High-Performanc Braces For Seismic Design

High-Performance Braces for Seismic Design
By
Tim S. Lim
B.E. Civil Engineering
The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, 2012

Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUNE 2013
2013 Tim S. Lim. All rights reserved.

The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper
and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known
or hereafter created.

Signature of Author: _________________________________________________________________
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
May 10, 2013

Certified by: _________________________________________________________________________
Jerome J. Connor
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by: _________________________________________________________________________
Heidi M. Nepf
Chair, Departmental Committee for Graduate Students

3

High-Performance Braces for Seismic Design
By
Tim S. Lim
Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
on May 10, 2013 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering

ABSTRACT

The fundamental challenge for the structural engineer in designing earthquake-resistant
structures is to design buildings with both adequate ductility and sufficient stiffness.
Traditional lateral force resisting systems such as the moment resisting frame and the
concentrically braced frame are both conventional structural schemes that have been
implemented for many years, but result in only mediocre performance levels. The lacking
stiffness of a moment resisting frame as well as the limited ductility of a concentrically braced
frame gave impetus for engineers to direct significant research efforts into the development
of new lateral resisting systems that embody a more stable hysteretic behavior, adequate
ductility, control of damage, and energy dissipating capacity.

Fortunately, several recent developments have allowed engineers to move one step closer to
designing more efficient earthquake-resistant structures. High-performance braces, as this
thesis calls them, are new and improved bracing systems that combine the economy and
stiffness of a concentrically braced frame with the ductility and energy dissipating capacity
of a moment resisting frame.

This thesis analyzes and evaluates three different types of high-performance braces: (i) the
buckling-restrained brace frame, (ii) the self-centering energy dissipating brace frame, and
(iii) the hybrid brace frame, with regards to their structural performance and economy. The
primary goal of the thesis is to provide useful insights into the current developments of high-
performance braces for practicing engineers in the hope that such systems can be more widely
adopted and utilized in the contemporary design of earthquake-resistant structures.

Keywords: High-performance braces, earthquake-resistant structures, seismic design

Thesis Supervisor: Professor Jerome J. Connor
Title: Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
4

5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I want to extend a deep, personal gratitude to Professor Jerome J. Connor
for his guidance and support throughout my time here at MIT. His dedication to the students
and their learning is truly unsurpassed. I cannot be more grateful for his sharing of
knowledge and passion for the profession. All of us here are very lucky to have had the
opportunity to be mentored by Dr. Connor.

Second, I must thank all of my peers in the program, whose friendship and kindness have
given me great joy throughout the whole year. It was truly an honor and a pleasure to work
and grow alongside them.

I also want to express sincere gratitude to my parents as well as my brother for their
unflagging support in all aspects of my life. Lastly, I must thank my fianc, whose love and
encouragement have brought me this far and continue to inspire me to live out my dreams.

6

7

Contents
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 13
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 13
1.2 Scope of Research .............................................................................................. 15
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 17
2.1 Buckling-Restrained Braces ............................................................................. 17
2.1.1 Background and Current Practice ............................................................ 17
2.1.2 High-Performance Aspects ........................................................................ 19
2.1.3 Design Methods, Mathematical Formulation, and Modeling
Considerations ........................................................................................... 22
2.2 Self-Centering Energy Dissipating Braces ...................................................... 29
Considerations ........................................................................................... 33
2.3 Hybrid Braces .................................................................................................... 35
Considerations ........................................................................................... 37
MODEL DEFINITION .............................................................................................. 39
3.1 Building Description ......................................................................................... 39
8

3.2 Code-Based Design of Base Model ................................................................... 43
3.3 Modeling High-Performance Braces ................................................................ 44
ANALYSIS PROCEDURES ..................................................................................... 47
4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 47
4.2 Linear Static Procedure .................................................................................... 48
4.3 Nonlinear Static Procedure .............................................................................. 49
4.4 Linear Dynamic Procedure ............................................................................... 50
4.5 Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure ......................................................................... 51
ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................................................... 55
5.1 Peak Floor Displacements ................................................................................ 56
5.2 Peak Interstory Drift Ratios ............................................................................. 57
5.3 Peak Interstory Residual Drift Ratios ............................................................. 58
5.4 Peak Floor Accelerations .................................................................................. 59
5.5 Discussion of Results ........................................................................................ 60
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ..................................................................................... 63
6.1 Buckling-Restrained Brace Frames ................................................................. 64
6.2 Self-Centering Energy Dissipating Braces & Hybrid Braces ......................... 67
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 69
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 73
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................. 81
A Ground Acceleration Time History Records ........................................................ 81

9

List of Figures
Figure 2.1-1: BRB Use in High Rise Buildings in Japan from 1995-1999 ............................. 19
Figure 2.1-2: Schematic of a Typical BRB ................................................................................ 20
Figure 2.1-3: Typical Longitudinal Section of BRB ................................................................. 20
Figure 2.1-4: Idealized BRB Behavior under Axial Load (Hussain, 2005) ............................. 21
Figure 2.1-5: Behavior of CBF vs. BRBF under Cyclic Loadings (Xie, 2004) ........................ 21
Figure 2.1-6: Typical Cross-Section Configurations of BRBs (Xie, 2004) ............................... 22
Figure 2.1-7: Flowchart for BRBF Design as per AISC Provisions (Dipti, 2010) .................. 24
Figure 2.1-8: Composite BRB - Forces in the System.............................................................. 25
Figure 2.1-9: Composite BRB - Transverse Deflection of Brace ............................................. 25
Figure 2.2-1: Concept of SCED System (Christopoulos et al., 2008) ...................................... 31
Figure 2.2-2: Mechanics and Hysteretic Response of SCED Systems (Christopoulous et al,
2008) ........................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 2.2-3: Flag-Shaped Hysteretic Behavior of SCED (Zhu and Zhang, 2008) ................ 32
Figure 2.2-4: Embodiment of SCED Element (Christopoulous et al., 2008) .......................... 33
Figure 2.3-1: HPCD Configuration using Cylinder Type Damper (Marshall, 2008) ............. 36
Figure 2.3-2: HPCD Configuration using TPEA and VE HDR in Parallel (Marshall, 2008) 36
Figure 2.3-3: HDR Force-Deformation Relationship (Abe et al., 2004) .................................. 37
Figure 3.1-1: Isometric Perspective View of Base Model ........................................................ 41
Figure 3.1-2: Plan View of Base Model .................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.1-3: Elevation View of Base Model in the X-Direction ............................................. 42
Figure 3.1-4: Elevation View of Base Model in the Y-Direction ............................................. 42
Figure 3.3-1: Generalized Moment-Rotation and Axial Load-Deformation Relationship for
Hinge Elements (Seamer, 2007) ............................................................................................... 45
Figure 3.3-2: Diagram of HPCD Hybrid Energy Dissipation System (Marshall, 2008) ........ 46
Figure 3.3-3: Modeling of HPCD Hybrid Energy Dissipation Configurations (Marshall, 2008)
.................................................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 4.5-1: Scaled Response Histories of All Four Components of Ground Motion Records
.................................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.5-2: Target Design Spectrum with Scaled Geometric & Arithmetic Mean Spectra of
Ground Motion Records ............................................................................................................. 53
10

Figure 5.1-1: Peak Floor Displacements as a function of Story Height in the X-Direction ... 56
Figure 5.1-2: Peak Floor Displacements as a function of Story Height in the Y-Direction ... 56
Figure 5.2-1: Peak Interstory Drift Ratios as a function of Story Height in the X-Direction 57
Figure 5.2-2: Peak Interstory Drift Ratios as a function of Story Height in the Y-Direction 57
Figure 5.3-1: Peak Interstory Residual Drift Ratios as a function of Story Height in the X-
Direction ..................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 5.3-2: Peak Interstory Residual Drift Ratios as a function of Story Height in the Y-
Direction ..................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 5.4-1: Peak Floor Accelerations as a function of Story Height in the X-Direction ..... 59
Figure 5.4-2: Peak Floor Accelerations as a function of Story Height in the Y-Direction ..... 59
Figure 6.1-1: Relative Costs of the BRBF & CBF for a Six-Story Structure (Dasse, 2009) .. 64
Figure 6.1-2: Lateral Frame Cost as a function of Building Height (Dasse, 2009)................ 65
Figure 6.1-3: Relative Cost of the BRBF Compared the CBFs of Different Ductility Capacities
(StarSeismic, 2010) .................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 6.1-4: Lateral Frame Cost as a function of Building Height (StarSeismic, 2010) ..... 66

11

List of Tables
Table 2.1-1: Ductility Comparison of Typical Lateral Systems (ASCE/SEI 7-10) ................. 23
Table 3.2-1: Site Seismicity Parameters (USGS Earthquake Hazards Program) ................. 43
Table 4.1-1: Seismic Analysis Procedures (Adapted from SEAOC Seismology Committee,
2009) ........................................................................................................................................... 48
Table 4.5-1: Summary of Ground Motion Records Used in Time History Analysis (PEER NGA)
.................................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 5.5-1: LCC Analysis Results Comparing the MRF, BRBF, and the SCED (Freddi et al.,
2012) ........................................................................................................................................... 67

12

13

Chapter 1
Introduction
Engineering problems are under-defined, there are many solutions, good, bad and indifferent.
The art is to arrive at a good solution. This is a creative activity, involving imagination,
intuition and deliberate choice. Sir Ove Arup
1.1 Background
The main job of the structural engineer is to ensure public trust in the safety of the built
environment. Not only is it fundamentally critical to design structures that safely and
reliably provide shelter for people, but it is also the aim of the engineer to strive for economy,
architectural appeal, and structural performance through the design.
In regions of high seismic risk, there is the additional challenge of building structures to
resist and weather such extreme natural disasters. The field of structural engineering has
14

evolved quite significantly over the past several decades in its approach to designing
earthquake-resistant structures. While it always has been and will remain the foremost
intent of seismic codes to prevent sudden collapse and failure of structures under extreme
events, the impetus for the field to come up with solutions that are more optimized and
efficient has been markedly realized in recent years.
Performance-based design is an all-encompassing term used to describe the method in which
the design criteria is based on achieving certain performance goals under various levels of
seismic hazards. These performance goals may refer to criteria such as the lateral floor
displacements, peak floor accelerations, or a target damage state of the building as a result
of an earthquake. Although performance-based design and its adoption in contemporary
practice have proved useful and enabled increased reliability of the expected structural
performance of buildings under seismic events, the ever increasing demand for optimization
of the performance of structures in order to minimize the level of damage, economic loss, and
repair costs will continue to push engineers to come up with better solutions.
There are two overarching performance objectives in designing efficient earthquake-resisting
steel structures: (i) adequate lateral stiffness to limit large displacements during elastic
response to minor and moderate earthquakes, and (ii) sufficient ductility to withstand large
inelastic displacements under extreme earthquakes and prevent sudden collapse. The
challenge of optimizing the seismic performance of structures lies in the balance of these two
parameters, stiffness and ductility.
The most conventional and prevalent lateral force resisting systems utilized in buildings
designed for earthquakes are the moment resisting frames (MRFs) and the concentric braced
frames (CBFs). In general, CBFs are considered as a more efficient system than the MRFs
due to several factors including the structural advantage of taking loads by axial action of
the braces rather than through the bending action of the beams and columns in a MRF.
Furthermore, the weight of the steel frame, which can directly affect cost, can be significantly
reduced by utilizing a CBF system over a MRF.
However, CBFs possess an inherent flaw in that this conventional bracing scheme lacks
adequate ductility, and in turn, has a limited energy dissipation capacity. During extreme
seismic events, the energy associated with the earthquake causes buckling of the braces and
15

large inelastic deformations in the brace end connections. Research has shown that this post-
yield deformation actually occurs at relatively moderate story drifts, well below the limit
states as prescribed by standard codes. On the other hand, MRFs with proper detailing
provide sufficient ductility to dissipate energy under extreme seismic events, but require
heavy and expensive steel sections for adequate stiffness.
In order to address the issue of limited ductility in conventional CBFs, significant research
efforts have been directed towards the development of new CBF systems with a more stable
hysteretic behavior, adequate ductility, ability to control damage, and greater energy
dissipation capacities. Due to this increased interest in research, there have been several key
advancements in the field of brace systems for seismic design in recent years, providing both
stiffness and ductility in one single brace system. The term, high-performance braces, as
used in this thesis, refers to these new and improved brace systems.
1.2 Scope of Research
The high-performance brace systems this thesis will mainly focus on are the (i) buckling-
restrained brace frames (BRBFs), (ii) self-centering energy dissipating brace frames (SCEDs),
and (iii) hybrid brace frames (HPCDs). The research will aim to evaluate and compare these
various high-performance brace systems with regard to structural performance and economy.
The primary goal of the thesis was to provide useful insights into the current developments
of high-performance braces in the hope that such systems can be more widely adopted and
utilized by practicing engineers in designing new earthquake-resistant structures.
After providing a comprehensive overview on the breadth of available literature regarding
high-performance braces, the thesis will present the methodology in developing analysis
models used to evaluate the structural performance of the various systems. The structural
analysis will be performed using the Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI) program SAP2000.
A comparative analysis will follow that will highlight the various performance levels of the
three different types of high-performance braces. Following these results, a discussion of the
performance implications as well as a parallel evaluation of the economic aspects of these
new systems will be presented. The thesis will then conclude with final remarks and
recommendations for future research.
16

17

Chapter 2
Literature Review
The following chapter provides an overview of the available research on the topic of high-
performance braces. For each type of brace system: BRBF, SCED, and HPCD, the chapter
will present the background and its current practices, the high-performance aspects, then
the design methods, mathematical formulations and modeling considerations, in that
respective order. The background outlined in this review will serve as the basis for discussion
in subsequent chapters.
2.1 Buckling-Restrained Braces
2.1.1 Background and Current Practice
The concept of using yielding steel elements in structural systems to dissipate energy in
seismic events was first introduced in 1975 through research done at the New Zealand
18

Society for Earthquake Engineering (Skinner et al., 1975). Due to the distinctive ability for
steel members with known yield strengths to undergo inelastic deformations at expected
capacities led to the development of using this ductile behavior of the material to work as a
hysteretic damper in systems. Utilizing the ductility of steel members and their capability of
performing beyond the elastic limit repeatedly in cyclic loadings form the basis for seismic
energy dissipation.
In 1971, researchers Yoshino and Karino of the Architectural Institute of Japan introduced
a refined brace concept in the form of Shear Wall with Braces (Yoshino & Karino, 1971).
This novel notion of restraining the buckling behavior of the steel braces in compression by
encasing the member in concrete was the first direct inspiration for the eventual
conceptualization of the BRB. Expanding on this idea of buckling-restraint through
encasement, Kimura and others developed the first working concept of conventional steel
braces encased in mortar-filled steel tubes in 1976 (Kimura et al., 1976).
Since then, multiple experiments have been conducted in the laboratory to test the reliability
of the desired hysteretic behavior of these new devices. However, findings showed that under
subsequent cycles of loading, the braces failed due to the transverse deformation of the
mortar allowed for local buckling of the steel element within the encasement. Data showed
that approximately 10-15% of the longitudinal strains of the core were transferred to the
restraining encasement. The coupled action of the transverse shear deformation between the
steel core and the encasement was only mitigated by the breakthrough development of the
unbonded brace, as coined by the Nippon Steel Corporation in 1988.
The first original and proprietary BRB concept available for commercial application was
introduced by Nippon Steel Corp in the late 1980s. The company commissioned several
research projects in order to validate the effectiveness of this new high-performance brace.
Full decoupling of the yielding steel core element and the mortar-filled encasement was the
key advancement that allowed for the desired performance of the concept of the BRB.
The adoption of BRBs gained traction immediately in Japan, where seismic risk is of high
concern for engineers. As early as the late 1980s, BRBFs have been implemented in several
different types of structures, and continued to proliferate to hundreds of applications by the
19

1990s. As illustrated in the figure below, BRBF systems has a significant market share in
structural systems utilized for high rises built in Japan from 1995 to 1999.

Figure 2.1-1: BRB Use in High Rise Buildings in Japan from 1995-1999
The entry to market in the United States was not immediate and began only in 1999, when
experimental tests were conducted at the University of California, Berkeley as qualification
for installation in two new buildings being constructed in the region (Black et al., 2004). Since
then however, the adoption in the United States and other areas outside Japan such as
Canada and parts of Europe, has been on the rise, at least in high seismic zones.
Due to the nature of BRBs being essentially a refined concept of the conventional CBF,
practical implementation did not require very different design approaches. The CBF system
has been widely utilized in different styles of structures ranging from low-rise warehouses to
high-rise office towers, as well as everything in between. Therefore, the adaptation of the use
of high-performance braces in practice was relatively swift (Tinker, 2011).
2.1.2 High-Performance Aspects
A schematic and a typical longitudinal section view of a typical BRB element has been
illustrated below to form the basis for discussion of the details of the brace.
20

Figure 2.1-2: Schematic of a Typical BRB

Figure 2.1-3: Typical Longitudinal Section of BRB

As previously delineated in the preceding section, the BRB is a refinement to the conventional
steel brace, comprising of an inner steel core encased in a mortar-filled case that restrains
the yielding steel from buckling under compression. The interacting surface between the steel
core and the confining material is coated with an unbonding agent to effectively decouple the
transverse deformations of the two subsystems. When concrete is employed as the
encasement material, several types of unbonding materials are available for use, such as
epoxy resin, silicon resin, and vinyl tapes (Xie, 2004). Further research into the unbonding
material has looked into even more options such as silicon coating, styrofoam, polyethylene
films, and butyl rubber sheets. An idealized model illustrating the decoupled system of the
BRB is shown below.
21

Figure 2.1-4: Idealized BRB Behavior under Axial Load (Hussain, 2005)
The rather simple but immensely profound advantage of BRBs over conventional steel braces
is that this high-performance brace exhibits the same behavior in both tension and
compression. The figure below shows the balanced hysteretic behavior of the BRB in both
tension and compression, highlighting the limitations of the conventional braces under
compressive loadings.

Figure 2.1-5: Behavior of CBF vs. BRBF under Cyclic Loadings (Xie, 2004)
There are several different configurations of BRBs that exist, which vary in cross-sections of
the steel core elements. As shown in Figure 2.1-6 below, cross-sections can vary from flat
plates, wide-flanges, and even HSS round sections.
22

Figure 2.1-6: Typical Cross-Section Configurations of BRBs (Xie, 2004)
The illustrated configurations show different combinations of varying types of steel core and
the restraining jacket. Configurations (a) through (c) are mortar-filled BRBs, (d) is a bolted
precast concrete restraint, and (e) through (l) are fully steel BRBs.
As emphasized before, the decoupling of the core steel brace element with the buckling-
restraining encasement is of critical importance. The yielding steel core must be able to slide
freely inside the casing so that the transverse expansion of the brace can occur in an
unimpeded manner.
2.1.3 Design Methods, Mathematical Formulation, and Modeling Considerations
The development of high-performance braces, BRBs in particular, served as an impetus in
driving building codes to adopt new technologies in seismic standards in response to the
advancements in structural performance these systems offer. The BRBF system is included
in the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings 2005, which is adopted by reference in both the International Building Code 2006
and the California Building Code 2007. Furthermore, the ASCE 7-05: Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structure also formally adopted the BRBF system as a
legitimate seismic-resisting structural system.
There is a limitation, however, to the pertinent codes for BRBFs in that the current provisions
are mostly prescriptive requirements with appropriate overdesign factors accounting for the
23

strength of BRB connections that compensate for the unforeseeable possibility of the failure
of components not expected to exceed their elastic limit such as beams, columns, gusset plates,
and connections. The AISC Seismic Provisions claims unavailability of sufficient test data for
such prescriptive requirements, but as additional tests and case studies of BRBFs become
readily available in the United States, the codes will become more accurate and reliable.
As explained previously in the background section, the ductility of a lateral force resisting
system dictates the magnitude of its response to seismic excitations. The seismic codes
measure the ductility of different types of lateral systems with the Response Modification
Coefficient (R), with higher values corresponding to more ductile systems. The table below
outlines the entire ductility spectrum of many different types of lateral systems as per the
seismic codes pertinent to buildings in the United States.
Comparison of Typical Lateral Force Resisting Systems
System Response
Modification
Coefficient (R)
Deflection
Amplification
Factor (Cd)
Ordinary Moment Frames (OMF) 3.5 3
Intermediate Moment Frames (IMF) 4.5 4
Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBF) 6 5
Eccentrically Braced Frames (EBF) 7 4
Special Plate Shear Walls (SPSW) 7 6
Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames (BRBF) 7 5.5
Special Moment Frames (SMF) 8 5.5
Table 2.1-1: Ductility Comparison of Typical Lateral Systems (ASCE/SEI 7-10)
The BRBFs ductility is in the higher end of the spectrum, near that of the SMF, which is a
testament to the effectiveness of this high-performance brace. The BRBF possess similar
levels of stiffness in controlling lateral displacements with that of the CBF, all the while
having the ductile capacity nearing that of the SMF to withstand large inelastic deformations
under extreme seismic events.
24

The basis for acceptable design of BRBs as per code is driven by the adjusted brace strength,
which accounts for the overdesign of the strength of BRB connections as described above. In
the AISC Provisions, the process of designing adequate BRBs is as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Firstly, the brace design axial strength (
) is calculated by multiplying the minimum yield

stress of the core element (
) by the net area of the steel core (
) as shown in Equation
(1). Equations (2) and (3) are the compressive and tension force capacities of the brace,
respectively. The compression strength adjustment factor () is the code provided factor to
account for BRBs compression overstrength. Lastly, the material expected yield stress (
)
and the strain hardening factor () also factor in the braces design capacity. The design
process of BRBFs as per the AISC Provisions is best summarized by the follow flowchart.

Figure 2.1-7: Flowchart for BRBF Design as per AISC Provisions (Dipti, 2010)

25

Due to the lack of any empirically based equations for the design of BRBs, researchers have
presented various mathematical models of the BRB element, based on the available
qualification test data (Tinker 2011). Since the design of the buckling-restrained brace
involves the need to investigate all potential ways for instabilities to form in the compression
regime, the modeling is divided into three distinct modes of buckling: (i) global flexural
buckling of the entire brace, (ii) local buckling of the core element outstands, and (iii) plastic
torsional buckling of the unrestrained core ends.
The global buckling mathematical model for a composite BRB, in which the yielding core is
a steel bar encased by a reinforced concrete material, is formulated and analytically
expressed in the following section (Xie, 2005). The figures below illustrate the variables used
in the formulation.

Figure 2.1-8: Composite BRB - Forces in the System

Figure 2.1-9: Composite BRB - Transverse Deflection of Brace

26

As shown in Figure 2.1-8, the brace has a deformation expressed as:
=
(4)
in which, is the deflection of the encasing concrete, and is the deflection in the midspan.
Assuming that the deformations in the steel brace and the concrete encasement are the same,
the distributed lateral force in Equation (4) can be written as:
=

4
(5)
where
is the flexural stiffness of the concrete. Diving (5) by (4), the following expression
is obtained:
=

=

4
(6)
In Equation (6), is defined as a resistant coefficient, representing the required force
distribution per unit deflection of the concrete encasement, similar to the spring constant.
Since the deformation of the core steel brace is restrained by the encasing concrete, the
bending moment is as follows:
() = + +
0
(7)
where, () is the bending moment at the cross-section, is the reaction at the hinge, is
the distance from the hinge to the cross-section, and is the axial force.
From (7), the Euler differential equation can be obtained:
4
+
2

2
2
+ = 0 (8)
in which,
2
=
and =

.
Taking the boundary conditions such that both ends are assumed to be perfect pin
connections, the following two expressions are obtained:
2
= 4
(9)
27

=
2
2
2
(10)
Using (9) and (10), the buckling mode length can be obtained:
(11)
Combining (10) and (11), the critical axial load can be divided into two parts:
=

2
2
+

2
2
(12)
where the second part in the expression in (12) represents the contribution of the encasement
to the buckling limit.
Substituting (6) into (12), the total buckling load can be obtained:
=

2
2
[
] (13)
Notice that the total buckling load expression is a simple sum of the contributions of the two
separate parts in the composite BRB specimen. However, to better model realistically
manufactured BRBs, the degradation of the concrete stiffness due to imperfect unbonding
agents must be considered, as in the next formulation:
=

2
2
[
] (14)
The factor which ranges from 0 to 1 represents the stiffness degradation in the concrete
encasement, and
is also rewritten as
.
Assuming
= 0 after the steel core member yields, the necessary stiffness of the concrete
encasement can be obtained as follows:
(15)
The stiffness and strength of the encasement are coupled parameters that need to be
determined in order design BRBs for desirable behavior of symmetric yielding action on both
tension and compression regimes. A highly stiff encasement with low strength will not
28

provide adequate stiffening behavior desired in BRBs once the encasement is cracked or
damaged, and inversely, a high strength low stiffness encasement will not provide enough
restraint to stop the steel brace from buckling.
To address this coupling behavior between the stiffness and strength of the encasement,
suppose the brace yields without buckling under axial compression force, as shown in Figure
2.1.3-2. The initial deflection is then defined as:
0
= sin
(16)
where
0
is the initial deflection and is the initial deflection of the midspan. At this point,
an equilibrium can be obtained in the brace:
2
+ ( +
0
)
= 0 (17)
for which
is the flexural stiffness of the encasing member. The transverse deflection of

the encasement can then be obtained as a general solution to the differential equation above:
( +
0
) =

1
sin
(18)
where,
=

2
2
(19)
The term
is the Euler buckling load of the encasing member, and from (19), the bending
moment at the midspan of the member can be obtained:
(20)
For a particular case when a square steel tube is employed as the encasement, the maximum
stress
in the outermost fiber of the tube can be obtained:
(21)
29

where, and
are the depth and moment of inertia of the encasement, respectively.

With regards to strength, the maximum stress cannot exceed the yielding stress of the
encasement,
<
. Therefore, the stiffness and strength requirements for the encasement

can be obtained as follows:
> 1 +

2
(22)
for which,
and
are the yielding stress and length of the steel tube respectively. More
generally, by defining
as the yielding moment of the encasing member, which is the

limiting bending moment in the member to sustain flexural stiffness
, then the stiffness

criterion is as follows:
<
(23)
Setting two new terms
as:
(24)
and combining (20) with (23), the global buckling criterion can be expressed as:
(1
1
>

(25)
2.2 Self-Centering Energy Dissipating Braces
The self-centering energy dissipating brace (SCED) is another type of high-performance
brace that builds on the concept of the BRB, but with the added ability to self-center itself
through the utilization of shape memory alloys, which in turn minimizes residual drifts in
the structure after minor or moderate earthquakes. The SCED is comprised of a main re-
centering component, made of pre-tensioned superelastic NiTi shape memory alloy (SMA)
rods, also known as Nitinol, and a passive energy dissipation mechanism through friction
pads clamped together with tensioned bolts.
30

Although the BRBF, as presented in the previous section, possesses numerous desirable
performance benefits over a traditional CBF, it is prone to residual lateral deformations of
damage concentration over the building height unless it is backed up by a more ductile
secondary lateral system such as the MRF (Tremblay et al., 2003). Large residual
deformations in a building after a strong earthquake can make the structure appear unsafe
to occupants, impair significant structural damage and thus its response to subsequent
aftershock earthquakes, and significantly increase the cost of postseismic repair or
replacement (Zhu and Zhang, 2008). Furthermore, residual deformations are emphasized as
a fundamental complementary parameter in evaluating both structural and non-structural
damage in buildings that are based on performance-based design criteria (Pampanin et al.,
2003). Therefore, the development of a system that can return to its initial position after an
earthquake, all the while still possessing many of the characteristics of a high-performance
BRBF, has attracted considerable amount of attention in the field (Miller et al., 2011).
The use of smart metallic materials such as Nitinol and other SMAs as an energy dissipation
mechanism has been around in the medicine and aerospace industries for quite some time
(Bank and Weres, 1976, Chandra et al., 2001). The alloys inherently unique ability to fully
recover at the end of a deformation process, either spontaneously (superelastic effect) or
through a heating treatment (shape memory alloy effect) has made it possible for researchers
to tinker with the concept of applying self-centering properties to other mechanisms.
However, Dolce et al. (2000) were the first to apply SMAs in structures, employing the
properties of Nitinol wires to conceive, design, manufacture, and test several self-centering
bracing devices for seismic protection of buildings (Dolce et al., 2000). Since then,
considerable research has been conducted in trying to optimize the implementation of these
SMA energy dissipating mechanisms. It is important to note that in general, the use of shape
memory alloys as damper systems are expensive to construct and do not scale easily to all
ranges of design forces (Christopoulos et al., 2008). A further evaluation of the economic
practicality as well as the scalability of the performance of SCEDs will be presented in later
chapters.
A conceptual illustration of a typical SCED brace element, as developed by Christopoulos et
al. (2008) is shown below in Figure 2.2-1. The system consists of a tensioning system and an
31

energy dissipation system, both connected by a series of guiding elements. The abutting
element is configured and sized to interact with the tensioning system on both ends of the
two structural elements. Lastly, a dissipative mechanism, via the friction device, is connected
to the two bracing members and is only activated when relative motion is induced between
these two members (Christopoulos et al., 2008).

Figure 2.2-1: Concept of SCED System (Christopoulos et al., 2008)
The number of tensioning elements and their corresponding modulus of elasticity, initial
pretensioning force, ultimate elongation capacity, total area, and length are all design
parameters that determine the strength, post-elastic stiffness, deformation capacity, and
self-centering capacity of the SCED system. The pretension force in the tensioning system
determines the force level at which the relative movement starts between the two structural
elements. Therefore, the assemblage of the system can be designed such that when relative
motion is induced, it always results in the elongation of the tensioning elements. This
elongation activates the energy dissipation mechanism, and therefore, changes the effective
stiffness of the system from the initial elastic stiffness, as determined by the sum of the two
structural elements, to the post-elastic stiffness, determined now by the stiffness of the
tensioning elements.
The behavior of an idealized SCED brace element and its desirable flag-shaped hysteretic
response is illustrated in the figure below. The four diagrams represent the deformation
behavior of the SCED for four different loading stages: (a) the force P has not overcome the
pretensioning force, and therefore, the brace element shows a high initial axial stiffness, (b)
the force P has overcome the pretensioning force and has activated the post-elastic stiffness
32

of the tensioning element and the energy dissipation mechanism, and in turn, increasing the
tension in the elements to provide a positive restoring force to the system, (c) the self-
centering property is shown in the system as the tension in the elements is larger than the
force necessary to activate the dissipation mechanism, and (d) the reversed action is shown.

Figure 2.2-2: Mechanics and Hysteretic Response of SCED Systems (Christopoulous et al, 2008)
In conclusion, the flag-shaped hysteretic behavior of the SCED can be simply summarized by
the following diagram, illustrating the contributions of the two components that make up the
SCED.

Figure 2.2-3: Flag-Shaped Hysteretic Behavior of SCED (Zhu and Zhang, 2008)

33

As emphasized in the previous section, the design of SCED systems is governed by many
parameters such as the number of tensioning elements and their corresponding modulus of
elasticity, initial pretensioning force, ultimate elongation capacity, total area, and length. To
determine the strength, post-elastic stiffness, deformation capacity, and self-centering
capacity of the SCED system, it is important to explicitly model the behavior of the SCED
brace element as a function of the design parameters.
The formulation of the response of the SCED element as delineated by Christopoulous et al.
(2008) is based on the schematic shown below.

Figure 2.2-4: Embodiment of SCED Element (Christopoulous et al., 2008)
The frictional resistance of the energy dissipation mechanism is denoted as and the initial
tendon pretension is labeled as
0
. At rest, the pretension force
0
applies compressive
forces
,0
and
,0
to the interior and exterior steel members, respectively. These initial
forces are relative to the axial stiffness of each member by the following expressions:
,0
=

0
;
,0
=

0
(26)
where,
and
are axial stiffness of the interior and exterior steel members, respectively.
The relative movement between the two members initiates when the load applied to the
SCED brace element reaches the activation load as expressed:
= +
0
+
(27)
34

for which,
is the axial stiffness of the tendons as given by
, and
is the
deformation of the brace at the onset of activation. Prior to activation of the system, the
elastic stiffness of the brace can be expressed as:
(28)
Since the deformation of the brace can also be expressed as:
(29)
the activation force
can be rewritten by substituting (29) into (27):
=
+
0
1
1
+
0
(30)
From Equation (30), it is evident that the influence of
on
is small and therefore, can

be omitted to obtain an initial estimate of
. When the system is activated, however, the

steel members only carry the force while the tensioning elements accommodate the
additional brace elongation through elastic deformations. Therefore, the brace load at a
positive tensile deformation,
+
, is given by:
+
= +
0
+
+
(31)
Upon unloading, the frictional mechanism locks and the initial brace stiffness,
, is
recovered. The behavior of the SCED brace element under compressive deformation is similar
to that of the tensile deformation except that the steel members must resist the total
compressive axial load and the pretension of the tensioning elements. Also, the axial
shortening of the members reduces the axial deformation demand on the tendons ever so
slightly, and therefore, the brace force and the axial stiffness are slightly reduced as well
(Christopoulous et al., 2008).
Once the relationship between the various design parameters and the overall behavior of the
SCED element has been established, the steel members, tensioning elements, and the
properties of the friction mechanism can be selected in order to obtain the desired axial brace
strength and energy dissipation capacities.
35

2.3 Hybrid Braces
The last type of high-performance brace this thesis will address is the hybrid brace frame.
The concept of a hybrid brace frame may refer to the multiple types of devices and the
countless number of various configurations within each type that exist in designing lateral
resisting systems. More specifically however, the hybrid passive control device (HPCD), as
developed by Marshall and Charney (2008), will serve as the focus of this section and will
represent the general concept of the hybrid brace frame.
According to Marshall, the HPCD is a combination of two typical passive control devices
combined in a new way to create a unique and innovative device, which enhances the
strengths and offsets the weaknesses of the individual devices (Marshall, 2008). The HPCD
is a two-stage device: the first stage is a viscoelastic solid device consisting of a high damping
rubber (HDR) material, and the second stage is a hysteretic yield device much like that of
the BRB brace element. The first stage provides energy dissipation for all deformation levels
such as wind events and minor to moderate earthquakes without the need for brace yielding,
while the second stage, which only engages during severe deformations, provides the ability
to dissipate significant energy during major seismic events. The second stage, when activated,
also provides additional stiffness to the brace element and in turn to the overall lateral
system for reduced floor displacements, helping to mitigate instabilities from forming in the
structure. Furthermore, the tiered hysteretic yielding stage of the HPCD allows the system
to limit the structural damage at only the aforementioned elements, allowing for less
conspicuous repairing of the whole structure.
Not unlike the SCED brace, the HPCD builds on the basic concept of the BRB with the added
benefit of staging the energy dissipation through member yielding only in major lateral
deformation levels, and allowing for the viscoelastic damping device to dissipate energy from
less significant events. The use of a high-damping rubber (HDR) is not in any way novel and
has been widely used in base isolation schemes. Due to their exceptional energy dissipating
capacity, the HDR has been adopted by the HPCD concept to act as an elastomeric damping
material in braces.
36

The high-damping rubber, as previously noted, has been available to engineers to use as
efficient energy dissipating mechanism for quite some time. The material composition of the
HDR is a vulcanized natural rubber compound with added carbon black and other fillers to
enhance the engineering properties (Marshall, 2008). The addition of carbon black increases
the stiffness of the damper and also the loss factor. The fillers are added to reduce the
dependence of the material properties of the damper to temperature, loading, and frequency.
The HPCD brace can take on many different configurations, but all conform to the basic
concept of utilizing a two-stage energy dissipation mechanism. One possible configuration of
the HPCD, using a cylinder type damper brace, is illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 2.3-1: HPCD Configuration using Cylinder Type Damper (Marshall, 2008)
Another possible configuration of the HPCD is illustrated below, highlighting the use of a
metallic yielding device, referred to as a tapered plate energy absorber (TPEA), in parallel
with a viscoelastic damper such as the HDR.

Figure 2.3-2: HPCD Configuration using TPEA and VE HDR in Parallel (Marshall, 2008)

37

To understand the behavior of the HPCD brace, it is critical to correctly formulate and model
the behavior of the HDR material. The development of the HPCD by Marshall (2008) outlines
a primer for formulating the complex behavior of the rubber material and modeling the
element in finite element analysis software. The complexity arises from the fact that rubbers
can be classified as both an isotropic and a viscoelastic solid. The HDR material has two
aspects to its behavior: the first being the time-independent force-deformation response, the
other being the time dependent loss modulus. Although the behavior of the HDR damper
depends heavily on the subtle material composition as well as the complex dual nature of the
loss modulus, the general hysteretic behavior can be obtained for the HDR, as shown below.

Figure 2.3-3: HDR Force-Deformation Relationship (Abe et al., 2004)

38

39

Chapter 3
Model Definition
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the formulation of the analysis model created in
SAP2000 to evaluate and compare the structural performance of the three high-performance
brace types. A brief description of the building and its site location will be presented, followed
by an overview of the pertinent building codes, then the modeling considerations for the
various types of brace elements.
3.1 Building Description
A well-defined, fully code-compliant, prototype building was developed as a basis for
comparison of the three high-performance braces presented in this thesis. The building is a
six-story steel structure, which is representative of a very common building type in an area
of high seismicity. The building profile embodies a rectangular plan spanning 150-0 in the
40

X-Direction and 180-0 in the Y-Direction, with columns spaced at 30-0 on center. The
height of the building is 72-0 above ground with two subgrade levels totaling 24-0 in depth,
with typical floor to floor heights of 12-0. The subgrade structure is comprised of 14 concrete
retaining walls along the perimeter of the building at the lower basement level and 10 walls
at the upper basement level. Each floor diaphragm of the superstructure consists of a 3
lightweight concrete slab on a 3 metal deck. Lastly, the building is enveloped by a glass
curtain wall faade along the entire perimeter of the structure up to the roof. A three-
dimensional perspective of the building is shown below, followed by the plan and elevation
views from each of the two principal directions.
The brace layout can be visualized in the plan view of the building, Figure 3.1-2, with two
braced bays per principal direction. All of the braces in the base model are a concentrically
braced frame configuration, also known as a chevron brace, as shown in the elevation views.
This configuration is used as a control in comparing the three different types of high-
performance braces to isolate the changes in performance of the structure to the type of brace
rather than the configuration.
41

Figure 3.1-1: Isometric Perspective View of Base Model

Figure 3.1-2: Plan View of Base Model
42

Figure 3.1-3: Elevation View of Base Model in the X-Direction

Figure 3.1-4: Elevation View of Base Model in the Y-Direction
43

3.2 Code-Based Design of Base Model
The prototype building was designed to be used as an office building in downtown Berkeley,
CA, which is an area of high seismicity where the benefits of high-performance braces can be
best realized. The site location dictated the seismic demands as well as the soil profile for the
building in designing adequate lateral systems. Tabulated below is the seismicity
information for the respective site location of the building. Furthermore, the prototype
building adheres to the typical design considerations for office buildings with regards to
occupancy category and importance factor as per ASCE 7-10.
Period Sa (g) SDS (g) SD1 (g)
T = 0.2s 3.0467 2.0311 -
T = 1.0s 1.1705 - 0.7804
Table 3.2-1: Site Seismicity Parameters (USGS Earthquake Hazards Program)
The structure also incorporates subgrade levels to most realistically model the column
boundary conditions at ground level, since many office buildings typically include basements
(Fahnestock, 2006). The gravity system was designed in accordance to the codes ASCE 7-10
and AISC Steel Construction Manual. The frame elements are all wide-flange steel sections,
and the beams and girders take advantage of composite action with the floor slabs.
The lateral system of the building is comprised of the concentric braces in the corresponding
bays as described in the previous section, supplemented by the moment framing of the
columns and girders throughout the rest of the structure. The initial design of the braces was
obtained from the equivalent lateral force method as per the International Building Code
(2009), and sized for an earthquake with a 2% probability of exceedence in 50 years, and a
mean return period of approximately 2,500 years. The ground acceleration values pertaining
to the design earthquake are tabulated in Table 3.2-1. Finally, the prototype building was
designed to achieve a Life Safety Building Performance Level for the 2,500-year earthquake
as per the ASCE 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings code.

44

3.3 Modeling High-Performance Braces
The prototype building, as outlined in the previous section, was developed in order to create
a control or a base model for the comparative study of the high-performance braces. The
lateral system in the base model was initially designed using the equivalent lateral force
method to meet code requirements for both strength and displacement including second-order
effects. This code-compliant base model was then altered to create a modified frame for each
of the three types of high-performance braces: the BRBF, SCED, and HPCD. A special
moment resisting frame (SMRF) was also developed off the base model, by removing the
concentric braces and stiffening up the frame with heavier beams and columns to meet the
same code criteria, to serve as yet another subject for comparison.
In modeling the BRBF elements, the design procedure as more thoroughly outlined in the
literature review section was considered to accurately account for the increase in stiffness of
the BRB. The cross-sectional area of the BRB steel core was modeled as approximately 40%
greater than that of the actual core area of brace obtained in the design, to account for the
following factors: the partial fixity inherent in the brace end connections, the additional
stiffness from the increase of cross-sectional area of the non-yielding portion of the steel core
at each end of the brace element, and the small increase in stiffness from the encasement
material as well as the steel tube that confines the brace element (Seamer, 2007).
The nonlinearity of the structure as well as that of the high-performance braces was
accounted for in the model through the use of discrete non-linear hinge elements. The beams
and girders are all assigned with flexural hinge elements including strain hardening about
the strong axis at a distance of 10% from the members end. The columns were not expected
to yield but were also modeled with an interacting axial load-bending moment plastic hinge
at each end.
The BRB elements were modeled as non-prismatic sections divided into three segments. The
middle 75% of the braces length was modeled as the yielding steel core, with the appropriate
cross-sectional area as determined and described in the previous paragraph, while the two
ends, each 12.5% of the members length, were modeled using a rigid offset from the end
connections. The discretization of the BRB element allows for a more accurate representation
of the brace formulation that accounts for both the yielding steel core and the non-yielding
45

brace end connections. Since nonlinearity was restricted to only the middle portion of the
BRB element, the braces were assigned with nonlinear axial hinge elements at the midpoint
of the central segment (Seamer, 2007). The properties pertaining to the nonlinear hinge
elements were designed to adhere to the guidelines provided by the FEMA provisions for
seismic design (FEMA 356, 2000). Illustrated below is a generalized moment-rotation and
axial load-deformation relationship for hinge elements as per FEMA guidelines.

Figure 3.3-1: Generalized Moment-Rotation and Axial Load-Deformation Relationship for Hinge
Elements (Seamer, 2007)
The energy dissipation elements found in SCED and HPCD braces were modeled using a
combination of linear and nonlinear link elements in tandem with the modeling
considerations of the BRB element. The tensioning element of the SCED brace is modeled
with a multilinear plastic spring in parallel with the BRB brace, representing the two-stage
behavior of the shape memory alloy wires. The high-damping rubber damper device in the
HPCD brace is modeled using a multilinear elastic spring in parallel with a linear viscous
damper dashpot. The multilinear elastic spring element provides the ability to model the
behavior of several legs of different elastic stiffness, necessary in representing the initial
stiffness of the HDRD followed by an increased stiffness when the locking mechanism
engages (Marshall, 2008). The figures below illustrate the configuration of the link elements
modeled for the HPCD brace, as well the type of spring used to represent each link.
46

Figure 3.3-2: Diagram of HPCD Hybrid Energy Dissipation System (Marshall, 2008)

Figure 3.3-3: Modeling of HPCD Hybrid Energy Dissipation Configurations (Marshall, 2008)
Lastly, Rayleigh proportional damping of 2% in the first and fifth modes was included for
each of the high-performance brace models. However, Rayleigh damping only represented
the inherent damping of the structure; the additional damping provided by the hysteretic
behavior of the various brace elements was different for each model. The HPCD brace
element in particular, which includes the HDR damper device, required an iterative process
involving the log decrement method to achieve the appropriate damping constant of the
dampers to achieve a total model damping of approximately 10% (Marshall, 2008).

47

Chapter 4
Analysis Procedures
As stated in the Introduction, one of the primary aims of this thesis is to compare and
evaluate the various types of high-performance brace systems with regards to its structural
performance benefits. This chapter will present an overview of the analysis procedures
pertinent to seismic design and also provide the methodology used to analyze the high-
performance brace models to convey the proposed results.
4.1 Overview
Four modified analysis models, each built on the base model described in the previous chapter,
were generated for analysis: the buckling-restrained brace frame, self-centering energy
dissipating brace frame, hybrid brace frame, and lastly, the special moment resisting frame.
Each high-performance brace frame was then analyzed using a nonlinear response history
48

analysis method as will be described in the sections to follow. There are six commonly
recognized structural analysis methods allowed by code to use in designing earthquake-
resistant structures (SEAOC Seismology Committee, 2009). Each analysis procedure can be
classified according to whether a linear or nonlinear model of the structure is subjected to a
static or dynamic analysis. Tabulated below summarizes the aforementioned analysis
procedures with the corresponding model properties and type of analysis.

Structural Model
Linear Nonlinear
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

M
e
t
h
o
d

S
t
a
t
i
c

(1) Simplified Analysis
(2) Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis
(3) Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis
D
y
n
a
m
i
c

(4) Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
(5) Linear Response History Analysis
(6) Nonlinear Time History Analysis
Table 4.1-1: Seismic Analysis Procedures (Adapted from SEAOC Seismology Committee, 2009)
The selection of which seismic analysis procedure can be chosen depends on a combination of
various design parameters such as: the seismic design category, seismic use group, structural
material, and structural configuration, which includes building characteristics such the
height, period and irregularity. The following paragraphs will describe each analysis
procedure in detail to rationalize the particular procedure chosen to analyze the high-
performance brace frames. From this point onwards, the analysis procedures will be termed
(LSP) for the linear static procedure, (LDP) linear dynamic procedure, (NSP) nonlinear static
procedure, and lastly, (NDP) for the nonlinear dynamic procedure.
4.2 Linear Static Procedure
The Simplified analysis, according to the SEAOC Seismology Committee, is a conservative
version of the more general equivalent lateral force analysis, and thus, does not require a
drift check. The ASCE 7-10 allows the Simplified analysis for buildings not exceeding three
stories in height, in Occupancy Categories I and II, and in Site Classes A-D. This LSP method
is generally intended for use in relatively simple buildings, hence is not chosen for the
analysis of the high-performance brace models.
49

The second type of LSP, the Equivalent Lateral Force method (ELF), is the most commonly
used seismic design procedure, and has been codified in various forms for several decades
(SEAOC, 2009). The ELF method determines the design seismic forces from a linear elastic
static analysis of the structure, and in effect, removes the time-varying inertial forces due to
earthquakes by an equivalent set of static forces applied to each floor of the building. This
method also implicitly assumes that all mass participates in the first mode of the structure.
To counter this assumption, the distribution of the lateral force can be altered to address the
contributions of higher modes, but research shows that even then, base shears determined in
more accurate nonlinear analyses can significantly exceed the values obtained from the ELF
method (Eberhard and Sozen, 1993). Furthermore, the ELF method is recognized to be
inadequate for structure with: irregular distributions of mass and stiffness, non-uniform
story strengths, strong coupling of the translational and torsional responses, and flexible
diaphragms on multiple floor levels (SEAOC, 2009).
The ELF method, due to its inherent elastic nature, cannot accurately capture the force and
deformation demands of the structure under inelastic response. Therefore, for structures
with a seismic design modification factor R greater than 1.5, nonlinear analysis procedures
may be better suited to accurately model seismic behavior. However, the ELF method is often
used as a benchmark for scaling of the base shears and other response quantities obtained
from dynamic analyses, and therefore, was utilized to initially design the base model as
described in Chapter 3. Codes generally allow for the preliminary design of lateral force
resisting systems to use the ELF method in determining the required base shear strengths
to be later supplemented by further dynamic analyses for performance quantities that are
strongly sensitive to influence from higher modes such as story shears and interstory drifts
(SEAOC, 2009).
4.3 Nonlinear Static Procedure
The NSP includes a variety of analysis methods that are all based on static pushover analyses
of a nonlinear model, including procedures such as the Capacity Spectrum Method,
Displacement Coefficient Method, and the various adaptive and multiple mode pushover
techniques. In all variations of the NSP, a nonlinear model of the structure is subjected to
gradually increasing lateral forces and the overall behavior of the structure is observed. Since
the nonlinear behavior of the structural elements is modeled, the structure displays inelastic
50

behavior once yield point is exceeded. The global behavior can be characterized by a capacity
curve, plotting the base shear as a function of displacement of a control point, to illustrate
the inelastic effect.
The static pushover analysis can be useful in estimating deformation demands and
determining the required strength and stiffness, as well as the ductility demands of the
lateral system. However, the NSP, as with the LSP, has significant limitations in that the
analysis does not represent the contributions of higher modes. Although the higher modes
typically contribute very little to displacement demands, their contribution to interstory
drifts and story shears is not negligible, and thus the NSP is inadequate for analysis of high-
performance brace frames where performance criterion such as interstory drifts is of critical
importance (SEAOC, 2009).
4.4 Linear Dynamic Procedure
The LDP analysis comprises of two main methods, the Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
and the Linear Response History Analysis. Both LDP analysis methods inherently account
for the contribution from higher modes, but still use a linear elastic model in conjunction with
scaling to the ELF base shear to determine design forces. The main difference between the
LSP and LDP methods is the distribution of lateral forces over the building height to more
accurately account for the effects of irregularities due to the higher modes. However, the
design forces obtained from the LDP can be drastically inaccurate for structures in which
significant nonlinearity is expected. Therefore, the high-performance brace frames, which
intrinsically embody nonlinear behavior by precluding the yielding of some structural
elements, may not be best suited for analysis using the LDP methods.
In the Modal Response Spectrum Analysis, according to the SEAOC Seismology Committee,
the peak modal responses are combined using modal combination rules such as the SRSS or
CQC rules as an approximation to the actual time-varying interaction of the modes. The
orthogonality of the undamped modes of vibration allows the linear elastic response to be
represented by superposing the responses of the individual modes in time. The number of
modes to be accounted for is determined by the requirement of at least 90% of the
participating mass to be represented in the analysis. It is important to note that code-
specified elastic design spectra that are typically used in the Modal Response Spectrum
51

Analysis has inherently unrealistic representation of demands due to imperfections in
calculating the probabilistic spectral ground motions, which are different for every seismic
event and source. Therefore, the uniform hazard design spectrum is generally an
overestimation of the contribution of all modes at the specified design earthquake exceedance
probability (SEAOC, 2009).
The Linear Response History Analysis determines the response history of the structure from
a step-by-step solution in the time or frequency domain to a signal that represents the motion
of the ground. The calculation method can involve the use of modal superposition as outlined
above, with the sufficient number of modes to represent at least 90% of the participating
mass, or by direct integration, which inherently represents the entirety of the mass
associated with the structure. The responses computed using this method are for a particular
ground motion record, and therefore, are a function of only the specific excitations that have
been used in the calculation. A set of linear response history analyses can then be performed
for a more exhaustive understanding of the response of the structure, which can also be
appended to other procedures to gauge the effects of the higher modes. However, as
mentioned earlier in this section, both LDP methods intrinsically use the linear elastic model
in determining the response of the structure, and therefore, are inadequate for the analysis
of high-performance brace frames.
4.5 Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure
The last type of seismic analysis, and fittingly the most complex, is the nonlinear dynamic
procedure. The NDP essentially embodies the same analysis methods as the LDP, but
accounts for nonlinearities by using a nonlinear inelastic model in the analysis. This method
is considered to be the most accurate of the analysis procedures because it closely represents
the inelastic response of the structure, and has become the benchmark by which the accuracy
of other procedures is evaluated (SEAOC, 2009). The NDP inherently accounts for the
contribution of higher modes and the influence of nonlinear component behavior on the
response of the structure, and thus, is most suitable for the analysis of high-performance
braces. It is critical to note that in nonlinear response history analysis, the nonlinearity
causes coupling between the modes, and therefore the peak response from each of the modes
cannot simply be superposed, but rather all modes must be analyzed simultaneously in order
to perform modal combination at each time step (Wong, 2011).
52

The nonlinear response history analysis method using direct integration was ultimately
chosen to analyze the high-performance brace frames. The complexities of the nonlinear
hinge definitions as well as the multilinear elastic and plastic link components of the high-
performance braces, as outlined in Section 3.3, necessitated the exhaustive analysis method.
Although the direct integration method is computationally less efficient than a modal
response history analysis, it allows the behavior of the nonlinear hinge elements to be directly
considered at each time step during the analysis (Seamer, 2007).
Each of the high-performance brace models was subjected to a suite of seven scaled ground
motion records that represent a wide range of different historical seismic events. A table
summarizing the ground motion records used in the analysis is tabulated below, and the
acceleration plots for each of the records can also be found in Appendix A.
Earthquake Year Station Magnitude Distance (km) PGA (g)
PGV
(cm/sec)
PGD
(cm)
Imperial Valley 1979 El Centro 6.53 28.09 0.5379 56.8 32.99
Superstition Hills 1987 Brawley 6.54 29.91 0.1349 15.9 7.04
Victoria, Mexico 1980 Chihuahua 6.33 36.67 0.1179 19.73 9.97
Duzce, Turkey 1999 Duzce 7.14 1.61 0.4273 70.77 47.3
Chalfant 1986 Bishop 6.19 20.27 0.2058 19.32 6.97
Northridge 1994 Rinaldi 6.69 10.91 0.6336 109.24 28.26
Erzican 1992 Erzican 6.69 8.97 0.4886 72.95 24.79
Table 4.5-1: Summary of Ground Motion Records Used in Time History Analysis (PEER NGA)
Each earthquake used in the analysis included the four components of the seismic record: the
fault normal (FN), fault parallel (FP), geometric mean (GM), and the vertical (Vert). Only the
geometric mean of the FN and FP components is reported in the summary table above, but
the time history analysis was conducted with all twenty-eight components of the set of seven
earthquakes. The graph below shows the entire set of the scaled response histories used in
the analysis, followed by the geometric and arithmetic mean spectra overlaid on the target
design spectrum. The direct integration time history analysis used the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor
(HHT) method with a time step size of 0.01 seconds (Hughes, 1987). Although a nonzero alpha
value in the HHT method can be useful to damp out the response from very low periods, using
the value of alpha equal to zero is most accurate (CSI, 2013).
53

Figure 4.5-1: Scaled Response Histories of All Four Components of Ground Motion Records

Figure 4.5-2: Target Design Spectrum with Scaled Geometric & Arithmetic Mean Spectra of Ground
Motion Records
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
S
p
e
c
t
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

S
a

(
g
)
Period, T (s)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
S
p
e
c
t
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

S
a

(
g
)
Period, T (s)
Target Design
Spectrum
Geometric Mean
Arithmetic Mean
54

55

Chapter 5
Analysis Results
The structural analysis program SAP2000 was used to perform the nonlinear response
history analyses on the high-performance brace models. This chapter will present the
following results in order: peak floor displacements, peak interstory drift ratios, peak
interstory residual drift ratios, and peak floor accelerations. These performance parameters
will then be discussed to illustrate the various benefits and possible shortcomings of each of
the high-performance braces as compared to each other and to the conventional moment
resisting frame.
56

5.1 Peak Floor Displacements

Figure 5.1-1: Peak Floor Displacements as a function of Story Height in the X-Direction

Figure 5.1-2: Peak Floor Displacements as a function of Story Height in the Y-Direction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
S
t
o
r
y

H
e
i
g
h
t
,

f
t
Floor Displacement, in
BRB
HPCD
SCED
SMRF
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
S
t
o
r
y

H
e
i
g
h
t
,

f
t
Floor Displacement, in
BRB
HPCD
SCED
SMRF
57

5.2 Peak Interstory Drift Ratios

Figure 5.2-1: Peak Interstory Drift Ratios as a function of Story Height in the X-Direction

Figure 5.2-2: Peak Interstory Drift Ratios as a function of Story Height in the Y-Direction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
S
t
o
r
y

H
e
i
g
h
t
,

f
t
Interstory Drift
BRB
HPCD
SCED
SMRF
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
S
t
o
r
y

H
e
i
g
h
t
,

f
t
Interstory Drift
BRB
HPCD
SCED
SMRF
58

5.3 Peak Interstory Residual Drift Ratios

Figure 5.3-1: Peak Interstory Residual Drift Ratios as a function of Story Height in the X-Direction

Figure 5.3-2: Peak Interstory Residual Drift Ratios as a function of Story Height in the Y-Direction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70%
S
t
o
r
y

H
e
i
g
h
t
,

f
t
Residual Interstory Drift Ratio, %
BRB
HPCD
SCED
SMRF
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70%
S
t
o
r
y

H
e
i
g
h
t
,

f
t
Residual Interstory Drift Ratio, %
BRB
HPCD
SCED
SMRF
59

5.4 Peak Floor Accelerations

Figure 5.4-1: Peak Floor Accelerations as a function of Story Height in the X-Direction

Figure 5.4-2: Peak Floor Accelerations as a function of Story Height in the Y-Direction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
S
t
o
r
y

H
e
i
g
h
t
,

f
t
Floor Acceleration, g
BRB
HPCD
SCED
SMRF
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-0.2 0.3 0.8 1.3 1.8
S
t
o
r
y

H
e
i
g
h
t
,

f
t
Floor Acceleration, g
BRB
HPCD
SCED
SMRF
60

5.5 Discussion of Results
The four performance parameters presented above, the peak floor displacements, peak
interstory drift ratios, peak interstory residual drift ratios, and the peak floor accelerations,
are all average quantities of the response of the models subjected to the set of seven ground
motion histories.
The first two parameters, the floor displacements and the interstory drift ratios, are primary
parameters used to assess the acceptability of a structure in seismic design. These two
parameters are presented for both the X-Direction and the Y-Direction of the building.
Interstory drift ratios are a measure of how much one story of the building displaces laterally
relative to the story below it. Codes pertinent to seismic design require certain interstory
drift limits, which are proportional to the Building Performance Level, as per FEMA, chosen
for the design of the building.
One of the reasons building codes place limits on interstory drifts is that this performance
parameter is directly related to the level of structural damage the building experiences in a
seismic event. The initial design provisions for the base model as well as the various high-
performance brace models were described more thoroughly in Chapter 3. As evident in the
figures illustrating the interstory drift ratio parameter, even the base model, a SMRF, was
designed so that the code limit of 2.0% for a Life Safety Performance Level was met.
With regards to floor displacements and interstory drifts, the BRBF and SCED performed
significantly better than the SMRF. The interstory drifts for both the BRBF and SCED were
in the range of 0.4% to 0.7%. The HPCD resulted in slightly worse drift responses than the
BRBF or the SCED, but still performed better than the SMRF. The performance benefits for
floor displacements and interstory drifts were expected for the high-performance braces, due
to the increased stiffness of the structure provided by the braces, and are confirmed by the
results.
The residual drift is another important performance parameter used to assess the soundness
of a structure against seismic events. Residual drifts represent the state of the structure at
the end of a seismic event, and can serve as a direct measure of the amount of inelastic
deformation the structural system experienced during an earthquake. Residual drifts less
61

than 0.5% are generally considered to be insignificant since this is in the range of acceptable
out-of-plumb tolerance for new construction, which is around 0.2% (Choi et al., 2008). For
residual drifts between 0.5% and 1.0%, a special assessment by a structural engineer is
recommended before the building is reoccupied, and lastly, for drifts greater than 1.0%, some
form of seismic retrofitting is required for the continued stability of the structure (Choi et al.,
2008).
The results for residual drift show that only the SCED does not require some form of
occupancy disturbance. The SCED achieves residual drift ratios less than 0.1% for both
directions of excitation. The exceptional self-centering behavior of the SCED brace allows for
this particular system to achieve such significantly greater performance levels with regards
to residual drifts, as compared to the other high-performance braces. The relatively high
levels of residual drift found in the BRBF, HPCD, and the SMRF are mainly due to the fact
that the entire displacement of the system results in an unrecoverable deformation until the
system is loaded in the opposite direction (Choi et al, 2008).
Lastly, with regards to the peak floor accelerations, the BRBF and the SCED do not provide
any noticeable performance advantages over the SMRF. While the increased stiffness of the
BRBF and the SCED provided significant benefits in floor displacements and interstory drifts,
it proportionally increased the floor acceleration response as well. However, as illustrated in
the floor acceleration graphs above, the response of the BRBF and SCED are comparable to
that of the SMRF, which is a good indication that the BRBF and SCED provide adequate
ductility as well as sufficient stiffness. The HPCD, on the other hand, performed best in this
category, yielding the lowest floor accelerations throughout the entire height of the building.
The decrease in acceleration response is mainly achieved through the additional damping of
the HPCD, which is embodied in the inherent damping of the HDR damper device.

62

63

Chapter 6
Economic Feasibility
The purpose of the following chapter is to provide introductory insights into the economic
aspects of implementing high-performance braces. The benefits in structural performance
alone are not enough to convince engineers to adopt the use of these new systems. Therefore,
the economic feasibility of the various high-performance braces is presented to better outline
the overall consequences of adopting such systems. This chapter will discuss the possible
economic benefits in implementing high-performance braces by presenting several case
studies and their implications.

64

6.1 Buckling-Restrained Brace Frames
It may seem that due to the rather contemporary nature of the development of high-
performance braces, economic feasibility would be the primary challenge for their practical
implementation. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that it is quite the contrary.
Studies commissioned by StarSeismic, one of the most widely known BRB manufacturers
in the USA, have shown clear evidence in supporting this claim.
Dasse Design Inc. (2009), conducted an analytical study to investigate potential material
savings and cost advantages of utilizing a BRBF system as opposed to the conventional CBF
system. Model buildings of two different heights, a three-story structure and a six-story
structure, were developed for each of the two lateral force resisting systems. Both models
were designed as per code with typical building characteristics to validate the practicality of
the studys implications.
The study concluded that utilizing the BRBF system can yield significant structural cost
savings, as high as 34% for a six-story structure, over the use of CBF systems (Dasse, 2009).
The savings are the result of both decreased material quantities and lighter foundation
demands. Although the BRB members can be more expensive than typical HSS brace sections,
the cost is offset by material savings in the columns, beams, connections and the foundation.
Also, the generally smaller net area characteristic of the BRB members yield lower
connection design forces, which in turn, can result in additional material savings through
reduced gusset plate sizes and weld strengths (Dasse, 2009). Shown below is the comparative
chart highlighting the savings realized in using the BRBF system for the six-story structure.

Figure 6.1-1: Relative Costs of the BRBF & CBF for a Six-Story Structure (Dasse, 2009)

65

Furthermore, the study concluded that the cost savings provided by the use of BRBF systems
are more significant as the height of the building increases. The greater quantities of material
utilized offset the premium paid for the BRBF members, and also the period and base shear
advantages, provided by the BRBF system due to the added ductility, also increase with
building height. The graph below shows this positive relationship between cost savings and
building height.

Figure 6.1-2: Lateral Frame Cost as a function of Building Height (Dasse, 2009)
A follow up study was commissioned by StarSeismic in the subsequent year to further
corroborate their rather bold claims. This time, the analytical study was conducted for design
of buildings in a high seismic zone in Europe. Two types of CBF systems were investigated:
a low dissipative CBF with very limited ductility and a moderately ductile CBF with
dissipative bracing systems, which were then both compared to the BRBF. The conclusions
were identical to the previous study: the BRBF, in spite of being more expensive as a brace
element, actually leads to significant reductions in total structural costs of buildings in
moderate or high earthquake zones by decreasing the required capacity of non-dissipative
structural members, as well as reductions in connection requirements (StarSeismic, 2010).
The study recapitulated findings from the previous study by Dasse (2009), and is summarized
by similar graphs depicting the possible cost savings of utilizing BRBFs over CBFs.
66

Figure 6.1-3: Relative Cost of the BRBF Compared the CBFs of Different Ductility Capacities
(StarSeismic, 2010)

Figure 6.1-4: Lateral Frame Cost as a function of Building Height (StarSeismic, 2010)
The case for the economical advantages of BRBFs over conventional lateral systems has been
sufficiently discussed and has also been relatively well-received. There has been a
proliferation of BRBF systems being utilized in the design of earthquake-resistant buildings
in the West Coast of the United States, in the past decade. A report written by engineers at
Arup, the company has used the BRBF system in California on projects comprising of more
than four million square feet and totaling more than $1 billion in construction costs to date,
as of the year 2003 (Ko and Field, 2003). The use of the BRBF as the primary lateral force
resisting system has undeniably gained significant traction in commercial practice, and will
only continue to become more prevalent as seismic codes adopt the high-performance brace
as a new standard in earthquake-resistant building design.
67

6.2 Self-Centering Energy Dissipating Braces & Hybrid Braces
The economic feasibility of the SCED as well as the HPCD is less well-defined however, and
is largely due to the fact that these new developments of high-performance braces simply
have not been in existence for a significant period of time. Nonetheless, one study conducted
in 2012 by researchers in Italy has attempted to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the SCED
as compared to the BRBF and the conventional MRF by a risk-based life cycle cost analysis
method (Freddi et al., 2012). The risk-based life cycle cost (LCC) analysis is appropriate in
evaluating the cost effectiveness of the different systems throughout the length of the
structures entire life span, from initial construction, maintenance and repair, to
deconstruction. The particular importance of repair costs after extreme seismic events is
critical in comparing the performance and cost effectiveness of the various high-performance
brace systems. The studys findings show that the BRBF is the most cost effective. While the
SCED is also cost efficient as compared to the conventional MRF, the expected cost over the
life cycle of the building for a SCED system is slightly higher than the BRBF system.
Tabulated below is the summary of the findings from the study, which shows the expected
cost of each system as a percent of the replacement cost and the loss savings provided by the
high-performance braces.

Expected LCC as % of Replacement Cost Loss Savings
MRF 309.69 -
BRBF 160.98 148.71
SCED 174.50 135.19
Table 6.2-1: LCC Analysis Results Comparing the MRF, BRBF, and the SCED (Freddi et al., 2012)

68

69

Chapter 7
Conclusions
If we can sort out all the problems today, we wouldnt have to come to work tomorrow, would
we. Peter Rice
The primary goal of the thesis was to provide useful insights into the current developments
of high-performance braces in the hope that such systems can be more widely adopted and
utilized by practicing engineers in designing new earthquake-resistant structures. Three
different types of high-performance brace systems were presented: (i) the buckling-restrained
brace frame (BRBF), (ii) the self-centering energy dissipating brace frame (SCED), and (iii)
the hybrid brace frame (HPCD).
The first half of the research included a comprehensive overview on the breadth of available
literature regarding the development of high-performance braces. The latter half then
70

presented the comparative analysis of the various systems to discuss and evaluate the
performance implications of high-performance braces, as well as the economic aspects of
these new technologies.
Analytical models representing each of the three high-performance brace systems were
created for comparison in SAP2000. A control model representing a conventional moment
resisting frame was also produced to set the basis for comparison. A nonlinear response
history analysis was then performed to evaluate the seismic performance of the high-
performance brace systems as measured by parameters such as the peak floor displacements,
peak interstory drift ratios, peak interstory residual drift ratios, and peak floor accelerations.
Based on the nonlinear response history analysis, the BRBF and the SCED performed
equally best with regards to floor displacements and interstory drift ratios. The HPCD
performed better than the SMRF with regards to the same parameters but not as well as the
BRBF and the SCED. However, for floor accelerations, the HPCD outperformed all the other
systems by a significant margin, as can be explained by the relatively high damping
properties of the HDR damper device. Lastly, with regards to the residual drift ratios, the
SCED was clearly the best performing system due to its self-centering behavior.
The last chapter discussed the economic aspects of implementing high-performance braces
and the possible cost advantages of utilizing these new systems. Case studies were presented
to corroborate the claim that using the BRBF over a CBF can result in construction cost
savings. As for the SCED and the HPCD, which are very new developments, there did not
exist any case studies with empirical data to support their possible cost benefits, as of this
writing. Therefore, research conducted in 2012, which used the risk-based life-cycle cost
analysis method to calculate the expected savings in replacement costs over the life span of
the building by utilizing the BRBF or the SCED, was cited to make the case for the economic
practicality of SCED systems. Lastly, since the HPCD is basically a combination of the BRBF
with a HDR damper, a device that has been widely prevalent in the field of base isolation
mechanisms, the study of its practical implementation was not required. The HPCD would
simply be a new application of the HDR damper device, by merging its high-performance
characteristics with the BRB.
71

As with all works of engineering, success does not mean that all the problems have been
solved. There are several areas within this thesis that can be further augmented by future
research. One possible area for further research can be the scalability of the high-
performance braces for implementation in mid to high-rise structures. The performance
benefits, as observed in the relatively low-rise structure analyzed in this work, may not be as
pronounced or even realized for taller buildings. Another aspect recommended for future
research can be a more extensive study of the economic aspects of the high-performance
braces, mainly the SCED and the HPCD. As emphasized several times before, the lack of
case studies for the two aforementioned brace systems makes it difficult to accurately assess
and evaluate the overall effectiveness of utilizing such systems, and in turn, impossible to
objectively and confidently recommend the use of these systems.
This work has provided a general overview of the current developments of high-performance
braces and an introductory understanding of the possible benefits these new technologies
provide in both structural performance and economy. Although it may be overly audacious to
claim that the future of designing earthquake-resistant structures will be centered on the
use of high-performance braces, the availability of such new technologies only enhances the
effectiveness of the structural engineer by providing yet another tool in designing safer and
more economical buildings for society.

72

73

References
AlHamaydeh, M., Choudhary, I., & Assaleh, K. (2012). Virtual testing of buckling-restrained
braces via nonlinear AutoRegressive eXogenous neural networks. Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000247
Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project). (2005). FEMA 440 - improvement of nonlinear
static seismic analysis procedures Department of Homeland Security - Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
ASCE. (2006). ASCE/SEI 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. Virginia:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
ASCE. (2010). ASCE/SEI 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Atlayan, O., & Charney, F. A. (2012). Hybrid buckling-restrained braced frames. Stessa 2012,
Santiago, Chile. 881.
Bank, R., and Weres, O. (1976). In: Perkins J, editor. Shape memory effects in alloys, NY:
Plenum Press.
Black, C., Makris, N., & Aiken, I. (2002). Component testing, stability analysis and
characterization of buckling-restrained unbonded braces. (Final Report to Nippon
Steel Corporation, Tokyo, Japan No. 2002/08). Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center.
Budahazy, V. (2012). Modelling of the hysteretic behaviour of buckling restrained braces.
Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering, Budapest, Hungary. 34.
Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2000).
FEMA 356. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Building Sciences.
Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2003).
FEMA 450 - NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new
74

buildings and other structures. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Building
Sciences.
Burkholder, M. (2012). Performance based analysis of a steel braced frame building with
buckling restrained brace. (MS in Architecture - Architectural Engineering, California
Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo).
Chandra, R. (2001). Active shape control of composite blades using shape memory actuation.
SMART MATER STRUCT, 10, 1018-1024.
Chao, S., Karki, N., & Sahoo, D. (2012). Seismic behavior of steel buildings with hybrid braced
frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0000702
Charney, F. A., & Marshall, J. D. (2009). Dynamic response of steel moment-frame structures
with hybrid passive control systems. (pp. 1022-1033) American Society of Civil
Engineers. doi:doi:10.1061/41084(364)93
Chen, Y. (2010). Performance of structures with supplemental brace-damper systems. (Ph.D.,
University of California, Davis). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, . (520278741).
Cheng, F. Y., Jiang, H., & Lou, K. (2008). Smart structures : Innovative systems for seismic
response control. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group.
Choi, H., Erochko, J., Christopoulous, C., Tremblay, R. (2008). Comparison of the Seismic
Response of Steel Buildings Incorporating Self-Centering Energy Dissipative Braces,
Buckling Restrained Braced and Moment Resisting Frames. World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Christopoulos, C., Tremblay, R., Kim, H. J., & Lacerte, M. (2008). Self-centering energy
dissipative bracing system for the seismic resistance of structures: Development and
validation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 134, 96.
Christopoulos, C., Tremblay, R., Kim, H., & Lacerte, M. (2008). Self-centering energy
dissipative bracing system for the seismic resistance of structures: Development and
75

validation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(1), 96-107.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:1(96)
Chuang-Sheng, W. Y., Leon, R. T., & DesRoches, R. (2012). Quasi-static and dynamic tests of
a smart hybrid brace. (pp. 1610-1619) American Society of Civil Engineers.
doi:doi:10.1061/9780784412367.143
Computers and Structures, Inc. (2013). SAP2000 v11.
Connor, J. J. (2003). Introduction to structural motion control. New Jersey: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Darling, S. C., & Eatherton, M. R. (2012). Self-centering truss moment frame with
replaceable energy-dissipating elements. Stessa 2012, 671.
Dasse Design Inc., Cost Advantages of Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Buildings, July
2007.
Deulkar, W. N., Modhera, C. D., & Patil, H. S. (2010). Buckling restrained braces for vibration
control of building structure. International Journal of Research and Reviews in
Applied Sciences, 4(4), 363.
Dolce, M., Cardone, D., and Marnetto, R. (2000). Implementation and testing of passive
control devices based on shape memory alloys. EARTHQ ENG STRUCT D, 29, 945-
968.
Dusicka, P., & Tinker, J. (2013). Global restraint in ultra-lightweight buckling-restrained
braces. Journal of Composites for Construction, 17, 139-139-150.
Eberhard, Marc O., and M. A. Sozen. "Behavior-based method to determine design shear in
earthquake-resistant walls." Journal of Structural Engineering119.2 (1993): 619-640.
Erochko, J., Christopoulos, C., Tremblay, R., & Choi, H. (2011). Residual drift response of
SMRFs and BRB frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7-05. Journal
of Structural Engineering, , 589. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000296
76

Erochko, J., Christopoulos, C., Tremblay, R., & Kim, H. (2013). Shake table testing and
numerical simulation of a self-centering energy dissipative braced frame. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, , n/a-n/a. doi:10.1002/eqe.2290
Fahnestock, L. A., Miller, D. J., & Eatherton, M. R. (2011). Self-centering buckling-restrained
braces for advanced seismic performance. (pp. 960-970) American Society of Civil
Fahnestock, L. A. (2006). Analytical and large-scale experimental studies of earthquake-
resistant buckling-restrained braced frame systems. (Ph.D., Lehigh University).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, . (305316199).
Freddi, F., Padgett, J.E., Dallasta, A. (2012). Life-cycle cost analysis of low ductility RC
frame buildings retrofitted by modern retrofit techniques. European Conference on
Structural Control 2012, Genoa, Italy. 92.
Hussain, Saif, Paul Van Benschoten, Mohamed Al Satari, Silian Lin. Buckling Restrained
Braced Frames (BRBF) Structures: Analysis, Design and Approvals Issues. Coffman
Engineers, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, 2005.
International Code Council. (2009). International building code IBC.
Kimura K, Yoshioka K, Takeda T, Fukuya Z, Takemoto K. Tests on braces encased by mortar
in-filled steel tubes. Summaries of technical papers of annual meeting. Architectural
Institute of Japan; 1976. p. 1041 2
Lopez, W. A., & Sabelli, R. (2004). Seismic design of buckling-restrained braced frames. (Steel
Tips: Technical Guide).Structural Steel Educational Council.
Marshall, J. D. (2008). Development, analysis and testing of a hybrid passive control device
for seismic protection of framed structures. (Ph.D., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, . (1033236365).
Okazaki, T., & Sherman, J. (2010). Bidirectional loading behavior of buckling-restrained
braced frames. (pp. 3548-3559) American Society of Civil Engineers.
doi:doi:10.1061/41130(369)320
77

Pampanin, S., Christopoulos, C., and Priestley, M. J. N. _2003_. Performance-based seismic
response of frame structures including residual deformations. Part II: Multidegree-of-
freedom systems. J. Earthquake Eng., 7_1_, 119147.
PEER, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. (2013). NGA Database.
http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/
Rezaeian, A., Izadifar, R., & Pirkoohi, S. (2009). Improvement of seismic behavior of
concentrically braced frames making use of fuse elements in brace members. Stessa
2009, 311.
Ricles, J. M., Sause, R., Gonner, N. P., Chancellor, N. B., & Roke, D. A. (2010). Large-scale
experimental studies of damage-free self-centering concentrically-braced frame under
seismic loading. (pp. 1498-1509) American Society of Civil Engineers.
doi:doi:10.1061/41130(369)136
Ricles, J. M., Sause, R., Gonner, N., & Roke, D. (2009). Design concepts for damage-free
seismic-resistant self-centering steel concentrically braced frames. (pp. 1-10)
American Society of Civil Engineers. doi:doi:10.1061/41031(341)155
Sabelli, R., Mahin, S., & Chang, C. (2003). Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings
with buckling-restrained braces. Engineering Structures, 25, 655.
Sause, R., Ricles, J., Garlock, M. M., Li, J., & Herning, G. (2009). An overview of self-centering
steel moment frames. (pp. 1-9) American Society of Civil Engineers.
doi:doi:10.1061/41031(341)154
SEAOC Seismology Committee (2009). Analysis Procedures, May, 2009, The SEAOC Blue
Book: seismic design recommendations, Structural Engineers Association of California,
Sacramento, CA.
Seamer, B. G. (2007). Evaluation of building code provisions for buckling restrained braced
frames using non-linear time history analysis. (M.S.C.E., California State University,
Long Beach). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, . (304710822).
78

Share, M., Ghalehnovi, M., & Shabakhti, N. (2009). Evaluation of capacity spectrum method
for estimate of seismic performance in buckling-restrained braced frame. (pp. 1-10)
Skinner, R. I., J. M. Kelly, and A. J. Heine. "Hysteretic dampers for earthquakeresistant
structures." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 3.3 (1974): 287-296.
Sprague, H.O. (2009). Buckling Restrained Brace Frame Application for a Power Plant.
Structures Congress 2009, 920.
StarSeismic Europe Ltd. (2010). Cost advantages of buckling restrained brace frame
buildings in accordance with Eurocode.
Structural Engineers Association of California. (1995). Vision 2000: Performance based
seismic engineering of buildings. Sacramento, CA: SEAOC.
Tahmasebi, E., Chancellor, N. B., Ricles, J. M., Sause, R., Akbas, G., & Joo, A. L. (2012).
Collapse performance of steel self-centering braced frame systems. Stessa 2012, 745.
Tinker, J. A. (2011). Development of an ultra-lightweight buckling-restrained brace using
analytical and numerical methods. (M.S., Portland State University). ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses, . (926205091).
Tremblay, R., Lacerte, M., & Christopoulos, C. (2008). Seismic analysis of concentrically
braced frame systems with self-centering friction damping braces. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 134, 108. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:1(108)
USGS, United States Geological Survey. (2013). Earthquake Hazards Program.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/
Xie, Q. (2005). State of the art of buckling-restrained braces in asia. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, 61, 727.
Ying-Cheng Lin, Choung-Yeol Seo, Ricles, J., & Sause, R. (2009). Earthquake simulations on
a self-centering steel moment resisting frame with web friction devices. (pp. 1-10)
79

Yoshino T, Karino Y. Experimental study on shear wall with braces: Part 2. Summaries of
technical papers of annual meeting, vol. 11. Architectural Institute of Japan,
Structural Engineering Section; 1971. p. 4034
Zhang, Y., & Hu, X. (2010). Self-centering seismic retrofit scheme for reinforced concrete
frame structures: SDOF system study. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 9(2), 271-283. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.mit.edu/10.1007/s11803-010-0012-
6
Zhu, S., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Seismic analysis of concentrically braced frame systems with
self-centering friction damping braces. Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(1), 121-
131. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:1(121)
Zhu, S., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Performance based seismic design of steel braced frame system
with self-centering friction damping brace. (pp. 1-13) American Society of Civil
80

81

Appendix
A Ground Acceleration Time History Records

-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Time (s)
Imperial Valley
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Time (s)
Superstition Hills
82

-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Time (s)
Victoria, Mexico
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Time (s)
Duzce, Turkey
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Time (s)
Chalfant
83

-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Time (s)
Northridge
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Time (s)
Erzican

High-Performanc Braces For Seismic Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

High-Performanc Braces For Seismic Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

High-Performanc Braces For Seismic Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

High-Performance Braces for Seismic Design

) is calculated by multiplying the minimum yield

) by the net area of the steel core (

is the flexural stiffness of the encasing member. The transverse deflection of

in the outermost fiber of the tube can be obtained:

are the depth and moment of inertia of the encasement, respectively.

. Therefore, the stiffness and strength requirements for the encasement

as the yielding moment of the encasing member, which is the

, then the stiffness

is the axial stiffness of the tendons as given by

can be rewritten by substituting (29) into (27):

is small and therefore, can

. When the system is activated, however, the

You might also like