Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Seismic Performance of A 3D Full Scale H
Seismic Performance of A 3D Full Scale H
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229722275
CITATIONS READS
26 134
5 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
NEESR: Reserve Capacity in New and Existing Low-Ductility Steel Braced Frames View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Giovanni Fabbrocino on 03 July 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.829
SUMMARY
A multi-level pseudo-dynamic (PSD) seismic test programme was performed on a full-scale three-bay two-
storey steel–concrete composite moment-resisting frame built with partially encased composite columns
and partial-strength connections. The system was designed to provide strength and ductility for earthquake
resistance with energy dissipation located in ductile components of beam-to-column joints including
flexural yielding of beam end-plates and shear yielding of the column web panel zone. In addition, the
response of the frame depending on the column base yielding was analysed. Firstly, the design of the test
structure is presented in the paper, with particular emphasis on the ductile detailing of beam-to-column
joints. Details of the construction of the test structure and the test set-up are also given. The paper then
provides a description of the non-linear static and dynamic analytical studies that were carried out to
preliminary assess the seismic performance of the test structure and establish a comprehensive multi-level
PSD seismic test programme. The resulting test protocol included the application of a spectrum-compatible
earthquake ground motion scaled to four different peak ground acceleration levels to reproduce an elastic
response as well as serviceability, ultimate, and collapse limit state conditions, respectively. Severe damage
to the building was finally induced by a cyclic test with stepwise increasing displacement amplitudes.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
∗ Correspondence to: W. Salvatore, Department of Structural Engineering, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
†
E-mail: walter@ing.unipi.it
‡
Research Engineer.
§ Professor.
¶ Associate Professor.
Assistant Professor.
KEY WORDS: seismic design; ductility; steel–concrete composite frames; partial-strength beam-to-
column joints; composite members; pseudo-dynamic testing
1. INTRODUCTION
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
STEEL–CONCRETE COMPOSITE MOMENT-RESISTING STRUCTURE
(a)
MRD,PL MRD,PL
hogging sagging
Figure 1. Proposed PS composite joint solution: (a) undeformed configuration of a joint and (b) joint
components subdivided as ductile and brittle for capacity design.
full-scale 3D two-storey frame at the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) of
the Joint Research Centre at Ispra, Italy. These tests were complemented with tests on column
base components and joints performed at the University of Naples and at the University of Trento.
The projects also offered the opportunity to examine the viability of the proposed constructional
methods, to calibrate and validate numerical analysis models, and to evaluate the EC8 behaviour
factor [16] for the specific structural system, including assessment of the ductility capacity and
structural overstrength. The present paper deals with the development of the PSD and cyclic test
programme on a full-scale steel–concrete composite-framed building. In detail, the attention is
primarily focussed on the analysis of available design procedures suggested by relevant codes and
on the efficiency of some critical issues of the design process taking into consideration national
and international (basically European and U.S. perspectives) design code backgrounds.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A. BRACONI ET AL.
EC8 permits the design of composite frames according to different design concepts based
on different levels of expected yielding (e.g. ductility demand) in structural elements (low
dissipation—ductility class low, DCL; medium dissipation—ductility class medium, DCM; and
high dissipation—ductility class high, DCH) [16]. Different design concepts assign different
dissipative behaviours to the structures. The dissipation induced by plastic deformations can be
located, for DCM and DCH structures, in composite or bare steel parts as beam ends, PR/PS
beam-to-column joint or bracing systems, leading to different dissipative structural types. EC8
does not limit the height of all of these types of structures. Similarly, U.S. AISC seismic codes
[18] suggest three different structural concepts, namely, ordinary, intermediate, and special
moment-resisting composite and bare steel frames, depending on the yielding level, which varies
from very low to high values. AISC provisions consider particular design/detailing rules for
concentrically (C-CBF) and eccentrically braced (C-EBF) and partially restrained composite
frames (C-PRMF) typologies, as the EC8. The ASCE 7-05 code [19] assigns height limitations
to each structural type, differently from EC8; in particular, C-PRMFs are not permitted for high
seismic applications (Seismic Design Categories D and E) and stringent height limits are imposed
for other applications, i.e. 30 m for Seismic Design Category C and 49 m for Seismic Design
Categories A and B. Correspondingly, special steel moment-resisting frames (S-SMRF) have no
height limitation.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
STEEL–CONCRETE COMPOSITE MOMENT-RESISTING STRUCTURE
experimental assessment of seismic performance of the composite PR-PS MRF should be carried
out to investigate the actual behaviour factor and other structural properties.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A. BRACONI ET AL.
Critical Length
Critical Length
Main
Main beam
A-A beam A-A
Seismic steel
Steel Column rebars
Steel Column
(a) (b)
Mechanism 2
(c) Mechanism 1
(d)
Figure 2. Joint details: (a) elevation of an interior joint; (b) elevation of an exterior joint; (c) resistant slab
mechanism according to EC8; and (d) base joint framed on precast foundation blocks.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
STEEL–CONCRETE COMPOSITE MOMENT-RESISTING STRUCTURE
taken into account in the analysis. The provisions are, however, limited to frames with structural
steel columns, not to composite columns. Selected connections must have a total interstorey drift
capacity of 40 mrad as demonstrated by physical qualification cyclic testing. The AISC recom-
mendation to provide full slab depth at the column was not met in the structure studied herein as
only the portion of the slab located above the steel deck profile was in contact against the column
flange in both the interior and exterior joints [18]. In addition, compressive force transferring from
the concrete slab to the column imposes the installation of transverse reinforcing bars to act as a
tie in the spreading zone of the compressive strut against the column.
3. DESIGN
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A. BRACONI ET AL.
(a)
(b)
3/4" x 5"-3/16"
97
3Ø16/100cm 91
55
189 18
95
150
260
20 20
150
280
STEEL SHEETING
107
Figure 3. Prototype structure: (a) moment-resisting frame and designed structure; (b) concrete slab
plan view of the realized prototype at JRC and concentrically braced frame; and (c) main geometrical
features of composite beams and columns.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
STEEL–CONCRETE COMPOSITE MOMENT-RESISTING STRUCTURE
the response of the structure in the direction of moment-resisting frames depicted in Figure 3(a)
is analysed in the present study. The building erected at the ELSA included the three interior
moment-resisting frames along with the secondary beams and the transverse cross bracing in
order to optimize the experimental effort. Main geometric characteristics of the prototype structure
realizing 3D specimen and design loads [15] are summarized in Figures 3(a)–(c). The prototype
structure was designed according to Eurocode provisions for all static load combinations involving
gravity, wind, snow and live loads, and seismic combinations. Wind loading was not found to be
critical both at the serviceability and at the ultimate limit states.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A. BRACONI ET AL.
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
(a) Period (s)
0.6
0.4
0.2
a (g)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
(b) Time (sec)
12
EC8 code spectrum
Artificial spectrum
10
8
Sa (m/sec )
2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
(c) Period (sec)
Figure 4. Seismic action: (a) Elastic and design EC8 spectra; (b) Artificial earthquake ground
motion selected for the PSD test programme; (c) spectrum compatibility of artificial earthquake
with 5% damped EC8 response spectrum.
the prescribed Eurocode 1 [33] load combinations assuming rigid connection properties has been
firstly performed and preliminary beam and column sizes were selected to meet both the prescribed
serviceability and ultimate limit states. Beam end-plates and web column zones are then designed
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
STEEL–CONCRETE COMPOSITE MOMENT-RESISTING STRUCTURE
to also resist the actions obtained from the same elastic analysis. Their strength should be kept close
so that yielding will develop simultaneously in both components. In order to ensure an effective
hierarchy of yielding under strong ground motion shaking, beams, columns, and components have
to be checked against design forces compared with those that lead to yield dissipative mechanisms
in the end-plates and column web panels. The expected capacity of these ductile components was
determined with assumed steel yield strength equal to 1.3 times the nominal value for the check
of the members or connection components against brittle failure mode, such a flexural failure of
the columns or compression failure of the concrete slab bearing against the column face. The
various connection components are illustrated in Figure 1(b) with the indication of the failure mode
(brittle or ductile) considered. For end-plate bolts, premature failure of the bolts prior toflexural
yielding of the end-plates was prevented, satisfying the following conditions: t0.36d f ub / f y
[4, 5], where d and f ub are the diameter and nominal tensile stress of bolts, and t and f y are the
thickness and the nominal yield strength of the end-plate, respectively.
Once the capacity check is completed for all members and connection components, the connec-
tion stiffness properties can be determined and the process must be repeated taking into consider-
ation the connection flexibility. Since beam end-plates and column web panels play a key role on
the connection stiffness and drift limits often govern the member sizes in moment frames, these
parts should be proportioned at this stage such that code drift limits can be met without further
increase in member sizes. The design of the shear connectors and the final layout of reinforcing
steel in the concrete slab are completed at the end of the design process.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A. BRACONI ET AL.
the web panel zone, as illustrated in Figure 1(a). Under negative moment, part of the tension force
acting at the top beam flange level is resisted by the slab reinforcing steel and a flush end-plate
detail was adopted. Conversely, an extended end-plate solution was chosen at the beam bottom
flange to resist the positive bending moments. The transfer of the compression force acting in the
slab to the column was assumed to be ensured through the two mechanisms shown in Figure 2(c)
[16]. Mechanism 2 requires additional transverse slab rebars to form the tension tie resisting the
transverse components of the two compressive struts near the column face.
At the design stage, a preliminary verification of the rotational capacity of the joints under
monotonically increasing loading was performed using the component model method [20] and
available data published in the literature on the ultimate deformation capacity of the joint compo-
nents [36]. In all cases, the connections were found to reach the EC8 minimum value of 35 mrad
without strength degradation [16]. Detail on this verification can be found in [4, 36]. In the AISC
seismic provisions [18], the nominal strength of the joints in composite PR moment frames must be
at least equal to 50% of plastic flexural strength of the connected steel beams (ignoring composite
action). For exterior joints of the prototype structure, the ratios of the joints to steel beam nominal
flexural strength were 1.10 and 0.81 for positive and negative moments, respectively. For interior
joints, the corresponding values were 1.24 and 1.10. Hence, the joints as designed essentially met
and exceed by far this AISC minimum connection strength requirement [18]. Values of composite
steel–concrete joint resistances around the steel beam bending resistance are a consequence of the
drift control and resistance requests for static load combinations at the design stage.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
STEEL–CONCRETE COMPOSITE MOMENT-RESISTING STRUCTURE
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A. BRACONI ET AL.
Figure 5. 3D full-scale prototype: (a) complete test frame erected at the ELSA facility (reaction wall
behind) and (b) additional gravity loads, i.e. water tanks, at floor 1.
joints and columns. Strain gauges were installed on slab rebars. They were also extensively used in
the columns on the middle frame so that internal member forces could be determined. Displacement
transducers and inclinometers were mounted to monitor the deformation of joints for an interior joint.
Inclinometers were also used at the column bases.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
STEEL–CONCRETE COMPOSITE MOMENT-RESISTING STRUCTURE
members and components of PS joints was checked using the measured material properties and it
was found that the intended yielding mechanism could be maintained.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A. BRACONI ET AL.
100
80 Monotonic Test
Cyclic Test
500
Experimental Data 400
Numerical Simulation
300
200
M (kNm)
100
0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
(b) Rotation (mrad)
300
Experimental Data 250
Numerical Simulation
200
150
M (kNm)
100
50
0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-100
-150
(c) Rotation (mrad)
were fabricated from the same material as the test structure, which enabled direct calibration of the
model with joint test results. Figures 6(b) and (c) show that a good correlation was obtained from
this calibration process, in particular, the connection and shear panel responses were calibrated
in order to fit mainly the hysteretic range and to reasonably reproduce their elastic behaviour.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
STEEL–CONCRETE COMPOSITE MOMENT-RESISTING STRUCTURE
Figure 7. Numerical model of a test frame: (a) 2D finite element model; (b) model of the
base joint; and (c) lateral load–roof lateral displacement prediction of the test structure
under non-linear incremental static analysis.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A. BRACONI ET AL.
The rotational spring used in correspondence to the column base plate account represents the
inelastic behaviour of the anchor rods in tension and the grout in compression as depicted in Figure
7(b). As described also in the companion paper [17], the base plate representation was modified
to better capture the observed response of the as-built base plates.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
STEEL–CONCRETE COMPOSITE MOMENT-RESISTING STRUCTURE
Figure 8. Test on composite column bases: (a) layout of the test set-up; (b) location of displacement
transducers; and (c) comparison between tests for HEB260 with different base solutions at N = 330 kN.
ductility (Figure 9) of the anchor bars coupled with the deformative capacity showed by the
traditional column base connection (Figure 8) assures a sufficient plastic rotation capacity to the
solution adopted for the 3D full-scale test frame.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A. BRACONI ET AL.
(a)
400
Test #1 Test #2
300
Force (kN)
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
(b) Slip (mm)
Figure 9. Pull-out test for anchorage bolts for traditional base connections:
(a) set-up of the test and (b) test results.
longer than the value of T1 used in design (0.22 s), due to the simplified formula proposed by
EC8 for the fundamental period estimation that overestimates the lateral stiffness of the building.
Incremental static (pushover) analysis was then carried out to assess the as-built lateral capacity of
the test structure and to evaluate overstrength phenomena, using the model calibrated on the cyclic
tests made on sub-structures (joints and column bases); the adopted material resistances were those
coming from qualification tests executed on profile specimens and concrete. The model was also
used for more extensive static and dynamic studies performed to provide a more detailed assessment
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
STEEL–CONCRETE COMPOSITE MOMENT-RESISTING STRUCTURE
of the expected frame seismic performance [17] on the basis also of executed PSD programme.
In this first analysis, the gravity loading corresponding to Eurocode 1 [33] load combinations
was first applied to the structure and two lateral load conditions were considered, according to
EC8 suggestions [16] for structural assessment: uniform pattern and first mode shape distribution.
Computed normalized lateral load, V /W , versus normalized lateral roof displacement, /H , is
plotted in Figure 7(c). The two curves are quite similar, though they reflect the influence of larger
lateral forces applied at the top of the building with the first mode shape distribution. In both cases,
the first significant deviation from a linear response occurs at V /W = 0.5, which is approximately
2.5 times the EC8 design seismic loads, which corresponds to V /W = 0.206.
The first yielding is related to two factors: (i) the selection of members and drift limitations
under the serviceability load conditions and (ii) the scatter between nominal and actual yielding
stresses of steel profiles. These facts are confirmed by results of elastic analyses carried out
to assess the first yielding of the structure: design strengths of materials lead to V /W = 0.29;
the average yielding stresses for steel and compressive strength for concrete components lead to
a V /W = 0.50, calculated from pushover curves (Figure 7(c)). The latter show that the lateral
capacity near collapse reaches on average V /W = 1.2; hence, it can be argued that strain hardening
contributes significantly to the response of the structure and ensures a relevant overstrength ratio,
quite larger than the valued assumed for design (approximately estimated as u /1 2). However,
strain hardening and scattering of material properties are not the only causes of overstrength
phenomena. An interesting aspect is related to the drift limit checks, EC8 [16], with reference to
joint flexibility. From Figure 7(c), the computed drift angle under the design seismic load is 0.20%.
In EC8 [16], this deformation must be amplified by the q factor (6.0) and multiplied by the return
period reduction factor = 0.4 (Importance Classes III and IV), thus providing a value of ∼ 0.50%.
This value is equal to the EC8 limit for structures including brittle non-structural components.
Such a drift imposes a demanding checking of the limit state of damage (serviceability limit state,
SLS) that can lead to members oversized for dissipation purposes at limit state of safety (ultimate
limit state, ULS). A more harmonized definition of the suggested drift limits associated with the
expected performance as indicated in [16] could lead to an effective optimization of the member
sizes for the two considered limit states.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A. BRACONI ET AL.
a set of predetermined limit states. The analyses were performed using the trapezoidal rule in
the implicit -Newmark time-stepping scheme [44], with a single correction. Time steps were set
equal to 0.001 and 0.0001 s used for the elastic and inelastic analyses, respectively; the Rayleigh
damping was set to 5% of critical damping in the first two modes of vibration. More details about
the whole test programme are reported in the following section, while main results coming from
numerical simulations and tests are reported in the companion paper [17].
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
STEEL–CONCRETE COMPOSITE MOMENT-RESISTING STRUCTURE
400
Top Storey
2
300
1.5
1 200
0.5 100
0
0
-0.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-1 -100
-1.5 -200
-2
-2.5 -300
-3 -400
(a) Time (sec) (b)
0.8 3
Experimental Data
Experimental Data Numerical Simulation
0.6 Numerical Simulation 2
0.4 1
0.2
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 -1 15 17.5
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 -115 17.5 -1
-0.2
-2
-0.4
-3
-0.6
-4
-0.8 Time (sec)
(c) Time (sec) (d)
Figure 10. Predicted response of the roof displacement: (a) time history under ground motion scaled at
1.4g pga and (b) history developed for the cyclic quasi-static test. Measured and predicted top storey
displacement time histories: PSD Test No. 2 pga=0.25g(c); PSD Test No. 3 pga=1.40g(d).
A total of six displacement increments with two cycles per increment were applied for a total of
12 cycles. The maximum displacement amplitude was equal to 300 mm, with predicted interstorey
drift angles of 4.6%. During this test, the first to the second floor lateral load ratio is maintained
equal to 0.97. This ratio was determined from modal shapes obtained in the PSD Test No. 4.
7. CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive design procedure, applied to a prototype structure, was proposed for steel–
concrete composite moment-resisting structure endowed with PS beam-to-column joints designed
to dissipate seismic energy through bending of the beam end-plates and shear yielding of column
web panel zones. The performance of joints was verified through subassemblage quasi-static cyclic
tests. The results were used to calibrate a numerical model developed to predict the seismic
behaviour of a full-scale structure specimen to be used in a PSD test programme. The frame was
found to exhibit significant extra lateral capacity compared with the value expected in design. The
results of the analysis and the calibrated numerical model were used to develop a comprehensive
multi-level PSD programme targeted to analyse the response of the structure at various limit states
or anticipated performance levels. A final quasi-static cyclic test programme was also included in
the test programme to induce severe damage to the structure components. The calibrated model of
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A. BRACONI ET AL.
the test structures adopted for the PSD test programme definition also demonstrated good agreement
with the experimental results (Figures 10(c) and (d)). The results coming from 3D full-scale test
are further discussed in the companion paper [17].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The results presented in this work were obtained in the framework of the ECOLEADER HPR-CT-1999-
00059 and the ECSC 7210-PR-250 European research projects, for which the authors are grateful. The
last author collaborated to this study as a Visiting Scientist at the Joint Research Centre at Ispra during
a sabbatical leave from Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal (Contract No. 19851-2002-09 P1VS3 ISP IT).
The financial support from both institutions and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada is acknowledged. Nevertheless, opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsors.
REFERENCES
1. Leon RT, Hoffman JJ, Staeger T. Partially Restrained Composite Connections. Steel Design Guide Series, vol.
8. American Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL, 1996.
2. Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Ductility of composite beams under negative bending: an equivalent
index for reinforcing steel classification. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2001; 57:185–202.
3. Bursi OS, Sun F-F, Postal S. Non-linear analysis of steel–concrete composite frames with full and partial shear
connection subjected to seismic loads. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2005; 61:67–92.
4. Braconi A, Salvatore W, Tremblay R, Bursi OS. Behaviour and modelling of partial-strength beam-to-column
composite joints for seismic applications. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36:142–161.
5. Braconi A, Salvatore W, Bursi OS, Ferrario F. Seismic design of beam-to-column connections for steel–concrete
composite moment resisting frames. In Proceedings of the STESSA 2003 Conference, Naples, Italy, June 2003.
Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Area, Mazzolani F (ed.). Lisse: Balkema, 2003; 253–260.
6. Green PT, Leon RT, Rassati GA. Bidirectional tests on partially restrained, composite beam-to-column connections.
Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2004; 130(2):320–327.
7. Lachal A, Aribert J-M, Ciutina A. Seismic performance of end-plate moment resisting composite joints.
Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete (ASCE): Kruger National
Park, South Africa, July 2004. 2005.
8. Leon RT, Ammerman DJ, Lin J, McCauley RD. Semi-rigid composite steel frames. Engineering Journal (AISC)
1987; 24(4):147–155.
9. Mander JB, Chen SS, Pekcan G. Low-cycle fatigue behaviour of semi-rigid top-and-seat angle connections.
Engineering Journal (AISC) 1994; 31(3):111–122.
10. Swanson JA, Leon RT. Bolted steel connections: tests on T-stub components. Journal of Structural Engineering
(ASCE) 2000; 126(1):50–56.
11. Aribert JM, Ciutina A, Dubina D. Seismic response of composite structures including actual behaviour of
beam-to-column joints. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete.
(ASCE): Kruger National Park, South Africa, July 2004. 2005.
12. Ciutina AL, Dubina D, Aribert JM. Dissipative seismic performance of composite moment resisting frames
including realistic behaviour of joints. In Proceedings of the STESSA Conference, Naples, Italy, June 2003.
Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Area, Mazzolani F (ed.). Lisse: Balkema, 2003; 503–509.
13. Salazar AR, Haldar A. Energy dissipation at PR frames under seismic loading. Journal of Structural Engineering
(ASCE) 2001; 127(5):588–592.
14. ECSC. Steel RTD programme—applicability of composite structures to sway frames. ECSC Contract No. 7210-
PR-250, edited by Stangenberg H, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
15. Bursi OS, Caramelli S, Fabbrocino G, Molina J, Salvatore W, Taucer F. 3-D full-scale seismic testing of a steel–
concrete composite building at ELSA. Contract No. HPR-CT-1999-00059, Eur Report, European Community,
Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
16. CEN. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules
for buildings. prEN 1998-1, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, Draft December 2003.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
STEEL–CONCRETE COMPOSITE MOMENT-RESISTING STRUCTURE
17. Bursi O, Braconi A, Fabbrocino G, Salvatore, Taucer F, Tremblay R. Seismic performance of a 3D full-scale
high-ductile steel–concrete composite moment-resisting frame—part II: test results and analytical validation.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008; submitted.
18. AISC. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 341-05, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL, 2005.
19. ASCE. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI Standard No. 7-05 (includes
Supplement No. 1), ASCE, Reston, VA, 2005.
20. CEN. Eurocode 3: design of steel structures. Part 1-1: general rules. prEN 1993-1-1, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, Draft December 2003.
21. CEN. Eurocode 4: design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1.1: general rules and rules for
buildings. prEN 1994-1-1, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, Draft January 2004.
22. Doneux C. Étude du mécanisme de transfert des flexions à la jonction poutre-poteau dans les structures en
portiques mixtes soumises à une action sismique. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Université de
Lièges, Lièges, Belgium, 2002 (in French).
23. ASCE. Design guide for partially restrained composite connections. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE)
1998; 124(10):1099–1114.
24. Plumier A, Doneux C. ICONS-ECOEST Project ‘Seismic Behaviour and Design of Composite Steel Concrete
Structures.’ LNEC—Laboratòrio Nacional de Ingenharia Civil, Lisboa, Portugal, 2001.
25. Chen CH, Lai WC, Cordova P, Deierlein GG, Tsai KC. Pseudo-dynamic test of full-scale RCS frame: part
I—design, construction, testing. Proceedings of Structures 2004—Building on the Past: Securing the Future,
Nashville, Tennessee, 22–26 May 2004. ASCE: Reston, VA, 2004.
26. Cordova P, Chen CH, Lai WC, Tsai KC. Pseudo-dynamic test on full-scale RCS frame: part II—analysis and
design implications. Proceedings of Structures 2004—Building on the Past: Securing the Future, Nashville,
Tennessee, 22–26 May 2004. ASCE: Reston, VA, 2004.
27. Di Sarno L, Pecce MR, Fabbrocino G. Inelastic response of composite steel and concrete base column connections.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2006. DOI:10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.08.007.
28. Altnyollar A, Gülkan P. Re-assessment of seismic safety of TR-2 research reactor building. Proceedings of
Workshop on the Seismic Re-evaluation of all Nuclear Facilities, Ispra, Italy, 26–27 March 2001.
29. Tsapanos TM, Mäntyniemi P, Kijko A. A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Greece and the surrounding
region including site-specific considerations. Annals of Geophysics 2004; 47(6):253–270.
30. Bursi OS, Ferrario F, Fontanari V. Non-linear analysis of the low-cycle fracture behaviour of isolated Tee Stub
connections. Computers and Structures 2002; 80:2333–2360.
31. Krawinkler H. Shear in beam-column joints in seismic design of steel frames. Engineering Journal (AISC) 1978;
15(3):82–89.
32. Nakashima M, Roeder CW. Steel moment frames for earthquakes in the United States and Japan. Journal of
Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2000; 126(9):861–868.
33. CEN. Eurocode 1: actions of structures. Part 1-1: densities, self-weight and imposed loads for buildings. prEN
1991-1-1, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, Draft July 2001.
34. Elghazouli AY. Earthquake resistance of composite beam-columns. Ph.D. Thesis, Civil Engineering Department,
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London, U.K., 1992.
35. Takanashi K, Elnashai AS. Experiments on partially encased composite columns. In Stability and Ductility of
Steel Structures under Cyclic Loading, Fukumoto Y, Lee GC (eds). CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 1992; 175–186.
36. Salvatore W, Bursi OS, Lucchesi D. Design, testing and analysis of high ductile partial-strength steel–concrete
composite beam-to-column joints. Computers and Structures 2005; 83(28–30):2334–2352.
37. Bursi OS, Colombo A (eds). Prefabricated composite beam-to-column filled tube or partially reinforced-concrete
encased column connections for severe seismic and fire loadings. Mid-Term Report, Contr. No: RFS-CR-03034,
PRECIOUS Project, Research Fund for Coal and Steel, 2006.
38. Valles RE, Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK, Madan A. IDARC2D Version 4.0: a program for the inelastic damage
analysis of buildings. Technical Report NCEER-96-0010, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
State University of New York at Buffalo, Red Jacket Quadrangle, Buffalo, NY, 1996.
39. Sivaselvan MV, Reinhorn AM. Hysteretic model for cyclic behaviour of deteriorating inelastic structures. Technical
Report MCEER-99-0018, Multi-Disciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo,
NY, 1999.
40. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 1988; 114(8):1804–1826.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A. BRACONI ET AL.
41. Fabbrocino G, Pecce MR, Di Sarno L. Inelastic response of steel and concrete columns. Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Advances in Steel Structures (ICASS 05) ICSCS ’04, Seoul, Korea, 2004.
42. Rey J, Faccioli E, Bommer JJ. Derivation of design soil coefficients (S) and response spectral shapes for
Eurocode 8 using the European strong-motion database. Journal of Seismology 2002; 6:547–555.
43. Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of Structures. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, 1993.
44. Erlicher S, Bonaventura L, Bursi OS. The analysis of the generalized—a method for non-linear dynamic problems.
Computational Mechanics 2002; 28:83–104.
45. ECCS. Recommended testing procedures for assessing the behaviour of structural steel elements under cyclic
loads. Report No. ECCS 45, Technical Committee 1, Technical Working Group 1.3, European Convention for
Constructional Steelwork, Brussels, Belgium, 1986.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe