Preliminary Design of Low-Rise Buildings

Stiffened with Buckling-Restrained

Braces by a Displacement-Based Approach
Amador Teran-Gilmorea) and Neftali Virto-Cambrayb)

A displacement-based methodology for the preliminary design of a system

of buckling-restrained braces is introduced. The methodology applies to the
case of low-rise buildings, whose dynamic response is not significantly
influenced by global flexural behavior or higher modes. The methodology is
applied to the preliminary design of a five-story building located in the Lake
Zone of Mexico City. From the evaluation of the global mechanical
characteristics of the building and of its seismic performance when subjected
to ground motions generated in that zone, it is concluded that the proposed
methodology yields an adequate level of seismic design.
关DOI: 10.1193/1.3054638兴

INTRODUCTION
Innovation in earthquake-resistant design has been directed towards the conception
of structural systems, either traditional or innovative, that are capable of adequately lim-
iting their level of structural and nonstructural damage through the explicit control of
their lateral deformation. Ductile structures located in the Lake Zone of Mexico City,
particularly those whose fundamental period of vibration is close to the dominant period
of the ground motion, can be subjected to severe plastic deformation demands. Several
analytical studies show the preoccupation of Mexican researchers around this issue
(Teran-Gilmore 1996, Rodriguez and Ariztizabal 1999, Huerta-Garnica and Reinoso-
Angulo 2002, Bojorquez and Ruiz 2004, Arroyo and Ordaz 2007, Teran-Gilmore and
Bahena 2008).
One way of protecting earthquake-resistant structures from the effect of severe cu-
mulative plastic deformations is to design them so that they accommodate demands dur-
ing severe ground motion that are around 50% to 60% of their ultimate deformation ca-
pacity (Bertero 1997, Panagiotakos and Fardis 2001). Because the lateral strength of the
structure is the mechanical property that controls the maximum and cumulative plastic
deformation demands, the formulation of design methodologies that explicitly account
for low cycle fatigue in the Lake Zone of Mexico City has resulted for some buildings in
very large structural elements with a high content of longitudinal steel (Teran-Gilmore
and Simon 2008). The level of strength that is required under these circumstances to

a)
Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Av. San Pablo 180, Col. Reynosa Tamaulipas, Mexico 02200, D.F.;
e-mail: tga@correo.azc.uam.mx
b)
Alonso y Asociados, Carretera Mexico-Toluca 1725, Desp.C-5, Col. Lomas de Palo Alto, Mexico 05110, D.F.;
e-mail: neftali@alonsoasociados.com.mx

185
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 25, No. 1, pages 185–211, February 2009; © 2009, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
186 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

Figure 1. Schematic configuration of buckling-restrained brace (after Tremblay et al. 2006).

achieve adequate structural performance results in structural solutions that are ineffi-
cient. One way in which this situation can be alleviated is to develop passive energy dis-
sipating systems. The work discussed in this paper represents the beginning of a series of
efforts to develop in Mexico (a) a passive energy dissipating system based on the use of
buckling-restrained braces and (b) displacement-based design methodologies that allow
for the rational use of this system.
A series of analytical studies are presented herein with the purpose of studying the
pertinence of using buckling-restrained braces in low-rise buildings located in the Lake
Zone of Mexico City. As part of these studies, the yield stress of the steel with which the
braces should be fabricated is defined. This definition takes into account the balance be-
tween the structural performance of the building for the immediate operation and life
safety performance levels. Also, a displacement-based approach is developed for the
preliminary seismic design of the bracing system. Although the treatment that this paper
gives to the system of buckling-restrained braces corresponds to the design of a new
structure, the formulation can be readily adapted for seismic rehabilitation of existing
structures. Regarding its limitations, it should be emphasized that the methodology
should only be used for buildings whose global dynamic behavior is not significantly
influenced by global flexural deformation or higher mode effects.

BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES
The idea behind a buckling-restrained brace is to fabricate a structural element that
is able to work in a stable manner when subjected to compressive deformations. Because
braces are normally able to behave in a stable manner when subjected to tensile forces,
a buckling-restrained brace is capable of dissipating large amounts of energy in the pres-
ence of multiple yield reversals. Figure 1 shows schematically the concept of a buckling-
restrained brace, and shows its different components: (a) ductile steel core that dissipates
energy through axial deformation (b) mortar, concrete, or grout fill that restricts buck-
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 187

ling of the core, and (c) steel jacket that confines the mortar, concrete, or grout fill and
provides further restriction from buckling. Under severe ground motion, only the core of
the brace should yield.
Usually, the steel core is isolated from the mortar, concrete, or grout fill in an attempt
to minimize or eliminate the transfer of axial stresses between both materials. This is
done so that the compression strength of the brace is similar to its tension strength
(Black et al. 2002, Uang and Nakashima 2003). Among the unbonding agents used, the
following can be mentioned: rubber, polyethylene, silicon grease, and mastic tape.
Further discussion regarding the concept and use of buckling-restrained braces can
be found in Black et al. (2002), Uang and Nakashima (2003), Lopez and Sabelli (2004)
and Tremblay et al. (2006). Experimental testing on buckling-restrained braces indicates
a highly stable behavior under severe cyclic loading. Japan has developed several types
of buckling-restrained braces and has patented several of them. In fact, in that country
there are hundreds of buildings whose main earthquake-resistant system is a buckling-
restrained bracing system. In India, Taiwan, Canada, and the United States there have
been relevant experimental and practical development of this device.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE STRUCTURAL AND MECHANICAL

PROPERTIES OF A BRACE
The methodology introduced herein is based on the explicit control of the lateral dis-
placement of the building, in such manner that there is the need to develop design aids
that explicitly relate the structural properties of the brace (inclination angle, transverse
area, yield strength) with its global mechanical characteristics (lateral stiffness, lateral
strength, lateral displacement at yield). The expressions that are offered next have been
obtained by neglecting the global flexural deformation of the bracing system (produced
by the axial deformation of the columns that support it); that is, they only consider the
global shear deformation due to the axial deformation of the braces. This implies that
the relations are not applicable to slender or tall buildings.
The lateral stiffness that a buckling-restrained brace contributes to a given story, KL,
is related to its steel core area, A, through the following expression (Tremblay et al.
2006):

KL E cos2 ␪
= 共1兲
共A/L兲 ␥ + ␩共1 − ␥兲
where L is the total length of the brace, E, its Young’s modulus, and ␪, its inclination
angle. ␥ is the ratio of the length of the brace core segment (Lc according to Figure 2) to
the total brace length L, and ␩ the ratio of the average axial stress in the brace outside
the brace core to the stress in the brace core. Equation 1 can be used to estimate the
required area of braces in a given story as a function of the geometry of the bracing
system and the lateral stiffness that it should provide to that story.
Regarding the interstory drift at yield:
188 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

Figure 2. Notation used for buckling-restrained brace.

IDIy = 冉 冊
⌬L
h y
=
fy关␥ + ␩共1 − ␥兲兴
E sin ␪ cos ␪
共2兲

where IDIy is the interstory drift; ⌬L and h, the interstory displacement and story height,
respectively (Figure 2); and fy, the yield stress of the steel core. The sub index y denotes
yield. Equation 2 establishes the required yield stress for the braces as a function of the
interstory drift at which the bracing system should yield. If a specific steel grade is used
for the braces, Equation 2 can be used to establish the interstory drift at which the brac-
ing system yields.
Finally, it is possible to establish a relation between the steel core area and the lateral
shear, VL, contributed by the brace to the story shear:

VL = Afy cos ␪ 共3兲

Within the context of seismic design, Equation 3 establishes the required area for the
braces in terms of the geometry of the bracing system, the yield stress of the braces, and
the design story shear.

DESIGN SCOPE
The methodology offered in this paper is based on the conception of a building for
which gravity forces are carried by reinforced concrete frames and for which earthquake
resistance is provided by a system of buckling-restrained braces.
Under the effect of low intensity ground motion, the building exhibits adequate per-
formance if it satisfies the immediate operation limit state. This implies that the gravi-
tational and bracing systems should not exhibit significant structural damage, and that
the nonstructural system should remain undamaged. Within this context, nonstructural
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 189

Figure 3. Intended behavior of building for severe ground motion.

refers to architectural components, such as partitions, exterior cladding, glazing, ceilings

or any other items that while not having a structural purpose, are essential for the op-
eration of the building.
Regarding performance for severe ground motion, the gravitational system should
satisfy the immediate operation limit state while the bracing system develops significant
plastic behavior that allows it to dissipate a large percentage of the input energy. Figure
3 shows that an elastic gravitational system is capable of providing the braced building
with significant strain hardening that stabilizes its dynamic response and reduces its re-
sidual deformations (Kiggins and Uang 2006). In the figure, V denotes lateral base shear.
Once the integrated system deforms beyond its elastic limit, structural damage concen-
trates in the bracing system. It is reasonable to assume that after the seismic excitation,
any residual lateral deformation in the building can be eliminated by replacing the dam-
aged braces; that is, that retrofitting the building implies substituting the damaged
braces. Partial or total nonstructural collapse should be avoided.

PERFORMANCE-BASED NUMERICAL SEISMIC DESIGN

In recent decades, several researchers and practicing engineers have talked about
performance-based design as a rational basis for the formulation of seismic design meth-
odologies. The Vision 2000 Committee (Structural Engineering Association of Califor-
nia 1995) has proposed a global design process formed by three phases: Conceptual, Nu-
merical, and Implementation. A numerical performance-based methodology requires
that the response of the structural and nonstructural members be checked against thresh-
old levels established as a function of the required seismic performance. Recently pro-
posed design methodologies contemplate this check at three different steps:
• Global predesign. Quick and reasonable estimates of global seismic demands
should be established and checked against global threshold levels. Within this
context, the judicious use of response spectra provides information that allows
the determination of a set of global mechanical characteristics that can ad-
equately control and accommodate, within technical and cost constraints, the
global response of the structure.
• Preliminary local design. Once the global mechanical characteristics have been
determined, it is necessary to establish the structural properties and detailing at
the local level. This step considers the analyses of complex analytical models of
190 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

the structure to obtain design information for the sizing, strength design and de-
tailing of the structural elements.
• Revision of the preliminary design. Some recommendations have been formu-
lated for the revision of the preliminary design through a series of dynamic struc-
tural analyses that address the global and local performance of the structure (e.g.,
Federal Emergency Management Agency 1997).
Within the context of performance-based design, the structural properties should be
provided in such a way that, within technical and cost constraints, the structure is ca-
pable of controlling and accommodating adequately, for every relevant performance
level, its dynamic response. The seismic design methodology introduced in this paper
takes into consideration the Global Predesign and Preliminary Local Design steps to es-
tablish the preliminary design of a braced building. It will be assumed that during the
Conceptual Phase, the engineer has decided to use a reinforced concrete gravitational
system stiffened with a buckling-restrained bracing system, and that the structural and
nonstructural performance should be addressed for the immediate operation and life
safety performance levels.

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Within the context of performance-based seismic design, the solution given to the
design problem has to be efficient and yield adequate performance. A deficient prelimi-
nary solution can easily result on a limited final design that is far from the optimal so-
lution. Thus, the adequate conception and preliminary design of the structure become
relevant to its seismic design.
The methodology introduced herein, applicable to standard occupation buildings and
schematically shown in Figure 4, considers two performance levels: immediate operation
and life safety. Its first step implies establishing a qualitative definition of adequate per-
formance. This is done through the explicit consideration of the acceptable levels of
damage for the different systems within the building (gravitational, lateral and nonstruc-
tural) according to the performance levels under consideration. The second step consists
of the quantification of adequate performance through establishing response thresholds
with the aid of damage indices. During the third step, the methodology establishes,
through the use of displacement spectra, the value of the fundamental period of vibration
of the building, which quantifies the design lateral stiffness. The sizing of the braces is
established according to the value of this parameter. The proposed methodology does not
handle explicitly the ultimate deformation capacity or the lateral strength of the bracing
system. With respect to the deformation capacity, while experimental evidence indicates
that a well conceived and detailed buckling-restrained brace is capable of accommodat-
ing large plastic deformations, the proposed methodology limits significantly the inter-
story drift in the building to protect the gravitational and nonstructural systems. Regard-
ing the lateral strength, the design assumptions involved in the methodology result in
that the area of braces provided to satisfy the stiffness requirements in the building is
very similar to that required to accommodate its strength demands (this is discussed in
detail in the section of this paper entitled Final Observations).
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 191

Figure 4. Preliminary seismic design methodology.

Regarding the qualitative performance definitions, the performance levels under con-
sideration are satisfied if:
• Immediate operation. The bracing and gravitational systems can exhibit light
structural damage (i.e., cracking of frame elements and small plastic demands in
the braces). The nonstructural system should remain undamaged.
• Life safety. The building should guarantee the physical integrity of its occupants
and provide for easy structural rehabilitation. While the gravitational system
should satisfy immediate operation requirements, the bracing system should de-
velop significant plastic behavior. Local collapse should be avoided in the non-
structural system.
For immediate operation, the gravitational system satisfies its structural performance
criteria if it remains elastic. In the case of the bracing system, it may develop incipient
plastic behavior. Nonstructural damage is adequately controlled if the maximum inter-
story drift index 共IDIIO兲 does not exceed the threshold associated to initiation of damage
共IDINS
IO
兲. Life safety is satisfied if the maximum interstory drift index 共IDILS兲 is limited
according to: 1) Immediate operation of the gravitational system 共IDIGS兲, and 2) Preven-
tion of nonstructural local collapse 共IDINS LS
兲.
192 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

Table 1. Range of values of COD

COD
Global
Ductility Minimum Maximum

1 1.2 1.5
2+ 1.5 2.0

Numerical design starts with the conception and design of the gravitational system.
The system is designed to exclusively resist the gravitational loads. Standard detailing
(as opposed to ductile) should be used for the structural elements of the gravitational
frames. Once the gravitational system is established and designed, a nonlinear static
(pushover) analysis is carried out to estimate the interstory drift index threshold associ-
ated to immediate operation 共IDIGS兲. For this purpose, an acceptable threshold for the
plastic rotation in the structural elements of the gravitational system can be defined, and
IDIGS defined as the interstory drift index at which those elements reach the threshold.
To illustrate the concepts in this paper, a threshold plastic rotation of 0.005 will be con-
sidered. The design methodology also requires an estimate of the maximum ductility de-
mand associated to the bracing system 共µmax兲 to define the design displacement spectrum
for life safety. A reasonable approximation for the value of µmax for a regular structure
with few stories can be estimated from the ratio IDILS / IDIy; where IDIy represents the
interstory drift at yield of the bracing system (Equation 2). Note that the pushover analy-
sis would not be required in cases where the value of IDIGS can be estimated from ex-
perimental evidence or practical experience.
The value of the fundamental period of vibration of the building is established ac-
cording to Figure 4. The interstory drift index threshold for a given limit state can be
used to establish the lateral roof displacement threshold for that limit state:

IDIIOH
␦IO = 共4a兲
CODIO

IDILSH
␦LS = 共4b兲
CODLS
where H is the total height of the building, and COD a coefficient of distortion that con-
siders that interstory drift is not constant throughout the height of the building. Particu-
larly, COD quantifies the ratio of the maximum interstory drift index to the average in-
terstory drift index (Qi and Moehle 1991). Table 1 summarizes values of COD for the
preliminary design of fairly regular structures that exhibit shear-like global behavior. Be-
cause the deflected shapes of low-rise buckling-restrained bracing systems in which the
areas of braces are varied in every story tend to exhibit a linear deformed shape even for
the case of plastic behavior (Sabelli et al. 2003), the values of COD corresponding to a
global ductility of one in Table 1 can be used for this case.
The fundamental period of vibration of the building can be estimated through the use
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 193

Table 2. Values of ␣

␣
Stories µ=1 µ = 2+
1 1.0 1.0
2 1.2 1.1
3 1.3 1.2
5+ 1.4 1.2

of the displacement thresholds ␦IO and ␦LS and displacement spectra corresponding to
both performance levels. For this purpose, ␦IO and ␦LS should be modified to take into
consideration multidegree-of-freedom effects. According to what is shown in Figure 4,
the roof displacement threshold should be corrected through the use of parameter ␣. Al-
though for elastic behavior ␣ is often assumed to be equal to the first mode participation
factor, care should be exercised while establishing its value for buildings developing
nonlinear behavior. Based on the recommendations of FEMA 306 (Applied Technology
Council 1998) and Teran-Gilmore (2004), Table 2 presents values of ␣ for preliminary
design of structures that exhibit shear-like global behavior.
According to the acceptable level of damage for each limit state, the displacement
spectrum for immediate operation contemplates elastic behavior and a percentage of
critical viscous damping 共␰兲 equal to 2%. In the case of life safety, the inelastic displace-
ment spectrum corresponds to a maximum ductility equal to µmax and ␰ of 5%. An in-
crease in the level of stress or deformation demand in reinforced concrete structures is
reflected in an increase of their level of damping. The values of 2% and 5% of critical
viscous damping proposed herein are considered to be reasonable lower bounds for the
range of values reported by Chopra (2001) for the performance levels under consider-
ation.
Figure 4 indicates that the design value for the fundamental period of vibration
共TMAX兲 is equal to the smaller of the values that satisfy the design requirements imposed
by both performance levels. Once the value of TMAX is available, the braces are sized
according to it; that is, the transverse areas of the braces are deemed adequate if the
actual fundamental period of the building 共TREAL兲 is equal or slightly less than TMAX.
Once the braces have been sized for stiffness, the gravitational system is adjusted using
capacity design concepts to provide them with adequate support.

FINAL DESIGN
Once the preliminary design ends, the design process proceeds to its final stage. Fi-
nal design consists of two tasks: (a) the verification of the preliminary design of the
bracing system through a series of nonlinear time-history analysis and (b) if required,
adjustment of the area of braces so that the building can meet adequately its perfor-
194 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

Figure 5. Structural layout of the gravitational system.

mance levels. The use of methodologies for preliminary design, such as the one intro-
duced in this paper, should result in that the preliminary design converges into its final
version with no or a few iterations.

GRAVITATIONAL SYSTEM
For the five-story building under consideration, nonductile reinforced concrete
frames are used to bear the gravitational loads estimated according to the 2004 version
of the Mexico City Building Code.

STRUCTURAL LAYOUT
Figure 5 shows the frames of the building, which is considered to be located in the
Lake Zone of Mexico City. The design of the gravitational system considered live and
dead loads, and standard detailing. Regarding the structural materials, a compressive
strength 共fc⬘兲 of 25 MPa was considered for concrete, and a yield stress 共fy兲 of 420 MPa
for the reinforcing steel. The gravitational loads per unit area for the roof and interme-
diate stories are equal to 0.0058 and 0.0076 MPa, respectively. The roof and story
masses estimated according to the instantaneous live loads are 0.13 and
0.19 MN-seg2 / m, respectively.
The slab has a width of 15 cm and is reinforced with #3 共쏗 0.95 cm兲 bars at 25 cm
in both directions. Deflection and crack control was taken into consideration for the siz-
ing of slab and beams. For this purpose, the cracked moment of inertia of the beams was
estimated as 50% of the inertia corresponding to their gross section. In the case of col-
umns, this percentage was 70%. Two different frames were designed, one external and
one internal.
All the beams in the building ended up with the longitudinal steel and detailing
shown in Figure 6. Columns were designed in such a manner that they could accommo-
date the flexural moments and axial loads induced in them by the gravitational loads. For
construction reasons, it was considered convenient to assign the same size to all the col-
umns in the building. As for their longitudinal steel, they have the minimum amount (1%
of their transverse area). Figure 7 shows the transverse section of columns.
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 195

Figure 6. Dimensions and reinforcement at the ends of internal beams.

MECHANIC AND DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS

These characteristics were estimated from a nonlinear two-dimensional model of the
building. The model considered one internal and one external frame. The expected level
of cracking on beams and columns was considered, as well as the effect that the slab has
on the strength and stiffness of the beams.
In summary, well known analytical models for stress-strain curves of confined and
unconfined concrete, as well as for steel, were adopted. Taking into consideration the
properties of the structural materials and the geometry of the reinforced concrete ele-
ments, moment-curvature curves for the cross sections at their ends were established us-
ing the RESPONSE 2000 software (Bentz and Collins 2000). Bilinear idealizations of
these curves at both ends were established by defining yield and ultimate curvatures. The
strength, stiffness and deformation capacity of the structural members were then estab-
lished directly from these bilinear curves.
The width of slab that was considered effective in beam flexure (in tension as well as
compression) was established according to the recommendations of Pantazopoulou and
French (2001) for an interstory drift of 2%. It should be mentioned that the properties of
the structural materials used to estimate the structural properties of beams and columns
are not those used in design (nominal), but the expected ones estimated according to

Figure 7. Dimensions and reinforcement of columns.

196 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

Figure 8. Base shear versus roof displacement, gravitational system.

FEMA 273 (1997). The columns in the first story were modeled as clamped at their
bases. Strain hardening and second order effects were explicitly considered.
A nonlinear static analysis can be used to evaluate the global mechanical character-
istics of a structure. In this study, a triangular load pattern through height was used to
carry out the static nonlinear analysis with the program DRAIN 2DX (Prakash et al.
1993). According to the analysis, structural damage tends to concentrate on the beams of
the frames and the bottom end of the columns located at the ground story. Figure 8
shows the base shear 共Vb兲 versus roof displacement 共␦兲 curve, or capacity curve, of the
gravitational system. Although the model considers only two of the four frames of the
building, the results shown correspond to the entire building. The integrated work of the
frames results in a base shear close to 800 KN, which corresponds to 9% of the reactive
weight of the building. Detrimental P-⌬ effects are noticeable, particularly for the inter-
nal frames. Both types of frames exhibit elastic behavior up to a roof displacement of
7 cm, and exhibit stable behavior up to a roof displacement of 10 cm. The fundamental
period of the building was estimated at 1.44 seconds.
Figure 9 shows the evolution of interstory drift index through height as a function of
the roof displacement. The displacements in the figure are in centimeters. The lateral
deformation of the structure tends to concentrate in the second and third stories. Note in
Figure 8 that the building starts exhibiting nonlinear behavior at a roof displacement
close to 7 cm, which according to Figure 9 corresponds to an interstory drift index close
to 0.005. Under the consideration that the structural elements of a nonductile reinforced
concrete frame can accommodate plastic rotations up to 0.005 for immediate operation,
the building can deform up to a roof displacement of 11.4 cm, which corresponds to an
interstory drift index of 0.0084:

IDIGS 艋 0.0084 共5兲

It should be noted that the gravitational system of the building is formed of light
reinforced concrete frames that exhibit a low longitudinal steel content and simple de-
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 197

Figure 9. Evolution of interstory drift index distribution, gravitational system.

tailing. As a consequence, the gravitational system exhibits lateral strength and stiffness
that are considerably lower than those required by an earthquake-resistant structure.

DESIGN OF BRACING SYSTEM

QUANTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE

Consider for the sample building partition walls that are made of gypsum panels
glued and nailed to wooden frames that in turn are fixed to the gravitational system.
While the interstory drift index associated to initiation of damage is equal to 0.003, that
associated to complete damage is equal to 0.008 (Reyes 2000). Considering that Appen-
dix A of the Complementary Technical Requirements for Seismic Design of the Mexico
City Building Code indicates that, for nonstructural reasons, the interstory drift index
should be limited to 0.002 for the Serviceability Limit State, the following interstory
drift index thresholds are considered for the nonstructural system:
IO
IDINS 艋 0.002 共6兲
LS
IDINS 艋 0.008 共7兲
IO LS
where IDINS and IDINS are the maximum allowable interstory drift indices corresponding
to immediate operation and life safety, respectively.
Through the simultaneous consideration of the gravitational (Equation 5) and non-
structural systems (Equations 6 and 7), the design interstory drift index thresholds are:

IDIIO 艋 0.002 共8兲

IDILS 艋 min共0.008,0.0084兲 = 0.008 共9兲

To satisfy its performance conditions, the bracing system should yield at interstory
drifts close to 0.002, and exhibit significant plastic behavior for interstory drifts close to
0.008. Considering that ␥ = 0.5, ␩ = 0.333, and ␣ = 53.13°, Equation 2 yields:
198 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

fy = 冉 冊
⌬L
h y
200,000 sin 53.13 ° cos 53.13°
0.5 + 0.333共1 − 0.5兲
= 288 MPa 共10a兲

Because it has been considered acceptable for the bracing system to exhibit small
plastic demands for immediate operation, the yield stress of the braces is set equal to
237.5 MPa. This results in an interstory drift index at yield equal to (Equation 2):

冉 冊
⌬L
h y
=
237.5关0.5 + 0.333共1 − 0.5兲兴
200,000 sin 53.13 ° cos 53.13°
= 0.00165 共10b兲

It is important to note that the value of fy used in Equation 10b should be the actual
yield stress and not a reduced value used for design purposes. Considering that the
maximum allowable interstory drift index for life safety is equal to 0.008 (Equation 9),
the bracing system should be able to develop a maximum interstory ductility close to
0.008/ 0.00165= 4.8. Because the maximum global ductility for the building should be
less than the maximum interstory ductility (Chopra 2001), and considering that the
building has only five stories, a maximum global ductility, µmax, of 4 will be used for life
safety.
In most cases the yield stress of the braces is a fixed value, in such a manner that
Equation 2 should be used to establish IDIy and the rest of the methodology applied as
shown in Figure 4. In this regard, it is important that several options exist for fy in such
a manner that the designer has the flexibility to choose the value that provides a reason-
able balance between the performance requirements for immediate operation and life
safety.

SEISMIC EXCITATIONS
Two sets of ground motions recorded in the Lake Zone of Mexico City were used to
establish design spectra. The first set, corresponding to immediate operation, included
the motions summarized in Table 3, scaled so that their peak ground velocity matched
one sixth of the peak ground velocity of the motion recorded during 1985 in the east-
west direction of the Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCTEW). The sec-
ond set, corresponding to life safety, is summarized in Table 4. The motions included in
the second set were scaled so that their peak ground velocity matched that of the
SCTEW motion. The design spectrum for each set was determined from the mean plus
one standard deviation of the corresponding spectra derived from each motion within
that set. In the tables, Tg denotes the dominant period of motion.

BRACE SIZING
Figure 10 shows the structural layout and location of the braces within the building.
In summary, the central bay of each one of the external frames is braced. According to
the interstory and bay dimensions, the inclination angle of the braces is equal to 53.13°.
Figure 11 shows the design spectra for the performance levels under consideration.
While the design displacement spectrum for immediate operation corresponds to elastic
behavior and ␰ = 0.02; the inelastic design spectrum for life safety was derived from
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 199

Table 3. Motions corresponding to immediate opera-

tion

Id Location Date Scale Factor Tg (sec)

s31 CUPJ EO 14/09/1995 1.317 2

s32 CUPJ NS 14/09/1995 1.542 2
s43 Garibaldi EO 10/12/1994 1.891 2
s45 Garibaldi EO 14/09/1995 1.047 2
s46 Garibaldi NS 14/09/1995 1.266 2
s51 Hospital Juárez EO 14/09/1995 0.852 2
s59 Liverpool EO 09/10/1995 1.644 2
s77 Tlatelolco EO 10/12/1994 2.222 2.1
s79 Tlatelolco EO 14/09/1995 1.289 2
s89 Alameda EO 14/09/1995 0.966 2
s90 Alameda NS 14/09/1995 1.322 2
s119 C. U Juárez EO 10/12/1994 2.278 1.9
s125 Cibeles EO 24/10/1993 2.652 2.1
s129 Cibeles EO 09/10/1995 1.993 2
s131 Angares EO 14/09/1995 1.072 1.6
s143 Tlatelolco EO 14/09/1995 1.216 2
s144 Tlatelolco NS 14/09/1995 1.726 1.9

elasto-perfectly plastic behavior, a maximum ductility of four and ␰ = 0.05. Figure 11

also illustrates how the fundamental period required to control the lateral roof displace-
ment of the building is established. The displacement thresholds are estimated according
to Equation 4 (because the building is regular and has few stories, it has been consid-
ered, within the ranges offered in Table 1, to use the minimum values for COD corre-
sponding to a global ductility of 2+):

␦IO IDIIOH 0.002 ⫻ 2000

= = = 2.4 cm 共11a兲
␣IO ␣IOCODIO 1.4 ⫻ 1.2

Table 4. Motions corresponding to life safety

Id Location Date Scale Factor Tg (sec)

mx01 Alameda EO 04/25/89 4.046 2.1

mx03 Garibaldi EO 04/25/89 3.491 2.2
mx04 Tlahuac EO 09/19/85 1.766 2.1
mx06 Tlahuac NS 09/21/85 4.664 2.0
mx07 Tlahuac EO 09/21/85 4.046 1.9
mx08 SCT EO 09/19/85 1 2.0
200 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

Figure 10. Structural layout of bracing system.

␦LS IDILSH 0.008 ⫻ 2000

= = = 8.9 cm 共11b兲
␣LS ␣LSCODLS 1.2 ⫻ 1.5
The period for which the braces should be sized corresponds to the smaller of those
derived from Figure 11. This results in TMAX = 0.66 seconds. The stiffness-based sizing
of the bracing system should be carried out in such a manner that the fundamental pe-
riod of vibration of the building is equal to or slightly less than TMAX. A possibility is to
establish an analytical model of the building that includes the bracing system, and iterate
with the area of the braces until getting the desired period. There are other possibilities
for sizing, such as the one discussed below under the consideration that the five-story
building does not exhibit significant torsion due to its plan regularity. First, the static
method of analysis is used to estimate the relative value of the lateral design forces:

Figure 11. Maximum fundamental period of vibration for five-story building.

DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 201

Table 5. Distribution through height of lateral stiff-

ness for five-story building

Story Fi Vi Kiopt Kiact

5 0.258 cW 0.258 cW 0.258 K 0.7 K

4 0.297 cW 0.555 cW 0.555 K 0.7 K
3 0.223 cW 0.778 cW 0.778 K 1.0 K
2 0.148 cW 0.926 cW 0.926 K 1.0 K
1 0.074 cW 1.000 cW 1.000 K 1.0 K

w ih i
Fi = cW 共12兲
兺j=1wjhj
n

where Fi is the design lateral force corresponding to the ith story; c is the design seismic
coefficient; W the reactive weight of the building; n the number of stories; and wi and hi
the reactive weight and height with respect to the ground level, respectively, of the slab
corresponding to the ith level. Note that a linear variation of acceleration through height
is assumed; in such a manner that higher mode contribution to the building’s response is
neglected.
Table 5 summarizes the relative value of the lateral forces, and their corresponding
story shears, Vi, estimated from Equation 12 for the five-story building. The optimal lat-
eral stiffness distribution for the building is that whose variation through height is pro-
portional to the variation through height of story shear. This distribution is denoted Kiopt
in Table 5. The values of COD used in Equations 11 are a function of the distribution
through height of stiffness selected for the bracing system. On one hand, as the actual
distribution approaches that of Kiopt, the values of COD used for preliminary design
should be those indicated in Table 1 for a global ductility of one. On the other hand,
practicing engineers tend to standardize the sizes of structural elements and in some
cases these sizes may be restricted (predetermined). As indicated in Table 5, in the ex-
ample discussed herein it will be assumed that the actual stiffness distribution of the
bracing system, Kiact, does not follow exactly Kiopt.
Once the distribution through height of lateral stiffness has been determined in rela-
tive terms, the mass and stiffness matrices are established in the direction of analysis
(note that the stiffness matrix has been obtained through the consideration that each
story works as a shear beam, assumption that is reasonable for building with few sto-
ries):

冤 冥
187.27 0 0 0 0
0 187.27 0 0 0
ជ = kg − seg2
M 0 0 187.27 0 0 共13兲
cm
0 0 0 187.27 0
0 0 0 0 130.22
202 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

Figure 12. Transverse section of supporting beam and columns.

冤 冥
2K − 1K 0 0 0
− 1K 2K − 1K 0 0
ជ
K= 0 − 1K 1.7K − 0.7K 0 共14兲
0 0 − 0.7K 1.4K − 0.7K
0 0 0 − 0.7K 0.7K
The sizing process starts when an arbitrary value (e.g., unitary) is assigned to the
parameter K indicated in Equation 14. An eigenvalue problem is then formulated and the
fundamental period corresponding to the bracing system is estimated 共TK兲. Then, the de-
sign lateral stiffness for the ith story 共Kid兲 is estimated as:

Kid = Kiact 冉 冊
TK
TMAX
2
共15兲

where Kiact corresponds to the lateral stiffness for the ith story estimated according to the
assumed value of K. The total area of braces required for stiffness purposes 共Ai兲 in that
story is given by Equation 1:

L关␥ + ␩共1 − ␥兲兴

Ai = Kid 共16兲
E cos2 ␪
For the five-story building, ␥ and ␩ have been considered equal to 0.5 and 0.333,
respectively, to account for the zones of larger stiffness located at the end of the braces
(which include the existence of connection plates). From the application of Equations
13–16, the brace area was estimated at 84 cm2 for the lower three stories, and 56 cm2
for the upper two stories. The frame elements that support the bracing system need to be
redesigned. For such purpose, the concept of capacity design was used. Columns were
prestressed given the level of axial load that they need to accommodate. Figure 12 shows
the transverse section of the frame elements that support the bracing system.
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 203

Figure 13. Roof displacement versus base shear curve, braced building.

MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BRACED BUILDING

Once the bracing system was sized, a nonlinear analysis model of the braced build-
ing was established. For this purpose, the bracing system was added to the analysis
model of the gravitational system. The braces were assigned a yield stress of
237.5 MPa, in such manner that, as indicated before, there is no material overstrength.
While the hysteretic behavior of the braces was modeled as elastoplastic with 2% strain
hardening, their compressive strength was set equal to 1.02 their tensile strength to take
into account the increase in their transverse area when they work in compression.
Figure 13 shows the capacity curve of the braced building derived from a triangular
load pattern. As a reference, the figure also includes the curve corresponding to the
gravitational system.
Figure 14, which illustrates the distribution through height of interstory drift index,
shows that the building reaches interstory drift indices of 0.002 and 0.008 for roof dis-
placements of 3.4 cm and 10.6 cm, respectively. Note that these values are similar to
those estimated for preliminary design purposes from Equation 11 共2.4⫻ 1.4= 3.4 and
8.9⫻ 1.2= 10.7 cm, respectively). As Figure 13 shows, the bilinear idealization of the
curve estimates a roof displacement at yield of 3.6 cm.
The nonlinear model of the braced building estimates a fundamental period of vi-
bration of 0.62 seconds, which is smaller than the target value of 0.66 seconds. Because
the contribution of the gravitational system was not considered during the preliminary
design of the braces, the actual lateral stiffness implied by the fundamental period of
vibration is larger than its respective requirement.
204 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

Figure 14. Interstory drifts as a function of roof displacement, braced building.

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF THE BRACED BUILDING

To establish the seismic performance of the building, its nonlinear analysis model
was subjected to the motions included in Tables 3 and 4. Table 6 summarizes the maxi-
mum roof displacement, ␦, and interstory drift index 共IDI兲 demands, and indicates the
mean, standard deviation and mean plus one standard deviation values. For life safety,
Table 6 also includes the maximum rotation demands on the critical beam and column
(␪pb and ␪pc, respectively). The nonlinear analyses considered a percentage of critical
damping of 2% for immediate operation, and of 5% for life safety. Viscous damping was
considered through a Rayleigh matrix that assigned the indicated damping to the first
two modes of the building.
Figure 15 superposes mean+ ␴ roof demands (Table 6) and the capacity curve of the
building. As shown, the braces do not yield for immediate operation, and the life safety
displacement demand is significantly smaller than its 10.6 cm threshold. In evaluating
the performance of the building, it should be acknowledged that the building has been
overdesigned because no consideration has been given to the contribution of the gravi-
tational system.
To study the seismic performance of the building for a displacement demand that is
close to the life safety threshold, it was decided to subject the nonlinear model of the
braced building to the motions included in Table 4 scaled by a factor of 1.4. While Table
7 provides details of the deformation demands in the building, Figure 15 locates the
mean +␴ roof demand within the base shear versus roof displacement curve.
From the comparison of the demands included in Table 7 (interstory drift index and
plastic rotation demands of 0.0089 and 0.0061, respectively, for a roof displacement of
10.4 cm) with the design conditions for life safety (interstory drift index and plastic ro-
tation thresholds of 0.0080 and 0.0050, respectively, for a roof displacement of
10.6 cm), it can be said that the proposed methodology results in a reasonable perfor-
mance as the structure approaches the life safety threshold.
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 205

Table 6. Seismic demands corresponding to motions included in Tables 3

and 4

Immediate Operation Life Safety

Motion ␦ (cm) IDI Motion ␦ (cm) IDI ␪pb ␪pc

s31 1.73 0.0011 mx01 4.44 0.0036 0.0000 0.0005
s32 2.21 0.0014 mx03 3.39 0.0024 0.0000 0.0000
s43 1.55 0.0010 mx04 3.92 0.0031 0.0000 0.0002
s45 1.14 0.0007 mx06 4.37 0.0036 0.0000 0.0006
s46 1.60 0.0010 mx07 6.07 0.0051 0.0019 0.0016
s51 1.11 0.0007 mx08 3.77 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000
s59 0.48 0.0003
s77 0.99 0.0006
s79 1.25 0.0008
s89 1.65 0.0010
s90 2.22 0.0014
s119 1.48 0.0009
s125 1.51 0.0010
s129 0.61 0.0004
s131 1.04 0.0007
s143 0.75 0.0005
s144 1.03 0.0007
Mean 1.31 0.0008 Mean 4.33 0.0034 0.0003 0.0005
␴ 0.50 0.0003 ␴ 0.94 0.0009 0.0008 0.0006
Mean+ ␴ 1.81 0.0012 Mean+ ␴ 5.27 0.0044 0.0011 0.0011

Figure 15. Structural performance of braced building.

206 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

Table 7. Seismic demands corresponding to motions

in Table 4 scaled up by 1.4

Motion ␦ (cm) IDI ␪pb ␪pc

mx01 8.09 0.0069 0.0040 0.0025
mx03 4.62 0.0036 0.0000 0.0006
mx04 7.56 0.0062 0.0020 0.0021
mx06 10.85 0.0092 0.0065 0.0038
mx07 10.46 0.0090 0.0066 0.0040
mx08 5.19 0.0043 0.0004 0.0009
Mean 7.80 0.0065 0.0033 0.0023
␴ 2.59 0.0023 0.0029 0.0014
Mean+ ␴ 10.38 0.0089 0.0061 0.0038

FINAL OBSERVATIONS
The use of the methodology introduced in this paper can be considered successful in
spite that it leads to slightly conservative design. The level of overdesign can be sub-
stantially reduced through the explicit consideration of the gravitational system during
preliminary design. If deemed convenient, the designer can take into account the con-
tribution of the gravitational system to earthquake resistance, and even design it to ac-
commodate a larger percentage of seismic demands (this also applies to the case in
which the bracing system is used to strengthen an existing structure).
To take into account the contribution of the gravitational/existing system, it is nec-
essary to establish, as indicated by the methodology, its capacity curve. The nonlinear
model used for this purpose should also be used to establish its fundamental period of
vibration (TGS). Under the assumption that the lateral response of the building is domi-
nated by global shear effects, it is possible to establish that the bracing and gravitational/
existing system will work as two parallel systems, in such a manner that:

1 1 1 1 1 1
2 + 2 = 2 ⇒ 2 = 2 − 2 共17兲
TBR TGS TMAX TBR TMAX TGS
where TMAX is still the target period for the building, and TBR the period that establishes
the stiffness requirements for the braces. According to Equation 17, TBR is larger than
TMAX, in such a manner that the stiffness requirements for the braces are reduced with
respect to the case in which the contribution of the gravitational/existing system is ne-
glected. In the case of the five-story building, TGS is equal to 1.44 seconds, so that:

1 1 1
2 = 2 − ⇒ TBR = 0.74 seconds 共18兲
TBR 0.66 1.442
Applying Equations 13–16 to a target period of 0.74 seconds (in lieu of
0.66 seconds), the area of braces is reduced by 20%. This results in an area of 67.2 cm2
for the lower three stories, and of 44.8 for the upper two stories. Figure 16 shows the
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 207

Figure 16. Structural performance of second version of braced building.

capacity curve for the second version of the braced building, and superposes the roof
displacement demands for the two performance levels under consideration. Mean and
mean +␴ roof displacement demands of 2.64 and 8.24 cm were obtained for immediate
operation and life safety, respectively. Interstory drift index demands of 0.0017 and
0.0067 compare well with the threshold values considered for the performance levels
under consideration: 0.002 and 0.008, respectively. The nonlinear model of the second
version of the braced building estimates a fundamental period of vibration of
0.68 seconds.
Under the design assumptions involved in the preliminary design methodology in-
troduced herein, the areas of braces required by stiffness should be similar to those es-
tablished from strength requirements. Appendix A demonstrates that stiffness and
strength requirements result in the same areas for a braced SDOF. Under these circum-
stances, preliminary design can be limited to sizing the braces according to its stiffness
requirements. In the case of multidegree-of-freedom systems, the methodology makes
several simplifying assumptions that although reasonable for low-rise regular buildings,
are not exact. Particularly, neglecting the axial deformation of the supporting columns,
and the considerations used to establish the values of COD, ␣, and global ductility, do
not affect in the same manner the stiffness and strength requirements of a building.
Higher mode effects also have a different role in terms of these requirements. As sug-
gested by the seismic performance of the two versions of the braced five-story building
under consideration, the methodology introduced herein usually results in adequate pre-
liminary design. Nevertheless, for irregular or taller structures it may be important to
carry out a preliminary strength-based revision of the bracing system or to assess the
local plastic demands in the braces during the nonlinear static analysis of the braced
building.
208 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

CONCLUSIONS
Experimental tests of buckling-restrained braces have shown their stability under cy-
clic loading. This is relevant to the energy dissipating capacity of buildings subjected to
long duration motions.
Within the context of a displacement-based seismic design methodology, the area of
braces required for lateral stiffness should be determined as a function of the fundamen-
tal period of vibration required by the structure to control the level of damage in the
gravitational and nonstructural systems.
The application of a displacement-based methodology to a five-story building has
given place to an adequate level of seismic design for immediate operation and life
safety. The performance of the building as it approaches its life safety threshold is con-
gruent with the design objectives.
The distribution and location of braces within the building is relevant to its structural
safety. In the example that has been illustrated, it was decided to concentrate the bracing
system in the central bays of the external frames. The problem with this type of arrange-
ment is the lack of redundancy.
Some issues that the Mexican practice needs to consider for future research are
• Connections. It is relevant to study the effect of stress concentration in the con-
nection areas, and to establish detailing requirements for them.
• Extension of methodology to tall buildings. In this paper, the effects of global
flexural deformation and higher modes were ignored.
• Costs. The gravitational frames in the illustrative example are very light with re-
spect to those corresponding to a similar building in which the frames need to
bear the gravitational and lateral forces. Besides, the sizes of beams and columns
of the gravitational frames, as well as their simple detailing, are uniform
throughout the building. The structural damage that the building could exhibit
can be repaired by exclusively substituting the braces that have significantly
yielded during the seismic excitation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Universidad Autonoma Metro-
politana for supporting the research reported herein. They would also like to acknowl-
edge the kindness of Prof. Robert Tremblay and S.E. Walterio Lopez, who introduced
them to several publications that helped them understand the concept of buckling-
restrained braces and its practical implications. Finally, they want to thank the reviewers
of the paper whose observations are reflected in its final version.

APPENDIX A
Consider a braced SDOF system having a mass and period m and T, respectively,
and stiffened by braces having the characteristics of those illustrated in Figure 2.
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 209

The area of braces is related to their lateral stiffness through Equation 1. To fulfill the
stiffness requirements of the SDOF system, the area of braces should be equal to

LKL关␥ + ␩共1 − ␥兲兴

AK = 共A1兲
E cos2 ␪
From Equation 3, the area of braces derived from strength requirements is

VL
AV = 共A2兲
fy cos ␪
For a SDOF system, the base shear can be estimated as the pseudo-acceleration
times its mass, in such way that

mSa共T兲
AV = 共A3兲
fy cos ␪
Solving Equation 2 for fy and substituting into Equation A3:

mSa
AV = 共A4兲
IDIyE sin ␪ cos2 ␪
关␥ + ␩共1 − ␥兲兴
By denoting h the interstory height and considering that for a SDOF system, the roof
displacement at yield, estimated as the interstory at yield times h, is equal to the pseudo-
displacement evaluated at T, the following equation can be formulated:

mSa共T兲关␥ + ␩共1 − ␥兲兴 hmSa共T兲关␥ + ␩共1 − ␥兲兴

AV = = 共A5兲
Sd共T兲E sin ␪ cos2 ␪ Sd共T兲E sin ␪ cos2 ␪
h
The ratio of Sa and Sd evaluated at T is the square of the natural frequency, and this
square times the mass of the system equals its lateral stiffness, in such way that

hm␻2关␥ + ␩共1 − ␥兲兴 hKL关␥ + ␩共1 − ␥兲兴

AV = = 共A6兲
E sin ␪ cos2 ␪ E sin ␪ cos2 ␪
Finally, by considering from Figure 2 that h = L sin ␪, AV can be expressed as

LKL关␥ + ␩共1 − ␥兲兴

AV = 共A7兲
E cos2 ␪
Because AK and AV in Equations A1 and A7 are equal, it can be concluded that in the
case of a SDOF system, a brace system sized according to stiffness considerations will
also satisfy its strength requirements. Note that a similar conclusion can be derived for a
SDOF system developing nonlinear behavior characterized by a maximum ductility µmax.
210 A. TERAN-GILMORE AND N. VIRTO-CAMBRAY

REFERENCES
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1998. FEMA 306: Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged
Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Report No. ATC-43, Redwood City, CA.
Arroyo, D., and Ordaz, M., 2007. Hysteretic energy demands for SDOF systems subjected to
narrow band earthquake ground motions. Applications to the Lake Bed Zone of Mexico
City, J. Earthquake Eng. 11, 147–165.
Bentz, E., and Collins, M. P., 2000, Response 2000, http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz
Bertero, V. V., 1997. Performance-based seismic engineering: A critical review of proposed
guidelines, in Proceedings, Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of
Codes, Fajfar and Krawinkler, editors, 1–31.
Black, C., Makris, N., and Aiken, I., 2002. Component Testing, Stability Analysis and Charac-
terization of Buckling-Restrained Unbounded Braces, Report PEER 2002/08, University of
California at Berkeley.
Bojorquez, E., and Ruiz, S. E., 2004. Strength reduction factors for the valley of Mexico taking
into account low cycle fatigue effects, in Proceedings, 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Paper 516.
Chopra, A. K., 2001. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engi-
neering, Second Edition, Prentice Hall, NJ, 844 pp.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1997, NEHRP guidelines for the seismic re-
habilitation of buildings, Report FEMA 273, Washington D.C.
Huerta-Garnica, B., and Reinoso-Angulo, E., 2002. Espectros de energía de movimientos fu-
ertes registrados en México, Revista de Ingeniería Sísmica 66, 45–72.
Kiggins, S., and Uang, C. M., 2006. Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced
frames as a dual system, Eng. Struct. 28, 1525–1532.
Lopez, W., and Sabelli, R., 2004. Seismic design of buckling-restrained braced frames, in Steel
Tips, Structural Steel Education Council (www.steeltips.org).
Panagiotakos, T. B., and Fardis, M. N., 2001. Deformations of reinforced concrete members at
yielding and ultimate, ACI Struct. J. 98, 135–148.
Pantazopoulou, S. J., and French, C. W., 2001. Slab participation in practical earthquake design
of reinforced concrete frames, ACI Struct. J. 98, 479–489.
Prakash, V., Powell, G. H., and Campbell, S., 1993. DRAIN-2DX Base Program Description
and User Guide, Report UCB/SEMM-93/17, University of California at Berkeley.
Qi, X., and Moehle, J. P., 1991. Displacement Design Approach for Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures Subjected to Earthquakes, Report UCB/EERC-91/02, University of California at Ber-
keley.
Reyes Salinas, C., 2000. El estado límite de servicio en el diseño sísmico de edificios, Ph.D.
thesis, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México.
Rodriguez, M. E., and Aristizabal, J. C., 1999. Evaluation of a seismic damage parameter,
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 28, 463–477.
Sabelli, R., Mahin, S., and Chang, C., 2003. Seismic design on steel braced frame buildings
with buckling-restrained braces, Eng. Struct. 25, 655–666.
Structural Engineering Association of California, 1995. Performance-based seismic engineering
of buildings, Vision 2000 Committee.
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS STIFFENED WITH BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES 211

Teran-Gilmore, A., 1996. Performance-based earthquake-resistant design of framed buildings

using energy concepts, Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley.
Teran-Gilmore, A., 2004. On the use of spectra to establish damage control in regular frames
during global predesign, Earthquake Spectra 20, 1–26.
Teran-Gilmore, A., and Simon, R., 2008. Use of cumulative ductility spectra within a
deformation-control format for seismic design of ductile structures subjected to long dura-
tion motions, J. Earthquake Eng. 12, 136–151.
Teran-Gilmore, A., and Bahena-Arredondo, N., 2008. Cumulative ductility spectra for seismic
design of ductile structures subjected to long duration motions: concept and theoretical
background, J. Earthquake Eng. 12, 152–172.
Tremblay, R., Bolduc, P., Neville, R., and DeVall, R., 2006. Seismic testing and performance of
buckling-restrained bracing systems, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 33, 183–198.
Uang, C., and Nakashima, M., 2003. Steel buckling-restrained braced frames, in Earthquake
Engineering: Recent Advances and Applications, CRC Press.
(Received 21 August 2007; accepted 30 September 2008兲