Self-Centering Energy Dissipative Bracing System

for the Seismic Resistance of Structures:

Development and Validation
C. Christopoulos1; R. Tremblay2; H.-J. Kim3; and M. Lacerte4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Buildings designed according to modern seismic codes are expected to develop a controlled ductile inelastic response during
major earthquakes, implying extensive structural damage after a design level earthquake, along with possibly substantial residual defor-
mations. To address this drawback of traditional yielding systems, a new bracing system that can undergo large axial deformations without
structural damage while providing stable energy dissipation capacity and a restoring force has recently been developed. The proposed
bracing member exhibits a repeatable flag-shaped hysteretic response with full recentering capabilities, therefore eliminating residual
deformations. The mechanics of this new system are first explained, the equations governing its design and response are outlined, and one
embodiment of the system, which combines a friction dissipative mechanism and Aramid tensioning elements, is further studied. Results
from component tests, full-scale 共reduced length兲 quasi-static axial tests, and quasi-static and dynamic seismic tests on a full-scale frame
system are presented. Experimental results confirm the expected self-centering behavior of the self-centering energy dissipative 共SCED兲
bracing system within the target design drift. Results also confirm the validity of the design and behavior equations that were developed.
It is concluded that the proposed SCED concept can represent a viable alternative to current braced frame systems because of its attractive
self-centering property and because the simplicity of the system allows it to be scaled to any desired strength level.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2008兲134:1共96兲
CE Database subject headings: Bracing; Ductility; Energy; Friction; Seismic design; Steel structure; Dynamic testing.

Introduction of performance-based earthquake engineering, more specifically

The goal of modern seismic design is to achieve a controlled
response that does not jeopardize the integrity of structures and
their occupants during and immediately after major earthquakes.
This is achieved through numerous structural lateral load resisting
systems such as ductile moment-resisting frames, braced frames,
and shear walls that are designed to provide displacement capac-
ity through inelastic ductile action at carefully detailed locations
while limiting the seismic forces induced in the structure. How-
ever, because of their hysteretic characteristics, yielding systems
are expected to sustain damage through repeated inelastic action
as well as residual deformations which can greatly impair the
structure and increase repair costs. In addition, the development
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Toronto, 35
St. George St., Toronto, Ont., Canada M5S 1A4 共corresponding author兲.
E-mail: c.christopoulos@utoronto.ca
2
Professor and Canada Research Chair in Earthquake Engineering,
Group for Research in Structural Engineering, École Polytechnique,
Montreal, Canada H3C 3A7.
3
Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Toronto, 35
St. George St., Toronto, Ont., Canada M5S 1A4.
4
Research Engineer, Group for Research in Structural Engineering,
École Polytechnique, Montreal, Canada H3C 3A7.
Note. Associate Editor: Akshay Gupta. Discussion open until June 1,
2008. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on October 26, 2006; approved on
March 27, 2007. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 134, No. 1, January 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2008/1-96–107/$25.00.
the aim to achieve multiple performance levels under multiple
earthquake hazard levels, has highlighted the importance of mini-
mizing the damage that is sustained during moderate earthquakes.
Because of their higher elastic stiffness, steel braced frames
are seen as excellent candidates for good performance under
small and moderate earthquakes. However, inelastic response and
story drift demands tend to concentrate in a few stories due to the
degrading hysteretic response of the bracing members and the
limited capacity of the system to redistribute the demand over
the building height 共Tremblay and Robert 2001; Sabelli 2001;
Sabelli et al. 2003; Tremblay 2003兲. Under strong earthquakes,
conventional steel braces can also fracture prematurely due to low
cycle fatigue, which can lead to structural collapse 共Tremblay et
al. 2003; Uriz and Mahin 2004兲. The use of buckling restrained
braces 共BRBs兲 共Watanabe et al. 1988; Iwata et al. 2000兲 with
enhanced, stable hysteretic behavior has been shown to greatly
enhance the performance of steel braced frames 共Tremblay et al.
1999; Sabelli 2001; Ko et al. 2002兲. However, this system is
prone to residual lateral deformations or damage concentration
over the building height 共Fahnestock et al. 2003; Uang and
Kiggins 2003; Tremblay and Poncet 2004兲, unless it is backed up
by a moment-resisting frame.
To address these drawbacks, flag-shaped hysteretic systems,
inspired by developments of new innovative systems for precast
prestressed concrete structures 共Priestley et al. 1999兲 have already
been applied to steel moment-resisting frames by several re-
searchers 共Christopoulos et al. 2002; Garlock et al. 2005; Ricles
et al. 2001; Rojas et al. 2005兲. Several dampers with self-
centering properties that can be introduced in bracing members
have also been developed and tested for seismic applications

96 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:96-107.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Concept of SCED system
either using mechanical or fluid spring systems, or shape memory
alloys 共Nims et al. 1993; Aiken et al. 1993; Filiatrault et al. 2000;
Dolce et al. 2000; Sheliang et al. 2004; Soda 2004兲. In general,
these damper systems are expensive to construct and do not scale
easily to all ranges of design forces. In Christopoulos and
Filiatrault 共2006兲, a more detailed overview of existing self-
centering systems can be found.
This paper presents the development of a new self-centering
energy dissipative 共SCED兲 steel brace element that is comprised
of traditional steel bracing elements, a dissipative mechanism,
and a tensioning system that is used to prestress the device. This
bracing system was developed to undergo large axial deforma-
tions without structural damage, while providing a stable energy
dissipation capacity and a full self-centering response within the
targeted design drift. After a description of the mechanics and the
definition of the equations governing the response of the SCED
brace system, a series of component and system level experimen-
tal validations that demonstrate the behavior of this system under
simulated seismic loading are presented.
PT-SCED System: Mechanics
The SCED system is a bracing member that is mountable to frame
structures similarly to traditional steel bracing or specialized
damping devices. As shown in the illustrative sketch of Fig. 1, the
system consists of two bracing members, a tensioning system, an
energy dissipation system, and a series of guiding elements. In
addition, abutting surfaces are provided on each side of the two
structural elements that are configured and sized to interact with
the tensioning system. A dissipative mechanism is connected to
the two bracing members and is activated when relative motion is
induced between these two members. The number of tensioning
elements, their modulus of elasticity, their initial pretensioning
force, their ultimate elongation capacity, their total area, and their
length are selected to achieve the desired strength, postelastic
stiffness, deformation capacity, and the self-centering capacity of
the SCED system. The level of pretension in the tensioning ele-
ments determines the force level at which the relative movement
starts between the two bracing members. The assemblage of the
structural elements with the abutting elements and the tensioning
elements is done in such a way as to assure that when relative
motion is induced between the two bracing members, it always
results in an elongation of the tensioning elements. Once this
movement is initiated, the energy dissipation mechanism is acti-
vated by this relative motion between the two structural elements
and the stiffness of the system changes from the initial elastic
stiffness, determined by the sum of the elastic stiffness of the two
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 97
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:96-107.
Fig. 2. Mechanics and hysteretic response of SCED system
structural members, to the postelastic stiffness, determined by the
stiffness of the tensioning elements. The level of pretension also
governs the recentering capability of the system: full recentering
behavior can be achieved by providing sufficient pretension to
overcome the force required to activate the energy dissipation
mechanisms. If a lower pretension force is selected, the system
does not display a full recentering capacity, but the tensioning
elements still provide additional postelastic stiffness to the
system.
A number of energy dissipative mechanisms such as friction,
yielding, viscous, or visco-elastic assemblages can be used alone
or in combination with each other as energy dissipation mecha-
nisms, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Alternatively, the dissipation
mechanism can be omitted from the system, and energy dissipa-
tion can be provided by specialized tensioning elements such as
shape-memory alloys that inherently display an energy dissipation
capacity when axially loaded. In the latter case, the tendons pro-
vide both the self-centering capacity and the energy dissipation.
Fig. 2 illustrates the behavior of a SCED member equipped
with a friction energy dissipation mechanism located at one end
of the member. When the left end of the system, which is an
extension of the bottom structural element, is fixed to a support as
illustrated in Fig. 2共a兲, and a force P is applied to the right end of
the system that is a rigid extension of the top structural element,
the pretension of the two structural elements is reduced propor-
tionally to the force P until the pretensioning force is overcome.
Up to that point, the SCED system displays a high initial axial
stiffness that is equal to the sum of the individual axial stiffness
of the two structural members and the tensioning elements 关see
Fig. 2共a兲兴. When the initial pretensioning force and the force re-
quired to activate the friction mechanism are surpassed, the
two structural elements start moving relative to each other 关see
Fig. 2共b兲兴. The stiffness of the system is significantly reduced to
that of the tensioning elements while sliding is activated in the
dissipation mechanism. In addition, the blocking elements to the
left assure that the left anchor of the tensioning elements does not
move while the anchor on the right side moves with the top struc-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Embodiment of SCED system with steel tubes, tendons, and friction dissipative mechanism
tural element. This increases the tension in the elements and pro-
vides a positive restoring force to the system. When the load is
reversed, the top structural member, under the influence of the
tensioning elements, is pulled back towards its initial position
until it realigns itself with the bottom bracing member. If the
tensioning elements and the initial pretension force are chosen
carefully, such that the force in the tensioning elements is larger
than the force necessary to activate the dissipation mechanism,
the system will return to its original position thus displaying a full
recentering property as illustrated in Fig. 2共c兲. When the load P is
applied in the opposite direction, once the initial pretension and
the force required to activate the dissipation mechanism are over-
come, the top element moves to the left as illustrated in Fig. 2共d兲.
Along with it the left anchor of the tensioning elements moves
because of the presence of the left blocking element that abuts
against the top structural member. The right anchor of the tension-
ing element is blocked by the right blocker connected to the bot-
tom bracing element and therefore this movement once again in-
duces additional tension in the tensioning elements. Once the load
P is reversed, the system once again returns to its original posi-
tion. This behavior is symmetric and repeatable. The area under
the hysteresis of the system in the top right and lower-left quad-
rants in Fig. 2 represents energy that is dissipated during the
cyclic loading of the SCED brace. This is done however with the
system returning to its initial zero load-zero deformation position
at every cycle.
Although the SCED concept described in the previous para-
graph can be achieved with a number of combinations of
structural, tensioning, dissipative, and blocking elements, one em-
bodiment of this system is illustrated in Fig. 3 and is studied in
more detail in the following paragraphs. The two structural ele-
ments consist of two rectangular tubular steel sections with the
first tube having smaller dimensions and being inserted inside a
second tube of larger dimensions. The tubes are fitted concentri-
cally and positioned with guiding elements. They are also cut at
the same length and fitted with end plates. Neither the tubes nor
the end plates are connected to each other. Pairs of back-to-back
angles are welded to the outer tube and extend out to provide the
connection of the SCED system on the right-hand side. On the
left-hand side, an end connection component is fitted through a
slot cut in the end plate and welded to the inner tube. The ten-
sioning elements are introduced in the space provided between
98 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:96-107.
the inner and outer tubes as illustrated in Sections A and B of Fig.
3. The tensioning elements are anchored on the outer side of the
right and left anchor plates. The outer tube is also slotted to allow
for steel plates welded to the inner tube to protrude and to be
bolted to back-to-back angles that are welded to the outer tube as
illustrated in Fig. 3 and in Section A of the same figure. The
surface between the plate and the angles forms a friction interface
that is activated by relative motion between the two structural
members. These interfaces comprise the energy dissipation
mechanism of the system. The tensioning elements are comprised
of parallel lay Aramid tendons fitted with spike and barrel termi-
nations. Details on the properties of the friction interfaces and on
the tendons are given in the following sections. To further clarify
how the system works, Fig. 3 also illustrates the kinematics of the
SCED system when tension and compression forces large enough
to activate the relative motion between the two structural mem-
bers are applied.
Prediction of Brace Response
The response of the SCED embodiment illustrated in Fig. 3 can
be computed by following the flow of forces at the different
stages of the brace response as illustrated in Fig. 2. The frictional
resistance of the energy dissipation system and the initial tendon
preload are labeled F and T p0, respectively. When the brace is at
rest, the initial pretension T p0 applies compressive forces Psi,0 and
Pse,0 to the interior and exterior tubes, respectively, that are rela-
tive to the axial stiffness of each tube and are given by
T p0Ksi T p0Kse
Psi,0 = ; Pse,0 = 共1兲
Ksi + Kse Ksi + Kse
where Ksi and Kse = axial stiffness of the interior and exterior tubes
respectively 共with Ks = EsAs / L; where Es = Young’s modulus of
steel; As = cross-section area of the tube, and L the length of the
brace兲. The relative movement between the tubes initiates when
the load applied to the SCED brace reaches the activation load
Pa = F + T p0 + K p␦a, where K p = axial stiffness of the tendons given
by E pA p / L; with E p and A p being the modulus and the cross-
sectional area of the tendons, and ␦a being the deformation of the
brace at the onset of activation. The last term in the equation for
 Pa represents the increase in tendon force due to the elastic de-
formation of the brace up to the load Pa. Prior to the activation of
the system, the elastic stiffness of the brace, Kbe, is given by:
Kbe = Ksi + Kse + K p. Substituting ␦a = Pa / Kbe in the expression for
Pa, one can determine Pa
T p0 + F
Pa = ⬇ T p0 + F 共2兲
1 − 1/Kbe
In this equation, the influence of Kbe on Pa is generally small and
can be omitted to obtain an estimate of Pa, especially in a design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where Kbe is yet to be determined. When the system is activated
in tension 共␦+兲, the tubular members only carry the force F while
the tendons accommodate the additional brace elongation through
elastic deformations 关Fig. 2共b兲兴. The axial stiffness of the brace
then corresponds to K p and the brace load at a given tension brace
deformation, ␦+, is given by
P+ = F + T p0 + K p␦+ 共3兲
Upon unloading, the frictional mechanism locks and the initial
brace stiffness, Kbe is recovered. The brace load must be reduced
by 2F before slippage is initiated in the opposite direction. Once
the friction slippage is initiated, the stiffness of the brace when
returning towards zero deformation is again equal to K p. The
behavior under negative deformations 共␦−兲 that occurs when com-
pression is applied to the SCED system is similar to the behavior
under positive deformations except that the tubes must resist in
compression the total axial load between the end connections and
the position of the friction mechanism. For a given brace defor-
mation, ␦−, the axial shortening of the steel tubes also reduces the
axial deformation demand in the tendons, and the brace force and
axial stiffness are therefore slightly reduced. After activation of
the system, for the case where the friction mechanism is located
near the fixed brace end as illustrated in Fig. 2, the force in the
tendons due to the applied load P is equal to 共P-F兲 and the com-
pression forces in the exterior and interior tubes are equal to P
and 共P-F兲 respectively. The corresponding brace deformation is
then obtained by summing the deformations of each of the com-
ponents after having subtracted the initial deformations caused by
the pretensioning
P− − Pse0 P− − F − T p0 P− − F − Psi0
␦− = + + 共4兲
Kse Kp Ksi
Similar expressions can be developed for other positions of the
friction mechanism. It is noted that the location of the friction
mechanism also affects the distribution of the axial loads in the
brace components before sliding, which can slightly influence the
value of the initial brace stiffness and the deformation at first slip.
In design, the above equations generally suffice to select the tu-
bular members, the tendons, and the properties of the friction
mechanism that will lead to the desired axial brace strength and
stiffness and permits us to reach the target deformation and en-
ergy dissipation capacities. The steel tubes must be sized to resist
the compression loads at the maximum anticipated brace negative
deformation. Optimum seismic design would generally call for
full recentering capability as well as maximum energy dissipa-
tion, which leads to the selection of a tendon preload and a fric-
tion mechanism such that Pa is equal to or slightly greater than
2F. The tendons also control the stiffness upon sliding and there-
fore tendon systems that exhibit high ultimate elongation proper-
ties are preferred to accommodate large brace deformations. Note
that a prediction of the overall initial elastic brace stiffness to be
used in a global structural analysis should also include the defor-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 99
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:96-107.
mations of the brace connections outside of the length L. The
overall stiffness including end connection flexibility has been
found to be in the range of 50–70% of the stiffness of the brace
Kbe for typical brace geometries.
Development and Validation of Friction Dissipative
Mechanism
The energy dissipation system that was developed for use with the
prototype SCED system examined in this study consisted of a
friction device that relied on a thin friction pad sliding over a
stainless steel surface. The normal force on the interface was
provided by prestressed bolts. A number of nonasbestos-organic
共NAO兲 materials, commonly used in the automotive industry as
replacements for friction pads containing asbestos, were studied
to determine their friction response under loading conditions re-
sembling those that were expected in the SCED system and to
finally select the most appropriate one for this application. These
materials have previously been investigated for seismic applica-
tions by Wolff 共1999兲. A summary of the results that led to the
choice of the friction material is presented herein, but more de-
tails on this study can be found in Kim et al. 共2004兲.
As illustrated in Fig. 4, centrally located bolts provide the
normal force that generates the required friction resistance on the
inner and two outer plates that are sandwiched together. Preten-
sioned high-strength bolts that are used in a double shear configu-
ration are also used to maximize the friction force that is
produced by each bolt. The inner steel plate has a 1.5 mm-thick
sheet of highly polished 共mirror-finish兲 Type 304 stainless steel
welded on each side while the outer plates are equipped with
3.3-mm-thick NAO friction pads of 70⫻ 30 mm. Washer plates
are used between the bolt heads and nuts and the outer steel plates
to better distribute the normal force created by the bolts through-
out the faying interface. The bolts are tightened from a snug-tight
condition using the turn-of-nut method. The assemblies were
tested in a Universal Testing machine under both quasi-static and
harmonic loading consisting of 20 cycles at ±21 mm amplitude
and at a loading frequency of 0.17 Hz. The force-deflection re-
sponses for three different friction pads subjected to this dynamic
loading protocol 共NF-916, NF-780, and NF-336 produced by the
Carlisle Group Inc.兲 stressed with one 3 / 4 in. 共19.1 mm兲 diam-
eter ASTM A325 bolt are shown in Fig. 5. In the tests presented
in Fig. 5, the three materials displayed different maximum friction
coefficients that were estimated at 0.12 for NF-916, 0.18 for
NF-780, and 0.25 for NF-336. For surfaces with lower friction
coefficient, the deterioration of the friction coefficient was lower
during the loading protocol. The NF-916 material displayed al-
most no deterioration during the loading protocol while the
NF-336 material experienced a 40% reduction of the friction co-
efficient during the dynamic loading. The deterioration of the fric-
tion coefficient was primarily due to the wearing of the friction
pads. Debris was found on the faying surfaces when the friction
interfaces were inspected after the loading was applied. There was
limited debris for the NF-916 material and increasingly more for
the NF-780 and NF-336 materials, respectively. It was also ob-
served that the friction interfaces displayed a fluctuation of the
friction force 共see curved response during the sliding phases in
Fig. 5兲 when subjected to sinusoidal loading. This indicates the
velocity dependence of the friction coefficient since the velocity
fluctuates harmonically during sinusoidal loading from a peak
value at zero displacement to a zero value at loading reversals.
The friction pads that displayed the highest friction coefficients
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Setup for validation of friction dissipative mechanism

also exhibited the largest dependence to the sliding velocity. Con-
sidering the geometry of some prototype SCED designs, it was
deemed that the desired friction resistance for the dissipation sys-
tems could be easily achieved with multiple 3 / 4-in.-diameter
A-325 bolts and using the more stable friction pads with the low-
est, yet most stable, friction coefficient 共NF-916兲 of the three
materials that were studied.
In addition, the effect of increased normal pressure on the
surfaces was also studied by using 1 in. 共25.4 mm兲 diameter
A325 bolts. It was observed that slightly lower friction coeffi-
cients were obtained with this larger normal pressure but a more
severe deterioration of the friction coefficient during dynamic cy-
clic loading was also observed. Furthermore, in some of the
earlier friction tests, the friction pads were simply glued with
epoxy to the steel plates which resulted in debonding of the pads
during dynamic loading. To address this, 1.7 mm deep recesses
were machined on the outer steel plates to house the friction pads.
A small amount of epoxy glue was added around the pads to
stabilize them in the recess. This significantly improved the per-
formance since no debonding was observed. It is also thought that
the recess provides confinement for the friction pads and mini-
mizes distortion in the material during sliding. The friction de-
vices were tested for both one and two bolts to verify that with
every additional bolt added to the friction mechanism, the effect
was additive and there was no significant overlap of the normal
force produced in the region between two consecutive bolts. After
a complete loading protocol 共of 20 cycles兲, the NF-916 friction
device was unbolted, wiped with a clean cloth to remove the

Fig. 5. Force-displacement response of tested friction surfaces

100 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:96-107.

 Table 1. Published Properties of Aramid Based Fibers
Tensile Tensile Tensile
modulus strength elongation
Fiber 共GPa兲 共GPa兲 共%兲
Kevlar—29 83 3.6 4.0
Kevlar—49 131 3.9 2.8
Kevlar—149 186 3.4 2.0
Technora—T200 73 3.4 4.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
small amount of debris that was present, and rebolted before an
identical loading protocol was reapplied to the system. The sec-
ond test displayed exactly the same response as the first one
which indicated that following an earthquake, if the proposed
dissipation system was inspected, unbolted, cleaned, and re-
stressed, it would regain its full pre-earthquake properties and
would be capable of undergoing the same loading a second time.
Validation of Composite Tensioning Elements
For the proposed SCED brace to function, the tensioning ele-
ments must be capable of undergoing significant axial elongation
without failure or yielding in order to produce the positive restor-
ing force that is needed to assure the self-centering response of
the system. Metallic tensioning elements such as high-strength
steel do not have sufficient elongation capacity to accommodate
the required elongation in their elastic range and therefore a num-
ber of alternative tendons made of composite polymer materials
were examined. Prestressing rods or tendons made of fibers such
as glass, carbon, and aramid have been used in the past 20 years.
An extensive literature review was performed by Dolan et al.
共2001兲 to prepare recommendations for AASHTO specifications
for prestressing using composite elements. Benmokrane et al.
共1997兲 compared aramid and carbon fiber reinforced polymer
共FRP兲 prestressed materials for ground anchor applications. After
comparing the properties of a number of fibers, it was concluded
that aramid based tendons were the most suitable because of their
large elongation capacity and their reasonably high elastic modu-
lus. Aramid fibers are comprised of linked benzene rings and
amide bonds and are collectively referred to as “aromatic fibers.”
Aramid fibers differ greatly from conventional fibers 共nylon兲 in
both their properties and applications. Aramid fibers are broadly
classified as either para-compounds in which the molecular skel-
eton is generally linear, or meta-compounds with a zigzag skel-
eton. A well known family of para-aramids includes the Kevlar
29, 49, and 149 compounds developed by DuPont in the 1970s.
Another para-aramid is the Technora fiber that was independently
developed by Teijin and which has been commercially available
since 1987. It has high tensile strength, high modulus, and excel-
lent resistance to heat and chemicals, especially acids and alkalis.
Table 1 lists the published properties of Kevlar and Technora
fibers. Aramid-based fibers display visco-elastic properties in
their load-deflection characteristics. In addition, they display a
“stiffening” effect which is due to a realignment of the fiber mol-
ecules. As illustrated in Fig. 6, if the fiber is loaded monotonically
to failure, it follows a generally linear response described by a
monotonic modulus Em. This is the modulus that is reported in the
literature and in the information provided by manufacturers of
aramid fibers and derived products. However, when the fiber is
prestretched and then subjected to cyclic loading at amplitudes
lower than the prestretch level, it follows a significantly higher
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 101
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:96-107.
Fig. 6. Tensile force-deflection response of aramid type fibers
modulus, Ec. The result of this is that the true available elastic
elongation which is defined as the ultimate strain of the tendons
divided by this higher modulus Ec 共see Fig. 6兲, is significantly
lower than the published elongation capacities for this type of
tendon.
The first set of cables that were tested were parallel lay ten-
dons produced by Linear Composites Inc. in the United Kingdom.
They were made of Kevlar 29 共Type F tendon in the Parafil line
of products兲 and anchored with aluminum spike and barrel termi-
nations. Parallel lay tendons consist of small fibers of a few mil-
limeters in diameter that are run over the entire length of the
tendon and anchored at each end. Parallel-lay tendons were cho-
sen over more flexible twisted or braided ropes to avoid interyarn
abrasion under cyclic loading. They also exhibit higher strength
efficiency and suffer less creep under long-term loading compared
to the other two configurations. The fibers are extruded into a
polymeric thermoplastic protective sheathing which facilitates the
handling of the tendons, provides some shear resistance to the
tendons, and protects the fibers from UV rays. Fig. 7 illustrates
a 17-mm-diameter parallel lay tendon, and one set of spike
and barrel termination that was used to tension and anchor the
tendons.
A Type F, 22-mm-diameter parallel lay tendon of Type F was
tested in a Universal Testing machine under a quasi-static loading
protocol that consisted of first prestretching the tendon to 90% of
its nominal breaking load 共NBL兲 and then applying cyclic loading
between a lower bound value of 40% of the NBL and increasing
amplitudes up to the prestretch level of 90% of the NBL. This
protocol simulates the prestretching of the fibers that is done to
engage the dynamic modulus as well as a loading history which
would be expected when the tendons are introduced in a SCED
system. The lower bound of 40% of the NBL represents the initial
pretension force level that would typically be locked into the
SCED system. As can be seen in Fig. 8共a兲, the response of the
tendon is linear for the cycles applied after the prestretching
phase. The monotonic modulus was experimentally measured
at Em = 61 GPa 共which is close to the published value of
70 GPa兲, and the cyclic modulus was experimentally measured as
Ec = 137 GPa. The lower monotonic modulus is attributed to the
anchor setting that occurred during the first loading cycle 关see the
slight upward curve of the initial loading cycle in Fig. 8共a兲兴. The
true available elastic elongation of this tendon for cyclic loading
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Parallel lay aramid tendons and anchoring system
applications was determined to be 1.5%. This was deemed insuf-
ficient for the proposed application. The Technora fiber that had
published elongation capacities exceeding 4% was then used to
create a new parallel lay tendon that was fitted with the
same terminations as the ones used for the first test. As Fig. 8共b兲
illustrates, although the system displayed enhanced deformation
capacity, the lays were continuously slipping in the terminations,
as indicated by the jaggedness in the load-deflection curve, and
the fibers slipped from their connectors at approximately 70%
of the NBL. This was due to the fact that the spike and barrel
terminations were designed for Type F 共Kevlar 29兲 tendons and
were not optimized for the properties of the Technora fiber. After
the redesign of the spike and barrel terminations for the Technora
fibers, the improved tendon of 17 mm of nominal diameter was
tested under the same loading protocol and performed as ex-
pected. The force-deflection response of the improved Technora
tendon is shown in Fig. 8共c兲. The available elongation capacity
when considering the dynamic modulus was 2.3% and this was
deemed satisfactory for use with the SCED bracing system. The
monotonic modulus of this tendon was measured at Em = 65 GPa
and the cyclic modulus was determined to be Ec = 93 GPa.
Quasi-Static Axial Full-Scale Experimental
Validation of PT-SCED System
After the experimental validation of the friction devices and the
tensioning elements, a detailed design of a full-scale prototype
PT-SCED system was completed. Fig. 9 shows the fabrication
and assembly shop drawings of the SCED prototype as well as a
front view of the system. The prototype SCED system had an
interior tube of HSS254⫻ 254⫻ 8 mm and an exterior tube
of HSS305⫻ 305⫻ 6.4 mm. The tensioning elements were
comprised of 4 – 17-mm-diameter Technora tendons while four
Fig. 8. Tensile force-deflection response of aramid tendons: 共a兲 Kevlar 29 tendon; 共b兲 Technora tendon with nonoptimized anchors; and 共c兲
Technora tendon with optimized anchors
102 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:96-107.
friction dissipative mechanisms were included to produce an ex-
pected friction force of F = 276 kN. The initial prestress of
the tendons, T p0, was set equal to 280 kN. The SCED system was
designed based on a building prototype with 9 m span and 4 m
height but only a 2,170 mm long specimen was built for the first
validation of the SCED concept. The reduced length does not
affect the mechanics of the system if the brace is tested by
controlling the percentage of elongation rather than the absolute
deformation of the brace. In the following paragraphs results
from the actual full-scale full-length brace are also presented. The
design force was 800 kN at the target drift level of 2% drift.
The pieces were fabricated by a local steel fabricator and as-
sembled at the University of Toronto Structures Laboratories.
The specimen was then introduced in the Universal Testing ma-
chine as illustrated in the photo of Fig. 9共c兲. The system was first
tested before the bolts in the friction dissipative mechanisms
were stressed to investigate the response of the system with the
tendons only. Fig. 10共a兲 shows the force-deflection response
of the system with only the tensioning force present. A bilinear
elastic response is observed with the change of stiffness in the
system, occurring at a load equal to the pretensioning force of
the SCED brace. The response is symmetric in tension and in
compression is self-centering but displays no energy dissipation
capacity.
In the following test, only two out of a total of six 3 / 4 in.
A325 bolts comprising the friction dissipative mechanisms were
stressed. Fig. 10共b兲 shows the force-deflection response of this
system. The overall strength of the SCED brace is comprised of
both the contributions of the tensioning elements and the addi-
tional friction force provided by the friction mechanisms. The
system is nearly self-centering and displays energy dissipation
capacity. Note that the very small residual deformation seems
disproportionately large in this figure because the brace was only
tested to very small deformation levels 共3.5 mm兲 to avoid any
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Tested SCED prototype: 共a兲 3D view; 共b兲 elevation; and 共c兲 photograph of SCED brace in testing machine

Fig. 10. Response of SCED prototype under quasi-static axial loading: 共a兲 only PT applied; 共b兲 PT+ two bolt friction mechanism; 共c兲 PT
+ four bolt friction mechanism; 共d兲 full SCED brace; 共e兲 force in PT elements; and 共f兲 friction device only

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 103

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:96-107.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Response of SCED system under excessive overload
damage prior to the real loading of the entire SCED system. Two
more bolts were then tightened and the system was reloaded for
one cycle of small amplitude 共3.5 mm兲. The force-deflection re-
sponse for this test is shown in Fig. 10共c兲 and is similar to the
response shown in Fig. 10共b兲 but with the additional force gener-
ated by the friction dissipation mechanisms which increases the
strength of the brace.
Finally, all the bolts in the friction dissipative mechanisms
were stressed and the system was loaded following a step-wise
incremental quasi-static loading protocol up to the elongation of
the brace of 1.3% which corresponds to a 2% interstory drift in
the prototype structure. The force-deflection response of the
SCED brace is shown in Fig. 10共d兲. The system performed as
expected, reaching its design load of 800 kN at the target design
drift and displaying a stable and repeatable full-recentering re-
sponse with effective energy dissipation throughout the loading
protocol. At the end of the entire loading history, the system sus-
tained only a minor residual deformation on the order of a few
millimeters, which disappeared when the bolts in the friction
dissipative elements were unstressed. The variation of the load in
the tensioning elements is shown in Fig. 10共e兲. As expected, when
the SCED system deforms, relative motion is induced between
the bracing members and causes an increase in the tendon elon-
gation; this happens symmetrically under tensile and compressive
loading of the SCED system. It can be seen in this figure that the
lock-off pretensioning force is 40% of the ultimate strength of the
tendons 共tendon force present in the system when the SCED brace
is at a zero elongation兲 and that when the system reaches the
target design elongation of 1.3%, the tendons are stressed at 84%
of their ultimate strength. At the end of the testing, when the
tendons were released and with all the bolts providing the normal
force in the friction dissipative mechanisms still fully stressed, the
system was loaded for one cycle up to 1% elongation. A bilinear
rigid-plastic response typical of friction mechanisms can be ob-
served in Fig. 10共f兲.
After the entire protocol was completed, the system was over-
loaded beyond the target design drift up to a deformation of 2% of
the length of the SCED system which corresponded to 3% inter-
story drift in the prototype structure. As illustrated in Fig. 11,
when the system is elongated beyond the elongation capacity of
the tendons, the tendons gradually fail and lose all their strength.
The system then relies entirely on the friction dissipative mecha-
nism and therefore reverts, from a self-centering response, to a
rigid-plastic response governed solely by the strength of the
104 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:96-107.
Fig. 12. Setup for quasi-static and dynamic testing of frame
incorporating SCED brace
friction dissipative mechanisms. The slots in the dissipative
mechanisms were designed to allow for an elongation of the brace
corresponding to a 4% interstory drift in the prototype structure.
Quasi-Static and Dynamic Full-Scale Frame
Validation Tests
Full-scale testing was performed at the Structural Engineering
Laboratory of École Polytechnique of Montreal using the
9 ⫻ 3.75 m test frame depicted in Fig. 12. The SCED brace speci-
men measured 6,030 mm long 共including the end plates兲 and
was made of the same HSS steel shapes that were used for the
brace tests that were presented in the previous paragraph. The
tendons were preloaded to a load T p0 = 135 kN and had an axial
stiffness K p = 5.8 kN/ mm. The friction mechanism was designed
with four 3 / 4 in. A325 bolts to develop a force F = 184 kN. The
predicted initial brace axial stiffness Kbe and load at slip, Pa, were
equal to 475 kN/ mm and 319 kN, respectively. In the test frame,
the lateral load was applied with a high performance 1,000 kN
dynamic actuator and a loading arm transferring the load to the
top beam. At the base, the beam was secured to the laboratory
strong floor to transfer the horizontal reaction, reproducing story
shear transfer conditions found in actual buildings. Simple shear
beam-to-column connections were used at both levels. Prelimi-
nary tests conducted without the brace apparatus showed that the
resistance of the frame was within ±10 kN over the ±0.02 inter-
story drift angle range. After installation of the brace, an exami-
nation of the load-deformation results indicated that this value of
the frame resistance increased to approximately ±30 kN. Slip
critical bolted connections were used to connect the brace to the
frame. At one end, the brace connection included long slotted
holes and the faying surfaces used in the friction energy dissipa-
tion mechanism. This fuse system was designed to protect the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Testing of SCED frame: 共a兲 seven loading histories applied to specimen; 共b兲 response of SCED frame under selected records
brace against story displacements in excess of 2% interstory drift
angles by slipping at a brace load of 736 kN.
Fig. 13 shows the sequence of seven interstory drift time-
histories that were applied to this same specimen. Signals S2 and
S6 are cyclic quasi-static tests with stepwise incremental ampli-
tudes. Test D2 is a harmonic sinusoidal signal with gradually
increasing amplitudes applied at a loading period of 1.5 s. Tests
D3, D4, and D5 correspond to real time interstory drift responses
obtained from nonlinear dynamic analysis at the first floor level of
an eight-story building incorporating the SCED bracing system
subjected to three different ground motions 共Tremblay et al.
2008兲. Signal S3 is the same as D3 but applied at a fraction of the
velocity. The measured story shear-drift responses in four of the
tests are also shown in this figure, where positive story deforma-
tions and shears induce tension in the SCED brace.
In the tests, the activation of the brace initiated at a story shear
force of approximately 350 kN, while the expected story shear
force associated with Pa was 300 kN, assuming that the entire
story shear was resisted by the brace, and neglecting the 30 kN of
the frame resistance. Upon activation, the measured stiffness of
the brace varied between 5 and 6 kN/ mm, At 2% interstory drift
angle, the brace axial deformation is equal to 64.8 mm and the
resulting brace force from Eq. 共3兲 is equal to 695 kN assuming an
average K p value of 5.8 kN/ mm. This corresponds to a story
shear of 641 kN, which agrees well, considering the 30 kN resis-
tance of the frame, with the value of 670 kN measured in Test S6
at that deformation level. In Test S6, the slippage of the end fuse
initiated at a 0.0221 story angle and at a story shear of 700 kN. In
this particular test, the load dropped suddenly when the fuse was
first actuated on the tension side but the frictional resistance was
rapidly restored to the design level and remained uniform up to
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 105
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:96-107.
the applied 3% interstory drift angle in both directions.
In this test program, the tube axial loads could be determined
from strain gauge readings and the tendon force could be calcu-
lated assuming that the story shear was entirely resisted by the
bracing member. Fig. 14 gives the total axial load in the two steel
tubes, Pse + Psi, as well as the tendon force, T p, for Tests S2 and
S6. Only the response up to 2% interstory drift is shown for Test
S6. In tension, the force in the steel tubes remains constant and
equal to the force F in both directions, as expected. Upon sliding
in compression, the force in the tubes obtained from strain gauge
measurements increased linearly to reach a maximum value of
1,227 kN at 2% drift in Test S6. Using K p = 5.8 kN/ mm and the
measured brace deformation ␦ = 65.5 mm in Eq. 共4兲, the force P is
equal to 674 kN and the total force in the two tubes 共P + P − F兲
is then equal to 1,164 kN. The variation of the tendon force
presented in Fig. 13 also corresponds well to the predicted values.
For instance, the test value at 2% drift angle in tension is equal
to 508 kN, compared to the computed value of 510 kN
共=T p0 + K p␦兲. More importantly, Figs. 13 and 14 clearly show that
the brace specimen exhibited a very stable response over the se-
ries of multiple severe static and dynamic loading histories that
were applied in this experimental validation.
Challenges toward Implementation of SCED
Bracing Systems
The proposed SCED system offers a viable alternative for a
higher-performance bracing system that achieves a stable energy
dissipative and self-centering response under severe seismic load-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Forces in tubes and tendon forces during S2 and S6 tests
ing. Except for the high-elongation tendons, all components used
to construct the bracing system have been used extensively in past
applications and are readily available. These components behave
as intended in the tests and the measured overall brace response
corresponded well to the predictions. The high-elongation ten-
dons have been employed only scarcely in civil engineering prac-
tice and no data exist on their response to dynamic cyclic loading.
In the preliminary phases of the program it was first observed that
the difference between monotonic and cyclic moduli had not been
reported in the literature and that a few unexpected failures of
tendon elements were also experienced. A thorough investigation
is currently ongoing to fully characterize the performance of high-
elongation capacity tendon-anchor systems such as the Aramid
parallel-lay tendon design used in this study, when subjected to
various loading conditions including long-term creep and relax-
ation effects.
Conclusions
A new SCED bracing system was presented and studied in this
contribution. The mechanics of the system as well as the basic
equations governing the design and cyclic response of the system
were presented. Validation tests of the components comprising the
SCED system were then presented along with discussions on how
these were chosen for the design and construction of a prototype
system. Full-scale validations of one possible embodiment of the
system that incorporates Aramid based tendons and a friction dis-
sipative mechanism were conducted both under axial loading and
106 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:96-107.
as part of a braced frame system subjected to quasi-static and
dynamic interstory drift time-histories. The experimental valida-
tions confirmed that the system performed as predicted by the
equations governing its mechanical behavior, but more impor-
tantly demonstrated that it can achieve a stable and repeatable
self-centering hysteretic response under cyclic loading protocols.
When deformations exceeded the tendon elongation capacities in
the first validation, the system lost its self-centering capacity and
gradually transformed into a simple friction brace system with
additional deformation capacity. A frictional fuse incorporated at
one end of the brace was then used in the subsequent frame test to
accommodate extreme deformations and prevent damage to the
tensioning elements. Alternative means are currently being stud-
ied to enhance the deformation capacity of the system. Further
studies are also needed to fully characterize the properties and
performance of the tensioning elements under dynamic cyclic
loading.
Acknowledgments
Financial support for this project was provided by the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada under
the Idea to Innovation 共I2I兲 program and the Canada Research
Chair Program. In-kind contributions from Carlsile Group Inc.
and Linear Composites Ltd. are gratefully acknowledged. The
writers wish to acknowledge the most valuable contributions of
the technical staff of the Structures Laboratories at the University
of Toronto and École Polytechnique of Montreal throughout this
project.
References
Aiken, I. D., Nims, D. K., Whittaker, A. S., and Kelly, J. M. 共1993兲.
“Testing of passive energy dissipation systems.” Earthquake Spectra,
9共3兲, 335–370.
Benmokrane, B., Xu, H., and Nishizaki, I. 共1997兲. “Aramid and carbon
fibre-reinforced plastic prestressed ground anchors and their field ap-
plications.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 24, 968–985.
Christopoulos, C., and Filiatrault, A. 共2006兲. Principles of passive supple-
mental damping and seismic isolation, IUSS Press, Milan, Italy.
Christopoulos, C., Filiatrault, A., and Folz, B. 共2002兲. “Seismic response
of self-centering hysteretic SDOF systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn., 31共5兲, 1131–1150.
Dolan, C. W., Bakis, C. E., and Nanni, A. 共2001兲. “Design recommenda-
tions for concrete structures prestressed with FRP tendons.” Rep. No.
DTFH61-96-C-00019, Prepared for the Federal Highway Administra-
tion, Univ. of Wyoming, Pennsylvania State Univ., and Univ. of
Missoura-Rolla.
Dolce, M. D., Cardone, D., and Marnetto, R. 共2000兲. “Implementation
and testing of passive control devices based on shape memory alloys.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 29共7兲, 945–968.
Fahnestock, L. A., Sause, R., and Ricles, J. 共2003兲. “Analytical and ex-
perimental studies on buckling restraint braced composite frames.”
Proc., Int. Workshop on Steel and Concrete Composite Construction
(IWSCCC-2003), Rep. No. NCREE-03-026, NCREE, Taipei, Taiwan,
177–188.
Filiatrault, A., Tremblay, R., and Kar, R. 共2000兲. “Seismic evaluation of
friction spring seismic damper.” J. Struct. Eng., 126共4兲, 491–499.
Garlock, M., Ricles, J. M., and Sause, R. 共2005兲. “Experimental studies
of full-scale post-tensioned steel connections.” J. Struct. Eng., 131共3兲,
438–448.
Iwata, M., Kato, T., and Wada, A. 共2000兲. “Buckling-restrained braces as
hysteretic dampers.” Behaviour of steel structures in seismic area, F.
 Mazzolani and R. Tremblay, eds., Proc., STESSA 2000 Conf., Mont-
real, Canada, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 33–38.
Kim, H.-J., Christopoulos, C., and Tremblay, R. 共2004兲. “Experimental
characterization of boltstressed non-asbestos organic 共NAO兲 material-
to-steel interfaces.” Rep. No. 2004-01, Univ. of Toronto, Toronto.
Ko, E., Mole, A., Aiken, I., Tajirian, F., Rubel, Z., and Kimura, I. 共2002兲.
“Application of the unbonded brace in medical facilities.” Proc., 7th
U.S National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Boston Paper No. 16.
Nims, D. K., Richter, P. J., and Bachman, R. E. 共1993兲. “The use of the
energy dissipating restraint for seismic hazard mitigation.” Earth-
quake Spectra, 9共3兲, 467–489.
Priestley, M. J. N., Sritharan, S., Conley, J. R., and Pampanin, S. 共1999兲.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
“Preliminary results and conclusions from the PRESSS five-storey
precast concrete test building.” PCI J., 44共6兲, 42–67.
Ricles, J. M., Sause, R., Garlock, M., and Zhao, C. 共2001兲. “Postten-
sioned seismic-resistant connections for steel frames.” J. Struct. Eng.,
127共2兲, 113–121.
Rojas, P., Ricles, J. M., and Sause, R. 共2005兲. “Seismic performance
of posttensioned steel moment resisting frames with friction devices.”
J. Struct. Eng., 131共4兲, 529–540.
Sabelli, R. 共2001兲. “Research on improving the design and analysis of
earthquake-resistant steel braced frames.” NEHRP Fellowship Rep.
No. PF2000-9, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland,
Calif.
Sabelli, R., Mahin, S., and Chang, C. 共2003兲. “Seismic demands on steel
braced frame buildings with buckling restrained braces.” Eng. Struct.,
25, 655–666.
Sheliang, W., Xindong, Z., Wang, S., and Junqiang, Z. 共2004兲. “The
seismic response analysis of isolation structure with shape memory
alloy re-centering dampers.” Proc., 10th JSSI Symp. on Performance
of Response Controlled Buildings, Yokohama, Japan, Paper No. 111.
Soda, S. 共2004兲. “Origin-restoring dampers for seismic response control
of building structures.” Proc., 10th JSSI Symp. on Performance of
Response Controlled Buildings, Yokohama, Japan, Paper No. 56.
Tremblay, R. 共2003兲. “Achieving a stable inelastic seismic response for
concentrically braced steel frames.” Eng. J., 40共2兲, 111–129.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 107
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:96-107.
Tremblay, R., Archambault, M. H., and Filiatrault, A. 共2003兲. “Seismic
performance of concentrically braced steel frames made with rectan-
gular hollow bracing members.” J. Struct. Eng., 129共12兲, 1626–1636.
Tremblay, R., Degrange, G., and Blouin, J. 共1999兲. “Seismic rehabilita-
tion of a four-storey building with a stiffened bracing system.” Proc.,
8th Canadian Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Canadian Associa-
tion for Earthquake Engineering 共CAEE兲, Vancouver, B.C., Canada,
549–554.
Tremblay, R., Lacerte, M., and Christopoulos, C. 共2008兲. “Seismic re-
sponse of multi-storey buildings with self-centering energy dissipative
steel braces.” J. Struct. Eng., 134共1兲, 108–120.
Tremblay, R., and Poncet, L. 共2004兲. “Improving the seismic stability of
concentrically braced steel frames.” Proc., 2004 SSRC Annual Tech-
nical Session and Meeting, Long Beach, Calif., 19–38.
Tremblay, R., and Robert, N. 共2001兲. “Seismic performance of low- and
medium-rise chevron braced steel frames.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 28共4兲,
699–714.
Uang, C.-M., and Kiggins, S. 共2003兲. “Reducing residual drift of
buckling-restrained braced frames.” Proc., Int. Workshop on Steel
and Concrete Composite Construction, National Center for Research
on Earthquake Engineering, National Taiwan Univ., Taiwan, Paper
No. 18.
Uriz, P., and Mahin, S. 共2004兲. “Seismic performance assessment of con-
centrically braced steel frames.” Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earth-
quake Engineering, Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering
共CAEE兲, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper No. 1639.
Watanabe, A., Hitomi, Y., Saeki, E., Wada, A., and Fujimoto, M. 共1988兲.
“Properties of brace encased in buckling-restraining concrete and steel
tube.” Proc., 9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4,
International Association for Earthquake Engineering 共IAEE兲, Tokyo-
Kyoto, Japan, 719–724.
Wolff, E. D. 共1999兲. “Frictional heating in sliding bearings and an experi-
mental study of high friction materials.” MS thesis, State Univ. of
New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y.