First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology

(a joint event of the 13th ECEE & 30th General Assembly of the ESC)
Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September 2006
Paper Number: 373

PROTOTYPE FOR EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

COMBINING STEEL FRAMES WITH LOCAL MATERIALS

Thomas M. SWAIN1 and Jochen SCHWARZ2

SUMMARY

While steel is frequently used in infrastructure, high-rise and industrial buildings, presently it is
rarely applied for small residential units, one reason being the high degree of preprocessing
necessary. However, it is proven that steel is an appropriate material for achieving high seismic
resistance. The solution presented in this paper seeks to eliminate economical disadvantages by
providing a modular system, using standard elements to assemble residential units of varying size
and shape. For the basic structural steel system eccentric bracings are recommended. While
moment-resisting frames were discarded as uneconomic, doubts about the ductility of
concentrically braced frames are raised, resulting in the recommendation for restricting the
behaviour factor for such systems. The steel frame is flexible, allowing for storey drifts up to 10
cm; the infill walls are merely required to support their own weight, but must not interact in a
destructive way with the steel frame, which is achieved by movement gaps. Key elements of the
system are special uniaxial couplings between the walls and the steel frame. Reinforcement of the
walls by application of synthetic grids is recommended in areas with very high hazard. Tests
carried out in October 2004 confirmed the functionality of the prototype system.

The system can be applied to small or medium-size residential homes (up to 2 stories) in
earthquake regions around the world. While the steel frame should be provided by a specialised
steel company, local materials, techniques and labour can be used for secondary parts. An example
of an architectural design for Turkey, which retains elements of local architecture and identity, is
shown.

The paper summarises results from the research project Steel Earthquake Design carried out by the
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar in cooperation with Rudolstaedter Stahlbau GmbH and funded by
the German Ministry of Economy.

1. INTRODUCTION

Steel is widely accepted as a favourable construction material for achieving high earthquake-resistance.
However, only few small-scale residential structures have been built with steel frames, although these types of
buildings have been responsible for a major part of the life losses in previous earthquakes. Steel construction
requires a high degree of prefabrication and sets high demands on the exactness of the elements. The quality of
steel structures usually is high. The cost for the high effort in planning and production can normally only be
justified for large-scale buildings.

1
Earthquake Damage Analysis Center (EDAC), Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Marienstr. 7A, 99421 Weimar, Deutschland
Email : thomas.swain@bauing.uni-weimar.de
2
Earthquake Damage Analysis Center (EDAC), Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Marienstr. 7A, 99421 Weimar, Deutschland
Email: jochen.schwarz@bauing.uni-weimar.de

1
A need for earthquake-resistant residential homes has become evident at many major earthquakes in the past
years, most recently at the Oct. 2005 Kashmir earthquake with the magnitude of 7.6, but also at other events
(e.g. M 9.0 earth-/seaquake in Dec. 2004 near Sumatra, Indonesia, M 6.6 earthquake in Dec. 2003 in Bam, Iran),
where many buildings of that type have shown high vulnerability. Mostly, at the roots of the catastrophes, lie
social and economic problems, leading to negligence of the building stocks in spite of the known high seismic
hazard. Although even in problematic countries code demands tend to be strict, this is of little use if they are not
enforced by the authorities and not respected by the construction industry.

In the SEQD – Steel Earthquake Design – project the high-quality material steel was applied to develop an
earthquake-resistant solution for the neglected house type of residential homes. The costs are kept at affordable
levels by providing a modular system with standard elements, to which walls and other non-structural elements
are added using local materials and techniques.

2. DEVELOPMENT AND TEST OF PROTOTYPE SYSTEM

2.1 Basic Concept

Standard solutions for achieving sufficient horizontal strength in steel systems are the moment-resisting frame
(MRF), concentric diagonal bracings or eccentric diagonal bracings. At the initial stage of the project, none of
the standard types of the structural steel were ruled out. Generally, steel structures tend to be more flexible than
RC or masonry structures, perhaps with the exception of concentrically braced systems. The most economic
solution was seen in a flexible system which uses the natural ductility of steel to the greatest possible extent.

A flexible structure, although designed strong enough to withstand the maximum expected seismic impact, may
still exceed the deformation limit given in Eurocode 8, Part 1 (EN 1998-1: 2004 provided by CEN, the European
Committee for Standardization) by the damage limitation requirement. This rule basically restricts the horizontal
deformations to 1.5 % interstorey drift at the maximum seismic event (or 0.75 % at an event with higher
probability than the maximum event). The reason for this requirement is to avoid excessive damage and to
ensure serviceability of buildings which are important for civil protection in case of a catastrophe. It is different
from the conventional serviceability limit for “everyday” use of a structure. If the limit interstorey drift is
exceeded, the damage limitation must be proven by ensuring that the non-structural elements including walls,
installations etc. are able to sustain the expected deformations with little or no damage. Thus the main challenge
was seen in designing a system in which the walls, being the main non-structural elements in the proposed
system, would remain intact despite movement and deformation of the structural frame. A prototype system
which fulfilled four basic characteristics was developed (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Basic concept for integrating walls in flexible system

2
 a) Test Setup (Outer and inner frame) b) Innovative design of wall/frame coupling
Figure 2: Prototype system

a) Beam/column-connection b) Column footing

Figure 3: Frame connections

a) Light adobe wall with polyester grid b) Brick wall with polypropylene grid
Figure 4: Walls with synthetic reinforcement grids

2.2 Prototype System

The prototype was designed to fulfil the four required characteristics as shown in Fig. 1. It was not intended to
test the horizontal bracing system of the structure, as this was not regarded as the key problem. The test structure
shown in Fig. 2 a) was erected in an assembly hall of the Rudolstädter Stahlbau GmbH in October 2004. The
outer frame served merely as a support for the hydraulic cylinders used for loading the structure, so that RC
foundations could be avoided. The flexible connections depicted in Fig. 3 a) and Fig. 3 b) were used for the
interior frame, which was the actual test frame. Both connections only have a single row of bolts and small cap
plates or centring plates. Each frame is secured and stabilised by thin tension-only diagonal bars. The walls were
of two types: Masonry made of perforated bricks of average strength and light adobe (light bricks made of clay
mixed with extruded grains).

3
The four required characteristics illustrated in Fig. 1 are achieved by following measures:
(1) Uniaxial wall/frame couplings
The connection was constructed as shown in Fig. 2 b). Perpendicular to the wall plane, displacements of
the frame and wall are coupled. Parallel to the wall plane relative displacements are not restricted.
(2) Movement gaps between walls and columns
Movement gaps between frame and walls allow for the undisturbed deformation of the steel frame.
These structural gaps must be filled either with soft material (e. g. insulation material) or used as
vertical window slits. The solution of this problem strongly depends on architectural aspects.
(3) Synthetic reinforcement grids for walls
Although the walls are held at the foot and the top and are not loaded vertically, if high earthquake
forces act and the wall material is weak, they might collapse due to inertial forces caused by their innate
mass. To cover this potential problem, two variations of reinforcement were tested: A reinforcement
grid provided by the company RichterGard (www.richtergard.com) made of extruded polypropylene
wrapped around one of the brick walls can be seen in Fig. 4 b). A grid used for geotechnical purposes
provided by Naue (www.naue.de) made of polyester (Secugrid 80/80 Q6) is seen in combination with
an adobe wall in Fig. 4 a). Both grid products were applied both on an adobe wall and on a wall of
perforated bricks. To achieve a good bond between wall and grid they were fixed at intervals of 20-30
cm with capped plugs and nails (RichterGard provides render nails for the system, but also requires the
use of a special rendering plaster to ultimately act as the bond. Unfortunately, the time schedule for the
tests did not allow for using the rendering plaster, which would have required at least a week to dry and
develop full strength.). The reinforcement grids were wrapped around the tops of each wall. Originally,
the grids were planned to be shoved underneath the wall and overlapped at one side. This proved
difficult to carry out, so the grids were simply cut off at the base of the walls.
(4) Polystyrene layer underneath wall
By placing a polystyrene layer of 2 cm thickness underneath the walls small out-of-plane rotations can
occur without causing damage. Horizontal displacements are restrained.

2.3 First Test Line

The first tests were conducted in order to verify the deformability of the prototype system and the functionality
of the uniaxial coupling between wall and frame. The principle of this test line is illustrated in Fig. 5 a). Two
hydraulic cylinders are placed against strong steel beams which connect to the outer frame. The interior, flexible
frame is pushed inwards and distorted. The tension diagonals in the interior frame acting parallel to the pushed
direction are removed temporarily in order to carry out this task. First, the structure was loaded in the North-
South-axis up to a top displacement of 7 cm. In the next phase the load was reduced to zero and then increased in
the opposite direction, after the hydraulic cylinders were moved. At this point the diagonals along the North-
South-axis were inserted, fixing the frame in the distorted state. Finally, after changing the position of the
hydraulic cylinders again and removing the diagonals in East-West-direction temporarily, forces were exerted in
this direction, also up to a top displacement of 7 cm. The final state of the interior frame, thus deformed in both
its main axes, is shown in Fig. 5 b).

a) Principle b) Ultimate deformation state

Figure 5: First test line

4
The uniaxial wall/frame-coupling behaved in this process as intended; flexible parallel to the wall, fixed
perpendicular to it. Fig. 15 a) shows the state of one coupling at the maximum displacement of 7 cm. The gaps
between walls and columns prevented any damage in the walls or interference of the walls in the overall stiffness
behaviour. In perpendicular direction, the walls showed sufficient rotational capacity and had no problems
adapting to the induced deformation of the frame, securely held at top and footings.

2.4 Second Test Line

The second sequence of tests was directed at determining the strength of the reinforced walls. One after the
other, all four walls were loaded horizontally with a hydraulic cylinder positioned in the centre (see illustration
Fig. 6 a) and Fig. 6 b). As expected, the adobe walls were weaker than masonry walls. Both types of
reinforcement grids had a positive effect on the walls, improving the strength and the deformability. Especially
the masonry walls deformed extremely (up to 0.5 m centre displacement) before collapse, as seen in Figs. 7 a)
and b). The two adobe walls failed due to the pulling-out of the nail plugs in the lower half of the wall. The
masonry walls finally collapsed due to tensile failure of the synthetic grids. The concentrated forces caused by
the nails had a negative effect here.

The measured force-displacement relationships for the four walls are shown in Fig. 8. An assessment of the
earthquake resistance of the walls can be made through application of a ductility factor. Assuming a design
spectrum with PGA of 4 m/s² and soft soil (soil class D) according to EC 8, which corresponds to the maximum
intensity in a major magnitude 7 earthquake, such walls would suffer a maximum momentary load of 30 kN.
Full, unperforated bricks would even cause a maximum load of 50 kN. As a static load, 30 kN would lead to
failure of the brick walls as constructed in the tests. A behaviour factor of 3, which seems justifiable considering
the given force-deformation-curves, would reduce the force to 10 kN, thus attesting the walls sufficient strength
by a small margin. Undoubtedly, improvements in the application of the reinforcement, e. g. wrapping the grids
around the wall continuously or rendering with the plaster provided by RichterGard, would further improve the
performance of the walls significantly.

a) Principle b) Setting of load cylinder with load spread

Figure 6: Setup second test line

a) Brick wall with polypropylene grid b) Brick wall with polyester grid
Figure 7: Ultimate deformation states of brick walls

5
 Figure 8: Measured Force-displacement relationship in wall strength tests

3. EARTHQUAKE REGION TURKEY

The structural system developed in the Steel Earthquake Design-project can be applied to buildings of varying
size, shape and architecture, as it merely provides a scaleable basic frame. For adaption to a specific earthquake
region this system has to be integrated in a complete architectural solution. This task was carried out for Turkey,
a country with very high seismic hazard and with a great need for strengthening of the building stock.

The architecture of the projected residential homes should satisfy local architectural and cultural requirements.
Architects were consulted and specific literature researched. [Geenen, 2004] provided an extensive analysis of
the Turkish housing and building market. Modern constructions in the discussed region show a tendency towards
a “faceless” international style, with regional architectural characteristics disappearing. In this project it was
decided to counteract this development by reintroducing certain local traditional elements. For instance in the
new design of a two-storey Turkish Family house (see Fig. 9), the possibility is explicitly included of placing an
interior hall or court at the backside of the building. This court however is not completely surrounded by the
house, but opens towards the garden. The irregularity in the floor plan introduced by the open court can be
dissolved by placing the main structural bracing elements symmetrically.

Figure 9: Architectural design of single family home for Turkish market

6
 4. EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

In a first stage of investigation, moment-resisting frames (MRFs) were ruled out, as they had resulted in much
higher steel usage (approx. 50%) than braced systems. The following results of numerical analyses concentrated
on the comparison of various eccentrically and concentrically braced steel frames. The bracing systems were
applied on a structural “core” unit of a modular structural system for a two-storey house, such as the building in
Fig. 9. The prototype system was designed as a flexible system, allowing for high displacements while the
system remains intact and undamaged. Again, seismic loads with a PGA of 4 m/s² and soil class D were
assumed. In modelling the concentrically braced system, one uncertainty lay in the question how to define the
plastic deformation capacity of the diagonal bracing. In the presented calculations, two extremes were assumed:
• no plastic deformation capacity
• a plastic deformation capacity of 6 % for the entire length of the diagonal (derived from the strain at
ultimate stress, which usually is around 12 %, divided by a safety factor of 2)

a) Deformation state and stresses b) Displacement time history

Figure 10: Concentrically braced core unit

a) Deformation state and stresses b) Displacement time history

Figure 11: Eccentrically braced core unit

a) Deformation state and stresses b) Displacement time history

Figure 12: Concentrically braced core unit with assumed high ductility

7
 a) Plastic deformation of screw thread b) Tension crack
Figure 13: Failed steel bar in tension test

A concentric system with no plastic deformability and thus without any ductility must be designed for purely
elastic behaviour and accordingly leads to a strong, stiff and heavy system with 4.76 tons of steel mass
(performance results in Fig. 10). The eccentric system (Fig. 11), in which plastic deformations occur
predominantly in the beams, yields a much lighter structure and reduces the necessary steel input to 3.56 tons.
However, the best performance according to this numerical analysis is achieved by the system with high-
ductility concentric bracings (Fig. 12), leading to a steel mass of 3.16 tons. The following section discusses
whether a high plastic deformability of 6 % for an entire diagonal bracing is a realistic assumption.

5. DUCTILITY OF CONCENTRIC BRACINGS

During the presented project a structural steel system with concentric bracings emerged as preferred solution
from the constructive point of view, because it is comparatively simple to assemble. Concentrically connected
diagonal bracings are generally awarded medium to high behaviour factors in international earthquake design
codes. For instance, Eurocode 8 assigns a behaviour factor of 4, thus reducing the design force to a quarter. In an
effort to reliably ascertain the plastic deformation capacity of concentric bracings in steel frames, simple strain
tests on several steel bars were carried out. The round steel bars, of 10 mm width and 3.5 m length (steel class Fe
360B acc. to EC 3 or ST 37-2 acc. to DIN 18800), had been used as diagonal bracings in the test structure
described in section 2. The bars failed by tension cracking at a maximum strain of 0.7 %, which is very low. The
plastic deformation concentrated on a short part of the screw threads, which had weakened the resistance of the
section (see Fig. 13). However, as no diagonal bracing will be totally free of imperfections, the same effect of
concentrated as opposed to spread plasticity is likely to occur in other brace types, too. The outcome of these
tests was taken as a first indication that the plastic deformation capacity of diagonal braces might be
overestimated by the codes.

A literature research concerning the observed behaviour in tests or damage cases [Schwarz, Swain and
Ubaidillah, 2005] was performed. While it emerged that information on this subject is fairly scarce, some
interesting sources were found, e. g. a report by [Tremblay, Archambault and Filiatrault, 2003], showing that the
ductility to be expected from diagonal bracings (here with cold-formed rectangular hollow sections ) made out of
steel with normal toughness (CSA-G40.21M-350W; Fy = 350 MPa; Fu = 450 MPa) does not exceed 4, as shown
in Fig. 14 a).

Using equation (1) derived from the equal energy model, which is illustrated in Fig. 14 b) and is applicable for
structures of average or high stiffness with periods ranging between 0.1 s and 0.5 s, a ductility Du/Dy of 4 leads
to a behaviour factor q of 2.65. In consequence this means that unless a higher plastic deformation capacity can
be proven, a cautious designer should not use a behaviour factor higher than 2.65 on a concentrically braced
structure. For multiple-storey structures, this number would likely be even lower.

Δ el 2Δ u
q= = −1 (1)
Δy Δy

8
 a) Behaviour of concentric frame [Tremblay, b) Equal energy model
Archambault and Filiatrault, 2003]
Figure 14: Test results and model for deriving behaviour factor

6. CONCLUSIONS

A prototype of a flexible steel system for small to medium residential buildings was successfully developed and
tested. The design includes innovative solutions for all connections: Beam/column, column supports and
beam/wall. The basic steel system can be combined with walls from all kinds of local materials. The walls can be
effectively strengthened with synthetic grids in order to avoid out-of-plane failure.

The first test line, carried out in a special assembly hall of the Rudolstädter Stahlbau company (www.rsb-
rudolstadt.de) confirmed the functionality and high deformability of the structure. The uniaxial beam/wall
couplings performed as intended, allowing for relative movement parallel to the wall plane, yet linking the
movement between wall and frame in perpendicular direction. In the second test line the strengthening effect of
the walls by means of polyester or polypropylene grids was proven.

During the setup and test phases important practical experience was gathered, and detailed modifications were
developed where the system had not performed satisfactory. The revised solution for the uniaxial coupling,
which facilitates construction and improves the reliability, is shown in Fig. 15 b). It was observed that in order to
obtain the full strengthening effect from the synthetic grids, it is necessary to establish a better bond between
wall surface and grid, which can be achieved by wrapping the grid not only over the top, but also underneath the
wall. Alternatively, the use of the special bonding plaster provided by RichterGard is recommended.

a) Original design b) Revised design

Figure 15: Wall/beam coupling

9
The constructive and architectural requirements are combined in a design which includes classical elements of
the cultural region. The project is also presented in more detail in the project report [Burkhardt, Friedrich, Swain,
Schwarz and Werner, 2005] and a publication [Swain, Schwarz, Burkhardt, Friedrich, and Werner, 2005].

On a final note, the authors would like to express their opinion that, based on the results from several strain tests
and information taken from a literature research on observed plastic behaviour of steel bracings, the ductility of
concentrically braced steel frames should not be overestimated. While seismic design codes generally award
such structures medium behaviour factors around the value of 4, an analysis of the available examples of
documented real behaviour suggests maximum values of approx. 2.5. This factor may probably be increased for
high-ductility steel , which would have to be verified by corresponding tests. The reason for the unfavourable
performance is that concentric bracings react with concentrated plasticity on a very small fraction of the total
length of the element.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The project Steel Earthquake Design was funded by the German Ministry of Economy as a cooperation of a
medium-sized private company with a scientific institution, the partners being Rudolstädter Stahlbau GmbH
(www.rsb-rudolstadt.de) and Bauhaus-Universität Weimar (www.uni-weimar.de).

Scientific engineers involved in the project apart from the authors were Prof. Frank Werner, Torsten Friedrich
and Axel Burkhardt from the Department of Steel Structures. The scientific engineers from the Bauhaus-
Universität Weimar would like to thank Mr. Batzke and Mrs. Nöthlich from Rudolstädter Stahlbau for the
friendly and effective cooperation during all phases of the project duration. The detailed report given by Dr.
Geenen [Geenen, 2004] regarding regional house types in Turkey provided important impulses for the initial
orientation of the project. The authors also owe thanks to the Experimental Department (led by Mr. Vogler,
affiliated to the Institute of Structural Engineering, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar), and here especially to Mr.
Dabbert and Mr. Wolf, for the competent realisation and instrumental measuring during the tests. The donation
of strengthening grids of synthetic materials by the companies RichterGard (www.richtergard.com), represented
by Mr. Moscaritolo, and Naue (www.naue.de) represented by Mr. Horstmann, was greatly appreciated.

8. REFERENCES

Burkhardt, A., Friedrich, T., Swain, T.M., Schwarz, J., Werner, F., Nöthlich, P., Batzke, H. (2005), Sachbericht
zum Verbund-Forschungsprojekt “Steel Earthquake Design”, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Weimar.
Geenen, E.M. (2004), Die Bauweise und die Wohnkultur in erdbebengefährdeten Gebieten der Türkei, Bauhaus-
Universität Weimar, Kiel.
Swain, T.M., Schwarz, J., Burkhardt, A., Friedrich, T., Werner, F. (2005), Projekt Steel Earthquake Design
(SEQD) – Erdbebenresistentes Stahlbausystem für Wohnhäuser, Bautechnik, 82, n° 8, 549-558.
Tremblay, R., Archambault, M.H., Filiatrault, A. (2003), Seismic Response of Concentrically Braced Steel
Frames Made with Rectangular Hollow Bracing Members, Journal of Structural Engineering, 129, n° 12,
1626-1635.
Schwarz, J., Swain, T., Ubaidillah (2005), Research in literature concerning plastic behaviour of diagonal braces
in steel structures, unpublished internal paper, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Weimar

10