Comparison of Retrofitting Techniques for Existing Steel Moment

Resisting Frames

Dimitrios G. Lignos1, Carlos Molina-Hunt2, Andrew D. Krebs3, Sarah L. Billington4

ABSTRACT

Seismic protection of critical facilities such as hospitals, emergency response centers,

and schools is crucial as these buildings must remain in full service after major
earthquakes. A new modular, multiple-panel infill system made of a ductile, high
performance fiber reinforced concrete (HPFRC) is currently under investigation with
a focus on protecting such critical facilities wherein the primary structural system is a
steel, moment-resisting frame. The primary objective of this paper is to compare the
proposed HPFRC infill panel retrofit system with the alternative retrofit techniques of
buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) and viscous dampers for seismic protection of
existing steel moment resisting frames. The effectiveness of the three seismic retrofit
techniques is evaluated based on analytical simulations after retrofitting the SAC 3story structure. It is shown that the HPFRC infill panel system when installed in an
existing steel moment resisting frame designed prior to major earthquake events
(Northridge, 1994, Kobe, 1995) limits residual story drifts as well as frame damage at
a design and a maximum considered event. Its seismic response is very comparable
with the state-of-the art BRB and viscous damper retrofitting techniques.
Keywords: retrofit, buckling-restrained braces, viscous dampers, high-performance
fiber-reinforced concrete, infill panel, steel moment frames
1. Introduction
Followed the Northridge 1994 and Kobe 1995 earthquakes it was proven that welded
beam-to-column connections in steel moment resisting frames were likely to fail in a
brittle fracture mode (e.g. fracture at fused zone or column flange divot zone) in
relatively early inelastic building response. The damaged buildings had heights
ranging from one to 26 stories (FEMA-351) and it was found that many fractures
1

Post doctoral Fellow, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, e-mail: dlignos@stanford.edu
Former Masters student, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, e-mail:
carlosm1@stanfordalumni.org
3
Former Masters student, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, e-mail:
adkrebs@stanfordalumni.org
4
Associate Professor, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, e-mail: billington@stanford.edu
2

were distributed in areas that ground shaking was moderate (below design level). The
indirect economic losses relating to the temporary or long-term loss of use of space
within these buildings was significant. The 1994 Northridge earthquake caused 23
hospitals to suspend some or all of their services and resulted in more than $3 billion
in hospital-related damages (FEMA-351).
Over the years many different retrofit techniques were developed for existing
steel moment resisting frames. In particular, due to poor seismic performance of
welded beam-to-column connections in steel moment resisting frames, Gross et al.
(1999), Uang et al. (2000) and many others investigated how an existing welded steel
moment frame connection may be modified for adequate seismic resistance.
Leelataviwat et al. (1998) investigated experimentally and analytically a ductile
fuse element in shear at mid-span of beams that moves plastic deformation away from
the fracture critical regions of existing steel moment resisting frames. Christopoulos
et al. (2002) proposed a self-centering structural system as an alternative for seismic
retrofit of existing steel moment frames, which acts as a post-tensioned energy
dissipating steel frame. Bruneau (2005) summarized analytical and experimental
investigations conducted on reduced steel plate thickness shear walls as an alternative
retrofit technique by allowing shear buckling at the steel plate providing an energy
dissipation mechanism.
Buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) are considered as one of the state-of-the art
options for retrofitting existing moment resisting frames (FEMA-273, 351) since they
yield inelastically both in tension and compression at their adjusted strengths (Clark
et al. 1999). Several experimental studies (Wada et al. 1998, Lopez et al. 2002, Uang
and Kiggins, 2003, Kasai et al. 2008) have demonstrated that BRBs have fully
balanced hysteretic loops for both tension and compression behavior even after
significant inelastic deformations.
Passive energy dissipation devices including viscous or viscoelastic dampers have
been used for seismic retrofit and new design of critical facilities. Soong and Spencer
(2002) provide a qualitative description and comparison of passive, active and semiactive control systems for seismic rehabilitation and new design of buildings. Uriz
and Whittaker (2001) studied the use of linear fluid viscous dampers for the seismic
retrofit of a three story pre-Northridge steel moment frame and concluded that base
shear and column axial forces increase substantially with the use of the dampers.
Constantinou and Symans (1992) and Makris et al. (1993) investigated
experimentally and analytically the use of fluid viscous dampers for the seismic
retrofit of structures. Kasai et al. (2008) conducted a series of three-dimensional
earthquake simulator tests of a full scale 5-story value-added building with various
types of dampers tested at the E-Defense facility. During the tests it was demonstrated
that the performance objectives for the value-added building were met with the use
of passive devices.
Recent work by Kesner and Billington (2005) demonstrated that innovative
materials such as High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Cementitious Composites
(HPFRCC) can be used to add stiffness, strength and dissipate energy to deficient
existing steel moment frames. This paper discusses the use of a replaceable, fuse-type
infill panel system made with ductile, high performance fiber-reinforced concrete
(HPFRC) for seismic retrofit of existing steel moment frames (Olsen & Billington,

2009). In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the new infill panel system as seismic
retrofit compared to state-of-the art retrofitting techniques with BRBs and viscous
dampers, a comprehensive analytical study was conducted based on a retrofitted SAC
3-story building (Gupta and Krawinkler, 1999) with the three aforementioned options.
2. Description of High Performance Reinforced Concrete Infill Panel System
High performance fiber reinforced concrete (HPRFC) is a quasi-brittle material that
exhibits tensile hardening, followed by tensile softening deformation behavior. The
primary characteristic of HPFRC is that its ultimate tensile strength is higher than its
first cracking strength and during the inelastic deformation of HPFRC components,
multiple, fine cracking is evident (Naaman, 2003). Parra-Montesinos et al. (2005)
summarizes several examples of HPFRC that can be used for seismic applications.
The proposed infill panel system for strengthening and stiffening criticaluse
existing steel frame buildings consists of two panels made of an HPFRC mixture that
has self-consolidating properties. The panels utilize welded wire fabric (WWF) to aid
in crack distribution. The primary reinforcement is standard deformed mild steel
Grade 60. The two panels are precast and are bolted into place together and to the
existing steel moment frame to act as a fixed-fixed flexural component (see Figure 1).
The two panels are connected at the story midheight with a slotted steel connection
that forces the point of inflection of the double panel to be at midheight, allowing for
equal moments on the panels to facilitate multiple cracking throughout both panels,
and preventing any axial load buildup (and potential out-of-plane movement) from
lateral loading and vertical live loads. One of the advantages of the infill panel system
is that it is modular and partially filled bays may be utilized in case of openings or
architectural constraints.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the HPFRC infill panel retrofit system (left) and double
infill panel specimen after cyclic testing (right) (Hanson and Billington, 2009)

In order to investigate the effect of reinforcement ratio and layout, panel geometry
(rectangular versus tapered), and concrete material on the cyclic behavior of the infill
panel system, Olsen and Billington, (2009) conducted a testing and analytical
program on various single infill panels in 2/3 scale. Hanson and Billington (2009)
extended this work by testing 4 different double panel configurations (see Figure 1).
The double-panel testing illustrated that the hysteretic response of the double panel
system is ductile at least up to 6% story drift ratios (further discussed later), with no
axial load build up or significant out-of-plane movement.
A 2/3-scale, 2-story steel moment frame designed in 1985 and retrofitted with the
HPFRC infill panel system is scheduled to be tested at the NEES facility at University
of California at Berkeley during fall 2009 by the authors using the state-of-the art
hybrid testing method. The goal of the testing program is to illustrate experimentally
that the new retrofit system meets the retrofit objectives for existing steel moment
frames under dynamic loading and that the dynamic response of these frames is
comparable with the same steel moment frames retrofitted with commonly used
techniques, such as bucking restrained braces (BRBs) and viscous dampers (VD).
3. Description and analytical modeling of a base case, steel moment resisting
frame
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed HPFRC infill panel system
compared to other retrofitting techniques in this case BRBs or VD, an existing 3-story
steel moment frame designed as part of the SAC project is retrofitted with these three
alternative retrofits. The building has 4 by 6 30 ft. bays and each story has a height of
13 ft.. The moment resisting frame of the building together with basic steel section
information is shown in Figure 2. The building is known as the SAC-LA-3 story
building (REFERENCE?). The predominant period the bare frame is 1.05sec with a
base shear coefficient ny V y W =0.26 (where, Vy =yield base shear, W =seismic
weight).

Figure 2. Moment-resisting frame of LA SAC 3-story building (Gupta and Krawinkler, 1999)

The east-west steel moment resisting frame of the SAC 3-story building is
modeled in Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees, 2007)
analysis platform. In order to account for P-delta effects the gravity load is assigned

on a leaning column. Beams and columns are modeled as elastic elements with
concentrated plasticity springs at their ends. The springs follow a bilinear hysteretic
rule and the analytical model used to simulate the component behavior is the
modified Ibarra-Krawinkler deterioration model (Lignos and Krawinkler, 2009).
Deterioration modeling parameters are utilized based on information collected in a
steel database assembled by Lignos and Krawinkler (2009). Since existing moment
frames were designed with weak panel zones, panel zone shear distortion is taken into
account with eight rigid elements connected with hinges at three corners and with two
bilinear rotation springs at the fourth corner. Details about this model can be found in
Gupta and Krawinkler (1999).
4. Retrofit Objectives and Retrofitted Frames
In order to retrofit the SAC 3-story steel moment frame with buckling-restrained
braces and viscous dampers, ASCE 31/03, FEMA 356 and FEMA 351 guidelines for
rehabilitation of structures were followed. At this point, since there are no retrofit
guidelines in the FEMA documents for designing the proposed retrofit system with
HPFRC infill panels we treat these elements similarly to buckling-restrained braces
(elements that add stiffness and strength to the steel frame) but also as a degrading
system per ASCE 41 provisions.
The overall objective for the seismic retrofit of the SAC 3-story steel moment
frame with the various alternate retrofitting methods is to meet life safety
performance goals in a design level earthquake (DLE). Story drift demands need to
be reduced to significantly decrease the likelihood of having residual deformations
(so as to keep the facility operational), as well as to reduce the inelastic rotation
demands on the pre-Northridge steel moment resisting frame connections.
4.1. Seismic retrofit with buckling-restrained braces
Buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) are treated as yielding steel elements that add
stiffness and strength to the lateral support system of the retrofitted frame. In order to
design the BRBs, a nonlinear static analysis procedure was performed based on
FEMA 273 guidelines. The BRB elements are designed to yield at about 0.4% story
drift ratios and are inserted in the mid-bay. The retrofitted frame is shown in Figure 3
together with BRBs. All the properties of the BRBs used for the nonlinear static and
dynamic analysis discussed later in this paper are summarized in Table 1. The BRB
elements are modeled with the standard Giuffre-Menegotto-Pinto steel material
model (noted as Steel02 material in OpenSees, 2007). The associated parameters used
to model the BRBs with the Steel02 model are calibrated based on available
experimental data by Kasai et al. (2008). The predominant period of the retrofitted
steel frame with BRBs is T1 =0.77sec and the base shear coefficient ny 0.33,
indicating that after inserting BRBs to the bare frame both strength and stiffness of
the steel frame increase.

Figure 3. SAC 3-Story steel moment frame retrofitted with buckling-restrained braces

Table 1. Properties of buckling-restrained braces modeled

Floor

Total
Length
(in)

3
2
1

360
360
360

Plastic Portion
Length L0 Area A0
2
(in)
(in )
102
3.33
96
4.45
130
4.45

Elastic Portion
Length Area A1
2
L1 (in)
(in )
258
11
264
19
230
19

4.2. Seismic retrofit with viscous dampers

Using energy dissipating elements, such as viscous dampers (VD) as a retrofit
technique for the SAC 3-Story steel frame, add supplemental damping and stiffness to
the lateral load resisting frame. The VDs used in this case are designed based on
FEMA 351 guidelines using the nonlinear static analysis procedure and nonlinear
dynamic analysis procedure with three ground motions representing the seismic
hazard of the Los Angeles area in which the building is located. The retrofitted steel
frame with VDs has the same geometry as the one presented in Section 4.1 (see
Figure 3). The VD is modeled as a nonlinear dashpot. The viscous force Fd t is
.

proportional to the fractional power a of the velocity u c t , i.e.,

a

.
.

Fd t Cd u c t sign u c t

(1)

where Cd and a are the viscous damper design parameters. In addition, the effect of
elastic deformation uk of the viscous damper on the viscous force is considered, i.e.,
Fd t K d uk t

(2)

where K d value is calibrated based on available experimental results (Kasai et al.,

2008). The total damper deformation history ud t is given by,

u d t uc t u k t

(3)

This model is also known as the nonlinear Maxwell model and is illustrated in Figure
4 together with damper deformation definitions. The VD properties used for
retrofitting the SAC 3-story steel moment frame are summarized in Table 2. The
predominant period of the 3-story steel moment frame with VDs is T1 =0.96sec and
ny 0.29.

Figure 4. Nonlinear Maxwell model and viscous damper deformation definitions

Table 2. Properties of viscous dampers modeled

Floor
3
2
1

Total
Length
(mm)
360
360
360

Damper Information
Area Ad
2

(in )
13.2
21.7
21.7

Cd

111
166
166

0.5
0.5
0.5

Kd
(kips/in)
1100
2230
2230

4.3. Seismic retrofit with HPFRC infill panel system

For the retrofit of the SAC 3-story building using the HPFRC infill panels, seven
panels were placed in the center bay at each of the three stories (see Figure 5). As
mentioned earlier the HPFRC infill panels increase the stiffness, strength and energy
dissipation capacity of the steel frame. Thus, they are treated as stiffness and
deteriorating elements per FEMA 351 and ASCE 41 provisions.

Figure 5. SAC 3-story steel moment frame retrofitted with HPFRC infill panels

The analytical model developed to capture the hysteretic response of the HPFRC
infill panels is shown in Figure 6a. The model consists of 2 rigid links that are
connected together with a hinge connection that allows vertical movement of one
panel with respect to the other but forces them to connect together horizontally. Each
panel at both ends has a concentrated plasticity spring that utilizes the modified
Ibarra-Krawinkler deterioration model with peak-oriented hysteretic behavior. The
parameters used to calibrate the panel model are based on experimental data by
Hanson and Billington (2009). A typical calibration of infill panel tests using the
analytical model described earlier infill panel is shown in Figure 6b.
Test4 - Single Panel-Moment Rotation
500
400
300

Moment (k-in)

200
100
0
-100
-200

K e = 76000
+
My = 450
My = -450
+
= 0.007
p
= 0.007
p
+
= 0.020
pc
= 0.020
pc
= 0.2
s
= 0.2
c
= 0.2
a
= 0.2
k
+
Mc/My = 1.03
Mc/My = 1.03
k = 0.55

-300
-400
-500
-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.02

0.04

0.06

Chord Rotation (rads)

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. (a) Analytical model for HPFRC infill panel, and (b) typical calibration of infill panel
model with experimental data (data from Hanson and Billington, 2009)

4. Seismic Performance Evaluation

In order to compare the effectiveness of the alternate retrofit techniques for the steel
moment resisting frame herein, nonlinear time history analysis is conducted. All
frames (bare and retrofitted ones) are subjected to a set of 40 ground motions with
magnitude M w and distance R from the rupture zone 6.5 M w 7.0 and 13km
R 40km, respectively. The set of ground motions is scaled based on Incremental
Dynamic Analysis (IDA) (Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002) using the first mode
spectral acceleration of each building as an intensity measure (IM) in order to
compare statistically the median response of the retrofitted frames. The focus is on
two levels of intensity; design level earthquake (DLE) and maximum considered
earthquake (MCE) that relate to the retrofit objectives based on FEMA 351.
Figure 7 shows the story drift ratio (SDR) profiles of all four frames for the set of
40 ground motions at a DLE of intensity ~0.60g, which is specified from an equal
hazard spectrum for 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years. In red is the median
response. The general trend and reductions for the retrofit with BRBs and VDs (see
Figures 7b, 7c, respectively) is very similar to that of the retrofit with HPFRC infill

panels (Figure 7d). The median maximum SDR in all cases does not exceed 1%,
which satisfies the retrofit objective for immediate occupancy.
Bare Frame T1=1.05sec

Frame with BRB T1=0.77sec

3
Floor

roof

Floor

roof

1
0

0.02
0.04
SDR (rad)

1
0

0.06

(a)

0.02
0.04
SDR (rad)

0.06

(b)

Frame with VD T1=0.96sec

Frame,HPFRC Panels T1=0.76sec

roof

3
Floor

Floor

roof

1
0

0.02
0.04
SDR (rad)

(c)

0.06

1
0

0.02
0.04
SDR (rad)

0.06

(d)

Figure 7. Story drift ratios (SDR) for the bare and retrofitted frames at DLE

Figure 8 shows that the median residual story drift ratios for DLE are almost zero
for all of the retrofitted frames compared to the bare frame, which has an average
0.5% residual drift along its height. Based on these analyses, all of the evaluated
retrofit systems here have the same efficiency in improving the seismic performance
of the bare frame for the DLE.
Of particular interest is the response of the retrofitted frames during an earthquake
event with 2% probability of exceedence in 50 years (i.e. the maximum considered
event, or MCE). In Figure 9a the median SDR of all three retrofitted frames for the
set of 40 ground motions are compared with the bare frame. All three retrofitting
systems improve the seismic performance of the bare frame and keep the maximum
SDR at about 2.5% compared to the roughly 6% that the bare frame exhibits. Figure
9b shows the median residual story drift ratios of all four frames. All three retrofitting
systems meet the collapse prevention retrofit objective by keeping residual
deformations below 1%. Based on the same figure, residual drifts of the frame
retrofitted with HPFRC infill panels are somewhat larger compared to the residual
9

drifts of the frame retrofitted with BRBs or VD. The advantage of the HPFRC infill
panel system is that since it does not build in any axial load can be easily replaced
with minor cost.
Frame with BRB T1=0.77sec

Bare Frame T1=1.05sec

roof

Floor

Floor

roof

1
0

1
0

0.02
0.04
0.06
Residual SDR (rad)
(b)
Frame,HPFRC Panels T =0.76sec

0.02
0.04
0.06
Residual SDR (rad)
(a)
Frame with VD T1=0.96sec

roof

3
Floor

Floor

roof

1
0

0.02
0.04
Residual SDR (rad)

1
0

0.06

(c)

0.02
0.04
Residual SDR (rad)

0.06

(d)

Figure 8. Residual story drift ratios (SDR) for the bare and retrofitted frames at DLE

MCE: max SDR Comparison

MCE: Residual SDR Comparison

roof

roof

Floor

Floor

1
0

Bare Frame
BRB
VD
HPFRC Panels

0.025 0.05 0.075

SDR (rad)
(a)

0.1

1
0

Bare Frame
BRB
VD
HPFRC Panels

0.02
0.04
Residual SDR (rad)

0.06

(b)

Figure 9. Median seismic response of bare and retrofitted frames for maximum considered
event; (a) maximum story drift ratios (SDR) ; (b) residual story drift ratios

10

5. Summary and Observations

This paper evaluates a new infill panel system made of precast, high performance
fiber reinforced concrete for seismic retrofit of existing steel moment frame
structures. A comparison between the proposed infill panel system and two
alternative retrofitting techniques, buckling-restrained braces and viscous dampers,
for retrofitting a 3-story steel moment frame was conducted using a set of 40 ground
motions and utilizing incremental dynamic analyses. The analytical results show that
the seismic behavior of the baseline steel moment resisting frame is significantly
improved for both design level (DLE) and maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
events using each of the retrofit techniques. All three systems meet the retrofit
objectives on average for a DLE earthquake, that is to reduce peak story drift ratios
compared to the bare frame below 1% and minimize residual deformations. For MCE
events, peak story drift ratios of all three retrofitted frames diminish to 2.5%
compared to 6% of the bare frame. Residual drift ratios for the retrofitted 3-story
frame with HPFRC infill panel system are slightly larger compared to the other two
retrofitted frames but still below 1% for an MCE event. The ease of replacement for
infill panels is considered to be a potential advantage over BRBs and viscous
dampers, since braces often carry residual forces after a major earthquake.
Acknowledgements
This study is based on work supported by the United States National Science
Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. CMS- 0530383 within the George E. Brown, Jr.
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Consortium Operations. The
financial support of NSF is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.
6. References
Bruneau, M. (2005). Seismic retrofit of steel structures, Proceeedings 1st Canadian Conference on
Effective Design of Structures, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, July 10-13, 2005.
Christopoulos, C., Filiatrault, A., Uang, C. M. (2002), Self-centering post-tensioned energy
dissipating (PTED) steel frames for seismic regions, Structural Systems Research Project Report
No. SSRP-2002/06. Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, CA, 292p.
Clark, P., Aiken, I., Kasai, K., Ko, E., Kimura, I. (1999). Design procedures for buildings
incorporating hysteretic damping devices, in Proceedings of the 68th Annual Convention, pp. 355371,Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento.
Constantinou MC, Symans M.D. (1992). Experimental and analytical investigation of seismic
response of structures with supplemental fluid viscous dampers, Report NCEER-92-0032, State
University of New York, Buffalo.
Federal Emergency Management AgencyFEMA 273 (1997), NEHRP guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings, Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency ASCE,
1997.
Federal Emergency Management AgencyFEMA 351 (2000), Recommended seismic evaluation and
upgrade criteria for existing welded steel moment-frame buildings,Washington, DC: Federal
Emergency Management Agency July, 2000.

11

Gross, J. L, Engelhardt, M. D, Uang, C. M, Kasai, K., Iwankiw, N R. (1999). Modification of existing

welded steel moment frame connections for seismic resistance, Steel Design Guide Series No. 12,
American Institute of Steel Construction, 82 pages.
Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H. (1999). Prediction of seismic demands for SMRFs with ductile
connections and elements, SAC Background Document, Report No. SAC/BD-99/06, 1999.
Hanson, J., Billington, S. L. (2009). Cyclic testing of a ductile fiber-reinforced concrete infill panel
system for seismic retrofitting of steel frames, Report TR. 173, John Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Stanford, CA, 2009.
Kasai, K., Ooki, Y., Ishii, M., Ozaki, H., Ito, H., Motoyui, S., Hikino, T., Sato, E. Value-added 5story steel frame and its components: Part 1 Full-scale damper tests and analyses, Proceedings
14th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008.
Kesner, K.E., Billington, S.L. (2005). Investigation of infill panels made from engineered
cementitious composites for seismic strengthening and retrofit." J Structural Engineering, ASCE
131(11): 1712-1720.
Leelataviwat, S, Goel, S. C., Stojadinovic, B. (1998). Drift and yield mechanism based seismic design
and upgrading of steel moment frames, Research Report No. UMCEE 98-29, Department of Civil
& Environmental Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, August.
Lignos, D. G., Krawinkler, (2009). Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under
seismic excitations, Report TR 172, John A. Blume Earthquake Eng. Center, Stanford CA.
Lpez, W.A., Gwie, D.S., Saunders, C.M., Lauck, T.W. (2002). Lessons learned from large-scale
tests of unbonded braced frame subassemblages, Proceedings of the 71st Annual Convention, pp.
171-183, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento.
Makris, N., Constantinou, M.C., Dargush, G.F. (1993). Analytical model of viscoelastic fluid
dampers, J Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(11):331025.
Naaman, A. (2003). Strain hardening and deflection hardening fiber reinforced cement composites.
HPFRCC, Rilem Publications, France.
Olsen, C., Billington, S. L (2009). Evaluation of precast, high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete
infill panels for seismic retrofit of steel frame building: Phase 1-cyclic testing of single panel
components, Report No. TR 158, John A Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford CA.
OpenSees. (2007). Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center (PEER), (http://opensees.berkeley.edu).
Parra-Montesinos, G.J., Peterfreund, S.W. Chao, S.-H. (2005). Highly damage tolerant beam-column
joints through use of high-performance fiber-reinforced cement composites, ACI Struct. J., 102(3):
487-495.
Soong TT, Spencer BF. (2002). Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of- the-art and state-of-the
practice, Eng Struct 2002; 24(3):243 59.
Uang, C M, Yu, Q S, Noel, S and Gross, J L (2000), Cyclic testing of steel moment connections
rehabilitated with RBS or welded haunch, J. Structural Engineering, ASCE, 126(1): 57-68.
Uang, C.M., Kiggins, S. (2003). Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a
dual system, Proc. Int'l Workshop on Steel and Concrete Composite Construction (IWSCCC-2003),
Report No. NCREE-03-026, Nat.'l Center for Research on Earthquake Eng., Taipei, pp.189-198.
Uriz, P., Whittaker A.S. (2001). Retrofit of pre-Northridge steel momentresisting frames using fluid
viscous dampers, Struct Des Tall Buil 2001;10(5):37190.
Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 31(3):491-514.
Wada, A., Saeki, E., Takeuchi, T., Watanabe, A. (1998). Development of Unbonded Brace, in
Nippon Steel's Unbonded Braces (promotional document), pp. 1-16, Nippon Steel Corporation
Building Construction and Urban Development Division, Tokyo.

12