Journal of Constructional Steel Research 149 (2018) 95–104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Resilient steel frames installed with self-centering dual-steel

buckling-restrained brace
Liang-Jiu Jia a, Rui-Wen Li a, Ping Xiang b,⁎, De-Yuan Zhou a, Yang Dong a
a
Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
b
Department of Structural Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As one type of effective earthquake-resisting structural systems, buckling-restrained braced frames are expected
Received 8 February 2018 to provide good seismic performance through significant plastic yielding to dissipate earthquake energy. This
Received in revised form 2 July 2018 plastic deformation can cause significant structural damage and residual drift, leading to high retrofitting cost
Accepted 2 July 2018
or even demolishment of structures after strong earthquakes. As a result, development of new systems that
Available online xxxx
can not only dissipate seismic energy, but also possess self-centering ability, becomes necessary. This paper
Keywords:
makes use of a newly proposed type of self-centering dual-steel buckling-restrained braces (SC-DBRBs). The
Buckling-restrained brace SC-DBRB consists of a low-yield-point steel and a high strength steel, in which the low-yield-point steel mainly
Post-earthquake performance provides energy dissipation ability, and the high strength steel offers self-centering ability and additional energy
Residual drift dissipation ability during strong earthquakes. Compared with a conventional BRB (CBRB) commonly with a typ-
Self-centering ical bilinear constitutive model, the SC-DBRB has a trilinear hysteretic behavior, leading to early re-yielding of the
Steel braced frame low-yield-point steel during subsequent strain reversals. This early re-yielding mechanism can greatly mitigate
residual deformation of the SC-DBRB. In this paper, the constitutive model of the SC-DBRB is first established,
and its correlation with main design parameters is also discussed. To demonstrate the self-centering ability of
the SC-DBRB and its effect on post-earthquake performance of structures, a series of six-story and nine-story
steel frames were numerically investigated using ABAQUS: unbraced frames, CBRB-equipped frames and SC-
DBRB-equipped frames. Time history analysis results show that the SC-DBRB can effectively reduce residual drift.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction development of novel self-centering earthquake-resilient structures

1.1. Background
It is known that a buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) is a good
seismic-resisting system since buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) [1]
can provide excellent energy dissipation capacity. A number of studies
[1–15] have demonstrated satisfactory seismic performance of BRBs
and BRBFs, generally providing adequate life safety for design level
earthquakes. However, a residual drift beyond 0.5% for conventional
BRBFs along the building height triggered by large plastic deformation
of BRBs is a critical issue that makes a building impossible or expensive
to retrofit [16,17]. In addition, long downtime of the building leads to
additional economic loss. Investigation on the 2011 Christchurch earth-
quake showed that N1200 buildings had to be demolished as a result of
large residual drift although they were not destroyed completely, which
caused huge economic loss of $4–$13 billion USD [18]. Therefore,
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lj_jia@tongji.edu.cn (L.-J. Jia), 1224river@tongji.edu.cn (R.-W. Li),
p.xiang@tongji.edu.cn (P. Xiang), concrete@126.com (D.-Y. Zhou), 1630559@tongji.edu.cn
(Y. Dong).
[15,19–22] is of significant importance for researchers and engineers.
This paper proposes a novel type of self-centering BRBs consisting of
two types of steel with different yield points, which is a new robust
and resilient structural component for implementation in braced
frames. This self-centering dual-steel buckling-restrained brace (SC-
DBRB) is demonstrated to have excellent self-centering property.
1.2. Relevant prior research
BRB is a robust structural member with stable hysteretic behavior
and high energy dissipation capacity. A conventional BRB (CBRB) has
the following main components: a steel core component that provides
axial stiffness, load-carrying capacity and energy dissipation capacity; a
restraining component that prevents the core component from large
local or global buckling deformation under compression; and unbonding
material between the aforementioned 2 components. The restraining
component is commonly a concrete filled steel tube or an assembly of
several steel plates, and the steel core component is made of steel with
high ductility. Owing to favorable energy dissipation capacity of the
BRBs, BRBFs have been widely employed in practice as a high perfor-
mance seismic-resisting system recently [2,23,24]. However, they are

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.07.001
0143-974X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
96 L.-J. Jia et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 149 (2018) 95–104
still susceptible to large post-earthquake residual drift under a strong
earthquake which is mainly due to the low secondary stiffness of
CBRBs [1,2,17]. As a result, although BRBFs offer the above advantages
over traditional steel structures, lacking of self-centering ability is still a
significant shortcoming considering the high retrofitting costs or even
demolishment of damaged structures.
Self-centering earthquake-resilient structures with both energy dis-
sipation and self-centering abilities under strong earthquakes are prom-
ising solutions for design of structures in regions with high seismic risk.
Self-centering systems can be divided into 5 categories: (1) systems
equipped with post-tensioned (PT) steel components that develop flex-
ural gap opening at specified connections when a load is applied
[20,22,25–28]; (2) rocking systems that allow uplift at the base of a
structure when an earthquake occurs [29–32]; (3) systems that im-
prove the shape and distribution of inter-story drift ratios, stiffening
top story and enforcing the lateral shape of the building from a cantile-
ver-like to shear-type [33]; (4) dual systems that reduce the drift ratio
and to restore the building, with a deformable moment-resisting
frame (MRF) working in parallel with the eccentrically braced frames
(EBF) with removable link [34]; (5) braced frame systems equipped
with self-centering buckling-restrained braces (SC-BRBs) that reduce
post-earthquake residual drift [35–39]. Compared with the first 4 clas-
ses of self-centering systems, SC-BRB can be easily constructed and con-
nected to a frame. Therefore, SC-BRBs made of PT tendons [40], memory
alloy [16,41–44], and other types of SC-BRBs [45] were developed which
exhibited favorable self-centering capacity in the experimental and an-
alytical investigations.
1.3. Research objective of this study
The objective of this study is to develop a high-performance seismic-
resisting brace with a trilinear constitutive model, which can provide
both energy dissipation and self-centering abilities. The main feature
of the SC-DBRBs is parallel connection of steel core plates with different
yield strength, leading to 2 yield points in the hysteretic curve. In this
paper, theoretical derivation of the trilinear hysteretic behavior was
conducted, which was validated by numerical analysis results using
ABAQUS [46]. Key parameters affecting the trilinear hysteretic behavior
were also investigated. To demonstrate effectiveness of the proposed
SC-DBRB in controlling the residual drift of the structures, time history
analyses on six-story and nine-story frames with/without BRBs imple-
mented were carried out, the results of which showed that erection of
the SC-DBRBs can greatly reduce both the maximum and post-earth-
quake residual story drifts of the frames.
2. Characteristics of SC-DBRB
2.1. Design concept and hysteretic properties
The configuration of an SC-DBRB assembly is illustrated in Fig. 1. The
SC-DBRB in this study consists of the following main components:
1. A steel core component consists of a low-yield-point (LYP) steel plate
and a high strength steel one. The steel core component dissipates
Fig. 1. SC-DBRB components.
seismic energy through cyclic plastic yielding. The LYP steel plate is
mainly used as an energy dissipation element, and the high strength
steel plate is taken as both a self-centering and energy dissipation el-
ement. The steel plates are connected in parallel to ensure that they
have the same deformation under cyclic loading.
2. The restraining component is nominally unstressed and provides
enough lateral buckling restraint for the steel core component. The
restraining component has to have enough stiffness and strength to
prevent global buckling of the whole SC-DBRB and also restrain the
buckling deformation of the steel core component. Details to avoid
buckling at the connection regions of the core component are also
critical for the design of the SC-DBRBs. There is also a gap between
the steel core plates and restraining components to avoid excessive
contact force due to expansion and flexural deformation of the core
plate under compression. The expansion of the core steel plates is
mainly induced by the Poisson's effect.
3. Unbonding material is located between the steel core component
and the restraining component to reduce frictional force between
them under compression.
Compared with conventional SC-BRBs with complicated details and
additional PT tendons, the newly proposed SC-DBRB is attractive since
no complicated manufacturing efforts are required and the proposal is
much more economical.
The energy dissipation and self-centering mechanisms of the SC-
DBRB are presented in Fig. 2. The SC-DBRB has 2 yield points for the dif-
ference in the elastic ranges between the LYP and high strength steels.
The ideal average stress-average strain curve of the SC-DBRB is pre-
sented in Fig. 2, where the average strain is obtained by dividing the
axial displacement by the length of the yielding portion, and the average
stress is the ratio of the axial force to the original cross-sectional area of
the core plates. Different from CBRB commonly with a single yield point,
the SC-DBRB has 2 yield points under monotonic loading. The first yield
point in Fig. 2 is mainly governed by yielding of the LYP steel when the
high strength steel is still in the elastic stage. The second yield point in
the figure is mainly controlled by yielding of the high strength steel.
Compared with the typical bilinear kinematic hardening behavior
for a CBRB, a trilinear kinematic hardening model as illustrated in Fig.
3 can be employed for the SC-DBRB. In the figure, the 2 yield points
are respectively denoted as Points A and B. The trilinear kinematic hard-
ening model can be divided into 3 stages. At Stage OA, the SC-DBRB
maintains the elastic state since both the LYP and high strength steels
are within the elastic range. At Stage AB, the LYP steel core plate yields
while the high strength steel still maintains the elastic state. Compared
with a CBRB, the SC-DBRB exhibits a high secondary stiffness, which is
beneficial to reduce the total plastic deformation of the SC-DBRB. At
Fig. 2. Design concept of SC-DBRB.
 L.-J. Jia et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 149 (2018) 95–104 97

Fig. 3. Trilinear kinematic hardening hysteretic model of SC-DBRB. Fig. 4. Residual strain reduction for SC-DBRB.

Point B, the SC-DBRB reaches the second yield point when the high Moreover, in order to deduce the constitutive equations of the SC-
strength steel yields. At Stage BC, both the LYP and the high strength DBRB conveniently, the average strain shown in Figs. 4 and 5, is normal-
steels achieve the plastic straining stage, and the tertiary stiffness is ized and expressed as,
the same as that of a CBRB. At this stage, the LYP and the high strength
steels will dissipate seismic energy together. A CBRB with a bilinear ki- ε
ε¼ ð3Þ
nematic hardening behavior has an unloading stiffness the same as the εmax
initial stiffness, and this leads to relatively large residual displacement of
where ε denotes the average strain of the plastic straining portion of the
the steel core component. For the SC-DBRB under reversal loading
steel core component. An idealized trilinear hysteretic model of the SC-
(unloading), early re-yielding of the LYP steel will occur and the
DBRB can be expressed as,
unloading path will tend to approach the origin. This is the self-center-
ing mechanism of the SC-DBRB. Additionally, the portion of the stress- 8
< kεl

 0bε ≤εy1
strain curve defined as the “residual-strain-uncontrol core” and “resid- F ¼ kεy1 þ αk
ε−εy1  l
:
 εy1 bε ≤ε y2 ð4Þ
ual-strain-control core” in Fig. 3 shows high post-yielding stiffness kεy1 þ αk εy2 ‐εy1 þ βk ε−εy2 l εy2 bε ≤1
ratio of the LYP steel to the high strength steel, guaranteeing that all
damage concentrates in the LYP steel. In the “residual-strain-uncontrol where F denotes the load; l denotes the length of the yielding portion of
core”, the residual strain of the SC-DBRB is the same as that of a CBRB. the steel core component; εy1 and εy2 respectively denote the strain
In the “residual-strain-control core”, the residual strain of the SC-DBRB values at the first and the second yield points shown in Figs. 4 and 5;
is much smaller than that of a CBRB. For strain ranges beyond the “resid- k stands for the initial stiffness of the SC-DBRB; α and β denote the
ual-strain-control core”, the self-centering effect of the SC-DBRB can post-yielding stiffness ratios at different plastic straining stages as
also be achieved, while the total residual strain will increase signifi- shown in Fig. 4, which can be expressed as,
cantly due to the low tertiary modulus after yielding of both the LYP
and the high strength steels. The newly proposed SC-DBRB is character- E0 ðALYP þ AH Þ
k¼ ð5Þ
ized by the following noteworthy features: (1) Multiple performance l
levels can be achieved. (2) High secondary stiffness of the braces leads
to relatively small displacement of the whole structure installed with E1 ALYP þ E0 AH
α¼ ð6Þ
the SC-DBRBs. (3) “Damage-control” behavior ensures that damage of E0 ðALYP þ AH Þ
the SC-DBRB be mainly confined to the LYP steel at small and medium
strain levels. (4) Favorable self-centering ability reduces the residual de- E1
β¼ ð7Þ
formation of the SC-DBRB. E0

2.2. Quantification of the trilinear kinematic hysteretic model

To identify the self-centering behavior and the multiple perfor-

mance levels of the SC-DBRB, a key issue is to accurately quantify the tri-
linear kinematic hardening model. To formulate the trilinear hysteretic
model, 2 variables shown in Figs. 4 and 5 are defined as follows,

εmax
ζ max ¼ ð1Þ
εy1

ε y2
ζ1 ¼ ð2Þ
ε y1

where εy1 and εy2 are respectively the average yield strain of the LYP and
the high strength steels. εmax is the maximum average strain of the plas-
tic straining portion of the steel core component. The trilinear kinematic
hardening model can be quantified based on these 2 variables associ-
ated with the corresponding post-yielding stiffness ratios (α and β). Fig. 5. Trilinear idealization of a stress-strain curve.
98 L.-J. Jia et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 149 (2018) 95–104

where ALYP and AH respectively denote the cross-sectional area of the assumption that the restraining component of the SC-DBRB had suffi-
LYP and the high strength steels; E0 denotes the Young's moduli of the cient stiffness and strength, neither global nor local stability issues of
LYP and the high strength steels; E1 denotes the tangent moduli of the the SC-DBRB were considered in the analyses. The right end of the SC-
LYP and the high strength steels after yielding. In this paper, E1 is DBRB was fixed and the left one was loaded with enforced cyclic
taken as 1% of E0. Consequently, Eqs. (6) and (7) can be expressed as, displacement.
The length of the yielding portion of the SC-DBRB was 7300 mm. The
ALYP þ 100AH cross-sectional areas of the LYP and the high strength steel plates were
α¼ ð8Þ
100 ðALYP þ AH Þ both 600 mm2. The SC-DBRBs were made of Chinese steel Q100 and
Q690 for the LYP steel and the high strength steel, respectively. The
1 nominal yield strengths of Q100 and Q690 were 100 MPa and
β¼ ð9Þ
100 690 MPa, respectively. The 2 steels were selected for their significant
difference in the yield strength, which is favorable to reduce the residual
Accordingly, the forces at the first and the second yield points, Fy1 deformation. Moreover, it has been reported that Q690 can achieve an
and Fy2, of the SC-DBRB can be expressed as, elongation of 18% [47], which can ensure that the SC-DBRB achieve
the expected ductility without premature fracture. The Young's moduli
F y1 ¼ E0 ðALYP þ AH Þεy1 ð10Þ
of the 2 steels were both 206 GPa, and the secondary stiffnesses of the
materials were considered as 1% of the Young's modulus in the numer-
E0 ðALYP þ AH Þ

F y2 ¼ E0 ðALYP þ AH Þεy1 þ εy2 −εy1 ð11Þ ical model. To validate the self-centering ability of the SC-DBRB, the cor-
100
responding CBRB was also analyzed using ABAQUS. The CBRB was made
Based on the above equations, theoretical residual strain of the SC- of Chinese steel Q235 with a nominal yield strength of 235 MPa. The
DBRB can be calculated by Eq. (12) as follows, length of the yielding portion and total cross-sectional area of the
CBRB were the same as those of the SC-DBRB. A bilinear kinematic hard-
8 ening model was employed to simulate cyclic plasticity of the steels, in
> 0; 0bζ max ≤1
>
>
>
> 1 which the von-Mises yield criterion was adopted.
>
> ð1−α Þðζ max −ζ 1 Þεy1 ; 1bζ max ≤1 þ
< α The SC-DBRB and the CBRB were expected to sustain 5 loading cycles
εr ¼ ð1−α Þ 1 ð12Þ with strain amplitudes of 0.05%, 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00%, subse-
>
> εy1 ; 1þ bζ ≤ζ
> α
>   α max 1 quently. The hysteresis curves for the SC-DBRB and the CBRB are pre-
>
> ð 1−α Þ α−β
>
: þ ðζ max −ζ 1 Þ εy1 ; ζ max Nζ 1 sented in Fig. 7, and corresponding data are given in Table 1. It can be
α α
found that the hysteresis curves of the SC-DBRB obtained from the nu-
where εr stands for the residual strain of the SC-DBRB. The precondition merical analyses show a typical trilinear kinematic hardening constitu-
of Eq. (12) is α(ζmax − 1) N 1, indicating that the LYP steel has to yield tive relation, in which the reduction in the residual strain and the 2 yield
during unloading. It should be noted that 1 + 1/α is a threshold value points are well predicted. Compared with the CBRB, the residual strain
for ζmax to reduce the residual strain, when the residual strain of the of the SC-DBRB is reduced by 63%, 44%, 28% and 20% under the strain
SC-DBRB is the same as that of a CBRB. That is to say, when the strain amplitudes of 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00%, respectively. Moreover,
is within the “residual-strain-uncontrol core”, i.e., for ζmax ranging the SC-DBRB can easily reach the first yield point compared with the
from 1 to 1 + 1/α, there is no self-centering effect for the SC-BRB. Fi- CBRB, indicating that the SC-DBRB can rapidly enter the plastic stage
nally, according to Eqs. (8) and (9), Eq. (12) can be expressed as: to dissipate seismic energy. This is mainly owing to the low yield
strength of the LYP steel. The numerical results also indicate that the
8
>
> 0; 0bζ max ≤1 secondary stiffness of the SC-DBRB is much higher than that of the
>
> 99ALYP 1
>
> CBRB. The high secondary stiffness is also beneficial to avoid formation
>
> ðζ −1Þεy1 ; 1bζ max ≤1 þ
>
> 100ðALYP þ AH Þ max α of a weak story. The above numerical analysis results demonstrate the
<
εr ¼ 99ALYP 1 self-centering effect of the SC-DBRB as well as accuracy of the numerical
> εy1 ; 1þ bζ ≤ζ
>
> ALYP þ 100AH α max 1
>
> model in ABAQUS.
>
>   
>
> 99ALYP 99AH Utilizing these numerical models, the proposed theoretical trilinear
>
: þ ðζ max −ζ 1 Þ εy1 ; ζ max Nζ 1
100ðALYP þ AH Þ ALYP þ 100AH kinematic hardening model of the SC-DBRB can be validated by
ð13Þ

3. Numerical analysis of SC-DBRB

3.1. Numerical model of SC-DBRB

To further validate the trilinear hysteretic model and self-centering

ability of the SC-DBRB, a numerical model of the SC-DBRB was
established using ABAQUS. As presented in Fig. 6, 2 two-node linear dis-
placement truss elements (T3D2) [46] were adopted in the numerical
model to simulate the LYP and the high strength steels. Based on the

Fig. 6. Numerical model of SC-DBRB in ABAQUS. Fig. 7. Hysteresis curves of CBRB and SC-DBRB under cyclic loading.
 L.-J. Jia et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 149 (2018) 95–104 99

Table 1
Strength and deformation capacities of SC-DBRB model in ABAQUS.

Specimens First yield point Second yield

point

Strain Force Strain Force

(%) (kN) (%) (kN)

Numerical model 0.05 120 0.34 478

Trilinear kinematic hysteretic model 0.05 120 0.34 478

comparing with the results of the numerical analyses. The comparison

results shown in Table 1 indicate that the values of the 2 yield forces
from the theoretical trilinear kinematic hardening model are consistent
with those of the numerical results, which proves accuracy of the theo-
retical trilinear kinematic hardening hysteretic model.

Fig. 8. Hysteresis curves of different SC-DBRBs under cyclic loading.

3.2. Key parameters affecting the performance of SC-DBRB

Postulating that the overall length and total cross-sectional area of 4. Seismic performance of structure with SC-DBRB
the SC-DBRB are constant during structural design, the key parameter
affecting seismic performance of the SC-DBRB is the area ratio of the 4.1. Design of steel frame with different braces
high strength steel to the LYP steel. Three SC-DBRBs with different
area ratios were established in ABAQUS. The detailed design parameters To evaluate the seismic performance and self-centering capacity of a
of these 3 SC-DBRBs are given in Table 2, where SC-DBRB-AR-0.5 de- steel structure equipped with the SC-DBRBs, a typical two-dimensional
notes an SC-DBRB with an area ratio of 0.5. The hysteresis curves for six-story steel frame and a nine-story one were designed in accordance
the SC-DBRBs given in Fig. 8 indicates that the first yield force of the with the Chinese seismic design code [48], as illustrated in Fig. 9. Each
SC-DBRB is independent of the area ratio, in which all the first yield story was 3.1 m high, and each span was 6.6 m wide. The maximum
forces were 120 kN. This is because that the first yield force was deter- drift ratios were b1/250 and 1/50 when the typical two-dimensional
mined by the initial stiffness of the SC-DBRB, and the initial stiffness re- steel frames were subjected to minor earthquake and major earthquake,
mains unchanged when the overall length and total cross-sectional area respectively, demonstrating that this steel frame complied with the re-
of the SC-DBRB are the same, which can also be observed from Eq. (10). quirements of the Chinese seismic design code [48]. Wide flange H sec-
Fig. 8 also implies that the second yield force of the SC-DBRB increases tions of 700 × 300 × 18 × 34 mm and 400 × 300 × 13 × 21 mm were
with an increasing area ratio. Compared with the SC-DBRB-AR-0.5 and employed for the column and beam cross-sections, respectively. The
the SC-DBRB-AR-1.0, the second yield force of the SC-DBRB-AR-2.0 is re- steel frame was made of Chinese steel Q235. Considering the slab con-
spectively 65% and 33% higher. It can be explained by the fact that the straint effect on the beam, the Young's modulus of the beam was set
secondary stiffness of the SC-DBRB mainly determines the second as 1.2 times that of the column [49]. The natural periods of the first
yield force, and the secondary stiffness increases with an increasing and the second modes for the six-story and nine-story frames with/
area ratio. This conclusion can also be found from Eqs. (6) and (11). without BRBs are given in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, indicating that
Fig. 8 also shows that the residual strain is slightly reduced with an in- the natural periods of unbraced frames are a bit longer than those corre-
creasing area ratio of the high strength steel. Compared with the SC- sponding braced frames. For the six-story frames, the first and second
DBRB-AR-1.0 and SC-DBRB-AR-0.5, the maximum residual strain of natural periods of the unbraced steel MRF are 0.707 s and 0.218 s, re-
SC-DBRB-AR-2.0 is only reduced by 5% and 8%. A high area ratio of the spectively, and 0.685 s and 0.219 s for the braced steel frame, respec-
high strength steel will lead to a high second yield point and also a tively. For the nine-story frames, the first and second natural periods
high secondary stiffness before yielding of the high strength steel. The of the unbraced steel MRF are 1.092 s and 0.343 s, respectively, and
former will lead to a smaller residual strain, while the latter a larger 0.958 s and 0.311 s for the braced steel frame, respectively. Rayleigh
one. This explains why the maximum residual strain is just slightly re- damping coefficients, αR and βR (mass- and stiffness-proportional
duced as the area ratio of the high strength increases. In practice, a suit- ones), are given in the tables, which were defined as 4% of the structural
able area ratio for the SC-DBRB should be decided to guarantee both the damping ratio for the first and second modes. In ABAQUS, beams and
energy dissipation and self-centering capacities simultaneously accord- columns were both modeled by beam elements. A bilinear kinematic
ing to structural design requirements. hardening model with a secondary stiffness of 0.01E0 was used to sim-
ulate the steel structures, in which the von-Mises yield criterion was
adopted.
Seismic performance of the corresponding unbraced steel frames
Table 2
Strength and deformation capacities of different SC-DBRB models in ABAQUS. was employed as a benchmark to quantitatively analyze the seismic
and post-earthquake performances of the CBRB and the SC-DBRB
Specimens L ALYP AHSS SI SS FFY FSY SR
frames. The CBRB was made of Q235. The SC-DBRB was composed of
(m) (m2) (m2) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN) (kN) (%)
the LYP steel Q100 and high strength steel Q690. The yielding lengths
SC-DBRB-AR-0.5 7.3 0.8 0.4 33,863 11,513 120 361 0.76
and total cross-sectional areas of these 2 braces were 7218 mm and
SC-DBRB-AR-1.0 7.3 0.6 0.6 33,863 17,100 120 478 0.72
SC-DBRB-AR-2.0 7.3 0.4 0.8 33,863 22,688 120 594 0.70 1000 mm2, respectively. The same length and cross-sectional area for
the BRBs were employed to ensure that the BRBFs had the same periods
L, length of the yielding portion; ALYP, area of the low-yield-point steel; AHSS, area of high
strength steel; SI, initial stiffness of the SC-DBRB; Ss secondary stiffness of the SC-DBRB;
in the elastic state. For the SC-DBRB, the areas of the Q100 and Q690
FFY, first yield force of the SC-DBRB; FSY, second yield force of the SC-DBRB; SR residual were both 500 mm2. Therefore, the yield force, initial and secondary
strain of the SC-DBRB. stiffnesses for the CBRB were 235 kN, 2.8 × 104 kN/m and 2.8
100 L.-J. Jia et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 149 (2018) 95–104

Table 4
Natural periods and Rayleigh damping coefficients for nine-story frames.

Frame T1 (s) T2 (s) αR βR (×10−3)

Unbraced frame 1.092 0.343 0.350 3.3

CBRB frame 0.958 0.311 0.396 2.9
SC-DBRB frame 0.958 0.311 0.396 2.9

T1, natural period of the first mode for the frame; T2, natural period of the second mode for
the frame; αR, mass-proportional Rayleigh damping coefficient; βR, stiffness-proportional
Rayleigh damping coefficient.

adjusted to 196 Gal, 400 Gal and 588 Gal for ground motion inputs,
which respectively corresponded to earthquake levels of moderate,
major and mega earthquakes for Intensity 8 with the ground condition
of Type II in the Chinese seismic code. Acceleration response spectra of
these 9 earthquake records are shown in Fig. 10.

4.3. Time history analysis

Fig. 9. Two steel frame with diagonal braces in ABAQUS (Unit: mm).
× 102 kN/m, respectively. The first and second yield forces for the SC-
DBRB were 100 kN and 398 kN, respectively; the initial, secondary and
tertiary stiffnesses were 2.8 × 104 kN/m, 1.4 × 104 kN/m and 2.8
× 102 kN/m, respectively.
4.2. Earthquake records
To further demonstrate the self-centering capacity of the SC-DBRB
frames compared with the CBRB ones, time history analyses were con-
The maximum and residual inter-story drift ratios along the building
height are 2 important indices to evaluate seismic performance of
frames. Average values of the maximum and residual drift ratios for
the six-story and nine-story frames under the 9 earthquake records
are respectively presented in Figs. 11 and 12. The averages of the max-
imum drift ratios shown in Fig. 11(a) for the six-story CBRB and SC-
DBRB frames under moderate earthquakes are 0.27% and 0.26%, respec-
tively, which are respectively reduced by 65% and 67% compared with
the unbraced frame. The averages of the residual drift ratios shown in
Fig. 11(b), for the 2 braced frames under moderate earthquakes are
0.053% and 0.038%, respectively, which are respectively mitigated by
83% and 86% compared with the unbraced frame, indicating excellent
self-centering capacity of the frame installed with the SC-DBRBs under
moderate earthquakes. For the six-story CBRB and SC-DBRB frames
under major earthquakes, the averages of the maximum drift ratios
are respectively 0.51% and 0.52% compared with 1.20% for the unbraced
frame as shown in Fig. 11(c). The reductions of the average residual drift
ratios are 71% and 88% for the six-story CBRB and SC-DBRB frames as
shown in Fig. 11(d), respectively. As presented in Fig. 11(f), the reduc-
tions of the averages of the residual drift ratios for the six-story CBRB
and SC-DBRB frames under mega earthquakes are 62% and 85% com-
pared with the unbraced one, respectively. Compared with the six-
story CBRB frames, the average residual drift ratios were respectively re-
duced by 55% and 30% under the major and mega earthquakes for the
SC-DBRB frames.
The averages of the maximum drift ratios shown in Fig. 12(a) for the
nine-story CBRB and SC-DBRB frames under moderate earthquakes are
the same as 0.53%, which are reduced by 40% compared with the
unbraced one. The averages of the residual drift ratios shown in Fig.
12(b), for the 2 braced frames under moderate earthquakes are the
20
El Centro
Northridge
Kobe
)

Hachinohe
ducted using ABAQUS. Nine earthquake records provided by the PEER
2

15
Chi-Chi
[50] were used for time history analyses, e.g., El-Centro, Kobe, Parkfield
San Fernando
Northridge, Hachinohe, Chi-Chi and an artificial wave etc. The peak
Acceleration spectrum (m/s

Hollister-03
ground acceleration of each earthquake record was respectively 10 Artificial
Average
Design
Table 3
Natural periods and Rayleigh damping coefficients for six-story frames.
5
Frame T1 (s) T2 (s) αR βR (×10−3)

Unbraced frame 0.707 0.218 0.542 2.1

CBRB frame 0.685 0.219 0.556 2.0
0
SC-DBRB frame 0.685 0.219 0.556 2.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Natural period (s)
T1, natural period of the first mode for the frame; T2, natural period of the second mode for
the frame; αR, mass-proportional Rayleigh damping coefficient; βR, stiffness-proportional
Rayleigh damping coefficient. Fig. 10. Acceleration response spectra of 9 earthquake records.
 L.-J. Jia et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 149 (2018) 95–104 101

Fig. 11. Comparison between average maximum and residual drift ratios for six-story frames, (a) Maximum drift ratio under moderate earthquakes, (b) Residual drift ratio under moderate
earthquakes, (c) Maximum drift ratio under major earthquakes, (d) Residual drift ratio under major earthquakes, (e) Maximum drift ratio under mega earthquakes, (f) Residual drift ratio
under mega earthquakes.

same as 0.16%, which are mitigated by 63% compared with the unbraced
frame, indicating excellent self-centering capacity of the frame installed
with the SC-DBRBs under moderate earthquakes. For the nine-story
CBRB and SC-DBRB frames under major earthquakes, the averages of
the maximum drift ratios are respectively 0.93% and 1.02% compared
with 1.59% for the unbraced frame as shown in Fig. 12(c). The reduc-
tions of the average residual drift ratios are 56% and 73% for the nine-
story CBRB and SC-DBRB frames as shown in Fig. 12(d), respectively.
As presented in Fig. 12(f), the reductions of the averages of the residual
drift ratios for the nine-story CBRB and SC-DBRB frames under mega
earthquakes are 53% and 70% compared with the unbraced one, respec-
tively. Compared with the nine-story CBRB frames, the average residual
drift ratios were respectively reduced by 40% and 36% under the major
and mega earthquakes for the SC-DBRB frames. The remarkable reduc-
tions of the average maximum drift ratios and residual drift ratios dem-
onstrate that the frame equipped with the SC-DBRBs has excellent
seismic performance and self-centering capacity.
5. Design procedure of SC-DBRBs
The newly proposed SC-DBRB is composed of the LYP and the high
strength steels. The above analyses show that the SC-DBRB has the tri-
linear kinematic hardening hysteretic behaviors with favorable self-
centering capacities. Based on this study, a step-by-step design proce-
dure for the proposed SC-DBRB is summarized as follows,
1. Determine the total area of the brace.
2. Determine the ultimate axial force, Fmax, and the strain, εmax, of the
brace at a target design requirement based on the whole structural
analysis. Design the restraining component according to the rules
of a CBRB.
3. Determine the areas of the LYP steel and the high strength steel ac-
cording to the determined axial force Fmax and the total area.
4. The initial and the post-yielding stiffnesses are obtained by the deter-
mined material and the area ratio based on the Eqs. (8) and (9).
102 L.-J. Jia et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 149 (2018) 95–104

Fig. 12. Comparison between average maximum and residual drift ratios for nine-story frames, (a) Maximum drift ratio under moderate earthquakes, (b) Residual drift ratio under
moderate earthquakes, (c) Maximum drift ratio under major earthquakes, (d) Residual drift ratio under major earthquakes, (e) Maximum drift ratio under mega earthquakes, (f)
Residual drift ratio under mega earthquakes.

5. The initial yield force, the second yield force and the maximum load-
carrying capacity of the brace are obtained by the Eqs. (10) and (11).
6. Calculate the maximum residual strain based on Eq. (12).
7. Once the above design parameters are determined from steps 1 to 6,
a specific trilinear kinematic hardening hysteretic response of the SC-
DBRB can be obtained as shown in Fig. 3.
The above design procedure is proposed only for selection of a SC-
DBRB. Regarding to the optimal design of the SC-DBRB, more analytical
studies are required.
consisting of the low-yield-point (LYP) and high strength steels was
newly proposed to provide self-centering property to steel seismic-
resisting frames. A trilinear kinematic hardening hysteretic behavior
was developed for clarifying the self-centering and energy dissipation
mechanisms of the SC-DBRB. Time history analyses for six-story and
nine-story unbraced frames, and corresponding frames equipped with
conventional BRBs (CBRBs) and the SC-DBRBs, were conducted to inves-
tigate effectiveness of the SC-DBRB in mitigating residual deformation
of the frames. The following main conclusions are drawn based on the
theoretical and numerical studies as follows,

6. Concluding remarks 1. Compared with a CBRB simplified as a bilinear kinematic hardening

Traditional steel seismic-resisting frames dissipate energy through
yielding of structural members, leading to structural damage and large
residual drift ratios which is difficult and expensive to retrofit. In this
study, a self-centering dual-steel buckling-restrained brace (SC-DBRB)
hysteretic model, a trilinear kinematic hardening hysteretic model
can be employed to quantify the mechanical behaviors for the SC-
DBRB.
2. Different from a CBRB with a single yield point, the SC-DBRB has 2
yield points, where the first one corresponds to yielding of the LYP
 L.-J. Jia et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 149 (2018) 95–104
steel and the second one corresponds to that of the high strength
steel.
3. High secondary stiffness was observed in the SC-DBRB for the strain
amplitude within the damage-control stage, i.e., for strain amplitude
within the second yield point. At this stage, damage concentrates in
the LYP steel and the high strength steel is still in elastic state. The
high strength steel provides a self-centering force for the brace, and
small residual strain occurs at this stage.
4. The area ratio of the high strength steel to the LYP steel is a critical
parameter for the SC-DBRB. The load-carrying capacity and second-
ary stiffness increase with an increasing area ratio. However, the
area ratio has a small effect on the self-centering performance.
5. Time history analyses results indicate that post-earthquake perfor-
mance of the SC-DBRB frame is superior to the CBRB frame in terms
of the residual drift ratio under major and mega earthquakes. The
SC-DBRB not only greatly reduces the maximum story drift ratios of
the frame, but also the residual story drift ratios. The SC-DBRB func-
tions well under different ground motions with moderate, major and
mega earthquake levels.
Nomenclature
ALYP Cross-sectional area of the low-point-yield steel
AH Cross-sectional area of the high strength steel
E0 Young's moduli of the low-point-yield and high strength
steels
E1 Tangent moduli for the low-point-yield and high strength
steels
F Bearing force of the SC-DBRB
Fy1 First yield force of the SC-DBRB
Fy2 Second yield force of the SC-DBRB
k Initial stiffness of the SC-DBRB
l Length of the yielding portion of the steel core component of
the SC-DBRB
α Post-yielding stiffness ratios for the secondary stiffness of the
SC-DBRB
αR Mass-proportional Rayleigh damping coefficient
β Post-yielding stiffness ratios for the SC-DBRB
βR Stiffness-proportional Rayleigh damping coefficient
ε Average yield strain of the steel core component of the SC-
DBRB
ε Normalized average yield strain of the steel core component
of the SC-DBRB
εmax Maximum average strain of the yielding portion of the steel
core component of the SC-DBRB
εy1 Average yield strain of the yielding portion of the low-yield-
point steel
εy2 Average yield strain of the yielding portion of the high
strength steel
εr Residual strain of the SC-DBRB
Acknowledgements
This study is partially supported by National Key R&D Program of
China (2017YFC0703600), National Nature Science Foundation of
China (51508401 and 51608391), and the support from the Fundamen-
tal Research Funds for the Central Universities (0500219248 and
0200219186) is also greatly appreciated.
References
[1] R. Sabelli, S. Mahin, C. Chang, Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with
buckling-restrained braces, Eng. Struct. 25 (5) (2003) 655–666.
[2] L.A. Fahnestock, J.M. Ricles, R. Sause, Experimental evaluation of a large-scale buck-
ling-restrained braced frame, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 133 (9) (2007) 1205–1214.
103
[3] K.C. Tsai, P.C. Hsio, K.J. Wang, Y.T. Weng, M.L. Lin, K.C. Lin, et al., Pseudo-dynamic
tests of a full-scale CFT/BRB frame-Part I: specimen design, experiment and analysis,
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37 (7) (2010) 1081–1098.
[4] C.C. Chou, S.Y. Chen, Subassemblage tests and finite element analyses of sandwiched
buckling-restrained braces, Steel Constr. 32 (8) (2010) 2108–2121.
[5] T. Usami, H.B. Ge, A. Kasai, Overall buckling prevention condition of buckling-re-
strained braces as a structural control damper, The 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008.
[6] C.C. Chou, J.H. Liu, Frame and brace action forces on steel corner gusset plate connec-
tions in buckling-restrained braced frames, Earthquake Spectra 28 (2) (2012) 531–551.
[7] L.J. Jia, H.B. Ge, R. Maruyama, K. Shinohara, Development of a novel high-perfor-
mance all-steel fish-bone shaped buckling-restrained brace, Eng. Struct. 138
(2017) 105–119.
[8] H.T. Hamid, M. Shahrokh, Conceptual numerical investigation of all-steel Tube-in-
Tube buckling-restrained braces, J. Constr. Steel Res. 139 (2017) 220–235.
[9] O. Ramazan, D. Yagmur, E.F. Elif, The development of the buckling restrained braces
with new end restrains, J. Constr. Steel Res. 138 (2017) 208–220.
[10] L.J. Jia, Y. Dong, H.B. Ge, P. Xiang, Experimental study on high-performance buckling-
restrained braces with perforated core plates, Int. J. Struct. Stab. and Dy. (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219455419400042 (in press).
[11] P. Xiang, M. Shi, L.J. Jia, M. Wu, C.L. Wang, Constitutive model of aluminum under
variable-amplitude cyclic loading and its application to buckling-restrained braces,
J. Mater. Civil Eng. (ASCE) 30 (3) (2018), 04017304. .
[12] C.L. Wang, Q. Chen, B. Zeng, S. Meng, A novel brace with partial buckling restraint:
an experimental and numerical investigation, Eng. Struct. 150 (2017) 190–202.
[13] Y. Liu, C.L. Wang, J. Wu, Development of a new partially restrained energy dissipater:
experimental and numerical analyses, J. Constr. Steel Res. 147 (2018) 367–379.
[14] G.D. Corte, M. D'Aniello, R. Landolfo, Field testing of all-steel buckling-restrained
braces applied to a damaged reinforced concrete building, J. Struct. Eng. (ASCE)
141 (1) (2014), D4014004. .
[15] M. Bosco, E.M. Marino, P.P. Rossi, Design of steel frames equipped with BRBs in the
framework of Eurocode 8, J. Constr. Steel Res. 113 (2015) 43–57.
[16] D.J. Miller, L.A. Fahnestock, M.R. Eatherton, Development and experimental valida-
tion of a nickel-titanium shape memory alloy self-centering buckling-restrained
brace, Eng. Struct. 40 (2012) 288–298.
[17] 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.
ASCE 137 (5) (2011) 589–599.
[18] S. Wilkinson, D. Grant, E. Williams, S. Paganoni, S. Fraser, D. Boon, et al., Observations
and implications of damage from the magnitude mw 6.3 Christchurch, New Zealand
earthquake of 22 February 2011, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 11 (1) (2013) 107–140.
[19] R. Tremblay, M. Lacerte, C. Christopoulos, Seismic response of multistory buildings
with self-centering energy dissipative steel braces, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 134 (1)
(2008) 108–120.
[20] C.C. Chou, P.T. Chung, Y.T. Cheng, Experimental evaluation of large-scale dual-core
self-centering braces and sandwiched buckling-restrained braces, Eng. Struct. 116
(2016) 12–25.
[21] C.C. Chou, Y.C. Wang, J.H. Chen, Seismic design and behavior of post-tensioned steel
connections including effects of a composite slab, Eng. Struct. 30 (11) (2008)
3014–3023.
[22] L. Liu, J. Zhao, S. Li, Nonlinear displacement ratio for seismic design of self-centering
buckling-restrained braced steel frame considering trilinear hysteresis behavior,
Eng. Struct. 158 (2018) 199–222.
[23] K.C. Tsai, C.P. Hsiao, M. Bruneau, Overview of building damages in 921 Chi-Chi
earthquake, Earthq. Eng. Eng. Seismol. 2 (1) (2000) 93–108.
[24] K. Palmer, C. Roeder, T. Okazaki, C. Shield, D. Lehman, Three-Dimensional Tests of
Two-Story, One-Bay by One-Bay, Steel Concentric Braced Frames, Structures Con-
gress, Las Vegas, United States, 2011.
[25] Y. Kurama, S. Pessiki, R. Sause, L.W. Lu, Seismic behavior and design of unbonded
post-tensioned precast concrete walls, PCI J. 44 (3) (1999) 72–89.
[26] J.M. Ricles, R. Sause, M.M. Garlock, C. Zhao, Posttensioned seismic-resistant connec-
tions for steel frames, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 127 (2) (2001) 113–121.
[27] C. Christopoulos, A. Filiatrault, C.M. Uang, B. Folz, Posttensioned energy dissipating con-
nections for moment-resisting steel frames, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 128 (9) (2002)
1111–1120.
[28] P. Xiang, A. Nishitani, M.E. Wu, Seismic vibration and damage control of high-rise
structures with the implementation of a pendulum-type nontraditional tuned
mass damper, Struct. Control. Health Monit. 24 (11) (2017) e2022.
[29] F.J. Perez, R. Sause, S. Pessiki, Analytical and experimental lateral load behavior of
unbonded posttensioned precast concrete walls, J. Struct. Eng. (ASCE) 133 (11)
(2007) 1531–1540.
[30] M.R. Eatherton, J.F. Hajjar, Hybrid simulation testing of a self-centering rocking steel
braced frame system, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 43 (11) (2015) 1725–1742.
[31] R. Sause, J.M. Ricles, D.A. Roke, N.B. Chancellor, N.P. Gonner, Seismic performance of
a self-centering rocking concentrically-braced frame, 9th US National and 10th Ca-
nadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tornto, Canada, 2010.
[32] L.J. Jia, P. Xiang, M.E. Wu, A. Nishitani, Swing story-lateral force resisting system con-
nected with dampers: novel seismic vibration control system for building struc-
tures, J. Eng. Mech. (ASCE) 144 (2) (2018), 04017159. .
[33] S. Costanzo, M. D'Aniello, R. Landolfo, Seismic design criteria for chevron CBFs: pro-
posals for the next EC8 (part-2), J. Constr. Steel Res. 138 (2017) 17–37.
[34] A. Ioan, A. Stratan, D. Dan, et al., Experimental validation of re-centring capability of
eccentrically braced frames with removable links, Eng. Struct. 113 (2016) 335–346.
[35] C. Christopoulos, R. Tremblay, H.J. Kim, M. Lacerte, Self-centering energy dissipative
bracing system for the seismic resistance of structures: development and validation,
J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 134 (1) (2008) 96–107.
104 L.-J. Jia et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 149 (2018) 95–104
[36] S. Zhu, Y. Zhang, Seismic behaviour of self-centring braced frame buildings with re-
usable hysteretic damping brace, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 36 (10) (2007)
1329–1346.
[37] C.S.W. Yang, R. Desroches, R.T. Leon, Design and analysis of braced frames with
shape memory alloy and energy-absorbing hybrid devices, Eng. Struct. 32 (2)
(2010) 498–507.
[38] M. Baiguera, G. Vasdravellis, T.L. Karavasilis, Dual seismic-resistant steel frame with
high post-yield stiffness braces for residual drift reduction: numerical evaluation, J.
Constr. Steel Res. 122 (2016) 198–212.
[39] M. Baiguera, G. Vasdravellis, D. Reichardt, T.L. Karavasilis, Experimental validation of
high post-yield stiffness dampers for residual drift reduction, 8th International Con-
ference on Steel and Aluminium Structures, Hong Kong, China, 2016.
[40] C.C. Chou, W.J. Tsai, P.T. Chung, Development and validation tests of a dual-core self-
centering sandwiched buckling-restrained brace (SC-SBRB) for seismic resistance,
Eng. Struct. 121 (2016) 30–41.
[41] Y.M. Parulekar, G.R. Reddy, K.K. Vaze, S. Guha, C. Gupta, K. Muthumani, et al., Nu-
merical study and practical design of beam-to-column connections with shape
memory alloys, J. Constr. Steel Res. 104 (2012) 177–192.
[42] H. Wang, X. Nie, P. Pan, Development of a self-centering buckling restrained brace
using cross-anchored pre-stressed steel strands, J. Constr. Steel Res. 138 (2017)
621–632.
[43] M.S. Speicher, R. Desroches, R.T. Leon, Investigation of an articulated quadrilateral
bracing system utilizing shape memory alloys, J. Constr. Steel Res. 130 (2017)
65–78.
[44] X. Xu, Y. Zhang, Y. Luo, Self-centering eccentrically braced frames using shape mem-
ory alloy bolts and post-tensioned tendons, J. Constr. Steel Res. 125 (10) (2016)
190–204.
[45] P. Pan, W. Li, X. Nie, K. Deng, J. Sun, Seismic performance of a reinforced concrete
frame equipped with a double-stage yield buckling restrained brace, Struct. Design
Tall Spec. Build. 26 (2017) e1335.
[46] ABAQUS, Analysis Reference Manual (Version 6.11), Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen,
Inc., Pawtucket, RI, USA, 2011.
[47] S.W. Chen, L.Z. Lu, G.Q. Li, M. Wei, Y.B. Wang, X. Chen, Cyclic loading tests of Q690D high
strength steel welded columns, J. Build. Struct. 35 (12) (2014) 97–103 (in Chinese).
[48] GB 50011-2010, Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, Standards Press of China,
2010.
[49] P. Xiang, A. Nishitani, S. Marutani, K. Kodera, T. Hatada, R. Katamura, et al., Identifi-
cation of yield drift deformations and evaluation of the degree of damage through
the direct sensing of drift displacements, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 45 (13) (2016)
2085–2102.
[50] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Web-based PEER ground
motion database, Berkeley, CA, 2010 , Available: http://peer.berkeley.edu.