Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Seismic behavior of linked column system as a steel lateral force

resisting system
Vahid Jaberi a, Abazar Asghari b, *
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Urmia University of Technology, Urmia, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

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

Keywords: In previous research, the seismic behavior of linked column frame (LCF) system as a dual structural steel frame
Linked column system system that Consists of the primary linked column (LC) and the secondary moment frame (MF) systems has been
Steel lateral load resisting system evaluated. In this research, based on the high capacity of the linked column system in lateral load resisting, this
Performance-based seismic design
system has been used as the only lateral load resisting system in the building frame. Studies have shown that this
Endurance time method
Structural fuse system
approach not only eliminates the main disadvantages of the LCF system, but also preserves the ability to repair
structures after an earthquake. Therefore, the designed models of the linked column system have been evaluated
using nonlinear static pushover analysis, nonlinear dynamic time history analysis, incremental dynamic analysis
and endurance time method analysis. In the evaluation of the seismic behavior of the linked column system,
design approach, structural stability and collapse mechanism, ductility, the seismic performance factors of
response modification coefficient (R), overstrength factor (Ω0) and deflection amplification factor (Cd), the
values of interstory drift ratio at the DBE and MCE seismic hazard levels, maximum seismic capacity and fragility
curves, permanent displacement after the earthquake and the weight of steel used in the structure have been
investigated. Each of the analysis results shows that the linked column system has a suitable seismic behavior
against earthquakes. Therefore, in a preliminary evaluation, the linked column system is introduced as a steel
lateral load resisting system that provides the ability to repair structures after an earthquake.

1. Introduction earthquake casualties in developed cities, but still leads to significant

The ability to repair structures after an earthquake by replacing
several members can be very economical and practical. Designing
structures so that they can be repaired and rebuilt after an earthquake
and withstand the next earthquake is a great help in critical situations
after large earthquakes. But the structural systems used today are
designed to provide life safety in design base earthquake (DBE) and
collapse prevention in maximum considered earthquake (MCE). How­
ever, these structures enter the plastic phase due to earthquakes smaller
than the design base earthquake and their seismic capacity is reduced
and then due to this reduction they can't perform well against the next
earthquake. So, we can't use these buildings after a strong earthquake
because they will not have the necessary resistance to withstand the next
earthquake. In addition, their seismic improvement is very difficult and
costly, and may not even be efficient. Therefore, large sums of money are
lost in large earthquakes.
Nowadays, the design of structures according to codes has reduced
financial losses. For example, financial losses and casualties of some
earthquakes are presented in Table 1. Accordingly, with the growth and
development of technology, large earthquakes despite low casualties,
can lead to extensive financial losses. Because so far, the code design of
structures has focused on the two factors of life safety and economic
design, and the idea of preserving national wealth after natural disasters
such as earthquakes by using the ability to fast and simple repair of
structures is a new approach in structural design, which Nader et al. [1]
used it in 1998 to design the eastern span of the San Francisco-Oakland
bay bridge.
In the design of the main tower of this bridge, four close columns
have been used, which are connected together by links. The links in the
main tower of the bridge should absorb and dissipate force during an
earthquake. These links are replaceable and can be replaced quickly
after an earthquake. Thus, like a fuse, they are replacing quickly after
damage and the bridge rapidly return to occupancy.
In 2007, Dusicka and Iwai [2] used the linked columns idea in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: abcd1386@gmail.com (A. Asghari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2022.107428
Received 24 April 2022; Received in revised form 2 July 2022; Accepted 11 July 2022
Available online 21 July 2022
0143-974X/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari
Table 1
Financial losses and casualties of some large earthquakes.
Earthquake Year Magnitude Financial losses Casualties
Loma Prieta 1989 6.9 $ 6 billion dollars 63
Northridge 1994 6.7 $ 13–44 billion dollars 57
Chuetsu 2004 6.8 $ 28 billion dollars 68
Emillia 2012 6.1 $ 15.8 billion dollars 27
Christchurch 2011 6.2 $ 15–40 billion dollars 158
building frame to make it possible to repair buildings after an earth­
quake by replacing several members. Hence, they introduced a new
structural steel frame system called the linked column frame (LCF)
system. This idea consists of two lateral load resisting systems that works
together. The primary linked column (LC) system and the secondary
moment resisting frame (MF) system. Fig. 1, shows the linked column
frame system and its lateral load resisting systems.
For the linked column frame system three performance objectives are
considered. First: Immediate Occupancy (IO), where all the links and
structure members remain elastic in earthquakes with 50% probability
of exceedance in 50 years. Second: Rapid Repair (RR), where the links
enter inelastic phase and yield in earthquakes with 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years, while the other structure members remain
elastic. In this performance objective, the linked column (LC) system
must perform its primary function and protect the moment frame (MF)
system members from yielding, and after replacement of the links, the
building should immediately return to occupancy. Third: Collapse Pre­
vention (CP), where all the structure members are allowed to enter in­
elastic phase in earthquakes with 2% probability of exceedance in 50
years. As displayed in Fig. 2, the capacity curve of the linked column
frame system under the lateral load versus roof displacement is obtained
by addition of the capacities of the LC and MF. The three performance
objectives and hazard levels, and the system behavior are shown in this
figure [3].
In recent years, useful researches have been done on the subject from
different aspects. Dusicka et al. [4] investigated system behavior,
especially links performance, using experimental, and numerical finite
element method models. They provided executive details for designing
links in the LCF system; and examined the types of column connections
to the foundation and suggested pinned connection using an additional
link beam at the base level between both columns are linked. Because
the fully restrained connections of the columns to the foundation causes
the formation of plastic hinge at the base of the first-floor columns. In
2013, Malakoutian et al. [5,6] introduced a method for designing LCF
system and determined the seismic performance factors of response
modification coefficient (R), overstrength factor (Ω0) and deflection
amplification factor (Cd) for this system. One of the most important is­
sues that could be seen in the results of model analysis was the con­
centration of lateral force on the lower stories and the less participation
of the upper stories in the absorption and dissipation of earthquake
energy. So that the nonlinear interstory drift ratio of the lower stories
was very different from the upper stories. Hence, need for a more
appropriate method for more accurate design of this system was quite
evident. It is also noted that the weight of the LCF system models are
Fig. 1. Linked column frame (LCF) system.
2
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428
Fig. 2. Performance and hazard levels of the linked column frame system.
more than similar moment resisting frame system (MRF) models, and
sometimes the plastic hinges in the beams of MF system are observed
before the target hazard level. In 2014, Lopes et al. [7] tested an
experimental model of the linked column frame system. In this
modeling, the results of the experimental model are compared with
computer numerical modeling. In general, the results showed that the
LCF system has the ability to achieve the target performance objectives.
In 2017, Shoeibi et al. [3] introduced a new performance-based
seismic design method. The results of their research have shown that
the designed models are very appropriate and accurate, and the
behavior of the models is fully consistent with the performance objec­
tives of the LCF system; But these models still have more weight than the
similar model of the moment resisting frame of the SAC project. In our
opinion, the use of W14 and W18 sections in the beams of MF part of
these models has caused an excessive increase in the weight of the steel.
When using sections with larger flexural capacity and less weight, such
as W24 sections, the weight of the models will be greatly reduced; Since
W14 and W18 sections are wide-flange shape sections, it is better to use
sections with larger inertia moment for optimal design of beams in the
MF part. In 2020, Tazarv and Mohebkhah [8,9] introduced a direct
displacement-based design method for designing this system. Because
the force-based method has a lower relative accuracy and the design of
the LCF system based on displacement can be more accurate. In 2020,
Jaberi and Asghari [10] used the linked column system as a secondary
lateral load resisting system for the seismic rehabilitation of existing
buildings. The research results show that the linked column part is a
good idea for seismic improvement of structures, and this system com­
pensates for the lack of lateral strength of the building in an optimal
design with the ability to absorb and dissipate high energy and low space
occupation, without the need to change or strengthen the structural
members. In general, studies have shown that this system has the ability
to achieve the target performance objectives and has suitable seismic
behavior against earthquakes. But in this system, there are certain dis­
advantages such as the high weight of steel material in the structure, the
creation of plastic hinges in the beams earlier than the specified time,
difficult design and requiring a special method to design [11].
The behavior of the primary linked column part is different from the
behavior of the secondary moment frame part in the LCF system, and the
interaction of these two systems determines the behavior of the struc­
ture. Because of this interaction, design of the LCF system is complex
[3].
The use beams with fully restrained connections at one end and
simple connections at the other in the moment frame part, which is done
with the aim of changing its capacity to a secondary capacity and delay
in the reaching of the beams to the plastic phase, will also reduce the
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari
capacity of this part. Therefore, to provide sufficient capacity, larger
sections are needed, which leads to an increase in the weight of steel
used in this system more than others. Moreover, even by changing the
capacity of the moment frame to secondary capacity, it is still possible to
create plastic hinges in the beams of moment frame part earlier than the
target displacement [11]. Accordingly, the main disadvantages of the
LCF system are derived from the secondary moment frame part. Thus,
based on the high capacity of the linked column in the lateral load
carrying, this system has been used as the only lateral load carrying
system in the building frame. This approach and avoid using the ca­
pacity of the moment frame can be useful in improving the weight of
steel used, in early appearing of plastic hinges in the beams of the sec­
ondary moment frame part; and in the ease and simplicity of system
design. Also, the system still retains the advantage of being repairable.
In the design objectives of the linked column frame system, the use of
the secondary moment frame part to return the system to initial state
and self-centering after an earthquake at the target hazard level and
collapse prevention of the structure at the high seismic hazard level, has
been mentioned. But the point here is that, is it necessary to use a sec­
ondary moment frame system in order to self-centering and return the
system to initial state at the target seismic hazard level? how efficient is
this system in practice? Or, when the linked column system used as the
only lateral load resisting system in a building frame, can meet these
requirements on its own?
To assess this issue, the value of permanent displacement of the
structure after an earthquake at the target seismic hazard level must be
calculated and investigated. This value indicates the ability of the sys­
tem to return to the initial state and the possibility of exchanging links
and rebuilding the structure after the earthquake. The evaluations in this
study have shown that both LCF and LCS systems have small permanent
displacement at the target seismic hazard level. The values of permanent
displacement of models and the reasons and factors affecting it, are
discussed in Section 4.1. Comparison of the values have shown that the
permanent displacement of the linked column system in all states and
conditions is equal or less than permanent displacement of the LCF
system. Therefore, by removing the secondary moment frame part, the
linked column system will not have serious problems with this issue. But
this variation also changes the seismic behavior of the LCF system, and
the behavior of the linked column system needs to be evaluated indi­
vidually. Thus, in this research, the seismic behavior of the linked col­
umn system has been evaluated from different aspects using nonlinear
analysis methods.
2. Linked column system (LCS)
2.1. Introduction of linked column system
The linked column lateral load resisting system is implemented as
two columns close to each other with a distance approximately equal to
2 m, which are connected by links (short beams) on all stories and
middle story levels. The seismic behavior of this system is derived from
the behavior of its links and the links are very effective as main mem­
bers. Like the braced bays in the braced frames, this system can be used
Fig. 3. Linked column system (LCS).
3
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428
in a simple frame. Thus, as shown in Fig. 3, the linked column is
considered as a lateral load resisting system, and the simple frame is
considered as a gravity load carrying system in the frame.
Ability to repair and reuse this system is derived from the possibility
of replacing the links. During an earthquake, the lateral force is focused
on the links, and the links absorb and dissipate this force. These mem­
bers behave like a fuse because they are used to absorb energy and
replace quickly after an earthquake. Therefore, after the earthquake, by
replacing the damaged links, the building will have the necessary
resistance to withstand another earthquake and will be re-used. The
links in this system are designed as short beams with rigid connection
(replaceable type or bolted connection). In this system, the shear
behavior of the link is important, because researches on the flexural and
shear behavior of short beams have shown these members in shear
behavior have a very high ability to absorb and dissipate energy. Given
that, the use of short beams (links) in this system is part of its nature, so
the shear behavior of these members is effective in improving the
behavior of the system.
The length of the linked column bays can be between 1.5 and 2.5 m,
because other values change the behavior of the system destructively,
and in general, bays with a length of 2 m are optimal [12]. Research has
shown that in shorter buildings (for example, 3-story), shorter linked
column bays (at least 1.5 m) and in taller buildings (for example, 9-
story) longer bays (maximum 2.5 m) will be more appropriate [11].
The number of the linked column bays and their position in the frame
can be different and similar braced bays in the braced frames are
determined according to the need and based on engineering judgment
[12].
2.2. Prototype models
To evaluate the seismic behavior of the linked column system, the
modified floor plans of SAC [13] buildings are used, and 1 to 9-story
models designed for this floor plan with story height of 3.96 m. The
gravity loads and seismic mass of these models are considered according
to SAC buildings [13]. As displayed in Fig. 4, the linked column system is
placed on the perimeter of the building, and the other beams and col­
umns only resist the gravity loads. By changing the layout of columns of
the SAC building, two linked column bays in the perimeter of the
building are created to act as lateral load resisting system and only in the
9-story model, 3 bays have been used to control the interstory drift of
this model. The bays lengths of the linked column for 1 to 6-story models
are 2 m, and for 7, 8 and 9-story models are 2.5 m. The connection of the
columns to the foundation is pinned. The models are assumed to be
located in Los Angeles on site class D soil. The values of design spectrum
parameters of SMS and SM1, according to the FEMA P695 [14], for the
earthquake with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (MCE), are
1.5 and 0.9, respectively. And the values of design spectrum parameters
of SDS and SD1 for the earthquake with 10% probability of exceedance in
50 years (DBE), are 1 and 0.6, respectively. The type of steel material is
ASTM A992 with yield stress of 345 MPa. W-sections are used for all
members of models, and the models are analyzed by Opensees software
[15].
The structure members are modeled as beam-column elements with
fiber cross sections. The panel zone and rigid end offsets of members are
considered in their modeling, and material behaviors of links are cali­
brated by experimental force-displacement hysteretic loops. Material
properties of elements are calibrated with experimental results of
Dusicka and Lewis [4]. They have used suggested detailing for the links
of the linked column frame system in their specimens. In Fig. 5, the
hysteretic graphs of shear force versus links rotation are compared for
the experiments of Dusicka and Lewis [4] for shear and flexural links and
the model calibrated with the Opensees software. In order to model the
behavior of the columns, the existing Steel02 model in the program is
used.
P-Delta effects are considered in the modeling. For this purpose, the
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari
Fig. 4. Floor plan of the SAC building and frame view of the 6-story linked column system model.
Fig. 5. Comparison between Opensees model and the experiment results of Dusicka and Lewis [15] for the shear and flexural links.
gravity loads on the frame are applied on their actual locations and the
rest of gravity loads are applied to the P-Delta leaning column. The P-
Delta leaning column is connected to the frame by rigid links. To prevent
the length of the P-Delta leaning column changes in height due to gravity
load, a large Young's modulus is considered for them, and other section
properties are considered equal to zero, especially the moment of inertia
of these members shouldn't cause more stiffness in the model.
2.3. Design approach
To design structural systems based on a linear analysis, it is necessary
to use the seismic performance factors of response modification coeffi­
cient (R), overstrength factor (Ω0), and deflection amplification factor
(Cd) and to use seismic provisions of building code. But for the linked
column system the seismic performance factors and provisions have not
been determined yet. Since it is not possible to design structural systems
using a linear analysis without the use of this seismic performance fac­
tors; therefore in this research the models of the linked column systems
are designed using the performance-based seismic design method based
on ASCE7–22 [16] and ASCE 41–17 [17]; Because using this method,
there is no need to consider seismic performance factors and certain
seismic provisions of building code method, and the correct initial
design of new structural systems has been greatly simplified using a
performance-based seismic design method.
In the linked column system, forces and efforts in the links increases
with the lateral displacement of frame, and these members must resist
4
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428
the lateral force. The seismic capacity of this system is based on resis­
tance of the links. For design of the links, the performance-based seismic
design method is used, and a suitable section based on the target hazard
level can be assigned to these members. The links are designed so that
they don't exceed the Immediate Occupancy (IO) level until the target
displacement. A larger section must be assigned to the link beam that
exceeds the Immediate Occupancy (IO) level to Life Safety (LS) level
before the target displacement. The design will be more optimal, if all or
most of the links reach the Life Safety (LS) level together in the target
displacement. Also, both of columns connected to the links must be
designed in such a way that they always remain elastic, to maintain the
stability of the structure and the links utilizing their maximum capacity
against lateral loads. For this purpose, the columns must remain in the
elastic phase until the collapse mechanism. So, we can push the structure
to the collapse point and increase the section of each column that ex­
ceeds the elastic phase. The design will be more optimal if all the col­
umns reach the plastic phase together at the collapse mechanism. Other
members (gravity load carrying members) are designed based on gravity
loads. With this approach, 1 to 9-story models of the linked column
system next to the simple frame have been designed and the section of
the members of the linked column system bays are presented in Table 2.
In this modeling, the section of the members in the linked column bayes
of each model are similar. Fig. 6, shows the design process, plastic
behavior and collapse mechanism of this system.
Based on the evaluations, a good initial assumption for designing the
LCS system for the seismic performance factors of response modification
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428

Table 2.
The designed section of the members of the linked column bayes.
Linked column system Linked column system

Frame Story Column Story link Mid story link Frame Story Column Story Link Mid story link

2-Story 3-Story 3 W14*159 W18*86 W18*97

(2 LC) 2 W14*193 W18*86 W18*97 (2 LC) 2 W14*233 W18*119 W18*130
1 W14*283 W18*106 W18*119 1 W14*342 W18*130 W18*130

4-Story 5-Story 5 W14*193 W18*97 W18*106

(2 LC) 4 W14*193 W18*86 W18*97 (2 LC) 4 W14*283 W18*119 W18*130
3 W14*283 W18*106 W18*130 3 W14*342 W18*143 W18*158
2 W14*311 W18*140 W18*158 2 W14*398 W18*175 W18*175
1 W14*426 W18*175 W18*175 1 W14*500 W18*175 W18*175

6-Story 7-Story 7 W14*211 W18*86 W18*97

(2 LC) 6 W14*193 W18*86 W18*97 (2 LC) 6 W14*311 W18*106 W18*119
5 W14*311 W18*130 W18*143 5 W14*370 W18*130 W18*143
4 W14*426 W18*158 W18*158 4 W14*455 W18*158 W18*175
3 W14*500 W18*175 W18*175 3 W14*550 W18*192 W18*192
2 W14*550 W18*192 W18*192 2 W14*605 W18*192 W18*211
1 W14*605 W18*192 W18*192 1 W14*730 W18*211 W18*211

8-Story 9-Story 9 W14*211 W18*86 W18*86

(2 LC) 8 W14*233 W18*89 W18*97 (3 LC) 8 W14*283 W18*97 W18*97
7 W14*342 W18*106 W18*106 7 W14*370 W18*106 W18*106
6 W14*370 W18*119 W18*119 6 W14*398 W18*106 W18*106
5 W14*500 W18*175 W18*175 5 W14*426 W18*130 W18*130
4 W14*550 W18*192 W18*192 4 W14*500 W18*158 W18*158
3 W14*655 W18*211 W18*211 3 W14*550 W18*158 W18*158
2 W14*730 W18*211 W18*211 2 W14*605 W18*158 W18*158
1 W14*808 W18*211 W18*211 1 W14*655 W18*158 W18*158

coefficient (R), overstrength factor (Ω0) and deflection amplification
factor (Cd) are 8, 3 and 4, respectively. The behavior of the LCF and LCS
systems are similar to the moment resisting frame system, and these
systems are in the category of moment resisting frame systems;
Accordingly, until the seismic provisions of these systems are deter­
mined, it is better to consider the seismic provisions of the steel moment
resisting frame system for the design of the members of these systems.
So, all the seismic provisions of special steel moment resisting frame
have been considered in designing these systems. Due to the similarity of
the period of these systems, the formula presented in ASCE7–22 for the
steel moment resisting frame system has been used to calculate the
fundamental period of LCS and LCF systems, and the base shear of these
models are calculated accordingly. Also, in order to design the links, the
executive details provided by Dusicka et al. for the connections and
stiffeners are assumed.
Fig. 7, shows the pushover curves of the 9-story model of the linked
column system (LCS), along with the 9-story models of the moment
resisting frame (MRF) and the linked column frame (LCF) systems,
which have been modeled with same geometric conditions and similar
loading. For comparison, the displacement of first plastic hinge, the
target displacement, the displacement of first plastic hinge reaches to
the life safety (LS) phase, and the collapse displacement of these models
are shown in the Fig. 7.
The pushover curves of the models shows that the seismic behavior
of these systems are very similar, especially in the elastic phase. Based
on this analysis, the values of the first mode period, the overstrength
factor (Ω) and the ductility capacity (μC) of these models are presented
in Table 3.
In this comparison, the steel special moment resisting frame model
(MRF) is designed based on AISC 360–16 [18] and AISC 341–16 [19]
using linear analysis, and as mentioned earlier, the linked column sys­
tem model (LCS) is designed based on the Performance-based seismic
design, and the linked column frame model (LCF) is designed based on
the proposed methods using nonlinear analysis. As shown in Fig. 7, in
the LCF system, some members have reached the life safety phase before
the target displacement. Based on the interaction of LC and MF systems
in the LCF system and considering the target performance objectives,
increasing the resistance of members that have reached the life safety
phase before the target displacement, causes the model to be designed
with more resistance than required resistance of the target seismic
hazard level. Therefore, due to the importance of achieving target per­
formance objectives, the LCF system requires a special method for the
design and proper distribution of stiffness between the two systems;
Because the use of performance-based seismic design method causes
improper distribution of stiffness between LC and MF systems. Thus,
considering the target performance objectives and using this method
(PBSD), causes the model becoming over-designed in relation to the
target seismic hazard level; But the LCS system has a simple behavior
due to the use of only one lateral load resisting system, and the
performance-based seismic design method can be used for design of this
system.
3. Evaluation of seismic behavior
3.1. Nonlinear static pushover analysis
The pushover analysis is a fast nonlinear analysis method that can
show the seismic capacity of the structure in the elastic and inelastic
phase based on the base shear – roof displacement curve. Ductility and
overstrength of the structure are important seismic parameters which
can be calculated using this method. In this research, based on the
method presented in FEMA P695, these parameters are calculated based
on the pushover curves of the models. Fig. 8, shows the pushover curves
of the 1 to 9-story models of the linked column system, and the results of
calculating the ductility factor (μC) and the overstrength factor (Ω) of
these models are presented in Table 4.
Based on FEMA P695, the value of overstrength (Ω) is calculated for
each model. For use in design, the value of the system overstrength
factor (Ω0) should not be less than the average value of the models. The
system overstrength factor should be conservatively increased to ac­
count for variation in overstrength results of models, and the average
value of overstrength factors of models rounded to half unit intervals.

5
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428

Fig. 6. The process of designing the linked column system and forming the LS (Life Safety) and CP (Collapse Prevention) plastic hinges in the frame.

Fig. 7. Pushover curves of the 9-story MRF, LCF and LCS models. Fig. 8. Pushover curves of the 1 to 9-story models of the linked column system.

But a practical limit on the value of overstrength factor is about 3.0,

Table 3
consistent with the largest value of this factor specified in Table 12.2–1
Seismic parameters of the 9-story MRF, LCF and LCS models.
of ASCE7–05 (also in ASCE7–22) for all current approved lateral force
Frame Period Target displacement Ω μc resisting system [14]. In this research, the values of the overstrength (Ω)
9-S MRF 2.30 s 0.758 m 4.47 6.30 of the linked column system models are always more than 3 and in
9-S LCF 2.30 s 0.755 m 4.12 5.23 average 3.85. According to the approach of FEMA P695 in calculating
9-S LCS 2.36 s 0.782 m 4.04 5.04
the overstrength factor and the maximum practical value in ASCE 7–22,
the overstrength factor (Ω0) of the linked column system is determined

6
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428

Table 4
Seismic parameters of the linked column system models.
LCS model Fundamental period First mode period Ω μc
1-Story 0.30 0.34 5.75 13.2
2-Story 0.53 0.57 3.55 12.8
3-Story 0.73 0.84 3.33 11.5
4-Story 0.92 1.11 3.59 9.80
5-Story 1.10 1.42 3.71 6.88
6-Story 1.28 1.69 3.85 5.97
7-Story 1.45 1.94 3.88 5.76
8-Story 1.61 2.18 3.94 5.87
9-Story 1.77 2.36 4.04 5.04

to 3.
Based on Malakoutian et al. [6] research, in determining the over­
strength factor (Ω0) of the LCF system, the average value of the over­
strength (Ω) of those models was equal to 3.66, which was lower than
similar steel moment resisting frame models [6]. Due to the fact that the
overstrength values of the LCF and LCS systems are less than but close to
the MRF system, and these values are always more than 3; Also due to
the overstrength factor of the MRF system provided in ASCE7–22, the
overstrength factor (Ω0) of 3 is considered for LCF and LCS systems.
The ductility results of the models show that the linked column
system has good ductility. But the issue is that the ductility of the models
has decreased with increasing the height and the stories. Although all
the studied models have the necessary ductility, but this process may
cause the system to not having enough ductility in taller models.
3.2. Collapse displacement
Determining the exact collapse displacement in the numerical model
analysis is one of important and effective issues in nonlinear incremental
analysis. For instance, in nonlinear static pushover analysis, this value
directly affects the calculation of ductility capacity; and in incremental
dynamic analysis (IDA) determination of collapse displacement as
maximum interstory drift ratio is effective in determining the maximum
spectral acceleration that the model can withstand for the ground mo­
tion record. In general, three main states are used to determine the
collapse displacement in nonlinear analysis.
First, one or more main members of the lateral force resisting system
reach to the failure criteria. In this case, the structure will collapse due to
the destruction of the lateral force resisting system. This state usually
occurs in systems with less flexibility, such as braced frames, and
displacement where the members are failed is considered as the collapse
displacement.
Second, loss of 20% of the base shear capacity (0.8Vmax) occurs.
This state is used in nonlinear static pushover analysis and is mentioned
in FEMA P695. The collapse displacement is taken as the roof
displacement at the point of 20% strength loss (0.8Vmax). This state
usually occurs in systems with high flexibility such as the moment
resisting frame system. The P-Delta effects and the strain-hardening are
very important in determining the collapse displacement in this state.
Third, maximum story rotation limit criteria. This state is used in
incremental dynamic analysis, considers the maximum story rotation of
10% as an acceptance criterion, and invalidates larger rotations. If the
following conditions have not occurred before the acceptance criteria of
the maximum story rotation of 10%, this criterion can be used to
determine the collapse displacement of the model: There was no failure
in the members, the slope of the capacity curve of model has not reached
its minimum acceptable value, the hardening process of the IDA curve
isn't unusual.
Therefore, in this research for incremental dynamic analysis, the
collapse criteria presented by Vamvatsikos and Cornell [20] have been
used, and for nonlinear static pushover analysis, as shown in Fig. 9,
among the members failure criteria, loss of 20% of the base shear ca­
pacity and the maximum story rotation limit of 10%, whichever occurs
Fig. 9. Determination of collapse point in pushover analysis.
first are considered as the collapse displacement.
3.3. Interstory drift ratio
The interstory drift ratio is one of the best and practical results of the
analysis in evaluating the seismic behavior of structures. These results
show the performance of the system, energy absorption and dissipation,
the stiffness of the stories and its changes during the earthquake, the
distribution of earthquake acceleration in the stories, the ability to
maintain stability and structural strength against earthquakes. In order
to evaluate the interstory drift ratio of the linked column system, these
models have been analysis using nonlinear time history analysis based
on the 44 normalized Far-Field record set presented in FEMA P695 at
two seismic hazard levels with exceedance probability of 10% and 2% in
50 years (DBE and MCE). For design base earthquake (DBE) the target
drift is assumed as 2%, this value for the maximum considered earth­
quake (MCE) is 3%. The results of this analysis for 3, 6 and 9-story
models are shown in Fig. 10. In this figure, the median value of the re­
sults and the target drift are shown as a red line and red dashed line,
respectively. Also, the results of the endurance time method (ETM)
analysis are shown as a black line. The endurance time method is a new
time history analysis method that is discussed in Section 3.6.
Based on the results, the median value of the maximum interstory
drift ratios of the models is less than their target drift. The proximity of
the median interstory drift values in each model describes the uniform
participation of the stories in the lateral load resisting and appropriate
stiffness of the stories. As observed in Fig. 10, the maximum of median
interstory drift ratio of the 3, 6 and 9-story models for the DBE hazard
level are 1.4%, 1.8% and 1.8%; and these values for the MCE hazard
level are 2.5%, 2.1% and 2.3%, respectively. At the MCE hazard level,
the interstory drift ratio of the models is far less than the target drift,
which indicates the proper seismic performance of the LCS system at this
hazard level; and due to the repairability of the system, less drift can
increase the efficiency and improve the behavior of the system.
Although structural repair at the MCE hazard level wasn't a system
design objective, less drift is useful.
3.4. Deflection amplification factor (Cd)
In linear analysis, the allowable interstory drift limit is estimated
using the deflection amplification factor (Cd). This factor is necessary to
control and reduce story drift of the system to the allowed value. In the
linked column system, due to the use of lateral load resisting bays with
short lengths (approximately 2 m), this system usually has larger lateral
displacements due to lateral force. Therefore, after analyzing and
designing the system based on the applied forces, the interstory drift is
probably higher than the allowed value, which should be reduced based
on the deflection amplification factor.

7
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428

Fig. 10. The maximum interstory drift ratio of the 3, 6 and 9-story models of the linked column system at the DBE and MCE hazard levels.

8
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428

In this research the linked column system models are designed based
on the performance-based seismic design and their median interstory
drift under the ground motions with exceedance probability of 10% in
50 years is less than but close to the target drift. Thus, the drifts of the
designed models are acceptable and within the allowed range, which
indicates the correct and suitable design of these models for the target
seismic hazard level. Considering the application of the deflection
amplification factor and the specificity of the model drift value in
nonlinear and linear behavior at the target hazard level, deflection
amplification factor of system can be determined by calculating the ratio
of these two values.
For example, the deflection amplification factor for moment resisting
frame (MRF) and linked column frame (LCF) systems are equal to 5.5.
Considering the target drift value of 2% in the design base earthquake
(DBE), their maximum interstory drift ratio in linear analysis should not
exceed 0.0036 (0.02/5.5 = 0.0036). As shown in Fig. 11, the linear
interstory drift ratio of the 9-story MRF and LCF models is within the
allowed limits. But for the linked column model (LCS), its linear inter­
story drift ratio has gone up to 0.005, which according to the target
nonlinear drift, the deflection amplification factor of the LCS system is 4
(0.02/0.005 = 4). Based on the results of this research, the LCS models
have suitable seismic capacity. Therefore, using other values of the Cd
factor for this system, such as 5 or 5.5, will lead to excessive system
resistance.
The behavior and results of the linked column system analysis are
very similar to the MRF and the LCF systems, and this system is flexible; Fig. 12. Nonlinear static pushover interstory drift ratio of the 9-story
However, the energy focus on the stories changes during the earthquake LCS model.
in the LCS system which is very different from other structural systems.
As shows in Fig. 12, in the linked column system in the elastic phase, the parameter and is intended to control drift in the codes, use of larger
upper stories always have larger interstory drift than the lower stories; values directly increases the excessive stiffness of models; Hance, the
Though, reaching the inelastic phase the pattern of interstory drift deflection amplification factor of the linked column system is considered
changes and this value increases more sharply in the lower stories. equal to 4.
Therefore, in the elastic behavior, the drift values of the upper stories are
larger, and in the 2% and 3% interstory drift ratio, the drift values of the
3.5. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)
stories are equal, and after the 3% interstory drift ratio, the drift of the
lower stories will be larger until the collapse drift. This behavior has
The incremental dynamic analysis evaluates the maximum seismic
been seen in all the models of the linked column system.
capacity of the structure at the collapse point. For this purpose, ground
Given that the deflection amplification factor (Cd) is a controlling
motions are scaled to increasing intensities until the structure collapses.
The results of this analysis are shown as the curves of the maximum
interstory drift ratios versus corresponding spectral acceleration in­
tensities at first-mode of structure with 5% damped. After IDA analysis,
by determining collapse point and corresponding spectral acceleration
of each record, the spectral acceleration values are used to plot the
collapse fragility curve. The collapse fragility curve expresses the
probability of structural failure due to earthquakes as a function of
ground motion spectral acceleration intensity. Median value of collapse
level earthquake ( Ŝ CT ) is defined as the spectral intensity when half of
the ground motions cause the structure to collapse, and this value is
corresponding to 50% collapse probability in the fragility curve. The
collapse capacity of structure is expressed in term of the collapse margin
ratio (CMR) which is defined as the ratio of the median collapse intensity
(S
̂ CT ) and the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) ground motion
intensity (SMT). The MCE intensity is obtained from the response spec­
trum of MCE ground motions at the fundamental period of the structure.

CMR = ̂
S CT /SMT (1)
In order to quantify the seismic capacity of the structures, the
adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR) is used. This value is equal to the
product of the collapse margin ratio (CMR) multiplied by the spectral
shape factors (SSF).
ACMR = CMR × SSF (2)
Spectral shape factors (SSF) are a function base on ductility capacity
(μC) and period of the structure. This value is presented in Table 7-1 of
Fig. 11. Linear interstory drift ratio of the 9-story MRF, LCF and LCS models. FEMA P695.

9
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428

Adjusted collapse margin ratios (ACMR) of the models are acceptable
when they meet the following criteria: The average value of adjusted
collapse margin ratio (ACMR) of the models exceeds ACMR10%, and
individual values of adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR) for each of
the models exceeds ACMR20%.
ACMR ≥ ACMR10%
ACMR ≥ ACMR20%
Acceptable values of adjusted collapse margin ratio of 10% and 20%
(ACMR10%, ACMR20%) are presented in Table 7-3 of FEMA P695. These
values are based on total system collapse uncertainty (βTOT) and estab­
lished values of acceptable probabilities of collapse. Total system
collapse uncertainty is calculated by Eq. (5).
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
βTOT = βRTR + βDR + βTD + βMDL (5)
where βRTR is record-to-record uncertainty, βDR is design requirements-
related uncertainty, βTD is test data-related uncertainty, and βMDL is
modeling-related uncertainty, and FEMA P695 has described in detail,
how to determine each of these uncertainties.
Accordingly, in this research, total system collapse uncertainty
(βTOT) for the linked column system (LCS) models is considered equal to
0.75, and based on Tables 7-3 of FEMA P695, acceptable values of
adjusted collapse margin ratio, ACMR10% and ACMR20% are equal to
2.61 and 1.88, respectively.
As mentioned in FEMA P695, the proposed method is suitable for
evaluating the seismic capacity of structural systems and quantifying
seismic performance factors, especially for evaluating new structural
systems. Thus, the method presented in FEMA P695 has been used to
evaluate the seismic behavior of the linked column system and deter­
mine its seismic performance factors. The values of the most important
seismic parameters of the LCS models are presented in Table 5.
Based on this approach, if the adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR)
is large enough to result in an acceptably small probability of collapse at
the maximum considered earthquake (MCE), then the assumed value of
response modification coefficient (R) is acceptable, and the lateral
resisting system has the necessary and sufficient seismic capacity. As
described above, the SMT indicates the maximum considered earthquake
ground motion intensity. As shown in Fig. 13, except for one earthquake
record in the 9-story model, other earthquakes in the 3, 6, and 9-story
models at spectral acceleration intensities, higher than SMT, caused the
structure to collapse. Therefore, the LCS models are very well designed
for collapse prevention at the maximum considered earthquake level.
Also, from another point of view, the average value of adjusted collapse
margin ratio (ACMR) of the LCS models is 3.68, which is higher than the
acceptable value (ACMR10% = 2.61), and individual values of adjusted
collapse margin ratio (ACMR) for each the LCS models are more than
their acceptable values, as shown in Table 5. Accordingly, all the LCS
models have suitable seismic capacity against earthquake.
In IDA analysis, CMR and ACMR factors indicate the seismic capacity
of the structure. These factors inherit all the seismic parameters of the
structure. Thus, their values are directly comparable to values obtained
from IDA analysis of other models, even in different geometric and
loading conditions. The value of these factors independently indicates
the seismic capacity, while other seismic parameters individually
represent a special feature in the seismic behavior of the structure, so,
their comparison with the values of other models or systems can't
(3) indicate the overall seismic capacity of the structure. For instance, in this
research the average values of CMR and ACMR factors of the linked
(4)
column system (LCS) models are 2.52 and 3.68, respectively. In other
researches, this values for linked column frame (LCF) system are 2.64
and 3.66 [6], and for moment resisting frame (MRF) system are 2.49 and
3.17 [21], respectively.
3.6. Endurance time method (ETM)
The dynamic nonlinear time history analysis is the most accurate and
closest method of structural analysis to the actual behavior of structures.
But in using this method, one ground motion record isn't enough to
perform the analysis, because each ground motion record leads to a
specific and different behavior in structures. Therefore, this method
requires a set of ground motion records, and the more ground motion
records used, the more accurate the analysis. Using a set of ground
motion records, scaling and adjusting them to the target hazard level,
analyzing and processing of analysis results in this method is difficult
and time consuming, because the results of the analysis are heavy and
have many effective parameters. This issue has made time history
analysis less useful than other methods, despite being more accurate and
more realistic.
Recently, Estekanchi et al. [22,23], proposed a new method of time
history analysis that, in addition to the advantages of this method, has
greatly reduced the disadvantages mentioned above. In this method,
which is called endurance time method (ETM), an artificial ground
motion that inherits the effects of a set of ground motion records and has
an increasing acceleration is applied to the structure. The general shape
of the artificial ground motion spectrum in this method is unchanged
during the ground motion and at different scale factors. This artificial
ground motion can be created in such a way that, the acceleration
response spectrum have been similar to the target design spectrum or the
median septum of the target ground motion record set. Therefore, the
results of median values of the structural analysis under a ground motion
record set can be calculated using a matching artificial ground motion.
Also, the structure can be designed and analyzed based on an artificial
ground motion for the target seismic hazard levels using dynamic time
history analysis. Fig. 14, shows the ETA20kd01 ground motion pre­
sented for the endurance time method analysis. This ground motion is
corresponding to the 44 Far-Field ground motion record set presented in
FEMA P695. In this research, the presented results of the endurance time
method are derived from analysis of the models using the ETA20kd01
ground motion.
Another advantage of the endurance time method is the ability to
adjust the response spectrum with different seismic hazard levels using
different scale factors and the duration of the ground motion. For

Table 5
Results of IDA analysis based on FEMA P695 method.
LCS model Fundamental period (code) First mode period μc Ω ̂
S CT SMT CMR SSF ACMR Accept ACMR Pass/fail

1-Story 0.30 0.34 20 5.80 5.46 1.50 3.64 1.35 4.90 1.88 Pass
2-Story 0.53 0.57 15.8 3.55 4.39 1.50 2.93 1.35 3.95 1.88 Pass
3-Story 0.73 0.84 11.5 3.33 2.96 1.23 2.41 1.40 3.37 1.88 Pass
4-Story 0.92 1.11 9.80 3.59 2.29 0.98 2.34 1.50 3.51 1.88 Pass
5-Story 1.10 1.42 6.90 3.71 1.85 0.82 2.26 1.55 3.50 1.88 Pass
6-Story 1.28 1.69 5.96 3.85 1.54 0.70 2.20 1.55 3.41 1.88 Pass
7-Story 1.45 1.94 5.76 3.88 1.41 0.62 2.27 1.53 3.47 1.88 Pass
8-Story 1.61 2.18 5.87 3.95 1.36 0.56 2.43 1.54 3.74 1.88 Pass
9-Story 1.77 2.36 5.04 4.04 1.12 0.51 2.20 1.50 3.30 1.88 Pass
Average – – – 3.85 – – 2.52 – 3.68 2.61 Pass

10
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428

Fig. 13. IDA and collapse fragility curves of the 3, 6 and 9-story linked column system models.

example, the acceleration response spectrum of the ETA20kd01 ground

Fig. 14. The artificial ground motion which has been used in the ETM analysis.
motion is equal to the target design spectrum presented in the FEMA
P695 for the maximum seismic design category of D (DMAX). As shown in
Fig. 15, this ground motion has been scaled to three seismic hazard
levels with exceedance probability of 50%, 10% and 2% in 50 years
using a scale factor of 2 and durations of 5, 10, and 15 s, respectively.
Hance, it's even possible to check the model at three seismic hazard
levels by running it once, or even to extend it to the collapse point.
Due to the fact that the design of repairable structural systems is
usually done using the performance-based seismic method, the endur­
ance time method with the unique features can be very useful in the
design of these systems, and due to the novelty of the endurance time
method, further research on this issue is needed. So, in this research, the
results of the time history analysis are compared with the results of the

11
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428

corresponding to the collapse intensity of the models are considered.

Fig. 15. Acceleration spectrum of ETM ground motion in different durations.
endurance time method. This comparison can evaluate the accuracy and
reliability of this method.
As displayed in Fig. 10, the results of the endurance time method are
very close to the median value of time history analysis results. Therefore,
the endurance time method has very good accuracy in nonlinear dy­
namic time history analysis at the above seismic hazard levels. Using this
method helps save time and money and makes analysis and design
easier. Also, in comparison with the IDA analysis, the endurance time
method analysis curve is drawn in Fig. 13, which is comparable to other
IDA Curves. Given that the IDA analysis, evaluates the structure at the
collapse point, naturally this analysis is more sensitive than structural
analysis at the DBE and MCE seismic hazard levels. Thus, the difference
between results of the two methods in this analysis are slightly larger. In
order to better compare the results of the calculation of seismic pa­
rameters of the two methods of the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)
and the endurance time method (ETM) are presented in Table 6, and the
difference between the two methods is calculated. Based on the results of
the model analysis with these two methods, in individual differences,
the smallest difference is equal to zero and the biggest difference is 36%
and the average difference of all models is 14.33%. But in comparing the
average of the results, the average value of CMR in IDA analysis is equal
to 2.57 and in ETM analysis is equal to 2.74, and the difference between
the average values of the results is 8%. In order to bring the models to
the collapse point, a scale factor of 5.5 was used for the ETA20kd01
ground motion and the collapse time of the models using this ground
motion are presented in Table 6.
In general, two approaches can be used to calculate these seismic
parameters using the endurance time method.
First: Using a fixed scale factor and calculating the collapse time of
each model.
Second: Using the ground motion with a full duration (20 s) and
using a scale factor that leads the model to collapse.
The results of the first approach are given in Table 6, but for the
second approach the record with full time (20 s) and the scale factor
The results of this approach and the scale factor for each of the models
are presented in Table 7. Based on these results, the difference between
the IDA and ETM methods in using the second approach is at least 2.5%,
at most 21%, and on average 8.5%. In comparing the average of the
results, the average value of CMR obtained from the IDA method is equal
to 2.52 and for the ETM is equal to 2.56, which have average results with
a difference of 1.5%. Accordingly, in using the second approach, the
difference in results are less and this approach leads to more accurate
results than the first approach.
However, the results of the endurance time method are so close to the
median value of the target ground motion record set. But what is the
reason for the difference between the results of this method and the IDA
method in some models?
The most important issue in the endurance time method is creating
the appropriate ground motion. Creating an artificial ground motion
that can meet all the requirements of this method is difficult and
complicated. But in this method, better ground motions have been
provided by researchers over time. Nevertheless, achieving the suitable
ground motion and accordance with the target ground motion record
set, is still the most important challenge in this method. At present,
creating a ground motion that perfectly matches the target ground
motion record set or target design spectrum is far from expected, but it
can minimize the difference by considering more effective factors.
In examining the characteristics of ground motion, its spectrum can
be very helpful. As shown in Fig. 16, the ground motion used in this
research has little difference with the target record set. These differences
also lead to differences in results. The models that had a greater dif­
ference between the two spectra at their period, had more different in
results. Also, these differences increase with the use of larger scale fac­
tor, this has led to small differences in the time history analysis at
seismic hazard levels with exceedance probability of 10% and 2% in 50
years, and larger differences in the IDA analysis. In addition, the dif­
ference between the results of the two approaches used in calculating
the seismic capacity of the structure at the collapse point using the
endurance time method is observed, which in the second approach is
less due to the use of smaller scale factors. However, the results of the
analysis and their comparison show that the endurance time method
using an artificial ground motion provides the ability to perform rapid
analysis of structures using a time history analysis with good accuracy,
and due to the novelty of this method, more research and the achieving
of more accurate ground motions can minimize the difference in results.
4. Permanent displacement and weight of steel
4.1. Permanent displacement
In order to repair the structure, permanent displacement after the
earthquake is important. Although methods have been proposed for self-
centering of the structural systems, less permanent displacement of the
structure after the earthquake is more desirable. In this part, the values

Table 6
Comparison of IDA analysis results with endurance time method (ETM) results - First approach.
IDA ETM

LCS model ̂
S CT SMT CMR Collapse time Scale factor Sa SMT CMR Standard deviation Deviation percent %

1-Story 5.46 1.50 3.64 14.78 5.5 7.16 1.50 4.77 +1.13 31
2-Story 4.39 1.50 2.93 13.62 5.5 4.69 1.50 3.12 +0.19 6
3-Story 2.96 1.23 2.41 12.49 5.5 4.02 1.23 3.27 +0.86 36
4-Story 2.29 0.98 2.34 12.79 5.5 2.29 0.98 2.34 0 0
5-Story 1.85 0.82 2.26 12.64 5.5 1.56 0.82 1.90 − 0.36 16
6-Story 1.54 0.70 2.20 12.66 5.5 1.80 0.70 2.57 +0.37 17
7-Story 1.41 0.62 2.27 13.53 5.5 1.35 0.62 2.18 − 0.09 4
8-Story 1.36 0.56 2.43 13.57 5.5 1.45 0.56 2.59 +0.16 7
9-Story 1.12 0.51 2.20 14.62 5.5 0.99 0.51 1.94 − 0.26 12
Average – – 2.52 13.41 – – – 2.74 0.38 14.33

12
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428

Table 7
Comparison of IDA analysis results with endurance time method (ETM) results - Second approach.
IDA ETM Difference Results

LCS model ̂
S CT SMT CMR Collapse time Scale factor Sa SMT CMR Standard deviation Deviation percent %

1-Story 5.46 1.50 3.64 20.00 3.30 5.66 1.50 3.77 +0.13 3.5
2-Story 4.39 1.50 2.93 20.00 3.60 4.62 1.50 3.08 +0.15 5
3-Story 2.96 1.23 2.41 20.00 4.25 3.24 1.23 2.63 +0.22 9
4-Story 2.29 0.98 2.34 20.00 4.50 2.78 0.98 2.84 +0.5 21
5-Story 1.85 0.82 2.26 20.00 4.20 1.46 0.82 1.78 − 0.48 21
6-Story 1.54 0.70 2.20 20.00 4.20 1.43 0.70 2.04 − 0.16 7
7-Story 1.41 0.62 2.27 20.00 4.20 1.48 0.62 2.39 +0.12 5
8-Story 1.36 0.56 2.43 20.00 4.00 1.33 0.56 2.37 − 0.06 2.5
9-Story 1.12 0.51 2.20 20.00 5.10 1.09 0.51 2.14 − 0.06 3
Average – – 2.52 – – – – 2.56 0.21 8.5

Fig. 16. Effective differences between the acceleration response spectrum of

Far-Field record set and ETA20kd01 ground motion.
of permanent displacement of 9-story models of moment resisting frame
system, linked column frame system and linked column system at two
seismic hazard levels with exceedance probability of 10% and 2% in 50
years have been evaluated and compared. To extract the results of
permanent displacement, after the effective time of the earthquake, the
structure is allowed to reach quiescent state. For this purpose, zero ac­
celeration is applied to the structure in a long time after the earthquake.
The results of the model analysis at the two seismic hazard levels of DBE
and MCE are presented in Table 8. Based on these results, the value of
permanent displacement of the MRF, LCF and LCS models for the DBE
seismic hazard level are 0.085, 0.077 and 0.069 m, respectively. Fig. 17,
shown permanent displacement of the 9-story LCS model under a ground
motion at the DBE seismic hazard level.
But in measuring permanent displacement, interstory drift is always
more important than the maximum building displacement (roof
displacement). The maximum permanent interstory drift ratio values of
the MRF, LCF and LCS models for the DBE seismic hazard level is 0.007,
0.0023 and 0.002%, respectively. According to the results, permanent
displacement value of the LCS system is less than the LCF and MRF
system. Based on the comparison of pushover curves in Fig. 19, this is
due to the uniform stiffness slope in plastic phase until to yield base
shear and uniform distribution of lateral force in the stories.
Fig. 17. Permanent displacement of the 9-story LCS model at the DBE seismic
hazard level.
The permanent displacement values for the MCE seismic hazard level
for MRF, LCF and LCS models in roof displacement are 0.26, 0.28 and
0.23 m, and for interstory drift ratios are 0.014, 0.013 and 0.007%,
respectively. Although structural repair is not at the MCE hazard level,
the value of permanent displacement at this level has also been calcu­
lated. According to the results, the permanent displacement of the LCS
system is less than others models, even at this level. Fig. 18, shows
permanent displacement of the 9-story LCF model at the MCE seismic
hazard level.
For a better comparison, pushover curves of the 9-story LCF and LCS
systems are displayed in details in Fig. 19. As shown, the yield base shear
of both systems is approximately equal. The LCF system has the ability to
displace more against this force, but the LCS system dissipates this force
with less displacement. The MF range in this figure, shows the partici­
pation of the secondary moment frame part in the LCF system, whereas
in the LCS system this capacity is assigned to the LC system. This change
causes the system stiffness to be more uniform and closer to linear
behavior until the yield base shear of system, which is very helpful in
achieving the objectives of the system.
Considering the DBE target displacement and the yield point in the

Table 8
Permanent displacements of 9-story MRF, LCF and LCS models at the two seismic hazard levels of DBE and MCE.
Yield models info DBE hazard level MCE hazard level

Models Yield base Yield Maximum Permanent Permanent Maximum Permanent Permanent
shear (kN) displaces (m) interstory drift interstory drift displacement (m) interstory drift interstory drift displacement (m)
ratio ratio ratio ratio

9-S
8380 0.50 0.020 0.007 0.085 0.029 0.014 0.26
MRF
9-S LCF 7727 0.61 0.018 0.0023 0.077 0.024 0.013 0.28
9-S LCS 7578 0.50 0.017 0.002 0.069 0.023 0.007 0.23

13
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari
Fig. 18. Permanent displacement of the 9-story LCF model at the MCE seismic
hazard level.
Fig. 19. Pushover curves of 9-story LCF and LCS models.
LCS model and considering the value of permanent displacement at this
seismic hazard level, it could be said that the linked column system as
the only lateral load resisting system in the building frame is also able to
achieve the target performance objectives. Moreover, the maximum
seismic capacity of the system in IDA analysis and appropriate behavior
at the BDE and MCE seismic hazard levels, show that the LCS is a suitable
lateral load resisting system.
4.2. Weight of steel in the structure
The weight of the steel used in the structure is very important
economically. So, the weight of steel in the 9-story MRF, LCF and LCS
models are presented in Fig. 20. In this comparison, the LCF system has
more weight, the MRF system has the least weight and the LCS system
Fig. 20. Weight of steel in the 9-story MRF, LCS and LCF models.
14
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428
has in the middle. As shown, the weight of the beams in the LCS system is
less than other models, instead the weight of the columns in this system
is more. In the LCS system, due to the use of short beams in lateral load
resisting bays and the use of long beams in gravity load carrying bays,
the weight of the beams has been greatly reduced. However, the use of
short lateral load resisting bays in this system increases the force on the
columns that are linked. Also, the use of short bays as a lateral load
resisting system has made it more difficult to control the interstory drift
by increasing the height of the building. Hence, in taller buildings larger
sections are needed to overcome the structural interstory drift.
In the 9-story LCS model, lateral load resisting member sections have
been increased to reduce structural displacements, which has led to the
design of this system to move away from the optimal range, and the
weight of steel has increased compared to the MRF system. But, in
buildings with shorter than 9-story and buildings with a height of less
than 33 m, the weight of steel used in the structure of this system is less
than a steel moment resisting frame system. Fig. 21, shows the weight of
steel consumed in the structure of the 1 to 9-story models of LCS and
MRF systems. Based on this comparison, the 1 and 2-story models of the
LCS system have equal weight and the 3 to 8-story models have less
weight and the 9-story model has more weight than the MRF models.
5. Conclusion
In this research, the seismic behavior of the linked column system
was evaluated from various aspects using nonlinear structural analysis
methods. Due to the fact that the repair of structures after an earthquake
is currently considered for buildings with short to medium height, 1 to 9-
story models have been used to evaluate this system. Also, with
increasing height, the decrease of system ductility, the complexity of
design due to difficulty in drift control, and the wight of steel used in
structures with more than 8 stories were considered. Thus, in this story
range, the models of the linked column system were designed and
analyzed; and the results of the model analysis show the following:
1. As a suitable initial assumption, the values of the linked column
system seismic performance factors for the response modification
coefficient (R), the overstrength factor (Ω0), and the deflection
amplification factor (Cd) are equal to 8, 3 and 4, respectively.
2. Based on the results of pushover analysis, the linked column system
has suitable overstrength (Ω) and ductility (μC), and the median
values of these factors are equal 3.85 and 6, respectively.
3. The results of nonlinear time history analysis of the models at DBE
and MCE seismic hazard levels showed that the linked column sys­
tem has an acceptable interstory drift in these seismic hazard levels.
4. The results of evaluating the seismic capacity of the linked column
system using IDA analysis have shown that this system has a suitable
Fig. 21. Comparison the weight of steel used in the LCS and MRF models.
V. Jaberi and A. Asghari
seismic capacity and the average values of CMR and ACMR factors of
the models are equal to 2.52 and 3.68, respectively.
5. Endurance time method can be used for design of the linked column
system. This method is an accurate analysis with great advantages
that make the analysis and design of structures simple and faster
based on a nonlinear time history analysis. This method is very
practical and accurate in evaluating behavior of structures at
different seismic hazard levels, but compared to the IDA method,
there are small differences in the results. Due to the time-consuming
nature of the IDA analysis, ETM method can be used as an extremely
fast initial and approximate analysis. However, more research in the
future can reduce the difference in results, and increase the accuracy
of the ETM results compared to the IDA method.
6. The linked column system has the ability to return to the initial state
and self-center after an earthquake at the target hazard level, and has
relatively less permanent displacement. This is important for the ease
of replacing damaged links and reusing the structure.
7. Based on the comparison with the steel moment resisting frame
system, the weight of steel used in the structure of the linked column
system is optimal for models up to 8-story or up to height of 33 m.
However, with increasing stories, the system design moves away
from an optimal range and the weight of steel consumed in the
structure increases more sharply.
8. The seismic behavior of the linked column system is similar to
behavior of the moment resisting frame and the linked column frame
systems. These systems have the same seismic capacity, ductility,
overstrength, period and displacement.
9. Finally, in a preliminary evaluation, the linked column system is
introduced as a steel lateral load resisting system with suitable
seismic capacity. The advantage of this system over other structural
systems is the ability to fast and simple repair of buildings after an
earthquake.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
[1] M. Nader, R. Manzanarez, B. Maroney, Seismic design strategy of the new east bay
bridge suspension span, in: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000. https://www.academia.
edu/download/37888280/0911.pdf.
[2] P. Dusicka, R. Iwai, Development of linked column frame system for seismic lateral
loads, in: Structural Engineering Research Frontiers, 2007, pp. 1–13, https://doi.
org/10.1061/40944(249)63.
15
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 196 (2022) 107428
[3] S. Shoeibi, M.A. Kafi, M. Gholhaki, New performance-based seismic design method
for structures with structural fuse system, Eng. Struct. 132 (2017 Feb 1) 745–760,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.12.002.
[4] P. Dusicka, G. Lewis, Investigation of replaceable sacrificial steel links, in:
Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake
Engineering Vol. 1659, 2010. https://www.caee.ca/10CCEEpdf/2010EQConf-00
1659.pdf.
[5] M. Malakoutian, J.W. Berman, P. Dusicka, Seismic response evaluation of the
linked column frame system, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (6) (2013 May) 795–814,
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2245.
[6] M. Malakoutian, J.W. Berman, P. Dusicka, A. Lopes, Quantification of linked
column frame seismic performance factors for use in seismic design, J. Earthq. Eng.
20 (4) (2016 May 18) 535–558, https://doi.org/10.1080/
13632469.2015.1104750.
[7] A.P. Lopes, Seismic behavior and design of the linked column steel frame system
for rapid return to occupancy, 2022, https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.3007.
[8] J. Tazarv, A. Mohebkhah, Direct displacement-based design of the linked column
steel frame System, Part 1: Modeling and yield drift evaluation, in: Structures Vol.
31, Elsevier, 2021 Jun 1, pp. 341–356, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
istruc.2021.01.076.
[9] J. Tazarv, A. Mohebkhah, Direct displacement-based design of the linked column
steel frame system, Part 2: development and verification, in: Structures 31,
Elsevier, 2021 Jun 1, pp. 29–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.075.
[10] V. Jaberi, A. Asghari, Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings by linked column
system, Sharif J. Civ. Eng. 36 (3.1) (2020 Nov 21) 55–65, https://doi.org/
10.24200/j30.2019.52748.2504.
[11] M. Malakoutian, Seismic Response Evaluation of the Linked Column Frame System,
PhD Thesis, Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept, University of Washington,
Seattle, USA, 2012, http://hdl.handle.net/1773/22580.
[12] V. Jaberi, A. Asghari, Evaluation of seismic response of linked column with simple
frame system, Modares Civ. Eng. J. 19 (6) (2020 Feb 10) 41–58. https://mcej.
modares.ac.ir/article-16-31002-en.pdf.
[13] FEMA 355-C, H. Krawinkler, Venture SACJ, et al., Federal Emergency Management
agency (FEMA), state of the art report on systems performance of steel moment
frames subject to earthquake ground shaking, SAC Joint Vent. (2000).
[14] FEMA P695, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Technical
Report P695, Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington DC, 2009.
[15] S. Mazzoni, F. McKenna, M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves, OpenSees Command Language
Manual 264, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, 2006 Jul 19,
pp. 137–158.
[16] ASCE/SEI 7-22, Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and
other structures, Am. Soc. Civil Eng. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1061/
9780784415788. ISBN (PDF): 9780784483497.
[17] ASCE/SEI 41-17, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings, Am. Soc.
Civil Eng. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784414859. ISBN (PDF):
9780784480816.
[18] ANSI/AISC 360–16, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute
of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, 2016.
[19] ANSI/AISC 341–16, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, 2016.
[20] D. Vamvatsikos, C.A. Cornell, Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthq. Eng. Struct.
Dyn. 31 (3) (2002 Mar) 491–514, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141.
[21] A. Asghari, S. Saharkhizan, Seismic design and performance evaluation of steel
frames with knee-element connections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 154 (2019 Mar 1)
161–176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.11. 011.
[22] H.E. Estekanchi, V. Valamanesh, A. Vafai, Application of endurance time method in
linear seismic analysis, Eng. Struct. 29 (10) (2007 Oct 1) 2551–2562, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.01.009.
[23] M.C. Basim, H.E. Estekanchi, Application of endurance time method in
performance-based optimum design of structures, Struct. Saf. 56 (2015 Sep 1)
52–67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.05.005.