Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Near-field earthquake performance of SC-BRBs with optimal design

parameters of SMA
Ahmad Fayeq Ghowsi, Dipti Ranjan Sahoo ⁎
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India

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

Article history: Self-centering buckling-restrained braces (SC-BRBs) utilizing the re-centering potential of shape memory alloy
Received 11 February 2020 (SMA) bars are used to control the excessive residual drift response of braced frames under seismic loading.
Received in revised form 25 August 2020 The effectiveness of SC-BRBs in controlling the seismic response of a structure largely depends on the relative
Accepted 29 August 2020
strength and stiffness of SMA bars and BRB core plates. This study is focused on determining the optimum length
Available online 10 September 2020
and prestressing force levels in SMA bars to maximize the hysteretic energy dissipation and re-centering behav-
Keywords:
ior of SC-BRBs and evaluating the drift response of a medium-rise braced frame under near-field earthquake ex-
Buckling-restrained braces citations. The seismic performance of SC-BRBs has been numerically investigated at both component (local) and
Drift response frame (global) levels using a computer software OpenSees. Both length and prestressing force in SMA rods are
Nonlinear modeling varied in the numerical models to evaluate the axial resistance and hysteretic energy dissipation potential of
Seismic analysis SC-BRBs. The hysteretic response of SC-BRBs is compared with that of conventional BRBs. Nonlinear dynamic
Self-centering braces analysis has been conducted on a 9-story braced frame equipped with SC-BRBs as well as BRBs under forty
near-field ground motion records. The seismic drift response of braced frames equipped with SC-BRBs with dif-
ferent prestressing force levels is compared with that of BRBF. Based on the findings of this study, the optimum
geometric parameters of SMA bars have been proposed for the design of SC-BRBs.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction centering mechanisms to control the excessive residual drift response

Buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs) are widely used as the
primary lateral force-resisting systems in structures in high seismic re-
gions. As shown in Fig. 1(a), buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) typically
consist of a central yielding core segment with elastic transition and end
segments on both ends [1]. The yielding core segments are restrained by
unbonded mortar or steel members to delay their compression buckling
and to ensure their yielding in tension as well as compression under
axial cyclic loading. This results in the nearly symmetrical hysteretic re-
sponse, high energy dissipation capacity, and better displacement duc-
tility of BRBs [1–6]. Fig. 1(b) shows the hysteretic response of a typical
BRB. Both experimental [7–13] and numerical [14–20] investigations
have shown that BRBFs significantly controlled the inter-story drift re-
sponse as well as the damage levels in the primary beams and columns
of structures. These studies have also highlighted that BRBFs may ex-
hibit a relatively higher post-earthquake residual drift response under
major seismic loadings. Excessive residual displacements significantly
increase the cost of retrofitting of structures in order to make them re-
usable [21]. This necessitates the development of BRBs with self-
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: drsahoo@civil.iitd.ac.in (D.R. Sahoo).
of BRBFs.
Self-centering systems are used in the structural systems to make
them seismically resilient by improving their re-centering potential
[22]. Dual-core self-centering brace consisting of two inner cores and
one outer box and by using two sets of parallel composite tendons ex-
hibited good self-centering and energy dissipation under reversed cyclic
loading [23,24]. Cross-anchored prestressed steel strands [25] or high-
strength steel [26] have shown to provide the self-centering ability to
BRBs with additional hysteretic energy dissipation. Xu et al. [27] pro-
posed a steel bracing system integrated with the pre-pressed disc
springs for re-centering behavior and friction devices for the hysteretic
energy dissipation. Controlled rocking systems [28–30] and energy-
dissipative braces [31–33] have also been studied to investigate the
re-centering behavior of the braced frames.
Shape memory alloy (SMA) materials exhibit excellent deform-
ability along with negligible residual deformation upon unloading. The
magnitude of peak strain in SMA depends on the heat-treatment pro-
cess. SMA bolts and washers in steel as well as steel-concrete composite
connections have shown significant self-centering potential under seis-
mic loading [34–36]. Qiu and Du [37] proposed a novel recentering en-
ergy dissipative brace (REDB) consisting of SMA bars and steel bending
plates. Nonlinear static and dynamic analysis results concluded that the
concentrically braced frames fitted with REDBs were successful in

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106321
0143-974X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321
Fig. 1. (a) Longitudinal and cross-section views, and (b) hysteretic response of BRBs [2].
eliminating residual drift response while generating identical peak
inter-story drift ratios and floor accelerations as BRBFs. An experimental
study [38] on steel frames with SMA braces utilizing the superelastic
Nickel-Titanium (NiTi) wires has also shown that such frames could
withstand strong earthquakes without significant damage and capacity
degradation. Miller et al. [39] developed a self-centering BRB (SC-BRB)
consisting of SMA rods placed parallel to the core plates of BRBs.
While the BRB core plates provided the hysteretic energy dissipation,
displacement ductility, and axial load resistance, SMA rods added the
re-centering capability to the bracing system. Quasi-static tests con-
ducted on SC-BRB components concluded the better re-centering capa-
bility of these bracing systems. The tested SC-BRBs were designed for a
particular set of geometric properties of BRB core plates and SMA rods.
The self-centering potential of SC-BRBs depends on the strength ratios
of SMA rods to BRB core plates as well as the level of prestressing
force in SMA rods. Since the SMA is relatively expensive as compared
to that of BRB core plates, it is necessary to minimize the use of SMA
rods in SC-BRBs to make them cost-effective. Hence, there is a need to
investigate the seismic performance of SC-BRBs with varying geometric
properties of SMA rods in order to determine their optimal design
parameters.
The seismic performance of a structure subjected to the near-field
earthquake excitations may be different from that of the far-field earth-
quakes. The main characteristics of near-fault ground motions are the
forward-directivity effect and fling-step effect. The forward-directivity
effect causes the amplification in the magnitude of acceleration, veloc-
ity, and displacement of near-fault ground motions even for moderate
earthquakes. On the other hand, the fling-step effect results in the
high-velocity pulses and the uniform steps in the displacement time-
history [40]. High pulses in near-fault earthquake records increase the
acceleration spectrum in the long-period and result in the high seismic
energy demand on structures in the limited cycles. Under seismic exci-
tations, core plates of BRBs shift to a new permanent position as soon as
they reach their yielding strain limits and dissipate the hysteretic en-
ergy about this new position. This results in the relatively high residual
drift and often, interstory drift response of BRBFs, which may be further
amplified because of the high seismic energy demand in case of near-
field earthquake excitation. Hence, it is necessary to study the seismic
drift response of BRBFs as well as SC-BRBFs under near-field
earthquakes.
2. Scope and objectives
The main objectives of this study are (i) to determine the optimum
design parameters of SMA bars to maximize the hysteretic energy dissi-
pation as well as the re-centering potential of SC-BRBs, (ii) to evaluate
the seismic drift response of BRBF and SC-BRBF when subjected to
near-field earthquake excitations, and (iii) to investigate the influence
of strength of SMA bars in proportion to BRB core plates on the global
seismic performance of braced frames. The main goals of this study to
determine the geometric properties of SMA rods are (i) to minimize
the residual drift response of structure by utilizing the recentering char-
acteristic of SMA material, and (ii) to achieve the required hysteretic en-
ergy dissipation in braces through inelastic deformation of BRB core
elements. The seismic performance of SC-BRBs at both component
(local) and frame (global) levels has been numerically investigated
using a computer software OpenSees [41]. The developed numerical
models of BRBs and SC-BRBs are validated by comparing their predicted
force-displacement response with the past experimental results. A new
material (UMAT) developed for the accurate prediction of force-
displacement behavior of SMA rods has been implemented in the
OpenSees [41] environment. A parametric study is conducted on the val-
idated numerical models of SC-BRB components for a wide range of the
sectional area and length of SMA rods to determine their optimal values.
It is worth mentioning that both these geometric properties control the
prestressing force and axial strain levels in SMA rods. For global-level
analysis, a 9-story steel building frame has been considered to investi-
gate the drift response of BRBF as well as SC-BRBF under a set of forty
near-fault earthquake ground motions. Based on the findings of this nu-
merical study, the optimal design parameters of SMA rods in SC-BRBs
have been proposed.
3. Concept of SMA-based SC-BRB
SC-BRBs are generally consisted of a BRB element to achieve the hys-
teretic energy dissipation and displacement ductility along with a set of
SMA rods for providing the re-centering capability. Fig. 2(a) shows the
longitudinal view and cross-section of an SC-BRB assembly. BRB core
plate is restrained by a mortar-filled steel casing. The BRB is placed in-
side a telescopic tube consisting of an outer tube and an inner tube.
Two movable plates are inserted into the BRB core plate through the
cruciform-shaped cut at their mid-regions. These plates are placed
over the elastic end segments of BRBs as shown in Fig. 2(a). Both
outer and inner tubes are of the same length and are welded to the
BRB end segments at one end only. This means that if the inner tube is
welded to the left end segment of the BRB, the outer tube would be con-
nected to the right end segment of the BRB. The movable plates act as
supports to the unconnected ends of both inner and outer tubes through
bearing action. These plates are, in turn, held in position using four
prestressed bars consisting of SMA and steel (rigid) rods connected in
series along their lengths. These bars are placed within the space be-
tween the inner and outer tubes as shown in Fig. 2(a).
Under the axial tension, both inner and outer tubes drift apart
resulting in the gap at both ends. However, because of the shortening
 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321 3

Fig. 2. Details of SC-BRB assembly: (a) Longitudinal and sectional views of SC-BRB assembly, (b) Deformed configuration of SC-BRB in tension and compression.

in the BRB core segment under axial compression, the inner tube comes
in contact with the right moveable plate and the outer tube also comes
in contact with the left movable plate. The sliding of both movable
plates in the opposite directions results in the gaps on both ends as
shown in Fig. 2(b). Thus, SMA rods are always subjected to axial tension
at any instance of cyclic loading applied to SC-BRBs. At the unstressed
(i.e., zero strain) state of BRB core, the pre-stressing force applied to
SMA rods is shared by both outer and inner tubes. Steel couplers are
used to attach the rigid bars with the SMA rods to maintain the continu-
ity of bars between the movable plates, thereby, minimizing the use of
SMA rods in SC-BRBs.
Fig. 3 shows the concept of SC-BRB, which is a combination of force-
deformation characteristics of BRB and SMA rods. Force-displacement of
BRB represented by wide hysteretic loops with no strength and stiffness
degradation until the yielding core elements reached their fracture
strain limit. This resulted in the high energy dissipation and the better
displacement ductility. SMA bars exhibit the flag-shaped hysteresis re-
sponse indicating the negligible residual strain upon the removal of
the applied loading. Thus, the hysteretic energy dissipated by the SMA
rods is relatively small as compared to that of BRBs. SC-BRBs exhibit
the combination of the hysteretic response of BRBs and SMA rods, in
which the residual strain is significantly reduced as compared to that
of the conventional BRBs. It is, therefore, necessary to maintain a proper
balance between the hysteretic energy dissipation and the re-centering
capability of braces. A parametric study has been conducted to examine
the hysteretic response of SC-BRBs by using different proportions of
SMA rods and BRB core elements. The details of the numerical modeling
technique adopted in this study are presented in the following sections.
4. Numerical Modeling
A computer software OpenSees [41] has been adopted to develop and
analyze the numerical models of SC-BRBs. First, both BRB and SMA rods
are modeled individually to predict their nonlinear force-deformation
behavior. The developed numerical models are validated by comparing
their predicted response with past test results. Finally, a numerical
model of SC-BRB is developed by assembling the validated models of
BRB and SMA rods. The details of the modeling technique adopted in
this study are discussed in the following sections.
4.1. Modeling of BRBs
Various components of BRBs, such as yielding core, transition zone,
elastic end segment, and rigid ends of beam-column panel zones are
considered in the numerical model (Fig. 4). The yielding core segment
of BRB is modeled as the displacement beam-column element with
multiple fiber sections. Six number of fibers in the depth direction and
four number of fibers along the thickness directions of the rectangular
core plate are adopted in the modeling. These fibers are assigned with
high values of the moment of inertia to prevent their compression buck-
ling. The core element of BRB is divided into ten segments along its
length for accurate modeling. Both transition and elastic end segments

Fig. 3. Hysteretic response of (a) BRB, (b) SMA rod, and (c) SC-BRB.
4 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321
Fig. 4. Modeling of different segments of a BRB.
are modeled as the elastic beam-column elements. Cross-section areas
of these segments are considered as four times and eight times the
yielding core area, respectively. The pined connections at the work
points are simulated by using the multi-point constraints with unre-
strained rotations. A zero-link element with small but non-zero stiffness
has been provided at these pined connections to eliminate the conver-
gence issues. Rigid end offsets near the panel zone of frame element
are modeled as elastic link elements with a very high area of cross-
section.
“Hysteretic” material available in OpenSees [41] library is adopted
to predict the nonlinear force-deformation behavior of the yielding
core segment of BRB. Fig. 5(a) shows the typical backbone curve of
the hysteretic response of BRBs. The compression strength of BRBs
is considered as the product of the compression strength-
adjustment factor (β) and the corresponding value of the tensile
strength. Peak tension strength is computed by multiplying the ten-
sion strength-adjustment factor (ω) with the tension yield strength.
The values of β and ω depend on the detailing and fabrication of BRBs
as well as material properties of the core plate [2]. To capture the
strength loss in the event of core fracture, a linear degradation in
the post-peak strength of BRBs is assumed in the material modeling
in tension and compression. A BRB component tested by Miller et al.
[39] has been chosen in this study to validate the numerical model.
The reported geometric and material properties of BRB have been
considered in the model.
Fig. 5(b) shows the comparison of the predicted hysteretic response
of the numerical model of BRB with the test results. The numerical
model successfully captured the yield and peak axial strength and cyclic
behavior of the BRB tested in the experiment. It is worth mentioning
that the “Steel-02” material available in OpenSees [41] library may be
adopted instead of “Hysteretic” material for the modeling of BRBs. The
basic difference between these two material models is that the “Steel-
02” material does not consider the strength degradation but takes the
Bauschinger's effect into account. However, no significant difference is
noted in the hysteretic response of SC-BRBs by using these material
models.
Fig. 5. (a) Backbone of the axial force-deformation response of BRB, (b) Comparison of predicted hysteretic response of BRB with test [37] results.
4.2. Modeling of SMA bars
SMA bars of SC-BRBs are modeled as the displacement-based beam-
column elements with fiber sections. Since the standard material mod-
ule representing the force-deformation behavior of SMA rods is not
available in the OpenSees [41] library, it is required to develop a user-
defined material (UMAT) model and to implement in the suspended li-
brary of OpenSees by creating a ‘.dll’ file. Taftali [42] developed a UMAT
for SMA material without considering the residual strain effect. The
UMAT developed by Taftali [42] was later modified by Eatherton et al.
[43] to capture the fully reversed cyclic behavior as well as the residual
strain of SMA material.
Fig. 6(a) shows the typical force-displacement (or stress-strain) re-
sponse of SMA bars during loading and unloading conditions. The
main parameters in the hysteretic response of SMA bars are (i) Elastic
stiffness, ESMA, representing the initial modulus of elasticity of the mate-
rial in the Austenite phase, (ii) Loading plateau stress, FsAS, which repre-
sents the stress at the transformation from Austenite to Martensite
phases, (iii) Unloading plateau stress, FfSA, representing the stress at
the beginning of the transition from Martensite to Austenite phases,
(iv) Loading plateau stiffness, Rs, which represents the ratio of loading
plateau stiffness to the initial elastic stiffness, (v) Transformation strain,
dfAS, representing the strain at end of transformation from Austenite to
Martensite, (vi) Martensite stiffness ratio, Rm, representing the ratio of
the stiffness at the fully-transformed martensite phase to the initial stiff-
ness, and (vii) Unloading return stress, FeSA, representing the stress at
end of transition from the martensite phase to the austenite upon
unloading. The residual strain factor, RStFact, determines the rate of resid-
ual strain accumulation and can be obtained using the following equa-
tions:
ε residual ¼ RStFact  Ehyst ð1Þ
ðσ i þ σ i−1 Þ
Ehyst ¼ ∑ jεi −εi−1 j ð2Þ
2
Where εresidual is the residual strain as shown in Fig. 6(a), ε and σ are
the strain and stress, respectively, and the summation is performed over
all the preceding time steps. These parameters have been taken into ac-
count in the development of UMAT for SMA bars. An SMA coupon of
21.6 mm in diameter and 122 mm in gage length, tested by Miller
et al. [39], has been considered in this study to validate the developed
numerical model. Fig. 6(b) shows the comparison of the predicted hys-
teretic response of the SMA coupon with the test results. The developed
UMAT successfully captured all critical parameters in both austenite and
martensite phases of SMA material.
 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321 5

Fig. 6. (a) Modified material model of SMA bar, and (b) comparison of predicted hysteretic response of SMA coupons with test [41] results.

The numerical model of SC-BRB developed in this study is validated

by comparing the predicted behavior with the past experimental results
[39]. The same geometric and material properties of various compo-
nents of SC-BRB assembly used in the experiment have been adopted
in the numerical modeling. The values of ESMA, FSAS, Rs and Rm of SMA ma-
terial are considered as 28.65 GPa, 308 MPa, 3.3%, and 20%, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 8, the predicted hysteretic response of SMA bars and
Fig. 7. Numerical modeling of SC-BRB assembly. SC-BRB assembly matched well with the test results. The numerical
model successfully captured the strength variation and stiffness
changes in the loading and unloading stages. The validated numerical
4.3. Modeling of SC-BRB assembly model of SC-BRB assembly is later used in the parametric studies.

The numerical models of BRB and SMA bars are assembled along
with the outer and inner tubes to develop the numerical model of SC-
BRB assembly as shown in Fig. 7. Both outer and inner tubes are
modeled as elastic beam-column elements of high moment of inertia.
These tubes are connected to the elastic end segments of BRB at oppo-
site ends through the zero-length rigid link (multi-point constraint) el-
ements. Gap elements are used at the other ends of tubes to simulate
the sliding displacement of movable plates. The rigid rods along the
length of SMA bars are modeled as the elastic elements. These gap ma-
terials are considered as elastic in compression having negligible ten-
sion. An additional element is used to model the contact between the
movable plates and tubes.
4.4. Modeling of beams and columns
For global level analysis of braced frames, beams, and columns are
modeled as the force-based elastic beam-column elements with multi-
ple fiber sections in OpenSees [41] environment. Fig. 9(a) shows the
modeling of the beam-column element using fiber sections. Ten num-
bers of fibers are used to model the webs and flanges of rolled steel sec-
tions used as beams and columns. These fiber sections capture the axial
force and bending moment interaction behavior. Nonlinear behavior of
beams and columns is considered by assigning plastic hinges with dis-
tributed plasticity at their end sections [44]. The length of plastic hinges

Fig. 8. Comparison of predicted hysteretic response of (a) SMA rods, and (b) SC-BRB assembly with test results.
6 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321

Fig. 9. (a) Beam-column element with fiber sections and plastic hinge regions, (b) Moment-rotation characteristics of beam-column elements.

Fig. 10. Modeling of panel zone of beam-to-column connection.

is taken as equal to the member depth. Two integration points in each Table 1
Imposed loading history on SC-BRB models.
plastic hinge length and additional two integration points in the center
of force-based beam-column elements are considered in this study. Displacement step Design target Displacement value (mm) Brace elongation (%)
Fig. 9(b) shows the moment-rotation relationship following FEMA 356 1 Δy 2.5 0.07
[45] guidelines used in the modeling of beam-column elements in this 2 0.5ΔBM 6.3 0.17
study. The hysteretic material is also selected for the modeling of plastic 3 1.0ΔBM 12.7 0.35
4 1.5ΔBM 19.7 0.52
hinges. The material yield and ultimate strength values are taken as
5 2.0ΔBM 25.1 0.69
344 MPa and 448 MPa, respectively. Modulus of elasticity, E of steel is 6 3.0ΔBM 37.8 1.04
taken as 200GPa with a post-yield stiffness ratio of 3.7%. 7 4.0ΔBM 50.5 1.38
An elastic beam-column element is selected to consider the influ-
ence of the deformation of panel-zone in beam-to-column connections
on the overall seismic performance of the structure. The width and
depth of panel zones are varied depending on the size of the column BRBs. The main parameters studied are hysteretic response, energy dis-
and beam, respectively. As shown in Fig. 10, the panel zones are sipation, and residual deformation of SC-BRBs. The goal is to determine
modeled as the small rigid links using the elastic beam-column ele- the optimum geometric properties of SMA rods to achieve the desired
ments. The same rigid link has been considered at the end of the brace hysteretic energy dissipation along with the minimized residual defor-
elements as well. The rigid link elements in braces are connected at mation response. For the component level study, the numerical models
the center point of the panel zone link element to simulate the gusset of SC-BRBs are subjected to a loading protocol in accordance with ANSI/
plates connecting the panel zones. Both ends of braces are assumed as AISC 341–10 [46] provisions for the qualification tests of BRBs. Table 1
the pined connections. Floor masses are applied at the top nodes of summarizes the loading protocol for BRBs having the yielding core
braces and columns of braced frames in addition to the distributed grav- length, Lcore of 1830 mm and material yielding stress, Fysc of 276 MPa.
ity loads. A Rayleigh damping of 5% is considered in the seismic analyses The tension yield deformation, Δy of BRB is computed as 2.5 mm. Design
of frames. story displacement, Δbm is taken as five times of the yield deformation
of BRBs.

5. Parametric study 5.1. Variation in length of SMA rods

A parametric study is carried out to investigate the effects of length The length of SMA rods and the yielding core lengths of BRBs signif-
as well as the sectional area of SMA bars in proportion to those of BRB icantly influence the axial strength, self-centering capability, effective
core elements on the axial resistance and re-centering potential of SC- stiffness, and hysteretic cumulative energy dissipation of SC-BRBs. The
 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321 7

Fig. 11. Hysteretic response of SC-BRBs with varying SMA length ratios.

length of SMA bars controls the magnitude of strain in their austenitic
and martensitic phases. To study the influence of SMA strain on the
overall cyclic performance length of SC-BRBs, the length of SMA rods
in SC-BRBs is varied in the range of 0–125% of the yielding core lengths
of BRBs. In all cases, the ratio of the SMA area to the BRB core area is kept
constant as 75%.
Fig. 11 shows the comparison of the hysteretic response of SC-BRBs
for varying lengths of SMA bars (L-SMA). The maximum tension force
resisted by BRB in the absence of SMA bars (i.e., 0% L-SMA) is noted as
220 kN and maximum residual deformation is found to be 50 mm in
this case. SC-BRB having the length of SMA rods equal to 25% of the
length of BRB yielding core elements resisted a maximum tension
force of 1650 kN, which is nearly 7.5 times the force resisted by BRB
only. This is primarily due to the more pronounced martensitic effect
of SMA bars. Further, the maximum residual deformation is reduced
from 50 mm to 20 mm. However, at the same load level as BRB, no re-
sidual deformation is noted in SC-BRB with 25% L-SMA. A nearly flag-
shaped hysteretic response is noted in SC-BRB with the length of SMA
bars equal to 25% of the BRB core segment.
Since the maximum strain level of the SMA in the austenitic
phase did not match with the required strain level of the BRB core
element, a relatively higher residual deformation is noted in this
case. As the length of SMA bars is increased, the deformation in
the austenitic phase of SMA bars is gradually increased. This re-
sulted in the reduced martensitic behavior of SMA bars in the hys-
teretic response of SC-BRBs. As the length of SMA bars exceeded
50% of the BRB yielding core length, the martensitic effect of SMA
bars is completely vanished in resisting the cyclic load. The maxi-
mum tensile force resisted by SC-BRBs is noted as about 750 kN for
SMA bars of length higher than 50% of BRB core length. Further, no
significant reduction in the residual deformation is achieved by
using longer SMA bars in excess of 50%.
Fig. 12(a) shows the comparison of backbone curves of the hyster-
etic response of SC-BRBs with varying lengths of SMA bars. As expected,
BRB (i.e., zero-length SMA) exhibited the lowest values of initial axial
stiffness and peak load resistance. SC-BRB with 25% L-SMA exhibited
the highest initial axial stiffness and peak axial resistance due to the
strain-hardening behavior of SMA in the martensitic phase. All other

Fig. 12. Comparison of (a) back-bone curves and (b) cumulative hysteretic energy of SC-BRBs with varying SMA length ratios.
8 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321
Fig. 13. Variation in the hysteretic response of SC-BRBs with varying SMA area ratios.
SC-BRBs exhibited nearly similar backbone curves with minor
strain-hardening noted for 50% L-SMA. Fig. 12(b) shows the cumulative
hysteretic energy dissipated by the SC-BRBs under the selected loading
history. The maximum energy dissipation is observed for SC-BRB with
25% L-SMA. SC-BRBs with SMA length varying 50–125% of BRB core seg-
ments did not show any significant difference. BRB dissipated the
smallest energy dissipation primarily due to the smaller axial resistance.
5.2. Variation in initial pre-stressing force in SMA bars
The relative force levels in SMA bars and BRB core segments may in-
fluence the re-centering potential as well as the energy dissipation po-
tential of SC-BRBs. Axial strength of SMA bars depends on their
sectional area and material properties. A parametric study is conducted
to investigate the influence of the initial prestressing force level in SMA
bars relative to the BRB axial strengths on the cyclic behavior of SC-
BRBs. Six numerical models are developed in the OpenSees [41] environ-
ment. The total area of BRB and SMA rods has been kept constant in all
SC-BRB models, i.e., all SC-BRBs had the same design axial strengths.
Prestressing forces in SMA bars are varied in the range of 0–100% of
the total design strengths of SC-BRBs. 0%-SMA represents the numerical
model consisting of BRB only, whereas the 60%-SMA indicates the SC-
BRB model with BRB yielding core designed to carry 40% of total force
demand while SMA rods are designed to carry 60% of total force de-
mand. Since the same material yield strengths are assumed for BRBs
and SMA bars, the variation in strength ratios of SMA bars is achieved
by altering their sectional area only.
Fig. 13 shows the variation in the hysteretic response of SC-BRB
models having different SMA strength ratios. The hysteretic response
of all numerical models is compared with that of a tested SC-BRB spec-
imen having an SMA strength ratio of 75.5% [39]. Further, the yield
stress of SMA material is assumed to be equal to that of the BRB core
segment in all numerical models. SC-BRB model with 0% SMA
(i.e., 100% BRB) exhibited the wider hysteretic loops with minimal re-
centering potential. On the other hand, the SC-BRB model with a
100%-SMA area showed excellent re-centering potential with negligible
residual strain. SC-BRB model with SMA strength ratio higher than 50%
exhibited a reasonable re-centering capacity along with the minimal re-
duction in the energy dissipation potential. Hence, it can be concluded
that the optimum length of SMA bars should be limited to 50%, whereas
the design prestress level of SMA bars should be in the range of 50–75%
of total design force demand to achieve the better re-centering capabil-
ity and hysteretic energy dissipation of SC-BRBs.
6. Assessment of seismic performance of braced frames
The component level study highlighted the efficacy of SC-BRBs in
dissipating the desired hysteretic energy and in providing the re-
centering potential under seismic loading by optimizing the use of
SMA bars. However, it is imperative to evaluate the performance of
building frames equipped with SC-BRBs to investigate their re-
centering potential under seismic loading, particularly under near-
field earthquake excitation. In this study, a 9-story steel building
frame [47] has been considered for the evaluation of global level seismic
 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321 9

Fig. 14. Details of 9-story study building: (a) Plan view, (b) Elevation view of the outer frame.

response using BRBs as well as SC-BRBs. Fig. 14 shows the building plan Table 2
and elevation of the study building. The width of each bay is 9.15 m and Details of section sizes of braces, beams, and columns of the study frame.

the plan dimension of the building is 45.73 m × 45.73 m. The overall Story BRBF SC-BRBF Gravity frame Braced frame
height of the building is 37.17 m for a typical story height of 3.96 m ex- Level
BRB BRB SMA Columns Beams Columns Beams
cept for the first story which is 5.49 m. All beam-to-column connections core core area
are assumed as non-moment-resisting (pinned) at all story levels. The area area (mm2)
building is assumed to be located in Los Angeles, California region and (mm2) (mm2)
is designed following American Building Codes. The total seismic weight 9 689.4 168.9 520.5 W10x100 W10x68 W14x283 W12x96
of the building is 15,488 kN and the approximate fundamental time- 8 1238.6 303.5 935.2
period of the building is computed as 1.10 s. [48]. 7 1704.3 417.5 1286.7
6 2089.6 511.9 1577.6 W14x82 W10x77 W14x455 W12x106
5 2398.3 587.6 1810.7
6.1. Design of BRBF and SC-BRBF 4 2634.6 645.5 1989.1
3 2803.3 686.8 2116.5 W10x112 W12x79 W14x500 W12X120
It is assumed that four braced bays are placed in the outer perimeter 2 2910.3 713.0 2197.3
1 3501.0 857.7 2643.3
of the building. Code-based equivalent lateral force method [48] has
been adopted to design these frames assuming BRBs or SC-BRBs are
installed in all story levels. The design base shear of the building
equipped with BRBs is computed as 1054 kN considering the values of
on beams. The selected beams and columns satisfied the width-to-
response reduction factor (R) and importance factor (I) equal to 8 and
thickness (or compactness) ratio requirements in accordance with
1, respectively [48]. Design base shear is distributed over the height of
ASNI/AISC 341–16 [46] provisions. Material yield strengths of columns
the building to estimate the design lateral force levels in accordance
and beams are assumed as 345 MPa. Table 2 summarizes the details of
with ASCE/SEI 7–16 [48] provisions. It is assumed that only the braces
section sizes of BRBs, beams, and columns of 9-story BRBF.
resist the entire story shear at any floor level without any contribution
The same procedure has been adopted to design the 9-story frame
from beams and columns of the frames.
equipped with SC-BRBs, referred to as SC-BRBF in this study. Based on
The axial design strength of BRBs is considered as follows:
the findings of this parametric study and past experiments [39], BRB
P u−BRB ¼ ϕ P yBRB ð3Þ yielding core segments and SMA bars are proposed to be designed for
24.5% and 75.5% of total design demand on SC-BRBs of the study
frame, respectively. It is further assumed that the design story shear at
Where, PyBRB = Tension yield strength of BRB, which is the product
of material tensile yield stress, Fysc and the net cross-sectional area, Asc any floor level of the SC-BRBFs would be the same as that of the BRBF.
Design axial strength of SC-BRBs can be expressed as the sum of the
of the core element. ϕ= Strength reduction factor considered as 0.9.
The value of Fyscis assumed as 290 MPa with a tolerance of ±28 MPa. design strengths of BRB core element and SMA rods. Mathematically,
A lower bound value of Fysc equal to 262 MPa has been adopted to esti- P uSC−BRB ¼ ϕF ysc Asc þ ϕF i−SMA ASMA ð5Þ
mate the required area of the core segment. For a given story shear, Vu,
the area of yielding core element of BRBs placed in the chevron config- Where, Fi−SMA= Initial pre-stress in SMA bars, andASMA = Area of
uration with an angle of inclination, θwith horizontal can be estimated SMA rods. The initial pre-stressing force in SMA bars should be higher
as follows: than the adjusted axial strengths of BRBs, i.e.,
Vu β ω F ysc Asc ≤F i−SMA ASMA ð6Þ
Asc ¼ ð4Þ
ϕF ysc ð1 þ βÞ cos θ
In the above equation, Fyscrepresents the material yield stress ob-
The compression yield strengths and ultimate strengths of BRBs are tained from the coupon tests. If the minimum specified yield stress
calculated based on the provided area of core elements considering the value is used in the above equation, then material overstrength factor
compression adjustment factor, βand strain-hardening factor, ω. In this Ry should be adopted in the computation of adjusted brace strengths.
study, the values of β and ω are assumed as 1.04 and 1.56, respectively Accordingly, the cross-sectional area of the BRB core element and SMA
[19]. The sizes of beams and columns are finalized using the capacity de- rods of SC-BRB can be determined as follows:
sign approach considering the expected peak axial strengths of BRBs.
Unbalanced brace strengths in tension and compression are considered Pu
ASC ¼ ð7Þ
in addition to the gravity loads to compute the design flexural demand φ F ysc ð1 þ βωÞ
10 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321
βωF ysc Asc
ASMA ¼
F i−SMA
The same sizes of beams and columns are adopted in BRBF and
SC-BRBF as the expected strengths of braces are used in the design.
Table 2 also summarizes the sizes of BRB core elements and SMA
rods at different story levels of the 9-story SC-BRBF. The combined
area of BRB core and SMA rods in SC-BRB at a particular story of
SC-BRBF is kept the same as the area of BRB core element in BRBF
at that story level.
It is worth-mentioning that efforts have been made to develop a
performance-based seismic design method for self-centering structures
utilizing a performance-based plastic design framework [49,50]. This re-
lies on the energy-balance concept between the input seismic energy
and the monotonic energy dissipation capacity of structures. The
self-centering structures are modeled as a single-degrees of freedom
systems. Qiu and Zhu [51] derived constant ductility spectrum and inte-
grated with the plastic design method for the seismic design of the self-
centering system. Numerical analysis results showed that the designed
self-centering system achieved the target performance objectives. Re-
cently, Qui et al. [52] proposed an energy-based seismic design method-
ology for SMA braced frames. This underlying principle of this method is
based on the total hysteretic energy and accumulated ductility de-
mands, rather than monotonic energy dissipation only. The proposed
methodology successfully demonstrated its efficacy in satisfying the
performance targets of the SMA braced frames.
6.2. Numerical modeling and selection of ground motions
Both BRBF and SC-BRBF are modeled in computer software OpenSees
[41] to compare their seismic response under a set of near-field earth-
quake records. Braced frame BF-2 (Fig. 14) has been considered for
the numerical modeling and analysis in this study. The details of the
modeling of braces, beams, and columns have already been discussed
in the preceding sections. All columns of the braced frame are assumed
to be fixed at their bases. A hinged-base leaning column connected to
the braced frames using rigid links is also modeled to account for the
P-Delta effect of gravity loads in the analysis.
A set of forty near-fault (NF) ground motions developed by Som-
erville et al. [53] has been selected for nonlinear dynamic analyses of
the study frames. These selected NF ground motions consist of two
types of records, i.e., (i) first twenty ground motions (NF01–20) are
derived from the historical recordings, and (ii) the remaining twenty
ground motions (NF21–40) are derived from the physical simula-
tions of fault rupture and seismic wave propagation through soil
strata. The individual components of each ground-motion are ro-
tated 45o away from the fault-normal and fault-parallel orientations.
The magnitude of earthquakes of these ground motions varied in a
range of 6.75–7.5 with a distance ranging from 0 to 18 km. The me-
dian of these selected ground motions represents an earthquake of
magnitude 7.0 at a distance of about 5 km. This magnitude and dis-
tance combination represents the seismic hazard in many regions
of California, USA with a 10% probability exceedance in 50 years.
Fig. 15 shows the comparison of the median response spectra of the
selected NF ground motions with the design spectrum. All ground
motions are multiplied by a scale factor computed as the ratio of
the design spectral acceleration to the median spectral acceleration
computed at the fundamental time periods of BRBF and SC-BRBF. Lin-
ear modal analysis results showed that the fundamental time periods
of BRBF and SC-BRBF are 1.18 s and 0.71 s, respectively. The scaled
ground motions are used in the nonlinear dynamic analyses of nu-
merical models. Since the scaling of ground motions has been carried
out by matching the median acceleration spectrum with the design
spectrum at the fundamental period of the study frames, it is noted
that the ordinates of the scaled median acceleration spectrum are
higher than those of the design spectrum at the time periods
ð8Þ
Fig. 15. Comparison of median response spectra of ground motions with the design
spectrum.
corresponding to the higher modes of vibration of the SC-BRBF.
Thus, the SC-BRBF system may have been subjected to a relatively
higher seismic demand in the time-history analysis as compared to
the design demand.
6.3. Analysis results
Nonlinear time-history analyses are carried out to investigate the
peak inter-story drift ratio (ISDR), and residual drift ratio (RDR) re-
sponse of 9-story BRBF and SC-BRBF under near-field earthquake exci-
tations. Drift ratio is defined as the ratio of story displacement to the
corresponding story height. Two statistical quantities, i.e., mean (μ),
standard deviation (SD), of the drift response are evaluated for all de-
sign cases under the selected ground motions. It is worth mentioning
that ISDR response is often considered as a damage indicator in the seis-
mic response of structures.
6.3.1. Seismic response of SC-BRBF designed using optimal parameters
Fig. 16 presents the inter-story drift response of BRBF and SC-BRBF
under a set of NF ground motions. The peak value of mean ISDR of
BRBF is noted as 1.3% at the third story level. The corresponding value
for the SC-BRBF is observed as 2.2% at the 9th story level, which is mar-
ginally higher than the limiting drift value of 2% under design basis
earthquake (DBE) hazard [45]. This could be attributed to the relatively
higher seismic demand imposed by the ground motions that are scaled
only at the fundamental period of the SC-BRBF. The contribution of the
higher modes of vibration of the SC-BRBF resulted in the peak ISDR re-
sponse exceeding the limiting drift at the roof level. The peak values of
the mean + standard deviation (μ + SD) of ISDR are calculated as
2.3% and 4.5% for BRBF and SC-BRBF, respectively. BRBF exhibited the
maximum ISDR response at the third or fourth story levels in nearly
all ground motions, whereas SC-BRBF showed the maximum values of
ISDR response at the top story levels. In five out of forty ground motion
records, SC-BRBF showed the maximum ISDR exceeding a value of 5%,
which is often considered as the limiting drift value in the maximum
considered earthquake (MCE) hazard level [45]. Thus, it can be con-
cluded that the replacement of BRBs with SC-BRBs may result in a rela-
tively higher ISDR response. Fig. 17 shows the residual drift response of
BRBF and SC-BRBF under the selected NF ground motions. The peak
value of mean RDR is noted as 0.43% in BRBF, whereas the correspond-
ing value is observed as 0.04% in SC-BRBF. As expected, a significant re-
duction in the residual drift is noted for SC-BRBF. Similar to the inter-
story drift response, the peak residual drift response is observed at
the fourth story level in BRBF and the top story level in SC-BRBF.
 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321 11

Fig. 16. Interstory drift response (a) BRBF and (b) SC-BRBF.

Fig. 17. Residual drift response (a) BRBF and (b) SC-BRBF.

As shown in Fig. 18, both BRBF and SC-BRBF exhibited acceptable mean
peak ISDR response, and the maximum drift value is noted to be less
than 2.5% under the selected near-fault earthquake excitations. As ex-
pected, BRBF exhibited the excessive residual drift response as com-
pared to the SC-BRBF.
6.3.2. Seismic response of SC-BRBF with varying prestressing force levels in
SMA rods
In the previous analysis, an initial prestressing force of 200 MPa in
SMA rods is assumed in the numerical models of SC-BRBs, which is con-
sistent with the past experimental investigation [39]. This prestressing
force is equal to 80% of the design yield stress of SMA bars. Though
drift response of SC-BRBF is found to be acceptable under the selected
near-field ground motions, it is necessary to explore the influence of
varying initial prestressing force levels in SMA rods on the overall seis-
mic response of SC-BRBF. A parametric study has been conducted on SC-
BRBF models in which the area of SMA bars in SC-BRBs is varied in the
range of 0–100% of the area of yielding core elements of BRBs. The
same sizes of beams and columns are adopted in all numerical models
in this parametric study.
Fig. 19 shows the comparison of drift response at all story levels of
SC-BRBFs with varying sectional areas of SMA bars under NF-23 ground
motion. This earthquake record has shown the maximum peak residual
and inter-story drift demand on the braced frames in the previous anal-
ysis. SC-BRBF model with 0%-SMA (i.e., only BRBs) exhibited the perma-
nent residual drift response at each floor level after reaching the peak
drift level. A sudden change in the story drift vs. time history in each
story level is observed in SC-BRBF with the 20% area of SMA bars. The in-
crease in the area of SMA bars resulted in higher peak story drift values.
SC-BRBF with 100% SMA rods experienced the excessive residual drift
demand primarily because of the failure of beams and columns as
these members have not been designed considering the expected
peak strengths of SMA bars in this case.
Fig. 20 shows the comparison of variation in ISDR and RDR response
of SC-BRBF. A peak ISDR of 3% and RDR of 0.83% is noted at the third-
floor level of BRBF (i.e., with 0% SMA). As the area of SMA rods is in-
creased, the peak value of ISDR is increased for SC-BRBFs. The maximum
increase in ISDR is observed in top stories as compared to that in the
lower ones. Plastic hinges are formed in columns at the 7th story level
(where column sizes are changed) of SC-BRBFs having an area of SMA
rods in the range of 20–60%. As the area of SMA rods is further increased,
plastic hinges are noted in the columns of lower stories. The peak value
of ISDR in SC-BRBF with 80% area of SMA bars is noted 8%, whereas the
total collapse of SC-BRBF is observed for the case with 100% area of SMA
bars is used. Since the columns of SC-BRBFs are not designed for the
higher brace forces arising from the martensitic strength of SMAs, the
12 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321

Fig. 18. Comparison of (a) mean inter-story drift and (b) mean residual drift response of BRBF and SC-BRBF.

Fig. 19. Story drift vs. time response of SC-BRBFs with varying SMA bars under NF23 ground motion.

frame failure rather than brace failure is observed in SC-BRBFs with
higher prestressing force in SMA bars. Fig. 20(b) shows the variation
in peak RDR response of SC-BRBFs. The maximum value of RDR equal
to 0.38% is noted for SC-BRBF with a 20% area of SMA bars against a
value of 0.83% for BRBF. The use of an increased SMA area resulted in
a reduction in RDR response of SC-BRBFs. However, SC-BRBF with
100% SMA rods exhibited a higher residual drift response due to the col-
umn failure. This clearly showed that the self-centering frames may ex-
hibit worse seismic performance by simply increasing the area of SMA
bars if the primary members are not designed for the additional ex-
pected force demand. Thus, in order to control the drift response of
braced frames equipped only with SMA bars, the beam and column
sizes of the frame are required to be increased significantly, which
may not be cost-effective in the design practice.
7. Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
• The geometric properties of SMA bars should be judiciously selected
to achieve the desired hysteretic energy dissipation and the
recentering potential of SC-BRBs. The excessive use of SMA rods may
result in a higher inter-story drift response and may be uneconomical.
• A parametric study on SC-BRB components concluded that the length
of SMA rods should not exceed 50% of BRB core length, and the
prestressing force level in SMA bars should be limited to 50–75% of
the design force demand on braces.
• The peak values of inter-story drift and residual drift response is noted
at the lower floor levels of BRBFs, whereas the same response is noted
 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321
Fig. 20. Comparison of (a) ISDR and (b) RDR response SC-BRBFs with varying SMA bars under NF23 ground motion.
at the top story levels of SC-BRBFs of a 9-story steel building. The SC-
BRBF with SMA rods designed using the optimal parameters exhibited
a maximum value of mean interstory drift ratio of 2.2% under the se-
lected DBE level near-field ground motions against a design drift
limit of 2%. This was primarily due to the contribution of higher
modes of vibration and the scaling of the ground motions. The ordi-
nates of the median scaled acceleration spectrum were higher than
those of the design spectrum at the time periods corresponding to
the higher modes of vibration of the SC-BRBF. As a result, the SC-
BRBF may have been subjected to relatively higher seismic demand
as compared to the design demand in the time-history analysis. The
BRBF exhibited a peak residual drift ratio of 0.43% against a limiting
value of 0.5% considered to be acceptable for the retrofitting and reus-
ability of a frame.
• The optimized length and prestressing force levels of SMA rods in SC-
BRBs can be used to achieve the desired seismic response of the
braced frame using the same beams and columns in SC-BRBFs as
those of BRBFs. Self-centering BRBs designed with the higher
prestressing force level in SMA rods may require the higher sizes of
beams and column sizes to avoid the complete collapse of braced
frames under near-field earthquakes.
Authorship contributions
Please indicate the specific contributions made by each author The
name of each author must appear at least once in each of the three cat-
egories below: Conception and design of study: A. F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo;
Acquisition of data: A. F. Ghowsi; Analysis and/or interpretation of data:
A. F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo; Drafting the manuscript: A. F. Ghowsi; Revising
the manuscript critically for important intellectual content: D.R. Sahoo;
Approval of the version of the manuscript to be published (the names of
all authors must be listed): A. F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
All persons who have made substantial contributions to the work re-
ported in the manuscript (e.g., technical help, writing and editing assis-
tance, general support), but who do not meet the criteria for authorship,
are named in the Acknowledgements and have given us their written
13
permission to be named. If we have not included an Acknowledge-
ments, then that indicates that we have not received substantial contri-
butions from non-authors.
This statement is signed by all the authors.
References
[1] C.J. Black, N. Makris, I.D. Aiken, Component testing, seismic evaluation and charac-
terization of buckling-restrained braces, J. Struct. Eng. 130 (6) (2004) 880–894.
[2] M.S. Pandikkadavatha, D.R. Sahoo, Cyclic testing of short-length buckling-restrained
braces with detachable casings, Earthq. Struct. 10 (3) (2016) 699–716.
[3] L.-J. Jia, Y. Dong, H. Ge, K. Kondo, P. Xiang, Experimental study on high-performance
buckling-restrained braces with perforated core plates, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 19
(01) (2019), 1940004.
[4] C. Avci-Karatas, O.C. Celik, C. Yalcin, Experimental investigation of aluminum alloy
and steel core buckling restrained braces (BRBs), Int. J. Steel Struct. 18 (2) (2018)
650–673.
[5] A. Stratan, C.I. Zub, D. Dubină, Experimental tests for pre-qualification of a set of
buckling-restrained braces, Key Eng. Mater. 763 (2018) 450–457.
[6] A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo, Experimental study of all-steel buckling-restrained braces
under cyclic loading, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, vol.
47, 2019, pp. 67–80.
[7] I.D. Aiken, S.A. Mahin, P.R. Uriz, Large-scale testing of buckling-restrained braced
frames, Proceeding of Japan Passive Control Symposium, Tokyo Institute of Technol-
ogy, Tokyo, Japan 2002, pp. 35–44.
[8] L. Fahnestock, J.M. Ricles, R. Sause, Experimental evaluation of a large-scale
buckling-restrained braced frame, J. Struct. Eng. 133 (9) (2007) 1205–1214.
[9] L. Di Sarno, A.S. Elnashai, Bracing systems for seismic retrofitting of steel frames, J.
Constr. Steel Res. 65 (2) (2009) 452–465.
[10] K. Palmer, C. Roeder, T. Okazaki, C. Shield, D. Lehman, Three-dimensional tests of
two-story, One-Bay by One-Bay, steel concentric braced frames, Structures Congress
2011, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA 2011, pp. 3057–3067.
[11] K.D. Palmer, A.S. Christopulos, D.E. Lehman, C.W. Roeder, Experimental evaluation of
cyclically loaded, large-scale, planar and 3-D buckling-restrained braced frames, J.
Constr. Steel Res. 101 (2014) 415–425.
[12] H.-H. Khoo, K.-C. Tsai, C.-Y. Tsai, C.-Y. Tsai, K.-J. Wang, Bidirectional substructure
pseudo-dynamic tests and analysis of a full-scale two-story buckling-restrained
braced frame, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 45 (7) (2016) 1085–1107.
[13] E. Junda, S. Leelataviwat, P. Doung, Cyclic testing and performance evaluation of
buckling-restrained knee-braced frames, J. Constr. Steel Res. 148 (2018) 154–164.
[14] M.S. Speicher, J.L. Harris, Collapse prevention seismic performance assessment of
new buckling-restrained braced frames using ASCE 41, Eng. Struct. 164 (2018)
274–289.
[15] Y.O. Özkılıç, M.B. Bozkurt, C. Topkaya, Evaluation of seismic response factors for
BRBFs using FEMA P695 methodology, J. Constr. Steel Res. 151 (2018) 41–57.
[16] A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo, Seismic performance of buckling-restrained braced frames
with varying beam-column connections, Int. J. Steel Struct. 13 (4) (2013).
[17] A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo, Fragility assessment of buckling-restrained braced frames
under near-field earthquakes, Steel Compos. Struct. 19 (1) (2015) 173–190.
[18] A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo, Effect of loading history and restraining parameters on cy-
clic response of steel BRBs, Int. J. Steel Struct. 19 (4) (2019) 1055.
[19] D.R. Sahoo, S.-H. Chao, Stiffness-based design for mitigation of residual displace-
ments of buckling-restrained braced frames, J. Struct. Eng. 141 (9) (2015),
04014229.
[20] D.R. Sahoo, S.-H. Chao, Performance-based plastic design method for buckling-
restrained braced frames, Eng. Struct. 32 (9) (2010) 2950–2958.
14 A.F. Ghowsi, D.R. Sahoo / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 175 (2020) 106321
[21] L. Di Sarno, A.S. Elnashai, Innovative strategies for seismic retrofitting of steel and
composite structures, Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 7 (3) (2005) 115–135.
[22] N. Chancellor, M. Eatherton, D. Roke, T. Akbaş, Self-centering seismic lateral force
resisting systems: high performance structures for the city of tomorrow, Buildings
4 (3) (2014) 520–548.
[23] C.-C. Chou, P.-T. Chung, Development of cross-anchored dual-core self-centering
braces for seismic resistance, J. Constr. Steel Res. 101 (2014) 19–32.
[24] Z. Zhou, Q. Xie, X.C. Lei, X.T. He, S.P. Meng, Experimental investigation of the hyster-
etic performance of dual-tube self-centering buckling-restrained braces with com-
posite tendons, J. Compos. Constr. 19 (6) (2015), 04015011.
[25] H. Wang, X. Nie, P. Pan, Development of a self-centering buckling restrained brace
using cross-anchored pre-stressed steel strands, J. Constr. Steel Res. 138 (2017)
621–632.
[26] L.-J. Jia, R.-W. Li, P. Xiang, D.-Y. Zhou, Y. Dong, Resilient steel frames installed with
self-centering dual-steel buckling-restrained brace, J. Constr. Steel Res. 149 (2018)
95–104.
[27] L. Xu, X. Fan, Z. Li, Experimental behavior and analysis of self-centering steel brace
with pre-pressed disc springs, J. Constr. Steel Res. 139 (2017) 363–373.
[28] G. Zhang, P. Chen, Z. Zhao, J. Wu, Experimental study on seismic performance of
rocking buckling-restrained brace steel frame with liftable column base, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 143 (2018) 291–306.
[29] Y.-W. Li, G.-Q. Li, J. Jiang, Y.-B. Wang, Use of energy-dissipative rocking columns to
enhance seismic performance of buckling-restrained braced frames, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 159 (2019) 548–559.
[30] M.R. Eatherton, X. Ma, H. Krawinkler, D. Mar, S. Billington, J.F. Hajjar, G.G. Deierlein,
Design concepts for controlled rocking of self-centering steel-braced frames, J.
Struct. Eng. 140 (11) (2014), 04014082.
[31] C. Christopoulos, R. Tremblay, H.-J. Kim, M. Lacerte, Self-centering energy dissipative
bracing system for the seismic resistance of structures: development and validation,
J. Struct. Eng. 134 (1) (2008) 96–107.
[32] J. Erochko, C. Christopoulos, R. Tremblay, Design, testing, and detailed component
modeling of a high-capacity self-centering energy-dissipative brace, J. Struct. Eng.
141 (8) (2015), 04014193.
[33] J. Erochko, C. Christopoulos, R. Tremblay, Design and testing of an enhanced-
elongation telescoping self-centering energy-dissipative brace, J. Struct. Eng. 141
(6) (2015), 04014163.
[34] C. Fang, M.C.H. Yam, T.M. Chan, W. Wang, X. Yang, X. Lin, A study of hybrid self-
centring connections equipped with shape memory alloy washers and bolts, Eng.
Struct. 164 (2018) 155–168.
[35] Z. Roshanfekr Rad, M.S. Ghobadi, M. Yakhchalian, Probabilistic seismic collapse and
residual drift assessment of smart buildings equipped with shape memory alloy
connections, Eng. Struct. 197 (6) (2019), 109375.
[36] C. Fang, W. Wang, C. He, Y. Chen, Self-centring behaviour of steel and steel-concrete
composite connections equipped with NiTi SMA bolts, Eng. Struct. 150 (2017)
390–408.
[37] Qiu C, Du, X. Seismic performance of multistory CBFs with novel recentering energy
dissipative braces. J. Constr. Steel Res., doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.
105864.
[38] C. Qiu, S. Zhu, Shake table test and numerical study of self-centering steel frame
with SMA braces, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 46 (2017) 117–137.
[39] D.J. Miller, L.A. Fahnestock, M.R. Eatherton, Development and experimental valida-
tion of a nickel–titanium shape memory alloy self-centering buckling-restrained
brace, Eng. Struct. 40 (2012) 288–298.
[40] E. Kalkan, S.K. Kunnath, Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic re-
sponse of buildings, Earthquake Spectra 22 (2) (2006) 367–390.
[41] S. Mazzoni, F. McKenna, M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves, OpenSees Command Language
Manual, 2006.
[42] B. Taftali, Probabilistic Seismic Demand Assessment of Steel Frames with Shape
Memory Alloy Connections, PhD.dissertation 2007.
[43] M.R. Eatherton, L.A. Fahnestock, D.J. Miller, Computational study of self-centering
buckling-restrained braced frame seismic performance, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.
43 (13) (2014) 1897–1914.
[44] M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves, Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam–
column elements, J. Struct. Eng. 132 (2) (2006) 244–252.
[45] FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,
2000.
[46] AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings AISC 341-10, 2010.
[47] Y. Ohtori, R.E. Christenson, B.F. Spencer, S.J. Dyke, Benchmark control problems for
seismically excited nonlinear buildings, J. Eng. Mech. 130 (4) (2004) 366–385.
[48] ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2017.
[49] S. Leelataviwat, S.C. Goel, B. Stojadinovic, Toward performance-based seismic design
of structures, Earthquake Spectra 15 (3) (1999) 435–461.
[50] D.R. Sahoo, S.H. Chao, Performance-based plastic design of buckling-restrained
braced frames, Eng. Struct. 32 (9) (2010) 2950–2958.
[51] C. Qiu, S. Zhu, Performance-based seismic design of self-centering steel frames with
SMA-based braces, Eng. Struct. 130 (1) (2007) 67–82.
[52] C. Qiu, J. Qi, C. Chen, Energy-based seismic design methodology of SMABFs using
hysteretic energy spectrum, ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 146 (2) (2020), 04019207.
[53] P.G. Somerville, N.F. Smith, R.W. Graves, N.A. Abrahamson, Modification of empirical
strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration
effects of rupture directivity, Seismol. Res. Lett. 68 (1) (1997) 199–222.