Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Effect of beam yielding on chevron braced frames

Charles W. Roeder a, Andrew D. Sen b,⁎, Clare Terpstra c, Sara M. Ibarra c, Ruyue Liu d,
Dawn E. Lehman a, Jeffrey W. Berman a
a
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. or Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, United States of America
b
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
c
Former Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
d
Doctoral Student, Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi'an, China

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

Article history: Special concentrically braced frames (SCBFs) are commonly used as lateral-load-resisting systems in seismic re-
Received 14 January 2019 gions. Chevron (or inverted V-braced) SCBFs are used to accommodate architectural openings, such as doors,
Received in revised form 17 April 2019 windows, mechanical openings and elevators. However, current AISC provisions for SCBFs require beams of chev-
Accepted 26 April 2019
ron SCBFs to be designed to resist large vertical and axial demands resulting from unbalanced brace forces due to
Available online 17 May 2019
post-buckling compressive strength deterioration and full tensile yielding of the braces. As a result, very large
Keywords:
beams are required to support the braces, and chevron SCBFs are seldom built today. Recent research showed
Braced frames that limiting beam response to elastic behavior may reduce the overall deformation capacity of chevron SCBFs
Steel and some beam yielding may be beneficial. A research study was initiated to investigate the advantages of and
Chevron limits for beam yielding. Six large-scale, single-story chevron SCBFs were designed, built, and tested to investigate
Seismic current SCBF requirements and the impact of reducing the beam strength below current requirements to permit
Inelastic behavior beam yielding. Nonlinear continuum analyses were performed using the Abaqus finite-element analysis program
Full-scale tests to extend the experimental research. The research shows that chevron SCBFs with moderate beam yielding may
have improved seismic performance compared to other SCBF configurations. Yielding of the beam increases its
deflection, but the increased beam deflection increases inelastic deformation capacity of the braces prior to
brace fracture. The maximum lateral resistance and overstrength of the frame is reduced, but the resulting resis-
tance remains larger than the design target and is retained through relatively large story drifts.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction • Braces are designed to resist the factored lateral-load demands,

Concentrically braced frames (CBFs) have historically been a
preferred structural system for seismic steel design because they
provide high strength and stiffness. CBFs with buckling braces have
paired braces, which can result in architectural conflicts unless a chev-
ron (inverted-V) configuration is used. Because of this, many CBFs
built prior to 1988 employed chevron bracing. In 1988, the first
capacity-based design requirements were introduced for CBFs [1]. Fol-
lowing this, in 1997, the first edition of the AISC Seismic Provisions for
Structural Steel Buildings [2] appeared; this document expanded these
capacity-based design requirements, which are similar to the 2016
AISC Special CBF (SCBF) requirements [3]. The current SCBF provisions
require that:
• Braces are designed to meet global (KL/r) and local (cross-sectional
width-to-thickness ratio) slenderness limits,
• Connections, beams, and columns are designed to develop the ex-
pected tensile (Pye = RyFyAg) and compressive (Pcre = 1.14FcreAg) ca-
pacities of the braces for both their buckling (Pcre = 1.14FcreAg; see
Fig. 1b) and post-buckling (0.3Pcre = 0.342FcreAg; see Fig. 1c) states,
• Beam-to-column connections are designed either to ensure adequate
connection rotation or transfer the full plastic capacity of the beam,
• Gusset plates are designed to accommodate the end rotation of the
brace during buckling or brace connections are able to develop the
plastic moment capacity of the brace,
• Demand critical welds are used in regions where yielding is
expected, and
• Yielding regions (brace and gusset plate) are treated as protected
zones where other attachments and modifications are prohibited.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: croeder@uw.edu (C.W. Roeder), adsen@uw.edu (A.D. Sen),
For chevron-configured SCBFs, this results in the requirement of
delehman@uw.edu (D.E. Lehman), jwberman@uw.edu (J.W. Berman). nearly elastic response of the beams, resulting in very large beam

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.04.044
0143-974X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441
Fig. 1. Chevron braced frames.
sections required in design to resist the brace demands. Braces in chev-
ron SCBFs are oriented in pairs, as shown in Fig. 1a, such that one brace
is in compression while the other is in tension. Using the seismic design
provisions provided above, the beam supporting the braces (referred to
as the “chevron beam” herein) must be designed to support both the full
expected resistances, Pye and Pcre, of the braces (see Fig. 1b) as well as
the reduced post-buckling resistances, Pye and 0.3Pcre (see Fig. 1c).
This latter requirement induces a significant axial load and a large bend-
ing moment in the chevron beam. As a result, chevron SCBFs require a
deep, heavy beam. Costanzo et al. [4] note that similar strength require-
ments for chevron beams also exist in Canadian and European design
provisions, although beam stiffness relative to brace stiffness can vary
substantially. While chevron CBFs were common prior to about 1988,
they are rare today, because this chevron beam strength requirement
reduced the economy and efficiency of the system.
The discussions leading to these provisions often focus on physical-
damage and serviceability issues associated with large floor deflections,
rather than the life-safety and collapse-prevention performance states.
Yet, these latter performance states are the focus of current seismic de-
sign specifications. A recent review of literature suggests that the cur-
rent chevron beam strength requirement was instituted because of
damage observed during a large-scale US-Japan CBF test performed at
the Building Research Institute in Tsukuba, Japan in 1983 [5,6]. This
US-Japan test appears to be the motivation of the current chevron
beam strength requirement and other current SCBF capacity-based de-
sign requirements. This test was performed on a three-dimensional,
full scale, six-story chevron CBF with joint funding by the US and
Japan [7,8]. The CBF had chevron beams with resistance well below
the current SCBF requirements and sustained early brace fracture, sig-
nificant beam deflection, and slab damage. However, this CBF had nu-
merous other deficiencies that likely contributed and/or caused this
unwanted response, including:
• An unusual beam splice at the midspan brace-to-beam connections,
• Rectangular tubular braces with very high local slenderness (not in
compliance with the current specification), and
429
• Fully welded brace-beam-column connections which restricted
out-of-plane movement of the braces, resulting in in-plane (IP) buck-
ling and a corresponding increase in the expected brace buckling load.
More recent research suggests that the beam strength requirement
may be excessive. For example, a recent single-story chevron braced
frame test was conducted using the earthquake simulator at the E-
Defense 3-D Full-Scale Earthquake Test Facility in Miki, Japan [9]. A pre-
liminary pushover analysis suggested that the chevron beam would
yield at its midspan under the unbalanced brace forces, but beam yield-
ing was only observed in the test near the beam-to-column connections,
which were fully restrained. The beam deformed elastically, resulting in
limited tensile elongation of the braces and hence an unbalanced force
which was lower than required in current design. Nonetheless, the
frame provided good seismic performance even under severe seismic
shaking.
Another recent study addressed the seismic performance of chevron
CBFs with yielding beams designed to pre-1988 requirements [10]. This
two-story frame was tested under inelastic cyclic loading at the National
Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering Laboratory in Taipei,
Taiwan. This frame had numerous additional deficiencies including
large local slenderness of the tubular braces, understrength beam-
column-brace connections, and welds not meeting strength or current
demand critical toughness requirements. This frame was tested multi-
ple times with different failures and retrofits (which were designed to
emulate the SCBF requirements), but the same weak beam was retained
in all tests. Significant beam yielding occurred, in particular for the
retrofitted test where very significant inelastic deformation occurred
prior to failure. Although this test did not meet all of the SCBF require-
ments, the results suggest that yielding beams can result in good seismic
performance of chevron SCBFs.
Although compelling, not all research supports this conclusion.
Tremblay and Robert [11] used nonlinear response-history analysis to
investigate two-dimensional building models of chevron CBFs with
yielding beams. The researchers used the DRAIN-2D computer program
with all beam-to-column connections and column splices modeled as
430 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441
pinned (i.e. no flexural restraint or resistance). The chevron beams were
designed to develop 60%, 80%, or 100% of the tensile yield force of the
brace. The analytical results suggest that limited chevron beam yielding
is acceptable for short buildings, but taller buildings showed deteriora-
tion of performance, concentration of damage into a single story, and
potential collapse or stability failure. The researchers proposed the use
of weaker chevron beams but only for shorter building heights. A
more recent study [12] analyzed existing (i.e., not special) chevron
CBFs by the ASCE 41-13 [13] linear-dynamic and nonlinear-dynamic
procedures using OpenSees [14]. Beam-to-column connections were
again modeled as pinned. While there are clear limitations in the ASCE
41 procedures for evaluating CBFs, the general conclusions of this
study were similar in that significant seismic upgrade was typically re-
quired. These analytical studies suggest a less desirable picture of
beam yielding in chevron CBFs, but it must be emphasized that they
were based on models with pinned connections, whereas research
shows that braced frames have significant connection rotational re-
straint due to the gusset-plate connections used in practice. As such,
these analytical studies are not conclusive.
Other numerical studies have identified the impacts of chevron
beam stiffness, particularly where beams are still relatively strong
[15–17]. Notably, D'Aniello et al. [16] found that if beams are too flexible
(e.g., if the ratio of the beam flexural stiffness to brace vertical stiffness,
KF, is less than about 0.1), the braces do not yield in tension due to elastic
deflection of the beam. This behavior was generally associated with
poor seismic behavior, since energy dissipated by the braces is reduced.
However, in these analyses, the chevron beam's role in dissipating seis-
mic energy was likely limited, and seismic performance could be en-
hanced by engaging the beam as a yielding element.
Current seismic provisions are developed to have an acceptable col-
lapse risk during relatively severe earthquakes. However, since some of
the concerns leading to the chevron beam strength provisions focused
on observed damage and serviceability, it is possible that yielding
beams will not increase the probability of collapse. In addition, yielding
of chevron beams provides a secondary yield mechanism, and prior
work on the balanced design procedure shows significant benefit of sec-
ondary yield mechanisms to improve system ductility and resist col-
lapse [18].
Founded on those results and to improve constructability, AISC
funded a research study to investigate decreasing the required chevron
beam strength. This paper describes the integrated experimental and
analytical tasks which form the first phase of that research focusing on
single-story CBFs. Six single-story chevron CBFs with various beam
strengths were tested. Nonlinear analyses were performed in support
of the analytical research study, where initial analyses were conducted
simultaneously with the experiments to aid in selecting and placing in-
strumentation, and later analyses were compared to experimental
Fig. 2. (a) Experimental specimen and (b) Test setup
results to verify the numerical model. Finally, the simulations were
used to extend the results beyond the experiments and to aid in
interpreting the experimental results. The second phase of the research
(described in a separate paper) evaluates the response of multi-story,
ductile chevron CBF systems with yielding beams and provides design
expressions for use in moderate to high seismic regions.
2. Experimental program
Six single-story specimens were built and tested in the University of
Washington Structural Research Laboratory to study the effect of beam
strength on the seismic performance of chevron CBFs. This paper sum-
marizes those results; more information about the specific tests can be
found in the reference theses and reports, including Terpstra [19], Ibarra
[20], and Roeder et al. [21]. Fig. 2a shows the specimen geometry and
components. For each specimen, a pair of HSS4 × 4 × 5/16 A1085 braces
were used, which meet the seismic AISC SCBF compactness criteria for
highly ductile members. In addition, all specimens used W12 × 50 col-
umns, which meet the requirements for columns in SCBFs. The primary
study parameter was the beam strength. In addition, beam depth and
brace steel specification was varied for two of the six specimens. The
full set of study parameters are given in Table 1 and described below.
The first four specimens are called Chevrons 1 through 4 and inves-
tigated the effects of different beam strengths (all four specimens used
W14 beams because a large variety of W14 sections are readily avail-
able). Chevron 1 was designed to have a beam with a section that satis-
fied current SCBF requirements (or the full resistance required in AISC
341 [3]), but Chevrons 2, 3 and 4 were designed to have approximately
50%, 33%, and 25% of the currently required resistance (under combined
loading). The relative strength of the beam listed in Table 1 is deter-
mined by the P-M interaction curve resulting from application of the
AISC SCBF unbalanced force requirement. Table 1 also lists the beam-
to-brace stiffness ratio, KF, defined by D'Aniello et al. [16]. Here, KF
ranges from 0.17 in Chevron 1 to 0.03 in Chevron 4.
The test setup was designed to vary beam strength and stiffness of
the specimens while minimizing other variations between individual
tests, since this more clearly isolated the effect of the beam on the in-
elastic performance from other parameters. Ordinarily, large varia-
tion in beam depth would be expected with this variation in
beam resistance. Changes in beam depth also result in changes in
brace length, angle, and story height, which complicate data
interpretation.
The two remaining specimens studied the impact of tube specifica-
tions (Chevron 5) and beam depth (Chevron 6). Chevron 5 was identical
to Chevron 3 except that it used A500 Grade C rather than A1085 braces.
In contrast to the A500 specification, the A1085 specification introduces
a larger nominal yield stress, stricter wall-thickness tolerance, and
 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441 431

Table 1
Test specimen member sizes and material designations.

Specimen Chevron 1 Chevron 2 Chevron 3 Chevron 4 Chevron 5 Chevron 6

Study parameter Beam size Brace type Beam depth
Beam size W14×120 W14×61 W14×38 W14×26 W14×38 W21×44
Brace size HSS4×4×5/16
Colunn size W12×50
Brace ASTM A1085 A1085 A1085 A1085 A500 Gr. C A1085
Bm./col. ASTM A992
Stiffness ratio, KF 0.17 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.10
Beam interaction 0.87 1.81 2.83 4.32 3.02 1.77
Note: Highlighted cells show study parameter. Color indicates comparison specimens.

minimum Charpy V-notch toughness. Chevron 6 was identical to Chev-
ron 2 except that it used a deeper beam section with comparable
strength and moderate changes to the brace angle and length; the pri-
mary purpose of this specimen was to investigate the impact of stiffness
(since the W21 beam was stiffer than its W14 counterpart) and axial re-
sistance on the response.
The members were designed to the requirements of AISC 341–16
[3] and AISC 360-16 [22], with the exception of the beam resistance
of some specimens. The column transfers very little axial load from
the brace, and so it was primarily designed to support an axial com-
pressive load typical of the factored live and dead loads (LL and DL,
respectively) for seismic loading (i.e., 1.0DL + 0.25LL) in steel build-
ing construction as well as the maximum shear force transferred
from the beam to the column. The beams and columns were all of
A992 steel. The gusset-plate connections were designed to develop
the expected capacity of the brace as required for SCBFs in AISC
341–16 [3], with enhanced drift capacity using the balanced design
procedure (BDP) [18]. In addition to the normal SCBF requirements,
the BDP requires that:
• The welds joining the gusset plate to the beams, columns, and base
plates are strong enough to develop the plastic capacity of the gusset;
• The rotational clearances for end rotation of the buckling braces are
defined by the 6tp vertical clearance for the midspan gusset plates
[23] and the 8tp elliptical clearance for corner gusset plates [24],
since these methods result in more compact gussets which facilitate
end rotation;
• The Whitmore width for evaluating tensile yielding and compressive
buckling of the gusset plate employs a 37-degree angle in each direc-
tion to more accurately estimate the resistance of the gusset plate
while promoting a thinner, more compact plate which permits limited
yielding after buckling and yielding of the brace; and
• Block shear requirements are slightly reduced to further permit lim-
ited yielding of the gusset plate after bucking and yielding of the brace.
The corner gusset-plate connections were identical for all test spec-
imens, but slight geometric changes were required for midspan gussets
to accommodate differences in beam depth. Typical gusset connection
details are shown in Figs. 2a, 3a, and c.

4-25 mm A490-X BOLTS

DOUBLER PL* 64 mm SPACING
STIFFENER PL 9.5 mm 279×152×6 19 STD HOLES
305

W14 W14 13
GUSSET PL 9.5 mm
6 13
57 960 DOUBLER PL
406×254×13
SHEAR PL
313 8 254×121×16 W12×50
229
4 SIDES *CHEVRONS 2-6 ONLY
9.5 TYP
HSS4×4×5/16
TYP (a) Midspan gusset plate (b) Shear plate
4 SIDES
9.5 HSS4×4×5/16
(a) (b)
W12×50 356

GUSSET PL 9.5 mm
229
533 (c)
CJP
FLANGE
8

BASE PL 38 mm
9.5

(c) Corner gusset plate (d) Connection locations

Fig. 3. Typical specimen connection details.

432 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441
A bolted shear-plate connection was used at the beam-column joint,
as shown in Figs. 2a and 3b. Shear-plate connections can accommodate
the required rotation and are likely to be the preferred connection for
beam-to-column connections in an SCBF without a corner gusset
plate. The bolts, shear plate, and plate-to-column welds were designed
to resist the shear and axial forces estimated from the brace forces that
corresponded to the expected plastic moment capacity of the beam at
the midspan gusset. As a result, this connection changed modestly
with different beam sizes. In all specimens, A490-X bearing bolts were
used, and the steel plates for the shear plates and gussets were A572
Grade 50 steel. Bearing of the bolts on the beam web or the shear
plate often controlled the bolt resistance, and beam-web doubler plates
were used for Chevrons 2 through 6 to prevent block shear. Web dou-
blers were also added in the columns in the vicinity of the beam-
column joint because the actuator load was distributed to the frame at
these locations (such accommodations would likely be unnecessary in
practice).
The gusset- and shear-plate welds were demand critical welds, since
significant yield and deformation was expected.
The specimens were tested horizontally, as shown in Figs. 2b and 4;
this setup facilitated control of the out-of-plane response. The framing
direction was parallel to the strong floor, but the center plane of the
frame was 686 mm (27 in.) above the level of the strong floor to permit
out-of-plane (OOP) brace buckling. The lateral loads were applied by a
hydraulic actuator with a ± 154 mm (±10 in.) stroke and 2002 and
2447 kN (450 and 550 kip) capacity in tension and compression,
respectively.
Earthquake demands are derived from the inertial loads, which are a
function of the structural mass. In a building, the majority of the mass is
the structural floor system and horizontally distributed building infra-
structure (other contributions to the mass include the weight of the
other structural components and building façade). During earthquakes,
these forces are transferred into the lateral-load frame through the
composite-deck system and beams. To simulate this ideally in the labo-
ratory, the lateral loads would have been applied to the test frame
through the beam, but this was not possible because doing so would un-
realistically restrain the vertical deflections expected in the yielding
chevron beams. Instead, a load-transfer beam (see Figs. 2b and Fig. 4)
was used to transfer the loads from the actuator to the columns of the
frame. Pins were placed between the actuator and the transfer beam
and between the transfer beam and the columns to minimize bending
moments in the actuator and the tops of the columns. This arrangement
induces an added overturning moment on the frame and increased
loads on the columns. The other end of the actuator was post-
tensioned to a reinforced-concrete reaction block, which was post-
tensioned to the strong floor.
Fig. 4. Annotated photo of a test specimen in the test apparatus.
The columns were loaded with a compressive load simulating the
approximate dead and live loads for the earthquake load combination;
the column axial load was applied prior to the lateral load. The base
plate of the south column base was post-tensioned to the strong wall
such that it was integral with the strong wall, and the north column
base was post-tensioned to a reinforced-concrete block, which was
post-tensioned to the strong floor. Analysis and experimental results
showed that both column base connections were essentially fully re-
strained connections.
Lateral support was applied to the beam and column as illustrated in
Figs. 2b and Fig. 4. The locations of these lateral supports for the columns
were the same for all tests, but the lateral support of the beam was in-
creased or decreased for each test to ensure that each beam had ade-
quate support to achieve its full plastic moment capacity in all cases.
The test was conducted using displacement control through the ac-
tuator linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT), but the actual
measurement used to determine the applied displacement was the
story drift measured using separate instrumentation attached indepen-
dently to the strong floor. The cyclic displacement protocol shown in
Fig. 5 was derived to achieve story drifts necessary to initiate brace
buckling and tensile yielding of the brace as well as multiples of the
yield drift. The protocol was expanded by the ATC-24 method [25].
Instrumentation of the frame measured loads, global movements,
local movements, and strains. The applied load was measured by the in-
ternal load cell in the actuator. Vertical deflection of the beam, story
drift, and axial deformation and OOP deflection of the braces was mea-
sured with string potentiometers. Potentiometers were also used to
measure any movement of the column bases, reaction blocks, and
other fixtures. All potentiometers were calibrated prior to each test.
Sets of multiple strain gauges were attached to all braces, beams, and
columns in regions remaining elastic during the test to establish axial
loads, bending moments, and shear forces in these members.
A Northern Digital Incorporated (NDI) Optotrak optical measure-
ment system was also used to monitor movements. Optotrak targets
were installed on the beam web, midspan gusset, and over the brace
length to monitor the in-plane and out-of-plane movements. Some of
these measurements duplicated measurements made by traditional in-
strumentation. Areas where yielding was anticipated were
whitewashed prior to testing to enable determination of initiation and
extent of yielding. Material properties were determined through tensile
tests for the steel sections and Table 2 summarizes the results of these
tests. Strain data are not available from these coupon tests, but an elastic
modulus of 200,000 MPa (29,000 ksi) can be assumed for all steel used.
3. Experimental results
The tests were completed between October 2016 and September
2017. In designing a chevron CBF, it is anticipated that the engineer
will select braces so that the design horizontal story shear in a given
bay and story will be less than 2Pcrcosθ of the braces, where θ is the
angle of the brace with respect to the horizontal. This represents the
equilibrium condition at initial brace buckling. After brace buckling,
the compressive force may decrease while the tensile force will
6
4
Drift (%)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
0 20 40 60 80
Half-cycle Number
Fig. 5. Test loading protocol.
 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441 433

Table 2 (17.8 in.). Significantly less yielding occurred in the shear plate of this
Material properties for test specimens. specimen, but larger beam deflections and more beam yielding were
Specimen Section Specification Fy Fu noted. Bolt fracture did not occur.
(MPa) (ksi) (MPa) (ksi)
Chevron 3 had a W14 × 38 beam, which was approximately 35% of
AISC 2016 SCBF requirements, and its measured response is shown in
1 W14 × 120 A992 391 56.7 483 70.1
Fig. 6c. Up to the initiation of the buckling the behavior of Chevron 3
2 W14 × 61 A992 403 58.5 512 74.3
3,5 W14 × 38 A992 366 53.1 474 68.7 was nearly identical to Chevrons 1 and 2 but, after brace buckling, the
4 W14 × 26 A992 359 52.1 419 60.8 response of Chevron 3 was similar to Chevron 2. Chevron 3 reached a
6 W21 × 44 A992 400 58 500 72.5 maximum drift range of 7.2% prior to brace fracture, and had a maxi-
1–6 W12 × 50 A992 361 52.4 454 65.9 mum lateral resistance of 757 and –786 kN (170.1 and −176 kips).
1–4, 6 HSS4 × 4 × 5/16 A1085 431 62.5 516 74.8
5 HSS4 × 4 × 5/16 A500 Gr. C 467 67.7 572 82.9
The north brace fractured at the first −3.6% drift cycle, and the south
1–6 3/8-in. plate A572 Gr. 50 519 75.3 586 85 brace fractured at the second +3.6% drift cycle. The maximum OOP de-
flection of the brace prior to fracture was 498 mm (19.6 in.). Beam de-
flections and yielding were larger than observed for Chevron 2 (see
increase. As such, it is uncertain if the frame will develop a story shear Fig. 7d).
larger than 2Pcrcosθ. As a result, 2Pcrcosθ is the estimate of the design Chevron 4 utilized a W14 × 26 beam, which was approximately 23%
shear resistance of the braced frames in this research. of current SCBF requirements. Again, Chevron 4 has similar behavior to
The force-drift response of the six specimens are shown in Fig. 6. Chevrons 1, 2, and 3 up to the point of brace buckling, and its behavior is
Fig. 7 shows selected photographs of brace, column, and beam behavior illustrated in Fig. 6d. The north brace fractured at the first −4.4% drift
observed during the testing. The measured story shear force was nor- cycle, and the south brace fractured at the second +4.5% drift cycle. In-
malized by 2Pcrcosθ determined from the measured properties of the elastic behavior was similar to Chevrons 1 and 2 in that the braces began
steel. There is significant interest in the earthquake engineering com- to buckle OOP at approximately ±0.28% drift, and sustained
munity to determine post-fracture resistance and stiffness to enable col- progressively larger OOP buckling deformations each cycle, leading to
lapse resistance of SCBFs. Therefore, a series of larger inelastic cycles plastic-hinge formation in the center of the braces; this eventually
after brace fracture were applied to measure remaining stiffness and lead to tearing and fracture of the braces (as illustrated in Fig. 7b and
resistance. c). Connection damage included plate yielding, plate crack initiation,
The following paragraphs summarize each specimen individually. and limited weld tearing. The columns sustained yielding and local
All of the specimens reached the idealized lateral strength, although buckling in the plastic-hinge region. The frame had a lateral resistance
Chevron 4 barely reached this threshold. In all cases, the significant of 675 and –719 kN (151.7 and −161.6 kip). The maximum OOP deflec-
loss in lateral-load-carrying capacity resulted from brace fracture. Chev- tion of the brace observed prior to fracture was 470 mm (18.5 in.).
ron 1 showed significant increase in resistance after brace buckling, but Chevrons 1 through 4 were designed to study the impact of beam
it was also the only specimen to show gradual deterioration in strength strength on the seismic performance (strength, stiffness, deformation
prior to brace fracture. capacity and damage) of chevron-configured SCBFs. Chevrons 1 through
Chevron 1 met all of the current AISC SCBF Seismic Provisions [3]. Its 3 all developed and retained the target design resistance. In contrast,
force-displacement response is shown in Fig. 6a. Out-of-plane (OOP) Chevron 4 nearly reached this resistance at initial buckling but
buckling was visually observed at ±0.28% drift, and gusset plates remained below this target resistance at increased deformation, as
began to yield due brace buckling deformation at approximately ± shown in Fig. 6d. Yielding of the beam and columns was more extensive
0.7% story drift. The maximum lateral resistance was 1020 and and severe in Chevron 4 than the prior tests. There was considerable
−1040 kN (229.3 and −233.8 kip). Significant yielding of the column torsion, axial, OOP P-δ deformation of the beam during later stages of
was noted adjacent to the top of the corner gusset plates at approxi- the Chevron 4 test, suggesting that this specimen did not meet seismic
mately ±1.9% story drift; it is postulated that the base fixity resulted performance expectations.
in high moment demands there (see Fig. 7a). Local flange buckling The test program included two additional specimens. Chevron 5 had
(also seen in Fig. 7a) was noted at that location at about ±2.2% drift. identical frame geometry, column size, brace size, and connection de-
Local cupping of the braces was noted with increasing deformation tails to Chevron 3, but it utilized A500 Grade C braces instead of
(see Fig. 7b). The south brace fractured first at 3% drift, and the north A1085 braces to study the impact of brace specifications. The W14
brace fractured second at −3.3% drift (see Fig. 7c). Cracking of gusset- × 38 beam had 35% of the strength required by the AISC SCBF require-
plate-to-framing member welds initiated prior to brace fracture, but ment for unbalanced load [3]. The behavior of this specimen is illus-
the cracks remained small and stable due to proper sizing and use of de- trated in Fig. 6e. Chevron 5 reached a maximum drift range of 6.6%
mand critical weld material (AWS E71T-8). Significant local yielding of and had a maximum lateral resistance of 780 and –774 kN (175 and
the shear plates was noted and one shear-plate bolt fractured simulta- −174 kips) as shown in Fig. 6e. The north brace fractured at −3.0%
neously with brace fracture. Large OOP deformations of the braces drift, and the south brace fractured at +3.6% drift. This behavior is sim-
were noted, and the maximum OOP deflection observed prior to brace ilar to that of Chevron 3 except that the inelastic deformation prior to
fracture was 439 mm (17.3 in.). The maximum drift range of the brace fracture was 9% smaller than that achieved with Chevron 3.
frame prior to brace fracture was 6.3%. Limited elastic beam deflection The sixth specimen was designed to consider the impact of beam
was noted, but deflections were small and no significant yielding oc- stiffness on the response. Chevron 6 had the same frame geometry, col-
curred until after the first brace fractured. umn size, brace size, and connection details as Chevron 2 but utilized a
Chevron 2 had a W14 × 61 beam, which has approximately 55% of W21 × 44 beam instead of a W14 × 61. Its measured response is shown
the chevron beam resistance required by the 2016 SCBF provisions; its in Fig. 6f. The resistance of the W21 × 44 was approximately 56% of that
measured behavior is shown in Fig. 6b. The initiation of brace buckling required by the 2016 AISC SCBF requirements for the unbalanced load
and the yielding of the columns was very similar to that noted in Chev- from the braces of chevron braced frames. All other components and
ron 1, except that beam deflections and story drifts were slightly larger welds met AISC seismic requirements [3]. Chevron 6 reached a maxi-
for each event after brace buckling. The south brace fractured first at mum drift range of 6.0% and had a maximum lateral resistance of 911
+3.3% drift half-cycle, and the north brace fractured at the second and –910 kN (204.8 and −204.6 kips). The south brace fractured first
−3.3% drift half-cycle; the resulting drift range was 6.6%. The maximum at +3.0% drift, and the north brace fractured second at −3.0% drift.
story shears prior to brace fracture were 919 and –888 kN (206.6 and Chevron 6 achieved almost equal maximum lateral resistance and
−199.6 kip). The maximum OOP deflection of the brace was 452 mm slightly lower drift range as Chevron 2, which sustained a maximum
434 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441

Fig. 6. Normalized lateral force versus story drift.

of 909 kN (206.6 kips) and 6.6% drift range. The damage progression
(brace buckling, plastic hinging, and fracture) of Chevron 6 was similar
to Chevron 2. Connection damage again included plate yielding, plate
cracking, and weld tearing, but the weld tearing in Chevron 6 was less
severe than that of Chevron 2. The columns sustained yielding and
local buckling in the plastic-hinge region. The beam deflection was
slightly smaller for Chevron 6 than for Chevron 2 because of the in-
creased elastic stiffness. This smaller beam deflection increased the ten-
sile force and deformation demand in the brace, resulting in brace
fracture at smaller frame drifts.
4. Comparison of test specimens
Table 3 compares salient maximum measured data points for each
test, including beam deflection, drift range and strength. The study pa-
rameters were evaluated using this comparison data.
4.1. Beam deflection
Fig. 8a compares the beam deflections of Chevrons 1 through 4 as a
function of story drift. Chevron 1 had small, elastic deflection, since
 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441 435

(a) Column yielding adjacent to gusset (b) Local cupping of brace

(Chevron 1) (typical of all tests)

(c) Brace fracture (typical of all tests) (d) Beam yielding (Chevron 3)

Fig. 7. Photos of observed behavior.

beam yielding was minimized. At low drift levels (less than 1%), Chev-
rons 1 and 2 had similar deflections, since these deflections were largely
elastic. At drift levels exceeding 2% story drift (4% drift range), the beam
deflections of the four specimens were quite different, with the largest
deflection approximately 3 times the smallest (Chevron 4 in compari-
son to Chevron 1). Although the deflections were increased with in-
creased beam yielding, they were still moderate in magnitude, even at
story drifts beyond 3%, since the maximum deflection-to-span ratio
was approximately 1/40 and the maximum residual deflection-to-
span ratio was approximately 1/120. Fig. 8b compares beam deflections
of Chevron 2 and 6. This figure provides insight into the beam deflection
as a function of beam stiffness rather than strength, since both beams
had approximately 55% of the currently required beam strength. As ex-
pected, the beam deflections of Chevron 6 (KF of 0.10) were smaller
than the beam deflections of Chevron 2 (KF of 0.08), but the difference
at larger drift ranges was smaller than expected: 10 mm (0.4 in.). This
difference was entirely due to the variation in moment of inertia and
elastic deflection of the beam under the unbalanced load.
4.2. Lateral resistance
Table 3 compares the maximum lateral resistance and deformations
prior to brace fracture for Chevrons 1 through 4. As shown in the
table and Fig. 6, the resistance of the frame decreased with reduced
beam strength and increased beam yielding. Fig. 6 shows that only
Chevron 4, which had 23% of the currently required beam strength,
failed to meet the target design resistance through significant inelastic
deformation. In addition to demonstrating that beam yielding does
not significantly impact resistance, the results also show that an in-
crease in beam yielding (following brace buckling) results in an in-
crease in drift range prior to brace fracture. For example, compare
Chevrons 1, 2, and 3. The minimum drift-range capacity was 6.0% for
Chevron 1 and it should be noted that this drift range is somewhat
larger than that achieved in testing of other SCBF systems. This
shows that deflection of chevron beams reduces the fracture potential
for the brace at a given drift, because beam deflection increases com-
pressive deformation but decreases tensile elongation of the brace in

Table 3
Selected maximum measurements.

Specimen Chevron 1 Chevron 2 Chevron 3 Chevron 4 Chevron 5 Chevron 6

Beam size W14 × 120 W14 × 61 W14 × 38 W14 × 26 W14 × 38 W21 × 44

Brace A1085 A1085 A1085 A1085 A500 Gr. C A1085

Relative beam strength 115% 55% 35% 23% 35% 56%
Max. lateral resistance (kN) −1040 919 −786 −719 780 911
Max. beam deflection (mm) 28 46 76 97 64 36
Max. beam residual deflection (mm) 1.0 13 45 62 38 10
Drift at 1st brace fracture (%) 3.0 3.3 −3.6 −4.4 −3.0 3.0
Drift at 2nd brace fracture (%) −3.3 −3.3 3.6 4.5 3.6 −3.0
Max. drift range (%) 6.3 6.6 7.2 8.9 6.6 6.0
Corner gusset OOP deflection (mm) −61 −64 −64 −71 −58 −64
436 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441
Fig. 8. Measured midspan deflections of chevron beam: (a) Chevrons 1 through 4 (b) Chevrons 2 and 6.
the hinge region. Fracture is driven by tension demands, which are re-
duced in this configuration. Chevrons 2 and 6 investigate the impact
of beam stiffness. The peak resistances were essentially the same.
The maximum deformation prior to brace fracture was lower for
Chevron 6 because the decreased elastic defection increased the ten-
sile elongation and induced earlier fracture.
4.3. Unbalanced force
The brace forces were determined from the strain gages placed in re-
gions that remained elastic, and unbalanced forces on the beam were
computed from these measured brace forces. Fig. 9 is a plot of these un-
balanced forces for Chevrons 1 through 4 as a function of story drift,
where the measured unbalanced forces are normalized by those re-
quired by current AISC SCBF requirements. Of significant note is that
the idealized AISC forces were not achieved for any of the specimens, in-
cluding Chevron 1. The unbalanced force demand decreased with de-
creased beam strength and increased beam yielding, but this
relationship was not linear. For example, the unbalanced forces for
Chevrons 3 and 4 were very similar despite a significant change in
beam resistance. The plot suggests that Chevron 3 represents a reason-
able design limit for chevron SCBFs with yielding beams.
4.4. Brace elongation and shortening
Fig. 10 shows the axial force versus elongation or shortening hyster-
etic curves of the north braces of Chevrons 1 through 4. The brace
Fig. 9. Normalized vertical unbalanced forces for Chevrons 1–4.
strength is normalized to Pcre in both directions; Py is denoted with a
dashed line on the positive side of the y-axis. The south brace was out
of phase with nearly identical behavior. Chevron 1 developed the com-
pressive buckling load and nearly developed the tensile yield force, and
significant tensile elongation was noted (primarily as yielding around
the plastic hinge of the buckled brace). Chevrons 2 through 4 developed
the compressive bucking force, sustained increasing brace shortening
deformation with a reduction in beam strength, and had decreasing ten-
sile force and elongation with decreased beam strength. It is noted that
the elastic stiffness of the beams was also systematically reduced in the
test program as a byproduct of the strength reduction; reduced beam
stiffness has been shown to be similarly correlated with increased com-
pressive shortening and decreased tensile elongation [16]. In addition,
Chevrons 2 through 4 had beam-to-brace stiffness ratios (KF) between
0.03 and 0.08, suggesting that the beam stiffness would not be large
enough to induce brace tensile yielding, even if the beams were stron-
ger. Still, these test results clearly show that, for chevron SCBFs with
yielding beams, the maximum tensile force developed in the brace is
limited by the beam plastic resistance. Chevron 4 had no significant ten-
sile elongation, and its maximum brace tensile force was essentially the
same magnitude as its buckling force.
5. Numerical simulation
To further study the impact of beam yielding on chevron SCBFs, a
small parametric study was conducted using high-resolution nonlinear
finite-element models (FEM) (see Fig. 11). The initial phase of this study
validated the model using the test results.
The modeling was conducted in Abaqus [26]. The full specimen and
setup was modeled using four-node quadrilateral shell elements with
reduced integration (Element Type S4R). Significant yielding as well
as local and global geometric nonlinearity was modeled. However,
brace fracture and weld cracking were not directly simulated. Instead,
values of equivalent plastic strain were used to numerically estimate
the onset of these behaviors; this approach has been successfully used
in prior research by the authors [27]. Note that simulation of brace frac-
ture is critical in determining the seismic performance of the systems, as
it determines the drift-range capacity.
Because plastic strain is mesh dependent, a systematic and consis-
tent modeling approach for mesh size was used. A moderately coarse
mesh (up to 50 × 50 mm) was used in regions of elastic behavior, and
a fine mesh (19 × 19 mm) was used for braces in their buckled region.
An intermediate mesh size was used in other locations with yield defor-
mations with appropriate transitions to accommodate changes in
mesh size.
A bilinear kinematic-hardening material model was used with the
measured material properties (see Table 2). The elastic modulus was
 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441 437

Fig. 10. Measured brace axial force versus axial deformation.

200,000 MPa (29,000 ksi) with a Poisson's ratio of 0.3 for all members.
Approximately 35,000 elements were required to model each
specimen.
The column base plate connections were modeled as restrained in all
directions, and OOP restraints were imposed on beams and columns at
the locations of the OOP lateral-torsional buckling restraint. Welded
joints were simulated using tie constraints restricting relative transla-
tion and rotation between joined nodes. The load-transfer beam was
explicitly modeled as shown in Fig. 11, and the column displacements
were constrained to match those of the transfer beam where pins
were located in the test setup. Bilinear spring elements connected the
beam web to the shear plate at each bolt location in the global
X-direction, and a translational constraint was imposed in the other
two directions. The yielding resistance of the bilinear spring was defined
by the bolt bearing and shear capacities. In the experiments, the braces
were fabricated with a downward eccentricity of 3 mm (0.125 in.) to

Fig. 11. Overview of finite-element model.

438 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441

initiate buckling. Therefore, a negative Z-direction (OOP) 3-mm offset
was modeled to initiate buckling without causing significant change to
the brace buckling capacity.
Nonlinear analyses were performed prior to testing to aid in
instrumenting and testing each specimen. Ultimately, the models
were validated using the test results. The local and global yielding
mechanisms and deformations were compared for all test speci-
mens; Figs. 12 and 1 show a few comparisons made to validate the
models for Chevrons 1 and 3. Chevron 1 is shown because it had
the largest discrepancies between measured and computed behav-
ior despite having limited yielding. Chevron 3 was selected as a
specimen with large inelastic deformation near the limit of tolera-
ble yielding in chevron beams. Fig. 12a shows that the model pre-
dicted the lateral resistance of Chevron 1 well. The computed
lateral resistance was somewhat larger than experimental
measurements at larger drift demands, because gusset-plate weld
cracking initiates at about 2% drift and limits the strength. However,
as mentioned previously, this cracking was not simulated in the
Abaqus model. The simulation of Chevron 1 underestimated the
post-buckling compressive resistance and OOP deflection of the
brace again due to the fact that gusset-plate weld cracking was
not simulated in the model. Fig. 12b shows that the lateral resis-
tance for Chevron 3 was quite accurately predicted at all deforma-
tions. The analyses slightly overestimate the vertical deflection of
the beam and the OOP deflection of the brace at large story drifts,
again due to gusset-plate weld cracking.
Fig. 1 compares the computed von Mises stress fields in the brace
with observed brace buckling deformation at specific story drifts. OOP
deformations of the braces were large and significantly impacted the
global frame behavior, local beam behavior, and gusset-plate rotation

Fig. 12. Comparison of measured and computed response of Chevrons 1 and 3.

 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441 439

Fig. 13. Local behavior of brace for Chevron 1 (observed response above and simulated response below).

demands. The figure shows good correlation between the observed and
numerically simulated buckled shape and OOP deformation of the brace
at moderate drift levels. Brace fracture was preceded by local cupping
deformation of the brace, as shown in Fig. 1b. Brace tearing and fracture
was not modeled, but Fig. 1c shows serious necking predicted at the
story drift and location of brace fracture. All of these mechanisms
were well predicted by the simulation models. In summary, these com-
parisons demonstrated that the nonlinear simulation methodology
provides good predictions of global and local behavior of the chevron
CBFs. Given this conclusion, it was justified to use the numerical simula-
tion methodology to extend the experimental study with a limited pa-
rameter study.
Of primary importance for the system is the minimum limit of the
required beam strength. The experimental study only focused on a spe-
cific range of beam strengths; this was extended with the FEM paramet-
ric study.

Fig. 14. Effect of increased demand-to-capacity ratio.

440 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441
Fig. 14 shows the global results of the study. As noted earlier,
2Pcrcosθ was taken as the expected minimum design resistance for
these chevron CBFs. In these plots, this resistance using the measured
yield stress of A1085 HSS4 × 4 × 5/16 braces was used to normalize
the computed lateral resistance for the experimentally and numerically
simulated single-story chevrons with reduced beam resistance as a
function of the normalized beam strength in Fig. 14a. The “Beam
Strength Ratio” is the inverse of the results of beam interaction equation
(see Table 1) when the beam is analyzed for SCBF unbalanced loads cur-
rently required in design.
The experimental results are plotted as square symbols in the fig-
ures, and they compare well with analytical predictions, which are plot-
ted as lines with circular symbols. The figure shows that the lateral
resistance steadily decreases with decreasing beam strength, and
crosses below the target lateral resistance (1.0 in the figure) between
Chevrons 3 and 4, which corresponds to a beam resistance that is ap-
proximately 30% of that currently required.
Fig. 14b shows that the maximum beam deflection increases with
decreasing beam strength, as expected, however the response is not lin-
ear. The simulated results are slightly larger than the experimentally
measured deflections because the shear-plate connection provides
some rotational resistance. This rotational resistance becomes more sig-
nificant with smaller beam sizes. Again, there is a large change in the
beam deflection when the beam strength is approximately 30% of
what is currently required.
Fig. 14c and d shows the maximum axial force and deformation of
the braces in tension and compression. These plots clearly show that
tensile elongation is significantly decreased and the compressive short-
ening is significantly larger as the beam strength is reduced. The maxi-
mum tensile force in the brace decreases as beam strength is reduced,
but it stabilizes at a magnitude similar to the compressive buckling
force at very low beam resistance.
All four plots show slight-to-moderate changes in slope as the beam
strength ratio falls between 0.2 and 0.3. As stated previously, the focus
of this research has been evaluation of the unbalanced beam forces
due to post-buckling behavior of the braces (see Fig. 1c) and the impact
of beam strength on demand and ductility. However, the beam must
still resist the full load case shown in Fig. 1b, and this force is not re-
duced by beam yielding, where the upper bound on the force in the ten-
sile brace is reduced. Further, the full load case becomes relatively
constant as the tensile and compressive brace forces converge for
beams with a low strength relative to current requirements. If the
beam is overstressed under this load condition, axial shortening and
elongation of the beam and OOP P-δ deformation must be expected.
Such beam deformations were observed during testing of Chevron 4,
though they were limited in magnitude. The W14 × 26 had axial stress
levels in the range of 105 to 140 MPa (15 to 20 ksi) at the maximum
brace forces, and beams with a Beam Strength Ratio of 0.1 to 0.15
would have much higher axial stress levels. This high stress is particu-
larly critical in this research program, because the frames had no slab,
which will contribute resistance to these axial forces in an actual build-
ing. Hence, this beam must be designed accounting for both demand
limits, with particular attention to the combined loading for each.
Chevrons 1, 2, 3, and 4 all achieved inelastic story drifts larger than
achievable with other SCBF configurations, which have been tested pre-
viously by the authors and others. This occurs because the brace with
yielding chevron beams does not develop large tensile force and elonga-
tion, but develops larger compressive shortening. Even under low-cycle
fatigue conditions, brace fracture is driven largely by the tension strain,
and hence larger local deformations are required in the brace before
fracture occurs with this beam deflection.
6. Summary and conclusions
Six large-scale single-story chevron braced frames were tested
under inelastic cyclic loading to large drifts. The first four tests were
chevron CBFs with identical columns, connections, frame geometry,
and A1085 HSS4 × 4 × 5/16 braces, but they employed different beam
sections to evaluate the effect of beam yielding on frame performance.
The final two tests addressed the relative performance of A500 HSS
braces and beam depth and stiffness. Experimentally validated,
high-resolution finite-element models were used to further evaluate
and extend the experimental results through a parameter study. These
nonlinear computer models simulated the cyclic frame deformations
up to brace fracture of all frames. The observed local and global response
was compared to the numerically simulated behavior to verify the accu-
racy of the models.
A number of conclusions were drawn from this research:
• The inelastic story drift achieved prior to brace fracture was larger for
chevron CBFs with beam yielding than for chevron CBFs without beam
yielding, and drift capacity increased with increased beam yielding.
• Chevron CBFs achieve larger story drifts prior to brace fracture than
other SCBF configurations because the chevron beam deflects down-
ward. This deflection increases compressive deformations of the
braces but reduces tensile force and elongation of the brace.
• The maximum lateral resistance of the frame decreases with increased
beam yielding, but the change in lateral resistance is smaller than the
reduction in beam resistance. The lateral resistance remains larger
than the design lateral resistance through large inelastic deformations
if the beam strength is larger than approximately 30% of the current
SCBF requirement.
• Vertical deflections of the beam increase with decreased beam
strength, as expected, but the deflections were smaller than antici-
pated given the reduction in beam resistance. Residual deflections
after lateral load was removed were typically less than 50 mm
(2 in.) or 1/120 of the span length, provided the beam had more
than 30% of the current SCBF requirement.
• Braces buckle in compression and sustain similar degradation in com-
pressive force regardless of beam strength. However, the maximum
tensile brace force approaches the magnitude of the brace buckling
force with weaker chevron beams.
• There are two design demand limit states (Fig. 1b and c) that must be
considered in beam design. The results suggest the chevron CBF be-
havior will be influenced by axial yielding of chevron beams if the
beam strength is less than about 25% of current SCBF requirements.
Based on the current work, it appears that the unbalanced load re-
quirement can be reduced to approximately one-third of the current re-
quirement. Limited yielding of the beam increases the inelastic
deformation capacity of chevron CBFs, which is important under the
maximum-considered earthquake loading. This yielding may reduce
the resistance, but the resistance remains stable through large deforma-
tions. The combined observations of increased inelastic deformation ca-
pacity and retained resistance show that chevron CBFs with limited
beam yielding should have no adverse effects on life safety and collapse
prevention. Therefore, it is recommended that controlled yielding be
permitted for chevron SCBFs.
This research on single-story chevron braced frames shows that
chevron beam yielding could be beneficial to chevron braced frame per-
formance, since it improves the economy and seismic performance
while retaining architectural advantages of the system. However, the
conclusions from this research must be further qualified. In particular,
multi-story chevrons will have very different beam-column connec-
tions since gusset plates will be required at these locations, and concen-
tration of inelastic damage to a single story and a wide range of other
multi-story system concerns could have significant impact; these issues
have not been addressed here. Further, the composite slab present in
most applications will provide additional resistance and lateral restraint
to the beam. As a result, experimental and analytical research on multi-
story chevrons with composite slabs, as well as nonlinear dynamic anal-
ysis of seismic response of a wide range of chevron systems, is needed.
 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 159 (2019) 428–441
These topics are addressed in additional research described in forth-
coming papers.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the American Institute of Steel Con-
struction. Mr. Tom Schlafly was the program manager for this work.
James Malley, Rafael Sabelli, and Tom Sabol served as technical advisors
to the research team. This financial support and technical advice are
greatly appreciated and gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] ICBO, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, (Whit-
tier, CA) 1988.
[2] AISC, Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-97, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 1997.
[3] AISC, Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 341–16, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2017.
[4] S. Costanzo, M. D'Aniello, R. Landolfo, Seismic design criteria for Chevron CBFs:
European vs north American codes (Part-1), J. Constr. Steel Res. 135 (2017)
83–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.04.018.
[5] SEAOC, Recommended Lataeral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA, 1990.
[6] SEAOC, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural En-
gineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA, 1996.
[7] D.A. Foutch, S.C. Goel, C.W. Roeder, Seismic testing of full-scale steel building—part I,
J. Struct. Eng. 113 (1987) 2111–2129, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(1987)113:11(2111).
[8] C.W. Roeder, Seismic behavior of concentrically braced frame, J. Struct. Eng. 115
(1989) 1837–1856, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1989)115:8(1837).
[9] T. Okazaki, D.G. Lignos, T. Hikino, K. Kajiwara, Dynamic response of a chevron con-
centrically braced frame, J. Struct. Eng. 139 (2013) 515–525, https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000679.
[10] A.D. Sen, C.W. Roeder, J.W. Berman, D.E. Lehman, C.-H. Li, A.-C. Wu, K.-C. Tsai, Experimen-
tal investigation of chevron concentrically braced frames with yielding beams, J. Struct.
Eng. 142 (2016), 04016123. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001597.
[11] R. Tremblay, N. Robert, Seismic performance of low- and medium-rise chevron
braced steel frames, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 28 (2001) 699–714, https://doi.org/10.1139/
l01-038.
441
[12] Y. Balazadeh-Minouei, S. Koboevic, R. Tremblay, Seismic assessment of existing steel
Chevron braced frames, J. Struct. Eng. 144 (2018), 04018046. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002037.
[13] ASCE, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-13,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2013.
[14] F. McKenna, M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves, Nonlinear finite-element analysis software ar-
chitecture using object composition, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 24 (2010) 95–107,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000002.
[15] I.F. Khatib, S.A. Mahin, K.S. Pister, Seismic Behavior of Concentrically Braced Steel
Frames, in: UCB/EERC-88/01, Earthquake Engineering Reserach Center, Berkeley,
CA, 1988.
[16] M. D'Aniello, S. Costanzo, R. Landolfo, The influence of beam stiffness on seismic re-
sponse of chevron concentric bracings, J. Constr. Steel Res. 112 (2015) 305–324,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.05.021.
[17] S. Costanzo, M. D'Aniello, R. Landolfo, Critical review of seismic design criteria for
chevron concentrically braced frames: the role of the brace-intercepted beam, Ing.
Sismica. 33 (2016) 72–89.
[18] C.W. Roeder, E.J. Lumpkin, D.E. Lehman, A balanced design procedure for special
concentrically braced frame connections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (2011)
1760–1772, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.04.016.
[19] C. Terpstra, Impact of Beam Strength on Seismic Performance of Chevron Concentri-
cally Braced Frames, University of Washington, 2017http://hdl.handle.net/1773/
40001.
[20] S.M. Ibarra, Experimental Investigation of Chevron Special Concentrically Braced
Frames with a Yielding Beam Plastic Mechanism, University of Washington, 2018.
[21] C.W. Roeder, D.E. Lehman, J.W. Berman, S.M. Ibarra, C. Terpstra, A.D. Sen, T. Li, R. Liu,
Investigation of Chevron-Configured Special Concentrically Braced Frames: A Report
to the American Institute of Steel Construction, (Seattle, WA) 2017.
[22] AISC, Specification for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 360–16, American Insti-
tute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2017.
[23] E.J. Lumpkin, P.-C. Hsiao, C.W. Roeder, D.E. Lehman, C.-Y. Tsai, A.-C. Wu, C.-Y. Wei,
K.-C. Tsai, Investigation of the seismic response of three-story special concentrically
braced frames, J. Constr. Steel Res. 77 (2012) 131–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.
2012.04.003.
[24] D.E. Lehman, C.W. Roeder, D. Herman, S. Johnson, B. Kotulka, Improved seismic per-
formance of gusset plate connections, J. Struct. Eng. 134 (2008) 890–901, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:6(890).
[25] ATC, Guidelines for cyclic seismic testing of components of steel structures for build-
ings, Rep. ATC-24, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 1992.
[26] Dassault Systèmes, Abaqus Unified FEA, 2013.
[27] J.-H. Yoo, C.W. Roeder, D.E. Lehman, Analytical performance simulation of special
concentrically braced frames, J. Struct. Eng. 134 (2008) 881–889, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:6(881).