Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Seismic performance of all-steel buckling-controlled braces with

various cross-sections
Seyedbabak Momenzadeh, Onur Seker, Mahmoud Faytarouni, Jay Shen ⁎
Department of Civil, Construction and Enviromental Engineering, Iowa State University, USA

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

Article history: An all-steel buckling-controlled brace (BCB) with two different configurations is studied and its behavior is
Received 26 November 2016 compared with the conventional braces in terms of energy dissipation and ductility capacities. A parametric
Accepted 4 September 2017 study was first conducted on an ensemble of all-steel BCBs in a general purpose finite-element (FE) software
Available online xxxx
in order to study the influential parameters of these braces. The select types of BCBs were then experimentally
investigated. Finally, seismic performance of buckling-controlled braced frames (BCBFs) was compared with
Keywords:
Buckling-controlled brace
that of special concentrically braced frames (SCBFs) as well as that of buckling-restrained braced frames
Impact of cross section type (BRBFs). The study concludes that (1) the BCB with round-in-square tube section has stable hysteretic behavior
Non-linear finite-element analysis either when thickness ratio of the outer tube to inner tube is greater than one or when an enhanced gusset plate
Model-based simulation is employed. Furthermore, due to much increased compressive strength in square in round BCBs, it is necessary to
Seismic performance utilize an enhanced gusset plate in order to achieve ductile behavior; (2) BCBs have a stable and symmetrical hys-
teretic behavior in tension and compression with little post-yielding strength decrease or increase, avoiding the
significant unbalanced force on the brace-intersected beams in SCBFs and BRBFs; (3) BCBFs are capable of sus-
taining larger story drift ratio response without considerable strength loss in comparison with SCBFs; (4) Inelastic
deformation demand distributes throughout the height of BCBF floors, preventing the occurrence of weak story
often observed in SCBFs.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction subsequent to brace fracture. Moreover, experimental studies on

isolated steel brace specimens demonstrated that brace fracture is likely
Hollow Structural Sections (HSS) are the most popular shapes to occur prior to attaining a peak brace ductility of 6 [11,13] to 10 [13,
utilized in Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs) construction 14], which correspond to an equivalent inter-story drift angle of 0.015
for their large compression strength-to-weight ratio and simplicity in to 0.025. This high discrepancy between the anticipated ductility
construction. However, recently observed premature fracture of HSS capacity of ductile CBFs and the seismic demand on the structure may
braces and its potentially hazardous impact on the collapse prevention be attributable to the early experimental data obtained from testing of
objective of SCBFs have challenged researchers to find effective and small-size conventional braces made of double angles [15–17], double
practical solutions to reducing the seismic hazard. channels [16], W- and WT-shapes [16,18], which usually possess longer
A SCBF is expected to dissipate the major portion of the seismic fracture life than tubular braces.
energy input through buckling and yielding of its braces, which would Further, conventional buckling braces exhibit unstable and unsym-
undergo large ductility demands, on the order of 10 to 25 [1,2], when metrical inelastic cyclic behavior due to the strength degradation follow-
subjected to severe earthquake ground motions. Several evaluations ing brace buckling. This abrupt change in compressive strength not only
on seismic demands in ductile CBFs [3–5] indicated that mean peak imposes large unbalanced brace forces [19] on brace-intersected girders
interstory drift demands on CBFs may reach nearly 4% [6] and up to and columns in braced bays, but also significantly amplifies the possibility
5.7% [3] for ground motions with 10% and 2% probability of exceedence of weak story formation [6] in conventional CBFs. Although recent ad-
(P.E.) in 50 years, respectively. Recent experimental studies [7–13], on vances in the seismic design provisions (i.e. AISC 341 [20] and Eurocode
the other hand, showed that a few cycles with relatively large plastic 8 (EC8) [21]) resulted in more stringent design requirements for ductile
amplitudes lead to local buckling-induced fracture in HSS braces, CBFs with the purpose of enhancing their relatively less ductile and re-
which may in turn precipitate torsional irregularities and inelastic de- dundant behavior, researchers addressed the issues associated with the
formations (or even fracture) in columns [7] due to framing action non-dissipative structural member design, which are designed to remain
elastic, such as girders [1,22] and columns [23,24] in ductile CBFs. For in-
⁎ Corresponding author. stance, Brandonisio et al. (2012) proposed an approach alternative to the
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Shen). one stipulated in EC8. In the proposed design procedure, the authors

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.09.003
0143-974X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61 45

a) Square-in-round b) Round-in-square
Fig. 1. Scheme of TinT-BCBs.

modified the overstrength factor and slenderness limitations given by without compromising the intended performance goals and practicality
EC8 to reduce the overall structural weight and to obtain a more uniform [2]. As illustrated in Fig. 1, Tube-in-Tube buckling-controlled braces
plastic deformation distribution along with a satisfactory overall non- (TinT-BCBs) consist of a load bearing tube (main brace), which is
linear behavior [23]. Likewise, Bosco et al. (2014) studied the seismic responsible for lateral resistance to the seismic forces, encased in anoth-
response of columns in 4- and 8-story CBFs with diagonal braces by er tube (controlling section) made of circular or rectangular HSS that
means of non-linear dynamic analyses using five sets of ground motions controls the global and local buckling of the main brace by providing a
with 10%, 5%, 4%, 3% and 2% P.E. in 50 years. Their results indicated that continuous lateral support along the brace length. Note that the gap be-
both gravity columns and the columns in braced bays designed according tween the tubes is to limit the contribution of the outer tube to the axial
to EC8 experienced yielding (or buckling) before diagonal braces attained load-carrying system. The FEM-based numerical study performed by
their assumed ductility limits [25]. Shen et al. (2014, 2015) studied ductile Shen et al. (2016) has discussed the influential parameters, which are
CBFs with popular two-story X-bracing configuration, which is a combi- the gap between the tubes, the relative outer tube thickness and the
nation of inverted V- and V-type bracing configurations in alternating coefficient of friction, using built-up HSS with square-in-square bracing
stories. It is known that two-story X-bracing system usually leads to configuration so as to establish a conceptual foundation for cyclic
light brace-intersected beams due to the fact that axial forces in the braces behavior of TinT-BCBs [2]. Their study implied that TinT-BCBs are
cancel out each other when first-mode mechanism is assumed. However, promising in terms of economy and overcoming the aforementioned
their numerical results indicated that this assumption is valid for rare issues related to seismic performance of ductile braced frames [2].
situations and might not be applicable to all structures [1,22]. They The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the relative effective-
concluded that the unbalanced brace forces would induce substantial ness of TinT-BCBs with Round-in-Square and Square-in-Round configu-
demands on the brace-intersected girders designed based on the first- rations with an emphasis on applicability of the developed TinT-BCBs
mode assumption stipulated in the current Seismic Provisions [20]. composed of HSS that can be employed in an actual CBF construction.
Efforts to mitigate seismic hazards in CBFs resulted in numerous all- The results are evaluated in terms of hysteretic response of bracings
steel buckling restrained braces (BRBs) [26–29] to date. Although all- and global response of braced frames with and without buckling-
steel BRBs have been increasingly attracting more attention from controller by means of testing and Finite Element (FE) simulations. For
researchers, the extreme complexity [26,27] in the all-steel BRB this purpose, first, the behavior of a set of isolated TinT-BCBs with
configurations are among the drawbacks of these braces, which make round-in-square and square-in-round configurations has been
the engineering society hesitant to employ these braces in an actual compared through FE simulations under uniaxial and cyclic loading.
CBF construction as an effective substitute for conventional steel braces. Subsequently, two round-in-square type BCB specimens have been
With the purpose of avoiding such complexity, instead of using tested in order to validate the observation carried out in the model-
combination of filler plates, channels and HSS along with bolted or based study. Finally, seismic response of the braced frames that incorpo-
welded attachments as a buckling restraining mechanism, Shen et al. rate conventional braces and TinT-BCBs are compared with regard to
(2016) introduced a simple and promising buckling control concept seismic demands on structure, braces and girders.

Table 1
Properties of simulation cases.

Namea Main Brace Length Controlling Section Friction Coefficient Gap Thickness ratio
(in × in) (in) (in × in) (in)

SR Square HSS6 × 6 × 3/8 113.63 Conventional Buckling Brace

SR1A HSS10 × 0.625 30% 0.1765 1.67
SR1B HSS10 × 0.625 10% 0.1765 1.67
SR2A HSS9.625 × 0.5 30% 0.105 1.33
SR2B HSS9.625 × 0.5 10% 0.105 1.33
RS Round HSS7.5 × 0.375 113.63 Conventional Buckling Brace
RS1A HSS8 × 8 × 1/4 30% 0.017 0.67
RS1B HSS8 × 8 × 1/4 10% 0.017 0.67
RS2A HSS8 × 8 × 1/8 30% 0.134 0.33
RS2B HSS8 × 8 × 1/8 10% 0.134 0.33
RS3A HSS8 × 8 × 3/16 30% 0.076 0.5
RS3B HSS8 × 8 × 3/16 10% 0.076 0.5
RS4A HSS9 × 9 × 5/8 30% 0.169 1.67
RS4B HSS9 × 9 × 5/8 10% 0.169 1.67
a
SR: Square-in-round tube. RS: Round-in-square tube.
46 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61

Table 2
Nominal material properties.

Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi)

Square Tubes 46 58
Round Tubes 42 58
Plates 36 58

Brace end rotation initiates

First contact
between the tubes
Local deformations of the
main brace
Fig. 4. Axial force vs. axial displacement of RS cases.

Global buckling of the

conventional brace 2.1. Isolated BCBs under monotonic compression

In the first phase of the model-based study, an ensemble of isolated

TinT-BCBs with round-in-square (RS) and square-in-round (SR)
Fig. 2. Axial force vs. axial displacement of SR cases. configurations are subjected to monotonic loading to comprehend and
assess the influence of each configuration (RS and SR). Table 1 summa-
rizes influential design parameters, which are the ratio of the outside
tube thickness to the main tube's, the coefficient of friction between
2. FEM-based evaluation of TinT-BCBs the outer surface of the inside tube (main brace) and the inner surface
of the outer tube (buckling-controller), and the initial gap between
A FEM-based parametric study is performed on several BCBs with the tubes. As illustrated in Fig. 1, initial gap is defined as the minimum
different sections, gap sizes and friction coefficients to evaluate the distance between the inner and outer tubes.
comparative efficiency of round-in-square and square-in-round TinT- The gap amplitudes varied from a small gap of 0.017″ to a relatively
BCBs. General scheme of the simulations of this study can be summa- large gap of 0.1765″. Two different friction coefficients were considered
rized as follows: for each main brace-buckling controller couple (Table 1). Friction
coefficients of 0.3 and 0.1 were selected to represent bare steel and lu-
i. Investigating the behavior of isolated BCBs under monotonic com- bricated steel surfaces, respectively. Simulation cases were divided
pression. into two groups, as SR and RS groups, based on their cross-sectional
ii. Examining the influence of connection design on the behavior of configurations. As given in Table 1, SR group represents the BCBs with
BCBs. a square load-bearing tube encased with a round outer tube. Likewise,
iii. Studying the cyclic behavior of the developed BCB. RS group accounts for the models comprise of round inside tube and

A B

A B
a) Global buckling of the conventional b) Typical deformation of square -in-
brace. round BCBs.

c) Sec A-A d) Sec B-B

Fig. 3. Deformed shapes of the conventional brace and a typical Square-in-Round TinT-BCB at 4% SDR.
 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61 47

A
B

A B
a) Conventional brace. b) Typical deformation of round-in-square BCBs.

c) Sec A-A d) Sec B-B in RS2A e) Sec B-B in RS4A.

Fig. 5. Comparison of deformation of conventional braces and SR-BCBs at 4% SDR.

square outer tube. In addition to the TinT-BCB models, a conventional member. In the second step, a large-displacement static analysis was
brace simulation was also performed for each simulation group (SR carried out to analyze the cases under compression force. This approach
and RS) for the sake of the comparison. Note that the main brace allowed the static analyses to begin from zero-stress condition. Dissipat-
(load-bearing tube) section was identical for the models in the same ed energy fraction was set to 2e − 4 for the automatic stabilization
simulation group. method to lessen the convergence problems during the analyses. Full
All models were analyzed in a general purpose finite element Newton method was utilized as the solution technique and the geomet-
software, ABAQUS [30]. Modulus of elasticity and the Poison's ratio ric nonlinearities were taken into account in the analyses. A 3D 8-node
were assumed to be 29,000 ksi and 0.3, respectively. Nominal material linear brick element with reduced integration was employed to mesh
properties with kinematic hardening rule were employed for non- the members (C3D8R). Care was taken for the modeling of the contact
linear material definition of all models. Table 2 shows the material prop- elements. Hard contact method was used for the interactions normal
erties adopted for the simulation cases. Since initial imperfection may to the surfaces to prevent any penetration, while penalty method was
have a substantial impact on the buckling load and hysteretic behavior, considered as the friction formulation for the tangential interaction be-
a two-step analysis was conducted on each model to properly represent tween inner and outer tubes. Fixed boundary condition was applied to
the initial deflections. In the first step, an elastic buckling analysis was one end; the relative axial displacements were applied from the other
conducted to obtain the buckling modes of each model. Subsequent to end of the specimens. A mesh size of 0.5 in was used along the main
the buckling analysis, an imperfection of 1/1000 of the brace length brace length except for the locations that are expected to experience
was applied to the models considering the first buckling mode of the local deformations. A finer mesh was employed in the critical sections,
such as the mid-length of the conventional bracing. Also, two elements
were defined in the thickness of the gusset plates, inner and outer tubes
to capture the anticipated local deformations properly.

Applied
displacement

Fixed end

Fig. 6. Enhanced gusset plate details. Fig. 7. RS1A-S case (RS1A with stiffeners).
48 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61

Global instability due

to end rotation
Local deformation
of the inside tube

Fig. 8. Comparison of SR2 cases w/ and w/o stiffeners.

2.1.1. Results of SR and RS simulation groups

Simulation results of the first simulation group (square-in-round) are
Fig. 10. Comparison of deformation of RS4 cases.
presented in terms of axial load-deformation relationship as well as
deformed shapes along with relative stress distributions. Figs. 2 and 3
represent the axial force versus axial displacement of square-in-round
(SR) models and the comparison between the deformed shapes of the the main brace eventually suffered local plastic deformations
conventional brace (without an encasing tube) and a typical SR type (Fig. 3d) due to the initiation of global instability (Fig. 3b). Note
TinT-BCB, respectively. that the gusset plates were designed to allow out-of-plane rotations,
Global buckling of the conventional brace took place at an equivalent which induced an additional flexural demand on the brace assem-
story drift ratio (drift angle) of around 0.25% when the compressive blies. As indicated in Fig. 2, there was a slight drop in the strength
strength was 65% of the yielding strength. Following the global buckling, after formation of the local deformations, and consequently, the con-
the conventional brace experienced local buckling (Fig. 3c) and gradual- tact between the tubes became more substantial in the vicinity of the
ly lost 65% of its compressive strength capacity, as indicated in Fig. 2. local plastic deformations (Fig. 3d). Therefore, the compressive
TinT-BCBs, on the other hand, did not buckle in the traditional manner strength was increasing for a while after the contact owing to the
throughout the analysis. As shown in Fig. 2, the first contact between friction force transfer. It is also noteworthy that either friction
the two tubes was observed soon after 0.25% story drift ratio (SDR), coefficient or the section properties of the buckling-controllers did
which resulted in stiffness reduction. It should be noted that the slight not have a significant impact on the behavior of SR cases, since the
difference between SR1 and SR2 specimens (Fig. 2) in terms of the stiff- brace assemblies were not capable of controlling the flexural de-
ness change was due to the variation in the gap amplitudes. Subsequent mand imposed by end rotations.
to the first contact between the two tubes, all TinT-BCBs experienced Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 present the axial force versus axial displacement and
strength degradation before attaining the tensile strength capacity of deformed shapes of RS simulation group, respectively. As expected, the
the inside tube. A strength degradation of about 15% with respect to conventional brace buckled globally around 0.25% SDR and lost 60% of
the tensile capacity occurred in all cases in SR simulation group after a its compression strength when the brace attained an axial deformation
drop at 0.5% SDR. This can be attributable to the rotation of the brace quantity corresponding to 4% SDR. The impact of encasing on the brace
end, as illustrated in Fig. 3b. Although the outer tubes controlled the behavior, however, differed from one case to another based on the
global buckling of the main braces until a certain deformation level, properties of the controlling section.

Main brace of RS1A

Limit state: Global instability due to the end rotation.

Main brace of RS1A-S

Local deformation
of the outer tube
Limit state: Local plastic deformation of the main brace.

a) Axial force vs. axial displacement b) Deformed shape of RS1A and RS1A-S at 4% SDR
Fig. 9. Comparison of RS1 cases with and w/o stiffener.
 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61 49

RS1 and RS3 cases experienced global instability. RS3 cases, in

particular, exhibited a similar trend with the conventional brace
with a larger compressive strength. The behavior of RS2 and RS4
cases, on the other hand, were governed by local deformation forma-
tion as opposed to RS1 and RS3 cases. As shown in Fig. 4, the strength
deterioration became substantial after 1.5% SDR for RS1 and RS2,
while RS4 cases were remained stable until an equivalent SDR of
3.5%. Since the outer tube thickness of RS4 was larger than that of
the inside tube, local deformations of the inner tube is successfully
controlled (Fig. 5e) with virtually the same strengths in compression
and tension (Fig. 4). The deformation pattern shown in Fig. 5d dem-
onstrates that the outer tube of RS2 did not effectively control the
lateral thrust force imposed by the inner tube. In other words,
when the end rotations were not substantial, regardless of the gap
amplitude and the friction coefficient, the simulation cases with an
outer tube thickness less than that of the inside tube were not capa-
ble of controlling formation of the local deformations in the main
brace (Fig. 4).
Fig. 11. Loading sequence. Variations in the friction coefficient did not play an important role
on the behavior of the braces when severe local buckling occurs in
the members, as observed in RS2 (Fig. 5d). However, when the
Table 3
buckling of the inner tube is controlled by the outer tube, the smaller
Simplified loading sequence.
friction coefficient led to less compression overstrength. Even
Cycle # Axial disp. (in) SDR (%) though the difference was not substantial, comparing RS4A and
1 ±0.6 1 RS4B indicates that the case with a friction coefficient of 0.1 (RS4B)
2 ±1.2 2 followed a trend virtually identical to the tensile strength while the
3 ±1.8 3 compression strength of RS4A case was slightly larger than the
4 ±2.4 4
tensile strength.

a) RS4 Cases b) RS4-S Cases

c) RS1-S Cases d) SR2-S Cases

Fig. 12. Cyclic Behavior of the BCBs with round-in-square configuration.
50 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61

Table 4
Unbalanced force reduction in each case.

Name 1% SDR 2% SDR 3% SDR

Pc/Py Fv/Py Reduction (%) Pc/Py Fv/Py Reduction (%) Pc/Py Fv/Py Reduction (%)

RS 0.54 0.33 N.A. 0.32 0.48 N.A. 0.15 0.60 N.A.

SR 0.53 0.33 N.A. 0.36 0.45 N.A. 0.26 0.52 N.A.
RS4A 1.00 0.00 100 1.03 0.02 96 0.83 0.12 80
RS4B 1.00 0.00 100 1.03 0.02 96 0.86 0.10 83
RS4A-S 1.01 0.00 100 1.09 0.06 88 1.01 0.00 100
RS4B-S 1.01 0.00 100 1.07 0.05 90 0.91 0.06 89
RS1A-S 1.00 0.00 100 1.04 0.03 94 0.82 0.13 78
RS1B-S 1.01 0.00 100 1.03 0.02 96 0.58 0.30 50
SR2A-S 1.02 0.01 97 1.04 0.03 93 1.10 0.07 87
SR2B-S 1.01 0.00 100 1.04 0.03 93 1.06 0.04 92

efficiency of the buckling-controllers. Given that both SR and RS

Table 5
Section properties of the Round-in-Square BCB specimens. simulation groups possess comparable gap amplitudes and relative
outer tube thicknesses, the distinction between their behaviors re-
Test Circular Main Square Controlling Enhanced Gap*
garding the governing limit states (i.e. global instability or formation
Name Brace (in × in) Section (in × in × in) Connections (in)
of local plastic deformations) can be attributable to the difference
RS#1 HSS 1.900 × 0.125 HSS 2 1/2 × 2 1/2 × 1/8 No 0.175 between the confinement provided by the circular- and square-
RS#2 HSS 2 1/2 × 2 1/2 × 1/8 Yes
shaped buckling controllers.
⁎ The space between two tubes. iii. In contrast to the observed deformation patterns in SR simulation
group, the limit states of the TinT-BCBs in RS simulation group
were not predominantly governed by the global instability due to
2.1.1.1. Key observations. Based on the FEA results and deformation the end rotations. The behavior of the braces in RS group, in certain
patterns obtained from SR and RS simulation groups, the following cases, was governed by the inside tube to outer tube thickness ratio.
can be discussed: The larger the relative outer tube thickness is, the less likely the
i. Similar deformation patterns observed in both SR and RS cases in strength degradation took place.
terms of the location of the localized plastic deformations. Encasing iv. Effect of the coefficient of friction on the force-deformation relation-
the conventional braces with an outer tube led the plastic region of ship was not noticeable unless the outer tube successfully controlled
the braces to be shifted from the middle portion to the loading end. the local and global deformations of the inside tube.
ii. The flexural demands imposed by the end rotations, more or less,
affected the overall behavior as well as axial force-displacement 2.1.1.2. Impact of enhanced connections. Simulation results presented in
relationship of the BCBs. It seems that the deformation that initiates the previous section demonstrated that connection design has a deter-
end rotations and the severity of the impact were determined by the mining impact on the brace behavior. Even though utilizing particular

a) RS#1

b) RS#2
Fig. 13. Shop drawings of BCB specimens.
 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61 51

Tension

Compression

a) Test Setup b) Loading protocol used in the tests

Fig. 14. Test setup and loading protocol.

parameters successfully prevented BCBs from experiencing global insta- Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 compare the relative efficiency of the TinT-BCBs
bility (e.g. RS4), in seismic design practice, allowing such rotational with and without stiffeners in terms of axial force-deformation relation
demands might not be practical. Hence, in this section, an enhanced and deformed shapes at 4% SDR. The following can be discussed:
gusset plate design, presented in. As can be seen in Fig. 8 and
Fig. 6, is developed to maximize the effectiveness of BCBs with any
design parameters. In order to investigate the impact of the new i. Fig. 9a, irrespective of cross-sectional shapes, introducing stiffeners
gusset plate, SR2 and RS1 cases, which experienced a significant to the gusset plates significantly improved the BCB performance in
strength loss in the previous section, are simulated once again with terms of plastic deformation capability without significant strength
the enhanced connections. In addition to the models that underwent loss on account of the fact that the limit state that triggers the
global instability (SR2 and RS1), the gusset connections of RS4, strength loss was altered with the enhanced connections in both
which appeared to be the optimal case among others, was also SR2 and RS1 cases.
enhanced. As shown in.
Fig. 6, the gusset plates were stiffened with four tapered stiffeners, It seems that the level of improvement was more substantial in SR2
instead of rectangular ones, to minimize the additional steel weight as cases compared to the RS1 cases. Although both SR2 and RS1 cases
well as to provide a constraint against the end rotations. attained the same deformation level without significant strength or
All the numerical parameters and materials used in this section were stiffness loss, as illustrated in Fig. 8 and
identical to those employed in the previous cases. Fixed end boundary
condition is applied to the stiffeners to represents the constraint provid- ii. Fig. 9a, the flexural constraint provided by the stiffeners postponed
ed by the flanges of the beam and the column in an actual structure. the occurrence of strength loss from 1.5% SDR to 2.5% SDR in RS1
Fig. 7 shows the FE model of RS1A case after adding the stiffeners and cases and eliminated the strength loss in SR2 cases. It should, how-
the applied boundary conditions. Note that RS1A-S accounts for the ever, be noted that the difference between the level of enhance-
RS1 model with enhanced connections. ments achieved by SR2 and RS1 cases might not be only due to the

Fracture
Initiation

Fig. 15. Hysteretic response of the test specimens.

52 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61

Fracture Bulging
Initiation

a) Fracture initiation at the outer tube in RS#1. b) Local deformation of outer tube in RS#2.

Fig. 16. Deformation of RS#1 and RS#2 specimens.

rotational constraint provided by the stiffeners. In fact, the observed manner, which cannot be avoided by altering the buckling-
strength deteriorations in RS1 and SR2 cases were caused by two controller properties, such as increasing the outer tube thickness
discrete reasons: or reducing the initial gap. However, by diminishing the end ro-
tations, severity of the local deformation alleviates and when it
The outer tube thickness in RS1 case was not sufficient to control the combines with presence of a thick outer tube, performance of
lateral expansion of the inside tube, as indicated in. the SR2 cases improve as can be seen in Fig. 8.

(a) Fig. 9a. Considering the fact that the lateral thrust force can be as-
sociated with the applied axial compressive force and the gap Comparing RS1A and RS1B indicates that employing a smaller fric-
amplitude, the likelihood of premature strength loss for RS case tion coefficient tends to reduce the rate of strength loss in the BCBs, as
can be overcome by introducing a thicker outer tube that is capa- is presented in.
ble of mitigating the severity of the local deformations while
resisting the lateral thrust force. Note that the gap amplitude iii. On the other hand, the SR cases with stiffeners (SR2A-S and SR2B-S)
was as small as possible (0.017″) in RS1 specimen. were not sensitive to the alterations in the friction coefficient
(b) The strength loss in SR2 case, on the contrary, appeared to be (Fig. 8), which can be explained by the relatively small contact
more conceptual than the design deficiency observed in RS1 area that limits the shear force transfer between the tubes.
case. As demonstrated in Fig. 8, the local stiffness provided by iv. On account of the consistency in the governing limit states, the im-
the outer tube was not insufficient. However, owing to the pact of the enhanced connections was relatively less substantial in
cross-sectional shape of the two tubes in RS1, the large gap be- RS4 and RS4-S cases, as seen in Fig. 10. The influence of the friction
tween the flat portions of the square inside tube and the round coefficient, in contrast, was more significant in RS4 cases compared
outer tube allowed the flat portions to deform in a concave to RS1 cases, since buckling of the inner tube is effectively controlled.

Fig. 17. Tested Frame by Uriz and Mahin (2008) and Loading Sequence [7].
 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61 53

Table 6 However, SR cases have promising behavior only when the gusset plates
Material properties [7]. are reinforced with stiffeners. Therefore, round-in-square BCB is chosen
Member ASTM Grade Nominal Coupon Test for experimental study in order to be able to have a pair of comparable
Stress specimens with and without enhanced gusset plate. Two identical
Fy Fu Fy Fu round-in-square (RS) type BCB specimens with conventional and en-
(ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) hanced gusset connections are tested at the structural laboratory of
Beams and Columns A992 50 65 55 74 Iowa State University. The primary objective of testing is to examine
Braces A500 Grade B 46 58 60.6 65.9 the validity of the detailed observations carried out in the numerical
Gusset Plates and Plate A36 36 58 56 78 portion of the study. Hence, the design parameters adopted for the
Stiffeners test specimens, such as initial gap amplitude and relative thickness of
the outer tube, are determined considering the range employed in the
FEM-based study. Note that the experimental portion does not intend
2.1.2. Isolated BCBs under cyclic loading to compare the efficiency of round-in-square and square-in-round
Performance of newly developed all-steel BCBs is investigated under BCBs. Table 5 summarizes the main brace and outer tube sections, gap
monotonic loading in previous sections. It is concluded that in RS cases amplitude and connection type of the tested specimens.
either outer tube to inner tube thickness ratio should be greater than RS-BCB specimens were shop fabricated using round and square
one or an enhanced gusset plate should be utilized in order to achieve hollow sections with gusset assemblies at their ends. Side and section
stable behavior under monotonic compressive loading. On the other views of the first and second specimen are shown in Fig. 13(a) and
hand, in SR cases, due to concave deformation of inside tube, it is (b), respectively. The main brace section was determined considering
necessary to limit the brace ends rotation. Therefore, an enhanced the available loading capacity of the test equipment. The specimens
gusset plate should be used in SR cases. In this section, hysteretic were composed of a round HSS1.900 × 0.125, eight 3/16″-thick net sec-
behavior of RS4, RS4-S, RS1-S, and SR2-S cases are evaluated under tion reinforcing plates, a square HSS2 1/2 × 2 1/2 × 1/8 section and 3/8″
cyclic loading. A static cyclic analysis was carried out on each brace thick gusset plates. Design of RS#1 and RS#2 were identical to each
under loading sequence presented in Fig. 11 and Table 3. Mesh size, el- other except for their connections. RS#1 specimen were designed as
ement type and interactions used in this section are similar to the ones ductile The gusset assembly of RS#2 consisted of a 3/8″ thick gusset
employed in previous section. plate, four 1/4″ thick stiffeners, two horizontal supporting plates and
Hysteretic response of abovementioned cases is presented in Fig. 12. two vertical supporting plates, as given in Fig. 13(b).
Stable and symmetrical cyclic response is observed for all of the cases RS-BCB specimens were subjected to displacement-control incre-
until 3% SDR. It is evident that BCBs are capable of dissipating a greater mental cyclic loading. A modified version of the loading protocol given
amount of energy comparing with conventional braces due to the larger in AISC Seismic Provisions [20] was adopted for the tests. In this study,
enclosed area of hysteretic response and there is not a significant the design story drift was conservatively assumed to be 2% of story
difference between RS and SR cases under cyclic loading. In addition, height for all specimens. The test setup and loading protocol are given
symmetrical behavior of BCBs leads to smaller unbalanced force that in Fig. 14.
applies to brace-intersected girders in CBFs.
Table 4 presents the amount of reduction in unbalanced force for 3.1. Test results
each case at different cycles. It can be concluded that utilizing BCBs
results in a significant decrease in unbalanced force, in consequence a The hysteretic responses of the specimens are presented in Fig. 15.
shallower brace-intersected girder can be employed. In this table, Pc, RS#1 specimen exhibited a stable and symmetrical response until a
Py and Fv represent compression capacity, tensile capacity and vertical ductility of 4, which corresponds to an equivalent story drift ratio of
unbalanced force, respectively. 1.0%. Nevertheless, during the subsequent inelastic cycle to 2% SDR
compression, RS#1 specimen experienced global instability. As indicat-
3. Testing of round-in-square BCBs ed in Fig. 15, fracture initiation in RS#1 was observed at the corner of the
slotted end of the outer tube at a ductility of around 7. The excessive
Simulation results have demonstrated that RS cases have stable and flexural deformation imposed by the out-of-plane rotation of the gusset
symmetrical behavior when thickness ratio of the outer tube to inner plate stimulated the fracture of the slotted portion of the outer tube to
tube is greater than one or when an enhanced connections is utilized. the loading end (Fig. 16a). The end rotation-induced global instability

Fig. 18. Simulated Connection and Layout of Constructed Connection [7].

54 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61

Fig. 19. Simulation and test results under major portion of the cyclic loading sequence [7].

led to significant strength loss, on the order of 50% of the initial strength, cycle to 3.5% SDR. The peak ductility attained by RS#2 specimen was
in the following cycle. The test was terminated during the second 13.9.
compression cycle to 2% SDR due to severe outer tube deformation. Overall, the findings of the experimental portion provided compel-
The peak ductility attained by RS#1 specimen was around 8.5. ling evidence to substantiate that inelastic cyclic behavior of the tested
In the second test (RS#2), the gusset plates of RS#1 specimens were specimens was quite consistent with the observed deformation patterns
reinforced with stiffeners and subjected to cyclic loading. It seems that in the simulation-based study. In fact, the deformation patterns
introducing vertical stiffeners to the connections not only improved obtained from the simulated BCBs and the tested BCB specimens were
the overall hysteretic response substantially (Fig. 15) but also altered governed by the two major limit states: (1) Global instability of the
the governing limit state (Fig.20). First significant strength deterioration entire assembly due to small ratio of outer tube to inner tube thickness;
took place during the first compression cycle of 3%. Local deformation of and (2) Local deformation of the outer tube due to local plastic deforma-
the outer tube in RS#2 specimen was noticeable at 2.0% SDR in com- tion of the inside tube. Hysteretic response of RS#1 specimen, which
pression during the first compression cycle at story drift ratio of 3.5% comprised conventional gusset plates designed for ductile CBFs, were
(Fig. 15b). The strength in compression dropped to 55% of the initial controlled by end rotation-induced global instability. Therefore, prema-
yield strength at 3.5% SDR. The inside tube fractured during the tension ture fracture of the outer tube did not allow the plastic deformation

Fig. 20. Local behavior of the members in tested and simulated frames [7].
 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61 55

Fig. 21. Comparison of the deformed shapes of tested [7] and simulated frames.

capability of the inside tube to be fully utilized. RS#2 specimen, on the provided in [7] were used for the material properties, which are
other hand, has shown stable hysteretic response, ability to control provided in.
global and local deformations till 0.025 inter-story drift ratio, as well Also, lateral supports were applied to the middle of the both beams
as dissipating greater amount of energy compared to both RS#1 speci- and beam-to-column connections of the first story (Table 6).
men and conventional braces. It is also noteworthy that the outer tube A gap was introduced in the flanges and some portion of the web of
of RS#2 was not thick enough to resist the lateral thrust induced by the beams in the beam-to-column connections (Fig. 18) to simulate the
the lateral expansion or potential local deformation of the inside tube. behavior of the actual connections which were constructed with shear
Thus, bulging of the outer tube of RS#2 specimen resulted in significant tabs. By utilizing such a gap, results of the tested and simulated frames
strength degradation gradually, as observed in the numerical study. would be similar to each other except for the local behavior of the
beam adjacent to the connection, which is not within the scope of this
4. Cyclic behavior of CBFs incorporating BCBs study. Simulated frame is analyzed under a simplified version of the
cyclic loading applied to the tested frame. The lateral force versus roof
Behavior of RS cases was studied experimentally and numerically in displacement of the actual frame and simulated frame using the coupon
previous sections. In this section, first, a tested ductile CBF specimen is test results and nominal material properties are compared in Fig. 19.
simulated. Then, the previously calibrated conventional CBF model is The simulation has successfully predicted the global response of the
modified by introducing buckling-controllers to reveal how the frame along with the out-of-plane rotation of the gusset, stress
buckling-controllers affect the frame behavior. concentration of the column and local buckling of braces until fracture,
as shown in Fig. 20 and Fig. 21.
4.1. Calibration of FE model
4.2. Cyclic response of ductile CBFs with buckling controllers
A full scale experimental test was performed by Uriz and Mahin
(2008) at University of California, Berkeley in 2008 [7]. The tested Based on the cyclic response of the isolated BCBs, stable and
frame was a two-story nearly full-scale CBF with inverted V-type braces, symmetrical hysteretic behavior of these braces can substantially
as shown in Fig. 17. A general purpose finite element (FE) software, improve the performance of CBFs. In order to further investigate their
ABAQUS 6.13.3 [30], was used for simulating the tested frame. A impact, the RS4 and RS1-S cases (one case with and one case without
reduced integrated three dimensional eight node solid elements stiffener) are incorporated in the chevron CBF, respectively. The original
(C3D8R) were employed in the models and the coupon test results FE model of the tested frame, which was presented in the verification

Lateral
support

Fig. 22. Simulated conventional CBF with circular bracings.

56 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61

a) RS vs. RS4 cases b) RS vs. RS1-S cases

Fig. 23. Hysteretic response of S1 brace.

study, is simulated once again using HSS7.5 × 0.375 sections as the steel HSS braces, either rectangular or circular, with realistic width-to-
bracing members to be able to compare the conventional frame with thickness ratios are most likely to fracture prior to attaining a brace
BCB frame. Note that both the square tubes incorporated in the tested ductility of 10. Thus, in the present study, two distinct measures were
CBF specimen and their circular substitutes possess comparable assumed for the conventional CBFs and BCB frames as the governing
compressive and tensile strengths. limit states: (1) In light of the experimental data, it was conservatively
Nominal material strength is used for the brace members to make assumed that the conventional braces reach their fracture-resistant
the two frames comparable. Mesh size of 2 in is adopted for all members limit during the first tension cycle subsequent to attaining a ductility of
except for the braces. An additional seed is used for the outer and inner 10 in compression; (2) BCB frames are subjected to cyclic loading until
tubes to capture the potential local deformations of the braces accurate- significant strength degradation occurs in tension or compression.
ly. A reduced integrated 3D 8-node linear brick element (C3D8R) is Fig. 23 presents the comparison between the hysteretic responses of
employed for the simulation of the members. Static general analysis is S1 braces (the brace in the first story to the south) in the conventional
utilized for analyzing the frames and the dissipated energy fraction of and BCB frames. Also, Fig. 24 and Fig. 25 present the deformation of
3e-4 is used as the automatic stabilization to help convergence. A the frame and stress distribution in the first story gusset plates, respec-
penalty method is used for the tangential surface to surface interaction tively. The following observations can be highlighted:
between the inner and outer tube to simulate the actual behavior of the
tube in tube braces. i. BCB frame successfully reached 3.2% SDR, while braces in the con-
ventional frame fracture around 2% SDR. Peak brace ductility
4.2.1. Cyclic response of the frames attained by BCBs without any strength degradation is at least 1.3
Fig. 22 represents the dimensions of the simulated frame, lateral times larger than that of the conventional braces. Note that BCB
supports and the displacement type loading applied on the top flange are not necessarily fractured after 3.2% SDR.
of the roof girder. The simplified loading sequence used in the frame ii. BCBs in both stories yielded in tension and compression. Stable and
simulations is presented in Fig. 11. symmetrical hysteretic behavior of BCBs until 3.2% SDR, presented in
Numerous experimental investigations [9,10,13,14] on inelastic cyclic Fig. 23, results in significantly larger energy dissipation in compari-
behavior of HSS braces have demonstrated that the peak ductility that son with conventional frame.
can be attained by cold-formed tubes varies depending on the width- iii. The braces in the first and second stories of BCB frames exhibited a
to-thickness (b/t or D/t ratio) [10,16] and slenderness ratio [13] of spec- similar hysteretic response. However, the cyclic response of the
imens. Based on the aforementioned experimental data, conventional braces in the conventional CBF widely differed from one story to

Minor inelastic Yielding in tension

deformation and compression
/2
S1 Brace S1 Brace
In-plane and
out-of-plane Yielding in tension
buckling and compression
simultaneously
a) Deformation of conventional frame b) Typical deformation of BCB frame
Fig. 24. Comparison of the deformation of conventional and BCB frame.
 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61 57

a) Conventional frame b) RS4A frame c)) RS1A-S frame

Fig. 25. Stress distribution in the first story gusset plates.

another. As indicated in Fig. 24(a), the first story braces experienced 5.1. Numerical models of SCBFs and BCBFs and earthquake ground motions
in-plane and out-of-plane buckling simultaneously and eventually
reached their fracture-resistant limit while the inelastic deformation 5.1.1. Description of buildings
in the roof story was minor. In this section, four different braced frames with and without
iv. Lateral displacement of the conventional frame is accumulated in buckling-controllers are designed in order to investigate their seismic
the first story of the frame due to formation of soft story subsequent behavior under various ground motions. Typical floor plans, shown in
to buckling of the conventional braces, as shown in Fig. 24(a). This Fig. 26, clearly presents the orientation of the secondary beams and
abrupt change in strength and stiffness might simultaneously bays width in each direction. In addition, it can be seen that the SCBFs
trigger torsional irregularities and amplify the impact of P-Δ effects are located in the perimeter frames in order to resist the lateral forces.
significantly. However, incorporating BCBs led to a uniform lateral Also, two different types of bracing configurations used in this study
displacement distribution along the height of the frame, as shown are presented in Fig. 26. Perimeter frames are assumed to carry a
in Fig. 24(b). small portion of gravity loads based on their tributary area and half of
v. The first story gusset plates of the conventional frame suffered large the lateral force in each direction is transferred to every SCBF. Interior
stresses, as shown in Fig. 25a, which was due to the bending moment beams and columns are designed based on the gravity load that applied
induced by out-of-plane buckling of the braces. Introducing buckling- in their tributary area.
controllers resulted in a significant decrease in the stress level of Dead and live loads of 80 psf and 50 psf, respectively, are assumed to
gusset plates, even without enhanced connections (Fig. 25b). As be applied on 3–1/2 in thick concrete that is constructed on a metal deck
presented in Fig. 25(c), utilizing stiffeners in the gusset connections with steel shear studs welded to the beams on each floor. The roofing sys-
further reduced the stress of the gusset plates. tem provides a non-flexible diaphragm, which evenly transfers the lateral
vi. Although utilizing BCBs substantially improves the cyclic behavior of forces to the SCBF. The building is designed following the provisions of
the CBFs in terms of energy dissipation and ductility, large stress dis- ASCE7-10 [32] for required design strength and AISC 341-10 [20] for seis-
tribution in the columns of both conventional and BCB frames can be mic design requirements. The building is assumed to be located in a site
a major concern that needs to be addressed in the future studies. with Ss and S1 equal to 2.0 and 1.0, respectively. As the base shear, 22%
of the building weight is applied to the building in each direction, and
each braced bay is designed based on a quarter of the total base shear.
5. Time history analysis of BCB frame The loading combination governed in designing of the braces is (1.2 +
0.2SDS)DL + 1.0LL + ρQE where ρ (the redundancy factor) is assumed
Influence of TinT BCBs on the behavior of a two-story chevron to be equal to 1.3. Identical brace sizes are used for every two consecutive
(inverted V-type) frame is studied through finite element simulation stories. Moreover, beams and columns are designed based on the capacity
in the previous section. Subsequently, it is also important to investigate of the braces according to provisions of AISC 341-10 [20].
the seismic behavior of SCBFs incorporating TinT BCBs. For this purpose, The brace sections were selected considering the strength, slender-
in this section, 6-story braced frames with two different bracing ness and compactness (width-to-thickness ratio) requirements speci-
configurations are subjected to an ensemble of ground motions in fied in AISC 341 (2010) [12]. Basic load combinations given in ASCE 7
RUAUMOKO-2D [31] to reveal the impact of buckling controller on (2010) were used for the strength design. The design of the brace sec-
their seismic response. tions were governed by the seismic load combination: (1.2 + 0.2SDS)

5 @ 30 ft

6 @ 13 ft
Braced Frame

b. Elevation for frames having two-story X bracing

5 @ 30 ft

6 @ 13 ft

a. Typical floor plan with locations of Braced Frames c. Elevation for frames having chevron bracing

Fig. 26. Plan and elevation of the studied 6-story steel braced frames.
58 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61

Table 7
Member Sizes of the 6 – Story SCBFs and BCBFs.

Level Conventional Braces/The main braces of TinT-BCBs Columns in Braced Bay Beams in Braced Bay Gravity Columns Gravity Beams

Two-Story X-Braced Inverted-V Interior Exterior Corner

6 HSS8.625 × 0.500 (KL / r = 82, D / t = 18.5) W 12 × 65 W18 × 65 W30 × 235 W10 × 39 W10 × 33 W10 × 33 W21 × 44
5 W16 × 57
4 HSS10.000 × 0.625 (KL / r = 71, D / t = 17.2) W 12 × 136 W18 × 106 W33 × 291 W10 × 68 W10 × 39 W10 × 33
3 W16 × 57
2 HSS9 × 9 × ⅝ (KL / r = 70, b / t = h / t = 12.5) W 12 × 252 W18 × 130 W33 × 354 W10 × 100 W10 × 49 W10 × 33
1 W16 × 57

DL + ρQE + 0.5LL. In order to keep the capacity of the braces as close as tested specimen, boundary conditions and loading protocol that were
possible to the required strength, either round or square hollow sections used in the test.
(HSS) were used, as indicated in Table 4. The brace sizes were changed An inelastic analysis was performed in RUAUMOKO applying static
every two stories and care was taken when selecting the structural displacement loading protocol shown in Fig. 27. A time step equal to
shapes so as not to violate the requirements stipulated in seismic design 5e − 5 was chosen to ensure the accuracy of the results and capture
code [12]. All braces satisfy the slenderness requirement as well as the the buckling of the braces properly. A beam-column element was
width-to-thickness ratio requirement for highly ductile members [12]. employed in the simulation and coupon test results shown in Table 8
The slenderness (KL/r) and the width-to-thickness ratio (D/t or b/t) of were assigned to the element. REMENNIKOV brace model was utilized
all braces are given in Table 7. for simulation of the specimen. Fig. 28 represents the verification of
Conventional braces were encased in the buckling-controllers without the REMENNIKOV steel brace member, which was done by Carr in
altering the other structural members to form the BCBFs. By doing that we 2004 [31].
were able to keep the initial lateral stiffness and dynamic properties of the Fig. 29 demonstrates the comparison between the experimental and
BCBFs identical to the SCBFs. The fundamental periods of vibration of the simulation results. The simulated member has accurately captured the
frames were 0.72 s. and 0.70 s. for the frames with two-story X- and buckling point, maximum story drift and the peak tension force as can
inverted V-type bracing configurations, respectively. (See Table 7.) be seen in Fig. 29. Moreover, the overall test results were satisfactorily
predicted by the numerical model as well.
5.1.2. Numerical models
Non-linear time history analyses of the current study are carried out 5.1.3. Earthquake ground motions
using a two dimensional program, RUAUMOKO-2D, which was devel- Five ground motion records, provided in Table 9, compatible with
oped by Carr at University of Canterbury, New Zealand [31]. In order site class D in Los Angeles area are used in this study. Design spectrum
to evaluate the accuracy of the simulations, one of the specimens tested parameters are SDS = 1.333(g), SD1 = 1.000(g) and TL = 12.0 s and
by Fell et al. (2009) was chosen for verification [10]. Fig. 27 presents the the ground motions are selected from PEER Ground motion database

a) Test setup b) Simulated member.

c) Loading protocol.
Fig. 27. Tested specimen [10].
 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61 59

Table 8
Coupon test results.

E (ksi) Fy (ksi) ν

Material Properties 29,000 74 0.3

[33]. Fig. 30 presents the elastic response spectra of selected ground

motions and the target design spectrum. Note that the spectral acceler-
ations corresponding to the fundamental period of the frames were
nearly the same for the geometric mean and the target spectrum.

5.2. Seismic response of SCBFs and BCBFs

Typical 6-story braced frames with two different bracing configura- Fig. 29. Experimental and simulation results of the specimen tested by Fell et al. (2009)
tions were subjected to five ground motion records in order to reveal [10].

how the inelastic dynamic response of the structures is affected by the

introduced buckling-controllers. The global frame response and the of the SCBF with two-story X-bracing (Fig. 31a) might point out
ductility demands on individual structural components are evaluated that the seismic demand on the structure is moderate (2%–3%)
in terms of the peak story drift ratio (SDR) response along the building under GMs 01, 02 and 05, but nevertheless can be regarded as
height and peak brace and beam ductilities, respectively. In other words, severe based on an assessment that takes into consideration the
the seismic demand evaluation methodology employed herein con- ductility demand on braces (Fig. 31b).
siders the severity of the seismic demand as a function of the global (4) It is apparent that the capacity over demand ratio of BCBFs was
and structural member responses. substantially larger than that of SCBFs. The drift demands on
The peak SDR, beam and brace ductility demands on the SCBFs and BCBFs and ductility demand on BCBs did not exceed 2.1% and
BCBFs are presented in Fig. 31 to emphasize the interrelationship 5.9, respectively, which were substantially smaller than the
between the chosen response parameters. Based on the frame re- expected drift (up to 4%) and peak ductility (up to 14.3) capacity
sponses, the following can be explored: of the developed TinT-BCBs. It is, therefore, experimentally and
numerically demonstrated that the developed TinT-BCBs have
(1) Regardless of the bracing configuration, the SCBFs were subjected
sufficient capacity to meet the seismic demand under the selected
to larger drift demands under most of the ground motions.
ground motions.
Furthermore, the peak SDR response of the SCBFs reached up to
(5) Buckling control played an important role on the beam response.
4.3% while the peak drift demands on the BCBFs varied from
As shown in Fig. 31(c), symmetrical hysteretic behavior of the
1.20% to 2.10% over the ground motions (Fig. 31a). As anticipated,
BCBs significantly reduced the seismic demand on the brace-
introducing the buckling-controllers not only enhanced the ca-
intersected girders imposed by the unbalanced forces. This
pacity but also alleviate the severity of the global seismic demand.
significant reduction in the beam deflection also contributed to
(2) Bracing configuration had a substantial impact on the ductility
the diminution in ductility demand on TinT-BCBs. It is also
demand on conventional bracings (Fig. 31b). Comparing
noteworthy that the brace-intersected girders in the SCBF with
Fig. 31(a) and (b) clearly demonstrates that even though the
two-story X-bracings yielded in most cases while the girders in
drift demands on the SCBFs with two-story X- and inverted V-
the inverted V-type remained elastic. The demand reduction, on
type bracings were fairly close, in most cases, the peak ductility de-
the other hand, was relatively larger in the girders of BCBFs with
mand on the braces in TSXBF was substantially larger than that in
two-story X-bracings, even though the demand on girders was
inverted V-type. This high discrepancy can be attributable to the
negligible for both BCBFs.
vertical deformations of the brace-intersected girders, which
were proportional to the amplification in the brace deformation
(Fig. 31c). 6. Summary and conclusions
(3) Based on the results presented in Fig. 31(a) and (b), our methodol-
ogy indicated that brace fracture is most likely to occur in both Performance of an all-steel buckling-controlled brace with two dif-
SCBFs under most of the ground motions. It is, however, essential ferent cross sections and gusset plates was experimentally and numer-
to note that an assessment solely based on the drift demands ically investigated. Cyclic behavior of these braces was evaluated
would have led to divergent interpretations of the same set of through finite element analysis in terms of ductility and energy dissipa-
data, for TSXBFs in particular. For instance, the peak SDR response tion. Then, performance of CBFs incorporating BCBs was compared with
conventional CBFs. Finally, seismic response of a 6-story SCBF incorpo-
rating TinT BCBs is compared with the conventional braced frames.
The major objectives of this study are to (1) compare the performance
of the two BCB configurations; and (2) reveal the advantages of

Table 9
Ground motion records used in the study.

GM# NGA#a Scale Event Year Magnitude Duration PGA

Factor (s) (g)

01 1085 1.1675 Northridge 1994 6.69 40 0.979

02 1515 2.5841 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 7.62 90 0.810
03 1009 3.8019 Northridge 1994 6.69 40 1.041
04 179 1.9573 Imperial Valley 1979 6.53 39 0.699
05 802 2.3023 Loma Prieta 1989 6.93 39.955 0.835
a
Fig. 28. REMENNIKOV steel brace member verification by Carr in 2004. NGA#: Sequential number in PEER [33] Strong Ground Motion Database.
60 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61

T1=0.72 s. ii. Round in square BCBs have a desirable performance either when
thickness ratio of the outer tube to inner tube is greater than one
or when an enhanced gusset plate is employed. However, regardless
of the thickness ratio in square in round BCBs, it is necessary to
utilize an enhanced gusset plate in order to achieve promising
results.
iii. Experimental and numerical results demonstrate stable and
symmetrical hysteretic behavior of BCBs until 3% SDR. It is observed
that BCBs are significantly more ductile than conventional braces
and larger enclosed area of the cyclic loops in BCBs results in larger
energy dissipation in comparison with conventional braces.
iv. Symmetrical cyclic behavior of BCBs results in substantial reduction in
unbalanced force that applies to brace-intersected girders. It is ob-
served that this reduction can be as large as 80% at 3% story drift ratio.
Fig. 30. Response spectra of the ground motions.
v. Early buckling of the conventional braces can potentially lead to a
soft/weak story in braced frames; therefore accumulates the lateral
developed BCBs in comparison with conventional braces. Major conclu- displacement of the frame in such a story. However, incorporating
sions of the present study are drawn as follows: BCB efficiently causes a linear distribution of lateral displacement
along the height of the frame.
i. Thickness ratio of the outer tube to inner tube should be greater than vi. Incorporating BCBs results in a significant decrease in the stress of
one to effectively control the local buckling of the main brace. gusset plates. Controlling the out-of-plane buckling of the braces

Likely to
fracture

(a) Peak story drift ratios (SDR)

Optimistic fracture –
resistant limit for
conventional braces

(b) Peak ductility demand on braces

Beam yielding

(c) Peak ductility demand on brace-intersected girders

Fig. 31. Global frame response in terms of SDR and peak ductility demands on braces and brace-intersected girders under 5 GMs.
 S. Momenzadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 44–61 61

eliminates the flexural demand on the gusset plate and diminishes [13] R. Tremblay, M. Haddad, G. Martinez, J. Richard, K. Moffatt, Inelastic Cyclic Testing of
Large Size Steel Bracing Members, Proceedings of 14th World Conference on
the stresses. In addition, utilizing enhanced gusset plate further Earthquake Engineering, 2008.
reduces the stress of the gusset plates. [14] S.-W. Han, W.T. Kim, D.A. Foutch, Seismic behavior of HSS bracing members
according to width–thickness ratio under symmetric cyclic loading, J. Struct. Eng.
133 (2) (2007) 264–273.
Acknowledgement [15] A.K. Jain, S.C. Goel, R.D. Hanson, Inelastic response of restrained steel tubes, J. Struct.
Div. 104 (1978) ASCE 13832 Proc Paper.
This study was made possible in part by the support of the American [16] R.G. Black, W. Wenger, Inelastic Buckling of Steel Struts Under Cyclic Load Reversals,
UCB/EERC-80/40, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (AISC/ISU 400-2002). Garbe Iron Berkeley, 1980.
Works and Chicago Metal Fabricators fabricated the test specimens. [17] A. Astaneh-Asl, S.C. Goel, R.D. Hanson, Cyclic out-of-plane buckling of double-angle
The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors bracing, J. Struct. Eng. 111 (5) (1985) 1135–1153.
[18] L.S. Leowardi, W.R. Walpole, Performance of Steel Brace Members: Department of
and do not necessarily reflect the views of AISC, ISU, or other agencies Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, 1996.
whose names appear in this study. [19] R. Tremblay, N. Robert, Seismic design of low-and medium-rise chevron braced steel
frames, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 27 (6) (2000) 1192–1206.
[20] AISC 341-10, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, (ANSI/AISC 341-10),
References American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2010.
[21] Eurocode 8 (EC8), Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part
[1] J. Shen, R. Wen, B. Akbas, B. Doran, E. Uckan, Seismic demand on brace-intersected
1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, 2005.
beams in two-story X-braced frames, Eng. Struct. 76 (2014) 295–312.
[22] J. Shen, R. Wen, B. Akbas, Mechanisms in two-story X-braced frames, J. Constr. Steel
[2] J. Shen, O. Seker, B. Akbas, P. Toru Seker, S. Momenzadeh, M. Faytarouni, Seismic
Res. 106 (2015) 258–277.
Performance of Concentrically Braced Frames With and Without Brace Buckling,
[23] G. Brandonisio, M. Toreno, E. Grande, E. Mele, A. De Luca, Seismic design of concen-
Submitted to Engineering Structures, 2016 under review.
tric braced frames, J. Constr. Steel Res. 78 (2012) 22–37.
[3] P. Uriz, Towards Earthquake Resistant Design of Concentrically Braced Steel
[24] E.M. Marino, A unified approach for the design of high ductility steel frames with
Structures, University of California, Berkeley, 2005.
concentric braces in the framework of Eurocode 8, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 43 (1)
[4] R. Sabelli, C. Chunho, Investigation of the Nonlinear Seismic Response of Special
(2014) 97–118.
Concentric and Buckling Restrained Braced Frames and Implications for
[25] M. Bosco, A. Ghersi, E. Marino, P. Rossi, A capacity design procedure for columns of
DesignFEMA/EERI Professional Fellowship Report 2001.
steel structures with diagonals braces, Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 8 (1) (2014)
[5] J. McCormick, R. DesRoches, D. Fugazza, F. Auricchio, Seismic assessment of concen-
196–207.
trically braced steel frames with shape memory alloy braces, J. Struct. Eng. 133 (6)
[26] J. Zhao, B. Wu, J. Ou, A novel type of angle steel buckling-restrained brace: Cyclic be-
(2007) 862–870.
havior and failure mechanism, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 40 (10) (2011) 1083–1102.
[6] R. Sabelli, S. Mahin, C. Chang, Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with
[27] T. Usami, C. Wang, J. Funayama, Low-cycle fatigue tests of a type of buckling
buckling-restrained braces, Eng. Struct. 25 (5) (2003) 655–666.
restrained braces, Procedia Eng. 14 (2011) 956–964.
[7] P. Uriz, S. Mahin, Toward Earthquake-resistant Design of Concentrically Braced
[28] N. Ma, B. Wu, J.P. Ou, Finite element analysis on critical constraint ratio of all-steel
Steel-Frame Structures, PEER 2008/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
buckling restrained brace, Adv. Mater. Res. (2012) 2126–2129.
Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2008.
[29] S. Razavi, S. Mirghaderi, A. Hosseini, M. Shemshadian, Reduced Length Buckling Re-
[8] Y.-S. Park, S.-J. Park, S. Iwai, S.-H. Kang, Failure and damage of steel thin-plate
strained Brace Using Steel Plates as Restraining Segment, 15th World Conference on
elements and angle members due to very-low-cycle loading, Eng. Struct. 26 (11)
Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, 2012.
(2004) 1623–1632.
[30] Karlsson Hibbitt, Sorensen, ABAQUS/Standard User's Manual, Hibbitt, Karlsson &
[9] K.H. Nip, L. Gardner, A. Elghazouli, Cyclic testing and numerical modelling of carbon
Sorensen, 2001.
steel and stainless steel tubular bracing members, Eng. Struct. 32 (2) (2010)
[31] A. Carr, Ruaumoko 2D–Inelastic Dynamic Analysis, University of Canterbury,
424–441.
Christchurch, Department of Civil Engineering, 2004.
[10] B. Fell, A. Kanvinde, G. Deierlein, A. Myers, Experimental Investigation of Inelastic
[32] ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American
Cyclic Buckling and Fracture of Steel Braces, Journal of Structural Engineering, 2009.
Institute of Steel Construction, IL, 2010.
[11] B. Shaback, T. Brown, Behaviour of square hollow structural steel braces with end
[33] PEER, Peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database, Pacific Earthquake Engi-
connections under reversed cyclic axial loading, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 30 (4) (2003)
neering Research Center, 325 Davis Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA
745–753.
2015, p. 94720.
[12] J. Goggins, B.M. Broderick, A. Elghazouli, A. Lucas, Behaviour of tubular steel
members under cyclic axial loading, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (1) (2006) 121–131.