Buckling Restrained Braced Frame (BRBF)
Structures: Analysis, Design and Approvals
Issues
Abstract
Due to a number of structural performance advantages
over conventional braced frames, the BRBF system
appears to be gaining in popularity. This paper provides
an overall understanding of this system along with a
case study of a recent project in the City of Los
Angeles. The paper includes material on BRBF
background and development, the various issues related
to code provisions, agency approvals, analysis, design,
detailing as well as construction and erection
challenges. The latter points are especially pertinent due
to the authors’ recent experience with the above
mentioned project.
The project is a three story 211,000 square foot steel
framed building located in Southern California. The
design of the structural system was completed in 2005
generally following the provisions of the 2003 NEHRP
Recommended Provisions for New Buildings and Other
Structures (FEMA 450) and the 2002 Los Angeles
Building Code. Pre-manufactured Buckling Restrained
Braces were approved under the guideline of ICC
AC238-1003-R1 Acceptance Criteria for Buckling
Restrained Braced Frame Subassemblages in
conformance with FEMA 450. The structure is the first
BRBF structure approved for new construction in the
City of Los Angeles. “One-time” approval was granted
through the Los Angeles Department of Building and
Safety’s ordinance 98.0403 LAMC Request for
Modification of Building Ordinances as an “Undefined
Saif Hussain, S.E.
Paul Van Benschoten, S.E.
Mohamed Al Satari, Ph.D.
Silian Lin, Ph.D.
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
Structural System.” The building is almost complete
and is scheduled to go into operation later this year.
Current building codes in California do not address
BRBF systems. Recent documents including the 2005
AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings
and the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) include
complete design provisions for BRBF systems. The
California Division of the State Architect (DSA), the
Office of Statewide Heath Planning (OSHPD) as well
as numerous municipalities have approved in excess of
40 projects with BRBF systems in the western United
States. Extensive testing of Buckling Restrained Brace
subassemblages and full scale BRBF models has
demonstrated the high ductility, toughness and
predictable behavior of BRBF systems.
BRBF systems are currently used as primary lateral
force resisting elements both in new construction and
seismic retrofit projects. However, future applications
may include use of BRBFs as supplemental hysteretic
dampers in seismic retrofitting, which was the original
motivation behind the initial development of the BRBF
system. Careful analysis and brace sizing can result in a
considerable increase in damping without an intolerable
decrease in building period. The robust nature of these
systems resulting from the elimination of the buckling
mode of the BRB makes these braced frames good
candidates for a variety of applications in high seismic
regions.
BRBF Introduction and Background
The concept of eliminating the compression buckling
failure mode in intermediate and slender compression
elements has long been a subject of discussion. The
theoretical solution for eliminating the buckling failure
mode is very simple: laterally brace a compression
element, at close regular intervals, so that the
compression element’s un-braced length effectively
approaches zero.
Figure 1. Idealized Buckling Control
Mechanism
In the 1980’s Professor Akira Wada, of the Tokyo
Institute of Technology, began a collaborative effort
with Nippon Steel Corporation in developing a
compression element that eliminated the bucking failure
mode of slender elements. Dr. Wada’s inspiration for
the Buckling Restrained Brace (BRB or Un-Bonded
BraceTM) came from the collarbone of the human body.
It was through this rational thought process that Dr.
Wada envisioned the “damage control” BRB element
for use as a seismic protection element. Dr. Wada’s
BRB design resembled a typical human bone: bigger at
the ends and a reduced section in the middle. The
original building design scheme for Buckling
Restrained Braces was for use as a “hysteretic damper”
in conjunction with moment resisting frames.
Relatively “soft” braces used as hysteretic dampers
reduced overall steel tonnage by 5 to 10% for the entire
structure.
In early 1988 the first BRBF/Moment Resisting Frame
lateral resisting system was used in Japan. The first
tests of BRBF (Nippon Steel Corporation: Un-Bonded
BraceTM) were performed in the United States at the
University of California at Berkeley in 1999. The tests
were conducted under the supervision of Professor E.
Popov and Professor N. Makris. The testing was
performed for a proposed project at University of
California at Davis. The first Buckling Restrained
Brace was installed in the United States at UC Davis on
January 17th 2000.
The original test results at UC Berkeley demonstrated
good performance under various loading histories
specified by protocols from the joint venture of SEAOC1,
ATC2, and CUREE3 (SAC). The BRBF delivered ductile,
stable and repeatable hysteretic behavior. The plastic
deformation capacity exceeded performance
requirements, both in terms of ultimate deformation and
cumulative plastic strain.
Figure 2. Sample Test Results of Hysteretic
Performance of a BRBF
BRBF System Overview
BRBF systems are unique due to the configuration of
the brace elements. They consist of two major
components: the steel core resists axial stresses and the
outer concrete filled steel casing resists buckling
stresses, and the casing restrains the steel core from
buckling thereby developing almost uniform axial
strains in tension and compression. BRBF have full,
balanced hysteresis loops with compression yielding
similar to tension yielding behavior. This is achieved
through the decoupling of the stress resisting and
flexural buckling resisting aspects of the compression
strength. Plastic hinges associated with buckling cannot
form in a BRBF. The near equal tension and
compression capacities of BRBF’s eliminate the post-
1
Structural Engineers Association of California
2
Applied Technology Council
3
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
 Steel Core
A
Concrete Fill

Steel Casing

Debonded Gap

a) Section A b) Buckling Restrained Brace (BRB)

Figure 3. Typical BRBF Element

bucking load imbalance inherent in the conventional the demand. Recent full scale testing of a SCBF by the
braced frames such as the building code designated University of California at Berkeley (Uriz, et al, 2004)
Special Concentric Braced Frames (SCBF) systems. illuminated the lack of ductility and overall poor
inelastic seismic performance due to the inherent
Code Jurisdiction, Approvals and buckling behavior. The effects of out-of-plane buckling
Applications and subsequent failure of the braces dominated the
overall behavior of the tested specimen.
The design of BRBF systems is currently governed by
the 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New
Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450) and the
2005 AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings. However, both FEMA 450 and 2005 AISC
Seismic Provisions have not been incorporated or
adopted into current building codes; the 2001 California
Building Code (CBC) and the 2003 IBC. The recent
release of the 2006 IBC references the 2005 ASCE-7
and the 2005 AISC Seismic Provisions which recognize
a) BRBF Frame Testing b) BRBF Uni-Axial Testing
BRBF systems. Currently, two BRBF systems are Configuration
Configuration
defined in 2005 ASCE-7, 2005 AISC Seismic
Provisions and FEMA 450. The first system utilizes Figure 4. Test Configurations
moment-resisting beam–to-column connections, which
corresponds to a Response Reduction Factor (R) of 8. The Berkeley test of a full-scale SCBF frame with HSS
The R factor is assigned a value of 7 for the second braces was cycled per the loading history protocol of
system which utilizes pinned beam column connections. AISC/SEAOC for BRBF’s (Figure 5). In these tests,

BRBF systems have been previously approved by DSA,

OSHPD, University of California and many other local
and state agencies on a case by case basis. As of this
writing, over 40 buildings have been constructed in the
western United States using BRBF systems both in new
and seismic retrofit building designs.

SCBF vs. BRBF

Conventional SCBF systems have inherent problems

due to the vastly different compression and tension
capacities of the braces. During a major seismic event
the compression brace will most likely buckle resulting
in the companion tension brace resisting the majority of Figure 5. Example of Loading History
increasing cycles of inelastic demands on the HSS brace
created small partial thickness fractures at half the
target roof displacement. The small fractures formed in
the cold worked radius of the HSS due to local buckling
from inelastic compression buckling and subsequent re-
straightening of the buckled brace when cycled into
tension. Continued increase of demand cycles resulted
in the complete rupture of both braces at first cycle at
the target roof displacement. The tests revealed that
compression bucking of the brace dominants the poor
inelastic cyclic behavior of SCBF systems. Figure 6
below shows an overlay of both BRBF and SCBF
behaviors. The laboratory–tested, superior performance
of BRBF over the conventional SCBF is clearly
apparent.
Figure 6. Hysteretic Loops for SCBF
and BRBF from UC Berkeley Tests
Another significant advantage to BRBF design is that
single diagonal braces oriented in the same direction
may be utilized. Unlike SCBF the BRBF system does
not require to have brace layouts that provide a
maximum of seventy percent of the horizontal
component of member forces in tension or compression
for a given line of resistance (CBC 2213A.8.2.3).
Stable BRB behavior, elimination of the compression
buckling mode, and comparable capacities in both
tension and compression allow the designer more
flexibility in the layout of BRB members to
accommodate a particular architectural scheme.
Furthermore, BRB’s need considerably smaller gusset
plates than SCBF’s (Figure 7), do not need zipper
columns in chevron configurations and require lighter
beams.
Figure 7. Typical SCBF Gusset Plates
Availability/Competitors
The concept of the BRBF is not proprietary. However,
the configuration and details of the brace assembly is
usually subject to exclusive rights under US patent laws
(i.e. connections, de-bonding of core or gap between
concrete fill and core, and assembly processes). In the
last 10 years the competition in BRB manufacturers has
increased, which provides owners with competitive
bidding.
The original BRBF was produced by Nippon Steel
Corporation under the product name Unbonded
BraceTM. However, currently there are at least three
manufacturers: Nippon Steel Corporation:
UnbondedBraceTM, Star Seismic LLC: PowerCatTM, and
CoreBraceTM. Each manufacturer has been rapidly
developing new brace connections, manufacturing
improvements and aggressively promoting their
products to increase their market share of the expanding
BRBF applications in new and retrofit building design.
Currently there are three configurations for BRB end
connections. Nippon Steel and CoreBrace have a typical
bolted connection. CoreBrace has developed a modified
bolted connection that uses significantly fewer bolts
than the typical bolted connection. Star Seismic has a
unique true pin connection consisting of a large drift pin
with retaining plates. Each connection has specific
advantages and disadvantages as listed below:
Standard Bolted Connection Modified Bolted Connection

Advantages: Advantages:
• Oversized (OVS) holes allow for more erection • Same as Standard Bolted Connection listed
tolerance than single pin connection. above.

• Multiple bolts provide more connection • Significantly fewer bolts and no splice plates to
redundancy and distribute potential gusset plate install resulting in labor reduction.
inelastic bearing deformations when compared to Disadvantages:
single pin connection. • Same as Standard Bolted Connection listed
above.
Disadvantages:
• Larger gusset plates and shorter BRB yield length
when compared to a single pin connection.
• A large quantity of splice plates and bolts is
significantly more labor intensive than single pin
connection.

• Not a true pinned connection. Frame drift results

in secondary moments in connection and brace.

Figure 9. Modified Bolted Connection

True Pin Connection

Figure 10. Star Seismic LLC BRB with

Figure 8. Standard Bolted Connection Restraining Collar & True Pin Connection
Advantages:
• Longer BRB yield length results in smaller strains
for a given demand.
• A true pinned connection that eliminates in-plane
secondary moments due to drift.
• Single pin reduces installation costs.
Disadvantages:
• Erection tolerance is very small (1/32”).
All connections meet or exceed the testing criteria of
FEMA 450 and the 2005 AISC Seismic Provisions.
Analysis Issues
Modeling of conventional Concentric Braced Frames
(CBF) is relatively straight forward using their tabulated
section properties from standard section tabulations.
BRBF manufacturers on the other hand, have multiple
pre-tested braces with well defined behavior, design
strengths, and material properties. These BRB’s
normally have yield capacities that range from 100 kip
to 1000 kip. Incorporating such elements into the
building’s computer model should be handled with
some caution. Geometry, actual core yield lengths, and
connections should be accurately considered and
accounted for in the mathematical representation.
Typical actual core yield lengths range between one
half to two thirds of the work-point to work-point
lengths depending on the type of connection detail and
thus a BRB is physically shorter than its analytical
model. This fact makes the BRB significantly stiffer
and forces it to undergo higher strains than accounted
for by the design engineer. Furthermore, differences
between analytical and physical lengths are not
eliminated even when member offsets are automatically
assigned to centerline dimensions by the analysis
software. Such considerable differences need to be
accounted for in the analysis and design of BRB’s and
the connections.
Different manufacturers have different connection
details as described earlier. After competitive bidding is
considered and a vendor has been selected, final
revisions to the brace designs are required from the
design engineer. Overlooking this could potentially
compromise original sound designs. Furthermore, and
counter to intuition, by eliminating the compression
buckling mode BRBF’s have higher axial capacities in
compression than in tension. Tests show that this
difference could reach 10%. This is due to the different
Poisson’s effects on the true strains in compression and
tension.
When carrying out linear elastic analyses in ETABS, for
example, a non-prismatic frame element may be utilized
to model a BRB fairly accurately and account for the
length adjustments. On the other hand, performing
nonlinear inelastic analyses is not as simple. A non-
prismatic element may still be utilized, but only if
accompanied by an axial nonlinear hinge. The nonlinear
hinge location and properties can be readily assigned in
ETABS. These properties could reflect the initial
stiffness, yield strength, as well as post-yield stiffness.
Different input values for tension and compression
properties could be incorporated into the hinge element
to match the tested nonlinear behavior.
BRBF’s as Potential Yielding Dampers
BRBF’s can offer supplemental damping through stable
cyclic yielding of the steel core. A significant amount of
energy is dissipated through this phenomenon.
Considerable equivalent viscous damping can be added
to the structural system. This puts the BRBF’s in the
same class as the Added Damping And Stiffness
(ADAS) devices.
Being the weakest structural elements and due to their
stable yielding potentials, BRBF’s can also serve as
effective damage fuses during the Design Basis
Earthquake (DBE). Limiting and containing the
inelastic behavior in BRBF’s allows the conventional
frames to remain essentially elastic. Furthermore,
yielding and softening of the BRBs reduces the
effective period of the structure and thus effectively
reduces the total base shear.
Proper sizing of the steel core is an important and
iterative step in designing BRBF’s, in order to attain
desired performance. Too large of a core steel area may
limit or even prevent brace yielding at the DBE event
which increases the design base shear. On the other
hand, too small of a core steel area may not provide
enough stiffness and toughness for the structure which
increases the drifts. Therefore, successive iterations of
 Figure 11. BRB Different Failure Types
modified stiffnesses may be needed to fine tune the
BRBF system for optimum response.
To ensure stable and consistent behavior, the core steel
needs continuous confinement and lateral support.
Consequently, BRBF’s cannot be spliced. Welded or
bolted splices of braces are not allowed in situations
where the braces are likely to be subjected to inelastic
demands because that would probably result in
undesirable behavior leading to possible brittle fracture.
Therefore, retrofit installation using long and heavy
BRBF braces in functioning buildings is likely to be
problematic.
BRBF: Some Questions and Challenges
The UC Berkeley tests illuminated a number of failures
in BRBF assemblies. Out-of-plane buckling of the
connection beyond the concrete filled HSS confinement
occurred in one test. In another test a brittle tear
developed in the beam flange and web propagating
from the gusset plate. In one test of a fully restrained
beam column connection the complete joint penetration
weld fractured completely. Most failures were located
in supplementary elements of the BRB frame (beams
and columns). Out-of-plane buckling of the connection
was a direct consequence of the configuration of the
BRB assembly (Figure 11 above).
Star Seismic LLC was the first to develop a proprietary
connection design that essentially eliminates this
potential problem; a centering HSS collar slides over
the end of the concrete filled HSS confinement
assembly. When loaded, the centering collar restricts
buckling of the BRB connection. Star Seismic LLC has
shown in a number of tests that their BRB assembly
does not buckle out-of-plane (Merritt, et al, 2003).
Future research is needed to determine improved design
and detailing of gusset plates to avoid stress
concentrations that cause fractures in adjacent beams or
columns. Beam column rotation due to frame drift
places great demands on the gusset plate. The gusset
plate demands result in significant stress concentrations
on the adjacent beams and columns at the termination
end of the gusset plate. Welding design and quality
control may mitigate brittle fractures in the beams or
columns. Further gusset plate research would benefit
the performance of BRBF systems in the future.
Case Study: Nordstrom Topanga Mall
The following case study is a new retail store which
replaces an existing operating store as part of a major
shopping mall expansion.
Building Description
Footprint: 283 ft by 248 ft
Three Story (211,000 sq ft)
Typical Floor Height is 18’-0”
Typical Bay Width 30’-0” up to 35’-0”
2nd and 3rd Floors: 3-1/4” Lt Wt Concrete Over W3
Roof Diaphragm: Verco PLB-36 1-1/2” Metal Deck
Foundation: Pre-cast Driven Concrete Piles
Exterior Pre-Cast Wall Panels (85 psf)
Geometric Irregularities
Along one line of lateral resistance a vertical
discontinuous frame line from the roof to the third floor
occurs due to a large mechanical well.
Structural System Selection
The basic structural system was selected with the
following factors in mind: speed and ease of
construction, overall cost, ease of future modification or
remodeling, longevity and serviceability. Consequently,
structural steel construction was chosen as the best
system for this application.
The owners had developed a keen awareness of the
direct and indirect consequences of major earthquake
hazards on their business operations and their bottom
line based on their experience in the Northridge
Earthquake of 1994. The existing Nordstrom Topanga
store is located approximately five miles from the
epicenter of the Northridge earthquake. In the owner’s
view this event illustrated the value of properly
designed and constructed structures. Immediately after
the 1994 earthquake the Nordstrom store experienced
some relatively minor structural and non-structural
damage that was repaired in a few weeks. Whereas the
adjacent mall structure and surrounding major retail
stores had significant damage that required extensive
repairs lasting a number of months.
Based on the above lessons it was the owners desire to
replace the existing store with a structure that would
perform well in subsequent earthquakes without being
cost prohibitive. There was a willingness to spend a
little more on the initial cost of the facility to insure
better earthquake performance and consequently less
post earthquake business interruption (loss of sales and
possibly staff), lower risk to life and limb for building
occupants and lower repair costs.
Figure 12. Isometric View of ETABS
Lateral System Model
Several lateral system schemes were discussed and
evaluated. In the past many of the Nordstrom stores
located in highly seismic areas used moment resisting
frame lateral systems. This system is now being used
less and less due to various factors which include the
presence of a relatively stiff, brittle and heavy pre-cast
concrete panel cladding system which poses challenges
when used in conjunction with flexible moment frame
systems. Furthermore, Special Moment Resisting Frame
(SMRF) system, in most cases, are not cost competitive
with other systems given the various factors that are
part of the typical building design for this owner.
Braced frame systems and structural precast shear panel
systems have also been used for other projects
belonging to this owner. Braced frames were judged to
be the most appropriate option for this particular
building. The engineer presented to the owner some
background information about the poor performance of
conventional braced frames (OCBF and SCBF) from
recent full scale testing. Eccentric braced frames (EBF)
were considered but abandoned due to the system’s use
of inelastic deformation in the beam and the extensive
detailing required for the link beams. The prospect of
repairing EBF link beams permanently deformed by
strong ground motion did not set well with the owner.
The logical choice based on performance and cost for
this particular project and project owner was the BRBF
system.
The recommendation of a BRBF system did not come
without unique challenges. Since the BRBF is not
recognized or defined in the 2002 Los Angeles Building
Code (LABC), which is based on the 1997 UBC, Los
Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS)
considered the BRBF system as an “undefined system”.
The process of approvals involved a process called a
“Request for Modification.” Not only did this involve
review and approval of the project-specific design
criteria by the plan review section of the LADBS, the
pre-manufactured BRB assemblies also required
LADBS Engineering Research Section’s “product
approval” (LARR). Over a four month period
consisting of numerous meetings, letters, submittals,
emails and conversations a final “one-time” project
specific approval was obtained for this project.
The design criteria were developed in conformance with
2003 NEHRP Provisions (FEMA 450) that was
reviewed and approved by LADBS. Both FEMA 450
and the 2002 LABC were the design guidelines for the
structure (Note: The 2005 AISC Seismic Provisions
were still in draft form and not used for the design
criteria. However, the more strict design criteria of the
draft version of the 2005 AISC Seismic Provisions were
used in the design). The approach for obtaining LADBS
approval was to clearly illustrate that a BRBF system is
essentially a CBF system without the undesirable
behavior of compression buckling. Another convincing
argument was that BRBF systems are designed using
actual tested limit state capacities as opposed to
expected or nominal values as traditionally used in
conventional CBF design. Additionally, BRB
manufacturer product submittals were developed in
accordance with acceptance criteria of ICC-ES AC238.
Three different manufacturer’s quality control
procedures, Los Angeles steel fabrication certifications
and prototype testing results were submitted to the
Engineering Research Section. Three manufacturers
were chosen to provide competitive bidding to the
owner. Final “one-time” approval was obtained with a
set of conditions that in some cases exceeded the
requirements of FEMA 450.
LADBS Conditions for Approval
1. Maximum inelastic inter-story drift ratio ≤ 0.013.
2. One-time LARR approval for BRB pre-
manufactured assemblies based on ICC-AC238.
3. BRBF lateral system design based on 2002
LABC and FEMA 450.
4. Braces shall be fabricated in a LADBS licensed
shop.
5. R=7.0 for proposed pinned beam/column
connections.
Seismic Design Criteria
The following seismic design criteria were determined
by a consulting geotechnical engineer:
SE Soil Type (Soft Clay)
Ca = 0.36, Cv = 0.96
Na = 1.0, Nv = 1.0
Near Field: 13km from Santa Susana Fault (Type B)
ETABS Modeling Criteria & Assumptions
• LDP – Linear Dynamic Procedure
(Response Spectrum).
• Use 9 modes to obtain 100% mass participation.
• Scale response spectrum to 100% CBC static base
shear using an R = 7.0.
• Pinned boundary conditions at column base.
• All diaphragms modeled as rigid.
• Roof diaphragm later hand checked as flexible.
• Model only lateral resisting system.
• Bounded ETABS modeling to capture 3 different
manufacturer’s BRB properties: manufacturer’s
material properties & stiffness (yield length and
connection stiffness).
Layout of BRB:
3rd to Roof: 16 BRB’s, 8 Braced Bays (2 each side)
2nd to 3rd: 24 BRB’s, 12 Braced Bays (3 each side)
1st to 2nd: 32 BRB’s, 16 Braced Bays (4 each side)
Seismic Design Summary:
Total Building Weight: 15,180 kips
VBASE = 0.129 W = 1,952 kips
T1 = 0.52s (ETABS)
Analysis Results: Interstory Drift
∆M @ Roof = 3.7” (0.57% of Building Height)
3rd to Roof – 0.75%
2nd to 3rd – 0.52%
1st to 2nd – 0.29%
Final BRB Required Yield Core Areas
Redundancy Factor (ρ = 1.08):
Core Steel ASTM A36 Plate
Fy = 42 ksi verified by coupon tests
3rd to Roof – 5.5 to 6.5 in2
2nd to 3rd – 8.3 to 10.8 in2
1st to 2nd – 8.6 to 10.8 in2
One significant advantage of BRB design is the ability
to “fine-tune” the brace core. The core is cut from plate
so that just about any core area or design capacity can
be specified. HSS or other shapes jump incrementally
in area of steel from one size to the next. The
incremental jumps in design capacity increase more
when considering slenderness and compact section
requirements of conventional braces. Conventional
brace design can lead to over-designed connections,
beams and columns when a slightly overstressed brace
must be changed to the next larger size. BRB design
allows the designer to optimize the design without over
sizing the brace. Careful sizing of BRB braces can
result in the desirable behavior of all braces in a floor in
a given direction yielding simultaneously. On the other
hand, simultaneous yielding of conventional CBF
systems is extremely difficult.
Maximum Adjusted Brace Force in BRB
ωβ Py = 312 to 658 kips (@ 2∆bm)
(Note: ω and β are strain hardening and compression
over-strength factors from actual tested prototypes and
2∆bm is the elastic brace deformation at twice the
maximum calculated inelastic drift ∆M)
ε = 0.7% to 1.0% (BRB core strain @ 2∆bm)
Construction Issues
The fabrication and erection of a BRBF system is
generally the same as conventional CBF systems. Close
coordination must be maintained between the steel
fabricator/erector and the BRB manufacturer. Early
communication, correspondence and preconstruction
meetings can minimize detailing and fabrication errors.
The BRB assembly cannot be modified after
production. Therefore, all dimensions and details must
be coordinated prior to BRB production.
The BRB contract at Nordstrom Topanga was awarded
to Star Seismic LLC. Star Seismic was a subcontractor
to the steel fabricator. Combining both steel fabrication
and BRB vendor into one contract made the fabricator
responsible for the entire steel structure. There was only
one significant erection issue that caused some minor
delays. The Star Seismic connection is a single pin with
a 1/32” tolerance.
This tolerance is almost impossible to obtain in steel
fabrication. Some of the gusset plates needed some
modification to fit up the pin connection. Star Seismic
provided a prompt response to fit-up problems and had
reasonable and effective solutions based on previous
project experience.
Figure 13. Typical Gusset Plate Sizes
Figure 14. Chevron & Two-Story X
Brace Configurations
Cost Considerations
BRB assemblies are costlier than standard HSS or other
structural shapes. However, an R = 7.0 combined with a
higher fundamental mode period results in a reduced
design base shear when compared to OCBF and some
reduction compared to SCBF (based on the current
CBC). The base shear reduction reduces the cost of
collectors, drags, cords, diaphragms and foundations.
This project with its pile foundation benefited from
increased savings due to the BRBF system. Overall, the
bottom line cost for a BRBF system, in this case study,
was essentially the same as a conventional CBF system,
but obviously with a clear performance advantage for
the BRBF.
Conclusions
The BRBF system is an elegant and potentially cost
effective solution which avoids the poor buckling
behavior of conventional CBF systems. The system
provides superior ductility, consistent and repeatable
behavior, and has the tested capacity to sustain multiple
major seismic events without significant degradation.
The analysis and design of BRBF systems involves a
few complexities but these are not overly burdensome.
The few cautions, concerns and drawbacks with
BRBF’s listed above should not be deterrents for the
usage of these ductile braces in most projects.
Once the IBC 2006 has been adopted by the various
jurisdictions, the BRBF system will become just one
more code-accepted lateral force resisting system to be
considered for use in buildings without the need to
resort to special approvals processes. It is expected that
this will spur the much more widespread use of this
braced frame system, which effectively avoids most of
the known drawbacks of conventional braced frames. In
the meantime the engineer has the choice of using
established precedents to obtain special approval of the
BRBF system as an “undefined system” for use in their
building.
Acknowledgments
This work would not have been possible without the
assistance of Dennis Firth, S.E. The authors would like
to thank him for his efforts. Special thanks are also due
to Jennifer Van Vleet for proof reading this manuscript.
References

AISC, 2005, Seismic Provisions for Steel Buildings,

American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago.

AISC, 2001, Load and Resistance Factor Design

Manual of Steel Construction, 3rd Ed., American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago.

FEMA 450, 2003, NEHRP Recommended Provisions

for New Buildings and Other Structures, Building
Seismic Safety Council for The Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington D.C.

AISC/SEAOC, 2001, Recommended Provisions for

BRB, Structural Engineers Association of California:
Seismology and Structural Standards Committee and
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.

ICC, 2003, Acceptance Criteria for Buckling-restrained

Braced Frame Subassemblages, Subject AC238-1003-
R1 (BNG/BG), International Code Council, Whittier,
California.

SEAOC, October 2004, BRBF Seminar Notes,

Structural Engineers Association of California.

SSEC, July 2004, Steel Tips: Seismic Design of

Buckling Restrained Braced Frames, Lopez, W.A.,
Sabelli, R. for the Structural Steel Education Council

Uriz, P., Mahin S., “Summary of Test Results for UC

Berkeley Special Concentric Braced Frame Specimen
No.1 (SCBF-1),” 2004, University of California at
Berkeley.

Merritt, S., Uang, C.M., and Benzoni, G.,

"Subassemblage testing of Star Seismic Buckling
Restrained Braces," 2003, Report No. TR-2003/04,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.

Nippon Steel News, No. 333, September 2005