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

net/publication/328497304

A NUMERICAL STUDY ON THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A SIX-STOREY STEEL

ECCENTRICALLY BRACED DUAL SYSTEM WITH EQUAL STRENGTH JOINTS

Conference Paper · October 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 105

3 authors, including:

Chavdar Penelov Irena Hadzhiyaneva

University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy
4 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    6 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EQUALJOINTS PLUS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chavdar Penelov on 26 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО
СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018
XVIII ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BY
CONSTRUCTION AND ARHITECTURE VSU'2018

A NUMERICAL STUDY ON THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A SIX-STOREY

STEEL ECCENTRICALLY BRACED DUAL SYSTEM WITH EQUAL
STRENGTH JOINTS

Chavdar Penelov1, Irena Hadzhiyaneva2, Nikolaj Rangelov3

Department of Steel and Timber Structures, UACEG, Sofia

Abstract: A study on a dual eccentrically braced frame (moment resisting frame and
eccentrically braced frame) for a six-storey office building is presented. Both systems
are designed to resist simultaneously the seismic action in the considered direction.
The steel structure is designed to EN 1998-1 with high ductility class. The moment
resisting beam-to-column joints are designed as equal strength joints according to
the recommendations of the EQUALJOINTS European project.
Seismic assessment is performed by static nonlinear pushover analysis and
incremental dynamic analysis. The latter is carried out for a set of selected seismic
records to estimate the structural response to seismic actions of the dual system. The
results are compared to those obtained by the design procedure based on the elastic
response spectrum analysis and the capacity design methodology of EN 1998-1.

Key words: Seismic response, dual system, steel eccentrically braced frame, joints,
connections, nonlinear pushover analysis, incremental dynamic analysis

1. Introduction
Along with the common structural types of primary earthquake resisting structures,
dual systems combining moment resisting frames with concentric or eccentric bracings are
quite promising for seismic applications. On the other hand, their response to seismic
actions is more complex and additional research is needed in this context.
In this paper, a study on a dual eccentrically braced frame (moment resisting frame,
MRF, plus eccentrically braced frame, EBF) for a six-storey office building is presented.
Both systems are designed to resist simultaneously the seismic action in the considered
direction. The steel structure is designed to EN 1998-1 with high ductility class. The
moment resisting beam-to-column joints are designed as equal strength joints according to
the recommendations of the EQUALJOINTS European project [1].
Nonlinear static pushover analysis is used for preliminary assessment of structural
response. Dynamic nonlinear analysis is carried out for a set of seismic records to estimate

1
Chavdar Penelov, Dr. Eng., Assist. Prof., Department of Steel and Timber Structures, UACEG, bul. Hristo
Smirnenski 1, BG-1046 Sofia; email: fox_man@abv.bg
2
Irena Hadzhiyaneva, Dr. Eng., Assist. Prof., Department of Steel and Timber Structures, UACEG, bul.
Hristo Smirnenski 1, BG-1046 Sofia; email: irena.hadzhiyaneva@gmail.com
3
Nikolaj Rangelov, Dr. Eng., Professor, Department of Steel and Timber Structures, UACEG, bul. Hristo
Smirnenski 1, BG-1046 Sofia; email: nick.rangelov@gmail.com
 XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО
СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018
XVIII ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BY
CONSTRUCTION AND ARHITECTURE VSU'2018

the structural response of the dual system to seismic actions. The nonlinear analyses are
performed with the OpenSees computational framework [2]. The results are compared to
those obtained by the simple design procedures based on the elastic analysis and response
spectrum method.

2. Design of example dual system

The example six-storey office building is located at a site with reference ground
acceleration ag,R = 0,35g, ground type B, characterised by response spectrum type 1
according to EN1998-1 [3]. The building dimensions are 24×24 m with 6 m grid spacing in
both directions. The lateral load resisting systems are located in the building perimeter
only, two dual frames in each direction. Additional interior gravity columns carry only the
vertical loads, which are transferred by a floor framing system with simple primary and
secondary beams. The considered in the example dual EBF is one of those perpendicular to
the secondary beams, and is shown in Fig. 1a.

MRF EBF MRF

a)(a) (b) b) (c)

Fig.1. a) Scheme of the example dual EBF-MRF system; b) ES beam-to-column joint [1]

It is worth noting that in case of such a structural arrangement, for the considered dual
system the tributary width for gravity loads is 6/2 = 3m, while the tributary area for the
seismic masses is half of the total floor area. Thus, from the seismic combination
(Gk + ψ2Qk) the concentrated force from a secondary beam is only F1 = 27,4 kN, while the
total storey mass is 110 t.
The preliminary member design is based on the lateral force method using the
simplified formula for the fundamental period of vibration [3], giving T1 = 0,74 s, and
assuming the upper limit for high ductility class (DCH) for the behaviour factor q = 6. The
adopted cross-sections are then verified by modal response spectrum analysis (RSA).

Table 1. Dual system member cross-sections

Storey EBF beams* (B2) Diagonals MRF beams (B1, B3) Columns
1 HEA 260 SHS 160×12 IPE 240 HEB 320
2 HEA 260 SHS 160×12 IPE 240 HEB 320
3 HEA 260 SHS 160×12 IPE 240 HEA 320
4 HEA 220 SHS 140×10 IPE 240 HEA 320
5 HEA 180 SHS 140×10 IPE 240 HEA 320
6 HEA 140 SHS 120×8 IPE 240 HEA 320
* EBF seismic links are parts of the EBF beams.
 XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО
СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018
XVIII ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BY
CONSTRUCTION AND ARHITECTURE VSU'2018

As expected, the obtained by modal analysis fundamental period is substantially

different (T1 = 1,02 s), therefore the behaviour factor in this analysis is reduced to q = 4 to
provide approximately equal design base shear forces (690 kN from RSA and 650 kN from
lateral force method). The example structure appears non-sway. The finally adopted
member cross-sections are summarised in Table 1.
A dual system consists of two component substructures, and the distribution of the
lateral forces between them is an important issue. Clause 6.10.2 (1) of [3] requires
distributing the seismic forces between the substructures (MRF and EBF) according to
their elastic stiffness. However, due to the large difference in these stiffnesses, the
plastification always starts in the braced frame, thus leading to a decrease of its own
stiffness. Therefore, this assumption is on the side of safety for the braced frame (and for
the seismic links accordingly), but is always non-conservative for the MRF component of
the dual system. Therefore additional assumption is adopted to design the MRF for 25% of
the total base shear of the dual system, as recommended by ASCE/SEI 7-16 [4]. In the
linear analysis this is accounted for by a secondary frame model for the MRF alone. On the
other hand, the MRF may be considered braced by the stiffer EBF system and the second
order effects and interstorey drift limits are not verified in the MRF design. The obtained
for the dual system interstorey drifts meet damage limitation (DL) drift limit, which is
adopted 1% of storey height.
The design procedure starts with the design of the EBF subsystem and continues with
verifications of the MRF member cross-sections. Crucial for the EBF dual system
behaviour is the design of the EBF ductile seismic links. In this example, short seismic
links are adopted, and designed as members in shear accordingly. On the base of the link
overstrength factor, the diagonals of the EBF system are designed as non-dissipative
members in compression and bending according to the capacity design procedure of
EN1998-1 [3]; the same procedure is applied to the columns as part of both MRF and EBF
systems. Considering EN 1998-1 design philosophy for dual systems as combination of
two different ductile subsystems, the design of columns is performed in two steps: firstly
as non-dissipative members of EBF, and secondly as MRF members, using the obtained
MRF beam overstrength factor. Thus the function of the MRF component subsystem as
‘second line of defense’ is ensured. At the final step of the design, the column internal
forces are verified by nonlinear dynamic analysis.
The MRF beam-to-column joints are designed with extended stiffened (ES) end plate
bolted connections (Fig. 1b). The behaviour of this type prequalified joints is one of the
investigated within the EQUALJOINTS project and the joint design follows the procedure
prescribed in [1]. In the present study, the joints are designed as equal strength joints with
strong panel zone. In this case the possible plastic deformations are distributed between the
plastic hinges in the beams (next to the ribs) and the bolted end-plate connections. This
concept is realised by the assumption that the design moment at the beam plastic hinge
location is equal to the beam plastic moment resistance Mpl,b,Rd. Additionally, to prevent
brittle failure of bolts in tension, ductility criteria based on the governing failure modes of
the equivalent T-stub in tension are introduced in [1]. In the case of the ES connections
considered, the governing failure mode corresponds to end plate plastification (Mode 1),
which means that the ES connections are of the highest ductility level (Level 1) according
to [1]. The obtained design bending moment resistance of the ES connections appears
about 25% higher than the design moment at the column face. As long as the MRF beams
are not expected to yield at the design earthquake (DE) [5], the large rotational capacity of
the joints will not be able to be demonstrated at this earthquake intensity. The column web
panels of the joints fulfil the requirements for strong panel zone without additional
strengthening by supplementary web plates. The joint bending resistance, estimated on the
 XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО
СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018
XVIII ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BY
CONSTRUCTION AND ARHITECTURE VSU'2018

base of the shear resistance of the web panel zones of the columns with cross sections
HEA320 and HEB320, appear larger than the design moments (calculated for the column
face according to the single sided joint design procedure) with 40% and 80%, respectively.
Finally, according to EQUALJOINTS [1] classification of joints, the considered
joints are classified as equal strength rigid joints with strong panel zones. The designed
beam-to-column joints are shown in Fig. 2a.

3. Finite element modelling of the potential dissipative zones

For the purposes of the nonlinear analysis, the elastic-plastic behaviour of the MRF
joints is accounted for by the use of a refined joint model. The behaviour of the end-plate
connection and the panel zone is simulated by separate springs with tri-linear ‘moment-
rotation’ skeleton curves defined according to EN 1993-1-8 [6] and EQUALJOINTS
recommendations [1]. The web panel zone model proposed by Jin et al. [7] is used. The
finite element model of MRF beam-to-column joints is presented in Fig. 2b.

Column

S con
Beam
S wp Beam
L rib plastic
hinge
Column

a) b)
Fig. 2. MRF beam-to-column joint: a) joint detail; b) FE joint model

The calculated initial rotational stiffness of the ES connections, Scon,ini, and of the
web panel zones, Swp,ini, are shown in Table 2, normalised to the beam linear bending
stiffness Sb = E Ib / ℓ.
Table 2. Relative initial stiffness
Web panel zones End-plate connections
Storey
Swp,ini / Sb Scon,ini / Sb
1,2 80 33
3,4,5,6 64 30

The negligible difference between the fundamental periods of vibration obtained

from models with or without consideration of the joint rotational stiffness suggests that the
elastic joint flexibility does not influence significantly the results from the elastic analysis.
The nonlinear behaviour of the steel members (beams, columns and diagonals) is
simulated bу rigid-plastic hinges with properties defined according to [8].
In the case of dual EBF systems, the predominant part of energy dissipation is
realised through hysteretic behaviour of the seismic links, therefore their proper design is
crucial. The adopted detail in the example is illustrated in Fig. 3a. The hysteretic behaviour
of the links is simulated in the FE model by nonlinear rotational springs applied at link
element ends. The spring behaviour is represented by ‘moment – rotation’ relationship
 XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО
СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018
XVIII ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BY
CONSTRUCTION AND ARHITECTURE VSU'2018

based on the proposed in [9] standardised multi-linear backbone curve ‘shear force –
rotation’. According to EN 1998-1 [3], the assumed ultimate shear force in the curve shall
be equal to 1,5 times the shear resistance of the link. According to the EQUALJOINTS
PLUS guidelines, the material overstrength factor γov = 1,25 is taken into account for the
dissipative members in the model.

800

600

Link shear force (kN)

400

200

0
-0,06 -0,01 0,04 0,09 0,14
-200

-400

-600

-800
Total link rotation (rad)

a) b)
Fig. 3. Seismic link element: а) detail; b) hysteretic constitutive multi-linear
model with kinematic strain-hardening

4. Nonlinear static pushover analysis (NSA)

The capacity curves of the dual system and of the MRF alone obtained by NSA with
‘modal’ pattern of lateral forces are plotted in Fig. 4. The target roof displacements
corresponding to the different limit states are calculated based on linear analysis and the
equal displacement rule. As it can be seen, the dual system possesses significant
overstrength due to its redundancy, the strain hardening of the seismic links, and the
contribution of the MRF subsystem. The ultimate seismic link rotation (assumed 0,12 rad
according to [8] for short seismic link element with two intermediate stiffeners) is reached
at the third storey and corresponds to the expected horizontal roof displacement for the
maximum considered earthquake (see Table 3), whereas MRF responds elastically.

Fig. 4. Pushover capacity curves obtained for ‘modal’ pattern of the lateral forces
 XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО
СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018
XVIII ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BY
CONSTRUCTION AND ARHITECTURE VSU'2018

Table 3. Accelerogram scale factors (SF) for the defined limit states

Reference return period of the seismic action Limit state SF

TR = 95 years Damage limitation (DL) 0,5 *

TR = 475 years (DE) *** Significant damage (SD) 1,0
TR = 2475 years (MCE) **** Near collapse (NC) 1,72 **
* Corresponding to ν = 0,5 used for the calculation of the interstorey drift associated with the DL
requirement according to EN 1998-1;
** According to §2.1 of EN 1998-1;
*** Design earthquake – seismic action with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years;
**** Maximum considered earthquake – seismic action with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years.

5. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)

Several sets of nonlinear dynamic analysis (NDA) have been performed with
variation of the seismic intensity (i.e. incremental dynamic analysis, IDA). A set of seven
accelerograms is adopted, particularly: Hollister, Imperial Valley, Kobe, Kocaeli, Loma
Prieta, Northridge, Trinidad, taken from SeismoMatch [10] library. The seismic records are
matched using a wavelet algorithm [10] so that their elastic response spectra are
compatible with the elastic response spectrum Type 1 of EN 1998-1 [3]. The scale factors
corresponding to the three levels of the seismic action and the relevent limit states are
shown in Table 3. According to [3] the results of the NDA should be definеd as averaged
results obtained from the seven accelerograms used.

6. Results from the nonlinear dynamic analysis (NDA)

6.1. Incremental capacity curves and horizontal roof displacements

The ‘maximum base shear force – maximum roof displacement’ relationships (the
incremental capacity curves) obtained from IDA, are presented in Fig. 5a. The markers of
these curves correspond to the accelerogram scale factors varing within the range from 0 to
1,72. The obtained incremental capacity curves lay between the capacity curves obtained
from NSA with ‘modal’ and with ‘uniform’ lateral load pattern, respectively. The influence
of the higher vibration modes in the IDA leads to an increase of the base shears compared
to those obtained from the NSA with ‘modal’ lateral force pattern. At the same time, the
ratio between the maximum base shear obtained from IDA and the base shear obtained
from the RSA is about 2,5, which should be accounted for in the design of the column
bases and the foundations. As can be seen in Fig. 5a, larger base shear forces correspond to
smaller roof displacement for a given seismic intensity level.
Fig. 5b presents the relationships between the maximum roof displacement and the
accelerogram scale factor for the different accelerograms. As well seen, after first yielding,
the roof displacements from IDA become smaller than the ones calculated on the base of
equal displacement rule.

6.2. Behaviour of the MRF subsystem and the ES beam-to-column joints

The nominal bending resistances of the MRF beams and the EBF columns are
reached at seismic action intensities close to that of the MCE, which contributes to the
recentring of the structure. The elastic behaviour of the MRF beams leads to almost elastic
behaviour of the ES bolted joints. The shear forces in the panel zones of the outer columns
appear larger than those in the panel zones of the inner columns. Therefore, it seems more
appropriate to design the internal joints of the dual system according to the design
 XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО
СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018
XVIII ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BY
CONSTRUCTION AND ARHITECTURE VSU'2018

procedure for single sided beam-to-column joint configuration, using the properties of
MRF beam cross-section.

35 EC8 - Equal displacement rule

2000
Northridge - matched
Hollister - matched
30 Imperial Valley - matched
Kobe - matched
Loma Prieta - matched
1500

Roof displacement (cm)

Trinidad - matched
25
Base shear (kN)

Kocaeli - matched
Median
Mean IDA

IDA curves 20
Northridge - matched
1000 Hollister - matched
Imperial Valley - matched 15 ``
Kobe - matched
Loma Prieta - matched
Fb = 690 kN Trinidad - matched
10
500 Kocaeli - matched
Pushover curves - fragment
5
Pushover-Uniform
Pushover- Modal
EC8 design base shear
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6

Roof displacement (cm) Accelerogram multiplier

а) b)
Fig. 5. Results from IDA: а) capacity curves; b) ‘maximum roof displacements –
accelerogram scale factor’ curves

6.3. Maximum interstorey drift ratio (IDR)

As it can be observed in Fig. 6a, the results from the elastic response spectrum
analysis (RSA) according to EN 1998-1 for seismic action with return period TR = 95 years
(DL) are similar to the mean interstorey drift ratios from the NDA. The common practice
to calculate interstorey drifts from RSA as a difference between the maximum storey
displacements seems not quite justifiable from the point of view of the structural dynamics
[11] and may lead to underestimating of the interstorey drifts at the upper storeys, when the
response of the structure is elastic or with limited plastic deformations. This is more
pronounced for the braced frames. Anyway, the maximum IDR appears below the assumed
DL interstorey limiting drift ratio of 1%.

6 6

5 5

4 4
Storey
Storey

3 3

EC8 RSA 2
2
THA maximum
1 1
THA mean
median

THA minimum 0
0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
Interstorey drift ratios for DL limit state check (%) Interstorey drift ratios : DE (%)
a) b)
Fig. 6. Maximum interstorey drift ratios (IDRs) obtained from NDA: a) related to DL
criteria; b) related to design earthquake (DE) and significant damage (SD) limit state
 XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО
СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018
XVIII ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BY
CONSTRUCTION AND ARHITECTURE VSU'2018

For the design earthquake (DE) IDRs for the upper storeys predicted by the elastic
analysis procedure according to EN 1998-1 are close to the maximum IDRs obtained from
the NDA. The RSA overestimates the maximum roof displacements for the DE (Fig. 5b)
but it is not so conservative in predicting IDRs for the DE, especially for the lower storeys
(Fig. 6b).

6.4. Plastic rotations of the seismic links

The plastic rotations of the link elements obtained from NDA for two seismic
intensity levels, DE and MCE, are shown in Fig. 7a and Fig. 7b, respectively. The
structural behaviour appears quite adequate, because the mean and even the maximum
plastic rotations from the NDA are smaller than the EN 1998-1 limit for DE for short links
(0,08 rad). The mean values of the plastic rotations for the DE should be used for
determination of the required number of the intermediate stiffeners of the links (Fig. 3a).
Apparently, the maximum plastic rotations for MCE at second and third storey exceed
slightly the ultimate rotation of 0,12 rad, which still can be considered acceptable. To
illustrate the link hysteretic behaviour, in the above Fig. 3b is shown in fact the hysteretic
curve of the third storey link with HEA 260 cross-section (Loma Prieta matched
accelerogram with scale factor 1,72).

6 6

5 5

4 THA maximum 4
Storey

Storey

3 THA mean 3

2 THA minimum 2

1 1

0
0
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14
Link plastic rotations at DE (rad) Link plastic rotations at MCE (rad)
а) b)
Fig. 7. Link plastic rotations obtained from: a) design earthquake (DE), SF=1;
b) maximum considered earthquake (MCE), SF=1,72

2,00 Hollister matched accelerogram, MCE, SF=1,72

1,50 IDR Storey 1

Interstorey drift ratio

1,00 IDR Storey 2

Residual IDR = 0,5%
IDR (%)

IDR Storey 3
0,50
IDR Storey 4
0,00 IDR Storey 5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 IDR Storey 6
-0,50
Time (s)
-1,00

-1,50

Fig. 8. Time history plots of IDRs from Hollister matched accelerogram (SF=1,72)
 XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО
СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018
XVIII ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BY
CONSTRUCTION AND ARHITECTURE VSU'2018

6.5. Dual system recentring capability

The maximum residual roof displacements obtained for the MCE are under 0,3% of
the building height. Additionally, the maximum residual IDRs for the MCE are around
0,5% (Fig. 8), and, referring to the criteria of [12], these results confirm a very good
recentring capability of the example dual system and thus prove the possibility for cost-
effective repair even after the seismic action corresponding to MCE.

6.6. Internal forces in diagonals and columns

As suggested in [13], the determination of these internal forces should be based on
the EN1998-1 [3] methodology for capacity design of non-dissipative members of EBF
systems, using ΩEBF factor. The IDA conducted here shows that this approach predicts well
the column axial forces for the NC limit state but underestimates the maximum column
bending moments even for the SD limit state. The reliable prediction of the maximum
bending moments in the first storey columns is essential for the design of the column bases
and for ensuring their elastic behaviour which contributes also to the recentring of the
structure. The methodology for capacity design of the columns as a part of MRF system
given in [3] covers better column bending moment results obtained from NDA for the SD
limit state but also underestimates those bending moments for the NC limit state (Table 4).

Table 4. Comparison between maximum bending moments (kNm) at the column bases

Obtained from the RSA and EN 1998-1

Mean values obtained from the NDA
capacity design procedure for
EBF systems MRF systems SD (SF=1) NC (SF=1,72)
160 314 284 483

Conclusions
In this paper a study on a dual eccentrically braced frame (moment resisting frame
and eccentrically braced frame) for a six-storey office building is presented. The seismic
assessment is performed by static nonlinear pushover analysis and incremental dynamic
analysis. The latter is carried out for a set of selected seismic records to estimate the
structural response to seismic actions of the dual system. The beam-to-column joints of the
MRF are designed as equal strength joints with strong web panel zones, according to the
classification of the EQUALJOINTS European project, with extended stiffened end plate
bolted connections.
The observed seismic behaviour of the example dual system is found satisfactory in
providing structural resistance, stiffness and ductility. One of the presented special features
is the recentring capability resulting from the elastic behaviour of MRF subsystem. As a
result of the MRF elastic behaviour, the actual ‘moment-rotation’ relationship of the equal
strength extended stiffened joints has a very limited effect on the global structural
behaviour. The response spectrum analysis predicts well the interstorey drift ratios for the
DL and SD limit states. To determine the column bending moments for NC limit state
however, it is advisable to use nonlinear dynamic analysis.

Acknowledgements
The research is carried out within the current European EQUALJOINTS PLUS
Project, funded by the RFCS of the European Commission. This support is gratefully
acknowledged.
 XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО
СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018
XVIII ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BY
CONSTRUCTION AND ARHITECTURE VSU'2018

REFERENCES
[1] Landolfo R., M. D’Aniello, S. Costanzo, R. Tartaglia, J.-F. Demonceau, J.-P. Jaspart,
A. Stratan, D. Jakab, D. Dubina, A. Elghazouli, D. Bompa. Volume with information
brochures for 4 seismically qualified joints (EQUALJOINTS), ECCS, 2008.
[2] Mazzoni S., F. McKenna, M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves et al., OpenSees command
language manual, 2007.
[3] ЕN 1998-1: 2004 /AC: 2009: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
[4] ASCE/SEI 7-16. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
[5] Sabau G.A., M. Poljansek, F. Taucer, P. Pegon, F.G. Molina, D. Tirelli, B. Viaccoz,
A. Stratan, A. Ioan-Chesoan, D. Dubina. Full-scale experimental validation of dual
eccentrically braced frame with removable links, JRC, 2014.
[6] EN 1993-1-8: 2005: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-8: Design of
joints.
[7] Jin J., S. El-Tawil, Seismic performance of steel frames with RBS-connections,
Journal of constructional steel research, vol. 61, 2005.
[8] ASCE/SEI 41-06. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, 2007.
[9] Richards P.W., C.-M. Uang. Testing protocol for short links in EBFs, ASCE Journal
of structural engineering, 132:8, 2006.
[10] SeismoMatch, version 2016, Seismosoft, www.seismosoft.com.
[11] Newmark N. M., W. J. Hall. Earthquake spectra and design, EERI, Berkeley, 1982.
[12] McCormick et al., Permissible residual deformation levels for building structures
considering both safety and human elements, 14WCEE, Beijing, China, 2008.
[13] INNOSEIS: Innovative anti-seismic devices and systems, edited by I. Vayas, ECCS,
2017.

View publication stats