Research and Application of

Buckling Restrained Braces in Taiwan

Jiun-Wei Lai and Keh-Chyuan Tsai

ABSTRACT

In recent years, experimental and analytical researches have been conducted in NTU to investigate
the effectiveness of various kinds of unbonding material, the brace-to-gusset connection details,
analytical models and the design procedures for the buckling restrained braces (BRBs). Tests
conducted on more than 50 specimens confirm that the proposed BRBs employing double steel cores
encased in twin steel tubes and infill concrete can stably sustain severe inelastic cyclic axial strain
reversals. The double-cored BRBs can be conveniently connected to the gusset plate as in the
traditional double-tee brace to gusset plate connections. Experiments include cyclic tests of BRB
components and large scale single bay V-shaped buckling restrained braced frames (BRBFs). Test
results indicate that the 2 mm thick silicon rubber sheets are effective in minimizing the difference
between the cyclic peak compressive and tensile forces of the BRBs. The three V-shaped BRBF tests
confirm that the steel brace core strain demands can be satisfactorily predicted from the story drift
demand by geometry and incorporating the inelastic core length ratio. Test results also reveal that at a
large story drift, the tensile strain in the tension brace was always greater than the compressive strain
in the compression brace. This paper also introduces fully detachable BRB designs, non-destructive
evaluation techniques for damage detections of BRBs. Finally, the paper concludes with the
applications of the proposed BRBs in seismic retrofit as well as new construction projects in Taiwan.

Keywords：Buckling restrained braces, unbonded braces, cyclic loading tests, cumulative plastic
deformation

_____________
Assistant Research Fellow, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, No.200, Sec. 3, Shinhai Rd., Daan
Chiu, Taipei, Taiwan 106, ROC
Director, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, No.200, Sec. 3, Shinhai Rd., Daan Chiu, Taipei,
Taiwan 106, ROC
INTRODUCTION

Buckling restrained braced frame (BRBF) has been evolved into a very effective system for
severe seismic applications (Watanabe et al. 1988). Buckling restrained braces (BRBs) or Unbonded
Braces (UBs) commonly found are made from encasing a core steel cross-shape or flat bar member
into a steel tube and confined by infill concrete (Fig. 1). The steel core member is designed to resists
the axial forces with a full tension or compression yield capacity without the local or global flexural
buckling failure. When the brace is subjected to compressions, an unbonding material placed between
the core member and the infill concrete is required to reduce the friction. Thus, a BRB or an UB
basically consists of three components, including steel core member, buckling restraining part and the
unbonding material. Figure 2 illustrates the typical cross sections of the BRBs or UBs proposed by
various researchers. Most of these BRBs are proprietary, but their concepts are essentially similar. It
can be found that the cross section of the steel core member is usually bi-axially symmetric, can be a
cruciform, an H or a flat bar shape. The buckling restraining part can be constructed from mortar
filled in the tube, reinforced concrete, reinforced concrete covered with FRP or all-metallic steel
tubes. It has been found that a single cored brace to the gusset connection is typically a butt joint using
several splice plates and two set of connecting bolts as illustrated in figure 3. In order to reduce the
length and the number of bolts in the brace-to-gusset connection, the double-cored buckling
restrained braces (DCBRBs) as illustrated in figure 4 have been developed (Lai and Tsai 2001) and
extensively tested (Lai and Tsai 2001, Huang and Tsai 2002, Weng and Tsai 2002, Lin and Tsai
2003) in National Taiwan University (NTU) and Taiwan National Center for Research on Earthquake
Engineering (NCREE) in the past few years. The proposed BRB members can be conveniently
connected to the gusset plate in the same manner as that in the traditional double-tee brace to gusset
plate connections (Fig. 5). These researches include the investigation of the effective unbonding
material (Lai and Tsai 2001), cyclic and fatigue performance of the DCBRBs employing mortar
infilled in the double tubes for A36 (Lai and Tsai 2001, Huang and Tsai 2002) and A572 GR50 (Lin
and Tsai 2003) steel cores. The design criteria of the brace end connections and the inter-connecting
ties between the two tubes have also been established through experimental tests (Weng and Tsai
2002). Tests have also confirmed that the self-compact concrete, much more cost-effective than the
cement mortar, is a satisfactory alternative to restrain the core steel member in the BRBs (Lin and
Tsai 2003).

Core Steel
Member Concrete
(Mortar)

Lb/2

Unbonding
Material

Unbonded
Steel Tube Brace

Figure 1. Schematic of buckling restrained Figure 2. Typical types of buckling restrained Figure 3. Splice plate details for single-cored
brace (BRB or unbonded brace, UB) braces BRB end connections
 Concrete
Core Steel
(Mortar)
Member

Tab
Plate
Unbonding
Materials

Steel Tube Buckling

(Buckling Restrained Part) Restrained
Brace

Figure 4. Schematic of double-coeed Figure 5. Double-tee to gusset connection

buckling restrained brace details for double-cored BRB end join
3000
116 136
8 mm

SR2 - 1

120

80

100
C.L. & Sym.

Gauge Length = 1800 mm

70
PL 216 x 64 x 8 mm
300

Side View D
150
A572 Grade 50 2000
1.5 P y

32
240 240
Sym.

Axial Force ( kN )
100
1000 Py

110
110
40 136
40
8

40

110
110

20

20

20
40
20

Photo 1. Experimental setup for BRB tests Sec. AA

20

Sec. BB
20
20

Sec. CC
4 mm 0
8 mm

Table 1 Specimen schedule for unbonding 8 mm

A
C
900
-1000
material tests 8 mm B 150 300
8 mm

70

20
240

C. L. & Sym.

80
Unbonding
100
-2000

150
Side View D
Unbonding Loading 300 150 B 136 48

Specimen Material A R=150

Anet = 3600 mm2
Material History C
(1) Thickness
1,800

(2) (4) unit : mm -3000

(3) -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
AS-1 Asphalt Paint N. A. Standard Axial Deformation ( mm )
Figure 6. Details and geometry of steel core Figure 7. Cyclic response of the specimen
Vinyl Sheet +
VF-1 2 mm Standard element for ten unbonding materials testing using 2-mm silicone rubber sheet unbonding
Foaming Tape

VK-1
Vinyl Sheet +
2 mm Standard
specimens material
Kraft Tape
Cycle Number
R2-1 Rubber Sheet 2 mm Standard 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
0.5 50
AS-1
%
Axial Load Difference

R5-1 Rubber Sheet 5 mm Standard 45

VK-1 ε = 0.015
Silicone Rubber 0.4 R5-1 40
SR1-1 1 mm Standard ε = 0.02
Sheet R2-1
ε = 0.025 35
SR2-1
Silicone Rubber
2 mm Standard 0.3 SR1-1 30
Sheet SR5-1
Silicone Rubber Low-Cycle 25
SR2-2 2 mm SR2-1
Sheet Fatigue 0.2 SR2-2 20
Silicone Rubber 15
SR2-3 2 mm Near-Fault
Sheet
Silicone Rubber
0.1 10
SR5-1 5 mm Standard
Sheet 5
0 0
Figure 8. Axial load difference under cyclic loading

RESEARCH ON DOUBLE-CORED BRBS

Effects of Various Unbonding Material

In order to find out which kind of material possessing satisfactory unbonding effects, a total of ten
BRBs (identical in core cross sectional area as shown in figure 6 but varying in the unbonding
material) were tested under cyclic increasing displacement at NTU (Lai and Tsai 2001). Table 1
summarizes the unbonding material used for each specimen and the corresponding cyclic loading
protocol. The standard one refers to the protocols similar to the one provided by SAC (1997). The test
setup is given in Photo 1. The typical cyclic response of the specimen is given in figure 7. The test
results of the ten specimens are summarized in figure 8.
For the purpose of discussion, the axial load difference Γ is defined as:
(Cmax − Tmax ) (1)
Γ=
Tmax

where Cmax and Tmax are the maximum compressive and tensile brace forces at a same absolute axial
deformation level.
Theoretically speaking, after the core member is yielded, the Poisson ratio ν=0.5 can be applied in the
following calculations. The volume of the yielding steel segment should remain constant, that is:
A0 ⋅ L0 = A ⋅ L (2)

where Ao and Lo correspond to the original core cross sectional area and length, respectively, while A
and L correspond to those after the brace is deformed in either tension or compression. Therefore, it
can be shown that the axial strain is:
L0 A
ε = 1− = 1− and A = A0 (1 − ε ) (3)
L A0

Thus, the ratio between the compressive and tensile brace forces for a given (absolute) strain level
could be:
(C max − Tmax ) A0 (1 + ε ) − A0 (1 − ε ) 2ε
Γ= = = ≈ 2ε (4)
Tmax A0 (1 − ε ) 1− ε

Equation 4 suggests that the Γ is about 4 % for an ε= 2 %. But the test results shows in figure 6
exhibit much higher Γ values (the maximum is about 30% forε= 2 %). This should be due to the
imperfect unbonding mechanism and a substantial friction developed between the steel core member
and the buckling restraining part. It is found in figure 8 that the 2 mm thick silicon rubber sheet has
the least axial load difference (about 10% at an axial strain of 2%) under the cyclic increasing
displacements. Therefore, for the subsequent tests of the BRBs, unless it is otherwise noted, the 2 mm
thick silicon rubber sheets have been adopted for the construction of most of the specimens. In figure
7, it should be noted that the strain hardening effects are evident, comparing with the tensile yield
capacity computed from the tensile coupon strength.

Key Mechanical Properties of the BRBs

In order to properly confine the BRB’s inelastic deformations inside the restraining tube, the cross
sectional area (Ac) of the energy dissipation core segment (Lc) is smaller than that of the end joint
regions (Lj). Schematic configuration of a DCBRB in the frame is illustrated in figure 9, in which Lc
and Lwp represent the core length and the work-point to work-point length, respectively. Between the
end and the core segment, a transition region as illustrated in figure 10 can be devices. It is confirmed
by tests (Huang and Tsai 2002) that the effective stiffness, Ke of the BRB considering the variation of
cross sectional area along the length of the brace, can be accurately predicted by:
EA j Ac At
Ke =
A j At Lc + 2 Ac At L j + 2 Ac A j Lt
(5)
 δ Δ=δcosψ

Area = At Area = Ac Area = Aj

Total Length = Lt Total Length = Lc Total Length = Lj
θ
Lc

H
Lwp Lj/2 Lt/2 Lc Lt/2 Lj/2

δδ
θ == ψ
HH
W.P. W.P.

Figure 9. Dimensions of core length and Figure 10. Profile of steel core member in the Figure 11. Schematic of brace
work point to work point length double tube BRBs deformation versus inter-story drift angle
relationship
0.6 1500 1500
ο Experiment UB735C 1.5Py 1.5P y
φ = 45
0.5 1000 Analysis 1000

Total Lateral Force ( kN )

Py

Axial Force ( kN )
0.4 Py
500 500
263th Cycle
εwp 0.3
θ δ 0 0
δ θ= H
1
( radian ) 0.2 -500 -500
H
φ
0.1 -1000 -1000 Component
Gauge Length = 1820 mm Fatigue
0 -1500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 -1500
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
φ (degree) Axial Deformation ( mm ) Axial Deformation ( mm )
Figure 12. Brace strain to story drift ratio Figure 13. Experimental and analytical responses Figure 14. Fatigue responses of the
versus brace angle relationship of a typical double plate BRBs Specimen UB735

The relationships between the brace overall strain (εwp) and the inter-story drift θ can be
approximated as:
ε wp = θ sin 2φ / 2
(6)
where φ is the angle between the brace and the horizontal beam as illustrated in figure 11. The
strain-to-drift ratio versus the beam angle φ relationships given in Eq. 6 are plotted in figure 12. If the
ratio of the core length and the work-point to work-point dimension is:
α= Lc / Lwp (7)
Thus, assuming the strain outside the core segment is negligible, the BRB core inelastic upper bound
strain εc can be express as:
ε c ≤ ε wp / α (8)

From Eq. 6 through 8, it can be found that if the inter-story drift demand is 0.02 radian, then the peak
core strain would be close to 0.02 for a BRB having a length aspect ratio α=0.5 and oriented in a 45
degree angle. The cyclic responses of a typical DCBRB constructed with two A36 flat steel cores (Fig.
4) using the 2 mm silicon rubber unbonding sheets are shown in figure 13. It is evident in figure 13
that a strain hardening factor of about 1.5 is appropriate in estimating the peak tensile strength for
A36 core member. In addition, it appears that the following equation should be applied in estimating
the maximum compressive strength possibly developed in a BRB:
Pmax = Ω ⋅ Ωh ⋅ β ⋅ Py (9)
where Py = AcFy is the nominal yield strength of the core section, Ω and Ωh take into account the
possible material over-strength and strain hardening factors of the core steel, respectively. In addition,
the bonding factor β represents the imperfect unbonding, the fact that the peak compressive strength
is somewhat greater than the peak tensile strength observed during the large deformation cycles.
Therefore, the required stiffness of the steel casing in order to prevent the BRB from a global flexural
buckling is (Watanabe et al. 1988):
P (kL )
2
I tube ≥ FS ⋅ max 2 (10)
π E
It is noted from figure 13 that for a properly fabricated BRB, a bonding factor β of at least 1.1 is
appropriate if the peak cyclic core strain demand is no greater than 0.02. Figure 12 also indicates that
the experimental responses of the BRB can be accurately represented by using the two-surface plastic
hardening material model implemented for the truss element in a general purpose frame response
analysis computer program (Tsai and Chang 2001). Figure 14 further confirms that the same
specimen, after subjecting the SEAOC/AISC (2001) standard loading protocols, sustained a total of
262 cycles of large fatigue strain before fracture. As the flexural buckling of a single-cored BRB
member under large compress strains could occur (Tsai et al. 2002) at a section where the steel tube
terminates (Fig. 3), it is recommended that the following stability criterion be met for connection
details shown in figure 3 and figure 5:
π 2 EI trans (11)
Pe_trans = ≥ Pmax
(kLb )2
where Pmax is given in Eq. 9 and EItrans is the flexural stiffness of the core member at a section near the
end of the steel tube. As noted earlier, the double-cored BRBs can be conveniently connected to the
gusset plate as shown in figure 5. As a result, the connection length is reduced as only one set of
connecting bolts is required at each brace end. The connection length can be further reduced if a
welded detail directly attaching the three edges of each tee to the gusset plate is adopted. An
application example of the welded brace end joint in a SRC building will be given later in this article.

Slip Resistant Bolted Connection Details in Brace End Double Tee to Gusset Joints

In 2002, six BRBs featuring double-plate core with double tee end details were tested at NTU
(Weng and Tsai 2002) incorporating two different levels of roughness at the tee-to-gusset contacting
surfaces. A set of cyclically increasing forces and displacement was applied to find out the slip load of
the brace end bolted joints. Then two addition sets of similar cyclically increasing forces and
displacements but reduced in magnitude subsequently were applied to confirm the cyclically
degrading of the slip capacity. Test results suggest that using 1.5 times the strength of the bolt for
design can prevent slipping of the connection under cyclic loading reversals. That is:
Rstr = N s ⋅ N b ⋅ (1.5 ⋅ Fv ⋅ Ab ) (12)
where Rstr is the slip-resistant strength of the connection, Ns is the number of slip surface, Nb is
number of bolts, Fv is the nominal shear strength of the bolt, and Ab is the nominal tension area of
the bolt. This research also investigated the longitudinal and transverse strain distributions in the
web of the tee at the brace-to-gusset joints and concluded with the design recommendations for
the brace end connection details.

Tube-to-Tube Tie Connection Designs for Double-Tubed BRBs

Since the proposed double-cored BRB consists of two independent units of bracing, tie
connections between two units can be continuous or properly spaced. These ties can be made by
welded bars (tab plates) as illustrated in figure 15 or various possible bolted details as illustrated
in figure 16. It is found that by using the elastic stability theory (Timoshenko and Gere 1961),
the required strength Preq and stiffness βid of the tie connection can be derived (Weng and Tsai
2002):
3 Pmax B ⋅σ y
Preq = ( − Pcr ) ⋅ ( + e) (13)
Ltube 2 E
9 P E ⋅e (14)
β id = ( max − Pcr ) ⋅ (1 + )
2 ⋅ Ltube 2 B ⋅σ y
where Ltube is the length of the buckling restraining tube, Pmax is the maximum axial force suggested in
Eq. 9 for the DCBRB, Pcr is the critical eccentric load of the single tube derived from Secant formula
(Timoshenko and Gere 1961), B is the width of short side of the rectangular tube, E is Young’s
modulus of steel, σy is yield stress of steel tube, e is the eccentricity of load measured from neutral
axis of the single tube. For example, if the design strength Py of the DCBRB is equal to 1960 kN, and
estimated maximum axial force Pmax = 4850 kN, then according to the stiffness requirements noted in
Eq. 14, the size of the each buckling restrained tube is 350×150×6 mm, with e = 32 mm, Ltube = 4054
mm, B = 150 mm, Pcr can be calculated from the Second formula as 810 kN. Based on Eqs. 13 and
14, the required strength Preq and stiffness βid of the tie connections at every 1/3 of the tube length are
38 kN and 306 kN/mm, respectively. Tests confirm that the proposed strength and stiffness
requirements developed for the tie connection elements between the twin tubes can be conveniently
applied in the design and construction of the double-cored BRBs subjected to large inelastic strain
reversals.

Steel Tube

Bolt Holes Tab Plate Locations

Steel Tube

Fig. 15 Schematic of welded tube-to-tube tie connections

Table 2 Specimen schedule for BRB frame tests

Total
Yield Peak Cycles for
BRB Bolts
Frame Strength α Drift Fatigue
Specimen (F10T
(1) (kN) (5) (% rad) Test
(2) 24mm)
(3) (6) (7)
(4) Fig. 16 Several possible tie
NSY880W 880 16 0.362 connection details
NSYF 1.25 300
NSY590E 590 12 0.362
SYM735W 735 16 0.371
SYMF 1.5 300
SYM735E 735 16 0.371
SYM735SCW 735 16 0.185
SYMSCF 1.25 100
SYM735SCE 735 16 0.185
until
UB735C 735 16 0.371 1.5
fracture
Tests on Single Story V-shaped BRB Frames

In order to assess the performance of the double-T to gusset connection details, three large scale
single bay V-shaped buckling restrained braced frames (BRBFs) constructed with the proposed
BRBs have been tested in NCREE (Huang and Tsai 2002). The objectives of the study include: 1)
investigating the experimental and analytical responses of the single bay V-shaped BRBFs each
constructed with two BRBs in three different length aspect ratios, 2) investigating the steel BRB core
strain versus inter-story drift relationships, and 3) providing guidelines for the analysis and design of
BRBF for severe seismic applications. The schedule of three frame specimen and one BRB
component is given in Table 2. The profile of all the BRBs is shown in figure 4. The frame elevations
of these specimens are given in figure 17 and 18. The experimental setup for the frame test is given in
Photo 2, while the BRB to gusset connection details can be found in Photo 3. The loading protocol for
the frame tests and the components are illustrated in figure 19 and 20, respectively.

Figure 17. Elevation of the Specimen NSYMF Figure 18. Elevation of the Specimen SYMF
θ Story Drift (% radian) θ Story Drift (% radian)

30 25
Displacement between two beams

Peak Actuator Displacement (mm)

1.5 1.5
1.25 20
1.0 20 1.0 15
0.75 0.75
10
10 0.5
0.5
0.25 5
0.25 N
0
0
-5
N
245 kN

490 kN

735 kN

-10 -10
-15
-20 -20
-25
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
8 8 6 3 2 2 -30
Force Control

Figure 20. Cyclic loading protocol

Figure 19. Cyclic loading protocol for the frame tests
for Specimen UB735

Photo 2. Experimental setup for

Photo 3. Brace end double tee to gusset connection details
BRB frame test (Specimen SYMF)
 The cyclic and the fatigue performance of the UB735 are shown in figure 13 and 14, respectively.
The experimental cyclic force versus deformation responses of the BRB component exhibit stable
energy dissipation characteristics. Figure 13 also shows that experimental BRB responses can be
accurately predicted using an inelastic truss element incorporating the two-surface plasticity model
implemented in a general purpose finite-element computer program (Chang and Tsai 2001). Figure
14 indicates that same specimen after going through the inelastic excursions shown in figure 13,
sustained a total of 262 cycles of fatigue strain on the order of 0.0125 before fracture. Figure 17
shows that the arrangement of BRBs can be configured un-symmetrically in order to accommodate
architectural function needs, such as door or window openings. In this manner, the cross sectional
area and the length of the energy dissipation segments of a pair of braces can be specifically tailored
to avoid the potential unbalanced vertical load resultants while reach yielding at pretty much the same
time. As shown in figure 21 through 23, the cyclic or fatigue performances of the frame systems and
the BRBs indicate the proposed BRB components and framing system possess extremely stable
characteristics. In addition, as shown in figure 24 and 25, the inelastic finite element models
accurately predicts the frames’ and the BRBs’ experimental lateral force versus story drift responses
for all test frames (only shown for Specimen NSYF herein). The three V-shaped BRBF tests confirm
in figure 26 that the steel brace core strain demands can be satisfactorily predicted from the story drift
demands by geometry (Eq. 6) and incorporating the ratio of the work point-to-work point dimension
to the inelastic core length (Eq. 7 and 8). Test results in figure 26 and 27 also reveal that at a large
story drift, the tensile strain in the tension brace was always greater than the compressive strain in the
compression brace. This phenomenon is more pronounced as the inter-story drifts increase. This
somewhat suggests that the peak compression and tension forces have a tendency to self-equilibrate
as story deformation increases and reach a reduced unbalanced vertical force components resisted by
the horizontal beam member.

3000 3000 3000

NSYF SYMF SYMSCF
2000 Cyclic 2000 Cyclic 2000 Cyclic
Total Lateral Force ( kN )
Total Lateral Force ( kN )
Total Lateral Force ( kN )

1000 1000 1000

0 0 0

-1000 -1000 -1000

-2000 -2000 -2000

-3000 -3000 -3000

-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Lateral Drift Angle ( radian ) Lateral Drift Angle ( radian ) Lateral Drift Angle ( radian )

Figure 21. Total lateral force versus story drift relationships

3000 3000 3000
NSYF SYMF SYMSCF
2000 Cyclic 2000 Cyclic 2000 Cyclic
Brace Shear ( kN )
Brace Shear ( kN )

Brace Shear ( kN )

1000 1000 1000

0 0 0

-1000 -1000 -1000

-2000 -2000 -2000

-3000 -3000 -3000

-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Lateral Drift Angle ( radian ) Lateral Drift Angle ( radian ) Lateral Drift Angle ( radian )

Figure 22. Total brace shear versus story drift relationships

 3000 3000 3000
NSYF SYMSCF SYMF
2000 Fatigue 2000 Fatigue 2000
Total Lateral Force ( kN )

Total Lateral Force ( kN )

Fatigue

Total Lateral Force ( kN )

1000 1000 1000

0 0 0

-1000 -1000 -1000

-2000 -2000 -2000

-3000 -3000 -3000

-0.006 -0.003 0 0.003 0.006 -0.006 -0.003 0 0.003 0.006 -0.006 -0.003 0 0.003 0.006
Lateral Drift Angle ( radian ) Lateral Drift Angle ( radian ) Lateral Drift Angle ( radian )

Figure 23. Fatigue performance of three BRB frames without failure

3000 2000

NSYF NSYF
2000
Total Lateral Force ( kN )

1000

Brace Shear ( kN )
1000

0 0

-1000
-1000
Experiment
-2000 Experiment
Analysis
Analysis
-3000 -2000
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Lateral Drift Angle ( radian ) Lateral Drift Angle ( radian )

Figure 24. Experimental vs. analytical frame shear Figure 25. Experimental and analytical total brace
versus lateral drift responses of Specimen NSYF shear vs. story drift relationships in Specimen NSYF
0.018 0.020 0.035
NSYF SYMSCF
SYMF 0.030
East
ε core = 1.10θ 0.015 Eest ε core = 1.22θ East
0.025 ε core = 2.44θ

Core Strain
Core Strain

Core Strain

0.012
0.020
0.010
0.015
0.006 Compression Compression Compression
0.010
Tension 0.005 Tension
Tension
Theory Theory 0.005 Theory
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0.0125 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0.0125 0.015 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0.0125
Story Drift (radian) Story Drift (radian) Story Drift (radian)

Figure 26. Experimental versus predicted core strain versus inter-story drift relationships for three frames
0.020 0.032
SYMF SYMSCF
Drift(-) West Brace(+)
0.016 Drift(-) West Brace(+)
Drift(-) Eest Brace(-) 0.024 Drift(-) Eest Brace(-)
Drift(+) West Brace(-)
Drift(+) West Brace(-)
Core Strain

Core Strain

0.012 Drift(+) Eest Brace(+)

Drift(+) Eest Brace(+)
0.016
0.008

0.008
0.004

0.000 0.000
0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0.0125 0.015 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0.0125
Story Drift (radian) Story Drift (radian)

Figure 27. Tensile strain vs. compressive strain at peak inter-story drift for Specimens SYMF and SYMSCF

connection transition yielding segment

segment segment
Tab Plate

Core Steel
Member

buckling restrained
mechanism
unbonding
material
Steel Tube
(Buckling Restrained
Buckling Restrained Brace
Mechanism)

Figure 28. Steel cores are confined in the steel tubes

Figure 29. Schematic of welded all metallic BRBs
without exposing the energy dissipating segments
 partition block
angle
A B confining-bolt

core
plate
30°
A
core segment
B R
tube Sect. A-A tube D/d=1.2 , t/W=0.2 , R/W=0.4
steel buckling-restrained
mechanism d
D
W → t=0.1d , W=0.5d , R=0.2d
core
t
plate
stopper detail

confining-bolt joining-bolt joining-bolt Sect. B-B

Figure 30. Schematic of the bolted detachable BRBs Figure 31. Details of the stopper (Peterson 1974)

All Metallic and Detachable BRBs

As noted above, single- or double-cored BRBs properly made from cement mortar or concrete
filled in the steel casing possess satisfactory seismic resistant characteristics. However, as shown in
figure 28, it does not allow visual inspecting the damage state of the inner core after an earthquake. In
order to simplify the fabrication of the BRBs made from using infill mortar and unbonding coating,
the all-metallic welded BRB as shown in figure 29 or the fully detachable BRBs illustrated in figure
30 have been developed and extensively tested in NTU (Tsai and Lin 2003). The detachable features
shown in figure 30 provide the possibility of disassembling the BRBs for inspection after an
earthquake. In order to allow the extension and contraction of two ends of a BRB, a stopper shown in
figure 31 to lock into the restraining concrete or other buckling restraining part has been adopted to
prevent the buckling restrainer from slipping off. Instead of applying the unbonding coating, a 1 mm
or 2 mm gap has been experimented between the surface of the inner core and external restraining
tubes. A total of thirteen detachable BRB specimens using A572 GR50 steel plates were fabricated
and tested using the standard test protocol given in figure 32. Test results indicate that a 1 mm or 2
mm gap between the inner core and tubes is most effective in minimizing the difference between the
peak BRB compressive and axial tensile force responses as illustrated in figure 33. After applying a
standard loading protocol shown in figure 32, the specimen was never fractured. The same specimen
was then subjected to a constant fatigue strains until fractured. Test results suggest that the all metallic
and detachable BRBs can stably sustain severe cyclic increasing and constant fatigue inelastic axial
strain reversals. As the specified constant strain varied from specimen to specimen, therefore, the
number of fatigues cycles versus the fatigue strain relationships can be constructed as shown in figure
34. In addition, the cumulative plastic deformation (in terms of ∆y) is constructed and given in figure
35. Tests confirm that a typical fully detachable BRB exhibit stable and excellent hysteretic behavior
as any other BRBs or UBs (restrained by mortar and steel casing) tested before. It is noted that the
strain hardening factor for a BRB made from A572 GR50 is about 1.25 for a peak core strain less than
0.025. In this series of tests, it is found that the self compact concrete (SCC) with a compress strength
of 56 MPa is a cost-effective alternative to the cement mortar for the infill in a steel casing.
 θ Drift Angle (% radian)
Strain=(U3+U4+U5+U6)/2/Lc
Strain=(U3+U4+U5+U6)/2/Lc 3000
1.5Dbm D bm=1.5% 3000
1.25 Py
1.25 Py 2000
Dbm 2000

Axial Force ( kN )
Py

Axial Force ( kN )
Py 1000 28th Cycle
0.5Dbm 1000

37th Cycle
Dby N 0 0
Number
-1000 -1000
0.5Py

of Cycles
-2000 -2000
HG2 HG2
Standard Fatigue (0.015)
-3000
Force -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 -3000
Core Strain
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Control Core Strain
4 6 4 4 2 N

Figure 32. Standard loading protocol Figure 33. Force versus strain relationships for typical A572
(SEAOC/AISC 2001) GR50 BRBs
Number of Loading Cycles N(cycle)

1000 10,000
N=0.0007(εc)-2.25 CPD=1.443(εc)-1.52
R2=0.972 2
R =0.926
100

CPD
1,000

10
Double Slide series
Double Slide series
All-Metallic series
All-Metallic series
1 100
0.001 0.010 0.100 0.001 0.010 0.100
Core Plastic Strain Range εc Core Plastic Strain Range εc
Figure 34. Number of fatigue strain cycles versus Figure 35. Cumulative plastic deformation (×∆y)
core strain relationship (A572 GR50 BRBs) versus fatigue strain relationships

Damage Inspection and Non-Destructive Testing of BRBs

As the energy dissipation segment of a conventional BRB is generally covered by the steel casing,
direct damage detection may not be so straight forward. In order to inspect the BRBs after severe
services, non-destructive test (NDT) techniques have been applied on more than 20 BRBs before,
during and after the load tests (Tsai and Lin 2003). During various stages of each one specimen’s load
test, it is done by simultaneously hitting the BRB at one end and measuring the stress wave at the
opposite end as illustrated in figure 36 and 37. The NDT tests were conducted by hitting and
observing the variation of stress wave form measurements collected from the BRB specimens.
Receiver No. 2 shown in figure 37 was needed to normalize the impact force before comparing the
impact and the response at the two BRB ends, respectively. A typical set of stress wave form is shown
in figure 38, where the hitting/measuring Steps 1 to 3 were conducted, respectively, when specimen
was on the floor, after connecting to the universal testing machine and after applying the standard
loading protocol. Thus, the wave forms shown in Steps 1 to 3 in figure 38 suggest that the BRB had
not been fracture. Step 4 was conducted after the same specimen had been fractured under the fatigue
stain, and Step 5 was done after the specimen was removed from the load frame and brought down to
the floor. It is evident in figure 38 that the stress wave forms are much calm after the fatigue fracture
test. These results seem to suggest that the proposed NDT technique can be a simple way to detect
whether the inner core is fractured or not. In addition, it is found in this study that the pressure wave
(P-wave) measurements are more satisfactory than those of the shear wave (S-wave) for the stress
wave NDT of BRBs.
 Oscillograph

Amplifier 1 Amplifier 2
Impact Receiver 2 Receiver 1

L L
S R R N
Receiver 1 Receiver 2

Impact
Source

Figure 36. Schematic setup of impact and stress

Figure 37. Locations of impact and measuring points
wave measurement

SCC_P_L_L SCC_P_L_R SCC_P_R_R SCC_P_R_L

Step 5 Step 5 Step 5 Step 5

Step 4 Step 4 Step 4 Step 4

Wave Shape

Wave Shape

Wave Shape
Wave Shape

Step 3 Step 3 Step 3 Step 3

Step 2 Step 2 Step 2 Step 2

Step 1 Step 1 Step 1 Step 1

0 400 800 1200 0 400 800 1200 0 400 800 1200 0 400 800 1200
Time (10-6sec) Time (10-6sec) Time (10-6sec) Time (10-6sec)

Figure 38. Stress wave forms recorded from the impact tests on a BRB using the self-compact concrete or
SCC (P stands for P wave, L-R denotes the location of the Receivers 1 and 2 (see Fig. 37)

EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF DOUBLE-CORED BRBS IN TAIWAN

Several new and retrofit projects in Taiwan have selected the double-cored BRBs as the energy
dissipation elements to improve the seismic performance of buildings. Shee-Hwa United World
Tower is a 46-story office building in Tai-Chung, designed before 1999, being seismically upgraded
to accommodate an increased seismic hazard level. A total of 80 pieces of double-cored BRBs are
being installed in the two opposite perimeter bays along the longitudinal direction of the frame.
A 10-story gymnasium at Chinese Culture University in Taipei has been proposed and now is
under construction. The lateral force resisting structural system consists of mega braced frames in the
longitudinal direction and build-up truss moment resisting frames in the transverse direction as
shown in Photo 5. A total of 96 pieces of double-cored BRBs are installed in the three-dimensional
steel frame. In this project, the maximum length of the double-cored BRB is about 11 meter long and
the A572 GR50 steel core plate size is 45 mm × 260 mm, each inside a concrete-filled 500mm ×
250mm × 15mm built up steel box casing. The peak axial tensile and compressive strengths could
reach almost 10,000 kN. In order to confirm the cyclic performance of the large size double-cored
BRBs, four full scale BRB components have been tested at NCREE (see Photo 6) using a loading
protocol similar to that given in figure 32. Test results given in figure 39 and 40 confirm that the full
scale large size double-cored BRBs can sustain a large number of inelastic cyclic increasing and
constant fatigue strain reversals before failure. In addition, the cumulative plastic deformation
exceeds 140 Dby, well meets the SEAOC/AISC prescribed requirements (2001).
Photo 7 shows the construction details of a 14-story Tzu-Chi Culture Building in Taipei. A total
of 96 pieces of double-cored BRBs are installed in the opposite perimeter bays along the transverse
direction of this SRC structure. It is shown in Photo 7 that the welded details have been adopted for
the brace end connections effectively reducing the size of the double tee to gusset plate joint.
 Photo 5. Three dimension model of the gymnasium Photo 6. Experimental set up of full scale BRB tests
Core Strain (mm / mm) Core Strain (mm / mm)
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02

10000 U1A - Standard 1.25 Fy 10000 U1A - Fatigue 1.25 Fy

5000
Fy 5000
Fy
Axial Force (kN)

Axial Force (kN)

6 cycles
0 0

-5000 -Fy -5000 -Fy

-10000 -1.25 Fy -10000 -1.25 Fy

-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200

Axial Deformation (mm) Axial Deformation (mm)
Figure 39.Cyclic force versus deformation Figure 40. Fatigue force versus strain relationships
relationships

Photo 7. Constructions of the Tzu-Chi Culture Building ( TV Station )

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the test and analytical results, summary and conclusions are made as follows：
(1) Using 2 mm thick silicon rubber sheets as unbonding materials can have smaller axial load
difference under cyclic loadings. It is also confirmed that the self compact concrete (SCC) is a
cost-effective alternative to the cement mortar for the infill in a steel casing.
(2) Extensive tests show that the hysteretic behaviors of the proposed double-cored BRBs are very
stable. The double-cored features also make the BRB end connections shortened, reducing the
 total number of bolts required by 50%. Test results also confirmed that the proposed all-metal
and detachable BRBs can stably sustain severe inelastic cyclic axial strain reversals before
failure.
(3) It is confirmed that the 11 meters long full scale BRB specimens can sustain the cyclic
increasing deformations with a remarkable performance. It also possesses a quite acceptable
fatigue life.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Taiwan National Science Council is gratefully acknowledged for the financial supports provided for research on
buckling restrained braces. The technical supports provided by the laboratory at Taiwan National Center for Research on
Earthquake Engineering are gratefully acknowledged. During these studies, technical information provided by Nippon
Steel Corporation is deeply appreciated. Many graduate students made significant contributions in their master thesis
works on BRB research in the Structural Engineering Division of Department of Civil Engineering at NTU. These
students include Jiun-Wei Lai, Yean-Chih Huang, Chong-Shing Weng, Shen-Ling Lin and Po-Chien Hsiao. Without their
efforts, these research results would not be possible.

REFERENCES
Chang, L.C. and Tsai, K.C. (2001) “The Platform and Visualization of Inelastic Structural Analysis of 2D Systems
PISA2D and VISA2D”, Report No. CEER/R90-08, Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, National Taiwan
University. (in Chinese)
Huang, Y.C. and Tsai, K.C., (2002), “Experimental Responses of Large Scale Buckling Restrained Brace Frames”, Report
No. CEER/R91-03, Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, National Taiwan University. (in Chinese)
Lai, J.W., Tsai, K.C. (2001), “A Study of Buckling Restrained Brace Frames”, Report No. CEER/R90-07, Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, National Taiwan University. (in Chinese)
SAC (1997), ”Protocol for Fabrication, Inspection, Testing, and Documentation of Beam-Column Connection Tests and
Other Experimental Specimens. Appendix E: Loading Protocol for Stepwise Increasing Cyclic Tests”, SAC Background
Document SAC/BD-97/02.
S.L. Lin and Tsai, K.C. (2003), “A Study of All Metallic and Detachable Buckling Braces”, (in press) Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, National Taiwan University. (in Chinese)
SEAOC/AISC (2001), “Recommended provisions for buckling-restrained braced frame (draft)”, SEAOC and AISC.
Timoshenko, S.P., and Gere, J.M. (1961), Theory of Elastic Stability, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company. Inc,New
York.
Tsai, K.C., Huang, Y.C., Weng, C.S., Shirai, T. and Nakamura, H. (2002), “Experimental Tests of Large Scale Buckling
Restrained Braces and Frames”, Proceedings, Passive Control Symposium, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo
Tsai K.C., Weng, Y.T., Lin, M.L., Chen, C.H. Chen, Lai, J.W. and Hsiao, P.C. (2003), “Pseudo Dynamic Tests of a Full
Scale CFT-BRB Composite Frame: Displacement Based Seismic Design and Performance Evaluations”, Proceedings,
International Workshop on Steel and Concrete Composite Constructions, National Center for Research on Earthquake
Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tsai, K.C., Lai, J.W., Chen, C.H., Hsiao, P.C., Weng, Y.T., and P.C. Hsiao (2004), “Pseudo Dynamic Tests of a Full Scale
CFT/BRB Composite Frame”, Proceedings, Structures Congress, ASCE, Nashville
Watanabe, A., Hitomoi, Y., Saeki, E., Wada, A., and Fujimoto, M. (1988), “Properties of Brace Encased in
Buckling-Restraining Concrete and Steel Tube”, Proceedings of Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
August 2-9, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan.(Vol. IV-719~724)
Weng, C.H. and Tsai, K.C., (2002), “Experimental Responses of Double-Tube Unbonded Brace Elements and
Connections”, Report No. CEER/R91-02, Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, National Taiwan University. (in
Chinese)