Adam Christopulos Thesis (BRB Reference-BRB04)

Improved Seismic Performance of
Buckling Restrained Braced Frames

Adam S. Christopulos

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Civil Engineering

University of Washington

2005

Program Authorized to Offer Degree:

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of Washington
Graduate School

This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a masters thesis by

Adam S. Christopulos

and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects,
and that any and all revisions required by the final
examining committee have been made.

Committee Members:

_______________________________________________
Dawn E. Lehman

_______________________________________________
Charles W. Roeder

_______________________________________________
Peter Mackenzie-Helnwein

Date:______________________________
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a masters degree
at the University of Washington, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely
available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is
allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with fair use as prescribed in the
U.S. Copyright Law. Any other reproduction for any purposes or by any means shall
not be allowed without my written permission.

Signature________________________________

Date____________________________________

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
List of Figures..................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables...............................................................................................................xviii
CHAPTER 1 Background and Objectives ...................................................................... 1
1.1 Background.................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Concentrically Braced Frames ..................................................................... 3
1.3 The Buckling Restrained Brace (BRB)........................................................ 4
1.4 Objective and Scope of Research................................................................. 7
1.5 Overview of Report...................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2 Literature Review...................................................................................... 9
2.1 Overview...................................................................................................... 9
2.2 BRB Performance ........................................................................................ 9
2.3 BRBF System Performance ....................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 3 BRBF and Specimen Design................................................................... 24
3.1 Overview and Design of the Prototype Frame........................................... 24
3.2 Description of AISC/SEOC Draft Provisions............................................ 29
3.3 Current Design Procedure.......................................................................... 31
3.3.1 BRB and Bolt Design Procedure............................................. 31
3.3.2 Splice Plate Design Procedure................................................. 34
3.3.3 Gusset and Rib Plate Design Procedure .................................. 35
3.3.4 Gusset-to-Beam/Column Weld Design Procedure.................. 42
ii
3.3.5 Rib-to-Gusset Weld Design Procedure ................................... 45
3.3.6 Framing Member Design Procedure ....................................... 46
3.3.7 Beam-to-Column Connection Design Procedure .................... 46
3.4 Specimen Design........................................................................................ 49
3.4.1 Specimen BRBs....................................................................... 49
3.4.2 Reference Specimen Connection Design ................................ 51
3.4.3 Reference Specimen Frame Design......................................... 52
3.5 Proposed Alternative Design Procedure and Possible Design Variations . 54
3.6 BRB02 Specimen Design Tapered Gusset Plate..................................... 59
3.7 BRB03 Specimen Design Bearing Bolt Connection............................... 60
3.8 BRB04 Specimen Design Rotated BRB Cross Section.......................... 61
CHAPTER 4 Testing Apparatus, Procedure, and Instrumentation ............................... 63
4.1 Overview and General Discussion............................................................. 63
4.1.1 Strong Wall (1) and Strong Floor (2) ...................................... 63
4.1.2 Channel Assembly (3) ............................................................. 65
4.1.3 Load Beam (4)......................................................................... 67
4.1.4 Actuator (5) and Reaction Block (6) ....................................... 68
4.1.5 Out of Plane Restraints (7) ...................................................... 69
4.1.6 Column Axial Load System (8)............................................... 70
4.2 Later Required Modifications .................................................................... 71
4.3 Specimen Fabrication................................................................................. 73
4.4 Instrumentation .......................................................................................... 75
4.5 Data Acquisition and Test Documentation................................................ 82
iii
4.6 Loading Protocol........................................................................................ 83
4.7 Chronology of Testing ............................................................................... 85
CHAPTER 5 Experimental Results............................................................................... 87
5.1 Overview.................................................................................................... 87
5.2 Damage States and Locations .................................................................... 88
5.2.1 Anatomy of Force Displacement Responses........................... 97
5.3 Drift Ranges ............................................................................................... 99
5.3.1 Frame Drift Corrections ........................................................ 100
5.4 Response of Reference BRB.................................................................... 103
5.4.1 Description of Reference BRB Behavior .............................. 106
5.4.2 Response and Failure Summary of Reference BRB.............. 124
5.5 Response of Specimen BRB02 ................................................................ 127
5.9 Comparison and Summary of Response .................................................. 159
CHAPTER 6 Interpretation and Analysis of Results .................................................. 170
6.1 Overview.................................................................................................. 170
6.2 Calculation Methods ................................................................................ 171
6.2.1 Beam/Column Moments and Shears ..................................... 171
6.2.2 Energy Dissipation and Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratio......
........................................................................................................... 174
6.2.3 BRB Core Strains .................................................................. 176
iv
6.2.4 Brace Forces .......................................................................... 177
6.2.5 BRB Casing Shift .................................................................. 178
6.2.6 BRB Casing, Gusset Plate, and Rib Plate Stresses................ 179
6.2.7 Beam/Column Relative Rotations ......................................... 182
6.3 Comparison of Response ......................................................................... 183
6.3.1 Drift and Force Comparisons ................................................ 183
6.3.2 Comparison of Moment and Shear Forces ............................ 187
6.3.3 Energy Dissipation and Equivalent Damping Ratio
Comparisons .......................................................................... 196
6.3.4 Core Strain Comparisons....................................................... 200
6.3.5 Brace Forces .......................................................................... 205
6.3.6 BRB Casing Shift Comparisons ............................................ 207
6.3.7 Deformation Demands and Required Web Thickness
Estimates................................................................................ 208
6.3.8 Beam/Column Relative Rotation Comparisons..................... 212
6.4 Summary of Specimen Performance........................................................ 217
CHAPTER 7 Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................... 219
7.1 Summary.................................................................................................. 219
7.2 Failure Mode............................................................................................ 222
7.3 Effects of Mildly Tapered Gusset Plates (BRB02, BRB03, BRB04)...... 223
7.4 Effects of Bearing Bolt Connections (BRB03, BRB04).......................... 224
7.5 Effects of Orientation of BRB Core Plate (BRB04) ................................ 224
7.6 Displacement History of BRB01 ............................................................. 225
v
7.7 Recommendations for BRBF Connections.............................................. 226
7.8 Recommendations for Future BRBF Testing........................................... 226
List of References......................................................................................................... 230
APPENDIX A Specimen Design and Detail Drawings .............................................. 234
A.1 Reference Specimen and BRB Connection Design ................................ 234
A.1.1 Splice Plate Calculations ........................................................ 235
A.1.2 Gusset and Rib Plate Calculations.......................................... 236
A.1.3 Gusset-to-Beam/Column Weld Calculations.......................... 237
A.1.4 Rib-to-Gusset Weld Calculations ........................................... 239
A.2 Beam-to-Column Connection Design..................................................... 239
A.2.1 WFWW Calculations (Gusset Plate Corners) ........................ 240
A.2.2 Shear Tab Calculations (Opposite Gusset Plate Corners) ...... 241
A.3 BRB03 Connection Calculations ............................................................ 241
A.4 Specimen Detail Drawings...................................................................... 242
APPENDIX B Analysis Details .................................................................................. 255
B.1 Material Tests.......................................................................................... 255
B.2 Additional Analysis Details..................................................................... 255
B.3 Force Displacement Discontinuities Due to Casing Shift ....................... 273
B.4 Beam-to-Column Relative Rotations ...................................................... 274
APPENDIX C Test Apparatus Detail Drawings ......................................................... 281
APPENDIX D Instrumentation Details....................................................................... 292
D.1 Instrumentation Details ........................................................................... 292
vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Number Page
1.1.1 Typical BRBF Gusset Plate Connections............................................................. 2
1.2.1 Hysteretic Behavior of Braced Frame Systems.................................................... 4
1.3.1 Components of an Unbonded Brace BRB............................................................ 5
1.3.2 Typical Flat Plate BRB Core and Splice Plates.................................................... 5
1.3.3 Different BRB Cross Sections.............................................................................. 6
1.4.1 Project Flow Chart................................................................................................ 7
2.2.1 UC San Diego Testing of CoreBrace BRB ........................................................ 11
2.2.2 Typical BRB Hysteresis ..................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 UC Berkley Full-Scale Tests .............................................................................. 14
2.3.2 View of Connection............................................................................................ 15
2.3.3 Test 1 North BRB Hysteresis Curves................................................................. 16
2.3.4 Test 2 Gusset Plate Damage............................................................................... 17
2.3.5 Test 2 BRB Hysteresis Curves ........................................................................... 17
2.3.6 Results of Test 3................................................................................................. 18
2.3.7 Test 3 BRB Hysteresis Curves ........................................................................... 18
2.3.8 Elevation of BRB/CFT Testing at NCREE........................................................ 20
2.3.9 Detail of DCDT BRB......................................................................................... 21
2.3.10 First Floor Upper Gusset-to-DCDT BRB Connection..................................... 21
2.3.11 Gusset-to-BRB Connection.............................................................................. 22
2.3.12 Buckling of Second Floor Upper Gusset/BRB................................................. 22
vii
3.1.1 SAC Model Buildings and Selection of Prototype Frame.................................. 25
3.1.2 Prototype BRBF ................................................................................................. 28
3.1.3 Prototype Beam-to-Column Connections........................................................... 28
3.1.4 Prototype Gusset Plate Connection .................................................................... 29
3.3.1 BRB End Connection ......................................................................................... 32
3.3.2 General Connection Layout................................................................................ 34
3.3.3 Uniform Force Method....................................................................................... 35
3.3.4 Whitmores Method............................................................................................ 37
3.3.5 Methods of Determining Gusset Plate Buckling Capacities .............................. 38
3.3.6 MTM with Relocated Equivalent Width............................................................ 41
3.3.7 Uniform Force Method....................................................................................... 42
3.3.8 Equilibrium Weld Forces ................................................................................... 44
3.3.9 Beam-to-Column Connection Forces ................................................................. 46
3.3.10 Shear Tab Demands.......................................................................................... 48
3.4.1 BRB Connection Details .................................................................................... 50
3.4.2 Reference Specimen Connection Design ........................................................... 52
3.4.3 Frame and Beam-to-Column Connection Details .............................................. 53
3.5.1 WFWW Connection Improvement..................................................................... 55
3.6.1 BRB02 Specimen Final Connection Detail ........................................................ 60
3.7.1 BRB03 Specimen Final Connection Detail ........................................................ 61
3.8.1 BRB04 Orientation............................................................................................. 62
4.1.1 Test Apparatus.................................................................................................... 64
4.1.2 Test Apparatus.................................................................................................... 65
viii
4.1.3 Channel Assembly Cross-Section ...................................................................... 66
4.1.4 Shear Transfer Connection................................................................................. 67
4.1.5 Specimen-to-Channel Assembly Fit Up............................................................. 67
4.1.6 Load Beam.......................................................................................................... 68
4.1.7 Actuator and Reaction Block Connection.......................................................... 69
4.1.8 Out-of-plane Restraints ...................................................................................... 70
4.1.9 In-plane Sliding Surfaces ................................................................................... 70
4.1.10 Column Axial Load System............................................................................. 71
4.2.1 Restraint and Load Beam Modifications............................................................ 72
4.3.1 Specimen Frame Dimensions and Allowable Tolerances .................................. 74
4.4.1 Actuator/Reaction Block Pot Layout.................................................................. 75
4.4.2 Uniaxial Strain Gauge Locations........................................................................ 76
4.4.3 Biaxial Strain Gauge Locations.......................................................................... 77
4.4.4 Potentiometer Locations for Reference BRB Test ............................................. 79
4.4.5 BRB01 Pot Locations (NE Corner).................................................................... 80
4.6.1 BRBF Loading History....................................................................................... 83
4.6.2 Simple Analytical BRBF Model ........................................................................ 84
4.6.3 Modified BRBF Loading History....................................................................... 85
5.2.1 Location Terminology........................................................................................ 89
5.2.2 Tension and Compression Excursions................................................................ 90
5.2.3 Gusset Plate Yielding States............................................................................... 92
5.2.4 Frame Yielding States ........................................................................................ 93
5.2.5 Frame Buckling Limit States.............................................................................. 94
ix
5.2.6 Weld Damage States........................................................................................... 94
5.2.7 BRB Core Plate Hinging States.......................................................................... 95
5.2.8 BRB Casing Performance States ........................................................................ 96
5.2.9 Column Base Performance States ...................................................................... 96
5.2.10 Reference BRB Force Displacement Response ............................................... 97
5.3.1 Locations of Potentiometers Used for Drift Correction ................................... 101
5.3.2 Rigid Body Frame Rotations ............................................................................ 101
5.4.1 Reference BRB Displacement History............................................................. 103
5.4.2 Reference BRB Lateral Force History ............................................................. 104
5.4.3 Reference BRB Force Displacement Response ............................................... 104
5.4.4 Reference BRB Core Plate Elongation............................................................. 105
5.4.5 Visual Determination of Core Yield................................................................. 106
5.4.6 Rib Plate Misalignment .................................................................................... 107
5.4.7 Selected Performance States During Yield Drift Range .................................. 107
5.4.8 Selected Performance States During Early Drift Range................................... 108
5.4.9 Selected Performance States During Mid Drift Range..................................... 109
5.4.10 Selected Performance States During Late Drift Range .................................. 110
5.4.11 Selected Performance States During Final Drift Range Cycles 33&34...... 113
5.4.12 Selected Performance States During Final Drift Range Cycle 35............... 113
5.4.13 Selected Performance States During Final Drift Range Cycle 36............... 114
5.4.14 Progression of Yielding in NE Column Inner Flange .................................... 115
5.4.15 Progression of Yielding in NE Column Outer Flange.................................... 115
5.4.16 Progression of NE Inner Column Flange Local Buckling.............................. 116
x
5.4.17 Progression of Yielding in NE Column Web................................................. 116
5.4.18 Progression of Yielding in NE Beam Inner Flange........................................ 117
5.4.19 Yielding and Buckling of North Beam at Load Beam................................... 117
5.4.20 Progression of Yielding in SW Column......................................................... 118
5.4.21 Progression of Yielding in SW Beam Inner Flange ....................................... 119
5.4.22 Progression of SW Beam Web Yielding/Buckling and Flange Buckling...... 120
5.4.23 Beam-Column Relative Rotations.................................................................. 121
5.4.24 Progression of Damage in SW Gusset Connection ........................................ 122
5.4.25 BRB Hinging and Shifting of Casing............................................................. 123
5.4.26 Progression of Failure (SW Connection Cross Section) ................................ 125
5.4.27 Hinged Core Plate with Surrounding Concrete and Casing Removed........... 126
5.4.28 SW Connection After Failure......................................................................... 126
5.5.1 BRB02 Displacement History.......................................................................... 127
5.5.2 BRB02 Lateral Force History........................................................................... 128
5.5.3 BRB02 Force Displacement History................................................................ 128
5.5.4 BRB02 Core Plate Elongation.......................................................................... 129
5.5.5 NE Column at End of Test ............................................................................... 130
5.5.6 NE Beam Inside Face of Inner Flange at End of Test Y2............................. 131
5.5.7 North Beam at Load Beam at End of Test ....................................................... 131
5.5.8 SW Column Outer Flange and Web at End of Test ......................................... 131
5.5.9 Damage of SW Beam at End of Test................................................................ 132
5.5.10 SW Gusset Plate Damage at End of Test ....................................................... 132
5.5.11 SW Corner After Failure ................................................................................ 133
xi
5.6.5 Bolt and Splice Plate Slip in NE Connection ................................................... 137
5.6.6 Slight Hole Bearing in BRB (NE Connection)................................................. 137
5.6.7 NE Gusset Plate at End of Test ........................................................................ 138
5.6.8 Yielding and Buckling in Top of West and East Columns at End of Test ....... 139
5.6.10 NE Beam at End of Test ................................................................................. 140
5.6.11 North Beam and Load Beam at End of Test................................................... 141
5.6.12 SW Column Outer Flange at End of Test....................................................... 141
5.6.13 SW Beam Web and Inner Flange at End of Test............................................ 141
5.6.14 Weld Crack Openings in SW Gusset.............................................................. 142
5.6.15 SW BRB End After Failure............................................................................ 142
5.7.5 Torsional BRB Rotations During Cycle 37...................................................... 147
5.7.6 Bolt and Splice Plate Slip in BRB04................................................................ 148
5.7.7 SW Beam-to-Column Connection at End of Test ............................................ 149
5.7.8 SW Gusset Plate Connection at End of Test .................................................... 149
xii
5.7.10 SW Beam at End of Test ................................................................................ 151
5.7.11 Binding of BRB Cap Plate Against Core ....................................................... 151
5.7.12 NE Beam at End of Test ................................................................................. 152
5.7.13 SW Column at End of Test............................................................................. 152
5.8.5 SW Beam at End of Test .................................................................................. 156
5.8.6 Gusset Plates at End of Test ............................................................................. 157
5.8.7 SW Connection After Failure........................................................................... 157
5.8.9 NE Beam and North Beam at Load Beam at End of Test ................................ 158
5.9.1 Comparison of Yielding in SW Beam Webs.................................................... 161
6.2.1 Model for Moment and Shear Calculations...................................................... 171
6.2.2 Column Moment Diagrams .............................................................................. 173
6.2.3 Idealized Single Force Displacement Curve .................................................... 175
6.2.4 Equivalent Viscous Damping Model................................................................ 176
6.2.5 Free Body Diagram of Frame........................................................................... 177
6.2.6 Comparison of Force Calculation Methods...................................................... 178
6.2.7 Brace Cylinder Potentiometers......................................................................... 178
6.2.8 BRB01 Casing Stresses .................................................................................... 180
xiii
6.2.9 BRB01 NE Gusset Plate Stresses ..................................................................... 181
6.2.10 BRB02 NE Rib Plate Stresses ........................................................................ 182
6.2.11 Beam/Column Relative Rotations .................................................................. 182
6.3.1 Contribution of BRBF Components to System Stiffness ................................. 185
6.3.2 Final Cycle Force Displacement Responses..................................................... 186
6.3.3 Peak Moments in North Beam Comparison..................................................... 188
6.3.4 Peak Moments in East Column at NE Gusset Edge......................................... 189
6.3.5 Peak Moments in NW Beam-to-Column Shear Tab Connections ................... 190
6.3.6 Peak Moments in SE Beam-to-Column Shear Tab Connections ..................... 190
6.3.7 Column Moment Diagrams at +0.14% and -0.18% Drift Ratios ..................... 191
6.3.10 Column Moment Diagrams at +0.91% and -0.93% Drift Ratios ................... 194
6.3.11 Peak Shears in West Column Comparisons ................................................... 195
6.3.12 Percent of Total Lateral Force Carried by Columns ...................................... 196
6.3.13 Comparison of Total Energy Dissipation....................................................... 197
6.3.14 Comparison of Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratios..................................... 198
6.3.15 Distribution of Energy Dissipation................................................................. 199
6.3.16 Reference BRB Core Strain............................................................................ 201
6.3.17 BRB02 Core Strain......................................................................................... 202
6.3.18 BRB03 Core Strain......................................................................................... 202
6.3.19 BRB04 Core Strain......................................................................................... 203
6.3.20 BRB01 Core Strain......................................................................................... 203
xiv
6.3.21 Percent of Lateral Force Carried in BRB....................................................... 205
6.3.22 Brace Forces ................................................................................................... 206
6.3.23 BRB02 Location of Casing at Zero Drifts...................................................... 207
6.3.24 Gusset Plate and Frame Connection............................................................... 208
6.3.25 Yielding and Buckling in SW Beam.............................................................. 209
6.3.26 Yielding Length Ratios (a) ........................................................................... 211
6.3.27 Reference BRB NW Connection Moment Rotation Response ...................... 213
6.3.28 Reference BRB SE Connection Moment Rotation Response ........................ 213
6.3.29 NW Moment Rotation Envelopes .................................................................. 214
6.3.30 SE Moment Rotation Envelopes .................................................................... 215
6.3.31 Moment Rotation Best-Fit Lines .................................................................... 216
A.2.1 Splice Plates..................................................................................................... 235
A.4.1 Specimen Layout ............................................................................................. 243
A.4.2 Reference BRB and BRB01 Connection Detail .............................................. 244
A.4.3 Reference BRB and BRB01 Gusset Plates...................................................... 245
A.4.4 BRB02 Connection Detail ............................................................................... 246
A.4.5 BRB02, BRB03, and BRB04 Gusset Plates.................................................... 247
A.4.8 BRB Detail ...................................................................................................... 250
A.4.9 BRB Connection Details ................................................................................. 251
A.4.10 Splice Plates and Rib Plate Details................................................................ 252
A.4.11 Specimen Frame Detail ................................................................................. 253
xv
A.4.12 Shear Tab Detail ............................................................................................ 254
A.4.13 Welded-Flange-Welded-Web and Erection Tab Detail................................. 254
B.2.1 Plot of Unreduced Drift Data........................................................................... 256
B.2.2 Plot of Reduced Drift Data .............................................................................. 258
B.2.3 Reference BRB Beam Moments...................................................................... 259
B.2.4 BRB02 Beam Moments ................................................................................... 259
B.2.8 Reference BRB East Column Moments .......................................................... 261
B.2.9 BRB02 East Column Moments........................................................................ 262
B.2.10 BRB03 East Column Moments...................................................................... 262
B.2.13 Reference BRB West Column Moments ....................................................... 264
B.2.14 BRB02 West Column Moments .................................................................... 264
B.2.18 Reference BRB Column Shears..................................................................... 266
B.2.19 BRB02 Column Shears.................................................................................. 267
xvi
B.3.1 Force Displacement Response with Dips ........................................................ 273
B.3.2 Brace Elongation at Selected Locations .......................................................... 273
B.3.3 Plot of Casing Shift.......................................................................................... 274
B.4.1 Reference BRB NW Moment-Rotation Curves............................................... 276
B.4.2 Reference BRB SE Moment-Rotation Curves................................................. 276
B.4.3 BRB02 NW Moment-Rotation Curves............................................................ 277
B.4.4 BRB02 SE Moment-Rotation Curves.............................................................. 277
B.4.10 BRB01 SE Moment-Rotation Curves............................................................ 280
C.1.1 Test Setup Plan ................................................................................................ 281
C.1.2 Test Setup Elevation........................................................................................ 282
C.1.3 Channel Assembly Shear Connection Detail................................................... 283
C.1.4 Channel Assembly Shear Connection Section................................................. 283
C.1.5 Channel Assembly Rod and Bolt Layout ........................................................ 284
C.1.6 Kicker Plate Details ......................................................................................... 285
C.1.7 Load Beam Details........................................................................................... 286
C.1.8 Swivel Head and Swivel Washers Details....................................................... 287
C.1.9 Actuator Details ............................................................................................... 288
xvii
C.1.10 Reaction Block Details .................................................................................. 289
C.1.11 Column Cap Plate Details.............................................................................. 290
C.1.12 Channel Assembly Rod Anchor Details ........................................................ 290
C.1.13 Actuator Adapter Plate Detail........................................................................ 291
D.1.1 Beam/Column Relative Rotation Devices....................................................... 292
D.1.2 Beam/Column Relative Rotation Devices....................................................... 293
D.1.3 Frame Corner Out-of-Plane Device................................................................. 293
D.1.4 Channel Assembly and Column Device Locations ......................................... 294
D.1.5 Out of Plane Locations .................................................................................... 294
D.1.6 Column Uplift Measurement Device............................................................... 295
D.1.7 Frame Translation Device 36 .......................................................................... 295
D.1.8 Load Beam Slip Device................................................................................... 296
D.1.9 Brace Out-of-Plane Measurement Devices ..................................................... 297
D.1.10 Brace and Frame Diagonal Elongation Measurement Devices ..................... 297
D.1.11 Beam and Column Rotation Out of Plane Locations .................................... 298
D.1.12 Column Rotation Device Example................................................................ 298
D.1.13 Brace Rotation Devices ................................................................................. 299
D.1.14 Example of Brace Rotation and Torsion Devices ......................................... 300
D.1.15 Gusset Plate Out-of-Plane Devices................................................................ 300

xviii
LIST OF TABLES

Table Number Page
2.2.1 CoreBrace Subassemblage Tests Summary ....................................................... 12
2.2.2 Associated Bracing Uniaxial Tests Summary .................................................... 12
3.1.1 Estimated Building Weights and Base Shears.................................................... 26
3.1.2 Estimated Story Shears and Brace Forces .......................................................... 26
3.5.1 Design Modifications ......................................................................................... 59
4.4.1 Strain Gauges Used Per Test .............................................................................. 77
4.4.2 Potentiometer Variances From Reference BRB Test ......................................... 80
5.1.1 Experimental Testing Schedule.......................................................................... 87
5.1.2 BRBF Specimen Components............................................................................ 88
5.2.1 Frame and Gusset Performance State Terminology........................................... 91
5.2.2 BRB, Bolt, and Column Base Performance State Terminology ........................ 95
5.3.1 Drift Ranges and Corresponding Cycle Numbers ............................................ 100
5.3.2 Measured vs. Corrected Story Drifts for the Reference BRB.......................... 102
5.4.1 Reference BRB Peak Values ............................................................................ 105
5.5.1 BRB02 Peak Values ......................................................................................... 129
5.6.1 BRB03 Peak Values ......................................................................................... 135
5.7.1 BRB04 Peak Values ......................................................................................... 145
5.8.1 BRB01 Peak Values ......................................................................................... 155
5.9.1 Abbreviations Used in Tables 5.9.2 Through 5.9.6.......................................... 163
5.9.2 Test Comparisons Connections, Brace, and Column Bases.......................... 164
xix
5.9.3 Test Comparisons SW Beam......................................................................... 165
5.9.4 Test Comparisons NE Column...................................................................... 166
5.9.5 Test Comparisons SW Column ..................................................................... 167
5.9.6 Test Comparisons NE Beam and North Beam at Load Beam End ............... 168
5.9.7 Peak Drift Ratio Comparisons.......................................................................... 169
5.9.8 Peak Input Force Comparisons......................................................................... 169
6.1.1 Material Properties of Specimens..................................................................... 170
6.3.1 Comparison of Maximum Drift Range............................................................. 183
6.3.2 Comparison of Maximum Lateral Force Range............................................... 184
6.3.3 Theoretical Yield Moments.............................................................................. 187
6.3.4 Total Energy Dissipated and Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratios ................. 198
6.3.5 Energy Dissipation in Reference BRB Components........................................ 200
6.3.6 Peak Core Strain Comparisons......................................................................... 201
6.3.7 Maximum Strains and Cumulative Plastic Ductility........................................ 204
6.3.8 Maximum Brace Forces and Overstrength Factors .......................................... 207
6.3.9 Web Yielding Estimates ................................................................................... 210
6.3.11 Shear Tab Connection Stiffness Values ......................................................... 217
6.4.1 Performance Summary ..................................................................................... 218
B.1.1 Material Test Results ....................................................................................... 255
B.2.1 North Beam Moments Peak Results ................................................................ 269
B.2.2 South Beam Moments Peak Results ................................................................ 269
B.2.3 NE Edge Column Moments Peak Results ....................................................... 270
B.2.4 SW Edge Column Moments Peak Results....................................................... 270
xx
B.2.5 NW Beam-to-Column Connection Moments Peak Results............................. 271
B.2.6 SE Beam-to-Column Connection Moments Peak Results............................... 271
B.2.7 East Column Shears Peak Results ................................................................... 272
B.2.8 West Column Shears Peak Results .................................................................. 272
B.4.1 SE Beam-to-Column Relative Rotation Comparisons..................................... 275
B.4.2 NW Beam-to-Column Relative Rotation Comparisons................................... 275
D.1.1 Reference BRB Instrumentation Locations..................................................... 301
D.1.2 BRB02 Instrumentation Locations .................................................................. 302

xxi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisors Dr. Dawn E. Lehman and Dr. Charles W. Roeder for
their guidance and assistance over the past two years. Thanks to Dr. Peter Mackenzie-
Helnwein for reviewing and commenting on this paper. Also, thanks to the following
collaborators on this project: Shawn M. Johnson, Ingvar Gunnarson, Jung Han Yoo,
George Gimas, Nabil Kausal-Hayes, Pete Carney, Nathan Caney, Nick Kuffel, Vince
Chaijaroen, Ken Knowlan, and Yiming Liu. A big thanks to Mr. Mark Daniels.

Special thanks to the National Science Foundation for funding this project, Nucor
Yamoto Steel and AISC for donating steel used in this project. A big thanks to Nippon
Steel for the donation of the Unbonded Braces. Thanks to John Hooper and Cheryl
Burwell of Magnusson Klemencic, Tim Fraser of Canron Western Constructors Ltd,
Walterio Lopes of Rutherford and Chekene, and Rafael Sabelli of Dasse Design Inc. for
technical advice. Thanks also to CoreBrace, Star Seismic, and Associated Bracing for
providing information on their buckling restrained braces.

I would like to thank my family, friends, and fellow graduate students. Moms, Big
Guy, T.H., Dani, Ems, Sara, Kelsey, Gma Marjorie, Gma Christopulos, Mariya, Dave,
Chris, Angela, John, Shawn, George, Julie, Brian, and all the rest.

Just because some of us can read and write and do a little
math, that doesnt mean we deserve to conquer the universe.

We are here for no purpose, unless we can invent one. Of that I am sure. The human
condition in an exploding universe would not have been altered one iota if, rather than
live as I have, I had done nothing but carry a rubber ice-cream cone from closet to
closet for sixty years.

-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
xxii

DEDICATION

Dedicated To:

THE GNARLY HESSIAN CREW

Beans
Biggie
Bones Justice
Codfish
Motor
1
CHAPTER 1
Background and Objectives

1.1 Background
Structural demands in high seismic zones require the use of strong lateral framing
systems. The structure must have adequate strength and stiffness to resist smaller,
frequent earthquakes with limited damage, but must also be able to sustain large
inelastic cyclic deformations to economically assure safety and stability during large,
infrequent earthquakes. This inelastic behavior provides significant energy dissipation
which dampens the structures dynamic response. Currently, there are several different
systems used to achieve this energy dissipation and inelastic performance. The most
frequently used steel systems, are the moment resisting frame (MRF) and the
concentrically braced frame (CBF). MRFs are relatively flexible structures that
primarily develop their inelastic deformations through beam flexure and panel zone
yielding [20]. CBFs are stiff, strong, and economical structural systems, and their
inelastic lateral response is dominated by inelastic deformation of the braces [20]. In
both systems the inelastic response of the structural members deliver very high force
and deformation demands to the connections and the remaining structural system.
Extensive research for MRFs by the SAC Joint Venture, has lead to significant
improvement in design and understanding of the demands placed on MRF connections
[e.g., 8, 18]. The improvements came from employment of a performance based design
approach to the MRF connections as described in more detail in Section 3.5 of this
document. By improving the beam-to-column connections in MRFs, the overall system
performance is enhanced through increased deformation and energy dissipation
capacities.

The current state of braced frame systems can be related to that of MRFs prior to the
described SAC design improvements. In braced frame structures, the inelastic demands
placed on the diagonal braces also result in high demands on the gusset plate
2
connections. The gusset plates serve to transfer the lateral forces between the brace
and the framing members, and do so conveniently and economically. Currently, gusset
plate designs for BRBFs are varied, as shown in Figure 1.1.1.

Figure 1.1.1 Typical BRBF Gusset Plate Connections

Although current design provisions yield very strong gusset plate connections, they do
not provide realistic estimates of the inelastic demands, and do not result in reliable
connection and system performance [20]. Since the brace connections are simply
required to be stronger than the brace, there is no assurance that the connection can
accommodate the deformations required. The connection must not only allow for
3
adequate inelastic action of the brace, but it must also allow for the system
deformations that the structure has been designed for.

1.2 Concentrically Braced Frames
The strength and stiffness of concentrically braced frames results in an efficient and
economical lateral system. Two of the most widely used systems to date are special
concentrically braced frames (SCBFs) and buckling restrained braced frames (BRBFs).
SCBFs are designed using traditional buckling braces as the means of inelastic
deformation and energy dissipation. Individual braces often possess only limited
ductile capacity under cyclic loading [23]. Buckling braces suffer severe strength
deterioration due to inelastic, post-buckling deformation. The unbalanced response of
buckling braces yields an unsymmetrical hysteretic behavior, with severe pinching
during the compressive hysteretic excursions as shown in Figure 1.2.1a. Because of the
lopsided performance of a single buckling brace, SCBFs are designed using opposing
braces so that one brace will be in tension while the other is in compression. With the
use of opposing buckling braces, the resulting hysterisis curves are much more
symmetric, but are still quite pinched as shown in Figure 1.2.1b. Even with the
improved symmetric hysteresis, the energy dissipation capacity of SCBFs is limited.

Because of the limited ductility and energy dissipation capacity of SCBF systems,
significant effort has been made in development of braces which inhibit buckling.
Buckling restrained braces (BRBs) restrict buckling of the brace, and therefore allow
nearly equal tensile and compressive yielding to occur. The balanced yielding leads to
very full and balanced hysteretic behavior as shown in Figure 1.2.1c. This hysteretic
behavior shows the excellent energy dissipation and inelastic ductility of BRBFs.

4

(a) Single Brace SCBF [12] (b) SCBF with Opposing Braces [21]

(c) Single Brace BRBF
Figure 1.2.1 Hysteretic Behavior of Braced Frame Systems

1.3 The Buckling Restrained Brace (BRB)
The BRB concept was first explored in Japan during the early 1980s, but the first BRB
use in the United States was not until early 2000 [7, 13]. Since 2000, interest and use of
BRBs has been growing rapidly. At this time, there are dozens of different types and
configurations of BRBs, but the most often used is the Unbonded Brace concept. This
concept is the original type of BRB, which was developed and produced in Japan during
the 1980s. The brace consists of a steel core, which is prohibited from buckling by
encasing it in a steel tube filled with mortar/concrete, as shown in Figure 1.3.1. The
steel core takes the entire axial load applied to the brace, and contains a yield length,
along which all inelastic action takes place. Usually the core is either a cruciform shape
or a flat plate with stiffening ribs on the portion of the core that extends out of the outer
tube, as shown in Figure 1.3.2. The brace is designed so that the core does not buckle
5
globally or locally, and the outer tube is sized against global buckling. The core
usually contains transition segments to ensure that buckling does not occur outside of
the restrained area, and to also ensure that yielding occurs entirely within the reduced
inner core segment. The braces are connected to gusset plates by use of multiple
numbers of splice plates as shown in Figure 1.3.2. These connections are usually made
through bolted slip-critical connections.

Figure 1.3.1 Components of an Unbonded Brace BRB [5]

Figure 1.3.2 Typical Flat Plate BRB Core and Splice Plates
6
The steel core is allowed to deform independently from the surrounding concrete and
steel tube by use of a de-bonding substance placed between the core and the concrete.
The de-bonding substance differs depending on the BRB manufacturer, but they all
essentially serve the same purpose of separating the two BRB components. This de-
bonding material minimizes shear transfer between the core and the surrounding
concrete, and also allows for the lateral expansion of the core while in compression
(either by using a deformable de-bonding material, or including small air gaps) [5]. The
desired failure mechanism of these braces is for tensile rupture to occur in the core
plate. Essentially, the rupture of the core signifies that the maximum amount of energy
dissipation and inelastic deformation were obtained by the brace. Nippon Steel of Japan
manufactures and owns the patent on the Unbonded Brace. In the past few years, a
number of U.S. companies have begun to manufacture other BRBs [e.g., 15, 16, 17].
There are also dozens of different BRBs types that have been developed around the
world, although their use is not as common as the Unbonded Brace. Figure 1.3.3 shows
some of the various BRB types that have been manufactured, tested, or proposed, but
they all follow the same basic principals. That is they all consist of an inner core plate
or plates which are restrained from buckling by some means, and are separated so as to
avoid shear transfer to the restraining shell. Some types use unbonded concrete to
restrain buckling, while others use various steel section types and configurations
compliment with separating air gaps.

Figure 1.3.3 Different BRB Cross Sections [14]

7
1.4 Objective and Scope of Research
A new design methodology similar to that done for MRFs following the 1994
Northridge earthquake [8, 18, 19] has been proposed, and is the basis of a research
project funded by the National Science Foundation (CMS-0301792, Performance-
Based Design of Concentrically Braced Frames). The research project addresses both
special concentrically braced frames (SCBFs), as well as buckling restrained braced
frames (BRBFs). The multi part project includes research, evaluation, and experimental
and analytical testing of both SCBFs and BRBFs. The main focus of the research is on
the brace gusset plate connections and how they affect overall system performance.
Figure 1.4.1 provides a flow chart of the different project components, and shows how
these components are used to obtain the final goal of balance equation development.
By following the process outlined in Figure 1.4.1, it is hoped to develop a performance
based design methodology that will improve the performance of SCBF and BRBF
systems.

Figure 1.4.1 Project Flow Chart

The experimental program includes testing of full-scale BRBF and SCBF specimens.
The specimens were single story-single bay frames with a single diagonal brace,
designed to mimic structures currently being designed and built. The frame and BRB of
each specimen was left unmodified, whereas the gusset plate connections were modified
8
to observe the effect on system performance. Five such BRBF specimens have been
tested to date, as described in the remainder of this document. Concurrent testing of
SCBFs was done by Shawn M. Johnson, and is reported in his Masters Thesis entitled
Performance Based Design of Special Concentrically Braced Frames [12]. Few
references to SCBFs will be made in this paper, however some incidental comments do
appear during Chapter 4 of this report. Additionally, analytical studies were conducted
by graduate students Ingvar Gunnarson [11] and Jung Han Yoo [34].

1.5 Overview of Report
This report is a discussion of the experimental testing of full-scale BRBFs under cyclic
deformations. Chapter 1 includes an introduction to lateral framing systems, buckling
restrained braces, BRBFs/SCBFs, and an overview of the research project. Chapter 2
discusses research that has previously been done on BRBs and BRBFs, and how the
previous research relates or affects this research project. Chapter 3 describes the current
design methods used to design the BRB, the gusset plate connection, and the framing
members in a BRBF. Chapter 3 also notes potential problems that may exist in current
design, and proposes an idea for an alternative design method. Chapter 4 describes in
detail how the BRBFs were tested and how data was recorded. Chapter 5 then discusses
the results of each test done and how the results compare to each other. Chapter 6
describes the methods used in data analysis and evaluation of the performance of each
test. Finally, Chapter 7 summarizes this report, provides conclusions on the
performance of the BRBFs, how the different connection modifications may or may not
have affected the system performance, and gives recommendations for BRBF
connections and for future experimental testing. Numerical design calculations are
preformed in Appendix A. Detail drawings of the BRBF specimens are also included in
Appendix A. Results of material testing for and additional analysis details are provided
in Appendix B. Detail drawings of the test setup are given in Appendix C. Detailed
information on instrumentation is given in Appendix D.

9
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review

2.1 Overview
Before the experimental program was decided upon, it was important to get an idea of
the current level of understanding of BRBFs. Review of how previous BRB and
BRBFs have performed allowed the selection of important design considerations.
Previous tests have shown how connection configurations performed, and where system
deficiencies might exist. They also helped to develop specimens that properly test
realistic conditions in a lateral framing system. Previous tests also aided in
development of a test setup that would test BRBF systems under proper boundary
conditions. This section describes the research and other documents used to aid in the
aforementioned considerations. Isolated buckling restrained brace tests are discussed in
terms of governing qualification tests. The behavior of BRBF system tests are then
summarized and findings relevant to this project are discussed.

2.2 BRB Performance
Previous experimental research on buckling restrained braces, mainly includes isolated
brace tests. The design of a BRB must satisfy requirements for strength, inelastic
deformation, and energy dissipation. These measures are found through qualification
testing following guidelines prescribed in the AISC/SEOC provisions entitled,
Recommended Provisions for Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames [25]. Three
different measurements are used to determine the adequacy of a BRB. These
measurements are the compression strength adjustment factor ( ), the tension strength
adjustment factor ( ), and the cumulative inelastic axial deformation capacity ( ).
Equations, 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 define these measures.
max
max
T
C
= (2-1)
10
and
sc ysc
A F
T
max
= , (2-2)
where
ysc
F is the nominal yield strength of the core material,
sc
A is the cross sectional
area of the BRB core plate,
max
C and
max
T are the maximum compression and tension
forces measured in the specimen during testing, respectively. The cumulative inelastic
axial deformation ( ) is a normalized measure of the ratio of the total hysteretic energy
(
h
E ), to the average of the effective tensile (
+
y
P ) and compressive (

y
P ) yield capacities
of the brace.
by y
h
D P
E
*
= , (2-3)
where
2
) (
*
+
+
=
y y
y
P P
P (2-4)
The total hysteretic energy (
h
E ), is simply the sum of the areas enclosed by each
hysteretic loop of a test.
by
D is the yield axial elongation of the brace, and the
parameter used to normalize the cumulative inelastic axial deformation [15]. The
AISC/SEOC draft provisions [25] specify maximum values of 1.3, and minimum
values of 140 (for uniaxial testing). BRBs must be qualified under subassemblage
testing, not just uniaxial testing. Uniaxial tests are those subject only to concentric axial
forces following the loading pattern in Appendix T of the AISC/SEOC provisions [25].
Subassemblage tests impose the BRB connection to rotational demands combined with
axial loading. AISC/SEOC Appendix T prescribes the following loading sequence for
qualification tests [25].
6 cycles of loading corresponding to
by b
=
4 cycles of loading at the deformation corresponding to
bm b
= 5 . 0
bm b
= 0 . 1
bm b
= 5 . 1
Additional complete cycles of loading at the deformation corresponding to
bm b
= 0 . 1 as required for the brace test specimen to achieve a cumulative
11
inelastic axial deformation of at least 140 time the yield deformation (not
required for the subassemblage test)
Where
by
is the deformation at the first significant yielding in the brace,
bm
is the
design story drift of the bay in which the BRB will be located, and
b
is the
deformation quantity used to control the loading of the test specimen. The provisions
do not explicitly prescribe a loading sequence for connection rotations, other than the
method must be representative of the actual demands that will be placed on the brace in
the design structure. Transverse deformations are commonly used to apply these
rotational demands [15, 16]. An example of a testing apparatus is shown in Figure
2.2.1.

Figure 2.2.1 UC San Diego Testing of CoreBrace BRB [15]

Brace only tests have consistently shown that BRBs perform very well. These tests [15,
32, 5, 16, 17] typically show stable and full hysteretic curves which are nearly perfectly
symmetric like that shown in Figure 2.2.2.

12

Figure 2.2.2 Typical BRB Hysteresis [15]

For purposes of demonstrating typical performance of buckling restrained braces, two
test series will be discussed. In the 2003 subassemblage tests of CoreBrace BRBs [15],
six BRB specimens were tested with properties and results as shown in Table 2.2.1. In
the 2003 uniaxial tests of Associated Bracing BRBs [17], two BRB specimens were
tested with properties and results as shown in Table 2.2.2. The yield strength values in
the tables are the actual yield strengths from coupon tests of the core plate materials.
The and values correspond to drift levels of 1.5
bm
.

Table 2.2.1 CoreBrace Subassemblage Tests Summary [15]

Table 2.2.2 Associated Bracing Uniaxial Tests Summary [17]

13
The average values from these tests were both below the required value of 1.3.
Cumulative inelastic axial deformation capacities ( ) in these tests were far above the
minimum AISC/SEOC requirement of 140. The CoreBrace tests [15] had values
ranging from 600 to 1400, with an average value of 1025. The Associated Bracing tests
[17] had values of 700 and 1200. Maximum strains in BRB tests average between
0.025 and 0.035 [5, 15, 16, 17]. All of the different BRBs tested performed well under
the standard loading protocols from the qualification tests.

The implications of the isolated BRB testing is that the isolated braces perform
extremely well, and are well controlled for quality. Braces have also been able to
accommodate significant end rotations in the transverse direction, showing that they
have the ability to perform well under both axial and controlled rotational demands.
What this testing does not show however, is how realistic BRBF connections perform,
and how BRBFs perform as a total system. Although the subassemblage tests subject
BRBs to end rotations, the end rotations do not necessarily occur under realistic
boundary conditions. The elements the isolated BRBs are connected to are much more
substantial than would be seen in a real BRBF system, as shown in Figure 2.2.1. Also,
the rotations are very controlled, and no matter how the BRB responds to them, the end
supports are not affected by the response. In an actual BRBF, rotational demands
would not only be present in the BRB ends, but they would also be present in the gusset
plates and the framing elements. Realistically, the eccentricities that are placed between
the BRB end and the connection would have a significant effect on the overall
performance of the BRB and the overall system. Even without the rotational
considerations, compatibility between the brace, gusset plate, and beam/column are not
addressed by subassemblage brace testing.

2.3 BRBF System Performance
Performance of the buckling restrained brace itself, is only part of the overall
importance of system ductility and performance. In contrast with isolated brace testing,
BRBF system testing has been very limited since BRBs have been used. In the few
14
tests that have been run on BRBFs, some possible problems in the connection and
framing elements have been identified. The following paragraphs are descriptions of
some of these tests and their results.

A series of three full-scale braced frame tests which used Unbonded Braces, were run at
the University of California-Berkley, beginning in January of 2002 [29, 30, 31]. Each
of the tests used the same testing apparatus and structural frame, but varied the layouts
of the BRB and gusset plate connections. The first test [29] used an inverted-V
concentric brace configuration as shown in Figure 2.3.1. Since the frame was reused in
all three tests, it had to be designed under more severe demands than a actual BRBF.
The general parameters of the tests are summarized as follows.
W14x176 columns with a W21x93 beam spanning the bay.
Bay size was 130.5 inches high by 240 inches wide
The lateral force was transferred through W10x112 braces.
Beam-to-Column connections had full penetration welds on the beam flanges,
and fillet welds on the beam web.
Unbonded Braces were flat plate type
Figure 2.3.1 UC Berkley Full-Scale Tests [29, 31]

The first test used a slip-critical bolted/splice plate BRB-to-gusset plate connection, and
fillet welded gusset-to-frame connections. The rib plates used in conjunction with the
gusset plates were extended just short of the beam flanges as shown in Figure 2.3.2.
15
The two BRBs had 6.4 in
2
core areas, with yield stresses of 40.9 ksi ( 260
ysc
P kips).

Figure 2.3.2 View of Connection [29]

The second and third tests used similar connection types, but employed a single
concentric BRB from the top left to the bottom right corners of the frame, as shown in
Figure 2.3.1. Test 2 had a BRB with the same cross section and yield strength as the
BRBs in the first test, but test 3 used a BRB with a 6.15 in
2
core area ( 250
ysc
P kips).
Additionally, the gusset plates were connected to the frame by full penetration welds in
tests 2 and 3. Test 3 was identical to Test 2, except that small stiffeners were added to
the free edges of the gusset plates at their connections to the frame. Additional
connection geometry for any of the tests was not readily available at the time this
material was reviewed. Also, it should be noted that the test reports reviewed had not
yet been verified, and served only as a general summary.

The first test was loaded according to the following loading sequence.
6 cycles at 39 . 0 =
b
inches (
by
)
b
inches (
bm
5 . 0 )
b
inches (
bm
0 . 1 )
b
inches (
bm
5 . 1 )
16
No serious damage occurred in the BRB or the gusset plate connections. The gusset
plates yielded a fair amount, but no fracture or buckling occurred. No failure mode
occurred during these cycles in the brace or gusset plate connections. The estimated
hysteretic behavior of the north BRB was as shown in Figure 2.3.3.

Figure 2.3.3 - Test 1 North BRB Hysteresis Curves [29]

The second test was loaded according to the following loading sequence.
b
inches (
by
)
b
inches (
bm
5 . 0 )
b
inches (
bm
0 . 1 )
b
inches (
bm
5 . 1 )
In the second test, damage did occur in the gusset plate. During the last cycles, fracture
occurred at both gusset plate connections due to frame action [30], as shown in
Figure 2.3.4a. Additionally, local buckling occurred at the free edge of the top gusset
plate as shown in Figure 2.3.4b. No problems were observed in the BRB or the gusset
plate connection. The estimated hysteretic behavior of the BRB is shown in Figure
2.3.5.

17

(a) Gusset Plate Fracture (b) Gusset Plate Buckling
Figure 2.3.4 Test 2 Gusset Plate Damage [30]

Figure 2.3.5 Test 2 BRB Hysteresis Curves [30]

The third test was loaded according to the following loading sequence.
b
inches (
by
)
b
inches (
bm
5 . 0 )
b
inches (
bm
0 . 1 )
1 cycle at 38 . 3 =
b
inches (
bm
5 . 1 )
b
inches (
bm
0 . 1 )
During the first 1.5
bm
cycle, the entire bottom flange of the main beam fractured at the
gusset-to-beam connection. The beam fracture also caused out of plane deformation in
18
the BRB as shown in Figure 2.3.6b. By the end of loading, the fracture had spread
into the web and the BRB severely hinged out of plane as shown in Figure 2.3.6. It
should be noted that this fracture occurred just inside of the beam web stiffener. The
estimated hysteretic behavior is shown in Figure 2.3.7.

(a) Beam Fracture (b) Hinging of BRB
Figure 2.3.6 Results of Test 3 [31]

Figure 2.3.7 Test 3 BRB Hysteresis Curves [31]

From the Berkley tests, a number of considerations were able to be made about the
design and testing of the BRBFs that are the topic of this report. It was seen from the
tests that limitations in the gusset plates and connected frame elements adversely
affected the overall system performance. The gusset plate buckling and fracture that
19
occurred during test 2, showed that although the connections were designed for
strength according to current methods, they were not able to accommodate the large
inelastic deformations of the frame. The beam fracture that occurred in test 3, also
impacted the performance of the BRB by causing it to hinge out of plane. Because of
the reduced performance in the connection, the prescribed loading protocol could not be
completed. Since these three tests reused the same framing system, the frame had to be
stronger and stiffer than would usually be present in an actual building. Therefore, it
seems desirable to further investigate how the gusset plate connections would behave in
a more flexible framing system.

In October of 2003, full-scale testing of a 3-story 3-bay buckling restrained
brace/concrete filled tube (BRB/CFT) system was completed at Taiwans National
Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE) [28]. The system was tested
first by pseudo-dynamic methods, and then by slow cyclic methods. The structure is
summarized below and shown in Figure 2.3.8.
The bay sizes were 7 meters wide and 4 meters high
The first story had H456x201x10x17 beams, the second story had
H450x200x9x14 beams, and the third story had H400x200x8x13 beams
Exterior columns were 400x400x9 mm square CFTs, and interior columns were
400x9 round CFTs.
The exterior beam-to-column connections were moment connections, whereas
the interior beam-to-column connections were pinned connections.
15 cm slabs were placed at each floor on top of corrugated metal decking.
Details on the gusset plate connections were not readily available.

20

Figure 2.3.8 Elevation of BRB/CFT Testing at NCREE [28]

Each story in the structure used a different type of BRBs oriented in an inverted-V
configuration as shown in Figure 2.3.8. All steel, double-core/double-tube (DCDT)
BRBs were used in the first story, Nippon Unbonded Braces were used in the second
story, and concrete-filled DCDT BRBs were used in the third story. The cross sections
off all the BRBs were flat plate type, with cross sectional areas as follows.
The first story BRBs had core cross sectional areas of 30 cm
2

The second story BRBs had core cross sectional areas of 25 cm
2

The third story BRBs had core cross sectional areas of 15 cm
2

The Taiwanese developed DCDT BRBs utilize two separate flat plate or built up T
sections, bolted together with a distance between each core that matches the gusset plate
thickness as shown in Figure 2.3.9. Details on the all steel DCDTs were not available.
Each separate core is bolted together through angles welded to the brace casing. The
connection detail of these braces allows for much fewer bolts than with Unbonded
Brace BRBs which use splice plate connections. DCDT BRBs have adequately met
qualifying BRB component and sub-assemblage tests using the AISC/SEAOC loading
protocol.

21

Figure 2.3.9 Detail of DCDT BRB

Originally, the DCDT BRB connections did not use rib stiffeners on the gusset plate as
shown in Figure 2.3.10a. During testing, the first floor upper gusset plate for the north
brace buckled at a relatively low story drift of 0.005 radians as seen in Figure 2.3.10b.
The gusset plate buckling also caused hinging in the end of the BRB.
(a) Prior to Buckling (b) After Buckling
Figure 2.3.10 - First Floor Upper Gusset-to-DCDT BRB Connection [28]

In contrast to the DCDT BRB connections, the gusset-to-BRB connections on the
second story did not have any problems with buckling. These connections included rib
plates which were extended near the beam flange as shown in Figure 2.3.11.

22

Figure 2.3.11 Gusset-to-BRB Connection [28]

After the buckling in the first floor gusset plates occurred, repairs were made to the
damaged gusset and brace, including addition of free edge stiffeners to the majority of
the gusset plates. The system was then taken through the remainder of the pseudo-
dynamic loading protocol without any further problems. After completion of the
pseudo-dynamic simulations, the system was tested in a cyclic manner. During the
cyclic tests, gusset plate buckling (and consequentially buckling of the BRBs), occurred
at all story levels during the drift range of 0.02 to 0.25 radians [28]. This buckling even
occurred at the second story gusset-to-BRB connection, which was with the Unbonded
Brace BRBs as shown in Figure 2.3.12.

Figure 2.3.12 Buckling of Second Floor Upper Gusset/BRB [28]
23
These tests again showed limitations in the gusset plate connections. Perhaps the
most obvious issue is of gusset plate buckling. This buckling proved to be very
detrimental to both the brace and overall connection performance, and occurred at
significantly low drifts. Although the addition of gusset plate free edge and rib
stiffeners extended the life of the system, the desired failure mechanism of BRB core
rupture was still not accomplished. Both the Berkley and Taiwan tests have shown that
its possible gusset plate connections designed under current procedures may not be
able to achieve the maximum levels of energy dissipation and inelastic deformation
possible in BRBF systems.
24
CHAPTER 3
BRBF and Specimen Design

3.1 Overview and Design of the Prototype Frame
Because BRBFs are a relatively new structural system, understanding of the
performance of BRB connections and their overall effect on system performance is
limited. The interaction of the surrounding frame, the gusset plates which connect the
brace to the frame, and the brace itself, is still relatively unknown. As was shown in
Chapter 2, potential deficiencies have been found in tested BRBF systems. Research is
needed to address the performance of BRB connections in realistic framing systems,
and to develop a design methodology which ensures the ductility of BRBF systems.
This chapter describes the most common procedures used for designing BRBFs. These
procedures were then used to design the five different BRBF specimens that were
tested.

To adequately investigate and improve the performance of BRBF connections, a
reference specimen based on the current design methods is required. The results of that
specimen will be used to develop the other test specimens. A prototype BRBF was
based on a one bay, one story frame from the SAC Model Buildings found in FEMA-
355C Appendix B [9]. The model buildings, which come from local area code designs
by three U.S. consulting firms, were 3, 9, and 20 stories tall as shown in Figure 3.1.1.
The corresponding one bay, one story prototype frame is also shown in Figure 3.1.1.

25

Figure 3.1.1 SAC Model Buildings and Selection of Prototype Frame

FEMA-355C provides area loads for dead and live loads that are applicable to the
model building. The total structure weight (W) was estimated using these loads and the
structural dead loads. For the three different model buildings pictured in Figure 3.1.1,
the estimated structure weights were as shown in Table 3.1.1. Following the Equivalent
Lateral Force Procedure outlined in Section 5.4 of the 2000 NEHRP Seismic Provisions
[10], the base shear (V) for each structure was estimated as follows.
W C V
s
= , (3-1)
where
R
I S
C
DS
s
= , (3-2)
and
s a DS
S F S
3
2
= , (3-3)
where
s
C is the seismic response coefficient,
DS
S is the design spectral response
acceleration at short periods, I is the occupancy importance factor, R is the response
modification coefficient,
a
F is the acceleration based site coefficient, and
s
S is the
mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration for each model
building, as determined by the 2000 NEHRP Provisions. Assuming a site in the Seattle,
WA area, a seismic coefficient (
s
C ) of approximately 0.1 was required. The resulting
base shears (V) were as shown in Table 3.1.1.
26
Table 3.1.1 Estimated Building Weights and Base Shears

The estimated base shears were then distributed to each story of the structure as
specified by Section 5.4.3 of the NEHRP Provisions. In the model buildings, it was
assumed there were two BRBF bays on each face of the structure, therefore a total of
four braces would resist the story shear demand in each direction. Therefore the
required brace forces can be found by dividing the story shear force by four. The final
story shear and brace forces are shown in Table 3.1.2.

Table 3.1.2 Estimated Story Shears and Brace Forces

The resulting design forces were compared with the actuator capacity (350 to 400 kips)
in the structural laboratory. Therefore, the prototype BRBF was representative of the
lower stories in short buildings, and the upper stories in mid-rise and high-rise
buildings as highlighted in Figure 3.1.1 and Table 3.1.2. The bay size was determined
as 12 feet wide by 12 feet high, from review of the SAC model buildings and building
plans supplied by local design firms. Representative member sizes were determined to
27
be W12 columns and W16 beams.

For the prototype BRBF, the beam-to-column connections were determined using
recommendations from both local design firms and BRB manufacturers. The beam-to-
column connections at the gusset plate corners were welded-flange-welded-web
(WFWW) connections, as shown in Figure 3.1.3. The beam-to-column connections at
the corners opposite of the gusset plates, were selected as simple shear tab connections
according to standard design practices, as shown in Figure 3.1.3.

For the prototype BRBF, the BRB type was the Unbonded Brace BRB with splice plate
connections, as depicted in Figures 3.1.2 and 3.1.4. This type of BRB is frequently
used, as mentioned in Section 1.3. A flat plate BRB met the estimated brace forces and
approximate length of the BRB.

Additional general connection details were based on designs by local area firms and
their recommendations, including:
Gusset plate thickness (
p
t ) equal to the BRB core plate thickness (
br
t )
Bolted slip-critical connection between brace and gusset plate
Welded gusset-to-beam/column connections
Bolt spacing between different planes is staggered
gap between end of BRB and furthermost edge of the gusset plate, to allow
small relative movements without impact
These details are highlighted in Figure 3.1.4. Also, based on observations of the BRBF
tests discussed in Chapter 2, the gusset plate rib plates were extended to within 1 inch of
the beam flange as shown in Figure 3.1.4. This was done to ensure that buckling of the
gusset plates would not occur.
28

Figure 3.1.2 Prototype BRBF

Figure 3.1.3 Prototype Beam-to-Column Connections
29
Figure 3.1.4 Prototype Gusset Plate Connection

3.2 Description of AISC/SEOC Draft Provisions
BRBFs are a fairly new type of lateral structural system used in the United States, and
design provisions had not yet been included in any governing building codes at the time
the specimens were designed. A draft set of provisions has been developed by a joint
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) - Structural Engineers Association of
California (SEOC) committee. This draft provision, entitled Recommended Provisions
for Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames [25], has been incorporated into the 2005
edition of the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. The initial
analysis and design process for this project occurred during 2003/2004, and was
primarily based off on the AISC/SEOC draft provisions. The provisions contain
general requirements for BRBs, the brace connections, and the framing members.

The required axial strength of the brace (
brace
P ) should not exceed the design strength of
the steel core (
ysc
P ).
ysc brace
P P < ( 9 . 0 = ), (3-4)
where
sc ysc ysc
A F P = (3-5)
30
Where
ysc
P is the yield strength of the core plate, and
ysc
F and
sc
A are the yield stress
and net area of the steel core, respectively.

The brace connections are designed to minimize connection yielding, and are therefore
designed for the maximum force that can be expected from the brace (
max
P ) at 1.5 times
the design story drift. The design story drift is determined by seismic analysis of the
entire structure, by any reasonable method determined by the design engineer.
max
P R
conn
, (3-6)
where
ysc
P P =
max
(3-7)
conn
R is the capacity of the connection, and and are the brace compression and
tension strength adjustment factors determined from BRB qualifying tests, as described
in Section 2.2. The product represents the overstrength of the brace past its
nominal yield capacity. The value , accounts for the strain hardening that occurs in
the steel. The value is the ratio of the maximum compression force to the maximum
tension force. This value is usually greater than 1, since the compression force is
usually larger due to the Poisson expansion of the core and small amounts of friction
against the surrounding concrete [23]. Aside from specifying the required connection
strength, the only other connection requirements in the draft provisions, are that the
gusset plates should be designed under considerations of local and global buckling. The
provisions do not specify exactly how this should be done, but designers usually use
methods similar to those used in SCBF systems, as discussed later in this chapter.

The draft provisions also include requirements for the framing members. The beams
and columns must meet the limiting width-thickness ratios given in the AISC Seismic
Provisions, Table I-8-1 [2]. Additionally, the required strength of the members is
determined from applicable load combinations, where the seismic axial forces are
determined from the expected maximum brace forces in tension (
ysc
P ) and
compression (
ysc
P ). Framing members must also follow the typical requirements in
31
Section 8 of the AISC Seismic Provisions [2]. The provisions do not specify a type
of beam-to-column connection.

3.3 Current Design Procedure
With the prototype BRBF configuration and member sizes from Section 3.1, the
detailed design of the BRBF was done following current design procedures noted in
Section 3.2. The following outlines the design procedure, and provides the governing
design provisions.
Design of BRB [25].
Design of bolts ([25] and AISC LRFD [1]).
Design of BRB connection end ([25] and [1]).
Determination of BRB length from geometry and bolt spacing.
Design of splice plates ([25] and [1]).
Design of gusset and rib plates ([25] and [1]).
Design of gusset-to-beam/column welds ([25], [1], and SEOC Design Manual
recommendations [26]).
Design of rib-to-gusset welds ([25], [1], and [26]).
Design of framing members ([25] and [1]).
Design of beam-to-column connections ([25] and [1]).
The following subsections provide details of the design procedures used for this study.

3.3.1 BRB and Bolt Design Procedure
The design of the BRB is based on the provisions set forth by the AISC/SEOC draft
provisions as summarized in Section 3.2. The brace yield strength is determined using
equations 3-4 and 3-5. The required brace yield strength (
ysc
P ), core cross sectional
area (
sc
A ), and design story drift are given to the BRB manufacturer. For complete
design, the total brace length and bolt hole geometry are also supplied to the
manufacturer. The BRB manufacturer then designs the specific core yield length and
transition details (see Figure 1.3.2), and reports appropriate overstrength factors ( )
32
as described in Section 3.1. The number (
b
n ) and size of bolts is determined using
the AISC/SEOC draft provisions [25] and the AISC LRFD specifications [1]. The
bolted connection is designed to resist the maximum force developed by the brace
(Equation 3-7). The use of slip critical bolts designed to this force is recommended by
the draft provisions, but not required. The initial number of bolts was found using
equation 3-8.
n
ysc
b
r
P
n
= , (3-8)
where
n
r is the slip resistance per bolt from AISC LRFD Table 7-16 [1]. The diameter
of bolts should be determined to balance the number of bolts required with the resulting
connection geometry caused by the bolt diameter. That is, larger diameter bolts require
fewer bolts, but have larger spacing and clearance requirements. Smaller diameter bolts
require more bolts, but have smaller spacing and clearance requirements. The bolt
spacing is determined using AISC LRFD Section J.3 and the required tolerances for bolt
tensioning. Following this, the general BRB connection can be laid out as shown in
Figure 3.3.1.

Figure 3.3.1 BRB End Connection

33
The variables in Figure 3.3.1 are defined as follows.
is the bolt hole diameter and t
br
is the thickness of the core plate and stiffening ribs.
c
S ,
e
S , and
h
S are the bolt spacing, bolt hole edge distance, and bolt row spacing,
respectively. The width of the brace end (
brace
w ) is calculated by equation 3-9.
e h brace
S S w 2 + = (3-9)
Yield on gross of core plate is checked using AISC LRFD Section D.1.
) 2 ( 2 9 . 0
max br brace br ysc n
t w t F R P = , (3-10)
where
n
R is the factored resistance of the limit state being checked. Fracture on net of
the core plate is checked using AISC LRFD Section D.1.
) 2 ( 2 75 . 0
max br brace br usc n
t w t F R P = , (3-11)
where
usc
F is the ultimate strength of the core plate material. Additionally, the
following bolted connection limit states need to be checked, as are commonly done with
bolted type connections.
Bolt Shear Strength (AISC LRFD Table 7-10 or 7-11).
Bolt bearing, tearthrough, and tearout (AISC LRFD J.3.10).
Block shear of core plate considering all possible failure paths (AISC LRFD
J.4.3).

Once the brace cross section dimensions and connection geometry are finalized, the
brace length is determined from the resulting connection geometry shown in
Figure 3.3.2. The distance between the brace connection and the beam/column flanges
is not specified, although minimum weld clearances between the rib/splice plates and
the beam/column flanges must be provided. The variables in Figure 3.3.2 are defined as
follows.
b
w and
c
w are the lengths of connected gusset plate edges to the beam and column,
respectively.
s
t and
s
w are the thickness and width of the splice plates, respectively.
w
t is the thickness of rib plates, and
b
is the angle of the brace with respect to the
column.
34

Figure 3.3.2 General Connection Layout

3.3.2 Splice Plate Design Procedure
Using the geometry shown in Figure 3.3.2, the splice plates are sized and checked
against the following limit states. Yield on gross of the splice plates is checked using
AISC LRFD Section D.1.
pl s s ys n
n t w F R P ) ( 9 . 0
max
= , (3-12)
where
ys
F is the yield strength of the splice plate material, and
pl
n is the number of
plates in the connection. Fracture on net of the splice plates is checked using AISC
LRFD Section D.1.
pl s s us n
n t w F R P ) ( 75 . 0
max
= , (3-13)
Where
us
F is the ultimate strength of the splice plate material. Additionally, the
standard bolted connection limit states need to be checked for the splice plates.
Bolt bearing, tearthrough, and tearout (AISC LRFD J.3.10).
Block shear of core plate considering all possible failure paths (AISC LRFD
J.4.3).

35
3.3.3 Gusset and Rib Plate Design Procedure
Gusset plates are proportioned following the uniform force method as described in
Part 13 of the AISC LRFD specifications, with the work point at the
beam/column/brace centerlines intersection. Rib plates are usually sized to match the
BRB rib stiffeners. The Uniform Force Method (UFM) is used to size the gusset plate
such that no moments are introduced into the connection by the brace force. This is
done by solving equilibrium about a working point, which is the intersection point of
the beam, column, and brace centerlines as shown in Figure 3.3.3.

Figure 3.3.3 Uniform Force Method

For equilibrium to be satisfied without the inclusion of moments, the gusset plate is
sized based on the beam and column sizes as follows.
2
b
b
d
e = , (3-14)
and
2
c
c
d
e = , (3-15)
where
c
e and
b
e are as defined in Figure 3.3.3. The resultant forces from
max
P are
assumed to act at the mid length of the gusset plate edges ( and ).
36
2
b
w
= , (3-16)
and
2
c
w
= (3-17)
In order to satisfy equilibrium, equation 3-18a must be true.
0 tan tan = +
c b b b
e e (3-18a)
If = 45
b
, equation 3-18a reduces to equation 3-18b.
c b
e e = (3-18b)
Re-substituting equations 3-14 through 3-17 into equation 3-18b gives:
c b b c
d d w w + = (3-19)
Therefore, the gusset plate is sized by choosing either
b
w or
c
w , and then using
equation 3-19 to solve for the other gusset plate length.

Whitmores method [33] is used to determine the tensile strength of the gusset plate,
including the effect of the rib plates. Whitmores method defines an equivalent width
(
w
b ) based on 30 degree extrapolations from the first row of bolts, as shown in
Figure 3.3.4a. To account for the rib plate, a second equivalent width (
ww
b ) is
calculated perpendicular to the plane of the gusset plate. The brace width (
brace
W ) is
usually less than the equivalent Whitmore width from 30 degree extrapolation. In this
case, the brace width should be used as the equivalent width. Additionally, the removed
material at the bolt hole locations should be accounted for to give effective yield widths
(
wweff weff
b b , ). Equations for the gusset/rib plate tensile strength can be developed using
the connection geometry in Figures 3.3.4a and 3.3.4b.

37

(a) Gusset Plate Plan View (b) Gusset Plate Cross Section
Figure 3.3.4 Whitmores Method

The yield capacity of the gusset plate is calculated using equation 3-20.
| |
yw w wweff yp p weff
F t b F t b Rn P + = 9 . 0
max
, (3-20)
where
p w ww
t W b + = 2 , (3-21)
) ( 2 =
ww wweff
b b , (3-22)
) 2 )( 30 tan( 2
c h w
S S b + = , (3-23)
and ) ( 2 =
w weff
b b (3-24)
w
W is the width of the rib plates,
w
t is the thickness of the rib plates, and
yw
F and
yp
F
are the yield strengths of the rib and gusset plate material, respectively.

Bolted connection limit states are also checked. These are usually adequate by
inspection because the geometry is identical to that of the brace, and the brace material
strengths are usually less than those of the gusset and rib plates.
Bolt bearing, tearthrough, and tearout (AISC LRFD J.3.10)
Block shear of gusset/rib plates considering all possible failure paths (AISC
LRFD J.4.3)

38
Plate buckling capacity is determined using the Thornton (TM) or Modified Thornton
Methods (MTM) [27], as shown in Figures 3.3.5a and 3.3.5b.

(a) Thornton Method (b) Modified Thornton Method
Figure 3.3.5 Methods of Determining Gusset Plate Buckling Capacities

Thorntons Method uses a 30 degree extrapolation to determine an equivalent width
(
w
b ), as shown in Figure 3.3.5a. TM also uses a buckling length (
t
l ) that is the smaller
of the average end and center lengths (
1
l ,
2
l , and
3
l ) or the center length (
2
l ).
|
.
|
\
| + +
=
3
, min
3 2 1
2
l l l
l l
t
(3-25)
The buckling length is then used to calculate a buckling coefficient (
t
).
E
F
t
kl
yp
p
t
t
12
= , (3-26)
where E is the modulus of elasticity of steel, and the effective length factor (k) is taken
as 0.5 for square gusset plates, and 0.65 for tapered gusset plates (AISC LRFD
Section 13). The buckling coefficient is then used to calculate the critical buckling load
(
cr
P ).
When 5 . 1
t
:
yp t cr
F A P
t
2
658 . 0

= , (elastic buckling) (3-27a)
39
when 5 . 1
t
:
yp t
t
cr
F A P
2
877 . 0
= , (inelastic buckling) (3-27b)

where
t
A is the effective cross sectional area along the equivalent width (
w
b ).

The Modified Thornton method uses a 45 degree extrapolation to determine an
equivalent width (
mt
b ), as shown in Figure 3.3.5b. The MTM also uses a buckling
length (l
mt
) from the end of the splice plate connection, to the face of the beam or
column as shown in Figure 3.3.5b. Therefore, the buckling coefficient is found as:
E
F
t
kl
yp
p
mt
t
12
= (3-28)
The critical buckling load is found using equations 3-27a or 3-27b, where
t
A is the
effective cross sectional area along the equivalent width (
mt
b ).

When the buckling length extends into the beam/column as it does in Figure 3.3.5b,
t
A
is usually calculated from the areas in the gusset and beam webs, for both the TM and
MTM methods. For example, using Figure 3.3.5b leads to equations 3-29a and 2-39b.
When
plate mt
b b :
p mt t
t b A = , (3-29a)
when
plate mt
b b :
( )
wb mtx p mtx mt t
t b t b b A + = , (3-29b)
where
mtx
b is the length of the equivalent width in the beam web,
plate
b is the width of
the plate along the equivalent width line, and
wb
t is the thickness of the beam web.

The Thornton and Modified Thornton methods were developed for flat gusset plates
without rib plates. The rib plates can be ignored as an easy capacity check, or to
determine a lower bound solution using the TM as follows.
40
Calculate a buckling length (
t
l ) using equation 3-25 and the geometry shown
in Figure 3.3.5a.
Calculate the buckling coefficient (
t
) using equation 3-28.
Calculate the effective cross sectional area (
t
A ) following equations 3-29a and
3-29b with
w
b in place of
mt
b .
Calculate the critical buckling load (
cr
P ) using equation 3-27a or 3-27b.

If this check is not adequate, the rib plates can once again be ignored, but with use of
the MTM which will give slightly larger capacities. This is done as follows.
Use a buckling length (
mt
l ) from the geometry shown in Figure 3.3.5b.
t
t
A ) using equations 3-29a and
3-29b.
cr

If it is necessary or desired to include the effect of the rib plates, the Thornton Method
can be modified to include the rib plates in the effective cross sectional area as follows.
Calculate a buckling length (
t
l ) using equation 3-25 and the geometry shown in
Figure 3.3.5a.
t
Calculate the cross sectional area (
t
A ) using equations 3-30a and 3-30b.
When
plate w
b b :
w p brace p w t
t t W t b A ) ( + = , (3-30a)
when
plate w
b b :
( )
w p brace wb mtx p mtx w mt
t t W t b t b b A ) ( + + = (3-30b)
cr

41
These three methods do not address the location of the buckling width. In a gusset
plate that uses rib plates, buckling could more easily occur beyond the rib plates as
shown in Figure 3.3.6. This would give a different equivalent width (b
mt4
), as well as a
different buckling length (l
mt4
) as shown in Figure 3.3.6.

Figure 3.3.6 MTM with Relocated Equivalent Width

In Figure 3.3.6,
4
D is the distance of the equivalent width past the last row of bolt
holes. In this case, the capacity of the gusset/rib plates could be determined using the
MTM as follows.
Use a buckling length (
mt
l ) from the geometry shown in Figure 3.3.6.
t
Calculate the equivalent buckling width (b
mt4
mt mt
b D b + =
4 4
2 (3-31)
t
A ) using equations 3-29a and
3-29b with
4 mt
b in place of
mt
b .
cr

42
3.3.4 Gusset-to-Beam/Column Weld Design Procedure
The gusset-to-beam/column welds are designed using the Uniform Force Method
(UFM) in AISC LRFD Section 13. The welds are oversized by 140 percent (SEAOC
Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III [26]), to improve the ductility of the welds by
accounting for the variation in the average stress in the weld. To determine the shear
and axial force demands on the welds, several methods are available. In the UFM, the
demands are based on the maximum brace force (P
max
), as shown in Figure 3.3.7.

Figure 3.3.7 Uniform Force Method

The factored shear forces (
uc
V and
ub
H ), and the factored axial forces (
uc
H and
ub
V ),
on the gusset-to-beam welds are determined using equations 3-32 through 3-35.
max
P
r
V
uc

= , (3-32)
max
P
r
e
H
c
uc
= , (3-33)
max
P
r
e
V
b
ub
= , (3-34)
and
max
P
r
H
ub

= , (3-35)
where
2 2
) ( ) (
b c
e e r + + + = (3-36)
, ,
b
e , and
c
e are found using equations 3-14 through 3-17. The design forces for
the welds (
uc
P and
ub
P ) are found by transforming the factored shear and axial forces.
43
2 2
uc uc uc
H V P + = , (3-37)

|
|
.
|
\
|
=

uc
uc
c
V
H
1
tan , (3-38)
2 2
ub ub ub
H V P + = , (3-39)
and
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

ub
ub
bm
H
V
1
tan , (3-40)
where
c
and
bm
are the angles between the design forces and the longitudinal axis of
the column and beam welds, respectively (Figure 3.3.7). The forces can be used to
determine the required weld group coefficient (C) from AISC LRFD Table 8-5. Since
values are only tabulated for forces at angles of 0,15,30,45,60, and 75 degrees, the
angles calculated from the above equations can be conservatively rounded up.
weld b uc
Dl CC P
1 ,
, (3-41)
where
1
C is the electrode strength coefficient from AISC LRFD Table 8-4, D is the
number of sixteenths-of-an-inch in the fillet weld size, and the weld length (
weld
l ) is
found using equation 3-42.
chamfer b c weld
l w l =
,
, (3-42)
where
chamfer
l is the length of the chamfered back corner of the gusset plate that is
required for construction (Shown in Figure 3.3.2). D is solved for by rearranging
equation 3-41, and substituting in equation 3-42.
) (
, 1
,
chamfer b c
b uc
l w CC
P
D
(3-43)
Therefore, the column/beam weld size (
b c
s
,
) is found using equation 3-44.
16
4 . 1
,
D
s
b c
= (3-44)

The UFM does not include effects of gusset plate bending, and may be unconservative
in some situations. A simple way to account for bending is to treat both forces as axial
forces, and directly sum them together. Since AISC provisions increase weld strengths
44
by 1.5 for transverse loading, use of this method results in smaller weld capacities. In
this case the design forces (
b uc
P
,
) can be found using equations 3-45 and 3-46.
b uc b uc b uc
H V P
, , ,
+ = , (3-45)
and = 0
,b c
(3-46)
Therefore, the welds can be designed as longitudinal welds (AISC LRFD J2.4).
w b c chamfer b c exx w e e exx n b uc
n s l w F n t L F R P
, , ) (
) ( 4242 . 0 6 . 0 = = , (3-47)
where
exx
F is the nominal strength of the weld metal, and
w
n is the number of welds in
each gusset-to-beam/column connection. The required weld sizes (
b c
s
,
) are found by
rearranging equation 3-47, and multiplying by the 1.4 overstrength factor.
w chamfer b c exx
b uc
b c
n l w F
P
s
) (
30 . 3
,
,
,
(3-48)

Alternatively, the applied weld forces can be determined directly from equilibrium.
This also gives more conservative weld sizes than the UFM. Figure 3.3.8 shows that
the resultant forces (F
b
and F
c
) are found at the mid-length of the edges of the gusset
plate (i.e., a, b from Figure 3.3.3).

Figure 3.3.8 Equilibrium Weld Forces

Using the geometry shown above, expressions for F
b
and F
c
are developed as follows.
45
c
x b b
c
X
X X F
F
) (
= , (3-49)
and
u c b
P F F = + , (3-50)
where ) 45 cos( ) ( =
c b x
e e X , (3-51)
) 45 cos( =
b
X , (3-52)
and
x c
X X + = ) 45 cos( (3-53)
F
b
and F
c
are found by solving equations 3-49 and 3-50. Their shear and axial
components are as follows.
) 45 cos(
, ,
=
b c bx cx
F F , (3-54)
and ) 45 sin(
, ,
=
b c by cy
F F (3-55)
The shear and axial forces are combined to give the resulting design forces (
b uc
P
,
).
by cy bx cx b uc
F F P
, , ,
+ = , (3-56)
and = 0
,b c
(3-57)
The required weld sizes are then found using equation 3-48.

For each of the weld calculation methods, welds must also satisfy minimum size
requirements given in AISC LRFD Table J2.4. Finally, the base metal strengths must
satisfy the requirements of AISC LRFD Section J.5.

3.3.5 Rib-to-Gusset Weld Design Procedure
The rib-to-gusset plate welds are designed as longitudinal welds (4 total), with
concentric loads, according to AISC LRFD J2.4 and SEOC.
w r w exx w e e exx n rib
n s l F n t L F R P 707 . 0 6 . 0 6 . 0 = = , (3-58)
where
w
l is the length of the wing plate, and
rib
P is the concentric force applied to the
rib plates. Therefore, the rib plate weld size (
r
s ) is found using equation 3-59.
w w exx
rib
r
n l F
P
s
30 . 3 (3-59)
46
Welds must also satisfy minimum size requirements given in AISC LRFD Table J2.4.
Finally, the base metal strengths must satisfy the requirements of AISC LRFD Section
J.5.

3.3.6 Framing Member Design Procedure
Using the initial beam and column sizes from the prototype frame, the required
strengths of the members is determined from applicable load combinations. Framing
members are designed according to the requirements in Section 8 of the AISC Seismic
Provisions [2].

3.3.7 Beam-to-Column Connection Design Procedure
The following summarizes the design procedure for the welded flange/welded web
(WFWW) connections. Figure 3.3.9 shows the forces at the WWFW connection (
ub
V
and
wfww
M ), transferred from the BRB forces (
ub
V and
ub
H ), as determined using the
Uniform Force Method (Figure 3.3.7). Complete penetration welds are used on both
flanges and the web. V
ub
is moved to the face of the column flange, and equilibrium is
applied to calculate the design forces (
ub
V and
wfww
M ).

Figure 3.3.9 Beam-to-Column Connection Forces

Using the geometry in Figure 3.3.9, the design moment is as follows.
) 5 . 0 (
b ub wfww
W V M = (3-60)
47
The design forces, H
ft
and H
fb
, can be found by solving equilibrium at the face of the
column flange. The shear capacity of the beam web is checked (AISC LRFD F.2) using
equation 3-61.
yb web wb n ub
F l t R V ) 6 . 0 ( 75 . 0 = , (3-61)
where ) ( 2 2
ah fb b web
t d l = , (3-62)
where
wb
t is the beam web thickness,
yb
F is the yield stress of the beam,
fb
t is the
thickness of the beam flanges, and
ah
is the diameter of the weld access holes shown
in Figure 3.3.9. The beam flanges are checked for adequate tensile capacity (AISC
LRFD D.1) using equation 3-63.
yb fb fb n fb ft
F b t R H H 9 . 0 ) , max( = (3-63)
Web crippling and yielding of the beam and column needs to be checked in accordance
with the AISC LRFD specifications [1]. These web capacities are checked against the
shear forces calculated from the UFM, i.e. V
ub
, H
uc
. Web yielding is checked for
capacity (AISC LRFD K.3) using equation 3-64.
c wb c yb c b n uc ub
t F N k R H V
, , ,
) 5 . 2 ( , + = (3-64)
Web Crippling is checked for capacity (AISC LRFD K.4) using equation 3-65.
c wb
c fb c yb
c fb
c wb
c b
c wb n uc ub
t
t EF
t
t
d
N
t R H V
,
, ,
5 . 1
,
,
,
2
,
2 . 0
4
1 40 . 0 ,
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = (3-65)
In the above equations, N is synonymous with the length of the gusset plate connected
to the beam/column (w
b
, w
c
).

The following summarizes the design procedure used for the shear tab connections.
Figure 3.3.9 shows the demand (
pb
V and
pb
M ) used to design the shear tab connection.
The type of shear tab is based on the size of the framing members and the applied
forces. Typically, a simple single plate-single bolt row shear tab is adequate, and is the
most convenient to design. The connection is designed against the shear force (
pb
V )
developed by the plastic moment capacity of the beam (
pb
M ) as shown in
Figure 3.3.10.
48

Figure 3.3.10 Shear Tab Demands

The demands on the shear tab connection are as follows.
b yb pb
Z F M = , (3-66)
and
free
pb
pb
L
M
V
5 . 1
= , (3-67)
where
free
L is the free length of beam,
b
Z is the plastic section modulus of the beam,
and the 1.5 factor is a common overstrength factor used by designers for shear tab
connections. With the design forces known, the connection is designed using Table
10-9 in the AISC LRFD Manual, and conservatively assuming a flexible connection.
Additionally, the plate bending capacity of the shear tab should be checked against the
moment demand. The capacity is calculated from the section modulus of the plate as
follows.
) (e V M
pb plate
=
6
2
yst st st
F l t
, (3-68)
where
plate
M is the moment demand on the shear tab from the shear force (
pb
V ) acting
at an eccentric distance ( e ) away from the column face.
st
t is the thickness,
st
l is the
length, and
yst
F is the nominal yield strength of the shear tab. The resistance factor ( )
is 0.9 for bending. The shear tab is also checked against typical bolted connection limit
states such as bolt bearing, tearthrough, and tearout (AISC LRFD J.3.10).

49
3.4 Specimen Design
Using the prototype BRBF and the design procedure outlined in Section 3.3, the test
specimens were designed. To ensure the design was suitable for testing, the test
configuration had to be considered. The test modeled a single bay BRBF subjected to a
lateral force (or story shear) at the top of the bay. The capacity of the hydraulic actuator
used to load the frame determined the maximum strength of the BRBF specimens. A
reference specimen had to be designed to provide a baseline and evaluation of current
design practice. The following paragraphs discuss the design of the reference BRB,
following the procedures outlined in Section 3.3.

3.4.1 Specimen BRBs
The same BRB was used for all of the tests, and was designed following the procedure
presented in Section 3.3.1. The yield strength (
ysc
P ), overall length (
br
l ), connection
geometry, and the desired brace inelastic axial deformation capacity was designed and
provided to Nippon Steel, who then detailed and fabricated the BRBs. The prototype
BRB had initial brace forces between 350 and 400 kips. For testing, the maximum
lateral force was 312 kips, which was then reduced by 5% to estimate the actual force
capacity. An additional force loss due to inelastic action in the frame was
approximately 35 kips, or 10% of the nominal capacity. Finally to ensure that
specimens could be loaded until failure, and additional 5% reduction was made to the
nominal capacity. Therefore, the maximum brace force (P
max
) was:
352
) 45 cos(
) 05 . 0 01 . 0 05 . 0 1 ( * 312
max
=

= P kips
By following Section 3.3.1, the yield force was determined, however the value was
estimated. Review of BRB qualification tests [15, 16, 17], and discussion with BRB
manufacturers suggested an average value of 1.55. However, the qualification tests
indicated that the value could increase with increasing strain demand in the brace.
Therefore, a value of 1.6 was used, giving a yield force (P
ysc
) of 220 kips.
Additionally, the estimated inelastic deformation was calculated as +/- 5 inches based
on expected story drifts.
50
The BRB connection was designed using the procedure outlined in Section 3.3.1.
Using the outlined design procedures, the final BRB design was as follows. The design
follows calculations provided in Appendix A.1.
Bolts were 1 inch diameter A490. This selection was based on sampling of
previously designed BRB connections and the brace forces. A total of (10) 1
inch dia. A490 slip-critical bolts were used (Figure 3.4.1).
Bolt holes were standard following recommendations from Nippon steel.
Selection of bolt hole geometry was governed by clearance requirements for the
torque multiplier. The holes were spaced at 4 inches on center. Edge distances
of 2 inches were slightly over the minimum required. The resulting connection
geometry is shown in Figure 3.4.1.
The remaining components of the 220 kip brace were determined by Nippon Steel, and
are summarized below (Figure 3.4.1). BRB detail drawings are shown in Figure A.4.8.
Brace total length of 3608 mm (11-10)
19x162 mm core plate (3/4x6.4)
2344.4 mm core length (92.3)
250x250x6 mm steel tube casing (9.84x9.84x0.24)
Core material SN400B (F
ybr
= 46 ksi, F
ubr
= 58 ksi )

Figure 3.4.1 BRB Connection Details

51
3.4.2 Reference Specimen Connection Design
The reference specimen connection details were designed using the BRB strength. The
bolt hole geometry matched the BRB connection. A square gusset plate shape was used
for the reference specimen. This was based on discussion with local structural
engineers and review of structural drawings. The splice plates and gusset/rib plates
were sized and checked according to the methods outlined in Sections 3.3.2 through
3.3.5.

The resulting connection for the reference specimen is summarized below and shown in
Figure 3.4.2. Calculations are provided in Appendix A.1.1 through A.1.4. Additional
detail drawings are shown in Figures A.4.1 through A.4.3.
(10) 1 inch diameter A490 bolts designed for slip capacity
Square inch gusset plates to match BRB core plate thickness width sizes as
shown in Figure 3.4.2
Rib plates 5.125x17.125x3/4 inches (match BRB rib stiffener thickness)
Splice Plates 4x24.5x1/2 inches
Bolt spacing as shown in Figures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2
Gusset-to-beam/column welds = inch (from controlling weld method)
Additional considerations were made for the rib-to-gusset welds. Although the force
transfer can be idealized such that the gusset plate and rib plates each take half of the
maximum force, since the BRB is a flat plate type, it is possible that the force
distribution may not be even. If the welds were designed for the total maximum load,
the required weld size would be only 5/16 inch (compared to a minimum weld size of
inch). Because of this small difference, the rib plate welds were designed for the total
maximum force (P
max
).

The size of the gusset plate connection was controlled by bolt hole geometry which was
based on clearance requirements for tensioning bolts. None of the limit states described
in Section 3.3 controlled the design of the gusset plate. In fact, the calculated capacities
of these limit states were all significantly higher than the required strengths needed in
52
the connection as shown in the calculations of Appendix A.1.

Figure 3.4.2 Reference Specimen Connection Design

3.4.3 Reference Specimen Frame Design
The W12 columns and W16 beams specified in the prototype BRBF, were designed to
sustain the maximum brace forces and the story shear forces, as discussed in
Section 3.4.1. Since the specimens did not include a slab, a heavier beam section was
chosen that would meet requirements for buckling, while still remaining realistically
flexible. The final frame design used W12x72 columns and W16x45 beams, as shown
in Figure 3.4.3.

The beam-to-column connections were designed according to the procedures outlined in
Section 3.3.7. The resulting connections are summarized below and shown in
Figure 3.4.3.
53
WFWW connection with CJP welds as detailed in Figure A.4.13. Also with
a inch erection tab as shown in Figure 3.4.3.
Clearance between column flange and WFWW beam end to match requirements
for complete penetration weld specifications as detailed in Figure A.4.11.
13.5x4.5x1/2 inch shear tab connection with a single row of four inch
diameter A490 bolts, spaced as shown in Figure 3.4.3.
Clearance between column flange and shear tab beam end to allow for
unrestrained rotations, as shown in Figure 3.4.3.
It should be mentioned that some of the final dimensions of the tab plates in
Figure 3.4.3 are slightly larger than the required dimensions found in the calculations
(A.2.2). These small differences came from the utilization of available steel. Complete
frame details are provided in Figures A.4.11 through A.4.13.

Figure 3.4.3 Frame and Beam-to-Column Connection Details
54
3.5 Proposed Alternative Design Procedure and Possible Design Variations
Using the design procedures described in Section 3.3, it is expected that all inelastic
action will occur within the yielding segment of the steel core. To achieve this, the
connection and surrounding elements were all designed to remain elastic under the
maximum brace force. That is, the connection elements are designed to meet elastic
force demands based on capacity design principals. The proposed balance design
approach is similar to this method in that the framing elements are designed to meet the
elastic force demands, while specific elements are designed to yield to achieve the
desired plastic mechanism of the system [20]. The main difference in the balanced
design, is that instead of limiting inelastic action to one element, secondary yield
mechanisms are allowed to occur in other elements of the system. To ensure proper
overall performance of the system, a yielding hierarchy is developed. This hierarchy
ensures that desirable yield mechanisms occur first, less desirable mechanisms occur
thereafter, followed finally by critical failure modes. Furthermore, desirable and less
desirable mechanisms are separated to reduce the probability of less desirable yield
mechanisms and failure modes occurring [20]. Achieving this balance can improve
system strength, stiffness, energy dissipation, and inelastic deformation of the structure.
A description of how this type of balanced design has been applied, is given in the
following paragraphs.

The basis for the proposed performance based design procedure, was derived from
investigations into the behavior of SMRF connections by the SAC Steel Project. The
SAC Steel Project was a project undertaken by the SAC Joint Venture to address
performance problems found in SMRF connections after the 1994 Northridge
earthquake. The performance problems were addressed by the development of a
seismic design methodology based on balancing the yield mechanisms, and preventing
undesirable failure modes in moment resisting frames [20]. The current connection
performance was investigated to determine the effects of different yield and failure
mechanisms on overall ductility of the connection. Then, aspects of the connection
which contained very poor ductile behavior were improved where possible. Improved
55
connection elements were then thoroughly tested in order to understand and quantify
their effect on ductility. Once the effect on the ductility of each mechanism was
understood, equations were developed which insured ductility increasing mechanisms
would occur before ductility hindering mechanisms. This was done by assigning
different factors to each yield and failure mechanism. The beta factors not only
controlled the order of the mechanisms, but also controlled the proximity of the critical
failure mode and controlling yield mechanism resistances [19]. The use of these beta
factors developed a hierarchy that assured increased ductility and inelastic performance
of the MRF connection. One such example of connection performance can be found in
the welded-flange-welded-web (WFWW) connection. Figure 3.5.1a below shows a
WFWW connection which is not designed and detailed under the performance based
design procedures, whereas Figure 3.5.1b shows the moment rotation of the same
WFWW connection, which was designed and detailed under the performance based
design procedures. The two plots show that the connection performance is greatly
improved through use of the performance based methodology.
(a) Original WFWW (b) Improved WFWW
Figure 3.5.1 WFWW Connection Improvement [19]

Prior to designing the remaining specimens, investigation of possible connection
variations was performed. Considerations included constructability and the effect of
each modification on the response of the frame. Possible variations are discussed in the
following paragraphs. As noted previously, due to the stiffness and strength of the thick
gusset and rib plates, the overall size of the connection was controlled by the bolt
56
geometry, and the thickness of the plate was determined by the BRB core plate
thickness.

Bolt Spacing
Bolt spacing was one parameter which could have been modified. For the reference
specimen, a 4 inch bolt spacing was chosen to meet clearance requirements for the
torque multiplier that was used to tension the bolts. The bolt spacing could have been
reduced to about 3 inches, thus shortening the connection. With the connection
geometry, shortening the bolt spacing would only reduce the overall size of the gusset
plate less than an inch in each direction. It was expected that this shortening would
have very little effect on the overall strength and stiffness. Bolt spacing could not be
increased because of the fixed length of the BRB, but even if it could the spacing would
need to be unreasonably large before connection stiffness would be affected. Therefore,
the bolt spacing remained at 4 inches throughout all tests.

Gusset Plate Yielding
Theoretically, allowing yielding in the gusset plate is attractive because it should allow
for increased energy dissipation and ductility of the frame. It could also control the
demand in the framing elements, and prevent unwanted yielding. If the connection area
remains stable, detrimental effects to the BRB should be avoided. Physically this
modification posed problems, especially in the gusset plate. Because the overall size of
the gusset plate is determined by bolt geometry, the resulting tensile and buckling
strengths are many times larger than the required capacities. Discussion of using a
thinner gusset and rib plates were made, but it was suggested that use of spacers to
make up the differences between the BRB and the connection plates decreased the
constructability of the system. Even if the rib plates are ignored, the gusset capacities
are more than adequate. Because of these reasons, permitting yielding in the gusset
plates was not considered. More discussion on this topic is made in Chapter 7.

57
Splice Plate Yielding
In addition, the research team considered splice plate yielding. Although the thickness
of the splice plates could not be reduced due to the high shear forces from the fully
tensioned bolts, their widths could be reduced slightly. The problems with this
modification is that it does not reduce the stiffness of the gusset/frame connection and
would likely have negligible effect on the overall ductility.

Taper Gusset Plates
To permit flexibility in the gusset/frame connection, use of tapered gusset plates was
investigated. This was intended to reduce the connection restraint. The gusset plate
strength remained quite large even with the taper. This modification was used for three
of the five specimens. The angle of taper ranged from a modest 15 degree taper, to a
greater 30 degree taper. The modest taper was chosen because it is commonly used in
current design. Further discussion of the more severe taper will be made in Chapter 7.

Use of Bearing Bolt Connections
Use of bearing bolt connections reduces the complexity of the connection. By basing
the connection design on the shear capacity of the bolts, the number of bolts in the
entire frame could be significantly reduced. Use of fewer holes reduces construction
time and labor costs. Labor time would also be reduced since the bolts would no longer
have to be fully tensioned. Traditional concerns with this type of connection, are that
the constant and dynamic slipping would reduce the overall performance of the
connection. Because BRB connections are somewhat known for their intensive labor
requirements, this modification was used for two specimens.

Removal of Rib/Wing Plate Extension
As discussed previously, the rib plates were extended to the back of the gusset plate.
This practice is used to restrict gusset plate buckling. However, extension of the rib
plates increases the stiffness of the connection. Initial discussions were made about
terminating the rib plates at the same location as the splice plates. In addition,
58
shortening the rib plates such that they did not pass through the Whitmore section, to
achieve some yielding and increased flexibility, was also considered. Ultimately, it was
decided that use of only this modification could not increase the flexibility of the
connection enough to make a significant difference in the performance. Even without
the rib plates, the yielding and buckling capacities were still quite conservative
compared to the required capacities. Further discussion on this option will be made in
Chapter 7.

Stiffen Beam and Column at Gusset Plate
Preliminary research of previous BRBF experiments, showed that severe damage could
occur within the beam and column at the location of the gusset plate. This damage
leads to premature failure of the frame elements, the connection, or the BRB. To limit
this damage, stiffening the frame was discussed. A concern of the modification is the
increased labor costs that would occur due to the additional welding and fabrication of
web stiffeners or doubler plates. In addition, stiffening of the frame may delay or shift
damage. This modification was not adopted in the test series, but is discussed further in
Chapter 7.

Change Orientation of BRB
Changing the orientation of the BRB was considered after completing of the first test.
Originally the core plate of the BRB was oriented such that any out of plane movement
would cause the core to bend about its weak axis. This bending corresponded to beam
and column weak axis bending. Rotating the BRB 90 degrees might be a desirable
modification to increase the resistance in the out of plane direction. This modification
was adopted in one specimen.

The modifications chosen for each specimen are summarized in Table 3.5.1.

59
Table 3.5.1 Design Modifications

3.6 BRB02 Specimen Design Tapered Gusset Plate
To investigate the effect of a tapered gusset plate, the gusset plate of specimen BRB02
was designed with a 15 degree taper. The remaining design of BRB02 was identical to
the reference specimen, and is summarized below and shown in Figure 3.6.1. The
differences in specimen BRB02 are circled in the figure. Additional details of specimen
BRB02 can be found in Figures A.4.4 and A.4.5.
15 degree tapered gusset plates inch thick
inch gusset-to-column welds
S.C. bolt spacing and number of bolts are identical to Reference BRB
BRB, splice plates, and rib plates are identical to Reference BRB
Frame members and frame connection details are identical to Reference BRB

60

Figure 3.6.1 BRB02 Specimen Final Connection Detail

3.7 BRB03 Specimen Design Bearing Bolt Connection
A shear and bearing bolt connection was designed for specimen BRB03. The objective
of this test was to determine if a bearing bolt connection is detrimental to the overall
system performance. The gusset plate for BRB03 matched the 15 degree taper and
weld sizes of specimen BRB02. To determine the number of bolts that would be used
in the connection, the procedures outlined in Section 3.3.1 were followed (calculated in
Appendix A.3). The controlling limit state, tearthrough, required seven bolts, however
eight were used for a symmetry. The remaining design details for BRB03 are identical
to BRB02. The resulting BRB03 specimen is summarized below and shown in Figure
3.7.1. The differences in specimen BRB03 are circled in the figure. Additional BRB03
details are shown in Figure A.4.6.
(8) 1 inch diameter A490 bolts designed for bearing connection
61
gusset-to-column welds
BRB, splice plates, and rib plates used are identical to the Reference BRB
Figure 3.7.1 BRB03 Specimen Final Connection Detail

3.8 BRB04 Design Rotated BRB Cross Section
Specimen BRB04 was identical to specimen BRB03, except that the BRB was rotated
90 degrees about its longitudinal axis. The orientation of the flat plate BRBs in all the
earlier tests, was such that this out-of-plane bending had to be resisted by the cores
bending capacity about its weak axis (Figure 3.8.1). By rotating the cross-section, the
out-of-plane bending was now about the strong axis of the BRB which was significantly
larger than the weak axis.

62

Figure 3.8.1 BRB04 Orientation

Again, a bearing connection was used with (8) bolts and gusset plates had 15 degree
tapers. Refer to Figure 3.7.1 for details.
BRB cross section rotated 90 degrees
(8) 1 inch diameter A490 bolts designed for shear capacity
gusset-to-column welds
BRB, splice plates, and rib plates used are identical to the Reference BRB

63
CHAPTER 4
Testing Apparatus, Procedure, and Instrumentation

4.1 Overview and General Discussion
Upon selection and design of the specimens as was discussed in Chapter 3, fabrication
methods and design of a test apparatus had to be finalized. The test setup was designed
to closely mimic actual boundary conditions in the prototype frame that was discussed
in Section 3.1. The design and fabrication of the test apparatus and test specimens are
described in the following sections of this chapter. The components of the test
apparatus are shown and numbered in Figure 4.1.1. Each specimen was tested in a
horizontal position, parallel to the floor of the structural laboratory as shown in Figures
4.1.1 and 4.1.2.

4.1.1 Strong Wall (1) and Strong Floor (2)
The test setup utilized the pre-existing concrete strong walls (1) and strong floor (2) in
the University of Washingtons structural research laboratory, as shown in Figures 4.1.1
and 4.1.2. These components supplied a solid means of anchoring the test specimens
and the actuator, which was used to load the BRBFs. The strong wall contained
openings through embedded conduit at 18 inches on center which were used to anchor
test setup components and to distribute in plane forces from the test specimens into the
strong floor. The strong floor contained open conduits with threaded anchors embedded
near the base, used to anchor elements to the floor, and were spaced at 3 feet on center.

64
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
1
.
1

T
e
s
t

A
p
p
a
r
a
t
u
s

65
Figure 4.1.2 Test Apparatus

4.1.2 Channel Assembly (3)
A channel assembly made up of two C15x50 sections and various plate elements
(Figure 4.1.3), was used to transfer forces from the specimens into the strong wall. The
channel assembly was also used to place axial loads in the specimen columns and to
restrict overturning, by use of threaded rods (Section 4.1.6). The channel assembly was
anchored to the strong wall with several high strength threaded rods, which varied in
Channel Assembly
Strong Wall
Strong Floor
Load Beam
Out of Plane
Restraints
Axial Force
System
Swivel Head
Actuator
Load Cell
Reaction Block
Prestressing Rods
66
diameter and material strength. Exact rod size, location, and tensioning values are
given in Figures C.1.1 and C.1.5 of Appendix C. The frame was connected to the
channel assembly in only one location at the south beam, as seen in Figure 4.1.1 and
detailed in Figure 4.1.4. This short connection transferred shear forces from the frame
to the channel assembly, while allowing beam and beam-to-column connection
rotations with minimal amounts of restraint. To facilitate this connection, the specimen
columns were extended 1 inch past the bottom flange of the south beam as shown in
Figure 4.1.5. The connection used (10) 1 inch diameter A490 bolts to connect the south
beam of the frame, as shown in Figure 4.1.4. At the East end of the channel assembly, a
kicker plate and stiffeners (Detailed in Figure C.1.6 of Appendix C) were include to
ensure transfer of forces into the short end of the L shaped strong wall. Additional
channel assembly details are provided in Figures C.1.1 through C.1.6, and Figure
C.1.12 of Appendix C.

Figure 4.1.3 Channel Assembly Cross-Section

Strong
Wall
67

Figure 4.1.4 Shear Transfer Connection

Figure 4.1.5 Specimen-to-Channel Assembly Fit up

4.1.3 Load Beam (4)
The preceding components (1-3) distributed forces after they were applied to the
specimen. The forces were applied to the specimen by a load beam, composed of a
W21x62 section and various welded plates. The load beam transferred the force from
the actuator into the north beam of the specimen as shown in Figure 4.1.6. The load
beam was connected to the north beam of the frame by ten 1 inch diameter A490 bolts
as shown in Figure 4.1.1 and Figure 4.1.6. The length of the connection was spread out
along the beam to distribute the force into the north beam and reduce the potential for
local damage and stress concentrations. The load beam was connected to the actuator
Channel Assembly
South
Beam
Strong Wall
68
swivel head by four 1 inch diameter A490 socket head bolts, which were fully tensioned
to avoid differential slip between the load beam and the actuator head. The primary
purpose of the continuity plates was to help transfer the applied column axial loads
described in Section 4.1.6. Detailed drawings of the load beam are given in Figure
C.1.7 of Appendix C.

Figure 4.1.6 Load Beam

4.1.4 Actuator (5) and Reaction Block (6)
In order to deliver the required forces and displacements to the specimens, a hydraulic
actuator was used as shown in Figure 4.1.1. The actuator was stressed to a reaction
block (6) by six 1.125 inch diameter, 8 thread, B-7 threaded rods as shown in
Figure 4.1.7. The rods were tensioned to a combined force of 360 kips, which was not
expected to be exceeded by the actuator during testing. The reinforced concrete
reaction block provided a rigid support for the actuator, and resisted the reaction forces
from specimen loading. The reaction block was stressed to the strong floor (2) through
six 2 inch diameter threaded rods, which were threaded into the floor anchors and
stressed to 220 kips each (Figure 4.1.7). Hydro-stone was used underneath the reaction
block, and on top of the reaction block below the rod bearing plates to ensure a proper
bearing surface area (Figure 4.1.2). The square 12 inch by 2 inch thick elastomeric
bearing pad shown in Figure 4.1.7 was placed between the interface of the actuator base
W21x62 Load Beam
69
and the concrete block to allow small rotations between the reaction block and the
actuator.

Figure 4.1.7 Actuator and Reaction Block Connection

The actuator swivel head shown in Figure 4.1.7, was attached to the actuator by a large
threaded steel pin. The steel pin was stressed to the maximum tensile force of the
actuator to ensure minimal deformation during testing. This was accomplished by use
of the spiral washers as shown in Figure 4.1.7. Detail drawings of the actuator, swivel
head, and reaction block are given in Figures C.1.8 through C.1.10 of Appendix C.
Figure 4.1.2 shows a photograph of the actuator and reaction block components.

4.1.5 Out of Plane Restraints (7)
To simulate the out of plane restraints that would be provided in a structure by
additional framing, an out of plane restraint system had to be developed that would both
restrict out of plane movement, and minimize the resistance to the in plane movements.
The system consisted of a series of W-Sections and/or channels that sandwiched the
frame members, as shown in Figure 4.1.8. The upper and lower restraints were held in
place by the threaded rod seen in Figure 4.1.8. Since the out of plane forces were small,
two 1 diameter threaded rods were adequate . The location of the out of plane
restraints are shown in Figures 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.

Reaction Block
Load
Beam
70

Figure 4.1.8 Out-of-plane Restraints

To minimize the friction between the specimen and the restraints, steel skis, notched
nylon tubes, and nylon plates were placed between all interfaces as shown in Figure
4.1.9. The steel skis were made of thin, smoothly polished steel, and were greased
with a silicon insulation gel. The upper out of plane restraints were only loosely
tightened to allow free movement of the frame and to minimize binding.
Figure 4.1.9 In-plane Sliding Surfaces

4.1.6 Column Axial Load System (8)
In order to simulate realistic column conditions, each column was axially loaded using
two 1.375 inch diameter, high strength (150 ksi) Williams rods symmetrically placed
above and below each column web. Each rod was stressed to 175 kips, placing a 350
kip axial force on each column. The axial loads were applied to the top of each column
through 4 inch thick cap plates as shown in Figure 4.1.10a. The axial loads were
Steel Skis
Nylon Plate
Nylon Tubes
Threaded Rods
Out of Plane
Restraints
71
intended to simulate gravity loads that would be present in the prototype BRBF, as well
as to resist overturning of the frame.
(a) NE Cap Plate (b) SW Base Anchor
Figure 4.1.10 Column Axial Load System

Spherical nuts and cupped bearing plates were used to allow rotation of the column
axial rods during loading (Figure 4.1.10). In addition to this, the holes in the cap plates
were significantly oversized to allow free movement of the rods, and the spherical nuts
were greased to minimize friction. The threaded rods were anchored to the channel
assembly described in Section 4.1.2. The rods passed through holes cut in the channel
flanges and through HSS4x4x1/2 sections as shown in Figure 4.1.10b. The HSS
sections were welded to the channel webs and flanges. Again, the same spherical nuts,
cupped bearing plates, and oversized holes were used. Detailed drawings of cap plates
and base anchors are provided in Figures C.1.11 and C.1.12 of Appendix C.

4.2 Later Required Modifications
The initial design of the test setup as described in Section 4.1 preformed quite well, but
ultimately a few minor modifications had to be made. After completing testing of the
first BRB specimen, it was learned that the original actuator did not have adequate
tensile capacity for the entire loading protocol. After this test, a new actuator with
larger tensile and compressive capacities were used. However, the new actuator had a
different base hole pattern (Figure C.1.9 Appendix C) which was not compatible with
72
the hole pattern cast into the concrete reaction block. A 4 inch thick steel adapter plate
was designed and fabricated as shown in Figures 4.1.1 and 4.1.7. The adapter plate
included a countersunk hole pattern that matched the actuator on one side, and a
countersunk hole pattern that matched the reaction block on the other side. Two sets of
six 1.125 inch diameter, B-7 threaded rods were used to stress the adapter plate to the
actuator, and the adapter plate to the reaction block. Detailed drawings of the adapter
plate are given in Figure C.1.13 of Appendix C.

During testing of a buckling brace specimen [12], severe out of plane displacements
were noticed in the load beam and the adjacent portion of the frame. Not only was the
deformation unacceptable to the quality of the testing, but significant bending
deformation also occurred in the web of the load beam. An additional out of plane
restraint, made up of channel sections and rectangular tubing, was constructed around
both the north beam and load beam to control out of plane deformations for future
specimens (Figure 4.2.1).

Figure 4.2.1 Restraint and Load Beam Modifications

In addition, web stiffeners were added to both sides of the load beam web as seen in
Figure 4.2.1. Eight total stiffeners (4 each side) were welded to both the web and
flanges of the load beam to stiffen the load beam (Figure C.1.7 of Appendix C).
Added Web
Stiffeners
Added Out of
Plane Restraint
73
4.3 Specimen Fabrication
Fabrication techniques of the test specimens designed in Chapter 3, corresponded to
actual construction processes as closely as possible. Similar fabrication techniques
were used for all fabrication details including welds and bolting. The quality of the
welds was very important, since ductile behavior was required. A certified welder was
hired to ensure weld quality, and weld processes which assure matching metal and
adequate dynamic toughness were employed. The welder was certified by the
Washington Association of Building Officials for the FCAW Semi-Automatic process
using E71T-X filler metal (E71T-8 was used). This certification included both grove
and fillet type welds in all positions.

The welded joint preparations for the WFWW beam-to-column connections were made
according to the details in Figure A.4.13 of Appendix A, and were done or checked by
the welder. Bolt hole details were 1/16 larger than nominal bolt dimensions. For slip
critical connections, surfaces were prepared and cleaned to meet Class A faying surface
requirements, and bolts were tensioned using direct tension indicators.

The beam-to-column connection details and member sizes were designed as discussed
in Section 3.4.3. The overall bay size of the specimens are dictated by the prototype
specimen as discussed in Section 3.1, at 12-0 wide by 12-0 high. However, in order
to ensure proper setup and testing of each specimen, specimen dimensions with
allowable tolerances had to be established to ensure proper fabrication and fit up with
the test apparatus. Figure 4.3.1 shows the complete frame dimensions including
allowable tolerances for each frame member. The columns were required to extend past
the beams at the WFWW locations a minimum of 0.5 inches for proper penetration
welds to be made, as shown in Figure 4.3.1. The south end of both columns had to
extend beyond the beam flanges as shown in Figure 4.3.1, for fit up with the channel
assembly. In order to facilitate the load beam connection, the north end of the west
column had to be flush with the north beam flange as shown in Figure 4.3.1. Shear tabs
and erection tabs are detailed again in Figure 4.3.1.
74
Figure 4.3.1 Specimen Frame Dimensions and Allowable Tolerances

To ensure proper fit up, shim plates of several differing thicknesses were made for the
shear transfer connection and the connection between the load beam and the frame
north beam, with matching hole patterns as detailed in Figures C.1.5 and C.1.7 of
Appendix C. To distribute forces as evenly as possible and to ensure proper alignment
of the specimen, shim stock was used between the base of the columns and the channel
assembly, between the column cap plates and the top of the columns, and between the
out of plane systems and the strong floor.

75
4.4 Instrumentation
*

Data for each specimen was acquired using potentiometers, strain gauges and visual
observations. Potentiometers were used to measure in-plane and out-of-plane motion
including values of translation and rotations. Strain gauges were attached to beams
columns and brace to monitor axial stress, shear forces, and moments. The force
applied to the specimen was measured by the load cell of the actuator. This section
provides a summary of the instrumentation configuration. Instrumentation of the
actuator and reaction block was identical for all tests, and was located as shown in
Figure 4.4.1. The arrows in the figures indicate the outward direction (extension) of the
potentiometers.

Figure 4.4.1 Actuator/Reaction Block Pot Layout

Figures 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 show all possible locations of strain gauges used for the tests.
All beam and column strain gauges were centered vertically on their respective flanges.
Brace casing strain gauges are also centered on their respective faces of the casing tube,
as shown in Figure 4.4.2. Gusset and rib plate strain gauges shown in Figure 4.4.3 were
all bi-directional. All other strain gauges were unidirectional. The dimensions shown
in Figure 4.4.2 are applicable for tapered gusset plates also. The strain gauges used in
each test are summarized in Table 4.4.1.

*
This section was written in collaboration with Shawn M. Johnson
76
Figure 4.4.2 Uniaxial Strain Gauge Locations

77
Figure 4.4.3 Biaxial Strain Gauge Locations

Table 4.4.1 Strain Gauges Used Per Test

Uniaxial strain gauges were of part number FLA-6-11-5L. Biaxial strain gauges were
of part number FCA-6-11-5L. All gauges were manufactured by Tokyo Sokki
Kenkyujo Co. Ltd. All types of gauges had a nominal gauge factor of 2.12 with a 6 mm
gauge length. The gauges were intended for use in measuring elastic strains.
Therefore, any yielding that occurred in the location of a gauge made the gauge
ineffective. Due to this limitation, gauges were placed in areas where yielding was not
expected.

78
Potentiometers were used to measure linear motion. BEI DUNCAN model 600 and
model 9600 were used for most measurements taken. Measurements included:
Frame translation
Rotation of beams and columns
Out-of-plane motion of the frame
Out-of-plane bending of the gusset plates
Rotation of the brace relative to the gusset plates
Slip of the frame relative to the test setup
Slip of the test setup relative to the strong floor and strong wall.
The potentiometer locations and numbering from testing of the Reference BRB
specimen are shown in Figure 4.4.4. Deviations in potentiometer instrumentation for
the remaining test specimens are summarized in Table 4.4.2.

79

Figure 4.4.4 Potentiometer Locations for Reference BRB Test
80
Table 4.4.2 Potentiometer Variances From Reference BRB Test

Additionally, for the BRB01 test, potentiometers 19 and 20 were used to measure NE
beam rotations as shown in Figure 4.4.5. The remaining tests did not include
measurements at this location.

Figure 4.4.5 BRB01 Pot Locations (NE Corner)
81

Appendix D provides more detailed descriptions of potentiometer instrumentation. The
information provided includes:
Exact Location of each device
How the device was attached
What the device measured
Example photographs of each configuration type

Potentiometers that were used to measure rotation of the beam and column used
extensions to measure over a larger distance than the device alone could reach, as
shown in Figure D.1.12. The length of measurement was approximately
4
/
3
the depth of
the member for beam and columns as shown in Figures 4.4.4 and 4.4.5. This was done
to capture bending in the area of potential plastic hinging of the frame elements.
Springs were used on device model 9600 to ensure constant contact of the device to the
specimen/test setup. Potentiometers measuring out of plane rotation of the gusset plates
were attached to the floor for measuring out-of-plane motion of the southwest gusset
plate and a shelf for the northeast gusset plate. The shelf was attached to the column, in
the area by the gusset plate, which allowed the devices to move with the frame. By
doing this, relative movement between the potentiometers and the plate was kept to a
minimum.

UniMeasure model P510 string potentiometers were used to measure axial deformation
of the brace and the change in length along frame diagonal parallel to the brace
(Potentiometers 40 and 41 in Figure 4.4.4). Two potentiometers were used in
conjunction to measure out of plane motion of the brace. The two potentiometers were
attached perpendicularly to each other at the mid span of the brace (Potentiometers 53
and 54 in Figure 4.4.4). This made it possible to correct the measurements for in-plane
translation of the frame. All string potentiometers were attached to the specimen using
"music" wire. "Music" wire is light weight with a high tensile strength which made it
82
possible to span larger distances with little sag and little effect on the measurements
recorded during testing.

The lateral input force applied to the specimen was taken directly from the load cell in
the actuator. Therefore, force losses from small changes in the geometry of the
specimen and friction between the specimen and the lateral support were neglected in
the interpretation of data.

Whitewash was used to aid visual observations of yielding and relative movements
between attached elements. Whitewashing consisted of applying a mixture of
approximately 2.5 parts water to 2 parts Beadex Silverset 40 to the specimen in
expected areas of yielding as shown in Figure 4.1.2.

4.5 Data Acquisition and Test Documentation
*

LabVIEW version 6.0 was used to control the data acquisition system. Equipment used
included a windows based personal computer system with National Instrument
hardware. A SCXI 1001 chassis was used in conjunction with SCXI 1100 and
SCXI 1300 modules for potentiometers, and SCXI 1121 and SCXI 1321 modules for
strain gauges. A Hewlett Packard E3611A DC power supply was used to supply the 10
volts needed for the potentiometers. LabVIEW was used to scan data channels and
convert readings to appropriate physical quantities before being recorded to the data
file. Measurements of voltage from the potentiometers were converted to units of
inches by using an appropriate calibration factor corresponding to each potentiometer.
Measurements of resistance from the strain gauges were converted to units of micro
strain using a built in function of LabVIEW. Voltage supply was recorded during
testing to monitor any change in voltage that would affect the readings being taken.
Readings from the instruments were recorded every second during testing to a tab
delimited file. Two camcorders recorded the testing, a digital camera that captured the
entire frame, and a VHS camcorder that captured a closer view of the entire BRB length

*
83
and gusset plate connections. Digital photographs were taken during the test with
record of the cycle in progress, to ensure properly analyzed results. Upon completion of
each test, test result documentation was preformed. This included written descriptions
and corresponding photographs of damage at every location in the frame and testing
apparatus, and also a record of the remaining stresses in the column axial force rods.
Since data was recorded continuously throughout the test, including pauses, the data
files were reduced to remove all pauses during the test. This was done according to the
description given in Appendix B.

4.6 Loading Protocol
The loading protocol for the experiments was established with guidance from ATC-24
Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of Components of Steel Structures [4], and the
SAC Steel Project (Report No. SAC/BD-97/02) [24] testing protocols. The protocol
follows a symmetrical, slow-cyclic, stepwise increasing loading pattern based on the
interstory drift angle of the frame at the onset of brace yielding (or yield drift angle),
Q
y
. Figure 4.6.1 shows the target loading protocol in terms of Q
y
.
Figure 4.6.1 BRBF Loading History

The yield drift angle Q
y
, was estimated analytically by modeling the BRBF as a simple
frame in the structural analysis program, Visual Analysis. Two separate analytical
84
models were used in this determination. The first modeled the gusset plate corners of
the frame as pinned connections, while the second modeled the same corners as fixed
connections. The BRB was modeled in both cases as a member consisting of the core
plate only. Both models also included the applied axial forces in the columns as shown
in Figure 4.6.2.

Figure 4.6.2 Simple Analytical BRBF Model

The model in Figure 4.6.2 was subjected to an increasing lateral force until the yield
force of the BRB core was reached. The respective Q
y
values of the frames were
recorded for each model as 0.00345 and 0.00352, for the pinned and fixed models
respectively. A Q
y
of 0.00347 (1/2 inch frame drift) was used since the actuator used
was controlled by peak displacements. The model is noticeably simple, and thus
contains small errors in the analysis. Rather than expend large amounts of time and
energy on a more sophisticated model, the simplified version was used with the flexible
loading protocol. During the tests the BRBs were monitored for initial yielding, and
the corresponding drift angles were taken as Q
y
. Most of the specimens had initial
yielding at a target drift of 1.25Q
y
. In this case the loading protocol was modified so
that 2 cycles were run at 1.0Q
y
, 6 cycles were run at 1.25Q
y
, and the remainder of the
85
protocol remained the same as shown in Figure 4.6.3. The final consideration in the
loading protocol was the rate at which each cycle was run. Four different cycle lengths
were run as described below, in order to minimize changes in the loading rates. That is,
shorter drifts were run at shorter cycle lengths, and longer drifts were run at longer
cycle lengths.
For:
y
< 0 . 1 0 60 second cycles
For:
y y
< 0 . 2 0 . 1 80 second cycles
For:
y y
< 0 . 4 0 . 2 120 second cycles
For:
y
0 . 4 160 second cycles
Figure 4.6.3 Modified BRBF Loading History

4.7 Chronology of Testing
Some details of the testing needs to be discussed in order to properly understand the
results and analysis. For clarification, preparation for testing was carried out as follows.
After the finished frame was placed and properly aligned in the testing apparatus, the
holes for the shear transfer connection in the south beam, and the load beam connection
in the north beam were drilled with templates to ensure proper fit up. Strain gauges
were then placed at all applicable locations on the frame, gusset/rib plates, and on the
86
BRB. The specimen was then bolted to the channel assembly, the BRB was placed in
the frame, bolts and splice plates were prepared, and then the bolts were tensioned to
the adequate force. Once the bolts were tensioned, the six brace pots were installed
(using tap screws), and the frame and connections were whitewashed. The remaining
instrumentation was then attached, placement of the upper members and sliding
surfaces of the out-of-plane restraints was completed, and shimming was done where
necessary. The load beam was then also bolted to the frame. Finally, the high strength
rods used for the column axial forces were placed and aligned, and then stressed to the
required 175 kips (stressing of the rods was staged to avoid extreme unbalanced loading
in the columns).

Once the test preparations had been made, cameras were readied and the loading
protocol was begun by first loading the brace in tension. In accordance with ATC-24
recommendations, pauses in the testing was limited to peaks and valleys whenever
possible. Data recording at 1 second intervals was continued throughout the entire test
including during pauses. The testing was monitored continuously and closely for any
problems in the loading, boundary conditions, instrumentation, or out of plane supports.
Photographs and testing notes were taken continuously as described in Section 4.5.
87
CHAPTER 5
Experimental Results

5.1 Overview
Chapter 4 concluded by outlining how the specimens were prepared for testing, and
how the testing was carried out. This chapter summarizes observed during testing, and
concludes with a comparison of the specimen behaviors. Table 5.1.1 shows the
schedule of testing for both the SCBFs [12] and BRBFs.

Table 5.1.1 Experimental Testing Schedule

A brief explanation of specimen BRB01 and the Reference BRB should be made.
Originally, BRB01 was intended to be the reference specimen. However, problems
encountered in the loading during testing made the results less appropriate to use as a
reference to future tests. Therefore, a fifth experiment was conducted with a specimen
nominally identical to specimen BRB01. This fifth specimen was loaded similarly to
the other BRB specimens, and was deemed the reference. Details on the loading used
for BRB01 are provided in Section 5.8. As a review, the general components of the five
BRBF specimens and what they evaluated are shown in Table 5.1.2. Details of each
specimen connection are described in Chapter 3.
88
Table 5.1.2 BRBF Specimen Components

5.2 Damage States and Locations
The majority yielding and failure modes that occur during testing are in similar
locations for each test. To effectively describe these mechanisms, these yielding
regions are highlighted and defined in Figure 5.2.1. The terminology shown for the
W-sections in Figure 5.2.1 is applicable for both the beams and columns of each
specimen.

89
Figure 5.2.1 Location Terminology

To properly understand the demands placed on the system, and whether they are caused
by tensile or compressive brace forces, the following describes which yielding
mechanisms and failure modes occur and when they occur. The loading history is
divided into tension and compression excursions. Tension excursions begin after the
compressive peak and end at the tensile peak. Compressive excursions begin after the
tension peak and end at the compressive peak. Each are illustrated on the drift history
and force-displacement curves in Figure 5.2.2.

Strong Wall
Channel Assembly
90
Figure 5.2.2 Tension and Compression Excursions

Mechanisms that occur during tension excursions:
Yielding on the outside face of the inner flange NE column, NE beam, SW
column, and SW Beam
Local buckling of the inner flange NE column, NE Beam, SW column, and
SW beam
Yielding and out of plane deformation of the web NE column and SW beam
Yielding and buckling of the North beam at the load beam
Slip of bolts
Gusset plate yielding at the gusset corners

Mechanisms that occur during compression excursions:
Yielding on the inside face of the inner flange NE beam and SW column
Yielding and buckling of the outer flange NE column and SW column
Out of plane rotation of the SW beam and gusset plate
Hinging in the BRB core plate
Shifting of the BRB casing and concrete surrounding the BRB core towards the
NE end of the brace
Weld cracking at gusset-to-beam/column locations

91
To understand the behavior of each specimen and facilitate comparison, the yield
mechanisms and failure modes are defined using the terminology presented in
Tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. These states define the different mechanisms such as yielding,
buckling, hinging, case shifting, bolt slip, and weld fracture of the specimen
components. Figures 5.2.3 through 5.2.9 provide photographs of what the predefined
states look like. The yielding states in Table 5.2.1 are defined for the gusset plates in
Figure 5.2.3, and the framing members in Figure 5.2.4. The pictures shown apply to all
beam and column flanges and webs. The buckling states are defined for the framing
members in Figure 5.2.5. The weld performance states are shown in Figure 5.2.6. The
performance states in Table 5.2.2 are defined in Figures 5.2.7 to 5.2.9.

Table 5.2.1 Frame and Gusset Performance State Terminology

92

(a) Y1 Initial Gusset Yielding

(b) Y2 Mild Gusset Yielding

(c) Y3 Moderate Gusset Yielding
Figure 5.2.3 Gusset Plate Yielding States
93
(a) Y1 Initial Yielding (b) Y2 Mild Yielding
(c) Y3 Moderate Yielding (d) Y4 Initial Concentrated Yielding

(e) Y5 Severe Yielding
Figure 5.2.4 Frame Yielding States
94

(a) B1 Initial Buckling

(b) B2 Moderate Buckling

(c) B3 Severe Buckling
Figure 5.2.5 Frame Buckling Limit States

(a) WD Weld Damage (b) WF Weld Failure
Figure 5.2.6 Weld Damage States
95
Table 5.2.2 BRB, Bolt, and Column Base Performance State Terminology

(a) H1 - Initial BRB Core Hinging

(b) H2 - BRB Core Plastic Hinging
Figure 5.2.7 BRB Core Plate Hinging States
Hinge Angle
96

(a) Initial Casing Position (b) S1 Initial Casing Shift
(SW End No Applied Load)

(c) S2 Severe Casing Shift (NE End No Applied Load)
Figure 5.2.8 BRB Casing Performance States
(a) B1 Initial Buckling (b) Initial Uplift
Figure 5.2.9 Column Base Performance States
97
5.2.1 Anatomy of Force Displacement Responses
This section provides descriptions of how some performance states manifest themselves
in the force-displacement plots of each specimen. Figure 5.2.10 shows the force
displacement response for the reference BRB, which is representative of all specimens.
The circled locations in the figure highlight where sudden dips in the force deflection
behavior occurred.

Figure 5.2.10 Reference BRB Force Displacement Response

Bolt slip and casing shifting were the two possible causes of the dips highlighted in
Figure 5.2.10. As the bolts slip, the hysteretic behavior shows a small reduction in
force, but quickly rebounds. When the slip occurs the brace is elongates equal to the
amount of slop in the bolt holes, but requires less force to do so. Dips caused from bolt
slip are noted in each specimens force displacement plot.

During testing the BRB casing shifted towards the NE end of the brace. Shifting of the
casing was when longer and longer sections of the SW end of the core plate would
extend out of the casing than compared to the NE end as shown in Figure 5.2.8. Slight
bending or hinging at the SW end of the BRB caused the core plate to drag against the
surrounding concrete. When the core plate shortened during compression cycles, it
98
tried to shorten into the casing, but was resisted by friction between the core plate
surface and the surrounding concrete, and therefore the casing was restrained to move
towards the SW end. The casing continued to shift towards the NE end until it reached
the furthermost NE end as shown in Figure 5.2.8c. The shifting of the casing created
dips in the force displacement response of each specimen. This likely occurred when
the BRB core overcame the force restraining movement of the casing. This created a
short drop then return of the force input into the system as highlighted in Figure 5.2.10.
Any such dips in the force displacement responses not specifically labeled as bolt slip,
are due to this phenomenon. Additional details of this phenomenon are provided in
Appendix B.3.

BRB plastic hinging, or a substantial reduction in stiffness, is a significant change and
leveling of the input force during increasing drifts (change in slope). This mechanism is
noted in Figure 5.2.10 as point 1. In all of the specimens, plastic hinging continued
without an appreciable increase in force, until the BRB casing touched the floor
(Figure 5.2.7b). This is noted as point 2 in Figure 5.2.10, and signaled the completion
of the test.

The conditions of the test setup caused local buckling of the outer flanges at the bases of
both columns, as shown in Figure 5.2.9a. The lateral force that was applied to the frame
resulted in pivoting about the outer flanges. Large forces were thus concentrated in the
outer flanges and eventually made them buckle. Stiffeners welded into the column
bases minimized the local buckling, but did not prevent it. The buckling resulted in
shortening of the column, which in turn led to a loss of axial force in the pre-stressed
rods. As the axial forces were reduced, the hold down force on the columns was soon
exceeded by the uplift force, and a gap formed between the column base and the
channel assembly (Figure 5.2.9b), which resulted in a rigid body rotation of the frame.
Correction for the rigid body rotation of the frame is described in Section 5.3.1.

99
5.3 Drift Ranges
As discussed in Section 4.6, the specimens were tested using a displacement controlled
protocol. The actual drifts were different from the target values due to deformations in
the test apparatus, variances in the calibration of the actuator LVDT, and slip of the
specimen relative to the channel assembly. To improve the tests the target drifts were
sometimes modified, as discussed in Section 4.6. Reference Because of these facts,
descriptions of specimen behavior are discussed in terms of actual drifts.

The behavior of the specimens was similar, and the progression of yielding mechanisms
and failure modes in each specimen occurred during similar drift ranges. These drift
ranges are defined and used throughout the remainder of the document (Table 5.3.1).
Six different ranges which correspond to different cycle numbers are noted in
Table 5.3.1. The ranges generally correspond to performance states. The early range
corresponds to elastic deformation of all components, the yield range corresponds to
initial BRB core yielding, the early range corresponds to initial yielding in most of the
framing members, and the mid range corresponds to spreading of yielding and initial
buckling in the frames. The late range corresponds to the rapid spread of frame
damage, and the initial out of plane rotation in the SW beam and BRB. Finally, the
final range corresponds to drastic out of plane rotation, high levels of frame damage,
and ultimate failure.

100

Table 5.3.1 Drift Ranges and Corresponding Cycle Numbers

5.3.1 Frame Drift Corrections
A potentiometer (No. 36) was placed at the face of the east column, in line with the
centerline of the north beam, as shown in Figure 5.3.1, to measure the overall drift of
the frame (
OD
). To determine the actual drift of the frame, a corrected drift which
removed small rigid body rotations from column uplift, and lateral slip of the frame was
calculated. Lateral slip in the south beam-to-channel assembly shear connection was
measured by potentiometer 46 (
slip
), as shown in Figure 5.3.1. Figure 5.3.2 shows the
idealized rigid body rotations resulting from column base uplift. Potentiometers 29 and
48 are as shown in Figure 5.3.1 were oriented such that uplifts of either column based
resulted in positive readings.

101

Figure 5.3.1 Locations of Potentiometers Used for Drift Correction
Figure 5.3.2 Rigid Body Frame Rotations

The pivot point (PP) of the frame is at the outside face of the column base outer flange.
Using the fact that the angles of rigid body rotation (
RB
) are equal, the following
equations are developed.
OD
UW
W
W
RB
L L
U
= = , (5-1)
PP
PP
102
and
OD
UE
E
E
RB
L L
U
= = (5-2)
Therefore:
W
W
OD UW
L
U
L = , (5-3)
and
E
E
OD UE
L
U
L = , (5-4)
where
UE UW
, are the amount of frame drift caused by the rigid body rotation from
the uplift of the west and east columns, respectively.
E W
U U , are the measured uplifts in
the west (pot 48) and east (pot 29) columns, respectively.
E W
L L , are the distances from
the pivot point to potentiometers 29 and 48, and
OD
L is the distance from the pivot point
to potentiometer 36. Although the rotations have different signs, the direction of the
rotation is accounted for in the final corrected drift ( )
corr
. To determine the corrected
drift ( )
corr
, we simply account for the rigid body rotation and any lateral slip that
occurred in the shear connection (
46
).
slip UW UE OD corr
+ = (5-5)
Using the above equations, corrections to the measured frame drift (
OD
) range from 0
to nearly 13% difference in the drift. Table 5.3.2 compares the measured drifts versus
the corrected drifts for the reference BRB.

Table 5.3.2 Measured vs. Corrected Story Drifts for the Reference BRB

103
The remainder of this chapter discusses the response of each test specimen during
testing, and then compare the performances of all the specimens. Instrumentation for
the specimens is provided in Section 4.4, and design details are given in Section 3.4 and
Sections 3.6 through 3.8. Values given to drifts and forces indicate loading of the brace
in tension when positive, and loading of the brace in compression when negative.

5.4 Response of Reference BRB
The specimen was tested to serve as a baseline or reference point for future specimens
with connection modifications. The reference specimen had full force displacement
curves as would be expected from a buckling restrained brace as shown in Figure 5.4.3.
The frame reached only moderate story drift angles of 2.2% and -2.1% before failure
occurred, with maximum loads of +315 and -356 kips. The deformation history for the
reference specimen is shown in Figure 5.4.1 below. Failure occurred during the
compression excursion of cycle 36. Figure 5.4.2 shows the lateral force history.
Table 5.4.1 summarizes the drifts and input forces with respect to the cycles. Figure
5.4.4 shows the elongation of the brace during testing, and gives peak elongation values
with corresponding drifts.
Figure 5.4.1 Reference BRB Displacement History
104
Figure 5.4.2 Reference BRB Lateral Force History

Figure 5.4.3 Reference BRB Force Displacement Response

105
Table 5.4.1 Reference BRB Peak Values

Figure 5.4.4 Reference BRB Core Plate Elongation

Initial yielding of the core plate occurred during 0.23% and -0.32% drift ratios.
Yielding of the brace increased throughout the test and brace elongation reached peak
values as high as 1.92 and -2.886 inches. Initial yielding of the BRB core was
determined visually during the test, and verified with core strain measurements.
Compressive yielding occurred during cycles 9 and 10, but tensile yielding did not
occur until cycle 11, so cycles 11-16 were deemed the initial yield cycles. Brace
elongation was measured until plastic hinging (H2) occurred, after which the readings
Initial Yield Cycles
H2
106
included out of plane deformation and were deemed inaccurate. The core was
marked before testing as shown in Figure 5.4.5, to manually measure elongation until it
was above values of expected elastic deformation.

Figure 5.4.5 Visual Determination of Core Yield

5.4.1 Description of Reference BRB Behavior
Progression of the performance states are referenced to peak value drifts when each
state was observed. The mechanisms occurred at or during loading to the peak drift.
The descriptions have been separated in terms of the drift ranges described in
Section 5.3. Selected performance states are illustrated in figures (5.4.7 through 5.4.13)
at the end of each drift range paragraph to facilitate in the description. The performance
limit state and drift ratio at which it occurred are included in each figure. A summary of
the following detailed descriptions is given in Section 5.4.2.

The top rib plate on the SW gusset plate was welded slightly out of square, which
created a small misalignment between the gusset rib plate and the BRB rib stiffener,
which in turn caused bending in the splice plates when they bolted to the two ribs.
Figure 5.4.6 below shows the misalignment, splice plate curvature, and slight gaps that
were present in the connection. Since the connection was slip critical, it was felt that
this misalignment would have little or no effect on the performance of the connection.
The area was closely monitored during the tests, and no signs of problems or unusual
effects were observed.
107

Figure 5.4.6 Rib Plate Misalignment

Yield Range Drifts (0.20% to 0.40%)
Initial yielding (Y1) in the BRB core plate occurred at a drift ratio of +/- 0.23%. No
other mechanisms were noted during this drift range.

Figure 5.4.7 Selected Performance States During Yield Drift Range

Early Range Drifts (0.40% to 0.65%)
Y1 yielding occurred on the outside face of the NE column inner flange at drift ratios of
Slight Curvature
Slight Gap
108
0.48% (Figure 5.4.14a). Y1 yielding also occurred on the outside face of the NE
beam inner flange at the same drift ratios (Figure 5.4.18a).

Figure 5.4.8 Selected Performance States During Early Drift Range

Mid Range Drifts (0.65% to 1.25%)
Y1 yielding was observed on the inside face of the inner flange of the SW beam at -
0.93% drift ratios. The yielding in the outside face of the NE column inner flange
reached level Y2 at drift ratios of 1.17% (Figure 5.4.14b). Y1 yielding occurred on the
inside face of the NE column inner flange at drift ratios of -0.70%, and reached level Y2
at -1.18% drift ratios. Y1 yielding was seen on the outside face of the SW column inner
flange at drift ratios of 0.62% (Figure 5.4.20a). Y1 yielding also occurred on the
outside face of the SW column outer flange at drift ratios of -0.93%. Y1 yielding also
occurred on the inside face of the NE beam inner flange at -0.70% drift ratios. Y1
yielding started in the north beam at the load beam end, in the outer flange and web at
drift ratios of 1.17%. Initial column flange buckling at their bases (B1) was noticed
during drift ratios of 0.62% and -0.70%, and base uplift became visibly apparent (U1) at
drift ratios of 1.17% and -1.18%.

109

Figure 5.4.9 Selected Performance States During Mid Drift Range

Late Range Drifts (1.25% to 1.75%)
The shifting of the BRB casing first was initially observed (S1) during the cycle
corresponding to drift ratios of 1.44% and -1.43%. Y1 yielding was seen on the outside
face of the SW beam inner flange at drift ratios of 1.44%, along with B1 buckling of the
inner flange. The yielding on the outside face of the inner flange increased to level Y2
at drift ratios of 1.69% (Figure 5.4.21a). Y1 yielding also occurred in the SW beam
web at 1.44% drift ratios (Figure 5.4.22a). B1 buckling occurred in the SW beam web
at drift ratios of 1.69%. B1 buckling was noticed in the bottom half of the NE column
inner flange, at drift ratios of 1.44% (Figure 5.4.16a). Yielding in the outside face of
the NE column inner flange reached level Y3 at drift ratios of 1.69% (Figure 5.4.14c).
Yielding on the inside face of the NE column inner flange also increased to level Y3
during -1.67% drift ratios. The NE column web also had Y1 yielding at drift ratios of
1.44%. Yielding increased in the outside face of the SW column outer flange to level
Y2 at drift ratios of -1.43% (Figure 5.4.20c), and further to level Y3 at -1.67%
110
(Figure 5.4.20d). Y2 yielding was reached in the north beam at the load beam end
in the web and outer flange at drift ratios of 1.69%.

Figure 5.4.10 Selected Performance States During Late Drift Range

Final Range Drifts (1.75% and Higher)
SW Corner during cycles 33 and 34 (1.93% and -1.94% drift ratios):
Yielding on the outside face of the SW beam inner flange increased to level Y3 during
1.93% drift ratios (Figure 5.4.21b). Buckling of the SW beam inner flange increased to
B2 levels at 1.93% drift ratios (Figure 5.4.22b). Yielding in the SW beam web jumped
to level Y3 during 1.93% drift ratios (Figure 5.4.22b). At the same drift ratios, the SW
beam web reached B2 buckling. This SW beam damage that occurred at 1.93% drift
ratios, caused slight out of plane rotation of the beam web and flange, and because of
the large stiffness of the SW gusset plate connection, was accompanied by a nearly rigid
body rotation of the SW gusset plate. The rotation of the SW gusset plate caused initial
BRB hinging to develop during the -1.94% drift ratios. During the -1.94% drift ratios
111
of cycle 34, WD weld cracks began at the SW and NE gusset-to-column intersection
(Figure 5.4.24a).

SW Corner during cycles 35 and 36 (2.16% and -2.06% drift ratios):
Yielding on the outside face of the SW beam inner flange increased to level Y4 during
these drift ratios of cycle 35, and Y5 levels at the same drift ratios of cycle 36
(Figure 5.4.21c). Buckling of the SW beam inner flange increased to B3 levels by the
end of testing under 2.16% drift ratios (Figure 5.4.22c). Web buckling in the SW beam
increased to very severe level B3 during the tension excursions of these final drift ratios
(Figure 5.4.22d). SW beam web yielding also quickly increased during theses drift
ratios, to level Y5 (Figure 5.4.22c). During the final compression excursion (cycle 36),
the SW beam lost stability and began drastically rotating out of plane towards the strong
floor (Figure 5.4.24d). With these large beam rotations, the SW gusset plate rigid body
rotation and BRB hinging (H1) became quite evident during the compression
excursions of cycle 35 (Figures 5.4.24b and 5.4.25c). At this point, the BRB casing had
shifted completely (S2) to the NE end of the brace (Figure 5.4.25a). Y1 yielding
occurred in the corners of the SW gusset plate during compression excursions, but the
connection had very little bending or other yielding of any type. The SW and NE
gusset-to-column weld cracks propagated during the cycle 35 compression excursion,
but remained at level WD. Plastic hinging (H2) of the BRB occurred during the
compression excursion of cycle 36, when the gusset plate and BRB connection began to
quickly rotate out of plane with no increase in load (Figure 5.4.3). The hinging
continued until the brace finally touched the floor (Figure 5.4.25d). As these rotations
were increasing towards the strong floor, level WD weld cracks occurred in the SW
gusset-to-beam weld. The SW gusset-to-column weld crack opened along nearly its
entire length to level WF (Figure 5.4.24c). Y3 yielding also quickly appeared in the
SW gusset plate and splice plates at this time (Figure 5.4.24e).

Buckling in the bottom half of the NE column inner flange reached level B2, and was
accompanied by B1 buckling in the top half of the flange at drift ratios of 1.93%
112
(Figure 5.4.16b). Buckling of the NE column inner flange reached level B3 by the
end of the test, under drift ratios as large as 2.16% (Figure 5.4.16c). Yielding in the
outside face of the NE column inner flange reached level Y4 at drift ratios of 1.93%.
This yielding increased during drift ratios of 2.16%, but did not quite reach level Y5
(Figure 5.4.14d). Yielding on the inside face of the NE column inner flange reached
level Y4 at drift ratios of -2.06% (Figure 5.4.15b). B1 buckling began in the NE
column web at 1.93% drift ratios, and reached level B2 by the final 2.16% drift ratios.
Yielding in the web increased to level Y2 around 1.93% drift ratios (Figure 5.4.17a),
and reached level Y3 under drift ratios of 2.16% (Figure 5.4.17b). Y1 yielding of the
NE column outer flange occurred at -1.94% drift ratios (Figure 5.4.15a). This yielding
increased to level Y3 by the -2.06% drift ratios (Figure 5.4.15b). The NE column outer
flange also had B1 buckling during the final -2.06% drift ratios, although the buckling
seemed more like global buckling of the flange rather than local buckling.

Yielding on the outside face of the SW column inner flange increased to level Y2 by the
end of testing, at drift ratios as high as 2.16% (Figure 5.4.20b). Yielding on the outside
face of the outer flange increased to level Y4 after the final -2.06% cycle
(Figure 5.4.20e). Yielding on the outside face of the NE beam inner flange increased to
level Y2 at drift ratios of 1.93%, and level Y3 at drift ratios of 2.16% (Figure 5.4.18b).
By the end of testing at -2.06% drift ratios, yielding on the inside face of the NE beam
inner face reached level Y2 (Figure 5.4.18c). Yielding in the north beam at the load
beam end reached level Y3 in the outer flange, and level Y2 in the web, at the final drift
ratios of 2.16% (Figure 5.4.19). Figure 5.4.19 also shows B1 buckling of the north
beam outer flange, which occurred at the same drift ratios.

Relative beam-to-column rotations at the shear tab connections were quite large by the
end of the test (Figure 5.4.23a). However, little or no yielding was seen in the beam
web or the shear tabs at these locations. The large rotations were accomplished by
slightly oversized (by 1/16 inch) bolt holes, but more so by elongation of the holes in
the beam web (Figure 5.4.23b).
113

Figure 5.4.11 Selected Performance States During Final Drift Range Cycles 33&34

Figure 5.4.12 Selected Performance States During Final Drift Range Cycle 35
114

Figure 5.4.13 Selected Performance States During Final Drift Range Cycle 36
115

(a) Cycle 21 Y1 (b) Cycle 27 Y2

(c) Cycle 31 Y3 (d) End of Test Y4
Figure 5.4.14 Progression of Yielding in NE Column Inner Flange
(a) Cycle 33 Y1 (b) End of Test
Figure 5.4.15 Progression of Yielding in NE Column Outer Flange
Y3
Y4
116

(a) Cycle 29 B1 (b) Cycle 33 B2

(c) End of Test B3
Figure 5.4.16 Progression of NE Inner Column Flange Local Buckling
(a) Cycle 33 (b) End of Test
Figure 5.4.17 Progression of Yielding in NE Column Web
Y2
Y3
117

(a) Cycle 21 Y1 (b) End of Test Y3

(c) End of Test (Inside Face) Y2
Figure 5.4.18 Progression of Yielding in NE Beam Inner Flange

Figure 5.4.19 Yielding and Buckling of North Beam at Load Beam Cycle 33
Y2 Web
Y3 Flange
B1
118
(a) Cycle 27 Inner Flange Y1 (b) End of Test Inner Flange
(c) Cycle 29 Outer Flange Y2 (d) Cycle 31 Outer Flange Y3

(e) End of Test Outer Flange Y4
Figure 5.4.20 Progression of Yielding in SW Column
Y2
119

(a) Cycle 31 Y2

(b) Cycle 33 Y3

(c) End of Test Y5
Figure 5.4.21 Progression of Yielding in SW Beam Inner Flange

120
(a) Cycle 29 (b) Cycle 33

(c) End of Test

(d) End of Test B3 Web
Figure 5.4.22 Progression of SW Beam Web Yielding/Buckling and Flange Buckling
Y1
Y3
B2
Y5
B3
121

(a) Shear Tab Rotation

(b) Bolt Hole Bearing in Beam Web
Figure 5.4.23 Beam-Column Relative Rotations

122
(a) NE Gusset-to-Column Cycle 34 - WD (b) SW Gusset Cycle 35
(c) SW Gusset-to-Column Cycle 36 - WF (d) SW Gusset Cycle 36

(e) SW Gusset and Splice Plate Yielding (End of Test) Y3
Figure 5.4.24 Progression of Damage in SW Gusset Connection
123

(a) NE Casing at No Load Cycle 36 Casing at Extreme NE End of Brace

(b) NE Casing at Tensile Peak of Cycle 36
(c) Slight Hinging of BRB Cycle 35 (d) Plastic Hinging of BRB
Figure 5.4.25 BRB Hinging and Shifting of Casing

124
5.4.2 Response and Failure Summary of Reference BRB
The response of the Reference BRB can be summarized as follows. All components of
the specimen remained elastic until the yield drift range, where the initial BRB core
plate yielding (Y1) occurred. Initial (Y1) and mild (Y2) yielding occurred throughout
the frame during early and mid drift ranges, and column uplift began to occur. During
the late drift range, the shifting of the BRB casing became evident (S1), after which
buckling initiated (B1) in the SW beam and NE column areas. During the final drift
range, damage throughout the frame increased drastically. The frame experienced large
deformations with extensive yielding (Y4 and Y5) and buckling (B2 and B3) of the
beams and columns adjacent to the gusset plates. Eventually the SW beam rotated out
of plane, and this instability allowed a nearly rigid body out of plane rotation of the SW
gusset plate. As the gusset plate rotated, an eccentricity was introduced into SW end of
the brace, which placed large out of plane deformation demands on the BRB. To
sustain this deformation, plastic rotations occurred in the BRB core plate and hinged at
the termination of the BRB stiffening ribs (Figure 5.4.27). Furthermore, the shifting of
the BRB casing to the NE end led to loss of confinement around this location, which
facilitated in the formation of the plastic hinge. Failure occurred shortly into the
compression excursion of cycle 36 (around a 1.1% drift ratio and -100 kips of lateral
force), and the rotation at the hinge increased without an increase in load. The SW
gusset plate and the BRB end continued to rotate until the brace casing eventually
touched the strong floor (approximately 12 inches below the bottom of the BRB casing
at the beginning of testing). These extremely large out of plane deformations caused
weld cracks (WD) in both of the gusset-to-beam column connections, weld failure (WF)
in the SW gusset-to-column connection, and moderate yielding (Y3) in the SW gusset
and splice plates. The progression to failure is illustrated in Figure 5.4.26. The
condition of the BRB core plate after failure is shown in Figure 5.4.27. Figure 5.4.28
gives an overall view of the brace and the SW connection at failure.
125

Figure 5.4.26 Progression of Failure (SW Connection Cross Section)
126

Figure 5.4.27 Hinged Core Plate with Surrounding Concrete and Casing Removed

Figure 5.4.28 SW Connection After Failure

All of the test specimens performed in a similar manner to that described for the
reference BRB specimen. Following this section, the differences in each specimens
results are summarized. For simplicity, the detailed response of the remaining four
specimens will be presented in Tables 5.9.2 through 5.9.6, after the summary of results
for each specimen.

Hinge Point
BRB Core Plate
Stiffening Ribs
Original Location of
Casing
127
5.5 Response of Specimen BRB02
Specimen BRB02 was tested to investigate the effect of a tapered gusset plate on
connection and overall system performance. Figure 5.5.1 gives the imposed
deformation history, where loading of the brace in compression is negative. It should
be noted that cycle 36 contains two tensile peak drifts as shown in the figure below.
This occurred when the pump which ran the actuator had to be switched with another
pump after the first tensile peak. For purposes of discussion, the two peaks will be
referred to as 36a and 36b as shown in Figure 5.5.1. Specimen BRB02 had full force
displacement curves as would be expected from a buckling restrained brace, as shown
in Figure 5.5.3. The frame reached only moderate story drift ratios of 2.4% and -2.3%
prior to failure, with maximum loads of +331 and -353 kips. Figure 5.5.2 shows the
lateral force history. Table 5.5.1 summarizes the drifts and input forces with respect to
the cycles. Figure 5.5.4 shows the elongation of the brace during testing, and gives
peak elongation values with corresponding lateral displacements.
Figure 5.5.1 BRB02 Displacement History

128
Figure 5.5.2 BRB02 Lateral Force History

Figure 5.5.3 BRB02 Force Displacement Response

129
Table 5.5.1 BRB02 Peak Values

Figure 5.5.4 BRB02 Core Plate Elongation

Yielding continued to increase throughout the test and brace elongation reached peak
values of 2.14 and -2.89 inches. Brace elongation was measured until plastic hinging
(H2) occurred, after which the readings included out of plane deformation and were
deemed inaccurate.
H2
130
The behavior of specimen BRB02 was nearly identical to that of the reference BRB,
and failure resulted from the loss in stability of the SW beam and out of plane plastic
hinging of the BRB core plate. During cycle 35, the entire SW corner of the frame
slipped off the channel assembly. The column was jacked back into place, and testing
continued as scheduled. Data from all locations during this period of time was deleted
since it was no longer accurate. This problem was not experienced again during testing.
The condition of specimen components at the end of the test are shown in Figures 5.5.5
through 5.5.11. The response of specimen BRB02 is summarized in Tables 5.9.2
through 5.9.6.
(a) Inner Flange Yielding Y4 (b) Inner Flange Buckling B2

(c) Outer Flange and Inside Face of Inner Flange
Figure 5.5.5 NE Column at End of Test

Y4
Y2
131

Figure 5.5.6 NE Beam Inside Face of Inner Flange at End of Test Y2
Figure 5.5.7 North Beam at Load Beam at End of Test

Figure 5.5.8 SW Column Outer Flange and Web at End of Test
B3
Y4
(View Obstructed)
Y2
B3
Y4
B1
Y4
132
(a) Outer Flange Yielding Y5 (b) Outer Flange Buckling and Web Yielding

(c) Out of Plane Rotation
Figure 5.5.9 Damage of SW Beam at End of Test

Figure 5.5.10 SW Gusset Plate Damage at End of Test
Y4, B3
B3
WF
WF
Y3
133

Figure 5.5.11 - SW Corner After Failure

Specimen BRB03 was tested to investigate the effect of bearing connection on overall
system performance. However, the bolts were partially tensioned to avoid slip prior to
initial brace yielding (Y1). Figure 5.6.1 gives the imposed deformation history, where
loading of the brace in compression is negative. Specimen BRB03 had full force
displacement curves as would be expected from a buckling restrained brace, as shown
in Figure 5.6.3. The frame reached story drift ratios of 2.15% and -2.0% prior to failure
(cycle 39), with maximum loads of +306 and -346 kips. Figure 5.6.2 shows the lateral
force history. Table 5.6.1 summarizes the drifts and input forces with respect to the
cycles. Figure 5.6.4 shows the elongation of the brace during testing, and gives peak
elongation values with corresponding drifts.

134


135


136

values of 1.78 and -2.70 inches.

The response of specimen BRB03 was nearly identical to that of the reference BRB
specimen and BRB02, and failure resulted from the loss of stability of the SW beam and
out of plane plastic hinging of the BRB core plate. The condition of specimen
components at the end of the test are shown in Figures 5.6.9 through 5.6.15. The
response of specimen BRB02 is summarized in Tables 5.9.2 through 5.9.6.

Specimen BRB03 was designed to investigate a bearing bolt connection. The initial slip
of the bolts occurred in the NE connection during the tension excursion of cycle. The
dynamic slip occurred at a brace force of 155 kips, which was a force less than the brace
had been subjected to previously, at a drift ratio of 0.13%. The bolt slip caused a small
jog in the hysteresis curve as noted in Figure 5.6.3. During the remaining cycles, the
splice plates seemed to slip more slowly as shown in Figure 5.6.5.

H2
137

Figure 5.6.5 Bolt and Splice Plate Slip in NE Connection

The bearing connection sustained slight bolt hole elongation in the holes of the BRB
and the splice plates, but not in the gusset plates. The bearing deformation was nearly
undetectable to the naked eye, as shown in Figure 5.6.6. The performance of the gusset
plate connection was similar to the other specimens, but with additional local yielding
within the NE gusset plate. The yielding only reached Y2 levels towards the end of
testing as shown in Figure 5.6.7.

Figure 5.6.6 Slight Hole Bearing in BRB (NE Connection)

138

Figure 5.6.7 NE Gusset Plate at End of Test Y2

The yielding and buckling in the north beam at the load beam that occurred during
testing of the specimens, happened during the testing of specimen BRB03.
Additionally, as B2 flange local buckling and B3 web buckling occurred in the north
beam, the actuator began to deflect out of plane (upwards), as the tip of the load beam
deflected out of plane (downwards) approximately 0.25 inches. At this point, the nylon
tube on the inner flange of the load beam fractured as shown in Figure 5.6.11b. The
resulting damage in the north beam is shown in Figure 5.6.11a.

One final behavioral difference of specimen BRB03 was the yielding at the north ends
of both the east and west columns. During the last few cycles, yield lines appeared at
the north end of the east column and spread to Y3 levels as shown in Figure 5.6.8a.
These yield lines ran parallel to the length of the column suggesting shear yielding, and
extended from the east column cap plate to almost the free edge of the gusset plate as
shown in Figure 5.6.8a. Yielding and buckling at the top of the west column also
occurred. At this location, the outer flange of the column began to buckle in plane
where it was in contact with the load beam as shown in Figure 5.6.8c. Y3 yielding and
B2 buckling in this area lead to formation of a gap between the top of the column and
the load beam as shown in Figure 5.6.8b and 5.6.8c.

139

(a) Longitudinal Yield Lines at Top of East Column Y3

(b) Top of West Column (c) Buckling of West Column Outer Flange
Figure 5.6.8 Yielding and Buckling in Top of West and East Columns at End of Test

GAP
B2
Y3
140
(a) Outside Face of Inner Flange Y5 (b) Inside Face of Inner Flange and Web

(c) Inner Flange

Figure 5.6.10 NE Beam at End of Test Y3
B3
Y4
Y2
B3
141
(a) North Beam at Load Beam (b) Fracture of Nylon Tube
Figure 5.6.11 North Beam and Load Beam at End of Test

Figure 5.6.12 SW Column Outer Flange at End of Test Y5

(a) Outer Flange Yielding Y5 (b) Outer Flange Buckling and Web Yielding
Figure 5.6.13 SW Beam Web and Inner Flange at End of Test
Fracture
B2
Y5
Y3
B2
Y5,B3
Y5
142

Figure 5.6.14 Weld Crack Openings in SW Gusset

Figure 5.6.15 - SW BRB End After Failure

Y3
WF
WD
143
Specimen BRB04 was tested to investigate the effect rotating the BRB cross section (90
degrees) would have on the connection and overall system performance. Figure 5.7.1
gives the imposed deformation history, where the loading of the brace in compression is
negative. Specimen BRB04 had full force displacement curves as would be expected
from a buckling restrained brace, as shown in Figure 5.7.3. The frame reached
moderate story drift ratios of 2.3% and -2.2% prior to failure, with maximum loads of
+316 and -347 kips. Figure 5.7.2 shows the lateral force history. Table 5.7.1
summarizes the drifts and input forces with respect to the cycles. Figure 5.7.4 shows
the elongation of the brace during testing, and gives peak elongation values with
corresponding drifts.

The data recording system used during testing, shut off between the negative peak of
cycle 33 and slightly into the tension excursion of cycle 34. This coincided exactly with
the initial bolt slip of the BRB connection, and the impact from the slip most likely
caused the shut down. The data jumped from points (-2.94, -298.8) to (0.567,205.6),
and the resulting straight line between the two points is denoted as Data Gap C33 in
Figure 5.7.3. This is obviously not how the specimen actually behaved, so for purposes
of energy dissipation calculations in Chapter 6, the missing data was assumed to match
that from cycle 34 along the same portion of the loading since they had the same target
drifts. Figure 5.7.3 shows that sets of cycles which have the same target drifts have
very similar hysteresis curves, and therefore this is a realistic estimate of the missing
data points. The portion of the corrected curve is shown by the dashed line labeled
Estimated C33 in Figure 5.7.3.

144

145


146

(H2) occurred. For this test, plastic hinging occurred first during cycle 37, which
corresponds to H2 in Figure 5.7.4.

The differences noted with specimen BRB04 relative to other specimens included
yielding and buckling at additional locations. The failure of specimen BRB04 occurred
in a similar manner to the reference specimen, with the following exceptions. Just as in
the other specimens, the out of plane rotation of the SW beam and gusset plate lead to
hinging in the BRB at the termination of the stiffening rib. The difference in specimen
BRB04 was that the brace hinged and deformed in strong axis bending of the core plate.
Large out of plane rotations and reduction in stiffness (H2) began during the
compression excursion of cycle 37 at approximately a -1.9% drift ratio. However, the
peak drift (-2.2%) was reached before failure of the system. Initial plastic hinging (H2)
began with in plane torsional rotation about the weak axis (Figure 5.7.5), which caused
initial hinging (H1) in the weak axis direction. Initial in plane hinging also occurred at
the NE end of the brace. However, with further compression drifts, out of plane hinging
occurred in the SW end of the brace. The rate of out of plane hinging was reduced
Initial Brace Yield
H3
147
relative to the other specimens, and the brace remained 2 to 3 inches above the
floor. During the final compression excursion (cycle 38) the BRB hinged out of plane
until it touched the floor. The rate of stiffness reduction was much slower than in
previous specimens, as shown in Figure 5.7.3 (point 1 to point 2). The condition of
specimen components at the end of the test are shown in Figures 5.7.7 through 5.7.13.

Figure 5.7.5 Torsional BRB Rotations During Cycle 37

The torsional rotation of the BRB caused in plane twisting of the SW gusset plate as
shown in Figure 5.7.8b. The inner flange of the SW column also rolled inward a small
amount, as shown in Figure 5.7.13d. The SW beam web buckled away from the strong
floor, and the pattern of web yielding was significantly different than in other specimens
(Figures 5.7.10c and 5.7.10d). Also, the SW beam initially began deforming away from
the strong floor, and web yielding spread to the beam-to-channel assembly connection.
This deformation remained in the beam even after failure of the specimen. The
torsional rotation of the BRB also caused problems between the casing and the core
plate. During cycles 33 and 34 at -1.66% drift ratios, the NE end BRB cap plate bound
on the edge of the BRB core plate, as shown in Figure 5.7.11. By 2.09% drift ratios
(cycles 35 and 36) the casing completely bound on the core plate. At the tension peaks
of these cycles, the brace extended out of its casing only at the SW end. The casing
completely shifted to the NE end of the brace (S2) by the end of the compression
excursion of cycle 37.

BRB04 used a bearing bolt connection (after brace yield), however no yielding was
Torsional
Rotation
148
observed in the gusset plates as it was with the BRB03 gussets. Dynamic slip (BS)
of the bolts also occurred four times instead of only once. The slips occurred as
summarized below.
Initial slip (BS) occurred at the SW connection at a drift ratio of -1.66%
(cycle 33), and a lateral actuator force of -322 kips.
The second slip (BS) occurred at the SW connection at a drift ratio of -0.29%
The third slip (BS) occurred at the SW connection at a drift ratio of 1.56%
(cycle 37), and a lateral actuator force of 295 kips.
The fourth slip (BS) occurred at the NE connection at a drift ratio of -1.55%
The bolt slips are plotted in Figure 5.7.6 and noted in the force displacement response
(Figure 5.7.3). Slight bolt hole elongation occurred in the BRB and the splice plates,
but not in the gusset plates.
Figure 5.7.6 Bolt and Splice Plate Slip in BRB04

Unlike any of the other specimens, BRB04 had yielding that occurred in the around the
full penetration flange welds in the SW beam-to-column connection (Figure 5.7.7). The
149
yielding was first noticed at level Y2 after cycle 37, and spread to level Y3 after
cycle 38 (Figure 5.7.7).

Figure 5.7.7 SW Beam-to-Column Connection at End of Test

(a) Connection Damage (b) Twisting of Gusset Plate
Figure 5.7.8 SW Gusset Plate Connection at End of Test

Y3
Y3
WF
150

(a) Outside Face of Inner Flange Y4 (b) Inner Flange B2

(c) Inside Face of Inner Flange and Web
Y4
Y2
B2
151

(a) Inner Flange Y5 (b) Inner Flange B3

(c) Web Yielding (d) Web Buckling and Beam Torsion
Figure 5.7.10 SW Beam at End of Test

Figure 5.7.11 Binding of BRB Cap Plate Against Core
Y4
Y4
152

(a) Web and Inside Face of Inner Flange (b) Outside Face of Inner Flange
Figure 5.7.12 NE Beam at End of Test
(a) Outside Face of Outer Flange Y5 (b) Inside Face of Flanges and Web

(c) Outside Face of Inner Flange Y2 (d) Buckling and Rolling of Flanges
Figure 5.7.13 SW Column at End of Test
Y4
Y3
Y2
B2
Y4
Y2
Y3
153
Specimen BRB01 was nominally identical to the reference BRB, except that it was
loaded following a different deformation history. Specimen BRB01 was tested using a
different actuator than the other specimens. During the compression excursion of cycle
31, the actuators tensile capacity (brace compression) was met at a drift ratio of -0.9%,
and a force of -260 kip. For the remainder of the test the frame was loaded in the
positive direction according to the loading protocol, but could only be loaded in the
negative direction until the actuators capacity was reached. This created a very
unsymmetrical displacement history and force displacement response, as shown in
Figures 5.8.1 and 5.8.3. The force required to load the brace in compression exceeded
the capacity of the actuator in later cycles. Therefore, some of the later cycles were not
able to reach negative drifts. The frame to reached significantly higher positive drifts,
but the negative drifts only reached small magnitudes. The frame reached drift angles
of 3.3% and -0.9% prior to failure (cycles 44), and maximum loads of +306 and -260
kips. Figure 5.8.2 shows the lateral force history. Table 5.8.1 summarizes the drifts
and input forces with respect to the cycles. Figure 5.8.4 shows the elongation of the
brace during testing, and gives peak elongation values with corresponding drifts.
154


155


H2
156
(H2) occurred, after which the readings included out of plane deformation and were
deemed inaccurate.

The behavior of specimen BRB01 was nearly identical to that of the reference BRB
other than the noted difference in loading. Failure resulted from the loss in stability of
the SW beam and out of plane plastic hinging of the BRB core plate. The out of plane
hinging caused fracture of the SW beam inner flange, at the gusset-to-beam location
(Figure 5.8.5b). The mechanisms due to brace compression were less severe compared
to the other specimens. The condition of specimen components at the end of the test are
shown in Figures 5.8.5 through 5.8.9. The response of specimen BRB01 is summarized
in Tables 5.9.2 through 5.9.6.

The gusset-to-beam/column welds in specimen BRB01 were 3/4 inch, compared to the
1/2 inch welds required by design and used in the other four specimens. Because of
these oversized welds there was no weld cracking during the testing, even in the SW
connection after failure. The BRB casing did not shift as much as in the other
specimens. This is not unexpected since the compressive loads were not as high.

(a) Web and Inner Flange (b) Outside Face of Inner Flange
Figure 5.8.5 SW Beam at End of Test
Y5
B3
Y5
Fracture
157
(a) NE Gusset Plate (b) SW Gusset Plate
Figure 5.8.6 Gusset Plates at End of Test

Figure 5.8.7 SW Connection After Failure

Y2
Y2
Y3
158

(a) Outside Face of Inner Flange - Y5 (b) Flanges and Web

(a) NE Outside face of Inner Flange (b) Load Beam
Figure 5.8.9 NE Beam and North Beam at Load Beam at End of Test

Y4,B1
B2
Y3
Y3,B2
B3
159
5.9 Comparison and Summary of Response
This section compares the magnitudes of yielding and buckling among specimens, and
when they occurred. The comparisons are made at the areas of the specimen outlined in
Figure 5.2.1. Because the compressive loadings of specimen BRB01 were much
smaller than those in the other four tests, damages corresponding to brace compression
are not directly compared to the other specimens. Applicable comparisons are
highlighted (boxes drawn around drift ratios) in Tables 5.9.2 through 5.9.6. Peak drift
ratios and input forces are also directly compared in Tables 5.9.7 and 5.9.8.

Gusset-to-BRB Connection
There were low levels of damage in the gusset plate connections, and few differences
were observed. One difference was that Y2 level yielding occurred in the NE gusset
plate of specimen BRB03 before plastic hinging occurred. This yielding was most
likely caused by the bolt slip that occurred in specimen BRB03. It should be noted that
specimen BRB04 also saw bolt slip, but had no noticeable yielding in either of the
gusset plates before plastic hinging occurred. There also was in plane twisting of the
SW gusset plate in specimen BRB04 (Figure 5.7.8b), due to the torsional rotation of the
BRB discussed in Section 5.7.

BRB Hinging and Failure
The only difference in hinging of the BRBs occurred during the final cycles of the
testing of specimen BRB04. As noted in Section 5.7, the BRB initially hinged in plane
and rotated torsionally before hinging out of plane. The most noticeable difference in
the failure of specimen BRB04 was the rate at which the plastic hinge developed. In the
other specimens the stiffness degraded very quickly, the stiffness of specimen BRB04
degraded slowly and in a more controlled manner. There was no drastic force leveling
as there was in the other four specimens (Figure 5.7.3).

SW Beam
The SW beam in each specimen saw the largest levels of combined yielding and
160
buckling in both the inner flange and web. This damage in each specimen
ultimately led to failure of the systems. In all specimens, low levels of yielding would
not start until at least the mid drift range. Initial buckling (B1) would not start until at
least the late drift range. However, both yielding and buckling would increase to high
levels (Y4/Y5 and B3) during the final drift range. In fact, only level Y3 yielding and
B2 buckling would occur before the second to last set of cycles of the test. At this
point, flange/web yielding and buckling would quickly increase to high levels (Y4/Y5
and B3). At this time initial out of plane rotation of the SW beam, gusset plate, and
BRB occurred. The next set of drifts would signal the impending doom of the
specimen, as the out of plane rotation quickly increased until plastic hinging occurred.
The drift at which yielding began, and the concentration of yielding in the SW beam
web varied in some specimens. The reference specimen initially buckled (B1) at drift
ratios of 1.69%. Level B1 buckling occurred at 8.9% larger drifts for specimen BRB02,
2.4% larger drifts for specimen BRB03, 8.9% larger drifts for specimen BRB04, and
54.4% larger drifts in specimen BRB01. These patterns are proportional to the
comparison of maximum drifts (with the exception of specimen BRB01). Figure 5.9.1
compares the yielding patterns in the SW beam web of the reference BRB specimen,
specimen BRB02, and specimen BRB04. The yielding in the reference BRB specimen
was more concentrated than the yielding of specimens BRB02 and BRB04, as seen in
Figure 5.9.1. The yielding pattern in specimen BRB04 was shaped differently than the
other two specimens, and the web was also the only one to buckle away from the strong
floor, due to the rotated orientation of the BRB core. The actual shape of the yielding is
not necessarily an important consideration, but the yielding was less concentrated in
specimen BRB04 like that of specimens BRB02 andBRB03. Each of these specimens
utilized 15 degree tapered gusset plates.

161
(a) Reference BRB SW Web (b) BRB02 SW Web

(c) BRB04 SW Web
Figure 5.9.1 Comparison of Yielding in SW Beam Webs

NE Column
Yielding in the column web reached higher levels in the square gusset plate specimens
(BRB01 and Reference), than in the tapered gusset plate specimens. Web yielding
reached level Y3 and web buckling reached level B2 in the reference BRB specimen.
Web yielding reached level Y3 and web buckling reached level B1 in specimen BRB01.
Web yielding in specimens BRB02-04 reached level Y2, and web buckling did not
occur at all. There was also level Y3/B1 yielding/buckling in the outer flange of the
reference BRB specimen. Specimen BRB02 had level Y2 yielding and no buckling,
and specimen BRB03 had no yielding or buckling in the outer flange. BRB04 had level
Y1 yielding and no buckling in the outer flange.
162
SW Column
There were very few notable differences in the yielding and buckling of the SW
column. The yielding in the SW column of specimen BRB04 occurred more on the
inside faces of the flanges, than on the outside face of the inner flange. Specimen
BRB04 also had higher levels of outer flange buckling (level B2 compared to level B1
in specimen BRB02, and no buckling in the other three specimens). Specimen BRB04
also had level Y3 web yielding, whereas the other specimens had level Y1 or no web
yielding. Specimen BRB01 performance states in the SW column was obviously
different due to the low compressive loads. In fact, no noticeable yielding occurred on
the outside face of the outer flange, or in the web.

NE Beam
Mechanisms in the NE beam were minor in all specimens, compared to the NE column
and SW beam areas. Yielding in the inner flange and beam web reached higher levels
in specimen BRB04 compared to all the other specimens (Table 5.9.6).

North Beam at Load Beam End
Damage in this location varied based on when the specimen was tested. The first three
specimens tested (specimens BRB01-03) saw large amounts of damage at this location.
The final two tests (specimen BRB04 and the reference BRB specimen) saw less
damage than in specimen BRB01-03 (Table 5.9.6). The differences in the mechanisms
were caused by the quality of the specimen fit up with the testing apparatus, specifically
with the out of plane support system. After the large amounts of yielding and buckling
that occurred in specimen BRB03, extra attention was paid to this fit up, and the
remaining two specimens (specimen BRB04 and the reference specimen) had smaller
amounts of yielding and buckling.

The differences in response for each specimen are provided in Tables 5.9.2 through
5.9.6. For each specimen, the tables correspond to the performance states described in
Section 5.2. Peak drift ratio (%), peak input force (kip), and cycle numbers are
163
provided. However, the onset of the performance state did not necessarily occur at
the peak values. For later compressive drift cycles in specimen BRB01, the drifts were
small and may be listed as 0%. This is a result of the one sided loading history applied
to specimen BRB01, as described in Section 5.8. Although the drifts were small, the
compressive forces were still large enough to cause damages. Abbreviations used in
Tables 5.9.2 through 5.9.6 are defined in Table 5.9.1.

Table 5.9.1 Abbreviations Used in Tables 5.9.2 Through 5.9.6

164
T
a
b
l
e

5
.
9
.
2

T
e
s
t

C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,

B
r
a
c
e
,

a
n
d

C
o
l
u
m
n

B
a
s
e
s

165
T
a
b
l
e

5
.
9
.
3

T
e
s
t

C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s

S
W

B
e
a
m

166
T
a
b
l
e

5
.
9
.
4

T
e
s
t

C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s

N
E

C
o
l
u
m
n

167
T
a
b
l
e

5
.
9
.
5

T
e
s
t

C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s

S
W

C
o
l
u
m
n

168
T
a
b
l
e

5
.
9
.
6

T
e
s
t

C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s

N
E

B
e
a
m

a
n
d

N
o
r
t
h

B
e
a
m

a
t

L
o
a
d

B
e
a
m

E
n
d

169
Table 5.9.7 Peak Drift Ratio Comparisons

Table 5.9.8 Peak Input Force Comparisons

170
CHAPTER 6
Interpretation and Analysis of Results

6.1 Overview
The measured data was used to evaluate the performance of the components and
compare the specimens. Measurements included global response, brace response, and
connection response. First, the methods of calculating the individual responses are
described (Section 6.2). Then the results for each specimen are presented and compared
to each other to consider patterns or trends that occurred (Sections 6.3 and 6.4). Global
measures include frame drifts, peak input forces, moments and shear forces in the
framing members, total energy dissipated, and equivalent viscous damping ratios.
Measures of brace response include forces, core strains, shifting of the BRB casing, and
stresses in the casing. Connection measurements include stresses in the gusset/rib
plates, and moment rotation behavior of the shear tab connections. The material
properties of specimen components are used in the analysis and are given for review in
Table 6.1.1. The percent elongation is based on a 2 inch gauge length.

Table 6.1.1 Material Properties of Specimens

171
6.2 Calculation Methods
This section outlines the calculation methods used. The calculations in this section
commonly use
i
variables which represent the measurement recorded by the i
th

potentiometer or strain gauge. Potentiometer and strain gauge numbering, locations,
and other details are provided in Section 4.4 and Appendix D.

6.2.1 Beam/Column Moments and Shears
As described in Section 4.4, strain gauges were placed on columns and beams to
determine elastic moments and shears in the members. For purposes of moment and
shear calculations, Figure 4.4.2 was used to develop the model shown in Figure 6.2.1.
This model uses the centerlines of the framing members, and has a sign convention that
gives counter-clockwise moments a positive value.

All numerical values are given in kips and inches.

Figure 6.2.1 Model for Moment and Shear Calculations
172
Each variable s
i
in Figure 6.3.1, represents the i
th
strain gauge as numbered in Figure
4.4.2 (one strain gauge on the outside face of each flange). The term
c
w is the length of
the gusset plate edge adjacent to the column. The terms
c
d and
b
d are the depths of the
columns and beams, respectively. Using the above model and basic relations for
determining moments, the following equations can be developed (applicable to elastic
strains only, i.e.
y
< ).
xc
c
x
c
x
c
NE
EI
d
s s
EI
d
I
d
M

=
10 9

(6-1)
Similarly:
xc
c
SE
EI
d
s s
M

=
8 7
(6-2)
xc
c
NW
EI
d
s s
M

=
1 2
(6-3)
xc
c
SW
EI
d
s s
M

=
3 4
(6-4)
xb
b
Sb
EI
d
s s
M

=
6 5
(6-5)
xb
b
Nb
EI
d
s s
M

=
11 12
, (6-6)
where the
IJ
M terms are the moments (counterclockwise is positive) at the locations
shown in Figure 6.2.1, the
b xc
I
,
terms are the moments of inertia of the columns or
beams, and E is the modulus of elasticity of steel. and are the difference in
stress and strain between the outer and inner flanges (across depth) at each location. If
the strain at any location rose above the yield strain, the corresponding equation could
not be used.

Once the moments were determined, moment and shear diagrams of each column
(Figure 6.2.2) were used to determine the column shears, moments at the beam-to-
173
column shear tab connections, and moments at the gusset plate edges.

Figure 6.2.2 Column Moment Diagrams

Using Figure 6.2.1 and 6.2.2:
( )
c b EAST WEST
w d L L = = 5 . 0 16 2 144 , (6-7)
where
WEST
L and
EAST
L are the distances between column strain gauges, and the value
of 144 is the story height of the frame. The shear in each column is calculated as the
slope in the moment diagram.
EAST
NE SE
E
L
M M
V

= , (6-8)
and
WEST
NW SW
W
L
M M
V

= , (6-9)
where
W
V and
E
V are the shears in the west and east columns, respectively. The
moments shown in Figure 6.2.2 are calculated using equations 6-10 through 6-13.
+ =
2
16
b
W NW NWcorner
d
V M M (6-10)
( )
W SW SWedge
V M M 16 + = (6-11)
174
( )
E NE NEedge
V M M 16 = (6-12)
+ + =
2
16
b
E SE SEcorner
d
V M M (6-13)

6.2.2 Energy Dissipation and Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratio
Maximum drift and force values provide an initial comparison of specimen
performance, but can not ultimately be used to determine which specimens performed
better. Most of the specimens followed the same loading protocol, but actual drifts
differed from the target drifts from specimen to specimen. Because of this, the actual
total energy dissipated, may or may not be larger in specimens with larger drifts and/or
forces. To investigate the amount of energy dissipated, the area under the force
displacement curve of each cycle was estimated using trapezoidal step wise calculations
as shown in Figure 6.2.3. Using basic equations for trapezoidal areas, a single equation
can be developed that is applicable to each of the four zones and accounts for both
positive and negative areas as shown in Figure 6.2.3. The calculation is then made for
each time step throughout the test, and the individual values are summed to find the
total energy dissipated (
h
E ).
( )
i i
i i
h
F F
E
+
=
+
+
1
1
2
(6-14)
Where
i
F and
i
are the force and displacement at a time step i, and
1 + i
F and
1 + i
are
the respective values at the subsequent time step.

175

Figure 6.2.3 Idealized Single Force Displacement Curve

The energy dissipation calculation is made for the following three cases.
Total System Energy Dissipation
Using the actuator Force and the story drift.
BRB Energy Dissipation
Using the brace force from the equilibrium method described in Section
6.2.4, and the BRB elongation from potentiometer 40. (Measurement of the
brace axial elongation)
BRB and Connection Energy Dissipation
Using the brace force from the equilibrium method described in Section
6.2.4, and the frame diagonal deflection from potentiometer 41.

The equivalent viscous damping ratio (
eq
) gives the component of total energy
dissipation (
h
E ), that is due to equivalent viscous damping.
eq
is a measure of all
damping mechanisms present in the actual structure, and is essentially the ratio of the
hysteretic energy dissipation, and the energy dissipated by an equivalent single degree
of freedom, linear visco-elastic system (
so
E ).
so
E is the triangular area under the secant
stiffness of a force displacement curve, as shown in Figure 6.2.4.
176

Figure 6.2.4 Equivalent Viscous Damping Model

Since
so
E varies for the tensile (
+
so
E ) and compressive (

so
E ) peaks, their average is used
in the equivalent viscous damping calculation. For the BRBF specimens, the equivalent
viscous damping ratio (
eq
) was calculated using equation 6-15 [16].
+
=
+
2
4
so so
h
eq
E E
E
(6-15)

6.2.3 BRB Core Strains
The maximum strain demand in the brace is an important measure of the performance.
The average strain demand was calculated using brace elongation measured by a string
potentiometer (No. 40), which extended between the brace ends.
o
brace
l
40
= , (6-16)
where
brace
is the calculated brace strain. The initial length (
o
l ) is taken as the initial
core yield length (Figure 1.3.2) of the BRB. This calculation assumes that the
elongation occurs only within the core, which is a reasonable assumption since the
remaining portions of BRBs are designed to remain elastic. The string pot spans from
end to end of the brace, so it measures brace elongation only. However, this is not true
177
after out of plane deformation occurs, and the respective data and figures presented
in Section 6.3.4 only include calculated values to the point of initial BRB hinging.

6.2.4 Brace Forces
Brace axial forces were calculated using two different methods. The first method used
the brace strain calculated from the brace diagonal string pot, as described in
Section 6.2.3. This method was used while the brace remained elastic. Using the strain
a simple equation for the brace force was developed.
sc
o
sc brace sc brace
A
l
E A E A F

= = =
40
, (6-17)
where
sc
A is the cross sectional area of the steel core,
brace
is the strain in the core
element, and
o
l is the initial yield length of the BRB core. The second method used
equilibrium of the actuator force and the column shears (Figure 6.2.5) to obtain the
brace force (
brace
F ).
) 45 cos(
+ +
=
E W actuator
brace
V V F
F , (6-18)
where
actuator
F is the lateral force delivered from the actuator to the frame. This
calculation was valid while the beams and columns remained elastic at the strain gauge
locations. The two methods give similar results during elastic brace cycles, as shown in
Figure 6.2.6.

Figure 6.2.5 Free Body Diagram of Frame
F
axial

F
axial

178

Figure 6.2.6 Comparison of Brace Force Calculation Methods

6.2.5 BRB Casing Shift
The BRB casing shifted relative to the core plate during testing (Section 5.2). To
quantify the amount of shifting, a series of three potentiometers that measured brace
elongation at each end were used. The potentiometers were mounted on the brace ribs
and measured off of the brace casing, as shown in Figure 6.2.7.

Figure 6.2.7 Brace Cylinder Potentiometers

Theoretically, if the casing did not shift, the average measurement at each brace end
would be equal. Therefore, the amount of casing shift (
CS
), is calculated as the
difference of the two averaged measurements.
Cylinder
Potentiometers
3
rd
Cylinder
Potentiometer
(Hidden)
179
+ +
+ +
= =
3 3
24 10 0 38 9 1
SWavg NEavg CS
(6-19)

6.2.6 BRB Casing, Gusset Plate, and Rib Plate Stresses
Specimens BRB01 and BRB02 both used uniaxial and/or biaxial strain gauges to
measure stresses in the BRB casing, gusset plates, and rib plates. The calculations used
to determine stresses were from simple stress strain relationships as follows.
For uniaxial gauges (if stress perpendicular to surface is approximately zero):
E = (6-20)
For biaxial gauges, Hookes Law is used with Poissons ratio, 3 . 0 = :
( )
y x x
E

=
2
1
, (6-21)
and ( )
x y y
E

=
2
1
, (6-22)
with plane stress conditions and isotropic material. Specimen BRB01 had strain gauges
on each face of the BRB casing, to determine if any significant bending or pressure
stresses occurred during testing. These stresses could be caused by bending
deformations, local buckling inside the core, or even from friction between the core
plate and the surrounding concrete. Ideally, in buckling restrained braces the casing
stresses are minimal. Figure 6.2.8 shows that the stress levels in the casing of specimen
BRB01 were low.

Specimen BRB01 also used biaxial strain gauges located on the NE gusset plate. The
gusset plate strain gauges were used to estimate the forces in the connection.
Figure 6.2.9 shows the gusset plate stresses during testing of BRB01. Refer to
Figures 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 for strain gauge locations. As seen in Figure 6.2.9, the stresses
in the gusset plate remain below yield during the entire test. For most of the testing the
stresses were less than half of the nominal yield strength of the plate.

Specimen BRB02 used two biaxial strain gauges placed on both sides of the NE top rib
plate (Figure 4.4.3). These gauges were used to investigate the relative amount of
180
stresses present in the rib plate compared to those that were found in the NE gusset
plate. As seen in Figure 6.2.10, the envelopes of the rib plate stresses in the in plane
direction (14 and 16) are on average only 3-5 ksi less than those found in the NE gusset
plate. Again, stresses remained less than half of the nominal yield stress of the plate.
Stresses in the out of plane direction (13 and 16) were quite small.

Figure 6.2.8 BRB01 Casing Stresses

181

(a) East-West Direction

(b) North-South Direction
Figure 6.2.9 BRB01 NE Gusset Plate Stresses

s
y
= 50 ksi
s
y
= 50 ksi
182

Figure 6.2.10 BRB02 NE Rib Plate Stresses

6.2.7 Beam/Column Relative Rotations
Relative rotations between beams and column in the NW and SE corners were
measured using potentiometers along the inside face of each beam flange. These
instruments measured the rotation of the beam relative to the column at each shear tab
connection, as shown in Figure 6.2.11. The calculated rotations were used to quantify
the moment rotation response of the connection. Counterclockwise rotations are
considered positive following the sign convention discussed previously.

Figure 6.2.11 Beam/Column Relative Rotations
s
y
= 50 ksi
183
Using Figure 6.2.11, the SE and NW rotations (
SE
and
NW
) are calculated as
follows:
r
SE
L
28 27

= , (6-23)
and
r
NW
L
45 44

= (6-24)
Where
fb b r
t d L 2 = is the distance between the potentiometers, and
b
d and
fb
t are the
beam depth and flange thickness, respectively.

6.3 Comparison of Response
This section compares the specimen performance using the calculated measures
described in Section 6.2 and the test results of Chapter 5. Global response is discussed
first, including discussion of component contributions to stiffness and energy
dissipation. A detailed discussion of local responses measured in the brace and
connections follows.

6.3.1 Drift and Force Comparisons
The similarities and differences found in the drift ratios of each specimen (Chapter 5)
are discussed in terms of maximum range. Table 6.3.1 compares the range of drifts
experienced by each specimen.

Table 6.3.1 Comparison of Maximum Drift Range

The two identical specimens, BRB01 and the reference BRB, had nearly identical
ranges even with the drastically different loading patterns. Specimen BRB02 had the
184
largest range, which was 10.9% larger than that of the Reference BRB specimen.
Specimen BRB03 had the smallest range, which was 11.5% smaller than that of
Specimen BRB02. Specimen BRB04 had the second largest range, which was 10.1%
larger than that of specimen BRB03 and was 8.1% larger than the reference BRB range.

Lateral forces from the actuator for the specimens can be compared in the same manner
as the maximum drift ranges, as shown in Table 6.3.2.

Table 6.3.2 Comparison of Maximum Lateral Force Range

In this comparison specimen BRB01 is quite different from the other four specimens,
but the forces in the other four specimens are all very similar to one another. The range
of lateral forces were very similar for each specimen with the exception of specimen
BRB01.

The contribution of the BRBF elements to the total system stiffness is also of interest.
The components which contribute to stiffness are the BRB itself, the gusset plate
connections, and the framing elements and connections. The component contributions
were similar in each specimen, so the reference BRB is used as a representative
specimen. The portion of stiffness due to the brace was the brace elongation transposed
into the lateral direction. The portion of the stiffness due to the gusset plate connections
and frame corners (Figure 6.3.1), was the difference between the frame diagonal
elongation and brace elongation (transposed into the lateral direction). The remaining
portion of stiffness was from the framing members, which was the difference between
the total stiffness and the sum of the brace and connection stiffness. The contributions
of each component is shown in Figure 6.3.1. The plots in Figure 6.3.1 are given until
185
the plastic hinging of the BRB occurred. The figure shows the percent of the total
stiffness, with a total of 1.0. The actual system stiffness gets smaller with larger drifts.
Figure 6.3.1 Contribution of BRBF Components to System Stiffness

Simply considering the force and drift data of the specimens suggests that specimen
BRB02 performed better than the other four specimens. Specimen BRB01 showed that
higher drifts are achievable by the BRB, if stability of the connection and frame
elements can be maintained. These ranges essentially give the overall size of the force
displacement responses of each specimen. The trends in the maximum ranges can also
be seen in the final cycle force displacement responses shown in Figure 6.3.2. The
envelope for BRB01 was not included due to its highly non-symmetric behavior.

Initial Brace
Yield
Connection & Corner
186
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
.
3
.
2

F
i
n
a
l

C
y
c
l
e

F
o
r
c
e

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

187
Inspection of the final cycle force displacement responses, show that the curve for
BRB02 surrounds the other three curves. The remaining three curves are very similar,
however the unloading portions of the BRB04 curve extend past those of BRB03 and
the reference BRB. The curves of BRB03 and the reference specimen are nearly
identical.

6.3.2 Comparison of Peak Moment and Shear Forces
The moments and shear forces in the framing members were compared following the
calculations described in Section 6.2.1. Column moments were calculated at the gusset
plate free edges, and at the shear tab connections. Beam moments were calculated at
locations 15 inches from the SW gusset plate for the south beam, and 22 inches from
the NE gusset plate for the north beam (Figure 4.4.2). As noted in Section 6.2.1, only
elastic moments and shear forces were calculated. Yielding at the gauge locations
usually occurred during the late range drifts for the north beam moments, the final range
drifts for the south beam moments, the mid range drifts for the east column moments
and shears, and the late range drifts for the west column moments and shears.
Therefore, the peak values presented in this section were not the maximum forces.
Table 6.3.3 shows the theoretical yield moment (
y
M ) of the beams and columns for
each specimen, based on yield stresses in Table 6.1.1.

The following sign convention was used.
At tension peaks:
NE corner, NW corner, and south beam moments are positive. SE corner, SW
corner, and north beam moments are negative. Column shears are negative.

Table 6.3.3 Theoretical Yield Moments

188
Figure 6.3.3 compares the moments in the north beams of each specimen; all were
similar. As shown in Figure 6.3.3, the rate of moment increase in the north beam
changes after the brace yields in tension. The same phenomenon occurs when the brace
yields in compression, but is not as pronounced. These trends were also observed in the
south beams.

Both the north and south beams had larger moments during compressive drifts. This
results from larger forces needed to shorten the BRB, due to Poisson expansion of the
core and friction against the surrounding concrete. Plots and peak results of the
moments in the south and north beams for each specimen are provided in Appendix B.2.
Figure 6.3.3 - Peak Moments in North Beam Comparisons

Figure 6.3.4 shows that the column moments at the NE gusset plate edge were similar in
all specimens. The same pattern was seen in the west column at the gusset plate edge.
Plots and peak results of the moments in the NE and SW beam-to-column connections
for each specimen are provided in Appendix B.2.

189
Figure 6.3.4 Peak Moments in East Column at NE Gusset Edge

Figures 6.3.5 and 6.3.6 show the moments in the shear tab connections of each
specimen. Differences in the NW shear tab positive moments occurred at larger tensile
drifts (Figure 6.3.5), and differences in the SE shear tab positive moments occurred at
larger compressive drifts (Figure 6.3.6). Post test inspection of the bolt holes in the
beam webs (Figure 5.4.23), showed that bolt hole elongation occurred mainly in one
direction. The NW corner elongation corresponded to the rotations during tension
drifts, and the SE corner elongation corresponded to the rotations during compression
drifts. Additionally, column uplift occurred at the base of the west column during
tension drifts and east column uplift occurred during compression drifts. It is likely that
the noted differences in NW and SE connection moments are due to variations in the
severity of uplift and bolt hole elongation. Plots and peak results of the moments in the
NE and SW shear tab connections for each specimen are provided in Appendix B.2.

190
Figure 6.3.5 Peak Moments in NW Beam-to-Column Shear Tab Connections

Figure 6.3.6 - Peak Moments in SE Beam-to-Column Shear Tab Connections

Bolt Hole
Elongation and
Column Uplift
Bolt Hole
Elongation and
Column Uplift
191
The preceding discussion showed that there were significant moments at both ends
of the columns. The current design procedures treat the shear tab connections as
pinned connections, which are assumed not to transfer moments. The experimental
results show that this is not the case. Figures 6.3.7 through 6.3.10 further illustrate the
relative magnitudes of the column moments at varying drift ratios. Each figure gives a
moment diagram at a specific drift level for the east and west columns of the reference
BRB specimen, at both the tensile and compressive peaks. The actual peak drifts are
also provided.

(a) East Column Tensile Peak (b) West Column Tensile Peak
(c) East Column Compressive Peak (d) West Column Compressive Peak
Figure 6.3.7 Column Moment Diagrams at +0.14% and -0.18% Drift Ratios
(Approximately Half of Yield Drift)
192

The moment diagrams in Figure 6.3.8 are shown approximately at the yield drifts, or the
initial yield of the BRB core plate. No other performance states occurred.

193

The moment diagrams in Figure 6.3.9 are shown at approximately 2 times the yield
drift. During these drifts, level Y1 yielding occurred on the outside face of the NE
column inner flange, the outside face of the NE beam inner flange, and the outside face
of the SW column inner flange.

194

The moment diagrams in Figure 6.3.10 are shown at approximately 3 times the yield
drift. During these drifts, level Y1 yielding occurred on the outside face of the SW
beam inner flange, and the outside face of the SW column outer flange.

Figure 6.3.11 shows that the peak shears in the west column were similar for each
specimen. The same correlation was seen in the east columns. The column shear drift
response is nearly linear, with a small change in slope around the point of initial brace
yielding (approximately 0.2% drift ratio).

195
Figure 6.3.11 - Peak Shears in West Column Comparisons

The percentage of the total system lateral force (force from actuator) that is carried by
the columns is illustrated in Figure 6.3.12. Since the response of each specimen was
very similar, the averaged shear force values are shown in the figure. Plots and peak
results of the column shears for each specimen are provided in Appendix B.2. The
magnitudes of shear in the east and west columns were similar. That is, each column
carried nearly the same percentage of the total lateral force. As drifts increased, the
percentage of the total force carried by the columns increased compared to the lateral
force that was carried by the brace. The approximate initial yield drift is also noted in
Figure 6.3.12, and shows a change in shear distribution after brace yielding.

196
Figure 6.3.12 Percent of Total Lateral Force Carried by Columns

The patterns of the moments and shears do not seem to indicate any significant
differences in the distribution of member forces from specimen to specimen. However,
it is possible that differences could develop during later test cycles, since the moments
and shears were only measured while yielding and buckling of the framing elements
remained relatively minor.

6.3.3 Energy Dissipation and Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratio Comparisons
The amount of energy dissipation in a system is an important measurement of system
performance. As noted in Section 6.2.2, dissipated energy can be calculated for the
total system, the BRB only, and the BRB including the gusset plate connections. Figure
6.3.13 shows the total energy dissipated by each specimen.

197
Figure 6.3.13 Comparison of Total Energy Dissipation

The pattern of the total energy dissipation (Table 6.3.4) was similar to that seen with the
drift ranges, although the spread between BRB02 and the other BRBs was more
significant. In fact the second highest value from BRB04 was 15.2% smaller than that
of specimen BRB02. Specimen BRB02 dissipated 29.9% more energy than the
reference specimen, which had the smallest amount of energy dissipation. Specimen
BRB03 dissipated 19.4% less energy than specimen BRB02, and 4.8% more energy
than the reference BRB specimen. Specimen BRB04 dissipated the second highest
amount of energy, which was 5.2% greater than that of specimen BRB03 and 10.2%
greater than the reference BRB specimen. Even though the compression excursions of
specimen BRB01 were very small compared to the other specimens, it still dissipated
more energy than the reference BRB and BRB03 specimens, and was very close to the
amount of energy dissipated by specimen BRB04. This shows that even greater
amounts of energy could be dissipated by the systems if the framing elements can
remain stable.

198
The portion of energy dissipated by equivalent viscous damping was calculated
according to equation 6-15 for every cycle. The values were then averaged at each
deformation level as shown in Figure 6.3.14. Both the total energy dissipation (
h
E ) and
the maximum equivalent viscous damping ratio (
eq
) are given for each specimen in
Table 6.3.4.

Table 6.3.4 Total Energy Dissipated and Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratios

6.3.14 Comparison of Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratios

Equivalent viscous damping ratios for the specimens were very similar as shown in
Figure 6.3.14. The maximum damping ratio averaged 33%, compared to previous
isolated brace tests which averaged around 55% [16, 17]. The lower damping ratios are
199
reasonable because of the premature failure of the BRBs and the additional
components in the BRBFs.

The contribution of the BRBF elements to the total energy dissipation is also of interest.
After the beams and columns yielded at the strain gauge locations, the brace forces were
estimated using the procedure outlined in Section 6.3.5. Equation 6-14 was used to
calculate the energy dissipation of the BRB and gusset plate connections. Figure 6.3.15
shows the energy dissipated by the brace, brace plus connection, and total system. The
component contributions were similar in each specimen, so the reference BRB is used
as a representative specimen. The amount of energy dissipated in the gusset plate
connections is the difference between the BRB Only and BRB+Connections curves
in the figure. The amount of energy dissipated in the framing elements is the difference
between the total System and the BRB+Connections curves. The resulting
distribution is shown in Table 6.3.5. The curves in Figure 6.3.15 and the values in
Table 6.3.5 are given until the plastic hinging of the BRB occurred.
Figure 6.3.15 Distribution of Energy Dissipation

200
Table 6.3.5 Energy Dissipation in Reference BRB Components

At early drifts, nearly all of the energy was dissipated by the BRB. The curves in
Figure 6.3.15 began to separate when the framing members began to yield and buckle.
The vast majority of the total energy was dissipated in the BRB core element (82%), but
energy was also dissipated by the framing elements (16%). This is not an unreasonable
estimate based on the amount of damage that occurred in the frames. The gusset plate
connections contribute very little to energy dissipation in the system, which was
expected since they remained elastic.

6.3.4 Core Strain Comparisons
Core strains in each BRB specimen were computed as described in Section 6.2.3. Core
strain is a useful measurement for understanding the demands placed on each BRB
during the testing procedure. Previous testing of BRBs has shown strain capacities that
range from 0.025 to 0.03 in/in [5, 15, 16, 17]. Although the desired failure mechanism
of BRB core rupture was not achieved in any of the tests, strains typically reached
+0.02 and -0.03 in/in, which is similar to isolated brace tests. Figures 6.3.16 through
6.3.20 show the magnitudes of brace strain throughout the test. The peak core strain
values are summarized at peak drift ratios in Table 6.3.6. Theoretical yield strain for all
BRBs was 0.0015 in/in.

201
Table 6.3.6 Peak Core Strain Comparisons

Figure 6.3.16 Reference BRB Core Strain

202
Figure 6.3.17 BRB02 Core Strain

203

204
The cumulative plastic ductility (
CPD
) was also compared.
CPD
is a normalized
measure of the amount of inelastic deformation that occurs in the brace, and is
calculated using equation 6-25.
yield
k k
CPD
min max
= , (6-25)
where
max min,
k
are the peak strain values of the k
th
cycle with peaks above the yield
strain.
E
F
ysc
yield
= is the yield strain of the core plate and
ysc
F is the yield stress of the
steel core material (Table 6.1.1). The cumulative plastic ductilitys are provided in
Table 6.3.7.

Table 6.3.7 Maximum Strains and Cumulative Plastic Ductility

In isolated Unbonded brace tests performed at the University of California Berkley, a
similar size buckling restrained brace (P
y
=273 kips) had similar results of 324 [5]. The
cumulative plastic ductility for the reference BRB and BRB02-04 specimens follow the
same patterns as were seen in the drift ranges (Section 6.3.1). Specimen BRB02 had the
largest value of the four specimens, which was 12.3% larger than that of the Reference
BRB specimen. Specimen BRB03 had a value 12.0% smaller than that of specimen
BRB02, but was 5.7% larger than the reference BRB specimen. Specimen BRB04 had
a value that was 3.1% larger than that of specimen BRB03 and was 9.0% larger than the
reference BRB specimen. Specimen BRB01 had the largest value overall, which shows
that larger amounts of inelastic deformation are possible in the BRBs if plastic hinging
in the core plate can be avoided or delayed.

205
6.3.5 Brace Forces
As has been previously mentioned, none of the buckling restrained braces sustained
tensile rupture in the core plate. The equilibrium method (Section 6.2.4) was used to
calculate the force in the brace and to estimate how far away tensile rupture was. Using
the actual yield stress of 44.7 ksi (Table 6.1.1) gives an actual yield strength (
ysc
P ) of
214 kips. The equilibrium method could only be used until cycles 25 and 26 for the
reference BRB specimen. The peak brace axial force (
brace
P ) during these cycles was
254 kips. Using equation 3-7, that gives an approximate overstrength factor ( ) of:
19 . 1
214
254
= = =
ysc
brace
P
P
(6-26)
This occurred at actuator lateral forces of 250 and -246 kips. Since this occurred at
small drifts and lateral forces, it is of interest to estimate the brace forces through the
remainder of the test. This was accomplished by comparing the percent of the lateral
actuator force that was carried by the brace and the column shears with increasing
drifts. Figure 6.3.21 shows the percent of lateral force that was carried in the brace
during cycles 1 through 26.
Figure 6.3.21 Percent of Lateral Force Carried in BRB

206
The percent lateral forces in the brace from initial brace yield to 0.93% drift ratios
(cycles 25 and 26), were used to develop a best-fit curve (Figure 6.3.21). For later
cycles, the percent lateral force (
pct
F ) carried by the brace at a given drift, was
calculated from extrapolation of the best-fit curve. The brace axial force (
brace
P ) was
then estimated at each drift, as shown in equation 6-27.
( )
=
45 cos 100
actuator pct
brace
F F
P , (6-27)
where
actuator
F is the lateral input force from the actuator at a given drift. Equation 6-27
was used to estimate brace axial forces for the remainder of the test, as shown in
Figure 6.3.22. The plot of the calculated and estimated brace force resembles a typical
stress-strain plot with strain hardening. This method gives an estimated maximum
brace force of 327 kips, which using equation 6.26, gives an overstrength factor of 1.53.
Table 6.3.8 shows that estimation of brace forces in the other specimens were very
similar, with an average overstrength of 1.50. These values are near those found during
previous tests of isolated brace [e.g., 15, 16, 17], which averaged overstrength factors of
1.55. Therefore, it can be stated that the BRBs had significant inelastic ductility even
though tensile rupture of the core plate was not reached.
Figure 6.3.22 Brace Forces
207
Table 6.3.8 Maximum Brace Forces and Overstrength Factors

6.3.6 BRB Casing Shift Comparisons
Shifting of the BRB casing occurred during all of the tests (Chapter 5). Typically
shifting was not noticeable until the late or final range drifts, when the casing quickly
shifted to the NE end of the brace (Figure 6.3.23). Figure 6.3.23 plots the casing
movement for specimen BRB02, and gives the location of the BRB casing after each
cycle was completed (i.e., zero drift). The increase in shifting of the casing in all
specimens coincided with the observations of out of plane rotation at the SW gusset
plate connection.
Figure 6.3.23 BRB02 Location of Casing at Zero Drifts
208
6.3.7 Deformation Demands and Required Web Thickness Estimates
The discussion in Section 6.3.6 shows that the failure of the specimen was much more
likely caused by deformation demands and/or force concentrations from deformation
demands. If the maximum estimated brace force was taken from the said discussion
(327 kips), and applied to the design procedures used in Chapter 3, the beam and
column sections would be deemed adequate under web crippling and yielding limit
states. In fact, the controlling limit state of beam web crippling would not be exceeded
until the brace force reached 550 kips (strength reduction factors included).
Furthermore, even if the entire maximum actuator load (356 kips) was transferred to the
brace, the resulting maximum brace axial force would only be:
kips P 5 . 503
) 45 cos(
356
max
= = (6-28)
From this it seems that the cause of the severe buckling and yielding in the SW beam
web was not properly addressed by the current design methods. Based on the design
calculations of the gusset plates and the observations made during testing, it is
reasonable to assume that negligible deformation occurred in the gusset/rib plates.
During lower drifts, the beam and columns deformed to accommodate the deformation
of the frame. Since the gusset plate corners were very stiff as shown in Figure 6.3.24,
large local demands were placed on the beams and columns at the gusset-to-
beam/column intersections.

Figure 6.3.24 Gusset Plate and Frame Connection
209
As drifts increased, the demand at the gusset-to-beam/column intersections also
increased. When the members could no longer accommodate the local rotational and
force demands, severe flange and web yielding and buckling occurred (Figure 6.3.25).
This occurred first in the SW beam, due to its smaller resistance, larger shear forces
from the brace, and the rotational restraint imposed by its connection to the channel
assembly. However, web buckling also occurred in the NE column during final range
drifts (Chapter 5).
Figure 6.3.25 Yielding and Buckling in SW Beam

The failure mechanisms in the SW beam were always preceded by web yielding, as was
discussed in Chapter 5. Therefore it is postulated that if web yielding could be
prevented or delayed, the performance of the SW beam may be enhanced to allow
tensile rupture of the core plate.

The current design provisions [1] described in Chapter 3, determine the adequacy of the
web yielding using equation 3-64.
c wb c yb c b c b n uc ub
t F N k R H V
, , , ,
) 5 . 2 ( , + = , (3-64)
where V
ub
and H
uc
are the shear forces on the beam and column webs, derived from the
Uniform Force Method (Section 3.3.4). The ) 5 . 2 (
, , c b c b
N k + term represents the
effective yielding length over which the shear force is assumed to act (
c b
N
,
is the length
of the gusset plate edge connected to the beam/column). The forces
ub
V and
uc
H can
be calculated at the observed points of initial web yielding (Y1), using the estimated
Line of Web
Buckling
210
brace forces (Section 6.3.5) and the Uniform Force Method (equations 3-33 and 3-
34). The actual yielding length (
yactual
L ) can then be estimated by rearranging
equation 3-59 as follows.
c wb c yb
uc ub
yactual
t F
H V
L
, ,
,
= (6-29)
The ratio of the actual length to the original design length (
c b
N
,
), is calculated using
equation 6-30.
c b
yactual
N
L
,
= (6-30)
Following this procedure, the estimated yielding lengths (
yactual
L ) and ratios ( ) were
calculated for the five specimens as shown in Table 6.3.9. The actual yield stresses of
the columns and beams were used in the calculations (Table 6.1.1).

Table 6.3.9 Web Yielding Estimates

According to this estimation, the yielding lengths were significantly smaller than those
considered by current design methods. The ratios for the tapered gusset plates were
consistently larger than those for the square gusset plates, as shown in Table 6.3.9. The
values for both the SW beam and NE column webs were averaged for the tapered
and square gusset plates, as shown in Figure 6.3.26. The average value was 0.27 for
211
tapered gusset plates, and 0.21 for square gusset plates. These estimates suggest
that the tapered gusset plates give larger yielding lengths, which is consistent with the
post test observations (Section 5.9).

Figure 6.3.26 Yielding Length Ratios ( )

The yielding capacity of the webs can be estimated by using the average values ( )
and standard deviations (

), with the maximum expected brace (
max
P ) and shear
forces (
uc ub
H V , ) from design (Chapter 3).
( )( )
c wb c yb c b uc ub
t F N H V
, , ,
,

(6-31)

This preceding discussion suggests that the actual yielding lengths in the webs are
nearly 75 percent smaller than those used by the AISC provisions. However, if
equation 6-31 is used to estimate required web thicknesses, the webs must only be 10 to
15 percent larger to meet the capacity check.

212
6.3.8 Beam/Column Relative Rotation Comparisons
The moment rotation response of the shear tab connections were compared using the
moments (Section 6.2.1) and relative rotations (Section 6.2.7) The moment rotation
curves were used to calculate the stiffness of each shear tab connection. The rotation in
each specimen was similar for a given drift ratio. In general, the SE rotations at the
connection were larger than the NW connection. This was likely due to the rotational
restraint provided by the load beam to the NW connection.

Although shear tab connections are commonly treated as pinned connections in
design, Section 6.3.2 showed that there were significant moments transferred to the SE
and NW connections. The moment rotation response for the reference BRB specimen is
shown in Figures 6.3.27 and 6.3.28. The response of the NW connection was different
than the SE connection. The SE moment rotation response is influenced by the effects
of column base buckling and uplift. The moments in the SE connection were slightly
larger when the brace was in tension, but the rotations were similar in both brace
tension and compression, as shown in Figure 6.3.28. The moment rotation response of
the NW connections was fairly symmetric, as shown in Figure 6.3.27. Negative
rotations correspond to rotations that occurred during tensile loading and positive drifts,
for both the NW and SE connections. Moment rotation responses and peak rotation
values for all specimens are provided in Appendix B.4.

213
Figure 6.3.27 Reference BRB NW Connection Moment Rotation Response

Figure 6.3.28 Reference BRB SE Connection Moment Rotation Response

Brace Tension
Brace Compression
Brace Compression
Brace Tension
214
The envelopes of the moment rotation curves for each specimen are plotted in
Figures 6.3.29 and 6.3.30. The initial portions of the envelopes are flat (near the
origin), which is likely due to slip of the bolts in the slightly oversized holes. The
figures also show that the stiffness deteriorated during brace tensile loading in the NW
connection, and brace compressive loading in the SE connection. This corresponds to
the one directional elongation of the bolt holes as previously discussed.
Figure 6.3.29 NW Moment Rotation Envelopes

215
Figure 6.3.30 SE Moment Rotation Envelopes

The stiffness of each connection was found by determining best-fit lines for each
envelope, as shown in Figure 6.3.31. The figure provides a bilinear best-fit line
construction for the positive moment envelope of the SE connection (Reference BRB).
Three points were used to fit a line to the initial elastic portion of the envelope, and a
second line to the inelastic portion of the envelope. Each secant stiffness (K
ST
) was
then found by calculating the slope of each best-fit line. Table 6.3.11 lists the points
used, and the resulting secant stiffness for each connection. The sign convention is such
that NW connection stiffness values are negative.

216
Figure 6.3.31 Moment Rotation Best-Fit Lines

The average elastic secant stiffness value (K
STe
) for all connections was 5.7x10
5
kip-in.
The average inelastic secant stiffness value (K
STi
) for all connections was 1.5x10
5
.
These values are similar to previous research results on shear tab connections [22].
Table 6.3.11 shows that the inelastic portion of the stiffness is always greater during
brace tensile loading. The inelastic portion of the stiffness in the NW connection was
always greater during compressive loading.

217
Table 6.3.11 Shear Tab Connection Stiffness Values

6.4 Summary of Specimen Performance
The comparisons of the preceding sections can be summarized in terms of overall
specimen performance. The moments and shears within the beams and columns, and
the amount of beam/column relative rotations were very similar between each specimen
and were mainly dependant on the drift ratios. The lateral input force ranges also varied
very little from specimen to specimen, and the equivalent viscous damping ratios were
similar. This essentially leaves the drift ranges, cumulative plastic ductility of the core
plates, and the total energy dissipated as the best estimates of overall specimen
performance. The patterns discussed in the previous sections suggest that the overall
218
performance of specimen BRB02 was better than that of the other specimens. Table
6.4.1 shows that BRB02 had the largest range of drifts and forces, the largest
cumulative plastic ductility (other than BRB01), and significantly greater total energy
dissipation. BRB04 consistently performed below BRB02, but better than the other
BRB specimens. The reference BRB and BRB03 had similar results in all
measurements. Although BRB01 underwent a very different loading history than the
other BRBs, its performance was quite comparable. BRB01 was able to sustain very
large positive drifts and had a very large amount of cumulative plastic ductility in the
BRB. BRB01 is a good indication of the potential BRBFs have if the desired failure
mechanism can be reached in the BRB before the surrounding frame deterioration
becomes to great.

Table 6.4.1 Performance Summary

219
CHAPTER 7
Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Summary
Buckling restrained braced frames provide excellent balanced inelastic ductility and
energy dissipation. Because BRBFs are a relatively new structural system, very few
experimental tests have been done that address the complete system performance.
Furthermore, understanding of the performance of BRB connections and how they
affect overall system performance is quite limited. In this study, five full-scale BRBFs
were tested using identical Nippon Steel Unbonded Brace type BRBs. All BRBs had
220 kip nominal yield capacities with flat core plate cross sections. Core material was
JIS SN400B steel (46 ksi nominal, 44.7 ksi actual), with a core area of 4.77 in
2
.
Variations in shape of the gusset plates, the type of bolted connection (slip-critical or
bearing), and orientation of the BRB cross section were made in four of the five
specimens. The fifth specimen was loaded under a different displacement history than
that of the other four specimens.

The BRBFs were tested under a step-wise increasing slow cyclic loading protocol,
based on ATC-24 [4] and SAC Steel Project [24] guidelines. Test results for the
various specimens varied, but in general the BRBFs exhibited a full, balanced hysteretic
behavior with an average of +2.3% and -2.2% story drift ratios, an average dissipated
energy of 18700 k-in, an average equivalent viscous damping ratio of 0.33, and an
average cumulative plastic ductility of 360. The desired failure mode of BRBF systems
is tensile rupture of the brace core plate; however none of the specimens reached this
failure mode. The frames experienced severe yielding and buckling of the beams and
columns adjacent to the gusset plates, which eventually led to an out of plane rotation of
the SW beam flange and web. At larger compressive drift ratios, the out of plane
rotation of the SW beam lead to a nearly rigid body, out of plane rotation of the SW
gusset plate. This introduced an eccentricity into SW end of the BRB which placed
220
large out of plane deformation demands on the BRB, and resulted in out of plane
plastic rotations of the BRB core plate. The out of plane rotations made it difficult for
the core plate to shorten back into the BRB casing, and instead began to shift the casing
to the NE end of the brace. The shifting of the casing resulted in loss of confinement
around the SW end of the core plate, which further facilitated the out of plane rotations,
ultimately leading to plastic hinging in the core plate at the termination of the stiffening
ribs. Plastic hinging continued without any increase in load until the BRB casing
touched the strong floor and testing was halted.

The following paragraphs summarize each specimen and their response.

The reference BRB specimen used bolted slip-critical BRB-to-gusset connections with
square gusset plates and extended rib stiffeners. The connection was made by splice
plates and ten 1 inch diameter A490 bolts as was detailed in Figure 3.4.2. The gusset
plate was welded to the beam and column using fillet welds. The reference BRB
underwent drift ratios with a maximum range of 4.22%. Hysteretic behavior contained
symmetrical and full hysteresis curves with 16873 kip-inches of energy dissipation and
an equivalent viscous damping ratio of 0.34. Maximum core strains of +0.021 and
-0.031 were measured in the BRB, with a cumulative plastic ductility of 333. Test
details and results were provided in Section 5.4.

Specimen BRB02 was identical to the reference BRB specimen, except that it used 15
degree tapered gusset plates as was detailed in Figure 3.6.1. Specimen BRB02
underwent drift ratios with a maximum range of 4.68%. Hysteretic behavior contained
symmetrical and full hysteresis curves with 21875 k-in of energy dissipation and an
equivalent viscous damping ratio of 0.33. Maximum core strains of +0.023 and -0.031
were measured in the BRB, with a cumulative plastic ductility of 374. Test details and
results were provided in Section 5.6.

221
Specimen BRB03 was identical to specimen BRB02 except that it used a bearing
bolt BRB-to-gusset connection rather than a slip-critical connection. The bearing bolt
connection was controlled by the shear and bearing capacities of the bolts against the
maximum expected brace force, and therefore required only eight bolts per connection.
The geometry of the connection was detailed in Figure 3.7.1. The bolts were partially
tensioned to resist slip until the BRB began to yield. Specimen BRB03 underwent drift
ratios with a maximum range of 4.14%. Hysteretic behavior contained symmetrical and
full hysteresis curves with 17641 k-in of energy dissipation and an equivalent viscous
damping ratio of 0.32. Maximum core strains of +0.019 and -0.029 were measured in
the BRB, with a cumulative plastic ductility of 352. Test details and results were
provided in Section 5.6.

Specimen BRB04 was identical to specimen BRB03 except that the orientation of the
buckling restrained brace was rotated 90 degrees about its local axis, so that out of plane
rotation coincided with the strong axis of the core plate (Figure 3.8.1). The geometry of
the connection is identical to that of BRB03 as was detailed in Figure 3.7.1. The bolts
were again partially tensioned so that slip would not occur until initial yielding of the
core plate. BRB04 underwent drift ratios with a maximum range of 4.56 radians.
Hysteretic behavior contained symmetrical and full hysteresis curves with 18555 k-in of
energy dissipation and an equivalent viscous damping ratio of 0.35. Maximum core
strains of +0.024 and -0.029 were measured in the BRB, with a cumulative plastic
ductility of 363. Failure occurred according to the description provided in the initial
paragraph of this section, except for the following differences. The BRB initially began
to hinge in plane and torsionally rotate during late cycles. This only occurred briefly
until the same out of plane hinging occurred that was present in the other specimens.
The rate at which the plastic hinge developed and the input force leveled off was much
more slow and controlled than it was in the other specimens. This is shown in the
hysterisis curves for specimen BRB04 (Figure 5.7.3). Test details and results were
provided in Section 5.7.

222
The design of specimen BRB01 was identical to that of the reference BRB
specimen, and was shown in Figure 3.4.2. Specimen BRB01 had a very unsymmetrical
loading history due to reaching the negative capacity of the actuator. This occurred at a
drift ratio of -0.90% and a force of -260 kip. During the remainder of the test, the frame
was loaded in the positive direction according to the loading protocol, but could only be
loaded in the negative direction until the actuators capacity was reached. Due to frame
damage, the amount of force required to return the frame back to the zero point of
displacement became larger and larger as the test progressed. Eventually the magnitude
of this force exceeded the capacity of the actuator, and some later cycles never entered
the negative drift region. The unsymmetrical loading history allowed for the frame to
reach significantly higher positive drifts, but the negative drifts maxed out at very small
magnitudes and got smaller as the testing progressed However, specimen BRB01
underwent comparable drift ratios with a maximum range of 4.20%. Hysteretic
behavior contained full but unsymmetrical hysteresis curves with 18508 k-in of energy
dissipation and an equivalent viscous damping ratio of 0.32. Maximum core strains of
+0.034 and -0.011 were measured in the BRB, with a cumulative plastic ductility of
377. Failure of BRB01 was identical to the failures of the reference BRB, BRB02 and
BRB03 specimens except that it also included the fracture of the SW beam inner flange
as the brace was undergoing plastic hinging. Test details and results were provided in
Section 5.8.

7.2 Failure Mode
The undesirable failure mode of BRB core plate plastic hinging was found to be an
effect of deformation demands and/or force concentrations resulting from the
deformation demands placed on the frame (Section 6.3.7). Total forces in the gusset
plates were shown to be quite small compared to their capacities. According to the
current AISC web yielding and buckling equations, these forces should not have lead to
the damages in the beam web. Section 6.3.7 showed that the web shear forces were
distributed along a much shorter length than the connected length of the gusset plate.
The results of testing show that the localized demands on the beam web at the free edge
223
of the gusset plate could not be met by the beam. However, it should also be noted
that these demands were compounded by the connection of the south beam to the
channel assembly. This connection further restrained the beam so that rotational
demands had to be met by the short length between the free edge of the gusset plate and
the channel assembly connection. However, the same problems in the SW beam would
still most likely occur at higher drifts. This is evident since the same problems began to
develop in the NE gusset-to-column connections. The column flanges had already
buckled severely, and the web buckling was increasing quickly at later drifts. This
occurred even though the column flanges and webs were much less slender than those
of the beams. Because these problems are related to deformation demands, increasing
flexibility and deformation capacity in the gusset plate corners of the frames seems like
the best solution.

7.3 Effects of Mildly Tapered Gusset Plates (BRB02, BRB03, BRB04)
Initial buckling of the SW beam webs occurred at larger drifts in the specimens which
used tapered gusset plates. This is of interest because the buckling of the beam web
would signal the impending failure of each BRB. Post test inspections of the SW beam
webs revealed more concentrated yielding patterns in the square gusset plate specimens
than in the tapered gusset plate specimens (Figure 5.9.1). The additional free beam
length between the channel assembly connection and the edge of the tapered gusset
plates supplied the beams with less deformation restriction, thereby spreading the
yielding along greater lengths and ultimately postponing failure for a short while. Low
levels of web yielding in the NE column occurred in the tapered gusset plate specimens,
and web buckling did not take place at all. In the square gusset plate specimens web
yielding reached higher levels, and web buckling was present in the NE column. The
direct comparison of specimen BRB02 to the reference BRB specimen shows that the
delayed and less localized frame damage lead to a higher maximum drift range,
cumulative plastic ductility, and total energy dissipation in specimen BRB02
(Table 6.4.1). Tapering of the gusset plates is by no means a complete solution,
especially since premature failure of the BRB still occurred. However, results tend to
224
support the idea of increasing flexibility around the gusset plate connection to allow
for better rotational deformation capacity of the framing elements and overall system
ductility.

7.4 Effects of Bearing Bolt Connections (BRB03, BRB04)
The idea behind using bearing bolt connections was to reduce the required amount of
labor used in making the connection, while maintaining the same level of performance.
The bearing connections behaved differently than expected, in that they had few
instantaneous dynamic slips. As noted earlier, the bolts were partially tensioned to slip
around the yield force of the BRB. Theoretically, once the slip capacity of the bolts was
exceeded the bolts should have continued to dynamically slip near the same load each
time. Specimen BRB03 only slipped in this manner once at the initial threshold force of
the bolts. For the remainder of the test slow slippage was only noticeable from review
of the potentiometer data, which showed that the magnitude of slow slip grew smaller
and smaller as the test progressed. In specimen BRB04, the bolts dynamically slipped a
total of four times, but unlike specimen BRB03 the slip did not reduce in magnitude.
The bolt slip in specimen BRB03 caused low levels of yielding in the NE gusset plate,
but no gusset plate yielding occurred in specimen BRB04. In terms of system
performance, specimen BRB03 did not perform as well as specimen BRB02. Specimen
BRB03 sustained a smaller drift range, cumulative plastic ductility, and much less total
energy dissipated than BRB02 (Table 6.4.1). These results tend to suggest that the
bearing connection lead to reduced performance of the BRBF. However, there was no
indication of additional damage caused by the bolt slip. As the bolts slipped, the force
displacement response showed a small reduction in force, but quickly rebounded.
Therefore, it would be premature to state that bearing bolts reduce performance.

7.5 Effects of Orientation of BRB Core Plate (BRB04)
The out of plane hinging that occurred in all of the BRBs, did so against the weak axis
of the core plate. Rotation of the BRB cross section caused the out of plane
deformation to act against the strong axis of the core plate. The question was not
225
whether the BRB would resist the out of plane hinging more, it was how much the
increased rotational resistance would improve the performance of the brace. The
rotated BRB did not drastically change the magnitude of damage that occurred in the
frame, but it did change the locations of some of the damages. The rotated cross section
in specimen BRB04 resisted out of plane rotation more than in the other specimens.
Because of the increased out of plane resistance, out of plane deformation in the SW
beam caused the core plate to hinge in plane against its weak axis. However, the in
plane stiffness of the gusset plate connection did not allow more than small amounts of
this deformation. The BRB eventually formed a plastic hinge about its strong axis,
although the rate of formation was much slower and more controlled; thus the failure
mode was less sudden. Because of this specimen BRB04 had larger a maximum drift
range, cumulative plastic ductility, and total energy dissipated than specimen BRB03.
As was shown in Figure 5.7.3, the strength reduction in specimen BRB04 occurred very
slowly and did not plateau until after two to three inches of additional frame drift. In
the other BRBFs, the strength plateau occurred almost instantly after very little
additional frame drift.

7.6 Displacement History of BRB01
The unsymmetrical loading of specimen BRB01 discussed in Section 5.8, provided a
useful measure of the effects of different deformation histories. The maximum drift
range of specimen BRB01 was comparable to the other specimens, and it showed that
the buckling restrained braces should be able to undergo even larger deformations than
were seen in the other tests. Specimen BRB01 had a higher cumulative plastic ductility
in the BRB core plate than the other four specimens. Because the compressive forces
remained small relative to the other tests, the eccentricity introduced into the SW
connection by the out of plane rotation of the SW beam was less detrimental. This
shows the importance of maintaining integrity of the frame, so that the full inelastic
deformation capability of the BRB can be utilized. It also shows that the overall system
performance was hindered more by the frame than by any other element of the
specimen.
226
7.7 Recommendations for BRBF Connections
Although further research is needed to gain a complete understanding of the
performance of BRB connections, this research has demonstrated some important
things. The extreme stiffness that can occur in BRBF connections can lead to serious
restrictions of the deformation capacity of the frame. The typical practice of matching
the gusset plate thickness to the core plate thickness may ease constructability, but its
performance effects definitely need consideration. Furthermore, while isolated
buckling restrained brace tests have shown BRBs can tolerate significant but controlled
end rotations, full scale system testing has shown that BRBs do not survive unstable,
out of plane gusset plate and frame deformation. If weaknesses exist in the gusset plate
and framing elements, eccentric loading of the stiff BRBs can increase the demands on
the already strained connection elements, more so than a flexible brace would. The
importance of maintaining a flexible yet stable connection is apparent. This was shown
with even the small reduction of the restraint that occurred with the use of the tapered
gusset plates. However, as shown in other BRBF testing, excessive flexibility which
causes gusset plate buckling must also be avoided.

7.8 Recommendations for Future BRBF Testing
The testing done thus far has been valuable in determining the weaknesses possible in
BRBF systems, and has lead to some ideas for partial improvement of system
performance. Further research is needed to determine solutions to the deterioration that
can develop in the framing elements. Additional research is also needed to further
understand the effects of connection elements and how they affect overall system
performance. These investigations can then lead to development of balance equations
for use in the proposed performance based design methodology discussed in
Section 3.5. The following considerations are of interest for further study.

1) From the discussions in this report it was shown that the critical location during
testing was in the SW beam web. Damage at this location lead directly to failure in
each of the five specimens. Although the primary cause of this was from
227
deformation and force incompatibility between the gusset plate and the beam,
the boundary conditions of the test apparatus compounded the problem. The shear
transfer connection in the south beam to the channel assembly placed the demands
along a short length of the beam (approximately 5 feet of free length between the
gusset edge and shear transfer connection). For future testing, the shear transfer
connection should be relocated further away from the SW gusset plate to increase
the free length of the beam. This will allow better evaluation of the beam web and
connection performance.

2) From the estimates made in Section 6.3.5 it seems that the BRBs in each specimen
were not far away from tensile rupture of the core plate. Therefore, a small
stiffening of the beam web may be enough to keep the beam web stable until the
core plate were able to rupture. Web doubler plates could strengthen the beam
enough to allow core plate rupture, without adversely affecting the deformation
capacity much. The web thickness estimates in Section 6.3.7 also support this idea.
According to the calculations done, a inch doubler plate could significantly
reduce the damage in the SW beam. At the very least, this modification would be
useful in further studying the effect of the beam web thickness to system
performance.

3) Increasing flexibility and allowing controlled yielding of the gusset plate is
desirable. Using a thinner gusset plate could help to increase the deformation
capability of the beams and columns, and help to reduce the localized demands at
the gusset-to-beam/column intersections. However, previous BRBF tests have
shown problems with gusset plate buckling. Providing a gusset plate with too little
out of plane stiffness (buckling capacity) would lead to gusset plate buckling and/or
hinging of the BRB. It is necessary to find a balance between an overly stiff BRB
connection and an overly flexible BRB connection. A proper balance of these two
considerations, in combination with proper design of the remaining BRBF elements,
should lead to optimized performance of BRBFs. Because of the rib plates, the
228
gusset plate would need to be made quite thin according to the Whitmore
yielding criteria discussed in Chapter 3. In fact, the Whitmore method suggests that
a 3/8 gusset would have to be used with 1/4 rib plates. However, these
calculations may be conservative, and yielding may be able to occur if slightly
thinner gusset plates were used. For example, specimen saw mild gusset plate
yielding even with the 3/4 gusset and rib plates. From this is seems possible that
slightly thinner gusset plates may in fact yield, and may be a method of dealing with
the force and deformation incompatibilities between the gusset plates and the webs.

4) With the increased performance that was seen using the moderate 15 degree tapered
gusset plate, it would be desirable do evaluate the effect of a tapered gusset plate
with a greater taper degree. Use of the larger taper with a slightly reduced gusset
plate thickness could allow some yielding and increase flexibility in the gusset plate
and frame connections.

5) The use of bearing connections (with initial tensioning to the yield force of the
brace) should be investigated more in future testing. Although the results of
specimen BRB03 seemed to indicate reduced performance with bearing bolted
connections, the indications may in fact be misunderstood. The dynamic fluctuation
in loading that occurred when the bolted connections slipped, could have simply
compounded the problems in the SW beam and gusset plate. When the SW corner
became unstable, the added effect of the bolt slippage or even slow movement could
have added to the problem. In a BRBF which does not experience such extreme
frame degradation, the effects of bolt slippage may be minimal or non existent.
Additionally, there was negligible increase in damage to the specimens which used
bearing bolts. The force displacement responses showed only insignificant effects
from the bearing bolts as well. The reduced labor cost implications of using bearing
bolt connections are too great to throw the idea away without further investigation.

229
6) The relative movement of the casing and the BRB core (shifting) was believed
to occur due to the out of plane deformations of the SW gusset plate and BRB end.
However, initial shifting occurred with small out of plane deformations which are
possible even if the SW beam damage was not so severe. The shifting of the casing
leaves a longer unrestrained length and therefore less resistance against hinging.
The use of a shear key or pin at the center of the brace may be advantageous, and
help guard against development of a plastic hinge in the BRB.
230
List of References

1. AISC (2001) Manual of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor
Design, 3
rd
Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.

2. AISC (2002) Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago IL.

3. Astaneh-Asl, A. (1998) Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates, Steel
Tips, Structural Steel Educational Council.

4. ATC 24 (1992) Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of Components of Steel
Structures, Applied Technology Council.

5. Black, C., Makris, N., Aiken, I. (2002) Component Testing, Stability Analysis
and Characterization of Buckling-Restrained Unbonded Braces, PEER
Report 2002/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkley, CA.

6. Clark, P., Kasai, K., Kimura, I., and Ko, E. Design Procedures for Buildings
Incorporating Hysteretic Damping Devices, Retrieved March 8, 2004, from
http://www.siecorp.com/braces/

7. Fahnestock, L.A., Sause, R., and Ricles, J.M. (2003) Analytical and
Experimental Studies on Buckling Restrained Braced Composite Frames,
Proceedings of International Workshop on Steel and Concrete Composite
Construction, Taipei, Taiwan, pages 177-188.

8. FEMA 350 (2000) Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel
Moment-Frame Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.

9. FEMA 355C (2000) State of the Art Report on Systems Performance of Steel
Moment Frames Subject to Earthquake Ground Shaking, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

10. FEMA (2000) NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings and Other Structures Part I: Provisions, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

11. Gunnarson, I.R. (2004) Numerical Performance Evaluation of Braced Frame
Systems, MS Thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Washington, WA.
231
12. Johnson, S.M. (2005) Improved Seismic Performance of Special
Concentrically Braced Frames, MS Thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Washington, WA.

13. Ko, E. and Field, C. The Unbonded Brace: From research to Californian
Practice, ARUP. Retrieved April 24, 2005, from http://www.arup.com/

14. Lai, J.W. and Tsai, K.C. (2004) Research and Application of Buckling
Restrained Braces in Taiwan, Proceedings of 2004 ANCER Meeting:
Networking of Young Earthquake Engineering Researchers and Professionals,
Honolulu, Hawaii. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/outreach/intActivity/ANCER/

15. Merritt, S., Uang, C.M. and Benzoni, G. (2003) Subassemblage Testing of
CoreBrace Buckling-Restrained Braces, Report No. TR-2003/01, University of
California, San Diego, CA.

16. Merritt, S., Uang, C.M. and Benzoni, G. (2003) Subassemblage Testing of Star
Seismic Buckling-Restrained Braces, Report No. TR-2003/04, University of

17. Merritt, S., Uang, C.M. and Benzoni, G. (2003) Uniaxial Testing of Associated
Bracing Buckling-Restrained Braces, Report No. TR-2003/05, University of

18. Roeder, C.W. (2000) State of the Art Report Connection Performance,
FEMA 355D, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

19. Roeder, C.W. (2002) Connection Performance for Seismic Design of Steel
Moment Frames, ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 4,
pages 517-25.

20. Roeder, C.W., Lehman, D.E., and Yoo, J.H. Improved Seismic Design of Steel
Frame Connections, International Journal of Steel Structures, to appear.

21. Roeder, C.W. and Lehman, D.E. Performance-Based Design of Concentrically
Braced Frames, Research Project Proposal to National Science Foundation,
CMS-0301792.

22. Roeder, C.W., MacRae, G., Leland, A., and Rospo, A. (2003) Extending the
Fatigue Life of Riveted Coped Stringer Connections, Journal of Bridge
Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1, pages 69-76.

232
23. Sabelli, R., Mahin, S., and Chang, C. Seismic Demands on Steel Braced
Frame Buildings with Buckling-Restrained Braces, Retrieved March 9, 2004,
from http://nisee.berkeley.edu/library/

24. SAC (1997) Protocol for Fabrication, Inspection, Testing, and Documentation
of Beam-Column Connection Tests and Other Experimental Specimens, Report
No. SAC/BD-97/02, SAC Joint Venture.

25. SEAOC-AISC (2003) Recommended Provisions for Buckling-Restrained
Braced Frames, Structural Engineers Association of California and American
Institute of Steel Construction.

26. SEOC (2000) SEOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC), Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.

27. Thornton, W.A. (1984) "Bracing Connections for Heavy Construction,
Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 21, No. 3, pages 139-148.

28. Tsai, K.C., Lin, M.L., Chen C.H., and Hsiao, P.C. (2004) Performance
Evaluation Tests of a Full-Scale Buckling Restrained Braced Frame,
Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Nanjing University of Technology, China, Ch.4, Paper #26.

29. Uriz, P., Summary of Full-Scale Braced Frame Test Using Buckling-Restrained
Braces, UCB2002-Test 1, Retrieved October 28, 2003, from
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~patxi/



32. Watanabe, A. (1989) Properties of Brace Encased in Buckling-Restrained
Concrete and Steel Tube, Proceedings of Ninth World conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. IV, pages 719-724, Paper 6-7-4.

33. Whitmore, R.E. (1952) "Experimental Investigation of Stresses in Gusset
Plates, Bulletin No. 16, Engineering Experiment Station, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.

233
34. Yoo, J.H. "Analytical Investigation on the Behavior of Braced Frames"
Department of Civil Engineering,University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, Expected June, 2006.
234
APPENDIX A
Specimen Design and Detail Drawings

A.1 Reference Specimen and BRB Connection Design
All plate steel is A572 grade 50(F
yp
=46 ksi and F
up
=58 ksi). BRB steel is F
ysc
=46 ksi
and F
usc
=58 ksi.

Definitions (Also see Appendix A.2):
P
max
= 352.19kips P
ysc
= P
max
/1.6 = 220.12 k P
slip
= 286.2
S
e
= 2.0 S
c
= 4.0 S
h
= 7.0(from geometry of brace and splice plates)
= 1.0625 (standard holes) t
br
= t
g
= t
w
=0.75 " 11 ) 2 ( 2 7 = + =
brace
w = 45
b

Determine diameter and number of bolts Try 1 diameter A490:

n
r = 33 kips/bolt
= = 7 . 8
33
2 . 286
b
n use (10)-1dia. A490 bolts
force per bolt = kips 2 . 35
10
2 . 352
=
Check Bearing:
adequate k k F dt r
usc br n
= = = 2 . 35 3 . 78 ) 58 )( 75 . 0 )( 1 )( 4 . 2 )( 75 . 0 ( 4 . 2
Check Tearthrough:

usc c n
tF L r 2 . 1 = and =
c c
S L , so adequate k k r
n
= 2 . 35 115
Check Tearout:

usc c n
tF L r 2 . 1 = and 5 . 0 =
c c
n
= 2 . 35 5 . 57
Check yield on gross:
adequate k k R
n
= = 2 . 352 505 ) 75 . 0 ) 0625 . 1 )( 2 ( 11 )( 2 )( 75 . 0 )( 50 ( 9 . 0
Check fracture on net:
adequate k k R
n
= = 2 . 352 530 ) 75 . 0 ) 0625 . 1 )( 2 ( 11 )( 2 )( 75 . 0 )( 65 ( 75 . 0
235
A.1.1 Splice Plate Calculations
Since S
e
= 2 try w
s
= 4 and try t
s
= 0.5, check yield on gross:
) 8 )( 5 . 0 )( 0625 . 1 4 )( 50 ( 9 . 0 =
n
R adequate k k = 2 . 352 529
) 8 )( 5 . 0 )( 0625 . 1 4 )( 65 ( 75 . 0 =
n
R adequate k k = 2 . 352 573
Check block shear:
3 HOLE 2 HOLE
c e gv
S S a 2 + =
s gt
W a 5 . 0 =
c gv
S a 2 =
s gt
e a 5 . 0 =
5 . 2 =
gv nv
a a 5 . 0 =
gt nt
a a 5 . 1 =
gv nv
a a 5 . 0 =
gt nt
a a

Figure A.2.1 Splice Plates

Total
| |
2
36 ) 2 ( 4 ) 2 ( 4 in S S S t A
c c e s gv
= + + =
2
16 ) 5 . 0 ( 8 in t W A
s s gt
= =
| |
2
5 . 27 ) 5 . 1 ( 4 ) 5 . 2 ( 4 in t A A
s gv nv
= =
2
9 . 13 ) 5 . 0 ( 8 in t A A
s gt nt
= =
Therefore,
n
R is the lesser of:
| | kips A F A F
nt up gv yp
1487 6 . 0 = + (Shear Yield/Tensile Fracture)
| | kips A F A F
gt yp nv up
1404 6 . 0 = + (Shear Fracture/Tensile Yield)
| | kips A F A F
nt up nv up
1480 6 . 0 = + (Shear Fracture/Tensile Fracture)
adequate kips kips R
n
= 2 . 352 1404

236
A.1.2 Gusset and Rib Plate Calculations
Uniform Force Method:
Based on bolt hole geometry try " 9 . 20 =
b
w
" 1 . 17 3 . 12 1 . 16 9 . 20 = + =
c
w

Yielding by Whitmores Method:
From the geometry of the connection:
" 48 . 3
1
= l " 91 . 8
2
= l " 79 . 0
3
= l
" 11 75 . 0 ) 125 . 5 ( 2 = + =
ww
b and " 875 . 8 ) 0625 . 1 ( 2 11 = =
e wweffectiv
b
" 24 . 16 ) 4 )( 2 )( 30 tan( 2 7 = + =
w
b and " 11 . 14 ) 0625 . 1 ( 2 24 . 16 = =
weffective
b
| | adequate k k Rn = + = 2 . 352 776 ) 50 )( 75 . 0 )( 875 . 8 ( ) 50 )( 75 . 0 )( 11 . 14 ( 9 . 0

Buckling Method 1:

29000
) 50 ( 12
) 75 . 0 (
) 9 . 6 )( 5 . 0 (
=
t
= 0.211 < 1.5
kips P
cr
2 . 751 ) 50 )( 75 . 0 )( 41 . 20 ( 658 . 0
2
) 211 (.
= =
adequate k k R
n
= = 2 . 352 6 . 638 ) 2 . 751 ( 85 . 0
Buckling Method 2:
" 4 . 4
3
8 . 0 9 . 8 5 . 3
; 9 . 8 min =
|
.
|
\
| + +
=
t
l

2
87 . 19 ) 11 )( 75 . 0 ( ) 75 . 0 24 . 16 )( 75 . 0 ( in A
t
= + =
5 . 1 13 . 0
29000
) 50 ( 12
) 75 . 0 (
) 4 . 4 )( 5 . 0 (
= =
t

kips P
cr
8 . 985 ) 50 )( 87 . 19 ( 658 . 0
2
) 13 . 0 (
= =
adequate k k R
n
= = 2 . 352 838 ) 8 . 985 ( 85 . 0
Buckling Method 3:
2
18 . 12 ) 24 . 16 )( 75 . 0 ( in A
t
= = and again, " 4 . 4 =
t
l
237
5 . 1 13 . 0
29000
) 50 ( 12
) 75 . 0 (
) 4 . 4 )( 5 . 0 (
= =
t

kips P
cr
3 . 604 ) 50 )( 18 . 12 ( 658 . 0
2
) 13 . 0 (
= =
adequate k k R
n
= = 2 . 352 7 . 513 ) 3 . 604 ( 85 . 0
Method 4 (Modified Thornton Method):

29000
) 50 ( 12
) 75 . 0 (
) 9 . 6 )( 5 . 0 (
=
t
= 0.211 < 1.5
" 52 . 16
4
=
mt
b , so kips P
cr
9 . 607 ) 50 )( 75 . 0 )( 52 . 16 ( 658 . 0
2
) 211 (.
= =
adequate k k R
n
= = 2 . 352 7 . 516 ) 9 . 607 ( 85 . 0

Bolt bearing, tearout, and tearthrough are adequate by inspection since the brace has an
equivalent thickness, and smaller yield and ultimate strengths compared to gusset/rib
and splice plates. Bolt shear is adequate by inspection.

A.1.3 Gusset-to-Beam/Column Weld Calculations
Weld Method 1:
" 48 . 23 ) 05 . 8 55 . 8 ( ) 15 . 6 45 . 10 (
2 2
= + + + = r
k V
uc
3 . 128 2 . 352
48 . 23
55 . 8
= = and k H
uc
3 . 92 2 . 352
48 . 23
15 . 6
= =
k V
ub
8 . 120 2 . 352
48 . 23
05 . 8
= = and k H
ub
8 . 156 2 . 352
48 . 23
45 . 10
= =
k P
uc
158 ) 3 . 92 ( ) 3 . 128 (
2 2
= + = and =
|
.
|
\
|
=

7 . 35
3 . 128
3 . 92
tan
1
c

k P
ub
9 . 197 ) 8 . 156 ( ) 8 . 120 (
2 2
= + = and =
|
.
|
\
|
=

6 . 37
8 . 156
8 . 120
tan
1
bm

Gusset-to-Beam:
61 . 3 =
b
C 1
1
= C
98 . 2
) 5 . 2 9 . 20 )( 1 )( 61 . 3 (
9 . 197
=

b
D , so " " 26 . 0
16
98 . 2
4 . 1
16
5
use s
b
=
|
.
|
\
|
=
238
Check Minimum Weld:
Max joined thickness = 0.75,
4
1
min
=
b
s
Therefore use 5/16 welds.
Check Base Metal Strengths (Beam flange controls):
welds b ub fb n
w F t R )# 5 . 2 ( 6 . 0 =
adequate k R
n
= = 2 . 608 ) 2 )( 5 . 2 9 . 20 )( 65 )( 565 . 0 )( 6 . 0 )( 75 . 0 (
Gusset-to-Column:
61 . 3 =
c
C 1
1
= C
0 . 3
) 5 . 2 1 . 17 )( 1 )( 61 . 3 (
158
=

c
D , so " " 262 . 0
16
0 . 3
4 . 1
16
5
use s
c
=
|
.
|
\
|
=
Minimum welds and base metal adequate by inspection.

Weld Method 2:

ub ub uc uc
H V H V , , , as computed above in method 1
k P
ub
5 . 277 8 . 120 8 . 156 = + = , k P
uc
5 . 220 3 . 128 3 . 92 = + = and = 0
,b c

" 474 . 0
) 2 ( 707 . 0 ) 5 . 2 9 . 20 )( 70 )( 6 . 0 )( 75 . 0 (
5 . 277
4 . 1
2
1
use s
b
=

" 475 . 0
) 2 ( 707 . 0 ) 5 . 2 1 . 17 )( 70 )( 6 . 0 )( 75 . 0 (
5 . 220
4 . 1
2
1
use s
c
=

Minimum welds and base metal strengths are identical to method 1, therefore adequate.

Weld Method 3:
" 344 . 1 ) 45 cos( ) 15 . 6 05 . 8 ( = =
x
X , " 39 . 7 ) 45 cos( ) 45 . 10 ( = =
b
X , and
" 39 . 7 344 . 1 ) 45 cos( ) 55 . 8 ( = + =
c
X

39 . 7
) 344 . 1 39 . 7 (
=
b
c
F
F and k F F
c b
2 . 352 = +
Solving the two above equations simultaneously:
k F
b
7 . 193 = and k F
c
5 . 158 =
239
k F
cx
1 . 112 ) 45 cos( ) 5 . 158 ( = = and k F
cy
1 . 112 ) 45 sin( ) 5 . 158 ( = =
k F
bx
0 . 137 ) 45 cos( ) 7 . 193 ( = = and k F
by
0 . 137 ) 45 sin( ) 7 . 193 ( = =
k P
uc
2 . 224 1 . 112 1 . 112 = + = and = 0
c

k P
ub
274 137 137 = + = and = 0
c

" 468 . 0
) 2 ( 707 . 0 ) 5 . 2 9 . 20 )( 70 )( 6 . 0 )( 75 . 0 (
0 . 274
4 . 1
2
1
use s
b
=

" 483 . 0
) 2 ( 707 . 0 ) 5 . 2 1 . 17 )( 70 )( 6 . 0 )( 75 . 0 (
2 . 224
4 . 1
2
1
use s
c
=

Minimum welds and base metal strengths are identical to methods 1 and 2, and
therefore adequate.

A.1.4 Rib-to-Gusset Weld Calculations
E71T-8 electrode ksi F
exx
70 =
" 252 . 0
) 4 )( 707 . 0 )( 1 12 )( 70 )( 6 . 0 )( 75 . 0 (
2 . 352
4 . 1 =
w
s
Check minimum weld:
Max joined thickness = 0.75,
4
1
min
=
w
s

A.2 Beam-to-Column Connection Design
W12x72 Column W16x45 Beam
d
c
= 12.3 d
b
= 16.1
b
fc
= 12.0 b
fb
= 7.04
t
fc
= 0.670 t
fb
= 0.565
t
wc
= 0.430 t
wb
= 0.345
k
c
= 1.270 k
b
= 0.967
Z
x
= 82.3 in
3

240
A.2.1 WFWW Calculations (Gusset Plate Corners):
) 9 . 20 ( 5 . 0 ) 77 . 120 ( =
wfww
M =1262 k-in
and by summing moments and horizontal forces: H
ft
= 78.4 k and H
fb
= 78.4 k

Beam web shear capacity:
" 97 . 12 ) 0 . 1 ( 2 ) 565 . 0 ( 2 1 . 16 = =
web
l
inadequate k k R
n
< = = 77 . 120 67 . 100 ) 50 )( 97 . 12 )( 345 . 0 )( 6 . 0 ( 75 . 0
However, if the erection tab (See Figure 3.4.3) is fillet welded to the beam, the
additional capacity will be sufficient.

Beam flange tensile capacity:
adequate k k R
n
> = = 4 . 78 179 ) 50 )( 04 . 7 )( 565 . 0 ( 9 . 0

Beam and Column Web Checks:
From Methods 1,2, and 3 the maximum shear forces are:
k F
by
0 . 137 = , and k F
cx
1 . 112 =
Beam Web Yielding:
adequate k k R
n
= + = 0 . 137 402 ) 345 . 0 )( 50 ]( 9 . 20 ) 967 . 0 ( 5 . 2 [ 9 . 0
Beam Web Crippling:
345 . 0
) 565 . 0 )( 50 )( 29000 (
565 . 0
345 . 0
2 . 0
1 . 16
) 5 . 1 9 . 20 ( 4
1 ) 345 . 0 )( 40 . 0 )( 85 . 0 (
5 . 1
2
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|

+ =
n
R
adequate k k R
n
= 0 . 137 1 . 235
Column Web Yielding:
adequate k k R
n
= + = 1 . 112 9 . 435 ) 430 . 0 )( 50 ]( 1 . 17 ) 27 . 1 ( 5 . 2 [ 9 . 0
Column Web Crippling:
430 . 0
) 670 . 0 )( 50 )( 29000 (
670 . 0
430 . 0
2 . 0
3 . 12
) 5 . 1 1 . 17 ( 4
1 ) 430 . 0 )( 40 . 0 )( 85 . 0 (
5 . 1
2
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|

+ =
n
R
adequate k k R
n
= 1 . 112 3 . 321
241

A.2.2 Shear Tab Calculations (Opposite Gusset Plate Corners)
) 3 . 82 )( 50 ( =
pb
M = 4115 k-in
7 . 92
) 4155 ( 5 . 1
=
pb
V = 66.6 kips

From Table 10-9 with: (4) dia. A490X bolts w/ std holes
13x4.5x0.375 shear tab
5/16 tab-to-column flange welds (both sides)
adequate k k R
n
= 6 . 66 8 . 69

Check bearing on beam web:
kips dtF R
ub n
3 . 30 ) 65 )( 345 . 0 )( 75 . 0 )( 4 . 2 )( 75 . 0 ( 4 . 2 = = =
from AISC Table 7-12, each bolt has a bearing capacity, OK kips r
n
= 9 . 24

Check bolt tearout on beam web:
OK k k tF L R
ub c n
= = = 9 . 24 5 . 84 ) 65 )( 345 . 0 )( * 5 . 0 5 . 2 )( 4 . 2 )( 75 . 0 ( 4 . 2
16
13

Check plate bending:
) 5 . 2 )( 6 . 66 ( =
plate
M = 166.5 k-in

6
) 50 ( ) 5 . 13 )( 375 . 0 )( 9 . 0 (
2
=
n
R = 475 k-in > 166.5 adequate

A.3 BRB03 Connection Calculations
Determine diameter and number of bolts Try 1 diameter A490 in shear:

n
r = 88.4 kips/bolt
= = 98 . 3
4 . 88
2 . 352
b
n can use (4) bolts, but very close
force per bolt = kips 05 . 88
4
2 . 352
=
Brace controls bolt hole limit states
242
Check Bearing:
inadequate k k F dt r
usc br n
< = = = 05 . 88 3 . 78 ) 58 )( 75 . 0 )( 1 )( 4 . 2 )( 75 . 0 ( 4 . 2
Try 5 bolts force per bolt = adequate k kips < = 3 . 78 44 . 70
5
2 . 352

Check Tearthrough:

usc c n
tF L r 2 . 1 = and =
c c
n
= 44 . 70 115
Check Tearout:

usc c n
tF L r 2 . 1 = and 5 . 0 =
c c
S L , so inadequate k k r
n
< = 44 . 70 5 . 57
Try 7 bolts force per bolt = adequate k kips < = 5 . 57 3 . 50
7
2 . 352

Check yield on gross:
adequate k k R
n
= = 2 . 352 505 ) 75 . 0 ) 0625 . 1 )( 2 ( 11 )( 2 )( 75 . 0 )( 50 ( 9 . 0
adequate k k R
n
= = 2 . 352 530 ) 75 . 0 ) 0625 . 1 )( 2 ( 11 )( 2 )( 75 . 0 )( 65 ( 75 . 0

So we need at least (7) - 1 diameter A490 bolts for the bearing connection

A.4 Specimen Detail Drawings
The drawings on the following pages contain the detail drawings for each of the five
BRBF specimens. The specimens each used identical frames, BRBs, splice plates, and
rib plates.

243

Figure A.4.1 Specimen Layout
244

Figure A.4.2 Reference BRB and BRB01 Connection Detail

245

Figure A.4.3 Reference BRB and BRB01 Gusset Plates

246

Figure A.4.4 BRB02 Connection Detail

247

Figure A.4.5 BRB02, BRB03, and BRB04 Gusset Plates

248


249


250
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
.
4
.
8

B
R
B

D
e
t
a
i
l

(
C
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

N
i
p
p
o
n

S
t
e
e
l
)

S
E
E

D
E
T
A
I
L

H

F
O
R

C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N

D
E
T
A
I
L
S

B
R
B

D
E
T
A
I
L
S

G

251

Figure A.4.9 BRB Connection Details

252

Figure A.4.10 Splice Plates and Rib Plate Details

253

Figure A.4.11 Specimen Frame Detail

254

Figure A.4.12 Shear Tab Detail

Figure A.4.13 Welded-Flange-Welded-Web and Erection Tab Detail
255
APPENDIX B
Analysis Details

B.1 Material Tests
Material tests were done for all BRBF components as shown in Table B.1.1. Testing
was done by Northwest Laboratories of Seattle, Inc.

Table B.1.1 Material Test Results

B.2 Additional Analysis Details
This section provides additional details, plots, and tables that were omitted from the
main document in the Chapter 6 analysis. The initial step of data analysis was to reduce
the data recorded during the tests. Data was recorded continuously during the tests,
including all pauses in between cycles and at certain peaks. An example of the frame
raw drift data from the reference BRB specimen is shown in Figure B.2.1.
256

Figure B.2.1 Plot of Unreduced Drift Data

The plateaus that arose from the testing pauses were filtered out based on percent
difference calculations for both the actuator force and frame drift data. The peak
pauses, and the majority of the pauses between cycles, were filtered out based on the
following criteria. The percent difference was checked against both the preceding and
following data points, that is:
diff
i
i i
%
1
<

(B-1) and diff
i
i i
%
1
<

(B-2)
If both of the above statements were true, then the drift reading was tentatively marked
for deletion with a 0. Identical checks were then made for the actuator force readings
from the actuator load cell.
diff
F
F F
i
i i
%
1
<

(B-3) and diff
F
F F
i
i i
%
1
<
+
(B-4)

If both of the above statements were true, then the force reading was tentatively marked
for deletion with a 0. Finally, to determine if all data points for a certain time step were
to be deleted, the tentative deletions were reviewed. If
i
,
1 + i
,
i
F , and
1 + i
F were all
257
marked as 0, then data for the entire time stepi , was deleted. Both the current time
step and the following time step were used to determine deletion in order to avoid loss
of minimum and maximum peak values. The data had a tendency to slowly level off at
these peaks, so the percent difference method would have ended up eliminating the
peaks if this measure was not taken. The minimum allowable percent difference values
used in data reduction ended up being 1.5%. This value was chosen based on the trial
and error of several different percent difference values. Values from 0.5% to 5% were
used, and then resulting data was reviewed to determine adequacy. Smaller values did
not eliminate all of the plateaus in the data. Larger values eliminated data points that
were at the positive and negative peaks and near zero. The 1.5% value cased no
elimination of peak data while filtering out a large amount of the plateaus.

After this initial data elimination, some plateaus near the zero points still existed
because large percentage variation is possible even with small numerical changes at
these zero points. Therefore, the drifts were used simply to ensure that points where
forces leveled but drifts increased, would not be deleted. These drifts were filtered as
follows.
1 . 0 <
i
(B-5) and diff
i
i i
%
1
<

(B-6)
Again, if both of the above statements were true, then the drift reading was tentatively
marked for deletion with a 0. The drift was initially checked against the 0.1 inch value
to remain focused only on non-peak values. The percent difference was then checked
using a smaller allowable percent difference of 0.1%. For the filtering of the actuator
forces, a lager percent difference was used in the equation below.
diff
F
F F
i
i i
%
1
<

(B-7)
A 5% difference was determined appropriate for this step of data reduction because it
eliminated the stubborn low value plateau areas. Again, if
i
,
1 + i
,
i
F , and
1 + i
F were all
marked as 0, then data for the entire time step, i , was deleted.

258
Once the pauses were eliminated from the data, any outliers that existed were
removed. Outliers were uncommon, but occurred occasionally as seen in Figure B.2.1.
These outliers were simply removed on a point by point basis, if there were extreme and
unreasonable jumps in the data collection devices. During testing of all BRB
specimens, the pumps used to control the actuator were exchanged later in the test.
When this was done, residual hydraulic pressure variations caused changes in the
applied load, while the displacement was nearly constant. The data during this time was
simply removed. Following these procedures the data files were reduced to 25 to 35
percent of the original size. For the reference BRB, the raw drift data of Figure B.2.1
was reduced as shown in Figure B.2.2 below.

Figure B.2.2 Plot of Reduced Drift Data

Reduced data was then analyzed as discussed in Chapter 6 of this document. Beam and
column moments and shears were calculated as discussed in Section 6.2.1. These are
plotted for each specimen in the following figures. Figures B.2.3 through B.2.7 show
the north and south beam moments for each specimen. Figures B.2.8 through B.2.12
show the east column moments for each specimen. Figures B.2.13 through B.2.17 show
the west column moments for each specimen. Figures B.2.18 through B.2.22 show the
column shears for all specimens. Peak results are given in Tables B.2.1 through B.2.8.
These figures and tables are given here for comparison purposes, but observations and
patterns are summarized in Section 6.3.2.
259
Figure B.2.3 Reference BRB Beam Moments

Figure B.2.4 BRB02 Beam Moments
260

261
Figure B.2.7 - BRB01 Beam Moments

Figure B.2.8 Reference BRB East Column Moments

262
Figure B.2.9 BRB02 East Column Moments

263


264
Figure B.2.13 Reference BRB West Column Moments

Figure B.2.14 BRB02 West Column Moments

265

266

Figure B.2.18 Reference BRB Column Shears
267
Figure B.2.19 BRB02 Column Shears

268


269
Table B.2.1 North Beam Moments Peak Results

Table B.2.2 South Beam Moments Peak Results

270
Table B.2.3 NE Edge Column Moments Peak Results

Table B.2.4 SW Edge Column Moments Peak Results

271
Table B.2.5 NW Beam-to-Column Connection Moments Peak Results

Table B.2.6 SE Beam-to-Column Connection Moments Peak Results

272
Table B.2.7 East Column Shears Peak Results

Table B.2.8 West Column Shears Peak Results

273
B.3 Force Displacement Discontinuities Due to Casing Shift
The following supports the statements made in Section 5.2.1, on the effect of casing
shift in the force displacement response. Figures B.3.1 through B.3.3 show that the
drops in force coincide with leveling of the rate of elongation of the brace, as well as
drops in the plot of casing shift. Positive shifts correspond to movement towards the
NE end of the brace. The drops in Figure B.3.1c signify that the casing suddenly moves
back towards the SW end. This phenomena was evident in the hysteretic behavior of all
five specimens.

Figure B.3.1 Force Displacement Response with Dips

Figure B.3.2 - Brace Elongation at Selected Locations
274
C
a
s
i
n
g

S
h
i
f
t

(
i
n
)

Figure B.3.3 - Plot of Casing Shift

B.4 Beam-to-Column Relative Rotations
The shear tab connection moment rotation responses were discussed is Section 6.3.8.
Additional details are provided in this section. Tables B.4.1 and B.4.2 show the peak
relative rotations for both the SE and NW shear tab connections at increasing drift
ratios. Figures B.4.1 through B.4.10 plot the moment rotation response of the shear tab
connections for each specimen.

275
Table B.4.1 SE Beam-to-Column Relative Rotation Comparisons

Table B.4.2 NW Beam-to-Column Relative Rotation Comparisons

276
Figure B.4.1 Reference BRB NW Moment-Rotation Curves

Figure B.4.2 Reference BRB SE Moment-Rotation Curves
277
Figure B.4.3 BRB02 NW Moment-Rotation Curves

Figure B.4.4 BRB02 SE Moment-Rotation Curves

278

279


280


281
F
i
g
u
r
e

C
.
1
.
1

T
e
s
t

S
e
t
u
p

P
l
a
n

APPENDIX C
Test Apparatus Detail Drawings

282
F
i
g
u
r
e

C
.
1
.
2

T
e
s
t

S
e
t
u
p

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

283
Figure C.1.3 Channel Assembly Shear Connection Detail

Figure C.1.4 Channel Assembly Shear Connection Section
284
F
i
g
u
r
e

C
.
1
.
5

C
h
a
n
n
e
l

A
s
s
e
m
b
l
y

R
o
d

a
n
d

B
o
l
t

L
a
y
o
u
t

285
F
i
g
u
r
e

C
.
1
.
6

K
i
c
k
e
r

P
l
a
t
e

D
e
t
a
i
l
s

286

Figure C.1.7 Load Beam Details
287

Figure C.1.8 Swivel Head and Swivel Washer Details
288
F
i
g
u
r
e

C
.
1
.
9

A
c
t
u
a
t
o
r

D
e
t
a
i
l
s

289

Figure C.1.10 Reaction Block Details

290

Figure C.1.11 Column Cap Plate Detail

Figure C.1.12 Channel Assembly Rod Anchor Details
291

Figure C.1.13 Actuator Adapter Plate Detail

292
APPENDIX D
Instrumentation Details

D.1 Instrumentation Details
1

Methods of instrumentation were described in Section 4.4 of this document. This
section provides additional details of instrumentation including descriptions of what the
instruments measured and how they measured it, detailed locations of the instruments,
and notes on inconsistencies or loss of instruments during testing. Any changes made
to instrumentation configurations are also provided. Figures 4.4.1 through 4.4.5 should
be used for potentiometer (hereby referred to as pots or devices) numbering and
relative dimensions. As needed, figures and tables are provided to indicate the location
of each instrument for each specimen. The pot numbers in the figures are for the
reference BRB specimen. Changes in pot numbering for other tests are as noted in
Table 4.4.2.

Pots used to measure the NW and SE shear connection rotations were spaced as shown
in Figure D.1.1 in all specimens. These devices were attached to the beam flange using
hot glue. An example of these devices is illustrated in Figure D.1.2.

Figure D.1.1 Beam/Column Relative Rotation Devices

1

293

Figure D.1.2 Beam/Column Relative Rotation Devices

Devices connected to channels 14, 21, 35, and 49, were used to measure out-of-plane
movement of the frame corners. All devices, with the exception of device 49, were
located at the beam and column centerline intersection points. Device 49 was located
along the column centerline out from the base the dimension shown in Figure D.1.4.
The exact dimension is given in the instrumentation location tables for each specimen
test later in this section. The device was moved to allow placement of a W-section that
was used to prevent the SW corner from sliding down. In order to accommodate the
movement of the frame at the north end devices 14 and 35 rested against a shelf with a
sheet of stainless steel. The surface was lubricated with silicon grease to reduce friction
and allow frame movement without disturbing the device. An example of these types of
devices is shown in Figure D.1.3.

Figure D.1.3 - Frame Corner Out-of-Plane Device
Devices

294
Device 30 was used to measure any slip of the channel assembly relative to the wall.
Device 29 and 48 were used to measure any uplift of the columns relative to the channel
assembly. Devices 42 and 47 were used to measure any uplift of the channel assembly
relative to the strong wall. Devices 43 and 50 were used to measure slip of the column
relative to the channel assembly. Device 46 was used to measure the lateral slip of the
frame relative to the column assembly. The in plane locations of these devices are
shown in Figure D.1.4, and the out of plane locations of these devices are shown in
Figure D.1.5. For exact locations of the devices with variable distances are given in the
instrumentation location tables for each test later in this section. An example of the
column uplift devices is shown in Figure D.1.6.
Figure D.1.4 Channel Assembly and Column Device Locations

Figure D.1.5 Out of Plane Locations

295

Figure D.1.6 - Column Uplift Measurement Device

Device 36 was used to measure frame translation and was located at the east column
face of the east column at the beam center line for all specimens as shown in Figure
4.4.4. This device rested against a piece of polished lubricated steel to allow for
movement of the frame without disturbing the device. Figure D.1.7 shows how this
device was used.

Figure D.1.7 - Frame Translation Device 36

Device 22 was used to measure the slip of the load beam relative to the specimen. The
application of this device is shown in Figure D.1.8. The device was centered vertically
on the north beam flange for all tests.

296

Figure D.1.8 - Load Beam Slip Device

Devices 51 and 52 were used to measure movement of the reaction block relative to the
strong floor. Device 34 measure the movement of the actuator relative to the reaction
block. The locations of these devices are shown in Figure 4.4.1. Device 34 was located
at the top of the actuator parallel to the centerline of the actuator.

In order to measure out-of-plane displacement of the BRB, string pots 53 and 54 were
added for all specimens but BRB01. The two instruments were attached perpendicular
to each other at the midspan of the brace. String pot 54 was oriented parallel to the
frame translation and string pot 53 was oriented perpendicular to the strong floor. This
was done in order to triangulate the measured displacement of the two devices. This
was needed in order to calculate the true out-of-plane motion due to the fact that frame
translation would affect the out-of-plane measurement recorded by string pot 53. The
two devices were attached using "music" wire by tap screwing into the bottom of the
BRB casing at the midspan of the brace. Figure D.1.9 shows the string pots in a
buckling brace specimen. These string pots were located and attached identically for
BRB specimens.

297

Figure D.1.9 - Brace Out-of-Plane Measurement Devices

String Pot 40 was used to measure brace elongation, and string pot 41 was used to
measure the change in length along the frame diagonal. These devices were attached to
both ends of the brace using music wire as shown in Figure D.1.10.

(a) Brace Length String Pot 40 (b) Frame Diagonal String Pot 41
Figure D.1.10 Brace and Frame Diagonal Elongation Measurement Devices
Start
End
End

298
Devices 2, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20 were used to measure beam and column rotations at the
gusset plate edge, as shown in Figures 4.4.4 and 4.4.5. These figures also show the
locations of the devices along the beam and columns. The out of plane locations are
dimensioned in Figure D.1.11, and the exact locations for each test are given in the
instrumentation location tables located later in this section. An example of how beam
and column rotations were measured is shown in Figure D.1.12.

Figure D.1.11 - Beam and Column Rotation Out of Plane Locations

Figure D.1.12 - Column Rotation Device Example

299
The rotation of the brace relative to the gusset plate was measure using the devices
shown in Figure D.1.13. Also shown in this figure are the devices used to measure
brace torsion. The application of the devices is shown in Figure D.1.14. Devices 10 and
24 on the top rib of the brace were used to measure out-of-plane rotations relative to the
gusset plate, and were oriented parallel to the centerline of the brace. Devices 0, 24, 1,
and 9 on the side ribs of the brace were used to measure in plane rotations relative to the
gusset plate, and were oriented parallel to the centerline of the brace. The out of plane
locations of these devices are also shown in Figure D.1.13, and exact dimensions are
given in the instrumentation tables located later in this section. Dimensions are taken to
the center of the potentiometers.

Figure D.1.13 - Brace Rotation Devices

300

Figure D.1.14 Example of Brace Rotation and Torsion Devices

Out-of-plane rotations of the gusset plate were measured using the devices shown in
Figures 4.4.4 and 4.4.5. The numbering of these devices changed according to Table
4.4.2 for each test. These devices rested directly against the underside of each gusset
plate. The devices on the SW end were secured to the strong floor, whereas the devices
on the NE gusset were supported by a platform which moved with the frame. The
application of these devices is shown in Figure D.1.15. The exact locations of these
devices are given in the instrumentation location tables later in this section.

(a) NE Gusset Shelf Mounted (b) SW Gusset Floor Mounted
Figure D.1.15 - Gusset Plate Out-of-Plane Devices
12
1
38
9

301
The following paragraphs give the exact locations of the pre-described devices,
according to the dimensions in Figures D.1.1 through D.1.15. Additional notes on
instrumentation are also given for each specimen test.

Exact locations for the reference BRB devices were as shown in Table D.1.1. Pots not
dimensioned explicitly have the locations as previously described.

Table D.1.1 Reference BRB Instrumentation Locations

For use with inspection of data, the following is a description of any jumps or
inconsistencies that occurred in the instrumentation.
Pot 15 was not functioning at the start of the test and was removed prior to
testing.
Pot 32 was removed after returning to zero from the peak of cycle 35, and may
have been fully depressed prior to removal.
Pots 9, 38, and 1 were removed after the casing shifted completely to the NE

302
end during the compression excursion of cycle 35. These pots were fully
depressed at this point.
Pots 0, 10, and 24 were fully extended with about a 1 inch gap at the tension
peak of cycle 36.
Pots 4, 40, 41, 53, and 54 were removed during the compression excursion of
cycle 36 to avoid damaging them.

Exact locations for the BRB02 devices were as shown in Table D.1.2. Pots not
dimensioned explicitly have the locations as previously described. Refer to Table 4.4.2
for variances in pot locations. All dimensions from the gusset-to-beam/column
intersections are applicable to the tapered gusset plates as well.

Table D.1.2 BRB02 Instrumentation Locations

For use with inspection of data, the following is a description of any jumps or other
inaccuracies that may have occurred in the instrumentation during testing.

303
Pots 12 and 32 slipped off of their resting plates, and were removed during
cycles 29 and 30.
Pot 7 was found rotated during cycles 29 and 30. The pot was fixed, but data
prior to these cycles is inaccurate.
Pots 1, 9, and 38 were fully depressed by the shifted BRB casing during cycles
37 and 38, and were thus removed.
Pots 0, 10, and 24 were removed after being fully extended at the peak tensile
drift of cycle 39.
Pots 40, 41, 53, 54, 5, 14, and 15 were removed during the compression
excursion of cycle 39 to avoid damaging them.



304
For use with the inspection of data, the following is a description of any jumps or
inconsistencies that may have occurred in the instrumentation during testing.
Pot 12 was removed after bolt slippage knocked off the plate that the pot rested
against. This occurred during cycle 28.
The piano wire connected to Pot 40 was bumped during cycle 24. The resulting
jump in the data was removed.
Pot 21 was fully depressed during cycles 27 and 28, and was removed.
Pots 0, 10, 24, 40, 41, 53, 54, 5, 32, and 15 were removed during the
compression excursion of cycle 39 to avoid damaging them.



305
inconsistencies that may have occurred in the instrumentation during testing.
The data recording system stopped between the valley of cycle 33, and shortly
into the tension excursion of cycle 34, as discussed in Section 5.6.7.
Pot 2 was accidentally disconnected between cycle 22 and the start of cycle 23.
Pots 13 and 3 became unattached after bolt slip occurred during the compression
excursion of cycle 34, and were left unattached thereafter.
Pots 15 and 12 were removed during the compression excursion of cycle 35.
Pot 0 was fully extended at the tensile peak of cycle 36, with approximately a
1/8 inch gap to its plate.
Pot 31 began to fall off after bolt slip during the tension excursion of cycle 37.
It was reattached and was reading 0.6 before readjustment.
Pots 0, 10, and 24 were fully extended at the tension peak of cycle 37, with
approximately a 0.5 inch gap to their plates.
Pot 32 was removed during the compression excursion of cycle 37 because it
was nearly depressed the entire way.
Pots 1, 9, 38, and 22 were removed during the compression excursion of cycle
37 to avoid damaging them.
Pots 0, 10, 24, 40, 41, 53, 54, and 5 were also removed during the compression
excursion of cycle 37 to avoid damaging them.


306

inaccuracies that may have occurred in the instrumentation during testing.
Pot 38 stuck during cycle 28, and was repaired afterwards. Corresponding data
during this period was ignored.
Pot 2 was pushed outward by the buckling of the SW beam flange. This
occurred around cycles 40 and 41.
Pots 0, 10, and 24 were fully extended during cycle 44. Data was corrected
accordingly.
Pot 22 fell off of the north beam sometime during the test.
Readings from pots 1, 9, 38, 0, 10, 24, 40, 41, 53, and 54 were inaccurate during
the compression excursion of cycle 44.
Strain Gauge 29 was not reading during the entire test.

Adam Christopulos Thesis (BRB Reference-BRB04)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adam Christopulos Thesis (BRB Reference-BRB04)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improved Seismic Performance of

Buckling Restrained Braced Frames

= , (inelastic buckling) (3-27b)

You might also like