See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324910404

Experimental Investigation of Aluminum Alloy and Steel Core Buckling

Restrained Braces (BRBs)

Article in International Journal of Steel Structures · May 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s13296-018-0025-y

CITATIONS READS

28 695

3 authors:

Cigdem Avci-Karatas Oguz C. Celik

Yalova Üniversitesi Istanbul Technical University
27 PUBLICATIONS 105 CITATIONS 168 PUBLICATIONS 606 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Cem Yalcin
Bogazici University
36 PUBLICATIONS 716 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

DİYAGONAL YÜKLEME ETKİSİ ALTINDAKİ GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÇELİK LEVHALAR İLE GÜÇLENDİRİLMİŞ GAZBETON DOLGU DUVARLARIN DAYANIM VE DAVRANIŞI View project

Full-Scale Performance Testing and Evaluation of Unitized Curtain Walls View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cigdem Avci-Karatas on 04 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Steel Structures
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-018-0025-y

Experimental Investigation of Aluminum Alloy and Steel Core Buckling

Restrained Braces (BRBs)
Cigdem Avci‑Karatas1 · Oguz C. Celik2 · Cem Yalcin3

Received: 26 April 2017 / Accepted: 21 December 2017

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2018

Abstract
Buckling restrained braces (BRBs) display balanced hysteretic behavior under reversed cyclic tension and compression forces
and dissipate a significant amount of seismic energy during credible earthquakes. This paper reports on an experimental
investigation of newly developed BRBs with different core materials (steel and aluminum alloy) and end connection details.
A total of four full-scale BRBs with two steel cores and outer tubes (BRB-SC4 and BRB-SC5) as well as two with aluminum
alloy cores and aluminum outer tubes (BRB-AC1 and BRB-AC3) with specific end details were designed as per the AISC
Seismic Provisions, manufactured and cyclically tested. These tests made it possible to compare the impact of the steel and
aluminum alloy material characteristics on the hysteretic behavior and energy dissipation capacities. The proposed steel
and aluminum alloy core BRBs with various end details achieved the desired behavior, while no global buckling occurred
under large inelastic displacement cycles.

Keywords Steel, aluminum alloy · Buckling restrained brace (BRB) · Hysteretic behavior · Experimental study

1 Introduction devices) of various types that dissipate seismic energy have

beneficial results in this sense (e.g., Christopoulos and
Theoretical and experimental research is underway to Filiatrault 2006). BRBs (also known as unbonded braces),
develop new cost-effective buckling restrained brace (BRB) on the other hand, are metallic dampers, and they display
technologies. Since steel moment-resisting frames did not balanced hysteretic behavior through axial yielding under
demonstrate the expected performance during the 1994 reversed cyclic tension and compression forces. Symmetri-
Northridge and 1995 Kobe earthquakes, new solutions that cal and robust behavior of BRBs under both tension and
could minimize the destructive effects of earthquakes have compression without any significant strength and stiffness
been sought. Metallic dampers (e.g., the shear panel system degradation results in stable hysteretic behavior with maxi-
(SPS), eccentrically braced frame (EBF), triangular added mum energy dissipation. Furthermore, when compared to
damping system (TADAS), and vertical shear link (VSL) other alternative seismic energy dissipation systems, BRBs
have several advantages, such as ease of manufacture with
simple end connection details as well as ease of construc-
* Cigdem Avci‑Karatas
[email protected] tion and replacement after a strong earthquake. BRBs can
also be used in existing structures for seismic retrofit pur-
Oguz C. Celik
[email protected] poses to achieve the required strength, stiffness, and ductil-
ity mandated by the new codes. A numerical comparative
Cem Yalcin
[email protected] study has been performed to assess seismic responses of
a 9-story steel existing moment frame building retrofitted
1
Department of Transportation Engineering, Faculty with different bracing systems including BRBs (Di Sarno
of Engineering, Yalova University, Yalova 77100, Turkey and Elnashai 2009).
2
Structural and Earthquake Engineering Division, Faculty Experimental and numerical studies have been conducted
of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Taskisla, by several researchers to show the effectiveness of different
Taksim, Istanbul 34437, Turkey
types of BRBs. Sabelli et al. (2003) analytically investigated
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Bogazici University, the seismic response of frames with BRBs (i.e., BRBFs) that
Bebek, Istanbul 34342, Turkey

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 International Journal of Steel Structures

included a number of parameters, such as ground motion a predicted finite element (FE) analysis. A series of cyclic
characteristics and various structural configurations. Fahne- tests was carried out by Chou et al. (2015) to conduct experi-
stock et al. (2003) addressed the global ductility demands of mental studies that established a direct comparison basis
BRBFs and local ductility demands of BRBs using nonlinear between dual-core self-centering braces (DC-SCBs) and
time history analyses, and the results were compared to the sandwiched buckling-restrained braces (SBRBs) designed
BRBF Recommended Provisions given in AISC (2001) and with similar axial capacity and length. Tests have shown that
SEAOC (2001). Takeuchi et al. (2008, 2014) proposed a the DC-SCB and SBRB exhibit robust cyclic performances
simple method for predicting the cumulative deformation with good deformation capacity and durability. An analyti-
and energy dissipation capacities of BRBs under random cal study by Pandikkadavath and Sahoo (2016) concluded
amplitudes. Takeuchi et al. (2012) also reported on the local that the optimum reduction in yielding core lengths of BRBs
buckling condition of the core plate as well as the design could improve the overall seismic response of BRBFs with
criteria to prevent local failure of the casing. A simplified a reduction in the residual drift response.
method based on an equivalent linearization to design the Aluminum is increasingly being used in a variety of struc-
required amount of BRB and elastic steel frame (SF) capac- tural engineering applications due to its superior character-
ity for retrofitting purposes of existing reinforced concrete istics, such as lightweight, high strength-to-weight ratio,
(RC) school buildings was proposed by Sutcu et al. (2014). good corrosion resistance, durability, recyclability proper-
Experimental studies on non-ductile RC frames with and ties, high strength similar to steel and excellent formabil-
without BRBs have been conducted by Di Sarno and Man- ity (e.g., extrusion). These characteristics are of particular
fredi (2010, 2012). Several advantages of using BRBs as significance to the design of lightweight and transportable
the seismic retrofit option are discussed. Usami et al. (2008) BRBs, for which the ease and speed of construction, low
studied the buckling prevention condition with a series of maintenance, and long service life are important considera-
well-controlled experiments. Vargas and Bruneau (2009a, tions. These considerations motivated the research presented
b) proposed an alternative design for systems with metallic in this paper to study and develop special aluminum alloy
fuses composed of BRBs. An experimental study was also core BRBs. An aluminum alloy core BRB is a relatively
conducted on a three-story frame designed with BRBs to recent development in the field of BRB technology. Limited
verify the proposed design procedure. A series of perfor- studies are available on aluminum alloy BRB experiments.
mance tests and analyses were carried out by Usami et al. In addition, no guidance exists to compare the hysteretic
(2009) to clarify the requirements of high-performance behavior of steel and aluminum alloy core BRBs. A series of
BRBs for the damage-controlled seismic design of steel low-cycle fatigue tests was conducted by Usami et al. (2012)
bridges. Celik and Bruneau (2009, 2011) analytically inves- to address the performance of all-aluminum alloy (without
tigated the optimum geometrical layout to maximize the mortar) BRBs. The aluminum alloy core is separated by the
dissipated hysteretic energy in ductile end diaphragms with restraining members by a small gap. Several experiments
BRBs in straight and skewed slab-on-girder steel bridges. on welded and bolt-assembled aluminum alloy BRBs were
Component tests were conducted by Zhao et al. (2012) to also performed. Extruded aluminum alloy BRBs were pro-
address the effect of brace end rotation on the global buck- duced and tested to address their low-cycle fatigue perfor-
ling behavior of pin-connected BRBs with end collars. To mance and to evaluate the effect of stoppers that were used
increase the efficiency of BRBFs, a novel connection with to prevent the slip-off movement of the restraining members
a gusset plate connected to only the beam and offset from (Wang et al. 2013).
the column face was proposed and tested in a three-story In this study, a total of four types of full-scale BRBs with
building frame under quasi-static loading by Berman and two steel cores and two aluminum alloy cores were designed,
Bruneau (2009). The experimental hysteretic behavior of manufactured, and tested. In particular, BRBs with alu-
BRBs with bolted and welded end connections was inves- minum alloy cores and mortar-filled aluminum alloy outer
tigated for comparison purposes by Fujishita et al. (2015). tubes were developed for the first time as an alternative to
Near full-scale displacement-controlled reversed cyclic tests existing BRB types. Weld-free and bolted connections were
were performed, and the specimens showed stable cyclic used to observe the impact of the end connection detail on
performance until reaching 3% axial strain. However, the behavior. Quasi-static reversed cyclic loading tests were
welded end connection led to a slightly lower cyclic perfor- carried out in the Structural and Earthquake Engineering
mance because it fractured earlier compared to the bolted Laboratory (STEEL) at Istanbul Technical University.
connection. Sahoo et al. (2015) proposed a passive energy While both BRB types with steel and aluminum alloy
dissipation device called as shear-and-flexure yielding cores have merit in seismic applications, no guidance exists
damping (SAFYD) and investigated load-carrying capac- to help the engineer determine which of the two devices
ity, hysteretic response, energy dissipation, equivalent vis- is preferable in terms of providing stiffness, maximum
cous damping, and ductility to match the test results with displacement ductility, and cumulative energy dissipation

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

capacities for a given strength. In an attempt to provide magnesium, corrosion-resistant features and high welding
quantitative data for this purpose, this paper describes and strength alloy) was chosen for the core of aluminum alloy
compares the results from cyclic tests of four newly devel- BRBs since this material has the closest yield strength to the
oped BRBs. normal yield strength steel core BRB (i.e., BRB-SC4), as
shown in Fig. 1. This strength, coupled with its lightweight
quality (about one-third that of steel), makes aluminum
2 Materials particularly advantageous, as further discussed in (Kissell
and Ferry 2002). Note that the aluminum coupons were not
For the cores, two types of steel grades—locally available annealed under high-temperature condition. BRBs with dif-
S235JR (ASTM A283C, normal yield strength steel) for ferent core materials have been used in order to see their
BRB-SC4 and S355JR (ASTM A441, high yield strength behavioral differences. BRB capacities were kept the same
steel) for BRB-SC5—and two types of aluminum alloys— for all BRBs here for a better comparison. The core section
commercially available A5083-H111 (nonheat-treated) dimensions are smaller when higher strength steel is used
aluminum alloy flat plate materials—were considered. The (Table 3). BRBs with higher strength core members could
outer tube of steel BRBs (referred to as RT-S) was made be preferred when such material is more accessible and cost
of square hollow structural steel tubes of S355JR, whereas effective. Since the BRBs with normal and high strength
for aluminum alloy BRBs (referred to as RT-A), a com- core materials, the dimensions of the non-dissipative mem-
mercially available A6060-T66 type of aluminum material bers (beams, columns, etc.) will not be affected by using
with a custom extruded shape was chosen. No coupon tests different strength steel cores.
were conducted on the aluminum alloy outer tubes made Stress–strain relations from four tensile coupon test speci-
of A6060-T66 since these tubes were designed elastically. mens (Fig. 1) used in the production of steel and aluminum
Instead, catalogue values obtained from the producer of the alloy core BRBs were prepared according to the recom-
outer tube are given in Table 1. In addition, an A5083-H111 mended ASTM standards (2008, 2009). These curves are
aluminum alloy material (A5083-H111, produced by adding obtained from one of the two coupon tests since both values

Table 1  Material properties of aluminum alloy cores and outer tubes

Specimen Material grade y (%)
𝜀0.2 𝜀0 (%) 𝜀u (%) 0.2
Fyc (MPa) 0
Fyc (MPa) Fu (MPa) Fu E (GPa)
0.2
Fyc

BRB-AC1 (core plate) A5083-H111 0.29 0.23 17.51 182 145.60 314 1.73 73
BRB-AC3 (core plate) A5083-H111 0.27 0.22 20.00 177 141.60 318 1.80 73
RT-A (outer tube) A6060-T66 NA NA 10 NA 200 227 NA 75

Fig. 1  Stress-strain curves from

the coupon tests

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

were so close to each other. Post-yield strain gauges were potential as the base material. During the production of alu-
used to determine the exact values of the yielding points, minum alloy BRBs, the bolt holes of the aluminum alloy
the ultimate strength, and strain as well as the modulus of end connection plate are protected with a thin layer of epoxy
elasticity of the material. Prior to testing, these material data paint to prevent corrosion in this area. Dry film thickness of
were used in the static pushover analyses of the specimens 15 µm was used to coat the area around the aluminum plate
using SAP2000 v14 (2009) to predict the load–displace- holes.
ment curves. The axial plastic hinge properties proposed by
FEMA 356 (2000) were implemented.
The coupon test results of the aluminum alloy and steel 3 Geometric Properties of BRBs
core specimens are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. and Specimen Design
These values are also obtained from one of the two coupon
tests. Here, 𝜀y , 𝜀u , Fyc , Fu , E are defined as the yield strain, Three aluminum alloy BRB specimens (BRB-AC1, BRB-
total tensile strain at fracture, yield strength/stress, ultimate AC2, and BRB-AC3) and five steel BRB specimens (BRB-
tensile strength/stress, and modulus of elasticity (or Young’s SC1, BRB-SC2, BRB-SC3, BRB-SC4, and BRB-SC5)
modulus), respectively. The yield strength of the aluminum were originally designed and manufactured (Avci-Karatas
alloy BRB core coupons was calculated using the 0.2% yield 2013). However, BRB-AC2, BRB-SC1, BRB-SC2 (slightly
strain (𝜀0.2
y
) offset since aluminum alloy had no definite yield different from BRB-SC1) and BRB-SC3 showed poor per-
plateau. Fyc0.2 is the
0.2% yield strength/stress, while 𝜀0 is the formance during the preliminary testing mainly due to the
strain, which equals 0.8𝜀0.2 y
for A5083-H111 (Usami et al., end connection and unbonded surface details. Therefore, this
2012). Fyc 0 is introduced as the strength/stress correspond- study focuses on the experimental results obtained from test-
ing to the strain 𝜀0 . Compression tests of the high strength ing BRB-AC1, BRB-AC3, BRB-SC4 and BRB-SC5. Dis-
non-shrink mortar material revealed that the specified 7-day placement-controlled reversed cyclic tests were conducted to
and 28-day mortar strengths were 52.3 and 64.1 MPa, respec- compare the hysteretic performances of steel and aluminum
tively. The elastic modulus of the mortar was determined to alloy BRBs. The general views, plans, and cross-sections of
be 37.0 GPa . The BRB specimens were tested 10 days after the specimens are shown in Fig. 2a–c for bolted end connec-
the mortar was placed. tion BRBs (BRB-AC1, BRB-SC4, BRB-SC5) and Fig. 3a–c
The steel bolts used in the test set-up are made from for weld-free end connection BRB (BRB-AC3). BRBs were
A490 grade (10.9) steel. Slip-critical connections with designed to be less than the maximum actuator capacity of
12M24 bolts for each end were designed per the AISC 250 kN. An evaluation of the BRB specimens designed with
360-10 (2010). The connection between the test set-up and the same base shear strength would be interesting since no
gusset plates and the nominal diameter of the metric bolts guidance exists to help engineers determine which of the two
was 24 mm (M24), and 12M24 bolts were used for each devices (i.e., steel core or aluminum alloy core) is preferable
end. A 40 mm (M40) diameter bolted end connection (with in terms of providing stiffness, maximum displacement duc-
ultimate tensile strength of 1040 MPa ) was used on both tility, and cumulative hysteretic energy dissipation capacities
ends of BRB-SC4, BRB-SC5, and BRB-AC1. On the other for a given strength. Additionally, since both BRB types can
hand, BRB-AC3 used 16 mm (M16) diameter multi-bolted be considered as having similar (or equal) structural behav-
end connections. ior factors (R), an equal strength approach would be useful
When steel bolts are used for connections, the galvanic from the perspective of seismic design. For this reason, the
corrosion of steel bolts is a critical concern in aluminum BRBs were designed to achieve the same yield strength for
alloy BRBs. Different materials, such as steel and aluminum a better comparison of their cyclic performances. The geo-
alloy have different electrical potential, and in the presence metrical parameters are summarized in Table 3. The length
of an electrolyte, such as a wet industrial atmosphere, the and width of the yielding portions of the braces are denoted
electric current flows from one material to another. This by Lyc and byc , respectively. Likewise, Lcon and bcon are the
current tends to corrode the anode (aluminum alloy) and length and width of the connection portions. The transition
protect the cathode (steel bolts). Galvanic corrosion can be zone has a length of Ltr and a width of btr . Here, t denotes
prevented by using coatings with about the same electrical the core thickness.

Table 2  Material properties of Specimen Material grade 𝜀y (%) 𝜀u (%) Fyc (MPa) Fu (MPa) Fu E (GPa)
steel cores and outer tubes Fyc

BRB-SC4 (core plate) S235JR 0.15 38.21 257 363 1.41 195
BRB-SC5 (core plate) S355JR 0.19 25.45 373 543 1.46 204
RT-S (outer tube) S355JR 0.38 18.35 345 509 1.48 189

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 2  Specimen configurations for bolted end connection BRBs

The cross-section of the cores is defined based on reduced in their middle (so-called yielding zone) to ensure
the setup capacity. Full-scale BRB specimens had rec- early yielding and thus provide efficient ductile behavior.
tangular steel plates (15 mm × 35 mm for BRB-AC1, The total length of the BRBs ( L) was limited to a constant
15 mm × 40 mm for BRB-AC3, 16 mm × 30 mm for BRB- value of 2275 mm as a constraint of the available test set-
SC4, and 12 mm × 25 mm for BRB-SC5), which expand up. The work-point to work-point length is 3339 mm . The
at both ends to form a cruciform section. The cruciform (pin-to-pin length of BRB-AC1, BRB-SC4 and BRB-SC5
sections in BRB-AC1, BRB-SC4 and BRB-SC5 are formed L1 was limited to a constant value of 2110 mm . The ( ratio)
)

by fillet welded rib stiffeners on each side of the core. Addi- of the yielding core to the total length of the brace Lyc ∕L
tionally, complete joint penetration (CJP) groove welds for common BRBs (except for short-core BRBs) normally
were applied to connect the core and stiffeners to the end varies from 0.6 to 0.8 according to Sabelli et al. (2003),
plate (Fig. 2a, b). For BRB-AC3, four aluminum alloy angle Tremblay et al. (2006) and Tsai et al. (2004). For this rea-
members are bolt-assembled around the core to prevent the (son, (L)yc ∕L1 ) ≥ 0.6 for BRB-AC1, BRB-SC4, BRB-SC5 and
weak axis buckling of the core in the unrestrained region and Lyc ∕L > 0.6 for BRB-AC3 were considered for the sizing
avoid the low-cycle fatigue performance degradation caused of the braces (Table 3). Finally, the core yielding lengths
by the welding of rib stiffeners. The cross-section proper- were selected at approximately 67% of the total brace length
ties of the outer tubes were 140 mm × 140 mm × 5 mm ( Lyc ≤ 1410 mm ). Core lengths of the BRBs are determined
and 150 mm × 150 mm × 4 mm for the steel and aluminum based on several design issues such as end connections, yield
braces, respectively. The cross-section of the steel cores is stress of the core material, cross-sectional dimensions of the

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 3  Specimen configurations for weld-free end connection BRBs

Table 3  General geometrical Specimen Lyc (mm) byc (mm) t (mm) Lcon (mm) bcon (mm) Ltr (mm) btr (mm) Lyc ∕L
parameters of the specimens
BRB-AC1 1278 35 15 184 165 315 115 0.61
BRB-AC3 1195 40 15 140 137 258 115 0.60
BRB-SC4 1410 30 16 185 165 249 100 0.67
BRB-SC5 1380 25 12 184 165 264 98 0.65

core material, and 𝛽 (compression strength adjustment fac- this ratio should be larger than 1.5. Relatively higher ratios
tor) and 𝜔 (strain-hardening adjustment factor) coefficients of 12.7 and 14.2 for BRB-AC1 and BRB-AC3 and 30.9 and
used (Avci-Karatas 2013). Therefore, special attention was 32.1 for BRB-SC4 and BRB-SC5 were used in this work,
paid on to have as close as possible yielding length (max. mainly due to the locally available tube cross-sections and
10% difference) for the developed BRBs. Under similar to provide overall stability. The contributions of mortar and
conditions, it is clear that BRBs with longer yielding parts the core to the buckling resistance of the brace have been
would dissipate more energy. However, this difference is eliminated by the existence of the unbonded surface.
small in this work. The ratio of the Euler buckling load, Special unbonding (or debonding) materials are adopted
Pe ∕Pyc , of the outer tube ( Pe ) to the yield load of the core for the interface of the core and high strength mortar to reduce
( Pyc) need to be checked as a criterion to ensure the yielding friction between core and restraining members (outer tube plus
of the core material. Watanabe et al. (1988) suggested that mortar). In the proposed BRBs, a three-layer interface has been

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

utilized: the core was first coated with polytetrafluoroethylene 4 Description of the Test Set‑up,
(Teflon) tape and then lubricated with rubber grease (for BRB- Instrumentation and Loading Protocol
AC1, BRB-SC4, and BRB-SC5). Differently, BRB-AC3 also
used air bubbles on top of the previously defined unbonded A versatile test set-up that was previously designed and
surface. The purpose of using air bubbles was to provide shear fabricated for the cyclic testing of regular braces was
flexibility to guarantee an even sliding surface and to allow a used in this work. The set-up was composed of a steel
more transversal expansion gap of the core when compressed. L-frame (a vertical steel I-shaped column hinged on top
Although BRBs and other metallic devices are considered of the I-shaped steel foundation beam that was attached
insensitive to temperature increase when the brace is subjected to a strong floor) was designed to accommodate differ-
to large displacement reversals (Symans et al. 2008), these air ent bracing types and lengths (Fig. 4) (Haydaroglu et al.
bubbles may lose their properties near the fracture of the brace. 2011). The foundation beam was attached to the exist-
Since air bubbles are only the top layer of the whole unbonded ing reinforced concrete strong floor using closely spaced
surface, this possible damage does not negatively affect the threaded tiedown rods. The test set-up was designed to
brace behavior. remain elastic under a maximum actuator force of 250 kN .
As shown in the cross-sectional detail of BRBs in Fig. 2c The steel grade used for the test set-up was S275JR. A
(Cross-Sect. 1-1,), the unbonding material was selected to displacement-controlled loading protocol, proposed by
have a gap thickness of dt (approximately 0.5–10% of the core AISC 341-10, was used for all BRB tests.
plate thickness of t ) in the plate thickness direction of the core The instrumentation for the experiments was designed
and a gap thickness dw (approximately 0.5–10% of the core to measure the global response of the test set-up and the
plate width of byc) in the plate width direction (Takeuchi et al. local performance of BRBs. The testing was carried out
2000). Generally, gaps with a thickness of 1.5 mm (including and monitored via linear variable displacement transduc-
the unbonding material thickness) were used to minimize fric- ers (LVDTs) that were mounted on the column face at the
tion between the core and mortar for each side. same height as the actuator. Post-yield strain gauges (at
According to the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel locations of 1∕4 , 2∕4 , 3∕4 points of the outer tube length
Buildings (AISC 341-10 2010), the axial yield strength of and on each face as well as at the gussets) and several
core, Pyc, shall be determined as per Eq. (1): LVDTs were installed at critical points of the set-up. The
LVDT and strain gauge layouts were identical for all speci-
Pyc = 𝛽𝜔Ry Fyc Ac (1)
mens. The labels and locations for LVDTs and uniaxial
where 𝛽 and 𝜔 are, as stated above, compression strength strain gauges are shown in Fig. 5a. Several LVDTs were
adjustment factor and strain-hardening adjustment factor, used to monitor the accidental movement of the frame with
respectively; Ry is the ratio of the expected yield stress to the respect to the strong floor (e.g., at the mid-height of the
specified minimum yield stress; Fyc is the specified actual column, on the gusset plates and the foundation beam).
yield stress of the core as determined from coupon tests; and The applied load was measured by a load cell mounted on
Ac is the net area of the core. 𝜔 is calculated as the ratio of the actuator. In total, 17 strain gauges were used for each
the maximum tension force (Tmax ) measured from the quali- BRB test. In this experimental work, a unique strain gauge
fication tests to the yield force, Pyc, of the test specimen. The configuration to monitor the behavior of the yielding core
compression strength adjustment factor, 𝛽 , is calculated as a is also suggested for the inside of the BRB cores. During
ratio of the maximum compression force ( Pmax ) to the maxi- BRB manufacturing, a strain gauge (labeled as BRBKN)
mum tension force of the tested specimen. AISC 341-10 puts was placed in the middle of the core surface with a special
a limit on 𝛽 (i.e., 𝛽 < 1.3) to ensure a relatively symmetrical technique (Fig. 5b). Further details about this can be found
hysteretic response. For preliminary design purposes and in Avci-Karatas (2013). No strain gauges were attached to
prior to tests, for the steel core BRBs, numerical values of 𝛽 the beam and column since these were designed to remain
and 𝜔 at the point of the maximum displacement level were elastic at the maximum applied actuator load in prelimi-
taken from previous studies (Merritt et al. 2003; Lopez and nary BRB tests.
Sabelli 2004) as 𝛽 = 1.15 and 𝜔 = 1.45. Since previous stud- Lateral loads were applied by a servo-controlled
ies focused on steel core BRBs, for the aluminum alloy core hydraulic actuator (mounted between the set-up and strong
BRBs, 𝛽 was also assumed to be 1.15. Since no significant RC wall). The displacement (or stroke) capacity of the
data were available for 𝜔 values in aluminum alloy BRBs, actuator was ± 300 mm . The data were collected via a data
the strain-hardening properties of coupon tests were used to acquisition system. Quasi-static reversed cyclic testing in
predict 𝜔 values as 1.73 and 1.81 for BRB-AC1 and BRB- this subassemblage configuration was carried out for each
AC3, respectively. The factor Ry need not be applied if Pyc BRB based on the acceptance criteria given in the AISC
is established using yield stress determined from a coupon 341-10 loading protocol. The top lateral displacement is
per the AISC 341-10.

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 4  Testing set-up with details of the gusset plate

plate outside the yield length at each end of the core is

included. The brace displacement at the design story drift,
Δbm , was taken as 5Δby , as proposed by AISC 341-10. It
was proposed that the design story drift not be calculated
as less than 0.01 times the story height ( Δbm ∕h > 0.01).
In the beginning, 2 cycles of the loading at each elastic
displacement level of 1∕4Δby , 2∕4Δby , and 3∕4Δby were
applied to the specimens. Figure 7 shows that all BRBs are
installed in the test set-up and are ready for testing. Two
gusset plates were placed at both ends to ensure proper
anchoring to the test set-up. Specially designed gusset
plates made of S355JR steel were used for the BRBs to
avoid out-of-plane buckling (Fig. 4). To have mobility for
the replacement of BRBs, gusset plates were designed as
removable elements bolted to the test set-up. Rib and edge
Fig. 5  Location of linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) stiffeners were added to the gusset plates to improve the
and uniaxial strain gauges
local and out-of-plane buckling capacity at the connection
points.
related to the brace axial displacement and was taken as
the displacement control parameter. The loading protocol
used for the specimens is depicted in Fig. 6. Note that in 5 Testing of BRB Specimens
the same figure, the vertical axis is set with the first axial
yielding displacement of BRB, Δby . Here, Δby was calcu- The behavior of each specimen, both in the elastic and
lated using the pin-to-pin distance ( L1) of the core plate inelastic ranges, is reported herein. The system was loaded
in BRB-AC1, BRB-SC4, and BRB-SC5 based on previous horizontally, developing axial tension and compression
research experience in the literature (Merritt et al. 2003; displacements in the diagonal braces. Note that positive
Vargas and Bruneau 2006). However, in BRB-AC3, the (+) forces denote the loading case that generates tension in
total length of the BRB is taken into consideration, as also the brace, while the negative (−) forces denote the loading
assumed in (Vargas and Bruneau 2006). To establish the case that generates compression in the brace. The speci-
value of Δby , the inelastic displacement of the core plate in mens were first subjected to a lateral load (towards the
the yielding length was considered at the actual yield force south) producing tension in the braces. The same conven-
level. Additionally, the elastic displacement of the core tions were adopted for all BRB tests. The percent drift

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 6  Loading protocol

is computed as the ratio of lateral displacement divided 5.1 Specimen BRB‑AC1

by the vertical distance between the actuator axis and the
top face of the steel foundation beam (1860 mm ). Experi- BRB-AC1 exhibited linear elastic behavior under the elas-
mental lateral force-lateral displacement hysteretic curves tic displacement levels of 1∕4Δby , 2∕4Δby , 3∕4Δby . The val-
representing the cyclic behavior and predicted pushover ues of the BRBKN strain gauge (placed in the middle of
curves (both in tension and in compression) for BRB-AC1 the BRB yielding core) at the elastic displacements were
and BRB-AC3 are given in Fig. 8a, b; for BRB-SC4, and obtained between 1100 and 1700 µ, both in tension and
BRB-SC5, they are given in Fig. 9a, b, respectively. On compression. BRB-AC1 reached its experimental yield dis-
the other hand, additional effort has been made to include placement in the tension at 6.80 mm (+ 1Δby , 0.37% drift)
the axial load versus axial strain hysteretic curves to better and + 81.24 kN for the lateral force. When the brace was
evaluate the performances. The experimental axial force- in the compression, the lateral force value was measured
axial strain curves of all specimens are shown in Fig. 8c, to be − 99.67 kN . These specific values were determined
d for BRB-AC1 and BRB-AC3 and in Fig. 9c, d for BRB- based on the occurrence of a significant nonlinearity for
SC4 and BRB-SC5, respectively. The axial force of the the hysteretic curves, coupon test results, and especially
BRBs was geometrically calculated from the lateral force the recordings obtained from the BRBKN strain gauge
of the actuator by considering the angle of the loading col- (approximately + 2300 µ). At the fourth and last tension
umn at each displacement step. The axial strain of BRBs excursion of ± 1Δby (Cycle 10), BRBKN was damaged,
was defined by the relative displacement divided by the and no data were gathered from this point on. The aver-
original length of the yielding portion of the braces. Strain age values of Tmax , Pmax , 𝜔 , and 𝛽 were reached while the
amplitude is the absolute value of the tension or compres- displacement levels were + 88.56, − 104.32 kN, 1.00 and
sion strain of each cycle, while the total strain range Δ𝜀 is 1.18 , respectively. When the specimen was subjected to
the distance between them. ± 1.5Δby (10.17 mm, 0.55% drift), the lateral force reached
Images from the lower/upper end connections and open- + 101.45 and − 123.21 kN . Some strength degradation was
ings/closings of the BRB end portions for the last cycles are observed in the hysteretic curves during the fourth excursion
depicted in Fig. 10a–d for BRB-AC1, BRB-AC3, BRB-SC4 at + 1.5Δby due to the fracture initiation around the heat-
and BRB-SC5, respectively. No deformations were observed affected zone (HAZ) in the ribs’ welding areas. Note that the
in the bolt holes of the gusset plate for all BRB tests. The weld area and surrounding HAZ can change the metal (i.e.,
details of the loading sequence for inelastic cycles applied to steel and aluminum alloy) properties in that area. For the
the specimens and the experimentally obtained average peak stresses above the yield stress of the material, early cracks
values of Δby , 𝜔, 𝛽, Tmax , Pmax , drifts, axial force, axial strain, may form in the HAZ and this phenomenon may reduce
strain ranges (Δ𝜀) and number of failure cycles (Nf ) are sum- ductility. The average values of Tmax , Pmax , 𝜔, and 𝛽 reached
marized and tabulated in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7 for BRB-AC1, at this displacement level were + 108.51, − 122.37 kN, 1.23
BRB-AC3, BRB-SC4, and BRB-SC5, respectively. and 1.13, respectively After these cycles, the core fractured

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 7  Overall views from specimens prior to testing: a BRB-AC1; b BRB-AC3; c BRB-SC4; d BRB-SC5

at + 93.99 kN of lateral force and a lateral displacement of in the elastic ranges. Although BRB-AC1 was assumed to
+ 16.99 mm during the application of the first excursion of be a pilot test and behaved poorly when compared to other
Cycle 15 (± 2.5Δby , 0.91% drift). Due to the HAZ resulting BRBs developed in this work, the testing of BRB-AC1 is of
from the detail design given in Fig. 2b in the transition zone, significance since the remainder of the BRB tests used the
a premature failure in BRB-AC1 was experienced as the experiences gained from this testing.
aluminum welds had an adverse effect on the failure mode.
Out-of-plane displacements for the mid-span of BRB-AC1’s 5.2 Specimen BRB‑AC3
outer tube (displacement measurement with LVDT-T5) were
measured at between − 1.48 and + 1.24 mm . These values BRB-AC3 exhibited linear elastic behavior under the first
proved that out-of-plane buckling was effectively prevented two cycles at 1.63 mm and 0.09% drift as well as during the
during the test. Gusset plates and bolts performed well dur- two elastic cycles at 2∕4 of the yield displacement (3.26 mm,
ing the testing because the strain gauge recordings remained 0.18% drift). In the elastic cycles, the lateral force values in

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 8  Experimental hysteretic curves, predicted pushover curves, and force-strain relations of aluminum alloy BRBs: a BRB-AC1; b BRB-AC3;
c BRB-AC1; d BRB-AC3

the compression loadings were less than those in the ten- The values of BRBKN were + 2237 µ (brace in tension)
sion loadings. BRB-AC3 reached its experimental yield and − 2242 µ (brace in compression) at the yielding cycles.
displacement in the tension at 6.52 mm ( + 1Δby , 0.35% The specimen was subjected to four cycles of ± 1.5Δby
drift) and + 84.50 kN for the lateral force. When the brace (9.78 mm, 0.53% drift). The average lateral force obtained at
is in compression, the lateral force reached − 71.25 kN . this level was + 92.50 and − 87.50 kN . The BRBKN values

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 9  Experimental hysteretic curves, predicted pushover curves, and force-strain relations of steel BRBs: a BRB-SC4; b BRB-SC5; c BRB-
SC4; d BRB-SC5

were recorded as + 3500, − 3000 µ, and + 3800, − 2900 µ the level of + 2.5Δby and that no data were available after
at the first and last cycles of ± 1.5Δby , respectively. Dur- this point. Some strength degradation was observed in
ing the 4th cycle at ± 2.5Δby (16.30 mm, 0.88% drift) and the hysteretic curves during the last excursion at + 7.5Δby
± 5Δby (32.60 mm, 1.75% drift), no damage or strength deg- ( 48.00 mm, 2.63% drift). The average lateral force obtained
radation was recorded. Note that BRBKN was damaged at at this level was +153.25 kN in tension and − 174.00 kN in

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 10  Images from the upper

and lower end connections,
openings and closings of BRBs
during the last excursions in
tension and compression: a
BRB-AC1 (lower end connec-
tion): ± 1.5Δby (10.17mm, 0.55%
drift); b BRB-AC3 (upper
end connection): ± 7.5Δby
(48.90 mm, 2.63% drift); (c)
BRB-SC4 (lower end connec-
tion): ± 10Δby (59.00mm, 3.17%
drift); d BRB-SC5 (upper
end connection): ± 10Δby
(66.10 mm, 3.55% drift)

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 4  Average peak response quantities and behavioral characteristics of BRB-AC1

BRB-AC1
Cycle and Δby (mm) Tmax (kN) Pmax (kN) 𝛽 𝜔 Drift (%) Inelastic disp. Axial force (kN) Axial strain Δ𝜀 (%) Nf
axial displace- (%)
ment
Tens. Comp. Tens. Comp.

4x1.0Δby ± 6.80 88.56 − 104.32 1.18 1.00 0.37 – 112.30 − 126.44 0.21 0.23 0.43 10
4x1.5Δby ± 10.17 108.51 − 122.37 1.13 1.23 0.55 4Δby 137.59 − 158.35 0.38 0.38 0.76 14

Table 5  Average peak response quantities and behavioral characteristics of BRB-AC3

BRB-AC3
Cycle and Δby Tmax (kN) Pmax (kN) 𝛽 𝜔 Drift (%) Inelastic Disp Axial force (kN) Axial strain Δ𝜀 (%) Nf
axial displace- (mm) (%)
ment
Tens. Comp. Tens. Comp.

41.0Δby ± 6.52 84.50 − 71.25 0.84 1.00 0.35 – 107.26 − 90.22 0.25 0.31 0.56 10
41.5Δby ± 9.78 92.50 − 87.50 0.95 1.09 0.53 4Δby 117.50 − 107.62 0.45 0.50 0.95 14
42.5Δby ± 16.30 108.75 − 113.75 1.05 1.29 0.88 12Δby 137.78 − 143.06 0.85 0.88 1.73 18
45Δby ± 32.60 132.50 − 149.25 1.13 1.57 1.75 32Δby 169.75 − 188.25 1.87 1.89 3.76 22
47.5Δby ± 48.90 153.25 − 174.00 1.14 1.81 2.63 52Δby 195.99 − 219.14 2.90 2.92 5.82 26

Table 6  Average peak response quantities and behavioral characteristics of BRB-SC4

BRB-SC4
Cycle and Δby Tmax (kN) Pmax (kN) 𝛽 𝜔 Drift (%) Inelastic disp. Axial force (kN) Axial strain Δ𝜀 (%) Nf
axial displace- (mm) (%)
ment
Tens. Comp. Tens. Comp.

41.0Δby ± 5.90 102.00 − 85.75 0.84 1.00 0.32 – 126.82 − 106.31 0.25 0.29 0.54 10
41.5Δby ± 8.85 101.75 − 102.75 1.01 1.00 0.48 4Δby 127.89 − 122.22 0.41 0.45 0.86 14
42.5Δby ± 14.75 104.50 − 117.50 1.12 1.02 0.79 12Δby 133.32 − 142.53 0.74 0.77 1.51 18
4x5Δby ± 29.50 123.75 − 172.00 1.39 1.21 1.59 32Δby 155.54 − 211.31 1.55 1.56 3.11 22
47.5Δby ± 44.25 138.25 − 203.00 1.47 1.37 2.38 52Δby 176.38 − 251.59 2.36 2.37 4.73 26
410Δby ± 59.00 149.63 − 247.38 1.65 1.47 3.17 72Δby 191.44 − 294.28 3.17 3.12 6.29 30

Table 7  Average peak response quantities and behavioral characteristics of BRB-SC5

BRB-SC5
Cycle and Δby Tmax (kN) Pmax (kN) 𝛽 𝜔 Drift (%) Inelastic disp. Axial force (kN) Axial strain Δ𝜀 (%) Nf
axial displace- (mm) (%)
ment
Tens. Comp. Tens. Comp.

41.0Δby ± 6.61 86.00 − 73.13 0.86 1.00 0.36 – 107.77 − 86.13 0.27 0.32 0.59 10
41.5Δby ± 9.92 87.13 − 98.78 1.13 1.01 0.53 4Δby 110.09 − 125.05 0.46 0.48 0.94 14
42.5Δby ± 16.53 94.13 − 130.75 1.39 1.09 0.89 12Δby 119.53 − 165.05 0.82 0.82 1.64 18
4x5Δby ± 33.05 109.88 − 165.00 1.50 1.28 1.78 32Δby 140.00 − 216.84 1.75 1.73 3.48 22
47.5Δby ± 49.58 119.75 − 189.00 1.58 1.39 2.67 52Δby 153.42 − 247.70 2.67 2.65 5.32 26
410Δby ± 66.10 127.50 − 225.00 1.76 1.48 3.55 72Δby 162.80 − 281.78 3.60 3.57 7.17 30

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

compression. The aluminum alloy core fractured at the first 5.4 Specimen BRB‑SC5
tension excursion of Cycle 27 (+ 10Δby , 65.20 mm, 3.51%
drift) and the peak response quantity at the failure point was Two cycles for each elastic displacement level of 1∕4Δby
found to be + 144.45 kN. The out-of-plane displacements of (1.65 mm, 0.09% drift), 2∕4Δby ( 3.29 mm, 0.18% drift),
the mid-span of BRB-AC3’s outer tube were measured at and 3∕4Δby ( 4.94 mm, 0.27% drift) were taken into consid-
between − 2.82 and + 0.44 mm , providing that the out-of- eration. The BRBKN values were found to be + 1500 and
plane buckling was effectively prevented. This testing was − 740 µ for 1∕4Δby , + 1588 and − 1000 µ for 2∕4Δby , and
deemed to be successful based on these observations. + 1600 and − 1450 µ for 3∕4Δby displacement levels.
At + 86.00 kN of lateral force, BRB-SC5 reached its
5.3 Specimen BRB‑SC4 experimental yield displacement in tension at 6.61 mm
(+ 1Δby , 0.36% drift). When the brace was in compression,
The displacement loading history for the first steel core BRB the lateral force value was measured as − 73.13 kN . While
started with 2 cycles of loading at each of the elastic dis- yielding occurred in the core, BRBKN was measured as
placement values, corresponding to 1∕4Δby (1.35 mm, 0.07% + 1923 and − 1021 µ. These values were mostly the same
dr ift), 2∕4Δby ( 2.71 mm, 0.15% dr ift), and 3∕4Δby yield strain levels obtained from the coupons. The brace
( 4.08 mm, 0.22% drift). The BRBKN values at the elastic core’s yielding length of the specimen was 1380 mm . Using
displacements corresponding to 1∕4Δby, 2∕4Δby, and 3∕4Δby these values, the lateral yield displacement was calculated
were all lower than ± 1300 µ. Since the strain recordings as 6.65 mm . This value was consistent with the experi-
rapidly exceeded the yield values, no data after this point mental and static pushover results. At the end of Cycle 14
were available from BRBKN. For this reason, the experi- (±1.5Δby), stable hysteretic loops were found to be expected.
mental yield displacement value was assumed to be the The specimen was then subjected to four cycles of ±1.5Δby
basis of the occurrence of a significant nonlinearity in the (9.92 mm, 0.53% drift). The average lateral force obtained at
hysteretic curve and the coupon test result. At + 102.00 kN this level was + 87.13kN (brace in tension) and − 98.78 kN
of lateral force, BRB-SC4 reached its experimental yield (brace in compression). At this level, BRBKN showed strain
displacement in tension at 5.90 mm (+ 1Δby , 0.32% drift). between 3500and3680 µ. The behavior of the brace was sta-
When the brace was in compression, the recorded lateral ble during the 4th cycle at ±2.5Δby (16.53 mm, 0.89% drift),
force was − 85.75 kN . The core’s yielding length of BRB- ±5Δby (33.05 mm, 1.78% drift), ±7.5Δby ( 49.58 mm, 2.67%
SC4 is 1410 mm . Using these values, the lateral yielding drift) and no damage was observed. Note that BRBKN was
displacement was computed as 5.41 mm . As a next step, damaged at the first tension excursion of 2.5Δby while the
the specimen was subjected to four cycles of ± 1.5Δby measurement was at + 3082𝜇.
(8.85 mm, 0.48% drift). The average lateral force obtained at Some strength degradation was recorded during the
this level was + 101.75 and − 102.75 kN. During the 4­ th cycle fourth excursion at + 10Δby (66.00 mm, 3.55% drift). Experi-
at ±2.5Δby (14.75 mm, 0.79% drift), ±5Δby (29.50 mm, 1.59% mentally obtained average tension and compression capaci-
drift), and ±7.5Δby ( 44.25 mm, 2.38% drift), no damage or ties for BRB-SC5 were + 127.50 and − 225.00 kN in tension
strength degradation was observed. Some strength degrada- and compression, respectively. The steel core fractured at the
tion started to occur in the hysteretic curves during the fourth first tension excursion of Cycle 31 (+ 12.5Δby , %4.44 drift)
excursion at +10Δby (59.00 mm, 3.17% drift). The obtained and the peak response quantities at this level were found to
average tension and compression capacities for the brace be a lateral force of + 112.53 kN and a lateral displacement
are + 149.63 and − 247.38 kN , respectively. The steel core of + 56.51 mm . The out-of-plane displacements of the mid-
fractured while reaching up to the first tension excursion span of BRB-SC5’s outer tube were measured at between
of Cycle 31 (+12.5Δby, 4.00% drift), and the peak response ± 0.52 mm . Note that the out-of-plane buckling of brace was
quantities at this level were found to be a lateral force of effectively prevented.
+ 120.12 kN and a lateral displacement of + 50.14 mm . Note These steel core tests were also deemed to be successful
that the specimen did not reach at 4.00% drift and failed tests, although some strength increases were found on the
by tension fracture at 3.17% drift level as stated in Table 6. compression side. The possible reasons for this are discussed
The measured out-of-plane displacements of the mid- in the forthcoming sections.
span of BRB-SC4’s outer tube were found to be between
− 1.64 and + 1.24 mm . Note that the out-of-plane buckling
of the brace was effectively prevented during testing.

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

6 Dissipated Energies, Cumulative Inelastic Table 8  𝜂—cumulative inelastic displacement and Eh—hysteretic
Displacements and Effective Damping energy dissipation values
Ratios Specimen 𝜂 (CID) Eh (kN mm)

BRB-AC1 4Δby 14,852.70

Using the experimental hystereses, some behavioral char-
BRB-AC3 100Δby 137,301.40
acteristics of the specimens, such as the maximum strength
BRB-SC4 172Δby 248,507.90
in tension and compression cycles, Eh cumulative hysteretic
BRB-SC5 172Δby 244,763.50
energy dissipations, 𝜂 cumulative inelastic displacement
(CID) values, and 𝜉effb effective damping ratios are summa-
rized and compared below (Avci-Karatas 2013; Celik et al.
2015). dissipated energy increases with the longer fracture life of
For any cycle, the total area under the experimentally the brace.
obtained hysteretic curve shows the dissipated energy The maximum values of the cumulative inelastic displace-
through inelastic behavior. This is especially important in ments (𝜂) were obtained to be 4Δby in BRB-AC1, 100Δby in
the evaluation of the seismic effectiveness of BRBs. The BRB-AC3 and greater than 172Δby in both steel BRBs. These
behavioral characteristics of the specimens are quantified are for the last cycles’ values that were reached during testing.
with an emphasis on hysteretic energy dissipation. Since Considering the entire cyclic patterns, the total CID values are
cumulative energy dissipation is a meaningful measure of calculated as 16Δby and 672Δby for BRB-AC1 and BRB-AC3
the seismic efficiency of a structural system or component, and 1360Δby for steel BRBs, respectively. Note that AISC 341-
the numerical values of the cumulative hysteretic energy Eh 10 requires the braces to achieve a cumulative inelastic axial
were calculated by a code developed using Matlab (Dindar displacement of at least 200Δby before failure during BRB
2009), and the variation of cumulative energy dissipation component testing. Achieving a CID of 200Δby is a require-
with the cumulative number of cycles is plotted in Fig. 11. ment for individual braces, but not for brace assemblages simi-
As seen from this figure, the amount of dissipated energy lar to the experimental testing method as followed in this study
at each cyclic loop increases with the increase in the lateral (Tsai et al. 2004). The numerical values of 𝜂 and Eh that are
displacements. As expected, for elastic cycles, no energy reached by each specimen are summarized in Table 8.
dissipation was achieved by the specimens. Since the core The most common method for defining the effective damp-
shows similar behavior in tension and compression loadings, ing ratio is to equate the energy dissipated in a cycle of the
unlike a conventional buckling brace, the magnitude of the brace. The effective damping ratio ( 𝜉effb ) can be obtained
by the method proposed by Chopra (2001). In this method,
the energy parameters represent any random cycle obtained

Fig. 11  Cumulative dissipated energy curves Fig. 12  Comparison of effective damping ratios

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

during the cyclic displacement reversals. Alternatively, as per

EN 15,129 D.1 (2010) in 3.1.10, the effective damping of a
seismic device that corresponds to dissipated energy during
the cyclic response at the design displacement can be obtained
by using Eq. (2). The force values cannot be considered equal
when BRB is in tension (TΔi ) and compression ( PΔi ). This
expression is modified to take the difference of the design force
values into consideration.

ED,Δi
𝜉effb = ( ) (2)
𝜋Δi TΔi + PΔi

where ED,Δi is the dissipated energy per cycle. The experi-

mental effective damping ratios at each cycle of BRB-
AC1, BRB-AC3, BRB-SC4, and BRB-SC5 are compared
in Fig. 12. The computed maximum values of 𝜉effb were
found to be between 27.97 and 35.47% for BRB-AC1,
8.10–42.85% for BRB-AC3, 16.40–39.89% for BRB-SC4,
and 14.73–38.88% for BRB-SC5. Although these ratios
had a tendency toward fluctuation at every cycle of testing,
the damping ratios found had an increasing trend up to the
maximum drift ratios reached. The maximum value of 𝜉effb
could be taken as a representative value of effective damp- Fig. 13  Experimental backbones curves for BRB-AC3, BRB-SC4,
and BRB-SC5
ing for any system. The maximum values were obtained at
0.37% and 0.55% drift ratios for BRB-AC1 and for BRB-
AC3 and 2.38% and 2.67% drift ratios for BRB-SC4 and for strength level on the compression side, the strain harden-
BRB-SC5, respectively. Since 𝜉effb is greater than 15% for ing ratios of the steel core BRBs are larger than the ratios
BRB-AC3, BRB-SC4 and BRB-SC5, the tested BRBs can obtained for the aluminum alloy specimens. It is observed
be classified as Energy Dissipating Devices (EDD) as per that larger inelastic axial strains are obtained for aluminum
EN 15129 D.1. alloy BRBs. However, on the tension side, BRB-SC5 has the
minimum strain hardening properties, while BRB-SC4 and
BRB-AC3 have similar behavior.
7 Evaluation of Test Results It is noteworthy to state that bolt slippage of the end bolts
and Comparisons of Observed is effectively prevented in BRB-AC3 (with a weld-free end
Performance connection) leading to a smoother hysteretic loop. In addi-
tion, no deformation was observed near the bolt holes (i.e.,
The experimental hysteretic curves show full, stable, and no bolt slippage occurred). An unbonded surface with Teflon
repeatable behavior with no strength and stiffness degrada- and air bubbles proved that a minimal force transfer can
tion, even though the maximum strain amplitude was 3.60% be achieved between the aluminum core and surrounding
in BRB-AC3’s test. The stiffness values in the post yield mortar, especially when covered with grease. Although the
region have slightly increased mainly due to the strain hard- unbonded mechanism used in BRB-AC3 can successfully
ening effect. Up to the failure point (i.e., core fracture), no reduce the friction between the core and restraining mem-
fracture in the welds, brace instability nor brace-to-gusset bers, the local sawtooth-like parts on the compression side
connection failures were observed in the BRBs. Note that of the hystereses at large compression cycles (Fig. 8b) are
the elastic tension parts of the hysteretic curves of the speci- due to the irregular sequence of initiation and termination
mens were similar and close to the values obtained from the of local friction between the core and unbonded mechanism.
coupon test results. The force amplitude slightly decreases Since the sawtooth-like parts of the hyteresis of BRB-AC3
after the first cycles at each displacement step but tends to are so local and since variations in compressive strength are
stabilize quite quickly. quite less (max. 14.74%) this cannot produce any shocks in
The hardening properties of steel and aluminum materials the structural components. However, in BRB-SC4 and BRB-
have a significant impact on plastic strain distribution along SC5, the bolt slip effect is visible in the hystereses (Fig. 9a,
the core plate. The experimental envelope curves (Fig. 13) b). According to AISC 341-10, depending on the means used
obtained from Tables 5, 6 and 7 show that, for the same to connect the test specimen to the subassemblage or test

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 14  Experimental bilinear force–displacement models: a BRB-AC1; b BRB-AC3; c BRB-SC4; d BRB-SC5

apparatus and the instrumentation system used, a bolt slip concern provided that the behavior does not adversely affect
may appear in the load versus displacement history for some the performance of the brace or brace connection. No nega-
tests. This may appear as a series of downward spikes in the tive effects of this type of slip were observed during the tests
load versus displacement plot and is not generally a cause for given in this study. Additionally, this has been observed in

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

other large-scale studies (e.g., Vargas and Bruneau 2006). As resulting in a bilinear force–displacement modeling, as
explained in Vargas and Bruneau (2006), the BRBs’ behav- shown in Fig. 14. The Baushinger effect is also observed in
ior may not be significantly affected by the bolt hole size in the hystereses.
a full-scale structure. The ratio of dissipated energies by the steel core BRBs
Bilinear experimental force–displacement relation (i.e., EhBRB−SC4 ∕EhBRB−SC5) is found to be 1.02 while the same
models for the specimens and a numerical summary of ratio for aluminum alloy BRBs (i.e., EhBRB−AC3 ∕EhBRB−AC1)
the performance characteristics are determined and given is found to be 9.24. Among all specimens, the highest hys-
in Fig. 14. Among the aluminum alloy BRBs, the highest teretic energy dissipation is achieved by BRB-SC4 mainly
strain-hardening adjustment factor at the maximum dis- because the experimental fracture life of BRB-SC4 was
placement level was found to be 𝜔 = 1.81 in BRB-AC3. longer than the other steel core BRB. The experimental frac-
For all inelastic cycles, in both aluminum alloy specimens, ture life of the steel BRBs was higher than the aluminum
the ratio of 𝛽 factor did not exceed the allowable limit of alloy core BRBs. Also, note that fatigue strength increases
𝛽 = 1.3 (AISC 341-10). The reached average tension and as the static tensile strength obtained from coupon tests
compression capacities for BRB-AC3 are + 153.25 kN and increases (Campbell 2008). The aluminum alloys selected
− 174.00 kN , respectively. For BRB-AC1, the reached aver- here are the types of locally available ones. As shown in
age tension and compression capacities are + 108.51 kN and Fig. 1, and Tables 1 and 2, lower 𝜀u values contributed to
− 122.37kN , respectively. For inelastic cycles at 10Δby , the lower fracture life for aluminum alloy BRBs in this work.
𝛽 factor exceeded 1.3 in both BRB-SC4 and BRB-SC5. At Among the BRBs, the highest value of the effective damp-
10Δby , the average 𝛽 factor values were found to be 1.65 ing ratio was obtained in BRB-AC3. The BRB-AC1 core
(27% larger) for BRB-SC4 and 1.76 (35.4% larger) for BRB- plate fractured at the transition zone from the yielding sec-
SC5. The highest value of 𝛽 was obtained in BRB-SC5. The tion to the cruciform section (elastic part), mainly due to the
compression side of the experimental hystereses of BRB- presence of the HAZ. The occurrence of the plastic hinge at
SC5 has higher values when compared to those obtained this affected point caused brace failure earlier than expected.
from the static pushover analysis. This overstrength in the For post-yield cycles for aluminum alloy BRBs, effective
compression side is attributed to a combination of a few damping ratios fluctuate due to lesser (compared to steel
reasons, as observed in other studies (Berman and Bruneau BRBs) permanent deformations of aluminum alloy BRBs
2009; Merritt et al. 2003). For example, 𝛽 was taken as 1.15 in reversed cyclic loadings (Fig. 12). This phenomenon is
for predicting the pushover curves prior to testing. Note closely related to material science properties of aluminum
that the 𝛽 coefficient covers every possible effect, includ- alloy and steel. In brief, steel and aluminum alloy are called
ing Poisson’s effect. Poisson’s ratio has numerical values body-centered and face-centered cubic crystal structures,
of 0.3 ∼ 0.5 depending on the axial compression level in respectively (Beer et al. 2009). In addition to this, unsmooth
the brace. Therefore, the developed bilinear models given loops in the compression cycles (resulted in changing 𝛽 val-
in Fig. 14 capture all above mentioned effects, including ues) of the hystereses of BRB-AC3 would contribute to this
Poisson’s effect in the compression side. Additionally, each zig-zag behavior of effective damping versus cumulative
specimen accommodates a sufficient number of gaps around cycles curves. The ductility of steel is relatively higher than
the core plate to minimize Poisson’s effect under large axial aluminum due to relatively low strain-rate sensitivity and
displacement amplitudes. Young’s modulus, and this is further explained in (Bash and
The inelastic tension excursions of steel BRBs are curved Shkaraputa 1988). For pre-yield cycles, effective damping
yet tend to become flat near the corner, revealing rather duc- ratios for steel BRBs are larger than the values obtained for
tile behavior. This is also observed in the inelastic compres- aluminum alloy core BRBs. Generally speaking, the BRB
sion loading excursions, but their ends exhibit a sudden made of normal yield strength steel core has a larger effec-
increase, leading to a sharper peak even in a reversal in the tive damping ratio when compared to the BRB made of high
curvature of the excursion. This fact is common to most of yield strength steel core.
the tested BRBs. This behavior is mainly due to the higher Hysteretic curves showing out-of-plane displacements
mortar contribution from friction forces generated by the obtained from the specimens are shown in Fig. 15. These
steel core’s multi-mode buckling (as evidenced from Fig. 17) curves show that out-of-plane cyclic displacement histories
with small longitudinal waves along the brace. However, are quite small, negligible and within the elastic/acceptable
this happens at larger drift values, especially when they are limits in the current experimental work. Also, as seen in
larger than 1.5%. the hysteretic curves given in Figs. 8 and 9, there is no sig-
In addition, in the compression part of the BRB-SC4 nificant drop in the compression strength which proves the
and BRB-SC5, there are flat lines in the hysteretic curves, fact that the braces did not buckle during testing. In case
showing significant ductile behavior under cyclic loading. of elastically buckling braces, for example, out-of-plane
This behavior is characterized by weak isotropic hardening

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 15  Out-of-plane displacements hysteresis curves at mid span of BRBs; a BRB-AC1, b BRB-AC3; c BRB-SC4; d BRB-SC5

displacement values would reach up to (5 ∼ 15)% of the Based on the test results conducted by Usami et al. (2012)
clear brace length (e.g., Haydaroglu et al. 2011). for aluminum alloy BRBs, the obtained Manson-Coffin
equations are expressed as follows:

8 Low‑Cycle Fatigue Life

( )−0.371
Δε = 0.056 Nf (for welded aluminum BRBs) (5)

The Manson–Coffin equation is often used to indicate the ( )−0.214

Δε = 0.070 Nf (for bolt-assembled, weld-free aluminum BRBs)
relationship between the number of failure cycles (Nf ), and
(6)
the total strain range (Δε) can be found to be follows (Ste-
phens et al. 2001): Similarly, Usami et al. (2011) and Nakamura et al. (2000)
proposed the following similar formulas for steel BRBs with
( )−k ( )−k welded end details, respectively:
Δε = Ce Nf e + Cp Nf p (3)
( )−0.488
where Ci and ki are constants that depend on the material. Δε = 0.210 Nf (7)
Because the inelastic strain of the core is much larger than
its elastic strain, the total strain range can be directly taken ( )−0.490
into consideration. Equation (4) can be approximately writ- Δε = 0.204 Nf (8)
ten as follows: As seen above, Eqs. (7) and (8) are almost identical and
( )−k give very close results. Although the specimens tested in this
Δε = C Nf (4)

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 16  Comparison of low-

cycle fatigue curves

work do not exactly match the specimens tested by Usami BRB-AC1 fractured at the end of the transition zone
et al. (2012, 2011) and Nakamura et al. (2000), it would (the end of welded rib stiffeners) due to the HAZ effect
be suitable to predict the low-cycle fatigue life by consid- (Fig. 17a). The detailed fracture position and relationship
ering the previously proposed equations. For this reason, of the HAZ is shown in Fig. 17e. Therefore, as discussed
Fig. 16 is constructed, and based on this figure, the following before, the performance of this brace was deemed to be
observations can be made: Fig. 16 shows that the aluminum poor. Satisfactory performance was observed in BRB-AC3:
alloy core and steel-core specimens had a higher strain range the core fractured nearly in the middle of the yielding zone
(Δ𝜀) than predicted values by the proposed formulas. This because the peak stress occurring in this area was caused by
reveals that the plastic deformation as well as energy dis- the buckling modes in the core plate weak-axis direction.
sipation capacities of the produced BRBs in this work is The multi-mode buckling of the core is visible in Fig. 17b,
larger and promising. Despite the fact that Fig. 11 reveals and the top view of the fractured spot is given in Fig. 17f.
that the cumulative dissipated energy values are much larger BRB-SC4 also exhibited a desirable mode of fracture. Again,
for BRB-SC4 and BRB-SC5 (compared to BRB-AC3), con- the fracture zone is nearly in the middle of the yielding zone
sidering the low-cycle fatigue life as depicted( in)Fig. 16, (midspan). The multi-mode buckled shape of the core is also
which represents the number of failure cycles Nf and the given in Fig. 17c, and the side top view of the fractured spot
total strain range (Δ𝜀), this difference is small. However, is shown in Fig. 17g. In BRB-SC5, fractures occurred in
the performance of the steel core BRBs are, again, slightly approximately 65% of the yielding zone (midspan). Similar
better. This behavioral observation is attributed to the plastic multi-mode buckled shapes were observed (Fig. 17d). The
strain distributions affected by the strain hardening proper- top view of the fractured spot is given in Fig. 17h. Note
ties of both materials used as the core members. It appears that since the number of buckling waves is high, the axial
that BRBs with aluminum alloy cores have lower resistance capacity of the braces was not negatively affected by this
to fatigue, as the maximum Nf is always lower in the case of behavior. However, as discussed before, when the brace is
aluminum (Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7). subjected to compression forces, the lateral expansion of the
steel core due to Poisson’s effect and multi-mode buckling
waves (since both of these produce contact forces) are other
9 Damage Patterns reasons for obtaining larger compression capacities and the
corresponding 𝛽 factors. No cracks or damage were apparent
Since most of the available BRB technologies do not allow on the surface of the infill mortar. This would prove that the
for the inspection of damage after loading (or following an buckling prevention system (both mortar, steel/aluminum
earthquake), a decision was made to cut the specimens in casing, and unbonded surface) that was developed in this
half to accurately detect the possible buckling forms and study worked properly, especially up to the drift levels of 2%.
fracture zones. Figure 17 shows the buckled shapes and frac-
ture zones of the cores.

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 17  Fractured zones of cores, visible residual plastic deformations, typical buckling waves, and failure positions; a, e BRB-AC1, b, f BRB-
AC3; c, g BRB-SC4; d, h BRB-SC5

10 Conclusions formed well under the Standard Loading Protocol. No

premature fracture, brace instability or brace end con-
Four energy-dissipating aluminum alloy and steel core BRBs nection failures were observed.
with the same yield strength and simple end details were 2. Stable, repeatable hysteretic curves with positive incre-
tested under the cyclic displacement histories proposed by mental stiffnesses were obtained. Compared to steel core
AISC 341-10. One major problem faced by licensed BRB BRBs, aluminum alloy core BRBs showed relatively
manufacturers is potential corrosion problems that may symmetrical hysteretic curves.
shorten the expected life of braces and adversely affect 3. Considering the maximum value of 𝛽 < 1.3, as proposed
their hysteretic behavior. To address this issue and to verify in AISC 341-10, the maximum experimental 𝛽 factors at
their effectiveness, two aluminum alloy core BRBs were the maximum displacement values reached were found
designed, manufactured, and tested in addition to two steel to be 1.13 (15% smaller) for BRB-AC1, 1.14 for BRB-
core BRBs for comparison purposes. The findings from this AC3 (14% smaller), 1.65 ( 27% larger) for BRB-SC4
experimental work could also provide significant informa- and 1.76 ( 35.4% larger) for BRB-SC5. Having higher
tion about the hysteretic characteristics of both types of BRB 𝛽 factors at larger drifts is attributed to the higher bond
systems. All of the tests were performed until the braces features of the mortar used, observed flaws/failures of
fractured. The BRBs (except for BRB-AC1) showed satis- the unbonding surface, and smaller amount of inner gap
factory behavior with full hystereses. Hysteretic curves and used.
behavioral values, such as the maximum strength in tension 4. The maximum effective damping ratios (𝜉effb ) are found
and compression cycles, effective damping ratios, and cumu- to be 39.89 and 38.88% for BRB-SC4 and BRB-SC5 and
lative hysteretic energy dissipation values, are presented for 35.47 and 42.85% for BRB-AC1 and BRB-AC3, respec-
each specimen. Based on the test results presented in this tively.
work, the following conclusions can be drawn: 5. For the cases considered here, steel core BRBs dissi-
pated larger hysteretic energy than the aluminum alloy
1. BRB-AC1 with welded end connection details expe- core BRBs. The highest value for cumulative inelastic
rienced a lower fracture life, mainly due to the HAZ. energy dissipation was obtained in BRB-SC4. For the
Other BRBs with weld-free (in BRB-AC3) and bolted steel core BRBs, BRB-SC4 demonstrated a slightly bet-
(in BRB-SC4 and BRB-SC5) end connections per- ter ductile behavior than BRB-SC5 since this brace used

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

a normal yield strength steel core, resulting in greater Celik, O. C., & Bruneau, M. (2009). Seismic behavior of bidirectional-
dissipated energy and a better hysteretic response. resistant ductile end diaphragms with buckling restrained braces
in straight steel bridges. Engineering Structures, 31(2), 380–393.
6. When bolted end connections are used for aluminum Celik, O. C., & Bruneau, M. (2011). Skewed slab-on-girder steel bridge
alloy BRBs, the fracture life significantly increased superstructures with bidirectional-ductile end diaphragms. ASCE
compared to the case of welded aluminum alloy BRBs. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 16(2), 207–218.
The use of weld-free aluminum alloy BRBs appears Celik, O. C., Yuksel, E., Avci-Karatas, C., Bal, A., Gokce, T., Bago, Z.,
et al. (2015). Component testing of steel-core buckling restrained
to be much more effective compared to other connec- braces (BRBs) with pinned end connections. In Proceedings of the
tion types. For this reason, weld-free aluminum alloy 8th ınternational conference advances in steel structures, Lisbon,
BRBs may be preferable in buildings or bridges in which Portugal.
severe corrosion effects are expected. Chopra, A. K. (2001). Dynamics of structures: Theory and Applica-
tions of earthquake engineering (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Chou, C. C., Chung, P. T., & Cheng, Y. T. (2015). Experimental
Acknowledgements This research was supported in part by the Sci- evaluation of large-scale dual-core self-centering braces and
entific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) sandwiched buckling-restrained braces. Engineering Structures,
for project number 110M776 and the Istanbul Technical University 116, 12–25.
Research Projects Unit (ITU-BAP) for project number 33459. The steel Christopoulos, C., & Filiatrault, A. (2006). Principles of passive
core BRBs, gusset plates, and bolts used were donated by CIMTAS. supplemental damping and seismic isolation (1st ed.). Pavia:
The aluminum alloy outer tubes were provided by FENIS. The polyte- IUSS Press.
trafluoroethylene bands of FIBERFLON were used as the unbonding CSI SAP 2000. (2009). User’s manual, version 14. Berkeley: Com-
surface. High strength mortar was donated by KOSTER. Technical puter and Structures Inc.
assistance from the staff at Istanbul Technical University (ITU), the Di Sarno, L., & Elnashai, A. S. (2009). Bracing systems for seis-
Structural & Earthquake Engineering Laboratory (STEEL) and Boga- mic retrofitting of steel frames. Journal of Constructional Steel
zici University’s (BU) Civil Engineering Department and Structures Research, 65(2), 452–465.
Laboratory are gratefully acknowledged and appreciated. However, any Di Sarno, L., & Manfredi, G. (2010). Seismic retrofitting with buck-
opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this ling restrained braces: Application to an existing non-ductile RC
paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views framed building. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
of the supporters and suppliers. 30(11), 1279–1297.
Di Sarno, L., & Manfredi, G. (2012). Experimental tests on full-scale
RC unretrofitted frame and retrofitted with buckling-restrained
braces. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
References 41(2), 315–333.
Dindar, A. A. (2009). Energy-based earthquake response analysis
AISC. (2001). Load and resistance factor design specification for and design of reinforced concrete SDOF columns. Ph.D. dis-
structural steel buildings. Chicago, IL: American Institute of sertation, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Steel Construction. EN 15129. (2010). Anti-seismic devices. European committee for
AISC, SEAOC. (2001). Recommended provisions for buckling- standardization.
restrained braced frames. USA: American Institute of Steel Con- Fahnestock, L. A., Sause, R., Ricles, J. M., & Lu, L. W. (2003).
struction/Structural Engineers Association of California. Ductility demands on buckling-restrained braced frames under
ANSI, AISC 341–10. (2010). Seismic provisions for structural steel earthquake loading. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
buildings. Chicago, IL: American Institute of Steel Construction. Vibration, 2(2), 255–268.
ANSI, AISC 360–10. (2010). Specification for structural steel build- FEMA 356. (2000). Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic
ings. Chicago, IL: American Institute of Steel Construction. rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emer-
ASTM A 370-08a. (2008). Standard test methods and definitions for gency Management Agency.
mechanical testing of steel products. Philadelphia, PA: American Fujishita, K., Bal, A., Sutcu, F., Celik, O. C., Takeuchi, T., Matsui,
Society for Testing and Materials. R., & Terashima, M. (2015). Comparing hysteretic behavior of
ASTM E8, E8 M-09. (2009). Standard test methods for tension test- buckling restrained braces (BRBs) with bolted and welded end
ing of metallic material. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for connections. In Proceedings of the 8th ınternational symposium
Testing and Materials. on steel structures (ISSS), Jeju, Korea.
Avci-Karatas, C. (2013). Design, fabrication, and cyclic behavior of Haydaroglu, C., Taskin, K., & Celik, O. C. (2011). Ductility
steel and aluminum alloy core buckling restrained braces (BRBs). enhancement of round HSS braces using CFRP sheet wraps.
PhD dissertation, Istanbul Technical University (ITU), Istanbul, In Proceedings of the 6th European conference on steel and
Turkey. composite structures (Eurosteel), Budapest, Hungary.
Bash, V. Y., & Shkaraputa, L. M. (1988). Stability with time of the Kissell, J. R., & Ferry, R. L. (2002). Aluminum Structures-A guide
strain hardening effect of constructional materials. Strength of to their specifications and design (2nd ed.). New York: Willey.
Materials, 20(3), 358–362. Lopez, W. A., & Sabelli, R. (2004). Seismic design of buckling-
Beer, F. P., Johnston, E. R., Dewolf, J. T., & Mazurek, D. F. (2009). restrained braced frames. In Steel tips, Structural Steel Educa-
Mechanics of materials (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill tional Council, Moraga, CA, USA.
Companies. Merritt, S., Uang, C. M., & Benzoni, G. (2003). Subassemblage
Berman, J. W., & Bruneau, M. (2009). Cyclic testing of a buckling testing of star seismic buckling-restrained braces. In Rep. TR-
restrained braced frame with unconstrained gusset connections. 2003/04, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California,
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 135(12), 1499–1510. La Jolla, CA, USA.
Campbell, F. C. (2008). Elements of metallurgy and engineering alloys Nakamura, H., Maeda, Y., Sasaki, T., Wada, A., Takeuchi, T.,
(Vol. 1). Ohio: ASM International Book Co. Nakata, Y., et. al. (2000). Fatigue properties of practical-scale

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

unbonded braces. In Nippon Steel Technical Report, 82, July braces. In Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earth-
(pp. 51–57). quake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Pandikkadavath, M. S., & Sahoo, D. R. (2016). Analytical investigation Usami, T., Ge, H. B., & Kasai, A. (2008). Overall buckling preven-
on cyclic response of buckling-restrained braces with short yield- tion condition of buckling-restrained braces as a structural control
ing core segments. International Journal of Steel Struct, 16(4), damper. In Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earth-
1273–1285. quake engineering, Beijing, China.
Sabelli, R., Mahin, S., & Chang, C. (2003). Seismic demands on steel Usami, T., Ge, H., & Luo, X. Q. (2009). Experimental and analytical
braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces. Engineer- study on high-performance buckling-restrained brace dampers
ing Structures, 25(5), 655–666. for bridge engineering. In Proceedings of the 3rd ınternational
Sahoo, D. R., Singhal, T., Taraithia, S. S., & Saini, A. (2015). Cyclic conference on AESE, San Francisco, California, USA.
behavior of shear-and-flexural yielding metallic dampers. Journal Usami, T., Wang, C. L., & Funayama, J. (2011). Low-cycle fatigue
of Constructional Steel Research, 114, 247–257. tests of a type of buckling restrained braces. In Proceedings of the
Stephens, R. I., Ali, F., Stephens, R. R., & Fuchs, H. O. (2001). Metal 12th East Asia-Pacific conference on structural engineering and
fatigue in engineering (2nd ed.). New York: Willey. construction, Hong Kong, China.
Sutcu, F., Takeuchi, T., & Matsui, R. (2014). Seismic retrofit design Usami, T., Wang, C. L., & Funayama, J. (2012). Developing high-
method for RC buildings using buckling-restrained braces and performance aluminum alloy buckling-restrained braces based
steel frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 101(10), on series of low-cycle fatigue tests. Earthquake Engineering and
304–313. Structural Dynamics, 41(4), 643–661.
Symans, M. D., Charney, F. A., Whittaker, A. S., Constantinou, M. Vargas, R. E., & Bruneau, M. (2006). Experimental investigation of the
C., Kircher, C. A., Johnson, M. W., et al. (2008). Energy dissipa- structural fuse concept. Rep. MCEER-06-0005, Multidisciplinary
tion systems for seismic applications: Current practice and recent Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, USA.
developments. Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(1), 3–21. Vargas, R., & Bruneau, M. (2009a). Experimental response of build-
Takeuchi, T., Hajjar, J. F., Matsui, R., Nishimoto, K., & Aiken, I. D. ings designed with metallic structural fuses. ASCE Journal of
(2012). Effect of local buckling core plate restraint in buckling- Structural Engineering, 135(4), 394–403.
restrained braces. Engineering Structures, 44(11), 304–311. Vargas, R., & Bruneau, M. (2009b). Analytical response and design of
Takeuchi, T., Ida, M., Yamada, S., & Suzuki, K. (2008). Estimation of buildings with metallic structural fuses. ASCE Journal of Struc-
cumulative deformation capacity of buckling-restrained braces. tural Engineering, 135(4), 386–393.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(5), 822–831. Wang, C. L., Usami, T., Funayama, J., & Imase, F. (2013). Low-cycle
Takeuchi, T., Nakamura, H., Kimura, I., Hasegawa, H., Saeki, E., & fatigue testing of extruded aluminium alloy buckling-restrained
Watanabe, A. (2000). Buckling restrained braces and damping braces. Engineering Structures, 46(1), 294–301.
steel structures. U.S. Patent 6 826 874, Dec. 12. Watanabe, A., Hitomi, Y., Yaeki, E., Wada, A., & Fujimoto, M. (1988).
Takeuchi, T., Ozaki, H., Matsui, R., & Sutcu, F. (2014). Out-of-plane Properties of brace encased in buckling-restraining concrete and
stability of buckling-restrained braces including moment trans- steel tube. In Proceedings of the 9th world conference on earth-
fer capacity. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, quake engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, pp. 719–724.
43(6), 851–869. Zhao, J., Wu, B., & Ou, J. (2012). Effect of brace end rotation on the
Tremblay, R., Bolduc, P., Neville, R., & DeVall, R. (2006). Seismic global buckling behavior of pin-connected buckling-restrained
testing and performance of buckling-restrained bracing systems. braces with end collars. Engineering Structures, 40(7), 240–253.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33(2), 183–198.
Tsai, K. C., Lai, J. W., Hwang, Y. C., Lin, S. L., & Weng, C. H. (2004).
Research and applications of double-cored buckling restrained

13

View publication stats