Seismic design of certain axially loaded steel elements.

A practical point
of view
N. Băluţ
Building Research Institute INCERC, Timişoara, Romania
V. Gioncu
“Politehnica” University, Timişoara, Romania

ABSTRACT: The paper is devoted to the design of certain categories of steel structural elements subjected to
earthquakes, namely threaded circular rods (including bolts) and plane or spatial laced columns. Their com-
mon feature is that all those elements (or their component members) are mainly subjected to axial forces. The
designer should be aware of the phenomena exerting an adverse influence on the behaviour of such elements
from the point of view of ductility (i.e. failure in the threaded zone or buckling strength degradation under re-
peated loads, as applicable), and decide whether ductility is essential or not in a given case.

1 INTRODUCTION be ductile, due attention should be paid to all rele-

Relying upon the ductility of certain members and/or
connections – i.e. their deformation capacity in the
post-elastic range – is the most commonly used
strategy for the design of structures in seismic areas
(although not the only possible).
Flexural members are known to be better suited
for energy dissipation. If axially loaded elements are
used on this purpose, their behaviour should be care-
fully examined.
The scope of this paper is restricted to two cate-
gories of elements: threaded circular rods, which are
active only in tension, and respectively structures
whose component members are mainly subjected to
alternating axial forces (tensile and compressive).
The first category includes bolts and threaded
bracing elements. The ductility of such elements can
be ensured if yielding of the unthreaded zone occurs
at a lower tension load than that corresponding to the
failure of the threaded zone (which has a brittle
character).
There are two possible design concepts:
- dissipative structural behaviour;
- low-dissipative behaviour.
Design to the latter concept is based on an elastic
analysis. However, Eurocode 8 specifies a behaviour
factor q = 1.5 – 2.0 in that case (assuming implicitly
a certain dissipation) but recommends the applica-
tion of that concept to low seismicity regions only.
Such restrictions do not exist in the Romanian code
P100-1/2004, but a factor q = 1.0 is specified (which
means rather a totally non-dissipative than a low-
dissipative behaviour).
If the designer decides that an element needs to
vant aspects. It may be considered that ductility is
not necessary if an elastic analysis for permanent
loads + earthquake (assuming q = 1) cannot lead to
greater member forces than those for other combina-
tions (e.g. permanent loads + wind).
2 THREADED ELEMENTS
2.1 Bolts
The following condition should be fulfilled to make
sure that the ultimate state occurs by yielding of the
unthreaded zone, not by failure of the threaded zone:
Ft,Rd ≥ ov Npl,Rd (1)
where Ft,Rd = design tension resistance of the bolt (in
the threaded zone); Npl,Rd = design plastic resistance.
According to Eurocode 3,
Ft,Rd = 0.9 As fub / 

Npl,Rd = A fyb / M0 (3)
where As = tensile stress area of the bolt; A = gross
area of the bolt (unthreaded zone); fub = ultimate ten-
sile strength; and fyb = yield strength. The values
proposed by EC3 for the partial safety factors are:
M0 = 1.0 and s for the overstrength fac-
tor ov, the authors’ suggestion is:
ov = 0.9 fub / fyb ≥ 1.1 (4)

Figure 1. The influence of the unthreaded zone diameter on the
rotation capacity of the connection (after Ohi et al. 2000).
Cyclic loading, as well as earthquake response
tests performed on end plate connections of beams
with torshear high strength prestressed bolts (Ohi
et al. 2000) demonstrated that the ductility of the
bolts could substantially be increased if the diameter
in the unthreaded zone was reduced (14 or prefera-
bly 13 mm) in comparison with the exterior diameter
of the thread (16 mm). In cases where such reduction
did not exist, breaking occurred in the threaded por-
tion just beneath the nut. The connection rotation
capacity in the case of 13 mm was almost twice as
compared to the standard case (Fig. 1). Some of the
test specimens showed a purely elastic behaviour of
the beams and of the end plates. Collapse mode was
given by bolt failure, and rotation capacity was gov-
erned by bolt elongation. This is not accepted by
EC3, because it is assumed that the bolts behave in a
brittle manner (which is generally true of standard
bolts but represents a preconceived idea in cases
where the diameter is properly reduced in the un-
threaded zone and a rigorous quality control is guar-
anteed).
Unlike P100-2004 (which stipulates that connec-
tions must remain in the elastic range in all cases),
EC8 accepts the idea of having dissipative connec-
tions. In that case, the dissipative elements should be
the bolts (which are easy to replace after having un-
dergone inelastic deformations), and the rest of the
elements, i.e. the beams and the end plates should
remain elastic, because they are difficult to repair.
Equations 1-4 lead to the following condition:
A ≤ 0.9 As M0 fub / (ov fyb) =
= 0.72 As fub /(ov fyb) (5)
It can easily be seen that A is always smaller than
As. For bolt grades up to 8.8 inclusively, A ≤ 0.8 As;
for 10.9 grade, A ≤ 0.727 As.
Static and dynamic tests (Munoz-Garcia et al.
2005) showed that another brittle failure mode of
bolts could occur by thread stripping. It may be pre-
vented by:
- using two nuts;
- specifying the bolts and nuts to higher toler-
ance classes;
- using stainless bolts and nuts.
2.2 Threaded circular rods
Such elements are manufactured with cut threads.
Their bearing capacity is similar to that of bolts, with
the only difference that the design tension resistance
in the threaded zone Ft,Rd depends on the manufac-
turing technology:
Ft,Rd = 0.9k As fub / 
If the thread complies with EN 1090, the value k
= 1.0. Otherwise, k = 0.85. Equation (5) is accord-
ingly modified:
A ≤ 0.72 k As fub / (ov fyb) (7)
If k = 0.85, for bolt grades up to 8.8 inclusively, A
≤ 0.680 As; for 10.9 grade, A ≤ 0.618 As (but 10.9
grade threaded rods are unlikely to be often met in
practice).
Threaded rods are generally manufactured from
hot rolled round steel. Since the cross section of such
bars is not strictly circular but slightly oval, its
nominal diameter must be a little greater than the re-
quired thread diameter. The alternative of using the
so-called calibrated round steel (which is strain
hardened) should be avoided in all cases where duc-
tility is needed.
Owing to their high slenderness, circular rods are
unable to carry compressive forces. Consequently,
the only bracing systems where they can be used are
those that remain geometrically undeformable when
only the tension diagonals are active, such as the X
system (Fig. 2). Not all designers agree to the use of
such elements as braces. The authors’ viewpoint is

Figure 2. The X bracing system.
that they are acceptable as vertical bracings of low-
rise (mainly single-storey) buildings and bracings in
the plane of the roof. While the first category may be 
designed for seismic action as dissipative or non-
dissipative structures, the second category must al-
ways remain in the elastic range.
The diagonals should be prestressed in order to
prevent slacking. It must be borne in mind that the
shortening of the chords of the X-bracing (i.e. the
columns) results in compressive stresses in the di-
agonals. A rough estimate of these stresses is given
by the following relationship:
d = 0.5 (1 + 2) cos2
where 1,2 = stresses in the bracing chords; d =
stress in the diagonal due to the shortening of the
chords; and  = angle between the diagonal and the
chord. Since the stresses in the chords due to hori-
zontal loads are practically equal and of opposite
signs, 1,2 may be taken as the stresses arising from
vertical loads only.
The initial stresses are usually not measured and
their values are at best uncertain. They may be ex-
pected to range between 40-80 N/mm2. For impor-
tant structures, it is recommended to specify the nec-
essary values of the initial stresses and measure them
on site. The effect of prestressing vanishes if the ul-
timate limit state occurs in the inelastic range.
There are two possible ways to design the diago-
nals as dissipative elements:
- to adopt a larger diameter in the threaded
zone than the current diameter of the element
(by welding a thicker end piece, or by thicken-
ing the end part of the circular rod which is
heated and laterally expanded);
- to reduce the diameter of the unthreaded zone
over a limited length (Fig. 3), by applying the
so-called RSS ‘reduced section solution’
(Piluso et al. 2005), which is very similar to the
‘dog bone’ (i.e. ‘reduced beam section’ con-
cept applied to frame beams).
The authors of the above mentioned paper sug-
gest the application of the RSS concept to diagonal
braces of I-shaped sections (e.g. HEA). Their moti-
vation is to overcome the drawbacks of the cross
section oversizing due to the fulfilment of the mem-
ber slenderness limits. In the case of circular rods
(where the slenderness limit criterion is irrelevant), a
justification for applying this concept is that it is
simpler and safer than the alternative of adding a
thicker piece at the member end (although it
leads to somewhat heavier elements). A is
replaced in Equation (7) by the reduced area Ared.
The minimum length of the reduced section zone
must be:
Figure 3. The RSS concept applied to the case of circular rods.
1:5 L red
d red d
Lred, min = 5 dred = 5.65 √Ared (9)
where dred is the reduced diameter (Fig. 3). An
important advantage of the RSS alternative is that it
may provide satisfactory stiffness in the elastic range
without imposing an unnecessary overstrength in the
ultimate limit state (under major earthquakes).
No matter which of the two alternatives is
adopted, it is also essential to have sufficiently long
threads to avoid stripping.
2.3 Anchor bolts
Anchor bolts are a very important particular case of
threaded circular rods.
The preconceived idea that column base connec-
tions are necessarily incapable of ductile behaviour
should be abandoned. It all depends on the design
philosophy and the constructional details.
Firstly, failure must occur by inelastic deforma-
tions of the steel components of the connection, and
in no case by crushing of the concrete in compres-
sion (a rule that is observed in the current design of
reinforced concrete elements).
Another recommendation is to avoid any damage
of the column (including the base plate) or anchor
wresting, because repair would be very difficult to
carry out. The dissipative elements should be re-
placeable.
In case the bolts have to be ductile, they cannot
be replaced if they are anchored by adherence and
the mechanical anchorage is the only possible solu-
tion. If the bolts are indirectly connected to the col-
umn base through cross beams (Fig. 4), those beams
may be designed as dissipative elements.
Dissipative
elements
Figure 4. Column base cross beams.
The cross beams and the anchor bolts form an as-
sembly. They are connected in series, not in parallel,
because each of the two components must resist the
resultant of the bolt tensile forces and the overall de-
formation is the sum of the individual deformations
of the two components. The strength of the assembly
is the strength of the weaker component (Băluţ &
Moldovan 1997).
If it is wished to take advantage of the post-
elastic deformation capacity of both components
and consequently increase the ductility of the
connection, the following condition must be satis-
fied:
max (ov1 Zy1, ov2 Zy2) ≤ min (Zu1, Zu2) (10)
where Zy1, Zy2 = the values of the anchor bolt tensile
force corresponding to the states when the two com-
ponents reach the plastic mechanisms (the yielding
of the unthreaded of the bolts and respectively the
appearance of plastic hinges in the cross beam); Zu1,
Zu2 = the values of the anchor bolt tensile force cor-
responding to the ultimate state, i.e.
failure of the two components; ov1, ov2 =
overstrength factors, ov1 being actually ov as given
by Equation (4), and
ov2 = 0.9 Mu / Mpl ≥ 1.1 (11)
Mpl, Mu = plastic moment and respectively ultimate
moment of the cross beam.
It would be ideal if both components were dissi-
pative, but the ductility of one of them (namely that
of the cross beams, which is simpler to attain) may
be considered to be sufficient. If the bolts behave in
a purely elastic way, they can be anchored in the
classic manner (by adherence).
In the absence of cross beams, it may be imag-
ined that other ductile elements can be inserted be-
tween the bolts and the column base.
Whether the bolts are dissipative or not, it is
strongly suggested to have two nuts by each bolt.
Apparently, one nut is sufficient if the bolts are em-
bedded in concrete, because loosening is thus pre-
vented. But this does not eliminate the risk of thread
stripping.
Anyway, for economical reasons the capable
moment of the connection (as determined by the re-
placeable elements) should not be smaller than that
of the column itself. On that purpose, the column
should be locally strengthened in the zone of its
lower end. This strategy is exactly the opposite of
the current design philosophy.
3 STRUCTURES WHOSE MEMBERS ARE AC-
TIVE BOTH IN TENSION AND COMPRES-
SION
3.1 Diagonal braces
In analysing the behaviour of bracing systems, a
very important feature is the degradation of the bear-
ing capacity of compression members under re-
peated loading and its consideration in design.
A very important parameter is the brace ductility:
 = y (12)
where  = axial deformation andy = axial deforma-
tion at yield of the brace. The peak brace ductility
demand is usually between 2 and 3, but values be-
tween 4 and 6 have been observed in special cases
(Tremblay 2002). Based on many test results, the au-
thor suggested the following equation:
C’u = A fy (a + b   c ) ≤ Cu (13)
where A = cross section area, fy = yield strength, Cu
= compressive strength at first buckling, C’u = com-
pressive strength after repeated loading, correspond-
ing to the ductility level ; and  = non-dimensional
slenderness ratiohe numerical values of a, b and c,
listed in Table 1, were calculated for three ductility
levels ( = 2, 3 and 5). The diagram for  = 3 is re-
produced in Figure 5.
Table 1. Numerical values of a, b and c (Tremblay 2002).
 a b c
2 0.058 0.23 1.40
3 0.084 0.12 1.61
5 0.095 0.046 2.22
Figure 5. Compressive strength degradation for  = 3 (after
Tremblay 2002).
These values were obtained for loading histories
characterized by symmetrical deformation. Linear
interpolation is acceptable for between 2 and 5.
For V (Fig. 6a) or inverted V, also known as
chevron (Fig. 6b), in case of weak beams the ductil-
ity demand in compression may reach much higher
levels (10-15) with no or limited yielding in tension.
The values of C’u determined for  = 5 and symmet-
rical deformation are practically applicable to this
case, which is not recommendable.
To be consistent with the design method used by
Eurocode 3, a buckling factor χ’ for repeated loading
may be defined:
χ’ = (a + b   c ) ≤ χ (14)
where χ = buckling factor specified for the classic
case of monotonic loading.
The compressive strength degradation depends on
the deformation , which on its turn is directly influ-
enced by the total number of cycles undergone by
the structure subjected to seismic action. But it may
be expected that this deformation cannot be attained
for certain types of earthquakes characterized by a
very short duration, in which case the above ap-
proach is too conservative. A deeper insight into the
phenomenon would be desirable in the future.
The buckling factors χ and χ’ must be based on a
correct estimate of the brace effective length and
slenderness. In the case of the X bracing system, the
effective length for out-of-plane buckling is reduced
to one half of the geometric length if the diagonals
are appropriately connected at their intersection
point, i.e. continuity is achieved for both axial and
flexural deformations. (A simple gusset plate in the
bracing plane is not sufficient from this point of
view). For V or inverted V systems, both flanges of
the beam must be braced against out-of-plane buck-
ling where the diagonals intersect the beam.
The behaviour of concentrically braced frames is
strongly influenced by the degradation of the buck-
ling strength of the diagonals. According to Euro-
code 8, considering both tension and compression
diagonals is allowed under certain conditions, first of
all a nonlinear pushover analysis or a time-history
analysis is performed.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6. The V(a), inverted V (b) and K (c) bracing systems.
In the absence of an accurate analysis (which is
not usual for current structures), some simplified hy-
potheses concerning the contribution of the com-
pression diagonals are necessary. In the case of di-
agonal bracings (e.g. the X system), Eurocode 8
specifies that only the tension diagonals are assumed
to be active if an elastic analysis is carried out, but
also imposes the condition:
1.3 <  ≤ 2.0 (15)
the lower bound being justified by the concern to
avoid overloading of the columns in the prebuckling
stage.
In frames with V bracings, both tension and com-
pression diagonals are active and only the upper
bound condition in Equation 15 is maintained. An
unbalanced vertical load is applied at the joint where
the two diagonals intersect the beam. This is due to
the fact that the tension diagonal attains its yield re-
sistance while the axial force in the compression di-
agonal equals the buckling load for repeated loading
(which may be defined as post-buckling or residual
strength). This is estimated to 30% of the yield resis-
tance. According to Eurocode 8 this joint cannot be
considered as an intermediate support of the beam
for gravity loads. P100-1/2004 makes a difference
between the V and the inverted V system and con-
siders that joint as a support in the first case. This
distinction seems to be questionable. Although grav-
ity loads exert a favourable prestressing influence on
the diagonals of the V system, it might be suggested
to disregard this effect because of some uncertainties
and the small values of the axial forces due to grav-
ity loads in comparison with those arising from
earthquakes (Vayas 2000). The authors of the pre-
sent paper believe that the importance of the
prestressing depends on whether the structure is lo-
cated in a more or less severe seismic area. Anyway,
only permanent loads should be considered for their
favourable effect, the presence of live loads and their
values being actually uncertain.
A simple and practical design method (Tremblay
2003) is based on the capacity design principle: the
columns, beams and their connections are checked to
make sure that they can resist the combined action of
the gravity loads and of the loads induced by the ax-
ial forces in the braces, assuming that the latter reach
their bearing capacity. In other words, the tension
diagonals attain their yield forces, while the axial
forces in the compression diagonals equal either Cu
or C’u, whichever is more unfavourable. The struc-
ture is then analysed by removing the braces and re-
placing them with their assumed capacities.
If Cu and C’u are regarded as the upper and re-
spectively the lower bound of the compressive
strength of the diagonals, and the analysis is per-
formed for both alternatives, then it seems logical
to adopt the smallest reasonable values for C’u, A
value  = 5 would be on the safe side. However,  =
3 appears to be an acceptable choice for the current
cases met in practice.
Once the capacity design principle is applied, it
makes no sense to observe the lower bound condi-
tion in Equation 15.
 The above method is based on the assumption
that all bracing diagonals reach simultaneously their
bearing capacity. This hypothesis may be acceptable
for low-rise structures but not for multi-storey struc-
tures, where inelastic deformations concentrate in
the bottom and upper floors while the braces at the
intermediate levels may remain elastic. A time his-
tory analysis seems indispensable in such cases, in
order to avoid too many approximations. If a static
nonlinear time history analysis is performed, then at
least two lateral loads distributions must be consid-
ered according to P100-1/2004:
- a uniform distribution, with lateral loads pro-
portional to the masses;
- a ‘modal’ distribution, with conventional lateral
loads given by an elastic dynamic analysis.
Although there is no unanimity about the design
of braces as members active only in tension (which
leads to very flexible elements), they may be well
suited for low-rise and especially for single-storey
buildings. If this principle is applied to the diagonals
of a V (or inverted V) bracing, one can take advan-
tage of a lower behaviour factor q than the values
normally specified for such structures. In other
words, q may be as small as for the X system. The
drawback is that stronger beams are needed in this
case, because the strength of the compression diago-
nal vanishes and a greater unbalanced force is ap-
plied to the beam.
A very good solution (Khatib & al. 1988), which
represents a substantial improvement of the struc-
tural behaviour, is the so-called zipper column sys-
tem, where all the diagonal intersection points of an
inverted V bracing are tied together (Fig. 7). But it is
feasible only if acceptable from the architectural
viewpoint. The zipper column principle is applicable
Figure 7. Zipper column inverted V system.
to the V system as well. If the top storey braces are
designed to remain elastic while all the other braces
in compression buckle, one obtains a ‘suspended
zipper frame’, which shows a better structural per-
formance (Leon & Yang 2003).
The K system (Fig. 6c) has no dissipative capac-
ity, since an unbalanced horizontal force is applied
at the intersection of the braces resulting in an unac-
ceptable bending of the column. However, this sys-
tem may be used in all cases when it is certain that
the diagonals remain in the elastic range (for in-
stance, braces in the gables of a single-storey build-
ing).
A model for the behaviour of concentric braces
was elaborated (Perotti & Scarlassara 1991), which
enabled the authors to determine the q factors for the
X system.
Due attention must be paid to the appropriate de-
sign of stitches if the diagonals are built-up members
(made of angles or channels).
3.2 Planar laced columns
Non-seismic load combinations govern in many
cases the design of such columns. However, an ex-
perimental program concerning their behaviour un-
der repeated loads is judged to be of interest. Labo-
ratory test results are available for laced members of
bridge structures (e.g. Kleiser & Uang 1999), but
they cannot be automatically extrapolated to the
category of elements under discussion.
In the past, columns supporting the runways for
overhead travelling cranes were often designed as
laced columns (usually the lower shaft). Although
this solution is less popular nowadays (owing to
labour costs), the behaviour of such columns is still
of interest as long as some existing structures have
to be investigated.
A laced column consists of two vertical chords
connected by diagonals and, in some cases, trans-
verse struts (Fig. 8). The K system is the most fre-
quent.
Figure 8. Planar laced columns.
Laced columns are also used for supporting gas
or water pipes. Their chords may be vertical or
sloped. The inverted V (and sometimes the X sys-
tem) are generally preferred.
Two forms of instability are possible in the case
of planar laced columns, namely in-plane and out-of-
plane buckling. Concerning the first, it must be em-
phasized that the only possibly dissipative diagonals
are those of the X system. The K system is obvi-
ously non-dissipative, but also the V or inverted V
are normally not better alternatives. This is so be-
cause (unlike the beams of braced frames) the trans-
verse struts do generally not possess significant in-
plane flexural stiffness and strength and therefore
cannot resist the unbalanced vertical load occurring
in the post-elastic stage. Consequently, it would be
incorrect to adopt in this case the q values specified
for concentrically V-braced frames.
Assuming that instability is governed by in-plane
buckling, three alternatives are possible for X sys-
tems:
- dissipative diagonals and elastic chords, in
which case q = 4 (the value specified by P100-
1/2004 for concentrically X braced frames);
- dissipative chords and elastic diagonals, in
which case it is suggested to take q = 2 (the
value specified by P100-1/2004 for inverted
pendulum structures);
- elastic chords and diagonals, i.e. a non- dissipa-
tive structure, thus q = 1.
Only the last two alternatives are possible for the
V, inverted V and K systems.
For an existing structure, one must check to
which case it actually belongs. Under load combina-
tions including the seismic action, the dissipative
elements (if any) should be checked in compression
with the reduced buckling factor χ’ for repeated
loading. It is suggested to take  = 3 for the diago-
nals and  = 5 for the chords (a suggestion that re-
mains open to further discussion). The normal buck-
ling factor χ should be used for checking non-
dissipative members under seismic action, and all
elements for non-seismic load combinations.
Lacing
Figure 9. Cross sections of laced columns.
All these columns are actually beam-columns,
since they are subjected to axial compression and
bending in the plane of symmetry.
If out-of-plane (i.e. flexural-torsional) buckling is
the relevant instability form, the above procedure is
essentially the same. The lacing diagonals are dis-
posed in two parallel planes (Fig. 9), acting like
shear walls. The behaviour of the column is similar
to that of a hollow section, whose behaviour is fa-
vourably influenced by its torsional stiffness, the
more so that cross section indeformability is usually
ensured by transverse diaphragms or bracings.
3.3 Triangulated space towers and masts
In many cases, these elements are designed for per-
manent loads and wind. But seismic load combina-
tions must always be considered as well. They may
become of capital importance if a significant mass
(e.g. a tank) is placed on top.
The design is based on the same principles as in
the case of planar columns. The only difference is
that here one cannot speak of ‘in-plane’ and ‘out-of-
plane’ buckling because the analysis is carried out
for a triangulated space structure.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The elements whose design is discussed in this paper
are characterized by the fact that all are mainly sub-
jected to axial forces.
Logically, a structure that can resist the seismic
action in a purely elastic manner (i.e. assuming q =
1) has no ductility requirements. This may occur by
single-storey mill-buildings, if the effect of wind and
(possibly) crane action prevails over that of earth-
quake, or in the case of many towers and masts. The
location of the structure in a more or less severe
seismic area is of great importance.
If the designer decides that the structure needs to
be ductile, he must try to avoid any brittle failure
mode. In the case of threaded elements, these are the
rupture in the threaded zone or the thread stripping.
A reduced diameter of the unthreaded zone and a
sufficient thread length are good solutions. The use
of ductile bolts and possibly of ductile anchor bolts
(or alternatively other dissipative elements of the
column base connection) is obviously an advantage,
on condition that they can easily be replaced, be-
cause the connected elements are thus not damaged
by earthquake action. This may represent a signifi-
cant change in the design philosophy. However,
since the compression zone of bolted connections is
non-dissipative, their post-elastic behaviour is ex-
pected to be poorer than that of flexural members.
In case of members active both in tension and
compression, the post-elastic behaviour is character-
ized by the buckling strength degradation under re-
peated loads. The amount of this degradation cer-
tainly depends on the type of earthquake undergone
by the structure, and research in this field seems to
be recommendable. It must be emphasized that an
accurate estimation of the effective lengths (and
consequently slenderness ratios) is essential. It
should also be borne in mind that local buckling, as
well as failure of connections, are possible causes of
brittle behaviour.
 If the design is governed by seismic action, then a Vayas, I. 2000. Design of Braced Frames. In F.M. Mazzolani
possibility of retrofitting the structure is to modify & V. Gioncu (eds), ISM Courses Udine: 241-288. Wien:
Springer.
its geometry (into an X or a zipper column system)
by adding new members. Other alternatives, such as
energy dissipation devices (which are generally pro-
prietary systems), are beyond the scope of this paper.

REFERENCES

Băluţ, N. & Moldovan, A. 1997. A Model for the Behaviour of

Column Base Connections. In M. Mazzolani & H. Akiyama
(ed.), Stessa’97 – Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic
Areas, Kyoto, Japan, 3-8 August, 1997: 530-537. Salerno:
Edizioni 10/17.
EN 1090: Execution of steel structures – Technical require-
ments.
EN 1993-1-1: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1:1:
General rules and rules for buildings.
EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules
for buildings.
Khatib, I. F., Mahin, S.A. & Chang, C. 1988. Seismic Behavior
of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames. Report No.
UCB/EERC-88-01. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Center. University of California.
Kleiser, M. & Uang C. M. 1999. Steel Latticed Members under
Cyclic Axial and Flexural Actions. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 125 (4): 393-400.
Leon, R. T. & Yang, C. S. 2003. Special Inverted-V-Braced
Frames with Suspended Zipper Struts. Georgia Institute of
Technology, December 1, 2003.
Munoz-Garcia, E., Davison, J. B. & Tyas, A. 2005. Analysis of
the response of structural bolts subjected to rapid rates of
loading. In B. Hoffmeister & O. Hechler (ed.), Eurosteel
2005 – European Conference o Steel and Composite Struc-
tures, Maastricht, The Netherlands, June 8-10, 2005, Pro-
ceedings, Vol. C: 4.10.147-154. Aachen: Druck und Ver-
laghaus Mainz GmbH.
Ohi, K., Lee, S.-J., Shimawaki, Y., Ohtsuka, H. & Guzman R.
2000. Inelastic Behaviors of End-plate Connections During
Earthquakes and Improvement on their Rotation Capacity.
Bulletin of Earthquake Resistant Structure Research Center
– Institute of Industrial Science – University of Tokyo 33
(3): 81-86.
Perotti F. & Scarlassara G.P. 1991. Concentrically Braced Steel
Frames under Seismic Actions. Non-Linear Behaviour and
Design Coefficients. Earthquake Engineering and Struc-
tural Dynamics 20: 409-427.
Piluso, V., Montuori, R. & Longo, A. 2005. An Innovative
Conception for Bracing Members: the Reduced Brace Sec-
tion Solution. In B. Hoffmeister & O. Hechler (eds), Euros-
teel 2005 – European Conference o Steel and Composite
Structures, Maastricht, The Netherlands, June 8-10, 2005,
Proceedings, Vol. C: 4.10.147-154. Aachen: Druck und
Verlaghaus Mainz GmbH.
P100-1/2004: Cod de proiectare seismică. Partea I – Prevederi
de proiectare pentru clădiri (Code for seismic design. Part I
– Design specification for buildings – in Romanian).
Tremblay, R. 2002. Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing
members. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 58:
665-701.
Tremblay, R. 2003. Seismic Design and Behavior of Concen-
trically Braced Steel Frames. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Inc.