See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256973901

Experimental and numerical investigation on

full-scale tension-only concentrically braced
steel beam-through frames
Article in Journal of Constructional Steel Research January 2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.10.002

CITATIONS

READS

59

5 authors, including:
Wei Wang

Yiyi Chen

Tongji University

Tongji University

34 PUBLICATIONS 149 CITATIONS

80 PUBLICATIONS 229 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Lewei Tong
Tongji University
24 PUBLICATIONS 76 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Wei Wang

Retrieved on: 23 July 2016

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Experimental and numerical investigation on full-scale tension-only

concentrically braced steel beam-through frames
Wei Wang a, b,, Qing Zhou b, d, Yiyi Chen a, b, Lewei Tong a, b, Tak-Ming Chan c
a

State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
Department of Building Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
d
CITIC General Institute of Architectural Design and Research Co., Ltd., Wuhan 430014, China
b
c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 29 July 2012
Accepted 3 October 2012
Available online 10 November 2012
Keywords:
Tension-only braces
Concentrically braced frame
Beam-through connection
Cyclic test
Seismic behavior
Numerical simulation

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents an experimental investigation on two full-scale tension-only concentrically braced beamthrough frames (TOCBBTFs) with through beam bolted connections. This type of TOCBBTF system features
cold-formed square-tube section columns connected to H-section through beams by bolted end plate. It is commonly used in low-rise prefabricated buildings. Two two-story, four-span by one-span TOCBBTFs subjected to
design vertical load were cyclically loaded horizontally to examine the seismic behavior. Stable behavior was observed up to a story drift angle of 1/10. The cyclic behavior was characterized by a linear response, followed by a
slip range and a signicant hardening response. Deteriorating pinched hysteresis was observed due to the occurrence of cyclic brace compression buckling and tension yielding. The structural damage evolution, ductility, stiffness and shear force distribution of the TOCBBTFs were investigated. Moreover, the nite element software
ABAQUS was used to investigate the behavior of TOCBBTF by nonlinear analysis. Semi-rigid analysis produced
the most reasonable prediction including initial lateral stiffness and peak story shear. The calibrated numerical
models can be employed to launch further studies for this structural system.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Concentrically braced frames (CBFs) are recognized as effective
structures which provide efcient lateral stiffness and strength [1], and
have been commonly used in steel buildings in the regions of high seismic risk during the past 30 years. Compared to steel moment resisting
frames (MRFs), CBFs are able to control the lateral displacement and
achieve greater lateral strength. A survey of damage to steel buildings
was performed shortly after the 1995 Kobe earthquake [2]. The survey
showed that of the 452 damaged braced frames, only 29 collapsed
(6%) and 141 had severe damage (31%) while 282 (63%) sustained moderate damage or had only minor damage. Due to their favorable performance in reducing the story drift and effective utility of materials,
considerable researches have been conducted on the behavior of steel
bracing members and on connections and subassemblies from CBFs
under earthquake excitations [3,4].
CBFs are expected to accommodate inelastic deformation primarily
through ductile tensile yielding and compressive buckling of the braces
when subjected to earthquake loading [5]. After compression buckling
of steel braces, these members are susceptible to fracture at the midspan when they are stretched again in tension, which exhibit limited
Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China. Tel.: +86 21 65982926; fax: +86
21 65984976.
E-mail address: weiwang@tongji.edu.cn (W. Wang).
0143-974X/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.10.002

energy dissipation and deterioration of the system stiffness and resistance [6]. In steel braced frames, the energy dissipated through the
post-buckling and yielding hysteretic behavior of braces is a signicant
parameter in determining the seismic behavior of the braced frame
[7]. Various factors affect the corresponding hysteretic behavior and
the fracture life of the brace during seismic excitations. Experimental
and analytical studies have been carried out on those factors including
the geometric properties of the brace-gusset assembly such as slenderness ratio and width to thickness ratio of braces [8], brace section shapes
as well as gusset plate types [9,10], material properties of braces and the
loading patterns [11]. Cyclic tests were carried out on 24 different shapes
including double channels, double angles, structural tees, wide-anges,
square and round hollow structural sections. Based on these studies,
the effects of the cross section type on the hysteretic behavior were
found to be signicant.
Tension-only concentrically braced frames (TOCBFs) incorporate
very slender bracing members, such as steel rods or at plates, which
are unable to dissipate much energy in compression. A characteristic
of TOCBFs is their deteriorating pinched hysteretic behavior during
strong earthquakes. A procedure has been proposed to predict the increase in tensile forces at the design stage caused by a yield strength increase of the steel under high strain rate [1]. The TOCBF system,
however, continues to be used extensively for low-rise industrial, commercial and residential steel buildings because it is inexpensive and
simple to design, prefabricate and erect. Therefore, these structures

370

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

constitute a large portion of the building market in North America and

Japan. This paper focused on a special TOCBF with through beam connections, called tension-only concentrically braced beam-through frames
(TOCBBTFs), which can be classied as a new structural system. This
type of framing system has been initially developed in Japan and improved recently in China, mainly used for low-rise prefabricated buildings
in nonseismic or seismic areas (see Fig. 1). That is, the frame is typically
composed of cold-formed square-tube columns, H-section through
beams and very slender X bracings using at steel, with the brace
member's compressive capacity being not taken into account. Columns
are connected to the through beam by end plate using high-strength
bolts, and bracing members are jointed to the column by gusset plate connections (see Fig. 2). If needed, one or two support stiffeners are welded
to the web of the through beams in the joint region to increase the connection stiffness and strength. Comparing with traditional CBFs, the
new system features three key aspects. Firstly, braces are designed as
tension-only members with large slenderness ratio, serving to provide
primary lateral force resistance. Secondly, beam-through connections
are used. Thirdly, the strong-beam-weak-column design philosophy is
adopted in designing the new structural system. This new type of CBF
has not been given an adequate research effort to understand fully
their seismic behavior and rationalize their design. Full-scale frame testing is also needed to verify the analytical solutions to obtain convincing
practical design models.
Therefore, a full-scale test program including two specimens was
carried out. This paper reports the experimental investigations summarizing the description of the test structures, test setup and instrumentation,
loading procedure, and test results. Finite element analyses using ABAQUS
software were also carried out to replicate the test results and develop a
veried numerical model. The calibrated models will then be utilized for
further parametric studies in order to develop performance-based design
guidelines of this new structural system.

commonly exercised in Japan and China for prefabricated TOCBBTFs.

The only difference between two specimens lies in the stiffening details
of beam-column connection. This was designed to help estimate the effects of connection stiffening on the seismic behavior of TOCBBTFs.
2.1. Dimension
As shown in Figs. 3 to 5, the test structures have a plan dimension of
7.2 m in the longitudinal direction by 3 m in the transverse direction.
The tested frames are 6.5 m high from the column base to the roof with
story height of 3 m. It can be considered as a combination of two parallel
loading planes along longitudinal axes A and B respectively. For each
loading plane, it is a two-story, four bay primary frame. They are nearly
identical but with different elevation arrangements (see Fig. 4). In order
to consistent with prototype structures, the modular column spacing
along longitudinal direction was set as 1.2 m or 2.4 m. In the rst story,
two units of diagonal slender braces were set with ve columns. In the
second story, only one unit of braces was set with ve columns. The
two primary frames were linked together by secondary beams and planar
braces in the transverse direction (see Fig. 5).
2.2. Section
The frame is composed of cold-formed square-tube columns,
H-section through beams and very slender X bracings. Nominal dimensions of the sections are H300 150 4.5 6 for the rst oor
beam, H200 150 4.5 6 for the second oor beam and 80 4
for the column. Compared with the columns, the beams are stronger.
In addition, a at steel section with nominal dimension of 50 4 is
chosen for braces.
2.3. Structural connections

2. Test structures
The test structures are two two-story, four bay by one bay TOCBBTFs
as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, following the prototype design considerations

Columns were connected to the through beam by end plate using

high-strength bolts. Those end plates (150 150 10) were bolted
to the oor beam ange using four M12 high strength bolts with a
center-to-center distance of 110 mm, as shown in Fig. 6. While for the

Roof truss

Roof tile

Roof frame

External wall panel

External wall frame

Ductile brace

Foundation
Column

Fig. 1. A type of TOCBBTF.

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

371

Assembly

Components

(a) Through beam-to column connection & beam-beam connection

Gusset plate
Foundation
anchor

Bilateral brace
Unilateral brace

(b) Column base connection & brace-to-column connection.

Fig. 2. Typical TOCBBTF connections.

column bases, the end plates (180 180 10) were fastened to the foundation beam using four M16 high strength bolts with a center-to-center
distance of 120 mm, as shown in Fig. 7.
The primary difference between the two specimens in this program is the arrangement of support stiffeners in the oor beam web,
mainly used for reinforcing beam-column connections. As shown in

Fig. 8, beam-column connections in specimen 1 were strengthened by

one intermediate support stiffener between top and bottom end plate
connections. In contrast, beam-column connections in specimen 2 were
strengthened by a couple of support stiffeners in the beam web.
The braces were connected to the columns by high strength bolts
through gusset plates.

Brace

Beam

N
W

E
S

Fig. 3. Plan of test structures (unit: mm).

372

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

(a) Elevation of plane A

(b) Elevation of plane B

Fig. 4. Elevation and loading apparatus of test structures.

2.4. Test setup

Fig. 9 shows the general arrangement of test structures. The whole
structure was fastened to two strong foundation steel beams, which
in turn were fully xed on the laboratory oor. Metal deck sheets
were placed on the roof of the structure. Reinforced concrete slab
with a thickness of 120 mm was cast in site on the rst oor after

the steel members were in place as shown in Fig. 10. For specimen 1,
300 mm spaces were left between the RC oor slab and the columns
in plane B, while no such spaces were left in plane A (shown in
Fig. 11), aiming at investigating the effect of composite action on the
connection behavior. Finally, all braces between columns were checked
taut.
Fig. 12 shows the mechanical diagrams of the tests. Vertical distributed oor loads were simulated by laying sand bags. The horizontal cyclic loads were applied to the structures by two 200 kN servo-actuators
through rigid loading beams (Fig. 13). As shown in Fig. 13(a), two actuators, mounted to loading beams in alignment with the center of each
other, could act simultaneously and produce identical lateral displacements in plane A and plane B. That is, the two planes acted nearly independently, without force transfer between the two planes observed
from the tests. The bottoms of the loading beams were bolted to rolling
hinge supports as shown in Fig. 13(b). The rolling hinge supports were
designed to move smoothly on the top surfaces of the foundation
beams.
To prevent unexpected dangers of frame's sudden collapse and sand
bags' slippage owing to excessive deformation, a subordinate small
frame for safety (Fig. 10) was set up under the test structure, but without any contact with the specimen. Enough room was checked so that
the safety frame would not inuence the structure's drift during the
test.
2.5. Material
Material used for the test structures was Q235 steel with nominal
yield stress of 235 MPa. Table 1 shows a list of material properties of
the steel used in the test, obtained from the coupon tests.
3. Loading program

Fig. 5. Side elevation.

The vertical loads were rst applied to the structure by laying a

number of sand bags on the rst oor and the roof to achieve a dead
load of 5.3 kN/m 2 and 1.5 kN/m 2 respectively, in accordance with the
practical loading conditions. The horizontal cyclic loads were then applied to the structure by servo-actuators installed on the reaction wall.
The two actuators were arranged at proper height in order to achieve
a design load distribution ratio of 1.63 (rst oor) to 1 (roof). Fig. 14
shows the loading program used in the test. Quasi-static cyclic loading
with increasing displacement amplitudes was adopted until serious
strength deterioration or maximum actuator stroke was achieved, and

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

(a) Specimen 1

373

(b) Specimen 2
Fig. 6. Beam-to-column connection details.

either two or three cycles were repeated for each amplitude. The displacement was controlled in terms of the rst story drift angle.
4. Measurement
Responses of the test structures were monitored and measured by
load cells, displacement transducers, and strain gauges. All data were
continuously recorded every 0.2 s using a computer data acquisition
system.
A load cell attached to the head of each actuator measured the real
horizontal load produced by the actuator. Four load cells attached to
the rst oor beam ends and the second oor beam ends respectively,

measured the real loads distributed by the vertical mounted loading

beams. Two displacement transducers that have a resolution of
0.01 mm were used to measure the story drifts in each loading plane.
In addition, displacement transducers having a variety of gauge lengths
measured displacement and rotations of various locations, including
out-of-plane oor displacements in the transverse direction and local
deformations of the connections.
Four strain gauges were glued on each column surface at two
cross-sections, each located at a distance of 1.0 m, measured toward
the column mid-height either from the column top or bottom
(Fig. 15). The cross-sections remained elastic up to the end of loading
with the 1/25 rad amplitude. Thus the bending moments applied at
the cross-sections were estimated from the corresponding curvatures. The shear force applied to the column was estimated as the
sum of the two bending moments divided by the distance between
the measured cross-sections. The column axial force was estimated
from the average of the strains recorded by column strain gauges.
Four strain gauges were also glued on two cross-sections of each
brace (Fig. 15) in order to obtain the lateral forces born by braces.
Moreover, strain gauges at the beam anges and webs in the vicinity
of beam-to-column connections or the column bases were used to investigate the local plastication behavior. A total of 200 data channels
were connected to the data acquisition system.
5. Test results
5.1. Damage evolution

Fig. 7. Column base connection.

Similar experimental behavior was observed during the quasi-static

tests on the two specimens, except for different deformation patterns at
the beam-column connections.
The structural damage evolutions of two specimens under cyclic
loading are shown in Figs. 16 to 18, including: (a) accumulated residual
deformation of braces owing to cyclic compression buckling (0.3% drift)
and tension yielding (1% drift), (b) partial yielding of column base
owing to large column axial compression and cyclic bending (3.3%
drift), (c) ductile yielding at column-to-beam connections of specimen
1 where the beam ange deected under cyclic loading (3.3% drift),
(d) ductile yielding at column-to-beam connections of specimen 2
where the end-plate of columns deected under cyclic loading (3.3%
drift), (e) weld fracture at the corner column bases due to stress concentration (8.3% drift) and full plastic hinge formation at the internal
columns' ends (10% drift). Fig. 19 shows global deection of the tested
structures (10% drift). The above failure patterns led to a reduced lateral
stiffness in the loading plane and a pinched hysteretic behavior with a

374

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

(b) Specimen 2

(a) Specimen 1

Fig. 8. Connections between through beam and column.

slip range. In addition, distinct deformation of top beam ange is observed at beam-column connections where spaces were left adjacent
to the connection region (Fig. 20). In contrast, little deformation was
found at connections where RC slab was poured. Due to composite action of concrete slab and the beam ange, deformation restriction was
achieved. A comparative phenomenon is shown in Fig. 20.
5.2. Hysteretic behavior
The story shear versus story drift angle relationships are illustrated
in Fig. 21, where is the story drift angle, P is the story shear and Pyi is
the story shear when the concerned story displays signicant yielding
behavior. As shown in Fig. 21, large deformation was observed in the
rst story while small deformation was observed in the second story.

Generally, the cyclic response was characterized by a linear response,

a slip range and a signicant hardening response. Deteriorating pinched
hysteretic behavior was notable for cyclic loading primarily because of
cyclic brace compression buckling and tension yielding. TOCBBTF incorporates very slender bracing members which are unable to bear much
axial load in compression. This performance reduced energy dissipation
capacity of the structural system. It is recommended that a certain magnication factor for seismic action should be considered in the seismic
design to take into account the low energy dissipation capacity.
Three key points, i.e. yield point, peak point and ultimate point, are
listed in Table 2 to evaluate the loading process. Yield point indicates
the rst story displays signicant yielding behavior, while the peak
point means the story shear reaches the peak. And the ultimate point
corresponds to the point when the actuators reached their maximum

Fig. 9. Overview of test setup.

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

375

Fig. 10. Roof and oor constructions.

stroke. The rst story drift angle and corresponding story shear are provided for each point. It should be mentioned that the yielding story shear
was calculated theoretically by assuming that the beam-column connections are pinned. In addition, percentage given in parenthesis shows the
ratio of the story shear at ultimate point to the peak story shear. As summarized in Table 2, it was indicated that specimen 1 could sustain 87.7%
of the peak story shear while specimen 2 could sustain 76.9% of the peak
story shear up to 1/10 overall drift.
Skeleton curve of the cyclic response is extracted and marked with
observed damage phenomenon, as shown in Fig. 22.

structures exhibited very stable behavior till the end of loading program
with a story drift angle of 1/10. Ductility factor, also provided in Table 2,
was dened as the ratio of the story drift when the story shear declined
to 85% of the peak story shear to the yielding drift. In that sense, ductility
factors of the two specimens reached 10.3 and 7.4 respectively, and
specimen 1 generally had better ductility than specimen 2, indicating
more ductile connection stiffening details for specimen 1 than for specimen 2. In the loading program, the story drift in west loading direction
was greater than that in east loading direction and reached 1/10.

5.4. Stiffness deterioration analysis

5.3. Ductility evaluation
A yielding behavior was notable when the load increased to story
drift angle of 1/106 for specimen 1 and 1/79 for specimen 2, as shown
in Fig. 22 and Table 2. All braces reached yielding stage and displayed instinct permanent deformation. Note that the test results showed the

(a) 300mm spaces left (Plane B)

Both the steel braces and beam-column frame contributed simultaneously to lateral stiffness of the structure. After brace tension yielding,
the structure's lateral stiffness decreased greatly. A series of specic
stiffness values for each loading step in both west and east directions
was calculated using secant method and plotted in Fig. 23, illustrating

(b) No space left (Plane A)

Fig. 11. RC slab on the second story.

376

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

Rigid loading beam

Fig. 12. Mechanical diagrams.

a symmetric layout in the two directions. TOCBBTF incorporates very

slender bracing members which are unable to bear much axial load in
compression. Alternating compression buckling and tension yielding of
braces induced unrecoverable plastic deformation, leading to a sharp decrease in the lateral stiffness of TOCBBTFs.

Thus, the beam-column frame can be viewed as the reserved defense

for seismic resistance in addition to the bracing system.
6. Numerical simulation
6.1. Finite element model

5.5. Shear force distribution

It should be noted that the braces and the beam-column frame share
different proportions of story shears although the dual systems bear the
lateral forces collaboratively. As loading step going forward, the proportion changed and displayed a regular increasing trend until the 1-story
drift angle reached 0.034 rad. Fig. 24 gives the story shear proportion
born by the beam-column frame in each step. In the elastic stage, it can
resist 15%20% of total story shear forces. That proportion grew to 25%
when 1-story drift angle reached 0.01 rad. That means the beamthrough connection stiffening details adopted in the two specimens ensured that the beam-column frame can participate in resisting lateral
seismic forces under large story drift due to certain connection rigidity.

(a) Loading beam

To investigate the non-linear behavior of TOCBBTF, a 3-dimensional

numerical model was developed by the nite element package ABAQUS.
Fig. 25 shows the numerical model and boundary conditions.
Multi-linear stressstrain curves developed according to material testing were introduced to simulate the properties of members in real structure. Beams and columns were modeled using ber beam element which
can produce force and moment response, while braces were modeled
using truss elements which produce axial force response only. Pin,
semi-rigid and rigid beam-to-column connection models were adopted
in numerical model to evaluate the inuence of connection rigidity on
the global behavior of the TOCBBTF structure. Non-linear momentrotation curves of beam-column connections were obtained from connection tests and earlier analytical studies [12]. Fig. 26 shows moment-

(b) Rolling hinge support

Fig. 13. Loading arrangement.

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

6.3. Quasi-static cyclic analysis

Table 1
Material properties of steel used in the test.
Components

Yield strength
fy (MPa)

Tensile strength
fu (MPa)

Elongation
(%)

Column
Beam-ange
Beam-web
Brace

316
278
261
303

365
421
395
439

27
37
38
35

rotation behavior of the main connections used in the TOCBBTF

structures. Note that the symbol B1C2-0.3 refers to the connection
type which includes one support stiffener in the beam web, two gusset
plates besides the column end, and the connected column achieves an
axial force ratio of 0.3.
In each numerical model, the loading program was in accordance
with the real test, including vertical load representing the gravity and
horizontal load representing the possible earthquake action and other
lateral load. Pushover analysis and quasi-static analysis were carried
out. The numerical results were compared with the experimental results in order to verify the nite element models which will be used
to launch further studies for this structural system.
6.2. Pushover analysis
The pushover results of the structures were compared with the skeleton curves for the cyclic tests as shown in Fig. 27. Nonlinear geometric
and material properties were considered. Gravity load was transformed
into line load on the beam.
Initial lateral stiffness obtained from the pushover analysis by
adopting three connection models (pin, semi-rigid and rigid analyses)
was 9.1 kN/mm regardless of the connection rigidity. And this result
can be acquired from both two specimens. In comparison, experimental
initial lateral stiffness for the two specimens was 10.1 kN/mm and
8.1 kN/mm respectively. The differences between the test stiffness
and analytical stiffness were 12% for specimen 1, and 10% for specimen
2. It can be considered as a reasonable prediction considering the measuring deviation and certain pre-tightening forces which cannot be
measured accurately in braces.
It can be found that the lateral resistance was underestimated if
beam-column connections were regarded as pinned. Quantity examination shows peak load of pin analysis was 22.4% lower than that of the experiment for specimen 1, while for specimen 2 the difference was 26.6%.
More comparative results are given in Table 3. It should be noted that although difference in peak load between rigid analysis and test was the
least, semi-rigid analysis predicted the story shear-drift angle relationship more accurately before 1-story drift angle reaches 0.05.

0.1

/rad

0.08

2 cycles

2 cycles

3 cycles

0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1

10

20

377

30

40

Cycle
Fig. 14. Loading program.

50

60

To examine the cyclic behavior of the test structures, quasi-static analyses were carried out. Based on the test results, the energy dissipated
through ductile tensile yielding and compressive buckling of the braces.
In addition, braces provided the major lateral stiffness of the structural
system. Thus, brace simulation was a signicant parameter in determining the seismic behavior of the test specimens. Pin, semi-rigid and rigid
beam-to-column connection models were adopted in the numerical
models respectively. Fig. 28 illustrates the comparison of experimental
and numerical hysteretic curves of the test specimens including three
types of connection models. An acceptable correlation has been observed
between the analysis and experimental results.
It can be observed the cyclic behavior was characterized by a linear
response, a slip range and a signicant hardening response. In braced
steel frame systems the energy dissipated through braces and frame.
Rigidity of beam-column connections contributed to the energy dissipation of frame. While the slip range of the cyclic curves indicated the
energy dissipation of braces. Not surprisingly, deteriorating pinched hysteretic behavior was notable for quasi-static loading. Compared with rigid
analysis, semi-rigid analysis and pinned analysis enabled the cyclic behavior to display more considerable pinched phenomenon. Pinned analysis was found to underestimate the energy dissipation while rigid
analysis was found to overestimate it. Semi-rigid analysis produced the
most reasonable prediction.
However, almost identical initial stiffness was obtained from all numerical models. This can be observed clearly from the unloading path
which represented the initial elastic stiffness. A similar conclusion as
in the pushover analysis was that beam-to-column connection rigidity
can be neglected when predicting the elastic lateral structural stiffness
theoretically.
In addition, quantitative evaluation showed that semi-rigid analysis
gave the closest analytical peak load to the test result with a difference
of 6%. Those differences between pin analysis, rigid analysis and the
tests are 26% and 10% on average, respectively. On the whole, the numerical models for TOCBBTFs were well-grounded and held enough exactitude for further analytical parameter studies.
7. Conclusions
This paper presented an overview of the full-scale test program in
which two two-story, four-bay by one-bay special steel beam-through
braced frames were loaded cyclically to failure. The structural system
can be classied as tension-only concentrically braced beam-through
frame, which features very slender bracing members and cold-formed
hollow structural section columns connected to H-section through
beams by end plate with bearing-type high-strength bolts. Major conclusions in this study are summarized as follows:
(1) The structural damage evolution under cyclic loading included
compression buckling and tension yielding of braces, partial yielding of column bases, ductile yielding of beam-through connections, weld fracture at the corner column bases and full plastic
hinge formation at the internal columns' ends.
(2) The cyclic response was characterized by a linear response, a slip
range and a signicant hardening response. Deteriorating pinched
hysteretic behavior was notable for cyclic loading primarily because of cyclic brace compression buckling and tension yielding.
(3) Tension-only concentrically braced beam-through frames demonstrated excellent ductility when applied to low rise buildings.
Rather than strengthened by two support stiffeners in the beam
web, beam-through connections strengthened by one intermediate support stiffener were preferred to enhance structural ductility
in terms of both economic efciency and fabrication convenience.
Beam ange deformation can be restricted to a certain extent by
composite action of RC slab.

378

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

Brace section 1

Two column sections

Brace section 2

Fig. 15. Strain gauges on braces and columns.

(4) Beam-column frame participated in resisting lateral seismic forces

under large story drift due to certain connection rigidity. Thus, it
can be viewed as the reserved defense for seismic resistance in
addition to the bracing system.
(5) Pushover analysis and quasi-static analysis using ABAQUS were
carried out to replicate the test results and develop a veried numerical model. Semi-rigid beam-to-column connection model
produced more reasonable prediction of experimental hysteretic
properties and lateral force resistance than either pin or rigid connection models.

Acknowledgments
The presented work was supported by the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities, Natural Science Foundation of China
through Grant No. 51038008 and the State Key Laboratory for Disaster
Reduction in Civil Engineering of China. Sincere thanks are extended to
Baoye Group Company Limited, China and Daiwa House Industry Co.,
Ltd., Japan for continuous support on the experiments. The authors
also wish to kindly acknowledge the nancial support from Santander
Research Grant Fund at Warwick University to support the fth author
as a visiting scholar at Tongji University.

References
[1] Tremblay R, Filiatrault A. Seismic impact loading in inelastic tension-only concentrically braced steel frames: myth or reality? Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1996;25:
1373-89.
[2] Tremblay R, Timler P, Bruneau M, Filiatrault A. Performance of steel structures
during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Can J Civ Eng 1995;22:338-60.
[3] Filiatrault A, Tremblay R. Design of tension-only concentrically braced steel
frames for seismic induced impact loading. Eng Struct 1998;20:1087-96.
[4] Di Sarno L, Elnashaib AS. Bracing systems for seismic retrotting of steel frames.
J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:452-65.
[5] Broderick BM, Elghazouli AY, Goggins J. Earthquake testing and response analysis
of concentrically-braced sub-frames. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64:9971007.
[6] Tremblay R. Seismic behavior and design of concentrically braced frames. Eng J
(AISC) 2001;38(3):148-66.
[7] Madhar, A.H. 2004. Design of concentrically braced steel frames for earthquakes. PhD
Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
[8] Jain AK, Goel SC, Hanson RD. Hysteresis cyc1es of axially loaded steel members.
J Struct Div, ASCE 1980;106(ST8):1777-95.
[9] Prathuangsit, D. April 1976. Inelastic hysteresis behavior of axially loaded steel
members with rotational end restrains. PhD Thesis, The University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
[10] Hector, F.P. 1997. Dynamic behavior of tubular bracing members with single plate
concentric connections. M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
[11] Tremblay R. Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members. J Constr Steel
Res 2002;58:665-701.
[12] Zhou, Q. 2012. Research on seismic behavior and design methodology for oor-by-oor
assembled steel braced structures. M.S. Thesis, Department of Building Engineering,
Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

Fig. 16. Failure modes of specimen 1.

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

Fig. 17. Failure modes of specimen 2.

Fig. 18. Weld fracture at the corner column bases.

379

380

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

(a) Specimen 1

(b) Specimen 2

Fig. 19. Global deection of the tested structures.

(a) With RC slab

(b) Without RC slab

Fig. 20. Deformation comparison of beam ange in the connection.

P/P y2

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

P/Py1

2
1.5

2
1.5
1

1
0.5
0
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0
-0.5

/rad
0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12

0.5
0
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0
-0.5

-1

-1

-1.5

-1.5

-2

/rad
0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12

-2

(a) 1-story, specimen 1

(b) 2-story, specimen 1

P/Py2

P/P y1

381

1.5

1.5
1

1
0.5

0.5

/rad

0
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0
-0.5

0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12

0
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0

/rad
0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12

-0.5

-1
-1

-1.5

-1.5

-2

(c) 1-story, specimen 2

(d) 2-story, specimen 2

Fig. 21. Story shear versus story drift angle relationships.

Table 2
Key story shear and drift values and ductility factors.
Specimen

Loading
direction

Value

Yield
point

Peak
point

Ultimate
point

Ductility

West

Story drift
angle (rad)
Story shear
P (kN)
Story drift
angle (rad)
Story shear
P (kN)
Story drift
angle (rad)
Story shear
P (kN)
Story drift
angle (rad)
Story shear
P (kN)

1/106

1/13

1/10.4

>10.3

129

183

1/98

1/14

165
(90.0%)
1/12.2

>8.0

129

179

1/79

1/19

157
(87.7%)
1/10

7.4

129

166

1/77

1/19

128
(76.9%)
1/12

>6.2

129

166

East

West

East

149
(89.5%)

382

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

P/Py1

Tensile yielding of braces

at the first story

(a) Partial yielding of column base sections, and

(b) Cyclic deformation of beam flange

1.5

Braces compressive buckling

(a) Severe local buckling at mid-column bases, and

(b) Weld fracture at side-column bases

1
0.5

/rad

0
-0.1

-0.05

0.05

-0.5

The same failure modes occurred

as in opposite direction

0.1

0.15

Plastic hinges observed at 5 column bases

-1

-1.5
-2

(a) Specimen 1
P/P y1

1.5

Tensile yielding of br aces

at the first story

Partial yielding of column base sections

Braces compressive buckling

Fracture at column bases
where severely buckled.

Plastic hinge
emerged at 4
column bases

0.5

/rad

0
-0.1

-0.05

0.05

0.1

0.15

(a) Plastic hinge emerged at all column bases, and

(b) Weld fracture at side-column bases

-0.5

The same failure modes occurred

as in opposite direction

-1

-1.5

(b) Specimen 2
Fig. 22. Skeleton curves of cyclic responses and associated phenomenon for the rst story.

12
Loading west

10

Loading east

8
6
4
2
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

secant stiffness (kN/mm)

secant stiffness (kN/mm)

12

loading west

10

Loading east

8
6
4
2
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Story drift angle

Story drift angle

(a) Specimen 1

(b) Specimen 2

Fig. 23. Deterioration of the lateral structural stiffness.

0.1

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

383

Shear force proportion of

frame

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

Specimen 1
10%

Specimen 2

0%
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

1-story drift angle (rad)

Fig. 24. Story shear proportion of beam-column frame.

Brace-column
connections: Pin

z
y
Beam-column
connections:
(a) Pin,
(b) Rigid,
(c) Semi-rigid

Loading points
Rigid column base
Fig. 25. Numerical model and boundary conditions.

384

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

15

15

B1C1 -0.3C

10

10

M(kNm)

M(kNm)

B1C0 -0.3C

0
-5
Real connection

-10
-0.05

0.05

-5
Real connection

-10

Skeleton

-15
-0.1

Skeleton

-15
-0.1

0.1

-0.05

(rad)

(a) B1C0-0.3

0.05

0.1

(b) B1C1-0.3

15

15
B2C2 -0.3C

B1C2 -0.3C

10

10

M(kNm)

M(kNm)

(rad)

0
-5
Real connection

-10
-15
-0.1

0.05

(rad)

-5
Real connection

-10

Skeleton

-0.05

Skeleton

-15
-0.1

0.1

-0.05

(c) B1C2-0.3

(rad)

0.05

0.1

(d) B2C2-0.3

1.6

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.2

P/Py1

P/Py1

Fig. 26. Non-linear moment-rotation curves of beam-column connections.

0.8

Experiment

0.6

Pin Analysis

0.6

0.4

Semi-rigid Analysis

0.4

0.2

Rigid Analysis

0.2

0.8

Experiment
Pin Analysis
Semi-rigid Analysis
Rigid Analysis

0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

/rad

/rad

(a) Specimen 1

(b) Specimen 2

Fig. 27. 1-story shear force-drift angel curves.

0.1

0.12

W. Wang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 80 (2013) 369385

385

Table 3
Comparison of peak story shear between pushover analysis and tests.

Pin
analysis

Semi-rigid
analysis

Rigid
analysis

183
166

22.4
26.6

9.8
8.9

2.4
2.7

1.5

1.5

0.5

0.5

0
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0
-0.5

0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12

P/Py1

P/Py1

Difference evaluation (%)

0
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0
-0.5

-1

0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12

-1
Experiment

Experiment

-1.5

-1.5

Rigid Analysis

-2

/rad

/rad

(b) Specimen 2, rigid connections

2
1.5

0.5

0.5

0
0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12

P/Py1

2
1.5

-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0

-0.5

Rigid Analysis

-2

(a) Specimen 1,rigid connections

P/Py1

0
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0
-0.5

0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12

-1

-1
Experiment

-1.5

Experiment

-1.5

Semi-rigid Analysis

/rad

(c) Specimen 1, semi-rigid connections

/rad

(d) Specimen 2, semi-rigid connections

1.5

1.5

0.5

0.5

0
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0
-0.5

Semi-rigid Analysis

-2

-2

0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12

P/Py1

Specimen 1
Specimen 2

Experimental results
(kN)

P/Py1

Specimen

0
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0
-0.5

0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12

-1

-1

Experiment

Experiment

-1.5

Pin analysis

-2

/rad

(e) Specimen 1, pinned connections

-1.5

Pin analysis

-2

/rad

(f) Specimen 2, pinned connections

Fig. 28. Comparison of experimental and numerical hysteretic curves.