Engineering Structures 60 (2014) 23–31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Performance-based design and collapse evaluation of Buckling

Restrained Knee Braced Truss Moment Frames
Nattapat Wongpakdee a, Sutat Leelataviwat a,⇑, Subhash C. Goel b, Wen-Cheng Liao c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
c
Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A performance evaluation of a structural steel framing system called Buckling-Restrained Knee Braced
Received 3 September 2012 Truss Moment Frame (BRKB-TMF) was conducted. This structural system combines the advantages of
Revised 6 December 2013 open-web steel truss girders and Buckling Restrained Braces (BRBs). Key advantages of open-web trusses
Accepted 11 December 2013
include light weight, simple connections, and open passages for mechanical ductwork and pipes. In this
Available online 9 January 2014
system, the open-web trusses are designed to be elastic, while the BRBs are strategically placed and
designed to dissipate seismic energy. The combined features of the open-web trusses and BRBs lead to
Keywords:
a system with enhanced performance, safety, and economy. In this study, a performance based design
Truss moment frames
Buckling restrained braces
procedure was developed for the proposed system. A four story building structure was selected as a study
Performance-based design case. The structure designed using the presented procedure was subjected to nonlinear static (pushover)
Incremental dynamic analysis and dynamic analyses. The pushover analysis was performed to determine the overall response, the
Collapse evaluation sequence of inelastic activity leading to collapse, and the failure mechanism. In the nonlinear dynamic
analyses, the study frame was subjected to a suite of selected earthquake records scaled to represent var-
ious levels of earthquake ground motion intensity. An incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) approach was
applied to examine the behavior of the structure at different levels of ground motion intensity including
the collapse level. Using IDA results, fragility curves were created and examined. The results were used to
assess the collapse margin of the structure. The analyses provided very promising results in terms of the
effectiveness and robustness of the system. The example structure showed a low probability for collapse
under the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) ground motions. The key design parameters were
determined to be the target drift and deformation capacity of the BRBs.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction segments designed to dissipate seismic energy. These segments

Open-web steel truss moment frames are highly economical
and are commonly used in building frames especially in long-
span and industrial structures. The key advantages of open-
web trusses include light weight, simple connections, and open
passages for mechanical ductwork and pipes. However, under
extreme load events or accidental overloading, conventional
truss girders may lack proper ductility, which can lead to sudden
and catastrophic failures. This shortcoming is caused mainly by
the buckling of the diagonal elements due to compressive forces
[1]. As a result of experimental and analytical research carried
out in the 1990s, the Special Truss Moment Frame (STMF) sys-
tem was developed to enhance the inelastic deformation capac-
ity of truss girder frames [2]. The system uses special ductile
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +66 816216393.
E-mail address: sutat.lee@kmutt.ac.th (S. Leelataviwat).
are generally located in the center region of the trusses. These
segments are designed and detailed to withstand significant
inelastic deformations. The members outside the special seg-
ments are then designed based on the maximum shear force
generated by the special segments. This system is currently rec-
ognized as a seismic resistant system in the AISC seismic provi-
sions [3]. The innovative use of energy dissipating devices in the
STMF system was recently investigated [4,5]. The introduction of
energy dissipation devices led to reduced seismic demands,
which ultimately result in lighter steel sections.
In this study, the performance of an alternative truss moment
frame system is investigated. A structural system called Buck-
ling-Restrained Knee Braced Truss Moment Frame (BRKB-TMF),
illustrated in Fig. 1, is proposed. In this system, the open-web
trusses and columns are designed to remain elastic while the BRBs
are strategically placed and designed to dissipate seismic energy.
BRBs are a widely used metallic energy dissipator for the seismic

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.12.014
24 N. Wongpakdee et al. / Engineering Structures 60 (2014) 23–31
Fig. 1. Buckling-Restrained Knee Braced Truss Moment Frame system.
protection of buildings and other structures. They normally pro-
vide hysteretic energy dissipation by restraining the steel core ele-
ments against global buckling behavior. Therefore, BRBs can
achieve a stable yielding in both tension and compression. Several
variations of the restraining mechanisms and core materials have
been investigated [6–9]. Numerous uniaxial and subassemblage
BRB tests have been performed [10]. The reported test results show
that BRBs can exhibit good deformation capacity with various duc-
tility levels depending on the length and configuration of the BRB.
BRBs have also been used in the seismic retrofitting of structures
[11,12].
The design of BRKB-TMF in this research is based on a design
procedure called the Performance-Based Plastic Design (PBPD)
approach. The PBPD method uses pre-selected target drift and
yield mechanism as key performance limit states. The PBPD
method accounts for structural inelastic behavior directly and
minimizes the need for any assessment or iteration after an ini-
tial design. The PBPD method has been developed and validated
for many conventional structural systems such as moment
frames, eccentrically and concentrically braced frames, special
truss moment frames, and steel plate shear walls [13–16]. It
has also been applied in seismic retrofitting of structures [17].
The combined features of PBPD method and BRKB-TMF concept
lead to a structural system with enhanced performance, safety,
and economy.
In this paper, the PBPD design concept of the BRKB-TMF sys-
tem is first introduced. To verify the performance of the pro-
posed BRKB-TMF system, a four story frame structure was
selected as a study case. The design of the structure was under-
taken and nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were performed
to determine the overall response, the sequence of yielding lead-
ing to collapse, and the failure mechanism. In the nonlinear dy-
namic analyses, the study frame was subjected to a suite of
selected earthquake records scaled to represent various levels
of earthquake ground motion intensity. An incremental dynamic
analysis (IDA) approach was applied to examine the behavior of
the structure at different levels of ground motion intensity
including the collapse level. The results of the analysis are pre-
sented and discussed. Although further investigations are re-
quired before this system can be fully validated, the following
study represents a pilot study on the applicability of the pro-
posed system.
2. Performance-based plastic design of BRKB-TMF
2.1. Target drift and design base shear
The PBPD method is a displacement-based approach. Unlike
other displacement-based design approaches, the required design
base shear is derived corresponding to a target drift level and a se-
lected yield mechanism using the energy balance concept. The
PBPD method directly accounts for inelastic behavior and considers
the internal force distribution at ultimate limit state by placing
emphasis on ensuring the formation of a pre-selected yield mech-
anism. Plastic (limit) design is specifically used to design the struc-
ture to achieve the selected mechanism.
The PBPD method begins by selecting a target yield mechanism
with a set of designated yielding members (DYMs). For the BRKB-
TMF system, the selected mechanism consists of the yielding of the
BRBs and the plastic hinging at the column bases as illustrated in
Fig. 1. A target drift corresponding to a chosen hazard level is se-
lected. The target drift depends on the performance objective. It
is selected mainly to limit the system and element ductility de-
mands to desired limits. To ensure satisfactory behavior, the
inelastic deformation expected to occur in the BRBs in a severe
earthquake should not exceed the inelastic deformation capacity
of the BRBs. The inelastic deformation demand for a BRB can be cal-
culated approximately from the target drift by assuming that the
system deforms in a rigid-plastic manner after the mechanism
has formed. By neglecting elastic deformations in the frame mem-
bers, the plastic deformation of a BRB can be computed based on
the truss configuration using the law of cosines (Fig. 2). For a spe-
cial case where the depth of the truss at the face of the column is
chosen to be twice the depth of the truss at mid-span (D = 2Do), the
plastic strain in the BRB, ep, simply becomes.
ep ¼ d=lo ¼ hp D sinðuÞ=lo ð1Þ
in which hp is the target plastic drift of the frame, lo is the unde-
formed length of the BRB, u is the angle the first diagonal member
makes with the column, and D is the depth of the truss at the face of
the column.
Lopez and Sabelli [9] provides a summary of 28 uniaxial and
subassemblage BRB tests. Based on these test results, the deforma-
tion capacity of a BRB in terms of the brace strain appears to be in
the range of 2–3%, depending on the length and configuration of
the BRB. Knowing the deformation limit of the BRBs, Eq. (1) can
be used to select an appropriate value of the target drift as well
as the truss configuration. Fig. 3 shows the brace strain demand
versus the brace angle (u) for different plastic drift ratios based
on Eq. (1). The plot shows that the strain demand is largest for u
equal to 45 degrees. The plot also shows that, for a typical BRB with
strain capacity in the range of 2–3%, it can easily accommodate
plastic story drift of 2% regardless of the brace angle. If a larger
Fig. 2. Plastic deformation of a BRB.
 N. Wongpakdee et al. / Engineering Structures 60 (2014) 23–31 25

2.2. Member design

The principle of virtual work is used to determine the required

strength of the BRBs (designated yielding elements). The relative
strength of the BRBs at each floor level is initially assigned based
on the ratio of the story shear, bi, given by Eq. (6). Using the plastic
mechanism in Fig. 1 and assuming that the tension and compres-
sion forces generated by the BRBs at each floor level are equal,
the virtual work equation (for one bay) can be written as
X
n X
n
F 0i hi hp ¼ 2Mpc hp þ 2ðbi NBRB Þd ð7Þ
i¼1 i¼1

where F 0i is the lateral force per bay at level i, NBRB is the axial
strength of the BRB at the roof level, Mpc is the plastic moment of
the columns at the base, and d is the brace deformation calculated
Fig. 3. BRB strain demand as a function of the brace angle (u).
by Eq. (1). The above equation applies to BRKB-TMF with one bay;
however, it can be easily extended to cover a multi-bay structure.
By assigning the values for the plastic moment of columns in the
target drift is required, the brace angle must be carefully chosen first story, the required strength of BRBs at each level (biNBRB) can
according to the strain capacity of the BRB. be calculated. One possible approach is to assign the value of the
Once the truss configuration is determined, the required plastic moment of the columns to prevent the soft-story mecha-
strength of the system, or the design base shear, for a selected haz- nism, that is
ard level is calculated using the energy balance concept, i.e., by 1:1V 0 hc1
equating the work needed to push the structure monotonically Mpc ¼ ð8Þ
4
up to the target drift to that required by an equivalent elastic–
plastic single degree of freedom system to achieve the same state where V’ is the required base shear per bay and hc1 is the clear
[13,14]. It can be shown that the required base shear, V, is given by height of the first story. The factor 1.1 is used to account for the pos-
sible strain-hardening in the plastic hinges. The above approach has
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
been found to provide adequate column strength leading to accept-
V a þ a2 þ 4cC 2e able seismic performance for many structural systems designed
¼ ð2Þ
W 2 using the PBPD method [14]. The required BRB strength (/Pysc) at
each level is given by [3]
where W is the weight of the structure, Ce is normalized design
pseudo acceleration (Sa/g), c is the energy modification factor de- /Pysc ¼ bi NBRB ð9Þ
fined as the ratio between the work needed to push the structure
After the sizes of the BRBs have been determined, the members and
up to the target drift and elastic input energy [14], and a is a param-
connections are designed to remain elastic under the largest forces
eter given by
generated by the BRBs. The adjusted strengths of a BRB [3] account-
! ing for material overstrength, compression overstrength, and strain-
Xn
hp 8p2
a¼ k i hi ð3Þ hardening are given by
i¼1 T2g
Pþpr ¼ xRy Pysc ð10Þ
in which T is the period, and hi is the height from the ground to floor
for tension, and
level i, and ki is the lateral force distribution factor such that
Ppr ¼ xbo Ry Pysc ð11Þ
F i ¼ ki V ð4Þ
for compression. In Eqs. (10) and (11), x, bo, and Ry are factors
In general, the lateral force distribution should closely represent accounting for strain hardening, compression overstrength, and
that which occurs during an inelastic response under earthquake material overstrength, respectively. Ry has a value of 1 if the yield
ground motions. In this study, a distribution proposed by Chao stress is determined based on coupon test. The values for x and
and Goel [18] for steel moment frames is used and is given by bo are generally best assigned based on test results for BRBs with
similar length, configuration, and restraining mechanisms to those
!0:75T 0:2
wn hn that will be used in the structure. Using the backbone curve from
ki ¼ ðbi  biþ1 Þ Pn ð5Þ a BRB test, one can extract the strength adjustment factors x and
j¼1 wj hj
bo comparable to the level of deformation demands expected to oc-
cur in the BRBs. It is important to emphasize that, because the BRBs
where wn is seismic weight at the top level n, hn is the height from
in the BRKB-TMF system are generally short, the deformation de-
ground to the top level, and bi is ratio of the story shear at level i to
mands experienced by the BRBs will generally be larger than those
that at the top story (level n). For i = n, bi+1 = 0. An empirical equa-
expected for BRBs in conventional braced frames. Therefore, the val-
tion for bi is given by
ues for x and bo for BRKB-TMF system will be larger than those
Pn !0:75T 0:2 used for the design of conventional BRB frames.
Vi j¼i wj hj Several BRB studies have indicated that BRBs can perform well
bi ¼ ¼ ð6Þ
Vn wn hn as long as undesirable connection failure can be prevented. A prop-
erly detailed BRB connection can be subjected to large seismic
Once the design base shear and lateral forces have been determined, inputs and the behavior does not significantly vary with respect
the required strength of the BRBs and the truss members can be to the BRB configuration [19]. As far as the gusset plate is
calculated. concerned, significant yielding in the gusset plate is undesirable
26 N. Wongpakdee et al. / Engineering Structures 60 (2014) 23–31
because it may lead to out-of-plane deformation and detrimental
failure modes. In addition, the stiffness of the gusset plate should
be well proportioned to avoid deformation concentrations at or
near the interfaces [19]. Therefore, for this system, the gusset plate
should be designed for the maximum adjusted BRB forces given by
Eqs. (10) and (11).
As stated, the truss at each level is designed to remain elastic
mainly under the gravity loads and the adjusted BRB forces at that
level. In addition, because the truss is normally connected to the
column by welded gusset plates, the moments generated by the fix-
ity of the top chord connections should also be taken into account.
These end moments create additional flexural forces in the chords
and axial forces in the vertical members. The truss is thus subjected
to the forces as shown in Fig. 4. In the figure, Pw is the gravity load,
Mp-ch is the plastic moment of the top chord. The factor 1.2 is used to
account for possible strain-hardening. It should be noted that these
plastic moments are neglected in the virtual work equation de-
scribed earlier in Eq. (7) because the energy dissipated by these
plastic hinges is significantly smaller than that by the BRBs. How-
ever, they can locally affect the truss member forces and have to
be included in the truss analysis. The analysis of the truss under
the given loads can be easily performed by hand or by computer.
The columns in BRKB-TMF systems are also designed to remain
elastic, except at the bases where plastic hinges are required to
Fig. 4. Truss design concept.
Fig. 5. Example of a column equilibrium analysis.
complete the yield mechanism. To do so, the columns are designed
to resist the adjusted BRB forces given by Eqs. (10) and (11) and the
forces generated by the truss members connected to the columns.
Based on the PBPD approach, a capacity design method that consid-
ers the equilibrium of the entire column subjected to forces gener-
ated by the BRBs and the trusses can be used to design the columns.
Fig. 5 shows an example of the column tree equilibrium analysis
of an exterior column. In Fig. 5, Vc is the total force required to main-
tain equilibrium of the column tree, TR,i is the force in the top chord
of the truss at level i, DR,i is the force in the diagonal member of the
truss at level i, and Pc,i is the column gravity load at level i. TR,i and
DR,i can be obtained from truss analysis as shown in Fig. 4. The force
required at each level to maintain equilibrium is assumed to have
the same distribution given by ki in Eq. (5). For the column tree
analysis, the plastic moments generated from the top chords
(Mp-ch) are neglected because the bending in the column due to
these plastic moments is significantly smaller than that created
by the axial forces in the truss members. Vc can be solved by sum-
ming the moments at the base. Fig. 5 corresponds to the case where
the frame sways to the right. The same approach can be performed
for the case where the frame sways to the left. It can also be easily
applied to interior columns. Alternatively, instead of using a column
tree analysis, a pushover analysis can be carried out up to the ex-
pected displacement demand level assuming elastic columns. The
forces obtained from the pushover analysis can then be used in
the design of the columns. The PBPD design process for BRKB-
TMF structures is summarized in the flow chart shown in Fig. 6.
3. Example structure
An example BRKB-TMF structure was selected to study the seis-
mic performance of the system. This archetype structure is se-
lected in such a way that it broadly represents a typical
application and characteristics of the proposed structural system.
The chosen structure was a four-story frame originally designed
by Goel and Chao [14] as a moment resisting frame. The building
has two moment frames in each direction. Important factors used
to calculate the design forces were S1 = 0.6 g and Ss = 1.5 g, Seismic
Use Group I, Soil type D, and an estimated period of 0.94 s. The de-
sign spectral acceleration was 0.96 g for the maximum considered
earthquake (MCE) level and 0.64 g for the 2/3 MCE level.
The frame was redesigned as a BRKB-TMF using the PBPD ap-
proach presented earlier. For the PBPD method, multiple hazard
levels can be considered, each with a different performance target
drift. For this example frame, both the MCE and 2/3 MCE levels
were considered. The governing design base shear from the two
hazard levels was then used to design the frame to ensure that
the performance will be satisfactory at both hazard levels. For this
frame, the maximum target drift was selected as 3.0% for MCE level
and 2% for the 2/3 MCE level. With an assumed yield drift of 0.75%,
this results in target plastic drifts, hp, of 2.25% for the MCE level and
1.25% for 2/3 MCE level. The governing design base shear coeffi-
cient (V/W), calculated using Eq. (2), was found to be 0.154 for
the 2/3 MCE level. The elevation view of the BRKB-TMF is shown
in Fig. 7. Assuming two lateral load resisting frames in each loading
direction, each BRKB-TMF was designed to carry half of the seismic
loads computed for the entire building. The design lateral forces for
each frame, Fi, and the distribution factors, bi, for each floor level
are also shown in Fig. 7. The member sizes are summarized in
Table 1.
4. Performance assessment
A performance assessment was carried out using inelastic static
(pushover) analysis and IDA. The pushover analysis was used to
 N. Wongpakdee et al. / Engineering Structures 60 (2014) 23–31 27

Fig. 6. Flow chart summarizing PBPD of a BRKB-TMF.

Fig. 7. Example structure.

Table 1
Summary of member sizes.

Truss Column
Floor level Chord Diagonal BRB capacity (kN) Story Exterior Interior
Roof 2MC100  20.5 2C150  15.6 460 4 W610  174 W610  285
4 2MC150  24.3 2MC150  17.9 700 3 W610  174 W610  285
3 2MC180  28.4 2C180  22.0 850 2 W610  262 W610  341
2 2MC200  31.8 2MC150  22.5 920 1 W610  262 W610  341

Note: All vertical members are L89  89  7.9 except the outermost vertical members are 2L89  89  7.9.
28 N. Wongpakdee et al. / Engineering Structures 60 (2014) 23–31
determine the overall response, the sequence of yielding leading to
collapse, and the failure mechanism. The IDA approach was used to
examine the behavior of the structure at different levels of ground
motion intensity. This procedure is a relatively new analytical tool
utilizing a large number of nonlinear dynamic analyses under vary-
ing levels of ground motion intensity to systematically investigate
the response of the structure [20]. In this study, the ground mo-
tions and IDA were applied according to FEMA P695 methodology
[21]. A total of 44 ground motions were used. Their spectra with
the median spectral acceleration value at the fundamental period
of the frame scaled to match the design value at the MCE level
are shown in Fig. 8. Statistical analyses were performed on the
IDA results to obtain the probability of collapse and the fragility
curves for the structure.
A 2-D analytical model was created to represent the frame. The
model included P-D effect and ‘‘gravity’’ columns. The top chords
of the trusses were assumed to be laterally supported and the bot-
tom chords of the trusses were assumed to be braced at the nodal
points. The chord members were modeled using beam elements.
The diagonal and vertical members were modeled using strut ele-
ments. Imperfections of the members were not explicitly modeled.
The force–deformation characteristics of the columns and truss
members generally followed the ASCE 41-06 [22] recommenda-
tions. Recent research results [23] suggest that modeling parame-
ters for steel columns in ASCE 41 are conservative. The parameters
correspond to collapses at story drifts of only 3–4%, and no param-
eters are defined for columns subjected to axial force greater than
50% of the column strength. Extra test results of steel wide-flange
columns subjected to large drifts and high axial loads were pre-
sented by Newell and Uang [23]. The tests were performed with
columns having width-thickness ratios of 3–7 for flanges and 7–
17 for webs. The test results showed that these columns could de-
form up to 10% drift before failure occurred. In the archetype struc-
ture, the width-thickness ratios of the designed columns were
higher than those of the test specimens. Conservatively, a strength
drop at 6% drift and failure at 7% drift were used for the columns.
The force–deformation characteristics of the BRBs were cali-
brated based on existing test results [24]. A strain limit of 2.8%
was assumed for the BRBs. Assuming a core length equal to 70%
of the member length, the 2.8% limit corresponds to a core strain
capacity of approximately 4%. The fracture of the BRBs was mod-
eled by a sudden strength drop with only minimal residual
strength to avoid numerical problems. It is important to note that
the loss of one or a small number of BRBs does not necessarily
mean that the loss of gravity load carrying capability or collapse
would occur. However, it does lead to a significant increase in
the deformation of the columns and the truss top chords. In these
Fig. 8. Response spectra of ground motions used in this study.
analyses, the collapse was deemed to have occurred when the plas-
tic rotation of a column or that of the truss top chord reached the
limit. All of the analyses were carried out using the PERFORM 3D
computer program [25].
The pushover curve is shown in Fig. 9 with the sequence of
yielding indicated on the plot. The response of the frame was elas-
tic up to the drift level of 0.5% when the first set of BRBs yielded.
The peak strength occurred at a story drift of 1.9%. P-D effect be-
came apparent beyond this drift level as observed from the gradual
strength reduction. At 3.6% drift, a set of BRBs fractured and the
frame experienced severe strength degradation. Beyond this drift,
the frame had only a modest lateral load resistance. As the loading
continued, the plastic rotations of columns at the bases and the
plastic rotations of the truss top chords finally reached the rotation
limits.
The results from the IDA are shown in Fig. 10. One of the goals
of the FEMA P695 methodology [21] is to assess the collapse capac-
ity of the frame. The collapse capacity is expressed in terms of the
collapse margin ratio (CMR) which is defined as the ratio between
the median spectral acceleration of the collapse level ground mo-
tions (SCT) and the spectral acceleration of the MCE ground mo-
tions, SMT. From the IDA results, the CMR for the example frame
was found to be 1.56. The adjusted collapse margin (ACMR) ratio
taking into account the spectral shape [21] was found to be 2.19.
Fragility curves computed from the IDA results are shown in
Fig. 11. The generally assumed log-normal cumulative distribution
functions were used to generate the fragility curves for different
limit states. Fragility curves corresponding to five different drift
Fig. 9. Base shear versus roof drift plot from the pushover analysis.
Fig. 10. IDA curves.
 N. Wongpakdee et al. / Engineering Structures 60 (2014) 23–31
Fig. 11. Fragility curves of the example BRKB-TMF.
thresholds (DT) and collapse of the structure were generated. The
DTs were defined based on the pushover curve shown in Fig. 9.
These include a 1% drift corresponding to the yielding of the struc-
ture, a 2% drift corresponding to peak strength and the target drift
at 2/3 MCE level, a 3% drift corresponding to the deformation prior
to strength degradation due to BRB fracture and the target drift at
MCE level, a 4% drift corresponding to the deformation after
strength degradation, and a 6% drift corresponding to the incipient
stage of total collapse.
As observed, the probability of collapse for the MCE ground mo-
tions falls below 10%. Although only one structure was investigated
in this study, the low probability of collapse strongly shows the
robustness of the proposed system. The results indicated that the
story drifts reached between 6% and 7% before the collapse oc-
curred. The failure pattern was typically the fracture of a set of
BRBs quickly followed by excessive rotation of the plastic hinges
in the columns or in the top chords of the trusses. For the columns,
the critical plastic hinges were mainly located at the bases except
in a few ground motions where they were located elsewhere. The
fragility curves for the 2% and 3% DTs can be used to evaluate
the effectiveness of the PBPD method. At both MCE and 2/3 MCE
levels (Sa equals 0.64 g and 0.96 g, respectively), it was found that
there was approximately 50–55% probability that the drifts would
be kept less than the target values. This result indicated that the
target drifts as used in the PBPD method corresponded approxi-
mately to the median drift values. The variability in the response
for the MCE level is larger when compared to that for the 2/3
MCE level as can be observed by the steeper fragility curve for
the 3% case.
Fig. 12 shows the median values of the plastic rotations in the
columns and the top chords under the MCE level ground motions
excluding the results under the ground motions that caused the
Fig. 12. The plastic rotations in the columns and top chords at MCE level.
29
collapse. The plastic rotations of the columns and the chords at
the MCE level were on the order of approximately 1%. The analysis
indicated that, up to the MCE level, the plastic hinges in the col-
umns were only found at the bases as assumed in the design.
The plastic rotation in the chords also showed that the story defor-
mations were relatively uniform. The rotations were slightly larger
for the chords in the upper stories.
From the pushover and IDA results, it is apparent that the frac-
ture of the BRBs signifies the impending collapse of the frame.
Therefore, the ductility of the BRBs is the key parameter governing
the system performance. It is crucial to select a target drift that is
compatible with the deformation capacity of the BRBs as well as
the performance objective.
To determine the effects of the deformation capacity of the BRBs
on the system behavior and to determine the appropriate level of
the ductility of the BRBs required for satisfactory performance,
additional analyses were carried out. The analysis results pre-
sented earlier were based on a 4% core strain deformation capacity
for the BRBs. Analyses were repeated using core strain capacities of
3% and 5% (approximately 4.3% and 7.1% overall brace strain
assuming a core length of 0.7l0). Based on the IDA results, fragility
curves were generated and compared with the previous results.
These curves are shown in Fig. 13 for different limiting states.
Increasing the BRB deformation capacity decreases the probabil-
ity of exceeding the limit state for a given ground motion intensity.
For 1% and 2% DTs, the BRB strain values were low. Therefore, brace
fracture was not expected to be found in these cases. Hence, the fra-
gility curves appear to be approximately the same regardless of the
BRB deformation capacity. For the 3% drift ratio (Fig. 13(c)), a slight
difference between the fragility curves can be observed. At this
level, the plastic core strain demand of the BRBs based on Eq. (1)
was approximately 2.6% which was near the 3% strain capacity.
30 N. Wongpakdee et al. / Engineering Structures 60 (2014) 23–31
Fig. 13. Fragility comparisons for the different values of BRB deformation capacity.
Therefore, the fragility curve for the 3% strain capacity indicates
greater vulnerability. The fragility curves for the 4% and 5% strain
capacity are approximately the same because the strain demands
were still far from the strain capacity. For all the remaining cases,
including collapse (Fig. 13(d), (e), and (f)), the fragility curves for
the 3%, 4%, and 5% strain capacity are distinctively different. In
terms of the probability of collapse (Fig. 13(f)), there were large dif-
ferences between the fragility curves for the cases of 3% and 4% core
strain capacities. The differences were minor between the 4% and
5% core strain capacity cases. This tendency is better viewed as
the plot of CMR values shown in Fig. 14. The CMR value for the 4%
core strain capacity was considerably larger than that of the 3%
case. However, the value was similar to that of the 5% case. This re-
sult was because when the BRBs could deform more than 4% strain,
the response started to be governed by failure of other components
such as the columns and top chords of the trusses. Therefore,
increasing the strain capacity of the BRBs to more than 4% will
not significantly improve the system collapse performance. The
4% core strain capacity in this case appears to be optimum. This
Fig. 14. CMR values for different BRB strain capacities.
4% core strain capacity is certainly achievable using current BRB
technology.
5. Conclusions
A new structural system known as Buckling-Restrained Knee
Braced Truss Moment Frame is investigated. The system harnesses
the salient features of open-web trusses and buckling restrained
braces. A performance-based design procedure for the system
was developed and presented. A four-story building structure
was used as an example. The structure designed using the proce-
dure developed in this study was subjected to nonlinear static
(pushover) and dynamic analyses. Collapse evaluation was also
conducted. The main findings include:
1. The PBPD procedure presented in this paper can be used to
design BRKB-TMFs. For the example structure, the PBPD
procedure results in a frame with excellent response with
all the inelastic deformations confined to only the desig-
nated elements up to the target displacement levels. It
was found that there was an approximately 50% probability
that the drifts would be less than or equal to the target value
at a given hazard level. The target drift used in the PBPD
method can be viewed as the median drift value that can
be expected for a given hazard level.
2. Both static and dynamic analysis results indicated that
when the story drifts reached approximately 6–7%, collapse
occurred. The deformation capacity of the study frame
exceeded the drift limits specified in most modern codes.
The failure pattern was typically the fracture of a set of
BRBs leading to excessive rotation of the plastic hinges in
the columns and in the top chords of the trusses. Therefore,
it is important to prevent early failure of the BRBs. This can
be achieved by selecting the target drift and the configura-
tion of the frame corresponding to the deformation capac-
ity of the BRBs.
 N. Wongpakdee et al. / Engineering Structures 60 (2014) 23–31
3. The results of the collapse evaluation indicated that the
probability of collapse for the MCE ground motions was
less than 10%. The CMR value of the BRKB-TMF designed
using the PBPD method passed the FEMA P695 criteria for
an individual archetype structure.
4. Using BRBs with larger ductility results in better perfor-
mance of the structural system. From the fragility curves,
a 4% core strain capacity appears to be the optimum ductil-
ity required for the BRBs in the BRKB-TMF system. For
structures using more ductile BRBs (with strain capacity
more than 4%), the performance would be governed by
other components, such as the columns and the top chords
of the trusses. This 4% strain capacity is achievable using
current BRB technology.
Although further investigations are required before this system
can be fully validated, this study strongly demonstrates the poten-
tial of the proposed system. Currently, large-scale subassemblange
tests as well as further detailed analytical studies are being
planned as part of an international collaborative research project.
The findings from these studies will provide full validation for this
framing system.
Acknowledgements
Financial support for this research to the first author was pro-
vided by the Office of the Higher Education Commission, Thailand,
under the Higher Education Research Promotion and National Re-
search University Project.
Appendix A. Approximate BRB strain demand
Calculation of strain demand based on the Law of Cosines is
accurate provided that the elastic deformation is negligible. The
strain demand calculation can be simplified for a special case as
follows. Assuming a small deformation, the plastic elongation of
the BRB can be computed using the law of cosines from the de-
formed and undeformed shapes shown in Fig. 2. For the deformed
configuration
2 2
ðl0 þ dÞ ¼ D2 þ ld  2Dld cosðhp þ uÞ ðA:1Þ
and for the undeformed configuration
2 2
lo ¼ D2 þ ld  2Dld cosðuÞ ðA:2Þ
Subtract Eq. (A.2) from Eq. (A.1)
2 2
ðlo þ dÞ  lo ¼ 2Dld cosðhp þ uÞ þ 2Dld cosðuÞ ðA:3Þ
ðlo þ d  lo Þð2lo þ dÞ ¼ 2Dld cosðhp þ uÞ þ 2Dld cosðuÞ ðA:4Þ
2lo d þ d2 ¼ 2Dld cosðhp Þ cosðuÞ þ 2Dld sinðhp Þ sinðuÞ
þ 2Dld cosðuÞ ðA:5Þ
2
For small deformation, d  0, cos (hp)  1, and sin (hp)  hp, Eq.
(A.5) becomes
2lo d ¼ 2Dld hp sinðuÞ ðA:6Þ
31
The above equation can be simplified to give
ld
d¼ hp D sinðuÞ ðA:7Þ
lo
For a special case where the depth of the truss at the face of the col-
umn is chosen to be twice the depth of the truss at mid span
(D = 2Do), lo equals ld, Eq. (A.7) yields
d ¼ hp D sinðuÞ ðA:8Þ
and the plastic strain is approximately
ep ¼ d=lo ¼ hp D sinðuÞ=lo ðA:9Þ
References
[1] Goel SC, Itani A. Seismic behavior of open-web truss moment frames. ASCE J
Struct Eng 1994;120(6):1763–80.
[2] Goel SC, Itani A. Seismic-resistant special truss-moment frames. ASCE J Struct
Eng 1994;120(6):1781–97.
[3] AISC. ANSI/AISC 341-10. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings.
Chicago (IL): American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC); 2010.
[4] Pekcan G, Linke C, Itani A. Damage avoidance design of special truss moment
frames with energy dissipating devices. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:1374–84.
[5] Longo A, Montuori R, Piluso V. Theory of plastic mechanism control of
dissipative truss moment frames. Eng Struct 2012;37:63–75.
[6] Palazzo G, López-Almansa F, Cahís X, Crisafulli F. A low-tech dissipative
buckling restrained brace. Design, analysis, production and testing. Eng Struct
2009;31:2152–61.
[7] Chou CC, Chen SY. Subassemblage tests and finite element analyses of
sandwiched buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2010;32:2108–21.
[8] Miller DJ, Fahnestock LA, Eatherton MR. Development and experimental
validation of a nickel–titanium shape memory alloy self-centering buckling-
restrained brace. Eng Struct 2012;40:288–98.
[9] Wang CL, Usami T, Funayama J, Imase F. Low-cycle fatigue testing of extruded
aluminium alloy buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2013;46:294–301.
[10] Lopez WA, Sabelli R. Seismic design of buckling-restrained braced frames.
Steel tips. Moraga (CA): Structural Steel Educational Council; 2004.
[11] Di Sarno L, Elnashai AS. Innovative strategies for seismic retrofitting of steel
and composite frames. J Prog Struct Eng Mater 2005;7(3):115–35.
[12] Di Sarno L, Manfredi G. Seismic retrofitting with buckling restrained braces:
application to an existing non-ductile RC framed building. Soil Dynam
Earthquake Eng 2010;30(11):1279–97.
[13] Lee SS, Goel SC. Performance-based design of steel moment frames using a
target drift and yield mechanism. Research report no. UMCEE 01-17. Dept of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann, Arbor; 2001.
[14] Goel SC, Chao SH. Performance-based plastic design: earthquake-resistant
steel structures. International Code Council; 2008.
[15] Ghosh S, Adam F, Das A. Design of steel plate shear walls considering inelastic
drift demand. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:1431–7.
[16] Sahoo DR, Chao SH. Performance-based plastic design method for buckling-
restrained braced frames. Eng Struct 2010;32:2950–8.
[17] Sahoo DR, Rai DC. Design and evaluation of seismic strengthening techniques
for reinforced concrete frames with soft ground story. Eng Struct
2013;56:1933–44.
[18] Chao SH, Goel SC. A seismic design lateral force distribution based on inelastic
state of structures. Earthquake Spectra 2004;23(3):547–69.
[19] Wigle VR, Fahnestock LA. Buckling-restrained braced frame connection
performance. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66:65–74.
[20] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dynam 2002;31(3):491–514.
[21] FEMA P695. Quantification of building system performance factor. FEMA.
Redwood City (CA); 2009.
[22] ASCE. ASCE/SEI No. 41-06. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. Reston,
Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2006.
[23] Newell JD, Uang CM. Cyclic behavior of steel wide-flange columns subjected to
large drift. ASCE J Struct Eng 2008;134(8):1334–42.
[24] Merritt S, Uang CM, Benzoni G. Subassemblage testing of star seismic
buckling-restrained braces. Report No. TR-2003/04, University of California,
San Diego; 2003.
[25] Computers and Structures Inc. PERFORM 3D. user’s manual vol. 4.0, Berkeley,
California; 2007.