Thin–Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

Strong-axis stability and seismic performance of perforated core plate

buckling-restrained braces
Yun Zhou a, Chen Gong d, Junxian Zhao b, c, *, Genquan Zhong e, Shiyu Tian a
a
School of Civil Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, 510006, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510641, China
c
School of Civil Engineering and Transportation, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510641, China
d
Guangzhou Architectural Engineering Design Institute Co., Ltd., Guangzhou, 510030, China
e
School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510006, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Perforated core plate buckling-restrained brace (PBRB) is a new type of energy dissipation device proposed
Buckling-restrained brace recently. Several perforated zones are evenly distributed along the brace length of PBRB to dissipate seismic
Perforated core plate energy and separated by transition zones to improve their strong-axis stability. Previous studies showed that
Cyclic test
improper perforated core plate (PCP) configurations may lead to premature strong-axis buckling and rupture
Seismic performance
Strong-axis buckling
failure in the perorated zones. However, effect of the PCP configurations on the performance of PBRB still re­
mains unclear. This study aims to investigate numerically and experimentally the influence of PCP configurations
on the strong-axis stability and seismic performance of PBRB. Key parameters include the type of perforated
zone, the length of transition zone, and the ratio between the length of a perforated zone and the width of a
yielding segment. Numerical analysis shows that (1) the perforated zone with the semi-circle type is more
beneficial in improving the stability and seismic performance of PBRB than the rectangle type; (2) The length of
transition zone has significant impact on the stability performance of PBRB, and it is recommended to be no less
than half the width of a yielding segment. Cyclic tests of three PBRB specimens with the semi-circle type were
conducted, and the experimental and numerical results show that increase in the length of perforated zone is
beneficial in improving the seismic performance of PBRB but may trigger strong-axis buckling in the perforated
zone. A practical criterion to prevent the strong-axis buckling of PBRB is quantified by parametric analysis.

1. Introduction
Buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) are metallic yielding dampers that
have been widely applied in buildings to mitigate structural damage
caused by earthquakes [1–3]. With the constraining effect from the
outer restrainer, the inner steel core of a BRB can yield both in tension
and compression to dissipate seismic energy without experiencing sig­
nificant buckling. Rectangular, cruciform and H-shaped cross-sections
have been commonly adopted as the core elements of BRBs [4–19],
with restrainers consisting of concrete-filled steel tube members [3,5–7],
concrete panels [4], all-steel members [8–17], or GFRP members [18,
19]. The BRBs with rectangular core plate restrained by all-steel com­
ponents (called core plate BRBs) [11–16] have received much attention
recently due to their light weight, easy fabrication and easy assembly. It
is required that yielding should be controlled within specific portions of
the core plate only, while the two ends of the core plate should remain
elastic and stable. To this end, design principle of the core plate in the
past focused on the strengthening strategy, in which stiffeners are wel­
ded to the two ends of the core plate to form elastic connection zone
(Fig. 1 (a)). As a result, plastic deformations of the BRBs could be
controlled within the yielding zone.
One of the challenges for improvement of the core plate BRB should
be the fracture problem at the weld toe (Fig. 1(a)) of the stiffeners due to
strain concentration (Fig. 2 (a)). Some researchers tried to address this
issue by detailing the welding procedure and welding configuration at
the weld toe [20]. However, these procedures are generally
time-consuming, not economical and not practical for engineering
practice. Some other researchers tried to address this problem by using
the dog-bone shaped core plate configuration (Fig. 1 (b)) such that the
weld toe of stiffeners can be shifted to the transition zone [21]. Such

* Corresponding author. State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510641, China.
E-mail address: ctjxzhao@scut.edu.cn (J. Zhao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.106997
Received 19 February 2020; Received in revised form 23 July 2020; Accepted 24 July 2020
Available online 17 August 2020
0263-8231/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Zhou et al.
configuration, however, causes manufacturing difficulties in providing
the required space to accommodate the relative axial movement be­
tween the core plate and the restrainer.
The concept of ‘weakening rather than strengthening’, proposed by
the first author early in 2009 [22,23] to configure the core element of
BRBs, may provide an effective option to address the aforementioned
problem. As shown in Fig. 3 ad 4 (a), only the middle portion of the core
plate is perforated to form the yielding zones while the two ends remain
unperforated and elastic. In such a manner, stiffeners and welding can
be shifted from the original yielding zone (Fig. 1 (a)) to the elastic zone
(Fig. 3) to avoid the weld-induced fracture problem. Also, the overall
width of the perforated core plate (PCP) (see B in Fig. 4 (a)) can remain
the same along the brace length, such that no additional space is
required to accommodate the relative axial movement between the core
plate and the restrainer. This could enable easier assembling of the core
plate BRB.
As shown in Figs. 3 and 4 (a), the aforementioned concept has been
applied by the authors in the perforated core plate BRBs (hereafter
called PBRB) [22,23], in which the core plate is sandwiched by two filler
plates and two cover plates using high-strength bolts. Configuration of
the perforated zone is characterized by combination of a rectangle and a
pair of semi-circle on both sides to avoid strain concentration. Every two
adjacent perforated zones are separated by an elastic transition zone to
avoid strong-axis buckling in the perforated zone. Cyclic tests were
conducted by the authors to validate the performance of the PBRBs [22,
23]. It was found that plastic deformations of the PBRB could be effec­
tively controlled within the designated perforated zones with excellent
cyclic performance, and the weld-induced fracture problem could be
successfully avoided. However, if the PBRB is not properly designed,
strong-axis buckling (Fig. 2 (b)) could be observed in the perforated
zones due to the absence of restraining unit between the two parallel
yielding segments. This would cause premature rupture in the PBRBs
due to local strain concentration induced from the strong axis buckling,
as shown in Fig. 2 (b).
Based on similar concept, another type of PBRB was proposed by
Piedrafita et al. [24] in 2015, as shown in Fig. 4 (b). Different from that
proposed by the authors (Fig. 4 (a)), their PBRB comprises two contin­
uous lateral bands as the yielding segments, which are connected
transversely by separated stabilizing bridges. These bridges were
designed to be narrow in width so as to provide only lateral and rota­
tional support to the lateral bands. As a result, these bridges were not
expected to provide axial stiffness. Configuration of their perforated
zone is characterized by only a rectangle with small chamfering at the
four corners, different from the semi-circle configuration in Fig. 4 (a).
Analytical and experimental studies were performed to verify effec­
tiveness of their PBRBs. It was found that strong-axis buckling of the
Fig. 1. Conventional core plate of BRB.
2
Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997
perforated zones could be observed even though the specimens were
properly designed based on their proposed simplified design procedure.
One potential reason may be the interaction between the lateral band
(yielding part) and stabilizing bridge (elastic part) that influence the
stability performance and the stress transfer mechanism between the
two zones, which still remains unclear so far.
2. Research objectives
The above summary indicates that studies on the new PBRBs are very
limited so far. Little attention has been paid to the influence of PCP
configurations on the PBRB performance. On the other hand, it is found
by Takeuchi et al. [25] that local bulging in the restrainer induced by
strong-axis buckling of the core plate in the outwards direction could be
often observed in conventional core plate BRBs (Fig. 1). However, unlike
the conventional BRBs, restraining unit is absent between the two par­
allel yielding segments within the perforated zones of PBRB. As a result,
the inwards strong-axis buckling (Fig. 2 (b)) becomes the governing
failure mode in the PBRB, and the design procedure proposed for con­
ventional BRB can no longer ensure the strong-axis stability of PBRB.
These are the key issues that need to be addressed prior to application of
the PBRBs into practice.
Based on the aforementioned problems and the authors’ prior work
[22,23], this study aims to investigate numerically and experimentally
the influence of the PCP configurations on the strong-axis stability and
cyclic performance of the PBRBs. Finite element analysis (FEA) is con­
ducted to investigate the relationship between the PCP configurations
and the strong-axis stability of the perforated zone. Cyclic tests of three
PBRB specimens with semi-circle configuration are introduced to
examine the effect of PCP on the seismic performance. Additional FEA is
performed to illustrate the failure mode of the specimens and evaluate
the influence of the PCP configurations on the equivalent plastic strain
demands on the perforated zone. Reasonable PCP configurations are
concluded from the aforementioned analysis, and parametric FEA is
conducted to quantify a practical design criterion to avoid the
strong-axis buckling of the PBRBs with semi-circle configuration.
3. Numerical analysis on effect of perforated core plate
configurations on the strong-axis stabiity of PBRB
3.1. FE models
A total of 120 FE models were designed to examine the reasonable
PCP configuration to optimize the strong-axis stability performance of
PBRBs. Table 1 summarizes the matrix for parametric analysis. Two
different core plate dimensions with B × L = 110 mm × 2200 mm and
Y. Zhou et al. Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997

200 mm × 3000 mm were provided for Groups 1 to 3 and Groups 4 to 6, versus the transition zone length (Lt1) relationship is further summarized
respectively. The models in each group share the same axial stiffness and in Fig. 8.
yield strength. The concerned parameters include the Ly/b ratio, the It is worthwhile to note that the strong-axis buckling capacity of the
perforated zone configuration (Fig. 4 (a) or (b)) and the transition zone PBRB with rectangle configuration was studied by Piedrafita et al. [24],
length. The width b of a single yielding segment is no larger than B/ given by
(1.65 × 2) to achieve elastic response in the transition zone. The value of
2 π 2 Et I y
1.65 is obtained by estimating a strain-hardening factor of 1.5 for Chi­ Fq = (1)
nese Q235 steel (nominal yield strength of 235 MPa) and a compression (kLa )2
strength adjustment factor of 1.1. Chamfering with a radius of 10 mm
where Et is the tangent modulus of the yielding segment and was taken
was provided at the four inner corners of the perforated zone with
as 1.8%E; Iy = Tb3/12 is the moment of inertia of a single yielding
rectangle configuration to reduce strain concentration.
section; k is the effective length factor and was taken as 0.5 by assuming
As shown in Fig. 3, two cover plates and two filler plates are provided
fixed end condition; La is the length of the lateral band between two
for each model, and they are properly designed to prevent global
adjacent bridges excluding the chamfering, and this can be equivalent to
buckling [26] and weak-axis local buckling [27]. 1 mm gap is provided
Ly2 for the PBRB with semi-circle configuration (Fig. 4 (a)). Eq. (1) is
between the core plate and the restrainer to accommodate the core plate
obtained based on the Euler formulation, assuming that there is no
expansion. Fig. 5 shows a typical FE model meshed with C3D8R solid
restrainer surrounding the perforated zone. Thus, Eq. (1) only represents
elements. For simplicity, tie constraint is applied between the filler plate
the inelastic buckling capacity of a pure axial compression steel mem­
and the cover plate to simulate the clamping effect from the bolts. The
ber. Apparently, this assumption does not corresponding with the
core plate is meshed with a size of 5 mm in the longitudinal direction,
buckling restraining condition on the perforated core plate. Thus, the
except for the Ly1 sections (Fig. 4 (a)) with a mesh size of 1.57 mm. The
theoretical buckling capacities of the models determined from Eq. (1)
core plate width and thickness are meshed with a size of 2.75 mm and 5
are also presented in Fig. 7 for comparison.
mm, respectively. The cover plate is meshed with a size of 20 mm.
Figs. 7 and 8 and Table 3 lead to the following observations:
Hard contact and Coulomb friction behavior with a coefficient of 0.1
[28] are defined, respectively, as the normal and the tangential contact
(1) As shown in Fig. 7, the models in each group share almost the
behavior between the core plate and the restrainer. The first-order
same axial stiffness and yield force although different perforated
buckling mode shape of the core plate in the strong-axis direction,
zone configuration and Lt1 values are provided. These models
with a magnitude of 1/1000 of the brace length, is considered as the
exhibit quite different post-yield behaviors especially for the
initial geometric imperfection. Nonlinear isotropic-kinematic hardening
buckling capacity and ductility. This suggests that the PCP
model is provided for the core plate material based on the previous
configuration needs to be properly detailed to optimize the sta­
material property tests by the authors [23]. Detailed parameters for
bility performance of the PBRBs.
defining such hardening model are summarized in Table 2. One of the
(2) As shown in Figs. 7 and 8, the models with the semi-circle
BRB ends is fixed while the other end is allowed to move in the axial
configuration always exhibit higher buckling capacities than
direction to apply monotonic or cyclic loading.
those with the rectangle one, especially when a relatively low Lt1
Previous experimental cyclic response of two PBRB specimens [23]
value is provided. This means that the semi-circle configuration
with the configuration in Fig. 4 (a) are provided for validation of the FE
would be beneficial in improving the strong-axis stability per­
models. Key parameters of the two specimens, labelled as NPB3 and
formance of PBRBs.
NPB4, are summarized in Table 1. Comparison between the experi­
(3) As evident from Table 3, most of the models with the rectangle
mental and numerical results is presented in Fig. 6. The vertical axis
configuration experience strong-axis buckling in the perforated
means the axial force F normalized with the axial yield strength Fyc, and
zone along with significant bending deformation in the bridges (b
the horizontal one means the axial strain ε, determined from the axial
= 10, 20, 40 and 50 mm). However, no observable bending
deformation divided by the total perforated zone length (n × Ly).
deformation could be found in the transition zones of the models
Effectiveness of the FE model can be validated by reasonable agreement
with semi-circle configuration. This indicates that the semi-circle
between the two results. Since the effect of PCP configuration on the
configuration can provide larger restraining effect on the adja­
strong-axis stability is only concerned, monotonic compressive loading
cent yielding segments, and thus be more beneficial in improving
is only applied to these models in subsequent discussion.
the strong-axis stability.
(4) As shown in Fig. 8, the buckling capacity and ductility of the
3.2. Axial compressive force versus ductility relationship models tend to grow with the increase of Lt1, but remain stable
when the Lt1 value is sufficiently high. This can be due to the
Fig. 7 shows the axial compressive force F versus the ductility factor μ increase of restraining effect on the yielding segments when a
relationship of the FE models. Decline of the relationship indicates the longer transition zone length is provided.
strong-axis buckling in the perforated zone. Typical illustration of the (5) As highlighted by the shaded triangles in Fig. 8, there exists a
buckling modes is summarized in Table 3. The buckling capacity (Fq) minimum Lt1 value (defined as Lt1,min) beyond which the stability

Fig. 2. Typical failure modes of the core plates in BRBs.

3
Y. Zhou et al. Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997

Fig. 3. Perforated core plate BRB proposed by the authors [23].

Fig. 4. Two types of perforated core plate.

Table 1
Matrix for FE analysis.
Group/Specimen Dimensions Concerned parameters

n L (mm) B (mm) T (mm) Ly (mm) b (mm) Ly/b Perforated zone configuration Lt1 (mm)

1 6 2200 110 10 180 10 18 Cir/Rec 1.5/2/5/10/20/30

2 6 2200 110 10 180 20 9 Cir/Rec /50/70/90/105 for Groups 1 to 6
3 6 2200 110 10 180 30 6 Cir/Rec
4 4 3000 200 10 450 40 11.25 Cir/Rec
5 4 3000 200 10 450 50 9 Cir/Rec
6 4 3000 200 10 450 60 7.5 Cir/Rec
NPB3 3 1600 100 10 220 24 9.17 Cir 170
NPB4 3 1600 100 10 150 24 6.25 Cir 275

Note: NPB3 and NPB4 are the specimens [23] used for validation of the FE models; n is the number of perforated zones; As illustrated in Fig. 4, L, B, T are the length, the
width and the thickness of the core plate, respectively; Ly and Lt1 are the lengths of the perforated zone and the transition zone, respectively; b is the width of a single
yielding segment; Cir and Rec mean the perforated core plate with semi-circle (Fig. 4 (a)) and rectangle (Fig. 4 (b)) configurations, respectively.

Fig. 5. A typical FE model (Group 2, Lt1 = 105 mm) meshed with C3D8R solid element.

4
Y. Zhou et al.
Table 2
Parameters for defining the isotropic-kinematic hardening model.
Member Material σy E Q∞ C C1 γ1
(MPa) (GPa) (MPa)
Core Q235-B 250 197 40 150 6000 44.4
plate
Note: σy and E are the yield strength and the elastic modulus of steel material,
obtained from the previous tensile coupon tests [23]; Q∞ is the maximum
change in the size of the yield surface; c defines the rate at which the size of the
yield surface changes as the plastic strain develops; C1 and γ1 are the parameters
related to backstresses.
capacity becomes no longer sensitive to the variation of Lt1. Thus,
Lt1,min can be seen as the minimum transition zone length
required for optimizing the strong-axis stability performance of
PBRB.
(6) Fig. 9 shows the relationship between Lt1,min and b. It indicates
that the Lt1,min value is always smaller for the semi-circle
configuration than the rectangle one, and shows almost linear
relationship with b. Linear regression analysis shows that the Lt1,
min value can be taken as Lt1,min = 0.34b and Lt1,min = 0.78b,
respectively, for the PBRBs with semi-circle and rectangle con­
figurations, respectively. This can be explained by the fact that
the demand on the increase of restraining effect from the tran­
sition zone becomes significant when the width of a yielding
segment increases.
(7) Most of the buckling capacities of the models estimated by Eq. (1)
fall quite significant below the numerical results. Apparently, Eq.
(1) is not effective for predicting the strong-axis stability capacity
of PBRB. This can be well explained by the additional restraining
effects from the filler plates placed outside the core plate, which
was ignored in Eq. (1). Therefore, deeper discussion on an ac­
curate and practical prediction of the strong-axis buckling ca­
pacity of PBRB is warranted. This issue will be further discussed
in Section 7.
4. Test program
In the previous section, reasonable PCP configuration to optimize the
strong-axis stability of PBRB is discussed by numerical analysis. It shows
that the PBRBs with the semi-circle configuration show superior stability
performance than those with the rectangle one. This section aims to
evaluate, from experimental point of view, the seismic performance of
the PBRBs with the reasonable semi-circle configuration according to
the Chinese codes.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the cyclic response between experiment and numerical simulation.
5
Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997
4.1. Specimens
Fig. 10 and Table 4 present the configurations and dimensions of the
specimens, respectively. In Table 4, the elastic axial stiffness kc, the yield
force Fyc, and the yield displacement δyc can be determined by
1
kc = nLy (2)
+ (n−EA2)L t1 2Lt2
+ EA Lt3
+ EA 2Ls
+ EA
EAy
t1 t2 t3 s
Fyc = fyc Ay (3)
Fyc
δyc = (4)
kc
As illustrated in Fig. 4, Eq. (2) represent the stiffness contributed by
series combination of the perforated zones (Ly), the transition zones (Lt1,
Lt2, Lt3) and the connection zones (Ls). Ay, At1, At2, At3, and As in Eq. (2)
are, respectively, the cross-sectional areas of the Ly, Lt1, Lt2, Lt3 and Ls
sections shown in Fig. 4. fyc in Eq. (3) denote the experimental yield
strength of the core plate material from tensile coupon tests.
As shown in Fig. 10, a core plate dimension of 2200 mm × 110 mm ×
10 mm was designed for each specimen, which was determined by the
limitation of testing facility. BRB-1 to -3 share the same axial stiffness
and yield strength but differ in the lengths of perforated zone and
transition zone. A maximum length of Ly = 180 mm was provided for a
single perforated zone to avoid premature strong-axis buckling. A total
length of nLy = 1080 mm was fixed for the entire perforated zone to
achieve a core strain of 2%. This deformation corresponds to an average
axial strain of about 1% calculated by the brace length, the maximum
deformation capacity specified in the Chinese Code for Seismic Design of
Buildings [29] for the BRBs used as hysteretic dampers. This deforma­
tion corresponds to a ductility ratio of 13.9, larger than the deformation
capacity required by the AISC seismic provisions [30]. Thus, the
remaining transition zone lengths could be obtained when the number
and length of a single perforated zone is determined. The Lt1 values of
the specimens are larger than the required minimum length Lt1,min
estimated from Fig. 9.
The Chinese Q235-B steel with a measured yield strength of 295
MPa, ultimate strength of 450 MPa, elastic modulus of 205 GPa, and
elongation of 27% was adopted as the core plate material. The core
plates were manufactured by laser cutting. Two holes with a diameter of
8 mm were provided in the mid-length of each core plate for the stopper
connection with the restrainer.
Each core plate was sandwiched by two 12-mm-thick filler plates and
two 18 mm-thick cover plates. High-strength bolts with a Chinese ma­
terial grade of 8.8 and a diameter of 16 mm were used to provide
clamping force between the filler plates and cover plates. A 1-mm-gap
Y. Zhou et al.
Fig. 7. Axial compressive force vs. ductility factor relationship.
was provided on each side of the core plate to allow for the Possion’s
effect. The core plate was also wrapped by 1-mm-thick butyl rubber
layer to minimize the friction between the core plate and the restrainer.
Design check of the global stability [26] and local stability [27] of the
specimens were conducted to ensure stable cyclic performance. The
bolts for the connection between the side plates and the cover plates
were designed as a T-shaped connection [31] to resist the maximum
thrust force resulting from the weak-axis buckling of the core plate.
4.2. Test setup
The specimens were tested under uniaxial quasi-static cyclic loading
on the MTS electro-hydraulic testing machine at the structural labora­
tory of the Guangdong University of Technology. As shown in Fig. 11,
the left end of BRB was connected to the MTS actuator while the right
end was fixed on the strong floor. Lateral sliding support was provided at
the loading end to allow only axial movement. Two string potentiome­
ters were mounted between the two ends of BRB to measure the axial
deformation. The axial force was measured by a force transducer,
located between the right end of BRB and the fixed support, to avoid the
influence of friction due to sliding at the loading end.
6
Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997
4.3. Loading protocol
The specimens were tested based on the loading protocol specified in
the Code for Seismic Design of Buildings [29]. Incremental cyclic
displacement with an amplitude of 1/800 (2.7 mm), 1/600 (3.7 mm),
1/300 (7.3 mm), 1/200 (11 mm), 1/150 (14.7 mm), and 1/100 (22 mm)
of the brace length was applied, respectively, onto the specimens. Three
cycles were applied at each loading step, followed by low-cycle fatigue
loading at the amplitude corresponding to 1/100 of the brace length.
These amplitudes correspond to the core strain of 0.25%, 0.34%, 0.68%,
1%, 1.4%, and 2% for the specimens, calculated by the total length of
perforated zone. Based on the study by Tremblay et al. [6], the core
strain of the BRBs in actual buildings mostly falls within the range of
1%–2%. Thus, the maximum displacement imposed on the specimens
can be representative of the typical deformation of the BRBs in actual
buildings.
Y. Zhou et al. Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997

Table 3
Typical strong-axis buckling deformations in the perforated core plates.
b(mm) Lt1(mm) Configuration Buckling deformations

10 10 Rec

Cir
20
10 Rec

Cir

30
10 Rec

Cir

40
10 Rec

Cir

50
10 Rec

Cir

60
10 Rec

Cir

Fig. 8. The strong-axis buckling force versus the transition zone length relationship.

5. Test results and analysis adopted.

5.1. Hysteretic response and failure mode
Fig. 12 shows the hysteretic responses of the specimens with the
normalized axial force F/Fyc versus the core strain ϵ relationship. The
shaded circles represent the onset of rupture failure. It shows that all the
specimens exhibit stable cyclic behavior and excellent energy dissipa­
tion capacity after yielding, without visible stiffness or strength degra­
dation. All the specimens exhibit repeatable cyclic responses within the
low-cycle fatigue loading step. In general, BRB-1 to -3 exhibit quite
similar cyclic loops even though different PCP configuration were
Table 5 summarizes the failure mode of the specimens. It shows that
BRB-1 to -3 experienced 31, 27 and 22 cycles, respectively, within the
low-cycle fatigue loading step, prior to rupture failure. Comparison
between BRB-1 and -3 seems to indicate that a longer perforated zone
length is beneficial in improving the low-cycle fatigue performance of
PBRB if the axial stiffness and yield strength still remain unchanged.
This means that the number of perforated zone should be minimized as
much as possible such that the length in each perforated zone could be
maximized. Comparison between BRB-1 and -2 shows that the transition
zone length does not seem to have significant impact on the fatigue
performance of PBRB if the criterion of Lt1>Lt1,min is already satisfied.

7
Y. Zhou et al.
Fig. 9. Relationship between Lt1,min and b.
Difference of the fatigue performance between the two specimens may
arise from some imperfections during fabrication process.
5.2. Seismic performance evaluation
The primary seismic performance indices of the specimens are
summarized in Table 5, including the initial axial stiffness k, the yield
force Fy, the yield displacement δy, the ductility μ, and the cumulative
plastic ductility (CPD).
(1) Stiffness, yield force, and yield displacement
Table 6 shows that the calculated stiffness kc (Eq. (2)) matches well
with the measured response k with an average difference of 2%. This
indicates that the influence of friction between the core and the
restrainer can be neglected during the elastic stage, and all the speci­
mens behave as conventional braces. For BRB-1 to -3, the calculated
yield force and yield displacement, Fyc and δyc, also agree well with the
measured responses, Fy and δy, with an average difference of 7% and 5%,
respectively. As expected, BRB-1 to -3 exhibit similar stiffness, yield
force and yield displacement despite different PCP configurations were
adopted. This indicates that the PCP details do not have significant
impact on the elastic behavior and yield strength of the PBRBs with
semi-circle configuration.
(2) Ductility and cumulative plastic behavior
The ductility μ and CPD factors can be obtained by
⃒ ⃒
⃒δcmax,tmax ⃒
μ= (5)
δyc
∑[ ( )/ ] the specimen configurations in Section 5 were constructed to explain
CPD = 2 |δcmax |i + |δtmax |i δyc − 4 (6)
where δcmax and δtmax are the maximum compressive deformation and
the corresponding tensile one of the specimens; |δcmax |i and |δtmax |i are
the maximum deformations corresponding to the ith cycle. The CPD
factor represents the normalized plastic deformations accumulated from
initial loading to failure. The AISC seismic provisions [30] requires a
demand of 10 and 200 for μ and CPD factors, respectively.
Table 6 shows that the ductility and CPD capacities of BRB-1 to -3
sufficiently satisfy the AISC requirements. BRB-1 exhibits much higher
CPD capacity than BRB-3, and this appears to suggest that a longer
length in the perforated zone is also beneficial in improving the energy
dissipation capacity of PBRB if the axial stiffness and yield strength still
8
Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997
remain unchanged. Comparison between BRB-1 and BRB-2 also shows
that the CPD capacity seems to be insensitive to the transition zone
length if the criterion of Lt1>Lt1,min is already satisfied.
(3) Low-cycle fatigue performance
As specified in the Chinese Technical Specification for Seismic En­
ergy Dissipation of Buildings [32], BRBs used as hysteretic dampers
should have the capacity to experience a minimum of 30 cycles at the
deformation corresponding to 1/100 of the brace length. It is also
required that difference of the key mechanical parameters within the 30
cycles should be less than 15% to ensure stable low-cycle fatigue
performance.
Fig. 13 shows the variation of these parameters with the increase of
loading cycles. Ti,max and Ci,max mean, respectively, the maximum ten­
sile and compressive forces at ith cycle; Ti,δ=0 and C i,δ=0 mean,
respectively, the tensile and compressive forces corresponding to zero
displacement at ith cycle; δt,i,F=0 and δc,i,F=0 mean, respectively, the
tensile and compressive displacements corresponding to zero force at ith
cycle; Ai means the area of a hysteretic loop at ith cycle; Tave,max and
Cave,max mean, respectively, the average values of the maximum tensile
and compressive forces at all cycles; Tave, δ=0 and Cave, δ=0 mean,
respectively, the average values of the tensile and compressive forces
corresponding to zero displacement for all cycles; δt,ave,F=0 and δc,ave,F=0
mean, respectively, the average values of the tensile and compressive
displacements corresponding to zero force for all cycles; Aave means the
average area of the hysteretic loops at all cycles.
As shown in Fig. 13 and Table 6, differences of these parameters fall
within the range of ±15%, meaning that the low-cycle fatigue properties
of the PBRBs remain stable prior to rupture. However, only the perfo­
rated zone length provided in BRB-1 could guarantee the accomplish­
ment of 30 cycles at the deformation of 1/100 of the brace length. This
observation and the conclusions in Section 3.2 indicate that the length in
the perforated zone needs to be properly detailed to improve both the
low-cycle fatigue performance and the strong-axis stability of PBRB.
6. Numerical analysis on effect of perforated core plate
configurations on equivalent plastic strain
Based on the failure mode of the specimens, FE analysis was further
conducted to investigate the effect of PCP configurations on the equiv­
alent plastic strain (PEEQ) on the core plate, a key factor governing the
low-cycle fatigue performance of BRBs. In this section, FE analysis of the
specimens is first presented to explain their failure mode, followed by
parametric analysis on the key factors affecting the PEEQ. Based on the
analysis in the section and that in Section 3, recommended configura­
tions for improving the low-cycle fatigue performance of PBRB are
concluded.
6.1. Numerical simulation of the specimens
Based on the method in Section 3.1, the FE models corresponding to
their failure mode. Fig. 12 shows the comparison of the axial cyclic re­
sponses between the FE models and the specimens. The models share
almost the same loading protocol as the specimens, but only one cycle
was adopted for the deformation amplitude of 1/100 of the brace length
to save time for calculation. In general, the experimental responses can
be well captured by the numerical results, verifying effectiveness of the
FE models.
Table 7 summarizes the distribution of PEEQ on these models when
the final cycle at 1/100 of the brace length is completed. Close-up view
on the segments where rupture of the specimens occurred is also pre­
sented to explain their failure mode. As shown, BRB-1 and BRB-2 share
similar PEEQ response, while BRB-3 has the largest response among the
specimens. This well explains why BRB-3 experienced earliest rupture
Y. Zhou et al. Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997

Fig. 10. Configurations of the specimens.

Table 4
Key parameters of the specimens.
Specimen kc (kN/ Fyc δyc n Ly nLy Lt1
mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

BRB-1 58 118 2.01 6 180 1080 70

BRB-2 58 118 2.01 6 180 1080 105
BRB-3 58 118 2.01 8 135 1080 70

Note: kc, Fyc, δyc and n denote the elastic axial stiffness, the yield force, the yield
displacement and the number of the perforated zone, respectively. Definitions of
the other parameters are illustrated in Fig. 4.

failure. High PEEQ responses tend to concentrate near the two ends of
the perforated zones, and this well explains why rupture of the speci­
mens was always observed near these regions.

6.2. Parametric analysis

Parametric analysis was further performed to analyze the Fig. 11. Test setup.

9
Y. Zhou et al. Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997

Fig. 12. Hysteretic response.

Table 5
Failure mode of the specimens.
Specimen Global view Close-up view Failure mode Cycles prior to rupture

BRB-1 Core rupture 31st

BRB-2 Core rupture 27th

BRB-3 Core rupture 22nd

possible to improve the fatigue performance, it can be deduced

Table 6
that the PEEQ is not governed by the transition zone length
Seismic performance indices of the specimens.
within the range of Lt1≥0.5b.
Specimen k (kN/ kc/k Fy Fyc/ δy δyc/ μ CPD (3) Similar relationship between the PCP configurations and PEEQ
mm) (kN) Fy (mm)
can be observed for the models using rectangle configuration, but
δy

BRB-1 57 1.02 111 1.06 1.95 1.03 11.3 1359 their PEEQ distribution becomes much more sensitive to varia­
BRB-2 58 1.00 107 1.10 1.85 1.09 11.9 1212
tion of these parameters.
BRB-3 56 1.04 111 1.06 1.98 1.02 11.1 983
Average – 1.02 – 1.07 – 1.05 – –
(4) The models with the semi-circle configuration show much
smaller PEEQ responses than the rectangle one, meaning that the
former configuration is beneficial in improving the fatigue per­
relationship between PEEQ and the PCP configurations. As shown in formance of PBRB.
Table 8, a total of 18 FE models were designed, and the lengths in the (5) The models with the rectangle configuration exhibit strong-axis
perforated zone and the transition zone as well as the type of perforated buckling in the perforated zone when n = 6 is provided. This
zone are the three concerned parameters. These models share the same again highlights that the semi-circle configuration is beneficial in
core plate dimensions as the specimens but have different combination improving the strong-axis stability of PBRB.
of the aforementioned parameters. The total perforated zone length (n × (6) The above observations and those in Section 3.2 indicate that the
Ly = 1080 mm) remains the same in these models while the number of semi-circle configuration is recommended to be used in the
perforated zone with n = 6, 8 and 10 are selected to produce different PBRBs designed as hysteretic dampers. From design perspective,
length in each perforated zone. Based on the analysis in Section 3, the it is recommended that the transition zone length should be no
transition zone length was designed to be 0.5b, b and 1.5b to examine the less than 0.5b to improve both strong-axis stability and fatigue
relationship between Lt1,min and PEEQ. To save time for calculation, performance.
three cycles with a displacement amplitude of 1/100 of the brace length
was only applied to these models. Table 8 summarizes the PEEQ dis­ 7. Numerical analysis on the strong-axis stability of PBRB with
tribution of these models, and the red color represents those with high- semi-circle configuration
value PEEQ regions. Table 8 can lead to the following observations:
The above sections verify the effectiveness of using semi-circle
(1) For the semi-circle configuration, the high-value PEEQ regions configuration in the PBRB for improvement of both stability and fa­
tend to expand with the decrease of a single perforated zone tigue performance. This section aims to quantify the upper bound value
length. This again verifies the fact that the increase of a single for the perforated zone length to maximize the fatigue performance, and
perforated zone length is beneficial in reducing the PEEQ at the same time still remain the strong-axis stability in the perforated
response and improving the fatigue performance of PBRB if the zone. However, as can be seen from Sections 3.2 and 6.2, the perforated
total perforated zone length remains unchanged. In such cases, zone could only buckle inwards due to the absence of restrainer between
the upper bound value for the perforated zone length will be only two parallel yielding segments. This observation is different from the
governed by the strong-axis stability. strong-axis buckling mode in traditional core plate BRB, in which the
(2) For the semi-circle configuration, the increase of transition zone core could only buckle outwards due to local failure of the restrainer.
length does not have significant influence on the PEEQ distribu­ Also, discussion in Section 3.2 shows that the formula proposed by
tion especially when Ly/b ≥ 6.75 (n = 6 and 8) are provided. Piedrafita et al. [24] is not effective for predicting the buckling capacity
Since the perforated zone length is recommended to be as long as of PBRB with semi-circle or rectangle configuration. Therefore, the

10
Y. Zhou et al. Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997

Fig. 13. Variation of the key parameters with the increase of loading cycles.

Table 7
Equivalent plastic strain on the core plate of the specimens.

strong-axis buckling issue of PBRB still needs further discussion.
In this section, FE analysis is performed to investigate the strong-axis
buckling process of the perforated zone with semi-circle configuration. A
key factor governing the strong-axis stability is presented, and the
design criterion to avoid strong-axis buckling is determined by numer­
ical parametric analysis with monotonic compressive loading. Effec­
tiveness of the design criterion under cyclic loading is further verified by
FE analysis.
7.1. Key factor affecting strong-axis stability
perforated zone is the slenderness ratio λ, given by
kLy √̅̅̅ Ly
λ= = 3 (7)
i b
where k is the effective length factor and assumed to be 0.5; i is the
radius of gyration of a single yield section in the strong-axis direction. It
shows that such a parameter is governed by the Ly/b ratio. Since a larger
slenderness ratio would lead to a smaller buckling capacity, an upper
bound value of Ly/b can then be obtained to avoid strong-axis buckling
in the perforated zone under a specific BRB force.

One governing parameter for the strong-axis stability of a single

11
Y. Zhou et al. Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997

Table 8
Equivalent plastic strain on the core plate.

7.2. Cases for parametric analysis 7.3. Strong-axis buckling process and buckling capacity

A total of 324 cases were considered for parametric analysis to
quantify the upper bound value of Ly/b. As show in Table 9, the cases can
be divided into two groups with different core plate dimensions.
Different combinations of the width and the thickness of a single
perforated zone with Ly/b ranging from 6 to 18 for each case are
considered. Note from Section 6.2 that the transition zone length with
Lt1≥0.5b is recommended to be used, which falls within the insensitive
range for the strong-axis stability of the PBRB with semi-circle config­
uration (Lt1,min≥0.34b). Thus, only one perforated zone was constructed
in each case to simplify the numerical analysis (Fig. 14). The models
share the same mesh scheme as that in section 3.1. An initial deflection
with an amplitude of 1/1000 of the brace length in the strong-axis di­
rection is provided at the center of the model to trigger strong-axis
buckling. Monotonic compressive loading was applied until the perfo­
rated zone demonstrated buckling.
Table 9
Matrix for parametric analysis.
Group 1: L × B = 1600 × 100 mm Group 2: L × B = 3200 × 200 mm
b = 20 mm b = 30 mm b = 40 mm b = 60 mm
T =10 mm Ly/b ranges from 6–18 with an increment of 0.5
T =20 mm
T =30 mm
Fig. 15 shows a typical strong-axis buckling process observed in one
of the cases (Group 1: b = 20 mm, T=10 mm, Ly/b = 12). Fig. 15 (a)
shows the deformations of the perforated zone at three typical stages,
and a scale factor of 30 is applied to highlight the deformations. Fig. 15
(b) presents the compressive force versus the strong-axis deformation at
the mid-point of the perforated zone, and the negative and positive signs
denote the deformations towards outside and inside (Fig. 15(a)),
respectively. The buckling process can be characterized by the following
three stages:
Stage I: This represents the stage before the perforated zone comes in
contact with the restrainer. The first buckling mode deformation to­
wards outside could be observed before the axial force reaches the yield
force Fy. Deformations begin to grow after axial yielding until the mid-
point of the perforated zone comes in contact with the restrainer. The
deformation within this stage is about 1 mm, which equals to the on-side
gap between the core and restrainer.
Stage II: In this stage, the deformations become stable due to the
constraining effect from the restrainer. When the axial force reaches Fm,
the deformations tend to be distributed uniformly along the length of
perforated zone, meaning that the entire perforated zone is in contact
with the restrainer.
Stage III: When the axial force reaches Fq, strong-axis buckling to­
wards inside is observed with a decline in the axial force. Thus, Fq
represents the strong-axis buckling capacity of the model.
The above observation indicates that the PBRB actually fails by high-

12
Y. Zhou et al. Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997

Fig. 14. Simplified model with one perforated zone in the core plate meshed with C3D8R solid elements.

Fig. 15. Process for strong-axis buckling in the perforated zone.

mode buckling rather than the first-mode buckling. This well explains
why the formula proposed based on the first buckling mode only (Eq.
(1)) is not effective for predicting the strong-axis buckling capacity of
PBRB, as illustrated in Section 3.2. To avoid the strong-axis bucking, Fq
should be larger than the maximum compressive force Fu of a PBRB,
given by:
Fq > Fu = wβFy = 1.65Fy (8)
where ω = 1.5 is a typical strain hardening factor for Chinese Q235 steel;
β can be assumed to be 1.1 based on our previous test results.
7.4. Upper bound value of Ly/b
Since the strong-axis buckling of PBRB is in high-mode, prediction of
the bucking capacity from theoretical perspective may not be a practical
way to address such a complicated issue. Thus, this section aims to
correlate the relationship between Ly/b and Fq/Fy by numerical para­
metric analysis on the 324 cases (Table 9), such that an upper bound
value of Ly/b can be quantified.
Fig. 16 shows the comparison of Fq/Fy between the results from FE
analysis and Eq. (1), in which T10b20 means the model with T = 10 mm
and b = 20 mm. It can be seen that most of the numerical results cannot
be properly captured by Eq. (1). As shown in Fig. 17 (a) and (b), the
numerical Fq/Fy response shows almost linear relationship with Ly/b.
According to the design criterion from inequality (8), an upper bound
value of Ly/b, designated as [Ly/b]cr, can be determined from Fig. 17 (a)
and (b) by the intersection between the horizontal line of Fq/Fy = 1.65
and the Fq/Fy-Ly/b relationship. In such a way, six [Ly/b]cr values can be
obtained in each group. The relationship between [Ly/b]cr and b/T is
further shown in Fig. 17 (c), and a formula obtained by nonlinear
regression analysis is presented to capture the [Ly/b]cr value within the
range of 0<b/T ≤ 6. Since the negative effect of cyclic loading on the
strong-axis residual deformation cannot be reflected in the monotonic
compressive loading, a more conservative way should be designing the
perforated zone with the criterion of Ly/b≤[Ly/b]cr = 10 to prevent the
strong-axis buckling. This can be more practical in design and also
provide some margin of safety.
9 supplemental models with multiple perforated zones along the
brace length were also constructed to validate effectiveness of the rec­
ommended [Ly/b]cr value under incremental cyclic loading. Table 10
shows the parameters for the supplemental models, designed on the

Fig. 16. Comparison of Fq/Fy between FE analysis and Eq. (1)

13
Y. Zhou et al. Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997

Fig. 17. Determination of the upper bound value of Ly/b.

basis of BRB-1. Three Ly/b ratios varying from 10 to 12 were considered
to examine sensitivity of the models to the recommended [Ly/b]cr value.
Effect of different core plate width and thickness was also considered for
the same Ly/b ratio.
For comparison purpose, incremental cyclic displacement was
controlled by the axial strain of the total perforated zone length, with
amplitudes of 0.35%, 0.45%, 1%, 1.4%, 1.8% and 2.8% (one cycle
each). This can be achieved by assuming that the total brace deforma­
tion is concentrated mostly within the perforated zone length. Each
loading step was initiated with compression to consider the negative
effect of accumulated residual bending deformation on the strong-axis
stability.
Fig. 18 shows the deformations of the perforated zones at the end of
loading or at the moment of buckling. Fig. 19 shows the hysteretic re­
sponses of the models with F/Fyc versus ϵ relationship. Also note that the
[Ly/b]cr values, computed based on the formula in Fig. 17(c), are 12.6,
13.1 and 11 for Groups A, B and C, respectively. Thus, strong-axis
buckling may occur in the models with Ly/b = 11 and 12. It is evident
that the models with Ly/b = 10 exhibit stable cyclic performance, and
the perforated zones remain stable without strong-axis buckling when
the axial forces reach about 1.65Fy. As expected, the models with Ly/b =
11 and 12 exhibit strong-axis buckling before the axial forces reach
1.65Fy. The models in Groups A, B, and C, which have the same Ly/b
value, all share similar brace ductility before buckling occurs. This
verifies the fact that the strong axis stability of PBRB is governed by the
Ly/b ratio. These observations validate the effectiveness of using [Ly/
b]cr = 10 as the practical criterion to prevent the strong-axis buckling of
PBRB with semi-circle configuration under cyclic loading when the
thickness of core plate is no larger than 30 mm.
8. Conclusions
The influence of PCP configurations on the strong-axis stability and
seismic performance of PBRB is investigated numerically and experi­
mentally in this study. FE analysis is conducted to discuss on the
reasonable PCP configurations for improving the strong-axis stability
performance. Three PBRB specimens with the recommended configu­
rations were tested and their seismic performance as hysteretic dampers
is evaluated by Chinese codes. FE analysis is performed to determine the
reasonable PCP configurations for improving the low-cycle fatigue
performance. Parametric analysis is presented to examine the buckling
process of PBRB and obtain a practical design criterion to prevent
strong-axis buckling of the PBRB with semi-circle configuration. Main
conclusions can be drawn as follows:
(1) The PCP configurations have no influence on the axial stiffness
and yield strength of PBRB but have significant impact on the
post-yield behaviors in terms of ductility, fatigue performance,
energy dissipation capacity and strong-axis stability
performance.
(2) The PCP with the semi-circle configuration is more beneficial in
improving the strong-axis stability and fatigue performance of
the perforated zone than the rectangle one. This configuration is
recommended to be used in practice.
(3) The strong-axis stability of PBRB is sensitive to the length of
transition zone. It is recommended that such length should be no
less than half the width of a yielding segment to improve the
stability performance of PBRB with semi-circle configuration. In
such case, the seismic performance of PBRB is not governed by
the length of transition zone.
(4) The strong-axis buckling of the perforated zone is in high-mode,
and thus its buckling capacity cannot be captured by the tradi­
tional theory on a pure axial compression steel member.
(5) The ratio between the length of a perforated zone and the width
of a yielding segment is the key factor affecting the strong-axis
stability of PBRB. It is recommended that such ratio should be
no larger than 10 to avoid strong-axis buckling of the perforated
zone with semi-circle configuration under cyclic loading.
Author Statement
Yun Zhou: Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisition.
Chen Gong: Investigation, Validation, Formal analysis. Junxian Zhao:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing. Genquan Zhong: Testing,
Formal analysis. Shiyu Tian: Validation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence

Table 10
Parameters of the supplemental FE models for validation of the [Ly/b]cr ratio.
Group no. n L (mm) B (mm) T (mm) Ly/b = 10 Ly/b = 11 Ly/b = 12

b(mm) Ly(mm) b(mm) Ly(mm) b(mm) Ly(mm)

A 4 2200 110 10 20 200 20 220 20 240

B 10 25 250 25 275 25 300
C 30 20 200 20 220 20 240

14
Y. Zhou et al. Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997

Fig. 18. Deformations in the perforated zones of the supplemental models.

Fig. 19. Hysteretic responses of the supplemental models.

the work reported in this paper. Development Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFC0703600), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51778244),
Acknowledgments the State Key Lab of Subtropical Building Science (Grant Nos. 2017KC21
and C7190050), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Uni­
This research is funded by the National Key Research and versities (Grant No. D2191400).

APPENDIX: LIST OF SYMBOLS

ω Strain hardening factor

β Compression strength adjustment factor
δc,ave,F=0 Average values of the compressive displacements corresponding to zero force for all cycles
δc,i,F=0 Compressive displacements corresponding to zero force at ith cycle
δcmax Maximum compression deformations of BRB before failure
|δcmax |i Maximum compressive deformation (within the same loop) at the ith cycle
δt,ave,F=0 Average values of the tensile displacements corresponding to zero force for all cycles
δt,i,F=0 Tensile displacements corresponding to zero force at ith cycle

15
Y. Zhou et al. Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997

δtmax Maximum tensile deformations of BRB before failure

|δtmax |i Maximum tensile deformation (within the same loop) at the ith cycle
δy Experimental yield displacement of BRB
δyc Calculated yield displacement of BRB
ϵ Core strain in the perforated zone of BRB
λ Strong axis slenderness ratio of a yielding segment
μ Ductility
Aave Average area of the hysteretic loops at all cycles
Ai Area of a hysteretic loop at ith cycle
As Cross-sectional area of connection zone
At1 Cross-sectional area of transition zone between two perforated zones
At2 Cross-sectional area of transition zone between the connection and perforated zones
At3 Cross-sectional area of transition zones with stopper bolts
Ay Cross-sectional area of perforated zone
b Width of a single yielding segment
B Width of the entire core plate
Cave, δ=0 Average values of the compressive forces corresponding to zero displacement for all cycles
Cave,max Average values of the maximum compressive forces at all cycles
C i,δ=0 Compressive forces corresponding to zero displacement at ith cycle
Ci,max Maximum compressive forces at ith cycle
Cimax Maximum compressive and tensile force (within the same loading amplitude) of the ith cycle
E Elastic modulus
F Axial force of BRB
Fq Strong-axis buckling load capacity
Fu Maximum compressive force of BRB
fyc Calculated yield strength of BRB based on tensile coupon test
Fyc Calculated yield force of BRB based on tensile coupon test
i Radius of gyration of a single yielding section in the strong-axis direction
k Effective length factor
L Total length of the entire core plate
Ls Length of connection zone
Lt1 Length of transition zone between two perforated zones
Lt2 Length of transition zone between the connection and perforated zones
Lt3 Length of transition zones with stopper bolts
Ly Length of a single perforated zone
n Number of perforated zones
T Thickness of core plate
Tave, δ = 0 Average values of the tensile forces corresponding to zero displacement for all cycles
Tave,max Average values of the maximum tensile forces at all cycles
Ti,δ=0 Tensile forces corresponding to zero displacement at ith cycle
Ti,max Maximum tensile forces at ith cycle

References [10] C.L. Wang, Y. Gao, X.Q. Cheng, B. Zeng, S.L. Zhao, Experimental investigation on
H-section buckling-restrained braces with partially restrained flange, Eng. Struct.
199 (2019) 109584.
[1] Q. Xie, State of the art of buckling-restrained braces in Asia, J. Constr. Steel Res. 61
[11] J.P. Judd, I. Marinovic, M.R. Eatherton, C. Hyder, A.R. Phillips, A.T. Tola, F.
(2005) 727–748.
A. Charney, Cyclic tests of all-steel web-restrained buckling-restrained brace
[2] C.M. Uang, M. Nakashima, K.C. Tsai, Research and application of buckling-
subassemblages, J. Constr. Steel Res. 125 (2016) 164–172.
restrained braced frames, International Journal of Steel Structures 4 (2004)
[12] M.B. Bozkurt, C. Topkaya, Development of welded overlap core steel encased
301–313.
buckling-restrained braces, J. Constr. Steel Res. 127 (2016) 151–164.
[3] C. Black, N. Martin, I. Aiken, Component testing, stability analysis and
[13] L.J. Jia, H.B. Ge, R. Maruyama, K. Shinohara, Development of a novel high-
characterization of buckling restrained unbounded braces, Pacific Earthquake
performance all-steel fish-bone shaped buckling-restrained brace, Eng. Struct. 138
Engineering Research Center, 2002.
(2017) 105–119.
[4] K. Inoue, S. Sawaizumi, Y. Higashibata, Stiffening requirements for unbonded
[14] Y.L. Guo, B.H. Zhang, B.L. Zhu, P. Zhou, Y.H. Zhang, J.Z. Tong, Theoretical and
braces encased in concrete panels, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 127
experimental studies of battened buckling-restrained braces, Eng. Struct. 136
(2001) 712–719.
(2017) 312–328.
[5] M. Iwata, M. Murai, Buckling-restrained brace using steel mortar planks;
[15] C.C. Chou, S.Y. Chen, Subassemblage tests and finite element analyses of
performance evaluation as a hysteretic damper, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 35
sandwiched buckling-restrained braces, Eng. Struct. 32 (8) (2010) 2108–2112.
(14) (2006) 1807–1826.
[16] Razavi Tabatabaei Seyyed Ali, Mirghaderi Seyyed Rasoul, Abdollah Hosseini,
[6] R. Tremblay, P. Bolduc, R. Neville, R. Devall, Seismic testing and performance of
Experimental and numerical developing of reduced length buckling-restrained
buckling-restrained bracing systems, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 33 (2) (2006) 183–198.
braces, Eng. Struct. 77 (2014) 143–160.
[7] G. Palazzo, F. López-Almansa, X. Cahís, F. Crisafulli, A low-tech dissipative
[17] Q.X. Shi, F. Wang, P. Wang, K. Chen, Experimental and numerical study of the
buckling restrained brace. Design, analysis, production and testing, Eng. Struct. 31
seismic performance of an all-steel assembled Q195 low-yield buckling-restrained
(9) (2009) 2152–2161.
brace, Eng. Struct. 176 (2018) 481–499.
[8] J.X. Zhao, B. Wu, J.P. Ou, A novel type of angle steel buckling-restrained brace:
[18] H.P. Sun, M.M. Jia, S.M. Zhang, Y.Y. Wang, Study of buckling-restrained braces
cyclic behavior and failure mechanism, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 40 (2011)
with concrete infilled GFRP tubes, Thin-Walled Struct. 136 (2019) 16–33.
1083–1102.
[19] K.L. Deng, P. Pan, X. Nie, X.G. Xu, P. Feng, L.P. Ye, Study of GFRP steel buckling
[9] B. Qu, X.F. Liu, H. Hou, C.X. Qiu, D.Z. Hu, Testing of buckling-restrained braces
restraint braces, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE 19 (6) (2015),
with replaceable steel angle fuses, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 144 (3)
04015009.
(2018) 1–11.

16
Y. Zhou et al.
[20] C.L. Wang, T. Usami, J. Funayama, Improving low-cycle fatigue performance of
high-performance buckling-restrained braces by toe-finished method, J. Earthq.
Eng. 16 (8) (2012) 1248–1268.
[21] K.C. Tsai, J.W. Lai, Y.C. Hwang, S.L. Lin, C.H. Weng, Research and application of
double-core buckling restrained braces in Taiwan. Proceeding of 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Canada, Vancouver, 2004.
[22] Y. Zhou, H.T. Qian, H.M. Chu, et al., A study on the principle and performance of a
new type of buckling-restraint brace, China Civ. Eng. J. (4) (2009) 64–71 ([in
Chinese]).
[23] Y. Zhou, C. Gong, Q.X. Chen, et al., Experimental study on seismic performance of
perforated steel-plate assembled buckling-restrained brace, J. Build. Struct. 37 (8)
(2016) 101–107 ([in Chinese]).
[24] D. Piedrafita, X. Cahis, E. Simon, J. Comas, A new perforated core buckling
restrained brace, Eng. Struct. 85 (2015) 118–126.
[25] T. Takeuchi, J.F. Hajjar, R. Matsui, K. Nishimoto, I.D. Aiken, Local buckling
restraint condition for core plates in buckling restrained braces, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 66 (2) (2010) 139–149.
17
Thin-Walled Structures 156 (2020) 106997
[26] J.X. Zhao, B. Wu, J.P. Ou, A practical and unified global stability design method of
buckling-restrained braces: discussion on pinned connections, J. Constr. Steel Res.
95 (2014) 106–115.
[27] J.X. Zhao, B. Wu, W. Li, J.P. Ou, Local buckling behavior of steel angle core
members in buckling-restrained braces: cyclic tests, theoretical analysis, and design
recommendations, Eng. Struct. 66 (2014) 129–145.
[28] Q. Chen, C.L. Wang, S.P. Meng, B. Zeng, Effect of the unbonding materials on the
mechanical behavior of all-steel buckling-restrained braces, Eng. Struct. 111
(2016) 478–493.
[29] GB50011-2010 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, China Architecture &
Building Press, Beijing, 2010.
[30] ANSI/AISC 341-16 Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Building, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, 2016.
[31] J. Fisher, J. Strook, Design Guide for Connection of Bolt and Rivet, China
Communications Press, Beijing, 1983.
[32] JGJ297-2013 Technical Specification for Seismic Energy Dissipation of Buildings,
China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, 2013.