Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Eurocode 8 revision – Implications on the design and performance of steel

moment-resisting frames: Case study
Melaku Seyoum Lemma *, Carlos Rebelo, Luís Simões da Silva
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Polo II, Rua Luís Reis Santos, 3030-788, Coimbra, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Since the 2004 release of the European seismic code – Eurocode 8, various improvements have been proposed to
Steel moment resisting frames its rules. The standard is being revised and, in its current revised state, it has been restructured and expanded in
Steel joint models content. The revisions related to steel structures and especially to the design of steel moment-resisting frames
Eurocode 8
(SMRFs) are notable. Modifications in the definition of the ductility classes, grade-dependent material
Second generation code revision
Ductility classes
randomness factors, behaviour factors, inter-storey drift sensitivity index (θ), the local hierarchy criteria, and the
Seismic design and performance design rules for the dissipative ductility classes (DC2 & DC3) are a few of the notable proposed changes. This
Behaviour factor components paper aims to study and compare seismic designs and performances of SMRFs using the revised specific rules for
steel design. To this end, a parametric case study, consisting of 96 frames, is devised by varying the key pa­
rameters such that the effects of the recent changes can be highlighted. The parameters varied are the design
code, ductility classes, number of storeys, span length, and material strength. The case study frames are analysed
and designed to both versions of the EC8. Later, the seismic performance of the case study SMRFs designed to the
current and revised EC8 provisions are investigated through non-linear static and dynamic analyses using
OpenSees. Additionally, the significance of two distinct joint modelling techniques is explored.
The results show that stability is not the governing requirement with the revised code. Lighter solutions in
terms of steel mass were possible for the regularly spaced frames using the revised code. It was noted, however,
that contrary to the design intent and despite the higher behaviour factor used in DC3 & DCH frames, their
solutions were not found to be lighter than those designed to DC2 & DCM in both code versions. The actual
behaviour factors estimated from non-linear analyses were also found to be different from those used in design by
a considerable margin. The over-strength component of the behaviour factor varied significantly between frames
of different steel grades and ductility classes. It was observed that the component plays such a significant role in
the overall behaviour factor that assigning a constant value may result in misleading estimates. The dynamic
analyses results showed that the frames designed to both versions of EC8 demonstrated acceptable performance
even at the near collapse limit state.

is usually limited to low & medium-rise buildings. This is so because of

1. Introduction
Steel moment-resisting frames (SMRFs) are popular framing solu­
tions for low to mid-rise buildings. Their wide use stems from their
structural arrangement which poses architectural advantages providing
room for windows and facades with unobstructed views. The popularity
of these framing systems is evident in their introduction to building
codes at an early stage. An assemblage of horizontal beams and vertical
columns with largely regular patterns makes the analysis and design of
such framings easier and more appealing. Whilst the framing system is
ideal in terms of the architectural advantages, its use in seismic regions
the innate behaviour of the system in resisting/handling lateral loads.
Among the available framing systems, SMRFs are known for their rela­
tive flexibility and dissipative properties. Drift and lateral instability
issues arise because of the mentioned flexibility. Nonetheless, SMRFs
designed to meet certain limit states are known to be ductile systems.
Owing to their popularity, SMRFs are covered in all major building
codes in America, Europe, and Japan; and the codes are regularly
updated with new findings and improvements obtained from ongoing
research. Different authors have presented their works aimed at miti­
gating the shortcomings of the framing system, and to boost their
optimal use such that advantages could be taken from the simplicity of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: melaku.seyoum@uc.pt (M.S. Lemma), crebelo@dec.uc.pt (C. Rebelo), luisss@dec.uc.pt (L.S. Silva).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107411
Received 26 February 2021; Received in revised form 19 June 2022; Accepted 20 June 2022
Available online 9 July 2022
0267-7261/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Notation: MEd,G Bending moment due to the non-seismic actions

MRb Moment resistance of the beams framing at a joint
Latin symbols MRc Moment resistance of the columns framing at a joint
bc Column flange width NEd Design axial force from the analysis for the seismic design
db Web depth of beam situation
dc Web depth of column NEd,E Axial force due to the seismic action
del Elastic inter-storey drift NEd,G Axial force due to the non-seismic actions
dr Design inter-storey drift Ptot Total seismic gravity load above a floor
dr,SD Inter-storey drift at the Significant Damage limit state Rd Design resistance of a connection
h Storey height Rfy Plastic resistance of a dissipative member
hb Beam depth Sδ Limit of seismicity index
hc Column depth V1y Base-shear at the first local plastic hinge formation
hrib Rib height n
Vwp,Rd Shear capacity of the panel zone (nominal)
q0 Basic behaviour factor Vb Total base shear
q Force-based behaviour factor Vtot Total seismic storey shear
qd Displacement amplification factor (displacement Vtot,el Unreduced elastic total seismic storey shear
behaviour factor)
Vy Base-shear at the global yielding of frame from the
qD Behaviour factor component accounting for energy
idealized bi-linear pushover curve
dissipation capacity
VEd Design shear force from the analysis for the seismic design
qR Behaviour factor component accounting for overstrength
situation
due to the redistribution of seismic action effects in
VEd,E Shear force due to the seismic action
redundant structures
VEd,G Shear force due to the non-seismic actions
qS Behaviour factor component accounting for over-strength
due to all other sources Greek symbols
qμ Behaviour factor component accounting for ductility α Post yield stiffness slope as percentage of initial elastic
qξ Behaviour factor component accounting for damping stiffness
qΩ Behaviour factor component accounting for overstrength α1 Horizontal load factor when the first plastic resistance is
srib Stiffening rib width reached in any member in the structure
scon,ini Initial rotational stiffness of connection αu Horizontal load factor when plastic hinges in a number of
swp,ini Initial rotational stiffness of web panel zone sections sufficient for the development of overall structural
sb Flexural stiffness of beam instability
sh Distance between the centre of a plastic hinge and the δu Maximum displacement at the collapse state
column axis δy Displacement at the first frame yielding
t Total thickness of web panel γ 1,y Shear distortion at panel zone yield strength
tb,f Beam flange thickness γ 2,y or γ p Shear distortion at full plastic shear resistance of a
tc,f Column flange thickness joint
tw Column web thickness γ ov Over-strength factor
tswp Supplementary web plate (Doubler plate) thickness ωrm Random material variability over-strength
zwp Web panel zone height ωsh Strain-hardening over-strength
Cd Seismic drift amplification factors θ Inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficient
Fb.conc Secondary gravity beam load to perimeter seismic beams Δ Design inter-storey drift
Fc.ext Vertical load directly applied on the exterior columns of Ω Code prescribed seismic action magnification factor for
perimeter frame DC2
Fc.int Vertical load directly applied on the interior columns of Ωd Design overstrength ratio
perimeter frame
Flean.col Vertical load on the leaning columns Abbreviations
Ke Initial elastic stiffness of panel zone modelled with a CC Consequence Class
trilinear spring DCL Ductility Class Low
Ke,1 and Ke,2 Initial elastic stiffness of bilinear springs 1 and 2, DCM Ductility Class Medium
respectively DCH Ductility Class High
Kp,1 and Kp,2 Plastic stiffness of bilinear springs 1 and 2, respectively DC1 Ductility Class 1
M1y Moment at panel zone yield – represented using bilinear DC2 Ductility Class 2
spring 1 DC3 Ductility Class 3
M2y Moment at plastic resistance of joint – represented using EC8 Euro Code 8 – EN 1998 Part 1
bilinear spring 2 EJ and EJ+ EQUALJOINTS and EQUALJOINTS-PLUS projects
Mc,pl,Rd (NEd ) Design bending resistance of column accounting for ES-B-E Extended Stiffened joint with Balanced web-panel and
Equal-strength connection
axial force
IDA Incremental Dynamic Analysis
Mnj,Rd Bending moment capacity of joint (nominal)
IMK Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler connection deterioration model
Mepl,b,cf,Rd Expected plastic moment of beam calculated at the column
MRF Moment Resisting Frame
face PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
Mpl,Rd Design plastic moment resistance at an end of a beam RSA Response Spectrum Analysis
MEd Design bending moment from the analysis for the seismic T1, T2, T3, T4 Configuration Typologies
design situation
MEd,E Bending moment due to the seismic action

2
M.S. Lemma et al.
the system. Since the release of the current version of Eurocode 8 part 1
(EC8) [1] in 2006, both practising engineers and researchers alike have
been assessing and commenting on some of its recommendations. One
such issue has to do with the lateral stability check procedures using the
inter-storey drift ratios (ISDR). The seismic design of SMRFs is largely
governed by the lateral stability and drift requirements [2,3]. Apart
from lateral stability check, the quantification of second-order effects is
also made through the inter-storey drift sensitivity index. The estimation
of this index in EC8 has been commented upon and criticized [4–10]
through scientific findings and sustained design experiences. Another
aspect of the code that was widely investigated [11–14] has to do with
the ductility class definitions and the associated behaviour factors.
Research has pointed out that there could be discrepancies between the
design objectives, i.e., design for the structure to behave inelastically to
dissipate energy, and the actual design which was found to behave in the
elastic range. Consequently, an improved design force-based method­
ology by focussing on minimizing the over-strength ratio of dissipative
elements is proposed in Refs. [14,15].
With the application of the capacity design concept, the beams were
the only dissipative elements for SMRFs that have rigid joints. In recent
years, however, the use of partial strength and semi-rigid joints has been
permitted in codes [16,17]. This would enable taking advantage of the
joints’ ductility in dissipating seismic energy. The flexibility of the joints
plays an important role in the distribution of internal forces, de­
formations and stability of steel frames [18–21]. It was shown that the
global behaviour of SMRFs can be affected by the behaviour of the panel
zone depending on the strength of the web panel, i.e., whether it is
designed to perform elastically in a seismic event or it is allowed to
dissipate energy. Further research was made on the design and dissi­
pative property of the panel zone [21–23].
Dissipative structures demand a satisfactory level of ductility in the
joints as the global performance of steel structures in a seismic scenario
is highly influenced by the post-elastic behaviour of the connections.
Ductile joints are crucial in seismic resistant steel structures due to their
role in absorbing and dissipating energy in addition to dampening vi­
brations. In line with this, the pre-normative research project EQUAL­
JOINTS [24–30] implemented an additional classification of joints
termed “equal strength” and considered the use of semi-rigid connec­
tions in seismic conditions. Equal strength joints range between full and
partial strength connections. Landolfo et al. [24] classifies joints based
on strength of the connection as either weak, equal, or full strength,
while the web panel is classified as either weak, balanced, or strong. As
one of the results of the project, a set of coefficients and ratios for the
estimation of joint and connection stiffness and strength for prequalified
joints has been included in Refs. [25,31].
Current modelling practices by design engineers vastly implement a
simple centre line bar models possibly incorporating end offsets and
rigid ends. Researchers, on the other hand, implement explicit panel
zone modelling methods of varying complexity such as the Scissors-type
model, and the Krawinkler model [32,33] via the use of links or springs
and rigid elements. The present paper experiments with different joint
modelling procedures/techniques available and the mentioned pre­
qualified joints’ strength and stiffness values to assess the effect of
different connection typologies on the global performance of
moment-resisting steel frames via a parametric study on SMRFs.
This paper aims to: (1) evaluate the influence of the normative
changes on the design of SMRFs and (2) assess the performance of
frames designed to both versions of the code through non-linear ana­
lyses. Reference is made to the draft revised code prEN 1998-1-2:2021
(E) [34], henceforth in this paper referred as the ‘revised code’ in
comparison with EN 1998–1: 2006 [1] henceforth in this paper referred
as the ‘current code’. In addition to assessing the effects of the code
revisions, the significance of joint models and mathematical represen­
tations are investigated. Firstly, the frames are analysed and designed
disregarding the joint dimensions. The frames’ performances are then
assessed using both simplified and refined joint modelling techniques.
3
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411
Besides the node dimension, the refined joint model incorporates the
connection strength and joint stiffness. An automated flexible tool for
the model generation, visualization, analysis and design of steel frames
that utilize different joint models is developed using Python and the
OpenSees [35,36] framework for this purpose.
The manuscript is organized into four main sections. In the first
section, the evolution of the EC8 provisions is covered, where a brief
history of the revisions and some recommendations for improvements
obtained from prior research are presented. The second section presents
the parametric case study employed to fulfil the above-mentioned goal.
Three, six and nine-storey frames (representative of low – medium-rise
buildings) are first designed to both the current and revised EC8 rec­
ommendations for the two dissipative ductility classes in each code. The
implications of the changes in the forthcoming revised Eurocode for
seismic design are analysed. The third section discusses the structural
modelling techniques used for non-linear analysis and their associated
assumptions. A performance assessment of the parametric case-study
frames via non-linear analyses is presented in the fourth section. The
procedures adopted for the back-calculation of the behaviour factor are
explained. The implications of the changes in the revised EC8 for seismic
performance of SMRFs are analysed. Finally, the results of the case
studies are elaborated, and conclusions are presented.
2. Evolution of Eurocode 8 provisions
2.1. Brief introduction and history
Following the adoption of the program of action in the field of con­
struction in 1975, an initiative was taken by the European Commission
to establish a set of harmonized codes for the design of structures
throughout the member states. Although not enforced as a standard, a
preliminary text of the codes was disseminated to all member states in
1989, leading to eight non-compulsory full-scale pre-standards (ENV)
that were published between 1994 and 1997. After gathering opinions,
the process of converting the ENV standards to European Norms (EN)
started in 1998. Consequently, after 15 years of development, a six-part
first-generation issue of the structural Eurocodes that deals with earth­
quake resistance was published between 2004 and 2007 [37–39].
2.2. Past research – recommendations for code improvements
As scientific knowledge accumulates and new building practices
emerge over the years, structural building codes get updated to match
the current state of the art. For instance, the emergence of a series of
design criteria recommendations and background documents from the
SAC joint venture (FEMA 2000) brought about significant changes in the
seismic design provisions for steel structures in the North American
norms after the Northridge earthquake. The American and Canadian
standards for the seismic design of steel structures have undergone such
frequent revisions [40–42].
Similarly in Europe, numerous scientific findings [9,10,12,14,
43–45] gathered since the first generation EC8 was published suggest
that parts of EC8 should be reviewed in view of the seismic design of
steel frames. The research findings relevant to SMRFs have been
grouped and presented in the following five main groups for ease of
presentation.
2.2.1. Material over-strength
Non-dissipative members are designed based on the expected ma­
terial strength of the dissipative zones. The average strength of the
delivered material is usually higher than the guaranteed minimum yield
strength. To account for this variation, the current code proposes a
constant over-strength factor γ ov value of 1.25. However, statistical re­
sults in recent research [46,47] pointed out that the overstrength varies
with the steel grade and lower grade steels demonstrate significantly
higher values than those currently proposed.
M.S. Lemma et al.
2.2.2. Behaviour factor, frame capacity and an improved design procedure
In using elastic analysis for design, the inherent non-linear behav­
iours demonstrated through non-linear deformations and energy dissi­
pation are accounted for using force reduction or behaviour factors.
Indeed, the value of the behaviour factor is consequential to the force-
based methodology implemented in EC8. Owing to the economic im­
plications of these factors, their values have been debated from the era of
first test standards in Europe [39]. However still noting that a direct
comparison could be unreliable without implementing the full design
[4], highlights that the force reduction factors in American code pro­
visions are higher than the behaviour factors in Eurocode 8. In addition,
it emphasized that other inherent design idealisations may result in
sizably different responses between the assumed and the actual behav­
iour factor at the end of design.
An improved design procedure is suggested by Villani et al. [14] to
avoid the discrepancy between the assumptions made in the codes and
the actual design, i.e., buildings mostly behave elastically contrary to
the design intent. The improved force-based design (IFBD) methodology
focuses on minimizing the over-strength ratio of dissipative elements
and works by rearranging the customary design procedure such that the
actual behaviour factor of the frame is evaluated first. The methodology
starts by proportioning the structure for gravity actions. This is followed
by a check and redesign to meet serviceability limit states requirements
using the elastic seismic forces. The behaviour factor q is then computed
for this frame. Ultimate limit state checks and redesign then proceed
using the design seismic action which is the elastic seismic force reduced
by a factor of q – the ‘actual’ behaviour factor previously obtained.
Macedo et al. [12] and Peres et al. [15] reinforce the credibility of
the new method, IFBD, through their results from numerous parametric
studies [12]. observed the code design procedure through case studies
on 360 steel MRFs. Multiple cases were identified where the frame ca­
pacity did not match the design base shears when using the upper bound
behaviour factors given in EC8. Conversely, frames designed as per the
IFBD procedure were found to comply with the EC8 requirements whilst
utilizing the available ductility to a larger extent thereby allowing for
material saving.
2.2.3. Stability, P-Delta, and drift limitation
Elghazouli [4] presented an assessment of the European design
procedures for SMRFs, where it was pointed out that implications of
stability, among other design rules, merits careful consideration within
the design process. It was shown that the elastic stiffness required by
EC8 is higher than what is required by the US provisions to satisfy a
specific value of θ especially if the designer decides to avoid
second-order analysis by limiting θ to 0.1. The same author points out a
possible source of error in the EC8 (2) in its use of the same value for the
force-based behaviour factors (q) and the displacement amplification
factors (qd ) in the formulation of the stability index θ contrary to the
North American code (1) where specific seismic drift amplification
factors (Cd ) are proposed.
Ptot ⋅Δ
θ= (1)
Vtot ⋅h⋅Cd
del
Ptot ⋅dr Ptot ⋅ q ⋅d
θ= = Vtot,el (2)
Vtot ⋅h ⋅h
q capacities. But the weak beam-strong column criterium is disregarded
Similarly, Landolfo et al. [38] noted that EC8 evaluates the stability
coefficient, θ, based on the secant storey stiffness – thereby leading to
strict stiffness requirements – while the elastic storey stiffness is used by
the American NEHRP provisions. Peres [5] reached similar conclusions
from a parametric study on SMRFs, where the American and European
approaches to P-Delta effects were compared. Furthermore, a nonlinear
analysis showed that no advantage is obtained from heavier frames
designed to EC8 recommendations, particularly in the non-linear range.
4
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411
2.2.4. Local hierarchy and design of non-dissipative elements
A weak-beam strong-column behaviour is preferred in modern
seismic codes to avoid early undesired plastic mechanism formation.
The current code employs a requirement where the resistance sum of
columns is higher by at least 30% than that of the sum of beam re­
∑ ∑
sistances, i.e., MRc ≥ 1.3 MRb . For hinge formation in the columns
to ensue only after the plastification of the beams [4], recommended
that the computation of beam resistances considers the material
over-strength.
To fulfil the criteria above, the non-dissipative elements are designed
for internal actions that are obtained by magnifying the seismic action
effects by a factor of 1.1⋅γov ⋅Ω. Studies by Refs. [4,48,49] highlighted
that depending on the magnitude of the gravity load, the computation of
the system over-strength factor Ω may lead to an underestimation of the
factor. Therefore, [45] suggests computing the factor dividing the net
plastic resistance capacity surplus of the gravity demand by the seismic
demand.
Mpl,Rd − MEd,G
Ω= (3)
MEd,E
2.2.5. Beam-to-column connections
Partial-strength connections that are proven to have stable and
ductile behaviour under cyclic loading are permitted in EC8. The use of
semi-rigid partial-strength bolted connections could be economical in
regions of moderate seismicity. However, verification of the cyclic
behaviour of such joints through prototype testing is not a feasible so­
lution in day-to-day practice. The EQUALJOINTS project [24–30]
addressed this issue by preparing the framework for prequalified joints
through extensive testing on bolted connections.
The distribution of inelastic deformations between the connection
and the web panel in a joint was studied for different panel-zone design
strategies [21]. A balanced panel-zone designed to the FEMA 350 [50]
procedure was reported to comply with the limits imposed in EC8.
2.3. Changes in prEN 1998-1-2:2021 - the revised version of EC8
The present paper makes reference to the third working draft of the
code under revision – prEN 1998-1-2:2021 (draft issued in October
2021) [34]. Although the majority of the specific rules for steel buildings
in the said draft are expected to stay the same, it should be noted that
there may be changes in the definitive version of the document. A
summary of the changes relevant to steel moment-resisting frames is
highlighted as follows.
2.3.1. Terminology & definition changes
The general rules in the revised part 1-1 of the code [51] introduce
three structural ductility classes of varying dissipative capacities: DC1,
DC2, and DC3. Structures designed to DC1 have low-dissipative capacity
while those designed to DC2 & DC3 possess dissipative capacity. Similar
to DCL, design to DC1 considers overstrength capacity while deforma­
tion and energy dissipation capacities are disregarded. The design rules
for DC2 and DC3 are, however, different from DCM and DCH of the
current code (See 2.3.5 and 2.3.6). In DC2, a structure is expected to
demonstrate local overstrength, deformation, and energy dissipation
and global plastic capacity is controlled by limiting drift and second
order effects [52]. In DC3, the ability of the structure to form a global
plastic mechanism at significant damage limit state is checked in addi­
tion to the requirements mentioned for DC2. In comparison to the cur­
rent code, DC2 is devised to be less stringent than DCM while DC3 lies
somewhere between DCM and DCH [52].
Similarly, the term “importance class” has been replaced by that of
“consequence class” (CC). Accordingly, Importance classes I, II, III and
IV in the current code correspond to CC1, CC2, CC3a and CC3b in the
revised version. Furthermore, the revised code forgoes the generic
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Table 1 m/s2, respectively. There are no limits to carrying out designs to the
Behaviour factors for multi-storey moment resisting steel frames. requirements of DC3.
Current Code [1] Revised Code [34]
2.3.4. Significant damage limit state – stability, second-order effects and
DCM DCH DC2 DC3
drift limitation
q q qD qR q qD qR q The inter-storey drift sensitivity index formulation has been modified
4 5⋅ αu / 1.8 1.3 3.5 3.3 1.3 6.5
α1
following relevant research. The revised code proposes a formulation for
the stability index, θ (see Table 2), that takes the material randomness,
design over-strength factor and the redundancy factor into
consideration.
Table 2
Where: Ptot and Vtot are the total gravity load, and total global shear
Inter-storey drift sensitivity index θ formulations.
load above the floor under investigation, respectively; dr,SD is the inter-
Current Code [1] Revised Code [34] Ductility Class storey drift at the Significant Damage limit state; h is the storey height;
θ =
Ptot ⋅dr,SD
θ =
Ptot ⋅dr,SD DC2 ωrm is the material randomness factor accounting for the variability of
V tot ⋅h ωrm ⋅qs ⋅Vtot ⋅h the steel yield strength in the dissipative zones; qR and qS are the
(DCM & DCH) Ptot ⋅dr,SD DC3
θ = behaviour factor components for over-strength due to redistribution of
ωrm ⋅qs ⋅Vtot ⋅h
or if qs < Ωd ⋅qR then: seismic action in redundant structures (αα1u ), and over-strength from all
θ =
Ptot ⋅dr,SD other sources, respectively; Ωd is the design overstrength ratio.
ωrm ⋅Ωd ⋅qR ⋅Vtot ⋅h Whilst second-order effects can be ignored for θ ≤ 0.1, they can be
taken into account by multiplying the relevant seismic action effects by a
factor equal to 1/(1 − θ) for 0.1 < θ ≤ 0.2. If 0.2 < θ < 0.3, a second-
Table 3 order analysis that takes geometric non-linearity is required, whereas
Design action for non-dissipative members. a θ > 0.3 is unacceptable as it indicates the structure is too sensitive to
Current Code [1] Revised Code [34] second-order effects to safely cope with uncertain seismic dynamic ef­
DCM & DCH DC2
fects. It is also to be noted that the inter-storey drift at the significant
damage limit state, dr,SD , is limited to 2.0% of the storey height.
NEd = NEd,G ˝ + ˝ 1.1⋅γov ⋅Ωd ⋅NEd,E NEd = NEd,G ˝ + ˝ Ω⋅NEd,E
MEd = MEd,G ˝ + ˝ 1.1⋅γov ⋅Ωd ⋅MEd,E MEd = MEd,G ˝ + ˝ MEd,E dr,SD ≤ 0.02⋅h (5)
VEd = VEd,G ˝ + ˝ 1.1⋅γov ⋅Ωd ⋅VEd,E VEd = VEd,G ˝ + ˝ VEd,E

DC3 2.3.5. Design rules for non-dissipative members & connections

NEd = NEd,G ˝ + ˝ωrm ωsh Ωd NEd,E
MEd = MEd,G ˝ + ˝ωrm ωsh Ωd MEd,E
VEd = VEd,G ˝ + ˝ωrm ωsh Ωd VEd,E
naming “over-strength factor” γ ov . New terms are defined representing
the different sources of over-strength: random material variability over-
strength (ωrm ) to account for the possibility that the actual yield strength
of steel is higher than the nominal yield strength, and strain-hardening
over-strength (ωsh ).
2.3.2. Material randomness
The current code proposes a constant over-strength factor γov value of
1.25. The revised code suggests different material randomness factors
ωrm for the different steel grades: 1.45, 1.35, 1.25 and 1.2 for S235,
S275, S355 and S460, respectively.
2.3.3. Behaviour factors
The total behaviour factor, q, is now given as a product of three
components that account for over-strength due to the redistribution of
seismic action in redundant structures (qR ), the deformation and energy
dissipation capacity (qD ), and over-strength due to all other sources (qS )
which is assumed to have a value of 1.5.
q = qR ⋅qS ⋅qD (4)
A comparison of the behaviour factors in the current and revised
versions of the code is shown for multi-storey moment resisting steel
frames in Table 1. It is to be noted that the behaviour factor for medium
ductility class frames has been reduced in the revised version.
Furthermore, new limits have been placed on the selection of
ductility classes for design depending on the intensity of seismic action.
The selection is made depending on the seismic action index (Sδ ) which
is a product of the spectral acceleration (475 years return period) and
three factors that account for the consequence class of the structure, the
site, and topography amplifications. In the case of moment-resisting
frames, the code indicates that SMRF structures cannot be designed to
DC1 and DC2 when the seismic action index Sδ exceeds 5 m/s2 and 6.5
As summarized in Table 3, two distinct formulae have been proposed
in the revised code for the two dissipative ductility classes, DC2 and
DC3. The current code scales all internal action effects of seismic load
cases by an amplitude equal to 1.1⋅γov ⋅Ω irrespective of the ductility
class. On the other hand, the more recent formulation magnifies only the
seismic axial forces by a factor of Ω, a code prescribed seismic action
magnification factor, for ductility class 2 (DC2). A value of Ω = 2 has
been recommended for moment-resisting frames. In the case of ductility
class 3 (DC3), however, all internal action effects from the seismic load
case are to be magnified by a factor ωrm ωsh Ωd that accounts for the
material randomness and strain hardening over-strength factors, and the
system dissipative elements over-design, respectively.
The design rules for connections in dissipative zones (6) have been
revised (7) by replacing the magnification factor 1.1⋅γov by ωrm ⋅ωsh for
consistency with non-dissipative members.
Rd ≥ 1.1⋅γov ⋅Rfy (6)
Rd ≥ ωrm ⋅ωsh ⋅Rfy (7)
2.3.6. Capacity design - local hierarchy rule for columns
The local hierarchy rule is meant to ensure that the summed resis­
tance of columns at every joint except the top floor holds at least a
reserve of 30% additional capacity than that of the connected beams (8).
This requirement is to be fulfilled for all ductile frames in the current
code. For columns in DC2 in the revised code, however, this requirement
may be neglected.
∑ ∑
MRc ≥ 1.3 MRb (8)
On the other hand, for columns in DC3, the revised code dictates that
local and global hierarchy rules should be verified. Designs should
satisfy this additional requirement (9) at a joint.
∑ ∑[ ( ) ]
Mc,pl,Rd (NEd ) ≥ ωrm ⋅ ωsh ⋅ Mb,pl,Rd + sh ⋅ VEd,M + sh ⋅ VEd,G (9)
Other notable changes include the addition of rules for the use of
prequalified connections. Additionally, shear buckling resistance of the

5
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Table 4
Design and Performance assessment parameter variations.
Parameter Variations Design Assessment

Type Spans (m) Nº Floors Location DC - Q Code Grade Joint Model

1 6;6;6;6 3 (0.35g, DC2 Current S235 Centre-line

2 8;8;8;8 6 Type 1, DCM Revised S355 ES-B-E
3 4;8;8;4 9 Soil type B) DC3
4 8;6;6;8 DCH

Fig. 1. Plan View of the four configurations.

6
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Fig. 2. Generic Elevation view of the 3, 6, and 9 storey perimeter MRFs.

4. Code versions: Designs are made to both the current and revised
Table 5
versions of the code to identify any design changes that arose from
Gravity loads considered.
the code improvements. Note the use of different behaviour factors
Type Load apart from the design rule changes.
Structural dead load 1.6 kN/m2 5. Steel grade – to highlight the effect of material overstrength factors
Non-structural deal load 1.4 kN/m2 and other parameters.
Live load - Office Category 3.0 kN/m2
Useful load 4.4 kN/m2
ULS gravity load 8.4 kN/m2
Moreover, for the performance assessment, the joint model is
selected as the sixth parameter to be considered. The site location thus
the ground and response spectrum type are assumed to be the same
web panels in high-ductility frames (DC3) is deemed satisfied based on a throughout the designed frames. A summary of the parameters varied is
thickness requirement: presented in Table 4.
[( ) ( )] To this end, regular buildings of office type occupancy category are
( ) db − 2tb,f + dc − 2tc,f
t = tw + tswp ≥ (10) studied. The seismic resistance of the buildings is assumed to be pro­
90
vided by the moment-resisting perimeter frames. As a result, the inner
In summary, as the design of SMRFs is usually governed by stability bays in both directions are designed for gravity loads only. For this
and drift requirements, the new provisions for the inter-storey drift study, the frames in the principal Y direction highlighted in Fig. 1 are
sensitivity index stand out among the changes. In addition, the lowered considered. A braced frame that can adequately support the design ac­
behaviour factor, and the relaxed design rules for DC2 make it inter­ tions is assumed to exist in the other principal direction. Besides, it is
esting to investigate the implications of these rules. assumed that the vertical transport access facilities, such as stairs and
elevators, are provided by an external independent structure which is
3. Case studies not addressed in the current study.
The four different plan configurations considered are shown in Fig. 1.
3.1. Description of the case study frames A total of 48 case study moment resisting frames (MRFs) of 3, 6 and 9
storeys with four bays in the principal direction are studied. Except for
In a bid to understand the influence of the key changes made in the the differences in total building height, each case study frame in the
code revisions, a parametric case study was developed. Four essential same typology shares the same plan configuration. A typical storey
parameters were controlled: material grade, ductility class, number of height of 3.5 m is used. The total heights of the buildings are, therefore,
floors, and bay width. The case study frames were generated by isolating 10.5 m, 21 m, and 31.5 m, respectively. Fig. 2 shows a schematic rep­
and changing a single parameter turn by turn so that the implications resentation of the elevation view of the perimeter frame for the case
associated with each parameter can be seen independently. study frames.
Owing to the planar and vertical regularity of the building, a 2D
1. Plan configuration/span variation – meant to investigate the influ­ frame analysis was carried out to calculate the design actions. In doing
ence of span width and plan configuration on the designs. Two types so, tributary gravity loads are transferred to the perimeter 2D frames
with regular bay widths – one long and another shorter span, and two that are responsible for carrying the lateral forces in this building. The
others with non-homogeneous spans were considered. columns are assumed fixed at the base level and are continuous
2. The number of floors – meant to see how height would affect throughout the building height. The beams in all four bays are assumed
stability/P-Delta issues and the overall design. 3, 6, and 9 storey to be moment-resisting. The tributary seismic mass is lumped at nodes
frames were modelled representing low, medium, and high-rise so­ and diaphragm action is assumed to model the floor slab effect. In
lutions for this framing category. addition, leaning columns are modelled and loaded with the seismic
3. Ductility classes – to try to quantify the influence of this parameter gravity loads that are not directly applied to the 2D frame model in order
on the frame design of frames of different heights. Thereby checking to capture the overall overturning effect. The tributary area for each of
the efficiency and adequacy of code assumptions for each class. the perimeter frames in the Y-direction is considered to be half the plan
area adjacent to the frames.

7
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Table 6
Mass and vertical loads assigned to the perimeter frame.
Typo. Steel Grade Seismic Mass (Tonnes) Vertical Load (kN)

Floor Tributed to frame Ext. Node Int. Node Fb.conc Fc.ext Fc.int Flean col

1 S355 216.56 108.28 13.54 27.07 27.3 11.61 23.22 750.54

1 S235 218.91 109.46 13.68 27.36 27.57 11.7 23.41 759.18
2 S355 293.35 146.68 24.45 48.89 27.69 12.31 24.62 1007.60
2 S235 301.82 150.91 25.15 50.30 28.41 12.57 25.14 1038.49
3 S355 221.58 110.79 9.23 30.78 27.87 12.37 24.75 764.55
3 S235 221.59 110.80 9.23 30.78 27.87 12.37 24.75 764.55
4 S355 254.18 127.09 21.18 35.30 27.45 12.22 24.44 874.05
4 S235 256.74 128.37 21.40 35.66 27.7 12.31 24.62 883.40

Fig. 3. Summary of the tools used in the frame analysis and design.

The model naming convention used to label each frame is
[Typology]-[Storeys]-[Code Version]-[Ductility Class]-[Material
Grade]. For instance, “T1-6S-REV-DC2-S355” would represent a 6-sto­
rey frame of configuration/plan type 1 that uses material grade S355
– for all its members – that is designed to the revised code requirements
considering a DC2 situation.
3.2. Loading and analysis considerations
The loading values indicated in Table 5 have been used in the design
of all frame members. Following the load path to the perimeter frames,
the composite slab and secondary beams have been designed to arrive at
a reasonable estimate of the loadings on each frame typology.
The seismic mass coming from the tributary area, assigned to the
perimeter frame and the vertical loads on members of the perimeter
frame, therefore, show slight variations as the span configuration and
material grade are varied. It is to be noted that whenever a certain steel
grade is assumed, that steel grade was considered in the design of all
structural members – primary and secondary. In Table 6, Fb.conc is the
concentrated load transferred from the secondary gravity beams to the
beams of the perimeter MRF. Fc.ext and Fc.int indicate the vertical load
directly applied on the exterior and interior columns of the perimeter
MRF, respectively. The load on the leaning columns, on the other hand,
is represented by Flean.col .
A linear response spectrum analysis (RSA) is used in the seismic
analysis of the frames. All frames have been analysed and designed for a
peak ground acceleration of 0.35g and soil type “B” using the type 1
spectra indicated in EC8. Given the occupancy category of the buildings
(office), which lies under importance class II (CC2), an importance
factor of 1 was used. The effects of sway imperfections were accounted
for using a set of lateral forces. Second-order effects were directly
accounted for in the analysis by using a P-Delta coordinate trans­
formation. In all cases, enough modes were considered such that more
than 90% cumulative modal participation ratio is secured. As the natural
frequencies of the modes of the frames were all well separated, the SRSS
combination was applied.
3.3. Frame analysis and design using tools developed in python
The open-source framework OpenSees [35] has been used for the
analyses part of the tasks in this study. A python interpreter of the
framework – OpenSeesPy [36] – was used in tandem with an input file
generator which was implemented in Excel. Salvaging the tabular data
manipulation options in Excel, input files were generated from a small
set of input and preference entries through a versatile engine that makes
use of VBA. The output model-analysis definition file, which can readily
be edited manually when needed, contains the node, element, mass, and
load definition entries. Joint properties, node fixities, constraints, in­
teractions, material definitions, and spring properties are automatically
generated. The connectivity between elements at a node is built such
that refined joint models can be easily implemented. A summary of the
tools and procedures used for the analyses and design of the case study
frames is shown in Fig. 3.
An interface to collect and locally store the user inputs in memory is
devised such that multiple inputs can be read for batch analysis. Once
these inputs are imported, the model domain is constructed in Open­
SeesPy using a routine automatic procedure. Apart from the model
definitions, analysis options such as the solvers, constraint handlers,
equation numberers, algorithms and integrator choices are also im­
ported. A detailed explanation of the model definitions utilized in the
analyses is discussed in section 4.2. Accordingly, the intended analysis is
executed using these definitions and analysis results are exported for

8
M.S. Lemma et al.
Fig. 4. Design optimization process for a sub-category of frames.
further processing.
Given the lack of commercially available programs to handle design
to the revised EC8 [34], a separate design module was written in Python.
A linear response spectrum analysis was the preferred method of anal­
ysis implemented for all designs. Once design internal forces are ob­
tained from the RSA using modal combinations, the design actions for
the several load combinations are computed by using the principle of
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411
superposition. Two kinds of load combination rules are created, namely,
linear/addition and envelope type. Serviceability and ultimate limit
state load combinations are therefore easily generated. As the analysis
involved 2D frames, a load magnification factor to account for acci­
dental torsional effects is considered. Similarly, an additional load set is
calculated to represent the sway imperfections.
Checks on stability and drift limit requirements are performed
M.S. Lemma et al.
Fig. 5. Distribution of design over-strengths.
automatically after each analysis. Then design checks are made for axial
tension or compression, bending, shear, bending-shear interaction,
axial-bending interaction, lateral-torsional buckling, etc. Where
required, the local capacity design rule check is also made and the ratio
(ΣMc )/(1.3 ×ΣMb ) is reported. Any value greater than or equal to 1 is
deemed acceptable. If an additional plate is required to stiffen the col­
umn web, the required additional thickness is calculated.
Once a design is complete, a quick design summary that states the
most important design details is shown, and a design report is extracted
in text and tabular formats for easy access. Visual inspection of the
design is made by checking the member utilization ratios (UR) or
demand-to-capacity (D/C) ratios which are reported graphically via a
colour coded output either for a particular load case or for the envelope
of relevant load combinations. From here, a decision is made on whether
or not to repeat /further optimize/ the design.
3.4. Designs comparison
The frames are designed according to EN 1993 [53] and both the
current [1] and revised version of EC8 part 1–2 [34]. Joint dimensions
are disregarded, and simple centre-line modelling is used in the design
phase. Design checks are made for the stability and design resistance of
members in the perimeter moment-resisting frame (MRF). The actions of
the seismic gravity load, sway imperfection loads, the combined
response spectrum lateral loads, etc. were linearly combined to create
the load combinations. Furthermore, the accidental torsional effects
were considered utilizing an amplification factor δ of 1.3. For the
damage limit state, a 1% inter-storey drift limit was set considering
non-structural elements that are not attached to the frames. In addition,
a displacement reduction factor, ν = 0.5 for importance class II structure
10
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411
(current code) was assumed. The inter-storey drift limits at the signifi­
cant damage limit state were taken as 2.5% and 2.0% for the current and
revised code versions, respectively, as stipulated in the codes.
In the iterative process of design, a consistent approach composed of
five steps was devised in order to have a similar approach to all designs.
The stability requirement was given primal priority. The first check was
made on the inter-storey drift sensitivity index. Provided that the P-
Delta calculations were performed explicitly, all designs were intent on
arriving at the lightest possible frame, therefore the index was allowed
to near the limit. Then the damage limitation requirements are checked.
Once the above two checks are fulfilled, a check on the local hierarchy of
the capacity design at a joint is checked, where required by code. It is
worth mentioning that the local capacity design criteria were purpose­
fully disregarded for DC2 frames as allowed by the revised code. The
effects of this change will later be investigated in the nonlinear analysis.
After fulfilling the top three requirements, the utilization ratio of
members is checked, and trials are made to minimize the steel mass by
reducing section sizes.
Another aspect of the design has to do with the joint web panel. The
web panel at each joint is checked for its resistance for all load combi­
nations. Where required, an additional web stiffener plate is provided.
The mass of these stiffeners is included in the overall mass reported in
the following sections.
For each subgroup of the frames (based on the chosen plan typology
and number of storeys), reference designs are first made to both S355
and S235 material grades using the current code’s recommendations. As
can be seen from Fig. 4, once the reference design is defined, all other
solutions start from it. As such, a design check is initially made for all
subsequent frames in the subgroup using the member profiles from the
reference design. Then the individual design optimization is made
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Fig. 6. Mass comparison of frames designed to the two code versions.

Fig. 7. Base-Shear comparison for frames designed to the two code versions.

following the procedure indicated in Fig. 4. If a lighter solution is ob­
tained, that solution will once again be tried for the initial reference
design case. If the design passes in the reference design case, this design
replaces the reference case and design optimization is repeated for the
whole sub-category, i.e., typology-storey pair (e.g., T1_3S). The final
analysis and design details of the frames are presented in the annex.
3.4.1. Comparison based on code version
The revised code seems to have resolved issues with stability re­
quirements. 9 storey frames of both DCM & DCH designed to current
EC8 were largely (75%) governed by the stability requirement. The same
can be said about 6 storey frames designed for DCH. With the revised
code, however, stability requirements never governed. In fact, the
governing parameters were mostly DL and element resistance/utiliza­
tion ratios. For 3 storey frames, DL requirement has been the governing
design parameter in the current code as it was with the revised version.
In addition, it was noted that the design over-strength factor of two (Ω =
2) prescribed for use in DC2 frames in the revised code may be
considered reasonably on the conservative side for the majority of cases
(87.5%). As illustrated in Fig. 5, among the frames designed to the
revised code in DC2, the system design over-strength factor ranged be­
tween 1.32 and 2.17 and had a mean value of 1.67. It is also clear from
the figure that the higher the ductility class, the larger the average
design overstrength. Moreover, as one expects, the design over-strengths
are (1) higher for the frames designed with the higher steel grade S355,
(2) higher for frames with larger span width. The design over-strengths
are only minimally smaller in the revised code designs except for the
taller 9 storey frames where a notable reduction is observed.
The total masses of the frames including the additional mass of the
supplementary web stiffener plates were calculated after design (see

11
M.S. Lemma et al.
Fig. 8. Inter-storey drift sensitivity index reduction with the revised code.
Fig. 9. Frame Mass differences between medium and high ductility classes.
Fig. 6 and Table A 5). Although it varied between frame configurations,
frame mass reduction was seen in the majority of the cases with the use
of the revised code. For the regularly spaced medium span configura­
tion, T1, higher savings of up to 21.5% were registered in the 3 and 9
storey floors. On the other hand, T2, i.e., regularly spaced but longer
span frame, the mass variations were all below 3%. In the case of the
irregularly spanned configurations T3 and T4, higher material savings
were recorded in the 6 and 9 storey frames (amounting up to 16.5% and
11.7%, respectively). For the 3 storey frames, on the other hand, a
slightly increased mass (<4%) was registered in some of the cases.
Furthermore, the local hierarchy requirement (beam to column capacity
check) which was among the governing parameters in designs to the
current code, especially in T2 and T4 configurations where higher bay
spans were present, is no more the governing case while using the
revised code.
The design differences were more significant in the frames with
smaller bay widths. Comparing configuration types 1 and 2 alone, sig­
nificant material savings were achieved for the former configuration,
whose bay widths are 6 m in length. The designs to the revised code were
lighter, particularly in those designed to ductility class 3. In terms of
material strength, 30% higher savings were evident in frames designed
12
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411
with S355 steel than those designed with S235 steel. In configuration 2,
no significant saving on the mass of the frames was seen in using the
revised code – irrespective of steel grade and the number of storeys.
The new code produces substantially lower results for the inter-
storey drift sensitivity index. Fig. 8 shows that an average of 54.8%
reduction is observed in the magnitude of the index. Out of the 48
Frames designed for both codes, 22 designs made using the current code
were governed by the stability criteria (θ ≥ 0.3) related to the index. In
contrast, using the revised code none of the designs required revision/re-
design as a result of the stability requirement as the sensitivity index
computed was well below 0.3 for all cases.
The change in the behaviour factor value when designing for DCM
was evident in all cases. As shown in Fig. 7, the base shears calculated for
DCM of the current code were 11.5% higher than those designed for DC2
using the revised code. It was noted that the increasing base-shear effect
was progressively lowering as the number of storeys increased. Another
notable change is that higher utilization was possible for the dissipative
elements (beams) with the revised code. This in return reduces the
system over-strength factor which influences the design of the non-
dissipative elements (columns).
3.4.2. Comparison based on steel grades
The use of a lower steel grade generally resulted in higher mass in 3
storey frames. However, as the number of storeys increased, the mass
variation narrows down. In 6 storey frames, the variation is generally
minimal. For 9 storey frames, particularly those designed to DCH, these
differences narrow further to the point that lighter solutions were ach­
ieved using a lower steel grade. Therefore, in markets where the steel
price varies significantly as the steel grade increases, solutions with
lower steel grades may be of advantage.
3.4.3. Comparison based on ductility classes
Finally, a comparison was made between the design ductility classes
for each version of the code - setting the steel grade constant. Contrary to
the design philosophy, an increased steel mass was calculated in the
majority of the cases for frames designed for the higher ductility classes
(DCH and DC3) as compared to those designed for the lower ductility
classes (DCM and DC2). 3 storey frames, especially those that had
considered the use of S235 steel grade, achieved mass savings (as high as
9.6%) by opting for a higher ductility class. In any case, it can be
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Table 7 structure, and on the overall deformations of the structure, may gener­
Type of joint models according to EN 1993 1–8 [55]. ally be neglected, but where such effects are significant (such as in the
Global Analysis Classification of Joints case of semi-continuous joints) they should be taken into account. It
identifies three simplified joint models as simple, continuous, and
Elastic Nominally Rigid Semi-rigid
Pinned semi-continuous. Furthermore, it gives correlations for the joint
Rigid-Plastic Nominally Full-strength Partial strength modelling type depending on the joint classification and method of
Pinned global analysis where joints are classified in terms of their rigidity and
Elastic-Plastic Nominally Rigid and full- Semi-rigid and partial strength (see Table 7).
Pinned strength strength
Semi-rigid and full-
Ductile joints are crucial in seismic resistant steel structures due to
strength their role in absorbing and dissipating energy in addition to dampening
Rigid and partial vibrations. In line with this, the pre-normative research project
strength EQUALJOINTS [24–29] considered the use of semi-rigid connections in
Type of Joint Simple Continuous Semi-continuous
seismic conditions and an additional classification of joints termed
Model
“equal strength” was implemented. Equal strength joints range between
full and partial strength connections [24]. classifies joints based on
observed from Fig. 9 that when the ductility class was changed from DC2 strength of the connection as either weak, equal, or full strength, while
to DC3, the revised code showed a minimal increase as compared to the the web panel is classified as either weak, balanced, or strong.
current code. Haunched, extended stiffened & unstiffened joints and joints with
reduced beam sections were studied for pre-qualification in the project.
4. Structural modelling for non-linear analysis The extended stiffened end-plate joint typology (see Fig. 10) studied
under the EQUALJOINTS project has been considered in this paper. This
In a non-linear analysis, the mathematical model used in an elastic joint typology was again further classified based on the properties of the
analysis is extended to include the post-elastic behaviour of structural web-panel and its connections as extended stiffened end-plate joint with
elements. Two methods, i.e., nonlinear static pushover analysis and a strong web-panel and full-strength connection (E-S-SF), extended
nonlinear time-history dynamic analysis, are commonly used to evaluate stiffened end-plate joint with a strong web-panel and equal-strength
the structural performance of buildings in the non-linear range. In this connection (E-S-SE), and extended stiffened end-plate joint with a
paper, the behaviour of the parametric frames designed for both ver­ balanced web-panel and equal-strength connection (E-S-BE).
sions of EC8 is assessed using pushover analysis. In previous papers, the influence of the joint modelling technique on
Material and geometric nonlinearities are included in the models for seismic performance of CBFs & MRFs equipped with extended stiffened
non-linear analysis. For the frames studied, the material nonlinearity is joints were studied [20]. The web-panel of the first two joint typologies
modelled using a non-linear uniaxial material property to the fibres of
the beams and columns sections. Apart from this, non-linearities were
Table 8
introduced using such properties in the modelling of the joints. The
Properties of extended stiffened end-plate joints with balanced web-panels &
following section discusses the assumptions made in representing the equal-strength connection (E-S-BE) [24].
joints.
Geometry Strength Stiffness

Connection Panel Zone Connection Panel Zone

4.1. Behaviour of the beam-to-column joints
hrib Mnj,Rd External nodes: scon,ini External
= 0.35 = 37
hb Mepl,b,cf,Rd
= n
Vwp,Rd sb nodes:
In the point of assembly where a beam is connected to a column, the srib
⋅zwp
= swp,ini
= 0.45 1.0 Mepl,b,cf,Rd = 30
term “connection” refers to the physical component which mechanically hb sb
1.0
fastens the beam and the column, whilst the term “joint” refers to the zwp = hb +
Internal nodes: Internal
connection and the panel zone in the column web corresponding zone of 0.6hrib n
Vwp,Rd ⋅zwp nodes:
interaction between the connected members [54]. 2⋅Mepl,b,cf,Rd
= swp,ini
= 30
2⋅sb
Eurocode 3 part 1–8 [55] states that the effects of the behaviour of 1.0
the joints on the distribution of internal forces and moments within a

Fig. 10. Schematic illustration of an extended stiffened end-plate joint geometry [25].

13
M.S. Lemma et al.
Fig. 11. S235 & S355 material property models.
with strong web-panel were approximately modelled by using rigid el­
ements that do not permit deformations. On the other hand, those with
balanced web panels were modelled using the Krawinkler model which
allows relative deformation of the panel zone. Indeed, the results
showed that the latter model resulted in much more flexible models than
the former two. As a result, the current study is confined to assessing the
behaviour of frames equipped with extended stiffened joints with a
balanced panel zone and equal strength connection. The strength and
stiffness properties of the joints have been evaluated from the expres­
sions given in Table 8.
4.2. Modelling strategies
The frames are modelled using OpenSeesPy [36], a python inter­
preter for OpenSees. The following general modelling strategies are
implemented.
4.2.1. Material models for fibre sections
A material model mainly based on the Steel04 [56] model was
adopted to represent the uniaxial constitutive nonlinear material prop­
erty of steel in OpenSees. This uniaxial material is preferred over the
other material models (Steel01, Steel02, etc) for its improved modelling
accuracy in simulating experimental results. Both Steel02 and Steel4
material models permit accounting for kinematic hardening (based on
the Menegotto-Pinto model), and isotropic hardening. However, the
later model, in particular, includes a parameter to define the ultimate
strength thereby posing an advantage over the uncapped
Fig. 12. Joint representations assumed for joints with balanced web panels (ES-B-E): (a) Simple centreline model (b) Krawinkler model.
14
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411
strain-hardening in the other models. After the Steel04 model is defined,
the material softening branch beyond the peak was simulated by making
use of an elastic perfectly plastic gap material in parallel with the
steel04. The nominal monotonic uniaxial properties of the two steel
grades, the respective expected properties of which are used in this
paper, are presented in Fig. 11.
4.2.2. Beam and column elements
As recommended in Ref. [57], columns and beams are modelled with
force beam-column elements with fibre sections. The behaviour of the
section is a combined result of the state of each fibre in the section which
is assigned an area and the appropriate material property. For each
element, the cross-section is meshed into 150 fibres and at least two of
them across the thickness of the plate components (namely flanges and
the web). ‘Gauss-Lobatto’ and the uniformly spaced ‘Newton-Cotes’
beam integration methods with 5 integration points have been adopted
for each member to allow yielding at an intermediate point along the
element length. A P-Delta geometric coordinate transformation was
considered to account for second-order effects when performing a
transformation from the basic/local to the global coordinate system.
4.2.3. Leaning columns and masses
The gravity loads directly applied by the tributary area of loads
acting on the planar frame do not reflect the actual amount of vertical
force that would produce overall overturning effects. Hence, in order to
account for the influence given by the complement of vertical loads, a
leaning column is modelled. The leaning column is composed of pin-
ended stiff columns (elements cross-sectional area and moment of
inertia magnified by a factor of 103) and pin-ended (only translation
degree of freedom allowed) rigid truss element that connects it to the
rest of the structure. Moment releases at the ends of these elements are
achieved by using ‘zero-length’ link elements with a very small rota­
tional stiffness and locking the translation degree of freedom using the
multiple-point constraint “equalDOF”. Lumped masses are distributed in
the nodes of the frame structure representing the seismic mass of that
particular frame on each storey. The total mass was divided between the
nodes based on the tributary area.
4.2.4. Joint modelling
Two joint modelling approaches of different complexity were
considered. In the simple models, the structural elements (beams and
columns) are modelled from centreline-to-centreline of each intersecting
element. These models disregard the size of the panel zone and the joint
behaviour as shown in Fig. 10 (a). The refined models, on the other side,
take the dimensions of the web panel zone, and the web & connections
behaviour into consideration. This more detailed approach implements
M.S. Lemma et al.
Fig. 13. Trilinear Shear behaviour of Panel Zone modelled using two bi-linear springs.
Fig. 14. IMK deterioration model (a); IMK model validation (b).
the Krawinkler-Gupta model as shown in Fig. 12 (b). The whole panel
zone is first approximated by a set of rigid elements that make up the
web quadrilateral. The three ends of the rectangle formed are allowed
for free rotation while on one corner a tri-linear spring is used to model
the panel-zone behaviour. This allows for the geometric transformation
of the panel from a quadrilateral at right angles to a parallelogram after
deformation. Besides, the connections on either side of the joint are
modelled with springs that account for both strength and stiffness
deterioration.
4.2.5. Concentrated plasticity & Phenomenological models
Links/springs termed “zero-length elements” in OpenSees have been
used to model various behaviours of elements of the frame in a
concentrated plasticity approach. An appropriate displacement/
rotation-force/moment relation is first defined in a unique material,
and this property is assigned to a zero-length element, which connects
two coincident nodes, in the pertinent direction (node degree of
freedom). Springs with an assigned small rotational stiffness are used to
simulate element end moment releases of the leaning columns members.
In the refined models, where the panel zone and connections be­
haviours are modelled explicitly, two such springs have been employed:
(1) to represent the web-panel distortion, and (2) to represent the
connection stiffness and strength.
The Shear force – Shear distortion relationship depicting the
behaviour of panel zones is shown in Fig. 13. As this property is
modelled using moment-rotation relations using a spring at the corner of
the panel, the shear forces were multiplied by the web depth to properly
depict the strength and stiffness values of the panel. An initial assump­
tion is made on the value of the shear strain.
15
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411
fy
γ 1,y = √̅̅̅ and γ2,y = γp = 4γ1,y (11)
3G
The first bi-linear spring will be an elastic perfectly plastic one. An
initial slope of Ke1 and a final slope of 0 value is considered. The second
spring will also be bilinear, however, with an initial stiffness of Ke2 and a
final slope of 6% of the elastic stiffness Ke . The strength and stiffness
properties of the panels were estimated based on the values recom­
mended in the EQUALJOINTS project [31] (See Table 8).
( )
bc tcf2
Ke,1 = swp,ini 1 − (12)
zwp hc tw
M1,y = Ke,1 γ 1,y (13)
bc tcf2
Ke,2 = swp,ini (14)
zwp hc tw
M2,y = Ke,2 γ 2,y (15)
In OpenSees a parallel material wrapper, which sums the stresses/
forces of multiple uniaxial materials for the same strains/deformations,
is used to implement the strategy presented above. One Elastic-
Perfectly-Plastic material model, and the bi-linear material model
steel01 material, which can easily represent a bilinear material behav­
iour, were utilized. Steel01 constructs a uniaxial bilinear steel material
object with kinematic hardening and optional isotropic hardening.
However, the kinematic hardening ratio in steel01 is programmed as a
ratio of the initial stiffness therein. That is, the post-yield slope for the
material = α⋅E0 . To obtain the modified version of this slope (αmod )
which is to be used with the steel01 formulation, the following relation
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Table 9
Selected accelerograms details and scale factors.
ACC ID Earthquake Name Fault Mechanism PGA (m/s2) Scale factors

1 [134Y] Friuli thrust 2.14 1.93

2 [232Y] Montenegro thrust 0.54 7.59
3 [291Y] Campano Lucano normal 1.72 2.39
4 [413Y] Kalamata 6 [St.164] normal 2.91 1.42
5 [414X] Kalamata 11 [St.163] normal 2.35 1.75
6 [645Y] Umbria Marche normal 0.36 11.37
7 [6263Y] South Iceland strike-slip 5.02 0.82

4.2.6. Loading and analysis

Lateral loads with a modal pattern distribution were applied at
structural nodes and displacement-based analyses were conducted for
the pushover analyses. The lateral loads were incrementally increased
through displacement increment at a step size of 5 mm until a maximum
displacement is reached at the control node. In the dynamic analyses,
the frames are subjected to ground motion records at the base level at a
time step of 0.01s. Given the use of numerous zero-length elements
coupled with multi-point constraints, a ‘penalty’ type constraint handler
was preferred, particularly for the Krawinkler models. Additionally,
‘KrylovNewton’ and ‘Modified-Newton’ solver algorithms were found to
result in faster convergence of the numerical solution.

5. Performance assessment

5.1. Non-linear static analysis

Fig. 15. Scaled ground motions response spectra.
Fig. 16. Pushover curve bilinear approximation.
is formed.
αmod ⋅Ke,2 = α⋅Ke (16)
but Ke = Ke,1 + Ke,2 and α = 6%.
( )
0.06 ⋅ Ke,1 + Ke,2
αmod = (17)
Ke,2
The modified Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler (IMK) deterioration model
with bilinear hysteretic response was used to model the connections’
behaviours (see Fig. 14a). The predictive equations, which relate dete­
rioration modelling parameters with geometric and material properties
of steel components, developed by Lignos and Krawinkler [58] were
used with minor modifications in the strength calculations to adapt to
the EJ recommendations. Fig. 14b illustrates validation of the model to
experimental results on an extended stiffened joint connecting an IPE
360 beam.
Pushover analysis is a non-linear static analysis carried out under
conditions of constant gravity loads and monotonically increasing hor­
izontal loads. The primary result of a pushover analysis is a resis­
tance–displacement curve which expresses the relationship between the
roof displacement and the total base shear in the frame as the lateral
loads are incremented. Two lateral force distributions are recommended
by EN 1998–1 (1) a “uniform” pattern, based on mass proportional
lateral forces, regardless of elevation (uniform response acceleration);
(2) a “modal” pattern, where the lateral forces are proportional to the
fundamental mode of vibration weighted with the masses at each storey.
This distribution corresponds to lateral forces determined as in the
lateral force method. In general, the “uniform” pattern leads to larger
demand estimates at the lower storeys, while the “modal” pattern
overestimates the demand for the upper storeys [2].
It is noteworthy that pushover analyses with invariant load patterns
are often criticized for their shortcomings when used to assess the per­
formance of high-rise frames and frames with irregularities [59]. During
a seismic event, the vibration properties of frames are expected to
change as yielding occurs and inertia forces are redistributed. In view of
this, the usual procedure lacks the capability of predicting higher mode
effects in the post-elastic range which may be significant in such frames.
Multi-modal pushover analyses have been suggested in the literature as
a possible solution to mitigate these shortcomings. However, in light of
the objectives of the present paper, which features regular frames, these
effects were considered minimal. Consequently, the modal pattern,
which captures the fundamental mode of vibration of the frames in the
elastic range, has been considered. In the end, the results of these ana­
lyses are compared and verified against those from non-linear respon­
se-history analyses in section 5.4.
With the aim of doing a back-analysis for the behaviour factor of
each frame, pushover analyses were carried out on the designed frames
with particular attention given to the stages where (1) the design base-
shear is reached, (2) the first yielding is recorded in any of the elements,
(3) the inter-storey drift exceeds the maximum allowable, (4) the
maximum base resistance (base-shear) occurs, and (5) a significant
reduction/decline in resistance is registered. The distribution and pro­
gression of plastic hinge formations were also monitored.

16
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Fig. 17. Pushover Curves for the case study frames using the refined joint model.

17
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

that match the reference seismic action (10% probability of exceedance

in 50 years) were applied to the frame models multiplied by three in­
tensity measures, i.e., 0.584, 1.0, and 1.734, as obtained from equation
(18) to represent the three limit states of EN1998-3 [61], respectively.
The intensity measures for the DL limit state were computed for
frequent earthquakes with a 10% probability of exceedance in 10 years.
And those for the NC limit state correspond rare earthquakes of 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years. In other words, 95, 475, and 2475
years return periods were considered for the DL, SD, and NC limit states.
1
TLR − 3
IM = (18)
TL
Additionally, incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) [62] were per­
formed on a sub-batch of the frames to estimate the frames’ actual
behaviour factors from the more representative non-linear dynamic
Fig. 18. Behaviour factors obtained from pushover analyses on the case analyses. For this purpose, the intensity measures on the average spec­
study frames.
tral acceleration were linearly increased at a space of 0.25g until an
ultimate limit state which is assumed at an inter-storey drift > 4% is
5.2. Non-linear dynamic analysis reached. The method to estimate the behaviour factors of frames
through IDA is discussed in the following section.
In a non-linear dynamic analysis, the structural model is subjected to
a set of either recorded (natural) or artificial ground motions and the
response of the structure is monitored. To account for record-to-record
variability, which affects the assessment of the structure’s perfor­
mance, the Eurocode allows the use of seven accelerograms whose mean Table 11
fits the 5% damping code spectrum with a 10% maximum lower margin. Statistical summary and comparison of the behaviour factor components of
Accordingly, the seven scaled ground motion records shown in Table 9 frames designed to the current and revised versions of the EC8.
were systematically selected in this study from a database of European qΩ qμ qρ
strong motions using REXEL [60] to match the horizontal code spectrum
Cur. Rev. Cur. Rev. Cur. Rev.
for site class B and PGA of 0.35g. The spectra of the individual ground
motions and their mean which is compatible with the code requirements Minimum 1.34 1.34 1.33 1.39 1.04 1.00
Maximum 2.37 2.00 2.40 2.46 3.79 3.40
are shown in Fig. 15. Average 1.65 1.63 1.87 1.85 1.80 1.68
To access the performance of the frames at the damage limitation, Median 1.66 1.66 1.92 1.82 1.70 1.58
significant damage, and near collapse limit states, these accelerograms Stan. Dev. 0.20 0.16 0.34 0.34 0.58 0.56

Table 10
Statistical summary of the behaviour factors computed using simple and refined joint models.
qΩ qμ qρ q

Simple Refined Simple Refined Simple Refined Simple Refined

Minimum 1.47 1.34 1.81 1.33 1.0 1.0 4.23 2.97

Maximum 2.26 2.37 3.34 2.46 3.2 3.79 11.42 8.43
Average 1.75 1.64 2.49 1.86 1.67 1.74 7.00 5.10
Median 1.74 1.66 2.41 1.92 1.52 1.62 6.45 4.71
Stan. Dev. 0.16 0.18 0.47 0.34 0.7 0.54 1.80 1.31

Fig. 19. Behaviour factors of frames designed to both versions of EC8.

18
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Fig. 20. Behaviour factors of frames designed using S355 and S235 steel-grades.

Table 12
Statistical summary and comparison of the behaviour factors of frames designed using S235 and S355.
qΩ qμ 1.5⋅qΩ qμ qρ qΩ qμ qρ

S355 S235 S355 S235 S355 S235 S355 S235

Minimum 1.78 3.04 2.68 4.56 1.31 1.00 2.97 3.73

Maximum 4.33 4.59 6.49 6.88 3.79 2.48 7.40 8.43
Average 2.42 3.75 3.63 5.62 2.06 1.42 4.91 5.29
Median 2.38 3.59 3.56 5.39 1.94 1.33 4.44 4.86
Stan. Dev. 0.40 0.41 0.60 0.61 0.58 0.35 1.34 1.25

Table 13
Statistical summary and comparison of the behaviour factors of the frames per ductility class.
DC2 DCM DC3 DCH

1.5qΩ qμ qΩ qμ qρ 1.5qΩ qμ qΩ qμ qρ 1.5qΩ qμ qΩ qμ qρ 1.5qΩ qμ qΩ qμ qρ

Minimum 2.98 2.97 3.04 3.40 3.02 4.34 2.68 4.79

Maximum 6.88 5.14 6.50 5.55 6.53 8.03 6.85 8.43
Average 4.58 3.87 4.56 4.27 4.58 5.87 4.78 6.40
Median 4.42 3.85 4.49 4.26 4.46 5.56 4.56 6.42
Stan. Dev. 1.21 0.47 1.11 0.45 1.12 1.10 1.21 0.86

5.3. Behaviour factor estimation methodology from redundancy in the structure, individual member over-strengths,
energy dissipation capacity of the structure (ductility) and structural
In general, the total behaviour factor, q, could be considered to be damping [63–66]. A product of the individual factors that reflect on
composed of three components that account for reserve strength coming these components gives the overall behaviour factor.

19
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Fig. 21. Behaviour factors of frames designed to different ductility classes.

Fig. 22. q factors grouped per DC and different over-strength component considerations.

q = qΩ ⋅qρ ⋅qμ ⋅qξ (19) approximately evaluated as the ratio of the resistance at the effective
elastic limit, where global inelastic behaviour is assumed to initiate, and
The factor pertinent to damping qξ is typically assumed to have a unit
the resistance at the first occurrence of a local yielding in any of the
value as the same damping values are considered for elastic and inelastic
frame members.
analysis. Newmark [67] defines the over-strength factor can be

20
M.S. Lemma et al.
Fig. 23. Influence of over-strength component on the q factor for different steel grades, frame typologies and number of floors.
Vy
qΩ =
V1y
The ductility factor for steel structures with a fundamental period
larger than 0.5 s can be calculated from the ratio of the maximum
displacement, and the displacement at the effective yielding point on the
idealized bi-linear pushover curve.
Δu
qμ =
Δy
Different approaches are suggested by different codes and authors
[54,61,68–72] on the determination of these factors from a non-linear
static analysis. Some of the differences have to do with the code desig­
n/assessment philosophies adopted and the rest are related to the
idealization of the pushover curve to a bilinear or trilinear equivalent.
The current EC8 approach evaluates the behaviour factor as a product of
a basic value of the factor and an over-strength factor obtained from a
pushover.
q = q0 ⋅
αu
α1
On the other hand, the revised EC8 assumes the behaviour factor, q,
is given as a product of three components that account for over-strength
due to redundancy (qR ), the deformation/dissipation capacity (qD ), and
over-strength due to all other sources (qS ) which it assumes to have a
value of 1.5.
q = qR ⋅qS ⋅qD
For the determination of the parameters that define the behaviour
factor, the pushover capacity curves were idealized into their bilinear
equivalent as shown in Fig. 16. The knee point of the idealized bilinear
curve stands at the intersection point of the initial tangent slope of the
capacity curve and a horizontal line at the level of the resistance where
the ultimate limit state is reached. It is evident from equations (19) and
(23) that the two are analogous when a unit value of qξ is considered and
V1y
qs ≌ qρ = Vd
. Accordingly, equation (24) is used to estimate the
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411
behaviour factors from non-linear static analyses in this paper.
(20)
Vy Δu V1y
q = qΩ ⋅qμ ⋅qρ ⋅qξ = ⋅ ⋅ (24)
V1y Δy Vd
Alternatively, the factor is estimated for a sub-set of the frames
through a mixed approach (25) that involves both non-linear incre­
mental dynamic analyses and pushover analyses. On one hand, the over-
strength component of the factor is estimated from a pushover analysis
(21)
as a ratio between the base shear at the first yield of members and the
design base shear. The components representing redundancy and
ductility, on the other hand, are taken from an incremental dynamic
analysis (IDA) as a ratio of the peak ground acceleration corresponding
to the ultimate limit state, and that of the peak ground acceleration
corresponding to the first yielding of any of the frame members.
PGAu V1y
q= ⋅ (25)
PGA1y Vd
The ultimate limit state has been defined as the least acceleration
(22) amplitude where either (1) the columns have buckled, or (2) the
maximum inter-storey drift (4%) has been exceeded, or (3) the inelastic
deformation capacities of structural members is exceeded and mecha­
nisms form.
5.4. Numerical results discussion
(23) A comparison between the fundamental periods of the frames ob­
tained from models that use the two joint model methods shows that the
frames with refined joint models, where the joint strength and stiffness
were accounted for, were considerably more flexible than their coun­
terparts simply modelled assuming total fixity and disregarding the node
dimensions. Considering all models of the 4 typologies and the 3 frame
heights, an average of a 17.7% increase in the fundamental period was
observed. The minimum increase was noted to be 13.4% whereas the
maximum was 21.3%. In general, the variation with respect to neither
the code revisions nor the steel grade and the ductility class changes was
21
M.S. Lemma et al.
Fig. 24. IDA curves for typology 1 frames.
significant enough to be highlighted.
Fig. 17 shows the pushover curves for all of the case study frames,
grouped by the number of storeys, for the four plan configurations.
These results are extracted from analyses considering the refined joint
models which will be treated as the principal results as they are the most
approximate to reality.
Despite the initial assumption, and irrespective of the joint model
type considered, the behaviour factors computed from the pushover
results all lie below the behaviour factors used in the designs. As can be
seen from Fig. 18, higher values of the behaviour factor were obtained
for the frames analysed with the stiffer simplified centreline model as
compared to those analysed using the refined modelling technique. A
brief statistical summary of the results is presented in Table 10. The
average behaviour factors calculated are 7 and 5.1 for the simple and
refined modes, respectively. As expected, a major difference is noted in
the ductility component of the behaviour factors for the two modelling
techniques.
22
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411
A comparison between the design code versions is illustrated in
Fig. 19. Indeed, the revised code addresses multiple concerns. And there
were considerable differences in the size and mass of the designed
frames. However, the pushover results appear to yield practically
identical behaviour factors with both versions of the code. Observing the
average values of the components in Table 11, one can see there were no
significant differences. When individual results were considered, the
revised code resulted in an average 8.7% reduction in the total behav­
iour factor.
Interestingly, when compared to the higher steel grade S355, the
frames designed with the lower grade steel S235 demonstrate improved
dissipative capacity (see Fig. 20). As shown in Table 12, a 55% average
increase in the behaviour factor (mainly attributable to the increased
ductility factor) resulted when S235 was used instead of S355. The in­
crease is consistent regardless of the design code version and the number
of storeys in a particular frame.
Note that this is the case if only the redundancy and ductility com
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Table 14 demonstrated in Fig. 23a where the implications of the parameters

Comparison of q estimates from NSA and IDA. varied in design (steel grades, frame typologies and building heights) are
Frame NSA IDA NSA IDA NSA NSA Mixed comparatively assessed for both the current (C) and Revised (R) codes.
qρ At first glance, the different frame typologies also seem to have a sig­
qΩ qμ Au 1.5qΩ qμ Au qΩ qμ qρ Au
A1y
1.5
A1y A1y
qρ nificant effect without apparent patterns while the number of storeys in
T1 3S DC2 the frames showed only a minor impact on the q-factor. However, an
2.03 2.00 3.04 3.00 1.83 3.72 3.67
S355 assessment considering the actual over-strength (Fig. 23b) shows that
T1 3S DC2 3.50 5.16 5.25 7.74 1.25 4.36 6.43 the total behaviour factor for the two material grades doesn’t vary by a
S235
T1 3S DC3 2.03 2.00 3.04 3.00 3.40 6.90 6.81
large margin. Such an assessment also exposes distinct patterns when
S355 sub-grouping and averaging the results according to the frame
T1 3S DC3 3.35 3.41 5.02 5.12 2.22 7.42 7.56 typologies.
S235 Typologies T1 and T3 have 24 m total widths while T2 and T4 have
T1 6S DC2 1.99 2.19 2.98 3.29 1.68 3.33 3.67
32 m and 28 m total widths respectively. In all three comparison criteria
S355
T1 6S DC2 3.40 5.05 5.10 7.58 1.14 3.86 5.73 explored, i.e., code version, material grade, and ductility class, Fig. 23b
S235 suggests for the same number of bays the behaviour factors decreased as
T1 6S DC3 2.20 3.67 3.30 5.51 2.72 5.98 9.98 the bay width increased. Regarding the number of storeys, except for a
S355 slight increase in the low-rise (3S) frames, no marked differences are
T1 6S DC3 3.43 5.53 5.14 8.30 1.80 6.15 9.93
S235
visible between the remaining 6 & 9 storey medium-rise frames.
T1 9S DC2 2.05 3.11 3.07 4.67 1.45 2.97 4.51 Nevertheless, the gap seen between q-factors for frames of the two
S355 material grades is reduced significantly as a result of the over-strengths
T1 9S DC2 3.14 4.57 4.71 6.86 1.19 3.73 5.42 considered. In addition to being lighter, the observations above indicate
S235
frames designed to the revised code have equally robust dissipative
T1 9S DC3 2.30 2.54 3.44 3.81 2.07 4.75 5.26
S355 capacities. The non-linear dynamic analyses results are assessed in the
T1 9S DC3 3.40 5.96 5.11 8.94 1.45 4.93 8.64 following section to gain further insight into the performance of these
S235 frames.
In order to verify the accuracy of the behaviour factors obtained from
the non-linear static analyses, an additional set of incremental dynamic
ponents were considered or if they are magnified by a constant qs = 1.5
analyses were performed on a subset of the frames designed. The per­
as stipulated by the revised code. A closer examination of the distribu­
formances of frames designed to both versions of the code were practi­
tion of the components of the behaviour factor (Fig. 20) reveals that
cally similar in the NSA. Therefore, the frames selected for analysis with
although the ductility component is higher for the S235 frames, the
the more time and resource-demanding IDA are composed of 12 frames
over-strength component is noticeably higher for the S355 frames –
of typology T1 designed to the revised code. Variations of ductility
again regardless of the code version. Similar findings that suggest the
classes, material strengths and building heights are maintained within
sensitivity of the over-strength component to the material grade of the
this subset to enable comparisons similar to those performed for the NSA
beams are reported for the current code in Ref. [73]. In the end, when
results. The outputs of the incremental dynamic analyses have been
the influence of over-strength is included in the product, it is seen that
presented in Fig. 24.
the difference in the total behaviour factor narrows to an average of 8%.
As discussed in section 5.3, a mixed approach (eq-25) is adopted in
Similarly comparing the results in terms of the ductility class
the estimation of the q-factor where the factors that reflect on the
considered in the design phase, it can be observed from Table 13 that
redundancy and ductility of the frames (AA1yu ) are extracted from IDA and
despite their presumed larger design behaviour factor, the DCH and DC3
V1y
frames displayed only marginally higher mean behaviour factors rela­ the over-strength component qρ = Vd is taken from the NSA.
tive to their DCM and DC2 counterparts when a constant over-strength A summary of the IDA results is provided in Table 14 along with the
factor is considered. This would imply that despite the design goal, q-factor estimates using both NSA and IDA approaches. It is evident from
frames designed to the higher and lower ductility classes in both the the table that the IDA approach resulted in higher values of the behav­
current and revised code can end up in resulting nearly identical q iour factor. The difference between the two approaches is generally
factors, i.e., if the variability of over-strength component is disregarded. minimal (12%) for the 3 storey frames. By contrast, around 45% increase
As illustrated in Fig. 21, the over-strength of the higher ductility class is seen for the 6 and 9 storey frames. Once again, the frames designed
frames was markedly higher (48%) than those of DCM and DC2 frames. with S235 steel show higher dissipative capacity compared to their S355
This is due to the higher design over-strengths obtained for the high counterparts. The relevance of the over-strength factor chosen (constant
ductility frames (see Fig. 5). In turn, this reflects on the total mean or calculated) is also notable when comparing frames of different
behaviour factor where a 50.6% difference in the average value is ductility classes and material grades. In any case, the considerable de­
observed. viations from the design behaviour factors qd (3.5 for DC2 and 6.5 for
In summary, when the revised code approach is used, three-quarters DC3) are still apparent. The q-factors computed using the mixed
of the frames designed to DC2 have q factors higher than 3.5 and almost approach are higher than the upper bound design values given by the
all the frames designed to DC3 have q less than 6.5. In any case, the code for all the frames. This indicates that the designed frames actually
design rule differences in between ductility classes are proven to affect retain bigger overstrength and ductility than assumed at the design
the frames’ behaviours such that the influence of over-strength cannot stage. In this regard, the improved seismic design procedure [12,14] that
be disregarded. As evident from Fig. 22, the q-factor differences between rearranged the design steps such that the behaviour factors are first
the medium and high ductility classes are only pronounced, as is the computed based on the actual properties of the structures and their
initial design assumption, when non-constant over-strength factors that seismic inputs may be recommended for consideration. Such a consid­
reflect the actual structural properties are employed. Here it is observed eration might help in achieving an actual behaviour factor with close
that the mean q values are closer to those assumed in design qd = 3.5 for alignment to the design value which has been reported to enable
DC2 frames and qd = 6.5 for DC3 frames. considerable cost reduction while maintaining sufficient safety levels
Moreover, maintaining the revised codes approach, where a constant [74,75].
qs = 1.5 is used, one would find frames with S235 steel having roughly Another important assessment is a check on the performance of the
50% higher behaviour factors relative to those using S355 steel. This is case study frames at the DL, SD, and NC limit states. The frames were

23
M.S. Lemma et al.
Fig. 25. Maximum ISDRs for 3, 6 & 9 storey frames of typology 1.
subjected to the suite of accelerograms reported in section 5.2 at three
intensity measures representing the three limit states. The resulting
maximum inter-storey drifts are plotted floor by floor for the 3, 6 & 9
storey frames designed to the two code versions in Fig. 25. The same
plots, particularly those of the taller frames, have been represented in
Fig. 26 with distinct colour codes such that comparisons can be made
between the ductility classes and material grades.
It can be said that the drift ratio limits used in the design phase 1%
(DL), 2.5% (SD Current code), and 2% (SD Revised code) are generally
fulfilled. The ISDRs computed at the NC limit state are also well below
the 4% limit. The attempt to reduce the steel mass in one of the frames,
namely T1-6S-REV-DC2-S355, has resulted in a drift profile where
higher drifts occurred in the last two floors differently from the other
frames which had their maximums between floors 3 and 4. Nonetheless,
the performance of this frame too is within the mentioned bounds.
Two of the 3 storey frames had ISDRs slightly higher than those used
in design at the DL limit state. Yet their performance at the SD and NC
limit states were all within the permissible limits. Furthermore, as can be
seen in Fig. 26, the performance of the frames designed to the two
ductility classes and two material grades are practically identically with
24
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411
only a minor reduction in the drifts at the lower storeys for DCH/3, and
S235 frames. In conclusion, the relatively lighter frames designed to the
revised code have essentially the same performance in terms of inter-
storey drifts.
6. Limitations
This work aimed at investigating the significance of the new specific
rules for the seismic design of steel moment-resisting frames in the
revised EC8. Several case study frames were designed, and their per­
formances were assessed through non-linear analyses. Whilst interesting
findings were made through the process, it is worth mentioning that
there are certain limitations to the study. As the focus was rested on the
specific design rules for MRFs, one common seismic spectrum from the
current code was used throughout this paper. The influence of normative
changes on the design spectrum needs further investigation. Similarly,
member and section design of the structural elements followed the
current code recommendations in EN1993. As such, some changes that
are reflected throughout the new generation of the Eurocodes, if any, are
not considered.
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Fig. 26. Maximum ISDRs for the 6 & 9 storey frames of typology 1 – grouped by ductility class and material grade.

7. Conclusions code through non-linear analyses.

This paper is aimed at two objectives: (1) investigating the signifi­
cance of the normative changes made on the current version of the
Eurocode 8 part 1–2 on the design steel moment-resisting frames; and
(2) assessing the performance of frames designed to both versions of the
In view of the first objective, a critical assessment of the proposed
changes to the design code was made. A brief introduction of the
changes pertinent to steel moment-resisting frames in the revised EC8
was first presented. Case study frame designs were then made where the
effects of the code revision on the design of SMRFs were investigated.

25
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

The results of the parametric study led to the following conclusions:
(1) The new formulation of the inter-storey drift sensitivity index θ
included in the revised version of the code has resolved the need
to utilize excessively heavy sections to meet the stability
requirement. For instance, 9 storey frames of both DCM & DCH
designed to the current code were largely (75%) governed by the
stability requirement. With the revised code, however, stability
requirements were never the governing case. An average of
54.8% reduction has been observed in the magnitude of the drift
sensitivity index.
(2) It was noted that the design over-strength factor of two (Ω = 2)
prescribed for use in DC2 frames in the revised code may be
considered reasonably on the conservative side for the majority of
cases (87.5%).
(3) Frame mass reduction was possible in many cases with the use of
the revised code. For the regularly spaced medium span config­
uration T1, for instance, higher savings of up to 21.5% were
registered in the 3 and 9 storey frames.
(4) The use of a lower steel grade generally resulted in higher mass in
3 storey frames. However, as the number of storeys increased, the
mass variation narrows down. In 6 storey frames, the variation is
generally minimal. For 9 storey frames, particularly those
designed to DCH & DC3, these differences narrow further down
to the point that lighter solutions were achieved using a lower
steel grade.
(5) Finally, a comparison was made between the design classes for
each version of the code setting the steel grade constant. Contrary
to the design philosophy/intent, in almost all cases (except for the
3 storey frames), an increased steel mass was calculated for
frames designed for DCH and DC3 as compared to those designed
for DCM and DC2. 3 storey frames, especially those that had
considered the use of S235 steel grade, achieved mass savings as
high as 9.6% by opting for a higher ductility class. In any case, it
was observed that when the ductility class was changed from DC2
to DC3, the revised code showed a minimal increase in mass as
compared to the current code.
their counterparts simply modelled assuming total fixity and
disregarding the node dimensions. An average of a 17.7% in­
crease in the fundamental period was observed.
(2) The behaviour factors assumed in the design of the frames are
different from the actual behaviour factors estimated from the
non-linear analyses by a significant margin irrespective of the
code version. When the constant over-strength factor given in the
revised code is used, practically identical behaviour factors are
calculated for the medium and high ductility classes. In the ma­
jority of the cases, the q-factors were higher than the upper-limit
assumed in design for DC2 while almost all were below the upper-
limit q-value for DC3. A consideration of the actual overstrength
generally resulted in overall q values higher than the code sug­
gested upper limits. This consideration enabled finding distinctly
larger q-factors for the high ductility frames as assumed at the
design phase.
(3) Frames designed with the lower steel grade (S235) had a 43%
higher ductility on average when compared to those designed
with the higher steel grade S355. However, the overstrength in
frames of S355 steel grade compensated for the lower ductility. In
the end, S235 frames had higher q-factors but only with a smaller
margin of 8%.
(4) As evident from the NLTH analyses results, the relatively lighter
frames designed to the revised code have essentially the same
performance as those designed to the current code in terms of
inter-storey drifts. The frames demonstrated adequate drift levels
in the damage-limitation, significant damage, and near-collapse
limit states.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Melaku Seyoum Lemma: Investigation, Numerical modelling,
OpenSees implementation, Programming the analysis, design & visual­
ization tools, Methodology, Formal Analysis and Discussion of results,
Writing - Original Draft. Carlos Rebelo: Supervision, Conceptualiza­
tion, Methodology, Writing - Review and Editing. Luís Simões da Silva:
Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing - Review & Editing.

To accomplish the second aim, the performances of the para­

metrically devised case study frames were evaluated through non-linear
static and dynamic analyses. Two joint modelling techniques of differing
complexity (simple and refined joint models) were considered for the
analyses. The joint modelling was facilitated by the use of pre-qualified
joint properties of ES-B-E (extended-stiffened end-plate joint with a
balanced panel zone and equal strength connections) developed in the
EQUALJOINTS project. The main findings from the analyses indicate
that:
(1) The frames with refined models that included the joint strength
and stiffness properties were considerably more flexible than
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
The first author gratefully acknowledges the financial support pro­
vided by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT)
through the doctoral grant 2020.07414.BD. This work was partly
financed through the Regional Operational Program CENTRO2020
within the scope of the project “SUSpENsE - Sustainable built Environ­
ment under Natural Hazards and Extreme Events (CENTRO-01-0145-
FEDER-000006)”.

Annex A: Frame Analysis & Design Details

Table A 1
Design Sections for Frames of Typology 1

Name Beams Exterior Columns Interior Columns

T1_3S_CUR_DCM_S355 IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 270; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 360 B; HE 320 B;
T1_3S_CUR_DCM_S235 IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 300; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T1_3S_CUR_DCH_S355 IPE 360; IPE 330; IPE 270; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 360 M; HE 340 M; HE 340 B;
T1_3S_CUR_DCH_S235 IPE A 330; IPE A 330; IPE 300; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 340 M; HE 340 M; HE 340 B;
T1_3S_REV_DC2_S355 IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 270; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 360 B; HE 320 B;
T1_3S_REV_DC2_S235 IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 300; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 360 B; HE 360 B;
(continued on next page)

26
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Table A 1 (continued )
Name Beams Exterior Columns Interior Columns

T1_3S_REV_DC3_S355 IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 270; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 360 B; HE 320 B;
T1_3S_REV_DC3_S235 IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 300; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 360 B; HE 360 B;

T1_6S_CUR_DCM_S355 IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 360 M; HE 360
360; IPE 360; HE 260 B; M; HE 360 M;
T1_6S_CUR_DCM_S235 IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 360 M; HE 360
360; IPE 360; HE 260 B; M; HE 360 M;
T1_6S_CUR_DCH_S355 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 360 M; HE 360 M; HE 320
360; IPE 360; HE 280 B; M; HE 320 M;
T1_6S_CUR_DCH_S235 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 360 M; HE 360
360; IPE 360; HE 260 B; M; HE 360 M;
T1_6S_REV_DC2_S355 IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 360 M; HE 360
300; IPE 300; HE 280 B; M; HE 360 M;
T1_6S_REV_DC2_S235 IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 360 M; HE 360
360; IPE 360; HE 260 B; M; HE 360 M;
T1_6S_REV_DC3_S355 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 260 B; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 360 M; HE 360 M; HE 320
360; IPE 360; HE 260 B; M; HE 320 M;
T1_6S_REV_DC3_S235 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 260 B; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 360 M; HE 360 M; HE 320
360; IPE 360; HE 260 B; M; HE 320 M;

T1_9S_CUR_DCM_S355 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 400; IPE HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400
400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; HE 280 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
T1_9S_CUR_DCM_S235 IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 450; IPE HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400
450; IPE 450; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; HE 300 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
T1_9S_CUR_DCH_S355 IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 500; IPE HE 320 M; HE 320 M; HE 320 M; HE 280 M; HE 280 HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 450 M; HE 450
500; IPE 500; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; M; HE 280 M; HE 240 M; HE 240 M; HE 240 M; M; HE 450 M; HE 360 M; HE 360 M; HE 360 M;
T1_9S_CUR_DCH_S235 IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 500; IPE HE 340 M; HE 340 M; HE 340 M; HE 300 M; HE 300 HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400
500; IPE 500; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; M; HE 300 M; HE 260 M; HE 260 M; HE 260 M; M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
T1_9S_REV_DC2_S355 IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400
400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; HE 280 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
T1_9S_REV_DC2_S235 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE HE 360 B; HE 360 B; HE 360 B; HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 360 M; HE 360 M; HE 360 M; HE 340 M; HE 340
450; IPE 450; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; HE 320 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; M; HE 340 M; HE 340 M; HE 340 M; HE 340 M;
T1_9S_REV_DC3_S355 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE HE 320 M; HE 320 M; HE 320 M; HE 280 M; HE 280 HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 450 M; HE 450
450; IPE 450; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; M; HE 280 M; HE 240 M; HE 240 M; HE 240 M; M; HE 450 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
T1_9S_REV_DC3_S235 IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 450; IPE HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400
450; IPE 450; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; HE 300 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
Notes.
1. The profiles displayed in these tables represent the profiles used for the beams/columns in each floor beginning from the first floor to the last floor.
2. A single row of profile data is presented where the same beam profile is used in all bays of the frame. In some cases where different beam sections are used for the
external and internal bays, (edge) signifies the profiles used in the exterior most bays while (int) signifies those used in the interior bays.

Table A 2
Design Sections for Frames of Typology 2

Name Beams Exterior Columns Interior Columns

T2_3S_CUR_DCM_S355 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 360; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T2_3S_CUR_DCM_S235 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 400; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 400 B;
T2_3S_CUR_DCH_S355 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 360; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T2_3S_CUR_DCH_S235 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 400; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T2_3S_REV_DC2_S355 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 360; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T2_3S_REV_DC2_S235 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 400; (Edge) IPE 500; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 400 B;
IPE 500; IPE 400; (Int)
T2_3S_REV_DC3_S355 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 360; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T2_3S_REV_DC3_S235 IPE 450; IPE 400; IPE 400; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 400 B;

T2_6S_CUR_DCM_S355 IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 400; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE
IPE 400; HE 300 B; 400 B; HE 400 B;
T2_6S_CUR_DCM_S235 IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 450; HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 300 B; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE
IPE 450; HE 300 B; 400 B; HE 400 B;
T2_6S_CUR_DCH_S355 IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 400; HE 360 B; HE 360 B; HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 300 B; HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE
IPE 400; HE 300 B; 400 B; HE 400 B;
T2_6S_CUR_DCH_S235 IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 400; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 360 B; HE 360 B; HE 300 B; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE
IPE 400; HE 300 B; 400 B; HE 400 B;
T2_6S_REV_DC2_S355 IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 400; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE
IPE 400; HE 300 B; 400 B; HE 400 B;
T2_6S_REV_DC2_S235 IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 450; HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 300 B; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE
IPE 450; HE 300 B; 400 B; HE 400 B;
T2_6S_REV_DC3_S355 IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 400; HE 360 B; HE 360 B; HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 300 B; HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE
IPE 400; HE 300 B; 400 B; HE 400 B;
T2_6S_REV_DC3_S235 IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 450; HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 300 B; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE
IPE 450; HE 300 B; 400 B; HE 400 B;

T2_9S_CUR_DCM_S355 IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 550; IPE 550; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 450 M; HE
IPE 550; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
(continued on next page)

27
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Table A 2 (continued )
Name Beams Exterior Columns Interior Columns

T2_9S_CUR_DCM_S235 IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 600;
IPE 600; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500;
T2_9S_CUR_DCH_S355 IPE O 600; IPE O 600; IPE O 600; IPE 550;
IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450;
T2_9S_CUR_DCH_S235 IPE O 600; IPE O 600; IPE O 600; IPE 550;
IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450;
T2_9S_REV_DC2_S355 IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550;
IPE 550; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450;
T2_9S_REV_DC2_S235 IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 600;
IPE 600; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500;
T2_9S_REV_DC3_S355 IPE O 600; IPE O 600; IPE O 600; IPE 550;
IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450;
T2_9S_REV_DC3_S235 IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 600;
IPE 600; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450;
HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
HE 400 B; HE 360 B; HE 360 B; HE 360 B;
HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 450 B;
HE 450 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
HE 300 M; HE 300 M; HE 300 M; HE 300 M; HE
300 M; HE 300 M; HE 260 M; HE 260 M; HE 260 M;
HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
HE 400 B; HE 360 B; HE 360 B; HE 360 B;
HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
HE 400 B; HE 360 B; HE 360 B; HE 360 B;
HE 300 M; HE 300 M; HE 300 M; HE 300 M; HE
300 M; HE 300 M; HE 260 M; HE 260 M; HE 260 M;
HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 450 M; HE
450 M; HE 450 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
HE 550 M; HE 550 M; HE 550 M; HE 500 M; HE
500 M; HE 500 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
HE 550 M; HE 550 M; HE 550 M; HE 500 M; HE
500 M; HE 500 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 450 M; HE
450 M; HE 450 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 450 M; HE
450 M; HE 450 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
HE 550 M; HE 550 M; HE 550 M; HE 500 M; HE
500 M; HE 500 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 400 M;
HE 600 M; HE 600 M; HE 600 M; HE 500 M; HE
500 M; HE 500 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 450 M;

Table A 3
Design Sections for Frames of Typology 3

Name Beams Exterior Columns Interior Columns

T3_3S_CUR_DCM_S355 IPE 300; IPE 300; IPE 300; (Edge) IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; (Int) HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_3S_CUR_DCM_S235 IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; (Edge) IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; (Int) HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_3S_CUR_DCH_S355 IPE 300; IPE 300; IPE 300; (Edge) IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; (Int) HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_3S_CUR_DCH_S235 IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; (Edge) IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Int) HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_3S_REV_DC2_S355 IPE 300; IPE 300; IPE 300; (Edge) IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Int) HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_3S_REV_DC2_S235 IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Edge) IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; (Int) HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_3S_REV_DC3_S355 IPE 300; IPE 300; IPE 300; (Edge) IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; (Int) HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_3S_REV_DC3_S235 IPE 300; IPE 300; IPE 300; (Edge) IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Int) HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;

T3_6S_CUR_DCM_S355 IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; (Edge) IPE HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400
450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Int) B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_6S_CUR_DCM_S235 IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Edge) IPE HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400
450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Int) B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_6S_CUR_DCH_S355 IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; (Edge) IPE HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 300 B; HE 300 HE 450 M; HE 450 M; HE 400 M; HE
500; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Int) B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; 400 M; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_6S_CUR_DCH_S235 IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Edge) IPE HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 HE 400 M; HE 400 M; HE 360 M; HE
500; IPE 500; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Int) B; HE 360 B; HE 360 B; 360 M; HE 360 B; HE 360 B;
T3_6S_REV_DC2_S355 IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; (Edge) IPE HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400
450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Int) B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_6S_REV_DC2_S235 IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Edge) IPE HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400
500; IPE 500; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Int) B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_6S_REV_DC3_S355 IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; IPE 330; (Edge) IPE HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 450
500; IPE 500; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Int) B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
T3_6S_REV_DC3_S235 IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Edge) IPE HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 450 B; HE 450
500; IPE 500; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 360; IPE 360; (Int) B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;

T3_9S_CUR_DCM_S355 IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 330; IPE
330; IPE 330; (Edge) IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500;
IPE 500; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; (Int)
T3_9S_CUR_DCM_S235 IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 330; IPE
330; IPE 330; (Edge) IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550;
IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; (Int)
T3_9S_CUR_DCH_S355 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE
360; IPE 360; (Edge) IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 550; IPE 550;
IPE 550; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; (Int)
T3_9S_CUR_DCH_S235 IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE
360; IPE 360; (Edge) IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 600; IPE 550; IPE 550;
IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; (Int)
T3_9S_REV_DC2_S355 IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 330; IPE
330; IPE 330; (Edge) IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500;
IPE 500; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; (Int)
T3_9S_REV_DC2_S235 IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 330; IPE
330; IPE 330; (Edge) IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550;
IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; (Int)
T3_9S_REV_DC3_S355 IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 330; IPE
330; IPE 330; (Edge) IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 500; IPE 500;
IPE 500; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; (Int)
T3_9S_REV_DC3_S235 IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 400; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 360; IPE 330; IPE
330; IPE 330; (Edge) IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550;
IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; (Int)
HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 240
B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE
240 B; HE 240 B;
HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 240
B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE
240 B; HE 240 B;
HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 300
B; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 280 B; HE
280 B; HE 280 B;
HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 320 B; HE 300
B; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 280 B; HE
280 B; HE 280 B;
HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 240
B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE
240 B; HE 240 B;
HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 240
B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE 240 B; HE
240 B; HE 240 B;
HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 300 B; HE 280
B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 260 B; HE
260 B; HE 260 B;
HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 280 B; HE 260
B; HE 260 B; HE 260 B; HE 240 B; HE
240 B; HE 240 B;
HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 450
B; HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 400 B; HE
400 B; HE 400 B;
HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 500
B; HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 400 B; HE
400 B; HE 400 B;
HE 600 B; HE 600 B; HE 600 B; HE 550
B; HE 550 B; HE 550 B; HE 450 B; HE
450 B; HE 450 B;
HE 600 B; HE 600 B; HE 600 B; HE 550
B; HE 550 B; HE 550 B; HE 400 B; HE
400 B; HE 400 B;
HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 450
B; HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 400 B; HE
400 B; HE 400 B;
HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 500
B; HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 400 B; HE
400 B; HE 400 B;
HE 550 B; HE 550 B; HE 550 B; HE 500
B; HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 400 B; HE
400 B; HE 400 B;
HE 550 B; HE 550 B; HE 550 B; HE 500
B; HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 400 B; HE
400 B;HE 400 B;

28
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Table A 4
Design Sections for Frames of Typology 4

Name Beams Exterior Columns Interior Columns

T4_3S_CUR_DCM_S355 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 330; (Edge) IPE 330;IPE 330;IPE 330; (Int) HE 280 B;HE 280 B;HE 260 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;HE 320 B;
T4_3S_CUR_DCM_S235 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 360; (Edge) IPE 330;IPE 330;IPE 330; (Int) HE 280 B;HE 280 B;HE 260 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;HE 320 B;
T4_3S_CUR_DCH_S355 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 330; (Edge) IPE 330;IPE 330;IPE 330; (Int) HE 280 B;HE 280 B;HE 260 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;HE 320 B;
T4_3S_CUR_DCH_S235 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 360; (Edge) IPE 330;IPE 330;IPE 330; (Int) HE 280 B;HE 280 B;HE 260 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;HE 320 B;
T4_3S_REV_DC2_S355 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 330; (Edge) IPE 330;IPE 330;IPE 330; (Int) HE 280 B;HE 280 B;HE 260 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;HE 320 B;
T4_3S_REV_DC2_S235 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 360; (Edge) IPE 360;IPE 360;IPE 330; (Int) HE 280 B;HE 280 B;HE 260 B; HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 320 B;
T4_3S_REV_DC3_S355 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 330; (Edge) IPE 330;IPE 330;IPE 330; (Int) HE 280 B;HE 280 B;HE 260 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;HE 320 B;
T4_3S_REV_DC3_S235 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 360; (Edge) IPE 330;IPE 330;IPE 330; (Int) HE 300 B;HE 300 B;HE 260 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;HE 320 B;

T4_6S_CUR_DCM_S355 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 400;IPE 400; (Edge) IPE HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B; HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;
450;IPE 450;IPE 400;IPE 400;IPE 360;IPE 360; (Int) HE 360 B;HE 360 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;
T4_6S_CUR_DCM_S235 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 400;IPE 400; (Edge) IPE HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B; HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;
450;IPE 450;IPE 400;IPE 400;IPE 360;IPE 360; (Int) HE 360 B;HE 360 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;
T4_6S_CUR_DCH_S355 IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 400;IPE 400; (Edge) IPE HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B; HE 500 B;HE 500 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;
450;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 360;IPE 360; (Int) HE 360 B;HE 360 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;
T4_6S_CUR_DCH_S235 IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 400;IPE 400; (Edge) IPE HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B; HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;
500;IPE 500;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 360;IPE 360; (Int) HE 360 B;HE 360 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;
T4_6S_REV_DC2_S355 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 360;IPE 360; (Edge) IPE HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B; HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;
450;IPE 450;IPE 400;IPE 400;IPE 360;IPE 360; (Int) HE 360 B;HE 360 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;
T4_6S_REV_DC2_S235 IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 400;IPE 400; (Edge) IPE HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B; HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;
500;IPE 500;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 360;IPE 360; (Int) HE 360 B;HE 360 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;
T4_6S_REV_DC3_S355 IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 400;IPE 400; (Edge) IPE HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B; HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;
450;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 360;IPE 360; (Int) HE 360 B;HE 360 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;
T4_6S_REV_DC3_S235 IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 400;IPE 400; (Edge) IPE HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B; HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;
500;IPE 500;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 360;IPE 360; (Int) HE 360 B;HE 360 B; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;

T4_9S_CUR_DCM_S355 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 400;IPE 400;IPE 400;IPE 360;IPE HE 300 B;HE 300 B;HE 300 B;HE 280 B; HE 550 B;HE 550 B;HE 550 B;HE 450 B;
360;IPE 360; (Edge) IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE HE 280 B;HE 280 B;HE 260 B;HE 260 B; HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B;
500;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 450; (Int) HE 260 B; HE 400 B;
T4_9S_CUR_DCM_S235 IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE 400;IPE HE 360 B;HE 360 B;HE 360 B;HE 340 B; HE 550 B;HE 550 B;HE 550 B;HE 450 B;
400;IPE 400; HE 340 B;HE 340 B;HE 320 B;HE 320 B; HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B;
HE 320 B; HE 400 B;
T4_9S_CUR_DCH_S355 IPE 600;IPE 600;IPE 600;IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 450;IPE HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 400 B; HE 450 M;HE 450 M;HE 450 M;HE 400
450;IPE 450; (Edge) IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 360 B;HE 360 B; M;HE 400 M;HE 400 M;HE 400 B;HE
500;IPE 360;IPE 360;IPE 360; (Int) HE 360 B; 400 B;HE 400 B;
T4_9S_CUR_DCH_S235 IPE 600;IPE 600;IPE 600;IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 450;IPE HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B;HE 360 B; HE 600 B;HE 600 B;HE 600 B;HE 550 B;
450;IPE 450; HE 360 B;HE 360 B;HE 320 B;HE 320 B; HE 550 B;HE 550 B;HE 450 B;HE 450 B;
HE 320 B; HE 450 B;
T4_9S_REV_DC2_S355 IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 400;IPE 400;IPE 400;IPE 360;IPE HE 300 B;HE 300 B;HE 300 B;HE 280 B; HE 550 B;HE 550 B;HE 550 B;HE 450 B;
360;IPE 360; (Edge) IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE HE 280 B;HE 280 B;HE 260 B;HE 260 B; HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B;
500;IPE 450;IPE 450;IPE 450; (Int) HE 260 B; HE 400 B;
T4_9S_REV_DC2_S235 IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE 450;IPE HE 360 B;HE 360 B;HE 360 B;HE 340 B; HE 550 B;HE 550 B;HE 550 B;HE 450 B;
450;IPE 450; HE 340 B;HE 340 B;HE 320 B;HE 320 B; HE 450 B;HE 450 B;HE 400 B;HE 400 B;
HE 320 B; HE 400 B;
T4_9S_REV_DC3_S355 IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 550;IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE 500;IPE 360;IPE HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 400 HE 550 B; HE 550 B; HE 550 B; HE 450 B;
360;IPE 360; (Edge) IPE 550;IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 500; IPE 500; B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 360 B; HE HE 450 B; HE 450 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B;
IPE 500; IPE 450; IPE 450; IPE 450; (Int) 360 B; HE 360 B; HE 400 B;
T4_9S_REV_DC3_S235 IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 550; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 500; IPE 400; IPE HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 400 B; HE 340 HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 500 M; HE 500
400; IPE 400; B; HE 340 B; HE 340 B; HE 320 B; HE B; HE 500 B; HE 500 B; HE 450 B; HE
320 B; HE 320 B; 450 B; HE 450 B;

29
 Table A 5

M.S. Lemma et al.

Frames’ Analysis and Design Details

Frame T1 Vb θmax ISDRDL URBeam URCol BCMin Frame Mass Stiffner Mass Frame Mass Tr. Area Fr. Mass Mass Governing requirement
Designation Length /Area /Length

s kN – – – – – Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes m2 m kg/m2 kg/m

T1_3S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.07 342.9 0.158 1.0% 0.736 0.533 1.607 9.42 0.06 9.48 864.0 124.5 10.97 76.14 DL
T1_3S_CUR_DCM_S235 0.96 387.8 0.126 0.8% 0.830 0.732 1.263 10.38 0.06 10.44 864.0 124.5 12.08 83.86 DL
T1_3S_CUR_DCH_S355 0.96 230.1 0.203 0.9% 0.572 0.323 1.547 12.00 0.10 12.11 864.0 124.5 14.01 97.25 DL
T1_3S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.03 221.7 0.239 0.9% 0.752 0.390 2.242 11.65 0.06 11.70 864.0 124.5 13.54 94.00 DL
T1_3S_REV_DC2_S355 1.07 391.9 0.074 1.0% 0.810 0.383 1.606 9.42 0.00 9.42 864.0 124.5 10.91 75.68 DL
T1_3S_REV_DC2_S235 0.98 434.6 0.054 0.9% 0.898 0.567 1.086 10.11 0.01 10.12 864.0 124.5 11.71 81.30 DL
T1_3S_REV_DC3_S355 1.07 211.0 0.089 1.0% 0.562 0.472 1.663 9.42 0.09 9.52 864.0 124.5 11.01 76.44 DL
T1_3S_REV_DC3_S235 1.05 218.4 0.091 1.0% 0.675 0.694 1.426 9.73 0.06 9.78 864.0 124.5 11.32 78.58 DL

T1_6S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.66 461.5 0.227 1.0% 0.680 0.539 1.186 28.73 0.11 28.84 1728.0 249.0 16.69 115.83 DL
T1_6S_CUR_DCM_S235 1.67 464.1 0.229 1.0% 0.894 0.624 1.171 28.73 0.11 28.84 1728.0 249.0 16.69 115.83 DL
T1_6S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.51 383.7 0.284 1.0% 0.520 0.491 1.441 30.25 0.05 30.30 1728.0 249.0 17.53 121.69 ST; DL
T1_6S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.52 388.7 0.290 1.0% 0.695 0.564 1.202 30.00 0.04 30.04 1728.0 249.0 17.38 120.63 ST; DL
T1_6S_REV_DC2_S355 1.75 501.5 0.107 1.0% 0.790 0.424 1.421 28.21 0.10 28.32 1728.0 249.0 16.39 113.73 DL
T1_6S_REV_DC2_S235 1.66 532.5 0.091 1.0% 0.987 0.628 1.024 28.87 0.09 28.96 1728.0 249.0 16.76 116.32 DL; UR
T1_6S_REV_DC3_S355 1.53 383.2 0.095 1.0% 0.528 0.534 1.251 29.80 0.06 29.86 1728.0 249.0 17.28 119.91 DL
T1_6S_REV_DC3_S235 1.54 387.0 0.110 1.0% 0.698 0.692 1.066 29.80 0.06 29.86 1728.0 249.0 17.28 119.91 DL; B/C

T1_9S_CUR_DCM_S355 2.30 584.2 0.280 1.0% 0.798 0.542 1.212 45.24 0.40 45.64 2592.0 373.5 17.61 122.21 ST; DL
T1_9S_CUR_DCM_S235 2.05 597.2 0.223 0.8% 0.831 0.718 1.129 47.65 0.06 47.70 2592.0 373.5 18.40 127.71 DL
T1_9S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.73 555.3 0.249 0.7% 0.463 0.529 1.422 56.01 0.27 56.28 2592.0 373.5 21.71 150.69 ST
T1_9S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.80 561.1 0.278 0.8% 0.705 0.549 1.220 56.28 0.10 56.38 2592.0 373.5 21.75 150.95 ST
T1_9S_REV_DC2_S355 2.45 596.5 0.166 1.0% 0.919 0.576 1.211 44.43 0.52 44.95 2592.0 373.5 17.34 120.34 DL; UR
T1_9S_REV_DC2_S235 2.21 607.6 0.115 0.8% 0.958 0.796 1.136 46.60 0.43 47.02 2592.0 373.5 18.14 125.90 UR
30

T1_9S_REV_DC3_S355 2.05 553.6 0.159 1.0% 0.668 0.482 1.881 52.55 0.41 52.96 2592.0 373.5 20.43 141.80 DL
T1_9S_REV_DC3_S235 2.05 558.0 0.155 1.0% 0.817 0.872 1.007 47.86 0.19 48.05 2592.0 373.5 18.54 128.64 DL; B/C

T2_3S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.10 616.1 0.123 1.0% 0.765 0.730 1.105 13.84 0.22 14.06 1152.0 148.5 12.21 94.70 DL
T2_3S_CUR_DCM_S235 1.05 656.8 0.115 0.9% 0.952 0.847 1.102 14.47 0.28 14.75 1152.0 148.5 12.80 99.31 DL; UR
T2_3S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.10 379.1 0.200 1.0% 0.602 0.576 1.106 13.84 0.36 14.20 1152.0 148.5 12.33 95.65 DL
T2_3S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.10 391.0 0.204 1.0% 0.696 0.761 1.103 14.13 0.28 14.41 1152.0 148.5 12.51 97.05 DL
T2_3S_REV_DC2_S355 1.10 704.1 0.057 1.0% 0.845 0.516 1.104 13.84 0.30 14.14 1152.0 148.5 12.27 95.20 DL
T2_3S_REV_DC2_S235 1.00 784.9 0.041 0.9% 0.970 0.734 0.871 14.89 0.28 15.17 1152.0 148.5 13.17 102.13 UR
T2_3S_REV_DC3_S355 1.10 379.1 0.074 1.0% 0.602 0.624 1.151 13.84 0.27 14.10 1152.0 148.5 12.24 94.98 DL
T2_3S_REV_DC3_S235 1.10 387.7 0.084 1.0% 0.775 0.782 1.000 14.11 0.28 14.39 1152.0 148.5 12.49 96.88 DL; B/C

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

T2_6S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.81 749.4 0.204 1.0% 0.802 0.547 1.031 35.07 0.76 35.83 2304.0 297.0 15.55 120.64 DL; UR; B/C
T2_6S_CUR_DCM_S235 1.70 821.9 0.171 0.9% 0.923 0.702 1.033 37.25 0.51 37.75 2304.0 297.0 16.39 127.11 DL; UR; B/C
T2_6S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.68 666.9 0.259 1.0% 0.693 0.489 1.058 36.68 0.72 37.40 2304.0 297.0 16.23 125.94 ST; DL; B/C
T2_6S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.64 685.8 0.233 1.0% 0.880 0.579 1.023 37.95 0.43 38.38 2304.0 297.0 16.66 129.24 DL; B/C
T2_6S_REV_DC2_S355 1.81 856.4 0.095 1.0% 0.886 0.520 1.024 35.07 0.65 35.72 2304.0 297.0 15.50 120.28 DL; B/C
T2_6S_REV_DC2_S235 1.63 972.2 0.067 0.9% 0.957 0.757 0.808 38.23 0.51 38.73 2304.0 297.0 16.81 130.41 DL; UR
T2_6S_REV_DC3_S355 1.68 666.9 0.111 1.0% 0.693 0.529 1.091 36.68 0.59 37.27 2304.0 297.0 16.18 125.50 DL; B/C
T2_6S_REV_DC3_S235 1.63 697.2 0.102 1.0% 0.812 0.817 1.014 38.27 0.43 38.70 2304.0 297.0 16.80 130.31 DL; B/C

T2_9S_CUR_DCM_S355 2.23 1050.0 0.201 0.9% 0.782 0.672 1.086 63.96 0.86 64.81 3456.0 445.5 18.75 145.48 DL; B/C
T2_9S_CUR_DCM_S235 2.14 1094.0 0.206 0.8% 0.929 0.861 1.028 66.48 1.40 67.88 3456.0 445.5 19.64 152.36 UR; B/C
T2_9S_CUR_DCH_S355 2.09 973.6 0.272 1.0% 0.736 0.603 1.030 68.17 1.46 69.63 3456.0 445.5 20.15 156.31 ST; DL; B/C
T2_9S_CUR_DCH_S235 2.13 1000.1 0.283 1.0% 0.948 0.649 1.025 71.34 0.79 72.14 3456.0 445.5 20.87 161.92 ST; DL; UR; B/C
T2_9S_REV_DC2_S355 2.35 1073.0 0.113 0.9% 0.903 0.647 1.312 62.42 0.86 63.28 3456.0 445.5 18.31 142.03 DL; UR
T2_9S_REV_DC2_S235 2.14 1118.7 0.083 0.8% 0.935 0.914 0.861 66.48 1.35 67.82 3456.0 445.5 19.62 152.24 UR
T2_9S_REV_DC3_S355 2.10 971.2 0.127 1.0% 0.746 0.642 1.000 67.56 1.46 69.03 3456.0 445.5 19.97 154.94 DL; B/C
T2_9S_REV_DC3_S235 2.09 1021.4 0.137 1.0% 0.889 0.909 1.021 70.25 1.04 71.29 3456.0 445.5 20.63 160.02 DL; UR; B/C

(continued on next page)

 Table A 5 (continued )
Frame T1 Vb ISDRDL URBeam URCol BCMin Frame Mass Stiffner Mass Frame Mass Tr. Area Fr. Mass Mass Governing requirement

M.S. Lemma et al.

θmax
Designation Length /Area /Length

s kN – – – – – Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes m2 m kg/m2 kg/m

T3_3S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.06 358.1 0.159 1.0% 0.964 0.462 2.058 10.00 0.05 10.05 864.0 124.5 11.63 80.71 DL; UR
T3_3S_CUR_DCM_S235 0.93 410.0 0.122 0.8% 0.914 0.717 1.516 10.99 0.03 11.02 864.0 124.5 12.75 88.51 UR
T3_3S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.06 220.4 0.258 1.0% 0.752 0.372 2.059 10.00 0.12 10.12 864.0 124.5 11.71 81.29 ST; DL
T3_3S_CUR_DCH_S235 0.97 240.0 0.218 0.9% 0.783 0.534 1.603 10.55 0.05 10.60 864.0 124.5 12.27 85.13 DL
T3_3S_REV_DC2_S355 1.01 428.3 0.068 0.9% 0.917 0.427 1.949 10.38 0.07 10.45 864.0 124.5 12.10 83.95 DL; UR
T3_3S_REV_DC2_S235 0.89 486.4 0.045 0.7% 0.965 0.634 1.077 11.18 0.03 11.21 864.0 124.5 12.98 90.05 UR
T3_3S_REV_DC3_S355 1.06 220.4 0.120 1.0% 0.752 0.403 2.096 10.00 0.09 10.09 864.0 124.5 11.68 81.07 DL
T3_3S_REV_DC3_S235 1.01 230.7 0.100 0.9% 0.798 0.638 1.697 10.38 0.03 10.41 864.0 124.5 12.05 83.62 DL

T3_6S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.82 430.2 0.287 1.0% 0.795 0.605 1.160 22.41 0.25 22.66 1728.0 249.0 13.11 91.01 ST; DL
T3_6S_CUR_DCM_S235 1.75 445.8 0.268 1.0% 0.949 0.755 1.149 22.79 0.26 23.05 1728.0 249.0 13.34 92.59 ST; DL; UR
T3_6S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.52 388.8 0.298 0.9% 0.637 0.406 1.233 29.00 0.36 29.36 1728.0 249.0 16.99 117.90 ST; DL
T3_6S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.52 391.0 0.291 1.0% 0.752 0.510 1.384 29.89 0.26 30.15 1728.0 249.0 17.45 121.07 ST; DL
T3_6S_REV_DC2_S355 1.82 491.6 0.134 1.0% 0.878 0.581 1.160 22.41 0.06 22.47 1728.0 249.0 13.00 90.25 DL
T3_6S_REV_DC2_S235 1.68 529.5 0.094 1.0% 0.963 0.781 0.768 23.35 0.07 23.42 1728.0 249.0 13.56 94.08 DL; UR
T3_6S_REV_DC3_S355 1.64 388.1 0.137 1.0% 0.666 0.564 1.130 24.24 0.31 24.55 1728.0 249.0 14.21 98.58 DL
T3_6S_REV_DC3_S235 1.57 388.7 0.129 1.0% 0.786 0.748 1.063 24.97 0.26 25.23 1728.0 249.0 14.60 101.31 DL; B/C

T3_9S_CUR_DCM_S355 2.24 597.6 0.277 1.0% 0.806 0.637 1.009 38.67 0.77 39.43 2592.0 373.5 15.21 105.58 ST; DL; B/C
T3_9S_CUR_DCM_S235 2.15 600.4 0.260 0.8% 0.923 0.793 1.034 39.87 0.73 40.59 2592.0 373.5 15.66 108.68 ST; UR; B/C
T3_9S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.86 564.9 0.291 0.8% 0.586 0.652 1.047 45.11 0.85 45.97 2592.0 373.5 17.73 123.07 ST; B/C
T3_9S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.90 558.8 0.293 0.8% 0.810 0.646 1.039 44.32 0.73 45.05 2592.0 373.5 17.38 120.61 ST; B/C
T3_9S_REV_DC2_S355 2.33 610.6 0.147 0.9% 0.904 0.663 1.009 37.96 0.90 38.86 2592.0 373.5 14.99 104.05 DL; UR
T3_9S_REV_DC2_S235 2.15 616.4 0.105 0.8% 0.937 0.878 0.877 39.87 0.93 40.80 2592.0 373.5 15.74 109.23 UR
T3_9S_REV_DC3_S355 2.12 560.4 0.181 1.0% 0.755 0.584 1.138 40.92 0.85 41.78 2592.0 373.5 16.12 111.85 DL
T3_9S_REV_DC3_S235 2.10 561.8 0.175 1.0% 0.880 0.862 1.043 40.79 0.85 41.63 2592.0 373.5 16.06 111.47 DL; B/C

T4_3S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.11 462.8 0.141 1.0% 0.805 0.622 1.017 11.45 0.10 11.55 1008.0 136.5 11.45 84.59 DL; B/C
31

T4_3S_CUR_DCM_S235 1.11 468.8 0.142 1.0% 0.926 0.814 1.016 11.57 0.11 11.69 1008.0 136.5 11.59 85.61 DL; UR; B/C
T4_3S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.11 284.8 0.230 1.0% 0.691 0.459 1.018 11.45 0.12 11.56 1008.0 136.5 11.47 84.72 DL; B/C
T4_3S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.11 288.5 0.231 1.0% 0.698 0.675 1.016 11.57 0.11 11.69 1008.0 136.5 11.59 85.61 DL; B/C
T4_3S_REV_DC2_S355 1.11 529.0 0.066 1.0% 0.861 0.479 1.017 11.45 0.11 11.56 1008.0 136.5 11.47 84.67 DL
T4_3S_REV_DC2_S235 1.03 565.9 0.049 0.9% 0.955 0.650 0.875 12.04 0.11 12.15 1008.0 136.5 12.05 89.02 DL; UR
T4_3S_REV_DC3_S355 1.11 284.8 0.098 1.0% 0.691 0.496 1.059 11.45 0.11 11.56 1008.0 136.5 11.47 84.67 DL; B/C
T4_3S_REV_DC3_S235 1.09 291.6 0.083 1.0% 0.701 0.810 1.015 11.77 0.11 11.88 1008.0 136.5 11.79 87.05 DL; B/C

T4_6S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.78 583.8 0.221 1.0% 0.774 0.579 1.361 28.40 0.34 28.74 2016.0 273.0 14.26 105.28 DL
T4_6S_CUR_DCM_S235 1.79 586.9 0.223 1.0% 0.962 0.702 1.359 28.40 0.27 28.68 2016.0 273.0 14.22 105.04 DL; UR
T4_6S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.64 512.8 0.292 1.0% 0.649 0.526 1.203 29.65 0.35 30.01 2016.0 273.0 14.88 109.91 ST; DL

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

T4_6S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.65 521.6 0.293 1.0% 0.797 0.715 1.098 29.41 0.22 29.63 2016.0 273.0 14.70 108.54 ST; DL; B/C
T4_6S_REV_DC2_S355 1.79 660.8 0.103 1.0% 0.863 0.498 1.361 28.11 0.35 28.46 2016.0 273.0 14.12 104.26 DL
T4_6S_REV_DC2_S235 1.65 721.0 0.073 0.9% 0.967 0.722 0.943 29.41 0.25 29.65 2016.0 273.0 14.71 108.62 DL; UR
T4_6S_REV_DC3_S355 1.67 515.8 0.124 1.0% 0.654 0.603 1.206 29.32 0.22 29.54 2016.0 273.0 14.65 108.20 DL
T4_6S_REV_DC3_S235 1.64 519.8 0.120 1.0% 0.795 0.839 1.010 29.63 0.22 29.85 2016.0 273.0 14.81 109.36 DL; B/C

T4_9S_CUR_DCM_S355 2.39 785.4 0.270 1.0% 0.894 0.690 1.010 42.63 0.93 43.56 3024.0 409.5 14.40 106.37 ST; DL; B/C
T4_9S_CUR_DCM_S235 2.20 798.8 0.220 0.9% 0.954 0.805 1.004 47.09 1.11 48.21 3024.0 409.5 15.94 117.72 DL; UR; B/C
T4_9S_CUR_DCH_S355 2.03 743.8 0.293 0.9% 0.667 0.613 1.086 54.87 1.35 56.21 3024.0 409.5 18.59 137.27 ST; DL; B/C
T4_9S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.89 761.9 0.261 0.8% 0.707 0.888 0.999 52.91 0.95 53.86 3024.0 409.5 17.81 131.53 ST; B/C
T4_9S_REV_DC2_S355 2.39 806.6 0.126 1.0% 0.896 0.705 1.010 42.63 1.60 44.23 3024.0 409.5 14.63 108.02 DL
T4_9S_REV_DC2_S235 2.17 829.7 0.088 0.9% 0.893 0.834 0.864 48.04 0.89 48.94 3024.0 409.5 16.18 119.50 UR
T4_9S_REV_DC3_S355 2.14 741.2 0.163 1.0% 0.765 0.650 1.013 48.42 1.22 49.64 3024.0 409.5 16.42 121.22 DL; B/C
T4_9S_REV_DC3_S235 2.13 747.5 0.155 1.0% 0.886 0.805 1.053 50.61 0.98 51.59 3024.0 409.5 17.06 125.99 DL; B/C

Notes.
1.ST = Stability Requirement.
2.DL = Damage Limitation Requirement.
3.UR = Utilization Ratio (member/section capacity).
4.B/C = Local hierarchy criteria requirement.
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

Annex B: Analysis Summaries

Table B 1
Eigen Analysis Results Summary

Model Name Period, T Simple Period, T ΔT Model Name Period, T Simple Period, T ΔT
KR KR

S s % s s %

01 T1_3S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.07 1.25 17.1% 49 T3_3S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.06 1.22 15.0%

02 T1_3S_CUR_DCM_S235 0.96 1.12 16.8% 50 T3_3S_CUR_DCM_S235 0.93 1.06 14.1%
03 T1_3S_CUR_DCH_S355 0.96 1.12 16.8% 51 T3_3S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.06 1.22 15.0%
04 T1_3S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.03 1.19 15.9% 52 T3_3S_CUR_DCH_S235 0.97 1.12 14.7%
05 T1_3S_REV_DC2_S355 1.07 1.25 17.1% 53 T3_3S_REV_DC2_S355 1.01 1.17 15.1%
06 T1_3S_REV_DC2_S235 0.98 1.14 16.5% 54 T3_3S_REV_DC2_S235 0.89 1.01 13.4%
07 T1_3S_REV_DC3_S355 1.07 1.25 17.1% 55 T3_3S_REV_DC3_S355 1.06 1.22 15.0%
08 T1_3S_REV_DC3_S235 1.05 1.23 16.6% 56 T3_3S_REV_DC3_S235 1.01 1.17 15.2%

09 T1_6S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.66 1.98 19.5% 57 T3_6S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.82 2.14 17.8%

10 T1_6S_CUR_DCM_S235 1.67 1.99 19.4% 58 T3_6S_CUR_DCM_S235 1.75 2.06 17.3%
11 T1_6S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.51 1.81 19.9% 59 T3_6S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.52 1.79 18.0%
12 T1_6S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.52 1.82 19.5% 60 T3_6S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.52 1.79 18.3%
13 T1_6S_REV_DC2_S355 1.75 2.12 21.3% 61 T3_6S_REV_DC2_S355 1.82 2.14 17.8%
14 T1_6S_REV_DC2_S235 1.66 1.98 19.4% 62 T3_6S_REV_DC2_S235 1.68 1.97 17.0%
15 T1_6S_REV_DC3_S355 1.53 1.82 19.3% 63 T3_6S_REV_DC3_S355 1.64 1.93 18.0%
16 T1_6S_REV_DC3_S235 1.54 1.83 19.4% 64 T3_6S_REV_DC3_S235 1.57 1.83 17.0%

17 T1_9S_CUR_DCM_S355 2.30 2.78 21.1% 65 T3_9S_CUR_DCM_S355 2.24 2.62 17.0%

18 T1_9S_CUR_DCM_S235 2.05 2.46 19.8% 66 T3_9S_CUR_DCM_S235 2.15 2.52 16.9%
19 T1_9S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.73 2.04 18.1% 67 T3_9S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.86 2.15 15.6%
20 T1_9S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.80 2.14 18.7% 68 T3_9S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.90 2.19 15.2%
21 T1_9S_REV_DC2_S355 2.45 2.97 21.1% 69 T3_9S_REV_DC2_S355 2.33 2.73 17.2%
22 T1_9S_REV_DC2_S235 2.21 2.66 20.4% 70 T3_9S_REV_DC2_S235 2.15 2.52 16.9%
23 T1_9S_REV_DC3_S355 2.05 2.46 20.0% 71 T3_9S_REV_DC3_S355 2.12 2.49 17.3%
24 T1_9S_REV_DC3_S235 2.05 2.46 19.8% 72 T3_9S_REV_DC3_S235 2.10 2.46 17.3%
25 T2_3S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.10 1.28 16.6% 73 T4_3S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.11 1.29 16.1%
26 T2_3S_CUR_DCM_S235 1.05 1.22 15.7% 74 T4_3S_CUR_DCM_S235 1.11 1.28 15.8%
27 T2_3S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.10 1.28 16.6% 75 T4_3S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.11 1.29 16.1%
28 T2_3S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.10 1.28 15.8% 76 T4_3S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.11 1.28 15.8%
29 T2_3S_REV_DC2_S355 1.10 1.28 16.6% 77 T4_3S_REV_DC2_S355 1.11 1.29 16.1%
30 T2_3S_REV_DC2_S235 0.96 1.10 15.2% 78 T4_3S_REV_DC2_S235 1.03 1.19 15.6%
31 T2_3S_REV_DC3_S355 1.10 1.28 16.6% 79 T4_3S_REV_DC3_S355 1.11 1.29 16.1%
32 T2_3S_REV_DC3_S235 1.10 1.28 16.2% 80 T4_3S_REV_DC3_S235 1.09 1.26 15.9%

33 T2_6S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.81 2.16 19.5% 81 T4_6S_CUR_DCM_S355 1.78 2.12 19.3%

34 T2_6S_CUR_DCM_S235 1.70 2.02 19.1% 82 T4_6S_CUR_DCM_S235 1.79 2.13 19.1%
35 T2_6S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.68 2.01 19.4% 83 T4_6S_CUR_DCH_S355 1.64 1.95 18.8%
36 T2_6S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.64 1.95 19.4% 84 T4_6S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.65 1.97 19.2%
37 T2_6S_REV_DC2_S355 1.81 2.16 19.5% 85 T4_6S_REV_DC2_S355 1.79 2.14 19.7%
38 T2_6S_REV_DC2_S235 1.63 1.92 17.9% 86 T4_6S_REV_DC2_S235 1.65 1.97 19.2%
39 T2_6S_REV_DC3_S355 1.68 2.01 19.4% 87 T4_6S_REV_DC3_S355 1.67 1.98 18.9%
40 T2_6S_REV_DC3_S235 1.63 1.93 18.5% 88 T4_6S_REV_DC3_S235 1.64 1.94 18.7%

41 T2_9S_CUR_DCM_S355 2.23 2.66 19.4% 89 T4_9S_CUR_DCM_S355 2.39 2.80 17.1%

42 T2_9S_CUR_DCM_S235 2.14 2.52 17.8% 90 T4_9S_CUR_DCM_S235 2.20 2.60 18.1%
43 T2_9S_CUR_DCH_S355 2.09 2.49 19.4% 91 T4_9S_CUR_DCH_S355 2.03 2.40 18.3%
44 T2_9S_CUR_DCH_S235 2.13 2.49 16.6% 92 T4_9S_CUR_DCH_S235 1.89 2.20 16.2%
45 T2_9S_REV_DC2_S355 2.35 2.81 20.0% 93 T4_9S_REV_DC2_S355 2.39 2.80 17.1%
46 T2_9S_REV_DC2_S235 2.14 2.52 17.8% 94 T4_9S_REV_DC2_S235 2.17 2.54 17.4%
47 T2_9S_REV_DC3_S355 2.10 2.51 19.4% 95 T4_9S_REV_DC3_S355 2.14 2.53 18.2%
48 T2_9S_REV_DC3_S235 2.09 2.49 18.8% 96 T4_9S_REV_DC3_S235 2.13 2.51 18.2%

Model Naming convention Note:

Model Name = [Typology]-[Storeys]-[Code Version]-[Ductility Class]-[Material Grade]. For example, “T1-6S-REV-DC2-S355” would represent a
6-storey frame of configuration/plan type 1 that uses material grade S355 for all its members that is designed to the revised code requirements
considering a DC2 situation.

32
M.S. Lemma et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411

References [29] Tartaglia R, D’Aniello M, Rassati GA. Proposal of AISC-compliant seismic design
criteria for ductile partially-restrained end-plate bolted joints. J Constr Steel Res
2019;159:364–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCSR.2019.05.006.
[1] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 8 : design of structures
[30] Landolfo R. European seismic prequalification of steel beam-to-column joints:
for earthquake resistance — Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for
EQUALJOINTS and EQUALJOINTS-Plus projects. J Constr Steel Res 2022;192:
buildings, vol. 3; 2006. Brussels.
107238. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCSR.2022.107238.
[2] Landolfo R, Mazzolani F, Dubina D, Simões da Silva L, D’Aniello M. Design of steel
[31] Landolfo R, D’Aniello M, Costanzo S, Tartaglia R, Demonceau J-F, Jaspart J-P,
structures for buildings in seismic areas: Eurocode 8: design of structures for
et al. Equaljoints PLUS: Volume with information brochures for 4 seismically
earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic action and rules for buildings.
qualified joints. first ed. Coimbra, Portugal: ECCS – European Convention for
first ed. Brussels, Belgium: ECCS – European Convention for Constructional
Constructional Steelwork; 2018.
Steelwork; 2017.
[32] Krawinkler H, SAC. FEMA 355c: the state-of-the-art report on system performance
[3] Abou-Elfath H, Ramadan M, Meshaly M, Fdiel HA. Seismic performance of steel
of moment resisting steel frames subjected to earthquake ground shaking. 2000.
frames designed using different allowable story drift limits. Alex Eng J 2017;56:
Washington, D.C.
241–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.08.028.
[33] Charney FA, Downs WM. Modeling procedures for panel zone deformations in
[4] Elghazouli AY. Assessment of European seismic design procedures for steel framed
moment resisting frames. Connect Steel Struct V ESSC/AISC Work Amsterdam,
structures. Bull Earthq Eng 2010;8:65–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-
June 3-4 2004:121–30.
9125-6.
[34] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). prEN 1998-1-2:2021 Eurocode 8:
[5] Peres R. Comparison of European and American approaches for P-Δ effects in
— design of structures for earthquake resistance — Part 1-2: rules for new
seismic design. Ohrid, Macedonia: 14th Eur. Conf. Earthq. Eng.; 2010. p. 8.
buildings (version_03-10-2021). 2021.
[6] Montuori R. Second order effects: critical analysis of EC8 provisions. In: AIP Conf.
[35] McKenna F, Scott M, Fenves G. Nonlinear Finite-Element analysis software
Proc., vol. 2116. American Institute of Physics Inc.; 2019, 260014. https://doi.org/
architecture using object composition. J Comput Civ Eng 2010;24:95–107. https://
10.1063/1.5114265.
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000002.
[7] Tartaglia R, D’Aniello M, Di Lorenzo G, De Martino A. Influence of EC8 rules on p-
[36] Zhu M, McKenna F, Scott MH. OpenSeesPy: Python library for the OpenSees finite
delta effects on the design and response of steel MRF. Ing Sismica 2018;35:104–20.
element framework. SoftwareX 2018;7:6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[8] Kariniotakis K, Karavasilis TL. Limits for the interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient
softx.2017.10.009.
θ of steel MRFs with viscous dampers designed according to Eurocode 8. Soil
[37] Booth ED, Lubkowski ZA. Creating a vision for the future of Eurocode 8. Lisbon,
Dynam Earthq Eng 2019;117:203–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Portugal: 15th World Conf. Earthq. Eng.; 2012.
soildyn.2018.11.019.
[38] Landolfo R. Seismic design of steel structures: new trends of research and updates
[9] Vu HT, Aribert JM. New criteria for taking account of P-delta effects in seismic
of eurocode 8. In: Geotech. Geol. Earthq. Eng., vol. 46. Springer Netherlands; 2018.
design of steel structure. Behav. Steel Struct. Seism. Areas. Taylor & Francis Group;
p. 413–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75741-4_18.
2009. p. 291–6. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203861592.ch41.
[39] Bisch P. Eurocode 8. evolution or revolution?. In: Geotech. Geol. Earthq. Eng., vol.
[10] Technical committee 13 - Seismic Design. Assessment of EC8 provisions for seismic
46. Springer Netherlands; 2018. p. 639–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
design of steel structures. first ed. ECCS – European Convention for Constructional
75741-4_27.
Steelwork; 2013.
[40] Mitchell D, Paultre P, Tinawi R, Saatcioglu M, Tremblay R, Elwood K, et al.
[11] Mazzolani F, Landolfo R, Della Corte G. Eurocode 8 Provisions for steel and steel-
Evolution of seismic design provisions in the National building code of Canada.
concrete composite structures: comments, critiques, improvement proposals and
Can J Civ Eng 2010;37:1157–70. https://doi.org/10.1139/L10-054.
research needs. In: Cosenza E, editor. Eurocode 8 Perspect. From ital. Standpoint
[41] Gómez LVD, Kwon OS, Dabirvaziri MR. Seismic fragility of steel moment-resisting
work.; 2009. p. 173–82. Napoli, Italy.
frames in vancouver and montreal designed in the 1960s, 1980s, and 2010. Can J
[12] Macedo L, Silva A, Castro JM. A more rational selection of the behaviour factor for
Civ Eng 2015;42:919–29. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2014-0492.
seismic design according to Eurocode 8. Eng Struct 2019;188:69–86. https://doi.
[42] Uang C-M, Bruneau M. State-of-the-Art Review on seismic design of steel
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.007.
structures. J Struct Eng 2018;144(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.05.019.
[13] Giordano V, Chisari C, Rizzano G, Latour M. Prediction of seismic response of
[43] Vigh LG, Zsarnóczay A, Balogh JM, Castro JM. P-Delta effect and pushover
moment resistant steel frames using different hysteretic models for dissipative
analysis: Review of Eurocode 8-1 Report N.1. 2016. of WG2 CEN/TC 250/SC 8.
zones. Ing Sismica 2017;34:42–56.
[44] Araújo M, Castro JM. A critical Review of European and American provisions for
[14] Villani A, Castro J, Elghazouli A. Improved seismic design procedure for steel
the seismic assessment of existing steel moment-resisting frame buildings. J Earthq
moment frames. In: Mazzolani Ricles, Sause, editors. Stessa Behav. Steel Struct.
Eng 2018;22:1336–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1277568.
Seism. Areas. London: Taylor & Francis Group; 2009. p. 673–8. https://doi.org/
[45] Elghazouli AY. Assessment of European seismic design procedures for steel framed
10.1201/9780203861592.ch97.
structures. Bull Earthq Eng 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9125-6.
[15] Peres R, Castro JM, Bento R. An extension of an improved forced based design
[46] Braconi A, Finetto M, Degee H, Hausoul N, Hoffmeister B, Gündel M, et al.
procedure for 3D steel structures. Steel Compos Struct 2016;22:1115–40. https://
Optimising the seismic performance of steel and steel-concrete structures by
doi.org/10.12989/scs.2016.22.5.1115.
standardising material quality control (OPUS). 2013. https://doi.org/10.2777/
[16] American Institute of Steel Construction. ANSI/AISC 341-16, seismic provisions for
79330.
structural steel buildings. 2016. USA.
[47] Silva LS da, Marques L, Tankova T, Rebelo C, Kuhlmann U, Kleiner A, et al.
[17] ANSI/AISC American Institute of Steel Construction. ANSI/AISC 360-16,
SAFEBRICTILE: Standardization of safety assessment procedures across brittle to
specification for structural steel buildings. 2016. USA.
ductile failure modes, vol. 96; 2017. https://doi.org/10.2777/762072.
[18] Isaincu A, D’Aniello M, Stratan A. Implications of structural model on the design of
Luxembourg.
steel moment resisting frames. Open Construct Build Technol J 2018;12:124–31.
[48] Tenchini A, D’Aniello M, Rebelo C, Landolfo R, Da Silva LS, Lima L. Seismic
https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836801812010124.
performance of dual-steel moment resisting frames. J Constr Steel Res 2014;101:
[19] Lemonis ME. Steel moment resisting frames with both joint and beam dissipation
437–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.06.007.
zones. J Constr Steel Res 2018;147:224–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[49] Cassiano D, D’Aniello M, Rebelo C, Landolfo R, Da Silva LS. Influence of Seismic
jcsr.2018.03.020.
design rules on the robustness of steel moment resisting frames. Steel Compos
[20] Lemma MS, Rebelo C, Silva LS da. Seismic performance of dual concentrically
Struct 2016;21:479–500. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2016.21.3.479.
braced steel frames accounting for joint behavior. Port J Struct Eng 2019;III:71–82.
[50] Joint Venture SAC. FEMA-350: recommended seismic design criteria for new steel
[21] Macedo L, Castro JM. Panel zone design in steel moment frames - influence on
moment-frame buildings, vol. 1. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);
inelastic seismic demands. Eurosteel - 6th Eur Conf Steel Compos Struct 2011.
2000.
Budapest, Hungary, 1011–6.
[51] European Committee for Standardization. prEN 1998-1-1:2021, Eurocode 8:
[22] Castro JM, Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA. Modelling of the panel zone in steel and
earthquake resistance design of structures — Part 1-1: general rules and seismic
composite moment frames. Eng Struct 2005;27:129–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
action (version_01-10-2021). 2021.
engstruct.2004.09.008.
[52] Plumier A. Revision of Eurocode 8: features common to all materials. 2022.
[23] Downs WM. Modeling and behavior of the beam/column joint region of steel
1004–12, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03811-2_111.
moment resisting frames. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 2002.
[53] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 3: Part 1-1: general
[24] Landolfo R, D’Aniello M, Augusto H. EQUALJOINTS: European pre-qualified steel
rules and rules for buildings, vol. 1; 2002.
joints - final report. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission Research Fund for
[54] ECCS - TC 13 Seismic Design. ECCS manual 76 - design of steel structures in seismic
Coal and Steel; 2017. https://doi.org/10.2777/832927.
zones. 1994. Brussels, Belgium.
[25] Landolfo R, Tartaglia R, Costanzo S, Jaspart J, Stratan A, Jaka D, et al. Equaljoints
[55] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 3: design of steel
PLUS: volume with pre-normative design recommendations for seismically
structures — Part 1-8: design of joints. Incorporat Corrigenda 2005;50. Nos. 1 and
qualified steel joints. Brussels, Belgium: ECCS – European Convention for
2.
Constructional Steelwork; 2018.
[56] Á Zsarnóczay, Budaházy V. Uniaxial material model development for nonlinear
[26] D’Aniello M, Tartaglia R, Costanzo S, Landolfo R. Seismic design of extended
response history analysis of steel frames. Proc 2nd Conf Jr Res Civ Eng 2013:
stiffened end-plate joints in the framework of Eurocodes. J Constr Steel Res 2017;
307–17.
128:512–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.09.017.
[57] D’Aniello M, La Manna Ambrosino G, Portioli F, Landolfo R. Modelling aspects of
[27] Tartaglia R, D’Aniello M, Rassati GA, Swanson JA, Landolfo R. Full strength
the seismic response of steel concentric braced frames. Steel Compos Struct 2013;
extended stiffened end-plate joints: AISC vs recent European design criteria. Eng
15:539–66. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2013.15.5.539.
Struct 2018;159:155–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.12.053.
[58] Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of
[28] Tartaglia R, D’Aniello M, Landolfo R. The influence of rib stiffeners on the response
collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. 2011.
of extended end-plate joints. J Constr Steel Res 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000376.
jcsr.2018.06.025.

33
M.S. Lemma et al.
[59] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic
performance evaluation. Eng Struct 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296
(97)00092-8.
[60] Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E. REXEL: computer aided record selection for code-
based seismic structural analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 2010;8:339–62. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10518-009-9146-1.
[61] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 8 : design of structures
for earthquake resistance — Part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings, vol. 3.
Bruxelles: European Committee for Standardization; 2004. Brussels.
[62] Vamvatsikos D, Allin Cornell C. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2002;31:491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141.
[63] Uang C-M. Establishing R (Or Rw) and Cd factors for building seismic provisions.
J Struct Eng 1991;117:19–28.
[64] Whittaker A, Hart G, Rojahn C. Seismic response modification factors. J Struct Eng
1999:438–44.
[65] Zeris C. In: Beer M, Kougioumtzoglou IA, Patelli E, Au IS-K, editors. Behavior factor
and ductility BT - encyclopedia of earthquake engineering. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2014. p. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
36197-5_118-1.
[66] Ferraioli M, Lavino A, Mandara A. Behaviour factor of code-designed steel
moment-resisting frames. Int J Steel Struct 2014;14:243–54. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13296-014-2005-1.
[67] Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Earthquake spectra and design. Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute; 1982.
34
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 161 (2022) 107411
[68] Applied Technology Council. Fema P695: quantification of building seismic
performance factors. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency;
2009.
[69] Castiglioni CA, Alavi A, Brambilla G, Kanyilmaz A, Brambilla G. A procedure for
the assessment of the behaviour factor for steel MRF systems based on pushover
analysis, vols. 15–7; 2017. https://doi.org/10.7712/120117.5467.20856.
[70] Vamvatsikos D, Bakalis K, Kohrangi M, Pyrza S, Castiglioni CA, Kanyilmaz A, et al.
A risk-consistent approach to determine EN1998 behaviour factors for lateral load
resisting systems. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2020;131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
soildyn.2019.106008.
[71] American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE standard, ASCE/SEI, 41-17, seismic
evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. 2017.
[72] Mazzolani F, Piluso V. Theory and design of seismic resistant steel frames. CRC
Press; 1996. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482271348.
[73] Sanchez-Ricart L, Plumier A. Parametric study of ductile moment-resisting steel
frames: a first step towards Eurocode 8 calibration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37:
1135–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/EQE.809.
[74] Macedo L, Castro JM. Collapse performance assessment of steel moment frames
designed to Eurocode 8. Eng Fail Anal 2021:105445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engfailanal.2021.105445.
[75] Macedo L, Castro JM. Earthquake loss assessment of steel moment-resisting frames
designed according to Eurocode 8. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2019;124:58–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.05.020.