You are on page 1of 21

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn.

2008; 37:16351655 Published online 29 September 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.843

Seismic performance of a 3D full-scale high-ductile steelconcrete composite moment-resisting framePart II: Test results and analytical validation
A. Braconi1, , O. S. Bursi2, , G. Fabbrocino3, , W. Salvatore4, , , , F. Taucer5, and R. Tremblay6,
Research Policies of Riva Group S.p.A., ILVA Works Genova, Italy of Structural and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy 3 University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy 4 Department of Structural Engineering, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy 5 IPSC-ELSA, Joint Research Centre, Ispra (VA), Italy 6 Group for Research in Structural Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal, Canada H3C3A7
1 Corporate 2 Department

SUMMARY This paper presents the results of a multi-level pseudo-dynamic seismic test program that was performed to assess the performance of a full-scale three-bay, two-storey steelconcrete composite moment-resisting frame built with partially encased composite columns and partial-strength beam-to-column joints. The system was designed to develop a ductile response in the joint components of beam-to-column joints including exural yielding of beam end plates and shear yielding of the column web panel zone. The ground motion producing the damageability limit state interstorey drift caused minor damage while the ultimate limit state ground motion level entailed column web panel yielding, connection yielding and plastic hinging at the column base connections. The earthquake level chosen to approach the collapse limit state induced more damage and was accompanied by further column web panel yielding, connection yielding and inelastic phenomena at column base connections without local buckling. During the nal quasi-static cyclic test with stepwise increasing displacementamplitudes up to an interstorey drift angle of 4.6%, the behaviour was ductile although cracking of beam-to-end-plate welds was observed. Correlations with numerical simulations taking into account the inelastic cyclic response of beam-to-column and column base joints are also presented in the paper together. Inelastic static pushover and time history analysis

Correspondence

to: W. Salvatore, Department of Structural Engineering, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. E-mail: walter@ing.unipi.it Research Engineer. Professor. Associate Professor. Scientic Ofcer. Contract/grant sponsor: European Research Projects; contract/grant numbers: HPR-CT-1999-00059, ECSC 7210PR-250 Contract/grant sponsor: Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal; contract/grant number: 19851-2002-09 P1VS3 ISP IT Contract/grant sponsor: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Copyright q

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1636

A. BRACONI ET AL.

procedures are used to estimate the structural behaviour and overstrength factors of the structural system under study. Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 1 November 2007; Revised 10 April 2008; Accepted 8 July 2008 KEY WORDS:

earthquake; ductility; seismic design; steelconcrete composite structure; partial-strength connection; slab; pseudo-dynamic testing

1. INTRODUCTION A companion paper [1] describes the design of an innovative composite steelconcrete momentresisting frame system made of composite beams, partially encased composite columns, and partialstrength (PS) beam-to-column joints. The system was designed to exhibit a ductile response under strong seismic ground motions through inelastic response of ductile beam-to-column joint components, namely exural yielding of beam end plates, shear yielding of column web panel zones, and tension yielding of the slab reinforcing steel. By properly controlling the capacity of ductile joint components, the force demand on the column and other capacity protected elements can be kept to a minimum, leading to a cost-effective earthquake-resistant design solution. The concept was applied to a two-storey prototype structure having two-bay moment-resisting frames assumed to be xed at the column bases to verify its feasibility and determine realistic member and connection sizes that would be encountered in practical applications. Sub-assemblage monotonic and quasi-static cyclic tests were performed on exterior and interior innovative PS beamto-column joints of this prototype structure [2] and on the column base connections [3]. The joints were found to exhibit adequate seismic performance complying with the requirements of Eurocode 8 [4] for high ductility class seismic resisting systems, i.e. strength degradation less than 20% at a plastic joint rotation of 35 mrad. Experimental studies had shown that properly designed and detailed partially encased composite columns can exhibit substantial rotational ductility enabling satisfactory plastic hinge response [5, 6]. The overall seismic performance of moment-resisting frame systems with PS strength joints was veried through analytical studies [7, 8]. An essential step in the complete assessment process of the seismic performance of the proposed structural system is the realization of a full-scale seismic test of a representative multistorey frame assembly. This test permits the observation of the actual interaction between local and global responses as well as the distribution of force and ductility demand among the various frame components or over the frame height. The test is also used to validate the numerical models for predicting the non-linear response of the system to seismic strong ground motions. The Pseudo-dynamic (PsD) test method is the most suitable technique for such large-scale experiments as the earthquake demand based on the measured inelastic frame response, including P -Delta effects, can be imposed on the test structure as if it was actually subjected to a real earthquake ground motion. The test results can subsequently be directly compared with those obtained from non-linear time history dynamic analysis for both validation and calibration of numerical models. This technique was successfully used by Plumier [9], in order to evaluate the global seismic performance of a full-scale three-storey, three-bay by three-bay steelconcrete composite moment-resisting frame with full strength connections. Chen et al. [10] applied this procedure to examine the global and local behaviour of a full-scale three-storey, two-bay by twobay composite moment-resisting frame built with reinforced concrete columns and steel beams.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

TEST RESULTS AND ANALYTICAL VALIDATION

1637

PsD testing of a steelconcrete composite moment-resisting frame built with concrete lled tube columns and buckling restrained braces was also carried out in [11, 12]. The performance of the proposed steelconcrete composite moment-resisting frame system with PS beam-to-column joints under combined gravity and earthquake loads was examined through a comprehensive PsD test program performed on a full-scale 3D test frame that comprised three of the ve moment-resisting frames of the prototype structure. Specic objectives of this test program were (i) to study the behaviour of the joint details and the inuence of their damage on the global frame response, (ii) to verify the design procedure adopted for the prototype structure, and (iii) to assess the structural overstrength exhibited by this structural system. The tests were conducted at the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) of the Joint Research Centre at Ispra, Italy, as part of two European joint research projects [13, 14]. Four PsD tests were carried out using a spectrum compatible articial earthquake motion scaled at different amplitudes corresponding to an elastic frame response as well as serviceability, ultimate, and collapse limit state conditions, respectively. The pseudo-dynamic tests were followed by a cyclic quasi-static test during which large displacements with stepwise increasing amplitudes were applied to the structure to induce severe damage and failure to the test frame components. The design and construction of the test frame and the development of the PsD and quasi-static cyclic test programs were described in the companion paper [1], whereas preliminary test results were presented elsewhere [12]. This paper presents a detailed assessment of the seismic performance of the proposed structural system, as obtained from the examination of the measured global and local responses obtained in the experimental programme. A rened numerical model has been calibrated using experimental results and then used to evaluate the performance of the structure through non-linear incremental static and dynamic analyses.

2. PERFORMANCE UNDER PSD AND CYCLIC TEST RESULTS 2.1. Test set-up and procedure Figure 1(a) and (b) shows a schematic view of the test set-up employed for the PsD and quasistatic cyclic tests. The test frame consisted of three parallel two-storey, two-bay steelconcrete moment-resisting frames spaced 3 m apart. The structure was braced in the transverse direction by steel X-bracing set in lines 1 and 3 and included a composite oor slab at each level. Lateral loads and displacements were imposed at each oor in the direction parallel to the moment-resisting frames by a pair of 1000 kN hydraulic actuators attached to the reaction wall of the ELSA facility at Ispra [15]. Prior to starting the PsD tests, additional gravity loads consistent with the Eurocode 8 [4] load combination including seismic loads used in design were applied at both levels of the test structure. Details on the test structure can be found in the companion paper [1]. The articial ground motion record adopted for the four PsD tests is shown in Figure 1(c). In the tests, the duration of the input record was set equal to 20 s, i.e. 17.5 s of ground motion divided in 2.5, 10 and 5 s of rise, strong motion and decay, respectively, followed by a free vibration period of 2.5 s [13]. The test programme, the intensity of ground motion (IGM) and the performance objectives (PO), together with the associated limit states and target frame performance levels, are as follows: Test no. 1IGM: pga = 0.10g , PO = elastic behaviour; Test no. 2IGM: pga = 0.25g , PO = serviceability limit state (SLS);
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1638

A. BRACONI ET AL.

Figure 1. Pseudo-dynamic test program: (a) and (b) test set-up; (c) adopted articial ground motion (pga = 0.42g ); measured and predicted top storey displacementtime histories (test no. 2 pga = 0.25g (d); test no. 3 pga = 1.40g (e); test no. 4 pga = 1.80g (f )).

Test no. 3IGM: pga = 1.4g , PO = ultimate limit state (ULS); Test no. 4IGM: pga = 1.8g , PO = collapse limit state. Additional information on the development of the tests is provided in the relevant report [13] and the companion paper [1]. A digital controller treating the lateral displacements and forces monitored at each level of the test structure was used to perform the numerical integration of the overall system exploiting the continuous PsD method with an explicit -Newmark method and a time step of 0.002 s [16]. Masses equal to 83 300 and 85 600 kg were, respectively, specied at the bottom and top stories in the equations of motion of the system, representing the seismic weights considered in design for the three moment-resisting frames [1]. No viscous damping forces were included in the dynamic equilibrium, the damping being small and variable. A time scale factor (i.e. the elongation during the test of the duration of the accelerogram) greater than 1000, reaching
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

TEST RESULTS AND ANALYTICAL VALIDATION

1639

values of up to 4000 during the strong motion phase in the large amplitude PsD tests nos. 3 and 4, was employed to keep the damping and energy errors below 5% [17]. After completion of the PsD tests a quasi-static cyclic test including 12 sinusoidal displacement cycles was carried out. The displacementamplitudes at the roof level varied stepwise from 50 to 300 mm in 50 mm increments with two cycles at each displacement level. Details on the experimental study can be found in [13]. On-line identication of the structure instantaneous modal frequencies and equivalent viscous damping ratios assuming Rayleigh damping was performed during the PsD tests with a modal model developed by Bursi et al. [13] and Molina et al. [18]. The following subsections describe the behaviour of the structure under the PsD and quasi-static cyclic tests. 2.2. Behaviour in the PsD tests no. 1 (pga = 0.10g) and no. 2 (pga = 0.25g) The main objectives of the rst PsD test were to collect data on the elastic uncracked dynamic properties of the test frame, to verify the adequateness of the test set-up and check the accuracy of the PsD algorithm. In the test, the maximum interstorey drifts recorded at the bottom and top stories reached 9.7 mm (0.28% H1 ) and 12.3 mm (0.35% H2 ), respectively, where H1 = H2 = 3500 mm. The behaviour of the structure remained essentially elastic and no damage could be observed at beam-to-column or column base joints. It is noted that small cracks parallel to the transverse beams and spanning between column edges were present at both levels. These cracks formed upon application of the additional gravity loads. Regularly spaced small horizontal cracks were also observed prior to testing along the full height and on the two sides of the concrete encased by the steel columns. The spacing of these cracks corresponded approximately to the stirrup spacing, suggesting that they had been induced by shrinkage of the concrete. The objective of PsD test no. 2 was to approach the onset of yielding with no excessive damage into the structure, corresponding to the SLS [4]. Figure 1(d) shows the time history of the top storey level. Note that the numerical predictions of the PsD test response shown in the gures will be discussed later in the paper. During the test, peak storey drift angles 1 / H1 and 2 / H2 approximately equal to 0.6% were reached at both levels. Visual inspection after the test indicated that no visible gap had developed between the beam end plates and the column anges; additional cracks developed in the concrete slab, no damage occurred in the form of crushing or spalling of the concrete or local buckling in the column steel anges, and that thin cracks developed transversally in the mortar under the base plates in line with the anchor rods. Slab cracking was more evident at the bottom storey and at the external beam-to-column joints along Line 1, see Figure 1(a), likely due to the higher rotation demand in span 12, shorter and stiffer than span 23. On the interior side of the columns in beam-to-column joint areas, cracks developed mainly parallel to transverse beams in line with or in front of the columns. On the exterior joints, an inclined cracking pattern formed under hogging bending moments. Figure 2(d) shows the peak positive and negative rotation measurements in joints of the exterior frame, frame A: in particular, for the sake of clearness the tags of all joints in the a frame are reported in Figure 2(a); moreover, the identication of the structural parts composing each joint (connection and web panel) and their kinematics are shown in Figure 2(b) and (c). The rotation of either side of each joint is sum of rotations of the beam-to-column connection of the same side and the column web panel. For the interior joints, total joint rotation values are given on each side of the column (left joint and right joint). Also note that positive rotations are clockwise. As shown, joint rotations are generally larger at the bottom storey and the rotations associated with
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1640

A. BRACONI ET AL.

(a)

(b)
A1-I Rotations [mrad]

(c)
A2-I Rotations [mrad] A3-I Rotations [mrad]

Level I 0.1g 0.25g 1.4g 1.8g Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Right

Left

Right

Left

Conn Panel Joint Conn Joint Panel -0,86 -5,52 -4,32 -0,18 -1,49 -1,31 1,20 5,20 4,34 0,35 1,99 1,65 -11,01 -1,75 -8,55 0,13 -3,87 -4,00 6,89 2,76 5,14 1,70 5,31 3,62 -13,61 -6,51 -20,12 -1,11 -20,54 -19,43 10,79 12,55 23,34 0,61 25,40 24,79 -22,38 -5,53 -27,91 -2,88 -27,81 -24,92 22,70 7,97 30,67 0,14 32,71 32,58
A1-II Rotations [mrad]

Conn Joint Conn Panel Joint -0,66 -2,04 -2,54 -0,93 -1,59 -0,15 1,50 2,78 0,95 1,85 -0,97 -4,96 -0,73 -2,08 -2,81 0.25 3,87 1,68 2,59 4,27 -1,42 -20,82 -7,61 -8,57 -16,18 -1,39 23,36 14,76 8,96 23,71 -2,93 -27,85 -15,09 -9,27 -24,36 -1,73 30,85 18,38 11,99 30,37
A3-II Rotations [mrad]

A2-II Rotations [mrad]

Level II 0.1g 0.25g 1.4g 1.8g Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Right Left Right Left Conn Panel Joint Conn Joint Panel Conn Joint Conn Panel Joint -0,28 -0,64 -0,92 -0,18 -1,49 -1,31 -0,66 -2,04 -0,64 -0,31 -0,94 0,30 0,60 0,90 -1,13 -1,60 -2,74 1,55 0,69 2,24 -7,73 -11,30 -19,03 7,50 12,78 20,29 -14,59 -9,70 -24,29 18,30 14,53 32,83 0,35 1,99 1,65 -0,17 -3,29 -3,13 1,18 3,48 2,30 -3,37 -21,91 -18,53 2,84 23,50 20,66 -4,95 -27,93 -22,97 5,87 39,14 33,26 -0,15 1,50 0,47 0,78 1,25 -1,02 -4,15 -0,42 -1,23 -1,64 0,72 3,03 1,35 1,88 3,24 -3,65 -22,17 -8,92 -10,18 -19,10 1,74 22,40 7,67 12,99 20,66 -4,55 -27,52 -17,18 -7,74 -24,93 4,35 37,61 20,57 12,85 33,42

(d)

Figure 2. Measured joint rotations of (exterior) A frame: (a) joints identication; (b) connections, web panel and left/right joint side inside the whole interior A2-I joint; (c) kinematics of the joint; and (d) maximum and minimum rotations of the joints, connections and web panels.

Copyright q

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

TEST RESULTS AND ANALYTICAL VALIDATION

1641

negative moments in the exterior joints are larger at Line 1 (near the reaction wall), consistent with the observed relative severity of the slab cracking. 2.3. Behaviour in the PsD test no. 3 (pga = 1.4g) The objective of this third PsD test was to simulate the ULS conditions with inelastic joint rotations in beam-to-column joints of at least 35 mrad. As shown in Figure 3(a), the top storey displacement imposed in this test attained 196 mm, i.e. / H = 2.81%, where H = 7000 mm. The recorded interstorey drift angles reached 1 / H1 = 2.50% and 2 / H2 = 3.17% at bottom and top stories, respectively, which is in line with the 2.50% target value that was anticipated from pretest analytical predictions. The measured peak rotations in beam-to-column joints are shown in Figure 2(b) and (c) for the exterior frame and the interior frame, respectively. A maximum total rotation of 27.5 mrad was reached at the exterior joint located at the bottom storey in the interior frame. Other maximum values in the exterior frame A reached approximately 25.4 mrad, which is slightly less than the 35 mrad objective for this test. Visual inspection during and after the test revealed that inelastic response developed in all beam-to-column joints with more pronounced damage at the bottom storey, on column Line 1 of the exterior frames (frames A and C). During the large amplitude cycles, exural response of the beam end plates under both positive and negative bending moments could be readily observed at the exterior joints, as illustrated in Figure 3(a) and (b), respectively, whereas shear yielding of the column web panel zone seemed to dominate the response of the interior joints as illustrated in Figure 3(c). The measurements reported in Figure 2(b) and (c) show, however, that the peak inelastic demand was well distributed between these two ductile steel connection components in all joints, as intended in design. Minor residual deformations could be observed in some of these components at the end of the test. The crack pattern of the slab was similar to that observed in the PsD test no. 2. However, the extent of cracking was signicantly increased and crushing of the concrete slab against the column face was observed on the interior side of exterior columns, see Figure 3(d), and on both sides of the interior columns as illustrated in Figure 3(e). As described in the companion paper [1], the inclined compression strut mechanism assumed in design could not be activated for the transfer of the slab compression force to the columns under positive bending moment, which resulted in excessive direct bearing stresses and concrete crushing at the slab and column interface. At the end of the test, the gaps left between the concrete slab and the steel column face varied between 0.9 and 3.8 mm at the bottom storey and between 0.2 and 1.7 mm at the top storey. Figure 3(f) shows the trapezoidal crack pattern observed on the exterior side of the exterior joint A-1 at the bottom storey. This cracking is associated with permanent (inelastic) elongation of the U-shaped slab reinforcing steel designed to transmit the tension force acting in the slab under hogging moment to the slab portion located on the exterior side of the column. This behaviour was expected as yielding of longitudinal reinforcing steel in the slab was considered as a ductile response and, hence, was intended in the structural design. The extent of damage at columns B-1 and C-1 as well as at columns on Line 3 was less than the damage observed at column A-1 in Figure 3(f). Slab crushing against the columns and inclined cracking behind the exterior columns had also been observed in the beam-to-column sub-assemblage tests conducted at the University of Pisa [2]. No exural concrete cracking or local steel ange instabilities were observed at steel column bases. However, signicant rotation of column base joints developed during the test, reaching up to 21.7 mrad as shown in Figure 4(a) for column A-2 at a height of 690 mm from the base joint.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1642

A. BRACONI ET AL.

This rotation is mainly attributed to the extension of the anchor rods and large deformation of the grout lling in compression under the action of bending moments at the base in analogy to results of monotonic complimentary experimental tests. At the end of the test, cracked portions of the grout were removed under the base plates as illustrated in Figure 4(b) and the gaps between the top of the base plates and the underside of the nuts were measured to assess the extent of

Figure 3. Response of external frame C under PsD test no. 3 (pga = 1.40g ). Inelastic response of steel joint components: (a) bending of end plate (sagging momentexterior column C-1); (b) bending of the beam end plate (hogging momentexterior column C-1); (c) web panel deformation (interior column C-2). Damage to the concrete slab: (d) slab crushing on the interior side of the exterior column C-1; (e) slab crushing on the column C-2; and (f ) trapezoidal cracking pattern on the exterior side of the column A-1.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

TEST RESULTS AND ANALYTICAL VALIDATION

1643

Figure 4. Response of the 3D frame: (a) time history of the measured rotation at the column base A-2 (test no. 3); (b) removal of the cracked grout after testing (test no. 3); (c) gap left between the anchor rod nuts and the top of the base plate (test no. 3); (d) measured total rotations in all beam-to-column joints of frame A (test no. 3); and (e) measured total joint rotations in frame B (test no. 4).

yield elongation of the anchor rods as shown in Figure 4(c). Rotation of the base plates likely contributed to lower the expected rotational demand in the beam-to-column joints. Figure 4(d) presents the total rotations measured in all six joints of the exterior frame A. The rotations at both stories are of similar magnitude, in agreement with the similar peak interstorey drift angles measured at the bottom and top stories. This indicates that drift demands were evenly distributed among the two storeys and that no storey mechanism developed under this high amplitude ground motion. Similar deformation levels were also recorded in both instrumented moment-resisting frames, conrming that all three frames of the structure contributed to a
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1644

A. BRACONI ET AL.

similar degree to the lateral resistance and energy dissipation. As indicated, joint rotations resulted from inelastic deformations in both the beam end plates and column panel zones, as intended in design. 2.4. Behaviour in the PsD test no. 4 (pga = 1.8g) The objective of this PsD test was to induce a collapse limit state on the test structure. The top storey displacement reached 266 mm ( / H = 3.8%) and the storey drift angle 1 / H1 at the bottom storey attained 3.5%. As shown in Figure 4(f), total joint rotations in the interior frame B approached or exceeded the 35 mrad value in all beam-to-column joints. Visual inspection of the structure and examination of the test results revealed that the behaviour of beam-to-column joints and column base joints was comparable to those observed in the previous PsD test. No sign of failure could be seen in any of the connection components and the composite columns remained undamaged. However, yielding of the base plate anchors was more evident with base plate rotations reaching up to 18.5 mrad. Figure 1(f) shows the measured top storey drift time history.

2.5. Behaviour in the quasi-static cyclic test In this test, the prescribed sinusoidal displacement history with stepwise increasing amplitudes was applied at the top storey and the actuators at the bottom storey were controlled such that the bottom to the top oor lateral load ratio of 0.97 was maintained throughout the test, as illustrated in Figure 5(a). That ratio was determined from examination of the measured modal properties of the test structure after the PsD test no. 4. Maximum joint rotations reached in the 12th cycle (in which there was the maximum demand) are provided in Figure 5(b). Similar positive and negative values were recorded due to the symmetry of the imposed displacement signal and the measured rotations were close to the Eurocode 8 requirement of minimum 35 mrad rotational capacity for high ductility class structures [3]. Inspection of the joints after the test indicated a number of fractures of the lower beam ange to end plate welds, as depicted in Figure 5(c). At the bottom storey, cracking of the slab at column A-1 remained as observed after the PsD tests (see Figure 4(f)) while additional diagonal cracking developed in the slab at the exterior joints at columns A-3 and C-3. Figure 5(a) shows the storey drift time histories imposed at both levels; maximum interstorey drift angle of 4.42% was reached at the 12th cycle. As shown, the two drift amplitudes remained nearly identical throughout the test, because a deformation control technique is used. Moreover, the response under such a xed lateral load distribution, without sudden drop of resistance, indicated a stable hysteretic behaviour. This is also demonstrated by the similitude between the two storey shear-storey drift angle responses plotted in Figure 5(d) and (e). Clearly, the structure did not exhibit any strength degradation under such a high level of ductility demand. The pinching response in these hysteresis curves is mainly attributed to the behaviour of the oor slabs, i.e. concrete crushing against the column faces and concrete cracking and yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement, and the stiffness degradation of the column bases owing to the progressive permanent elongation of the anchor rods. In this test, the test structure developed a maximum total lateral resistance amounting to approximately 2140 kN, thus corresponding to 1.29 W, as depicted in Figure 5(f). This is very close to the value predicted by the preliminary static pushover analysis performed before the test programme (1.32 W). This aspect will be discussed further in the last section of the paper.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

TEST RESULTS AND ANALYTICAL VALIDATION

1645

Figure 5. Frame response under the nal cyclic quasi-static test: (a) imposed storey drift angles at both stories; (b) measured maximum joint rotations in the external frame A; (c) fracture of the lower beam ange to end plate in the joint A-1-I (bottom storey); (d) storey shear vs storey drift angle response at the top storey; (e) storey shear vs storey drift angle response at the bottom storey; and (f ) base shear force vs drift angle at top storey.

2.6. Performance of joints during the PSD test programme In addition to demonstrating the good overall seismic behaviour of the full 3D frame, the PSD test program was carried out to also examine in detail the performance of the steelconcrete composite PS joints adopted in the design. For this purpose and as described in the companion paper [1], strain gauges were suitably installed on the composite columns in order to estimate internal forces acting in the composite members. In particular, strain gauges were intentionally positioned some distance away from the structural joints to ensure that the measured deformations remained within the elastic range. Bending moments in the composite columns could then be obtained from the curvatures determined from strain gauge measurements assuming linear material response and plane cross-section behaviour. In this calculations, the elastic modulus of the steel, E S , was set
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1646

A. BRACONI ET AL.

equal to 206 000 N/mm2 , and a ratio of 7.0 was assumed between steel and concrete moduli. Shear forces in the individual columns could be computed using bending moment values so-determined at two different locations along the storey heights, assuming linear variation of the bending moments between consecutive. The total storey shear forces obtained from these calculations were checked against the applied forces during the PSD programme. Excellent correlation was obtained, as illustrated in Figure 6(a) and (b). Lastly, the bending moments acting in the beams at the beam-to-column joints could be calculated from the shear forces and the bending moments acting in the columns. In this section, only the results for the interior frame B are reported. Joint numbers are given in Figure 6(c). For the interior joints B2-I and B2-II, the total bending moments equal to the sum of the bending moments acting

Figure 6. Analysis of internal solicitations: comparison between total seismic shear applied and total shear force of columns (test no. 3(a) rst oor; (b) top oor); (c) identication of analyzed joints; (d) max/min bending moments in interior joint; (e) max/min bending moment in exterior joint; and (f ) max/min bending moment in base column joints.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

TEST RESULTS AND ANALYTICAL VALIDATION

1647

in the beams on both sides of the joints were calculated. The maximum bending moment values in each joint are plotted against the maximum peak ground acceleration (pga) in each of the four PsD testing phases in Figure 6(d)(f). For completeness, the maximum total joint rotations in each of the PSD tests are reported in Figure 7(a)(c) using the same format. The relative contributions from the connection rotations and panel zone deformations to the total joint rotations are illustrated in Figure 7(d) and (e) for joints B2I and B3-I, respectively. The maximum bending moment capacity of the exterior joint was reached in the third PsD test (pga 1.40g ), while the interior joints reached their total capacity, i.e. the sum of the left and right joint capacities, during the fourth PsD test (pga 1.80g ). The maximum bending moment resistance
80 Total Joint Rotation (Left+Right) [mrad] 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 B2-I -80 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 p.g.a. [g units] 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 -40 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 p.g.a. [g units] 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 0.25 g B21.80 g Total Joint Rotatio n [mrad] B2-I 0.10 g 1.40 g 40 30 20 10 0 B3-I -10 -20 -30 0.25 g B1-II B1-I B3-II 1.80 g B3-II 0.10 g B1-I B3-I 1.40 g B1-II

B2-

(a)
30 20 10 0.10 g

(b)
1.40 g Deformative contributions to Joint Rotation 120% 0.10 g 0.25 g 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0.00

B1-0

1.40 g B2-I JOINT ROTATION

1.80 g

Rotation [mrad]

PANEL

B2-0 0

B3-0

B1-0 -10 0.25 g -20 -30 0.00 B3-0 B2-0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 p.g.a. [g units] 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 1.80 g

CONNECTION

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00 p.g.a. [g units]

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

(c)

(d)
600

Test on 3D frame

Deformative contributions to Joint Rotation

125% 0.10 g 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%

0.25 g B3-I JOINT ROTATION

1.40 g

1.80 g

400 Bending Moment [kNm]


Sagging

Connection

200

Panel Connection

Hogging

-25% -50% -75% -100% -125% 0.00 0.25 0.50 Panel

-200

-400
B3-I JOINT ROTAT ION

0.75

1.00 p.g.a. [g units]

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

-600 -6%

Test on substructure
-4% -2% 0% Interstory drift /H 2% 4% 6%

(e)

(f)

Figure 7. Analysis of maximum deformations of joint components: (a) max/min interior joint rotations; (b) max/min exterior joint rotations; (c) max/min column base rotations; (d) sharing of deformative contribution in the interior B2-I joint; (e) sharing of deformative contribution in the exterior B1-I joint; and (f ) comparison between momentrotation curve of B2-I joint during test no. 3 and momentrotation curve obtained during cyclic tests on joint sub-structures.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1648

A. BRACONI ET AL.

values developed during the test programme are in good agreement with the values obtained in the cyclic pilot tests conducted on the beam-to-column sub-structures. It is clear in Figure 6(d) that some of exterior joints presented a decrease in strength during the fourth PsD test. In these joints, yielding tended to concentrate in the beam connection (end plate) rather than in the column web shear panel as the demand increased, as shown in Figure 7(e). This response led to a more rapid cyclic degradation of the capacity of the connection, mainly due to damage to the concrete slab. In the tests, however, the strength degradation observed in the exterior joints remained well below the 20% limit imposed by EC8 for the classication of structural components as ductile dissipative elements. On the contrary, the interior joints reached their maximum resistance during the fourth PsD test, conrming the absence of strength degradation. This behaviour is mainly due to the concentration of yielding in the column web panel rather than in the beam connection, as illustrated in Figure 7(d). During the third PsD test (pga 1.40g ), the mean ratio of the panel zone contribution to the maximum total joint rotations was equal to 0.72. This ratio increases to 91% when considering only the interior joints and reduces to 53% for the exterior joints. The difference is partly attributed to the different loading conditions for the column web panel in the two joint congurations. Another factor that also contributed to the observed difference is the relative strength of the steel elements in each connection type [1]: the web of the interior columns had a lower actual to nominal yield strength ratio (1.45) compared with that of the web of the exterior columns (1.73) and of the beam end plates used in the connection (1.63). Finally, the observed crack pattern of the slab on the exterior side of the exterior joints, and the associated permanent elongation of the U-shaped longitudinal slab reinforcement, reduced the bearing response of the slab against the column under negative (hogging) bending moments, thus reducing the force and deformation demand on the web of the exterior columns, as showed in Figure 7(e), and reducing the bending moment resistance that could be developed. For instance, joint B1-I experienced under hogging bending moments a relatively large peak connection rotation of 11.7 mrad together with a rotation of 10.9 mrad due to panel zone deformations. Under sagging bending moments, the joint could maintain its capacity for the duration of the test, which resulted in large horizontal shear forces imposed on the column web panel and, thereby, signicant panel zone deformations reaching up to 15 mrad and large joint deformations reaching up to 27.50 mrad as depicted in Figure 7(b). The joint behaviour during the PsD test program was compared with the joint response measured in the test program on beam-to-column sub-structures [2]. The cyclic tests on the joint subassemblages were more demanding than the frame tests, as illustrated by the momentrotation response from the two test programs in Figure 7(f). In all cases, the cyclic quasi-static test response on beam-to-column sub-structures represents an envelope of the cyclic behaviour of the beamto-column joints during the PsD tests. Figure 6(d) and (e) show the good match between peak resistances developed by the joints in the two test programs.

3. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT After completion of the tests, the IDARC2D [19, 20] numerical model set for the development of the experimental programme was validated against the test data in order to be used at a later stage for assessing the seismic performance of the system based on non-linear static and dynamic incremental analysis results.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

TEST RESULTS AND ANALYTICAL VALIDATION

1649

Available data concerning rotational response of column bases did not fully cover cyclic behaviour. Therefore, additional quasi-static cyclic tests on column base subassemblies were carried out at the Structural Engineering Laboratory of University of Trento. A typical momentrotation hysteretic response, obtained from a stepwise incremental sinusoidal displacement cycles test, is shown in Figure 8(a). The inelastic behaviour is characterised by pinching owing to progressive permanent elongation of the anchor rods and no damage in the column. Based on a IDARC2D component model of column base connection, the IDARC2D numerical model of the Ispra test frame described in the companion paper [1] was then modied to include cyclic base connection

Figure 8. Improvement of IDARC2D model and seismic performance assessment: (a) column base sub-assemblage test set-up for cyclic quasi-static tests; (b) measured and IDARC2D predicted moment rotation hysteretic responses; (c) base shear time history of test no. 3; (d) computed frame responses from non-linear static and dynamic analyses; behaviour and overstrength factors: (e) calculation with static non-linear analysis; and (f ) calculation with dynamic non-linear analysis.
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1650

A. BRACONI ET AL.

response data. In particular, the smooth hysteretic model developed by Sivaselvan and Reinhorn [20] was used to reproduce the rotational response of the column base joint obtained from the additional tests and good match could be achieved with this technique. The computed time history roof displacement response of the test structure under PsD tests nos. 2 and 3 is compared with the test measurements in Figure 1(d) and (e), respectively. At these two ground motion amplitudes and damage intensity levels, a satisfactory synchronization and peak amplitude matching are observed between the computed and test responses over the entire duration of the input signal. Figure 8(b) compares the measured and predicted response in PsD test no. 3 at the global frame level. The model was capable of predicting the strength and force distribution in the frame when subjected to highly inelastic response. For test no. 4, in which the model is subjected to a pga of 1.8g , there are some differences between numerical model and experimental test, Figure 1(f). The differences are mainly in the synchronization of the two curves, while the model captures adequately the maximum response of the structure; this result conrms anyway that the model presents good predictive capabilities and can be used for the assessment of the seismic demand on the structural type herein studied. The Eurocode 8 behaviour factor of the proposed structural system was estimated from static and dynamic non-linear analyses performed using the IDARC2D numerical model [20] described in the previous section. Results of the analyses are plotted in Figure 8(c) and (d). The static pushover response was obtained for two different patterns for the vertical distribution of the lateral load: uniform distribution and distribution according to the rst modal shape. The ground acceleration record adopted for the test programme was used in dynamic analyses. For all three curves, Figure 8(d), the base shear V is normalized to the total seismic weight W = 552 kN of one frame, and the lateral displacement corresponds to the roof displacement normalized with respect to the frame height H . In Figure 8(d), performance points evaluated at seven pga levels are also indicated on each plot. As shown, the static pushover response curves provided by the uniform and rst modal shape load patterns do not give consistent upper and lower limits of the response curve from incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). A similar observation was made by Antoniou et al. [21]. Moreover, the dynamic curve exceeded the uniform response curve at pga 1.8g . The behaviour factor from static incremental analysis, qstat , can be obtained as qstat = ( u / 1 ) , see Figure 8(e), where u and 1 , respectively, represent the lateral load multiplier (expressed in terms of V / W ratio) at the collapse limit state and at rst signicant yield, while describes the associated displacement ductility = u / y . From the static analysis, u = 1.176 and 1 = 0.355, leading to a structural overstrength of 3.31, and the ductility = 2.77. This provides a behaviour factor of 9.18, reported in Figure 8, which is greater than the value of 6.0 recommended in Eurocode 8 [4] and assumed in the design of the prototype structure. Conversely, the behaviour factor from the IDA, qdyn , was tracked by means of the dynamic response curve using the expression qdyn = pgau /pga y , where pgau is the pga of the applied ground motion required to develop a plastic rotation in beam-to-column joints equal to about 35 mrad (pgau = 1.54g ); while pga y is the pga level corresponding to the rst signicant yielding of the structure (pga y = 0.25g ). Figure 8(f) illustrates the parameters used for the determination of qdyn . For the test structure, the resulting qdyn is equal to 6.16, nearly equal to the Eurocode 8 recommendation [4]. The aforementioned analyses also allow denition of the design overstrength factor, property of the structure, that for the sake of clearness is identied as d,stat and d,dyn , respectively, on the basis of the used analysis. In Figure 8(e) and (f) the denition of overstrength factor and its dependence from the analysis results are reported. The parameter d,stat is dened by the ratio 1 / d , where 1 is the base shear ratio at rst signicant yield from static incremental analysis
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

TEST RESULTS AND ANALYTICAL VALIDATION

1651

(=0.355) and d is the base shear ratio used in design. The design of the prototype and test structures is described in the companion paper [1]. In particular, the design base shear per frame was equal to 0.167 augmented to take into account the accidental torsion = 1.15 [4], thus providing d = 0.192. With these two values the overstrength factor, calculated with the incremental static analysis, reads d,stat = 1.85. Similarly, the evaluation of the overstrength factor from the dynamic analysis is described as d,dyn = pga y /pgad neglecting the amplication factor 2.5 from Eurocode 8 [4] equal for both. In this expression, pgad = ag /qd where ag is the design acceleration equal to 0.40g and qd is the factor used in design equal to 6.0, giving pgad = 0.067g . With this value and considering the accidental torsion ( = 1.15), the overstrength factor d,dyn = [0.25/(0.067 1.15)] = 3.24. Such high levels of overstrength are not unusual in moment-resisting frame structures [22, 23] and the dependable portion of these values could be used in seismic design. Lateral overstrength up to the rst signicant yielding can be attributed to: (i) the partial safety factors adopted in design; (ii) the interstorey drift limits enforced to satisfy the SLS; (iii) the design constraints provided by non-seismic actions like gravity loads on columns; (iv) the difference between nominal strength and measured strength of materials; (v) the use of discrete standard dimensions of steel section proles, and (vi) neglecting the beam-to-column joint exibility in the calculation of the design moments for joints. The design action amplication factors for accidental torsional effects as well as the impact of the difference between the design period T1 and the actual fundamental frame period, also contribute to the overstrength factor d,dyn . It is worthwhile to mention that factors (ii), (iii), and (iv) were decisive factors for the design of the prototype structure studied herein and hence for the resulting overstrength values. Additional lateral overstrength owing to material strain hardening response and the redistribution of forces required to form a full mechanism can explain the increase in lateral force required to reach the collapse limit state from the signicant yield point. In the incremental static analysis, the ultimate lateral capacity was limited by strength degradation assumed in the beam end plate model combined with global P effects. The ductility of the system, and therefore the behaviour factor, could likely be increased by promoting a higher contribution of the column panel zone in relation to the beam end plate contribution to the inelastic deformation capacity of the structure. This can be obtained by specifying higher design forces for the end plated connections. Examination of the performance of welded ange-bolted-web beam-to-column connections commonly used in the U.S. shows that large panel zone shear yielding deformations can cause large stress and strain concentrations at the beam ange weld location, leading to premature connection fracture, so that a design calling for balanced energy dissipation between beam exure and panel zone yielding has been recommended to limit plastic shear deformations in the panel zone [24]. Such a limitation does not apply in the connection typology studied in this paper. However, adopting a strategy that encourages more pronounced panel zone inelastic deformations in multistorey building applications could result in storey mechanism response, deviating from the desirable global beam hinging plastic mechanism, with excessive concentrated inelastic demand in a few oors and associated large P effects. Finally, a calibrated numerical model of the frame has been used to perform an assessment of the seismic demand on the structure. In particular, an IDA has been performed using a set of 11 earthquakes retrieved from the European Strong Motion Database. Scaled values of PGA up to 2.0g were used to assess the relationship between demand parameters, both global (i.e. interstorey drifts) and local (i.e. shear panel deformation, joint rotations), and the selected earthquake intensity measure. Calculations were checked to assess the relevance of P effects on overall stability failure modes. In all cases, second-order effects did not affect the numerical results. Figure 9(a) shows
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1652

A. BRACONI ET AL.

Figure 9. Results form IDAs: (a) maximum base shear forcemaximum top storey drift; (b) angular deformation of shear panel in B2-I interior joint; (c) connections rotation in the B2-I interior joint; (d) angular deformation of shear panel in B1-I exterior joint; and (e) connection rotation in the B1-I exterior joint.

a global demand parameter, namely the top oor drift. Comparison between demand and dotted line representative of the seismic capacity shows a stable safe response of the building. At local level, a detailed analysis of joint behaviour was made in order to check the localizing of plastic deformation in the column web panel and in the beam-to-column connection. The deformation localized in the column web panel, Figure 9(b) and (d), shows results higher or comparable to the connection deformations, Figure 9(c) and (e). The scattering of plastic rotation demand, imposed by the variability of seismic input, is synthetically represented, in each of the graphs reported in Figure 9(b)(e), by the fuse individuated by 16% quartile and 84% quartile curves. In every case, the column web panel has contributed to the joint rotation with more than 30% of the total joint rotation, suggesting how, probably, the limit imposed to the maximum column web panel deformation could be relaxed, in order to achieve optimized contributions of
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

TEST RESULTS AND ANALYTICAL VALIDATION

1653

panels and connections to the overall joint momentrotation response. Moreover, the values of connection rotations and web panel angular deformations were compared with limit values derived from the experimental test executed on joint sub-structures [2]. These limit values were measured in the structural components (connections and web panel) at 0.06 radians for interstorey drift of the beam-to-column sub-assemblage. This reference drift value was conventionally individuated as ultimate capacity drift angle by FEMA 350 in the testing procedure for the pre-qualication of beam-to-column sub-assemblages [25]. All the curves corresponding to the 84% percentile are lower than assumed limits: in particular, it is evident the great gap between the curves of column web panel in shear and connection subjected to hogging bending moment and the ultimate capacity limit derived by the FEMA 350 [25], Figure 9(b)(e). On the contrary, the connection subjected to sagging bending moment is very close to the ultimate capacity limit for the exterior joint while the gap is greater for the interior joint conguration. This difference is congruent with the observed joint behaviour, during the PsD test programme and reported in Figure 9(d) and (e); in the exterior joint under sagging moment the major source of plastic deformation is the beam-to-column connection. More work is needed to fully characterize such an interaction and develop reliable and safe design guidelines concerning the required minimum panel zone vs beam end plate design forces and behaviour factor as depending on the building height.

4. CONCLUSIONS A comprehensive pseudo-dynamic and cyclic quasi-static test program was carried out on a fullscale 3D structure composed of three two-bay, two-storey moment-resisting frames to evaluate the seismic performance of a steelconcrete composite moment-resting frame system built with partially encased columns and PS beam-to-column connections. The frame behaved as intended in design with most of the inelastic response being shared between exural yielding of the beam end plates and shear yielding of the column web panel zones. Secondary energy dissipation mechanism associated with ductile limit states such as yielding of slab reinforcement or yielding of the column base anchor rods also developed in the test structure frame, as expected in design. The proposed structural system was found to meet the Eurocode 8 requirements for frames with PS connections of the high ductility class in terms of member behaviour and joint ductility. Similarly, the AISC requirements for the C-PRMF system category were satised. In the tests, the storey drift and joint rotation demand were found to be well balanced among the two stories, which suggests that the system has good potential for distributing vertically inelastic response in multistorey applications. The behaviour of beam-to-column joints in the test program was very similar to that observed in sub-assemblage quasi-static cyclic tests performed on individual joint specimens. In both cases, the strut and tie mechanism described in Eurocode 8 for the transfer of the compression force between the slab and the column could not be activated owing to the discontinuity between the concrete of the slab and the column concrete encasement. In the tests, secondary inelastic ductile response such as tension yielding of the slab reinforcing steel or yielding of the column base anchor rods led to some stiffness degradation that translated into a pinched hysteretic overall response for the test structure. These phenomena should have no detrimental impact on the seismic safety of the structural system but could result in larger lateral deformations. If needed, such inelastic responses could be avoided or mitigated by considering these mechanisms as brittle limit states in the capacity design process. This approach could, however, result in increased inelastic demand
Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1654

A. BRACONI ET AL.

on the ductile components of beam-to-column joints, and this aspect should also be considered when adopting the nal design strategy. The test program also provided useful data on the stiffness and damping properties of composite test structures subjected to various ground motion levels. The fundamental period of the frame in the undamaged state was nearly two times the value suggested in Eurocode 8: this discrepancy is mainly due to the rough estimation of the rst vibration period given by the EC8 formula. In this formula the unique parameter is the overall height of the structure, while the period depends on stiffness and masses of the structure: furnishing value of the seismic action higher than those that would act on the real elastic structure. This fact implies an increasing of the structural overstrength. Moreover, that period lengthened signicantly as a result of the damage, damping the inertial forces [2628]. Equivalent viscous damping ratios not exceeding 1% are recommended for non-linear dynamic analysis of the bare frame system without non-structural components. The response of the test structure could be satisfactorily reproduced using a 2D nite element model with nonlinear spring elements with smoothed hysteretic response. Incremental static and dynamic analyses performed with the model indicated that the proposed composite frame system shows satisfactory ductility and overstrength and that Eurocode 8 provides safe values of the behaviour factors for ordinary design procedures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The results presented in this work were obtained in the framework of the ECOLEADER HPR-CT-199900059 and the ECSC 7210-PR-250 European Research Projects, for which the authors are grateful. The last author collaborated to this study as a Visiting Scientist at the Joint Research Center at Ispra during a sabbatical leave from Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal (Contract No. 19851-2002-09 P1VS3 ISP IT). The nancial support from both institutions and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is acknowledged. The authors wish to express their appreciation to the support provided by Mr A. Savadkoohi. Nevertheless opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect those of the sponsors.
REFERENCES 1. Braconi A, Salvatore W, Tremblay R, Bursi OS. Behaviour and modelling of partial-strength beam-to-column composite joints for seismic applications. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(1):142161. 2. Salvatore W, Bursi OS, Lucchesi D. Design, testing and analysis of high ductile partial-strength steelconcrete composite beam-to-column joints. Computers and Structures 2005; 83(2830):23342352. 3. Di Sarno L, Pecce MR, Fabbrocino G. Inelastic response of composite steel and concrete base column connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2006; 63(6):819832. 4. CEN. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, prEN 1998-1. Draft May 2002, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2002. 5. Elghazouli AY. Earthquake resistance of composite beam-columns. Ph.D. Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London, U.K., 1992. 6. Takanashi K, Elnashai AS. Experiments on partially encased composite columns. In Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures under Cyclic Loading, Fukumoto Y, Lee GC (eds). CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 1992; 175186. 7. Bursi OS, Sun F-F, Postal S. Non-linear analysis of steelconcrete composite frames with full and partial shear connection subjected to seismic loads. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2005; 61:6792. 8. Aribert JM, Ciutina AL, Dubina D. Seismic response of composite structures including actual behaviour of beam-to-column joints. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V, Kruger National Park, Berg-en-Dal, Mpumalanga, South Africa, 1823 July 2004; 708717. 9. Plumier A. Test on a 3D composite structure. Test Report, Service Ponts et Charpentes, University of Liege, Belgium, July 1997. Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

TEST RESULTS AND ANALYTICAL VALIDATION

1655

10. Chen C-H, Hsiao P-C, Lai JW, Lin ML, Weng Y-T, Tsai K-C. Pseudo-dynamic test of a full-scale CFT-BRB frame: part 2construction and testing. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 16 August 2004; Paper No. 2175. 11. Tsai KC, Weng YT, Lin SL, Goel S. Pseudo-dynamic test of a full-scale CFT/BRB frame: part 1performance based specimen design. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 16 August 2004; Paper No. 750. 12. Lin ML, Weng Y-T, Tsai K-C, Hsiao P-C, Chen C-H, Lai JW. Pseudo-dynamic test of a full-scale CFT-BRB frame: part 3analysis and performance evaluation. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 16 August 2004; Paper No. 2173. 13. Bursi O, Caramelli S, Fabbrocino G, Molina J, Salvatore W, Taucer F, Zandonini R. 3D full-scale seismic testing of a steelconcrete composite building at ELSA. Report No. EUR 21299 EN, Joint Research Center, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA), Ispra, VA, Italy, 2004. 14. University of Pisa et al. Applicability of composite structure to sway forces. ECSC Project No. 7210-PR-250, Eur Report, European Community, 2004. 15. Donea J, Magonette G, Negro P, Pegon P, Pinto A, Verzelletti G. Pseudodynamic capabilities of the ELSA laboratory for earthquake testing of large structures. Earthquake Spectra 1996; 12(1):163180. 16. Magonette G, Pegon P, Molina JF, Buchet Ph. Development of fast continues substructuring tests. Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Structural Control, Kyoto, Japan, 1998. 17. Molina JF, Magonette G, Pegon P. Assessment of systematic experimental errors in pseudodynamic tests. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Elsevier: London, U.K., 2002; Paper No. 525. 18. Molina JF, Pegon P, Verzeletti G. Time-domain identication from seismic pseudodynamic test results on civil engineering specimens. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Identication in Engineering Systems, University of Wales, Swansea, U.K., 1999. 19. Valles RE, Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK, Li C, Madan A. IDARC2D Version 4.0: a program for the inelastic damage analysis of buildings. Technical Report NCEER-96-0010, 1996; 18. 20. Sivaselvan MV, Reinhorn AM. Hysteretic model for cyclic behaviour of deteriorating inelastic structures. Technical Report MCEER-99-0018, Multi-Disciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 1999. 21. Antoniou S, Rovithakis A, Pinho R. Development and verication of a fully adaptive pushover procedure. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, U.K., 2002; Paper No. 822. 22. Thermou GE, Elnashai AS, Plumier A, Doneux C. Seismic design and performance of composite frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004; 60:3157. 23. Harries KA, Mitchell D, Tremblay R, Karacabeyli E, Paultre P, Saatcioglu M, Anderson DL. Discussion of: seismic force modication factors for the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada. Authors reply. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 2004; 31:393396. 24. Roeder CW. General issues inuencing connection performance. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2002; 128(4):420428. 25. SAC Joint Venture. FEMA-350 Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, SAC, 2005. 26. Bursi O, Molina J, Salvatore W, Taucer F. Dynamic characterization of a 3-D full-scale seismic testing of a steelconcrete composite building at ELSA. Report No. EUR 21206 EN, Joint Research Center, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA), Ispra, VA, Italy, 2004. 27. Chellini G, De Roek G, Nardini L, Salvatore W. Damage detection of a steelconcrete composite frame by a multi-level approach: experimental measurements and modal identication. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008; DOI: 10.1002/eqe.835. 28. Chellini G, De Roek G, Nardini L, Salvatore W. Damage detection of a steel concrete composite frame by multilevel model updating procedures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008; under review.

Copyright q

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:16351655 DOI: 10.1002/eqe