Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 2101–2127 | Cite as

Secondary frame action in concentrically braced frames designed for moderate seismicity: a full scale experimental study

  • Alper KanyilmazEmail author
Original Research Paper


European seismic design codes do not take into account the strength and stiffness of the secondary frame action provided by bracing gusset plates of concentrically braced frames (CBFs). This is an attractive assumption for practicing engineers, as it provides simplifications during the analysis and design phases. However, when efficiency and economy are concerned, especially in low-to-moderate seismic regions, this normally neglected frame resource may be interesting to consider in design. Gusset plates can provide a certain degree of stiffness and strength following the bracing failure, and may even prevent global collapse. In particular, when the shear deformation demand of the braced cell remains limited, as in the case of low-to-moderate seismic actions, it may become reasonable to take this extra stiffness and strength into account. Ongoing research project RFSR-CT-2013-00022 MEAKADO investigated this phenomenon by means of experimental and numerical studies with the perspective of setting new inputs for the design rules of the future generation of Eurocodes. This paper presents the results of full scale tests performed inside this research project, which characterized resistance, stiffness, and ductility resources of CBF systems designed for moderate seismicity. The paper also quantifies the effective contribution of the frame action, provided by gusset plate connections, to the global performance of CBF frames.


Concentrically braced frames Moderate seismicity Secondary frame action Gusset plate connections Full scale tests Steel frame reserve capacity 



This article presents the results of full scale tests performed within MEAKADO project coordinated by Prof. Herve Degee, which is carried out with the financial grant of the Research Program of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel of the European Commission (RFSR-CT-2013-00022). Special thanks to Prof. Carlo Andrea Castiglioni, for his precious comments. Thanks to the manager and technicians of the LPM laboratories of Politecnico di Milano. Assistance of the Master thesis students Alberto Volonterio and Umberto Rico during the test implementations is also deeply appreciated.


  1. Aboosaber M, Bradley C, Nelson J, Hines EM (2012) Modeling reserve system performancefor lowductility braced frames. In T. U. S. o. Engineering (Ed). Tufts University Structural Systems Communication (TUSSC), Medford, MA, pp 122Google Scholar
  2. American Institute of Steel Construction (2010) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildingsGoogle Scholar
  3. BCJ (1997) Structural provisions for building structures. Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  4. Callister JT, Pekelnicky RG (2011) Seismic evaluation of an existing low ductility braced frame building in california. In: Proceedings of ASCE structures congress. ASCE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter CJ (2009) Connections and collapse resistance in R = 3 braced frames. PhD thesisGoogle Scholar
  6. Degee H et al (2013) Design of steel and composite structures with limited ductility requirements for optimized performances in moderate earthquake areas (MEAKADO Research Proposal for EU-RFCS)Google Scholar
  7. Degée H, Hoffmeister B, Castiglioni CA, Martin PO, Calderon I (2015) The “MEAKADO” Project: designing steel and composite structures for optimized performances in moderate earthquake areas. In: Eighth international conference on advances in steel structuresGoogle Scholar
  8. Elghazouli A, Castro JM, Izzuddin BA (2008) Seismic performance of composite moment-resisting frames. Eng Struct 30:1802–1819. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EN 1993-1-1, European Standard (2005) Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures—Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. Eurocode 3, vol 1, p 91Google Scholar
  10. EN1993-1-1-2005 (2005a) Design of steel structures—Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. EN1993-1-1-2005 (2005b) Design of steel structures—Part 1.8: Design of joints. European Committee for Standardization, CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. EN1998-1-2004 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Gioncu V, Mazzolani F (2013) Seismic design of steel structures. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Han S-W, Choi Y-S (2008) Seismic hazard analysis in low and moderate seismic region-Korean peninsula. Struct Saf 30:543–558. doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2007.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hines E, Appel M, Cheever P (2009) Collapse performance of low-ductility chevron braced steel frames in moderate seismic regions. AISC Eng J 3rd Quarter, 149–180Google Scholar
  16. Hsiao PC, Lehman DE, Roeder CW (2012) Improved analytical model for special concentrically braced frames. J Constr Steel Res 73:80–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hsiao PC, Lehman DE, Roeder CW (2013) Evaluation of the response modification coefficient and collapse potential of special concentrically braced frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:1547–1564. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kanyilmaz A (2015) Inelastic cyclic numerical analysis of steel struts using distributed plasticity approach. COMPDYN 2015. In: 5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, National Technical University of athens, pp 3663–74Google Scholar
  19. Kanyilmaz A, Castiglioni CA, Degèe H, Martin P (2015) A preliminary assessment of slenderness and overstrength homogeneity criteria used in the design of concentrically braced steel frames in moderate seismicity 25–7Google Scholar
  20. Kelly DJ, Zona JJ (2006) Design tips for steel in low or moderate seismicity regions. Mod Steel Constr 46(2):50Google Scholar
  21. Kishiki S, Yamada S, Wada A (2008) Experimental evaluation of structural behaviour of gusset plate connection in BRB frame system. 14th World conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  22. Málaga-Chuquitaype C, Elghazouli AY, Enache R (2014) Contribution of secondary frames to the mitigation of collapse in steel buildings subjected to extreme loads. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2479:1–16. doi: 10.1080/15732479.2014.994534 Google Scholar
  23. Marino EM, Nakashima M, Mosalam KM (2005) Comparison of European and Japanese seismic design of steel building structures. Eng Struct 27:827–840. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murty CVR, Malik JN (2008) Challenges of low-to-moderate seismicity in India. In special issue: Earthquake engineering in the low and moderate seismic regions of Southeast Asia and Australia (2008). EJSE, 64–78Google Scholar
  25. Nelson TA, Gryniuk MC, Hines EM (2006) Comparison of low-ductility moment resisting frames and chevron braced frames under moderate seismic demands. Moment 2:4Google Scholar
  26. Pinto PE (2000) Design for low/moderate seismic risk. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 33:303–324Google Scholar
  27. Reaveley LD, Nordenson GJ (1990) Acceptable damage in low and moderate seismic zones. In: Fourth US-Japan workshop on the improvement of building structural design practices, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  28. Stoakes CD (2012) Beam-column connection flexural behavior and seismic collapse performance of concentrically braced framesGoogle Scholar
  29. Stoakes C, Fahnestock L (2010) Flexural behavior of concentrically-braced frame beam-column connections. Structures congress 2010, pp 1350–1360Google Scholar
  30. UNI EN 1090-2 (2011) UNI EN 1090-2 Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures Part 2: Technical requirements for steel structuresGoogle Scholar
  31. Uriz P, Mahin SA (2008) Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentrically braced steel-frame structures. PEER report 2008/08. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  32. Vargas RE, Bruneau M (2008) Experimental validation of the structural fuse concept. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering: innovation practice safetyGoogle Scholar
  33. Yoo JH, Lehman DE, Roeder CW (2008) Influence of connection design parameters on the seismic performance of braced frames. J Constr Steel Res 64:607–623. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2007.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yoo JH, Roeder CW, Lehman DE (2009) Simulated behavior of multi-story X-braced frames. Eng Struct 31:182–197. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.07.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureBuilt Environment and Construction EngineeringMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations