Eighth International Conference on

ADVANCES IN STEEL STRUCTURES

Lisbon, Portugal, July 22-24, 2015

COMPONENT TESTING OF STEEL-CORE

BUCKLING RESTRAINED-BRACES (BRBS) WITH
PINNED END CONNECTIONS

Oguz C. Celik 1, Ercan Yuksel 2, Cigdem Avci-Karatas 3, Ahmet Bal 4,

Tansu Gokce 5, Zoltan Bago 6 and Gyorgy Koller 6
1
Prof., Coordinator, Structural & Earthquake Working Group, Faculty of Architecture
Department of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: celikoguz@itu.edu.tr
2
Assoc. Prof., Co-Director, Structural & Earthquake Laboratory, Faculty of Civil Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: yukselerc@itu.edu.tr
3
Asst. Prof., Department of Transportation Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
Yalova University, Yalova, Turkey
e-mail: cigdem.karatas@hotmail.com
4
Ph.D. Candidate, M.S., Institute of Science and Technology, Namik Kemal University
Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Tekirdag, Turkey
e-mail: ahmbal@itu.edu.tr
5
Ph.D. Candidate, M.S., Institute of Science and Technology, Istanbul Technical University
Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: tansugokce@gmail.com
6
Star Seismic Europe Ltd.
e-mail: gkoller@starseismic.eu

Keywords: Steel; Buckling restrained-braces (BRBs); Metallic dampers, Ductility; Hysteretic behavior; Testing.

Abstract. This paper presents the results obtained from cyclic tests of two identical, almost full-scale
buckling restrained braces (BRBs). Fabrication of gusset plates, data of material properties and
detailed drawings were provided by the producer. Two specimens (labeled as BRB-1 and BRB-2) with
large diameter pinned end connections, and having rectangular core plates with S235-SSE grade
steel were used in the tests. Quasi-static reversed cyclic loading tests were carried out. A
displacement loading protocol proposed by the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings,
AISC 341-10 was used for both of the BRBs considered herein. Tested BRBs exhibited satisfactory
performance (without buckling) under the assumed loading history (i.e. the AISC loading protocol).
Experimental results show that the BRB specimens reached a maximum drift of 2.74% that
corresponds to a lateral displacement of 51.00mm, while no fractures in the welds or any sign of local
or global instability were observed. Equivalent damping ratios (effb) were obtained as 47.49% and
44.68% for BRB-1 and BRB-2, respectively.

1 INTRODUCTION
Buckling Restrained Braces (BRBs), being a sort of metallic damper, display a balanced
hysteretic behavior by axial yielding under reversed cyclic tension and compression forces and
dissipate significant amount of seismic energy during major earthquakes. Approximate
symmetric and robust behavior of BRBs under tension and compression forces and their
feature of not causing any degradation in terms of stiffness and strength as well as obtaining
stable hysteretic curves expand their application areas. Furthermore, when compared to other
 Celik O.C. et al.

alternative seismic energy dissipation systems, BRBs have several advantages such as easy
replacement following an earthquake (if needed), preventing damages in the other structural
members, easy fabrication and construction with relatively low cost, simple end connection
details, etc. Many experimental and numerical studies have been conducted to promote the
application of the different types of BRBs. For example, Sabelli et al. [1] analytically
investigated the seismic response of BRB frames (BRBFs) considering a number of important
parameters, such as ground motion characteristics and the structural configuration. Fahnestock
et al. [2] addressed global and local ductility demands of BRBFs by nonlinear time-history
analyses, which were compared with BRBF Recommended Provisions. Later, numerical and
experimental simulations of a large-scale BRBF were given by Fahnestock et al. [3,4].
Besides, a series of pseudo dynamic tests of a full-scale, three-story, three-bay BRBFs using
concrete-filled tube columns was performed by Tsai et al [5,6]. Takeuchi et al. [7,8] proposed
a simple method for predicting the cumulative deformation and energy absorption capacities
of BRBs under random amplitudes. Usami et al. [9] studied buckling prevention condition
with a series of well-controlled experiments. Vargas and Bruneau [10,11] proposed an
alternative design approach for systems with metallic fuses. An experimental work was also
conducted on a three-story frame designed with BRBs to verify the proposed design
procedure. To clarify the requirements of high-performance BRBs for the damage controlled
seismic design of steel bridges, a series of performance tests and analyses are carried out by
Usami et al. [12]. Celik and Bruneau [13,14] analytically investigated the best geometrical
layout to maximize the dissipated hysteretic energy in ductile diaphragms with BRBs end
diaphragms in straight and skewed steel bridges. Component tests were conducted by Zhao et
al. [15] to address the effect of brace end rotation on the global buckling behavior of pin-
connected BRBs with end collars. To increase the efficiency of BRBFs, a novel connection
where the gusset is only connected to the beam and is offset from the column face is proposed
and tested in a three-story frame under quasi-static loading by Berman and Bruneau [16].
Palazzo et al. [17] and Tsai et al. [18] proposed new types and configurations for steel BRBs.
All of these researches have sped up the application of steel BRBs in buildings and bridges.
Mostly, the concepts of BRBs published or applied for patents are essentially similar and the
BRB’s core brace member is mostly manufactured of steel owing to its great hysteretic
performance. A total of 8 BRB types (named as TURKBRACE BRB), 4 as preliminary/pilot
studies, 2 with steel core and outer steel tube, 2 with aluminum alloy core and aluminum alloy
outer tube having the same yield strength and simple end connection details were developed,
designed, manufactured, and tested under cyclic displacement histories by Avci-Karatas [19],
Avci-Karatas and Celik [20]. Based on an experimental work, Haydaroglu et al. [21]
investigated the hysteretic behavior and energy dissipation capacities of classical tube and
BRBs.
This paper focuses on the cyclic testing of two identical BRBs (BRB-1 and BRB-2) with
pinned end connections provided by a producer [22]. Fabrication of gusset plates, database of
material properties (coupon tests) for testing the BRBs, and detailed drawings were provided
by the producer. BRBs with steel core and steel outer tube having the same yield strength and
simple edge details were designed and fabricated to achieve the same yield strength for a
better comparison of their cyclic performance.
Quasi-static reversed cyclic loading tests were carried out in Structural and Earthquake
Engineering Laboratory (STEEL) at Istanbul Technical University (ITU).

2
 Celik O.C. et al.

2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

2.1 Test set-up and instrumentation

A versatile testing set-up previously designed and fabricated for cyclic testing of classical
(buckling) tubular braces was used in this work. The set-up is composed of a steel L-frame
(a foundation steel beam and a vertical column simply connected to the foundation beam) was
designed to accommodate different bracing types (i.e. buckling braces or BRBs) and lengths.
Figure 1a and 1b show a general view of the test set-up and instrumented BRB prior to testing,
respectively. The foundation beam was attached to the existing reinforced concrete (RC)
strong floor using closely spaced threaded tie down rods. Using high safety factors, the test
set-up was designed to remain elastic under a maximum actuator force of 250kN. The steel
grade used for test set-up is S275JR. Both specimens were designed well less than the
capacity of the actuator.

(a)

(b)
Figure 1: (a) General view of test set-up for specimens; (b) Overall view from the specimen prior to
testing.

3
 Celik O.C. et al.

A displacement loading protocol proposed by the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings, AISC 341-10 [23] was used for the tests and the specimens were subjected to
reversed cyclic quasi-static loading. Instrumentation for the experiments has been designed to
measure global response of the steel test set-up and local performance of BRBs.
Displacement-controlled testing was carried out via LVDTs mounted on the column face at
the nearest position of actuator. Strain-gauges and several LVDTs were installed at critical
points of the set-up. The LVDT and strain-gauge layout were identical for both specimens.
The specimens were tested at a 38-degree diagonal bracing configuration with the steel
foundation beam. Several LVDTs were used to monitor accidental movement of the frame
with respect to strong floor (e.g. at the mid-point of the column, on the gusset plates and the
foundation beam). The restoring force was measured by a load cell installed in the actuator.
Outer tubes were instrumented by twelve strain-gauges on each face of the tube at the
midpoint and end points. Additionally, four strain-gauges were installed on the gusset plates
to trace the gusset behavior. No strain-gauges were attached on the beam and column, since
these were designed to remain elastic at the maximum applied load. In previous BRB tests,
under the maximum actuator load, the recorded strains on the beam and column were well
below the yield values.

2.2 Material characteristics

Material test results contain valuable information on choosing the material classes to be
used in designing and manufacturing the steel core BRBs. The average coupon test results of
the specimens were provided by the producer. A 15mm x 30mm strand was used in the brace
with an actual axial yield strength (based on coupon tests) of 128.5kN. Yield stresses from the
coupons were obtained as 285MPa and 286MPa. Tensile stresses reached 437MPa and
435MPa, and the corresponding elongations were 31.0% and 31.5%, respectively. Prior to
testing, the obtained material data were used in static pushover analyses of the specimens
using SAP2000 v14 [24] to predict the monotonic load-displacement behavior of the
specimens.
Steel bolts used are fully-tensioned, high-strength A490 grade (10.9) in gussets-to-BRB
and gusset-to-L frame connections. A manual torque wrench was used to assure the minimum
AISC LRFD [25] specified slip-critical connection bolt pretension. Specially designed gusset
plates as per the procedure given in Avci-Karatas [19] were used for the BRBs to avoid out-
of-plane buckling. In order to have mobility for the replacement of BRBs, gusset plates were
designed as removable elements and used bolted connections to the test set-up. Rib stiffeners
were added to the gusset plates to enhance local and out-of-plane buckling capacity at the
connection points. Higher safety factors were used in the design of gussets and all welds to
achieve the desired ductile behavior of the specimens.

2.3 Specimens
Almost full-scale BRBs specimens use rectangular steel plates (15mmx30mm) as the core
material made of S235-SSE steel. The geometrical parameters are summarized in Table 1.
Length and width of the yielding portion of the brace are denoted by Lysc and bysc,
respectively. Likewise, Lcon and bcon, are the length and width of the connection portion. The
transition zone has a length of Ltr and a width of btr. t is the thickness of the cores. Total
lengths of the BRBs are limited to 2270mm due to geometric properties of the test set-up.
Cross-section of the steel outer tubes was fabricated as 160mmx160mmx6mm.

4
 Celik O.C. et al.

Table 1: General geometrical parameters of the steel cores.

Specimens Lysc bysc t Lcon bcon Ltr btr
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
BRB-1 and BRB-2 1100 30 15 200 130 385 60

As stated before, the specimens were designed with pinned end connections. Using such a
pin connection detail at the gusset plate isolates the brace from any moment or shear that
could be transmitted as a result of frame drift. Also, by directly connecting the brace to the
gusset by using a pin, the overall connection length is reduced (when compared to multi-
bolted or welded end connections), resulting in a longer yield length for the core that helps
reduce the axial strain. The pin also reduces the number of pieces to be connected. The collar
assembly adds to the overall stability of the brace by preventing out-of-plane buckling of the
core section extending beyond the confining shell. The collar can also eliminate the need to
add stiffeners to gusset plates for preventing local buckling. If a collar were not in place, the
section of the core that extends beyond the confining HSS could buckle and rotate. The use of
pin and collar assembly also allows the use of multiple braces (i.e. combined braces) together
to make large capacity braces. Since the connection is only through the single pin, the
connection and gusset length is greatly reduced. Braces using pinned connections can be
easily removed and replaced after a design level or higher earthquake. The construction
tolerances of a true pinned connection, however, can be very stringent and may create
difficulty placing the bracing members during erection.
According to AISC 341-10 [23], the axial yield strength of BRBs, Pysc, shall be determined
per Eq. (1):

Pysc  Ry Fysc Asc (1)

where  and  are the compression and tension strength adjustment factors, respectively,
Ry is the ratio of the expected yield stress to the specified minimum yield stress, Fysc is the
specified actual yield stress of the core as determined from the coupon test, and Asc is the net
area of the core. The strain-hardening adjustment factor, , is calculated as the ratio of the
maximum tension force (Tmax) measured from the qualification tests to the yield force, Pysc, of
the test specimen. The compression strength adjustment factor, , is calculated as ratio of the
maximum compression force (Pmax) to the maximum tension force of the test specimen. It is
noted that the value of  is dependent on the core plate yield-to-tensile strength ratio. The 1.3
limit proposed in AISC 341-10 is essentially a limitation on . Currently available braces
should be able to satisfy this requirement. In this paper, the numerical value of , at the point
of maximum expected deformation, was determined as 1.3 per AISC 341-10. Using the strain-
hardening properties of coupons,  was determined as 1.53. Also, Ry was taken as 1.1 from
AISC 341-10 Table I-6-1. Maximum displacement ductility of brace, max was calculated as
the ratio of maximum inelastic displacement, u, to the yield displacement, by.

2.4 Loading protocol

To characterize the hysteretic behavior of BRBs and to develop bilinear analytical models,
quasi-static reversed cyclic testing in subassemblage configuration was carried out for each
BRB based on the acceptance criteria given in AISC 341-10 [23] loading protocol. Although
additional cycles to satisfy the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD) requirement for cumulative inelastic deformation are proposed, BRBs did not arrive
at these last cycles. Top horizontal displacement is related to the brace axial displacement and

5
 Celik O.C. et al.

was taken as the displacement control parameter. AISC loading protocol used for the
specimens is depicted in Figure 2. Note that vertical axis is normalized with respect to first
axial yielding deformation of BRB, by. The calculation of by was based on the deformation
expected over the length L1, which is the pin-to-pin distance of the core plate. The following
loading sequence for the elastic cycles was applied to the specimens, where the deformation is
the axial deformation of the core plate:
 2 cycles of the loading at the elastic deformation corresponding to 1/4by,
 2 cycles of the loading at the elastic deformation corresponding to 2/4by,
 2 cycles of the loading at the elastic deformation corresponding to 3/4by

Figure 2: Displacement protocol used in cyclic testing of BRBs.

Table 2 presents the details of loading sequence for the inelastic range cycles according to
the proposed provision. Shaded rows were not used for the tested BRBs. Testing was
terminated at 10by displacement level since the braces fractured.

Table 2: Loading protocol for the inelastic cycles.

Cycles Axial  Cum. Inelastic Estimated Lateral
Displacement Displacement Displacements for BRBs
(CID) (mm)
4 1.0by 0by 5.13
4 1.5by 4by 7.70
4 2.5by 16by 12.83
4 5.0by 48by 25.65
4 7.5by 100by 38.48
4 10by 172by 51.30
2 12.5by 218by 64.13
2 15by 274by 76.95

Yield values of forces and displacements were analytically estimated by static pushover
analyses, and were used to initially control the tests. However, the experimentally obtained
values were used as test control parameters beyond the elastic range. For both specimens, load
was firstly applied to have a lateral load producing tension in the brace. Both tests were

6
 Celik O.C. et al.

performed until the brace fractured. Using experimental hystereses, some behavioral
characteristics of the specimens such as the maximum strength in tension and compression
cycles,  cumulative inelastic deformation, Eh cumulative hysteretic energy dissipation, and
effb hysteretic damping values are computed and compared.

3 TESTING AND RESULTS

Two energy dissipative steel core BRBs having the same yield strength and simple end
details have been tested under cyclic loading. Both tests were performed until the brace
fractured. The BRBs showed satisfactory behavior with fuller hysteretic curves. Hysteretic
curves, behavioral values such as the maximum strength in tension and compression cycles,
hysteretic damping, and hysteretic energy dissipation values are presented. Experimental
horizontal force-horizontal displacement hysteretic curves representing the cyclic behavior
and predicted pushover curves (both in tension and compression) for the specimens are given
in Figure 3. Theoretical pushover curves are obtained using the axial plastic hinge properties
proposed by FEMA 356 [26]. Observations during the tests are given below.

(b)
(a)

(d)
(c)
Figure 3: Experimental hysteretic curves and predicted pushover curves for specimens:
(a) Hysteresis of BRB-1; (b) View from the test of BRB-1; (c) Hysteresis of BRB-2;
(d) View from the test of BRB-2.

7
 Celik O.C. et al.

3.1 Specimen BRB-1

BRB-1 exhibited practically linear elastic behavior under the first two cycles at 1.28mm,
0.07% drift, as well as during the two elastic cycles at 2/4 of the yield displacement (2.55mm,
0.14% drift). The lateral force values were not the same in either loading direction indicating a
symmetric elastic response. In elastic ranges, lateral force values in compression loadings
were less than brace in tension loading.
BRB-1 reached its experimental yield displacement in tension at 5.10mm (+1by), 0.27%
drift, and +105.06kN lateral force. These specific values were determined on the basis of
occurrence of a significant nonlinearity on the hysteretic curves. When the brace in
compression, lateral force value was -79.10kN. At the end of Cycle 10 (±1by), stable
hysteretic loops were obtained as expected. As a next step, the specimen was subjected to
±1.5by (7.65mm, 0.41% drift) as four cycles. The lateral force reached at this point was
+107.22kN (brace in tension), -110.24kN (brace in compression). During the 4 cycles at
±2.5by (12.75mm, 0.69% drift), ±5by (25.50mm, 1.37% drift), and ±7.5by (38.25mm,
2.06% drift), no damage and no strength degradation were observed. Some initial noises were
heard, possibly generated by detachment between the core and mortar. Some strength
degradation was observed in the hysteretic curves during the fourth excursion at +10by
(51.00mm, 2.74% drift). Maximum lateral force reached during this step was +161.55kN in
tension and -230.59kN in compression. A lateral force of +150.50kN and a lateral
displacement of -16.62mm were obtained at the maximum peak of Cycle 30. No deformations
of the gusset plate bolt holes were observed.

3.2 Specimen BRB-2

BRB-2 exhibited practically linear elastic behavior under the first two cycles at 1.28mm,
0.07% drift, as well as during the two elastic cycles at 2/4 of the yield displacement (2.55mm,
0.14% drift). The lateral force values were not the same in either loading direction. In elastic
ranges, lateral force values in compression loadings were less than brace in tension loading.
Bolt slip was also observed during the first cycle of displacement at 1/4by and occurred on all
subsequent cycles. BRB-2 reached its experimental yield displacement in tension at 5.10mm
(+1by), 0.27% drift, and +97.45kN lateral force. These specific values were determined on
the basis of occurrence of a significant nonlinearity on the hysteretic curves. When the brace
in compression, lateral force value was -48.62kN.
As a next step, the specimen was subjected to ±1.5by (7.65mm, 0.41% drift) as four
cycles. The lateral force reached at this point was +101.65kN (brace in tension), -102.48kN
(brace in compression). During the 4 cycle at ±2.5by (12.75mm, 0.69% drift), ±5by
(25.50mm, 1.37% drift), and ±7.5by (38.25mm, 2.06% drift), no damage and no strength
degradation were observed. Some initial noises were heard, possibly generated by detachment
between the core and mortar. Some strength degradation was observed in the hysteretic curves
during the third excursion at +10by (51.00mm, 2.74% drift). Maximum lateral force reached
during this step was +159.52kN in tension and -211.09kN in compression. A lateral force of
+140.44kN and lateral displacement of +31.82mm were obtained at the maximum peak of
Cycle 29. No deformations of the gusset plate bolt holes were observed.

3.3 Dissipated hysteretic energy, equivalent damping ratios, and effective stiffness
For any cycle, total area under the experimentally obtained hysteretic curve gives the
dissipated energy through inelastic behavior. This is especially important in evaluation of
seismic effectiveness of BRBs. Behavioral characteristics of the specimens are quantified with
an emphasis on hysteretic energy dissipation. Since the cumulative energy dissipation is a

8
 Celik O.C. et al.

useful measure of the seismic efficiency of a structural system, these values were calculated,
and the variation of cumulative energy dissipation with cumulative number of cycles is plotted
in Figure 4. As clearly seen from this figure, the amount of dissipated energy at each cyclic
loop increases with the increase in the lateral displacements. The maximum cumulative
hysteretic energy Eh, occurred at Cycle 30 for BRB-1, and Cycle 29 for BRB-2, respectively.

Figure 4: Dissipated hysteretic energy through elastic and inelastic cycles.

Numerical values of the cumulative hysteretic energy (Eh) were obtained to be

233,362.50kN.mm in BRB-1 and 196,832.05kN.mm in BRB-2, respectively. Numerical
values of the cumulative inelastic displacement () were obtained to be 172by in BRB-1 and
154by in BRB-2. These are for the last cycles' values that have been reached during testing.
Considering the whole cycles, the total cumulative inelastic axial displacements (CID) values
are calculated as 1360by and 1134by for BRB-1 and BRB-2, respectively.
The most common method for defining equivalent damping ratio is to equate the energy
dissipated in a cycle of the braces [27]. The computed maximum values of equivalent
damping ratios, effb, were obtained as 2.54%47.49% for BRB-1 and 0.02%44.68% for
BRB-2. Although these ratios had a tendency of decreasing and increasing values at every
cycles of testing, the damping ratios obtained had an increasing trend up to the maximum drift
ratios reached. Maximum value of effb is taken as a representative value of equivalent
damping. The maximum values were obtained at 2.74% drift ratio for BRB-1 and for BRB-2,
respectively. Since effb, is greater than 15% for both specimens, the tested BRBs can be
classified as Energy Dissipating Devices (EDD) as per EN 15129 D.1-10 [28].
As per EN 15129 D.1-10 in 3.1.12 effective stiffness [28], Keffb is defined as the secant
stiffness at the design displacement of the BRB. Since the design force value is different for
tension and compression cycles, two different effective stiffnesses are specified for each
specimen (Table 3). The values reveal that, as expected, the effective compression stiffness is
greater than the effective tension stiffness for each specimen. Bilinear force-displacement
relations for each specimen developed from experimental hystereses are given in Figure 5.

9
 Celik O.C. et al.

Table 3: Effective stiffness and its variation.

Specimens Tension Compression
TI i Keffb,tension Pi i Keffb,compression
(kN) (mm) (kN/mm) (kN) (mm) (kN/mm)
BRB-1 161.55 51.00 3.17 -230.59 -51.00 4.52
BRB-2 159.52 51.00 3.13 -211.09 -51.00 4.14

Figure 5: Experimental bilinear force-displacement models for BRB-1 (a) and BRB-2 (b).

4 CONCLUSIONS
The following results can be drawn from this experimental work:
 BRB-1 and BRB-2 with simple pinned end connection details, performed very well
under the Standard Loading Protocol, and no premature fracture, brace instability or
brace end connection failures were observed. Both tests showed that, in general, the
devices performed properly, without relevant shear stress transfer to the casing and
with stable hysteretic behavior. Plots showing the applied load versus lateral
displacement revealed stable, repeatable behavior with positive incremental stiffness.
Relatively symmetrical hysteretic curves are obtained in BRBs.
 For all displacement cycles greater than the yield displacement, by, the maximum
tension and compression forces were not less than the nominal brace yield force, Pysc.
 For inelastic cycle at 10by, in both specimens, the ratio of maximum compression
force to the maximum tension force (i.e. ) exceeded 1.3 in BRB-1 and BRB-2,
respectively. Maximum  values were obtained as 1.43 (10% larger) for BRB-1 and
1.32 (1.5% larger) for BRB-2.
 The highest compression adjustment factor at the design displacement level was
obtained as =1.43 in BRB-1. Also, the reached maximum tension and compression
capacities are +161.55kN and -230.59kN, respectively. The highest tension adjustment
factor was obtained as =1.64 in BRB-2. For BRB-2, the reached maximum tension
and compression capacities are +159.52kN and -211.09kN, respectively.

10
 Celik O.C. et al.

 A significant amount of energy was dissipated by each specimen. Experimental results

show that the BRB specimens reached a maximum drift of 2.74% that corresponds to a
lateral displacement of 51.00mm, while no fractures in the welds or any sign of local
or global instability were observed.
 The cumulative inelastic axial displacements (CID) achieved by BRB-1 and BRB-2
were 172by, and 154by, respectively. These are for the last cycles' values that have
been reached during testing. Considering the whole cycles, the total CID values are
calculated as 1360by and 1134by for BRB-1 and BRB-2, respectively. Numerical
values of the cumulative hysteretic energy (Eh) were obtained to be 233,362.50kN.mm
in BRB-1 and 196,832.05kN.mm in BRB-2, respectively.
 Equivalent damping ratios (effb) are obtained as 47.49% and 44.68% for BRB-1 and
BRB-2, respectively. Since effb, is greater than 15% for both specimens, the tested
BRBs can be classified as Energy Dissipating Devices (EDD) as per EN 15129 D.1-
10.
 Results obtained from this displacement controlled cyclic testing of the two braces and
gusset plates reveal that the BRBs of the kind considered in this work passed the AISC
loading protocol without failure.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by Star Seismic EuropeTM. BRBs, steel gusset plates and pins
were produced by Star Seismic EuropeTM. Technical assistance from the staff at Istanbul
Technical University, Structural and Earthquake Engineering Laboratory (ITU-STEEL) is
gratefully acknowledged and appreciated. However, any opinions, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the supports.

REFERENCES
[1] Sabelli R., Mahin S. and Chang C., “Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with
buckling-restrained braces”, Journal of Engineering Structures, 25(5), 655–666, 2003.
[2] Fahnestock L.A., Sause R., Ricles J.M. and Lu L.W., “Ductility demands on buckling-restrained
braced frames under earthquake loading”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 2(2), 255–268, 2003.
[3] Fahnestock L.A., Ricles J.M. and Sause, R., “Experimental Evaluation of a Large Scale Buckling
Restrained Braced Frame,” Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), 133(9), 1205-1214, 2007.
[4] Fahnestock L.A., Sause R. and Ricles J.M., “Seismic Response and Performance of Buckling
Restrained Braced Frames”, Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), 133(9), 1195-1204,
2007.
[5] Tsai K.C. and Hsiao P.C., “Pseudo dynamic test of a full scale cft/brb frame-part ii: seismic
performance of buckling restrained braces and connections”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 37(7), 1099-1115, 2008.
[6] Tsai K.C., Hsiao P.C., Wang K.J., Weng Y.T., Lin M.L., Lin K.C., Chen C.H., Lai J.W. and Lin
S.L., “Pseudo dynamic tests of a full scale cft/brb frame-part i: specimen design, experiment and
analysis”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37(7), 1081-1098, 2008.
[7] Takeuchi T, ASCE A.M., Ida M., Yamada S. and Suzuki K., “Estimation of cumulative
deformation capacity of buckling-restrained braces” Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(5),
822-831, 2008.
[8] Takeuchi T., Matsui R., Tada T. and Nishimoto K., “Out-of-plane stability of buckling restrained
braces including their connections” 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon-
Portugal (24-28/9), 2012.

11
 Celik O.C. et al.

[9] Usami T., Ge H. and Kasai K., “Overall buckling prevention condition of buckling-restrained
braces as a structural control damper”, 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Beijing-China, 2008.
[10] Vargas R.E. and Bruneau M., “Experimental response and design of buildings with metallic
structural fuses.ii”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 135(4), 394-403, 2009.
[11] Vargas R.E. and Bruneau M., “Analytical response and design of buildings with metallic
structural fuses. i”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 135(4), 386-393, 2009.
[12] Usami T., Ge H. and Luo X.Q., “Experimental and analytical study on high-performance
buckling restrained brace dampers for bridge engineering”, 3rd International Conference on
Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering, San Francisco (15-16/10), 2009.
[13] Celik O.C. and Bruneau M., “Seismic behavior of bidirectional-resistant ductile end diaphragms
with buckling restrained braces in straight steel bridges”, Journal of Engineering Structures,
31(2), 380-393, 2009.
[14] Celik O.C. and Bruneau M., “Skewed slab-on-girder steel bridge superstructures with
bidirectional-ductile end diaphragms” Journal of Bridge Engineering, 16(2), .207-218, 2011.
[15] Zhao J., Wu B. and Ou J. “Effect of the brace end rotation on the global buckling behavior of
pin-connected buckling-restrained braces with end collars” Journal of Engineering Structures,
40,240-253, 2012.
[16] Berman J. and Bruneau M., “Cyclic testing of a buckling restrained braced frame with
unconstrained gusset connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 135(12), 1499-1510,
2009.
[17] Palazzo G., Lopez-Almansa F., Cahis X. and Crisafulli F., “A low-tech dissipative buckling
restrained brace: design, analysis, production and testing,” Journal of Engineering Structures, 31,
2152-2161, 2009.
[18] Tsai C.S., Su H.C. and Chiang T.C., “Huge scale tests of all-steel multi-curve buckling restrained
braces,”, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon-Portugal (24-28/9), 2012.
[19] Avci-Karatas C., Design, Fabrication, and Cyclic Behavior of Steel and Aluminum Alloy Core
Buckling Restrained Braces (BRBs), PhD Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul,
Turkey, 2012.
[20] Avci-Karatas C. and Celik O.C., Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Hysteretic
Behaviors of Buckling Restrained Braces (BRBs) having Steel and Aluminum Alloy Cores,
Technical Report, No.110M779, TUBITAK-MAG, Ankara, Turkey, 2012.
[21] Haydaroglu C., Taskin K. and Celik O.C., “Ductility enhancement of round hss braces using cfrp
sheet wraps”, EUROSTEEL 2011, Budapest-Hungary (31/8- 2/9), 2011.
[22] http://www.starseismic.eu/
[23] ANSI/AISC 341-10, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago ,2010.
[24] SAP2000 v14, Structural Analysis Program, Computers and Structures Inc, 2009.
[25] AISC-LRFD 360-10, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings”, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Inc., Chicago, 2010.
[26] FEMA-356, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Prepared
by SAC Joint Venture for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000.
[27] Chopra A.K., Dynamics of Structures, Theory and Applications of Earthquake Engineering
Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, 2nd Edition, Prentice-
Hall, Chapter 3, Response to harmonic and periodic excitations, 2001.
[28] EN 15129, Anti-seismic devices, European Committee for Standardization (CEN/TC 340), 2010.

12