EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

Pre-test numerical simulations for development of prequalified

buckling restrained braces
Ciprian Ionut Zub*,a, Adrian Dogariua, Aurel Stratana, Dan Dubinaa,b
a
Politehnica University of Timisoara, Dept. of Steel Structures and Structural Mecanics, Romania
ciprian.zub@student.upt.ro , adrian.dogariu@upt.ro, aurel.stratan@upt.ro
b
Romanian Academy , Romania
dan.dubina@upt.ro
ABSTRACT
Buckling Restrained Braces (BRBs) are increasingly used as structural fuse elements due to their
stable and quasi-symmetric cyclic behaviour and capacity to dissipate a large amount of energy.
However, a wider adoption of buckling restrained braced frames is often precluded by the
proprietary character of most BRBs, need for their experimental qualification and sometimes lack of
experience of designers. To overcome these problems, a set of typical BRBs were developed in
view of their pre-qualification. "Conventional" and “dry” devices were considered, with capacities
corresponding to typical steel multistorey buildings in Romania. The paper presents the pre-test
numerical simulations program for the “conventional” type of BRBs. The numerical model was
developed using the general-purpose finite element analysis program ABAQUS. The nonlinear
cyclic behaviour of the steel core was described by a combined kinematic-isotropic hardening rule.
Calibration of the hardening parameters is also presented. A parametric analysis was performed in
order to identify the optimal geometry and mechanical characteristics of brace components. Core
aspect ratio, gap size, critical elastic axial load of the buckling-restraining mechanism were among
the investigated geometrical parameters. Also, different values for the friction coefficient were
analysed. Outcomes of the finite element investigation were used developing the engineering
solution and a design procedure for two conceptually different solutions of “conventional” buckling
restrained braces in view of pre-qualification.
Keywords: Buckling Restrained Braces, Finite Element Analysis, calibration
1 INTRODUCTION
Considered as structural fuse elements, Buckling Restrained Braces, BRBs, are displacement
dependent dissipative devices that transforms the kinetic energy induced into the structure within a
seismic event into thermal energy by using the principle of steel yielding. Consisting of two
distinctive systems that work independent: a dissipative system (primarily), and a buckling
restraining system (secondary), BRBs are of two types: “conventional” and “dry”. The dissipative
system consists of a variable cross-section steel plate that has a reduced area in the mid zone, called
dissipative zone, and enlarged sections at the ends (transition and joint zone) that will remain in the
elastic domanin during the whole seismic event. The core is wrapped with an unbonding layer in
order to decouple the two systems, and then placed in a steel buckling restraining mechanism
(BRM), that will confine core’s transversal deformations allowing it to achieve higher buckling
modes. Depending on the type of BRB, the BRM can consist of a concrete filled steel tube for the
case of “conventional’ BRB, or a steel assembly for the case of “dry” solution. Within this article
the first solution was numerically investigated.
Due to their quasi-symmetric cyclic behaviour and capacity to dissipate large amount of energy,
BRBs have been intensively both experimentally and numerically tested in order to better
understand and improve their behaviour. It’s been almost 30 years since BRBs where first
experimentally tested in Japan and then extensively tested and used in other countries [1]. In
Europe, just few tests have been performed up to date. The use of BRBs in Europe is not regulated
by Eurocode 8 [2]. However, requirements for qualification of BRBs are available in EN 15129 [3].

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · ce/papers 1 (2017), No. 2 & 3
https://doi.org/10.1002/cepa.395 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cepa 3404
 | 3405

Romania is the only country in the Europe that introduced BRBs into the National Anti-Seismic
Design Code, P100-1/2013 [4], since January 1st, 2014. Project based experimental qualification is
needed when using BRBs in real structures. Therefore, the main objective of this research is the pre-
qualification of a set of BRBs, covering a range of capacities suitable for low-rise and mid-rise
buildings. The experimental program and the specimens IDs are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Experimental program: BRB specimens

"conventional" BRBs "dry" BRBs
Nominal
300 kN 700 kN 300 kN 700 kN 700 kN 300 kN 700 kN
resistance
Ncr/Npl 3 3 3 3 1.5 3 3
Cross-Section 14x60 20x99 30*30 45*45 20x99 14x60 20x99
CR33-1 CR73-1 CS33-1 CS73-1 CR71-1 DR33-1 DR73-1
Specimen ID
CR33-2 CR73-2 CS33-2 CS73-2 CR71-2 DR33-2 DR73-2

Within this paper, the numerical pre-testing program is presented for the conventional BRBs. The
outcomes of the numerical analyses were used to develop and design the final engineering solutions
that are going to be manufactured and then tested in view of prequalification. Several parameters
were analysed in order to identify the optimal configuration that will lead to the desired behaviour
of the BRB. Parameters as core aspect ratio, gap size, critical elastic axial load of the buckling-
restraining mechanism (Pe), friction coefficient were investigated. The performance of the BRBs
was analysed in terms of compression adjustment factor (β), core axial strain, cumulative inelastic
deformation (CID), and global performance.

2 FEM MODELLING
2.1 Calibration
The conceptual development of the BRB devices had its basis on numerical investigations
performed on finite element models, using Abaqus/CAE 6.14.4. The numerical model adopted was
calibrated against experimental data available within the technical literature [5]. The numerical
simulations performed with the FE model adopted had the purpose of providing information on
specific input parameters (vertical and horizontal core to concrete gap, contact law definition,
friction coefficient) that will be necessary to model and design the experimental specimens. Using
the BRB’s geometry from [5], a similar finite element model was constructed (see Figure 1Figure
1).

Figure 1. Numerical reference model

All of the components (steel core, infilled concrete, steel casing) were directly modelled using 3D
finite elements. The unbonding layer was modelled by the use of a small gap (through thickness
direction, 1 mm; through width direction 0.2 mm); and a contact law (normal behaviour set as
“hard” contact; tangential behaviour set as penalty/friction = 0.1). Due to the complex nonlinearity
and type of loading, cyclic, the Dynamic Explicit solver was used. To reduce the dynamic effects, a
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
3406 |

mass scaling factor equal to 0.0001 and a time of 79 s was used, assuring the quasi-static
application of the load.
To predict a proper spatial stress state, all the components were modelled with tridimensional
deformable solid elements. The discretization was performed using C3D8I hexahedral, 8 node
linear variation of displacements along the element’s edges. This type of finite element was used in
order to prevent shear locking and hourglass effects that can appear when using first order finite
elements loaded in bending (C3D8, C3D8R). Partitions were done to allow for a structural
discretization of the parts.
The secondary system (steel casing and infilled concrete) was modelled using elastic material
models. Therefore, the Young’s moduli (E), the Poisson’s coefficients (ν), and the material’s
densities (ρ) were needed. The following values were used to define the concrete (Ec = 21000 MPa,
ν = 0,18, ρ =2,5 E-9 tonne/mm3) and the steel behaviour (Es = 210000 MPa, ν =0,3, ρ = 7,85 E-9
tonne/mm3). The material associated with the dissipative core was chosen with respect to the type of
loading that was applied: monotonic or cyclic. For the case of monotonic loading, isotropic
hardening plastic model was used, based on Hubert von Mises yield criterion (fy = 282 MPa, fu =
510 MPa, fr = 490 MPa). In the case of cyclic loading, combined isotropic/kinematic hardening
plasticity model was used, which consists of two components: a nonlinear kinematic behaviour
(superposition of several backstresses, m = 5: (1) C1 = 25000 MPa, g 1 = 500; (2) C2 = 21000 MPa,
g 2 = 375; (3) C3 = 5950 MPa, g 3 = 120; (4) C4 =935 MPa, g 4 = 25; (5) C5 = 300 MPa, g 5 = 0);
and a nonlinear isotropic behaviour (Qinfinity = 60 MPa and b = 4). Using this approach, a good
prediction can be obtained, including the Baushinger effect.
A general contact, “All with self”, was defined, using a friction coefficient equal to 0,1 to account
for the friction forces that may take place between the exterior surface of the core and the interior
surface of the concrete. A “Tie” constraint was also defined between the exterior surface of the
concrete and the interior surface of the steel casing. Boundary conditions were defined at the end of
the steel core (fixed ends). The load was applied as a displacement controlled, using the “smooth
step” method.
After performing the analyses, a good correlation between the experimental and the numerical
results was observed. The numerical model was able to capture all the main characteristics of the
tested BRB: initial elastic stiffness, yield stress and displacement, strain hardening, the energy
dissipated. The comparison between experimental and numerical results is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Calibration of FEM model. Uniaxial cyclic behaviour

2.2 Numerical model

Several conceptual designs were proposed and analysed for the case of “conventional” BRB. In
Figure 3 two different concepts are presented and will be used for the numerical program. The main
difference between the concepts is the fact that one consists of a rectangular 20 x 99 mm steel plate
(type A), and the other (type B) consists of a square 45 x 45 mm steel profile. The length of the core
was kept the same in both concepts, Lc = 3850 mm.
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
 | 3407

B
3628

Stiffeners Gap Concrete Core Stopper Unbonding layer

172

3850
A B A

a) Front view: BRB type A

B-B B-B

2
Core Core

45
2
Concrete Concrete

193,7
CHS
99

Unbonding Unbonding
CHS
2

20 2 180,5 6,6
180,5 6,6 193,7

b) Cross-section BRB type A c) Cross-section BRB type B

Figure 3. Conceptual geometry of two “conventional” BRBs

The pre-testing numerical program was perform by using some of the information obtained from
the calibration tests (friction coefficient 0,1; gap 1 mm; FE type C3D8I; contact laws; material
definition approaches). Different types of solvers were preliminarily used in order to establish the
proper one to be used for the whole pre-testing program. Static General, Dynamic Implicit (quasi-
static), and Dynamic Explicit were initially used. Due to the complex nonlinearity (material,
geometry (imperfections), contact laws) the first two solvers took a large amount of computational
time. Therefore, the Dynamic Explicit solver was used, with similar results as the implicit solvers.
To validate the results, the output energies were compared assuring that a quasi-static analysis is
being performed: artificial strain energy and kinetic energy were kept to a minimum when
comparing to internal energy and external work (less than 1%). It must be mentioned that mass
scaling was used, with a target increment of 5E-5.
The FE model used in the experimental program consists of three parts (steel core, concrete, CHS
tube with two end-caps), gaps and interactions between parts. The core was modelled using C3D8I
finite element type, with a size of 10 mm for the plastic zone and 20 mm for the elastic zone.
Several C3D6 elements were used to facilitate the mesh propagation for the transition zones. The
concrete part was modelled using C3D8R elements due to its less significant contribution to the
global behaviour of the BRB. The tube, including a cap at each end, was modelled using shell
elements, S4R, with five integration points per thickness. The thickness of the CHS varied
depending on the specimen. The assembly, the independent discretized constitutive parts and the
gaps are presented in Figure 4. Gaps are placed near the transition zones to allow for free movement
of the core in compression.
When modelling BRBs, interactions are very important. Therefore, a general contact was defined,
and the contact domain consisted of two selected surface pairs that were assigned different contact
properties as follows: the core – to – concrete interaction was defined as having the tangential
behaviour defined as “Penalty” with a friction coefficient of 0.1 and the normal behaviour set to
“Hard” contact; the concrete – to- steel casing interaction had the same properties except the
friction coefficient which was set to 0.4 in to account for the partial composite behaviour.
A coupling constraint was defined at each end of the core, by connecting a reference point to a
surface using the “Continuum distributing” coupling type, allowing for free transversal deformation
of the selected surface.
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
3408 |

= + + ;

a) Assembly b) Core c) Concrete d) CHS e) Gaps

Figure 4. Finite element model. Assembly, parts and gaps

The BRB was considered pinned at both ends, while the load was applied in displacement control.
In order to include imperfections into the numerical model, a previous buckling analysis, where the
two contact pairs were redefined as “Tie” constraints, was performed. The first buckling mode was
scaled to the length of the BRM divided by 1000, LBRM/1000 = 3,7 mm, and then used as
“*Imperfection” for the main model.
For the concrete part, just the elastic behaviour definition was assigned, using the following
parameters: Ec = 29108 MPa, ν = 0.2; ρ = 2.5E-9 tonnes/mm3. Plastic behaviour was also used
within preliminary analyses, but no difference in results was noticed, just an increased in
computational time (and convergence problems), therefore just the elastic definition was used.
The steel casing and the core were modelled using the combined isotropic/kinematic hardening
plasticity model. The model consists of a nonlinear kinematic and a nonlinear (exponential law) or
multilinear (tabular data) isotropic hardening component. A very good prediction can be obtained
with this model for both monotonic and cyclic analyses. Due to the fact that in [5] the material used
to manufacture the steel core was not a European mild carbon steel, as is the one used within this
research program, another reference was used for calibration of the material’s parameters [6]. After
performing the calibration (see Figure 5), the input parameters to be used within this numerical
program, for both kinematic and isotropic components, were determined by scaling up the
calibrated parameters obtained from the experimental tests performed by [6].

a) b)
Figure 5. Calibration of material model for monotonic and cyclic

The calibration procedure described in [7] was used. The input parameters for kinematic hardening
were determined using the “Stabilized” data type option. Yield stress – plastic strain data pairs were
introduced, and five backstresses were requested for better prediction. Small adjustments were
necessary for finer prediction of kinematic behaviour. In the following analyses, the above
calibrated backstresses were used: (1) C1 = 18518 MPa, g 1 = 954; (2) C2 = 13855 MPa, g 2 = 184;
(3) C3 = 966,2 MPa, g 3 = 15; (4) C4 =480 MPa, g 4 = 4; (5) C5 = 200 MPa, g 5 = 0,1). For the
isotropic behaviour, a multilinear isotropic softening (up to the end of plateau), followed by
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
 | 3409

isotropic hardening was used. The use of softening was necessary in order to obtain the plateau. The
isotropic behaviour input curve is presented in Figure 6.
Abaqus input: true σ − ε
600

Equiv. true stress [MPa]

500
400 480
300 420
200 360
300
100 S355 0 0.03 0.06 0.09
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Equivalent plastic true strain [mm/mm]
Figure 6. Cyclic hardening input data

2.3 Numerical program

A parametric study on ten different BRBs models was performed within the numerical program.
The influence four parameters was investigated: core – to –concrete gap size, lateral flexural
stiffness of BRM, cross-section core shape, friction coefficient (between core and concrete). Three
gap layouts were investigated: uniform gap of 1 mm, 2 mm, and different gap sizes for the through-
thickness direction (1 mm) and the through-width direction (2 mm). With this three models the
influence of the Poisson’s effect will be investigated (changing size of the cross-section when
loaded in tension or compression). Within the second parameter, the uncertainties on designing the
BRM will be investigated. According to the technical literature, the ratio between the critical elastic
axial load of the BRM, Pe, and the yield strength of the BRB, Py, should be grated than 1,5 [8].
However, many researchers used larger values when designing the BRM [9, 10]. Therefore, two
BRB models were designed having the Pe/Py = 1,5, and, respectively, Pe/Py = 3,0. The third
parameter was the core cross-section shape: rectangular (20 x 99 mm) and square (45 x 45 mm).
Due to this change, the entire conceptual design must also be changed, by using different
connection and transition zone details. The last parameter analysed was the friction coefficient that
describes the contact interaction law between the steel core and the concrete part. Ranging from
0,05 to 0,3, the influence of this parameter should be investigated by monitoring the maximum
compression force developed within a cyclic analysis. The numerical program is summarized in
Table 2.

Table 2. Parameters analysed within the numerical program

Numerical Program. Parametric study
Parameter Parameter analysed
Model ID
ID ID Value
CR73-g1-f.1 g1 1,1,1,1
CR73-g12-f.1 g1/2 1. GAPcore_to_concrete 1,2,2,1
CR73-g2-f.1 g2 2,2,2,2
CR71-g12-f.1 1 Pe/Py = 1.5
2. BRM
CR73-g12-f.1 3 Pe/Py = 3.0
CR73-g12-f.1 R rectangular
3. CORE SHAPE
CS73-g1-f.1 S square
CR73-g12-f.05 f.05 0.05
CR73-g12-f.1 f.1 0.1
4.FRICTION
CR73-g12-f.15 f.15 0.15
CR73-g12-f.2 f.2 0.2

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
3410 |

2.4 Numerical results

The influence of loading type. Within the numerical program, the uniaxial monotonic and cyclic
behaviour of “conventional“ BRB was studied, depending on certain parameters. CR73-g12-f.1 was
set was set as reference model, and all the results are compared against it. The uniaxial behaviour
for monotonic tension/compression and cyclic loading is presented in Figure 7. Several aspects can
be noticed as follows. The yield force was about 878 kN corresponding to a displacement of 6.47
mm. A 2,2% difference was noticed between the maximum tension force when monotonically
loaded, Tmax,T = 1176 kN, and the maximum tension force for cyclic loading, Tmax,Cyc = 1202 kN,
Due to the cyclic loading effect (accumulated plastic deformations), the failure of the specimens
took place at different displacement ranges, i.e. for the monotonic case, the BRB was able to
develop a displacement range of 310.06 mm before failure, but when cyclically loaded, just 272.6
mm were achieved. The difference is about 13,74%, with respect to the monotonic case.
The influence of core – to - concrete gap was analysed with respect to the compression overstrength
factor, β. The lowest value was obtained with the 1-2-2-1 mm configuration, β = 1,16 (reference
model CR73-g12-f.1). For CR73-g1-f.1 and CR73-g2-f.1 values of β = 1,43 and β = 1,38,
respectively were obtained. According to AISC 341-10 regulations [11], the value of β should be
greater than 1,0 and less than 1,3. Therefore, only CR73-g12-f.1 can be qualified (see Figure 8).
The critical elastic axial load of BRM, had a small influence from the β factor point of view. A
2,58% difference was noticed when comparing the results from the two models, CR73-g12-f.1 (β =
1,16), and CR71-g12-f.1 (β = 1,19) (see Figure 9). The main objective of investigating this
parameter was to determine the global behaviour of the BRB, with respect to maximum lateral
deformation of the BRM when maximum compressively loaded. Even thought for CR71-g12-f.1 a
22,65 mm lateral deformation for the BRM was recorded (in the mid-zone), compared with 4,63
mm of the reference model, both steel tubes remained in the elastic domain.
From the models with the same value of the friction coefficient (0,1), the smallest value for β factor
was obtained in the case of square core cross-section model, CS73-g1-f.1, (β = 1,13). The
dissipative zone is slightly larger than the one of the rectangular cross-section models, this allowing
to undergo slightly larger amplitudes successfully (see Figure 10).
The friction coefficient, within de definition of the contact property, that characterizes the
interaction between the core and the concrete, has a large influence on the behaviour of the BRB.
The values of the β factor increased considerably when using higher values for the fiction
coefficient. As expected, the lowest value for β = 1,13 was obtained for the case of 0,05 friction,
and the highest value, β = 1,41, for the case of 0,2 friction. CR73-g12-f.2 cannot be qualified
according to [11] (see Figure 11). There was also noticed that the higher the friction, the less
accumulated plastic deformation capacity.
Four cyclic analyses were performed on CR73-g12-f.1 model in order to determine the cyclic
loading protocol that fulfils both requirements within [11] regarding to prequalification of BRBs,
the requirements are expressed as minimum values of the design story drift (greater than 1%) and
the cumulative inelastic deformation capacity (CID, greater than 200 time the yield displacement).
The criterion for determining the amplitudes was expressed as the maximum value for the axial
strain developed by the BRB’s dissipative core segment. Four protocols corresponding to 3,5%,
3.0%, 2.75%, 2.5% demand core strain were used. Only the last two protocols were completed by
the CR73-g12-f.1 model, without premature failure. The protocol corresponding to 2,75% core
strain was declared as the valid protocol to be used with the following experimental tests. The
results are summarized in Table 3. The cyclic behaviour is presented in Figure 12.

Table 3. Cyclic performance of CR73-g12-f.1

Model CID CID/∆by Status
LP.eps.2.5% 2224 344 completed
LP.eps.2.75% 2467 381 completed
LP.eps.3.0% 2710 419 fractured
LP.eps.3.5% 3196 494 fractured
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
 | 3411

Uniaxial Behavior: F - D
1500
Yield Point, 6.47, 878.00
1000

500
Force [kN]

0
Legend:
-500 Yield Point
T
-1000 C
Cyclic
-1500
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Displacement [mm]

Figure 7. Uniaxial behaviour of CR73-g12-f.1

Uniaxial Cyclic Behavior, F - D: gap

1800
Legend:
1350 CR73-g1-f.1
900 CR73-g12-f.1
Force [kN]

450 CR73-g2-f.1
0
-450
-900
-1350
-1800
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement [mm]

Figure 8. The influence of core – to - concrete gap

Uniaxial Cyclic Behavior, F - D: BRM

1800
Legend:
1350 CR73-g12-f.1
900 CR71-g12-f.1
Force [kN]

450
0
-450
-900
-1350
-1800
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement [mm]

Figure 9. The influence of the critical elastic axial load of BRM

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
3412 |

Uniaxial Cyclic Behavior, F - D: core shape

1800
Legend:
1350 CR73-g12-f.1
900 CS73_g1.f.1
Force [kN]

450
0
-450
-900
-1350
-1800
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement [mm]

Figure 10. The influence of the core shape

Uniaxial Cyclic Behavior, F - D: friction coefficient

1800
Legend:
1350
CR73-g12-f.05
900
CR73-g12-f.1
Force [kN]

450 CR73-g12-f.15
0 CR73-g12-f.2
-450
-900
-1350
-1800
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement [mm]

Figure 11. The influence of the friction coefficient

Uniaxial Cyclic Behavior, F - D: loading protocol

1800
Legend:
1350
LP.eps.2.5%
900
LP.eps.2.75%
Force [kN]

450 LP.eps.3.0%
0 LP.eps.3.5%
-450
-900
-1350
-1800
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement [mm]

Figure 12. Cyclic behaviour of CR73-g12-f.1 at different levels of axial core strain

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
 | 3413

3 CONCLUSIONS
Finite element based numerical analyses were performed on two “conventional” BRBs with
rectangular and square cores. Calibration of numerical model based on experimental tests was
performed in order to calibrate representative input parameters that define the BRB’s behaviour. A
pre-testing numerical program was performed, in order to determine the optimal conceptual design.
From the parametric study, it can be concluded that optimal results can be obtained: by using a
nonuniform gap layout (1-2-2-1 mm) around the rectangular steel core (critical); by using a BRM
with a lateral stiffness greater than 1.5 (non critical); by using a compact square core shape (non
critical); by assuring a friction coefficient less than 0.15 (critical). The experimental loading
protocol should be constructed using an axial core strain demand not greater than 2,75% as criterion
for determining the deformation in BRB corresponding to the design story drift (∆bm).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research leading to these results has received founding from the MEN-UEFISCDI grant
Partnerships in priority areas PN II, contract no. 99/2004 IMSER: Implementation into Romanian
seismic resistant design practice of buckling restrained braces.” This support is greatly
acknowledged.

REFERENCES
[1] Xie, Q., “State of the art of buckling-restrained braces in Asia”, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 61, pp. 727-748, 2005.
[2] CEN - European Committee for Standardization. "Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings”, Eurocode 8-1/2008, 2008
[3] CEN - European Committee for Standardization. "Anti-seismic devices”, EN 15129:2010, 2010
[4] P100-1/2013, „National Seismic Design Code – Part I – Design Provisions for Buildings”, 2013
[5] Dunai, L., Zsarnóczay, A., Kaltenbach, L., Kálló, M., Kachichian, M., Halász, A., "Type testing of
Buckling Restrained Braces according to EN 15129 – EWC800 – Final report", 2011
[6] Kaufmann E.J., Metrovich B., Pense A.W., “Characterization of Cyclc Inelastic strain behavior on
properties of A572 Gr. 50 and A913 Gr. 50 Rolled Sections”. ATLSS Report No. 01-13, American
Institute of Steel Construction, December, 2001
[7] ABAQUS “ABAQUS Documentation”, Dassault Systèmes, Providence, RI, USA, 2014
[8] Watanabe, A., Hitomi, Y., Saeki, E., Wada, A., Fujimoto, M., “Properties of brace encased in buckling
restraining concrete and steel tube”, Proc. 9th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 719-
724, 1988
[9] Black, C., Makris, N., Aiken, I., "Component Testing, Stability Analysis and Characterization of
Buckling-Restrained Unbonded BracesTM". PEER Report 2002/08. Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 2002
[10] Iwata, M., Murai, M., “Buckling-restrained brace using steel mortar planks; performance evaluation as
a hysteretic damper”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35, pp. 1807-1826, 2006
[11] ANSI/AISC 341-10, “Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings”, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, USA, 2010

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)