International Journal of Steel Structures

December 2013, Vol 13, No 4, 607-621

DOI 10.1007/s13296-013-4003-0

www.springer.com/journal/13296

Seismic Performance of Buckling-restrained Braced Frames with

Varying Beam-column Connections
Ahmad Fayeq Ghowsi and Dipti Ranjan Sahoo*
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi-110016, India

Abstract

The effect of beam-column connections and brace configurations on the overall seismic response of a medium-rise buckling-
restrained braced frame (BRBF) is analytically evaluated in the present study. Two types of brace configurations (chevron and
Double-X) and a combination of the moment-resisting and the non-moment-resisting beam-column connections are considered.
A total of five design cases are studied for a seven-story BRBF in which a constant value of response reduction (R) factor equal
to 8 is considered in the design. Nonlinear dynamic analyses are carried out for all study frames for an ensemble of forty ground
motions representing the DBE and MCE hazard levels. Fragility curves are developed for all study frames considering the
interstory drift ratio and residual drift ratio as the damage parameters. Results showed that a higher value of response reduction
factor should be adopted in the design of BRBFs for both pinned and rigid beam-column connections. Further, in order to
achieve the desired seismic performance of BRBFs, Double-X brace configurations and rigid beam-column connections at the
alternate story levels should be used.

Keywords: seismic analysis, steel frames, buckling-restrained braces, beam-column connections, fragility curves, seismic design

1. Introduction BRB. The cross-sectional area of both end and transition

Buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs) are primarily
used as lateral load resisting systems in the structures
located in seismic-active areas. BRBFs consist of buckling-
restrained braces (BRBs) arranged in various configurations,
such as, Inverted-V (chevron), Double-story X, etc. along
their heights. The main characteristics of BRBs are the
high ductility, excellent energy dissipation, and nearly
symmetrical hysteretic response in tension and compression.
A typical BRB, as shown in Fig. 1(a), consists of three
segments, namely, end zone, transition zone and core
segment along its length. The core segment of a BRB is
filled with unbonded concrete mortar that offers resistance
to both in-plane and out-of-plane buckling of the steel
(core) plate inside, thereby increasing the axial resistance
and energy dissipation potential under the compressive
loading. The length of core segment, also termed as
restrained-inelastic segment, varies in the range of 60-
70% of the total length (work point-to-work point) of a
Note.-Discussion open until May 1, 2014. This manuscript for this
paper was submitted for review and possible publication on February
21, 2013; approved on September 4, 2013.
© KSSC and Springer 2013
*Corresponding author
Tel: +91-11-2659-1203; Fax: +91-11-2658-1117
E-mail: drsahoo@civil.iitd.ac.in
segments of BRBs are usually larger than the core segments
in order to restrict the inelastic axial deformation within
the core segments only. BRBFs are considered as more
effective lateral-load resisting systems as compared to the
concentrically braced frames (CBFs) that suffer from the
premature buckling and the fracture of (conventional)
braces under the repetitive compressive axial loading.
This, in turn, reduces the energy dissipation potential of
the latter systems. During last several years, a number of
tests have been conducted for different types of BRBs,
both at the component levels (Watanabe et al., 1988;
Iwata et al., 2003; Merritt et al., 2003; Romero et al.,
2003; Black et al., 2004) and at the system levels (Aiken
et al., 2002; Tsai et al., 2003b; Fahnestock et al., 2007;
Chou et al., 2012). Fig. 1(b) shows a typical hysteretic
response of BRBs under cyclic loading condition (Merritt
et al., 2003). In general, BRBs should resist the combined
axial force and the rotational deformation demands under
the imposed loading in the event of an earthquake (ANSI/
AISC 341-05, 2005).
One of the major limitations of BRBF systems is the
excessive post-earthquake residual drift under severe
seismic excitations. This may be due to the smaller lateral
stiffness of BRBFs because the core segments of BRBs
are generally made of the lighter steel sections as
compared to other lateral load resisting elements designed
for the same seismic hazard. Further, the behavior of
608 Ahmad Fayeq Ghowsi and Dipti Ranjan Sahoo / International Journal of Steel Structures, 13(4), 607-621, 2013
Figure 1. (a) Different components and (b) hysteretic response of a typical BRB (Merritt et al., 2003).
beam-column connections play an important role on the
overall seismic performance of BRBFs (Field and Ko,
2004; Lin et al., 2005). The connection details used in
CBFs may not be adequate for BRBFs due to the larger
drift demands in the latter case in the event of an
earthquake (Fahnestock et al., 2007). Although several
connection schemes have been investigated in the past, an
extensive study is further needed to investigate the effect
of the type of beam-column connections and the BRB
configurations on the overall seismic response of BRBFs.
In this study, an extensive analytical investigation has
been carried out for a medium-rise BRBF system
considering various combinations of the beam-column
connections and the BRB arrangements. The seismic
performance of the study frames is evaluated through
nonlinear dynamic analysis for an ensemble of forty
ground motions representing the Design Basis Earthquake
(DBE) and the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)
hazard levels. The main parameters investigated are
interstory drift response, residual drift response, hinge
mechanism, brace ductility demand, and plastic rotational
demand on beams and columns. The objectives of this
study are (a) to evaluate the seismic performance of a
BRBF system having inverted-V (chevron) braces designed
based on the code-recommended value of the response
reduction factor with all beam-column connections being
rigid, (b) to evaluate and compare the seismic performance
of the BRBF having chevron braces designed for a higher
value of response reduction factor with all pinned beam-
column connections, and (c) to evaluate the seismic
performance of BRBFs having BRBs arranged in
Double-story X-pattern with either all pinned or all rigid
or a combination of these beam-column connections.
2. Details of Study Building
A seven-story building of plan dimension of 36.60 m×
22.87 m, as shown in Fig. 2(a), is considered for the
design of BRBF in this study. The building has five bays
along the longer direction and three bays along the
shorter direction. The overall height of the building is
25.33 m with a typical story height of 3.51 m except the
first story of 4.27 m in height. All braced bays are
symmetrically located along the exterior perimeter of the
building. A total of four braced bays are placed along the
longer direction, whereas only two braced bays are placed
in the other direction. All interior frames are considered
as the gravity-load resisting frames. The braced bay (BF-
2) as shown in the Fig. 2(b) along the shorter direction of
the building is considered as the study frame. The same
building with BRBs arranged in the chevron configuration
in the braced bays with all rigid beam-column connections
has been previously designed by López and Sabelli
(2004). The design fundamental time period of the BRBF
is estimated as 0.82 sec. and the maximum allowable
period is found to be 1.15 sec. for a Cu value of 1.4 as per
ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010) provisions. Total seismic weight
of the building is estimated as 26.38 MN. The design
base shear for the building is found to be 12.8% of the
seismic weight. Table 1 summarizes the design drift
values at various floor levels of the BRBF (BF-2). Design
drift values are computed from the elastic drift values
using a deflection amplification factor (Cd) equal to 5.0
(FEMA 450 2003). The value of allowable drift ratio is
considered as 2.0%.
Various combinations of the BRB arrangements and the
beam-column connections have been considered in this
study. Two types brace configurations, namely, chevron
and Double-X are selected. Both moment-resisting (rigid)
or non-moment-resisting (pinned) types of beam-column
connections and their combinations have been considered
along with the BRB arrangements in this study. Accordingly,
a total of five design cases of BRBFs are investigated as
follows: (a) frame with chevron braces and all rigid
beam-column (RBC) connections, (b) frame with chevron
braces and all pinned beam-column (PBC) connections,
(c) frame with Double-X braces and all RBC connections,
(d) frame with Double-X braces and all PBC connections,
 Seismic Performance of Buckling-restrained Braced Frames with Varying Beam-column Connections 609

Figure 2. (a) Plan view and (b) elevation view BF-2 of the seven-story study building.

Table 1. Design story drifts for BF-2 frame computed as per current code provisions
Elastic Design Allowable Inter Design Allowable
Story height
Story story drift story drift story drift story drift drift ratio drift ratio
(m)
∆x (cm) ∆ (cm) ∆a (cm) θx (%) θM (%) θa (%)
7th 3.51 1.30 6.45 7.01 0.37 1.84 2.00
6th 3.51 1.27 6.35 7.01 0.36 1.81 2.00
5th 3.51 1.12 5.61 7.01 0.32 1.60 2.00
4th 3.51 1.02 5.08 7.01 0.29 1.45 2.00
3rd 3.51 0.97 4.88 7.01 0.28 1.39 2.00
2nd 3.51 0.76 3.76 7.01 0.21 1.07 2.00
1st 4.27 0.69 3.38 8.53 0.16 0.79 2.00

and (e) frame with Double-X braces and both RBC and
PBC connections used at the alternate stories. Figure 3
shows the details of design cases considered in this study
and the geometric properties of various members. For the
case (e), the RBC connections are used at the beam-
column connections where the BRBs are present; otherwise,
the PBC connections are used. BRB sizes along the frame
height are determined based on the assumption that the
design story shear is proportionally divided into the
braces and the braced frame columns depending on their
relative rigidity (SEAOC, 1999). Linear elastic analysis is
carried out to estimate the axial force in the braces for
various load combinations using applicable load factors.
BRB sections are chosen such that ratio of the maximum
axial force demand to the yield resistance of BRBs is less
than or equal to unity. As followed in the practice, the
core areas of BRBs used in this study are rounded off to
a nearest 0.5 in2 (322.6 mm2) value. However, a different
distribution of BRB sizes along the height is also possible
by using (a) BRB core area as per the actual requirements,
or (b) different grades of steel as the BRB core material,
or (c) different lateral load distribution profile. In such
cases, there may be a slight change in the drift and
strength values as compared to those reported in this
study. As per ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010) provisions, the
value of response reduction factor (R) should be used as
7 (or 8) in calculating the design base shear for the BRBF
with PBC (or RBC) connections, respectively. However,
past studies (Sabelli, 2001) showed that using the value of
R in the range 6-8 in the calculation of design base shear
does not significantly affect the seismic response of
BRBFs. Thus, a constant value of R equal to 8 has been
used to estimate the axial force demand in BRBs at
different story levels and accordingly, the same sizes of
BRBs are used in all the study frames irrespective of the
type of beam-column connections. Tensile yield stress of
BRB material is considered as 345 MPa. The value of
material overstrength factor (Ry) is considered as 1.0.
Table 2 summarizes the properties of BRBs used at
various story levels of the study frames. All the beams
and columns of BRBFs are designed as per ANSI/AISC
360-05 (2005) provisions. Structural section W16×50 is
used as beams at all floor levels, whereas the sections
W14×211, W14×145 and W14×75 are used as columns
at 1st-2nd, 3rd-4th, and 5th-7th story levels of the study
frames, respectively (Fig. 3). Out of all design cases
considered in this study, only the BRBF with chevron
braces and all RBC connections satisfy all the design
requirements as per the current codes. Thus, the BRBs of
the study frame with PBC connections correspond to a
610 Ahmad Fayeq Ghowsi and Dipti Ranjan Sahoo / International Journal of Steel Structures, 13(4), 607-621, 2013

Figure 3. Details of design cases of BRBFs considered in this study.

Table 2. Geometric Properties of BRBs used at various mass have a significant effect on the dynamic response of
floor levels the braced frames, the tributary floor mass at each floor
Axial Axial Axial yield level has also been included in the analytical models. The
Area leaning column is constrained to have the same lateral
Story resistance, stiffness, deformation,
(mm2 )
F (kN) K (kN/mm) δ =F/K (mm) displacement as the adjacent braced frame column at each
2446.5 (T) 324.4 7.54 floor level. This is achieved by using rigid link beams
1 7096.76 with pinned ends at each floor level between the braced
2691.2 (C) 324.4 8.30
frame and the leaning column. The size of the leaning
2335.3 (T) 335.9 6.95
2 6774.18 column is considered as the algebraic sum of the cross-
2566.6 (C) 335.9 7.65
section properties of all gravity frame columns contributing
2112.9 (T) 303.8 6.95
3 6129.02 the P-Delta effects to the braced frame. All gravity loads
2324.2(C) 303.8 7.65
are applied at the respective nodes along the height of the
1890.5 (T) 272.0 6.95
4 5483.86 leaning column. Nonlinear behaviour of the frame members
2077.3 (C) 272.0 7.65 is modeled by assigning the lumped plastic hinges at the
1556.9 (T) 206.5 6.95 potential locations. Figure 4 shows the plastic hinge
5 4516.12
1712.6 (C) 206.5 7.65 properties used for the modeling of inelastic properties of
1223.3 (T) 51.8 6.95 BRBs and frame members in which the generalized force
6 3548.38
1345.6(C) 51.8 7.65 and displacement values are normalized with respect to
667.2 (T) 88.4 6.95 the corresponding scale factors (SF) equal to their yield
7 1935.48
734.0 (C) 88.4 7.65 values.
T=Tension; C=Compression Nonlinear axial force-displacement behavior of BRBs
is modeled by assigning (axial) plastic hinges at their
mid-lengths. Compression overstrength (b) and strain-
design case where a higher value of R is used. hardening (w) factors of BRBs are assumed as 1.1 and
1.3, respectively. The axial elastic stiffness of BRBs is
3. Analytical Modeling of BRBF estimated using the area of core segments and the length
of core segment equal to 70% of the total length. It may
In the present study, two-dimensional models of the be noted that the effective axial elastic stiffness of a BRB
study frames have been analyzed using a computer should consider the stiffness contribution from the end
package SAP 2000 (CSI, 2009). All members are modeled segments and the transition segments in addition to the
as the frame elements with proper boundary conditions as core segment. This can be estimated by using a mathematical
applicable to various design cases. In all cases, columns model consisting of three elastic spring elements connected
are assumed to be fixed at their bases. P-Delta effect due in series, each representing the end, transition, and core
to gravity loads on the building is considered by means of segments of BRBs (Huang and Tsai, 2002). Though the
a single leaning (gravity) column pinned at its base. Since value of effective axial elastic stiffness of BRBs is
the past studies (Khatib et al., 1988) showed that the floor usually smaller than the elastic stiffness of core segments,
 Seismic Performance of Buckling-restrained Braced Frames with Varying Beam-column Connections
Figure 4. Plastic hinge properties of (a) and (b) used in the analytical models.
this effect should not have a major influence on the
estimation of drift response BRBFs using nonlinear
analysis. The post-yield stiffness of BRBs is assumed as
2% of their elastic (core) stiffness. The yield displacements
of BRBs at different floor levels are summarized in Table
2. Past studies showed that the BRBs are capable of
exhibiting the deformation ductility greater than 20
(Usami et al., 2003; Tsai et al., 2003a). Hence, a ductility
value of 25 is considered to estimate the maximum axial
deformation values for BRBs in the analytical models in
this study. The nonlinear behavior of frame members
(beams and columns) is considered by using moment-
rotation plastic hinges at both ends of all the columns and
the beams with RBC connections. In case of BRBFs with
PBC connections, these plastic hinges in beams are
assigned at their mid-lengths. Various parameters of the
moment-rotation plastic hinges have been adopted from
FEMA 356 (2000) provisions as shown in Fig. 4(b). The
presence of axial load reduces the plastic moment
capacity of columns. This effect has been considered in
the plastic hinges of columns by using axial force-
bending moment (P-M) interaction behavior as defined in
Eq. (5-4) of FEMA 356 (2000) provisions. Kinematic
hardening is considered in the hysteretic behavior of all
members. However, the rigid end zones at the beam-
column connections and the beam segment between the
column face and the pinned connection location are not
explicitly modeled in this study.
4. Analysis Results
Linear modal analysis results showed that there is no
significant difference in the fundamental period values by
using different brace configurations and beam-column
connections in the study frames. The fundamental period
of the BRBFs with chevron braces is noted as about 1.10
sec., which reduced to a value of about 1.04 sec. for the
BRBFs with Double-X braces. Thus, the fundamental
period of all study frames is less than the allowable value
of 1.15 sec. as per ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010) provisions.
611
4.1. Nonlinear static analyses
Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis is carried out to
evaluate the lateral strength and the hinge mechanism of
all study frames. The fundamental mode shape is used as
the lateral load distribution profiles in the pushover
analyses. Figure 5(a) shows the comparison of capacity
curves of the study frames with various combinations of
the brace configurations and the -column connections.
Base shear ratio is obtained as the ratio of the lateral
strength to the seismic weight of BRBFs. Seismic weight
of BRBFs is computed as the sum of the dead loads of
members and the tributary loads on it. Since the same
cross-sections of frame members and BRBs are used in
all study frames, the value of seismic weight of all the
study frames is found to be 5930 kN from the computer
analysis. For a particular type of beam-column connection,
the ultimate lateral strengths of BRBFs are nearly same
for both types of brace configurations. The maximum
base shear is found to be about 30% of the seismic weight
for all study frames indicating that the lateral strengths of
BRBFs are insensitive to the brace configurations and the
type of beam-column connections. However, the maximum
roof drift at the ultimate strength levels is increased for
the BRBFs with PBC connections as compared to the
RBC connections. The maximum roof drift of the BRBFs
with PBC connections is noted as 4.5% against a value of
4.15% for the BRBFs with RBC connections. The
corresponding value for the BRBF with the alternate
RBC connections is found to be 4.3%. As expected, no
difference in the maximum roof drift values of BRBFs is
noticed by using different brace configurations for a
particular type of beam-column connection. Figure 5(b)
shows the hinge mechanism of BRBFs at the roof drift
corresponding to the maximum base shear level. Flexural
plastic hinges are formed at the column bases as well as
in the beams at the first and second stories of the BRBF
with chevron braces and RBC connections. Flexural
yielding of columns at the intermediate (upper) story
levels is also noted in this case. Similarly, in addition to
the plastic hinges at the column bases, yielding of a
612 Ahmad Fayeq Ghowsi and Dipti Ranjan Sahoo / International Journal of Steel Structures, 13(4), 607-621, 2013
Figure 5. Comparison of (a) and (b) at the maximum base shear level of all study frames.
relatively large number of intermediate columns is noticed
in the BRBF with chevron braces and PBC connections.
In case of the BRBF with Double-X braces and RBC
connections, flexural plastic hinges are noticed in the
beams at the first story level only. The number of columns
yielded at the maximum base shear level is reduced in the
BRBFs with Double-X braces as compared to those with
chevron braces for the respective beam-column connections
cases. However, the yielding of intermediate columns is
completely eliminated if Double-X braces and alternate
RBC connections are used in the BRBF. It should be
noted that the preferred yield mechanism of a braced
frame should involve the yielding/buckling of braces and
the column yielding limited to their bases only. Hence, in
order to achieve the desired hinge mechanism as per the
current code provisions, BRBs should be arranged in
Double-X configuration and the RBC connections should
be used at the alternate stories.
4.2. Nonlinear time-history analyses
Nonlinear dynamic analyses are carried out for all
study frames under two suites of SAC ground motions. A
total of forty ground motions developed by Somerville et
al. (1997) for a hypothetical site in Los Angeles are
considered in this study. Out of two suites, the first suite
(LA01-20) of ground motions represent the Design Basis
Earthquake (DBE) hazard level having a 10% probability
of exceedance in 50 years, while the other suite (LA21-
40) represents the Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE) hazard level having a 2% probability of exceedance
in 50 years. These suites of ground motions have also
been considered to evaluate the seismic performance of
braced frames in the past by other researchers (Sabelli
2001, Sahoo and Chao 2010). Various parameters evaluated
for the study frames are discussed in the following
sections.
 Seismic Performance of Buckling-restrained Braced Frames with Varying Beam-column Connections
Figure 6. Interstory drift ratio (ISDR) response of BRBFs under DBE level of earthquakes.
4.3. Interstory drift response
Interstory drift ratio (ISDR) is computed as the ratio of
the interstory displacement at any floor level of the study
frame to the corresponding story height. Figure 6 shows
the ISDR response of BRBFs under all DBE level ground
motions. The statitical quantities, such as, mean (m) and
mean (m) ±standard deviation (s) of ISDR values are also
shown in the figure. The absolue maximum ISDR value
for the BRBFs with chevron braces under any DBE level
ground motion is smaller than the allowable drift limit of
2% as per ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010) provisions. The
distribution of mean ISDR response is unifrom along the
height of the BRBFs with chevron braces. In case of the
BRBFs with Double-X braces, the ISDR values are little
larger at the floor levels where the PBC connections are
used and the mean ISDR values exceeded the drift limit
of 2% for two ground motions (LA15 and LA 16) at the
fourth story level. The maximum values of various
statistical quantities of ISDR response of all study frames
under both DBE and MCE level ground motions are
summerzied in Table 3. Under DBE level ground
motions, the m and m+s values of ISDR response of the
BRBFs with chevron braces are noted as about 1.21%
and 1.62%, respectively. The corresponding values for
the BRBFs with Double-X braces are found to be 1.25%
and 1.75% indicating a marginal increase in the drift
response of BRBFs with Double-X braces under DBE
level earthquakes. Similarly, the m and m+s values of
ISDR reponse of the BRBFs with chevron braces under
613
MCE level ground motions are noted as about 2.0% and
2.7%, repectively. The m and m+s values of ISDR
response for the BRBFs with Double-X braces varied in
the range of 2.21-2.47% and 3.26-3.47% under the MCE
ground motions, respectively. Figure 7 shows the variation
of ISDR response of all study frames under MCE level
ground motions. The absolute maximum value of ISDR
response of the BRBFs with chevron braces is observed
as 3.26% under LA21 ground motion; whereas the
corresponding value for the BRBFs with Double-X
braces is noted as 4.5% under the LA38 ground motion.
The mean value of ISDR response of the BRBFs with
Double-X braces is reduced from 2.42% for the RBC
connections to a value of 2.21% for the PBC connections
under MCE hazard level earthquakes (Table 3). The
zigzag pattern of interstory drift distribution over the
height of BRBFs with Double-X braces is noticed
primarily due to the presence of additional rigidity at the
RBC connections.
Table 4 shows the comparison of the mean ISDR
values with the design drift values at all story levels of the
study frames under DBE level earthquakes. As stated
earlier, the design values are computed using R=8 in the
design base shear expression, which is only applicable to
the BRBFs with RBC connections as per ASCE/SEI 7-10
(2010) provisions. Except the first story, the design drift
values at all story levels are about 20-50% higher than the
observed mean ISDR values for the study frames. A
maximum difference of 50% between the design and the
614 Ahmad Fayeq Ghowsi and Dipti Ranjan Sahoo / International Journal of Steel Structures, 13(4), 607-621, 2013

Figure 7. Interstory drift ratio (ISDR) response of BRBFs under MCE level of earthquakes.

Table 3. Statistical values of ISDR response of BRBFs Table 5. Statistical values of RDR response of BRBFs
Statistical Chevron Chevron Double-X Double-X Double-X Statistical Chevron Chevron Double-X Double-X Double-X
values (RBC) (PBC) (RBC) (PBC) (Alt. RBC) values (RBC) (PBC) (RBC) (PBC) (Alt. RBC)
DBE level ground motions DBE level ground motions
µ 1.21 1.21 1.25 1.23 1.27 µ 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.18
µ+σ 1.64 1.62 1.75 1.75 1.77 µ+σ 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.34 0.31
µ-σ 0.80 0.87 0.85 0.82 0.85 µ-σ 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.05
MCE level ground motions MCE level ground motions
µ 2.00 1.98 2.42 2.21 2.47 µ 0.34 0.36 0.40 0.46 0.42
µ+σ 2.69 2.72 3.40 3.26 3.47 µ+σ 0.58 0.65 0.76 0.90 0.81
µ-σ 1.35 1.29 1.44 1.23 1.50 µ-σ 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.11 0.08

Table 4. Comparison of mean ISDR response of BRBFs

with design values design using the recommended values of R for both rigid
and pinned beam-column connections is very conservative.
Chevron Chevron Double-X Double-X Double-X Hence, a higher response reduction factor (R) greater than
Story Design
(RBC) (PBC) (RBC) (PBC) (Alt. RBC) 8 should be recommended for the design of BRBFs, even
1 0.94 0.93 0.65 0.64 0.69 0.79 for the case where the pinned beam-column connections
2 1.09 1.10 1.08 1.06 1.16 1.07 are used.
3 1.13 1.11 0.86 0.83 0.88 1.39
4 1.17 1.16 1.22 1.22 1.27 1.45 4.4. Residual drift response
5 1.21 1.19 0.95 0.94 0.96 1.60 Residual Interstory drift ratio (RDR) is computed as the
6 1.17 1.17 1.25 1.23 1.25 1.81 ratio of the interstory displacement at various story levels
7 1.14 1.21 0.95 0.99 0.97 1.84 at the last step of all ground motions to the corresponding
story heights. Figure 8 shows the RDR response of all
study frames under DBE level earthquakes. BRBFs with
observed drift values is noted for the BRBFs with chevron braces exhibited the larger RDR response at the
Double-X braces. This shows that the current code-based upper stories. The maximum values of mean RDR response
 Seismic Performance of Buckling-restrained Braced Frames with Varying Beam-column Connections
Figure 8. Residual drift ratio (RDR) response of BRBFs under DBE level of earthquakes.
of the BRBFs with chevron braces is noted as about
0.12% for both types of beam-column connections.
BRBFs with Double-X braces showed a little larger RDR
response than the chevron braces and the maximum value
of mean RDR response is noted as 0.19% in case of the
PBC connections. Table 5 summarizes the statistical
quantities of RDR response of the study frames under
DBE and MCE level ground motions. The m+s value of
RDR response of the BRBFs with chevron braces is
about 0.26% under DBE level ground motions; whereas
the corresponding values for the BRBFs with Double-X
braces varied in the range of 0.29-0.34%. Figure 9 shows
the variation of RDR response of the study frames under
MCE level ground motions. The maximum residual drift
is noticed at the intermediate (2nd-4th) stories of the study
frames in both types of BRB configurations. The maximum
value of mean RDR response of the BRBFs with chevron
braces is about 0.35% for both types of beam-column
connections under MCE level ground motions. The
maximum value of mean RDR response of the BRBFs
with Double-X braces varied in the range of 0.40-0.46%.
The m+s values of RDR response of BRBFs varied
between 0.58-0.65% for the chevron braces and 0.76-
0.90% for the Double-X braces. Figure 10 shows the
comparison of mean RDR response of all study frames
with varying beam-column connections. Under both seismic
hazard levels, the BRBFs with chevron braces exhibited
smaller RDR response as compared to those with Double-
X braces. Further, in contrast to the ISDR response, the
615
BRBFs with PBC connections exhibited the larger RDR
response as compared to the RBC connections in both
brace configurations. The excessive residual drift of the
BRBFs with Double-X braces and PBC connections can
be controlled by using both RBC and PBC connections
alternatively along their heights.
4.5. Hinge mechanisms
The formation of plastic hinging in various members of
BRBFs is monitored for all ground motions representing
the DBE and MCE hazard levels. As expected, the
yielding of BRBs at all floor levels is noticed in all study
frames. No plastic hinges are formed in the beams and
columns of all study frames under DBE level ground
motion. The minor yielding of column bases is noticed
only in the BRBFs with chevron braces and RBC
connections under LA18 ground motion. It is expected
that the hinge mechanism of BRBFs should consist of the
plastic hinges at the column bases in addition to the brace
yielding under DBE level ground motions. The smaller
plastic rotational demand at the column bases of all study
frames might be due to a large margin of safety between
the design and allowable drift values at the first story of
BRBFs (Table 1). Table 6 summarizes the plastic hinges
formed in the beams and columns of BRBFs under the
MCE level earthquakes. In case of the BRBFs with
chevron braces, all plastic hinges in columns are formed
only at their bases for both RBC and PBC connections. A
few additional plastic hinges are also formed in the beams
616 Ahmad Fayeq Ghowsi and Dipti Ranjan Sahoo / International Journal of Steel Structures, 13(4), 607-621, 2013

Figure 9. Residual drift ratio (RDR) response of BRBFs under MCE level of earthquakes.

Figure 10. Comparison of mean RDR response of BRBFs under DBE and MCE hazard levels.

of the BRBFs with RBC connections. In case of the
BRBFs with Double-X braces, the yielding of various
frame members at the intermediate story levels is noticed
ýin addition to the plastic hinges at the column bases. A
total of 67 plastic hinges are formed in the beams of the
BRBF with Double-X braces and RBC connections as
compared to the 36 plastic hinges in case of the BRBF
with chevron braces and same type of beam-column
connections under twenty MCE level ground motions
(Table 6). A reduced number of plastic hinges are formed
in the beams of the BRBF with Double-X braces and
alternate RBC connections due to the introduction of
moment release at the pinned ends of the beams. Since
the plastic hinging in columns should be limited to their
bases and no other plastic hinges are allowed in the frame
members at the intermediate stories at the mechanism
stage, Double-X brace configurations with RBC connections
at alternate stories should be used in BRBFs to achieve
better seismic performance.
4.6. Maximum plastic rotations and brace ductility
As stated earlier, the yielding of beams and columns of
BRBFs is noticed only under the MCE level ground
motions. The higher plastic rotational demand on the
columns is noticed in the BRBFs with RBC connections.
In case of chevron braces, the maximum plastic rotation
 Seismic Performance of Buckling-restrained Braced Frames with Varying Beam-column Connections 617

Table 6. Details of plastic hinges in BRBFs under MCE level earthquakes?

Chevron Chevron Double-X Double-X Double-X
Ground (RBC) (PBC) (RBC) (PBC) (Alt. RBC)
motions
Beam Column Column Beam Column Column Beam Column
LA21 1S2,3S1,4S1,5S1 GF2 GF2 1S1,2S2,3S1,4S2,6S1 3S1,5S2 4S1 2S2,4S2,6S1 5S1
LA22 1S2 GF2 GF2 4S1 4S1
LA23 - - - - - - - -
LA24 - - - - - - - -
LA25 - GF2 2S1,3S2,4S1 2S1,4S1
LA26 1S2,2S2,3S1 GF2 GF2 1S2,2S1,3S2,4S1,6S1 GF1 4S1 2S1,4S1
LA27 - 2S1
LA28 1S2 GF2 GF2 1S2,2S2,3S1,4S1,6S1 2S2,4S1
LA29 - - - - - - - -
LA30 - - - - - - - -
LA31 1S2 GF2 GF2 1S1,2S1 - - -
LA32 1S2,2S1,3S2,4S2 GF2 GF2 1S1,2S1,3S1,4S1 3S1 4S1 2S1,4S1 -
LA33 - - - - - - - -
LA34 - - - - - - - -
LA35 1S2 GF2 GF2 1S2,2S2,3S2,4S2 GF1 GF1 2S2,4S1 GF1
LA36 1S2 GF2 GF2 1S2,2S2,3S2,4S1 GF1 GF1 2S2,4S1 GF1
LA37 1S2 GF2 GF2 1S2,2S1,3S1,4S1 GF1 GF1 2S1,4S1 GF1
LA38 1S2,2S2,3S2,4S1 GF2 GF2 1S2,2S2,3S2,4S2,5S1,6S1 GF2 GF2,2S1,4S1 2S2,4S2,6S1 GF2
LA39 - - - - - - - -
LA40 - GF2 GF2 1S2,2S1,4S1 GF1 GF1 2S1,4S1 GF1
Total
36 24 22 67 11 11 30 7
hinges
nSm denotes “m” number of plastic hinges at the n-th story

Figure 11. Maximum ductility demand on BRBs in BRBFs under DBE and MCE ground motions.

at the column bases is about 0.01 rad. for both types of
beam-column connections under LA38 ground motion.
The maximum plastic rotation at the column bases of
BRBFs with Double-X braces is found to be smaller than
0.01 rad. for both the PBC and the alternate RBC
connections. However, a higher plastic rotational demand
of 0.023 rad. is noted at the column bases of the BRBF
with Double-X braces and RBC connections. Brace ductility
demand is computed as the ratio of the maximum axial
deformation of BRBs (in tension or compression) under
any ground motion to their corresponding yield values.
Figure 11 shows the variation of the absolute maximum
value of BRB ductility demand of the study frames.
Under both DBE and MCE hazard levels, a higher BRB
ductility demand is noted for the BRBFs with Double-X
braces as compared to those with chevron braces. For
DBE level ground motions, the maximum value of BRB
ductility demand for the BRBFs with chevron braces is
computed as 3.6 under LA13 ground motion; whereas the
corresponding value for the BRBFs with Double-X
618 Ahmad Fayeq Ghowsi and Dipti Ranjan Sahoo / International Journal of Steel Structures, 13(4), 607-621, 2013
braces is found to be 8.3 under LA16 ground motion. For
MCE level ground motions, the maximum values of BRB
ductility demand are found to be 7.4 and 17.0 for the
BRBFs with chevron and Double-X braces, respectively,
under LA38 ground motion. No significant difference in
the BRB ductility demand in BRBFs is noticed by
changing the beam-column connections from rigid to
pinned for a particular brace configuration. Past experimental
studies (Merritt et al., 2003; Usami et al., 2003) have
shown that BRBs can sustain a higher value of ducility
demand (greater than 20). Thus, the excellent deformation
ductility potential of BRBs is not effectively utilized in
the seismic performance of BRBFs, if designed as per the
current code provisions. This study shows that Double-X
braces should be used in BRBFs to effectively utilize the
deformation ductility characteristics of BRBs as compared
to the chevron braces.
5. Fragility Curves
A fragility curve represents the probability of reaching
or exceeding a damage state at a specified seismic hazard
level. Although some researchers have proposed to use a
log-normal probability density function (PDF), recent
studies (Altug Erberik, 2008) have shown that a normal
(or Gaussian) PDF can also provide reasonably satisfactory
results. Normal PDF have been considered in this study
in which both m and s values of the engineering demand
parameter (EDP) have been calculated for each twenty
earthquake records representing the DBE and MCE
hazard levels. The probability of exceedance of each
EDP, computed using a cumulative normal distribution
function, can be expressed as follows:
p = P[ EDP > x] = 1 – ϕ⎛x---------
– µ-⎞
(1)
⎝ σ ⎠
where p is the probability of reaching or exceeding a
damage state x; EDP is the damage random variable; µ is
the mean value of damage variable; σ is the standard
Figure 12. Fragility curves for mean ISDR response of Double-X (Alt. RBC) BRBF under DBE and MCE hazard levels.
variation of damage variable; and ϕ is the normal probability
function. It is worth mentioning that the normal distribution
of variables and their derived quantities is symmetric
about their mean values, which cannot be applicable to
the strongly skewed data. Further, the normal distribution
is essentially zero for the variables lying beyond the
specified range of standard deviation (or sigma) from the
mean value. Most commonly, an empirical rule termed as
‘3-sigma rule’ is adopted in the distribution in which
about 99.7% of the values are taken into account. For the
data set considered for the fragility analysis in this study,
the maximum value of sigma is found to be 2.5 indicating
that the above-rule is not violated.
In this study, fragility functions are developed for
primarily two response parameters, i.e., ISDR and RDR.
Figure 12 shows the fragility curves for the mean ISDR
response at different story levels of the BRBF with
Double-X braces and alternate RBC connections. Under
the DBE level ground motions, the probability of exceedance
of the ISDR response of the BRBF is higher at the floor
levels where the PBC connections are used. The probability
of exceeding the mean ISDR value of 1.5% at the first
story level (with PBC connections) is found to be 100%,
whereas the corresponding value at the sixth story level
(with RBC connections) is noted as 75%. In contrast, the
probability of exceeding the mean ISDR response is
found to be higher at the upper stories of the BRBFs with
RBC connections under MCE level ground motions.
Similar behavior is also observed in the fragility curves
for the mean ISDR response of all study frames irrespective
of the type of beam-columns connections used. This
indicates that the members at the first story level are more
susceptible to damage under the DBE level ground
motions, whereas the members the sixth story level are
more vulnerable to damage under the MCE level ground
motions. Figure 13 shows the comparison of fragility
curves for the peak ISDR response of BRBFs under the
selected ground motions. The absolute maximum value of
the mean ISDR response at all floor levels of the study
frames is considered as the peak ISDR response in this
 Seismic Performance of Buckling-restrained Braced Frames with Varying Beam-column Connections 619

Figure 13. Fragility curves for absolute peak ISDR response of BRBFs under (a) DBE and (b) MCE hazard levels.

Figure 14. Fragility curves for absolute peak RDR response of BRBFs under (a) DBE and (b) MCE hazard levels.

study. The performance limit for ISDR response under
the “life safety” state is considered as 1.5% for DBE level
earthquakes as per FEMA 356 (2000) provisions. Results
showed that the brace configurations, rather than the type
of beam-column connections, played an important role in
controlling the probability of exceedance of the performance
limits for peak ISDR response of BRBFs. The probability
of exceeding the ISDR value of 1.5% is noted as 65% for
BRBFs with chevron braces, whereas the corresponding
value for the BRBFs with Double-X braces is about 55%.
Similarly, the probability of exceeding the peak ISDR
performance limit of 2.0% under the “collapse prevention”
state under MCE level ground motions is found to be
40% and 25% for the BRBFs with chevron braces and
Double-X braces with either RBC or alternate RBC
connections, respectively. Thus, the BRBFs are designed
for a higher value of response reduction factor (R=8)
have still a large margin of safety against the exceedance
of the drift limits under both hazard levels.
Figure 14(a) shows the fragility curves for the peak
RDR response of BRBFs under DBE hazard level. The
performance limits for the RDR response of BRBFs are
considered as 0.5% and 2.0% under the “life safety” and
“collapse preventions” levels, respectively (FEMA 356,
2000). No significant difference is noticed in the peak
RDR response of the BRBFs with chevron braces under
DBE hazard level and the probability of exceedance of
peak RDR value is noticed as 99% for either RBC or
PBC connections. Similarly, the probability of exceeding
the RDR performance limit under “life safety” level for
the BRBFs with Double-X braces is observed as 99, 97,
and 94% for the RBC, alternate RBC, and PBC
connections respectively. This indicates that the margin of
safety in exceeding the performance limit of RDR
response of BRBFs under DBE hazard level is little
higher if the PBC connections are used. As shown in Fig.
14(b), the performance limit for the RDR response is
exceeded in all BRBF systems at a drift value of 1.5%
under the MCE level ground motions. It is worth
mentioning that controlling the RDR response of braced
frames is not the primary performance objective under
MCE level earthquakes.
6. Conclusions
Based on the analysis results, following conclusions
can be drawn for medium-rise BRBFs:
(1) Using a response reduction factor (R) equal to 8 in
620 Ahmad Fayeq Ghowsi and Dipti Ranjan Sahoo / International Journal of Steel Structures, 13(4), 607-621, 2013
the design of BRBFs with rigid beam-column connections
leads to under-utilization of frame members in the event
of earthquakes. Although a smaller value of R is
recommended by the current codes for the design of
BRBFs with pinned beam-column connections, a large
margin of safety is noticed between the drift response and
allowable drift values under DBE level ground motions
even if a higher value of R equal to 8 is used in the
design. The maximum ductility demand on BRBs of a
medium-rise BRBF is less than 10 and 15 under the DBE
and MCE level ground motions, respectively. Hence, the
higher values of response reduction factor should be
adopted in the design of BRBFs for both pinned and rigid
beam-column connections.
(2) The mean interstory drift response of the BRBFs
with chevron braces and rigid beam-column connections
is higher than the design drift by 20% at the lower story
levels and is smaller than the design values by up to 40%
at the upper story levels. However, the mean interstory
drift values are smaller than the corresponding design
values at all story levels for the BRBFs with Double-X
brace configurations. Further, BRBFs with pinned beam-
column connections at all stories showed the smaller
interstory drift response in both brace configurations.
(3) BRBFs with Double-story X-braces exhibited the
larger post-earthquake residual drift as compared to those
with chevron braces. A higher residual drift response is
noticed if the pinned beam-column connections are used
at all story levels of BRBFs with both chevron and
Double-X brace configurations.
(4) While the BRBFs with pinned beam-column
connections reduces the number of plastic hinging due to
ýthe introduction of moment release, additional plastic
hinges formed in the intermediate columns may result in
the soft-story collapse. Hence, Double-story X-brace
configurations with moment-resisting beam-column
connections at the alternate stories should be used in
order to achieve the better seismic performance.
References
Aiken, I. D., Mahin, S. A., and Uriz, P. R. (2002). “Large-
scale testing of buckling restrained braced frames.” Proc.
Japan Passive Control Symposium, Tokyo Institute of
Technology, Japan.
Altug Erberik, M. (2008). “Fragility-based assessment of
typical mid-rise and low-rise RC buildings in Turkey.”
Engineering Structures, 30(5), pp. 1360-1374.
ANSI/AISC 341-05 (2005). Seismic provisions for structural
steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Consttruction,
Chicago, IL.
ANSI/AISC 360-05 (2005). Specifications for structural
steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Consttruction,
Chicago, IL.
ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings
and other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers,
VA.
Black, C. J., Makris, N., and Aiken, I. D. (2004). “Component
testing, seismic evaluation and characterization of buckling-
restrained braces.” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 130(6), pp. 880-894.
Chou, C. C., Liu, J. H., and Pham, D. H. (2012). “Steel
buckling-restrained braced frames with single and dual
corner gusset connections: seismic tests and analyses.”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 41(7),
pp. 1137-1156.
CSI (2009). CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP 2000.
Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
Fahnestock, L. A., Sause, R., and Ricles, J. M. (2007).
“Seismic response and performance of buckling-restrained
braced frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 133(9), pp. 1195-1204.
FEMA 356 (2000). Prestandard and commentary for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC.
FEMA 450 (2003). NEHRP recommended provisions for
seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures.
Part 1-Provisions, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, DC.
Field, C. and Ko, E. (2004). “Connection performance of
buckling restrained braced frames.” Proc. 13th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC,
Canada.
Huang, Y. C. and Tsai, K. C. (2002). Experimental responses
of large scale buckling restrained brace frames. Report
no. CEER/R91-03, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
(in Chinese).
Iwata, M., Kato, T., and Wada, A. (2003). “Performance
evaluation of buckling-restrained braces in damage-
controlled structures: Behavior of steel structures in
seismic area.” Proc. 4th International Conference
STESSA, Naples, Italy.
Khatib, F., Mahin, S. A., and Pister, K. S. (1988). Seismic
behavior of concentrically braced steel frames. Report
No. UCB/EERC-88/01, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Berkeley, CA.
Lin, M. L., Tsai, K. C., Hsiao, P. C., and Tsait, C. Y. (2005).
“Compressive behavior of buckling restrained braces
gusset connections.” Proc. 1st International Conf. on
Advanced Experimental Structural Engineering, Nagoya,
Japan.
López, W. A. and Sabelli, R. (2004). Seismic design of
buckling-restrained braced frames. Structural Steel
Education Council, Moraga, CA.
Merritt, S., Uang, C. M., and Benzoni, G. (2003).
Subassemblage testing of corebrace buckling-restrained
braces. Final Report to CoreBrace, LLC, Rep. No. TR-
2003/01, Department of Structural Engineering, University
of California at San Diego, USA.
Romero, P., Reaveley, L., Miller, P., and Okahashi, T. (2003).
Full-scale testing of WC Series buckling-restrained
braces. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Utah, USA.
Sabelli, R. (2001). Research on improving the design and
analysis of earthquake-resistant steel braced frames. The
2000 NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
 Seismic Performance of Buckling-restrained Braced Frames with Varying Beam-column Connections
Sahoo, D. R. and Chao, S. -H. (2010). “Performance-based
plastic design method for buckling-restrained braced
frames.” Engineering Structures, 32(9), pp. 2950-2958.
SEAOC (1999). Seismic Design Manual. Vol. I-Code
Application Examples, Structural Engineers Association
of California, Sacramento, USA.
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. Rep. No. SAC/
BD-97/04, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA.
Tsai, K. C., Loh, C. H., Hwang, Y. C., and Weng, C. S.
(2003a). “Seismic retrofit of building structures with
dampers in Taiwan.” Proc. Symposium on Seismic
Retrofit of Buildings and Bridges with Base Isolation and
Dampers, Kyoto, Japan.
621
Tsai, K. C., Hsiaso, B. C., Lai, J. W., Chen, C. H., Lin, M.
L., and Weng, Y. T. (2003b). “Pseudo-dynamic experimental
response of a full-scale CFT-BRB composite frame.”
Proc. Joint NCREE/JRC Workshop on International
Collaboration on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation
Research, Taipei, Taiwan.
Usami, T., Kasai, A., and Kato, M. (2003). “Behavior of
buckling-restrained brace members: Behavior of Steel
Structures in Seismic Areas.” Proc. 4th International
Conf. STESSA, Naples, Italy.
Watanabe, A., Hitomi, Y., Saeki, E., Wada, A., and Fujimoto,
M. (1988). “Properties of brace encased in buckling-
restrained concrete and steel tube.” Proc. 9th World Conf.
on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.