JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1785357

Performance-Based Seismic Design of RC Moment Resisting Frames

with Friction-Damped Self-Centering Tension Braces
Jishuai Wanga, Tong Guoa, Lianglong Songb, and Yongsheng Songc
a
School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, P.R.China; bCollege of Civil and Transportation Engineering,
Hohai University, Nanjing, P.RChina; cSchool of Architectural Engineering, Jinling Institute of Technology, Nanjing, P.
RChina

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper presents a performance-based seismic design method of RC Received 27 September 2019
moment resisting frame with friction damped self-centering tension braces Accepted 21 February 2020
(FSTB-Frame). The structural configuration and theoretical model of FSTB is KEYWORDS
introduced, and the numerical model of FSTB is established and validated Self-centering; friction;
through cyclic loading tests of a FSTB specimen. Based on the equivalent tension brace; seismic
linear method, the seismic design procedure is developed and verified performance; seismic design;
through 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-story structures with different design performance RC moment resisting frame
objectives. Numerical models of FSTB-frames are established and used to
verify whether the design performance targets are achieved through non­
linear dynamic analyses using the design-basis earthquake (DBE) ground
motions. The research results show FSTB-frames can achieve the intended
performance levels in terms of story drift, residual story drift and base shear,
and the maximum and residual story drift of RC frames can be significantly
decreased after equipping FSTBs.

1. Introduction
Traditional reinforced concrete structures dissipate seismic energy through the plastic deformation of
its main structural members, which greatly increases the time and cost of postearthquake repair due to
serious damage and large residual deformation caused by strong earthquakes. Previous investigations
have shown that the repair or retrofit cost of the structure will exceed the reconstruction cost when the
residual inter-story drift exceeds 0.5% (McCormick et al. 2008). Based on this situation, various kinds
of self-centering energy dissipation braces which include self-centering buckling restrained braces
(Chou and Chung 2014; Chou et al., 2016a, 2016b; Terán-Gilmore, Ruiz-García, and Bojórquez-Mora
2015; Wang, Nie, and Pan 2017; Wu, Lu, and Zhao 2019), self-centering brace with friction devices
(Hu and Noh 2015; Tremblay, Lacerte, and Christopoulos 2008; Xu et al., 2016a, 2016b; Zhu and
Zhang 2008), self-centering viscous damping braces (Kitayama and Constantinou 2016; Xu, Xie, and
Li 2018), the shape memory alloy (SMA)-based braces (Hamdy 2017), etc. have been developed and
investigated for reducing residual deformations of buildings. While, in order to prevent buckling and
provide self-centering and energy dissipation capabilities, most of existing self-centering braces have
complex structural configurations, large cross-section size and expensive cost, which largely impede
the industrialization of these self-centering braces. For avoiding compressive buckling and simplifying
the structural configurations of self-centering braces, self-centering tension braces (Araki et al. 2016;
Chi et al. 2018; Mousavi and Zahrai 2017; Shrestha et al. 2014) which can only bear tension load are
developed and which generally connect steel bar or flexible steel strand and shape memory alloy
(SMA) rod or damper with self-centering capability in series.

CONTACT Tong Guo guotong@seu.edu.cn School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, P.R.China
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 J. WANG ET AL.

Although numerous research results have showed that self-centering braces and self-centering
tension braces presented excellent effects on reducing maximum and residual deformations of
structures, the reliable seismic design methods of frame with self-centering braces could rarely be
found. O’Reilly et al. presented a performance-based design of a self-centering concentrically
braced frame (SC-CBF) using the direct displacement-based design procedure, where the base
shear was obtained for the equivalent system and the lateral forces and displacements of SC-CBFs
were obtained by the code-based equivalent lateral force procedure (O’Reilly, Goggins, and Mahin
2012). Qiu and Zhu developed a performance-based plastic design method of steel frame with
SMA-based braces (Qiu and Zhu 2017; Qiu et al. 2017), where the design base shear was obtained
through energy-work balance using desired yield mechanism. Liu et al. proposed a direct dis­
placement-based design procedure with a non-iterative procedure of frame with self-centering
buckling restrained braces (Liu, Li, and Zhao 2018), where the base shear was obtained based on
the equivalent linear method and the yield strength and displacement were determined directly by
the predetermined objective drift. Although the above research results demonstrate that the
frames with specific self-centering braces designed using their own design methods are able to
realize the designed performance targets, a rational design methodology for reinforced concrete
frames with self-centering tension braces has seldom been reported in literature. To fill in this
knowledge gap, this paper proposes a performance-based design method of RC moment-resisting
frames with friction damped self-centering tension braces.
In this paper, performance-based seismic design method of moment-resisting RC-frame with
friction damped self-centering tension braces is developed, which can not only be applied to the
design of RC-frame with FSTBs, can also be extend to frame with other self-centering tension
braces. First, the structural configuration, theoretical load-displacement relationship, and the simu­
lating method of FSTB are introduced. Cyclic loading tests of a FSTB specimen are conducted to
validate the correctness of the simulating model of FSTB established in OpenSees. Thereafter,
nonlinear dynamic analyses are conducted on the 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-story FSTB-frames designed
by proposed method, so as to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of proposed design method.
Moreover, the seismic performance of the RC frame with and without self-centering tension braces
are compared.

2. Friction Damped Self-Centering Tension Brace

2.1. Configuration
A self-centering tension brace with friction device (FSTB) resists lateral forces using the X-type
configuration as it can only bear tension force, its reset capability is provided by precompressed
disc springs and seismic input energy is dissipated through sliding friction. The FSTB includes
a self-centering energy dissipation unit (SCED unit), a high-strengthen tendon and connectors, as
shown in Fig. 1(a). The SCED unit is composed of a slotted steel sleeve, C steel with two friction
plates, disc springs, a steel pipe with internal and external threads, screw, nut and high-strength
bolts, as shown in Fig. 1(b). Two tendon connectors are used to connect SCED unit, high-strength
tendon and end connector, as shown in Fig. 1(c), and two end connectors are used to connect the
FSTB to structure.
As shown in Fig. 1(b), the pre-compression which can be adjusted through controlling the length of
screw screwing into the thread steel pipe on disc springs is maintained by the slotted steel sleeve,
threaded steel pipe, screw and the nut, so as to provide self-centering capacity of SCED unit. The C steel
with two friction plates and high-strength bolts moves synchronously with disc springs, therefore, the
energy can be dissipated through relative sliding friction between friction plates and slotted steel sleeve.
The friction force can be adjusted by changing the pretension force of high-strength bolts.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3

Figure 1. Structural configuration of the FSTB: (a) The assembled FSTB; (b) the profile of FSTB; and (c) high-strength tendon and
connectors.

2.2. Theoretical Model

The load and elongation of FSTB are labeled as F and x, respectively. As FSTB is not a rate-depend
device, the theoretical load-displacement relationship of the FSTB is derived based on the static
equilibrium, as shown in Fig. 2, where the points of A, B, C, and D represent the states of re-
centering of SCED unit, imminent sliding, maximum displacement and reversal imminent sliding,
respectively. It should be noted that to realize the self-centering capability, the precompression force of
disc springs should no less than the friction force of friction device, and the maximum deformation of

Figure 2. Theoretical load-displacement relationship.

4 J. WANG ET AL.

FSTB should be controlled in the design to ensure the materials remain elastic during the earthquake
loading. The corresponding x-coordinates of X1, X2, and X3 can be defined by Equations (1)–(3),
respectively. The load-displacement relationship of stage E-O, stage O-B, stage B-C, stage C-D, and
stage D-A can be described through Equations (4)–(8), respectively, where the pre-compression force
of disc springs and friction force are labeled as Fn and F, respectively. The linear stiffness of high-
strengthen tendon K1 = Ew∙Aw/lw, where Ew, Aw, and lw indicate the elastic modulus, cross-sectional
area and length of high-strengthen tendon, respectively. The stiffness of the disc springs is labeled as
K2, and the maximum displacement and load are labeled as Xm and Fm, respectively.
Fn þ F f
X1 ¼ (1)
K1

2Ff
X2 ¼ Xm (2)
K1

Fn Ff
X3 ¼ (3)
K1

F¼0 ; ðXn < x < 0Þ (4)

F ¼ K1 x ; ð0 < x < X1 Þ (5)

�
K1 K2 K1 Fn þ Ff
F¼ xþ ; ðX1 < x < Xm Þ (6)
K1 þ K2 K1 þ K2

�
K12 K1 Fn þ Ff
F ¼ K1 x Xm þ ; ðX2 < x < Xm Þ (7)
K1 þ K2 K1 þ K2

K1 K2 K1 ðFn Ff Þ
F¼ xþ ; ðX3 < x < X2 Þ (8)
K1 þ K2 K1 þ K2

2.3. Numerical Model and Test Verification

The numerical model of FSTB is built based on the platform OpenSees. As there is no existing element
or material in OpenSees to simulate the mechanical behavior of the FSTB, a new uniaxial material
constitutive model (U-FSTB) is developed and added into the OpenSees interpreter according to the
theoretical model of FSTB.
The FSTB can be simulated through assigning the new material to a TRUSS element in OpenSees. In
order to verify the correctness of the numerical model, cyclic loading tests are conducted on a FSTB
specimen, which can be seen in Fig. 3(a). The comparison between the numerical and experimental results
under three different cases is shown in the Fig 3b–d, which demonstrates that the numerical and test result
are in good agreement, thus the proposed numerical model can describe the mechanical behavior of FSTB
and be applied to the following numerical analysis. It is worth noting that there is inevitable error in the
process of setting the friction force, and the difference between the maximum static friction force and the
sliding friction force exists in the friction device and the FSTB numerical model does not consider these
factors, thus there are slight discrepancies between the experimental and numerical results.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 5

180

160 Experimental results

140 Numerical results

120

Load (kN)
100

80

60

40 Fn =45kN
20 Ff =45kN

0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)

(a) (b)
200
210
180
Experimental results Experimental results
180 Numerical results 160
Numerical results
140
150
Load (kN) 120
Load (kN)

120
100
90 80
60
60 Fn =70kN
Fn =70kN 40
Ff =45kN Ff =30kN
30
20
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(c) (d)

Figure 3. The comparison of numerical and experimental results: (a) Loading field; (b) Case 1; (c) Case 2; and (d) Case 3.

3. Equivalent Linear Method

In the displacement-based seismic design method, the multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system is
transformed into the equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system based on the following
three principles: (1) the MDOF system presents the specified lateral deformation shape under the
design-basis earthquake; (2) the base shear of equivalent SDOF system is equal to that of MDOF
system; (3) the work done by horizontal earthquake forces in MDOF and SDOF systems are equal (Ma,
and Yan, Liang 2013).
As shown in Fig. 4, the equivalent mass, stiffness, damping ratio and roof displacement of
equivalent SDOF system are labeled as Meff, Keff, ζeff, and ueff, respectively. The acceleration, displace­
ment, mass, height and earthquake force of the particle on the ith floor of the MDOF system are
labeled as ai, ui, mi, hi, and Fi, respectively.
As the ratio of displacement to acceleration of a single particle is constant, Equation (9) can be
derived, where ci is constant. The earthquake force of each story Fi can be calculated by Equation (10).
According to the principles 2 and 3, the Equations (11) and (12) are obtained, respectively. The
Equations (13)–(15) can be acquired from the above formulas in turn. The equivalent stiffness of the
SDOF system can be expressed by Equation (16), and the base shear force Vb of the MDOF system can
be obtained from Equation (17).

ui ai
ci ¼ ¼ (9)
ueff aeff
6 J. WANG ET AL.

Vb Fn un
mn
Fn-1 un-1
Vy mn-1 Meff
Vb ueff
Base shear

Fi ui
Keff
mi Equivalent
F2 u2 Keff
m2
hi ζeff
F1 u1
m1
O uy ueff
Vertex displacement

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of system equivalence.

Fi ¼ mi ai ¼ mi ci aeff (10)

!
X
n X
n
Vb ¼ Fi ¼ mi ci aeff ¼ Meff aeff (11)
i¼1 i¼1

X
n
Vb ueff ¼ Fi ui (12)
i¼1

P
n
m i ui
i¼1
Meff ¼ (13)
ueff

mi ui
Fi ¼ Vb (14)
P
n
mj uj
j¼1

P
n
mi ui 2
i¼1
ueff ¼ (15)
Pn
mi ui
i¼1

� �2
2π
Keff ¼ Meff (16)
Teff

Vb ¼ Keff ueff (17)

4. The Design Procedure of FSTB-frame

4.1. FSTB-frame
The FSTB-frame is composed of frame system and FSTB system, in which the frame system is used to
resist one part of lateral load and all vertical load, FSTB system does not resist vertical load but only
resists the other part of lateral load, as shown in Fig. 5, where Fi, Fif, and Fis represent the earthquake
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7

Fn Fnf Fns
FSTB
Fi Fif Fis

F2 = F2f + F2s
Tensile state
F1 F1f F1s
Compressive
state

Vb Vbf Vbs (ΦVb)

FSTB-frame frame system FSTB system
Figure 5. The load distribution of FSTB-frame.

Vb

FSTB-frame

Vy
frame system
Base shear

Vbf

Vbs

FSTB system

O uys uy uu
Roof displacement
Figure 6. The bear capacity curve of FSTB system, frame system, and FSTB-frame.

force on the ith floor of FSTB-frame, frame system and FSTB system, respectively. The lateral load
distribution coefficient of FSTB system is labeled as Φ, and the base shear of FSTB system and frame
system can be calculated through equations Vbs = ΦVb and Vbf = (1-Φ)Vb. Figure 6 presents the
bearing capacity curve of FSTB-frame, frame system and FSTB system, where the yield base shear,
design base shear of FSTB-frame, frame system and FSTB system are labeled as Vy, Vb, Vbf, and Vbs,
respectively; yield roof displacement of FSTB-frame and FSTB system and design vertex displacement
of FSTB-frame are labeled as uy, uys, and uu, respectively. Since the FSTB system can only resist lateral
force and almost all vertical loads are resisted by the frame system, and the yield stiffness of the frame
is small in the case of high axial compressive ratio, thus the yield stiffness of the frame system is not
considered for assuring security.
8 J. WANG ET AL.

4.2. Design Procedure

Assume the specified lateral deformation occurs in the FSTB-frame under the design-basis earthquake,
the design procedure of FSTB-frame is shown as follows:
Step-1. Determine the story drift limit θ, ductility demand μ and lateral shape function ui, and
calculate the equivalent mass Meff and equivalent displacement ueff by Equations (13) and (15),
respectively. In this paper, the lateral shape function ui of FSTB-frame is determined through
Equation (18) (Priestley 2000). It is worth noting that the equivalent transformation would introduce
a large deviation when the structure is too high, the stiffness distribution along the height direction is
not uniform or the torsional effect could not be neglected.
Step-2. Determine the lateral load distribution coefficient of FSTB system Φ and calculate the
equivalent damping ratio ζeff through Equation (19) (Liang, 2005), where ζi is the intrinsic damping of
the structure (which is 0.05 for RC frames); ζeq is the hysteretic damping ratio provided by RC frame
system which equals to (1-Φ)ζrcframe; ζad which equals to Φζfstb is the additional damping ratio due to
the energy dissipation of FSTB system. ζrcframe is the hysteretic damping ratio of nonlinear RC frame
due to ductility which can be calculated by Equation (20) (Liang, Huang, and Yang 2005). The
equivalent viscous damping ratio of FSTB system, ζfstb, can be calculated through Equation (21)
(Chi et al. 2018), where Ed and Es denote hysteretic energy dissipated by FSTBs and total strain energy
of FSTB system, respectively.
Step-3. Determine the equivalent period Teff by the Equation (22), and calculate the Keff and Vb
through Equations (16) and (17), and calculate the Vbf and Vbs by Vbf = Vb (1–Φ) and Vbs = VbΦ.
Equation (22) is acquired through transforming the elastic acceleration response spectrum defined by
Chinese code (MHURD-PRC 2010a) into the elastic displacement spectrum (Liang, Huang, and Yang
2005).
Step-4. Determine the cross-sectional size and reinforcing details of the beams and columns of
frame system considering both of gravity load and the ratio of seismic force Vbf to coefficient R, where
R is structure response modification factor and its value can refer the American code (FEMA-P750
2009). Then calculate Fi f by Equation (23) (MHURD-PRC 2010a), where δn can be obtained based on
Chinese code (MHURD-PRC 2010a) and fundamental mode period of frame system. It is noting that
the initial fundamental mode period of frame system is basically equal to that of FTSB-frame because
the FTSB, as a cable without initial pretension, cannot provide supplemental stiffness for buildings.
Step-5. Acquire the inter-story displacement ∆ui f of frame system under the base shear of frame
system Vbf through conducting pushover analysis on frame system. If the inter-story displacement ∆ui
f
of frame system is greater than the specific interstory displacement ∆ui, the interstory shearing force
Vis of the FSTB system can be obtained by Equation (24), otherwise, the inter-story shearing force Vis
of the FSTB system can be calculated through Equation (25), where Vi represents the interstory shear
on the ith floor of FSTB-frame.
Step-6. According to the Vis acquired in the step-5, the FSTB system is designed in accordance with the
design method of FSTB presented on the section 3.3.
Step-7. Conduct the nonlinear dynamic analysis on the design FSTB-frame for estimating whether
the FSTB-frame meets the target performance or not, if satisfied, the design is completed; if not, repeat
steps 2nd to 7th until the design performance objective is achieved.
8
< θhi n�4
0:5hi ðn 4Þ
ui ¼ θhi ½1 16hn � 4 < n � 20 (18)
:
θhi ð1 0:5hi =hn Þ n > 20

ζ eff ¼ ζ eq þ ζ i þ ζ ad (19)
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 9

� �
1
ζ rcframe ¼ 0:2 1 pffiffi (20)
μ

Ed ð1 αÞλ þ α 1
ζ fstb ¼ ¼ (21)
4πEs αλ2 αλ þ λ

4π2
T 2 ½0:45 þ 10ðη2 0:45ÞT� ¼ Sd ; T � 0:1s (22a)
αmax g

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sd
T ¼ 2π ; 0:1s � T � Tg (22b)
η2 αmax g

4π2 Sd 1
T¼ð γ Þ2 γ ; Tg � T � 5Tg (22c)
Tg η2 αmax g

� � 4π2 Sd
T 2 0:2γ η2 η1 ðT 5Tg Þ ¼ ; 5Tg � T � 6:0s (22d)
αmax g

0:05 ζ
γ¼0:9þ (22e)
0:3þ6ζ

0:05 ζ
η1 ¼ 0:02 þ ; ðη1 � 0Þ (22f)
4 þ 32ζ

0:05 ζ �
η2 ¼1þ ; η2 � 0:55 (22g)
0:08þ1:6ζ

Gi hi
Fi ¼ ð1 δn ÞVb ; ði ¼ 1; 2; � � �; n 1Þ (23a)
P
n
Gj hj
j¼1

Gi hi
Fn ¼ ð1 δn ÞVb þ δn Vb ; ði ¼ n Þ (23b)
P
n
Gj hj
j¼1

� �
Δui f Δui �
Vi s ¼ Vi f þ Vi Vi f (24)
Δui f

Vi s ¼ Vi Vi f (25)
According to the above-detailed introduction of design procedure, the flow chart of the design
procedure is presented in Fig. 7, where the lateral shape function ui, hysteretic damping ratio ζeq of
frame system due to ductility, the additional damping ratio ζad due to the energy dissipation of FSTB
system and the lateral load distribution coefficient Φ of FSTB system can be optimized.
10 J. WANG ET AL.

Determine θ, μ and ui

Calculate Meff and ueff

Determine Φ and calculate the ζeff , Teff , Vb , Vbf and Vbs

Determine the cross-sectional size and reinforcing

details of frame system and calculate Fi f

Acquire ∆ui f through conducting pushover analysis on frame system

Y ∆ui f > ∆ui ? N

Calculate the Vis by Eq.(24) Calculate the Vis through Eq.(25)

Design the FSTBs based on the design method in section 3.3

If FSTB-frame meets N
target performance?

Y
Complete

Figure 7. The flow chart of design procedure of FSTB-frame.

4.3. The Design of FSTB

Obviously, the lateral displacement of FSTB system is identical to the frame system. The inter-story
shear provided by the FSTBs on the ith floor Vis can be calculated on the chapter 3.2. According to the
lateral displacement function ui and Vis, the detailed parameters of FSTBs on each floor can be
designed. As shown in Fig. 8, the angle between FSTB and beam, the length of beam and the length
of FSTB on the ith floor are labeled as βi, lbi, and lsi, respectively; the number of FSTBs, the design axial
force, design elongation, and elongation at the dissipation excitation point (X1) on the ith floor are
labeled as Ni, Fis, uis, and uyis, respectively; the strain-hardening ratio and the ratio between design
elongation and X1 of FSTB on the ith floor are labeled as αi and λi, respectively. According to
Equations (26)–(33), the detailed parameters (K1i, K2i, Fni, Ff i, and Asi) of FSTBs on the ith floor
can be calculated.

lb i
cos βi ¼ (26)
ls i

u i s ¼ Δui cos βi (27)

 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 11

Figure 8. The hysteretic loop of FSTB on the ith floor.

ui s
uyi s ¼ (28)
λi

Vi s
Fi s ¼ (29)
Ni cos βi
�
K1 i uyi s þ αK1 i ui s uyi s ¼ Fi s (30)

αi K1 i
K2 i ¼ (31)
1 αi

K1 i uyi s
Fn i ¼ F f i ¼ (32)
2

K1 i ls i
As i ¼ (33)
E

5. Design Cases
5.1. Building Model
The proposed design procedure for FSTB-frames are demonstrated using four case buildings with 3, 6,
9, and 12 stories, respectively. All of the four buildings have the same plan layout as shown in Fig. 9a.
Since the accidental torsion of structure with symmetrical plan dimension can be neglected, a plane
frame is selected for design and analysis. According to the proposed design method, 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-
story plane FSTB-frames based on different performance objectives, are designed for a site with
a seismic fortification intensity of eight and class II soil conditions (MHURD-PRC 2010a). Figure
9b shows the elevation view of the four plane FSTB-frames. The detailed design parameters of the four
12 J. WANG ET AL.

5@6600mm
Y

7@6600mm

(a)
3@ 3300mm

Pin connect
5@6600mm
3-Story FSTB-Frame

12@ 3300 mm
9@ 3300 mm

6@ 3300 mm

5@6600mm 5@6600mm 5@6600mm

9-Story FSTB-Frame 6-Story FSTB-Frame 12-Story FSTB-Frame

(b)

Figure 9. Plan and elevation views of the frames: (a) plan view and (b) elevation view.

Table 1. Design parameters of FSTB-frames.

Meff ueff Teff Keff Vb
Structure θ μ (ton) (mm) ζeff (s) (kN/mm) (kN) Φ α λ
3-story 1/200 1.5 498.06 38.32 0.09 0.946 21.929 900.45 0.4 0.25 4
6-story 1/100 3 954.58 134.6 0.15 2.589 5.617 755.98 0.4 0.25 4
9-story 1/200 1.5 1427.68 90.14 0.1 1.984 14.304 1289.39 0.3 0.25 4
12-story 1/100 3 1919.56 216.12 0.15 3.341 6.782 1465.80 0.3 0.25 4

Table 2. The detailed parameters of beams and columns.

Beam Column
Cross-section Area of reinforcing bar Cross-section Area of reinforcing bar
Structure (mm) (mm2) (mm) (mm2)
3-story 1–3 450 × 250 2282 (top) ×372 (bottom) 450 × 450 550 (each side)
6-story 1–3 450 × 250 2808 (top) ×562 (bottom) 450 × 450 456 (each side)
4–6 450 × 250 2520 (top) ×462 (bottom) 400 × 400 360 (each side)
9-story 1–3 550 × 250 2315 (top) ×640 (bottom) 650 × 650 1425 (each side)
4–6 550 × 250 2245 (top) ×598 (bottom) 600 × 600 1215 (each side)
7–9 500 × 250 1677 (top) ×393 (bottom) 550 × 550 1020 (each side)
12-story 1–4 500 × 250 3492 (top) ×831 (bottom) 650 × 650 951 (each side)
5–8 500 × 250 3492 (top) ×831 (bottom) 550 × 550 681 (each side)
9–12 500 × 250 3492 (top) ×831 (bottom) 450 × 450 456 (each side)

plane FSTB-frames are shown in Table 1. The cross-sectional sizes and reinforcing details of the four
plane FSTB-frames are shown in Table 2 and the detailed parameters of FSTBs are shown in Table 3.
The four plane FSTB-frames adopt HRB335 with the nominal yield strength of 335 MPa and the C35
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 13

Table 3. The detailed parameters of FSTBs.

3-Story 6-Story

As Ff K1 K2 Ff K1 K2
Story (mm2) (kN) (kN/mm) (kN/mm) 2
As (mm ) (kN) (kN/mm) (kN/mm)
1 1150.54 57.53 31.18 10.39 488.06 48.30 13.23 4.41
2 1036.81 51.84 28.10 9.37 477.58 46.27 12.94 4.31
3 604.41 30.22 16.38 5.46 445.20 42.20 12.07 4.02
4 389.45 36.11 10.56 3.52
5 308.72 27.98 8.37 2.79
6 201.24 17.82 5.45 1.82
Story 9-story 12-story
1 1257.46 61.78 34.08 11.36 717.29 70.23 19.44 6.48
2 1278.13 60.58 34.64 11.55 741.19 69.49 20.09 6.70
3 1778.84 81.22 48.21 16.07 758.96 67.99 20.57 6.86
4 2018.76 88.67 54.72 18.24 769.72 65.75 20.86 6.95
5 2027.72 85.54 54.96 18.32 772.37 62.76 20.93 6.98
6 1874.03 75.81 50.79 16.93 765.61 59.02 20.75 6.92
7 1674.59 64.83 45.39 15.13 747.81 54.53 20.27 6.76
8 1361.34 50.34 36.90 12.30 716.99 49.29 19.43 6.48
9 948.11 33.41 25.70 8.57 670.60 43.31 18.18 6.06
10 605.43 36.58 16.41 5.47
11 517.32 29.10 14.02 4.67
12 400.75 20.87 10.86 3.62

grade concrete with the nominal cubic compressive strength of 35 MPa (MHURD-PRC 2010b). The
design dead and live loads are 5 kN/m2 and 2 kN/m2 for the floors and roof, and the dead load of in-
filled walls is 15 kN/m. The simulating model of FSTB-frame is established in OpenSees, the
DispBeamColumn elements are adopted to simulate the beams and columns. The adopted concrete
constitutive model is the Concrete02 material, as shown in Fig. 10, where E0, σc0, εc0, σcu, εcu, d, σt, and
Et are initial elastic modulus, concrete compressive strength, concrete strain at maximum strength,
concrete crushing strength, concrete strain at crushing strength, ratio between unloading slope at εcu
and initial elastic modulus E0, tensile strength, and tension softening stiffness, respectively (Hisham
and Yassin 1994). And the adopted steel constitutive model is the Steel02 material which is a uniaxial

Figure 10. Concrete02 material constitutive model.

14 J. WANG ET AL.

Giuffre-Menegotto-Pinto steel material object with isotropic strain hardening (Filippou, Popov, and
Bertero 1983).

5.2. Seismic Performance Analysis

5.2.1. Ground Motions
According to the Chinese code (MHURD-PRC 2010a), five earthquake ground-motion records and
two artificial waves, as shown in Table 4, are selected according to the building soil type, and used for
nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis of the 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-story FSTB-frames. For the seismic
fortification intensity of eight (MHURD-PRC 2010a), the peak acceleration of design-basis earthquake
(DBE) with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is 200 gal. Figure 11 illustrates the target and
earthquake response spectrums used in analyses and fundamental mode periods of the four FSTB-
frames, it can be seen from Fig. 11 that the mean response spectrum of the selected ground motions
matches the design spectrum at the fundamental period points of the four FSTB-frames very well, the
difference of mean design spectrum and target spectrum is basically no more than 20% and the
deviations of all of the individual ground motions are within the acceptable scope, which indicates that
the selected ground motion records can be used to the nonlinear dynamic analysis of the four FSTB-
frames.

Table 4. Ground motion records.

Number Name Duration (s) Magnitude Year Epicentral distance (km) Component
D1 Tabas 32.96 7.3 1978 1.79 TAB-L1
D2 Superstition Hills-01 29.835 6.22 1987 17.59 A-IVW090
D3 Superstition Hills-02 59.985 6.54 1987 13.03 B-WSM090
D4 Chi-Chi 68.71 7.6 1999 2.74 TCU076-E
D5 Iwate 79.32 6.9 2008 16.26 IWT010NS
D6 Artificial-1 88.14 – – - –
D7 Artificial-2 32.96 – – - –

1.0

0.9 Individual spectrum

Mean spectrum
0.8
Target spectrum
Spectral acceleration(g)

0.7 Mean-0.2DEV
Mean+0.2DEV
0.6

0.5
3-story (0.693s)
0.4

0.3 6-story (1.431s)

9-story (1.488s)
0.2 12-story (2.150s)

0.1

0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Period (s)
Figure 11. Individual, mean and target spectra under DBE.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 15

5.2.2 Analysis Results

The seismic response results in this paper in term of story drift, residual story drift and base shear
results are absolute values. Figure 12a–d present the story drift profiles under design-basis earthquake
of 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-story FSTB-frames, respectively. The maximum values of the average story drift
profiles of 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-story FSTB-frames under design-basis earthquake are 0.485%, 0.717%,
0.484%, and 0.787%, respectively, all of them content with their own performance objectives, which
illustrates the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed performance-based design method of FSTB-
frame.
As shown in Fig. 13, the maximum value of average story drift profiles of 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-story
FSTB-frames are 0.15%, 0.146%, 0.0825%, and 0.0769% under design-basis earthquake respectively. It
is worth nothing that the maximum residual story drift of the four FSTB-frames under design-basis
earthquake are less than 1/500 which is the limit value of the immediate occupancy performance level,
which demonstrates that the FSTB-frames can be put into use immediately after design-basis earth­
quake. However, the performance requirements of RC-frame designed by Chinese code (MHURD-
PRC 2010a) are to be repairable under design-basis earthquake, and that the residual story drift limit
should be 1/200. Therefore, FSTB-frame designed by the proposed design method can significantly
reduce the time and the cost of postearthquake repair when compared with the RC-frame designed by
Chinese code (MHURD-PRC 2010a).
For investigate the effectiveness of FSTBs, the average story drift profiles and residual story drift
profiles of frames without FSTBs (Bare-frames) are calculated under DBE and compared with that of
FSTB-frames, as shown in Figs. 14 and 15, respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 14 that the maximum

6
3
D1 D1
D2 5
D2
D3 D3
D4 4 D4
D5 D5
Story
Story

2
D6 D6
D7 3
D7
Mean Mean
Threshold 2 Threshold

1
1

0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.011
Story drift Story drift

(a) (b)

9 12
11
8
D1 10
7 D2 D1
9
D3 D2
6 D4 8 D3
Story

D5 7 D4
Story

5
D6 6 D5
4 D7 D6
5
Mean D7
3 4
Threshold Mean
3 Threshold
2
2
1 1
0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012
Story drift Story drift

(c) (d)

Figure 12. The story drift profiles under DBE: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story; (c) 9-story; and (d) 12-story.
16 J. WANG ET AL.

6
D1 D1
3
D2 D2
D3 5 D3
D4 D4
D5 D5
4
D6 D6

Story
Story

2 D7 D7
Mean 3 Mean
Threshold Threshold
2

1
1
0.0000 0.0004 0.0008 0.0012 0.0016 0.0020 0.0000 0.0004 0.0008 0.0012 0.0016 0.0020
Residual story drift Residual story drift

(a) (b)

9 12
D1 11
D1
8 D2
D2 10
D3 D3
7
9 D4
D4
6 D5 8 D5
D6 7 D6
Story
Story

5 D7
D7 6
4 Mean Mean
5
Threshold Threshold
3 4
3
2
2
1 1
0.0000 0.0004 0.0008 0.0012 0.0016 0.0020 0.0000 0.0004 0.0008 0.0012 0.0016 0.0020
Residual story drift Residual story drift

(c) (d)

Figure 13. The residual story drift under DBE: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story; (c) 9-story; and (d) 12-story.

9 12
6
3 11
8
10
5
7 9

6 8
4
Story

7
2 5
6
3
4 5
Bare-frame
4 FSTB-frame
3
2 3
2
1 2
1 1 1
0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
Story drift Story drift Story drift Story drift

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 14. The average story drift profiles under DBE: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story; (c) 9-story; and (d) 12-story.

values of average story drift profiles of 3-story, 6-story, 9-story, and 12-story bare-frame are 0.813%,
1.145%, 1.003%, and 0.956%, respectively. Compared with 3-story, 6-story, 9-story, and 12-story bare-
frames, the maximum values of average story drift profiles of FSTB-frames are reduced by 40.344%,
37.380%, 51.745%, and 17.678%, respectively. Figure 15 presents that the maximum values of average
residual story drift profiles of 3-story, 6-story, 9-story, and 12-story bare-frames are 0.277%, 0.253%,
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 17

6 9 12
3
11
8
5 10
7 9

6 8
4
Bare-frame 7
Story

2 5
FSTB-frame 6
3
4 5

3 4
2
3
2
1 2
1
1 1
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015
Residual story drift Residual story drift Residual story drift Residual story drift

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 15. The average residual story drift profiles under DBE: (a) 3-story; (b) 6-story; (c) 9-story; and (d) 12-story.

0.235%, and 0.159%, respectively. The maximum values of average residual story drift profiles of
3-story, 6-story, 9-story, and 12-story FSTB-frames are respectively reduced by 45.848%, 42.292%,
64.681%, and 51.572% through the comparison with bare-frames.
The comparison between design base shear and the maximum base shear acquired from time-
history dynamic analysis of the four FSTB-frames can be seen in Fig. 16, the difference between design
base shear and the maximum base shear obtained from time-story dynamic analysis of 3-, 6-, 9-, and
12-story FSTB-frames are 3%, 29%, 19%, and 17%, respectively, which shows that adopted the
proposed seismic design method can implement the design performance objective when the difference
between design and time-history dynamic analysis base shear less than 30%. Figure 17 presents the
stress-strain curve of FSTBs on the second floor of the 3-story FSTB-frame under the D1 ground
motion recorder. As is shown in Fig. 17, the maximum stress of FSTB is only 200 MPa under the
design-basis earthquake, while nominal tensile strength of high-strength tendon used in FSTB is 1860
Mpa, which indicates that FSTB has a high bearing capacity and can provide a large safety margin for
the structure.

2000
Time-history dynamic analysis Difference: 17%
1800 Design Difference: 19% 1768
1600
1601
1466
1400
Base shear (kN)

1289
1200 Difference: 29%
Difference: 3% 1065
1000 930 900
800 756
600

400

200

0
3-story 6-story 9-story 12-story
Structure
Figure 16. The contrast of base shear.
18 J. WANG ET AL.

250

FSTB-positive
200 FSTB-negative

150
Stress (MPa)

100

50

-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003

Strain
Figure 17. Stress-strain relationships of FSTB.

6. Summaries and Conclusions

The reliable seismic design method of RC frame with self-centering tension braces can seldom be seen
in the literature. In this paper, the configuration, theoretical model and numerical model of FSTB is
introduced, and a performance-based seismic design method is developed for RC-frame with self-
centering tension braces and its effectiveness and robustness is validated through nonlinear time-
history analyses. Furthermore, for verifying the effectiveness of self-centering tension braces, the
seismic performance of the RC frame with and without self-centering tension braces are compared.
Some conclusions can be drawn from the research results.
1. Experimental test shows that the FSTB can present excellent self-centering and good energy
dissipation capability by applying friction and precompression force to disc springs properly. Strong
correlation of numerical and experimental test results demonstrates that the proposed numerical
model can accurately describe the mechanical behavior of FTSB and be used for the structural analysis.
2. FSTB-frames designed by the proposed seismic design method can successfully realize the design
performance target and limit the residual story drift demands within the immediate occupancy
performance level without multiple iterations; and the proposed design procedure decomposes FSTB-
frames into frame system and FSTB system which are designed independently, which makes the design
easy to implement, hence it is deemed effective and can be used for practical design.
3. The story drifts and residual story drifts of RC frames are significantly decreased after equipping
the FSTBs, which indicates the FSTB has desirable capability on reducing the maximum and residual
deformation of RC frames.
4. The proposed performance-based design method can be easily extended to other structural
system, such as RC frames with other self-centering tension braces, steel frames with self-centering
tension braces, to obtain the desirable seismic performance.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China (No.
2018YFE0206100), the Program of National Natural Science Foundation (No. 51508251), the Natural science fund for
colleges and universities in Jiangsu Province (No. 15KJB560005) and the Jinling Institute of Technology High-level
Personnel Work Activation Fee to Fund Projects (No. jit-b-201614).
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 19

Funding
This work was supported by The Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China [No.
2018YFE0206100]; The Natural science fund for colleges and universities in Jiangsu Province [No. 15KJB560005];
The Jinling Institute of Technology High-level Personnel Work Activation Fee to Fund Projects [No. jit-b-201614]; The
Program of National Natural Science Foundation [No. 51508251].

References
Araki, Y., K. C. Shrestha, N. Maekawa, Y. Koetaka, T. Omori, and R. Kainuma. 2016. Shaking table tests of steel frame
with superelastic Cu-Al-Mn SMA tension braces. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 45 (2): 297. doi:
10.1002/eqe.2659.
Chi, P., T. Guo, Y. Peng, D. Cao, and J. Dong. 2018. Development of a self-centering tension-only brace for seismic
protection of frame structures. Steel and Composite Structures 26 (5): 573–82.
Chou, C., and P. Chung. 2014. Development of cross-anchored dual-core self-centering braces for seismic resistance.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 101: 19–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.04.035.
Chou, C., P. Chung, and Y. Cheng. 2016a. Experimental evaluation of large-scale dual-core self-centering braces and
sandwiched buckling-restrained braces. Engineering Structures 116: 12–25. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.02.030.
Chou, C., W. Tsai, and P. Chung. 2016b. Development and validation tests of a dual-core self-centering sandwiched
buckling-restrained brace (SC-SBRB) for seismic resistance. Engineering Structures 121: 30–41. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2016.04.015.
FEMA-P750. 2009. NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures (R). Washington DC:
Building Seismic Safety Council.
Filippou, F. C., E. P. Popov, and V. V. Bertero. 1983. Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behavior of
reinforced concrete joints. Report EERC 83-19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley.
Hamdy, A.-E. 2017. Evaluating the ductility characteristics of self-centering buckling-restrained shape memory alloy
braces. Construction and Building Materials 26 (5): 1.
Hisham, M., and M. Yassin. 1994. Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures under monotonic and cycling
loads. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Hu, J. W., and M.-H. Noh. 2015. Seismic response and evaluation of SDOF self-centering friction damping braces
subjected to several earthquake ground motions. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 2015: 1–17. doi:
10.1155/2015/397273.
Kitayama, S., and M. C. Constantinou. 2016. Probabilistic collapse resistance and residual drift assessment of buildings
with fluidic self-centering systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 45 (12): 1935–53. doi: 10.1002/
eqe.2733.
Liang, X. 2005. Design theory and method of seismic performance of structure. Beijing: Science Press.
Liang, X., Y. J. Huang, and Q. W. Yang. 2005. Displacement-based seismic design method of RC Frames. China Civil
Engineering Journal 38 (9): 53–60.
Liu, L., S. Li, and J. Zhao. 2018. A novel non-iterative direct displacement-based seismic design procedure for
self-centering buckling-restrained braced frame structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 16 (11): 5591–619.
doi: 10.1007/s10518-018-0408-7.
Ma, K., H. Yan, X. Liang. 2013. Research on equivalent damping ratio for displacement-based seismic design method.
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration. 4: 134.
McCormick, J., H. Aburano, M. Ikenaga, and M. Nakashima. 2008. Permissible residual deformation levels for building
structures considering both safety and human elements. Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake
engineering, Beijing, China. Paper No. 05- 06-0071.
MHURD-PRC (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China). 2010a. Code for
seismic design of buildings. GB 50011-2010, Beijing. (in Chinese).
MHURD-PRC (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China). 2010b. Code for
design of concrete structures. GB 50010-2010, Beijing. (in Chinese).
Mousavi, S. A., and S. M. Zahrai. 2017. Slack free connections to improve seismic behavior of tension-only braces: An
experimental and analytical study. Engineering Structures 136: 54–67. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.009.
O’Reilly, G. J., J. Goggins, and S. A. Mahin. 2012. Performance-based design of a self-centering concentrically braced
frame using the direct displacement-based design procedure. Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake
engineering. Lisbon.
Priestley, M. J. N. 2000. Direct displacement-based seismic design of concrete buildings. Bullentin of the New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering 33 (4): 421–44. doi: 10.5459/bnzsee.33.4.421-444.
20 J. WANG ET AL.

Qiu, C., H. Li, K. Ji, H. Hou, and L. Tian. 2017. Performance-based plastic design approach for multi-story self-centering
concentrically braced frames using SMA braces. Engineering Structures 153: 628–38. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2017.10.068.
Qiu, C., and S. Zhu. 2017. Performance-based seismic design of self-centering steel frames with SMA-based braces.
Engineering Structures 130: 67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.09.051.
Shrestha, K., T. Omori, Y. Araki, K. C. Shrestha, Y. Koetaka, N. Maekawa, and R. Kainuma. 2014. Feasibility of tension
braces using Cu-Al-Mn superelastic alloy bars. Structural Control & Health Monitoring 21 (10): 1304–15. doi:
10.1002/stc.1644.
Terán-Gilmore, A., J. Ruiz-García, and E. Bojórquez-Mora. 2015. Flexible frames as self-centering mechanism for
buildings having buckling-restrained braces. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 19 (6): 978–90. doi: 10.1080/
13632469.2015.1011813.
Tremblay, R., M. Lacerte, and C. Christopoulos. 2008. Seismic response of multistory buildings with self-centering
energy dissipative steel braces. Journal of Structural Engineering 134 (1): 108–20. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445­
(2008)134:1(108).
Wang, H., X. Nie, and P. Pan. 2017. Development of a self-centering buckling restrained brace using cross-anchored
pre-stressed steel strands. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138: 621–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.07.017.
Wu, D., X. Lu, and B. Zhao. 2019. Probabilistic assessment of upgraded rocking cores-moment frames with supple­
mental self-centering energy dissipation devices. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1–25. doi: 10.1080/
13632469.2019.1609625.
Xu, L., X. Fan, and Z. Li. 2016a. Development and experimental verification of a pre-pressed spring self-centering energy
dissipation brace. Engineering Structures 127: 49–61. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.08.043.
Xu, L., X. Xie, and Z. Li. 2018. Development and experimental study of a self-centering variable damping energy
dissipation brace. Engineering Structures 160: 270–80. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.01.051.
Xu, L. H., X. W. Fan, D. C. Lu, and Z. X. Li. 2016b. Hysteretic behavior studies of self-centering energy dissipation
bracing system. Steel and Composite Structures 20 (6): 1205–19. doi: 10.12989/scs.2016.20.6.1205.
Zhu, S., and Y. Zhang. 2008. Seismic analysis of concentrically braced frame systems with self-centering friction damping
braces. Journal of Structural Engineering 134 (1): 121–31. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:1(121).