Buckling Restrained Braces and

Structural Fuses
Michel Bruneau, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Professor
Department of Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering
University at Buffalo
 Outline
• Description of Structural Fuse Concept
(SFC)
• Description
p of Buckling
g Restrained Braces
(BRB)
• Applications of BRB and SFC to Bridges
Energy Dissipation
„ Earthquake-resistant design has long relied on
hysteretic energy dissipation to provide life
life-safety
safety
level of protection
„ Advantages of yielding steel
z Stable
S bl material
i l properties
i wellll known
k to practicing
i i
engineers
z Not a mechanical device (no special maintenance)
z Reliable long term performance (resistance to aging)
„ For traditional structural systems, ductile behavior
achieved by stable plastic deformation of structural
members = damage to those members
„ In conventional structural configurations, serves life-
safety purposes
purposes, but translates into property loss
loss,
and need substantial repairs
Energy Dissipation
Ductility
Brittle (↓) (S
(Somewhat)
) Ductile (↓)
Structural Fuses

„ From Energy Dissipation to Structural Fuse

z Researchers have proposed that hysteretic energy
dissipation should instead occur in “disposable”
structural elements (i.e., structural fuses)
Analogy
„ Sacrificial
S ifi i l element
l t to
t protect
t t the
th restt off the
th
system.
Weak Link

Brittle (↓) (Somewhat) Ductile (↓)

Capacity Design
 Roeder and Popov (1977)

„ Ductile seismic behavior

“Ductile Fuse” „ Concentrating energy
dissipation in special elements
+ capacity design
„ Links not literally disposable

Other studies:
„ Fintel and Ghosh (1981)

„ Aristizabal-Ochoa (1986)
Eccentrically Braced Frame
„ Basha and Goel (1996)

„ Carter and Iwankiw (1998)

„ Sugiyama (1998)

„ Rezai et al. (2000)

Eccentrically Braced Frame
(Opening a parenthesis)
Tubular Eccentrically Braced Frame

„ EBFs with wide-flange

wide flange (WF) links require
lateral bracing of the link to prevent lateral
torsional buckling
„ Lateral bracing is difficult to provide in
bridge piers b

„ Development of a laterally
Fyyf
stable EBF link is warranted tw
d
„ Consider rectangular cross- Fyw tf
section – No LTB
Proof--of
Proof of--Concept Testing
Proof--of
Proof of--Concept Testing
Finite Element Modeling of
Proof--of
Proof of--Concept Testing

Hysteretic Results for Refined ABAQUS Model and Proof-

of-Concept Experiment
(Closing a parenthesis)
Structural Fuse Analogy

„ EBF (Incomplete Fuse Analogy)

z Ductile link
z Maybe not easily replaceable
„ Need to configurations that decouple the
energy dissipating system from the gravity
carrying load system
„ BRB is one of many devices that could
serve as a structural fuse
What is a Buckling Restrained
Brace?
B ?

Explained by comparison with regular

concentric brace not restrained
against buckling
 OA
P E F
δ+ Δ
δ- AB
Δ P
D Δ BC
O
= Real Hinge CD
= Plastic Hinge (Mpr) δ Δ
C DE
C’
Cr’ G Δ
Cr Small residual deformation EF
B A

Ductile Design of Steel Structures

CBFs

„ KL/r – compression and tension strengths

are unequal
z Less energy dissipation in compression
z Unbalanced force issues
z Local buckling and fracture

Ductile Design of Steel Structures

V V MP MP

X
V V

X
Ductile Design of Steel Structures
Buckling Restrained Braces

„ The disadvantages of the CBF system can

be overcome if the brace can yield during
b th tension
both t i and d compressioni without
ith t
buckling.
„ A braced
b d frame
f th
thatt incorporates
i t thi
this type
t
of brace is the buckling restrained brace
(BRB) Frame (BRBF)
„ BRBF is a special class of CBF that
precludes brace buckling
Ductile Design of Steel Structures
BRB Concepts
„ Most of the BRBs developed
p to date are proprietary,
p p y,
but the concepts are similar
z Ductile steel core, designed to yield during both tension
and compression
z Steel core placed inside a steel casing (usually a hollow
structure shape)
z Unbonding material wraps steel core
z Casing is filled with mortar or concrete.
z Unbonding material minimizes / eliminates transfer of axial
force from steel core to mortar
z Note: Poisson effect causes steel core to expand under
compression
i

Ductile Design of Steel Structures

 Buckling-Restrained Brace
Buckling-
Mechanics
Encasing
mortar

Yielding steel
core

Buckling
Decoupling Unbonding material
between steel core and Restraint
mortar

Steel tube

U b d d Brace
Unbonded B Type
T

Ductile Design of Steel Structures

WHAT IS A BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACE?
Two Definitions

De-Coupled Stress and Buckling Balanced Hysteresis

(Mechanics Definition) (Performance Definition)
Ductile Design of Steel Structures
Ductile Design of Steel Structures
TEST OBSERVATIONS

Ductile Design of Steel Structures

Ductile Design of Steel Structures
Ductile Design of Steel Structures
Ductile Design of Steel Structures
Ductile Design of Steel Structures
Buckling Restrained Braces in
Structural Fuse Application
„ Vargas, R., Bruneau, M., (2009). “Analytical Response of Buildings
Designed with Metallic Structural Fuses”, ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering,
g g, Vol.135,, No.4,, pp
pp.386-393.
„ Vargas, R., Bruneau, M., (2009). “Experimental Response of Buildings
Designed with Metallic Structural Fuses”, ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering,
g g Vol.135, No.4, pp.394-403.
pp
„ Vargas, R., Bruneau, M., “Experimental Investigation of the Structural
Fuse Concept”, Technical Report MCEER-06-0005, Multidisciplinary
Center for Earthquake
q Engineering
g g Research, State Universityy of New
York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 2006.
„ Vargas, R., Bruneau, M., “Analytical Investigation of the Structural
Fuse Concept”,
p Technical Report p MCEER-06-0004, Multidisciplinary
p y
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New
York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 2006.
Wada et al. (1992)
Damage-
Damage
g -controlled or
Damage--tolerant Structures
Damage
„ Ductile elements were
used to reduce inelastic
deformations of the main
structure
„ Concept applied to high
rise buildings
g (T
( > 4 s))
Other studies:
„ Connor et al. (1997)

„ Shimizu et al. (1998)

„ Wada and Huang (1999)

„ Wada et al
al. (2000)
„ Huang et al. (2002)
 structural
t t l fuse,
f d
mass, m

frame, f
braces b
braces,

Ground Motion, üg(t)

 Benefits of Structural Fuse Concept:

„ Seismically induced
Seismicall ind ced damage is
concentrated on the fuses V Total
V
Following a damaging
p

„
αK1 = Kf
earthquake only the fuses V y
K1 Structural Fuses
would need to be replaced VV yd
yf

„ Once the structural fuses are Ka Kf

Frame

removed,, the elastic structure

Δya Δyf
returns to its original position
u

(self-recentering capability)
 μmax 10 5 2.5 1.67
α
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
.8 .8 .8 .8
.6 .6 .6 .6
0.05
.4 .4 .4 .4
.2 2
.2 .2 2
.2
.0 .0 .0 .0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

.8 .8
8 .8 .8
8
.6 .6 .6 .6
V/Vp 0.25
.4 .4 .4 .4
.2 .2 .2 .2
.0
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
.8 .8 .8 .8
.6 .6 .6 .6
0 50
0.50
.4 .4 .4 .4
.2 .2 .2 .2
.0 .0 .0 .0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0

u/Δyf
Frame Structural System
Damping Fuses Total
α= 0.05
Drift Limit (NL THA)
μmax = 10 Drift Limit (Suggested)

μf=ummax/Δyf
η=0.2

η=1.0

T=
 System Properties
IB, Z B IB, ZB

IC IC H IC IC H
Ab Ab

θ θ

L w b L
Bare Frame BRBs
IB, Z B t IB, ZB

hN plates h
Shear Panel
IC Ab Ab IC H IC Ab Ab IC H

θ θ bf t θ θ
tf
L L
T-ADAS Shear Panel
 Model with
Nippon Steel BRBs

Eccentric Gusset-
Gusset-Plate
Test 1
(PGA = 1g)
 Test 1
First Story BRB
40

30
y Axial Forrce (kips)

20

10

0
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-10
10
1st Story

-20

-30
30

-40
Axial Deformation (in)
 Test 1 (Nippon Steel BRB Frame)
First Story Columns Shear
100

75
olumns Shear (kN)

50

25

0
1sst Story Co

5
-5 -4
4 -3
3 -2
2 -1
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-25

-50

-75

-100
Inter-Story
Inter Story Drift (mm)
 Static Test - Nippon Steel BRBs
Note: Replacement is to re-
re-center the building
(not due to BRB fracture life)
BRB and SFC in Bridges

„ Ductile Diaphragms
z BRB SFC in end-diaphragms
end diaphragms
„ Rocking Trusses (Rocking Braced Frames)
z SFC with BFB at base
„ ABC Piers
z BRB SFC between dual columns
Ductile Diaphragms
with Structural Fuses
„ Zahrai, S.M., Bruneau, M. (1999). “Cyclic Testing of Ductile End-Diaphragms
for Slab-on-Girder Steel Bridges”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol.125, No.9, pp.987-996.
„ Zahrai, S.M., Bruneau, M. (1999). “Ductile End-Diaphragms for the Seismic
Retrofit of Slab-on-Girder Steel Bridges”, ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol.125, No.1, 1999, pp.71-80.
„ Sarraf M.,
Sarraf, M Bruneau,
Bruneau M.M (1998).
(1998) “Ductile Seismic Retrofit of Steel Deck-Truss
Deck Truss
Bridges. I: Strategy and Modeling”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol.124, No.11, 1998, pp.1253-1262.
„ Sarraf, M., Bruneau, M. (1998). “Ductile
Ductile Seismic Retrofit of Steel Deck
Deck-Truss
Truss
Bridges. II: Design Applications", ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol.124, No.11, 1998, pp. 1263-1271.
„ Zahrai, S.M., Bruneau, M. (1998). “Impact of Diaphragms on Seismic Response
of Straight Slab-on-girder Steel Bridges”, ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol.124, No.8, pp.938-947.
Vulnerable
Bridge
Substructure
Inelastic Behavior of Proposed and
Existing End
End-- Diaphragm
Implementation of Concept
Minato Bridge
g ((Hanshin Expressway
p y Corporation)
p )

„ Ductile Cross-Frames implemented as part of a comprehensive seismic rehabilitation process

„ KANAJI, H., KITAZAWA, M., SUZUKI, N., “Seismic Retrofit Strategy using Damage Control Design
Concept and the Response Reduction Effect for a Long-span Truss Bridge”, US-Japan Bridge
Workshop, 2005
BRB and SFC
in
i Rocking
R ki Truss
T Pi
Piers
„ Pollino, M., Bruneau, M., (2010). “Bi-Directional
Bi Directional Behavior and Design of Controlled
Rocking 4-Legged Bridge Steel Truss Piers,” ASCE J. of Struct. Eng. (in press).
„ Pollino, M., Bruneau, M., (2010). “Seismic Testing of a Bridge Truss Pier Designed
for Controlled Rocking,” ASCE J. of Struct. Eng. (in press).
„ Pollino, M., Bruneau, M., (2007). “Seismic Retrofit of Bridge Steel Truss Piers
Using a Controlled Rocking Approach”, ASCE J. of Struct. Eng. , Vol.12, No.5,
pp.600-610.
„ P lli M
Pollino, M., B
Bruneau, M.,
M (2008).
(2008) “A
“Analytical
l ti l andd Experimental
E i t l Investigation
I ti ti off a
Controlled Rocking Approach for Seismic Protection of Bridge Steel Truss Piers”,
Technical Report MCEER-08-0003, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering
g g Research,, State Universityy of New York at Buffalo,, Buffalo,, NY,, 2008.
„ Pollino, M., Bruneau, M., “Seismic Retrofit of Bridge Steel Truss Piers using a
Controlled Rocking Approach”, Technical Report MCEER-04-0011,
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of
N York
New Y k at Buffalo,
B ff l Buffalo,
B ff l NY,NY 2004.
2004
 Controlled Rocking/Energy
Dissipation System
S
„ Absence of base of leg
connection creates a
rocking bridge pier system
partially
ti ll isolating
i l ti ththe
structure

„ IInstallation
t ll ti off steel
t l
yielding devices (buckling-
restrained braces) at the
steel/concrete interface
controls the rocking
response while providing
energy dissipation Retrofitted Tower
 Existing Rocking Bridges
South Rangitikei Rail Bridge Lions Gate Bridge North Approach
Static, Hysteretic Behavior of Controlled
Rocking Pier

FPED=0
FPED=w/2

Device Response
General Design Constraints for
C t ll d R
Controlled Rocking
ki S
System
t
„ (1) Deck-level displacement limits need to be
established on a case-by-case
case by case basis
z Maintain pier stability
z Bridge serviceability requirements
„ (2) Strains on buckling-restrained brace (uplifting
displacements)
p ) need to be limited such that it behaves
in a stable, reliable manner
„ ((3)) Capacity
p y Protection of existing, g, vulnerable resisting
g
elements considering 3-components of excitation and
dynamic forces developed during impact and uplift
„ (4) Allow for self-centering of pier
 Design Procedure
Design Chart:

„ Design Constraints 10
h/d=4

z Acceleration
A l ti⇒

Limit forces through 8

vulnerable members
using
i structural
t t l “f “fuses”” 6

z Velocity

Aub (in2)
Aub
⇒

Control impact energy to

foundation and impulsive 4

loading on tower legs

by limiting velocity 2
z Displacement
p ⇒ Ductilityy
Limit μL of
specially detailed, 0
0 100 200 300 400
ductile “fuses” constraint1 Lub
Lub (in.)

constraint2
z β<1 Inherent re-centering (Optional)
⇒ constraint3
constraint4
constraint5
 Experimental Testing
„ Artificial Mass Simulation
Scaling Procedure
z λL>5 (Crane Clearance)
z λA=1.0 (1-g Field) h/d=4.1 Δ
z Wm=70kN (We=76kN) λL=5
6.1m
z Tom=0.34sec (Toe=0.40sec)
„ L di S
Loading System
t λt=2.2
=2 2
z Phase I
 5DOF Shake Table
z Phase II
 6DOF Shake Table

1.5m
Synthetic EQ 150% of Design Synthetic EQ 150% of Design
Free Rocking TADAS Case ηL=1.0
Synthetic EQ 150% of Design – Free Rocking
Synthetic EQ 175% of Design - Viscous Dampers
ABC Bridge Pier with
Structural Fuses

„ El-Bahey, S., Bruneau, M., (2010). “Structural Fuse

Concept For Bridges”, Transportation Research Record (a
J
Journal
l off the
th Transportation
T t ti Research
R h Board),
B d) (in(i press).)
„ El-Bahey, S., Bruneau, M., (2010). “Structural Fuse
Concept For Bridges”,
Bridges , MCEER Report (in press).
Simulate ABC Construction
Simulate ABC Construction
New “Short Length” BRB
Developed by Star Seismic
Specimen S2-
S2-1
Experimental versus Analytical
Results for Specimen S2-
S2-1

Onset of BRB
yielding
i ldi

Onset of Column
yielding
Specimen with BRB Fuses
Specimen with BRB Fuses
Pushover Comparison of Frame
with Different Structural Fuses
1400
1300
1200 BRB SPSL (with Restraints)
1100 60%

1000
900 30% SPSL (no Restraints)
Total Forcce (kN)

800
700
600
Bare Frame
500
400
300
200 μmax=3.3
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Top Displacement (mm)
Conclusions
„ Recently
R tl developed
d l d options ti for
f seismic
i i design
d i andd retrofit
t fit
illustrated (BRB with Fuse, TEBF, Rocking)
„ Instances for which replacement of sacrificial structural
members (considered to be structural fuses dissipating
hysteric energy) was accomplished, in some cases repeatedly.
„ Article/Clauses for the design of some of these systems are
being considered by:
z CSA-S16 committee for 2009 Edition of S16
z AISC TC9 Subcommittee for the 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions
„ Emerging field: opportunities to develop structural fuse
concepts still exist
Acknowledgments
„ Former Ph.D. Students:
z Michael Pollino (Case Western University) – Rocking Steel
F
Framed d Systems
S t
z Jeffrey Berman (University of Washington) – Seismic
Retrofit of Large Bridges Braced Bent
z Ramiro Vargas (University of Panama) – Enhancing
Resilience using Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
z Samer El-Bahey (Stevenson and Associates, Phoenix) –
St t l F
Structural Fuses ffor Bridges
B id
z Majid Sarraf (Parsons) – Ductile Cross-Frames in Trusses
z Mehdi Zahrai ((Universityy of Tehran)) – Ductile Diaphragms
p g
Funding from:
z National Science Foundation (to MCEER)
z Federal Highway Administration (to MCEER)
z NSERC (Canada)
Thank you!
o !

Questions?