Structures 25 (2020) 113–126

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Seismic performance assessment of tubular diagrid structures with varying T

angles in tall steel buildings
Mahdi Heshmatia, Alireza Khatamia, , Hamzeh Shakiba
⁎

a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Diagrid system has emerged as an innovative structural system with an aesthetic view in the design of tall
Diagrid system buildings. In this study, seismic performance of 36-story diagrid structures with varying angles are evaluated
Pushover using pushover and nonlinear time history analysis. Furthermore, in order to evaluate the effect of diagrid core
Nonlinear time history analysis on behavior of structures, interior gravity frames are replaced with diagrid frames. The results of pushover
Seismic performance
analyses demonstrate that diagrid core can enhance the hardening behavior of structures when the angles of
High-rise buildings
perimeter panels are lower or equal than those of the core compared to the conventional diagrids. In addition,
core diagrids provide safe margins between the damage states under lateral loading. Nonlinear time history
analyses are then performed to assess inter story drift ratio, residual drift, energy dissipation and hinges dis-
tribution of structures. It is observed that most of the models perform well under rare ground motions and hinges
are well spread throughout the height among different elements and diagrid structures are capable of undergoing
large deformations under rare earthquakes Large portion of input energy are dissipated by diagonal members
and as the slope of exterior diagonals exceed that of perimeter tube, diagrid core efficiently participates in
dissipating energy.

1. Introduction
Up to the present day, various developments have been arisen to
improve the performance behavior of buildings [1–5]. Diagrid system is
an innovative structural system for high rise structures with its lattice-
like aesthetics and high-efficiency structural performance. Literally, the
word “diagrid” is made of two words “diagonal” and “grid” [6]. In this
system, all exterior vertical columns are eliminated in contrast to
conventional structural systems such as braced frames and framed-tube
systems. The diagrid frame is subdivided into repetitive modules along
the height and forms a diamond-shaped structure. According to Fig. 1a
showing a 6-story module of a diagrid structure, large diagonal mem-
bers and horizontal ring beams create a triangular configuration. As a
result, Gravity loads and lateral forces are resisted simultaneously by
the triangular shape of diagrid system. In diagrid configuration, lateral
forces are resisted by compressive and tensile axial capacity of diag-
onals as represented in Fig. 1b, while in moment resisting frames
(MRFs) lateral forces result in large bending moment and axial forces in
columns.
In recent years, diagrid structural system has attracted the attention
of researchers and engineers due to its structural efficiency and archi-
tectural shape [7]. Diagrid has been used in high rise buildings around
the world such as the 13-story IBM building in Pittsburgh, the Swiss Re
building in London, the Hearst tower in New York and the Guangzhou
International Finance Center. In the past decade, extensive research has
been carried out on the optimized design of diagrid systems. Moon et al.
[8] proposed a stiffness-based method for preliminary design of diag-
onal cross sections. Also, Montuori et al. [9] determined diagonal
members based on strength design approach. Extensive researches were
carried out to find the optimum angle of diagonals in terms of steel
consumption and structural efficiency. Moon et al. [8] concluded that
for diagrid buildings with aspect ratio of 5 and 7, the optimal range of
diagrid angles were 55° to 65° and 65° to 75°, respectively. Kim and Lee
[10] found that uniform diagonal angle between 60° to 70° was the
most efficient under seismic loads as well as gravity loads. Zhang et al.
[11] presented diagrid structures in which diagonal angles varied from
bottom to top of the structure in order to reduce steel material. They
introduced two empirical formulas to estimate optimal top and bottom
diagonal angles under wind load for diagrids with aspect ratios between
3.6 and 9. In addition, diagrids with curved diagonals were investigated
by Zhao and Zhang [12]. Montuori et al. [13] investigated the necessity
of the secondary bracing system (SBS) in a 90-story diagrid building to
prevent multistory buckling modes of diagonals and excessive inter-
story drift. To improve the seismic performance of diagrid structures,

⁎
Correspondence author.
E-mail address: a.khatami@modares.ac.ir (A. Khatami).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.02.030
Received 11 January 2020; Received in revised form 16 February 2020; Accepted 28 February 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Heshmati, et al.
Fig. 1. A 6-story module of diagrid frame: (a) Configuration and its compo-
nents, (b) Axial forces in diagonals due to lateral force.
Moon et al. [10] used buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) instead of
conventional steel diagonals. In addition, Moghaddasi and Zhang [14],
and Li et al. [15] used replaceable shear-link fuse elements to dissipate
earthquake energy.
In tubular structures, the distribution of axial forces in the perimeter
columns due to lateral loads are not linear which is known shear lag
phenomenon. In this regard, Leonard [16] concluded that shear lag
effects in diagrid buildings were significantly less than framed-tube
buildings. Shi and Zhang [17] introduced a simplified approach to
consider diagonal optimal angle and shear lag effects in preliminary
design of diagrid structures.
Asadi and Adeli [18] concluded that steel diagrid structures had
larger initial stiffness compared to CBFs and MRFs, and ductility of
diagrids could be an issue for diagrids in high seismic regions. In ad-
dition, diagrids were practical and efficient structural systems for mid-
to high-rise buildings. More discussion about diagrid systems could be
found in the review papers by Asadi and Adeli [19], and Liu et al. [7].
In recent years, some scholars [10,15,18,20–22] investigated the
seismic performance of steel diagrid structures in which lateral resisting
systems were located only on the perimeter of the structure. The aim of
this study is to evaluate the seismic inelastic demands of tall steel di-
agrid structures through pushover and nonlinear time history analyses
under rare ground motions. In addition, this study focuses on in-
vestigating the seismic behavior of tall steel diagrid structures with
various exterior diagonal angles and enhancing capability of diagrids by
addition of diagrid cores. Firstly, nonlinear static analyses are per-
formed to assess local and global response of diagrid structures. Then
nonlinear time history analyses are performed under far-field ground
motions of FEMA P695 to obtain important criteria such as inter story
drift ratio, residual drift, and energy dissipation of diagrid archetypes.
2. Preliminary structural design of archetypes
In this study, considered diagrid structures are 36-story with a
uniform story height of 4.0 m. All archetypes are symmetric and include
6 bays of 6.0 m in each direction. Fig. 2 shows plan view and elevation
of buildings. The uniform diagonal angles for exterior frames are con-
sidered to be 53°, 69°, 76° and 79° in which internal frames are assumed
to be pin-connected and only carry gravity loads. On the other hand,
diagonal slope of 69° is assumed for interior diagrid frame in tube-in-
tube diagrid structures. As represented in Fig. 2 diagrid structures are
divided into 2-, 4-, 6- and 8- story modules along the height. The uni-
form dead load of 5 KN/m2, live load of 3 KN/m2, and partition load of
1 KN/m2 are applied on the floors. All archetypes were designed for
SDC Dmax of FEMA P695 [23] with SDS (short-period spectral accel-
eration) of 1.0g and SD1 (1-second spectral acceleration) of 0.6g.
114
Structures 25 (2020) 113–126
Diagonal elements were made of steel grade 50 with Fy = 345 MPa
and Fu = 450 MPa. Also steel material with Fy = 250 MPa and
Fu = 400 MPa is used for beams. The response spectrum analysis is
applied for seismic analysis based on ASCE/SEI 7-16 [24] requirements.
Seismic performance factors including response modification factor
(R), over strength factor (Ω0), and deflection amplification factor (Cd)
are assumed equal to 3.0 based on previous researches [10,25,26]. This
assumption is taken because diagrid systems were not recognized as
earthquake resisting systems in building codes. Load and Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD) requirements of AISC 360-16 are applied to de-
sign diagonals, beams and floor beams similar to previous studies (Kim
and Lee [10], Asadi et al. [27], Asadi and Adeli [18,21], Heshmati and
Aghakouchak [22], and Kim and Kong [28]).
Width-to-thickness (D/t) and slenderness ratio (λ) of diagonals are
limited by Eq. (1) to prevent local and global buckling of diagonals as
prescribed in AISC 341 [29] for highly ductile members.
D/t < 0.038E/Fy , = KL/r < 4 E / Fy (1)
where D and t are diameter and thickness of diagonals, respectively. E
and Fy are modules of elasticity and yield stress of steel material, re-
spectively. Also K, L and r are the effective length factor, the unbraced
length and the radius of gyration of inclined members. In this study,
nodal connections are supposed to have adequate stiffness and re-
sistance to prevent connection failure before diagonal rupture [7,22].
Finally, maximum inter-story drift of structural models were limited to
0.02hsx in accordance with ASCE 7-16 [24]. Also variation of stories’
stiffness were checked according to ASCE 7-16 [24] to prevent ex-
istence of soft stories. Table 1 lists designed sections for tube-in-tube
and typical diagrid structures. In typical diagrid building, interior
gravity frame in the table are replaced with diagrid core. Pipe and built-
up box sections are chosen for diagonals and columns, respectively.
Also standard I-shaped sections are used for beams. It should be noted
that typical diagrid structures are labeled with exterior diagonal angle.
For instance, E76° represents diagrid archetype with exterior slope of
76° with horizon. Moreover, E76°I69° shows the model with exterior
and interior diagonal angle of 79° and 69°, respectively. Eigenvalue
analyses were conducted to obtain dynamic characteristics of the
modeled structures. The periods of first 8 natural vibration modes are
listed in the Table 2. It can be observed that natural period of structures
increase as diagonal slope increases. In addition, fundamental period of
tube-in-tube diagrids is less than typical diagrids. According to Chinese
code recommendation, in order to avoid excessive structural torsion,
the ratio of first torsional mode and the first translational mode should
be less than 0.85 which is well-established between periods [30]. Fig. 3
shows the conditions of panels subjected to lateral load.
3. Seismic performance evaluation
3.1. Nonlinear finite element modeling
The 3-Dimensional finite element modeling of the structures have
been created in PERFORM-3D software due to its capability to model
nonlinear behavior of structures and perform different nonlinear ana-
lyses [31]. Diagonal members were modeled using fiber sections. A
fiber segment is a finite length of constant cross section in a frame
compound component. Each fiber segment is defined by associating it
with a fiber cross section and specifying the segment length. In tall
diagrid structures inclined members play an important role in ab-
sorbing and dissipating energy as a result of induced motions in an
earthquake. Hence, nonlinear modeling must include all sources of
cyclic deterioration in members which affect resulting response. In this
regard, the characteristic parameters of the skeleton curve for braces
are employed completely in accordance with ASCE 41 based on mem-
bers’ compactness [32]. In addition, all inclined members are modeled
with fiber sections on the basis of inelastic buckling properties and
M. Heshmati, et al. Structures 25 (2020) 113–126

Fig. 2. Plan and elevation view of designed structures: (a) plan and configuration of structures, (b) elevation view of exterior frame, and (c) elevation view of interior
frame.

tension yielding of steel material. The typical stress-strain relationship material which causes collapse.
of buckling materials is illustrated in Fig. 4a. In this figure ε is the In this study, initially development of axial forces in the ring beams
longitude strain of fiber segments. εx is related to the point corre- were controlled to ensure the interaction of axial force and bending
sponding to the residual strength and is the ultimate deformation of moments and it was observed that the ratio of axial force to lower

115
M. Heshmati, et al. Structures 25 (2020) 113–126

Table 1
Section sizes for diagrid structures. All dimensions are in cm.
Module Diagrid frame-Pipe sections (D × t) Interior gravity frame-Box sections (B × t)

E53° I69° E69°I69° E76°I69° E79°I69°

E53° I69° E69° I69° E76° I69° E79° I69° Column

1 70 × 3.0 85 × 4.0 60 × 3.0 85 × 4.0 60 × 3.0 85 × 4.0 65 × 3.0 90 × 4.0 100 × 5.0
2 70 × 3.0 80 × 3.5 55 × 2.5 80 × 3.5 55 × 2.5 80 × 3.5 55 × 2.5 80 × 3.5 85 × 5.0
3 70 × 3.0 65 × 3.0 50 × 2.5 65 × 3.0 50 × 2.5 65 × 3.0 50 × 2.5 65 × 3.0 75 × 5.0
4 55 × 2.5 60 × 3.0 50 × 2.5 60 × 3.0 45 × 2.0 60 × 3.0 45 × 2.0 60 × 3.0 65 × 4.5
5 55 × 2.5 55 × 2.5 40 × 2.0 55 × 2.5 40 × 2.0 55 × 2.5 40 × 2.0 55 × 2.5 50 × 3.5
6 55 × 2.5 55 × 2.5 40 × 2.0 55 × 2.5 35 × 1.5 55 × 2.5 55 × 2.5 40 × 3.0
7 55 × 2.5 45 × 2.0 35 × 1.5 45 × 2.0 45 × 2.0 45 × 2.0
8 55 × 2.5 40 × 2.0 30 × 1.5 40 × 2.0 40 × 2.0 40 × 2.0
9 55 × 2.5 30 × 1.5 30 × 1.5 30 × 1.5 30 × 1.5 40 × 2.0
10 45 × 2.0
11 45 × 2.0
12 45 × 2.0
13 40 × 2.0
14 40 × 2.0
15 40 × 2.0
16 30 × 1.5
17 30 × 1.5
18 30 × 1.5

Table 2 thus these elements were modeled with two rotational springs at both
Modal characteristics of structures. ends of the beams which are connected with an elastic section in the
Archetype Transitional Modes (s) Torsional Modes (s)
middle. Inelastic moment-rotation of characteristic of beams are
adopted in accordance with ASCE 41 (Fig. 4b). It is also notable that
1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd gravity beams and columns are supposed to only resist the gravity
loads, therefore they are modeled as elastic elements.
E53° 2.94 0.74 0.32 0.78 0.3
The floors are assumed to act as rigid under lateral loadings and
E69° 3.2 1.03 0.57 1.34 0.53
E76° 3.717 1.26 0.73 1.81 0.83 geometric nonlinearities also known as “P-Δ effect” were considered in
E79° 4.24 1.46 0.86 2.25 0.83 the nonlinear analyses. The gravity load combination were applied on
E53°I69° 2.85 0.71 0.35 0.79 0.3 the archetypes based on 1.05D + 0.25L load combination [23].
E69°I69° 3.05 0.93 0.5 1.33 0.53
E76°I69° 3.37 1.07 0.6 1.72 0.67
E79°I69° 3.98 1.31 0.7 2.21 0.89 3.2. Nonlinear static analyses

Fig. 5 indicates the nonlinear static pushover analysis result of the

Fig. 3. a) A model under lateral load b) Different states of panels under lateral
load.
bound axial strength (P /Pcl ) was lower than 0.2. Thus according to
ASCE41, only flexural behavior was considered to capture the nonlinear
behavior of ring beams. This is a common assumption in previous re-
searches [10,18,20,21]. In addition, In order to reduce time and cal-
culation efforts beams were predicted to form plastic hinges at the ends,
archetypes. Nonlinear static Pushover analyses were carried out in-
itially by exerting gravity load on the modeled structures then the lat-
eral load pattern was applied proportional to the fundamental transi-
tional mode shape of each model [23]. According to TBI guideline,
pushover analysis can be used as a practical method in obtaining a
preliminary estimation from global and nonlinear behavior of tall
buildings [33]. The effects of higher modes in tall buildings will be
reflected through nonlinear time history analysis later in this study. The
base shear and the corresponding overall drift of structure were plotted.
Overall drift of structures is defined as:
DisplacementRoof
DriftOverall =
HeightStructure (2)
Furthermore, design base shear, first diagonal buckling, first diag-
onal yielding and the first 2% inter-story drift, which is recommended
as the collapse prevention limit state in the FEMA-450 report, are
marked as star, triangle, square and circle in the given order on the
curves for each model (Fig. 5) [34].
Although the elastic stiffness in with and without core models are
approximately the same given that the perimeter frame sections are
identical, this implies that the addition of core does not significantly
alter the stiffness with the proposed geometry applied for core’s di-
mensions. On the other hand, in some cases, core diagrids can provide
additional strength after the first sudden strength loss in pushover
curves of archetypes. E53°I69° and E69°I69 exhibit hardening behavior
with greater base shear after the initial drop from buckling compared to
without core counterparts, in other words these models are capable of
providing adequate resistance for the safety of structures by

116
M. Heshmati, et al. Structures 25 (2020) 113–126

Fig. 4. a) Stress-Strain constitutive model of fiber segments b) Moment-Rotation relationship of beams.

Fig. 5. The pushover curves of diagrid archetypes.

Fig. 6. Ratio of maximum base shear in pushover analyses to a) weight b) design base shear of each archetypes.

117
M. Heshmati, et al. Structures 25 (2020) 113–126

Table 3
Far‐field ground motions characteristics for Nonlinear Time History Analyses (FEMA P695 [23]).
a a
ID No. Name Year Magnitude Station Site class (NEHRP) Fault type PGAmax (g) PGVmax (cm/s)

1 Northridge 1994 6.7 Beverly Hills D Thrust 0.52 63

2 Northridge 1994 6.7 Canyon Country-WLC D Thrust 0.48 45
3 Duzce, Turkey 1999 7.1 Bolu D Strike-slip 0.82 62
4 Hector Mine 1999 7.1 Hector C Strike-slip 0.34 42
5 Imperial valley 1979 6.5 El Centro array #11 D Strike-slip 0.38 42
6 Kobe, Japan 1995 6.9 Nishi-Akashi C Strike-slip 0.51 37
7 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999 7.5 Duzce D Strike-slip 0.36 59
8 Manjil, Iran 1990 7.4 Abbar C Strike-slip 0.51 54
9 Superstition Hills 1987 6.5 El Centro Imp. Co. Cent D Strike-slip 0.36 46
10 San Fernando 1971 6.6 LA-Hollywood Stor FF D Thrust 0.21 19
11 Friuli, Italy 1976 6.5 Tolmezzo C Thrust 0.35 31

a: Maximum between two orthogonal directions.

Fig. 7. Response spectrum of scaled ground motions and the MCE response spectrum.

of diagrid structures against lateral loads depends on diagonal slope.

3.3. Nonlinear time history analyses (NTHA)

In this section, all archetypes were subjected under 11 far-field

Fig. 8. Variation of damping ratio with period for linear analysis [35].
redistribution of forces.
Generally, after the occurrence of the first buckling, the stiffness of
the structures decreases slightly until the drop in the strength of the
whole structure happens. It is also notable that in non-core structures as
the slope of diagrid members increase the occurrence of remaining
criteria can be seen immediately after the first buckling, whereas in
core diagrid structures there are safety margins between damage states
e.g. first buckling, first yielding and 2% inter-story drift.
Fig. 6 shows the normalized maximum base shear of the diagrid
model with respect to weight and design base shear with various angles,
in which it can be seen that with the rise of the slope of diagonals
members, the ratios decrease. This highlights the fact that the strength
ground motions of FEMA P695. The characteristics of input ground
motions in this research are summarized in Table 3. The average of 5%
damped acceleration response spectrum of ensemble ground motions
were matched to the MCE response spectrum according to ASCE 7-16 as
represented in Fig. 7.
To assess the seismic performance behavior of archetypes, the re-
sults including inter-story drifts, displacements, dissipated energy and
hinge distribution are introduced and discussed in the following sub-
sections to represent the overall performance of diagrid structures. CSI
PERFORM-3D software utilizes step-by-step integration through time
using the constant average acceleration method (known as the trape-
zoidal rule or the Newmark = 1.4 method) to solve the dynamic dif-
ferential equations. The time interval for all time history analyses was
set to be 0.02 s.
A structure dissipates energy by various mechanisms. In nonlinear
dynamic analyses it is usual practice to assume viscous damping to
account for “elastic” energy dissipation and inelastic damping are au-
tomatically included in hysteretic behaviors of components. Hence the
total energy dissipation is the sum of the elastic and inelastic dissipa-
tion. In this study viscous damping is modeled in the form of Rayleigh
damping. Rayleigh damping assumes that the structure has a damping

118
M. Heshmati, et al. Structures 25 (2020) 113–126

Fig. 9. Peak transient inter-story drifts.

matrix [35]: damping ratio and mode period is:

C= M+ K (3) =
Ti
+
i
4 Ti (4)
where the M is the structure mass matrix, K is the initial elastic stiffness
matrix, and are multiplying factors. Hence the damping ratio can be 1
specified for only two modes. For other modes the damping ratio varies =4
(Ti + Tj ) (5)
with mode period as shown in Fig. 8. The relationship between

119
M. Heshmati, et al. Structures 25 (2020) 113–126

Fig. 10. Peak transient residual inter-story drifts.

Ti Tj that 5% of critical damping is suitable for structures, there are con-

=
(Ti + Tj ) (6) tradictory opinions that this is not the case as an actual damping in tall
buildings. In this regard, TBI proposed critical damping for the primary
where Ti is period of mode i and i is the proportion of critical damping modes of response under MCE shaking as below [36]:
in this mode.
The level of damping in structures varies according to selection of 0.2
materials, structural geometry etc. However, traditionally it is assumed 0.025 = 0.05
critical
H (7)

120
M. Heshmati, et al. Structures 25 (2020) 113–126

and TB = 0.9 and the critical damping to be chosen 2.5%, where T1 is the
T
Table 4
1
Summary of archetypes deformations. first mode period, then the damping is close to 2.5% over a range of
Archetype Mean periods from 0.2T1 to T1. This can cover the most important modes.

Peak Inter story Peak Residual Peak Roof Displacements 3.3.1. Deflections
Drifts (%) Drifts (%) (Cm)
Inter-story drifts are one of the significant criteria for the assessment
E53° 1.6 0.31 111 of buildings in the literature. Therefore, the peak inter-story drifts
E69° 3.0 0.82 112 under different ground motions in conjunction with the envelope of
E76° 2.5 0.45 133 mean drifts are presented in Fig. 9. The results indicated that although
E79° 2.2 0.66 137
the members were designed to their optimal demand to capacity ratio
E53°I69° 2.7 0.46 109
E69°I69° 2.2 0.71 101 close to 1.0 as well as considering the drift limit in the linear design
E76°I69° 3.2 0.66 128 approach, in most cases the mean drifts are less than the maximum
E79°I69° 2.7 1.24 138 allowable drifts stated in the tall buildings codes and the remaining are
very close to 3% [36,37]. Conspicuously, the deformations are dis-
tributed well throughout the height of both structures with and without
core. It also revealed that in core diagrid structures the interaction of a
core aids to distribute the deformation in upper levels especially when
the angles of perimeter tube exceed those of core.
Residual story drifts must be controlled in high-rise buildings to
protect the structures against post-earthquake deformations which
likely will cause extensive damages and require excessive downtime to
perform repair of building. In this regard, for obtaining residual drifts
the nonlinear time history analyses continued after the end of ground
motions until the model reaches a stable and immobile condition. Thus,
the peak residual drifts together with the envelope of mean residual
drifts are illustrated in Fig. 10. It can be seen that similar to previous
mean peak drifts in most cases the residual drifts are below the limit
range of 1% specified in tall building codes [36,37]. It can be concluded
Fig. 11. Superstition Hills record. that with the rise of angles in diagrid structures, buildings are more
susceptible to suffer from large deformations, especially in higher le-
vels. The maximum values of Inter-story Drifts, Residual Drifts and Roof
Displacements were reported for each record and the ensemble mean
value for each group responses were calculated (Table. 4).
It is conceived from the distribution of shear forces and bending
moments in tall buildings that while shear forces increase almost line-
arly, bending moment rise drastically towards the base of the building.
Thus the capacity of resisting accumulated gravity load increases from
top to bottom of structure, while the resisting capacity of lateral force is
more significant with increase in height. In diagrid structures, the de-
sign of the upper portion of the buildings is governed by shear, while
the lower portion of the buildings is governed by bending and huge
gravity load [38,39]. The core diagrid tube influences the distribution
of nonlinear deflections in archetypes so that it strengthens the lower
zone of building against lateral load and it causes and increase in the
Fig. 12. Fourier Amplitude for Superstition Hills record. shear demands in upper levels which leads to larger peak shear de-
flections and residual drifts.
where H is the height of the roof in meters and as a result critical According to ASCE7-16 in nonlinear response analysis the mean
damping is set to be 2.5%. According to PERFORM-3D user guide [35], story drift ratio shall not exceed two times the limits introduced in table
it is suggested that if two period ratios are specified so that TA = 0.25
T §12.12–1. It should be noted that with respect to TBI guideline, most
1
tall buildings fit into risk category II which is defined as the buildings

Fig. 13. Roof displacement response of archtypes subjected to Superstition Hills.

121
M. Heshmati, et al.
Fig. 14. Roof acceleration response spectra under Superstition Hill excitation.
which are not assigned to risk category I, III, and IV. To be more spe-
cific, risk category III is defined as buildings and other structures that
represent a substantial hazard to humans’ life in the event of a failure,
included in this category are buildings with occupant load greater than
5000. It is indicated that most residential towers will not exceed the
5000-person threshold, however office buildings with a building area of
750,000 sq. ft. or more will exceed this threshold [24,36,37,40]. In this
122
Structures 25 (2020) 113–126
study the building area is around 500,000 sq. ft., hence it can be classed
as risk category II and as a result the 4% maximum drift limit would be
applicable with regard to ASCE7-16 code. It is suggested that in order to
avoid contradiction between tall building codes and design codes,
maximum inter-story drift of 3% should be used for seismic assessment
of high-rise buildings, since it provides adequate resistance against
collapse, improved performance and less repair cost.
M. Heshmati, et al. Structures 25 (2020) 113–126

Fig. 15. Contribution of different factors in dissipating energy under Superstition Hills.

Table 5
Maximum dissipated energy of different structures under Superstition Hills’ motions.
Archetype E53° E69° E76° E79° E53°I69° E69°I69° E76°I69° E79°I69°

Max Dissipated Energy (KN. M) 201,722 163,771 111,305 64,155 202,016 197,309 190,347 186,032

Table 6
Contribution of panels in inelastic energy dissipation under Superstition Hills’
excitation.
Archetype Proportion of Inelastic Energy (%)

Flanges Webs Beams

E53° 42.23 57.62 0.16

E69° 16.16 77.26 6.59
E76° 11.15 77.94 11.15
E79° 0.32 66.2 33.47

Table 7
Contribution of outer and inner tubes in inelastic energy dissipation under
Superstition Hills’ excitation. Fig. 16. Hysteresis behavior of a typical beam under a excitation.
Archetype Proportion of Inelastic Energy (%)

Exterior Tube Interior Tube

Diagrids Beams Diagrids Beams

E53°I69° 92.97 0.32 6.55 0.17

E69°I69° 75.26 3.68 20.02 1.03
E76°I69° 58.19 7.82 32.61 1.39
E79°I69° 37.08 9.30 50.63 2.99

To highlight the significance of higher modes contribution in overall

response of archetypes, Fourier amplitude and time history response of
various archetypes under ground motion records were examined next.
Figs. 11 and 12 shows the Superstition Hills record and corresponding
Fourier amplitude together with the period range of target models. Due
to frequency content of selected records, it is expected that the selected
ground motions can excite higher modes of tall buildings. To this end
the roof displacement response and roof acceleration response spectra Fig. 17. Energy dissipated by different mechanism under Superstition Hills
of archetypes were investigated (Figs. 13 and 14). A pulse with the record.
displacements response over 1 m in each model was noticed. It can also
be seen that the peak response is in the period range between 0 and 1 period of structure changes due to inelasticity and geometric non-
which corresponded to higher modes of prototypes. It is of critical linearity which can cause elongation of higher modes. Hence, in seismic
importance to note that under large earthquakes, the fundamental performance evaluation and design of tall buildings in high seismic

123
M. Heshmati, et al. Structures 25 (2020) 113–126

Fig. 18. Mean hinge distribution in the web panel under NTHA (Hint: Ο: Beam yielding, Δ: Buckling, □: Collapse).

Fig. 19. Mean hinge distribution in the flange panel under NTHA (Hint: Ο: Beam yielding, Δ: Buckling, □: Collapse).

124
M. Heshmati, et al.
zones different earthquake scenarios should be taken into considera-
tion.
3.3.2. Energy dissipation
Review of the dissipated energy by different mechanisms provides
valuable information for seismic performance assessment of the struc-
tures. Fig. 15 shows dissipated energy through different mechanisms in
modeled structures. Due to space limitations, analytical results for only
Superstition Hills are mentioned and it is in a good agreement with
responses from remaining analyses. It can be seen that high proportion
of energies between 60% and 80% are dissipated through inelastic
behaviors and viscous damping including Beta-K and Alpha-M are ac-
counted for between 10% and 30% of total energy.
It is shown in Table. 5 that in the angle smaller than that of the core,
the total energy dissipated are almost similar in with and without core
models. Although in the larger angles the absorbed energy becomes
smaller in non-core models, in the core diagrids the interior tubes are
involved in energy dissipation to a great extent.
In core diagrid models with the increase in the angle of inclined
elements in the perimeter tube the contribution of interior diagonal
members rise, while in conventional diagrids the total amount of energy
dissipated by beams grows considerably (Table 6 and 7). It indicated
that the structures undergo deformations throughout the height and it is
primarily concentrated in diagrid elements. Nonetheless, the hysteresis
cycles in beams are not sufficiently extensive to overtake diagrid
components in terms of the amount of dissipated energy (Fig. 16). This
is because of the inherent stiffness of braced form of diagrid structures.
It also rings the alarm that other types of energy dissipative should be
employed in diagrid structures in order to eliminate the risk of hinges
concentration in diagonal members. Fig. 17 also illustrates the time
history of total induced energy by different mechanisms.
Plastic hinge formation of archetypes provides insight into non-
linear behavior and damage state of structures. Due to shear lag effect,
the nonlinear behaviors are likely to start from corner compressive
columns and develop in both web and flange panels [10,41,42]. Tri-
angles and squares in the elevations of structures denote that the in-
clined members are either buckled or collapsed in inclined members
and circles represent the state of yielding in beams. Collapse point and
buckling of diagonals are associated with the point εx and εcr in the
stress-strain curve, respectively. (Fig. 4a). As well as this the yielding of
beams is corresponded to the point θy (Fig. 4b). Since the diagonals
under compression are more likely to buckle earlier than those under
tension, Figs. 18 and 19 indicates the distribution of buckling hinges as
well as beams’ yielding of each archetype in web and flange panels. It
should be noted that these are mean deformations under MCE ground
motions. As illustrated, buckling of diagonal members occurred in dif-
ferent levels in the height and it is more significant in web panels
compared to flanges and the participation of flanges decrease as the
angles of diagonals rises. It is also perceived that as the slope of diag-
onal members rise the concentration of plastic hinges dragged toward
lower stories in both webs and flanges of non-core models. In contrary
to this, the plastic hinge zones in core diagrid models remained at upper
levels due to the preventative effect of core in limitation of stresses on
bottom diagonal members which also was discussed earlier in Section
3.3.1.
In addition, yielded beams in the web panels well spread across the
height with the increase in the slope of diagonals in both groups. This is
due to the distribution of forces in joints and participation of beams in
lateral load resisting. Thus, it is highly important to consider the stiff-
ness of beams in the intersections with diagonals and these connections
must be addressed properly in design procedure.
While drift criterion for MCE level proposed in codes is adequate for
collapse prevention of structure, it does not necessarily inhibit propa-
gation of diagrids buckling and yielding of beams. This means that a
diagrid structure designed according to current code provisions might
have complication when it is desirable to have the serviceability and
125
Structures 25 (2020) 113–126
limited damage status in the structure. In this regard, it is highly sug-
gested to limit the drift criterion in diagrid structures to a lower
quantity.
4. Conclusions
In this study, seismic performance of tall steel diagrid structures
with various angles were investigated considering the effect of interior
diagrid core. Results of nonlinear static analyses demonstrated that
when diagonal angles were lower than those of the core, interior tube
could act as a backup load-resisting system after the yielding of peri-
meter tube. In addition, most diagrid structures were capable of un-
dergoing large deformations without abrupt collapse in the whole
system. Also Interior diagrid tube appropriately procrastinated occur-
rence of damage states and provided a safety margin for core diagrid
structures.
Diagrids structures performed acceptable under MCE earthquake
motions and most of the mean deformations were within the allowable
range. Deformations were spread throughout the height and addition of
interior diagrid tube enhanced the distribution of forces towards upper
levels especially in models with higher diagonal angles. The distribu-
tion of residual drifts also confirmed that diagrid system was well-be-
haved under rare earthquakes.
It was observed that the contribution of higher modes in response of
tall diagrid buildings were considerable, Hence the selection of ground
motions with respect to the effect of frequency content on seismic
performance of models must be examined carefully. Since introduced
records are far-field motions, it is also necessary to evaluate the seismic
performance of this system under near-field ground motions.
Results of energy dissipation showed that the high proportion of
induced energy were dissipated by inelastic responses which means that
the diagrid structures were capable of undergoing extensive inelastic
deformations and most of remaining energy is dissipated through vis-
cous damping. A large proportion of inelastic energy were absorbed by
diagonals which are critical elements in providing the stability of
structures. Hence, it is recommended that diagrids with energy dis-
sipating devices should be investigated for future research to address
the aforementioned issue. Following the primary role of diagrid ele-
ments, as the slope of diagonals with horizon increased, while interior
diagonals participated in dissipating energy in the core diagrid models,
beams significantly contributed in nonlinear behavior of the non-core
counterparts. Since beams participated in resisting lateral loads by the
increase in the angles of external diagonal members, it is recommended
to consider the stiffness of these elements in joints and accurately model
the nonlinear behavior of them in performance assessments.
Distribution of plastic hinges revealed that the web panels initially
resisted the lateral loads, thus the major proportion of deflections oc-
curred in these panels compared to flanges. As the angle of panels in-
crease in models without core, the formation of plastic hinges moved
towards the bottom stories, while in the core diagrid structures the
plastic hinges spread in upper stories.
To sum up, lower angles of perimeter frame in tube in tube diagrid
structures lead to improvement of seismic behavior. Coupling of in-
ternal core and perimeter tube with varying angles can be considered
for future research.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Xu H, Zhang C, Li H, Ou J. Real-time hybrid simulation approach for performance
validation of structural active control systems: a linear motor actuator based active
M. Heshmati, et al.
mass driver case study. Struct Control Health Monit 2014;21:574–89.
[2] Xu H-B, Zhang C-W, Li H, Tan P, Ou J-P, Zhou F-L. Active mass driver control system
for suppressing wind-induced vibration of the Canton Tower. Smart Struct Syst
2014;13:281–303.
[3] Zhang C. Control force characteristics of different control strategies for the wind-
excited 76-story benchmark building structure. Adv Struct Eng 2014;17:543–59.
[4] Zhang C, Ou J. Control structure interaction of electromagnetic mass damper system
for structural vibration control. J Eng Mech 2008;134:428–37.
[5] Zhang C, Wang H. Robustness of the active rotary inertia driver system for struc-
tural swing vibration control subjected to multi-type hazard excitations. Appl Sci
2019;9:4391.
[6] Boake TM. Diagrid structures: systems, connections, details. Walter de Gruyter;
2014.
[7] Liu C, Li Q, Lu Z, Wu H. A review of the diagrid structural system for tall buildings.
Struct Design Tall Spec Build 2018;27.
[8] Moon KS, Connor JJ, Fernandez JE. Diagrid structural systems for tall buildings:
characteristics and methodology for preliminary design. Struct Design Tall Spec
Build 2007;16:205–30.
[9] Montuori GM, Mele E, Brandonisio G, De Luca A. Design criteria for diagrid tall
buildings: stiffness versus strength. Struct Design Tall Spec Build
2014;23:1294–314.
[10] Kim J, Lee YH. Seismic performance evaluation of diagrid system buildings. Struct
Design Tall Spec Build 2012;21:736–49.
[11] Zhang C, Zhao F, Liu Y. Diagrid tube structures composed of straight diagonals with
gradually varying angles. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 2012;21:283–95.
[12] Zhao F, Zhang C. Diagonal arrangements of diagrid tube structures for preliminary
design. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 2015;24:159–75.
[13] Montuori GM, Mele E, Brandonisio G, De Luca A. Secondary bracing systems for
diagrid structures in tall buildings. Eng Struct 2014;75:477–88.
[14] Moghaddasi NS, Zhang Y. Seismic analysis of diagrid structural frames with shear-
link fuse devices. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2013;12:463–72.
[15] McKenzie G, Samali B, Zhang C. Design criteria essential for an uncontrolled de-
molition (explosion). Asian J Civil Eng 2019;20:351–69.
[16] Leonard J. Investigation of shear lag effect in high-rise buildings with diagrid
system (Ph.D. thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2007.
[17] Shi Q, Zhang F. Simplified calculation of shear lag effect for high-rise diagrid tube
structures. J Build Eng 2019;22:486–95.
[18] Asadi E, Adeli H. Nonlinear behavior and design of mid-to high-rise diagrid struc-
tures in seismic regions. Eng J-Am Inst Constr 2018;55:161–80.
[19] Asadi E, Diagrid Adeli H. An innovative, sustainable, and efficient structural system.
Struct Design Tall Spec Build 2017;26.
[20] Milana G, Olmati P, Gkoumas K, Bontempi F. Ultimate capacity of diagrid systems
for tall buildings in nominal configuration and damaged state. Period Polytech Civil
Eng 2015;59:381–91.
[21] Asadi E, Adeli H. Seismic performance factors for low-to mid-rise steel diagrid
126
Structures 25 (2020) 113–126
structural systems. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 2018;27:e1505.
[22] Heshmati M, Aghakouchak AA. Quantification of seismic performance factors of
steel diagrid system. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 2019;28:e1572.
[23] FEMA P695. Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Washington,
DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2009.
[24] ASCE/SEI 7-16. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Am Soc
Civ Eng 2016.
[25] Kim J, Park J, Shin SW, Min KW. Seismic performance of tubular structures with
buckling restrained braces. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2009;18:351–70.
[26] Kwon K, Kim J. Progressive collapse and seismic performance of twisted diagrid
buildings. Int J High-Rise Build 2014;3:223–30.
[27] Asadi E, Li Y, Heo Y. Seismic performance assessment and loss estimation of steel
diagrid structures. J Struct Eng 2018;144:04018179.
[28] Kim J, Kong J. Progressive collapse behavior of rotor-type diagrid buildings. Struct
Design Tall Spec Build 2013;22:1199–214.
[29] ANSI/AISC 341-10. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. American
Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL; 2010.
[30] People CMoCot. Code for seismic design of buildings. China Architecture & Building
Press; 2001.
[31] Perform-3D. Nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures:
version 7. Computers and Structures Inc; 2018.
[32] ASCE. ASCE/SEI 41-13: seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. Reston,
Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2013.
[33] Initiative TB. Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings
(Version 2.03). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Centre, University
of California: Berkeley, USA; 2017.
[34] Council BSS. NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new
buildings and other structures (FEMA 450). Washington, USA; 2003.
[35] Powel G. User guide perform-3D version 5-nonlinear analysis and performance
assessment for 3D structures. California: Computer and Structures Inc; 2011.
[36] Initiative TB. Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings
(Version 2.03). Volume PEER Report.
[37] LATBSDC. An alternative procedure for seismic analysis and design of tall buildings
located in the Los Angeles region. LATBSDC Los Angeles, CA; 2008.
[38] Moon KS. Sustainable structural engineering strategies for tall buildings. Struct
Design Tall Spec Build 2008;17:895–914.
[39] Moon KS. Optimal grid geometry of diagrid structures for tall buildings. Arch Sci
Rev 2008;51:239–51.
[40] IBC I. International building code. International Code Council, Inc (formerly BOCA,
ICBO and SBCCI). 2006;4051:60478–5795.
[41] Asadi E, Adeli H. Nonlinear behavior and design of mid-to-highrise diagrid struc-
tures in seismic regions. Eng J Am Inst Steel Constr 2018;55.
[42] Taranath BS. Wind and earthquake resistant buildings: structural analysis and de-
sign. CRC Press; 2004.