Seismic Design and Behavior of Ductile

Knee-Braced Moment Frames

Sutat Leelataviwat1; Bunyarit Suksan2; Jarun Srechai3; and Pennung Warnitchai4

Abstract: The design and behavior of a ductile structural system called a knee-braced moment frame (KBMF) are presented in this paper.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The design of this structural system is based on a capacity-design concept that results in ductile behavior. For this system, the frames are
designed so that the knee braces will yield and buckle under seismic loads; this is followed by plastic hinging of beams at the ends of the beam
segments outside the knee portions. Through this concept, inelastic activities are confined to the designated elements. The knee braces also
provide much less obstruction than the braces of conventional systems, making this structural system architecturally attractive. The design
concept of this new structural system is addressed first. Results from an experimental study into the seismic behavior of the proposed system
are then presented. Two approximately half-scale KBMF specimens were tested. The load-deformation characteristics obtained from the test
indicate that the newly developed system can be a viable alternative to conventional structural systems. Finally, results from dynamic analyses
of an example KBMF structure designed by the proposed method are provided. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000301. © 2011
American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Frames; Bracing; Structural steel; Seismic design; Cyclic tests.
Author keywords: Moment frames; Knee braces; Structural steel system; Seismic design; Cyclic test.

Introduction resulting in a stable hysteretic response (Engelhardt and Popov

Conventional structural steel framing systems, such as moment
resisting frames (MRFs), concentrically braced frames (CBFs),
and eccentrically braced frames (EBFs), are widely used in seismi-
cally active areas. Each of these structural systems offers different
advantages and disadvantages. For example, MRFs provide a very
stable hysteretic behavior and create no architectural obstructions.
However, the performance of these frames is strongly dependent
on the quality of materials and workmanship, particularly at the
beam-to-column connections (FEMA 2000a, b; AISC 2005a).
CBFs provide excellent stiffness but they rely essentially on the
postbuckling behavior of the braces. Unfortunately, postbuckling
behavior is complex and not as well understood. The braces
may exhibit a considerable degradation in strength after buckling,
leading to asymmetrical cyclic behaviors with respect to tension
and compression (Sabelli 2001). Research has suggested that
the performance of CBFs may vary significantly (Uriz and
Mahin 2008). Recent advances have included the use of buckling
restrained braces (BRBs) to enhance hysteretic response (Uang and
Nakashima 2004). EBFs also rely on the yielding of ductile links,
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, King Mongkut’s Univ.
of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand (corresponding author). E-mail: sutat
.lee@kmutt.ac.th
2 ventional systems, making this system architecturally attractive.
Structural Engineer, Worley Parsons (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Bangkok,
Thailand.
3
Doctoral Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Chulalongkorn Univ.,
Bangkok, Thailand.
4
Associate Professor, School of Engineering and Technology, Asian
Institute of Technology, Patumthani, Thailand.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 12, 2009; approved on
August 5, 2010; published online on August 25, 2010. Discussion period
open until October 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, Vol. 137, No. 5, May 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2011/5-579–
588/$25.00.
1989, 1992).
A hybrid structural system that combines the key characteristics
of MRFs and CBFs is presented in this paper. This system, called a
knee-braced moment frame (KBMF), relies on moment-resisting
frames, together with stocky knee braces, as means to resist seismic
forces. Knee braces were used in the past for wind-resistant design
and have been recently explored in various forms for seismic
applications (Aristizabal-Ochoa 1986; Balendra 1991; Sarraf and
Bruneau 1996; Balendra et al. 2001; Kim and Seo 2003; Inouel
et al. 2006). The design of the proposed KBMF structural system
is based on a capacity-design concept that results in ductile behav-
ior. For this system, the frames are designed so that the knee braces
will yield and buckle under seismic loads; this is followed by plas-
tic hinging of beams at the ends of the beam segments outside the
knee portions. All inelastic activities are directed away from the
critical areas, decreasing the dependence of the performance on
the material and quality of the welded joints.
Because the moment connections are expected to remain
elastic, relatively simple details can be used. Consequently,
demanding quality assurance procedures can be avoided. In addi-
tion, after a moderate earthquake, the knee braces can be repaired,
provided that the columns are not distressed. More importantly, the
knee braces provide much less obstruction than the braces of con-
They can also be utilized in the seismic strengthening of existing
MRFs.
An experimental study into the seismic behavior of KBMFs was
carried out to investigate the ability of the system to dissipate
earthquake energy. The results of the study are reported herein.
In this paper, the design concept and key parameters that govern
the seismic response of the frame are addressed first. The test
program and the details of the test specimens are then provided.
Finally, results from the quasi-static, cyclic tests of the specimens
are discussed.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011 / 579

J. Struct. Eng. 2011.137:579-588.

 Design Concept of Ductile Knee-Braced
Moment Frames
Yield Mechanism and Required Strength
of Key Elements
The design of a KBMF is based on a preselected yield mechanism
that limits inelastic activities to ductile segments of the frame. For
this structural system, seismic energy is dissipated by means of the
yielding and buckling of the knee braces and flexural yielding of
the beams outside the knee regions with a selected yield mecha-
nism, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The strength of the knee braces is
selected to achieve the desired mechanism. In addition, the braces
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
are designed to limit the moments at the beam-to-column connec-
tions to a selected value below the yield moment. The other mem-
bers in the frame are designed to remain elastic under the largest
forces generated by fully yielded and strain-hardened plastic hinges
and knee braces, except at the column bases where plastic hinges
are required to complete the mechanism.
The first step in designing a KBMF is the design of the base-
moment frame. The sizing of the moment frame members can be
carried out using any accepted design procedure. After the base-
moment frame has been designed, the sizes of the knee braces
are selected to ensure the formation of the desired mechanism.
After the selection and incorporation of knee braces, the columns
can be evaluated against additional forces. The size of the knee
braces at each story level can be determined using the following
assumptions and procedure.
As a first approximation, the gravity loads are considered small
and are disregarded in the design. This assumption is generally true
because lateral load-resisting frames are normally placed around
the perimeter of the buildings, and are designed to resist much
larger seismic forces than forces from gravity loads. For a frame
with key parameters, as illustrated in Fig. 1, it can be shown that
the maximum moment at the beam-to-column connection, M c , at a
given story can be expressed as
M C ¼ M max þ V max Lk
αPcr sinðθÞLk ð1Þ
where M max and V max = maximum moment and the maximum
shear force, respectively, that can be developed at the plastic hinges;
α = postbuckling strength reduction factor (Remennikov and
Walpole 1998); Pcr = buckling strength of the knee brace; θ = angle
that the knee braces make with the beam; and Lk = length of the
knee portion. Eq. (1) indicates that the maximum moment at
the connection occurs when the beam reaches the fully yielded
and strain-hardened plastic moment and the knee brace reaches
its final postbuckling strength, αPcr .
Fig. 1. Yield mechanism of knee-braced moment frame
580 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011
J. Struct. Eng. 2011.137:579-588.
For a frame where the length of the clear span, Lc , is relatively
large, the beam yields primarily in bending. The fully yielded and
strain-hardened plastic moment of the beam can be estimated by
multiplying the plastic moment by an overstrength factor
M max ¼ ξM p ð2Þ
where ξ = overstrength factor; and M p = plastic moment of the
beam based on expected yield stress. The axial force in the beam
can be taken into account when calculating the plastic moment of
the beam, leading to a smaller value of M p . However, for design
purposes, this effect is disregarded as a first approximation. The
maximum shear force that can be developed is related to the maxi-
mum moment and the clear span
V max ¼ 2M max =Lc ¼ 2ξM p =Lc ð3Þ
The moment at the beam-to-column connection given by Eq. (1) is
to be limited in such a way that it is always less than a fraction of
the plastic moment, i.e.,
M C ≤ γM p ð4Þ
where γ = numerical factor with a value less than 1.0. This factor
can be chosen depending on the allowable moment at the connec-
tions. By using Eqs. (2)–(4), and taking L ¼ Lc þ 2Lk , Eq. (1) can
be cast in a dimensionless form as follows:
αPcr ðξ
γÞ 2ξ
≥ þ ð5Þ
M p =L ðLk =LÞ sinðθÞ ð1
2Lk =LÞ sinðθÞ
The above equation provides the required postbuckling strength of
the knee brace for a given beam size and knee brace configuration.
The goal is to keep the moment at the connection less than the
specified level and, at the same time, to achieve the selected
mechanism.
For a given story, once the size of the beam, the length of the
knee portion, and the angle of the knee brace have been selected,
the size of the knee brace can be determined. The columns can then
be evaluated against the forces that occur because of the knee
braces. A capacity-design approach that considers the equilibrium
of the entire column (Goel and Chao 2008) subjected to forces
generated by the beams and the knee braces could be used.
Alternatively, a pushover analysis can be carried out up to an
expected displacement demand level, assuming that elastic col-
umns and the forces obtained from the analysis can be used in
the design of the columns.
The preceding analysis is based on the assumption that the
gravity loads are small. In actual design, all different loading
 combinations must be considered. Because actual KBMFs may
vary in size and complexity, more rigorous analyses, such as
nonlinear time history and multiple-mode pushover analyses that
consider realistic loading conditions, structural irregularity, specific
site effects, and multiple seismic hazard levels, may be necessary
for a final design check and an evaluation of the structure.
Frame Geometry
Based on Eq. (5), the influence of the length of the knee portion, Lk ,
and the brace angle, θ, on the required strength of the knee brace
relative to the beam plastic strength can be investigated. As an
example, for a frame with ξ ¼ 1:25 and γ ¼ 0:80, the required
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
brace strengths [as determined by Eq. (5)] for different values of
Lk =L and θ are shown in Fig. 2.
As expected, the values of the required brace strength are very
large when the values of Lk =L are small. The minimum required
strength occurs when Lk =L is in the range of 0.13 to 0.25 for
all values of the brace angle. An Lk =L ratio of 0.2 appears to be
very practical for providing a large bay opening with relatively
low required brace strength. This ratio was used for the subsequent
testing program of this research.
The length of the knee portion can also be related to the plastic
rotation of the beams. Using Fig. 1, it can be shown that


2L
θp ¼ δ p 1 þ k ð6Þ
Lc
where θp is the plastic rotation of the beam and δp is the plastic story
drift of the frame. Eq. (6) can be used to assess the ductility
capacities of the beams given the story drift demands of the frame
under earthquake ground motions.
Hysteretic Response and Postbuckling Strength
of Knee Braces
One of the key parameters in the design of KBMFs is the postbuck-
ling strength reduction factor, α. KBMFs rely mainly on short and
stocky knee braces to dissipate seismic energy. The seismic behav-
ior of steel braces has been a subject of extensive research (Lee and
Bruneau 2005; Uriz et al. 2008; Fell et al. 2009). It is well known
that the hysteretic response of steel braces is influenced most by the
brace slenderness ratio. The buckling strength of a brace is reduced
with each cycle of loading, leading to an unstable hysteretic
response. However, research conducted in the past mostly focused
on the seismic response of slender braces commonly employed in
conventionally braced frames.
Fig. 2. Required brace strength for different values of Lk=L and θ
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011 / 581
J. Struct. Eng. 2011.137:579-588.
Recently, Lee and Bruneau (2005) conducted a review of exper-
imental studies on the cyclic testing of steel braces carried out
between 1978 and 2006. The review included data from seven
independent studies covering 66 test specimens with a variety of
section types, lengths, and end restraints. The slenderness ratios
(kL=r) of the reviewed data ranged from 25 to 174. However,
out of 66 specimens reported, only three were stocky members with
slenderness ratio values of approximately 30 or less, which is
within the range of slenderness ratio values expected to be used
in KBMFs. Nevertheless, the results clearly indicate, as expected,
that stocky members provide superior energy dissipation at low
displacement ductility levels, especially for tubular members.
Remennikov and Walpole (1998), on the basis of limited test results
performed by various researchers, suggested an expression that can
be used to compute the postbuckling strength reduction factor:
α ¼ 1:0 for 0 ≤ λe < 1 ð7a Þ
α ¼ 1:038λ
1:1 for 1 ≤ λe < 4 ð7b Þ
e
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where λe ¼ ðkLb =rÞ ðF y =EÞ = effective slenderness ratio; F y =
yield stress; E = modulus of elasticity; Lb = length of the brace;
k = effective length factor; and r = radius of gyration. Trial designs
of KBMFs with realistic member sizes indicate that the effective
slenderness ratios of the knee braces should be approximately
1.25 or less, leading to the values of the postbuckling strength
reduction factor between 0.80 and 1.0. Using Eqs. (7a) and (7b),
the size of the knee brace that satisfies Eq. (5) can be determined.
The fracture of braces attributable to buckling and low-cycle
fatigue is also an important issue that must be addressed. The frac-
ture of the braces will lead to an undesirable increase in the stress at
the connections and might lead to fracture at the beam-to-column
connections, which would eventually lead to an unanticipated loss
of lateral strength.
Past research results (Black et al. 1980; Fell et al. 2009),
although limited mostly to slender braces, have indicated that frac-
ture initiation is primarily caused by the local strain induced by
local and global buckling. However, this fracture could be delayed
by using a small width-to-thickness ratio for the brace members.
Cross-sectional shapes also affect brace fracture. Test results (Fell
et al. 2009) have shown that the HSS shapes are prone to local frac-
ture because of buckling at the corners that significantly increases
the local strain. The pipe and W-shaped sections are less prone to
fracture in this regard.
By selecting an appropriate shape with a low width-to-thickness
ratio, the adverse effect attributable to early fracture could be
avoided for the range of ductility expected for KBMFs. Never-
theless, because the past test results for braces have been made
mostly for slender braces tests, cyclic tests of stocky braces should
be carried out in the future to investigate this problem.
Experimental Program
To validate the KBMF concept, cyclic testing of two approximately
half-scale, one-story, and one-bay KBMF specimens were per-
formed. The two frames were designed using the procedure previ-
ously described with two major different details as will be described
in the following sections.
The test specimens were laterally braced at every one-fourth of
the span length as well as at the knee locations. The brace spacing
is made smaller than the maximum spacing required for a special
moment resisting frame (SMRF), according to AISC (2005b), to
make certain that the test can be carried out well into the inelastic
range. The overview of the test setup is shown in Fig. 3. The

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Overview of KBMF test frame (photo by the authors)
Fig. 4. Loading history of KBMF test frame
specimens were instrumented by strain gauges and displacement
transducers at key locations. The two specimens were subjected
to quasi-static, cyclic loading, and the loading history is shown
in Fig. 4. The details and the observed behavior of the two spec-
imens are as follows.
Test Specimen 1 (KBMF-1)
The first specimen was designed by plastic-mechanism analysis
such that the estimated yield strength of the frame was 250 kN.
This lateral strength was chosen primarily because of the capacity
of the actuator. The base-moment frame was first designed to meet
the target lateral strength. The knee braces were then chosen using
the approach previously discussed.
The knee braces were designed assuming a probable over-
strength factor, ξ, of 1.25. This value was believed to be sufficient
for story drift levels of 3 to 4%. The value was estimated based on
the overstrength factor for the design of other structural systems
(AISC 2005b). The allowable bending moment at the connection
was selected to be 80% of the plastic moment of the beam
(γ ¼ 0:80). The length of the knee portion, Lk , was chosen to
be 20% of the span length (Lk =L ¼ 0:20), which corresponds to
the optimum value as discussed previously. For the knee brace,
because of its low slenderness ratio, the postbuckling strength
reduction factor, α, was selected to be 1.0. The entire design is
582 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011
J. Struct. Eng. 2011.137:579-588.
Table 1. Summary of Average Material Properties from Coupon Tests
Specimen Member Location Yield strength (MPa)
KBMF-1 Beam Flange 331
Web 337
Column Flange 326
Web 326
Knee brace 352
KBMF-2 Beam Flange 326
Web 338
Column Flange 315
Web 296
Knee brace Knee brace 326
based on a probable strength of 340 MPa, which is commonly
found in locally available steel. The actual values of yield strength
from subsequent coupon tests are given in Table 1.
The final design resulted in a KBMF consisting of a 4 m-long
beam H250 × 125 × 6 × 9–29:6 kg=m, 1.95 m-high H250 × 250×
9 × 14–72:4 kg=m columns, and ϕ76:2 × 3:9 knee braces (dimen-
sions in mm). The hollow circular section was used for the braces
because it provided the closest cross-sectional area to the value
required by the calculations. Fully welded beam-column connec-
tions were used in specimen 1. The knee braces and the gusset
plates were also fully welded to the beam and the columns. Visual
inspection alone was performed for the welds. No additional
precautions were taken.
The gusset plates were designed to avoid any out-of-plane buck-
ling to minimize out-of-plane forces that would act on the columns.
The gusset plates were first designed to resist the full tension and
compression from the knee brace based on the Whitmore width.
A stiffener was then added to prevent out-of-plane folding of
the plates, which resulted in a 10-mm thick gusset plate with a
125-mm wide transverse stiffener. The test specimen KBMF-1 is
shown schematically in Fig. 5.
Fig. 6 shows the hysteretic loops obtained from the test. During
the test, localized yielding was first detected at the drift of approx-
imately 1.0% in one of the knee braces. The overall response of the
frame started to deviate from linear behavior at the story drift of
approximately 1.5%. Between 2% and 3% story drifts, the beam
started to plastify, and plastic hinges started to become visible at
the end of the 3% drift cycle.
The maximum load at the story drift of 3% was approximately
280 kN, slightly larger than expected. At the 3% story drift, the
mechanism, consisting of yielding and buckling of knee braces
and flexural hinging of the beam, formed as intended in the design.
The average strain values, normalized by the uniaxial yield
strain (εy ¼ F y =200 GPa) from coupon tests, at the beam-to-
column connection (strain gauges Set A in Fig. 5), at the plastic
hinge (strain gauges Set B), and at the knee brace (strain gauge
Set C) are shown in Fig. 7. From these strain values, the sequence
of yielding can be deduced. The yielding first initiated in the knee
brace followed by yielding in the beam at the expected location.
Significant yielding occurred from the drift level of 2% onwards
in agreement with the test observation. The beam-to-column con-
nection remained below the yield level for the drift level up to 3%.
Beyond the 3% story drift, the yielding area started to widen and
spread into the beam sections inside the knee regions. This was
primarily attributable to the strain hardening at the hinges. This in-
crease in the plastic hinge strength coupled with the reduction in the
postbuckling strength of the knee brace eventually resulted in the
rise in the strain values at the beam-to-column connection, as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Details of specimen KBMF-1

shown in Fig. 7. The specimen continued to carry the load beyond

Fig. 6. Hysteretic loops of specimen KBMF-1
the design level up to the story drift of 4%. At this drift level,
the mechanism could be clearly identified, as can be seen in Figs. 8
and 9. The test was unexpectedly interrupted because of the fracture
of one of the bolts at the base plate and had to be temporarily
stopped because it was deemed unsafe to continue loading.
After the bolt had been replaced, the test was resumed, and the
frame was cycled at 4% story drift. In this stage of loading, the out-
of-plane deformation of the beam started to become visible. For this
test, the lateral-torsional buckling was prevented by the lateral brac-
ing system. In actual structures, the bracing must also be provided
by means of the floor slabs and cross beams. Because of the limited
number of test specimens, the influence of different design param-
eters on the lateral-torsional-buckling of the beam cannot be accu-
rately assessed at this time. Further study is needed on this issue.
The test was finally terminated when the net section fracture at the
brace-to-gusset plate connection was observed, as shown in Fig. 10.

Test Specimen 2 (KBMF-2)

During the testing of the KBMF-1 specimen, it was observed that
when the drift level became large, the yielding areas at the plastic

Fig. 7. Normalized average strain at key locations of specimen Fig. 8. Mechanism including plastic hinging and brace yielding in the
KBMF-1 test specimen at 4% story drift (photo by the authors)

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011 / 583

J. Struct. Eng. 2011.137:579-588.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Buckling of knee braces when specimen is subjected to
maximum test deformation (photo by the authors)
Fig. 10. Failure of knee brace (photo by the authors)
Fig. 11. Details of specimen KBMF-2
584 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011
J. Struct. Eng. 2011.137:579-588.
hinges started to widen and penetrate into the portion of the beams
inside the knee regions. For the second test, the reduced beam
section (RBS) technique was applied to the beam to further confine
the inelastic activities at the plastic hinges. The RBS technique is
generally used at beam-to-column connections to relocate plastic
hinges away from the critical areas (AISC 2005a). A further advan-
tage of using RBSs with KBMFs is that the size of the knee brace
could be reduced according to Eq. (5).
The overall design of the KBMF-2 specimen followed the
approach previously described. The second test frame used the same
column and beam sizes as the first specimen. The RBS was designed
such that the plastic moment of the RBS was 75% of the original
section. For the knee braces, it was decided to use the same brace
size as in the KBMF-1 specimen, even though calculations showed
that some size reduction was possible. The details of the KBMF-2
specimen are shown in Fig. 11. The second specimen was subjected
to the same loading history, as shown in Fig. 4.
The hysteretic response of specimen KBMF-2 is shown in
Fig. 12. For the second test, the specimen was loaded up to a story
drift of 5%. The specimen responded elastically up to the story drift
of approximately 1.2%. After this drift level, significant inelastic
behavior was observed. The specimen continued to carry the load
with the mechanism envisioned in the design concept. The yielding
of the RBS at this drift level is shown in Fig. 13. At this point, a
slight out-of-plane curvature can be observed during the test.
However, the system remained stable, which again illustrates the
importance of lateral braces.
Fracture eventually occurred in one of the knee braces near the
end of the second cycle of the 4% story drift level. The test was
continued even after the fracture of the knee brace to study the
behavior of the system in the event of extreme overloading. The
loss of the knee brace also provided a chance to observe the con-
tribution of the knee braces to the overall strength and stiffness of
the frame. As can be seen in Fig. 12, there is a decrease in lateral
strength and stiffness of approximately 20% after the loss of the
knee brace, which clearly shows the significant contributions of
the knee braces to the overall lateral strength. More importantly,
it was found that the frame continued to carry the load as a regular
MRF, with significant yielding occurring at the beam-to-column
connections. The test was eventually terminated after the comple-
tion of the loading history.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Hysteretic loops of specimen KBMF-2
Fig. 13. Flexural yielding of RBS in KBMF test specimen 2 at 4.0%
story drift (photo by the authors)
The response envelopes from the two tests are compared in
Fig. 14. Specimen 2 has a smaller lateral strength because of
the reduction in the beam cross section. The elastic stiffness is
only slightly affected by the RBS. The elastic stiffness of the
KBMF-2 specimen was approximately 5% lower than that of
Fig. 14. Comparison of envelope curves of KBMF-1 and KBMF-2 test
frames
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011 / 585
J. Struct. Eng. 2011.137:579-588.
Fig. 15. Comparison of peak normalized strain values at the beam-to-
column connection
the first specimen. Despite reductions in the strength and stiffness,
the stable hysteretic response of the second specimen clearly indi-
cates that the RBS technique can be applied to KBMFs.
For this particular specimen, the average strain values indicated
that the yielding started in the RBS and was followed by yielding in
the knee braces. The peak normalized strain values at the beam-to-
column connections at each drift level are also shown (for compari-
son) in Fig. 15. As expected, the strain values were relatively
smaller in KBMF-2 because of the reduction in the overall strength
of the frame attributable to RBS. More importantly, the rate at
which the peak positive strain increased beyond the 3% drift level
was significantly smaller in the KBMF-2 specimen than in the
KBMF-1 specimen. This further demonstrates the effectiveness
of the RBS technique when applied to KBMFs. However, because
of additional fabrication costs, the use of RBSs should be reserved
for cases where a large level of deformation is expected.
Example Application
An example KBMF structure was used to study the seismic
response of the proposed system. A three-story example structure
was designed and subjected to inelastic static and dynamic analyses
to obtain the overall deformation demands and to analyze the
response of key members. The elevation view of the study frame
is shown in Fig. 16. The seismic weights are 2,665 kN for the roof
and 2,810 kN for the third and second stories, respectively. The
frame was designed based on the ICC (2000) provisions. Important
constants used to calculate the design spectrum were S1 ¼ 0:8 g
and SS ¼ 1:2 g, Seismic Use Group I, and Soil Type B.
Fig. 16. Elevation of example KBMF structure

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 17. Pushover curve and sequence of inelastic activities
The base-moment frame was first designed using the design
base shear equal to 70% of the design base shear calculated by
using a response modification coefficient (R) of 8.0. This resulted
in a design base shear coefficient (V=W), including an accidental
torsion of 0.084. The knee braces were then designed and added to
the base-moment frame using the capacity-design concept previ-
ously described. The 30% reduction in the design base shear of the
base-moment frame was made to ensure that in the end, the result-
ing KBMF would have approximately the same strength as a con-
ventional SMRF designed by ICC (2000), with R ¼ 8:0. The RBS
technique was not used in the design of this example frame.
The length of the knee portion was chosen to be 20% of the span
length. The overstrength factor (ξ) was taken to be 1.35. For the
knee braces, the postbuckling strength reduction factor, α, was
taken to be 0.80. In this study, the nominal strength values for
the beams and columns were assumed to be 248 MPa (36 ksi)
and 345 MPa (50 ksi), respectively. The actual yield strength for
the braces and the beams used in the capacity design was taken
as 338 MPa (49 ksi). The actual yield strength of the columns
was taken as 379 MPa (55 ksi). These actual yield stress values
were also used in all of the analyses. The members were selected
to satisfy the compactness requirements (AISC 2005b).
Fig. 18. Maximum interstory drifts and inelastic activities attributable to DBE and MCE ground motions
586 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011
J. Struct. Eng. 2011.137:579-588.
A nonlinear finite-element code SNAP-2DX (Rai et al. 1996)
developed at the University of Michigan was used to perform
all analyses. The knee braces and frame members were modeled
using SNAP-2DX axial compression and beam-column elements.
The axial compression element in SNAP-2DX uses a hysteretic
model that is capable of modeling postbuckling behavior. The
beams and columns were modeled using lumped plasticity beam-
column elements. Elastic-plastic with strain hardening hysteretic
behavior was assumed for the plastic hinges. To capture the
postelastic response of the relatively short beam segments between
the knee braces, a fairly large strain hardening value of 8% was
assigned for the plastic hinges in the beams.
Panel zones (PZs) were modeled according to a method pro-
posed by Schneider and Amidi (1998). The shear resistance of a
joint was simulated by two rotational springs corresponding to
the contributions of the column web and the column flanges sur-
rounding the PZ. Rigid eccentricities were used to specify the finite
dimension of the elements. In the analyses, small gravity loads suit-
able for a perimeter frame were applied as concentrated forces on
the beams at every one-fifth of the span length.
The plot of roof drift versus base shear from the pushover analy-
sis using IBC lateral force distribution is shown in Fig. 17. Also
shown in the figure is the sequence of inelastic activities up to a
roof drift of 2.5%. The response of the frame was elastic up to
a drift level of approximately 0.8%, when the first set of plastic
hinges formed. The inelastic activity then quickly spread out,
resulting in a significant reduction in lateral stiffness. The full
mechanism formed when all the braces and beams had yielded
at a roof drift of about 2.5%. Beyond this drift level, the resistance
came primarily from the strain hardening of the material at plastic
hinges. Plastic hinges occurred only at the designated locations, as
intended in the design. No yielding in the panel zones or the col-
umns was detected primarily because the moments at beam-to-
column connections were limited by the presence of the knee
braces.
In the nonlinear dynamic analyses, the frame was subjected to
seven selected earthquake records scaled to represent two levels of
ground motion intensities: the design basis earthquake (DBE) and
the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) levels. These ground
motions are taken from another study (Somerville et al. 1997).
 The seven ground motions are referred to as LA02, LA06, LA08,
LA10, LA14, LA16, and LA18. For the DBE level, the ground
motions were scaled such that their average spectra values between
the periods of 0.2T and 1.5T were not less than those obtained from
the IBC elastic design spectrum. In this study, the MCE ground
motions were defined as the DBE ground motions amplified by
a factor of 1.5. A mass proportional damping of 2% was assumed.
P-delta was not included in the analysis.
The results including the overall deformation demands and
the response of key members were obtained from the nonlinear
dynamic analyses. Fig. 18 shows the values of maximum interstory
drifts under the seven selected records along with their average
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
values. The maximum average interstory drifts are approximately
1.6% and 2.3% for the DBE and MCE ground motions, respec-
tively. The peak story drifts are 2.3% and 3.6% for the DBE
and MCE ground motions, respectively. These drifts are smaller
than the 4.0% ultimate story drift observed during the test.
Based on the response observed during the test of specimen
KBMF-1, it can be expected that under the DBE ground motions
(1.6% story drift), a significant yielding will occur in the knee
braces along with a slight yielding at the plastic hinges. The
beam-to-column connections are expected to remain in the elastic
range. For the MCE ground motions (2.3% story drift), it can be
expected that a significant yielding in the braces will occur with a
ductility demand in excess of 2.0. This is accompanied by a sig-
nificant yielding at the plastic hinges. The stress at the beam-to-
column connection remains only slightly below the yield level.
Inelastic activities of the frame are also shown in Fig. 18. Again,
it can be seen that the plastic hinges occurred only at the designated
locations, which is consistent with the design concept.
Conclusions
This paper presents the design concept and seismic behavior of
KBMFs. For this system, the frames are designed such that the
knee braces will yield and buckle under seismic loads along with
the plastic hinging of beams at the ends of the beam segments out-
side the knee portions. The design concept and design procedure
were presented. Experiments were carried out to validate the design
concept, as well as the details of various key elements. An example
was provided to illustrate the application of the proposed concept to
multistory structures. The main findings can be summarized as
follows:
1. Cyclic tests of relatively large-scale specimens indicate that
KBMFs behave in a ductile manner with a stable hysteretic
characteristic. The test frames showed a ductile behavior with
all inelastic behavior confined to only the designated elements
in the frame. Based on these results, it can be concluded that
the proposed system represents a viable alternative to existing
structural systems.
2. The plastic analysis and capacity-design procedure presented
in this paper can be used to determine the member sizes of
KBMFs. The concept was used in the design of test specimens
that performed as envisioned in the design process.
3. The RBS technique can be used to further enhance the perfor-
mance of KBMFs. The RBS confines inelastic activities to de-
signated locations. The RBS can potentially reduce the size of
key members. However, the increase in fabrication costs needs
to be carefully assessed.
4. The KBMF test specimen with RBS showed reduced lateral
strength and stiffness. The reduction in strength can be signif-
icant depending on the design. However, the reduction in stiff-
ness is marginal. Nevertheless, these reductions should be
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011 / 587
J. Struct. Eng. 2011.137:579-588.
properly considered when analyzing KBMFs under earthquake
ground motions.
5. Lateral bracing in KBMFs is an important issue and must be
properly addressed. To this end, it may be advantageous to pro-
vide lateral supports at or near the plastic hinges, at certain
points along the beam, and at the brace-to-column joint to
ensure stability during inelastic deformations.
6. The experiments show that the connections can be designed
to remain elastic. However, it is still prudent to use post-
Northridge detailing practices for enhanced ductility in case
of an extreme event not anticipated by the design.
7. The response analysis of the example structure show that plas-
tic hinges occurred only at the designated locations, as in-
tended in the design. The results indicate that the proposed
concept is viable and can be applied to multistory structures.
Although further studies may be required before this system can
be used in practice, the results of this study strongly illustrate the
importance and the potential of the KBMF system, particularly in
cases where obstructions because of conventional braces and strin-
gent, demanding quality assurance procedures are issues under
consideration. In addition, because the tests conducted in this study
were carried out on relatively large-scale specimens, they demon-
strate that real and practical solutions can actually be developed.
Research on the dynamic behavior of KBMF systems as well as
studies to improve the details are being carried out by the authors
to further investigate and improve the behavior of KBMFs.
Acknowledgments
This research work was supported by funding from the Royal Thai
Government through King Mongkut’s University of Technology–
Asian Institute of Technology joint research program and from the
National Research Council of Thailand. The authors gratefully
acknowledge the support from the above agencies. Generous assis-
tance from the Italian-Thai Development Public Company Limited
in the fabrication of the test specimens is also gratefully acknowl-
edged. The conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and
may not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
E = modulus of elasticity of steel;
F y = yield strength;
k = effective length factor;
Lb = length of knee brace;
Lc = clear span length, length of beam between the knee
braces;
Lk = length of knee portion, length of beam inside the knee
region;
M C = moment at the face of beam-to-column connection;
M max = maximum moment that can be developed at the plastic
hinges;
M p = plastic moment of beam;
Pcr = buckling strength of knee brace;
r = radius of gyration;
V max = maximum shear force that can be developed at the plastic
hinges;
α = postbuckling strength reduction factor;
γ = numerical factor indicating the level of the allowable
moment at the connections;
 δp = plastic story drift of the frame;
θ = angle that the knee braces make with the beam;
θp = plastic rotation of the beam;
λe = effective slenderness ratio; and
ξ = overstrength factor.
References
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). (2005a). “Prequalified
connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames for
seismic applications.” ANSI/AISC 358-05, AISC, Chicago.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). (2005b). “Seismic provi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sions for structural steel buildings.” ANSI/AISC 341-05, AISC, Chicago.
Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D. (1986). “Disposable knee bracing: improvement in
seismic design of steel frames.” J. Struct. Eng., 112(7), 1544–1552.
Balendra, T. (1991). “Preliminary studies into the behavior of knee braced
frames subject to seismic loading.” Eng. Struct., 13(1), 67–74.
Balendra, T., Yu, C. H., and Lee, F. L. (2001). “An economical structural
system for wind and earthquake loads.” Eng. Struct., 23(5), 491–501.
Black, R. G., Wenger, W. A., and Popov, E. P. (1980). “Inelastic buckling of
steel struts under cyclic load reversal.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-80/40,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA.
Engelhardt, M. D., and Popov, E. P. (1989). “On design of eccentrically
braced frames.” Earthquake Spectra, 5(3), 495–511.
Engelhardt, M. D., and Popov, E. P. (1992). “Experimental performance of
long links in eccentrically braced frames.” J. Struct. Eng., 118(11),
3067–3088.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2000a).
“Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame
buildings.” FEMA-350, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2000b).
“Recommended specifications and quality assurance guidelines for
steel moment-frame construction for seismic applications.” FEMA
353, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Fell, B. V., Kanvinde, A. M., Dierlein, G. G., and Myers, A. T. (2009).
“Experimental investigation of inelastic cyclic buckling and fracture
of steel braces.” J. Struct. Eng., 135(1),19–32.
Goel, S. C., and Chao, S.-H. (2008). Performance-based plastic design:
Earthquake-resistant steel structures, International Code Council,
Washington, DC.
588 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011
J. Struct. Eng. 2011.137:579-588.
Inouel, K., Suita, K., Takeuchi, I., Chusilp, P., Nakashima, M., and Zhou, F.
(2006). “Seismic-resistant weld-free steel frame buildings with
mechanical joints and hysteretic dampers.” J. Struct. Eng., 132(6),
864–872.
International Code Council (ICC). (2000). International building code,
ICC, Washington, DC.
Lee, K., and Bruneau, M. (2005). “Energy dissipation of compression
members in concentrically braced frames: review of experimental data.”
J. Struct. Eng., 131(4), 552–559.
Rai, D. C., Goel, S. C., and Firmansjah, J. (1996). “SNAP 2D-X: A general
purpose computer program for nonlinear structural analysis.” UMCEE
96-21, Dept. of Civil and Environment Engineering, Univ. of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Remennikov, A. M., and Walpole, W. R. (1998). “A note on compression
strength reduction factor for a buckled strut in seismic-resisting braced
system.” Eng. Struct., 20(8), 779–782.
Sabelli, R. (2001). “Research on improving the seismic behavior of
earthquake-resistant steel braced frames.” EERI/FEMA NEHRP Profes-
sional Fellowship Rep., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Oakland, CA.
Sarraf, M., and Bruneau, M. (1996). “Cyclic testing of existing and retro-
fitted riveted stiffened seat angle connections.” J. Struct. Eng., 122(7),
762–775.
Schneider, S. P., and Amidi, A. (1998). “Seismic behavior of steel frames
with deformable panel zones.” J. Struct. Eng., 124(1), 35–42.
Seo, Y., and Kim, J. (2003). “Seismic design of steel structures with
buckling-restrained knee braces.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 59(12),
1477–1497.
Somerville, P. G., Smith, M., Punyamurthula, S., and Sun, J. (1997).
“Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the
FEMA/SAC steel project.” SAC/BD-97/04, SAC Joint Venture,
Sacramento, CA.
Uang, C. M., and Nakashima, M. (2004). “Steel buckling-restrained
frames.” 16, Earthquake engineering: From engineering seismology
to performance-based engineering, Y. Bozorgnia and V. V. Bertero,
eds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Uriz, P., Filippou, F. C., and Mahin, S. A. (2008). “Model for cyclic
inelastic buckling of steel braces.” J. Struct. Eng., 134(4), 619–628.
Uriz, P., and Mahin, S. A. (2008). “Toward earthquake-resistant design of
concentrically braced steel-frame structures.” PEER-2008/08, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Univ. of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.