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

net/publication/320781436

Seismic performance factors for low‐ to mid‐rise steel diagrid structural

systems

Article  in  The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings · April 2018

DOI: 10.1002/tal.1505

CITATIONS READS
5 589

2 authors, including:

Esmaeel Asadi
Case Western Reserve University
12 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Design and behavior of Steel Plate Shear Walls having outriggers View project

Sustainable optimization of diagrid structure using Neural Dynamics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Esmaeel Asadi on 29 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 Seismic Performance Factors for Low- to Mid-
2 rise Steel Diagrid Structural Systems
3
4 Esmaeel Asadi1 and Hojjat Adeli2
5 1. Department of Civil Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH
6 44106, Email: exa187@case.edu
7 2. Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geodetic Engineering, The Ohio State University, 470 Hitchcock
8 Hall, 2070 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43220, USA, Email: adeli.1@osu.edu

9 ABSTRACT

10 Diagrids are known as an aesthetically pleasing and structurally efficient system. The
11 current design codes and provisions, however, provide no specific guidelines for their
12 design under extreme events such as earthquakes. This paper presents a comprehensive
13 investigation of the performance of steel diagrid structures to evaluate their key seismic
14 performance factors. Nonlinear static, time-history dynamic, and incremental dynamic
15 analyses are used to assess diagrid performance and collapse mechanisms in a high
16 seismic region. Seismic performance factors including response modification factor,
17 ductility factor, overstrength factor, and deflection amplification factor are quantified
18 using four different methodologies. Four archetype groups of diagrid buildings ranging
19 in height from 4 to 30 stories have been investigated. An R factor in the range of 4 to
20 5 is recommended for steel diagrid frames in the range of 8 to 30 stories unless
21 supplementary analyses are conducted to find the optimal diagonal angle. For low-rise
22 steel diagrids (under 8 stories) an R factor in the range of 3.5 to 4 is recommended.
23 Further, an overstrength and ductility of 2.5 and 2 is recommended. This paper lays the
24 groundwork for including steel diagrids in design provisions.

25 Keywords: Seismic Performance, Response Modification Factor, Steel structure,

26 Diagrid

27 1. INTRODUCTION

28 Two current trends in design of tall and special buildings are creating freeform signature
29 buildings and using sustainable and efficient structural systems (Wang and Adeli 2014, Rafiei and
30 Adeli 2016). Diagrid, a variation of the tubular structures, enjoys both of those trendy attributes.
31 Diagrids are known as an aesthetically pleasing and structurally efficient system and for their
32 flexibility to create free-form structures. Their inclined diagonal members can carry both gravity
33 and lateral loads (Moon 2007, Mele et al., 2014). Fig. 1 shows the main components of a diagrid
34 frame along with its basic triangular element. Diagrids have been used in a number of signature
35 and free-form high-rise buildings across the world such as the 103-story Guangzhou International
36 Finance Centre, Guangzhou, China, 57-story The Bow, Calgary, Canada, the 51-story Tornado
37 Tower, Doha, Qatar, and the 595.7-m Canton Tower (Moon 2008, Niu et al. 2015). Diagrids have
38 also been used for iconic mid-rise buildings such as the 11-story Seattle Central Library, Seattle,
39 U.S and the 11-story Macquarie Bank, Sydney, Australia (Boake 2014). Further, diagrids have
40 been used for free-form steel space-frame roof structures (Kociecki and Adeli 2013, Asadi and
41 Adeli 2017). However, current codes of practice such as ASCE7-10 (2010) provide no specific
42 design specifications and seismic performance factors for diagrids. Such specifications and factors
43 will make this structural system more widespread for low- to high-rise buildings.

44 The design codes such as ASCE7-10 (2010) permit elastic analysis for the design of different
45 structural systems by providing a response modification factor, R, (ASCE7-10 2010, FEMA 2009
46 and 2012) to account for the nonlinear response of the structure during extreme events (Adeli et
47 al. 1978). Applied Technology Council (ATC 1978) introduced a base shear reduction factor for
48 the computation of the design base shear of a structure using an elastic response spectrum by taking
49 the ductility into account. Early values of the R factor were mostly based on engineering judgment
50 and previous behavior of each structural system during earthquakes (Whittaker et al. 1999).

51 Other design codes also follow this approach and employ performance/behavior factors to
52 account for the nonlinear performance of the structure during earthquakes. The methods to
53 calculate these factors and the effective parameters, however, vary. For instance, Eurocode-8
54 (2004) uses a behavior factor (q) to account for energy dissipation during earthquakes, which is
55 based mostly on ductility and plan and elevation regularity/irregularity of the frame. The Chinese
56 code (GB 50011, 2010) uses a seismic influence coefficient (α1) which is tabulated based on the
57 seismic class and intensity of the site and natural period and damping ratio of the structure.

58 Ductility affects the performance of the structure to dynamic loads and generally reduces the
59 effective base shear (Newmark and Hall 1982). Several architectural and structural factors may
60 cause an amount of overstrength in the building including expected-to-nominal strength ratio of
61 members, detailing of the components and connections in the design process, and non-structural
62 components such as partition walls (Whittaker et al. 1999, FEMA 2009).

63 FEMA (2009) published a comprehensive report on the assessment of building performance

64 and response parameters under seismic loads. The main goal of that report is to set reliable
65 minimum design criteria and provide a consistent approach applicable to building codes when a
66 linear design method is used. The report introduces a procedure to quantify the key structural
67 factors of seismic building structural systems such as period-dependent ductility and overstrength
68 factors. The recommended approach is compatible with previous FEMA reports (FEMA 2000,
69 2005) and ASCE7-10 (2010).

70 The objective of the current research is to evaluate the seismic performance of diagrid
71 structures and propose seismic performance factors (SPFs) including overstrength, ductility,
72 deflection amplification and response modification factors for steel diagrid structures. Nonlinear
73 static, time-history dynamic, and incremental dynamic analyses have been performed to assess the
74 performance of archetype diagrid structures. Key factors affecting diagrid performance are
75 specified. Four different methodologies have been explored to evaluate and quantify SPFs of
76 diagrid archetypes with different heights and diagonal angles: FEMA P-695 (2009), Miranda and
77 Bertero (1994), Vidic et al. (1994), and Newmark and Hall (1982).

78 2. METHODOLOGY FOR QUANTIFYING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

79 FACTORS

80 This section describes briefly the four methodologies employed in this research. First, FEMA
81 P-695 (2009) method, the more recent approach, is described in detail. Then, the procedures used
82 to quantify each SPF value is discussed.

83 2.1. FEMA P-695 METHODOLOGY

84 FEMA P-695 report, referred as FEMA (2009) in this article, introduces a comprehensive
85 method to estimate SPFs for new seismic-resisting structural systems. This method integrates
86 uncertainty in demand and performance and employs advanced nonlinear analysis techniques
87 including incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). Fig. 2 shows the main steps of the FEMA (2009)
88 method and the evaluation procedure.
 89 The first step is to define a series of criteria for the desired structural system including the
90 structural material, configuration, inelastic and nonlinear properties, and intended scope of
91 application. In the case of diagrids, configuration and particularly the diagonal angle is a key
92 property dictating the performance of the structure. Next, a set of archetypes reflecting a wide
93 range of possible archetype structures should be developed given the scope and criteria defined
94 initially. Archetypes are assembled into a number of performance groups. Given that it is
95 impractical to consider or find the SPFs for all possible applications, the archetypes should
96 represent the typical applications of the system (FEMA, 2009). Using nonlinear static analyses,
97 statistical data on the overstrength, ductility, and median collapse capacities of the structural
98 system should be evaluated. The expressions for quantifying each factor are discussed in the
99 section.

100 2.2. QUANTIFICATION OF SEISMIC RESPONSE FACTORS

101 2.2.1. Response Modification Factor

102 ATC (1995a, b) present a formula for determination of the R factor as a product of three
103 important properties of the structure: redundancy factor (Rr) and period-dependent ductility (Rµ)
104 and overstrength factors (Ro).

105 𝑅𝑅 = 𝑅𝑅𝑜𝑜 𝑅𝑅𝜇𝜇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟 (1)

106 The Ro factor represents the capacity-to-demand strength ratio in a building which is generally
107 larger than 1.0 as there is always some overstrength in the structure. The Rµ factor is associated
108 with the global nonlinear response of the structural system. The Rr factor represents the degree of
109 indeterminacy of the structure or the number of available load carrying lines to transfer seismic
110 loads to the foundation (Whittaker et al. 1999).

111 Eq. 1 has been used for assessment of the R factor for various structural systems such as
112 chevron-braced frames (Kim and Choi 2005), Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames (BRBF)
113 (Asgarian and Shokrgozar 2009), tubular structures in tall buildings (Kim et al. 2009), moment
114 resisting frames with TADAS (triangular-plate added damping and stiffness) dampers (Mahmoudi
115 and Abdi 2012), and steel frames utilizing shape memory alloys (Ghassemieh and Kargarmoakhar
116 2013). Such a study has not been reported for diagrids, however.
117 The redundancy represents an enhanced reliability of the system when multiple vertical lines
118 are used to carry the lateral load. Whittaker et al. (1999) recommend a redundancy factor of
119 approximately 1.0 for structures with at least 4 lines of vertical seismic framing in each
120 perpendicular direction. Since there are at least 4 lateral load-carrying lines (at least 4 diagonals)
121 in each direction in the examples studied in this research, the redundancy factor is assumed to be
122 equal to 1.0.

123 2.2.2. Overstrength Factor

124 The overstrength factor for the structural system is the largest average of all archetype
125 performance groups. FEMA (2009) defines the overstrength factor, Ro, as the ratio of the maximum
126 base shear resistance, Vmax, to the design base shear of the structure, Vd.:
𝑉𝑉𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
127 𝑅𝑅𝑜𝑜 = (2)
𝑉𝑉𝑑𝑑

128 where Vmax is based on the nonlinear static pushover curve (Fig. 3) and Vd is the required design
129 base shear defined by ASCE7 (2010).

130 In the literature, other slightly different definitions of this factor have been suggested based on
131 FEMA (2000) idealized pushover curve. FEMA (2000) states that the pushover curve shall be
132 idealized with a bilinear curve using an “iterative graphical procedure” so that the areas above
133 and below the ideal curve are approximately equal as shown in Fig. 3. The secant stiffness (Ke) is
134 taken equal to the slope of the ideal curve where it crosses the primary curve at 0.6 times the
135 effective yield strength, Vy, (Fig. 3). Kim and Choi (2005) use the overstrength factor based on the
136 idealized force-displacement curve introduced in FEMA (2000) as follows:
𝑉𝑉𝑦𝑦
137 𝑅𝑅𝑜𝑜 = (3)
𝑉𝑉𝑑𝑑

138 The effective yield strength (Vy) shall be equal to or less than the maximum base shear (Vmax
139 in Fig. 3). Eq. 2 results in a larger than or equal value for the overstrength factor than Eq. 3.

140 2.2.3. Ductility Factor

141 The relationship between the period-dependent ductility reduction factor (Rµ) and the ductility
142 ratio (µ) has been studied by several researchers in the past decades (FEMA 2009, Whittaker et al.
143 1999, Miranda and Bertero 1994, Vidic et al. 1994, Newmark and Hall 1982). The relationship
144 depends mostly on the fundamental period of the structure. It changes for displacement, velocity,
145 and acceleration segments of a linear response spectrum (Whittaker et al. 1999).

146 Newmark and Hall (1982) proposed a method to construct the inelastic response spectrum of
147 a structural system from an elastic one which can be used to find the Rµ factor as well. Chopra and
148 Goel (1999) refined the Newmark˗Hall method as follows:

1 𝑇𝑇 < 𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎
⎧ 𝛽𝛽⁄2
⎪(2𝜇𝜇 − 1) 𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎 < 𝑇𝑇 < 𝑇𝑇𝑏𝑏
149 𝑅𝑅𝜇𝜇 = 𝑇𝑇 (4a)
⎨ 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 𝜇𝜇 𝑇𝑇𝑏𝑏 < 𝑇𝑇 < 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐
⎪
⎩ 𝜇𝜇 𝑇𝑇 > 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐

150 where

151 𝛽𝛽 = ln(𝑇𝑇/𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎 )⁄ln(𝑇𝑇𝑏𝑏 /𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎 ) (4b)

152 and T is the natural period of the structure, µ is the ratio of the maximum permissible lateral
153 displacement (δu) to the effective elastic displacement (δy) of the structure, and the period limits
154 are defined based on the elastic response spectra with the following recommended values:
155 Ta=0.030 s, Tb=0.125 s and Tc is the period where the constant acceleration and the constant
156 velocity segments of the inelastic design spectrum meet.

157 Miranda and Bertero (1994) observed that the Rµ˗µ relationship also depends on the site
158 soil condition. Based on a study of 124 ground motions collected on different site conditions they
159 introduced a Φ coefficient to take into account the soil condition as follows:
𝜇𝜇−1
160 𝑅𝑅𝜇𝜇 = + 1 ≥ 1.0 (5)
Φ

161 They proposed three different equations (for rock, alluvium, and soft soil sites) for the Φ
162 coefficient based on ductility ratio and period of the structure.

163 Vidic et al. (1994) propose the following equation for the Rµ˗µ relationship:
𝑇𝑇
𝑐𝑐1 (𝜇𝜇 − 1)𝑐𝑐𝑅𝑅 + 1 𝑇𝑇 ≤ 𝑇𝑇0
164 𝑅𝑅𝜇𝜇 = � 𝑇𝑇0 (6)
𝑐𝑐𝑅𝑅
𝑐𝑐1 (𝜇𝜇 − 1) + 1 𝑇𝑇 > 𝑇𝑇0

165 where

166 𝑇𝑇0 = 𝑐𝑐2 𝜇𝜇 𝑐𝑐𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 (7)

167 and the coefficients c1, c2, cR, and cT depend on the damping ratio and hysteresis response of the
168 structure. The recommended values for these coefficients used in this research for a bilinear
169 hysteretic behavior (similar to the dashed line in Fig. 3) and 5 percent damping are 1.35, 0.75,
170 0.95, and 0.2, respectively (Chopra and Goel 1999).

171 FEMA (2009), on the other hand, recommends a different approach to find the archetype
172 period-dependent ductility. It requires the lateral load to be applied monotonically until the base
173 shear capacity of 0.8Vmax. Then, the period-dependent ductility factor is obtained by dividing the
174 corresponding lateral roof displacement (δu) by the effective yield lateral roof displacement (δy,eff)
175 (Fig. 3). The effective yield roof displacement is found using the following equation:
𝑉𝑉𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑔𝑔
176 𝛿𝛿𝑦𝑦,𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 𝐶𝐶0 � � (𝑇𝑇𝑝𝑝 ) 2 (8)
𝑊𝑊 4𝜋𝜋2

177 where

∑𝑁𝑁
1 𝑚𝑚𝑛𝑛 𝜑𝜑1,𝑛𝑛
178 𝐶𝐶0 = 𝜑𝜑1,𝑟𝑟 ∑𝑁𝑁 2 (9)
1 𝑚𝑚𝑛𝑛 𝜑𝜑1,𝑛𝑛

179 and W, g, and Tp are building weight, gravity acceleration, and the maximum permissible
180 fundamental period of the structure according to ASCE7-10 (2010). The fundamental period of the
181 structure can be computed based on an eigenvalue analysis but shall not be greater than CuTa (the
182 product of the coefficient for the upper limit and the approximate fundamental period). The
183 modification factor C0 converts the spectral displacement of the equivalent SDOF system to the
184 roof displacement of the multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) structure and is found by Eq. 9 which
185 is Eq. C3-4 of ASCE/SEI 41-06 (2006) or alternatively using the values from Table 3-2 of FEMA
186 (2000). In Eq. 9, mn, φ1,n, φ1,r are the mass at level n, the ordinate of fundamental mode shape at
187 level n, and the roof, respectively.

188 2.2.4. Deflection Amplification Factor

189 The ASCE7-10 (2010) uses the deflection amplification factor (Cd) to determine the amplified
190 story deflection at level x (δx) from an elastic analysis. The Cd factor can be calculated using the
191 structure ductility ratio (µ), the effective yield strength (Vy), and the design base shear (Vd) as
192 follows (Uang and Maarouf 1994):
𝑉𝑉𝑦𝑦
193 𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 = 𝜇𝜇 (10)
𝑉𝑉𝑑𝑑
194 FEMA (2009) considers the Cd factor as a reduced R factor and recommends the following
195 equation to calculate the Cd:
𝑅𝑅
196 𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 = (11)
𝐵𝐵𝐼𝐼

197 where the BI is a numerical coefficient provided in Table 18.6-1 of the ASCE7-10 (2010) in terms
198 of the inherent damping ratio of the structure. The BI value for 5 percent effective damping ratio
199 is 1.0 where the period of the structure is larger than T0 = 0.2SD1/SDS. This means that in this case
200 the Cd factor is equal to the R factor.

201 2.2.5. Relation Between Ductility Factor (Rµ) and Ductility Ratio (µ)

202 The ductility factor (Rµ) is calculated using three methods: Newmark˗Hall (NH), Miranda-
203 Bertero (MB), and Vidic-Fajfar-Fischinger (VFF). These methods are selected to cover a
204 reasonably wide range of methodologies proposed for quantifying Rµ. The Newmark and Hall
205 (1982) methodology paved the way for ATC method (1995a&b) and is used by a number of
206 previous researchers (Kim and Choi 2005, Kim et al. 2009). The MB method includes the effect
207 of soil property and the VFF method considers hysteresis response and damping ratio of the
208 system. By considering these three methods in addition to FEMA (2009) method, the authors aim
209 to obtain more reliable values for the Rµ and R factors.

210 Fig. 4 shows the variation of Rµ versus the period of the structure for three different ductility
211 ratios of 2, 4, and 6 using the three aforementioned approaches. In general, the VFF approach
212 offers an upper bound for the Rµ factor in periods larger than Tb whereas the refined NH approach
213 is the lower bound in that range. The MB approach for rock soils generally yields Rµ values
214 between the other two approaches. Also, this last approach results in larger Rµ values than the NH
215 approach for periods between 1 to 3 seconds but not as large as the VFF approach. For periods
216 larger than 3 seconds, all three methods result in virtually a constant value of Rµ (equal to µ) where
217 the VFF approach yields a relatively larger value than the others. In case of diagrids, the
218 fundamental period of the structure is relatively low due to their substantial lateral stiffness (Kim
219 and Lee 2012, Asadi and Adeli 2017). Therefore, low- to mid-rise diagrids are expected to fall in
220 the range of small periods (lower than 2.0s). More information on Rµ-µ relationship is presented
221 in Chopra and Goel (1999), Whittaker et al. (1999), and ATC (1995a&b).
222 3. ARCHETYPE DIAGRID STRUCTURES

223 3.1. ARCHETYPE BUILDINGS

224 Four groups of archetype steel diagrids with 4, 8, 15, and 30 stories are considered for
225 assessment of SPFs to cover a wide range of possible applications of diagrids. As is common in
226 diagrid structures, the diagrid frames form the perimeter of the building (Ali and Moon, 2007).
227 The archetypes are office buildings located in Los Angeles, CA with Ss (spectral response
228 acceleration at 0.2 sec) and S1 (spectral response acceleration at 1 sec.) of 1.803g and 0.649g,
229 respectively. Dead and Live loads are 4 and 2.4 kN/m2, respectively. The floor plan for the 4-, 8-
230 and 15-story groups is similar as presented in Fig. 5a. Fig. 5b presents the typical floor plan for
231 the 30-story group. For each group, three diagrid patterns with diagonal angles of approximately
232 45°, 63°, and 72° with the horizon are studied to account for various possible diagonal
233 configurations. Fig. 6 shows the diagrid patterns used in this research. The structures are labeled
234 by using the number of stories and their diagonal angle. For instance, archetype 15-63 refers to a
235 15-story diagrid structure with a diagonal angle of 63°.

236 3.2. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS CRITERIA

237 AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) (AISC 2011), AISC 360-10 (2010), and
238 ASCE7-10 (2010) are used for the structural design of all archetypes. Note that ASCE7-10 (2010)
239 does not provide any specific performance factor for the seismic design of diagrids. For
240 preliminary design, following previous studies (Kim and Lee 2010&2012; Kwon and Kim 2014),
241 all three seismic coefficients including response modification, overstrength, and deflection
242 amplification factors are assumed to be equal to 3.0. The A992 grade 50 steel with yield and
243 ultimate strength of 345 and 450 MPa, respectively, is used for all steel members. The standard W
244 section is used for diagonals, beams, and interior columns. Diagonals are designed to carry both
245 lateral and gravity loads. For wind loads, Exposure Category C and wind speed of 110 mph are
246 used based on the location of the structures. Floors are reinforced concrete slabs with a thickness
247 of 6 in. The ASCE7 (2010) requirements for story drift are satisfied.

248 Three types of analyses are performed for SPF evaluation including three-dimensional
249 nonlinear static analysis using SAP2000 (CSI, 2011) per FEMA (2005; 2009) and NTHA and IDA
250 using OpenSees planar models (Mazzoni et al., 2006) models per FEMA (2009; 2012). SAP2000
251 has been used by a number of other diagrid system researchers in recent years in a similar fashion
252 (Moon et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2010&2012; Mele et al., 2014). The plastic performance and
253 modeling criteria of FEMA (2005) and ASCE/SEI 41-13 (2014) for braced frames are adapted for
254 diagonals. Geometric nonlinearity (P-∆ effect) is considered directly in the computation of the
255 stiffness matrix. Fig. 7 depicts the force-deformation curves used for modeling plastic hinges in
256 SAP2000 models. The modeling parameters a, b, c in Fig. 7 are calculated per FEMA (2005)
257 Tables 5-6 and 5-7. The parameter ∆c represents the axial deformation at expected buckling load
258 (Pcr).

259 For OpenSees models, the hysteretic model of Menegotto-Pinto with fiber element and 0.02
260 hardening is used for both diagonals and beams (Mazzoni et al., 2006). The method developed by
261 Uriz (2005) for modeling Concentrically Braced Frames (CBFs) in OpenSees which considers low
262 cycle fatigue and global brace buckling is adapted to model nonlinear behavior of diagonals. To
263 simulate P-∆ effect, a leaning column linked to the main frame is considered (Moghaddasi and
264 Zhang, 2013). Fig. 7 also depicts the key parameters of the OpenSees models. The nonlinear
265 dynamic analyses are conducted for 4- and 8-story archetypes.

266 The few experimental studies published on diagrid connections (Kim et al., 2010 and 2011)
267 provide little information on design and modeling of diagrid connection. Hence, connections are
268 not explicitly modeled in this research. Different possible approaches were tested and assuming
269 moment-resisting connections seem to provide the most accurate results. Note that regardless of
270 the connection type, i.e. hinged or moment-resisting, the diagonal design and behavior are
271 governed by axial strength not flexural strength (Moon et al., 2007; Kim and Lee, 2012; Mele et
272 al., 2014).

273 4. NONLINEAR PERFORMANCE OF STEEL DIAGRIDS

274 Nonlinear static analysis, NTHA, and IDA are performed per FEMA (2005, 2009, 2012a,
275 2012b) on archetype diagrid structures to assess their seismic performance and evaluate the SPFs.
276 This section summarizes key findings of the static and dynamic performance of diagrids and
277 clarifies details of the analyses used for SPF assessment.

278 4.1. NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

279 In static nonlinear analyses, three lateral load distributions are considered for each model: 1)
280 uniform distribution, 2) the distribution provided by the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) method
281 of ASCE7-10 (2010), and 3) the modal shape distribution, and the critical one, showing the least
282 lateral stiffness and load capacity, is chosen for quantification of the SPFs.

283 Figs. 8a-d show the lateral force versus roof displacement, the pushover curve, obtained by a
284 static nonlinear analysis for the 4-, 8-, 15-, and 30-story models, respectively. Diagrids show large
285 initial lateral stiffness and collapse capacity which is consistent with previous studies (Moon et al.,
286 2007; Kim and Lee, 2012; Milana et al., 2015). Plastic hinges are well spread across the diagrid
287 frames for most archetypes except the 4-72 and 8-72. These two archetypes have incomplete
288 uppermost diagrid modules (shown in Fig. 9) which adversely impact their behavior. The optimal
289 archetype in terms of nonlinear behavior and lateral stiffness is found to be the 4-63, 8-63, 15-72,
290 and 30-72 models among the 4-, 8-, 15-, 30-story structures, respectively. In these optimal models,
291 plastic hinges are spread both horizontally and vertically across the width and height of the
292 structure more broadly than the other case; these models have a larger load carrying capacity
293 compared with other models (Fig. 8).

294 4.2. NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS

295 NTHA is conducted on OpenSees models of 4- and 8-story archetype buildings considering
296 the gravity loads and a set of 22 far-field ground motion records recommended for SPF assessment
297 in Appendix A of FEMA (2009).

298 4.2.1. Earthquake Ground Motions

299 A representative set of ground motions is a critical component of a reliable seismic

300 performance assessment. FEMA (2012a) recommends a minimum of 11 ground motion records
301 for collapse analysis of building structures. In this research, a set of 22 far-field records
302 recommended by FEMA (2009) to appropriately represent record-to-record variability is used in
303 NTHAs and IDAs. The records obtained from 14 different events include site class C and D and
304 magnitudes in the range of 6.5 to 7.6. Based on FEMA (2009) instructions, they are normalized
305 with respect to peak ground velocity (PGV) and scaled to match the design response spectrum of
306 ASCE7-10 (2010) at the fundamental period of the structure. Fig. 10 depicts the scaled response
307 spectrum alongside the design response spectrum for the 8-45 archetype.

308 4.2.2. Diagrid Performance under Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis

309 The nonlinear dynamic performance of diagrid archetypes is studied under two earthquake
310 hazard intensities: DBE (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) and MCE (2% probability of
311 exceedance in 50 years) per United States Geological Survey (USGS) hazard maps. The NTHAs
312 are performed in OpenSees for 4- and 8-story archetypes. Table 1 summarizes the key engineering
313 demand parameters (EDPs) of the archetypes studied, including the maximum and mean inter-
314 story drift (IDRmax and IDRavg, respectively) under DBE and MCE.

315 Diagrids shows relatively small IDRmax and IDRavg under both DBE and MCE compared to
316 other structural systems (on average, 1.26% and 0.64% for DBE and 2.02% and 0.96% for MCE).
317 For comparison, Chen et al. (2008) report an IDRmax of 1.46% and 2.78% under DBE and MCE
318 for a 3-story steel CBFs located in downtown Los Angeles, CA. As noted under static analysis,
319 the incomplete uppermost module in 4-72 and 8-72 archetypes causes a substantially larger IDR
320 in these cases. Table 1 also shows the IDRmax to IDRavg ratio which is an indicator of the soft-story
321 vulnerability of the structure. Large IDRmax/ IDRavg values indicate concentration of damage in a
322 specific story and likely soft-story formation in the structure. The IDRmax/IDRavg of diagrids is
323 close to CBFs, 1.84 and 2.00 for diagrids compared to 1.76 and 2.08 for the 3-story CBFs under
324 DBE and MCE, respectively (Chen et al., 2008). Moreover, if cases with 72° diagonal angle are
325 excluded, diagrids are much less likely to form soft-story than CBFs. These cases have an
326 incomplete uppermost module. Fig. 11 and 12 depict the variation and the logarithmic trendline of
327 IDRmax, IDRavg, and their ratio for different models and hazard levels. The vertical axis shows the
328 pseudo spectral displacement based on 5% damped design spectra of the site at the fundamental
329 period of the structure, Sd (T1,5%). Accordingly, the IDRmax values and IDRmax to IDRavg ratio for
330 diagrid with 72° diagonal angle has much more dispersion (i.e. standard deviation) than other cases
331 in addition to larger values indicating more uncertainty in the behavior of these models. For
332 instance, the dispersion for IDRmax to IDRavg ratio for 4-72 archetype under DBE is 0.39 compared
333 to 0.18 and 0.05 for 4-45 and 4-63 archetypes, respectively. Further, the trendlines for the 72°
334 archetype in Figs. 11 and 12 has a much larger slope than that of 63° and 45° archetypes for all
335 EDPs. This indicates that the IDRmax and IDRavg increase at a higher rate in 72° models compared
336 to others with the increase of spectral displacement. On the other hand, the trendlines for 63° and
337 45° models are close to each other. The 4-63 archetype shows a slightly higher rate than 4-45
338 archetype (Fig. 11). While the 8-45 archetype shows a considerably higher rate than 8-63 archetype
339 (Fig. 12). Generally, diagrid archetypes absorb large spectral acceleration under both DBE and
340 MCE earthquakes which implies a large capacity and stiffness for diagrid frames. This will
341 manifest in larger overstrength factor for diagrids compared to similar structural systems namely
342 CBFs.

343 4.3. INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

344 The IDA is used to explicitly consider record-to-record uncertainty in collapse evaluation
345 (FEMA, 2012a; Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002). The IDA includes hundreds of time-history
346 analyses where the ground motion intensity is increased gradually to achieve collapse in the
347 structure. Fig. 13 shows IDA curves for the 4-45 diagrid archetype. The vertical axis shows the
348 spectral acceleration based on 5% damped design spectra of the site at the fundamental period of
349 the structure, Sa (T1,5%). For each archetype, 748 NTHAs are performed to develop the
350 corresponding collapse fragility curve. The IDA is conducted for 4- and 8-story archetypes.
351 Collapse is achieved if an insignificant increase in ground motion intensity (spectral acceleration)
352 result in a significant increase in the governing EDP (maximum IDR) or a dynamic instability
353 happens (FEMA, 2009; Yamin et al, 2017).

354 4.4. COLLAPSE FRAGILITY ASSESSMENT

355 For 4- and 8-story archetypes, collapse fragility functions for each archetype were developed
356 in terms of cumulative distribution function (CDF) of ground motion intensities leading to
357 collapse. According to FEMA (2009), adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR) is defined as the
358 ratio of median collapse capacity (ŜCT) to the MCE intensity (SMT) multiplied by Spectral Shape
359 Factor (SSF):

360 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × Ŝ𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 /𝑆𝑆𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 (12)

361 SSF values are provided in Table 7-1 of FEMA (2009) based on ductility ratio and fundamental
362 period of the structure. Also, the acceptable values of ACMR are provided in Table 7-3 of FEMA
363 (2009) based on total system collapse uncertainty.

364 The collapse capacity, ŜCT, obtained from IDA for each ground motion record is used to
365 evaluate the probability of collapse at a certain Sa (T1,5%). Then, a lognormal distribution function
366 is used to estimate the collapse fragility function for each archetype. The empirical CDF and the
367 fitted lognormal collapse curve are illustrated in Fig. 14 for 4- and 8-story archetypes. The Sa
368 (T1,5%) associated with DBE and MCE are shown with dashed lines in Fig. 14.
369 Table 2 lists ŜCT, collapse IDRmax, and their corresponding lognormal dispersion (𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 and 𝛽𝛽𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
370 respectively), as well as ACMR and probability of collapse for 4- and 8-story archetypes. The mean
371 ACMR is 2.05 which is higher than the acceptable value, i.e. 1.96, and individual cases has a higher
372 ACMR than individual ACMR limit, i.e. 1.56. The acceptable ACMR margins are evaluated for a
373 good model quality conditions based on Table 7-3 of FEMA (2009). The probability of collapse
374 under MCE for each individual archetype is less than 20%, the acceptance limit suggested by
375 FEMA (2009). The mean probability of collapse under MCE, however, is 13.6% which is higher
376 than the suggested acceptance limit, i.e. 10%. To achieve the suggested acceptance limit,
377 archetypes were redesigned several times with different approaches. The design options which
378 passes the later acceptance limit has an extremely small demand to capacity ratio (Fu /Fn) for all or
379 many structural elements and as a result, are economically inefficient and impractical. Note that
380 per ASCE and AISC design codes, the archetypes need to be designed for DBE not MCE. Thus,
381 given that the archetypes listed in Table 2 meet ACMR requirements, they are accepted for collapse
382 fragility assessment.

383 5. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE FACTORS FOR STEEL DIAGRIDS

384 The effective yield strength (Vy) and effective elastic displacement as well as the maximum
385 permissible lateral displacement (δu) are found using the idealized bilinear pushover curve
386 introduced in FEMA (2000) (Fig. 3). Table 3 presents the seismic response parameters including
387 the effective yield strength (Vy), ductility ratio (µ), deflection amplification factor (Cd), and
388 overstrength factor (Ro), period-dependent ductility factor (Rµ), and response modification factor
389 (R) found using four different methods discussed in the previous section. Table 4 presents the
390 mean, standard deviation (SD), maximum (Max), and minimum (Min) values for the seismic
391 response parameters for models investigated in this research.

392 5.1. DUCTILITY RATIO

393 Fig. 15 presents a bar chart for the ductility ratio (µ) of archetypes studied defined as the ratio
394 of the ultimate lateral displacement (δu) to the effective elastic displacement (δy) based on the
395 idealized bilinear nonlinear static pushover curve (Fig. 3). The mean and the SD values of ductility
396 ratio, as reported in Table 4, are 2.65 and 0.79, respectively. The largest ductility ratio in the 4-
397 and 8-story archetypes belongs to 4-63 and 8-63, respectively while in 15- and 30-story archetypes
398 the 72° archetypes show a considerably larger ductility than others. This result indicates that the
399 diagonal angle has a major effect on the ductility of the diagrid structures and by choosing an
400 optimal diagonal angel, the ductility of diagrids can be improved noticeably.

401 5.2. OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR

402 The overstrength factor (Ro) is evaluated using Eqs. 2 and 3. The results are presented in Fig.
403 15. As expected, the FEMA (2009) equation yields a larger value for the Ro factor than Eq. 3 used
404 by Kim and Choi (2005) by an average of 27%. In 4-, 8- and 30-story archetypes, the 63° case has
405 the largest overstrength whereas the overstrength of 15-story cases are relatively similar. This
406 difference is mostly due to the section grouping in the design process and the capacity-to-demand
407 ratio of diagonal sections in the 63° archetypes. Note that the architectural and material factors
408 causing overstrength are similar in all cases.

409 The average value of the overstrength factor for all diagrid archetypes is 2.89 and 2.28 based
410 on Eqs. 2 and 3, respectively. This is relatively close to that of steel moment-resisting frames
411 (MRFs) which is equal to 3.0 per ASCE7-10 (2010), and noticeably larger than the overstrength
412 factors of CBFs and eccentrically braced frames (EBFs) which are both equal to 2.0 per ASCE7-
413 10 (2010). This points to a notably large reserve strength for steel diagrid frames.

414 5.3. DUCTILITY FACTOR

415 Four different approaches, NH, MB, VFF, and FEMA (2009), were used to calculate the
416 ductility factor (Rµ). Fig. 16 shows the variation of the ductility factor for four groups of diagrid
417 structures and three diagonal angles. In general, the ductility factor calculated based on the VFF
418 and MB approaches are larger than the others with the VFF approach being the largest. The result
419 from the NH and FEMA (2009) approaches are relatively close except in the 30-63 archetype,
420 even though the corresponding equations are completely different. The mean ductility factor based
421 on the FEMA (2009) approach is 11, 21, and 28 percent smaller than that of the NH, MB, and VFF
422 approaches, respectively.

423 The mean ductility factors for 4-, 8-, 15-, and 30-story archetypes are relatively close indicating
424 that the number of stories does not have a significant effect on the ductility factor. The diagonal
425 angle, however, has a major effect on the ductility factor similar to the ductility ratio. The
426 archetypes with the largest lateral stiffness in each group, 4-63, 8-63, 15-72, and 30-72, show a
427 noticeably larger ductility factor than others in all approaches studied. The 72° archetypes are
428 found to have a larger ductility factor than others unless the uppermost diagrid module is
429 incomplete. Clearly, the uppermost incomplete diagrid module in 4-72 and 8-72 archetypes
430 adversely affects their ductility factors.

431 The bar chart in Fig. 17 compares the mean SPFs (Ro, Rµ, and R) obtained using various
432 approaches. The SD is also shown in the middle of each bar. In case of Rµ, the SD value for VFF
433 approach is the largest showing undesirable large variations of calculated values using this method.
434 At the same time, the Rµ values calculated based on the NH approach are less disperse showing
435 the smallest SD among all four approaches.

436 5.4. RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR

437 The response modification factor is found for all archetypes using the four approaches
438 discussed earlier. The results are presented in Fig. 18 and Tables 3 and 4. In most cases, the NH
439 approach yields the smallest and most conservative R factor than others except for the 30-63 and
440 all 4-story archetypes. For 30-63 and 4-story archetypes, the FEMA (2009) approach yields the
441 smallest R factor because of the small Rµ factor of these archetypes. Note that the FEMA (2009)
442 approach for finding the period-dependent Rµ factor is different from other approaches. Its
443 equation depends on the period and weight of the structure. In the case of the 30-63 archetype, the
444 period of the structure is relatively large (1.26 seconds, a 105-meter high diagrid) but the weight
445 of this archetype is the smallest among the 30-story cases. This leads to a large effective yield roof
446 displacement (δy,eff) and consequently smaller Rµ (Eq. 8). On average, NH approach gives an R
447 factor of 5.06 with the SD of 1.39 which are both the smallest values among all approaches (Fig.
448 17). This shows that the NH method yields the most conservative and the least disperse results.
449 The MB approach for rock soil yields a mean R factor of 5.67 which is close to the FEMA (2009)
450 mean value of 5.60 but smaller than that of 6.21 obtained using the VFF. Generally, the VFF
451 approach shows the largest R factor (up to 10.76) which can be considered as an upper bound for
452 the R factor of steel diagrid structures (Table 3).

453 In general, four parameters affect the SPFs and in particular, the R factor of diagrid structures.
454 Diagonal angle has the largest influence. As mentioned earlier, the 4-63, 8-63, 15-72, and 30-72
455 archetypes are the optimal archetypes corresponding to each group in terms of nonlinear behavior
456 and lateral stiffness. They have the largest value of the R factor in their corresponding group as
457 well. This indicates that an optimal diagonal angle can increase the R factor of the diagrid steel
458 structure substantially, up to 61 percent in the case of the FEMA (2009) approach. In order to
459 benefit from a large R factor in the range 6-8 (based on the mean value of optimal cases for four
460 approaches), the designer needs to find the optimal diagonal angle based on aspect ratio, structural
461 configuration, effective loads, etc. This can be achieved by checking multiple diagonal
462 configurations or more effectively through a formal optimization method (). In the absence of an
463 extensive parametric study or a formal optimization approach, a smaller conservative R factor
464 between 4-5 (based on the mean value of non-optimal cases for four approaches) is recommended.

465 The number of stories or the height of the structure also affects the diagrid R factor. Low-rise
466 cases (4-story archetypes) show a noticeably smaller R factor than other cases; an average of 3.8
467 compared to overall average of 5.64. Since diagrids are most effective against large lateral loads,
468 a smaller R factor between 3.5-4 is recommended for low-rise buildings (under 8-story). This value
469 is based on mean R factor of 4-story archetypes for four approaches. The mean value of the R
470 factor increases with an increase in the number of stories except for the FEMA (2009) approach
471 where the mean value for the 30-story archetypes is smaller than those of 8- and 15-story
472 archetypes. Similarly, the aspect ratio of the building also influences the R value. The low-rise
473 buildings with smaller aspect ratio have a noticeably smaller R factor.

474 Another key influencing parameter is the configuration and in particular the incomplete
475 uppermost diagrid module. As shown in Fig. 9, the 4-72 and 8-72 have an incomplete uppermost
476 diagrid module which adversely affects their performance and causes a reduction in the R factor.
477 The structural deformation increases in these incomplete modules initiating failure of diagonals.
478 This adverse impact is clearer in the 8-72 archetype where its R factor is noticeably lower than 8-
479 63 archetype. Consequently, if the designer wants to have an incomplete upper module in the
480 diagrid structure, the R factor needs to be reduced accordingly. The magnitude of this reduction
481 should be evaluated by supplementary analyses per FEMA (2009).

482 5.5. DEFLECTION AMPLIFICATION FACTOR

483 The results for the deflection amplification factor (Cd) using Eqs. 10 and 11 are presented in
484 Tables 3 and 4 and as a bar chart in Fig. 15. The result from each equation is noticeably different
485 for different archetypes but the mean values are relatively close. The mean value for the Cd factor
486 using Eq. 10 and Eq. 11 is 6.03 and 5.60, respectively. Note that the average of results from Eq.
487 13 (6.03) is larger than the overall mean R factor obtained (5.64). The mean values for the Cd factor
488 are larger than those of steel MRFs which are in the range 3.0-5.5 per ASCE7-10 (2010), and CBFs
489 which are in the range 3.25-5.00 per ASCE7-10 (2010).

490 6. CONCLUSIONS

491 This paper presented a comprehensive study of the key seismic performance factors needed
492 for the seismic design of diagrids including ductility ratio, deflection amplification factor, ductility
493 factor, overstrength factor, and the response modification factor. Four different methodologies
494 were employed: Newmark˗Hall, Miranda-Bertero, Vidic-Fajfar-Fischinger, and FEMA P-695.
495 Four archetype groups of diagrids ranging in height from 4 to 30 stories were studied in a high
496 seismic region.

497 The mean value of R factor based on four methods and twelve structural archetypes (a total of
498 48 cases) is 5.64. This value is relatively large given that no special seismic design consideration
499 is included in the modeling. Experimental studies aiming to develop special seismic considerations
500 for design of diagrid connections and diagonal members will improve the performance of steel
501 diagrids. For comparison, steel concentrically braced frames (CBFs) has an R factor of 3.25 for
502 ordinary CBFs to 6.00 for special CBFs per ASCE7-10. The optimal archetypes in terms of
503 nonlinear behavior and lateral stiffness in each group (4-63, 8-63, 15-72, and 30-72 archetypes)
504 have a disproportionately large effect on the overall mean seismic response factor of steel diagrid
505 structures. The mean R factor for all archetypes excluding those four is 4.76.

506 In general, four parameters affect the seismic performance factors of diagrid structures: 1)
507 diagonal angle, 2) number of story, 3) height to width ratio (aspect ratio) of the building, and 4)
508 having an incomplete upper diagrid module. Diagonal angle is the most effective parameter and
509 an optimal diagonal angle can significantly improve the ductility and seismic performance of the
510 diagrid structure. An R factor in the range of 4 to 5 is recommended for steel diagrid frames in the
511 range of 8 to 30 stories unless supplementary analyses are conducted to find the optimal diagonal
512 angle. For low-rise steel diagrids (under 8 stories) an R factor in the range of 3.5 to 4 is
513 recommended. Further, an overstrength and ductility of 2.5 and 2 is recommended based on the
514 mean values for all archetypes excluding the optimal ones. The deflection amplification factor
515 needs to be calculated based on the R factor and in most cases, it can be taken as equal to the R
516 factor. This paper lays the groundwork for including steel diagrids design provisions in ASCE and
517 AISC standards. The seismic overstrength and response modification factors of steel diagrids are
518 found to be larger than the concentrically braced frames, particularly when an optimal diagonal
519 angle is used, thus making them a superior alternative structural system.

520 FUTURE RESEARCH

521 The fundamental period of diagrids is notably smaller than conventional tubular systems (Kim
522 and Lee 2012), Moment-Resisting Frames (MRFs), and Concentrically Braced Frames (CBFs).
523 The current ASCE7-10 (2010) equation for approximate fundamental period is Ta = Ct hnx where
524 of Ct and x depend on the type of structure and h is the structure height. For diagrids, using the Ct
525 and x values of 0.0488 and 0.75 (for “other structural systems”) the equation generally yields a
526 larger period than direct modal analysis which may lead to a non-conservative design. Therefore,
527 new equations for the fundamental period similar to those developed for MRF (Adeli 1985, Young
528 and Adeli 2014), CBF (Young and Adeli 2014), and EBF (Young and Adeli 2016) should be
529 developed for diagrids to reflect the diagrid characteristics more accurately.

530 A conclusion of this research is the diagonal angle plays a key role in the structural
531 performance of diagrids. The optimal diagonal angle can change based on the aspect ratio,
532 structural configuration, effective loads, etc. As such, finding the optimal angle is a challenging
533 problem. Additional research is needed on the application of optimization techniques for the most
534 efficient design of diagrid systems. Authors advocate the use of nature-inspired computing
535 techniques (Siddique and Adeli, 2017) such as evolutionary computing (Wright and Jordanov,
536 2017; Pillon et al., 2016; Siddique and Adeli, 2013) or neural dynamics model of Adeli and Park
537 (Park and Adeli, 1995; Tashakori and Adeli, 2002) that have been used effectively for both
538 minimum weight and cost optimization of highrise and superhighrise building structures with
539 thousands of members (Adeli and Park 1998; Aldwaik and Adeli, 2014).
540 In addition to introduction of innovative structural systems for highrise building structures,
541 two key technologies at the frontiers of structural engineering research have been health
542 monitoring of structures (Shan et al., 2016; Tsogka et al., 2017), and active, semi-active, and hybrid
543 vibration control of structures under dynamic earthquake and wind loading where significant
544 advances have been made in recent years (Kim and Adeli, 2005a&b; Karami and Akbarabadi,
545 2016). Application of these technologies can lead to development of smart/adaptive diagrid
546 systems where data collected by sensors are processed using advanced signal processing
547 techniques (Amezquita-Sanchez and Adeli, 2016) and machine learning approaches (Palomo and
548 Lopez-Rubio, 2016; Lin et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017) to monitor their health in real-time, and
549 actuators or tuned liquid column dampers are used to modify their behavior, reduce their
550 vibrations, and lessen the impact of extreme dynamic loading.

551 REFERENCES

552 Adeli H., 1985. Approximate formulae for period of vibrations of building systems, Civ Eng Prac and Des
553 Eng 4 (1), 93–128.

554 Adeli, H., Gere, J.M., Weaver W., 1978. Algorithms for nonlinear structural dynamics. ASCE J Struct Div
555 104 (2), 263-280.

556 AISC, 2011. Steel Construction Manual 14th ed. Load and resistance factor design specification for
557 structural steel buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.

558 AISC, 2010. ANSI/AISC 360-10: An American National Standard – Specification for Structural Steel
559 Building, American Institute of Steel Construction. Chicago, Illinois.

560 Ali M.M., Moon K.S. 2007. Structural Developments in Tall Buildings: Current Trends and Future
561 Prospects. Architectural Science Review 50(3): 205–223.

562 Amezquita-Sanchez, J.P. and H. Adeli, H. (2016), “Signal Processing Techniques for Vibration-based
563 Health Monitoring of Structures,” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 23:1, pp. 1-15
564 (DOI: 10.1007/s11831-014-9135-7).

565 Asadi, E., and Adeli, H. 2017. Diagrid: An Innovative, Sustainable and Efficient Structural System, The
566 Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 26(8), DOI 10.1002/tal.1358.

567 ASCE, 2006. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 41-06, American
568 Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.

569 ASCE, 2010. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. SEI/ASCE Standard No. 7–10,
570 American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.

571 ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). (2014). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
572 Buildings: ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 41-13.

573 Asgarian B., Shokrgozar, H.R., 2009. BRBF response modification factor, J Constr Steel Res 65 (2), 290-
574 298.

575 ATC, 1978. Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings. ATC-3-06,
576 Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California 45–53.
577 ATC, 1995a. Structural response modification factors. ATC-19, Applied Technology Council, Redwood
578 City, California 5–32.

579 ATC, 1995b. A critical review of current approaches to earthquake resistant design. ATC-34, Applied
580 Technology Council, Redwood City, California 31–36.

581 Boake, T.M., 2014. Diagrid structures: systems, connections, details, Birkhäuser, Switzerland,
582 <http://alltitles.ebrary.com/Doc?id=10838294>.

583 Chopra, A.K., Goel, R.K., 1999. Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum.
584 Earthquake Spectra 15 (4), 637-656.

585 CSI (Computers and Structures, Inc.). 2011. CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000, ETABS, SAFE,
586 and CSiBridge, Berkeley, California, USA.

587 European Committee for Standardization, 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake
588 resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998-1:2004, Brussels.

589 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2000. FEMA-356: Prestandard and commentary for
590 the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Building Seismic Safety Council for The Federal Emergency
591 Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

592 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2005. FEMA-440: Improvement of nonlinear static
593 seismic analysis procedures, Building Seismic Safety Council for The Federal Emergency
594 Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

595 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. FEMA P-695: Quantification of building seismic
596 performance factors, Building Seismic Safety Council for The Federal Emergency Management
597 Agency, Washington, D.C.

598 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2012a. “Seismic performance assessment of buildings.”
599 FEMA P-58, The Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC.

600 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2012b. FEMA P-751: 2009 NEHRP recommended
601 seismic provisions: design examples, Building Seismic Safety Council for The Federal Emergency
602 Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

603 Ghassemieh, M., Kargarmoakhar, R., 2013. Response modification factor of steel frames utilizing shape
604 memory alloys, J Intell Mater Syst Struct. 24 (10), 1213-1225.

605 Kim, H. and Adeli, H. (2005a), "Hybrid Control of Smart Structures Using a Novel Wavelet-Based
606 Algorithm", Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 7-22.
607 Kim, H. and Adeli, H. (2005b), "Wind-Induced Motion Control of 76-Story Benchmark Building Using the
608 Hybrid Damper-Tuned Liquid Column Damper System”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
609 Vol. 131, No. 12, pp.1794-1802.

610 Kim, J., Choi, H., 2005. Response modification factors of chevron-braced frames, Eng Struct 27, 285-300.

611 Kim J., Lee Y.H. 2010. Progressive collapse resisting capacity of tube-type structures. The Structural
612 Design of Tall and Special Buildings 19: 761–777.

613 Kim, J., Lee, Y.H, 2012. Seismic performance evaluation of diagrid system buildings, Struct Des Tall Spec
614 Build 21 (10), 736-749.

615 Kim, J., Park, J., Shin, S., Min, K., 2009. Seismic performance of tubular structures with buckling restrained
616 braces, Struct Des Tall Spec Build 18 (4), 351-370.

617 Kociecki, M., Adeli, H., 2013. Two-phase genetic algorithm for size optimization of free-form steel space-
618 frame roof structures, J Constr Steel Res 90, 283-296.

619 Karami, K. and Akbarabadi, S. (2016), “Developing a smart structure using integrated subspace-based
620 damage detection and semi-active control,” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
621 31:11, pp. 887-903.

622 Lin, Y.Z., Nie, Z.H., and Ma, H.W., (2017), “Structural Damage Detection with Automatic Feature-
623 extraction through Deep Learning,” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 32:12, pp.

624 Kwon, K., and Kim, J. 2014. Progressive Collapse and Seismic Performance of Twisted Diagrid Buildings,
625 International Journal of High-Rise Buildings, 3 (3): 223-230.

626 Mahmoudi, M., Abdi, M.G., 2012. Evaluating response modification factors of TADAS frames. J Constr
627 Steel Res 71, 162-170.

628 Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., and Fenves, G. L. (2006). OpenSees command language manual.
629 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

630 Mele E, Toreno M, Brandonisio G, De Luca Kim A., 2014. Diagrid structures for tall buildings: case studies
631 and design considerations. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 23, 124–145.

632 Milana G., Gkoumas K., Bontempi F., and Olmati P. 2015. Ultimate capacity of diagrid systems for tall
633 buildings in nominal configuration and damaged state. Periodica Polytechnica: Civil Engineering,
634 59(3), 381-391.

635 Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China. 2010. Code for Seismic Design of Buildings,
636 GB 50011-2010, Beijing, China.
637 Miranda, E., Bertero, V.V., 1994. Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design,
638 Earthquake Spectra 10 (2), 357–379.

639 Moghaddasi B., N. S., Zhang Y. 2013. Seismic analysis of diagrid structural frames with shear-link fuse
640 devices. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 12, 463-472. DOI 10.1007/s11803-013-
641 0186-9.

642 Moon K. S., Connor J. J., Fernandez J. E., 2007. Diagrid Structural Systems for Tall Buildings:
643 Characteristics and Methodology for Preliminary Design. The Structural Design of Tall and Special
644 Buildings 16(2), 205–230.

645 Moon, K.S., 2008. Sustainable structural engineering strategies for tall buildings, The Structural Design of
646 Tall and Special Buildings 17 (5), 895–914.

647 Newmark, N.M., Hall, W.J., 1982. Earthquake spectra and design. EERI Monograph Series, Earthquake
648 Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.

649 Niu, Y., Fritzen, C.P., Jung, H., Buethe, I., Ni, Y.Q., Wang, Y.W., 2015. Online simultaneous
650 reconstruction of wind load and structural responses - theory and application to canton tower,
651 Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 30 (8), 666–681.

652 Palomo, E.J., and Lopez-Rubio, E. (2016), “Learning Topologies with the Growing Neural Forest,”
653 International Journal of Neural Systems, 26:3, 1650019 (21 page).

654 Park, H.S. and Adeli, H. (1995), "A Neural Dynamics Model for Structural Optimization - Application to
655 Plastic Design of Structures", Computers and Structures, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 391-399.

656 Pillon, P.E., Pedrino, E.C., Roda, V.O., Nicoletti, (2016)“A hardware oriented ad-hoc computer-based
657 method for binary structuring element decomposition based on genetic algorithm,” Integrated
658 Computer-Aided Engineering, 23:4, 2016, pp. 369-383.

659 Rafiei, M.H., Adeli, H., 2016. Sustainability in highrise building design and construction, The Structural
660 Design of Tall and Special Buildings 25 (11), 643–658. doi: 10.1002/tal.1276

661 Shan, J., Shi, W., and Lu, X. (2016), “Model reference health monitoring of hysteretic building
662 structure using acceleration measurement with test validation,” Computer-Aided Civil and
663 Infrastructure Engineering, 31:6, pp. 449-464.

664 Siddique, N. and Adeli, H. (2013), Computational Intelligence - Synergies of Fuzzy Logic, Neural
665 Networks and Evolutionary Computing, Wiley, West Sussex, United Kingdom (512 pages).
666 Siddique, N. and Adeli, H. (2017), Nature Inspired computing – Physics- and Chemistry-based Algorithms,
667 CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida.

668 Tashakori, A.R. and Adeli, H. (2002), “Optimum Design of Cold-Formed Steel Space Structures Using
669 Neural Dynamic Model,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 58, No. 12, pp. 1545-1566.

670 Tsogka, C., Daskalakis, E., Comanducci, G., and Ubertini, F. (2017), “The stretching method for vibration-
671 based structural health monitoring of civil structures,” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
672 Engineering, 32:4, pp. 288-303.

673 Uang, C.M., Maarouf, A., 1994. Deflection amplification factor for seismic design provisions. J Struct Eng
674 120 (8), 2423-2436.

675 Uriz, P. 2005. Towards earthquake resistant design of concentrically braced steel structures, Department of
676 Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

677 Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. 2002. Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering &
678 Structural Dynamics, 31, 491–514.

679 Vidic, T., Fajfar, P., Fischinger, M., 1994. Consistent inelastic design spectra: Strength and displacement,
680 EQE Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 23, 507-521.

681 Wang, N., Adeli, H., 2014. Sustainable Building Design, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
682 20 (1), 1-10.

683 Whittaker, A., Hart, G., Rojahn, C., 1999. Seismic response modification factors. J Struct Eng 125 (4), 438-
684 444.

685 Wright, J. and Jordanov, (2017) “Quantum Inspired Evolutionary Algorithms with Improved Rotation
686 Gates for Real-Coded Synthetic and Real World Optimization Problems,” Integrated Computer-Aided
687 Engineering, 24:3, 2017, pp. 203-223.

688 Yamin, L. E., Hurtado, A., Rincon, R., Dorado, J. F., and Reyes, J. C. 2017. Probabilistic seismic
689 vulnerability assessment of buildings in terms of economic losses. Engineering Structures, 138, 308-
690 323.

691 Young, K., Adeli, H., 2014. Fundamental period of irregular moment-resisting steel frame structures. The
692 Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 23 (15), 1141-1157.

693 Young, K., Adeli, H., 2014. Fundamental period of irregular concentrically braced steel frame structures.
694 The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 23 (16), 1211-1224.
695 Young, K., Adeli, H., 2016. Fundamental period of irregular eccentrically braced tall steel frame
696 structures. J Constr Steel Res 120, 199-205.

697 Zhang, A., Wang, K.C.P., Li, B., Yang, E., Dai, X., Peng, Y., Fei, Y., Liu, Y., Li, J.Q., and Chen,
698 C. (2017), “Automated Pixel-Level Pavement Crack Detection on 3D Asphalt Surfaces Using a
699 Deep-Learning Network,” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 32:10, pp. 805-
700 819.

701 Zhong, Y. and Xiang, J. (2016), “A two-dimensional plum-blossom sensor array-based multiple
702 signal classification method for impact localization in composite structures,” Computer-Aided
703 Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 31:8, pp. 633-643.

704

705 BIOSKETCHES OF AUTHORS

706 Esmaeel Asadi is a Ph.D. Candidate in Department of Civil Engineering at Case Western Reserve
707 University and former research assistant at The Ohio State University. His research interests
708 include seismic performance and resilience assessment of innovative structural systems including
709 steel diagrids and steel shear walls. He has recently published two journal papers on these topics
710 including a review paper on diagrid structures.

711 Hojjat Adeli received his Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1976 at the age of 26. He has authored
712 over 600 research and scientific publications in various fields of computer science, engineering,
713 applied mathematics, and medicine, including 16 high-technology books, and holds a United States
714 patent in the area of design optimization. He is the recipient of 55 awards and honors. In 1998 he
715 received the Distinguished Scholar Award, from The Ohio State University’s highest research
716 award “in recognition of extraordinary accomplishment in research and scholarship”. In 2010, he
717 was profiled as an Engineering Legend in the ASCE journal of Leadership and Management in
718 Engineering. He is a corresponding member of the Spanish Royal Academy of Engineering, a
719 foreign member of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences and Polish Academy of Science, a
720 Distinguished Member of ASCE, and a Fellow of AAAS, IEEE, AIMBE, and American
721 Neurological Association.
722
723 TABLES

724 Table 1. Median expected engineering demand parameters

DBE MCE
Archetype IDRmax IDRavg IDRmax/ IDRmax IDRavg IDRmax/
(%) (%) IDRavg (%) (%) IDRavg
4-45 0.50 0.44 1.16 0.71 0.62 1.17
4-63 0.55 0.47 1.17 0.93 0.69 1.41
4-72 3.04 0.86 3.49 5.03 1.41 3.54
8-45 1.24 0.96 1.25 1.77 1.48 1.19
8-63 0.65 0.54 1.26 0.95 0.75 1.31
8-72 1.61 0.58 2.76 2.70 0.86 3.39
725

726
727 Table 2. Expected collapse capacity and IDR, the corresponding lognormal dispersion, the
728 adjusted collapse margin and the probability of collapse
ŜCT Collapse Prob. of collapse (%) under
Model 𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝛽𝛽𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 ACMR
(g) IDRmax (%) DBE MCE
4-45 3.75 0.46 1.16 0.53 2.4 0.6 5.6
4-63 3.07 0.52 1.5 0.62 2.0 3.6 15.3
4-72 3.35 0.47 5.91 0.42 2.1 1.5 9.5
8-45 3.15 0.65 1.37 0.41 2.0 6.9 19.5
8-63 2.93 0.52 1.25 0.57 2.0 4.4 17.6
8-72 2.86 0.43 2.21 0.46 1.8 2.2 14.1
729
730
731 Table 3. Seismic performance parameters evaluated using four different methods
15- 15- 15- 30- 30- 30-
Parameter 4-45 4-63 4-72 8-45 8-63 8-72
45 63 72 45 63 72
Vy 20.6 26.8 26.3 61.6 71.5 66.0 87.3 92.0 125 495 484 520
Ro= Vy /Vd 1.60 2.13 2.10 2.34 2.68 2.10 2.06 2.14 2.18 2.29 3.49 2.21
µ= δu/ δy 2.29 2.69 2.33 2.29 3.93 2.42 2.31 2.09 4.41 1.70 1.99 3.39
Cd=µ Vy /Vd 3.66 5.73 4.89 5.36 10.5 5.08 4.77 4.47 9.60 3.88 6.96 7.50
Newmark-Hall:
Rµ 1.89 2.09 1.91 1.89 2.62 1.96 2.31 2.09 2.80 1.70 1.99 3.39
R 3.02 4.46 4.01 4.42 7.01 4.12 4.77 4.47 6.09 3.88 6.96 7.50
Miranda-Bertero:
Rµ 1.83 2.16 2.01 2.01 3.08 2.10 2.37 2.11 3.84 1.91 2.28 4.01
R 2.93 4.60 4.23 4.70 8.24 4.41 4.89 4.53 8.36 4.38 7.96 8.87
Vidic et al.:
Rµ 1.74 2.15 2.22 2.28 3.30 2.36 2.75 2.46 4.95 1.96 2.34 4.09
R 2.78 4.58 4.67 5.33 8.84 4.96 5.67 5.28 10.7 4.48 8.17 9.04
FEMA (2009):
Ro= Vmax /Vd 2.30 2.87 2.74 2.92 3.54 2.63 2.58 2.56 2.70 2.77 4.27 2.76
Rµ 1.19 1.54 1.34 1.81 2.54 2.11 2.26 1.87 3.38 1.78 1.03 2.72
R&
2.75 4.41 3.68 5.28 9.00 5.56 5.81 4.78 9.13 4.94 4.42 7.50
Cd=R/BI
732
733
734 Table 4. Statistical measures for seismic performance parameters
Parameter Mean SD Max Min
Ro= Vy /Vd 2.28 0.43 3.49 1.60
µ= δu/ δy 2.65 0.79 4.41 1.70
Cd=µ Vy /Vd 6.03 2.10 10.51 3.66
Newmark-Hall:
Rµ 2.22 0.47 3.39 1.70
R 5.06 1.39 7.50 3.02
Miranda-Bertero:
Rµ 2.48 0.72 4.01 1.83
R 5.67 1.96 8.87 2.93
Vidic et al:
Rµ 2.72 0.90 4.95 1.74
R 6.21 2.29 10.76 2.78
FEMA (2009):
Ro= Vmax /Vd 2.89 0.50 4.27 2.30
Rµ 1.96 0.65 3.38 1.03
R and Cd=R/BI 5.60 1.90 9.13 2.75
735

736
737 FIGURES

738
739 Fig. 1. Main components of a diagrid frame and its basic triangular element

740
741
742 Fig. 2. Main components of FEMA (2009) method for SPF evaluation

743
744
745 Fig. 3. Idealized force-displacement curve based on pushover analysis adapted from FEMA
746 (2000; 2009)
747
748
749 Fig. 4. Variation of ductility factor (Rµ) versus period of the structure for three different
750 ductility ratios of 2, 4, and 6 using three approaches NH, MB and VFF.
751
752
753 Fig. 5. Typical floor plan for (a) 4-, 8-, and 15-story (b) 30-story diagrid archetypes

754
755
756 Fig. 6. Diagrid patterns used in this research
 (a) (b)
757 Fig. 7. General member force-deformation relationship and modeling parameters adapted from
758 ASCE/SEI 41-13 (2014) (a) flexural elements (b) diagonals

759
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
760 Fig. 8. Pushover curves for (a) 4- (b) 8- (c) 15- (d) 30-story archetypes

761
762
763 Fig. 9. Elevation of 4-72 model with uppermost incomplete module
764
765
766 Fig. 10. Response spectrum of scaled ground motion records and the design response
767 spectrum for the 8-45 archetype
768
 DBE (10%/50-yr) MCE (2%/50-yr)

(a) IDRmax

(b) IDRavg

(c) IDRmax/IDRavg
769 Fig. 11. Engineering demand parameters for 4-story archetypes (a) IDRmax (b) IDRavg (c)
770 IDRmax to IDRavg ratio under DBE and MCE using NTHA

771
 DBE (10%/50-yr) MCE (2%/50-yr)

(a) IDRmax

(b) IDRavg

(c) IDRmax/IDRavg
772 Fig. 12. Engineering demand parameters for 8-story archetypes (a) IDRmax (b) IDRavg (c)
773 IDRmax to IDRavg ratio under DBE and MCE using NTHA

774
775
776 Fig. 13. Incremental dynamic analysis curves for 4-45 diagrid archetype

777
 (a) (b)
778 Fig. 14. Empirical CDF of Sa (T1,5%) and fitted lognormal fragility functions for (a) 4-
779 story and (b) 8-story archetypes
780
781
782 Fig. 15. Seismic ductility ratio (µ), overstrength factor (Ro), and deflection amplification
783 factor (Cd)
784
785
786 Fig. 16. Seismic ductility factor (Rµ) using four different approaches
787
788
789 Fig. 17. Mean seismic performance factors, Ro, Rµ, and R, obtained using four different
790 approaches (SD is shown in the middle of each bar)
791
792
793 Fig. 18. Seismic modification factor (R) using four different approaches
794
795

796

View publication stats