Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1938–1948

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Connection overstrength in steel-braced RC frames

Mahmoud R. Maheri a,∗ , H. Ghaffarzadeh b
a Department of Civil Engineering, Shiraz University, P.O. Box 71345-1676, Shiraz, Iran
b Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Received 11 March 2007; received in revised form 14 December 2007; accepted 20 December 2007
Available online 11 February 2008

Abstract

Steel bracing systems can be used effectively for seismic retrofitting of existing RC buildings as well as for seismic design of new buildings.
Although adaptation of bracing to upgrade the lateral load capacity of existing RC frames has been the subject of a number of successful studies,
guidelines for its use in newly constructed RC frames need to be further developed. An important consideration in the design of steel-braced RC
frames is the level of interaction between the strength capacities of the RC frame and the bracing system. In this paper, results of experimental
and numerical investigations aimed at evaluating the level of capacity interaction between the two systems are discussed. For these investigations,
cyclic loading tests are conducted on scaled moment resisting frames with and without bracing. It is found that the capacity interaction is primarily
due to the connections overstrength. The experimental results are also used to calibrate full-scale numerical models. A parametric numerical
investigation on the effects of the main problem variables is then conducted and the influence of each parameter on the level of the overstrength
is determined. Based on these findings, guidelines for the seismic design of the internally cross-braced RC frames with direct connections are
provided.
c 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd

Keywords: Steel bracing; Reinforced concrete; Capacity interaction; Overstrength; Cyclic load testing

1. Introduction providing appropriate connections between the bracing system

Traditionally, steel bracing system has been used to increase
the lateral load resistance of steel structures. In recent
years, the concept of steel bracing has also been applied
to the retrofitting of reinforced concrete frames. Increased
architectural flexibility, reduced weight of the structure, ease
and speed of construction and the ability to choose more ductile
systems can be considered as the main advantages of steel
bracing in comparison with RC shear walls.
Two bracing systems are generally used, external bracing
and internal bracing. In external bracing, steel trusses or
frames are attached either as a global external support to the
building exterior or, more locally, to the face of the individual
building frames. A number of investigators have reported on the
efficiency of external bracing in seismic retrofitting of existing
RC buildings [1–4]. Architectural concerns and difficulties in
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 711 8321353; fax: +98 711 6286619.
E-mail addresses: maheri@shirazu.ac.ir, mmaheri@hotmail.com
(M.R. Maheri).
and RC frames are two of the shortcomings of this method.
In internal bracing, steel bracing members are inserted in the
empty space enclosed by columns and beams of RC frames. As
a result, each unit frame is individually braced from within. The
bracing may be attached to the RC frame either indirectly or
directly. In the indirect internal bracing, a braced steel frame
is positioned inside the RC frame. As a result, the transfer of
load between the steel bracing and the concrete frame is carried
out indirectly through the steel frame. Successful retrofits of
existing buildings by indirect internal bracing using different
forms of X , V and K concentric and eccentric braces have been
reported in the literature [5–8]. In some repair and retrofitting
cases, provision of the steel frame may be necessary to reduce
the strength demand on an already damaged and weakened RC
frame; however, in other instances the steel frame acts only
as a costly connecting mechanism with inhibiting technical
difficulties in fixing the steel frame to the RC frame.
To overcome the shortcomings of the indirect internal
bracing, Maheri and Sahebi [9] first recommended using direct
connections between the brace elements and RC frame without

c 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.12.016
 M.R. Maheri, H. Ghaffarzadeh / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1938–1948
the need for an intermediary steel frame. In an experimental
work, they showed the ability of this bracing system to enhance
the strength capacity of RC frames.The later experimental work
on directly-braced model frames by Tasnimi and Masoomi [10]
also showed the applicability of this method. Recent analytical
work carried out by Abou-Elfath and Ghobarah [11,12] on both
concentric and eccentric direct internal bracing in non-ductile
RC buildings also showed an improvement in the seismic
performance, particularly when using eccentric bracing.
In a continuation of their previous work, Maheri et al. [13]
conducted experimental investigations on pushover response
of scaled RC frames; braced with both diagonal bracing and
knee bracing systems. In this study the effectiveness of the
two bracing systems in increasing some seismic performance
parameters was shown. Also, in a theoretical study, Maheri and
Akbari presented the behaviour factor, R, for this class of dual
systems [14].
Appropriate design of direct connections between the
bracing members and the RC frame is important to achieve
the required lateral load capacity. Maheri and Hadjipour [15]
proposed a connection that minimizes the eccentricity of
the brace member force. This allows transferring the brace
force to the corner of the RC frame without producing
local damage in concrete members. Using the results of
an experimental program conducted on a number of full-
scale connections, they also presented design guidelines for
the brace–frame connections in the new construction. Recent
experimental works by Youssef et al. [16] and Ghaffarzadeh
and Maheri [17,18] have shown further that different directly-
connected internal bracing systems can be used effectively in
the retrofitting of existing concrete frames as well as shear
resisting elements for the construction of new RC structures.
An important consideration in the design of internally-
braced RC frames with direct brace–frame connections is
the level of interaction between the strength capacities
of the RC frame and the bracing system. In this paper,
results of experimental and numerical investigations aimed
at investigating the causes and evaluating the level of this
interaction are discussed. Three specimens representing RC
moment frames with moderate ductility, two of which were
braced, were designed. Current seismic codes were used to
design the moment frames. The model frames were subjected
to cyclic loads. Their test results are compared and discussed.
These results are also used as the basis for developing and
calibrating numerical models of full-scale frames. Using the
numerical models, a parametric investigation is carried out to
determine the role of the main variable parameters affecting
the level of capacity interaction between the RC frame and the
bracing system.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Test specimens and results
Unit frames were modelled using a mid-span panel
measuring 4.0 m by 3.0 m from the third floor of a four-
storey frame with the dimensions of 12.0 m by 12.0 m. It
1939
was assumed that the building is located in a highly seismic
area. Two lateral load resisting systems, namely; moment
frames and braced moment frames, were considered. The
gravity and earthquake forces acting on the moment frame
were determined in accordance with Iranian Seismic Code [19]
using the seismic force reduction factor for moment frames with
moderate ductility. Appropriate upgrading or added seismic
loads were considered for the bracing system in the braced
moment frames, based on the scaled capacities of the steel
sections used in the model frames as discussed below.
The size of the model frames was limited to the available
laboratory space and equipment limits. A 2/5 scaled model,
measuring 1.76 m by 1.36 m, was found satisfactory. The
gravity forces acting on the models were also scaled down by a
factor of (2/5)2 . This factor was chosen to keep the stresses in
the scaled model similar to the full-scale panel. The boundary
conditions for the tested frames were chosen such that the
internal forces developed in them are similar to those developed
in reality. Two hinged supports were thus used to support the
frames. The dimensions of the beams and columns were chosen
to be 140 mm by 160 mm.
Three frames were designed and constructed, one moment
frame (F1) and two moment frames with bracing (FX1 and
FX2). The RC moment frames in the three frames had
identical dimensions and flexural reinforcements, giving them
identical flexural capacities. The moment frames were designed
according to ACI 318-02 [20] and their detailing was done
in accordance with the ACI special provisions for seismic
design. Reinforcement details for the RC frames are shown
in Fig. 1. AISC-LRFD [21] was used to design the brace
members and their welded connections to the guest plates. Their
design was also checked using the AISC seismic provisions
for steel structures [22]. Two types of bracing members were
considered; slender double angle cross-section for the frame
FX1 and non-slender channel cross-section for frame FX2.
Details of these sections are also shown in Fig. 1. The RC
frames were first constructed. Two 150 × 120 × 10 mm plates
were placed at each corner of the frames. The plates were cast
in concrete using four 16 mm stud rods. The bracing members
were then attached to the RC frame at the four corners using
150 × 150 × 10 mm gusset plates.
The frames were tested using the setup presented in [18]
(Fig. 2). An actuator was used to apply several cycles of in-
plane shear load using a displacement-controlled approach. In
each cycle, the actuator was first pulled to a displacement of
5 mm (drift of 0.417%) then pushed to the same displacement.
The displacement was increased in the following cycles by
increments of 5 mm. Strain gauges were used to monitor strains
in the beam–column joint, the transverse reinforcement of the
columns, and the longitudinal reinforcement of the beams.
The lateral load–drift hysteresis for the frames F1, FX1 and
FX2 are shown in Fig. 3. The initial stiffness of the braced
frame was expectedly higher than that of the unbraced frame.
The yield and failure drifts of the frame F1 were 1.67% and
5.00%, respectively and those of the frames FX1 and FX2 were
2.08%, 4.0%, and 2.5%, 4.3%, respectively. This shows that the
ductility of frame F1 was 3.0 and that of frames FX1 and FX2
1940 M.R. Maheri, H. Ghaffarzadeh / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1938–1948
Fig. 1. Detailing of the moment and braced RC frames.
Fig. 2. Setup for cyclic testing of model frames.
were 1.9 and 1.7, respectively. It is clear from the hysteretic
behaviour that the pinching was less significant in the braced
frames, which indicates an overall better seismic performance.
The behaviour of the tested models was significantly
different. For the model F1, the first observed crack occurred at
the load of 30.0 kN. It was a flexural crack in the bottom beam
at the face of the column. On increasing the level of applied
displacement, flexural cracks increased in number and width.
No shear cracks were observed for this specimen. At a load of
37.5 kN, yielding of the bottom bars of the lower beam initiated
the plastic response. Failure occurred by plastic hinging at the
ends of the top and bottom beams at a load of 55 kN.
The observed cracking load for the frame FX1 was 90.0 kN.
Cracks noted in this model were less in number and smaller
in width compared to those for the moment frame. At a
load of 105.0 kN, yielding of a brace member initiated the
plastic response. Failure occurred by the buckling of the
compressive brace, which was directly followed by plastic
hinging of the ends of the bottom and top beams. The failure
load for this frame was 140 kN. It should be noted that the
brace member connections, including welds and headed studs,
behaved adequately. The frame FX2 exhibited almost linear
behaviour because of the amount of bracing in comparison to
frame FX1. In this frame, first cracks were observed at the load
of 140 kN. On increasing lateral drift, failure happened at the
load of 200 kN.
2.2. Experimental brace–frame capacity interaction
When designing steel-braced RC frames, the level of
interaction between the strength capacities of the RC frame and
 M.R. Maheri, H. Ghaffarzadeh / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1938–1948
Fig. 3. Lateral load–drift hysteresis of frames (a) F1 (b) FX1 and (c) FX2.
the bracing system should be established. To investigate this
interaction in the tested model frames, the corresponding forces
in the bracing systems alone were evaluated by considering
the relevant test displacements on the diagonals. A simple
bilinear model for steel, which accounts for cyclic effects, was
assumed and used to represent the force-deflection envelop
curve of the bracing system alone. The envelop curve of the
calculated force–drift relationship for the FX1 bracing system
alone (marked as No. 2 in the figure) is plotted in Fig. 4.
Also plotted in this figure, for comparison, are the experimental
envelop of the force–drift relationship of the moment frame
alone, F1, (marked as No. 1 in the figure) and the experimental
envelop of the force–drift curves of the FX1-braced frame. To
be able to gain an insight into the level of capacity interaction
between different elements, the envelop curves of the bracing
1941
Fig. 4. Comparisons between experimental lateral load–drift envelop curves of
the moment frame, F1, bracing system and the braced RC frame, FX1.
Fig. 5. Comparisons between the experimental lateral load–drift envelop
curves of the moment frame, F1, bracing system and the braced RC frame,
FX2.
system alone (2) and the moment RC frame (1) added together
to obtain the sum strength capacity of the two elements are also
presented in Fig. 4 ((1) + (2)). By comparing the sum strength
capacity of the two constituent elements with the actual strength
capacity of the braced frame, it is evident that the actual braced
frame exhibits a larger capacity than the sum of the capacities of
the two elements. This means that by adding a bracing system to
an RC frame, the capacity of the RC frame is increased beyond
the capacity of the bracing system. The positive interaction
is evidently due to the stiffening effects of the connections
between the RC frame and the bracing system. The capacity
interaction for the frame FX1 is measured, as the minimum of
all the evaluated values, as 8.5%. It should be noted that the
dimensions and reinforcement details and therefore the flexural
capacities of the RC frames in F1 and FX1 models are the
same. This enables us to make a viable capacity interaction
comparison as discussed above.
Similarly, the calculated strength capacity of the bracing
system of frame FX2 and the experimental strength capacities
of the moment frame, F1, and the braced frame FX2 are
plotted in Fig. 5. Also plotted in this figure is the sum of the
strength capacities of the bracing system and the RC frame
alone. Similar capacity interaction can be seen in this case.
The increased capacity for the frame FX2 is measured as 7.0%.
Considering the experimental results, it is evident that the
1942 M.R. Maheri, H. Ghaffarzadeh / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1938–1948
Fig. 6. The finite element models of (a) unbraced and (b) braced unit frames.
capacity interaction is an overstrength which can be attributed
mainly to the effects of brace–frame connections in reducing
the effective lengths of the RC beams and columns, hence
increasing the stiffness and strength of the frame. It should
be noted that the RC frames of models FX1 and FX2 are
identical in dimensions and detail, FX2 model being stiffer
(or stronger) compared to the FX1 model only because it
has a stronger brace. Therefore, it is expected that the level
of capacity interaction is the same in the two models. The
small difference between the capacity interaction in model FX1
(8.5%) and model FX2 (7%) is due to the expected differences
in the experimental data from which these interaction levels are
evaluated.
3. Numerical evaluation of overstrength
3.1. Numerical models
To investigate the level of connection overstrength in full-
scale X-braced RC frames, nonlinear pushover numerical
analyses of the moment frame, braced frames and the bracing
systems were carried out. The OpenSEES (Open System
for Earthquake Engineering Simulation) program was utilised
to numerically model the frames. The program has a vast
library of elements and is capable of performing nonlinear
analysis in two and three dimensions using different material
models. The beams and columns of the frames were modelled
using nonlinear beam–column element of the program, suitable
for modelling reinforced concrete. In this element, different
constituents are represented as strings along the length of
the element. In the element cross-section, concrete is divided
into two different string types representing the weaker,
cover section and the stronger, confined core section. Steel
reinforcements are also represented as individual strings. The
element uses a curvature-dependent linear distribution of non-
elastic properties of the material. A representing nonlinear
constitutive law was used for the concrete material and
a bilinear stress–strain relation was adopted for the steel
Fig. 7. Calibration of the numerical model of moment frame F1 with the
experimental results, using the cyclic pushover envelops.
material. The reinforced concrete beam–column connections
were modelled using zero-length elements by which the
translational and rotational stiffness of the connections could be
specified. Simple truss elements with nonlinear responses were
also used to model the bracing elements. The finite element
representations of unit frames with bracing and without bracing
are shown in Fig. 6. In the 2D nonlinear analysis of the frames,
axial and shear deformations of the beam and column elements,
as well as the secondary effects, such as P-Delta, are also
accounted for.
The numerical models described above were calibrated
and their accuracy ascertained by comparing the results of
the nonlinear cyclic analysis of the moment frame F1 and
the braced frame FX1 with the results obtained from their
respective cyclic tests. The results of the numerical cyclic
analysis and the experimental responses, presented in the form
of the response envelop curves, are shown in Fig. 7 for frame
F1 and in Fig. 8 for the braced frame FX1. The numerical
and experimental results for the moment frame F1 match
favourably, as seen in Fig. 7. Also, for frame FX1, the results
compare well for most parts. In later loading cycles, however,
local failures result in a faster degradation of strength in tested
frames compared with the numerical prediction (Fig. 8).
 M.R. Maheri, H. Ghaffarzadeh / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1938–1948 1943

Fig. 8. Calibration of the numerical model of moment frame FX1 with the
experimental results, using the cyclic pushover envelops.

3.2. Numerical evaluation of capacity interaction

After calibrating the numerical models, a series of

nonlinear pushover analyses were conducted on full-scale 2D
frames of different heights and widths with different bracing
configurations. These included frames, 4-, 8- and 12-storeys
high and 3-, 6- and 9-bays wide. The number of braced bays
in each frame was also made a function of the number of
bays such that the 3-, 6- and 9-bay frames had, respectively,
1-, 2- and 3-bays braced. Fig. 9 shows the 8-storey frames
considered. The number of bays and the bracing configuration
for the 4-storey and the 12-storey high frames are similar
to those shown in Fig. 9. All frames consisted of 3m high
and 5m wide unit frames. Another variable parameter in this
investigation is the apportioned share of bracing system from
the applied loading. Load shares of 30%, 50%, 80% and 100%
for bracing system are considered. As it was mentioned earlier,
the main factor contributing to the interaction is the effect of
connections on reducing the effective lengths of beams and
columns. Therefore, another variable parameter considered is
the ratio of the length of connection plates (L e ) to the length
of their associated beam (L b ). Practical values of (L e )/(L b ) = Fig. 10. Pushover curves for (a) 4-storey, 3-bay (b) 8-storey, 3-bay and (c) 12-
0.05, 0.075, 0.10, 0.125, 0.15, 0.175 and 0.20 are considered. storey, 3-bay frames with 100% brace share of load and (L e )/(L b ) = 0.1.
Two hundred and fifty two braced frames were thus designed.
Details of the loading considered and design of each frame and frame. Typical pushover curves are shown in Fig. 10. In this
bracing system are given in [23]. figure the sum of the individual response of the RC frame
For each frame, three nonlinear pushover analyses were and the bracing system are also plotted so that the level of
carried out. These included; (i) pushover analysis of the RC overstrength in the braced frame can be observed.
frame without the bracing system, (ii) pushover analysis of the The overstrength for each frame was then quantified
bracing system alone and (iii) pushover analysis of the braced by considering a lower bound value at displacements

Fig. 9. The 8-storey frames considered for the analysis.

1944 M.R. Maheri, H. Ghaffarzadeh / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1938–1948

Table 1
The overstrength values for the 4-storey frames (%)

No. of bays Share of brace (%) (L e )/(L b )

0.05 0.075 0.10 0.125 0.15 0.175 0.20
30 6.00 8.00 11.0 12.6 14.5 15.6 18.0
50 5.75 7.70 10.5 12.0 14.0 15.0 17.4
3
80 5.65 7.50 10.3 11.8 13.5 14.7 16.9
100 5.40 7.20 9.90 11.3 13.0 14.0 16.3

30 7.25 10.7 12.5 14.0 16.7 18.5 19.2

50 7.00 10.3 12.0 13.5 15.9 17.8 18.5
6
80 6.80 10.0 11.8 13.2 15.3 17.5 18.0
100 6.50 11.6 11.3 12.6 14.9 16.7 17.4

30 8.70 11.0 13.9 15.0 18.0 19.5 21.0

50 8.35 11.0 13.3 14.6 17.3 18.7 20.1
9
80 8.20 10.8 13.1 14.2 16.9 18.3 19.8
100 7.75 10.4 12.6 13.7 16.0 17.6 18.9

corresponding to code-recommended 2% drift for the frame.
Typical overstrength values, designated R, for 4-storey frames
with different number of bays, (L e )/(L b ) and bracing load
share are listed in Table 1. The overstrength values, R,
for the 4-storey and 12-storey frames are also plotted in
Fig. 11. Table 1 and Fig. 11 show that the level of capacity
interaction or brace–frame connection overstrength evaluated
for different frames is a minimum of 5% and for some bracing
configurations can be as high as 20%. The overstrength for
more representing connection types are around 10%. These are
values which cannot be ignored when cost-effective designs are
considered. A closer look at Table 1 and Fig. 11 shows that the
effects of load share of bracing system on the overstrength is
negligible when it is compared with the effects of the parameter
(L e )/(L b ). This was found to be true for all the other frames
analysed. This result indicates that the relative size of the
brace–frame connections and their contribution to the frame
stiffness is the main contributing parameter to the observed
overstrength. As a result, the effects of load share of bracing
(or the cross-sectional area of the braces) on the overstrength
is neglected and for further investigations the load share of
bracing was assumed to be constant at 100% which is also on
the safe side.
3.3. Simple presentation of connection overstrength
In the above analyses, the parameter (L e )/(L b ) was
assumed to loosely represent the effect of connections on
the overstrength. However, this parameter does not take into
consideration the influence of connections on the stiffness
of the columns. Therefore, considering the nature of the
interaction, a more representing parameter can be introduced
as the ratio of the effective stiffness of the RC frame with
brace–frame connections (K r ) to the stiffness of the RC frame
without the brace–frame connections (K i ) and designated as ρ.
Considering that the connections reduce the effective lengths
of RC beams and columns, the effective stiffness of the frame
with brace–frame connections corresponds to the stiffness of
a reduced frame as shown in Fig. 12. For simplicity and
conservatively, the reduced frame is assumed to have beams and
columns of lengths equal to the distances between the centroids
of the four gusset plates as seen in Fig. 12. Also, for practical
purposes, the parameter ρ is calculated as the ratio of the linear
stiffness of the reduced RC frame of a central floor (K r ) and
the linear stiffness of the initial RC frame of the same central
floor (K i ), also shown in Fig. 12. The lateral, linear (initial
or secant) stiffness of such a one-storey frame having upper
and lower beams can be calculated analytically using the well-
known relation [23];
24E
K =   (1)
L 2c P2 + P1 + P1
Kc K bb K bt
where, K c , K bb and K bt , are I /L for columns, lower beams and
upper beams, respectively and L c , is the effective height of the
frame.
The stiffness ratio, ρ, as described above was calculated
for all the frames analysed. The overstrength factors, R,
previously determined for these frames with different problem
variables are plotted against the stiffness ratio for different
frame geometries considered. Typical plots for the 4-storey and
12-storey frames are shown in Fig. 13. A near linear relation
between the two parameters can be seen for all cases. This
enables us to draw linear relations between the two parameters
as also presented in Fig. 13.
To condense the results of the 9 relations thus obtained, the
linear relation for the 4-storey, 3-bay frame will be considered
as the base overstrength, Rb , and the effects of the two
main variable parameters including the number of braced bays
(number of bays in the frame) and the number of storeys
will be considered respectively as correction factors α and β.
Therefore;
R = αβ Rb (%) (2)
where,
Rb = 32ρ − 27.
The variation in factor α, against the number of braced bays for
different stiffness ratios are plotted in Fig. 14(a). Similar plots
are presented in Fig. 14(b) for variation in factor β against the
 M.R. Maheri, H. Ghaffarzadeh / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1938–1948 1945

Fig. 11. The overstrength values, R, for the 4-storey, (a) 3-bay (b) 6-bay and (c) 9-bay and the 12-storey, (d) 3-bay (e) 6-bay and (f) 9-bay frames.

Fig. 12. The reduced frame dimensions for the calculation of effective stiffness.
1946 M.R. Maheri, H. Ghaffarzadeh / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1938–1948

Fig. 13. The overstrength, R as a function of ρ for (a) 4-storey, 3-bay, (b) 4-storey, 6-bay (c) 4-storey, 9-bay (d) 12-storey, 3-bay, (e) 12-storey, 6-bay and (d)
12-storey, 9-bay frames.

number of storeys. Fig. 14(a) indicates that the dependence of
factor α on the number of braced panels is strongly influenced
by the stiffness ratio, ρ; such that for weaker brace–frame
connections, the number of braced panels has marginal effect
on α, whereas for stiffer brace–frame connections, α varies
considerably with the number of braced panels. It is evident
that the contribution of the number of bays by themselves to
the stiffness of the frame is minimal. Any contribution to the
stiffness arises from the number of braced bays and the stiffness
of connections. This point can also be deduced from Fig. 15,
in which the frame stiffness ratio, ρ, is plotted against the
connection stiffness parameter (L e )/(L b ) for the 4-storey and
8-storey frames.
Variations in factor β, presented graphically in Fig. 14(b),
however, show that the effect of brace–frame connection
stiffness on this parameter is markedly less than the effect of
number of storeys. This is expected when we consider the fact
that, unlike the number of bays, the height of a frame greatly
influences its stiffness.
In order that quantitative relations can be drawn between the
factors α and β and the stiffness ratio ρ, the former parameters
are plotted against the latter in Fig. 16(a) and (b), respectively.
 M.R. Maheri, H. Ghaffarzadeh / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1938–1948 1947

Fig. 15. Relation between stiffness ratio ρ and connection stiffness parameter
L e /L b .

Fig. 14. Variation in (a) α with number of braced bays and (b) β with number
of storeys.

Noting the near linear variation of α against ρ the following

relations can be presented for this correction factor;
α = 0.16m + 0.84, for 0.0 < ρ ≤ 1.0
α = 0.09m + 0.91, for 1.0 < ρ ≤ 1.25 (3)
α = 0.06m + 0.94, for 1.25 < ρ ≤ 1.40.
Also, as the variation of β with ρ is small, this correction
factor can be presented independent of the stiffness ratio in the
following form;
β = 0.0425n + 0.84. (4)
In Eqs. (3) and (4), m and n are the number of braced bays and
the number of storeys, respectively.

4. Conclusions

The conclusions drawn from the experimental and numerical

investigations on the nature and level of capacity interaction
between the bracing system and RC frame may be summarised
as follows;
1. The overstrength in a braced RC frame is due to the
stiffening effects of connections. This overstrength is termed
the capacity interaction or connection overstrength. It is
significant and needs to be considered in the design. Fig. 16. Values of correction factors α and β for all frames.
1948 M.R. Maheri, H. Ghaffarzadeh / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1938–1948
2. The important parameters affecting the capacity interaction
are recognised as the number of braced bays and the number
of frame storeys. The third important parameter is the
stiffening effects of the connections taken into consideration
as a stiffness ratio.
3. The connection overstrength, R, for different 2D concentri-
cally cross-braced frames are determined and presented in
simple forms for use in the design of internally-braced RC
frames.
4. Presentation of the connection overstrength in the form of
a frame stiffness ratio, ρ, may enable us to use the results
and formulations presented here for other types of concentric
and eccentric bracing systems. This point, however, needs
further verification.
References
[1] Bush TD, Jones EA, Jirsa JO. Behavior of RC frame strengthened using
structural-steel bracing. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1991;
117(4):1115–26.
[2] Badoux M, Jirsa JO. Steel bracing of RC frames for seismic retrofitting.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1990;116(1):55–74.
[3] Higashi Y, Endo T, Shimizu Y. Experimental studies on retrofitting of
reinforced concrete structural members. In: Proceedings of the second
seminar on repair and retrofit of structures. Ann Arbor (MI): National
Science Foundation; 1981. p. 126–55.
[4] Nateghi-Alahi F. Seismic strengthening of eight-storey RC apartment
building using steel braces. Engineering Structures 1995;17(6):455–61.
[5] Usami H, Azuchi T, Kamiya Y, Ban H. Seismic strengthening of existing
reinforced concrete buildings in Shizuoka prefecture, Japan. In: Proc. 9th
world conf. on earthquake engineering, vol. VII. 1988. p. 421–6.
[6] Ohishi H, Takahashi M, Yamazaki Y. A seismic strengthening design and
practice of an existing reinforced concrete school building in Shizuoka
city. In: Proc. 9th world conf. on earthquake engineering, vol. VII. 1988,
p. 415–20.
[7] Hjelmstad KD, Foutch DA, Del Valle E, Downs RE. Forced vibration
studies of an RC building retrofit with steel bracing. In: Proc. 9th world
conf. on earthquake engineering, vol. VII. 1988. p. 469–74.
[8] Tagawa Y, Aoki H, Huang T, Masuda H. Experimental study of new
seismic strengthening method for existing RC structure. In: 10th world
conf. on earthquake engineering. 1992, p. 5193–8.
[9] Maheri MR, Sahebi A. Use of steel bracing in reinforced concrete frames.
Engineering Structures 1997;19(12):1018–24.
[10] Tasnimi A, Masoomi A. Evaluation of response reinforced concrete
frames strengthened with steel bracing. In: Proc. 3rd int. conf. on seism.
and earthq. engng. 1999 [in Persian].
[11] Abou-Elfath H, Ghobarah A. Behaviour of reinforced concrete frames
rehabilitated with concentric steel bracing. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering 2000;27:433–44.
[12] Ghobarah A, Abou-Elfath H. Rehabilitation of a reinforced concrete
frames using eccentric steel bracing. Engineering Structures 2001;23:
745–55.
[13] Maheri MR, Kousari R, Razazan M. Pushover tests on steel X-braced and
knee-braced RC frames. Engineering Structures 2003;25:1697–705.
[14] Maheri MR, Akbari R. Seismic behaviour factor, R, for steel X-braced
and knee-braced RC buildings. Engineering Structures 2003;25(12):
1505–1513.
[15] Maheri MR, Hadjipour A. Experimental investigation and design of
steel brace connection to RC frame. Engineering Structures 2003;25:
1707–1714.
[16] Youssef MA, Ghaffarzadeh H, Nehdi M. Seismic performance of RC
frames with concentric internal steel bracing. Engineering Structures
2007;29(7):1561–8.
[17] Ghaffarzadeh H, Maheri MR. Mechanical compression release device in
steel bracing system for retrofitting RC frames. Earthquake Engineering
and Engineering Vibration 2006;5(1).
[18] Ghaffarzadeh H, Maheri MR. Cyclic tests on the internally braced RC
frames. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering 2006;8(3).
[19] Iranian code of practice for seismic resistance design of buildings.
Standard No. 2800, 3rd ed. 2005.
[20] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete
(ACI 318-02). Detroit (MI): American Concrete Institute; 2002.
[21] AISC Manual of steel construction: load and resistance factor design. 3rd
ed. Chicago (IL): American Institute of Steel Construction; 2001.
[22] AISC. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago (IL):
American Institute of Steel Construction; 2002.
[23] Ghaffarzadeh H. Design basis for internally-braced RC frames. Ph.D.
thesis, Shiraz (Iran): Shiraz University; 2006.