Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Seismic performance of concentrically braced frame with hexagonal pattern T

of braces to mitigate soft story behavior
⁎
Niloufar Mashhadiali, Ali Kheyroddin
Civil Engineering Faculty, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper aims to propose an innovative braced frame named hexa-braced frame for the improvement of the
Hexa-braced frame seismic response of conventional steel-braced frames. In the proposed system, vertical structural elements
Seismic response connect the V and inverted-V bracings over three stories to form the hexagonal bracing configuration, in which
Structural system two stories are braced at the top and bottom. The objective is to distribute deformation demands along the height
Bracing configuration
of the frame in order reduce the possibility of the soft-story mechanism, which is a concern in conventional steel-
Soft story, Column moment demand
braced frames. To achieve this objective, the braced columns were designed to resist bending moments calcu-
lated by means of a simple analysis procedure. A set of 4-, 10-, and 20-story building models were used to
evaluate the seismic response of the proposed bracing system through nonlinear static (monotonic and cyclic)
and dynamic analyses. The results were compared with the responses of similar X-braced frame models as the
benchmark. Analytical results reveal that the hexa-braced frame system has the desired structural behavior for
the seismic resistant and can achieve the goal of uniform distribution of lateral deformation in order to reduce
the soft-story failure.

1. Introduction observations, numerical studies and experimental investigations in-

In recent years, many engineers have turned to the use of innovative
earthquake resistant structural systems for the provision of stiffness and
ductility and prevention of damage concentration. Several deficiencies
of the conventional steel seismic load-resisting systems are listed, in-
cluding concentrically braced frames (CBFs) [1–3] and moment-re-
sisting frames (MRFs) [4,5]. For MRF structures, brittle fracture of the
beam-to-column connections was observed in the 1994 Northridge
earthquake and was thoroughly addressed in the subsequent design
provisions, such as AISC 358 in the U.S [6]. For CBF structures, a
comparison of the ductility capacity of the system with the seismic
ductility demands is necessary. Steel CBFs may be used in regions
where the ductility demand is not significant and the frame still pro-
vides the adequate ductility capacity [7–9]. Additionally, the main
reason for the undesirable performance of CBF buildings is the soft-
story mechanism, in which a single story incurs major damage whereas
the remaining stories are relatively undamaged [10].
Over the past few decades, for simplicity and economic considera-
tions, the popularity of CBFs has increased significantly compared to
MRFs [11–13]. CBFs act as vertical concentric trusses which resist lat-
eral loads through axial forces. In past earthquake events, the major
concern for CBFs was low drift capacity [14]. Post-earthquake
dicate that the damage concentration occurred in a few weak stories of
the CBFs during severe earthquakes. Several studies have been con-
ducted to attempt to reduce the damage concentration in CBFs. Ap-
proaches include: (1) the use of dual structural systems for a combi-
nation of MRFs and CBFs as a backup system in which the frame action
compensates for the loss of story shear capacity due to brace buckling
[15,16]; (2) application of slender braces in which a large tension to
compression capacity results in the redistribution of forces from the
compression brace to the tension brace [17,18]; (3) the use of BRBs
with relatively large deformation hardening value in which large plastic
strains lead to yielding in the adjacent stories [19–21]; (4) the use of a
continuous column in which the flexural strength and stiffness to pre-
vent soft-story mechanisms in inelastic demand that transfers the load
capacity lost by localized brace buckling to other stories in the system
[22,23]; (5) the use of a tie column in a zipper-braced frame to dis-
tribute the inelastic demand over the height of the building [24–26]; (6)
the use of a strong back system in which an elastic truss system miti-
gates soft-story behavior [27–29]. Other variants such as friction
dampers [30], a rocking brace core [31,32] and negative stiffness de-
vice [33,34] constitute a possible solutions to reducing the damage
concentration in CBFs.
This paper proposes an innovative braced-frame configuration in

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kheyroddin@semnan.ac.ir (A. Kheyroddin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.036
Received 24 March 2018; Received in revised form 16 July 2018; Accepted 11 August 2018
Available online 15 August 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin
Fig. 1. Different hexa-bracing configurations.
relation to the hexa-braced frame (Hexa-BR) system. It contains both V-
and inverted V-braces in different stories, forming the hexagonal bra-
cing configuration over three stories. It is a combined system com-
prising continuous columns and braces for seismic resistance. In the
proposed system, all the beams are connected to the columns with
simple pins. Fig. 1 presents two possible bracing configurations of hexa-
braced frame. Based on the length of braced bay, two types of chevron
and diagonal braces are used to form hexa-bracing configuration. In
hexa-braced frame column, bending moment, shear and axial forces are
the internal actions due to seismic loads. Compared with the conven-
tional CBF, the hexa-braced frame columns are subjected to substantial
flexural demand which is led to be stronger.
In a typical research, the design of CBF columns for seismic re-
sistance is based on truss action and is governed by the column axial
forces, while neglecting the flexural demand on columns in the design
of braced frames. Braced frame with no column flexural strength and
stiffness allows soft-story mechanism in inelastic demand.
MacRae et al. [22], in a study on the seismic behavior of steel
frames, reported that the pattern of column moments required against
to a soft-story mechanism should be considered in the design of braced
frames in order to reduce damage concentration. Some researchers
concluded that the continuous columns in the real frame significantly
decreased the possibility of drift concentration due to the flexural de-
mand [35,36]. Wang et al. [37] compared the influence of a continuous
column in a X-bracing system using V-braced and inverted V-braced
frames in which the columns were considered to be continuous over
two stories and over the height of the building, respectively. They
concluded that providing continuous columns over the height of the
building is more beneficial. However, it is known that the prevention of
a soft story can be assured only if a rigorous design procedure is con-
sidered, even when experimental evidence shows that such a me-
chanism can be delayed by the use of continuous columns [38,39]. A
proposed technology to create more uniform displacement involves the
use of rocking cores as a continuous column, which is pinned to the
building of CBF through the pin-pin link [40] (Fig. 2). This technique
applies a strong column to distribute lateral demand, thereby pre-
venting soft-story mechanism.
The proposed hexa-braced frame configuration combines the fol-
lowing two concepts: continuous strong column and flexural demand to
achieve uniform drift distribution along the height of a building and to
prevent the formation of soft-story mechanism.
The hexa-braced frame structural system is a new approach for
hexagrid structures. The hexagrid system is located at the perimeter of
the building; it includes multiple hexagonal grids limited by the mega
28
Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40
Fig. 2. Braced frame deformation.
columns. Mashhadiali and Kheyroddin [41], for the first time in a study
of the structural behavior of hexagrid system, investigated its lateral
load and progressive collapse resistance for tall buildings [42,43]. Re-
cently, the use of hexagrid patterns for structural effectiveness and
aesthetics has attracted the attention of engineers [44]. The Sinosteel
International Plaza [45] is a tall building in which hexagonal pattern
was utilized for the first time for the structural system, and other en-
gineering plans of hexagrid structures were also proposed (Fig. 3)
[46,47]. However, the design intention of the hexagrids and hexa-
braced frame are different. The hexagrid system is a tube type lateral
resistance system, but the hexa-braced frame is a new bracing system.
This study presents a description of the proposed hexa-braced frame
as a new seismic-resistant bracing system. A simple static analysis
methodology is presented to determine the column bending moment.
Different structural models are designed to evaluate the seismic beha-
vior of the hexa-braced frame compared to similar X-braced frame
models as the benchmark. In order to indicate that the proposed bracing
system are extendable to a wide range of buildings, the model buildings
are conducted with different height representing low-, mid- and high-
rise structures. Nonlinear static and dynamic analyses are performed to
examine seismic responses of model structures.
2. Hexa-braced frame system
2.1. Description
The hexa-braced frame consists of a hexagonal bracing system in
which vertical structural elements (strong column or tie column) in a
story connect the V and inverted-V bracings at the stories below and
above that story, respectively. The tie columns behave like the zipper
columns. Chevron braces provide limited ductility from the brace-in-
tersected beam, such that the beam stiffness deeply affect the damage
distribution [48,49]. Based on this, the ties are designed to have enough
strength to resist the unbalanced load and are also used in conjunction
with a beam (compared to CBF beams), allowing the tie to engage the
braces in an adjacent story by pushing up or down on the beam. Hexa-
braced frame is a modular system and the hexagonal modules are
regularly repeated along the height of the building. This system joins
beams, columns, and braces at common pinned connections. In hexa-
braced frame, the axes of the members align concentrically at a joint
and can be considered as a class of CBF. Although all beam connections
are simple, continuous columns can carry the bending moment as well
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin
Fig. 3. Example of hexagrid structures: (a) Sinosteel Plaza; (b) Nanotower, (c) Al Bahar Tower.
Fig. 4. Internal forces of Hexa-braced frame under lateral loading.
as the axial force induced by seismic loads due to the bracing config-
uration. Therefore, the reaction forces make the columns stronger than
the conventional braced frame columns. Lateral loads in the hexa-
braced frame system are resisted through axial force in strong columns
and braces and through the bending moment and the shear force in
strong columns (Fig. 4). In strong columns, the direction of the shear
force and bending moment in a braced story is opposite to the non-
braced stories. This force distribution causes the structure to resist a
weak story.
2.2. Proposed analysis method
Like conventional braced frame structures, hexa-braced frame
system can be analyzed using common computer programs. However,
the simple hand method analysis is reviewed through static analysis.
For the proposed analysis procedure, the following assumptions are
made.
For the given analysis, the frame acts as a continuous column with
simple supports which carries a concentrated load on the spans. Braced
stories are considered instead of the supports and the non-braced stories
are considered as the concentrate loads at floors. Fig. 5 presents the
29
Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40
equivalent isolated column model [50].
For the analysis of the strong column, the parameters F, VC, and MC
are defined as the horizontal resultant force, shear force, and bending
moment of columns, respectively. The system of force acting internally
on the hexa-braced elements is illustrated in Fig. 6.
The analysis procedure to determine the column forces for the
candidate hexa-braced module is explained step-by-step as follows.
1. In the static analysis, the anticipated story shear resistance, VBR,
is required for initiating the proposed analysis methodology and is
applied to calculate the design parameters VC and MC and is determined
as:
VBR,exp = (Texp + Cexp) × cosθ (1)
where T and C are the expected tension and compression brace forces,
respectively and θ is the angle between the braces and the beams.
2. The unbalanced brace loads in two braced stories at above and
bottom are controlled by two horizontal resultant forces Fi+1 and Fi at
the floor diaphragm level. The forces are obtained from the difference
between the column shears at above and bottom of the reference floor.
For the upper section, the horizontal resultant force Fi+1 is calcu-
lated as:
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40

Fig. 5. Idealization of Hexa-braced frame system.

Fi + 1 = VCi + 2 + VCi + 1 (2) Based on the previous section:

and from the horizontal equilibrium: VBRi = −2Vui (11)
2VCi + 2−2VCi + 1 + VBRi + 2 + 2Fi + 1 = 0 (3) and
Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (3) yields: Vui
VCi =
2 (12)
VBRi + 2
VCi + 2 = −
4 (4) The horizontal equilibrium of the overall of the section illustrates
A realistic demand can be obtained from the brace forces corre- that the shear of stories are balanced by two horizontal forces F at the
sponding to Cexp and Texp, where the brace forces are required to resist floor levels as follows:
the story shear Vu. The shear Vu, corresponds to the total story shear, 2VCi + 2−2VCi + VBRi + 2−VBRi−2Fi + 2Fi + 1 = 0 (13)
including column shear. It is given as:
The above equation indicates that the two horizontal resultant
−VBRi + 2 = Vui + 2 + 2VCi + 2 (5) forces F at the floor levels (i and i +1) are equal and in opposite di-
Substituting Eq. (4) into Eq. (5) yields: rections. It can be expressed as:

VBRi + 2 = −2Vui + 2 Fi + 1 + Fi = 0 (14)

(6)
And from Eq. (4) By substituting Eq. (2) and (8) into Eq. (14), the column shear force
VCi+1 is calculated as:
Vui + 2
VCi + 2 = VCi + 2 + VCi
2 (7) VCi + 1 = −
2 (15)
For the lower section, the horizontal resultant force Fi is calculated
as: or:

Fi = VCi + 1 + VCi (8) VCi + 1 = Vui + 1 (16)

and from the horizontal equilibrium it is calculated as: 4. With the knowledge of column shear forces VCi, VCi+1 and VCi+2
the horizontal resultant forces F (Eqs. (2) and (8)) can be rewritten as:
2VCi + 1−2VCi−VBRi−2Fi = 0 (9)
VCi + 2 VCi
Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (9) yields: Fi + 1 = −
2 2 (17)
V
VCi = − BRi Fi =
VCi VCi + 2
−
4 (10) (18)
2 2

Fig. 6. Analysis procedure for assumed hexa-braced frame system.

30
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40

As observed, the horizontal resultant forces F are a couple of forces Table 1

at the floor levels which balances the shear forces of the braced stories. Analytical results of proposed method.
5. By computing the column shear forces VC, the column bending Story Vu VBR VC (kN) MC (kN)
moments (MC) can be determined by using moment equations at the
floor levels. 14 140 280 70 0
13 270 – 135 280
From moment equilibrium the followings can be obtained:
12 390 780 195 260
MCi + 2 = 0 (19) 11 500 250 520
10 600 1200 300 480
MCi + 1 = VCi + 2 × hi + 2 (20) 9 690 345 720
8 770 1540 385 660
7 840 420 880
MCi = MCi + 1−VCi + 1 × hi + 1 (21)
6 900 1800 450 800
5 950 475 1000
From the above equations, the column moments are obtained for the
4 990 1980 495 900
example of the hexa-braced module. The analysis process is completed 3 1020 510 1080
for one module of hexa-braced frame. This procedure can be repeated 2 1040 2080 520 960
for each hexa-braced module and is continued until all the modules are 1 1050 2100 525 1120
completely analyzed.6. The axial force in column P can simply be found
based on the axial force in braces.By computing the design forces, the
hexa-braced frame can be designed in accordance with common neglecting the member stiffness. Fig. 7 illustrates the numerical analysis
guidelines, without any special considerations. results of the example hexa-braced frame model and Table 1 sum-
According to the response to loading, the relative deformation shape marizes the analysis results of the proposed method. A comparison of
of the example structure is sketched out. Based on the lateral dis- analysis results indicated that in all stories except the first and last
placement profile, the stories move back and forth alternately in a stories, the column shear results were close in both methods. The dif-
regular manner along the height of the building (Fig. 5(e)). In fact, ference in the column shear in the last story due to boundary condition
there are separate belt trusses along the height of the building. Based on was about 15 kN which affected the results of column bending moment
observation, for the hexa-braced frame, additionally consideration of in all stories by about 60 kN m. Ignoring this difference, the numerical
the flexural demand on the columns is not necessary because it occurs analysis results confirm the bending moment results predicted by the
inherently due to its configuration while for the conventional braced proposed method.
frame, additional consideration is needed.
To obtain a comprehensive study, a comparison of the bending 3. Analytical models
moments predicted by the proposed method is made with the bending
moments resulting from the numerical analyses. To this end, an ex- Three types of model buildings 4-, 10-, and 20-story were selected to
ample hexa-braced frame subjected to the assumed simple lateral examine the structural response of hexa-braced frame for low-, mid-,
loading was analyzed using SAP2000 program [51]. The example frame and high-rise buildings respectively (Fig. 8). In this research, different
was modeled with the minimum standard sections such as W4X13 and types of hexa-braced frame models were considered based on the dif-
HSS2X2X.125 used for columns, beams and for braces respectively, ferent lengths of the braced bays. Chevron braces and single diagonal

Fig. 7. Numerical analysis results of the example hexa-braced frame model.

31
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40

Fig. 8. Plan and elevation view of X-braced and hexa-braced model structures: (a) 4-story, (b) 10-story, (c) 20- story models.

Table 2 Dead loads combined with 25% of the design live loads were included
Design gravity loads and fundamental periods. in the seismic analyses. Table 2 lists the effective seismic weight and
Model Gravity load (kN) T(s) fundamental period for structural models. Table 3 presents a summary
of the other seismic parameters assigned to the models for the calcu-
4-story 42567.7 0.4 lation of seismic forces.
10-story 110435.2 0.8
SAP2000 software was used to design 3D models according to ASCE
20-story 64606.2 1.4
[52] and AISC [53,54] code requirements. The LRFD design philosophy
was applied for checking the stress ratio in steel members. For the es-
Table 3 sential elastic behavior during severe earthquake, the stress ratio in
Seismic design parameters. strong columns was considered to be less than 0.5 which corresponded
to the reciprocal of the overstrength factor. The models were found to
Design parameters Values
meet an allowable story drift of 2% in the design level. The irregularity
Importance factor (I) 1.0 requirements are considered according to ASCE [52] for design of
Seismic design category D structural models. Tables 4–6 present the member sections applied in
Site class D the model structures.. In order to create the structural models, a ma-
Response modification factor (R) 6.0
terial with yield stress of 345 MPa was assigned to the beams and col-
System overstrength factor (Ωo) 2.0
Deflection amplification factor (Cd) 5.0 umns, and for the bracing members, a yield stress of 289.6 MPa was
S1 (g) 0.787 specified.
SS (g) 2.014 OpenSees [55] software was used to analyze two-dimensional
Fa 1.0 models of the designed candidate buildings. In order to consider the
Fv 1.5
SD1 (g) 0.787
impact of the gravity frame and P-Δ effect, a leaning column was
SDS (g) 1.343 connected to the frame at the floor level by rigid links and it was
connected to the base with pin connection. Half of the floor weight was
applied to the nodes on the leaning column corresponding to the floor
braces were used for beam spans of 9.1 and 6.1 m, respectively. The levels. To evaluate the seismic response of the models, two types of
dead and live loads were considered for gravity loads as 5 and 2.5 kPa, nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were conducted. Rayleigh
respectively. Only the beams in x direction carried the gravity loads. damping of 2% was applied to the models for both first and second

Table 4
Member sizes of the 4-story models.
System Story Brace Ext. Beam Int. Beam Ext. Col. Int. and Corn. Col.

X-BR 1 HSS10X10X0.625 W21X93 W24X104 W14X90 W14X90

2 HSS10X10X0.500 W21X93 W24X104 W14X90 W14X90
3 HSS8X8X0.500 W21X93 W24X104 W14X90 W14X90
4 HSS7X7X0.500 W24X104 W24X104 W14X90 W14X90

Hexa-BR 1 HSS10X10X0.625 W21X93 W24X104 W30X391 W14X120

3 – W21X93 W24X104 W30X391 W14X120
2 HSS10X10X0.625 W21X93 W24X104 W30X391 W14X120
4 HSS8X8X0.625 W27X217 W24X104 W30X391 W14X120

32
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40

Table 5
Member sizes of the 10-story models.
System Story Brace and Tie Col. Ext. Beam Int. Beam Ext. Col. Int. and Corn. Col.

X-BR 1 HSS12X12X0.500 W21X93 W24X104 W14X283 W14X283

2 HSS10X10X0.500 W21X93 W24X104 W14X283 W14X283
3 HSS10X10X0.500 W21X93 W24X104 W14X283 W14X283
4 HSS10X10X0.500 W21X93 W24X104 W14X193 W14X193
5 HSS8X8X0.0.625 W21X93 W24X104 W14X193 W14X193
6 HSS8X8X0.0.625 W21X93 W24X104 W14X120 W14X120
7 HSS7X7X0.0.625 W21X93 W24X104 W14X120 W14X120
8 HSS7X7X0.0.625 W21X93 W24X104 W14X90 W14X90
9 HSS6X6X0.0.625 W21X93 W24X104 W14X90 W14X90
10 HSS6X6X0.0.625 W24X104 W24X104 W14X90 W14X90

Hexa-BR 1 HSS12X12X0.625 W21X93 W24X104 W36X650 W14X283

2 HSS12X12X0.625 W21X93 W24X104 W36X650 W14X283
3 – W21X93 W24X104 W36X650 W14X283
4 HSS12X12X0.625 W21X93 W24X104 W36X650 W14X283
5 HSS12X12X0.500 W21X93 W24X104 W36X650 W14X193
6 HSS12X12X0.500 W21X93 W24X104 W36X650 W14X193
7 – W21X93 W24X104 W36X650 W14X120
8 HSS10X10X0.500 W21X93 W24X104 W36X650 W14X120
9 HSS10X10X0.500 W21X93 W24X104 W36X650 W14X90
10 HSS8X8X0.500 W24X104 W24X104 W36X650 W14X90

Table 6
Member sizes of the 20-story models.
System Story Brace Ext. Beam Int. Beam Ext. Col. Int. and Corn. Col.

X-BR 1–4 HSS10X10X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W14X311 W14X193

5–8 HSS10X10X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W14X211 W14X145
9, 10 HSS10X10X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W14X145 W14X120
11, 12 HSS10X10X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W14X145 W14X90
13–16 HSS8X8X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W14X90 W14X90
17–20 HSS7X7X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W14X90 W14X90

Hexa-BR 1 HSS14X14X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W30X357 W14X257

2 HSS10X10X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W30X357 W14X257
3 W18X50 W18X50 W30X357 W14X257
4 HSS10X10X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W30X357 W14X257
5 W18X50 W18X50 W30X357 W14X257
6 HSS10X10X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W30X357 W14X257
7 W18X50 W18X50 W30X357 W14X257
8 HSS10X10X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W30X292 W14X193
9 W18X50 W18X50 W30X292 W14X193
10 HSS10X10X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W30X292 W14X193
11 W18X50 W18X50 W30X292 W14X145
12 HSS10X10X0.375 W18X50 W18X50 W30X261 W14X145
13 W18X50 W18X50 W30X261 W14X120
14 HSS10X10X0.375 W18X50 W18X50 W30X261 W14X120
15 W18X50 W18X50 W14X173 W14X120
16 HSS8X8X0.500 W18X50 W18X50 W14X173 W14X120
17 W18X50 W18X50 W14X173 W14X90
18 HSS8X8X0.375 W18X50 W18X50 W14X173 W14X90
19 W18X50 W18X50 W14X173 W14X90
20 HSS7X7X0.0.375 W18X50 W18X50 W14X173 W14X90

Table 7
Modeling parameters.
Level Modeling parameter Square HSS braces

Brace component Number of segments along the length 10

Number of integration points 5

Section Number of fibers along the web depth w 10

Number of fibers along the web thickness t 4

Fatigue material (Karamanci et. al) ε0 kL −0.484 w −0.613

0.291 × ( )
r
× ()
t
E
×⎛ ⎞
⎝ Fy ⎠
m −0.300

33
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40

Table 8
Earthquake records for dynamic response history analysis.
NGA Ground motion Year Magnitude VS30 Site-source
number (m/s) distance (km)
closest to plane

1602 Duzce-Turkey 1999 7.1 326 12

169 Imperial Valley 1979 6.5 275 22
1116 Kobe-Japan 1995 6.9 256 19.2
767 Loma Prieta 1989 6.9 350 12.8
721 Superstition Hills 1987 6.5 192 18.2

Table 9
Applied scale factors for design earthquake.
Ground motion 4-story 10-story 20-story
Scale factor, DE Scale factor, DE Scale factor, DE
H1, H2 H1, H2 H1, H2

Duzce-Turkey 0.82, 0.96 1.12, 0.72 1.63, 1.2

Imperial Valley 1.8, 1.51 2.82, 2.37 1.8, 2.78
Kobe-Japan 1.26, 1.13 2.17, 1.82 2.4, 0.87
Loma Prieta 2.3, 2.42 1.73, 5.47 1.53, 1.82
Superstition Hills 1.89, 0.65 1.83, 2.46 1.51, 2.0

Fig. 9. Average spectra of scaled records and target spectrum.

modes of period. Brace and beam connections were assumed to be pin-

ended and tie columns were modeled with truss element. Based on
previous studies, the initial imperfection at the center of the brace
varied from 0.01% to 3% of the total brace length. The larger value is
not realistic but is included here as an extreme case [56–60]. In this
study, to model the buckling braces, based on a parabolic initial
camber, the initial imperfection was considered to be 1/1000 of brace
length and each of brace was divided into 10 segments [56,61]. A rigid
zone was considered at the end of elements. Brace fracture caused by
low-cyclic fatigue was considered in the fatigue material model avail-
able in OpenSees [12]. To model low-cyclic fatigue, the Coffin-Manson
Fig. 10. Monotonic push over curves of structural models.
relationship [62] was used as:

εi = ε0 (Nf )m (22) Table 10

Periods of model structures.
where εi is the strain amplitude and Nf is the number of cycles to failure. Model structure 4-story 10-story 20-story
Material parameters m and ε0 were determined previously based on
Karamanci's recommendations for HSS braces. Table 7 summarizes the X-BR Hexa-BR X-BR Hexa-BR X-BR Hexa-BR
modeling parameters for HSS braces. The range of applicability of ε0 for
First mode (s) 0.57 0.65 1.07 1.26 2.01 2.3
a square HSS section is: 27 ≤ kL/r ≤ 85, 4.20 ≤ w/t ≤ 30.40, Second mode (s) 0.23 0.22 0.39 0.42 0.79 0.81
223 ≤ Fy ≤ 532 MPa (Karamanci et al. 2014). The parameters are yield
stress, Fy, Young’s modulus E, the slender ratio, kL/r, and the aspect
ratio of the web of section, w/t. The uniaxial material type Steel 02 in

34
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40

Fig. 11. Structural mechanism of structural models.

Table 11 PEER NGA ground motion database tool at http://ngawest2.berke-

Roof drift for cyclic pushover analysis.
Sequence number Roof drift
1 0.005
2 0.01
3 0.015
4 0.02
5 0.03
6 0.04
7 0.05
OpenSees was applied to define structural elements. Postelastic stiffness
was considered to be 0.3% of the elastic stiffness.
In the pushover analysis, the considered deformation was equal to
the roof drift ratio of 5% to evaluate the collapse behavior of structural
models and the applied load pattern is the inverted triangle distribution
of lateral force was used.
To evaluate the nonlinear time-history analysis results, a set of five
pairs of earthquake ground motions, including two horizontal compo-
nents (H1, H2) without vertical component (V), were provided using the
ley.edu. Earthquake records were matched with the design earthquake
(DE) and the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) response spec-
trums derived from ASCE7-16. The range of periods in which compat-
ibility was checked is 0.2T–1.5T. The seismic ground motion char-
acteristics are summarized in Tables 8, and 9. For the ground motion
selection, restrictions were considered as: magnitude 6.5–7.5, VS30
182–366 m/s, sit to source distance 12–22 km and the type of fault
mechanism was considered to be strike slip. The records were scaled so
that the averaged spectra matched the target spectrum at the period of
model structure. The matching spectrum is shown for DE response
spectrum and averaged ground motions in Fig. 9. The process is simi-
larly carried out for the MCE response spectrum.
4. Analysis results
4.1. Nonlinear static analysis
4.1.1. Monotonic pushover
The monotonic pushover is applied to estimate the seismic capacity
and progressive failure of the models. In this procedure, the models are

35
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin
Fig. 12. Cyclic push over curves of structural models.
subjected to a monotonic increase of the specified lateral force pattern
until the predetermined story drift is reached. The capacity of the
models in terms of base shear with the response corresponding to the
roof drift ratio is reflected in the pushover curve. The pushover curves
obtained for the model structures are illustrated in Fig. 10.
The pushover results showed that in 4- and 10 story models, the X-
braced models have a higher initial stiffness than the hexa-braced ones,
while in 20-story models, both structural systems have similar initial
stiffness. This is because of the bracing configuration. The first and
second mode of periods summarize the results as shown in Table 10.
36
Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40
From the results, in 4- and 10 story models, both structural systems
have similar peak base shear capacity, while in 20-story models, the
hexa-braced model has higher base shear capacity than the X-braced
one. Pushover curves of hexa-braced models exhibit a trilinear curve. In
a 4- story hexa-braced model, the slope of the pushover curve never
becomes negative whereas in a 10-story model, it exhibits a slightly
negative slope. In pushover curve corresponded to the X-braced models,
the slope became negative. In 20-story models, although both pushover
curves have a negative slope, for hexa-braced model, it is smaller than
the X-braced ones. It was observed from nonlinear static analysis that
among all the model structures, hexa-braced models have a higher
deformation capacity compared to the X-braced model.
Based on the pushover results, the structural mechanism formed in
the models presented in Fig. 11. Compared to the X-braced model, in
hexa-braced models, the braces in different stories have buckled or
yielded, which led to the prevention of damage concentration. This is
because of the geometric configuration and consequently because of the
large column sizes used for the hexa-braced frame that can engage
adjacent stories in flexure. From the results, the deformation con-
centration was localized in some first stories of the X-braced models
while in hexa-braced frame models, it was distributed along the height
of building models and consequently, it was reduced. Based on previous
studies [63,64], in a braced frame structure, the development of a
global type mechanism assures that the columns remain in the elastic
range and the bracing members participate in the plastic mechanism to
cause dissipation of the earthquake input energy. The mechanism of
structural models illustrate that in X-braced models, the plastic hinges
are formed in the braces and columns, whereas in hexa-braced models,
the hinges form in the braces and the strong columns have elastic be-
havior for the axial force and the bending moment. Based on the elastic
behavior of these columns, it can be concluded that in the event of an
earthquake, the structural elements resisting the gravity loads remain
elastic, whereas the lateral load-resisting elements (braces) can perform
in an inelastic manner. According to the results, the tie columns behave
elastically under axial forces.
4.1.2. Cyclic pushover
As a complementary study, cyclic pushover was conducted on the
models by taking into account the cyclic loading effects. The cyclic
target roof drifts are defined according to Table 11. The cyclic pushover
curves obtained for the 4-, 10- and 20-story model structures are illu-
strated in Fig. 12. As shown, in the hexa-braced models, the cyclic
analysis was completed during entire cycles, but in the X-braced
models, it failed due to convergence failure. It was observed that in
hexa-braced models, the base shear capacity decreases more gradually
compared to the X-braced ones. In X-braced models, the braces fracture
at about 1.5% roof drift and base shear drops to about zero at about 3%.
In hexa-braced models, the braces were fractured at about 2.5%, and
base shear diminished to about zero at 5% in 4-, 10-story models but in
a 20-story model it decreased to about zero at about 4%. From the
cyclic analysis, compared to the X-braced frame, the hexa-braced frame
recorded more desired failure.
4.2. Nonlinear dynamic analysis
Nonlinear time history analysis is commonly used to achieve a more
accurate response of a new structural system to an earthquake ground
motion. In this study, time history analysis was performed to assess the
dynamic structural response of the model structures under 10 earth-
quake records scaled to different seismic hazard levels of DE and MCE
levels. Based on this, to evaluate the dynamic response of models, many
variables such as the maximum and residual story drift, base shear, roof
displacement, and roof acceleration of models were studied for both
earthquake levels.
Fig. 13 presents the distribution of maximum story drift ratios along
the height of building models. Based on the results, all model structures
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40

Fig. 13. Maximum story drift of structural models under considered earthquake records.

Fig. 14. Residual story drift of structural models under considered earthquake records.

were deformed with the median maximum story drift ratios less than
2%, under both levels of earthquake. Despite the fact that both types of
model structures satisfy the drift limitations, the hexa-brace frame has
higher drift responses compared to the X-braced frame models. From
the results, the deformation profiles for the hexa-braced model struc-
tures are more uniform than that for the X-braced models; hence, as in
the X-braced models, the first stories suffer from drift concentration. In
20- story models, the larger story drifts occured in the upper stories
compared to the lower stories due to the increase in the height. In all
model structures, the residual story drift was less than 0.5% (Fig. 14).
The story drift of the 20-story hexa-braced model has a very uniform
distribution.
The mean responses of model structures subjected to the selected
ground motions are shown in Fig. 15. In all model structures, the peak
base shear forces of the hexa-braced frame are more than the X-braced
ones. This order followed the order of periods of the models: the lower
the periods, the higher the base shear forces. Maximum roof displace-
ment results showed that the X-braced models are stiffer than the hexa-
braced models. From the results, maximum roof acceleration in 4-story
hexa-braced model was less than the X-braced one, while in 10- and 20-
story hexa-braced models, it was higher than the X-braced one.

37
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40

Fig. 15. Structural responses of models under considered earthquake records.

Table 12 the steel tonnage of materials in both systems and show the ratio of the
Steel material weight for model structures (ton). tonnage of the hexa-braced frame to the X-braced frame. Based on the
Model System Beam Brace Strong Col. Int. & Total Ratio
steel weight ratios, using the hexa-braced frame in high-rise buildings is
structure and Tie Ext. weight more efficient compared to low- and mid-rise buildings. This is because
Col. Col. of the use of the diagonal braces in high-rise building model while in
low- and mid-rise building models of the hexa-braced frame the
4-story X-BR 304 28 – 82 414 1.35
Hexa-BR 337 31 121 72 561
chevron braces were used. However, compared to the X-braced models,
the material usage of the hexa-braced models was about 30% higher
10-story X-BR 785 118 – 397 1300 1.36
(average value). In this estimation, the weight of the connections was
Hexa-BR 785 96 639 244 1764
not considered. Based on this, further studies are needed to optimize the
20-story X-BR 363 91 – 467 922 1.28
member sizes in the hexa-braced system. Improvement in design
Hexa-BR 363 94 533 193 1184
parameters such as seismic coefficient or other provisions in construc-
tion can affect the steel material usage in this new bracing system.
4.3. Material usage
5. Conclusion
The use of heavier columns in strong columns increases the con-
sumption of steel material in the hexa-braced frame. Table 12 presents This study proposes a new seismic bracing system hexa-braced

38
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin
frame with the hexagonal configuration of the braced frame. This
system develops a conventional braced framed for the consideration of
column moment demand to reduce soft-story mechanism and damage
concentration. The proposed system combines strong continuous col-
umns with the braces forming hexagonal configuration. Although beam
to column connections are simple, columns can inherently carry mo-
ment due to its configuration. This makes the columns to become
strong; consequently, during a severe earthquake, they would be es-
sentially elastic at the inelastic stages of braces. Thus, the hexa-braced
frame has the maximum utilization of braces and renders the minimum
damage to the columns. With consideration of column moment demand
in the hexa-braced system, there was a decrease in the soft-story me-
chanism. For parametric study, a simple analytical method has been
proposed to assess the seismic moment on columns.
Nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were performed on a set of
analytical building models with different heights representing low-,
mid-, and high-rise buildings, to evaluate the seismic responses of the
proposed bracing system. The analytical results were compared to the
responses of X-braced model structures.
The nonlinear static analysis results showed that in the hexa-braced
frame, considering the flexural demand on columns result in higher
lateral strength, deformation capacity, desired yield mechanism, and
better ductility than conventional X-braced frames.
To predict the plastic hinge regions, a failure mechanism was shown
by a simple schematic of the frame's deformed shape. The results of
structural mechanism illustrate that X-braced models experience a lo-
calized concentration of deformation in some first stories while hexa-
braced models achieve uniform deformation along the height of the
building.
The lateral displacement profile based on the nonlinear time history
analysis shows that in hexa-braced frame models, the stories vary in a
regular manner along the height of the buildings due to the bracing
configuration. The dynamic responses of model structures illustrate that
compared to the X-braced frame, hexa-braced frame achieves the pur-
pose of uniform distribution of story deformation and can control the
soft-story mechanism.
For a hexa-braced system, the material usage is about 30% more
than the X-braced system; however, the story deformation is uniform
along the height of the building. Thus, design optimization of this new
system should be investigated further.
This paper can be considered as an initial study for the hexa-braced
frame as a new bracing system and its purpose was to identify the
structural behavior of this system which is extendable to a wide range
of buildings. However, additional investigation such as design provi-
sions, evaluation of the seismic coefficients, experimental verification,
etc. are required for developing the proposed system.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.036.
References
[1] Wijesundara KK, Nascimbene R, Rassati GA. Modeling of different bracing config-
urations in multi-storey concentrically braced frames using a fiber-beam based
approach. J Constr Steel Res 2014;101:426–36.
[2] Santagati S, Bolognini D, Nascimbene R. Strain life analysis at low-cycle fatigue on
concentrically braced steel structures with RHS shape braces. J Earthq Eng
2012;16:107–37.
[3] Wijesundara KK, Nascimbene R, Sullivan TJ. Equivalent viscous damping for steel
concentrically braced frame structures. Bull Earthq Eng 2011;9:1535–58.
[4] Brunesi E, Nascimbene R, Rassati GA. Response of partially-restrained bolted beam-
to-column connections under cyclic loads. J Constr Steel Res 2014;97:24–38.
[5] Brunesi E, Nascimbene R, Rassati GA. Seismic performance of steel MRF with par-
tially-restrained bolted beam-to-column connections through FE simulations. In:
Structures congress 2014, Boston, Massachusetts, April 3–5, 2014; 2640–51.
[6] AISC. Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames for
seismic applications. ANSI/AISC 358-1American Institute of Steel Construction,
39
Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40
Chicago, IL, USA; 2016.
[7] Osteraas J, Krawinkler H. The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985 – behavior
of steel buildings. Earthq Spectra 1989;5(1):51–88.
[8] Tremblay R, Timler P, Bruneau M, Filiatrault A. Performance of steel structures
during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Can J Civ Eng 1995;22:338–60.
[9] Rai DC, Goel SC. Seismic evaluation and upgrading of existing steel concentric
braced structures. Report UMCEE 97-03. Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan; 1997.
[10] Khatib IF, Mahin SA, Pister KS. Seismic behavior of concentrically braced steel
frames. UCB/EERC-88/01. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC; 1988.
[11] Sabelli R. Research on improving the design and analysis of earthquake-resistant
steel-braced frames. 2000 NEHRP Professional Fellowship Rep., PF2000-9,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA; 2001.
[12] Uriz P, Mahin SA. Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentrically braced
steel-frame structures. PEER Rep. 2008/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA; 2008.
[13] Hsiao PC, Lehman D, Roeder C. Improved analytical model for special con-
centrically braced frames. J Constr Steel Res 2012;73(2):80–94.
[14] Sabelli R, Roeder CW, Hajjar JF. Seismic design of steel special concentrically
braced frame systems: a guide for practicing engineers, NEHRP Seismic Design
Technical Brief No. 8, Gaithersburg, MD, NIST GCR 13-917-24; 2013.
[15] Foutch DA, Goel SC, Roeder CW. Seismic testing of full-scale steel building—Part I.
J Struct Eng 1987;113(11):2111–29.
[16] Whittaker AS, Uang CM, Bertero VV. An experimental study of the behavior of dual
steel systems. Rep. UCB-EERC-88/14, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA; 1990.
[17] Tremblay R. Achieving a stable inelastic seismic response for multi-story con-
centrically braced steel frames. AISC Eng J 2003;40(2):111–29.
[18] Chen CH, Mahin S. Performance-based seismic demand assessment of concentrically
braced steel frame buildings. Rep. No. PEER-2012/103, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA; 2012.
[19] Sabelli R, Mahin S, Chang C. Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with
buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2003;25:655–66.
[20] Shen J, Seker O, Akbas B, Seker P, Momenzadeh S, Faytarouni M. Seismic perfor-
mance of concentrically braced frames with and without brace buckling. Eng Struct
2017;141:461–81.
[21] Kiggins S, Uang CM. Reducing residual drift of buckling restrained braced frames as
a dual system. Eng Struct 2006;28(11):1525–32.
[22] MacRae GA, Kimura Y, Roeder C. Effect of column stiffness on braced frame seismic
behavior. ASCE J Struct Eng 2004;130:381–91.
[23] Ji X, Kato M, Wang T, Hitaka T, Nakashima M. Effect of gravity columns on miti-
gation of drift concentration for braced frames. J Constr Steel Res
2009;65:2148–56.
[24] Tirca L, Tremblay R. Influence of building height and ground motion type on the
seismic behavior of zipper concentrically braced steel frames. In: Proc., 13th world
conf. on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 2004.
[25] Yang CS, Leon R, DesRoches R. Design and behavior of zipper-braced frames. Eng
Struct 2008;30(4):1092–100.
[26] Yang TY, Stojadinovic B, Moehle J. Hybrid simulation of a zipper-braced steel frame
under earthquake excitation. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2009;38(1):95–113.
[27] Lai JW, Mahin S. Strongback system: a way to reduce damage concentration in
steel-braced frames. J Struct Eng 2015. https://doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE) ST.1943-
541X.0001198, 04014223.
[28] Mar D. Design examples using mode shaping spines for frame and wall buildings. In:
Proc., 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian conf. on earthquake engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA; 2010.
[29] Simpson B, Mahin S. Experimental and numerical investigation of strongback
braced frame system to mitigate weak story behavior. J Struct Eng 2018. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001960.
[30] Soong TT, Spencer Jr. BF. Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-art and
state-of-the-practice. Eng Struct 2002;24:243–59.
[31] Deierlein G, Krawinkler H, Ma X, Eatherton M, Hajjar J, Takeuchi T, et al.
Earthquake resilient steel braced frames with controlled rocking and energy dis-
sipating fuses. Steel Constr Des Res 2011;4(3):171–5.
[32] Gioiella L, Tubaldi E, Gara F, Dezi L, Dall'Asta L. Modal properties and seismic
behavior of buildings equipped with external dissipative pinned rocking braced
frames. Eng Struct 2018;172:807–19.
[33] Pasala DTR, Sarlis AA, Nagarajaiah S, Reinhorn AM, Constantinou MC, Taylor D.
Adaptive negative stiffness: a new structural modification approach for seismic
protection. J Struct Eng 2013. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.
0000615, 1112-1123.
[34] Shu Z, Zhang J, Nagarajaiah S. Dimensional analysis of inelastic structures with
negative stiffness and supplemental damping devices. J Struct Eng 2016. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001658.
[35] Qu B, Sabzehzar S, Pollino M. NEESR – mitigation of inter-story drift concentration
in multi-story concentrically braced frames through implementation of rocking
cores. Eng Struct 2014;70:208–17.
[36] Kumar PCA, Anand S, Sahoo DR. Modified seismic design of concentrically braced
frames considering flexural demand on columns. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2867.
[37] Wang Y, Nastri E, Tirca L, Montuori R, Piluso V. Comparative response of earth-
quake resistant CBF buildings designed according to Canadian and European code
provisions. Key Eng Mater 2018;763:1155–63.
[38] Longo A, Montuori R, Piluso V. Seismic reliability of V-braced frames: influence of
design methodologies. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38:1587–608.
[39] Longo A, Montuori R, Piluso V. Plastic design of seismic resistant V-braced frames. J
N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin
Earthq Eng 2008;12(8):1246–66.
[40] Pollino M, Slovenec D, Qu B, Mosqueda G. Seismic rehabilitation of concentrically
braced frames using stiff rocking cores. J Struct Eng 2017. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001810.
[41] Mashhadiali N, Kheyroddin A. Proposing the hexagrid system as a new structural
system for tall buildings. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2013;22(17):1310–29.
[42] Mashhadiali N, Kheyroddin A. Progressive collapse assessment of new hexagrid
structural system for tall buildings. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2014;23(12):947–61.
[43] Mashhadiali N, Kheyroddin A, Zahiri-Hashemi R. Dynamic increase factor for in-
vestigation of progressive collapse potential in tube type tall buildings. J Perform
Constr Facil 2016:30(6).
[44] Hemmati A, Kheyroddin A. Behavior of large-scale bracing system in tall buildings
subjected to earthquake load. J Civ Eng Manage 2013;19(2):206–16.
[45] Ti Fu, Gao Y, Zhou Y, Yang X. Structural design of sino steel international plaza. In:
Proc. 9th CTBUH world congress; 2012. p. 264–70.
[46] Montuori GM, Fadda M, Perrella G, Mele E. Hexagrid–hexagonal tube structures for
tall buildings: patterns, modeling, and design. Struct Des Tall Spec Build
2015;24(15):912–40.
[47] Lee HU, Kim YC. Preliminary design of tall building structures with a hexagrid
system. Proc Eng 2017;171:1085–91.
[48] D’Aniello M, Costanzo S, Landolfo R. The influence of beam stiffness on seismic
response of chevron concentric bracings. J Constr Steel Res 2015;112:305–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.05.021.
[49] Costanzo S, D'Aniello M, Landolfo R, De Martino A. Remarks on seismic design rules
of EC8 for inverted-V CBFs. Key Eng Mater 2018;763:1147–54.
[50] Tremblay R, Imanpour A. Analysis methods for the design of special concentrically
braced frames with three or more tiers for in-plane seismic demand. J Struct Eng
2017:143(4).
[51] Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI), SAP2000 Software, V14.2; 2010.
40
Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 27–40
[52] ASCE 7. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7-16,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia; 2016.
[53] AISC. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC341-16, Chicago;
2016.
[54] AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC360-16, Chicago; 2016.
[55] OpenSees version 2.4.6 [Computer software]. Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Berkeley; CA.
[56] Uriz P, Filippou FC, Mahin SA. Model for cyclic inelastic buckling of steel braces. J
Struct Eng 2008;134:619–28.
[57] Wijesundara KK, Bolognini D, Nascimbene R, Calvi GM. Review of design para-
meters of concentrically braced frames with RHS shape braces. J Earthq Eng
2009;13(S1):109–31.
[58] Hu JW. Seismic analysis and evaluation of several recentering braced frame
structures, proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers. Part C J Mech
Eng Sci 2014;228(5):781–98.
[59] Nascimbene R, Rassati GA, Wijesundara KK. Numerical simulation of gusset plate
connections with rectangular hollow section shape brace under quasistatic cyclic
loading. J Constr Steel Res 2011;70:177–89.
[60] Yoo JH, Lehman DE, Roeder CW. Influence of connection design parameters on the
seismic performance of braced frames. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64:607–23.
[61] Karamanci E, Lignos D. Computational approach for collapse assessment of con-
centrically braced frames in seismic regions. J Struct Eng 2014;140.
[62] Manson SS. Fatigue: a complex subject-some simple approximations. Exp Mech
1965;5(7):193–226.
[63] Montuori R, Nastri E, Piluso V. Advances in theory of plastic mechanism control:
closed form solution for MR-frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2015.
[64] Longo A, Montuori R, Nastri E, Piluso V. On the use of HSS in seismic-resistant
structures. J Constr Steel Res 2014;103:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr. 2014.
07.019.