Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Seismic retrofit of torsionally coupled RC soft-storey building

using short yielding core BRBs
Gopa Das *, Pallab Jyoti Das, Sajal Kanti Deb
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, 781039, Assam, India

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

Keywords: This study presents seismic retrofitting of medium-rise torsionally coupled Reinforced-Concrete
Torsionally coupled soft-storey building (RC) non-ductile building with soft ground storey. An irregular RC building with T-shaped plan
Seismic retrofit is considered for the present study. In this sample building the presence of plan irregularity results
Displacement-based design in the torsional coupling of lateral modes. The location of staircase in the sample building
Short yielding core BRB significantly enhances the plan irregularity. Therefore, the contribution of stiffness of the stair­
Energy dissipative device
case slabs is considered in the overall stiffness of the numerical model. Buckling Restrained Braces
(BRBs) with short yielding cores are adopted to improve the seismic performance of the sample
building. Short yielding core BRBs are installed in the ground storey to control the seismic lateral
response induced by the soft-storey and torsional coupling of lateral modes. Displacement-based
design method is adopted for the design of short yielding core BRBs to enhance the stiffness and
energy dissipation of the structure so that it can endure the considered earthquake without
exceeding the target drift level. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of the sample building is carried out
before and after retrofit under bidirectional horizontal ground excitations applied simultaneously.
The seismic performance is assessed in terms of maximum inter-storey drift, torsional response,
plastic hinge distribution, residual displacement. Maximum axial force distribution of BRBs,
maximum ductility and cumulative ductility demand of BRBs are discussed for a critical ground
motion record. Analysis of the results reveals that the installation of BRBs decouples the
torsionally coupled lateral modes of the sample building; and decreases inter-storey drift,
torsional response and residual displacement in the soft ground storey. Thus, the retrofit design
considered in this study, enhances the overall structural performance of the sample building
reducing the lateral response due to the combined effect of the soft-storey and torsional coupling
of lateral modes.

1. Introduction
Major seismic design standards adopted across the world have classified the irregularities in buildings generally as plan and vertical
irregularities. The existence of irregularities results in non-uniform distribution of responses in the structural components. During past
earthquakes, many buildings with irregular structural configurations experienced either significant damage or collapse. Past research
works [1,2] confirmed that the irregular buildings undergo more damage than the regular buildings. Therefore, it is important to
improve the seismic performance of these structures. The presence of plan irregularity induces torsional coupling of lateral modes and
results in non-uniform distribution of seismic demand in the structural components. Discontinuity of infill walls in the ground storey

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dgopa_das@iitg.ac.in (G. Das).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105742
Received 22 September 2022; Received in revised form 29 November 2022; Accepted 11 December 2022
Available online 13 December 2022
2352-7102/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

results in vertical irregularity in form of soft-storey imposing large ductility demand in the ground storey columns. Extensive research
works have been conducted to evaluate the impact of both types of irregular configurations individually on the nonlinear response of
buildings.
Duan and Chandler [3] evaluated the inelastic seismic response of torsionally coupled buildings designed as per the provisions of
seismic design codes by carrying out nonlinear dynamic analysis. The study investigated the adequacy of the modal analysis procedure
and static procedure in the seismic design codes. These procedures were found to be non-conservative for the evaluation of the
maximum ductility demand, where the plan irregularity was significant. Ghersi and Rossi [4] presented a design approach for
torsionally coupled building and proposed a formula for design eccentricity to limit the maximum ductility demand. Mulas et al. [5]
carried out a seismic vulnerability assessment for torsionally coupled RC building and proposed retrofit strategies subsequently to
reduce the vulnerability. The addition of a new RC shear wall stiffened the structural system and decoupled the torsionally coupled
lateral modes by reducing the eccentricity between the Centre of Mass (CM) and the Centre of Rigidity (CR). In another approach, RC
walls were replaced by a frame system, where the sample building was weakened, decreasing the stiffness and thus, seismic demand.
Thermou and Psaltakis [6] proposed a design methodology incorporating RC infill walls at the periphery of the torsionally coupled RC
building with soft ground storey. The proposed design approach eliminated the torsional coupling of the mode shapes and enhanced
the seismic performance of the building, ensuring optimum distribution of inter-storey drift throughout the height. Direct
displacement-based design [7,8] approaches were employed to retrofit the torsionally coupled RC buildings. The validity of the design
procedure was verified by nonlinear dynamic analysis. The results obtained from the analysis displayed that the target performance
objectives of the retrofit design were achieved. Jangid and Datta [9] proposed seismic retrofitting of torsionally coupled structures
using base isolation system. Parametric study was carried out; and the effectiveness of the base isolation system to reduce the seismic
response of the structure was assessed. The study reported that the ratio of uncoupled torsional frequency to lateral frequency of the
superstructure significantly affected its effectiveness. Further, it was observed that the increase of torsional coupling, reduced the
effectiveness of the base isolation system in mitigating the torsional response of the superstructure.
Most of the studies assessed the seismic response of irregular buildings, based on numerical models excluding the contribution of
stiffness of the staircase. The inclined staircase slabs significantly contribute to the stiffness of the building due to the mobilisation of
diagonal bracing action under lateral load and thereby attract a large amount of seismic force. The studies [10,11] on seismic analysis
of torsionally coupled RC buildings addressed the non-uniform distribution of stiffness due to the presence of inclined staircase slabs
and the location of the staircase in the plan. It was reported that the non-uniform distribution of stiffness induced by the rigidity of
inclined staircase slabs and short columns around the staircase contributed to the increase in the eccentricity of floor. The inclusion of
staircase flights as structural components in the numerical modelling of buildings is necessary. This would influence the eccentricity
between the Centre of Mass (CM) and the Centre of Rigidity (CR) of the building, which is a measure of the plan irregularity and thus,
affecting the overall seismic response of the building.
Negro and Taylor [12] conducted pseudo-dynamic tests on full-scale frames of RC buildings and assessed the global behaviour of
the frames with and without considering the soft-storey effect. The soft-storey effect was induced in the building by removing infill
walls in the ground storey. The experimental results exhibited significant displacement demand at ground storey level with some
damage in the infill panels of the first storey only. Khan and Rawat [13] performed nonlinear static analysis of masonry infilled RC
buildings with eccentric bracings in the soft-storey. Sahoo and Rai [14] developed a retrofitting technique with aluminium shear links
as passive dampers in addition to strengthening of ground-storey columns. A performance-based design approach was used to pro­
portion various structural elements. Nonlinear analysis was carried out to evaluate inter-storey drift, residual drift, yield mechanism,
energy dissipation and lateral strength. Benavent-Climent and Mota-Paez [15] employed hysteretic dampers for the seismic retrofitting
of existing non-ductile RC soft-storey buildings. An energy-based design method was proposed to evaluate the required strength,
stiffness and energy dissipation capacity of the hysteretic dampers. Mazza et al. [16] adopted base isolation technique to retrofit a RC
soft-storey building located on high seismic zone. Nonlinear dynamic analysis was carried out to assess the seismic behaviour of the
structure before and after retrofit. The study reported that the retrofit technique was effective to mitigate the maximum horizontal
displacement induced by seismic event. Fakhouri and Igarashi [17] proposed a new isolation interface of multiple-slider bearing to
retrofit existing soft-storey building. Numerical analysis was performed to investigate the efficiency of the proposed system in
decreasing the ductility demand and damage in the structure. An optimum design procedure for multiple-slider bearings was proposed
by balancing the maximum bearing displacement and the first story ductility demand ratio.
So far, a limited number of studies have investigated the combined effect of plan and vertical irregularities on the seismic response
of buildings. Hareen and Mohan [18] estimated the inelastic response of torsionally coupled RC ductile building having soft ground
storey using Extended N2 method and Extended Capacity Spectrum Method. Seismic responses of the building obtained using these
methods were compared with those obtained using bidirectional time-history analysis. A conservative design procedure was proposed
for the computation of seismic response of corner columns on the flexible side (FS), considering 1.5 times the design forces. Goh and
Pan [19] studied the torsional response of non-ductile two-way asymmetric structures with the soft ground storey. The displacement
responses were substantially increased in the elements on the FS than on the rigid side (RS) due to the soft-storey and torsional
coupling of lateral modes. Further, it was also observed that the displacement amplification on the FS was increased significantly with
the increase of eccentricity. Lee and Hwang [20] carried out seismic retrofitting of low-rise torsionally coupled RC building with
soft-storey. A series of earthquake simulation tests were conducted on a 1/5th scale model before and after retrofit. Buckling restrained
braces (BRB) and fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets were used at the periphery of the original prototype building to reduce the
seismic response induced by the soft-storey and torsional coupling of lateral modes.
However, BRBs are widely used as passive control hysteretic dampers, which exhibit stable hysteretic energy dissipation in both
compression and tension. Cost-effective BRBs are used as the alternative to conventional concentric/eccentric braces which are sus­

2
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

ceptible to buckling in compression with substantial strength deterioration. Several experimental and analytical studies [21–24] were
carried out to assess the performance of BRBs. Past research works [25–28] reported that BRBs were effective in reducing the
maximum inter-storey drift, and residual drift of building by providing additional stiffness and hysteretic energy dissipation. Ruiz et al.
[29] proposed retrofit techniques to improve the seismic performance of RC moment frame building with soft ground storey. Incre­
mental dynamic analysis (IDA) and seismic fragility analysis were performed to compare the seismic performance of original building
with that of retrofitted building. Among the retrofit techniques, the installation of BRBs led to transmission of lower seismic demand to
the foundation. Castaldo et al. [30] conducted seismic retrofitting of an existing RC building resting on high seismic zone using BRBs
and evaluated its seismic performance before and after retrofit by performing nonlinear static analysis and IDA. The employment of
BRBs contributed to increase the ductility capacity of the overall structure and also effectively reduced the inter-storey drift, residual
drift demand. Qie et al. [31] performed seismic performance evaluation of multi-storey steel frame using iron based smart memory

Fig. 1. Framing plan of sample building: (a) First-floor, (b) Second-Fourth floor.

3
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

alloy (Fe-SMA) in BRB core instead of mild steel. A comparative study was carried out between the conventional BRB with steel core
and BRB with Fe-SMA based core. IDA was carried to evaluate its seismic performance. It is observed that the performance of Fe-SMA
based BRB was better in minimizing the maximum inter-storey drift, maximum floor acceleration, residual drift than that of con­
ventional BRB. However, researches with Fe-SMA material are still in their early stage. Further studies are needed to investigate its
effectiveness and practical implementation for seismic retrofitting. Chen et al. [32] evaluated the seismic performance of a
multi-storey RC building equipped with inverted V-type BRBs. The seismic responses in terms of inter-storey drift, residual de­
formations were reduced due to the installation of BRBs. Moreover, this study investigated the effect of the ratio of yielding core length
(Lc ) to total working length (Lw ) on the stiffness of BRBs. It was reported that the reduction of this ratio increased the effective stiffness
of BRBs.
BRB core consists of central yielding segment with transition and end segments on the either side. The Lc in conventional BRB varies
between 60 and 70% of Lw . Several studies [33–37] were conducted on short yielding core BRBs, where the Lc is varying between 20
and 50% of Lw . The axial strain capacity of the brace core lies between 4 and 5%. The reduction of yielding core segment led to smaller
axial yield displacement which resulted in the enhanced axial stiffness of BRBs. Thus, the short yield core BRBs require lesser
cross-sectional area as compared to the conventional BRBs to provide the required axial stiffness in the brace core. Moreover, the
studies [35,37,38] reported that the brace core experienced increased ductility demand due to the reduction of yielding core length.
Pandikkadavath and Sahoo [35] investigated the seismic performance of medium-rise building frame employing short yielding core
BRBs, where Lc was considered ~0.3 Lw . Nonlinear static and dynamic analysis were conducted to evaluate its seismic response. It was
confirmed that short yield core BRBs effectively mitigated the inter-storey drift and residual drift of the building.
However, very limited research works were carried out to enhance the seismic performance of torsionally coupled RC buildings
with soft-storey using BRBs. In this present study, seismic retrofitting of an irregular RC building is carried out using BRBs with short
yielding core to mitigate the seismic response due to the soft-storey and torsional coupling of lateral modes. The location of the stair-
hall in the plan of the sample building also results in the increase of eccentricity between the CM and the CR. The nonlinear seismic
response of the sample building is evaluated, incorporating the contribution of lateral stiffness of the staircase in the numerical
modelling. BRBs are installed in the ground storey to mitigate the seismic response induced by the soft-storey and torsional coupling of
lateral modes. Displacement-based design (DBD) of BRBs is adopted for the lateral response control of the soft ground storey. The
present study approaches the application of the short yielding core BRBs inducing smaller yield displacement in the brace core. So far,
no studies have been conducted on retrofitting of torsionally coupled soft-storey building using short yielding core BRBs. The present
study relies on the application of short yielding core BRBs to provide sufficient stiffness and ductility for the seismic response control of
the sample building. The main objectives of this study are to minimize the eccentricity at the first-floor, and the maximum storey drifts
within the prescribed value for controlling the plastic deformations and thereby mitigating seismic damage levels in the primary
structural elements of the sample building.

2. Description of sample building

A medium-rise (G+4) T-shaped RC non-ductile building is considered for the numerical study. The typical plan and elevation of the

Fig. 2. Elevation of exterior frame.

4
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

building are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.

Except for the stair-hall, the ground storey is kept open to provide space for a parking slot. The building has soft-storey in the
ground storey due to the non-uniform distribution of infill walls throughout the height. Furthermore, the staircase flights and infill
walls at the stair-hall contribute to the increase of the plan irregularity. The building is considered to be located in Zone V, as per IS
1893 (Part 1): 2002 [39] and designed to withstand gravity loads in accordance with the design recommendations of IS 456: 2000 [40].
The support condition at the base is considered as fixed. The thickness of the RC floor slab and stair slab are 150 mm and 120 mm,
respectively. The thickness of masonry infill walls of clay brick is considered as 230 mm. Dead load and live load are applied to the
structure as per provisions of IS 875: Part 1 and Part 2–1987 [41,42]. The grades of concrete and rebar are M25 and Fe415,
respectively. The prism compressive strength (fm’ ) the masonry infill is considered as 4.1 MPa, where intermediate mortar of grade
(cement: lime: sand) 1:0.5:4.5 is considered. The details of the beams and columns are shown in Table 1.

3. Numerical modelling
3D numerical model of the sample building is developed using finite element software SAP2000 [43] (see Fig. 3). In the present
study, three different models of the sample building are considered as: i) Model A, original building model excluding the contribution
of the staircase stiffness, ii) Model B1, original building model including the contribution of the staircase stiffness, iii) Model B2,
retrofitted building model including the contribution of the staircase stiffness. Beams and columns are modelled using frame elements.
Mander unconfined concrete model [43,44] is used to simulate the compressive stress-strain behaviour of unconfined concrete, as
shown in Fig. 4(a). The stress-strain behaviour of reinforcement steel bar is characterized using the Park stress-strain model [43], as
shown in Fig. 4(b). The stress-strain behaviour of confined concrete is simulated considering the model proposed by Mander et al. [44].
The nonlinearity of masonry infill wall is modelled using the idealized stress-strain curve proposed by Kaushik et al. [45]. The
compressive stress-strain curve of URM prism, developed from the analytical stress-strain relation proposed by Kaushik et al. [45], is
presented in Fig. 4(c). Unreinforced masonry (URM) infill walls are modelled using equivalent diagonal struts according to FEMA 356:
2000 [46]. The widths of the equivalent diagonal struts are shown in Table 2.
The end zone offset in modelling of RC beam and columns are considered as 0.5. In-plane rigidity of RC floor slabs are modelled
using rigid horizontal diaphragms. The finite element (FE) model of RC staircase slabs is simulated using 4-noded shell elements. The
locations of CM and CR of floor diaphragms, which are computed for each of the three models [47], are shown in Fig. 1. The ec­
centricity (ey /Ly ) at the first-floor level is 13% for Model A. However, the location of the CR gets shifted due to the consideration of the
staircase in Model B1, which increases the corresponding eccentricity value to 18%. From the second to fourth-floor level, the ec­
centricity value is 2%, which is insignificant as compared to that at the first-floor level. In Model B2, the eccentricity at the first-floor
level decreases to 0.13%. In this present study, modal analysis and nonlinear analysis are carried out for Model B1 and Model B2 only,
where the contribution of staircase stiffness is considered in the numerical modelling of the sample building. The characteristics of
corresponding modes, as obtained from the modal analysis, are presented in Table 3. In order to simulate nonlinear behaviour,
displacement-controlled lumped plastic hinges were defined considering: a) interaction of axial force and bi-axial bending moment
(P-M-M), and moment-rotation (M-ϴ) in columns, b) uniaxial moment-rotation (M-ϴ) in beams; and c) axial force-displacement (F-δ)
behaviour at the midspan of the diagonal struts. The plastic hinge length (Lp) in beams and columns are taken as 0.5 of section depth
(H) as recommended by Pauley and Priestley [48]. These hinges are assigned at a distance of 0.5H from the support face. The details of
M-ϴ plastic hinges are presented in Table 4. The idealized moment-rotation curve of the beam and column section is shown in Fig. 5.
Rotation at point E is taken as 1.5–2.0 times of ϴu , according to FEMA 356 [46]. The nonlinear force-deformation behaviour associated
with the axial hinges of the infill struts are simulated following the study by Alwashali et al. [49]. Cyclic moment-rotation degradation
is simulated by the Takeda hysteresis model [50]. Cyclic force-deformation behaviour of the infill strut element is simulated by the
pivot hysteresis model using the parameters suggested by Cavaleri and Trapani [51].

4. Retrofit of sample building

According to the past studies on seismic performance evaluation of torsionally coupled buildings with the soft ground storey,
displacement demand has been observed to be substantially higher in the ground storey than in the upper storeys. The sample building
under the present study is plan asymmetric about the X axis, resulting in torsionally coupled lateral modes in the X direction. Further,
soft-storey exists in the ground storey and eccentricity is found to be significantly larger at the first-floor than at the upper floors. Thus,

Table 1
Details of structural members.

Member Storey Cross-section (m2) Longitudinal Reinforcement Transverse Reinforcement

Top Bottom

Beam Ground-3 0.20 × 0.45 3-16φ 3-12φ 8φ @150 c/c

0.25 × 0.45 4-16φ 4-16φ 8φ @150 c/c
4 0.20 × 0.45 3-12φ 3-12φ 8φ @150 c/c

Column Ground 0.30 × 0.30 12-20φ 8φ @120 c/c

0.35 × 0.35 12-25φ 8φ @120 c/c
1–2 0.30 × 0.30 12-20φ 8φ @150 c/c
2–4 0.30 × 0.30 8-16φ 8φ @150 c/c

5
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

Fig. 3. 3D modelling of sample building.

Fig. 4. Stress-strain curves of (a) unconfined concrete [43], (b) steel rebar [43], (c) masonry prism [45].

Table 2
Widths of equivalent diagonal struts.

hcol (m) 4.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 2.00 2.00 1.75

b (m) 6.00 6.00 4.50 5.50 3.75 3.00 5.25 3.00 3.00 3.00

a (m) 0.65 0.64 0.50 0.59 0.45 0.39 0.57 0.37 0.36 0.36

hcol - height of column from centre to centre of beam, b - bay width, a - width of equivalent infill strut.

seismic retrofitting is carried out for the ground storey only, considering both the effect of soft-storey and torsional coupling of lateral
modes.
Short yielding core BRBs impose higher ductility demand in the brace core, resulting in the reduction of seismic force demand.
Further, the smaller axial yield displacement in the brace core contributes to enhanced axial stiffness, which can be utilized to
minimize the eccentricity and thus, decoupling of torsionally coupled lateral modes. Therefore, in this study, short yielding core BRBs
are adopted to minimize the eccentricity of first-floor and control the seismic lateral response due to the soft-storey.

4.1. Design methodology

To reduce the eccentricity at the first-floor, the CR is shifted by distributing the BRBs on the FS of the ground storey in the X di­
rection. After the minimization of the eccentricity, additional BRBs are employed in the X and Y direction of the ground storey to

6
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

Table 3
Time periods and mass participation ratios.

Type of numerical model Mode no Time Period (s) Mass participation ratio (%)

UX UY RZ

Model B1 1 1.07 53.624 0.000 45.523

2 0.86 43.498 0.015 51.645
3 0.83 0.007 95.175 0.007

Model B2 1 0.69 93.631 0.001 0.001

2 0.66 0.001 90.130 0.000
3 0.58 0.000 0.000 88.2
4 0.19 0.000 0.000 8.8

Table 4
Details of moment-rotation (M-ϴ) plastic hinges.

Member Storey Cross-section (m2) P (kN) ϴy (rad) ϴu (rad) My (kN-m)

Beam Ground-3 0.20 × 0.45 _ 0.0058 0.072 60.60

0.25 × 0.45 _ 0.0059 0.073 140.86
4 0.20 × 0.45 _ 0.006 0.071 60.36

column Ground 0.30 × 0.30 1393 0.013 0.025 167

0.35 × 0.35 1415 0.012 0.027 325
1–2 0.30 × 0.30 1060 0.013 0.028 179
3–4 0.30 × 0.30 445 0.0093 0.044 100

Fig. 5. Idealized moment-rotation (M-ϴ) relationship of beam and column sections.

mitigate the lateral drift response associated with the soft storey. The additional BRBs in the X direction are distributed on both the FS
and RS of the building without changing the location of the CR. Displacement-based design (DBD) approach is adopted to estimate the
mechanical properties of BRBs for lateral drift control measures. Step by step DBD procedure is discussed as follows:
• Performance objectives: Design drift threshold (θd ) is considered as 1% under the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE), which cor­
responds to PGA of 0.18 g [39]. The seismic performance is also evaluated for 2% drift under Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE) which corresponds to PGA of 0.36 g [39].
• Design storey yield displacement: The design storey yield displacement at the ground storey level (uyg ) is computed from Eq. (1)
as:
uyg = hθy (1)

where, h is the storey height and θy (θd /μdg ) is design yield drift ratio.
μdg is storey ductility at the ground storey level, as provided by BRB.

• Design axial yield displacement: Design axial yield displacement demand (Δy ) in BRB core is calculated from Eq. (2) as:
Δy = uyg cos α (2)

where, α is the angle between brace axis and horizontal direction.

7
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

• Computation of seismic demand: The design base shear of masonry-infilled RC frame with BRBs (Vy,d ) is computed from Eq. (3)
following N2 method by Fajfar et al. [52].
Vy,d = Me Say (3)

( )2
∑
mi ui
Me = ∑
i
mi u2i
; where, mi is storey mass; ui is target displacement profile of MDOF structure.
i

Say = Sa
Rμ ; where, Sae is elastic pseudo-spectral acceleration demand of equivalent SDOF model of MDOF structure; Rμ is response
e

reduction factor due to ductility.

• Design lateral stiffness: Design lateral stiffness (Kl ) of the ground storey is calculated as:
/
Kl,d = Vy,d uyg (4)

• Calculation of design parameters of BRBs: Axial stiffness (Ky,BRB ), axial yield force (Ny,BRB ), and area of yielding core (Ac ) of
BRBs are calculated using the following equations:
/( )
Ky,BRB = Kl,d ncos2 α (5)

Ny,BRB = Ky,BRB Δy (6)

/
Ac = Ny,BRB fy (7)

where, n is the number of BRBs to be provided; fy is yield strength of steel.

4.2. Details of short yielding core BRBs

The typical BRB core consists of yielding core segment, two elastic transition segments and two elastic end segments (see Fig. 6).
Assuming the yielding core segment, transition and end segments as elastic springs connected in series, the total axial yield
displacement of BRB core (Δy ) can be expressed as:

Δy = Δc + Δt + Δe

Ny,BRB Lc Ny,BRB Lt Ny,BRB Le

Δy = + +
Ac E At E Ae E
( )
fy Lc Lt Ac Le Ac
Δy = 1+ + (8)
E Lc At Lc Ae

where, E is Young modulus; Lc , Lt and Le are the length of yielding core segment, transition segment and end segment; Ac , At and Ae are
the cross-sectional areas of yielding core segment, transition segment and end segment.
In this present study, the steel grade of BRB core is taken as Fe250 (fy = 250 MPa). The storey ductility at the ground storey level
corresponding to DBE is considered as μd = 7. The storey yield displacement at the ground storey level is calculated from Eq. (1) as:

Fig. 6. Schematic diagram of short yielding core BRB.

8
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

uyg ≈ 0.0057 m. At /Ac and Ae /Ac is considered as 2.5 and 3.5 respectively [35]. The design parameter Lc is selected between 35 and
40% of Lw corresponding to Δy in compliance with Eq. (8). Maximum axial strain capacity (εmax ) in the brace core is considered as 4%.
Maximum axial displacement capacity (Δmax ) can be readily calculated from Eq. (9) as suggested by Della Corte et al. [26] as:
( )
Δmax = Δy + εmax − εy Lc (9)

where, εy is axial yield strain.

Design mechanical parameters of short yielding core BRBs employed to minimize the eccentricity and lateral drift control, are
presented in Table 5. Multilinear plastic link is used to simulate the nonlinear axial load-deformation behaviour of the BRB. Adjust­
ment factors in tension (ω) and compression (β) are considered as 1.4 and 1.1, respectively [53]. Cyclic load-deformation behaviour is
simulated by the kinematic hysteresis model. Force-deformation characteristics of BRBs are shown in Fig. 7.
The location of the BRBs employed in the ground storey has been shown in Fig. 8. Seismic retrofitting of the sample building is
carried out in two stages-i) in the first stage, the eccentricity associated with the first-floor plan has been minimized by placing BRBs on
FS in the X direction as the sample building is asymmetric about X axis; ii) in the second stage, displacement-based design of additional
BRBs is carried out to control the drift of the soft ground storey in X and Y direction (see Fig. 8).

5. Nonlinear dynamic analysis

For computation of the seismic response of structures, nonlinear dynamic analysis is more appropriate approach than nonlinear
static analysis which ignores the contribution of higher modes in response of the torsionally coupled building. In this study, nonlinear
time history analysis is conducted using SAP2000 to evaluate the inelastic dynamic behaviour of Model B1 and Model B2, under Design
Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) [39]. Ground motion applied in one direction induces the
structural response in the orthogonal direction due to the torsional coupling of the lateral modes. Hence, bidirectional excitations are
used with two horizontal components of ground motions applied simultaneously. The nonlinear time history analysis is carried out by
direct integration using Newmark-β method. Rayleigh-damping is considered for the development of damping matrix considering the
damping ratio of 5%. The associated damping coefficients are obtained based on the specified damping ratio and first two natural
frequencies.

6. Seismic ground motions

A suite of ten ground motions is selected from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) NGA website [54]. The ground
motions are selected based on the site, where the structure considered for the present study is located. The details of these records are
presented in Table 6. Each of the selected ground motions is scaled to the target response spectrum for DBE and MCE, corresponding to
PGA intensity of 0.18 g and 0.36 g, respectively. The target response spectra for DBE and MCE are taken for Zone V as per IS 1893 (Part
1) [39]. The scaling of ground motion is carried out using SeismoMatch software [55]. The response of a nonlinear multi-degree of
freedom system is significantly influenced by the periods of higher modes, as well as elongated periods due to the nonlinearity effect.
So, the ground motions are scaled within the range of time period between 0.2T-1.5T [46], where T is the fundamental period of the
structure. The mean response spectrum of the suite of scaled ground motions is found to be in good agreement with the target response
spectrum (see Fig. 9).

7. Results and discussions

Nonlinear time history analysis of the sample building under ten seismic ground motions is conducted for its seismic evaluation
before and after retrofit design. The seismic performances of Model B1 and Model B2 are assessed on the basis of maximum inter-storey
drift, torsional response, distribution of plastic hinges and residual displacement under DBE and MCE. Maximum axial force distri­
butions of BRBs; maximum and cumulative ductility demands of BRBs are discussed for a critical ground motion record. The results of
the analysis are demonstrated in the following sub-sections.

7.1. Inter-storey drift

Inter-storey drift (ISD) demand is computed at the CM of the floor diaphragm under bi-directional horizontal ground motions.
Maximum ISD profiles along with their corresponding mean and mean plus one standard deviation (mean + S.D) values are shown in
Figs. 10 and 11 under DBE and MCE, respectively. Figs. 10(a) and Fig. 11(a) show that the maximum ISDs in Model B1 are substantially
higher in the soft ground storey than in the upper storeys, resulting in the non-uniform distribution of drift demand throughout the

Table 5
Design mechanical parameters of BRBs.
3
Elements Bay Width (m) Lw (m) Ac ( × 10− m2 ) Ky,BRB (kN/m) Maximum capacity (kN)

Tension Compression

BXA1, BXA2, BXA3, BXA4 4.5 6.02 910 52,906 318.5 350.4
BXC1, BXC2 4.5 6.02 1000 58,140 350.0 385.0
BYA1, BYA2, BYA3, BYA4 4.5 6.02 910 52,906 318.5 350.4
BYB1, BYB2, BYB3⋅BYB4 5.5 6.80 850 45,186 297.5 327.3

9
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

Fig. 7. Backbone curve for force-deformation characteristics of BRBs.

Fig. 8. Locations of BRBs in plan.

Table 6
Details of seismic ground motions.

Serial No Records Earthquake name Station name Year Magnitude

1 RSN 200 Imperial Valley-07 El Centro Array #2 1979 5.01

2 RSN 27 Hollister-02 Hollister City Hall 1961 5.5
3 RSN 326 Coalinga-01 Parkfield-Cholame 2WA 1983 6.36
4 RSN 192 Imperial Valley-06 Westmorland Fire Sta 1979 6.53
5 RSN 7 Northwest Calif-02 Ferndale City Hall 1941 6.6
6 RSN 1114 Kobe Japan Port Island 1995 6.9
7 RSN 93 San-Fernando Whittier Narrows Dam 1971 7.2
8 RSN 1200 Chi-Chi Taiwan CHY033 1999 7.62
9 RSN 1212 Chi-Chi Taiwan CHY054 1999 7.62
10 RSN 1207 Chi-Chi Taiwan CHY044 1999 7.62

height of the building. Thus, the concentrated drift demand in the soft-storey increases the vulnerability of the ground-storey columns.
Figs. 10(b) and Fig. 11(b) show that the maximum ISDs of Model B2 are decreased significantly in the ground storey and increased
slightly in the upper storeys. It indicates the redistribution of drift demands along the height of the building. However, the largest drift

10
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

Fig. 9. Scaling of ground motions to target response spectrum under DBE.

Fig. 10. Maximum ISD profile under DBE for (a) Model B1, (b) Model B2.

still occurs in the ground storey. In Model B1, the mean value of the maximum ground storey drift under DBE is 1.48% and 1.42% in the
X and Y direction, respectively. In Model B2, these are reduced to 0.87% and 0.74% in the corresponding directions. Thus, the mean
values of the maximum mean drift demands are restricted within the pre-selected drift limit, and thus, the target performance objective
of the retrofit design is achieved. The mean maximum ground storey drift of Model B1 under MCE is 3% and 2.9% in the X and Y
directions, respectively. On the other hand, the corresponding drifts are decreased to 2.09% and 1.98% in Model B2. Hence, the
installation of BRBs in Model B2 has effectively mitigated the maximum ISD under both DBE and MCE. Moreover, it is also observed
that the influence of ground motion characteristics on drift demands is more pronounced in the soft ground storey of Model B1 than
that of Model B2.

7.2. Torsional response

The building model considered for the present study is asymmetric about the X axis. Normalised displacements (u∕uCM ) at the first-
floor level are computed for all frames from the RS to FS of the building to make a comparison of the torsional response between the
original and retrofitted building model. The results are presented in Figs. 12 and 13 under DBE and MCE, respectively. Fig. 12(a)
depicts that the presence of the torsionally coupled lateral modes in Model B1 leads to higher normalised displacement on the FS
compared to the RS. The existence of the soft-storey reduces the torsional resistance and thus, increases the torsional response in the
ground storey. Hence, the combined effect of the soft-storey and torsional coupling of lateral modes induces significant damage po­
tential in the columns of ground storey level on the FS. The mean envelope of normalised displacements under DBE displays the least
value of 0.87 on the RS and the largest value of 1.2 on the FS. Fig. 12(b) shows that the mean normalised displacements are nearly
equal to 1.0 for all frames in Model B2. The variations of the normalised displacements from the RS to FS are observed to be similar

11
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

Fig. 11. Maximum ISD profile under MCE for (a) Model B1, (b) Model B2.

under MCE, as shown in Fig. 13. The obtained results display larger dispersion on the RS than on the FS. However, the dispersions of
the obtained results are comparatively less in Model B2 than in Model B1. The installed BRBs in Model B2 contribute to both the
stiffness and ductility of the structure, where stiffness reduces the eccentricity in the elastic stage and ductility provides sufficient
energy dissipation reducing the torsional response in the inelastic stage.

7.3. Plastic hinge distribution

The distribution of plastic hinges developed in Model B1 and Model B2 are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. Different performance levels of
plastic hinges are designated with labels as per FEMA 356. Fig. 14(a) shows the distribution of plastic hinges in Model B1 under DBE.
The ground-storey columns have undergone the performance levels of LS-CP, CP-C on the FS and IO-LS, LS-CP on the RS. Due to the
presence of plan irregularity, the ground-storey columns have experienced non-uniform distribution of drift demands from RS to FS.
The columns on the FS have suffered more damage than on the RS. Fig. 14(b) shows the scenario of Model B2, where the plastic hinges
formed in the ground-storey columns remain within the B-IO and IO-LS level. All the ground-storey columns of Model B1 have reached
the C-D level under MCE, as can be seen in Fig. 15(a). On the other hand, Model B2 shows improved performance with a large number
of hinges within the CP-C level, as shown Fig. 15(b). The shorter columns of the staircase and few numbers of columns in the ground
storey are undergone C-D level of performance. Because of the soft-storey effect, a large number of plastic hinges are found to be
concentrated in the ground storey of Model B1; whereas the installation of BRBs in Model B2, has redistributed the plastic hinges in the
upper storeys and reduced the plastic hinge concentration in the ground storey.

7.4. Residual displacement

Residual displacement represents the permanent damages in the structural members. Displacement time history plots for ground
motion record RSN1114 and RSN93 are shown in Fig. 16(a) and Fig. 16(b) under DBE and MCE, respectively. Displacement time
histories are presented corresponding to the residual displacement at the critical node of the first-floor level. Residual drifts of Model
B1 and Model B2 are computed for the above-mentioned records and discussed in this section. In Model B1, RSN1114 and RSN93 have
produced the maximum residual drift of 0.62% and 0.23%, respectively under DBE, as shown in Fig. 16(a). On the other hand, Model
B2 portrays a significant reduction of the residual drifts, where the maximum residual drifts are 0.095% and 0.1% for RSN1114 and
RSN93, respectively. Fig. 16(b) shows that RSN1114 and RSN93 have produced the maximum residual drifts of 0.75% and 1.63%,
respectively in Model B1 under MCE. The corresponding maximum residual drifts are 0.13% and 0.17% in Model B2. The employment
of BRBs enhances the stiffness of the soft ground storey and thereby, reduces the corresponding residual drifts. It ensures the reduction
of the permanent damage in the columns of the soft ground storey.

12
 G. Das et al.
13

Fig. 12. Maximum normalised displacement at first-floor under DBE for (a) Model B1, (b) Model B2.

Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

Fig. 13. Maximum normalised displacement at first-floor under MCE for (a) Model B1, (b) Model B2.

Fig. 14. Plastic hinge distribution under DBE for (a) Model B1, (b) Model B2.

7.5. Axial force distribution

Maximum axial force distributions of BRBs are shown in Figs. 17 and 18 under DBE and MCE, respectively corresponding to a
critical ground motion record RSN 1212. The maximum inter-storey drifts in the ground storey of Model B2 are 0.97% and 0.81% in X
and Y direction, respectively under DBE. However, the maximum inter-storey drifts in the ground storey of Model B2 are 2.4% and
2.2% in X and Y direction, respectively under MCE. In the X direction, the maximum axial forces of BXA1, BXA2, BXA3 and BXA4 under
MCE are within the range of 301–304 kN and 333–334 kN in tension and compression, respectively. The corresponding maximum axial
forces of BXC1 and BXC2 are found within the range of 324–326 kN and 360–361 kN in tension and compression, respectively. In the Y
direction, the maximum axial forces of BYA1, BYA2, BYA3 and BYA4 under MCE are within the range of 297–304 kN and 326–332 kN
in tension and compression, respectively. The corresponding maximum axial forces of BYB1, BYB2, BYB3 and BYB4 are noted to be
within the range of 261–282 kN in tension and 309–316 kN in compression. However, the maximum axial forces of BRBs in both
tension and compression are found to be lesser than their limiting values (Table 5). Therefore, it can be inferred that the BRBs
employed in the sample building have sufficient capacity to sustain the maximum axial forces for the selected ground motion record.

7.6. Maximum and cumulative ductility demand

The maximum displacement ductility (μmax ) and cumulative displacement ductility (μcum ) of BRBs [56,57] can be expressed as
follows:
Δmax
μmax = (10)
Δy

14
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

Fig. 15. Plastic hinge distribution under MCE for (a) Model B1, (b) Model B2.

Fig. 16. Displacement-time history at first-floor level under (a) DBE, (b) MCE.

∑ ∑
Wi+ + Wi−
μcum = (11)
Ny Δ y

where, Δmax is maximum displacement of BRB; Wi is energy in cycle i; Ny and Δy are first yield force and yield displacement of BRB,
respectively.
Usami et al. [58] suggested that the limiting values of μmax and μcum of BRBs were 25 and 400, respectively. In the present study, the

15
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742
Fig. 17. Maximum axial force distribution of BRBs under DBE.
16
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742
Fig. 18. Maximum axial forces distribution of BRBs under MCE.
17
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

limiting value of μmax is computed as 20 based on Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) for maximum strain of 4%, and the limiting value of μcum is
computed as 592 based on the loading protocol suggested by ANSI/AISC 341–10 (2010) [59]. For the selected ground motion record
RSN 1212, the value of μmax is found to be 17.9 under MCE. The corresponding value of μcum is computed as 419, as per Eq. (11).
Therefore, the limiting values of μmax and μcum of the BRBs are adequate to meet the imposed maximum displacement demand and
cumulative displacement demand under the selected ground motion.

8. Conclusion
In this study, seismic retrofitting of a torsionally coupled RC building with soft ground storey has been carried out. Contribution of
the lateral stiffness of the staircase is incorporated in the numerical modelling of the sample building. Short yielding core BRBs are
installed in the ground storey and distributed on both the FS and RS of the building to minimize the eccentricity at the first-floor and
the lateral drift response associated with the soft-storey. The enhanced stiffness and energy dissipation of the short yielding core BRBs
are utilized to effectively mitigate the seismic damage level in the soft ground storey. Displacement-based design method is adopted for
the design of the BRBs to control the drift response associated with the soft ground storey under DBE. The seismic performances of the
sample building before and after retrofit, under both DBE and MCE are evaluated by carrying out nonlinear dynamic analysis. The
observations of this analysis show that the installation of short yielding core BRBs has minimized the maximum ISD, torsional
response, residual drifts in the soft ground storey. The retrofit design adopted for this study has effectively improved the seismic
performance of the sample building mitigating the seismic vulnerability induced by the soft storey and torsional coupling of lateral
modes. The following conclusions drawn from the present study are:

• The installation of short yielding core BRBs in retrofitted building Model B2, reduces the drift demand significantly in the soft
ground storey under both DBE and MCE. Under DBE, the mean values of maximum ISDs occurred in the ground storey are 0.87%
and 0.74% in the X and Y direction, respectively, which are limited within the prescribed target drift level (1%). Further, the
corresponding drifts display 2.09% and 1.98% under MCE.
• The eccentricity at the first-floor level is reduced from 18% to 0.13% due to the installation of BRBs in the ground storey and it
results in the decoupling of torsionally coupled lateral modes in the retrofitted building Model B2. Further, the mean values of the
maximum normalised displacements in the X direction are nearly equal to 1.0 on both the FS and RS of the building under DBE and
MCE, which ensures the reduction of the torsional response in the retrofitted building.
• The installation of BRBs has improved the performance level of plastic hinges in the ground storey and redistributed the plastic
hinges in the upper storeys. Under DBE, plastic hinges formed in the ground storey columns lie within the range of B-IO and IO-LS
level. Further, under MCE, a large number of plastic hinges display CP-C level of performance and very few number of plastic hinges
are formed within the range of C-D level in the ground storey columns.
• The residual drifts in Model B2 are significantly minimized under DBE and MCE ground motions because of the employment of
BRBs in the ground storey. Short yielding core BRBs contribute to increase the stiffness of the ground storey; which facilitates the
reduction of the associated residual drifts.
• The maximum axial forces, maximum ductility demand and cumulative ductility demand of BRBs under MCE are found to be lesser
than the corresponding limiting values for ground motion record RSN 1212. Thus, it can be concluded that the BRBs employed for
seismic retrofitting of the sample building have sufficient capacity to withstand the seismic demand.

Credit author statement

Gopa Das: Conceptualization, methodology, software, analysis of results, manuscript preparation. Pallab Jyoti Das: Conceptu­
alization, methodology, supervision, manuscript preparation. Sajal Kanti Deb: Conceptualization, methodology, analysis of results,
supervision and manuscript preparation.

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.

References
[1] B. Khanal, H. Chaulagain, Seismic elastic performance of L-shaped building frames through plan irregularities, Structures 27 (2020) 22–36, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.istruc.2020.05.017.
[2] S. Abdel Raheem, M. Ahmed, M. Ahmed, A. Abdel-shafy, Evaluation of plan configuration irregularity effects on seismic response demands of L-shaped MRF
buildings, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 16 (9) (2018) 3845–3869, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0319-7.
[3] X. Duan, A. Chandler, Inelastic seismic response of code-designed multistorey frame buildings with regular asymmetry, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 22 (5)
(1993) 431–445, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290220506.
[4] A. Ghersi, P.P. Rossi, Formulation of design eccentricity to reduce ductility demand in asymmetric buildings, Eng. Struct. 22 (7) (2000) 857–871, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0141-0296(98)00064-9.

18
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

[5] M.G. Mulas, L. Stroffolini, P. Martinelli, Vulnerability and retrofitting of torsionally deformable RC buildings: a case study, Structures 32 (2021) 861–875,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.03.063.
[6] G.E. Thermou, M. Psaltakis, Retrofit design methodology for substandard RC buildings with torsional sensitivity, J. Earthq. Eng. 22 (7) (2018) 1233–1258,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1277569.
[7] B.H. Abebe, J.S. Lee, Accounting for torsional response in direct displacement-based design of plan-asymmetric reinforced concrete frame buildings, KSCE J.
Civ. Eng. 23 (3) (2019) 1190–1206, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-1739-x.
[8] P. Bahmani, J.W. van de Lindt, T.N. Dao, Displacement-based design of buildings with torsion: theory and verification, J. Struct. Eng. 140 (6) (2014), 04014020,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000896.
[9] R.S. Jangid, T.K. Datta, Nonlinear response of torsionally coupled base isolated structure, J. Struct. Eng. 120 (1) (1994) 1–22.
[10] A. Masi, V. Manfredi, A. Digrisolo, Seismic assessment of RC existing irregular buildings, in: The 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Portugal,
Lisbon, 2012.
[11] Azadeh Noorifard, Mohammad Reza Tabeshpour, Effects of the staircase on the seismic behavior of RC moment frame buildings, Architecture, Civil Engineering,
Environment 11 (4) (2018) 105–122, https://doi.org/10.21307/acee-2018-058.
[12] P. Negro, C. Taylor, Effect of infills on the global seismic behaviour of R/C frames: results of pseudodynamic and shaking table tests, in: Proceedings of the 11th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Pergamon, 1996, pp. 23–28.
[13] D. Khan, A. Rawat, Nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry infill RC buildings with eccentric bracings at soft storey level, Procedia Eng. 161 (2016) 9–17, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.490.
[14] D.R. Sahoo, D.C. Rai, Design and evaluation of seismic strengthening techniques for reinforced concrete frames with soft ground story, Eng. Struct. 56 (2013)
1933–1944, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.018.
[15] A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez, Earthquake retrofitting of R/C frames with soft first story using hysteretic dampers: energy-based design method and
evaluation, Eng. Struct. 137 (2017) 19–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.053.
[16] Fabio Mazza, Mirko Mazza, Alfonso Vulcano, Base-isolation systems for the seismic retrofitting of RC framed buildings with soft-storey subjected to near-fault
earthquakes, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 109 (2018) 209–221.
[17] M.Y. Fakhouri, A. Igarashi, Multiple-slider surfaces bearing for seismic retrofitting of frame structures with soft first stories, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 42 (1)
(2013) 145–161, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2198.
[18] C.B. Hareen, S. Mohan, Evaluation of seismic torsional response of ductile RC buildings with soft first story, Structures 29 (2021) 1640–1654, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.031.
[19] K.S. Goh, T.-C. Pan, Torsional response of nonductile structures with soft-first-storey, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 44 (1) (2015) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1002/
eqe.2452.
[20] H.S. Lee, K.R. Hwang, Torsion design implications from shake-table responses of an RC low-rise building model having irregularities at the ground story, Earthq.
Eng. Struct. Dynam. 44 (6) (2015) 907–927, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2492.
[21] N. Hoveidae, B. Rafezy, Overall buckling behavior of all-steel buckling restrained braces, J. Constr. Steel Res. 79 (2012) 151–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcsr.2012.07.022.
[22] L.A. Fahnestock, J.M. Ricles, R. Sause, Experimental evaluation of a large-scale buckling-restrained braced frame, J. Struct. Eng. 133 (9) (2007) 1205–1214,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:9(1205).
[23] Q. Xie, State of the art of buckling-restrained braces in Asia, J. Constr. Steel Res. 61 (6) (2005) 727–748, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2004.11.005.
[24] J. Zhao, B. Wu, W. Li, J. Ou, Local buckling behavior of steel angle core members in buckling-restrained braces: cyclic tests, theoretical analysis, and design
recommendations, Eng. Struct. 66 (2014) 129–145, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.008.
[25] A. Almeida, R. Ferreira, J.M. Proença, A.S. Gago, Seismic retrofit of RC building structures with buckling restrained braces, Eng. Struct. 130 (2017) 14–22,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.09.036.
[26] G. Della Corte, M. D’Aniello, R. Landolfo, Field testing of all-steel buckling-restrained braces applied to a damaged reinforced concrete building, J. Struct. Eng.
141 (1) (2015) D4014004, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001080.
[27] J. Erochko, C. Christopoulos, R. Tremblay, H. Choi, Residual drift response of SMRFs and BRB frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7-05,
J. Struct. Eng. 137 (5) (2011) 589–599, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000296.
[28] D.R. Sahoo, S.-H. Chao, Stiffness-based design for mitigation of residual displacements of buckling-restrained braced frames, J. Struct. Eng. 141 (9) (2015),
04014229, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001204.
[29] S.E. Ruiz, M.A. Santos-Santiago, E. Bojórquez, M.A. Orellana, F. Valenzuela-Beltrán, J. Bojórquez, M. Barraza, BRB retrofit of midrise soft-first-story RC moment-
frame buildings with masonry infill in upper stories, J. Build. Eng. 38 (2021), 101783, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101783.
[30] P. Castaldo, E. Tubaldi, F. Selvi, L. Gioiella, Seismic performance of an existing RC structure retrofitted with buckling restrained braces, J. Build. Eng. 33 (2021),
101688, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101688.
[31] C. Qiu, A. Zhang, T. Jiang, X. Du, Seismic performance analysis of multi-story steel frames equipped with FeSMA BRBs, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 161 (2022),
107392, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107392.
[32] H. Chen, J. Bai, Seismic performance evaluation of buckling-restrained braced RC frames considering stiffness and strength requirements and low-cycle fatigue
behaviors, Eng. Struct. 239 (2021), 112359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112359.
[33] M.S. Pandikkadavath, D.R. Sahoo, Cyclic testing of short-length buckling-restrained braces with detachable casings, Earthquakes and Structures 10 (3) (2016)
699–716, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.3.699.
[34] M.S. Pandikkadavath, D.R. Sahoo, Analytical investigation on cyclic response of buckling-restrained braces with short yielding core segments, International
Journal of Steel Structures 16 (4) (2016) 1273–1285, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-016-0083-y.
[35] M.S. Pandikkadavath, D.R. Sahoo, Mitigation of seismic drift response of braced frames using short yielding-core BRBs, Steel Compos. Struct. 23 (3) (2017)
285–302, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2017.23.3.285.
[36] R. Tremblay, L. Poncet, P. Bolduc, R. Neville, R. DeVall, Testing and design of buckling restrained braces for Canadian application, in: Proceedings of the 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2004, pp. 1–6. Vancouver, Canada.
[37] S.A.R. Tabatabaei, S.R. Mirghaderi, A. Hosseini, Experimental and numerical developing of reduced length buckling-restrained braces, Eng. Struct. 77 (2014)
143–160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.07.034.
[38] N. Fanaie, E. Dizaj, Response modification factor of the frames braced with reduced yielding segment BRB, Struct. Eng. Mech. 50 (1) (2014) 1–17, https://doi.
org/10.12989/sem.2014.50.1.001.
[39] IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, Criteria for Earthquake Resistance Design of Structures: Part-1 General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India, 2002.
[40] IS 456: 2000, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 2000.
[41] IS 875: (Part 1) - 1987, Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Part 1: Dead Loads - Unit Weights of Building
Material and Stored Materials, incorporating IS 1911: 1967), 1987.
[42] IS 875: (Part 2) - 1987, Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Part 2: Imposed Loads, 1987.
[43] SAP2000, C.S.I., Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures - Version 22.0.0, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, California, USA.
[44] J.B. Mander, M.J. Priestley, R. Park, Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete, J. Struct. Eng. 114 (8) (1988) 1804–1826, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804).
[45] H.B. Kaushik, D.C. Rai, S.K. Jain, Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (9) (2007) 728–739.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:9(728).
[46] FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C, 2000..

19
G. Das et al. Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105742

[47] Center of rigidity, ETABS, computers and structures, Inc. Technical Knowledge Base, Wiki.csiamerica.com (2022) [Online], https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/
etabs/Center+of+rigidity. (Accessed 1 August 2022).
[48] T. Paulay, M.N. Priestley, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, 1992.
[49] H. Alwashali, Y. Torihata, K. Jin, M. Maeda, Experimental observations on the in-plane behaviour of masonry wall infilled RC frames focusing on deformation
limits and backbone curve, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 16 (3) (2018) 1373–1397, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0248-x.
[50] T. Takeda, M.A. Sozen, N.N. Nielsen, Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes, J. Struct. Div. 96 (12) (1970) 2557–2573, https://doi.org/
10.1061/JSDEAG.0002765.
[51] L. Cavaleri, F. Di Trapani, Cyclic response of masonry infilled RC frames: experimental results and simplified modelling, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 65 (2014)
224–242, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.06.016.
[52] P. Fajfar, A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design, Earthq. Spectra 16 (3) (2000) 573–592, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586128.
[53] D.R. Sahoo, S.-H. Chao, Performance-based plastic design method for buckling-restrained braced frames, Eng. Struct. 32 (9) (2010) 2950–2958, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.05.014.
[54] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (PEER). https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/. [Accessed: 1- August- 2022].
[55] SeismoMatch. SeismoSoft. http://www.seismosoft.com, 2022. (Accessed 20 November 2022).
[56] H. Sugihardjo, Tavio, Cumulative ductility and hysteretic behavior of small buckling-restrained braces, Adv. Civ. Eng. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/
7105768. Hindawi.
[57] H. Akiyama, Earthquake-Resistant Limit-State Design for Building, University of Tokyo Press, 1985.
[58] T. Usami, A. Kasai, M. Kato, Behavior of buckling-restrained brace members, in: Stessa 2003, Routledge, 2018, pp. 211–216.
[59] ANSI/AISC 341-10, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, USA, 2010.

20