Engineering Structures 85 (2015) 118–126

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A new perforated core buckling restrained brace

D. Piedrafita ⇑, X. Cahis, E. Simon, J. Comas
AMADE, Polytechnic School, University of Girona, Campus Montilivi s/n, 17071 Girona, Spain

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

Article history: The Perforated Core Buckling Restrained Brace (PCBRB) is a new energy dissipation device for the seismic
Received 15 November 2013 design of buildings. Its core consists of a perforated steel yielding plate which is guided and partially sta-
Revised 3 December 2014 bilized by the restraining unit. The core is mechanized to obtain two yielding lateral bands which are con-
Accepted 9 December 2014
nected by several equidistant stabilizing bridges. The lateral bands are designed to yield to axial forces, as
Available online 26 December 2014
conventional BRBs do, so the force and the displacement at the yielding point can be calculated by the
usual expressions of conventional buckling restrained braces, based on uniform strain distribution. To
Keywords:
distribute the stabilizing bridges along the core, an expression based on Euler’s formulation is proposed.
Buckling restrained brace
Seismic design
Under this formulation two types of specimens have been designed and tested (Type I and Type II) using
Steel hysteretic damper three different loading protocols. The Type I specimens exhibited a stable response, while the Type II
Passive energy dissipator specimens suffered a progressive loss of compression capacity produced by the local buckling. Finally,
Low cycle fatigue the hysteretic behaviour of the tested braces and a large scale brace has been analysed with an FEM
model which considers the interaction between the core and the encasing member. The model
reproduces the hysteretic response during the first cycles and the influence of friction on the axial strain
distribution along the yielding core.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction impossible. The use of precast concrete in steel profiles [10,11],

Passive energy dissipation devices are a widely accepted solu-
tion used to improve the response of the structures under seismic
conditions [1]. One of the most widespread energy dissipation
devices is the Buckling Restrained Brace (BRB). BRBs can be
installed like a conventional concentric brace to control the lateral
interstory drift. They basically consist of a slender bar, which acts
as the axial-resistant component designed to yield and to dissipate
energy, and an encasing member to keep the bar stable under com-
pression forces [2].
In order to achieve a uniform strain field under tension and
compression, the cross-section core of conventional BRBs is uni-
form. The most commonly used cross sections are either rectangu-
lar, circular or cruciform [3–7]. The restraining member is usually
based on a tubular profile filled with mortar [4,8] (Fig. 1). In this
case a debonding material has to be applied to the core to enable
its free lateral expansion under compression, and to keep the
transmission of the axial force from the core to the restraining unit
low [9]. It is a very effective solution which gives a stable hysteric
behaviour however, it increases the weight of the brace and makes
a visual inspection of the core or its replacement in case of damage
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: daniel.piedrafita@udg.edu (D. Piedrafita).
enables easy inspection and replacement, and the use of an alu-
minium core improves durability and reduces the weigh of the
brace [12]. All-steel BRBs [13,7,14] avoid both the use of mortar
and the debonding layer and ensure inspection and replacement
by providing dimension compatibility with the use of a restraining
unit composed of several parts which are either bolted or welded.
Dusicka et al. [15] design an ultralight BRB composed by an alu-
minium core and a glass fiber restraining unit. Piedrafita et al.
[16] propose a non-conventional BRB which yields by shear, and
consists in a slender bar restrained by a slotted restraining unit.
Its core is very easy to assemble and to inspect, but it is heavy
and its mechanization is more complex and expensive than that
the required in conventional BRBs.
BRBs are connected to frames with gusset plates (that are
welded to the frame) and bolts or pins (which connect the core
of the BRB to the gusset plates). Chou et al. [17] perform several
tests comparing the behaviour of the bolted sub-assemblage con-
nection using single-gusset-plate and dual-gusset-plate connec-
tions, concluding that single-gusset-plate connection transmits
better the axial force to the structure but double-gusset-plate con-
nection stabilizes better the weak direction of the BRB. Lin et al.
[18] proposes and validates a design method for welded gusset
plate connections. Palmer et al. [19] tests different options for sub-
assemblage connection, bolted and pinned. In both options damage

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.12.020
0141-0296/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D. Piedrafita et al. / Engineering Structures 85 (2015) 118–126 119

in the connection appears under large deformations, but they sat- Yielding Zone
isfy the codes requirements.
A new buckling restrained brace is proposed in this paper. It is
connected to the frame with pins and two double-gusset-plates. It
yields under axial forces as a conventional BRB does, but the usual
solid core has been substituted by a perforated plate shaped by
water jet cutting. The core is a one-piece element composed of
two lateral bands, of a nearly uniform section and designed to (a) (b) (c)
yield, connected by stabilizing bridges, which behave elastic. The
buckling prevention of the lateral bands is accomplished by the Encasing Member
restraining unit and the stabilizing bridges. Design expressions
have been proposed and experimental tests have been carried Fig. 2. (a) and (b) Sections of conventional BRB and (c) all-steel BRB.
out. Finally, numerical models have been made to study the inter-
action between the core and the encasing member and the effects
of friction in the strain distribution on the lateral bands. Once it is To design the elastic elements of the brace, maximum force at
validated, a medium size brace is simulated. compression is affected by factor 1.1 [20] and the design force
(Pd ) is defined as:

Pd ¼ 1:1bwF ysc Asc ð4Þ

2. Concept and design of the perforated core buckling
restrained brace
The yielding core of BRBs usually consists of a solid slender bar
which is restrained to avoid buckling under compression forces.
The restraining unit can be a steel tube filled with mortar
(Fig. 2(a) and (b)), or an assembly of steel bars around the core
(Fig. 2(c)).
The core of the new Perforated Core BRB (PCBRB) consists of a
flat plate which is provided by two lateral bands connected by var-
ious equidistant transverse stabilizing bridges (Fig. 4). The lateral
bands are designed to yield to axial forces, as with conventional
BRBs, while the stabilizing bridges are designed to remain elastic.
The restraining unit consists of several steel U-profiles which are
welded to form a hollow profile providing two longitudinal guides
for the core (Fig. 3). The guides, with the collaboration of the stabi-
lizing bridges, keep the lateral bands stable in compression. The
PCBRB is attached to the seismic resistant structure by two pins.
Another pin, called the internal pin, assembles the core and the
restraining unit to prevent the restraining unit sliding off-centre.
The yielding deformation of the lateral bands dLB;y can be
obtained from Hook’s law when taking into account Young’s
Modulus of steel E:
Pysc LLB
dLB;y ¼ ð5Þ
EAsc
where LLB is the length of the lateral bands obtained as the sum of
LLB;1 and LLB;2 (Fig. 4). This expression has been validated using the
numerical model (Section 5) and the experimental results (Section
4). As the maximum deformation is mostly plastic and it happens
in the lateral bands of the core, the maximum displacement of
the brace (db;u ) can be estimated as the maximum deformation of
the lateral bands. The maximum deformation of the lateral bands
(dLB;max ) can be obtained using Eq. (6).
dLB;max ¼ lLB dLB;y ð6Þ
where lLB is the ductility of the lateral bands. Based on the exper-
imental tests, a ductility of 14 is proposed for design. The minimum
required length of the lateral bands can be defined to satisfy two
times the design interstory drift (Dd ) [20]:

2.1. Lateral band design E 1

LLB P 2Dd cosh ð7Þ
F ysc lLB
The lateral band design is based on uniform stress assumption.
To define length La (Fig. 5) the premise is that in-plane local
The yielding force P ysc , the maximum tensile force T max and the
buckling does not appear. Euler formulation has been used:
maximum compression force C max of the brace can be obtained
by using Eqs. (1)–(3), respectively. p2 Et ILB
C max ¼ 2
ð8Þ
ðkLa Þ
Pysc ¼ F ysc Asc ð1Þ
T max ¼ wPysc ð2Þ a k factor of 0.5 has been considered as the rotation at the ends of
the yielding zone is considered nil. Experimental and numerical
C max ¼ bwPysc ð3Þ
results confirm this. Et is the tangential plastic modulus at ultimate
force in the tensile test, as proposed by Black et al. [8]. Substituting
where F ysc is the yield stress of the core and Asc is the cross section the maximum compression force (C max ), as defined in Eq. (3), and
area of the core ðAsc ¼ 2tbÞ. The values of w and b are obtained 3
the moment of inertia of the lateral band (ILB ¼ tb =12), the maxi-
experimentally at two times the design deformation of the brace mum length La to prevent the lateral band buckling is obtained:
as is defined in AISC341-05 [20]. sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffisffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p2 Et 1
La ¼ b ð9Þ
6bw F ysc
End Connection Steel Tube Mortar Unbonding
Material
Yielding
Core 2.2. Stabilizing bridge design

The design of the stabilizing bridge is based on the assumption

that the bridge has to resist a compression force of 1.5% of the
maximum force that sustains one lateral band so as to maintain its
Fig. 1. Scheme of conventional buckling restrained brace parts. stabilizing function [21]. This results in the equation
120 D. Piedrafita et al. / Engineering Structures 85 (2015) 118–126

Fig. 3. Brace assembly.

Stabilizing bridge
L LB,1 L LB,2

Lateral band
Lb

Fig. 4. PCBRB’s core, lateral bands in red, stabilizing bridges in blue. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

To ensure the non-rotation boundary assumption of Eq. (9), a

minimum ratio between the stabilizing bridge and the lateral band
flexural stiffnesses is proposed:

EIb =ðH  bÞ
P 10 ð14Þ
Et ILB =La

where Ib is the moment of inertia of the stabilizing bridge

3
(Ib ¼ tbb =12Þ), Eq. (14) can be simplified to:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 H  b Et
bb P b 10 ð15Þ
Fig. 5. Key dimensions of the core. La E
1:5
100
6 vbb tF ysc , where v is the buckling reduction factor.
1:1bwF ysc bt
Once the equation is simplified it turns into the design condition: 2.3. Pinned connections design
0:0165bwb
bb P ð10Þ Design expressions for the pins have been obtained by compar-
v ing the bearing resistance and the shear resistance of the pinned
In order to define the maximum slenderness of the stabilizing connections [21] to the design force P d . The minimum diameter
bridge, a buckling reduction factor v ¼ 0:4 and column imperfec- of the exterior pin has been deduced from the bearing resistance
tion factor a ¼ 0:49, correspondent to solid sections [21], have (1:5de tF ysc P 1:1bwF ysc 2bt):
been considered. The stabilizing bridge has been considered as a
de P 1:47bwb ð16Þ
uniform cross-section column under compression with its mini-
mum cross-sectional area, which is conservative. The in-plane The minimum ultimate stress of the pin F up can be established
and the out-of-plane buckling lengths of the stabilizing bridge have from the shear resistance of the pin and the design force of the
been considered as 0:5h and H, respectively. From the previous brace (1:2Ap F up =cm2 P Pd ):
assumptions these new dimension requirements are obtained: cm2
pffiffiffi F up P Pd ð17Þ
3 1:2Ap
bb P h ð11Þ
pkffiffiffi where cm2 is the material coefficient (which takes the value of 1.25
2 3
tP H ð12Þ in Eurocode 3 [21]) and Ap is the cross section of the pin
k 2
(Ap ¼ pde =4).
where the slenderness k can be obtained as:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi The interior pin has to resist the brace-direction component of
p2 E the weight of the restraining unit and an eventual force that
k ¼ 1:274 ð13Þ
F ysc would come from the unbalanced friction on the two sides of the
core. The experimental results show that friction forces are small.
 D. Piedrafita et al. / Engineering Structures 85 (2015) 118–126 121

Furthermore, the unbalanced friction is difficult to predict, thus to

design the interior pin, a conservative force of 20% of the design
force is proposed. Considering the same resistance equations those
used for the external pins, the minimum pin diameter (di ) and
ultimate strength of the steel of the pin (F upi ) are:

di P 0:3bwb ð18Þ
cm2
F upi P Pd ð19Þ
6Api

2.4. Restraining member design

The restraining unit has to guarantee the free transversal defor-

mation of the core caused by the Poisson effect. To allow this a
functional gap (Fig. 3) has to be provided between the restraining
unit and the core. This gap has been estimated assuming a uniform
strain distribution along the lateral bands:
F ysc
g y P mlLB t ð20Þ
E
F ysc Fig. 6. Test set-up, restraining unit parts and external displacement transducer
g z P mlLB 2b ð21Þ
E positions.

where m ¼ 0:5 for steel in plastic behaviour and lLB ¼ 14 from the
experimental results. The gaps will also have to satisfy assembly
tolerance.
To prevent the global buckling of the brace, the procedure and
formulation proposed by Piedrafita et al. [16] has been adapted
to the new proposed brace:
Pd eT;i
M d;i ¼ ð22Þ
1  P d =Pcr;i
c1
eT;i ¼ e0;i þ g i ð23Þ
c2
M d;y Md;z
þ 61 ð24Þ
W el;y F y;RU W el;z F y;RU
where subscript i applies to both the y and z axis and e0;i is the ini-
tial deflection of the restraining unit in each direction. F y;RU is the
design yield strength of the restraining unit, c1 and c2 are repre-
sented in Figs. 3 and 5, and W el;y and W el;z are the elastic section
modulus of the restraining unit.
3. Test set-up and loading protocols
The tests were carried out in the Structural Laboratory of the
AMADE research group at the University of Girona. Fig. 6 shows
the set-up; based on brace-column subassembly defined in the
AISC341-05 [20].
The brace was installed using pin connections. The maximum
brace deformation for the AISC341-05 [20] and EN15129 [22] pro-
tocols was calculated for a 3 m high story with one percent inter-
story drift as the seismic design displacement. Subassembly was
loaded with a 300 kN servo-controlled hydraulic jack. As a sym-
metrical behaviour of the core of the PCBRB is expected, the core
of the tested specimens has been designed as the half of a real core,
as it Fig. 8 shows, thus the displacement is also reduced to the half
of a real brace. Considering the core design, the restraining unit is
provided of two different parts. The first one consists on a com-
posed steel section which guides the core (section B-B in
Fig. 8(a)). The second one is manufactured from a standard hollow
bar. Both parts are joined by a welded plate.
An internal transducer measured the core deformation (Fig. 7).
Two external transducers (DT1 and DT2, Fig. 6) were used to mea-
sure the deformation of the brace. While DT1 measured the core
and the internal pin deformations, DT2 measured the elastic defor-
mation of the rest of the brace.
Fig. 7. Internal transducer position.
The yielding cores were manufactured using S275JR [23] steel.
The mechanical properties were obtained according to tension
tests defined in [21]: f y = 267 MPa; y = 0.13%; f u = 455 MPa;
u = 26%. The cores were machined by using water jet cutting.
Two types of specimens were designed and manufactured
(Fig. 8(b) and (c)). In Type I, the La dimension was defined by using
Eq. (9), therefore local instability was not expected. Type II were
designed beyond the length provided by Eq. (9). Hence early core
failure, caused by local instability, was expected.
Six specimens, three of each type, were tested to failure. These
specimens have been named according to their geometry (two
variants, Type I and Type II) and testing protocol. The specimens
I.1 and II.1 were tested under the AISC341-05 [20] protocol, spec-
imens I.2 and II.2 were tested under EN15129 [22] and specimens
I.3 and II.3 were tested using a cyclic deformation with increasing
amplitude protocol. The loading protocols are shown in Fig. 9.
4. Experimental results
Fig. 9 shows the experimental response of the specimens, where
F b is the brace force. Specimens II.1 and II.3 suffer a progressive
loss of compression capacity. Fig. 10 shows the deformation of
these two specimens after failure. The high deflection confirms
local buckling. On the other hand, specimens I.1 and I.3 show a
lower deflection and fail by tension; as the hysteric response and
visual inspection indicates. They also dissipate a higher amount
of energy; as illustrated by Table 1. These results confirm that
Eq. (9) is suitable for designing a stable core under compression.
Although local buckling appeared in two of the tested speci-
mens, all of them satisfied the test protocols until failure. Speci-
mens I.1 and II.1 satisfied the AISC341-05 loading protocol [20]
and the minimum required cumulative ductility of 200, with val-
ues of 1804 and 369, respectively (Table 1). Specimens I.2 and
122 D. Piedrafita et al. / Engineering Structures 85 (2015) 118–126

II.2 passed the European loading protocol [22], which consists of a

set of amplitude cycles which are increased up to the design dis-
placement and an additional monotonic increasing displacement
up to 1.4 times the design displacement (Fig. 9). As non-cumulative
ductility requirements had to be satisfied, the test was repeated
until failure. Specimens I.2 and II.2 resisted a set of consecutive
loading protocols, by 6 and 5 times, respectively.
Fig. 11 shows the plastic cumulative ductility vs the ductility of
the lateral bands. Based on MBRB results [16] a correlation
(a) between both parameters was expected, but this was not to be
the case. Experimental results show that failure is mostly related
to maximum deformation and ductility. Ductility values from 14
to 18 are obtained when all the specimens are considered. The duc-
tility range narrows to 16–18 for the specimens that satisfy the
design equation (Eq. (9)). Based on the experimental tests, a ductil-
ity of 14 is proposed for design.
Table 1 summarises the experimental results of the specimens.
(b) dLB;y and db;y are the yielding displacements of the lateral bands and
the brace, respectively. T max and C max are the maximum tension and
compression forces, respectively. dLB;max is the maximum deforma-
tion of the lateral bands, dcum is the cumulated plastic deformation,
 
lLB is the ductility of the lateral bands ddmax
LBy
. lLB;cum is the cumula-
 
dcum
tive ductility of the lateral bands dLB , and db;cum is the cumulative
y
 
ductility of the brace ddcum . Et is the hysteretic energy. The cumu-
by
P
lative displacement dLB;cum is obtained as 2ðdþ 
LB;i þ dLB;i Þ  4dLB;y
(c) [6].
The experimental behaviour of specimen I.3 has been compared
Fig. 8. (a) Testing brace, (b) experimental specimen Type I and (c) experimental
specimen Type II.
with two conventional BRBs tested by [6] under the same protocol

Loading protocols
40 (1) 40 Increasing amplitude
40
Actuator disp. (mm)

EN 15129
Actuator disp. (mm)
Actuator disp. (mm)

AISC 341-05 30 30
30
20 20 20
10 10 10
0 0 0
-10 -10 -10
-20 -20 -20
-30 -30
-40 -30
-40 -40

250 Fb (kN) 250 Fb (kN) I.3 250 Fb (kN)

I.1 I.2
200 200 200
Response Type I

150 150 150

100 100 100
50 50 50
0 0 0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5
-50 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
-50 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
-50 0 5 10 15 20 25
-100 -100 -100
-150 -150 -150
δLB (mm) δLB (mm) δLB (mm)
-200 -200 -200
-250 -250 -250

II.1 250 Fb (kN) II.2 250 Fb (kN) II.3250 Fb (kN)

200 200 200
Response Type II

150 150 150

100 100 100
50 50 50
0 0 0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5
-50 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
-50 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
-50 0 5 10 15 20 25
-100 -100 -100
-150 -150 -150
-200 δLB (mm) -200 δLB (mm) -200 δLB (mm)
-250 -250 -250

(1)
Loading protocol repeated n times until rupture is reached

Fig. 9. Experimental results and applied loading protocols.

 D. Piedrafita et al. / Engineering Structures 85 (2015) 118–126 123

Type I Type II

1 Ex In Ex In

2 Ex In Ex In

3 Ex In Ex In

Fig. 10. Failure mechanism of the specimens. Ex: External zone and In: Internal zone.

Table 1 modelled using C3D8R elements. The same loading protocols used
Summary of the experimental results of the specimens. on the specimens are also used to load the numerical models.
I.1 I.2 I.3 II.1 II.2 II.3 The material is defined using the ABAQUS kinematic and isotro-
P ysc (kN) 117 109 108 106 116 111
pic combined model. Data used to create the model is obtained by
dLB;y (mm) 0.96 1.02 0.98 1.00 1.20 1.05 tension tests according to [21] and it is shown in Table 3.
db;y (mm) 1.55 1.90 1.40 1.48 1.49 1.30 Contour conditions on the slotted part are applied by clamping
T max (kN) 168 164 177 169 168 174 its exterior nodes. To simulate the interior pin connection, a virtual
C max (kN) 197 209 236 190 200 191 node in the centre of the hole is created. The nodes of the hole are
T max =P ysc 1.44a 1.51 1.64 1.59a 1.45 1.57
C max =T max 1.17b 1.27 1.33 1.12b 1.19 1.10
then coupled to this node and rotate on its axis (Fig. 13). The exte-
dLB;max (mm) 15.69 17.93 17.61 15.11 17.02 18.17 rior connection is modelled using a pin and with this the interac-
db;cum (mm) 2797 4378 1040 546 2657 812 tion between this element and the core can be considered.
lLB 16.01 18.30 17.97 14.00 15.76 16.82 Simulation is done with displacement control. Displacement dLB
lLB;cum 2914 4831 1040 546 2657 812 is applied to the pin of the external connection.
lb;cum 1804 2304 743 369 1783 625
The general contact rule is used to model the contacts between
Et (kJ) 312 407 127 62 339 98
the elements. Friction is added using an exponential law available
a
Value correspondent to w as defined in AISC341-05 [20]. in ABAQUS [24] which is described by Eq. (25). It provides a
b
Value correspondent to b as defined in AISC341-05 [20]. smooth transition between the static and dynamic friction coeffi-
cients, their values being 0.2 and 0.1, respectively [25]. Decay
exponent dc ¼ 1 is used

l ¼ lk þ ðls  lk Þedc ceq_ ð25Þ

The model is able to reproduce the first cycles of the test
(Fig. 14). It is particularly effective in determining the displace-
ment and the yielding force (Fig. 15). Table 4 shows a comparison
between the numerical, analytical and experimental results of the
core at yielding point. The numerical model’s chief shortcoming is
that it is not able to accurately reproduce the hardening under a
Fig. 11. Cumulated ductility (lLB;cum ) vs ductility (lLB ). large number of cycles.
Fig. 16 shows Von Misses stress distribution of specimen I.3
  with the brace in tension. Here the stabilizing zones remain on
in terms of normalised hysteretic energy Et ¼ PyscEdt , cumulative the elastic range, while the lateral bands exceed the yielding stress.
b;y
The evolution of the strain distribution along the lateral bands
ductility and b. Similar values were found (Table 2).
at peak tension displacements in successive cycles is shown in
Fig. 17. As can be seen in the first cycles, the strain is near
5. Numerical analysis uniformly distributed. After several cycles the external zone has
smaller strains than the internal one. A model without friction
5.1. Modelling tested specimens

The main objectives of the numerical model is to study the

behaviour of the brace during the first cycles and examine the
interaction between the core and the restraining unit. Commercial
Sloted part
finite element software ABAQUS/Explicit 6.12 [24] is used.
The model consists of the core, the slotted part of the restrain-
ing unit and the exterior pin connection (Fig. 12). All parts are
Core

Table 2
External Pin
Comparison between an PCBRB and conventional BRBs [6]. Normalised hysteretic
energy (Et ), cumulative deformation (lb;cum ) and coefficient b.

Et lb;cum b

PCBRB I.1 1720 1804 1.17

BRB 1 [6] 1597 1143 1.17
BRB 2 [6] 1480 1083 1.28
Fig. 12. Numerical model parts and mesh.
124 D. Piedrafita et al. / Engineering Structures 85 (2015) 118–126

Table 3 buckling in the external zone of the lateral band and tensile failure
Material data used on numerical model. in the internal zone. It can be stated that friction has to be consid-
Stress (MPa) 267 397 476 548 555 ered for a proper modelling of the hysteretic behaviour.
Strain (mm/mm) 0 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.21 Fig. 18 compares the deformation of Type I and Type II speci-
mens after several cycles. Type II exhibits a higher deflection in
the external zone than Type I. Deformations in the numerical
Virtual node with coupling model are coherent with those obtained experimentally (Fig. 10).
Ex In
In Fig. 19, both the in-plane deformation and out-of-plane
δ LB deformation of specimen I.3 are shown. Out-of-plane deformation
causes the interaction between the core and the encasing member
Fig. 13. Contour conditions of the core.
and the friction forces, whereas the in-plane deformation is
responsible for the loss of compression capacity in specimens II.1
and II.3. The evolution of maximum in-plane displacement (dIP )
vs the axial deformation of the lateral bands (dLB ) is detailed in
Fig. 20. The in-plane displacement increases when a large axial
deformation of the lateral bands is achieved, although this effect
is less important in specimen Type I than in Type II.

5.2. Designing and modelling a medium size PCBRB

The tested specimens have a low capacity when compared with

the actual BRBs installed in buildings of seismically active regions.
They were designed by taking into consideration the constraints of
Fig. 14. Comparison between the hysteretic behaviour of the numerical model and
the testing facilities of the University of Girona, which allow to test
specimen I.3 during the first cycles.
up to 300 kN. From numerical results, FEM modelling has been ver-
ified as able to be used for designing. In this section a medium
150 capacity brace is designed and modelled.
F b (kN)
The steel mechanical properties of the core have been
100 considered the same as the tested specimens. The brace has a
50 length Lb ¼ 4242 mm and is installed with an inclination
h ¼ 45. The geometry of the core (Figs. 3 and 5) is defined by the
0
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 following parameters: H ¼ 403 mm, t ¼ 40 mm, b ¼ 55:74 mm,
-50 La ¼ 236:6 mm, r ¼ 10 mm, bb ¼ 42 mm, LLB ¼ 2270 mm,
δLB (mm)
-100 c1 ¼ 477 mm, de ¼ 161 mm and di ¼ 35 mm. The restraining unit
Num. Exp. is designed as indicated in Fig. 3 and fulfills Eq. (24) requirements.
-150 It has a total length LRU ¼ 3821 mm. It is manufactured with two
Fig. 15. Numerical vs experimental behaviour at the yielding point of specimen I.3.
UPE300 which are welded to two UPE80 [26] to set g y ¼ 2 mm.
The flanges of both UPE80 should be milled to set g z ¼ 2 mm.
The brace is submitted to the AISC341-05 [20] loading protocol.
Table 4 Fig. 21 shows the response of the brace. Fig. 22 displays the Von
Comparison between the analytical, experimental and numerical values at the Mises stress distribution along the core under the maximum com-
yielding point.
pression displacement. The response of the brace is stable and the
P ysc (kN) dLB;y (mm) stress distribution is uniform along the lateral bands.
Eqs. (1) and (2) 107 0.86
Exp.a 111 0.98
Num. 110 0.87 6. Summary and conclusions
a
Experimental mean value.
The new Perforated Core Buckling Restrained Brace (PCBRB)
which has as its yielding core a steel plate guided and partially sta-
bilized by the restraining unit, was designed and tested both
S, Mises numerically and experimentally. Instead of having, as conventional
285
262 BRBs do, a solid slender bar as a yielding core, the PCBRB’s core is a
238
214 Ex In partially emptied plate which is shaped to allow the two lateral
190 bands to be connected by equidistant transverse stabilizing
167
143 bridges. The lateral bands are designed to yield to axial forces, as
119 conventional BRBs do, while the stabilizing bridges are designed
95
72 to remain elastic and, along with the restraining unit, hold the lat-
48
24 eral bands stable under compression.
0 The force and displacement at the yielding point can be
obtained from the assumption of uniform axial stress in the lateral
Fig. 16. Core stress distribution of specimen I.3 at peak tension force on the third
test cycle.
bands. To distribute stabilizing zones along the lateral bands an
expression based on Euler’s formulation is proposed. Based on
did not show this effect, so the non-uniform distribution of the the proposed formulation, two types of specimens (Type I and Type
strains is caused by the friction between the core and the restrain- II) have been designed and tested. Those with a greater distance
ing unit. Non-uniformity on strain distribution justifies the exper- between the stabilizing bridges (Type II) are more susceptible to
imental failure of specimens, with larger second order effects and local buckling and thus a lower ductility. The ductility range
 D. Piedrafita et al. / Engineering Structures 85 (2015) 118–126 125

δ LB=0.6 mm
0.001
7.9e-4
5.0e-4
2.2e-4
−7.0e-5
−3.5e-4
−6.3e-4
δ LB=3.2 mm
0.008
0.006
0.005
0.003
0.002
3.7e-4
−0.001
δ LB=6.1 mm
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.006
0.001
−0.003
−0.008
δ LB=9.4 mm
0.043
0.033
0.023
0.013
0.004
−0.005
−0.015
δ LB=12.7 mm
0.071
0.054
0.037
0.021
0.004
−0.012
−0.029
δ LB=15.8 mm
0.115
0.078
0.041
0.004
−0.032
−0.069
−0.106

Fig. 17. Evolution of the axial strains from the FEM analysis of specimen I.3.

Ex In
(a)

(b)

Fig. 18. Deformation under tension force of numerical model of specimens I.3 and
II.3 after several cycles.

Fig. 20. In-plane displacement vs the lateral bands deformation for FEM models of
(a) (b) the specimens I.1 and II.1.

δ IP

Fig. 19. Out-plane and in-plane (dIP ) displacement of the numerical model of
specimen I.3 after several cycles.

obtained from all tested specimens ranges from 14 to 18, and nar-
rows to 16–18 when the stabilizing bridges are properly
distributed.
Six specimens with protocols defined by AISC341-05 [20],
EN15129 [22] and a loading protocol consisting of cyclic deforma-
tion with increasing amplitude were all tested to failure. All of the
Fig. 21. Numerical response of medium capacity PCBRB under AISC341-05 [20]
loadig protocol.
Type I specimens exhibited a stable response, while two of the
Type II specimens showed a progressive loss of the compression
capacity produced by local buckling and they dissipated less
126 D. Piedrafita et al. / Engineering Structures 85 (2015) 118–126
Fig. 22. Stress distribution at maximum compression displacement.
energy. The response of the PCBRB has been compared to two con-
ventional BRBs, in terms of the normalised hysteretic energy and
cumulative ductility, and similar values have been found.
Finally, two types of numerical models are defined. The first, to
study the interaction between the core and the encasing member.
The model is able to accurately reproduce the hysteretic response
during the first cycles, and its deformation is coherent with the
experimentally obtained results. It shows that during the first
cycles the strain is uniformly distributed along the lateral bands.
However, after several cycles friction forces propel a non-uniform
distribution of the strain that is coherent with the experimental
failure of specimens, with buckling in the exterior zone of the lat-
eral bands when stabilizing bridges are too distant, and with ten-
sile failure in the interior zone in the opposite case. However, as
the material model is not well developed for a high number of
cycles, it is unable to reproduce the experimental hardening of
steel. The second numerical model corresponds to a medium size
brace, which is modelled using the described formulation. The
model shows that the response of the brace is stable under
AISC341-05 [20] loading protocol.
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by the Spanish Government
under Project MEC BIA2011 26816. The research group of AMADE
(University of Girona) and Bellapart Company (Olot – Spain) have
collaborated in the manufacturing and testing of the specimens.
Their help is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Soong T, Spencer BJ. Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-art and
state-of-the-practice. Eng Struct 2002;24:243–59.
[2] Watanabe A, Hitomi Y, Saeki E, Wada A, Fujimoto M. Properties of brace
encased in buckling–restraining concrete and steel tube. iN: Proceedings of
ninth world conference on earthquake engineering IV; 1988. P. 719–24.
[3] Xie Q. State of the art of buckling-restrained braces in Asia. J Constr Steel Res
2005;61:727–48.
[4] Uang C-M, Nakashima M, Tsai K. Research and application of buckling
restrained braced frames. Steel Struct 2004;4:301–13.
[5] Black C, Martin N, Aiken I. Component testing, stability analysis and
characterization of Buckling Restrained Unbounded Braces, Technical Report.
Pacific earthquake engineering research center, College of Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley; 2002.
[6] Newell J, Uang C-M, Benzoni G. Subassemblage testing of corebrace buckling-
restrained braces (G series). Final Report to CoreBrace, LLC, Technical Report.
Department of Structural Engineering. University of California; 2006.
[7] Iwata M. Applications design of buckling restrained braces in Japan, In: 13th
World conference on earthquake engineering paper 3208; 2004.
[8] Black C, Makris N, Aiken I. Component testing, seismic evaluation and
characterization of buckling-restrained braces. J Struct Eng 2004;130:880–94.
[9] Tsai K, Lai Y, Hwang V, Lin C. Research and application of double-core buckling
restrained braces in Taiwan. In: 13th World conference on earthquake
engineering paper 2179; 2004.
[10] Chou C-C, Chen S-Y. Subassemblage tests and finite element analyses of
sandwiched buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2010;32:2108–21.
[11] Iwata M, Murai M. Buckling-restrained brace using steel mortar planks;
performance evaluation as a hysteretic damper. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam
2006;35:1807–26.
[12] Usami T, Wang CL, Funayama J. Developing high performance aluminum alloy
buckling restrained braces based on series of low cycle fatigue tests. Earthq
Eng Struct Dynam 2012;41:643–61.
[13] Chen C-C. Recent advances of seismic design of steel buildings in Taiwan. Int
Train Prog Seis Des Build Struct 2002.
[14] Park J, Lee J, Kim J. Cyclic test of buckling restrained braces composed of square
steel rods and steel tube. Steel Compos Struct 2012;13:423.43.
[15] Dusicka P, Asce M, Tinker J. Global Restraint in Ultra-Lightweight Buckling-
Restrained Braces. J Compos Constr 2013;17:139–50.
[16] Piedrafita D, Cahis X, Simon E, Comas J. A new modular buckling restrained
brace for seismic resistant buildings. Eng Struct 2013;56:1967–75.
[17] Chou C-C, Liu J-H, Pham D-H. Steel buckling-restrained braced frames with
single and dual corner gusset connections: seismic tests and analyses. Earthq
Eng Struct Dynam 2012;41:1137–56.
[18] Lin P-C, Tsai K-C, Wu A-C, Chuang M-C. Seismic design and test of gusset
connections for buckling-restrained braced frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam
2014;43:565–87.
[19] Palmer KD, Christopulos AS, Lehman DE, Roeder CW. Experimental evaluation
of cyclically loaded, large-scale, planar and 3-d buckling-restrained braced
frames. J Constr Steel Res 2014;101:415–25.
[20] American Institute of Steel Construction. Seismic provisions for structural steel
buildings; 2005.
[21] UNE-EN 1993-1-1:2005: Eurocode 3.1.1 General structural rules; 2005.
[22] EN15129 anti-seismic devices; 2009.
[23] EN 10025 - 2 : 2004 Technical delivery conditions for non-alloy structural
steels; 2004.
[24] ABAQUS version 6.12: ABAQUS User’s Manual, SIMULIA World Headquarters.
Rissing Sun Mills 166 Valley Street, Providence (RI 02909-2499, USA); 2012.
[25] Persson B. Theory and simulation of sliding Friction. Phys Rev Lett
1993;71:1212–5.
[26] DIN 1026-2: 2002-1; 2002.