Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 291–302 | Cite as

Performance assessment of innovative seismic resilient steel knee braced frame

  • Tony T. Y. Yang
  • Yuanjie Li
Research Article


Buckling restrained knee braced truss moment frame (BRKBTMF) is a novel and innovative steel structural system that utilizes the advantages of long-span trusses and dedicated structural fuses for seismic applications. Steel trusses are very economical and effective in spanning large distance. However, conventional steel trusses are typically not suitable for seismic application, due to its lack of ductility and poor energy dissipation capacity. BRKBTMF utilizes buckling restrained braces (BRBs) as the designated structural fuses to dissipate the sudden surge of earthquake energy. This allows the BRKBTMF to economically and efficiently create large span structural systems for seismic applications. In this paper, a prototype BRKBTMF office building located in Berkeley, California, USA, was designed using performance-based plastic design procedure. The seismic performance of the prototype building was assessed using the state-of-the-art finite element software, OpenSees. Detailed BRB hysteresis and advanced element removal technique was implemented. The modeling approach allows the simulation for the force-deformation response of the BRB and the force redistribution within the system after the BRBs fracture. The developed finite element model was analyzed using incremental dynamic analysis approach to quantify the seismic performance of BRKBTMF. The results show BRKBTMF has excellent seismic performance with well controlled structural responses and resistance against collapse. In addition, life cycle repair cost of BRKBTMF was assessed using the next-generation performance-based earthquake engineering framework. The results confirm that BRKBTMF can effectively control the structural and non-structural component damages and minimize the repair costs of the structure under different ranges of earthquake shaking intensities. This studies conclude that BRKBTMF is a viable and effective seismic force resisting system.


buckling restrained brace innovative structural system collapse simulation seismic assessment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wongpakdee N, Leelataviwat S, Goel S C, Liao W C. Performancebased design and collapse evaluation of buckling restrained knee braced truss moment frames. Engineering Structures, 2014, 60: 23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang T Y, Li Y, Leelataviwat S. Performance-based design and optimization of buckling restrained knee brace truss moment frame. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2014, 28(6): A4014007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang T Y, Li Y, Goel S. Performance evaluation of long-span conventional moment frames and buckling-restrained knee-braced truss moment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2015, 142 (1): 04015081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goel S C, Chao S H. Performance-Based Plastic Design: Earthquake- Resistant Steel Structures. International Code Council, USA, 2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    PEER. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2000Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Talaat M, Mosalam K M. Modeling progressive collapse in reinforced concrete buildings using direct element removal. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2009, 38(5): 609–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASCE. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. SEI/ASCE 7–10. Reston, VA, USA, 2010Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    UCB. U.C. Berkeley Seismic Guideline. University of California, Berkeley, 2003Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Merritt S, Uang C M, Benzoni G. Subassemblage Testing of CoreBrace Buckling Resitrained Brace. Report No. TR-2003/01, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA, 2003Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    López WA, Sabelli R. Seismic design of buckling-restrained braced frames. Steel tips, 2004Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    PEER. PEER Strong Motion Database. University of California at Berkeley, 2010 (Retrieved from ground_motion_database)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C A. Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31(3): 491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang T Y, Moehle J P, Stojadinovic B. Performance Evaluation of Innovative Steel Braced Frames–PEER Report 2009/103. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2009Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang T Y, Moehle J P, Stojadinovic B, Der Kiureghian A. Seismic performance evaluation of facilities: Methodology and implementation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2009, 135(10): 1146–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Applied Technology Council. Development of next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures for new and existing buildings, 2012 ( 1235934887/project-atc58)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Joint Research Laboratory of Eearthquake EngineeringShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations