Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Component testing and multi-level seismic design of steel braced frames

with high post-yielding stiffness and two-phase yielding
Konstantinos Skalomenos a, b, *, Thomas Whittall a, Masahiro Kurata b, Jack Pickering a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom
b
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uji-shi, Kyoto, 611 0011, Japan

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

Keywords: Using induction heat (IH) treatment to locally transform one half of a steel brace section to high-strength steel
Steel braces section as well as inducing intentional eccentricity along the brace length has been experimentally proven to
Induction heating increase the limited post-yielding stiffness exhibited by conventional steel braces. This paper develops a multi-
Two-component steel tubes
level seismic design method for intentionally eccentric IH-treated steel braced frames (IH-FIEB) to support their
Post-yielding stiffness
Fracture
implementation in building structures. More specifically, experimental results on the cyclic behaviour of IH-
Multi-level hazard design treated steel braces with intentionally eccentricity (IH-BIEs) are presented giving an emphasis in quantifying
member’s resistance to local buckling and fracture initiation. A theoretical model is developed on the force-
deformation relationship of the bracing system which is validated with test results and results obtained from
a parametric finite element analysis study. On the basis of theoretical model, design expressions that describe the
mechanical two-phase yielding behaviour of the bracing system controlled by the alternated flexural-axial
behaviour are developed. The high post-yielding stiffness and controllability of the brace response through ec­
centricity provide the brace the capability of satisfying multiple strength performance objectives simultaneously.
Time-history analysis results under three seismic hazard levels demonstrate that IH-FIEBs assure a more uniform
overstrength and plastic engagement between each story than the conventional steel braced frames. IH-BIEs
smoothly transition into post-buckling response and engage plastically at low drift demands, while seismic
forces developed are well controlled and close to the values expected from the design procedure. A significant
reduction of the residual deformation is observed at high seismic intensity levels indicating that IH-FIEBs may be
able to reduce post-hazard damage compared to conventional braced frames.

1. Introduction behaviour of certain conventional structures has provided difficulties in

Resilient design concepts are growing in popularity within the
earthquake engineering community to improve the seismic design of
new infrastructure. Several recent earthquakes have produced low loss
of life, but large economic losses from building damage, leading to the
review of current seismic design provisions [1]. Current capacity-based
design methods provide uncertainty in structural performance under
seismic loading and produce over-conservative and uneconomical
structures [2,3]. A new focus on reducing post-hazard financial losses
and recovery time, alongside advances in computational methods, has
culminated in the emergence of Performance Based Seismic Design
(PBSD). Within PBSD, buildings are designed to respond to seismic
loading predictably and reliably to various levels of structural perfor­
mance, increasing hazard resilience [4]. However, the poor inelastic
the reliable prediction of the non-linear response for these structure
types [5]. New systems are under development with controlled inelastic
behaviour, providing satisfaction of PBSD to multi-level objectives.
Concentric Braced Frames (CBFs) are a prevalent type of steel braced
frame system that is characterized by the use of diagonal bracing
members that join with the endpoints of beams and columns, forming a
vertical truss. Lateral seismic loads are transmitted through axial tension
and compression forces in the bracing members [6]. Bracing members in
CBFs also act as dissipative elements through yielding in tension and
buckling and post-buckling deformation in compression [7]. Compared
to other lateral force resisting systems, CBFs generally provide large
levels of stiffness and lateral strength but possess limited ductility ca­
pacity under cyclic loading [8]. CBFs exhibit an hysteretic response to
seismic loading that make brace members susceptible to early buckling

* Corresponding author. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom.
E-mail address: k.skalomenos@bham.ac.uk (K. Skalomenos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107248
Received 21 December 2021; Received in revised form 5 March 2022; Accepted 10 March 2022
Available online 19 March 2022
0267-7261/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Skalomenos et al.
failures [9].
The poor inelastic behaviour and early buckling of conventional
braces leads to rapid loss of storey stiffness, large axial deformations,
premature brace fracture and deflection of the brace intercepted beam
[10,11]. The localised inelastic deformations at the plastic hinge leads to
a low tangential post-yielding stiffness, resulting in the concentration of
residual and maximum drifts. A soft-storey mechanism may be pro­
duced, leading to structural instability and collapse in multi-storey
buildings [12]. These effects have been observed and studied in the
aftermath of large earthquakes, notably the 1989 Loma Prieta [13],
Northridge 1994 [14] and Kobe 1995 [15] events. This unfavourable
and complex inelastic behaviour of braces in CBFs provides challenges
for the application of PBSD for multi-level objectives.
Post-yielding stiffness is a major controlling factor for the perfor­
mance of structures, affecting strength demand and residual de­
formations [16]. Systems that possess and provide control of a large
positive post-yielding stiffness will result in improved control of struc­
tural performance, a reduction in strength demand and reduction of
residual deformations under extreme earthquakes [17]. For a multi-level
objective design, that is when more than one level of structural perfor­
mance is specified, the zero or negative post-yielding stiffness in con­
ventional braces may lead to the design of uneconomical structures [5,
18,19]. The design is dominated by the more strenuous objective,
leading to an increase in strength demand and larger brace sections.
Several methods have been suggested to increase post-yielding
stiffness, such as using reinforcement materials with improved strain
hardening behaviour, design of section geometry to avoid poor elasto-
plastic behaviour and introducing a secondary parallel inelastic sys­
tem such as a moment resisting frame in parallel with a CBF [20]. Kig­
gins and Uang (2006) [18] propose a dual system using BRBs with a
moment-resisting frame (MRF). The MRF provides a back-up restoring
force mechanism that gives a global positive post-yielding stiffness,
preventing residual drifts and excessive plastic demand. This system
reduces drift considerably, but may be susceptible to connection-related
failures [21]. Design is given by the capacity based method in AISC
341-10 [22] for BRBFs, although is treated as a homogenous system,
which does not account for the actual inelastic response, restricting the
options for the designer to control stiffness. Maley et al. (2010) [23]
provide a displacement-based design procedure that sets a uniform
strength distribution on the MRF to directly establish the strength de­
mand on the BRBs to control the structure response effectively and
directly through design. A Yielding Brace System proposed by Gray et al.
(2014) [24] utilises a cast-steel connector with fingers that yield in
flexure, providing improved post-yielding stiffness. Similarly, Baiguera
et al. (2016) [25] proposes braces fitted with hourglass pins that act as
fuses at locations where plastic hinges form, thus dissipating energy with
increased stiffness. Many other researchers have identified alternative
brace types that attempts to solve poor post-buckling and post-yielding
behaviour [26–30]. Some seismic force resisting systems, such as
tension-only braced structures or vibration control systems based on a
seesaw mechanism and fluid viscous dampers completely nullify braces
buckling [31–33]. Tests undertaken in many of the systems above
validate their efficiency to improve the poor inelastic behaviour of
braced structures and show that the upgraded yielding deformed shapes
provide an increased post-yielding stiffness and strength. However, the
new performance relies on external dampers or external devices rather
than the post-yielding stiffness of the brace itself. Many of these systems
do not preserve the favourable characteristics of conventional braces,
while lead to a complex construction and convoluted design procedures.
With focus on maintaining the behavioural principles of the simple
conventional braces, the present paper enhances adaptability in design
of CBF structures and improves their inelastic behaviour through a novel
design of the steel section. Using induction heat (IH) treatment to in­
crease the yield stress of one half of the steel brace section (i.e., a two-
component steel tube), as well as inducing intentional eccentricity
along the brace length has been experimentally proven to increase the
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248
limited post-yielding stiffness exhibited by the conventional design [34,
35]. Eccentricity decouples strength and stiffness demands in the elastic
design of the brace and magnifies the contrast of the inherent material
benefits of the two half-sections. Moreover, it causes the applied axial
force to generate a moment and for stresses and strains to be more
evenly distributed along the brace length, thereby effectively delaying
the onset of local buckling at the middle length of the brace [36]. The
key advantage of this combined axial-flexural behaviour and the spec­
ified strength variation over the cross-section has been first validated in
built-up cross-sections made of two different steel grades [37–39].
Recently, a design approach for steel frames with single-component
intentionally eccentric braces (FIEBs) based on a Direct Displacement
Based Design method has been proposed highlighting the benefits of
eccentricity to control the dynamic behaviour of steel braced structures.
FIEBs provided a satisfactory and controlled response complied with the
drift ratio limits of the Canadian seismic design code, whilst proving a
potential economic advantage over CBFs [40].
The present study develops a multi-level hazardous force-based
design methodology for steel braced frames incorporating the two-
component IH-treated braces (IH-FIEBs) within the framework of
PBSD. On the basis of experimental and computational studies, the
theory that describes the strength and deformation relationship is
developed and validated first. Then, the design flowchart is introduced
through the response quantities of strength ratio, Ω, and ductility, μ, of
the bracing system. A typical three-storey six-bay steel braced frame is
designed and subjected to a set of ground motions compatible to EC8
[41] elastic spectrum for three levels of seismic intensity. The perfor­
mance of the frame is compared with that of a corresponding conven­
tional braced frame and useful conclusions are stated. The influence of
the deflection of the brace intercepted beam on the plastic response of
the IH-FIEB is also evaluated.
2. Brace design
Fig. 1a illustrates the brace with intentional eccentricity with single
(BIE) [36] and two-component (IH-BIE) circular steel tubular sections
[35]. The change in deformation behaviour is shown in Fig. 1b which is
characterized by a combined axial-flexural response. It can be seen that,
when subjected to tensile load, the bilinear curve, characteristic of
conventional braces, is replaced with a trilinear curve. As shown by the
reduced gradient and first steel fiber yielding, BIEs demonstrate a
reduced elastic stiffness and yield point. However, the post-yielding
stiffness is considerably greater. Post-yielding stiffness is the stiffness
exhibited by the bracing element after the internal stress has exceeded
the material yield strength. The post-yielding stiffness gradually in­
creases from the first yielding point (i.e., governed mainly by the flex­
ural stiffness), to the final value (i.e., governed mainly by the axial
stiffness), as the tensile axial deformation increases (Fig. 1b). This
happens due to the gradual increase of the axial stiffness which becomes
predominant until the brace reaches the straight configuration in the
middle length (e ≈ 0) followed by the full yielding of the cross-section.
In compression, it can be seen in Fig. 1b that there is a similar reduction
in elastic stiffness and compressive strength like in tension, but the
transition to post-buckling behaviour is much smoother for BIEs
compared to conventional braces. Local buckling occurs in greater axial
deformations.
Skalomenos et al. (2019) [34] suggest utilising induction-heat (IH)
treatment to improve BIE’s performance. This involves heating the steel
tube to over 1000 ◦ C and rapidly cooling it using water in a process
known as quenching. It has been shown that IH treatment changes the
material properties to become similar to high-strength steels. These
changes include increased ultimate tensile strength and yield strength.
Subsequent studies have further extended the application of IH tech­
nology to open steel sections [42]. The present paper proposes applying
IH to the external half of BIEs (IH-BIE), as seen in Fig. 1c, to achieve the
desired strength heterogeneity in a uniform steel tubular section. The
K. Skalomenos et al.
Fig. 1. (a) Braces with intentional eccentricity incorporating a single or a two-component cross-section; (b) comparison of skeleton curves of conventional steel
braces, BIEs and IH-BIEs based on experimental findings [34,35].
effect of this when the brace is subjected to tensile and compressive
loading is shown in Fig. 1b. It can be seen that the backbone curve
follows a similar pattern to that of BIEs. However, IH-BIEs exhibit a
higher yield strength and compressive strength, as well as a much
greater ultimate tensile strength, and a larger post-yielding stiffness.
This allows improved safety, as well as increased control due to the
adjustability of eccentricity and the ratio of yield strength of the IH
treated half to the conventional steel.
3. Experimental behaviour
3.1. Test specimens
The effectiveness of the eccentricity (i.e., BIE) to enhance the
ductility capacity of diagonal steel braces with respect to the onset of
local buckling and fracture has been experimentally confirmed in
Ref. [36] for circular hollow steel tubular braces with slenderness ratio
(λ) nearly 55.0 and diameter-to-thickness ratio (D/tb) equal to 32.6.
Accordingly, the advantages of treating by IH the half of the section of
BIEs (i.e., IH-BIE) have been firstly validated in Ref. [34] through a
single test, and then, in Ref. [35] by carrying out an investigation on
detailing the brace-to-end plate gusset connection. Previous tests were
mainly focused on an eccentricity (e) over the radius of gyration (r) [e/r]
equal to 1.53. This section complements the previous experimental work
with one additional IH-BIE test specimen having 30 mm eccentricity,
thus e/r is now equal to 0.77.
Fig. 2a illustrates the dimensions of the half-scale specimen. The
circular steel tube STK400 (made of Japanese steel material equivalent
to A36 [22] for steel tubes) was used for the brace fabrication. Me­
chanical pins that accommodate in-plane rotations were used in this
study for installing the brace in the loading frame (Fig. 2b) to evaluate
Fig. 2. (a) Dimensions of the test specimen IH-BIE30; and (b) four-pin loading frame (dimensions in mm).
3
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248
the effect of eccentricity only. Pins allow brace ends to rotate freely and
the brace to develop its high post-yielding stiffness in tension while
smoothly transitioning into the post-buckling behaviour in compression.
In previous experimental campaigns of BIEs, gusset plates were used for
connecting the brace to the surrounding frame. The gusset plates were
designed to behave as pin connections forming a plastic hinge through
an appropriate clearance distance [36,38] according to AISC (2016)
[22]. In the design of brace-end connection in BIEs, the force of
gusset-to-column interface passes through the work-point (the inter­
section of the brace centreline, the beam centreline and the column
centreline) thus there is no moment at the gusset-to-column interface
although the tube section is eccentric to the gusset plate/or mechanical
pin. The ductility of gusset plates to the rotational demands of BIEs has
been assessed in Ref. [43] where the length of the clearance distance is
associated with the rotation demands and eccentricity.
Rib stiffeners were placed to strengthen the ends of the brace to avoid
any premature fracture at the heat affected zone (HAZ) of the brace-to-
end plate connection. Brace ends are subjected to bending deformations
in addition to axial loads that may trigger a premature fracture within
HAZ as has been seen in the previous tests of BIEs [36]. Table 1 lists the
design properties of the specimen, including details of the steel tubes
and material properties. Fy,CS and Fu,CS are the tensile yield stress and
ultimate tensile strength of conventional steel, respectively, while Fy,IH
the compression yield stress of IH steel as obtained by the compression
coupon tests introduced in Ref. [34]. For comparison, test results of BIEs,
IH-BIEs and of a conventional steel brace (CSB) have been included in
this table taken from the previous test campaigns [35,36]. In notation of
specimens in Table 1, the two numbers (i.e., 30 and 60) denote the value
of the eccentricity in mm. Specimens with gusset plate connection
buckle out-of-plane of the frame, while those with mechanical pins
buckle in plane. Fig. 2a illustrates dimensions of the IH-BIE30.
K. Skalomenos et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248

Table 1
Details of specimens.
Specimen Steel tube Gusset plate connection
a
D (mm) tb (mm) e (mm) e/r Fy,CS/Fu,CS (MPa) Fy,IH (MPa) λ W (mm) tp (mm) Fy/Fu (MPa)

CSB 114.3 3.5 0 0.00 329/490 - 54.4 277 12 308/446

BIE30 114.3 3.5 30 0.77 329/490 - 54.4 277 12 308/446
BIE60 114.3 3.5 30 1.53 329/490 - 54.4 In-plane mechanical pins
IH-BIE30 114.3 3.5 30 0.77 354/460 879 54.4 In-plane mechanical pins
IH-BIE60 114.3 3.5 60 1.53 354/460 879 54.4 In-plane mechanical pins
a
Slenderness ratio λ is calculated using the pin-to-pin brace length 2131 mm.

The specimen was arranged in a four-pin loading frame at a 45◦
angle, as shown in Fig. 2b. A cyclic loading was applied by imposing
lateral displacements at the top of the frame through an oil jack. The
lateral loading history was comprised of several lateral story drift lev­
els—0.1%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, 1.5%, 2%, 3%—, each imposed
quasi-statically for two cycles. The diagonal displacement was measured
and converted to lateral displacement to be used for the story drift
control. The diagonal displacement was calculated as the average of
displacements measured by two displacement transducers located on
either side of the brace length. The story height used in story drift cal­
culations was 1753 mm. Longitudinal strain gauges were mounted on
the specimens at critical points based on which yielding was detected.
Lateral load was measured using a load cell at the loading point.
3.2. Test results and discussion
The cyclic relationship of the lateral strength and lateral story drift is
shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3a refers to CSB, Fig. 3b and c refer to BIE30 and
BIE60, respectively, while Fig. 3d and e refer to IH-BIE30 and IH-BIE60,
respectively. Positive values in these figures indicate tension, while
negative values indicate compression. The initiation of local buckling
and fracture on the steel tubes are denoted by triangles and circles,
respectively. Along with Fig. 3, Table 2 provides the experimental values
of important design quantities, such as, the elastic stiffness, compressive
yield strength, maximum compressive strength, tensile yield strength,
post-yielding stiffness, and ultimate tensile strength. The compressive
and tensile yield strengths are based on the strain gauge measurements.
The post-yielding stiffness is calculated using the yielding strength and
tensile strength and the corresponding lateral deformations in mm. The
story drift angles at which local buckling and fracture occurred are also
provided along with the corresponding cumulative inelastic ductility.
The cumulative inelastic ductility capacity is defined as the sum of in­
elastic story drift increments during the loading history up to failure
normalized by the yielding story drift. In this study, the Cumulative
Local-buckling Ductility (CLD) and the Cumulative Fracture Ductility
(CFD) indices are defined based on sectional local failures, such as, local
buckling initiation and occurrence of fracture, respectively. The
assessment of the brace performance through the cumulative inelastic
ductility has been introduced in AISC (2016) [22] for the example brace
test protocols used in buckling-restrained braces, where a cumulative
inelastic axial ductility capacity of 200 times the core axial yield
displacement should be achieved. It should be mentioned, however, that
BIEs are subjected to combined axial and bending deformations due to
the eccentricity and the cumulative inelastic ductility was calculated
using the total story drift deformation in this paper. To support the
discussion of this section, Table 2 summarizes the evaluation indices
CLD and CFD for all brace specimens (i.e., CSB, BIEs and IH-BIEs
[34–36]) in addition to those test results that correspond to the new
IH-BIE30 specimen. All braces yielded during the 0.25% tensile story
drift. Failure modes related to buckling and fracture for IH-BIE30 are
shown in Fig. 4.
CSB exhibited an almost bilinear behaviour under tension providing

Fig. 3. Hysteresis curves of the specimens: (a) CBB; (b) BIE30; (c) BIE60; (d) IH-BIE30; and (e) IH-BIE60.

4
K. Skalomenos et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248

a post-yielding stiffness nearly 1.0% of the elastic stiffness (Fig. 3a).

2nd − 1.0 (− 0.75), 2nd denotes the loading cycle, − 1.0 denotes the target story drift level of the cyclic loading history, (− 0.75) denotes the exact measured drift angle during the loading cycle at which the corresponding
178.3
361.4
318.0
245.3
223.0
Overall buckling occurred during the first compressive cycle of 0.5%

CFDc
story drift (exactly at the 0.20% story drift) followed by a sudden
reduction of the compression strength. Local buckling was observed

148.5
156.5
198.7
200.7
CLDb

81.5
during the second compressive cycle of 1.0% story drift at the brace
middle, and then, fracture occurred during the second tensile cycle of
2.0% story drift (see Fig. 3 and Table 2). Compared to CSB, a reduction
Fracture (drift

1st − 2.0 (0.0)

of the initial stiffness was observed in BIE30 by 18%, while in BIE60 by

2nd 2.0 (2.0)

2nd 3.0 (2.8)

1st 3.0 (1.8)

1st 3.0 (2.5)

62%. During the second compressive cycle of 1.0% and 1.5% story drift,
local buckling was observed in BIE30 (Fig. 3b) and BIE60 (Fig. 3c),
%)

respectively. Compared to CSB, BIE shows an improved resistance to

local buckling. The CLD index in BIE30 and BIE60 reaches a value of
148.5 and 156.5, respectively (Table 2). The CLD index in CSB is only
Local buckling (drift

0.75)a

81.5, which is approximately 50% lower than that of BIEs. In tension, a

0.38)
1.35)
1.0)
1.5)

higher post-yielding stiffness is observed in BIEs. This was found to be

1.0 (−
1.0 (−
1.5 (−
1.5 (−
2.0 (−

16–17% of the elastic stiffness (Table 2). The combined axial-flexural

behaviour of BIEs also improves fracture ductility capacity. Fracture
2nd −
2nd −
2nd −
2nd −
2nd −
%)

occurred in BIE30 during the first tensile cycle of the 3.0% drift level
(exactly at the 1.8% story drift – see Fig. 3b) while fracture occurred in
BIE60 during the second tensile cycle of the 3.0% drift level (exactly at
the 2.8% story drift – see Fig. 3c). In terms of CFD, both the BIE30 and
Maximum compressive

BIE60 reached a greater cumulative ductility compared to CSB, i.e.,

361.4 and 318.0, respectively (Table 2). In CSB specimen, the CFD index
was found to be 178.3. BIEs successfully achieved a cumulative inelastic
story deformation of 200 times the yield story deformation without
strength

224.4
150.0
105.8
297.9
134.0

experiencing fracture. It is worth noticing that the use of mechanical

(kN)

pins in BIE60 instead of gusset plate connection overall reduced the

−
−
−
−
−

cumulative inelastic ductility of the brace. According to the test results

of the G2-InP-60 specimen available in Ref. [36], BIE60 with in-plane
gusset plates reached a CLD of 176.2 and a CFD of 378.
strength
Tensile

The cyclic behaviour of IH-BIEs is depicted in Fig. 3d (IH-BIE30) and

284.2
287.8
293.5
523.2
409.0
(kN)

in Fig. 3e (IH-BIE60). Compared to CSB, a reduction of the initial stiff­

ness was observed in IH-BIE30 by 38% and in IH-BIE60 by 62%
17.4%
16.0%
30.0%
31.2%
% of the initial

(Table 2). The higher reduction of the initial stiffness in IH-BIE30 than in
0.9%
stiffness (kN/

BIE30 is due to the use of mechanical pins (see Table 1). A smoother
Post-yield

transition into the post-buckling behaviour was observed for both IH-
mm)

11.8

BIEs compared to CSB, avoiding a severe drop in compressive

0.6
9.3
3.9

7.8

strength. The compressive behaviour of IH-BIEs appears to be stable

enough up to sufficiently large inelastic story drift levels. IH-BIE’s
Test results of design quantities and drift levels at the onset of local buckling and fracture.

compressive behaviour shall be approximately characterized as elasto­

Compressive yield

plastic until a 1.0% and 1.5% story drift for IH-BIE30 and IH-BIE60,
respectively. During the second compressive cycle of 1.5% story drift
level, local buckling was observed in IH-BIE30 at the conventional steel
strength

209.1
130.6

155.8

(CS) half-section, as shown in Fig. 4a. This led to a sudden reduction of

79.2

95.8
(kN)

the compression strength (Fig. 3d). In IH-BIE60 local buckling was

−
−
−
−
−

observed during the second compressive cycle of 2.0% story drift

(Fig. 3e). These drift levels are higher than the corresponding failure
Tensile yield

drifts in untreated BIEs [36] indicating that a further resistance to local

Cumulative inelastic ductility to local buckling initiation.

buckling initiation can be achieved by combining eccentricity with

IH-treated tubes. The IH-BIE30 and IH-BIE60 reached a CLD equal to
0.24
0.14
0.20
0.15
0.23
drift

Cumulative inelastic ductility to fracture initiation.

(%)

198.7 and 200.7, respectively (Table 2). This is about 28–33% higher
than that of untreated BIEs, and approximately 2.5 times greater than
that of CSB. The IH-treatment has also influenced the post-yielding
stiffness. Both IH-BIEs provided with an increased post-yielding stiff­
Tensile yield

ness nearly 30% of their initial stiffness (Table 2). This post-yielding
strength

stiffness appears to be approximately twice as high as the one pro­

222.6
147.0

175.0
(kN)

89.9

94.2

vided by the corresponding untreated BIEs.

An inward in-plane buckling (i.e., opposite to the direction of ec­
centricity) occurred in IH-BIE30 during the first compressive cycle of the
2.0% story drift instead of the usual outward in-plane buckling (i.e.,
(kN/mm)

failure was observed.

stiffness
Elastic

direction of the eccentricity) which resulted in a sudden increase of the

65.5
53.6
24.3
40.6
25.0

brace compression strength (see Figs. 3d and 4b). This indicates a non-
smooth transition from the axial-governed stiffness to the bending-
Specimen

IH-BIE30
IH-BIE60

governed stiffness during unloading from the previous 2.0% tensile

Table 2

BIE30
BIE60

story drift level. The brace is likely to have reached an almost straight
CSB

configuration at the brace middle length at this drift level mainly due to
b
a

5
K. Skalomenos et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248

Fig. 4. Buckling failures and fracture in IH-BIE30 specimen: (a) local buckling of the conventional steel (CS) half-section at the brace mid-length; (b) inward global
buckling (i.e., opposite to the direction of the eccentricity); (c) local buckling of brace ends; (d) fracture of the IH-treated half-section at the brace mid-length; and (e)
local buckling of the IH-treated half-section at the brace mid-length.

the free restrain provided by the mechanical pins (i.e., ideal unstrained
brace end rotation). The brace member behaved as an axially loaded
member during the return compression loads, thereby increasing its
buckling resistance. After reaching − 300 kN, the specimen exhibited a
sudden buckling failure like CSB not observing the smooth transition
into the post-buckling behaviour that characterizes BIE’s buckling
behaviour (Fig. 3d). Brace ends suffered a severe local buckling, as
shown in Fig. 4c, resulted by the inward overall buckling. At the end of
the loading cycle, after returning the brace in the original position, a
small crack was observed in the IH-treated half-section at the mid-length
of the brace. This crack is likely to be related to the severe local buckling
(Fig. 4d) this side of the section has experienced due to the sudden in­
ward overall buckling, and not due to the high tensile loads of the
previous loading cycle. This indicates that IH-steel may have provided
the required resistance to fracture initiation if inward overall buckling
has been avoided at this drift level. The use of gusset plate connection

Fig. 5. Post-yielding stiffness calculation: (a) effective cross-section; and (b) effective eccentricity.

6
K. Skalomenos et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248

might have helped to avoid this. Regarding IH-BIE60, fracture occurred

Py1 Py2 − Py1
during the first tension cycle of 3.0% story drift level (exactly at the Δy2 = + (4)
Ke Kin
2.5% story drift) at the brace ends [35], as shown in Fig. 3c. In terms of
CFD, both IH-BIE30 and IH-BIE60 exhibited a reduced cumulative Eq. (1) shall be used to estimate post-yielding stiffness, Kin , of the
ductility compared to untreated BIEs which was found to be equal to brace by introducing effective values for the cross-section area, eccen­
245.3 (− 32%) and 223 (− 30%), respectively (Table 2). Compared to tricity and radius of gyration. It is assumed that only the non-yielded
CSB, IH-BIEs successfully achieved a cumulative inelastic story defor­ area of the cross-section contributes to the post-yielding stiffness of
mation of 200 times the yield story deformation without experiencing the brace. Within the region of post-yielding stiffness, the two-
fracture. component steel section experiences a gradual yielding that starts at
It can be seen from the above test results that eccentricity and IH Py1 and ends at Py2, as shown in Fig. 5a. The conventional steel top half
treatment allow steel braces to exhibit a multi-phase yielding with a of the section yields first followed by the IH-steel bottom half of the
stabilized buckling behaviour and high post-yielding stiffness. Local section. Using effective values for the midpoint of the post-yielding
buckling and fracture ductility shall be two and 1.5 times higher than response, theoretically only takes into account the area of the cross-
that of the corresponding conventional design. The drift levels at which section that has not yet yielded. The proportion of the cross-section
those failures occur shall provide a sufficient reserved capacity with that has yielded is dependent on the ratio of the yield stress of the IH-
respect the target drift levels required by the current seismic design treated bottom half to the yield stress of the conventional steel top
codes. The design of the brace shall be developed within the framework half of the brace. At the brace’s ultimate tensile force (Py2 ), the angle of
of a multi-level seismic design under target hazard levels and perfor­ the cross section that has yielded, θplastic , can be calculated as:
mance objectives directly controlling the eccentricity and the contrast of ⎛ ⎞
material strengths. √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎜√ ⎟
⎜√ 2
θplastic = π ⋅⎜√ ( ) + 1⎟ ⎟ (5)
4. Theoretical model development and validation ⎝√
1 + Fy,CS
Fy,IH ⎠

This section develops the theoretical model for estimating the main
design quantities of IH-BIEs, such the elastic stiffness, yielding tensile
force and compressive strength, post-yielding stiffness and maximum
tensile strength. The equations have been developed in a general form
reflecting the findings of all experimental studies on IH-BIEs and BIEs.
The accuracy of the model is verified using both test and analytical/
computational results. On the basis of the validated theoretical model,
the multi-level design procedure is introduced in a later section.
4.1. Design equations of the backbone curve
where Fy,CS is the yield strength of the conventional steel top half of the
brace. The angle θplastic , is measured in radians. It is assumed that at the
midpoint of the post-yielding stiffness region, the proportion of the
cross-section that has yielded will equal half of the proportion of the
section that has yielded at the brace’s ultimate tensile strength. There­
fore, the proportion of the cross-section that has yielded at the midpoint
of the inelastic region, θplastic,mp can be defined as:
θplastic
θplastic, mp = (6)
2

Fig. 5 introduces the backbone curve of IH-BIE. The elastic stiffness, This therefore allows the proportion of the section still in the elastic
Ke, and yielding strength, Py1, can be determined by employing the same region, θeffective , to be calculated as:
equations proposed for BIEs in Ref. [36]: θeffective = 2π − θplastic,mp (7)
EA/L
(1) The effective cross-section, shown in Fig. 5a, has an effective area, A
′
Ke = ( )
1 + (e/r)2 equal to:
( ) θeffective
(8)
′
Fy,CS A A = R2 − r 2 ×
Py1 = (2) 2
(1 + Ae/S)
The new centroid of the effective cross-section, x is defined as
where E = Elastic modulus; A = cross-sectional area; L = brace length (i. (Fig. 5a):
e., without considering the rigid part of guest plate connections); Fy,CS = ( )/
θeffective
conventional steel yield stress; S = elastic section modulus of the cross- x = 2R sin θeffective (9)
2
section; and r = radius of gyration of the cross-section, respectively. The
compressive strength of the brace, Pc, can be assumed that is governed As the centroid of the effective section is lower than the original
by in-plane elasto-plastic instability approximated by Py1. An equation section, the eccentricity of the load is effectively increased as shown in
that accounts for the critical buckling load and slenderness ration can be Fig. 5b. This effective eccentricity, denoted as e is calculated as:
′

found in Ref. [36].

(10)
′

At the maximum tensile force, Py2 , the centre of rigidity of the IH-BIE e =e + x
section (i.e., centre of gravity line) is coincided with the line of force ′ 0.5
The effective radius of gyration, r is equal to Iy /A where Iy is the
′ ′ ′

action, thus the eccentricity at this stage can be taken equal to zero. In
effective second moment of area, calculated as:
this phase, the entire IH-steel part has been yielded, while the conven­
( )
tional steel has fully entered the plastic hardening zone reaching its ⎡ ( )⎤2
ultimate tensile strength. The maximum tensile force is calculated by: 2 sin θeffective 2 × R3 − r3
/
1 ⎢ ⎥
(11)
′ ′
Iy = Iy1 − ( ) ⎢ ⎥
( )A ( )⎣ 3 ⎦
(3) θeffective 2 × R2 − r2
/
Py2 = Fu,CS + Fy,IH ⋅
2

where Fu,CS and Fy,IH are the ultimate strength of conventional steel and where Iy1 is defined as:
′

the yielding stress of the IH-steel, respectively, and A is the cross-section

area. The brace elongation at Δy2 is taken by:

7
K. Skalomenos et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248

Fig. 6. (a) Ultimate tensile force in terms of γ; (b) Non-yielded portion of the steel section at Pu as a function of.γ

⎡ ⎛ ( ) ( ) ⎞⎤
sin θeffective 2 cos θeffective 2 Table 3
/ /
⎢θeffective 2
/ ( ) ⎜ ⎟⎥
Comparisons between theoretical model predictions and experimental results on
′
Iy1 = ⎢
⎣ × R4 − r4 × ⎜
⎝1 +
⎟⎥
⎠⎦
4 θeffective 2
/
the major response quantities.
Design IH-BIE30 (e = 30 mm) IH-BIE60 (e = 60 mm)
(12)
quantity
Model Experiment Est./ Model Experiment Est./
With the ability to calculate the effective area, effective eccentricity Exp. Exp.
and effective radius of gyration of the elastic proportion of the brace a
Ke (kN/ 49.9 40.6 1.22 23.7 25.0 1.09
section, it is now possible to calculate a theoretical value for the post- mm)
yielding stiffness, Kin , equal to: Py1 (kN) 144.0 175.0 0.82 94.3 94.2 1.07
a 13.5 11.8 1.14 7.4 7.8 1.05
Kin (kN/
′
EA /L
Kin = ( ) (13) mm)
1 + (0.5e′ /r′ )2 Pu (kN) for 337.0 513.0 0.67 312.0 409.0 0.76
γ = 0.5 (max) (max)
The ‘0.5’ value in the equation is used as this corresponds to the Pu (kN) for 376.0 513.0 0.73 356.0 409.0 0.87
halfway point between Py1 and Py2, as shown in Fig. 5b. Based on nu­ γ = 0.6 (max) (max)
merical and experimental observations, this point is assumed to be the a
Ke and Kin. are calculated using the unstiffened length of the tube, hence,
point in the region of post-yielding stiffness that has a tangential stiff­ 1575 mm.
ness parallel to the linearized post-yielding stiffness shown in Fig. 5a
(dash line). The validity of ‘0.5’ in Eq. (13) requires further investigation
two, while a 60% of the brace section remains elastic for IH-ratio equal
considering different cross-sections and slenderness ratios.
to one. When γ is taken as 0.5, 55%–60% of the section it is expected to
In order to determine the ultimate tensile strength of the brace, Pu,
remain elastic for values of IH-ratio more than two. Accordingly, when γ
that can be used for design purposes, the present paper recommends a
is 0.6, 45%–52% of the section remains elastic, a range of values that
safety factor accounting for a specific portion of the section that allowed
suggests possible yielding of IH-steel. γ values more than 0.6 could
to yield, as indicated in Eq. (14). IH-steel has lower ductility capacity
trigger a fracture in the brace for the IH-steel used in this study.
than the conventional steel and fracture is likely to occur prior to Py2 . At
this point, portion of IH-treated bottom half of the section it is expected Pu = (1 − γ)Py1 + γPy2 (14)
to exhibit significant yielding. This has been seen in the test results (e.g.,
Finally, the ultimate brace elongation of Δu is computed by using Pu
IH-BIE60). Fig. 6a depicts the theoretical relationship between Pu and
instead of Py2 in Eq. (4). The use of Pu as ultimate strength instead of Py2
the parameter γ of Eq. (14), while Fig. 6b associates the ratio of the
can also limit the possibility of an inward global bucking (Fig. 4b).
elastic portion of the section (i.e., effective section) over the entire
section at Pu for various values of γ and Fy,IH/Fy,CS ratio (i.e., IH-ratio)
through the Eq. (7). The tensile force at the midpoint of the post-
4.2. Validation of the theoretical model
yielding region can be calculated by employing Eq. (14) setting the
parameter γ equal to 0.5. When γ is taken as 0.4, 64%–67% of the brace
4.2.1. Experimental results
section it is expected to remain elastic for values of IH-ratio more than
Fig. 7a and b compares the results of the theoretical model with the

Fig. 7. Comparisons between theoretical model, FE model and test results: (a) IH-BIE30 and (b) IH-BIE60.

8
K. Skalomenos et al.
test results of specimens IH-BIE30 and IH-BIE60, respectively. There is a
good prediction of the overall experimental response by the identified
theoretical model. Table 3 presents the ratio of estimated to experi­
mental value of the major design quantities. For the model calculations,
the values of eccentricity 30 mm and 60 mm are considered, respec­
tively, with a brace length equal to 1575 mm, as shown in Fig. 2, and a
IH-ratio equal to 2.48 based on Table 1. The differences between esti­
mated and experimental values for the elastic stiffness (Ke ) and post-
yielding stiffness (Kin ) are less than 12%. The yielding strength (Py1 ) is
also well predicted. The design tensile strength (Pu ) is lower than the
maximum tensile strength nearly by 25–30% explaining the conserva­
tism in the definition of Pu when γ = 0.5. For γ = 0.6, the capacity margin
against fracture is 27% for the IH-BIE30 and 13% for the IH-BIE60.
4.2.2. Computational results
A refined three-dimensional nonlinear finite element (FE) model was
adopted to evaluate the accuracy of the theoretical model equations
under various eccentricities and IH-ratios. The commercial FE analysis
software ABAQUS (2017) [44] was used for this purpose. The accuracy
of the FE model was validated against the IH-BIE30 and IH-BIE60 test
results. The 4-node doubly thin curved shell elements (S4R) were used
for the brace tubes. The discretization of the circular tubes was refined
by dividing the length by 96 discrete elements and the section perimeter
by 22 discrete elements. Shell elements were used for the end plates,
while 8-node linear brick elements (C3D8R) where chosen for the
connection parts. For sufficiently small straining, steel material was
modelled as a linear elastic isotropic material with modulus of elasticity
Fig. 8. Evaluation of the theoretical model using FEM results for the response quantities: (a) elastic stiffness (Ke); (b) compressive load (Pc); (c) yielding strength
(Py1); (d) maximum tensile force (Py2); (e) post-yielding stiffness (Kin); (f) ratio between Kin,model to Kin,FE for different slenderness ratio.
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248
E = 205 GPa and Poisson ratio ν = 0.3. For large straining, the consti­
tutive model used for steel includes pressure-independent plasticity with
kinematic hardening is suitable to simulate the inelastic behaviour of
metals. The nonlinear isotropic/kinematic model was used with the
Mises yield surface. The evolution of the backstress for the isothermal
(temperature independent) material response follows the Ziegler hard­
ening rule [44]. The backstress and the yield surface can be associated
through material parameters calibrated automatically either from cyclic
material test data or from the first half cycle of a unidirectional tensile
coupon test (true stress and strain values). In this study, the half cycle
data are used as obtained from coupon test results introduced in
Ref. [34]; this approach is usually adequate when the simulation in­
volves low cycle loading histories. Based on the Table 1, the yield stress
of the conventional steel was set 354 MPa, and of IH-steel 879 MPa.
Fig. 7a and b compare FE analysis results with test results in terms of
the lateral load versus story drift relationship for IH-BIE30 and IH-
BIE60, respectively. The static loading history consists of the following
story drifts, imposed twice at each drift level (%): 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75,
1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0. The negative values of lateral load in Fig. 7 indicate
compression. Main design quantities such as the yielding strength,
maximum tensile and compressive strength, initial and post-yielding
stiffness were estimated with good accuracy. This indicates that the
developed FE brace model can be used for producing reliable analysis
data to validate the theoretical model [45].
A parametric study was undertaken to evaluate the theoretical model
equations against various values of eccentricity (i.e., 0, 30, 60, 90) and
IH-ratio (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4). The adopted eccentricities correspond to e/r of
K. Skalomenos et al.
n/a, 0.76, 1.53 and 2.30, respectively. In this parametric study, con­
nections and the rib stiffeners were removed from the model for
simplicity. As a result, the total pin-to-pin length of the tube became
1779 mm. The boundary conditions of the brace were considered as
ideal pins and the basis material had yield stress equal to 354 MPa and
ultimate tensile strength equal to 460 MPa. As shown in Fig. 8, the
differences between the theoretical values calculated using the theo­
retical model equations and the values obtained using the FE model are
generally low. A likely source of error is that the mesh size and step size
for the FE model were not corresponding to the exact points for Py1, Py2
and Kin. The Py1 values were determined by finding the first step showing
some material yield. In most cases, the actual point at which yielding
begins would have occurred slightly earlier, which explains why for
most results, the theoretical value is lower. The percentage differences
for elastic stiffness and ultimate tensile force are within 10% and 7%
respectively, and therefore, successfully validate the theoretical model.
The accuracy of the proposed Eq. (13) for the Kin is further examined
under several values of slenderness ratio λ using new FEM models.
Fig. 8e plots the ratio between the Kin as obtained by FE methods to the
value taken by employing Eq. (13) for e = 60 mm and λ ratios 50, 60, and
70. For a slenderness ratio larger than 60, the equation tends to un­
derestimate the analysis results. A larger slenderness ratio leads to a
larger rotation at the brace ends under the same bending moment,
resulting in larger deflection at the brace middle length. This behaviour
reduces the effective eccentricity and therefore provides a higher post-
yielding stiffness. The post-yielding stiffness appears to be affected
most by the slenderness ratio; however, considering the simplicity of Eq.
(13), the proposed equation appears to provide a good estimate of the
post-yielding stiffness within this range of slenderness ratio. For a more
accurate estimate with respect to the slenderness ratio, equations that
implement calibrated parameters can be developed, in which slender­
ness effects can be considered more explicitly [45].
5. Strength ratio and ductility
As discussed in Fig. 5, the overall behaviour of the brace can be
characterized by a trilinear curve. The various values of eccentricity and
IH-ratio can define a number of trilinear curves as it can be seen in
Fig. 9a and b. The lateral load and story drift have been normalized by
the yield load and yield story drift, respectively. The results clearly
indicate that a variety of brace responses can be obtained which can
comply with a different combination of strength and stiffness, and effi­
ciently commit to the required performance objectives in the context
Fig. 9. (a) Trilinear response for the various IH-ratio; (b) Trilinear response for the various slenderness ratios; (c) proposed multi-level design of IH-FIEB.
10
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248
with seismic hazard levels [41]. This section develops the mathematical
relationships that describe the overall response of the brace through two
theoretical response quantities: the strength ratio Ω, and the ductility μ.
By employing this set of equations, someone can design the brace to
satisfy the required strength and ductility demands, simultaneously,
within the system limitations. Fig. 9c illustrates the design trilinear
curve of the brace. The equations have been developed for braced
structures with diagonal braces in chevron configuration (i.e., “c”).
Three levels of seismic design are considered that correspond to a
frequent, design-basis and major event, respectively (i.e., immediate
occupancy (IO), life safety (LS) and collapse (C), respectively [46]).
For a multi-level objective design, that is when more than one level
of structural performance is specified, the zero or negative post-yielding
stiffness in conventional braces leads to the design of uneconomical
structures [17]. The design is dominated by the more strenuous objec­
tive, leading to an increase in strength demand and larger brace sections.
Fig. 9c shows how positive post-yielding systems produce a trilinear
load-displacement curve, as opposed to conventional braces, satisfying
multi-level objective design more rationally. In the proposed force-based
design of intentionally eccentric IH-treated steel braced frames
(IH-FIEB), it is assumed that the conventional steel half-section yields
under the frequent event, while the IH-steel half-section yields under the
major event. This is illustrated in Fig. 9c.
The strength ratio Ω can be defined for each seismic level as the ratio
of the target strength to the yielding strength. For the major event the
ultimate strength ratio is symbolized as Ωu while for the design-basis
event the design strength ratio is symbolized as Ωd . By using Eq. (2)
and Eq. (14), the Ωc,u can be written as:
( )
Pc,u Pu + Py1 γ Py2
Ωu = = = 1 − u⋅ 1 − (15)
Pc,y1 2⋅Py1 2 Py1
( )
Pc,d Pd + Py1 γ Py2
Ωd = = = 1 − d⋅ 1 − (16)
Pc,y1 2⋅Py1 2 Py1
where γ u or γd is the parameter γ as defined in Fig. 6. In this case, γ u and
γ d are values that theoretically relate to the proportion of the brace
section that is expected to remain elastic in the major event and the
design-basis event respectively, where γ = 1 represents a completely
plastic section. Therefore, γu can be used in the design process to limit
the yielding of the IH-steel. By employing Eq. (3) and Eq. (2) the ratio of
Py2 to Py1 is given as:
K. Skalomenos et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248

[( ) ( )]
Py2 1 ( e) Fu,CS Fy,IH elastoplastic bilinear behaviour.
= ⋅ 1 + √2 ⋅ + for ​ IH-FIEB (17)
Py1 2 r Fy,CS Fy,CS
6. Design method
Py2 e
= 1 + √2 for ​ FIEB (18)
Py1 r 6.1. Design flowchart
By observing Eqs 15–17 it is evident that for a target Ω the quantity
In this section, the flowchart of the seismic design method for the IH-
e/ can be calculated for IH-BIEs having initiation of yielding in con­
r BIEs is introduced having its basis on the strength ratio Ω. Initially, the
ventional steel at Pc,y1 (i.e., frequent event) and initiation of yielding in strength ratio for each performance level is defined. In EC8 [41] the
IH-steel at Pc,u for γ u (i.e., major event). Eq. (17) can be valid for FIEBs (i. target reliabilities for the design-basis event are defined as no-collapse
e., frame with BIEs) setting Fu,CS = Fy,CS due to the smaller strain hard­ requirements and should be met under the reference seismic action
ening effect. For FIEBs, γu in Eq. (15) can be equal to 1.0 due to more associated with a reference probability of exceedance, PLS = 10% in 50
ductile cross-section. The cross-section area of a single brace can be years, or a reference return period, TLS = 475 years. Accordingly, the
determined for the design-basis event by: target reliabilities for the frequent event are defined as damage limita­
( e) Pc,d 1 tion requirements and should be met under a seismic action having a
A = 1 + √2 ⋅ (19) larger probability of occurrence than the design seismic action. The
r 2⋅Ωd Fy,CS
frequent seismic action is associated with a PIO = 10% in 10 years, or a
where Pc,d is the seismic force as obtained from the seismic design codes return period TIO = 95 years. The EC8 [41] itself gives no recommen­
employing an appropriate behaviour factor q [41] to account for the dation for the C level, however, a very rare or maximum considered
inelastic response (or strength reduction factor R [46] or characteristic earthquake, which has values of the mean return period in the order of
factor Ds [47]). The displacement of the brace can be always evaluated 1000–2500 years [41], can be considered. According to EC8 [41], if the
for any Ω (Ωu or Ωd ) by seismic action is defined in terms of the reference peak acceleration agR,
the scale factor (SF) multiplying the reference seismic action to achieve
μu =
Δc,u
= 1 + (Ωu − 1)⋅
Ke,c
(20) the same probability of exceedance in TL years as in the TLR years for
Δc,y1 Kin,c which the reference seismic action is may be computed as (TLR /TL )− 1/3 .
Here, the design spectral acceleration coordinates are multiplied by SFIO
Δc,d Ke,c
μd = = 1 + (Ωd − 1)⋅ (21) = 0.6 to account for the frequent event with TIO = 95 years and by SFC =
Δc,y1 Kin,c
1.73 to account for the major event with a TC = 2475 years. For chevron
steel braced structures, EC8 [41] suggests a q factor equal to 2.5 for high
where Δc,u and Δc,d are the target displacements under the ultimate and
ductility class with dissipative zones in both tension and compression
design strength ratios (Fig. 9c), respectively, and can be determined
members. According to EC8 [41], the drift limitation requirement is
using Eq. (4), while Δc,y1 is the yield displacement and can be computed
0.5% and 0.75% for buildings having brittle or ductile non-structural
by employing Eq (1) and Eq (2). In the following section the design
elements, respectively, and 1.0% for buildings not having
methodology is presented along with a design example. The Ke,c is two
non-structural elements attached to the structure. Accordingly, ASCE
times Ke , while Kin,c is equal to Kin of the single brace under the
41-17 [46] suggests an elastic drift limit of 0.7%, while according to the
assumption that the BIE members under compression display almost an
Japanese seismic design code [47] the allowable strength and a drift

Fig. 10. Flowchart for design of IH-FIEBs.

11
K. Skalomenos et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248

Fig. 11. Overview of the target building (dimensions in mm): (a) plan; and (b) elevation.

limitation of 0.5% should be satisfied for a base shear coefficient C0 =
0.20.
Fig. 10 introduces the design flowchart of IH-BIEs. First, the Ωu and
Ωd are defined as the ratio between the shear force distribution co­
efficients of each hazard level on the basis of the design response
spectrum. By setting Ωd as the strength ratio between the forces asso­
ciated with the design-basis and frequent event, respectively, the first
yielding point of the brace (i.e., yielding of the conventional half-
section, as shown in Fig. 10c) may occur in the frequent event. By
setting now Ωc as the strength ratio between the forces associated with
the major and frequent event, respectively, the second yielding point of
the brace (i.e., yielding of the IH-steel half-section, as shown in Fig. 10c)
may occur in the major event. Based on the Fig. 6 and the target IH-ratio,
the safety parameter γ u is selected for the major seismic event to control
the portion of the cross-section shall safely yield. For instance, if IH-
ratio = 4.0, IH-steel begins to yield when γu = 0.6 (Fig. 6). The e/r ratio
of the brace can now be determined through Eqs (15) and (17). For a
given Pc,d and Ωd , the cross-section area A of the brace can be deter­
mined through Eq. (19) always satisfying the e/r ratio, thereby the
required overstrength and post-yielding stiffness to meet the strength
criteria. The corresponding geometry of the cross-section can now be
chosen satisfying ductility classification and compactness limitations of
design codes [48]. Given the sectional geometry, the radius of gyration r
can be found and therefore, the required eccentricity e. Strength criteria
are always satisfied under the seismic forces associated with the
frequent event and if drift limitation requirements are not satisfied ec­
centricity e is reduced. This procedure is repeated for each floor. The
storey stability coefficient should be checked according to EC8 [41]. By
employing Eq. (20) someone can have an overview of the displacement
profile of the structure for each Ω and can adjust eccentricity so that all
stories of the building exhibit a uniform distribution of displacements.
6.2. Design example of a braced frame
This section applies the proposed design method in a prototype office
building. Two structures were designed, one with IH-BIEs (IH-FIEB) and
a CBF designed to EC8 [41] for comparison. The prototype building is a
three-story five-span braced frame, as shown in Fig. 11. The plan view of
the building is shown in Fig. 11a and has 30 m width and 23.2 m depth.
The braces are placed in chevron and their locations are illustrated by
dashed lines in the plan view. The elevated view of the building is shown
in Fig. 11b. The seismic forces are resisted only by the bracing system,
while the rest of the frames are treated as gravity frames only. The total
vertical load (i.e., seismic mass) of the structure is equal to 7.8 kN/m2 for
the first floor, 7.7 kN/m2 for the second floor, and 8.9 kN/m2 for the
third floor. The seismic base shear under the design-basis event is
calculated using the design spectrum for elastic analysis of EC8 [41]
with agR = 0.35g, importance factor 1.0, soil type B. Thus, the spectral
acceleration at the fundamental period T1 of the structure is Sa (T1) =
0.35g. The design base shear coefficient for the frequent event is
0.6⋅0.35g = 0.21g and for the major event is 1.73⋅0.35g = 0.595g. These
values define a strength ratio Ωd = 1.67 and Ωu = 2.89. An IH-ratio of 4
was targeted, as this provides the most economical solution, due to
reduced section sizes. A higher q factor, q = 3, was adopted here for
IH-FIEB than what is recommended by EC8 [41] for braced structures, to
account for the higher ductility of the IH-BIEs. Moreover, yielding is
allowed for the frequent event to enable an early energy dissipating
behaviour. For CBFs, q factor equals to 2.5. The design results of the
bracing systems are shown in Table 4. For the compression members, the
buckling load was calculated. Columns and beams were designed to
remain elastic in the IH-FIEB by considering the maximum design forces
produced by the IH-BIEs. Braced bay beams, shown in Table 4, are
designed with HEB sections due to the large, unbalanced design forces
produced by inverted-V braces in tension and compression. This was
taken as the vertical component of the difference between Pd (member in
tension) and Py1 (member in compression). The reduced seismic action
from the higher q factor in combination with the difference in brace
intercepted beam capacity rules to EC8 [41] leads to reduced sections in
the IH-FIEB. The total steel tonnage of a single seismic resisting frame in
the IH-FIEB is reduced by 8.4% compared to the CBF, with a maximum
reduction of 12% in the top floor, as shown in Table 4. Values for the
dimensionless slenderness of IH-BIEs are unable to assessed accurately
since an expression for the elastic critical load of IH-BIEs, Ncr, has not yet
been derived. Therefore, these values are calculated under the
assumption that IH-BIEs are conventional sections, without induction
heat treatment or an induced eccentricity. Finally, Table 5 shows the
mechanical characteristics of one chevron braced span expressed in
lateral forces and storey drifts.

Table 4
Dimensions of steel sections in the seismic resisting frame.
Story Section (mm) λ λ Steel (MPa) e (mm) IH ratio e/r Braced Bay Beam Sections Column Tonnage (tonnes)
Beam Sections Sections (SHS)
D t Fy,CS Fu,CS

CSB 1 323.9 8.0 41.6 0.49 235 400 - - - HEB 450 IPE 330 350 × 12 SHS 7.45
2 273.1 8.0 49.5 0.60 235 400 - - - HEB 450 IPE 330 350 × 12 SHS 7.25
3 193.7 8.0 70.7 0.84 235 400 - - - HEB 400 IPE 330 350 × 12 SHS 5.97
IH-BIE 1 273.1 10.0 47.6 0.59 235 400 100 4.0 1.10 HEB 400 IPE 330 350 × 10 SHS 6.81 (− 9%)
2 244.5 10.0 53.1 0.66 235 400 90 4.0 1.10 HEB 400 IPE 330 350 × 10 SHS 6.66 (− 8%)
3 219.1 7.1 67.3 0.73 235 400 80 4.0 1.20 HEB 340 IPE 330 350 × 10 SHS 5.21 (− 12%)

12
K. Skalomenos et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248

Table 5 braces. In braces with intentional eccentricities, the corresponding ec­

Mechanical characteristics of one chevron braced span expressed in lateral centricity was also introduced as a constant value along the brace
forces and storey drifts. length. The “rigid” parts of the gusset plate connections were also
Frequent event Design-basis Major event simulated as a ratio of the brace length, L. In addition of the brace length
event that measures from the top surface of the bottom beam to the bottom
Storey Ke,c Pc,y1 Kin,c Pc,d Pc,u Pc,y2 surface of the top beam, two other lengths were defined. The pin-to-pin
(kN/ (kN) (kN/ (kN) (kN) (kN) length, Lp, that measures from the centre of the clearance distance of
mm) mm) each gusset plate and the clear length of the brace, Lc, which is the clear
CBB 1 232.57 1576.0 - 1736.6 - - unstiffened tube length. The slenderness of the braces is defined using
2 194.30 1258.0 - 1434.0 - - the Lp while the theoretical model equations use Lc. The accuracy of the
3 137.14 785.3 - 953.7 - - OpenSees brace model was validated against the CSB, IH-BIE30 and
IHBIE 1 110.67 875.8 39.1 1464.0 2542.6 3653.8
2 97.62 774.0 34.5 1299.0 2261.6 3253.3
IH-BIE60 test results introduced in Section 3.2. The material properties
3 63.79 504.5 22.6 840.6 1457.0 2092.1 were assigned as discussed in Table 1. Comparison between the analysis
and test results is illustrated in Fig. 12b and c.

7. Seismic analysis
7.2. Pushover analysis results
7.1. Analysis model
A plane pushover analysis of the braced frame shown in Fig. 11b was
performed by considering a linear distribution of the lateral forces along
A simplified mixed fiber-lumped plasticity frame model was devel­
the frame height. The influence of the gravity frames of the structure at
oped for performing nonlinear analysis of the braced structures in
large displacement levels (i.e., second order effects) was considered
OpenSees [49]. The analytical brace model was validated using the
through a pinned leaning column model linked to the braced frame.
experimental results of a previous section. Fig. 12a illustrates the
Gravity loads were applied both to the braced frame and leaning gravity
analytical model developed in this study along with the details of the
column based on the corresponding influence zones (see floor plan in
in-plane gusset plate connection. The associated model was developed
Fig. 11a). Beam and columns at the base were modelled as pin-ended
using centerline elements. For sufficiently small straining, steel material
members using zero-length springs at their ends with zero rotational
was modelled as a linear elastic isotropic material with modulus of
stiffness. The lateral forces were resisted by the bracing system only.
elasticity E = 205 GPa and Poisson ratio ν = 0.3. For large straining, the
Fig. 13a depicts the pushover curve normalized by the structure weight
constitutive model Steel02 with kinematic hardening was used to
(F/W) with respect to roof story drift ratio for both the CBF and IH-FIEB.
simulate the inelastic behaviour of steel. The brace section was divided
The natural period of CBF, T1,CSB, was found to be 0.47 s, while the one
into 8 fibers along the perimeter of the tube. The brace length was
of IH-FIEB, T1,IHBIE, 0.54 s. The CBF and IH-FIEB were designed using the
divided into ten nodes to capture the overall deformation as accurate as
EC8 approximate fundamental time period equation, giving both a time
possible without creating convergence errors. The gusset plate connec­
period of T1 = 0.33s and a base shear ratio of around 0.36 and 0.30,
tions were modelled through spring elements of the corresponding
respectively. The corresponding ultimate base shear ratio was found
rotational and axial stiffness according to Skalomenos et al. [43]. A si­
0.36 for CBF frame until a roof drift nearly 0.85%. Then, the shear force
nusoidal curve and an imperfection in the middle of the brace equal to
started to deteriorate due to the overall buckling of steel braces resulting
1/500 [41,48] was assigned to capture overall buckling in conventional
in a negative post-yielding stiffness. On the contrary, the IH-FIEB

Fig. 12. OpenSees model validation: (a) introduction of the analytical modelling techniques; and comparison between member analysis and experiment for (b) CSB
and (c) IH-BIE.

13
K. Skalomenos et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248

Fig. 13. (a) Normalized pushover curve of the designed braced structures; and (b) acceleration spectra of the ten semi-artificial ground motions versus the elastic
design spectrum and natural periods of CBF and IH-FIEB.

Fig. 14. Maximum story drifts for each hazard level in IH-FIEB and CBF frames: (a) IH-FIEB – frequent event; (b) IH-FIEB – design-basis event; (c) IH-FIEB – major
event; (d) CBF – frequent event; (e) CBF – design-basis event; (f) CBF – major event.

provided a relatively high post-yielding stiffness nearly 14% of the
initial stiffness reaching an ultimate shear ratio of 0.33 at a roof drift
close to 2.0%. The influence of the deflection of the brace intercepted
beam on the post-yielding stiffness of the IH-FIEB is evaluated in the
next section.
7.3. Time-history analysis results
Time-history analysis were performed using the frame shown in
Fig. 11b. Under the design-basis and major events, ASCE 41-13 [46]
restricts inelastic story drifts to 1.5% and 2.0%, respectively, while EC8
[41] gives no recommendation. Fig. 14 shows the comparison between
the maximum interstory drift at the frequent, design and major event in
the conventional frame and the IH-FIEB. The drift limitations are indi­
cated through vertical red dash lines in each figure. In all frequent event
ground motions, the IH-FIEB and CBF do not exceed 0.5% story drift,
and both experience the peak mean story drift in the top story, with
values of 0.34% and 0.37%, respectively. Under the design event, the
IH-FIEB experiences peak mean story drift values between 0.85% and
0.95%, whereas the CBF ranges between 0.41% and 0.85% story drift. In
the major event, the CBF experiences a lower peak mean story drift in all
stories compared the IH-FIEB. Across all events, the conventional frame
designed in accordance with EC8 [41] experiences a cantilever response,
with the maximum drift experienced in the top one or two stories. The
IH-FIEB experiences a response close to a shear building, with only small
differences in the maximum interstory drift between the stories. Con­
ventional braced frames exhibit poor plastic engagement and a con­
centration of damage at the roof, as EC8 rules on the variation of brace
overstrength ratios between each storey do not assure uniform plastic
engagement. In comparison, the proposed force-based design procedure

14
K. Skalomenos et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248

Fig. 15. Normalized lateral load – story drift relationship for each story of the IH-FIEB and CBF frames for the frequent event: (a) IH-FIEB – 1st story; (b) IH-FIEB – 2nd
story; (c) IH-FIEB – 3rd story; (d) CBF – 1st story; (e) CBF – 2nd story; (f) CBF – 3rd story (horizontal dash line indicates the target strength ratio ΩIO).

Fig. 16. Normalized lateral load – story drift relationship for each storey of the IH-FIEB and CBF frames for the design-basis event: (a) IH-FIEB – 1st story; (b) IH-FIEB
– 2nd story; (c) IH-FIEB – 3rd story; (d) CBF – 1st story; (e) CBF – 2nd story; (f) CBF – 3rd story (horizontal dash line indicates the target strength ratio ΩLS).

for IH-FIEBs allows a controllability of the brace through eccentricity,
providing a more uniform overstrength and drift demand. Drift con­
centrations and the potential for a soft-storey mechanism might be
prevented by the ability of circular hollow section IH-BIEs to smoothly
transition into post-buckling and to engage plastically at a lower drift
level.
The cross-sectional area of the braces in both IH-FIEBs and CBFs are
similar, although the IH-FIEB experiences greater peak mean interstory
drifts in all events, as shown in Fig. 14. The eccentricity could be
decreased to achieve lower drifts, but this would require an increase in
the cross-sectional area to ensure the IH steel does not begin to yield,
leading to potential early brace fracture. The design method ensures the

15
K. Skalomenos et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248

Fig. 17. Normalized lateral load – story drift relationship for each storey of the IH-FIEB and CBF frames for the major event: (a) IH-FIEB – 1st story; (b) IH-FIEB – 2nd
story; (c) IH-FIEB – 3rd story; (d) CBF – 1st story; (e) CBF – 2nd story; (f) CBF – 3rd story (horizontal dash line indicates the target strength ratio ΩC).

major event strength requirement is met by increasing the e/r ratio. This
results in increased cross-sectional areas and eccentricities, naturally
leading to a higher drift demand for the IH-FIEB compared to the CBF.
Figs. 15–17 shows the force-deformation relationship between each
story at the frequent, design and major event in the IH-FIEB and CBF,
respectively. The force-deformation characteristics shown in these fig­
ures demonstrate the difference between IH-BIEs and conventional
braces. The IH-FIEB brace pairs exhibit far greater positive post-yielding
stiffness compared to conventional steel braces, providing satisfaction of
the strength criteria set in the FIEB design at the frequent, design and
major events. Conventional braces remain elastic in tension at lower
levels of drift, whereas IH-BIEs at all stories yield earlier and at
approximately the same level of drift, providing greater energy dissi­
pation and uniform plastic engagement. As post-yielding stiffness is
greater, a more reliable, stable, and symmetric behaviour is observed in
the response of IH-BIEs.
The force-based control is successful in the frequent and design basis
events, as the forces developed in the IH-BIEs are well controlled and are
close to the values expected from the design procedure (i.e., horizontal
red dash line in Figs. 15 and 16). Fig. 17 shows that in the major event
the IH-BIE brace pair does not reach the intended strength ratio, Ωu =
ΩC = 2.89, in all stories. In the major event the brace-intercepted beam
experiences a significantly larger unbalanced force produced between
the brace in tension and the brace in compression. The positive post-
yielding stiffness enables the brace to reach a tensile strength larger
than Pd , further increasing the unbalanced force, inducing a larger
deflection on the beam. IH-BIEs rely on axial deformation to develop a
large tensile strength and as such the compressive axial deformation
caused by the deflection of the beam prevents the brace in tension from
reaching Pu , the maximum factored tensile strength of the brace. The
result is a reduced storey shear resistance and failure to meet the tar­
geted strength ratio as expected. The brace does not reach the assumed
yield point of the induction heat treated steel, preventing fracture
(assumed γ = 0.6).
Fig. 18 shows that the IH-FIEB produces smaller residual drifts on
average than the conventional frame, possibly due to the positive post-
yielding stiffness preventing excessive deformation. This indicates that
IH-BIEs may be able to reduce post-hazard damage and associated costs
of repairability compared to CBFs.
Fig. 19 shows the results of a parametric study that varies beam

Fig. 18. Residual inter-story drifts after major event - (a) FIEB (b) CBF.

16
K. Skalomenos et al.
Fig. 19. Pushover curves showing the effect of beam stiffness on the seismic
performance of an IH-FIEB.
stiffness in the braced bay, indicating that an increase in the ratio of
beam stiffness to brace stiffness (KF = kbeam /kbrace [50]) provides an in­
crease in the secondary strength of the IH-FIEB. Values of KF higher than
0.2 prevents excessive beam deflection, allowing braces to develop their
full tensile resistance, increasing post-yielding stiffness. The detrimental
effect of the brace intercepted beam deflection may be counteracted
through the application of alternative structural archetypes, such as the
use of a zipper column or a ‘multi-X’ design, where the braces alternate
at each storey between ‘V’ braces and inverted- ‘V’ braces. Capacity
design rules and their role in the performance of IH-FIEBs requires
further study in order to ensure optimal behaviour. The IH-FIEB used in
the validation of the design method has a KF value close to 0.1, indi­
cating that the braces do not develop full tensile resistance and do not
reach the expected ultimate strength ratio (ΩC) under the major event
(see Fig. 17a, b and 17c). A higher KF (e.g., 2.0), could have resulted in
lower drift demands for IH-FIEBs, but higher yielding risk of IH-treated
half-section.
8. Conclusions
In this paper, the seismic performance of steel braced frames using
the IH-treated steel braces with intentional eccentricity (IH-BIEs), is
investigated both experimentally and numerically, establishing a force-
based seismic design method to support their implementation to steel
braced frames (IH-FIEB). A theoretical model is developed to describe
the multiple yielding points and post-yielding stiffness of the brace.
Relationships regarding overstrength, ductility, induction-heating ratio
and eccentricity are developed in order to facilitate a multi-level seismic
design that meets multiple strength performance objectives. Non-linear
time history analysis under three hazard levels (i.e., frequent, design-
basis and major event) was performed on a 3-story 5-bay office build­
ing analytical model in order to validate the design method. Based on
the findings of this paper, the following remarks can be made:
• IH-BIEs showed greater resistance to local buckling initiation than
the corresponding untreated BIEs. This behaviour was quantified
through the cumulative inelastic ductility to local buckling initiation
(i.e., CLD index) which was found to be 28–33% higher in IH-BIEs
than in untreated BIEs and up to 2.5 times greater than that of
conventional steel brace. Regarding the cumulative inelastic
ductility to fracture initiation (i.e., CFD index), IH-BIEs exhibited a
lower ductility than BIEs, but still higher than the conventional steel
brace. After reaching the ultimate tensile strength, IH-BIEs may
17
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248
buckle globally in an opposite direction than the desired one, thus
limiting member’s ductility.
• Eccentricity and IH treatment enable steel braces to exhibit a multi-
phase yielding with a stabilized inelastic behaviour. A tensile post-
yielding stiffness equal to 16–17% of the initial stiffness can be
provided by inducing to the brace eccentricity only, while it can
increase 30–31% of the initial stiffness when eccentricity is com­
bined with IH-treated steel tubes. The developed theoretical model
successfully estimates the force-deformation response of the brace
and takes into account the ductility of IH steel in the capacity design
through a safety strength factor, γ.
• In the proposed multi-level seismic design method, the one half of
the brace section made of conventional steel can yield under the
frequent seismic event, while the other one half of the brace section
made of IH-steel can yield under the major seismic event. The me­
chanical two-phase yielding behaviour of the brace combined with
its high post-yielding stiffness enables a more efficient satisfaction of
multiple strength demands set in braced structure design.
• The cross-sectional area of the braces in both IH-FIEBs and CBFs are
similar. A reduction is observed in beam and column sections of IH-
FIEBs due to the higher adopted behaviour factor q (strength
reduction factor) in combination with the smaller unbalance design
force in the braced bay beam. The total steel tonnage of a single
seismic resisting frame in the IH-FIEB is reduced by 8.4% compared
to the CBF with a maximum reduction of 12% in the top floor.
• Although the IH-FIEB experienced greater peak mean interstory
drifts in all seismic hazard events than CBF, the design method
adequately controls the drift demand and story shear of IH-FIEBs
providing satisfaction of all three performance objectives. The
design method ensured the major event strength requirement is met
by increasing cross-sectional area and eccentricity. This possibly led
to a higher drift demands for the IH-FIEB compared to the CBF.
• Compared to CBFs, IH-FIEBs exhibit better plastic engagement and a
more uniform drift demand. IH-BIEs at all stories yield earlier and at
approximately the same level of drift, providing greater energy
dissipation. The CBF experienced a cantilever response with the
maximum drift experienced in the top one or two stories. The IH-
FIEB experiences a response close to a shear building, with only
small differences in the maximum interstory drift between the stor­
ies. It appears that drift concentrations and the potential for a soft-
storey mechanism can be prevented in IH-FIEBs.
• IH-FIEB produces smaller residual drifts on average than the con­
ventional frame, possibly due to the positive post-yielding stiffness
that prevents excessive deformation. After the major event, the top
story of CBFs exhibited residual drifts nearly at 0.25%, while those of
IH-FIEB were found to be 50% lower. This indicates that IH-BIEs may
be able to reduce post-hazard damage and associated costs of
repairability compared to CBFs.
• Results of a parametric study that varies beam stiffness in the braced
bay, indicate that an increase in the ratio of beam stiffness to brace
stiffness (KF = kbeam /kbrace ) provides an increase in the secondary
strength of the IH-FIEB. Values of KF higher than 0.2 may prevent
excessive beam deflection under major events, thus allowing braces
to develop higher tensile resistance and reduce drift demands.
Author statement
Konstantinos Skalomenos: Conceptualization, Methodology, Su­
pervision, Writing, Resources. Thomas Whittall: Formal analysis,
Validation, Investigation, Visualisation, Writing Masahiro Kurata:
Conceptualization, Review, Resources. Jack Pickering: Formal anal­
ysis, Investigation, Validation, Visualisation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
K. Skalomenos et al.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The experimental part of this work was supported by the new
exploratory research grant awarded by the Disaster Prevention Research
Institute (DPRI) (30H-04 Award No. 3604835682, PI: K. Skalomenos)
and the collaborative research grant with Neturen Corporation (Indus­
trial Partner of Kyoto University) for material supply. The authors are
grateful to Dr Minehiro Nishiyama, Professor of Kyoto University and his
team for their valuable advice and support. The first author would like to
thank DPRI for the support he received as international research fellow.
References
[1] Fragiadakis M, Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M. Performance-based multi-objective
optimum design of steel structures considering life-cycle cost. Struct Multidiscip
Optim 2006;32:1.
[2] Priestley M. Performance based seismic design. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 2000;33:
325–46.
[3] Constanzo S, D’Aniello M, Landolfo R. Seismic design criteria for chevron CBFs:
proposals for the next EC8 (part-2). J Constr Steel Res 2017;138:17–37.
[4] Calvi G, Priestley M, Kowalsky M. Displacement–based seismic design of structures.
Earthq Spectra 2007;24:1–24.
[5] Ye LP, Lu XZ, Ma QL, Cheng GY, Song SY, Miao ZW, et al. Study on the influence of
post-yielding stiffness to the seismic response of building structures. Proc, 14th
World Conf on Earthq Eng 2008. https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/1
4_05-01-0030.PDF.
[6] Elnashai AS. Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. 2015. West Sussex,
England: Wiley; 2015.
[7] Jin J, El-Tawil S. Inelastic cyclic model for steel braces. J Eng Mech 2003;129(5):
548–57.
[8] Gioncu V, Mazzolani F. Earthquake engineering for structural design. New York:
Soon Press; 2011.
[9] Lai J-W, Mahin SA. Steel concentrically braced frames using tubular structural
sections as bracing members: design, full-scale testing and numerical simulation.
Int J Steel Struct 2014;14:43–58.
[10] Fukuta T, Nishiyama I, Yamanouchi H, Kato B. Seismic performance of steel frames
with inverted V braces. J Struct Eng 1989;115:2016–28.
[11] Shen J, Wen R, Akbas B, Doran B, Uckan E. Seismic demand on brace-intersected
beams in two-story X-braced frames. Eng Struct 2014;76:295–312.
[12] Ji X, Kato M, Wang T, Hitaka T, Nakashima M. Effect of gravity columns on
mitigation of drift concentration for braced frames. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:
2148–56.
[13] Kim HI. Seismic evaluation and upgrading of braced frame structures for potential
local failures. PhD Thesis. USA: The University of Michigan; 1993. 1993.
[14] Tremblay R, Filiatrault A, Timler P, Bruneau M. Performance of steel structures
during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Can J Civ Eng 1995;22:338–60.
[15] Nakashima M. Reconnaissance report on damage to steel buildings structures
observed from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Hanshin/Awaji) earthquake, Abridged
English edition. Steel Committee of Kinki Branch, the Architectural Institute of
Japan (AIJ); 1995.
[16] Christopoulos C, Pampanin S. Towards performance-based design of MDOF
structures with explicit consideration of residual deformations. ISET J Earthq
Technol 2004;41(1):53–73.
[17] Iemura H, Takahashi Y, Sogabe N. Two-level seismic design method using post-
yield stiffness and its application to unbonded bar reinforced concrete piers. Struct
Eng Earthq Eng 2006;23(1):109s–16s.
[18] Kiggins S, Uang CM. Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames
as a dual system. Eng Struct 2006;28(11):1525–32.
[19] Asgarian B, Moradi S. Seismic response of steel braced frames with shape memory
alloy braces. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67(1):65–74.
[20] Pettinga D, Christopoulos C, Pampanin S, Priestley N. Effectiveness of simple
approaches in mitigating residual deformations in buildings. Earthq Eng Struct
Dynam 2007;36:1763–83.
[21] Ariyaratana C, Fahnestock L. Evaluation of buckling-restrained braced frame
seismic performance considering reserve strength. Eng Struct 2011;33:77–89.
18
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 157 (2022) 107248
[22] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Seismic provisions for structural
steel buildings. ANSI/AISC Standard, vols. 341–10. Chicago: AOSC; 2016.
[23] Maley TJ, Sullivan TJ, Corte GD. Development of a displacement-based design
method for steel dual systems with buckling-restrained braces and moment-
resisting frames. J Earthq Eng 2010;14:106–40.
[24] Gray MG, Christopoulos C, Packer JA. Cast steel yielding brace system for
concentrically braced frames: concept development and experimental validations.
J Struct Eng ASCE 2014;140(4):04013095.
[25] Baiguera M, Vasdravellis G, Karavasilis TL. Dual seismic-resistant steel frame with
high post-yield stiffness energy-dissipative braces for residual drift reduction.
J Constr Steel Res 2016;122:198–212.
[26] Dolce M, Cardone D, Marnetto R. Implementation and testing of passive control
devices based on shape memory alloys. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2000;29:945–68.
[27] Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Kim H-JM. Self-centering energy dissipative bracing
system for the seismic resistance of structures: development and validation.
J Struct Eng 2008;134(1):96–107.
[28] Zhao J, Wu B, Ou J. A novel type of angle steel buckling-restrained brace: cyclic
behavior and failure mechanism. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2011;40:1083–102.
[29] Shen J, Seker O, Sutchiewcharn N, Akbas B. Cyclic behavior of buckling-controlled
braces. J Constr Steel Res 2016;121:110–125/.
[30] Vayas I, Thanopoulos P. Innovative dissipative (INERD) pin connections for seismic
resistant braced frames. Int J Steel Struct 2005;5(5):453–64.
[31] Papagiannopoulos GA. On the seismic behaviour of tension-only concentrically
braced steel structures. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;115:27–35.
[32] Cook J, Rodgers GW, MacRae GA. Design and testing of ratcheting, tension-only
devices for seismic energy dissipation systems. J Earthq Eng 2020;24:328–49.
[33] Katsimpini PS, Papagiannopoulos GA, Askouni PK, Karabalis DL. Seismic response
of low-rise 3-D steel structures equipped with the seesaw system. Soil Dynam
Earthq Eng 2020;128:105877.
[34] Skalomenos KA, Kurata M, Shimada H, Nishiyama M. Use of induction heating in
steel structures: material properties and novel brace design. J Constr Steel Res
2018;148:112–23.
[35] Skalomenos KA, Kurata M, Nishiyama M. Induction-heat treated steel braces with
intentional eccentricity. Eng Struct 2020;211:110461.
[36] Skalomenos KA, Inamasu H, Shimada H, Nakashima M. Development of a steel
brace with intentional eccentricity and experimental validation. J Struct Eng ASCE
2017;143(8):04017072.
[37] Hsiao P-C, Hayashi K, Inamasu H, Luo Y-B, Nakashima M. Development and testing
of naturally buckling steel braces. J Struct Eng 2016;142:04015077.
[38] Inamasu H, Skalomenos KA, Hsiao P-C, Hayashi K, Kurata M, Nakashima M. Gusset
plate connections for naturally buckling steel braces. J Struct Eng ASCE 2017;143
(8):04017065.
[39] Hayashi K, Skalomenos KA, Shadiya J, Inamasu H. Full-scale cyclic testing of
naturally buckling steel braces and evaluation of partially rid-strengthened
sections to cumulative damage. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2021;147:106611. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106611.
[40] González Ureña A, Tremblay R, Rogers C. Earthquake-resistant design of steel
frames with intentionally eccentric braces. J Constr Steel Res 2021;178:106483.
[41] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998-1. Brussels: European Committee for
Standardization; 2004.
[42] Liu Y, Iwata K, Sanda S, Nishiyama M, Tani M. Development of curved braces
partially strengthened by induction heating. Eng Struct 2021;233:111754. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111754.
[43] Skalomenos KA, Nakashima M, Kurata M. Seismic capacity quantification of
gusset-plate connections to fracture for ductility-based design. J Struct Eng ASCE
2020;144(10):04018195.
[44] ABAQUS Inc. Abaqus version 6.4 documentation. U.S.A. Abaqus Inc.; 2017.
[45] Pickering J. Analysis and design of two-component composite steel braces with
intentional eccentricity. MSc Thesis. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham;
2020.
[46] ASCE. Seismic evaluation of retrofit of existing buildings. Reston, Virginia, USA:
American Society of Civil Engineers; 2017. Standard ASCE/SEI 41-17.
[47] Building BSLJ. Standard law of Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Building Center of Japan;
2004. Ministry of Construction.
[48] Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
EN 1993-1-1. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2005.
[49] McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH. Open System for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation. Berkeley: University of California; 2000.
[50] D’Aniello M, Costanzo S, Landolfo R. The influence of beam stiffness on seismic
response of chevron concentric bracings. J Constr Steel Res 2015;112:305–24.