1.

Introduction
Concentrically Braced Frames (CBFs) are a class of structures resisting lateral loads through a
vertical concentric truss system, the axes of the members aligning concentrically at the joints.
CBFs tend to be efficient in resisting lateral forces because they can provide high strength and
stiffness. During earthquakes, CBFs are expected to yield and dissipate energy through post
buckling hysteretic behavior of their bracing members. For drift in one specific direction, this is
achieved by buckling of the braces in compression, followed by yielding of the braces in tension.
Under cyclic loading, for loads acting in the reversed direction, the previously buckled brace will
yield in tension, whereas the brace previously yielded in tension will buckle. Therefore, to
survive an earthquake, the braces must be able to sustain large inelastic displacement reversals
without significant loss of strength and stiffness.
To achieve this behavior, special ductile detailing is required. Many braced frame structures
designed without such ductile detailing consideration have suffered extensive damage in past
earthquakes, including failure of bracing members and their connections. The SCBF system is
generally an economical system to use for low-rise buildings in areas of high seismicity. It is
sometimes preferred over Special Moment Frames because of the material efficiency of CBFs
and the smaller required beam and column depths. SCBFs are only possible for buildings that
can accommodate the braces in their architecture. Buildings for which this a problem may be
well suited for Special Moment Frames.

Figure 1.1 CBF Under earthquake loading

(Sabelli et al. 2013)

Page | 1
Up to the present, SCBFs have been used more extensively than Buckling-Restrained Braced
Frames (BRBFs). BRBFs generally offer cost and performance advantages for buildings three
stories and higher, but SCBFs continue to be popular because of the level of experience
designers and fabricators have with the system. Up to the present, SCBFs have been used more
extensively than Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames (BRBFs). BRBFs generally offer cost and
performance advantages for buildings three stories and higher, but SCBFs continue to be popular
because of the level of experience designers and fabricators have with the system.

Braced frames can be an effective system for seismic retrofit due to their high stiffness and
because they can be assembled from pieces of relatively small size and weight. SCBFs may be
considered for seismic retrofit in cases in which the building deformations corresponding to
brace axial ductility are not detrimental to the building performance. In many retrofit projects
this is not the case due to the presence of brittle, archaic materials and sensitive finishes not
detailed to accommodate significant drift. In such cases, the added drift capacity provided by the
careful proportioning and detailing required for the SCBF system is of little benefit, and a
conventional braced frame system or other stiff system should be considered instead.

1.1 OCBF Compared to SCBF

OCBF depend on limited brace buckling and do not have the ductile detailing of SCBF, therefore
restrictions are placed upon the slenderness ratio (Kl/r) for the brace members. The SCBF allows
for buckling of the bracing members and is a more ductile system than OCBF, therefore, the
codes are not as restrictive as the OCBF regarding the brace slenderness ratio. Because buckling
is allowed in SCBF, the critical buckling axial load is not reduced. Brace buckling is allowed
because special gusset plate detailing is required for both in-plane and outofplane brace buckling
design, depending upon brace buckling mode selected

Page | 2
2. Literature Review
2.1 introduction

Concentrically braced frames (CBFs) are stiff, strong structures that are suitable for resisting
large lateral loads. Special CBFs (SCBF) are used for seismic design and are designed and
detailed to sustain relatively large inelastic deformations without significant deterioration in
resistance. Current AISC Seismic Design Provisions aim to ensure the brace sustains the required
inelastic action, but recent research showed that current SCBF design requirements lead to
variable seismic performance, unintended failure modes, and limited deformation capacity. To
improve the seismic response of SCBFs, a balanced design procedure was proposed. The
premise of the design methodology is to balance the primary yield mechanism, brace buckling
and yielding, with other, complementary ductile yielding mechanisms, such as gusset plate
yielding. This balance process maximizes ductile yielding in the frame thereby maximizing the
drift capacity of the frame. Further, the undesirable failure modes are balanced with the yield
mechanisms and the preferred failure mode, brace fracture, to ensure that the frame fails in the
desired manner. To achieve the objectives of the design methodology namely maximum drift
capacity, and adherence to a desired yield and failure hierarchy, rational resistance checks and
appropriate balance factors (β factors) are used to balance each yield mechanism and failure
mode. These factors were developed, validated, and refined using the measured results from an
extensive test program. An SCBF connection design example to illustrate the application of the
balanced design method and to demonstrate differences from the current AISC design method.

CBFs are, stiff and ductile, making them ideal for seismic framing systems. The inelastic
behavior of the brace provides most of the ductility, but in order to fully utilize the frame, strong
the connections and framing members must also be taken into account. Therefore, it is important
to consider not only the performance of the brace when designing, but also ability for the
connections the and the framing members to withstand the strength and deformation demands
transferred from the brace during cyclic loading. Through these considerations, a maximum
amount of energy can be dispersed before the system fails.

Page | 3
2.2 BRACES

2.2.1 Hysteresis response

An understanding of the physical inelastic behavior of an individual brace member subjected to

reversed cycles of axial loading is necessary to design ductile braced frames using the concepts
presented in this chapter. The behavior of axially loaded members is commonly expressed in
terms of the axial load, P, axial deformation, δ, and transverse displacement at mid length, Δ.
According to convention, tension forces and deformations are taken as positive, and compression
forces and deformations as negative. A simplified hysteretic curve for a generic brace member is
presented in Figure

Figure 2.1 Hysteresis response

(Fell et al. 2008)

2.2.2 DESIGN

Concentrically braced frames (CBFs) are stiff, strong structures, which are suitable for resisting
wind and seismic loading. CBF typically are composed of diagonal bracing members connected
to the beams and columns with gusset plate connection. The bracing may be placed in a number
of different configurations and geometries. CBF members are initially designed assuming truss
action, i.e. the members only carry axial load.
Special concentrically braced frames (SCBF) are employed in high seismic regions and use a
Response Modification Factor, R, to reduce the seismic design force. During large, infrequent
earthquakes, SCBFs must sustain cyclic, inelastic tensile yielding and compressive buckling
deformation of the brace without significant deterioration of stiffness and resistance for

Page | 4
earthquakes exceeding the reduced design force. Brace buckling and tensile yield are the primary
yield mechanisms of the system, which permit the frame to sustain the inelastic deformation and
energy dissipation demands needed to provide collapse-prevention performance.

2.3 Connection design consideration

A very important point to remember is that if the braces are expected to have enough
compression force in them to buckle, the braces and their end connections must be designed and
detailed so that three hinges can form: one at the center of the brace and one at each end. The end
connections must be detailed so that bending can occur either in the gusset plate or in the brace
itself. If hinging is to occur in the braces, the end connection must be strong enough to force
repetitious ductile hinging to occur in the brace.

2.3.1 Gusset Plates Designed for Out-Of-Plane Buckling

The gusset plate can be isolated from the concrete-filled metal deck slab by providing a
sytrofoam, or other material on each side of the gusset plate that is removed after the concrete
hardens. The length of the isolated area along each side of the gusset plate only needs to extend
from the end of the gusset plate to beyond the portion of yield line, which occurs below the slab.

A stiffener plate equal to the depth of the slab can be welded to the end of the gusset plate on the
beam. This moves the restraint point for out-of-plane buckling of the gusset plate up to the top of
the slab (the gusset plate is proportioned so the yield line crosses the edge of gusset plate at or
above the slab surface). This stiffener plate is not mandatory if the gusset plate is designed for
the yield line to occur above the slab and the gusset plate free edge length doesn’t require
stiffeners. The addition of the stiffener in this case only helps assure the designer as to where the
gusset plate yield line will occur.

The buckling line of the gusset plate must be perpendicular to the axis of the brace. The code
requires the brace stop not less than 2t from this buckling line (yield line) where “t” is the gusset
plate thickness. Because each beam and bay size will most likely be different, this will impact
the dimensioning of the gusset plate to assure the gusset plate buckling yield line remains
perpendicular to the axis of the brace. This causes additional shop detailing since all connections

Page | 5
may be slightly different, which would therefore encourage the use of braced frames which
buckle in-plane. Gusset plate stiffeners may be required to ensure the required out-of-plane
buckling behavior about a gusset plate yield line perpendicular to the axis of the brace. The
engineer is encouraged to use repetition of the gusset plate if designing for out-of-plane by using
constant bay width ductile hinging to occur in the brace.

2. 3 .2 Plates Designed for In-Plane Buckling

The concrete fill over the metal deck will most likely prevent the gusset plate from buckling
below the top of the concrete. Conservatively, the recommended gusset plate buckling length
should still be measured from the end of the brace to the top of the steel beam as determined
using the Whitmore section. No special gusset plate detailing due to concrete confinement is
required. It is recommended ignoring the floor slab thickness to prevent buckling of the gusset
plate when designing the gusset plate. This is based upon the fact that the floor slab is generally
rather thin. If the designer decides to reduce the gusset plate buckling length to take advantage of
the slab stiffening effects, it would still be wise to consider that the slab fixity occurs one inch or
so below the top of the concrete to allow for some surface concrete spalling.

The other consideration is the width of concrete slab perpendicular to the gusset plate providing
the confinement. Brace frames located along the perimeter of the building typically have a
limited concrete slab width between the exterior face of the gusset plate and the perimeter of the
building slab edge form. The designer must determine if there is sufficient concrete strength to
provide the buckling confinement of the gusset plate. The designer should also consider the
reduced shear strength of lightweight concrete compared to normal weight concrete.

If both the gusset plate and brace are embedded in the concrete, as often can occur at the
foundation, there will most likely be no buckling by the gusset plate. The suggested embedded
brace design length is still measured from connection work-point to connection work-point. No
reduction in brace length due to shallow concrete confinement is recommended, especially since
the typical brace/gusset plate embedment in the concrete is generally less than 18 inches and it
would likely be difficult to develop fixity.

Page | 6
2.4 Buckling Mode of Bracing
The performance of the bracing system is based on the predicted mode of brace buckling, either
in-plane or out-of-plane buckling. The buckling mode also impacts the design and detailing of
the connections. SCBF have specific building code design requirements to ensure ductility of the
SCBF connection when the brace buckles that are not required for OCBF. OCBF are designed
for larger axial forces than SCBF to delay the onset of brace buckling, thereby reducing the
ductility requirements for the OCBF connection. But if the seismic forces are actually large
enough to buckle the OCBF brace, the OCBF connection may lack the ductility and detailing to
resist the brace-bending moments induced into the gusset plate leading to connection failure,
especially if brace buckling is in the out-of-plane direction.

The lack of OCBF connection ductility is the reason for the restrictions limiting the use of OCBF
in high seismic regions .In-plane buckling of the brace may be the preferred mode of buckling
rather than out-of-plane buckling, since it usually allows for greater energy dissipation by the
bracing system as the frame attempts to deform in-plane. The reason for this is that when the
brace buckles in-plane, it is buckling about the strong axis of the gusset plate. This forces a
plastic hinge to form in the brace immediately adjacent to the gusset plate. The formation of
these hinges in the brace ends makes a significant contribution to the energy dissipation potential
of the frame.

Page | 7
 Figure 2.2 Buckling of braces
(Fell et al. 2008)
When the brace buckles out-of-plane, the single gusset plate is now bending about its weak axis;
hinging is occurring in the gusset plate and not the brace. This weak axis gusset plate bending
results in significantly reduced residual in-plane stiffness of the brace frame and dissipates less
energy than if hinging were occurring in the brace itself. It should be noted that regardless of the
axis of buckling (in- plane or out-of-plane), when the compression brace buckles in a V or
inverted V (chevron) braced frame the beam at the mid-span connection must deflect downward .
This deflection can result in significant damage to the slab system attached to this beam. This
type of beam damage is not anticipated in the single-story X brace since the connections are
directly to the columns.
The preference may be to detail the brace to buckle in-plane, if possible, instead of out-of-plane.
This may help minimize non- structural damage to interior stud walls or building perimeter
curtain walls, adjacent to or enclosing the brace, which would occur if the brace buckles out of
plane instead of in-plane. The design engineer should be aware that when a brace buckles out-of
plane, the horizontal displacement out-of-plane at the brace mid- span, perpendicular to the
brace, could be significant. Brace buckling deflections ranging from ten to 20 inches can be
reasonably expected as the brace length increases from eight to 17 feet, respectively. The longer
the brace span, the greater the anticipated in-plane or out-of-plane deflection as the brace goes
through buckling behavior. This displacement can result in damage to stud wall or other
elements which encase or conceal the braces, as previously mentioned.

Page | 8
If infill studs occur in-plane above and below the diagonal brace members, the axial stiffness of
the stud walls may lead to the brace still buckling out-of-plane. The AISC Seismic Provisions
contain prescriptive design requirements for out-of-plane buckling of the SCBF brace single
gusset plate connection. The direction of brace buckling is the designer’s choice For a single
gusset plate connection with the gusset plates in the plane of the brace, when a brace is designed
to buckle out of- plane, it is imperative that the gusset plate yield line be perpendicular (90
degrees) to the axis of the brace member at each end of the brace.

2.5 SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR

2.5.1 Design Philosophy

To provide adequate earthquake resistance, CBFs must be designed to have appropriate strength
and ductile response. To achieve this, diagonal braces must be specially designed to sustain
plastic deformations and dissipate hysteretic energy in a stable manner through successive cycles
of buckling in compression and yielding in tension. The design strategy is to ensure that plastic
deformations only occur in the braces, leaving the columns and beams undamaged, thus allowing
the structure to survive strong earthquakes without losing its gravity-load resistance.

SCBFs are designed using capacity design procedures, with the braces serving as the fuses of the
system. Optimal design of SCBFs entails careful selection and proportioning of braces so as to
provide limited over strength and avoid a concentration of inelastic demands. Designers should
strive for a small range of brace demand-to-capacity ratios so that the resulting system is
proportioned to spread yielding over multiple stories rather than concentrating it at a single
location Braced frames are most effective at the building perimeter, where they can control the
building’s torsional response. ASCE 7 allows buildings to be considered sufficiently redundant
with two braced bays on each of the presumed four outer lines (assuming a rectangular layout).
Such a layout is good for torsion control as well. In mid-rise or high-rise buildings, SCBFs are
often used in the core of the structure, with a perimeter moment frame used to provide additional
torsional resistance.

Page | 9
2.6 Gusset plate connection

Although the brace is the primary member in the SCBF system, the connections play an
important role. Gusset plate connections typically connect the brace to the other framing
members, because they are easier to construct and design than fully restrained brace-end
connections. Design of gusset plate connections to achieve the design objectives requires
significant effort and recent research has shown that they may not lead to the intended response.
Experimental investigations into modified design methods have demonstrated small changes can
improve the seismic performance of the system These improvements can be implemented in
practice using a balanced-design procedure (BDP). Balanced design has been proposed as
amethod to control the sequence of yielding and to increase inelastic deformation capacity in past
seismic research but it has not been widely used in practice because of the complexity and
uncertainty in achieving the required component balancing in practice. In part, this uncertainty
stems from the limited experimental data available to verify the design method and associated
expressions. Here, this limitation is overcome using a large data set on braced frame system that
simulates modern construction. The resulting BDP is robust and available for immediate used by
practitioners.

Figure 2.3 AISC Gusset plate design

(Roeder et al. 2011)

Page | 10
3. Balanced design procedure (BDP)

3.1 Introduction

The proposed BDP seeks to maximize yielding in and therefore deformation of the system while
suppressing undesirable failure modes The BDP has similarities and differences with current
design methods. table provides an overview of the relevant resistance expressions for both the
proposed BDP and the current AISC procedure. As evident in the table, the same yield
mechanisms and failure modes are used for both design procedures. Although there are other
similarities, there are important, fundamental differences in the proposed BDP method. With
both methods, the brace is sized using reduced seismic loads. Both use the expected plastic
strength of the brace to quantify the demand on the gusset plate connections. Slenderness limits
and geometric requirements for all members are retained from the current AISC Provisions . The
most important differences in the two methods are that the current procedure uses resistance
factors to design and detail the gusset plate where the balance design method uses balance
factors to balance the yield mechanisms and failure modes to maximize the drift capacity of the
system, and the balance factors are based upon the inelastic deformation provided by the
mechanism rather than predicted strength. In addition, there are differences in some of the
resistance expressions,

From the AISC code only one level of hierarchy is implied, simply that the brace fails before the
connection does. The goal of the Performance-Based approach to this project is to create a more
detailed hierarchy of failures. From previous work it a collection of permissible yield
mechanisms and failure modes for a system have been identified. The permissible yield
mechanisms are brace buckling and yielding, local yielding of the gusset plate, bolt hole
elongation, and the permissible failure modes include fracture or tearing of the brace.

Page | 11
 Table 3.1 AISC Resistance factor (Roeder et al. 2011)

Table 3.2 Balanced Design procedure resistance factor (Roeder et al. 2011)

3.2 Design Guide

This design guide has been written for SCBFs using tube sections as the brace, which are welded
to a gusset plate that is welded to the beam and column and with complete joint penetration
welds joining the web and flanges of the beam to the flange of the column. Although the
connection type is specific, it is possible to extrapolate the theoretical information in this guide,
and apply it to other connection types.
The geometry and thickness of the gusset plate have a significant impact on the overall response
of the braced frame. It is important that the gusset plate is strong enough so that it does not fail
before the brace develops its full resistance and ductile capacity. However, if the gusset plate is
too stiff and strong, it will negatively affect the inelastic deformation capacity of the brace and

Page | 12
the frame. The goal of this design guide is to balance these two criteria by designing a gusset
plate with as low stiffness as possible, while retaining the required strength of the plate.

Limit states that affect the thickness of the gusset plate include Whitmore yielding, Whitmore
fracture, block shear, gross shear at the column, gross shear at the beam, and buckling of the
gusset plate. To maximize the ductility of the system, some of these limit states should be altered
from the current design provisions.
research has presented evidence that the current 2t straight line offset is detrimental to the
braced frame in that it leads to larger and thicker gusset plates which induce greater inelastic
demands into the beam and column framing elements and may cause early failure of the brace.
Instead, an elliptical offset model has been proposed to reduce the size and thickness of the
gusset plate while permitting brace end rotation and developing the required resistance of the
brace. This elliptical offset can be used with rectangular plates or tapered plates.

3.3 Gusset Plate Strength Design and Analysis

In designing an SCBF for seismic loads it is important that the gusset plates have limited
stiffness. The limit state calculations listed in this section will calculate the resistance and
minimum required thickness of the gusset plate for strength, making various changes to the
current design provisions.
As stated in AISC, the design forces shall be based on the expected strength of the brace. For
tensile limit states, the design force shall be:
Pt= Ry Fy Ag
and for compressive limit states the design force shall be:
Pc = 1.1 Ry Pn
Where Ry is the ratio of the expected yield strength of the brace to the nominal yield stress of the
brace (Fy), Ag is the gross area of the section and Pn is the nominal compressive strength of the
brace determined by the AISC specifications. Typically, limit states require a resistance factor
(φ) which reduces the ultimate strength capacity. However, strength design considerations are
not the issue for gusset plate connection design because the connection design forces far exceed
the factored loads on the structure. Instead ductility under extreme seismic loading is the major
design concern. An alternate design method (Roeder, Lehman, and Yoo 2005) has been

Page | 13
developed based upon β values and balance conditions to optimize the ductility achieved with
the structural system. Therefore, β shall be used in place of φ to determine the minimum
strength of the limit states, for tensile forces:
βR ≥ Pt
for compressive forces:
βR ≥ Pc

3.3.1 Net Section Fracture

Net section fracture is a possible failure that occurs when the gusset plate tears at the end of the
brace joint. This net section fracture is normally defined by the Whitmore width and is
particularly important in bolted brace joints. Nevertheless, this tensile fracture is possible for
welded braces, and it must be considered in gusset plate connection design.
Typically, net section fracture limit states require a φ factor of 0.75. It is recommended to use a
β value of 0.85 in place of the φ factor for the design of the gusset plate for net section
fracture on the Whitmore width, because tests have shown that reasonable ductility is achieved
with this β value. The strength of the net section fracture in the gusset plate should be
determined as.
βRn = βtg F u(2Ic*tan30 +bc) where:β = 0.85
lc is the brace-to-gusset plate splice length. By increasing the β factor, a thinner, more flexible
gusset plate can be used. This will provide greater ductility from the connection.
3.3.2 Whitmore Yielding
This research has shown that it is desirable for the gusset plate to yield shortly after brace
yielding occurs. This is because; gusset plate yielding increases the inelastic deformation
capacity of the system and decreases the inelastic damage to the beam and column members.
Therefore, a β value of 1.1 for Whitmore yielding is appropriate. However, with welded brace
connections and the expected ratio of the yield to tensile strength of structural plate material, the
net section fracture check will negate the requirements for this check.
3.3.3 Block Shear

Page | 14
Block shear is defined in the AISC Manual of Steel Construction,. According to AISC, the
minimum value of two equations shall be used to determine the actual strength of the block shear
limit state. One of these equations is shown here.
φR =φ (0.6*Fy Agv +Ubs*Fu *Ant )
The equation effectively adds the tensile fracture resistance and the shear net section yield
resistance of the block shear element. The second equation in AISC for block shear is shown
here:
φR =φ (0.6*Fu Anv +Ubs*Fu *Ant )
This second equation combines the tensile fracture resistance with the shear fracture resistance.
In both cases, Ubs is equal to 1.0 for axially loaded members (no bending in the connection). The
resistance factor φ is equal to 0.75, but as noted earlier resistance factors are inappropriate for
this design, because the connection design forces are significantly larger than the factored design
loads. Instead, a balanced design approach with beta factors has been proposed. Because yielding
is encouraged in the gusset plate shortly after brace yielding occurs, a β factor of 0.85 is
proposed. Further, it is proposed to combine the fracture components of the connection rather
than the shear yield component (Equation 8.1.3), because yielding in the connection is
encouraged. The strength of the block shear in the gusset plate shall be determined as:
where:
β R =β (0.6*Fu Anv +Ubs*Fu *Ant )
β = 0.85 (8.1.6)

3.3.4 Gusset Plate Buckling

The gusset plate should be designed to resist buckling. Current design procedures appear to
provide substantial resistance to gusset plate buckling . From research, it is recommended that
perpendicular reinforcement plates are not added to the free edges of the gusset plates to resist
buckling based on the recommendations made by Astaneh-Asl (1998), which would have
required the use of these reinforcement plates on the 3/8 inch gusset plates of the specimens
within this test program. It is perceived that these plates prevent deformation of the gusset and
end rotation of the brace thus adversely affecting the life of the brace. This recommendation is
based on the connection detail within these tests and is subject to change if changes in the

Page | 15
connection details are made. Calculating gusset plate buckling requires the un-braced length of
the gusset plate to be known.

4.Selection of bracing member

Eligible bracing members sections are determined from the stiffness and strength requirements of
the lateral system. Typical members used for bracing include structural tubes, wide flange
sections, single angles and multiple angles.

Many factors will affect the ultimate selection of a bracing member from the available members
that satisfy the design requirements. Strong consideration should also be placed on the size of the
project, the capabilities of the fabricator and the likely type of field erection techniques. For
instance, on a large project, a fabricator may favor wide flange braces to take advantage of a
steel mill order for the identical wide flange section used throughout the remaining structure.
Since that shop also wants to take advantage of their automated equipment, the field-bolted
connection may be preferred

4.1 Studies Investigating the capacity of braces

4.1.1 Square & rectangle (HSS) bracing components
In general, the findings from all programs concur that width-thickness and slenderness ratios
have the most significant effect on brace ductility, such that higher width thickness ratios and
lower slenderness are detrimental to brace performance. For example, Han et al (2007) found
that for approximately the same slenderness ratio (KL/r ≈ 80), increasing the width-thickness
ratio by 107% (from 13.7 to 28.3) resulted in a decrease in fracture ductility by 75%. In regard to
slenderness influence, Tremblay et al (2003) reported that increasing the slenderness by 60%,
while holding the width-thickness ratio constant at 25.7, increased the axial deformation ductility
by 80%. (Fell et al. 20O8)
The investigations by Gugerli, Liu, and Lee with Goel (1982, 1988 and 1988, respectively) and
later Zhao et al (2002) were focused on the relative performance of concrete-filled HSS to
unfilled HSS bracing members. The concrete acts to prevent the inward local buckling observed
in most hollow sections, producing a less severe local buckling shape as the cross-section walls

Page | 16
buckle outward. In general, it was concluded that concrete fill has a beneficial effect on ductility
by delaying cross-section local buckling. For example, Lee and Goel (1988) reported a
maximum axial deformation during cyclic loading of 1.7 inches for an unfilled HSS cross
section, whereas the same concrete-filled brace survived a maximum deformation of 2.6 inches,
fracturing approximately 8 cycles after the unfilled brace (Fell et al. 20O8).

4.1.2 Round steel pipe brace

There has been a recent shift from using square and rectangular HSS cross section shapes for
bracing members to Pipe and Wide-Flange shapes. Restrictions on square HSS width-thickness
ratios have limited the number of shapes that are available during design, making Pipe and Wide
Flange shapes a more attractive option. the cold working of square HSS sections during
fabrication was thought to significantly reduce the fracture toughness of the corner material,
driving fracture initiation at the corners first. Thus, the more gradual bend radii of Pipes and the
rolling process of Wide-Flange sections was thought to provide tougher material as compared to
square or rectangular HSS.
an exhaustive study on steel Pipe bracing members was being conducted by Tremblay et al at
École Polytechnique, Montréal. The study is expected to carry significant importance as,
compared to square HSS members, there are relatively few studies that have investigated the
performance of round Pipes. However, there have been several other studies that have looked at
the cyclic behavior of large-scale Pipe bracing members. One of the earliest studies on the cyclic
behavior of steel Pipe sections was by Popov and Black (1981). Although the reported
experimental results focused more on compressive strength degradation rather than on fracture
events, an important finding was that the more compact Pipe4STD (width Thickness ratio = 19,
approximately 0.52 times the current maximum ratio recommended by AISC, 2005) and Pipe4X-
Strong (width-thickness ratio of 13.4, 0.37 times the current maximum limit) braces locally
buckled at very large axial deformations. (Fell et al. 20O8)

4.1.3 Wide flanged braces

Similar to steel Pipe cross-sections, Wide-Flanged braces have becoming increasingly popular in
recent years due to their perceived superior ductility over HSS members during earthquake
loading. Wide-Flanged bracing members with width-thickness ratios between 7.4 and 11.5. As

Page | 17
expected, these results show that ductility improves with increasing slenderness and decreasing
compactness.
However, there are several challenges with using Wide-Flanged sections in braced-frame
construction. First, novel gusset plate end-connection details. must be devised to ensure out-of
plane buckling about the member weak axis. These connection details can be quite complex as,
unlike HSS or Pipe sections, traditional slotted-end connections are not feasible for Wide-Flange
shapes. Moreover, the number of Wide-Flanged shapes that can be used as bracing members is
somewhat limited to shapes with small to moderate tensile yield to buckling load ratios. If not
selected correctly, the section properties can create a large force imbalance on the beam (in the
case of chevron-type configurations) and a reduced energy dissipation capacity. (Fell et al.
20O8)

4.3 Design of brace

D/t ratio for circular section accrding AISC 341 16

Limiting value of D/t = 0.053*E /(Ry*Fy)
fy= 210
Ry=1.1
D/t=45.88
IS 800:2007
Plastic section D/t= 42e^2
e=(250/Fy)^.5
D/t=50

4.3.1 Tension strength of brace member

According Aisc 360
Design Strength, φt Pn of tension member shall be lower value obtained based on the following
limit states of
1. Yielding in the gross section
2. Fracture in the effective net section.
1. Based on the Yielding in the gross section, design strength:
φt Pn = φt Fy Ag
Where

Page | 18
Resistance factor, φt = 0.90
Yield Stress = Fy
Gross area of the member = Ag

2. Based on the Fracture on the Effective net section, design strength:

φt Pn = φt Fu Ae
Where
Resistance factor, φt = 0.75
Tensile strength = Fu
Effective net area = Ae
Effective net area = Shear Slag Coefficient X Net Area
Ae = U x An
U = 1 – [ x / L]
Where
L = Length of the connection (in)
x = distance from the attached face to the member centroid

4.3.2compression strength of brace member

1. The critical buckling load Pcr for columns is theoretically given by Equation

 2 EI
Pcr 
 KL 
2

where, I = moment of inertia about axis of buckling

K = effective length factor based on end boundary conditions

2. The design strength of columns for the flexural buckling limit state is equal to φcPn
Where, φc = 0.85 (Resistance factor for compression members)
Pn = Ag Fcr

For λc < 1.5  

Fcr  0.658c Fy
2

Page | 19
  0.877 
For λc > 1.5 Fcr   2  Fy
 c 

KL Fy
c 
r E

3. Design column strength = φcPn = 0.85 (Ag Fcr)

Sections Which fulfill the ductility criteria n design criteria wil be tested
HCS 60.3 X 3.6
HSS 60 X 60 X 3.6
I SECTION b=50, h=75, tf=8,tw=6

4.4 Design of Gusset Plate Geometry Using Elliptical Clearance

The design procedure is as follows:

1. Establish the expected yield capacity of the brace. The properties of the brace are
Ag=614mm2 and rx=20.1mm.
The expected tensile capacity of the brace is: Put=RyFy Ag=1.3*(210)* 614=175 kN

2. Establish the brace-to-gusset connection. Here, a slotted connection is used with four (4)
fillet welds, . the connection length, Lc, is computed using the resistance
Put
Lc 
  0.6  FEXX NW  0.707 W2
Lc=115 mm
Size the plate thickness to permit plate yielding after brace yielding and restrict tensile rupture
and block shear. The 522-mm connection length is used to establish the Whitmore width,

Page | 20
Bw=60.3+2 (112) tan30=193 mm, The yield, tensile rupture and block shear requirements
establish minimum gusset. thickness, tp, follow (Roeder et al. 2011).

Put
tp 
 Fu Bw

Put
tp 
 Ry Fy Ag

Put
tp 
  0.6 Fu Agv  U bs Fu B 

Thickness we get 6mm

The 8tp elliptical clearance is used to size the plan dimensions of the plate. This clearance can
be derived graphically or by the approximate theoretical method
A list of the steps to design a rectangular plate with an elliptical clearance is shown below. The
value for the variable N is recommended to be eight, making the clearance equal to eight times
the thickness of the gusset plate, tg
1. Assume a height for the gusset plate (HT) to establish a trial geometry with the following
Equations.

b  HT  Nt g

eb
xb   ec
tan  

b  1 
a  xb  xs   Nt g   1
tan    tan   
xs  xb
Assigning xs equal to xb as shown above is required if the uniform force method is used to
follow the force distribution through to design the gusset plate welds and the beam column
connection. However, since the gusset plate welds shall be designed for the capacity of the
gusset plate and since the uniform force method does not seem to accurately determine how the
forces are distributed through the connection the uniform force method does not seem like an
appropriate method for following the force distribution through the connection. A smaller gusset
plate is recommended by assigning

Page | 21
x0
The width of the gusset plate is equal to:
WT  a  Nt g

2. Determine the end of the brace relative to the imaginary free corner of the gusset plate
(x,y), where bf is the width of the brace

yc  lc sin     s  0.5b f  cos  

yd  lc cos     s  0.5b f  sin    xc  tan  

y  max  yc , yd 

y
xc   xc
tan  

xd  lc cos     s  0.5b f  sin 

x  max  xc , xd 

3. Determine the corners (1 and 2) at the end of the brace

x1  x  0.5b f sin  
y1  y  0.5b f cos  
x2  x  0.5b f sin  
x2  y  0.5b f cos  

Calculate xb_verify_1 and xb_verify_2, associated with corners 1 and 2:

x12b 2 b  1 
xb _ verify _1  2   Nt  tan     xs
  1
b  y12 tan  
g
 
x2 2b 2 b  1 
xb _ verify _ 2  2   Nt  tan     xs
  1
b  y2 2 tan  
g
 

Finally, check to see if the right gusset plate height was chosen in the first step. All three
condition.

Page | 22
 xb _ verify _1  xb
xb _ verify _ 2  xb
And
xb _ verify _1  xb
Or
xb _ verify _ 2  xb

The gusset has a length of a=225mm adjacent to the beam and b=225 mm adjacent to the
column
Reinforcement plate of length 230 mm & thickness 3.6mm

Figure 4.1 gusset plate & Reinforcement plate

The next step is to design the interface welds, i.e., the welds joining the gusset plate to the beam
and column, to develop the plastic capacity of the gusset plate.

Ry Fy t p
w1 
2 1.2    0.6  FEXX  0.707 

The design specifics 5-mm fillet welds on each face of the plate over the full length of the
interface.

Page | 23
 :
Figure 4.2 layout of gusset plate

5. Brace Experiments
The brace is the primary element in SCBFs. It should absorb most of the seismic energy
delivered by an earthquake, and if designed according to AISC, should be the first element to
fracture under extreme seismic loading. Therefore, the behavior of the brace needs to be
understood to maximize the seismic response of the frame.
Study showed that the slenderness ratio of the brace has a large effect on the drift life of the
brace. This research showed that the higher the slenderness ratio of the brace, the higher the
positive and negative drift achieved by the brace.
The more slender specimens experienced less severe buckling and therefore postponed brace
fracture until higher drifts. Although for HSS sections, the slenderness ratio was not as
influential as the width thickness ratio of the tube walls on the fracture life of the brace. As the
width thickness ratio of the walls decreased, fracture was postponed. This was because the
fracture life of the brace followed closely after local buckling of the compression flange in the

Page | 24
plastic region, and because resistance to local buckling increases as the width thickness ratio
decreases according to elasticity theories.
hysteretic behavior and energy dissipation are positively affected by a brace with a lower
slenderness ratio. This shows that there is a trade-off between energy dissipation and drift life of
a brace that is subjected to hysteretic loads. In general, a brace with a low slenderness ratio will
have larger hysteretic loops, dissipating more energy at a given stage in the applied
displacement, but fracture earlier, and a brace with a high slenderness ratio will have smaller
hysteretic loops dissipating less energy but have a longer fracture life.

5.1 Gusset Plate Experiments

Whitmore (1952) proposed that the gusset plates be checked for strength using the width based
on the connection length as shown in Figure 2.2.1. This method assumes that the load spreads
out 30 degrees from the start of the connection and therefore the gusset plate needs to resist the
design load at the end of the connection based on the width calculated from the two 30 degree
angles and the width of the connection. Notice that this geometry does not take into the account
any gusset plate material that is outside of the Whitmore width. Common practice has adopted
this method and uses it for welded and bolted connections even though it was originally intended
for bolted connections only. research showed that a higher brace performance would be achieved
if the gusset plate allowed free rotation.
The hysteretic response and drift life of the brace mainly depend on the slenderness ratio and
width thickness ratio of the brace. There appears to be a strong agreement that gusset plates
should allow for free rotation. However, allowing free rotation appears to depend on the support
conditions of the gusset plate. Johnson (2005) had proposed an elliptical clearance in which the
brace clearance was based on an ellipse that was formed by the geometry of the gusset plate,
5.2 Test set-up and instrumentation
est set-up used for the slow-cyclic testing of brace specimens. A servo-controlled hydraulic
actuator (Force rating=500 kN; Stroke length=250 mm) was used to apply the predefined cyclic
displacements to the test specimens placed at an angle of 45° to the horizontal. A vertical
member supporting the loading end of the actuator and free to rotate at its base was used to
facilitate the connection of gusset plates. Lateral supports were provided to this vertical member
to prevent its out-of-plane movement. Potentiometers, strain gauges, whitewash, cameras, video

Page | 25
cameras, and the actuator load cell were used to determine the response of the loaded specimens.
The following section will discuss details of this instrumentation.

FIGURE 5.1 Experiment setup

Page | 26
 FIGURE 5.2 experiment setup dimensions

5.2.1 Loading protocol

The selected loading protocol consisted of six cycles of elastic drifts followed by two cycles of
drift corresponding to the onset of inelasticity in the brace components. In this study, the onset of
inelasticity was considered as the initiation of buckling of braces under the compressive loading.
Two additional loading cycles were considered between the drift cycles corresponding to the
onset of buckling and 1% lateral drift. The magnitude of lateral story drift was increased to 2%,
3%, 4%, and 5% in the subsequent cycles. Loading cycles corresponding to the maximum story
drift of 5% were repeated continuously to study the low-cyclic fatigue behavior of test

Page | 27
specimens. Lateral displacements applied to the test specimen were later converted to the
corresponding axial deformation using the frame geometry

5.2.2 Strain Gauges

Strain gauges were applied to the specimen to determine the strain at the applied location. Pairs
of gauges were located on opposite sides of the brace, equidistant from the end of the member.
All of the gauges stopped measuring strain accurately when the steel that the gauge was attached
to, yielded. Additionally, a few of the gauges did not function during the entire length of the test.

Page | 28
Figure 5.3 positions of stain gauge on brace

Page | 29
 Figure 5.4 position of strain gauge on gusset plate

5.2.3 Potentiometers
Potentiometers (pots) were used to calculate displacements of the frame. Typically, pots were
connected to a relative stationary point (i.e. the ground, load beam or support beam) and
measured frame displacement relative to the stationary point. We use wire potentiometer for
measuring displacement of out of plain buckling.

Page | 30
6. Expected Experimental Results
6.1 Yielding
Yielding has been noticed on the gusset plates, brace,. Yielding is due to both local and global
conditions, such as local buckling, and yielding of the entire brace, respectively. The
experiments were designed to facilitate observation of yielding. Whitewash was applied to the
hot rolled steel, so that flaking of the mill scale due to yielding is very noticeable. The
experiments were designed to facilitate observation of yielding. Whitewash was applied to the
hot rolled steel, so that flaking of the mill scale due to yielding is very noticeable.
Yielding of the gusset plates is of particular interest to the experiment. When the gusset plate
yields in tension , it develops yield lines on the plate that are parallel to the beam and column and
typically start to form where the brace stops. (Palmer et al. 2012)

Moderate yielding, of the gusset plate is defined to have occurred when the yield lines are greater
than half the width of the gusset plate When the brace buckles, the gusset plate starts to hinge,
and hinge lines form in the same location on the gusset plate but are perpendicular to the brace
Yielding .is also recorded through analysis of the strain gauge and potentiometer data. Typically,
strain gauges will stop working accurately when yielding occurs. However, it can be inferred that
yielding has occurred at a location when the stain gauge reads an assumed yield strain of 0.2%.
This assumed yield strain is based on the ratio Fy/E. It is used only for calculating when yielding
of the brace occurs in tension and uni-axial stress is assumed.
Table 6.1 types of yielding (Palmer et al. 2012)

6.2 Brace Buckling

Brace buckling is a primary yield mechanism of the system, the values of drift at which the
frame experiences these displacements varied for each test. Stages B1, B2 and BC are
specifically noted in this figure. B1 is defined as initial buckling and is noted when the brace
deflects 2% of its original length out of plane. B2 is noted when the brace deflects five inches
Page | 31
(equal to its depth) out of plane. BC is the damage state where localization of buckling damage
occurs. B3 is not defined as a performance state for the brace (it is only used for plates and local
buckling of elements of framing members such as webs and flanges)
Table 6.2 types of buckling(Palmer et al. 2012)

6.3 Plate Buckling and Local Buckling

Stages B1, B2 and B3 are used to define buckling of elements such as flanges, webs and plates.
B1 for local conditions is noted when the element has visibly moved out of its plane. B2 for local
conditions is said to have occurred when the buckled displacement is greater than the thickness
of the element, similar to B2 for brace buckling.

6.4 Tearing and Fracture

Tearing and fracture were noticed at the center of the brace, the welds/base metal of the gusset
plate. Brace tearing and fracture were noted for most specimens. This tearing normally
proceeded as a sequence of events .Initial cracks or tears developed at locations of localized high
strain associated with the BC yield state. Tears initiated at this location and progressed through
the depth of the brace. However, brace fracture did not occur for HSS-16. Instead, the extension
plate fractured. This occurred when the plate initially cracked (PC) and with increased frame
deformation ,the plate ultimately fractured (PF).
Table 6.3 crack & fracture(Palmer et al. 2012)

Page | 32
 From test these result will be determined
1. Hysteresis response axial force-deformation (hysteretic) response of HCS brace
specimens under the cyclic loading. Axial strength and displacements corresponding to
the buckling, maximum tensile strength, fracture initiation, and complete fracture. the
buckling and tensile strengths of all brace specimens as noticed during the testing. The
values in the parenthesis for slenderness and B/t (or D/t) ratio represent the ratio of the
corresponding values of the specimen with their limiting values in accordance with
ANSI/AISC .
2. Cumulative energy dissipation the energy dissipated at each loading step/cycle of the
brace specime was computed from the area enclosed in the corresponding hysteretic
loops. Since the drift cycles were repeated at each magnitude of lateral drift applied to the
specimen, the energy dissipated at each loading step represent the sum of energy
dissipated in the repetitive cycles for a particular lateral drift level.
3. Failure mechanism shows the local buckling, fracture initiation and complete fracture as
observed in the HCS test specimens. Specimen with the highest slenderness ratio and the
D/t ratio that the code specified limit failed at a lateral drift.
4. In-plane displacement response In-plane displacement response of the brace
specimens. Both HCS and HSS specimens exhibited the similar variation of in-plane
displacement magnitudes with the story drift.
5. State of strain The state of strain at three different locations (i.e., one-quarter, half, and
three-quarter lengths) of brace specimens was monitored by using
three strain gauges at each positions.

7. Future work
Similar to steel Pipe cross-sections, Wide-Flanged braces have becoming increasingly popular in
recent years due to their perceived superior ductility over HSS members during earthquake
loading. Wide-Flanged bracing members with width-thickness ratios between 7.4 and 11.5. As
expected, these results show that ductility improves with increasing slenderness and decreasing
compactness. There are some connection challenges of I section so we will try to find proper
connection design for I section.
We will test HCS, HSS, & I section for different slenderness ratio to compare the effect of brace
cross section & slenderness ratio . we will test following spacimen
Page | 33
 Sections Which fulfill the ductility criteria n design criteria wil be tested
HCS 60.3 X 3.6
HSS 60 X 60 X 3.6
I SECTION b=50, h=75, tf=8,tw=6

8. References
1. Fell, B. V. (2008), “Large-scale testing and simulation of earthquake-induced ultra low cycle
fatigue in bracing members subjected to cyclic inelastic buckling,” Ph.D. thesis, University of
California, Davis.

2. Sabelli, R., Charles W. R., and Jerome F. H., (2013), "Seismic design of steel special
concentrically braced frame systems." NEHRP, Gaithersburg, USA, Seismic Design Technical
Brief 8.

3. Cochran, M. and William H.(2004). "Design of special concentric braced frames." Steel TIPS
Report, Structural Steel Educational Council, CA.

4. Bruneau, M., Chia-Ming U., and Sabelli R.,(2011). “Ductile design of steel structures,”
McGraw Hill Professional, Chapter 9, pp. 501-520

5. Khatib, I. F., Mahin, S. A., and Pister, K. S. (1988). “Seismic behavior of concentrically
braced steel frames,” Report No. UCB/EERC-88/01. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California.

6. Roeder, C.W., Lumpkin, E.J., and Lehman, D.E. (2011). “Balanced design procedure for
special concentrically braced frame connections,” Elsevier, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Vol. 67 No. 11, pp. 1760-72

7. Palmer, K.D. (2012). “Seismic behavior, performance and design of steel concentrically
braced framed systems,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington.

8. Tremblay, R. (2001)."Seismic Behavior and Design of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames,"

Engineering Journal, AISC, 3rd Quarter 2001, Vol. 38, No.3, pp. 148-166

Page | 34
9. Okazaki, T., Lignos, D.G., Hikino, T., and Kajiwara, K.(2013) “Dynamic response of a
chevron concentrically braced frame,” ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 139 (4) P.P. 515–525.

10. Kumar, P.C.A. ,and Sahoo, D.R. (2016) “ Optimum range of slenderness ratio of HSS braces
for special concentric braced frames,” Adv. Struct. Eng. 19 (6) p.p 928–944.

11. Kumar, P.C.A., Sahoo,D.R., and Anand, S.(2016) ” Modified seismic design of
concentrically braced frames considering column demands,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 46 (10)
P.P. 1559–1580.

12. Kanvinde, A.M. , and Deierlein, G.G.(2007) ” A cyclic void growth model to assess ductile
fracture in structural steels due to ultra-low cycle fatigue,” ASCE J. Eng. Mech. 133 (6) p.p.701–
712.

13. Patra, P.,. Kumar, P.C.A.,and Sahoo, D.R.(2018) “ Cyclic performance of braces with
different support connections in special concentrically braced frames,” Key Eng. Mater. 763 p.p.
694–701.

14.. Kumar, P.C.A., Sahoo, D.R. , and Kumar, N. (2015)”Limiting values of slenderness ratio
for hollow circular steel braces of concentrically braced frames”, J. Constr. Steel Res. P.P. 223–
235.

Page | 35
Page | 36