Performance of Medium-Rise

Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame

Under Near Field Earthquakes

Ahmad Fayeq Ghowsi and Dipti Ranjan Sahoo

Abstract Buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs) are generally used as lateral

load-resisting systems in the seismically active regions. The better energy dissi-
pation capacity and the absence of compressive buckling behaviour of braces in
make the BRBFs a preferred alternative over the conventional concentrically braced
frames. Most of the past studies focussed on the performance of BRBFs under the
far-field earthquakes and concluded that BRBFs may suffer from the larger post-
earthquake residual drift as compared to the other systems. This behaviour may be
amplified in case of the near-fault earthquakes where long-period pulses and high-
frequency contents. In this study, the seismic performance of a medium-rise
building of 9-storey has been carried out analytically using SAP2000. The study
frame has been designed as per the current seismic code AISC 341-2010 provisions.
Forty near-fault ground motions are considered in the nonlinear dynamic (time-hi
storey) analysis. The main parameters investigated are inter storey drift response,
residual drift response, sequence of hinge formations, and behaviour of beams and
columns. The effect of brace configurations, i.e., Chevron and Split-X, are also
studied under the same near-fault ground motions.

Keywords Split-X
Chevron
Braces
SAC
Near-filed
Earthquake

Interstorey Drift

A.F. Ghowsi (&)
D.R. Sahoo

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi,
New Delhi, India
e-mail: faieq.ghowsi@gmail.com
D.R. Sahoo
e-mail: drsahoo@civil.iitd.ac.in

© Springer India 2015 841

V. Matsagar (ed.), Advances in Structural Engineering,
DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-2193-7_66
842 A.F. Ghowsi and D.R. Sahoo

1 Introduction

Buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs) are usually used in active seismic

regions for the purpose of lateral load resistance on the structure. Figure 1a shows
the different components of a BRB element. Steel core plates of BRBs are separated
by unbounded material from the restening parts and/or outer core, the yield of
BRBs while tension and compression resulted in symmetric hysteretic response,
high ductility level, and excellent energy dissipation as shown in Fig. 1b. A number
of tests has been conducted by previous researcher for the component as well as the
system level for seismic performance of BRBFs (e.g., [1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18,
19]). The main parameters which has been studied are the displacement ductility
and cumulative displacement ductility, energy dissipation potential, compression
over-strength and strain-hardening factors, detailing of non-yielding segments and
the end connections of BRBs. The type of beam-to-column connections has a
visible impact on the seismic response of BRBFs [8, 9, 12].
Beam-to-column connections type can arrange with different braced configura-
tions and also BRB can be arranged in single-diagonal, Chevron (inverted-V) or
Double- storey-X configurations. A recent study by Ghowsi and Sahoo [10] con-
cluded that Double- storey-X configuration of BRBs resulted in the relatively larger
post-earthquake residual drift response of BRBFs as compared to those in Chevron
configuration. Further, a huge studies have been done on seismic response of
BRBFs far-field ground motions, but very limited studies carry out on the perfor-
mance of BRBFs under the near-field ground motions (e.g. [4, 16]). The near-fault
earthquakes has long period of pulses which can cause to permanent displacements
of ground. The effect of such ground motions still not known to the international
codes [3]. As the BRBFs recommendation is for the seismic active zone which can
carry high load capacity [4]. Hereby, the near-fault ground motions can cause
extensive structural damages as compared to the far-fault ground motions. Hence,
there is a need of further study to investigate the performance of BRBFs under near-
fault earthquakes.
In this study, the effect of brace configurations on the overall seismic response of
a medium-rise BRBF under the near-field ground motions has been analytically
evaluated. The main objective of this study is investigation of near fault earthquakes
response of BRBFs equipped with both Chevron and Double- storey-X BRBs.
Nonlinear dynamic analyses are carried out under the selected near-fault seismic
excitations to understand the structural and ground motion characteristics that
influence their seismic behavior of BRBFs. Inter- storey drift and residual- storey
drift developed to investigation design of BRBFs under near fault ground motions.
Performance of Medium-Rise Buckling-Restrained … 843

Fig. 1 a Components of an
unbounded BRB [5]; b typical
hysteretic response of BRBs
under cyclic loading [14]

2 Modeling of Study Frames

A nine-storey steel building has been designed and considered as the study building
in which the braced bays are lied on the exterior perimeters. The total height of the
building is 32.31 m with a typical storey height of 3.51 m, except the first storey
which has 4.27 m height. The building has been redesigned as per current code. The
actual building geometry has been adopted from the seven storey which has been
844 A.F. Ghowsi and D.R. Sahoo

Fig. 2 a Plan view of the

study building; b elevation of
BRBFs considered in this
study

designed elsewhere [13]. The braced bay (of width 9.15 m) along the wide of the
building is considered as the study frame. Two types of brace configurations (i.e.,
Chevron and Double-X), designed as per ASCE/SEI 7-10 [3] provisions. Figure 2
shows the details of the study frame considered in this study. In order to study the
effect of brace configurations, same structural sections are used as beams and
columns in all BRBFs. All sections satisfy the seismic design requirements as per
ANSI/AISC 341-05 [2] provisions. The beam to column connections has been
considered to be rigid.
The nonlinear dynamic analysis has been done by computer software SAP2000
[7]. The beams and columns members are modelled as frame elements to be
resisting the axial, shear, and bending actions. The elements are assigned the section
and material properties. The value of tensile yield stress of steel used in BRBs,
beams and columns is considered as 345 MPa. Material overstrength factor (Ry) for
BRB is considered as unity. Compression overstrength (β) and strain-hardening (ω)
factors of BRBs are assumed as 1.04 and 1.54, respectively. The nonlinear
behaviour of frame members is considered in the models by using lumped plasticity
concepts. Nonlinear moment-rotation (M-θ) plastic hinges along with the axial load-
bending moment (P-M) interaction properties are assigned to all the columns and
beams. Both (M-θ) and (P-M) plastic hinges are assigned at both end of the
Performance of Medium-Rise Buckling-Restrained … 845

Fig. 3 a Plastic hinge (a) 3

properties of BRBs; b plastic
hinge properties of beam and 2
column

Axial load/ Yield load

1

-1

-2

-3
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Axial displacement/ Yield displacement
(b) 1.5

1.0
Moment/ Yield moment

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Rotation/ Yield rotation

columns, whereas these properties are assigned at the mid-lengths of beams in

addition to the ends in case of RBC connections.
Figure 3b shows the nonlinear (M-θ) plastic hinge properties used in the frame
members. Both moment and rotation values are normalized with respect to their
corresponding yield values. The ultimate resistance is assumed as 15 % of higher
than the yield strengths. The post-peak residual strength is considered as 20 % of the
yield strengths. Axial force-displacement plastic hinges, as shown in Fig. 3a, are
used to model the nonlinear axial behaviour of BRBs. These plastic hinges are
placed at the mid-lengths of BRBs. No post-peak descending behaviour is modelled
for BRBs in this study. However, BRBs are assumed to have failed when the
displacement ductility level exceeded a value of 25, the limit which most of the
BRBs have exhibited in the past experimental studies (e.g., [8]). Kinematic hard-
ening behaviour is assumed for all the elements of BRBFs. P-Delta effect due to
gravity loads is considered by modelling a leaning column pinned at its base and
846 A.F. Ghowsi and D.R. Sahoo

connected to the BRBFs through the rigid links at each floor level. The gravity loads
contributing to the P-delta effect are applied to the nodes at each floor level of the
leaning column. All the columns of BRBFs are assumed to be fixed at their bases.

3 Time History Analysis

An ensemble of forty SAC ground motions representing the near-fault records [17]
are used in this study for the nonlinear dynamic analysis. Twenty ground motions
(NF01-20) represent the recorded near-fault ground motions, whereas the remaining
(NF21-40) ground motions are obtained by physical simulations considering the
variations in the source-to-site distance (<20 km), fault rupture mechanism, soil
medium, and earthquake magnitudes, etc., resembling the seismic characteristics in
the near-fault region. Figure 4a show the elastic acceleration spectrum of the input

Fig. 4 a Elastic acceleration (a) 6

spectrum of the selected forty
ground motions;
Spectral Accelerations (g)

5
b comparison of average
elastic acceleration spectrum
with the design spectrum 4

0
0 1 2 3 4
T (sec)
(b) 2.0
NF
1.8 Design
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
T (sec)
Performance of Medium-Rise Buckling-Restrained … 847

ground motions for 5 % damping which shows the pulse-like and long-period
characteristics of the ground motions. Figure 4b shows a comparison of the average
acceleration spectrum of all ground motions with the design spectrum as per ASCE/
SEI 7-10 [3]. Except for the short period (<0.2 s), the average value of spectral
acceleration of all ground motions lies well-above the design spectrum.

3.1 Inter Storey Drift Response

The inter storey drift ratio is computed from the ration inter storey displacement into
high of that considered floor. Figure 5 shows the inter storey response of BRBF
under near field ground motions. The statistical values, such as, mean and ±standard
deviation (SD) also shown in the figure. For both the cases of chevron and double-X,

Fig. 5 Inter-storey drift (a) 9

a chevron b double-X
AVE-SD
8 AVE+SD
AVERAGE
7
Storey Level

1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Inter-storey Drift (%)

(b) 9
AVE-SD
8 AVE+SD
AVRAGE
7

6
Storey Level

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Inter-storey Drift (%)
848 A.F. Ghowsi and D.R. Sahoo

the average interstorey drift is higher in then limit of 2 % as per ASCE/SEI 7-10 [3]
provisions. The distribution of inter storey drift is also uniform along the height of
the frame with both cases.
In case of Chevron type of brace we have some ground motions (NF23, NF25,
NF29) foully collapsed which the interstorey drift and residual storey drift is not
taking into account, which the collapsed drift has extreme drift value, can change
average of overall drifts. The maximum value of interstorey drift value of chevron
and double-X is 6.6 and 7 %, respectively. Overall from both the cases, means are
parallel along the height. The average of drift is more in 2nd and 7th floors compare
to other floors.
As stated earlier, the design considerations should be different for Near Field
ground motions as the drift value is much higher than the design value as per
ASCE/SEI 7-10 [3] provisions. This shows that the current code-based design using
the recommended as per far field ground motions is very conservative. Hence, a
higher design consideration is required for the near field ground motions.

3.2 Residual Drift Response

Residual Inter storey drift ratio has been computed from the inter storey dis-
placement at various storey level which is at last step of ground motion at each floor
level height. Figure 6 shows the residual drift response of both cases of studied
frames under near field earthquakes. For both chevron and double-X type of BRBFs
seems same value of residual drift, except two cases of (NF31 and NF33) overall
the maximum residual storey drift 1.9 and 2.2 % drift for Chevron type and double-
X type, respectively. Although, in case chevron type of braces cases of NF23, NF25
and, NF29 has excepted. In cases of NF31 and 33 has collapse at the first floor level
which is the reason for higher residual drift. Overall, the mean residual drift is
equally parallel for both the cases, the average of residual drift is lesser at 8th and
9th floor levels also it shows higher value at first floor level.

3.3 Hinge Mechanisms

The plastic hinge deformation in various members which occurred for all near field
ground motions has been monitored. As expected, the yielding occurred on the
bracing members at most of the floor level especially the 1st–5th floors for all the
cases. The minor yielding occurred at base ground floor column for all the cases for
both case of brace configurations as it is expected. Except ground floor base column
the rare cases plastic hinges formed into the columns at 6th, 7th and, 8th floors
columns.
Performance of Medium-Rise Buckling-Restrained … 849

Fig. 6 Residual drift (a) 9

a chevron b double-X
AVE-SD
8 AVE+SD
AVERAGE
7

Storey Level
5

1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Residual Drift (%)
(b) 9
AVE-SD
8 AVE+SD
AVERAGE
7

6
Storey Level

1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Residual Drift (%)

Table 1. Summarized the plastic hinges formed in the beams and columns of
both cases of BRBFs. Some few extreme ground motions NF23, NF25 and, NF29
seems to be effected in case of chevron type of configuration which all the frame
gone to collapse level. The minor hinges seem in the first 20 ground motions which
are the real earthquakes compared to the last 20 ground motion which has been
extracted from their physical simulations. A reduced number of plastic hinges are
formed in alternative pairs of ground motions. Since the sever collapse is not
recommended and the double-X configuration shows better capability of drift
without and any series damages or collapse should be used in BRBFs to achieve a
better seismic performance.
850 A.F. Ghowsi and D.R. Sahoo

Table 1 Hinge mechanism

Near field ground motions
Chevron Double X
Beam Column Beam Column
NF01 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B GF2B 1S2B, 2S2B GF2B
NF02 1S2B GF2B 1S1B GF2B
NF03 1S1C, 1S1E, 2S2B, 3S2B, GF2B, 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, GF2E,
5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B, 8S2B 8S1B 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B, 8S1B 7S1B
NF04 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B GF2B 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B GF2B
NF05 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, 5S2B, GF2B 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, GF2B
6S2B, 7S2B 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B
NF06 NA NA NA NA
NF07 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, 5S2B, GF2B 1S2B, 2S1B, 3S2B, GF2B
6S2B 5S2B, 6S1B, 7S1B
NF08 1S2B GF2B 1S1B GF2B
NF09 NA GF1B NA NA
NF10 1S2B GF2 1S1B GF1B
NF11 NA NA NA NA
NF12 NA NA NA NA
NF13 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, 5S2B, GF2B 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S1B, GF2B
6S2B, 7S2B 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B, 8S1B
NF14 NA NA NA NA
NF15 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, 5S2B GF2B 1S2B, 2S1B, 3S2B, GF2B
5S2B, 6S1B
NF16 NA NA NA NA
NF17 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, 5S2B, GF2B 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S1B, GF2B
6S2B, 7S2B 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B, 8S1B
NF18 1S2B GF2B 1S1B GF2B
NF19 1S1C, 1S1B, 2S2B, 3S2B, GF1E, 1S1C, 1S1B, 2S2B, GF1E,
5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B GF1C 3S2B, 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B GF1C
NF20 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B GF2B 1S2B, 2S1B, 3S1B, 5S1B GF2B
NF21 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, GF2B 1S2B, 2S1B, 3S1B, GF2B
5S2B,6S2B, 7S2B 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B
NF22 NA GF1B NA NA
NF23 1– 9SE 1– 9SE 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S1C, GF1E,
3S1B, 5S1C, 5S1B, GF1B,
6S2B, 7S2B, 8S2B 7S2B,
8S1B
NF24 6S2B, 7S2B GF1B 6S1B, 7S2B GF1B
NF25 1– 9SE 1– 9SE 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, GF1E,
5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B, 8S1B GF1B
NF26 6S2B, 7S2B GF1B 6S1B, 7S2B, 8S1B NA
NF27 1S2E, 2S2E, 3S2E, 5S2C, GF2E 1S2E, 2S2C, 3S2B, GF2E,
6S1C, 6S1B, 7S2B 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B, 8S2B 1S1B,
7S1B
(continued)
Performance of Medium-Rise Buckling-Restrained … 851

Table 1 (continued)
Near field ground motions
Chevron Double X
Beam Column Beam Column
NF28 NA NA NA NA
NF29 1– 9SE 1– 9SE 1S1E, 1S1C, 2S1E, GF2E,
2S1B, 3S2B, 5S1C, 7S1B,
5S1B, 6S2B, 7S2B, 9S1B 8S2B
NF30 NA GF1B NA GF1B
NF31 1S2E, 2S1E, 2S1B, 3S1E, GF2E, 1S2E, 2S1C, 2S1B, GF2E,
3S1B, 5S2B, 6S1E, 6S1B, 7S1B 3S2C, 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S1B
7S1C, 7S1B, 8S2B 7S2B, 8S1B
NF32 NA NA NA NA
NF33 1S1E, 1S1B, 2S2C, 3S1C, GF2E, 1S2E, 2S1C, 2S1B, GF1E,
3S1B, 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B, 7S1B 3S2C, 5S2B, 6S2B, GF1C,
8S2B 7S2B, 8S1B 7S1B,
8S1B
NF34 NA NA NA NA
NF35 1S2E, 2S2E, 3S2E, 5S1C, GF2E 1S2E, 2S2B, 3S2C, GF2E
5S1B, 6S1E, 6S1B, 7S2B, 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B, 8S1B
8S1B
NF36 NA NA NA NA
NF37 1S1E, 1S1B, 2S1E, 2S1B, GF2E 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, GF2E
3S2B, 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B, 8S1B
NF38 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B GF2B 1S2B, 2S1B, 3S2B GF2B
NF39 1S1E, 1S1B, 2S1E, 2S1B, GF1E, 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, GF1E,
3S1E, 3S1B, 5S2B, 6S2B, GF1C 5S2B, 6S2B, 7S2B, 8S2B GF1C
7S2B
NF40 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, 5S2B GF1C, 1S2B, 2S2B, 3S2B, GF2B
GF1B 5S2B, 6S1B
nSm m is number of plastic hinges at floor number n
mB is number of plastic hinges at yield level
mC, mD is number of plastic hinges at ultimate level
mE is number of plastic hinges at rapture point
NA is not available
GF ground floor base

3.4 Nonlinear Static Analyses

The static pushover analysis done to carried out the lateral strength and hinge
mechanism of both study frames. The lateral displacement which used as lateral
load distribution extract from the fundamental mode shape into pushover analysis.
Figure 7 shows the comparison of capacity curves chevron and double-X braces.
From the push over analysis can see the more number of hinges occurred at chevron
type configurations compare to double-X braces. Hence, in order to have flexible
852 A.F. Ghowsi and D.R. Sahoo

Fig. 7 Base shear capacity 8000

18 19
curves of chevron and double- 17
X 7000 13

6000

Base Force (kN)

6
18
5000 14

4000
7
3000

2000

1000 Chevron
Double-X
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Roof Drift (%)

Fig. 8 Hinge mechanism at

the stage of 2.42 % pushing of
roof level a Chevron and
b Double-X

BRBFs systems and desirable hinges forming in various stages of deforming is

recommended to use double-X braces. Figure 8 shows the hinges formation drift at
the last stage of 2.42 % of roof drift ratio.

4 Conclusions

Based on the analysis results, following conclusions can be drawn for medium-rise
BRBFs:
• The new design consideration has to be provide for BRBFs under near field
ground motions.
Performance of Medium-Rise Buckling-Restrained … 853

• The Double-X braced configurations has more flexibility compare to Chevron

type configurations.
• The Chevron type of brace shows a stiffer which has brittle behavior, going
under extreme collapse in some case of near field.
• The case of NF23, NF25 and, NF29 seems to be strong then all the ground
motions, for the design evolution can be closed be checked for the structures.
• From the nonlinear static push over analysis it has found that most number of
hinges occur for Chevron type compare to double-X type of brace
configurations.
• The pairs of near fault ground motions one against the other is stronger,
relatively.
• The behavior of Double-X configuration with BRBFs need be checked with
various number of stories.

References

1. Aiken ID, Mahin SA, Uriz PR (2002) Large-scale testing of buckling restrained braced frames.
In: Proceedings of Japan passive control symposium, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
2. ANSI/AISC 341-05 (2005) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago
3. ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston
4. Baghbanijavid Z, Jalali A, Yasrebinia Y (2010) Seismic response of buckling-restrained
braced frames under near fault ground motions. J Appl Sci 10(23):2967–2977
5. Black CJ, Makris N, Aiken ID (2004) Component testing, seismic evaluation and
characterization of buckling-restrained braces. ASCE J Struct Eng 130(6):880–894
6. Chou CC, Liu JH, Pham DH (2012) Steel buckling-restrained braced frames with single and
dual corner gusset connections: seismic tests and analyses. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 41
(7):1137–1156
7. CSI (2009) CSI analysis reference manual for SAP 2000. Computers and Structures Inc,
Berkeley,
8. Fahnestock LA, Sause R, Ricles JM (2007) Seismic response and performance of buckling-
restrained braced frames. ASCE J Struct Eng 133(9):1195–1204
9. Field C, Ko E (2004) Connection performance of buckling restrained braced frames. Paper
No. 1321. In: Proceedings of thirteenth world conference on earthquake engineering,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
10. Ghowsi AF, Sahoo DR (2013) Seismic performance of buckling-restrained braced frames with
varying beam-column connections. Int J Steel Struct 13(4):607–621
11. Iwata M, Kato T, Wada A (2003) Performance evaluation of buckling-restrained braces in
damage-controlled structures: behavior of steel structures in seismic area. In: Proceeding of
fourth international conference STESSA, Naples, Italy
12. Lin ML, Tsai KC, Hsiao PC, Tsait CY (2005) Compressive behavior of buckling restrained
braces gusset connections. In: First international conference on advanced experimental
structural engineering, Nagoya, Japan
13. López WA, Sabelli R (2004) Seismic design of buckling-restrained braced frames. Structural
Steel Education Council, Moraga
854 A.F. Ghowsi and D.R. Sahoo

14. Merritt S, Uang CM, Benzoni G (2003) Subassemblage testing of core brace buckling-
restrained braces, Report No. TR-2003/01, Department of Structural Engineering, University
of California at San Diego, USA
15. Romero P, Reaveley L, Miller P, Okahashi T (2007) Report on full-scale testing of WC series
buckling-restrained braces. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Utah, USA
16. Shakib H, Safi R (2012) Behavior evaluation of the eccentric buckling-restrained braced
frames under the near-fault ground motions. In: Proceedings of fifteenth world conference on
earthquake engineering, Lisbon
17. Somerville PG, Smith M, Punyamurthula S, Sun J (1997) Development of ground motion time
histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC Steel Project, Report No. SAC/BD-97/04, SAC Joint
Venture, Sacramento, CA
18. Tsai KC, Hsiaso BC, Lai JW, Chen CH, Lin ML, Weng YT (2003) Pseudo-dynamic
experimental response of a full-scale CFT-BRB composite frame. In: Proceedings of joint
NCREE/JRC workshop on international collaboration on earthquake disaster mitigation
research, Taipei, Taiwan
19. Watanabe A, Hitomi Y, Saeki E, Wada A, Fujimoto M (1988) Properties of brace encased in
buckling-restrained concrete and steel tube. In: Proceedings of ninth world conference on
earthquake engineering, Tokyo, Japan

Bibliography

20. FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC