Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Evaluation of seismic performance factors for dual steel SMF-SCBF systems

using FEMA P695 methodology
Ehsan Bakhshivand, Hossein Ahmadie Amiri, Shervin Maleki *
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

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

Keywords: The present study evaluates the seismic performance factors of typical buildings with dual lateral force resisting
Dual steel systems system (LFRS) consisting of special moment frames (SMFs) combined with special concentrically braced frames
Special moment frame (SCBFs) using FEMA P695 methodology. For this purpose, six building archetypes with 2-, 4-, 8-, 12-, 16- and 20-
Special concentrically braced frame
stories, in two short- and long-period performance groups were analyzed by the response spectrum method and
FEMA P695
Seismic performance factors
designed based on the requirements of ASCE 7–16 and AISC 341–16. Validated nonlinear models were developed
Collapse fragility analysis for each building in the OpenSees software platform. Then, the static and dynamic behavior of each building was
investigated up to the collapse stage by nonlinear static analyses and nonlinear time history analyses under 44
far-field ground motions of FEMA P695. In this investigation, the peak and residual drift ratios, hysteresis
behavior of the stories during the earthquake, collapse fragility curves, and seismic performance parameters (R,
Ω, and Cd) were obtained and discussed. The results of nonlinear analyses demonstrated that code-compliant long
period dual SMF-SCBFs (16 stories or higher) performed poorly and can be severely damaged in strong
earthquakes.

1. Introduction improve the seismic performance of conventional SCBF systems, other

Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs) and Special Moment
Frames (SMFs) are the most popular lateral force resisting systems
(LFRSs) for steel buildings in high seismicity regions. Each of the two
systems has some advantages and disadvantages in terms of seismic
behavior, construction cost, and architectural considerations. SCBFs
have high lateral stiffness due to truss action of the braces while
obscuring the bays and imposing architectural limitations. They often
provide for lower lateral story drifts than SMFs and readily satisfy the
drift limits of the ASCE 7–16 [1] code. The input seismic energy to this
system is dissipated through yielding of tensile braces and post-buckling
behavior of compression braces. In order to ensure the proper seismic
performance of SCBFs, strict requirements have been considered in the
design of the braced bay elements (i.e., braces, beams, columns, gusset
plates, and connections) by the AISC 341–16 [2] seismic design code.
Nevertheless, failure of braces in high-amplitude cyclic loading due to
their global and local slenderness and the occurrence of low-cycle fa­
tigue is a major drawback of SCBFs, which results in a significant
reduction in stiffness, damage concentration, increased P-Delta effect,
increased residual drift, and even structural collapse [3–6]. In order to
bracing systems have been proposed by researchers, such as
buckling-restrained braced frames [7], zipper braced frames [5,8],
hexa-braced frames [9], and many more [10–12]. These improved
bracing systems prevent buckling, damage concentration, and soft story
formation through appropriate distribution of the seismic demand
among all stories of a building.
On the other hand, SMFs often have more ductility than SCBFs due to
stable hysteresis behavior of the plastic hinges in the beams which act as
ductile fuses for the LFRS. The SMFs high ductility and low stiffness
usually result in high story drifts that do not satisfy the code re­
quirements. Thus, lowering story drifts is a significant challenge in the
design of mid- and high-rise SMFs, increasing the consumption of ma­
terials and construction costs [13]. One of the most effective solutions
that has been proposed so far to control the drift of flexible SMFs is the
use of supplemental damping devices [14–16], capable of being
replaced after an earthquake. These devices decrease the damages
inflicted on SMF components and increase their resilience [17–20].
Since the shortcomings of SMFs and SCBFs are in contrast to each
other, one way to improve the behavior of both, especially in high-rise
buildings, is to use them together in what is known as a dual system.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ehsan.bakhshivand@gmail.com (E. Bakhshivand), H.AhmadieAmiri@gmail.com (H. Ahmadie Amiri), smaleki@sharif.edu (S. Maleki).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107506
Received 10 May 2022; Received in revised form 31 July 2022; Accepted 16 August 2022
Available online 25 September 2022
0267-7261/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Bakhshivand et al.
In this dual type of LFRS, SMFs act as a secondary system providing for
ductility and energy absorption needed, while the primary SCBF system
absorbs most of earthquake forces due to its high stiffness. It should be
noted that, at low seismic hazard levels, due to the considerable stiffness
of the bracing system relative to the moment frame, most of the lateral
load is resisted by the primary system; whereas, by increasing the
seismic hazard level, yielding, buckling, and failure of the braces occur,
and the participation of the secondary system in seismic energy dissi­
pation and structural stability becomes more prominent [21]. In dual
LFRSs, different combinations depending on the type of bracing and the
moment frame used can be created. For example, the combination of
SMFs with SCBFs, buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs), or
eccentrically braced frames (EBFs) are approved for use [1] when the
SMFs are capable of resisting at least 25% of prescribed seismic forces.
The first attempts to identify the behavior of dual systems date back
to the late twentieth century when experimental and analytical studies
were carried out to investigate the performance of moment frames
combined with concentric and eccentric braces. In these studies, damage
distribution between the moment frame and the braced frame, the use of
25% minimum force for SMFs, and the seismic performance factors were
evaluated, and solutions were presented to improve the performance of
dual systems [22–25]. The concept of dual system in improving the
seismic performance of BRBFs was also studied [26–28]. The results of
these studies showed that the addition of a moment frame to a BRBF can
compensate for the low post-yield stiffness of the braces and reduce the
residual drift of the entire system significantly. Mehdipanah et al. [29]
used a stiffness-based design method to arrive at a satisfactory perfor­
mance in SMF-BRBF dual system. They obtained the stiffness contribu­
tion of the moment frames and the BRBFs to be 35% and 65%,
respectively. Maley et al. [30] implemented the displacement
based-design method as a potential design strategy to improve the per­
formance of dual systems incorporating moment-resisting frames
(MRFs) and BRBFs. The results of this study demonstrated that the
adopted design strategy provides good control of drifts for studied
structures. Freddi et al. [31] investigated the optimal combination of
strength, stiffness, and ductility between the BRBFs and moment frames
in a parametric study. Aukeman and Laursen [32] examined the 25%
rule in such dual systems. They showed that the dual system performs
well, even with a 15% share of the moment frame in the base shear.
Some studies [33–35] have also demonstrated that there is a secondary
moment action (reserve capacity) even in the concentrically braced
frames (CBFs), which could enhance the collapse performance of
low-ductility steel CBF systems. This additional lateral force-resisting
capacity that is triggered after significant damage to the primary LFRS
have some sources such as beam-column connections that are part of
gravity system, braced frame beam-column gusset connections, and
frame action within braced frames. Additional stiffness, ductility, and
strength provided by these sources can aid in the distribution of inelastic
response over multiple stories to decrease concentration of story drift
following brace buckling or brace connection fracture. Recently, Bradley
et al. [36] used this concept and proposed design criteria for a concen­
trically braced dual frame that can be used as an alternative to con­
ventional low ductility braced frames. Their proposed system consists of
a stiff low-ductility concentrically braced frame supplemented by a
reserve moment-resisting frame, which can achieve better collapse
performance without the need for additional detailing requirements to
conventional seismic design provisions. In further studies about the dual
systems, Bosco and Rossi [37] proposed a method for designing dual
MRF-EBFs, which could use the capacity of all link beams. Seker [38]
recently investigated the effects of bracing configuration on the seismic
behavior of two 4- and 10-story buildings with SMF-SCBF dual steel
system and found that the cross X configuration performed better than
the split X, Chevron, and V configurations. Piluso et al. [39] evaluated
the seismic response of MRF-CBF dual systems equipped with low
damage friction dampers at beam ends, column bases, and chevron
brace intersections. They showed that the idea of structures free from
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506
yielding of primary structural elements could be obtained by applying
the above strategy and designing column sections to remain elastic with
the aid of the Theory of Plastic Mechanism Control (TPMC). Many other
studies [40–43] have also been conducted on the application of the
TPMC in the design of dual MRF-EBF and MRF-CBF systems.
Current codes accept linear analysis methods such as equivalent
static lateral force analysis and response spectrum analysis for the
seismic design of buildings. The accuracy of these methods that are
popular among designers due to their simplicity heavily depends on
seismic performance factors used in the design process. These factors
were first introduced in ATC 3–06 [44] for conventional LFRSs at that
time. The basis of determining these factors was mostly engineering
judgment and the performance of buildings under the past earthquakes
[45]. In the late twentieth century, numerous studies [46,47] were
conducted to estimate these factors. With the research advancements
made over the past two decades in performance-based earthquake en­
gineering, the FEMA P695 [48] methodology was introduced for
quantifying the seismic performance factors and evaluating the effec­
tiveness of existing and new LFRSs in fulfilling the performance objec­
tives of seismic codes. In this methodology, the life safety performance
objective of a LFRS, which is the basis of seismic requirements of
building codes such as ASCE 7–16 [1], is evaluated by the acceptability
of its collapse probability at the MCE seismic intensity level. In this
evaluation, various building archetypes of the LFRS are analyzed by
nonlinear static and dynamic analyses, and the uncertainties in
modeling, analysis, and design are considered. Following the introduc­
tion of FEMA P695 methodology, seismic performance factors of various
LFRSs were evaluated by researchers [34,49–51] and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [52]. However, the
seismic performance factors of SMF-SCBF dual system have not been
studied using the FEMA P695 methodology in the technical literature so
far.
This study aims to evaluate the seismic performance factors of SMF-
SCBF dual LFRSs using the FEMA P695 methodology. This goal is pur­
sued through the following steps: 1) Selecting the building archetypes
and ground motions and explaining the methodology and design as­
sumptions, 2) developing nonlinear models of building archetypes using
recent achievements in the field of nonlinear modeling of braced and
moment frames, 3) performing nonlinear static and dynamic analyses of
building archetypes and evaluating the seismic demand parameters, and
4) performing collapse fragility analysis of the building archetypes and
evaluating the seismic performance factors of the dual LFRS using the
FEMA P695 methodology.
2. Building archetypes and ground motions
Applying the FEMA P695 methodology requires the selection of
building archetypes within the design range of the LFRS under study. In
the present study, assuming the use of one type of structural plan, six
building archetypes with 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 stories were defined in
the two short- and long-period performance groups. Buildings are
considered short- or long-period depending on their transition period (Ts
in the ASCE 7–16 spectrum). This ratio is defined as the spectral
response acceleration parameter at the period of 1 s divided by that at
the short period (Ts = SD1/SDS = SM1/SMS). According to this definition,
buildings with a period of less than Ts are considered short-period and
vice versa.
Fig. 1 depicts the typical plan and elevation layout of the building
archetypes. It should be noted that the plan is selected from the NIST
project [52], in which the bay length of the frames is equal to 20 ft (6.1
m), the height of the first story is 15 ft (4.57 m), and the other stories are
13 ft (3.96 m). As can be seen, in each direction, four bays of the frame
(two bays on each side) are braced symmetrically with a two-story X
bracing configuration. Considering the symmetry of the plan and that
the other LFRS is a perimeter moment frame, half of the building is
studied two-dimensionally in the east-west direction. The P-Delta effects
E. Bakhshivand et al.
Fig. 1. Typical plan and elevation of building archetypes; a) plan view, b) elevation view.
of the interior gravity frames are considered by rigid leaning columns
without lateral stiffness. The dead load of all floors is 90 psf (4.31
kN/m2), the unreduced live load of the floors and the roof are 50 psf (2.4
kN/m2) and 20 psf (0.96 kN/m2), respectively. The load of the exterior
cladding walls is 25 psf (1.2 kN/m2).
Building archetypes were designed using the requirements of ASCE
7–16 [1], AISC 360–16 [53], AISC 341–16 [2], and AISC 358–16 [54] in
ETABS software [55]. For this purpose, the buildings were assumed to
have an office occupancy, soil site class D, and seismic design category
Dmax. Seismic performance factors including response modification
factor (R), overstrength factor (Ω), and the deflection amplification
factor (Cd) were considered as 7, 2.5, and 5.5, respectively, in the initial
design process. The response spectrum analysis (RSA) method was used
in the design of all building archetypes because of the significant
participation of higher modes in the seismic response of long-period
buildings. In Fig. 2, the response spectra of the DBE and MCE intensity
levels, along with the periods used in the design of buildings, are dis­
played. In developing these spectra according to FEMA P695 and ASCE
7–16 the parameters used were: Fv = 1.7, Fa = 1.0, S1 = 0.599 g, and Ss
= 1.5 g.
The American W-sections with ASTM A992 steel (Fy = 50 ksi) were
used for beams and columns. The hollow square structural sections
(HSS) for braces were used with ASTM A500 Gr. B (Fy = 46 ksi) steel.
After designing the whole dual system for 100% of the base shear, the
moment frames were checked for resisting 25% of the base shear inde­
pendently, according to the requirement of ASCE7-16 [1]. The results of
the designs showed that in the lower stories of long-period building
Fig. 2. ASCE 7–16 spectra at the DBE and MCE intensity levels along with the
period of building archetypes.
3
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506
archetypes, the latter criterion governs the final cross-section of the
beams and columns of moment frames. In addition, SMF components
fulfilled the ASCE 341-16 seismic requirements such as seismic
compactness and the strong column-weak beam concept. All beam to
column connections of the SMFs were considered of the type Welded
Unreinforced Flange-Welded Web (WUF–W) moment connections,
satisfying the requirements of AISC 358–16 [54] for full development of
plastic hinges in beams. The panel zones were designed as strong ele­
ments and were not considered as dissipative elements in the design
process. The braces were also seismically compact with a slenderness
ratio of less than 200. Members of the braced bays, including beams,
columns, and gusset plates, were designed for the capacity-limited
seismic load effects. The gusset plates were tapered plates made of
ASTM A572 Gr.50 (Fy = 50 ksi) designed using the method proposed by
Astaneh-Asl et al. [56]. The structural sections obtained from the design
of building archetypes are summarized in Table 1. In the table, the SCBF
bay members (beams and columns) are designated as “Braced” and the
SMF bay members as “Unbraced”. Full details of the seismic design
procedure of the building archetypes together with the design outcomes
are openly shared via the repository at https://github.com/EBakhsh
ivand/SMF-SCBF-dual-system.
The present study employs 44 far-field ground motions of FEMA
P695 to perform nonlinear time history analyses [48]. This set of ground
motions consists of records of stiff soil and soft rock sites with dominant
strike-slip and thrust mechanisms whose moment magnitude varies
between 6.5 and 7.6 and have been recorded at a distance of at least 10
km from the fault rupture. Fig. 3 shows the acceleration response spectra
of these records without scaling. According to FEMA P695, the scaling of
each record to a specified intensity level is done in two steps. In the first
step, each record is normalized to its own Peak Ground Velocity (PGV).
In the second step, the normalized records are scaled so that the median
spectral acceleration of the record set normalized in the first step be­
comes equal to the target spectral acceleration for the specified intensity
level in the fundamental period of the building archetype being
investigated.
3. Nonlinear structural modeling
In order to perform nonlinear analysis, two-dimensional nonlinear
finite element models of the building archetypes were developed in the
OpenSees [57] platform. Fig. 4 shows the details of nonlinear modeling
in this study. According to Fig. 4(a), steel beams and columns were
modeled using the concentrated plasticity approach by elastic
beam-column elements and nonlinear rotational springs at the ends. The
end rotational springs act as concentrated plastic hinges and were
modeled using zero-length elements. The hysteretic behavior of the
E. Bakhshivand et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506

Table 1
Designed cross-sections of building archetypes.
Archetype ID Story Number Braced Column Unbraced Column Braced Beam Unbraced Beam Braces

Interior Exterior Interior Exterior

2-Story 1 W8 × 58 W8 × 67 W8 × 58 W16 × 57 W10 × 26 W12 × 22 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8

2 W8 × 58 W8 × 67 W8 × 58 W10 × 45 W12 × 19 W12 × 19 HSS 3.5 × 3.5 × 3/8

4-Story 1 W12 × 96 W10 × 100 W10 × 77 W16 × 89 W16 × 31 W16 × 31 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2

2 W12 × 96 W10 × 100 W10 × 77 W12 × 50 W16 × 31 W16 × 31 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8

3 W10 × 68 W10 × 77 W10 × 68 W14 × 53 W14 × 26 W14 × 26 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8
4 W10 × 68 W10 × 77 W10 × 68 W10 × 45 W12 × 22 W12 × 19 HSS 4 × 4 × 5/16

8-Story 1 W14 × 211 W12 × 120 W10 × 88 W16 × 89 W18 × 40 W18 × 40 HSS 6 × 6 × 5/8

2 W14 × 211 W12 × 120 W10 × 88 W16 × 89 W18 × 46 W18 × 46 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
3 W12 × 136 W12 × 106 W10 × 77 W12 × 50 W18 × 46 W18 × 40 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
4 W12 × 136 W12 × 106 W10 × 77 W16 × 89 W18 × 40 W18 × 35 HSS 5 × 5 × 1/2
5 W10 × 88 W10 × 100 W10 × 77 W10 × 45 W18 × 35 W18 × 35 HSS 5 × 5 × 1/2
6 W10 × 88 W10 × 100 W10 × 77 W16 × 89 W16 × 31 W16 × 31 HSS 4.5 × 4.5 × 1/2
7 W8 × 67 W10 × 77 W8 × 67 W16 × 57 W14 × 26 W14 × 26 HSS 4.5 × 4.5 × 1/2
8 W8 × 67 W10 × 77 W8 × 67 W10 × 45 W12 × 19 W8 × 21 HSS 4 × 4 × 3/8

12-Story 1 W14 × 311 W12 × 152 W12 × 96 W16 × 89 W18 × 40 W18 × 40 HSS 6 × 6 × 5/8

2 W14 × 311 W12 × 152 W12 × 96 W16 × 89 W18 × 50 W18 × 46 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
3 W14 × 211 W12 × 152 W10 × 100 W16 × 89 W18 × 60 W18 × 50 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
4 W14 × 211 W12 × 152 W10 × 100 W16 × 89 W18 × 60 W18 × 46 HSS 5.5 × 5.5 × 3/8
5 W12 × 170 W12 × 136 W10 × 88 W10 × 30 W18 × 55 W18 × 46 HSS 5.5 × 5.5 × 3/8
6 W12 × 170 W12 × 136 W10 × 88 W16 × 89 W18 × 50 W18 × 40 HSS 5.5 × 5.5 × 3/8
7 W12 × 120 W12 × 106 W10 × 77 W10 × 45 W18 × 46 W18 × 40 HSS 5.5 × 5.5 × 3/8
8 W12 × 120 W12 × 106 W10 × 77 W12 × 50 W18 × 40 W18 × 35 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8
9 W10 × 77 W10 × 100 W10 × 77 W10 × 30 W18 × 35 W16 × 31 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8
10 W10 × 77 W10 × 100 W10 × 77 W10 × 45 W16 × 31 W14 × 26 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8
11 W8 × 67 W10 × 77 W8 × 67 W12 × 50 W14 × 26 W14 × 26 HSS 4.5 × 4.5 × 3/8
12 W8 × 67 W10 × 77 W8 × 67 W10 × 45 W12 × 19 W12 × 19 HSS 4 × 4 × 5/16

16-Story 1 W14 × 426 W12 × 170 W12 × 120 W16 × 89 W18 × 40 W18 × 40 HSS 6 × 6 × 5/8

2 W14 × 426 W12 × 170 W12 × 120 W16 × 89 W18 × 60 W18 × 60 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
3 W14 × 342 W12 × 170 W12 × 106 W10 × 30 W18 × 65 W18 × 65 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
4 W14 × 342 W12 × 170 W12 × 106 W16 × 89 W18 × 65 W18 × 65 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
5 W14 × 257 W12 × 170 W12 × 96 W16 × 89 W18 × 65 W18 × 55 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
6 W14 × 257 W12 × 170 W12 × 96 W16 × 89 W18 × 65 W18 × 55 HSS 5.5 × 5.5 × 3/8
7 W14 × 193 W12 × 170 W10 × 100 W10 × 30 W18 × 65 W18 × 50 HSS 5.5 × 5.5 × 3/8
8 W14 × 193 W12 × 170 W10 × 100 W16 × 89 W18 × 65 W18 × 50 HSS 5.5 × 5.5 × 3/8
9 W12 × 152 W12 × 170 W10 × 88 W10 × 45 W18 × 65 W18 × 46 HSS 5.5 × 5.5 × 3/8
10 W12 × 152 W12 × 170 W10 × 88 W12 × 50 W18 × 55 W18 × 40 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8
11 W12 × 106 W12 × 120 W10 × 77 W10 × 30 W18 × 46 W18 × 40 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8
12 W12 × 106 W12 × 120 W10 × 77 W12 × 50 W18 × 40 W18 × 35 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8
13 W10 × 77 W10 × 100 W10 × 77 W12 × 50 W18 × 35 W16 × 31 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8
14 W10 × 77 W10 × 100 W10 × 77 W10 × 45 W16 × 31 W14 × 26 HSS 4.5 × 4.5 × 5/16
15 W10 × 77 W10 × 77 W8 × 67 W12 × 50 W14 × 26 W12 × 22 HSS 4.5 × 4.5 × 5/16
16 W10 × 77 W10 × 77 W8 × 67 W10 × 45 W12 × 19 W12 × 19 HSS 3.5 × 3.5 × 5/16

20-Story 1 W14 × 605 W14 × 233 W12 × 190 W12 × 50 W18 × 50 W18 × 40 HSS 7 × 7 × 1/2
2 W14 × 605 W14 × 233 W12 × 190 W16 × 89 W18 × 71 W18 × 60 HSS 7 × 7 × 1/2
3 W14 × 445 W14 × 193 W12 × 170 W12 × 50 W21 × 68 W18 × 65 HSS 7 × 7 × 1/2
4 W14 × 445 W14 × 193 W12 × 170 W16 × 89 W21 × 68 W18 × 65 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
5 W14 × 398 W14 × 176 W12 × 152 W10 × 30 W21 × 68 W18 × 65 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
6 W14 × 398 W14 × 176 W12 × 152 W16 × 89 W21 × 68 W18 × 65 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
7 W14 × 311 W12 × 190 W12 × 106 W10 × 30 W21 × 68 W18 × 60 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
8 W14 × 311 W12 × 190 W12 × 106 W16 × 89 W21 × 68 W18 × 60 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
9 W14 × 257 W12 × 190 W12 × 96 W12 × 50 W18 × 71 W18 × 60 HSS 6 × 6 × 1/2
10 W14 × 257 W12 × 190 W12 × 96 W16 × 89 W18 × 71 W18 × 55 HSS 5 × 5 × 1/2
11 W12 × 210 W12 × 170 W10 × 88 W14 × 53 W18 × 71 W18 × 55 HSS 5 × 5 × 1/2
12 W12 × 210 W12 × 170 W10 × 88 W16 × 89 W18 × 65 W18 × 46 HSS 5.5 × 5.5 × 3/8
13 W12 × 152 W12 × 152 W10 × 88 W10 × 45 W18 × 60 W18 × 46 HSS 5.5 × 5.5 × 3/8
14 W12 × 152 W12 × 152 W10 × 88 W12 × 50 W18 × 55 W18 × 40 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8
15 W12 × 106 W12 × 136 W10 × 77 W10 × 30 W18 × 55 W18 × 35 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8
16 W12 × 106 W12 × 136 W10 × 77 W12 × 50 W18 × 40 W18 × 35 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8
17 W10 × 77 W12 × 96 W10 × 77 W12 × 50 W18 × 35 W18 × 35 HSS 5 × 5 × 3/8
18 W10 × 77 W12 × 96 W10 × 77 W10 × 45 W18 × 35 W16 × 31 HSS 4.5 × 4.5 × 5/16
19 W8 × 67 W10 × 77 W8 × 67 W12 × 50 W16 × 31 W14 × 26 HSS 4.5 × 4.5 × 5/16
20 W8 × 67 W10 × 77 W8 × 67 W10 × 45 W14 × 26 W10 × 26 HSS 3.5 × 3.5 × 5/16

rotational springs was simulated using the modified of this behavioral model, which is calibrated based on the empirical
Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler (IMK) deterioration model [58], which can relationships by Lignos et al. for beams [59] and columns [60]. Each
take into account the stiffness and strength deterioration in the steel modeling parameter of the monotonic back-bone curve represents a
member. Fig. 5(a) shows the monotonic back-bone curve’s parameters particular state of the element’s nonlinear response. Referring to Fig. 5

4
E. Bakhshivand et al.
Fig. 3. Acceleration response spectra of unscaled far-field records of
FEMA P695.
(a), in the case of a column, Ke is the effective elastic stiffness of the
column, which considers both its flexural and shear deformation. My and
θy refer to the effective yield strength and corresponding rotational
deformation, respectively. After yielding, the column hardens before
reaching its maximum flexural strength, Mc, which is associated with the
onset of nonlinear geometric instabilities (i.e., local and/or global
buckling). The pre-peak plastic rotation, θp, defines plastic deformation
of the column before the onset of geometric instabilities, and the
post-peak plastic rotation, θpc, is representative of its post buckling
behavior. The residual moment, Mr, also shows the residual strength of
column after strength deterioration, and finally, column loses its load
carrying capacity at an ultimate rotation, θu. For further details, like
equations to compute each parameter of the monotonic back-bone
curve, the reader is referred to Refs. [59,60]. Panel zones were consid­
ered rigid in the models, and their participation in energy dissipation
was neglected.
The distributed plasticity approach was used to model the steel
Fig. 4. Details of nonlinear finite element models; a) dual frame model, b) connection model, c) brace model.
5
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506
braces, capable of considering flexural buckling and failure initiation
caused by low-cycle fatigue. According to Fig. 4(c), each steel brace
consists of eight displacement-based fiber elements, five integration
points per element using Gauss-Lobatto method, HSS sections dis­
cretized with 10 fibers along the width and 4 fibers through the thick­
ness, and a sinusoidal initial imperfection with a maximum amplitude of
L/500. The overall cyclic behavior of the braces was simulated using the
Steel02 material. The post-buckling behavior of the brace and strength
deterioration due to the low-cycle fatigue phenomenon were also
considered using fatigue materials [4]. The mentioned materials were
calibrated based on the modeling recommendations of Karamanci and
Lignos [61]. For further details about the method used for nonlinear
modeling of braces, the reader is referred to Ref. [61]. The
brace-to-gusset plate connection was modeled with an out-of-plane
nonlinear rotational spring at the end of the brace, which considers
out-of-plane flexural behavior of the gusset plate. The behavior of this
spring was simulated using the Steel02 material of OpenSees. To this
end, rotational stiffness and moment capacity of each spring were cali­
brated based on the geometrical characteristics of the gusset plate using
the relationships presented by Hsiao [3].
Gravity loads of the tributary area of the perimeter frames were
distributed to the beams. Leaning columns were used to transfer the P-
Delta effects of the interior gravity frames to the perimeter frame. The
leaning columns were modeled by elastic elements with high axial and
flexural stiffness with a pin at the bottom and top of each story, which
were connected to the main structure through rigid truss elements.
Seismic mass was also applied in a concentrated form to beam-to-
column joints. The inherent elastic damping of the system was simu­
lated with the mass-and-stiffness proportional Rayleigh damping model,
and its value was set to 2% in the first mode and the mode corresponding
to 90% mass participation. In order to prevent the creation of unrealistic
damping forces, based on the method proposed by Zareian and Medina
[62], the initial stiffness proportional damping was assigned to elastic
elements, and the mass proportional damping was assigned to nodes
carrying concentrated mass.
Validation studies were conducted at local and global levels to verify
whether prior model assumptions lead to a reasonable estimation of the
nonlinear behavior of the finite element model. First, the validity of the
method used for modeling of braces was investigated through the results
of one of the experiments conducted by Fell et al. [63]. As can be seen in
E. Bakhshivand et al.
Fig. 5. Material nonlinear models of the members; a) back-bone curve of the modified IMK deterioration model for beams and columns, b) hysteresis curve of the
steel brace.
Fig. 5(b), the adopted numerical modeling method for braces captures
the hysteretic behavior of the brace with sufficient accuracy. Second, the
validity of the nonlinear finite element model at the global level was
evaluated by employing the experimental results of the quasi-static test
performed by Uriz and Mahin [4] at University of California, Berkeley.
Fig. 6(a) represents geometric properties of the concentrically braced
frame, cross sections used for different members, and details of the
numerical model used for simulation. Fig. 6(b) shows the symmetric
loading protocol employed for the quasi-static test. A comparison of the
experimental result with that obtained from the simulation is demon­
strated in terms of base shear versus lower story drift in Fig. 6(c). Lower
story drift was selected because the overall response of the specimen was
dominated by buckling of the braces in this level, followed by concen­
tration of drift demands and eventual fracture of the braces. This figure
shows that the simulation fairly traced the experimental response.
Fig. 6. Experimental quasi-static test utilized in the numerical validation study; a) test set-up and numerical model used for simulation, b) loading protocol of the
experimental study, c) comparison between the experimental and numerical results.
6
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506
4. Nonlinear static analyses
Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis was performed on each of the
building archetypes to calculate the overstrength (Ω) and period-based
ductility (μT) factors. According to FEMA P695 methodology, these an­
alyses were performed with the first mode proportional lateral load
pattern, and prior to lateral loading, the building was preloaded under
the gravity load combination of 1.05D + 0.25L, where D and L were dead
load and live load, respectively. The idealized nonlinear static curve of
the building is schematically illustrated in Fig. 7. According to this
figure, the overstrength factor is defined as the ratio of the maximum
shear base (Vmax) to the design shear base (Vdesign). The period-based
ductility factor is also defined as the ratio of the ultimate drift of the
roof (δu) to its effective yield drift (δy,eff). δu is the roof drift value cor­
responding to the base shear of 0.8Vmax, and δy,eff is determined by Eq.
E. Bakhshivand et al.
Fig. 7. Idealized nonlinear static pushover curve.
(1). In Eq. (1), W is the effective seismic mass of the building, g is the
gravitational acceleration, T is the code-defined fundamental period (i.
e., CuTa in ASCE 7–16), T1 represents the fundamental period obtained
from eigenvalue analysis, mx is the mass of story x, φ1,x (φ1,r) is the
modal shape of the first mode at story x (roof), and N denotes the
number of stories of the building.
Vmax [ g ]
δy,eff = C0 (max(T, T1 ) )2 ,
W 4π 2 /
∑N ∑N (1)
C0 = φ1,r mx φ1,x mx φ21,x
1 1
Fig. 8 shows the pushover curves of the building archetypes. As can
be seen, the behavioral pattern of the building archetypes is similar to
each other, and the behavior of the system is mainly controlled by
bracing frames. The behavior of the system is elastic before the occur­
rence of the first buckling in braces. Then, by buckling and yielding of
the several braces, the system’s behavior enters the plastic range and
continues until a tensile fracture takes place in one of the braces. At the
moment of brace failure, the strength of the system reduces significantly,
and then, the damage concentrates in the story where the brace has
Fig. 8. Pushover curves of building archetypes.
7
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506
failed. The quantitative results of nonlinear static analyses are summa­
rized in Table 2. It can be understood that the overstrength factor of
building archetypes was higher than the value provided by ASCE 7–16
(i.e., 2.5), and this factor does not follow a specific pattern. However, the
period-based ductility factor decreased with increasing number of
stories.
5. Nonlinear time history analyses
The Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NLTHA) of building arche­
types was performed under 44 far-field ground motions of FEMA P695 to
investigate damage distribution along the height of the buildings. For
this purpose, the Interstory Drift Ratio (IDR) at the seismic intensities
corresponding to Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE) was used as the damage measure. This
measure is usually adopted by seismic design codes because this
parameter is directly related to ductility demand, and its concentration
in a story results in instability due to P-Delta effects.
Fig. 9 exhibits the Peak Interstory Drift Ratio (PIDR) profile of
building archetypes and its comparison with ASCE 7–16 limits at the two
DBE and MCE intensity levels. As can be seen, the median of PIDR is not
uniform along the height of the long-period buildings, and its values are
higher in the middle or upper stories than in other stories, such that the
maximum PIDR (PIDRmax) of 16- and 20-story building archetypes at the
DBE intensity level exceeds the permissible value specified in ASCE 7–16
(i.e., 2%). These buildings also do not fulfill the 4% PIDR limit of ASCE
7–16 at the MCE intensity level. In addition, comparison of the PIDR
profile obtained from the response spectrum elastic analyses (i.e., Cd ×
PIDRElastic) with the median of the values obtained from nonlinear time
history analyses at the DBE intensity level (i.e., PIDRNLTHA) reveals that
there exists a significant difference between them. Fig. 10 shows the
ratio of PIDRNLTHA to Cd × PIDRElastic for each of the building archetypes.
As can be seen, the value of this ratio in the middle and upper stories of
long-period building archetypes reaches 1.5 or even more. Therefore, it
can be deduced that not only is the Cd profile not uniform along the
building height, but also the value of the uniform Cd provided by ASCE
7–16 (i.e., 5.5) is underestimated. The issue is also influential in the
design of drift-sensitive nonstructural components. According to chapter
13 of ASCE 7–16, the inelastic drift values of the stories are used to
determine the seismic demand of these components. Thus,
E. Bakhshivand et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506

Table 2
Summary of nonlinear static analyses of building archetypes.
Performance Group Archetype ID Vdesign (kip) Vmax (kip) Ω δy,eff (in) (in) δu (in)(in) μT
PG1 2-Story 140.57 793.77 5.65 1.11 13.59 12.29
PG1 4-Story 282.57 1139.07 4.03 2.35 19.46 8.30
PG2 8-Story 416.51 1455.73 3.50 5.28 41.80 7.92
PG2 12-Story 463.52 1263.31 2.73 8.25 32.49 3.94
PG2 16-Story 499.48 1385.75 2.77 12.61 35.25 2.80
PG2 20-Story 529.02 1598.78 3.02 17.02 38.15 2.24

Fig. 9. Peak interstory drift ratio profile along the buildings height at the DBE and MCE intensity levels.

underestimating the value of Cd increases their vulnerability to seismic
events.
In the following, the Residual Interstory Drift Ratio (RIDR) is used as
a measure of the serviceability and reparability of building archetypes
after an earthquake. In Fig. 11, the RIDR profiles of building archetypes
are illustrated at the two intensity levels of DBE and MCE, obtained by
applying free vibration at the end of the nonlinear time history analysis.
In this figure, the median of the RIDR profile is compared with a limit of
0.5% [64], which corresponds to unserviceability and the need for major
repairs of the building after the earthquake. As can be seen, the median
RIDR of building archetypes, except 20-story, is less than 0.5% at the
DBE intensity level, while the median RIDR of the middle and upper
stories of 16- and 20-story building archetypes exceed 0.5% at the MCE
intensity level. Therefore, it can be concluded that the vulnerability and
repair costs of 16- and 20-story building archetypes are considerable at
the MCE intensity level.
Figs. 9 and 11 demonstrate that long-period building archetypes
suffer from damage concentration, especially at the MCE intensity level.
To further investigate this issue, each of the building archetypes was
subjected to an arbitrary ground motion scaled to the MCE intensity
level. Then, the dynamic behavior of the critical story (the story with the
maximum PIDR) in each building archetype during the earthquake and
the failure sequence in the bracing and moment frames were evaluated.
Fig. 12 shows the IDR time history curves together with the hysteresis
curve of the critical story of each of the building archetypes during the
earthquake. It can be seen that in all building archetypes up to the IDR

8
E. Bakhshivand et al.
Fig. 10. Evaluation of Cd performance factor in estimating inelastic peak interstory drift ratio profiles along the buildings height at the DBE intensity level.
close to 2% and before the failure of the braces in the story, the share of
the moment frame in the story shear is negligible. With the occurrence of
failure in the tensile brace of the story, the IDR value increases up to 6%
in 2-, 8-, 16-, and 20-story building archetypes and up to 8% in 4- and
12-story buildings, and the role of moment frame in resisting the story
shear becomes more prominent. In other words, the low stiffness of
moment frame cannot prevent damage concentration in the story.
6. Collapse fragility analyses
The collapse performance in FEMA P695 methodology is evaluated
by the Collapse Margin Ratio (CMR), which is defined as the ratio of the
spectral acceleration corresponding to the median collapse capacity
(ŜCT) to the spectral acceleration of the MCE intensity level (SMT). A
larger CMR value indicates a greater safety margin against collapse.
Depending on the values of the fundamental period of the building (T)
and the transient period (Ts), the SMT of the building archetypes is ob­
tained from the parameters shown in Fig. 2.
The ŜCT of building archetypes is obtained from the Incremental
Dynamic Analysis (IDA) method [65] under 44 FEMA P695 far-field
ground motions. In this method, the building is subjected to a set of
ground motions that are repeatedly scaled up to the intensity at which
each ground motion causes collapse. Thus, ŜCT corresponds to the
spectral acceleration at which half of the applied ground motions cause
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506
the building to collapse. The collapse of the building is also controlled by
two criteria in the analysis process, according to Ref. [65]. The first
criterion is the reduction in the slope of the IDA curve to less than 20% of
the initial slope, and the latter is the exceedance of building PIDRmax
from 10%.
Fig. 13 represents the IDA curves obtained from each ground motion
together with 16%, 50%, and 84% fractiles for all building archetypes.
In these curves, the PIDRmax response parameter is considered the
damage measure. Also, ST/SMT is set as the seismic intensity measure,
which indicates the normalized spectral acceleration to the MCE in­
tensity level. The use of this normalized intensity measure makes it
possible to compare building archetypes with different periods at any
intensity level. The IDA curves demonstrate that at each specific seismic
intensity level, high-rise buildings have a larger PIDRmax. Moreover,
high-rise buildings collapse at a lower seismic intensity level and have a
lower collapse margin as well. The quantitative results obtained from
IDA are also summarized in Table 3 for use in the next section.
In the following, the collapse fragility of building archetypes is
evaluated using the FEMA P695 methodology. The collapse fragility of a
building is a conditional probability function that expresses the proba­
bility of building collapse conditioned on seismic intensity [66]. The
Lognormal cumulative distribution function is typically used for
defining the collapse fragility function, according to Eq. (2) [67].
E. Bakhshivand et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506

Fig. 11. Residual interstory drift ratios profile along the buildings height at the DBE and MCE intensity levels.

( )
ln(im) − θ
P[Collapse|IM = im] = Φ (2)
βTOT
In Eq. (2), P [Collapse | IM = im] is the collapse probability for the im
seismic intensity level; Ф is the standard normal cumulative distribution
function; θ and βTOT are also the median and dispersion of ln(im),
respectively. The median of the fragility function is CMR = ŜCT/SMT, the
value of which is presented in Table 3 for each building archetype based
on the results of incremental dynamic analyses. According to FEMA
P695, the total system collapse dispersion is defined as
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
β2RTR + β2DR + β2TD + β2MDL , where βRTR indicates the uncertainty due to
record to record variability, and its value is set to 0.4 for the studied
buildings with significant period-based ductility (i.e., μT ≥ 3). βDR, βTD,
and βMDL represent uncertainties related to the quality of design re­
quirements, laboratory data, and nonlinear models, respectively, and
assuming “(B) Good” quality, their values are considered 0.2 based on
FEMA P695.
Fig. 14 demonstrates the collapse fragility curves of all building ar­
chetypes. It can be noticed that at a certain intensity level, the collapse
probability increases with increasing the height of the building.
Furthermore, according to ASCE 7–16, the target collapse reliability in
the prescriptive seismic design of risk category II buildings is to achieve
a collapse probability of less than 10% at the MCE intensity level. As
seen in Fig. 14 and the last column of Table 3, the collapse probability of
long-period building archetypes at the MCE intensity level is greater
than 10% and does not meet the collapse target of ASCE 7–16.
7. Evaluation of R factor
The CMR value obtained in the previous section for each of the
building archetypes was adjusted by the Spectral Shape Factor (SSF),
which considers the effects of the frequency content of the record sets on
the median collapse capacity. The value of SSF was determined
depending on the fundamental period (T), period-based ductility (μT),
and seismic design category from Tables 7–1a and 7-1b of FEMA P695
for each of the building archetypes [48]. The performance of each
building archetype was evaluated by comparing the adjusted collapse
margin ratio (ACMR = SSF × CMR) with acceptable values. Acceptable
values of ACMR were determined based on the total uncertainty of the
building archetype (βTOT) and the desired collapse probability from
Table 7-3 of FEMA P695. According to the FEMA P695 methodology, the
response modification factor used in the design of a lateral force
resisting system is acceptable whenever the following two conditions are
satisfied. 1) The average ACMR of each performance group (ACMRi ) is
greater than ACMR10% (ACMRi ≥ ACMR10% ), and 2) the ACMR of any
building archetype (ACMRi) is greater than ACMR20% (ACMRi ≥

10
E. Bakhshivand et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506

Fig. 12. IDR time history in a specific story of building archetypes under specific ground motion at the MCE intensity level and the corresponding hysteresis curves.

11
E. Bakhshivand et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506

Fig. 13. IDA curves of building archetypes.

Table 3
IDA and collapse fragility results of building archetypes.
Performance Archetype SMT ŜCT CMR Collapse Probability
Group ID (g) (g) @ MCE (%)

PG1 2-Story 1.50 3.72 2.48 4.29

PG1 4-Story 1.50 3.16 2.11 7.92
PG2 8-Story 1.10 1.70 1.54 20.67
PG2 12-Story 0.82 1.19 1.45 23.76
PG2 16-Story 0.66 0.75 1.14 40.48
PG2 20-Story 0.56 0.57 1.02 49.08

ACMR20%). ACMR10% and ACMR20% are acceptable ACMR values for the
collapse probabilities of 10% and 20%, which are respectively 1.56 and
1.96 for βTOT = 0.53. Table 4 shows the ACMR values of building ar­
chetypes and their comparison with acceptable values. According to the
obtained results, the value of ACMR decreases with increasing number
of stories in building archetypes. The ACMR of the 16- and 20-story
building archetypes is lower than the acceptable value. Also, the PG2,
as a group, does not fulfill the acceptance criteria.
Fig. 14. Collapse fragility curves of building archetypes.
8. Conclusions

• In the pushover curve of all building archetypes, there was a sudden

The present study used the FEMA P695 methodology to evaluate the
significant drop in strength due to failure in tensile braces of one of
seismic performance factors in code-conforming low-to high-rise SMF-
the stories. Afterwards, damage concentration in that story led to the
SCBF dual steel lateral force resisting systems. For this purpose, building
collapse of the building.
archetypes were examined by nonlinear static and dynamic analyses.
• The overstrength factor (Ω) of short- and long-period performance
The results of the performed nonlinear analyses provide the following
groups were calculated to be 4.84 and 3.0, respectively. The period-
key insights into the seismic behavior and collapse performance of the
based ductility factor (μT) also decreased with increasing number of
SMF-SCBF dual system.
building stories.
• Dynamic hysteresis curves of building archetypes demonstrated that
at drifts of less than 2% (prior to the failure of the story brace), most

12
E. Bakhshivand et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506

Table 4
ACMR of building archetypes and its comparison with acceptable values.
Performance Group Archetype ID Computed Parameters Acceptance Check

CMR μT SSF ACMR Accept. ACMR Pass/Fail

PG1 2-Story 2.48 12.29 1.33 3.30 1.56 Pass

PG1 4-Story 2.11 8.30 1.35 2.85 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 3.08 1.96 Pass

PG2 8-Story 1.54 7.92 1.44 2.22 1.56 Pass

PG2 12-Story 1.45 3.94 1.35 1.96 1.56 Pass
PG2 16-Story 1.14 2.80 1.30 1.48 1.56 Fail
PG2 20-Story 1.02 2.24 1.25 1.28 1.56 Fail
Mean of Performance Group: 1.74 1.96 Fail

of the story shear was resisted by the braced frame. After the failure Author contribution statement
of the brace, although the moment frame was able to resist a great
1
deal of story drift, its low stiffness could not prevent damage Mr. Ehsan Bakhshivand: Investigation, Conceptualization,
concentration. Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - Orig­
• The results of nonlinear time history analyses at the DBE and MCE inal Draft.
2
intensity levels showed that the peak interstory drift ratio profile was Mr. Hossein Ahmadie Amiri: Investigation, Conceptualization,
non-uniform along the height of the buildings such that in the middle Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - Orig­
and upper stories of long-period buildings, especially at the MCE inal Draft.
3
intensity level, higher drift ratios were observed. Prof. Shervin Maleki: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing -
• The inelastic drift obtained from the nonlinear time history analyses Reviewing & Editing, Supervision.
and response spectrum elastic analyses indicated that the Cd factor of
ASCE 7–16 (Cd = 5.5) underestimates the inelastic drift values of the Repository
middle and upper stories of long-period building archetypes.
• The residual interstory drift ratios of the middle and upper stories of Full details of the seismic design procedure of the studied building
the 16- and 20-story building archetypes were greater than 0.5% at archetypes along with the related files generated for this purpose are
the MCE intensity level, which indicates severe damage to members publicly available through the repository at https://github.com/EBakh
and the need for major repairs. shivand/SMF-SCBF-dual-system. The repository contains a document
• The results of collapse fragility analysis illustrated that all of the named “Design Procedure” that elucidates the way of using all the
long-period building archetypes had a collapse probability greater related files. The ETABS and OpenSees files of building archetypes will
than 10% at the MCE intensity level such that increasing the number also be uploaded to the repository soon.
of stories increased their collapse probability and made the ACMR of
their performance group less than the acceptable ACMR. Therefore, Declaration of competing interest
it can be concluded that the response modification factor proposed
by ASCE 7–16 (R = 7) does not provide a sufficient margin of con­ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
fidence against collapse. interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
• Some of the solutions that can be employed to improve the seismic the work reported in this paper.
performance of long-period SMF-SCBF dual buildings are as follows:
1. Increasing the minimum share of SMF from the seismic base shear Data availability
to a value above 25% to delay the collapse of the bracings.
2. Reducing the R factor and increasing the Cd factor in the code- Shared via the repository at https://github.
based seismic design process. com/EBakhshivand/SMF-SCBF-dual-system.

These topics can be investigated in future studies. References

• Since the present study was based on extensive nonlinear analyses
on 2D models, further studies are recommended to consider issues
related to 3D modeling, such as structural interaction that could
arise between perimeter frames at corners and probable torsional
effects that may be created due to buckling or failure of braces in
the process of nonlinear dynamic analysis.
Ethical statement
Authors state that the research was conducted according to ethical
standards.
Funding body
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
[10] Lai J-W, Mahin SA. Strongback system: a way to reduce damage concentration in
[1] ASCE/SEI 7-16. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and
other structures. Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2017.
[2] ANSI/AISC 341-16, seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago,
Illinois: American Institute of Steel Construction; 2016.
[3] Hsiao P-C. Seismic performance evaluation of concentrically braced frames.
University of Washington; 2012.
[4] Uriz P. Towards earthquake resistant design of concentrically braced steel
structures. Berkeley: University of California; 2005.
[5] Khatib IF, Mahin SA, Pister KS. Seismic behavior of concentrically braced steel
frames, pacific earthquake engineering research center. University of California
Berkeley; 1998.
[6] Tremblay R. Achieving a stable inelastic seismic response for multi-story
concentrically braced steel frames. Eng J 2003;40:111–29.
[7] Watanabe A, Hitomi Y, Saeki E, Wada A, Fujimoto M. Properties of brace encased
in buckling-restraining concrete and steel tube. In: Proceedings of ninth world
conference on earthquake engineering; 1988. p. 719–24.
[8] Leon RT, Yang C-S. Special inverted-V-braced frames with suspended zipper struts.
Georgia Institute of Technology; 2003.
[9] Mashhadiali N, Kheyroddin A. Seismic performance of concentrically braced frame
with hexagonal pattern of braces to mitigate soft story behavior. Eng Struct 2018;
175:27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.036.
steel-braced frames. J Struct Eng 2015;141:4014223. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)st.1943-541x.0001198.

13
E. Bakhshivand et al.
[11] Deierlein G, Krawinkler H, Ma X, Eatherton M, Hajjar J, Takeuchi T, Kasai K,
Midorikawa M. Earthquake resilient steel braced frames with controlled rocking
and energy dissipating fuses. Steel Construction 2011;4:171–5. https://doi.org/
10.1002/stco.201110023.
[12] MacRae GA, Kimura Y, Roeder C. Effect of column stiffness on braced frame
seismic behavior. J Struct Eng 2004;130:381–91. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(2004)130:3(381).
[13] Zareian F, Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Evaluation of seismic collapse performance of
steel special moment resisting frames using FEMA P695 (ATC-63) methodology. In:
Structures congress. Orlando, Florida: United States; 2010. p. 1275–86. https://
doi.org/10.1061/41130(369)116.
[14] Symans MD, Charney FA, Whittaker AS, Constantinou MC, Kircher CA,
Johnson MW, McNamara RJ. Energy dissipation systems for seismic applications:
current practice and recent developments. J Struct Eng 2008;134:3–21. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2008)134:1(3).
[15] Maleki S, Mahjoubi S. Dual-pipe damper. J Constr Steel Res 2013;85:81–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.03.004.
[16] Ahmadie Amiri H, Najafabadi EP, Estekanchi HE. Experimental and analytical
study of block slit damper. J Constr Steel Res 2018;141:167–78. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.11.006.
[17] Shen Y, Christopoulos C, Mansour N, Tremblay R. Seismic design and performance
of steel moment-resisting frames with nonlinear replaceable links. J Struct Eng
2011;137:1107–17. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000359.
[18] Nikoukalam MT, Dolatshahi KM. Development of structural shear fuse in moment
resisting frames. J Constr Steel Res 2015;114:349–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcsr.2015.08.008.
[19] Mahjoubi S, Maleki S. Seismic performance evaluation and design of steel
structures equipped with dual-pipe dampers. J Constr Steel Res 2016;122:25–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.01.023.
[20] Ahmadie Amiri H, Pournamazian Najafabadi E, Esmailpur Estekanchi H,
Ozbakkaloglu T. Performance-based seismic design and assessment of low-rise steel
special moment resisting frames with block slit dampers using endurance time
method. Eng Struct 2020;224:110955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2020.110955.
[21] Hamburger RO, Gumpertz S. Facts for steel buildings: earthquakes and seismic
design. 2009.
[22] V Bertero V, Uang C, Llopiz CR, Igarashi K. Earthquake simulator testing of
concentric braced dual system. J Struct Eng 1989;115:1877. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1989)115:8(1877). 1894.
[23] Whittaker AS, Uang C, V Bertero V. Experimental behavior of dual steel system.
J Struct Eng 1989;115:183–200. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(1989)115:1(183).
[24] Foutch DA, Goel SC, Roeder CW. Seismic testing of full-scale steel building–Part I.
J Struct Eng 1987;113:2111–29. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(1987)113:11(2111).
[25] Roeder CW, Foutch DA, Goel SC. Seismic testing of full-scale steel building–Part II.
J Struct Eng 1987;113:2130–45. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(1987)113:11(2130).
[26] Kiggins S, Uang C-M. Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames
as a dual system. Eng Struct 2006;28:1525–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2005.10.023.
[27] Ariyaratana C, Fahnestock LA. Evaluation of buckling-restrained braced frame
seismic performance considering reserve strength. Eng Struct 2011;33:77–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.09.020.
[28] Zaruma S, Fahnestock LA. Assessment of design parameters influencing seismic
collapse performance of buckling-restrained braced frames. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng
2018;113:35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.05.021.
[29] Mehdipanah A, Mirghaderi SR, Tabatabaei SAR. Seismic performance of stiffness-
based designed buckling-restrained braced frame and special moment-resisting
frame dual systems. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2016;12:918–35. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15732479.2015.1071854.
[30] Maley TJ, Sullivan TJ, Della Corte G. Development of a displacement-based design
method for steel dual systems with buckling-restrained braces and moment-
resisting frames. J Earthq Eng 2010;14:106–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13632461003651687.
[31] Freddi F, Tubaldi E, Zona A, Dall’Asta A. Seismic performance of dual systems
coupling moment-resisting and buckling-restrained braced frames. Earthq Eng
Struct Dynam 2021;50:329–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3332.
[32] Aukeman LJ, Laursen P. Evaluation of the ASCE 7-05 standard for dual systems:
response history analysis of a tall buckling-restrained braced frame dual system. In:
Structures congress, las vegas. Nevada, United States; 2011. p. 2707–17. https://
doi.org/10.1061/41171(401)236.
[33] Stoakes CD, Fahnestock LA. Cyclic flexural analysis and behavior of beam-column
connections with gusset plates. J Constr Steel Res 2012;72:227–39. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.12.008.
[34] Sizemore JG, Fahnestock LA, Hines EM. Seismic performance assessment of low-
ductility concentrically braced frames. J Struct Eng 2019;145:4019016. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002276.
[35] Béland T, Tremblay R, Hines EM, Fahnestock LA. Rotational capacity of bolted
double-web-angle beam-column gravity connections through full-scale
experimental testing. J Struct Eng 2020;146:4020111. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002661.
[36] Bradley CR, Fahnestock LA, Hines EM. Dual system design for a low-ductility
concentrically braced frame with a reserve moment frame. Structures 2021;34:
3315–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.09.009.
14
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107506
[37] Bosco M, Rossi PP. A design procedure for dual eccentrically braced systems:
numerical investigation. J Constr Steel Res 2013;80:453–64. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.08.003.
[38] Seker O. Seismic response of dual concentrically braced steel frames with various
bracing configurations. J Constr Steel Res 2022;188:107057. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.107057.
[39] Piluso V, Montuori R, Nastri E, Paciello A. Seismic response of MRF-CBF dual
systems equipped with low damage friction connections. J Constr Steel Res 2019;
154:263–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.12.008.
[40] Longo A, Montuori R, Piluso V. Theory of plastic mechanism control for MRF–CBF
dual systems and its validation. Bull Earthq Eng 2014;12:2745–75. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10518-014-9612-2.
[41] Montuori R, Nastri E, Piluso V. Theory of plastic mechanism control for MRF–EBF
dual systems: closed form solution. Eng Struct 2016;118:287–306. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.03.050.
[42] Longo A, Montuori R, Piluso V. Moment frames – concentrically braced frames dual
systems: analysis of different design criteria. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2016;12:
122–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.996164.
[43] Montuori R, Nastri E, Piluso V. Influence of the bracing scheme on seismic
performances of MRF-EBF dual systems. J Constr Steel Res 2017;132:179–90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.01.018.
[44] ATC. Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings.
Calif: Redwood City; 1978.
[45] Whittaker A, Hart G, Rojahn C. Seismic response modification factors. J Struct Eng
1999;125:438–44. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:4(438).
[46] Uang C. Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors for building seismic provisions.
J Struct Eng 1991;117:19–28. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)
117:1(19).
[47] ATC. Structural response modification factors. Calif: Redwood City; 1995.
[48] Fema. Quantification of building seismic performance factors, Washington, D.C.
2009.
[49] Hsiao P-C, Lehman DE, Roeder CW. Evaluation of the response modification
coefficient and collapse potential of special concentrically braced frames. Earthq
Eng Struct Dynam 2013;42:1547–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2286.
[50] Özkılıç YO, Bozkurt MB, Topkaya C. Evaluation of seismic response factors for
BRBFs using FEMA P695 methodology. J Constr Steel Res 2018;151:41–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.09.015.
[51] Macedo L, Castro JM. Collapse performance assessment of steel moment frames
designed to Eurocode 8. Eng Fail Anal 2021;126:105445. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.engfailanal.2021.105445.
[52] Kircher C, Deierlein G, Hooper J, Krawinkler H, Mahin S, Shing B, Wallace J.
Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 methodology for quantification of building seismic
performance factors. 2010.
[53] ANSI/AISC 360-16, specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago, Illinois:
American Institute of Steel Construction; 2016.
[54] ANSI/AISC 358-16, prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel
moment frames for seismic application. Chicago, Illinois: American Institute of
Steel Construction; 2016.
[55] CSI. Integrated building design software, ETABS Version 20. Berkeley, California,
USA: Computers and Structures Inc.; 2022.
[56] Astaneh-Asl A, Cochran M, Sabelli R. Seismic detailing of gusset plates for special
concentrically braced frames. 2006.
[57] McKenna F. OpenSees: a framework for earthquake engineering simulation.
Comput Sci Eng 2011;13:58–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2011.66.
[58] Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength
and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2005;34:1489–511. https://
doi.org/10.1002/eqe.495.
[59] Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of
collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. J Struct Eng
2011;137:1291–302. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000376.
[60] Lignos DG, Hartloper AR, Elkady A, Deierlein GG, Hamburger R. Proposed updates
to the ASCE 41 nonlinear modeling parameters for wide-flange steel columns in
support of performance-based seismic engineering. J Struct Eng 2019;145:
4019083. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002353.
[61] Karamanci E, Lignos DG. Computational approach for collapse assessment of
concentrically braced frames in seismic Regions. J Struct Eng 2014;140:A4014019.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001011.
[62] Zareian F, Medina RA. A practical method for proper modeling of structural
damping in inelastic plane structural systems. Comput Struct 2010;88:45–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2009.08.001.
[63] V Fell B, Kanvinde AM, Deierlein GG, Myers AT. Experimental investigation of
inelastic cyclic buckling and fracture of steel braces. J Struct Eng 2009;135:19–32.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:1(19).
[64] Fema P-58. methodology. Seismic performance assessment of buildings. second
ed., 1. Washington, D.C: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2018.
[65] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct
Dynam 2002;31:491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141.
[66] Ahmadie Amiri H, Hosseini M, Estekanchi HE. Efficient seismic risk assessment of
irregular steel-framed buildings through endurance time analysis of consistent fish-
bone model. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2022;31:e1901. https://doi.org/
10.1002/tal.1901.
[67] Baker JW. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural
analysis. Earthq Spectra 2015;31:579–99. https://doi.org/10.1193/
021113EQS025M.