Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498507

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Design and analysis of braced frames with shape memory alloy and
energy-absorbing hybrid devices
Chuang-Sheng Walter Yang , Reginald DesRoches, Roberto T. Leon
School of Civil and Env. Engineering, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355, USA

article info abstract

Article history: A hybrid seismic device that provides both energy-absorbing and re-centering capabilities to overcome
Received 9 December 2008 external forces is developed and evaluated. The hybrid device is composed of three main components:
Received in revised form (1) a set of re-centering wires fabricated from shape memory alloy (SMA) material, (2) two energy-
23 October 2009
absorbing struts, and (3) two high-strength steel tubes to guide the movement of the hybrid device.
Accepted 26 October 2009
Available online 19 November 2009
The SMA wires are located within the guiding high-strength steel tubes and designed to be sufficiently
long such that their deformation strain is within the 6% target strain limit. A conservative value of 6%
Keywords:
strain, instead of 8%, or 10%, is adopted to (1) avoid the SMA stiffening phase that increases strength up
Steel frames to 5 times that of its forward transformation yield forces, resulting in a serious damage to the adjacent
Seismic design structural members, and (2) to retain the full re-centering capability of the SMA wires even when the
Hybrid devices hybrid device is under large displacement. The energy-absorbing struts are pin-connected outside of
Steel the guiding steel tubes and may be fabricated of mild steel or low strength aluminum. To reduce the
Shape memory alloy possibility of buckling in the energy-absorbing struts when subjected to compression, they are designed
Energy-absorbing devices to be stocky and seismically compact, or buckling restrained. An optimal proportion of the SMA wires
Re-centering devices and energy-absorbing struts is formulated such that the hybrid device retains re-centering capability,
Nonlinear analysis
while maximizing energy dissipation. Results obtained through the seismic analysis reveal that the hybrid
Earthquake resistance structures
braced frame system exhibits a similar energy dissipation capacity to the buckling restrained braced
system, while also having excellent re-centering capabilities.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Although passive devices provide the advantage of minimizing

A seismically well designed building is expected to remain
elastic under small seismic disturbances, to display an acceptable
small level of structural and nonstructural damage when subjected
to a moderate earthquake, and to prevent collapse in an
extreme event by utilizing its inherent ductility and strength.
However, moderate to severe seismic excitation often causes
significant damage to the primary lateral load-resisting members
in a structure. Due to the dynamic nature of environmental
disturbances such as seismic waves and wind, new and innovative
concepts for energy dissipation devices for use as part of structural
protection systems have been proposed and are at various stages
of development. These devices are often classified as either
active or passive; in this article, only passive systems will be
discussed. Passive energy dissipation systems utilize a wide range
of materials and technologies to enhance the damping, stiffness
and strength characteristics of structures either by the conversion
of kinetic energy to heat or by transferring energy among vibrating
modes [1].
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 404 395 9214.
E-mail address: cs.walter.yang@ce.gatech.edu (C.-S. Walter Yang).
0141-0296/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.10.011
damage to nonstructural and structural systems under moderate
seismic demands, their use will often result in a large permanent
residual deformation after a seismic event. If a device that not
only dissipates energy efficiently but also provides satisfactory
re-centering capability can be developed, the damage resulting
from an earthquake event and the associated cost for repairs after
the event for a building equipped with these hybrid devices can
be substantially reduced. In this article, we will refer to devices
capable of both dissipating energy and providing re-centering
capabilities as hybrid devices.
Passive energy dissipation systems can be broadly divided into
three types based on the performance objectives: (1) hysteretic
devices that dissipate energy and enhance strength through yield-
ing of metals or frictional sliding; (2) viscoelastic devices that dis-
sipate energy and enhance stiffness by means of deformation of
viscoelastic solids or fluids flowing through orifices; and (3) dy-
namic vibration absorbers that increase damping by introducing
supplemental oscillators, i.e., additional mass, stiffness, and damp-
ing systems. Hysteretic devices dissipate energy with no significant
rate dependence effects, while the viscoelastic devices exhibit con-
siderable rate dependence [1].
The 1990s noticed a number of attempts to develop re-
centering devices for seismic hazard mitigation. In 1990, Richter
 C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498507
a b
Fig. 1. Arrangement of hybrid devices: (a) Configuration 1 and (b) Configuration 2.
et al. [2] proposed a device in which a piston rod surrounded
by frictional wedges at its two ends slides to dissipate energy
and a preloaded spring encloses the middle portion of the piston
rod to provide the device with restoring capability. Detailed
description of the use of this type of re-centering devices for
seismic hazard mitigation is provided in Nims et al. [3]. Instead
of using restoring springs, in 1994, Tsopelas and Constantinou [4]
employed compressive characteristics of silicone fluid to produce
an initial preload that can move the device toward its undeformed
configuration upon removal of the external load.
More recently, concepts utilizing new materials have become
popular. One such class of materials is known as shape memory
alloys (SMAs). SMAs are a class of smart metallic alloy materials,
capable of recovering within 810% strain, spontaneously (supere-
lastic effect) or through heating above a transformation tempera-
ture (shape memory alloy effect) [5]. This inherent property has led
to many unique applications in medicine, aerospace, mechanics,
and civil engineering [510].
In recent years, Dolce et al. [11] have employed the properties of
NiTi SMA wires to conceive, design, manufacture, and test several
re-centering bracing and isolation devices for seismic protection of
buildings. The device consists of SMA wires that are wound around
cylinders in two freely moving coaxial steel tubes. During the
mutual movements between the tubes, the cylinders always move
away from each other for any positive or negative displacement
of the device, resulting in a device in which the wires are always
in tension and that exhibits double flag-shaped hysteresis. More
recently, in order to optimize the implementation of SMA dampers
into concentrically braced frames, Motahari et al. [12] proposed an
optimal proportioning of the austenite and martensite phase areas
in a damper. The optimum point can be found at the threshold
in which the damper exhibits re-centering capability, while its
dissipation capacity is maximized. A portion of martensite phase
SMAs in a damper is used because austenite phase SMAs, which can
provide re-centering capability, have a very low energy dissipation
capacity, particularly under high rate loadings. In 2002, DesRoches
and Delemont [13] described SMA restrainers as a means of seismic
retrofit for highway bridges.
A hybrid device that combines energy-absorbing and re-
centering systems would be extremely useful for structures to ef-
fectively respond to a large seismic event. In 2008, Shook et al.
[14,15] investigated the behavior of a superelastic semi-active
damping system which incorporates SMA wires with magnetorhe-
ological (MR) dampers. Zhu and Zhang [16,17] proposed a self-
centering friction damping brace which is capable of re-centering
through SMA strands and features enhanced energy dissipation ca-
pacity through friction.
In this article, another type of device is described. The hybrid
device proposed herein consists of two mild steel tube struts for
energy dissipation that are attached outside of a set of two freely
floating high-strength steel tubes. The device reduces the seismic
response of a building by means of the hysteretic characteristics
of steel, and SMA wires for re-centering capability that are wound
499
within the freely floating high-strength steel tubes, exhibiting a
double flag-shaped hysteretic behavior.
This hybrid device for seismic applications can be installed
between a beam and braces of a building (Configuration 1, see
Fig. 1(a)), or utilized simply as a brace along a diagonal of a building
(Configuration 2, see Fig. 1(b)), to dissipate energy and provide
re-centering capabilities. In order to maximize both the energy
absorption and re-centering capacities, the reverse transformation
yielding force provided by the SMA wires has to be greater than
the yielding force developed by the energy-absorbing struts. A
theoretical optimal proportion for these forces will be presented
later in the article. Although SMAs can exhibit re-centering
properties for strain values in the 810% range, a conservative
value of 6% strain is used herein for two reasons. First, this stricter
limit is enforced to avoid the second stiffening phenomenon
that can increase SMA stresses from 2 to 5 times the forward
transformation stress, which will probably result in a serious
damage to the adjacent structural members. Second, this limit is
used to retain the re-centering capacity of the SMA wires even
after the hybrid device reaches large displacements. For maximum
energy absorption, the potential for buckling in the struts has
to be minimized when they are subjected to large compression
cycles. A short stocky steel strut with a specified compact section
provides an ideal way to create such a strut at minimum cost,
while providing the desired performance. An alternative to this
approach is using buckling restrained braces for the long struts.
Finally, hybrid devices in two types of configurations in a 3-
story benchmark building are designed according to the proposed
methodology for hybrid devices, and analyzed through nonlinear
static and time-history analyses in OpenSEES [18].
2. Proposed hybrid devices
2.1. Hysteresis of hybrid devices
Fig. 1 illustrates a structure incorporating a set of two hybrid
devices which are located between the top of a chevron brace
configuration and beam, or installed as braces in a building
frame bay. The key design parameters for the hybrid devices
include the maximum force capacity, device length, and residual
displacement of the hybrid devices. A set of two hybrid devices
in Configuration 1 in a story create a hysteretic curve bounded
by these design parameters, such as shown in Fig. 2(c). A force
of 5100 kN (1145 kips) moves the hybrid devices up to 25.4 mm
(1.00 in.), along with the maximum residual displacement of
2.8 mm (0.11 in.), in this example. The shape of the hysteretic
curves depends upon the physical characteristics of the hybrid
devices. The goal of the hybrid devices is to absorb building
response energy associated with a seismic event, while returning
the building back to its original state after the event. The struts
are required to be able to provide a significant energy- absorbing
capacity, such as shown in Fig. 2(b). The maximum residual
500 C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498507

a from the SMA wires with superelastic effects, such as shown in

Fig. 2(a).

2.2. Optimal proportion of the SMA wires and struts

The relative relationship between the SMA reverse transforma-

b ening ratio (Fig. 3(b)), when the hybrid device is unloaded down
c re-centering hybrid device with the SMA wires and such energy-
Fig. 2. Hysteresis: (a) SMA wires; (b) strut; and (c) hybrid device ( = 0.50).
displacement of the hybrid devices induced by strut material
plasticity is limited by means of the sufficient re-centering capacity
tion yielding force, VSMA,r , (Figs. 2(a) and 3(a)) and the strut yield-
ing force, VS ,y , (Fig. 3(b)) plays an important role in the re-centering
capacity for a hybrid device. For energy-absorbing struts having a
full-loop hysteresis with kinematic hardening of a 0% strain hard-
to a deformation, r , that corresponds to the SMA reverse trans-
formation yield force (Fig. 2(a)), the SMA wires are in tension with
a force of VSMA,r (Fig. 3(a)); meanwhile, the struts are in compres-
sion with a force of VS ,y (Fig. 3(b)). The overall strength in the
hybrid device is VSMA,r + (VS ,y ). In order for the hybrid device to
have a flag shape hysteresis with a re-centering characteristic, the
SMA reverse yielding force should accommodate the extra yielding
force induced by the struts; i.e., VSMA,r VS ,y 0. In the illustra-
tive example of Fig. 3(c), VSMA,r VS ,y = 0. The requirement for a
absorbing struts is as follows:
VSMA,r VS ,y . (1)
It is noted that the maximum residual displacement of this type of
hybrid devices, r , is simply the SMA reverse transformation yield
displacement.
r = r = SMA,y lSMA (2)
where the conversion factor of is the ratio of the reverse
transformation yielding force to forward transformation yielding
force (VSMA,f ) for the SMA wires used (Fig. 2(a)).
However, if the energy-absorbing struts exhibit kinematic
hardening with a non-zero strain hardening ratio shown in

a d

b e

c f

Fig. 3. Illustration of the re-centering requirement.

 C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498507 501

Fig. 3(e), the strut strength has not reached VS ,y yet when the Table 1
unloading deformation reaches r . The remaining deformation for Force distribution for hybrid devices.

the strut strength to decrease to VS ,y is S ,y + r , in which S ,y SMA wire (%) Strut (%)
is the yielding displacement of the struts. The strength difference 1/(1 + ) /(1 + )
between VS ,y and the strut strength at r in the unloading path is 0.00 100.0 0.0
called an addition strength of Va (Fig. 3(e)) and can be written as 0.25 80.0 20.0
0.50 66.7 33.3
follows:
0.75 57.1 42.9
Va = (S ,y + r )SS ,h (3) 0.95 51.3 48.7
1.00 50.0 50.0
in which SS ,h is the strain hardening stiffness for the strut.
The overall strength in the hybrid device with an unloading
deformation of r is VSMA,r + (VS ,y + Va ). The requirement for
a re-centering hybrid device with the SMA wires and such energy-
absorbing struts is as follows:
VSMA,r VS ,y Va . (4)
It is interesting to note that the residual displacement of the Fig. 4. Energy-absorbing strut.
hybrid device decreases with increase in the additional strength
Va , as shown in Fig. 3(f), and the predicted value of the residual
displacement of the hybrid device is modified as

Va
r = r (5)
S2
in which S2 represents the second stiffness for the hybrid
device following strut yielding and prior to SMA yielding, i.e.,
(EA/l)Strut, hardening +(EA/l)SMA . From Eq. (3), the additional strength
is directly proportional to the SMA reverse transformation yielding
displacement and the strut strain hardening ratio. Insofar as
re-centering is concerned, Eq. (5) demonstrates that a larger
additional strength and smaller second stiffness of the hybrid
device can decrease the residual deformation of the hybrid device.
However, the SMA reverse transformation yield displacement is Fig. 5. SMA wires inside a hybrid device with clevis pins for Configuration 2.
still the dominant cause for the residual displacement of the
hybrid device. Therefore, a hybrid device with a smaller reverse
transformation yield displacement has a larger re-centering
capacity. For this reason, the effect of the additional strength Va
is ignored in the following sections.
The design of the force distribution between the energy-
absorbing strut and re-centering SMA components in a hybrid
device is related to the design yielding force of the hybrid device,
Fig. 6. Overview of a hybrid device with clevis pins for Configuration 1.
V , and the ratio ( ) of the reverse transformation yielding force to
forward transformation yielding force. The relation between VSMA,r
and VSMA,f is written as: tubes that are mounted in the frame bay and guide the struts and
SMA wires. An overview of a hybrid device is shown in Fig. 6.
VSMA,r = VSMA,f . (6) The two energy-absorbing mild steel struts are mounted
outside of the freely floating high-strength steel tubes through
Based on Eqs. (1) and (6) and the fact that the designed yielding two strut ends with pin-type blocks, limiting external moments.
force V is overcome by VSMA,f and VS ,y , the fraction of forces The design length of the energy-absorbing struts is as short as
distributed to the SMA wires needs to be at least 1/(1 + ) such possible to increase the stiffness and to reduce the slenderness
that the hybrid device has a minimum re-centering capacity and ratio, or increase the compression strength. However, the length
satisfies the force demand for the hybrid device, i.e., is dependent on the design seismic event as it is necessary to
1 prevent excessive strain in the steel components. The dimensions
VSMA,f V (7a) of the cross section are also required to be as compact as possible,
1+
reducing local buckling tendencies in the struts and significant
degradation in the post-buckling strength if strut buckling occurs.
V S ,y = V. (7b)
1+ The shape of the struts can be either a hollow circle or a hollow
square tube; however, the potential strut deflection should be
The percentage of force distribution between the SMA wires and outward in order to prevent collision with the freely floating high-
struts under various values are listed in Table 1. strength steel tubes. Given the designed force for the struts from
Eq. (7b), their size can be proportioned by considering the member
2.3. Design of hybrid steel-SMA devices maximum compression strength.
The set of SMA wires are surrounded by the freely floating
A cost-effective hybrid device that both dissipates energy and high-strength steel tubes, which are wound by two cylinder-type
recenters can be designed using energy-absorbing mild steel struts blocks inside of the freely floating high-strength steel tubes. The
and a set of SMA wires, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. This determination of SMA wire length is dependent on a 6% strain
hybrid device also contains two freely floating high-strength steel limitation and the expected deformation from the design seismic
502 C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498507

Table 2
Member sizes for the three 3-story braced frame models.
Story R=4 R=7 R=7
Configuration 1 Configuration 2 BRBF
Steel brace Column Beam Column Beam Column Beam Buckling restrained braces
Tension capacity Axial stiffness
(kN)/(kip) (kN/m)/(kip/in.)
3 HSS8 8 1/2 W10 68 W12 96 W12 50 W10 68 W12 50 W10 68 1001/225 172 251/982
2 HSS9 9 5/8 W10 68 W12 106 W12 50 W10 77 W12 50 W10 77 1341/301 261 946/1494
1 HSS10 10 5/8 W10 68 W12 106 W12 50 W10 77 W12 50 W10 77 1513/340 304 492/1736

event. As noted earlier, the 6% strain limitation for SMAs is to

prevent the loss of the re-centering capacity when the SMA wire
is stretched beyond 6% and damages to the adjacent supporting
structure members such as braces and columns because of the
unexpected high strength induced by the SMA second stiffening
phenomenon. In order to lower the strain demand for the SMA
wires, the SMA wires need to be sufficiently long. However,
excessively long wires have to be avoided in order to retain initial
stiffness of the SMA wires. The area for the SMA wires can be
computed through the force distribution concept (Eq. (7a)), once
the pertinent design values (design force for the hybrid device,
factor, and forward transformation yielding stress of SMAs) are set.
The two freely floating steel tubes are installed in a pinned
manner in one story of the resisting frame bay, transferring
the forces induced by an external disturbance into the energy-
absorbing and re-centering components.

3. Numerical models

3.1. Benchmark building

SAC was a joint venture of Structural Engineers Association

of California (SEAoC), Applied Technology Council (ATC), and
California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
(CUREE) that studied steel connections and structural systems in
the aftermath of the Northridge and Kobe earthquakes. Theme
structures designed as part of SAC are commonly used as
references when assessing performance of new or improved
structural systems. A 3-story steel braced frame building with
hybrid steel-SMA devices (Fig. 7 (for the case of hybrid devices in
Configuration 1)) is designed to carry the same masses and use the
same number of seismic-resisting bays as the 3-story SAC moment
resisting frame (6 seismic-resisting bays for the 3-story model in
the NS direction) [19] designed for downtown Los Angeles. In the
Los Angeles area, for the 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years,
the mapped spectral accelerations for the short period and the 1 s
period are 2.16 g and 0.72 g, respectively, with a PGA of 0.90 g.
The building is designed as if located on stiff soil (site class D as
per ASCE 7-05 [20] definitions). An importance factor of 1.25 is
assigned to the building in accordance of Occupancy Category III.
The design code documents used are the 2005 ASCE-7 for loads and
the AISC LRFD 2005 for member design.
3.2. Seismic weight
The response modification coefficients, R, selected for this new
system are set at 4 and 7 for hybrid devices in Configuration
1 and in Configuration 2, respectively. For hybrid devices in
Configuration 1, the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced
bay is 4828 kN (1084 kips), which corresponds to one-sixth of the
entire building seismic weight. The design seismic base shear is
calculated as 0.45W in accordance with the equivalent lateral force
procedure as per ASCE 7-05. For hybrid devices in Configuration
2 (hybrid braces), the seismic weight, W , assigned to each braced
Fig. 7. 3-story steel braced frame building with hybrid devices.
bay is also 4828 kN (1084 kips). However, the design seismic base
shear is 0.26W due to the use of R = 7. The adoption of a larger
value of R for a building with hybrid braces is meant to enable
direct comparisons with the structural performance of a buckling
restrained braced frame (BRBF, see Table 2) and hybrid braced
frame systems.
3.3. Frame members in the three braced frame models
Two 3-story braced frame models are studied, including a
braced frame with hybrid steel-SMA devices in Configuration 1 and
a braced frame with hybrid steel-SMA devices in Configuration 2;
one 3-story BRBF frame model is established as a comparison with
the braced frame with hybrid steel-SMA devices in Configuration 2.
The members in the three 3-story braced frame models, except the
hybrid devices, are listed in Table 2 and conform to the AISC Seis-
mic Provisions [21]. The beams and columns are designed using
A572 Grade 50 steel [nominal Fy = 345 MPa (50 ksi), an expected
yield factor Ry = 1.1, and Fu = 448 MPa (65 ksi)]. For the frame
with hybrid steel-SMA devices in Configuration 1, the design forces
for the conventional steel braces adjacent to the hybrid devices are
increased to take into account the effects of the forward transfor-
mation plateau prior to the SMA second stiffening in the hybrid de-
vices. The required force for the conventional steel brace is twice
the original design force obtained from seismic design procedure,
i.e., an overstrength factor 0 = 2 is employed in the brace de-
sign. The conventional steel braces are cold-formed welded hollow
structural section (HSS) made of ASTM A500 Grade B steel [nomi-
nal Fy = 317 MPa (46 ksi), an expected yield factor Ry = 1.4, an
expected tensile factor Rt = 1.3, and Fu = 400 MPa (58 ksi)].
 C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498507 503

Table 3
Sizes of the SMA wires and struts in a hybrid device.

SMA wires Struts

1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor
A (mm2 ) m A (mm2 ) m A (mm2 ) m
0.00 4881 1.86 3616 1.64 2474 1.82
0.25 4177 1.99 3297 1.87 2329 2.14 HSS2 2 1/4 HSS2 2 3/16 HSS2 2 1/8
0.50 3255 1.86 2410 1.64 1652 1.82 HSS2.5 2.5 5/16 HSS2.25 2.25 1/4 HSS2 2 3/16
0.95 2139 1.59 2135 1.89 1271 1.82 HSS3 3 5/16 HSS3 3 5/16 HSS2.5 2.5 1/4

Table 4
Effects of on the hybrid devices satisfying the requirements.

SMA Strut Hybrid device Model frame

L (mm)/(in.) p (%) L (mm)/(in.) p (mm)/(in.) r (mm)/(in.) r (predicted) T (s)

0.00 1219/48 5.58 68.1/2.68 0.0/0.00 0.0/0.00 0.408

0.25 533/21 5.96 254/10 31.8/1.25 1.1/0.04 1.3/0.05 0.364
0.50 686/27 5.74 254/10 39.4/1.55 2.8/0.11 3.4/0.14 0.363
0.95 914/36 5.83 254/10 53.3/2.10 8.7/0.34 8.7/0.34 0.360

All structural members, including columns, beams, and con-
ventional steel braces, are simulated by using the force-based
distributed plasticity nonlinear beamcolumn element with the
fiber section function in the OpenSEES platform. The command
to construct this type of nonlinear beamcolumn element in the
OpenSEES program is nonlinearBeamColumn, which is based on
the non-iterative or iterative force formulation and considers the
spread of plasticity along the element. The command of steel 02
is used to construct steel material. The detailed usage and expla-
nation of the element and cyclic model of steel are described in
the OpenSEES users manual, which is free and can be downloaded
from the website [18]. The conventional steel brace model [22]
implemented in the OpenSEES program has an additional node
at midspan with a small initial imperfection and two rotational
springs at the ends to simulate the buckling and post-buckling be-
havior of a conventional steel brace under compression. A detailed
description of the method for the numerical steel brace to approach
the experimental behavior and satisfy the strength in the specifica-
tion can be found in Yang et al. [22,23]. The beams are continuous
in the chevron-braced configuration, with the ends connected with
pinned joints to the columns. The columns are continuous with
fixed column bases.
3.4. Hybrid steel-SMA devices in Configuration 1
A numerical model of one braced bay of the 3-story frame
building with hybrid devices in Configuration 1 was analyzed
(Fig. 8(a)). The energy-absorbing struts used are assumed to be
cold-formed welded HSS with ASTM A500 Grade B steel [nominal
Fy = 317 MPa (46 ksi), an expected yield factor Ry = 1.4, and Fu =
400 MPa (58 ksi)]. The modulus of elasticity and strain hardening
ratio are assumed to be 200 GPa (29 000 ksi) and 0.8%, respectively.
The energy-absorbing strut model is similar to the brace model
which can take into account the buckling of a strut under compres-
sion [22,23], except that the ends of a strut are hinges without ro-
tational springs. The superelastic behavior of the re-centering SMA
wires is simulated using an 1D constitutive model proposed by Au-
ricchio and Sacco in 1997 [24]. The hysteretic loop is represented
by a series of straight lines whose extension depends on the trans-
formation experienced, as shown in Fig. 2(a). Further assumptions
are that no strength degradation occurs during cycling [25,8]. Ad-
ditionally, it can be assumed that the SMA bars or wires are pre-
viously mechanically trained in order to minimize any property
degradation due to cycling [26]. Details as to the model formula-
tion can be found in the works by Fugazza [27,28]. The numerical
SMA model is implemented in OpenSEES by using the command of
the SMA material, which was included in the previous OpenSEES
developer source. The SMA wires used in this study have a forward
transformation yield stress of 414 MPa (60 ksi). The modulus of
elasticity and strain hardening ratio are set as 41.4 GPa (6000 ksi)
and 10%, respectively [26,8]. Based on the design methodology for
hybrid devices described in Section 2, the sizes for the energy-
absorbing struts and the re-centering SMA wires are proportioned
as listed in Tables 3 and 4. Static hysteretic loops of the first-story
hybrid devices with = 0.50 and their components are shown in
Fig. 2.
Conventional steel struts of moderate to high slenderness
exhibit an asymmetrical behavior as the compression strength is
less than the tension strength. Thus, the compression strength
is critical for design of the conventional steel struts. During the
selection of the steel strut members, the design compression
strength of the chosen strut member needs to be greater than
or equal to the demand force, that is the force distributed to the
strut. Therefore, the steel strut chosen from the existing sizes
of steel members available in industry may provide excessive
strength. Due to this reason and the use of the expected yield
strength for the strut in these simulations, an overstrength factor,
m , (ratio of the expected yield strength of the selected strut
member to the demand force of the strut) is taken into account
for the strut and is used for the design of the corresponding SMA
wires (Table 3). As a result of the multiplier m in the strut, the
area of the corresponding SMA wires needs to be magnified by
the same multiplier. This adjustment intends to retain the same
force distribution fractions (Table 1), ensuring that the designed
hybrid device meets the requirement of the minimum re-centering
capacity.
3.5. Effects of the parameter on hybrid devices
As derived in Eq. (7), the requirement of the minimum re-
centering capability for a hybrid device is that the SMA wires
provide at least a force of 1/(1 + ) of the design force for the
hybrid device when the struts sustain /(1 + ) of the design
force. As shown in Table 1, with increasing from 0.00 to 1.00,
the force distribution fraction for the SMA wires decreases from
100.0% to 50.0%, while the force distribution fraction for the struts
increases from 0.0% to 50.0%. In order to investigate the effect of the
parameter on behavior of hybrid devices, several hybrid devices
are designed with various values, as listed in Table 4.
504 C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498507
a b
Fig. 8. Numerical models: (a) Configuration 1 and (b) Configuration 2.
Table 5
Length effects for the case of = 0.00.
L (mm)/(in.) p (%) T (s) Brace buckling
305/12 7.33 0.367 1st story
610/24 7.29 0.379
914/36 6.53 0.393
1219/48 5.58 0.408
For the LA21 ground motions (1995 Kobe, [29]) and = 0,
Table 5 compares several devices having SMA devices with vari-
ous lengths of wires. The braced bay with the shortest length SMA
devices (305 mm) shows that the maximum peak strain, p , in the
three SMA devices is 7.33%, which is greater than the strain premise
of 6.00%. In addition, one of the first-story braces buckles signif-
icantly. Although an SMA device with short length has relatively
large stiffness and small stroke, the large strain hardening (10%
for SMA wires) generates relatively high post-yielding strength, re-
sulting in significant buckling in the adjacent member. In order to
reduce the experienced strain within 6.00%, their lengths need to
increase up to 1219 mm (48 in.).
For other values of , the lengths of the SMA wires in the
hybrid devices are adjusted in the same way to meet the strain
limitation, as shown in Table 4. The peak stroke, p , in the three
hybrid devices in a braced bay increases as increases. The
maximum residual deformation, r , shows the same tendency.
The theoretical maximum residual deformation obtained through
Eq. (2) gives an upper bound and approaches the actual value from
the numerical model. In general, the hybrid device with higher
proportion of SMA wires exhibits better performance in terms of
both lower maximum peak deformation and residual deformation.
The reason is that SMA wires not only provide a re-centering
capacity, but also have an extremely high strain hardening ratio
(10% used in this article) that is much greater than the steel
strain hardening (0.8% used here). However, devices with only SMA
wires lose the energy dissipation capacity significantly, leading to
extensive strain beyond the specified strain limit.
3.6. Hybrid steel-SMA braces (Configuration 2)
Another numerical model of one braced bay of the 3-story frame
building with hybrid devices in Configuration 2 is analyzed. Its
elevation is depicted in Fig. 8(b). Since hybrid devices installed in
the brace position are much longer than those in Configuration
1, it is difficult for long struts with pure steel tubes to have
sufficient post-buckling strength. To gain more energy dissipation
capacity, the energy-absorbing struts incorporated in this hybrid
brace model are assumed to be buckling restrained. Using R = 7
and the force distribution formula with = 0.5, hybrid braces in
the 3-story braced bay were designed. The sizes of the SMA wires
and yielding forces of the buckling restrained struts are listed in
Table 6.
4. Numerical study
The numerical models described above are used to investigate
the behavior and performance of a braced bay with hybrid devices
by means of both nonlinear static analyses (pushover analyses) and
nonlinear dynamic analyses using the OpenSEES program.
4.1. Pushover analysisGlobal lateral load vs. drift behavior
A 2D pushover analysis was performed using OpenSEES to
investigate the nonlinear static behavior for the 3-story model with
hybrid braces. The resulting curve for the 3-story hybrid braced
model, plotted as the roof drift ratio vs. the base shear, is shown
in Fig. 10. The pushover curve indicates the sequence of yielding
in the hybrid braces. First, compression yielding (CY) occurs in the
3-story right energy-absorbing struts (symbolized by x), followed
by tension yielding (TY) in the 3-story left energy-absorbing struts
(symbolized by o). Subsequently, the right SMA wires start to yield
in tension sequentially from the third to the first-story (x), followed
by TY in order of the second-, third-, and first-story left SMA wires
(o). During the TY of the SMA wires, the column bases also yield.
The model continues being pushed into the hardening range and
reach the target roof drift ratio of 3.5%.
CY occurs in the right struts (designated as CY-right struts)
beginning at a roof drift ratio of 0.05% (Fig. 10), corresponding
to a base shear of 512 kN (115 kips). The first occurrence in CY-
right struts begins in the third-story energy-absorbing strut that
has a member overstrength factor of 1.26 (Table 6). By using
the designed seismic base shear of 1242 kN (279 kips) for the
model with hybrid braces and the force distribution fraction of
0.33 for the struts in the hybrid braces, the theoretical base shear
corresponding to the first CY-right struts is 516 kN (116 kips =
279 kips 1.26 0.33). This simplified base shear calculation gives
results very close to the simulation result. As the model reaches the
occurrence of the first TY in the left struts (TY-left struts) at the roof
drift ratio of 0.20%, the base shear is 1170 kN (263 kips), which is
94% of the design seismic base shear. Afterwards, the third-story
right SMA wires yield under tensile forces at a roof drift ratio of
0.59%, with a corresponding base shear of 2109 kN (474 kips).
When the model starts to enter the range of TY in the left SMA wires
(TY-left SMA wires) at a roof drift ratio of 1.12%, the base shear is
2679 kN (602 kips), or 2.16 times the design seismic base shear.
At the target roof drift ratio, the base shear approaches 3613 kN
(812 kips), or 2.91 times the design seismic base shear.
4.2. Nonlinear dynamic analysis
2D nonlinear dynamic analyses are performed using OpenSEES
to investigate the dynamic behavior of the frames. In order to
provide a conservative assessment of structural performance,
 C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498507 505

Table 6
Sizes of the SMA wires and strut in a hybrid brace.
SMA wires Strut
L (mm)/(in.) p (%) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor L (mm)/(in.) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor
A (mm2 ) m A (mm2 ) m A (mm2 ) m F (kN)/(kip) F (kN)/(kip) F (kN)/(kip)

1981/78 7.33 2665 1.35 2232 1.32 1400 1.26 610/24 548/123 463/104 291/65

Fig. 9. Performance of numerical models with various hybrid devices (Configuration 1).

5% Rayleigh damping is specified in the first and last modes
of vibration, which ensures that the damping ratios between
the two extreme modes are less than 5%. The frames are first
subjected to a suite of 20 ground motions (LA21LA40) [29],
which were used to subject SAC model buildings designed for
the downtown Los Angeles area in 1995. These ground motions
were representative of a 2%-in-50-year probability of exceedance,
or maximum considered earthquake in 1995 (MCE shaking in
1995), for the downtown Los Angeles area, with the spectral
response accelerations of 1.61 g and 1.19 g for periods of 0.3
and 1.0 s, respectively. The interstory drift demand ratios and
residual interstory drift ratios (IDRs) are evaluated statistically.
Subsequently, the ground motion ensemble is further scaled so
as to match the design response spectrum for the downtown
Los Angeles area (1.44 g and 0.72 g for short period and 1 s
period, respectively), and the nonlinear analyses are repeated.
The fundamental periods of the models studied from eigenvalue
analysis are shown in Table 4.
The resulting peak IDRs and residual IDRs for the original
and modified ensemble of the ground motions (LA21LA40) are
presented as circular symbols in Figs. 9 and 11. Characteristic
values (i.e., median and 84th percentile) as described in FEMA
506 C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498507
Fig. 10. Static hysteretic loop for the 3-story model with hybrid braces.
355C [19] are also shown. The median is defined as the geometric
mean of the data points, and 84th percentile as the median times
the exponent of the standard deviation of the natural log of the data
points.
For the hybrid device models in Configuration 1 with three
different values, the maximum peak IDR for each case is around
2.0%, as shown in Fig. 9. All the 84th percentile and median lines
for the peak IDRs are within 1.5% and 1.0%, respectively. In the
residual aspect of IDRs, the maximum residual IDRs are 0.24%,
a b
Fig. 11. Comparison of performance between the hybrid braced frame in Configuration 2 and BRBF under: (a) 2%-in-50-year SAC ground motions (MCE shaking in 1995),
and (b) design ground motions.
0.17%, and 0.12% for = 0.25, 0.5, and 0.95, respectively. All the
84th percentile lines for the residual IDRs are less than 0.1%.
For the purpose of comparing the performance of a 3-story
hybrid braced frame in Configuration 2 with a 3-story BRBF
(Table 2), the 3-story hybrid braced frame in Configuration 2
(Tables 2 and 6) is designed to carry the same seismic loads as the
BRBF. As shown in Fig. 11(a), the hybrid braced model under the
MCE shaking in 1995 shows the maximum peak IDR of 3.9%, close
to that of the BRBF model, 3.5%. The 84th percentile line is around
2.5%, exhibiting a fairly uniform distribution over the height as
compared with the BRBF system. The hybrid braced system has
extremely small residual deformationthe maximum residual IDR
is only 0.06%, less than that of 0.74% of the BRBF model.
When the 3-story hybrid braced frame in Configuration 2 is
subjected to the design ground motions, all the median and 84th
percentile lines for the peak IDRs are less than 1.5% and 2.5%,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 11(b). The hybrid braced model
shows an uniform distribution over the height as compared with
the BRBF system. The hybrid braced system has extremely small
residual deformationthe maximum residual IDR is only 0.05%. In
terms of demand, Fig. 12 indicates that all the strain demands in the
SMA wires are less than the specified strain limit of 6% and all the
strain demands in the struts are less than 18%. The columns remain
elastic except for the bases slightly yielding with a peak strain of
2% in the tip of a column flange. The beams remain intact with
peak demands of axial strain ductility 0.34 and curvature ductility
0.25. These results verify the adequacy of the proposed optimal
proportion of the SMA wires and struts and the design procedure
for the frame system with hybrid devices.
 C.-S. Walter Yang et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 498507
Fig. 12. Strain demands in the hybrid braces under design ground motions.
5. Summary and conclusions
An innovative SMA based device called a hybrid device,
which combines energy dissipation and re-centering systems, is
proposed in order to mitigate structural damage induced from
seismic hazards. A design methodology for these hybrid devices
is also provided. Three-story models with hybrid devices in two
different configurations were designed according to the proposed
design procedure, and their behaviors were investigated using
both pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses. The following
conclusions are drawn based on the results and observations
presented herein.
1. When designed according to the proposed formula of force
distribution for SMA re-centering and energy dissipation
systems, the hybrid devices exhibit re-centering capacity, while
maximizing energy dissipation.
2. The 3-story model with hybrid braces in Configuration 2 (R = 7)
shows comparable performance to the BRBF system in terms
of peak interstory drifts, while also exhibiting excellent re-
centering capability. The statistical value of the first-story peak
IDRs for the hybrid braced frame is slightly smaller than that
for the BRBF, while the values of the other peak interstory drifts
for the hybrid braced frame are a little larger than those for the
BRBF. In general, the 84th percentile line for the hybrid braced
frame is a relatively uniform distribution over the height of the
building, indicating a capability to repress the formation of a
soft story mechanism.
3. The hybrid devices in Configuration 1 (R = 4) can be designed
with a short length, limiting the amount of SMA material
required, while still showing good behavior in terms of both
peak interstory drift and residual deformation.
References
[1] Constantinou MC, Soong TT, Dargush GF. Passive energy dissipation systems
fro structural design and retrofit. Buffalo (NY): Research Foundation of the
State University of New York and Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research; 1998.
[2] Richter PJ, Nims DK, Kelly JM, Kallenbach RM. The EDR energy dissipating
restraint. In: Proceedings of the structural engineers association of California
convention. 1990.
507
[3] Nims DK, Richter PJ, Bachman RE. The use of the energy dissipating restraint
for seismic hazard mitigation. Earthq Spectra 1993;9:46789.
[4] Tsopelas P, Constantinou MC. Experimental and analytical study of a system
consisting of sliding bearings and fluid restoring force/damping devices.
Technical report NCEER-94-0014. National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research. Buffalo, NY. 1994.
[5] Duerig TW, Melton KN, Proft JL. Engineering aspects of shape memory alloys.
Guildford, (UK): Butterworth-Heineman; 1990.
[6] Chandra R. Acitve shape control of composite blades using shape memory
actuation. Smart Mater Struct 2001;10:101824.
[7] Bank R, Weres O. In: Perkins J, editor. Shape memory effects in alloys. NY:
Plenum Press; 1976.
[8] Andrawes B, DesRoches R. Effect of hysteretic properties of superelastic shape
memory alloys on the seismic performance of structures. Struct Control Health
Monit 2007;14:30120.
[9] Wilde K, Gardoni P, Fujino Y. Base isolation system with shape memory alloy
devices for elevated highway bridges. Eng Struct 2000;22:2229.
[10] Speicher M, DesRoches R, Leon RT. Analytical study of SDOF systems with
superelastic shape memory alloy properties. In: Proceedings of the 18th
analysis and computation specialty conference. 2008.
[11] Dolce M, Cardone D, Marnetto R. Implementation and testing of passive control
devices based on shape memory alloys. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2000;29:
94568.
[12] Motahari SA, Ghassemieh M, Abolmaali SA. Implementation of shape
memory alloy dampers for passive control of structures subjected to seismic
excitations. J Constr Steel Res 2007;63:15709.
[13] DesRoches R, Delemont M. Seismic retrofit of simply supported bridges using
shape memory alloys. Eng Struct 2002;24:32532.
[14] Shook D, Roschke P, Lin PY, Loh CH. Experimental investigation of super-elastic
semi-active damping for seismically excited structures. In: Proceedings of the
18th analysis and computation specialty conference. 2008.
[15] Shook D, Roschke P, Lin PY, Loh CH. GA-optimized fuzzy logic control of a large-
scale building for seismic loads. Eng Struct 2008;30:43649.
[16] Zhu S, Zhang Y. Performance based seismic design of steel braced frame system
with self-centering friction damping brace. In: Proceedings of the 18th analysis
and computation specialty conference. 2008.
[17] Zhu S, Zhang Y. Seismic analysis and design of steel concentrically braced
frames with self-centering friction damping brace, ATLSS report 0709. Lehigh
University. Bethlehem, PA. 2007.
[18] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. OpenSEES command language
manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2006. http://
opensees.berkeley.edu.
[19] FEMA-355C. State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment
frames subjected to earthquake ground shaking. FEMA 355C/September 2000.
Washington (DC): Building Seismic Safety Council; 2000.
[20] Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of
Civil Engineers, ASCE/SEI 7-05. 2006.
[21] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), AISC Seismic. Seismic
provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago. 2005.
[22] Yang CS, Leon RT, DesRoches R. Design and behavior of zipper-braced frames.
Eng Struct 2008;30:1092100.
[23] Yang CS, Leon RT, DesRoches R. Pushover response of a braced frame with
suspended zipper struts. J Struct Eng-ASCE 2008;134:161926.
[24] Auricchio F, Sacco E. A one-dimensional model for superelastic shape-memory
alloys with different properties between martensite and austenite. Int J Non-
Linear Mech 1997;32:110114.
[25] Bruno S, Valente C. Comparative response analysis of conventional and
innovative seismic protection strategies. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2002;31:
106792.
[26] McCormic JP. Cyclic behavior of shape memory alloys: Material characteri-
zation and optimization. Ph.D. dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology.
2006.
[27] Fugazza D. Shape-memory alloy devices for earthquake engineering: Me-
chanical properties, constitutive modeling and numerical simulations, Mas-
ters thesis. European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic
Risk, Pavia, Italy; 2003. http://www-1.unipv.it/dms/compmech/dissertations/
FugazzaMSc.pdf.
[28] Fugazza D. Use of shape-memory alloy devices in earthquake engineering: Me-
chanical properties, advanced constitutive modeling and structural applica-
tions. Ph.D. dissertation. European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction
of Seismic Risk. Pavia, Italy; 2005. http://www-1.unipv.it/dms/compmech/
dissertations/FugazzaPhD.pdf.
[29] Somerville PG, Smith N, Punyamurthula S, Sun J. Development of ground
motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project. SAC
background document. Report no. SAC/BD 97/04. 1997.