EUROSTEEL 2014, September 10-12, 2014, Naples, Italy

HIGH STRENGTH STEEL IN SEISMIC RESISTANT BUILDING FRAMES

Dan Dubinaa,b, Aurel Stratana, Cristian Vulcua, Adrian Ciutinaa
a

Politehnica University of Timisoara, Dept. of Steel Structures and Structural Mechanics, Romania
b
CCTFA, Romanian Academy, Timisoara Branch
dan.dubina@upt.ro; aurel.stratan@upt.ro; cristian.vulcu@upt.ro; adrian.ciutina@upt.ro

INTRODUCTION
Seismic resistant building frames designed as dissipative structures, must allow for plastic
deformations to develop in specific members, whose behaviour is expected to be predicted and
controlled by proper calculation and detailing. Members designed to remain elastic during
earthquake, such as columns, are characterized by high strength demands. Dual-steel structural
systems, optimized according to a Performance Based Design (PBD) philosophy, in which High
Strength Steel (HSS) is used in predominantly elastic members, while Mild Carbon Steel (MCS)
is used in dissipative members, can be very reliable and cost efficient. Because present seismic
design codes do not cover this specific configuration, an extensive European research project [1],
HSS-SERF - High Strength Steel in Seismic Resistant Building Frames, was carried out with the
aim to investigate and evaluate the seismic performance of dual-steel building frames. On this
purpose, and based on a large numerical and experimental program, the following objectives have
been focused into the project:
1. To find reliable structural typologies and joint/connection detailing for dual-steel building
frames, (e.g. of HSS and MCS members), and to validate them by tests and advanced numerical
simulations;
2. To develop design criteria and performance based design methodology for dual-steel structures
using high strength steel;
3. To recommend relevant design parameters (i.e. behaviour factor q, overstrength factor ) to be
implemented in further versions of the seismic design code, EN 1998-1 [1], in order to apply
capacity design approach for dual-steel framing typologies;
4. To evaluate technical and economic benefit of dual-steel approach involving HSS.
1

PROJECT PARTNERSHIP

The project partnership was composed of the following:

UPT
Politehnica University of Timioara, Romania (project coordinator)
RIVA
RIVA Acciaio S.p.A, Italy
VTT
Technical Research Centre of Finland
ULG
University of Liege, Belgium
USTUTT University of Stuttgart, Germany
UNINA University of Naples "Federico II", Italy
UL
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
GIPAC Gabinete de Informtica e Projecto Assistido por Computador Lda., Portugal
RUUKKI Ruukki Construction Oy, Finland
UPI
University of Pisa, Italy
2

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

The main research activities of the project were divided into several working packages. The
flowchart of the research is illustrated in Fig. 1, and in the following part, a brief presentation is
made with respect to the working packages.

WP1 Selection of structural

typologies and design of optimized
dual-steel multi-storey frames

WP4 Prequalification tests on bolted beam-tocolumn joints in moment-resisting dual-steel frames

WP3 Qualification of welding for ductility and
strength demands

WP2 Evaluation of seismic

performance of typical dual-steel
frame typologies

WP7 Evaluation of technical and

economic efficiency of dual-steel
structures vs. conventional ones

WP5 Prequalification tests on welded beam-tocolumn joints in moment-resisting dual-steel frames

WP6 Guidelines for conceptual design and

performance based design of dual-steel building

frames under seismic actions

Fig. 1. General flow chart of the research [1]

2.1 Selection of structural typologies and design of optimised dual-steel multi-storey frames
As part of WP1, a number of 18 multi-storey frames were designed [2]. The set of frames, see Fig.
2, was obtained from the combination of three structural types (MRF moment resisting frames, DCBF dual concentrically braced frames, D-EBF dual eccentrically braced frames), three types of
steel-concrete composite columns (FE-WF fully encased wide flange sections, PE-WF partially
encased wide flange sections, CF-RHS concrete filled rectangular hollow section tubes), and two
high strength steel grades (S460, S690). The dissipative members (beams from MRFs, braces from
D-CBFs, etc.) were realised from S355 steel grade. The seismic performance of the designed
frames was checked through nonlinear static analyses. In addition, the designed frames served as
basis for the selection of the dimensions for beam-to-column joint test specimens (WP4 & WP5).

a)

c)

b)

d)

Fig. 2. Structural typologies and cross sections used for columns [2]

The joining solutions between beams and columns were represented by bolted and welded
connections. The bolted beam-to-column joints (see Fig. 3) were analysed and tested at the
University of Liege [3] (pp. 63-78 Hoang, Demonceau, Jaspart), particularly covering three
situations: a) partially encased wide flange column with reinforced end-plate connection; b)
concrete filled tube column with reinforced end-plate connection; c) concrete filled tube column
with end-plate connection and long bolts.

a)

b)

c)

Fig. 3. Bolted beam-to-column joint configurations (Univ. of Liege) [3] (pp. 63-78)

The welded beam-to-column joints were analysed and tested at University of Ljubljana [3] (pp. 7994 Cermelj, Beg) and Politehnica University of Timisoara [3] (pp. 105-120 Vulcu, Stratan,
Ciutina, Dubina). The particular configuration of the joins studied at University of Ljubljana was
characterised by fully encased wide flange columns and welded connection with rib stiffeners and
respectively cover plates (Fig. 4a). The beam-to-column joints investigated at the Politehnica
University of Timisoara (Fig. 4b), were characterised by concrete filled tube columns and welded
connections with reduced beam section and cover plates.

a)

b)

Fig. 4. Welded beam-to-column joints: (a) rib stiffener & cover plate joints with FE-WF columns [3] (pp. 79-94),
(b) reduced beam section & cover plate joints with CF-RHS columns [3] (pp. 105-120)

2.2 Evaluation of seismic performance of typical dual-steel frame typologies

A parametric study was conducted in WP2 over an extended set of typical frames realised in dualsteel solution. Beside the parameters considered in WP1 (i.e. structural type, composite column,
high strength steel grade), the following parameters were considered as well: span (5 m and 7.5 m),
height range (4 and 8 storeys for MRFs, respectively 8 and 16 storeys for the dual braced frames)
and the soil type (i.e. stiff soil TC=0.6 s, and soft soil TC=1.6 s). Consequently, a number of 120
cases were obtained and investigated through nonlinear static and dynamic analyses [3] (pp. 15-30 Tenchini, D'Aniello, Rebelo, Landolfo, Silva, Lima), [3] (pp. 31-40 - DAniello, Portioli, Landolfo,
Tenchini, Rebelo, Silva), and [3] (pp. 41-48 - DAniello, La Manna Ambrosino, Portioli, Landolfo,
Tenchini, Rebelo, Silva). The evaluation of ductility, over-strength demands and q-factors
associated with different performance levels was performed, lead to the following observations:
MRFs evidenced an adequate seismic performance with low ductility demands, and the
exhibited overstrength was larger than the behaviour factor used in design;
CBFs: the dual-system structures presented higher overstrength and behaviour factors
compared to the simple solutions; however, in all cases the behaviour factors were smaller
compared to the values from EN 1998-1 [4], mainly due to the large brace ductility demand in
compression; although, EN 1998-1 [4] makes no difference between the soil condition
regarding to overstrength and behaviour factors, the frames designed on soft soil presented
smaller overstrength and behaviour factors;
EBFs: the static and dynamic analyses showed that the performance of the structures designed
according to EN 1998-1 [4] was affected by the brace buckling; consequently, the behaviour
factors were significantly lower compared to the recommended values [4]; the same set of
structures designed with modified capacity design criterion showed an effective performance
avoiding brace buckling, thus experiencing behaviour factors consistent to the codified value.
2.3 Qualification of welding for ductility and strength demands
The main tasks within WP3 [3] (pp. 49-62 Kleiner, Kuhlmann) covered experimental
investigations of weld details and T-stubs (see Fig. 5a). A number of 152 experimental tests were
conducted at the University of Stuttgart on weld details with the aim to investigate the influence of
the following parameters: steel grade (S460, S690), filler metal (G46, G69), type of weld (fillet
weld, full penetration weld), loading procedure (monotonic, cyclic), and loading rate (0.00025 s-1,
0.06 s-1, 0.12 s-1). The experimental investigations on T-stubs were aimed at studying the
components of bolted beam-to-column joints realised from high strength steel. A number of 86

specimens were investigated (see Fig. 5b) covering the following configurations: un-stiffened Tstub, stiffened T-stub, box-section T-stub, and un-stiffened T-stub with long bolts.

a)

b)

Fig. 5. Welded details and T-stub typologies (Univ. of Stuttgart) [3] (pp. 49-62)

2.4 Prequalification tests on bolted beam-to-column joints in MR dual-steel frames

As part of WP4, three types of bolted beam-to-column joints were developed and investigated at the
University of Liege [3] (pp. 63-78 Hoang, Demonceau, Jaspart). The conceptual schemes of the
joint typologies are illustrated in Fig. 3. The parameters of the experimental program were: steel
grade for the columns (S460, S700), loading procedure (monotonic, cyclic), and failure mode
(beam, connection zone). The experimental investigations evidenced a stable hysteretic behaviour
of the joints, for which the plastic deformations developed in the dissipative zone of the beam (see
Fig. 6ab). In addition to the experimental tests, a set of numerical and analytical studies were
performed with the aim to develop design relations for new joint components that are currently not
accounted for in EN 1993-1-8 [5]. In case of joints with end-plate connection, long bolts and
concrete filled tube columns, the long bolts have a double role, i.e. to assure the connection between
beam and column, and to assure the connection between the steel tube and the concrete core. For
the study of the latter phenomenon, a set of load introduction tests were performed.

a)

b)

Fig. 6. Failure mode of joints with a) long bolts, b) reinforced end plate [3] (pp. 63-78)

2.5 Prequalification tests on welded beam-to-column joints in MR dual-steel frames

As part of WP5, experimental investigations were conducted on welded beam-to-column joints. The
main tasks covered experimental investigations of joints with welded connections (rib stiffeners,
cover plates) and FE-WF columns (Fig. 4a), and respectively joints with welded connection
(reduced beam section, cover plates) and CF-RHS columns (Fig. 4b).
In case of joints with FE-WF columns (Fig. 4a & Fig. 7), experimental and numerical
investigations were performed [3] (pp. 79-94 Cermelj, Beg) with the aim of assessing the
influence of the following parameters: joint type (with rib stiffeners & with cover plates), steel
grade for the column (S460 & S690), loading procedure (cyclic with variable & constant
amplitude), and axial force level. In case of joints with concrete filled tubes (see Fig. 4b and Fig. 8),
two types of welded connections were considered, i.e. with reduced beam section (RBS) and with
cover plates (CP). A number of 16 beam-to-column joint assemblies were investigated [3] (pp. 105120 Vulcu, Stratan, Ciutina, Dubina), varying parameters such as: loading procedure (monotonic,
cyclic), joint type (reduced beam section, cover plate), steel grade for the column (S460, S700), and
the failure mode (beam, connection). Fig. 8a and Fig. 8c illustrate the connection zone of the RBS
and CP joints prior to testing. Fig. 8b and Fig. 8d illustrate the response of the two joint

configurations under cyclic loading. In addition, load introduction tests were performed for the
investigation of the steel-concrete connection in case of CFT columns [3] (pp. 95-104 Vulcu,
Stratan, Ciutina, Dubina). The objective was to evaluate the efficiency of the shot fired nails in
providing the connection between the steel tube and the concrete core.
The joint tests proved that the objective imposed in design (prevention of plastic deformations in
the welded connection) was achieved. The failure occurred in the beams, while the columns
evidenced a quasi-elastic behaviour and the axial force in the column did not influence significantly
the performance of the joint. In addition, the experimental and numerical studies allowed the
development and validation of a simple design procedure.

b)

a)

Fig. 7. Failure mode of welded joints with a) rib stiffeners, and b) cover plates [3] (pp. 79-94)

a)

b)

c)

d)

Fig. 8. RBS and CP joints prior to the testing a) & c), failure mode under cyclic loading b) & d) [3] (pp. 105-120)

2.6 Guidelines for conceptual design and PBD of dual-steel frames under seismic actions
WP6 [1] was related to the development of guidelines for conceptual design and performance based
design (PBD) of dual-steel building frames under seismic actions. Particular topics were related to
design and detailing rules for connections and joints, design methodology and criteria for MRF,
CBF and EBF. The conceptual design guidelines provided the designer with information on
structural configurations for which the dual-steel concept and composite action are an efficient
alternative to conventional solutions. Based on experimental tests on beam-to-column joint
assemblies carried out within the project, a set of performance criteria were provided. The design
and detailing rules for connections and joints aimed to provide a ductile local and overall response.
2.7 Technical and economic efficiency of dual-steel structures vs. conventional ones
WP7 [1] was related to the evaluation of technical and economic efficiency of dual-steel structures
vs. conventional ones, in order to establish conditions in which dual-steel structures are to be
employed in practice. Consequently, a total of 15 frame configurations (Fig. 2bc) were designed in
detail, based on the following assumptions: stiff soil conditions, 8 storeys, 7.5 m span, and identical
loading conditions. The economic evaluation was carried out regarding: (i) price of frames (raw
materials and supplies, site assembly), (ii) price of joints (raw materials, workmanship). As a result,
the economic benefit of the dual-steel approach compared to homogenous solution, is shown in Fig.
9a for a case study on EBF frames, and in Fig. 9b for a case study on connections designed for DCBF frames. It was observed that through the use of higher steel grades (S460, S690/S700) for nondissipative members and joints, a significant reduction of costs can be obtained depending on the
structural type, which can be justified by reduction of material consumption and workmanship. The
fabrication costs and workmanship were assessed based on the Romanian price levels.

45000

18000

40000

16000

35000

14000

30000

12000

25000

10000

20000

8000

15000

6000

10000

4000

5000

2000

0
Price []

EBF_CFT_S355_-

EBF_CFT_S460_-

EBF_CFT_S700_-

42551

36471

33739

a)

Price []

D-CBF_CFT_S355_RBS

D-CBF_CFT_S460_RBS

D-CBF_CFT_S700_RBS

16735

15987

10347

b)

Fig. 9. Economic benefit of dual-steel multi-storey frames compared to homogenous solutions: a) case study on EBF
frames with CFT columns price of frames (joint prices are not included); b) case study on beam-to-column
joints corresponding to D-CBF frames price of the total number of joints / frame type

CONCLUSIONS

A brief description was made within the current paper, in relation to HSS-SERF research project,
which was aimed to investigate and evaluate the seismic performance of dual-steel building frames.
The main contributions of the project can be summarised as follows:
Principles and design recommendations for dual-steel frames (guidelines);
Characterisation in terms of global ductility and over-strength demands of dual-steel frames
realised in simple and dual configuration;
Modelling approach of members, such as braces, for non-linear analyses;
Proposal of a series of innovative beam-to-column joint typologies with composite steelconcrete columns (i.e. PE, FE and CFT) for which the structural performance was confirmed by
experimental and numerical investigations;
Recommendations for weld details and appropriate component method design approaches;
Furthermore, an evaluation of the technical and economic efficiency of dual-steel structures vs.
conventional ones was performed. The study showed that the use of high strength steel in nondissipative members (columns of CBF & D-CBF, columns and braces of EBF & D-EBF) and
connections, depending on the structural type, represented an effective solution from the technical
and economical point of view, leading therefore to cost reduction.
4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The present work was supported by the funds of European Project HSS-SERF: "High Strength Steel
in Seismic Resistant Building Frames", Grant No RFSR-CT-2009-00024.
REFERENCES
[1] High Strength Steel in Seismic Resistant Building Frames (HSS-SERF). D. Dubina et al., Final
Technical Report, RFCS, Steel RTD, RFSR-CT-2009-00024, 2014.
[2] Silva L.S., Rebelo C., Serra M., Tenchini A. from (GIPAC), Selection of structural typologies and
design of optimized dual-steel multi-storey frames, Mid Term Report HSS-SERF Project: High
Strength Steel in Seismic Resistant Building Frames, Grant N0 RFSR-CT-2009-00024, 2011.
[3] Proceedings of the International Workshop: Application of High Strength Steels in Seismic Resistant
Structures, 28-29 June 2013, Naples, Italy. Editors: Dubina D., Landolfo R., Stratan A., Vulcu C.,
"Orizonturi Universitare" Publishing House, ISBN: 978-973-638-552-0, (2014).
[4] EN 1998-1 (2004). European Committee for Standardization CEN. Eurocode 8: Design of structures
for earthquake resistance - Part 1, General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
[5] EN 1993-1-8 (2005). European Committee for Standardization CEN. Eurocode 3: Design of steel
structures. Part 1.8: Design of joints.