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

net/publication/300900410

Seismic evaluation of a braced plan irregular steel structure using hybrid

testing

Chapter · December 2011

DOI: 10.1201/b11396-24

CITATIONS READS

0 88

2 authors:

Daniel P. McCrum Brian Broderick

University College Dublin Trinity College Dublin
32 PUBLICATIONS   77 CITATIONS    130 PUBLICATIONS   1,743 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Assessment, Analysis and Development of Programmes for Improvement of Irish GHG Emissions Inventories and Projections View project

Seismic design of steel braced frames View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel P. McCrum on 27 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Seismic Evaluation of a Braced Plan Irregular Steel Structures Using
Hybrid Testing
D. P. McCrum & B. M. Broderick
Dept. of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

ABSTRACT: A plan irregular structure has a torsional response when subjected to a seismic excitation be-
cause the centre of mass is offset from the centre of resistance. Much of the research to date on plan irregular
structures has focused on single-storey shear wall and multi-storey framed type structures. Little research has
been undertaken on braced steel framed plan irregular structures. In order to provide greater understanding of
the broad response of plan irregular structures, an investigation into the torsional response of a plan irregular
braced steel structure has been undertaken. In this paper, the numerical modeling approach and test validation
using hybrid testing will be presented. Results indicate that the stiff side of the structure is subjected to a
greater ductility demand and interstorey drift as the level of mass eccentricity is increased.

1 INTRODUCTION researchers. In more recent years, with the increase

1.1 Structural irregularity
Irregularities in building structures refer to the non-
uniform response of a structure due to non-uniform
distribution of structural properties. There are two
types of structural irregularity; vertical (also termed
in-elevation) and plan irregularity (also termed plan
asymmetry). Vertical irregularity typically refers to
the uneven distribution of mass along the height of a
multi-storey structure or can result from geometrical
set-backs. The result can be a soft storey mechanism.
In-plan static eccentricity, es is defined as the dis-
tance between the Centre of Mass (CM) and Centre
of Resistance (CR) of the structure at each floor (see
Figure 1). Structures are therefore either; torsionally
balanced with no static eccentricity, or torsionally
unbalanced with static eccentricity. Structures with
plan irregularity quite often suffer severe damage in
earthquake events because the response of the struc-
ture is not only translational, but also torsional (De
Stefano and Pintucchi, (2008)).
In early research simplified single-storey models
were used when investigating plan irregular struc-
tures because they could be easily parameterised and
the influence of structural factors on the seismic re-
sponse could be more easily quantified (Tso and Bo-
zorgnia, (1986), Chandler and Duan, (1997), Goel,
(1997), Ghersi and Rossi, (2001)). The relative ease
of computation required for the single-storey models
and the reduced number of influencing parameters as
compared to more complex structural systems made
the single-storey simplified structures attractive to
in computational power and greater availability of
three-dimensional non-linear finite element software,
the level of research into the seismic response of
more realistic multi-storey plan irregular structures
has received a greater level of attention. Some re-
searchers have investigated the extension of results
based on single-storey models to multi-storey struc-
tures (Fajfar et al., (2005)). Other researchers have
investigated more realistic multi-storey framed struc-
ture and ignored results based on single-storey mod-
els (Stathopoulos and Anagnostopoulos, (2005)).
However, currently there is a lack of consensus on
how best to provide design guidance for plan irregu-
lar structures. To date a considerable amount of re-
search has investigated the extension of code based
pushover methods to plan irregular structures, with
reasonable success for torsionally stiff structures and
this may form the basis for design guidance in the
future.
Additionally, a scarcity of experimental research
in the area of plan irregularity exists. Experimental
work is required to reinforce the conclusions that
have largely been made based on purely theoretical
numerical modeling.
1.2 Overview
This paper presents an analytical and experimental
investigation into the torsional response of a braced
framed plan irregular structures. The research pre-
sented in this paper is aimed at broadening the un-
derstanding of the seismic behavior of plan irregular
structures by investigating the response of a braced ture. The validity of this procedure will be investi-
framed plan irregular structure. The experimental re- gated by applying the design criteria in Equation 1 to
sults will provide much needed test data to reinforce the proposed concentrically braced steel structure
the theoretical observations. and subjecting the structure to inelastic time-history
analyses and a testing regime in order to assess the
effectiveness of the design.
2 STRUCTURAL MODEL
2.1 Structural layout 2.2 Numerical model
The structure analyzed in this paper is a two-by-one The concentrically braced framed structure was
bay three-story concentrically braced framed steel modeled using OpenSees (McKenna et al., (2000)).
structure as shown in Figure 1. The structure has During the numerical modeling analysis, each model
been slightly idealized to fully investigate the re- was subjected to the Taiwan SMART1/45C00DN
sponse of the braced frame without the results being (14/11/1986) ground acceleration time history for
case specific. The two end frames of the structure in 40s with a P.G.A. of 0.152g and Magnitude of 7.3.
the x-direction are braced whilst the central frame is The column members are modeled with nonlinear
not. The side of the structure that the mass is distri- beam-column elements with 7 No. integration points
buted is referred to the stiff side (SS) of the struc- along their length and subdivided across their section
ture. into 10 No. elements along each thin-walled section
X
and 5 No. elements across each thin-walled section.
L The beam members are modeled with elastic beam
B B column elements with relevant section properties.
The brace members were represented by two
co
co

lu
m
lu

beam-column elements with an out-of-plane camber

n
m

beam beam
n

co

applied to the mid-span node. The out-of-plane

lu
m
n

Brace Under
Brace Under

CM CR Y A
camber incorporates the geometric imperfection of a
brace member enabling global buckling. The brace
es
members are modeled with nonlinear beam-column
co

elements with 7 No. integration points along their

lu

beam beam
m
n

co
lu
co

length and subdivided across their section into 10

m
n
lu
m

STIFF SIDE FLEXIBLE SIDE

n

No. elements along each thin-walled section and 5

No. elements across each thin-walled section. The
Figure 1. Plan view of plan irregular steel braced framed struc- initial out-of-plane camber is 0.1% of the brace
ture. member’s length (at nodes 11, 13, 16 & 17 in Figure
2). An out-of-plane camber of 0.1% has been vali-
The structure was designed according to Eurocode dated by other researchers as adequately inducing
3 (EC3) (CEN, (2005)) and Eurocode 8 (EC8) buckling behavior (Uriz et al., (2008)).
(CEN, (2004)). EC8 provides a means of estimating
the effect of accidental torsion if it has not been tak-
en into consideration by more exact means of analy- 3 4

sis. The EC8 torsional effects factor, δ, applied to

18 14
the seismic action effects is defined in Equation 1;
17 13
x
1 0,6 (1) 12
Le
where x = distance from the element under consider- 11 16
ation to the CM of the structure measured perpendi- Node

Pinned
cularly to the seismic action; Le = the distance be- 10 Connection
15
Numerical
tween the two outermost lateral load resisting 1 Element 2

elements.
The torsional effects factor, δ is then multiplied by
the relevant design lateral pushover action to take
account of torsional effects. The criteria for ensuring
the structure is not plan irregular, as set out in EC8,
need to be met in order to apply the torsional effects
factor, δ in design. The design procedure is quite in-
tuitive for the designer as you are applying a factored
action to one side of the structure to better represent
the mass distribution towards that side of the struc-
Figure 2. Elevation view of test structure and numerical model-
ling idealization (actuator not shown).
The gusset plates were modeled as elastic beam-
column elements with a relatively high stiffness in
order to simulate the high level of stiffness in the
gusset plates. The gusset plates were only connected
to the column or beam, as can be seen in Figure 2
and Figure 4, therefore traditional design guidance
for gusset plates had to be amended to prevent pre-
mature failure of the gusset plates.
2.3 Structural parameters
One of the aims of the investigation was to assess
the influencing factors affecting the behavior of plan
irregular braced framed steel structures. The key pa-
rameters investigated are the lateral torsional fre-
quency ratio, Ωθ, the mass eccentricity, es, and the
plan aspect (PA) ratio (where the PA ratio = length
of building/width of building). Ωθ is an important
parameter because if Ωθ <1, the structure is classified
as torsionally flexible and if Ωθ >1, the structure is
classified as torsionally stiff. Ωθ) is defined as:
r underlying software. The development of OpenFres-
k (2)
r
m this end, OpenFresco has been used in conjunction
where rk = stiffness radius of gryration about the
centre of resistance; and rm = mass radius of gyration
about the centre of mass.
The proposed maximum es investigated is 0.15L
(refer to Figure 1). The reason for this being that any
greater a level of mass distribution would be very
unlikely to occur in a real-world scenario. The lower
and upper bounds of Ωθ are set at 0.75 and 1.25 re-
spectively, representing realistic levels of torsional
flexibility/stiffness. The PA ratio was varied from
1.0 to 3.0.
The base model designed for es = 0.0L has a PA
ratio of 2.0, Ωθ, = 1.0 (neither torsionally flexible or
stiff) and has 30x30x3mm SHS bracing on both the
SS and FS braced frames of the structure being re-
quired to resist the design actions. The structure de-
signed with the torsional effects factor from EC8 for
the base model had 50x30x3mm RHS bracing on the
SS braced frames of the structure and 30x30x3mm
SHS on the FS braced frames of the structure to res-
ist the increased design actions.
3 HYBRID TESTING
3.1 Hybrid test method
As part of this research, an experimental investiga-
tion was undertaken using the hybrid test method to
validate the numerical modeling of the plan irregular
structure presented in Section 2. The hybrid test me-
thod is a relatively newly developed testing technique
that combines physical testing with simultaneous nu-
merical modeling. The hybrid test method developed
from the pseudo-dynamic (PsD) method. The concept
of the PsD test was first proposed in the late 1960’s
(Hakuno et al., (1969)) and was further developed by
Takanashi et al., (1975) and Shing & Mahin (1984).
Typically, the important component of the test struc-
ture being analyzed is physically tested using high
speed actuators (physical substructure) and the rest of
the structure is numerically modeled (numerical sub-
structure). This type of test is known as a substructured
test. The measured inertia forces and displacements
are then fed back from the actuator to the numerical
model. These results are then used to solve the equa-
tion of motion for the command displacement at the
next time step.
In the United States, there has been a drive to-
wards a generic hybrid simulation framework. This
framework is called OpenFresco (Open Framework
for Experimental Setup and Control) (Schellenberg
et al., (2009)). The fundamental concept of Open-
Fresco is to allow testing to be undertaken at differ-
ent laboratories, with different test equipment with-
out specialized knowledge required for the
co has been has been closely linked to OpenSees. To
with OpenSees to perform a substructured hybrid
tests in this paper.
Simulation PC
Target PC
OpenFresco (softRT)
OpenSees (softRT)
Scramnet
Test PC
Servo-
controller
793 Control
Program
STS Controller Test Rig
Figure 3. Schematic of hardware and data communication for a
hybrid test.
The communication in a hybrid test is shown in
Figure 3. The hybrid testing facility at Trinity Col-
lege Dublin comprises of an MTS real-time hybrid
test system (MTS Systems Corporation). The hard-
ware consists of a Series 111 MTS Accumulator and
a high speed linear hydraulic actuator with a 150kN
capacity and 250mm (±125mm) stroke. The comput-
er hardware comprises of a Simulation Host PC, a
Real-time Target PC, a Test PC and a two-channel
MTS 493 Real-time Controller. The digital control-
ler has closed loop PID control. The Structural Test
System (STS) software provides the user interface
for PID control and calibration of the actuator.
During a hybrid test, OpenSees is used to create
the dynamic model of the numerical substructure.
The structural model is created on the Simulation PC
and then downloaded onto the Target PC through a
fibre optic cable. The sole task of the Target PC is to
run the model in real-time using Mathworks xPC
Target. The Target PC has no user interface except
for receiving commands from the Simulation PC.
The Target PC sends commands to the Structural
Test System (STS) controller via the shared reflec-
tive memory called SCRAMNet GT150 (Shared
Common Random Access Memory Network).
OpenFresco is the middleware that allows the com-
munication between the finite element software and
the experimental hardware. The Test PC provides
the user interface to the Servo-controller and allows
tuning and control of the actuator through a PID con-
troller. The command displacement is then sent from
the Servo-controller to the MTS actuator. The meas-
ured force and displacement are sent back to the
Servo-controller and then back to the Target PC,
where the data is used to calculate the next time step
command displacement, making the process close-
looped.
3.2 Test set-up
Preliminary numerical modeling results of the plan
irregular concentrically braced structure shown in
Figure 1 indicated that the SS of the structure at the
first-storey (ground) was subjected to the greatest
displacement and ductility demand. The first-storey
braced frame had a highly nonlinear response that
was critical to the overall response of the structure.
In order to gain a more accurate structural re-
sponse and to ensure the accuracy of the numerical
model being used to analyze the structure, a series of
substructured hybrid tests of the first-storey concen-
trically braced frame were proposed.
column
actuator
stub
reation frames
Figure 4. Experimental set-up.
The test set-up of the SS first-storey braced frame
can be seen in Figure 4. In a hybrid test, any error in
displacement or force feedback used to calculate the
next target displacement in the equation of motion
can result in the failure of the test method. For this
reason, stub sections were used to model the pin
connections. It was felt that the tolerances in a self
manufactured pinned connection could lead to some
‘wobble’ in the frame and result in instability of the
test procedure. The actuator is located at the top left
hand corner of the frame. The test frame is mounted
between two side-by-side reaction frames.
3.3 Hybrid test results
The results for the lateral displacement versus time
for the numerical model and test structure with
30x30x3mm SHS brace sections, Ωθ = 1.25, es =
0.15L and PA ratio of 2.0, can be seen in Figure 5.
The structure was subjected the Taiwan ground acce-
leration history scaled by a factor of 2.0. A factor
larger than 2.0 created numerical integration issues.
As can be seen in Figure 5, the displacement re-
sponse of the test structure is modeled with reasona-
ble accuracy. The test performed was a slow conti-
nuous hybrid test with the extended timescale
resulting in 95% of the simulation steps not having
to slow down or hold the actuator.
Four series of tests, consisting of 24 No. tests in
total, were undertaken as part of the testing pro-
gramme. The average error for the lateral roof dis-
placement was 3.9%. The average error for the later-
al roof acceleration was 9.3%. Strain gauges were
placed at mid-span along the brace members at the
top and back face of the section. The average error
between the model and test data was 20.1% for the
strains.
6 6
OpenSees
5
OpenSees
Test 5
4
Test
3 3
Displacement (mm)
2
Displacement (mm)
1 1
0
-1
0
-1
-2 -2
-3
-3
-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-4
10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 5. (left) First-storey lateral roof displacement versus
time for OpenSees model and test data (right) close-up.
The brief summary of the comparative test and
simulation results indicate that the numerical model
implemented provides a good predictive response for
the test structure. More detailed observations of the
test results indicate that the slow continuous hybrid
test has been implemented successfully with limited
tracking error. The numerical model results did show
some overestimation of stiffness as compared to the
test data (results not shown here).
4 RESULTS
The results shown below are normalized to the base
model structure. The base model structure has a PA
ratio of 2.0, Ωθ = 1.0, es = 0.0L and 30x30x3mm
bracing throughout. The base structure has no mass
eccentricity and is neither torsionally stiff nor torsio-
nally flexible. The average results shown are based
on the average of each structure being subjected to
five ground accelerations; Taiwan (1986), Spitak
(1988), ElCentro (1940), NW Calif (1951) and Friuli
(1976) all scaled to a PGA = 0.315g. The ductility
demand is used to assess performance (ductility de- fects factor from EC8. The torsionally undesigned
mand = peak displacement/yield displacement). structure assumes no es in design but is subjected to
Figure 6 indicates the normalized ductility de- increasing levels of es. The results of the analyses
mand for the SS & flexible side (FS) of the structure indicate that the torsionally designed structure has a
at values of Ωθ = 0.75 (left) and Ωθ = 1.25 (right). reduced ductility demand as compared to the torsio-
The comparison between the response from a torsio- nally undesigned structure. For both structures, the
nally flexible structure (Ωθ = 0.75) and torsionally torsionally stiff structures have a normalized ductili-
stiff structure (Ωθ = 1.25) can be seen. For the SS of ty demand less than 1.0 for all levels of es, whereas
the torsionally flexible structure, the peak ductility for the torsionally flexible structures the normalized
demand is 2.3, whereas for the torsionally stiff struc- ductility demand is greater than 1.0 for all levels of
ture, the peak ductility demand is 0.58. The torsio- es. The normalized ductility demand is approximate-
nally flexible structure is subjected to a greater (in ly 1.5 times that for the undesigned structure (Figure
the order of 4 times) ductility demand as compared 8 left) as compared to the designed structure (Figure
to the torsionally stiff structure. The SS ductility 8 right). The results indicate that the EC8 torsional
demand increases nonlinearly with increasing es. The provision is reasonably poorly for even torsionally
line is curved, which indicates the influence of more flexible structures at higher levels of es but this is not
than one fundamental mode. unsurprising as the maximum es is 3 times that al-
lowed for in the torsional provision.
2.5 0.65
FS
SS 3.5 2.2
0.6 SS = 0.75 SS = 0.75

SS = 0.875 2 SS = 0.875
3
SS = 1.0 SS = 1.0
0.55
SS = 1.125 1.8 SS = 1.125
2
2.5 SS = 1.25 SS = 1.25
Ductility Demand
Ductility Demand

0.5 1.6
Normalised Ductility Demand

Normalised Ductility Demand

FS
SS 2
1.4
0.45

1.5 1.2
1.5
0.4
1
1
0.35
0.8

0.5
1 0.6
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Static Eccentricity Static Eccentricity
0
0
30.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
0.4
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Figure 6. (left) Graph of normalized ductility demand versus Static Eccentricity Static Eccentricity

static eccentricity for SS & FS of structure with Ωθ = 0.75 Figure 8. Graph of normalized ductility demand versus static
(right) Graph of normalized ductility demand versus static ec- eccentricity for varying levels of lateral torsional frequency ra-
centricity for SS & FS of structure with Ωθ = 1.25. tio (left)
2.5 for the SS of the torsionally undesigned structure and
3.5 2.4
(right) for the SS of the torsionally designed structure.
SS = 0.75 FS = 0.75
SS = 0.875 2.2 FS = 0.875
SS = 1.0
3
3 FS = 1.0
SS = 1.125
2 = 0.75 es= 0.0
FS = 1.125
SS = 1.25
1.8
2
FS = 1.25 = 0.875 es= 0.0
Normalised Ductility Demand

2.5 2.5
Normalised Ductility Demand
Normalised Ductility Demand

1.6
= 1.0 es= 0.0
2 1.4
2
= 1.125 es= 0.0
Normalised Ductility Demand

1.2

1.5 1.5 = 1.25 e= 0.0

1 1.5
= 0.75 es= 0.15
0.8
1
0.6 1
= 0.875 es= 0.15

0.5 0.4 = 1.0 es= 0.15

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Static Eccentricity Static Eccentricity 10.5 = 1.125 es= 0.15

Figure 7. Graph of normalized ductility demand versus static = 1.25 es= 0.15
0
eccentricity for varyng levels of lateral torsional frequency ratio 1 1.5 2
Plan Aspect Ratio
2.5 3

(left) for the SS and (right) for the FS.

Figure
0.5 9. Graph of normalized ductility demand versus plan as-
pect ratio for SS of the structure.
Figure 7 illustrates the normalized ductility de-
mand versus es for varying levels of Ωθ. For the SS Figure 9 illustrates the results for the normalized
(left) and FS (right) structure. As can be seen the 0
ductility
1 1.2 demand versus
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2the
2.4 plan aspect
2.6 2.8 3 ratio for va-
normalized ductility demand increases on the SS of rying levels of Ωθ on the SS of the structure. The Ωθ
Plan Aspect Ratio
the structure and decreases on the FS of the struc- is varied from 0.75, 0.875, 1.0, 1.125 to 1.25. The
ture. The torsionally stiff structures perform better results shown in Figure 9 are for es of 0.0L (i.e. no
than the base structure for all levels of es for both the eccentricity) and 0.15L (i.e. maximum eccentricity).
SS and FS of the structure. The results indicate that the PA ratio does not have a
Figure 8 illustrates the normalized ductility de- significant effect on the ductility demand in the SS
mand versus es for varying levels of Ωθ for the SS of of the structure. A slight increase in normalized duc-
both the torsionally undesigned (left) and torsionally tility can be observed on the SS of the structure for
designed (right) braced plan irregular structures. The increasing PA ratio, particularly for the maximum
torsionally designed structure uses the torsional ef- level of es. The normalized ductility demand remains
 3
approximately constant for all levels of PA ratio for
2.5
no static eccentricity.
2.5
2 plan irregular structure.
Normalised Ductility Demand
2
Normalised Ductility Demand
1.5
1.5
1 CEN 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake re-
0.5
1 = 1.125 es= 0.15
0
1 1.5
Plan Aspect Ratio
0.5
Figure 10. Graph of normalized ductility demand versus plan
aspect ratio for FS of the structure.
Figure 10 shows the results for the normalized
0 on seismic behaviour of irregular building structures since
ductility
1 1.2demand versus
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 the2.4plan
2.2 2.6 aspect
2.8 3 ratio for va-
Plan Aspect Ratio
rying levels of Ωθ on the FS of the structure. The Ωθ
is varied from 0.75, 0.875, 1.0, 1.125 to 1.25. The
results shown in Figure 10 are for es of 0.0L (i.e. no
eccentricity) and 0.15L (i.e. maximum eccentricity).
The results indicate that the PA ratio does not have a
significant effect on the ductility demand in the FS
of the structure. A slight decrease in normalized duc-
tility can be observed on the FS of the structure for
increasing PA ratio, particularly for the maximum
level of es. The normalized ductility demand remains
approximately constant for all levels of PA ratio for
no static eccentricity.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented a combined hybrid test and
numerical modeling approach to better understand
the seismic behavior of a multi-storey plan irregular
structure with concentric bracing. A substructured
slow continuous hybrid test was performed on the
first storey SS braced frame of the studied structure.
The hybrid test provided validation to the numerical
model used to replicate the structures response. The
numerical model showed good agreement with the
hybrid test results.
Results from a series of inelastic time history ana-
lyses performed on concentrically braced plan irre-
gular structures can be summarized as follows;
The SS braced frame of the structure is subjected
to greater ductility demand as compared to the FS
braced frame of the structure.
Designing the structure according to EC8 torsional
provision results in the torsionally stiff structures
performing well with a normalized ductility de-
mand less than 1.0 for all levels of static eccen-
tricity, whilst the torsionally flexible structures
perform reasonably poorly with a normalized duc-
View publication stats
tility demand greater than 1.0 for all levels of stat-
ic eccentricity.
Variations in the plan aspect ratio do not have a
large effect on the seismic response of the braced
= 0.75 es= 0.0
= 0.875 es= 0.0
= 1.0 es= 0.0
= 1.125 es= 0.0
= 1.25 e= 0.0
6 REFERENCES
= 0.75 es= 0.15
= 0.875 es= 0.15
sistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules
= 1.0 es= 0.15
for buildings. BS EN 1998-1:2004. United Kingdom, BSi.
CEN 2005. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-1:
= 1.25 es= 0.15 General rules and rules for buildings. BS EN 1993-1-
2
2.5 3 1:2005. United Kingdom, BSi.
Chandler, A. M. & Duan, X. N. 1997. Performance of Asym-
metric Code-Designed Buildings for Serviceability and Ul-
timate Limit States. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 26:7, 717-735.
De Stefano, M. and Pintucchi, B. 2008. A review of research
2002. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 6:2, 285-308.
Fajfar, P., Marusic, D. & Perus, I. 2005. Torsional Effects in
the Pushover-based Seismic Analysis of Buildings. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, 9:6, 831 - 854.
Ghersi, A. & Rossi, P. P. 2001. Influence of bi-directional
ground motions on the inelastic response of one-storey in-
plan irregular systems. Engineering Structures, 23:6, 579-
591.
Goel, R. K. 1997. Seismic Response of Asymmetric Systems:
Energy-Based Approach. Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, 123:11, 1444-1453.
Hakuno, M., Shidawara, M. & Hara, T. 1969. Dynamic de-
structive test of a cantilever beam controlled by an analog-
computer. Trans. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Engrs.:171, 1-9.
McKenna, F., Fenves, G. L. & Scott, M. H. 2000. Open system
for earthquake engineering simulation. University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley.
Schellenberg, A., Kim, H. K., Takanashi, Y., Fenves, G. L. &
Mahin, S. A. 2009. OpenFresco. University of California,
Berkeley.
Shing, B. & Mahin, S. A. 1984. Pseudodynamic test method for
seismic performance evaluation: theory and implementa-
tion. Report UCB/EERC-84/01. Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Stathopoulos, K. G. & Anagnostopoulos, S. A. 2005. Inelastic
torsion of multistorey buildings under earthquake excita-
tions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
34:12, 1449-1465.
Takanashi, K., Udawaga, K., Seki, M., Okada, T. & Tanaka, H.
1975. Non-Linear Earthquake Response Analysis of Struc-
tures by a Computer-Actuator On-Line System (Part 1 De-
tail of the System). Transcript of the Architectural Institute
of Japan:No. 229.
Tso, W. K. and Bozorgnia, Y. 1986. Effective eccentricity for
inelastic seismic response of buildings. Earthquake Engi-
neering & Structural Dynamics, 14:3, 413-427.
Uriz, P., Filippou, F. C. & Mahin, S., A. 2008. Model for Cyc-
lic Inelastic Buckling of Steel Braces. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 134:4, 619-628.
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by the
Irish Research Council for Science Engineering and
Technology (IRCSET).