See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222894048

Seismic retrofitting with buckling restrained

braces: Application to an existing non-ductile
RC framed building

Article in Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering · November 2010

Impact Factor: 1.22 · DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.06.001

CITATIONS READS

41 212

2 authors:

Luigi Di Sarno Gaetano Manfredi

Università degli Studi del Sannio University of Naples Federico II
80 PUBLICATIONS 434 CITATIONS 507 PUBLICATIONS 4,462 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Luigi Di Sarno
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 29 June 2016
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Seismic retrofitting with buckling restrained braces: Application to an

existing non-ductile RC framed building
L. Di Sarno a,n, G. Manfredi b
a
Department of Engineering, University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy
b
Department of Structural Engineering, University of Naples, Federico II, Italy

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: This paper assesses the seismic performance of typical reinforced concrete (RC) existing framed
Received 21 January 2010 structures designed for gravity loads only. The sample two-storey structural system exhibits high
Received in revised form vulnerability, i.e. low lateral resistance and limited translation ductility; hence an effective strategy
1 June 2010
scheme for seismic retrofitting was deemed necessary. Such a scheme comprises buckling restrained
Accepted 2 June 2010
braces (BRBs) placed along the perimeter frames of the multi-storey building. The adopted design
approach assumes that the global response of the inelastic framed structure is the sum of the elastic
frame (primary system) and the system comprising perimeter diagonal braces (secondary system); the
latter braces absorb and dissipate a large amount of hysteretic energy under earthquake ground
motions. Comprehensive nonlinear static (pushover) and dynamic (response history) analyses were
carried out for both the as-built and retrofitted structures to investigate the efficiency of the adopted
intervention strategy. A set of seven code-compliant natural earthquake records was selected and
employed to perform inelastic response history analyses at serviceability (operational and damage-
ability limit states, OLS and DLS) and ultimate limit states (life safety and collapse prevention limit
states, LSLS and CPLS). Both global and local lateral displacements are notably reduced after the seismic
retrofit of the existing system. In the as-built structure, the damage is primarily concentrated at the
second floor (storey mechanism); the computed interstorey drifts are 2.43% at CPLS and 1.92% at LSLS
for modal distribution of lateral forces. Conversely, for the retrofitted system, the estimated values of
interstorey drifts (d/h) are halved; the maximum d/h are 0.84% at CPLS (along the Y-direction) and 0.65%
at LSLS (yet along the Y-direction). The values of the global overstrength O vary between 2.14 and 2.54
for the retrofitted structure; similarly, the translation ductility mD-values range between 2.07 and 2.36.
The response factor (R- or q-factor) is on average equal to 5.0. It is also found that, for the braced frame,
under moderate-to-high magnitude earthquakes, the average period elongation is about 30%, while for
the existing building the elongation is negligible (lower than 5%). The inelastic response of the existing
structure is extremely limited. Conversely, BRBs are effective to enhance the ductility and energy
dissipation of the sample as-built structural system. Extensive nonlinear dynamic analyses showed that
more than 60% of input seismic energy is dissipated by the BRBs at ultimate limit states. The estimated
maximum axial ductility of the braces is about 10; the latter value of translation ductility is compliant
with BRBs available on the market. At DLS, the latter devices exhibit an elastic behaviour. It can thus be
concluded that, under moderate and high magnitude earthquakes, the damage is concentrated in the
added dampers and the response of the existing RC framed structure (bare frame) is chiefly elastic.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Framed systems have been extensively used for building
structures in earthquake-prone regions because of their seismic
performance (e.g. [1–5]; among many others). However, a number
of existing reinforced concrete (RC) framed building structures
were designed for gravity loads only and hence do not possess
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: disarno@unina.it (L. Di Sarno).
adequate lateral stiffness and resistance; seismic details are also
lacking as observed during surveys carried out in the aftermath of
recent earthquakes worldwide (Fig. 1).
It is, therefore, of paramount importance to retrofit such
existing framed buildings and enhance their seismic performance.
A number of intervention schemes, either traditional or innova-
tive, are available (e.g. [6,7]; among many others), as shown
pictorially in Fig. 2.
Existing framed structures may be suitably retrofitted by using
diagonal braces, either traditional steel or innovative. Braced
systems exhibit high lateral stiffness and strength under

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.06.001
 Author's personal copy

1280 L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297

Fig. 1. Typical failure modes observed in framed building structures in the 2009 L’Aquila (Italy) earthquake: collapse due chiefly to inadequate details of longitudinal and
transverse steel reinforcement (smooth bars) at beam-to-column connections (left) and extensive damage (buckled longitudinal ribbed bars) due to the lack of stirrups in
the column critical regions (right).

L OCAL
INTERVENTION

TRADITIONAL COMBINED
STRATEGIES INTERVENTION

GLOBAL
SEISMIC RETROFITTING

INTERVENTION

HYBRID
INTERVENTION

SEISMIC
ISOLATION

INNOVATIVE COMBINED
STRATEGIES INTERVENTION

SUPPLEMENTAL
DAMPING

Fig. 2. Seismic retrofitting intervention schemes.

moderate-to-large magnitude earthquakes. The most common
structural configurations for lateral-resisting systems are con-
centrically brace frames (CBFs), which possess a lateral stiffness
significantly higher than that of unbraced frames, e.g. moment
resisting frames. Nevertheless, due to buckling of the metal
compression members and material softening due to the
Bauschinger effect, the hysteretic behaviour of CBFs with tradi-
tional steel braces is unreliable. Alternatively, buckling-restrained
braces (BRBs) may be employed as diagonal braces in seismic
retrofitting of steel and RC frames designed for gravity loads only.
Such braces exhibit compressive strength, which is about 10–15%
greater than tensile; the global buckling is inhibited (e.g., [8–10]).
Frames with BRBs are being used for new and existing structures
worldwide (e.g. [11–13] among many others), especially for
damage controlled structures as shown pictorially in Fig. 3 and
initially formulated by Wada et al. [14].
The global response of the inelastic structural system can be
assumed as the sum of the elastic frame (also termed primary
structural system) and the system formed by the diagonal braces
(secondary system) that absorbs and dissipates a large amount of
hysteretic energy under earthquake ground motion.
The primary system is capable of withstanding vertical loads
and behaves elastically under earthquake loads. The secondary
system includes the dissipative members and is thus designed to
damp the seismic lateral actions and deformations. Dissipative
members, such as BRBs, may be installed in the exterior frames of
 Author's personal copy

L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297 1281

Fig. 3. Damage controlled structure.

Fig. 4. Earthquake response of traditional framed (top) and damage controlled (bottom) structural system.

multi-storey buildings and can be thus easily replaced in the
aftermath of a devastating earthquake. Primary and secondary
systems act as a parallel system; the lateral deformation of the
structure as a whole corresponds to the deformation of both
primary and secondary systems. Fig. 4 compares the earthquake
response of a traditional frame and damage controlled structural
system. The response is expressed in terms of cyclic action–
deformation relationships. When controlled damage strategy is
adopted, the primary structure shows a linear elastic response
under both moderate and high magnitude earthquakes. The
energy dissipation is localized merely in the diagonal braces
acting as dampers. Conversely, traditional framed systems
dissipate seismic energy either within all members of the
structure or in the beams, if the capacity design rules are
employed.
This paper assesses the seismic structural performance of a
typical RC framed school building retrofitted with BRBs. The
results of comprehensive nonlinear (static and dynamic) analyses
showed that the use of BRBs is extremely cost-efficient.
Notwithstanding, the design of such structural components is
not straightforward. A step-by-step procedure, compliant with
the performance-based (force- and displacement-based) frame-
work, is outlined hereafter. A brief discussion of the pros and cons
of the use of the BRBs is presented in the next paragraph.
2. Buckling restrained braces (BRBs)
The disadvantages of traditionally braced frames may be
prevented whether or not the occurrence of buckling for the
metallic braces in compression is inhibited, e.g. using buckling
restrained braces (BRBs). The energy dissipation capacity of a
traditional brace is limited by the occurrence of buckling and
hence stiffness reduction and strength degradation may occur.
Conversely, buckling restrained braces exhibit large and stable
hysteretic dissipation even at large amplitudes.
Buckling restrained braces may be employed for the design of
damage controlled structures. BRBs thus form parallel systems
where the bare frame behaves elastically and the braces absorb
and dissipate the seismic induced energy. Under high magnitude
earthquake ground motions the BRBs may exhibit large residual
deformations and should be replaced. Existing BRBs are chiefly
patented systems and their layout may vary according to the
manufacturer.
The devices assessed in the present study include a short-
length BRB connected in series with a traditional metallic brace,
as further discussed in the next sections. The short link
comprising the BRB ends with a flanged bolted connection and a
pinned or a gusset plate. The detailing of the gaps between the
joint components is of paramount importance for the effective
 Author's personal copy
1282 L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297
response under earthquake ground motions. The manufacturer
provides the geometrical and mechanical properties of the
dissipative device.
3. Seismic retrofitting strategy
The design of new and existing structures with hysteretic
buckling restrained braces generally comprises the following:
 the estimation of the optimum parameters for the dissipative
braces by using simplified methods;
 the application of capacity design checks for all members of
the structure under the expected ultimate force induced by the
dissipative braces, e.g. the yielding force of the BRBs;
 the verification of the design performance, preferably through
nonlinear response history analyses.
Nonlinear dynamic analyses utilizing a suite of spectrum-
compatible records, either artificial or natural, are yet not suitable
for design office use. Thus linear dynamic or nonlinear static
analyses are generally employed for practical applications. In the
present study nonlinear dynamic analyses are performed to assess
the reliability of the results derived through linear dynamic
analyses and nonlinear static pushovers.
The design methodology for damage controlled structures
utilized in the present study is an iterative strategy based on
response spectra and an equivalent viscous damping (x) used
to quantify the effective hysteretic global response of the
earthquake-resistant system. The selected damping can be
utilized to estimate both design spectral accelerations and
displacements. The design method formulated herein is a mixed
force- and deformation-based scheme employing an equivalent
inelastic static approach. The evaluation of the spectral displace-
ments is essential to ensure the elastic response of the structure
to be retrofitted. The step-by-step design procedure is as follows:
1. Determine the seismic base shear (Vb) using the 5% damped
acceleration spectra.
2. Distribute the seismic horizontal forces along the building
height. For ordinary low-to-medium rise frames the distribu-
tion can be assumed linear [15], e.g. compliant with the code-
based formulation:
zW
Fi ¼ Vb Pi i
zj Wj
where W is the seismic mass and z is the storey height with
respect to the foundation level. Alternatively a modal analysis
can be carried out for the existing structure.
3. Determine the axial forces (Fbr) in the diagonal braces
assuming that the existing frame has pinned beam-to-column
and base-column connections and the braces are effective to
resist earthquake loads:
1 Vi
Fbr ¼
n cos a
where Vi is the seismic storey shear at the ith floor, n the
number of storeys and a is the angle of the braces with
respect to the horizontal beams.
4. Determine the cross-section of the core (Acore) of the dampers
at each storey:
Fbr
Acore ¼
fy
where fy is the steel yield stress of the core element of the
BRBs. Material overstrength may also be accounted for.
5. Perform nonlinear static analyses of the existing frame with
the added braces and determine the capacity curves of the
earthquake-resistant system. The maximum displacement
demand is also computed by employing the equivalent
viscous damping:
x ¼ xi þ xh ð4Þ
where the damping xh accounting for the hysteretic
behaviour is
Ep 1 Ep
xh ¼ ¼ ð5Þ
4pEs 2p dmax Fmax
with Ep being the hysteretic energy dissipated in a cycle and
Es the elastic energy stored in the system. The value of Ep can
be computed by performing a cyclic pushover and assuming a
target displacement of the control point equal to the
maximum lateral displacement demand of the structure
retrofitted with the BRBs at collapse limit state. As a rule of
thumb, the latter displacement can be assumed equal to a
global drift of 0.5–0.6% of the building height. The initial
damping xi accounts for all sources of dissipation in a
structure which do not include hysteretic dissipation; it
may be assumed equal to 5%.
6. Determine the maximum displacement demand, using the
displacement response spectrum and the equivalent damping.
7. Check that the existing frame responds elastically for the
computed displacement demand; alternatively iterate from
steps 1) to 7).
8. Compute the seismic forces by using the acceleration
response scaled through the equivalent damping in Eq. (5).
9. Use the displacement demand estimated in 7) and the
capacity curve in 5) to compute the effective base shear in
the existing frame and the added braces. The latter may be re-
designed and optimised by iterating steps 1) to 7).
10. Check the maximum axial loads in the braces at damage-
ability limit state to prevent yielding under service loads.
The above design methodology quantifies the dissipation
through the equivalent viscous damping, used to scale the
acceleration and displacement response spectra. Alternatively,
adequate response modification factors (R- or q-factors) may be
employed; values of R ranging between 4.5 and 6.5 have been
proposed [11]. The design method for BRBs has been applied to a
case study as illustrated hereafter.
ð1Þ
4. Case study
4.1. Building description
4.1.1. Geometry
The sample RC existing framed building is located near Naples,
in South of Italy; the framed structure was built in the early 1960s
and it was designed for gravity loads only. The plan layout of the
ð2Þ
building comprises two T-shaped blocks (termed Building A and
Building B) and a connecting rectangular block (named
Building C) as pictorially shown in Fig. 5. Buildings A and B are
used for classrooms, while Building C is a sport hall. The total area
of the building is about 1400 sqm; the area of the Buildings A and
B is about 610 sqm.
The structural system consists of three stories used for
classrooms, storage rooms and laboratories; the roof floor is
ð3Þ
utilized for insulation purposes. The ground floor is 3.08 m high
 Author's personal copy

L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297 1283

Fig. 5. Plan layout of the sample as-built building (dimensions in metres).

Table 1 compression strength (fc). The latter is a function of the diameter

Geometry of the columns of the sample frame (dimensions in metres).
1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor
0.35  0.30 0.35  0.30 0.30  0.30 0.30  0.30
0.35  0.40 0.35  0.35 0.30  0.35 – fc,min ¼13.55 MPa. Similarly, the compression strength of the cylinder
0.40  0.40 0.30  0.40 0.30  0.40 0.30  0.40
0.40  0.55 0.40  0.45 0.40  0.40 –
and includes laboratories; the first and second floors are 3.65 m
high. The top floor has an inclined tiled roof; its height varies
between 0.2 m (along the perimeter) and 1.90 m (at the centre).
The structural system of the sample school building consists of a
multi-storey RC frame with deep beams. The column cross-
sections are summarised in Table 1; the frame employs
30  65 cm deep beams. For the inclined roof, the deep beams
are 30 cm  50 cm. The floor slabs consist of 34 cm deep cast-
in situ concrete and light brick decks at first and second levels; the
thickness of the roof floor is 24 cm and the inclined roof is 20 cm
thick. The solid slab thickness is 4cm at all floors; thus
diaphragmatic behaviour may be assumed for the sample frame.
The as-built framed system employs shallow foundations
consisting of a grid of deep beams: T-shaped and rectangular
cross-section beams are used for Buildings A and B; Building C has
only deep rectangular beams. The height of the T-shaped beams
ranges between 100 and 140 cm; rectangular beams in Buildings
A and C are 50  50, 40  90 and 100  90 cm. In Building C the
rectangular foundation beams are 40  65 cm.
The framed structural system employs superficial foundation
with rectangular beam grid. The typical cross-section of the deep
foundation beams is T-shaped (inner beams, web thickness of
40 cm, height equal to 90 and 105 cm, width varying between
120 and 220 cm) and rectangular (outer beams with 50  50 cm
cross-sections).
(F) and the height (h) of the sample and the cylinder concrete
compression strength (fcyl) of the test specimens. The concrete
strength of the cylinder specimens with diameter f100 mm was
employed to determine the average value of fc,mean ¼18.60 MPa and
specimens with diameter f60 mm was employed to determine the
average value of fc,mean ¼ 22.42 MPa and fc,min ¼ 19.89 MPa.
Ultrasonic tests were carried out on structural members where
the cylinders with f100 mm were drilled. The results of the
performed ultrasonic tests provided characteristic compression
strength fck of the concrete members. The mean values fc,mean of
the resistance may be derived from fck through the following
relationship [16]:
fc,mean ¼ fck þ8 MPa ð6Þ
The estimated mean value of the concrete cylinder compres-
sion strength is thus 18.8 MPa; the latter value is close to those
evaluated earlier with the crushing of the cylinders. Variations of
the computed strength are in the range of 10%. The correlation
between the concrete cylinder compression strength and the
velocity derived from the ultrasonic tests is provided in Fig. 6; the
regression curve of the sample data shows a linear trend.
In the finite element modelling and performance assessment it
is safely assumed that the characteristic concrete compression
strength is fck ffi 15.7 MPa.
Tensile tests were carried out on steel reinforcement smooth
bars; the laboratory tests on f20 mm straight bars showed yield
strength fy ¼296 MPa and ultimate strength fu ¼435 MPa. The
estimated material overstrength is fu/fy ¼1.47 and the ultimate
elongation is esu ¼37.1%. The latter values demonstrated the high
plastic redistribution and ductility of the steel reinforcement of
the RC cross-sections of the structural system. For the model
calibration of the smooth rebars in the spatial frame finite
element discretization it is assumed that fy ¼285 MPa.

4.1.2. Material properties 4.1.3. Structural details

An extensive experimental test program (in situ and in The structural details of the beams and columns of the sample
laboratory) was carried out to estimate the mechanical properties framed structures do not comply with modern codes of practice
of the concrete and steel reinforcement in the existing RC for seismic regions. The steel reinforcement comprises smooth
building. Additional in situ tests were carried out on the structural bars and the spacing of the transverse stirrups is insufficient to
system components, i.e. floor slabs and RC retaining walls of the warrant adequate shear resistance to beams, columns and
underground level. structural joints. The longitudinal steel reinforcement percentage
Cylinder concrete samples with diameters of 100 and 60 mm were is not appropriate to ensure ductile response of RC cross-sections.
tested under compression to estimate the concrete The typical layout of the steel reinforcement demonstrates that
 Author's personal copy

1284 L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297

30

Cylinder Strength (MPa) 25

20

15

10
y = 0.014x - 23.166

Speed of Ultrasonic Waves vs Cylinder Strength

5 fck specimens - Speed of Ultrasonic Waves

0
1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
Speed of Ultrasonic Waves (m/s)

Fig. 6. Correlation between the concrete cylinder compression strength and the velocity of the ultrasonic tests.

beams may fail under shear actions, thus endangering the global Table 2
inelastic response of the structure, if any. Parameters used to define the spectra of the horizontal earthquake components

Limit state (type) PVR (%) TR (year) PGA (g)

5. Earthquake input characterization Serviceability

The construction site of the sample framed building is located
in a moderate seismicity zone. The soil foundation can be
classified as ground type B, according to the classification
implemented in the recently issued national seismic standards
[17], which is also compliant with the European code provisions
[16]. The available soil profiles of the site have shown that the
local geology includes deposits of very dense sand and gravel with
several tens of metres in thickness, characterized by a gradual
increase of mechanical properties with depth. The average shear
wave velocity vs,30 defined ranges between 360 and 800 m/s.
In the present study, the seismic action is defined in terms of
(horizontal) acceleration code response spectra and earthquake
natural records. The horizontal seismic action is described by two
orthogonal components assumed as being independent and
represented by the same response spectrum. The vertical
component of the seismic action is not accounted for in the
performance assessment of the sample structure. This assumption
complies with the distance of the building site from active faults.
It has been demonstrated by extensive field evidence (e.g. [18];
among many others) that the structural response of framed
structures is significantly affected by the effects of the vertical
component of seismic ground motions in the near-field, i.e. at a
distance of 10–50 km from the earthquake source.
The code horizontal input spectra was defined with reference
to the 5% damping acceleration response spectra evaluated for the
four limit states compliant with the recent Italian code of practice
[17], namely the operational (OLS), damageability (DLS), life
safety (LSLS) and collapse prevention (CPLS) limit states. The
return period TR of the earthquake loading is given by
VR
TR ¼ 
lnð1PVR Þ
where VR is the reference design life of the building, i.e. 75 years,
and PVR the probability of exceedence of the seismic action,
OLS 81 45 0.066
DLS 63 72 0.085
Ultimate
LSLS 10 712 0.223
CPLS 5 1472 0.282
Key: OLS ¼operational limit state; DLS ¼damageability limit state; LSLS ¼ life
safety limit state; CPLS ¼ collapse prevention limit state; PVR ¼ probability of
exceedence; TR ¼ return period of the seismic action; PGA ¼peak ground
acceleration.
expressed as a function of the limit state. The computed values of
TR are summarised in Table 2.
The design values of the peak ground accelerations (PGAs) on
stiff soil vary between 0.066g (OLS) and 0.282g (CPLS) as shown in
Table 2; the above values confirm that site of construction has
moderate seismicity. The values of the parameters employed to
define the spectral shape of the horizontal acceleration and
displacement components at different limit states are outlined in
Table 3. These parameters include the coefficient of amplification
for soil profile and topography (S), for system amplification (FO)
and the periods (denoted TB, TC and TD) that correspond to the
different branches of the code spectral shape. The code-compliant
horizontal acceleration and displacement response spectra are
displayed in Fig. 7.
The suite of natural earthquake records employed to perform
inelastic response history analyses was selected in compliance
with the following rules [16,19]:
 A set of minimum three accelerograms was selected.
 The mean of the zero period spectral response acceleration
values (calculated from the individual time histories) is not
ð7Þ smaller than ag S for the site of construction.
 In the range of periods between 0.2T1 and 2T1, where T1 is the
fundamental period of the structure in the direction where the
accelerogram is applied. Values of the mean 5% damping
 Author's personal copy

L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297 1285

elastic spectrum, calculated from all time histories, should be spectra. However, for ductile existing and new constructions the
greater than 90% of the corresponding value of the 5% damping seismic response can be significantly affected by the duration and
elastic response spectrum. number of cycles of earthquake records. The bracketed, uniform
and significant durations of the sample suite of accelerograms
were computed. The results are provided in Fig. 9. It is observed
A suite of seven natural records was selected for X- and that the selected records possess mean significant durations of
Y-direction of the sample frame. The normalized acceleration about 15 s; the average of bracketed and uniform duration is 30 s
horizontal response spectra of the selected records is shown in and about 20 s, respectively.
Fig. 8 for X- and Y-direction. The predominant periods, the Arias intensity of the sample
Earthquake ground motions are generally characterized by the records, are provided in Table 4, along with the scaling factors
peak ground parameters and accelerations and/or displacement employed to fulfill the spectral compatibility. It is observed that
the mean predominant is 0.37 s, which corresponds to the
fundamental periods of vibration of the retrofitted structure, as
Table 3
Parameters used to define the spectral shape of the horizontal earthquake
discussed in the next paragraphs. The scaling factors vary with the
components limit states; lower values correspond to serviceability limit states
(OLS and DLS). The coefficient of variation is on average 0.30.
Limit state (type) S (dimensionless) FO (dimensionless) TB (s) TC (s) TD (s) The three limit states usually utilized for existing structures,
i.e. DLS, LSLS and CPLS, are further discussed in the next
Serviceability
OLS 1.20 2.324 0.142 0.427 1.627 paragraph; OLS is, in fact, of primary concern for critical facilities
DLS 1.20 2.377 0.150 0.451 1.635 and hence was not accounted for the sample structure.
Ultimate
LSLS 1.19 2.406 0.167 0.501 1.691
CPLS 1.12 2.461 0.172 0.517 1.715 6. Analytical structural model
Key: S ¼amplification factor for soil profile and topography; FO ¼ amplification
factor for earthquake horizontal component; TB,TC and TD are periods correspond- Refined three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) models
ing to constant acceleration, velocity and displacement branches, respectively. were employed to discretize the sample framed as-built and

Fig. 7. Code-compliant horizontal acceleration and displacement response spectra.

5.0 5.0

196 198 232 290 196 198 232 290

Pseudo-Acceleration / PGA

4.0 4.0
Pseudo-Acceleration / PGA

879 5815 6144 Mean 879 5815 6144 Mean

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Period (s) Period (s)

Fig. 8. Normalized earthquake acceleration horizontal response spectra: X-direction (left) and Y-direction (right).
 Author's personal copy

1286 L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297

006144x 006144y

005815x 005815y
Accelerogram (label)

Accelerogram (label)
Mean Bracketed Mean Bracketed
000879x 000879y
Mean Uniform Mean Uniform
000290x 000290y

000232x 000232y
Uniform Uniform
Mean Significant Mean Significant
000198x Significant 000198y Significant
Bracketed Bracketed
000196x 000196y

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Duration (seconds) Duration (seconds)

Fig. 9. Duration of sample earthquake ground motions: components along X-direction (left) and Y-direction (right).

Table 4
Predominant periods, Arias intensity and scaling factors computed for the sample records.

Earthquake record (label) Predominant period (s) Arias intensity (m/s) Scaling factor (dimensionless)
Limit state

OLS DLS LSLS CPLS

000196x 0.44 2.18 0.18 0.23 0.59 0.71

000196y 0.50 2.10 0.26 0.34 0.88 1.06
000198x 0.52 1.92 0.44 0.57 1.48 1.78
000198y 0.72 1.47 0.36 0.46 1.20 1.44
000232x 0.18 1.24 0.14 0.18 0.47 0.57
000232y 0.26 1.35 0.14 0.19 0.48 0.58
000290x 0.38 2.59 0.37 0.48 1.24 1.49
000290y 0.20 1.35 0.25 0.32 0.83 1.00
000879x 0.34 2.13 0.29 0.38 0.98 1.18
000879y 0.30 1.91 0.25 0.32 0.84 1.01
005815x 0.22 3.00 0.28 0.37 0.95 1.14
005815y 0.36 3.06 0.24 0.32 0.82 0.98
006144x 0.50 4.21 0.30 0.39 1.01 1.21
006144y 0.50 2.16 0.19 0.25 0.65 0.78

Mean 0.37 2.47 0.29 0.37 0.96 1.15

Stand. Dev. 0.15 0.82 0.09 0.11 0.29 0.35

COV 0.41 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

Fig. 10. Finite element model of the as-built (left) and retrofitted (right) sample framed building.

retrofitted structures and analyze the earthquake response. Bare refined fibre-based approach to estimate reliably the nonlinear
frames were modelled as 3D assemblages of beam members. response both at local and at global levels in the frames.
Shear deformability of beams and columns was also included in The FE package utilized to assess the seismic performance of
the structural model. Panel zone strengths and deformations were the sample structures is SeismoStruct [20]. This program is
not considered. Fig. 10 displays the FE models utilized for the capable of predicting the large displacement response of spatial
response analyses of the buildings. Such FE models employ a frames under static or dynamic loading, taking into account both
 Author's personal copy
L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297
geometric nonlinearities and material inelastic. The spread of
inelasticity along the member length and across the section depth
is explicitly modelled, allowing for accurate estimation of damage
distribution. Modelling of the local (beam-column effect) and
global (large displacements/rotations effects) sources of geo-
metric nonlinearity is carried out through the employment of a
co-rotational formulation, whereby local element displacements
and resulting internal forces are defined with regard to a moving
local chord system, referred to the current unknown configura-
tion. Exact transformation of element internal forces and stiffness
matrix, obtained in the local chord system, into the global system
of coordinates allows for large displacements/rotations to be
accounted for.
The interaction between axial force and transverse deforma-
tion of the frame element (beam-column effect) is implicitly
incorporated in the element cubic formulation as implemented in
SeismoStruct [20], whereby the strain states within the element
are completely defined by the generalized axial strain and
curvature along the element reference axis (x), whilst a cubic
shape function is employed to calculate the transverse displace-
ment as a function of the end-rotations of the element.
To evaluate accurately the structural damage distribution, the
spread of material inelasticity along the member length and
across the section area is explicitly represented through the
employment of a fibre modelling approach. The distribution of
material nonlinearity across the section area is accurately
modelled, even in the highly inelastic range, due to the selection
of 200 fibres employed in the spatial analysis of the sample
structural systems. Two integration Gauss points per element are
then used for the numerical integration of the governing
equations of the cubic formulation (stress/strain results in the
adopted structural model refer to these Gauss Sections, not to the
element end-nodes). The spread of inelasticity along member
length is accurately estimated because four 3D inelastic frame
elements are utilized to model both beams and columns.
Consequently, at least two Gauss points were located in the
inelastic regions in order to investigate adequately the spreading
of plasticity in the critical regions and within structural members.
Five inelastic space frame elements were used to model both
beams and columns of the bare RC frames. Two elements with a
length of 0.10L of the member clear span (L) are located at the
beam ends; the remaining frame elements are 0.30L long.
Inelastic truss elements were utilized to simulate the diagonal
BRBs, as further discussed later.
Rod elements connecting in-plane slab nodes were used to
simulate the diaphragmatic action of the two slabs of the framed
building. The cross-section of the floor rod elements was
calibrated on the basis of the modal response of the system.
The structural models utilized to perform the dynamic
analyses employ masses lumped at structural nodes. The lumped
masses were estimated by assuming the dead loads and part of
the live loads in compliance with seismic code provisions.
6.1. Material modelling
Advanced nonlinear modelling was employed for concrete and
steel reinforcement in beams and columns and for the structural
steel utilized for the diagonal braces.
A bilinear model with kinematic strain-hardening was utilized
to simulate the inelastic response of steel longitudinal bars of the
cross-sections of RC beams and columns. Bilinear models are
simple to implement and computationally efficient. Such models
require the definition of a limited number of parameters, namely
the Young modulus or modulus of elasticity (Es), the yield
strength (fy) and hardening parameter (m). In the performed
1287
analyses, it was assumed that Es ¼200,000 MPa and fy ¼280 MPa,
in compliance with the experimental tests carried out on material
specimens. The hardening parameter m is the ratio between the
stiffness (Esp) of the post-elastic branch and the initial stiffness
(elastic stiffness equal to the Young modulus Es). The post-elastic
stiffness Esp is as follows:
fult fy fult fy
Esp ¼ ¼ ð8Þ
eult ey eult  Efys
where fult and eult are the ultimate (or tensile) strength and
ultimate elongation of the steel bars. It is assumed that fult ¼
420 MPa and eult ¼0.05. Note that the above value of the ultimate
elongation is a conservative estimate of the actual material
response. It was adopted to derive a realistic value of the stain
hardening. The stiffness Esp and the hardening parameter m are
2880 and 0.014, respectively.
The concrete was modelled through a nonlinear constant
confinement model. This is a uniaxial nonlinear model that
follows the constitutive relationships formulated by Mander
et al. [21].
For the cross-sections of the RC sample structures, values of
the confinement factor k were assumed equal to 1.2 and 1.0 for
confined (core) and unconfined (shell) concrete, respectively; the
k-values were estimated with the formulation by Mander
et al. [21].
A value of 19.0 MPa was adopted for the compressive strength
fck of concrete; this value was utilized for both core and shell
concrete.
The tensile strength was estimated through the following
relationship:
pffiffiffiffiffi
ftk ¼ kt fck ð9Þ
where the coefficient kt ranges between 0.5 (pure tension) and
0.75 (tension caused by flexure). The tensile strength of core and
shell concrete is as follows:
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
ftk ¼ 0:75 19 ¼ 3:27 MPa ð10Þ
The strain ec at peak stress is 0.002 for confined and
unconfined concrete, while the ultimate deformation eult is
0.0035 and 0.0040 for shell and core concrete, respectively.
6.2. Brace modelling
The BRBs were modelled using 3D inelastic truss elements. In
particular, the BRBs employed for the retrofitting of the sample RC
frame are connected in series with traditional steel hollow section
braces, as shown pictorially in Fig. 11. Equivalent mechanical
properties were thus derived to replace the BRBs and the
connected diagonal braces with equivalent steel inelastic truss
elements. It was necessary to compute the equivalent elastic
Young modulus (Eel,EQ), the equivalent yield strength (fy,EQ), the
hardening parameter (mEQ) and the equivalent maximum strain
(emax,EQ).
The equivalent modulus Eel,EQ is given by
Kel,EQ ðLBRB þLBRACE Þ
Eel,EQ ¼ ð11Þ
ABRACE
where LBRB is the length of the BRB, and LBRACE and ABRACE are the
length and the area of the brace, respectively.
The yield strength fy,EQ
Fy,BRB
fy,EQ ¼ ð12Þ
ABRACE
where Fy,BRB is the yield strength of the BRB.
 Author's personal copy

1288 L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297

Fig. 11. Typical sub-assemblage of the diagonal braces: buckling restrained component and traditional metallic tubular brace.

Table 5
Summary of the equivalent mechanical properties of the diagonal buckling restrained braces.

Property Symbol Unit 1st Floor 2nd Floor

Min Max Min Max

Elastic modulus of equivalent system Eel,EQ N/mm2 159,082 166,451 171,022 176,5588
Equivalent yield strength fy,EQ N/mm2 86 107
Hardening parameter of equivalent system mEQ 0.0236 0.0286 0.0273 0.0335
Ultimate deformation of equivalent system emax,EQ 0.0041 0.0051 0.0042 0.0052

The hardening parameter (mEQ) 7.1. Eigenvalue analysis

Kpl,EQ
mEQ ¼ ð13Þ Eigenvalue analysis is employed to identify the dynamic
Kel,EQ
behaviour of the as-built structure and investigate irregular
where response due to torsional deformability of the building layout.
1 In so doing, a structural model with linear elastic behaviour of
Kpl,EQ ¼ 1 1
ð14Þ elements was utilized; structural masses were located at
Kpl,BRB þ Kel,BRACE
structural nodes; the mass distribution depends on the tributary
and area. Similarly, eigenvalue analysis is employed to estimate the
Fmax,BRB Fy,BRB dynamic response of the retrofitted structural system. Table 6
Kpl,BRB ¼ ð15Þ provides the modal results for both existing and retrofitted
Dmax,BRB Dy,BRB
buildings, i.e. periods of vibration (T) of the first three modes and
The equivalent maximum strain (emax,EQ) the participation masses (M ~ x and M ~ y ) along the principal
Dmax,EQ directions of the structure of X and Y.
emax,EQ ¼ ð16Þ
It is found that the existing building structure shows an irregular
LBRACE þ LBRB
dynamic response. The second mode of vibration has 67.48% of
with
participation mass along the X-direction; the third mode of vibration
Dmax,EQ ¼ Dmax,BRAD þ Del,BRACE ðFmax,BRB Þ ð17Þ has a participation mass of 20.49% along the X-direction. As a result,
and the existing structure exhibits coupled translation and torsional
modes due to the concentration of lateral stiffness at the stairwells.
Fmax,BRB The fundamental period of the retrofitted structure is significantly
Del,BRACE ðFmax,BRB Þ ¼ ð18Þ
Kel,BRACE lower than the counterpart of the as-built system (0.397 s versus
The computed values of the Young modulus (Eel,EQ), the 0.612 s); the reduction is about 36%.
equivalent yield strength (fy,EQ), the hardening parameter (mEQ) The estimated values of the modal participation mass of the
and the equivalent maximum strain (emax,EQ) for the inelastic truss retrofitted structure (see Table 6) show that the presence of braces
elements are summarised in Table 5. The latter table also provides along the perimeter is beneficial to achieve a regular dynamic
the variations of the aforementioned mechanical properties for response of the structure. The modal response of the retrofit
the diagonal braces employed for the seismic retrofitting of the building shows that the first two vibration modes are pure
sample existing structure. translations; these modes have participation masses of about 85%.
In the present study the tensile and compression yield For both existing and retrofitted structures the first three modes
strengths of the BRBs are assumed similar; this assumption is account for the total modal masses.
on the conservative side as the BRBs possess compressive The comparison between the modal response parameters of
strength, which is about 10–15% greater than tensile, as the retrofitted and as-built structures shows the significant
mentioned earlier. benefits in utilizing the BRBs as retrofitting schemes. The dynamic
response of the structures is considerably improved; overstress in
structural members due to torsional modes are prevented in the
7. Structural assessment retrofitted sample framed building.

The seismic performance of the existing and retrofitted

structures was assessed through linear and nonlinear analyses, 7.2. Nonlinear static analyses
i.e. eigenvalue analysis, nonlinear static analysis and nonlinear
dynamic analysis. The results of the performed analyses are To estimate the expected inelastic mechanisms and the
further discussed hereafter. distribution of damage in the sample framed buildings, nonlinear
 Author's personal copy

L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297 1289

static (pushover) analyses were carried out for both the as-built Figs. 12 and 13 provide the response curves of the as-built and
and retrofitted structural systems. In so doing, two lateral force retrofitted structures along the X- and Y-direction; results were
patterns were employed for the seismic structural assessment: computed for positive and negative directions of the lateral
loadings. The performance points at operational (OLS), damage
(DLS), life safety (LSLS) and collapse prevention (CPLS) limit states
 A modal pattern, proportional to lateral forces consistent with are also included.
the lateral force distribution in the direction under considera- The computed results show that for the modal load distribu-
tion determined in the elastic analysis. tion the displacement demands relative to LSLS and CPLS cause
 A uniform pattern based on lateral forces that are parallel to structural instability. The maximum interstorey drift (d/h) at
mass regardless of elevation (uniform response acceleration). second floor is 2.43% along the X-direction; the corresponding
dimensionless storey seismic shear (also termed seismic coeffi-
It is worth mentioning that for the existing structure, nonlinear cient) Vy/Wtot is 19.82%. Along the Y-direction, the maximum d/h
static analyses were not compliant with the provisions imple- is 1.76% at the second floor; the dimensionless shear Vy/Wtot is
mented in the seismic codes of practice (e.g. [16,17]). The 21.46%. The above maximum values of the response parameters
participation mass of the mode of vibration along the X-direction were estimated both at CPLS. As a result, the selected seismic
is indeed lower than 75% (specifically 67.48%, as summarised in strengthening strategy was aimed at enhancing the global lateral
Table 6). Conversely, the retrofitted structure possesses participa- stability of the building. When subjected to the uniform load
tion masses higher than 85% along both X- (85.50%) and pattern, the frame is severely damaged, but the system is stable.
Y-direction (89.54%). Table 7 shows the ratios of top displacement and total height
(also quoted as global or roof drifts, dtop/H) and the interstorey
Table 6 drifts d/h for the first and second floors; such ratios were
Modal response parameters of existing and retrofitted buildings computed for all limit states discussed in Section 5, namely OLS,
Mode Existing building Retrofitted building
DLS, LSLS and CPLS. Both types of nonlinear static analyses (modal
and uniform lateral force patterns) performed on the structural
Period (s) ~ x (%)
M ~ y (%)
M Period (s) ~ x (%)
M ~ y (%)
M model of the existing building were considered. The computed
results show that the as-built structure has a sufficiently low
1 0.612 0.10 89.60 0.397 0.01 89.5 lateral displacement along both X- and Y-direction. The damage is
2 0.557 67.48 0.21 0.329 85.5 0.01
3 0.458 20.49 0.03 0.272 3.74 0.03
chiefly concentrated at the top floor of the structure; the
interstorey drifts either exceed the 2% or are very close to it

Fig. 12. Response (pushover) curves along the X-direction (left) and Y-direction (right) for the existing building.

Fig. 13. Response (pushover) curves along the X-direction (left) and Y-direction (right) for the retrofitted building.
 Author's personal copy

1290 L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297

Table 7
Lateral drifts of the as-built structure derived by the pushover curves.

Limit state Lateral drifts Load distribution

+ XFM + XM  XFM  XM + YFM + YM  YFM  YM

CPLS Top displacement/total height dtop/H (%) 1.21 1.20  1.21  1.20 1.37 1.29  1.39  1.29
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at first level d1/h1 (%) 0.47 1.03  0.47  1.03 0.98 1.37  0.99  1.37
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at second level d2/h2 (%) 2.43 1.37  2.43  1.37 1.76 1.21  1.80  1.21

LSLS Top displacement/total height dtop/H (%) 0.96 0.95  0.96  0.95 1.08 1.02  1.10  1.02
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at first level d1/h1 (%) 0.42 0.84  0.42  0.84 0.84 1.06  0.84  1.06
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at second level d2/h2 (%) 1.92 1.06  1.92  1.06 1.34 0.98  1.36  0.98

DLS Top displacement/total height dtop/H (%) 0.33 0.32  0.33  0.32 0.37 0.35  0.38  0.35
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at first level d1/h1 (%) 0.25 0.31  0.25  0.31 0.34 0.37  0.34  0.37
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at second level d2/h2 (%) 0.65 0.33  0.65  0.33 0.41 0.32  0.41  0.33

OLS Top displacement/total height dtop/H (%) 0.24 0.23  0.24  0.23 0.27 0.25  0.27  0.25
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at first level d1/h1 (%) 0.18 0.23  0.18  0.23 0.25 0.27  0.25  0.27
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at second level d2/h2 (%) 0.46 0.24  0.47  0.24 0.29 0.23  0.29  0.23

Table 8
Lateral drifts of the retrofitted structure derived by the pushover curves

Limit state Lateral drifts Load distribution

+ XFM + XM  XF M  XM + YFM +YM  YFM  YM

CPLS Top displacement/total height dtop/H (%) 0.66 0.55  0.66  0.53 0.86 0.78  0.86  0.77
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at first level d1/h1 (%) 0.65 0.76  0.65  0.72 0.88 1.10  0.88  1.08
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at second level d2/h2 (%) 0.66 0.35  0.66  0.34 0.84 0.46  0.84  0.45

LSLS Top displacement/total height dtop/H (%) 0.53 0.44  0.53  0.42 0.68 0.62  0.68  0.61
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at first level d1/h1 (%) 0.53 0.58  0.53  0.55 0.70 0.85  0.70  0.84
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at second level d2/h2 (%) 0.53 0.30  0.53  0.29 0.65 0.39  0.65  0.38

DLS Top displacement/total height dtop/H (%) 0.19 0.16  0.19  0.15 0.23 0.21  0.23  0.21
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at first level d1/h1 (%) 0.18 0.17  0.18  0.17 0.23 0.24  0.23  0.24
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at second level d2/h2 (%) 0.20 0.14  0.20  0.13 0.23 0.18  0.23  0.18

OLS Top displacement/total height dtop/H (%) 0.14 0.12  0.14  0.11 0.17 0.15  0.17  0.15
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at first level d1/h1 (%) 0.13 0.13  0.13  0.12 0.15 0.16  0.15  0.16
Interstorey drift/interstorey height at second level d2/h2 (%) 0.14 0.11  0.14  0.10 0.17 0.14  0.17  0.14

(2.43% at CPLS and 1.92% at LSLS for modal distribution of lateral
forces). The global drifts are on average higher than 1% both at
CPLS and at LSLS; such response parameters do not vary
significantly with the lateral load patterns. As a result, roof
drifts should not be employed as reliable assessment response
parameters; they express the lateral deformation weighed along
the building height. Conversely, the interstorey drifts are effective
for damage identification and concentration for multi-storey
frames.
The total drifts and interstorey drifts estimated for the
retrofitted structure are summarised in Table 8. The comparison
between the results obtained from nonlinear static analysis
performed on the structural models of the sample buildings
demonstrate that both global and local lateral displacements are
significantly lowered after the intervention of the seismic retrofit
of the existing structure. The estimated values of interstorey drifts
are halved; the maximum d/h drops to 0.84% at CPLS (along the
Y-direction) and to 0.65% at LSLS (yet along the Y-direction).
Lateral drifts are uniformly distributed along height; in turn,
damage localizations are inhibited, especially at ultimate limit
states, i.e. LSLS and CPLS.
The values of the interstorey drifts summarised in Tables 7 and
8 are also shown pictorially in Figs. 14 and 15, where storey
pushover curves are provided for X- and Y-direction. Such curves
can also be utilized to detect the storey seismic shear resistance
and storey mechanisms, if any. The demand displacements at OLS,
DLS, LSLS and CPLS are also included in the curves.
The comparison between the storey response curves of the as-
built and retrofitted structure demonstrates the significant
reduction of the interstorey drifts caused by the installation of
the UBs at the first and second floors of the framed building. The
design approach utilized herein and illustrated in details in
Section 3 was effective for the uniform distribution of damage
along the frame height. Concentration of interstorey drifts is
eliminated and strength drops prevented, thus leading to a stable
and reliable ductile response and hence augmented energy
dissipation. The latter dissipation is concentrated in the hysteretic
braces, as also confirmed by the results of the comprehensive
inelastic dynamic response assessment, outlined in Section 7.3.
The global response curves were also utilized to assess the
lateral strength of the sample structures at serviceability and
ultimate limit states. The dimensionless base shears Vb/W for both
existing and retrofitted structure are outlined in Tables 9 and 10
for all limit states and pushover analyses.
The computed results show the significant increase of the base
shear that can be withstood by the system strengthened with
diagonal braces. The values of Vb/W for the as-built frame are on
average 30–50% of the values corresponding to the retrofitted
building. The variation is, however, dependent on the limit state.
For serviceability limit states the variations are lower than for the
ultimate limit state counterparts.
The response curves (global pushovers) in Figs. 12 and 13 and
hence the values summarised in Tables 9 and 10 can be employed
to determine the translational ductility (mD), the system over-
strength (O) and the all-encompassing response factor (R- or
q-factor). The latter factor is computed as follows:
q ¼ OmD ð19Þ
 Author's personal copy

L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297 1291

Fig. 14. Storey response curve of the as-built structure relative to modal (left) and uniform (right) lateral force patterns: X-direction (top) and Y-direction (bottom).

Fig. 15. Storey response curve of the retrofitted structure relative to modal (left) and uniform (right) lateral force patterns: X-direction (top) and Y-direction (bottom).

For the retrofitted system the overstrength O and the mD are
higher than 2.0 as also outlined in Table 11. The response factor is
thus nearly equal to 5.0; the latter values are implemented in
many seismic codes worldwide (e.g. [16]) for ordinary capacity-
designed moment-resisting frames. The computed values of the
response factor are similar to those proposed for the design of
new steel framed systems with BRBs [11].
Ductile and brittle mechanisms were also checked; deforma-
tion-based analyses were carried out to establish the onset of
ductile failure modes. Strength-based criteria were assessed to
 Author's personal copy

1292 L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297

Table 9
Seismic base shear of the existing structure.

Load distribution

+ XFM + XM  XFM  XM + YFM + YM  YFM  YM

Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%)

CPLS 1649 14.6 2202 19.5 1649 14.6 2202 19.5 1839 16.3 2082 18.4 1839 16.3 2082 18.4
LSLS 1694 15.0 2153 19.0 1694 15.0 2153 19.0 1808 16.0 2049 18.1 1808 16.0 2049 18.1
DLS 1303 11.5 1537 13.6 1303 11.5 1537 13.6 1307 11.6 1424 12.6 1307 11.6 1424 12.6
OLS 1109 9.8 1308 11.6 1109 9.8 1308 11.6 1106 9.8 1198 10.6 1106 9.8 1198 10.6

Table 10
Seismic base shear of the retrofitted structure.

Load distribution

+ XFM + XM  XFM  XM + YFM + YM  YFM  YM

Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%) Vb (kN) Vb/W (%)

CPLS 4814 42.6 5066 44.8 4814 42.6 5066 44.8 3905 34.5 4172 36.9 3905 34.5 4172 36.9
LSLS 4602 40.7 4816 42.6 4602 40.7 4816 42.6 3738 33.0 4014 35.5 3738 33.0 4014 35.5
DLS 3168 28.0 3172 28.0 3168 28.0 3172 28.0 2671 23.6 2794 24.7 2671 23.6 2794 24.7
OLS 2527 22.3 2571 22.7 2527 22.3 2571 22.7 2149 19.0 2300 20.3 2149 19.0 2300 20.3

Table 11
Global overstrength, translational ductility and response modification factor of the
retrofitted structure.
Response parameter Load pattern
XF M YFM XM
O 2.54 2.03 2.13
mD 2.17 2.36 2.07
q 5.51 4.79 4.40
estimate brittle mechanisms. Ductile mechanisms at CPLS were
performed comparing the required rotations localized at the end
sections of the structural elements with the ultimate available
rotation available yu. The formulation for yu implemented in
Eurocode 8 (EC8) [16] was adopted in the calculations.
The safety factors for columns and beams of the assessed
structures are provided in Fig. 16. The deficiencies of the existing
structure show that the safety factors are lower than unity for a
number of structural members. The lowest values are 0.67 for
beams and 0.74 for columns; such values were computed for
members located at the second floor of the as-built framed
system.
The values provided in Fig. 16 also prove the significant
increase of the safety factor stemming from the enhanced seismic
performance of the retrofitted structure. The minimum safety
factors are 1.14 for columns and 1.05 for beams at first floor of the
retrofitted building.
7.3. Nonlinear dynamic analyses
The inelastic seismic performance of the as-built and retro-
fitted structures was further investigated through nonlinear
dynamic analyses. Such analyses were conducted with respect
to suites of seven different groups of earthquake natural records
scaled linearly for each of the code-compliant limit states (see also
Table 8).
Interstorey drift and floor acceleration response histories were
estimated for each set of records applied to the base of the
structure and each limit state. Lateral drift and floor accelerations
are fundamental response quantities to evaluate the structural
and non-structural performance of framed systems under
earthquake loading (e.g. Bertero and Bertero [22], among many
others).
YM Tables 12 and 13 summarize the maximum interstorey drifts
for the X- and Y-direction at damageability (serviceability) and
2.14
2.27
collapse prevention (ultimate) limit states. The tables provide also
4.86 the average values of interstorey drift (s), the standard deviations
(d) and coefficients of variation (COV).
The results provided in Tables 12 and 13 demonstrate that the
interstorey displacements estimated for the retrofitted structure
are considerably lower than the counterparts values computed for
the existing structure, especially at the second floor, where the
storey mechanism is detected at ultimate limit state. These
findings confirm the outcomes of the seismic response assess-
ment carried out through the inelastic static analyses (pushovers)
and discussed earlier. At CPLS, the maximum d/h at the second
floor of the as-built structure is 2.185% (along the X-direction) and
2.032% (along the Y-direction). In the retrofitted system the
maximum interstorey drifts are detected at the first floor; the
maximum d/h is 0.801% (along the Y-direction). At the second
floor the average d/h is 0.311% along the X-direction and 0.415%
along the Y-direction.
It is also observed that the results summarised in Tables 12
and 13 show a lower scatter for the structure equipped with BRBs;
for such structure the response is not significantly affected by the
earthquake input characteristics and hence the seismic perfor-
mance is enhanced.
The inelastic response of the sample structures was also
assessed through the period elongation of the framed system. In
so doing, the fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the acceleration
response histories at first and second floor was employed to
determine the predominant period (inelastic period). It may be
argued that the higher the period elongation, the higher the
ductile response of the structure. The FFT was utilized for the time
histories derived by using the suite of selected earthquake natural
records at ultimate limit states, i.e. LSLS and CPLS. The computed
inelastic periods of vibrations are outlined in Tables 14 and 15 for
existing and retrofitted buildings.
 Author's personal copy

L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297 1293

5.0
4.5 39.78
3.97 40
Column Safety Factor

4.0

Beam Safety Factor

31.74 32.85
3.5 30.74
30
3.0
2.5 2.08
20
2.0 1.65
1.29 1.42
1.5 1.07
0.74 0.88 10
1.0
0.5 2.13 2.91
0.78 0.67
0.0 0

8.0
7.0 6.69 40
34.04
Column Safety Factor

6.0 29.86

Beam Safety Factor

30 28.41
5.0 4.45
4.0 21.01
3.17 20
3.0 2.43
1.77 1.84
2.0 1.40 1.14 10
1.0 3.78
2.47 1.05 1.65
0.0 0
S min
S max

Fig. 16. Minimum and maximum ratio between available and required rotations for columns (left) and beams (right) for the as-built (top) and retrofitted (bottom) structure.

Table 12
Maximum interstorey drift at damageability limit state for existing and retrofitted buildings

Existing building Retrofitted building

X-direction Y-direction X-direction Y-direction

1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor

dr1/h (%) 0.259 0.389 0.272 0.387 0.094 0.098 0.156 0.159
dr2/h (%) 0.189 0.320 0.346 0.452 0.095 0.108 0.115 0.111
dr3/h (%) 0.162 0.227 0.263 0.284 0.082 0.090 0.124 0.110
dr4/h (%) 0.288 0.373 0.197 0.221 0.148 0.143 0.118 0.130
dr5/h (%) 0.161 0.232 0.258 0.277 0.173 0.188 0.132 0.135
dr6/h (%) 0.210 0.291 0.260 0.334 0.127 0.142 0.149 0.148
dr7/h (%) 0.273 0.417 0.380 0.468 0.100 0.109 0.164 0.164

s (%) 0.220 0.321 0.282 0.346 0.117 0.125 0.137 0.137

d (%) 0.049 0.070 0.057 0.086 0.031 0.032 0.018 0.020
COV (%) 22.30 21.80 20.20 24.90 26.50 25.40 13.20 14.60

Table 13
Maximum interstorey drift at collapse prevention limit state for existing and retrofitted buildings

Existing building Retrofit building

X-direction Y-direction X-direction Y-direction

1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor

dr1/h (%) 0.539 1.748 0.458 0.885 0.558 0.303 0.669 0.382
dr2/h (%) 0.501 1.050 1.294 1.446 0.387 0.306 0.801 0.434
dr3/h (%) 0.360 0.667 0.914 1.266 0.296 0.320 0.430 0.434
dr4/h (%) 1.593 1.864 1.056 1.222 0.527 0.337 0.288 0.349
dr5/h (%) 0.857 1.366 0.857 1.366 0.380 0.325 0.515 0.414
dr6/h (%) 0.916 1.159 0.911 1.075 0.418 0.334 0.575 0.362
dr7/h (%) 1.158 2.185 0.887 2.032 0.413 0.254 0.539 0.529

s (%) 0.846 1.434 0.911 1.327 0.426 0.311 0.545 0.415

d (%) 0.398 0.488 0.232 0.335 0.083 0.026 0.152 0.056
COV (%) 47.00 34.00 25.50 25.30 19.50 8.40 27.90 13.50
 Author's personal copy

1294 L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297

Table 14
Inelastic periods of vibration at life safety limit state for existing and retrofitted buildings

Existing building Retrofitted building

X-direction Y-direction X-direction Y-direction

1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor

Tinel1 (s) 0.44 0.66 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.44 0.50 0.50
Tinel2 (s) 0.30 0.54 0.30 0.72 0.46 0.38 0.56 0.46
Tinel3 (s) 0.32 0.64 0.28 0.96 0.38 0.38 0.52 0.46
Tinel4 (s) 0.44 0.64 0.32 1.02 0.44 0.44 0.32 0.44
Tinel5 (s) 0.34 0.88 0.32 1.24 0.34 0.34 0.46 0.42
Tinel6 (s) 0.38 0.96 0.36 1.12 0.50 0.38 0.54 0.36
Tinel7 (s) 0.50 1.12 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.52

s (s) 0.39 0.78 0.37 0.87 0.44 0.41 0.49 0.45

d (s) 0.07 0.21 0.09 0.30 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.05
COV (%) 18.99 27.25 25.23 34.21 13.58 13.21 16.52 11.68

Table 15
Inelastic periods of vibration at collapse prevention limit state for existing and retrofitted buildings

Existing building Retrofitted building

X-direction Y-direction X-direction Y-direction

1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor

Tinel1 (s) 0.44 0.66 0.50 0.50 0.46 0.44 0.50 0.50
Tinel2 (s) 0.32 0.54 0.36 0.72 0.52 0.52 0.54 0.46
Tinel3 (s) 0.32 0.64 0.26 0.96 0.38 0.38 0.54 0.46
Tinel4 (s) 0.44 0.64 0.32 1.02 0.44 0.44 0.32 0.44
Tinel5 (s) 0.34 0.86 0.32 1.24 0.34 0.34 0.46 0.42
Tinel6 (s) 0.38 0.96 0.36 1.12 0.38 0.38 0.56 0.36
Tinel7 (s) 0.50 1.12 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.52

s (s) 0.39 0.77 0.37 0.87 0.43 0.43 0.49 0.45

d (s) 0.07 0.21 0.09 0.30 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.05
COV (%) 17.91 27.16 24.63 34.21 15.57 15.44 16.76 11.68

It is found that the inelastic periods are floor-dependent for the
as-built structure; the top floor exhibits longer periods with
respect to the first floor. On average, the second floor exhibits
periods that are twice the periods of the first floor, e.g., 0.39s
versus 0.78s (along the X-direction) and 0.37 s versus 0.87 s (along
the Y-direction) at LSLS. This outcome characterizes both the LSLS
and the CPLS. Additionally, the periods computed for the latter
ultimate limit states are similar.
The comparison between the values of the period summarised
in Tables 14 and 15 with those in Table 6, computed through
eigenvalue analysis as illustrated in Section 7.1, shows that the
average elongation of the elastic periods of vibration for the as-
built structure is negligible (the maximum variation is 4.6% along
the X-direction at both LSLS and CPLS). Conversely, for the
retrofitted structure the average period elongation is about 30%
(28.5% for LSLS and 30.7% for CPLS) along the X-direction and 20%
(18.5% for LSLS and 18.7% for CPLS) along the Y-direction. It can
thus be argued that the presence of hysteretic BRBs is effective to
augment the ductility and energy dissipation of the system as a
whole and hence enhance the global structural performance
under moderate-to-high magnitude earthquakes.
The hysteretic brace response was also investigated through
response history analyses. The maximum axial displacement
demands and ductility were computed for the structure subjected
to the suite of natural records. The above response parameters
are provided in Table 16 for both first and second floors. The
maximum demand is imposed at the ground floor, in compliance
with the assumption of the design approach illustrated in Section
3. The target design mechanism is, in fact, a global failure mode
and the lateral force patterns are derived from the force
distributions implemented in most seismic codes of practice.
Such distributions are inverted triangular patterns. At design
stage it is of paramount importance to check that the maximum
axial displacement demand of the BRB is compatible with its
ultimate deformation and the layout of the brace-to-frame
connection. For the case study a device with 725 mm of stroke
is deemed adequate for the second floor; a value of 715 mm may
be selected for the devices at the first floor.
The maximum axial ductility of the BRBs should also be
checked. For the case study, it can be assumed equal to 10 for both
first and second floors. The computed value of maximum
translation ductility is compliant with BRBs available on the
market.
To further investigate the response of BRBs, the hysteretic
response was also assessed. The time history of two typical
devices is provided in Fig. 17 with respect to the axial force and
axial displacement response. The computed results demonstrate
the large amount of energy dissipation and its cyclic stability
under moderate-to-high magnitude earthquakes.
The type and layout of BRBs utilized for the retrofitting of the
existing sample structure are very effective for absorption and
energy dissipation. The energy time history, computed for DLS
and CPLS, and displayed in Fig. 18, demonstrates that a large
amount (more than 60%) of input seismic energy is dissipated by
the BRBs. At DLS the latter device exhibits an elastic behaviour.
Finally, it is worth proving that the existing RC framed
structure (designed primarily for gravity loads) behaves linearly,
thus fulfilling the design approach illustrated pictorially in Figs. 3
and 4, namely retrofitting strategy based on damage controlled
structure schemes. In so doing, Fig. 19 provides the cyclic base
 Author's personal copy

L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297 1295

Table 16
Maximum axial deformations and ductility of the hysteretic diagonal braces.

BRB axial displacement BRB axial ductility

X-direction Y-direction X-direction Y-direction

1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor 1st floor 2nd floor

Dlmax1 (mm) 14.1 8.2 17.4 9.7 mmax1 12.2 6.8 15.1 8.1
Dlmax2 (mm) 10.0 8.2 18.6 11.7 mmax1 8.7 6.8 16.2 9.7
Dlmax3 (mm) 7.9 8.1 9.1 9.6 mmax1 6.9 6.7 7.9 8.0
Dlmax4 (mm) 12.4 8.7 8.9 8.5 mmax1 10.8 7.3 7.7 7.1
Dlmax5 (mm) 10.0 8.2 10.8 8.6 mmax1 8.7 6.9 9.4 7.1
Dlmax6 (mm) 11.1 8.8 11.6 9.1 mmax1 9.7 7.3 10.1 7.6
Dlmax7 (mm) 10.0 7.1 21.6 11.1 mmax1 8.7 5.9 18.8 9.2

s (mm) 10.8 8.2 14.0 9.7 s 9.4 6.8 12.2 8.1

d (mm) 1.8 0.5 4.7 1.1 d 1.6 0.4 4.1 0.9
COV (%) 17.0 6.0 34.0 12.0 COV 17.0 6.00 34.0 12.0

Fig. 17. Response history for typical hysteretic buckling restrained braces: hysteretic loop (top), force- (middle) and axial displacement (bottom) time histories.

100 3000

2500
75
2000
Energy (kJ)

Energy (kJ)

50 1500

1000
25
500

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 18. Energy response history under earthquake loading in the retrofitted structure: damageability (left) and collapse prevention (right) limit states.
 Author's personal copy
1296 L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297
Direction X
= +
Direction Y
= +
Fig. 19. Cyclic response (left) and energy dissipation (right) of the retrofitted framed structure: hysteretic response of the structure with braces (left), existing structure
(middle) and buckling restrained braces (right).
shear-roof displacement response computed for a typical
earthquake record illustrated in Section 5 and scaled at CPLS.
The contributions of the added devices, i.e. diagonal UBs, and the
response of the existing structure (RC framed system) are plotted
separately to demonstrate that the as-built RC system remains in
the elastic range.
The results of the time history analyses confirm that the
energy absorption and dissipation are concentrated in the added
braces.
8. Conclusions
The present work focuses on the seismic performance assess-
ment of typical reinforced concrete (RC) existing building
structures designed for gravity loads only. A refined fibre-based
three-dimensional finite element model was implemented to
assess the nonlinear earthquake response of a sample non-ductile
RC multi-storey building. The existing two-storey framed struc-
ture exhibits high vulnerability, i.e. low lateral resistance and
limited translation ductility; hence an effective strategy scheme
for seismic retrofitting was employed. Such scheme comprises
buckling restrained braces (BRBs) placed along the perimeter
frames of the multi-storey building. The innovative BRBs possess
compressive strength, which is about 10–15% greater than tensile;
the member buckling is prevented and hence the cyclic energy
dissipation is large and stable.
The adopted design approach assumes that the global response
of the inelastic structural system is the sum of the elastic frame
(termed primary structural system) and the perimeter diagonal
braces (quoted as secondary system); the latter braces absorb and
dissipate a large amount of hysteretic energy under earthquake
ground motion. This design approach is effective for damage
controlled structures and can be utilized for performance-based
seismic retrofitting.
A simplified step-by-step procedure, compliant with the
performance-based (force- and displacement-based) framework,
was illustrated and applied to the framed structure of the existing
non-ductile school building. Equivalent viscous damping or
response modification factors may be adopted for the design of
new steel frames with BRBs or for existing RC frames retrofitted
with BRBs.
+
Extensive nonlinear static (pushover) and dynamic (response
history) analyses were carried out for both the as-built and
retrofitted structures to investigate the efficiency of the adopted
intervention strategy. A set of seven code-compliant natural
earthquake records were selected and employed to perform
inelastic history analyses at serviceability (operational and
damageability limit states, OLS and DLS) and ultimate limit states
(life safety and collapse prevention limit states, LSLS and CPLS).
The comparison between the results obtained from nonlinear
analyses demonstrate that that both global and local lateral
displacements are notably reduced after the seismic retrofit of the
existing system. In the as-built structure, the damage is primarily
concentrated at the second floor (storey mechanism); the
computed interstorey drifts are 2.43% at CPLS and 1.92% at LSLS
for modal distribution of lateral forces. Conversely, for the
retrofitted structure, the estimated values of interstorey drifts
(d/h) are halved; the maximum d/h are 0.84% at CPLS (along the
Y-direction) and 0.65% at LSLS (yet along the Y-direction).
Furthermore, lateral drifts are uniformly distributed along the
height; in turn, damage localizations are inhibited, especially at
ultimate limit states, i.e. LSLS and CPLS.
The response curves were utilized to estimate the global
overstrength O, translation ductility mD and the all-encompassing
response factor (R- or q-factor). The values of O vary between 2.14
and 2.54 for the retrofitted structure; similarly, the mD-values
range between 2.07 and 2.36. The estimated response factor is on
average equal to 5.0, which corresponds to the value utilized
in many seismic codes worldwide for ordinary RC capacity-
designed moment resisting frames. The computed R-factors
are similar to those proposed for the design of new steel
framed structures equipped with BRBs, i.e. values ranging
between 4.5 and 6.5.
The structural performance of the bare and retrofitted systems
is also assessed with respect to the elongation of the fundamental
period of vibration with respect to the values derived by modal
analysis. The higher the period elongation, the higher the ductility
of the system. It is found that, for the braced frame, under
moderate-to-high magnitude earthquakes, the average period
elongation is about 30%, while for the existing building the
elongation is negligible (lower than 5%). As a result, BRBs are
effective to enhance the ductility and energy dissipation of the
sample structural system.
 Author's personal copy
L. Di Sarno, G. Manfredi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1279–1297
The above results were derived from inelastic static analyses
and were confirmed by detailed nonlinear dynamic response
histories. The latter proved also that more than 60% of input
seismic energy is dissipated by the UBs at ultimate limit states.
The estimated maximum axial ductility of the braces is about 10;
the latter value of translation ductility is compliant with BRBs
available on the market. At DLS the latter device exhibits an
elastic behaviour. It can thus be concluded that, under moderate
and high magnitude earthquakes, the damage is concentrated in
the added dampers and the existing RC framed structure (bare
frame) has an elastic behaviour.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by the Italian Consortium
Tecnologie per il Recupero Edilizio (Technologies for the Restora-
tion of Structures), under the project TELLUS-STABILITA (Testing of
innovative technologies and devices to protect the structures from the
environmental-induced vibrations, with emphasis on earthquake
loading), funded by the Ministry of Education, University and
Research—FAR art.5 D.M.8/8/2000, no. 593. Any opinions, find-
ings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
Consortium RELUIS. The numerical simulations were carried out
by Mr. Pasqualino Costa; his immense efforts and enthusiastic
dedication are vividly appreciated.
References
[1] Broderick BM, Elnashai AS, Ambraseys NN, Barr JM, Goodfellow RG,
Higazy EM. The Northridge (California) earthquake of 17 January 1994:
observations, strong motion and correlative response analysis. Research
Report No. ESEE 94/4. Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering,
Imperial College, London, 1994.
[2] Youssef NFG, Bonowitz D, Gross JL. A survey of steel moment-resisting frame
buildings affected by the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Report No. NISTR 56254.
National Institute for Science and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 1995.
[3] Watanabe E, Sugiura K, Nagata K, Kitane Y. Performances and damages to
steel structures during 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake. Engineering
Structures 1998;20(4-6):282–90.
1297
[4] Naeim F, Lew M, Huang CH, Lam HK, Carpenter LD. The performance of tall
buildings during the 21 September 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake Taiwan. The
Structural Design of Tall Buildings 2000;9(2):137–60.
[5] Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2009. The Mw 6.3 Abruzzo, Italy,
Earthquake of April 6, 2009. Report available on line at: /http://www.reluis.
it/doc/pdf/Aquila/EERI_L_Aquila_report.pdfS.
[6] Soong TT, Spencer Jr. BF. Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-art
and state-of-practice. Engineering Structures 2002;24(3):243–59.
[7] Mazzolani FM. Seismic upgrading of RC buildings by advanced techniques.
The ILVA-IDEM Research Project. Italy: Polimetrica Publisher; 2006.
[8] Iwata M, Kato T, Wada A. Buckling-restrained braces as hysteretic dampers.
In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Behavior of Steel
Structures in Seismic Areas (STESSA 2000), Montreal, Canada, 2000. p. 33–8.
[9] Black CJ, Makris N, Aiken ID. Component testing, seismic evaluation and
characterization of buckling restrained braces. Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, ASCE 2004;130(6):880–94.
[10] Berman JW, Bruneau M. Cyclic testing of buckling restrained braced frame
with unconstrained gusset connections. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE 2009;135(12):1499–510.
[11] Sabelli R, Mahin S, Chang C. Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings
with buckling-restrained braces. Engineering Structures 2003;25(5):655–66.
[12] Kim J, Choi H. Behavior and design of structures with buckling-restrained
braces. Engineering Structures 2004;26(6):693–706.
[13] Xie W. State of the art of buckling-restrained braces in Asia. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2005;61(6):727–48.
[14] Wada A, Iwata M, Huang YH. Seismic design trend of tall steel building after
Kobe earthquake. Passive energy dissipation and control vibration structures,
Taormina, Italy, 1997. p. 251–69.
[15] Kim J, Seo Y. Seismic design of low-rise steel frames with buckling-restrained
braces. Engineering Structures 2004;26(5):643–51.
[16] Eurocode 8. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. Part
1.3: General rules. Specific rules for various materials and elements.
European Commission for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
[17] DD.MM.LL.PP. Norme tecniche per le costruzioni NTC, 2008 (in Italian).
[18] Papazoglou AJ, Elnashai AS. Analytical and field evidence of the damaging
effect of vertical earthquake ground motion. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1996;25(10):1109–37.
[19] Iervolino I, Maddaloni G, Cosenza E. Eurocode 8 compliant real record sets for
seismic analysis of structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2008;12(1):
54–90.
[20] Pinho R, Antoniou S, 2008. SeismoStruct Computer Program/http://www.
seismosoft.comS.
[21] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[22] Bertero RD, Bertero VV. Performance-based seismic engineering: the need for
a reliable conceptual comprehensive approach. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 2002;31(3):627–52.