all yielding in the connection. As
noted in the prior discussion and illustrated in Figures 3-1b and
3-4, yielding in the connection is necessary and highly desirable,
because it permits end rotation of the buckled brace and allows
the brace to develop larger inelastic deformations prior to brace
fracture and maintain consistency with brace capacity asuumed
in connection design. Hence, the capacity-based design of
these connections cannot be viewed as an absolute capacity
measure but as a relative, balanced design criteria (Roeder
et al. 2011). The connections should be designed to be stiff
enough and strong enough to fully develop the brace capacity
in compression and tension, but excessive strength and stiffness
are undesirable in that they reduce the inelastic deformation
capacity of the brace and the SCBF system.
9
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
Furthermore, the current connection design procedures do
not always assure ductile behavior. As noted earlier, the welds
and bolts joining the gusset plate to beams and columns are
normally sized by a Uniform Force Method (UFM) equilibrium
evaluation to expected tensile resistance, P
ut
, of the brace.
Recent research shows that this approach is inadequate to
consistently assure ductile performance of the system (Lehman
et al. 2008). The gusset plate yields because of local bending
and deformation because of end rotation of the buckled brace,
and this bending is in addition to the applied brace load. As a
result, sudden, brittle weld fractures have been noted in a few
tests where welds were designed by the UFM approach. To
ensure ductile behavior of the connection, it is necessary to
design the bolts or welds joining the gusset plate to the beams
and columns to develop the full plastic capacity of the gusset
plate rather than only the strength of the brace.
Finally, earthquake loads are inertial loads, applied to the mass
of the structure. These earthquake loads are then transmitted to
the SCBF frames, and therefore, the connections between the
diaphragms (and other framing attached to the mass) and the
SCBF must be adequate to fully transmit this force.
Story Mechanisms
Concentration of inelastic deformation in a limited number
of stories may occur in braced frames, and the potential
increases with increasing inelastic deformation and damage.
Most structural systems concentrate damage to some extent,
but braced frames are one of several systems that concentrate
their deformation more readily than others. Distribution of
story shear is partially dependent upon the excitation and
dynamic response of the structure, but the relative stiffness of
adjacent foor levels plays an important role. Large changes
in story stiffness occur as braces buckle, experience post-
buckling deformation, yield in tension, and ultimately fracture.
These changes are major contributors to the concentration of
deformation effects, and the concentration of damage tends to
be more common and severe when the braced frame experiences
severe inelastic deformation. However, an initial structural
design that does not appropriately balance the relative stiffness
of adjacent foors may compound this effect.
Capacity Design
Capacity-based design criteria are applied to the columns,
column splices, and column-foundation connections because
the columns support the gravity load and must have suffcient
axial load capacity to fully develop the brace. Specifc details of
these capacity design provisions are provided in a later section.
It is unacceptable to have the column fail in compression, such
that it is unable to support the gravity load of the system because
this would lead to potential structural collapse. However,
limited yielding of the column in tension or compression will
occur (Figure 3-1c) and may be benefcial to the overall system
performance. This yielding must be limited and controlled.
Tensile fracture of column splices or foundation (baseplate or
attachment) failures (Figure 3-3d) may be quite brittle, will
clearly limit the lateral resistances, and should be avoided in
SCBF design.
Foundation uplift can signifcantly attenuate dynamic response
from earthquake excitation, but the design requirements for
controlling this uplift and the consequences of the uplift are
far different from the design considerations commonly applied
to SCBF systems. Column uplift may be tolerable in seismic
evaluations of existing buildings, but it is not the goal of a
new SCBF design. Column splice failure also has attributes of
column uplift, but the ability to control this behavior is more
diffcult, and column splice failure is also an unacceptable
behavior for the system.
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
10
4.1 Code Analysis
Analysis of Special Concentrically Braced Frames is
governed by provisions of both AISC 341 and the applicable
building code, typically ASCE 7. The required minimum
strengths of the braces, beams, columns, and connections
are established initially through a combination of computer
structural analysis for the applicable load combinations to
determine the required strengths of the braces, and then
through analysis that takes the form of a capacity design to
determine the required strengths of the columns, beams, and
connections. The following sections outline these various
methods of analysis.
Analysis Requirements of ASCE 7
ASCE 7 permits three different types of analysis procedures to
be used to analyze special concentrically braced frames. These
procedures, outlined in Table 12.6-1 of ASCE 7, include the
Equivalent Force Analysis (12.8); Modal Response Spectrum
Analysis (12.9); and Seismic Response History Procedures
(Chapter 16). The Equivalent Force Analysis procedure is
the most straightforward to execute, but Table 12.6-1 lists
restrictions on the use of this approach based on the structure
confguration: structures having a long period or having
specifc types of horizontal or vertical irregularities are not
permitted to use this approach. (For SCBFs, the story shear
strength is taken at the sum of the horizontal components of
the expected brace strengths in tension and compression; the
lateral resistance provided by shear and bending in the columns
is typically neglected.) Table 12.2-1 identifes the values of
the seismic performance factors, R,
0
, and C
d
, required for
analysis of SCBFs.
The Equivalent Force Analysis procedure enables the use
of static analysis procedures to estimate the effects of an
earthquake. ASCE 7 12.8 outlines the parameters of the
analysis. An approximate procedure is provided in ASCE 7 to
conservatively compute the fundamental period of vibration of
the structure that is needed for this approach. This approximate
period is often below the period calculated by more accurate
methods, with the shorter approximate period leading to
larger base shears, although the base shear has a cap as
specifed in ASCE 7 12.8.1.1. As braced frames are relatively
stiff structures, they are included in the category of All
other structural systems in Table 12.8-2 to determine the
approximate period. Although ASCE 7 requires that global
second-order elastic P-D effects be included in the analysis
if the stability coeffcient, q, exceeds 0.1, AISC 360 requires
that second-order elastic effects be considered for all frames.
The Modal Response Spectrum Analysis accounts more
directly for the dynamic performance of the structure by
requiring calculation of the modes of vibration of the structure
4. Analysis Guidance
suffcient to obtain a combined modal mass participation factor
of 90 % of the actual mass in each of the orthogonal horizontal
directions of response.
Either Modal Response Spectrum Analysis or Seismic
Response History procedures are required for structures over
160 feet in height with specifc types of structural irregularities
or with long periods. Both linear elastic and nonlinear Seismic
Response History procedures are outlined in Chapter 16 of
ASCE 7. Seismic Response History involves using numerical
integration to analyze the structure for specifc ground motions.
A minimum of three ground motions are required. Chapter
16 outlines specifc requirements of the characteristics of the
ground motions and the procedures used to assess the results.
Typically, linear elastic Seismic Response History Analysis
provides few benefits as compared to Modal Response
Spectrum Analysis because both procedures account for the
linear dynamic response of the structure, which is dominated
by the lower-period vibrational modes. ASCE 7 16.2
establishes the procedure for nonlinear analysis, including the
hysteretic material nonlinear behavior of the components of
the seismic force-resisting system. The hysteretic constitutive
behavior of the members or connections should be consistent
with laboratory testing of comparable components, including
all significant yielding, strength degradation, stiffness
degradation, and pinching. Strength of the elements should
be based on expected mean values, including material
overstrength, strain hardening, and strength degradation. The
use of linear versus nonlinear analysis is discussed further
below.
4.2 SCBF Modeling Issues
AISC 341 allows two beam-to-column connection types for
SCBFs: simple connections and a moment-resisting connection
comparable to those used for Ordinary Moment Frames. For
the former, SCBFs are usually modeled as trusses with pin
connections assumed in both planes, particularly for analyses
related to initial design. As such, the stiffness offered by the
gusset plates to the girders or columns at the brace connections
are largely ignored under a presumption that they will yield
relatively early during the seismic excitation. In addition, any
inherent fexural resistance may not result in signifcantly
reduced required strength of the members, and thus pin-
connected and fxed-connection models generally lead to the
selection of identical member sizes, including compactness
requirements. Detailing for the effects of rotational restraint is
addressed in Section 5.
In such models, if V-bracing or inverted V-bracing is used,
the analysis should also enable modeling of fexure in the
girders. While columns that are continuous across several
11
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
stories typically have fexural forces induced in them because
of interstory drift, fexural forces in the columns because of
design story drifts may be neglected according to AISC 341 to
facilitate modeling the SCBF as a truss system.
When moment connections are used, the connections should
be modeled accordingly in the analysis because moment will
be transferred between the girders and columns. A moment
connection at the end of the brace may be used if the connection
is deemed to be adequately stiff and strong.
In models in which foor diagrams are assumed to be rigid, it
is also important to consider the importance of isolating the
seismic force-resisting system from the diaphragm so as to
adequately model the axial force distribution in the girders.
This isolation can be done, for example, by using gap-contact
elements at each foor level to attach the braced frame to
adjacent nodes that are part of the rigid foor system.
Within AISC 360, two approaches are available to account for
structural stability per Chapter C: the Direct Analysis Method
and the Effective Length Method. In the former, if Equivalent
Force Analysis is conducted, the effective length factor of all
members may be taken as 1.0, and the analysis will be based on
reduced member properties coupled with the use of a notional
load for load combinations that are dominated by gravity load.
Using an effective length factor of 1.0 would also be common
in applying the Effective Length Method to braced frames,
although smaller values of effective length may be used in
SCBFs that include moment-resisting connections. Although
both strategies use an effective length factor equal to or less
than 1.0, the Direct Analysis Method typically provides force
distributions that are more commensurate with those expected
at incipient instability of the frame. More information can be
found in the AISC Seismic Design Manual.
For calculating design story drifts, typically the nominal
properties of each member should be used, rather than the
reduced properties outlined for the Direct Analysis Method. It
is assumed that the defection amplifcation factor, C
d
, accounts
for such variation.
For common steel buildings under four to fve stories, these
models typically have suffcient accuracy to capture elastic
forces and deformations. However, braced frame models
that assume truss behavior and pin connections may often
underestimate stiffness and thus overestimate defections and
period, particularly for taller structures. Where such response is
important to model more accurately, it is common to use more
refned elastic models that account for the stiffness inherent
in typical braced frame connections, including the stiffness
of the shear tabs, gusset plates, and other key components.
Hsiao et al. (2012, 2013a) provide recommendations for
appropriate modeling assumptions that include rigid links in the
connection region to model the enhanced stiffness in the region.
Such modeling recommendations (Figure 4-1a and Figure
4-1b), identify a combination of rigid links, pin connections,
and nonlinear springs to provide an assemblage model that
compares well to experimental tests of SCBF subassemblages.
When brace buckling occurs at larger load levels, defections
start to increase more signifcantly, leading in turn to signifcant
yielding in the connections. Ductility in the connection design
is thus essential, and nonlinear analysis and associated models
may be used to develop more accurate predictions of behavior
when needed (Hsiao et al. 2012).
(a) SCBF panel confguration with rigid links, pin
connections, and nonlinear spring (Hsiao et al. 2012)
(b) Geometric details identifying typical link lengths
and nonlinear spring location (Hsiao et al. 2013a)
a
Nonlinear
out-of-plane
rotational
spring
Rigid end
zone
b
0.75a
Column
Brace
Gusset plate
Beam
Figure 4-1 Schematic structural model of SCBF panel.
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
12
4.3 Limitations of Elastic Analysis
As discussed earlier, the post-elastic response of concentrically
braced frames typically entails not only magnitudes of force
larger than the elastic limits of elements but also modes of
behavior markedly different from those of the elastic structure.
Thus, magnifying elastic forces by a constant factor can be
insuffcient to capture demands on many structural elements.
Typical elastic analysis of the various confgurations of SCBFs
sometimes yield members with little or no force, such as the
center column in a two-bay braced frame or in the beams at
the mid-story of a two-story X-confguration for bracing. In
part for these reasons and also to ensure that the progression
of damage in the SCBF is appropriate for large loadings, AISC
341 requires a plastic mechanism analysis leading to a capacity
design approach. Thus, although it is appropriate to use elastic
analysis for determination of the brace forces, which are the
ductile elements in SCBF, it is important to use capacity design
procedures to investigate the possible plastic mechanisms to
determine the required strengths of the columns, beams, or
connections.
4.4 Plastic Mechanism Analysis
Frame
AISC 341 F2.3 permits each of the analysis procedures
outlined in ASCE 7 to be used for analysis of SCBFs to obtain
the required strengths in the braces. The required strengths
from these analyses may then be used directly for design of the
braces. For computing the required strengths in the columns,
beams, and connections, load combinations appropriate for use
in the static analysis procedures must be taken as the larger
determined from the following two analyses:
an analysis in which all braces are assumed to resist
forces corresponding to their expected brace strength in
compression or tension, representing the elastic limit of
the frame
an analysis in which all braces in tension are assumed
to resist forces corresponding to their expected tensile
strength, and all braces in compression are assumed to
resist their expected post-buckling strength, representing
potential conditions after some braces have buckled and
lost signifcant compression strength and stiffness
The expected tensile strength of the brace may be taken as
R
y
F
y
A
g
. The expected compression strength of the brace may
be taken as the smaller of R
y
F
y
A
g
and 1.14F
cre
A
g
, where F
cre
is
the critical buckling strength determined by Section E of AISC
360 using an expected yield stress of R
y
F
y
and 1.14 is computed
by removing the out-of-straightness parameter (1/0.877 = 1.14).
The post-buckling strength of compression members may be
taken as 30 % of the expected brace strength in compression.
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
22
Designs may have both of these eccentricities. Figure 5-7b
shows the eccentricities result in opposing moments. Designers
may minimize the moment by adjusting work points.
5.10 Midspan Connections
Midspan connections, in which two or more braces at a level
connect to the beam at or near the center of the bay, are in many
respects simpler than other bracing connections. As AISC
341 specifes the forces to be assumed in each brace in the
design of the connections, the midspan connection is statically
determinate. The two-story-X condition, in which a pair of
braces above the beam and a pair of braces below the beam
all come to the midspan connection, does not add complexity,
and most limit states may be considered independently for
connections above and below the beam unless the adjacent
story heights are considerably different.
Midspan connections may rely on local beam web shear to
transfer forces. As such, thin webs may be problematic. If
the beam web-shear strength is insuffcient for the portion of
the vertical component of the brace force that the connection
analysis assigns to the web, the web may be reinforced or
the brace work points may be adjusted. This latter approach
reduces the connection size but results in moment in the beam.
It is generally advantageous to consider these forces in the
selection of the beam.
23
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
6. Additional Requirements
6.1 Mixing Bolts and Welds
Most SCBF connections employ welded joints between the
gusset plate and the beam and the column. However, a wide
variation in beam-column connections has been employed.
AISC 341 seismic design criteria expressly prohibit the use
of combined bolts and welds to resist any force across a given
interface. This is rational because bolts and welds resist load
differently. Bolts may resist load with no slip and minimal
deformation until friction on the faying surface is overcome.
However, friction is highly variable, and joint slip occurs
after friction is overcome. Welds resist loads with virtually
no deformation. Bolts and welds may work together prior
to initial bolt slip, but seismic loads require large inelastic
deformation, and slip is probable. As a result, bolts and welds
cannot reliably work together at these deformations, and load
sharing is prohibited.
Strict interpretation of this rule severely limits or prohibits
many braced frame connections (Figures 6-1a and 6-1b),
because the shear and axial force is transmitted to the column
by a combination of bolts and welds. Nevertheless, connections
of these types are frequently used. Engineers may satisfy
the specifc requirements by sizing welds (or bolts) by an
appropriate application of an equilibrium force distribution.
Such practices should theoretically be safe by the lower-bound
plasticity theorem if all elements are appropriately designed
to this equilibrium stress distribution and ductile behavior
is achieved, thus allowing forces to redistribute to match
the strength distribution provided. Experiments show that
connections such as shown in Figures 6-1a and 6-1b may
develop the full resistance of the brace and the SCBF system,
but research also shows that connections such as those of
Figure 6-1a achieve less inelastic deformation capacity than
connections with fully-restrained beam-column connections
such as Figure 6-1c (Roeder et al., 2011).
6.2 Foundation Design
To achieve the goals of SCBF design, it is essential that the
foundations be capable of developing the full resistance and
deformation capacity of the braced frame. Unfortunately,
current foundation design criteria do not ensure that the
foundation will develop the required resistance. If the
foundation is understrength, uplift may occur. Uplift may
attenuate the seismic response, and it may aid in assuring life
safety and collapse prevention. However, uplift may also cause
signifcant damage to foor diaphragms and a whole range of
nonstructural elements. This damage may also present life
safety or collapse issues. Design guidance has been proposed
for controlling uplift in structural design, guidance that goes
well beyond the scope of this Guide. Reliance upon uplift
without employing the rather extensive requirements needed
to control uplift appears to be unwise for new construction.
Hence, it is prudent to design the foundation to fully develop
the strength of the braced frame.
Repair and retroft of existing braced frames is a common
engineering concern. It is costly to repair or retroft an existing
building, and foundation upgrade is even more costly and
diffcult. Hence, relying upon uplift on existing braced frames
may be a more acceptable solution because the benefts of uplift
may reduce the seismic risk relative to the existing condition
of the braced frame system.
6.3 Composite SCBF
ASCE 7 and AISC 341 both permit the use of composite SCBF
(C-SCBF) systems. In C-SCBFs, the columns may be concrete-
encased composite columns or flled composite columns, while
the beams may be either structural steel or steel girders with
composite foor slab. The braces are either structural steel or
flled composite members.
Figure 6-1 Typical braced frame connections.
(a) (b) (c)
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
24
Composite braced frames have been constructed primarily
using filled composite columns and either steel or filled
composite braces. Filled composite columns are especially
attractive in braced frames in taller structures having large
axial compression forces in the columns or in braced frames
where added stiffness is required.
The basis of design and analysis are comparable to that of
SCBFs. Composite member design defers primarily to AISC
360, and added provisions are included in AISC 341 for
detailing of the composite connections and splices.
6.4 Brace Transverse Displacement
Braces have been observed to develop signifcant transverse
displacement upon buckling (especially after tension
elongation), much larger than the axial deformation imposed
(Uriz and Mahin 2008). Proper consideration of this
deformation and its potential effects on other systems is
necessary to ensure proper performance. Out-of-plane
deformation of typical nonstructural walls may be considered
acceptable and is commensurate with brace buckling. However,
loss of gravity support for cladding and interference with
exiting may represent unacceptable conditions. In such cases,
suffcient separation should be provided, or frames should be
confgured to avoid damaging contact.
25
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
7. Detailing and Constructability
7.1 Buckling Deformation
Braces are anticipated to undergo signifcant axial shortening,
which results in signifcant transverse deformation in the
plane of buckling on the order of 10 % of the brace length
(Tremblay 2002). Although building codes do not explicitly
require consideration of this transverse displacement, it may
create hazards in certain circumstances, such as braces located
near windows confgured to buckle out of plane. Designers
should consider the effects of building layout and braced frame
confgurations with reference to such post-buckling secondary
hazards.
7.2 Interaction with Architecture
Braced frames are often located within architectural walls.
In such cases, the designer must provide for room for the
anticipated brace buckling. If braces are confgured to buckle
out of the plane of the frame, the architectural wall may be
terminated above and below the brace. (See the discussion of
the protected zone below for other concerns.) If braces are
confgured to buckle in the plane of the frame, the architectural
wall may be built as two walls with a cavity for the brace
between.
If architectural elements restrain the brace from buckling,
the maximum brace compression force may be higher than
predicted. This may result in buckling of gussets or webs.
Where the restraint cannot be avoided, the possibility of such
modes can be eliminated by designing for a maximum brace
compression force considering the architectural restraint.
Gussets confgured to provide a pinned end for the brace may
be restrained from providing rotation capacity by concrete fll
at foors. Providing a blockout in the concrete or confguring
the gusset to provide rotation capacity above the concrete
should be considered.
7.3 Protected Zone
Where structural steel members are providing the inelastic drift
capacity through inelastic strain in the steel, attachments to
those regions are restricted. Low-toughness welds, shot pins,
and similar potential crack initiators are not allowed in these
protected zones.
Braces in SCBFs may be subject to concentrated inelastic strain
in regions where plastic hinging occurs as part of buckling.
(The distributed inelastic strain entailed in tension yielding is
expected to be signifcantly lower.) These regions of potential
plastic hinging include the brace midspan, and, at the brace
ends, either the ends of braces (for fxed-end braces) or the
gusset plates (for gussets confgured to facilitate rotation.
For exposed braces the restrictions on connecting to protected
zones do not entail much complexity. Where braced frames
are enclosed in an architectural wall, special attention is
required to exclude attachments in the protected zone, which
can reduce ductility.
There is ongoing research into the effect of attachments in
the protected zone. Some (as yet unpublished) observations
indicate that certain types of connection within the protected
zone may be acceptable without signifcantly reducing member
ductility, but further research is needed (Watkins et al. 2013).
7.4 Brace Connection Tolerances
Braces require some maneuverability and some construction
tolerance for erection. Welded feld connections generally
provide some tolerance. However, this tolerance should be
specifed and accounted for in the design. For example, the
buckling length of gussets may be increased considering
this tolerance, and gussets and reinforcement plates should
be detailed so that they are adequate through the range of
permitted brace end locations.
Brace slots for slotted connections are typically fabricated
1
/8
inch wider than the gusset plate thickness and with two inches
of length beyond the nominal edge of gusset. These tolerances
typically provide the maneuverability needed for erection.
Bolted connections are often preferred in the feld for economic
reasons. For ease of erection, bolted connections of braces
generally require oversize holes, which entail reduced design
strength.
7.5 Direct-Welded Brace Connections
Direct-welded to the brace connections (braces welded directly
to the beam, to the column, or to both) offer some economic
advantages by reducing the number of force transfers. Such
connections are diffcult for HSS braces, especially round
sections, due to the changing geometric conditions around
the HSS perimeter. These connections may be challenging
to confgure for any shape at beam-column intersections.
Where direct-welded connections are used, the beam-column
connection assembly must be strong enough to resist the brace
fexural plastic-hinge moment in the plane of buckling. This
is of particular concern for out-of-plane buckling.
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
26
7.6 HSS Availability
Relatively few square and rectangular HSS meet the b/t limits
in AISC 341. A great many round HSS meet those limits.
However, many round HSS shapes are not frequently produced.
Designers using round HSS braces (other than those that match
pipe sections) should verify the availability of shapes with
fabricators or service centers.
ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society
for Testing Materials, has announced a new standard that has
a minimum yield stress of 50 ksi and a maximum of 70 ksi
(Melnick 2013). The specifcation will likely result in a more
controlled product with a higher yield stress used for design
and the same expected strength, thus reducing the material
overstrength factor R
y
.
27
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
ACI (2011). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-11) and commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI.
AIJ (1995). Preliminary reconnaissance report of the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake, (English Edition) Architectural
Institute of Japan, Tokyo, p. 216.
AISC (1997). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2010a). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings (AISC 341-10) and commentary, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2010b). Specifcation for structural steel buildings (AISC 360-10) and commentary, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2012). Seismic design manual, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
ASCE (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10), American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S.C., and Hanson, R.D (1986). Earthquake design of double-angle bracing, AISC Engineering
Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, 4th Quarter, 1986, pp. 133-147.
Bruneau, M., Uang, C.M., and Sabelli, R. (2011). Ductile design of steel structures, McGraw-Hill.
Deierlein, G.G., Reinhorn, A.M., and Willford, M.R. (2010). Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic design, NEHRP
Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied
Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, NIST GCR 10-917-5.
Dowswell, B. (2006). Effective length factors for gusset plate buckling, Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2nd
Quarter, pp. 91101.
EERI (1990a). 5 Buildings, ES6 Supplement, Loma Prieta, California Earthquake of October 15, 1989, Earthquake
Spectra, Vol 6, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, pp. 127-149.
EERI (1990b). 7 Industrial Facilities, ES6 Supplement, Loma Prieta, California Earthquake of October 15, 1989,
Earthquake Spectra, Vol 6, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, pp. 189-238.
EERI (1996). 2 Steel Buildings, Supplement C to Vol. 11, Northridge Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.
11, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, pp. 25-48.
Hsiao, P-C, Lehman, D.E., and Roeder, C.W. (2012). Improved analytical model for special concentrically braced frames,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 73, pp. 80-94.
Hsiao, P-C, Lehman, D.E., and Roeder, C.W. (2013a). A model to simulate special concentrically braced frames beyond
brace fracture, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Wiley, Vol. 42, pp. 183-200.
Hsiao, P-C, Lehman, D.E., and Roeder, C.W. (2013b). Evaluation of response modifcation coeffcient and collapse potential
of SCBFs, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Wiley, DOI: 10.10002/eqe.2286.
IBC (2012). International building code, International Code Council, Washington, D.C.
8. References
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
28
Khatib, I. F., Mahin, S. A., and Pister, K. S. (1988). Seismic behavior of concentrically braced steel frames, Report No.
UCB/EERC-88/01. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
Lehman, D.E., Roeder, C.W., Herman, D., Johnson, S., and Kotulka, B. (2008). Improved seismic performance of gusset
plate connections, ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 6, Reston, VA, pp. 890-901.
Lumpkin, E.J. (2009). Enhanced seismic performance of multi-story special concentrically braced frames using a balanced
design procedure, a thesis submitted in partial fulfllment of the MSCE degree, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, p.461.
Melnick, S. (2013). Editors note, Modern Steel Construction. May, 2013.
Okazaki, T., Lignos, D.G., Hikino, T., and Kajiwara, K. (2013). Dynamic response of a chevron concentrically braced
frame, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Reston, VA, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000679
Palmer, K.D. (2012). Seismic behavior, performance and design of steel concentrically braced framed systems, Ph.D.
thesis, University of Washington.
Roeder, C.W., Lumpkin, E.J., and Lehman, D.E. (2011). Balanced design procedure for special concentrically braced frame
connections, Elsevier, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 67 No. 11, pp. 1760-72.
Uriz, P., and Mahin, S. A., 2008. Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentrically braced steel-frame structures,
Pacifc Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. PEER 2008/08, Berkeley: University of California, p. 401.
Sabelli, R., Sabol, T.A., and Easterling, S.W. (2011). Seismic design of composite steel deck and concrete-flled
diaphragms, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 5, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a
partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering,
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, NIST GCR 11-917-10.
SEAOC (2013). 2012 IBC structural/seismic design manual, Vol. 4: Example for steel-framed buildings, Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA. (in press)
Tremblay, R. (2002). Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol.
58, pp. 665-701.
Watkins, C.E., Toellner, B.W., Laknejadi, K., Abbas, E., and Eatherton, M.R. (2013). Effect of powder actuated fasteners on
the seismic performance of steel moment frame connections, paper presented at the ASCE Structures Congress 2013.
Yoo, J.H., Roeder, C., and Lehman, D. (2008a). Analytical performance simulation of special concentrically braced
frames, ASCE, Journal of Stuctural Engineering, Vol. 134 No. 6, pp. 190-198.
Yoo, J.H., Lehman, D., and Roeder, C. (2008b). Infuence of gusset plate parameters on the seismic resistance of braced
frames, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 64, pp. 607-623.
29
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
9. Notations and Abbreviations
Specifc units and defnitions are found in the referenced documents.
Ag gross cross-sectional area of the brace
b width
C
d defection amplifcation factor
D effect of dead load
e eccentricity created by diaphragm step or depression
Ev effect of vertical seismic input
f c specifed compressive strength of concrete
fy specifed yield strength of reinforcement
f1 live load factor, taken as 0.5 except taken as 1.0 for garages, areas occupied as places of public assembly,
and all areas where L is greater than 100 psf
E effect of horizontal seismic (earthquake-induced) forces
Fcre fexural buckling stress or critical stress of the brace determined using expected yield stress
Fy specifed minimum yield stress
hx the height above the base to Level x
H effects of soil, water in soil, or other materials
I the importance factor
K effective length factor for a compression member
k distribution exponent for design seismic forces
L span of diaphragm or diaphragm segment
P axial force
Puc required axial strength in compression
Put required axial strength in tension
R response modifcation coeffcient
Ri reaction force in slab at vertical element i
Ry ratio of expected yield stress to specifed minimum yield stress
Sa spectral response pseudo-acceleration, g
Sm elastic section modulus
SDS design, 5 percent damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
30
Abbreviations
ACI American Concrete Institute
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASTM Formerly American Society for Testing and Materials, now ASTM International
ATC Applied Technology Council
BRBFs Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames
C-SCBF Composite Special Concentrically Braced Frames
CBF Concentrically Braced Frame
CBFs Concentrically Braced Frames
CJP Complete Joint Penetration
CUREE Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
HSS hollow structural section
IBC International Building Code
OCBFs Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frames
SCBF Special Concentrically Braced Frame
SCBFs Special Concentrically Braced Frames
UFM Uniform Force Method
t thickness
tp thickness of panel zone
T the fundamental period of the building
wx portion of effective seismic weight of the building that is located at, or assigned to, Level x
D story drift
d member eccentricity from a straight line due to initial imperfection or deformation
strength reduction factor
a redundancy factor based on the extent of structural redundancy present in a building
0
amplifcation factor to account for overstrength of the seismic force-resisting system defned in ASCE 7
31
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
10. Credits
Cover photo Image courtesy of William A. Andrews, Walter P Moore
Figure 3-1 Image courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 3-2 Image courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 3-3(a) Image courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 3-3(b) Image courtesy of Degenkolb Engineers
Figure 3-3(c) Image courtesy of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Figure 3-3(d) Image courtesy of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Figure 3-3(e) Image courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 3-3(f) Image courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 3-4 Image courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 3-5 Images courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 4-1 Images courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 4-2 Image courtesy of the American Institute of Steel Construction
Copyright 2010 by American Institute of Steel Construction
Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
Figure 5-1 Images courtesy of Rafael Sabelli, Walter P Moore
Figure 5-2 Images courtesy of Rafael Sabelli, Walter P Moore
Figure 5-3 Images courtesy of Rafael Sabelli, Walter P Moore
Figure 5-4 Images courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 5-5 Images courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 5-6 Image courtesy of Rafael Sabelli, Walter P Moore
Figure 5-7 Images courtesy of Rafael Sabelli, Walter P Moore
Figure 6-1 Images courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
32