buildings
Article
Enhancing the Seismic Resilience of Steel Moment Resisting
Frame with a New Precast Self-Centering Rocking Shear
Wall System
Zhipeng Zhai 1,2,3 , Wei Guo 4,5 , Yanhui Liu 1,2,3 , Shuang Zou 1,2,3, * and Fulin Zhou 1,2,3
Citation: Zhai, Z.; Guo, W.; Liu, Y.;
Zou, S.; Zhou, F. Enhancing the
Seismic Resilience of Steel Moment
Resisting Frame with a New Precast
Self-Centering Rocking Shear Wall
System. Buildings 2022, 12, 1957.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings12111957
Academic Editor: Gianni Furio
Mario A Royer Carfagni
Received: 8 October 2022
Accepted: 9 November 2022
Published: 11 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12111957
1 Earthquake Engineering Research & Test Center (EERTC), Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510405, China
2 Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and Applied Technology,
Guangzhou 510405, China
3 Key Laboratory of Earthquake Resistance, Earthquake Mitigation and Structural Safety, Ministry of Education,
Guangzhou 510405, China
4 School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China
5 National Engineering Research Center of High-Speed Railway Construction Technology,
Changsha 410075, China
* Correspondence: zoushuang_2015@163.com
Abstract: In this paper, a new precast self-centering rocking shear wall system (PSCRSW) mainly
composed of precast reinforced concrete (RC) wall, V-shaped steel brace and pre-pressed disc spring
friction damper (PDSFD) are proposed to enhance the seismic resilience of steel moment resisting
frame (SMRF). The mechanical behavior of PDSFD was investigated and simulated. The skeleton
model of PSCRSW was theoretically derived and numerically validated, and the hysteretic perfor-
mance under different design parameters was discussed and compared with that of the conventional
RC shear wall. Based on the analyses, design principles and suggestions for PSCRSW were given.
Then, an efficient seismic resilient design method for enhancement of SMRF was proposed, which
considers performance objectives of multiple seismic hazard levels and has less design iteration. A
typical SMRF was adopted as the prototype to be enhanced by the presented PSCRSW and design
method. Reliable numerical models for the prototype and the enhanced SMRF were established,
and nonlinear dynamic analyses were performed to assess the effectiveness of enhancing strategy.
The results show that PSCRSW can realize approximate yielding behavior, displacement capacity
and lateral strength to the conventional shear wall and can significantly lower the residual drift and
wall damage. During the design, the ratio of preload to friction force for PSCRSW was suggested to
be 1.5~2.0, and the bearing capacity for the wall was suggested to be amplified 1.2 times. Thereby,
desirable bearing and self-centering performances can be guaranteed. The presented design method
is capable of achieving the inter-story drift ratio targets and the expected roof drift ratios simultane-
ously, and the seismic resilience of the chosen SMRF was significantly improved by a large margin of
reduction in residual inter-story drift and frame member damages.
Keywords: steel moment resisting frame; self-centering; rocking shear wall; seismic resilience;
enhancing design
1. Introduction
Steel moment resisting frame (SMRF) is widely used as a ductile lateral-resisting
system in seismic regions [1–3]. However, the ductility behavior that mainly depends on
the deformation response of beams and columns may induce severe damage and even
collapse under high-intensity earthquakes [4]. For instance, extensive damages have been
witnessed to thousands of steel buildings during the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe
earthquakes, causing costly repair and demolition [5,6]. Because of this, a great deal of
effort has been carried out to improve the seismic performance and design of SMRF.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 2 of 22

Currently, the SMRF designed by the ductility method in current seismic codes [7–9]
is able to meet the life safety requirements but is at the cost of plasticity development of
the gravity-resisting members. The obvious inelastic response of these members would
significantly lead to difficultly repaired damage and permanent residual deformation,
following which recoverability of structural function post-earthquake is generally arduous,
and enormous economic loss usually generates. Therefore, enhancing the seismic resilience
of SMRF needs to be implemented so that its major structural functionality can be quickly
resumed and the damage can be easily repaired in a short time.
In the recent decade, various enhancing methodologies have been developed and ex-
amined for SMRF. Among them, the application of energy dissipation devices as structural
fuses is the most involved [10–16]. He [10] proposed a beam connection for SMRF using
replaceable fuse steel angles, and full-scale tests were conducted to verify the mechanical
behavior and repairability. Zhai [11,15] improved the seismic resilience of high-rise steel
frames by utilizing a novel steel strip damper and energy-dissipation rocking columns.
Their effectiveness of them in mitigating the seismic response and the seismic loss is demon-
strated, and the effect of damper failure on the seismic loss of SMRF was quantitatively
analyzed [12]. Furthermore, an energy-based design method for achieving seismic resilience
is proposed. Bae [14] invented a new hybrid damping system composed of a viscoelastic
damper connected with a friction damper in series to control drifts and plastic deformations
of high-rise SMRF; the results illustrated the potential capabilities of this device to reduce
structural and non-structural damages simultaneously. Similarly, Zhou [16] proposed a
hybrid damping system consisting of a viscoelastic damper and buckling-restrained brace
(BRB) to reduce the vibration response of the steel frame. Although the above devices can
effectively enhance the energy dissipation capacity and mitigate the seismic responses, sig-
nificant residual deformation is still likely to occur after an earthquake due to the plasticity
development of the device itself and the lack of recentering capability.
In order to control the residual deformation, which is an important metric for mea-
suring structural seismic resilience, a preferable approach is to incorporate self-centering
devices into the conventional energy dissipation devices. Wang [4] developed a new self-
centering variable friction brace and conducted shaking table tests for the self-centering
variable friction braced frame. The obtained results validated the good resilience under
strong seismic shaking. Qiu [17] utilized NiTi superelastic shape memory alloy to manu-
facture BRB for steel frames as a knee brace. The comparative analysis conducted on the
seismic performance of the frames with NiTi BRB and conventional steel BRB showed that
the elimination of residual drift and better seismic resilience were observed after using NiTi
BRB. Another more economical and simple method to add self-centering capability is the
employment of post-tensioned (PT) strands and rocking core [18]. Garlock [19] conducted
full-scale cyclic tests for the PT beam-to-column moment connections and demonstrated
that the PT connection exhibited good energy dissipation, ductility and recoverability. It
maintained a low damage state even when the cyclic loading was up to 4% story drift.
Then, he evaluated the influence of the connection strength, the panel zone strength and
an increase in the connection strength on the seismic response of PT SMRF via nonlinear
dynamic analyses [20]. Zhao [21] assessed the seismic performance of steel frames with
PT energy-dissipating connection and gave an optimization method for the design of the
device. Henry [22] investigated the low-damage feature of the frame with PT rocking walls
through full-scale shaking table tests. Although the previous research has demonstrated
the damage mitigation, energy dissipation and self-centering capacities of the damped
PT systems, there still exist several limitations during the engineering application of PT
systems, such as the difficult and complicated installation, the inevitable prestress loss
under seismic excitation and ambient action, and the limited deformation capacity.
Recently, an innovative strategy that utilizes disc spring devices to avoid complicated
installation and prestress loss of PT strands has been proposed [23]. Zhang [24] devel-
oped a kind of disc spring self-centering haunch brace and validated its effectiveness for
retrofitting the seismic performance of a modular steel frame. The authors [25] innovated a
 Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 3 of 22

seismic resilient precast rocking shear wall possessing a disc spring self-centering energy
dissipation system. Through theoretical and numerical analyses, the capacity to lower dam-
age and residual deformation was verified, and significant design recommendations were
provided. It also pointed out that the presented rocking wall system had great potential for
enhancing the seismic resilience of SMRF. However, further works on this have never been
reported, thereby the focus of the present study.
The main objective of this study was to enhance the seismic resilience of SMRF
employing the presented precast self-centering rocking shear wall system (PSCRSW).
Firstly, the details and working principle of the system were elaborated, as well as the
mechanical behavior of the self-centering energy dissipation device. Theoretical and
numerical analyses were then performed to reveal the mechanical model and hysteretic
performance of PSCRSW. Moreover, the influence of critical parameters on performance
was discussed. In order to achieve fast and efficient seismic resilient design, a less iterative
design procedure that is essentially without nonlinear dynamic analysis was established
for SMRF with PSCRSW, based on the expected inter-story drift ratios and roof drift ratios.
Subsequently, a typical SMRF was chosen as the prototype to be enhanced by PSCRSW.
The design information was provided, and reliable numerical models for the prototype
and enhanced SMRF were built. Nonlinear time history analyses under different seismic
excitation levels were finally carried out to assess the seismic performance of the models. By
comparing the seismic responses in terms of inter-story drift ratio, residual drift ratio and
energy dissipation, the effectiveness of the presented PSCRSW and design procedure on
enhancing the seismic resilience of SMRF were analyzed. The major research contribution
of this paper is the presentation of a new enhancing strategy for the seismic resilience of
SMRF using PSCRSW and an efficient seismic resilient design framework.

2. Proposed Precast Self-Centering Rocking Shear Wall (PSCRSW)

2.1. Description of the Details
The proposed PSCRSW is a part of the seismic resilient precast rocking shear wall
innovated by the authors [25], which mainly consists of precast reinforced concrete (RC)
wall, V-shaped steel brace and pre-pressed disc spring friction damper (PDSFD), as depicted
in Figure 1. The precast wall is pinned by the embedded steel beam and V-shaped steel
brace to the foundation or the lower wall, while two PDSFDs are, respectively, installed
at two wall toes. PDSFD should be pin connected to the wall with the aim of only axial
working. When lateral loading is subjected, the precast wall rocks around the pinned
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22
connection and PDSFD would be expected to provide lateral resistance, self-centering
capacity and energy dissipation capacity.

Figure 1. Schematic
Figure diagram
1. Schematic of the
diagram presented
of the PSCRSW.
presented PSCRSW.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 4 of 22

Figure 2 plots the details of PDSFD, which was manufactured utilizing a prepressed
disc spring, friction damper and steel plate, including shaft plate, end plates, cover plates,
sliding plates and limiting plate. The disc spring and sliding plates were compressed
between the limiting plates that are strengthened by steel stiffeners and fixed to the shaft
plate. Six linking steel strips were adopted to bolt the cover plates that are fixed to the upper-
end plate. Between the haft plate and the upper-end plate, a friction damper was placed
to supply energy dissipation capacity. Once the activation force of PDSFD is exceeded by
the external load, the sliding plates would be driven by the cover plates to compress the
disc spring, following which elastic restoring force is generated to back PDSFD to its initial
Figure 1.after
position Schematic diagram of the presented PSCRSW.
unloading.

Figure2.2.Schematic
Figure Schematicdiagram of PDSFD.
diagram of PDSFD.

The proposed PSCRSW has dual functions of bearing and energy dissipation, and
The proposed PSCRSW has dual functions of bearing and energy dissipation, and
most of the energy is expected to be dissipated by PDSFD. After earthquake events, the
most of the
damaged energy
PDSFD is quickly
can be expected to bebecause
replaced dissipated by PDSFD.
it is decoupled fromAfter earthquake events, th
the gravity-resisting
damaged PDSFD can be quickly replaced because it is decoupled from the gravity-resist
system. The number of pinned connections along the structural height can be appropriately
ing system.
adjusted The number
according of pinned
to the design connections
requirement. Note along the
that the structuralsteel
embedded height
beam can
andbe appro
priately adjusted
V-shaped steel braceaccording
should be to the design
designed requirement.
to equip Notestiffness
with sufficient that thesoembedded steel beam
that the shear
force can be safely
and V-shaped transformed.
steel brace should be designed to equip with sufficient stiffness so that th
shear force can be safely transformed.
2.2. Mechanical Behavior of the Self-Centering Energy Dissipation Device

2.2. PDSFD is the

Mechanical major energy
Behavior dissipation member
of the Self-Centering Energy inDissipation
the system while
Deviceproviding self-
restoring force. The stress state can be described as two stages: (1) the external force is
PDSFD
no larger than is
thethe major energy
activation force that dissipation
is the sum member
of preloadinofthethe system while
disc spring providing
P0 and the self
restoring
friction force.
force The
of the stressf 0state
damper can be
, at which thedescribed
deformation as is
two stages: (1)
dominated the external
by elastic behaviorforce is no
larger
of thanand
the cover theshaft
activation force
plates; (2) that is the
the activation sum
force of preload
is exceeded, ofthus
and the the
discdeformation
spring P0 and th
isfriction
dominated
forcebyofcompression
the damper of fthe
0, atdisc spring.
which theThe stiffness of is
deformation these two stages,
dominated byk1elastic
and k2,behavio
can be expressed as Equation (1):
of the cover and shaft plates; (2) the activation force is exceeded, and thus the deformation
is dominated by compression
1 1 of the
1 disc
1 spring.
1 The
1 stiffness
1 of these two stages, k1 and
=
k2, can be expressed as kEquation + ; = + + (1)
1 kout (1):
kint k2 kout kint ks

where kout and kint are the axial stiffness provided by the cover plates and the shaft plate,
1 stiffness;
1 1 k 1can be1approximated
1 1

respectively; ks is the disc spring’s  and ; 2    as ks due to the (1
k1 much
fact that kout and kint are generally kout larger
kint than
k2ks . Based
kout onkintthe parallel
ks relationship
of the pre-pressed disc spring and friction damper, the hysteretic curve for PDSFD can
be obtained, as shown in Figure 3. From this figure, it can be found that P0 should be
where kout and kint are the axial stiffness provided by the cover plates and the shaft plate
designed no less than f 0 to realize a desirable self-centering performance. Otherwise,
respectively;
residual ks is the
deformation discbe
would spring’s stiffness; and k2 can be approximated as ks due to th
generated.
 mation would be generated.
fact that kout and kint are generally much larger than ks. Based on the parallel relationship
of the pre-pressed disc spring and friction damper, the hysteretic curve for PDSFD can be
obtained, as shown in Figure 3. From this figure, it can be found that P0 should be designed
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 5 of 22defor-
no less than f0 to realize a desirable self-centering performance. Otherwise, residual
mation would be generated.

Figure 3. Hysteretic curve of PDSFD.

In order to simulate the hysteretic behavior of PDSFD, SelfCentering m

twoNodelLink
Figure
Figure 3. 3.Hysteretic
elements
Hystereticcurve
curve of PDSFD.
of PDSFD.
in OpenSees can be adopted to build the numerical
which only four material parameters are needed, including k1, k2, P0 + f0 and
In order to simulate the hysteretic behavior of PDSFD, SelfCentering material and
Here,
In orderthe experimental
twoNodelLink toelements
simulate data
in the
ofcan
a self-centering
hysteretic
OpenSees bebehavior
adopted toofbuild
brace
PDSFD, specimen
SelfCentering
the numerical
composed
model, in material
which and
of a p
twoNodelLink
disc spring
only four elements
and
material in OpenSees
friction
parameters needed, can
damper
are [23]bewas
including adopted
k2 , P0 to
k1 ,adopted + f 0build 2fthe
to validate
and numerical
0 /(P0 + f the
model,
effectiveness
0 ). Here, the in
which only four material parameters are needed, including
merical model. The result comparison shown in Figure 4 illustrates that the
experimental data of a self-centering brace specimen composed of k
a , k 2, P0 + f0 and
1pre-pressed disc 2f0/(P0 + f0).
spring
Here,
and the
curve experimental
friction damper [23]data
matches wasof
well with a self-centering
adopted
that validate brace
oftothe specimen
the effectiveness
experiment, composed
of
demonstrating the numericalof a pre-pressed
the model.
reliability o
Thespring
disc result comparison
and frictionshown
damper in Figure 4 illustrates
[23] was adopted that
to the numerical
validate curve matches of
the effectiveness wellthe nu-
lished
with thatmodel.
of the experiment, demonstrating the reliability of the established model.
merical model. The result comparison shown in Figure 4 illustrates that the numerical
curve matches well with that of the experiment, demonstrating the reliability of the estab-
400
lished model.
300 Experiment
400 Numerical
200 Experiment
300
Numerical
Force (kN)

200100
Force (kN)

100 0

−100
0

−100
−200
−200
−300
−300
−400
−400 −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20
−20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
Figure
Figure 4. Numerical validation of PDSFD.
Figure 4. Numerical validation of PDSFD.
4. Numerical validation of PDSFD.
2.3. Mechanical Behavior of PSCRSW
2.3.
2.3.
2.3.1.Mechanical
Mechanical Behavior
Behavior
Theoretical of PSCRSW
of PSCRSW
Skeleton Curve
2.3.1. Theoretical
2.3.1.With Skeleton
regarding
Theoretical the CurveCurve
V-shaped
Skeleton steel brace and the embedded steel beam as rigid beams
due to their relatively very large stiffness, the total lateral deformation of PSCRSW, ∆,
With regarding the V-shaped steel brace and the embedded steel beam as rigid beams
can beWith regarding
deemed as the sum theofV-shaped
bending shear steel brace
deformationandofthe
the embedded
wall, ∆w , andsteel beam
rocking as r
due to their relatively very large stiffness, the total lateral deformation of PSCRSW, Δ, can
due to their relatively very large
deformation linked with PDSFD, ∆ s , as stiffness, the total lateral deformation of PSCR
shown in Figure 5. Here, the wall is assumed to
bebe
deemed
elastic as the
state sum loading,
during of bendingand shear
∆ candeformation
be computed ofasthe
V/kwall, Δw, Vand rocking defor-
be deemed as the sum of bending w shear deformation c , where
of the is the
wall, lateral
Δ w, and rock
mation linked
resistance, andwith
kc isPDSFD, Δselastic
the wall’s , as shown in Figure
stiffness computed5. Here, the wall
as Equation is assumed to be elastic
(2).
mation
state duringlinked with
loading, andPDSFD,
Δw can Δ bes, as shown in
computed as Figure 5. Here,
V/kc, where the lateral
V is the wall isresistance,
assumed t
state
and kc isduring loading,
the wall’s and Δwcomputed
elastic stiffness can be computed
as Equationas(2).V/kc, where V is the lateral
and kc is the wall’s elastic stiffness computed as Equation (2).
ldings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 22
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 6 of 22

Δw Δs
V V

L θ

Wall h

Rigid b
body
c c
 a h' θ θ
PDSFD c c

(a) (b)
Figure 5.Figure
Deformation mode mode
5. Deformation of PSCRSW. (a) Bending
of PSCRSW. shear
(a) Bending deformation
shear deformationofofthe
thewall.
wall. (b) Rocking
(b) Rocking
deformation.
deformation.

 −1
h3

h
kc = + (2)
 h c1 ·3 3Ec Ic c2 · Gc Ac  1
h
k  
where h is the wall height; Ec c Ic is the wall flexural  and Gc Ac is the shear stiffness;
stiffness (2)
 c 1  3 Ec I c c2  G c A c 
and c1 and c2 are the corresponding modification factor associated with wall cracking,
which are, respectively, suggested to be 0.25 and 0.30 [25]. According to the geometric
where hconditions,
is the wallEquation
height; (3)
EcIcan
c is the wall flexural stiffness and GcAc is the shear stiffness;
be obtained:
and c1 and c2 are the corresponding modification factor associated with wall cracking,
a(h + h0 /2)
which are, respectively, suggested to be 0.25
∆s = and 0.30∆[25].
b
According to the geometric(3)
c2 sin α
conditions, Equation (3) can be obtained:
where a is the height of PDSFD;
q h and h’ are, respectively, the height of the wall and the
hinged support region; c = ( L/2 − a b)2 h+( a/2  
h' 2)2 , and L and b are the wall width and the
distance between the wall edge s the PDSFD
and b respectively; α = arccos(1−a2 /2c(3)
center, 2 );
c 2
sin 
∆b is the axial deformation of PDSFD. In addition, the increment of lateral strength
provided by PDSFD, ∆V, can be obtained as Equation (4) according to the moment
where aequilibrium
is the height of PDSFD; h and h’ are, respectively, the height of the wall and the
equation.
∆b k1or22( L − 2b)
hinged support region; c  L 2  ∆V
b = a h2+ h,0 /2   
2
and L and b are the wall width and (4)

the distanceHence,
between the lateral
the global wall edge and
stiffness the PDSFD
contributed by PDSFDcenter, respectively;
is then α = arc-
given in Equation (5).
cos(1−a /2c ); Δb is the axial deformation of PDSFD. In addition, the increment of lateral
2 2

strength provided by PDSFD, ΔV, ∆Vobtained

can=be ( L − 2b 2 sin α
as)cEquation
k p1orp2 = k1or2(4) according to the mo-(5)
∆s a ( h + h 0 /2)2
ment equilibrium equation.
where kp1 and kp2 are the stiffness contribution before and after PDSFD is activated, respec-
tively. The lateral stiffness of PSCRSWbcan
k1 orthen
V  2 Lbe 2b 
calculated 
as Equation (6).
(4)
hh 2 '
k c k p1orp2
K1or2 = (6)
k c + k p1orp2
Hence, the global lateral stiffness contributed by PDSFD is then given in Equation
(5).

V  L  2b  c sin 
2

k p1 or p 2   k1 or 2
a  h  h' 2 
(5)
s 2

where kp1 and kp2 are the stiffness contribution before and after PDSFD is activated, respec-
 kc k p1 or p 2
K1 or 2  (6)
kc  k p1 or p 2
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 7 of 22

where K1 and K2 are, respectively, the stiffness before and after PDSFD is activated. The
theoretical skeleton curve for PSCRSW can then be obtained as Equation (7), in which the
where K1 and
activation forceK2Vare,
y for respectively,
PSCRSW equals the stiffness
(P0 + f0)(Lbefore and
− 2b)/(h after PDSFD is activated. The
+ h’/2).
theoretical skeleton curve for PSCRSW can then be obtained as Equation (7), in which the

 K1
  +Vh’/2).
activation force Vy for PSCRSW equals (P0 + f 0 )(L − 2b)/(h
y K1
V (
 
(7)

 VKy1 ∆ K 2   Vy K1 ∆ ≤VyV /Ky 1 K1
V= (7)
Vy + K2 ∆ − Vy /K1 ∆> Vy /K1

2.3.2. Hysteretic
2.3.2. Behavior
Hysteretic Behavior
In order
In order to toinvestigate
investigatethe thehysteretic
hystereticbehavior
behavior ofof PSCRSW,
PSCRSW, a specimen
a specimen of aoftypical
a typical
RC
RC shear wall was adopted here as the prototype to be upgraded
shear wall was adopted here as the prototype to be upgraded to PSCRSW [26]. Figure to PSCRSW [26]. Figure 6
6 provides
provides thethe details
details of of
thethe prototype,
prototype, which
which hashas a height
a height of 2000
of 2000 mm,mm, a width
a width of 1000
of 1000 mm
mm aand
and a thickness
thickness of 125ofmm.125Themm. The measured
measured concrete concrete
strengthstrength is 20.7
is 20.7 MPa, andMPa, and the
the yielding
yielding for
strength strength for reinforcement
reinforcement with a diameter
with a diameter of 6 mm and of 6 8mm
mmand 8 mm
is 392 MPa is and
392 MPa and
379 MPa,
379 MPa, respectively. The axially applied compressive load equals
respectively. The axially applied compressive load equals 246 kN, corresponding to the 246 kN, correspond-
ing tocompression
axial the axial compression ratio
ratio of 0.1. of 0.1.toInredesign
In order order to the
redesign the prototype
prototype as a PSCRSW,as a PSCRSW,
the fixed
constraints at the bottom all need to be replaced by PDSFD and pinned connectionconnec-
the fixed constraints at the bottom all need to be replaced by PDSFD and pinned shown
tion
in shown
Figure 1. inBecause
Figure 1.theBecause the pin-connected
pin-connected region canregion can be regarded
be regarded as a rigidasregion,
a rigid the
re-
gion, the parameter
parameter design is design is only performed
only performed for PDSFD. for PDSFD.
During the During the design,
design, two princi-
two principles are
ples are followed
followed [25]: (1) [25]: (1) the activation
the activation displacement
displacement and forceandofforce of PSCRSW
PSCRSW are identical
are identical to the
to the yielding
yielding displacement
displacement and strength
and strength of theofprototype;
the prototype; (2)designed
(2) the the designed PSCRSW
PSCRSW has has
the
the same maximum displacement and strength
same maximum displacement and strength as the prototype. as the prototype.

N
1 φ6@80 φ6@80

5φ6
6φ10
125

200 600 200

2000

200 125
100

φ6@125
2 2
2-2
Material properties：
 Concrete strength fc=20.7 MPa
 Reinforcement φ6 fy=392 MPa fu=479 MPa
E=200600MPa
550

 Reinforcement φ10 fy=379 MPa fu=554 MPa

1 E=202700MPa
390
300 1000 300  Axial load：N=246 kN
1-1

Figure 6. Details of the prototype specimen (unit: mm) [26].

Figure
Figure 7 plots
plots the
the hysteretic
hysteretic curves
curvesobtained
obtainedfromfromthe
theexperiment
experimentand andnumerical
numericalsimu-
sim-
lation,
ulation,among
among which
which thethe
numerical
numericalmodel
modelis built by layered
is built shellshell
by layered element in OpenSees
element [26].
in OpenSees
The
[26].material of PlateFromPlaneStress
The material and PlaneStressUserMaterial
of PlateFromPlaneStress and PlaneStressUserMaterialwas adopted to model
was adopted to
the concrete layers, and PlateRebar and steel02 material with a 0.01 strain-hardening
model the concrete layers, and PlateRebar and steel02 material with a 0.01 strain-harden- ratio
were employed
ing ratio to simulatetothe
were employed reinforcement
simulate layers. Because
the reinforcement theBecause
layers. numericalthecurve has a
numerical
better symmetry, the simulation data were used here to design PDSFD. It can be obtained
that the yielding strength and drift ratio are, respectively, 154.11 kN and 0.31% (6.13 mm);
the averaged maximum strength of negative and positive is 179.29 kN, and the maximum
drift ratio is 1.01% (20.28 mm). Assuming both a and h’ are equal to 300 mm and b equals
100 mm, then according to the design principles prescribed above, the skeleton curve of
the designed PSCRSW can be determined by two V-∆ data pairs, including yield point
(7.04, 154.11) and peak point (23.23, 179.29). Therefore, it can be known that Vy = 154.11 kN,
 and the maximum drift ratio is 1.01% (20.28 mm). Assuming both a and h’ ar
mm and b equals 100 mm, then according to the design principles prescrib
skeleton curve of the designed PSCRSW can be determined by two V-Δ data
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 ing yield point (7.04, 154.11) and peak point (23.23, 179.29). Therefore, 8 of 22 it c
that Vy = 154.11 kN, K1 = 21.89 kN/mm and K2 = 1.56 kN/mm. After determin
ton curve, the design parameters for PDSFD can be calculated by Equation
K1 = 21.89 kN/mm and K2 = 1.56 kN/mm. After determining the skeleton curve, the
(7). They
design are P0for
parameters + fPDSFD
0 = 414.17 kN,
can be k1 = 1984.25
calculated kN/mm,
by Equation k2 = 23.97
(3)~Equation kN/mm
(7). They are and
Then,
P0 + f 0 =the dimensions
414.17 of PDSFD
kN, k1 = 1984.25 kN/mm, kcan be obtained.
2 = 23.97 ∆b = 3.04 mm.
kN/mm andBecause the Then,
focustheof this s
dimensions of PDSFD can be obtained. Because the focus of this study is on the hysteretic
hysteretic behavior of PSCRSW, the PDSFD’s dimensions are not discussed
behavior of PSCRSW, the PDSFD’s dimensions are not discussed here.

210
Test specimen
140 Numerical model

70
Force (kN)

-70

-140

-210
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Drift ratio (%)
Figure 7. Hysteretic curves of the prototype specimen [26].
Figure 7. Hysteretic curves of the prototype specimen [26].
Based on the value of P0 + f 0 , six numerical cases were simulated to reveal the
Based
hysteresis on the
behavior, value
which of P1:0 P+0 f=0, fsix
is case numerical
0 , case 2: P0 = 1.5fcases
0 , casewere
3: P0 =simulated
2.0f 0 , case to rev
4: P0 = 2.5f 0 , case 5: P0 = 3.0f 0 , case 6: P0 = 414.7kN, f 0 = 0. The numerical modeling
resis behavior, which is case 1: P0 = f0, case 2: P0 = 1.5f0, case 3: P0 = 2.0f0, cas
for these cases can refer to the literature [26]. The precast wall was also modeled using
case 5: Pshell
a layered 0 = 3.0f 0, case
element. The 6:pin
P0 connection
= 414.7kN, f0 =and
region 0. The numerical
the embedded steelmodeling
beam are for th
refer to the literature [26]. The precast wall was also modeled using
regarded as rigid beams. The longitudinal reinforcements in the confined region were a laye
established by adopting a truss element. The twoNodeLink element with SelfCentering
ment. The pin connection region and the embedded steel beam are rega
material, for which the effectiveness is validated in Section 2.2, was utilized to simulate
beams.
the cyclicThe longitudinal
behavior of PDSFD. The reinforcements
numerical analyses in were
the confined
performed region were establis
under horizontal
ing a truss element.
displacement The
loads that are twoNodeLink
in accordance with theelement
experimental with SelfCentering
loading history. material,
Figure 8 compares the hysteretic curve between the prototype and the numerical
effectiveness is validated in Section 2.2, was utilized to simulate the cycli
cases, as well as the theoretical skeleton curve. As can be seen, the prototype and the
PDSFD. The numerical
numerical models analyses were
have similar characteristics of theperformed
skeleton curve,underand thosehorizontal
are in good displa
that are in
accordance accordance
with with
the theoretical curve, the experimental
demonstrating loading
the successful history.
design of PSCRSW and
the accuracy of theoretical derivation. The maximum forces in the negative and positive
Figure 8 compares the hysteretic curve between the prototype and t
direction for all the cases are, respectively, about 172 kN and 169 kN, with an error of less
cases,
than 10% ascompared
well as with the theoretical
the design value skeleton
of 179.29curve. As canitbe
kN. Moreover, canseen, the prototyp
be obviously
merical models
observed that have similar
after improving characteristics
with PDSFD, the hysteretic of theshow
curves skeleton
a stablecurve,
flag shape,and thos
resulting in significant mitigation of the residual drift.
accordance with the theoretical curve, demonstrating the successful desigFor the prototype, the maximum
residual drift ratios are about 0.4% in both directions. These values were reduced to 0.17%
and the accuracy
and 0.12% in case 1, and of theoretical
for other cases, derivation.
they were about The0.15%
maximum forces
and 0.07%. From inthis
the nega
tive direction
comparison, for all the
it is concluded thatcases are,ofrespectively,
for a ratio about
p0 to f 0 , no less than 1.5 172 kN and
can ensure 169 kN, w
excellent
self-centering performance.
less than 10% compared with the design value of 179.29 kN. Moreover, it can
observed that after improving with PDSFD, the hysteretic curves show a stab
resulting in significant mitigation of the residual drift. For the prototype, t
residual drift ratios are about 0.4% in both directions. These values were red
and 0.12% in case 1, and for other cases, they were about 0.15% and 0.07
comparison, it is concluded that for a ratio of p0 to f0, no less than 1.5 can en
self-centering performance.
Buildings
Buildings2022,
Buildings 12,
12,x1957
2022,12,
2022, xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 9 22
99ofofof
2222

240 240 240

240
240 240
Prototype Prototype
Prototype
Prototype
Prototype
180 Prototype 180 180
180
180
180
p0p=f
0=f pp0=1.5f
0=1.5f
00
pp0=2.0f
0=2.0f
00
00
120 Theoretical 120
120 Theoretical 120
120 Theoretical
Theoretical
120 Theoretical Theoretical

(kN)
(kN)
(kN)

Force(kN)
Force(kN)
Force(kN)

6060 6060 6060

00 00 00

Force

Force
Force

−60
−60 −60
−60 −60
−60
−120
−120 −120
−120 −120
−120
−180
−180 −180
−180 −180
−180
−240
−240 −240
−240 −240
−1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 −240
−1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Driftratio
ratio(%)
(%) −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Driftratio
Drift ratio(%)
(%) Drift Driftratio
ratio(%)
(%)
Drift
(a)case
(a) case11 (b)case
(b) case22 (c)case
case33
(c)
240 240
240
240
240 240
Prototype Prototype Prototype
Prototype
180 Prototype 180 Prototype 180
180
180
pp0=2.5f
0=2.5f
180
pp0=3.0f
0=3.0f f0f=0
0=0
00 00
120 120 Theoretical 120
120 Theoretical
Theoretical
120 Theoretical
Theoretical 120 Theoretical

(kN)
(kN)

Force(kN)
(kN)

Force(kN)

6060
Force(kN)

6060 6060

00

Force
00 00
Force
Force

−60 −60
−60 −60
−60
−60
−120
−120 −120
−120 −120
−120
−180
−180 −180
−180 −180
−180
−240
−240 −240
−240 −240
−240
−1.2
−1.2 −0.8
−0.8 −0.4
−0.4 0.0
0.0 0.4
0.4 0.8
0.8 1.2
1.2 −1.2
−1.2 −0.8
−0.8 −0.4
−0.4 0.0
0.0 0.4
0.4 0.8
0.8 1.2
1.2 −1.2
−1.2 −0.8
−0.8 −0.4
−0.4 0.0
0.0 0.4
0.4 0.8
0.8 1.2
1.2
Driftratio
Drift ratio(%)
(%) Driftratio
Drift ratio(%)
(%) Driftratio
Drift ratio(%)
(%)
(d)case
(d) case44 (e)case
(e) case55 (f)case
case66
(f)
Figure8.8.
Figure
Figure 8.Hysteretic
Hysteretic curve
curveofof
Hystereticcurve the
ofthe numerical
thenumerical cases.
numericalcases.
cases.

Figure99compares
Figure comparesthe
compares thehysteretic
the hystereticcurves
hysteretic curvescorresponding
curves correspondingto
corresponding tothe
to thepart
the partof
part ofthe
of theRCRCwall.
wall.ItItis
isevident
evident
isevident that
that
thatthe the
the deformation
deformation
deformation experienced
experienced
experienced by
bybythe the
wall
the wall
wall inin inPSCRSW
PSCRSW
PSCRSW ismuch
is is
much much smaller
smaller
smaller thanthan
thanthat
that
of
that the
of ofprototype,
theprototype,
the prototype, whilewhile themaximum
the the
while maximum
maximum bearing
bearing
bearing capacities
capacities
capacities between
between
between them them
them are
areare approxi-
approximate.
approxi-
mate.is,
That
mate. That
That is,
theis,
wall thein
the wall inPSCRSW
PSCRSW
wall in PSCRSW
dissipates dissipates lessenergy
less energy
dissipates less energy anddevelops
and develops
and develops
lowerlowerlower plasticity.
plasticity. Table 1
plasticity.
Table11summarizes
summarizes
Table summarizes
the energy theenergy
the energydissipation
dissipation dissipation ofthe
of the numerical
of thenumerical
numerical
models.models.models.
With anWithWith
increase anincrease
an increase , in
in p0 /f 0in the
p /f
energy , the energy
dissipated dissipated
by PSCRSW by PSCRSW
gradually gradually
decreases decreases
as
p0/f0, the energy dissipated by PSCRSW gradually decreases as a result of the diminishing
0 0 a as
result a result
of the of the
diminishingdiminishing
friction
friction
force
friction force
offorce ofthe
the damper.
of thedamper.
damper.
When WhenpWhen
0 /f 0 p p0/f
does0/f does notexceed
not exceed
0 0does not exceed 2.0,the
2.0, 2.0,
the theenergy
energy
energy dissipation
dissipation
dissipation capac-of
capacity
capac-
ity
PSCRSW
ity of PSCRSW
of PSCRSW is better is better
than the
is better than the
thanprototype, prototype,
the prototype, and in and
andthesein these cases,
cases,cases,
in these PDSFD PDSFD
dissipates
PDSFD dissipates about
aboutabout
dissipates 70% of
70%
the total
70% of the total
of theenergy. energy.
The energy
total energy. The energy
dissipations
The energy dissipations
of theof
dissipations of
RC the
thewall RC
RCin wall in
PSCRSW
wall PSCRSW
in PSCRSW range
rangerange fromkJ
from from
7.42
7.42
to
7.42 7.54
kJ kJto
to 7.54
kJ,7.54
which kJ,which
kJ, which
are morearemore
are more60%
than thanless
than 60%than
60% lessthan
less thanthat
that that
of the ofprototype,
of theprototype,
the prototype, indicating
indicating
indicating that
thatthat
after
afterimproving
improving
after improvingwithwithwithPDSFD,
PDSFD, PDSFD, theplastic
the plastic
the plastic wall
wallwall
damage damage
damage isissignificantly
significantly
is significantly mitigated.
mitigated.
mitigated. Bycom-
com-
By combining
By
bining
the
bining theanalysis
analysis
the analysis
of Figure ofFigure
of Figure
8, 8,8,ititisisrecommended
it is recommended recommended that
that thethat value theof
the value
value of
p0 /f 0of pp0/f
0/f
adopts adopts
1.5~2.0
0 0adopts 1.5~2.0
during
1.5~2.0
during
the design.the
during the design. design.

240 240
240
240
240 240
Prototype Prototype
Prototype
Prototype
Prototype
180 Prototype 180
180
180
180
180
pp=f
0=f0 p0p=1.5f
0=1.5f
00
pp=2.0f
00=2.0f0
0
0 0
120 120
120 120
120
120
(kN)
(kN)
(kN)

Force(kN)
Force(kN)
Force(kN)

6060 6060 6060

00
Force

00
Force

00
Force

−60 −60
−60 −60
−60 −60
−120 −120
−120 −120
−120 −120
−180 −180
−180
−180 −180
−180
−240 −240
−240
−240 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 −240
−240
−1.2
−1.2 −0.8
−0.8 −0.4
−0.4 0.0
0.0 0.4
0.4 0.8
0.8 1.2
1.2 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Driftratio
ratio(%)
(%) −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Driftratio
Drift ratio(%)
(%) Drift Driftratio
ratio(%)
(%)
Drift
(a)case
(a) case11 (b)case
(b) case22 (c)case
(c) case33

Figure 9. Cont.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

Buildings
Buildings 12,12,
2022,
2022, 1957PEER REVIEW
x FOR 10 of 10
22 of 22

240 240 240

Prototype Prototype Prototype
180 180 180
p0=2.5f0 p0=3.0f0 f0=0
240 240 240
120 120 120
Prototype Prototype Prototype
180 180 180

Force (kN)

Force (kN)
Force (kN)

60 p0=2.5f0 60 p0=3.0f0 60 f0=0

120 120 120
0 0 0

Force (kN)

Force (kN)
Force (kN)

60 60 60
−60 −60 −60
0 0 0
−120 −120 −120
−60 −60 −60
−180 −180 −180
−120 −120 −120
−240 −240 −240
−180 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 −180 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 −180 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
−240 −240 −240
−1.2 −0.8 −0.4 case
(d) 0.0 4 0.4 0.8 1.2 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4
Drift ratio (%)
(e) case
0.0 5 0.4 0.8 1.2 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4
(f) case
0.0 60.4 0.8 1.2
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
(d) case 4 Figure 9. Hysteretic curve of
(e)the wall
case 5 in numerical models. (f) case 6
Figure 9. Hysteretic curve
Hysteretic of the
curve wall
of the in numerical
wall models.
in numerical
Figure
Table 1. 9.
Energy dissipation numerical modelsmodels.
(unit: kJ).

Table 1. Energy
Table dissipation
1. Energy of the
dissipation numerical
of the models
Dissipated
numerical (unit:
modelsby kJ).kJ).
PDSFD
(unit: Dissipated by Wall
Models Total Energy
Energy byProportion
Dissipated PDSFD Energy
Dissipated byProportion
Wall
Models Total 19.90
Energy Dissipated by PDSFD Dissipated by Wall
Prototype
Models Total Energy Energy - -
Proportion 19.90
Energy 100%
Proportion
Case 1 27.48 Energy
19.94 Proportion
72.5% Energy
7.54 Proportion
27.5%
Prototype 19.90 - - 19.90 100%
Case
Case 12
Prototype 23.48
19.90
27.48 15.60
19.94- 68.1%
72.5%- 7.48
19.90
7.54 31.9%
27.5% 100%
Case31
Case 27.48
20.80 19.94
13.36 72.5%
64.2% 7.54
7.44 27.5%
35.8%
Case 2
Case 2
23.48
23.48
15.60
15.60
68.1%
68.1%
7.487.48 31.9%31.9%
Case3 4
Case 18.85
20.80 11.42
13.36 60.6%
64.2% 7.43
7.44 39.4%
35.8%
Case 3 20.80 13.36 64.2% 7.44 35.8%
Case
Case 4 54
Case 17.43
18.85
18.85 10.00
11.42
11.42 57.4%
60.6%
60.6% 7.43
7.437.43 42.6%
39.4%39.4%
Case 5 65
Case
Case 17.437.44
17.43 0.04
10.00
10.00 0.5%
57.4%
57.4% 7.42
7.437.43 99.7%
42.6%42.6%
Case
Case 6 6 7.44
7.44 0.04
0.04 0.5%
0.5% 7.427.42 99.7%99.7%
The above PSCRSW is designed based on the principle of equivalent yielding and
bearing
The Theperformance.
above
above PSCRSW
PSCRSW Although
is designed it shows
is designed based much
on on
based better
the seismic
principle
the principle of performance
equivalent
of equivalent than
yielding the
yieldingandpro-
and
totype,
bearing
bearing the wall
performance. in
performance. it still
Althoughexhibits
Although obvious
it shows
it shows nonlinear
muchmuch better behavior,
seismic
better and the
performance
seismic residual
performance drift
thanthan thestill
is
the pro- pro-
noticeable.
totype,
totype,thethe For
wall infurther
wall itinstill investigation,
exhibits
it still obvious
exhibits numerical
nonlinear
obvious analyses
behavior,
nonlinear for
andthe
behavior, theandPSCRSW
residual model
drift
the residual withis
is still
drift
yielding
noticeable. strength
For further
still noticeable. (orfurther
For pinvestigation,
0 + f0)investigation,
reducednumerical
werenumerical
conducted,
analyses and the
for the
analyses results
forPSCRSW
the PSCRSW aremodel
displayed
withwith
model in
Figure
yielding
yielding10. As can(or
strength
strength be(orseen,
p0 p+0 f0+when
) freducedthe reduced
0 ) reduced were factor
conducted,
were is 0.9,
conducted, and the strength
the
and results
the isare
results slightly decreased
displayed
are displayed in in
while
Figure
Figure the
10. As
10. residual
cancan
As be bedrift
seen,seen,is
whenobviously
when thethe reduced.
reduced factor
reduced When is the
is 0.9,
factor thereduced
0.9, strength
the strength factor is 0.8,
is slightly the
decreased
is slightly maxi-
decreased
mum
while
while strengths
the
the residual
residualfordrift
both
drift isistwo cases are
obviously
obviously decreased
reduced.
reduced. When
When fromthe172
the kN tofactor
reduced
reduced 149 kN
factor in athe
is 0.8, positive
the maxi-di-
maximum
rection
mum and
strengths fromfor 169
both kN two to 148
cases kN arein a negative
decreased direction,
from 172
strengths for both two cases are decreased from 172 kN to 149 kN in a positive directionkN with
to degradation
149 kN in a within
positive 15%,
di-
while
rection the
and from residual
and from 169 kN drifts
169to kN 148 are
to kN greatly
148in kNa in reduced.
a negative
negative Generally,
direction,
direction, the
with reduction
with degradation
degradation in yielding
within
within strength
15%,15%,while
can
thesignificantly
while the residual
residual reduce
drifts
drifts areare thegreatly
greatlyresidual drift Generally,
reduced.
reduced. with a slight
Generally, the sacrifice
the of bearing
reduction
reduction capacity.
ininyielding
yielding There-
strength
strength can
fore,
can we can amplify
significantly
significantly reduce
reduce the the
the bearing
residual
residual capacity about
driftwith
drift with 1.2 times
aa slight
slight for the
sacrifice RC wallcapacity.
of bearing
bearing during the
capacity. design
There-
Therefore,
fore,
towe wecancan
ensure amplify
the
amplify bearing
the the bearing
performance
bearing capacity
capacity andabout 1.2times
a better
about 1.2 times for the RC
self-centering RC wall
wallduring
duringthe
performance design
simultane-
the design to
toously.
ensurethe
ensure thebearing
bearingperformance
performanceand anda abetter
better self-centering
self-centering performance
performance simultane-
simultaneously.
ously.
240 240
240 Unreduced 240180 Unreduced
180
Reduced
Unreduced Reduced
Unreduced
180 180
120 Reduced 120 Reduced
Force (kN)

120
Force (kN)

60 120
60
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

60 60
0 0
0 0
−60 −60
−60 −60
−120 −120
−120 −120
−180 −180
−180 −180
−240 −240
−240 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 −240 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
−1.2 −0.8 −0.4 Drift0.0ratio (%)
0.4 0.8 1.2 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 Drift
0.0 ratio 0.4
(%) 0.8 1.2
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
(a) case 2 with reduced factor 0.9 (b) case 2 with reduced factor 0.8
(a) case 2 with reduced factor 0.9 (b) case 2 with reduced factor 0.8
Figure 10. Cont.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957
x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22

240 240
Unreduced Unreduced
180 180
Reduced Reduced
120 120

Force (kN)
Force (kN)
60 60

0 0

−60 −60

−120 −120

−180 −180

−240 −240
−1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
(c) case 6 with reduced factor 0.9 (d) case 6 with reduced factor 0.8
Figure 10. Hysteretic curve of the numerical models with reduced yielding strength.
strength.

3. Enhancing
3. Enhancing Strategy
Strategy andand Design
Design Procedure
Procedure
The presented
The presented PSCRSW
PSCRSW is is capable
capable of of supplying
supplying loadload bearing,
bearing, energy
energy dissipation
dissipation and
and
self-centering capabilities for seismic resilient application. When used to
self-centering capabilities for seismic resilient application. When used to enhance the seis- enhance the
seismic resilience of SMRF, it can be adopted as an externally installed
mic resilience of SMRF, it can be adopted as an externally installed rocking wall and in-rocking wall and
internally
ternally installed
installed cladding
cladding panelpanel or infilled
or infilled wall.wall. The focus
The focus of thisof this was
study study
on was on the
the former,
former, as plotted in Figure 11. It should be noted that the number and locations
as plotted in Figure 11. It should be noted that the number and locations of pinned con- of pinned
connections
nections along
along thethe structural
structural height
height can canbebe adjusted
adjusted accordingtotothe
according thedesign
designrequirement.
requirement.
In order to realize the expected performance objectives of enhancement, an effective design
In order to realize the expected performance objectives of enhancement, an effective de-
method is necessary. At present, the relevant methods generally need many iterations of
sign method is necessary. At present, the relevant methods generally need many iterations
nonlinear dynamic calculation. For the purpose of achieving fast and efficient design, a
of nonlinear dynamic calculation. For the purpose of achieving fast and efficient design, a
new procedure was proposed, and the design steps are outlined as follows:
new procedure was proposed, and the design steps are outlined as follows:
(1) Specify the performance objectives and the corresponding inter-story drift ratio (ISDR)
targets, which
PSCRSW are denoted
Rigid link as θ y , θ d and θ u for service level earthquake (SLE), design-
SMRF
based earthquake (DBE) and maximum considered earthquake (MCE), respectively.
(2) Establish a numerical model for the prototype needed enhancement and conduct
nonlinear dynamic analysis under excitation of SLE, DBE and MCE levels. Then,
assess whether its seismic performance meets the preselected targets. If not, it should
be enhanced through the following steps.
(3) Fitting the mathematical relationship between the maximum ISDR and roof drift ratio
based on the results obtained from step (2), and convert the ISDR targets in step (1)
into the roof drift ratio targets θ r,y , θ r ,d and θ r,u .
(4) Estimate the fundamental period of the enhanced SMRF. The roof drift demand
of an equivalent single degree of freedom (SDOF) system, also called the spectral
displacement Sd , can be calculated by Equation (8):

Sd = θr,y H/C0 (8)

where H is the structural height; C0 is the adjusted coefficient for roof drift of multiple
DOF system transforming to that of the SDOF. By combining with the target spectrum
Figure 11. Enhancing strategy for SMRF.
specified in the design code, the fundamental period T can be determined.
(5) Select the
(1) Specify thedistribution
performancepattern of lateral
objectives andforce.
the In this study, theinter-story
corresponding pattern presented by
drift ratio
Chao [27] through extensive nonlinear dynamic analyses was employed
(ISDR) targets, which are denoted as θy, θd and θu for service level earthquake (SLE), during the
design, which is expressed as Equation (9):
design-based earthquake (DBE) and maximum considered earthquake (MCE), re-
spectively. ! pT −0.2 ! pT −0.2
(2) Establish a numerical model for w n hnprototype needed
the ∑nj=i w j hand
Vienhancement j conduct
Fi = Ci V; Ci = ( β i − β i+1 ) n ; βi = = (9)
∑
nonlinear dynamic analysis underj=excitationw
1 j jh V w h
of SLE, DBEn and MCEn levels. n Then, as-
sess whether its seismic performance meets the preselected targets. If not, it should
where
be Fi is the
enhanced lateralthe
through force at the ith
following floor; Ci is the lateral force distribution factor;
steps.
V is the base shear; βi is the shear force factor; Vi and Vn are story force at ith and
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 12 of 22

top floor, respectively; wi and wn are weight for ith and top floor, respectively; hi and
hn are the height from ith and top floor to the base, respectively; the parameter P is
suggested as 0.75 to considering the effect of a higher modal response.
(6) Calculate the design value of the base shear for the enhanced SMRF, Vy . Here a widely
used method named performance-based plastic design was adopted to calculate
Vy . This method regards the force–displacement curve of the structure as an ideal
bilinear model and obtains the base shear based on the energy equivalent concept. The
specific derivation can refer to the literature [15], and the base shear Vy is expressed
as Equation (10).
q
Vy −ω + ω 2 + 4γ(Sa /g)2 8θ p π 2 n
T 2 g i∑
= ; ω= Ci hi (10)
W 2 =1

where W and g are, respectively, the total structure weight and the gravity constant,
and θ p is the plastic drift ratio; at DBE and MCE levels they are, respectively, θ r ,d − θ r,y
and θ r,u − θ r,y , and the plastic drift ratios for all the floors are assumed as the same; γ
is the energy modification factor, which can be determined according to the structural
period T and ductility factor µs [15]. For DBE and MCE levels, µs is, respectively,
equal to θ r ,d /θ r,y and θ r,u /θ r,y . By combining the value of design spectral acceleration
Sa of DBE and MCE, the corresponding base shear can be calculated, which is denoted
as Vy ,d and Vy,u . Equation (11) gives the finally determined design base shear:


Vy = max Sa1 W, Vy,d , Vy,u (11)

where Sa1 is the design spectral acceleration at the SLE level.

(7) Determine the seismic demand of PSCRSW. Firstly, simplify the lateral force as an
inverted triangle load, q, based on the moment equivalent principle, Vy and Ci , and
regard the enhanced SMRF as a traditional frame-shear wall structure. Then, the
lateral displacement of the structure can be calculated by Equation (12):

qH 4 chλξ − 1 ξ2
     
λshλ shλ 1 1 shλξ
u= 1+ − + − 2 ξ− − (12)
λ2 Ec Ieq 2 λ λ2 chλ 2 λ λ 6

where ξ =qx/H, and x is the height of any floor; λ is the eigenvalue of the stiffness and


equals H CF / Ec Ieq ; CF is the shear stiffness of the frame, which can be determined
from pushover analysis of the prototype SMRF; Ec Ieq is the bending stiffness of RC
shear wall.
Secondly, substitute the target roof drift θ r,y H into Equation (12) and solve the
value of λ. Then, the bending stiffness Ec Ieq can be obtained. Moreover, the moment
and shear demands can be calculated by Equations (13) and (14). Subsequently, the
parameters of the wall can be designed.

qH 2
    
λshλ shλ chλξ λ 1
Mw = 1 + − − − shλξ − ζ (13)
λ2 2 λ chλ 2 λ

−qH
    
λshλ shλ λshλξ λ 1
Qw = 1+ − − − λchλξ − 1 (14)
λ2 2 λ chλ 2 λ
(8) Determine the parameters of PDSFD according to the design principles presented in
Section 2.3.
(9) Establish a numerical model for the enhanced SMRF and check the fundamental
period T. If T converges to the final design value, perform nonlinear dynamic analysis
to assess the structural seismic performance. Otherwise, return to step 5 for iteration.
 of
as λ. Then,inthe
plotted bending
Figure stiffness
11. It should beEnoted
cIeq can bethe
that obtained.
number Moreover, theofmoment
and locations pinned conan
nections along
demands the calculated
can be structural height can be adjusted
by Equations according
(13) and to the design requirement
(14). Subsequently, the param
In order to realize the
the wall can be designed.expected performance objectives of enhancement, an effective de
sign method is necessary. At present, the relevant methods generally need many iteration
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 of nonlinear dynamic calculation. 13 of 22design, a
For the purpose of achieving fast and efficient
qH 2
  sh sh  ch 
and the design steps are outlined
  1  
new procedure was 
M proposed, 1  sh  
 as follows:
w
 2  2   ch 
2   

PSCRSW Rigid link SMRF

qH  sh sh  sh   1  

Qw  2 
1       ch  1
  2   ch  2   

(8) Determine the parameters of PDSFD according to the design principles prese
Section 2.3.
(9) Establish a numerical model for the enhanced SMRF and check the fundame
riod T. If T converges to the final design value, perform nonlinear dynamic a
to assess the structural seismic performance. Otherwise, return to step 5 for it

4. Case Study
4.1. Prototype Building
Figure
FigureA11.typical
11. 9-story
Enhancing
Enhancing SMRF
strategy
strategy was adopted
for SMRF.
for SMRF. as the prototype to be enhanced, wh
firstly designed for the SAC project as the benchmark model and is widely chose
4. Case Study
(1) the
sess Specify the performance
performance of seismicobjectives
enhancingand strategy
the corresponding
[28,29]. Theinter-story
prototype drift ratio
assum
4.1. Prototype Building
(ISDR) targets, which are denoted as θy, θd and θu for service level earthquake (SLE)
located in Los
Adesign-based
typical Angels
9-story SMRF with
wassite classasC,the
adopted and there are
prototype five
to be bays with
enhanced, which a width
was of 9.
earthquake (DBE) and maximum considered earthquake (MCE), re
each designed
firstly direction forof
thethe
SAC building. Only
project as the one lateral
benchmark modelresisting frame
and is widely was
chosen investigated
to assess
spectively.
the
studyperformance
due to the of seismic enhancing
structuralmodel strategy
symmetry. [28,29].
Figure The prototype
12 shows assumes
the to be located
elevation view of the
(2)LosEstablish
in Angels a numerical
with site class C, and for the
there are prototype
five bays needed
with a enhancement
width of 9.15 m in and
each conduc
framenonlinear
and thedynamic
design information
analysis under ofexcitation
the members. of SLE,The
DBEheight
and MCEof the standard fl
levels.
direction of the building. Only one lateral resisting frame was investigated in this studyThen, as
3.96 m,
due tosess
and for the
whether its
the structural
basement and
seismic Figure
symmetry.
first
performance floor,
12 showsmeets
they were 3.65
the preselected
the elevation
m and 5.49
targets.
view of the selected not,respectiv
m,
If frame it should
the members
and the bedesign
enhanced were manufactured
throughofthe
information thefollowing using
members. The W-section
steps. steel, with nominal
height of the standard floor was 3.96 m, yielding s
of 248
and for MPa for the beams
the basement and firstand
floor,345
theyMPa
werefor the
3.65 m columns.
and 5.49 m,The columnsAll
respectively. werethe pin-co
members were manufactured using W-section steel, with nominal
to the base. The tributary seismic mass of the chosen lateral resisting frame yielding strength of was 4
248 MPa for the beams and 345 MPa for the columns. The columns were pin-connected to
kg. 6
the base. The tributary seismic mass of the chosen lateral resisting frame was 4.50 × 10 kg.
9th
8th
Beams (248Mpa) Columns (345Mpa)
7th
Ground-2nd W36×160 B-1-1st W14×500
6th
5th 3rd-6th W36×135 2nd-3rd W14×455
4th 7th W30×99 4th-5th W14×370
3rd 8th W27×84 6th-7th W14×283
2nd 9th W24×68 8th-9th W14×257
1st Weights (kg) Heights (m) Periods
Ground Ground 4.83×105 Basement 3.65 T1=2.05s
B-1
1st 5.05×105 1st 5.49 T2=0.78s
2nd-8th 4.95×105 2nd-9th 3.96 T3=0.43s
Z
Y 9-story benchmark model 9th 5.35×105 Bay widths 9.15
X

Figure The
Figure12.12. prototype
The building.
prototype building.
4.2. Numerical Modelling
Numerical analysis is an important approach to assess the performance of engineering
structures under seismic excitations, the effectiveness of which has been verified in many
previous studies, such as for seismic assessment of steel geodesic dome [30], slope effect
on soil–pile interaction [31] and modular precast composite shear wall [32]. In this study,
numerical analysis was also adopted to assess the seismic performance of SMRF before and
after enhancement, as well as the effectiveness of the presented design method.
Numerical models for the prototype and enhanced SMRF were built using the OpenSees
program in this section. The beam and column members were modeled using an elastic
 Numerical models for the prototype and enhanced SMRF were built using the Open-
Sees program in this section. The beam and column members were modeled using an
elastic beam–column element with two concentrated plastic hinges located at the ends. In
order
Buildings to1957
2022, 12, capture the deterioration behavior of stiffness and strength of the members, zero-14 of 22
length rotational springs with the modified Ibarra–Medina–Krawinkler (IMK) deteriora-
tion material that is calibrated by a lot of experimental data [33] were utilized for simulat-
beam–column
ing the nonlinear properties element
of the with two
hinges. Theconcentrated
panel zone plastic hinges located at thejoints
of beam-to-column ends. was
In order to
capture the deterioration behavior of stiffness and strength of the members, zero-length
modeled through the approach specified in ATC 72-1 [34], which includes eight rigid
rotational springs with the modified Ibarra–Medina–Krawinkler (IMK) deterioration ma-
beam–column elements, three
terial that pinned connections
is calibrated and onedata
by a lot of experimental rotational
[33] werespring.
utilized Afortrilinear
simulating the
hysteretic model presented
nonlinear by Guptaofand
properties the Krawinkler
hinges. The panel [35]zonewasofincorporated
beam-to-column into thewas
joints rota-
modeled
tional spring to account for the shear distortion effect. The P-Δ effect was also considered
through the approach specified in ATC 72-1 [34], which includes eight rigid beam–column
in the numerical model elements,
by athree pinned
leaning connections
column that and one rotational
is built throughspring. A trilinearrotational
a zero-length hysteretic model
presented by Gupta and Krawinkler [35] was incorporated into the rotational spring to
spring with very small stiffness and rigid beam–column elements. The modeling of
account for the shear distortion effect. The P-∆ effect was also considered in the numerical
PSCRSW adopted amodel similarby approach as illustrated
a leaning column that is builtinthrough
Section 2.3. The only
a zero-length difference
rotational be- very
spring with
tween them is that small the RC wall and
stiffness is modeled using a beam–column
rigid beam–column elements. The modeling element with a fiber
of PSCRSW adopted a
section instead of a layered shell element. Each story wall was divided into four elements,is that
similar approach as illustrated in Section 2.3. The only difference between them
the RC wall is modeled using a beam–column element with a fiber section instead of a
and each element was assigned five integration points. Rigid links were established to
layered shell element. Each story wall was divided into four elements, and each element
connect the steel frame and PSCRSW.
was assigned The detailed
five integration numerical
points. Rigid links weremodel can be
established to seen
connectinthe
Figure
steel frame
13. Figure 14 compares the hysteretic
and PSCRSW. curvenumerical
The detailed of the wallmodel specimen
can be seen ininSection 2.3,Figure
Figure 13. simulated
14 compares
by fiber beam–column the hysteretic
element,curve withof that
the wall
of specimen
the experimentin Sectionand2.3, simulated
layered shellby fiber beam–column
element-
element, with that of the experiment and layered shell
simulated model. As can be seen, the results are in good agreement with each other, indi- element-simulated model. As can be
seen, the results are in good agreement with each other, indicating the effectiveness of the
cating the effectiveness of the numerical model for PSCRSW.
numerical model for PSCRSW.

Beam-column Joint panel zone Rotational spring

Node
element with very small
stiffness

Rigid link Rigid link

twoNodeLink

Rigid beam
Concentrated Leaning column
plastic hinge

Rotational spring

Mc Rotational spring to model

My shear distortion
Residual Pin connection
Unloading strength V
stiffness
Vp
Moment M

deterioration
 Ke
Vy Kp
p  pc

Ke
Post-capping Elastic beam-
γy γp γ
strength Basic strength Rigid beam-
deterioration deterioration column element column element
Chord rotation

Figure 13. Numerical Figure

modeling for PSCRSW.
13. Numerical modeling for PSCRSW.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22

Buildings 2022, 12,

Buildings 1957
2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22 15 of 22

240 240

Experiment Numerical-layered shell

180 180
Numerical-fiber 240 Numerical-fiber
240
120 Experiment 120 Numerical-layered shell
180 180
Numerical-fiber Numerical-fiber

Force (kN)
Force (kN)

60 60
120 120

Force (kN)
0 60 0
Force (kN)

60

−60 0 0−60

−120 −60 −60

−120

−180 −120 −120

−180
−180 −180
−240 −240
−1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
−240 −240 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
−1.2 −0.8 Drift ratio
−0.4 0.0(%) 0.4 0.8 1.2 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 Drift ratio
0.0 0.4(%) 0.8 1.2
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
Figure 14. Hysteretic curve of the wall specimen simulated by fiber element.
Figure
Figure 14.14.Hysteretic
Hysteretic curve
curve of
of the
thewall
wallspecimen
specimensimulated by fiber
simulated element.
by fiber element.
4.3. Enhancing Design
4.3.4.3. EnhancingDesign
Enhancing Design
The targets of ISDR forSLE,
SLE,DBE DBE and MCE levels
werewere adopted as θy = θ0.4%, θd =
The targets ofofISDR
The targets ISDRforforSLE, DBE and
and MCE
MCE levels
levels were adopted
adoptedas asθθyy==0.4%,
0.4%, θd d= = 1.5%
1.5%
1.5% and
and θθu u==2.0%
2.0% in this
thisstudy,
study,respectively.
respectively. According
According to to design
design step step
(3), (3),
the the relation-
relation-
and θ u = 2.0% in this study, respectively. According to design step (3), the relationship
ship
shipbetween
between the the inter-story
inter-story andandroofroofdrift
drift ratios
ratios waswasfittedfitted
basedbased
on theondynamic
the dynamicre- re-
between the inter-story and roof drift ratios was fitted based on the dynamic responses of
sponsesofofthe
sponses theprototype
prototype under
under the
theexcitation
excitation of earthquake
of earthquake records shown
records in Section
shown in 4.4.
Section 4.4.
the prototype under the excitation of earthquake records shown in Section 4.4. The fitting
TheThe fittingresults
fitting results are
are provided in Figure 15,15,
by by
which the targets of roof drift ratio can be can be
results are provided
obtained as 0.25%, inprovided
0.94%Figure
and 15,inby
1.25%
Figure
which
for each the
seismic
which
targets
level.ofthe targets
roof
Then, drift
other
of roof
ratio can
critical
drift ratio
be obtained
design pa- as
obtained
0.25%, 0.94%as 0.25%,
and 0.94%for
1.25% and 1.25%
each for each
seismic level.seismic
Then, level. critical
other Then, other
design critical design can
parameters pa-
rameters can be calculated according to design steps (4)~(6), as listed in Table 2. The finally
rameters
be calculatedcan be calculateddesign
according according to(4)~(6),
design steps (4)~(6), as listed in Table 2. The finally
determined design basetoshear steps
equaled 0.17W. The as listed in Table
final period was2. 1.30
The s,finally
whichdetermined
con-
determined
design
verged baseto the
design
shearinitial
base
equaled shear
design0.17W.
equaled
value ofThe
1.34final
0.17W.
s. It period
should be
The
was final period
1.30that
noted s, which was 1.30
converged
the design
s, which
to
was finished
con-
the initial
verged
design to
using value the
one loop initial
of withoutdesign value
1.34 s. iteration
It should of 1.34 s. It should be noted that the design
be noted that the design was finished using one loop
performed. was finished
using one
without loop without
iteration iteration performed.
performed.
4
4
MCE
DBE
MCE
SLE
DBE
3 Linear fitting
SLE
Inter-story drift ratio (%)

95% confidence interval

3 Linear fitting
Inter-story drift ratio (%)

95% confidence interval

2

2 y=1.6x
R2=0.98
1
y=1.6x
R2=0.98
1
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Roof drift ratio (%)
0
Figure
0.0 15. Fitting
0.5 relationship
1.0 between
1.5 inter-story
2.0 and roof
2.5drift ratios.
Roof drift ratio (%)
Table 2. Design parameters in the design method.
Figure 15. Fitting
Figure 15. Fitting relationship
relationship between
between inter-story
inter-story and
and roof
roofdrift
driftratios.
ratios.
Parameters SLE DBE MCE
Table2.2.Design
Table DesignT/s parameters
parametersin the1.34
inthe design
designmethod.
method. 1.34 1.34
Sa/g 0.14 0.55 0.83
Parameters
Parameters
θy θd θu SLE
SLE
0.4% DBE
1.5%DBE 2.0% MCE
MCE
T/s
θr,yT/s
θr,d θr,u 1.34
0.25%
1.34 0.9375%1.34
1.34 1.34
1.25% 1.34
Sa/g
Sa/g θp 0
0.14
0.14 0.6875%0.55
0.55 1.0% 0.83
0.83
θθyy θθdμd θsθuu 0.4%
1
0.4% 3.751.5%
1.5% 5 2.0%
2.0%
Cθ0 r,u
θ r,y θ r ,d 0.25%
1.48 0.9375%
1.48 1.48 1.25%
θr,y θθ r,d θr,u 0.25%
0 0.9375%
0.6875% 1.25%
1.0%
p
µθsp 10 0.6875%
3.75 1.0%
5
Cμ0s 1
1.48 3.75
1.48 5
1.48
γ0
C 1.0
1.48 0.47
1.48 0.36
1.48
Vy /W 0.14 0.14 0.17
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 16 of 22

After determining the base shear, the parameters in design step (7) could be calculated,
including q = 543.8 kN/m, CF = 7.53 × 105 kN, λ = 1.25, Ieq = 22.2 m4 . The material
properties of the concrete and reinforcement were assumed to be the same, as shown in
Figure 6. The elastic modulus of concrete was Ec = 3 × 104 MPa. Then, the dimensions of
the wall section were computed as L = 6.0 m, t = 1.2m, and the width of confined regions
was selected as 0.8 m. For the walls in 1~3 story, 16 longitudinal reinforcements with
a diameter of 32 mm were placed in each confined region, and 36 vertical distribution
reinforcements with a diameter of 28 mm were placed in the non-confined region. For walls
in other stories, the numbers of reinforcements were the same, but the diameters for them
were 25 mm and 20 mm in 4~6 stories and 20 mm and 18 mm in 7~9 stories. The strategy
with one pinned connection located at the bottom was adopted, and optimization of the
locations and numbers of pinned connections along the structural height was not discussed
in this study. The geometric parameters were assumed as a = h’ = 2.0 m and b = 0.3 m. The
value of p0 + f 0 , k1 and k2 for PDSFD were calculated as 2.82 × 104 kN, 4.18 × 103 kN/mm
and 2.09 × 102 kN/mm, respectively.

4.4. Seismic Performance Assessment

In order to assess the seismic performance of the prototype and enhanced SMRF,
nonlinear time history analyses were performed under the excitation of earthquake records
listed in Table 3. There was a total of 12 records that were selected on the basis of site
class and design spectrum in ASCE 7–10 [7]. The spectral design parameters for the DBE
level, SDS and SD1 , were 1.6 and 0.74, and for the MCE level, SMS and SM1 , were 2.4
and 1.1, respectively. The peak ground accelerations for SLE, DBE and MCE levels were,
respectively, 0.16 g, 0.64 g and 0.96 g. The equivalent shear wave velocity V s30 ranged
from 366 km/s to 762 km/s during the record selection, the magnitude ranges were 6~8,
and the fault distance ranges were 0~10 km. Figure 16 plots the response spectrum of the
earthquake records and the design spectrum. These records were selected and associated
with the first three vibration periods (2.05 s, 0.78 s and 0.43 s) of the chosen SMRF. As
can be seen, the mean spectrum agrees well with the target spectrum when the period
exceeds 0.43 s, within a 10% relative error. Because the seismic response of the SMRF was
dominated by the first three vibration modes, the short periods were not considered during
the record selection, and the corresponding mean spectrum was much stronger. During
the analysis, each record was extended by 10 s of free vibration to capture the residual
drift accurately.

Table 3. Earthquake records.

No. Earthquake Year Magnitude NGA# Station Fault Distance (km)

GM1 Loma Prieta 1989 6.93 802 Saratoga—Aloha Ave 8.50
GM2 Cape Mendocino 1992 7.01 825 Cape Mendocino 6.96
GM3 Chi-Chi_ Taiwan 1999 7.62 1493 TCU053 5.95
GM4 Chi-Chi_ Taiwan 1999 7.62 1504 TCU067 0.62
GM5 Chi-Chi_ Taiwan 1999 7.62 1511 TCU76 2.74
GM6 Chi-Chi_ Taiwan 1999 7.62 1521 TCU89 9.00
GM7 Chi-Chi_ Taiwan 1999 7.62 1546 TCU122 9.34
GM8 Chi-Chi_ Taiwan 1999 7.62 1551 TCU138 9.78
GM9 Tottori_ Japan 2000 6.61 3947 SMNH01 5.86
GM10 Tottori_ Japan 2000 6.61 3966 TTR009 8.83
GM11 Iwate_ Japan 2008 6.90 5658 IWTH26 6.02
GM12 Christchurch_ New Zealand 2011 6.20 8158 LPCC 6.12

Figure 17 shows the story-wise distribution of the inter-story drift ratio (ISDR) of
the prototype and enhanced SMRF. The maximum mean ISDRs of the prototype were
0.50%, 1.64% and 2.30% for SLE, DBE and MCE levels, respectively, which are larger than
the design targets of 0.4%, 1.5% and 2.0%, indicating that the design requirements were
not met, and the seismic performance needs to be enhanced. After being enhanced, the
 Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 22

Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 5

17 of 22
Target spectrum
Individual spectrum
4
Mean spectrum
maximum mean ISDRs were, respectively, reduced to 0.38%, 1.32% and 1.99%, which are
T=0.43s
approximate
3 to the design targets. Figure 18 compares the roof drift ratios between the

Sa (g)
Sa=1.73g
analytical values and the targets. The mean roof drift ratios for SLE, DBE and MCE levels
2 were, respectively, 0.25%, 0.89% and 1.31%. The errors between these values and the targets

are about 0%, 5% and 5%, respectively. In general, the enhanced SMRF is not only capable
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
1 of achieving the ISDR targets of multiple seismic hazard levels but also the roof drift ratio

targets, demonstrating the effectiveness of the enhanced SMRF, realizing the expected
0 seismic performance objectives and of the proposed design procedure.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T (s)
5
Figure 16. Response spectra of the earthquake records scaled to DBE level.
Target spectrum
Individual spectrum
4
Figure 17 shows the story-wiseMean spectrum of the inter-story drift ratio (ISDR) of the
distribution
prototype and enhanced SMRF. The maximum mean ISDRs of the prototype were 0.50%,
3 2.30% T=0.43s
1.64% and for SLE, DBE and MCE levels, respectively, which are larger than the
Sa (g)

Sa=1.73g
design targets of 0.4%, 1.5% and 2.0%, indicating that the design requirements were not
met, and2 the seismic performance needs to be enhanced. After being enhanced, the maxi-
mum mean ISDRs were, respectively, reduced to 0.38%, 1.32% and 1.99%, which are ap-
proximate to the design targets. Figure 18 compares the roof drift ratios between the ana-
1
lytical values and the targets. The mean roof drift ratios for SLE, DBE and MCE levels
were, respectively, 0.25%, 0.89% and 1.31%. The errors between these values and the tar-
gets are0about 0%, 5% and 5%, respectively. In general, the enhanced SMRF is not only
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
capable of achieving the ISDRT targets
(s) of multiple seismic hazard levels but also the roof
drift ratio targets, demonstrating the effectiveness of the enhanced SMRF, realizing the
Figure
expected
Figure 16.Response
16.
seismic spectra
performance
Response of theof
earthquake
objectives
spectra theand ofrecords scaled
the proposed
earthquake to design
records DBE level.
scaled procedure.
to DBE level.
9 9 9
G1 G1 G1
8
Figure
G2 17 shows the story-wise
8 G2 distribution of the 8
inter-story
G2 drift ratio (ISDR
G3 G3 G3
prototype
7
G4
G5
and enhanced SMRF. 7
G4 The maximum mean ISDRs
G5
7
G4
G5
of the prototype were
1.64%
6
G6
G7
and 2.30% for SLE, 6DBEG7 and MCE levels, respectively,
G6
6
G6
G7
which are larger t
G8 G8 G8
design targets of 0.4%, 1.5% and 2.0%, indicating that the design requirements w
Story level

Story level

Story level

5 G9 5 G9 5 G9
G10 G10 G10
met,
4 and
G11
G12
the seismic performance 4 G11
G12
needs to be enhanced. 4 G11After being enhanced, th
G12
mum mean ISDRs were, respectively, reduced to 0.38%,Mean1.32% and 1.99%, which
3 Mean 3 Mean 3

2 2
proximate to the design targets. Figure 18 compares2 the roof drift ratios between t
1 1 1
lytical values target 0.4%and the targets. The Target mean 1.5% roof drift ratios for TargetSLE,
2.0% DBE and MC
0 0 0
were, respectively,
0.0 0.2 0.4
ISDR (%)
0.6 0.8 0.25%, 0.89%ISDR
0.0 0.5 and
1.0 1.5
(%)
1.31%. The errors between
2.0 2.5 0 1 2
ISDR (%)
3 these values and
4

gets are about

(a) Prototype, SLE 0%, 5% and (b)5%, respectively.
Prototype, DBE In general, the enhanced
(c) Prototype, MCE SMRF is n
capable
9
of achieving the ISDR 9
targets of multiple seismic 9
hazard levels but also
8 8
drift ratio targets, demonstrating 8
the effectiveness of the enhanced SMRF, realiz
7 7 7
expected
6
seismic G1
performance
6
objectives G1
and of the 6
proposed design G1
procedure.
G2 G2 G2
Story level
Story level

Story level

G3 G3 G3
5 5 5
9 G4 9 G4 G4 9
4 G1G5 4 G1 G5 4 G5 G1
8 G2G6 8 G2 G6 G6
8 G2
G7 G7 G7
3 G3G8 3 G3 G8
3 G3
G8
G4G9 G4 G9 G9 G4
2 7 2 7 2 7
G5G10 G5 G10 G10 G5
1
G6G11 1 G6 G11
1
G11 G6
6 G12 6 G12 G12 6
target 0.4% G7Mean Target 1.5% G7 Mean G7
Target 2.0% Mean
G8 0 G8 G8
Story level

Story level

Story level

0 0
0.0 0.25 0.4 0.6
G9 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 5 2.0 2.5
G9 0 1 2 3 4 5 G9
ISDR (%) ISDR (%) ISDR (%)
G10 G10 G10
4
(d) Enhanced, G11
G12
SLE (e) Enhanced,4 DBE G11 G12
(f) Enhanced, MCE 4 G11
G12
3 Mean 3 Mean 3 Mean
Figure 17. Inter-story
Figure drift ratio
17. Inter-story of theofprototype
drift ratio and the
the prototype andenhanced SMRF.
the enhanced SMRF.
2 2 2

1 1 1
target 0.4% Target 1.5% Target 2.0
0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 1 2 3
ISDR (%) ISDR (%) ISDR (%)

(a) Prototype, SLE (b) Prototype, DBE (c) Prototype, MC

9 9 9
Buildings
Buildings 2022,
Buildings 2022, 12,
12, x1957
2022, 12, x FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 18 of
18
18 of 22
of 22
22

0.50
0.50 1.5
1.5 22
(%)

(%)

(%)
ratio (%)

ratio (%)

ratio (%)
1.0
1.0 Target
Target 0.9375%
0.9375% Mean
Mean 1.31%
1.31%

drift ratio
drift ratio

drift ratio
Target
Target 1.25%
1.25%
Mean
Mean 0.25%
0.25% Mean
Mean 0.89%
0.89%
0.25
0.25 11

Roof drift
Roof drift

Roof drift
Target
Target 0.25%
0.25%
Roof

Roof

Roof
0.5
0.5

SLE
SLE DBE
DBE MCE
MCE

0.00
0.00 0.0
0.0 00
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 10
10 11
11 12
12 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 10
10 11
11 12
12 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 10
10 11
11 12
12
Ground
Ground motions
motions Ground
Ground motions
motions Ground
Ground motions
motions

(a)
(a) SLE
SLE (b)
(b) DBE
DBE (c)
(c) MCE
MCE
Figure
Figure 18. Comparison of the analytical and designed roof
roof drift
drift ratios.
Figure 18.
18. Comparison
Comparison of
of the
the analytical
analytical and
and designed
designed roof drift ratios.
ratios.

Figure
Figure
Figure 19 19 compares
19compares
comparesthe the roof
theroof
roof drift
drift
drift time
time
time history
history
history curves
curves
curves of the
the prototype
ofprototype
of the prototype
and theand
and the
the en-
enhanced en-
hanced
hanced SMRF,
SMRF,the
SMRF, taking taking
taking the
the responses
responses responses of
of earthquakes
of earthquakes earthquakes
GM4 (with GM4
GM4the(with
(with
maximumthe
the maximum
response)response)
maximum response)
and GM5
and
and GM5
(with GM5 (with
(with the
the minimum the minimum
response) response)
minimum response) as
as an example.as an example.
an Under
example. theUnder
Under the
the excitation
excitation excitation
of GM4, the of
of GM4,
GM4,roof
peak the
the
peak
peak roof
roof drifts
drifts are
are reduced
reduced by
by enhancing
enhancing from
from 228
228 mm,
mm, 574
574
drifts are reduced by enhancing from 228 mm, 574 mm and 867 mm to 122 mm, 383 mm mm
mm and
and 867
867 mm
mm to
to 122
122 mm,
mm,
383
andmm
383 687and
mm mm,687
and 687 mm,
mm, respectively,
respectively,
respectively, for SLE, for SLE,
forDBE
SLE,andDBE
DBEMCEand
and MCEMCE
levels,levels,
whilewhile
levels, while the
the residual
residual
the residual drifts
drifts
drifts are
are
are reduced
reduced
reduced fromfrom
from 1.12
1.121.12 mm,
mm,mm, 200
200 200
mmmm mm and
andand 461
461 461
mmmm mm to 0.02
to 0.02
to 0.02 mm,
mm,mm, 13 mm13 mm
13 mmandandand 210
210 210 mm.
mm.mm. Under Under
Underthe
the
the excitation
excitation
excitation of
of GM5,
of GM5, thethe
GM5, the peak
peak
peak roof
roof
roof drifts
drifts
drifts decrease
decrease
decrease from
from115
from 115 mm,
115mm,
mm,336 336
336mm mm
mmandand 594 mm
and 594 mm to to
49
49 mm,
mm, 201 mm
201 mmmmand and
and326326 mm,
326mm, while
mm,while
whilethe the
the residual
residual
residual drifts
drifts
drifts decrease
decrease
decrease fromfrom
from0.5 0.5
0.5 mm,
mm, 22.222.2
mm, mmmm
22.2 mm
and
and
72.672.6
and mmmm
72.6 mmto 0to
to 00 mm,
mm, mm,1.31.3
1.3
mm mm
mm andand2.12.1
and 2.1
mm.mm.
mm. These results
Theseresults
These show
resultsshow that
showthat the
thatthe dynamic responses
thedynamic responses
can
can be
be significantly mitigated
significantly mitigated
mitigatedby by the
bythe presented
thepresented PSCRSW.
presentedPSCRSW. Moreover,
PSCRSW.Moreover,
Moreover, the
the
the maximum
maximum
maximum resid-
resid-
residual
ual
ual inter-story
inter-story
inter-story drift
driftdrift ratios
ratios before
ratios before and
and after
before after enhancement
and enhancement
after enhancement are
are comparedcompared
are compared in
in Figure Figure
20. As 20.
in Figure 20.
canAs be
As
can
seen,be
can be seen,
theseen, the
the residual
residual inter-story
residual inter-story
drift ratios
inter-story drift
are ratios
drift ratios are
obviously obviously
are decreased
obviouslyby decreased
enhancing
decreased by enhancing
byoverall.
enhancing The
overall. The
The mean
mean degradation
overall. mean degradation of
of all
of all the earthquake
degradation all the earthquake
therecords is about
earthquake records
54%,is
records about
about 54%,
indicating
is that
54%, indicating that
the structural
indicating that
recoverability
the
the structural post-earthquakes
structural recoverability
recoverability would be improved.
post-earthquakes
post-earthquakes would
would be be improved.
improved.

0.3
0.3 0.12
0.12
0.2 Prototype
Prototype Prototype
Prototype
0.2
Enhanced
(m)

Enhanced Enhanced
(m)
Displacement (m)

Enhanced
Displacement (m)

0.06
0.06
0.1
0.1
Displacement

Displacement

0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00
−0.1
−0.1
−0.06
−0.06
−0.2
−0.2
−0.3
−0.3 −0.12
−0.12
00 20
20 40
40 60
60 80
80 100
100 00 30
30 60
60 90
90 120
120 150
150
Time
Time (s)
(s) Time
Time (s)
(s)
(a)
(a) SLE,
SLE, GM4
GM4 (b)
(b) SLE,
SLE, GM5
GM5
0.6
0.6 0.4
0.4
Prototype
Prototype Prototype
Prototype
0.4
0.4 Enhanced
Enhanced Enhanced
(m)

Enhanced
Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)

0.2
0.2
0.2
Displacement

0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

−0.2
−0.2 −0.2
−0.2

−0.4
−0.4 −0.4
−0.4
00 20
20 40
40 60
60 80
80 100
100 00 30
30 60
60 90
90 120
120 150
150
Time
Time (s)
(s) Time (s)
Time (s)
(c)
(c) DBE,
DBE, GM4
GM4 (d)
(d) DBE,
DBE, GM5
GM5

Figure 19. Cont.

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 2
Buildings 2022,
2022, 12,
12, 1957
x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 22

0.9 0.6
0.9 0.6 Prototype
0.6 0.4
Displacement (m)

Prototype Enhanced

Displacement (m)
0.6 0.4
Displacement (m)

Enhanced

Displacement (m)
0.3 0.2
0.3 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
Prototype
−0.3 Prototype −0.2
−0.3 Enhanced −0.2
Enhanced
−0.6
−0.6 −0.4 −0.4
00 20
20 40
40 6060 80 80 100 100 0 0 30 30 60 6090 90
120 120
150 150
Time (s)
Time(s) Time (s) Time (s)

(e) MCE,
MCE,GM4
GM4 (f) MCE,
(f) MCE, GM5 GM5
Figure
Figure 19.
19.Comparison
Figure19. Comparison
Comparison of
of the roofroof
of the
the roof driftdrift
drift timetime
time history curves.
history
history curves.
curves.
2.0
2.0
Prototype
Prototype
Enhanced
Enhanced
1.5
(%)(%)

1.5
ratio
driftdrift ratio

1.0
1.0
Residual
Residual

0.5

0.5

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.0 Ground motions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 20. Comparison of the maximum
Ground motions residual inter-story drift ratios.

Figure 20.Comparison
Figure20. Comparisonof the maximum
of the residual
maximum inter-story
residual drift ratios.
inter-story drift ratios.
Table 4 analyzes the effect of PSCRSW on the structural performance from the per-
spective
Tableof4energy
analyzes dissipation,
the effect ofinPSCRSW
which the onenergy dissipated
the structural by the beam
performance fromand column
the perspec-
hinges Table
were 4compared.
analyzesFor theall
effect
the of PSCRSW
records, both onenergy
the the structural
dissipated performance
by beams andfrom
col- the per
tive of energy dissipation, in which the energy dissipated by the beam and column hinges
spective
umns
were was of
compared.energy
significantly dissipation,
For allreduced, inboth
with
the records, which
the thethe
total energy
energy,
energy dissipated
respectively,
dissipated by the
bydecreased
beams and beam
by 58% and
and column
columns
was significantly reduced, with the total energy, respectively, decreased by 58% and 99%. and col
hinges
99%. were
Therefore, compared.
it can be For all
concluded the records,
that the both
damages the
that energy
occurred dissipated
in beams and by beams
columns
umns
are wasitsignificantly
significantly
Therefore, mitigated,
can be reduced,
concludedwhich with
thatfurther
the the total
illustrates
damages thatenergy,
the respectively,
effectiveness
occurred in beams ofanddecreased
PSCRSW
columns by
are 58% and
in en-
hancing structural
99%. Therefore,
significantly itseismic
mitigated, beresilience.
canwhichconcluded that thethe
further illustrates damages that occurred
effectiveness of PSCRSW in in
beams and column
enhancing
structural seismic resilience.
are significantly mitigated, which further illustrates the effectiveness of PSCRSW in en
Table 4. The comparison of energy dissipated by the frame members.
hancing structural seismic resilience.
Table 4. The comparison of energy dissipated by the frame members.
Prototype Frame Enhanced Frame
No. of Earthquakes Beam Table
Hinges 4.
Prototype FrameThe comparison
Column of
Hinges energy
Beam dissipated
Hinges
Enhanced Frame by the frame
Column members.
Hinges 1 − EB2/EB1 1 − EC2/EC1
No. of E B1 (kJ) E C1 (kJ) E B2 (kJ) E C2 (kJ) 1 − E /E
Beam Hinges Prototype
Column Hinges 1 − EC2 /EC1
Earthquakes Frame Beam Hinges Column Hinges
Enhanced Frame B2 B1
1 EB1 (kJ)4301.0 EC1 (kJ) 18.8 EB2 (kJ)3150.4 EC2 (kJ) 0.11 27% 99%
No. of Earthquakes
2
Beam Hinges Column
2874.4 18.1
Hinges Beam 1440.0
Hinges Column
0.83
Hinges 50%
1 − EB2/E B1 1 − EC2/EC1
95%
1 4301.0 18.8 3150.4 0.11 27% 99%
2 3 2874.4E B1 (kJ)
3143.4 EC1 (kJ) 1440.0 1201.7
18.1 0.48 EB2 (kJ) 0.83 0.25EC2 (kJ) 50% 62% 48%
95%
3 14 4301.0
3143.4 8589.5 0.48 7.82 18.8 3150.4 0.25 0.35 0.11 62% 46% 27%
1201.7 4613.9 48%
96% 99%
4 25 8589.5 3884.4
2874.4 7.82 0.15 18.1 4613.9 5793.9
1440.0 0.35 0.01 0.83 46% 85% 50% 96%
97% 95%
5 3884.4 0.15 5793.9 0.01 85% 97%
6 36 7124.0 7124.0
3143.4 0.33 0.33 0.48 2181.8 2181.8
1201.7 0.05 0.05 0.25 69% 69% 62% 85%
85% 48%
7 4 7 2037.4
2037.4 8589.5 0.07 0.07
7.82 4540.7 4540.7
4613.9 0.06 0.06 0.35 78% 78% 46% 10%
10% 96%
8 8 4604.4 4604.4 0.32 0.32 3601.4 3601.4
5 3884.4 0.15 5793.9 0.04 0.04 0.01 22% 22% 85% 88%
88% 97%
9 9 5019.3 5019.3 14.5 14.5 1137.3 1137.3 0.15 0.15 77% 77% 99%
99%
10 6 5629.4 7124.0 189.6 0.33 1548.7 2181.8 0.29 0.05 72% 69%
100% 85%
11 7
10 5629.4
4557.1 2037.4
189.6 1548.7 0.29 72% 100%
0.60 0.07 7367.8 4540.7 0.10 0.06 84% 78%83% 10%
12 11 3121.7 4557.1 0.24 0.60 2212.0 7367.8 0.18 0.10 29% 84% 83%
25%
8 4604.4 0.32 3601.4 0.04 22% 88%
Total9
12 3121.7
54,886.15019.3 251.1
0.24 22,857.6
2212.0 2.43
0.18 58%
29% 25%
99%
Total 54,886.1
14.5
251.1
1137.3
22,857.6 2.43
0.15 58%
77% 99%
99%
10 5629.4 189.6 1548.7 0.29 72% 100%
11 4557.1 0.60 7367.8 0.10 84% 83%
12 3121.7 0.24 2212.0 0.18 29% 25%
Total 54,886.1 251.1 22,857.6 2.43 58% 99%
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 20 of 22

The above analyses compared the structural performance between the prototype and
the enhanced SMRF based on the dynamic responses and energy dissipation. However,
there is a lack of comparison to other similar studies. In previous studies, the enhancing
strategies generally have little effect on the story-wise distribution tendency of the inter-
story drift ratio, and the weak story usually appears in the bottom or middle part of the
structure [1,2,11,15,17]. From Figure 17, it can be observed that the enhancement in this
study has a better seismic mitigation effect on the bottom and middle stories, and the weak
story occurs at the top of the structure, indicating that the repair of structural damages
would be less difficult. In addition, the design procedures in previous studies generally
require many iterations of nonlinear dynamic analysis and are unable to take the targets of
inter-story drift and roof drift ratios into account simultaneously [2,13,15,17]. The results
of this study show that the presented design procedure successfully makes up for these
deficiencies. The convergence of enhancing design for SMRF with PSCRSW in this research
was achieved without performing iteration, and the inter-story drift and roof drift targets
were realized. The presented design framework can be extended to SMRF with other
enhancing strategies.

5. Conclusions
By theoretical and numerical analyses, the effectiveness of the presented PSCRSW and
the design method for enhancing the seismic resilience of SMRF were validated, and the
main conclusions and suggestions were obtained:
• PSCRSW can realize approximate yielding behavior, displacement capacity and lateral
strength to the prototype (conventional RC shear wall) while exhibiting a stable flag
shape hysteretic curve. In order to ensure excellent self-centering performance, the
ratio of preload P0 to friction force f 0 of PSCRSW is suggested to be no less than 1.5;
• When the ratio of P0 to f 0 does not exceed 2.0, PSCRSW shows obviously better energy
dissipation capacity than the prototype, and about 70% of the energy is dissipated by
PDSFD. Moreover, the energy dissipated by the RC wall in PSCRSW is more than 60%
less than that of the prototype, which indicates that the plastic damage of the wall in
PSCRSW is much lower;
• During the design of PSCRSW, the amplification factor of 1.2 should be considered for
the bearing capacity of the RC wall, at which not only the bearing performance but
also the self-centering performance can be ensured;
• By the proposed design method, the enhanced SMRF achieves the inter-story drift ratio
targets, and the expected roof drift ratios simultaneously. No iteration is conducted
during the enhancement design;
• The seismic responses of the SMRF are significantly reduced after enhancement. The
mean degradation of residual inter-story drift ratios is about 54%, and the total energy
dissipated by the beams and columns is, respectively, decreased by 58% and 99%,
demonstrating that the seismic resilience of SMRF is effectively enhanced by PSCRSW.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.Z. and W.G.; methodology, Z.Z.; software, Z.Z.; vali-
dation, Z.Z. and S.Z.; formal analysis, Z.Z.; investigation, Z.Z.; resources, Z.Z.; data curation, Z.Z.;
writing—original draft preparation, Z.Z.; writing—review and editing, S.Z., W.G. and Y.L.; visualiza-
tion, S.Z.; supervision, F.Z.; project administration, Y.L.; funding acquisition, Z.Z. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by [the fellowship of China Postdoctoral Science Foundation]
grant number [2022M710871], [the Postdoctoral Program of International Training Program for Young
Talents in Guangdong Province] grant number [N/A], [the National Key R&D Project of China] grant
numbe [No.2021YFE0112200], [the Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering
and Applied Technology] grant number [2020B1212060071]. And The APC was funded by [the
fellowship of China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, No.2022M710871].
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 21 of 22

Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for the financial support from the fellowship of China
Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No.2022M710871), the Postdoctoral Program of International
Training Program for Young Talents in Guangdong Province, the National Key R&D Project of China
(No.2021YFE0112200) and the Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and
Applied Technology (Project No.2020B1212060071).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhou, Z.; Ke, K.; Chen, Y.; Yam, M.C. High strength steel frames with curved knee braces: Performance-based damage-control
design framework. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2022, 196, 107392. [CrossRef]
2. Zhai, Z.; Li, S.; Liu, Y.; Ma, Y.; Zou, S.; Zhou, F. Seismic retrofitting of SMRFs using varied yielding cross-section damper:
A companion paper. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2022, 194, 107290. [CrossRef]
3. Chu, G.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Y. Nonlinear seismic performance of beam-through steel frames with self-centering modular panel
and replaceable hysteretic dampers. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2020, 170, 106091. [CrossRef]
4. Wang, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Ge, H.; Yao, J.; Xie, Q. Experimental validation and numerical simulation of a dual-self-centering variable
friction braced frame under strong ground motions. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 56, 104761. [CrossRef]
5. Pieroni, L.; Di Benedetto, S.; Freddi, F.; Latour, M. Genetic Algorithm for the optimal placement of Self-Centering Damage-Free
joints in steel MRFs. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2022, 197, 107489. [CrossRef]
6. Miller, D.K. Lessons learned from the Northridge earthquake. Eng. Struct. 1998, 20, 249–260. [CrossRef]
7. ASCE 7-10; Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA,
USA, 2010.
8. National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). Division B Part 4 Structural Design; NBCC: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2005.
9. GB 50011-2010; Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2010. (In Chinese)
10. He, X.; Chen, Y.; Ke, K.; Shao, T.; Yam, M.C. Development of a connection equipped with fuse angles for steel moment resisting
frames. Eng. Struct. 2022, 265, 114503. [CrossRef]
11. Zhai, Z.; Guo, W.; Yu, Z.; Hu, Y.; Ma, C. Seismic performance assessment of steel strip dampers equipped in high rise steel frame.
J. Constr. Steel Res. 2021, 177, 106437. [CrossRef]
12. Zhai, Z.; Guo, W.; Chen, W.; Yu, Z.; Zeng, C.; Li, S. Effect of damper failure on the seismic loss assessment of retrofitted steel
moment resisting frames. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 150, 106903. [CrossRef]
13. He, J.; Lin, S.; Li, Y.; Dong, X.; Chen, S. Genetic Algorithm for Optimal Placement of Steel Plate Shear Walls for Steel Frames.
Buildings 2022, 12, 835. [CrossRef]
14. Bae, J.; Kim, Y.-J.; Lee, C.-H. Improving the Seismic Performance of Tall Steel Buildings Using Advanced Visco-Plastic Braces. Int.
J. Steel Struct. 2022. [CrossRef]
15. Zhai, Z.; Guo, W.; Li, Y.; Yu, Z.; Cao, H.; Bu, D. An improved performance-based plastic design method for seismic resilient fused
high-rise buildings. Eng. Struct. 2019, 199, 109650. [CrossRef]
16. Zhou, X.; Sun, T.; Sun, B.; Ma, N.; Ou, J. Vibration-Reduction Strategy for High-Rise Braced Frame Using Viscoelastic-Yielding
Compounded BRB. Buildings 2022, 12, 1159. [CrossRef]
17. Qiu, C.; Jiang, T.; Liu, J.; Du, X. Seismic performance of knee-braced frames equipped with NiTi BRBs. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2022,
197, 107480. [CrossRef]
18. Grigorian, M.; Moghadam, A.S.; Mohammadi, H.; Kamizi, M. Methodology for developing earthquake-resilient structures. Struct.
Des. Tall Speéc. Build. 2018, 28, e157. [CrossRef]
19. Garlock, M.; Rides, J.; Sause, R. Experimental studies of full-scale posttensioned steel connections. J. Struct. Eng. 2005, 131,
438–448. [CrossRef]
20. Garlock, M.M.; Ricles, J.M.; Sause, R. Influence of design parameters on seismic response of post-tensioned steel MRF systems.
Eng. Struct. 2007, 30, 1037–1047. [CrossRef]
21. Zhongwei, Z.; Xiangyang, J.; Ye, Y.; Haiqing, L. Optimization for friction damped post-tensioned steel frame based on simplified
FE model and GA. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2022, 21, 209–219. [CrossRef]
22. Henry, R.; Zhou, Y.; Lu, Y. Shake-table test of a two-storey low-damage concrete wall building. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 2021,
50, 3160–3183. [CrossRef]
23. Xu, L.; Yao, S.; Sun, Y. Development and validation tests of an assembly self-centering energy dissipation brace. Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng. 2018, 116, 120–129. [CrossRef]
24. Zhang, G.; Xu, L.-H.; Li, Z.-X. Development and seismic retrofit of an innovative modular steel structure connection using
symmetrical self-centering haunch braces. Eng. Struct. 2020, 229, 111671. [CrossRef]
25. Zhai, Z.; Liu, Y.; Guo, W.; Chen, F.; Yu, Z.; Zhou, F. Seismic resilient rocking shear wall with dual self-centering energy dissipation
system: Introduction and A preliminary study. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 61, 105271. [CrossRef]
26. Zhai, Z.; Guo, W.; Liu, Y.; Ma, Y.; Zhou, F. New precast self-centering rocking shear wall with multiple hinged joints: Description
and design approach for seismic protection of buildings. Eng. Struct. 2022, 262, 114401. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 1957 22 of 22

27. Chao, S.H.; Goel, S.C.; Lee, S.S. A seismic design lateral force distribution based on inelastic state of structures. Earthq. Spectra
2007, 23, 547–569. [CrossRef]
28. Guo, W.; Hu, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhai, Z.; Shao, P. Seismic performance evaluation of typical dampers designed by Chinese Code subjected
to the main shock-aftershocks. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 126, 105829. [CrossRef]
29. Ohtori, Y.; Christenson, R.E.; Spencer, B.F., Jr.; Dyke, S.J. Benchmark Control Problems for Seismically Excited Nonlinear Buildings.
J. Eng. Mech. 2004, 130, 366–385. [CrossRef]
30. Pilarska, D.; Maleska, T. Numerical analysis of steel geodesic dome under seismic excitations. Materials 2021, 14, 4493. [CrossRef]
31. Tran, N.X.; Gu, K.-Y.; Yoo, M.; Kim, S.-R. Numerical evaluation of slope effect on soil–pile interaction in seismic analysis. Appl.
Ocean Res. 2022, 126, 103291. [CrossRef]
32. Wu, D.; Jiang, D.; Zhao, B. Nonlinear numerical modeling approach and seismic mechanism analysis on new modular precast
composite shear wall structure. Eng. Struct. 2022, 270, 114868. [CrossRef]
33. Lignos, D.G.; Krawinkler, H. Deterioration Modeling of Steel Components in Support of Collapse Prediction of Steel Moment
Frames under Earthquake Loading. J. Struct. Eng. 2011, 137, 1291–1302. [CrossRef]
34. PEER/ATC 72-1; Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings. Applied Technology
Council: Redwood, CA, USA, 2010.
35. Gupta, A.; Krawinkler, H. Seismic Demands for Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures; Technical Report
132; The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University: Stanford,
CA, USA, 1999.