Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Proposal of modifications to the design provisions of Eurocode 8 for

buildings with split K eccentric braces
M. Bosco, E.M. Marino, P.P. Rossi ⇑
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Catania, v.le A. Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper evaluates the effectiveness of the procedure suggested in Eurocode 8 for the design of eccen-
Available online 20 August 2013 trically braced structures and compares the seismic response of buildings designed according to this pro-
cedure to the response of buildings designed according to the modifications proposed by the Authors. The
Keywords: proposed procedure modifies that of Eurocode 8 in order to fill gaps and make the new procedure con-
Seismic areas sistent with the intent of the code. The seismic response of the buildings is obtained by incremental
Eccentrically braced frames dynamic analysis. To ensure the general validity of the results, the buildings are considered to be founded
Design provisions
on hard or soft soil and are characterised by different values of the link length and number of storeys.
Eurocode 8
Capacity design
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction structures in the geometric split K configuration, i.e. to structures

Rules for the design of eccentrically braced frames in European
technical documents date back to the early 1990s. These rules were
reported in documents issued by the European Convention for Con-
structional Steelwork and were intended to provide recommenda-
tions for the design of steel structures in seismic zones [1,2]. Some
years later, design provisions similar to those reported in reference
[2] were introduced in Eurocode 8 – Part 1–3 (1995). Thereafter,
numerous modifications have been made to the design rules of
the eccentrically braced structures; in particular, more recent ver-
sions of Eurocode 8 [3] also comprise provisions aimed at optimis-
ing the structural behaviour of eccentrically braced structures.
Despite the importance of Eurocode 8 for the scientific commu-
nity, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the rules for the design
of eccentrically braced structures has been the object of only a few
studies, e.g. [4,5]. Nonetheless, the objections raised by researchers
to the design provisions reported in the European seismic code
[6,7] make the efficient seismic performance of the eccentrically
braced structures designed according to this code unlikely. Given
the rationality and the number of the objections, this paper first
aims to assess the response of structures designed according to
Eurocode 8 [3]. The effectiveness of the procedure is investigated
in order to confirm the abovementioned objections or, in event,
specify the range of validity of the design provisions. The numeri-
cal analyses are carried out on buildings founded on hard or soft
soil and characterised by different values of the link length and
number of storeys. The analysis is restricted to eccentrically braced
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 095 7382279; fax: +39 095 7382249.
E-mail address: prossi@dica.unict.it (P.P. Rossi).
with links in the middle of a symmetrically braced bay. As stated
in other papers [8–11], this geometric configuration should be pre-
ferred to the others because it does not lead to a premature failure
of the connection between link beams and columns.
The seismic response of buildings designed according to Euro-
code 8 is further compared with that of buildings designed accord-
ing to a new procedure suggested by the Authors. The proposed
procedure is in line with that reported in Eurocode 8 and considers
modifications to the code procedure in order to promote simulta-
neous yielding of links along the height of the building and im-
prove the effectiveness of the rules for the application of the
capacity design principles. Numerical analyses are finally per-
formed to evaluate the effectiveness of the design provisions pro-
vided in Eurocode 8 to counterbalance P–D effects in
eccentrically braced structures [12–15].
2. Design procedures
As reported in the previous section, two design procedures are
compared in this paper. The first procedure is that proposed in
Eurocode 8 and the second is that proposed by the Authors. The de-
sign procedures are both founded on the force-based approach.
Further, the design rules comply with the capacity design princi-
ples and are intended to promote a homogeneous dissipative
behaviour of the links. The proposed procedure is in line with
the procedure reported in Eurocode 8 and considers modifications
to some provisions of this code. To highlight the reason of the mod-
ifications, the provisions common to both procedures are described
separately from those which are subjected to modification.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.022
210 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223
2.1. Part common to the compared design procedures
The design internal forces of the links may be obtained from
either the lateral force method of analysis or modal response spec-
trum analysis. Link sections are selected so that the design shear
force and bending moment (VEd, MEd) are not higher than the corre-
sponding plastic resistances (Vp, Mp) calculated according to Euro-
code 8. In the case of buildings with split K eccentric braces, the
design value of the seismic axial force of links is null and the seis-
mic bending moments of the ends of the links are equal but oppo-
site in sign. This is true if small relative transverse displacements
are considered at the ends of the links. As reported in recent papers
[16–18], some axial force may develop in these links if large defor-
mations are assumed.
Links are defined as short, intermediate and long depending on
the value of the mechanical length eVp/Mp, e being the link length;
specifically, if plastic hinges are expected at both ends of the link,
links are short if the mechanical length eVp/Mp is not greater than
1.6 and long if this ratio is not lower than 3.
The seismic internal forces obtained from the structural analy-
sis adopted in design are amplified to counteract the P–D effects.
This amplification is stipulated on the basis of the value of an inter-
storey drift sensitivity coefficient h calculated by means of the
relation
P tot dr
h¼ ð1Þ
V tot h
where Ptot is the total gravity load at and above the storey consid-
ered in the seismic design situation, Vtot is the total seismic storey
shear, h is the interstorey height and dr is the design interstorey dis-
placement at the storey under consideration. In Eurocode 8 this lat-
ter parameter is suggested to be calculated as a function of the
design behaviour factor q. No amplification of the seismic action ef-
fects is required if h 6 0.1; instead, if 0.1 < h 6 0.2, the second order
effects are taken into account by multiplying the relevant seismic
action effects by a factor equal to 1/(1  h). If h > 0.2, the simplified
approach is not applicable and a second order analysis has to be
performed. In any case, the value of the parameter h cannot be
greater than 0.3.
The use of the design behaviour factor may lead to unrealistic
sections of members or, more often, to the impossibility to con-
sider P–D effects by means of the simplified method allowed by
the code because the interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient h is
greater than 0.2. The increase of the size of the cross-sections
changes only slightly the parameter h. This statement is clearer if
h is calculated as Ptotl/(Ktoth) where Ktot is the lateral storey stiff-
ness of the system and l is the displacement ductility demand.
In fact, if l is calculated as a function of q, the increase of the size
of the cross-sections increases the lateral storey stiffness and gen-
erally leaves the displacement ductility demand unchanged. To
consider that the increase of the size of the cross-sections also
leads to a higher lateral strength, and thus to a lower displacement
ductility demand, the design process is carried out in this paper on
the basis of an effective behaviour factor qeff. This value of the
behaviour factor is calculated as a function of the base shear corre-
sponding to the first yielding of the links. The effective behaviour
factor is generally lower than the design behaviour factor because
the plastic resistances (Vp, Mp) are higher than the corresponding
design actions. The analytical expression of the effective behaviour
factor is specified later as a function of the overstrength factor of
links. The Authors note that this expedient is not in contrast with
the design provisions of Eurocode 8 and is significantly helpful if
the minimum overstrength factor of the links is high, e.g. if the
structure has been previously oversized to match the damage lim-
itation requirement. Similar considerations have also been made
by other researchers with reference to moment resisting frames
[19].
2.2. Design provisions specific of Eurocode 8
To achieve a global dissipative behaviour of the structure, Euro-
code 8 defines the link overstrength factor X at the i-th storey of
the building by means of the following relations
Xi ¼ 1:5 V p;i =V Ed;i for short links ð2Þ
Xi ¼ 1:5 Mp;i =M Ed;i for intermediate and long links ð3Þ
and recommends that the individual values of the ratios Xi do not
exceed the minimum value Xmin by more than 25% of this mini-
mum value.
Columns and braces are verified in compression by considering
the most unfavourable combination of axial force and bending mo-
ment. Their section and steel grade are selected so that the follow-
ing relation is verified
NRd ðMEd ; V Ed Þ P NEd;G þ 1:1 cov Xmin NEd;E ð4Þ
where NEd,G is the compression force due to the gravity loads in-
cluded in the seismic design situation; NEd,E is the compression
force due to the seismic design action; cov is the material over-
strength factor and NRd is the axial design resistance in accordance
with Eurocode 3 [20], taking into account the interaction with the
bending moment MEd and the shear VEd considered at their design
value in the seismic design situation. In regard to the calculation
of MEd and VEd, the Authors note that Eurocode 8 does not specify
any particular analytical expression. Neither does Eurocode 8 refer
to other particular expressions of the bending moment and shear
force, i.e. those used for columns of moment resisting structures.
Owing to this, the Authors assume that these internal forces should
be calculated as the sum of the contributions of gravity loads and
seismic forces to the design internal forces in the seismic design sit-
uation, i.e. MEd = MEd,G + MEd,E and VEd = VEd,G + VEd,E, as already con-
sidered in references [7,21].
Note that the design internal forces due to the seismic actions
are intended as amplified because of P–D effects. In this regard,
the behaviour factor corresponding to first yielding of links is cal-
culated at each storey as qVEd/VRd for eVp/Mp 6 2 and qMEd/MRd for
eVp/Mp > 2 and the effective behaviour factor is assumed as the
maximum of these ratios.
2.3. Proposed modifications
The definition of the link overstrength factor is modified with
respect to that reported in Eqs. (2) and (3) for three reasons. First,
the limitation of the normalised link overstrength factor seems to
reveal the intention of Eurocode 8 to aim at a homogeneous dissi-
pative behaviour of the links by means of the design provisions
proposed by Popov et al. in the early 1990s [22–24]. The American
researchers proposed to favour a simultaneous yielding of links of
all floors in the belief that this could ensure uniform damage of the
links along the height of the building. To this end, Popov et al. de-
fined the link overstrength factor as the ratio of the link yield shear
strength to the link design shear force and recommended that
these factors were kept nearly uniform in elevation. Despite the
apparent intention of the European seismic code, the design provi-
sions reported in this code do not comply entirely with those pro-
posed by Popov et al. In Eurocode 8, in fact, the link overstrength
factor is defined with reference to the ultimate internal forces of
the links, i.e. this factor calculates how much the ultimate link
strength exceeds the design internal force. This is evident in Eqs.
(2) and (3) where the products 1.5 Vp and 1.5 Mp are approximate
evaluations of the ultimate strengths of the links [8,9,25–28].
 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223
Second, as also reported by other researchers [6], the link over-
strength factor defined in Eurocode 8 is discontinuous at a specific
value of the mechanical link length eVp/Mp because of a discontinu-
ity in the ultimate shear force. Third, as demonstrated in reference
[13] with regard to moment resisting steel structures, the mathe-
matical formulation of the overstrength factor reported in Euro-
code 8 neglects the internal forces caused by gravity loads. It
should be noted that in the case of the eccentrically braced struc-
tures this contribution is actually null if gravity loads are not ap-
plied to links, i.e. if two beams are considered instead of the
single beam at each storey of the eccentrically braced frames, as
proposed in some papers [7,29–31]. Aside from this particular case,
a moderate influence of the gravity loads on the link overstrength
factor should be recognised.
Owing to these reasons, the proposed overstrength factor X is
evaluated as the ratio of the yield strength of the link to the design
internal force of the same member [22–24]. In particular, the
parameter X is defined as the minimum between the following
flexural and shear overstrength factors, XM and XV
ðV p;i  V Ed;G;i Þ ð1  hi de;i =dr;i Þ
XVi ¼
V Ed;E;i ð1  hi Þ
ðM p;i  MEd;G;i Þ ð1  hi de;i =dr;i Þ
XM
i ¼
MEd;E;i ð1  hi Þ
where de is the interstorey displacement obtained from the struc-
tural analysis adopted in design. The Authors remark that the link
overstrength factors should be evaluated with reference to the first
yielding of links and that the internal forces VEd,E and MEd,E of the
links are calculated in Eurocode 8 considering the P–D effects cor-
responding to the design inelastic displacements. Therefore, in
Eqs. (5) and (6) the ratio (1  hide,i/dr,i)/(1  hi) is used to reduce
the P–D effects to those corresponding to the first yielding of links.
This correction is not required if the interstorey drift sensitivity
coefficient h is not higher than 0.10 because no additional strength
is required by the code to counterbalance P–D effects in this range
of values of the interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient. Note that in
the proposed procedure the effective behaviour factor is equal to q/
Xmin, where Xmin is the minimum of the link overstrength factors
calculated by means of Eqs. (5) and (6). The modified overstrength
factor X is calculated on the basis of the yield domain and thus is
continuous with the increase of the mechanical link
length eVp/Mp. As in the current version of Eurocode 8, the
individual values of the ratios Xi are recommended not to
exceed the minimum value Xmin by more than 25% of this
minimum value.
Braces, columns and beam segments outside links are designed
in accordance with the capacity design principles by means of the
relations
Nb;RdðMÞ ¼ NRd ðM Ed ; V Ed Þ P N Ed
M N;Rd ¼ M Rd ðNEd ; V Ed Þ P MEd
where Nb,Rd(M) is the buckling resistance reduced due to bending
moment and shear force and MN,Rd is the bending moment resis-
tance reduced because of axial and shear forces. The axial and shear
forces and the bending moment (NEd, VEd and MEd) of braces, col-
umns and beam segments outside links are evaluated by means of
the following relations
NEd ¼ N Ed;G þ 1:1cov 1:5 Xmin NEd;E
V Ed ¼ V Ed;G þ 1:1 cov 1:5 Xmin V Ed;E
M Ed ¼ M Ed;G þ 1:1 cov 1:5 Xmin M Ed;E
211
As suggested in Ref. [7] and reported in the Italian code [32], the
internal forces of the previous relations (9)–(11) are calculated as
a function of the ultimate internal forces of the links. The coefficient
1.5 appears in Eqs. (9)–(11) because it is not included in the over-
strength factor Xmin. In the case of the beam segments outside links
the material overstrength factor cov is assumed equal to unity if the
link and the beam segments outside the link are parts of a single
section.
3. Case study
The buildings considered in this paper may be distinguished
into two groups (later called Group 1 and Group 2). The following
sections describe first the properties common to the buildings of
both groups and then the peculiarities of the buildings of the single
groups.
3.1. General properties of the buildings
ð5Þ
The building is assumed to be founded on hard to soft soils
(type A, C or D according to Eurocode 8 [3]). The geometric and
ð6Þ mass properties of this building are equal at all storeys (Fig. 1).
In particular, the plan is square-shaped (24  24 m2). The struc-
tural scheme is constituted by the intersection of two sets of four
three-bay plane frames disposed along two orthogonal directions.
Two eccentrically braced frames are located on the perimeter of
the building along each of the above-mentioned orthogonal direc-
tions. The eccentric braces are disposed in the central span and are
characterised by the split K braced geometric configuration.
The building is considered as having two, four, eight or twelve
storeys. The link length e is assumed to range from 0.1 to 0.4 times
the length L of the braced span (in steps of 0.1 L). This range of val-
ues is considered adequate to investigate the seismic behaviour of
structures in which the inelastic response of links is governed by
either shear or flexure, or by both shear and flexure. Columns are
continuous in elevation and oriented as shown in Fig. 1. connec-
tions between columns and beams and connections between col-
umns and foundation are pinned. End connections of braces are
rigid and full strength. The use of these last connections is sug-
gested to facilitate the fulfilment of resistance and stability
requirements of beam segments outside links [7,11].
The design spectrum is obtained from the elastic response spec-
trum of Eurocode 8 by means of a tentative behaviour factor q
equal to 5. This behaviour factor is lower than the upper limit of
the reference values suggested in Eurocode 8 [3] for high-ductility
eccentrically braced systems which are regular in elevation. In
these cases, in fact, the code recommends a maximum value of
the behaviour factor equal to 6 (if the global overstrength
ð7Þ
L = 8.0 m
ð8Þ
Y
bracing
24.0 m
X
C2
ð9Þ
C0 C1
ð10Þ
24.0 m
ð11Þ Fig. 1. Plan of the building.
212 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223
parameter au/a1 is assumed equal to 1.2, as allowed in Eurocode 8).
No accidental eccentricity is considered in design.
As demonstrated in other papers [7,30], the wide range of appli-
cation of the lateral force method of analysis in the phase of design
can strongly undermine the efficient performance of the eccentri-
cally braced structures because the normalised link overstrength
factors obtained by the use of this method of analysis may result
in significant errors. In order to investigate the relationship be-
tween the design method of analysis and the structural perfor-
mance, the structures are designed by either the lateral force
method of analysis (LFMA) or modal response spectrum analysis
(MRSA). In particular, if the lateral force method of analysis is
adopted, the fundamental period of the system T1 is calculated
according to Eurocode 8 by means of the relation [3]
T 1 ¼ 0:075 H3=4 ð12Þ
where H is the height of the building. Further, the fundamental
mode shape is approximated by horizontal displacements increas-
ing linearly along the height of the building. As masses are consid-
ered to be constant at all floors, an inverted triangular distribution
of the equivalent seismic forces is assumed. The base shear correc-
tion factor k is equal to 0.85 if T1 6 2 TC (Tc being the upper limit of
the period of the constant spectral acceleration branch) and the
building is more than two-storey high, otherwise k = 1.0.
The total number of the examined structures is 192 (groups: 1,
2; design method of analysis: MRSA, LFMA; number of storeys: 2, 4,
8, 12; link length: 0.1 L, 0.2 L, 0.3 L, 0.4 L; foundation type: classes
A, C or D).
3.2. Building of Group 1
The building is designed for residential purposes and the inter-
storey height is equal to 3.3 m. Vertical dead and live loads are as-
sumed constant on every floor level and defined by characteristic
values (Gk and Qk) equal to 4.4 and 2.0 kN/m, respectively. To nullify
the interaction between deck and links, two beam members are
introduced at each level of the eccentrically braced frame (EBF)
[7,33] instead of the traditional single section. While the first sus-
tains the vertical loads transmitted by the deck, the second resists
the horizontal actions and constitutes the link itself. Although this
choice is not usual in current practice, it offers three important
advantages over the tradition technical solution [29,34]: (i) no dam-
agein the deck close to the link beam, (ii) a more reliable evaluation
of the internal forces in links, otherwise affected by the uncertainty
due to the interaction between deck and links and (iii) an easier lim-
itation of the maximum values of the normalised link overstrength
factors, i.e. of the ratios of the link overstrength factors to the mini-
mum values of the same factors within the structure.
The seismic actions are calculated on the basis of masses corre-
sponding to a mean value of the gravity loads equal to 5.0 kN/m2.
The design seismic action is characterised by the elastic response
spectrum proposed in Eurocode 8 and is scaled to a peak ground
acceleration equal to 0.35 g.
3.3. Building of Group 2
The building is designed for offices and the interstorey height is
equal to 4.0 m. Vertical dead and live loads are assumed constant
on every floor level and defined by characteristic values (Gk and
Qk) equal to 5.2 and 3.0 kN/m2, respectively. To validate the design
provisions with respect to links subjected to vertical loads, in the
case of the buildings of the Group 2 only one beam section is con-
sidered at each floor of the eccentrically braces frame to sustain
gravity and seismic forces. The seismic actions are calculated on
the basis of masses corresponding to a mean value of the gravity
loads equal to 7.0 kN/m2. The design seismic action is characterised
by the elastic response spectrum proposed in Eurocode 8 and is
scaled to a peak ground acceleration equal to 0.25 g.
4. Sections
Links, beam segments outside links and braces consist of Euro-
pean large flange sections (HEM for the braces and HEA or HEB for
the other members). In particular, the horizontal member consist-
ing of one link plus its two adjacent beam segments is obtained
from a single section and thus is characterised by a single cross-
section and steel grade. Columns almost always consist of Euro-
pean large flange sections (HEB or HEM). Only exceptionally do
some columns of the lower storeys of the braced frames consist
of compound profiles. In these cases the column sections are ob-
tained from two IPE sections welded to the web of a HEB or HEM
section in order to obtain similar moments of inertia along the
principal axes of the cross-section.
Sections obtained through the proposed design process are not
modified further to ensure the damage limitation requirement.
This choice allows a correct evaluation of the behaviour factor to
be suggested in the context of the proposed design method, i.e. it
allows an evaluation which is independent of the additional
strength deriving from the fulfilment of the damage limitation
requirement.
5. Structural model
The numerical analyses are carried out on two-dimensional
models rather than on three-dimensional models (Fig. 2). This sim-
plification is possible because the nominal positions of the mass
and stiffness centres are the same and because no accidental
eccentricity is considered, as also specified for design in Section 3.1.
As a consequence of the symmetry in the geometric and mass
properties of the building, a model of half the building is adopted.
This structure is schematised by means of a centreline model.
Connections between columns and beams and connections be-
tween columns and foundation are pinned. End connections of
braces are rigid. Columns, beams, braces and beam segments out-
side links are modelled by means of elastic elements.
Links are schematised by means of three elements connected in
series [7,30,31]. The central element has the same length and mo-
ment of inertia of the link and simulates the flexural behaviour of
the link (the shear stiffness of this element is infinite). The two
ending elements are zero length and connect the beam segments
outside the link to the flexural element of the link. The nodes of
these ending elements are allowed to have only relative vertical
displacements. The stiffness of the translational spring which al-
lows this relative movement is defined so as to simulate the shear
deformability of half a link. The behaviour of the shear and flexural
elements of the link is elasto-plastic with kinematic strain harden-
ing. The ultimate link rotation angle uu is assumed equal to 0.08
radians for short links and 0.02 radians for long links. For interme-
diate links, the value of the ultimate link rotation angle is deter-
mined by linear interpolation between the above values.
The hardening ratio of the shear element is calculated so as to
return, upon failure of short links with eVp/Mp 6 1.33, the ultimate
shear force considered in Eurocode 8 for short links (1.5 Vp). The
above value of eVp/Mp (i.e. 1.33) corresponds to a shear force equal
to 1.5 Vp and bending moment equal to Mp. Similarly, the harden-
ing ratio of the flexural element is calculated so as to return, upon
failure of long links (eVp/Mp P 3.00), the ultimate bending moment
of such elements (1.5 Mp). The reported values of the ultimate plas-
tic strength and ultimate plastic rotation are considered in Euro-
code 8 and deemed to be suitable for links endowed with
 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223 213

COLUMN TYPE
C1 C0 C0 C1 C0 C2 C2 C0

(a) h
h
h
h

(b) h
h
h
h

L lb e lb L L L L

Fig. 2. Structural models for seismic forces acting along (a) X and (b) Y-directions.

(a) V /V p
(b) V /V p
(c) V /V p
1.00 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

-0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 v -0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 v -0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08
v
e e e
-1.00 -1.00 -1.00

-2.00 -2.00 -2.00

M /M p M /M p M /M p
1.00 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

-0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 v -0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 v -0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 v
e e e
-1.00 -1.00 -1.00

-2.00 -2.00 -2.00

Fig. 3. Relation between shear forces or bending moments and the relative vertical displacements of the two ending nodes of the links: (a) short, (b) intermediate and (c) long
link.

stiffeners distributed within the link length as specified in the
same code. The relation between the link shear force V and the rel-
ative vertical displacements Dv of the two ending nodes of the link
depends on the mechanical length eVp/Mp. The relation V–Dv is
bilinear for short links with eVp/Mp 6 1.33 because in these cases
the bending moment corresponding to the ultimate link shear
force is not greater than Mp (see Fig. 3a). The relation V–Dv is also
bilinear for long links because the shear force corresponding to the
ultimate bending moment is not greater than Vp (Fig. 3c). The
examined relation is trilinear, instead, if 1.33 < eVp/Mp < 3.00 be-
cause in this range of the mechanical link length the ultimate shear
force and bending moment of the link are both greater than the
corresponding plastic values (Fig. 3b). Further details on this model
may be found in reference [30].
6. Dynamic analyses
The seismic behaviour of the aforementioned two-dimensional
model is investigated through nonlinear incremental dynamic anal-
ysis supposing that the accelerometric signal may act separately
along the X and Y-axes. The plane frame models parallel to the X
and Y-axes differ only for the orientation of gravity columns
(Fig. 2). Because of this, the response of the single building is little
sensitive to the direction of the seismic actions and is reported later
only with reference to seismic actions parallel to the Y-axis. The seis-
mic input is represented by a set of ten accelerograms compatible
with the elastic response spectrum proposed in Eurocode 8 [3] for
the foundation soil considered in design; this number of accelero-
grams is greater than the minimum value (i.e. 7) suggested in this
code. The response spectra of the accelerograms are fairly close
one another. An appreciable variation is, however, expected in the
seismic structural response owing to the different time histories of
the ground acceleration. The single accelerogram is defined by a sta-
tionary random process modulated by means of a trapezoidal inten-
sity function. The total length of the accelerogram is equal to 30.5 s
and that of the strong motion phase is equal to 22.5 s.
The Rayleigh formulation is used to introduce damping. Mass
and stiffness coefficients are defined so that two modes of
214 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223
vibration of the structures are characterised by an equivalent vis-
cous damping factor equal to 0.05. These modes are the first and
the second when referring to two-storey structures and the first
and the third in all the other cases. The stiffness coefficient is ap-
plied to the initial stiffness matrix of the elements. In accordance
with Ricles and Popov [35] no stiffness proportional damping is
considered for the shear elements of the link.
The single nonlinear dynamic analysis, referring to a specific
accelerogram and peak ground acceleration, is carried out by
means of the OPENSEES program [36].
7. Ultimate response of the analysed buildings
This section is intended to closely inspect the seismic response
of the structures described in the previous parts of the paper. These
structures are designed first in compliance with all the provisions
of Eurocode 8 (including those related to P–D effects) and then
with the proposed modifications. Attention is focused on the seis-
mic performance corresponding to the first achievement of the
ultimate limit state in the structural components. The seismic re-
sponse is analysed in terms of local and global parameters; while
the local parameters are the link damage and safety levels of
non-dissipative members, the global parameter is the behaviour
factor.
7.1. Ultimate limit state of structural components
Dissipative and non-dissipative elements are verified by check-
ing that seismic demands do not exceed the corresponding capac-
ities in terms of deformations and strengths, respectively. The
limits placed on the deformative capacities of the dissipative ele-
ments are basically taken from Eurocode 8. In accordance with
Eurocode 8-Part 1 [3], the plastic rotation capacity of links uu is as-
sumed to range from 0.08 to 0.02 rad as a function of the mechan-
ical length eVp/Mp [25–28,37–46]. Braces, beam segments outside
links and columns are considered to be non-dissipative [47,48].
For these members no inelastic deformation or buckling phenom-
enon is allowed.
7.2. Buildings designed according to Eurocode 8
To assess the damage of the links, the maximum plastic rota-
tions experienced at first achievement of the ultimate limit state
are normalised to the plastic rotation capacity of the links (this ra-
tio is later indicated as u/uu and called normalised plastic rotation)
and averaged at each storey over the values corresponding to the
ten accelerograms considered in the numerical analyses. This dam-
age parameter is later indicated as R. The identification of this
parameter is shown in Fig. 4 with reference to the building founded
on soil A and endowed with links with e/L = 0.10 (design by modal
response spectrum analysis – Group 1). In this figure, the white cir-
cles identify the normalised plastic rotations experienced by the
links on the occurrence of the ten accelerograms considered. At
each floor the black circle pinpoints the mean value of the norma-
lised plastic rotations produced by the ten accelerograms and thus
identifies the value of the abovementioned parameter R at that sto-
rey. The link damage R ranges from 0 to 1. In particular, while the
lowest value corresponds to an elastic behaviour of the links of the
storey under examination (for all the accelerograms considered),
the unit value corresponds to normalised plastic rotations which
are always unity at that storey (i.e. all the white circles of that sto-
rey identify a unit value of the normalised plastic rotation). The
minimum, mean and maximum values of R of each system of
Group 1 are plotted in Fig. 5 as a function of the mean plastic rota-
tion capacity um u of the links of the whole structure. The latter
8
Rm
6
Storey
4
2
Rmin
Rmax
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 ϕ/ϕ u
Fig. 4. Normalised plastic link rotations in an eight-storey building designed
according to EC8 by means of the modal response spectrum analysis (Group 1; soil
A; e/L = 0.10).
parameter is equal to 0.08 rad if all the links are short and equal
to 0.02 rad if all the links are long; intermediate values are repre-
sentative of systems with intermediate length links in at least
one storey. In the above figure, dashes identify the minimum (Rmin)
and maximum (Rmax) values of the link damage parameter R while
triangles, rhombuses and circles pinpoint the mean value Rm of the
damage parameter in the links of systems founded on different soil
types. The figure shows that only in systems endowed with short
links and designed by modal response spectrum analysis the mean
value Rm is high and the link damage fairly is uniform in elevation
(see also Fig. 4). In these systems, the ultimate limit state is always
reached in links and, therefore, the maximum normalised plastic
link rotation caused by the single accelerogram is equal to unity.
Often in these systems the maximum normalised plastic rotations
do not concentrate at the same storey level (i.e. the accelerograms
do not cause the plastic rotation capacity of the links to be reached
at the same storey of the building) and thus often the value Rmax is
slightly lower than unity.
In nearly all the other cases, the mean value of the link damage
in the building Rm is modest and identifies unsatisfying seismic
performances. This behaviour can find two different reasons. In
some cases (e.g. in structures endowed with short links and de-
signed by the lateral force method of analysis, see Fig. 6a), the ulti-
mate limit state is achieved in links but the link damage is very
scattered in elevation. In other cases (e.g. in structures endowed
with intermediate or long links, see Fig. 6b) the ultimate limit state
is achieved in non-dissipative members rather than in links and
thus the link damage is everywhere much lower than unity. The
dependency of the mean damage of the links Rm on the number
of storeys is slight in structures designed by the modal response
spectrum analysis and remarkable in structures designed by the
lateral force method of analysis. In both cases the higher the num-
ber of storeys, the lower the mean value of the link damage Rm.
This result is typical of low redundant braced systems [49–52].
As demonstrated in other papers [7,30], the low mean damage of
high-rise structures is due to the reduced accuracy in the predic-
tion of the design internal forces of these structures (particularly
if structures are designed by the lateral force method of analysis)
and, therefore, to the poor accuracy in the evaluation of the distri-
bution of the link overstrength factors. The damage parameter R of
the buildings of Group 2 is not shown in any figure because sub-
stantially similar to that of the buildings of Group 1.
To discuss the effectiveness of the rules for the application of
the capacity design principles, the safety levels of the non-dissipa-
tive members of the braced frame (columns, beam segments out-
side links and braces) of the buildings of the Group 1 are plotted
in Fig. 7. For each of the abovementioned elements the safety levels
are evaluated for both yielding and instability phenomena. Refer-
ring to yielding, the safety level is calculated as the ratio of the
 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223 215

Lateral force method of analysis Modal response spectrum analysis

R R

0.75 0.75

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum 0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum

Fig. 5. Response of systems designed according to Eurocode 8 (Group 1): link damage parameter R.

8 the rules proposed in Eurocode 8. The abovementioned safety mar-

gin is expected to play an important role in real cases in which the
yield strength of the members is different from the characteristic
6
value and randomly variable over the members of the whole struc-
ture [5,53,54]. No safety margin is, instead, necessary for the beam
Storey

4 segments outside links if links and adjacent beam segments are

Rm part of a single section because all of them are expected to be char-
acterised by a single value of the yield strength. Again, the results
2
referring to Group 2 are not shown in figure because similar to
(a) those of Group 1.
0 The behaviour factor is evaluated on the basis of the results of
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 ϕ/ϕu the numerical analyses by means of the following relation [55,56]

8 agu
qnum ¼ ð13Þ
ðagd =qÞ
6
where agu is the peak ground acceleration corresponding to the first
achievement of the ultimate limit state, agd is the design peak
Storey

4 ground acceleration (0.35 g for Group 1 and 0.25 g for Group 2)

Rm
2
(b)
0 iour factor of Eq. (13) considers the effect of the global overstrength
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 ϕ/ϕu
Fig. 6. Normalised plastic link rotations in an eight-storey building designed
according to EC8 by means of the lateral force method of analysis (Group 1; soil A):
(a) e/L = 0.10 and (b) e/L = 0.30.
bending moment to the flexural strength MN,Rd reduced because of
the axial force [20]. Similarly, with reference to instability the
safety level is calculated as the ratio of the axial force to the buck-
ling resistance Nb,Rd(M) reduced because of the bending moment
[20]. These ratios are calculated at each instant of time of the dy-
namic analysis and the maximum value experienced at each storey
is recorded. The maximum values are then averaged at each storey
over the ten accelerograms and reported in Fig. 7. Close examina-
tion of this figure reveals the reason of the poor ultimate behaviour
of structures with intermediate or long links. As is apparent, in
these structures the ultimate limit state is achieved in the beams
segments outside links earlier than in other members. So, in struc-
tures with intermediate or long links the code provisions for the
design of the beams segments outside links do not allow the devel-
opment of the ultimate plastic rotations of links. On the contrary,
columns and braces generally retain a sufficient safety level against
instability or yielding and thus are properly designed by means of
and q is the tentative behaviour factor (i.e. 5). It should be noted
that in the previous relation the peak ground acceleration agu is
not normalised to the peak ground acceleration corresponding to
first yielding but rather to the ratio agd/q. Owing to this, the behav-
introduced in the design process. Note that this ratio of peak ground
accelerations is not completely equivalent to the calculation based
on spectral accelerations corresponding to the fundamental mode
of vibration of the system. As reported in Ref. [55], the two ratios
above are equal if a constant dynamic acceleration amplification
is assumed. The behaviour factor is calculated for all the considered
systems and accelerograms. For each system, the mean value of the
behaviour factors, i.e. the value averaged over the behaviour factors
corresponding to the ten accelerograms considered, is then calcu-
lated. This mean value is shown in Fig. 8 as a function of the effec-
tive behaviour factorqeff for systems of Group 1 and 2. Note that qeff
is equal to the tentative value q (i.e. 5) in most of the buildings de-
signed by the lateral force method of analysis and often lower than
q if the modal response spectrum analysis is used. This latter con-
sideration particularly applies to eccentrically braced structures
with long links (see squares in Fig. 8). These structures are, in fact,
very flexible and need to be stiffened in order to reduce the inter-
storey displacements of Eq. (1) and make the maximum value of
the coefficient h lower than 0.20. In the case of structures designed
by the lateral force method of analysis the value of the fundamental
period of vibration obtained by Eq. (12) is low and independent of
the link length. This always leads to high seismic design forces
and to structures which do not need to be oversized to reduce the
interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient h.
216 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223

Soil
Soil A
A Soil C Soil D
Soil D
ns=
ns= 22 44 88 12
12 ns= 2 4 8 12 ns=
ns= 22 44 88 12
12

MEd NEd
MN,Rd Nb,Rd (M)
Columns 0.75 0.75

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum 0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum

M Ed N Ed
Beam segments outside links

M N,Rd N b,Rd (M)

0.75 0.75

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum 0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum

M Ed N Ed
M N,Rd N b,Rd (M)
0.75 0.75
Braces

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum 0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum

Fig. 7. Response of systems designed according to Eurocode 8 by modal response spectrum analysis (Group 1): safety levels of columns, beam segments outside links and
braces.

m m
ϕu < 0.04 0.04 ϕu 0.06 ϕm
u > 0.06

ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12

qnum qnum qnum qnum

Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2

7 7 7 7

5 5 5 5

3 3 3 3

1 1 1 1
1 3 5 qeff 1 3 5 qeff 1 3 5 qeff 1 3 5 qeff
Designed by LFMA Designed by MRSA

Fig. 8. Response of systems designed according to Eurocode 8: behaviour factor.

Fig. 8 also shows that the obtained behaviour factor qnum is designed by the modal response spectrum analysis and those (ii)
higher than the tentative value q only when referring to some designed by the lateral force method of analysis and characterised
structures endowed with short links (rhombuses in Fig. 8). Specif- by a low number of storeys are expected to develop the desired
ically, of all the structures endowed with short links, only those (i) ultimate behaviour. In all the other cases the calculated behaviour
 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223 217

factors qnum are fairly low and sometimes even much lower than
the value 5 assumed in design. To comment on the scattering of
the response due to the record-to-record variability the minimum,
average and maximum values of the behaviour factors as well as
the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation of the
behaviour factor are calculated. As an example, the values of these
parameters are reported in Table 1 with reference to the structures
of Group 1 founded on soil C and designed by either the lateral
force method of analysis or the modal response spectrum analysis.
The standard deviation of the behaviour factor somehow depends
on the height of the building and length of the links. However, ow-
ing to the variation of the mean value of the behaviour factor, the
coefficient of variation of this factor shows a lower dependence on
the geometry of the buildings and belongs to the range 0.028–
0.192. No noteworthy difference appears from the comparison
with similar information regarding structures founded on soil A
or D and belonging to Group 1 or 2.
7.3. Buildings designed according to the proposed modifications
In the buildings designed according to the proposed rules the
ultimate limit state is achieved in links prior than in braces, col-
umns and beam segments outside links. The storey where the ulti-
mate limit state is reached is almost always independent of the
accelerogram considered. This is apparent from Fig. 9, where the
maximum value of the damage parameter R of systems of Group
1 is virtually always equal to unity. Comparison between Figs. 5
and 9 highlights that the normalised plastic rotations caused by
the modified design procedure are generally higher than those pro-
duced by Eurocode 8, the major differences being manifest in
structures with intermediate and long links. Despite this general
improvement, the mean values of the normalised plastic rotations
remain rather low in the case of high-rise structures designed by
the lateral force method of analysis.
The safety level of columns and beam segments outside links
appears to be adequate (see Fig. 10). In particular, the difference
between the maximum internal forces and the yield resistances
of columns is expected to be filled when the real yield strength
of steel is considered. Mostly in structures with intermediate and
long links, the flexural rigidity of braces has been increased so as
to reduce the bending moments in the beam segments outside
links and verify the resistance requirements in these members.
As also reported in AISC 2010, in the above cases increasing the
height of the beam segments is useless because this causes an in-
crease in the ultimate internal forces of links and thus an increase
in the strength required for the beam. Owing to this consideration,
the design of braces is often governed by the stiffness requirement
more than by the strength requirement.
As a consequence of the modified rules for the protection of the
non-dissipative members, in structures with intermediate and long
links, the peak ground acceleration corresponding to the achieve-
ment of the ultimate limit state is not reduced by yielding or insta-
bility of non-dissipative members. As shown in Fig. 11 (referring to
both Groups 1 and 2), the behaviour factor selected in design, i.e. 5,
is generally acceptable for low to high-rise structures endowed

Table 1
Behaviour factor of buildings designed according to Eurocode 8 (Group 1; soil C).

Storeys e/L Lateral force method of analysis Modal response spectrum analysis
Min Max Mean St. dev. COV Min Max Mean St. dev. COV
2 0.10 4.33 5.87 4.87 0.552 0.113 4.33 5.87 4.87 0.552 0.113
2 0.20 1.97 2.89 2.47 0.269 0.109 2.89 4.01 3.44 0.398 0.116
2 0.30 2.39 2.99 2.76 0.189 0.069 2.29 3.13 2.65 0.263 0.099
2 0.40 2.93 3.93 3.47 0.333 0.096 2.36 3.13 2.79 0.243 0.087
4 0.10 4.70 7.54 6.01 1.010 0.168 4.70 7.54 6.01 1.010 0.168
4 0.20 3.84 6.74 5.06 0.972 0.192 3.81 5.76 4.81 0.687 0.143
4 0.30 2.87 3.47 3.03 0.178 0.059 2.30 3.43 2.71 0.402 0.148
4 0.40 2.19 3.13 2.72 0.293 0.108 2.27 3.14 2.72 0.261 0.096
8 0.10 1.63 2.27 1.97 0.219 0.112 4.06 6.26 4.93 0.711 0.144
8 0.20 2.87 4.11 3.42 0.477 0.139 1.74 2.37 2.13 0.252 0.118
8 0.30 1.19 1.81 1.66 0.212 0.128 2.01 2.69 2.35 0.186 0.079
8 0.40 1.73 2.30 2.12 0.188 0.089 1.97 2.81 2.45 0.309 0.126
12 0.10 1.51 2.07 1.77 0.181 0.102 4.94 7.87 6.18 0.807 0.130
12 0.20 1.59 2.09 1.87 0.169 0.091 2.33 4.06 3.18 0.559 0.176
12 0.30 1.23 1.80 1.65 0.178 0.108 2.29 2.49 2.37 0.066 0.028
12 0.40 1.33 2.14 1.71 0.185 0.109 1.81 2.96 2.53 0.350 0.139

Soil A Soil C Soil D

ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12

Lateral force method of analysis Modal response spectrum analysis

R R

0.75 0.75

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum 0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum

Fig. 9. Response of systems designed according to the proposed modifications (Group 1): link damage parameter R.
218 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223

Soil A Soil C Soil D

ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12

M Ed
1.00 NEd
MN,Rd Nb,Rd (M)
0.75 0.75
Columns

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum 0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum

M1.00
Ed N Ed
Beam segments outside links

M N,Rd N b,Rd (M)

0.75 0.75

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
ϕum ϕum
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.06

M1.00
Ed N Ed
M N,Rd N b,Rd (M)
0.75 0.75
Braces

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 m 0.00
ϕu m
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕu

Fig. 10. Response of systems designed according to the proposed modifications by modal response spectrum analysis (Group 1): safety levels of columns, beam segments
outside links and braces.

with short links and designed by the modal response spectrum
analysis. The behaviour factor qnum obtained for structures with
long links (squares in the figure) is often lower than 5. The few val-
ues higher than 5 are generally obtained when the effective behav-
iour factor is lower than 5.
Because of a less accurate evaluation of the link overstrength
factors, the mean values of the behaviour factors of the struc-
tures designed by the lateral force method of analysis are more
scattered than those of the structures designed by the modal re-
sponse spectrum analysis. Of all the structures designed by the
lateral force method of analysis, those with a low number of sto-
reys show a good seismic performance. On the contrary, those
with a moderate or high number of storeys generally suffer from
a concentration of damage at a few storeys and thus highlight
unsatisfying values of the behaviour factor. To allow a more de-
tailed comparison of the results of the two examined design pro-
cedures, the minimum, average and maximum values of the
behaviour factors, the standard deviation and the coefficient of
variation of the behaviour factor of the structures founded on
soil C (Group 1) are reported in Table 2. Again, no particular dif-
ference appears from the comparison of results referring to dif-
ferent soils of foundation. The standard deviation of the
behaviour factors of each system does not show any particular
trend with the normalised link length or height of the building.
In the mean, the standard deviation of the behaviour factors is
higher than that of the structures designed according to Euro-
code 8. This is because the structures designed by means of
the proposed procedure experience higher inelastic displace-
ments. In this latter case, the coefficient of variation of the
behaviour factor ranges from 0.068 to 0.218.
In view of previous results, the tentative behaviour factor equal
to 5 is deemed to be reasonable for structures characterised by
umu P0.06 rad and designed by the modal response spectrum anal-
ysis. For structures with long links, the behaviour factor qnum is of-
ten lower than 5 and limited below by the value 3.5. A linear
variation is proposed to calculate the behaviour factor q for struc-
tures with mean values of the ultimate plastic link rotations be-
tween 0.02 and 0.06 rad, i.e.
q ¼ 5 um
u P 0:06 rad ð14aÞ
q ¼ 3:5 þ 37:5 ðum
u  0:02Þ 0:02 6 um
u < 0:06 rad ð14bÞ
As required in Eurocode 8, a minimum value of the design pseudo-
acceleration equal to 0.20 agd is considered. Eqs. (14a) and (14b)
may also be adopted for low-rise structures (approximately not
higher than four storeys) designed by the lateral force method of
analysis. In case of mid or high-rise structures designed by the lat-
eral force method of analysis the behaviour factors qnum are signif-
icantly lower than 5 (close to 2 in the worst case) because of the
inaccuracy in the evaluation of the link overstrength factors. These
 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223 219

ϕm
u < 0.04 0.04 ϕum 0.06 ϕum > 0.06
ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12

q num q num q num q num

Group1 Group 2 Group1 Group 2

7 7 7 7

5 5 5 5

3 3 3 3

1 1 1 1
1 3 5 q eff 1 3 5 q eff 1 3 5 q eff 1 3 5 q eff
Designed by LFMA Designed by MRSA

Fig. 11. Response of systems designed according to the proposed modifications: behaviour factor.

Table 2
Behaviour factor of buildings designed according to the proposed procedure (Group 1; soil C).

Storeys e/L Lateral force method of analysis Modal response spectrum analysis
Min Max Mean St. dev. COV Min Max Mean St. dev. COV
2 0.10 4.33 5.87 4.87 0.552 0.113 4.33 5.87 4.87 0.552 0.113
2 0.20 3.59 4.90 4.33 0.409 0.094 4.67 6.44 5.57 0.574 0.103
2 0.30 3.61 5.24 4.43 0.482 0.109 4.34 5.41 4.93 0.335 0.068
2 0.40 4.41 5.80 5.10 0.454 0.089 4.26 6.37 5.20 0.592 0.114
4 0.10 4.70 7.54 6.01 1.010 0.168 4.70 7.54 6.01 1.010 0.168
4 0.20 4.93 10.17 6.74 1.413 0.210 5.50 8.93 6.61 1.031 0.156
4 0.30 5.43 7.44 6.19 0.553 0.089 4.04 5.49 4.55 0.430 0.094
4 0.40 4.43 6.20 4.93 0.519 0.105 4.94 6.73 5.44 0.517 0.095
8 0.10 2.73 3.94 3.26 0.418 0.128 5.57 7.47 6.27 0.488 0.078
8 0.20 2.81 4.87 3.86 0.611 0.158 2.97 4.06 3.61 0.364 0.101
8 0.30 2.76 3.60 3.14 0.248 0.079 4.16 6.30 4.93 0.725 0.147
8 0.40 2.40 3.31 2.89 0.297 0.103 3.84 6.67 5.52 0.966 0.175
12 0.10 1.60 2.37 1.94 0.252 0.130 4.74 8.11 6.31 1.048 0.166
12 0.20 2.11 3.06 2.69 0.331 0.123 5.71 10.90 8.29 1.807 0.218
12 0.30 1.81 2.64 2.23 0.285 0.128 4.70 6.63 5.58 0.655 0.117
12 0.40 2.60 4.46 3.36 0.530 0.158 3.79 5.37 4.61 0.493 0.107

values of the behaviour factor would lead to structures which are
not competitive from the economic point of view. Owing to this,
in the opinion of the Authors the use of the lateral force method
of analysis should be restricted to low-rise structures.
The behaviour factors of Eq. (14) include the global over-
strength of the system. The part of the behaviour factor which
takes account of the global overstrength is named au/a1 in Euro-
code 8 and suggested to be calculated by means of a nonlinear sta-
tic analysis. The parameter a1 is the value by which the horizontal
seismic design action is multiplied to first reach the plastic resis-
tance in any member of the structure; the parameter au is the va-
lue by which the horizontal seismic design action is multiplied to
form plastic hinges in a number of sections sufficient for the devel-
opment of overall structural instability. As an alternative to the
abovementioned method, Eurocode 8 suggests considering a flat
value equal to 1.2 for eccentrically braced structures.
The Authors are of the opinion that this flat value is generally
low for eccentrically braced structures. To support this belief, the
parameter au/a1 is calculated here for the examined structures
by means of a nonlinear static analysis. The analysis is carried
out by means of lateral forces having inverted triangular distribu-
tion and is arrested at the first achievement of the ultimate limit
state in the structural members. The numerical analyses show that
the values of the parameter au/a1 range from about 1.2–1.6 and
that the lower values are reached in structures with intermediate
length links (Fig. 12). As a result, the value 1.2 suggested in Euro-
code 8 appears to be a conservative value for all the mechanical
lengths of the links and particularly conservative for short and long
links.
8. Verification of the damage limitation requirement
The damage limitation requirement has not been considered in
the phase of design and, therefore, is not certainly fulfilled in the
structures under examination. In accordance with Eurocode 8 [3]
the maximum interstorey displacement Due,max is calculated as
mdr, where the parameter m is assumed equal to 0.5 (as recom-
mended in Eurocode 8 for importance classes I and II). The damage
of the non-structural elements is deemed to be acceptable if
Due,max is smaller than an assigned limit value which is fixed on
the basis of the type of non-structural elements present in the
building. Specifically, the limit interstorey displacement is equal
to 0.005 times the interstorey height if brittle non-structural
220 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223

Soil A Soil C Soil D

ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12

(a) designed
by LFMA
designed
by MRSA
1.60 1.60

1.40 1.40

1.20 1.20
Suggested in Suggested in
EC8 EC8
1.00 1.00
0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum 0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum

(b) designed
by LFMA
designed
by MRSA
1.60 1.60

1.40 1.40

1.20 1.20
Suggested in Suggested in
EC8 EC8
1.00 1.00
0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum 0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum

Fig. 12. Global overstrength of systems designed according to the proposed modifications: (a) Group 1 and (b) Group 2.

elements are used in the building and equal to 0.010 times the
interstorey height if the non-structural elements are absent or de-
signed not to interfere with structural deformations.
This analysis is carried out on the structures designed according
to the proposed modifications as well as on those designed by
means of the original procedure of Eurocode 8. The interstorey dis-
placements obtained from the structural analyses are normalised
to the interstorey height and shown in Fig. 13 for the buildings
of Group 1. Again, dashes identify the minimum and maximum
values of the normalised interstorey displacements of single sto-
reys while triangles, rhombuses and circles pinpoint the mean val-
ues of the normalised interstorey displacements of all storeys.
Fig. 13 shows that the analysed buildings experience norma-
lised interstorey displacements which generally satisfy the most
relaxed limit considered in Eurocode 8 for the damage limitation
requirement (0.01). Whenever the structures do not satisfy this
requirement, their lateral stiffness should be increased. The
cross-sections obtained through the design process are not modi-
fied in this paper because (i) the limit interstorey displacement de-
pends on the type of non-structural elements and (ii) the strategy
to satisfy the damage limitation requirement is not univocally
defined.
As is apparent from this figure, the maximum normalised dis-
placements of the structures designed according to Eurocode 8
vary significantly with the mean value of the plastic rotation
capacity of the links. The values are high particularly in structures
with long links (um u = 0.02 rad). In the case of the structures de-
signed by means of the proposed procedure the values of the nor-
malised interstorey displacement are generally lower and less
dependent on the link length. This is because in structures with
intermediate and long links the proposed procedure requires stiffer
braces in order to reduce the bending moments in the beam seg-
ments outside links. The greater lateral stiffness provided by the
proposed procedure is, however, not excessive because the maxi-
mum normalised interstorey displacements are never very low.
In addition, the application of the proposed procedure leads to
more uniform values of the normalised interstorey displacements
in elevation, as is apparent from the comparison of the results pro-
duced by the two compared design procedures.
9. Considerations on P-D effects
To discuss the influence of the provisions provided for P–D ef-
fects on the structural design, the previously examined buildings
of Group 1 are newly designed by ignoring P–D effects. The appli-
cability of the simplified approach suggested in Eurocode 8 to take
account of P–D effects depends on the interstorey drift sensitivity
coefficient h. Further, in case the simplified method is applicable,
the additional strength required to counterbalance P–D effects de-
pends on the parameter h. Owing to this, the interstorey drift sen-
sitivity coefficient is considered here in order to comment on the
importance of P–D effects on the design of eccentrically braced
structures. The results are shown inFig. 14 as a function of the
mean value of the ultimate plastic rotation capacity of the links
and differentiated as a function of the structural analysis adopted
in design (lateral force method of analysis or modal response spec-
trum analysis).
As is apparent from this figure, if the lateral force method of
analysis is used (Fig. 14a), h is always lower than 0.20 and even
lower than 0.10 in the case of low-rise structures. Therefore, the
abovementioned simplified approach may be applied in all cases;
further, in the case of low-rise structures no additional strength
is required according to Eurocode 8. If the modal response spec-
trum analysis is used (Fig. 14b), instead, the interstorey drift sensi-
tivity coefficients are often much higher than 0.20 for structures
with intermediate and long links. As is evident in the same figure,
only some of the low-rise structures designed by the modal re-
sponse spectrum analysis are characterised by interstorey drift
sensitivity coefficients lower than 0.10.
To illustrate the influence of the provisions for P–D effects on
the seismic response of the selected buildings, the ultimate peak
ground accelerations of the structures designed with P–D effects
and analysed with P–D effects (described in the previous section)
 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223 221

Soil A Soil C Soil D

ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12

Lateral force method of analysis Modal response spectrum analysis

(a)
u/h u /h
0.015 0.015

0.010 0.010

0.005 0.005

0.000 0.000
0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum08 0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum
(b)
u/h u/h

0.015 0.015

0.010 0.010

0.005 0.005

0.000 0.000
0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕ0um 0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕum

Fig. 13. Damage limitation requirement (Group 1): systems designed according to (a) Eurocode 8 and (b) the proposed modifications.

Soil A Soil C Soil D

ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12

max designed max designed

by LFMA by MRSA
0.30 0.30

0.20 0.20

0.10 0.10

0.00 0.00
m m
0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕu 0.02 0.04 0.06 ϕu

Fig. 14. Interstorey displacement sensitivity coefficient of systems designed according to Eurocode 8 without P–D effect rules.

are compared with those of the structures designed without P–D
effects and analysed without P–D effects (considered in this sec-
tion). This is because if the code provisions related to the P–D ef-
fects were tightly adjusted to counterbalance the P–D effects at
the achievement of the ultimate limit state of the structural mem-
bers, the ultimate peak ground accelerations of the two analyses
shouldbe equal. The ratio of the ultimate peak ground accelera-
tions of these two analyses is named f and reported in Fig. 15 as
a function of the maximum value of the interstorey drift sensitivity
coefficient of the structure not designed for P–D effects. The max-
imum interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient is in the range 0–0.20
when referred to structures designed by the lateral force method of
analysis and in the range 0–0.40 in structures designed by the
modal response spectrum analysis (see Fig. 14). The parameter f
is approximately equal to unity when the interstorey drift sensitiv-
ity coefficient is lower than 0.10. The slight scattering around the
unit value is determined by the P–D effects in the dynamicanaly-
ses. Based on these results, the rule suggested in Eurocode 8 for
structures with interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient lower than
0.10 appears to be suitable (no additional strength is required for
these structures according to Eurocode 8). The parameter f is, in-
stead, often higher than unity if hmax exceeds 0.10 (additional
strength is required in Eurocode 8). This highlights that the addi-
tional strength provided by the rules proposed in Eurocode 8 often
exceeds that which is strictly necessary to counterbalance the P–D
effects corresponding to the ultimate limit state of the structural
members. With reference to eccentrically braced structures, this
result supports the criticism of some researchers [12–15,19,57]
who claim that the additional strength suggested in Eurocode 8
forP–D effects is overconservative.
10. Conclusion
The paper evaluates the effectiveness of the procedure sug-
gested in Eurocode 8 for the design of eccentrically braced struc-
tures and compares the seismic response of buildings designed
according to this procedure to the response of buildings designed
222 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223
Soil A
ns= 2 4 8 12 ns= 2 4
2.00
1.50
1.00
designed
by LFMA
0.50
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Fig. 15. Ratio f of the ultimate peak ground acceleration of systems designed with P–D effects and analysed with P–D effects over the ultimate peak ground acceleration of
systems designed without P–D effects and analysed without P–D effects.
according to the proposed procedure. The results are obtained by
means of incremental dynamic analyses on a large set of eccentri-
cally braced structures having different dynamic and mechanical
characteristics.
The analyses lead to the following conclusions:
1. The upper limit of the behaviour factors suggested in the cur-
rent version of Eurocode 8 for eccentrically braced structures
should be reduced. A value equal to five ensures a satisfying
ultimate performance for only some structures endowed with
short links. Specifically, of all the structures endowed with
short links, only (i) those designed by the modal response spec-
trum analysis and (ii) those characterised by a low number of
storeys and designed by lateral force method of analysis are
expected to develop the desired ultimate behaviour. In all the
other cases the behaviour factors obtained by the numerical
analyses are rather low. In the case of structures with interme-
diate and long links, these low values are chiefly caused by the
limited effectiveness of the rules for the application of the
capacity design principles.
2. The proposed design procedure ensures seismic performances
which are better than those produced by the rules of the current
Eurocode 8. Referring to the proposed procedure, a behaviour
factor ranging from 3.5 to 5 as a function of the mechanical link
length is suggested for structures designed by the modal
response spectrum analysis. This value of the behaviour factor
may be applied also to low-rise structures designed by the lat-
eral force method of analysis. Mid- and high-rise structures
should not be designed by the lateral force method of analysis.
3. The flat value of the global overstrength stipulated in
Eurocode 8 for eccentrically braced structures (1.2) is often
conservative. The performed analyses demonstrate that the
value of the parameter au/a1 generally ranges from 1.2 to 1.6.
4. The additional strength required by Eurocode 8 for P–D effects
often exceeds that strictly necessary to counterbalance the P–D
effects corresponding to the ultimate limit state of the struc-
tural components. At least with reference to eccentrically
braced structures, this result supports the criticism of some
researchers who claim that the rules of Eurocode 8 are
overconservative.
References
[1] ECCS. European Recommendations for Steel Structures in Seismic Zones,
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork. Technical Committee,
TWG 1.3 – Seismic Design, No. 54; 1991.
[2] ECCS. Manual on Design of Steel Structures in Seismic Zones, European
Convention for Constructional Steelwork. Technical Committee, TC 13 –
Seismic Design, No. 76; 1994.
Soil C Soil D
8 12 ns= 2 4 8 12
2.00
1.50
1.00
designed
by MRSA
0.50
max 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 max
[3] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance. European
Committee for Standardisation; 2003; prEN 1998-1-1/2/3.
[4] Mastandrea L, Montuori R, Piluso V. Comparative analysis of different design
procedures for seismic resistant EF-frames. Venezia: XVIII Congress CTA; 2001.
p. 261–70.
[5] Badalassi M, Caprili S, Salvatore W, Braconi A, Quaranta G. Influenza della
variabilità del materiale sul comportamento sismico di telai in acciaio con
controventi eccentrici. XIV Convegno Anidis – Bari; 2011 [in Italian].
[6] Mazzolani F, Landolfo R, Della Corte G. Eurocode 8 provisions for steel and
steel-concrete composite structures: comments, critiques, improvement
proposals and research needs. In: Eurocode 8 perspectives from the Italian
standpoint workshop, 2009. p. 173–82.
[7] Rossi PP, Lombardo A. Influence of the link overstrength factor on the seismic
behaviour of eccentrically braced frames. J Construct Steel Res 2007;63:
1529–45.
[8] Kasai K, Popov EP. General behavior of WF steel shear link beams. J Struct Eng
(ASCE) 1986;112(2):362–82.
[9] Engelhardt MD, Popov EP. Behavior of long links in eccentrically braced frames.
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report no. UCB/EERC-89/01.
University of California; 1989.
[10] Engelhardt MD, Popov EP. On design of eccentrically braced frames.
Earthquake Spectra 1989;5(3):495–511.
[11] American Institute of Steel Construction – AISC 2010. Seismic Provisions for
Structural Steel Buildings. Chicago, IL.
[12] Elghazouli AY. Seismic design of steel structures to Eurocode 8. Struct Eng
2007:26–31.
[13] Elghazouli AY. Assessment of European seismic design procedures. Bullet
Earthquake Eng 2009;8(1):65–89.
[14] Peres R, Castro JM. Comparison of European and American approaches for
consideration of P–D effects in seismic design. In: Proc. of the 14th European
conference on earthquake engineering, Ohrid (Rep. of Macedonia); 2010.
[15] Peres R. Comparison of European and American approaches for consideration
of P–D effects in seismic design. MSc dissertation, ROSE School, Pavia, Italy;
2010.
[16] Della Corte G, D’Aniello M, Landolfo R. Analytical and numerical study of
plastic overstrength of shear links. J Construct Steel Res 2013;82:19–32.
[17] Della Corte G, D’Aniello M, Mazzolani FM. Inelastic response of shear links
with axial restraints: numerical vs. analytical results. In: Proc. of 5th
international conference on advances in steel structures, ICASS; 2007. p.
651–6.
[18] Mazzolani FM, Corte GD, D’Aniello M. Experimental analysis of steel
dissipative bracing systems for seismic upgrading. J Civ Eng Manage 2009;
15(1):7–19.
[19] Villani A. Critical assessment of seismic design procedures for steel MRF. MSc
dissertation, ROSE School, Pavia, Italy; 2009.
[20] Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures – Part 1–1: General rules and rules for
buildings. UNI prEN 1993, 2003.
[21] Bosco M, Ghersi A, Rossi PP. Seismic response of dual eccentrically braced
systems designed by Eurocode 8. In:Proc. of the 7th International Conference
on Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas - Stessa 2012 , Santiago
(Chile); 2012. p. 471–7.
[22] Popov EP, Ricles JM, Kasai K. Methodology for optimum EBF link design. In:
Proc. of the 10th world conference on, earthquake engineering, 1992. p. 3983–
8.
[23] Lu LW, Ricles JM, Kasai K. Global performance: general report. In Proc. of the
international workshop and seminar on ‘‘behaviour of steel structures in
seismic areas’’, 1997. p. 361–81.
[24] Kasai K, Han X. New EBF design method and application: redesign and analysis
of US–Japan EBF. In: Proc. of the international workshop and seminar on
‘‘behaviour of steel structures in seismic areas’’, 1997. p. 242–9.
[25] Malley JO, Popov EP. Design Consideration for shear links in eccentrically
braced frames. Report no. UCB/EERC-83/24, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley; 1983.
 M. Bosco et al. / Engineering Structures 61 (2014) 209–223
[26] Hjelmstad KD, Popov EP. Characteristics of eccentrically braced frames. J Struct
Eng (ASCE) 1984;110(2):340–53.
[27] Malley JO, Popov EP. Shear links in eccentrically braced frames. J Struct Eng
(ASCE) 1984;110(9):2275–95.
[28] Kasai K, Popov EP. Cyclic web buckling control for shear link beams. J Struct
Eng (ASCE) 1986;112(3):505–21.
[29] Bosco M, Rossi PP. A design procedure for dual eccentrically braced systems:
numerical investigation. J Construct Steel Res 2013;80:453–64.
[30] Bosco M, Rossi PP. Seismic behaviour of eccentrically braced frames. Eng Struct
2009;31:664–74.
[31] Rossi PP. A design procedure for tied braced frames. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 2007;36:2227–48.
[32] Decreto Ministeriale 14 gennaio 2008. Nuove norme tecniche per le
costruzioni, GU. February 4th, 2008. p. 29 [in Italian].
[33] Perretti A. Comportamento sismico di telai in acciaio con controventi
eccentrici, Ph.D. Thesis. University of Naples; 1999 [in Italian].
[34] Bosco M, Rossi PP. A design procedure for dual eccentrically braced systems:
analytical formulation. J Construct Steel Res 2013;80:440–52.
[35] Ricles JM, Popov EP. Composite action in eccentrically braced steel frames. J
Struct Eng (ASCE) 1989;115(8):2046–66.
[36] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL, Jeremic B. OpenSEES command
language manual. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California; 2003.
[37] Richards P, Uang CM. Evaluation of rotation capacity and overstrength of links
in eccentrically braced frames. Report No. SSRP-2002/18, Structural Systems
Research Project, Department of Structural Engineering, University of
California, San Diego; 2002.
[38] Itani AM, Lanaud C, Dusicka P. Analytical evaluation of built-up shear links
under large deformations. Comput Struct 2003;81:681–96.
[39] McDaniel C, Uang MC, Seible F. Cyclic testing of built-up steel shear links for
the New Bay Bridge. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2003;129(6):801–9.
[40] Richards PW, Uang CM. Effect of flange width-thickness ratio on eccentrically
braced frames link cyclic rotation capacity. J Struct Eng (ASCE)
2005;131(10):1546–52.
[41] Chao SH, Khandelwal K, El-Tawil S. Ductile web fracture initiation in steel
shear links. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2006;132(8):1192–200.
[42] Okazaki T, Engelhardt MD, Nakashima M, Suita K. Experimental performance
of link-to-column connections in eccentrically braced frames. J Struct Eng
(ASCE) 2006;132(8):1201–11.
223
[43] Okazaki T, Arce G, Ryu HC, Engelhardt MD. Experimental study of local
buckling, overstrength and fracture of links in eccentrically braced frames. J
Struct Eng (ASCE) 2006;131(10):1526–35.
[44] Okazaki T, Engelhardt MD. Cyclic loading behavior of EBF links constructed of
ASTM A992 steel. J Construct Steel Res 2007;63:751–65.
[45] Okazaki T, Engelhardt MD, Drolias A, Schell E, Honge JK, Uang CM.
Experimental investigation of link-to-column connections in eccentrically
braced frames. J Construct Steel Res 2009;65:1401–12.
[46] Dusicka P, Itani AM, Buckle IG. Cyclic behavior of shear links of various grades
of plate steel. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2010;136(4):370–8.
[47] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3: Assessment
and retrofitting of buildings. European Committee for Standardisation, 2005
[EN 1998–3].
[48] FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.
[49] Tremblay R. Achieving a stable inelastic seismic response for multi-story
concentrically braced steel frames. Eng J (AISC) 2003;40:111–29.
[50] Marino EM, Nakashima M. Seismic performance and new design procedure for
chevron-braced frames. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2006;35:433–52.
[51] Bosco M, Marino EM. Design method and behavior factor for steel frames with
buckling restrained braces. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42:1243–63.
[52] Marino EM. A unified approach for the design of high ductility steel frames
with concentric braces in the framework of Eurocode 8. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2334.
[53] Agostoni N, Ballio G, Poggi C. Indagine statistica sulle proprietà meccaniche
degli acciai da costruzione. In: Proc. of ‘‘XIV Congresso CTA – Giornate italiane
della costruzione in acciaio’’, 1993. p. 22–34 [in Italian].
[54] Croce P, Cecconi A, Salvatore W. Statistical distributions of the mechanical
properties of structural steel elements. In: Proc. of ‘‘XVI Congresso CTA –
Giornate italiane della costruzione in acciaio’’, 1997. p. 220–9 [in Italian].
[55] Salvitti LM, Elnashai AS. Evaluation of behaviour factors for RC buildings by
nonlinear dynamic analysis. In: Proc. eleventh world conference on
earthquake engineering, 1996 [paper no. 1820].
[56] Elnashai AS, Broderick BM. Seismic response of composite frames – II.
Calculation of behaviour factors. Eng Struct 1996;18(9):707–23.
[57] Amara F, Bosco M, Marino EM, Rossi PP, An accurate strength amplification
factor for the design of SDOF systems with P-D Effects, Accepted for
publication in Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2013.