Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 112 (2018) 174–184

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Design implementation of re-centring dual eccentrically braced frames with T

removable links
⁎
Adriana Chesoana, Aurel Stratana, Dan Dubinaa,b,
a
Politehnica University of Timisoara, Department of Steel Structures and Structural Mechanics, 1 Ioan Curea, Timisoara 300224, Romania
b
Romanian Academy, Fundamental and Advanced Technical Research Centre (CCTFA), 24 Mihai Viteazu, Timisoara 300223, Romania

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Conventional seismic design philosophy is based on dissipative response, which implicitly accepts damage of a
Eccentrically braced frames structure under the design earthquake and leads to significant economic losses. Repair of the structure is often
Re-centring impeded by the permanent (residual) drifts. In order to reduce the repair costs and downtime of a structure hit by
Replaceable links an earthquake, and consequently obtain a more rational design approach in the context of sustainability, the
Seismic resistance
concepts of removable dissipative members and re-centring capability of the structure were employed. These
Dual configurations
concepts are implemented in a dual structure, obtained by combining steel eccentrically braced frames with
removable bolted links with moment resisting frames. The bolted links are intended to provide energy dis-
sipation capacity and to be easily replaceable, while the more flexible moment resisting frames, which remain
predominantly elastic during earthquake, would provide the necessary re-centring capability to the structure.
Structural design of re-centring eccentrically braced frames can be performed using conventional code-based
approach, but some additional criteria need to be considered. Due to limitations of simplified code-based ap-
proach, nonlinear analyses are recommended to validate the intended structural performance of these structures
and numerical investigations are carried out to find the optimal solution for links removal procedure.
Present paper summarizes an extended research campaign carried out at Politehnica University Timisoara,
CEMSIG Research Centre, aiming at validating the technical solution and developing an appropriate design
procedure for dual frames with replaceable bolted links.

1. Introduction dissipation mechanism, low post-buckling stiffness of braces leads to

Most structures designed according to modern codes would ex-
perience damage even under moderate seismic action. Repair of the
structure is often impeded by the permanent (residual) displacements
present after an earthquake. There are different strategies to reduce
structural damage. The most radical solutions are base isolation and
different implementations of active and semi-active structural control.
Other strategies rely on additional damping provided by different vis-
cous, friction or hysteretic devices. While all these solutions are effi-
cient, they require specialized knowledge in design and erection stages,
careful maintenance, and have a high initial cost.
Nevertheless, structural damage may be avoided adopting a more
conventional design. Vargas and Bruneau [1] have investigated a de-
sign approach that implies isolating damage to detachable and easy to
repair “structural fuses”, the structure being designed to respond in the
elastic range or to experience minor plastic deformations. With em-
phasis on buckling restrained braced frames, Kiggins și Uang [2]
showed that, although such structures exhibit a favourable energy
important permanent deformations. The potential benefit of using
buckling restrained braces in a dual system has proven to be the sig-
nificant reduction of residual drifts.
Self-centring systems represent a relatively new concept that elim-
inates the disadvantages of conventional structures. Among many
practical implementations, the following are the most relevant: self-
centring moment resisting frames with beam to column joints [3] and
post-tensioned column base connections [4], self-centring centrically
braced frames [5].
An alternative solution is represented by re-centring structures,
which can be obtained by adopting dual structural configurations and
detachable dissipative elements ([6,7]). The dual structure is composed
by combining rigid frames (eccentrically braced frames - EBFs) with
more flexible ones (moment resisting frames - MRFs). If the flexible
MRFs are kept in the elastic range (a possible way to favour this is to use
high-strength steel in some structural elements), they provide the ne-
cessary re-centring forces after the removal of damaged detachable
dissipative elements.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: adriana.chesoan@upt.ro (A. Chesoan), aurel.stratan@upt.ro (A. Stratan), dan.dubina@upt.ro (D. Dubina).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.05.015
Received 18 March 2018; Received in revised form 7 May 2018; Accepted 8 May 2018
Available online 18 May 2018
0267-7261/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Chesoan et al.
Fig. 1. Bolted-link concept.
2. System description
Removable dissipative elements and re-centring capability concepts
are implemented in a dual structure composed of EBFs with replaceable
links and MRFs. The removable links are intended to provide energy
dissipation and to be easily replaceable, while the more flexible MRFs
provide the re-centring capability. Application of this structural solu-
tion is presented in Fig. 1. The link-to-beam connection is realized by a
flush end-plate and high-strength friction grip bolts. The main ad-
vantage over other dissipative devices is that removable links can be
designed using methods readily available to structural engineers and
can be fabricated and erected using procedures standard to the pro-
fession.
The re-centring of the system is attained by designing the structure
as a dual frame, combining EBFs and MRFs. The elastic response of the
flexible subsystem (MRFs) provides the restoring forces, once the links
damaged during an earthquake are removed. For this principle to be
efficient the flexible subsystem should remain in the elastic range.
The feasibility of the proposed solution was validated within an
experimental program that was carried out at the European Laboratory
for Structural Assessment (ELSA) of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in
Ispra, Italy [8].
3. Experimental validation of technical solution
The experimental validation of technical solution involved pseudo-
dynamic (PsD) testing of a full-scale dual re-centring EBF mock-up (see
Fig. 2) within the FP7 SERIES DUAREM Project [8].
The testing program consisted in PsD tests corresponding to four
Limit States: Full Operation (FO, where peak ground acceleration
Fig. 2. DUAREM experimental specimen.
175
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 112 (2018) 174–184
ag= 0.02 g), Damage Limitation (DL - ag= 0.191 g), Significant Damage
(SD - ag= 0.324 g) and Near Collapse (NC - ag= 0.557 g), as well as
some PushOver (PO) and link replacement (LR) tests [8].
The FO tests that were performed in order to assess the elastic re-
sponse of the structure with each new set of links, before the main DL,
SD and NC PsD tests. During the DL test, simulating a moderate
earthquake, structural damage was also moderate, while larger struc-
tural damage was observed during the SD test, simulating a stronger
earthquake. During these tests, no yielding was observed in the ele-
ments outside links and small to moderate maximum plastic deforma-
tions occurred in links (0.032 rad at DL and 0.061 rad at SD). Minor to
moderate cracks were observed in the concrete slab. The structure ex-
hibited low residual top displacement (0.05% at DL and 0.12% at SD).
SD test was followed by a PO test in order to obtain larger residual top
displacements (0.43%) that were necessary in order to validate the
feasibility of the link removal process and re-centring of the structure.
NC test was proposed in order to simulate a much stronger earthquake
and to obtain extensive damage throughout the structure, the re-cen-
tring capability being lost due to yielding in other members apart from
the links.
In order to check the feasibility of link replacement procedure, the
program was completed with two link removal tests. The first one (LR1)
was carried out after the DL test. Due to low residual top displacement
and low residual drifts, the first set of damaged links were removed by
unscrewing the bolts (see Fig. 3-a), on a level by level basis, starting
from the lower level to the upper one. The second one (LR2) was carried
out after the PO test. Due to significant larger residual top displacement
and larger residual drifts, the damaged links were removed by firstly
flame cutting both the web and flanges of the links (see Fig. 3-b) and
only after, unscrewing the bolts, from the top story downwards.
A. Chesoan et al.
Fig. 3. Link removal procedures: (a) by unscrewing bolts and (b) by flame cutting links.
At the end of both LR tests, a small residual drift (0.02–0.06%) that
was lower than erection tolerance (0.33%=H/300) was observed, the
structure being considered re-centred. A new set of unused links was
then mounted into the structure, preparing it for the next PsD test.
4. Design procedure
Dual EBFs with removable links are obtained by combining EBFs
having replaceable links, with MRFs having rigid joints. The two sub-
structures can be designed in the fundamental load combination, for
both Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and Serviceability Limit State (SLS),
using current code provisions [9]. However, for the seismic design si-
tuation, additional checks, related to removable links and their con-
nections and to obtaining re-centring capability, are necessary. Fig. 4
illustrates the steps in designing dual EBFs with removable links.
As mentioned before, additional to current design provisions ac-
cording to EN1998-1 [10], the investigated structural system should
meet some supplementary requirements.
Fig. 4. Design flowchart for re-centring dual EBFs with removable links.
176
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 112 (2018) 174–184
4.1. Dual configuration
The structure should be dual (providing MRFs with a minimum
strength). For this reason, the weaker, more flexible, subsystem (MRF)
should provide a minimum strength of the structure. Therefore, the
structure should be checked by verifying that the MRFs should be able
to resist at least 25% of the total seismic force [11,12], using Eq. (1).
FyMRF ≥ 0, 25∙ (FyMRF + FyEBF ) (1)
From the free-body diagram of the basic EBF (see Fig. 5a), and
considering the fact that plastic deformations should be constrained to
the link, and sketching the free-body diagram of half the basic EBF, the
yield strength of the EBF could be determined using Eq. (2) [13].
L
FyEBF = ∙Vp, link
H (2)
where L - the frame span, H - the frame story height, Vp,link - the shear
strength of the link.
The basic MRF component can be idealised as an assembly of a
beam and two columns shown in Fig. 5b, assuming inflexion points at
half the storey height. From the free-body diagram of the MRF, and
considering the fact that plastic deformations should develop at beam
ends, and sketching the free-body diagrams of the beam and the
column, the yield strength of the MRF could be determined using Eq.
(3) [13]:
4∙Mpl, b
FyMRF =
H (3)
where Mpl,b - the beam plastic moment.
4.2. Connection design
The links should be replaceable, using bolted connections that
should have an over-strength with respect to links. This means that the
connection should be designed for the shear force Vj,Ed and the bending
moment Mj,Ed corresponding to fully yielded and strain hardened link
(see (4 and 5)).
Vj, Ed = γsh ∙γov ∙Vp, link (4)
Vj, Ed ∙e
Mj, Ed =
2 (5)
where γov is the material over-strength, γsh – strain hardening and e –
length of the link.
In order to achieve the connection over-strength, very short dis-
sipative members may need to be used (with length e as small as
0.8Mp,link/Vp,link, where Mp,link is the moment resistance of the link).
Influence of the bolted connection on the overall link stiffness should be
A. Chesoan et al.
Fig. 5. Basic one-story: (a) EBF and (b) MRF components [13].
accounted for, if relevant.
The consequence of using a non-dissipative flush end-plate bolted
connection is represented by the necessity of having very short links.
This leads to larger deformation demands in links under the design
seismic motion (and more important axial forces are induced [14] that
need to be accounted for in the connections design). As a result, EBF
frames with very short links fail to fulfil the performance requirements
at ULS when designed for a behaviour factor q = 6 at DCH (high duc-
tility class). In order to reduce these requirements and obtain accep-
table performance it is necessary to limit the behaviour factor q to 4.
4.3. Re-centring capability
Re-centring capability should be validated by keeping the MRFs in
the elastic range and constraining plastic deformations to replaceable
dissipative members until reaching the ultimate shear deformation in
links. This means that the ultimate storey displacement of the EBFs
(δuEBF) at ULS (corresponding to the plastic deformation capacity of the
link) should be smaller than the yield storey displacement of the MRFs
(δyMRF). This can be done analytically (predesigned using formulas
below [13]), level by level.
FyEBF e FyMRF
δu EBF = δyEBF + δplEBF = + ∙H ⋅γpl, u < δyMRF = MRF
K EBF L−e K (6)
where δy EBF
is the yield storey displacement of the EBF, δplEBF
- the
plastic storey displacement of the EBF, KEBF - the EBF stiffness, γpl,u - the
plastic deformation capacity of the link and KMRF - the MRFs stiffness.
Considering that the analytical approach is a simplified one, non-
linear static and/or dynamic analyses are recommended in order to
confirm the re-centring capability.
5. Prequalification of bolted links
The design requirements presented above lead to the necessity of
prequalification (validation) of short removable links. Since the number
of experimental tests on short bolted links is limited, it is recommended
to confirm the cyclic performance of links through experimental vali-
dation [15,16], and/or numerical testing, similar to what is required for
beam-to-column connections in moment resisting frames, [10].
Besides the tests mentioned in Chapter 3, on a full-scale specimen of
a dual EBF structure, performed at JRC Italy, an experimental program
was carried at Politehnica University Timisoara (UPT), CEMSIG
Research Centre, to determine cyclic performance of bolted links [6],
see Fig. 6.
177
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 112 (2018) 174–184
The removable link was fabricated from IPE240 profile of S235
grade steel, while the rest of the structure – from S355 grade steel. Four
link lengths were considered: e0= 400 (denoted with 4), 500 (denoted
with 5), 600 (denoted with 6) and 700 (denoted with 7) mm, with
“rare” (L) and “close” (H) spacing of stiffeners, and all links were
classified as short ones according to AISC [17] and EN1998-1 [10].
Links were fabricated from IPE240 profiles. The complete ECCS 1985
[18] loading procedure was then applied, consisting of one monotonic
(m) and two cyclic (c1 and c2) tests for each specimen. Meanwhile, for
future investigations on links, AISC [17] loading protocol is re-
commended (see Fig. 7), being specifically developed for links.
Table 1 shows that cyclic loading reduced by 40–70% rotation ca-
pacity, with the maximum reduction for short links. Rotation capacity
increases slightly for shorter links, with the exception of LL4 and LH4
specimens.
The behaviour of long specimens was much influenced by the re-
sponse of the bolted connection (see Fig. 8a), characterized by a gradual
reduction in strength due to bolt thread stripping and a pinching cyclic
response. The latter effect reduced the energy dissipated in the group of
cycles of constant amplitude. Full bolt preloading reduced partially this
effect. Response of short specimens was controlled by the shear of the
link web (see Fig. 8b), characterized by important hardening and en-
ergy dissipation capacity, but a more rapid degradation in strength after
web tearing. Stiffener spacing had maximum importance for short links.
Their effect was to limit plastic local buckling of the web, increasing the
maximum force and deformation capacity, and providing a more stable
cyclic response. However, after the attainment of ultimate deformation,
failure of LH4 specimens was more rapid in comparison with LL4 spe-
cimens.
Therefore, choosing the length of the link is of high importance,
since in case of longer lengths (e < 1.6Mp,link/Vp,link) is difficult to de-
sign the flush end-plate connection, that might get damaged and make
the replacement procedure more problematic, as opposed to using very
short links (e < 0.8Mp,link/Vp,link), as was the case of both JRC and UPT
tests.
From available tests, bolted links specimens with rare stiffeners
showed a stable deformation capacity of at least 0.09 rad, while the
ones with close stiffeners showed a stable deformation capacity of at
least 0.11 rad. In case of LH5 specimens, with a length e= 0.8Mp,link/
Vp,link, the ultimate deformation capacity reached a value of at least
0.17 rad.
A. Chesoan et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 112 (2018) 174–184

Fig. 6. Experimental set-up (a) and force–total deformation relationship V–γT (b) for specimen LH4-c1 [6].

0.1 0.09 6. Calibration of the numerical model

Link rotation angle [rad]

0.08 0.07
0.06 0.05
0.04 Calibration of the numerical model of dual EBFs with replaceable
0.04 0.03
0.02 0.0075 0.01 0.015 0.02 links, based on experimental results from DUAREM program, was per-
0.00375 0.005
0 formed, obtaining a good match in terms of global structural behaviour
6 cycles 6 cycles 6 cycles
-0.02 6 cycles 4 cycles
4 cycles
(see Fig. 9).
-0.04 2
1 Nonlinear behaviour was defined, both for used materials, as well as
-0.06 1
for structural members. Expected material properties (based on γov)
-0.08 1
-0.1 1 were used for dissipative elements and nominal material properties for
0 10 20 30 40 non-dissipative elements.
Cycle number Nonlinear plastic hinges of bending type were assigned at the ends
of the MRFs beams and of bending with axial force type at the ends of
Fig. 7. AISC loading protocol for links. columns and EBFs beams. For braces, nonlinear plastic hinges of axial
type were used, being assigned at the middle of bars. These properties
Table 1 were computed according to FEMA356 [19].
Ultimate deformation γTu. In order to account for the short links nonlinear behaviour in shear,
multi-linear plastic link elements were defined, with shear nonlinear
Specimen LL7 LL6 LL5 LL4 LH7 LH6 LH5 LH4
behaviour, described by the following backbone curve (see Fig. 10).
m 0.155 0.273 0.360 0.395 0.235 0.278 0.345 0.420 where K1 is the initial (elastic) stiffness of the link (accounting for
c1 0.097 0.129 0.106 0.101 0.114 0.143 0.17 0.126 shear and bending stiffness), Vy - the shear resistance of links (Vp,link),
c1 0.092 0.133 0.156 0.112 0.109 0.136 0.182 0.125
Vu - considered 1.8Vy for DCH, γu - the ultimate shear rotation con-
sidered 0.15 rad for DCH and γf - considered 0.17 rad for DCH.
Link elements (rotational springs) with the above properties were
assigned between end-joints of every bolted link and the short links bars
were pinned at the ends (Fig. 11). The bars were used to model the

Fig. 8. Failure by connection degradation at the LH6-c2 specimen (a) and plastic web buckling at the LL4-c1 specimen (b) [6].

178
A. Chesoan et al.
Fig. 9. Link (a) and global (b) structural behaviour.
Fig. 10. Shear links nonlinear behaviour.
Fig. 11. Modelling of shear links.
flexural stiffness of the link (described by the moment-rotation M-θ
relationship), while the rotational springs were used in order to account
for shear stiffness of the link (described by the shear force-deformation
V-Δ relationship).
7. Case studies
7.1. Description and design of structures
Two more general six stories structural configurations are further
used to implement the design of re-centring dual EBFs with removable
links and further investigate the link removal procedure. First config-
uration has a central EBF (with links placed centrally) with side MRFs
(see Fig. 12-a), while the second one consists of a central MRF and side
EBFs (with links connected to columns), see Fig. 12-c.
Both structures have three spans of 7.5 m and five bays of 7.5 m, and
six storeys of 3.5 m each (4.0 m at the ground level). The main lateral
load resisting system is composed of EBFs, two on each horizontal di-
rection in case of first configuration and four on each horizontal di-
rection in case of second configuration. Additionally, there are four
MRFs on each horizontal direction in case of first configuration and two
MRFs on each horizontal direction in case of second configuration, to
179
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 112 (2018) 174–184
assure the restoring forces after an earthquake (see Fig. 12-b,d). All the
inner frames are gravity-load resisting systems.
These structures were designed using conventional code-based ap-
proach according to EN1998-1 [9] and additional criteria presented
synthetically in the flowchart from Chapter 4. The buildings were as-
sumed to be located on a stiff soil (EC8 [10] type 1 spectrum for soil
type C), characterized by 0.35 g peak ground acceleration. A behaviour
factor q= 4 (DCH) and inter-storey drift limitation of 0.0075 of the
storey height are used. The links were designed as replaceable, with a
length of e= 800 mm, as short links (0.8Mp,link/Vp,link) with welded
cross-section (section height x flange width x flange thickness x web
thickness), which dissipate energy by yielding in shear, in order to
ensure the practical over-strength of the flush end plate connection of
the link.
The structures were designed as dual. The second configuration
building has a larger capacity than the first one, because two links of
second configuration have the capacity with about 40% larger than one
link of first configuration, for reasons of keeping the links Class 1 sec-
tions (minimum possible web thickness for second structure links) and
being able to design the connections of the link by ensuring their over-
strength (minimum possible section height for second structure). The
EBF beams were designed in both cases to have the same height as the
links. The MRF beams are larger for second configuration for reasons of
keeping the structure a dual one (the MRFs are able of resisting about
26% of the total seismic force > 25%). Cross-sections of structural
members were designed from S355 steel (Fig. 13) and are shown in
Table 2 and Table 3.
The structures should also possess re-centring capability after link
elimination, preventing yielding in members other than removable
dissipative ones, up to the ultimate deformation capacity of the re-
movable dissipative members (0.11 rad [19]). This was pre-designed
using formulas (6) and checked through nonlinear static analysis. Re-
centring capability was obtained by using S690 high-strength steel in
MRFs (see Fig. 13), obtaining a larger resistance without increasing the
stiffness, thus, without attracting larger forces.
7.2. Seismic performance assessment
Static pushover analyses on transversal direction were performed on
the calibrated numerical model in order to evaluate the seismic per-
formance of the two structures, considering a modal (inverted trian-
gular) lateral force distributions, determined according to EC8 [10].
Structural performance was evaluated for the limit states shown in
Table 4, where agr is the reference peak ground acceleration of 0.35 g
and ag represents the peak ground acceleration for a specific earthquake
level.
A. Chesoan et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 112 (2018) 174–184

Fig. 12. First configuration: 3D view (a), plan layout (b) and second configuration: 3D view (c) and plan layout (d).

Target displacements (Dt) were computed using the N2 method [20]
for each of the three limit states above. For each limit state, the link
rotation at the target displacement was compared to the acceptance
criteria for shear links in FEMA356 [19] (0.005 rad at DL, 0.11 rad at
SD and 0.14 rad at NC).
Using the N2 method approach, it can be concluded that the per-
formance objectives are accomplished only for the SD in case of both
structural configurations (see Table 5 and Table 6). The pushover
curves presented in Fig. 14 illustrate the seismic performance of the two
structures.
Although the performance objectives are not satisfied for DL and
NC, the objective of having no yielding in the MRFs before the attain-
ment of the SD deformation in the removable links (0.11 rad) of the
EBFs is accomplished, representing the basic design requirement for
dual frames with removable dissipative members.
8. Numerical investigation of link removal
When permanent drifts are large, the technically easiest way to
release the forces in links is by flame cutting the web and flanges of the
link, on a storey by storey basis, starting from the least loaded towards
the most loaded one (from the upper storey downwards), as in-
vestigated numerically [21] and proved experimentally [8]. In case
permanent drifts are small, the links can be removed simply by un-
bolting.
In order to numerically simulate the link removal order, 3D nu-
merical models of the two structures were subjected to a modal (in-
verted triangular) distribution of lateral forces up to the attainment of
0.11 rad plastic rotation in links on transversal direction, simulating the
seismic action. Then the structures were unloaded, simulating the state
of the structure after an earthquake and links were removed level by

Fig. 13. Structural materials.

180
A. Chesoan et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 112 (2018) 174–184

Table 2
Member cross-sections for first configuration.
Storey Links EBF beams Braces EBF columns MRF beams MRF columns

1 640 × 260 × 22 × 12 HEA650 HEM300 HEM340 IPE450 HEB340

2 590 × 260 × 22 × 10 HEA600 HEM280 HEM340 IPE400 HEB340
3 540 × 240 × 22 × 10 HEA550 HEM260 HEB340 IPE360 HEB300
4 490 × 230 × 22 × 9 HEA500 HEM240 HEB340 IPE360 HEB300
5 440 × 230 × 20 × 8 HEA450 HEM220 HEB300 IPE300 HEB300
6 390 × 210 × 16 × 6 HEA400 HEM180 HEB300 IPE300 HEB300

Table 3
Member cross-sections for second configuration.
Storey Links EBF beams Braces EBF columns MRF beams MRF columns

1 540 × 260 × 20 × 9 HEA550 HEM300 HEM340 IPE600 HEB340

2 490 × 230 × 20 × 8 HEA500 HEM280 HEM340 IPE550 HEB340
3 440 × 230 × 20 × 8 HEA450 HEM260 HEM340 IPE550 HEB300
4 390 × 230 × 20 × 8 HEA400 HEM240 HEM340 IPE500 HEB300
5 350 × 230 × 18 × 8 HEA360 HEM240 HEB340 IPE500 HEB300
6 330 × 190 × 15 × 5 HEA340 HEM200 HEB340 IPE400 HEB300

Table 4
Limit states and corresponding scaling factors for seismic input.
Limit state Return period, Probability of ag/agr ag/g
years exceedance

Damage Limitation 95 10%/10 years 0.59 0.207

(DL)
Significant Damage 475 10%/50 years 1.00 0.350
(SD)
Near Collapse (NC) 2475 2%/50 years 1.72 0.602

Table 5
Seismic performance assessment in case of first configuration.
N2 FEMA acc. criteria

Limit state Dt [mm] Link rotation Link rotation Corresponding top

at Dt [rad] [rad] displacement Fig. 14. Capacity curves.
DL 124 0046 0005 52
SD 210 0091 0,11 248 When comparing the link removal possibilities within a storey, re-
NC 362 0290 0,14 300
sidual shear force drop was considered indicative on which solution to
choose, the optimal one being where it would be the smallest.
Fig. 17 illustrates the link shear force evolution, at the first storey,
Table 6
Seismic performance assessment in case of second configuration.
during the links removal order. It was observed that in case of LT link
removal sequence, the residual shear force drop is about 21% smaller
N2 FEMA acc. criteria (first configuration) and 16% smaller (second configuration) than in
Limit state Dt [mm] Link rotation Link rotation Corresponding top
case of TL and the redistribution of forces between the links of the same
at Dt [rad] [rad] displacement storey is also smaller. This is because, when removing links in the LT
sequence, the structure becomes more flexible (the least loaded links on
DL 106 0039 0005 42 the longitudinal direction are first removed and when removing the
SD 179 0085 0,11 224
first link on the transversal direction, only the MRFs in the other di-
NC 308 0310 0,14 268
rection are still active) and the links develop smaller residual forces.
When removing links in the TL sequence, the structure is more rigid
level, from the sixth storey downwards: 24 links for first configuration (when removing the first link on the transversal direction, both MRFs
and 48 links for the second one. and EBFs in the other direction are still active) and the links develop
Three alternative links removal sequences within a storey were in- larger residual forces. The situation in the C sequence is in between the
vestigated: firstly removing the links on the longitudinal direction and other two.
secondly the ones on the transversal direction - LT (see Fig. 15-a,d); vice Maximum top displacement on longitudinal direction, after links
versa - TL (see Fig. 15 – b,e), and in a circular pattern - C (see Fig. 15 – removal are small: 9 mm for LT, 4 mm for TL and 9 mm for C in case of
c,f). first configuration and 9 mm for LT, 4 mm for TL and 6 mm for C in case
Very good re-centring of the two structures is observed (see Fig. 16). of second configuration.
For first configuration the residual top displacement on transversal Therefore, the optimal link removal sequence within a given storey
direction is of 0.4 mm in case of LT, 0.3 mm in case of TL and 3 mm in could be the one which results in smaller drop of force. From this
case of C. For second configuration the residual top displacement is of perspective, links should be removed from the least loaded towards the
2.3 mm in case of LT, 2.2 mm in case of TL and 8.8 mm in case of C. most loaded, this being the case of LT sequence.

181
A. Chesoan et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 112 (2018) 174–184

Fig. 15. Link removal sequence within a storey for first configuration: LT (a), TL (b) and C (c) and for second configuration: LT (d), TL (e) and C (c).

Fig. 16. Transversal top displacement time history during links elimination: for first configuration (a) and for second configuration (b).

Fig. 17. Evolution of the maximum shear force in links from the first storey, during the link removal: for first configuration (a) and for second configuration (b).

182
A. Chesoan et al.
Fig. 18. Evolution of the maximum shear force in links from a transversal frame, during the link removal for first configuration.
Within LT solution, links removal order was also observed starting
from the most loaded to the least loaded storey (from the first storey
upwards), in order to establish the optimal solution for height-wise
direction. Very good re-centring of the two structures was also observed
in this case: the residual top displacement on transversal direction is of
0.4 mm for first configuration and of 2 mm for the second one. A larger
interaction between stories was observed, but values of the shear force
drop with 41% (first configuration) and 34% (second configuration)
smaller than in the case of removing links from the upper one toward
the lower one and smaller redistribution of forces between the links of
the same storey. Fig. 18 illustrates the link shear force evolution from a
transversal frame during the links removal order for first configuration,
for the second one the situation being similar.
Maximum top displacement on longitudinal direction after links
removal in the LT sequence are also smaller when removing links from
the first storey upwards: 8 mm in case of first configuration and 7 mm in
case of second configuration, compared to 9 mm for both configuration
when removing links from the sixth storey downwards.
Therefore, the optimal link removal order in height-wise direction is
from the lower storey toward the upper ones (from the storeys with
larger residual stresses toward the storeys with smaller ones).
9. Conclusions
Dual eccentrically braced frames with removable links are a con-
venient solution for reducing the repair costs of a structure damaged by
an earthquake. Bolted connections make the replacement of damaged
links easy, while the dual configuration provide re-centring capability,
aiding in installation of replacement links.
Experimental tests on full-scale dual eccentrically braced structure
showed an excellent performance at the SLS and ULS earthquakes.
Small permanent deformations were recorded for seismic intensity le-
vels corresponding to SLS/ULS, which are within the erection tolerance
limits. This behaviour occurs mostly due to the large post-elastic stiff-
ness of the system, provided by the moment resisting frames. Small
permanent deformations effectively mean that the structure is self-
centring to a certain degree.
Dual eccentrically braced frames may be designed using standard
code-based procedures. Additional design criteria are proposed in order
to provide re-centring capability and facilitate link replacement.
The design procedure was applied to two case study buildings. Due
to limitations of simplified code-based approach, pushover analyses
were performed to validate the intended structural performance of
these structures. The objective of having no yielding in the moment
resisting frames before the attainment of the ULS deformation in the
removable links of the eccentrically braced frames was accomplished,
representing the basic design requirement for dual frames with re-
movable dissipative members.
Numerical investigations were carried out to find the optimal se-
quence of link removal. Within a given storey links should be removed
from the least loaded toward the most loaded, which results in smaller
183
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 112 (2018) 174–184
drop of force. In height-wise direction links should be removed from the
lower storey toward the upper ones (from the storeys with larger re-
sidual stresses toward the storeys with smaller ones).
Employing a smaller behaviour factor in designing dual EBFs with
removable short links than for traditional EBFs, results in higher initial
construction costs. But, on the other hand, the system allows the easier
repair after a significant earthquake by constraining damage in short
bolted bars only, which are replaceable, being thus more cost effective
and resilient if compares with conventional EBFs.
Acknowledgments
The research leading to the experimental results has received
funding from the European Commission's Seventh Framework
Programme [FP7/2007-2013] for access to the European Laboratory for
Structural Assessment of the European Commission – Joint Research
Centre under grant agreement no. 227887.
References
[1] Vargas R, Bruneau M. Seismic design of multi-story buildings with metallic struc-
tural fuses. In: Proceedings of the 8th US national conference on earthquake en-
gineering (Paper N. 280), San Francisco, California, USA, 2006, p. 18–22.
[2] Kiggins S, Uang C-M. Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames
as a dual system. Eng Struct 2006;28(11):1525–32.
[3] Herning G, Garlock MEM, Vanmarcke E. Reliability-based evaluation of design and
performance of steel self-centring moment frames. J Constr Steel Res
2011;67(10):1495–505.
[4] Chi H, Liu J. Seismic behaviour of post-tensioned column base for steel self-cen-
tering moment resisting frame. J Constr Steel Res 2012:78117–30.
[5] Roke D, Jeffers B. “Parametric study of self-centering concentrically-braced frame
systems with friction-based energy dissipation.” Behaviour of steel structures in
seismic areas. London, UK: CRC Press, Taylor&Francis Group; 2012. p. 691–6.
[6] Stratan A, Dubină D. Bolted links for eccentrically braced steel frames. In: Bijlaard
FSK, Gresnigt AM, van der Vegte GJ, editors. Proc. of the fifth AISC/ECCS inter-
national workshop ‘‘connections in steel structures V. behaviour, strength & design”,
June 3–5. The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology; 2004. p. 223–32.
[7] Dubină D, Stratan A, Dinu F. Dual high-strength steel eccentrically braced frames
with removable links. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn J 2008;37:1703–20.
[8] Ioan A, Stratan A, Dubină D, Poljansek M, Molina FJ, Taucer F, Pegon P, Sabau G.
Experimental validation of re-centring eccentrically braced frames with removable
links. Eng Struct 2016;113:335–46.
[9] EN1993-1-1, Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings, CEN, European Committee for Standardization; 2005.
[10] EN1998-1-1. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1,
General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, CEN, In: Proceedings of the
European committee for standardization; 2004.
[11] NEHRP. Recommended provisions for new buildings and other structures (FEMA
450). Part 1: Provisions and Part 2: Commentary. Building Seismic Safety Council,
National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C; 2003.
[12] P100-P101. Seismic Design Code – Part I: Design provisions for buildings; 2013.
[13] Stratan A, Dinu F, Dubină D. Replacement of bolted links in dual eccentrically
braced frames, In: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on earthquake
engineering, August 30 – September 3, Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia; 2010.
[14] Zimbru M, D’Aniello M, Stratan A, Landolfo R, Dubina D. Finite element analysis of
composite replaceable short links, Key engineering materials. 763. Switzerland:
Trans Tech Publications; 2018. p. 576–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.
scientific.net/KEM.763.576. [ISSN: 1662–9809].
[15] Dubina D, Stratan A, Ioan-Chesoan A. Design of steel dual frames with replaceable
bolted links eccentric bracing systems, In: Proceedings of the 1st EU-Sino workshop
on earthquake-resistance of steel structures Shanghai, China, October 27; 2016.
A. Chesoan et al.
[16] Dubina D, Stratan A, Chesoan A. Design Recommendations for Dual Moment -
Eccentric Braced Frames with ReplaceableLinks, EUROSTEEL 2017, September
13–15, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2017.
[17] AISC. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL; 2010.
[18] ECCS. "Recommended Testing Procedures for Assessing the Behaviour of Structural
Elements under Cyclic Loads", In: Proceedings of the European convention for
constructional steelwork, Technical Committee 1, TWG 1.3 – Seismic Design, No.
184
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 112 (2018) 174–184
45; 1985.
[19] FEMA 356, Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of build-
ings, In: Proceedings of the federal emergency management agency and American
society of civil engineers, Washington DC, USA; 2000.
[20] Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq
Spectra 2000;16(3):573–92.
[21] Ioan A, Stratan A, Dubina D. Numerical simulation of bolted links removal in ec-
centrically braced frames. Pollack Period 2013;8(1):15–26.