Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Comparison of European and Japanese seismic design of

steel building structures
Edoardo M. Marino1, Masayoshi Nakashima∗, Khalid M. Mosalam2
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan

Received 6 October 2004; received in revised form 7 January 2005; accepted 7 January 2005
Available online 24 February 2005

Abstract

This paper compares EuroCode 8 (EC8) and the Japanese seismic design code (BCJ) for steel moment frames and braced frames. Soil
classification, magnitude and shape of unreduced elastic response spectra, distribution of seismic shear along the height, member ductility
requirements, and behavior factor are compared. It was found that the two codes are relatively similar except for the seismic force stipulated
for the serviceability limit state. EC8 gives an approximately 2.5 times larger force for this limit state. Behavior factors that allow for system
ductility are significantly different between the two codes; for moment frames BCJ is more conservative by about 50%. Strength demanded
by EC8 and BCJ is evaluated for steel moment frames and chevron braced frames. Although the behavior factor is less conservative in EC8,
the net strength required by EC8 is significantly greater than the corresponding BCJ strength for steel moment frames, and it occurs because
of the significantly larger design force stipulated for serviceability in EC8. With regard to braced frames, BCJ leads to larger lateral story
strength except for chevron braced frames with slender braces.
© 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Seismic codes; Steel structures; Moment-resisting frames; Braced frames; Earthquake engineering

1. Introduction
EuroCode 8 (EC8) [1] will change its status from the
pre-standard (ENV) to the European Standard (EN). This
“new code”, which is to replace respective national seismic
standards, introduces various innovative European seismic
design practices for steel buildings, such as the capacity
design criteria and seismic force reduction factors explicitly
correlated with expected ductility of the structure, among
others. Many of such new concepts are already present in the
national seismic codes adopted recently in many European
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 774 38 4086; fax: +81 774 38 4334.
E-mail addresses: emarino@dica.unict.it (E.M. Marino),
nakashima@archi.kyoto-u.ac.jp (M. Nakashima),
mosalam@ce.berkeley.edu (K.M. Mosalam).
1 Tel.: +81 774 38 4085; fax: +81 774 38 4334. Permanent address:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Catania,
Italy.
2 Tel.: +81 774 38 4085; fax: +81 774 38 4334. Permanent address:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley, United States.
countries (for example, DIN, 2002 [2], O.P.C.M., 2003 [3]).
It is notable, however, that such codes are not widely used
in real practice; rather, familiar provisions stipulated in the
old seismic codes (for example, DIN, 1981 [4], D.M.LL.PP.,
1996 [5]) are most commonly used.
It is notable that Japan has a seismic design code adopted
in 1981 [6,7], called BCJ hereinafter, that explicitly consid-
ers two levels of seismic forces, one for serviceability and
the other for safety. BCJ also accounts for force redistribu-
tion after yielding due to redundancy, and trade-off between
strength and ductility in accordance with the expected duc-
tility of structures. The validity of such approaches has been
tested for twenty years of practical experiences. It is notable
that many of the buildings designed by this code experienced
a few significant earthquakes such as the 1995 Hyogoken-
Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake. There are many similarities be-
tween the approaches adopted in EC8 and BCJ, but because
of the physical distance, language barrier and other factors,
this Japanese seismic design code has not been fully recog-
nized in other countries including those in Europe.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.01.004
828 E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840
This paper introduces an overview of BCJ and compares
major provisions stipulated in EC8 and BCJ. Here, steel
moment-resisting frames and concentrically braced frames
are adopted as example structural types. Analyzing the
respective provisions carefully, the paper examines which
code supplies design of stronger and/or more ductile
structures. Such information is deemed useful for European
design practitioners and researchers to understand the
Japanese seismic design practices. It also gives them
opportunities to calibrate and re-evaluate the respective
provisions stipulated in EC8 in reference to the Japanese
counterpart that has been tested for over twenty years.
Comparison on the surface, however, is often very
misleading. If one code stipulates a larger design force than
the other, it appears that a stronger structure is designed
with the former code. If this code gives a larger strength
reduction factor (behavior factor), however, the conclusion
may no longer be valid. In the meantime, such detailed
comparison and assessment of net differences between the
seismic design code in the United States: UBC [8] and
IBC [9], and BCJ had already been conducted by Nakashima
et al. [10] and Tada et al. [11].
The paper consists of the following parts. First,
comparison is made for the design seismic force including
soil classification and spectrum magnitude and shape. The
second part deals with strength and ductility of structures
including the method of calculation, distribution of force
along the height, behavior factor, requirements associated
with member ductility, and drift limits. The third part
examines the strength and ductility of steel moment-resisting
frames and concentrically braced frames designed by the
two codes, EC8 and BCJ. The Japanese seismic code
had an overhaul in 2001, and new provisions are made
available [12]. As compared to BCJ, the new code introduces
different procedures for the estimation of seismic forces, but
the conventional BCJ procedures are also permitted. As for
the capacity oriented provisions such as strength calculations
and ductility requirements, practically no change as been
made in the new code. For these reasons and also for the
substance of more than twenty years of implementation, the
conventional BCJ being in practice since 1981 is adopted for
comparison.
2. Seismic forces
Both European and Japanese codes define two seismic
force levels. The reference seismic force (having a
probability of exceedance equal to 10% in 50 years, i.e. a
return period equal to 475 years, according to both EC8
and BCJ) is representative of the strong ground motions.
The other seismic force level (the probability of exceedance
and return period are respectively 10% in 10 years and 95
years for EC8 and 50% in 30 years and 43 years for BCJ) is
representative of moderate ground motions. In BCJ seismic
force levels corresponding to moderate and strong ground
motions are named Levels 1 and 2, respectively.
Ground motion is represented by means of an elastic
pseudo-acceleration response spectrum. Such a spectrum is
correlated with the foundation soil stratigraphy: different
soil types, ranging from hard to soft soils, and the corre-
sponding pseudo-acceleration elastic spectra are defined in
each code.
In order to compare the seismic force levels stipulated in
European and Japanese codes, correspondence among soil
types defined in EC8 and BCJ is established in the following
sub-section. Subsequently, elastic spectra corresponding to
equivalent foundation soils are compared.
2.1. Soil types
EC8 classifies foundation soils by means of the average
shear wave velocity VS,30. This parameter is evaluated with
reference to the soil layers to the depth of 30 m from the base
of the foundation as follows,
30
VS,30 = (1)

hi
L
Vi
i=1
where L is the number of soil layers and h i and Vi represent
respectively the thickness (in meters) and the shear wave
propagation velocity of the i -th soil layer. Five soil types,
named A, B, C, D, and E, are specified. Soil types A
and D represent hard soils (VS,30 > 800 m/s) and soft
soils (VS,30 < 180 m/s), respectively. Soil types B and C
incorporate soils with intermediate characteristics and the
boundary between them is VS,30 = 360 m/s. Soil type E
corresponds to a particular kind of soil stratigraphy in which
a soft surface layer (type C or D) is placed over a hard soil
(type A).
BCJ defines three soil types, namely type I (hard), II
(medium) and III (soft). The classification is made on the
basis of the fundamental period of the foundation soil Tg
evaluated as follows,
  

 Hi−1 +Hi
  L hi
2
Tg = 32 (2)
i=1 Vi2
where L represents the number of soil layers existing
between the base of the foundation and the rock soil, and
h i , Hi and Vi represent respectively the thickness, depth and
shear wave propagation velocity of the i -th soil layer.
Soil types defined by EC8 and BCJ are compared in
Fig. 1. Because different parameters are used by the two
codes to classify the foundation soil (VS,30 in EC8 and Tg
in BCJ), the comparison has been carried out with refer-
ence to a unique soil layer, with thickness equal to 30 m,
placed over the rock soil. On the basis of this hypothesis
the average shear wave velocity VS,30, defined in EC8, and
the shear wave velocity Vi in Eq. (2) are identical. There-
fore, by substituting the limit values of VS,30 given by EC8
into Eq. (2), the soil classification stated in EC8 has been
reformulated in terms of the soil fundamental period Tg .
 E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840 829

Table 1
Response spectra parameters classified by soil type (EC8)

Soil type A B C D E Generic spectrum

S 1.00 1.20 1.15 1.35 1.40

TB (s) 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.15
TC (s) 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.80 0.50
TD (s) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

With reference to ordinary buildings, ag,R equal to 0.40g,

Fig. 1. Soil types.
The hard soil types (soil types A in EC8 and I in BCJ) in-
clude substantially the same foundation soils in both codes.
The BCJ medium soil (type II) includes mainly soil types B
and C. Finally, the BCJ soft soil (type III) includes soil type
D in EC8. In summary, classifications of hard and soft soils
2
given by the two codes are relatively close to each other.
2.2. Response spectra
EC8 defines reference elastic spectra Se (in terms of the
pseudo-acceleration) as a function of the building natural
period, T , by means of the following expressions:

T moderate earthquakes, the ordinates of the elastic spectra
0 ≤ T ≤ TB Se = ag S 1 + (2.5η − 1) (3a)
TB
TB < T ≤ TC Se = 2.5ag Sη (3b)
TC
TC < T ≤ TD Se = 2.5ag Sη (3c)
T comparison, ag,R that characterizes EC8 spectra has been
TC TD
TD < T ≤ 4.0 s Se = 2.5ag Sη 2 (3d)
T are plotted with reference to ordinary buildings (γ I = 1.0
ag = γ I ag,R (3e)
where ag,R is the reference peak ground acceleration for
ground type A (established in the national annexes on the
basis of the seismic risk maps), γ I is the importance factor,
η is the damping correction factor (equal to 1 for 5% viscous
damping), S is the soil amplification factor, and TB , TC
and TD are characteristic periods of the response spectrum
depending on the soil type. Table 1 shows the values of S,
TB , TC and TD for different soil types. The value of γ I is
assumed to equal 1.0 for ordinary buildings, while larger
values are recommended when a large number of people is
expected in the building (1.2 for schools, assembly halls,
etc.) or when the functionality of the building is important
for civil protection in the immediate post-earthquake period
(1.4 for hospitals, fire stations, etc.).
and 5% viscous damping, Fig. 2(a) shows the EC8 reference
elastic spectra corresponding to the several soil types. Elastic
spectra corresponding to moderate earthquakes are obtained
by multiplying the ordinates of the reference spectra by a
reduction factor ν. The recommended values of ν are 0.5
for ordinary buildings and 0.4 for buildings with crowd and
strategic buildings.
BCJ stipulates the following expressions for elastic
spectra Rt , with reference to a PGA equal to 0.40g
(prescribed almost everywhere in Japan). The spectrum
value Rt is given as a fraction of acceleration of gravity.
0 ≤ T ≤ TJ Rt = 1 (4a)
T
T J < T ≤ 2T J Rt = 1 − 0.2 −1 (4b)
TJ
1.6T J
2T J < T Rt = (4c)
T
where the period T J is determined according to the soil type
and is equal to 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 s for soil types I, II and III,
respectively. Fig. 2(b) shows the BCJ Level 2 spectra. For
Rt are multiplied by 1C 0 = 0.2. Note that BCJ does not
stipulate an importance factor.
Fig. 3 compares the EC8 and BCJ elastic spectra for both
strong and moderate earthquakes. For the purpose of the
set at 0.4g, identical to that stated in BCJ. The EC8 spectra
and ν = 0.5).
With reference to strong ground motions (Fig. 3(a)),
EC8 spectra are slightly smaller than those provided in
BCJ except for T < 1.0 s, e.g. for medium soil, EC8
spectrum is smaller by 10% to 30% than that stipulated
in BCJ. On the contrary, EC8 spectra are larger for short
period systems (20% larger for medium soil). With respect
to moderate earthquakes (Fig. 3(b)), EC8 always specifies
larger elastic spectra, and differences in seismic force level
are notable, e.g. for medium soil, EC8 spectrum is from
two to three times larger than the BCJ counterpart. This
significant difference in the moderate ground motion is the
major source that brings large differences in the strength and
stiffness of steel moment frames designed by EC8 and BCJ,
as explicated later.
830 E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840
Fig. 2. Reference elastic spectra. (a) EC8, (b) BCJ.
3. Strength and ductility
Taking into account the ductility resources of structures,
both EC8 and BCJ specify design seismic forces smaller
than those the structure should sustain if its response was
elastic. At the same time, criteria and requirements aiming to
provide the structure with necessary ductility are stipulated.
In what follows, design procedures stated in EC8 and BCJ
are summarized. Strength distributions along the height,
seismic force reduction factors for steel structures, and
provisions aiming to grant ductility required to individual
structural members (limits on width-to-thickness ratios of
cross-sections and braces’ slenderness requirements) are
compared.
3.1. Seismic design forces according to EC8
According to EC8, the ultimate lateral strength of the
structure has to be large enough to sustain the reference
seismic forces representative of strong ground motions. If
the structure meets the criteria for regularity in elevation
and has a fundamental period not larger than 4TC and
2.0 s, the seismic response of the building may be
evaluated by applying a set of horizontal forces to the story
Fig. 3. Elastic response spectra for (a) strong and (b) moderate ground
motions.
masses statically. TC is defined in the insert of Table 1.
Otherwise, the modal response spectrum analysis, which
is not discussed in this paper, should be performed. The
seismic design base shear V1 due to the reference seismic
forces is given by,
V1 = Sd mλ (5)
where m is the total mass of the building estimated by taking
into account the presence of the dead gravity load and a
fraction of the live gravity load, Sd is the ordinate of the
design spectrum corresponding to the fundamental period of
the building T1 , and λ is a reduction factor of the seismic
forces. The reduction factor λ takes into account the fact
that in multi-story buildings the effective modal mass of the
fundamental mode of vibration is smaller than the total mass.
In particular, λ = 0.85 if the building has more than two
stories and T1 < 2TC , and λ = 1.0 otherwise. The design
spectrum Sd is obtained by reducing the ordinates of the
reference elastic spectrum by means of the behavior factor
q, which allows for the ductility expected for the structural
system. Details of q will be discussed later.
The seismic forces Fi , which are distributed along the
height according to an inverted triangular distribution, are
 E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840
evaluated as follows,
zi m i
Fi = V1 (6)


N
z jm j
j =1
where N is the number of stories, and m i and z i are the i -th
floor mass and height measured from the foundation level,
respectively.
3.2. Seismic design forces according to BCJ
According to BCJ, the ultimate lateral strength of
each story of the structure has to be larger than the
design story shear corresponding to strong ground motions
(Level 2 design). In addition, the stresses due to moderate
earthquakes (Level 1 design) should not exceed the
allowable stresses. It is notable that Japan has adopted a
system of design peer-review for the past three decades.
The review is mandated for special structures like high-
rise structures (defined as those not shorter than 60 m) and
base-isolated structures. In the peer-review, seismic hazard
at the site is considered; site specific ground motions are
chosen; and nonlinear pushover and nonlinear time history
analyses are carried out to check whether or not the adopted
structure satisfies the design criteria. Details of the peer-
review are presented by Pan et al. in [13]. The following
discussion excludes the design procedure with peer-review
and is limited to the introduction of the static-based design
approach used for common building structures.
Level 2 seismic forces are stipulated by a fixed height
distribution of the minimum required story shear strength as
follows:
Vun,i = D S,i Fes,i 2V i (7a)

N
2V i = 2C i wj (7b)
j =1
= Z Rt A i 2 C 0 .
2C i (7c)
In Eq. (7a), Vun,i is the required strength, D S,i is the
structural characteristic factor (conceptually, the inverse of
the behavior factor q), and Fes,i is the shape factor set
according to the distribution of the story stiffness and
eccentricity of the plan. A specified subscript “i ” indicates
that the quantity is referred to the i -th story. In Eqs. (7b) and
(7c), 2C i is the Level 2 story shear coefficient at the i -th
story, w j is the weight evaluated for the seismic design
situation at the j -th floor, Z is the seismic zone factor (equal
to 1.0 for the high seismic hazard zone), Rt is the ordinate
of the response spectrum corresponding to the fundamental
period of the building (T1 ), Ai is the height distribution
factor, and 2C 0 is the standard shear coefficient for the
Level 2 seismic force equal to 1.0. The distribution factor Ai ,
which takes into account the higher mode effects, is given as
a function of T1 , such that:
1 2T1
Ai = 1 + √ − αi (8a)
αi 1 + 3T1
831

N
wj
αi = (8b)
j =i
W
where W is the total weight of the building. The Level 1
seismic force is stipulated by means of the following
formulas:

N
1 V i = 1C i wj
(9a)
j =1
1C i = Z Rt A i 1 C 0 (9b)
where 1V i is the Level 1 story shear at the i -th story, 1 Ci is
the Level 1 story shear coefficient at the same story, and 1 C0
is the shear coefficient for the Level 1 seismic force equal to
0.2, taken as one-fifth the Level 2 shear coefficient 2 C0 .
3.3. Comparison of force distribution
For a ten-story building with uniform mass distribution,
the distributions along the height of the shear strength
required by EC8 and BCJ have been evaluated. Comparison
is presented in Fig. 4 for two values of the fundamental
period (T1 = 0.5 and 2.0 s). The abscissa is the required
story strength normalized with respect to the base shear.
For the shorter period (T1 = 0.5 s), the design story shear
distributions for EC8 and BCJ are very close. The difference
is at most 20%, which occurs at the top story. For the longer
period (T1 = 2.0 s), the difference is more pronounced, with
the largest difference (35%) observed at the top story. In
fact, EC8 does not consider higher mode effects except for
structures having long period (T1 larger than 2.0 s) and/or
vertical irregularity. In these cases the modal analysis is
required.
3.4. Behavior factor
In EC8, earthquake-resistant steel structures are classified
in three structural ductility classes with reference to
the available ductility of their members: low (DCL),
medium (DCM) and high (DCH). In addition, two different
approaches may be used in design. According to the first
approach, the expected structural behavior is low in energy
dissipation. The design internal forces are evaluated by
means of elastic analysis, the structure may belong to the
low ductility class (DCL), and a q-value greater than 1.5
is not allowed. A q-value equal to 1.5 takes into account
the overstrength of the structure and, therefore, the expected
behavior is elastic. The second approach takes into account
the capability of the structure to resist the earthquake
through the inelastic behavior of its members. In this case
the structure has to belong to the DCM or DCH ductility
classes and q-values greater than 1.5 are allowed.
For high and medium ductility class structures the
behavior factor value is established on the basis of structural
type and structural ductility class as summarized in Table 2.
The value of q is larger when structural types that are
832
Table 2
Behavior factors q stated in EC8
Structural type
Moment-resisting frames (MRFs)
Diagonal braced frames (X-CBFs)
Chevron braced frames (V-CBFs)
Moment-resisting frames with concentric braces
Fig. 4. Required story strength of ten-story buildings having uniform mass
distribution. (a) T1 = 0.5 s, (b) T1 = 2.0 s.
E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840
Ductility class
Medium High
q = 4.0 q = 5 ααu (6.5)
1
q = 4.0 q = 4.0
q = 2.0 q = 2.5
q = 4.0 q = 4 ααu (4.8)
1
considered more prone to exhibit a high dissipative behavior
(MRFs) and high ductility members are used. The ratio
αu /α1 in Table 2 takes into account the redundancy of
the structure and is specified according to the geometrical
scheme of the system, e.g. 1.3 for moment-resisting frames
with more than one story and more than one span, 1.2 for
dual frames.
In BCJ steel structures are classified according to the
ductility of their members. In particular, BCJ identifies four
moment-resisting frame classes, namely FA, FB, FC and FD,
and three classes of braces, namely BA, BB and BC. The first
letter of the name indicates the structural type (F, moment-
resisting frames; B, braces). The second letter indicates the
ability of the members to dissipate energy (A, B, C, and
D correspond to members with high, good, fair and poor
ductility, respectively). The ductility class depends on the
width-to-thickness ratio of beams and columns in moment-
resisting frames and on the slenderness ratio for braces.
Details will be explicated in Section 3.6.
The BCJ structural characteristic factor Ds is established
as a function of member ductility for moment-resisting
frames: the smallest value (0.25) corresponds to the most
ductile frame (FA), while larger values have to be used
for frames having smaller member ductility. Much more
complex is the choice of Ds for braced frames. It is notable
that in Japan braces are always combined with backup
frames having significant seismic strength and stiffness. This
is very different from the European practice, in which braces
are inserted in gravity supporting frames. Therefore, Ds -
values stipulated in BCJ for such structures are related not
only to the ductility of the braces (brace class), but also to
the ductility of the backup frame (frame class), and to a
parameter β, equal to the ratio of the shear sustained by the
braces to the total shear strength (Table 3).
In EC8, concentrically braced frames are classified into
two categories: diagonal braced frames (X-CBFs) and
chevron braced frames (V-CBFs). Different design criteria
and values of q are stipulated for X- and V-CBFs. In frames
with diagonal braces, compressive braces are ignored, and
the strength is estimated in reference to the yield strength
of braces in tension. In chevron braced frames, braces both
in tension and compression are assumed to resist, and the
strength is estimated in reference to the buckling strength of
all the braces. The q-values stipulated for chevron braced
frames are equal to 2.5 and 2.0 for DCH and DCM ductility
 E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840 833

Table 3
Structural characteristic factors Ds stated in BCJ
Type of MRF Type of brace
BA or BB BC
β=0 β ≤ 0.3 0.3 < β ≤ 0.7 β > 0.7 β ≤ 0.3 0.3 < β ≤ 0.5 β > 0.5

FA 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.35 0.40

FB 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.35 0.40
FC 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.45
FD 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.40 0.45 0.50

classes, respectively. However, frames with diagonal braces

may be designed with q equal to 4.0 for both DCH and
DCM classes. Note that the distinction of X-CBFs in DCH
and DCM ductility classes is a mere formality because
they are designed by means of the same criteria and q-
value. The smaller values of q stated for V-CBFs may
be justified if their post-buckling behavior is analyzed. In
chevron braced frames, when the story shear force reaches
the design value, buckling occurs in the brace sustaining
compression. Because of reduction in the axial strength of
the brace in compression during the post-buckling phase,
the story shear strength of the frame may reduce below the
design value.
While in EC8 emphasis is given to the structural scheme,
the braced frame classification reported in BCJ is based
also on the ductility of the braces: the smallest structural
characteristic factor Ds is stipulated for frames with short
braces (BA), which have the most dissipative and stable
inelastic behavior, and larger values should be used for
frames with longer braces that belong to the BB and BC
classes.

3.5. Comparison of behavior factor

In Fig. 5(a), q-values stipulated in EC8 for MRFs

belonging to the DCH, DCM and DCL ductility classes
are compared with the inverse of the Ds -factor stated in
BCJ for FA, FB and FD frames, respectively. EC8 allows
a larger reduction of the elastic seismic forces than BCJ for
MRFs belonging to high and medium ductility classes. In
particular, behavior factors given in EC8 for DCH and DCM Fig. 5. Behavior factors comparison. (a) MRFs, (b) CBFs.
moment-resisting frames are about 60% and 20% larger than
1/Ds stated in BCJ for FA and FB frames.
Fig. 5(b) shows the comparison between behavior factors
q and 1/Ds stated for braced frames in EC8 and BCJ, q-value established in EC8 for X-CBFs designed by means
respectively. Behavior factors 1/Ds reported in Fig. 5(b) for of the capacity design criterion (DCH and DCM ductility
BA, BB and BC braces are the smallest provided by BCJ classes) is 60% larger than 1/Ds given by BCJ for frames
for each category. They have been obtained from Table 3 with BA braces. For chevron braced frames EC8 and BCJ
by coupling BA, BB and BC braces with the FD frame stipulate very comparable behavior factors.
(the least dissipative according to BCJ) and supposing that
the braces sustain almost the whole seismic force. Such a 3.6. Ductility of members
choice allows reproducing the usual bracing configuration in
Europe (backup frame supporting only vertical loads). The Local ductility of members should be consistent with the
comparison is reported separately for frames with diagonal expected demand. In this regard, EuroCode 3 (EC3) [14]
braces and chevron braced frames. Fig. 5(b) shows that the classifies the member cross-sections in four classes, namely
834 E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840

1, 2, 3 and 4, with reference to the width-to-thickness

ratio of flanges and web. EC8 relates cross-sectional classes
allowed for structural members with the q-value, and the
ductility class adopted (Table 4). According to BCJ, the
cross-sections of members in types FA, FB, FC and FD
frames have to fulfill different limits for the width-to-
thickness ratio.

Table 4
Cross-sectional requirement in EC8

Ductility class Behavior factor Cross-sectional classes allowed

DCL q ≥ 1.5 1, 2, 3 and 4

1.5 < q ≤ 2.0 1, 2 and 3
DCM
2.0 < q ≤ 4.0 1 and 2
DCH q > 4.0 1

Width-to-thickness requirements provided by European

codes (EC3 and EC8) and BCJ are compared in Fig. 6 for
wide flange cross-sections. The symbols c, t f , d, and tw
represent the half width and the thickness of the flange, the
inner depth and the thickness of the web. The symbol ε is
defined as follows,

235
ε= (10)
fy

where the 235 represents a reference yield stress in MPa

for the S235 and SS400 steel grades according to EC3
and BCJ, respectively, and f y is the yield stress of the
used steel (in MPa). In EC3, the width-to-thickness limit of
column webs is given as a function of the stress distribution
within the cross-section. In Fig. 6(d), α, which represents the
ratio between the depth of the web part in tension and the
outer depth of the cross-section, varies from 0.0 (pure axial
compression) to 0.5 (pure flexure).
The two codes provide substantially similar limits with
regard to the width-to-thickness ratio of the flanges of both
beams and columns (Fig. 6(a) and (b)). Limits regarding the
web are generally stricter in BCJ than in EC8 except for
Fig. 6. Width-to-thickness ratio requirements for wide flange cross-sections.
columns of pure compression (Fig. 6(c) and (d)). Energy
(a) Beam flange, (b) column flange, (c) beam web, (d) column web.
dissipation of steel frames is provided primarily by the
yielding of flanges; hence similar member ductility is
expected for the corresponding classification of EC8 and
BCJ. be not larger than 2.0. For X-CBFs, λ should be not smaller
With regard to braces, EC8 establishes a maximum limit than 1.3.
for the non-dimensional slenderness λ, defined as follows, The Japanese seismic code does not provide any
limitation on slenderness of braces. To take into account
λ
λ= (11a) their different inelastic behavior, braces are classified into
λy three ductility classes (BA, BB and BC) according to λ. In

E fact, short braces do not buckle even in cyclic loading and,
λy = π (11b) consequently, exhibit more stable and dissipative behavior
fy
relative to intermediate or long braces. Fig. 7 shows limits
where E is the steel Young’s modulus and λ is the on non-dimensional slenderness of the braces given in EC8
slenderness ratio. For both X-CBFs and V-CBFs, λ should and BCJ.
 E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840
Table 5
Limits on inter-story drift in EC8 and BCJ
EC8
Non-structural element Max ∆l allowed (%)
Brittle 0.50
Ductile 0.75
No interferinga 1.00
a Non-structural elements fixed in a way so as not to interfere with structural deformation or without non-structural elements.
Fig. 7. Slenderness requirements for braces.
4. Story drift requirement
According to EC8, the inter-story drift due to the
moderate earthquakes can not be larger than the limit values,
given as percentages of the story height, ∆l (Table 5). Such
limits depend on the type of non-structural elements for
their ability to accommodate the inter-story drifts without
damage.
Analogously, BCJ provides limits that have to be fulfilled
by the inter-story drifts due to the Level 1 seismic forces.
In particular, two limit values of ∆l are given in BCJ
(Table 5). The former and stricter limit is more commonly
applied. The latter applies when non-structural elements can
tolerate relatively large deformations of the structure without
damage.
When the maximum values ∆l listed in Table 5 are
 34
compared, it follows immediately that the two codes
establish analogous limits. Starting from this consideration,
the ratio of the EC8 to BCJ required stiffness (K req ) is
evaluated with reference to ordinary buildings (superscripts
E and J refer to EC8 and BCJ, respectively):
E amplification factor of the moment of inertia of the columns
K req νλSe ∆lJ ν 0.5
J
= = = = 2.50.
K req g∆lE 1C 0 Rt 1C 0
0.2
Supposing ∆lE = ∆lJ and similar values of λSe /g and Rt
(see Fig. 3(a) where the EC8 spectrum should be multiplied
by λ = 0.85 for short periods in reference to Section 3.1),
the stiffness required by EC8 is 2.5 times that required by
BCJ. In conclusion, EC8 is significantly more stringent than
BCJ with respect to the stiffness requirement.
5. Lateral strength of moment-resisting frames
For ductile moment-resisting frames, both EC8 and BCJ
allow large reductions in seismic forces in the ultimate limit
835
BCJ
Non-structural element Max ∆ l allowed (%)
Commonly used 0.50
Drift tolerant 0.83
Fig. 8. Lateral strength comparison between EC8 and BCJ moment-
resisting frames.
state design. As a result, the design is generally controlled
by the inter-story drift requirement specified for moderate
earthquakes. In this section, the actual story lateral strengths
of moment-resisting frames V RE and V RJ designed by means
of EC8 and BCJ are compared. The ratio between V RE and
V RJ is given by the following equation (refer to Appendix A
for the derivation),
V RE νλSe ∆lJ γ − 1
= 1− s (13)
V RJ g C Z Rt ∆lE γ
1 0
where s represents the contribution of columns to the
total deformation. The parameter γ  , which represents the
(12) involved by the capacity design criteria, is assumed to equal
1.53 according to Appendix A. Eq. (13) accounts for the
ratio between seismic forces corresponding to the moderate
earthquakes stipulated in EC8 and BCJ, the ratio between the
maximum values of inter-story drift angles allowed in BCJ
and EC8 (assumed equal to unity according to Section 4),
and the effect of the capacity design criterion stipulated in
EC8 and represented in the term between the parentheses.
The lateral strength ratio is reported in Fig. 8 with refer-
ence to the hard (type A and I) and soft (type D and III) soils
and as a function of the fundamental period of the structure.
PGA for a high seismicity zone is used (0.35g in EC8 and
0.4g in BCJ). Because ordinary buildings are considered, ν
is assumed 0.5. Z is fixed at 1.0. BCJ seismic shear factor
836 E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840

1C 0 is taken to be 0.2. Beams and columns are supposed to

have identical stiffness and therefore s is taken 0.5.
Fig. 8 shows that, as a consequence of the significantly
larger forces corresponding to the moderate earthquakes in
EC8, EC8 designed moment-resisting frames are stronger in
most cases. In particular, for short-period systems (T1 <
0.8 s) and for the soft soil, EC8 designed frames exhibit
about 70% larger lateral strength.
As discussed in Section 3.6, width-to-thickness require-
ments that control the member ductilities are similar be-
tween EC8 and BCJ. Nevertheless, EC8 gives behavior
factors larger than BCJ by up to 60% for moment-resisting
frames (as noted in Section 3.5). Although various sources
are plausible for this seemingly contradictory situation, the
writers contend that the level of conservatism contemplated
with respect to the collapse margin is one of the primary
sources. The strength design using behavior factors is not
necessarily so explicit as to the maximum deformations that
the structure shall sustain. To compensate for the uncer-
tainties, the trade-off between strength and ductility (de-
formation) inevitably includes conservatism. BCJ adopts a
strength that takes into account force redistributions due to
member yielding rather than the strength estimated based on
the elastic analysis. The BCJ capacity design approach is
not as rigorous as that adopted by EC8, although Japanese
columns are commonly designed to be stronger than adja-
cent beams, say by a factor of 1.2, to ensure a beam collapse
mechanism. These may result in smaller values for the be-
havior factors (meaning larger strength requirements) stip-
ulated in BCJ. The true answer to “which of the EC8 or
BCJ behavior factors is more rational” will become avail- Fig. 9. Lateral strength comparison between EC8 and BCJ braced frames.
able only after full characterizations of structural collapse (a) X-CBFs, (b) V-CBFs.
in earthquake conditions attached with inherent randomness
and uncertainties. This is indeed a focal subject in the de-
velopment of performance-based seismic design (for exam- With regard to frames with diagonal braces, the ratio
ple [15]). It is also notable that the actual lateral strength of V RE to V RJ is given by the following equations (refer to
is rather irrelevant to the strength requirements because of Appendix B for the derivation),
more stringent serviceability requirements as discussed in
∗ V RE Se λ
this section. This irrelevance may have lessened serious λ≤λ = [γ M0 (1 + χuJ )] (14a)
investigations into this factor. V RJ gq Z Rt Ds 2C 0
∗ V RE Se λ
λ>λ = (2γ M0 χbJ ) (14b)
6. Lateral strength of braced frames V RJ gq Z Rt 1C 0

As reported in Section 3.4, EC8 adopts different strength
criteria and different q-values between frames with diago-
nal braces and chevron braced frames. By contrast, the same
rules apply in the design of both frame types according to
BCJ. Two checks are required on the strength of the braces.
The first is met when the compressive braces do not ex-
ceed their buckling strength in the Level 1 seismic forces.
The second is met when the ultimate lateral strength of the
frame is not smaller than the shear force corresponding to
the Level 2 seismic forces. In this stage, braces in tension are
considered yielded, while braces in compression are consid-
ered buckled. Strength criteria are stipulated in the associ-
ated steel design standards (AIJ, 1973 and 1998 [16,17]).
where γ M0 = 1.1 is the safety factor stated in EC3 for
the evaluation of yielding strength. χbJ and χuJ , which
are a function of λ, are the buckling and post-buckling
strength of the braces normalized with respect to the yield
strength. These values are evaluated according to AIJ [17].
∗
The non-dimensional slenderness λ , about 1.8 as shown
in Appendix B, separates ranges in which brace design is
∗ ∗
controlled by Level 2 (λ ≤ λ ) or Level 1 (λ > λ ) seismic
force.
The ratio of V RE to V RJ is reported in Fig. 9(a) for the
medium soil (types B and II according to EC8 and BCJ,
respectively), high seismicity zone and frames with diagonal
braces characterized by T1 < 0.6 s. Because Japanese
 E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840
braces are always coupled with moment-resisting frames, it
is supposed that the surrounding frame belongs to the FD
category (least dissipative). Therefore, Ds is equal to 0.4
or 0.5 when λ is smaller or larger than 0.35, respectively.
Since diagonal braces are allowed by EC8 only when λ >
1.3 and λ < 2.0, only the solid line relationship is valid
in Fig. 9(a). This figure indicates that the lateral strength
required by EC8 is about 50% smaller than that required by
BCJ. Such a notable difference is attributed to the different
values of the seismic reduction factors adopted by the two
codes, i.e. q = 4.0, whereas 1/Ds = 2.0, for the examined
structures.
Comparison between chevron braced frames designed
by EC8 and BCJ is repeated in Fig. 9(b). In this case, the
ratio of V RE to V RJ is given by (refer to Appendix B for the
derivation),
∗ V RE Se λ γ M1 (1 + χuJ )
λ≤λ = (15a)
V RJ gq Z Rt Ds 2C 0 2χ E
∗ V RE Se λ γ M1 χbJ
λ>λ = . (15b)
V RJ gq Z Rt 1C 0 χ E
Fig. 9(b) shows the ratio given by Eqs. (15a) and (15b)
with reference to the chevron braced frame. Each parameter
in Eqs. (15a) and (15b) has the same value given in the
previous comparison except for the q-value, which is equal
to 2.5. The normalized buckling strength χ E given by
EC3 depends by the shape of the braces’ cross-section:
here wide flange shapes are considered. Elastic base shear
forces Se λ/g and Rt are very similar for T1 < 0.6 s and
medium soils (see Fig. 3(a) where EC8 spectrum should
be multiplied by λ to equal 0.85 according to Section 3.1).
Furthermore, q and 1/Ds stated respectively in EC8 and
BCJ are equal (2.5 for the most dissipative systems). In
the case of chevron braced frames, it is expected that the
differences between EC8 and BCJ design come primarily
from the criteria used for the evaluation of the story shear
strength. The largest difference is observed for long braces
(λ close to 2), where the actual lateral strength of the EC8
designed frame is almost 70% larger than that required by
BCJ. In fact, the actual ultimate story shear force given by
EC8 is much larger than the design value (corresponding
to the buckling of braces in compression). As an example,
the shear force–displacement relationship for a single-story
chevron braced frame with a pair of very slender braces
(λ = 2.0) is shown in Fig. 10. This figure shows that the
actual lateral strength that corresponds to the yielding of the
brace in tension is about 2.5 times the design story shear
force. It is notable that the actual strength of a pair of long
braces becomes significantly larger than the design strength
when its design strength is estimated based on the buckling
strength. Further discussion on this subject can be found
in [18].
837
Fig. 10. Shear force–displacement relationship for a single-story chevron
braced frame (λ = 2.0).
7. Concluding remarks
This paper compares and examines the provisions
stipulated in European (EC8) and Japanese (BCJ) seismic
codes. Moment-resisting frames and concentrically braced
frames are considered, and the following main remarks can
be made.
1. The unreduced spectra corresponding to the strong
ground motions stipulated in EC8 and BCJ are
comparable. With reference to the moderate earthquakes,
design spectra provided by EC8 are significantly larger.
For systems having T1 < 1.0 s, EC8 spectra may be up to
three times its BCJ counterpart.
2. Width-to-thickness requirements stipulated in EC8 and
BCJ are similar. Nevertheless, EC8 gives behavior factors
larger than BCJ by up to 60% for moment-resisting
frames.
3. Because of the large design seismic forces stipulated for
the serviceability limit state, the story drift requirement
in EC8 appears significantly more stringent than that
required in BCJ.
4. Seismic design of moment-resisting frames is generally
controlled by the serviceability requirements. Because
of the large seismic forces corresponding to moderate
ground motions stipulated in EC8, European frames hold
a larger lateral story strength, by up to 70% for soft soil
and systems having T1 < 0.8 s.
5. For frames with diagonal braces, the lateral story strength
required by BCJ is about twice that required by EC8.
Because EC8 and BCJ provide equivalent criteria for the
estimation of the brace axial strength, the difference is
attributed to the larger behavior factor q in EC8, which is
about twice that (1/Ds ) in BCJ.
6. The lateral story strength of European chevron frames is
significantly larger than its Japanese counterpart when
slender braces are used. It is about 70% larger in the
considered case. This difference occurs primarily because
838 E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840

the brace strength estimated by EC8 is significantly more Because of the great flexibility of moment-resisting
conservative than that estimated by BCJ. frames, Eq. (A.3) is not generally satisfied. Then, the
beams and columns should be stiffened. The necessary
amplification factor α E is given by the ratio of the actual
Acknowledgments inter-story drift to the limit value stated in EC8 as follows,
   

∆E
The first writer gratefully acknowledges the Japan νq ∆bE + γ c νq 1 − γ γ−1  s ∆
E
Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for giving him αE = = . (A.4)
generous financial support to study in Japan as a JSPS fellow ∆lE ∆lE
and conduct the research reported in this paper. Accordingly, the moments of inertia for the beams and
columns are α E IbE and α E γ  IcE , respectively, if they are
Appendix A. Derivation of Eq. (13) stiffened proportionally.
In BCJ, seismic base shear forces are given for Levels 1
The actual lateral strengths of European and Japanese and 2 as,
moment-resisting frames are evaluated. In the following
superscripts, E and J refer to EC8 and BCJ, respectively.
J
1V 1 = 1C 0 Z Rt W (A.5a)
With reference to ordinary buildings (γ I = 1.0) and J = Z Ds Rt W.
2V 1 (A.5b)
excluding very short-period structures, seismic design base
shear force can be written as follows, Z bJ , Z cJ , IbJ , IcJ , and ∆ J in BCJ are analogous to Z bE , Z cE ,
Se λW IbE , IcE , and ∆ E in EC8. The BCJ stiffness requirement can
V1E = (A.1)
gq be formulated as follows,
where W is the weight of the building. Hereafter, Z bE and
1C 0
Z cE represent the plastic modulus for beams and columns ∆ J ≤ ∆lJ . (A.6)
Ds
cross-sections required by the above condition, while IbE and
IcE are the corresponding moments of inertia. Furthermore, If Eq. (A.6) is not satisfied, IbJ , IcJ may be proportionally
supposing that the inter-story drift ∆ E demanded by V1E increased by the following amplification factor,
consists of two components, i.e., ∆bE = (1 − s)∆ E , given by
the beams, and ∆cE = s∆ E , given by the columns. To satisfy ∆J
1C 0
αJ = . (A.7)
the capacity design criteria, the design bending moment of Ds ∆lJ
the columns is obtained from,
Accordingly, the moments of inertia for the beams and
Md,c = MG,c + 1.1γov Ω M E,c (A.2)
columns are α J IbJ and α J IcJ , respectively.
where MG,c and M E,c are the bending moments due Supposing that moment-resisting frames fail in the beam
to vertical loads (often neglected) and seismic forces, collapse mechanism, the ratio between the actual shear
respectively; the coefficients 1.1 and γov = 1.25 take into resistances V RE (EC8) and V RJ (BCJ) is approximately equal
account the hardening and overstrength of the material, to the ratio between the plastic modulus of the beams,
respectively; and Ω is the minimum ratio between the actual
 3
flexural strength and the bending moment of the beams due V RE Z bE α E IbE 4

to the reference seismic forces, assumed to be 1.0 in this = =

V RJ Z bJ α J IbJ
derivation.
Therefore, the design bending moment of the columns is
 E  34
νq Ds ∆ E ∆lJ γ − 1 I
simplified as Md,c = 1.1γov M E,c = γ M E,c = 1.375M E,c . = 1− 
s bJ . (A.8)
∆ J ∆E γ Ib
Consequently, the plastic modulus and moment of inertia 1C0 l
of the columns should be increased to γ Z cE and γ  IcE ,
respectively. Because the moment of inertia and plastic Finally, considering that the inter-story drifts ∆ E (EC8)
modulus of the members are proportional to the fourth and ∆ J (BCJ) are proportional to the design shear [Eqs.
and third power of the member size, respectively, γ  = (A.1) and (A.5b) for EC8 and BCJ, respectively] and to the
4
γ 3 = 1.53 can be reasonably assumed. This increase of the inverse of the moment of inertia of the cross-sections (1/IbE
moment of inertia decreases the inter-story drift component and 1/IbJ for EC8 and BCJ, respectively), ∆ E /∆ J can be
associated with the columns ∆cE . written as follows,
According to EC8, the inter-story drift during the
∆E λSe IbJ
moderate earthquakes has to meet the following condition: = (A.9)

 ∆J gq Z Ds Rt IbE
∆E
νq ∆bE + c ≤ ∆lE . (A.3)
γ and from Eqs. (A.8) and (A.9), Eq. (13) is obtained.
 E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840 839

Appendix B. Derivation of Eqs. (14) and (15)

In frames with diagonal braces, the braces that sustain

compression are ignored, and the braces in tension are
assumed to carry the axial forces corresponding to yield
strengths N yE . The required cross-sections of the first story
braces are obtained from V1E = VyE , where V1E is obtained
from Eq. (A.1) and VyE is expressed as follows,

AbE f y
VyE = n N yE cos θ = n cos θ (B.1)
γ M0
where Ab is the area of the brace, γ M0 , equal to 1.1, is
the safety factor stated in EC3, n represents the number of
brace pairs arranged in the story, and θ is the angle between
the brace and the beam longitudinal axes. Accordingly, the Fig. 11. Ratio between Level 2 to Level 1 required area of braces according
to BCJ.
cross-section area of one brace is estimated as,
γ M0 Se λW
AbE = . (B.2) Z Rt Ds 2C 0W
gnq f y cos θ J = .
2 Ab n(1 + χuJ ) f y cos θ
(B.8)
In chevron braced frames, braces in both tension and
compression carry seismic forces, with their axial strength Fig. 11 shows the ratio between 2 AbJ and 1 AbJ . In this
assumed to equal the buckling strength NbE . The shear plot, it is supposed that the braces resist the entire seismic
strength is given by the following equation, shear force (β > 0.7) and the surrounding frame belongs to
the FD category (Ds = 0.4 or 0.5 when λ is smaller or larger
χ E AbE f y
VbE = 2n NbE cos θ = 2n cos θ (B.3) than 0.35, respectively). Level 2 controls the design in a wide
γ M1 range of non-dimensional slenderness. Only for very slender
∗ ∗
where χ E is the ratio between the buckling and yield braces (λ ≥ λ , with λ ≈ 1.8), BCJ Level 1 controls the
strength of the brace stipulated in EC3 as a function of the design.
brace slenderness, and γ M1 = 1.1 is the safety factor stated For frames with diagonal braces, Eqs. (14a) and (14b)
in EC3. Accordingly, the required cross-section area of one are obtained from Eqs. (B.2), (B.7) and (B.8). For chevron
brace is estimated as, braced frames, Eqs. (15a) and (15b) are obtained from Eqs.
(B.4), (B.7) and (B.8).
γ M1 Se λW
AbE = . (B.4)
2gnqχ E f y cos θ
As stated in Section 6, BCJ refers to brace buckling References
strength for Level 1 seismic forces, and a combination of
[1] CEN. EuroCode 8: Final draft of EuroCode 8: Design of structures
brace yield and post-buckling strengths for Level 2. For both
for earthquake resistance — Part 1: General rules, seismic
Levels 1 and 2 seismic forces, the required cross-sections are actions and rules for buildings. Bruxelles: European Committee for
obtained from 1V 1J = 1V bJ or 2V 1J = 2V uJ where 1V 1J and Standardization; 2003.
J [2] DIN. Buildings in German earthquake areas — Design loads, analysis
2V 1 are obtained from Eqs. (A.5a) and (A.5b), respectively,
and structural design of buildings. Berlin: German Institute for
and 1V bJ and 2V uJ are expressed as follows, Standardization; 2002 [in German].
[3] O.P.C.M. n. 3274, 20 / 03 / 2003. First principles concerning general
J
1V b = 2n NbJ cos θ = 2nχbJ AbJ f y cos θ (B.5) criteria for the seismic classification of the national territory and
technical provisions for constructions in seismic area. Rome; 2003 [in
J
2V u = n(N yJ + NuJ ) cos θ = n(1 + χuJ )AbJ f y cos θ (B.6) Italian].
[4] DIN. Buildings in German earthquake areas; design loads, analysis
where χbJ is the ratio between the buckling and yield and structural design; usual buildings. Berlin: German Institute for
strength of the brace, and χuJ is the ratio between the post- Standardization; 1981 [in German].
buckling and yield strength of the brace, both specified in [5] D.M.LL.PP., 16 January 1996. Technical provisions for constructions
in seismic area. Rome; 1996 [in Italian].
AIJ. Evaluation of χbJ and χuJ is also reported by Tada
[6] BSL. Building standard law. 2000 [in Japanese].
et al. [11]. Accordingly, the cross-sectional areas required
[7] BCJ. Structural provisions for building structures. 1997 edition—
to sustain Levels 1 and 2 seismic shear forces are obtained Tokyo: Building Center of Japan; 1997 [in Japanese].
as follows, [8] ICBO. Uniform building code. International conference of building
officials. Whittier; 1997.
Z Rt 1C 0W
J
1 Ab = . (B.7) [9] ICC. International building code. International Code Council,
2nχbJ f y cos θ Whittier; 2003.
840 E.M. Marino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840
[10] Nakashima M, Roeder CW, Maruoka Y. Steel moment frames
for earthquakes in United States and Japan. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 2000;128(8):861–8.
[11] Tada M, Fukui T, Nakashima M, Roeder CW. Comparison of
strength capacity for steel building structures in the United States and
Japan. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology 2003;
4(1):37–49.
[12] Midorikawa M, Okawa I, Iiba M, Teshigawara M. Performance-based
seismic design code for buildings in Japan. Earthquake Engineering
and Engineering Seismology 2003;4(1):15–25.
[13] Pan P, Zamfirescu D, Nakashima M, Nakayasu N. Base-Isolation
design practice in Japan: Introduction to the post-Kobe approach.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2005;9(1):147–71.
[14] CEN. EuroCode 3: Design of steel structures — Part 1–1: General
rules and rules for buildings, ENV 1993–1–1. Bruxelles: European
Committee for Standardization; 1993 [in Italian].
[15] Performance-based seismic design concepts and implementation. In:
Proceedings of an international workshop. PEER Report 2004/15.
Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2004.
[16] AIJ. Design standard for steel structures. Tokyo: Architectural
Institute of Japan; 1973 [in Japanese].
[17] AIJ. Guidelines for limit state design of steel structures. Tokyo:
Architectural Institute of Japan; 1998 [in Japanese].
[18] Marino EM, Nakashima M. A new tension-compression design
approach for chevron braced frames. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics [submitted for publication].