Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Effect of steel braces buckling on inelastic torsion and design prevention of T

steel braced concrete frame structure
Xiangyu Gaoa, , Yanglong Lia, Jianqin Lib, Jimin Xuc
⁎

a
College of Architecture and Civil Eng., Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China
b
State Grid Power Economic Research Institute, Beijing, China
c
Central Research Institute of Building and Construction, MCC, Beijing, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The influence of steel brace buckling on inelastic torsion of steel braced concrete frame structure is studied. On
Brace buckling the background of a project, the shaking table test results of two structural models with ordinary steel brace
Concrete frame structure (BRC) and buckling-restrained brace (BRB) are compared, and the inelastic torsion and sudden increase caused
Inelastic torsion by steel brace buckling is confirmed. Finite element analysis models with BRC, BRB and floor load eccentricity
Steel-braced frame
are established, in which the restoring force model of steel brace considered the asymmetry of tensile and
compressive bearing capacity, and the concrete beam and column members considered M3 and PMM hinge
respectively to study the process and characteristics of the influence of BRC buckling on the nonlinear torsion of
the structure. The mechanism of inelastic torsion of steel braced concrete frame structure (F-BRC) induced by
BRC buckling is studied, and the principle that the dynamic BRC buckling makes the structure acquire inertial
force as well as inertial torsion moment is found out. It is more reasonable to explain the inelastic torsional
process and the mechanical characteristics of the structure by this principle than by the theory of strength
eccentricity and stiffness eccentricity. Finally, based on the principle, six numerical examples with different
brace schemes under the excitation of eight earthquake waves are calculated, and the changing rules of the
torsional moment are studied. Some design limitation suggestions are put forward.

1. Introduction
Steel brace (BRC) has a common characteristic of significant dif-
ferences between tension and compression capacity because of buck-
ling. However, it is widely used because of its economy, ease of man-
ufacture and obvious stiffness effect. As a design safeguard, some steel
structure design code or seismic design code generally limits the slen-
derness ratio to less than 150 or 120 respectively. There are also spe-
cifications regarding steel braces as the first seismic defense line or as
the fuel elements to play its role in protecting the main structure. But
can meeting the slenderness ratio guarantee the seismic demand of the
structure? Seismic damage investigations have found that steel braces
have a certain energy dissipation effect, which can prevent buildings
from collapsing [1], but there are also cases where steel braced concrete
buildings have collapsed [2] with torsion, or damaged with torsion [3].
In this paper, through comparable shaking table tests and structural
case analyses, it is found that BRC has obvious shortcomings in torsion
resistance, and there may be some risks if it is used as the first defense
line without any additional requirements. The effect of steel braces
buckling on inelastic torsion is studied. It is suggested that for buildings
in the area with higher characteristic period or buildings with higher
seismic grade it is necessary to limit the inertial torque, a dynamic
torsional effect that may be enlarged by the buckling of steel braces, in
addition to the slenderness ratio.
Around the issues covered in this paper, some progress had been
made, such as that Patxi Uriz et al. 2008 considered kinematic or iso-
tropic hardening, bauschinger effect and geometric nonlinearity, and
studied the brace buckling behavior in good agreement with experi-
ments [4,5]. Phill-Seung Lee et al. (2010) investigated the buckling
with property changes into smooth hardening for consecutive yields,
and took the residual displacement as the initial imperfection for sub-
sequent buckling. The reduction of critical load under cyclic load de-
pended on slenderness ratio and initial imperfection. A notable phe-
nomenon was the subsequent buckling force decreasing each cycle, and
the cyclic curves became sharper and thinner as slender ratio increase
[6].
Duo to a certain energy dissipation effect and economic advantages,
it can be considered the first defense line conceptually (WANG Yayong
2008 [1]) in steel braced concrete frame structure (F-BRC), and the
structural system has been widely used. However, the investigation and

⁎
Corresponding author.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.08.048
Received 14 February 2020; Received in revised form 7 June 2020; Accepted 15 August 2020
Available online 16 October 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Gao, et al.
test of earthquake damage showed that the seismic performance was
not satisfactory. The reinforced concrete columns have shear failure
(Daiki Saito et al. 2016 [3]) in a teaching building retrofitted with steel
braces, and the energy dissipation capacity of steel braces decrease
greatly after buckling (Chang Zheng, 2015 [7]). So, there exist some
problems to be studied.
The hysteretic response of CBF structures included complex phe-
nomenon, significantly differ from other types structures such as mo-
ment resisting frame and shear wall structure (Iraj H.P. 2012 [8]; Da-
niel P. et al. 2013 [9]). Daniel P.M. et al. conducted a hybrid
experimental investigation of a plan irregular CBF structure for char-
acteristics. They suggested lateral torsional frequency ratio be limited
to ensure only torsional stiff structures were allowed in design [9].
Günay Özmen et al. 2014, Ali Demir et al., 2010. studied torsional ir-
regularity coefficients with different frame and shear wall layouts [10].
Bugeja MN et al. 1999 thought that strength eccentricity had a far
greater effect on inelastic torsion than stiffness eccentricity [11].
Swapnil N. Dhande et all. 2015 discussed the influence of chevron, cline
brace and v-shaped braces on the shear force, torsion and internal force
of components [12].
Kourosh Kayvani et al. [13] noticed the brace local inertia (LI) force.
However, the study didn’t cover the buckling inertia effect on the
structure and the nonlinear torsion in the process. Sina Kazemzadeh
Azad, etc.2017 noticed dynamic buckling under rapid shortening with
higher compressive forces than static, and the overshoot of braces and
its influence on CBF structures were investigated. Zheng Wenlong et al.
2009 tested the strain rate influence on metal yielding strength.
Emrah Erduran et al. 2011 evaluated the torsion response of steel-
braced frame. Through 3D FEM models with different eccentricities,
they assessed the effects of torsion on seismic response. It was indicated
that torsion amplifications in inelastic systems exceed the corre-
sponding elastic systems [14]. Ding 2006 investigated the torsional
behavior of steel-braced steel frame and reported that the fracture of a
brace on one side of the building resulted in significant additional
torsion. Strain-based fracture life criterion was investigated [15]. A.
Massumi et al. 2013 through statically cyclic loading tests and finite
element analysis, the interaction between the brace and the concrete
frames of steel braced concrete frame were studied. It was considered
that steel brace in concrete frame not only increases strength and
stiffness, but also increases energy dissipation capacity [16].
In our theoretical and experimental research, we have noted when
the brace is rapidly transferred from high stressed tension to com-
pressional buckling dynamically, the bearing force on the structure
suddenly decreases, and the loss of bearing capacity during vibration is
equal to the same amount of inertia force jump captured by the struc-
ture, and the influence of its fracture or buckling on structure torsional
vibration is greater than its impact on lateral vibration. The effect of
this sudden increase of torsion on the forces and displacement field of
structural members is unfavorable, which is worthy of further study.
So, different from current studies, this paper focuses on effects dif-
ferences of braces buckling on the lateral and torsional response of steel
braced concrete frame, as well as the structural inertia force caused by
the buckling in the process of alternating force directions. Through
shaking table tests and FEM analysis, the influence mechanism of braces
buckling on inelastic torsion will be studied. Some design suggestions
will be put forward.
2. Shaking table test results of inelastic torsion
2.1. Design background of a typical engineering project
There is a typical plan of a seven stories chevron steel-braced con-
crete frame structure (short for Prototype, F-BRC) in Fig. 1. The struc-
ture design is carried out first, and relevant calculations are performed
according to Chinese codes (GB50011-2010) [18]. The fortification
intensity is 8 in Chinese scale[18], where the design basic acceleration
1688
Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700
of ground motion is 0.2 g (while the maximum values of seismic ground
acceleration used in time-history analysis is 0.07 g for Frequently
earthquake and 0.4 g for Rarely earthquake respectively); the maximum
value of horizontal seismic influence coefficient αmax = 0.16 for Fre-
quently earthquake and αmax = 0.90 for Rarely earthquake; the seismic
site characteristic period Tg = 0.45 s (there are different Tg values
among three design earthquake groups and five site class types namely
I0, I1, II, III and IV in Table 5.1.4-2 of the code [18]); the site class is III;
the allowable elastic story drift angle limitation for F-BRC is [θ]e = 1/
650 (Appendix G.1.4 [18]), and the torsional period ratio limitation is
Tr/T1 < 0.9.
2.2. Structural design and FEM models calculation
PKPM software is used to calculate the seismic spectrum response,
to perform components structural design and take compliance check
with specified load combinations.
Preliminary nonlinear time history analysis is performed with
SAP2000 software for the Prototype structure. The maximum story drift
angle limitation of the braced concrete frame structure is [θ]p = 1/67,
which is permitted to interpolated between the requirement of concrete
frame and frame-shear wall structures in G.1.4, the Appendix G of the
code [18]. Three pieces of earthquake records or waves are selected, i.e.
New-hall, El-Centro NS, and an artificial wave with PGA 4 m/s2.
Besides the Prototype model, another three FEM models (selected
the local range in Fig. 1a, namely Model1, Model2 and Model3) are also
developed. All the models are taking compliance check with specifi-
cation and performing seismic response analysis. The main differences
of the four models are listed in table 1, and the later three models are
for considering dynamic test of physical models (see Fig. 2).
The whole range model is used for nonlinear time-history analysis to
study the process of inelastic torsion and the contribution of braces
behavior to inelastic torsion, and to compare the different brace
schemes in the later. The partial range models (Model1 ~ Model3, the
covered range of the three models is shown in the dotted box in Fig. 1)
have a same plane and structural shape. There is no load eccentricity in
the tree models in order to find the different contributions of BRC and
BRB to seismic response. The Model1 and Model3 are further developed
and designed for scaled testing models, suitable to the technical lim-
itation of the 3 × 3 m shaking table in the lab (Fig. 2).
Here in table 2 only gives calculated results for general compliance
check and nonlinear time history analysis results with the two earth-
quake waves for brevity.
Although all the seismic design has satisfied the code requirements,
including the torsional period ratio and torsional displacement ratio,
but the results of the prototype model are particularly noteworthy. Its
inelastic torsion angle is very large [17], see table 2.
The other calculation results in table 2 show the following three
points:
First, the Prototype model's maximum lateral drift response is ba-
sically close to that of the partial range models (Model1 ~ Model3), but
its peak torsion (|φ|top,max) is much larger than those models, which is
initially estimated to be due to eccentricity and brace buckling.
Second, all the three partial models have no load eccentricity been
set. Obviously, the small peak values of lateral drift and torsion angle
for the Model3 are due the use of BRB, which does not buckle and
increase torsion because of compressional and tensional force sym-
metry. The stiffness of Model2 (with BRC) is almost equal to Model3
(with BRB), but the larger peak torsion is obviously related to BRC
buckling.
Third, although the peak values of Model1′s lateral drift and tor-
sional response are higher than the other partial models in most cases,
the structure still meets the requirements of the specification on tor-
sional to lateral displacement ratio, vertex lateral drift and story lateral
shift, as well as torsional to period ratio. So, it is still worth studying for
real projects because of economics.
X. Gao, et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700

Fig. 1. Typical plan and brace index in FEM model.

Considering these reasons, Model1 and Model3 in Table 2 are se-
lected as the prototypes of the shaking table tests so as to exclude the
influence of shape characteristics and the eccentricity, and comparing
the influence of BRC and BRB on structural torsion response.
2.3. Experimental model design and test method
Based on Model1 and Model3 in Tables 1 and 2, two shaking table
test models are designed and tested (Fig. 3), where the left is F-BRC
model and the right is the F-BRB model. The similar coefficients are
shown in Table 3, which suit to the technical condition of the shaking
table in the lab. The models are simplified to tree floors, and the mass of
story 4 ~ 7 are applied to the third floor (strengthened to undertake
additional counterweights) according to similar coefficients shown in
Table 3. The tested material mechanical data of micro-concrete: the
mean value of the compressional modules is 22740 N/mm2, and
strength is 24 MPa respectively; the coefficients of variation are 0.062
and 0.126 respectively. The similarity coefficient of fine particle con-
crete modulus CE = 1:1.333.
Where in Table 3, the similarity coefficients are satisfied the re-
lationships of vibration theories, such as the cross section of elements
CA = CL2, the normal stress Cσ = CE, the force CF = Cσ × CA, the
density CD = Cσ/CL = CE/CL (This parameter takes into account the
condition that the total mass meets the limitation of the shaking table,
while the inertial force similarity is satisfactory with the theory), the
stiffness CK = CECL, the mass CM = CD × CL3, the time or period
CT = (CM/CK)0.5, the horizontal acceleration CAC = CL/CT2, the inertia
force CIF = CM × CAC = 1/120 × 1/0.4 = 1/48. The other parameters
could be derived from these given values in the table.
The model floor size is 2600 × 1800 (0.3 + 1 + 1 + 0.3 = 2.6 m,
0.3 + 1.2 + 0.3 = 1.8 m); story height is 833, 666, 666 mm respec-
tively; total height is 2425 mm (base height 260 mm). The structural
elements parameters of the models are as follows: model columns sec-
tion 100 × 100 mm with longitudinal steel bar 20ϕ2.8, 16ϕ2.8(with
brace connection) for the 1st floor, 12ϕ2.8 for 2nd − 3rd floor, stirrups
ϕ0.9@16 (with brace connection), ϕ0.9@16/33 (with no brace) for 1st
floor, ϕ0.9@16/33 for 2nd − 3rd floor respectively; model beams
section (connection with brace) is 100 × 50 mm with longitudinal steel
bar 5ϕ4mm for top, and 5ϕ2.8 mm for bottom, and stirrups ϕ1.6@16;
model beams section of no brace connection is 100 × 50 mm with
longitudinal steel bar 4ϕ4mm for top, and 4ϕ2.8 mm for bottom, and
stirrups ϕ1.6@16/33 respectively.
The BRB’s mechanical parameters: yield force Fy = 8.5kN; stiffness
K0 = 13.6 (1st story), 14.6 kN/mm (2nd-3rd story). The both para-
meters satisfy similarity theory, i.e. the similarity coefficient of the
force CF = 1/48, and the stiffness CK = 1/8. The steel core is confined

Table 1
Differences between structural models.
Different Parameters Prototype (F-BRC) Model1 (F-BRC) Model2 (F-BRC) Model3 (F-BRB)3

Selection range qualitative Whole range Partial range Partial range Partial range
Selecting Range Entire model Fig. 1 dashed box Fig. 1 dashed box Fig. 1 dashed box
Scope of plane(m) 54 × 21.6 15.6 × 10.8 15.6 × 10.8 15.6 × 10.8
Floor load eccentricity 5% in × , 0 in y dir. 0 in both dir. 0 in both dir. 0 in both dir.
Steel brace type BRC BRC BRC BRB
Optimization design Optimized BRC Optimized BRC BRC and BRB have the same initial stiffness for comparison
Plastic hinge1 Beam/column M3/P-M−M M3/P-M−M M3/P-M−M M3/P-M−M
BRC/BRB N1, isotropic N1, isotropic N1, isotropic N1, Bouc-wen
Height-width ratio2 1.343 4.028 4.028 4.028
Length-width ratio2 2.500 1.667 1.667 1.667

Note: 1. Concrete element hinge assigned with ACI 318–02, BRC use frame element with axial hinge (Axial P), BRB use nonlinear link element with Wen (Axial P)
model; 2. Ratios calculated from columns mesh and floor height; 3. Concrete frame braced with buckling-restrained brace (short for F-BRB) in comparison with F-BRC
on analytically and experimentally.

1689
X. Gao, et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700

Table 2
Compliance check with specification and seismic response of structure models.
Properties and Conditions Prototype (F-BRC) Model1 (F-BRC) Model2 (F-BRC) Model3 (F-BRB)

First 3 vibration modes DOF DX, DY, RZ DX, RZ, DY DX, RZ, DY DX, RZ, DY
Period(s) 1.10, 1.03, 0.96 1.46, 1.01, 0.96 1.46, 0.85, 0.78 1.46, 0.85, 0.77
(1)
Torsion Period Ratio Tr/T1 0.870 0.696 0.582 0.582
Story Drift Ratio(1) θy = δmax,y/h 1/831 1/890 1/1176 1/1190
∣Δ∣top,max(m)(2) (Vertex lateral drift ratio) Newhall-1 0.179(1/162) 0.183(1/158) 0.124(1/234) 0.141(1/206)
El-Centro NS 0.138(1/210) 0.147(1/197) 0.118(1/246) 0.094(1/309)
(2)
∣φ∣ top,max(rad) Newhall-1 3.21 × 10−3 5.25 × 10−5 2.83 × 10−5 2.17 × 10−5
El-Centro NS 2.78 × 10−3 2.88 × 10−5 3.83 × 10−5 1.42 × 10−5

Note: 1. Results of modes decomposition seismic response spectrum method, αmax = 0.16, Tg = 0.45 s; 2. Results from nonlinear time history analysis.

models, it can also be seen in the Master thesis (LIU Chao 2016 [20]).
The models are installed on the table (Fig. 3) and the horizontal
acceleration loading is carried out along the Y direction (the plane
where the steel braces are located), see Fig. 2. The floor acceleration
sensors and brace strain meters are mounted on the test models (Fig. 2).

2.4. Inelastic torsion obtained by shaking table tests

The purpose of these experiments is to test the dynamic character-

istics and inelastic torsional response of the structures. Due to the re-
quirement of mass similarity of model tests, it is necessary to set
counterweight blocks on the models. Although these counterweights
should be set symmetrically and manually installed, there are still ob-
jectively different accidental eccentricities between the two test
models. These accidental eccentricities have some influence on the
structure torsion.
El-Centro NS, Northridge, Artificial and a white noise wave are se-
lected with 5 intensity values (PGA = 0.175 g, 0.263 g, 0.525 g, 0.75 g
and 1.0 g respectively) corresponding to frequent, fortification, rare
Fig. 2. Load and measurement of test model.
intensity and two intensities between them, plus 6 white noise, re-
sulting in a total 21 loading cases. Each loading case has been se-
quentially executed with the input PGA gradually larger.
In the test No.14 (PGA = 0.75 g, El-Centro NS excited), the residual
deformation of the buckled brace was observed and measured by hand
after the test (Fig. 4). It was a two-way lateral deflection that the value
was 20.3 mm horizontally, and 11.2 mm vertically. For the F-BRB
structure, no visible BRB brace residual deformation or failure was
observed, and no any BRB connection or embedded parts failed during
all the tests.
These buckling braces made the torsion of the structure more ap-
parent during subsequent tests. Here we first mainly discuss the floor
torsion magnification rather than the lateral responses and damage

Fig. 3. Shaking table testing models.

Table 3
Similarity coefficients of testing model.
Physical variables length modulus force density

Similar ratio CL CE CF CD
1:6 1:1.333 1:48 1:0.556
Physical variables stiffness time mass acceleration
Similar ratio CK CT CM CA
1:8 1:3.87 1:120 1:0.4

between steel angles to prevent buckle, for details it can be seen in the
PhD. dissertation (LI Jianqin 2016 [19]). The BRC’s mechanical para-
meters: stiffness K0 = 15.7 kN/mm (1st story), 18.6 kN/mm (2nd-3rd
story); Circular tube section is adopted. For the other details about the
Fig. 4. Residual deformation of steel braces.

1690
X. Gao, et al.
Fig. 5. Story rotation peak variation of F-BRC.
state. The torsional response is measured by acceleration sensors on
both sides of each floor (Fig. 2), from which the lateral displacement
and torsional angle can be integrated and calculated.
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show the peak torsional angle of the F-BRC and F-
BRB models respectively with the loading cases (21 cases, with the
sequences of increasing GPA), and 12 icons are used to distinguish the
waves and floors.
F-BRC structure (Fig. 5) maintains minor torsion angle during the
frequent intensity; there is a small increase within fortification in-
tensity; after that, from an observed residual deflection of a steel brace
(Fig. 4) at first story during 0.75 g PGA excitation, the story torsional
angle increases substantially until rare earthquake occurs. Then in the
rare intensity, the story torsional angle in 1st and 2nd floor reaches
more than 10 times of the peak value corresponding to the fortification
intensity. However, the horizontal acceleration input peak value by the
shaking table is only 2 times of that in fortification intensity. Therefore,
the inelastic torsion dynamic magnification factor is obviously larger
than that of the input multiple, with a sudden increasing characteristic,
and the maximum torsional angle approach 1/55 rad.
In sharp contrast to the F-BRC model (Fig. 5), the story torsion angle
of the F-BRB model has been remaining a stable low level (Fig. 6)
during the tests from the fortification to rare intensity. The peak story
torsional angle 1/630 rad indicates that all stories are basically in
elastic. Compared Figs. 5 and 6, it can be seen that F-BRB structure has
an obvious effect on inhibiting inelastic torsion, and BRB plays a key
Fig. 6. Story rotation peak variation of F-BRB.
1691
Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700
role preventing inelastic torsion. Therefore, the buckling of steel braces
is the direct cause of the sudden torsion increase, and the symmetrical
forces of BRB and its consumed energy can minimize the torsional angle
to the greatest extent. The process and the mechanism will be the focus
later.
On the other hand, different from the theoretical models (Table 2),
which has smaller torsional angles but the tested one has a very obvious
torsion, the reason is analyzed here: the tested models have a certain
uncontrollable eccentricity because of the artificial counterweight in-
stalling; and the tested models experienced multiple loading cases,
while the subsequent test is based on the previous test results as the
initial condition; the residual deformation occurred on steel braces is
cumulative, which leads to an increasing P-Δ effect. The residual de-
formation of steel braces can be seen in Fig. 4 clearly.
Fig. 7(a) and (b) show the axial force-deformation hysteresis curves
of the two braces (b2, see Fig. 2) measured by strain gauges and cable
displacement meter, as qualitative results only. The BRC has an asym-
metry characteristic, with obvious compressional capacity degradation,
while the BRB is almost symmetry with no degradation. Compared with
a typical curve of static cyclic loading test result (Black, G.R.et al. 1980
[4]) (Fig. 7c), the shape is different. The BRC tensile zone in Fig. 7a is
not stretched wide enough shown in Fig. 7c. The reason is their working
conditions different: after the counterweights are mounted to the test
model, the braces are under compressive. That means, before the test
begin, the brace has a certain initial compressional bending. The cable
displacement meter can only record the relative displacement of the
two connected ends of the brace; the bending of the brace cannot be felt
with the cable gauge. Fig. 7b is the curve of BRB, which absorb the
initial compression deformation without being buckled and has almost
no P-Δ effect. Therefore, Fig. 7b is relatively full than that of Fig. 7a.
3. Modeling and calculation results of inelastic torsion
This chapter discusses the Prototype structure modeling and calcu-
lation results. PKPM and Sap2000 software are used to perform spec-
trum analysis, seismic design, performance factor calculation and
nonlinear time-history analysis.
3.1. The Prototype modeling
The 3D geometrical models of the concrete frame are built with
frame elements and plastic hinges at the two ends, where the beam is
set to M3 and the column to P-M-M hinge (Table 1). The BRC is also
modeled with frame element, only the axial plastic hinge (considering
the asymmetry of tension and compression) is set with isotropic hys-
teresis rule, and the skeleton curve and its acceptance criteria and the
performance metrics come from the standard (FEMA 356, 2000 [21]).
The BRB is modeled with nonlinear link element and Wen hysteresis
model. The acceptance criterion is tentatively judged with the standard
(JG/T 209–2012 [22]).
3.2. Buckling process of steel braces and its effects on torsional responses
The structural seismic responses discussed below according to the
calculated results of El-Centro NS and Loma Prieta waves in y-direction
with PGA 400 Gal. The more other responses will be discussed with
different brace schemes in the last.
Fig. 8 shows the plastic hinges appearing process and state diagram
during t = 0 ~ 4.6 s under El-Centro NS excitation, only two pieces of
braced frames at x = −21 m and x = +21 m in Prototype structure are
listed. The numbers in small circles represent the property state of the
plastic hinges. The number order from small to large indicates that the
hinge enters from mild to severe plastic state.
Fig. 9 shows the axial force-time history curves of 6 steel braces on
three floors for simply and clarity (brace numbers can be seen in
Fig. 1b, where the occurrence sequence of plastic hinge is also
X. Gao, et al.
Fig. 7. Steel braces hysteric curves.
indicated, and “C” represents compression state at the time). According
to these data, its inclined angles and distance to structural center, the
total torsion moment each floor can be calculated, see Fig. 10.
Taking two moments (t = 2.0 s and t = 2.96 s) as examples to see
the responses. Relevant events need to be considered in combination
with Figs. 8–10.
When t = 2.0 s, the braces 256,258 on the right of the 4th and 5th
floor entered the CP stage earlier than the rest braces (Fig. 8). At the
time, the brace 266, 256, 262 are under compression and 265, 255, 261
in tension (Fig. 9) as the structure tilted to the right (see Fig. 8). During
the period t = 1.9 s ~ 2.6 s, No.256 brace reaches crushing state
(Fig. 9), in the meantime, the torsional moment of some floors changes
abruptly (Fig. 10).
When t = 2.96 s, the left brace 255 on the 4th story reached yield
capacity, before this brace256 on same floor had quit work (Fig. 9). The
big difference of the two braces internal forces inevitably maintains the
torsional moment high value (Fig. 10). From t = 2.5 to 3.0 s, the brace
265 on 1st story has been being compressed into CP state (Fig. 9), and
No.266 brace quickly switches from tension to compression, and then
begin crushing. Brace 261 and 262 on 7th story keep their forces con-
version in mild plastic hinge (Fig. 9), the difference of the forces in
tension and compression is not large, so there is only a small torsional
moment (Fig. 10). The torsional angle reached a higher value
(R3 = 1.21 × 10−3, t = 2.96 s, Fig. 8), before the event the torsional
moment borne by the braces increased suddenly for the first time before
t = 2.7 s. After that it reached another higher crest at time 4.6 s (R3 = -
Fig. 8. Plastic hinges state and formation process (El-Centro NS) for both braced frames at x = 21 m/−21 m.
1692
Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700
2.79 × 10−3, Fig. 8), and just before this the torsional moment reached
to minus peak value (t = 4.2 ~ 4.3 s, Fig. 10), in the same direction
with R3. These events reveal that brace buckling forms higher torsional
moment, and its multiple buckling further boosts the torsional moment
and angle duo to repeated compressive degradation.
In addition, there is something worthy of attention: first, the hinge
state on the frame at x = 21 m is more serious than that of the frame at
x = −21 m (Fig. 8), which is affected by the load (mass) eccentricity.
The second is the axial hysteresis curve (Fig. 9). Before t = 2.0 s, its
positive and negative amplitudes are basically symmetrical, but after
that, the forces gradually turn to the positive side, indicating that there
is large residual force. After t = 5 s, only fewer braces are in normal
condition. The third is the story torsional moment curve borne by the
braces (Fig. 10). The 2nd to 6th stories are inclined to the positive side,
while the 1st and 7th story are to negative side, indicating the residual
torque each story and the torsional direction not consistent. Fourthly,
after t = 2.96 s, the plastic hinge state of the concrete frame at
x = 21 m is obviously more serious than the plastic hinge state of the
frame at x = -21 m. When t = 4.6 s, the plastic hinge number in LS
state or more serious is 214% more than that of the latter frame (Fig. 8).
The mentioned plastic hinge state and the torsion moment borne by
the steel braces shown in Figs. 8–10 are the response under El-Centro
wave. Further analysis shows that the seismic response of the steel
braced concrete frame structure is also similar under the other seismic
wave excitation in rare intensity. Now let's look at the brace’s axial
force and the forming story torsion moment under Loma Prieta seismic
X. Gao, et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700

Fig. 9. Braces (x = 21 m) axial force–time history curve under El-Centro NS 400 Gal in Y direction.

Fig. 10. The history curves of torsional moment carried by all the braces each floor (El-Centro NS).

wave with peak value of 4 m/s2.
Fig. 11 shows the axial force-time history curves of 6 steel braces
(same with Fig. 9) on three floors for briefly and simply, and the story
torsion moment borne by all the braces are shown in Fig. 12.
We can see the brace 265 (1st floor, Fig. 1) is firstly buckled at time
period 2.7–3.6 s, and its reduced compressive bearing capacity expands
the torque borne by the braces in this story, resulting in the first torque
mutation (Fig. 12). The subsequent buckling of the braces on floors 2, 3,
4 and 5 resulted in a sudden increase in torque on the relevant floors
(see Fig. 12).
It can also be seen from Fig. 11 that the brace 265 in 1st story and
the brace 255 in 4th story buckle in the same phase, and the torque
mutation of the 1st story, the 4th story and the 6th story also keep in the
same phase (Fig. 12). The torsional mutation caused by the buckling of
the other braces in 2nd, 3rd and 5th story is in a same phase (Fig. 12)
but opposite to the previous mentioned mutation. Thus, the mutation in
torque for each floor can be generated by the simultaneous buckling of
multiple steel braces, and can be generated in both directions, and can
even appear multiple times (see t = 3.52 s and 8.12 s in Fig. 12). This is
an illustrative example of an inelastic torsional mutation process in-
duced by steel braces buckling.
As the above discussion, it can be concluded that steel brace
buckling has a significant influence on the seismic response of structure,
that the load eccentricity affects the buckling plastic hinge state of

Fig. 11. Brace (x = 21 m) axial force-time history curves under Loma Prieta 400 Gal in Y direction.

1693
X. Gao, et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700

Fig. 12. The history curves of torsional moment carried by all the braces each floor (Loma Prieta).

braces; the buckling is closely related to its borne torsion moment and
torsion angle. The torsion produces residual internal force and torsional
moment in braces. Torsion can aggravate the hinge state of the struc-
tural members, which is unfavorable to the seismic performance.
Further research shows that it is effective way to decrease story torsion
for control of slenderness ratio of steel brace, increase torsional stiffness
and reduce eccentricity.
3.3. Dynamic magnification of lateral displacement and torsional angle
Taking the seismic response peak values as comparison, the dy-
namic magnification coefficients of lateral displacement and torsional
angle under the three waves are shown in Table 4, in which the fre-
quent intensity and relevant peak response values are taken as the
comparison basis.
The dynamic amplification factor of torsional displacement exceeds
the amplification factor of seismic input multiple in 3 places of Table 4.
The factor of torsional displacement exceeds that of lateral displace-
ment in 5 places. These data show that considering the structural in-
elastic torsion caused by load eccentricity and brace buckling, there is a
great possibility that the torsional dynamic amplification exceeds the
seismic input multiple or that of lateral displacement response.
The comparison of the torsional moment and shear force amplifi-
cation in a single column by FEM time-history analysis indicated that
both the overall torsion and the forces on vertical members are affected
by the buckling of braces, and its effect on torsion is greater than that of
translational motion (XU Jimin, 2019 [23]).
3.4. Discussion of comparability between theoretical calculation results and
experimental results
The experimental results in Section 2.4 cannot be directly compared
with current theoretical calculations results, which is mainly because
there are still significant differences between the two kinds of models.
First, the shaking table tests have been sequentially executed with
the input PGA gradually larger, and the sequenced situation (with ac-
cumulative residual deformation existed) was different from any real
earthquakes. But the time history analysis should be conducted in a
natural way which is different from the tests. Second, the shaking table
models are scaled down to fit the table, and the simplified three-story
masses conforms to similar conditions only in the translation mass, and
the moment of inertia in the overturning direction is distorted, so there
will be obvious differences between the two models. In addition, in the
research of the following chapter 4, it will be found that the buckling of
steel brace will lead to both inertial torque and inertial overturning
moment, which will aggravate the difference between theoretical
model and experimental model. Third, some differences such as size
effect, loading rate effect and component constitutive model all affect
the comparison results, but which is not the focus of this paper.
In spite of these, objectively through the experiments, it was found
that ordinary steel braced frame structure would produce inelastic
torsion surge under symmetrical loading, and through the comparison
under the same conditions, it was found that BRB has the effect of re-
straining inelastic torsion compared with ordinary steel braces. This test
can also be used as a reference to study the seismic response char-
acteristics of steel braces with residual deformation or initial im-
perfection.
In order to make up for the limitation of the shaking table tests, it is
necessary to carry out finite element modeling and analysis to study the
mechanism of inelastic torsion and effective control measures.

Table 4
Lateral drift and rotation angle magnification. 4. The influence mechanism of steel braces buckling on inelastic
Input Magnification of lateral Magnification of torsional angle torsion
multiple displacement
4.1. Unbalanced force caused by the buckling of steel brace
El- New- Artificial El-Centro New- Artificial
Centro hall hall
As we known the brace buckling is characterized by asymmetric
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 forces, multiple buckling, complex hysteretic rules, and degradation in
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 compression, another important issue here we discussed is the buckling
3.000 2.358 2.796 3.001 2.967 2.319 2.999 may be instantaneous. Not only the buckling in earthquakes may ap-
3.000 2.701 3.398 3.001 3.204 2.602 3.000
pear in a short period, but also in cyclic tests it only takes a small
5.714 4.570 5.018 5.714 4.120 6.229 5.744
5.714 4.034 4.658 5.689 5.213 2.916 5.656 portion of each cycle time (Fig. 7c, from Ti to Ci). Its influence on
structure is not only to the static response, but also to the dynamic

1694
X. Gao, et al.
Fig. 13. Schematic diagram of inertia torsional moment increase due to steel braces buckling.
response of structure.
The difference between tensional and compressive bearing capacity
on the curve (Fig. 7c, such as T1-|C1|,Tj-|Cj|) may be performed in re-
latively short time. Under cyclic loading, the compressive capacity
decreases multiply, namely, |Cn| < … < |Cj| < … < |C1| (j = 1,…,n),
until fatigue fracture occurs.
We define the difference as unbalanced force (expressed by Fubi, i is
the cycle order), which represents the loss of the maximum bearing
capacity duo the brace buckling to its supporting points in the process
of reciprocating vibration, which has regularity and can be studied
specially.
The unbalanced force within a period of short time can be calcu-
lated with Eq. (1):
Fubj = Tj |Cj| (1)
th
where, j—the j load cycle; Fubj—unbalanced force; Tj—the maximum
tensional capacity; |Cj|—the maximum absolute value of the compres-
sional capacity; Fub is the function of deformation amplitude, and can
be got through cyclic tests in advance.
4.2. The sudden increase of inertia force associated with the buckling of
steel brace
According to D’ Alembert principle, any forces imposing on struc-
tural node i should be kept in balance:
Fei + Fdi + Fsi + FIi = 0 (2)
where, i—node No.; Fei—external force; Fdi—damping force;
Fsi—structural constraint force; FIi—nodal inertia force of the node. Any
forces in this equation are vectors.
To examine the instantaneous brace buckling, considering in a
transient short time Δt, at the moment of a certain vibration, the forces
acting on the node i satisfy the incremental formula of Eq. (3), derived
from Eq. (2).
Fei + Fdi + Fsi + FIi = 0 (3)
If the compressional brace buckles in Δt time, and the external input
force is zero, namely ΔFei = 0, the supporting force borne by the brace
to node i will suddenly drop, the reduced quantity of Fsi = - Fubi, where,
Fubi can be calculated by Eq. (1). Considering that the local viscous
damping force to resist the buckling is very small in Δt, compared with
Fubi, its value is assumed to close 0. It can be seen from Eq. (3) that node
i will obtain the amount incremental inertial force FIi equivalent to the
unbalanced force Fubi corresponding to the axial deformation then:
FIi = Fubi (4)
Note that ΔFIi is a vector whose direction is the longitudinal axis of
the brace.
1695
Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700
If in Δt there is an external input force on node i (that is, ΔFei ≠ 0),
the inertia force increment obtained by node i will depend on the
combined force of ΔFei and the unbalanced force Fubi.
According to the above discussion, the formula can be intuitively
understood as the principle bellow:
Due to buckling of steel brace, the inertial force obtained by the
structure depends on the unbalanced unloading force caused by the
buckling, and the action point and direction remain unchanged.
In this way, the inertial forces incremental obtained by the structure
due to the buckling of the brace can be known, without caring about the
mass connected to the node i. This principle provides a convenient
method for the following analysis of inelastic torsion caused by brace
buckling.
4.3. Mechanism of story inertia torsional moment increment induced by
steel braces buckling
According to Eq. (4), an incremental inertia torsional moment duo
to brace buckling can thus be obtained. Fig. 13 gives the schematic
diagram of the process, and here is discussed below.
4.3.1. The story shear force and its increment borne by steel brace
The story shear force borne by braces can be calculated according to
its axial force and inclination angle. For a chevron braced frame in
Fig. 13(a), the shear force undertaken by the two braces can be calcu-
lated according to the internal forces (Nb1 and Nb2):
Vb = Vb1 + Vb2 = Nb1 cos 1 + Nb2 cos 2 (5)
where, θ1 and θ2 are the angles between the brace and its horizontal
axial in the frame plane respectively, here in Eq. (5) higher order de-
formation effect is omitted.
When a steel brace buckles, it generates the same amount of inertia
force increment on its connection node in its axis direction, equal to the
unbalance force Fubj of the brace, which can be calculated by Eq. (4), as
shown in Fig. 13(b). Its horizontal component δVb can be calculated by
Eq. (6):
Vbij = Fubij cos ij (6)
where, foot note i (i = 1,…,n) indicates the floor, and j the brace
number (j = 1,…,m). If the brace does not buckle, then δVbij = 0.
Compared with the strength eccentricity and stiffness eccentricity to
explain the characteristics of torsion response of such structures, the
principle of the story inelastic torque increment induced by the buck-
ling of steel braces can better explain the mechanism of inelastic torsion
angle mutation. Because the real bearing capacity and stiffness of steel
braces are in a state of constant change in the process of structural
vibration, the so-called “eccentricity” is also in a state of constant
X. Gao, et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700

change, and it is a result but not a cause, so it is difficult to explain the
vibration behavior and the characteristics of sudden dynamic response
of such a structure.
4.3.2. Effect of inertia force increment on story inertia torsional moment
increment
The horizontal component of the unbalanced force generates tor-
sional moment increment, as shown in Fig. 13(c). When the structure
vibrates in y-direction, the torsion moment increment can be calculated
by Eq. (7).
m system, that is, the minimum (negative) values are expressed in abso-
MTi = ( Vbij· x ij )
j =1
where, δMTi is the story torsional moment increment; δVbij is the hor-
izontal component of the inertia force provided by brace j, be calculated
with Eq. (6); xij is the distance from the plane of the braced frame to the
torsion stiffness center on floor i, shown in Fig. 13(c). When the system
vibrates in both directions, it can be calculated according to the above
principle.
4.4. Numerical examples and design suggestions
Here we discuss a possible application of the inertia torsional mo-
ment calculated with formula (7).
As a structural engineer, when designing steel-braced concrete
frame structures, one of the problems we face is how to choose a good
steel brace scheme, which not only meets the existing requirements of
the specifications or codes, but also prevents the inelastic torsional
mutation, or avoids the large inertial torsion moment in formula (7), to
ensure that the scheme can be used as the first seismic defense line, or
play the role of a fuse function to protect the main structure. This
concern will be discussed through the nonlinear analysis case examples
of different slenderness ratio schemes of steel brace and the time history
results are calculated in rare earthquakes. Then, structural design
suggestions are put forward concerning how to use formula (7) to
prevent the inelastic torsional mutation.
4.4.1. Numerical examples of different brace slenderness ratio schemes
There are six models with different brace slenderness ratio schemes
shown in Table 5, in which the main structures are same with Fig. 1.
The section area of braces remains unchanged and only the slenderness
ratio values are varied.
Nonlinear time history analyses are performed with input of eight
different seismic waves, namely El-Centro NS, New-hall-1, Kobe and
Chi-Chi etc., which have different site characteristic periods, but the
peak values of acceleration are set in the same value 4 m/s2, see
Table 6.
Fig. 14 is the seismic response spectrum curves of the eight earth-
quake waves and the seismic design spectrum corresponding to rare
intensity, where αmax = 0.90, Tg = 0.45 s according to the Chinese
code [18] and the seismic site. We can see the different of the eight
earthquake waves, and they take a relatively wide range of site char-
acteristics period. The motivation of selecting these seismic waves is to
investigate the adaptability of the steel brace’s schemes to earthquakes
in different site conditions.
According to the calculating results, Fig. 15 shows the mean value of
the maximum torsion angle at the vertex of the column B in Fig. 1,
where the range of the maximum (positive) and minimum (negative)
values in dashed and dash-dotted lines are given respectively. Fig. 16
gives the corresponding results of the vertex lateral displacement on the
same place, and the maximum and the minimum range are also shown
for the eight waves. Note that the maximum (positive) and minimum
(negative) values are drawn in the first quadrant of the coordinate
lute value, so as to facilitate the observation of the characteristics of the
(7) range of changes.
First of all, it can be seen from Fig. 15 and Fig. 16 that the mean
value of the peak torsion angle of the structure under El-Centro NS,
New Hall, Turkey and Chi-Chi wave generally increases with the in-
crease of slenderness ratio. The difference between the maximum and
minimum values of El-Centro NS, New Hall, Loma Prieta and Morgan
wave is also increasing differently. However, the mean value of lateral
displacement peak is not sensitive to the change of the slenderness
ratio, and the difference with the torsional response is obvious. This
indicates that the effect of the slenderness ratio on the inelastic torsion
is greater than that of the inelastic lateral displacement.
Secondly, in addition to artificial waves in class I0 site and Morgan
waves in class I site, the structural vertex torsional response peaks are
all affected by the schemes of steel brace slenderness ratio. But the
mean value of peak lateral displacement is not affected obviously by the
characteristics of seismic site.
The above situation indicates that the design controllability to in-
elastic torsion is lower than that of inelastic lateral displacement, and
the design controllability to torsional resistance in seismic sites with
long characteristics period is worse.
Third, the mean value of the peak torsion angle and lateral dis-
placement under the Artificial and Morgan wave are relatively low, and
they are not sensitive to the change of the slenderness ratio of the brace.
This is mainly because the two waves are selected from the site class I,
and the overall plastic hinge of the structure under this site is in a slight
state or quasi-elastic state, and the structural response to inelastic lat-
eral movement and torsion are small.
The above discussion may not be very obvious enough to under-
stand, here let's look at the above data and phenomena from different
angles.
Base on the data in Figs. 15 and 16, we can calculate the following
parameters about the vertex torsional angles in formulas (8)–(9), and
(10)–(11), the later pair of formulas is similar with the former pair, but
is about the vertex lateral displacement.
m
1 i
µ =
m µ i (8)
i=1
where, μΔφ the mean value of the relative maximum (minimum) peak
difference value of vertex torsional angle in all relevant seismic waves;
m the total number of earthquake waves loaded in the FEM analysis,
here m = 8 (table 6); Δφi the maximum absolute peak difference

Table 5
Brace scheme parameters.
Brace schemes D(mm) t(mm) Section area Section moment of inertia(mm4) Slenderness ratio l/i Equivalent slenderness ratio λE

2
1st fl. 2-7th fl. 1st fl. 2-7th fl. (mm ) 1st fl. 2-7th fl. 1st fl. 2-7th fl.

A1-BS1 132 132 6.00 6.00 2375.05 4,723,974 4,723,974 138.15 120.67 123.17
A1-BS2 150 140 5.22 5.63 2375.05 6,230,960 5,370,002 120.29 113.17 114.19
A1-BS3 150 150 5.22 5.22 2375.05 6,230,943 6,230,943 120.67 105.07 107.30
A1-BS4 160 160 4.87 4.87 2375.05 7,151,311 7,151,311 112.28 98.07 100.10
A1-BS5 180 180 4.30 4.30 2375.05 9,170,069 9,170,069 99.16 86.61 88.40
A1-BS6 200 200 3.85 3.85 2375.05 11,426,371 11,426,371 88.83 77.59 79.20

1696
X. Gao, et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700

Table 6
Seismic wave parameters.
No Seismic Wave Tg(s) Dt(s) Site Class* Design group* Adjust Peak* Value(m/s2) Abbr.

1 Artificial 0.15 0.001 I0 1 4.00 Artificial

2 MorganHill-456PW 0.25 0.005 I 1 4.00 Morgan
3 Turkey-Duzce-1613PW 0.35 0.010 I1 3 4.00 Turkey
4 Kobe-1109PW 0.45 0.020 II 3 4.00 Kobe
5 Chi-Chi-2156PW 0.550 0.004 III 2 4.00 Chi-Chi
6 El-Centro NS 1940 0.550 0.020 III 2 4.00 El-Centro-NS
7 NewHall-S2499-0 DEG 0.650 0.020 III 3 4.00 New-hall
8 LomaPrieta-753PW 0.750 0.005 IV 2 4.00 Loma-Prieta

*Note: Site Class, design groups are classified according to the code [18]. The peak value is set as the requirement for calculation of elasto-plastic deformation under
rare earthquake [18].

m
1 Di
µ D =
m i=1
µDi (10)

where, μΔD the mean value of the relative maximum (minimum) peak
difference value of vertex lateral displacement in all relevant seismic
waves; ΔDi the maximum absolute peak difference between the vertex
seismic lateral displacement and the mean value of each seismic wave;
μDi the mean value of the absolute peak lateral displacement for each
seismic wave.

m
1 Di
D = ( µ D )2
(m 1) i=1
µDi (11)

where, σD the standard deviation value of the relative maximum

(minimum) peak difference value of torsional angle in all relevant
seismic waves.
Now we use these above statistical formula to calculate the data in
Figs. 15 and 16 and plot them in Fig. 17.
Fig. 14. Seismic spectrum curves of the selected waves in Table 6. From Fig. 17 we can see:
The standard deviation about torsion is lower when the slenderness
between the vertex torsional angle and the mean value of each seismic ratio is small, higher when the slenderness ratio is large, and the overall
wave; μφi the mean value of the absolute peak torsional angles for each variation range is large. The standard deviation of translation is higher
seismic wave. when the slenderness ratio is small, lower when the slenderness ratio is
large, and the overall variation range is small. The increase of standard
m
1 i deviation indicates the difficulty of design control.
= ( µ )2
(m 1) i=1
µ i (9) The mean value about the torsion increases with the increase of
slenderness ratio, while the mean value about the translation decreases
where, σφ the standard deviation value of the relative maximum with the increase of slenderness ratio.
(minimum) peak difference value of torsional angle in all relevant According to the mean values in Figs. 15 and 16, the relationship
seismic waves. curves between various brace slenderness schemes and seismic site
Similar to formula (8), the mean value of the relative maximum characteristic period can also be calculated, see Fig. 18 for the two
(minimum) peak difference value of the vertex lateral displacement in kinds of vertex peak responses respectively. The cubic polynomial re-
all relevant seismic waves can be calculated with formula (10). gression curves are also shown in the figures.

Fig. 15. Vertex torsional angle vs. slenderness ratio.

1697
X. Gao, et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700

Fig. 16. Vertex lateral displacement vs. slenderness ratio.

It is very clear from Fig. 18 that the mean value of the vertex peak Fig. 19 shows the total torsional moment borne by all the steel
torsion angles of different brace schemes is more sensitively affected by braces in these structures under the assumption of consistent torsional
different seismic sites than the vertex peak lateral displacement, the phase, as well as the possible inertia torsional moment induced by the
larger the site characteristic period, the greater the dispersion degree of brace buckling calculated by formula (7) corresponding to the max-
the former. imum vertex torsional angle of the structure (different brace scheme
have different maximum vertex torsional angle). The ratio values of the
inertia torque to the total torque for the different braces design schemes
4.4.2. Setting a limitation to prevent harmful inelastic torsion during
(Table 5) are also shown in Fig. 19.
structural design
As can be seen from Fig. 19, there are two points as follows:
As discussed in this paper, the inelastic torsion of steel-braced
One is the total torsional moment curve borne by all the steel
concrete frame structures is difficult to predict during the conventional
braces. When the slenderness ratio is relatively small, the total torsional
design phase, and it is related to whether the steel braces can serve as
moment value will increase to some extent. This is because the brace
an effective first seismic line, or fuse element, to protect the main
stiffness is relatively larger, the structure torsion angle is smaller, and
structure. The inelastic torsion and its sudden increase are very harmful
there is still room for the maximum bearing capacity of steel braces. So
to low ductility members, or connectors between structures or ele-
with the increase of λ = l/i, the stiffness decreases, the torsion angle
ments. So how to prevent the inelastic torsional mutation effectively in
increases, and the internal force will increases, thus the resistance
the structural design phase? It is suggested here that formula (7) be
torsional moment increases too. When the slenderness ratio is relatively
used to limit the possible inertia torsional moment induced by the brace
larger, such as λ > 100, the torsional stiffness of the brace decreases
buckling, and a reasonable recommendation is proposed.
and the torsional angle increases, more steel braces reach the tensile
As a possible application case, the Eq. (7) can be used to estimate
bearing capacity, and the compressive bearing capacity is significantly
the upper limit of the inertia torsional moment induced by the braces
reduced compared with the paired tensile brace, then the total re-
buckling. Assuming that the inelastic torsional vibration phase of each
sistance torque decreases with the increase of the slenderness ratio.
floor is consistent, the relationship between the maximum torsion angle
Therefore, there's a maximum on the curve of the total torsional mo-
of the structure and the inertia torsional moment can be estimated by
ment vs the slenderness ratio (see Fig. 19 the short dashed line).
using the Eq. (7), as well as the asymmetric tensile and compressive
The second is the inertia torsional moment curve induced by brace
plastic hinge skeleton line of steel brace suggested in structural codes or
buckling calculated from Eq. (7). In the two cases of λ ≅ 80 and 90, the
specifications.

Fig. 17. ParameterμΔφ, μΔD/σφ,σD of the vertex torsion and lateral displacement.

1698
X. Gao, et al.
Fig. 18. Vertex peak response mean values with the different seismic site conditions.
Fig. 19. Estimated inertia torsional moment and the total moment borne by the braces vs. slenderness ratio.
inertia torsional moment are basically very small, because that in these
cases, few brace buckles duo to smaller slenderness ratio. With the in-
crease of the slenderness ratio, the torsion angle of the structure in-
creases, and more steel brace reaches the tensile and compressive
bearing capacities (the later value is obvious smaller than the former).
The unbalanced force between the two braces gradually increases, and
the inertia torsional moment calculated by formula (7) will con-
tinuously increase. Within the conditions of Table 5, when the slen-
derness ratio is more than 100, the ratio of inertial torque is about
taking more than 5% of the total torsional moment; When the slen-
derness ratio exceeds 110, the ratio value will exceed 10% (see Fig. 13
the solid line).
4.4.3. Design suggestions
Fig. 19 shows that the brace scheme with the maximum torsional
strength and low inertia torque should be selected for the torsional
design scheme. For the areas with a large characteristic period of
seismic site, the maximum floor torsional angle should be calculated via
the nonlinear time history analysis, and the possible inertia torque
should be limited.
For buildings with high seismic site categories and high earthquake
resistance grade levels, such as buildings in schools or hospitals, the
design precautions with two indexes might be considered: first, limit
the brace slenderness ratio λ = l/i < [λ] = 100–120 during the se-
lection; Second, inertia torque (MTI) is calculated by Eq. (7), and its
proportion should be lower than ρT = MTI/MT = ∑(δMTi)/
1699
Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700
MT < [ρT] = 5–10%.
The above suggestions are easy operational. In the preliminary de-
sign stage, only [λ] can be used to select brace. In the detailed design
phase, inertia torsional moment MTI can be calculated, and ρT < [ρT]
be limited. The second parameter is still suitable for a combination use
of conventional steel brace and buckling-restrained brace, the later one
of which does not include any value of inertial torque, but requires
attention to prevent failure of connectors and embedded parts.
For more complex design conditions, such as structural plane layout
and spatial layout are significantly different, or in the case of industrial
buildings, in which the distribution of structural mass and stiffness is
more complex, the proposed limits need to be further studied.
5. Conclusions and suggestions
(1) Shaking table tests shows that the designed steel braced concrete
frame structure is more likely to inelastic torsion due to steel brace
buckling than BRB braced frame structure, and the inelastic torsion
has the possibility of sudden increase. The results of FEM nonlinear
analysis with the models considering load eccentricity and braces
asymmetry also prove the possibility. It is possibly effective way of
minimizing the inelastic torsion and sudden increase to limit slen-
derness ratio, to increase torsional rigidity and reduce eccentricity.
(2) Due to buckling of steel brace, the inertial force obtained by the
structure depends on the unbalanced unloading force caused by the
buckling, and the action point and direction remain unchanged. In
X. Gao, et al.
this way, the inertial forces increment obtained by structural system
due to the brace buckling can be known without caring about the
mass connected to the node. With the principle the inelastic inertia
torsional moment induced by the buckling can be calculated.
(3) For structures with eccentricity and larger ratio of length to width
in plane, the buckling of steel brace is more likely to stimulate
torsional vibration mode. Steel braces far from the rigid center are
first feeling torsional force and possibly buckle. The compressive
capacity degradation can increase the unbalance forces and starting
the nonlinear vibration mode with increasing torsional moment.
(4) Conventional structural design methods cannot avoid sudden in-
elastic torsion in strong earthquakes. The unbalanced force induced
by the brace buckling should be considered and corresponding
measures should be taken. In the finite element modeling of non-
linear time history, eccentricity of bearing capacity, asymmetry of
bearing capacity and degradation of compressive capacity of steel
braces should be considered.
(5) In the curve of overall torque undertaken by steel braces and
slenderness ratio of the braces, there is an optimal range in the
selection of steel bracing scheme. By limiting the ratio of slender-
ness of steel brace and the proportion of inertia torque to the total
torque, the inelastic torsional surge can be controlled within a
reasonable range and the design controllability can be improved.
The first parameter can be used as a reference for preliminary de-
sign, while the second parameter is related to the steel brace
scheme and can be used as a reference for detailed structural design
or BRC and BRB mixed use. This measure is recommended for
buildings with high earthquake site grade and high earthquake
resistance grade, such as buildings of schools or hospitals.
(6) BRB can prevent the buckling, so the unbalanced force and sudden
increase of torsion will be prevented. This has been proved by
shaking table tests and finite element modeling calculation. In the
case of mixed using BRC and BRB, placing BRB on the distal end of
structure plane can effectively control the inelastic torsion and its
abrupt increase.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Yayong Wang. Lessons learnt from the “5.12” Wen Chuan Earthquake: evaluation of
earthquake performance objectives and the importance of seismic conceptual design
1700
Structures 28 (2020) 1687–1700
principles. Earthquake Eng Eng Vib 2008;7(3).
[2] Shen MA, Experience in applying grid structure to main building roof for power
plant [J], Engineering Journal of Wuhan University, Vol. 42(Sup.), Oct. 2009.
1671–8844(2009) S2-0123-06. (In Chinese with English abstract).
[3] Daiki Saito, Koji Katsuno, Kazuhiro Hayashi, Yoshinori Kakino, Keimei Kondo,
Investigation report on casualties in Kumamoto earthquake [R], Toyohashi
University of Technology, Heisei 28 May 9. (In Japanese).
[4] Black GR, Wenger BA, Popov EP. Inelastic buckling of steel struts under cyclic load
reversals [R], UCB/EERC-80/40. Berkeley, California: Earthquake Engineering
Research Center; 1980.
[5] Uriz P, Mahin SA. Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentrically braced
steel-frame structures[R]. UC Berkeley: PEER; 2008.
[6] Phill-Seung Lee, Hyuk-Chun Noh, Inelastic buckling behavior of steel members
under reversed cyclic loading [J], Engineering Structures, 32(2010), 2579-2595,
May.26, 2010.
[7] Chang Zheng, Study on the seismic strengthening technology of RC frame in hos-
pital buildings [D], China University of Mining Technology, 2015.6. (In Chinese
with English abstract).
[8] Iraj H. P. Mamaghani, Cyclic elastoplastic large displacement analysis and stability
evaluation of steel tubular braces [J], American Transactions on Engineering &
Applied Sciences, 2012.
[9] McCrum DP, Broderick BM. An experimental and numerical investigation into the
seismic performance of a multi-story concentrically braced plan irregular structure.
Bull Earthquake Eng 2013;11:2363–85.
[10] Ozmen Günay, Girgin Konuralp, Durgun Yavuz. Torsional irregularity in multi-story
structures. Int J Adv Struct Eng 2014;6:121–31.
[11] Bugeja MN, Thambiratnam DP, Brameld GH. The influence of stiffness and strength
eccentricities on the inelastic earthquake response of asymmetric structures. Eng
Struct 1999;21:856–63.
[12] Swapnil N. Dhande1, Y. R. Suryawanshi2, Pravin S. Patil, Industrial building design
on seismic issues [J], International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology, 4(5):2840:2856, May, 2015.
[13] Kourosh KayvanI, Fariborz Barzegar, Influence of local inertia on seismic response
of offshore jackets [J], Journal of Structural Engineering, 124(1):52:61.1997.
[14] Erduran Emrah, Ryan Keri L. Effects of torsion on the behavior of peripheral steel-
braced frame systems. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2011;40(5):491–507.
[15] Ding X. Redundancy in steel braced frames under seismic excitations Ph.D.
Dissertation University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2006.
[16] Massumin A, Absalan M. Interaction between bracing system and moment resisting
frame in braced RC frames. Archiv Civ Mech Eng 2013;13:260–8.
[17] GAO Xiangyu, LI Jianqin, LIU Chao, LI Yanglong, Mechanism of dynamic inelastic
torsion and anti-torsional design strategy of steel-braced concrete frames[J],
Journal of Building Structures, Vol. 39(2), Feb.2018. 1000-6869(2018) 02-0044-10.
(In Chinese with English abstract).
[18] GB50011-2010, Code for seismic design of buildings[S], Beijing: China Building
Industry Press, 2010. (In Chinese).
[19] LI Jianqin, The research on design issues and shaking table test of reinforced con-
crete frame with buckling-restrained brace [D], Ph.D. Dissertation, Beijing
University of Technology, 2016: 79–139. (In Chinese with English abstract).
[20] Liu Chao, Shaking table test research on steel-braced concrete frame [D], Master
Degree Thesis, Beijing University of Technology, 2016: 27-71. (In Chinese with
English abstract).
[21] FEMA. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings:
FEMA 356 [S]. Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency' 2000.
[22] JG/T 209-2012, Dampers for vibration energy dissipation of buildings, Beijing:
China Standards Press, Dec. 2012. (In Chinese).
[23] Xu Jimin, Xing Kuntao, Gao Xiangyu, Guo Xiaohua, Li Jianqin, Analysis and ex-
perimental study on inelastic torsion effect of structures with different braces [J],
Building Structure, Vol. 49(17), Sept.2019. (In Chinese with English abstract).