Nistgcr13 917 24

NIST GCR 13-917-24
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 8
Seismic Design of Steel Special

Concentrically Braced Frame
Systems
A Guide for Practicing Engineers
Rafael Sabelli
Charles W. Roeder
Jerome F. Hajjar
NEHRP Seismic Design
Technical Briefs
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Technical Jerome F. Hajjar, Ph.D., P.E., is a Professor and the Department Chair in
Briefs are published by the National Institute of Standards and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northeastern
Technology (NIST) as aids to the efficient transfer of NEHRP and other University. He serves on the AISC Committee on Specifications and
research into practice, thereby helping to reduce the nation’s losses several of its task committees and is a member of the SEI Technical
from earthquakes. Activities Division Executive Committee. He is a fellow of ASCE and
SEI and the winner of the 2010 Popular Mechanics Breakthrough
National Institute of Award, the 2005 AISC T. R. Higgins Lectureship Award, the 2004 AISC
Standards and Technology Special Achievement Award, and the 2000 ASCE Norman Medal. He is
NIST is a federal technology agency within the U.S. Department of a registered professional engineer in Illinois and Minnesota.
Commerce that promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness
by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways
that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. It is the
About the Review Panel
The contributions of the three review panelists for this publication are
lead agency of the NEHRP. Dr. John (Jack) R. Hayes, Jr., is the Director
gratefully acknowledged.
of NEHRP within NIST’s Engineering Laboratory (EL). Dr. John (Jay) L.
Harris, III, managed the project to produce this Technical Brief for EL.
Michel Bruneau, Ph.D., P.E., is Professor in the Department of Civil,
Structural, and Environmental Engineering at the University at Buffalo,
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture the State University of New York, and an ASCE Fellow. He is a member
This NIST-funded publication is one of the products of the work of of several AISC and Canadian Standards Association committees
the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture carried out under Contract developing design specifications for bridges and buildings, and he served
SB134107CQ0019, Task Order 12-335. The partners in the NEHRP as Director of the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Consultants Joint Venture are the Applied Technology Council (ATC) and Research. He has conducted extensive research on the design and
the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering behavior of steel structures subjected to earthquake and blast and has
(CUREE). The members of the Joint Venture Management Committee received many awards for his work. He has authored over 400 technical
are James R. Harris, Robert Reitherman, Christopher Rojahn, and publications, including co-authoring the textbook Ductile Design of Steel
Andrew Whittaker, and the Program Manager is Jon A. Heintz. Structures and three fiction books.
About The Authors John A. Rolfes, P.E., S.E., is a Vice-President with Computerized
Rafael Sabelli, P.E., S.E., is Director of Seismic Design at Walter P Structural Design in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a consulting engineering
Moore, a structural and civil engineering firm with offices nationwide. firm that provides structural engineering services throughout the United
He is a member of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) States. He is a member of the American Institute of Steel Construction
Task Committee 9 – Seismic Provisions, AISC Seismic Design Manual Task Committee 9 – Seismic Provisions, AISC Seismic Design Manual
Committee, the Building Seismic Safety Council’s 2014 Provisions Committee, AISC Industrial Buildings and Non-Building Structures
Update Committee (PUC), and the American Society of Civil Engineers Committee, and the Association of Iron and Steel Technology (AIST) Mill
(ASCE) Seismic Subcommittee for ASCE 7. Buildings Committee.
Charles W. Roeder, Ph.D., P.E., is a Professor of Civil Engineering at C. Mark Saunders, P.E., S.E. is Senior Consultant and past President of
the University of Washington. He has performed extensive research Rutherford + Chekene Consulting Engineers in San Francisco and has
on the seismic performance of steel and composite structures, and his been involved in seismic design and code development for more than 40
research has focused on the seismic performance and rehabilitation years. He has been a member of the AISC Task Committee 9 - Seismic
of braced frames for the past several years. He is a member of AISC, Provisions, for more than 20 years and is currently its Vice Chair. He has
Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), and Earthquake Engineering served on the PUC for the NEHRP Provisions and is a past president of
Research Institute (EERI), and serves on the ASCE 41 and AISC 358 both the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California and ATC.
standards committees.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) Consortium of Universities for Research in

201 Redwood Shores Parkway - Suite 240 Earthquake Engineering (CUREE)
Redwood City, California 94065 1301 South 46th Street - Building 420
(650) 595-1542 CUREE Richmond, CA 94804
www.atcouncil.org email: [email protected] (510) 665-3529
www.curee.org email: [email protected]
NIST GCR 13-917-24
Seismic Design of Steel Special

Concentrically Braced Frame Systems
A Guide for Practicing Engineers

Prepared for
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Engineering Laboratory
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600
By
Rafael Sabelli
Walter P Moore
Charles W. Roeder
University of Washington
Jerome F. Hajjar
Northeastern University
July 2013
U.S. Department of Commerce

Penny Pritzker, Secretary
National Institute of Standards and Technology

Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for
Standards and Technology and Director
Contents
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................1
2. The Use of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frames ....................................2
3. Principles for Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frames..................3
4. Analysis Guidance...................................................................................10
5. Design Guidance......................................................................................14
6. Additional Requirements...........................................................................23
7. Detailing and Constructability.....................................................................25
8. References.............................................................................................27
9. Notations and Abbreviations......................................................................29
10. Credits....................................................................................................31
Disclaimers
This Technical Brief was prepared for the Engineering Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Earthquake Structural and Engineering Research Contract SB134107CQ0019,
Task Order 12-335. The statements and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
and policies of NIST or the U.S. Government.
This report was produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council (ATC) and the
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE). While endeavoring to provide practical and accurate
information, the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, the authors, and the reviewers assume no liability for, nor express or imply any
warranty with regard to, the information contained herein. Users of the information contained in this report assume all liability arising
from such use.
The policy of NIST is to use the International System of Units (metric units) in all of its publications. However, in North America in the
construction and building materials industry, certain non-SI units are so widely used instead of SI units that it is more practical and less
confusing to include measurement values for customary units only in this publication.
Cover photo – Entrance lobby of the Kirsch Center for Environmental Studies, De Anza College, Cupertino, CA.
How to Cite This Publication

Sabelli, Rafael, Roeder, Charles W., and Hajjar, Jerome F. (2013). “Seismic design of steel special concentrically braced frame systems:
A guide for practicing engineers,” NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 8, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture,
a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, NIST GCR 13-917-24.
1. Introduction
Concentrically Braced Frames (CBFs) are a class of structures earthquakes are included to illustrate the purpose of certain
resisting lateral loads through a vertical concentric truss design requirements. Additionally, some of the strategies for
system, the axes of the members aligning concentrically achieving ductility are applicable to other structural systems.
at the joints. CBFs tend to be efficient in resisting lateral This Guide is not a complete treatment of the steel SCBF
forces because they can provide high strength and stiffness. system nor of the general principles of ductile design of steel
These characteristics can also result in less favorable seismic structures.
response, such as low drift capacity and higher accelerations.
CBFs are a common structural steel or composite system in This Technical Brief refers to the following building codes
areas of any seismicity. and standards:
Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs) are a special • AISC 341-10, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
class of CBF that are proportioned and detailed to maximize Buildings and Commentary, 2010 edition (AISC 2010a)
inelastic drift capacity. This type of CBF system is defined for • AISC 360-10, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings
structural steel and composite structures only. and Commentary, 2010 edition (AISC 2010b)
The primary source of drift capacity in SCBFs is through buck- • ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
ling and yielding of diagonal brace members. Proportioning Structures, 2010 edition (ASCE 2010)
and detailing rules for braces ensure adequate axial ductility,
• IBC International Building Code, 2012 edition (IBC 2012).
which translates into lateral drift capacity for the system.
Special design and detailing rules for connections, beams, and Designers are responsible for verifying the current legally
columns attempt to preclude less ductile modes of response applicable requirements in the jurisdiction of their project. The
that might result in reduced lateral drift capacity. Technical Briefs in this NEHRP series typically are based on
the latest available codes and standards, which may not yet
This Guide addresses the seismic design of steel SCBFs in have been adopted locally. Discussion with and approval by
typical building applications. While the emphasis here is the building official should occur to verify that a later version
placed on steel SCBFs, some aspects are also applicable to of a code or standard not yet adopted locally may be used.
composite SCBFs. Where appropriate, experimental and
analytical studies are described, and observations from past In addition to the code and standards listed above, designers
should be aware of other available resources:
Items not covered in this document
• AISC Seismic Design Manual (AISC 2012)
A number of important issues related to the topic of
steel concentrically braced frames are not addressed • Ductile Design of Steel Structures (Bruneau et al. 2011)
in this document; these include: • SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual (SEAOC 2013).
• Classes of braced frames other than SCBFs, such
This Guide is intended to aid the reader in identifying
as Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames, Eccentrically
significant aspects of seismic design and behavior and
Braced Frames, and Ordinary Concentrically Braced
to identify resources that are useful for design and for
Frames; (separate Technical Briefs are planned for
these systems); understanding braced frame behavior and performance. It is not
intended to repeat detailed design guidance found elsewhere. It
• Self-centering systems with braced frames; was written for practicing structural engineers and is intended
to provide guidance in the application of code requirements
• Diagrid systems and other braced frames in which
for the design of SCBFs. This Guide is also useful to others
braces are additionally required to support substantial
gravity loads; wishing to apply building code provisions correctly, such as
building officials, and to those interested in understanding the
• Multi-tier concentrically braced frames requiring basis of such code provisions and of common design methods,
special stability considerations; such as educators and students.
• The use of Special Concentrically Braced Frame
(SCBF) design methods in other components, such Section 2 discusses where and how SCBFs are typically
as in a horizontal diaphragm; and employed. Section 3 summarizes the design principles for the
system. Section 4 provides guidance for analysis of this system.
• Special configurations of concentrically braced Section 5 provides guidance on design procedures and decisions.
frames designed to engage multiple stories in a single Section 6 discusses additional considerations and requirements.
yielding mechanism (e.g., the “Zipper” configuration). Section 7 discusses detailing and constructability issues.
Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
1
2. The Use of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frames
The SCBF system is generally an economical system to
use for low-rise buildings in areas of high seismicity. It is Seismic Retrofit
sometimes preferred over Special Moment Frames because of
Braced frames can be an effective system for seismic
the material efficiency of CBFs and the smaller required beam
retrofit due to their high stiffness and because
and column depths. SCBFs are only possible for buildings that
they can be assembled from pieces of relatively
can accommodate the braces in their architecture. Buildings
small size and weight. SCBFs may be considered
for which this a problem may be well suited for Special
for seismic retrofit in cases in which the building
Moment Frames.
deformations corresponding to brace axial ductility
are not detrimental to the building performance. In
Up to the present, SCBFs have been used more extensively
many retrofit projects this is not the case due to the
than Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames (BRBFs). BRBFs
presence of brittle, archaic materials and sensitive
generally offer cost and performance advantages for buildings
finishes not detailed to accommodate significant drift.
three stories and higher, but SCBFs continue to be popular
In such cases, the added drift capacity provided by
because of the level of experience designers and fabricators
the careful proportioning and detailing required for the
have with the system.
SCBF system is of little benefit, and a conventional
braced frame system or other stiff system should be
The desired performance of the SCBF system is based on
considered instead.
providing high levels of brace ductility to achieve large
inelastic drifts. It is not particularly well suited for applications
in which the seismic demands are low. The capacity design
rules for connections can be uneconomical in cases where brace
sizes are governed by wind loads or by slenderness limits.
SCBFs are designed using capacity design procedures, with

the braces serving as the fuses of the system. Optimal design
of SCBFs entails careful selection and proportioning of braces
so as to provide limited overstrength and avoid a concentration
of inelastic demands. Designers should strive for a small
range of brace demand-to-capacity ratios so that the resulting
system is proportioned to spread yielding over multiple stories
rather than concentrating it at a single location. Overstrength
can be beneficial, but care should be taken to maintain a
well-proportioned design in order to avoid concentration of
ductility demands.
Braced frames are most effective at the building perimeter,

where they can control the building’s torsional response. ASCE
7 allows buildings to be considered sufficiently redundant (and
thus avoid a penalty factor) with two braced bays on each of
the presumed four outer lines (assuming a rectangular layout).
Such a layout is good for torsion control as well.
In mid-rise or high-rise buildings, SCBFs are often used in the

core of the structure, with a perimeter moment frame used to
provide additional torsional resistance.
Stacked braced frames (frames in which the braces occupy the

same plan location at each level) can have high overturning
forces. In many cases it is advantageous to spread the
overturning forces out over several bays to reduce foundation
and anchorage forces. The design of elements interconnecting
these frames is critical to ensure that brace ductility remains
the primary source of inelastic drift.
2
3. Principles for Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frames
SCBFs economically develop the lateral strength and stiffness system should normally be brace fracture. The evaluation of
needed to assure serviceable structural performance during building collapse is an inexact science, but it is clear that brace
smaller, frequent earthquakes, but the inelastic deformation fracture does not immediately trigger structural collapse. The
needed to ensure life safety through collapse prevention during gusset plate connections are designed conservatively relative to
extreme earthquakes is dominated by tensile yielding of the the brace resistance, and experimental and analytical research
brace, brace buckling, and post-buckling deformation of the has shown that the capacity-based design of the gusset plate
brace. The ductility and inelastic deformations required by results in significant lateral resistance after brace fracture
this second design goal vary in magnitude depending upon because of moment frame behavior. Experiments and analysis
the seismic hazard level and the seismic design procedure. For suggest that this lateral resistance after initial brace fracture
areas of low seismicity, ASCE 7 allows steel framing systems may be the range of 20 % to 40 % of the original braced frame
to be designed with a Response Modification Factor, R, of 3.0 resistance. Limited guidance is available on the behavior of this
with no special detailing requirements to improve ductility. resulting moment connection for seismic assessment of SCBFs.
ASCE 7 also allows the use of Ordinary Concentrically
Braced Frames (OCBFs). However, SCBFs are designed with General System Performance
relatively large R factors, and as a consequence are expected Current trends in practice places increasing emphasis upon
to experience relatively large inelastic deformation demands performance-based design, and more in-depth predictions of
during extreme ground shaking. A story drift of approximately damage, structural performance, and collapse are required.
2.5 % is commonly assumed as a target inelastic deformation Fragility curves are often used as an aid in this process
to be achieved by SCBFs prior to brace fracture. As a result, (Roeder et al. 2011). Recent research (Hsiao et al. 2012, 2013a)
ductile detailing and proportioning requirements are needed has developed nonlinear analytical models on the OpenSees
to ensure that SCBFs can achieve the required inelastic computer platform that accurately predict buckling, tensile
deformations. Corresponding inelastic flexural deformation yielding, and post-buckling behavior of rectangular hollow
in beams, columns, and connections will occur during these structural section (HSS) braces and provide verified prediction
large inelastic excursions. The inelastic deformations in the of brace fracture and frame behavior beyond brace fracture.
beams and columns are not primary effects because they are This model also provides an approximate prediction of local
not specific goals of the design process. Nevertheless, they damage to beams and columns, but this prediction of local
influence the seismic performance of SCBFs and contribute behavior is inherently more limited with this analytical
to the cost of repair. Local slenderness limits for beams and platform. Hsiao et al. (2013b) performed nonlinear dynamic
columns are required by AISC 341 in recognition of these local analyses on braced frames designed to the minimum SCBF
inelastic deformations. design standards and with increased and decreased R factors.
All designs used the equivalent lateral force method, and the
To achieve the desired performance, a number of ductile analyses were performed with seismic excitations scaled to the
detailing requirements are applicable to SCBF design. The 2 % in 50-year and the 10 % in 50-year seismic levels. Potential
current procedure is generally rational, but recent research collapse was estimated at the point where the analysis became
demonstrates increased inelastic deformation capacity may mathematically unstable or when the maximum story drift
be developed with some modifications to the connection reached 5 %. The 5 % drift limit was arbitrarily chosen because
design; these potential modifications are discussed later in this is a deformation where the gusset plate connections are
this document. expected to start to lose their integrity as moment frame
connections. These analyses clearly showed that brace buckling
3.1 Success versus Failure will occur and may be quite common even for 10 % in 50-year
earthquake hazard, but brace fracture in SCBFs designed to
The design method described in general terms above is current standards should not occur during this event. Once
a multilevel design approach. It is expected to achieve brace fracture occurs, the building retains significant structural
serviceability during the more frequent design basis integrity, but inelastic deformations concentrate in the stories
earthquake through the elastic behavior provided by the initial with fractured bracing. The potential for brace fracture during
factored load design. Capacity-based design limits essentially 2 % in 50-year events is significantly larger for shorter (short
address life safety through collapse prevention limit states for period) buildings than it is for 20-story (long period) buildings.
the infrequent, maximum considered design event. As a result, Taller buildings more commonly experience reduced brace
a successful design is expected to have significant inelastic buckling deformation and significantly fewer brace fractures,
deformation and associated structural damage during larger but the buckling damage more commonly occurs in the upper
earthquakes, but structural collapse and associated loss of life stories of taller systems because of the contribution of higher
are not expected. The primary inelastic deformation occurs modes to the dynamic response. Collapse potential was small
within the brace, and therefore, the initial failure within the for well-designed SCBFs, but it was larger for shorter (three-
3
story) SCBFs than for taller structures. This work suggests
that improved or more consistent SCBF design may be possible
with changes in the current R factors because reduced R values
reduce the potential for brace buckling, brace fracture, and
structural collapse, particularly for short period systems.
This suggests that shorter period buildings require a smaller
R value than longer period buildings to achieve comparable
structural safety. Further, the research results suggest that
the OCBF and R=3 concepts that are used in braced frame
design are unlikely to ensure elastic performance during the
maximum considered earthquake.
3.2 Intended Behavior
The prior discussion has shown that brace buckling, tensile

yielding, and post-buckling performance are the predictably
intended behaviors for the SCBF system. Brace fracture is
the “preferred” initial failure mode, but it does not in itself
trigger immediate collapse. However, it is important to get
the maximum possible inelastic deformation capacity from the
brace because, once brace fracture occurs, severe concentration
of inelastic deformation in the damaged story also occurs. (a) Brace buckling deformation
System Behavior
System performance is strongly influenced by aspects of brace
behavior (Lehman et al. 2008). Brace buckling places large
inelastic demands on the brace at the middle of the brace,
typically resulting in a plastic hinge at midspan (Figure 3-1a).
Brace buckling also places significant demands on gusset plate
connections (Figure 3-1b) and adjacent framing members
(Figure 3-1c). Limited cracking of the welds joining the gusset
plate to the beams and columns generally is expected because
of gusset plate deformation. These cracks normally initiate
at story drifts in the range of 1.5 % to 2.0 %, but the cracks
remain stable if the welds meet size and demand-critical weld
requirements in AISC 341. Current design criteria encourage
conservative gusset plate design, but overly conservative
gusset plate design can increase the inelastic deformation in (b) Deformation of gusset plate
the beams and columns adjacent to the gusset plate and does
not significantly reduce the deformation of the gusset plate or
the demands on the weld. Gusset plate damage and the weld
cracking are largely driven by the brace end rotations and the
opening and closing of the right angle of the connection.
Configuration Issues
The configuration of braces also affects system performance.
Multiple configurations of bracing are used, and these
configurations are identified in Figure 3-2. Braces buckle
in compression and yield in tension. The initial compressive
buckling capacity is smaller than the tensile yield force, and
for subsequent buckling cycles, the buckling capacity is further
reduced by the prior inelastic excursion. Therefore, bracing
systems must be balanced so that the lateral resistance in
tension and compression is similar in both directions. This (c) Local yielding in beam and column
means that diagonal bracing (Figure 3-2) must be used in
Figure 3-1 – Various aspects of braced frame behavior.
matched tensile and compressive pairs. As a result, diagonal
4
Diagonal bracing X-bracing Multistory X-bracing Inverted V-bracing V-bracing
(Chevron)
Figure 3-2 – Various braced frame system configurations.
bracing (Figure 3-2) must be used in opposing pairs to at midspan of the beam (Figure 3-2). Large unbalanced forces
achieve this required balance. Other bracing configurations, and bending moments on the beam occur because the buckling
such as the X-brace, multistory X-brace and chevron brace load is smaller than the tensile yield resistance and decreases
directly achieve this balance. X-bracing is most commonly with increasing damage. The bending moment increases
used with light bracing on shorter structures. Research shows as the compressive resistance deteriorates, and AISC 341
that the buckling capacity of X-bracing is best estimated by requires that the beam be designed for these bending moments.
using one half the brace length when the braces intersect and Research shows that the beam deformation associated with
connect at mid section (Palmer 2012). However, the inelastic the unbalanced forces in chevron bracing increases the axial
deformation capacity of the X-braced system is somewhat compressive deformation of the brace and reduces the inelastic
reduced from that achievable with many other braced frame deformation capacity prior to brace fracture (Okazaki et al.
systems because the inelastic deformation is concentrated in 2012). However, flexural yielding of the beam increases the
one-half the brace length because the other half of the brace damping of dynamic response.
cannot fully develop its capacity as the more damaged half
deteriorates. The compressive buckling resistance of most Other bracing configurations are possible, and some are
other brace configurations is best estimated by considering expressly prohibited in AISC 341. K-braces intersect at mid-
true end-to-end length of the brace with an effective length height of the column. They have the same unbalanced force
factor, K, of 1.0 (i.e., neglecting rotation stiffness of the brace- problem as noted with chevron bracing, but bending moments
to-gusset connection.) and inelastic deformation will occur in the column and may
fail, triggering collapse. As a result, K-bracing is not permitted
Concentration of inelastic deformation in a limited number for the SCBF system. In addition, tension-only bracing has had
of stories occurs with braced frames. Experiments suggest relatively poor performance during past earthquakes because the
that multistory X-bracing offers a slight advantage in that it lack of compressive brace resistance leads to inelastic behavior
provides a somewhat more robust path for transferring story with slack braces that have no stiffness until the slack is taken
shear to adjacent stories even after brace buckling and fracture up. The slack braces may lead to progressively increasing drift
because the remaining tension brace may directly transfer its and impact loading on the brace, and early brace fracture may
force to the next story. Chevron or inverted-chevron bracing occur. Consequently, tension-only bracing is also prohibited
(inverted V- or V-bracing) has intersecting brace connections for the SCBF system.
5
(a) Buckled brace (b) HSS brace fracture at mid-length (c) HSS brace fracture at net section
(d) Base plate fracture (e) CBF connection failure (f) Fracture of CBF box column
Figure 3-3 – Earthquake damage to CBFs.
Observed Earthquake Damage Somewhat more definitive braced frame damage was
Braced frames have sustained damage in prior noted after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, but no
earthquakes (Figure 3-3). However, the SCBF design braced frames collapsed or appeared near incipient
concept was first presented in the first edition of the collapse from this damage (EERI 1996). Brace buckling
AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings was noted for both rectangular HSS tube bracing as
(AISC 1997), and the SCBF requirements have evolved well as light steel strap bracing. Rectangular HSS
steadily since then. As a result, past braced frame tubes sometimes had substantial plastic hinges at mid-
earthquake damage is relevant to concentrically braced length and near their end connections, and severe local
frames, but it does not specifically reflect current buckling was observed. Fracture occurred at the net
SCBF behavior. This brief discussion focuses on the section of the connection to the gusset plate (Figure
more recent 1989 Loma Prieta, the 1994 Northridge, 3-3c) and at the mid-length plastic hinge (Figure 3-3b).
and the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe, Japan) Column base plate fracture because of the applied loads
Earthquakes. SCBFs are more commonly used in and deformations was also observed (Figure 3-3d).
today’s building construction than were CBFs prior to
these three earthquakes, but nevertheless, there was Extensive damage to braced frames was also noted
a substantial number of CBFs in service during those during the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake, and
three earthquakes, and brace buckling (Figure 3-3a) a few older low-rise braced frames collapsed during
was observed. this seismic event (AIJ 1995). A large portion of the
collapsed structures had light tension-only strap
Limited CBF damage was reported from the 1989 bracing. The vast majority of the CBFs damaged in
Loma Prieta Earthquake. Buildings generally suffered this earthquake have design details quite different
little damage except for locations on soft soil (EERI from the SCBF details commonly used in the U.S.
1990a), and no discussion of braced frame damage in Brace buckling, brace fracture, and connection fracture
buildings was noted. Several braced frames in power occurred in a number of buildings (Figure 3-3e).
generating plants were noted to have significant brace Significant problems in the columns of some new high-
buckling (EERI 1990b). These braces were typically rise CBFs occurred, and complete fracture of heavy
light T-sections in chevron or inverted-V braced frames. built-up columns was noted (Figure 3-3f). Figure 3-3e
Yielded and deformed gusset plate connections and and Figure 3-3f show connection and box column
fractured bolted connections were also noted in a few failures respectively.
cases.
6
Heavily strained and
deformed region
Significant strain and
deformation at end of the
brace or in the gusset
Geometric
shortening
Original brace length
Figure 3-4 – Geometric shortening of the brace and locations of local yield deformation.
Element Behavior Local slenderness (b/t) of flanges and webs of various structural
Inelastic deformation of the brace dominates the inelastic shapes is also important because smaller local slenderness
performance of SCBFs during moderate and large earthquakes, values delay initiation of local buckling and permit larger
and fracture of the brace at mid-length is clearly the anticipated local strains prior to initiation of tearing. These smaller values
initial failure mode of the braced frame system. A number facilitates development of larger story drifts prior to fracture
of brace design issues affect the inelastic deformation and or failure.
ultimate fracture of the brace as illustrated in the sketch of
Figure 3-4. The inelastic story drift of SCBFs is mostly due Global slenderness of the brace (Kl/r) also affects the
to axial shortening and elongation of the brace, as shown in inelastic performance. In general, braces with smaller Kl/r
the figure, but this axial shortening and elongation are caused ratios dissipate significantly more energy through inelastic
primarily by the geometric effects of the brace buckling deformation prior to brace fracture than do slender braces,
deformation. Plastic hinging due to buckling deformation but stockier braces tend to fracture at a smaller story drift
occurs at the center of the brace and at each end. The plastic because the story drift is largely as result of the geometry,
hinges at the brace ends preferably occur in the gusset plate, which causes the brace to fracture (Figure 3-4). Stocky braces
although plastic hinging may occur in the brace itself adjacent are relatively short and require larger plastic rotation and local
to the connection if the gusset plate is stiffer and stronger than strain at the plastic hinge to achieve a given story drift than
required, if the gusset plate does not have proper allowance a longer (more slender) brace. At the same time, engineers
for rotation, or if the brace is rigidly connected to the framing may prefer braces with smaller Kl/r ratios because they have
members. Prior to brace buckling, tensile yielding along the smaller differences between the magnitude of the tensile and
length of the brace is possible, but after initial buckling, most of compressive resistance. These goals are somewhat divergent,
the tensile elongation and plastic strain occurs within the plastic and so intermediate Kl/r ratios, which are not extremely small
hinge region because of the residual stress, imperfections, and (less than about 40) nor overly large (more than about 100),
P- d effects. As a consequence, the large strains caused by are commonly used.
cyclic load reversal in this region cause the brace to fracture.
The sequence of localization of inelastic deformation amplifies Secondary Strength and Stiffness
the local strains in the fracture region as illustrated for a SCBFs develop most of their lateral stiffness and resistance
rectangular HSS brace in the sequence of photos for Figure from the axial stiffness and resistance of the brace. Recent
3-5. Figure 3-5a shows the localized strain and deformation experiments on a three-story braced frame showed that
that occurs at the plastic hinge. After multiple inelastic cycles approximately 85 % to 90 % of the original elastic stiffness
of strain, tearing initiates at the corners of the tube (Figure and resistance was provided by the bracing (Lumpkin 2009).
3-5b), tearing progresses across the flange (Figure 3-5c), and After the initial cycle of brace buckling, the stiffness and
fracture ultimately occurs (Figure 3-5d). The local strain compressive resistance of the brace are reduced, and frame
concentration initiates at smaller deformations and is more action through bending of the beams and columns plays an
severe in rectangular tubes than for many cross sections increasing role. For a three-story frame at approximately 1 %
because the rectangular shape concentrates the local strains story drift, the braces resisted approximately 75 % to 85 %
(Figure 3-5). Therefore, brace fracture occurs at smaller story of the lateral load, and at 2 % story drift, the bracing resisted
drift and inelastic deformation for rectangular HSS tubes approximately 60 % to 70 % of the lateral load. The brace’s
than for comparable wide flange sections. Wide flanges and role decreased rapidly as brace tearing initiated. Experiments
other open sections do not localize the strain as quickly and also show that the braced frame may retain 20 % to 40 % of
as severely as rectangular tubes. Hence, wide flange braces its maximum resistance after all braces in a given story have
typically provide approximately 25 % larger inelastic story fractured. This secondary resistance is again contributed by
drift than rectangular HSS braces prior to brace fracture if all moment frame action developed by the beam-column and
other factors are equal.
7
(a) Local strain concentration (b) Initiation of tearing
(c) Progression of tearing (d) Fracture
Figure 3-5 – Progression of local strain to fracture for HSS brace.
gusset plate connections (Roeder et al. 2011). The specific Elements with Insufficient Ductility
distribution clearly depends on the specifics of the design, but Capacity-based design principles are used to design the
this comparison illustrates the importance of the gusset plate connections of braced frames because connections are one
and beam-to-column connection in developing the resistance major potential source of abrupt, nonductile failure. Although
and deformation capacity of the SCBF and the subsequent essential, this requirement does not mean that connections
moment frame behavior developed after brace buckling and should be designed to avoid all yielding in the connection. As
fracture. noted in the prior discussion and illustrated in Figures 3-1b and
3-4, yielding in the connection is necessary and highly desirable,
3.3 Modes of Behavior to be Avoided because it permits end rotation of the buckled brace and allows
the brace to develop larger inelastic deformations prior to brace
Ductile system behavior is needed to ensure good SCBF fracture and maintain consistency with brace capacity asuumed
performance. Brace fracture is relatively sudden and brittle, in connection design. Hence, the capacity-based design of
but SCBFs are designed with the goal that it occurs only after these connections cannot be viewed as an absolute capacity
significant inelastic deformation and ductile tearing at the measure but as a relative, balanced design criteria (Roeder
plastic hinge location. Avoiding other brittle failure modes et al. 2011). The connections should be designed to be stiff
prior to developing the inelastic deformation of the system enough and strong enough to fully develop the brace capacity
is essential. in compression and tension, but excessive strength and stiffness
are undesirable in that they reduce the inelastic deformation
capacity of the brace and the SCBF system.
8
Furthermore, the current connection design procedures do These changes are major contributors to the concentration of
not always assure ductile behavior. As noted earlier, the welds deformation effects, and the concentration of damage tends to
and bolts joining the gusset plate to beams and columns are be more common and severe when the braced frame experiences
normally sized by a Uniform Force Method (UFM) equilibrium severe inelastic deformation. However, an initial structural
evaluation to expected tensile resistance, Put, of the brace. design that does not appropriately balance the relative stiffness
Recent research shows that this approach is inadequate to of adjacent floors may compound this effect.
consistently assure ductile performance of the system (Lehman
et al. 2008). The gusset plate yields because of local bending Capacity Design
and deformation because of end rotation of the buckled brace, Capacity-based design criteria are applied to the columns,
and this bending is in addition to the applied brace load. As a column splices, and column-foundation connections because
result, sudden, brittle weld fractures have been noted in a few the columns support the gravity load and must have sufficient
tests where welds were designed by the UFM approach. To axial load capacity to fully develop the brace. Specific details of
ensure ductile behavior of the connection, it is necessary to these capacity design provisions are provided in a later section.
design the bolts or welds joining the gusset plate to the beams It is unacceptable to have the column fail in compression, such
and columns to develop the full plastic capacity of the gusset that it is unable to support the gravity load of the system because
plate rather than only the strength of the brace. this would lead to potential structural collapse. However,
limited yielding of the column in tension or compression will
Finally, earthquake loads are inertial loads, applied to the mass occur (Figure 3-1c) and may be beneficial to the overall system
of the structure. These earthquake loads are then transmitted to performance. This yielding must be limited and controlled.
the SCBF frames, and therefore, the connections between the Tensile fracture of column splices or foundation (baseplate or
diaphragms (and other framing attached to the mass) and the attachment) failures (Figure 3-3d) may be quite brittle, will
SCBF must be adequate to fully transmit this force. clearly limit the lateral resistances, and should be avoided in
SCBF design.
Story Mechanisms
Concentration of inelastic deformation in a limited number Foundation uplift can significantly attenuate dynamic response
of stories may occur in braced frames, and the potential from earthquake excitation, but the design requirements for
increases with increasing inelastic deformation and damage. controlling this uplift and the consequences of the uplift are
Most structural systems concentrate damage to some extent, far different from the design considerations commonly applied
but braced frames are one of several systems that concentrate to SCBF systems. Column uplift may be tolerable in seismic
their deformation more readily than others. Distribution of evaluations of existing buildings, but it is not the goal of a
story shear is partially dependent upon the excitation and new SCBF design. Column splice failure also has attributes of
dynamic response of the structure, but the relative stiffness of column uplift, but the ability to control this behavior is more
adjacent floor levels plays an important role. Large changes difficult, and column splice failure is also an unacceptable
in story stiffness occur as braces buckle, experience post- behavior for the system.
buckling deformation, yield in tension, and ultimately fracture.
9
4. Analysis Guidance
4.1 Code Analysis sufficient to obtain a combined modal mass participation factor
of 90 % of the actual mass in each of the orthogonal horizontal
Analysis of Special Concentrically Braced Frames is directions of response.
governed by provisions of both AISC 341 and the applicable
building code, typically ASCE 7. The required minimum Either Modal Response Spectrum Analysis or Seismic
strengths of the braces, beams, columns, and connections Response History procedures are required for structures over
are established initially through a combination of computer 160 feet in height with specific types of structural irregularities
structural analysis for the applicable load combinations to or with long periods. Both linear elastic and nonlinear Seismic
determine the required strengths of the braces, and then Response History procedures are outlined in Chapter 16 of
through analysis that takes the form of a capacity design to ASCE 7. Seismic Response History involves using numerical
determine the required strengths of the columns, beams, and integration to analyze the structure for specific ground motions.
connections. The following sections outline these various A minimum of three ground motions are required. Chapter
methods of analysis. 16 outlines specific requirements of the characteristics of the
ground motions and the procedures used to assess the results.
Analysis Requirements of ASCE 7
ASCE 7 permits three different types of analysis procedures to Typically, linear elastic Seismic Response History Analysis
be used to analyze special concentrically braced frames. These provides few benefits as compared to Modal Response
procedures, outlined in Table 12.6-1 of ASCE 7, include the Spectrum Analysis because both procedures account for the
Equivalent Force Analysis (§12.8); Modal Response Spectrum linear dynamic response of the structure, which is dominated
Analysis (§12.9); and Seismic Response History Procedures by the lower-period vibrational modes. ASCE 7 §16.2
(Chapter 16). The Equivalent Force Analysis procedure is establishes the procedure for nonlinear analysis, including the
the most straightforward to execute, but Table 12.6-1 lists hysteretic material nonlinear behavior of the components of
restrictions on the use of this approach based on the structure the seismic force-resisting system. The hysteretic constitutive
configuration: structures having a long period or having behavior of the members or connections should be consistent
specific types of horizontal or vertical irregularities are not with laboratory testing of comparable components, including
permitted to use this approach. (For SCBFs, the story shear all significant yielding, strength degradation, stiffness
strength is taken at the sum of the horizontal components of degradation, and pinching. Strength of the elements should
the expected brace strengths in tension and compression; the be based on expected mean values, including material
lateral resistance provided by shear and bending in the columns overstrength, strain hardening, and strength degradation. The
is typically neglected.) Table 12.2-1 identifies the values of use of linear versus nonlinear analysis is discussed further
the seismic performance factors, R, Ω 0, and Cd, required for below.
analysis of SCBFs.
4.2 SCBF Modeling Issues
The Equivalent Force Analysis procedure enables the use
of static analysis procedures to estimate the effects of an AISC 341 allows two beam-to-column connection types for
earthquake. ASCE 7 §12.8 outlines the parameters of the SCBFs: simple connections and a moment-resisting connection
analysis. An approximate procedure is provided in ASCE 7 to comparable to those used for Ordinary Moment Frames. For
conservatively compute the fundamental period of vibration of the former, SCBFs are usually modeled as trusses with pin
the structure that is needed for this approach. This approximate connections assumed in both planes, particularly for analyses
period is often below the period calculated by more accurate related to initial design. As such, the stiffness offered by the
methods, with the shorter approximate period leading to gusset plates to the girders or columns at the brace connections
larger base shears, although the base shear has a cap as are largely ignored under a presumption that they will yield
specified in ASCE 7 §12.8.1.1. As braced frames are relatively relatively early during the seismic excitation. In addition, any
stiff structures, they are included in the category of “All inherent flexural resistance may not result in significantly
other structural systems” in Table 12.8-2 to determine the reduced required strength of the members, and thus pin-
approximate period. Although ASCE 7 requires that global connected and fixed-connection models generally lead to the
second-order elastic P-D effects be included in the analysis selection of identical member sizes, including compactness
if the stability coefficient, q, exceeds 0.1, AISC 360 requires requirements. Detailing for the effects of rotational restraint is
that second-order elastic effects be considered for all frames. addressed in Section 5.
The Modal Response Spectrum Analysis accounts more In such models, if V-bracing or inverted V-bracing is used,
directly for the dynamic performance of the structure by the analysis should also enable modeling of flexure in the
requiring calculation of the modes of vibration of the structure girders. While columns that are continuous across several
10
stories typically have flexural forces induced in them because at incipient instability of the frame. More information can be
of interstory drift, flexural forces in the columns because of found in the AISC Seismic Design Manual.
design story drifts may be neglected according to AISC 341 to
facilitate modeling the SCBF as a truss system. For calculating design story drifts, typically the nominal
properties of each member should be used, rather than the
When moment connections are used, the connections should reduced properties outlined for the Direct Analysis Method. It
be modeled accordingly in the analysis because moment will is assumed that the deflection amplification factor, Cd, accounts
be transferred between the girders and columns. A moment for such variation.
connection at the end of the brace may be used if the connection
is deemed to be adequately stiff and strong. For common steel buildings under four to five stories, these
models typically have sufficient accuracy to capture elastic
In models in which floor diagrams are assumed to be rigid, it forces and deformations. However, braced frame models
is also important to consider the importance of isolating the that assume truss behavior and pin connections may often
seismic force-resisting system from the diaphragm so as to underestimate stiffness and thus overestimate deflections and
adequately model the axial force distribution in the girders. period, particularly for taller structures. Where such response is
This isolation can be done, for example, by using gap-contact important to model more accurately, it is common to use more
elements at each floor level to attach the braced frame to refined elastic models that account for the stiffness inherent
adjacent nodes that are part of the rigid floor system. in typical braced frame connections, including the stiffness
of the shear tabs, gusset plates, and other key components.
Within AISC 360, two approaches are available to account for Hsiao et al. (2012, 2013a) provide recommendations for
structural stability per Chapter C: the Direct Analysis Method appropriate modeling assumptions that include rigid links in the
and the Effective Length Method. In the former, if Equivalent connection region to model the enhanced stiffness in the region.
Force Analysis is conducted, the effective length factor of all Such modeling recommendations (Figure 4-1a and Figure
members may be taken as 1.0, and the analysis will be based on 4-1b), identify a combination of rigid links, pin connections,
reduced member properties coupled with the use of a notional and nonlinear springs to provide an assemblage model that
load for load combinations that are dominated by gravity load. compares well to experimental tests of SCBF subassemblages.
Using an effective length factor of 1.0 would also be common
in applying the Effective Length Method to braced frames, When brace buckling occurs at larger load levels, deflections
although smaller values of effective length may be used in start to increase more significantly, leading in turn to significant
SCBFs that include moment-resisting connections. Although yielding in the connections. Ductility in the connection design
both strategies use an effective length factor equal to or less is thus essential, and nonlinear analysis and associated models
than 1.0, the Direct Analysis Method typically provides force may be used to develop more accurate predictions of behavior
distributions that are more commensurate with those expected when needed (Hsiao et al. 2012).
Column Nonlinear
out-of-plane
Brace
rotational
spring
b
Gusset plate
Rigid end Beam

zone
0.75a
a
(a) SCBF panel configuration with rigid links, pin (b) Geometric details identifying typical link lengths
connections, and nonlinear spring (Hsiao et al. 2012) and nonlinear spring location (Hsiao et al. 2013a)
Figure 4-1 – Schematic structural model of SCBF panel.
11
4.3 Limitations of Elastic Analysis Expected brace strengths are determined while maintaining
consistency with the assumed brace capacity used to design
As discussed earlier, the post-elastic response of concentrically the gusset plates and the mechanics of the actual connection
braced frames typically entails not only magnitudes of force (i.e., effective length factor). These analyses ensure that any
larger than the elastic limits of elements but also modes of force imbalances that are created by a tension brace and a
behavior markedly different from those of the elastic structure. compression brace intersecting at a work point in a connection
Thus, magnifying elastic forces by a constant factor can be region or the center of a beam span are accounted for. Together,
insufficient to capture demands on many structural elements. this analysis procedure explores the different possible plastic
mechanisms that are likely to form in an SCBF during large
Typical elastic analysis of the various configurations of SCBFs earthquakes, specifically mimicking the potential force
sometimes yield members with little or no force, such as the patterns that would arise because of first-mode behavior.
center column in a two-bay braced frame or in the beams at A typical expected behavior is shown in Figure 4-2. The
the mid-story of a two-story X-configuration for bracing. In behavior addressed in the first bullet is intended to account
part for these reasons and also to ensure that the progression for the initial full compression force in the brace (its expected
of damage in the SCBF is appropriate for large loadings, AISC strength) that would occur during the first excursion at large
341 requires a plastic mechanism analysis leading to a capacity lateral drifts while the behavior addressed in the second bullet
design approach. Thus, although it is appropriate to use elastic is intended to account for the distribution of forces after the
analysis for determination of the brace forces, which are the strength in the brace has been significantly reduced (assumed
ductile elements in SCBF, it is important to use capacity design to be reduced by 30 % in AISC) after repeated cycles of
procedures to investigate the possible plastic mechanisms to significant seismic loading. The resulting forces for design are
determine the required strengths of the columns, beams, or typically augmented by superimposing any forces obtained
connections. from an analysis for corresponding gravity loads. When the
frame is subject to inelastic drift, the braces no longer are as
4.4 Plastic Mechanism Analysis effective in resisting gravity forces, which thus must be carried
by the columns. Plastic-mechanism analysis addresses this
Frame redistribution from the elastic distribution of gravity forces.
AISC 341 §F2.3 permits each of the analysis procedures Where braces carry significant gravity forces in the elastic
outlined in ASCE 7 to be used for analysis of SCBFs to obtain condition, the use of the elastic analysis for design of columns
the required strengths in the braces. The required strengths may require adjustment. This may be achieved by performing
from these analyses may then be used directly for design of the a separate gravity analysis without the braces and combining
braces. For computing the required strengths in the columns, column forces from that analysis with ones from a lateral-load
beams, and connections, load combinations appropriate for use analysis that includes the braces.
in the static analysis procedures must be taken as the larger
determined from the following two analyses:
• an analysis in which all braces are assumed to resist

forces corresponding to their expected brace strength in
compression or tension, representing the elastic limit of
the frame
• an analysis in which all braces in tension are assumed

to resist forces corresponding to their expected tensile
strength, and all braces in compression are assumed to
resist their expected post-buckling strength, representing
potential conditions after some braces have buckled and
lost significant compression strength and stiffness
The expected tensile strength of the brace may be taken as

RyFyAg. The expected compression strength of the brace may
be taken as the smaller of RyFyAg and 1.14Fcre Ag, where Fcre is
the critical buckling strength determined by Section E of AISC
360 using an expected yield stress of RyFy and 1.14 is computed
by removing the out-of-straightness parameter (1/0.877 = 1.14). Figure 4-2 – Schematic of typical first-mode behavior of SCBF as assumed
The post-buckling strength of compression members may be in plastic mechanism analysis for an X-brace configuration (AISC 2010a).
taken as 30 % of the expected brace strength in compression.
12
the required loads for analysis. For special concentrically
Plastic Mechanism Analysis in Design Practice braced frames, the overstrength factor, Ω 0, from Table 12.2-1
in ASCE 7 equals 2. Additional discussion can be found in
Many general-use analysis programs are not configured NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 5 “Seismic Design
to perform analyses of the system outside of the elastic
of Composite Steel Deck and Concrete-filled Diaphragms”
range. Designers have developed numerous “work-
(Sabelli et al. 2011).
around” solutions to perform the required analysis (and
thus obtain forces for beam and column design) using
the tools available. Such methods include the following: 4.5 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis Guidance
• use of spreadsheets to calculate brace capacity forces, Nonlinear response history analysis may be used to verify
as well as the vertical and horizontal components the design forces in SCBFs, such as in cases where design
efficiencies may be achieved through more accurate analysis,
• use of nonlinear analysis software to perform a
particularly for long-period structures or structures with
“pushover” analysis (requires nonlinear brace element
irregularities. NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4
modeling, and possibly nonlinear column flexural
“Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Seismic Design” (Deierlein
modeling)
et al. 2010) presents guidance on conducting nonlinear
• use of elastic analysis programs with braces removed structural analysis, including outlining different types of
and brace capacity forces imposed (may require element formulations (e.g., concentrated plasticity versus
artificial lateral restraint for model stability) fiber-based distributed plasticity formulations) and hysteretic
constitutive formulations that are appropriate for SCBFs.
• as a variant on the item above, substitution of low The document includes guidance on modeling foundation
stiffness, high coefficient of thermal expansion systems, mass, and damping in structures, as well as advice
material for brace elements, with temperatures on selecting appropriate ground motions. The document also
imposed causing stresses corresponding to expected provides recommendations for interpreting the results of the
yield stress and expected buckling stress. analysis. Of particular importance for braced frames is using
an accurate model for the brace that includes inelastic yielding
In any case, a separate gravity load analysis with the in tension, inelastic flexural buckling in compression, as well
braces removed is required. as the successive strength degradation that occurs because of
repeated buckling in subsequent cycles of loading. Typically,
the inelasticity in a brace occurs at the ends of the brace
Collectors and at midspan, and so ensuring that the modeling enables
ASCE 7 requires that floor and roof diaphragms be designed inelasticity at these locations is important and required for
for both in-plane shear and bending stresses resulting from the directly modeling out-of-straightness in the plane of buckling.
analysis. Openings and edge conditions should be accounted The columns and girders should also include proper plasticity
for to ensure the shear and tension strength of the diaphragm models that account for combined flexure and axial force.
are not exceeded. Collector elements should be provided and Modeling the inelastic response of the connection regions,
designed for the axial, flexural, and shear forces needed to including inelastic rotations and gusset plate buckling, provides
transfer seismic forces through the structure to the special enhanced capabilities for accurately modeling the progression
concentrically braced frames. Section 12.10 outlines the cases of damage in SCBFs. Gravity loads are applied to the frame
in which the overstrength factor should be used to ascertain prior to initiation of the response history analysis.
13
5. Design Guidance
5.1 AISC Design Procedure For compression, the requirements include a stability check
for the maximum compression force the brace can deliver
AISC 341 seismic design provisions require significant (e.g., its expected buckling load). Additionally, the connection
ductile detailing for SCBFs. The current design method is must allow the brace to undergo flexural buckling without
to establish the factored force demands from ASCE 7 on harming the connection. This is done either by designing the
members of the system and to use the AISC 360 Load and connection to resist the full flexural capacity of the brace or
Resistance Factor Design design provisions to size the brace. by detailing the gusset plate connection to permit flexure of
Other framing members are initially sized to these factored the gusset plate while maintaining axial force resistance. The
load demands. There are several additional requirements for AISC Seismic Design Manual provides several illustrations
this member selection process: of the application of member design and connection design
for SCBFs.
• Satisfy limitations on bracing configuration as described
in Section 3 of this document. 5.2 Layout
• Satisfy local and global slenderness limits for the brace, SCBF buildings should be planned considering the post-
beam, and column. elastic behavior of the system. Designers should consider the
reduction in frame stiffness resulting from brace buckling and
• Design of beams in frames with V-bracing and inverted should mitigate potential detrimental behaviors.
V-bracing to sustain the vertical unbalanced load that
results after brace buckling.
Specifically, a frame changing from its elastic state to its
• Design of columns and column splices to resist the post-buckled state may simultaneously introduce a large
maximum expected force delivered by the inelastic braces eccentricity between the center of mass and center of rigidity
to the columns based on the plastic mechanisms discussed while also reducing the building torsional resistance. These
in Section 4. effects may be mitigated by providing frames with high
secondary stiffness (such as those with slender braces and high
After the initial member selection is complete, capacity design overstrength) and by providing a high degree of redundancy.
concepts are used for connections and critical members to (Slender braces, sized for their compression capacity, have
ensure that the braces can develop their required inelastic inherently high overstrength because of the ratio of RyFy to the
deformation. The required resistance for the capacity- critical buckling stress, Fcr .)
based design is the expected inelastic capacity of the brace
in tension and compression (i.e., Put =RyFyAg in tension, and Similarly, the different behavior of braces in tension and
Puc =1.14Fcre Ag in compression), where, Ag is the gross cross- compression should be understood, and designers should
sectional area of the brace, Ry is the ratio of the expected endeavor to use braces in opposing pairs to avoid asymmetric
yield strength to the minimum specified yield strength, Fy, building resistance.
and Fcre are the critical stress associated with brace buckling
considering the expected material strength. The connections At the limit of lateral drift capacity, the majority of the lateral
joining the brace to the frame must be designed to maintain resistance is due to the strength of braces in tension. Braces
their integrity even as the brace undergoes cyclic buckling in compression may have lost a great deal of resistance
and yielding. Numerous design requirements relate to tensile because of elongation in previous cycles, local buckling,
demands on connections: and transverse displacement. A sufficient load path must be
provided considering this limit state condition. From a design
• The net section resistance of the brace and gusset plate point of view, providing braces in opposing pairs near each
and resistance of the bolts and welds joining the brace to other minimizes the difference between elastic and limit state
the gusset plate must exceed Put. load paths and thus reduces the likelihood that the designer
will overlook this effect.
• The gusset plate thickness and the length of the brace-to-
gusset interface must be sufficient to preclude block shear Figure 5-1 shows a frame with opposing diagonals separated
rupture for Put. by two bays. The figure also shows beam axial force diagrams
assuming elastic brace behavior and limit state brace behavior.
• Bolts or welds joining the gusset plate to the beam and (For clarity, the strength of braces in compression in the limit
column must have sufficient strength to resist force state condition is shown as zero.)
demands corresponding to the expected strength of the
brace.
14
(a) Frame with separated braces
(a) Frame with braces offset
(b) Axial forces with elastic braces
(b) Frame with stacked braces

(c) Axial forces after complete loss of compression resistance
Figure 5-1 – Frames with opposing diagonals in non-adjacent bays. Figure 5-2 – Multi-story braced frames with and without in-plane offsets.
5.3 Configuration Design story drifts determined in accordance with ASCE 7

for tall, slender SCBFs can be dominated by global flexural
Braces are typically used in opposing pairs within a bay or in deformation of the frame. End column sizes can be increased,
adjacent bays because of the different behavior in compression sometimes above that required for strength, to counteract this
and tension. Where a single diagonal is used, there is a drift contribution.
marked tendency toward accumulation of inelastic drift in the
direction corresponding to brace compression (Khatib et al. 5.4 Proportioning
1988). Frame configuration can affect building performance.
Stacked V and inverted-V frames are somewhat less effective Proportioning of frames is fundamental in achieving adequate
due to their post-elastic flexibility. The requirements in AISC performance. Braces must be the fuse in the system. Beams,
341 for the design of the beam to resist flexural forces in the columns, and connections must be sized considering the brace
post-elastic condition (with one brace buckled and the other expected strength, rather than the brace forces corresponding
with yielding in tension) does not ensure a high post-buckling to the design base shear of the building. Thus, overstrength in
frame stiffness. Beam flexibility may lead to a flexible the braces is beneficial only if there is matching (or greater)
condition and concentration of drift demand. The beam may overstrength in the other elements. Where braces are oversized
also have a simple connection to the columns thus reducing without a corresponding adjustment in framing member
the secondary stiffness once the brace buckles. strength, the resulting frame will not be well proportioned and
may not provide significant ductility.
Cross-braced frames tend to increase brace rotation
requirements in flexural buckling because of the increased 5.5 Braces
number of connections and the corresponding reduced
buckling length. Additionally, they are less economical as Engineers must select brace types from a range of material
each connection must have the strength to resist the tensile and shapes. From a design point of view, braces are selected
capacity of the brace. based on their compression strength. As such, HSS tend to
have advantages from an economic point of view. However,
It is sometimes convenient to use several braced bays rather as discussed in Section 3, the fracture life of wide-flange
than a single stacked bay to reduce overturning demands. braces and of some other shapes is somewhat greater.
Figure 5-2 shows two frames; the frames may use the same
braces but frame (a) will have lower column and foundation An additional advantage of wide-flange A992 material is that
forces. Designers must be sure to consider the complete it is currently better controlled in terms of expected strength.
load path for both the elastic and post-elastic conditions as HSS A500 material has a disadvantage in that its expected
described in the section above; frame (a) will have higher yield stress (RyFy, as defined in AISC 341) is higher than its
beam and connection forces at the discontinuity. specified minimum yield stress (Fy, as defined in AISC 360).
15
As braces are sized using design strengths based on specified of an effective net section smaller than the net section because
minimum yield stress and bracing connections and as other of shear-lag effects.
elements are required to be designed to resist forces based on
the expected yield stress, the ratio of the two (Ry) is an index In the above cases, the brace section requires reinforcement
of efficiency, with high values indicating neglected strength. to avoid net-section rupture at low drift levels. This
Furthermore, A500 material is available in multiple grades, reinforcement serves as a bypass to reduce the stress at the
and it is possible that members are certified for multiple critical section. Thus the reinforcement is most effective close
grades, adding a degree of overstrength that may not be to the plane of the brace-to-connection force transfer. If the
accounted for in the design. Such overstrength in the brace reinforcement must be located away from that force transfer,
is detrimental if it creates a condition in which connection the calculation of the effective net section of the reinforced
rupture occurs prior to brace yielding. section reveals the reduced efficacy.
Another preliminary decision that must be made in the design AISC 341 and AISC 360 do not specifically discuss the
of braced frames is the selection of the plane of buckling. appropriate method for determining the force transfer from
This is achieved through a combination of member selection brace to reinforcement and back from the reinforcement to the
and connection detailing. The section type may have similar brace. Practice has been to fully develop the strength of the
or identical properties in its two transverse axes (as is the case reinforcement via welds, as illustrated in the AISC Seismic
for square and round shapes) or a distinct difference, creating Design Manual. Other approaches may be considered as well.
a strong axis and a weak axis (as is the case for rectangular
or wide-flange sections). In combination with this, end Reinforcement material should have strain compatibility with
connections may provide different degrees of rotational the brace material. Higher-strength material may be used as
restraint in each axis. Together, the section properties and reinforcement, but its full strength may not be realized at the
end restraint can be used to favor buckling in the plane of the limit state of net-section rupture. Lower-strength material
frame or perpendicular to that plane. may be used, but strains may reach the yield level earlier in
the reinforcement than in the brace.
There is no inherent structural advantage for buckling in one
plane compared to the other. However, the anticipated brace Brace connections must also resist large compression forces
transverse displacements must be accommodated without corresponding to the brace compression capacity. This
impacting adjacent building components and causing unsafe compression capacity is lower than the expected tension yield
conditions, such as falling hazards or blocked egress. This strength, but only modestly so for braces of low slenderness.
may cause different detailing challenges for different planes For intermediate and slender braces, AISC 341 provides a
of buckling. Singly-symmetric and mono-symmetric sections modified expected compression strength based on expected
are not typically used in SCBFs due to the coupling of flexural material strength and uses an adapted formula to remove
and torsional buckling modes. The effect of flexural-torsional some of the conservatism appropriate for determining the
buckling on gusset connections is not well understood. lower-bound member design strength.
5.6 Connections Where gusset plates are used as part of the bracing connection,
their compressive strength may be determined using a variety
The SCBF system was developed with the intention of of methods. Dowswell (2006) provides specific methods
maximizing the inelastic drift capacity that could be obtained appropriate for different gusset restraint conditions.
based on brace buckling and yielding while maintaining
lateral resistance. As such, connection rupture is to be avoided. Brace flexural buckling entails the formation of three
This is achieved by requiring connections to be designed for concentrated points of rotation as the brace axial length
forces corresponding to the expected strength of the brace as decreases corresponding to large seismic drifts. Braces form
it undergoes inelastic axial deformations (yielding in tension plastic hinges at the mid-length between connections and at
and buckling in compression.) each end. These end rotation points are in the brace itself
if the end connection’s flexural strength exceeds that of the
In tension, the required strength of the connection is the brace. Conversely, if the brace flexural strength exceeds that
expected yield strength of the brace, including material of the connection, the concentrated rotation demand will be
overstrength. This required strength applies to all limit states, in the connection itself.
including local limit states within the brace itself.
Minor in-plane eccentricity may be included in the layout
For bolted connections there is a reduced section through of the connections to reduce connection size or make the
the bolt holes. For welded slotted brace connections, there geometry of the joints easier for fabrication and erection.
typically is a reduced section caused by the slot. Additionally, Such eccentricities result in flexural forces in beams and
the connection configuration may necessitate the consideration columns; these flexural forces are determined using forces
16
Detailing for Buckling
Where connections do not have the flexural strength in the restraint at the end of the brace and decreases the inelastic
plane of buckling to force rotation corresponding to brace deformation capacity achieved prior to brace fracture.
buckling to occur in the brace, the connections must be
detailed to accommodate significant rotations. More recently, an approach based on the use of thinner
gussets and an elliptical hinge has been developed, based
Several approaches to providing rotation capacity in the on work by Roeder et al. (2011). This approach traces an
connection have been proposed and verified through elliptical hinge zone on the gusset and allows the brace
testing. One common approach is to provide a hinge zone to extend nearer to the beam and column members. The
in a single gusset plate. This approach was developed elliptical hinge zone is eight times the thickness of the
based on research by Astaneh-Asl et al. (1986). This gusset. Simple geometric formulas are used to establish
hinge zone is oriented perpendicular to the brace axis, gusset dimensions and stand-off distances. Rotation
with a minimum width (in the direction of the brace axis) occurs out of the plane of the frame in this connection as
of twice the gusset thickness (tp). No stiffeners or other well. Connections designed with these clearance models
restraint should intrude into this zone and thus hinder are likely to be controlled by block shear and tensile yield.
the free rotation. Rotation occurs out of the plane of the The gusset plates are smaller and thinner, and frequently
frame in this connection. provide increased inelastic deformation capacity of the
SCBF system.
Recent research has shown that there are substantial
limitations with the current connection design methods A third alternative provides rotation in the plane of the frame
(Lehman et al. 2008; Roeder et al. 2011). The 2tp linear by means of introducing a knife plate perpendicular to the
clearance method provides relatively compact plates with gusset plate. Rotation occurs in the knife plate in a hinge
tapered gusset plates, but when used with rectangular or zone that is three times the plate thickness.
minimally tapered gussets, the method leads to relatively
thick gussets. The thickness of these large gusset plates Figure 5-3 shows these three types of details configured
is typically controlled by gusset plate buckling, and the to provide brace buckling rotation capacity.
increased thickness of the gusset increases the rotational
Hinge zone
Hinge zone Hinge zone
(a) Linear hinge zone configured for (b) Elliptical hinge zone configured for (c) Knife plate configured for
out-of-plane buckling out-of-plane buckling in-plane buckling
Figure 5-3 – Details configured to provide brace buckling rotation capacity.

The AISC Seismic Design Manual has examples of each of these types.
17
corresponding to brace expected tension and compression In practice, this may lead to thick gusset plates. Additionally,
strengths. The design of beams and columns to resist gussets are configured to accommodate brace buckling, as
these flexural forces, in combination with axial forces discussed above.
corresponding to brace expected tension and compression
strengths, ensures that the primary source of inelastic drift Beam-column connections must be designed to be consistent
capacity is brace buckling and tension yielding. with gusset plate design. That is, any forces transferred to
the beam by the braces through the gusset plate design or
5.7 Gusset Plate Design Methods delivered to the braced bay by drag struts or other structural
elements must be considered in the design of the beam-column
Current Design Method connection. Typically, welds joining the gusset plate to the
As noted earlier, the gusset plate connecting the beam, column, beam and column are sized to resist forces derived from the
and brace must be designed by capacity design procedures expected brace strength using a gusset analysis method. The
such that its resistance exceeds expected inelastic capacity most commonly employed method is the UFM, as illustrated
of the brace in tension and compression. A number of limit in the AISC Seismic Design Manual.
states must be checked to verify sufficient strength. A complete
illustration is found in the AISC Seismic Design Manual. The geometry of the gusset plate may be rectangular or tapered
(Figure 5-4) with typical design checks noted. The tapered
The thickness of the gusset plate must be sufficient to resist gusset plate (Figure 5-4b) has similar checks but different
both the brace expected tension strength and to resist buckling geometry.
when subjected to the expected brace compression strength.
Whitmore width used for tensile

yield and compressive buckling
Whitmore width
Net section
of brace
30° Net section of brace
2tp Weld of brace 30°
to gusset plate Weld of brace to
2tp gusset plate
Welds join gusset plate to beam and

column sized by equilibrium with brace
Working point Gusset plate buckling length Working point
Beam-column connection may have

welded or free flanges
(a) Rectangular gusset plate (b) Tapered gusset plate
Figure 5-4 – Failure mode design checks for gusset plate connections.
18
Recommendations for Improvement
of Gusset Plate Connection Design
Recent research has shown that welds joining the levels are recommended for designing the gusset plate
gusset plate to the beam and column should be sized to for tensile yielding over the Whitmore width and for block
develop the expected yield capacity of the gusset plate shear.
rather than sized to requirements of the UFM (Roeder
et al. 2011). Crack initiation invariably occurs in gusset These recommendations are rational because the design
plate connections because of substantial deformations loads for the gusset plate are typically two to three
experienced by the gusset plate, but the weld cracks times the factored design loads for which the resistance
remain stable if the welds are sized to these criteria and factors were developed. This recommended procedure
if demand-critical weld material is used. Welds that do encourages thinner, more compact gusset plates that
not have sufficient strength to develop the strength of the facilitate end rotation caused by buckling of the brace.
gusset plate have experienced dramatic brittle fractures Current design methods frequently encourage larger,
at small frame deformations, regardless of whether they thicker gusset plates, which provide greater restraint to
have sufficient strength to resist the expected brace yield the end rotation and reduce the inelastic deformation
strength. capacity of the brace prior to brace fracture. This can
cause earlier and more severe local damage to the beams
As noted earlier, gusset plates are designed to the and columns adjacent to the gusset plate. This increased
expected load capacity of the brace, and these design local damage increases the repairs required after
forces are much larger than the factored loads required earthquakes and reduces the performance advantages
of the design. Prior research has recommended a of the SCBF system (Yoo et al. 2008a and 2008b). The
balanced design procedure that permits limited inelastic gusset plate will yield because of the deformations caused
deformation in the gusset plate and increases the inelastic by brace buckling, regardless of the conservativeness of
deformation capacity of the SCBF system. In particular, its design. Conservatively designed gusset plates are
limited yielding in the connection is encouraged by usually significantly thicker than the webs of beams and
liberalization of the block shear, net section, and tensile columns. The stress in the gusset plate resulting from
yield design criteria (Roeder et al. 2011). The combination its deformation is transferred to the webs of the beam
of these recommended improvements has been shown to and column, and significant local inelastic deformation
substantially increase the inelastic deformation capacity must be expected in the beam and column if the web
of the SCBF system prior to initial brace fracture. These is significantly thinner than the gusset plate (Palmer
recommendations require variations from current AISC 2012). This reduced beam and column damage during
seismic design provisions, because more liberal stress earthquake loading reflects one of the major benefits of
the proposed balanced design procedure.
Imaginary corner of gusset

intersects the centroidal
axis of the brace c a
8tp
1’ L3
y’ Shaded elliptical
band remains clear
b to permit brace
end rotation 6tp
L2
8tp
x’ 30° L1
a
Gusset plate buckling determined by average of

L1, L2, and L3.
L2 = Length from end of brace to flange or stiffener
along centroid of brace
L1 and L3 = Length at the edge of Whitmore width
(a) Elliptical model for corner gussets (b) Horizontal clearance for midspan gussets
Figure 5-5 –Improved Gusset Plate Clearance Models.
19
5.8 Frame Deformations The rotation demand can be accommodated by providing
flexible joints between the beam and column and between
Bracing connections must also be designed to accommodate the gusset and column, provided that the rotation demand,
the large inelastic drifts that the frame is expected to undergo. projected over the connection depth, can be accommodated
This is problematic where gusset plates connect to both the in the joints. Alternatively, a flexible splice in the beam can
beam and the column, forming a haunch. AISC 341 requires be provided to allow for relative rotation of the beam and the
that attention be given to this configuration. The connection connection, which moves rigidly with the column. In this latter
consists of all of the connected pieces: the beam, the column, approach, the rules for simple connections in AISC 360 may
the brace, and the gusset. The stiffening effect of the gusset be applied to ensure rotation capacity. Because of the large
in the assembly is significant. horizontal forces that typically must be resisted in these
connections, typical simple connections are rarely adequate,
AISC 341 allows two approaches to accommodating drifts in although some of the principles employed to allow inelastic
these connections: providing rigid connections of sufficient rotation, such as ensuring that ductile modes govern, are
strength; and providing connections capable of sufficient applicable to this connection design option. The AISC Seismic
rotation. Within the first approach, the designer has two Design Manual shows such an approach.
options to accommodate the demands that large drifts impose
on these beam-column-gusset assemblies. In the first option, It is generally recognized that fixed connections provide
the connection is designed as rigid. It is assumed that at the system with beneficial strength and stiffness. However,
large drifts, flexural yielding of the beam or the column will they may also be more subject to unfavorable behaviors that
have occurred and that the connection is designed to resist limit drift capacity. Designers wishing to provide secondary
moments corresponding to the flexural yielding of the beam strength and stiffness may consider providing it in adjacent
or the column. In this method, it is implicitly assumed that the bays. Often, welded flanges are used to resist large collector
brace contributes negligible flexural demand or resistance to forces; moment connections in collectors can serve the dual
the connection. function of providing axial and flexural strength.
In the second option, the rigid-connection method, the designer 5.9 Base Connections
may explicitly evaluate the effects of this flexural yielding on
the connection components and joints. Alternatively, AISC 341 Base connections are often modeled as pinned for design
considers a beam-to-column moment connection meeting the because the flexural resistance may not result in a significantly
requirements for Ordinary Moment Frames to be sufficient for reduced required strength of the members, and thus, pinned-
these moments. The addition of the gusset plate is assumed to base and fixed-base models generally lead to the selection of
strengthen the connection and thus the assembly is deemed to identical member sizes. Nevertheless, typical connections of
comply with the rigid-connection requirements. braces to the column-to-base assembly provide high flexural
stiffness and may have limited rotation capacity. With relatively
Web Proportioning little research guidance on the behavior of these assemblies,
Recent research indicates that web failures in rigid designers must rely on largely untested methods to achieve the
connections may not be precluded by use of current required drift capacity.
design methodologies (Lumpkin 2009). While the local
web strength limit states and design strengths in the Moderate rotation capacity can be achieved through one of the
AISC Specification are adequate for many conditions, following methods (or a combination thereof):
in this case the forces normal to the flanges calculated
• elongation capacity of ductile anchor rods
based on brace axial forces do not adequately capture
maximum demands on beam and column webs. In some • foundation rotation
conditions, frame deformations cause the gusset plate to
act as a haunch to deliver significant moments across the • column inelastic rotation
connection. These forces may reach the level of gusset
Base plate flexibility may also provide rotation capacity, but it
yielding. Where webs are much thinner than gussets,
failures in the web may result. Palmer (2012) provides a may be incompatible with providing the required tension and
basis for providing a web at least 3/4 of the gusset plate compression strength.
thickness (or, conversely, limiting the gusset thickness to
4/3 the web thickness). The anchorage of large tensile forces, as required for SCBF
base assemblies, generally falls outside the bounds of ACI
The second approach to accommodate the rotational demands 318 Appendix D and its supporting research (ACI 2011). An
on these assemblies is to provide a connection that allows effective approach to designing for large tension anchorage
significant relative rotation between elements. This rotation forces is to embed a plate similar to the base plate deep
demand is defined by AISC 341 as 2.5 %. enough into the foundation such that punching shear resistance
20
is sufficient to resist the force. Embedded base plates are There are two common eccentricities that affect the distribution
most effective when they are located beneath the bottom of design forces at base plate connections. The first is the
reinforcement of a pile cap or spread footing. Figure 5-6 eccentricity of the base plate with respect to the column. Base
shows a base connection with an embedded plate (note the plates are typically extended for attachment of the gusset plate
thickening of the foundation below the embedded plate). on one side. If the anchor rod group is centered on such a gusset
plate, there is a significant eccentricity between the centroid
of the group and the column centerline.
The second potential eccentricity occurs in conditions in which

the horizontal force resistance is provided at an elevation
other than the elevation of the intersection of brace and
column centerlines. Many of the shear-transfer mechanisms
discussed above can have such eccentricities. Figure 5-7
illustrates these eccentricities.
Figure 5-6 – Base connection with an embedded plate.
Another important requirement of base connections is the

capacity to transfer horizontal forces between the brace and
the foundation. Practice varies substantially in this regard, and
little research is available to provide guidance on the efficacy
of methods employed. (a) Anchor rod eccentricity for vertical forces
Shear methods that may be considered include the following:
• anchor rods in shear (combined with tension)
• reinforcement parallel to the direction of the shear force

welded to the base plate or gusset
• shear lugs below the base plate
• shear studs below the base plate
• bearing on concrete (for a base plate and column embedded

into the foundation or a slab above it)
• added horizontal members resisting horizontal forces and

transferring them into the foundation away from the base
plate
In all of these methods, the load path of the horizontal forces

(b) Shear transfer eccentricity for horizontal forces
into the foundation and soil must be followed, and any forces
resulting from eccentricity must be considered. Figure 5-7 – Potential eccentricities at base plate connections.
21
Designs may have both of these eccentricities. Figure 5-7b
shows the eccentricities result in opposing moments. Designers
may minimize the moment by adjusting work points.
5.10 Midspan Connections
Midspan connections, in which two or more braces at a level

connect to the beam at or near the center of the bay, are in many
respects simpler than other bracing connections. As AISC
341 specifies the forces to be assumed in each brace in the
design of the connections, the midspan connection is statically
determinate. The two-story-X condition, in which a pair of
braces above the beam and a pair of braces below the beam
all come to the midspan connection, does not add complexity,
and most limit states may be considered independently for
connections above and below the beam unless the adjacent
story heights are considerably different.
Midspan connections may rely on local beam web shear to

transfer forces. As such, thin webs may be problematic. If
the beam web-shear strength is insufficient for the portion of
the vertical component of the brace force that the connection
analysis assigns to the web, the web may be reinforced or
the brace work points may be adjusted. This latter approach
reduces the connection size but results in moment in the beam.
It is generally advantageous to consider these forces in the
selection of the beam.
22
6. Additional Requirements
6.1 Mixing Bolts and Welds 6.2 Foundation Design
Most SCBF connections employ welded joints between the To achieve the goals of SCBF design, it is essential that the
gusset plate and the beam and the column. However, a wide foundations be capable of developing the full resistance and
variation in beam-column connections has been employed. deformation capacity of the braced frame. Unfortunately,
AISC 341 seismic design criteria expressly prohibit the use current foundation design criteria do not ensure that the
of combined bolts and welds to resist any force across a given foundation will develop the required resistance. If the
interface. This is rational because bolts and welds resist load foundation is understrength, uplift may occur. Uplift may
differently. Bolts may resist load with no slip and minimal attenuate the seismic response, and it may aid in assuring life
deformation until friction on the faying surface is overcome. safety and collapse prevention. However, uplift may also cause
However, friction is highly variable, and joint slip occurs significant damage to floor diaphragms and a whole range of
after friction is overcome. Welds resist loads with virtually nonstructural elements. This damage may also present life
no deformation. Bolts and welds may work together prior safety or collapse issues. Design guidance has been proposed
to initial bolt slip, but seismic loads require large inelastic for controlling uplift in structural design, guidance that goes
deformation, and slip is probable. As a result, bolts and welds well beyond the scope of this Guide. Reliance upon uplift
cannot reliably work together at these deformations, and load without employing the rather extensive requirements needed
sharing is prohibited. to control uplift appears to be unwise for new construction.
Hence, it is prudent to design the foundation to fully develop
Strict interpretation of this rule severely limits or prohibits the strength of the braced frame.
many braced frame connections (Figures 6-1a and 6-1b),
because the shear and axial force is transmitted to the column Repair and retrofit of existing braced frames is a common
by a combination of bolts and welds. Nevertheless, connections engineering concern. It is costly to repair or retrofit an existing
of these types are frequently used. Engineers may satisfy building, and foundation upgrade is even more costly and
the specific requirements by sizing welds (or bolts) by an difficult. Hence, relying upon uplift on existing braced frames
appropriate application of an equilibrium force distribution. may be a more acceptable solution because the benefits of uplift
Such practices should theoretically be safe by the lower-bound may reduce the seismic risk relative to the existing condition
plasticity theorem if all elements are appropriately designed of the braced frame system.
to this equilibrium stress distribution and ductile behavior
is achieved, thus allowing forces to redistribute to match 6.3 Composite SCBF
the strength distribution provided. Experiments show that
connections such as shown in Figures 6-1a and 6-1b may ASCE 7 and AISC 341 both permit the use of composite SCBF
develop the full resistance of the brace and the SCBF system, (C-SCBF) systems. In C-SCBFs, the columns may be concrete-
but research also shows that connections such as those of encased composite columns or filled composite columns, while
Figure 6-1a achieve less inelastic deformation capacity than the beams may be either structural steel or steel girders with
connections with fully-restrained beam-column connections composite floor slab. The braces are either structural steel or
such as Figure 6-1c (Roeder et al., 2011). filled composite members.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6-1 – Typical braced frame connections.
23
Composite braced frames have been constructed primarily
using filled composite columns and either steel or filled
composite braces. Filled composite columns are especially
attractive in braced frames in taller structures having large
axial compression forces in the columns or in braced frames
where added stiffness is required.
The basis of design and analysis are comparable to that of

SCBFs. Composite member design defers primarily to AISC
360, and added provisions are included in AISC 341 for
detailing of the composite connections and splices.
6.4 Brace Transverse Displacement
Braces have been observed to develop significant transverse

displacement upon buckling (especially after tension
elongation), much larger than the axial deformation imposed
(Uriz and Mahin 2008). Proper consideration of this
deformation and its potential effects on other systems is
necessary to ensure proper performance. Out-of-plane
deformation of typical nonstructural walls may be considered
acceptable and is commensurate with brace buckling. However,
loss of gravity support for cladding and interference with
exiting may represent unacceptable conditions. In such cases,
sufficient separation should be provided, or frames should be
configured to avoid damaging contact.
24
7. Detailing and Constructability
7.1 Buckling Deformation plastic hinging include the brace midspan, and, at the brace
ends, either the ends of braces (for fixed-end braces) or the
Braces are anticipated to undergo significant axial shortening, gusset plates (for gussets configured to facilitate rotation.
which results in significant transverse deformation in the
plane of buckling on the order of 10 % of the brace length For exposed braces the restrictions on connecting to protected
(Tremblay 2002). Although building codes do not explicitly zones do not entail much complexity. Where braced frames
require consideration of this transverse displacement, it may are enclosed in an architectural wall, special attention is
create hazards in certain circumstances, such as braces located required to exclude attachments in the protected zone, which
near windows configured to buckle out of plane. Designers can reduce ductility.
should consider the effects of building layout and braced frame
configurations with reference to such post-buckling secondary There is ongoing research into the effect of attachments in
hazards. the protected zone. Some (as yet unpublished) observations
indicate that certain types of connection within the protected
7.2 Interaction with Architecture zone may be acceptable without significantly reducing member
ductility, but further research is needed (Watkins et al. 2013).
Braced frames are often located within architectural walls.
In such cases, the designer must provide for room for the 7.4 Brace Connection Tolerances
anticipated brace buckling. If braces are configured to buckle
out of the plane of the frame, the architectural wall may be Braces require some maneuverability and some construction
terminated above and below the brace. (See the discussion of tolerance for erection. Welded field connections generally
the “protected zone” below for other concerns.) If braces are provide some tolerance. However, this tolerance should be
configured to buckle in the plane of the frame, the architectural specified and accounted for in the design. For example, the
wall may be built as two walls with a cavity for the brace buckling length of gussets may be increased considering
between. this tolerance, and gussets and reinforcement plates should
be detailed so that they are adequate through the range of
If architectural elements restrain the brace from buckling, permitted brace end locations.
the maximum brace compression force may be higher than
predicted. This may result in buckling of gussets or webs. Brace slots for slotted connections are typically fabricated 1/8
Where the restraint cannot be avoided, the possibility of such inch wider than the gusset plate thickness and with two inches
modes can be eliminated by designing for a maximum brace of length beyond the nominal edge of gusset. These tolerances
compression force considering the architectural restraint. typically provide the maneuverability needed for erection.
Gussets configured to provide a pinned end for the brace may Bolted connections are often preferred in the field for economic
be restrained from providing rotation capacity by concrete fill reasons. For ease of erection, bolted connections of braces
at floors. Providing a blockout in the concrete or configuring generally require oversize holes, which entail reduced design
the gusset to provide rotation capacity above the concrete strength.
should be considered.
7.5 Direct-Welded Brace Connections
7.3 Protected Zone
Direct-welded to the brace connections (braces welded directly
Where structural steel members are providing the inelastic drift to the beam, to the column, or to both) offer some economic
capacity through inelastic strain in the steel, attachments to advantages by reducing the number of force transfers. Such
those regions are restricted. Low-toughness welds, shot pins, connections are difficult for HSS braces, especially round
and similar potential crack initiators are not allowed in these sections, due to the changing geometric conditions around
“protected zones.” the HSS perimeter. These connections may be challenging
to configure for any shape at beam-column intersections.
Braces in SCBFs may be subject to concentrated inelastic strain Where direct-welded connections are used, the beam-column
in regions where plastic hinging occurs as part of buckling. connection assembly must be strong enough to resist the brace
(The distributed inelastic strain entailed in tension yielding is flexural plastic-hinge moment in the plane of buckling. This
expected to be significantly lower.) These regions of potential is of particular concern for out-of-plane buckling.
25
7.6 HSS Availability
Relatively few square and rectangular HSS meet the b/t limits
in AISC 341. A great many round HSS meet those limits.
However, many round HSS shapes are not frequently produced.
Designers using round HSS braces (other than those that match
pipe sections) should verify the availability of shapes with
fabricators or service centers.
ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society

for Testing Materials, has announced a new standard that has
a minimum yield stress of 50 ksi and a maximum of 70 ksi
(Melnick 2013). The specification will likely result in a more
controlled product with a higher yield stress used for design
and the same expected strength, thus reducing the material
overstrength factor Ry.
26
8. References
ACI (2011). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-11) and commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI.
AIJ (1995). Preliminary reconnaissance report of the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake, (English Edition) Architectural
Institute of Japan, Tokyo, p. 216.
AISC (1997). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2010a). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings (AISC 341-10) and commentary, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2010b). Specification for structural steel buildings (AISC 360-10) and commentary, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2012). Seismic design manual, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
ASCE (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10), American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S.C., and Hanson, R.D (1986). “Earthquake design of double-angle bracing,” AISC Engineering
Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, 4th Quarter, 1986, pp. 133-147.
Bruneau, M., Uang, C.M., and Sabelli, R. (2011). Ductile design of steel structures, McGraw-Hill.
Deierlein, G.G., Reinhorn, A.M., and Willford, M.R. (2010). “Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic design,” NEHRP
Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied
Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, NIST GCR 10-917-5.
Dowswell, B. (2006). “Effective length factors for gusset plate buckling,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2nd
Quarter, pp. 91−101.
EERI (1990a). “5 Buildings,” ES6 Supplement, Loma Prieta, California Earthquake of October 15, 1989, Earthquake
Spectra, Vol 6, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, pp. 127-149.
EERI (1990b). “7 Industrial Facilities,” ES6 Supplement, Loma Prieta, California Earthquake of October 15, 1989,
Earthquake Spectra, Vol 6, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, pp. 189-238.
EERI (1996). “2 Steel Buildings,” Supplement C to Vol. 11, Northridge Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.
11, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, pp. 25-48.
Hsiao, P-C, Lehman, D.E., and Roeder, C.W. (2012). “Improved analytical model for special concentrically braced frames,”
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 73, pp. 80-94.
Hsiao, P-C, Lehman, D.E., and Roeder, C.W. (2013a). “A model to simulate special concentrically braced frames beyond
brace fracture,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Wiley, Vol. 42, pp. 183-200.
Hsiao, P-C, Lehman, D.E., and Roeder, C.W. (2013b). “Evaluation of response modification coefficient and collapse potential
of SCBFs,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Wiley, DOI: 10.10002/eqe.2286.
IBC (2012). International building code, International Code Council, Washington, D.C.
27
Khatib, I. F., Mahin, S. A., and Pister, K. S. (1988). “Seismic behavior of concentrically braced steel frames,” Report No.
UCB/EERC-88/01. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
Lehman, D.E., Roeder, C.W., Herman, D., Johnson, S., and Kotulka, B. (2008). “Improved seismic performance of gusset
plate connections,” ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 6, Reston, VA, pp. 890-901.
Lumpkin, E.J. (2009). “Enhanced seismic performance of multi-story special concentrically braced frames using a balanced
design procedure,” a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the MSCE degree, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, p.461.
Melnick, S. (2013). “Editor’s note,” Modern Steel Construction. May, 2013.
Okazaki, T., Lignos, D.G., Hikino, T., and Kajiwara, K. (2013). “Dynamic response of a chevron concentrically braced
frame,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Reston, VA, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000679
Palmer, K.D. (2012). “Seismic behavior, performance and design of steel concentrically braced framed systems,” Ph.D.
thesis, University of Washington.
Roeder, C.W., Lumpkin, E.J., and Lehman, D.E. (2011). “Balanced design procedure for special concentrically braced frame
connections,” Elsevier, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 67 No. 11, pp. 1760-72.
Uriz, P., and Mahin, S. A., 2008. “Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentrically braced steel-frame structures,”
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. PEER 2008/08, Berkeley: University of California, p. 401.
Sabelli, R., Sabol, T.A., and Easterling, S.W. (2011). “Seismic design of composite steel deck and concrete-filled
diaphragms,” NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 5, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a
partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering,
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, NIST GCR 11-917-10.
SEAOC (2013). 2012 IBC structural/seismic design manual, Vol. 4: Example for steel-framed buildings, Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA. (in press)
Tremblay, R. (2002). “Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol.
58, pp. 665-701.
Watkins, C.E., Toellner, B.W., Laknejadi, K., Abbas, E., and Eatherton, M.R. (2013). “Effect of powder actuated fasteners on
the seismic performance of steel moment frame connections,” paper presented at the ASCE Structures Congress 2013.
Yoo, J.H., Roeder, C., and Lehman, D. (2008a). “Analytical performance simulation of special concentrically braced
frames,” ASCE, Journal of Stuctural Engineering, Vol. 134 No. 6, pp. 190-198.
Yoo, J.H., Lehman, D., and Roeder, C. (2008b). “Influence of gusset plate parameters on the seismic resistance of braced
frames,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 64, pp. 607-623.
28
9. Notations and Abbreviations
Specific units and definitions are found in the referenced documents.
Ag gross cross-sectional area of the brace
b width
Cd deflection amplification factor
D effect of dead load
e eccentricity created by diaphragm step or depression
Ev effect of vertical seismic input
f c’ specified compressive strength of concrete
fy specified yield strength of reinforcement
f1 live load factor, taken as 0.5 except taken as 1.0 for garages, areas occupied as places of public assembly,
and all areas where L is greater than 100 psf
E effect of horizontal seismic (earthquake-induced) forces
Fcre flexural buckling stress or critical stress of the brace determined using expected yield stress
Fy specified minimum yield stress
hx the height above the base to Level x
H effects of soil, water in soil, or other materials
I the importance factor
K effective length factor for a compression member
k distribution exponent for design seismic forces
L span of diaphragm or diaphragm segment
P axial force
Puc required axial strength in compression
Put required axial strength in tension
R response modification coefficient
Ri reaction force in slab at vertical element i
Ry ratio of expected yield stress to specified minimum yield stress
Sa spectral response pseudo-acceleration, g
Sm elastic section modulus
SDS design, 5 percent damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods
29
t thickness
tp thickness of panel zone
T the fundamental period of the building
wx portion of effective seismic weight of the building that is located at, or assigned to, Level x
D story drift
d member eccentricity from a straight line due to initial imperfection or deformation
φ strength reduction factor
ρ a redundancy factor based on the extent of structural redundancy present in a building
Ω0 amplification factor to account for overstrength of the seismic force-resisting system defined in ASCE 7
Abbreviations
ACI American Concrete Institute
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASTM Formerly American Society for Testing and Materials, now ASTM International
ATC Applied Technology Council
BRBFs Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames
C-SCBF Composite Special Concentrically Braced Frames
CBF Concentrically Braced Frame
CBFs Concentrically Braced Frames
CJP Complete Joint Penetration
CUREE Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
HSS hollow structural section
IBC International Building Code
OCBFs Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frames
SCBF Special Concentrically Braced Frame
SCBFs Special Concentrically Braced Frames
UFM Uniform Force Method
30
10. Credits
Cover photo Image courtesy of William A. Andrews, Walter P Moore
Figure 3-1 Image courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 3-3(a) Image courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 3-3(b) Image courtesy of Degenkolb Engineers
Figure 3-3(c) Image courtesy of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Figure 3-3(d) Image courtesy of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Figure 3-3(e) Image courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 3-3(f) Image courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 3-5 Images courtesy of Charles Roeder, University of Washington
Figure 4-2 Image courtesy of the American Institute of Steel Construction

Copyright © 2010 by American Institute of Steel Construction
Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
Figure 5-1 Images courtesy of Rafael Sabelli, Walter P Moore
Figure 5-6 Image courtesy of Rafael Sabelli, Walter P Moore
31
32

Nistgcr13 917 24

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nistgcr13 917 24

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nistgcr13 917 24

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NIST GCR 13-917-24

NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 8

Seismic Design of Steel Special

Applied Technology Council (ATC) Consortium of Universities for Research in

Seismic Design of Steel Special

A Guide for Practicing Engineers

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

How to Cite This Publication

SCBFs are designed using capacity design procedures, with

Braced frames are most effective at the building perimeter,

In mid-rise or high-rise buildings, SCBFs are often used in the

Stacked braced frames (frames in which the braces occupy the

3.2 Intended Behavior

The prior discussion has shown that brace buckling, tensile

Figure 3-2 – Various braced frame system configurations.

Figure 3-3 – Earthquake damage to CBFs.

Original brace length

(c) Progression of tearing (d) Fracture

Figure 3-5 – Progression of local strain to fracture for HSS brace.

Rigid end Beam

Figure 4-1 – Schematic structural model of SCBF panel.

• an analysis in which all braces are assumed to resist

• an analysis in which all braces in tension are assumed

The expected tensile strength of the brace may be taken as

(a) Frame with braces offset

(b) Axial forces with elastic braces

(b) Frame with stacked braces

5.3 Configuration Design story drifts determined in accordance with ASCE 7

Hinge zone Hinge zone

Figure 5-3 – Details configured to provide brace buckling rotation capacity.

Whitmore width used for tensile

Welds join gusset plate to beam and

Working point Gusset plate buckling length Working point

Beam-column connection may have

(a) Rectangular gusset plate (b) Tapered gusset plate

Imaginary corner of gusset

Gusset plate buckling determined by average of

Figure 5-5 –Improved Gusset Plate Clearance Models.

The second potential eccentricity occurs in conditions in which

Figure 5-6 – Base connection with an embedded plate.

Another important requirement of base connections is the

Shear methods that may be considered include the following:

• anchor rods in shear (combined with tension)

• reinforcement parallel to the direction of the shear force

• shear lugs below the base plate

• shear studs below the base plate

• bearing on concrete (for a base plate and column embedded

• added horizontal members resisting horizontal forces and

In all of these methods, the load path of the horizontal forces

5.10 Midspan Connections

Midspan connections, in which two or more braces at a level

Midspan connections may rely on local beam web shear to

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6-1 – Typical braced frame connections.

The basis of design and analysis are comparable to that of

6.4 Brace Transverse Displacement

Braces have been observed to develop significant transverse

ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society