Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Cyclic loading test of double K-braced reinforced concrete frame

subassemblies with buckling restrained braces
Zhe Qu a,⇑, Jinzhen Xie a, Tao Wang a, Shoichi Kishiki b
a
Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Yanjiao, Sanhe, Hebei 065201, China
b
Structural Engineering Research Center, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Nagatsuta, Midori, Yokohama 226-8503, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although the unbalanced brace force at the mid-length of columns discourages the use of K- or double K-
Received 4 July 2016 bracing in concentrically braced frames, this limitation needs re-evaluation when K- or double K-bracing
Revised 22 December 2016 is implemented in buckling restrained braced frames. Unlike ordinary steel braces, buckling restrained
Accepted 14 February 2017
braces (BRBs) exhibit almost identical behavior in tension and compression, and to arrange BRBs in a dou-
ble K configuration may provide an efficient solution of connecting BRBs to reinforced concrete members
by exempting the steel-to-concrete interface from unfavorable tensile force. Three 1/2-scaled one-story
Keywords:
one-span subassemblies were subjected to cyclic loading to examine the above idea. Two of the speci-
Double K-braced frames
Seismic damage
mens were braced by BRBs in double K configuration, whilst the other was a bare frame for comparison.
Buckling restrained brace During the test, the BRBs performed as intended in both tension and compression. The RC frames in the
Steel-to-concrete connections braced specimens were only moderately damaged at 1% inter-story drift when the BRB cores sustained
Reinforced concrete frame large plastic strain. The damage patterns of the braced RC frames were similar to that of the bare frame
Menegotto-Pinto model throughout the loading process up to 2% inter-story drift. No cracks were observed at the mid-length of
the columns or the mid-span of the beams where the BRBs were connected.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction members to receive the brace gusset connections [11], in some

Developed in late 1980 s in Japan for seismic protection of steel
structures [1,2], buckling restrained braces (BRBs) have been
increasingly used in reinforced concrete (RC) structures as well
during the past decades over the world [3–6]. Although RC
moment-resisting frames exhibit higher lateral stiffness than steel
frames do, the effectiveness of using BRBs to mitigate the seismic
damage to RC frames has been demonstrated through both numer-
ical analyses and experimental tests (e.g., [5,7,8] among many
others).
Nevertheless, there remain several challenges when combining
steel braces with concrete frames. A significant challenge is to
transfer the brace tension force to concrete members which are
weak in tension. Conventional solutions include attaching or
inserting steel braced frames instead of separate braces to RC
frames by extensive anchor bolts. This practice is widely used in
Japan for the seismic retrofit of existing RC frames and efforts have
been made to find ways of reducing the number of anchor bolts to
lower the cost and environmental impact [9,10]. For new construc-
tions, an intuitive solution is to embed some steel parts in concrete
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.quzhe@gmail.com (Z. Qu).
cases even making the RC members into steel reinforced concrete
(SRC) ones [12]. Recently, several innovative solutions were pro-
posed to deal with the unfavorable tension force. Benavent-
Climent et al. [13] proposed to use a pair of shear key plates to hold
the corner gusset of a brace, which is not directly connected to con-
crete. In such a manner, the axial tension force of BRBs is converted
to almost pure shear force before being transmitted to the con-
crete. Similar idea was partially applied by Ichikawa et al. [14] to
separate the tension and shear resistance in the corner gussets of
BRBs in RC frames. Both methods can greatly simplify the local load
transfer around corner gusset connections, thus making the con-
nections more reliable and easier to design.
Another problem comes from the detrimental interaction
between the gusset plate and the frame members, which is usually
referred to as the ‘frame action’ (Fig. 1). Kishiki et al. [15] investi-
gated the stress concentration at the toes of corner gussets in steel
braced frames because of the frame action. Such concentrated
stress may lead to premature fracture of the gusset plate. Chou
and Liu [16] demonstrated in their experimental test that the cor-
ner gusset plate could buckle at much lower story drift than
expected when free-edge stiffeners were absent. Numerical analy-
sis showed that the force in the gusset plate resulting from the
frame action was on the same order as the brace axial force.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.02.040
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14
Gusset plate
Column
Beam
(a)
Fig. 1. Frame action when (a) frame closes and (b) frame opens.
Another side effect of the frame action is the considerable over-
strength in braced frames [17], which may not be properly taken
into account in the design. While specific design methods can be
developed to address the effect of frame action in corner gussets
[18], alternative corner gusset configurations were proposed to
avoid frame action. Ishii et al. [19] anchored the gusset plates of
BRBs to the side surfaces of RC beam ends by post-tensioned steel
rods. Berman and Bruneau [20] proposed an unconstrained gusset
connection for steel constructions, in which the gusset plate is sep-
arated with the column by an intended gap and bolted to the beam
end. This idea was later applied to RC frames with BRBs by Kham-
panit et al. [21] and Qu et al. [22].
To address both the challenges of axial tension force and frame
action, Qu et al. [23] proposed to install BRBs in a zigzag configu-
ration in RC frames and eliminate the RC beams in the braced span
so that the braced span forms a Warren truss. In the zigzag config-
uration, the BRB gusset plates are anchored on the side surfaces of
beam-to-column joints by independent shear and tension resistant
elements. The axial forces of two adjacent BRBs, which share the
same gusset plate, are expected to counteract each other when
the structure deforms laterally, so that the demands for the hori-
zontal resistance of the connection can be greatly reduced or even
eliminated. However, numerical analysis showed that the higher
mode vibration of buildings would lead to significant tension force
on the gusset-to-concrete interface [24].
The double-K bracing as shown in Fig. 2 provides a promising
solution to this problem. Similar to those in zigzag configurations,
the BRBs in a double-K configuration share gusset plates. The two
neighboring braces are always acting in opposite directions, that is,
one in tension and the other in compression. This mechanism is
not influenced by higher mode vibration because it takes place
within a single story. Ideally, when BRBs of the same properties
are used in a single span, there will be little unbalanced tension
RC Beam
RC Column
RC Column
RC Beam
Plastic hinge
Fig. 2. Reinforced concrete frames braced by BRBs in double-K configuration.
Gusset plate
Column
Beam
( b)
force on the gusset plate. As a result, much less studs or post-
installed anchors would be required to transfer the brace axial
force to the concrete. Some unbalanced compression force may rise
from the higher compression strength of BRBs. AISC 341-10 [25]
requires that the BRB compression strength should be no greater
than 1.3 times its tension strength. The same requirement was
included in a Chinese specification for BRBs which is to be pub-
lished soon. This sets an upper limit for the unbalanced compres-
sion force at the mid-length of the beams and columns. Such
compression force may introduce friction to the connection inter-
face, and thus increase the shear capacity of the connection.
In double-K bracing, the gusset connections at the mid-length of
the beams and columns are free of the detrimental ‘frame action’,
and are thus easier to proportion. In addition, the gusset connec-
tions are away from the potential ‘plastic hinges’ at the RC beam
ends, and therefore the inelastic behavior (e.g., concrete cracking,
rebar yielding) would not interact with the gusset connections in
an unintended manner. For quick construction, the four BRBs and
their gusset plates in a single span can be prefabricated as an inte-
grated energy-dissipating unit ready to be shipped to the site for
on-site installation.
The term ‘K-bracing’ has been used in the past to refer to what
we call inverted V-bracing nowadays e.g. [26]. Nonetheless, AISC
341-02 [27] defines K-braced frame as ‘‘an OCBF (ordinary concen-
trically braced frame) in which a pair of diagonal braces located on
one side of a column is connected to a single point within the clear
column height”. In AISC 341-10 [25], this definition is evolved to ‘‘a
braced-frame configuration in which braces connect to a column at
a location with no out-of-plane support”. By both definition, the
bracing configuration in Fig. 2 falls into the category of K-
bracing. To emphasize that the ‘K’ needs to appear in pair (that
is, four BRBs in a single span) so that the interfacial tension force
can be eliminated, the term ‘double-K’ is used in this paper.
Compression
Shear
 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14
For steel constructions, double K-bracing is prohibited by AISC
341-10 [25] for special concentrically braced frames. This is pri-
marily because the braces intersect at mid-height of the columns
and their unbalanced force may cause the columns to failure, thus
triggering collapse of the building [28]. The same provisions also
prohibit the use of double K-bracing in buckling restrained braced
frame. However, as already mentioned, the unbalanced force of
intersected BRBs should be small.
In the Chinese seismic code [29], there is only a small section
regarding the design requirements for structures with energy dis-
sipating devices, which does not include any restraint for the use of
specific bracing configurations. However, in the section for steel
structures in the same code, it is prohibited to use BRBs in a K-
bracing configuration. Since no detailed explanation is provided
for this restriction, it is deemed to have been strongly influenced
by the AISC provisions.
In Japan, however, it always remains an option to connect
braces within the clear span of columns. As a demonstration of
the ‘‘damage tolerant structure” concept, buckling restrained
braces were installed in the perimeter steel frames of a 40-story
office building in Tokyo [30]. The brace configuration in a single
span was similar to that in Fig. 2 but the two adjacent BRBs did
not intersect at the mid-length of the beams/columns. More
recently, a minimal-disturbance arm damper was proposed in
Japan for the seismic retrofit of existing frames. The damper con-
nects the mid-span of beams with the upper part of column and
thus imposes an additional shear force in the column within its
clear span, whereas the magnitude of this detrimental force on
the column is limited by the strength of the bending plates in
the damper [31].
To assess the seismic performance of double-K braced RC
frames with BRBs, cyclic loading tests were performed on three
subassembly specimens and the preliminary results were reported
by [32]. More detailed discussions on the test results are summa-
rized in this paper, which would provide substantial evidence to
support the use of double-K bracing in RC frames with BRBs. It is
also worth noting that a global plastic mechanism that can activate
more energy dissipating devices is usually preferred for all types of
passively controlled structures including the one with double-K
configured BRBs as discussed herein. Additional design effort such
as those introduced by [7,33] is needed in proportioning the pri-
mary structural components and the energy dissipating devices.
This is beyond the scope of the current discussion but represents
a future research interest.
2. Test program
2.1. Specimens
Three 1/2-scaled RC frame subassemblies were subjected to
cyclic loading with increasing lateral drift amplitudes to assess
the seismic damage to RC frames and the cyclic performance of
BRBs in double-K configuration. Two of the specimens were braced
by BRBs, whereas the other was a bare frame counterpart for com-
parison (Table 1). To simulate the behavior of a middle story in a
multi-story building, the RC part in each subassembly consists of
Table 1
Specimens.
ID Specimen Steel-to-concrete connection
No.1 Bare RC frame –
No.2 Double-K braced RC frame with Embedded shear studs
BRBs
No.3 Double-K braced RC frame with Post-installed chemical
BRBs anchors
3
two beams framing into two columns (Fig. 3). The multi-story
building from which the subassemblies were separated was
assumed to be over 24 m high and locate on a site of Intensity 8
(i.e., the design level spectral acceleration in short period region
Sad = 0.45 g), so that the frames fell into the Seismic Design Cate-
gory I per the Chinese seismic code [29]. The design of the RC parts
conforms to the Chinese code for concrete structures [35], and a
strong column-weak beam concept was applied in proportioning
the beams and columns. In the Chinese seismic code, the sum of
the flexural strength of columns framing into a joint is required
to be no less than 1.2 to 1.7 times the sum of the design strengths
of the beams framing into the same joint for bare moment-
resisting frames, depending on the Seismic Design Category. While
the required amplification factor is 1.7 for bare frames in Category
I, it is allowed by the code to lower it by at most 0.2 if the structural
is protected by additional energy dissipating devices. Therefore, an
amplification factor of no less than 1.5 was adopted in proportion-
ing the specimens of the current test. As a result, the beam flexural
reinforcement ratio is about 1.1%, and the column overall longitu-
dinal reinforcement ratio is 2.7%. Ductile detailing was provided for
both the beams and columns. The intervals of the beam stirrups
and column hoops were reduced by half in the regions close to
the beam-to-column joints. C40 concrete (40 MPa nominal com-
pressive strength of cubes) and HRB400 rebars (400 MPa nominal
yield strength) were used for the RC frames. The measured average
compressive strength of concrete cubes was 49.7 MPa. The mea-
sured yield and ultimate strength of the /14 longitudinal rebars
were 563 MPa and 673 MPa, respectively.
Four identical BRBs were installed in a double-K configuration
in each braced specimen. The BRBs were manufactured by Lead
Dynamic Engineering Co., Ltd., a joint-venture by Nippon Steel
and another two Chinese local companies. The proportioning of
the BRBs was controlled by (1) the brace-to-frame strength ratio
and (2) the ultimate strain of the BRB steel cores. The steel core
was made of 10 mm thick steel plate of Chinese Q235 steel
(commonly-used structural steel of 235 MPa nominal yield
strength). The nominal axial strength (including an assumed 1.5
times over-strength because of strain hardening) of each BRB is
200 kN so that the additional lateral strength provided by the BRBs
is 338 kN, approximately two times that of the RC frame, which is
167 kN per the nominal material strengths.
While the distance between the intersection points of the BRB
axes is 1595 mm, the length of the plastic segment of the BRB steel
core is 500 mm (Fig. 4). As a result, the strain in the plastic segment
of the BRBs would be approximately 1.7% at 1/100 inter-story drift
assuming that the elastic deformation of the remaining parts of the
BRBs including the connections is negligibly small. It would
become 3.4% at 1/50 inter-story drift. Previous tests on similar
BRBs provided by the same company demonstrated stable hys-
teretic performance of the BRBs at such strain levels [23].
The equivalent axial stiffness of each brace between the two
intersection points is approximately 144.7 kN/mm. The additional
stiffness provided by the braces is thus 122.4 kN/mm, which is
approximately three times that of the bare frame, which is
41.6 kN/mm. The high stiffness of the braces corresponds to a
1/927 inter-story drift ratio when the BRBs first yield (no strain
hardening). Such a yield drift ratio is very small as compared to
that of the bare RC frame, which is estimated to be 1/100 according
to the empirical equation for yield story drift ratio, IDR = 0.5eyLB/hB,
where, ey is the yield strain of rebars, LB and hB are the span length
and sectional height of beams, respectively [34].
The BRBs were bolted to the gusset plates, which were anchored
to the RC beams or columns by two different methods for the two
braced specimens. In one method proposed for new constructions,
M19 shear studs (19 mm in diameter) were welded to the base
plate of the gusset plates, and were embedded in the RC compo-
4 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14

4M16 bolts for CL

connecting jigs Tube 140-5 Core, PL-10

3 50

140

56
Concrete

@
100
300 A-A section (BRB)

4 14
@200

300
@100
2000
1100

4 14
A 200
B-B section (Beam)
A
@
100

C C
300

32.2 B
5 14
@100

300
3 50

x 14
B
5 14
450 900 300
@100 @200
3000 C-C section (Column)

Fig. 3. Specimen geometry and reinforcement (unit: mm).

Polystyrene cushion A B 10

140
56
Intersection Intersection
point 30 A 30 B
680 point
A-A
90

140
90

267 500 267

1035
1595 B-B

Fig. 4. Buckling restrained braces used in test (unit: mm).

nents (Fig. 5(a)). In the other method, /12 post-installed chemical
anchors were used for the connection to simulate applications in
seismic retrofit of existing buildings. In this case, the RC frame
was first cast without the BRB gusset plates and cured for 28 days.
Then the chemical anchors were installed in the /15 holes drilled
in the concrete with epoxy resin, then fit into the tapered holes and
welded to the base plate of gusset base (Fig. 5(b)). Following the
capacity design concept, the number of shear studs and post-
installed anchors were determined by the resultant shear force of
the adjusted BRB strength at the connection interfaces, neglecting
the possible compression or tension force on the interface. The
adjusted BRB strength takes into account 50% strain hardening
for both BRBs connecting to the same gusset plate and another
30% over-strength for the BRB in compression. The design of the
embedded studs conforms to the provisions on composite beams
in the Chinese code for steel structures [36]. The specified yield
strength of studs is 215 MPa, and a strain hardening factor of
1.67 is applied in calculating the stud ultimate strength. The chem-
ical anchor group is designed conforming to the Chinese code for
strengthening concrete structure [37]. The specified shear strength
of the anchor steel is 290 MPa.

60 64 64 550 64 64
50
40

PL10 PL10 18
40

18 12 chemical
80 16 194

110 16 194

PL10 anchor PL10

19 stud

140 140 140 80 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 80
550 200 970 200
(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Connection details for gusset plates on beams: (a) embedded shear studs for new construction applications; (b) post-installed anchors for seismic retrofit applications
(unit: mm).
 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14
2.2. Test setup, loading and measurement
The specimens were mounted on two mechanical pins that
were firmly fastened on the strong floor (Fig. 6 and 7). Two hori-
zontal actuators of 1000 kN capacity were employed to load the
specimens. The upper actuator was displacement-controlled to
impose the desired inter-story drift ratio (IDR) on the specimen,
while the lower actuator was force-controlled to fully counteract
the upper actuator so that the bottom mechanical pins were
waived from excessive shear.Fig. 8
End plates were provided at the far ends of the beams and col-
umns for connections to the loading jigs. The longitudinal rebars
were welded to the end plates. Four M16 high-strength bolts pro-
truded from the outer surface of each end plate, ready to be fas-
tened to the steel loading jigs.
Two spherical-headed oil jacks were employed to exert axial
force through steel jigs on top of the columns. Roller cushions were
installed between the oil jacks and the overhead reaction beam so
that the jacks could move horizontally along with the top of the
columns. The steel jigs fastened to the top of the columns were
restrained by pantographs for out-of-plane stability. Before lateral
loading, the oil jacks applied 482 kN axial compression force to
each of the columns to simulate the gravity load of upper stories.
This corresponds to 20% of the column’s nominal axial strength,
and approximately 16% of its actual axial strength. To simulate
the realistic construction process, the BRBs were not fully fastened
until the dead load was imposed. During the test, the forces in the
oil jacks were constantly adjusted to counteract the overturning
moment resulting from the horizontal loading, so as to maintain
constant axial forces in the lower halves of the columns to protect
the mechanical pins under them.
The additional distributed loads along the beams (e.g., the dead
load of slabs and the live loads) were neglected in the test because
(1) the inclusion of these load would bring about additional com-
plexity of the test setup without making significant difference to
the global behavior of the specimens and (2) these loads would
result in more complicated curvature distributions in the beams,
West
Reaction wall
Reaction beam
Pantograph Roller cushion
Oil jack
780
Displacement-
controlled actuator
2000
870
Force-controlled
actuator Mechanical
pin
630
5
which would make the analysis of the unbalance force of BRBs
more difficult.
Inter-story drift ratios of 1/1200, 1/550, 1/200, 1/100, 1/67 and
1/50 were selected as the target amplitudes for the loading proto-
col (Fig. 7). Among these, IDR = 1/550 and 1/50 are the lateral dift
limits for RC moment-resisting frames at their serviceability and
ultimate limit states, respectively, per the Chinese seismic code
[29]. IDR = 1/200 corresponds to the drift limit stipulated in the
Building Standard Law of Japan for serviceability limit state [38].
It is also the drift limit in Eurocode 8 for damage limitation of RC
frames with brittle nonstructural elements [39]. IDR = 1/100 is usu-
ally taken as an inelastic drift limit for passive-controlled struc-
tures under major earthquakes in Japan’s seismic design practice.
The 1/100 and 1/200 drift limits were adopted in the loading pro-
tocol to explore the specimens’ behavior at more levels of deforma-
tion, although they are not stipulated in the Chinese codes. In
particular, the 1/100 drift ratio is regarded as the performance tar-
get of the archetype structure under major earthquakes. Two
cycles of static loading were performed at each amplitude.
Displacement sensors were used to monitor the deformation of
the specimens. The locations of the sensors are shown in Fig. 9. In
particular, two sensors, namely D1 and D2, are used to monitor the
story drift of the specimen. B1–B8 are for the axial deformation of
the BRBs, R1–R4 are for the end rotations of the lower eastern BRB,
and S1–S4 are for the slip of the four gusset plates of BRBs. In addi-
tion to the displacement sensors, strain gauges were attached to
the outermost longitudinal rebars at three sections (i.e., both ends
and mid-length) of each beam or column. The locations of the sec-
tions are also depicted in Fig. 9.
3. Test results
3.1. Global responses
As shown in Fig. 10, compared to the bare frame specimen
(No.1), the two braced frame specimens exhibited stable and full
hysteresis throughout the loading process up to 1/50 inter-story
drift ratio. The BRBs started to yield at IDR = 1/604 and 1/560 in
East
Oil jack
Oil jack
Pantograph
Mechanical
pin
Strong floor
3000
Fig. 6. Test setup.
6 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14

Fig. 7. Photos of specimens ready for loading: (a) No.1 and (b) No.2.

0.03
1/50
0.02 1/67
1/100
Story drift ratio

0.01 1/200
1/1200 1/550
0

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No. of load cycle

Fig. 8. Loading protocol.

Sections where rebar strains are monitored

Displacement sensors

D2
Strain gauge S3
on rebar

st Up
r we pe
re
pe ast
Up
B3, B4 S2
Beam section B5, B6

R3
Lo t
S4 we
rw eas
est wer
o R4
R1 L
B7, B8
B1, B2
Column section
R2
S1 D1

Fig. 9. Installation of displacement transducers and rebar strain gauges.

the braced frame with shear studs (No.2) and the one with chem-
ical anchors (No.3), respectively. These drift ratios are much larger
than the estimated yield drift ratio of 1/927. This is primarily
because of the local deformation loss at the brace connections,
which will be discussed later in Section 3.4.
On the other hand, the bare frame specimen did not exhibit sig-
nificant yielding until IDR = 1/78 in the negative direction and 1/81
in the positive direction. Rather than the first yielding of rebars
determined by specific strain readings, these yield drift ratios were
identified on the skeleton curve as the points where the tangent
stiffness was degraded significantly (Fig. 10a). For the current test
setup, the drift ratio includes both the deflection of the RC column
and the rotation of the lower beam-to-column joints which is
related to the chord rotation of the beams. In this specific case,
the story drift associated with the beam chord rotation constitutes
 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14 7

No.1 Bare frame No.2 Braced frame + shear studs No.3 Braced frame + chemical anchor
400 1000 1000
Significant yielding 800 800
300
600 600 Lower-east
Story shear (kN)

200 BRB removed

400 400
100 200 200
0 0 0
-100 -200 -200
-400 -400
-200
-600 -600
-300 -800 -800
Significant yielding
-400 -1000 -1000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
(a) Inter-story drift ratio (b) Inter-story drift ratio (c) Inter-story drift ratio
Fig. 10. Force-deformation relationship of specimens: (a) No.1, (b) No.2 and (c) No.3.

approximately 77% of the total story drift when the frame r
rr

r ¼ ð3Þ
remained elastic. r0
rr
For specimen No.3, one of the four BRBs was removed at the where e and r are strain and stress; e0 and r0 are stress and strain at
unloaded point before the last load cycle of IDR = 1/50. Then the the intersection point of the two asymptotes; er and rr are strain
loading was resumed to check the BRB-to-concrete connection per- and stress at the previous strain reversal.
formance when the force balance of BRBs was broken. The hystere- R is further evaluated by Eq. (4) as below.
sis of this last loading cycle is depicted by the dashed line in Fig. 10.  
The only significant phenomenon was that the peak force dropped cR1 n
R ¼ R0 1
ð4Þ
by 21% (from 821.4 kN to 650.2 kN) and 18% (from
895.4 kN to cR2 þ n

693.8 kN) in the positive and negative loading directions, respec-
where R0, cR1 and cR2 are experimentally determined parameters; n
tively. The damage to the concrete members or the steel-to-
is the normalized plastic strain as defined in Eq. (5).
concrete connections were not exacerbated by the removal of the
 
BRB. ep
e0 
The BRBs in a double-K configuration are shorter than in other n ¼  
configurations such as V- or inverted-V bracing. This leads to
shorter plastic segments and consequently larger plastic strain in
the core if the story drift is the same. The results in Fig. 10 show
that the commercially available BRBs used in the current test suc-
cessfully exhibited stable hysteresis. The maximum average strains
in the cores, which were taken as the measured axial deformation
divided by the length of the BRBs’ plastic segments, were approx-
imately 3.6% in specimen No.2 and 3.2% in No.3, where the BRB’s
axial deformation was measured by displacement sensors
B1  B8 as shown in Fig. 6. Since these sensors spanned over the
whole lengths of the BRBs including their elastic segments and
the connections, the above strains are upper-bound values for
the actual strains experienced by the plastic segments.
3.2. BRB hysteresis
For the statically undetermined system of the loading setup, the
axial force of individual BRBs could hardly be directly measured
during the test. To evaluate the force transmitted to the steel-to-
concrete connections, the Menegotto-Pinto model is adopted to
estimate the BRB axial force from the measured axial deformation,
which takes the form of Eq. (1) [40].
ð1
bÞe
r ¼ be þ 1
ð1 þ eR ÞR
where e⁄ and r⁄ are the normalized strain and stress that are calcu-
lated by Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively; b is the strain hardening
ratio; R is a parameter that controls the shape of the transition
curve between the two asymptotes of elastic loading and post-
yield hardening branches.
e
er
e ¼
e0
er
 ð5Þ
ey
where ep and ey are plastic strain and yield strain, respectively.
Filippou et al. [41] proposed a stress shift to consider the isotro-
pic hardening on the basis of the Menegotto-Pinto model. Before
evaluating the intersection point (e0, r0), the yield asymptotes is
first moved parallel to its direction by a stress shift, rst, which is
calculated by Eq. (6).
emax
emin 0:8
rst ¼ a1 ð Þ ð6Þ
2a2 ey
where emax and emin are the absolute maximum and minimum
strains at strain reversal, respectively; a1 and a2 are experimentally
determined parameters.
The above model is referred to as the Steel02 model (Giuffré-
Menegotto-Pinto Model with Isotropic Strain Hardening) in Open-
Sees [42]. To capture the characteristics of BRBs which exhibit
slightly higher strength in compression than in tension, the model
is modified to allow for different sets of strain hardening parame-
ters, b, a1 and a2 for compression and tension.
The model parameters are calibrated against the hysteretic
curve of a uniaxially loaded BRB that was the same as those used
in the present subassembly tests (Fig. 11). With the values of the
parameters as listed in Table 2, the model gives satisfactory esti-
ð1Þ mates of the BRB hysteresis. The deviation between the model
and the test result is slightly larger in compression than in tension.
This is because linear strain hardening with a larger slope in com-
pression was used to approximately model the complicated behav-
ior of compression over-strength of the BRB, which is dependent
on the sectional expansion of the steel core and the friction
between the core and the outer restraining elements.
The axial forces of the BRBs in the subassemblage specimens
ð2Þ during the loading is calculated corresponding to the measured
BRB axial deformations by the above calibrated model. Although
these force results are considered accurate enough for the follow-
8 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14

400

(MPa)
200

Average stress,
-200

-400 Test
Calculated
-600
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Average strain, (mm/mm)
(a)

Calculated Test
200 MPa

200
Maximum error: 8.1% Under-estimated Over-estimated

(b)
Fig. 11. Comparison of model and measured hysteresis of BRB under uniaxial cyclic loading: (a) complete hysteresis and (b) cycle-by-cycle hysteresis.

Table 2 design of the shear connection (either of shear studs or chemical

Calibrated parameters in hysteresis model. anchors). In Fig. 12(b), it is clear that the compressive normal force
Parameter Calibrated value in Fig. 12(a) is primarily a result of the compression over-strength
In compression In tension
of the BRBs, whereas the tensile normal force takes the maximum
value during the transition from elastic loading to yielding, which
R0 26 26
is related to the Bauschinger effect.
cR1 0.925 0.925
cR2 0.15 0.15 Similar phenomena can be observed for the second load cycle
b 0.02 0.005 of IDR = 1/50 except that the magnitude of the normal tensile and
a1 0.035 0.04 compressive force were increased (Fig. 11). Even though, the
a2 1 1
maximum tensile force is no greater than 30 kN, which is only
approximately 8% of the design shear force of the BRB connec-
tions on the columns. It is worth noting that the drift limit of
ing discussions, it should be noted that their accuracy may be influ- RC structures with supplemental energy dissipating devices such
enced by such factors as the scattering of the material properties as BRBs are usually required to be less than IDR = 1/100 under
and the BRB end rotations in the subassembly test which did not major earthquakes (such as in the Japanese practice), the behav-
present in the uniaxial calibration test. ior at IDR = 1/50 should be interpreted as beyond-design level
performance.
3.3. Unbalanced BRB force on connection interface and its influence The negligible influence of the small normal forces at the mid-
length of the columns and beams is also demonstrated by the cur-
The force components on the four steel-to-concrete connection vature distributions in the RC frames. The curvatures were cap-
interfaces are evaluated through the equilibrium of the BRB axial tured by the strains of the longitudinal rebars at three cross
force. Fig. 12(a) depicts the hysteresis of the force component nor- sections of each beam and column. Because the strain readings of
mal to the connection interface on the western column of speci- many rebars, especially those in the beams, became unreliable
men No.3, which is connected to the lower western (LW) and the when the deformation approached IDR = 1/100, the results at the
upper western (UW) braces. During the second load cycle of second load cycle at IDR = 1/200 are given in Fig. 13. At such a drift
IDR = 1/100, both the tension and compression forces are small as level, the RC members remain essentially elastic and the curva-
compared to the BRB’s strength. In particular, the maximum ten- tures are expected to be small. The curvature distributions in the
sion force at point C is less than 20 kN, almost negligible in the RC frames of the three specimens are quite similar to one another.
 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14 9

UW brace LW brace
60 (Tens.) 300 -300(Comp.)
-300
B

LW brace axial force (kN)

UW brace axial force (kN)
Force normal to connection 40
interface on column (kN)
200 A -200
-200
20 C
A 100 -100
-100
0
0 00
-20
D B -100 100
100
-40
C
-60 -200 D 200
200

-80
IDR = 1/100
(Comp.) -300 300
300(Tens.)
-50 -25 0 25 50 -20 -10 0 10 20
Inter-story drift (mm) Inter-story drift (mm)
60 (Tens.) -400 -400
400(Comp.)
-300
B -300
300

LW brace axial force (kN)

UW brace axial force (kN)
Force normal to connection

40 A
interface on column (kN)

-200
A -200
200
20
-100 -100
100
0
0 00
C
-20
B 100 C 100
-100
-40
200 D 200
-200
D
-60 300 -300
300
IDR = 1/50
-80 (Comp.) 400 -400
400 (Tens.)
-50 -25 0 25 50 -50 -25 0 25 50
(a) (b)
Inter-story drift (mm) Inter-story drift (mm)
Fig. 12. Force components normal to steel-to-concrete connection interface on western column of specimen No.3 during different load cycles: (a) normal force hysteresis and
(b) axial force of BRBs connected.

Fig. 13. Curvature distributions of RC frames at: (a) IDR = 1/200 and (b) IDR =
1/200 (unit: le/mm).
10 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14
No obvious curvature is observed at the mid-length of the beams or
columns in specimen No.2 and 3, where the BRBs are intersected.
The apparent damage to the RC frames in the three specimens
corresponded well to their curvature distributions. At the peak
drift of each load cycle, the cracks on the concrete surface were
marked and recorded on a grid that coincides with the rebars
and stirrups (Fig. 14). The crack widths were read by crack scales
on points where the crack crossed the grid lines (Fig. 15). Regard-
less of the existence of the BRBs, the crack patterns (both the dis-
tribution and widths) of specimens No.2 and 3 were similar to that
of the bare frame specimen (No.1). As intended, most damage was
concentrated in the beam ends, where major cracks developed and
slight concrete spalling was observed at the final stage of the load-
ing. Take specimen No.2 for example. Cracks were first observed on
the beams, and no cracks were found on the columns until the sec-
ond load cycle of IDR = 1/100. At IDR = 1/100, a few cracks at the
beam ends grew to wider than 0.2 mm. These cracks continued
to open and some of them became wider than 1.0 mm at
IDR = 1/50. Cracks on the columns were distributed at the beam-
to-column joints and regions close to the joints. The column crack
widths were considerably smaller than those on the beams.
The above results show that the BRBs and their gusset connec-
tions in the double-K configuration would not deteriorate the seis-
mic performance of the RC frame. The similar levels of damage
should not be interpreted in a way that the BRBs bring no benefit
to reduce the structural damage because such a similarity is
observed at the same story drift. The maximum story drift of an
RC frame equipped with BRBs would be much less than that of a
bare frame because of the addition stiffness and energy dissipation
provided by the braces. In such cases, the damage to the RC frame
braced by BRBs is expected to be much less than that to a bare
frame.
3.4. Deformation loss at BRB-to-concrete connections
It is usually preferred to have stiff brace connections so that the
brace axial deformation is concentrated in the energy dissipating
segments. In this sense, the effectiveness of brace connections
can be evaluated in terms of the ‘deformation loss’ in the connec-
tion, which is calculated by subtracting the actual deformation of a
BRB’s plastic core from its maximum possible deformation when
assuming the rest of the brace and the connections are rigid. In
the double-K configuration as shown in Fig. 16 in which one-
fourth of a single span is taken as a free body, the maximum pos-
sible deformation of a BRB, dbm, can be expressed as a function of
the story drift ratio, IDR, the rotation at the mid-length of the
beam, hb, and the column, hc (Eq. (7)). By assuming that the RC
frame remains elastic, R, hb and hc can be calculated by Eqs. (8)–
(10).
Fig. 14. Damaged RC members with marked cracks of Specimen No.2 at end of 1/50 load cycle: (a) lower-east joint and (b) lower-west joint.
RH hc hb
dbm ¼ cosb þ hc sinb þ hb sinb ð7Þ
2 2 2
where H is the story height; hc and hb are the depths of the column
and beam, respectively; b is the inclination angle of the brace.
 
RH PH2 H L
D¼ ¼ þ ð8Þ
2 24 EIc EIb
 
PH H L
hc ¼ þ ð9Þ
4 2EIc 3EIb
PHL
hb ¼ ð10Þ
24EIb
where P is the story shear force; L is the span length; E is the con-
crete Young’s modulus; Ib and Ic are the moment of inertia of the
beam and column, respectively.
Substituting the specific geometric and material properties of
the current specimens in Eqs. (7)–(10) gives a simple numerical
relationship between the inter-story drift ratio, IDR, and the max-
imum possible brace deformation, dbm = 0.58∙(IDR)∙Hcosb. The
deformation loss ratio is defined in Eq. (11) by dbm and the mea-
sured BRB core deformation dBRB, and is depicted in Fig. 17 for all
the drift amplitudes. The values shown in the figure are the aver-
age of the four BRBs in each specimen (in case of No.3 during the
second load cycle of 1/50 drift, it is the average ratio of the three
remaining BRBs).
dbm
dBRB
Deformation loss ratio ¼ ð11Þ
dbm
At small drift amplitudes when the BRBs were essentially elas-
tic, the deformation loss took more than 20% of the maximum pos-
sible brace deformation. This ratio decreased rapidly at larger drift
amplitudes as the BRBs sustained significant plastic deformation.
The deformation loss in specimen No.3 is larger than that of No.2
at all stages, indicating that the post-installed chemical anchors
exhibited lower stiffness than the embedded studs.
Although the deformation loss may come from various sources,
it is predominated by the slip of the gusset plate along the beam/-
column’s axis in double-K braced frames in which the tension force
on the connection interface is very limited. Taking the gusset con-
nection on the lower beam in specimen No.3 for example, Fig. 18
shows that the deformation loss at a single connection (taken as
half the deformation loss of a brace) and the contribution of gusset
slip, ds∙cosb, where ds is the measured gusset slip, are very close to
each other at various drift amplitudes.
The peak gusset slips in specimens No.2 and 3 were almost
identical when the story drift ratio, IDR, was no greater than
1/100, although the hysteresis curves were somehow different
 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14 11

Crack width: <0.2mm 0.2 mm ~ 1.0 mm 1.0mm

No.1 No.1
Bare frame Bare frame
IDR = 1/100 IDR = 1/50

No.2 No.2
Braced frame + Braced frame +
Shear studs Shear studs
IDR = 1/100 IDR = 1/50

No.3 No.3
Braced frame + Braced frame +
Chemical anchor Chemical anchor
IDR = 1/100 IDR = 1/50

Fig. 15. Cracks on RC frames.

L/2
= (IDR) H/2 0.4
No.2
Average deformation

P
b hb/2 0.3 No.3
EIb
loss ratio

0.2
EIc 1
H/2

0.1

0
c
)
00

(2
67

50
55

20

10
12

50
1/

1/
1/

1/

1/
1/

1/

hc/2 Inter-story drift ratio amplitude

Fig. 16. Maximum possible axial deformation of braces. Fig. 17. Maximum brace deformation loss at peak story drifts.
12 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14

BRB axial force deformation loss/2 Gusset shear gusset slip s cos
Force (kN)

IDR = IDR = IDR = IDR =

1/550 1/200 1/100 1/67

Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)

Fig. 18. Deformation loss and slip at lower gusset connection in specimen No.3.

No. 2 No. 3
600 600
Lower-east
400 400 BRB removed
Gusset shear force (kN)

Gusset shear force (kN)

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400
R = 1/100 R = 1/67, 1/50
-600 -600
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -4 -2 0 2 4
Gusset slip (mm) Gusset slip (mm)
(a) (b)

Fig. 19. Slip of gusset plates on lower beams.

(Fig. 19(a)). During the remaining load cycles, the gusset slip in into components related to (a) lateral drift, D, (b) beam gusset
specimen No.2 remained almost the same as in previous load rotation, hb and (c) column gusset rotation, hc, as depicted in
cycles while that in No.3 was significantly increased (Fig. 19(b)), Fig. 20. The end rotations of a brace at its column-side end and
indicating softening of the chemical anchor connection. beam-side end can thus be estimated by Eqs. (12) and (13), respec-
For specimen No.3, one of the BRBs was removed before the sec- tively, assuming that the BRB connections and segments outside
ond load cycle of IDR = 1/50. As a result, half of the shear force on the core are rigid.
the connected gusset plate was released and the gusset slips were
thus decreased as shown by the dashed line in Fig. 19(b). On the hEC ¼ hEC1 þ hEC2 þ hEC3
other hand, it broke the BRB force balance and subjected the gusset  
Dsinb Lconn Lconn
connection to significant tension force. The latter effect was so ¼
arctan
hb þ 1 þ hc ð12Þ
Lcore
Dcosb Lcore Lcore
overwhelming that, despite the considerable decrease in gusset
slips, the overall deformation loss of BRBs was increased by 43%
from 16% in the first 1/50 load cycle to 23% in the second 1/50 cycle hEB ¼ hEB1 þ hEB2 þ hEB3
(Fig. 17). In other words, the break of BRB force balance by remov-
Dsinb Lconn Lconn
ing one of the braces exaggerate the deformation loss in the con- ¼ arctan þ ð1 þ Þhb
hc ð13Þ
nections, although it did not cause strength problem in the Lcore
Dcosb Lcore Lcore
current test.
where Lcore is the length of the BRB’s plastic core.
The estimates given by Eqs. (12) and (13) generally agree well
3.5. BRB end rotations with the test results measured by pairs of displacement sensors
for the lower western BRB in each braced specimen (Fig. 21). Linear
In addition to the aforementioned larger core strains in the BRBs regression of the test results shows that the column-side end rota-
in double-K configuration, which are usually shorter than in other tions are only a small fraction of the inter-story drift ratio, IDR,
commonly-seen configurations, another possible side effect is lar- whereas the beam-side end rotations are slightly larger than IDR.
ger rotations at the ends of BRBs’ plastic cores, which may have Such level of end rotations is only slightly larger than those
detrimental effects on the performance of the BRBs [43]. In a reported in the past literature for commonly-used inverted-V brac-
double-K conguration, the BRB end rotation can be decomposed ing [44].
 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14 13

c
EC1 EC2
Lcore Lcore

EC3
H/2

Lconn EB3
Lcore EB1
b
EB2

L/2

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 20. BRB end rotations because of: (a) story drift, D; (b) beam gusset rotation, hb and (c) column gusset rotation, hc.

Measured Linear regression

Eq. (12) or (13) Tsai et al. 2008 [36]
Column-side end rotation,

0.04 0.04

0.02 Beam-side end rotation, 0.02 EB = 1.15 IDR

EC = 0.14 IDR
EC

EB
0 0

-0.02 -0.02
N o.2 N o.2
-0.04 -0.04
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Column-side end rotation,

0.04 0.04
Beam- side end rotation,

0.02 EC = 0.22 IDR 0.02 EB = 1.03 IDR

EC

EB

0 0

-0.02 -0.02
N o.3 N o.3
-0.04 -0.04
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Inter-story drift ratio, IDR Inter-story drift ratio, IDR
(a) (b)
Fig. 21. End rotations of lower western BRB at: (a) column-side end and (b) beam-side end.

4. Conclusions (1) The RC frames sustained quite similar flexural deformation

and damage patterns no matter if it is braced or not, given
Although currently prohibited by steel structure design codes that the story drift is the same. The unbalanced force of BRBs
for seismic applications, double-K bracing is a promising system on the frames had negligible effect on the behavior of the RC
for buckling restrained braced reinforced concrete frames. It can frames. Since the maximum story drift of a braced frame
simplify the design of the BRB-to-concrete connection and help with BRBs is always much smaller than that of a bare frame
improve the seismic performance of these connections. under the same earthquake excitation, the benefit of using
Three RC frame subassemblies were subjected to cyclic load- BRBs to reduce the seismic damage is guaranteed.
ing, two of which were braced by BRBs in double-K configura- (2) The BRB-to-concrete connections were primarily subjected to
tion and one was a bare frame for comparison. The shear force, which could be well withstood by either embed-
Menegotto-Pinto model with isotropic hardening was modified ded studs or post-installed chemical anchors. The tension
to simulate the BRB hysteresis so that the forces on the gusset force on the connection interface was negligibly small.
connections could be explicitly evaluated in the statically unde- (3) The BRBs behaved well in the double-K configuration to
termined specimens. The test results confirmed the reliable seis- develop full and stable hysteresis. In particular, the end rota-
mic performance of double-K braced RC frames by providing the tions of the BRBs in the present test were similar in magni-
following findings. tude to those in commonly-used inverted-V bracing.
14 Z. Qu et al. / Engineering Structures 139 (2017) 1–14

Although the BRBs in a double-K configuration are usually smal- [18] Lin PC, Tsai KC, Wu AC, Chuang MC. Seismic design and test of gusset
connections for buckling-restrained braced frames. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
ler than in other configurations and thus may sustain higher levels 2014;43:565–87.
of plastic strain in the cores, it would not bring about difficulties [19] Ishii T, Mukai T, Kitamura H, Shimizu T, Fujisawa K, Ishida Y. Seismic Retrofit
for practical design because the currently available BRBs usually for Existing R/C Building Using Energy Dissipative Braces. In: 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, in CD-ROM, Paper No.1209; 2004.
exhibit superior low-cycle fatigue performance. [20] Berman JW, Bruneau M. Cyclic testing of a buckling restrained braced frame
with unconstrained gusset connections. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2009;135
Acknowledgements (12):1499–510.
[21] Khampanit A, Leelataviwat S, Kochanin J, Warnitchai P. Energy-based seismic
strengthening design of non-ductile reinforced concrete frames using
The experimental investigation is sponsored by the National buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2014;81:110–22.
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51308514 and No. [22] Qu Z, Kishiki S, Maida Y, Sakata H. Subassemblage cyclic loading tests of
buckling restrained braced RC frames with unconstrained gusset connections.
51478441). The financial support is highly appreciated. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2016;142(2):04015128.
[23] Qu Z, Kishiki S, Sakata H, Wada A, Maida Y. Subassemblage cyclic loading test
References of RC frame with buckling restrained braces in Zigzag configuration.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42(7):1087–102.
[24] Qu Z, Kishiki S, Maida Y, Sakata H, Wada A. Seismic responses of reinforced
[1] Fujimoto M, Wada A, Saeki E, Watanabe A and Hitomi Y. A study on brace
concrete frames with buckling restrained braces in zigzag configuration. Eng
enclosed in buckling-restraining mortar and steel tube. In: Summaries of
Struct 2015;105:12–21.
Technical Papers of AIJ Annual Meeting, 1988: 1339-1342 (in Japanese).
[25] AISC. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. ANSI/AISC 341–10.
[2] Watanabe A, Hitomi Y, Saeki E, Wada A and Fujimoto M. Properties of brace
American Institute of Steel Construction. Chicago, IL; 2010.
encased in buckling-restraining concrete and steel tube. Proc. 9th World
[26] Khatib IF, Mahin, SA, Pister KS. Seismic behavior of concentrically braced steel
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1988. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/
frames. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. UCB/EERC-88/01,
wcee/article/9_vol4_719.pdf (Mar. 16, 2015).
1988:74–75.
[3] Kukita S, Haginoya M, Miyagawa K, Kinoshita R, Fujisawa K, Fujinaga T et al.
[27] AISC. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. ANSI/AISC 341–02.
Experimental Study on Seismic Retrofit for Existing R/C Building by using CHS
American Institute of Steel Construction. Chicago, IL, 2002.
Bracing. In: Summaries of Technical Papers of AIJ Annual Meeting, 2000, C-2:
[28] Sabelli R, Roeder CW, Hajjar JF. Seismic design of steel special concentrically
377–382 (in Japanese).
braced frame systems. NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No.8, 2013:5.
[4] Brown AP, Aiken ID, Jafarzadeh FJ. Buckling restrained braces provide the key
[29] GB 50011-2010. Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. Beijing, 2010 (in
to the seismic retrofit of the Wallace F. Bennett federal building. Modern Steel
Chinese).
Constr 2001.
[30] Wada A, Connor JJ, Kawai H, Iwata M, Watanabe A. Damage tolerant structure.
[5] Di Sarno L, Manfredi G. Seismic retrofitting with buckling restrained braces:
In: 5th U.S.-Japan Workshop on the Improvement of Building Structural
Application to an existing non-ductile RC framed building. Soil Dyn Earthquake
Design and Construction Practice, San Diego, CA, 1992: 1–13.
Eng 2010;30(11):1279–97.
[31] Kurata M, Sato M, Zhang L, Lavan O, Becker T, Nakashima M. Minimal-
[6] Gao J, Xue YT, Wang L. Application of JY-SD-type buckling restrained braces
disturbance seismic rehabilitation of steel moment-resisting frames using
(BRB/UBB) in seismic strengthening. J Civil Eng Manage 2011;28(3):339–43 (in
light-weight steel elements. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2016;45(3):383–400.
Chinese).
[32] Qu Z, Xie JZ, Wang T. Experimental tests of reinforced concrete frame
[7] Oviedo AJA, Midorikawa M, Asari T. Earthquake response of ten-story story-
subassemblies with buckling restrained braces in double-K configuration. In:
drift-controlled reinforced concrete frames with hysteretic dampers. Eng
Proc. 6th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural
Struct 2010;32(6):1735–48.
Engineering, UIUC, U.S., August 1–2, 2015, in CD-ROM.
[8] Di Sarno L, Manfredi G. Experimental tests on full-scale RC unretrofitted frame
[33] Montuori R, Muscati R. A general design procedure for failure mechanism
and retrofitted with buckling restrained braces. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
control of reinforced concrete frames. Eng Struct 2016;118:137–55.
2012;41(2):315–33.
[34] Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ. Displacement-based seismic design of
[9] Ishimura M, Sadasue K, Miyauchi Y, Yokoyama T, Fujii T and Minami K. Seismic
structures. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press; 2007. p. 223–4.
Performance Evaluation for Retrofitting Steel Brace of Existing RC Buildings
[35] GB 50010-2010. Code for Design of Concrete Structures. Beijing, 2010 (in
with Low-Strength Concrete. In: 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Chinese).
Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal; 2012.
[36] GB 50017-2003. Code for Design of Steel Structures. Beijing, 2003 (in Chinese).
[10] Harayama K, Kawamoto T, Inai E, Matsukane Y. An experimental study of a
[37] GB 50367-2006. Design code for strengthening concrete structure. Beijing,
seismic retrofitting method with framed steel brace systems partially and
2006 (in Chinese).
concentrically jointed with anchors. In: Proc. 15th World Conference on
[38] BCJ. The Building Standard Law of Japan. Tokyo: The Building Center of Japan,
Earthquake Engineering; 2012, <http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/
2004.
WCEE2012_1846.pdf> (Mar. 16, 2015).
[39] EN1998-1. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1:
[11] Gu LZ, Gao XY, Xu JW, Na W. Research on Seismic Performance of BRB Concrete
General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. In: European Committee
Frames. J Build Struct 2011;32(7):101–11 (in Chinese).
for Standardization; 2004.
[12] Ogawa Y, Isoda K, Kitamura Y and Yasuo, J. Experimental Study on the
[40] Menegotto M, Pinto PE. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced
Structural Properties of High Strength Reinforced Concrete Frames with Brace
concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and nonelastic behavior
Dampers. In: Summaries of Technical Papers of AIJ Annual Meeting,
of elements under combined normal force and bending. In: IABSE symposium
Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo; 2004: 1227–1230 (in Japanese).
on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well-
[13] Benavent-Climent A, Oliver-Saiz E, Donaire-Avila J. New connection between
Defined Repeated Loads, Final Report, Lisbon; 1973.
reinforced concrete building frames and concentric braces: Shaking table tests.
[41] Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Effects of Bond Deterioration on Hysteretic
Eng Struct 2015;96:7–21.
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Joints. In: Report EERC 83-19, Earthquake
[14] Ichikawa Y, Okayasu T, Nakamura H, Yamada S, Wada A. Experimental study
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley; 1983.
on joint of seismic retrofitting brace for steel structure using shear-key plate
[42] McKenna F. OpenSees: A framework for earthquake engineering simulation.
adhered to concrete slab. J Struct Constr Eng, Trans AIJ 2005;596:133–40 (in
Comput Sci Eng 2011;13(4):58–66.
Japanese).
[43] Zhao JX, Lin FX, Wang Z. Effect of non-moment braced frame seismic
[15] Kishiki S, Yamada S, Wada A. Experimental evaluation of structural behavior of
deformations on buckling-restrained brace end connection behavior:
gusset plate connection in BRB frame system. In: 14th World Conference on
theoretical analysis and subassemblage tests. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China; 2008.
2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2661.
[16] Chou CC, Liu JH. Frame and brace action forces on steel corner gusset plate
[44] Tsai KC, Hsiao PC. Pseudo-dynamic tests of a full-scale CFT/BRB frame - Part II:
connections in buckling-restrained braced frames. Earthquake Spectra
Seismic performance of buckling restrained braces and connections.
2012;28(2):531–51.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37(7):1099–115.
[17] Maheri MR, Ghaffarzadeh H. Connection Overstrength in Steel-Braced RC
Frames. Eng Struct 2008;30(7):1938–48.