Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Experimental study on cyclic behaviour of low yield point steel

buckling-restrained braces
Huatian Zhao a, Gang Shi a, b, *, Yang Gao a
a
Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of China Education Ministry, Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
Beijing Engineering Research Center of Steel and Concrete Composite Structures, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Low yield point steel is an advanced high-performance material that was deemed to provide reliable cyclic
Steel structure properties based on previous research. This paper presents experimental investigations into low yield point steel
Low yield point steel buckling-restrained braces (BRBs). Cyclic tests were conducted on nine full-scale specimens made of three grades
Buckling-restrained brace
of low yield point steels in China, including LY100, LY160, and LY225, with the nominal yield strengths of 100
Cyclic behaviour
Full-scale test
MPa, 160 MPa, and 225 MPa, respectively. The failure modes, hysteresis behaviour, and mechanical indexes
were analysed. Results showed that low yield point steel BRBs featured cyclic hardening behaviour with the
strain hardening adjustment factor ω of 1.35–2.94, and the LY100 BRB exhibited more significant cyclic hard­
ening (ω = 2.50–2.94) than the other two. Moreover, specimens showed tension–compression asymmetry
behaviour with the compression strength adjustment factor β of 1.07–1.51, proving that the maximum
compressive loads exceeded 7–51 % of tensile ones. The low yield point steel BRBs could produce stable cyclic
behaviour and energy dissipation with the cumulative ductility factor of 491.16–3279.23 upon the acceptance
stipulated in American and Chinese codes. Based on the test results, the performance of low yield point steel
BRBs was evaluated, and suggestions were proposed for design purposes.

1. Introduction
Earthquakes are occasional intense events that commonly occur
worldwide and significantly threaten building structures as well as
human lives. To reduce earthquake hazards, researchers and engineers
proposed the passive energy dissipation method and conducted sys­
tematic investigations, in which the bucking-restrained braced frame
(BRBF) is regarded as a reliable seismic force-resisting system with good
ductility and manageable storey drift [1–6]. In BRBFs, bucking-
restrained braces are installed to parent structures to resist lateral
forces during seismic excitation subjected to primarily axial forces,
leading to a more efficient force transferring mechanism, smaller
member sizes, and lower demands of the resistance and deformation of
beam-to-column joints. Moreover, the application of BRBs ultimately
aims to enhance structural damping and absorb the input energy so as to
minimise the damage to parent structures. To date, the structural design
of bucking-restrained braced frames has been included among various
codes, such as the American code ANSI/AISC 341 [7], Japanese AIJ code
[8], Canadian code CSA S16 [9], Chinese code JGJ 99 [10], etc.
Although the Eurocodes [11,12] do not regulate the design of BRBFs,
especially do not provide the behaviour factor and other seismic rele­
vant parameters, supplement investigations into Eurocode conforming
design of BRBFs have been conducted through finite element analyses
[13,14].
In BRBFs, the buckling-restrained brace is the critical component,
composed of a steel core and a buckling-restrained system encasing the
steel core [15,16]. Specifically, the steel core is intended to be the pri­
mary source of plastic deformation and energy dissipation. To improve
the mechanical behaviour of BRBs, researchers have proposed new
configurations and conducted investigations in recent decades, such as
the use of multiple cores [17–19], perforated cores [20–22], various
buckling-restrained systems [23–26], etc. Thereinto, an alternative so­
lution is to utilise low yield point steel in BRB cores. The low yield point
steel with the nominal yield strength fy of no greater than 230 MPa is an
advanced material in structural engineering. It commonly features low
and stable yield strength, excellent ductility and fatigue performance,
and significant supplemental damping [27–31]. Thus, the low yield
point steel has great potential to be used in buckling-restrained braces.
Yan et al. [32] utilised low-yield point steel LY100 (fy = 100 MPa) as the
core material and conducted uniaxial cyclic loading tests on two

* Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.
E-mail address: shigang@tsinghua.edu.cn (G. Shi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115464
Received 16 April 2022; Received in revised form 28 November 2022; Accepted 8 December 2022
Available online 16 December 2022
0141-0296/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Zhao et al.
specimens. Wang et al. [33] reported the numerical simulation on LY100
steel BRBs with a proposed constitutive model. Shi et al. [34] proposed
an all-steel assembled BRB with a Q195 steel core (fy = 195 MPa) and
investigated its uniaxial cyclic behaviour through quasi-static loading
tests as well as numerical parametric analyses. After that, an improved
configuration with double cores was also proposed and tested by Huang
et al. [35]. Results showed that Q195 steel cores exhibited stable hys­
teresis behaviour and excellent energy dissipation capacity.
The above contributions are deemed useful for researchers and en­
gineers to understand better the mechanical behaviour of low yield
point steel BRBs. However, previous research has not covered the
common strength grades of low yield point steels from 100 MPa to 225
MPa. The existing experimental database for low yield point steel BRBs
is still limited. Moreover, previous studies mainly focused on the loading
resistance, stability, deformation capacity, and energy dissipation.
However, low yield point steels with different strength grades featured
significantly different cyclic hardening behaviour, and BRBs commonly
exhibited the tension–compression asymmetry behaviour due to the
friction between steel cores and buckling-restrained systems in
compression fostered by the limited core buckling. Their combined ef­
fects on the behaviour of low yield point steel BRBs have not been
investigated sufficiently. These considerations motivated the present
study.
To investigate the cyclic behaviour of low yield point steel BRBs, this
paper reported cyclic tests on nine full-scale specimens using three
grades of low yield point steels in China, including LY100, LY160, and
LY225, with the nominal yield strengths fy of 100 MPa, 160 MPa, and
225 MPa, respectively. The failure modes, hysteresis behaviour, and
mechanical indexes were analysed. Following the above results, the
performance of low yield point steel BRBs was evaluated, and sugges­
tions were proposed for design purposes.
Prototype structure
T T
T T
T
T T
Seismic response spectrum
Fig. 1. Prototype structure and BRB composition.
2
Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464
2. Test program
2.1. Specimens
The buckling-restrained brace specimens were taken from the 6-sto­
rey prototype structures that were designed by the authors in previous
research [4,5] based on the Chinese codes [36], as shown in Fig. 1. To
meet the force capacity requirement under the design basis earthquake
(the exceedance probability equals 10 % in 50 years) and the storey drift
requirement (i.e., the storey drift ratio should be no greater than 2 %)
under the maximum considered earthquake (the exceedance probability
equals 2 % in 50 years), the core sizes were determined according to
different low yield point steel grades, and the BRB with the flat steel core
configuration and concrete-filled steel tube as the buckling-restrained
system was selected in this research. Detailed design results of proto­
type structures were included in previous research [4,5].
Specifically, the BRB specimen is composed of a core plate made of
the low yield point steel, two end segments made of the ordinary-
strength steel Q345 (fy = 345 MPa), a rectangular steel tube infilled
with C30 fine aggregate concrete, and bond-prevention layers made of
polytetrafluoroethylene between the core and concrete. Specimen de­
tails are presented in Fig. 2. It should be noted that the complete joint
penetration (CJP) groove welds were utilised to connect the transition
segment and steel core.
Cyclic loading tests were conducted on nine full-scale specimens,
where the steel cores were made of three typical strength grades of low
yield point steels in China, including LY100, LY160, and LY225 [37,38].
The specimens are divided into three groups, and their parameters are
summarised in Table 1, where the theoretical yield resistance Py was
calculated by Eq. (1),
Py = fy Ab (1)
where fy is the measured yield strength of steel plates, and Ab is the area
BRB composition
H. Zhao et al. Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464

Fig. 2. Specimen details (unit: mm).

of brace sections.
The buckling load Pcr of the restraining part was obtained from
Euler’s buckling formula, as expressed by Eq. (2),
π 2 (Est Ist + Ec Ic )
Pcr = (2)
L2
where Ist and Ic are the moments of inertia of the steel tube and concrete,
respectively, and L is the BRB length. The Young’s modulus of steel tube
Est was taken as 206 GPa [36], and the Young’s modulus of concrete Est
was defined as Est/10 [39]. Then, the overstrength ratio η was calculated
by Eq. (3),
η=
Pcr
(3)
ω d β d Py
where ωd is the strain hardening adjustment factor in BRB design (ωd
equals 2.4, 2.4, and 1.5 for LY100, LY160, and LY225 steels, respectively
[38]), and βd is the compression strength adjustment factor concerning
the tension–compression asymmetry behaviour of low yield point steels,
which was taken as 1.5 in accordance with Chinese code [38]). Previous
investigations showed that the BRB with η ≥ 3.0 could obtain satisfac­
tory ductility without the global BRB buckling [40–43]. Thereinto, Dan
Dubina et al. conducted cyclic tests on a set of conventional BRBs (i.e.,
the steel core was introduced in the concrete-filled steel tube) with the η
ranging from 1.52 to 3.70, and the BRBs with milled rectangular cross-
section cores having η ≥ 3.0 can produce an optimal solution. For low
yield point steel BRBs concerned in this paper, the ratios η ranged from
5.60 to 8.76 (see Table 1), much greater than the limit of 3.0. It pertains
to the fact that the BRB specimen taken from the prototype structure is
relatively short and stiff because the engineer intended to decrease the
number of braces and release the space of adjacent spans for more
convenient and flexible architecture plane layouts. In contrast, if slen­
derer BRBs are utilised in engineering applications, controlling the
overstrength ratio should be a critical issue in BRB design.
Naming rules of BRB specimens include that LY100 (LY160, LY225)
denotes the steel grade of cores, and the serial numbers from 1 to 3
denote three different loading protocols, including the AISC protocol,
JGJ protocol, and fatigue protocol, as introduced in Section 2.4. More­
over, the steel cores were intended to yield at first to dissipate input

3
H. Zhao et al. Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464

Table 1
Specimen parameters.
No. Specimen Loading Steel Py η Py.end Py.
protocol grade (kN) (kN) end/
Py

1 LY100-1 AISC LY100 464.3 8.76 2196.1 4.73

protocol
2 LY100-2 JGJ
protocol
3 LY100-3 Fatigue
protocol
4 LY160-1 AISC LY160 368.8 7.74 1774.8 4.81
protocol
5 LY160-2 JGJ
protocol
6 LY160-3 Fatigue
protocol
7 LY225-1 AISC LY225 308.5 5.60 1174.7 3.81
protocol
8 LY225-2 JGJ
protocol Fig. 3. Typical stress–strain curves.
9 LY225-3 Fatigue
protocol the south side. Test results indicated that BRB specimens did not show
any overall buckling or obvious bending deformation during the tests,
energy through their significant plastic deformation in tests. The two which validated the above setup and boundaries. Moreover, the positive
end segments made of Q345 steel plates with enlarged cross-sections direction of axial loads was determined when the BRB specimen was in
were designed to keep elastic, and their yield resistance Py.end, as well tension.
as the ratio of Py.end to Py, is also provided in Table 1. It should be noted Each BRB specimen was extensively instrumented to establish an
that the three types of BRB specimens feature different geometries and entire database for evaluating its cyclic behaviour. Loads, displace­
yield resistance, so their joint sections vary accordingly to meet different ments, and strains were measured during the tests. Load sensors
resistance requirements and space demands in prototype structures. installed in the actuator were used to record the axial forces. The Layout
of displacement transducers and strain gauges is illustrated in Fig. 5.
Specifically, the axial displacements were obtained by averaging the
2.2. Material properties
results of D1 and D2 for error reduction, and the lateral deformation was
monitored by D3–D8. The stain gauges SG1–SG24 at three typical sec­
Five tensile tests with identical coupons were conducted for each
tions were utilised to record the strain at steel tubes.
steel plate based on the Chinese codes [44]. The material properties,
calculated by averaging results from the five coupon tests, are sum­
2.4. Loading protocol
marised in Table 2, where t is the thickness of steel plates, E is the
Young’s modulus, fy is the yield strength (or the 0.2 % proof stress for
The loading history significantly influences the cyclic behaviour and
LY100 and LY160 steels without yield plateaus), fu is the ultimate tensile
failure modes of BRBs. Three typical loading protocols were performed
strength, εu is the ultimate strain corresponding to fu, and A is the
for comparisons, including the protocols with increased amplitudes
elongation after the final fracture. The typical stress–strain cures are also
based on the American code ANSI/AISC 341 [7] and the Chinese code
provided in Fig. 3 for comparisons. Moreover, the C30 fine aggregate
JGJ 99 [10] (hereinafter called the AISC protocol and JGJ protocol,
concrete was utilised (the standard cube strength fcu.k = 30 MPa), and
respectively), and the fatigue protocol with the constant amplitude
the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) was used as the bond-prevention
corresponding to the design deformation [45–47] (hereinafter called the
layer with a thickness of 2 mm.
fatigue protocol). The loading steps are summarised in Fig. 6 and
Table 3, where the amplitudes represent the peak loads or deformation,
2.3. Test setup and measurements
and the ratios of the deformation to initial length are also provided. For
the AISC protocol, the design storey drift ratio was taken as 2.0 %,
The test setup is illustrated in Fig. 4, where the BRB specimens were
corresponding to the storey drift limit under design earthquakes [7], and
mounted horizontally to the reaction frame and then loaded by the 6000
then the design deformation Dbm could be determined. Moreover, the
kN hydraulic actuator. It should be noted that this study aims to evaluate
Chinese code [45] also regulated the storey drift ratio of 2.0 % as the
cyclic hardening behaviour with large plastic deformation, so that pre­
limit under maximum considered earthquakes corresponding to the
mature buckling needs to be avoided. Thus, the flange connection with
maximum amplitudes in the JGJ and fatigue protocols. On the basis of
12 high-strength bolts was utilised at both ends to simulate the fixed
the hypothesis that the BRB in structures featured a single diagonal
boundary condition, as illustrated in Fig. 4(c). The laser level was uti­
forming a dip angle of 45◦ with the ground, the abovementioned storey
lised in specimen installations for the axiality control of the BRBs and
drift ratio of 2.0 % corresponds to the axial deformation of 1/100 of the
actuator. With consideration of the spherical joint in the actuator, the
brace length (i.e., 28 mm) according to the fundamental statics [48].
overall boundaries were treated as fixed on the north side and hinged on
Furthermore, to simulate the normal operational use under the
serviceability limit state, two steps with the amplitudes of Py/3 and 2Py/
Table 2 3 were added to each protocol. The terminating criteria were deter­
Summary of coupon test results.
mined for safety [49], including (1) the resistance suddenly drops by 20
Steel t E fy fu fu/fy εu (%) A % during the test, and (2) cracks appear and propagate severely, which
grade (mm) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%)
can cause the brittle failure.
LY100 16 192.8 117 275 2.35 32.68 48.8
LY160 16 195.8 172 277 1.61 27.77 46.0
LY225 16 204.4 241 339 1.41 30.50 43.4
Q345 16 213.6 399 558 1.40 20.06 31.2

4
H. Zhao et al. Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464

Fig. 4. Test setup: (a) a front view; (b) a picture; (c) flange connection.
w

w
w

w w w
Fig. 5. Measurements.

5
H. Zhao et al. Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464

Fig. 6. Loading protocols: (a) AISC protocol; (b) JGJ protocol; (c) Fatigue protocol.

Moreover, the peeling of bond-prevention layers was observed at both

Table 3
ends of BRBs, as shown in Fig. 7. It should be noted that no overall
Loading protocols.
buckling or obvious bending deformation occurred during the tests.
Protocol Step Amplitude Cycles Values At the large deformation stage, local bulging could be observed in the
AISC 1 Py/3 6 154.8 kN (LY100), 122.9 kN steel tube because of the local buckling of steel cores (see Fig. 8(a) and
protocol (LY160), or 102.8 kN (LY225) (b)). All the specimens exhibited the failure mode that the load dropped
2 2Py/3 6 309.5 kN (LY100), 245.9 kN suddenly without any exterior failure, which resulted from the fracture
(LY160), or 205.7 kN (LY225)
3 ≈ Py 2 ≈ 464.3 kN (LY100), 368.8 kN
or severe local buckling of steel cores. For clarity, the concrete-filled
(LY160), or 308.5 kN (LY225) steel tubes were removed after the tests to observe the failure of steel
4 0.5Dbm (1/ 2 14.0 mm cores. Specifically, the specimen LY100-1 showed severe local buckling
200) in the middle of the steel core, likely due to the imperfect concrete filling
5 1.0Dbm (1/ 2 28.0 mm
and local concrete defect, which should be considered in the BRB
100)
6 1.5Dbm (3/ 2 42.0 mm fabrication. Combined with the hysteresis performance presented in
200) Sections 3.3 to 3.4, this undesired failure mode produced non-significant
7 2.0Dbm (1/ 2 56.0 mm effects on the yielding mechanism and plastic hardening. It pertains to
50) the reason that the local core buckling occurred at the post-yielding
8 1.5Dbm (3/ Until 42.0 mm
200) failure
stage corresponding to a very large plastic deformation, demonstrating
the effectiveness of specimen LY100-1. The other eight specimens
exhibited the necking and fracture of steel cores with the significant
JGJ 1 Py/3 6 154.8 kN (LY100), 122.9 kN
protocol (LY160), or 102.8 kN (LY225) degradation of cyclic behaviour, where the core buckling was prevented
2 2Py/3 6 309.5 kN (LY100), 245.9 kN effectively. Typical phenomena are presented in Fig. 8.
(LY160), or 205.7 kN (LY225) Also, the stain distributions of steel tubes for specimens under AISC
3 1/300 3 9.3 mm protocol with greater amplitudes are provided in Fig. 9. Results
4 1/200 3 14.0 mm
exhibited that the force transferred to the steel tube was relatively small,
5 1/150 3 18.7 mm
6 1/100 3 28.0 mm and the steel tube kept elastic during the cyclic loading. Combined with
7 1/100 Until 28.0 mm the test observations for specimens LY100-1 and LY225-1, the local
failure bulging seems to result from the internal pressure when concrete pro­
Fatigue 1 Py/3 6 154.8 kN (LY100), 122.9 kN
vide restrains to flat steel cores.
protocol (LY160), or 102.8 kN (LY225)
2 2Py/3 6 309.5 kN (LY100), 245.9 kN
(LY160), or 205.7 kN (LY225)
3 1/100 Until 28.0 mm 3.2. Hysteresis behaviour
failure
The axial load–displacement (P-Δ) curves are illustrated in Fig. 10,
where the theoretical yield resistance Py, the ratio P/Py, and the ratio of
3. Results and discussion the Δ to initial length 2800 mm are also provided as references. More­
over, the positive direction of axial loads was determined when the BRB
3.1. Test observations specimen was in tension. For specimen LY225-2, at the 16th, 19th and
25th cycles of the last loading level, the displacement cannot reverse in
For all the specimens, continuous noises were heard due to the time due to the accidental malfunction, and the Δ was slightly greater
friction between the steel core and buckling-restrained system. than the target value.

6
H. Zhao et al.
Fig. 7. Peeling of bond-prevention layers.
Results showed a linear relationship in the elastic stage with similar
axial stiffness under the tensile and compressive loads. After the yielding
of BRB specimens, steel cores developed significant plastic deformation
to absorb input energy with plump and stable hysteresis curves (see
Fig. 10). For specimens under the AISC protocol with larger amplitudes,
the maximum deformation could reach at least 1/50 of their initial
lengths, compatible with the storey drift ratio of 4.0 % according to
Section 2.4. The above results demonstrated that the low yield point
steel BRB had satisfactory deformation capacity and energy dissipation.
Moreover, as reported in previous investigations [27–31], the maximum
loads were greater than the Py (see Fig. 10) due to the cyclic hardening
behaviour. It could be found that the cyclic hardening of LY100 BRBs
was more significant than that of LY160 and LY225 BRBs. Further
quantitative evaluations can be found in Section 3.4.
Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 10, the maximum compressive load
was greater than the tensile one under the same loading amplitude.
Results indicated that the low yield point steel BRB specimens with the
concerned configuration in this paper featured the tension–compression
asymmetry behaviour because of the friction between steel cores and
concrete-filled steel tubes [7]. Specifically, the multi-wave buckling of
the steel cores and the Poisson effect at the large compressive defor­
mation stage caused the friction to increase. Further quantitative eval­
uations can be found in Section 3.4.
7
Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464
3.3. Mechanical indexes
Based on the hysteresis curves, the mechanical indexes are sum­
marised in Table 4, including the elastic stiffness Ke and yield resistance
Py.e. The Ke was obtained by linear regression of the points with the
loads changing from − 2Py/3 to 2Py/3. The Py.e was determined by the
ECCS method in the loading cycle suffering the first yielding [50] when
the BRB specimen was in compression, as shown in Fig. 11. It pertains to
the fact that the compressive yield resistance is less stable than the
tensile one due to the concrete defect and possible local buckling of steel
cores. Thus, the BRB specimens were designed to be in compression at
first to make BRB specimen suffer compressive yielding, and then the
yield compressive resistance was compared with theoretical values in
Table 4 to evaluate the resistance fluctuation quantitatively.
The theoretical values of the elastic stiffness and yield resistance
were calculated by the measured material properties (see Table 2) for
comparisons. The theoretical elastic stiffness K was obtained by Eq. (4),
1 ∑1 ∑ Li
= = (4)
K Ki Ei Ai
where Ei, Li, and Ai are the Young’s modulus, length, and cross-sectional
area of each segment of BRBs (i.e., the steel core, transition segments
and end segments), respectively. Moreover, the theoretical yield
H. Zhao et al. Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464

Fig. 8. Test observations: (a) local bulging for specimen LY100-1; (b) local bulging for specimen LY225-1 (c) a top view of local buckling for specimen LY100-1; (d) a
front view of local buckling; (e) fracture for specimen LY225-1; (f) fracture for specimen LY100-3.

resistance Py is introduced in Section 2.1. adjustment factor ω was used to evaluate the cyclic hardening behav­
Results indicated that the elastic stiffness Ke was in good agreement iour, as expressed by Eq. (5),
with the theoretical value K (1.06 on average). In some cases (e.g.,
ωPy Tmax
LY100-1, LY160-3, and LY225-3), the Ke was greater than the K, likely ω= = (5)
Py Py
due to the friction between steel cores and concrete-filled steel tubes.
Therefore, the calculation of elastic stiffness could be applied in design where Tmax is the maximum tensile load. The compression strength
with significant accuracy and security. For the compressive yield resis­ adjustment factor β was utilised to represent the tension–compression
tance Py.e, the ratio of the Py.e to theoretical value Py ranged from 0.83 to asymmetry behaviour, as calculated by Eq. (6),
1.14 (0.98 on average) with a standard deviation of 0.10. This deviation
seems to result from the concrete defect, possible local buckling of steel β=
βωPy Pmax
= (6)
cores, and friction, which should be considered in the design of low yield ω Py Tmax
point steel BRBs.
where Pmax is the maximum compressive load.
The ductility factor μ and cumulative plastic ductility factor μCPD
3.4. Performance evaluation could reflect the plastic deformation ability of low yield point steel
BRBs. Specifically, the ductility factor μ was calculated by Eq. (7),
For further performance evaluation, various indexes were deter­
mined and summarised in Table 5, including the strain hardening μ=
Δmax
(7)
adjustment factor ω, compression strength adjustment factor β, ductility Δy
factor μ, cumulative plastic ductility factor μCPD, and cumulative plastic
energy dissipation factor CPE. Specifically, the strain hardening where Δmax is the maximum deformation, and Δy is the yield

8
H. Zhao et al. Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464

P P

Fig. 9. Strain distributions: (a) LY100-1; (b) LY160-1 (c) LY225-1.

deformation (i.e., Py/K). The cumulative plastic ductility factor μCPD was
determined by Eq. (8),
∑ protocols because the larger amplitude in the AISC protocol caused the
Δplastic
μCPD = (8)
Δy
∑ low yield point steel BRBs led to greater strength requirements of their
where Δplastic is the cumulative plastic deformation. The plastic
deformation Δplastic is defined as the average of the absolute deformation
values corresponding to the intersection points of each cycle and the
horizontal axis in hysteresis curves, and the cumulative plastic defor­
∑ steel BRB specimens exhibited tension–compression asymmetry behav­
mation Δplastic is obtained through the sum of plastic deformation.
Also, the accumulated plastic strain εaccu was obtained by Eq. (9),
∑ almost meeting the limit of β ≤ 1.5 in Chinses code [38], indicating that
Δplastic
εaccu = (9)
Lc
where Lc is the length of the steel core that is taken as 1900 mm.
Moreover, based on the previous research [42,51,52], the cumula­
tive plastic energy dissipation factor CPE is treated as an energy-based
parameter that was calculated by Eq. (10),
∑
Ep
∑∫
PdΔ
CPE = = (10)
Py Δ y Py Δ y
where Ep is the total energy dissipation.
Results showed that low yield point steel BRBs featured cyclic
hardening behaviour with the strain hardening adjustment factor ω of
1.35–2.94, and the LY100 BRB exhibited more significant cyclic hard­
ening (ω = 2.50–2.94) than the other two. Also, the ω⋅β (i.e., the ratio of
Pmax to Py) ranged from 1.67 to 3.15 for all the specimens, especially
from 2.72 to 3.15 for LY100 specimens. They pertain to the fact that the
low yield point steel with lower yield strengths commonly features more
remarkable cyclic hardening properties [27–31]. Moreover, the factor ω
under the AISC protocol was greater than that under the other two
cyclic hardening to be more significant. The measured factors ω could be
applied in the BRB design. As well, the cyclic hardening behaviour of
connections and adjacent members, which also need to be considered for
design purposes.
For the concerned BRB configuration in this paper, low yield point
iour with the compression strength adjustment factor β of 1.07–1.51,
the maximum compressive loads exceeded 7–51 % of tensile ones.
Furthermore, the tension–compression asymmetry behaviour was
influenced by the loading amplitudes and histories. Specifically, the
range of factor β was 1.07–1.51 under the AISC protocol with larger
amplitudes, which tended to be greater than the β under the other two
protocols, indicating that specimens exhibited more significant ten­
sion–compression asymmetry with increased plastic strain. Results
demonstrated the applicability of low yield point steel BRBs with the
configuration in this paper, and the occasional derivation needs to be
considered if necessary.
With the wide application of numerical analyses, the demands of
storey drift under seismic excitation can be determined by dynamic
time-history analyses [53,54]. However, the evaluation of deformation
capacity still mainly depends on experiments. In this paper, test results
exhibited that the low yield point steel BRBs with the present configu­
ration could produce stable cyclic behaviour and excellent ductility with
the ductility factor μ of at least 21.10–38.19 under the AISC protocol
with larger amplitudes. Moreover, the cumulative ductility factor μCPD

9
H. Zhao et al. Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464

P P P

P
P
P
-P -P -P

P/P
P/P
P/P
P P P
P

P
-P -P -P

P/P
P/P
P/P

P P P

P
P
P

-P -P -P

P/P
P/P
P/P

Fig. 10. P-Δ curves.

Table 4
Comparisons between test results and calculations.
Specimen Ke (kN/ K (kN/mm) Py.e (kN) Py (kN) Ke/ Py.e/
mm) K Py

LY100-1 356.28 310.98 385.2 464.3 1.15 0.83

LY100-2 324.48 439.0 1.04 0.95
LY100-3 314.81 388.4 1.01 0.84
LY160-1 175.74 182.04 372.0 368.8 0.97 1.01
LY160-2 171.29 387.8 0.94 1.05
LY160-3 200.22 354.9 1.10 0.96
LY225-1 131.75 115.63 350.9 308.5 1.14 1.14
LY225-2 121.24 294.7 1.05 0.96
LY225-3 127.82 346.0 1.11 1.12
Average value 1.06 0.98
Standard deviation 0.07 0.10

ranged from 491.16 to 3279.23 upon the acceptance stipulated in

American and Chinese codes (i.e., μCPD ≥ 200) [7,10]. From the view­
point of energy dissipation, the low yield point steel BRBs had the cu­
mulative plastic energy dissipation factor CPE of 651.83–6878.73, Fig. 11. ECCS method to determine the yield point.
which is greater than BRBs with ordinary-strength steel cores
[42,51,52].
the steel tube thickness, fys is the yield strength of steel tubes that is
Moreover, BRBs under the AISC protocol showed greater maximum
taken as 345 MPa, νp is plastic Poisson’s ratio (νp = 0.5), εc.max is the
compressive load (see Table 5), and specimens LY100-1 and LY225-1
maximum compressive strain, and Lw is buckling wavelength that is
exhibited local bulging at steel tubes (see Fig. 8(a) and (b)). For the
expressed by Eq. (12) [26],
BRB with flat steel cores, the demand-to-capacity ratio (DCR) [26,55,56]
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
could be a reference to evaluate the risk of local bulging, as calculated by 4 π 2 Et I w
Eq. (11), Lw = (12)
Py
4Pmax (2s + νp εc.max tp )(ws − wp )
DCR = (11) where Iw is the moment of inertia about the weak axis of the core plate
Lw ts2 fys (2ws − wp )
and Et is the tangent modulus of the core plate, assumed as 0.05 times
where wp is the steel core plate width, ws is the steel tube width, s is the the elastic modulus. For LY100-1, LY160-1, and LY225-1 BRB speci­
bond-prevention layer thickness, tp is the steel core plate thickness, ts is mens, the Lw is about 16.5, 13.7, and 11.8 times the core plate thickness

10
H. Zhao et al. Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464

Table 5
Main performance indexes.
∑
Specimen Pmax (kN) Tmax (kN) ω β ω⋅β Δmax (mm) Δplastic (mm) μmax μCPD εaccu (%) CPE DCR

LY100-1 1466.4 1365.6 2.94 1.07 3.15 56.90 2252.81 ≥38.19 1511.95 118.57 3543.04 1.00
LY100-2 1266.0 1179.6 2.54 1.07 2.72 28.82 4886.05 ≥19.34 3279.23 257.16 6878.73 0.89
LY100-3 1293.6 1159.2 2.50 1.12 2.80 28.93 3947.00 ≥19.42 2648.99 207.74 5715.69 0.91
LY160-1 968.4 640.8 1.74 1.51 2.63 56.83 1122.34 ≥28.00 552.88 59.07 921.73 1.33
LY160-2 800.4 565.2 1.53 1.42 2.17 28.59 2048.47 ≥14.08 1009.10 107.81 1415.41 1.13
LY160-3 699.6 614.4 1.67 1.14 1.90 28.55 2275.30 ≥14.06 1120.84 119.75 1600.43 0.99
LY225-1 709.2 469.2 1.52 1.51 2.30 56.33 1311.40 ≥21.10 491.16 69.02 651.83 1.45
LY225-2 519.6 447.6 1.45 1.16 1.68 42.61 3578.45 ≥15.96 1340.24 188.34 1603.77 1.08
LY225-3 516.0 417.6 1.35 1.24 1.67 28.69 2786.23 ≥10.75 1043.53 146.64 1222.81 1.09

tp, respectively. Based on previous research [55], greater DCR implies a
higher risk of local bulging. Results indicated that specimens LY100-1,
LY160-1, and LY225-1 had the DCRs of 1.00, 1.33, and 1.45, respec­
tively, much greater than those of other specimens in each group (see
Table 5). Combined with the test observations in Section 3.1, specimens
under the AISC protocol with larger loading amplitudes are deemed
more vulnerable to local bulging at steel tubes.
The low cycle fatigue behaviour could be evaluated by the number of
loading cycles under the design deformation. As stated in Section 2.4,
the JGJ and fatigue protocols performed the last loading step until
failure with the constant amplitude of the axial deformation of 28 mm,
corresponding to the storey drift ratio of 2.0 %. Therefore, specimens
under these two protocols were utilised to reflect the low cycle fatigue
behaviour. The variation of the normalised amplitude to loading cycles
is illustrated in Fig. 12, where the ΔP is the sum of the absolute values of
the maximum compressive and tensile loads at each cycle. Under the
JGJ protocol, LY100, LY160, and LY225 specimens resisted a total of 43,
14, and 29 cycles, respectively. Under the fatigue protocol, LY100,
LY160, and LY225 specimens resisted a total of 38, 21, and 27 cycles,
respectively. All the BRB specimens exhibited three behavioural ranges,
including (1) rapid hardening at the first several cycles, (2) plateau
range, and (3) degradation range. Furthermore, the low cycle fatigue
behaviour of LY100 BRBs was significantly better than that of the other
two, and the LY225 BRBs had slightly better fatigue behaviour than the
LY160 ones. It revealed that the low cycle fatigue behaviour of low yield
point steel BRBs essentially depended on the material fatigue properties
of steel cores, which is required to be further investigated. Combined
with previous investigations [32,34,35], the low yield point steel BRBs
reported in this paper exhibited satisfactory fatigue performance and
ductility.
P P
4. Conclusions
This paper reported the cyclic loading tests on nine full-scale BRB
specimens using three grades of low yield point steels in China,
including LY100, LY160, and LY225 with the nominal yield strengths fy
of 100 MPa, 160 MPa, and 225 MPa, respectively. The failure modes,
hysteresis behaviour, and mechanical indexes were analysed, and the
performance of low yield point steel BRBs was evaluated. The main
conclusions of this research are summarised below.
(1) The studied BRB is composed of a core plate made of the low yield
point steel, two end segments made of Q345 steel plates, a rect­
angular steel tube infilled with concrete, and a bond-prevention
layer between the core and concrete. Results showed that the
low yield point steel BRBs with the present configuration could
produce stable cyclic behaviour with the cumulative ductility
factor μCPD of 491.16–3279.23 upon the acceptance in the
American and Chinese codes (i.e., μCPD ≥ 200). For specimens
under the AISC protocol with larger amplitudes, the maximum
deformation reached at least 1/50 of their initial lengths,
compatible with the storey drift ratio of 4.0 %. The above results
demonstrated that the low yield point steel BRBs had satisfactory
deformation capacity and energy dissipation.
(2) All the BRB specimens exhibited the failure mode that the load
dropped suddenly without any exterior failure. For clarity, the
concrete-filled steel tubes were removed after the tests to observe
the failure of steel cores. The specimen LY100-1 showed severe
local buckling in the middle of the steel core, likely due to the
local concrete defect. The other eight specimens exhibited the
necking and fracture of steel cores, causing the cyclic behaviour
to degrade.
(3) The comparisons between the theoretical calculations and test
results were conducted for the elastic stiffness and yield resis­
tance. Specifically, the elastic stiffness Ke in tests was in good
agreement with the theoretical value K (1.06 on average). To
evaluate the compressive yield resistance, which is deemed less
stable than the tensile one due to the concrete defect, possible
local buckling of steel cores, and friction, specimens were
designed to be in compression at first and then in tension during
each loading cycle. The ratio of the compressive yield resistance
Py.e to theoretical value Py (i.e., Py = Abfy) ranged from 0.83 to
1.14 (0.98 on average) with a standard deviation of 0.10, which

should be considered in the design.

(4) The cyclic hardening behaviour of low yield point steel BRBs was
quantitatively evaluated using the strain hardening adjustment
factor ω. The factor ω ranged from 1.35 to 2.94, and the LY100
BRB exhibited more significant cyclic hardening (ω = 2.50–2.94)
than the other two. Moreover, the factor ω under the AISC pro­
tocol was greater than that under the other two protocols because
the larger amplitude in the AISC protocol caused the cyclic
hardening to be more significant. The measured factors ω in tests
could be used in the BRB design. Also, the cyclic hardening of low
yield point steel BRBs led to greater strength requirements of
Fig. 12. Variation of the normalised amplitude to loading cycles.

11
H. Zhao et al.
their connections and adjacent members, which also need to be
considered for design purposes.
(5) The tension–compression asymmetry behaviour of low yield
point steel BRBs was quantitatively evaluated using the
compression strength adjustment factor β. The factor β ranged
from 1.07 to 1.51, almost meeting the limit of β ≤ 1.5 in Chinses
code, indicating that the maximum compressive loads exceeded
7–51 % of tensile ones. The tension–compression asymmetry
behaviour was influenced by the loading amplitudes and his­
tories. Specifically, the range of factor β under the AISC protocol
with larger amplitudes tended to be greater than that under the
other two protocols, indicating that BRBs had more significant
tension–compression asymmetry with increased plastic strain.
Results demonstrated the applicability of low yield point steel
BRBs.
Future work will feature the cyclic tests on low yield point steel
BRBs, which is required to undergo combined axial and rotational
deformation similar to those in the prototype structures. Also, slenderer
BRBs with lower overstrength ratios will be further investigated.
Moreover, refined FE modelling and parametric analyses will be con­
ducted to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the behav­
iour of low yield point steel BRBs.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Huatian Zhao: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Writing – original draft. Gang Shi: Conceptualization, Resources,
Funding acquisition, Project administration, Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Writing – review & editing. Yang Gao: Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Formal analysis.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 52078271 and 51978416), and the Tsinghua University
Initiative Scientific Research Program. The authors sincerely thank Dr.
Yantao Xue and Mr. Zhenghong Wu of China Academy of Building
Research for their kind help in this study.
References
[1] Housner GW, Bergman LA, Caughey TK, et al. Structural control: Past, present, and
future. J Eng Mech 1997;123(9):897–971.
[2] Chen CC, Chen SY, Liaw JJ. Application of low yield strength steel on controlled
plastification ductile concentrically braced frames. Can J Civ Eng 2001;28(5):
823–36.
[3] Sabelli R, Mahin S, Chang C. Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with
buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2003;25(5):655–66.
[4] Shi G, Zhao H, Gao Y. Development of triple grades hybrid high-performance steel
structure (TGHSS): Concept and experiments. Eng Struct 2022;266:114654.
[5] Shi G, Zhao H, Gao Y. Experimental study on triple grades hybrid high-
performance steel structure (TGHSS): members and joints. Eng Struct 2022;273:
115109.
[6] Marshall JD, Charney FA. A hybrid passive control device for steel structures, I:
Development and analysis. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(10):1278–86.
[7] ANSI/AISC 341-16. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings.: Chicago:
American Institute of Steel Construction; 2016.
[8] AIJ. Recommended provisions for seismic damping systems applied to steel
structures. Architectural Institute of Japan; 2014. in Chinese.
12
Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464
[9] CSA S16–14. Design of Steel Structures. Mississauga: Canadian Standards
Association; 2014.
[10] JGJ 99–2015.. Technical specification for steel structure of tall building. Beijing:
China Architecture & Building Press; 2015. in Chinese.
[11] Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures-part 1.1: General rules and rules for
buildings. EN 1993-1-1-2005. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization;
2005.
[12] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN1998-1-2004. Brussels: European
Committee for Standardization; 2004.
[13] Vigh LG, Zsarnóczay Á, Balogh T. Eurocode conforming design of BRBF – Part I:
Proposal for codification. J Constr Steel Res 2017;135:265–76.
[14] Zsarnóczay Á, Vigh LG. Eurocode conforming design of BRBF – Part II: Design
procedure evaluation. J Constr Steel Res 2017;135:253–64.
[15] Xie Q. State of the art of buckling-re strained braces in Asia. J Constr Steel Res
2005;61(6):727–48.
[16] Fahnestock LA, Sause R, Ricles JM. Seismic response and performance of buckling-
restrained braced frames. J Struct Eng 2007;133(9):1195–204.
[17] Chou C, Tsai W, Chung P. Development and validation tests of a dual-core self-
centering sandwiched buckling-restrained brace (SC-SBRB) for seismic resistance.
Eng Struct 2016;121:30–41.
[18] Ali C, Mohammad Ali R, Mohsen I. Seismic performance of three-core buckling-
restrained braces an experimental investigation. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng
2022;46(1):157–67.
[19] Guo Y, Tong J, Zhang B, et al. Theoretical and experimental investigation of core-
separated buckling-restrained braces. J Constr Steel Res 2017;135:137–49.
[20] Piedrafita D, Cahis X, Simon E, et al. A new perforated core buckling restrained
brace. Eng Struct 2015;85:118–26.
[21] Jia LJ, Dong Y, Ge HB, et al. Experimental study on high-performance buckling-
restrained braces with perforated core plates. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2019;19(1).
[22] Zhang Y, Ren X, Zhang XY, et al. A novel buckling-restrained brace with auxetic
perforated core: Experimental and numerical studies. Eng Struct 2021;249:113223.
[23] Tremblay R, Bolduc P, Neville R, et al. Seismic testing and performance of
buckling-restrained bracing systems. Can J Civ Eng 2006;33(2):183–98.
[24] Guo Y, Zhang B, Zhu B, et al. Theoretical and experimental studies of battened
buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2017;136:312–28.
[25] Guo Y, Zhou P, Fu P, et al. Experimental test and hysteretic behavior of single
cross-arm PCS-BRBs. J Constr Steel Res 2019;160:223–39.
[26] Chou C, Chen S. Subassemblage tests and finite element analyses of sandwiched
buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2010;32(8):2108–21.
[27] Shi G, Gao Y, Wang X. Material properties and partial factors for resistance of low
yield point steels in China. Constr Build Mater 2019;209:295–305.
[28] Yang L, Gao Y, Shi G, et al. Low cycle fatigue property and fracture behavior of low
yield point steels. Constr Build Mater 2018;165:688–96.
[29] Shi G, Gao Y, Wang X, et al. Mechanical properties and constitutive models of low
yield point steels. Constr Build Mater 2018;175:570–87.
[30] Gao Y, Shi G, Wang X. Mechanical properties of low yield point steels subjected to
low-cycle structural damage. J Constr Steel Res 2021;183:106733.
[31] Wang M, Fahnestock LA, Qian F, et al. Experimental cyclic behavior and
constitutive modeling of low yield point steels. Constr Build Mater 2017;131:
696–712.
[32] Yan H, Pan P, Wang Y, et al. Tests of buckling-restrained braces using low-yield
point steel as core material. Appl Mech Mater 2012;166–169:3159–65.
[33] Wang J, Shi Y, Wang Y. Constitutive model of low-yield point steel and its
application in numerical simulation of buckling-restrained braces. J Mater Civ Eng
2016;28(3):4015142.
[34] Shi Q, Wang F, Wang P, et al. Experimental and numerical study of the seismic
performance of an all-steel assembled Q195 low-yield buckling-restrained brace.
Eng Struct 2018;176:481–99.
[35] Huang F, Duan H, Cheng B, et al. Hysteretic performance of all-steel assembled
double-cores buckling-restrained braces using Q195 low-yield core. J Constr Steel
Res 2021;187:106925.
[36] GB 50017-2017.. Standard for design of steel structures. Beijing: China
Architecture & Building Press; 2018. in Chinese.
[37] GB/T 28905-2012. Low yield strength steel plates for construction. Beijing: China
Planning Press; 2013 [in Chinese].
[38] T, cecs 860–2021.. Technical specification for application of low yield point steels.
Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press; 2021. in Chinese.
[39] Gb, t 51446–2021.. Technical standard for concrete-filled steel tubular hybrid
structures. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press; 2021. in Chinese.
[40] Stratan A, Zub CI, Dubina D. Prequalification of a set of buckling restrained braces:
Part I – Experimental tests. Steel Compos Struct 2020;34(4):547–59.
[41] Zub CI, Stratan A, Dubina D. Prequalification of a set of buckling restrained braces:
Part II – Numerical simulations. Steel Compos Struct 2020;34(4):561–80.
[42] Iwata M, Murai M. Buckling-restrained brace using steel mortar planks;
performance evaluation as a hysteretic damper. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2006;35
(14):1807–26.
[43] Stratan A, Zub CI, Dubină D. Experimental tests for pre-qualification of a set of
buckling-restrained braces. Key Eng Mater 2018;763:450–7.
[44] GB/T 228.1-2010. Metallic materials-tensile testing-Part1:Method of test at room
temperature. Beijing: China Standards Press; 2010 [in Chinese].
[45] GB 50011-2010. Code for seismic design of buildings (2016 edition). Beijing: China
Architecture & Building Press; 2016 [in Chinese].
[46] JGJ 297-2013.. Technical specification for seismic energy dissipation of buildings.
Beijing: China Standards Press; 2013. in Chinese.
H. Zhao et al.
[47] JG/T 209-2012. Dampers for vibration energy dissipation of buildings. Beijing:
China Architecture & Building Press; 2012 [in Chinese].
[48] Hibbeler R. Mechanics of materials. Prentice Hall; 2013.
[49] Shi G, Zhao H, Chen X, et al. Experimental study of cyclic behavior of retrofitted
beam-to-column joints with welded haunches. J Constr Steel Res 2020;171:
106146.
[50] Recommended testing procedure for assessing the behaviour of structural steel
elements under cyclic loads. ECCS; 1986.
[51] Tsai K, Hsiao P. Pseudo-dynamic test of a full-scale CFT/BRB frame - Part II:
Seismic performance of buckling-restrained braces and connections. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 2008;37(7):1099–115.
13
Engineering Structures 277 (2023) 115464
[52] Zhao J. Experiment of hysteretic performance and investigation of working
behavior for unbonded steel plate brace encased in reinforced concrete panel.
Harbin: Harbin Institute of Technology; 2007.
[53] Fahnestock LA, Sause R, Ricles JM, et al. Ductility demands on buckling-restrained
braced frames under earthquake loading. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2003;2(2):255–68.
[54] Skiadopoulos A, Lignos DG. Seismic demands of steel moment resisting frames with
inelastic beam-to-column web panel zones. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2022.
[55] Lin P, Tsai K, Chang C, et al. Seismic design and testing of buckling-restrained
braces with a thin profile. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2016;45(3):339–58.
[56] Wu A, Lin P, Tsai K. High-mode buckling responses of buckling-restrained brace
core plates. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2014;43(3):375–93.