Nist GCR 15-917-34 TB 11 Final

NIST GCR 15-917-34
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 11
Seismic Design of Steel Buckling-

Restrained Braced Frames
A Guide for Practicing Engineers
Ryan A. Kersting
Larry A. Fahnestock
Walterio A. Lpez
NEHRP Seismic Design Larry A. Fahnestock, Ph.D., P.E., is an Associate Professor in the
Technical Briefs Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Technical of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. For his research on the seismic
Briefs are published by the National Institute of Standards and behavior and design of braced frames, he has received the 2009
Technology (NIST) as aids to the efficient transfer of NEHRP and other American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Faculty Fellowship, the
research into practice, thereby helping to reduce the nations losses 2009 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Raymond C. Reese
resulting from earthquakes. Research Prize and a 2014 ASCE Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering
Research Prize. He is a registered professional engineer in California
National Institute of and Illinois and a member of AISC, ASCE, the Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute (EERI), and the Structural Stability Research Council.
Standards and Technology
NIST is a federal technology agency within the U.S. Department of Walterio A. Lpez, S.E., is a Principal at Rutherford + Chekene, a leading
Commerce that promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness San Francisco-based structural and geotechnical engineering firm. He
by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in has extensive knowledge of the seismic design and detailing of cost-
ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. effective structural steel systems and is an internationally recognized
NIST is the lead agency of NEHRP. Dr. John (Jack) R. Hayes, Jr., is the authority in the use of BRBF. He was awarded the prestigious AISC
Director, and Dr. Steven L. McCabe is the Deputy Director of NEHRP T.R. Higgins Lectureship Award for his work on BRBF design guidelines
within NISTs Engineering Laboratory. and has authored technical papers on structural steel braced frames.
Walterio is a past director of Structural Engineers Association of Northern
Applied Technology Council California (SEAONC) and past chair of SEAONCs Steel Seismology
The Applied Technology Council (ATC) is a nonprofit corporation Subcommittee and has served on advisory boards for research projects
advancing engineering applications for hazard mitigation. This publication dealing with innovative structural steel systems.
is a product of Task Order 14-360 under Contract SB134113CQ0009
between ATC and NIST. Jon A. Heintz serves as the Program Manager About the Review Panel
for work conducted under this contract, and Ayse Hortacsu serves as The contributions of the three review panelists for this publication are
ATC Associate Program Manager on this Task Order. gratefully acknowledged.
Rafael Sabelli, P.E., S.E., is Director of Seismic Design at Walter P

Consortium of Universities for Research Moore, a structural and civil engineering firm with offices nationwide.
in Earthquake Engineering He is a member of the American Institute of Steel Construction Task
The Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering Committee 9 on Seismic Provisions and a member of the Building
(CUREE) is a nonprofit organization advancing earthquake engineering Seismic Safety Councils 2014 Provisions Update Committee and of
research, education, and implementation. This publication was the American Society of Civil Engineers Seismic Subcommittee for
produced under a cooperative agreement between ATC and CUREE. ASCE/7-10.
Robert Reitherman served as Associate Program Manager overseeing
production. Reed Helgens and Darryl Wong served as report production Jerod G. Johnson, Ph.D., S.E., is a Principal and Director of Engineering
and report preparation consultants for this work. at Reaveley Engineers + Associates in Salt Lake City. He is serving
as the 2014-2015 president of the Structural Engineers Association of
Utah and is a member of the board of the Utah Chapter of EERI. He
About The Authors contributed to pioneering efforts in BRBF design in the United States
Ryan A. Kersting, S.E., an Associate Principal at Buehler & Buehler on projects such as the Bennett Federal Building in Salt Lake City. As
Structural Engineers, Inc., has a diverse portfolio of experience spanning an adjunct professor at the University of Utah, Jerod has led research
the full spectrum of structural engineering services, including project efforts in the use of buckling-restrained braces for targeted energy
design, plan review, peer review, and other technical activities. He is dissipation in tuned mass damper applications.
frequently involved in projects that incorporate innovative structural
systems, nonlinear analysis techniques, and performance-based Michael D. Engelhardt, Ph.D., P.E., is a Professor in the Department of Civil,
designs. Ryan has extensive experience with buckling-restrained braced Architectural and Environmental Engineering at the University of Texas
frame (BRBF) projects and has contributed to multiple publications, at Austin since 1989. He serves as a member of the AISC Committee
presentations, and design examples on the topic. He is very involved on Specifications, AISC Task Committee 9 on Seismic Design, and the
in the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), serving AISC Connection Prequalification Review Panel. He has been actively
as 2014-2015 SEAOC President. He has also been an active member involved in research, teaching, and standards development for seismic-
of the SEAOC Seismology Committee, including a term as Chair, and resistant steel structures for more than 25 years. He has been a recipient
was Chair of the 2007 SEAOC Convention Committee. of the AISC T.R. Higgins Lectureship Award for outstanding contributions
in structural steel research and the AISC Lifetime Achievement Award.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) Consortium of Universities for Research in

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 Earthquake Engineering (CUREE)
Redwood City, California 94065 CUREE 1301 South 46th Street, Building 420
(650) 595-1542 Richmond, CA 94804
www.atcouncil.org (510) 665-3529
www.curee.org
NIST GCR 15-917-34
Seismic Design of Steel Buckling-

Restrained Braced Frames
A Guide for Practicing Engineers
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Engineering Laboratory
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600
By
Applied Technology Council
In association with the

Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
and
Ryan A. Kersting
Larry A. Fahnestock
Walterio A. Lpez
September 2015
U.S. Department of Commerce

Penny Pritzker, Secretary
National Institute of Standards and Technology

Willie E. May, Under Secretary of Commerce for
Standards and Technology and Director
Contents
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................1
2. Background of the Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame.....................................5
3. Principles for Design of BRBFs......................................................................8
4. Guidance for Analysis of BRBFs..................................................................11
5. Guidance for Design of BRBFs....................................................................14
6. BRBF Design and Fabrication Coordination..................................................19
7. Future Developments...............................................................................23
8. References.............................................................................................25
9. Notation and Abbreviations........................................................................29
10. Credits....................................................................................................30
Disclaimers
This Technical Brief was prepared for the Engineering Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Earthquake Structural and Engineering Research Contract
SB134113CQ0009, Task Order 14-360. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of NIST or
the U.S. Government.
This report was produced by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) in association with the Consortium of Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering (CUREE). While endeavoring to provide practical and accurate information, ATC, CUREE, the authors, and the
reviewers assume no liability for, nor express or imply any warranty with regard to, the information contained herein. Users of information
in this report assume all liability arising from such use.
Unless otherwise noted, photos, figures, and data presented in this report have been developed or provided by ATC staff, CUREE
staff, or consultants engaged under contract to provide information as works for hire. Any similarity with other published information is
coincidental. Photos and figures cited from outside sources have been reproduced in this report with permission. Any other use requires
additional permission from the copyright owners.
Certain commercial software, equipment, instruments, or materials may have been used in preparing information contributing to this
report. Identification in this report is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor is it intended to imply that such
software, equipment, instruments, or materials are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
NIST policy is to use the International System of Units (metric units) in all its publications. In this report, however, information is presented
in U.S. Customary Units (e.g., inch and pound) because this is the preferred system of units in the U.S. earthquake engineering industry.
Cover photo. Buckling-restrained braced frame under construction.
How to Cite This Publication

NIST (2015). Seismic design of steel buckling-restrained braced frames: A guide for practicing engineers, GCR 15-917-34, NEHRP
Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 11, produced by the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research
in Earthquake Engineering for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
1. Introduction
Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames (BRBFs) are one BRBF is very similar to a conventional Concentrically
of the newer types of seismic force-resisting systems Braced Frame (CBF), the members, connections, and
used in modern building designs. As the two example behavior of BRBFs are distinctly different from those of
configurations shown in Figure 1-1 illustrate, BRBFs Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frames (OCBFs) and
resist lateral loads as vertical trusses in which the Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs). The
axes of the members are aligned concentrically at the key difference is the use and behavior of the Buckling-
joints. Although the global geometric configuration of a Restrained Brace (BRB) itself.
)
h (L
wp
gt (L y)
nt len n gt h
rk- poi ld le
Wo Y ie
Buckling-restrained brace
Wide-flange beam
Wide-flange column
)w p
(L
th
ng
y)
(L
t le
gt h
o in
len
k-p
eld
or
W
Yi
Gusset plate
Figure 1-1. Typical BRBF configurations.
Seismic Design of Steel Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
1
De-bonding agent
& expansion material Concrete fill
Steel tube
Steel core
SECTION A-A Transition Connection
Yielding region region region
typ. typ.
A View of overall BRB

Restrained Unrestrained
non-yielding non-yielding
Restrained yielding segment segment segment
typ. typ.
View of BRB steel core
Figure 1-2. Common BRB assembly.
Unlike the standard sections used for braces in OCBFs the larger response modification coefficient, R, assigned to
and SCBFs, the BRB is a fabricated assembly. As shown BRBFs (R = 8) by ASCE/SEI 7, referred to in this Guide
in Figure 1-2, the most common BRBs consist of a steel as ASCE 7 (ASCE 2010), as compared to OCBFs (R =
core-plate (the yielding element, hereafter called the 3 1/4) and SCBFs (R = 6). Because the BRBF system is
core) that is surrounded by a steel tube casing filled with more efficient (having a smaller brace area as a result
grout or concrete. Figure 1-2 shows a core consisting of of the elimination of brace buckling), BRBFs are more
a steel plate. Other core cross-sections, such as cruciform flexible than conventional CBFs and may in some cases be
or multiple plates can also be used. The core is axially governed by drift limits rather than strength requirements.
decoupled from the fill and casing by various means Like nearly every other ductile seismic force-resisting
that produce a physical isolation or gap. As the name system, the remainder of the frame (beams, columns,
states, the BRB assembly restrains core buckling under and connections) is protected from unintended yielding
compressive loading and achieves a compressive yield through special analysis and proportioning provisions,
strength that is approximately equal to its tensile yield commonly called capacity-based design.
strength. Therefore, the core area can be sized for design- Tension
level seismic loads based on the yield stress of the core,
Fysc, as opposed to braces in conventional CBFs, which
are sized based on the critical buckling stress, Fcr , of
the section. Buckling braces in OCBFs and SCBFs have
significant excess tensile capacity, and the brace buckling Typical
behavior leads to degrading cyclic response. In contrast, buckling Brace axial
brace deformation
as shown in Figure 1-3, a BRB yields axially in tension
and in compression, exhibiting nominally symmetric cyclic Buckling-
response with strain hardening. In BRBFs, the primary restrained
brace Compression
source of ductility is the axial yielding of the BRB cores.
Unlike BRBFs, CBFs are subject to buckling of the braces Brace axial force
and therefore are less ductile. This attribute is reflected in Figure 1-3. Buckling versus buckling-restrained brace behavior.
2
This Guide addresses the seismic design of steel BRBFs in AISC 360, Specification for Structural Steel
typical building applications within regions of moderate Buildings and Commentary, 2010 edition
to high seismic hazard, corresponding to Seismic Design (AISC 2010b)
Categories (SDC) C through F as defined in ASCE 7.
Because current standards address and allow only the ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
use of BRBFs in all-steel frames, composite applications Other Structures, 2010 edition (ASCE 2010)
are not addressed in this Guide, but many of the same
topics and considerations are applicable. Results from IBC, International Building Code, 2015 edition
experimental testing and numerical simulations will be (IBC 2015)
used to illustrate the rationale underlying design and
Design engineers are responsible for verifying the
detailing provisions.
current building code provisions adopted by the authority
This Guide is not a complete treatment of the BRBF having jurisdiction of their project. The Technical Briefs
system or the BRB itself. A number of issues and topics in this NEHRP Series typically are based on the latest
related to BRBFs are not addressed in this document, available codes and standards, which may not yet have
including the following: been adopted locally. Discussion with and approval by the
building official should occur to verify that a later version
Specific comparisons of BRBFs to other classes of a code or standard not yet adopted locally may be used.
of braced frames, such as Eccentrically Braced
Frames (EBFs), OCBFs, and SCBFs. Information on In addition to the code and standards listed above,
SCBFs is provided in the NEHRP Technical Brief designers should be aware of other valuable resources
on Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically for employing BRBFs:
Braced Frame Systems (NIST 2013).
AISC Seismic Design Manual (AISC 2012)
BRBFs used with steel Special Moment-Resisting SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual
Frames (SMRFs) as a dual system. Information
(SEAOC 2013)
about steel special moment-resisting frames is
provided in the NEHRP Technical Brief on Seismic Design of Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames
Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment Frames (Lpez and Sabelli 2004)
(NIST 2009).
Ductile Design of Steel Structures (Bruneau et al. 2011)
BRBFs used with other systems, for example, as
part of outrigger frames in tall buildings.
Use of the 2012 versus 2015 Edition of the IBC
BRBs used in non-BRBF conditions or
configurations, such as Although the 2015 IBC is listed as the basis for
- Struts or fuses within a load path, such as along a references to the building code in this Guide, the BRBF
collector line design requirements under the 2012 IBC match those
- Buttresses or external bracing under the 2015 IBC because both editions of the IBC
- Self-centering frame systems use the same editions of the applicable reference
standards (i.e., ASCE 7-10, AISC 360-10, and AISC
- Damped assemblies 341-10). At the time of production of this Guide, the
- Non-building structures 2016 editions of AISC 341, AISC 360, and ASCE 7
- Non-steel frames (composite applications) are nearing completion. Because these documents
have not been completed and will not be referenced
This Guide refers to the following building codes and (and therefore mandated) until the 2018 edition of the
standards: IBC, these in-progress standards are not referenced
in this Guide.
AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for Structural
Steel Buildings and Commentary, 2010 edition
(AISC 2010a)
3
This Guide was written to provide guidance to practicing
structural engineers regarding the use of requirements in
applicable codes and standards for the design of BRBF
systems. The Guide is also useful to others seeking to
understand the basis of, and to correctly implement, the
appropriate code provisions related to BRBFs, including
building officials, educators, researchers, and students.
In this Guide, the term design engineer is used to

refer to the person(s) responsible for the design of
the entire structural system for a given project. The
BRB manufacturers often have an engineer on staff to
coordinate with and assist the projects design engineer
with different aspects of the BRBF design. When
necessary to distinguish between these two engineering
roles, this document refers to the BRB manufacturers
staff engineer as the manufacturers engineer or
sometimes simply as the BRB manufacturer.
Section 2 of this Guide provides an overview of the

history of the BRBF system and additional detail on
BRBs. Section 3 discusses the key principles involved
in the design of steel BRBFs. Sections 4 and 5 provide
guidance regarding the analysis and design of BRBFs,
respectively. Section 6 addresses BRBF coordination
topics particularly for the design engineer and the
manufacturers engineer, including detailing and
constructability issues. Section 7 provides a summary
of forward-looking developments related to the BRBF
system.
Use of BRBFs in Regions of Lower Seismicity
This Guide discusses BRBFs particularly for use in

areas of moderate to high seismicity (SDC C through
F). However, BRBFs are not limited in application
solely to those regions and have been used in regions
of low seismicity (SDC A and B) and even in wind-
governed designs. In most cases, the benefits of
using BRBFs are associated with being able to use a
larger R coefficient to reduce seismic design forces.
Although the benefit of reduced seismic design
forces may not be as significant in regions of lower
seismicity, BRBFs may still be selected as they can
provide a more economical overall design of braces,
connections, and foundations and to provide better,
more reliable performance under lateral loading, for
example in structures with very long braces and in
structures of high importance.
4
2. Background of the Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame
2.1 Historical Context of BRB One of the first new construction projects in the
Development United States that employed BRBs was the Plant and
Environmental Sciences Building on the campus of the
During the past 15 years, BRBFs have been used University of California, Davis (Clark et al. 1999, 2000).
extensively in the United States as part of the seismic Soon after, one of the first retrofit projects using BRBs
force-resisting system for buildings in regions of high was the Marin County Civic Center Hall of Justice (Shaw
seismicity. The fundamental concept of confining a steel and Bouma 2000). Since then, BRBs have been used in
core element so that it can yield in compression as well as numerous buildings in the United States and in limited
in tension was investigated experimentally over 40 years applications in bridges (Jones 2014) and other structures
ago in Japan (Xie 2005), with a concrete panel serving (Robinson 2012).
as the confining mechanism. Subsequently, a concrete-
filled steel tube was used as the confining mechanism, Although BRBs were used in the United States as early
and excellent energy dissipation and ductility were as 1999, BRBFs were first officially adopted in a model
demonstrated experimentally (Watanabe et al. 1988, building code in 2005 with their inclusion in ASCE
Watanabe 1992). This BRB configuration first gained 7-05 (ASCE 2005) and AISC 341-05 (AISC 2005). The
wide acceptance in Japan as a supplemental energy adoption process was initiated by a joint task group led
dissipation device within a damage control design by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
philosophy before being adopted in North America as a and the Structural Engineers Association of California
primary seismic force-resisting element. Watanabe et al. (SEAOC), and this task group developed the document
(1988) and Watanabe (1992) conducted the foundational Recommended Provisions for Buckling-Restrained
BR B testing program, which demonstrated the Braced Frames (AISC/SEAOC 2001). System parameters
ductility and energy dissipation capability of the brace from this document were then incorporated in the NEHRP
configuration and illustrated the basic requirement for Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
stiffness of the restraining mechanism. In one of the first New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 2003),
studies in North America, Tremblay et al. (1999) tested which led to inclusion in ASCE 7-05 and AISC 341-
BRBs in support of a seismic retrofit project in Quebec 05. Currently, design of BRBFs in the United States is
City, Quebec, Canada. In addition, viable all-steel BRBs performed within the framework defined by ASCE 7-10
have been developed more recently (Tremblay et al. 2006, (ASCE 2010) and AISC 341-10 (AISC 2010a).
Wu et al. 2012, and Judd et al. 2015).
In Canada, BRBF design provisions were developed
BRBs were used extensively in Japan before they gained within a similar timeframe as in the United States, with
attention in the United States, however, implementation BRBFs introduced in the CSA S16 steel design standard in
of BRBs in the United States required significant effort 2009 (CSA 2009) and the Type D (ductile) BRBF system
because the U.S. and Japanese design contexts for BRBs defined in the 2010 edition of the National Building Code
are appreciably different. In Japan, BRBs are used as of Canada (NBCC) (NRC 2010). Although the application
supplemental energy dissipation devices, which are used context in Canada is like that in the United States where
with moment-resisting frames (Huang et al. 2000, Iwata BRBs are used in place of the conventional steel braces in
et al. 2003). BRBs function as hysteretic dampers that CBFs, differences in U.S. and Canadian code provisions,
control the response of the moment-resisting frames, primarily the design seismic hazard level and the BRBF
and the combined system possesses significant stiffness, system parameters, lead to different BRBF member sizes
even after the BRBs yield. Broadly speaking, in Japan, a for the same underlying seismicity.
damage-control design approach is employed (Kasai et al.
1998) to protect the primary seismic force-resisting system Currently, BRBs are proprietary products in the United
(i.e., the moment-resisting frames) with the dampers (i.e., States. Although this Guide makes no endorsement of
the BRBs). In contrast, the design approach in the United any commercial product, they are currently fabricated
States does not require that BRBFs be used as part of a by a small number of manufacturers including
dual system, and the BRBF system typically has relatively CoreBrace (www.corebrace.com), Nippon Steel (www.
modest overstrength and low post-yield stiffness. unbondedbrace.com), Star Seismic (www.starseismic.net),
and Bluescope Buildings (www.bluescopebuildings.com).
5
Representative BRBs from three of the manufacturers are
shown in Figure 2-1. Extensive testing of BRBs from
these three manufacturers has been conducted to quantify
force-deformation characteristics and to qualify the BRBs
for use in the United States (Black et al. 2002, Merritt et
al. 2003a and 2003b, Reaveley et al. 2004, Romero et al.
2006, Benzoni and Innamorato 2007, et al.). Although
the different BRB manufacturers have unique detailing
features in their BRBs, which may influence behavior
particularly with respect to BRB-frame interaction, the
fundamental BRB force-deformation relationship is
similar and is the basis for discussion in this Guide.
In addition to the BRB component tests, several large-

(a) CoreBrace scale BRBF tests have demonstrated cyclic performance
at the system level for configurations approximately
representing U.S. practice (Fahnestock et al. 2007a,
Uriz and Mahin 2008, Tsai et al. 2008, Tsai and Hsiao
2008, Palmer et al. 2014). Although these tests generally
demonstrated the ductility and energy dissipation
capability of BRBFs up to and beyond expected design-
level earthquake demands, they also identified potential
limitations related to residual drift and localized
failures in connections, beams, and columns. Beam-
column connection modifications that are capable of
mitigating the localized failures have been proposed
and experimentally validated (Fahnestock et al. 2007a,
Berman and Bruneau 2009, Prinz et al. 2014). However,
these modified connections may reduce frame action
that provides story stiffness after the BRBs have yielded,
and as a result, peak and residual drifts may increase
(b) Nippon Steel (Fahnestock et al. 2007a, Ariyaratana and Fahnestock
2011). Numerical simulations of BRBF seismic response
have established the range of drift and BRB deformation
demands that can be expected from code-based designs
using the U.S. provisions, including BRBF-SMRF dual
systems (Sabelli 2001, Sabelli et al. 2003, Kiggins and
Uang 2006, Fahnestock et al. 2007b, Uriz and Mahin
2008, Ariyaratana and Fahnestock 2011, Erochko et
al. 2011). Evaluation of BRBFs using the FEMA P-695
methodology (FEMA 2009) demonstrated that the system
has acceptable margins against seismic collapse and
that the R and 0 values currently used for design are
appropriate (NIST 2010a, Chen and Mahin 2012).
2.2 Fundamentals of BRB Behavior

(c) Star Seismic CBFs with conventional steel braces are used extensively,
but their inelastic seismic response is largely dictated
Figure 2-1. Typical BRBs.
by brace buckling, which leads to strength and stiffness
degradation of the frame. Although BRBFs are concentric
6
in their configuration, their behavior is significantly behavior is illustrated in Figure 2-2, where the evolution
distinct from even SCBFs, the most ductile type of of cyclic behavior and the significant strain hardening
conventional CBF with buckling braces. response are evident. BRBs exhibit combined isotropic
and kinematic hardening, and they are typically slightly
To address and eliminate the undesirable structural stronger in compression than in tension due to Poisson
response associated with brace buckling, BRBs are expansion and friction at the interface between the
designed so that they can carry compressive axial force core and the restraining mechanism. Within the AISC
without buckling. As discussed above and shown in Seismic Provisions, BRB cyclic behavior including strain
Figure 1-2, this is accomplished by separating the axial hardening is quantified with the compression strength
load-carrying mechanism from the axial buckling- adjustment factor, b, and the strain hardening adjustment
restraining mechanism (buckling stiffness) of the brace. factor, w. These terms are defined and discussed in more
detail in the following section.
A steel core, which can have a variety of cross-sectional
shapes, such as flat plate, T-shaped, or cruciform, carries
the BRB axial force. The BRB core is manufactured with
several distinct regions along its length that enable stable
cyclic response. Like a tensile coupon, a BRB core has Pysc
BRB axial force

a yielding region with a reduced area in the center of
the length of the BRB. This approach ensures that the
inelastic response is restricted to the portion of the BRB
that is fully contained within the restraining mechanism.
The yielding region must have a constant cross-section Pysc
so that plastic strain is distributed uniformly along the
yielding length. In addition, the yielding length must
be selected so that excessive BRB strains do not lead to
core fracture. Outside the yielding region, the core cross- BRB axial deformation
sectional area increases in the transition regions. These
Figure 2-2. Typical BRB force-deformation behavior.
regions are partially contained within the restraining
mechanism but remain elastic even after the yielding
region has strain hardened. The connection regions at BRBs as Manufactured Items
each end of the BRB are reinforced to prevent localized
buckling and to facilitate bolted, welded, or pinned A BRB is a fabricated assembly, currently available
connections to the surrounding beams and columns in from a small group of manufacturers. BRBs are not
the braced frame. prefabricated and stockpiled with specific core plate
sizes, casing sizes, or brace lengths. Instead, each
Stiffness to prevent member buckling is typically provided BRB is custom-fabricated for each project, although
use of BRBs on a project does not require additional
by a concrete-filled tube. This restraining mechanism time in the construction schedule. For most design-
must be designed with adequate stiffness to prevent both bid-build projects, the design engineer is generally not
local and global buckling modes (Watanabe et al. 1988, involved in selecting the manufacturer responsible for
Black et al. 2002, Takeuchi et al. 2010 and 2012, Wu et al. fabrication of the BRBs, but rather, specifies critical
2014, Tsai et al. 2014). The core is decoupled axially from BRB performance parameters for the fabrication of the
the restraining mechanism, and a gap is provided between BRBs to allow competitive bidding by any manufacturer
(see Section 6). For design-build projects, the owner,
the core and the restraining mechanism to accommodate the general contractor, or even the design team
Poisson expansion of the core in compression as well as might select the BRB manufacturer. In such cases,
axial deformations in both tension and compression so the design engineer will have the benefit of working
that the restraining mechanism does not carry appreciable directly with one BRB manufacturer.
axial force at large deformation levels.
BRB yielding in compression as well as tension causes

BRBFs to exhibit ductile cyclic behavior with significant
energy dissipation. Typical BRB cyclic force-deformation
7
3. Principles for Design of BRBFs
BRBFs are proportioned using the fundamental The three fundamental steps in BRBF design are
philosophy that is the foundation for all ductile seismic as follows: (1) the BRBs are sized for ASCE 7 load
design: the BRBs are the yielding elements, which combinations, where the earthquake loads have been
are sized for a reduced seismic force level and are reduced using R; (2) inelastic design-level drift and
expected to undergo significant inelastic deformation BRB strain are checked to ensure compliance with
during a design-level earthquake, while all other ASCE 7 and AISC 341 (or more stringent project-specific
elements in the system are capacity-designed so that requirements); and (3) the adjusted brace strengths (BRB
they remain essentially elastic at the expected strength expected capacities accounting for strain hardening
of the BRBs. In the United States, ASCE 7 provides and compression overstrength at the expected drift)
the overarching seismic design framework within are determined and used to design beams, columns,
which AISC 341 operates. The ASCE 7 provisions and connections so that they remain essentially elastic.
specify essential system-independent criteria, seismic The first two steps are quite similar in principle to the
hazard level, redundancy requirements, limitations process used for other ductile seismic force-resisting
on analysis methodology, and irregularity conditions. systems. However, the coupling among story drift,
The provisions also specify system-specific design BRB strain, and strain-hardened BRB force is a unique
parameters: R, 0 , and Cd, and height limits. AISC 341 and critical aspect of BRBF design. The basic BRBF
contains the provisions relating to the design and detailing kinematic behavior shown in Figure 3-1 illustrates that,
of the individual members and connections within the under the assumption of small changes of angles, BRB
BRBF, as well as proportioning requirements to ensure axial deformation, D bx, equals D x cos(), where D x is the
the desired ductile behavior. design story drift and is the BRB angle of inclination
with respect to the horizontal. This can be alternately
The BRBF is the primary seismic force-resisting system expressed in terms of the brace work-point length, Lwp,
and must resist lateral forces and control deformations and the design story drift angle, qx or D x /hsx, where hsx
during a seismic event to maintain the stability of the is the story height, as D bx = qx Lwpsin(2). Then, defining
building. In ASCE 7, the BRBF system is assigned the Yield Length Ratio (YLR) as YLR = Ly /Lwp, where Ly
the largest response modification coefficient (R = 8), is the length of the yielding region of the BRB steel core
indicating that the system is expected to withstand with area Asc, and assuming that the beam is rigid and
large inelastic deformation demands yet maintain life that elastic deformations in the non-yielding region of the
safety and prevent collapse under the most severe BRB steel core are small, the strain in the BRB core, e sc,
seismic ground motion. The anticipated reliability of the can be expressed as:
structure under seismic loading is given in Table C.1.3.1b q sin2
of ASCE 7 and is not system-specific but does depend e sc = x (Equation 1)
2YLR
on the Risk Category of the structure.
L L/2 L/2
Dbx
Dx Dx Dbx
Lw
qx qx p
L wp
hsx
Figure 3-1. Basic BRBF kinematic behavior.
8
This relatively simple relationship is a useful tool for is then used for capacity design of the surrounding frame
designers because it allows for rapid estimation of elements. Both of these issues require representative
core strain demand and consideration of the effect of BRB test data, which are available from the BRB
varying key parameters, particularly YLR. To illustrate manufacturer, typically in the form of a backbone curve.
the usefulness of Equation 1, consider, for example, a Core strain calculations should be performed with the
brace with YLR = 0.5 and = 45 deg. For such a brace, racking (global frame shear deformation) component of
the equation shows that the BRB core strain is equal to story drift, which is directly related to BRB deformation.
the story drift angle. When evaluated for a 2 percent In taller frames and in the upper stories of frames with
design story drift ratio and a core with Fysc = 40 ksi, the significant overturning effects, column shortening and
design core strain demand is 14.5 times the yield strain, elongation produce global frame flexural deformation,
ey. The relationship between design strain demand and which leads to story drift that does not cause BRB
yield strain will vary for each brace based on the factors deformation.
in the equation. This example is not meant to establish
a typical relationship between e sc and ey. Futhermore, As can be seen from Equation 1, story drift, BRB core
the inverse relationship between strain and YLR in the strain, and YLR are interrelated, and BRB strength
equation means that for short yield lengths (small YLR), is also connected to these parameters through strain
large core strains will develop at relatively modest drifts, hardening. Per AISC 341, a BRB must be designed
which should be avoided or could otherwise lead to BRB and detailed (and also validated by prior testing) to
fracture. accommodate expected deformation, which can also be
expressed as core strain, e sc , where expected deformation
Estimation of core strain demand has two important corresponds to a story drift of 2 percent or twice the
implications in the design process: (1) core strain demand design story drift, whichever is larger. This expected
must be kept below the available strain capacity based deformation (or core strain) is then used to determine
on BRB qualification testing to ensure acceptable BRBF b and w from a qualification test data backbone curve.
performance, and (2) core strain demand is used to Figure 3-2 shows representative BRB cyclic test data,
calculate the associated strain-hardened core stress that along with the associated backbone curve. At expected
Cyclic test data

Backbone curve 1.5
w
1.0
Brace normalized axial force
0.5
-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
wb
Average brace strain (percent)
Figure 3-2. Conceptual BRB cyclic test data and backbone curve.
9
strain (deformation), the strain hardening adjustment
factor, w, is the ratio of the maximum tension force to
the measured tensile yield force. Similarly, at expected
strain, the compression strength adjustment factor,
b, is the ratio of the maximum compression force to
the maximum tension force. Stated differently, and as
illustrated in Figure 3-2, the product wb is equal to the
ratio of the maximum compression force to the measured
tensile yield force. These adjustment factors are then used
as part of the capacity design process for proportioning
the BRBF beams, columns, and connections so that
they remain essentially elastic and so that the inelastic
response is limited to the BRBs. The BRB adjustment
factors vary based on manufacturer, YLR, and other
detailing features, but ranges of typical values are 1.3 to
1.5 for w and 1.05 to 1.15 for b. In addition to backbone
data available directly from a particular manufacturer,
Saxey and Daniels (2014) have reviewed data from
numerous tests by CoreBrace, Nippon Steel, and Star
Seismic and have statistically developed equations for
design engineers to use to estimate values of w and b.
10
4. Guidance for Analysis of BRBFs
ASCE 7 defines the analysis procedures, modeling All other structural systems in ASCE 7 Table 12.8-2).
criteria, and other requirements that must be followed The difference between the values reflects that fact that
when analyzing the effects of seismic loading on the BRBF system generally is more flexible and thus
a given structure. For the analysis procedures in would have a larger natural period than CBFs.
particular, ASCE 7 provides three different options,
and ASCE 7 Table 12.6-1 lists the permitted analysis Like other CBFs, BRBFs are typically modeled with
procedures for different combinations of parameters, columns that are continuous over the frame height and
such as SDC, risk category, type of construction, with the idealizations that columns have pinned bases
height, and presence or absence of irregularities. and that beams and braces have pinned end connections.
The three analysis options are (1) Equivalent Lateral Although beam end connections do have the potential
Force (ELF) procedure per ASCE 7 12.8; (2) Modal for significant moment transfer, particularly when gusset
Response Spectrum Analysis (MRSA) procedure per plates are present to connect the BRBs to the column-
ASCE 7 12.9; and (3) Seismic Response History beam joints, the portion of story shear resisted by these
procedure per ASCE 7 Chapter 16, which contains both mechanisms is generally small in the elastic range. When
linear and nonlinear procedures. The ELF procedure elastic analysis is used to determine the fundamental
and MRSA procedure are most commonly applied to period and the forces and deformations in the BRBF
BRBF structures and are the focus of this discussion. members, it is reasonable to neglect frame behavior.
An important analysis consideration for the BRBF system

4.1 Elastic Analysis is modeling of the BRB elastic stiffness. As shown in
The ELF and MRSA procedures are both elastic analysis Figure 1-2, the BRB is a nonprismatic member that has
procedures that are based on seismic forces reduced by three primary regions that each must be considered to
the response modification coefficient, R, in accordance accurately determine its actual stiffness: yielding core
with ASCE 7. For certain elements beyond the BRBF region, transition region, and connection region. The
system (such as collectors), ASCE 7 and the IBC require analysis model needs to account for the actual BRB
design for amplified seismic loads by multiplying the stiffness, which is commonly accomplished with a
elastic results by the overstrength factor, 0 . Similarly, stiffness modification factor, KF, that is multiplied by
to determine the BRBF design displacements, the elastic the core area, Asc . When applied, KF will result in the
analysis deflection results are amplified to approximate elastic stiffness of the modeled prismatic truss element
inelastic response in accordance with ASCE 7 by matching the elastic stiffness of the actual nonprismatic
multiplying them by the deflection amplification factor, BRB element. The BRB stiffness modification factors
Cd. The appropriate values of R, 0 , and Cd applicable vary depending on the YLR and several other factors
to the BRBF system when using either the ELF or the related to BRB geometry, end connection detail, and
MRSA procedures are found in ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1. even manufacturer. Different types of BRBs will have
different stiffness modification factors, and multiple
Although the ELF procedure is the simplest to KF values may be needed for the BRBs in a building.
implement, ASCE 7 Table 12.6-1 does place limitations A reasonable range of KF is between 1.3 and 1.7. As
on its use. However, there are no limits on the use of the described in Section 6 of this Guide, close coordination
MRSA procedure. Furthermore, with the capabilities with the BRB manufacturer is needed to help the design
of todays commercial structural analysis software engineer understand the actual BRB stiffness and
platforms, the MRSA procedure may often require little determine the appropriate stiffness modification factor(s)
additional time and effort over the ELF procedure. For to use in analysis and design. BRB manufacturers provide
BRBF systems, especially in taller buildings, the MRSA convenient designs aids for accurately estimating the KF
procedure will typically provide more economical frame values for a given project. In addition, directly modeling
designs than the simpler ELF procedure. When the ELF the BRB core as a nonprismatic member is a viable
procedure is used, the BRBF system is assigned Ct = 0.03 alternative for capturing the correct BRB elastic stiffness.
in ASCE 7 for calculating the approximate fundamental
period of the structure, distinct from the value of 0.02 A tolerance on the KF value(s) needs to be specified
assigned to conventional CBF systems (considered as to effectively account for maximum BRB forces that
are based on expected deformations of the BRBs,
11
deformations which in turn are based on the KF value(s) unusual and/or irregular configurations need to be
used. The AISC Seismic Design Manual (AISC 2012) justified. Whereas the ELF and MRSA procedures use
provides the following guidance on the issue: elastic analysis to estimate inelastic response, the NRHA
procedure directly considers inelasticity and second-order
Designers should not perform bounding analyses effects in the analysis and therefore provides a more
or otherwise place undue emphasis on the effects accurate assessment of story drift, BRB strains, and
of variability [of elastic stiffness and yield strength] forces and moments in beams, columms, and connections.
beyond accounting for maximum brace forces in The benefits of using NRHA include the following:
the design of connections, beams and columns.
Such variability in stiffness is routinely (and justly) Observing and mitigating undesirable concentrations
neglected in the seismic design of many systems of drift in a single story or a limited number of stories.
and is minimal in the context of the use of elastic
methods to represent inelastic response. Allowing greater flexibility to use system configurations
that are not permissible when elastic analysis methods
The main point of the AISC Seismic Design Manual are employed.
guidance is that the design engineer need not perform
endless iterative parametric studies considering numerous Directly quantifying story drift and BRB strain
permutations seeking to determine a precise acceptable demands, which will typically be smaller than the
tolerance for the KF value(s). Instead, the design estimates of strain made by amplifying elastic analysis
engineer is encouraged to consider and understand the results. Smaller BRB strain demands result in less
general sensitivity of the modeling results to variations strain hardening and reduction of BRB forces that are
in BRB stiffness and arrive at a reasonable tolerance. used in designing beams, columns, and connections.
Current practice commonly allows for approximately
Assessing BRB cumulative ductility demand directly.
+/- 10 percent tolerance in BRB stiffness accounting for
Although BRBs have large cumulative ductility capacity
variation in KF values and Asc. The design engineer needs
and are expected to be capable of sustaining multiple
to determine an acceptable tolerance for the KF value(s)
large earthquakes without fracture (Fahnestock et
based on the specific conditions of the given project.
al. 2003), some special scenarios may require direct
consideration of cumulative ductility demand.
Understanding Tolerance on BRB Stiffness
For accurate inelastic analysis, the following are
When determining an acceptable tolerance for recommended:
KF values, the design engineer should consider
the effect of variations of BRB stiffness on global Nonlinear truss or frame elements should be used
building response rather than on local response. If to model BRBs. BRBs have relatively simple cyclic
all of the actual BRBs have greater stiffness than response: elastic-plastic with strain hardening and
used in the analysis, the building will have a shorter
fundamental period and the design engineer needs
no strength or stiffness degradation for well-detailed
to consider whether this results in an increased configurations. This response can be represented with
design base shear and higher BRB design forces. reasonable accuracy using commercial structural
If all of the actual BRBs have less stiffness than analysis platforms. BRB cyclic test data should be used
used in the analysis, the building will have a longer as the basis for the numerical model, with particular
fundamental period and will be more flexible. In this attention given to modeling strain hardening in the
case, the design engineer needs to consider whether
BRB so that the cyclic response matches representative
this results in a decreased design base shear and/or
results in increased lateral story drifts. BRB experimental data. Calibration of hardening
parameters to cyclic experimental data is critical
because calibration to a backbone curve will not provide
4.2 Inelastic Analysis a reasonable model. Commercial structural analysis
platforms used in design offices contain a variety of
Although not commonly used in typical BRBF designs, options for modeling steel hardening behavior, so a
Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NRHA) is a careful assessment of the BRB modeling approach
valuable inelastic analysis tool for performance-based is required to ensure reasonable response over the
projects, when increased economy is desired, or when full range of behavior. For example, when kinematic
hardening is used to model inelastic BRB behavior,
12
the model will harden continuously and may ascribe
unrealistically large force levels to BRBs at large Nonlinear Static Analysis
deformations if an inappropriate post-yield stiffness is
In addition to these three analysis procedures defined
used. This overestimation of BRB hardening can lead
in ASCE 7, nonlinear static analysis can also be a
to unnecessarily large connection design forces but valuable tool in the BRBF design process. Nonlinear
can also lead to unrealistic BRB strength and stiffness static analysis is discussed extensively in ASCE/SEI 41
that may cause understated drift demands and overly (ASCE 2014), and although ASCE/SEI 41 was written
optimistic collapse capacity. as a guide for seismic retrofit projects, it is commonly
used as a guide when employing nonlinear static
Nonlinear frame elements should be used to model analysis to assess new building design. The nonlinear
beams and columns. In particular, inelastic column static analysis procedure should follow the same
behavior will be important when significant differences inelastic analysis guidelines provided for the Nonlinear
Response History Analysis (NRHA) procedure. The
in story drifts develop between adjacent stories. nonlinear static analysis procedure is simpler than
Although beams and columns in BRBFs are designed the NRHA procedure because it uses monotonic
to remain nominally elastic, actual inelastic seismic static loading and does not require design ground
demands will not match the force distribution(s) used motion development and time-stepping integration
in design, and yielding may occur outside the BRBs of the governing equations of motion. However, by
in the surrounding frame. considering only a few lateral load patterns, the
nonlinear static procedure still provides significant
Connections should accurately represent the actual insight into the inelastic response of the BRBF system.
For example, the nonlinear static procedure can identify
conditions in the BRBF, with consideration for the
distribution of inelastic demand over the height of the
relatively high stiffness provided at beam-column frame, expose potential story mechanisms, provide
connections with gusset plates. In cases where drift demands for use in capacity design of the frame, and
concentrates in a single story, the frame action allow for comparison with nonlinear response of other
provided by columns and attached beams will be seismic force-resisting systems.
significant and should be captured in the model. The
high stiffness of the beam-column connections with
gusset plates means that nonlinear column panel zone
behavior is unlikely, and panel zone regions may be BRBFs in Retrofit Applications
modeled with rigid offsets.
Although the focus of this Guide is on the design
Although not unique to BRBFs, the global destabilizing of new buildings, BRBFs can also be effectively
implemented in retrofit applications, particularly
effects of the gravity system must be included in the
because the stiffness and strength can often be tuned
model. These effects can be captured by including to the needs of the given existing building. Depending
gravity columns, which carry the tributary seismic on the governing code or other regulations in the
mass for the modeled BRBF, in parallel with the jurisdiction of the given retrofit project, BRBFs in a
BRBF. Thus, as lateral displacement occurs during retrofit may still need to be designed using the ASCE 7
the analysis, P-Delta effects will amplify demands on and AISC 341 provisions for new construction. In
the BRBF. other cases, as when nonlinear analysis is used,
ASCE/SEI 41 provisions might be allowed. ASCE/
Design engineers considering the NRHA procedure SEI 41-13 is the first version to contain modeling
parameters and acceptance criteria for BRBFs. Prior
should consult relevant literature for guidance on to this version, design engineers developed project-
modeling procedures, including the NEHRP Seismic specific parameters and criteria with the assistance of
Design Technical Brief Nonlinear Structural Analysis the project peer reviewer, using appropriate project-
for Seismic Design (NIST 2010b). Several references specific data from a BRB manufacturer. Even with
that discuss NRHA of BRBFs in more detail include: general parameters and criteria now given in ASCE/
Sabelli et al. (2003), Tremblay and Poncet (2004), SEI 41-13, design engineers should engage with a
peer reviewer to determine if those parameters and
Fahnestock et al. (2003, 2006, 2007b), Uriz and Mahin criteria are appropriate for the particular project.
(2008), and Jones and Zareian (2013). In addition,
rigorous development of site-specific ground motions
and external peer review of the design are critical steps
when using the NRHA procedure.
13
5. Guidance for Design of BRBFs
As discussed, proper application of the BRBF provisions publications (Lpez and Sabelli 2004, AISC 2012), this
in AISC 341 should result in a design in which the Guide only provides additional background and guidance
earthquake-induced inelastic deformations are largely regarding the current state of the practice. Section 5
borne by the BRBs while all other elements of the presents a basic design procedure and other items for
seismic force-resisting system remain nominally elastic consideration specifically by the design engineer, whereas
at the load effects associated with yielded and strain- Section 6 provides discussion of design topics related to
hardened BRBs (the adjusted brace strength). Because coordination between the design engineer and the BRB
step-by-step design of BRBFs has been covered in other manufacturer.
1. Perform Analyses (Compute T, V, etc)
2. Size BRBs
3. Check compliance with ASCE 7
ASCE 7
No, iterate Requirements met?
4. Iterate and finalize BRB sizing
Yes, continue
5. Calculate expected BRB

deformations
6. Show that the BRBs meet

performance requirements
7. Calculate adjustment factors and

adjusted BRB strengths
8. Continue design with adjusted BRB

strengths as amplified seismic load
Compare T, V
Significant difference, go to 1
to values from 1
No reasonable differences, end
Figure 5-1. Flowchart for design of BRBFs.
14
5.1 Basic Design Procedure unnecessarily oversize BRBs, both for economy and
performance. This is usually achieved by increasing
Figure 5-1 presents the basic design procedure for core plate areas in 1/4 square inch to 1/2 square inch
BRBFs. BRBF design is analogous to design of other increments for smaller BRBs and in 1 square inch to 2
high ductility fuse-based structural systems in that square inch increments for larger BRBs. The number
the design process can be simplified into three basic of sizes used for a given project is a balance between
concepts: (1) design the ductile yielding elements (the demand capacity ratio efficiency and economy of
fuses) for a reduced seismic force, (2) check the inelastic repetition at the judgement of the design engineer. At
deformation of the ductile elements against acceptable this stage, BRB connections should be preliminarily
limits, and (3) design the remainder of the system considered in terms of basic type, size, or both, since
for the expected capacity of the ductile elements. For they will affect BRB stiffness and strength adjustment
example, the primary concepts for EBF design are: (1) factors.
the link beams (the fuses) are proportioned for demands
from loads reduced by the R coefficient; (2) inelastic 3. Check compliance with ASCE 7 requirements. After
deformations, concentrated within the link beams, are sizing BRBs, perform checks of all ASCE 7 global
checked to meet acceptable limits; (3) using a capacity- requirements such as story drift ratios, global stability,
based design approach, the link beam strengths are used and irregularity. Satisfying these requirements may
to proportion the connections, braces, beam outside the involve several iterations of BRB sizing, frame
link, columns, and column bases. Likewise for BRBFs, placement, or frame configuration. For the same bay
the fundamental design concepts are: (1) the BRBs geometry and brace configuration, a BRBF will have
(the fuses) are proportioned for demands from loads a lower lateral stiffness than an SCBF, and thus BRBF
reduced by the R coefficient; (2) inelastic deformations, designs may be governed by limits on global lateral
concentrated within the yielding core of the BRB, are displacements, relative story drift ratios, and torsional
checked to meet acceptable limits; (3) using a capacity- irregularity. Therefore, drift and displacement should
based design approach, the connections, frame beams, be considered earlier in the design process for a BRBF
frame columns, and column bases are designed for the than for an OCBF or SCBF design.
adjusted BRB strengths.
4. Iterate and finalize BRB sizing. Iterate through steps 2
The following steps diagrammed in Figure 5 -1 and 3 as necessary until resizing of BRBs is no longer
summarize the process required by the integrated needed. Coordination with the BRB manufacturer
requirements of ASCE 7 and AISC 341: is important to validate the values selected for KF,
w, and b to this point in the process. Upon closing
1. Perform analyses. Build an analysis model that is the iteration, the strength portion of BRB sizing is
consistent with the guidelines defined in Section 4 complete.
of this Guide. In order to properly model the BRBs,
a preliminary value for KF will need to be selected 5. Calculate expected BRB deformations. Section 3
with input from the BRB manufacturer or other of this Guide provides a discussion of one method
resources as discussed. Likewise, values of w and b to determine expected BRB deformations given
will need to be estimated as discussed in Section 3 in that certain parameters of the brace are known
order to determine initial sizing of the BRBF beams (particularly YLR). Step-by-step procedures for
and columns. The values of KF, w, and b will be calculating the expected BRB deformations are
validated later and not need to be overly precise for also in AISC (2012) and Lpez and Sabelli (2004).
the initial analysis. The latter reference is based on the requirements
from AISC 341-05, and the check on expected BRB
2. Size BRBs. From the required strengths obtained from deformations has been modified in AISC 341-10. Per
the analysis model, size each BRB such that its design AISC 341-10 F4.2, the expected brace deformations
strength exceeds the calculated required strength. are those corresponding to the larger of 2 percent of
Core plates are generally fabricated from ASTM A36 the story height or two times the design story drift
steel and BRBs sizes should be based on an Fysc in (where the design story drift is Cd times the elastic
the range of of 38-46 ksi. In general, it is best not to drift as given in ASCE 7).
15
6. Show that the BRBs meet performance requirements. in tension, two different sets of adjusted strengths
The design engineer now has enough information to apply for design of BRBF elements, depending
define two of the required BRB parameters: BRB size on the BRB orientation and load direction. Per
and BRB deformations. A BRB with a specific end AISC 341, connection designs must account for
connection can now be selected from the various types the effects of 1.1 times the adjusted brace strength
offered by the different manufacturers. To demonstrate in compression. Additionally, the BRBF beam and
compliance with AISC 341, the selected BRB must column members must comply with the prescriptive
have been successfully tested to the expected BRB detailing requirements of AISC 341. These detailing
deformations for a similar size for each BRB used requirements apply to all systems listed in AISC 341
on the project, within the similarity requirements and are not specific to BRBFs. Once the required
specified in AISC 341 K3. Both strength and strengths are computed for the appropriate load
deformation requirements must be met for the tests combinations, perform calculations and generate
of a BRB type to have demonstrated conformance. details to ensure that all other elements of the seismic
This assures that the BRBs selected for the project are force-resisting system have design strengths, Rn ,
similar in size and deformation capability to BRBs that greater than the calculated required strengths, Ru .
have successfully demonstrated cyclic deformations Final connection design may also affect the BRB
under appropriate test conditions. stiffness (the final core length and resulting stiffness
modification factor) and strength adjustment factors.
There are at least two potential solutions for Thus, iteration may be required.
cases where the selected BRB cannot satisfy the
requirements of AISC 341 K3: (1) portions of the
Design of BRBFs for Out-of-Plane Loading
seismic force-resisting system can be redesigned
by adding more frames, changing the frame layout The weight of a BRB along its length is comparable to
or adjusting BRB sizes, (2) project-specific BRB that of a heavy W section, and in certain conditions,
testing can be done to qualify BRBs for the expected a BRBs size or length is large enough that its out-
deformations. When calculating BRB deformations, of-plane inertial seismic force is substantial. In most
building applications, a structural diaphragm is present
consideration of beam, column, and gusset plate
and can be detailed to provide out-of-plane stability to
sizes are critical because they affect the BRB yield BRBF beams and columns at brace-beam and brace-
length, which should be maximized. beam-column intersections. Where such a diaphragm
is not present, the BRBF beams and columns must
7. Calculate adjustment factors and adjusted BRB be designed to have adequate stiffness, strength, and
strengths. After a BRB with a specific end connection stability to resist the out-of-plane seismic forces from
is chosen, the strain hardening adjustment factor the BRBs.
and compression strength adjustment factor are
determined using the BRB backbone curve provided
by the BRB manufacturer, as illustrated in Figure 5.2 Frame Layout and Configuration
3-2. These adjustment factors are used to calculate the Considerations
adjusted BRB strengths. The design engineer should
examine the backbone curve received, ensuring that it When designing BRBFs, the design engineer is called
corresponds to qualifying tests and that it is applicable upon to coordinate with the architect and others regarding
to project conditions. the location and configuration of BRBFs. This type of
coordination is routine for any structural system. Because
8. Continue design with adjusted brace strengths as BRBs can be easily economized by design engineers to
amplified seismic load. The adjusted brace strengths efficiently provide strength to match demand, the sizing
in tension and in compression computed in Step 7 are of BRBs during the earliest stages of design can often
used as the amplified seismic load in the applicable indicate that fewer BRBs are required compared to
load combinations for the design of the remaining conventional CBFs. However, the economic benefits of
components of the frame, such as the frame beams, fewer braces need to be considered alongside the negative
frame columns, brace connections, and column bases. effects of less redundancy, higher design forces for
Because the adjusted brace strength in compression collectors and foundation elements, and possibly higher
is times greater than the adjusted brace strength story drifts and therefore higher strength adjustment
16
(a) Inverted V-bracing (b) V-bracing (c) Diagonal bracing (d) Diagonal bracing (e) Multistory X- bracing
(a) Inverted V-bracing (b) V-bracing (c) Diagonal bracing (d) Diagonal bracing (a) Multistory X-bracing
(chevron)
(Chevron) (same
(samedirection)
direction) (zig-zag)
(Zig-zag)
Figure 5-2. Examples of BRBF configurations.
factors. Furthermore, care should be taken in distributing the ability to carefully choose the steel core area that
frames in plan to minimize the negative effects of is needed and to minimize system overstrength. When
torsional response. sizing BRBs along the height of a frame, it is desirable
to increase the size of the BRBs from smallest at the
In terms of frame configuration and BRB orientations, roof to largest at the base, at least maintaining similar
greater latitude is given to BRBFs compared to other demand-to-capacity ratios, to achieve distribution of
CBFs because BRBFs mitigate the consequences of the yielding in multiple stories. Although not a specific
brace buckling. Figure 5-2 shows examples of BRBF code requirement, good seismic design philosophy
configurations. In multistory buildings, stacked would lead a design engineer to continually increase the
inverted-V (chevron) and V configurations of BRBFs story strength from the roof to the base. Consider, for
are common. The beam in a stacked inverted-V and in example, the case where two adjacent stories have the
a V configuration needs to be sized for the unbalanced same story strength. As expected, the lower story has a
loading. However, the difference in axial forces larger shear demand than the upper story. Because both
between BRB tension and compression, when yielded stories have the same story strength, the lower story will
and strain-hardened, does not generate unbalanced undergo more ductility demand than the upper story.
vertical loads as large as if the system were an SCBF. More importantly, not paying attention to the vertical
The adjusted compressive brace strength of a BRB distribution of BRB sizing may result in the creation of
is larger than (or at least equal to) its tensile adjusted a weak story where an upper story is adjacent to a taller
brace strength. Therefore, the beam in an inverted-V lower story or where an upper story with inverted-V or
frame configuration has an unbalanced vertical load V configurations is adjacent to a lower story with single
counteracting gravity loads. Generally, multistory X diagonals. Furthermore, the use of a back-up frame
configurations, Figure 5-2(e), are preferred because (beam-column moment connections) and a dual system,
they offer advantages by minimizing both unbalanced or both, will enhance the resistance to the formation of
vertical loading and axial loads to the frame beams and a story mechanism.
by providing opportunity to better distribute yielding
across multiple stories. Single diagonals in the same 5.4 Connection Considerations
direction along the same line are permitted by the code
for BRBFs. In multistory applications, arranging single For BRBFs, there are three types of connections within
diagonals in a zig-zag configuration minimizes axial the frame to consider: (1) connection of the BRB to
loads in frame beams. the gusset plate, (2) connection of the beam to column
(including gusset plates), and (3) connection of the column
5.3 Preventing Story Mechanisms to base plate.
Compared to conventional CBF designs, BRBFs have AISC 341 requires BRBF gusset plates to be designed
lower initial stiffness and reduced post-yield stiffness for 1.1 times the adjusted brace strength in compression.
and therefore may be more susceptible to the formation of BRBF gusset plates are not intended to develop a hinge
story mechanisms. Although the possible formation of a zone the way SCBF gusset plates are detailed to develop.
story mechanism is not unique to BRBFs, story strengths In SCBFs, gusset plate hinging is part of the brace buckling
are more easily tuned in BRBFs than in other seismic mechanism, but in BRBFs, the design objective is to limit
force-resisting systems because the design engineer has the inelastic deformation to the BRB cores. General
17
principles for design of gusset plates are discussed in
AISC Design Guide 29 (Muir and Thornton 2015). As
noted by Muir and Thornton, additional nonnegligible
frame action demands develop in braced frames when
the story drifts become large. As a result, the design and
detailing of the BRBF beam-column connection needs to
be adequate for the expected demands (Lin et al. 2015).
Column bases need to be designed for the maximum

axial compressive and axial tensile loads to which the
column will be subjected, including the effect of BRBs
attached directly to column bases. Per AISC 341 F4.3,
these loads are determined assuming that the forces in
all BRBs correspond to their adjusted brace strengths in
tension and compression to ensure a complete load path
from the top of the BRBF to the foundation. Included in
the definition of column bases are the column-to-base
welds, the base plate, and the anchor rods. Although not
explicitly required by codes, the concrete foundation
receiving the anchor rods and providing bearing support
to the base plate should also have a design strength greater
than the required axial strength of the column base. If
the foundation were to be designed to a lower strength,
although allowed by code, it would imply that the
foundation would have to undergo inelastic deformations,
which would not align with the AISC 341 intent that
inelastic deformations occur primarily in the BRBs. If the
best practice approach of designing the foundations for
the strength of the column bases is adopted, reinforcing
bars in those foundations need not comply with ductile
detailing requirements, because inelastic deformations
are not anticipated.
18
6. BRBF Design and Fabrication Coordination
As a per for ma nce -specif ied item, BR BFs a re 1. The required area of the steel core, Asc , and any
characterized by special considerations that are unique allowable tolerances in meeting such value.
to its design compared to other seismic force-resisting
systems. During the design phase, there are certain 2. The required yield stress of the steel core, Fysc, to be
performance decisions made by the design engineer validated by coupon testing of the actual material to
regarding material strength, ductility demand, casing be used by the BRB manufacturer, and any allowable
size, and other items that need to be communicated tolerances in meeting such value.
to and coordinated with the BRB manufacturer to
ensure that the fabricated product will meet the design 3. The BRB required axial strength; further specify
intent for the BRBF. In addition, it is becoming more whether it represents a Load and Resistance Factor
common in the United States for BRB manufacturers Design (LRFD) or an Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
to provide design assistance that extends beyond value.
the out-to-out dimensions of the BRBs. Therefore,
4. The stiffness modification factor(s), KF, used in the
construction documents need to communicate not
analyses and any allowable tolerances in meeting
only BRB performance requirements but also the
such value(s).
design scope, if any, delegated by the design engineer
to the BRB manufacturers engineer. Only the project 5. The expected BRB deformations to which BRBs are
Engineer of Record (EOR) can delegate scope as the to be designed and for which the BRB supplier is to
licensed professional responsible for sealing the contract demonstrate compliance with the testing requirements
documents. For some projects, the EOR and the design of AISC 341 K3.
engineer may be the same person, although in most cases
the design engineer is under the responsible charge of 6. The maximum permissible strain-hardening adjustment
the EOR. The discussion that follows emulates Section factor, w, and the BRB deformation at which the factor
3 of the Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings is to be calculated (see item 5).
and Bridges (AISC 2010c) and is supplementary to the
requirements of AISC 341 A4.1 and A4.2. 7. The maximum permissible compression strength
adjustment factor, b, and the BRB deformation at
BRB manufacturers and practicing engineers have which the factor is to be calculated (see item 5).
collaborated to give design engineers guidance
regarding how to effectively specify and coordinate 8. The type of BRB end connection(s) allowed. If a
BRB design and detailing parameters (Robinson and specific end-connection or configuration is not allowed
Black 2011; Robinson et. al. 2012). A BRB cannot be because of aesthetic or performance issues, such
fabricated with zero tolerances from specified values, restriction should be noted.
and the design engineer should also want to allow for
differences between manufacturers or BRB types. 9. The maximum permissible casing size and the casing
Therefore the design engineer is strongly encouraged to shape agreed upon between the design engineer and
contact at least one BRB manufacturer to understand the project design team. If there are no requirements on
level of tolerance needed for BRB stiffness and strength casing size and shape, documents should so state,
parameters for the design of a given project. To quantify because there is a potential for more economical
the performance of a BRB, it is reasonable to expect that designs if the BRB manufacturer is allowed to execute
design documents would define the nine items described its casing design unencumbered by constraints.
below for each BRB, including acknowledgment of the
Items 1 through 3 of the preceding list are interrelated
tolerances acceptable to maintain the design intent. (See
when sizing BRBs, for which there are two methods
also Figure 6-1).
commonly used by design engineers. The first method
is characterized by keeping Asc fixed while allowing Fysc
to vary within permissible tolerances. Since Asc does not
vary, Asc must be sized for the lowest Fysc allowed within
the specified tolerances. This first method allows for more
19
DESIGN DOCUMENTS BRB MANUFACTURER
1. Asc (tolerances)
For use in the generation of
BRB fabrication drawings
2. Fysc (tolerances) Manufacturer confirms
Asc , Fysc , Pysc ,
3. BRB required axial strength, requirements can be met
LRFD or ASD value
Pysc (tolerances)
4. KF assumed in analyses KF corresponding to

(tolerances) projects conditions
No, adjust KF required.

Re-analyze only if KF within tolerances?
needed; see Section 4.1
Yes, no further action
Qualifying tests should include

5. Expected BRB deformations data up to expected deformations
6. & 7. Maximum permissible w, b From qualifying tests. Manufacturer

at expected deformations provides backbone curve, w and b
No, adjust permissible w, b. w, b less than

Re-analysis required permissible?
Yes, no further action
8. Type of BRB end connection, Manufacturer confirms

9. Permissible casing size requirements can be met
Figure 6-1. Flowchart for design and fabrication coordination (with arrows indicating the direction of the flow of
information from the design engineer to and from the BRB manufacturer.)
20
control of the calculated interstory drifts but may result in
larger forces for all other members of the seismic force- BRB Connection Design and Coordination
resisting system, because the maximum Fysc allowed is In parts of the western United States, it is common
applied to a fixed Asc as part of the BRB expected strength practice for the Engineer of Record (EOR) to fully
calculation. The second method is characterized by develop the design and details for the connections
minimizing overdesign in the brace design axial strength, associated with the seismic force-resisting system. In
the case of BRBFs, that would imply that connection
Pysc. The BRB manufacturer is allowed to adjust Asc as components such as gusset plates, welds, and bolts
Fysc varies within tolerances, based on coupon testing of would be shown on the EORs design drawings. On
the actual core plate material, such that Pysc is as close some projects, BRB manufacturers have helped the
to Pu as possible. The axial forces in all other members of EOR by providing the design for the gusset connections.
the seismic force-resisting system are potentially smaller Authorities having jurisdiction over the issuance of
than those corresponding to the first method. However, building permits for BRBF projects generally have not
had any objection to engineers other than the EOR
the design engineer needs to establish reasonable limits
designing the gusset connections. As long as the gusset
on the variability of Asc to avoid having to recheck base design is performed under the responsible charge of
shear and drift calculations after receipt of BRB shop the EOR, who also complies with all ethical, code of
drawings with the final Asc values. A hybrid of these conduct, and licensing regulations of the jurisdiction
two methods has been successfully implemented by in which he/she practices, the codes do not mandate
design engineers with prior BRBF experience working that the gusset designer needs to be an employee of
the EOR.
in close collaboration with the BRB manufacturer to
maintain minimum stiffness and strength, minimize Although there is general agreement that the gusset
BRB overstrength, and still allow for efficient detailing connections can be designed by the BRB manufacturer
and fabrication practices. as long as the EOR maintains overall responsibility,
there is no agreement as to when such designs should
While conducting analyses, the design engineer needs to appear in the contract documents. Jurisdictions seem to
use appropriate values of the BRB stiffness modification be split in allowing the design of the gusset connections
to be a deferred approval item. This Guide recommends
factors, KF, in the analysis model. These factors are
that gusset connection detailing appear in the drawings
manufacturer-specific and depend on BRB sizes, lengths, prior to securing a building permit and not be a deferred
configuration (single diagonal vs. chevron), YLR, end- approval item. Arguments for the gusset connection
connection type, and other parameters. The stiffness design to be a deferred approval item appear to be about
factors used in the analyses need to be representative competitiveness in the marketplace. One argument
of what can be furnished by any BRB manufacturer, against a deferred approval of the gusset connection
design is that KF, BRB strains, and BRB adjustment
and the design engineer should coordinate with the
factors are affected by the length of the gussets. A
BRB manufacturer on the appropriate values to use. second argument against a deferred approval of the
Acceptable tolerances must be considered and specified. gusset connection design is that BRBF behavior is
Refer to Section 4.1 above for guidance regarding affected by the length of the gussets. The seismic
acceptable tolerance on BRB elastic stiffness. response of a frame beam or frame column may change
from a flexure-governed response to a shear-governed
The expected BRB deformation is one of the most response depending on the interaction between story
important performance parameters to define. Such heights, bay lengths, and gusset lengths. A third
argument against a deferred approval of the gusset
deformation is the minimum deformation to which
connection is that frame beams and columns could be
BRBs must have been subjected in qualifying tests. At subject to revision once the design of the connection is
such deformation, the values of w and b are determined finalized and the design engineer reviews the applicable
and are to be used for design of all other elements of the requirements of AISC 360 J10. If the gusset design
seismic force-resisting system. The design engineer needs is not known until after the building permit is granted,
to clearly define this deformation value in the design assurances need to be in place that adequate values of
documents such that there is no ambiguity as to what kind KF were used, BRB strains are within qualified ranges,
beams and columns have been designed to adequate
of performance is expected of the BRBs on the project. force levels, and the response of beams and columns
At this deformation, qualifying tests should show stable is aligned with the response assumed in the analysis.
hysteretic loops, and the observed behavior of the BRB For these reasons, it is considered preferred practice
should show no sign of buckling, binding, instability, or to include the detailing of the gusset connections in the
other detrimental characteristics. contract documents prior to obtaining a building permit.
21
The remaining important parameters in the coordination
between design engineer and BRB manufacturer are the
BRB end connection type, casing shape, and maximum
allowed casing size. The BRB end connection type is
sometimes specified or limited based on aesthetic reasons
when the BRBs are exposed. Sometimes the connection
type is dictated by performance requirements. A pin-
ended BRB is preferred by some design engineers at
steep-angle conditions to avoid large flexural demands
at expected interstory drift ratios. The casing shape and
maximum casing size are often chosen to satisfy the
buildings space planning and functional needs. The
design engineer must coordinate casing shape and size
to validate that the basis of design can be furnished by
the BRB manufacturer.
22
7. Future Developments
7.1 Enhanced Seismic Stability and Beyond the basic BRBF design provisions, several options
Residual Drift Control have been proposed for preventing concentration of drift
in a single story. A hybrid BRB has been studied, which
As currently used, BRBFs exhibit good ductility and uses different grades of steel in the BRB core (Atlayan
energy dissipation capability. Additional enhancements 2013, Atlayan and Charney 2014). This modification
are possible through modifications in BRB and system is intended to provide a wider region of controlled
configuration. BRBFs may concentrate drift in one yielding in the BRBs so that positive global stiffness is
story because BRB yielding in a given story can cause maintained up to higher drift levels. Similarly, positive
the stiffness of that story to drop, perhaps significantly. global stiffness can be maintained by using a dual system
This drift concentration is undesirable because it could that provides secondary stiffnessafter the BRBs have
lead to global instability caused by P-Delta effects, or it yieldedwith parallel special moment-resisting frames
could cause potentially problematic residual drift. There (Kiggins and Uang 2006, Ariyaratana and Fahnestock
are currently no specific U.S. provisions to address 2011). This BRBF-SMRF configuration, which is shown
this concern. However, Canadian design provisions for schematically in Figure 7-1(a), is included as an option
BRBFs, which are otherwise similar to U.S. provisions, in ASCE 7 and places the two components of the dual
have an additional column design requirement. CSA S16 system in parallel. As shown in Figure 7-1(b), another
(CSA 2014) requires BRBF columns to be designed to type of BRBF dual system has also been proposed. This
resist axial forces from analysis using expected BRB dual system configuration uses an elastic truss spine
capacity plus minimum additional bending moments with BRBs (Tremblay 2003, Tremblay and Merzouq
induced by nonuniform drifts developing in adjacent 2004a and 2004b). The elastic truss that spans over the
stories. These moments are approximated as 20 percent height of the building causes BRB yielding to occur
of the column plastic moment strength. over multiple stories and prevents concentration of drift
in one story.
BRB SMRF BRB
Gravity frame Elastic truss

(a) BRBF-SMRF (b) BRBF with elastic truss
(adapted from Tremblay and Poncet 2004)
Figure 7-1. Schematic BRBF dual system configurations.
23
7.2 Novel BRB Configurations because they are one of the more straightforward seismic
force-resisting systems to model for nonlinear analysis
In addition to the dual system configurations presented procedures commonly used for performance-based
above, BRBs may be used in other novel configurations design and because they can be tailored for different
that have not been incorporated into current design performance objectives at different seismic hazard
provisions. One class of application strategically positions levels. As performance-based seismic design becomes
BRBs in locations and orientations that leverage global more common, the application for BRBFs is expected to
flexural building deformations to produce axial BRB grow, particularly for taller structures and buildings of
deformations. Figure 7-2a illustrates a configuration high importance or in need of high performance. The
where BRBs are used in place of columns at the base of enhancements and novel applications discussed in the
a taller braced frame. In this case, the braced frame uses previous sections provide additional system configurations
conventional steel braces in the remainder of the frame that expand the range of options for consideration in the
and focuses the inelastic response and energy dissipation performance-based design process. In addition, these
at the base of the frame in the BRBs. Similarly, Figure enhancements relate to system parameters and response
7-2b illustrates a configuration where BRBs are used as quantities, such as post-yield stiffness and residual drift,
energy dissipating outriggers in a tall building system. which are not directly considered in the current code-
In this case, the primary seismic force-resisting system based design framework. Performance-based seismic
is a steel special plate shear wall, and the BRBs are used design provides more flexibility to the design engineer in
for supplementary energy dissipation. There is a wide proportioning a seismic force-resisting system. BRBFs
range of related opportunities for incorporating BRBs as employed in a hybrid or dual configuration or BRBs
supplementary energy dissipation devices, including the employed in more novel arrangements as fuses with other
approach employed in Japan where BRBs are metallic systems can be adapted through choice of a variety of
yielding dampers used within moment-resisting frames, parameters to achieve desired performance objectives.
BRB fuses are used as horizontal diaphragm collectors,
Regular gravity-
and diagonal BRB struts are placed outside a building as resisting structural
a retrofit solution for a deficient seismic force-resisting system
system.
7.3 Performance-based Seismic Design
Although performance-based seismic design is a broader

topic than BRBFs, it is of particular relevance to BRBFs Primary lateral force-
resisting system
Outrigger
column
BRBs in
outrigger frame
Outrigger
frame
Buckling-restrained Gravity-resisting
deniartser-gnilkcbrace
uB structural system
ecarb
Special steel plate

shear wall
(a) Interior vertically-oriented BRBs at base of frame (b) Exterior outrigger BRBs
(Bruneau et al. 2011)
Figure 7-2. Novel BRB configurations.
24
8. References
AISC (2005). Seismic provisions for structural steel Berman, J. W., and Bruneau, M. (2009). Cyclic
buildings, (ANSI/AISC 341-05), American Institute of testing of a buckling-restrained braced frame with
Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. unconstrained gusset connections, Journal of
Structural Engineering, 135 (12), pp. 1499-1510.
AISC (2010a). Seismic provisions for structural steel
buildings, (ANSI/AISC 341-10), American Institute of Black, C. J., Makris N., and Aiken I. D. (2002).
Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. Component testing, stability analysis and
characterization of buckling-restrained unbonded
AISC (2010b). Specification for structural steel buildings, braces, Technical Report PEER 2002/08, Pacific
(ANSI/AISC 360-10), American Institute of Steel Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
Construction, Chicago, IL. of California, Berkeley, CA.
AISC (2010c). Code of standard practice for steel Bruneau, M., Uang, C., and Sabelli, R. (2011). Ductile
buildings and bridges, American Institute of Steel design of steel structures, McGraw-Hill,
Construction, Chicago, IL. New York, NY.
AISC (2012). Seismic design manual, American Institute Chen, C. H., and Mahin, S. A. (2012). Performance-
of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. based seismic demand assessment of concentrically
AISC/SEAOC (2001). Recommended provisions for braced steel frame buildings, PEER 2012/103, Pacific
buckling-restrained braced frames, American Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
Institute of Steel Construction/Structural Engineers of California, Berkeley, CA.
Association of California, Chicago, IL. Clark, P., Aiken I. D., Ko, E., Kasai, K., and Kimura
Ariyaratana, C. A., and Fahnestock, L. A. (2011). I. (1999). Design procedures for buildings
Evaluation of buckling-restrained braced frame incorporating hysteretic damping devices,
seismic performance considering reserve strength, Proceedings of the 68th Annual Convention of the
Engineering Structures, 33, pp. 77-89. Structural Engineers Association of California,
Accessed August 2015, http://www.sciencedirect. Sacramento, CA.
com/science/article/pii/S0141029610003573, Clark, P., Kasai K., Aiken I. D., and Kimura I. (2000).
dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.09.020. Evaluation of design methodologies for structures
ASCE (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings and incorporating steel unbonded braces for energy
other structures, (ASCE/SEI 7-05), American Society dissipation, Proceedings of the 12th World
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hut,
New Zealand, Paper No. 2240.
ASCE (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and
other structures, (ASCE/SEI 7-10), American Society CSA (2009). Design of steel structures, CSA-S16-09,
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, Canada.
ASCE (2014). Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, CSA (2014). S16-14 Design of steel structures, CSA
(ASCE/SEI 41-13), American Society of Civil Group, Ontario, Canada.
Engineers, Reston, VA. Erochko, J., Christopoulos, C., Tremblay, R., and Choi,
Atlayan, O. (2013). Hybrid steel frames, Ph.D. H. (2011). Residual drift response of SMRFs and
Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental BRB Frames in steel buildings designed according to
Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. ASCE 7-05, Journal of Structural Engineering, 137
(5), pp. 589599.
Atlayan, O., and Charney, F. (2014). Hybrid buckling-
restrained braced frames, Journal of Constructional Fahnestock, L. A., Sause, R., Ricles, J. M., and Lu,
Steel Research, May, pp. 95-105. L. W. (2003). Ductility demands on buckling-
restrained braced frames under earthquake loading,
Benzoni, G., and Innamorato, D. (2007). Star seismic Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
brace tests, Report No. SRMD-2007/05-Rev.2, Dept. 2 (2), pp. 255-268. Accessed August 2015, http://link.
of Structural Engineering, University of California, springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11803-003-0009-5,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA. dx.doi.org/doi:10.1007/s11803-003-0009-5.
25
Fahnestock, L. A., Sause, R., and Ricles, J. M. (2006). Jones, J. (2014). Californias tallest bridge undergoes
Analytical and large-scale experimental studies seismic retrofit, Civil Engineering, Accessed August
of earthquake-resistant buckling-restrained braced 2015, http://www.asce.org/magazine/20140610-
frame systems, ATLSS Report No. 06-01, Lehigh california-s-tallest-bridge-undergoes-seismic-retrofit/.
University, Bethlehem, PA.
Jones, P., and Zareian, F. (2013). Seismic response of a
Fahnestock, L. A., Ricles, J. M., and Sause, R. (2007a). 40-storey buckling-restrained braced frame designed
Experimental evaluation of a large-scale buckling- for the Los Angeles region, The Structural Design of
restrained braced frame, Journal of Structural Tall and Special Buildings, 22, pp. 291-299.
Engineering, 133 (9), pp. 1205-1214.
Judd J., Phillips A., Eatherton M., Charney F., Marinovic
Accessed August 2015, http://ascelibrary.
I., and Hyder C. (2015). Subassemblage testing of
org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-
all-steel web-restrained braces, STESSA, Shanghai,
9445%282007%29133%3A9%281205%29,
China.
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(2007)133:9(1205). Kasai, K., Fu, Y., and Watanabe, A. (1998). Passive
control systems for seismic damage mitigation,
Fahnestock, L. A., Sause, R., and Ricles, J. M.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 124 (5),
(2007b). Seismic response and performance
pp. 501-512.
of buckling-restrained braced frames, Journal
of Structural Engineering, 133 (9), pp. 1195- Kiggins, S., and Uang, C. M. (2006). Reducing residual
1204. Accessed August 2015, http://ascelibrary. drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a dual
org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733- system, Engineering Structures, 28, pp. 1525-1532.
9445%282007%29133%3A9%281195%29,
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733- Lin, P. C., Tsai, K. C., Wu, A. C., Chuang, M. C., Li,
9445(2007)133:9(1195). C. H, and Wang, K. J. (2015). Seismic design and
experiment of single and coupled corner gusset
FEMA (2003). NEHRP recommended provisions connections in a full-scale two-story buckling-
for seismic regulations for new buildings and restrained braced frame, Earthquake Engineering
other structures, Part 1Provisions and Part 2 and Structural Dynamics. Accessed August 2015,
Commentary, (FEMA 450), Federal Emergency http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.2577/
Management Agency, Washington, DC. abstract, dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2577.
FEMA (2009). Quantification of building seismic Lpez, W. A., and Sabelli, R. (2004). Seismic design
performance factors, (FEMA P-695), Federal of buckling-restrained braced frames, Steel TIPS
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, Report, Structural Steel Education Council, Chicago,
June 2009. IL.
Huang, Y. H., Wada, A., Sugihara, H., Narikawa, Merritt, S., Uang, C. M., and Benzoni, G. (2003a).
M., Takeuchi, T., and Iwata, M. (2000). Seismic Subassemblage testing of CoreBrace buckling-
performance of moment-resistant steel frame with restrained braces, Structural Systems Research
hysteretic damper, Behavior of steel structures in Project, Report No. TR-2003/01, University of
seismic areas, Proceedings of the 3rd International California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
Conference STESSA 2000, Mazzolani, F. and
Tremblay, R. (ed.), Montreal, Canada, pp. 403-409. Merritt, S., Uang, C. M., and Benzoni, G. (2003b).
Subassemblage testing of Star Seismic buckling-
IBC (2015). International building code, International restrained braces, Structural Systems Research
Code Council, Washington, DC. Project, Report No. TR-2003/04, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
Iwata, M., Kato, T., and Wada, A. (2003). Performance
evaluation of buckling-restrained braces in damage- Muir, L. S., and Thornton, W. A. (2014). Vertical bracing
controlled structures, Behavior of Steel Structures in connectionsAnalysis and design, Steel Design
Seismic Areas, Proceedings of the 4th International Guide 29, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Conference STESSA 2003, Mazzolani, F. (ed.), Chicago, IL.
Naples, Italy, pp. 37-43.
26
NIST (2009). Seismic design of steel special moment Reaveley, L. D., Okahashi, T., and Farr, C. K. (2004).
frames: A guide for practicing engineers, NIST GCR Corebrace Series E Buckling-Restrained Brace Test
09-917-3, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief Results, Research Report, Department of Civil and
No. 2, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Environmental Engineering, University of Utah,
Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Salt Lake City, UT.
Council and the Consortium of Universities for
Robinson, K. (2012). Brace yourself: Novel uses for the
Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National
buckling-restrained brace, STRUCTURE, August
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
2012.
MD.
Robinson, K., and Black, C. (2011). Getting the
NIST (2010a). Evaluation of the FEMA P-695
most out of buckling restrained braces Modern
methodology for quantification of building seismic
Steel Construction, August, http://msc.aisc.org/
performance factors, (NIST GCR 10-917-8), NEHRP
globalassets/modern-steel/archives/2011/04/2011v04_
Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the
getting_the_most.pdf.
Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of
Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, Robinson, K., Kersting, R., and Saxey, B. (2012). No
for the National Institute of Standards and buckling under pressure, Modern Steel Construction,
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. November, http://msc.aisc.org/globalassets/modern-
steel/archives/2012/11/2012v11_buckling.pdf.
NIST (2010b). Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic
design: A guide for practicing engineers, NIST GCR Romero, P., Reaveley, L. D., Miller, P., and Okahashi, T.
10-917-5, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief (2006). Full Scale Testing of WC Series Buckling-
No. 4, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Restrained Braces, Research Report, Department of
Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Council and the Consortium of Universities for Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Sabelli, R. (2001). Research on improving the design and
MD. analysis of earthquake-resistant steel braced frames,
The 2000 NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report,
NIST (2013). Seismic design of steel special Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland,
concentrically braced frame systems: A guide CA.
for practicing engineers, NIST GCR 13-917-24,
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 8, Sabelli, R., Mahin, S., and Chang, C. (2003). Seismic
produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, demands on steel braced frame buildings with
a partnership of the Applied Technology Council buckling-restrained braces, Engineering Structures,
and the Consortium of Universities for Research in 25, pp. 655-666.
Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Saxey, B. and Daniels, M. (2014). Characterization of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. overstrength factors for buckling restrained braces.
NRC (2010). National Building Code of Canada 2010, Australasian Structural Engineering (ASEC)
National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada. Conference, (PN 179) Auckland, New Zealand.
http://www.asec2014.org.nz/Presentations/PDFs/
Palmer, K. D., Christopulos, A. S., Lehman, D. E., and Paper%20179%20Characterization%20of%20
Roeder, C. W. (2014). Experimental evaluation Overstrength%20Factors%20for%20Buckling%20
of cyclically loaded, large-scale, planar and 3-d Restrained%20Braces.pdf.
buckling-restrained braced frames, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 101, pp. 415-425. SEAOC (2013). 2012 IBC SEAOC structural/seismic
design manual volume 4: Examples for steel-framed
Prinz, G., Coy, B., and Richards, P. (2014). Experimental buildings, Structural Engineers Association of
and numerical investigation of ductile top-flange California, Sacramento, CA.
beam splices for improved buckling-restrained braced
frame behavior. Journal of Structural Engineering, Shaw, A., and Bouma, K. (2000). Seismic Retrofit of the
140 (9), 04014052. Marin County Hall of Justice using steel buckling-
restrained braced frames, Proceedings of the 69th
Annual Convention of the Structural Engineers
Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
27
Takeuchi, T., Hajjar, J. F., Matsui, R., Nishimoto, K., Tsai, K.-C., and Hsiao, P.-C. (2008). Pseudo-dynamic
and Aiken, I. D. (2010). Local buckling restraint test of a full-scale CFT/BRB framePart II:
condition for core plates in buckling restrained Seismic performance of buckling-restrained braces
braces, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, and connections, Earthquake Engineering and
66, pp. 139-149. Structural Dynamics, 37, pp. 1099-1115. Accessed
August 2015, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
Takeuchi, T., Hajjar, J. F., Matsui, R., Nishimoto, K.,
doi/10.1002/eqe.803/abstract, doi: 10.1002/eqe.803.
and Aiken, I. D. (2012). Effect of local buckling
core plate restraint in buckling restrained braces, Tsai, K.-C., Wu, A.-C., Wei, C.-Y., Lin, P.-C.,
Engineering Structures, 44, pp. 304-311. Chuang, M.-C., and Yu, Y.-J. (2014). Welded end-
slot connection and debonding layers for buckling-
Tremblay, R. (2003). Achieving a stable inelastic seismic
restrained braces, Earthquake Engineering and
response for multi-story concentrically braced
Structural Dynamics, 43, pp. 1785-1807, Accessed
steel frames, Engineering Journal, AISC, Second
August 2015, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
Quarter, pp. 111-129.
Tremblay, R., Degrange G., and Blouin J. (1999).
Uriz, P., and Mahin, S. A. (2008). Toward earthquake-
Seismic rehabilitation of a four-storey building with
resistant design of concentrically braced steel-frame
a stiffened bracing system, Proceedings of the 8th
structures, PEER 2008/08, Pacific Earthquake
Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Engineering Research Center, University of
Vancouver, Canada.
California, Berkeley, CA.
Tremblay, R., and Merzouq, S. (2004a). Dual buckling
Watanabe, A. (1992). Development of composite brace
restrained braced steel frames for enhanced
with a large ductility, Proceedings of the U.S.-Japan
seismic response, Proceedings of the Passive
Workshop on Composite and Hybrid Structures,
Control Symposium, Tokyo Institute of Technology,
Berkeley, CA, September 10-12, Goel S. and
Yokohama, Japan, pp. 89-104.
Yamanouchi, H. (ed.).
Tremblay, R., and Merzouq, S. (2004b). Improving
Watanabe, A., Hitomi, Y., Saeki, E., Wada, A., and
the seismic stability of concentrically braced steel
Fujimoto, M. (1988). Properties of brace encased
frames, Proceedings 2004 SSRC Annual Technical
in buckling-restraining concrete and steel tube,
Session & Meeting, Long Beach, CA.
Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on
Tremblay, R., and Poncet, L. (2004). Improving the Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan.
seismic stability of concentrically braced steel
Wu, A.-C., Lin, P.-C., and Tsai, K.-C. (2012). A type of
frames, Proceedings 2004 SSRC Annual Technical
buckling restrained brace for convenient inspection
Session & Meeting, pp. 19-38, Long Beach, CA.
and replacement, Proceedings, 15th World
Tremblay, R., Bolduc, P., Neville, R., and DeVall, R. Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon.
(2006). Seismic testing and performance of buckling
restrained bracing systems, Canadian Journal of Wu, A.-C., Lin, P.-C., and Tsai, K.-C. (2014). High-mode
Civil Engineering, 33, pp. 183-198. buckling responses of buckling-restrained brace core
plates, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Tsai, K.-C., Hsiao, P.-C., Wang, K.-J., Weng, Y.-T., Dynamics, 43 pp. 375-393. Accessed August 2015,
Lin, M.-L., Lin, K.-C., Chen, C.-H., Lai, J.-W., and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.2349/
Lin, S.-L. (2008). Pseudo-dynamic tests of a full- abstract, doi: 10.1002/eqe.2349.
scale CFT/BRB framePart I: Specimen design,
Xie, Q. (2005). State of the art buckling-restrained
experiment and analysis, Earthquake Engineering
braces in Asia, Journal of Constructional Steel
and Structural Dynamics, 37, pp. 1081-1098.
Research, Elsevier, 61 (6), pp. 727-748.
Accessed August 2015, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
28
9. Notations and Abbreviations
Asc cross-sectional area of the yielding segment of AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
steel core
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
Cd deflection amplification factor as given in ASCE 7
ASD Allowable Strength Design
Fcr critical stress
ATC Applied Technology Council
F ysc specified minimum yield stress of the steel core
or actual yield stress of the steel core as deter- BRB Buckling-Restrained Brace
mined from a coupon test
BRBF Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame
h sx story height
CBF Concentrically Braced Frame
KF stiffness modification factor
CUREE Consortium of Universities for Research in
Lwp brace work-point length Earthquake Engineering
Ly length of the yielding segment of steel core EBF Eccentric Braced Frame

Pu required axial strength ELF Equivalent Lateral Force

Py s c axial yield strength of steel core EOR Engineer of Record

R response modification coefficient as given in IBC International Building Code
ASCE 7
LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design
T fundamental period of the structure
MRSA Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
V design base shear
NRHA Nonlinear Response History Analysis
YLR yield length ratio
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
brace angle of inclination with respect to the
horizontal NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program
b compression strength adjustment factor
OCBF Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frame
strength reduction factor
SCBF Special Concentrically Braced Frame
Dx design story drift
SMRF Special Moment-Resisting Frame
Db x BRB deformation
SDC Seismic Design Category
e sc core strain
SEAOC Structural Engineers Association of California
ey yield strain

qx design story drift angle
0 overstrength factor as given in ASCE 7
w strain hardening adjustment factor
29
10. Credits
Cover photo Image courtesy of Walterio A. Lpez
Figure 2-1(a) Image courtesy of Brandt Saxey, CoreBrace
Figure 2-1(b) Image courtesy of Cameron Black, SIE Inc.
Figure 2-1(c) Image courtesy of Kimberley Robinson, Star Seismic LLC
Figure 7-2(a) Image courtesy of Rafael Sabelli, Walter P Moore
The authors provided images not individually credited.
30

Nist GCR 15-917-34 TB 11 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nist GCR 15-917-34 TB 11 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nist GCR 15-917-34 TB 11 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is a buckling-restrained braced frame?

What is a buckling-restrained braced frame?

What are the advantages of using buckling-restrained braced frames?

What are the advantages of using buckling-restrained braced frames?

NIST GCR 15-917-34

NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 11

Seismic Design of Steel Buckling-

Rafael Sabelli, P.E., S.E., is Director of Seismic Design at Walter P

Applied Technology Council (ATC) Consortium of Universities for Research in

Seismic Design of Steel Buckling-

In association with the

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Cover photo. Buckling-restrained braced frame under construction.

How to Cite This Publication

Figure 1-1. Typical BRBF configurations.

A View of overall BRB

View of BRB steel core

Figure 1-2. Common BRB assembly.

In this Guide, the term design engineer is used to

Section 2 of this Guide provides an overview of the

Use of BRBFs in Regions of Lower Seismicity

This Guide discusses BRBFs particularly for use in

In addition to the BRB component tests, several large-

2.2 Fundamentals of BRB Behavior

BRB axial force

BRB yielding in compression as well as tension causes

Figure 3-1. Basic BRBF kinematic behavior.

Cyclic test data

Average brace strain (percent)

An important analysis consideration for the BRBF system

1. Perform Analyses (Compute T, V, etc)

3. Check compliance with ASCE 7

5. Calculate expected BRB

6. Show that the BRBs meet

7. Calculate adjustment factors and

8. Continue design with adjusted BRB

No reasonable differences, end

Figure 5-1. Flowchart for design of BRBFs.

Figure 5-2. Examples of BRBF configurations.

Column bases need to be designed for the maximum

4. KF assumed in analyses KF corresponding to

No, adjust KF required.

Yes, no further action

Qualifying tests should include

6. & 7. Maximum permissible w, b From qualifying tests. Manufacturer

No, adjust permissible w, b. w, b less than

Yes, no further action

8. Type of BRB end connection, Manufacturer confirms

BRB SMRF BRB

Gravity frame Elastic truss

Figure 7-1. Schematic BRBF dual system configurations.

7.3 Performance-based Seismic Design

Although performance-based seismic design is a broader

Special steel plate

0 overstrength factor as given in ASCE 7

w strain hardening adjustment factor

Cover photo Image courtesy of Walterio A. Lpez

Figure 2-1(a) Image courtesy of Brandt Saxey, CoreBrace