Structures 16 (2018) 63–72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Controlled-rocking Braced Frame Bearing on a Shallow Foundation T

a,⁎ a b
Navid Rahgozar , Nima Rahgozar , Abdolreza S. Moghadam
a
Department of Structural Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
b
Structural Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

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

Keywords: Controlled-rocking braced frames are capable of reducing the drawbacks of conventional frames against seismic
Controlled-rocking braced frame loading. This paper examines the effects of soil-foundation modeling on the seismic responses of low-rise con-
Conventional braced frame trolled-rocking braced frames. For this purpose, dynamic analyses are performed on rocking braced frames and
Shallow foundation similar conventional frames supported on fixed base and flexible foundations. Structural modeling considera-
Beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation
tions such as nonlinear constitutive modeling of members, post-tensioned cables, and yielding butterfly-shaped
fuses are modeled in OpenSees, and shallow foundations founded on the soil are simulated using the beam-on-
nonlinear-Winkler-foundation approach. The effects of modeling and ground motion parameters on seismic
performance are investigated from various aspects. Findings show significant foundation flexibility effects in
rocking braced-frame archetypes.

1. Introduction
The consideration of the interaction of a structure, its foundation,
and the underlying soils is an important research topic in earthquake
engineering. The relative stiffness between a foundation and the soil
changes the dynamic properties of a structure, amplifies higher mode
effects, and modifies foundation input motions [1]. For various types of
conventional structures such as steel moment-resisting frames [2], re-
inforced concrete shear wall frames [3], and bridges [4], the effects of
soil-structure interaction (SSI) are reported to be noticeable.
Recently, aiming to overcome the seismic technical flaws and socio-
economic drawbacks of conventional structures, modern low-damage
systems such as self-centering braced frames [5–9], rocking base-iso-
lated buildings [10], rocking timber walls [11], rocking concrete walls
[12,13], rocking core-moment frames [14,15], and post-tensioned
rocking bridges [16] have been developed. However, the effects of the
flexibility of the foundation are neglected by the use of rocking frame
models founded on a fixed base. For example, in the absence of soil-
foundation interaction, a number of studies have investigated the
overall behavior of rocking systems equipped with different post-ten-
sioning and energy-dissipating devices [17,18]. Although the literature
has confirmed their efficiency in reducing major structural damage by
preventing soft-story failure, drift concentration, structural plastic de-
formation, and residual deformation, their cores' uplifting takes place
above the fixed base [19,20]. Therefore, further studied are necessary
about rocking systems on flexible foundations and subsoils.
The main objective of this paper is to examine the effects of foun-
dation flexibility on the seismic performance of low-rise controlled-
rocking braced frames. In addition, the efficiency of rocking archetypes
is compared with those of the similar conventional braced frames. The
rocking archetypes are typically composed of four main components: a
stiff coupled braced frame that rocks on a foundation under a seismic
motion, vertical post-tensioned (PT) members that provide self-cen-
tering and restoring forces against overturning, replaceable yielding
fuses placed between two rocking frames, and pin-ended rigid link
beams connecting braced frames [21]. PT strands are attached to the
top of frames and resist to the bottom of the foundation (Fig. 1). The
considered conventional braced frames are fixed to the foundation and
are designed to be similar to rocking archetypes without any post-
tensioning or fuse. For both rocking and conventional archetypes,
braced frames are founded on a flexible shallow foundation or fixed
base counterparts. The following sections introduce the studied cases,
present the simulation details of archetypes, and discuss various aspects
of their seismic behavior.
2. Design of structural members
Fig. 1(I) shows the prototype building and elevations of the con-
sidered lateral-resisting archetypes including the rocking coupled-
braced frame and fixed-based braced frames. Of the SAC Joint Venture
Project [22], a 4 × 6 bay residential three-story prototype building
with the floor plan of 36 m × 54 m is chosen for the present study. The

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Structural Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail address: n.rahgozar@srbiau.ac.ir (N. Rahgozar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.08.013
Received 28 March 2018; Received in revised form 25 July 2018; Accepted 30 August 2018
Available online 31 August 2018
2352-0124/ © 2018 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Rahgozar et al. Structures 16 (2018) 63–72

(I) plan and elevation of the archetypes 3.75m 1.5m 3.75m

W14x38 W14x38 W14x38
W14x38

0
0

x9
0

x9
4x9
4x9

4
W1

W1
W14x90

W14x233
W1

W14x90
W1

W14x233
W14x90
W14x90

W14x30 W14x30
W14x30 W14x30

sym.
sym.

3@4m
2
2

2
x8
4x8
4x8

x8
4

4
W1
W1

W1
W1

W14x34

W14x233
W14x34

W14x90

W14x233
W14x90
W14x34 W14x34
W14x90
W14x90

74

4
4
4

x7
4x
4x7
4x7

4
W1

W1
W1
W1

conventional coupled braced frame rocking-cores archetypes

(a) FB archetype (b) SF archetype (c) RFB archetype (d) RSF archetype
(II) posttensioning (III) butterfly-shaped fuse
gravity frame
strands (7-wire)
braced frame

lfs

15.2 mm tfs = 31.7mm

lfs/tfs = 22.4
4@9m

Fuse
thichness (tfs)

required PT cables prop. required fuses prop.

initial PT force, FPTi : 2560 kN shear strength, Vfp : 280 kN
cross-sectional area of PT, APT : 22 cm2 number of fuses, Nfs : 3
6@9m number of PT cables, NPT : 16 number of links per fuse, Nlfs : 8

Fig. 1. (I) Plans and elevations of the considered archetypes; (II) Details of post-tensioning strand (III) and butterfly-shaped fuses.

floor and roof framing are typical with story height and bay width of 4 similar to rocking archetypes. This assumption is examined through the
and 9 m, respectively. The dead load, live load, and seismic mass of code-compliant design procedure of conventional braced frames, thus
floor plans for prototype building are equal to 9459 kN, 1974 kN, and limiting the demand-capacity ratio to the value of 1 (DCR < 1).
1033 kN·s2/m, respectively.
In general, four cases are comparatively examined, including 3. Modeling description
rocking archetypes on a fixed base (RFB) [Fig. 1(Ic)] and a shallow
foundation (RSF) [Fig. 1(Id)] along with similar braced frames on the The archetypes are analyzed using the numerical model in the open-
fixed base (FB) [Fig. 1(Ia)] and the shallow foundation (SF) [Fig. 1(Ib)]. source OpenSees software [26]. The following subsections present the
The considered rocking archetype equipped with yielding fuses and details of structural and soil-foundation modeling.
post-tensioned cables was introduced by a team from Illinois University
[5].
3.1. Structural model
The rocking-core archetypes are assumed to be located near Los
Angeles, California, a high-seismic region [23–25]. As shown in
Fig. 2 illustrates the numerical model of the archetypes employed in
Fig. 1(I), a coupled braced frame is designed for each direction of the
OpenSees. As depicted in Fig. 2(II) and (IV), the boundary conditions of
prototype building and designed using the capacity design procedure.
rocking braced frames are modeled using gap elements which support
The archetypes are first analyzed using the modified static analysis with
compression only. In order to simulate the P-Δ effect, two leaning
the response modification factor of R = 8 [23,24]. Three loading cases
columns with no lateral stiffness are also modeled using “rigid truss”,
suggested in Ref. [23] are employed to estimate the amplified demands
“elastic Beam-Column”, and “rotational spring” elements.
and sizing members [Fig. 1(I)]. Fig. 1(II) and (III) represent the prop-
Structural members (beam, column, and brace) are simulated by
erties of designed PT-strands and butterfly fuses, respectively. The re-
displacement-based nonlinear beam-column elements with four in-
quired initial force (FPTi), cross-sectional area (APT), and number of
tegration points. The nonlinear “Steel02” material is assigned to fiber
required 7-strand woven wires (NPT) are determined such that the re-
cross-sections. Beam-column connections are of shear tab type modeled
quired self-centering force is provided at the design drift level. In this
using concentrated rotational spring elements. The braces are divided
study, thick steel shear plates (tfs = 31.7 mm) with the slenderness ratio
into 10 fiber elements and their sections are discretized by 2 fibers in
(Lfs/tfs) of 22.4 are used for butterfly-shaped fuses. Based on Fig. 1(III),
thickness and 10 fibers along the flange and web of the braces. The
the required number of fuses (Nfs) and the number of links per fuse
initial geometric imperfection (=0.001× brace effective length) are
(Nlfs) are designed to provide the required shear strength (Vfp). Further
considered for modeling global and local buckling behaviors. Force-
design details of the member and components of the rocking-core
based beam-column elements and elastic beam-column elements are
system are provided in previous Refs. [24, 25]. The design details of
utilized to simulate gusset plate connections.
footing and soil conditions are also presented in Section 3. Note that the
PT cables are modeled using corotational truss elements that act in
structural members of conventional braced frames are considered to be
tension only. Fig. 3(I) represents the tri-linear stress-strain relationship

64
N. Rahgozar et al. Structures 16 (2018) 63–72

(I) FB archetype (II) RFB archetype pinned rigid

link

butterfly
fuse
pinned
connection

sym.
leaning column

rotational
spring mass
truss
element

rigid elastic gap

element element

(III) SF archetype (IV) RSF archetype

sym.

very small
force-based truss
rotational
element element
stiffness
rigid
element

rigidity of rotational
spring
the gusset

q-z
p-x
element t-x
element
element

Fig. 2. Nonlinear simulation of (I) FB, (II) RFB, (III) SF, and (IV) RSF archetypes in OpenSees.

among strands. PT cables are simulated using a series combination of
elastic-perfectly plastic and hysteretic materials to capture the initial PT
stress, fPTi, and strength degradation. Based on Fig. 3(I), the first linear
branch of PT behavior is increased from fPTi with the modulus of
elasticity of EPT and terminated at the yield strength, fyPT. When fyPT is
attained, the PT material starts to yield and follows a hardening branch,
αh,PT.EPT, to the ultimate tensile strength, fuPT; fuPT is the beginning of
the post-peak point in the degrading branch, αpc,PT.EPT. The initial
strain, εi, yield strain, εy, ultimate strain, εu, and fracture strain, εm,
correspond to the strength of fPTi, fPTy, fuPT, and zero, respectively. The
values of εu and εm are assumed to be 1 and 5%, respectively, and the
fPTi, fPTy, and fuPT for the designed PT are 1.16, 1.75, and 2.18 kN/mm2,
respectively.
The butterfly-shaped fuse is made of yielding steel plate, which
allows undergoing torsional-flexural buckling at large shear deforma-
tions. Non-degrading and degrading types of butterfly-shaped fuses
have recently been tested for rocking braced frames by Eatherton and
Hajjar [5]. The non-degrading fuse with the slenderness ratio of 22.4 is
modeled in this paper. The thick steel plate of fuses provides a stable
hysteresis behavior in flexure and prevents torsional-flexural buckling
at a large shear strain. The fuses are modeled explicitly and calibrated
and validated with cyclic experimental data [5]. Displacement-based
beam-column elements along with fiber sections and rotational springs
are used to simulate fuse behavior. Rigid parts at the ends of the fuse
[Fig. 1(III)] are modeled with an elastic beam-column element con-
strained to the frames using the equal DOF command. Moreover, zero-
length rotational springs and fiber displacement-based elements with
the steel-01 material are utilized to capture the hysteretic flexural and

65
N. Rahgozar et al. Structures 16 (2018) 63–72

(I) PT (II) Fuse

strain hardening strain softening
εcap εpc strain hardening strain softening
fPTu ffsu

Fuse stress, ffs

PT stress, fPT fPTy αh,PTEPT γcap γpc
PT push-curve
ffsy αh,fskfs
EPT αpc,fskfs
fPTi αpc,PTEPT
kfs
fuse push-curve

0 ε0 εy εu εm γy γu γm
PT strain, ε Fuse strain, γ
Fig. 3. Tri-linear stress–strain relationships of (I) PT-strands and (II) butterfly-shaped fuse.

tensile behaviors along the length of fuses. The thickness and average compressive-tensile capacities of soil. Also, the pinched hysteresis is
depth of the fuse links are set as the properties of fiber section. Fig. 3(II) assigned to PxSimple1 material to capture the gaping phenomenon.
depicts the ideal multi-linear backbone behavior of fuses. Using this Moreover, the TxSimple1 material is constructed by a broad hysteresis
modeling, fuse links can start to yield while their shear strength reaches with a large initial stiffness.
the yield strength, ffsy, and then increases to fracturing strength, fufs, The QzSimple2 material [Fig. 4(I)] is composed of an elastic region
through a hardening branch, αh,fs.kfs. According to previous experi- followed by a nonlinear smooth curve. In the linear elastic branch,
mental studies, the fracturing of the butterfly-shaped fuse is assumed to q ≤ q0, the applied load q to the q-z soil springs is linearly related to
occur at 35% shear strain, γm, followed by a steep drop in strength. The vertical displacement z and initial tangent stiffness kin, as follows:
shear strength drops to zero with steep stiffness, αpc,fs.kfs, after in-
q = kin z ≤ q0 (1)
itiating the fracture at the large shear deformation. Note that the
fracturing point corresponding to 35% shear strain and fuse shear where kin is determined by Gazetas and Terzaghi formulae and yield
strength, Vfp, is considered as the fuse fracture limit. load q0 is calculated as follows:
q0 = Cr qult (2)
3.2. Nonlinear soil–foundation model
where qult is the ultimate bearing strength per unit area of footing and
Flexible soil-foundations are considered for SF and RSF cases Cr parameter can control the limit of the elastic range.
(Fig. 2). The beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation (BNWF) [22] ap- In the nonlinear range, q > q0, the backbone material curve is
proach is implemented to simulate the nonlinear soil-foundation in described by the following equation:
OpenSees. n
cz50
q = qult − (qult − q0 ) ⎜⎛ ⎞
⎟

3.2.1. BNWF modeling ⎝ cz50 + |z p − z p,0 | ⎠ (3)

The BNWF model is composed of beam-column elements and a set
of vertical and horizontal inelastic springs, known as q-z, p-x, and t-x
springs [27]. The vertical q-z spring elements are placed at the base of
the foundation to capture the vertical (uplift and settlement) and ro-
tational resistance of the footing. To achieve the given rocking stiffness
of the foundation, the non-uniform stiffness intensity is distributed
along the length of the BNWF model. Based on the recommendations of
Harden and Hutchinson [28] and ATC-40 [29], the stiffness intensity
ratio at the edges of the footing (10% of the footing length from each
end of the footing) to the stiffness of the middle region should be larger
than 1, i.e. Rk = kend/kmid > 1. The other two horizontal springs,
named p-x and t-x elements, attached at the sides of the foundation, are
modeled to simulate the passive and sliding resistance of the founda-
tion, respectively (Fig. 2).
3.2.2. Mechanistic springs
Fig. 4 represents the hysteretic material behavior of q-z, p-x and t-x
spring elements. The initial effort to formulate the nonlinear behavior
of the inelastic springs of soil-pile-structure is made by Boulanger et al.
[30], Gazetas [31] and Terzaghi [32] and later modified by Ray-
chowdhury and Hutchinson [33] for BNWF model using shallow
foundation tests. The q-z [Fig. 4(I)], t-x [Fig. 4(II)] and p-x [Fig. 4(III)]
spring elements are constructed with QzSimple2, TxSimple1, and
PxSimple1 materials in OpenSees to capture the vertical-rotational,
passive resistance, and frictional resistance of the foundation, respec-
tively [27]. The asymmetric nonlinear response of QzSimple2 material
is defined by initial elastic stiffness, kin, and the vertical ultimate
where c and n are constant parameters effects on the shape of the
nonlinear post-yield range of the backbone curve, obtained by cali-
brating the results of a set of shallow footing tests [27].
The parameters of z50, zp, 0, and zp denote the displacements cor-
responding to 50% of the ultimate strength (0.5qult), yield point (q0),
and any point load in the nonlinear region, respectively.
Based on Eqs. (1)–(3), the behavior of nonlinear spring elements
strongly depends on the soil parameters of qult and kin which can be
related to the z50 parameters as follows:
qult
z50 = Fk
kin (4)
where Fk is a calibration factor determined for a given soil type by the
results of shallow foundation tests.
Note that the equations of QzSimple2 material [Eqs. (1)–(3)] along
with the other constant parameters of n, c, and Cr derived from the
calibration of material models in footing tests are used to define
PxSimple1 and TxSimple1 materials [27].
The bearing capacity of the footing, qult, and it parameters are de-
termined from the equations presented by Terzaghi [32] and Meyerhof
[34], as follows:
qult = cNc Fcs Fcd Fci + γDf Nq Fqs Fqd Fqi + 0.5γBNγ Fγs Fγd Fγi (5)
where the γ parameter denotes the unit weight of soil; c represents the
soil cohesion; Df and B indicate the depth of embedment and the width
of footing, respectively; and (Fcs, Fqs, Fgs), (Fcd, Fqd, Fgd), and (Fci, Fqi,
Fgi) parameters denote the shape, depth, and inclination factors,

66
N. Rahgozar et al. Structures 16 (2018) 63–72

(I) q-z spring - QzSimple2 material (II) t-x spring - TxSimple1 material
(axial and rotational) (sliding resistance)
1

normalized lateral load

1
normalized vertical load

normalized lateral load

1

per unit length V/tult

compression

per unit length V/pult

per unit length q/qult

0 0
x50 x50
0

tension
z50
uplift settlement

-0.5 −1 −1
−1 0 1 −1 0 1 −1 0 1
Norm.vertical displacement, z/z50 Norm. horizontal displacement, u/x50

Fig. 4. Beam-on-Nonlinear-Winkler-Foundation model (I) q-z spring behavior (II) p-x spring behavior (III) t-x spring behavior.

respectively, defined by Meyerhof [34]. Nq, Nc, and Nγ parameters are building. The footings are designed for the static vertical factor of safety
the bearing capacity factors computed from the following equations in of 3 (i.e. Its bearing capacity is considered 3 times the applied load).
terms of soil friction angle, φ [34]: Thus, the footing size is designed as 9.50 m × 4.20 m × 1 m for in-
plane width, out-of-plane width, and height of footing, respectively.
ϕ
Nq = e π tan ϕtan2 ⎛45∘ + ⎞ A non-uniformly distributed stiffness is provided along the length of
⎝ 2⎠ (6)
the BNWF model. For this purpose, the vertical q-z spring is distributed
Nc = (Nq − 1) cot ϕ (7) at the spacing of 2 and 1% at the mid and end regions of the footing
length [28,29]. The stiffness ratio at the end-to-mid region in the BNWF
Nγ = (Nq − 1) tan(1.4ϕ) (8) model is considered to be 5 along the length of 10% of the footing
length. The nominal tension capacity for q-z springs is considered to be
The vertical, kv, and horizontal, kh, footing stiffnesses in the elastic
5% of the ultimate bearing capacity. According to Eqs. (1)–(13), the
range for the studied models are derived from Gazetas's formulae [31]:
vertical and horizontal capacities of q-z, p-x, and t-x springs and their
GL ⎡ B 0.75 stress-strain parameters are generated using the calibrated BNWF
kv = 0.73 + 1.549 ⎛ ⎞ ⎤ model with ShallowFoundationGen command in OpenSees [33].
1−ν⎢⎣ ⎝L⎠ ⎥ ⎦ (9)

GL ⎡ B 0.85 4. Performance evaluations

kh = 2 + 2.5 ⎛ ⎞ ⎤
⎢
2− ν⎣ ⎝L⎠ ⎦ ⎥ (10)
The eigenvalue analysis of rocking-core archetypes with different
where G and ν are the shear modulus and Poisson's ratio of soil, and B/L footing conditions indicates that the fundamental period is 0.79 and
is the width-to-length ratio of the footing. 1.45 s for fixed base (RFB) and flexible base (RSF) conditions, respec-
In the nonlinear region of the backbone curves, the post-yield tan- tively, and 0.32 (FB) and 0.67 (SF) s, respectively, for conventional
gent stiffness, kp, of the footing is obtained from Eq. (11) [27]: braced frames. As expected, the archetypes with flexible BNWFs are
n (qult − q0 )(cz50 )n found to have a longer period than fixed base archetypes. Moreover,
kp = nonlinear dynamic analyses are performed to quantify key engineering
(cz50 − z 0 + z )n + 1 (11)
demand parameters. Inherent damping is modeled for dynamic analysis
Considering the homogeneous backfill against the footing, for p-x with a Rayleigh damping model based on a linear combination of mass
spring element (PySimple1 material), the passive resistance, pult, acting matrix and stiffness matrix. The tangent stiffness matrix with the equal
on the front side of the embedded footing can be determined using a damping ratio of 2%, which is a typical value for steel buildings, is
linearly varying pressure distribution as follows [27]: assigned to the first two initial modes of the archetypes. In the fol-
pult = 0.5γDf2 Kp lowing subsections, the performance of both rocking and conventional
(12)
archetypes is evaluated under far-field ground motions at two intensity
where Kp is the coefficient of passive earth pressure. levels of the design basis earthquake (DBE) and maximum credible
Using the classical Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria and ignoring earthquake (MCE).
friction on the sides and front of the footing, the total sliding (frictional)
resistance, tult, for t-x spring element (TzSimple1 material) can be ob- 4.1. Ground motion set
tained as the shear strength between the soil and the footing by the
following expression [27]: Twenty-two component pairs of far-field ground motions taken from
tult = Wg tan δ + Ab c 14 events adapted from FEMA P695 [36] are employed to perform the
(13)
nonlinear time history analysis. The characteristics of the records are
where Wg is a vertical force applied to the foundation, δ is the friction listed in Table 1. The ground motions are scaled using the FEMA P695
angle between soil and foundation, 1/3φ < δ < 2/3φ, and Ab is the recommendation. For this purpose, they are first normalized and then
footing area, Ab = L × B. the median spectral acceleration is calculated by fitting a lognormal
distribution to the normalized spectral acceleration. The scaling factor
3.2.3. Design details of footing and soil conditions is then found at the fundamental period of archetypes to scale the
The archetypes are assumed to be founded on rectangular shallow median spectra to target spectra.
foundations. The footings rest on stiff silty sand with the unit weight of
18 kN/m3, friction angle (ϕ) of 36°, cohesion (c) of 5.0 kN/m2, Poisson's 4.2. Nonlinear dynamic analysis results
ratio (ν) of 0.35, and average shear modulus (G) of 50 MN/m2 (under
site classification D, from NEHRP [35]). For both rocking and con- Results of nonlinear dynamic analyses for the archetypes are
ventional archetypes, vertical loads on shallow foundations are de- quantified in terms of seismic demands such as inter-story drift ratio,
termined to be 7.9 MN based on load calculation for the prototype residual inter-story drift, and floor acceleration. In this section

67
N. Rahgozar et al. Structures 16 (2018) 63–72

Table 1
Characteristics of the far-field ground motion set [36].
ID Event Year Station Fault Type Mwa Tg (sec) Distance (km) Vs30

b c
Comp.1–2 Clst. Epi. (m/s2)

1 Northridge 1994 Beverly Hills Mulhol Blind thrust 6.7 0.91–0.55 17.2 13.3 356
2 Northridge 1994 Canyon W Lost Cany Blind thrust 6.7 0.59–0.71 12.4 26.5 309
3 Duzce, Turkey 1999 Bolu Strike-slip 7.1 0.56–0.99 12.0 41.3 326
4 Hector Mine 1999 Hector Strike-slip 7.1 1.23–0.52 11.7 26.5 685
5 Imperial Valley 1979 Delta Strike-slip 6.5 3.28–1.66 22.0 33.7 275
6 Imperial Valley 1979 El Centro Array#11 Strike-slip 6.5 1.76–0.74 12.5 29.4 196
7 Kobe, Japan 1995 Nishi-Akashi Strike-slip 6.9 0.47–0.72 7.1 8.7 609
8 Kobe, Japan 1995 Shin-Osaka Strike-slip 6.9 0.67–1.23 19.2 46 256
9 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999 Duzce Strike-slip 7.5 3.86–0.51 15.4 98.2 276
10 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999 Arcelik Strike-slip 7.5 1.24–9.28 13.5 53.7 523
11 Landers 1992 Yermo Fire Station Strike-slip 7.3 6.38–1.36 23.6 86 354
12 Landers 1992 Coolwater Strike-slip 7.3 1.42–0.61 19.7 82.1 271
13 Loma Prieta 1989 Capitola Strike-slip 6.9 0.85–1.49 15.2 9.8 289
14 Loma Prieta 1989 Gilroy Array #3 Strike-slip 6.9 0.67–0.46 12.8 31.4 350
15 Manjil, Iran 1990 Abbar Strike-slip 7.4 2.16–0.82 12.6 40.4 724
16 Superstition Hills 1990 El Centro Imp. Cent Strike-slip 6.5 2.67–1.42 18.2 35.8 192
17 Superstition Hills 1987 Poe Road (temp) Strike-slip 6.5 2.45–0.46 11.2 11.2 208
18 Cape Mendocino 1992 Rio Dell Overpass FF Thrust 7.0 2.37–1.29 14.3 22.7 312
19 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 CHY101 Thrust 7.6 0.47–3.4 10.0 32.0 259
20 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 TCU045 Thrust 7.6 4.88–0.48 26.0 77.5 705
21 San Fernando 1971 LA - Hollywood Stor Thrust 6.6 3.74–2.24 22.8 39.5 316
22 Friuli, Italy 1976 Tolmezzo Thrust 6.5 0.51–0.66 15.8 20.2 425

a
Moment magnitude.
b
Closest distance from the recording site to the ruptured area (if available).
c
Distance from the recording site to the epicenter.

(A) inter-story drift ratio

2 (AI) FB 1st Floor (AII) SF 1st Floor (AIII) RFB 1st Floor (AIV) RSF 1st Floor
2nd Floor 2nd Floor 2nd Floor 2nd Floor
3rd Floor 3rd Floor
drift ratio (%)

1 3rd Floor 3rd Floor

−1

PDR = 1.23 % PDR = 1.25 % PDR = 2.41 % PDR = 2.59 %

−2

(B) floor acceleration

(BI) FB 1st Floor (BII) SF 1st Floor (BIII) RFB 1st Floor (BIV) RSF 1st Floor
floor acceleration (g)

1 2nd Floor 2nd Floor 2nd Floor 2nd Floor

3rd Floor 3rd Floor 3rd Floor 3rd Floor

−1
PFA = 1.43 g PFA = 1.45 g PFA = 1.17g PFA = 1.47 g
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 5. (A) Inter-story drift ratio and (B) floor acceleration of (I) FB, (II) SF, (CIII) RFB, and (IV) RSF archetypes subjected to the first component of 1994 Northridge
earthquake at DBE level.

numerical results for representative examples are discussed in detail to
examine the effects of foundation flexibility on rocking-cores. To this
end, the seismic demands of archetypes subjected to the DBE-level1994
Northridge earthquake (at Beverly Hills Mulhol Station) are presented
in Figs. 5–9.
4.2.1. Dynamic response histories
Fig. 5 shows the time histories of inter-story drift ratio and floor
acceleration demands for the archetypes. The inter-story drift ratios for
rocking braced frames [Fig. 5(AIII) and (AIV)], i.e. RFB and RSF, are
distributed uniformly along the frame height compared to conventional
archetypes [Fig. 5(AI) and (AII)], i.e. FB and SF. It is clear that the
uniform distribution of lateral displacements of rocking archetypes is
not influenced by foundation flexibility. This is due to the uniform ro-
tation of braced frames at the base which tends to sway as a rigid block
on the foundation without significant in-plane deformations. However,
the RSF relying on its footing flexibility is displaced more than the RFB
archetype. Hence, for both types of rocking-cores modeling, the system
can impose a uniform mode of failure on its adjacent gravity frame. The
peak values of roof drift ratio (PDR) and acceleration (PFA) demands
are also plotted in this figure. As expected, the PDR of the archetypes
with flexible conditions, i.e. RSF and SF, are somewhat larger than

68
N. Rahgozar et al. Structures 16 (2018) 63–72

2 (I) disaggregation of drift ratio 0. 8 (II) net drift ratio 0.8 (III) net drift ratio
2nd floor - rocking archetypes 2nd floor- fixed-base archetypes 2nd floor - rocking archetypes

net drift ratio (%)

net drift ratio (%)
drift ratio (%) 1 0. 4 0.4

0 0 0

−1 drift ratio −0.4 −0.4

rigid drift ratio FB archetype RFB archetype

−2 net drift ratio −0.8 SF archetype −0.8 RSF archetype

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
time (s) time (s) time (s)

Fig. 6. (I) Disaggregation of inter-story drift ratio for the rocking frame, and (II) net-drift ratio for conventional and (III) rocking archetypes subjected to the
horizontal component of Northridge earthquake at DBE level.

(A) fixed base archetypes (B) rocking-core archetypes

normalized overturning moment

1 (AI) FB (AII) SF (BI) RFB (BII) RSF

−1

−2 0 2 −2 0 2 −2 0 2 −2 0 2
roof drift ratio (%) roof drift ratio (%) roof drift ratio (%) roof drift ratio (%)

Fig. 7. Normalized overturning moment versus roof drift ratio for (I) FB, (II) SF, (CIII) RFB, and (IV) RSF archetypes subjected to the first component of DBE-level
1994 Northridge ground motion.

(A) uplift ratio - time

3 3
0.8 (AI) SF right column (AII) RFB right column (AIII) RSF right column
left column left column left column
uplift ratio (%)

2
Uplift Ratio (%)
Uplift Ratio (%)

0.4
2

0 1

1
−0.4
0

−0.8
0 −1
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
time (s) time (s) time (s)
(B) uplift ratio -roof drift ratio 3
3
0.8 (BI) SF (BII) RFB (BIII) RSF right column
left column
Uplift Ratio (%)

Uplift Ratio (%)

2
uplift ratio (%)

2
0.4

0 1 1

−0.4
0 0
right column right column
−0.8 left column left column
−1 −1
−2 0 2 −2 0 2 −2 0 2
roof drift ratio (%) roof drift ratio (%) roof drift ratio (%)

Fig. 8. (A) Time history of uplift ratio and (B) roof drift ratio versus uplift ratio for (I) SF, (II) RFB, and (III) RSF archetypes.

those of fixed base archetypes, i.e. RFB and FB. For example, the peak braced frame can lead to significant economic losses following an
drift ratio of the RSF archetype is 7.5% larger than the PDR of the RFB earthquake [37]. The largest peak drift ratio of conventional cases has
archetype due to the rocking foundation. A similar trend can also be occurred in the second story due to the braces' yielding. Moreover, the
observed for floor acceleration demand as shown in Fig. 5(B). archetypes with flexible soil-foundation have experienced larger per-
The peak residual drift ratios for rocking frames are negligible manent damage than the fixed base.
compared with conventional cases: FB (0.29% at the DBE level) and SF
(0.16% at the DBE level), as demonstrated in Fig. 5(A). In this case, the
peak permanent drift of the conventional FB archetype is 7.9 times that 4.2.2. Disaggregated response histories
in the RFB. The large quantities of permanent displacement for the Fig. 6 displays the disaggregated responses of drift ratio to de-
termine the cause of evident residual damage. Fig. 6(I) shows how to

69
N. Rahgozar et al.
4500
PT yield limit
PT axial force (kN)
3500
2500
1500
0 10
time (s)
Fig. 9. (I) PT axial force and (II) PT axial force versus roof drift ratio of RFB and RSF archetypes subjected to the horizontal component of the Northridge earthquake
at DBE level.
disaggregate the drift ratio of the rocking archetype to rigid and net
drift ratios. The rigid drift ratio refers to the deformation induced by a
rigid rotation of rocking braced frame and causes no damage. However,
the net drift ratio is composed of elastic and residual deformations, in
which residual drift is the main cause of permanent damage. It is evi-
dent that over 98% of total inter-story drift ratio for RFB is due to the
rocking mode and only 2% of net drift has contributed to its total in-
elastic displacement. In this case, the residual drift induced can be at-
tributed to the PT yield. It can also be readily seen in Fig. 6(II) and (III)
that the residual deformations for conventional archetypes (FB and SF)
are larger than that of rocking braced frames (RFB and RSF) due to the
nonlinear deformation of members. Also, the effect of foundation
flexibility on increasing permanent drift ratios is evident. As a result,
ignoring footing flexibility may lead to the underestimation of residual
damage.
In general, the rocking systems have experienced more uniform and
larger lateral displacement demands than the conventional frames and
their values are amplified by soil-foundation modeling. Regardless of
the effect of foundation flexibility, the little residual drift has remained
upon removal of the lateral seismic load because of the inherent self-
centering feature of rocking-cores.
4.2.3. Hysteresis responses
Fig. 7 compares the normalized overturning moment-roof drift ratio
for the four studied archetypes. It is clear that the effect of foundation
flexibility on hysteresis loops is significant for both conventional and
rocking archetypes. Of the rocking-core hysteresis responses [Fig. 7(B)],
the loops for the RFB [Fig. 7(BI)] archetype are the closest to the ideal
flag-shaped hysteresis response. However, a nearly perfect self-cen-
tering action is achieved for both rocking archetypes and their residual
drifts are close to zero. For conventional brace frames (FB and SF), the
full hysteresis loops are similar [Fig. 7(A)] but the peak drift and re-
sidual drift are strongly affected by soil-foundation flexibility.
4.2.4. Soil-foundation effects
The effects of soil-foundation modeling on uplift ratio are in-
vestigated in Fig. 8. The uplift demand is defined here as the ratio of
column uplift to frame width. Fig. 8(A) and (B) show uplift ratio in
terms of time and roof drift ratio. It is evident that the foundation of the
convention braced frame, i.e. SF archetype, [Fig. 8(AI) and (BI)] is
rotated during the earthquake and the column-uplift demand is evident.
For the rocking archetype with a flexible foundation, i.e. RSF
[Fig. 8(AIII) and (BIII)], the uplift ratio is induced by frame and foun-
dation rotations. In these cases (SF and RSF), the negative values for
uplift ratio show the nonlinear behavior of soil-foundation. In contrast,
for the fixed base rocking system, i.e. RFB [Fig. 8(AII) and (BII)], the
uplift ratio is only due to the rigid rotation of the stiff braced frame.
Although the effect of foundation rotation on peak uplift ratio is low, its
influence on the response is evident.
Structures 16 (2018) 63–72
4500
RFB (I) (II)
PT axial force (kN)
RSF
3500
2500
RFB
RSF
1500
20 30 −2 0 2
roof drift ratio (%)
The relation of uplift ratio and drift ratio can be investigated using
Fig. 8(B). In this example, the peak value of drift ratios for SF, RFB, and
RSF archetypes are equal to 1.07, 2.57, and 2.96%, respectively. As-
suming the rigid-body rotation of the rocking system, the ratio of drift
to uplift should be equal to 1. Nevertheless, this ratio for SF, RFB, and
RSF equals 2.54, 1.02, and 1.17, respectively. Therefore, the con-
tribution of foundation rotation to the drift ratio is considerable,
especially for the conventional braced frame, and the assumption of
rigid-body rotation for rocking systems with a flexible foundation is not
generally valid.
The effects of soil-foundation on the PT behavior of the rocking
archetypes are shown in Fig. 9. The PT axial force versus time history
and roof drift ratio are plotted in Fig. 9(I) and (II), respectively. In this
example, the PT strands are yielded at about 8 s and 3% roof drift ratio
and their initial PT forces are decreased by 30% following the initiation
of yielding. The results indicate that foundation flexibility indirectly
affects the axial PT force. The tendon force depends on the peak drifts
sustained and not directly affecting the tendon stress at a given drift
(same stiffness, trends, etc.). On the other hand, the peak drifts depend
on footing flexibility.
4.3. Demands distribution and fragility analysis
In the previous section, the results of the study are presented for the
archetypes under a specific record. To generalize our conclusions, the
peak demand values (θEDP) and the median results of the archetypes
under 44 records are determined to consider record-to-record effects.
Fig. 10 illustrates the distribution of demands over the height of
each archetype subjected to individual records. The peak inter-story
drift ratios for the conventional and rocking archetypes are approxi-
mately equal to 2.25 and 2.85%, respectively, and are substantially
concentrated on the second floor [Fig. 10(A)]. The median of drift ratios
for rocking braced frames are larger than those for fixed base frames,
but they are uniformly distributed along the height of archetypes. Ig-
noring soil-foundation effects, this noticeable feature confirms that the
entire rocking system act as an SDOF system, in contrast to conven-
tional systems.
Fig. 10(B) demonstrates the distribution of peak residual drift ratio
for the conventional (FB, SF) and rocking (RFB, RSF) archetypes, whose
maximum values are equal to (0.37, 0.39%) and (0.11, 0.15%), re-
spectively. The results confirm the superior performance of rocking
archetypes compared to conventional frames. As previously shown, the
effects of soil-foundation flexibility on the results cannot be neglected.
A fragility analysis is also conducted to quantify the median of peak
demands. Fig. 11 shows the fragility curves fitted on the peak demands
indicating the probability of exceeding a given demand at a given in-
tensity level, i.e. P(EDP > edp). The median of occurrence of a max
demand is named here as θEDP. Using the fragility analysis, Table 2
summarizes θEDP for inter-story drift ratio, θIDR, net inter-story drift,
70
N. Rahgozar et al. Structures 16 (2018) 63–72

(A) peak inter-story drift

3
(AI) FB (AII) SF (AIII) RFB (AIV) RSF

2
Story Level

individual individual individual individual

1
record record record record
median of median of median of median of
44 records 44 records 44 records 44 records
0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
inter-story drift ratio (%) inter-story drift ratio (%) inter-story drift ratio (%) inter-story drift ratio (%)
(B) peak residual drift ratio
3
(BI) FB (BII) SF (BIII) RFB (BIV) RSF

2
Story Level

individual individual individual individual

1 record record
record record
median of median of median of median of
44 records 44 records 44 records 44 records
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

residual drift ratio (%) residual drift ratio (%) residual drift ratio (%) residual drift ratio (%)

Fig. 10. (A) Inter-story drift ratio and (B) residual drift ratio demands for (I) FB, (II) SF, (III) RFB, and RSF archetypes subjected to far-field records at DBE level.

θnet.IDR, residual inter-story drift ratio, θRes.IDR, and floor acceleration, Table 2
θAcc., for rocking and conventional archetypes at DBE and MCE levels. Median peak values for conventional and rocking archetypes.
The θIDR values for rocking archetypes are large than those for θEDP Intensity FB SF RFB RSF
conventional archetypes, while their θnet.IDR, θRes.IDR and θAcc decrease
due to the rocking feature. On the contrary, their θIDR values are less θIDR: % DBE 1.08 1.36 1.12 1.42
MCE 1.45 1.87 1.75 2.11
than the design limit of 2% drift ratio at the DBE level. This ratio for SF
IH 1.22 1.37 1.56 1.48
and RSF archetypes is increased by 25.92% (28.96%) and 26.78% θnet.IDR: % DBE 0.75 0.59 0.11 0.16
(20.57%) compared to FB and RFB frames at DBE (MCE) levels, re- MCE 1.14 1.09 0.13 0.21
spectively, due to soil-foundation effects. As mentioned before, the in- IH 1.52 1.84 1.18 0.31
crease in drift ratios for rocking systems with a flexible foundation is θRes.IDR: % DBE 0.15 0.11 0.04 0.05
MCE 1.36 1.51 0.14 0.16
related to their rigid-body and foundation rotations which may affect
IH 9.06 13.7 3.50 2.66
the attached non-isolated, non-structural components. θAcc: g DBE 1.16 1.34 0.97 0.88
A considerable reduction is evident for the θnet.IDR ratios of rocking MCE 1.59 1.68 1.42 1.21
archetypes compared to fixed base frames. Based on the fragility ana- IH 1.37 1.25 1.46 1.37
lysis, the θnet.IDR for conventional FB and SF archetypes equals
6.81(8.76) and 3.68(5.19) times those in the RFB and RSF archetypes
under DBE(MCE) levels, respectively. This result shows the gain of the residual drifts of rocking archetypes are less than the allowable
damage reduction in the rocking archetype compared with conven- limits of 0.5 and 1.0% for identifying the need for a building to be
tional frames. However, ignoring the flexibility of soil-foundation has repaired and rebuilt, respectively [38]. Moreover, the uplifting for the
led to the underestimation of inter-story drift and net drift ratios for RSF archetype occurs both in the foundation and braced frame, re-
rocking archetypes. sulting in larger permanent residual drifts than the rocking-core with
The θRes.IDR for FB-SF and RFB-RSF archetypes ranges from the fixed base condition.
0.11–1.51% and 0.04–0.16%, respectively, under both DBE and MCE In order to examine the effects of seismic intensity on θEDP, the IH
levels, indicating that the conventional frames contain larger residual index is also defined as the ratio of θEDP at the MCE to DBE level, and
deformations than the rocking archetypes. Unlike conventional frames, values are listed in Table 2. As expected, regardless of boundary

1.0 1.0 1.0

(I) (II) (III)
P ( Res.DR > Res.dr )

0.8 0.8 0.8

P ( Acc > acc)
P ( IDR > idr )

0.6 0.6 0.6

θRes.DR.max = 0.06
θRes.DR.max = 0.04

θRes.DR.max = 0.14
θRes.DR.max = 0.16

0.4 0.4 0.4

θAcc.max = 1.68
θIDRmax = 1.42
θIDRmax = 1.75
θIDRmax = 2.11

θAcc.max = 1.59
θIDRmax = 1.12

θAcc.max = 1.42

RFB - DBE
θAcc.max = 1.21

RFB - DBE RSF- DBE

0.2 RSF - DBE RSF - DBE RFB - DBE
0.2 0.2
RFB - MCE RFB - MCE FB - DBE
RSF - MCE RSF - MCE SF - DBE
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 1 2 3
peak inter-story drift ratio (%) peak residual drift ratio (%) peak floor acceleration (g)

Fig. 11. Fragility curves of (I) peak inter-story drift ratio, (II) peak residual drift ratio, and (III) peak floor acceleration for rocking and conventional archetypes at
DBE and MCE levels.

71
N. Rahgozar et al.
conditions, the θEDP ratios are increased at the MCE level compared to
the DBE level. Nevertheless, the rate of increase in residual drift ratio is
higher in conventional braced frames than rocking frames.
5. Conclusions
This study focused on the effects of footing flexibility on the dy-
namic attributes of controlled-rocking braced frames. A set of rocking
archetypes with fixed and flexible conditions was assessed through
dynamic and fragility analyses. Moreover, the effects of shallow foun-
dation on rocking archetypes were compared with conventional braced
frames. The investigation resulted in the following key conclusions:
• It was found that drift ratios for the rocking archetypes with flexible
and fixed conditions are distributed more uniformly compared to
conventional braced frames. However, the earthquake-induced drift
in the rocking-core founded on flexible footing was larger than in its
fixed base counterpart due to foundation rotation.
•
The correlation between uplift and drift ratios showed that the as-
sumption of rigid rotation for rocking archetypes was not generally
valid. Hence, ignoring the soil-foundation behavior may lead to
approximate demands.
• The hysteresis of the rocking archetype was strongly influenced by
foundation flexibility. Nevertheless, nearly ideal flag-shape loops
were achieved. The residual drift ratios for rocking systems were
considerably lower than those for conventional braced frames. It
was shown that the median peak residual drift ratios for rocking and
conventional archetypes were 0.04–0.16% and 0.11–1.51%, re-
spectively. This finding was consistent with the disaggregation
analysis of drift ratio. The net deformations of rocking archetypes
were considerably lower than those of conventional frames and the
median of peak net deformations for the braced frame with a flexible
foundation was about 4 times that in the rocking braced-frame
counterpart.
•
The soil-foundation modeling had indirectly influenced the axial PT
force and depended on the induced peak drift ratio.
• The noticeable effects of footing flexibility on peak demands were
observed. The median of peak drift ratios and peak residual drift
ratios for rocking archetypes with flexible conditions were ap-
proximately 25% larger than those in the braced frame with fixed-
base.
The research reported in this paper was limited to low-rise rocking
coupled braced frames. Further studies are needed to well document
the effect of footing flexibility on other rocking-core configurations and
details.
References
[1] Wolf JP. Dynamic soil structure interaction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall;
1985.
[2] Raychowdhury Prishati, Ray-Chaudhuri Samit. Seismic response of nonstructural
components supported by a 4-story SMRF: effect of nonlinear soil–structure inter-
action. Structures. vol. 3. Elsevier; 2015. p. 200–10.
[3] Marzban S, Banazadeh M, Azarbakht A. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete
shear wall frames considering soil–foundation–structure interaction. Struct Design
Tall Spec Build 2014;23(4):302–18.
[4] Falamarz-Sheikhabadi MR, Zerva A. Effect of numerical soil-foundation-structure
modeling on the seismic response of a tall bridge pier via pushover analysis. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 2016;90:52–73.
[5] Eatherton MR, Hajjar JF. Large-scale cyclic and hybrid simulation testing and de-
velopment of a controlled-rocking steel building system with replaceable fuses.
NSEL report no. NSEL-025. United States: University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign; 2010.
[6] Tremblay R, Poirier L-P, Bouaanani N, Leclerc M, Rene V, Fronteddu L, et al.
Innovative viscously damped rocking braced frame. Proc. of the 14th world conf. on
72
Structures 16 (2018) 63–72
earthquake engineering, Beijing, China. 2008.
[7] Ma X, Deierlein G, Eatherton M, Krawinkler H, Hajjar J, Takeuchi T, et al. Large-
scale shaking table test of steel braced frame with controlled rocking and energy
dissipating fuses. Proceedings of the 9th US and 10th Canadian conference on
earthquake engineering. 2010.
[8] Sause R, Ricles J, Roke DA, Chancellor NB, Gonner NP. Seismic performance of a
self-centering concentrically braced frame. Proceedings of the 9th US and 10th
Canadian conference on earthquake engineering. 2010.
[9] Wiebe L, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Leclerc M. Mechanisms to limit higher mode
effects in a controlled rocking steel frame. 2: large-amplitude shake table testing.
Earth Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42(7):1069–86.
[10] Cheng Chin-Tung, Chao Chih-Hung. Seismic behavior of rocking base-isolated
structures. Eng Struct 2017;139:46–58.
[11] Sarti F, Palermo A, Pampanin S. Quasi-static cyclic testing of two-thirds scale un-
bonded posttensioned rocking dissipative timber walls. J Struct Eng
2015;142(4):E4015005.
[12] Priestley MJN, Sritharan S, Conley JR, Pampanin S. Preliminary results and con-
clusions from the PRESSS five-story precast concrete test building. PCI J
1999;44(6):42–67.
[13] Lu X, Cui Y, Liu J, Gao W. Shaking table test and numerical simulation of a 1/2-
scale self-centering reinforced concrete frame. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44.
[14] Grigorian CE, Grigorian M. Performance control and efficient design of rocking-wall
moment frames. J Struct Eng 2015;142(2):04015139.
[15] Rahgozar N, Moghadam AS, Aziminejad A. Continuum analysis approach for
rocking core-moment frames. J Struct Eng 2018;144(3):04018006.
[16] Andisheh K, Liu R, Palermo A, Scott A. Cyclic behavior of corroded fuse-type dis-
sipaters for posttensioned rocking bridges. J Bridg Eng 2018;23(4):04018008.
[17] Rahgozar N, Moghadam AS, Rahgozar N, Aziminejad A. Performance evaluation of
self-centring steel-braced frame. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 2016:1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.15.00136.
[18] Hashemi Ashkan, Masoudnia Reza, Quenneville Pierre. Seismic performance of
hybrid self-centring steel-timber rocking core walls with slip friction connections. J
Constr Steel Res 2016;126:201–13.
[19] Grigorian M, Grigorian CE. Sustainable earthquake-resisting system. J Struct Eng
2017;144(2):04017199.
[20] Rahgozar N, Moghadam AS, Aziminejad A. Inelastic displacement ratios of fully
self-centering controlled rocking systems subjected to near-source pulse-like ground
motions. Eng Struct 2016;108(1):113–33.
[21] Ma X, Krawinkler H, Deierlein G. Seismic design and behavior of self-centering
braced frame with controlled rocking and energy dissipating fuses. Blume earth-
quake Eng. vol. 174. Center TR: University of Stanford; 2011.
[22] Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for the performance evaluation of steel
moment resisting frame structures. California: Blume Earthquake Engineering
Center, Stanford University; 1999. [Report No. TR132].
[23] Eatherton MR, Ma X, Krawinkler H, Mar D, Billington S, Hajjar JF, et al. Design
concepts for controlled rocking of self-centering steel-braced frames. J Struct Eng
2014;140(11):04014082.
[24] Rahgozar N, Moghadam AS, Aziminejad A. Quantification of seismic performance
factors for self-centering controlled rocking special concentrically braced frame.
Struct Design Tall Spec Build 2016;25(14):700–23.
[25] Rahgozar N, Rahgozar N, Moghadam AS. Probabilistic safety assessment of self-
centering steel braced frame. Front Struct Civ Eng 2018;12(1):163–82.
[26] OpenSees. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation v2.4.4 [computer
software]. 2015.
[27] Raychowdhury P. Nonlinear Winkler-based shallow foundation model for perfor-
mance assessment of seismically loaded structures PhD thesis San Diego: University
of California; 2008.
[28] Harden CW, Hutchinson T, Martin GR, Kutter BL. Numerical modeling of the
nonlinear cyclic response of shallow foundations. Technical report 2005/04. Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER; 2005.
[29] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Redwood City,
California: Applied Technology Council (ATC); 1996.
[30] Boulanger RW. The PySimple1, TzSimple1, and QzSimple1 material models, doc-
umentation for the OpenSees platform. http://opensees; 2000. [URL: Berkeley].
[31] Gazetas G. Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded founda-
tions. J Geotech Eng 1991;117(9):1363–81.
[32] Terzaghi K. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley; 1943.
[33] Raychowdhury P, Hutchinson T. Performance evaluation of a nonlinear winkler-
based shallow foundation model using centrifuge test results. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2009;38:679–98.
[34] Meyerhof GG. Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations. Can
Geotech J 1963;1(1):16–26.
[35] NEHRP. Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings.
Washington, DC: Building Seismic Safety Council; 2000.
[36] Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Report no. Redwood, CA:
FEMA P695; 2009.
[37] Ramirez CM, Miranda E. Significance of residual drifts in building earthquake loss
estimation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012;41(11):1477–93.
[38] FEMA. Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Volume 1-methodology.
Washington, DC: FEMA P-58-1; 2012.