Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF
BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACES
USING WELDED END AND
RECTANGULAR STEEL CASING
P. C. Lin1, A. C. Wu1 and K. C. Tsai2

ABSTRACT

Most of the buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) are constructed from a doubly-symmetrical steel
core encased in the mortar-infilled square or circular steel casing. The bolt-spliced connection
details are found most common for the brace-to-gusset connections. While the horizontal width
of a large-capacity BRB using the square or circular steel casing could substantially reduce the
usable floor area in a building, the bolted end connections would reduce the end stability and the
yield region length. In this study, a BRB with a thin profile is developed which could sufficiently
prevent the buckling restrainer from the possible global flexural buckling and local failure. The
welded end-slot connection shortens the entire BRB joint region length, allows a more stable end
condition and a longer yield region length than those in the BRB using the bolted end details.
Cyclic loading tests are conducted in the Taiwan National Center for Research on Earthquake
Engineering on five BRB specimens with two different cross-sectional configurations. A
maximum core strain of 3.0% is reached during each test. Test results confirm the satisfactory
performance with a very stable hysteretic response and very predictable axial stiffness. All
specimens sustain a cumulative plastic deformation significantly greater than 200 times the yield
deformation. The effects of the BRB yield region length ratio on the effective axial stiffness, the
frame yield story drift and the core strain level are illustrated through a simplified approach.

1
Assistant Researcher, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

Lin PC, Wu AC, Tsai KC. Seismic performance of buckling-restrained braces using welded end and rectangular
steel casing. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
 Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

Seismic Performance Of Buckling-restrained Braces

Using Welded End And Rectangular Steel Casing

P. C. Lin1, A. C. Wu1 and K. C. Tsai2

ABSTRACT

Most of the buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) are constructed from a doubly-symmetrical steel
core encased in the mortar-infilled square or circular steel casing. The bolt-spliced connection
details are found most common for the brace-to-gusset connections. While the horizontal width of
a large-capacity BRB using the square or circular steel casing could substantially reduce the usable
floor area in a building, the bolted end connections would reduce the end stability and the yield
region length. In this study, a BRB with a thin profile is developed which could sufficiently
prevent the buckling restrainer from the possible global flexural buckling and local failure. The
welded end-slot connection shortens the entire BRB joint region length, allows a more stable end
condition and a longer yield region length than those in the BRB using the bolted end details.
Cyclic loading tests are conducted in the Taiwan National Center for Research on Earthquake
Engineering on five BRB specimens with two different cross-sectional configurations. A
maximum core strain of 3.0% is reached during each test. Test results confirm the satisfactory
performance with a very stable hysteretic response and very predictable axial stiffness. All
specimens sustain a cumulative plastic deformation significantly greater than 200 times the yield
deformation. The effects of the BRB yield region length ratio on the effective axial stiffness, the
frame yield story drift and the core strain level are illustrated through a simplified approach.

Introduction

Buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) has been evolved into a very effective system for
buildings in seismic areas because of possessing both the high stiffness and ductility in
comparison to other lateral resisting systems [1-3]. The core member of a buckling-restrained
brace (BRB) is designed to carry the axial load with a full yield capacity in both tension and
compression. The buckling restrainer is intended to prevent the BRB core member from the
global and local flexural buckling failure. The unbonding layer is placed between the core
member and the buckling restrainer to minimize the friction. Based on such essential concepts, a
variety of BRBs have been proposed and studied in the past decades. It can be found that the
BRB core member is usually bi-axial symmetric and encased in the square or circular mortar-
infilled steel casing [2, 5]. The bolt-spliced connection details [1, 2] are found most common for
the brace-to-gusset connections. While the horizontal width of a large-capacity BRB using the
square or circular steel casing could substantially occupy the usable floor area in a building, the
1
Assistant Researcher, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

Lin PC, Wu AC, Tsai KC. Seismic performance of buckling-restrained braces using welded end and rectangular
steel casing. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
long bolted end connections would reduce the end stability and the yield region length [3, 5, 6].
BRBs using a single flat core plate as the energy dissipation segment could be fabricated with a
rectangular steel casing to minimize the intervention in the usable floor area. However, the high-
mode buckling of the flat core plate may introduce significant outward bulging forces and causes
the local failure of the improperly deigned thin-profile steel casing [7, 8].
In this study, a BRB with a thin profile is developed which could prevent the buckling restrainer
from the possible global flexural buckling and local failure. The core member of the proposed
BRB primarily consists of at least two parallel flat plates connected by the additional
perpendicular flat plate. The parallel plates develop most of the brace axial force and the high-
mode buckling of these plates is constrained by the perpendicular plate. The parallel plates are
oriented perpendicular to the gusset and slotted at both ends. The welded end-slot connection
allows a more stable end condition and a longer yield region length than those in the BRB using
the bolted end details. Cyclic loading tests are conducted in the Taiwan National Center for
Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE) on five BRB members with two different cross-
sectional configurations to evaluate the seismic performance of the proposed BRBs. In order to
investigate the effect of fatigue loadings on the BRB fatigue life, four different constant strain
fatigue loadings are applied in this series of tests. Effects of the BRB yield region length to the
brace work point-to-work point length ratio on the BRB effective axial stiffness, the frame yield
story drift and the BRB core strain level [6] are discussed.

Experimental investigations of the Welded End BRBs

In this study, a new BRB type with a special core cross-sectional shape and rectangular steel
casing is proposed and tested. The global and local flexural buckling failure can be effectively
prevented while the goal of reducing the restrainer width is achieved. In order to evaluate the
cyclic performance of the proposed BRB, five BRB specimens were designed with different
details and tested in NCREE. The main features, loading methods, experimental results, and the
failure modes of the proposed BRB are presented in the following.

Table 1. Dimensions of specimens

te ti tw Fy Ac Aj Lc Lt Lj,dt LBRB
Specimen
(mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (mm2) (mm2) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
2w70t25 25 25 20 405 6500 14650 1600 222 288 3150
2w70t40 40 40 10 377 7100 15500 1600 150 360 3150
3w60t36 36 36 10 365 7630 16270 1600 80 430 3150
3w70t25 25 25 10 391 6610 13510 1600 92 418 3150
3w76t25/40 25 40 10 377 7940 15680 1600 94 416 3150

Specimen Design

Figure 1 shows the fabrication details and cross sections of the typical specimen. All the core
members were made of A572 GR50 (nominal yield stress of 345MPa) steel. Table 1 summarizes
specimen dimensions and the coupon tensile yield stresses Fy of the core member material. A
typical BRB core member consists of the yield, transition and joint regions which are within the
lengths of Lc, Lt, Lj, respectively. The cross-sectional area of the transition region At is calculated
from the average of those of the yield and joint regions as (Ac+Aj)/2. Two different yield region
and the same joint region cross-sectional configurations are designed in this test program. The
yield regions of specimens 2w70t25 and 2w70t40 (see Table 1 and Fig. 1) consist of two parallel
flat plates (as the exterior plate, EP, with the thickness of te) connected by an additional
perpendicular flat plate (as the web plate, WP, with the thickness of tw). In order to transfer the
stress from the WP to the gusset smoothly, one more plate (as the interior plate, IP, with the
thickness of ti) perpendicular to the WP is configured at the joint region. Specimens 3w60t36,
3w70t25 and 3w76t25/40 have three parallel flat plates (two EPs of te and one IP of ti) bonded by
two separate WPs each of tw thick. The identification, specimen 3w76t25/40 for example, denotes
three parallel flat plates (two EP thickness te of 25mm and one IP thickness ti of 40mm), and w76
stands for a yield region width of 76mm for these plate. The EPs and IPs are oriented
perpendicular to the gusset and slotted at both ends so the gusset can be inserted in and welded
with the BRB ends.

Figure 1. Profiles of the proposed BRB specimens

In order to prevent the relative longitudinal movement between the core member center point and
the restrainer, the enlarged cross-section stopper detail [6] is adopted at the mid-length of the EPs
(Fig. 1). Instead of the welded stoppers, the enlarged cross-section stopper design detail not only
prevents the undesirable stress concentration failure near the stoppers or the slide between the
restrainer and core member due to the welded stopper failure but also improve the BRB fatigue
life [8]. The core members were covered with a 2mm thick self-adhesive chloroprene rubber [6]
unbonding layer. Each core member was restrained by a 300×200×9mm rectangular tube infilled
with the 56MPa mortar. Since the core members are composed of steel plates with at least two
types of thickness, the yield stresses Fy, overstrength factors Ry and strain hardening properties ω
(Table 2) may not be consistent. It is assumed that the BRB member starts yielding when one of
these steel plates reaches its yield stress. The corresponding yield stress listed in Table 1 is the
lowest one of the composed plates.

Test Setup and Loading Protocol

A 4900kN capacity universal testing machine in NCREE was used in the experiment program.
The ends of the BRBs are connected with a pair of connectors so the specimen can be rigidly
mounted in the testing machine. The cyclic axial displacements were applied along the
specimen’s axial axis and the axial forces were measured by a load cell in the testing machine.
The relative deformations between the restrainer ends and BRB ends were measured by four
displacement transducers, two at each end of the specimen. All specimens were subjected to a
loading protocol modified from the steel building specifications [9]. The standard cyclic loading
started with the yield deformation cycle of the specimen and increased up to the maximum of
3.0% axial core strain. Two cycles of loading were applied at each strain level as listed in Table
3. In order to investigate the effect of fatigue loadings on the BRB fatigue life, the cyclic fatigue
loading using various core strains for different specimens (Table 3) continued after the standard
cyclic loading until the core member fractured. The axial core strain εc stated in this paper
indicates the strain within the yield region length of the BRB steel core. In order to impose the
strain on the steel core yield region as close to the targets as possible, the controlled
displacement was predetermined considering the elastic deformation of the entire BRB specimen
excluding the yield region.

Table 2. Coupon test results of the core member materials

Steel grade Thickness (mm) Fy (MPa) Fu (MPa) Ry ω

10 391 512 1.13 1.31
20 408 531 1.18 1.30
ASTM
25 405 538 1.17 1.33
A572 GR50
36 365 516 1.06 1.41
40 377 528 1.09 1.40

Table 3. Core strains at various deformation levels

Core strains at various deformation targets

Specimen
Standard Fatigue
2w70t25 3.0%
2w70t40 0.75%
3w60t36 0.75% 1.5% 2.25% 3.0% 2.25%
3w70t25 3.0%
3w76t25/40 1.5%

BRB Elastic Axial Effective Stiffness

It has been confirmed that the elastic effective stiffness Keff of a typical BRB in a structural frame
can be computed from three springs connected in series [3, 4, 6, 10] as:

1 EAc At Aj
K eff   (1)
1 1 1 Lc At A j  2 Lt Ac Aj  2 L j , wp Ac At
 
K c Kt K j

where Kc, Kt and Kj are the elastic stiffness of the yield, transition and joint regions,
respectively; E is the elastic Young’s modulus of the steel core. On the basis of Fig. 1, Kc, Kt and
Kj are estimated from EAc/Lc, EAt/2Lt and EAj/2Lj,wp, respectively; where Lj,wp is the length
between the core member transition end to the end work point. If the lengths of Lc, Lt and Lj,wp
are expressed in terms of length ratios αc, αt and αj with respect to the work point-to-work point
distance Lwp as:

Lc  c Lwp , 2 Lt   t Lwp , 2 L j ,wp   j Lwp (2)

then αc+αt+αj=1.0. The cross-sectional areas of the transition region At and the connection
region Aj are described in terms of area ratios of at, aj and the yield region cross-sectional area Ac
as:

At  at Ac , Aj  a j Ac (3)

Substituting Eqs 2 and 3 into Eq. 1, the effective stiffness factor Q can be found from:

at a j EAc EA
K eff  Q c (4)
 c at a j   t a j   j at Lwp Lwp

In a BRBF analytical model, the BRB can be conveniently represented by a truss element having
a cross-sectional area of Ac, a length of Lwp and the equivalent elastic modulus of QE.

Experimental Results

All the force versus deformation responses of the five BRB specimens exhibit very stable and
repeatable responses with positive incremental stiffness. Figures 2 to 4 show the force versus
deformation relationships of specimens 2w70t25, 3w60t36 and 3w76t25/40, respectively. The
dash lines in Figs. 2 to 4 are the specimens’ yield strength computed from the yield stress
(Py=FyAc) listed in Table 1. It is confirmed that the yield strength of the BRB can be computed
from multiplying the cross-sectional area (Ac) by the lowest coupon yield stress among those
steel plates with different thicknesses that assemble the core members. There was no brace
instability or brace end connection failure occurred during the tests. Core members of specimens
2w70t25, 2w70t40, 3w60t36, 3w70t25 and 3w76t25/40 fractured respectively at the 13rd, 144th,
12nd, 2nd and 53rd cycles of fatigue loading. The cumulative plastic deformation (CPD)
capacities [9] gained from these five specimens are 924, 1837, 704, 374 and 1616, respectively
(Table 4). It is obvious that the lager the core strain applied during the fatigue loading, the less
the CPD capacity gained. It is found in all tests that the deformations measured by displacement
transducers at both ends of specimens are almost the same. In addition, after the tests, the
restrainers were taken apart for observing the core member, no stress concentration failure near
the stopper was found. These show that the enlarged cross-section stopper works efficiently in
preventing the relative longitudinal movement between the core center point and the restrainer.
 Core Strain (%) Core Strain (%)
‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
4500
3000 Py 500

Core Stress (MPa)
Axial Force (kN)
1500 250
Factured
0 0
at 13rd cycle
‐1500 ‐250
‐3000 ‐500
‐4500
‐50 ‐25 0 25 50 ‐50 ‐25 0 25 50
Axial Displacement (mm) Axial Displacement (mm)

Figure 2. Axial force versus deformation relationships of specimen 2w70t25

Core Strain (%) Core Strain (%)
‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
4500
Py 500

Core Stress (MPa)
3000
Axial Force (kN)

1500 250
Factured
0 0
at 12nd cycle
‐1500 ‐250
‐3000
‐500
‐4500
‐50 ‐25 0 25 50 ‐50 ‐25 0 25 50
Axial Displacement (mm) Axial Displacement (mm)

Figure 3. Axial force versus deformation relationships of specimen 3w60t36

Core Strain (%) Core Strain (%)
‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
4500
Py 500
Core Stress (MPa)
3000
Axial Force (kN)

Factured at 250
1500 53rd cycle
0 0
‐1500
‐250
‐3000
‐500
‐4500
‐50 ‐25 0 25 50 ‐50 ‐25 0 25 50
Axial Displacement (mm) Axial Displacement (mm)

Figure 4. Axial force versus deformation relationships of specimen 3w76t25/40

The peak tensile strength to the yield strength ratios (ωE values) for specimens at each strain
level are plotted in Fig. 5(a). It shows that the maximum ωE values are 1.26, 1.31, 1.43, 1.36 and
1.35 for the five specimens. The compression strength adjustment factors (βE values) are
calculated at various strain levels as shown in Fig. 5(b), with the maximum magnitudes of 1.12,
1.12, 1.13, 1.10 and 1.12 at the 3.0% core strain for the five specimens. Tests confirm that, even
under the large core strain of 3.0%, applying the chloroprene rubber as the unbonding layer for
these BRBs is efficient in reducing the peak compression-to-tension ratio to a remarkably low
value of 1.13. Experimental elastic stiffness Kexp of each specimen was calculated from the linear
regression using the response data collected in the first elastic tensile cycle. Theoretical elastic
effective stiffness Keff of each specimen was computed from Eq. 4 by replacing Lj,wp with Lj,dt
(the length of the core member transition end to the displacement transducer base mounting point,
as shown in Fig. 1). It is evident in Table 4 that the differences between the theoretical and
experimental stiffnesses are very small, only -6.3%, -1.8%, -3.1%, -6.2 and -1.8% for the five
specimens. Because of the space limitation of the testing machine, the dimensions of the five
specimens were considered to be half-scale of the full-scale conditions. For example, the
specimen 2w70t40 with the yield region cross-sectional area of Ac=7100mm2 stands for
28400mm2 in the full-scale condition. Thus, the yield strength Py=2677kN represents that the
yield strength in full-scale is 10707kN. The steel casing size of 300×200×9mm stands for a steel
casing of 600×400×18mm in the full-scale size. However, the steel casing thickness of 18mm can
be reduced if the provided flexural stiffness is sufficient to prevent the BRB from global flexural
buckling [6].

Table 4. Theoretical stiffness, experimental stiffness and CPD capacity

Kc Kt Kj Keff Kexp (Keff-Kexp)/Kexp

Specimen CPD
(kN/mm) (kN/mm) (kN/mm) (kN/mm) (kN/mm) (%)
2w70t25 813 4764 5087 611 652 -6.3 924
2w70t40 888 7533 4306 670 683 -1.8 1837
3w60t36 954 14938 3784 725 749 -3.2 704
3w70t25 826 10935 3232 621 662 -6.2 374
3w76t25/40 993 12564 3769 739 753 -1.8 1616

1.6 1.3
1.5
1.4 1.2
1.3
1.2 1.1
1.1
1 1
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Core Strain (%) (a) Core Strain (%) (b)

Figure 5. (a) ωE values and (b) βE values at various core strains

Implications on the Design of BRBs

Given the dimension of the BRBF, such as the beam bay width, the story height, the beam and
column depths, the BRB’s preliminary dimensions can be determined from the required yield
strength or axial effective stiffness. Hereby, effects of the BRB yield region length ratio on the
axial effective stiffness, the yield story drift, the core strain level and the end stability [6] are
further discussed below.

BRB Yield Region Length Ratio versus Effective Stiffness Factor Relationships

Based on Eqs. 1 to 4, effects of varying the yield region length ratio αc on the axial effective
stiffness Keff can be studied. It should be noted that in the BRB, the transition region of length Lt
is expected to maintain mostly elastic. It is planned to provide a gradually increasing cross-
sectional area from the yield region to the joint region to avoid stress concentration.
Consequently, the length ratio of αt is always much smaller than αc and αj. The relationships
between the yield region length ratio αc and the effective stiffness factor Q are analyzed in Fig.
6(a) for four different joint region cross-sectional area ratios, aj ranging from 1.5 to 3.0. It can be
found that for a BRB with the yield region length ratio αc=0.5 and the joint region area ratio
aj=1.5, the effective stiffness factor Q is about 1.2. Keep aj=1.5 unchanged, the factor Q can only
be slightly increased to about 1.35 when the yield region length ratio is shortened to αc=0.2.
Obviously, increasing the joint region cross-sectional area ratio to aj=2.0 to 3.0, a much larger
factor Q would result. However, it should also result in a much higher price to pay for the space
and cost of the steel casing and the gussets.

2.2 0.4
2 0.35
1.8 0.3
Q

1.6 0.25
1.4 0.2
1.2 0.15
1 0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
(a) Q (b)
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3
(c)

Figure 6. (a) αc value versus Q value, (b) Q value versus yield story drift, and (c) inter-story drift
versus core strain relationships

BRB Effective Stiffness Factor versus Frame Yield Story Drift Relationships

It is reasonable to assume that, under the earthquake loads, the BRB would yield first before the
beam or column does in a properly designed BRBF. If shear deformations dominate the BRBF
lateral displacements, the relationships between the brace work point-to-work point strain εwp and
the inter-story drift θ can be approximated as εwp=θsin2φ/2, where φ is the angle between the
brace and the horizontal beam. Thus, the frame yield story drift θy can be computed from:

2 Py / K eff 2 Fy / QE
y   (5)
Lwp sin 2 sin 2
Figure 6(b) shows the relationships between the BRB effective stiffness factor Q and the yield
story drift θy for BRBFs using two different steel yield stresses and various brace angles φ. It is
obvious that a large Q value could reduce the frame yield story drift θy significantly. Regardless
of the brace angles decreased or increased from the 45 degrees, the BRB yield story drift will be
increased when the factor Q is kept the same.

BRB Inelastic Core Strain versus Frame Inter-story Drift Relationships

When the BRB axial force P is greater than its yield strength, the BRB inelastic core strain εc can
be computed from deducting the elastic deformation outside the yield region (Δt and Δj) from the
brace work point-to-work point displacement (Δwp) and expressed as:

 wp   t   j  wp P P  wp P  t j 
c          (6)
Lc  c K t Lc K j Lc  c EAc   c at  c a j 

In order to simplify the analysis, it is reasonable to assume that the BRB tensile force versus
inter-story drift relationship is bi-linear. The BRBF will reach the yield story drift θy when the
BRB yield strength Py is developed. When the inter-story drift θ approaches the design inter-
story drift θd, the BRB core stain hardens and develops a force of ωPy. Thus, the BRB axial force
P can be expressed as a function of the inter-story drift θ:

  1 
P  Py 1     y  (7)
  d   y 

Assuming εwp=θsin2φ/2 and substituting Eq. 7 into Eq. 6, the inelastic core strain εc can be
computed:

 sin 2  y   1   
c 
2 c
 1 
 c   d   y
   y   t  j 
 
(8)
  at a j 

As a result, the BRB inelastic core strain εc can be expressed in terms of the inter-story drift θ.
Figure 6(c) shows the inelastic core strain versus the inter-story drift relationships considering
ASTM A36 steel (nominal yield stress of 235MPa) and A572 GR50 steel. In this figure, length
ratios of αc=0.5, αt=0.04, αj=0.46 and area ratios of at=1.35, aj=1.7 are considered in Eq. 8. A
brace angle of φ=45° and a design inter-story drift θd=0.03 radian are assumed for the examples.
For the strain hardening factor, the AISC seismic provisions [9] suggest that ω=1.5 for A36 steel
and ω=1.3 for A572 GR50 steel can be applied practically. However, in these examples, the
strain hardening factors of 1.45 (for A36) and 1.25 (for A572 GR50) are adopted to achieve a
conservative estimation of the BRB core strain demand. Figure 6(c) also shows the BRB
inelastic core strain versus inter-story drift relationships (solid lines) computed simply from
εc=θsin2φ/2αc. It is obvious that the results computed from the simplified approach are less close
to those from the refined analysis (Eq. 8) when the yield region length ratio is small.
Nevertheless, it appears that the differences are negligible, suggesting that the core strain can be
practically approximated from εc=θsin2φ/2αc especially when the yield region length ratio is
relatively large. At a given specific inter-story drift, the lower the length ratio αc is, the larger the
BRB core strain εc will be (Fig. 6(c)). This clearly implies that the BRB fatigue life will be
increased as the length ratio of αc increases. Figure 6(c) also suggests that the material grades do
not affect the core strain versus story drift relationships significantly.

Conclusions

1. A new BRB type with the features of the welded en-slot connection and the thin profile is
presented. The global and local flexural buckling of the proposed BRB can be prevented
while achieving a reduced restrainer width.
2. Based on the test results, seismic performance of the proposed BRB is confirmed with very
stable hysteresis responses, predictable axial stiffnesses, and the CPD capabilities ranging
from 374 to 1837.
3. The maximum core strain reached 3.0% for all specimens. The peak compression-to-tension
ratios of all specimens are less than 1.13. This suggests that the BRB configurations with the
self-adhesive chloroprene rubber are of good quality in preventing excessive friction
developed between the steel core and the restrainer.
4. Test results confirm that the lager fatigue loading core strain applied, the less CPD gained.
5. The lower the yield length ratio is, the larger the axial effective stiffness Q factor will result.
A large Q factor also reduces the frame yield story drift.

References
1. Watanabe A, Hitomi Y, Saeki E, Wada A, Fujimoto M. Properties of brace encased in buckling-restraining
concrete and steel tube. Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto,
Japan, 1988; IV: 719-724.
2. Uang CM, Nakashima M, Tsai KC. Research and application of buckling-restrained braced frames. Steel
Structures 2004; 4(4): 301-313.
3. Tsai KC, Hsiao PC. Pseudo-dynamic tests of a full-scale CFT/BRB frame-Part II: Seismic performance of
buckling-restrained braces and connections. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008; 37(7):
1099-1115.
4. Lin SL, Wu AC, Lin PC, Tsai KC, MacRae GA. Development and implementation of buckling restrained
braces in Taiwan. The New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference, Christchurch, New
Zealand, 2012.
5. Takeuchi T, Ozaki H, Matsui R, Sutcu F. Out-of-plane stability of buckling-restrained braces including moment
transfer capacity. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013; DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2376.
6. Tsai KC, Wu AC, Wei CY, Lin PC, Chuang MC, Yu YJ. Welded end-slot connection and unbonding layers for
buckling-restrained braces. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013; submitted.
7. Lin PC, Tsai KC, Wang KJ, Yu YJ, Wei CY, Wu AC, Tsai CY, Lin CH, Chen JC, Schellenberg AH, Mahin SA,
Roeder CW. Seismic design and hybrid tests of a full-scale three-story buckling-restrained braced frame using
welded end connections and thin profile. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2012; 41(5): 1001-
1020.
8. Wu AC, Lin PC, Tsai KC. High-mode buckling responses of buckling-restrained brace core plates. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013; DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2349.
9. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago,
Illinois, 2010.
10. Yu YJ, Tsai KC, Li CH, Weng YT, Tsai CY. Earthquake response analyses of a full-scale five-story steel frame
equipped with two types of dampers. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013; 42(9): 1301-1320.