Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

SELF-CENTERING BUCKLING
RESTRAINED BRACE DEVELOPMENT
AND APPLICATION FOR SEISMIC
RESPONSE MITIGATION
M.R. Eatherton 1, L.A. Fahnestock2 and D.J. Miller3

ABSTRACT

A self-centering buckling restrained brace (SC-BRB) has been developed which returns to near
zero displacement when axial force is removed through the action of pretensioned shape memory
alloy (SMA) rods and dissipates significant seismic energy through a buckling restrained brace
(BRB) component. The SC-BRB can be substituted in place of conventional braces or BRBs to
provide enhanced seismic performance that is expected to reduce business downtime and repair
costs. A prior experimental program has shown that the SC-BRB is a viable seismic brace with
enhanced performance. This paper explores the design space for the SC-BRB and its application
in realistic building scenarios. A parametric computational study was conducted on 147 braces
examining the effect of varying key design variables such as strength, self-centering ability, SMA
pretension, SMA gage length, and SMA material properties. Three prototype buildings with five
different levels of self-centering capability were then designed. The fifteen resulting structures
were subjected to a suite of 44 ground motions scaled to two levels of seismic hazard. The results
show that the SC-BRB structures exhibit virtually no residual drift even if the braces don’t have
full self-centering capability. Brace configurations with SMA pretension force between 50% to
150% of the BRB yield force can still reliably self-center the building while reducing the demands
on surrounding framing by limiting brace overstrength.

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
3
Designer, Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, CA 94104

Eatherton, M.R., Fahnestock, L.A., and Miller, D.J. Self-centering buckling restrained brace development and
application for seismic response mitigation. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake
Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
Self-Centering Buckling Restrained Brace Development and Application
for Seismic Response Mitigation

M.R. Eatherton 1, L.A. Fahnestock2 and D.J. Miller3

ABSTRACT

A self-centering buckling restrained brace (SC-BRB) has been developed which returns to near zero
displacement when axial force is removed through the action of pretensioned shape memory alloy
(SMA) rods and dissipates significant seismic energy through a buckling restrained brace (BRB)
component. The SC-BRB can be substituted in place of conventional braces or BRBs to provide
enhanced seismic performance that is expected to reduce business downtime and repair costs. A
prior experimental program has shown that the SC-BRB is a viable seismic brace with enhanced
performance. This paper explores the design space for the SC-BRB and its application in realistic
building scenarios. A parametric computational study was conducted on 147 braces examining the
effect of varying key design variables such as strength, self-centering ability, SMA pretension, SMA
gage length, and SMA material properties. Three prototype buildings with five different levels of
self-centering capability were then designed. The fifteen resulting structures were subjected to a
suite of 44 ground motions scaled to two levels of seismic hazard. The results show that the SC-
BRB structures exhibit virtually no residual drift even if the braces don’t have full self-centering
capability. Brace configurations with SMA pretension force between 50% to 150% of the BRB
yield force can still reliably self-center the building while reducing the demands on surrounding
framing by limiting brace overstrength.

Introduction

Conventional seismic lateral force resisting systems (SFRS) such as moment resisting frames and
braced steel frames are designed to undergo inelasticity during design level earthquakes (e.g. AISC
2010a). Historically, the focus in earthquake engineering has been to develop prescriptive
requirements (i.e. design and detailing specifications) for these types of systems to produce
sufficient inelastic deformation capacity so that the resulting structures do not collapse during an
earthquake. Although the design approach is intended to focus inelasticity in ductile components,
these components typically cannot be easily replaced. Furthermore, permanent lateral drifts can
remain after an earthquake as a result of inelasticity in the SFRS. Residual drifts and inelastic
damage to non-replaceable structural components can make it economically advantageous to
demolish buildings after an earthquake rather than repair them. Self-centering (SC) seismic
systems have been developed in the past two decades as a means for a building to survive a large

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
3
Designer, Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, CA 94104

Eatherton, M.R., Fahnestock, L.A., and Miller, D.J. Self-centering buckling restrained brace development and
application for seismic response mitigation. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake
Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
earthquake while minimizing residual drifts and concentrating structural damage into replaceable
components.

A self-centering buckling restrained brace (SC-BRB) was developed using shape memory
alloy (SMA) rods to create a restoring force through a pre-compressed configuration of concentric
tubes, and a buckling restrained brace (BRB) element to introduce energy dissipation. The SC-
BRB concept has been validated by experimental testing (Miller et al. 2012). Based on the
experimental data, a calibrated computational model capable of capturing SC-BRB behavior was
developed. A new cyclic material model was created and implemented to simulate the behavior
of SMA rods, and both the SMA and BRB components were calibrated to match experimental
behavior. Two computational studies were then conducted. A computational investigation of 147
single braces subjected to cyclic loading was used to investigate the effect of varying key design
variables, such as self-centering ratio, brace axial strength, SMA initial stress, and SMA gage
length, on response parameters such as energy dissipation and drift at zero force. The second
computational study investigated the seismic response of fifteen prototype buildings designed
using SC-BRBs. The prototype buildings were subjected to a suite of ground motions scaled to
two hazard levels and response parameters were analyzed. Based on the results of both
computational studies, conclusions are made related to the application of SC-BRBs to buildings in
practice, including recommendations for the proportioning of SC-BRBs to obtain desirable seismic
performance.

SC-BRB Concept and Related Experimental Study

The SC-BRB is described in Figure 1. At the heart of the SC-BRB is a buckling restrained brace
core (1) surrounded by grout inside a confining inner tube (2). Two additional concentric tubes
participate in the restoring force mechanism (3). The ends of the BRB are welded to the middle
tube at one end (left end of Figure 1) and the outer tube at the other end. In this way the two tubes
telescope, or move longitudinally, relative to one another. Free floating anchorage plates (4) work
together with shape memory alloy rods (5) to force the two tubes back into alignment after the
brace axial force is removed. The action of the SC-BRB is further demonstrated in Figure 2 for
both brace shortening (Figure 2a) and brace elongation (Figure 2b). The BRB core is subjected to
both shortening and elongation, but in both cases, the anchorage plates are forced apart by the
relative motion of the two tubes creating additional elongation in the SMA rods.

An experimental study (Miller et al. 2012) was conducted to validate the SC-BRB concept,
explore brace detailing, and provide key data for calibration of the computational models described
herein. The experimental program consisted of quasi-static cyclic tensile testing of five SMA rods
with varying heat treatment, baseline testing of a traditional buckling restrained brace, and testing
of two SC-BRB prototype braces (See Miller 2011 for details). The cyclic tensile response of a
32 mm round SMA rod machined to 21.6 mm diameter for a 122 mm gage length and then
subjected to 375°C annealing for 60 minutes is shown in Figure 3a. An initial R-phase transition
occurs in the first two cycles causing some residual strain (also noted in McCormick et al. 2007).
At approximately 300 MPa, the martensitic phase transformation begins and at approximately 5%
strain the martensite transformation is complete resulting in apparent hardening in the material.
The cyclic loading protocol was repeated three times (data for the second and third trials not
shown), applying a cumulative strain demand of 119% before fracture occurred.
 1 Buckling 2Grouted Pretensioned 5 3 BRB Ends Weld Free 4
Restrained Inner Shape Memory to Middle Tube Floating
Brace Tube Alloy (SMA) Rods on Left Side and Anchorage
(BRB) Braces Act to Keep Middle Outer Tube on Plates
Core BRB Core Tube and Outer Right Side
Tube Aligned Threaded Rod

A B C (e) Cut Section Through SC-BRB D

Anchorage Outer
Plate Shape
Memory Tube Confining
Nuts on Alloy Mortar
Threaded Middle
(SMA) Tube
SMA Rod Rods Threaded
Inner Rods
Cross Shape Welds to Tube
Passes Middle Welds to
Through Slot Tube BRB Outer
in Anchorage Core Tube
Plate (a) Section A (b) Section B (c) Section C (d) Section D
Figure 1 – Self-Centering Buckling Restrained Brace Configuration

Gap Opening BRB Core Gap Opening

at Middle Tube Shortens at Outer Tube

SMA Rods Act to Close

the Gaps and Bring (a) Brace Subjected to Shortening
Tubes into Alignment

Gap Opening BRB Core Gap Opening

at Outer Tube Elongates at Middle Tube

(b) Brace Subjected to Elongation

Figure 2 – Demonstration of SC-BRB Behavior as Subjected to Shortening and Elongation

The assembled brace is shown in Figure 3b. The specimen referred to as SC-BRB2 in
Miller et al. (2012) was 3.33 m long with a BRB core that was 35.6 mm x 12.7 mm A36 plate.
The ASTM A500 Grade B tubes were HSS7x9x3/8, HSS9x9x3/8, and HSS14x14x1/2 for the
inner, middle, and outer tubes respectively. The four SMA rods were 32 mm diameter with
machined gage length and diameter of 1.07 m and 22 mm, respectively, and initial prestress of 200
MPa. Four tension tests on the BRB core material demonstrated an average yield stress of 305
MPa, an average ultimate stress of 460 MPa, and an average elongation at fracture of 27%. The
experimental load-deformation of the SMA and BRB components is shown in Figure 3c and the
overall brace response is shown in Figure 3d. The brace was subjected to cumulative strain
demands greater than the demands expected for multiple maximum considered earthquake events.
(a) Behavior of Shape Memory Alloy (b) End View of Completed Brace

(c) Behavior of SC-BRB Components (d) Experimental Behavior of the SC-BRB

Figure 3 – Results from Experimental Testing

Computational Model Development

A computationally efficient nonlinear model was developed and implemented in the OpenSees
software platform (Mazzoni et al. 2013) to simulate the cyclic behavior of the SC-BRB. The
hysteretic SMA material model developed by Taftali (2007) was modified to better capture
features of the behavior critical for loss of restoring force in self-centering systems using SMA.
The Taftali (2007) model was based on six parameters (see Figure 4a) including modulus of
elasticity for the austenite phase, ESMA, forward transformation stress (austenite to martensite),
FsAS, secondary slope during transformation, Rs, strain at which the transformation to martensite is
complete, dfAS, modulus of elasticity for the fully transformed martensite, Rm, and a reverse
transformation stress (martensite to austenite), FfSA.
σ
(a) Rm (b)

RS
FsAS
ESMA
SA
Ff

FeSA ε
εresidual dfAS
Figure 4 – Developing a Hysteretic Model for SMA that Includes Residual Strain
 A parameter was added for the unloading return stress, FeSA, to approximate the unloading
path after large strain excursions. A parameter was also added to incorporate residual strain into
the hysteretic model, RSTFact. It was found that the magnitude of residual strain for the behavior
shown in Figure 3a was approximately proportional to the cumulative dissipated energy with a
residual strain factor computed to be RSTFact=0.00721 (%/MPa-m/m). The ability of the hysteretic
model to capture the cyclic response of SMA rod is demonstrated in Figure 4b using parameters,
ESMA=28,650 MPa, FsAS=308 MPa, Rs=0.033ESMA, dfAS=0.0412 m/m, Rm=0.30ESMA, FfSA=221 MPa,
FeSA=124 MPa, and RSTFact=0.00721 %/MPa. The experimental response is plotted without the
initial R-phase shown in Figure 4b because it is assumed that this portion of response will already
be expended as the rod is pretensioned to an initial stress above the R-phase plateau. It is shown
that the model is capable of approximately simulating the unloading path and residual stresses
upon unloading.

The computational model for the other primary nonlinear component, the BRB, was
developed using the Steel02 material model in OpenSees, which utilizes the Menegotto-Pinto
constitutive relationship. This model was calibrated to match the cyclic behavior of eight BRBs
from large-scale tests found in the literature (Fahnestock et al. 2007). The calibration was
conducted with the objective to match the hardening behaviors in tension and compression while
also matching the total energy dissipated. The resulting hardening parameters had a small
kinematic hardening slope (0.005 of the modulus of Elasticity, E), and larger isotropic hardening
rate of 0.05E and 0.03E for compression and tension respectively.

F
GAP RIGID MULTI-POINT
ELEMENTS: δ
OUTER TUBE CONSTRAINTS

SMA ELEMENT
STEEL ROD

MIDDLE TUBE

BRB CORE
CONNECTION
REGION

(a) Schematic of computational model (b) Experimental-computational comparison

Figure 5 – Computational model for a single brace and related results compared to experiment.

The SC-BRB computational model is shown in Figure 5a. Gap elements are implemented
between the SMA rod and the inner and outer tubes using an elastic-no-tension material in parallel
with an elastic material in OpenSees. A small nonzero tension stiffness prevents numerical
instability and related convergence issues when the SMA pretension is completely lost and the
SMA rod is essentially loose. The SMA material model parameters for reverse transformation
stress, unloading return stress, and residual strain factor were calibrated to be FfSA=207 MPa,
FeSA=7 MPa, and RSTFact=0.00131 %/MPa respectively to capture the evolution of force in the
SMA rod during the experiment. The initial pretension force in the SMA was achieved using the
initial strain material in OpenSees with an automated process to compensate for elastic shortening
of the tubes. The tubes and BRB elements outside the core region were created using elastic truss
elements. Figure 5b shows a comparison of the computational model results to experimental
results for the SC-BRB shown in Figure 3. Figure 5b demonstrates that the computational model
is capable of capturing the strength and unloading / reloading behavior of the SC-BRB.

Parameter Study on SC-BRB Behavior

Since it is cost prohibitive to conduct an experimental program on a sufficiently large number of

SC-BRB specimens to understand the range of behavior associated with the many possible
combinations of design variables, the validated computational model was used to conduct a
parametric study on single SC-BRB units to investigate the effect of design variables on the
hysteretic behavior of the SC-BRB. Each 3.66 m long brace was computationally subjected to a
cyclic loading protocol similar to the BRB qualification loading sequence of the AISC Seismic
Provisions (AISC 2010a). The yield deformation was computed as Δy=2.5 mm for a yield stress
equal to Fysc=276 MPa, modulus of elasticity, E=200 GPa, and BRB core gage length of Lcore=1830
mm. The deformation associated with the design story drift, Δbm, was taken as 5 Δy.

Four primary design variables were identified for the SC-BRB: brace axial capacity, a self-
centering ratio, αsc, SMA initial pretension stress, Fi-SMA, and SMA gage length, LSMA. The SC-
BRB axial capacity, Pn, is discussed in Miller et al. (2012) to be the initial SMA pretension force
added to the BRB yield force as given in Eq. 1 where Fysc is the steel core yield stress, Asc is the
area of the steel core and ASMA is the SMA area. The brace axial strength was varied from 445 kN
to 2224 kN to represent a wide range of SC-BRB applications. A self-centering ratio, αsc, was
defined as the ratio of the restoring force provided by SMA initial pretension divided by the strain
hardened BRB steel core strength as given in Eq. 2 where β is the compression strength adjustment
factor and ω is the strain hardening adjustment factor for the BRB, which were taken as β=1.08
and ω=1.25 for this study. The self-centering ratio was varied to take ten values between αsc=0.0
(BRB only) up to αsc=∞ (SMA only) while the SMA initial stress, Fi-SMA=138 MPa, and SMA gage
length equal to half the brace length were held constant. The brace axial capacity and self-
centering ratio were varied parametrically. In a second part of the parametric study, the SMA
pretension stress, Fi-SMA, was varied in eight increments between 34 MPa to 276 MPa while the
SMA gage length was varied in ten increments from 10% to 100% of the brace length. For this
part of the study, the brace capacity, Pn=890 kN, and the self-centering ratio, αsc=1.0 were held
constant.

=Pn Fysc ASC + Fi − SMA ASMA (1)

F A
α sc = i − SMA SMA (2)
βω Fysc Asc

Figure 6 demonstrates the effect of the self-centering ratio on brace hysteretic behavior. It
is noted that even though a self-centering ratio of αsc=1.0 is designed so that the initial SMA
pretension can overcome the resistance provided by the strain hardened BRB, the brace axial
deformation is not zero when the load is removed. There can be significant losses in SMA
pretension after large SMA strain excursions. However, nonlinear response history analyses of
prototype buildings presented later in this paper show that self-centering ratios smaller than αsc=1.0
can reliably limit residual drifts to negligible values.

2
αsc=0.0 2
αsc=1.0 2
αsc=∞

Brace Force (F/Fcapacity)

Brace Force (F/Fcapacity)

Brace Force (F/Fcapacity)

1 1 1

0 0 0

-1 -1 -1

-2 -2 -2

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Brace Deformation (%) Brace Deformation (%) Brace Deformation (%)

Figure 6 – Variation in Brace Hysteretic Behavior as the Self-Centering Ratio varies from 0 to
Infinity

Figure 7a shows the effect of self-centering ratio on the residual brace deformation after
the force is slowly removed (no dynamic effects). Braces with different axial capacity were not
shown because their elongation at zero force crossing was nearly identical for a given self-
centering ratio. A line is shown on Figure 7a at a residual deformation of L/500 which is the out-
of-straightness tolerances for new steel buildings (AISC 2010b). This plot shows that SC-BRB
with self-centering ratios of αsc=0.75 and αsc=2.0 can limit residual deformations to values below
tolerances for new steel buildings for excursions as large as 0.7% and 1.4% elongation
respectively. However, it is important to note that the elongation at zero force represents a
maximum possible residual deformation and actual residual deformations for SC-BRBs are
actually much smaller as discussed in the next section.

1.2
0.7% Elongation Cycle
Elongation at Zero Force Crossing (%)

1.4% Elongation Cycle Normalizing Energy

1
Brace Force

L/500 Cycle
Energy
Energy (E / EELH)

0.8 Zero-Force
Crossing
Brace Force

0.6 0
Brace Deformation

0.4
-1.5 0 1.5
Brace Deformation (%) E
=0.25 Suggested Minimum
0.2 EELH
L / 500

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Self-Centering Ratio
(a) Elongation at Zero Force (b) Dissipated Hysteretic Energy in 1.4% Cycle
Figure 7 – Effect of Self-Centering Ratio on Static Self-Centering and Energy Dissipation.

For the same set of SC-BRBs, the amount of hysteretic energy dissipated during the 4.0
Δbm cycle is shown in Figure 7b. As expected, the self-centering ratio has a strong effect on energy
dissipation. On the other hand, brace axial capacity again had almost no effect on the normalized
energy dissipation. It has been suggested that when the energy is normalized to the equivalent
elastic-linear-hardening hysteretic shape shown in the inset of Figure 7b, that a good target for
self-centering systems is 0.25 (e.g. Seo and Sause 2005) to limit peak drifts. As shown in Figure
7b, the SC-BRB configurations with little or no BRB component (αsc →∞) have an energy
dissipation ratio approximately equal to 0.25 and thus could be considered a valid brace design.

The effect of SMA gage length and initial SMA stress on the dissipated seismic energy is
shown in Figure 8a. At the left end of the plot, the SMA is pushed past the full martensite
transformation strain, dfAS, and the SMA experiences a related increased hardening, as shown in
Figures 3a and 4a. This can cause significant overstrength in the brace and may develop increased
fracture potential, so it is not recommended to use configurations to the left of the heavy solid line.
Similarly, it is not recommended to use configurations that produce normalized energy dissipation
smaller than 0.25. Based on these recommendations, a range of suggested initial SMA stress and
gage length are shown on Figure 8a. Figure 8b shows the cumulative SMA strain which
demonstrates that SMA gage lengths greater than 40% of the brace length will limit the cumulative
SMA strain to 75% which is safely below the cumulative strain capacity of 119% experienced
during the SMA component test.

Full Transition Suggested

to Martensite Fi-SMA
Range
Fi-SMA
Fi-SMA
Energy (E / EELH)

Fi-SMA
Fi-SMA
Fi-SMA
Fi-SMA
Fi-SMA

Suggested
Range
Insufficient
Energy Dissipation

(a) Dissipated Hysteretic Energy in 1.4% Cycle (b) Cumulative SMA Strain
Figure 8. Effect of SMA Initial Stress and SMA Gage Length on Dissipated Seismic Energy
and Cumulative SMA Strain for a Constant Self-Centering Ratio, αsc = 1.0.

System Level Studies

Three prototype buildings were adapted from the SAC studies (Gupta and Krawinkler 1999) with
seismic response coefficient, Cs=0.125, 0.125, and 0.106, and seismic base shear per frame,
V=3615, 7135, and 9034 kips, for the three, six, and nine story buildings respectively. For each
building height, the self-centering ratio was varied to be αsc=0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, ∞ resulting in a total
of fifteen prototype buildings. Using an assumed resistance factor of, ϕ=0.9, an SMA initial stress,
Fi-SMA=138 MPa, BRB yield stress, Fysc=276 MPa, and SMA gage length equal to 60% of the brace
length, the BRB and SMA forces were proportioned using Eqs. 1 and 2. Inner, middle, and outer
tubes were selected based on a force associated with the SMA rods all experiencing a peak stress
of Fu-SMA=483 MPa and to provide enough clearance between elements to create a realistic and
buildable SC-BRB. The resulting SC-BRB had square outer tubes with width between 250 mm
and 530 mm. The computational model included leaning columns with gravity load applied to
simulate P-Δ effects. The same model discussed previously and shown in Figure 5a was used for
the braces. Each of the fifteen prototype buildings was subjected to the 44 FEMA P695 far field
ground motions scaled in accordance with the FEMA P695 methodology to approximate hazard
levels with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years and 2% probability of exceedance in 50
years for a site in California, U.S.A (FEMA 2009). The 10% in 50 design spectra was anchored
with values of SDS=1.0 and SD1=0.6, equivalent to the Dmax hazard definition in FEMA P695, and
the 2% in 50 design spectra was developed using the same values multiplied by a factor of 1.5.

The residual drifts for all three building heights with αsc≥0.5 were quite small as shown in
Fig. 9a. Even at the 2% in 50 hazard level (results not shown here), there were only a handful of
ground motions that produced residual roof drift ratios greater than 0.1%. Considering a possible
limit on residual drifts of 0.2% based on out-of-plumb requirements for new steel construction in
the U.S.A. (AISC 2010b), the residual drifts for all models show that a self-centering ratio of
αsc≥0.5 is adequate for limiting residual drifts in these configurations. The minimum required self-
centering ratio is an important result in the context of SC-BRB design because the SMA can
produce significant overstrength as shown in Figure 9b. As a result of BRB and SMA overstrength,
the SC-BRBs reached peak forces of between two (for αsc=0.0) and five (for αsc=∞) times the
design brace force meaning the surrounding columns and beams would need to be designed for
this level of overstrength. In this context, the range αsc=0.5 to 1.5 is recommended for design to
control residual drifts and produce more efficient surrounding frame design.

(a) Residual roof drift ratios for 10% in 50 hazard (b) Peak brace forces for 2% in 50 hazard
Figure 9. Peak brace forces and residual roof drift ratios computed as median values plus one
standard deviation
Conclusions

The self-centering buckling restrained brace is capable of both dissipating significant seismic
energy and realizing self-centering behavior. The SC-BRB is therefore expected to satisfy
enhanced performance goals related to controlling residual drifts and thus limiting repair costs and
downtime after earthquakes. A series of computational studies were conducted to investigate SC-
BRB proportioning and to verify the expected performance of buildings with SC-BRB frames as
the SFRS. A computational model was developed and calibrated to simulate the experimental
behavior of the SMA and BRB components including a new SMA hysteretic material model that
accounts for accumulation of residual strain during cyclic loading. The model was shown to
capture the experimental behavior of a tested SC-BRB. The SC-BRB was found to dissipate
sufficient energy even with large self-centering ratios (including configurations with no BRB
component) because the SMA can also dissipate significant seismic energy. Based on the results,
an SMA gage length greater than or equal to 40% of the tube length is recommended and guidance
for initial SMA stress was provided. Fifteen prototype buildings, ranging across three, six, and
nine stories, were designed with SC-BRB frames and subjected to a suite of ground motions. The
results showed that a self-centering ratio of αsc=0.5 was capable of reliably limiting residual drifts
to negligible values. Values of the self-centering ratio of αsc=0.5 to 1.5 are recommended to control
residual drifts and limit overstrength.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded in part by the National Science Foundation through the Hazard Mitigation
and Structural Engineering Program (Grant No. CMMI-0856555). The opinions, findings, and
conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of those acknowledged here.

References

1. ANSI/AISC 341-10 (2010a). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC), Chicago, Illinois.
2. Miller, D. J., Fahnestock, L. A., and Eatherton, M.R. (2011) “Development and Experimental Validation of
a Nickel-Titanium Shape Memory Alloy Self-Centering Buckling-Restrained Brace” Engineering Structures,
Vol. 40, pp. 288-298.
3. Miller, D.J. (2011) Development and experimental validation of self-centering buckling-restrained braces
with shape memory alloy. M.S. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
4. McCormick, J., Tyber, J., DesRoches, R., Gall, K., Maier, H.J. (2007) Structural engineering with NiTi. II:
mechanical behavior and scaling. J Eng Mech 2007;133(9):1019–29.
5. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., and Fenves, G. L. (2013) Open System for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation User Command-Language Manual, OpenSees Version 2.4.
6. Taftali, B. (2007). “Probabilistic seismic demand assessment of steel frames with shape memory alloy
connections.” Ph.D. diss, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia.
7. Fahnestock, L.A., Ricles, J.M., and Sause, R. (2007) “Experimental Evaluation of a Large-Scale Buckling-
Restrained Braced Frame,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 9, pp. 1205-1214.
8. AISC (2010b) AISC 303-10 Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges, American Institute
of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, IL.
9. Seo, C.-Y., and Sause, R. (2005) “Ductility Demands on Self-centering Systems under Earthquake Loading”,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 102, No. 2, pp 275-285.
10. Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H. (1999). Seismic Demands for Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment
Resisting Frame Structures, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report Number 132, Stanford
University, Stanford, California.
11. FEMA P695 (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Published by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.