ctbuh.

org/papers

Title: Review of Buckling-Restrained Brace Design and Application to Tall

Buildings

Authors: Toru Takeuchi, Department of Architecture and Building Engineering, Tokyo

Institute of Technology
Akira Wada, Professor Emeritus, Tokyo Institute of Technology

Subjects: Construction
Seismic
Structural Engineering

Keywords: Damping
Seismic

Publication Date: 2018

Original Publication: International Journal of High-Rise Buildings Volume 7 Number 3

Paper Type: 1. Book chapter/Part chapter

2. Journal paper
3. Conference proceeding
4. Unpublished conference paper
5. Magazine article
6. Unpublished

© Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Toru Takeuchi; Akira Wada
International Journal of High-Rise Buildings
International Journal of
September 2018, Vol 7, No 3, 187-195
High-Rise Buildings
https://doi.org/10.21022/IJHRB.2018.7.3.187 www.ctbuh-korea.org/ijhrb/index.php

Review of Buckling-Restrained Brace Design

and Application to Tall Buildings
Toru Takeuchi1,† and Akira Wada2
1
Department of Architecture and Building Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
2
Professor Emeritus, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan

Abstract

Buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) are widely used as highly ductile seismic devices, with the first building using BRBs
completed in 1989 in Tokyo, and thousands more now in Japan, USA, Taiwan, China, New Zealand and other countries.
Although design codes of several countries specify BRB performance criteria, detailed design provisions are not necessarily
provided, as BRBs are typically treated as a manufactured device. This paper briefly reviews the early history of BRB research
and offers state-of-the-art views on the design criteria required to obtain stable and reliable performance. Representative project
examples and up-to-date studies relevant to tall buildings are summarized.

Keywords: Buckling-restrained brace, Damage tolerant, Grid skin, Damped outrigger

1. Introduction 1988 (Fig. 2(a)). They employed rectangular steel tubes

with in-filled mortar for the restrainer, and determined the
Buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) are seismic devices optimal debonding material specifications to obtain stable
consisting of a primarily axially yielding core and an axi- and symmetric hysteretic behavior. In addition, the basic
ally-decoupled restraining mechanism, which supresses theory to design the restrainer was established and the
overall buckling. As shown in Fig. 1, a typical restrainer first project application soon followed in 1989. These BRBs
consists of a steel hollow section filled with mortar, which (unbonded braces) were applied to 10- and 15-story steel
encases a yielding core wrapped in a thin debonding layer. frame office buildings in Tokyo (Fig. 2(b); Fujimoto et al.,
The debonding layer or gap provided between the core 1990). BRBs subsequently increased in popularity and
and mortar (or all-steel restrainer) is an essential feature other core and restrainer compositions soon followed,
of modern BRBs, limiting axial load transfer to the res- notably the all-steel tube-in-tube type.
trainer by providing a low friction interface and accom- Through the 1990s, BRBs were used in approximately
modating lateral expansion of the core resulting from Poi- 160 buildings in Japan. In 1992, the concept of a “damage
sson effects. As a result, the energy dissipation characteri- tolerant structure” was proposed by Wada et al., 1992 and
stics of BRBs are excellent and compare favourably to 1997, where BRBs are employed as energy dissipating
other fully ductile systems. For this reason, a properly elasto-plastic dampers within an elastic main frame. The
designed BRB may be employed as a hysteretic damper, AIJ design recommendations included BRBs design guide-
in many cases exhibiting sufficient fatigue capacity to lines for the first time in 1996.
safely withstand multiple design level earthquakes with Collaboration with researchers and engineers in the US
no visible damage. Recently, a state-of-art textbook for soon led to the first international application, with the con-
the design and application of this device was published struction of a building at UC Davis in 1998 and followed
(Takeuchi and Wada, 2017). In this article, fundamental by an experiment at UC Berkeley in 2000 (Clark et al.,
BRB design criteria and application concepts for tall 1999). Numerous other buildings with BRBs were soon
buildings are discussed. constructed throughout California, including in seismic
The basic concepts of buckling-restrained braces app- retrofit applications. In the early 2000s, buckling-restrained
eared in the 1970s, when limited experimental successes braced frames (BRBF) were first included in the Seismic
were reported by several researchers in Japan and India. Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC
The first practical BRB was achieved by Fujimoto et al., 341-05). During these early years of technology transfer
to international markets, a series of symposiums on pas-
†
Corresponding author: Toru Takeuchi sively controlled structures were held at Tokyo Institute
Tel & Fax: +81-35-734-3165 of Technology, sharing code developments, BRB designs,
E-mail: [email protected] and novel applications (Tokyo Institute of Technology,
188 Toru Takeuchi and Akira Wada | International Journal of High-Rise Buildings

Figure 1. Concept of Buckling-restrained Brace.

Figure 2. Early development of BRBs in Japan.

2000). Through the following decade, BRBs increased in the potential for a hinge in the connections
popularity in numerous countries, from Taiwan in the early 5. The low-cycle fatigue and peak displacement capa-
2000s (Tsai et al., 2004) to the recent adoption in New city are sufficient for the expected demands
Zealand as part of the Christchurch rebuild. BRBs are now When designing the restrainer to suppress global buck-
B
widely known in seismic areas throughout the world and ling of the core, the restrainer flexural yield strength My
experimental research on BRBs may now be found in should satisfy:
Japan, Taiwan, China, USA, Canada, Turkey, Iran, Italy,
Romania, New Zealand, Chile and many other countries. Ncu ac Ncu (a + 2sr + e)
M = -----------------------
- = --------------------------------
- ≤ MyB
B
E E
(1)
1 – Ncu /Ncr 1 – Ncu /Ncr
2. Requirements for Stable Hysteresis
where a: fabrication imperfection of core and/or brace, sr:
Fundamentally, the BRB must be designed for strength clearance or thickness of debonding material (per face), e:
and stability, considering both the local and global behav- eccentricity of the axial force, Ncu=dαNy: core yield strength
ior of the core, connections, restrainer and adjacent frame, amplified by compression overstrength and strain harden-
E
as shown in Fig. 3. ing, and Ncr : Euler buckling load:
To obtain a stable hysteresis, the following design con- 2
ditions must be satisfied (AIJ, 2009). E π EIB
Ncr = ------------
2
- (2)
1. The restrainer successfully suppresses first-mode fle- lB
xural buckling of the core
2. The debonding layer decouples axial demands and With EIB the restrainer flexural stiffness, lB the effective
allows for Poisson expansion of the core brace length and Dr the restrainer depth, and assuming
3. Restrainer local bulging owing to higher mode buck- initial imperfections ac/lB ≤ 1/500, a relatively slender res-
ling is suppressed trainer lB/Dr > 20, 330 MPa steel and and overall safety
4. Global out-of-plane stability is ensured, considering factor of eα ≥ 1.5, Eq. (1) can be simplified to Eq. (3).
 Review of Buckling-Restrained Brace Design and Application to Tall Buildings 189

Figure 3. BRB strength and stability limit states.

2
susceptible to bulging.
π EIB
B
Ncr = ------------
- >eαNcu (3) P d, s ( Dr – t c ) 4Ncu (2srs +νp Bc εt)
lB
2 DCRs = -------
- = ------------------------------- ⋅ ------------------------------------------
- < 1.0 (5)
Pc, s (2D – t )t σ 2 l p, s
r c r ry
The purpose of the debonding layer is to prevent signi- P d, w ( Br – Bc ) 4Ncu (2srw +νp tc εt)
ficant compressive loads from being transmitted to the res- DCRw = --------- = --------------------------------
- ⋅ -----------------------------------------
- < 1.0 (6)
Pc, w (2B – B )t σ 2 l p, w
trainer and to promote a uniform core strain distribution, r c r ry
ensuring a balanced hysteresis. This is achieved by intro- Eqs. (5) and (6) are validated against tests conducted in
ducing a low friction interface and by accommodating Taiwan and Japan in Fig. 4. The steel tube thickness (tr),
Poisson expansion of the core under compressive loads, debonding gaps (srs and srw), loading sequence and mortar
either through the provision of a suitable gap, compre- compressive strength all affect the bulging capacity. Mor-
ssible material or elastic deformation of the restrainer tar with insufficient strength may be crushed under the
material. However, the debonding gap must be closely core normal forces, gradually becoming displaced and
controlled as it is directly related to the higher mode amplifying the bulging demand.
buckling amplitude.
νpεmax Bc 4. Global Instability Including Connections
sr ≥ -------------------
- (per face ) (4)
2
To prevent a global instability initiated by yielding of
where sr: required clearance, νp: plastic Poisson ratio the connections (Fig. 5(a)), two stability design concepts
(=0.5), εmax: maximum expected compressive strain (includ- were proposed in the AIJ Recommendations for Stability
ing strain amplification due to friction), and Bc: core width Design of Steel Structures, 2009, and are shown in Figs.
(or thickness). 5(b), (c). Note that the global inelastic buckling limit is
generally governed by the neck or gusset when tested in
3. Restrainer Local Bulging Failure a frame, as the restrainer axial loads are negligible.
(1) Cantilever Connection Concept: Effectively rotatio-
The compressible debonding layer or gap between the nally rigid adjacent framing and gussets are provided, so
steel core and restrainer provides a space for the steel that the restrainer end continuity can be neglected. Stab-
core to form high mode buckling waves when the BRB is ility is ensured by designing the connection as a cantilever,
under compression. An in-plane or out-of-plane local bul- supported by the adjacent frame and gusset (Fig. 5(b)).
ging failure may occur if the steel tube strength is insuffi- (2) Restrainer Continuity Concept: Full restrainer end
cient to sustain the in-plane or out-of-plane outward force. moment transfer capacity is provided, permitting more
To avoid local bulging failure, the following criteria should flexible gusset or adjacent framing details. The buckling
be satisfied for a rectangular core and RHS restrainer (Tak- analysis is more complex, with the critical hinge located at
euchi et al., 2010; Lin et al., 2016; Takeuchi and Wada, either the neck or gusset (Fig. 5(c)).
2017). Cruciform cores and/or CHS restrainers are less The Cantilever Connection Concept (Fig. 5(b)) relies on
190 Toru Takeuchi and Akira Wada | International Journal of High-Rise Buildings

Figure 4. Comparisons between test results and proposed equations.

Figure 5. BRB stability condition concepts (AIJ, 2009).

the gusset and adjacent framing rotational (or torsional) has proven reasonably accurate for a diverse range of des-
stiffness. The gusset rotational stiffness KRg is largely gov- ign situations.
erned by the stiffener topology (Fig. 6), and this concept r
(Mp – M0)/ar + Ncr
r r
typically requires full-depth stiffeners corresponding to Nlim1 = -----------------------------------------------
r r B
- > Ncu (7)
gusset types C or D. However, if a transverse beam and/ (Mp – M0)/(ar Ncr ) + 1
r
or full-depth stiffeners are omitted (gussets type A or B), where Ncr is the inelastic buckling strength with pins at
r
the connection stiffness rapidly decreases. This has a the restrainer ends, Mp is restrainer moment transfer cap-
r
dramatic effect on the elastic buckling load, which can acity, M0 is imposed bending moment at restrainer end
r r
easily be less than 30% of the pure fixed-end cantilever due to out-of-plane drift, and Mp – M0 should be taken as
buckling load. Thus, this stability concept is not suitable zero if the difference is negative. The criteria when the
if unstiffened gussets are adopted. gusset produces plastic hinges are given as follows:
The Restrainer Continuity Concept described in Fig. g r r
5(c) is based on the analysis of the full BRB system with [ (1 – 2ξ )Mp + Mp – 2M0]/ar
Nlim2 = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ncu (8)
full flexural continuity provided at the restrainer ends. As g r
[ (1 – 2ξ )Mp + Mp – 2M0]/(ar Ncr ) + 1
r B
BRBs are not monolithic, this is achieved via bearing
g
action between the elastic core and restrainer along the where Mp is the plastic bending strength of the gusset
insert length Lin. Both the neck and gusset must then be plate reduced for the applied axial force, and (1−2ξ)
g r r r
designed for the combined compression Ncu and buckling Mp – M0 or Mp – M0 should be taken as zero if the differ-
Pδ demands. Although several design equations have been ence is negative. The minimum value of Nlim1 and Nlim2 is
proposed, a generalized proposal by Takeuchi et al., 2014 defined as the stability limit Nlim, which should exceed Ncu.
 Review of Buckling-Restrained Brace Design and Application to Tall Buildings 191

Figure 6. Gusset plate types and out-of-plane stiffness.

5. Cumulative Deformation Capacity until Eq. (9) gives the same criteria as the Miner’s rule when
Fracture the exponential value of the fatigue curve m2=1 (Matsui
et al., 2012).
The cumulative deformation capacity of a BRB subjec-
ted to constant-amplitude axial displacements can be rou- 6. Damage Tolerant Structures
ghly modeled following Manson-Coffin’s rule. The fati-
gue performance of BRBs is reduced compared to the Over the past 30 years, a variety of design concepts
underlying steel material due to the bending strains and using BRBs have been developed and realized. In 1992,
non-uniform axial strain distribution in the core plates Wada et al. proposed the concept of a “damage tolerant
caused by higher mode plastic buckling within the debon- structure,” where the main frame remains elastic and energy
ding gap and friction (Fig. 7). Therefore, it should be noted dissipation devices are placed in parallel (Fig. 8, Wada et
that the low-cycle fatigue is sensitive to the debonding gap al., 1992). An early example is the Triton Square Project,
design and fabrication tolerances (Matsui et al., 2012). The a 40-story (180 m) office building located in Tokyo (Fig.
fracture criteria under a random amplitude response may 9). The frame employs high strength HT780 columns and
be evaluated from the nominal axial strain history (axial HT590 beams, and LY100 BRBs. While the BRB layout
displacement divided by core yielding length) using introduces some inefficiencies owing to an indirect brace
Miner’s rule and supplier-specific low cycle fatigue cur- configuration, the low yield strength of LY100 ensures a
ves. Alternatively, Takeuchi et al. proposed the criteria small yield drift angle. In the late 1990’s, optimal distri-
given by Eq. (9), which uses averaged amplitudes and bution methods of BRBs using equivalent linearization
does not require detailed strain time-histories (Takeuchi et techniques were developed and applied in these damage
al., 2008). tolerant designs (Kasai et al. 1998).
Fig. 10 shows a 24-story (133 m) damage tolerant struc-
1
χ = -------------------------------------------------------------
1
- (9) ture completed in 2001 in Fukushima, Japan. BRBs in the
(1 + m2) -----
m2
-
lower stories control the seismic response, while visco-
α (1 – αs) ⎧Δεph ⎫
------s- + ---------------
- ⎨---------------------- ⎬ elastic dampers at middle stories are effective in both
χ so 4 ⎩ C ⎭ seismic and wind vibration. This building was subjected
to design level ground motions during the 2011 Tohoku
where Δεph = half of the average plastic strain amplitude. Earthquake and achieved immediate occupancy.

Figure 7. Low-cycle fatigue capacity example for BRB and steel material.
192 Toru Takeuchi and Akira Wada | International Journal of High-Rise Buildings

Figure 8. Concept of damage tolerant structure. Figure 9. Triton Square, 1992.

Figure 10. Koriyama Big-Eye Building.

A BRB yield story drift of just 0.13-0.16% was achie- 7. Grid-skin Structures Using BRBs
ved by using a low yield steel (LY225) and short plastic
length (Lp/L0 = 0.25-0.3). In the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, A “grid-skin structure” can be defined as a structural
the main frame remained elastic, while deformation rec- system with vertical and diagonal perimeter members for-
ording devices indicated a workpoint displacement duc- ming the primary seismic and wind resisting frame, en-
tility of µ ≈ 3.8 and cumulative plastic strain of ∑εp ≈ compassing the concepts of a “braced tube” or “diagrid
22% (∑εp/εy ≈ 200) in some BRBs. This damage was less system” (Takeuchi, 2015; Fig. 13). This enables large
than 6% of the low cycle fatigue limit, leaving plenty of interior spaces free of seismic braces or walls. Recently,
residual capacity for expected future strong ground mo- several applications have been applied to tall buildings
tions and justifying the decision to leave all BRBs in using BRBs as energy-dissipating members. The perime-
place. ter frames enveloping the building not only support the
Another example of a damage tolerant structure is the vertical weight, but also provide horizontal stiffness and
Grand Tokyo (Fig. 11), a 205 m high, 43-story building strength against seismic and wind loads. As a result, no
in Tokyo completed in 2007. This building is a typical stability elements such as diagonal braces or concrete
example of BRB application in high-rises built in major shear walls are required in internal spaces, which permits
cities in Japan. Most of the recent 200 m-class buildings a flexible interior design and renovation throughout the
are constructed using passive control devices, with a large building’s lifetime. A recent example is shown in Fig. 14.
proportion adopting BRBs each year. BRBs with yield This 205-m high building completed in San Francisco is
strength of 10000 kN or greater (Fig. 12) are typically used covered by damped mega-braces composed of BRBs and
for these structures. viscous dampers, producing equivalent damping of 8%
 Review of Buckling-Restrained Brace Design and Application to Tall Buildings 193

Figure 11. Tokyo BRBF (Gran Tokyo North). Figure 12. Erection of large BRBF.

Figure 13. Grid-skin structures.

Figure 14. 181 Fremont Tower, San Francisco (Alumfti et al., 2018).
194 Toru Takeuchi and Akira Wada | International Journal of High-Rise Buildings

Figure 15. Wilshire Grand Tower, LA (Smith et al., 2007).

Figure 16. Damped outrigger and optimal design (Huang et al., 2017).

and achieving immediate re-occupancy with limited disrup- spine (Taga et al., 2004; Lai et al., 2014) or at the base of a
tion after a 475-year earthquake (Alumfti et al., 2016). rocking elastic spine frame (Deierlein, 2011; Chen, 2018;
Simpson, 2018), preventing damage concentration at weak
8. Damped Outrigger Using BRBs stories.

The damped outrigger concept has also become increa- 9. Conclusions

singly common to control wind and/or seismic demands
in tall buildings (Smith et al., 2007). Fig. 15 shows the This paper briefly introduced the early history and key
Wilshire Grand Tower, a 335 m, 73-story building in Los design criteria for BRBs, followed by representative
Angeles. BRBs are used as outrigger dampers, with up to project examples and design concepts for tall buildings.
a 10000 kN capacity achieved by installing 4 BRBs in These concepts enable enhanced resiliency and seismic
parallel (Joseph et al., 2017). It is known that there is performance, and further investigations are expected in
optimal outrigger level and optimal amount of damper for the future.
maximizing the damping effects and minimizing the res-
ponse as shown in Fig. 16 (Huang et al., 2017). The same References
characteristics are also reported for damped outriggers
using BRBs (Lin et al., 2018). AIJ. (1996). “Recommendations for stability design of steel
Another promising system that has seen recent practical structures”.
application introduces BRBs in parallel with an elastic AIJ. (2009). “Recommendations for stability design of steel
 Review of Buckling-Restrained Brace Design and Application to Tall Buildings 195

structures”. Nakamura, H., Takeuchi, T., Maeda, Y., Nakata, Y., Sasaki,
AIJ. (2017). “Recommendations for stability design of steel T., Iwata, M., and Wada, A. (2000). “Fatigue properties of
structures”. practical-scale unbonded braces”. Nippon Steel Technical
AISC. (2016). “Seismic provisions for structural steel build- Report, 82, 51-57.
ings (ANSI/AISC 341-05)”, 2002, (ANSI/AISC 341-10), Simpson, B. and Mahin, S. (2018). “Experimental and num-
2010, (ANSI/AISC 341-16). erical investigation of strongback braced frame system to
Alumfti, I., Krolicki, J., and Crowther, A. (2016). “The resil- mitigate weak story behavior”, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 144
ient-based design of the 181 Fremont Tower.” Structure (2).
Magazine. Smith, R. and Willford, M. (2007). “The damped outrigger
Chen, X., Takeuchi, T., and Matsui, R. (2018). “Seismic per- concept for tall buildings.” The Structural Design of Tall
formance and evaluation of controlled spine frames app- and Special Buildings, 16, 501-217.
lied in high-rise buildings.” Earthquake Spectra, DOI: Taga, K., Koto, M., Tokuda, Y., Tsuruta, J., and Wada, A.
https://doi.org/10.1193/080817EQS157M. (2004). “Hints on how to design passive control structure
Clark, P., Aiken, I., Kasai, K., Ko, E., and Kimura, I. (1999). whose damper efficiency is enhanced, and practicality of
“Design procedure for buildings incorporating hysteretic this structure.” Proc. Passive Control Symposium, Tokyo
damping devices.” 68th annual convention SEAOC, CA, Institute of Technology, Japan, 105-112.
355-371. Takeuchi, T., Ida, M., Yamada, S., and Suzuki, K. (2008).
Deierlein, G., Ma, X., Eatherton, M., Hajjar, J., Krawinkler, “Estimation of cumulative deformation capacity of buck-
H., Takeuchi, T., Kasai, K., and Midorikawa, M. (2011). ling restrained braces.” ASCE Journal of Structural Eng-
“Earthquake resilient steel braced frames with controlled ineering, 134(5), 822-831.
rocking and energy dissipating fuses.” EUROSTEEL Takeuchi, T., Hajjar, J. F., Matsui, R., et al. (2014). “Local
2011. buckling resistant condition for core plates in buckling res-
Fujimoto, M., Wada, A., Saeki, E., et al. (1988). “A study on trained braces.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
the unbounded brace encased in buckling-restraining con- 66(2), 139-149.
crete and steel tube.” Journal of Structural Engineering, Takeuchi, T., Ozaki, H., Matsui, R., and Sutcu, F. (2014),
34B: 249-258. (in Japanese) “Out-of-plane stability of buckling-restrained braces inc-
Fujimoto, M., Wada, A., Saeki, E., Takeuchi, T., and Watan- luding moment transfer capacity.” Earthquake Engineering
abe, A. (1990). “Development of unbonded brace.” Quar- & Structural Dynamics, 43(6), 851-869.
terly Column, (115), 91-96. Takeuchi, T. (2015). “Structural design with seismic energy-
Huang, B. and Takeuchi, T. (2017).“Dynamic response eval- dissipation concept.” IABSE 2015, Proc. IABSE.
uation of damped-outrigger systems with various heights.” Takeuchi, T., Matsui, R., and Mihara, S. (2016). “Out-of-
Earthquake Spectra. plane stability assessment of buckling-restrained braces
Japan Society of Seismic Isolation (2005). “Passive response including connections with chevron configuration.” Earth-
control design manual, 2nd edition.” (in Japanese and quake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 45(12), 1895-
Chinese) 1917.
Joseph, L. M. et al. (1998). “Wilshire Grand: Outrigger des- Takeuchi, T. and Wada, A. (2017). “Buckling-Restrained
igns and details for a highly seismic site.” International Braces and Applications”, JSSI.
Journal of High-Rise Buildings, 5(1), 1-12. Tokyo Institute of Technology. (2001). Proceedings of passi-
Kasai, K., Fu, Y., and Watanabe, A. (1998). “Two types of vely controlled structures symposium; 2000, 2001, 2002,
passive control systems for seismic damage mitigation.” 2004.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE. Tsai, K. C., Lai, J. W., Hwang, Y. C., Lin, S. L., and Weng,
Lai, J. and Mahin, S. (2014). “Strongback system: A way to C. H. (2004). “Research and application of double-core
reduce damage concentration in steel-braced frames.” Jo- buckling-restrained braces in Taiwan.” Proc. 13WCEE.
urnal of Structural Engineering, 141(9), 2014. Wada, A., Connor, J., Kawai, H., Iwata, M., and Watanabe,
Lin, P. C., Takeuchi, T., and Matsui, R. (2018). “Seismic per- A. (1992). “Damage tolerant structure.” ATC-15-4, Proc.
formance evaluation of single damped-outrigger system 5th US-Japan WS on the Improvement of Building Struc-
incorporating buckling-restrained braces”, Earthquake tural Design and Construction Practices.
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, DOI.org/10.1002/ Wada, A., Iwata, M., and Huang, Y. H. (1997). “Seismic
eqe.3072 design trend of tall building after the Kobe earthquake.”
Lin, P. C., Tsai, K. C., Chang, C. A., Hsiao, Y. Y., and Wu, Proc. Int. Post-SMiRT Conf. Seminar on Seismic Isola-
A. C. (2016). “Seismic design and testing of buckling- tion, Passive Energy Dissipation, and Control of Vibra-
restrained braces with a thin profile”, Earthquake Engin- tions of Structures, Taormina, Italy, 25-27.
eering and Structural Dynamics, 45(3), 339-358. Watanabe, A., Hitomi, Y., Saeki, E., Wada, A., and Fujimoto,
Matsui, R. and Takeuchi, T., (2012). “Cumulative deforma- M. (1988). “Properties of brace encased in buckling-res-
tion capacity of buckling restrained braces taking local training concrete and steel tube.” Proc. 9WCEE, IV, 719-
buckling of core plates into account”. Proc. 15WCEE. 724.