The Unbonded Brace™:

From research to Californian practice

Eric Ko, Arup, San Francisco
Caroline Field, Arup, San Francisco

Timeline
Invention Testing Implementation Technology US Testing / Implementation
Early Mid In Japan Transfer to US Simulation In United States
1980’s 1980’s February 1988 1998 Spring 1999 January 2000

Conception by the steel core. The materials and geometry in this

During a major earthquake, a large amount of kinetic
energy is fed in to a structure. The manner in which this
energy is dissipated determines the level of damage. All
building codes recognize that it is not economically
feasible to dissipate the seismic energy within the
elastic capacity of the materials. The common strategy
is therefore to accept that the structure may yield, but to
ensure that it yields in a controlled location and ductile
manner. The underlying idea is that a successful ductile
structure is one in which yielding occurs in designated
elements or “structural fuses” limiting the build-up of
forces in the structure.
In traditional braced frames the braces are the structural
fuses. They yield in compression and tension and
absorb energy. However, buckling in compression leads
to a sudden loss of stiffness and progressive degrading
behavior which limits the amount of energy dissipation.
slip layer have been carefully designed and constructed
to allow relative movement between the steel element
and the concrete, while simultaneously inhibiting local
buckling of the steel as it yields in compression. The
concrete and steel tube encasement provides sufficient
flexural strength and stiffness to prevent global
buckling of the brace, allowing the core to undergo
fully-reversed axial yield cycles without loss of stiffness
or strength. The concrete and steel tube also helps to
resist local buckling.
In contrast to the behavior of typical bracing elements,
this results in stable hysteretic behavior, which provides
a more stable and effective seismic resisting element.

Several attempts have been made to resolve this

buckling problem. However, these were unsuccessful
until Professor Wada and his team developed the
Unbonded Brace™ Euler buckling of the central steel
core is prevented by encasing it over its length in a steel
Figure 1 Unbonded Brace™ Concept
tube filled with mortar (Figure 1). The term “Unbonded
Brace™” derives from the need to provide a slip surface
The brace exhibits nearly identical properties in tension
or unbonding layer between the steel core and the
and compression and has the ability to undergo
surrounding concrete, so that axial loads are taken only
numerous cycles of inelastic deformations without
degradation or fracture. Since these braces do not need
to be designed to resist buckling, the brace forces are
generally lower. This results in lower forces in the
superstructure and foundation.
Professor Wada worked closely with Isao Kimura, chief
engineer of the Nippon Steel Corporation to develop
this technology for the Japanese market. Many tests
were conducted in Japan to validate the performance of
this brace (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Unbonded Brace™ Element Test
Implementation
The Unbonded Brace™ has been used on nearly 200
buildings in Japan since 1987.
Arup used the Unbonded Brace™ on a number of
Japanese projects, the first of which was the Osaka
International Convention Centre in 1996, shown in
Figure 3(a).
(a) (b)
Figure 3 (a) Osaka International
Convention Centre, Japan
(b) UC Davis Plant &
Environmental Facility, California
Arup San Francisco recognized the benefit this could
bring to the Californian Construction Industry and
looked for an opportunity to transfer this technology
from Japan to California. This opportunity arose on the
UC Davis Plant and Environmental Science Facility in
1999, shown in Figure 3(b). Arup played a key role
facilitating the transfer of this technology from the
Japanese researchers and manufacturers to the U.S.
market.
Research & Testing in the United States
As the UBF is a new lateral-force-resisting system, it is
not covered by any building code and is therefore
classified by the California Building Code as an
“Undefined Structural System”. Consequently, seismic
design criteria, analytical procedures as well as testing
programs had to be developed to validate its
performance.
The first tests of the Unbonded Brace™ in the United
States were conducted at UC Berkeley during the spring
of 1999 and fall of 2000.
Three tests were performed at UC Berkeley for the UC
Davis project. Professor E. Popov and Professor N.
Makris led the test programs and on-going research has
been spearheaded by Professor S. Mahin.
The test results demonstrated good performance of the
braces under various loading histories specified by SAC
protocols.
The experimental data were used to (a) verify the results
of theoretical predictions on the structural stability of
the Unbonded Braces™; (b) validate the inelastic
capacity of the braces under severe earthquake
demands; and (c) calibrate a macroscopic hysteretic
model that was found to predict the brace force-
displacement behavior.
The results from the comprehensive test program
demonstrated that Unbonded Braces™ deliver ductile,
stable and repeatable hysteretic behavior. The plastic
deformation capacity exceeded performance
requirements, both in terms of ultimate deformation and
in terms of cumulative plastic strain.
Computer Simulation

Arup used static non-linear pushover analysis

techniques with frame element models to demonstrate
the performance advantages of an UBF system over an
Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF) system and a Special
Concentric Brace Frame (SCBF) system designed to the
same code standard. As indicated on Figure 4, UBF
clearly delivers performance superior to the other two
systems.
Pushover Results

800

700 Unbonded

600
Figure 5 Comparison with actual test
500
results
Base Shear, kips

On January 17th 2000, the first Unbonded Brace™ was

400

EBF
300
installed in the United States at UC Davis. Actual field
200
CBF
installation proved to be so simple and efficient that it
100
reduced a month off the steel erection schedule for this
0
building.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Roof Displacement, inches

The next challenge was implementing this technology

Figure 4 Comparison of system on a hospital project, as these are reviewed and
performance approved by the Office of Statewide Health Planning
and Development (OSHPD) in California. Arup had the
opportunity to do just this with Kaiser Santa Clara
In addition to the system performance comparisons, the Medical Center project (Figure 6).
performance of the brace itself was evaluated. A finite
element model of a complete brace was created using
20,000 individual elements. The non-linear analyses
were performed using the explicit time integration
software, LS-DYNA.

This virtual brace was subjected to the same axial

loading sequences as the full-scale test specimen
previously performed for the UC Davis project.
Composite plots of force-displacement loops from the
test data and simulation were created (Figure 5), which
show excellent correlation.

Figure 6 Kaiser Santa Clara

A presentation and site visit to UC Davis was organized

for the owner, Kaiser Permanente, and the architect,
Anshen + Allen, to convince them of its merits. Twelve
engineers from OSHPD and representatives from the
owner and the architect were invited to witness the
brace and its installation in person at the UC Davis site.
Kaiser gave approval for its use on the hospitals at their
Santa Clara campus.
Since there are no code provisions for such frames,
Arup worked closely with OSHPD to set specific design
criteria.
Having validated the simulation solution procedure with
the Berkeley frame test data it was used to assess local
behavior for the UBFs on the Kaiser project. A full
finite-element model of both chevron and single
diagonal configurations were constructed and virtually
tested as shown in Figure 8 below.

OSHPD originally requested that every brace used for

this project be tested as this would normally be required
for the components of an “undefined seismic system” or
a base isolated system. However, implementing the
same requirement for UBF would be costly. Working
with representatives from Nippon Steel Corporation,
Arup presented a case, backed by research papers
(Wada, et al; Hasegawa, et al; Nakamura, et al, 1999)
and test report (SIE and Nippon Steel, 1999) that
individual element testing was not necessary. The case
was further supported by “virtual testing” from the UC
Davis project. OSHPD agreed to test just three
specimens. Figure 8 Chevron and Diagonal Unbonded
Braced™ Frame Configurations
Up until last year, only single element testing had been
conducted in the US. However, in January 2002, a full- Following OSHPD approval, the first hospital project to
scale test of an Unbonded Braced™ frame was carried incorporate the Unbonded Braced™ frame system
out by Prof Steve Mahin and Dr Patxi Uriz at UC began construction on June 17th 2002 and is shown
Berkeley for a project on campus incorporating UBFs below in Figure 9.
(Figure 7(a)). Arup were not involved with the design
of this project, but were subsequently asked to simulate In addition to exhibiting good seismic performance, the
the tests. Three frames were tested; one chevron brace UBF system is extremely cost effective – a total steel
configuration and two single diagonals brace weight of less than 14.5psf (including brace). It is also
configurations. The finite element simulation model is easy to construct – halving erection time compared to
shown in Figure 7(b). The results showed excellent traditional welded braces.
correlation between the observed damage and predicted
damage.

(a) (b)

Figure 7 (a) UC Berkeley UB test frame (b) Figure 9 Kaiser Santa Clara under
Arup FE Simulation model construction
To date Arup have used this brace in California on
projects comprising more than 4 million sqft and other
engineers are following suit. The total construction cost
of these projects is over $1billion. A new industry has
been created and more importantly, the standard of
seismic engineering has been improved.
Conclusion
Unbonded Braces™ are a reliable and practical
alternative to conventional systems to enhance the
earthquake resistance of existing and new structures.
They are capable of providing both the rigidity needed
to satisfy structural drift limits, as well as a stable and
substantial energy absorption capability. They are also
cost effective and very easy to install in site.
The research and implementation of the Unbonded
Brace™ is an excellent example of global engineering
collaboration between academia, manufacturers,
designers and the building owners.
References
“Tests of Nippon Steel Corporation Unbonded Braces”
- A Report to: Ove Arup & Partners California, Ltd
submitted by Nippon Steel Corporation, Tokyo, Japan,
prepared by SIE Corporation, July 2, 1999.
Black, C., Makris, N., Aiken, I, 2002, “Component
Testing, Stability Analysis and Characterization of
Buckling-Restrained Unbonded BracesTM ”
Contact Information
Prof Akiro Wada, Structural Research Center, Tokyo
Institute of Technology, Yokohama, Japan.
Isao Kimura, Nippon Steel Corporation, 2-3-6
Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8071
Japan
Tel: 81-3-3275-6671
Ian Aiken, SIE Corporation, 19 Fairview Avenue
Piedmont CA 94610
Tel: 510 595-7498
Eric Ko, Arup, 901 Market Street, Suite 260, San
Francisco, California, 94107
Tel: 415 9460264 Fax: 415 957 9096
Professor Steven Mahin, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720
Tel: 510 642-4021

Wada, A., Saeki, E., Takeuchi, T. and Watanabe, A.,

“Development of Unbonded Brace™”.

Hasegawa, H., Takeuchi, T., Iwata, M., Yamada, S and

Akiyama, H, “Experimental Study on Dynamic
Behaviour of Unbonded-Braces”.

Nakamura, H., Maeda, Y., Taekuchi, T., Nakata, Y.,

Iwata M. and Wada A, 1999, “Fatigue Properties of
Practical-Scale Unbonded Braces ( Part 1 & 2).”

SIE Corporation, 2003, “Large Unbonded Brace™ Sun-

Assembly Tests”, Building Research Institute, Japan.

Mahin, S., Uriz, P., 2002. “Full Scale Brace Frame

Tests Containing Unbonded Braces”. UC Berkeley PhD
thesis.