Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 93–104

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Seismic retrofitting of framed structures with stainless steel

L. Di Sarnoa,∗, A.S. Elnashaib, D.A. Nethercotc
a Department of Structural Analysis and Design, University of Naples, Federico II 80125, Italy
b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL 61820 USA
c Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College of London, SW7 2AZ UK

Received 18 November 2004; accepted 5 May 2005

Abstract
The appropriate use of special metals such as stainless steels (SSs) for structural applications in building systems provides possibilities
for a more efficient balance between whole-life costs and in-service performance. The present paper assesses the feasibility of the application
of SSs for seismic retrofitting of framed structures, either braced (CBFs) or moment resisting (MRFs) frames. In so doing, inelastic analyses
have been carried out on a set of multi-storey CBFs and MRFs. The results of both inelastic static (pushovers) and dynamic (response history)
analyses demonstrate that systems retrofitted with SSs exhibit enhanced plastic deformations and excellent energy absorbing capacity. The
augmented strain hardening of SS is beneficial in preventing local buckling in steel members in both MRFs and CBFs. The analytical
results also demonstrate that, when SS is spread within columns, the system over-strength increases by 30% with respect to the carbon–steel
benchmark structure. The design over-strength, plastic redistribution and energy dissipation capacity increase by the same amount.
© 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stainless Steel; Seismic design; Dissipation capacity; Inelastic analysis

1. Introduction capacity of deficient components so that they will not reach

Earthquakes in California, Japan and Taiwan in the mid-
to-late 1990s severely damaged low-to-medium rise framed
steel and steel–concrete composite structures [1]. The struc-
tural damage was primarily caused by brittle fracture and
local buckling occurring in connections and/or brace mem-
bers [2–4]. As a result, several research projects were
launched worldwide to develop improved strategies for seis-
mic rehabilitation. Two retrofitting strategies emerged: the
local modification of material properties and/or seismic
details (e.g., beam-to-column connections) and the global
stiffening and strengthening of the lateral resisting sys-
tems. Fig. 1 provides a comparison between the effects of
these local and global intervention schemes on the seis-
mic structural performance. The enhancement of stiffness,
strength, ductility and hysteretic dissipation in plan and over
the height of buildings should be carefully considered in
the seismic design and retrofitting of structures. The ob-
jective of local retrofitting is to increase the deformation
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +39 0 817 345036.
E-mail address: disarno@unina.it (L. Di Sarno).
their specified limit state as the building responds at the
design level (Fig. 1). Effective global upgrading strategies
should be able to increase the capacity of the structure
and/or decrease the demand imposed by the earthquake
loads. Structures with enhanced capacities may safely resist
the forces and the deformations induced by earthquake
response. Generally, global modifications to the structural
system are designed so that the design demands (target
displacement) on the existing structural and non-structural
components are less than their capacities. Lower demands
may reduce the risk of brittle failures in the structure and/or
avoid the interruption of its functionality.
Novel materials, special metals, and/or technologies,
e.g. base isolation and supplemental damping, may be
employed for the seismic rehabilitation of framed buildings,
either braced (CBFs) or moment resisting (MRFs) frames.
Innovative metal materials that can be used for retrofitting
of steel structures are aluminium alloys, shape memory
alloys, and stainless steels. These metals possess unusual
characteristics that render them suitable in the field of
seismic rehabilitation [5]. These characteristics include

0143-974X/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2005.05.007
94 L. Di Sarno et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 93–104

shown, for example, in Fig. 2. Nonetheless, applications for

Nomenclature seismic design have not yet been investigated.
The stress–strain response of SS exhibits a smooth
Abbreviations transition between the elastic and inelastic branch.
CBF Concentrically braced frame Conventionally, a 0.20% offset permanent strain (proof
Cr Chromium stress) is used to define the “yield strength”. A number of
CS Carbon steel experimental tests carried out primarily in Europe [6,7] and
IF Irregular moment resisting frame Japan [8] on austenitic (304 and 316) and austenitic–ferritic
MRF Moment resisting frame grades of SSs have demonstrated that:
SS Stainless steel
(i) The stress–strain curves of SS depart from linearity
UB Universal beam
at a much lower load level than for mild steel (CS).
UC Universal column
Lower material yield is also typically found in SS.
ULS Ultimate limit state
Manufacturers can easily lower and/or increase proof
YLS Yield limit state
stresses due to tighter quality controls. These controls,
Symbols however, increase the cost of the material: SS is
approximately four times as expensive as CS.
dtop Roof lateral displacement
(ii) The ultimate elongation (εu ) and the ultimate-to-proof
fy Yield strength
tensile strength ratios ( f u / f y ) are on average higher than
fu Ultimate strength
for CS. For austenitic plates with thicknesses less than
Htot Frame total height
3 mm the values of εu range between 35% and 40%
q Behaviour factor
(S220), while a value of 45–55% was found for greater
V Base shear
thicknesses; these values are, however, lower bounds.
Vd Design base shear
Values of ultimate-to-proof tensile strength ratios can be
Vu Base shear at ULS
as high as 2.0 for SS. Fig. 3 displays, for example, the
Vy Base shear at YLS
f u / f y ratios and deformations εu for plates of various
W Frame seismic weight
thicknesses; these plates employ different grades of
D Horizontal displacement
316 austenitic grades. Minimum values of 50% are
εy Yield elongation
common for εu , whilst the f u / f y is not less than 1.50.
εu Ultimate elongation
This is beneficial for seismic design due to enhanced
σy Proof stress
ductility. In fact, large inelastic deformations can be
σu Ultimate tensile strength
accommodated if the material exhibits high values of
ultimate strain. In addition, the spread of inelasticity
(i) mechanical properties, (ii) corrosion and heat resistance, along a member length, and hence its ductility, increases
(iii) weldability, (iv) chemical–physical compatibility with with increase in fu / f y stress ratios.
other materials, (v) life cycle cost and (vi) recyclability. (iii) Variations in both proof stress and tensile strength for
The present work analyses the feasibility of the austenitic hot-formed plates are negligible, e.g. less than
application of SSs for seismic retrofitting of steel structural 4–5%. Coefficients of variation (COVs) for both proof
systems for multi-storey buildings. In so doing, an outline stresses and ultimate strengths for SS are smaller than
of the material properties relevant for seismic design is those for CS. The ultimate strength generally exhibits
provided. Design examples include moment resisting frames less scatter than the proof stress. Negligible values
(MRFs) and concentrically braced frames (CBFs) with of COVs, e.g. less than 2–3%, ensure reliable control
different amounts of SS spread within dissipative and/or of the failure mode, e.g. weak-beam, strong-column
non-dissipative members. The seismic performance of the response for moment resisting frames, whereby the
sample frames is evaluated through inelastic static and column is designed not for the applied action but for
dynamic analyses within the framework of performance action consistent with the over-strength of the beam.
(iv) SS generally exhibits rather greater increases in
based assessment.
strengths at fast rates of loading [5,9]. The initial stress
state of the material has an effect on the strain rate. The
2. Stainless steel and seismic design influence of the material strain rate sensitivity decreases
with increase in strain.
The commonest grades of SSs utilized for structural (v) Austenitic SSs possess greater toughness than mild
applications include austenitic (ASS), ferritic (FSS), and steels [10,11]. The former are less susceptible to brittle
austenitic–ferritic (AFSS) or duplex. This classification is fracture than the latter for service temperatures down to
based on the amount of chromium (Cr) present in the alloy −40 ◦C. Fatigue tests with constant amplitude loading
considered. Several applications already exist worldwide for have demonstrated that longitudinal and transverse non-
structural and non-structural components made of SSs, as load carrying fillet welds for SS behave much better
 L. Di Sarno et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 93–104 95

Fig. 1. Characteristics of global (top) and local (bottom) intervention approaches in seismic retrofitting.

Fig. 2. Structural (left) and non-structural (right) applications of stainless steel in modern buildings.

than equivalent welds in CS. Thus CS reference S–N
curves underestimate the actual response of SS for the
same fatigue classes.
(vi) Experimental tests on SS beams, columns and beam-
to-column connections have shown large plastic
deformation capacity and energy redistribution at
section and member levels.
The above properties render SS an attractive metal
for applications in plastic and seismic design, particularly
96 L. Di Sarno et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 93–104

Fig. 3. Mechanical properties of stainless steel: material over-strength (left) and ultimate elongation (right).

Fig. 4. FEM models for sample MRFs (left) and CBFs (right).

for seismic retrofitting of steel, concrete and composite
structures. The suitability of the application of SSs for
seismic retrofitting is analysed herein with regard to multi-
storey framed structures, either MRFs or CBFs.
3. Applications: Design examples
To assess the feasibility of the application of SS to
the seismic retrofitting of steel building, a set of framed
structures, either moment resisting or braced, has been
selected and investigated in the inelastic range. Inelastic
static (pushover) and dynamic (response history) analyses
were carried out through refined models discretized through
FEM. The sample frames, the modelling assumptions and
the results of the investigations performed are provided
hereafter.
3.1. Moment resisting frames
A set of seven regular moment resisting frames (RFs) was
considered for the analytical study presented in this work.
The basic RF geometry consists of a three-bay–six-storey
structure; the external and the internal bays are 8 m and 6 m
spans, respectively. The storey height is 3.5 m for all floors
with the exception of the ground floor, which is 4.5 m high.
The concrete slab has a depth of 0.15 m and 0.12 m for floors
and roof, respectively. The grade for mild steel is S275;
similarly, a grade with proof stress of 275 MPa was used
for SS. Exterior columns employ UC 305, while interior
columns are in UC 356. Steel beams utilize UB 610 at all
but the top floor. Roof beams are UB 457. The characteristic
loads for floor finishes are 1 kN/m2 whilst, for imposed load,
5 kN/m2 and 3 kN/m2 at floor levels and roof, respectively,
have been considered. The frame in mild steel is assumed
as a benchmark for those systems in which SS has been
spread within beams and/or columns. The label RF(b10), for
instance, indicates that SS has been used for both ends of the
beams, for a length of 10% of the member span.
The IFs are derived from the RFs by bracing the external
bays in all but the first floor, in order to simulate the presence
of infills, thus creating a high concentration of inelastic
demand at the soft ground storey. A detailed description for
both RFs and IFs assessed in this study can be found in
Ref. [12].
3.2. Concentrically braced frames
Eight concentrically braced frames (CBFs) were de-
signed and assessed for this study. The geometric layout of
 L. Di Sarno et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 93–104 97

Fig. 5. Spectral accelerations (left) and spectral velocity (right) for the earthquake ground motions used (damping = 5%).

Table 1
Characteristics of ground motions

Record Pr. of Exc. Magnitude Source distance PGA PGV PGD ARIAS intensity Duration (s)
(% in 50 yrs) (Mw ) (km) (g) (m/s) (cm) (m/s) Uniform Bracketed Significant

Morgan Hill 50 6.2 15 0.32 0.32 6.14 1.71 23.70 39.44 22.64
Whittier 50 7.3 17 0.77 0.92 11.32 5.42 10.38 37.10 8.70
Loma Prieta 10 7.0 12.4 0.66 0.70 18.41 4.24 13.00 35.22 11.30
Landers 10 7.3 36 0.42 0.36 16.08 2.10 22.98 47.90 22.28
Northridge 2 6.7 7.5 0.43 0.65 12.21 2.03 11.18 14.82 7.80
Kobe 2 6.9 3.4 1.28 1.46 30.31 14.61 9.38 16.46 6.86

the CBFs is similar to that of the MRFs. Braced frames em-
ploy six storeys and three bays. The storey height is set to
3.5 m for all floors with the exception of the ground floor,
which is 4.5 m high. CBFs utilize concrete slabs similar
to those used for the MRFs described in Section 3.1. Steel
grades and load values are similar to those given above for
MRFs. Exterior columns employ HEB 280, while interior
columns are in HEB 200. Steel beams utilize IPE 500 at all
but the floor. Roof beams are IPE 400. Three groups of diag-
onal braces were used; the dimensions of these braces vary
heightwise. Diagonals consist of circular hollow sections
with external diameters (d) varying between 115 mm (fifth
and sixth floors) and 210 mm (first and second floors); at the
third and fourth floors, d = 165 mm. The average diameter-
to-thickness ratio is 30. The diagonals used to brace the cen-
tral bay of the multi-storey frame possess intermediate slen-
derness.
In CBFs, SS was spread both in dissipative members
(braces) and non-dissipative components, such as beams and
columns. The system with all components in carbon steel is
assumed as a benchmark.
3.3. Structural modelling and analysis
The modelling of the sample frames described in
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 was carried out by means of the
finite element program ADAPTIC [13], a program for
static and dynamic large-displacement non-linear analysis
of space frames by adaptive mesh refinement. Bare frames
were modelled as two-dimensional assemblages of beam
members. Shear deformabilities of beams and columns were
also included in the structural model. Panel zone strengths
and deformations were not considered. Stiffness and strength
due to concrete deck slabs were not accounted for in the
plane systems analysed; diaphragms are assumed rigid at
each floor. Five cubic elements were used to model both
beams and columns in MRFs, while braces in CBFs were
discretized through two cubic elements. Fig. 4 shows, as
example, the modellings adopted for typical MRFs and
CBFs. The refined analytical model ensures that spreads of
inelasticity and buckling, both local and global, are reliably
assessed. It is, in fact, ensured that three Gauss points lie
within each potential plastic hinge zone. Local buckling is
accounted for in ADAPTIC through the model formulated
by Elnashai and Elghazouli [14].
The material modelling was based on the multi-
surface cyclic plasticity model given by Popov and
Petersson [15]. The uniaxial formulation based on the
modified Ramberg–Osgood formula [16] was used in the
present study to model the skeleton curve of the material
response curve for SS. The relationships are as follows:

n
σ σ
for σ ≤ σy : ε = + εpy (1)
E0 σy
  
σ − σy σ − σy n
for σ > σy : ε = + εpu · + εty (2)
E 0.2 σu − σy
98 L. Di Sarno et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 93–104

Fig. 6. Capacity curves for the sample regular (top) and irregular (bottom) MRFs.

Fig. 7. Capacity curves for the sample CBFs: spreading of SS in single members (left) and hybrid members (right).

where n and n  are parameters to be calibrated by fitting
the experimental curves, εpy and εpu are the plastic strains
corresponding to the 0.2% proof stress (σy ) and ultimate
strength (σu ), respectively, while εty is the total strain
corresponding to σy . E 0 and E 0.2 are the initial and the
proof stress moduli. Further details of the values assumed
for the model parameters can be found in Ref. [12].
For the mild steel, the ratio of the strain hardening
(E sh ) to the initial stiffness (E 0 ) was assumed equal to
E sh /E 0 = 3%. The section yield capacity was evaluated
in the present work by taking into account moment–thrust
interaction for both the beams and the beam–column
elements.
Comparative analyses of the seismic structural perfor-
mances of carbon, SS and ‘hybrid’ MRFs, either regular
(RFs) or irregular (IFs), were carried out on a set of 14
frames. Inelastic static (pushovers) and dynamic (response
history) analyses were performed by means of ADAP-
TIC [13]. For CBFs, the total number of assessed frames
is 22.
 L. Di Sarno et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 93–104 99

Pushover (static) analyses were performed through

displacement-controlled patterns, both inverted triangular
and rectangular. Response history analyses were conducted
by using a set of ground motions corresponding to different
seismic hazards as detailed in the next section.

3.4. Earthquake ground motions

Dynamic response histories were carried out employing

suites of ground motions developed for the FEMA-SAC
steel project in the USA [17]. These earthquakes include
horizontal records matching the 1997 NERHP design
spectrum [18]. The seismological properties of the records
used for this study are summarized in Table 1. Three levels
of seismic hazard were employed: 50%, 10% and 2%
probability of exceedence in a 50-year period.
The distances from the sources for the records used to
carry the inelastic analyses range between 3.4 km (Kobe,
in Japan) and 36 km (Landers, in California). Therefore,
the above suite of strong motions covers a range of
design scenarios (near- and far-field). In this study near-
and far-field records were chosen to compare seismic
performance during earthquakes with different frequency
contents (Fig. 5).
The values of the duration and energy content, expressed
as ARIAS intensity, of the records summarized in Table 1
show that Kobe is the shortest record but the most
demanding in terms of input energy.

3.5. Seismic performance criteria

Performance levels can be specified as limits on any

structural response parameter, e.g. actions (stresses, forces,
moments) and deformations (strains, displacements and
rotations). Obviously, different limit states have to be cross-
correlated to the level of the earthquake design level (seismic
input). In this study four structural performance levels
have been checked in compliance with guidelines given by
SEAOC [19] and FEMA [20]. The relationship between
overall seismic performance and maximum transient drift
ratios is summarized in Table 2. Fig. 8. Global overstrength and plastic redistribution for the sample regular
(top), irregular (middle) and concentrically braced (bottom) frames.

Table 2
Structural performance levels (after SEAOC, 1999)
strength to ensure elastic behaviour and avoid structural
Performance Qualitative Damage Recommended damage under small/medium events is also required to
level description type storey drifts (%)
guarantee fulfilment of the SP-2 target. Finally, in the
SP-1 Operational Negligible 0.5 case of a severe earthquake, ductility plays a key role
SP-2 Occupiable Light 1.5 in the maintenance of its strength and ensures the
SP-3 Life safety Moderate 2.5 fulfilment of SP-3 and SP-4 prerequisites. The deformational
SP-4 Near collapse Severe 3.8
quantities monitored herein are global response parameters,
i.e. the inter-storey (d/ h) and roof (dtop/Htot) drifts.
The three main dynamic response parameters, stiffness, Structural over-strengths (Vy /Vd and Vu /Vy ) and force
strength and ductility assume a paramount role in the reduction factors (Vu /Vd ) were also computed by means
behaviour of structures. In order to comply with the SP-1 of inelastic static analyses. Additionally, base storey shears
performance target the structure needs enough stiffness to are investigated to assess the effects of the SS on the
ensure that non-structural damage is minimized. Sufficient force demand in the sample structures. The values of the
100 L. Di Sarno et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 93–104

Fig. 9. Roof drifts of regular (left) and irregular (right) MRFs subjected to Morgan Hill (top), Landers (middle) and Kobe (bottom) earthquakes.

design base shear were computed in compliance with Vd
from European seismic standards [21]. The values of the
above deformation and resistance response parameters are
discussed hereafter.
3.6. Inelastic performance assessment
The structural seismic performance of the sample MRFs
and CBFs was assessed in terms of global response param-
eters, either resistance (base shears and over-strengths) or
deformation capacity (interstorey and roof drifts).
3.6.1. Resistance
The lateral resistance capacity of the sample frames is in-
vestigated through the pushover analyses. Figs. 6 and 7 pro-
vide the pushover curves obtained for MRFs by considering
displacement controlled horizontal patterns (triangular dis-
tribution) for regular and irregular frames, respectively.
It is shown that the enhancement of structural perfor-
mance can be significant for the frames with columns in
SS. For example, the system over-strengths of RF(c20) and
RF(c100) are 25–30% higher than for the benchmark frames
in mild steel. However, spreading SS in columns is not found
to be more efficient and cost-effective than using SS only
at the column ends. The increased over-strength character-
izes both regular (RFs) and irregular (IFs) configurations.
For IFs, spreading of SS in columns has also been found
beneficial for the prevention of local buckling. The high
strain hardening of the material delays the onset of insta-
bility, which usually occurs in the inelastic range.
Fig. 8 shows the results of the static pushover analyses
for CBFs. SS has been used for dissipative (braces) and
 L. Di Sarno et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 93–104 101

Fig. 10. Roof drifts of CBFs subjected to Morgan Hill (top), Landers (middle) and Kobe (bottom) earthquakes.

non-dissipative (beams and columns) members. Hybrid
configurations, e.g. with braces and beams, braces and
columns and beams and columns, have also been considered.
It is found that the systems exhibit higher over-strength when
SS braces and/or SS columns are employed. In particular, by
using SS braces and columns the increase in over-strength is
about 33% with respect to the configuration in mild steel.
Fig. 8 summarizes the values of global over-strengths
(Vy /Vd and Vu /Vy ) for the sample frames, both MRFs and
CBFs. The values are compared to those of benchmark
frames in carbon steel. It may be observed that the round-
house behaviour of SS and its high material over-strength
( f u / f y ) causes global lateral resistance to continue to
increase, even at large drifts. The enhancement is about
25–30% for RFs with 20% of SS at both ends of columns.
For CBFs, the maximum values of Vy /Vd and Vu /Vy , i.e.
about 30%, can be reached for frames with SS in both braces
and columns.
The effect of SS in the seismic base shear of the sample
frames was computed through inelastic both static and
dynamic analyses. Figs. 11 and 12 provide the variations
of the seismic coefficient, i.e. dimensionless base shear
Vb /Wtot , with Vb the base shear and Wtot the total seismic
weight of the structure, during the Morgan Hill, Landers and
Kobe ground motions. These earthquakes exhibit different
probabilities of exceedence, i.e. 2% (Kobe), 10% (Landers)
and 50% (Morgan Hill).
The results show that the use of SS in structural members
(beams, columns and braces) mitigates the maximum
seismic base shear demand. This effect is significant for
ground motions with both low (Morgan Hill) and high
(Kobe) probabilities of exceedence. For ground motions
102 L. Di Sarno et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 93–104

Fig. 11. Dimensionless base shears of regular (left) and irregular (right) MRFs subjected to Morgan Hill (top), Landers (middle) and Kobe (bottom) earthquakes.

with 10% probability of exceedence, the benefits in using
SS in structural members is minimal; the response is
however dependent on the seismological characteristics of
the earthquake records used in the analysis. The above
results were found for both MRFs and CBFs. The use of
SS in columns (MRFs) and brace–columns (CBFs) leads to
significant reductions (25–30%) of the shear seismic demand
on the framed structures. The reduction of the shear is higher
in the IRs than in RFs.
3.6.2. Deformations
The deformation capacity of the sample frames was
investigated through the pushover curves provided in Figs. 6
and 7. The ultimate deformation capacity of MRFs and
CBFs is significantly enhanced by the use of SS braces and
columns: values of lateral drifts (dtop/Htop) are 10–15%
higher than those for frames in mild steel. CBFs with SS in
either braces or columns exhibit the same seismic response.
There are no benefits in using SS in the beams of CBFs. The
enhanced seismic performance of CBFs can be attributed to
the prevention of local buckling which often undermines the
energy dissipation capacity under earthquake loads. Table 3
summarizes the values of ductility estimated at different
performance levels for CBFs. It can be noted that the values
of ductility can be, at the ‘Near Collapse’ limit state, as
high as 10.30 for the frame SS(bm–col) and 10.45 for the
case SS(br–col). These values are close to those relative to
the benchmark structure SS(all), i.e. 10.47. At ‘Occupiable’
 L. Di Sarno et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 93–104 103

Fig. 12. Dimensionless base shears of CBFs subjected to Morgan Hill (top), Landers (middle) and Kobe (bottom) earthquakes.

and ‘Life Safe’ the variations of the values of ductility are Table 3
less significant than in the case of ‘Near Collapse’. Similar Ductility at different performance levels for CBFs
results were found also for MRFs, either regular (RFs) or Frame Operational Occupiable Life safety Near collapse
irregular (IFs).
CS(all) 1.00 3.30 6.30 7.32
The use of SS in braces and/or columns of CBFs may be
SS(bm) 1.00 3.28 6.27 7.30
effective in reducing the lateral deformability and enhancing
SS(all) 1.00 4.07 6.70 10.47
the damping characteristics of the structural system. Figs. 9 SS(br) 1.00 4.02 6.73 10.40
and 10, for example, show the time history of roof drifts SS(col) 1.00 5.07 6.00 9.43
for CBFs subjected to earthquake ground motions with SS(br–col) 1.00 4.05 6.72 10.45
probabilities of exceedence of 50% (Morgan Hill), 10% SS(br–bm) 1.00 3.90 6.67 9.37
(Landers) and 2% (Kobe). The values of the drifts are plotted Ss(bm–col) 1.00 3.87 6.03 10.30
as a percentage of the frame total height.
For both Morgan Hill and Landers earthquakes, all the
configurations are compliant with the ‘operational’ limit the use of SS braces leads to damping in top drifts as high
state as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. It is also observed that as 50%. For the Kobe earthquake, the braced structures
104 L. Di Sarno et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 93–104
exceed the threshold of 0.50%; for Kobe the maximum
top drift is about 0.90%. The values of the maximum
roof drifts (dtop/Htop) do not exceed the value of 1.50%
(Occupiable) for the Kobe earthquake. Conversely, when
the Northridge record was used, the maximum dtop/Htop is
nearly 4.0%, thus giving rise to severe structural damage;
the threshold of the performance level ‘Near Collapse’ is
overcome.
Under the Landers record the use of SS in braces
and/or columns does not give rise to any beneficial effect.
The maximum drifts are increased by spreading SS in
members. This dynamic response may be attributed to the
seismological characteristics of the ground motions utilized.
Further analytical investigations are under way to shed
light on the effects of near-fault effects on the seismic
response of CBFs with SS in dissipative and non-dissipative
members.
4. Conclusions
Extensive inelastic static (pushovers) and dynamic
(response history) analyses were carried out in the present
study for both MRFs and CBFs. The results demonstrate that
SSs possess enhanced plastic deformations and excellent
energy absorbing capacity. The augmented strain hardening,
which is nearly twice that of carbon steels (2.30 versus
1.20), may reduce the likelihood of local buckling in steel
members in both MRFs and CBFs. The analyses carried
out demonstrate that for MRFs when SS is spread within
columns, the system over-strength increases by 30% with
respect to the carbon–steel benchmark structure. The design
over-strength, plastic redistribution and energy dissipation
capacity increase by the same amount. The study also
reveals that there is no significant benefit in spreading SS
within beams (dissipative members). The onset of yielding
in dissipative members is delayed when SS is employed.
On the other hand, in CBFs with SS braces and columns
the increase in over-strength is about 33% with respect
to the configuration in mild steel. Values of lateral drifts
(dtop/Htop) for CBFs with SS are 10–15% higher than those
for frames in mild steel. There are no benefits in using SS in
beams of CBFs.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the Earthquake
Engineering Research Centers Program of the National
Science Foundation under NSF Award Number EEC
97-01785. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National
Science Foundation.
References
[1] Federal Emergency Management Agency. State of Art Report on past
performance of steel moment frame buildings in earthquakes. Report
No. FEMA 355E, Washington, DC, USA; 2000.
[2] Bruneau M, Uang CM, Whittaker AS. Ductile design of steel
structures. New York (USA): McGraw Hill; 1998.
[3] Mahin SA. Lessons from damage to steel buildings during the
Northridge earthquake. Engineering Structures 1998;20(4):261–70.
[4] Watanabe E, Sugiura K, Nagata K, Kitane Y. Performances
and damages to steel structures during 1996 Hyogoken–Nanbu
earthquake. Engineering Structures 1998;20(4–6):282–90.
[5] Di Sarno L, Elnashai AS. Special metals for seismic retrofitting
of steel and composite buildings. Journal of Progress in Structural
Engineering and Materials 2003;5(2):60–76.
[6] Burgan BA, Baddoo NR, Gilsenan KA. Structural design of stainless
steel members: Comparison between Eurocode 3, Part 1.4 and tests
results. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2000;54(1):51–73.
[7] Johansson B, Olsson A. Current design practice and research on
stainless steel structures in Sweden. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2000;54(1):3–29.
[8] Aoki H. Establishment of design standards and current practice for
stainless steel structural design in Japan. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 2000;54(1):191–210.
[9] Euro Inox. Design manual for structural stainless steel. 2nd ed.
Toronto: NiDi; 2002.
[10] Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. Part 1.4—General rules—
Supplementary rules for stainless steel. Brussels: European Commis-
sion for Standardization; 1996.
[11] Gardner L. The use of stainless steel in structures. Journal of Progress
in Structural Engineering and Materials 2005;7(2):45–55.
[12] Di Sarno L, Elnashai AS, Nethercot DA. Seismic performance
assessment of stainless steel frames. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2003;59(10):1289–319.
[13] Izzuddin BA, Elnashai AS. ADAPTIC, a program for the adaptive
large displacement elasto-plastic dynamic analysis of steel, concrete
and composite frames. ESEE research report No. 7-89, London (UK);
Imperial College, 1989.
[14] Elnashai AS, Elghazouli AY. Performance of composite
steel/concrete members under earthquake loading. Part I: Ana-
lytical model. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1993;22(4):315–45.
[15] Popov EP, Petersson H. Cyclic metal plasticity: Experiments and
theory. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division 1978;
104(EM6):1371–88 [Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers].
[16] Mirambell E, Real E. On the calculation of deflections in structural
stainless beams: An experimental and numerical investigation. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 2000;54(1):109–33.
[17] Somerville P, Smith N, Punyamurthula S, Sun J. Development of
ground motion time histories for Phase-2 of the FEMA/SAC Steel
Project. Report No. SAC/BD-97-04, Sacramento, CA, USA; 1997.
[18] Federal Emergency Management Agency. NERPH recommended
provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings. FEMA Report
No. 302, Washington, DC; 1997.
[19] Seismology Committee Structural Engineers Association of Califor-
nia. Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. 7th
ed. California; 1999.
[20] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Pre-standard and commen-
tary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report No. FEMA 356,
Washington, DC, USA; 2000.
[21] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Brussels:
European Commission for Standardization; 1998.