E3S Web of Conferences 347, 03015 (2022) https://doi.org/10.

1051/e3sconf/202234703015
ICCEE 2022

Numerical modelling and analysis of

buckling-restraint braces in frame buildings due
to seismic loads
Mohammad S. Pourbehi1*, Kumar Pallav1
1Civil
Engineering and Geomatics Department, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South
Africa

Abstract. Buckling-Restraint Braces (BRB) is a new type of bracing

system with energy dissipation mechanisms developed to improve the
behaviour of conventional braces. In this system, the bracing member is
placed in a metal or concrete casting that prevents this member from
experiencing failure due to the lateral buckling. By implementing these
changes, the brace's behaviour in compression is identical to its behaviour
in tension, which is accompanied by yielding of material and therefore
buckling does not occur. In this paper, the effect of the BRB system on the
seismic performance of a typical frame is evaluated using the finite
element method. Numerical studies using ABAQUS software are
conducted to develop a 3D model of a BRB system, considering the
nonlinearity effects of material and geometrical deformation. The BRB
component is analysed under the cyclic loading protocol recommended by
FEMA 450 and the resultant hysteretic behaviour of BRB is compared
with the experimental work. The results show that the application of this
system in structures may improve the stability of the structural system and
enhance the energy dissipation mechanisms in the buildings. As a result,
the structural design will be safer and more economical.

1 Introduction
Buckling-Restrained Braces (BRB) has been introduced to overcome the strength
degradation of standard braces in steel structures. BRB systems are a new type of bracing
system with energy dissipation mechanisms developed to improve the behaviour of
ordinary braces. The system was invented in Japan in the early 80s and was tested in the
middle of the 80s. The implementation of the BRB system started in Japan during the 90s,
and its response towards various earthquake events made United States transfer this
technology in 1998 and followed by its testing and simulation on the BRB model took
place in 1999. Further, it was implemented successfully on various US projects [1]. BRB
systems usually comprise a thin plate, a steel box which is filled with concrete material. In
this system, the bracing member is placed in a metal or concrete casting that prevents this
member to experience lateral bucking. By implantation of these changes, the behaviour of

* Corresponding author: pourbehim@cput.ac.za

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 347, 03015 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234703015
ICCEE 2022

brace in compression is identical to its behaviour in tension which accompanied by yielding

of material and therefore bucking does not occur. As a result, it shows better ductility and
energy dissipation mechanism than the conventional braces. The application of this system
in frame structures may not only improve the safety of the structural systems, but it may
also reduce the size of the other components and sections. As a result, the structural design
will be more economical. Fig. 1 shows a steel frame that is braced using Chevron BRB
systems. These bracing systems can resist the lateral loads incorporating the identical
behaviour in both tension and compression by providing enough stiffness and strength [2].

Fig. 1. Braced frames with BRB components.

The conventional bracing systems have the inherent problem of behavioural differences
in tension and compression. In these bracing systems, the load-bearing capacity mechanism
under the strong earthquake motions is mainly provided by reciprocating axial tension loads
and withstand compression loads in the post buckling regime. The buckling of the braces
leads to a profound reduction in compression resistance, stiffness and dissipation energy
mechanisms. Experimental research on special concentrically bracing frames (SCBF)
carried out by Uriz et al. [3] at Berkeley University demonstrated the poor seismic ductility
and weak nonlinear seismic performance in compression due to the characteristic buckling
behaviour of the braces under seismic loads. Fig. 2 shows the components and behaviour of
a type of unbonded BRB system in one cyclic loading regime in comparison to a
conventional bracing system [4,5].

Fig. 2. Components of a type of unbonded BRB system and sustained cyclic behaviour of the BRB
(solid line) vs conventional braced system with buckling mode (dashed line) [5].

2
E3S Web of Conferences 347, 03015 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234703015
ICCEE 2022

In the previous research, simple modelling techniques have been used without
considering the effects of nonlinearity of steel and concrete material and geometry. In
addition, the contact between different parts of the BRB system specially the contact
between the main steel core and concrete in the simulation has not been properly addressed.
The concrete is a brittle material and cracking will occur when principal tensile stress
exceeds the tensile strength of concrete. In the previous research, this mechanism of
concrete cracking due to tensile loading and its effects on the BRB hysteretic behaviour has
not been addressed.
In this research, the effect of the BRB system on seismic performance of a frame
building is evaluated using Finite Element Method FEM. Numerical studies using
ABAQUS 3D Finite Element software [6] is conducted to develop a model for this type of
bracing system considering the effects of nonlinearity of material and geometry and contact
between steel and concrete material. The results of the numerical studies are further verified
using the available experimental tests that have been conducted on a typical frame structure
by other researchers.

2 Finite element modelling of BRB

To verify the FEM model developed in the current research, the experimental study carried
out by Mirtaheri et. al [7] is selected. In this experiment, four different sizes of the BRB
system were tested, and the results were compared with the OPENSEES numerical model.
In this research, Abaqus software is used to model the 3D behaviour of 1 m sample as
shown in Fig. 3. The material properties and the loading protocol based on the FEMA 450
[8] are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 4. This load protocol is used to apply the hysteretic
loading on the BRB systems and is identical to the loading protocol that was used in the
experiment done by Mirtaheri et al [7].

Table 1. The properties of concrete and steel materials used in the tests.
Steel Concrete
Core Tube
Yield stress (MPa) 297.5 370
Yield strain 0.0022 0.0025 Compressive strength at 28 days (MPa) 30
Ultimate stress (MPa) 449.8 403.4
Strain at ultimate 0.0182 0.0294 Compressive strength at 7 days (MPa) 25
stress
Ultimate strain 0.21 0.33

Fig. 3. Configuration of the experimental test done by Mirtaheri et. al. [7].

3
E3S Web of Conferences 347, 03015 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234703015
ICCEE 2022

Fig. 4. Load protocol that shows the displacement-controlled load history according to the FEMA-
450 2003 [8].

Fig. 5 shows the finite element model and mesh size of the different components of the
BRB model. In this research to simulate the BRB component accurately 3D solid element
with 8-node linear brick, reduced integration C3D8R are used. Interaction between the
outer steel box and the concrete are defined using the surface to surface interaction
considering the 0.5 friction coefficient between steel and concrete. Since a rubber material
is used to fill the gap between the concrete and the core plate no friction is assumed
between the core plate and the concrete and therefore friction coefficient ignored. In this
case only normal contact is defined to model the lateral constraint applied by the concrete
to the core plate when loading returns to the compression mode.

Fig. 5. BRB finite element model and mesh size of the BRB components.

Fig. 6 illustrates the pinned boundary condition that is applied at the left end of the
BRB system. The displacement loading protocol shown in Fig. 4 is applied at the right end
of the core surface to analyse the system due to hysteretic loading. The local coordinate
system is located at the left end of the BRB system.

Fig. 6. Pinned boundary condition applied at the left end and loading protocol at the right surface of
the BRB core similar to the experiment done by Mirtaheri et al.

4
E3S Web of Conferences 347, 03015 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234703015
ICCEE 2022

3 Results and discussion

This section presents the results of the FEM modelling of the BRB system. The von Mises
criterion for the yielding of material is selected for this purpose. The load-displacement of
the BRB system predicted in this study is illustrated in Fig. 7 (a) and compared with the
measured curve by Mirtaheri et al. [7] as shown in Fig. 7 (b). The results show a good
agreement between numerical modelling and experimental investigations and the difference
is less than 5 %. Figures 8 show the von Mises contour plot at different cycles of loading.
The time in this analysis is not the physical time, but it represents the number of cycles of
the loading. To get more insights about the behaviour of the BRB system, one should see
the displacement of the loading protocol at the critical cycles as shown in Fig 4. At each
cycles the BRB either takes the tension or compression loading. It can be observed that, the
BRB core exhibits large plastic strain without any failure due to buckling while the loading
cycle returns to the compression mode. This behaviour approves the efficiency of the
current design and modelling.

(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Numerical and experimental comparison of the load-displacement curve for BRB systems. a)
the results of current research b) the results of the research done by Mirtaheri et al.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

5
E3S Web of Conferences 347, 03015 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234703015
ICCEE 2022

(f)
(e)
Fig. 8. The contour plot of von Mises stress (MPa) for a) 5.75 cycle b) 9.75 cycles c)14.75 cycles d)
15.25 e) 15.75 and f) 18.25.

4 Conclusion
The BRB systems are novel energy dissipations components used in building design to
resist seismic loads. The FEM model developed in this study is verified by comparing the
3D model constructed using full nonlinear behaviour in material and geometry with the
experimental work done by Mirtaheri et. al [7]. The results indicate a good agreement
between the FEM model developed in this research and the load-displacement curve was
measured by the experiment. Further, the application of this system in frame structures may
improve the stability of the structural system, enhance the dissipation mechanisms of the
bracing and reduce the size of the other components and sections. Therefore, the structural
design will be safer and more economical. In this study a single BRB component is
assessed due to hysteretic loading considering the 3D finite element modelling. It is
suggested that in the future works, the effects of this bracing system in enhancing the load
bearing capacity of the multistorey buildings can be studied considering the actual seismic
forces using nonlinear dynamic analysis.

We acknowledge the fund provided for this research from Cape Peninsula University of Technology.

References
1. N. Surendran, and A. Varma, Buckling Restrained Braces (BRB)-A review,
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4(3), 2320-2324
(2017)
2. C. C. Chow, C. H. Hsiao, Z. B. Chen, P. T. Chung, & D. H. Pham, Seismic loading
tests of full-scale two-story steel building frames with self-centering braces and
buckling-restrained braces. Thin Wall Struct., 140, 168-181 (2019)
3. P. Uriz, Towards earthquake resistant design of concentrically braced steel structures.
Doctoral dissertation. Berkeley: Structural Engineering, Mechanics, and Materials,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California (2005)
4. P. D. Shiram, & S. R. Parekar, Energy Dissipation in Buildings using Buckling
Restrained Bracings. (BRB)–A Review. International Research Journal of Engineering
and Technology (IRJET), 5(04), 422-423 (2018).
5. P. Clark, I. Aiken, K. Kasai, E. Ko & I. Kimura, Design procedures for buildings
incorporating hysteretic damping devices, in Proceedings, 68th Annual convention,

6
E3S Web of Conferences 347, 03015 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234703015
ICCEE 2022

Structural Engineering Association of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA

(1999)
6. ABAQUS theory manual. Pawtucket, R.I: Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc.;
Version 6.14. (2016)
7. M. Mirtaheri, A. Gheidi, A. P. Zandi, P. Alanjari, & H. R. Samani, Experimental
optimisation studies on steel core lengths in buckling restrained braces. Journal of
constructional steel research, 67(8), 1244-1253. (2011)
8. FEMA 450 NEHRP Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new
buildings and other structures part 1: provisions prepared by the building seismic safety
council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Report no. 450. (2003)