Journal of Constructional Steel Research: Articleinfo

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 137 (2017) 262–285
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr
Seismic performance of high-strength steel fabricated eccentrically braced MARK

frame with vertical shear link
Ming Liana,b, Mingzhou Sua,⁎
a
School of Civil Engineering, Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi'an 710055, China
b
Post-doctoral Mobile Stations of Material Science and Engineering, Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi'an 710055, China
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: In high-strength steel fabricated eccentrically braced frame with vertical shear link (HSSEBF-VSL), the vertical
Eccentrically braced frame shear links use conventional steel while beam and column use high-strength steel (HSS). Using HSS for beams
High-strength steel and columns in HSSEBF-VSL can reduce steel weight and increased economic efficiency. In this paper, static tests
Seismic performance for two 1:2 length scaled HSSEBF-VSL specimens with one-bay and one-story were carried out, including one
Experimental study
static pushover test and one cyclic loading test. The failure mode, load-bearing, ductility and energy dissipation
Nonlinear finite element analysis
capacities of the specimens were studied through the two static tests. Shake table test of a 1:2 length scaled
three-story HSSEBF-VSL specimen was used to study its dynamic responses and dynamic strain responses of the
vertical shear links. In addition, the finite element models of several HSSEBF-VSL and conventional EBF with
vertical shear link (EBF-VSL) buildings were established for seismic effects. Nonlinear pushover and dynamic
analyses were conducted to compare their seismic performance and economy. The test results indicated that the
specimen with one-bay and one story had reliable lateral stiffness, ductility and energy dissipation capacity. The
three-story specimen had good lateral stiffness and there was no dangerous of collapse for the specimen during
the severe earthquakes. Under the same design conditions, the seismic performance of HSSEBF-VSL was slightly
lower than that of EBF-VSL if it was designed to match the member section strength of EBF-VSL, but it used less
steel than that of EBF-VSL, which could reduce the usage amount of steel in HSSEBF-VSL.
1. Introduction steel, braces are made of conventional steel or HSS, and other structural
members are made of HSS. As a point of reference, “conventional steel”
Eccentrically braced frames (EBF) is known for its attractive com- is defined as steel with a specified nominal yield stress of up to
bination of high elastic stiffness and superior inelastic performance 345 MPa. “HSS” is defined as steel with a specified nominal yield stress
characteristics. In EBF system, link dissipates the energy induced by above 345 MPa. In HSSEBF-VSL, the shear links dissipate the energy
earthquake loads through its inelastic deformation. Major contributions through the inelastic deformation during the severe earthquakes, the
to the understanding of inelastic deformation of link in EBF for resisting columns and beams remain in elastic or experience only a slight plas-
earthquake motion were primarily made during the 1980s [1–4]. Cur- tification because that the HSS has higher yielding strength than that of
rently, the seismic performance and design method of EBF has been conventional steel. In addition, considering the properties of HSS,
wildly studied [5–10]. Moreover, improvements in the mechanical HSSEBF-VSL will have smaller member cross-sections relative to the
properties and weldability of high-strength steel (HSS) had made HSS conventional EBF with vertical shear link (EBF-VSL), which is designed
an economical alternative to conventional steel in the constructions under the same conditions. Furthermore, the strength of HSS columns
[11–14]. As HSS has a higher strength than conventional steel, the can have higher strength than that of the conventional steel columns of
structural members made of HSS can have smaller cross-sections than equal length and cross-section when compared on a nondimensional
those of structural members made of conventional steel under the same basis [15,16]. Using HSS columns and beams can reduce the member
design conditions. This can reduce the usage amount of steel in the sections and decrease the structural total weight, which can reduce the
structure and improves economy through reduced material costs. damage of the earthquakes to structures [17].
In high-strength steel fabricated eccentrically braced frame with In order to study the seismic performance of HSSEBF-VSL, static and
vertical shear link (HSSEBF-VSL), the shear link is made of conventional dynamic tests were carried out. Static pushover and cyclic loading tests
⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, 13 Yanta Road, Xi'an 710055, China.
E-mail address: sumingzhou@163.com (M. Su).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.06.022
Received 2 November 2016; Received in revised form 13 June 2017; Accepted 24 June 2017
0143-974X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Lian, M. Su Journal of Constructional Steel Research 137 (2017) 262–285
Fig. 1. Prototype structure for static tests.
were used to observe the seismic behaviors of 1:2 length scaled link length in the specimens was 500 mm (eVp / Mp = 1.46; where e,
HSSEBF-VSL specimens with one-bay and one-story, including the load- Vp, and Mp are the link length, plastic shear capacity and plastic mo-
bearing capacity, lateral stiffness, ductility and energy dissipation ca- ment capacity, respectively). Moreover, the shear links were made of
pacity. Shake table test was considered to study the dynamic responses Q345 steel (the nominal yield strength is 345 MPa), while other
of a three-story HSSEBF-VSL specimen, including the dynamic proper- members were made of Q460 steel (the nominal yield strength is
ties, displacement responses and strain responses of shear links. Finally, 460 MPa), including beams, columns and braces. Table 1 shows the
the finite element models (FEMs) of several HSSEBF-VSL and EBF-VSL member sections and the mechanical properties of the steel. The con-
buildings were established for the seismic performance and steel usage nection details of the specimens are shown in Fig. 2.
amount comparison by nonlinear pushover and dynamic analyses.
2. Static test 2.2. Test setup
2.1. Test specimen Fig. 3 shows the setup of the static tests. In this test setup, the lateral
load of the actuator was applied to the load beam to have two identical
A ten-story HSSEBF-VSL building was designed as the prototype lateral loads in both sides of the specimen, so the load beam had much
structure for the static test specimens and it was designed through the higher stiffness than that of the beam. However, if the lateral loads were
design codes of GB50011-2010 [18] and JGJ99-98 [19]. The prototype applied to the beam-end instead of the load beam, it might result in the
structure is shown in Fig. 1. The prototype was characterized using the axial compression deformation occurred at the beam, which would af-
peak ground acceleration for an exceeding probability of 10% ex- fect the performance of the specimen. Thus, using load beam could
ceedance probability a in 50-year period, equal to 0.2 g, and moder- avoid the axial compression deformation of the beam. In order to
ately firm ground conditions. And then the HSSEBF-SLV in the eighth consider the influence of the vertical load transferred from the upper
story of the prototype structure was selected (refer to Fig. 1) and its 1:2 layers and P-delta effects to the performance of the specimens, a con-
scaled specimens were manufactured for the static tests. stant axial load of 400 kN was applied, and using an oil jack pushing
The static tests in this study included a static pushover test and a against the top of the column. The lateral loading condition was gen-
cyclic loading test. One specimen was used for the static pushover test erated using an actuator that was connected to the specimen. In the
and one specimen was used for the cyclic loading test. In order to tests, displacement meters and strain gauges were used to obtain the
compare the performance of these specimens under the different lateral deformation and strain responses of the specimen. Fig. 4 shows the
loads, the specimens in these two tests were same. In these specimens, displacement meter and strain gauge distributions on the specimen.
the story height and span were 1.8 and 3.6 m, respectively. The shear
Table 1
Structural member dimensions and design properties in specimens.
Structural member Links Braces Beams Columns
Steel grade designation Q345 Q460 Q460 Q460

Sectiona H225 × 125 × 6 × 10 H125 × 120 × 6 × 10 H225 × 125 × 6 × 10 H150 × 150 × 6 × 10
Link web thickness, tw 6 6 6 6
Link flange thickness, tf 10 10 10 10
Material nominal yield fy, MPa 345 460 460 460
Material measured yield of web fyaw, MPa 427.40 496.90 496.90 496.90
Material measured yield of flange fyaf 383.33 468.77 468.77 468.77
Material measured strength of web fuaw, MPa 571.10 658.57 658.57 658.57
Material measured strength of flange fuaf, MPa 554.40 627.97 627.97 627.97
Material elongation web, % 26.53 29.73 29.73 29.73
Material elongation flange, % 31.01 35.88 35.88 35.88
a
“H” refers to the welded H-shaped section, the following numbers are the section depth (h), flange width (bf), web thickness (tw), and flange thickness (tf), with unit of mm.
263
Fig. 2. Details of the specimen.
Specimen for static tests
Fig. 3. Test setup.
1-Base platform; 2-Test specimen; 3-Actuator; 4-Oil jack;

5-Lateral plate; 6-Load beam; 7- Lateral supports; 8- Strong floor
2.3. Loading histories shows the loading history for the cyclic loading test. The test loads
began with a load control stage in which the cyclic load reversals were
In the static pushover test, the magnitude of the loading speed used applied until obvious stiffness degradation could be observed in the
0.05 mm/s through the actuator connected to the specimen. Fig. 5 hysteretic curves of the specimen, and the corresponding displacement
(a) Displacement meters (b) Strain gauges

Fig. 4. Displacement meter and strain gauge distributions.
264
Table 3
Limit states (FEMA 356).
Performance level Qualitative description Recommended drifts of EBF (%)
P-1 Immediate occupancy 0.5

(IO)
P-2 Life safety (LS) 1.5
P-3 Collapse prevention (CP) 2.0
the link, beam-end and column base, respectively. When the flange
fractured occurred at beam end, the specimen could not continue to
Fig. 5. Loading history for cyclic loading test. resist the lateral loads and the test stopped. Table 2 summarizes the test
phenomena during the test, in which P is the force provided by the
actuator, which equals to the base shear force of the specimen, Δ is the
was defined as the yield displacement (Δy). The following was dis- horizontal displacement of the specimen.
placement controlled. In this stage, the specimen was tested under
displacement control for three cycles with the magnitude of ± 2.4.2. Pushover curve
Δy, ± 2Δy, ± 3Δy, ± 4Δy, ± 5Δy, … Three structural performance levels, i.e., immediate occupancy (IO),
life safety (LS) and collapse prevention (CP) limit states were con-
sidered for the system assessment carried out in the present study.
2.4. Test results and discussions of static pushover test These limit states comply with seismic suggestions for EBF by FEMA
356, which is summarized in Table 3. Fig. 7 shows the pushover curve
2.4.1. Test phenomena of the specimen during the test. The pushover curve shows that the
During the pushover test, the link entered the plastic stage firstly load-bearing capacity of the specimen increased with the increment of
with the increment of displacement. The main deformation occurred at the horizontal displacement and no strength degradation was observed
Table 2
Phenomena of the static pushover test.
Force provided by actuator Horizontal displacement of specimen Description of test phenomena

P (kN) Δ (mm)
− 249.95 − 4.87 Link web yielded

− 273.41 − 5.55 Link flange yielded
− 496.79 − 24.97 Buckling was occurred at link web and flange, as shown in Fig. 6(a)
− 694.23 − 75.78 Buckling was occurred at beam end, as shown in Fig. 6(b)
− 680.16 − 99.18 Flange buckling was occurred at column base, as shown in Fig. 6(c)
− 683.48 − 103.38 Crack occurred at link-to-braces connection, as shown in Fig. 6(d)
− 610.03 − 109.74 Weld fractured at link-to-beam connection, as shown in Fig. 6(e)
Note: “-” is the pull direction of the actuator.
(a) Buckling occurred at link (b) Buckling occurred at beam end (c) Buckling occurred at column base
(d) Crack occurred at link-to-braces (e) Weld fractured at link-to-beam (f) The specimen after testing
connection connection
Fig. 6. Static pushover test phenomena.
265
800 2.5. Test results and discussions of cyclic loading test

700
2.5.1. Test phenomena
Base shear force (kN)
600
CP Link of the specimen was in inelastic first with the increment of the
LS Peak point
horizontal displacement. When the link entered the inelastic stage, the
500 other members were still in elastic. During the cyclic loading test, the
Ultimate point main deformation occurred at the link, beam-end and column base,
400 IO
respectively. The test was stopped till the frame could not resist the
300 loads. Table 5 summarizes the main test phenomena observed at dif-
Yield point
ferent loading levels.
200
100 2.5.2. Hysteretic curve

The hysteretic curve of the specimen is shown in Fig. 9. The curve
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 shows that the specimen had good plastic deformation capacity. The
Displacement (mm) hysteretic curve covered a small area during the load control stage,
which shows the elastic behaviors of the specimen. The hysteretic loops
Fig. 7. Pushover curve of the specimen. were large and did not have obvious degradation in the stiffness and
load-carrying capacity within the three cycles of the same displacement
level, which indicated that the specimen had a significant energy dis-
before specimen damaged. Moreover, when the displacement was sipation capacity. Fig. 10 shows the skeleton curve of the cyclic re-
larger than the limitation of CP, the specimen could continue to resist sponses and the comparison of skeleton curve and static pushover
the lateral load and the load-bearing capacity increased, which in- curve. The skeleton curve and pushover curve had same growing trend
dicated that the specimen had reliable load-bearing capacity. with the increment of the horizontal displacement. The skeleton curve
shows that the base shear force increased before the specimen frac-
tured, which indicated that the specimen had good load-bearing capa-
2.4.3. Load-bearing and ductility capacities city. The ultimate displacement of the skeleton curve from the cyclic
The performance of the specimen can be evaluated using the load- loading test was smaller than that of pushover curve, which is because
bearing and ductility capabilities. In this study, ductility coefficient μ the effect of steel damage accumulation and fatigue to the specimen
was used to judge the ductility of the specimen. It is defined as μ = Δu / during the cyclic loads, leading the lower ultimate displacement than
Δy, where Δu and Δy are the ultimate and yielding displacements, re- that of static pushover curve.
spectively. Table 4 lists the load-bearing and ductility capacities. The
maximum base shear force Vm is 97% higher than the yield base force 2.5.3. Link rotation capacity
Vy and the ultimate displacement Δu is 14.6 times higher than the yield Fig. 11 shows the link rotation and the plastic rotation angles of the
displacement Δy, which indicated that the specimen had reliable load- specimens during the cyclic loads. The two curves showed that the link
bearing and ductility capacities. rotation angles increased with the story drift increment. The maximum
link rotation angle of the specimen was 30 times higher than the
Table 4
Load-bearing and ductility capacities.
Yield point Peak point Ultimate point Vm/Vy Ductility coefficient

(μ)
Yield displacement Yield base shear Displacement at peak Maximum base shear Ultimate displacement Ultimate base shear
force point force force
Δy (mm) Vy (kN) Δm (mm) Vm (kN) Δu (mm) Vu (kN)
8.90 346.22 91.85 682.16 130.14 546.97 1.97 14.62
Table 5
Test phenomena of specimen.
Force provided by the actuator (kN) Horizontal displacement of the specimen (mm) Description of the test phenomena Loading level
− 266.01 − 6.72 No obvious phenomenon Load control stage

− 365.98 − 8.13 Link web and flange yield Δy (the 1st cycle)
+ 481.97 + 16.01 Rust dropped off at the welds of link 2Δy (the 2nd cycle)
+ 564.03 + 24.07 Rust drop-off was more obvious at the welds of link 3Δy (the 2nd cycle)
− 618.98 − 32.11 Local buckling occurred at the beam end (Fig. 8(a)) 4Δy (the 1st cycle)
+ 585.18 + 37.52 Local buckling occurred at link web (Fig. 8(b)) 4.5Δy (the 1st cycle)
+ 501.15 + 36.12 Flange fractured at link-to-beam connection (Fig. 8(c)) 5.5Δy (the 1st cycle)
Flange fractured at the beam end (Fig. 8(d))
Note: “+” and “-” are the push and pull direction of the actuator, respectively.
266
(a) Buckling occurred at the beam end (b) Buckling occurred at the link web (c) Flange fractured at the link-to-beam connection
(d) Flange fractured at the beam end (e) The link deformation
Fig. 8. Test phenomena during cyclic loading test.
minimum values. When the specimen was fractured, the maximum link shown in Table 6. The maximum base shear force was 54% higher than
plastic rotation angle was 0.06 rad, which was 25% lower than the the yielding base shear force at positive direction and 58% higher than
rotation angle limitation of 0.08 rad for the shear link in AISC341-10 yielding base shear force at negative direction, which indicated that the
[20]. load-bearing capacity of the specimen had an obvious increment after
entering inelastic stage. The ratios of the maximum displacement and
2.5.4. Load-bearing, ductility capacity and energy dissipation capacity yielding displacement of the specimen were 3.99 at positive direction
The hysteretic behaviors of the specimen can be evaluated using the and 2.96 at negative direction, which showed that the specimen had
load-bearing, ductility and energy dissipation capabilities. The he reliable ductility capacity. The energy dissipation capacity of the spe-
coefficient could be judged depending on the area of the hysteretic cimen is shown in Fig. 13. The dissipated energy and he were increased
loops. It is calculated as he = (SABC + SCDA) / (SOBE + SODF), the SABC, during the test and the maximum he was 3.75 times higher than that in
SCDA, SOBE, and SODF are shown in Fig. 12. the load control stage, which indicated that the specimen had a steady
The yielding base shear force, yielding displacement, maximum and increasing energy dissipated capacity with the increment of plastic
base shear force, maximum displacement and ductility coefficient μ are development in the specimen.
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0
-200
-200
-400
-400
-600
Static pushover curve
-600
-800 Skeleton curve
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-800
Displacement (mm) -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fig. 9. Hysteretic curve of the test specimen. Displacement (mm)

Fig. 10. Skeleton curve.
267
0.08 0.06
Plastic rotation angle (rad)

0.07
0.05
Rotation angle (rad) 0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04 0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00 0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Story drift (%) Story drift (%)
(a) Link rotation angles (b) Link plastic rotation angles
Fig. 11. Link rotation capacity.
2.5.5. Failure mechanism

Fig. 14 shows the strain responses of each point (as seen in Fig. 4(b))
of the specimen. The ratio ε/εy characterizes the relative strain, where ε
and εy are peak strain value and yield strain, respectively. The strain
values of link web were higher than those of link flange with the in-
crement of interstory displacement, which indicated that the link ex-
hibited shear deformation. During the test, the strain values of link web
were higher than those of link flange. In addition, the strain values of
link were much higher than the yield values and only few flange of
column bases slightly entered plastic stage, while other structural
members were still in elastic stage. It indicated that the shear link of
HSSEBF-VSL entered a plastic stage and dissipated the energy via shear
deformation, while the other structural members remained in an elastic
stage during the seismic loads. Furthermore, when the specimen
reached the ultimate state, the link entered the plastic stage completely
and damaged, but the columns, beams and braces could continue re-
sistant the seismic loads, which shows that the HSSEBF-VSL is reliable
dual resistant system.
Fig. 12. Calculation of energy dissipation coefficient.
Table 6
Load-bearing and ductility capacity.
Load direction Yielding base shear force Yielding displacement Maximum base shear force Maximum displacement Vmax/Vy Ductility coefficient
(μ)
Vy (kN) Δy (mm) Vmax (kN) Δmax (mm)
Positive 398.8 11.09 612.3 44.24 1.54 3.99

Negative 412.9 12.66 652.6 37.42 1.58 2.96
Note: “positive” and “negative” are the push and pull direction of the actuator, respectively.
50 0.4
40
Dissipated energy (kJ)
0.3
he coefficient
30
0.2
20
0.1
10
0 0.0
Load control y
2 y
3 4 4.5 Load control y
2 y
3 y
4 y
4.5 y
y y y
(a) Dissipated energy (b) he coefficient

Fig. 13. Energy dissipation capacity.
268
12 4
C1 C10
C2 C11
C3 C12
9 C4 3 C13
C5 C14
C6 C15
y
y
6 C7 2 C16
C8 C17
C9 C18
C19
3 1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) Link (b) Columns
1.0 1.0
C20 C26
C21 C27
0.8 0.8
C22 C28
C23 C29
0.6 C24 0.6
y
y
C25
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(c) Beam (d) Braces
Fig. 14. The strain responses of the specimen during the cyclic loading test.
3. Shaking table test one-bay and one-span was considered the prototype structure for this
test, which is shown in Fig. 15.
3.1. Test specimen The plan size of the shake table using for this test is 4 m × 4 m and
its maximum vertical load-bearing capacity is 300 kN. In order to fully
The prototype structure of the shake table test specimen was de- use the shake table, considering the plan size and load-bearing capacity
signed based on GB50010-2010 and JGJ99-98 codes. The site for this of the shake table, a 1:2 length scaled three-story specimen obtained
prototype structure was characterized by peak ground acceleration from the prototype structure was used for this test. Thus, the scaling
(PGA) of 0.2 g with a 10% exceedance probability in a 50-year period factor for length Sl equals 0.5. The material composition of the test
and moderately firm ground conditions. A three-story HSSEBF-VSL with specimen was identical to that of the prototype structure, suggesting a
scaling factor for the elastic modulus SE = 1. To keep the total weight
of this specimen less than the maximum vertical load-bearing capacity
of the shake table without reducing the horizontal earthquake forces,
the similarity ratio of acceleration Sa = 1.2 was used for the test and
this factor Sa did not control the gravity acceleration. Furthermore, the
other similarity ratios could be calculated based on the Sl, Sa and ma-
terial properties. The similar relationships were derived for other
parameters by using similar theory [21], as summarized in Table 7.
The test specimen was a three-story HSSEBF-VSL with a single bay
in both the x- and y-directions. Fig. 16 shows the dimensions of the
specimen, in which all story height, span in both x- and y- directions
were 1.8 m and 2.825 m, respectively. Reinforced concrete slabs (RC
slabs) were used in the specimen and their thicknesses were 80 mm. In
this specimen, links and braces used Q345 steel (steel with specified
nominal yield strength of 345 MPa), columns and beams used Q460
steel (steel with specified nominal yield strength of 460 MPa). The
details of the structural members in the specimen are shown in Table 8.
Fig. 15. Prototype structure for shake table test.
Fig. 17 shows the links and connections in the specimen.
269
Table 7 roof, live loads of 2 kN/m2 for each floor and wall loads of 4.38 kN/m2
Similarity relationships and ratios of the shake table test specimen. were considered. Based on the dead and live loads, the total mass of the
test specimen was 23.8 t.
Physical quantities Dimensions Similarity relation Ratio of
similarity
3.3. Instrument arrangement
Strain – Sε = 1 1.00
Elastic modulus FL− 2 SE = 1 1.00
Stress FL− 2 Sσ = SE Sε 1.00 In this shake table test, the accelerometers, displacement sensors
Length L Sl = 0.5 0.50 and strain gauges were used. Fig. 18 shows the sensors and strain gauge
Force F SF = Sσ Sl2 = SE SεSl2 0.25 distributions. A1-A16 were the accelerometers, four were placed on
Mass FT 2 L− 1 Sm = SF / Sa = (SE 0.21
each of the three RC slabs and on the base plate in the x-direction. D1-
SεSl2) / Sa
Density FT 2
L− 4 Sρ = Sm / Sl3 = (SE Sε) / 1.67 D8 were the displacement sensors, two were placed on each of the three
(SaSl) RC slabs and on the base plate. S1-S18 were the strain gauges, which
Time/natural period T St = ST = (Sl / Sa)− 1/2 0.65 were placed on the links of each story to obtain the strain responses of
Frequency T− 1 Sf = 1/ST = (Sl / Sa)− 1/ 1.55 links.
2
Displacement L Sx = Sl 0.50
acceleration LT− 2 Sa = 1.2 1.20 3.4. Loading cases
In this test, three ground motions were selected as input excitations

3.2. Mass of the test specimen
according to the comments in GB50011-2010, including the El Centro
wave (1940), Taft wave (1952) and Lanzhou artificial wave, which
Representative values of gravity G could be computed from 1D
were used to investigate the effects of ground motions with different
+ 0.5 L, where D and L are dead and live loads, respectively. In this
PGAs on the seismic performance of the specimen. Fig. 19 shows the
test, the dead loads of 5 kN/m2 for each floor and 5.625 kN/m2 for the
three ground motions compressed by the time similarity ratio (refer to
Fig. 16. Dimensions of the test specimen.
Table 8
Details of structural members in the specimen.
Members Links Braces Beams Columns
Steel grade designation Q345 Q345 Q460 Q460

Section H180 × 100 × 6 × 10 H100 × 100 × 6 × 10 H140 × 100 × 8 × 10 H145 × 145 × 8 × 10
Link web thickness, tw 6 6 8 8
Link flange thickness, tf 10 10 10 10
Material nominal yield fy, MPa 345 345 460 460
Material measured yield of web fyaw, MPa 414.68 414.68 473.52 473.52
Material measured yield of flange fyaf 363.82 363.82 516.19 516.19
Material measured strength of web fuaw, MPa 541.18 541.18 635.08 635.08
Material measured strength of flange fuaf, MPa 545.81 545.81 691.15 691.15
Material elongation web, % 28.29 28.29 25.36 25.36
Material elongation flange, % 28.74 28.74 23.51 23.51
Link effective length, mm 350 350 350 350
Link flange compactness, b/tf 10.00 10.00 10.00 14.5.0
Link web compactness, hw/tw 26.67 13.33 15.00 15.63
Link stiffener spacing, mm 2@115 – – –
Vp, kN 192.10 – – –
Mp, kN·m 63.24 – – –
e/(Mp/Vp) 1.06 – – –
270
(a) Link-to-frame connection (d) Beam-to-column connection
(c) Brace-to-frame connection

Fig. 17. Details of connections in specimen.
Fig. 18. Layout of sensors.
271
0.4 0.20
0.3 0.15
0.2 0.10
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.1 0.05
0.0 0.00
-0.1 -0.05
-0.2 -0.10
-0.3 -0.15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) El Centro (b) Taft
0.03
0.30
Design spectra in GB50011-2010
0.02
Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.25 [PoE: 63% in 50 years. RP:50 years]
El Centro
Acceleration (g)
0.01 Taft
0.20
Lanzhou
0.00 0.15
-0.01 0.10
-0.02 0.05
-0.03 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s) Period (s)
(c) Lanzhou (d) Spectra comparison
Fig. 19. Ground motions and spectra comparison.
Table 7) and the comparison of acceleration response spectra and de- 3.5. Test results and discussion
sign acceleration spectrum. Moreover, in order to consider the effects of
seismic excitation intensity to the seismic performance of the specimen, 3.5.1. Test phenomena
the acceleration of the three ground motions were scaled to the corre- When the PGAs of the ground motions were lower than 0.48 g, only
sponding peak ground acceleration (PGA) of the seismic intensity (refer oxide layer peeled off at the welds of link-to-beam connections in the
to Table 9) for each seismic excitation intensity. White noise (WN) was first and second story. When the PGA reached 0.48 g, the residual link
used to measure the dynamic behavior of the specimen before each deformation appeared. When the PGA reached 1.0 g, no inelastic de-
level of PGA. The loading cases are summarized in Table 9. formation was observed in the braces, beams and columns. There was
no danger of collapse for the specimen. Table 10 lists the main phe-
Table 9 nomena observed during the shake table test.
List of test cases.
Case Ground motions PGA (g) Case Ground motions PGA (g)
Table 10
WN1 WN 0.05 WN6 WN 0.05 Test phenomena.
1 El Centro 0.042 16 El Centro 0.264
2 Taft 17 Taft Case PGA (g) Description of test phenomena
3 Lanzhou 18 Lanzhou
WN2 WN 0.05 WN7 WN 0.05 Case 1–3 0.042 No obvious phenomenon in the elastic region
4 El Centro 0.084 19 El Centro 0.48 Case 4–6 0.084 No obvious phenomenon in the elastic region
5 Taft 20 Taft Case 7–9 0.12 No obvious phenomenon in the elastic region
6 Lanzhou 21 Lanzhou Case 10–12 0.168 No obvious phenomenon in the elastic region
WN3 WN 0.05 WN8 WN 0.05 Case 13–15 0.24 The oxide layer peeled off at the link and brace-to-frame
7 El Centro 0.12 22 El Centro 0.744 connection, as shown in Fig. 20(a) and (b)
8 Taft 23 Taft Case 16–18 0.264 The oxide layer peeled off at links was more obviously
9 Lanzhou 24 Lanzhou Case 19–21 0.48 The oxide layer peeled off at the weld of link-to-braces
WN4 WN 0.05 WN9 WN 0.05 connection in first and second story, as shown in
10 El Centro 0.168 25 El Centro 1.0 Fig. 20(c)
11 Taft 26 Taft The slight residual link deformation appeared, as shown
12 Lanzhou 27 Lanzhou in Fig. 20(d)
WN5 WN 0.05 WN10 WN 0.05 Case 22–24 0.744 The peeling of the oxide layer was more obvious at link
13 El Centro 0.24 web and the link-to-braces connection
14 Taft Case 25–27 1.0 The residual link deformation was more obvious
15 Lanzhou
272
(a) The oxide layer peeled (b) The oxide layer peeled off at (c) The oxide layer (d) The residual link
off at the weld brace-to-frame connection peeled off deformation appeared
Fig. 20. The phenomena of shake table test.
3.5.2. Natural vibration properties

Table 11 Table 11 shows the natural frequency and damping ratio of the
Scanning frequency and damping ratios of the model. specimen, which were obtained by the WN used to obtain the dynamic
properties of the specimen in the x-direction. The initial frequency and
Serial number of the white noise Natural frequency (Hz) Damping ratio (%)
damping ratio were 6.557 Hz and 3.21%, respectively. When the
wave
seismic load increased, the natural frequency decreased, while the
WN1 6.56 3.21 damping ratio increased, which indicated that the lateral stiffness of the
WN 2 6.55 3.27 specimen decreased with the increment of the dynamic load.
WN 3 6.55 3.37
WN 4 6.53 3.49
WN 5 6.50 3.59 3.5.3. Hysteretic curves
WN 6 6.47 3.72 Fig. 21 shows the hysteretic curves of interstory displacement-story
WN 7 6.46 3.76 shear force relation for second story at the states of IO, LS and CP
WN 8 6.40 3.95
during the El Centro wave. Fig. 22 shows the hysteretic curves of top
WN 9 6.33 4.08
WN 10 6.24 4.44 displacement-base shear force relation of the specimen at the states of
IO, LS and CP during the El Centro wave. The story shear force and base
shear force were calculated by the peak acceleration response of the
specimen under seismic intensity. The displacement responses were
40 120 250
200
30
90
150
20 60
100
10 30 50
0 0 0
-30 -50
-10
-100
-20 -60
-150
-30 -90 -200
-40 -120 -250
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15
Top displacement (mm) Top displacement (mm) Top displacement (mm)
(a) PGA=0.084g (IO) (b) PGA=0.24g (LS) (c) PGA=0.48g (CP)
Fig. 21. Base shear force-top displacement hysteretic curves of the specimen.
30 100 200
80
Story shear force (kN)
150
20 60
40 100
10
20 50
0
0 0
-20
-40 -50
-10
-60 -100
-20 -80
-150
-100
-30 -120 -200
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12
Interstory displacement (mm) Interstory displacement (mm) Interstory displacement (mm)
(a) PGA=0.084g (IO) (b) PGA=0.24g (LS) (c) PGA=0.48g (CP)
Fig. 22. Base shear force-top displacement hysteretic curves of the specimen.
273
Table 12
Maximum roof drifts of the specimen.
Ground motions Maximum roof drifts (D/H, %)
0.042 g 0.084 g 0.12 g 0.168 g 0.24 g 0.264 g 0.48 g 0.744 g 1.0 g
El Centro wave 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.26 0.38 0.62
Taft wave 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.13 0.27 0.39 0.50
Lanzhou wave 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.20 0.29 0.45
lower than 0.48 g. The maximum roof drifts obviously increased when
Table 13 the PGAs reached 0.48 g, 0.744 g, and 1.0 g, respectively. Table 13
Maximum interstory drifts of the specimen. shows the maximum interstory drifts of the specimen during each
seismic load, respectively. The maximum interstory drifts were 0.09%,
PGA (g) 0.042 0.084 0.12 0.168 0.24 0.264 0.48 0.744 1.0
0.21% and 0.49% when the PGA reached the corresponding values for
Maximum 0.04 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.21 0.33 0.49 0.88 1.37 IO, LS and CP in Table 3, respectively, these interstory values of the
interstory specimen were lower than the limitation for the EBF in FEMA 356.
drifts (d/
Table 14 shows the maximum link rotations of the specimen during the
h)
seismic loads.
measured by the displacement sensors. When the PGAs increased, the 3.5.5. Dynamic strain response of links
top displacement and interstory displacement increased. The hysteretic The strain responses of shear links were obtained by the strain
curves show that the hysteretic loops were stable and did not have gauges located on the specimen. Figs. 23–25 show the dynamic strain
obvious degradation in the stiffness and load-carrying capacity, which curves of each point at links during the El Centro, Taft and Lanzhou
indicated that the specimen had a reliable energy dissipation capacity. earthquakes with different intensity, respectively, in which the ratio ε/
εy characterizes the relative strain, where ε and εy are the peak strain
3.5.4. Displacement responses value and yield strain, respectively. The curves show that the strain
Three deformational quantities are monitored herein, namely in- responses of shear links increased with the increment of the seismic
terstory drifts (d/h, where d and h are interstory displacements and loads. The strain responses of link webs were higher than those of link
story height, respectively), roof drifts (D/H, where D and H are the top flanges, which indicated that the deformation of the links had obvious
displacements and total height of the specimen, respectively) and shear deformation properties. Moreover, when the strain of link webs
maximum link rotations. Table 12 shows the maximum roof drifts of the were higher than the yielding values, the strains of link flanges were
specimen during each seismic load in x-direction. The maximum roof lower than the yielding ones, which indicated that the links dissipated
drifts of the specimen were nearly proportional when the PGAs were the energy via the deformation of the web.
Table 14
Maximum link rotations of the specimen.
PGAs (g) 0.042 0.084 0.12 0.168 0.24 0.264 0.48 0.744 1.0
Link rotations (rad) 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.009 0.011 0.016 0.025 0.045 0.070
1.4 1.4 1.4

S1 S7 S13
1.2 S2 1.2 S8 1.2 S14
S3 S9 S15
1.0 S4 1.0 S10 1.0 S16
S5 S11 S17
0.8 S6 0.8 S12 0.8 S18
y
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
PGA (g) PGA (g) PGA (g)
(a) First story (b) Second story (c) Third story
Fig. 23. Variation of strain under the El Centro wave.
274
1.4 1.4 1.4

S1 S7 S13
1.2 S2 1.2 S8 1.2 S14
S3 S9 S15
1.0 S4 1.0 S10 1.0 S16
S5 S11 S17
0.8 S6 0.8 S12 0.8 S18
y
y
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fig. 24. Variation of strain under the Taft wave.
1.4 1.4 1.2

S1 S7 S13
1.2 S2 1.2 S8 1.0 S14
S3 S9 S15
1.0 S4 1.0 S10
0.8 S16
S5 S11 S17
0.8 S6 0.8 S12 S18
y
y
0.6
0.6 0.6
0.4
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fig. 25. Variation of strain under the Lanzhou wave.
4. Seismic performance comparison of HSSEBF-VSL and probability in a 50-year period and moderately firm ground conditions.
conventional EBF-VSL Fig. 26 shows the designed buildings. In all buildings, the story heights
were 3 m and there were five bays in x-direction and three bays in y-
4.1. Designs and finite element models direction. The span in both x-direction and that in y-direction were 6 m.
The shear link lengths were 700 mm in all designs. The dead load for
Four HSSEBF-VSL buildings with different building heights (5-story, the floors and roofs were 4.8 kN/m2. The floor live load, roof live load
10-story, 15-story and 20-story) and four conventional EBF-VSL build- and snow load used 2, 0.5 and 0.25 kN/m2 respectively. Additionally,
ings with different building heights (5-story, 10-story, 15-story and 20- the HSSEBF-VSL buildings were designed to match the member section
story) were designed based on GB50010-2010 and JGJ99-98 codes. In strengths of the conventional EBF-VSL who had the same building
the HSSEBF-VSL buildings, links and braces used Q345 steel and other heights to the corresponding HSS-VSL buildings rather than to use the
structural members used Q460 steel. In the conventional EBF-VSL equivalent lateral force procedure.
buildings, all structural members used Q345 steel. The site for these The designations of all buildings are summarized in Table 15.
designs was characterized by PGA of 0.2 g with a 10% exceedance Table 16 shows the fundamental natural periods of four HSSEBF-VSL
Fig. 26. Building plan and elevation views.
275
Table 15
Designation of the all buildings.
Frames HSSEBF-VSL EBF-VSL
5-story 10-story 15-story 20-story 5-story 10-story 15-story 20-story
Designation HEV1 HEV2 HEV3 HEV4 EV1 EV2 EV3 EV4
interstory drifts of the buildings reached the limitation of the perfor-

Table 16 mance levels for EBF in FEMA 356. Table 19 lists the yield strength Vy,
Fundamental natural periods of all buildings. the maximum load-bearing capacity Vm and the strength at different
Frames Periods (s)
performance levels. The elastic lateral stiffnesses of HEV1, HEV2, HEV3
and HEV4 were slightly lower than those of EV1, EV2, EV3 and EV4,
T1 T2 T3 respectively. The Vy of HEV1 was 7% lower than that of EV1. For HEV2,
HEV3 and HEV4 compared with EV2, EV3 and EV4, the differences
HEV1 0.61 0.56 0.51
HEV2 0.93 0.89 0.82
were 9%, 8% and 8%, respectively. The Vmax of HEV1 was 9% lower
HEV3 1.11 1.07 0.97 than that of EV1. For HEV2, HEV3 and HEV4 compared with EV2, EV3
HEV4 1.57 1.52 1.36 and EV4, the differences were 7%, 12% and 4%, respectively. It in-
EV1 0.54 0.52 0.47 dicated that the load-bearing capacity of HSSEBF-VSL was slightly
EV2 0.88 0.82 0.78
lower than that of conventional EBF-VSL if they had similar member
EV3 1.02 0.96 0.93
EV4 1.45 1.36 1.28 section strengths, which is because HSS was used in the beams and
columns of HEV1-HEV4 and smaller HSS beam and column sections
were selected to match the member section strengths of EV1-EV4. The
buildings and four conventional EBF-VSL buildings. The structural smaller beam and column sections reduced the lateral stiffness of HEV1-
member sections of HSSEBF-VSL buildings and conventional EBF-VSL HEV4, which leading the lower load-bearing capacity.
buildings all are summarized in Tables 17 and 18, respectively. The
FEMs of the analytical frame in all designs (refer to Fig. 26) were es- 4.3. Nonlinear dynamic analysis
tablished by SAP2000. In the FEMs, beam elements were used for all
structural members. Nominal yield strength was adopted for the steel. 4.3.1. Ground motions
The elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio are assumed to be 206,000 MPa All buildings were subjected to nonlinear dynamic analysis with
and 0.3, respectively. The influence of initial imperfections and residual various ground motions to study the performance of HSSEBF-VSL
stress is not considered and P-delta effects were included in the non- compared with that of conventional EBF-VSL during the dynamic loads.
linear analyses. Nonlinear hinges were defined at the links, beams, The dynamic analysis was performed using a set of ground motions. The
columns and braces. Moreover, the analysis was conducted using life seismological properties of the ground motions are summarized in
safety structural performance level as well as the nonlinear behavior of Table 20, which also shows that three levels of seismic hazard were
shear link by FEMA-356. For shear link, the model presented in Tables employed: 50%, 10% and 2% probability of exceedance in a 50-year
5–6 of FEMA-356 was considered for the nonlinear behaviors. period. The acceleration response spectra of the ensemble of accel-
erograms, along with the design acceleration spectrum are shown in
4.2. Nonlinear pushover analysis Fig. 31.
Pushover (static) analysis was performed through inverted trian- 4.3.2. Dynamic analysis results
gular displacement-controlled patterns. In the pushover analysis, target The mean maximum interstory drifts (d/h) for the HSSEBF-VSL and
drift selected 3% of the total height (D/H = 3%, D and H are the top conventional EBF-VSL buildings were found for the ground motions
displacement and total height of structure) of the frame. The lateral with probability exceedance of 50% in a 50-year period as displayed in
resistance capacities of all buildings were investigated through the Fig. 32. For the serviceability check, the interstory drifts of HEV1-HEV4
nonlinear pushover analysis. were larger than those of EV1-EV4, indicating that the HSSEBF-VSL
Figs. 27–29 show the plastic hinges distributions of all buildings buildings had lower lateral stiffness caused by the smaller member
when the D/H reached 1%, 2% and 3%, respectively. When D/H sections than those of conventional EBF-VSL buildings. However, the
reached 1%, the plastic hinges distributions of HEV1 and HEV2 were interstory drifts of all buildings were less than the limitation of IO for
similar to those of EV1 and EV2, respectively. EV3 and EV4 had more EBF in FEMA356, though the drifts of HSSEBF-VSL buildings were
plastic hinges on beams than HEV3 and HEV4, respectively. When D/H larger than those of conventional EBF-VSL buildings, indicating that
reached 2% and 3%, respectively, compared with the plastic hinges both of HSSEBF-VSL and conventional EBF-VSL buildings had good
distributions of HEV1-HEV4, there were more plastic hinges on beams capacity in controlling story drifts. The maximum interstory drift of
and column bases in the EV1-EV4. It because the HSS beams and col- HEV1 was 8.7% lower than that of EV1. For HEV2, HEV3 and HEV4
umns of HEV1-HEV4 had higher yielding strength compared with the compared with EV2, EV3 and EV4, the differences were 7.9%, 9.6% and
conventional steel members of EV1-EV4, leading the less plastic hinges 6.2%, respectively. It indicated that though the beam and column
in HEV1-HEV4. sections of HEV1-HEV4 were smaller than those of EV1-EV4, the
Fig. 30 shows the pushover curves of all buildings by considering maximum interstory drifts of HEV1-HEV4 were slightly higher (less
displacement-controlled horizontal patterns (triangular distribution), in than 10%) than those of EV1-EV4 during the earthquakes with prob-
which the points of “IO”, “LS” and “CP” on the curves refer that the ability exceedance of 50% in a 50-year period.
276
Table 17
Structural member sections of HSSEBF-VSL buildings.
HEV1 Story Links (e/(Mp/Vp)) Beams Columns Braces
1 H320 × 150 × 10 × 20 (1.19) H330 × 200 × 10 × 15 H500 × 500 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20
2 H300 × 150 × 10 × 20 (1.20) H320 × 200 × 10 × 15 H490 × 490 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20
3 H320 × 150 × 8 × 20 (1.19) H310 × 200 × 10 × 15 H470 × 470 × 20 × 25 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20
4 H330 × 150 × 6 × 20 (1.17) H280 × 180 × 8 × 15 H450 × 450 × 20 × 25 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20
5 H320 × 100 × 4 × 20 (1.18) H200 × 180 × 8 × 15 H420 × 420 × 20 × 25 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20

1 H370 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.06) H460 × 250 × 15 × 20 H640 × 640 × 20 × 35 H300 × 200 × 12 × 16
2 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.07) H440 × 250 × 15 × 20 H640 × 640 × 20 × 35 H300 × 200 × 12 × 16
3 H340 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.07) H420 × 250 × 15 × 20 H630 × 630 × 20 × 35 H300 × 200 × 12 × 16
4 H320 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.08 H400 × 250 × 15 × 20 H600 × 600 × 20 × 35 H300 × 200 × 12 × 16
5 H350 × 150 × 10 × 20 (1.18) H430 × 200 × 14 × 20 H580 × 580 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 12 × 16
6 H320 × 150 × 10 × 20 (1.19) H390 × 200 × 14 × 20 H550 × 550 × 20 × 30 H250 × 200 × 12 × 16
7 H330 × 150 × 8 × 20 (0.97) H360 × 200 × 12 × 20 H520 × 520 × 20 × 30 H250 × 200 × 12 × 16
8 H300 × 150 × 8 × 20 (0.98) H360 × 150 × 12 × 20 H500 × 500 × 20 × 30 H250 × 200 × 12 × 16
9 H250 × 150 × 6 × 15 (0.99) H340 × 150 × 10 × 15 H450 × 450 × 20 × 25 H250 × 200 × 12 × 16
10 H200 × 100 × 4 × 15 (1.01) H280 × 100 × 8 × 15 H380 × 380 × 15 × 20 H250 × 200 × 12 × 16
1 H400 × 200 × 13 × 20 (1.12) H500 × 200 × 14 × 20 H800 × 800 × 40 × 50 H400 × 200 × 12 × 20
2 H390 × 200 × 13 × 20 (1.12) H490 × 200 × 14 × 20 H800 × 800 × 40 × 50 H400 × 200 × 12 × 20
3 H390 × 200 × 13 × 20 (1.12) H480 × 200 × 14 × 20 H800 × 800 × 40 × 50 H400 × 200 × 12 × 20
4 H390 × 200 × 13 × 20 (1.12) H470 × 200 × 14 × 20 H750 × 750 × 40 × 50 H400 × 200 × 12 × 20
5 H380 × 200 × 13 × 20 (1.13) H500 × 200 × 10 × 15 H750 × 750 × 40 × 50 H400 × 200 × 12 × 20
6 H370 × 200 × 13 × 20 (1.13) H490 × 200 × 10 × 15 H750 × 750 × 40 × 50 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20
7 H380 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.05) H480 × 200 × 10 × 15 H700 × 700 × 30 × 40 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20
8 H420 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.04) H460 × 200 × 10 × 15 H700 × 700 × 30 × 40 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20
9 H400 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.05) H480 × 200 × 8 × 12 H700 × 700 × 30 × 40 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20
10 H380 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.05) H460 × 200 × 8 × 12 H650 × 650 × 20 × 30 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20
11 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.07) H460 × 200 × 8 × 12 H650 × 650 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 12 × 20
12 H320 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.08) H460 × 200 × 6 × 10 H650 × 650 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 12 × 20
13 H320 × 150 × 7 × 15 (1.11) H440 × 200 × 6 × 10 H600 × 600 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 12 × 20
14 H320 × 150 × 7 × 15 (1.1) H400 × 200 × 4 × 10 H600 × 600 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 12 × 20
15 H250 × 100 × 4 × 15 (0.99) H380 × 200 × × 10 H600 × 600 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 12 × 20
1 H420 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.10) H500 × 300 × 14 × 25 H1000 × 1000 × 50 × 60 H500 × 300 × 20 × 25
2 H420 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.10) H490 × 300 × 14 × 25 H1000 × 1000 × 50 × 60 H500 × 300 × 20 × 25
3 H410 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.10) H480 × 300 × 14 × 25 H1000 × 1000 × 50 × 60 H500 × 300 × 20 × 25
4 H410 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.10) H470 × 300 × 14 × 25 H900 × 900 × 50 × 60 H500 × 300 × 20 × 25
5 H400 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.11) H480 × 250 × 14 × 25 H900 × 900 × 50 × 60 H500 × 300 × 20 × 25
6 H400 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.11) H470 × 250 × 14 × 25 H900 × 900 × 50 × 60 H450 × 200 × 15 × 20
7 H390 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.11) H460 × 250 × 14 × 20 H800 × 800 × 40 × 50 H450 × 200 × 15 × 20
8 H380 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.11) H450 × 250 × 14 × 0 H800 × 800 × 40 × 50 H450 × 200 × 15 × 20
9 H380 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.11) H440 × 250 × 14 × 20 H800 × 800 × 40 × 50 H450 × 200 × 15 × 20
10 H360 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.12) H460 × 200 × 12 × 20 H700 × 700 × 30 × 40 H450 × 200 × 15 × 20
11 H350 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.13) H450 × 200 × 12 × 20 H700 × 700 × 30 × 40 H400 × 200 × 15 × 25
12 H340 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.13) H430 × 200 × 12 × 20 H700 × 700 × 30 × 40 H400 × 200 × 15 × 25
13 H320 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.14) H490 × 150 × 12 × 20 H600 × 600 × 25 × 30 H400 × 200 × 15 × 25
14 H320 × 250 × 14 × 20 (1.02) H480 × 150 × 12 × 20 H600 × 600 × 25 × 30 H400 × 200 × 15 × 25
15 H310 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.09) H470 × 150 × 12 × 20 H600 × 600 × 25 × 30 H400 × 200 × 15 × 25
16 H330 × 200 × 10 × 15 (1.17) H460 × 200 × 12 × 5 H500 × 500 × 25 × 30 H350 × 200 × 15 × 20
17 H300 × 200 × 10 × 15 (1.19) H450 × 200 × 10 × 15 H500 × 500 × 25 × 30 H350 × 200 × 15 × 20
18 H300 × 200 × 9 × 15 (1.08) H440 × 200 × 10 × 15 H500 × 500 × 25 × 30 H350 × 200 × 15 × 20
19 H270 × 150 × 5 × 10 (1.20) H430 × 200 × 10 × 15 H400 × 400 × 15 × 25 H350 × 200 × 15 × 20
20 H250 × 150 × 5 × 10 (1.21) H380 × 200 × 8 × 15 H400 × 400 × 15 × 25 H350 × 200 × 15 × 20
For earthquakes with probability exceedance of 10% in a 50-year respectively. It is found that the HSSEBF-VSL buildings exhibited larger
period, the mean maximum interstory drifts (d/h) for the HEV1-HEV4 interstory drifts than those of conventional EBF-VSL buildings during
and EV1-EV4 are shown in Fig. 33. Most of the mean maximum in- the earthquakes with probability exceedance of 10% in a 50-year
terstory drifts of all buildings were between the limitation of IO and LS period, but the difference was less than 12%.
for EBF in FEMA356. The maximum interstory drift of HEV1 was 10.8% The mean maximum interstory drifts (d/h) of all buildings during
lower than that of EV1. For HEV2, HEV3 and HEV4 compared with the earthquakes with probability exceedance of 2% in a 50-year period
EV2, EV3 and EV4, the differences were 9.3%, 11.7% and 9.9%, are shown in Fig. 34, which shows that the interstory drifts of all
277
Table 18
Structural member sections of conventional EBF-VSL buildings.
EV1 Story Links (e/(Mp/Vp)) Beams Columns Braces
1 H350 × 150 × 12 × 20 (1.07) H400 × 200 × 12 × 20 H500 × 500 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20
2 H320 × 150 × 12 × 20 (1.08) H380 × 200 × 12 × 20 H490 × 490 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20
3 H330 × 150 × 10 × 20 (1.18) H350 × 200 × 12 × 20 H470 × 470 × 20 × 25 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20
4 H330 × 150 × 8 × 20 (0.97) H340 × 150 × 12 × 20 H450 × 450 × 20 × 25 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20
5 H320 × 100 × 6 × 20 (1.08) H290 × 150 × 10 × 20 H420 × 420 × 20 × 25 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20

1 H370 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.06) H460 × 250 × 15 × 20 H640 × 640 × 20 × 35 H300 × 200 × 12 × 16
2 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.07) H440 × 250 × 15 × 20 H640 × 640 × 20 × 35 H300 × 200 × 12 × 16
3 H340 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.07) H420 × 250 × 15 × 20 H630 × 630 × 20 × 35 H300 × 200 × 12 × 16
4 H320 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.08 H400 × 250 × 15 × 20 H600 × 600 × 20 × 35 H300 × 200 × 12 × 16
5 H350 × 150 × 10 × 20 (1.18) H430 × 200 × 14 × 20 H580 × 580 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 12 × 16
6 H320 × 150 × 10 × 20 (1.19) H390 × 200 × 14 × 20 H550 × 550 × 20 × 30 H250 × 200 × 12 × 16
7 H330 × 150 × 8 × 20 (0.97) H360 × 200 × 12 × 20 H520 × 520 × 20 × 30 H250 × 200 × 12 × 16
8 H300 × 150 × 8 × 20 (0.98) H360 × 150 × 12 × 20 H500 × 500 × 20 × 30 H250 × 200 × 12 × 16
9 H250 × 150 × 6 × 15 (0.99) H340 × 150 × 10 × 15 H450 × 450 × 20 × 25 H250 × 200 × 12 × 16
10 H200 × 100 × 4 × 15 (1.01) H280 × 100 × 8 × 15 H380 × 380 × 15 × 20 H250 × 200 × 12 × 16
1 H390 × 200 × 15 × 20 (1.27) H490 × 250 × 15 × 25 H800 × 800 × 40 × 50 H400 × 200 × 12 × 20
2 H380 × 200 × 15 × 20 (1.28) H480 × 250 × 14 × 25 H800 × 800 × 40 × 50 H400 × 200 × 12 × 20
3 H410 × 200 × 14 × 20 (1.19) H470 × 250 × 14 × 25 H800 × 800 × 40 × 50 H400 × 200 × 12 × 20
4 H400 × 200 × 14 × 20 (1.19) H460 × 250 × 14 × 25 H750 × 750 × 40 × 50 H400 × 200 × 12 × 20
5 H390 × 200 × 14 × 20 (1.20) H450 × 250 × 14 × 25 H750 × 750 × 40 × 50 H400 × 200 × 12 × 20
6 H380 × 200 × 14 × 20 (1.20) H440 × 250 × 14 × 25 H750 × 750 × 40 × 50 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20
7 H370 × 200 × 14 × 20 (1.21) H430 × 250 × 14 × 25 H700 × 700 × 30 × 40 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20
8 H360 × 200 × 14 × 20 (1.22) H420 × 250 × 14 × 25 H700 × 700 × 30 × 40 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20
9 H390 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.05) H400 × 250 × 14 × 25 H700 × 700 × 30 × 40 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20
10 H370 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.06) H440 × 200 × 12 × 25 H650 × 650 × 20 × 30 H350 × 200 × 12 × 20
11 H340 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.07) H420 × 200 × 12 × 25 H650 × 650 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 12 × 20
12 H350 × 200 × 10 × 20 (0.91) H390 × 200 × 12 × 25 H650 × 650 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 12 × 20
13 H300 × 200 × 10 × 15 (1.19) H370 × 200 × 12 × 20 H600 × 600 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 12 × 20
14 H280 × 200 × 8 × 15 (0.98) H370 × 150 × 10 × 20 H600 × 600 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 12 × 20
15 H250 × 150 × 6 × 15 (0.99) H330 × 150 × 8 × 12 H600 × 600 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 12 × 20
1 H420 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.04) H530 × 300 × 16 × 30 H1000 × 1000 × 50 × 60 H500 × 300 × 20 × 25
2 H420 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.04) H520 × 300 × 16 × 30 H1000 × 1000 × 50 × 60 H500 × 300 × 20 × 25
3 H410 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.04) H510 × 300 × 16 × 30 H1000 × 1000 × 50 × 60 H500 × 300 × 20 × 25
4 H410 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.04) H500 × 300 × 16 × 30 H900 × 900 × 50 × 60 H500 × 300 × 20 × 25
5 H400 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.05) H510 × 250 × 16 × 30 H900 × 900 × 50 × 60 H500 × 300 × 20 × 25
6 H400 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.05) H500 × 250 × 16 × 30 H900 × 900 × 50 × 60 H450 × 200 × 15 × 25
7 H390 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.05) H490 × 250 × 16 × 25 H800 × 800 × 40 × 50 H450 × 200 × 15 × 25
8 H380 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.05) H480 × 250 × 16 × 25 H800 × 800 × 40 × 50 H450 × 200 × 15 × 25
9 H380 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.05) H470 × 250 × 16 × 25 H800 × 800 × 40 × 50 H450 × 200 × 15 × 25
10 H360 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.06) H490 × 200 × 14 × 25 H700 × 700 × 30 × 40 H450 × 200 × 15 × 25
11 H350 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.07) H480 × 200 × 14 × 25 H700 × 700 × 30 × 40 H400 × 200 × 15 × 25
12 H340 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.07) H460 × 200 × 14 × 25 H700 × 700 × 30 × 40 H400 × 200 × 15 × 25
13 H320 × 300 × 18 × 20 (1.08) H520 × 150 × 14 × 25 H600 × 600 × 25 × 30 H400 × 200 × 15 × 25
14 H320 × 250 × 16 × 20 (1.14) H510 × 150 × 14 × 25 H600 × 600 × 25 × 30 H400 × 200 × 15 × 25
15 H310 × 200 × 12 × 20 (1.09) H500 × 150 × 14 × 25 H600 × 600 × 25 × 30 H400 × 200 × 15 × 25
16 H330 × 150 × 10 × 20 (1.18) H490 × 200 × 14 × 20 H500 × 500 × 25 × 30 H350 × 200 × 15 × 20
17 H300 × 150 × 10 × 20 (1.20) H480 × 200 × 12 × 20 H500 × 500 × 25 × 30 H350 × 200 × 15 × 20
18 H300 × 150 × 7 × 15 (1.12) H470 × 200 × 12 × 20 H500 × 500 × 25 × 30 H350 × 200 × 15 × 20
19 H270 × 150 × 7 × 15 (1.13) H460 × 200 × 12 × 20 H400 × 400 × 15 × 25 H350 × 200 × 15 × 20
20 H250 × 150 × 7 × 15 (1.14) H410 × 200 × 10 × 20 H400 × 400 × 15 × 25 H350 × 200 × 15 × 20
buildings were below the limitation of CP for EBF in FEMA356 in all probability exceedance of 2% in a 50-year period, though the member
cases. Both of HSSEBFVSL and conventional EBF-VSL buildings were sections of HSSEBF-VSL buildings were smaller than those of conven-
effective for high-magnitude earthquakes and hence in inelastic. The tional EBF-VSL buildings.
maximum interstory drift of HEV1 was 14.1% lower than that of EV1.
For HEV2, HEV3 and HEV4 compared with EV2, EV3 and EV4, the 4.4. Steel weight comparison
differences were 11.2%, 12.3% and 10.8%, respectively. It indicated
that the deformation capacities of HSSEBF-VSL buildings were close to The total steel weights of four HSSEBF-VSL buildings and four
those of conventional EBF-VSL buildings during the earthquakes with conventional EBF-VSL building are listed in Table 21. The total weights
278
HEV1 EV1 HEV2 EV2

(a) 5-story buildings (b) 10-story buildings
HEV3 EV3 HEV4 EV4

(c) 15-story buildings (d) 20-story buildings
Fig. 27. Plastic hinges distributions at D/H = 1%.
of HSSEBF-VSL buildings were less than those of EBF-VSL buildings, the member section strengths of conventional EBF-VSL buildings, the
which indicated that the HSSEBF-VSL had advantages of saving steel higher yielding strength of HSS led to the smaller member sections than
usage and improving economy. The total weight of HEV1 was 14% less those of the conventional EBF-VSL using conventional steel. However,
than that of EV1. For HEV2, HEV3 and HEV4 compared with EV2, EV3 as the structural height increases, the lateral stiffness requirements are
and EV4, the differences were 12%, 11% and 10%, respectively. It is more considerable for design, which reduces the advantage of saving
because that HSSEBF-VSL buildings were designed using HSS to match steel of HSSEBF-VSL.
279
HEV1 EV1 HEV2 EV2

HEV3 EV3 HEV4 EV4

Thus, based on the nonlinear finite elament analysis results above, columns using in HSSEBF-VSL led to the smaller member sections than
the seismic performance of HSSEBF-VSL was slightly lower than that of those of conventional EBF-VSL, which could reduce the total steel
conventional EBF-VSL if the HSSEBF-VSL was designed to match the weight and improved economy. Based on the analyses described in this
member section strengths of conventional EBF-VSL under the same paper, HSSEBF-VSL performed best when building heights do not ex-
design conditions, but the performance of HSSEBF-VSL could meet the ceed fifteen stories.
limitation requirements in the design codes. Moreover, HSS beams and
280
HEV1 EV1 HEV2 EV2

HEV3 EV3 HEV4 EV4

281
5000 5000
Base shear force (kN) 4000 4000

3000 3000
2000 2000
HEV1 HEV2
EV1 EV2
1000 IO 1000 IO
LS LS
CP CP
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
D/H (%) D/H (%)
7000 9000
8000
6000

7000
5000
6000
4000 5000
3000 4000
HEV3 3000 HEV4
2000 EV3 EV4
IO 2000 IO
1000 LS LS
CP 1000 CP
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
D/H (%) D/H (%)
Fig. 30. Pushovers curves.
5. Conclusions
Table 19
Strength at different stages of all buildings.
Static tests and shake table test were used to study the seismic
Frames Yielding Maximum load- Strength of Strength of Strength of performance of the HSSEBF-VSL specimens. Four HSSEBF-VSL build-
strength bearing IO LS CP ings and four EBF-VSL buildings were designed and their FEMs were
capacity established by SAP2000. The FEMs of all buildings were analyzed using
nonlinear pushover and dynamic analyses. Their seismic performance
Vy (kN) Vm (kN) VIO (kN) VLS (kN) VCP (kN)
and total steel weight were verified by comparisons. The following
HEV1 1040 4386 1326 2469 3044 conclusions can be drawn within the limitations of the research:
HEV2 1664 4491 1797 3478 4059 (1) The HSSEBF-VSL with one-bay and one-story specimen had re-
HEV3 1966 5922 2301 4406 4961
liable load-bearing and ductility capacities under the static lateral
HEV4 2583 7798 2967 5640 6470
EV1 1117 4359 1739 3349 3862 pushover loads. The HSS frame could still resist the lateral loads when
EV2 1811 4799 2199 4012 4375 the shear links damaged, which indicated that the HSSEBF-VSL was a
EV3 2126 6610 2807 5346 5818 safe and dual system.
EV4 2784 8141 3476 6282 6816 (2) During the cyclic loading test, the hysteretic loops of HSSEBF-
Table 20
Characteristics of ground motions.
Earthquake Record Pr. of exc. Magnitude Source distance PGA PGV Scale factors
(% in 50 yrs) (km) (g) (cm/s)
Imperial Valley IMPVALL/H-DLT352 50/10/2 6.53 12.45 0.24 26.0 0.29/0.83/1.67

Loma Prieta LOMAP/G03000 50/10/2 6.93 12.82 0.56 35.6 0.13/0.36/0.71
Cape Mendocino CAPEMEND/RIO360 50/10/2 7.01 14.33 0.39 44.1 0.18/0.51/1.03
Landers LANDERS/CLW-LN 50/10/2 7.28 19.74 0.28 25.6 0.25/0.71/1.43
Landers LANDERS/YER360 50/10/2 7.28 23.62 0.24 51.4 0.29/0.83/1.67
Kobe, Japan KOBE/NIS090 50/10/2 6.9 7.08 0.51 37.3 0.14/0.39/0.78
Kobe, Japan KOBE/SHI090 50/10/2 6.9 19.15 0.24 37.8 0.29/0.83/1.67
Kocaeli, Turkey KOCAELI/ARC000 50/10/2 7.51 13.49 0.22 17.7 0.32/0.91/1.82
Duzce, Turkey DUZCE/BOL090 50/10/2 7.14 12.04 0.73 56.4 0.10/0.27/0.55
Manjil, Iran MANJIL/ABBAR–L 50/10/2 7.37 12.56 0.51 42.8 0.14/0.39/0.78
282
0.30 VSL with one-bay and one-story specimen were very plump. The spe-
Acceleration response spectra Sa (g)
Response spectrum of scaled ground motions cimen possessed stable and expanding hysteretic loops with no dete-
Average spectra rioration in the stiffness and load-bearing capacity. It indicated that the
0.25 Design spectra in GB50011-2010
[PoE: 63% in 50 years. RP:50 years]
specimen had good plastic deformation and energy dissipation capa-
cities.
0.20
(3) The three-story specimen in the shake table test could resist the
loads by severe earthquakes and there was no danger of the structure
0.15 collapse. In the test specimen, the shear links dissipated the earthquake
energy through the inelastic shear deformation.
0.10 (4) The seismic performance of HSSEBF-VSL was slightly lower than
that of conventional EBF-VSL if the HSSEBF-VSL was designed to match
0.05 the member section strengths of conventional EBF-VSL under the same
design conditions, but the HSS beams and columns using in HSSEBF-
VSL could reduce the total steel weight and improved economy.
0.00 Moreover, HSSEBF-VSL performs best when structure height does not
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
exceed fifteen stories.
Period T (s)
Fig. 31. Design spectra and scaled earthquake spectra.
5 10
9
8
4
7
6
Story
Story
3 IO IO
5
4
2 3
HEV1 HEV2
EV1 2 EV2
1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Interstoty drifts (%) Interstoty drifts (%)
15 20
14 19
18
13 17
12 16
11 15
14
10 13
9 12
Story
Story
8 IO 11
10 IO
7 9
6 8
5 7
6
4 5
3 HEV3 4 HEV4
2
EV3 3 EV4
2
1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Fig. 32. Mean maximum interstory drifts of frames during the earthquakes with pro. exc. of 50% in a 50-year period.
283
5 10
9
8
4
7
6
Story
Story
3 IO LS
5
4
2 3
HEV1 HEV2
IO EV1 LS 2 EV2
1 1
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8
15 20
14 19
18
13 17
12 16
11 15
14
10 13
9 12
Story
Story
IO 11 IO LS
8 LS 10
7 9
6 8
7
5 6
4 5
HEV3 4 HY-20
3
EV3 3 Y-20
2 2
1 1
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8
Fig. 33. Mean maximum interstory drifts of frames during the earthquakes with pro. exc. 10% in a 50-year period.
284
5 10
HEV1 HEV2
9
EV1 EV2
4 8
7
6
Story
Story
3 LS CP LS CP
5
4
2 3
2
1 1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
15 20
14 HEV3 19
18 HEV4
13 EV3 17 EV4
12 16
11 15
14
10 13
9 12
Story
Story
11 CP
8 LS CP 10 LS
7 9
6 8
7
5 6
4 5
3 4
3
2 2
1 1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Fig. 34. Mean maximum interstory drifts of frames during the earthquakes with pro. exc. of 2% in a 50-year period.
[6] M. Bosco, P.P. Rossi, Seismic behaviour of eccentrically braced frames, Eng. Struct.
31 (3) (2009) 664–674.
Table 21 [7] L. Mastrandrea, V. Piluso, Plastic design of eccentrically braced frames, I: mo-
Total steel weight comparison. ment–shear interaction, J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (5) (2009) 1007–1014.
[8] K.C. Lin, et al., Seismic reliability of steel framed buildings, Struct. Saf. 32 (3)
Frames Steel weight m1 (t) Frames Steel weight m2 (t) (m2 − m1) / m2 (2010) 174–182.
[9] M. Bosco, P.P. Rossi, A design procedure for dual eccentrically braced systems:
HEV1 179 EV1 207 14% analytical formulation, J. Constr. Steel Res. 80 (1) (2013) 440–452.
HEV2 445 EV2 508 12% [10] R. Montuori, E. Nastri, V. Piluso, Theory of plastic mechanism control for eccen-
HEV3 990 EV3 1111 11% trically braced frames with inverted y-scheme, J. Constr. Steel Res. 92 (2014)
HEV4 1580 EV4 1766 10% 122–135.
[11] D.M. Yang, G.J. Hancock, Compression tests of high strength steel channel columns
with interaction between local and distortional buckling, J. Struct. Eng. 130 (12)
(2004) 1954–1963.
[12] G. Shi, et al., Experimental study on column buckling of 420MPa high strength steel
1. Acknowledgements welded circular tubes, J. Constr. Steel Res. 100 (2014) 71–81.
[13] B.W. Wang, et al., Seismic behavior of high strength steel welded beam–column
members, J. Constr. Steel Res. 102 (11) (2014) 245–255.
The authors are grateful for the partial financial support from the [14] G. Shi, et al., Local buckling behavior of welded stub columns with normal and high
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51178382). strength steels, J. Constr. Steel Res. 119 (2016) 144–153.
[15] K.J. Rasmussen, G.J. Hancock, Plate slenderness limits for high strength steel sec-
tions, J. Constr. Steel Res. 23 (1) (1992) 73–96.
References
[16] K.J. Rasmussen, G.J. Hancock, Tests of high strength steel columns, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 34 (1) (1995) 27–52.
[1] C.W. Roeder, E.P. Popov, Eccentrically braced steel frames for earthquake, J. Struct. [17] G. Pocock, High strength steel use in Australia, Japan and the US, Struct. Eng. 84
Div. 104 (3) (1978) 391–412. (21) (2006) 27–30.
[2] K.D. Hjelmstad, E.P. Popov, Characteristics of eccentrically braced frames, J. Struct. [18] GB50011-2010, Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, China
Eng. 110 (2) (1982) 340–353. Architecture & Building Press, Beijing (China), 2010 (in Chinese).
[3] K.D. Hjelmstad, E.P. Popov, Cyclic behavior and design of link beams, J. Struct. [19] JGJ 99-98, Technical Specification for Steel Structure of Tall Buildings, China
Eng. 109 (10) (1983) 2387–2403. Architecture & Building Press, Beijing (China), 1998 (in Chinese).
[4] K. Kasai, E.P. Popov, Cyclic web buckling control for shear link beams, J. Struct. [20] AISC 341-10, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, (2010) (Chicago
Eng. 112 (3) (1986) 505–523. (USA)).
[5] D. Dubina, A. Stratan, F. Dinu, Dual high-strength steel eccentrically braced frames [21] L.I. ZX, Theory and Technique of Engineering Structure Experiments, (2014)
with removable links, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37 (7) (2008) 1703–1720. (Tianjin).
285

Journal of Constructional Steel Research: Articleinfo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Constructional Steel Research: Articleinfo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 137 (2017) 262–285

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Seismic performance of high-strength steel fabricated eccentrically braced MARK

Fig. 1. Prototype structure for static tests.

2. Static test 2.2. Test setup

Structural member Links Braces Beams Columns

Steel grade designation Q345 Q460 Q460 Q460

Fig. 2. Details of the specimen.

Specimen for static tests

Fig. 3. Test setup.

1-Base platform; 2-Test specimen; 3-Actuator; 4-Oil jack;

(a) Displacement meters (b) Strain gauges

Performance level Qualitative description Recommended drifts of EBF (%)

P-1 Immediate occupancy 0.5

Force provided by actuator Horizontal displacement of specimen Description of test phenomena

− 249.95 − 4.87 Link web yielded

Note: “-” is the pull direction of the actuator.

800 2.5. Test results and discussions of cyclic loading test

100 2.5.2. Hysteretic curve

Yield point Peak point Ultimate point Vm/Vy Ductility coeﬃcient

Δy (mm) Vy (kN) Δm (mm) Vm (kN) Δu (mm) Vu (kN)

8.90 346.22 91.85 682.16 130.14 546.97 1.97 14.62

− 266.01 − 6.72 No obvious phenomenon Load control stage

Fig. 9. Hysteretic curve of the test specimen. Displacement (mm)

Plastic rotation angle (rad)

2.5.5. Failure mechanism

Positive 398.8 11.09 612.3 44.24 1.54 3.99

(a) Dissipated energy (b) he coefficient

In this test, three ground motions were selected as input excitations

Fig. 16. Dimensions of the test specimen.

Members Links Braces Beams Columns

Steel grade designation Q345 Q345 Q460 Q460

(a) Link-to-frame connection (d) Beam-to-column connection

(c) Brace-to-frame connection

Fig. 18. Layout of sensors.

Spectral Acceleration (g)

3.5.2. Natural vibration properties

Story shear force (kN)

Ground motions Maximum roof drifts (D/H, %)

0.042 g 0.084 g 0.12 g 0.168 g 0.24 g 0.264 g 0.48 g 0.744 g 1.0 g

1.4 1.4 1.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.4 1.4 1.4

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.4 1.4 1.2

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

Fig. 26. Building plan and elevation views.

Frames HSSEBF-VSL EBF-VSL

5-story 10-story 15-story 20-story 5-story 10-story 15-story 20-story

Designation HEV1 HEV2 HEV3 HEV4 EV1 EV2 EV3 EV4

interstory drifts of the buildings reached the limitation of the perfor-

HEV1 Story Links (e/(Mp/Vp)) Beams Columns Braces

1 H320 × 150 × 10 × 20 (1.19) H330 × 200 × 10 × 15 H500 × 500 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20

2 H300 × 150 × 10 × 20 (1.20) H320 × 200 × 10 × 15 H490 × 490 × 20 × 30 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20

3 H320 × 150 × 8 × 20 (1.19) H310 × 200 × 10 × 15 H470 × 470 × 20 × 25 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20

4 H330 × 150 × 6 × 20 (1.17) H280 × 180 × 8 × 15 H450 × 450 × 20 × 25 H300 × 200 × 15 × 20