Investigation of the Seismic Behavior of Brace Frames with New Corrugated All-Steel Buckling Restrained Brace

  • Mehdi Ebadi JamkhanehEmail author
  • Amir Homaioon Ebrahimi
  • Maedeh Shokri Amiri


All-steel buckling restrained brace (BRB) is a type of relatively new common bracings considering its low weight and whilst it is not required curing of mortar at the core of braces. In this study, a new form of all-steel BRB is introduced with corrugated edges of the core and the external sheath, and it was analyzed by using of finite element method. Existence of corrugated and ribbed edges led to enhance of buckling resistance. Numerical model was validated with laboratory samples, and after receiving an acceptable compliance in model behavior, the numerical models were offered. In this analysis, key parameters were size of brace section and distance of gap between the internal and external sheaths. The most appropriate size for gap between the core and external tube was determined to be 10 mm. Upon specifying the non-linear modeling parameter, two cases of frame with ordinary concentrically brace and the proposed all-steel BRB were compared for three structures with 4, 8 and 12 floors using pushover and non-linear time history analysis. The results demonstrated that utilizing of the proposed BRB will lead to an increase in behavior coefficient and structure ductility as well as an alteration in performance level of tall structures from collapse prevention to life safety level.


All-steel buckling restrained brace Behavior factor Ductility factor Non-linear time history analysis 


  1. ABAQUS Standard User’s Manual The Abaqus Software is a product of Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USA Dassault Systèmes, Version 6.14.2, USA, 2014.Google Scholar
  2. Ahadi Koloo, F., Badakhshan, A., Fallahnejad, H., Ebadi Jamkhaneh, M., & Ahmadi, M. (2018). Investigation of proposed concrete filled steel tube connections under reversed cyclic loading. International Journal of Steel Structures, 18(1), 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). (2010). Specification for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 360-10. Chicago, IL: American Institute of Steel Construction.Google Scholar
  4. BHRC. (2015). Iranian national building code, Tehran.Google Scholar
  5. BSSC. (1997). NEHRP Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, 1997 edition, Part 1: Provisions and Part 2: Commentary, prepared by the building seismic safety council for the federal emergency management agency (Report Nos. FEMA 302 and 303), Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Black, C., Makris, N., & Aiken, I. (2002). Component testing, stability analysis and characterization of buckling restrained braces. PEER report 2002/08. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  7. Ebadi Jamkhaneh, M., Homaioon Ebrahimi, A., & Shokri Amiri, M. (2018a). Seismic performance of steel-braced frames with an all-steel buckling restrained brace. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 23(3), 04018016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebadi Jamkhaneh, M., Homaioon Ebrahimi, A., & Shokri Amiri, M. (2018b). Experimental and numerical investigation of steel moment resisting frame with U-shaped metallic yielding damper. International Journal of Steel Structures. Scholar
  9. Ebadi Jamkhaneh, M., & Kafi, M. A. (2018a). Equalizing octagonal PEC columns with steel columns: Experimental and theoretical study. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 23(3), 04018012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebadi Jamkhaneh, M., & Kafi, M. A. (2018b). Experimental and numerical study of octagonal composite column subject to various loading. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 62(2), 413–422.Google Scholar
  11. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2006). FEMA-440, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2009). FEMA-P695, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. FEMA 273. (1997). NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for FEMA. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
  14. Hosseinzadeh, S. H., & Mohebi, B. (2016). Seismic evaluation of all-steel buckling restrained braces using finite element analysis. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 119, 76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoveidae, N., & Rafezy, B. (2012). Overall buckling behavior of all-steel buckling restrained braces. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 79, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kimura, K., Yoshizaki, K., & Takeda, T. (1976). Tests on braces encased by mortar infilled steel tubes. Summaries of technical papers of annual meeting (pp. 1041–1042).Google Scholar
  17. Korzekwa, A., & Tremblay, R. (2009). Numerical simulation of the cyclic inelastic behavior of buckling restrained braces. In International specialty conference on behavior of steel structures in seismic area (STESSA), Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  18. Merritt, S., Uang, C. M., & Benzoni, G. (2003). Sub-assemblage testing of core-brace buckling-restrained braces. Report No. TR-2003/01. University of California, San Diego, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Mochizuki, S., Murata, Y., Andou, N., & Takahashi, S. (1979). Experimental study on buckling of unbonded braces under axial forces: Parts 1 and 2 (pp. 1623–1626)., Summaries of technical papers of annual meeting Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan.Google Scholar
  20. Mohammadzadeh, B., Choi, E., & Kim, W. J. (2018). Comprehensive investigation of buckling behavior of plates considering effects of holes. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 68(2), 261–275.Google Scholar
  21. Mohammadzadeh, B., & Noh, H. C. (2014). Use of buckling coefficient in predicting buckling load of plates with and without holes. Journal of Korean Society for Advanced Composite Structures, 5(3), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mohammadzadeh, B., & Noh, H. C. (2015). Numerical analysis of dynamic responses of the plate subjected to impulsive loads. International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering, 9(9), 1194–1197.Google Scholar
  23. Mohammadzadeh, B., & Noh, H. C. (2016). Investigation into buckling coefficients of plates with holes considering variation of hole size and plate thickness. Mechanika, 22(3), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mohammadzadeh, B., & Noh, H. C. (2017). Analytical method to investigate nonlinear dynamic responses of sandwich plates with FGM faces resting on elastic foundation considering blast loads. Composite Structures, 174, 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohammadzadeh, B., & Noh, H. C. (2018). An analytical and numerical investigation on the dynamic responses of steel plates considering the blast loads. International Journal of Steel Structures. Scholar
  26. NEHRP. (1998). Recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings. Washington, DC: Building Seismic Safety Council.Google Scholar
  27. Newmark, N. M., & Hall, W. J. (1982). Earthquake spectra and design. El Cerrito, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Riddell, R., Hidalgo, P., & Cruz, E. (1989). Response modification factors for earthquake resistant design of short period buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 5(3), 571–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. SAP2000®Version 19. (2015). Linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis and design of three dimensional structures. Berkeley, CA: Computers and Structures Inc.Google Scholar
  30. SEAOC Structural Engineers Association of California. (1988). Recommended lateral force requirements and tentative commentary. San Francisco, CA: Seismological Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California.Google Scholar
  31. Seker, O., & Shen, J. (2017). Developing an all-steel buckling controlled brace. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 131, 94–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tremblay, R., Bolduc, P., Neville, R., & Devall, R. (2006). Seismic testing and performance of buckling-restrained bracing systems. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. UBC (Uniform Building Code). (1988). Int. Conf. of Bldg. Officials, Whittier, CA.Google Scholar
  34. Wada, A., Saeki, E., Takeuchi, T., & Watanabe, A. (1989). Development of unbonded brace, column (Vol. 115). Tokyo: Nippon Steel Publication.Google Scholar
  35. Wakabayashi, M., Nakamura, T., Katagihara, A., Yogoyama, H., & Morisono, T. (1973). Experimental study on the elastoplastic behavior of braces enclosed by precast concrete panels under horizontal cyclic loading—Parts 1 and 2. Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, 6, 121–128.Google Scholar
  36. Zhu, B. L., Guo, Y. L., Zhou, P., Bradford, M. A., & Pi, Y. L. (2017). Numerical and experimental studies of corrugated-web-connected buckling-restrained braces. Engineering Structures, 134, 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringSemnan UniversitySemnanIran
  2. 2.School of EngineeringUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Urban PlanningIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations