High Seismic Performance Systems for Steel Structures

  • Constantin Christopoulos
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 13)


The seismic response of traditional steel structures is inherently linked to permanent plastic deformations and to damage to the main structural elements. In this paper, results from extensive numerical analyses are presented which indicate that the expected residual deformations in steel frame structures designed according to the latest codes are significant and could potentially render buildings a total loss even though they are not at imminent risk of collapse. New systems, that address these drawbacks and that have been proposed and developed in the past few years are then presented. These include moment-resisting frames and eccentrically braced frames with replaceable nonlinear links as well as a new family of self-centering systems for steel structures.


Residual Deformation Interstory Drift Main Structural Element Steel Angle Residual Drift 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The work that is summarized in this paper has been carried out in close collaboration with a number of researchers in Canada. The closest collaborators that the author wishes to acknowledge are: Professor Robert Tremblay from Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, Dr. Hyung-Joon Kim from the University of Seoul in Korea (formerly a Ph.D. student at the University of Toronto), Dr. Hyunhoon Choi from Sungkyunkwan University in Korea (formerly a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Toronto), as well as Nabil Mansour and Jeff Erochko who are currently Ph.D. students at the University of Toronto. The Financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, which has supported most of the work that was outlined in this paper, is also gratefully acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2005) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ANSI/SEI7-05 including supplement No.1. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Choi H, Erochko J, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R (2008) Comparison of the seismic response of steel buildings incorporating self-centering energy-dissipative dampers, buckling restrained braces and moment resisting frames. Report No. 05-2008, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ONGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christopoulos C, Filiatrault A, Folz B, Uang C-M (2002) Post-tensioned energy dissipating connections for moment-resisting steel frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 128(9):1111–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christopoulos C, Pampanin S, Priestley MJN (2003) New damage index for framed systems based on residual deformations: part I. J Earthq Eng 7(1):97–118Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Kim H-J, Lacerte M (2008) Self-centering energy dissipative bracing system for the seismic resistance of structure: development and validation. ASCE J Struct Eng 134(1):96–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kawashima K, MacRae GA, Hoshikuma J-I, Nagaya K (1998) Residual displacement response spectrum and its application. J Struct Eng 124(5):523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim H-J, Christopoulos C (2008) Friction damped post-tensioned self-centering steel moment-resisting frames. J Struct Eng 134(11):1768–1779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mansour N, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R (2006) Seismic design of EBF steel frames using replaceable nonlinear links. Proceedings of 2006 STESSA conference, Yokohama, Japan, pp 745–750Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mansour N, Shen Y, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R (2008) Seismic design of EBF steel frames using replaceable nonlinear links. The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mansour N, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R (2009) Experimental performance of full-scale eccentrically braced frames with replaceable shear links. International conference on the seismic behaviour of steel structures, STESSA 2009, Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCormick J, Aburano H, Ikenaga M, Nakashima M (2008) Permissible residual deformation levels for building structures considering both safety and human elements, Proceedings of 14th world conference earthquake engineering, Beijing, China, Paper No. 05-06-0071Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pettinga D, Christopoulos C, Pampanin S, Priestley N (2007) Effectiveness of simple approaches in mitigating residual deformations in buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 36(12):1763–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ricles JM, Sause R, Garlock M, and Zhao C (2001) Post-tensioned seismic-resistant connections for steel frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 127(2):113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ruiz-Garcia J, Miranda E (2006) Evaluation of residual drift demands in regular multi-story frames for performance-based seismic assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1609–1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tremblay R, Lacerte M, Christopoulos C (2008) Seismic response of multistory buildings with self-centering energy dissipative steel braces. ASCE J Struct Eng 134(1):108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations