Comparative Seismic Performance of Four Structural Systems

and Assessment of Recent AISC BRB Test Requirements

Ronald L. Mayes, Staff Consultant
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.
San Francisco, CA

Craig B. Goings, Project Manager
Wassim I. Naguib, Senior Engineer
Stephen K. Harris, Senior Project Manager
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.
San Francisco, CA

Abstract

This paper provides a comparison of the maximum inter-story drifts and floor response spectra of both a
three and nine story building each with four different steel structural systems moment frame, buckling
restrained braced frame, viscously damped frame and a base isolated braced frame. Each of the building
models were analyzed as fully non-linear structures and subjected to a total of 10 time histories each. One
set of five time histories was representative of a 50% in 50 year earthquake, while the other set was
representative of a 10% in 50 year earthquake. Both sets were developed for the Los Angeles area. The
results of each set of five were averaged and reported separately.

The results of the non-linear time history analyses on the buckling restrained braced frame and those
performed by others are used to assess the most recently recommended AISC test requirements for
buckling restrained braced frames. The AISC provisions requires that the braces have adequate
performance, as demonstrated by tests, for deformations corresponding to 2.0 times the design drift. This
requirement needs to be increased to 3.0 times the design drift or a drift of 3% (0.03 times story height)
because the drifts that result from the non-linear response of these frames for the design earthquake
(especially for buildings less than approximately 6 stories high) may have significant non-linear
deformations concentrated in one story height. This concentration of deformation can lead to much higher
ductility demands in selected braces.

Introduction

The introduction of the buckling restrained brace (BRB) in the US was as a bracing system that was a good
energy dissipater, and early BRB projects were based on the draft NEHRP energy dissipation design
procedures. This meant the BRB was in the same category as viscous dampers, friction and hysteretic
damping elements. The use of the NEHRP provisions requires more sophisticated analytical effort plus
prototype testing and production testing, as well as peer review of the design and testing of the devices. The
proponents of the BRB technology in the US quickly realized that this positioning of the product was a
mistake. They repositioned them as a brace that is superior to a concentric brace in that it does not buckle;
therefore the design could be covered by the steel design provisions, which were less stringent with regard
to peer review and testing requirements. The BRBs are now established in the code design process as an
alternate to the eccentric braced frame (EBF) with the advantage that they will not locally damage the floor
framing during an earthquake and, if necessary, can be replaced more easily than the floor beam link beam
in an EBF. As such, a designer can now use an R-factor of 7 for a BRB system to get the required yield
force in the brace and, provided a brace of a similar size has been tested, no prototype or production tests are
required.

For other energy dissipation elements (viscous and hysteretic dampers) the trend is to design a moment
frame using an effectively increased R that results in a reduced base shear of approximately 75% of the
required base shear for a full moment frame, without regard to inter-story drift limits. The drift limits of the
code are met by designing the energy dissipation element to reduce the inter-story drifts to at or below the
code minimums. In the early application of energy dissipation elements, the moment frame had to satisfy
the code minimum base shear.

Base isolation design has had its own set of design provisions since 1991. The design requirements for the
structure above the isolators is much more stringent than BRBs or Viscous Dampers and ensures that the
structure remains essentially elastic as the maximum R-Factor is 2.2. This results in much lower ductility
demand on the structure than a BRB and viscously damped system but it also results in a higher structural
cost relative to other lateral force resisting systems. .

Unfortunately there has not been a comprehensive study that looks at the relative performance of these
newer structural systems (BRBs, viscous dampers, base isolation etc.) comparing both drift and
acceleration performance. As part of a recent research and development project, SGH had the opportunity to
compare the seismic performance of four different structural systems in the three and nine story SAC
buildings. The four lateral load systems were: moment frames, buckling restrained braced frames, viscously
damped frames and a base isolated braced frame. The moment frame, buckling restrained braced frame
(R=7) and base isolated braced frame were designed following the requirements of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC) whereas the viscously damped frame used the 2003 NEHRP requirements.

3 and 9 Story Building Configurations

The three- and nine-story building configurations were the same as those used in the SAC studies and had
similar floor plans with 30-foot bay spacing. The three-story building had 6x4 bays with equal story heights
of 13 feet. The nine-story building had 5x5 bays with a first story height of 18 feet, with the remaining floor
heights at 13 feet. Figures 1 and 2 show the moment and braced frame configurations.























Figure 1. Three and Nine Story Moment
Frame Configuration
Figure 2. Three and Nine Story Braced Frame
Configurations
Table 1. Three Story Building Design Summary

The required number of moment frame bays was significantly greater than the required number of braced
frame bays due to drift limitations and the new redundancy () factor provisions for special moment-
resisting frames in the 1997 UBC. For the three-story building, only two exterior bays of braces or dampers
on each exterior perimeter were necessary. For the nine story building, three bays of bracing and two bays
of dampers were required. Tables 1 and 2 provide a brief summary of the design data for each of the
designs. For the three story building the buckling-restrained bracing system was designed as both a
conventional building with an R-Factor of 7 and as an essential facility using an R-Factor of 3.5. The
viscous damped frame was initially designed to meet the minimum code requirements (133 K Dampers)
and then the system was redesigned with an almost doubling in the damping coefficient (220 K Dampers) of
the viscous dampers. These two additional designs were performed in order to study the relative
performance of structural systems that could meet lower drift limits required for essential facilities. The
following summarizes the designs performed for both the three and nine story buildings:
Moment frame both the three and nine story building were controlled by the 2% inter-story drift
requirement and as noted above by the redundancy factor of the 1997 UBC. The redundancy factor
resulted in a lateral system that required more moment frame bays than braced frames. Moment
frames extend the full building height and Figure 1 shows the moment frame configurations used.
Buckling-restrained braced frames with R-factors of 7 and 3.5 both with 45 ksi yield strength steel.
BRBs are trending towards higher yield stress materials after originally being introduced by Nippon
steel with 22 ksi yield strength braces. Figure 2 shows the bracing configurations used.
Viscous damped moment frame the moment frame was initially designed to resist 75% of the code
calculated base shear (V). The viscous dampers were initially sized to satisfy the 2% drift
requirements of the 1997 UBC and had a velocity coefficient of 0.4. For the three story building and
the conventional code design the force capacity of the dampers was 133 kips at velocity of 15 in/sec.
For the higher performing essential building performance the damper force was increased to 220
kips at velocity of 15 in/sec. For the nine story building, the top four stories used dampers with a
capacity of 148 kips at a velocity of 15 in/sec. while the lowest five stories used dampers with a
capacity of 295 kip at a velocity of 15 in/sec. There were two bays of dampers on each of the four
sides of the building for both the three and nine story buildings.
Base isolated conventional braced frame this system was designed following the requirements of
the 1997 UBC using a 2.5 sec. isolated system with a yield level of 0.4W.

.













Moment Frame - Method B
T
1
= 0.94 s
V =602 k
Story Design Drift
Brace Axial
Capacity Design Drift
Brace
Axial
Capacity Design Drift
(2.0% limit) (kips) (2.5% limit) (kips) (2.5% limit)
3 1.93% 135 1.21% 242 0.72%
2 1.97% 236 1.17% 439 0.71%
1 1.16% 236 1.33% 439 0.80%
Story Damper Force at 15 in/s Design Drift
Drift w/o
Dampers
Damper
Force at
15 in/s Design Drift
Drift w/o
Dampers
(kips) (2.0% limit) (kips) (2.0% limit)
3 220 1.41% 3.44% 133 1.98% 3.44%
2 220 1.46% 3.27% 133 1.85% 3.27%
1 220 1.06% 2.14% 133 1.26% 2.14%
T
1
=1.25 T
1
=1.25
V =634 k - Method A V =634 k Method A
V =1026 k V =2053 k
Vi scous Damped Frame - 220K Dampers Viscous Damped Frame - 133K
Unbonded Braced Unbonded Brace
T
1
=0.72 T
1
=0.56
Table 2. Nine Story Building Design Summary

















The buildings were modeled using the 3D RAM PERFORM computer program recently developed by
Professor Graham Powell of Berkeley and sold by RAM International. Design of the braced frame and
moment frame components of the building were done with RAM STEEL. Nonlinear time history analyses
were performed on each building with the non-linear element being the actual BRB, viscous damper,
isolator, brace and moment frame connections and their immediate surrounding frame as appropriate.

Each of the models was analyzed using a total of 20 time histories selected from those developed for Los
Angeles as part of the SAC program. One set of five time histories is representative of a 50% probability
of exceedance in 50 year design event for Los Angeles (72 year return period), five time histories are
representative of a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 year design event for Los Angeles (475 year
return period), five time histories are representative of a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 year design
event for Los Angeles (2500 year return period) and five are representative of severe near fault ground
motions. The results of each set of five are averaged. Due to the space limitations of this paper only the
more frequent 72 year and the 475 year design event results are presented.

Discussion of Results

The results obtained from the three and nine story building are different and will be discussed separately.

There are two equally important variables that should be assessed when evaluating the seismic
performance of a structural framing system. The first and almost universal variable is the inter-story drift.
This is a code design parameter and is something most engineers focus upon during the design process.
The other key parameter, from a performance perspective, is the floor acceleration as characterized by the
floor response spectra. This is rarely assessed as part of the design process because it requires a time
history analysis to obtain it.

The primary results of our analysis are the average inter-story drifts and floor response spectra from each
of the five non-linear time history analyses. There are a number of different ways to present them. For the
three story building the average inter-story drift results of the four code designed buildings are given in
Figure 3 and the average floor response spectrum at the 3
rd
floor level is given in Figure 4 for the 10% in
50 year earthquake time histories. The two essential facility building designs were not included in these
plots in order to maximize clarity.
Moment Frame
T
1
= 2.04 s
V =1076 k
Story Design Drift
Brace
Axial
Capacit
y Design Drift
Damper
Force at
15 in/s Design Drift
Drift w/o
Damper
s
(2.0% limit) (kips) (2.0% limit) (kips) (2.0% limit)
9 1.17% 149 1.12% 148 0.83% 2.65%
8 1.68% 162 1.33% 148 1.19% 3.41%
7 1.72% 248 1.28% 148 1.37% 3.76%
6 1.67% 297 1.22% 148 1.38% 3.92%
5 1.77% 365 1.15% 295 1.17% 3.77%
4 1.75% 392 1.12% 295 1.16% 3.95%
3 1.70% 446 1.01% 295 1.15% 3.97%
2 1.78% 459 1.01% 295 1.18% 3.94%
1 1.77% 527 0.91% 295 1.14% 3.63%
V =2286 k V =807
Unbonded Braced Viscously Damped Frame
T
1
=1.54 T
1
=3.02
Figure 4. Average Inter-story Drift for Three
Story Building 10% in 50yr Event
Figure 5. Average Floor Spectra for Three Story
Building (3rd Floor) 10% in 50yr Event
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Interstory drift %
S
t
o
r
y

H
e
i
g
h
t

(
i
n
)
Moment Frame
Unbonded Braced Frame
Viscous Damped Frame
Base Isolated














The inter-story drifts given in Figure 3 are plotted such that the average drift between the ground level
and the 2
nd
story is plotted at the 2
nd
floor level (156 inches height) while that between the 3
rd
and 2
nd

floor is plotted at the 3
rd
floor level (312 inches height) etc. We can then take the maximum value of each
of these three floors and these are 0.3, 2.95, 2.33 and 2.12 for the base isolated braced frame, buckling-
restrained braced frame, moment frame and viscously damped braced frame respectively. These
maximum results over three floors can then be normalized using one of the framing schemes and Figure 5
provides a plot of the maximum inter-story drifts of all six framing schemes normalized to the inter-story
drift of the base isolated braced frame. Note that the buckling-restrained braced frame has the maximum
drift and it is concentrated in the 2
nd
floor. The buildings designed for the essential facility performance
(R=3.5 for the buckling-restrained brace design and 220K for the viscous damped) reduce the maximum
drift by approximately 45%. If we had averaged the results of each of the three floors, the results would
be 0.3, 1.73, 1.77 and 1.80 for the base isolated braced frame, buckling-restrained braced frame, moment
frame and viscously damped braced frame respectively and the concentration of drift at the 2
nd
floor level
of the buckling-restrained braced frame would not have been so obvious in the comparisons. The mean
values of the 3 floors are also consistent with the design values given in Table 1. The concentration of
drift at the 2nd floor level in the 3 story building has been observed in other nonlinear time history
analyses is not intuitively obvious when the design values of Table 1 are assessed.

In assessing the floor response spectra results of Figure 4 there are two variables that can be used for
comparison purposes. The first is the peak floor acceleration which is the floor acceleration at a period of
zero seconds and is the value that impacts all rigid elements at the upper floor levels of a building. The
peak floor acceleration results of the moment frame show a little more amplification than those of the
buckling-restrained braced frame and the viscously damped frame indicating a lesser amount of inelastic
response in the moment frames. A structure that remains essentially elastic would be expected to amplify
the ground PGA by a factor of 2.5 to 4 whereas structures responding inelastically have much less
amplification of the peak floor acceleration. The other variable of interest is the peak value of the average
floor response spectra of Figure 4 as this provides some measure of the maximum forces that the flexible
contents or equipment of a building will be subjected to. Note that the peaks in Figure 4 for the different
framing schemes all occur at different periods that are essentially the 1
st
fundamental mode of the
particular framing scheme. These peak spectral acceleration values can then be normalized to the values
of one of the framing schemes and Figure 6 provides a comparison of all framing schemes normalized to
the base isolated braced frame.


0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

A

(
g
)
Moment Frame
Ground Input
Braced Frame
Viscous Damped
Base isolated
Figure 5. Normalized Maximum Value of
Inter-story Drifts for Three Story Building -
10% in 50 yr Event

Figure 6. Normalized Peak Spectral
Accelerations for Three Story Building (3rd floor)
- 10% in 50yr Event


















The peak spectral acceleration of the moment frame from Figure 4 is 5.5g and is much higher than the
2.8g of the buckling-restrained brace (R=7) and the 2.1g of the viscously damped frame. The base
isolated braced frame produces significantly lower floor accelerations (0.3g) as well as inter-story drifts.
What is interesting to note as we go from a code designed buckling-restrained braced frame (R=7) to an
essential facility design (R=3.5) the maximum drifts (Figure 5) are reduced by 45% as expected but the
peak spectral floor accelerations (Figure 6) are increased substantially and are almost as high as those of
the code designed moment frame. For the viscously damped frame as the damper force is increased from
a code design (133k dampers) to an essential facility design (220k dampers) the drifts are also reduced
approximately 45% and the peak floor accelerations are also reduced; this is very desirable from a seismic
performance perspective.

In order to simultaneously assess both the drift and floor acceleration results, Figure 7 provides a plot of
the peak value of the floor inter-story drift versus the peak spectral floor acceleration at the 3
rd
floor for all
six of the framing schemes for the 10% in 50 year results. Clearly the closer to the origin of both the drift
and acceleration axes the better the overall seismic performance of the structural system. Rather than
providing Figures 4 through 8 for the 50% in 50 year time histories, Figure 8 provides a summary plot of
the peak floor inter-story drift versus the peak spectral floor acceleration at the 3
rd
floor level for all six of
the framing schemes for the 50% in 50 year results.

Figures 7 and 8 provide a very good summary of the relative performance of the four framing schemes for
the three story building. It is clear that the base isolated braced frame has significantly better performance
than all of the other framing scheme with inter-story drifts reduced by factors of 3 to 9 (Figures 6, 9 and
10) and peak floor accelerations reduced by similar factors (Figure 8, 9 and 10) relative to the other three
framing schemes. From an inter-story drift perspective the buckling-restrained braced frame has the
worst performance for the 10% in 50 year event due to the concentration of inter-story drift at the 2
nd
floor
level whereas for the 50% in 50 year event the moment frame has the worst inter-story drift performance.
This is because for the more frequent lower level event the drift is not concentrated at the 1
st
floor level of
the buckling-restrained braced frame. The viscously damped frame performs better from a drift
perspective than both the buckling-restrained braced frame and the moment frame although only
marginally better than the buckling-restrained brace for the 50% in 50 year event. When the inter-story
drift performance of the viscously damped and buckling-restrained braced frames designed as essential
facilities are compared the viscously damped frame performs better for both design events.
0
3
6
9
12
1
Structure Type
D
r
i
f
t

/

B
a
s
e

I
s
o
l
a
t
e
d

D
r
i
f
t
Base
Isolated
Moment
Frame
Unbonded
Brace
R=7
Unbonded
Brace
R=3.5
Viscous
Damped
133K
Viscous
Damped
220K
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
1
Structure Type
P
e
a
k

S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
n
.

/

B
a
s
e

I
s
o
l
a
t
e
d

A
c
c
n
.

Moment
Frame
Unbonded
Brace
R=7
Unbonded
Brace
R=3.5
Viscous
Damped
133K
Base
Isolated
Viscous
Damped
220K
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Peak Value of Drift - %H
P
e
a
k

S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
-

3
r
d

F
l
o
o
r

-

%
g
Moment Frame
Unbonded Brace - R7
Unbonded Brace - R3.5
Viscous Damped - 133K
Viscous Damped - 220K
Base Isolated
Figure 7. Peak Inter-story Drift vs. Peak
Spectral Acceleration for Three Story Building -
10% in 50 yr Event
Figure 8. Peak Inter-story Drift vs. Peak Spectral
Acceleration for Three Story Building 50% in 50Yr
Event

In assessing the acceleration performance, the moment frame has the worst performance because it has
less inelastic response for both of the design events. The viscously damped structures have better
performance than both of their buckling-restrained braced frame counterparts and this difference is
significantly better for the building designed as an essential facility (Figures 8, 9 and 10) for both design
events. It is very clear from Figures 9 and 10 that as a designer attempts to improve the drift performance
of a buckling-restrained braced frame by going from an R-Factor of 7 to 3.5, the acceleration performance
deteriorates significantly for both design events. For a viscously damped frame the opposite occurs - as
the inter-story drift performance is improved by increasing the force capacity of the dampers from 133
kips to 220 kips the acceleration performance also improves for both design events. The viscously
damped frame is significantly better than the buckling-restrained braced frame which in turn is better than
the moment frame for both the 10% (475 Year) and 50% (72 Year) in 50 year design events.



















In summary, for the three story building the base isolated braced frame has the best overall relative
performance of the four framing schemes and by a significant margin. The viscously damped frame is
significantly better than the buckling-restrained braced frame which in turn is better than the moment
frame for both the 10% and 50% in 50 year design events.

Figures 9 and 10 provide the summary plots of the peak floor inter-story drift versus the peak spectral
floor acceleration for the four framing schemes for the 10% in 50 year and 50% in 50 year results for the
nine story building. There were no essential facility designed nine story buildings. For the nine story
building the base isolated braced frame again has the best overall relative performance of the four framing
schemes. The viscously damped frame is significantly better than the moment frame which in turn is
better than the buckling-restrained braced frame for both the 10% and 50% in 50 year design events.
Note that the relative performance of the buckling-restrained braced frame and moment frame are
reversed for the nine story building when compared to the three story building performance It is also
noteworthy that the acceleration performance of the viscously damped nine story building is much closer
to that of the base isolated structure than the three story building. However the inter-story drift
performance of the viscously damped frame is a factor of 4 to 5 higher than the base isolated structure.



0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Peak Value of Drift - % H
P
e
a
k

S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
-

3
r
d

F
l
o
o
r

-

%

g
Moment Frame
Unbonded Brace - R7
Unbonded Brace - R3.5
Viscous Damped - 133K
Viscous Damped - 220K
Base Isolated
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Peak Value of Drift - % H
P
e
a
k

S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

-

%

g
Moment Frame
Unbonded Brace
Viscous Damped
Base Isolated
Figure 9. Peak Inter-story Drift vs. Peak
Structural Acceleration for Nine Story Buildings
10% in 50yr Event
Figure 10. Peak Inter-story Drift vs. Peak
Structural Acceleration for Nine Story Buildings
50% in 50yr Event























Required Tests of Buckling Restrained Braces

One of the important requirements for the buckling restrained braces (BRBs) is that the braces are able to
accommodate the displacements that result from the earthquake ground motion. The newly adopted AISC
seismic provisions require that the braces have adequate performance, as demonstrated by tests, for
deformations corresponding to 2.0 times the design drift where the minimum design drift for these test
requirements is 0.01.

There have been a number of other analytical studies that have focused on the non-linear response of
BRBs and the results are very consistent. Table 3 summarizes the results of three recent studies (Sabelli
2001, Fahnstock et. Al. 2003, Mayes et. al. 2005) of the non-linear time history behavior of 3, 6, 9 and 20
story BRBs. The time histories used in the SGH (Mayes et. Al.) and Fahnstock et al. studies were those
developed for the SAC project at the Los Angeles site. The mean and mean-plus-one-standard-deviation
results are remarkably similar for the range of design events included in each of the studies. The demands
from the 3-story buildings are generally the highest except for Sabellis 2% in 50 year results for his 6
story building. An interesting issue is what inter-story drift demands should be used to determine the test
requirements for the braces from this relatively limited number of studies. Options and their implications
include:
The maximum value from the 50% in 50 year event this would require a test requirement of
2.3%
The mean, mean plus one standard deviation or maximum value from the 10% in 50 year event
this would require a test requirement of 1.8%, 2.8% and 4.5% respectively.
The mean value from the 2% in 50 year event this would require a test requirement of 4.5%.
The mean value of the near fault time histories this would require a test requirement of 3.0%



0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Peak Value of Drift - % H
P
e
a
k

S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

-

%

g
Moment Frame
Unbonded Brace
Viscous Damped
Base Isolated




Table 3 Summary of Analysis Results

Design SGH Fahnstock et al. Sabelli Sabelli SGH SGH
Event 3 Story 3 Story 3 Story 6 Story 9 Story 20 Story
50% in 50 Mean 0.80% 0.70% 0.50%
Years Mean+Std. Dev. 1.40% 1.20% 0.70%
Maximum 2.30% 2.10% 1.20%
10% in 50 Mean 1.70% 1.80% 1.40% 1.60% 1.00% 0.80%
Years Mean+Std. Dev. 2.80% 2.20% 2.10% 2.20% 1.70% 1.10%
Maximum 4.50% 2.60% 3.10% 1.40%
2% in 50 Mean 2.90% 3.00% 4.50% 1.50% 1.40%
Years Mean+Std. Dev. 4.60% 4.00% 6.60% 2.30% 1.80%
Maximum 6.90% 4.40% 3.40% 2.30%
Near Fault Mean 3.00% 1.60% 1.10%
Mean+Std. Dev. 5.10% 2.70% 1.50%
Maximum 8.70% 5.40% 1.90%



The results of the 3-story building reported herein will be discussed in some detail, as they permit a focus
on the detailed results of each story rather than looking at the mean results presented in Table 3. These
story-by-story results are important as they demonstrate that inelastic deformations may be more
significant in the lowest story of a building than in the others levels. The 3-story building floor plan was
6 bays by 4 bays with 30 ft. bay spacing and equal story heights of 13 ft. Figure 2. The seismic design
parameters of the 2000 IBC are shown in Tables 4, 5 and 6. Two buildings were designed with an S
s
=
1.50, S
1
= 0.60 and Soil Type D. One building used a 45 ksi yield stress for the BRB (Table 4) and the
other used a 30 ksi yield stress for the BRB (Table 5). The 3
rd
building (Table 6) was designed for near
fault condition (S
s
=2.0 and S
1
=0.75) and an I
e
factor of 1.5. This represents the strongest braces that
would be required by the IBC for essential facilities.


Table 4 - 3 Story Building with R=7 and 45 Ksi Yield Strength Steel
(IBC Design Parameters Ss=1.50, S1=0.60, Ie=1.0, Soil Type D)

Brace
Area
Brace
Strength
Design Displ.
From Equiv.
Lat. Force
Procedure
(in.)
Interstory
Displ. from
Equiv. Lat.
Force
Procedure
(in.)
xe (%)
Drift from
Equiv. Lat.
Force
Procedure
Design Drift
(%)
=(Cd/Ie)*xe
where Cd=5
2 * Design
Drift for
Tesing
BRB's
Analysis
Results
10% in 50
Year Drift
Results -
Avg of 5
Ratio of 10%
in 50 Yr
Drift to
2*Design
Drift
3 3.00 135.0 1.18 0.38 0.24 1.22 2.44 1.18 0.48
2 5.25 236.3 0.80 0.38 0.24 1.22 2.44 1.05 0.43
1 5.25 236.3 0.42 0.42 0.27 1.35 2.69 2.95 1.10
Mean 1.26 2.52 1.73 0.67


Table 5 - 3 Story Building with R=7 and 30 Ksi Yield Strength Steel
(IBC Design Parameters Ss=1.50, S1=0.60, Ie=1.0, Soil Type D)

Brace
Area
Brace
Strength
Design Displ.
From Equiv.
Lat. Force
Procedure
(in.)
Interstory
Displ. from
Equiv. Lat.
Force
Procedure
(in.)
xe (%)
Drift from
Equiv. Lat.
Force
Procedure
Design Drift
(%)
=(Cd/Ie)*xe
where Cd=5
2 * Design
Drift for
Tesing
BRB's
Analysis
Results
10% in 50
Year Drift
Results -
Avg of 5
Ratio of 10%
in 50 Yr
Drift to
2*Design
Drift
3 4.50 135.0 0.80 0.26 0.17 0.83 1.67 0.88 0.53
2 7.88 236.4 0.54 0.26 0.17 0.83 1.67 1.18 0.71
1 7.88 236.4 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.90 1.79 2.88 1.60
Mean 0.85 1.71 1.65 0.95


Table 6 - 3 Story Building in Near Fault Region with Ie=1.50 and R=7 Design and 45 Ksi Yield Strength Steel
(IBC Design Parameters Ss=2.0, S1=0.75, Ie=1.5, Soil Type D)

Brace
Area
Brace
Strength
Design Displ.
From Equiv.
Lat. Force
Procedure
(in.)
Interstory
Displ. from
Equiv. Lat.
Force
Procedure
(in.)
xe (%)
Drift from
Equiv. Lat.
Force
Procedure
Design Drift
(%)
=(Cd/Ie)*xe
where Cd=5 and
Ie=1.5
2 * Design
Drift for
Tesing
BRB's
Analysis
Results
Near Fault
Drift
Results -
Avg. of 5
Ratio of Near
Fault Drift to
2*Design
Drift
3 5.38 242.1 1.42 0.46 0.29 0.99 1.98 2.57 1.30
2 9.75 438.8 0.96 0.45 0.29 0.97 1.93 1.74 0.90
1 9.75 438.8 0.51 0.51 0.33 1.10 2.19 2.53 1.16
Mean 1.02 2.03 2.28 1.12



The far right hand column of Tables 4, 5 and 6 compares the actual drift obtained from the average of 5
non-linear time history analyses for the 10% in 50 year design event with the test requirements assuming
2 times the design drift. In the first two designs the non-linear response is concentrated in the 1
st
story.
This is probably due to the use of similar core plate sizes in both the 1
st
and 2
nd
stories not an optimal
design but not an uncommon one. In the response of the near fault design there is a more a more uniform
distribution of inelastic deformation in the braces on the various floors. It should be noted in Table 5 that
the lower bound value of the design drift for the purpose of establishing the test requirements is 1%. If we
consider the mean values of all the story drift values the for the conventional designs then the test
requirement of 2 times the design drift test requirement (minimum design value of 1%) is adequate but it
is not adequate for the near fault design of Table 6. If it was desired that the test requirement enveloped
the average values of drift at each story level then the test requirement should be increased to 3 times the
design drift a 50% increase over the current requirement. Another approach that maybe favored by the
fabricators is to require that the test deformations correspond to a specific 3% drift requirement. Note that
several of the non-linear time history results are close but just below a drift of 3%. This would be similar
in concept to the testing requirement for SMRF connections.

The ductility demands on the BRB are a function of the yield stress of the material, the bay width and
story height and the length of the connections of the BRB. The ductility demands for a variety of
variables (bay width of brace B, connection length of brace, story height of 13 ft.) are plotted in Figure 13
for a drift demand of 3%. In order for a fabricator to qualify a brace for a variety of building
configurations they would need to demonstrate that they could achieve a maximum ductility capability
shown in Figure 13 (i.e. 30) if they wanted to cover all possible combinations of bay widths and
connection lengths for a 13 ft. story height.

Summary and Conclusions

This paper has presented a summary of the comparative seismic performance (inter-story drifts and floor
response spectra) of three- and nine-story buildings, each designed with four different structural systems
designed following the 1997 UBC provisions. The four framing schemes were a buckling-restrained
braced frame, viscously damped frame, moment frame and a base isolated braced frame. For the three-
story building, the buckling-restrained braced frame and the viscously damped frame were also designed
as essential facilities where the R-Factor for the buckling-restrained braced frame was reduced from 7 to
3.5 and the force capacity of the viscous dampers at 15 in/sec. were increased from 133 kips to 220 kips.
Each of the building models was analyzed as a complete non-linear structure using a total of ten time
histories. One set of five time histories was representative of a 50% in 50 year (72 year return period)
earthquake, while the other set was representative of a 10% in 50 year (475 year return period)
earthquake. Both sets were developed for the Los Angeles area. The results of each set of five were
averaged and reported separately.

0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2
Connection Length, each end (ft.)
B
R
B

D
u
c
t
i
l
i
t
y

D
e
m
a
n
d
B=10
B=12
B=15
B=20
B=25
B=30


Figure 13 Ductility Demand Ratios for Drift ratio of 3%


Two equally important variables were assessed in order to evaluate the seismic performance of the
structural framing systems. The first and almost universal variable for comparing seismic performance is
the inter-story drift. This is a code design parameter and is something most engineers focus upon during
the design process. From a damageability perspective it is a measure that impacts damage to the framing
system, building faade and windows, partitions, piping and ductwork. One interesting result that was
obtained from the non-linear time history analyses was the concentration of inter-story drift that occurred
at the 2
nd
story of the three-story buckling-restrained brace building. Although not presented herein the
drifts in the 2
nd
story became quite significant (>5%) for the near-fault and 2500 year time histories.

The other key parameter from a performance perspective is the floor acceleration as characterized by the
floor response spectra. This is almost never assessed as part of the design process, because it requires a
time history analysis to obtain it. From a damageability perspective it is the measure that impacts damage
to the ceiling and lights, electrical and mechanical equipment, elevators and the building contents.

The seismic performance of both the three and nine-story base isolated structures were shown to be
significantly better than the other three framing schemes. The viscously damped three- and nine-story
frames were in turn much better than both the buckling-restrained braced frames and the moment frames.
The three story buckling-restrained braced frame had better performance than the three story moment
frame building whereas the reverse was true for the nine story buildings.

The results clearly show the importance of assessing both the inter-story drift and the floor accelerations
when comparing the relative seismic performance of different structural systems. Had only inter-story
drift been used to compare the seismic performance there would not have been such a clear cut difference
between the viscously damped frame, the buckling-restrained braced frame and the moment frame
although the base isolated braced frame would still have been the best performing system by a significant
margin.

As the profession progresses with performance based design we will eventually be able to convert the
values of inter-story drift and floor accelerations presented herein to the dollar cost of damage and
resulting downtime; these measures of performance will be more meaningful to the owners of buildings.
However, until that time occurs, it is important that the structural engineering design profession assess
both inter-story drift and acceleration performance when selecting a structural system for buildings and
especially for essential facilities such as hospitals, high tech manufacturing facilities, essential service
buildings etc. that should be operable after a significant event. The base isolated building had the best
performance by a significant margin and the viscously damped system was significantly better than both
the buckling-restrained braced fame and moment frame.

It is also clear that if a buckling-restrained brace system is being considered for a project that requires
higher performance than life safety then a viscously damped frame should be considered as a design
alternate as its seismic performance has been shown to be significantly better and no other layout or
architectural changes are required.

Some members of our design profession are proposing the use of buckling-restrained brace systems for
structures that require higher performance capabilities, going so far to state that base isolation has given
way to BRBs as the new technology for higher predictable performance. This statement demonstrates a
real lack of awareness of what causes the large dollar costs of earthquake damage as well as the
unfortunate fact the our design codes do not require a designer to assess floor accelerations as part of the
design process. Structural engineers should consider acceleration performance rather than just inter-story
drift in the selection of the structural system, especially when higher performance is desired.

There also appears to be a need to increase recently agreed upon AISC inter-story drift demands for the
testing of BRBs from 2 times the design drift (minimum of 2% drift) to 3 times the design drift or 3% of
the story height. This is a critical performance issue especially for buildings less than 6 stories in height
where it appears that the inter-story drift may concentrate in the lower level of the building. In summary,
the results presented herein indicate that the performance of a building and its contents is dependent upon
the structural system chosen for the building.
References

1. SAC, 2000a, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, prepared
by the SAC Joint Venture, a partnership of the Structural Engineers Association of California, the applied
Technology Council, and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering; published by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA- 350 Report), Washington, DC.

2. BSSC, 2001, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structures (2000 Edition), prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council; published by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 368 Report), Washington, DC. Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering; published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA- 351
Report), Washington, DC.

3. Sabelli, R., 2001 Research on Improving the Design and Analysis of Earthquake Resistant Steel
Braced Frames, EERI/FEMA NEHRP Fellowship report, Oakland, California.

4. Fahnstock, L.A., Sause, R., Ricles, J.M. and Le-Wu Lu 2003, Ductility Demands on Buckling
restrained Braced frames Under Earthquake Loading, Earthquake Engineering and engineering
Vibration, Vol.2, No. 2 December 2003.

5. Mayes, R.L., Goings, C.B., Naguib, W.I. and Harris, S.K. 2005, Comparative seismic Performance of
Four Structural Systems, Proceedings of 2005 SEAOC Convention, San Diego Ca., September 2005.