Experimental Investigation of Inelastic Cyclic Buckling and

Fracture of Steel Braces

B. V. Fell1; A. M. Kanvinde, A.M.ASCE2; G. G. Deierlein, F.ASCE3; and A. T. Myers4

Abstract: Results from 18 large-scale tests of steel bracing members are presented to examine their inelastic buckling and fracture
behavior as related to the seismic design of concentrically braced frames. The brace specimens include square hollow structural shapes
共HSS兲, pipe, and wide-flange sections. The effect of various parameters, including width–thickness and slenderness ratios, cross-section
shape, loading history, loading rate, and grout fill on the performance of these braces is investigated. Among these parameters, loading
history, width–thickness ratio and slenderness ratio are shown to have the largest influence on brace ductility. The test data suggest that
for some HSS and pipe specimens, current seismic design provision limits on maximum width–thickness ratios may not provide sufficient
ductility for seismic design. Effects of loading rate are found to be insignificant, and the grout fill is shown to provide a modest
improvement in cyclic ductility. Measurements of brace stiffness, tensile strength and compressive strength compare well with design
formulas. Future analytical studies to simulate brace buckling and fracture are outlined as a way to generalize the findings of the physical
tests.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2009兲135:1共19兲
CE Database subject headings: Bracing; Buckling; Cracking; Full-scale tests; Steel; Experimentation.

Introduction
Concentrically braced steel frames are attractive lateral load re-
sisting steel-framed systems due to their economy, structural ef-
ficiency and high stiffness. However, braced frames are
vulnerable to premature fracture during earthquakes due to the
cyclic inelastic buckling of the bracing elements and the resulting
large deformation demands on the braced connections. For ex-
ample, a recent study by Uriz 共2005兲 and Uriz and Mahin 共2004兲
have demonstrated the high likelihood of brace fracture induced
by the interactive effects of overall flexural buckling combined
with concentrated local buckling in the plastic hinge that forms
near the midpoint of the brace. Connections between the braces
and frame are also prone to fracture, prompting proposed provi-
sions 共AISC 2005; Yang and Mahin 2005兲 to mitigate this through
connection detailing that accommodates brace end rotations and
provides reinforcement to avoid net section fracture. Neverthe-
less, because braced systems rely on cyclic inelastic buckling of
braces for energy dissipation, buckling-induced brace fracture has
a significant effect on overall system ductility.
Previous studies 共e.g., Jain et al. 1978; Popov and Black 1981;
1 subjected to reversed-cyclic loading histories with large deforma-
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental En-
gineering, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: kanvinde@ucdavis.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford
Univ., Stanford, CA 94305.
4
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental En-
gineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA 94305.
Note. Associate Editor: James S. Davidson. Discussion open until
June 1, 2009. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual pa-
pers. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on October 9, 2007; approved on July 9, 2008. This paper is
part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 1, January
1, 2009. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2009/1-19–32/$25.00.
Tremblay 2000, 2002; Shaback and Brown 2003; Lee and Bru-
neau 2005; Han et al. 2007兲 have examined the effect of various
parameters, such as brace slenderness, compactness, and cross-
section shape, on fracture ductility, and energy dissipation in
braces. Qualitatively, the studies concur that cross-sectional
shapes, slenderness ratios, and width–thickness ratios most
strongly affect the fracture ductility of bracing elements. Trem-
blay 共2002兲 summarizes most of these studies and found local
buckling to be more severe with smaller brace slenderness, even
with compact cross sections. Studies have also shown that more
compact cross sections tend to have higher ductility than less
compact sections. Further, Tremblay’s review 共2002兲 suggests
that braces loaded with asymmetric compression cycles are more
prone to fracture as compared to symmetric tension/compression
loading. However, data on these effects is sparse and specific
quantitative criteria to relate these parameters to brace perfor-
mance is lacking, particularly in the case for pipe and wide-flange
brace members.
With the goal of developing improved understanding of brace
buckling and fracture, this study involves tests of 18 large-scale
braces conducted as part of a Network for Earthquake Engineer-
ing Simulation and Research project. The test specimens were
tions. The specimens are approximately two-thirds of full scale,
as compared to braces used in typical buildings, and they have
end connections that represent the flexibility of commonly used
gusset plate connections. The cross sections investigated include
square hollow structural shapes 共HSS兲 101.6⫻ 101.6⫻ 6.4 共HSS
4 ⫻ 4 ⫻ 1 / 4兲 and HSS 101.6⫻ 101.6⫻ 9.5 共HSS 4 ⫻ 4 ⫻ 3 / 8兲 sec-
tions, standard pipe sections—Pipe 76STD 共Pipe 3STD兲 and Pipe
127STD 共Pipe 5STD兲, and a wide-flange section—W310⫻ 23.8
共W12⫻ 16兲. These tests examine the effects of section compact-
ness, section geometry, loading histories, loading rates, and grout
fill in the HSS members.
The tests reported in this paper are part of a broader parent

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009 / 19

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 Sliding Beam slenderness limits for both system designations are identical
共LB / r ⬍ 4冑E / Fy兲, excepting more slender braces that are permit-
Constraint Frame

Actuator 2 (980 kN, +/- 254 mm)
3124 mm
Cyclic
1575
mm Loading
Specimen Brace buckling
Actuator 1 (980 kN, +/- 254 mm)
Fig. 1. Plan view of brace test setup
study whose objectives are to examine earthquake-induced buck-
ling and fracture in steel, considering both practical aspects of
design as well as the validation of techniques to simulate inelastic
buckling and fracture behavior of braces.
Test Program Scope
Current seismic design standards 共AISC 2005兲 distinguish be-
tween ordinary concentrically braced frames 共OCBF兲 and special
concentrically braced frames 共SCBF兲, where the latter have
slightly more stringent requirements. With regards to the bracing
member provisions, the AISC requirements for HSS and pipe sec-
tions are similar for OCBFs and SCBFs. Both employ the same
section compactness limits for square and rectangular HSS mem-
bers 共b / t − 3 ⬍ 0.64冑E / Fy兲, round pipe 共D / t ⬍ 0.044E / Fy兲, and
W-shape braces 共b f / 2t f ⬍ 0.3冑E / Fy兲. Likewise, the overall brace
ted in certain SCBF and OCBF systems. Although the results in
this paper are generally applicable for both types of braced
frames, the design comparisons in this paper are made in the
context of SCBF systems as these systems are prevalent in re-
Reaction
Wall gions with high seismic activity where design level events are
expected to induce inelastic brace buckling. Moreover, design
provisions anticipate that OCBF systems will experience smaller
deformation demands as compared to SCBFs, and thus the large
inelastic deformations reported in this study may not reflect ex-
pected demands in OCBF systems.
As shown in Fig. 1, the brace test rig provides a fixed–fixed
boundary condition, where one end of the brace specimen is
bolted directly to a large reaction block and the other end is at-
tached to a moving cross beam. The connection gusset plates are
oriented in the vertical plane, thus permitting buckling in the hori-
zontal plane with an effective buckling length roughly equal to
brace length. Load is applied through two servohydraulic actua-
tors, each with a 980 kN force capacity and a ⫾254 mm stroke
capacity. The tests were performed in displacement control with
the actuators set in a master-slave feedback-control to minimize
end rotations and maintain a fixed boundary condition at the
translating end. The axial brace deformation, ⌬a, is measured as
the relative deformation between the two specimen end plates.
Summarized in Table 1 is the test matrix for the 18 specimens,
including information on the brace cross sections, details, and
loading variables. The test plan is organized to provide insights
into a variety of design parameters that affect brace buckling and
fracture. The testing program includes 7 square HSS specimens, 8
pipe specimens, and 3 wide-flange specimens. The member sizes
were selected to investigate the effect of slenderness 共LB / r兲 and

Table 1. Test Parameters and Loading Histories

Test specimen parameters Loading protocola
Test Bracing LB b / t or D / t KLB / r Std. Pulse Pulse
number member 共mm兲 共AISCb兲 共AISCb兲 Reinf. Fill FF NF-C NF-T
HSS1-1 HSS101.6⫻ 2985 14.2 77 ⫻ ⫻
HSS1-2 101.6⫻ 6.4 共0.89兲 共0.77兲 ⫻ ⫻
HSS1-3c ⫻ ⫻
HSS1-4 ⫻ ⫻ ⫻
HSS1-5 ⫻ ⫻ ⫻
HSS2-1 HSS101.6⫻ 8.5 80 ⫻ ⫻
HSS2-2c 101.6⫻ 9.5 共0.53兲 共0.80兲 ⫻ ⫻
P1-1 Pipe127STD 3010 21.6 63 ⫻ ⫻
P1-2 共0.59兲 共0.55兲 ⫻
P1-3 ⫻ ⫻
P1-4 ⫻
P2-1 Pipe76STD 16.2 102 ⫻ ⫻
P2-2 共0.44兲 共0.89兲 ⫻
P2-3 ⫻ ⫻
P2-4 ⫻
W1 W310⫻ 23.8 7.5 153 ⫻
W2 共1.04兲 共1.59兲 ⫻
W3 ⫻
a
FF= standard far-field loading 关Fig. 3共a兲兴; NF-C = near-field compression loading 关Fig. 3共b兲兴; NF-T = near-field tension history 关Fig. 3共c兲兴.
b
Numbers in parentheses are the section width–thickness or brace slenderness ratio normalized by the criteria specified by the AISC Seismic Provisions
共2005a兲.
c
Fast 共earthquake兲 loading rate.

20 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 Reinf. Plates: by about 60%. The tests were conducted using one of three alter-
HSS1: 254 51
HSS1: 203x51x6.4
HSS2: 381 6.4
HSS2: 203x51x9.5
native loading protocols listed in Table 1 共distinguished by the
crossed cells for each test兲 and these are summarized later. Load-
HSS-section
ing rates were quasi-static except for two tests 共HSS1-3 and
HSS2-2兲, which were tested under faster earthquake loading rates.
12.7 Gusset Plate (typ) The dimensions of the test specimens are shown in Fig. 2 with
38 (typ) the corresponding measured material properties summarized in
(a) HSS1: 343 Table 2. All specimens are 3,124 mm long, measured from the
HSS2: 470
outside of each end plate, including a clearance of 38 mm be-
P1: 305 Reinf. Plates: tween the end of the brace and bolted end plate to accommodate
P1: 279x76x6.4 38
P2: 165 6.4 end rotations associated with brace buckling. The gusset plates
P2: 152x51x6.4
are designed to resist buckling in compression 共Astaneh-Asl
508 1998兲 and yielding in tension 共Whitmore 1950兲. Design forces,
Pipe-section
(typ) equal to the expected brace yield strength 共RyFyAg兲, are used to
design all tension critical components including welds. The AISC
25.4 (typ) (b) P1: 381 共2005兲 specified material yield and ultimate strengths 共Fy , Fu兲 and
P2: 241 expected strength factors 共Ry , Rt兲 are also listed in Table 2. As
3124 (typ) shown in Fig. 2 and Table 1 共with crossed cells in the “Reinf.”
column兲, most of the HSS and pipe specimens had reinforcement
152 6.4 to preclude net-section fractures at the connection. Reinforcement
203x127x9.5 38
was omitted from four pipe tests 共P1-2, P1-4, P2-2, and P2-4兲 to
Slotted Plate
investigate its relative importance for different loading histories.
Two of the HSS braces 共HSS1-4 and HSS1-5; designated with
W310X23.8 CJP
crossed cells in the “Fill” column兲 were filled with grout to assess
whether the fill would delay local buckling and subsequent frac-
191
ture initiation.
(c)

Fig. 2. Brace drawings 共a兲 HSS; 共b兲 pipe; and 共c兲 W310⫻ 23.8 共mm兲
Cyclic Loading Protocol

width–thickness 共b / t or D / t兲 ratios. For example, the two HSS
sections have similar overall slenderness ratios and thus provide a
comparative assessment of the influence of width–thickness ra-
tios. The alternative pipe sections and W-shape allow for an as-
sessment of slenderness effects combined with section properties.
The section compactness and member slenderness ratios are
summarized in the fourth and fifth columns of Table 1. The num-
bers in parentheses are ratios of the specimen properties to the
AISC 共2005兲 limits 共listed previously兲 for SCBF systems. The
section compactness and member slenderness ratios for HSS and
pipe sections are all well within the AISC limits. On the other
hand, the flange compactness of the W-shape is close to the AISC
limit and the weak-axis slenderness ratio exceeds the AISC limit
In contrast to moment frame systems, where peak seismic inter-
story drift demands are fairly stable with respect to design vari-
ables 共Gupta and Krawinkler 1999兲, drift demands for braced
frames are more sensitive to variations in bracing configurations
and the highly nonlinear brace buckling behavior. For example,
Tremblay 共2000兲 showed that the slenderness ratio of the bracing
elements can have a significant influence on drift demands. The
loading protocols for this study are based on an adaptation of
protocols for moment frame systems that are adjusted for earth-
quake loading demands in braced frames.
As shown in Fig. 3共a兲, the standard cyclic protocol follows a
symmetric loading history that represents demands imposed by
far-field 共nonnear fault兲 earthquake ground motions. The two

Table 2. Brace Material Properties

Measured Specified
properties properties
Brace
cross Fy,meas Fu,meas Fy Fu Fy,meas Fu,meas
section 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 Ry Rt Fy Fu

HSS1 Corner: Corner: 317 400 1.4 1.3 Corner: Corner:

508 549 1.6 1.4
Center: Center: Center: Center:
460 488 1.5 1.2
HSS2 Corner: Corner: Corner: Corner:
502 540 1.6 1.4
Center: Center: Center: Center:
499 542 1.6 1.4
P1 326 421 241 414 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.0
P2 372 464 1.5 1.1
W 414 544 345 448 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009 / 21

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 6 90 Standard Cyclic
Maximum Credible (4) #cycles ∆ a (mm) Drift (%)

Axial Deformation (mm)

4 60
6 1.0 0.08
2 30 6 1.5 0.10

Drift (%)
Expected Buckling (0.2)
6 2.3 0.15
0 0
4 3.0 0.20 – B
-2 -30 2 15.5 1.03
2 27.9 1.85
-4 -60 2 40.4 2.68
(a) 2 59.9 4.00 - MCE
-6 -90 2+n 75.9 5.00
0 10 20 30
Cycle Number

4 60 8 120
Compression dominated Far-field loading history

Axial Deformation (mm)

2 near-field loading history
30 6 appended to near-field 90

0 0 4 60
Drift (%)

Drift (%)
-2 -30 2 30
Tension dominated
-4 -60 0 near-field loading history 0
Far-field loading history
-6 appended to near-field -90 -2 -30
(b) (c)
-8 -120 -4 -60
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Cycle Number Cycle Number

Fig. 3. Loading protocols 共a兲 standard cyclic 共far-field ground motions兲; 共b兲 compression; and 共c兲 tension near-fault pulse

other loading protocols, shown in Figs. 3共b and c兲, represent non- In contrast to moment frames where the component response
symmetric pulse type demands as might be imposed by near-fault is fairly symmetric, for braced frames, the pulse like near-fault
ground motions. These are distinguished between pulses domi- protocol must be distinguished between cases dominated by either
nated by compression or tension loading of the brace. The loading tension or compression response. As shown in Fig. 3共b兲, for com-
histories are expressed in terms of building interstory drift de- pression dominant cases, the SAC near-fault loading protocol is
mands, where the drift ratio is assumed to be 0.2% at brace buck- applied without modification. For tension dominant loading,
ling and 4% at the maximum considered earthquake 共MCE兲 where one of the goals is to apply large tension demands on the
demand. These displacement demands are based on analyses of brace and connections prior to buckling, the initial negative 共com-
chevron configuration braced frames by the writers and others pression兲 pulse is omitted and the positive 共tension兲 pulse is in-
共Izvernari et al. 2007; McCormick et al. 2007; Uriz and Mahin creased to +8% drift 关Fig. 3共c兲兴, to impose the largest tensile
2004; Sabelli 2000兲. In fact, several investigations 共Uriz 2005; demands on the specimens given the limitations of the test setup.
McCormick et al. 2007兲 have shown that drift demands can ex- In anticipation of instances where the brace may not fail during
ceed 4% in SCBF systems for MCE-type events. For example, the near-fault pulse loading, the standard cyclic history is ap-
Uriz 共2005兲 reports median drifts of 5.7 and 5.1% for three- and pended to the pulse protocol.
six-story SCBF frames, respectively, during events with a 2% The drift demands in the loading protocols are converted to
probably of exceedance in 50 years 共referred to as 2 / 50 ground corresponding axial deformations 共for application in the experi-
motions兲. The 4% MCE demand is also consistent with the ca- ments兲 through the following relationship:
pacity of SCBFs as implied by the commentary to the AISC
共2005兲 seismic provisions, which state that “braces could undergo ⌬a = 共cos2 45 ° 兲LB␪ = 0.5LB␪ 共1兲
postbuckling axial deformations 10–20 times their yield deforma-
tion.” Assuming a system yield level drift of approximately 0.3– where ␪ = interstory drift angle 共expressed in radians兲; ⌬a
0.5%, the AISC statement may be conservatively interpreted as = corresponding axial deformation; and LB = distance between the
desiring a drift capacity of approximately 3–5%. fold lines of the gusset plates 共2,985 mm for HSS; 3,010 mm for
The standard 关Fig. 3共a兲兴 loading history is adapted from the pipe and W specimens兲. This relationship is based on a chevron
SAC 共far field兲 loading history for moment frames 共Gupta and brace configuration, assuming center-line dimensions with the
Krawinkler 1999; SAC 2000兲, where first yield is assumed to braces inclined at 45° and ignoring flexural deformations in the
occur at 1% drift and the MCE level drift demand is 4%. To beams and columns. Given that axial deformations are applied to
modify this protocol for braced frames, the cycles at and below the experimental brace specimens, Eq. 共1兲 provides an approxi-
the 1% yield level are scaled based on the assumed onset of brace mate measure to compare the various brace capacities to
buckling at 0.2% drift. Between the brace buckling and MCE earthquake-induced story drifts and does not take into account all
demands, the three sets of cycles of the moment frame protocol affects. For instance, Eq. 共1兲 is based on frame geometry that
are scaled to transition between the drifts of 0.2–4%, as shown in considers center-line dimensions of the chevron frame, neglecting
Fig. 3共a兲. The modifications seek to ensure a relatively consistent the joint size. This effect may be included in Eq. 共1兲 by assuming
number of inelastic damaging cycles that accompany MCE de- a rigid-link distance between the gusset-plate fold lines and the
mands 共Fell et al. 2006兲. working point of the beam-column connection. Following this

22 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 1200 Max. Max.
(a) Force Drift
1099 kN
800 2.7%

Fracture

Force (kN)
400 Initiation
1.7%
(a) (b)
0
Local Loss of
-400 Buckling Tensile
1.9% Global Buckling Strength
θ GB =0.3%, 698 kN 2.5%
-800
(c) (d) -4 -2 0 2 4
Drift (%)
Fig. 4. Typical progression of brace specimen damage 共a兲 global
buckling; 共b兲 local buckling; 共c兲 fracture initiation; and 共d兲 loss of 1200
Max.
tensile strength (b) Force
800 Fracture 1108 kN
Initiation
-1.1% (1.9%) Loss of
reasoning, a modification factor 共1 + C兲 may be introduced in Eq.

Force (kN)
400 Tensile
共1兲, resulting in the following equation, where C = ratio of the Strength
rigid-link length 共on both ends of the brace兲 to the brace length -0.3%
L B: 0 (2.7%)
Max.Drift
-7.0%
⌬a = 共1 + C兲共cos2 ␤兲LB␪ 共2兲 -400 (-4.0%)
Local
Buckling Global Buckling
Owing to the wide-variety of brace, gusset-plate configurations in -2.6% θ GB =1.0%, 529 kN

SCBF construction, it is difficult to prescribe a consistent or pre- -800

cise value for the modification factor C. Recognizing the uncer- -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
tainty in other aspects of this kinematic relationship 共such as the Drift (%)
brace angle ␤兲, and moreover the subjectivity in the characteriza-
tion of the drift demands themselves 共refer earlier discussion兲,
this paper relies on Eq. 共1兲 to relate the brace axial deformation to 1600
Max.
a corresponding drift level. In the presence of these uncertainties, (c) Force
1200
relationships such as the one presented in Eq. 共2兲 may be used to 1299 kN
interpret the data presented in this paper in the context of specific Fracture
800 Initiation
Force (kN)

frame designs, or for examining the sensitivity of the findings to 5.9% (2.9%) Loss of
other geometrical parameters such as the connection size or brace Max. Drift Tensile
400 -1.0% Strength
angle. (-4.0%) 6.4%
0 (3.4%)

Test Results
The summary of test results begins with a qualitative description
of the observed damage states, followed by a general summary of
key data for all 18 tests and an examination of trends with the
various test parameters.
Qualitative Summary of Experimental Response
The typical sequence of events leading up to fracture of an HSS
brace is illustrated in Figs. 4共a–d兲 for test HSS1-1, with the cor-
responding load versus deformation response shown in Fig. 5共a兲.
The initial elastic cycles do not induce any visually observable
deformation in the specimen. The first major limit state is brace
buckling 关Fig. 4共a兲兴 at a drift ratio of about 0.3%, accompanied by
large lateral deformations and flaking of the whitewash paint at
the end gusset plates and near the midpoint of the brace. Upon
further loading, a plastic hinge develops at the midpoint of the
brace, which experiences local buckling 关Fig. 4共b兲兴 at a drift ratio
of about 2%. Subsequently, cyclic loading triggers ductile fracture
initiation 关Fig. 4共c兲兴, which for HSS1-1 occurred after the first
reversed cycle to 2.7%. Soon after initiation, the fracture propa-
gates by ductile tearing through the section 关Fig. 4共d兲兴 leading to
Local
-400 Buckling Global Buckling
0.3% (-2.7%) θ GB =6.8%, 565 kN
-800
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Drift (%)
Fig. 5. Typical brace response for 共a兲 far-field loading 共HSS1-1
shown兲; 共b兲 near-fault compression 共HSS1-2兲; and 共c兲 near-fault ten-
sion 共P1-3兲. Drifts in parentheses are relative to residual drift after
near fault loading. Drifts underlined are reported in Table 3.
a noticeable loss of force capacity in the hysteretic response. In
the square HSS, the buckled face ruptures first at the corners and
then propagates up the sides, leading to complete severance of the
brace and loss of strength. As the imposed story drifts increase up
to 4%, the lateral deformations of the brace become quite
large—on the order of LB / 8 共460 mm兲. It should be noted that
unlike global buckling and strength loss, which can be observed
accurately through sudden drops in the load–deformation plot, the
precise instants of local buckling and fracture initiation are some-
what more subjective to ascertain, as they are inferred through
visual and photographic observations. However, this has a rela-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009 / 23

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 3. Data for Standard 共Far-Field兲 Loading Protocol

Test Pt,max Pc,max ⌬a−GB 共mm兲 ⌬a−LB 共mm兲 ⌬a−FI 共mm兲 ⌬a−SL 共mm兲 ⌺⌬a−SL
P
共mm兲 ⌺ESL
number 共kN兲 共kN兲 共␪GB兲 共%兲a 共␪LB兲 共%兲a 共␪FI兲 共%兲a 共␪SL兲 共%兲a 共⌺␪SL
P
共rad兲兲 Ey

4.5 28 40 40 566
HSS1-1 1,099 698 29.6
共0.3兲 共1.9兲 共2.7兲 共2.7兲 共0.4兲
5.1 32 44 44 587
HSS1-3b 1,134 716 41.1
共0.3兲 共2.1兲 共3.0兲 共3.0兲 共0.4兲
HSS1-4 5.4 40 61 61 787
1,143 863 39.3
共filled兲 共0.4兲 共2.7兲 共4.1兲 共4.1兲 共0.5兲
4.4 76 76 76 1979
HSS2-1 1,548 827 62.5
共0.3兲 共5.0兲 共5.0兲 共5.0兲 共1.3兲
5.0 67 67 67 1986
HSS2-2b 1,610 818 73.5
共0.3兲 共4.5兲 共4.5兲 共4.5兲 共1.3兲
4.5 40 60 60 1011
P1-1 1,072 805 41.8
共0.3兲 共2.7兲 共4.0兲 共4.0兲 共0.7兲
4.5 40 40 61 775
P1-2 1,081 787 35.3
共0.3兲 共2.7兲 共2.7兲 共4.0兲 共0.5兲
4.1 76 76 76 2578
P2-1 587 356 65.3
共0.3兲 共5.0兲 共5.0兲 共5.0兲 共1.7兲
4.1 76 76 76 2319
P2-2 578 374 60.9
共0.3兲 共5.0兲 共5.0兲 共5.0兲 共1.5兲
2.4 76 76 76 5652
W1 1,272 414 81.7
共0.2兲 共5.0兲 共5.0兲 共5.0兲 共3.8兲
a
Values for the limit states of local buckling 共LB兲, fracture initiation 共FI兲 and strength loss 共SL兲 are reported as the maximum value of axial deformation
共⌬a, mm兲 or drift 共␪, %兲 that was sustained by the specimen prior to the limit state.
b
Fast 共earthquake兲 loading rate.

tively minor impact on overall performance assessment, as the
catastrophic event of final fracture and strength loss of the brace
almost immediately follows local buckling and fracture initiation.
Shown in Fig. 5共b兲 is the response of HSS1-2 subjected to the
near-fault compression dominated loading history. In this case,
global buckling occurs at a smaller compressive load 共529 kN for
HSS1-2 as opposed to 698 kN for HSS1-1兲, which is likely due to
the tensile elongation during the initial excursion to 2.0% drift.
Local buckling occurred during the large compressive pulse at a
drift of 2.6%. Subsequent cycling of the already buckled brace
about its residual drift 关refer Fig. 3共b兲兴 did not produce appre-
ciable straining in the plastic hinge region. The brace ultimately
survived 12 cycles of the appended standard cyclic loading his-
tory before fracture initiation at a drift of −1.1%.
As compared to the other loading protocols, the tension domi-
nated near-fault pulse presents a more critical test of net section
fracture at the brace end. Three of the five tension dominated tests
were reinforced at the net-section 共P1-1, P2-3, and W3兲 and sur-
vived the large tension pull, whereas the two pipe sections that
were not reinforced 共P1-4 and P2-4兲 fractured at the net-section
during the initial tension pull. The results of Test P1-1, shown in
Fig. 5共c兲, is typical of the tension-dominated response where net-
section fracture does not occur. The loading history begins with
an initial tensile excursion to 8% drift, followed by a few cycles
of compression and tension loading. The appended standard cy-
clic loading ultimately leads to local buckling and fracture similar
to that described previously in Figs. 4共a–d兲. Being of a different
section type, the pipe section data in Fig. 5共c兲 are not directly
comparable to the HSS results in Figs. 5共a and b兲. However,
compared to other pipe section tests 共P1-1 and P1-2兲, the initial
tension excursion causes a reduction of about 30% in the com-
pression buckling strength 共summarized in Tables 3 and 4兲. This
reduction is larger than the 25% reduction observed between the
two HSS tests 共HSS1-1 and HSS1-2兲, shown in Figs. 5共a and b兲.
Strain hardening during the large tension pulse increases the
maximum tensile strength of test P1-3 by about 20%, relative to
other pipe tests 共P1-1 and P1-2兲.
Quantitative Summary of Data for All Tests
Data for all of the 18 tests are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 for
standard cyclic and near-fault pulse loading, respectively兲, includ-
ing the maximum measured forces, deformation and drift levels
corresponding to key damage states, and total dissipated energy
up to failure. Referring to Table 3, the following data are reported
for the limit states of standard cyclic loading tests: 共1兲 ⌬a-GB
= axial deformation at global buckling, 共2兲 maximum deforma-
tions sustained prior to the occurrence of ⌬a-LB = local buckling,
⌬a-FI = fracture initiation 共both observed visually兲, and ⌬a-SL
= strength loss 共3兲 drift levels as per Eq. 共1兲 for each of these
events 共␪GB , ␪LB , ␪FI , ␪SL兲, 共4兲 兺⌬a-SL
P
= cumulative plastic defor-
mation and the corresponding cumulative plastic drift 共兺␪SL P
兲 sus-
tained prior to strength loss; and 共5兲 兺ESL / Ey = normalized
dissipated energy, i.e., the summation of energy dissipated up to
the point of strength loss normalized by the tension yield energy
共calculated as the product of the measured yield strength and the
yield displacement兲. For example, referring to Fig. 5共a兲 and Table
3, HSS1-1 experiences global buckling at ␪GB = 0.3%, local buck-
ling at the peak drift of 1.9% during the second compression
cycle to 1.9%, fracture initiation at a drift of 1.7% during the
second tension cycle to 2.7%, and strength loss at a drift of 2.5%
during the second cycle to 2.7%. Note that in Table 3 the maxi-
mum drifts for ␪FI and ␪SL are both reported as 2.7%, as this is the
maximum drift that is sustained prior to fracture initiation and
strength loss. Local buckling occurred on the first compressive
cycle to 1.9%, thus in this case, the drift at the instant of buckling
is the maximum drift sustained by the brace to that point. In cases
where the specimen survives the standard protocol 关Fig. 3共a兲兴, the

24 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 4. Data for Near-Field 共NF兲 Pulse Loading Protocol
Appended standard
NF loadinga loadinga

Test Pt,max Pc,max ⌬a 共mm兲 ⌺⌬a−SL

P
共mm兲 ⌺ESL
number 共kN兲 共kN兲 Event 关␪ 共%兲兴 Event ⌬a 共mm兲 关␪ 共%兲兴 关⌺␪SL
P
共rad兲兴 Ey

Near fault compression pulse loading

−38 FI 28 共1.9兲 1580
HSS1-2 1,108 529 LB 19.3
共−2.6兲 SL 59 共4.0兲 共1.1兲
LB 76 共5.0兲
HSS1-5 −90 3040
1,170 605 None, survived pulse of FI 76 共5.0兲 52.2
共filled兲 共−6.0兲 共2.0兲
SL 76 共5.0兲
−68 FI 76 共5.0兲 3571
W2 1,277 365 LB 36.4
共−4.5兲 SL 93 共6.2兲 共2.4兲
Near fault tension pulse loading
41 共2.7兲
2342
P1-3 1,299 565 61 共4.0兲 52.7
共1.6兲
61 共4.0兲
LB 73 共4.9兲
+120 3470
P2-3 663 254 None, survived pulse of FI 73 共4.9兲 67.1
共+8.0兲 共2.3兲
SL 73 共4.9兲
59 共3.9兲
12,078
W3 1,437 334 59 共3.9兲 95.0
共8.0兲
78 共5.2兲
+98 91
P1-4 1,241 — — — 14.7
共+6.5兲 共0.1兲
FI/SL at net section
+76 70
P2-4 641 — — — 14.5
共+5.1兲 共0.05兲
a
Limit states observed during the standard, far-field loading protocol that is appended to the near-field loading are reported in terms of drift ratios measured
relative to the residual drift of ⫾3% that existed at the end of the near-field loading 共see Fig. 3兲. Otherwise, the values are described in the same way as
for those reported in Table 3 for the standard 共far-field兲 loading.

cycles at 5% drift were repeated. For example, the W-shape speci-
men 共W1兲 sustained 14 cycles at 5% drift prior to fracture initia-
tion. These maximum values by themselves may not provide a
complete description of the brace performance, as they do not
incorporate information regarding the loading history. In this con-
text, an examination of the cumulative plastic deformation or en-
ergy dissipation provides a better relative performance
assessment, although it is difficult to compare these quantities
directly to imposed seismic demands that are typically expressed
as peak drifts. Thus, the maximum values of sustained drift 共and
axial deformation兲 are used for discussion, mainly due to their
simplicity and convenience of interpretation with respect to sys-
tem level drift demands. Refer to Fell et al. 共2006兲 and Fell
共2008兲 for detailed documentation regarding the instants 共during
the loading histories兲 of local buckling, fracture initiation and
strength loss limit states.
Referring to the near-fault loading data of Table 4, all of the
specimens except for P1-4 and P2-4 survived the near-fault load-
ing without fracture, and only HSS1-2 and W2 experienced local
buckling during the large compression pulse. The drift at global
buckling is not reported for the near fault cases, as the buckling
drift is not unique and depends on the prior loading history 关e.g.,
see Figs. 5共b and c兲兴. Drifts for damage states reached during the
appended standard cyclic loading protocol are reported as relative
values, with the datum being the residual drift at the end of the
near-fault loading. Referring to Figs. 3共b and c兲, the near-fault
residual drift was 3% in either the positive 共tension兲 or negative
共compression兲 sense. Referring to HSS1-2 关Fig. 5共b兲 and Table 4兴,
local buckling occurred during the large near-fault compression
pulse at −2.6% drift. Fracture initiation and strength loss did not
occur until well into the subsequent standard cyclic loading,
where fracture initiation occurred at 1.9% drift during the first
tension cycle to 1.9% drift and strength loss occurred at 2.7%
drift during the first tension cycle to 4% drift. Having already
survived the first compression cycle to 4% drift, the maximum
value for ␪SL is listed as 4%.
Referring to Table 3, lateral brace buckling 共global buckling兲
occurs at 0.3% for most of the specimens, with slenderness values
ranging from KLB / r = 63– 80. The buckling drift is lower 共0.2%兲
for the more slender W-shape brace with KLB / r = 153 and larger
共0.4%兲 for the grout-filled HSS brace. These values are generally
consistent with previous studies 共e.g., Tremblay 2000兲.
Compared to global buckling, larger variations were observed
among drifts at local buckling, which indicates the sensitivity of
the local buckling limit state to the cross-sectional shape, width–
thickness ratio, and grout fill. For the standard loading 共Table 3兲,
the maximum drifts at local buckling ranged from 1.9 to 5%,
where the larger resistance was observed in the more stocky HSS
and pipe sections and the W-section. Local buckling occurred at
larger drifts for the near-fault compressive dominated cases
共HSS1-2, HSS1-5, and W2 in Table 4兲. For example, comparing
HSS1-1 and HSS1-2, the initiation of local buckling occurred at
1.9% drift under standard loading and 2.6% under the near-fault
pulse. Similarly, comparing HSS1-4 and HSS1-5, local buckling
for the grout-filled HSS initiated at 2.7% drift under standard
loading and survived a 6% drift pulse during the near-fault
loading.
In general, fracture initiation and strength loss closely follow
local buckling, where fracture initiation and loss of strength oc-
curred between 2.7 and 5.0% drifts. In this context, Fig. 6 further
illustrates the dependence of brace fracture on local buckling
共tests with connection failure, i.e., P1-4 and P2-4, are not shown兲.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009 / 25

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 100 6
(a) HSS1 (Grout Fill)

HSS1
ΣEFI/EY = 0.99ΣELB/EY + 10.5

Fracture Drift (%)

4 HSS2
ΣEFI/EY

P1
50 HSS1 (Grout Fill)
P2
HSS1
2
HSS2 W
P1
P2 (a)
W 0
0 0 1 2
0 50 100 Width-Thickness Ratio/AISC Limit
ΣELB/EY
100
100 HSS1 (Grout Fill)

(b) HSS1

HSS2
ΣESL/EY = 1.01ΣEFI/EY + 3.8

ΣE/EY
P1
50
ΣESL/EY

P2
50 HSS1 (Grout Fill)
W
HSS1
HSS2 Connection
P1 Failure (b)
P2 0
W 0 1 2
0 Width-Thickness Ratio/AISC Limit
0 50 100
ΣEFI/EY Fig. 7. Effect of width–thickness ratio on 共a兲 maximum drift at frac-
ture initiation; 共b兲 normalized dissipated energy
Fig. 6. Energy dissipated prior to 共a兲 fracture initiation versus local
buckling; 共b兲 strength loss versus fracture initiation
Effect of Test Variables on Limit States and Design
Implications

Fig. 6共a兲 plots the normalized energy dissipated prior to local
buckling versus a similar quantity for fracture initiation. From
Fig. 6共a兲 共and the associated linear regression fit between the local
buckling and fracture energies兲, it is interesting to observe that
when all brace specimens and loading histories are considered,
fracture initiation succeeds local buckling after a relatively con-
stant interval= 10.5, measured in terms of normalized dissipated
energy. A similar trend is observed between fracture initiation and
strength loss 关see Fig. 6共b兲兴 such that strength loss succeeds frac-
ture by a constant interval= 3.8 共again in terms of normalized
dissipated energy兲. Thus, the key observation is that once local
buckling occurs, fracture initiation and strength loss occur soon
after. Although the “lag” between any two of these limit states is
relatively constant, strength loss appears to follow fracture initia-
tion quite quickly, in contrast to a slightly larger separation be-
tween local buckling and fracture initiation.
As observed for local buckling, the near-fault pulse loading
was not as damaging as the standard cyclic loading, where all of
the tests sustained the pulse loading without fracture initiation.
The fracture endurance 共especially dissipated energy兲 for mem-
bers subjected to the standard cyclic loading after the compres-
sion pulse was similar to that observed under the standard cyclic
loading alone. Alternatively, the endurance of specimens that
were subjected to the tension dominated pulse was improved,
largely due to the residual tension elongation in the specimens.
Although the previous section summarized general trends and ob-
servations with respect to all the experiments, this section inves-
tigates the effects of cross-section geometry, width–thickness
ratio, slenderness ratio, loading rates, and histories on brace per-
formance. To provide a more meaningful discussion of brace ca-
pacity in the context of expected demands, the experimental
results are compared to an assumed 2% design drift and a 4%
MCE event level drift. Recall the prior discussion that presented
the rationale for using 4% as an approximate measure of MCE
drift 共2 / 50 ground motions兲. On similar lines 共and based on data
from Sabelli 2000; Uriz 2005; McCormick 2007兲 a value of 2%
drift is considered indicative of the mean demands expected in
10/ 50 ground motions. However, it should be recognized that
these values are largely subjective, and a rigorous system perfor-
mance assessment is needed to accurately establish acceptability
criteria for braces. Such an assessment is outside the scope of this
paper.
Effect of Width to Thickness Ratios
Referring again to Fig. 4共b兲, brace fracture is driven by the am-
plified local strains induced by the interactive effects of global
and buckling during reversed cyclic loading. The drifts at fracture
initiation and the normalized energy dissipation capacity are plot-
ted versus the normalized width–thickness ratios in Fig. 7 and

26 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 6
Fracture Drift (%)
4 HSS2
2 cross sections; and 共d兲 filled HSS
0 b兲 suggest that a reduction to about three-fourths of the current
0 1
Slenderness Ratio/AISC Limit
100
ΣE/EY
50
Connection
Failure
0 As the LB / r slenderness increases, the brace buckling is more
0 1
Slenderness Ratio/AISC Limit
Fig. 8. Effect of slenderness ratio on 共a兲 maximum drift at fracture
initiation; 共b兲 normalized dissipated energy
versus global slenderness in Fig. 8. The horizontal lines drawn at
4 and 2% drift 关Figs. 7共a兲 and 8共a兲兴 are considered to represent the
minimum required and design drift capacities of SCBF systems,
respectively. As the fracture ductility is known to be controlled by
a combination of slenderness and width–thickness ratios 共Tang
and Goel 1989兲, one should be mindful that the trends in the plots
of Figs. 7 and 8 are interrelated.
Within each cross-section type, the tendency for local buckling
and fracture initiation increases with increasing width–thickness
ratios, resulting in reduced drift capacity at fracture. The two HSS
sections with similar slenderness ratios and varying width–
thickness ratios 共HSS1-1, HSS1-3, HSS2-1, and HSS2-2, shown
by the hollow squares in Fig. 7兲 provide the most direct evidence
of the relationship between section compactness and fracture duc-
tility. In this case, the reduction in width–thickness ratio by 40%
resulted in about a 65% increase in fracture drift capacity and a
90% increase in energy dissipation capacity. Similar trends are
observed when comparing the pipe sections 共P2-1, P2-2, P1-2,
and P1-3, shown by circles in Fig. 7兲, where a 25% reduction in
the diameter to thickness ratio increased the fracture drift capacity
by 50% and energy dissipation by about 60%.
Although all of the HSS and pipe braces are well below the
compactness limits of the AISC SCBF provisions, the drift ca-
pacities of the less compact cross sections do not meet the accep-
tance criteria of 4% drift. The average drift at fracture initiation is
equal to 2.9% for the HSS1 section and 3.4% for the P1 共pipe兲
section. These results suggest that the current AISC SCBF com-
pactness limits for HSS and pipe sections may be unconservative
Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
HSS1 (Grout Fill)
HSS1
(a) (b) (c) (d)
P1
P2 Fig. 9. Local buckling shapes for 共a兲 HSS; 共b兲 pipe; 共c兲 wide flanged
W
(a)
and, in the least, warrant further review. The data in Figs. 7共a and
2 3 compactness limits for HSS and Pipe sections would achieve a
drift capacity of 4%. On the other hand, if one considers the 2%
interstory drift 共corresponding to design events兲, all but one
共HSS1 during the near-fault compression history兲 of the 18 braces
survive this drift without fracture.
HSS1 (Grout Fill)
The W-shape braces exhibit high ductility despite having a
HSS1 flange width–thickness ratio that exceeds the AISC compactness
HSS2
limit by about 5%. This can be attributed in part to the high
slenderness of the specimen, which limits plastic strains in the
P1 central plastic hinge. Perhaps equally significant is that the local
P2 buckling shape in the W-section induces less severe material
strains as compared to the HSS or Pipe sections.
W
(b) Effect of Member Slenderness
2 3 elastic and the smaller cross-section dimensions 共relative to the
brace length兲 lead to smaller strain demands at the central plastic
hinge. Previous studies 共e.g. Jain et al. 1978; Tang and Goel
1989兲 have documented the beneficial effects of increased slen-
derness on brace performance. In fact, some studies have deter-
mined slenderness ratio to be the most important parameter
controlling brace response 共e.g. Lee and Bruneau 2005兲.
Referring to the plot of slenderness ratio versus fracture drift
and dissipated energy in Figs. 8共a and b兲, the data 共particularly of
the pipe braces兲 suggest that fracture ductility increases slightly
with member slenderness. However, as the member slenderness
between tests of a given cross section is not varied as much as the
section compactness, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions about
LB / r slenderness from the data. The large capacities obtained for
the W-shape underscore the effect of slenderness on ductility. De-
spite having a large width–thickness ratio, the high member slen-
derness of the W-shape appears to contribute to its large fracture
resistance.
Effect of Cross-Sectional Shape
Representative inelastic local buckling mode shapes are shown in
Fig. 9 for the three types of cross sections, plus the filled section.
As the local buckling shapes are quite different in form, the re-
sulting strain concentrations that trigger fracture are different as
well. The HSS shapes exhibit severe local buckling and crimping
at the corners that greatly amplifies the local strain 关Fig. 9共a兲兴
leading to fracture at that location. On the other hand, the local
buckling deformations in pipes and W-shapes are more gradual,
leading to a less severe strain gradient at the critical location
关Figs. 9共b and c兲兴. Thus, the pipe and W-sections are inherently
more resilient to local buckling induced fracture. However, a suit-
able combination of slenderness and width–thickness ratios can
mitigate the effects of cross-section geometry. As suggested by
the data in Figs. 7共a and b兲, the HSS section performance im-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009 / 27
proves with reduced width–thickness ratios. Conversely, in spite
of their favorable shape, Pipes with large diameter-thickness ra-
tios and lower slenderness may not provide the required ductility.
Effect of Grout Filling of HSS Specimens
Previous experimental investigations 共Liu and Goel 1988兲 indi-
cate that concrete-filled sections may exhibit higher ductility and
withstand more cycles of reversed loading as compared to hollow
sections. The concrete fill delays local buckling and minimizes
the severity of strain that drives fracture initiation. When local
buckling occurs in concrete-filled tubes, the tubes tend to buckle
outward 关Fig. 9共d兲兴, such that the cyclic strain demands are re-
duced compared to the unfilled section 关Fig. 9共a兲兴.
The effect of grout fill can be seen by comparing HSS1-1 to
HSS1-4 and HSS1-2 to HSS1-5, where HSS1-4 and -5 have high
strength grout fill 共f ⬘c = 41– 55 MPa兲. Referring to Table 3, the
drift at fracture initiation for the filled HSS1-4, ␪FI = 4.1%, is
about 50% larger than for the unfilled HSS1-1; the dissipated
energy for the HSS1-4 is about 20% larger. For the near-fault
compression loading 共Table 4兲, the filled HSS1-5 exhibits a large
共160%兲 increase in drift capacity and 共170%兲 dissipated energy
compared to the unfilled HSS1-2. Although these tests confirm
the beneficial effects of the fill, the degree of improvement is
highly variable and warrants further study, particularly consider-
ing constructability costs and larger cross sections, where size
effects associated with cracking of the grout or concrete fill may
play a role.
Effect of Loading Rate
Two experiments 共HSS1-3 and HSS2-2兲 were conducted at higher
loading rates, comparable to rates that would occur during earth-
quakes, as in contrast to the quasi-static rates used in the other
tests. The earthquake loading rate was based on an assumed elon-
gated period of 0.8 s, for a typical SCBF frame 共Fell et al. 2006兲.
The resulting peak loading excursion rate of 150 mm/ s is about
360 times faster than the slow rate of 0.4 mm/ s 共25 mm/ min兲
used in the other tests.
High loading rates and the associated high strain rates can
induce elevated stresses, due to rate-dependent yielding and strain
hardening behavior 共Anderson 1995兲, which may increase the ten-
dency for brittle cleavage fracture. Conversely, the higher loading
rates may cause a temperature rise in the regions of high localized
strain, which will tend to improve fracture resistance as is evident
in the Charpy energy curve 共e.g., Barsom and Rolfe 1987兲. Thus,
the higher loading rates can have competing adverse and benefi-
cial impacts on fracture ductility, depending on the structural
component geometry, stress constraint, presence of cracks, ambi-
ent temperature, and material properties.
Referring to Table 3, the differences in fracture ductility be-
tween the high and low rate test 共HSS1-1 versus HSS1-3 and
HSS2-1 and HSS2-2兲 are not significant. It should be noted that a
direct comparison of the tests is complicated by problems encoun-
tered with the loading actuator control at the high-rate tests. The
insignificance of loading rate on fracture resistance is consistent
with the fact that the brace fractures occur due to ductile tearing
in regions of relatively low constraint, such that the modest ef-
fects of loading rate and temperature change 共for the ranges con-
sidered兲 do not significantly alter the fracture mechanisms. In
addition to the observed fracture response, thermocouples in-
stalled on the surface of the braces provide a comparison of tem-
perature rise in the high-rate tests. The maximum recorded brace
28 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009
Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
surface temperature for the high-rate test, HSS2-2, was 93° C,
compared to the 33° C reading during a quasi-static test, HSS1-2.
As the typical brittle-ductile transition temperatures for mild
structure steels range between −40 and 20° C 共Koteski et al.
2005兲, the temperature increase from 33 to 93° C does little to
affect the ductility of fracture in the brace.
Comparison of Experimental Data to Commonly
Used Formulas for Predicting Strength and
Stiffness of Bracing Members
Summarized in Table 5 are comparisons of the calculated versus
measured strengths and elastic stiffness for each of the tests along
with statistics for set of tests. As described here, the calculated
strengths are generally determined using the expected material
properties, where the expected yield and ultimate strengths are the
product of RyFy and RuFu, respectively, where Fy and Fu
= minimum specified values and Ry and Ru are as specified in the
AISC Specification 共2005b兲 and the AISC Seismic Provisions
共2005a兲.
The expected compressive strengths, Pc,exp, are calculated
based on the nominal strength provisions of the AISC Specifica-
tion 共2005b兲, except that the expected yield strengths are used and
the effective buckling length was assumed equal to the distance
between the gusset plate fold lines 共Fig. 2; taken as the LB listed
in Table 1兲. For the grout-filled braces, HSS1-4 and HSS1-5, the
fill strength was assumed equal to its nominal specified value of
f ⬘c = 48 MPa. Overall, the ratio of measured to calculated expected
compressive strengths is 1.23 with a standard deviation of 0.31.
The expected compressive strengths are, in general, smaller than
the experimental buckling loads where the wide-flange results
tend to show the greatest error, ranging from 34 to 66% above
expected strengths.
The expected tensile yield, Py,exp, and ultimate, Pu,exp, brace
strengths are calculated as the simple product of the expected
material strengths times the gross section area. The average ratio
of the maximum measured strength to the expected yield strength
is 1.14 with a standard deviation of 0.07. In some cases 共e.g., test
W3兲, the measured strength is up to 1.25 times the expected yield
strength, which, although conservative from the perspective of
member design, can be unconservative for determining capacity
design requirements for connections. The average ratio of the
measured strength to the expected ultimate strength is 0.92 with a
standard deviation of 0.08. On average, an improved estimate of
the expected brace strength would be to use an average of the
expected yield and ultimate strengths, i.e., Pmax = 0.5共RyFy
+ RtFu兲Ag. Using this measure, the ratio of the maximum experi-
mental brace forces to this capacity measure is 1.01 with a stan-
dard deviation of 0.08兲.
The initial elastic stiffness is calculated by the standard for-
mula, Kel = EAg / L, where E = 200 GPa 共29,000 ksi兲; Ag = nominal
brace area, and L = brace length 共measured from end-to-end of the
gusset plates兲. For the grout-filled braces, the fill stiffness is cal-
culated as 69 kN/ mm. Overall, the measured to calculated stiff-
nesses are within 4% of each other, with a standard deviation of
0.11 due to the overestimation of the grout-filled brace stiffness.
The other slight variations are presumably due to simplifications
made in modeling the gusset plates regions.
Table 5. Comparison of Brace Strength and Stiffness
Test Pc,exp Py,exp Pu,exp Kel
number 共kN兲 R Pc 共kN兲 R Py 共kN兲 R Pu 共kN/mm兲 RKel
HSS1-1 550 1.27 965 1.14 1130 0.97 144 1.13
HSS1-2 0.96 1.15 0.98 1.13
HSS1-3 1.30 1.18 1.00 1.11
HSS1-4 695 1.24 965 1.18 1130 1.01 213 0.77
HSS1-5 0.87 1.21 1.04 0.78
HSS2-1 750 1.10 1370 1.13 1601 0.97 204 1.06
HSS2-2 1.09 1.18 1.01 0.90
P1-1 774 1.04 1072 1.00 1379 0.78 182 1.07
P1-2 1.02 1.01 0.78 1.04
P1-3 0.73 1.21 0.94 1.12
P1-4 N/A 1.16 0.90 1.08
P2-1 236 1.51 556 1.06 716 0.82 94 1.09
P2-2 1.58 1.04 0.81 1.07
P2-3 1.07 1.19 0.93 1.12
P2-4 N/A 1.15 0.89 1.12
W1 224 1.85 1152 1.10 1499 0.85 199 1.00
W2 1.63 1.11 0.85 1.08
W3 1.49 1.25 0.96 1.04
Average 1.23 1.14 0.92 1.04
Standard deviation 0.31 0.07 0.08 0.11

Continuum Finite-Element Analysis and vinde and Deierlein 共2004, 2007兲. Further, the simulations pro-
Micromechanical Models to Generalize Experimental vide interesting insights into various damage mechanisms. For
Findings example, the simulation illustrated in Fig. 10 indicates that al-
though the strains in the cross section due to global buckling and
Although the brace test data provide valuable insights into the bending alone are on the order of 0.02, the strains induced
brace buckling and fracture behavior, it is difficult to generalize through the HSS wall thickness by local buckling are more than
the experimental findings as 共1兲 the tests cover only a limited an order of magnitude larger 共⬇0.6兲, thereby underscoring the
range of parameters and configurations and 共2兲 in and of them- importance of delaying or mitigating local buckling through
selves, the tests provide limited data to quantify the localized lower width–thickness ratios.
stress and strain combinations that trigger fracture and fatigue. The writers are currently using such models to extend and
Thus, analytical simulations are necessary to generalize the data; generalize the findings of the brace tests through parametric stud-
for example, to develop quantitative relationships between vari- ies of key design parameters to investigate the interactive effects
ous parameters 共such as slenderness and width–thickness ratios兲 of brace slenderness, section compactness 共width–thickness ra-
and fracture ductility.
Continuum-based models 共Kanvinde and Deierlein, 2004,
2007兲 that simulate the micromechanisms of fracture and ultralow
cycle fatigue can be applied to study the braces where fracture is
associated with large scale yielding under reversed cyclic loading.
The application of these models requires accurate modeling of
stress and strain histories, particularly in the highly strained re-
gions with the braces that experience local buckling. Continuum
finite-element analyses, such as shown in Fig. 10 and conducted
using standard finite-element software 共e.g., HKS 1998兲 can be
applied for this purpose. The large deformation simulations em-
ploy solid continuum hexahedral elements, and cyclic inelastic
plasticity which employs the Mises yield surface and combines
isotropic and kinematic hardening 共Lemaitré and Chaboche
1990兲. The multiaxial plasticity model is calibrated based on
uniaxial tensile coupon tests. The shape of the global imperfection
is based on the elastic buckling mode of the member, whereas the
amplitude is determined based on actual measurements of imper-
fections, as per procedures suggested by Schafer and Pekoz
共1998兲. The resulting simulations result in an accurate resolution
of the stresses and strains at the local buckle 共e.g., Fig. 10兲, from Fig. 10. Continuum finite-element simulation of brace specimens
which ductile fracture initiation is assessed using 关equivalent plastic strain contours 共left兲 and Von Mises contours
micromechanics-based models, such as ones proposed by Kan- 共right兲兴

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009 / 29

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
tios兲, cross-section configurations, and material properties. The
detailed analyses and fundamental fracture models also enable
more thorough assessments of the extent to which sufficient frac-
ture resistance can be achieved through altering the geometric
proportions of the braces versus improving the fracture resistance
of the steel materials. The ultimate goal of these continued studies
is to inform the development of improved seismic design provi-
sions for braces.
Summary
This paper presents findings and design implications based on 18
large scale tests of concentrically loaded steel braces subjected to
earthquake type cyclic loading. The tests are part of a larger
project that has the dual aims of validating and applying new
micromechanics based models to simulate ductile fracture under
cyclic loading and to develop practical behavioral information
and design guidance of steel-braced frames.
The tests, designed to represent typical conditions encountered
in steel-braced frames, complement previous studies by investi-
gating three cross-section types 共HSS, pipe and wide-flanged sec-
tions兲 of varying section compactness and brace slenderness. The
test program also investigates the effects of loading histories,
loading rates, connection reinforcement, and grout filling of HSS
sections.
Qualitatively, the tests all followed a similar sequence of
events leading to failure. Global buckling of the brace 共at dis-
placements corresponding to 0.2–0.4% story drift兲 leads to the
formation of a plastic hinge at the midpoint of the brace. Subse-
quently, local buckles form in the hinge region 共at 2–5% story
drift兲 that amplify the strains and trigger fracture initiation 共at
2–8% story drift兲. Soon after this, the fracture propagates through
the entire cross section, severing the brace. Brace buckling is
accompanied by large out of plane displacements that pose threats
to surrounding architectural enclosures.
One of the main conclusions of this study is that brace fracture
ductility is primarily a function of section compactness and to a
lesser extent member slenderness and loading history. Specifi-
cally, fracture ductility increases with more compact cross sec-
tions and more slender members. Further, the standard loading
protocols 共modeled to represent general or far-field ground mo-
tions兲 are more damaging than loading protocols developed to
represent pulse-like near-field ground motions. The tests further
demonstrate that the local buckles in HSS sections result in more
severe straining of the steel material, leading to fracture initiation
near the corners of the brace. This is in contrast to pipe and
wide-flange sections that exhibit more gradual local buckling
modes that delay fracture initiation.
The tests suggest that the section width–thickness ratios in the
AISC Seismic Provisions 共2005a兲 for HSS and pipe sections may
not result in adequate deformation capacities for seismic design.
HSS members with width–thickness ratios equal to about 90% of
the limiting compactness criteria, and subjected to the general
loading protocol, fractured at drift ratios in the range of 2.7–3.0%.
Pipe members with diameter-to-thickness ratios equal to 60% of
the limit fracture at drift ratios of 2.7%. Although the drifts
achieved by these members are larger than the approximate de-
sign level drift of 2%, they are smaller relative to the 4% drift
demand criteria implied by several previous investigations and
current design requirements. On the other hand, W-shape braces,
which slightly violated the compactness criteria, sustained drift
30 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009
Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
ratios of up to 5%. These results are sensitive to loading history,
as the endurance for all of the braces increased considerably 共up
to two or three times兲 when subjected to the near-fault loading
protocol that subjected the braces to fewer reverse loading cycles.
Tests to investigate the effect of loading rate on fracture perfor-
mance demonstrated essentially no difference in response be-
tween quasi-static and earthquake loading rates.
Tests of braces filled with high-strength grout fill did not in-
crease the fracture capacity as much as expected. As expected, the
grout fill postponed local buckling and increased the fracture re-
sistance by about 160% in the near-fault tests, whereas only a
modest increase in drift ratio 共50%兲 was observed in the far-field
tests. Thus, the effectiveness of grout fill to improve braced frame
performance warrants further study.
Comparison of measured and calculated strengths for brace
strength and stiffness generally confirm expectations and the le-
gitimacy of standard assumptions. In particular, ratios of mea-
sured compressive buckling strengths to calculated strengths
共using the standard AISC column curve equation and expected
yield strengths with Ry factors specified by AISC兲 have a mean
value of 1.23 and a standard deviation of 0.25. Ratios of mea-
sured tensile strengths are estimated fairly well by the average of
the expected yield and ultimate brace strengths 共calculated using
RyFy and RtFu values specified by AISC兲 with a mean value of
1.01 and a standard deviation of 0.08.
Future studies are underway by the writers to extend this ex-
perimental study through detailed finite-element simulations that
employ micromechanical models to assess ductile fracture under
cyclic loading. These models will provide improved quantitative
understanding of the interactive effects of local and overall buck-
ling, loading rate, and material toughness that will permit the
development of improved seismic design provisions for steel
braces.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation
共NSF Grant CMS 0421492兲, the George E. Brown Jr. Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation 共NEES兲, and the Structural
Steel Educational Council 共SSEC兲. The advice and guidance of
Helmut Krawinkler 共Stanford University兲, Charles Roeder
共University of Washington兲, Walterio López, and Mark Saunders
共Rutherford and Chekene兲 is greatly appreciated. In addition, the
knowledgeable support of the UC Berkeley NEES lab personnel
including Shakhzod Takhirov, Donald Patterson, Donald Clyde,
David MacLam, and Jose Robles was extremely important in the
experimental aspect of this study. The writers also acknowledge
support from the John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center
at Stanford University and the University of California, Davis.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ag ⫽ cross-sectional area of steel brace 共mm2兲;
b ⫽ width of square HSS 共mm兲;
b f ⫽ width of flange 共mm兲;
C ⫽ ratio of rigid-link length 共defined by joint
size兲 to brace the length, LB;
D ⫽ diameter of PipeSTD section 共mm兲;
 E ⫽ modulus of elasticity of steel, E = 200 GPa; References
Ey ⫽ tension yield energy;
Fu ⫽ maximum specified ultimate stress of steel American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲. 共2005a兲. Seismic provi-
共AISC 2005a兲 共MPa兲; sions for structural steel buildings, Chicago.
Fu,meas ⫽ measured ultimate stress of steel 共MPa兲; American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲. 共2005b兲. Steel construc-
Fy ⫽ minimum specified yield stress of steel 共AISC tion manual, 13th Ed., Chicago.
2005a兲 共MPa兲; Anderson, T. L. 共1995兲. Fracture mechanics, 2nd Ed., CRC Press, Boca
Fy,meas ⫽ measured yield stress of steel 共MPa兲; Raton, Fla.
f ⬘c ⫽ specified compressive stress of cement 共MPa兲; Astaneh-Asl, A. 共1998兲. “Seismic behavior and design of gusset plates.”
K ⫽ effective length factor; SteelTIPS, technical information and product service, Structural Steel
Kel ⫽ expected brace stiffness 共kN/mm兲; Educational Council, Moraga, Calif.
LB ⫽ brace length 共mm兲; Barsom, J. M., and Rolfe, S. T. 共1987兲. Fracture and fatigue control in
structures—Applications of fracture mechanics, Prentice-Hall, Engle-
Pc,exp ⫽ expected critical buckling force 共kN兲;
wood Cliffs, N.J.
Pc,max ⫽ maximum experimental brace force in Fell, B. V. 共2008兲. “Large-scale testing and simulation of earthquake-
compression 共kN兲; induced ultra low cycle fatigue in bracing members subjected to cy-
Pmax ⫽ average of expected yield, Py,exp, and ultimate clic inelastic buckling.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California, Davis, Calif.
force, Pu,exp 共kN兲; Fell, B. V., Kanvinde, A. M., Deierlein, G. G., Myers, A. M., and Fu, X.
Pt,max ⫽ maximum experimental brace force in tension 共2006兲. “Buckling and fracture of concentric braces under inelastic
共kN兲; cyclic loading.” SteelTIPS, technical information and product service,
Pu,exp ⫽ expected ultimate force 共kN兲; Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, Calif.
Py,exp ⫽ expected yield force 共kN兲; Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H. 共1999兲. “Prediction of seismic demands
RKel ⫽ ratio of experimental brace stiffness to Kel; for SMRFs with ductile connections and elements.” SAC Background
R Pc ⫽ ratio of maximum experimental brace force in Document, Rep. No. SAC/BD-99/06, SAC Steel Project, Sacramento,
compression to Pc,exp; Calif.
R Pu ⫽ ratio of maximum experimental brace force in Han, S.-W., Kim, W. T., and Foutch, D. A. 共2007兲. “Seismic behavior of
HSS bracing members according to width-thickness ratio under sym-
tension to Pu,exp;
metric cyclic loading.” J. Struct. Eng., 133共2兲, 264–273.
R Py ⫽ ratio of maximum experimental brace force in
Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen, Inc. 共HKS兲. 共1998兲. ABAQUS user’s
tension to Py,exp;
manual, version 5.8, Providence, R.I.
Rt ⫽ ratio of expected ultimate strength to the
Izvernari, C., Lacerte, M., and Tremblay, R. 共2007兲. “Seismic perfor-
specified ultimate strength, Fu; mance of multi-storey concentrically braced steel frames designed
Ry ⫽ ratio of expected yield strength to the according to the 2005 Canadian Seismic Provisions.” Proc., 9th Ca-
specified yield strength, Fy; nadian Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Canadian Association of
r ⫽ governing radius of gyration 共mm兲; Earthquake Engineering, Ottawa.
t ⫽ design wall thickness of HSS or PipeSTD Jain, A. K., Goel, S. C., and Hanson, R. D. 共1978兲. “Inelastic response of
cross section 共mm兲; restrained steel tubes.” J. Struct. Div., 104共6兲, 897–910.
t f ⫽ thickness of flange 共mm兲; Kanvinde, A., and Deierlein, G. G. 共2004兲. “Micromechanical simulation
␤ ⫽ brace inclination angle 共deg兲; of earthquake induced fractures in steel structures.” Blume Center
⌬a ⫽ brace axial deformation 共mm兲; TR145, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif.
⌬a-FI ⫽ axial deformation corresponding to fracture Kanvinde, A. M., and Deierlein, G. G. 共2007兲. “A cyclic void growth
initiation 共mm兲; model to assess ductile fracture in structural steels due to ultra low
⌬a-GB ⫽ critical buckling axial deformation 共mm兲; cycle fatigue.” J. Eng. Mech., 133共6兲, 701–712.
⌬a-LB ⫽ axial deformation corresponding to local Koteski, N., Packer, J. A., and Puthli, R. S. 共2005兲. “Notch toughness of
buckling 共mm兲; internationally produced hollow structural sections.” J. Struct. Eng.,
131共2兲, 279–286.
⌬a-SL ⫽ axial deformation corresponding to strength
Lee, K., and Bruneau, M. 共2005兲. “Energy dissipation of compression
loss 共mm兲;
members in concentrically braced frames: Review of experimental
␪ ⫽ story drift 共%兲; data.” J. Struct. Eng., 131共4兲, 552–559.
␪FI ⫽ story drift corresponding to fracture initiation Lemaitré, J., and Chaboche, J.-L. 共1990兲. Mechanics of solid materials,
共%兲; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
␪GB ⫽ critical buckling story drift 共%兲; Liu, Z., and Goel, S. C. 共1988兲. “Cyclic load behavior of cement-filled
␪LB ⫽ story drift corresponding to local buckling tubular braces.” J. Struct. Eng., 114共7兲, 1488–1506.
共%兲; McCormick, J., DesRoches, R., Fugazza, D., and Auricchio, F. 共2007兲.
␪SL ⫽ story drift corresponding to strength loss “Seismic assessment of concentrically braced steel frames with shape
共%兲; memory alloy braces.” J. Struct. Eng., 133共6兲, 862–870.
兺EFI ⫽ cumulative energy dissipation prior to brace Popov, E. P., and Black, R. G. 共1981兲. “Steel struts under severe cyclic
fracture initiation; loading.” J. Struct. Div., 107共9兲, 1857–1881.
兺ELB ⫽ cumulative energy dissipation prior to brace Sabelli, R. 共2000兲. Research on improving the design and analysis of
local buckling; earthquake resistant steel braced frames, FEMA/EERI, Washington,
兺ESL ⫽ cumulative energy dissipation prior to brace D.C.
SAC. 共2000兲. “Loading histories for seismic performance testing of
strength loss;
SMRF components and assemblies.” SAC/BD-00/10, SAC Joint Ven-
兺⌬a-SL
P
⫽ cumulative plastic deformation prior to brace ture, Sacramento, Calif.
strength loss 共mm兲; and Schafer, B. W., and Pekoz, T. 共1998兲. “Computational modeling of cold
兺␪a-SL
P
⫽ cumulative plastic drift angle prior to brace formed steel: Characterizing geometric imperfections and residual
strength loss 共rad兲. strains.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 47共3兲, 193–210.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009 / 31

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Shaback, B., and Brown, T. 共2003兲. “Behavior of square hollow structural
steel braces with end connections under reversed cyclic axial load-
ing.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 30共4兲, 745–753.
Tang, X., and Goel, S. C. 共1989兲. “Brace fractures and analysis of phase
I structures.” J. Struct. Eng., 115共8兲, 1960–1976.
Tremblay, R. 共2000兲. “Influence of brace slenderness on the seismic re-
sponse of concentrically braced steel frames.” Behavior of Steel Struc-
tures in Seismic Areas: Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. STESSA, F. M. Mazzolani
and R. Tremblay, eds., Balkema, Montreal, 527–534.
Tremblay, R. 共2002兲. “Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing mem-
bers.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 58共5兲, 665–701.
Uriz, P. 共2005兲. “Towards earthquake resistant design of concentrically
32 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009
Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
braced steel structures.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
Calif.
Uriz, P., and Mahin, S. A. 共2004兲. “Seismic performance assessment of
concentrically braced steel frames.” Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earth-
quake Engineering, Pergamon, Oxford, England.
Whitmore, R. E. 共1950兲. “Experimental investigation of stresses in gusset
plates.” Masters’ thesis, University of Tennessee Engineering Experi-
ment Station Bulletin No. 16, Knoxville, Tenn.
Yang, F., and Mahin, S. 共2005兲. “Limiting net section fracture in slotted
tube braces.” SteelTIPS, technical information and product service,
Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, Calif.