Structures 11 (2017) 229–242

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Comparative Response Assessment of Steel Frames With Different Bracing MARK

Systems Under Seismic Effect
Dia Eddin Nassania,⁎, Ali Khalid Husseinb, Abbas Haraj Mohammedb
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Gaziantep, Turkey
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey

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

Keywords: The field of earthquake engineering and seismology is of a great importance to structural engineers around the
Steel frames world. Choosing an appropriate lateral force resisting system has a significant effect on performance of the steel
Seismic load structure. The paper presents a comparison of the seismic response of steel frames by using different types of
Bracing systems bracing systems. The bracing systems are X-braced frames, V braced frames, inverted V braced frames, Knee
braced frames and zipper braced frames. The steel frames are modeled and analyzed in four different height
levels. Nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were performed. The frames consist of three bays and steel braces
were inserted in the middle bay of each frame. The structural responses of frames are studied in terms of capacity
curve, drift ratio, global damage index, base shear, storey displacements, roof displacement time history and
plastification. The results showed a good improvement in the seismic resistance of frames with the incorporation
of bracing. The results revealed that the bracing elements were very effective in diminishing drifts since the
reduction of inter-storey drifts with respect to unbraced frames were on the average 58%. Also steel braces
considerably reduced the global damage index.

1. Introduction resisting frame and concentric braced frame. In eccentric braced

Steel structures are obviously one of the most common choices for
residential building constructions in the world. Different types of bra-
cing systems are used in these structures [1–6]. Braced frames cate-
gorize into two different types, concentric and eccentric, which have
specific characteristics and design requirements.
In seismically active zones, structures are subjected to lateral
earthquake forces in addition to bearing the primary gravity load. The
performance of a structure during an earthquake depends on the in-
tensity of the earthquake and the properties of the structure.
In case of high rise buildings, stiffness is more important than
strength. Moment resisting frames and braced frames have been com-
monly used as lateral load resisting structural elements in steel build-
ings. Moment resisting frames provide ductility through yielding, but
due to their flexibility, they do not satisfy stiffness criteria [7]. There
are several ways of providing braces to increase the seismic resistance
of buildings. The different bracing systems include typical diagonal
bracing, X-bracing, chevron bracing and V-bracing configurations,
which connect the brace concentric to beam-column joint. Roeder &
Popov [8] and Hjelmstad & Popov [9] proposed another bracing system,
named eccentric bracing, combining good features of both moment
frames, energy dissipation capacity in a seismic excitation is provided
by shear links that are an integral part of a beam. However, after a
severe earthquake, replacing a damaged shear link can be time con-
suming and expensive as it is a primary structural component. Recently,
Ochoa [10] has proposed an alternative system, named knee braced
frame. In this system, the ductile fuse element is used to prevent col-
lapse of the structure by dissipating energy through flexural yielding of
the knee element. Subsequently, Balendra et al. [11,12,13] re-examined
the knee braced frame and proposed some modifications and the results
indicated that the knee braced frame is an attractive alternative system
for earthquake resistant steel buildings. It has a clear advantage of
greatly reduced floor damage.
The seismic performance of non-ductile chevron braced frames can
be improved by delaying the fracture of braces. This can be achieved in
chevron by redesigning the brace and floor beams to a weak brace and
the strong beam system. This upgraded chevron braced frame results in
an excellent hysteretic response, where in ductile braces provide a
reasonable distribution of damage over the height of building [14].
Tremblay et al. studied seismic performance of concentrically braced
steel frames i.e. diagonal braced frame and X-braced frame, under
cyclic loading [15]. In addition, the maximum ductility was achieved

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: diaeddin.nassani@hku.edu.tr (D.E. Nassani).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2017.06.006
Received 1 July 2016; Received in revised form 13 April 2017; Accepted 16 June 2017
Available online 17 June 2017
2352-0124/ © 2017 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.E. Nassani et al. Structures 11 (2017) 229–242

by rectangular hollow bracing members [16]. Yang et al. proposed a (IVFs), Knee braced frames (KBFs) and zipper braced frames (ZBFs).
design methodology for zipper-braced frames aimed at achieving a The structural response of each bracing system and its effect on the
good ductile behavior [17]. The zipper elements demonstrated their behavior of steel frames under seismic loading has been evaluated. The
ability to activate buckling in all storeys except the top one, by redis- steel frames are modeled and analyzed in four different height levels of
tributing the loads in the structure [18]. Similarly, Nouri et al. in- 4, 8, 12 and 18. Nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were performed.
vestigated the limitations of concentric braced frames subjected to The frames are dual-steel system which consists of a moment-resisting
seismic loading and proposed zipper braced configuration to mitigate frame which resists the gravity load and partially seismic load. These
the vertical unbalanced force in case of chevron braced frame [19]. frames equipped with braces which resist the seismic load.
Many experimental and analytical studies have been conducted on
the hysteretic behavior of steel braces under severe cyclic load provided 2. Description of the analytical models
useful information on the effect of several properties of the braces on
their cyclic inelastic response. Inelastic modelling of steel braces can be The structures studied in this research were unbraced and braced
classified into three broad categories: phenomenological, continuum buildings with 4, 8, 12, and 16 storeys. The different bracing systems
finite element, and physical theory models. Phenomenological models are XBFs, VBFs, IVFs, KBFs and ZBFs along with MRF systems. The
are based on simplified hysteretic rules simulating the experimental buildings consist of three bays in each direction as shown in Fig. 1 and
cyclic axial force–deformation relationship of braces, whereas finite steel braces were inserted in the middle bay. Frame selected for analysis
element models subdivide the brace longitudinally into a number of is shown in plan of the buildings Fig. 1. Santa-Ana and Miranda [26]
elements where the geometry and material properties of each element studied first the unbraced MRF frames. The elevation views of unbraced
are defined. Such finite element models provide the most accurate ap- frames, the storeys height, beams and columns section are shown in
proach to simulate the brace behavior [20]. On the other hand, Fig. 2. The buildings were designed as strong column–weak beam as
D'Aniello et al. [21] discussed the physical theory model approach in reported by Santa-Ana and Miranda [26], so that the sum of plastic
which the brace hysteretic behavior is usually modeled with two ele- section modulus of the columns connecting into each connection was
ments connected by a generalized plastic hinge for braces simply greater than that of the beams connecting into the same connection.
pinned. Physical theory models of braces have been implemented using The sizes of beams and columns of different bracing patterns are the
force-based finite elements with fibre discretization of the cross-section same as that of MRF. Different braces are added in such a way that the
[21]. Moreover, the accuracy and the suitability of the existing for- total steel required is the same for all the braces except for ZBF. The
mulations of the initial camber width were verified in the physical same sizes of braces are assigned to different bracings VBF, IVF and
theory model [22]. Besides, it should be noted that some parameters KBF; however, XBF is assigned a different size of brace with nearly
such as the plastic local buckling, the low-cycle fatigue effects were not equal amount of steel as that of VBF, IVF and KBF. For the X braced
considered in physical theory models. It is interesting to note that the system, the two braces are in the same plane and their intersection
analyses performed with different plasticity models showed that the point is modeled as pinned. In case of ZBF, the same brace sizes of IVF
elapsed time for the analysis with concentrated plasticity elements is pattern are used in addition to zipper struts. Zipper struts shall be de-
lower than in the analysis with distributed plasticity. In this study, signed to resist the vertical unbalanced forces generated by the IVF
analyses have been performed by the concentrated (lumped) plasticity braces [17,18,19].
model. The frames were designed according to the lateral load distribution
Shen et al. [23] carried out a numerical study on similar buildings specified in International Building Code (IBC 2012) [27]. These frames
and they concluded that brace-intercepted beams designed with the satisfy the maximum inter-storey drift limitation given in the code [27].
minimum possible required strength permitted by the current US design Consequently, these frames practically characterize the wide variety of
provisions could undergo significant vertical inelastic deformations for frames that can result from the design according to IBC 2012. The
interstorey drift ratios ranging within 0.02–0.04. In addition, they ob-
served that the inelastic deformations in the middle spans of brace-in-
tercepted beams considerably increase ductility demands on both
braces and beam-to-column connections. In line with those results,
D'Aniello et al. [24] highlighted that the relative beam-to-brace stiffness
is the key parameter characterizing the performance of chevron braced
frames. In particular, they showed the relationship between ductility
demand of braces and the flexural stiffness of braced-intercepted beam.
Experimental tests carried out for classic eccentric bracing of steel
buildings have consistently shown that peak inelastic shear forces up to
1.4–1.5 times the plastic shear strength can develop at plastic link ro-
tations of about 0.08–0.1 rad (plastic overstrength). However, more
recent tests have shown that larger forces could be developed. Three
basic parameters are devised as influencing shear overstrength: (i) axial
forces acting on the link, (ii) the ratio of link flange over web area and
(iii) the ratio between link length and cross section depth [25].
New Zealand design procedures stated that if eccentrically braced
frame structures were pushed into the inelastic range, necessitating
replacement of active links in some buildings, the design procedures
have been adapted to accommodate the replaceable link concept. This
concept will allow for rapid inspection and replacement of yielded and
damaged links following a major earthquake, thereby permitting the
structure to be economically brought back to its original safety level.
In this study, an attempt is made to assess the seismic behavior of
different braced and unbraced systems in steel frames by using six
structural configurations: moment resisting frames (MRFs), X-braced
frames (XBFs), V braced frames (VBFs), inverted V braced frames Fig. 1. Typical floor plan of the buildings [26].

230
D.E. Nassani et al.
vibration periods of the first three modes of braced and unbraced
frames are given in Table 1. It was noticed that the fundamental periods
of the braced frames were shorter than unbraced frames, which indicate
that the braced frames were stiffer than the unbraced frames. Base
support modeled as semi-rigid with rotational stiffness equal to
0.8EIcol/Lcol.
To study the effect of bracing systems on seismic performance of
frames, braces were inserted into middle bays of these frames as shown
in Fig. 3 (case of 4 storeys). The brace members were selected as square
231
Structures 11 (2017) 229–242
Fig. 2. Elevations of 4, 8, 12 and 16-storey MRF [26].
hollow sections (HSS5X5X1/4). The Young's modulus of steel is
E = 200,000 MPa and the steel yield stress is fy = 420 MPa.
3. Analysis methods
In this research, nonlinear static (pushover) and dynamic (time
history) analysis were performed to study the behavior of unbraced and
braced frames. The well-known structural program ETABS [28] has
been used to analyze the frames.
D.E. Nassani et al. Structures 11 (2017) 229–242

Table 1 moment–axial force interaction effect as illustrated in Fig. 4c. In other

Fundamental period of vibration(s) by modal analysis. words, raise in second-order moment from M1 to M2 results in a de-
crease in axial load capacity from P1 to P2. Upon unloading from point 2
Type of buildings Periods (s)
to zero axial load (point 3), the brace retains residual transverse and
1st 2nd 3rd axial deformations. When the tension load is applied from point 3 to 4,
the behavior is elastic. At point 4, the product of transverse displace-
4F-MRF 2.475 1.443 0.26
ment and axial load again equals the plastic moment capacity of the
4F-ZBF 1.505 1.445 0.265
4F-VBF 1.499 1.448 0.264 brace under the applied axial load. Thus, a plastic hinge at the midpoint
4F-IVF 1.499 1.445 0.264 of the brace is produced for the second time. However, along segment
4F-XBF 1.511 1.424 0.267 4–5, the plastic hinge rotations act in the reverse direction of that along
4F-KBF 1.496 1.441 0.264 segment 1–2 and reduces the transverse deflection magnitude until the
8F-MRF 5.173 3.808 0.95
yield point (5) in tension is reached. In this research, the authors
8F-ZBF 4.087 3.761 0.94
8F-VBF 4.055 3.791 0.945 modeled the cyclic loading behavior of braces using structural program
8F-IVF 4.055 3.761 0.94 ETABS [28].
8F-XBF 4.099 3.631 0.936 Geometric nonlinearity can be accommodated either by an ap-
8F-KBF 4.029 3.623 0.926
proximate1st order assumption, i.e. P-Delta effects, where a linear
12F-MRF 10.284 7.847 1.647
12F-ZBF 9.093 7.861 1.681 geometric stiffness term is added to the element stiffness matrix, or via
12F-VBF 9.035 7.897 1.672 the accurate co-rotational approach [33]. The corotational approach
12F-IVF 9.035 7.862 1.672 offers significant advantages in terms of implementation in a FE ana-
12F-XBF 9.117 7.355 1.685 lysis software [34]. The co-rotational approach is based on the se-
12F-KBF 9.012 7.842 1.668
paration of rigid body displacements from element deformations by
16F-MRF 15.289 11.432 2.685
16F-ZBF 14.01 11.312 2.739 using a coordinate system that follows the element [35–36]. In this
16F-VBF 13.899 10.407 2.719 research, the authors accounted the geometric non-linearity via co-ro-
16F-IVF 13.924 11.315 2.729 tational approach which is defined in the structural program ETABS
16F-XBF 14.048 10.587 2.746
[28].
16F-KBF 13.886 11.286 2.719
For further evaluation of the effect of braced systems on the struc-
tural response of frames under seismic loading, comparison of the
seismic response of unbraced and braced frames were evaluated when
In the pushover (nonlinear static) analysis, a structure is subjected exposed to earthquake ground motions. For this, nonlinear dynamic
to gravity loading and a monotonic displacement-controlled lateral load analysis (time history) was performed. The frames were subjected to
pattern which continuously increases through elastic and inelastic be- three earthquake ground accelerations of the El-Centro 1940 NS
havior until an ultimate condition is reached. Lateral load may re- earthquake (Fig. 5), Altadena - Eaton Canyon Park and Santa Monica –
present the range of base shear induced by earthquake loading [29]. City Hall Grounds. The three ground motion records were scaled to
The structure must have the capacity to resist a specified roof dis- same acceleration value equal to 0.5 g.
placement (target displacement) for a specific earthquake [30]. It is
assumed that the nonlinear behavior occurs at plastic hinges within the 4. Seismic performance evaluation
frame members. For this, the nonlinearity was taken into account by
adopting plastic hinges with hysteretic relationships based on FEMA- A total 30 high rise 2-D steel building frames are analyzed. As the
356 tables [30]. The plastic hinges were assigned at the midpoint of main product of pushover analysis is the base shear and roof dis-
bracing members while for the columns and beams were defined at the placement, the responses of frames are in terms of capacity curve, base
end of elements [31]. Then, the frames were subjected to monotonic shear and plastification have been evaluated using pushover analysis.
displacement-controlled lateral loading which increases until the While drift ratio, global damage index, storey displacements and roof
structure reached the ultimate condition. Then, the maximum dis- displacement time history have been evaluated using time history
placement (target displacements) was calculated. analysis.
The inelastic behaviors of braces are commonly expressed in terms
of an axial load, P, an axial displacement, δ, and a transverse dis- 4.1. Capacity curves
placement, Δ, at the midpoint of the braces as shown in Fig. 4a [32]. A
typical hysteresis curve of a brace element under cyclic axial loading is Nonlinear static analysis is performed on 2-D steel buildings using
shown in Fig. 4b [32]. In the unloaded condition 0, the brace was different lateral load patterns to determine the effects of the lateral load
compressed in the linearly elastic range through segment 0–1. As a on the global structural behavior through load–displacement curve. In
result of the initial imperfection within brace, second-order effect is this study, displacement controlled pushover analysis for all the ex-
developed under the axial load and the brace deflects transversely as ample buildings are carried out. The target displacement used for each
shown in Fig. 4a. Consequently, the brace is subjected to second-order building is 4% of the total height of the building (ATC-40) [37]. De-
moments along its length in addition to the axial load. The maximum fault-hinge properties are available in some programs based on the
values of the second-order moment occur at the midpoint of brace FEMA-356 and ATC-40 guidelines [30,37]. The ETABS default hinge
(P × Δ) (maximum transverse displacement). When the transverse properties based on FEMA-356 criteria are used for beams, columns and
displacement of the brace is critical, the second-order moment is equal braces.
to its plastic moment capacity under the applied axial load. At this Capacity curves, as the main product of pushover analysis, are the
stage, the buckling load (point 1) is achieved. Further increase in the base shear versus roof displacement of the structures and represent
axial displacement results in more transverse displacement, Δ, as a re- global response of the structures. Fig. 6 shows the base shear and roof
sult of plastic hinge rotation at the brace midpoint. Accordingly, displacement of different height levels of frames with different bracing
second-order moment at the midpoint raises. This results reduction in systems. It was noticed that VBFs, IVFs and XBFs resulted in greater
the axial force resistance of the brace along segment 1–2 due to the lateral load carrying capacity than the other bracing frames. It was

232
D.E. Nassani et al.
Fig. 4. (a) Deformed shape of axially loaded steel brace; (b) typical inelastic cyclic be-
havior of a steel brace; (c) effect of increased second order moment on axial load capacity.
233
Structures 11 (2017) 229–242
Fig. 3. Elevations of 4-storey of ZBF, XBF, VBF, IVF
and KBF.
Fig. 5. ELCENTRO earthquake.
observed from Fig. 6 that the capacity curve for unbraced frame was
bilinear which means that the structure was in the elastic stage with
linear elastic slope. With increasing the seismic load, some columns and
beams entered the inelastic stage of deformation and this induced a
change in the slope of the capacity curve. However, in the case of the
D.E. Nassani et al.
Fig. 6. Capacity curves for unbraced and braced frames.
braced frames, generally the first change in the elastic slope was due to
the yielding of the braces and the following changes were due to the
yielding of the structural members.
4.2. Total base shear
In this research, the base shear of the pushover analysis at target
displacement was calculated for braced and unbraced frames. The
234
Structures 11 (2017) 229–242
values of base shear resulted from braces and unbraced frames are
shown in Fig. 7. It can be noticed that the base shear in unbraced frames
was less than that of the braced frames. The increment in base shear in
braced frames has little influence on the columns because most of the
shear forces were supported by the braces. The type of bracing, weight
of frame, number of floors and site condition affect the base shear va-
lues. For instance, the largest base shear in 12 storeys frames was no-
ticed in XBF while in 4 storeys frames the largest base shear was noticed
Fig. 7. Base shear variation for unbraced and braced
frames.
D.E. Nassani et al.
in ZBF.
Fig. 8 shows the overstrength variation Vu/V1 for different types of
frames and different levels where Vu is the maximum base shear and V1
the base shear corresponding to the first nonlinear event.
Fig. 9 shows the design V1/Vd for braced and unbraced frames
where Vd is the design base shear.
4.3. Plastification in the frames
It is expected that pushover analysis can identify the potential
failure modes and location of weak points that the structure would
experience in case of a seismic event. Identification of plastic hinge
formation gives the designer an insight about the parts of the structure
that need special considerations in the design process. Fig. 10 shows the
location of plastic hinge formation in the 8-storey unbraced and braced
frames. It is shown that the inelastic range of deformation in unbraced
frames was in beams of the first, second and third storeys and in
235
Structures 11 (2017) 229–242
Fig. 8. The overstrength Vu/V1 variation for unbraced
and braced frames.
Fig. 9. The V1/Vd variation for unbraced and braced
frames.
columns of the first and second storeys. While the inelastic range of
deformation in braced frames was in the braces of different storeys,
beams of first and second storeys and columns of the first storey. It is
observed that in braced frames the sequence of hinge formation is first
in the brace, after that in the beam and then in the column, whereas in
MRF, it is first in the beam and then in the column.
All frames undergo significant column hinging at first floor level;
some at other levels. This would increase the likelihood of high residual
drifts and cause column axial shortening which may cause undesirable
effect in frames. If column yielding can be mitigated, then axial
shortening will also not occur. There are also other reasons for trying to
prevent column yielding: First is column deformation capacity is lower
than for beams because a larger proportion of the cross-section in
compression, making it more susceptible to buckling failure. Also,
larger strains occur in the extreme fibre of the section. MacRae et al.
[38] stated that the cumulative strain, which is related to the axial
shortening, is what most significantly controls the lateral deformation
D.E. Nassani et al. Structures 11 (2017) 229–242

Fig. 10. Plastic hinge formation of 8-storeys for unbraced and braced
frames.

XBF KBF

IVF MRF

ZBF VBF

236
D.E. Nassani et al.
capacity of columns. Second is column unidirectional hinging may
occur during reversed cycling as was found in an experimental study by
Popov et al. [39].
4.4. Global damage index
Global damage index (GDI) is the ratio of the roof displacement (D)
over the total height of the structure (H). Time history analysis using
three earthquake ground motions of El-Centro 1940 NS, Altadena -
Eaton Canyon Park and Santa Monica – City Hall Grounds was per-
formed to compare the GDI of frames. Fig. 11 shows GDI of different
height levels of frames using El-Centro ground motion. It can be shown
that the 4-storeys and 12-storeys VBFs show the least GDI in compar-
ison with other bracing systems. Fig. 10 shows GDI of different height
levels of frames using El-Centro ground motion. Fig. 12 shows GDI of 8-
storeys frame subjected to El-Centro, Altadena and Monica ground
motions.
4.5. Storey displacement
The storeys displacement corresponding to different height levels of
237
Structures 11 (2017) 229–242
Fig. 11. GDI obtained using El-Centro ground motion.
Fig. 12. GDI obtained of 8-storeys frame subjected to
El-Centro, Altadena and Monica ground motions.
frames using time history analysis- El Centro ground motion are illu-
strated in Fig. 13. It is observed that the MRF frames show higher storey
displacements in comparison with other bracing systems as it is most
ductile system. The 12-storeys and 16-storeys VBF, IVF and ZBF show
the least displacements in comparison with other bracing systems. The
4-storeys VBF and IVF show the least displacements in comparison with
other bracing systems. It is observed from storey displacement graphs
that ZBF and XBF are more preferred than KBF, VBF and IVF. Fig. 14
and Fig. 15 show the storeys displacement of 8-storeys frame subjected
to Altadena and Monica ground motions respectively.
4.6. Inter-storey drift ratio
The inter-storey drift ratios corresponding to different height levels
of frames using time history analysis-El Centro ground motion are il-
lustrated in Fig. 16. It is shown that the distribution of inter-storey drift
ratio over the building height becomes non-uniform as the building
height increases. Inter-storey drift ratio is higher in MRF buildings than
other systems for all lateral load cases. Higher inter-storey drift ratio is
observed in middle and lower height of buildings. ZBF, VBF and IVF
show less inter-storey drift ratio with few exceptions. In 8 storeys
D.E. Nassani et al.
Fig. 13. Storeys displacement of 4-, 8-, 12- and 16-storeys frames subjected to El-Centro ground motion.
Fig. 14. Storeys displacement of 8-storeys frame subjected to Altadena ground motion.
frames, VBF and IVF show the least inter-storey drift ratio in the upper
storeys while XBF shows the least values in the lower storeys. In 12 and
16 storeys frames, ZBF, VBF and IVF show the least inter-storey drift
ratio. The inter-storey drift ratios do not match the deformed shapes
shown in Fig. 10, this is because Fig. 10 is snap shot of one point in a
time where large displacement occur in the other storeys at other times
during the earthquake. Fig. 17 and Fig. 18 show the inter-storey drift
ratios of 8-storeys frame subjected to Altadena and Monica ground
motions respectively. In 8 storeys frames subjected to Monica ground
motion, IVF shows the least inter-storey drift ratio.
238
Structures 11 (2017) 229–242
Fig. 15. Storeys displacement of 8-storeys frame subjected to Monica ground motion.
4.7. Time history of roof displacement
Braced and unbraced frames were subjected to three earthquake
ground motions using time history analysis. Fig. 19 shows the relation
between time and roof displacements for braced and unbraced frames
subjected to El-Centro ground motion. Fig. 20 shows the relation be-
tween time and roof displacements for frames subjected to Altadena
ground motion. Fig. 21 shows the relation between time and roof dis-
placements for frames subjected to Monica ground motion. It could be
concluded that bracings are a good solution to decrease the roof dis-
placements of frames. It is observed that the MRF frames show higher
roof displacements in comparison with other bracing systems.
D.E. Nassani et al.
Fig. 16. Inter-storey drift ratio for unbraced and braced frames subjected to El-Centro ground motion.
Fig. 17. Inter-storey drift ratio of 8-storeys frame subjected to Altadena ground motion.
For example, In 8 storeys frames, the roof displacement (D) of MRF
was 0.5 m, while in ZBF D = 0.26 m, D = 0.28 m in VBF, D = 0.28 m
in IVF, D = 0.23 m in XBF and D = 0.29 m in KBF.
5. Conclusion
In this study an attempt is made to assess the seismic behavior of
steel frames by using unbracing and bracing systems. The bracing sys-
tems are XBF, VBF, IVF, KBF and ZBF. The steel frames are modeled and
analyzed in four different height levels (4, 8, 12, and 16 storeys).
The conclusions of this study can be summarized as follow:
239
Structures 11 (2017) 229–242
Fig. 18. Inter-storey drift ratio of 8-storeys frame subjected to Monica ground motion.
1– The results showed a good improvement in the seismic resistance of
frames with the incorporation of bracing. The results revealed that
the bracing elements were very effective in diminishing drifts since
the reduction of inter-storey drifts with respect to unbraced frames
were on the average 58%. Also steel braces considerably reduced the
global damage index.
2– The results of the time history analysis were similar to that of the
pushover analysis such that the braced frames showed lower dis-
placement and damage in comparison with unbraced frames.
3– IVF, VBF and ZBF show lower storey displacement and inter-storey
drift ratio indicating that these systems have strength and stiffness.
IVF and VBF systems are recommended because they are well
D.E. Nassani et al. Structures 11 (2017) 229–242

Fig. 19. Roof displacement time history response for different height
levels of frames subjected to El-Centro ground motion.

240
D.E. Nassani et al.
established in literature.
4– In MRF, more beams undergo plastic hinge formation than the
braced frames. In braced frames the sequence of hinge formation is
that first in the brace, after that in the beam and then in the column,
whereas in MRF, it is first in the beam and then the column.
5– Seismic performance of different buildings in terms of performance
point shows that IVF, VBF and ZBF buildings have higher capacity
than other buildings.
References
[1] Asgarian B, Moradi S. Seismic response of steel braced frames with shape memory alloy
braces. Construct Steel Res 2011;67(1):65–74.
[2] Di Sarno L, Elnashai AS, Nethercot DA. Seismic response of stainless steel braced frames.
Construct Steel Res 2008;64(7–8):914–25.
[3] Di Sarno L, Elnashai AS. Bracing systems for seismic setrofitting of steel frames. Construct
Steel Res 2009;65(2):452–65.
[4] Yoo J-H, Roeder CW, Lehman DE. Simulated behavior of multi-story X-braced frames. Eng
Struct 2009;31(1):182–97.
[5] Longo A, Montuori R, Piluso V. Seismic reliability of V-braced frames: influence of design
methodologies. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38(14):1587–608.
[6] Moghaddam H, Hajirasouliha I. An investigation on the accuracy of pushover analysis for
estimating the seismic deformation of braced steel frames. Construct Steel Res
2006;62(4):343–51.
[7] Balendra T, Sam MT, Liaw CY. Diagonal brace with ductile knee anchor for aseismic steel
frame. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1990;19(6):847–58.
[8] Roeder CW, Popov EP. Eccentric braced steel frames for earthquakes. J Struct Div ASCE
1978;104(3):391–411.
[9] Hjelmstad KD, Popov E. Characteristicsof eccentrically braced frames. J Struct Div ASCE
1984;110(2):340–53.
[10] Aristizabal-Ochao JD. Disposable knee bracing: improvement in seismic design of steel
frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 1986;112(7):1544–52.
[11] Balendra T, Sam MT, Liaw CY, Lee SL. Preliminary studies into the behavior of knee
braced frames subject to seismic loading. Eng Struct 1991;13:67–74.
[12] Balendra T, Sam MT, Liaw CY. Design of earthquake-resistant steel frames with knee
bracing. J Constr Steel Res 1991;18:193–208.
241
Structures 11 (2017) 229–242
Fig. 20. Roof displacement time history response for 8-storeys frame
subjected to Altadena ground motion.
Fig. 21. Roof displacement time history response for 8-storeys frame
subjected to Monica ground motion.
[13] Balendra T, Sam MT, Liaw CY. Earthquake resistant steel frames with energy dissipating
knee elements. Eng Struct 1995;17(5):334–43.
[14] Rai DC, Goel SC. Seismic evaluation and upgrading of chevron braced frames. J Constr
Steel Res 2003;59:971–94.
[15] Tremblay R. Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members. J Constr Steel Res
2002;58:665–701.
[16] Tremblay R, Archambault MH, Filiatrault A. Seismic response of concentrically braced
steel frames made with rectangular hollow bracing members. J Struct Eng ASCE
2003;129(12):1626–36.
[17] Yang CS, Leon RT, DesRoches R. Design and behavior of zipper braced frames. Eng Struct
2008;30:1092–100.
[18] Yang CS, Leon RT, DesRoches R. Pushover response of a braced frame with suspended
zipper struts. J Struct Eng ASCE 2008;134(10):1619–26.
[19] GR Nouri, HI Kalesar, Z Ameli. The applicability of the zipper strut to seismic re-
habilitation of steel structures. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 582009402–5.
[20] Dicleli M, Calik E. Physical theory hysteretic model for steel braces. J Struct Eng ASCE
2008;134(7):1215–28.
[21] D'Aniello M, GLM A, Portioli F, Landolfo R. Modelling aspects of the seismic response of
steel concentric braced frames. Steel Compos Struct Int J 2013;15(5):539–66.
[22] D'Aniello M, GLM A, Portioli F, Landolfo R. The influence of out-of-straightness im-
perfection in physical-theory models of bracing members on seismic performance as-
sessment of concentric braced structures. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2015;24(3):176–97.
[23] Shen J, Wen R, Akbas B, Doran B, Uckan E. Seismic demand on brace-intersected beams in
two-story X-braced frames. Eng Struct 2014;76:295–312.
[24] 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.
[25] Della Corte G, D'Aniello M, Landolfo R. Analytical and numerical study of plastic over-
strength of shear links. J Constr Steel Res 2013;82:19–32.
[26] Santa-Ana PR, Miranda E. Strength reduction factors for multidegree-of-freedom systems.
12 WCEE; 2000.
[27] IBC. International building code. USA: International Code Council, Inc.; 2012.
[28] ETABS. Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley. 2013; 2013.
[29] CSI. SAP2000. Computer software technical manual. Computers & Structures, Inc.; 2011.
[30] FEMA. (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Prestandard and commentary for the
seismic rehabilitation of building. Washington, DC: FEMA-356; 2000.
[31] Güneyisi EM, Muhyaddin GF. Comparative response assessment of different frames with
diagonal bracings under lateral loading. Arab J Sci Eng 2014;39:3545–58.
[32] Bruneau M, Uang C-M, Whittaker A. Ductile design of steel structures. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill; 1997.
[33] Asimakopoulos AV, Karabalis DL, Beskos DE. Inclusion of the P–D effect in displacement-
based seismic design of steel moment resisting frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
D.E. Nassani et al. Structures 11 (2017) 229–242

2007;36:2171–88.
[34] Adam C, Jäger C. Seismic collapse capacity of basic inelastic structures vulnerable to the
P–delta effect. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012;41:775–93.
[35] Battini, J.M. (2002). Co-rotational beams elements in instability problems. (PhD thesis)
Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.
[36] Crisfield MA. Non-linear finite element analysis of solids and structures. vol. 1. New York:
John Wiley & Sons; 1991.
[37] ATC-40 seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. 1. Applied Technical
Council; 1996.
[38] MacRae GA, Carr AJ, Walpole WR. The seismicresponse of steel frames. Research report
90-6. Christchurch: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury; 1990.
[39] Popov EP, Bertero VV, Chandramoulli S. Hysteretic behaviour of steel columns. UCB/
EERC 75-11. Richmond, USA: Earthquake Engineering Research Centre; 1975.

242