Estructuras de Acero

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:2273–2289

Published online 21 June 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.728
Estimation of seismic drift and ductility demands in planar regular

X-braced steel frames
Theodore L. Karavasilis, Nikitas Bazeos§ and Dimitri E. Beskos∗, †, ‡

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, 26500 Patras, Greece
SUMMARY
This paper summarizes the results of an extensive study on the inelastic seismic response of X-braced steel
buildings. More than 100 regular multi-storey tension-compression X-braced steel frames are subjected
to an ensemble of 30 ordinary (i.e. without near fault effects) ground motions. The records are scaled
to different intensities in order to drive the structures to different levels of inelastic deformation. The
statistical analysis of the created response databank indicates that the number of stories, period of vibration,
brace slenderness ratio and column stiffness strongly influence the amplitude and heightwise distribution
of inelastic deformation. Nonlinear regression analysis is employed in order to derive simple formulae
which reflect the aforementioned influences and offer a direct estimation of drift and ductility demands.
The uncertainty of this estimation due to the record-to-record variability is discussed in detail. More
specifically, given the strength (or behaviour) reduction factor, the proposed formulae provide reliable
estimates of the maximum roof displacement, the maximum interstorey drift ratio and the maximum cyclic
ductility of the diagonals along the height of the structure. The strength reduction factor refers to the
point of the first buckling of the diagonals in the building and thus, pushover analysis and estimation
of the overstrength factor are not required. This design-oriented feature enables both the rapid seismic
assessment of existing structures and the direct deformation-controlled seismic design of new ones. A
comparison of the proposed method with the procedures adopted in current seismic design codes reveals
the accuracy and efficiency of the former. Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 25 January 2007; Revised 10 May 2007; Accepted 10 May 2007
KEY WORDS: X-braced steel buildings; drift demands; ductility demands; seismic assessment; seismic
design
∗ Correspondence to: Dimitri E. Beskos, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, 26500 Patras, Greece.
†
E-mail: d.e.beskos@upatras.gr
‡
Professor.
§ Assistant professor.
Contract/grant sponsor: ‘K. Karatheodoris’ research program, University of Patras, Greece.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2274 T. L. KARAVASILIS, N. BAZEOS AND D. E. BESKOS
1. INTRODUCTION
It has been underlined [1, 2] that the high level of scrutiny paid to steel moment resisting frames in
recent years should be extended to the frequently employed concentrically braced frames (CBFs).
Of significant importance is the development of simple procedures to predict drift and ductility
demands in CBFs in order to quantitatively describe the hazard produced by seismic events.
Moreover, these procedures should be adjusted to the framework of current seismic design codes
that mainly employ the elastic static or dynamic analysis.
A well-known bracing scheme is the X one, in which lateral loads in both directions are equally
shared between tension-acting and compression-acting diagonals that are connected to beam to
column joints. Braces are usually inserted in gravity supporting frames and hence, storey shear
forces are entirely resisted by the diagonals which are designed for strength/stiffness and detailed
for ductility. X-braced frames may be designed (a) as tension-compression (T/C) systems [3] for
which the design storey shear is assumed to be equally resisted by both the tension-acting and the
compression-acting diagonals and thus, the buckling axial resistance governs the selection of the
required brace cross-section and (b) as tension-only (T/O) systems [4] for which the design storey
shear is assumed to be entirely resisted by the tension-acting diagonal and hence, the plastic axial
resistance governs the selection of the required brace cross-section.
Studies on the nonlinear seismic response of X-braced frames have revealed their low capacity
to distribute drift demands along their height and their tendency to exhibit a soft-storey response
[5, 6]. The influence of brace slenderness, , on the seismic response of both T/C and T/O systems
was studied by Tremblay [7]. The results of his analyses indicated that the inelastic demand of T/C
decreases as the brace slenderness increases, while the opposite is true for T/O systems. Moreover,
T/O systems of more than two stories were found to exhibit excessive inelastic demands. Montuori
and Piluso [8] studied the inelastic seismic response of X-braced frames with column continuity
and column discontinuity. They pointed out that the better performance of the former class of
frames is attributed to the fact that a kinematic mechanism can be formed provided that all braces
are yielded, whereas in the latter class of frames, yielding of the braces of a single storey is
sufficient to give rise to a kinematic mechanism. Tremblay [9] described the P– effects on the
inelastic seismic response of CBFs which were found particularly vulnerable to dynamic instability
under seismic ground motions. MacRae et al. [10] and Kimura and MacRae [11] evaluated the
effect of column stiffness on X-braced frames. They showed that continuous columns significantly
decrease the possibility of large drift concentrations and they developed relationships for column
stiffness and drift concentration based on pushover and dynamic analyses. Recent studies [12, 13]
highlighted a dependence of the inelastic seismic response of X-braced frames on the capacity
design approach and on material constitutive law.
The current practice [4, 14] for estimating maximum deformations of building structures adopts
procedures which use equivalent single-degree-of-system (SDOF) systems. The characteristics of
the SDOF system are established by using the results of a pushover analysis and hence, the
aforementioned procedures are more suitable for seismic evaluation of pre-designed structures and
not for the design of new ones.
The basic seismic design procedure adopted by current codes [4] is the force-based design (FBD)
method. In terms of the FBD, maximum displacements and interstorey drifts are calculated near the
end of the design process by multiplying their yield values under the reduced design lateral forces
with the strength reduction (or behaviour) factor, q, meaning that the equal-displacement rule is
assumed to be valid. Moreover, the latter multiplication assumes that the shape of the maximum
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:2273–2289
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
ESTIMATION OF SEISMIC DRIFT AND DUCTILITY DEMANDS 2275
displacement and interstorey drift profiles remain constant during the seismic excitation. The
validity of both assumptions has not been checked for CBFs, while an alternative to the equal-
displacement rule has not yet been presented.
The displacement-based design (DBD) procedure [15] adopts a relation that correlates the
maximum roof displacement, u r,max , with the maximum interstorey drift ratio, IDRmax , along the
height of the structure. With the exception of the works of MacRae et al. [10] and Kimura and
MacRae [11], no other studies have reported correlations between IDRmax and u r,max for CBFs.
Prior works on braced frames [5–13] identified that the brace slenderness, the number of stories
and the column stiffness strongly influence the inelastic range of the response of X-braced frames
and hence, studies aimed at incorporating these influences into standard code procedures for the
estimation of drift and ductility demands, are certainly needed.
The scope of this paper is to examine and quantify the influence of changes in structural
(number of stories, period of vibration, brace slenderness, column stiffness) and ground motion
characteristics on the heightwise distribution and amplitude of drift and ductility demands in
regular multi-storey T/C X-braced steel buildings. For that purpose, more than 100 X-braced
steel buildings are subjected to an ensemble of 30 ordinary (i.e. without near-fault effects) ground
motions scaled to different intensities.
The central tendency of the heightwise distribution of drift demands is examined in detail.
Then, nonlinear regression analysis is employed in order to derive simple formulae which offer a
direct estimation of drift and ductility demands. Emphasis was given to the ability of the proposed
formulae to be adjusted to the framework of design methods which adopt elastic analysis. More
specifically, the paper proposes: (a) a relation between the strength reduction factor, q, and the
maximum roof displacement ductility, ; (b) a relation that connects u r,max with the IDRmax and
(c) a relation that correlates q with the maximum cyclic ductility of the braces, cb , along the height
of the frame. The strength reduction factor refers to the point of the first buckling of the diagonals in
the building and thus, pushover analysis and estimation of the overstrength factor are not required.
This design-oriented feature enables the rapid seismic assessment of existing structures and the
direct deformation-controlled seismic design of new ones, as well. A comparison of the proposed
method with the procedures adopted in current seismic design codes reveals the efficiency of the
former. Moreover, the range of applicability of the proposed relations is discussed in detail.
2. X-BRACED STEEL FRAMES USED IN THIS STUDY
2.1. Design and structural characteristics

The study is based on frames which are plane, orthogonal and regular with storey heights and
bay widths equal to 3 and 6 m, respectively (Figure 1). The columns are pinned at their base
but capable of carrying moments along the whole height of the building, while beams are shear
connected to the columns. This assumption of pin connections between the framing members is
widely accepted, although the presence of gusset plates increases the stiffness and hence decreases
the inelastic deformation demands. Gravity load on the beams is assumed equal to 27.5 kN/m
(dead and live loads of floors), while the yield stress of the material is set equal to 235 MPa.
The frames are designed in accordance with the structural Eurocode EC3 [16] on the basis of
a multi-mode response spectrum analysis and the assumption of T/C behaviour of the bracing
elements. Commercially available cross-sections [17] were adopted in order to avoid discrepancies
between strength, stiffness and slenderness which may arise from the use of fictitious sections.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
3m
Shear connections 6m
Figure 1. Geometrical configuration of the X-braced steel buildings considered in this investigation.
The number of stories, n s , of the frames takes the values 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 20. Both stiff and
flexible frames are considered in the parametric study. With H referring to the building height,
the fundamental period of stiff frames follows the expression T = 0.025H , which provides a
lower bound prediction, while the one of flexible frames follows the expression T = 0.04H , which
provides the median period [18]. For each pair of n s and T , three design processes were performed
in order to obtain three distinct values (1.3, 1.56 and 1.93) of the brace slenderness, . The brace
slenderness, , was calculated as

l fy
= · (1)
·r E
where l is the buckling length, r is the radius of gyration of the cross-section, f y is the yield
strength of the material and E is Young’s modulus. The effect of column stiffness [10, 11] is
described by the ratio, , of the contribution of the columns over that of the diagonals to the
stiffness of a particular storey, i.e.
n c · Ic · L d
= (2)
n d · Ad · h 3 cos2
where n c and n d are the number of columns and diagonals belonging to that storey, respectively,
Ad and L d are the cross-sectional area and the length of the diagonals, respectively, Ic is the second
moment of inertia of the columns, h is the storey height and the angle between diagonals and
beams. The design process for a specific combination of n s , T and resulted in cross-sections
of the columns that provide the minimum strength and stiffness in order to avoid buckling and to
remain elastic according to the code-dictated capacity design rules. The efficiency of the capacity
design has been checked by performing a first-mode pushover analysis which revealed that no
plastic hinges or buckling occur in columns at the ultimate limit state. For each of the frames,
the column cross-sections were subsequently increased two times in order to obtain three different
values of the parameter . These values are not the same for all buildings since the effect of gravity
loads on the selection of column section increases with an increasing number of stories. Both of
the parameters and vary along the height of the frame and therefore, their nominal values
were calculated for the storey closest to the mid-height of the frame. Data of the frames, including
nominal values for n s , , and T are presented in Table I . The aforementioned process led to
a family of 6(n s ) ∗ 2(T ) ∗ 3() ∗ 3() = 108 X-braced steel frames, which allows the study of the
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Table I. Data pertinent to the X-braced steel frames considered in this investigation.
ns Tstiff Tflex
3 1.93 0.043 0.225 0.360

3 1.93 0.102 0.225 0.360
3 1.93 0.193 0.225 0.360
3 1.56 0.043 0.225 0.360
3 1.56 0.097 0.225 0.360
3 1.56 0.170 0.225 0.360
3 1.30 0.047 0.225 0.360
3 1.30 0.098 0.225 0.360
3 1.30 0.184 0.225 0.360
6 1.93 0.043 0.450 0.720
6 1.93 0.102 0.450 0.720
6 1.93 0.193 0.450 0.720
6 1.56 0.043 0.450 0.720
6 1.56 0.097 0.450 0.720
6 1.56 0.170 0.450 0.720
6 1.30 0.047 0.450 0.720
6 1.30 0.098 0.450 0.720
6 1.30 0.184 0.450 0.720
9 1.93 0.059 0.675 1.080
9 1.93 0.102 0.675 1.080
9 1.93 0.193 0.675 1.080
9 1.56 0.057 0.675 1.080
9 1.56 0.097 0.675 1.080
9 1.56 0.170 0.675 1.080
9 1.30 0.080 0.675 1.080
9 1.30 0.140 0.675 1.080
9 1.30 0.183 0.675 1.080
12 1.93 0.102 0.900 1.440
12 1.93 0.193 0.900 1.440
12 1.93 0.230 0.900 1.440
12 1.56 0.120 0.900 1.440
12 1.56 0.165 0.900 1.440
12 1.56 0.220 0.900 1.440
12 1.30 0.120 0.900 1.440
12 1.30 0.180 0.900 1.440
12 1.30 0.250 0.900 1.440
15 1.93 0.190 1.125 1.800
15 1.93 0.230 1.125 1.800
15 1.93 0.300 1.125 1.800
15 1.56 0.165 1.125 1.800
15 1.56 0.220 1.125 1.800
15 1.56 0.300 1.125 1.800
15 1.30 0.340 1.125 1.800
15 1.30 0.440 1.125 1.800
15 1.30 0.540 1.125 1.800
20 1.93 0.720 1.500 2.400
20 1.93 0.900 1.500 2.400
20 1.93 1.100 1.500 2.400
20 1.56 0.650 1.500 2.400
20 1.56 0.810 1.500 2.400
20 1.56 0.980 1.500 2.400
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Table I. Continued.
ns Tstiff Tflex
20 1.30 0.670 1.500 2.400

20 1.30 0.820 1.500 2.400
20 1.30 1.140 1.500 2.400
inelastic seismic response of X-braced frames with variations in their four structural characteristics
n s , , and T .
2.2. Modelling for nonlinear dynamic analysis

Since the structural elements of the backup frame are designed according to the capacity design
philosophy which protects them from yielding and buckling, all the seismic input energy is dissi-
pated through cyclic deformations of the diagonals. These cyclic deformations include in sequence
[19]: (a) tension yielding; (b) elastic buckling; (c) inelastic buckling, i.e. formation of a plastic
hinge at the mid-length of the diagonal; and (d) slip-type displacements before the member is
able to resist tension in the next loading cycle. A significant reduction of the compressive strength
(buckling resistance) is also evident in the next loading cycles due to the Baushinger effect and
the existence of residual lateral deformations which act as initial geometrical imperfections. The
inelastic brace buckling element of Maison and Popov [20] is able to reproduce the aforementioned
features of the hysteretic response of brace elements. An extensive study on the phenomenological
modelling of the hysteretic behaviour of brace elements along with an experimental calibration of
Maison’s model can be found in [21], where the superiority of that model over other well-known
models is also proved. More recent sophisticated models have not been considered in view of
the simplicity and excellent behaviour of Maison’s model and the need for extensive parametric
studies in the paper.
The PC-ANSR [22] program, which includes Maison’s model in its finite element library,
has been adopted for performing the inelastic dynamic analyses of this study. The analytical
models were centreline representations of the frames for which inelasticity has been restricted to
the diagonals while the elements of the backup frame were modelled as elastic beam–columns.
Diaphragm action was assumed at every floor due to the presence of the slab, while Rayleigh
damping corresponding to 3% of critical damping at the first two modes was adopted.
3. SEISMIC ANALYSES AND RESPONSE DATABANK
The family of the buildings described in Section 2 of the paper was subjected to an ensemble
of 30 ordinary ground motions selected from the PEER [23] ground motion database. The term
ordinary excludes ground motions which are characterized by distinct pulses in their velocity and
displacement time histories. The moment magnitude, Mw , the closest distance to the causative
fault, D, the characteristic period, Tc , and the peak ground acceleration, PGA, of the 30 ground
motions are presented in Table II. The characteristic period Tc was calculated by employing the
iterative algorithm of Riddell and Newmark [24] that divides the response spectrum into three
period ranges: constant spectral displacement (long periods), constant spectral acceleration (short
periods) and constant spectral velocity (intermediate periods).
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Table II. Data pertinent to the ground motions considered in this investigation.
Event Station Mw D (km) PGA (m/s2 ) Tc (s)
Kern country 1952/07/21 Taft 7.7 43 1.74 0.33

San Fernardo 1971/02/09 Castaic 6.6 29 2.63 0.50
Imperial Valley 1979/10/15 Calexico 6.6 15 2.70 0.25
Imperial Valley 1979/10/15 Delta 6.5 44 3.44 0.60
Coalinga 1983/05/02 Cantua Creek School 6.4 26 2.75 0.60
Loma Prieta 1989/10/18 Gilroy Array #4 6.9 16 4.09 0.40
Loma Prieta 1989/10/21 Coyote Lake Dam (SW Abut) 6.9 22 4.75 0.50
Loma Prieta 1989/10/18 SF Intern. Airport 6.9 64 3.23 0.70
Landers 1992/06/28 Desert Hot Springs 7.3 23 1.68 0.35
Northridge 1994/01/17 LA—Centinela St 6.7 31 3.15 0.55
Northridge 1994/01/22 Castaic—Old Ridge Route 6.7 23 5.58 0.40
Northridge 1994/01/17 Hollywood—Willoughby Ave 6.7 26 2.41 0.90
Northridge 1994/01/17 LA—N Faring Rd 6.7 24 2.68 0.60
Northridge 1994/01/17 LA—Hollywood Stor FF 6.7 26 3.52 0.35
Northridge 1994/01/17 Glendale—Las Palmas 6.7 25 2.02 0.20
Northridge 1994/01/24 LA—Chalon Rd 6.7 24 2.21 0.60
Northridge 1994/01/18 Moorpark—Fire Sta 6.7 28 2.86 0.35
Northridge 1994/01/22 LA—S Grand Ave 6.7 37 2.84 0.40
Northridge 1994/01/17 Mt Wilson—CIT Seis Sta 6.7 36 2.29 0.20
Northridge 1994/01/17 San Gabriel—E. Grand Ave. 6.7 42 2.51 0.25
Northridge 1994/01/17 Canoga Park—Topanga Can 6.7 16 4.12 0.60
Northridge 1994/01/17 LA—Century City CC North 6.7 26 2.51 0.45
Northridge 1994/01/17 LA—City Terrace 6.7 37 3.10 0.30
Northridge 1994/01/17 LA—Obregon Park 6.7 38 3.48 0.25
Northridge 1994/01/17 LA—Baldwin Hills 6.7 31 1.65 0.45
Northridge 1994/01/17 LA—Wonderland Ave 6.7 23 0.17 0.50
Northridge 1994/01/23 Pasadena—N Sierra Madre 6.7 39 2.40 0.40
Northridge 1994/01/17 Leona Valley #3 6.7 38 0.11 0.50
Northridge 1994/01/23 Big Tujunga, Angeles Nat F 6.7 24 2.40 0.30
Kobe 1995/01/16 Kakogawa 6.9 26 3.38 0.35
It is of significant interest to study the effect of the level of inelastic deformation on the heightwise
distribution and amplitude of seismic demands in X-braced steel frames. Thus, for every pair of
structure and accelerogram, the scale factors of the accelerogram were identified for the following
performance levels: (a) first occurrence of buckling in the diagonals; (b) maximum tension ductility
of the diagonals, t , equal to 3; and (c) maximum tension ductility of the diagonals equal to 6.5. For
X-braced frames, the interstorey drift ratio which corresponds to yielding in tension is independent
of the cross-sectional area of the braces and almost equals L d ∗ f y /(E ∗ h cos ). For the frames
considered herein, the latter formula gives a value of the interstorey drift ratio equal to 0.003,
which means that, for ductility levels close to 6.5, the IDRmax is of the order of 6.5 ∗ 0.003 = 0.02.
No dynamic instabilities [9] were observed for these levels of maximum storey deformation. Please
note that the SEAOC blue book [15] associates the performance level near collapse with an IDRmax
equal to 0.015.
The results of the 9720 (3 performance levels ∗ 108 frames ∗ 30 accelerograms) nonlinear
dynamic analyses were post-processed in order to create a response databank with the response
quantities of interest. These response quantities are the maximum roof displacement, the maximum
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
interstorey drift ratio for each storey, IDRi , the maximum interstorey drift ratio along the height of
the frame, IDRmax (maximum of the IDRi ) and the maximum cyclic ductility of the braces [19],
cb , along the height of the frame.
Moreover, the strength reduction factor was defined as the ratio of the scale factor of the
accelerogram which drives the structure to a specific inelastic deformation over the scale factor
of the accelerogram which corresponds to the initiation of buckling, while the roof displacement
ductility is defined as the maximum (inelastic) roof displacement over its value that corresponds
to the initiation of buckling. The aforementioned definitions of the strength reduction factor and
roof displacement ductility take into account the small (but existing) variations of the response
quantities that correspond to the initiation of buckling with respect to the signature of the ground
motion.
4. HEIGHTWISE DISTRIBUTION OF DEFORMATION DEMANDS
In this section, information about the central (counted sample median) tendency of the distribution
of the maximum interstorey drift ratio along the height of X-braced frames is presented. The results
are presented in normalized form involving the relative height, i.e. the height of each storey from
the ground is divided by the height of the building and the relative IDRi , i.e. the median of the
IDRi of each storey, IDRmi , is divided with the maximum of the medians, IDRmi,max , along the
height of the frame. For instance, the variation of the relative IDRi along the height of both stiff
and flexible frames, for tension ductility of the diagonals equal to 3, is shown in Figure 2(a)–(f)
dealing with only 3, 9 and 20 storey frames. Similar results were observed for the cases of 6, 12
and 15 storey frames not shown here due to space limitations.
It appears that in general shorter period structures provide more uniform distribution of inelastic
deformation demand than longer period structures. The shapes show a clear trend of the frames
to follow non-uniform distributions with large concentrations at few stories. An increase of the
brace slenderness increases the capacity of the frames to distribute deformation demands along
its height. A physical explanation exists in literature [7] for the aforementioned effect, i.e. in the
post-buckling range of the response, a slender braced frame has a significant reserve lateral capacity
which is provided by the tension-acting diagonal, while a braced frame of low slenderness exhibits
almost zero post-buckling lateral storey stiffness since buckling and yielding in tension occur
almost simultaneously. In general, an increase of the column stiffness leads to a more uniform
distribution of deformation demands but the latter effect is small compared to the effect of the
brace slenderness. Regarding the location of the maximum storey deformation along the height of
X-braced frames, one can observe that slender frames concentrate maximum deformations in the
lower stories, while stocky frames show a tendency to exhibit maximum deformations in upper
stories. The aforementioned remarks for the distribution of the IDRi were found to be also valid
for the performance level associated with a tension ductility of the diagonals equal to 6.5.
5. ESTIMATION OF SEISMIC DRIFT AND DUCTILITY DEMANDS
In this section, simple formulae to estimate seismic drift and ductility demands in steel X-braced
buildings are proposed. With R being any response quantity of interest, the counted sample median
and the standard deviation of the natural logarithm of the ratio of the predicted (from the proposed
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
Relative height
Relative height
0.6 0.6
=1.93 & ␣=0.043 =1.93 & ␣=0.043
0.5 =1.93 & ␣=0.102 0.5 =1.93 & ␣=0.102
=1.93 & ␣=0.193 =1.93 & ␣=0.193
=1.56 & ␣=0.043 =1.56 & ␣=0.043
0.4 =1.56 & ␣=0.097 0.4 =1.56 & ␣=0.097
=1.56 & ␣=0.170 =1.56 & ␣=0.170
=1.30 & ␣=0.047 =1.30 & ␣=0.047
0.3 =1.30 & ␣=0.098 0.3 =1.30 & ␣=0.098
=1.30 & ␣=0.184 =1.30 & ␣=0.184
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
(a) (b)
1.0 1.0
0.9 =1.93 & ␣=0.059 0.9 =1.93 & ␣=0.059

=1.93 & ␣=0.102 =1.93 & ␣=0.102
0.8 =1.93 & ␣=0.193 0.8 =1.93 & ␣=0.193
=1.56 & ␣=0.057 =1.56 & ␣=0.057
0.7 =1.56 & ␣=0.097 0.7 =1.56 & ␣=0.097
=1.56 & ␣=0.170 =1.56 & ␣=0.170
Relative height
Relative height
=1.30 & ␣=0.080 =1.30 & ␣=0.080

0.6 =1.30 & ␣=0.140
0.6 =1.30 & ␣=0.140
=1.30 & ␣=0.183 =1.30 & ␣=0.183
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
(c) (d)
1.0 1.0
=1.93 & ␣=0.72 =1.93 & ␣=0.72
0.9 =1.93 & ␣=0.90 0.9 =1.93 & ␣=0.90
=1.93 & ␣=1.10 =1.93 & ␣=1.10
0.8 =1.56 & ␣=0.65 0.8 =1.56 & ␣=0.65
=1.56 & ␣=0.81 =1.56 & ␣=0.81
0.7 =1.56 & ␣=0.98 0.7 =1.56 & ␣=0.98
=1.30 & ␣=0.67 =1.30 & ␣=0.67
Relative height
Relative height
0.6 =1.30 & ␣=0.82 0.6 =1.30 & ␣=0.82

=1.30 & ␣=1.14 =1.30 & ␣=1.14
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
(e) (f)
Figure 2. Distribution of the maximum interstorey drift ratio along the height of X-braced
frames associated with a maximum tension ductility equal to 3.0: (a) three-storey stiff frames;
(b) three-storey flexible frames; (c) nine-storey stiff frames; (d) nine-storey flexible frames;
(e) 20-storey stiff frames; and (f) 20-storey flexible frames.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
relation) over the exact (from dynamic analysis) value of R, i.e. Rapp /Rexact , are used in order to
express the central value and the dispersion of the error introduced by the proposed relations.
5.1. Estimation of the maximum roof displacement

Current seismic codes (EC8 [4]) estimate approximately the maximum inelastic roof displacement
by adopting the equal-displacement rule, i.e. by assuming that q = . With respect to the whole
databank, this rule leads to a ratio u r,max,app /u r,max,exact with central value equal to 1.43 and
dispersion value equal to 0.4. Figure 3(a) and (b) shows changes in central value and dispersion of
the error introduced by the equal-displacement rule with changes in the number of stories and brace
slenderness. With the exception of three-storey frames, it is evident that the equal-displacement
rule clearly overestimates the exact maximum roof displacement.
By analysing the response databank, the effect of the structural characteristics of the frames on
the relationship between q and was identified. To this end, the expression

T
q = 1 + p1 · ( − 1) · f n s , , ,
p2
(3)
Tc
with p1 and p2 constants and f function to be determined, was selected as a good candidate for
approximating the response databank. Please note that the ratio T /Tc and not simply the period T
was found to affect the relation between q and . Use of the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm [25]
for nonlinear regression analysis, led to the following explicit form of Equation (3):
0.24
0.70 −0.10 T
q = 1 + 0.86 · ( − 1)0.62 · n 0.34
s · · · (4)
Tc
The aforementioned relation is relatively simple, satisfies the physical constraint q = = 1 and of-
fers directly either the desired behaviour factor in order to limit ductility under a predefined value,
or indirectly the maximum inelastic roof displacement given the yield strength and roof displace-
ment. It is observed that for a given strength of the frame expressed through the behaviour factor,
2.0 0.50
ur,max,app /ur,max,exact (dispersion value)
ur,max,app /ur,max,exact (median value)
0.48
1.8 0.46
0.44
1.6
0.42
1.4 0.40
0.38
1.2 0.36
=1.30 0.34 =1.30
1.0
=1.56 0.32 =1.56
0.8 =1.93 0.30 =1.93
0.28
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
(a) Number of stories (b) Number of stories
Figure 3. Effect of the number of stories and brace slenderness on the

(a) central and (b) dispersion value of the ratio u r,max,app /u r,max,exact
obtained on the basis of the equal-displacement rule.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1.10 0.425
ur,max,app /ur,max,exact (dispersion value)

ur,max,app /ur,max,exact (median value)
1.05 0.400
1.00 0.375
0.95 0.350
0.90 =1.30 0.325 =1.30

=1.56 =1.56
=1.93 =1.93
0.85 0.300
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Figure 4. Effect of the number of stories and brace slenderness on the (a) central and (b) dispersion value
of the ratio u r,max,app /u r,max,exact obtained on the basis of the proposed relation.
ductility demands decrease as the number of stories, the brace slenderness and the fundamental
period of vibration increase. The degree of accuracy of Equation (4) was evaluated by examining
the statistical distribution of the ratio u r,max,app /u r,max,exact , as explained at the beginning of this
section. This ratio was found to have a central value equal to 0.94 and dispersion value equal
to 0.36. Figure 4(a) and (b) shows changes in the central value and the dispersion of the error
introduced by Equation (4) with changes in the number of stories and brace slenderness.
5.2. Estimation of the maximum interstorey drift ratio along the height of the building
An interesting way for estimating the maximum interstorey drift ratio, IDRmax , along the height
of the frame is via correlation studies with the maximum roof drift ratio u r,max /H . By analysing
the response databank described in this paper, the ratio = u r,max /(H ∗ IDRmax ) was found to
be dependent on the structural characteristics of the frame and thus, nonlinear regression analysis
produced the following approximation for this ratio:
0.14
T
= 1.0 − 0.12 · (n s − 1.0)0.31 · −0.11 · −0.21 · (5)
Tc
It is concluded that the distribution of deformation demands along the height of X-braced frames
moves towards the optimum case, i.e. = 1, as the brace slenderness and the column stiffness
increase and as the number of stories and the fundamental period of vibration decrease. These
conclusions are consistent with the information obtained through the observation of the heightwise
distribution of the IDRi along the height of the frames considered in this study (Section 4 of the
paper). Equation (5) is simple, satisfies the physical constraint = 1 for n s = 1.0 and can be used
either for predicting the IDRmax given the u r,max or vice versa, i.e. prediction of the u r,max given
the IDRmax . The latter calculation is needed for the initiation of deformation-controlled seismic
design methods such as the DBD [15]. With respect to the whole databank and with the maximum
roof displacement known (u r,max,exact ), Equation (5) leads to a ratio IDRmax,app /IDRmax,exact with
a central value equal to 1.0 and dispersion value equal to 0.19. Figure 5(a) and (b) shows changes
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1.10 0.22
1.05 0.20
1.00 0.18
0.95 0.16
=1.30 =1.30
0.90 0.14
=1.56 =1.56
=1.93 =1.93
0.85 0.12
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
of the ratio IDRmax,app /IDRmax,exact obtained on the basis of the proposed relation with the u r,max known.
IDRmax,app /IDRmax,exact (dispersion value)

1.05 0.50
IDRmax,app /IDRmax,exact (median value)
1.00
0.45
0.95
0.40
0.90
=1.30 0.35 =1.30

0.85
=1.56 =1.56
=1.93 =1.93
0.80 0.30
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Figure 6. Effect of the number of stories and brace slenderness on the (a) central and
(b) dispersion value of the ratio IDRmax,app /IDRmax,exact obtained on the basis of the
proposed relation with the q factor known.
in the central value and the dispersion of the error introduced by Equation (5) with changes in the
number of stories and brace slenderness.
While the descriptive statistics for predicting the IDRmax for a known maximum roof displace-
ment (u r,max,exact ) are encouraging, it is of significant interest to calculate the error introduced
in the prediction of the IDRmax by combining the uncertainties of both Equations (4) and (5).
For a given strength reduction factor q, i.e. given the approximate maximum roof displacement
(u r,max,app ), Equation (5) leads to a ratio IDRmax,app /IDRmax,exact with a central value equal to 0.94
and dispersion value equal to 0.4. Figure 6(a) and (b) shows changes in the central value and the
dispersion of the error introduced by combining Equations (4) and (5), with changes in the number
of stories and brace slenderness. The latter prediction of the IDRmax should be compared with the
prediction offered by current seismic design codes (EC8 [4]). According to EC8 [4], the maximum
interstorey drift ratio is calculated on the basis of the maximum lateral floor displacements which
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
IDRmax,app /IDRmax,exact (dispersion value)

2.0 0.50
IDRmax,app /IDRmax,exact (median value)
0.48
1.8 0.46
0.44
1.6
0.42
1.4 0.40
0.38
1.2 0.36
0.34
1.0 =1.30 =1.30
0.32
=1.56 =1.56
0.8 =1.93 0.30 =1.93
0.28
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
of the ratio IDRmax,app /IDRmax,exact obtained on the basis of the equal-displacement rule.
in turn are calculated on the basis of the equal-displacement rule. With respect to the response
databank of this study, the procedure of seismic codes leads to a ratio IDRmax,app /IDRmax,exact with
a central value equal to 1.4 and dispersion value equal to 0.38. Figure 7(a) and (b) shows changes
in the central value and the dispersion of the error introduced by the equal-displacement rule, with
changes in the number of stories and brace slenderness. It is evident that the equal-displacement
rule clearly overestimates the maximum interstorey drift ratio over the height of X-braced steel
frames.
5.3. Estimation of the maximum cyclic ductility of the diagonals along the height of the building
Here, the maximum cyclic ductility of the braces, cb , along the height of the frame is correlated
with the behaviour factor, q. The cyclic ductility is defined as the sum of the peak ductility reached
in tension and the peak ductility attained in compression in any cycle before the half-cycle that
corresponds to the peak ductility in tension [19]. Please note that the peak ductility in compression
is defined as the ratio of the maximum shortening over the deformation corresponding to yielding
in tension [19]. The cyclic ductility demand of brace elements corresponding to fracture can be
obtained by the following expression [19]:
cb,f = 2.4 + 8.3 (6)
The above-mentioned formula indicates that slender diagonals can sustain larger ductility demands
before fracture because their buckling involves smaller inelastic deformations. The statistical anal-
ysis of the present response databank has shown that the relation between qand cb depends on
the structural characteristics of the frames. Nonlinear regression analysis produced the following
approximation:
0.47
1.97 T
q = 1 + 1.18 · (cb − 1.0) 0.59
· ns ·
0.12
· (7)
Tc
The aforementioned expression is simple, satisfies the physical constraint q = 1.0 for cb = 1.0
and leads to a ratio cb,app /cb,exact with central value equal to 0.93 and dispersion value equal
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
µcb,app /µcb,exact (dispersion value)

1.05 0.50
µcb,app /µcb,exact (median value)
1.00
0.45
0.95
0.40
0.90
=1.30 =1.30
0.85 0.35
=1.56 =1.56
=1.93 =1.93
0.80
0.30
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
of the ratio cb,app /cb,exact obtained on the basis of the proposed relation.
to 0.42. Figure 8(a) and (b) shows changes in the central value and the dispersion of the error
introduced by Equation (7) with changes in the number of stories and brace slenderness.
5.4. Range of applicability of the proposed relations

Here, a brief discussion on the range of applicability of the proposed relations is provided. The
proposed relations are valid for ground motions which do not exhibit near-fault characteristics.
Moreover, they are valid for X-braced frames (1) which are regular, i.e. without abrupt changes of
mass, strength and stiffness along their height, (2) for which their backup frame does not dissipate
seismic energy, i.e. it is gravity supporting with columns pinned at their base but continuous over
their whole height and beams shear connected to the columns, and (3) with structural characteristics
(n s , T , and ) in the range of values examined in this study (Table I).
6. USE OF THE PROPOSED RELATIONS: A SIMPLE DESIGN EXAMPLE
This section aims at demonstrating the major intention of the work presented in this paper, i.e. the
development of a method which should be regarded as an alternative to seismic design procedures
that use elastic analysis and dominate current seismic codes.
Consider a regular X-braced frame of three bays and five stories made of S235 steel. The
geometrical configuration is similar to the one shown in Figure 1. The bay width is assumed equal
to 6 m and the storey height equal to 3 m. The gravity load on beams is equal to 30 kN/m. The design
ground motion is defined by the elastic acceleration response spectrum of the EC8 [4] seismic
code with a PGA equal to 0.4 g and a soil class B. The frame is designed as T/C and according to
EC3 [16] and EC8 [4] structural codes with the aid of the commercial software package SAP2000
[26]. A q factor equal to 4.0 is selected and the design procedure yields HEB300 cross-sections
for the columns, IPE330 cross-sections for the beams, TUBO-D193.7 × 4.5 cross-sections for the
diagonals of the first two stories, TUBO-D168.3 × 4 cross-sections for the diagonals of the third
storey, TUBO-D159 × 4 cross-sections for the diagonals of the fourth storey and TUBO-D133 × 4
for the diagonals of the fifth storey. The maximum roof displacement and interstorey drift ratio
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
16
Pseudo-acceleration (m/sec2)
14
12
10
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period (sec)
Figure 9. Response spectra of the ground motions used in the design example.
under the reduced (divided by q) spectrum are equal to 0.0226 and 0.0018 m, respectively. Thus,
the maximum inelastic roof displacement equals to 4 ∗ 0.0226 = 0.09 m and the maximum inelastic
interstorey drift ratio 4 ∗ 0.0018 = 0.0072.
The characteristic values and of the frame are computed on the basis of Equations (1) and
(2) and found to be equal to 1.23 and 0.075, respectively. The fundamental period of vibration, T ,
of the frame is equal to 0.55 s, while the characteristic period, Tc , of the EC8 [4] spectrum is equal
to 0.5 s. Given the characteristic values , , T and Tc , Equation (4) estimates the maximum roof
displacement ductility to be equal to 2.55 and therefore, the maximum inelastic roof displacement is
equal to 2.55∗0.0226 = 0.068 m. Moreover, given the above characteristic values and the maximum
inelastic roof displacement, Equation (5) predicts a value of the IDRmax equal to 0.00663.
Eight semi-artificial accelerograms compatible with the EC8 spectrum were generated via a
deterministic approach [27] on the basis of eight real seismic records of Table I. The response
spectra of these motions, in comparison with the EC8 [4] spectrum, are depicted in Figure 9. Non-
linear time history analyses of the designed frame under these motions yielded: u r,max = 0.066 m
(mean value with standard deviation = 0.0054) and IDRmax = 0.0068 (mean value with standard
deviation = 0.0005). The results of nonlinear time history analyses reveal that the proposed pro-
cedure seems to be more rational and efficient than the procedure of current seismic codes, for
performance-based seismic design of X-braced steel frames.
It is worth noting that the design procedure described in this example has also been extended
to the cases of regular [28] and irregular [29] in elevation moment resisting frames.
7. CONCLUSIONS
A procedure in terms of simple formulae for estimating global and local seismic drift and ductility
demands in regular multi-storey T/C X-braced steel buildings subjected to ordinary (i.e. without
near-fault effects) ground motions has been presented. The procedure does not depend on pushover
analysis, since it demands only an elastic analysis up to the point of first buckling of the diagonals
in the building and therefore, is suitable for both seismic assessment of existing structures and
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
direct deformation-controlled seismic design of new ones. It takes into account the influence of
basic structural characteristics of an X-braced steel frame, such us the number of stories, the period
of vibration, the slenderness of the diagonals and the column stiffness. Given the strength reduction
factor, it provides in terms of simple formulae reliable estimates of the maximum roof displacement,
the maximum interstorey drift ratio and the maximum cyclic ductility of the diagonals along the
height of the frame. Compared with the procedure adopted by current seismic design codes, it is
found to be more rational and efficient for performance-based seismic design and/or assessment
of regular multi-storey T/C X-braced steel buildings.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The first two authors are grateful for the support provided to them through the ‘K. Karatheodory’
research program of the University of Patras, Greece. All the authors would also like to thank Professor
C. Christopoulos for providing them some very useful reference material.
REFERENCES
1. Sabeli R. Research on improving the design and analysis of earthquake-resistant steel-braced frames. The 2000
NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report, EERI, 2001.
2. Tremblay R. Seismic behavior and design of concentrically braced steel frames. Engineering Journal (AISC)
2001; 38(3):148–166.
3. American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.: Chicago, IL, 2002.
4. Eurocode 8 (EC8). Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and
Rules for Buildings, European Standard EN 1998-1, Stage 51 Draft, European Committee for Standardization
(CEN), Brussels, 2004.
5. Redwood RG, Lu F, Bouchard G, Paultre P. Seismic response of concentrically braced steel frames. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 1991; 18:1062–1077.
6. Martinelli L, Perotti F, Bozzi A. Seismic design and response of a 14-story concentrically braced steel building.
Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Area, Proceedings of the STESSA 2000 Conference, Mazzolani F,
Tremblay R (eds). Montreal, Canada, Rotterdam, Balkema, August 2000; 327–334.
7. Tremblay R. Influence of brace slenderness on the seismic response of concentrically braced steel frames. Behavior
of Steel Structures in Seismic Area, Proceedings of the STESSA 2000 Conference, Mazzolani F, Tremblay R
(eds). Montreal, Canada, Rotterdam, Balkema, August 2000; 527–534.
8. Montuori R, Piluso P. Seismic response of X-braced frames: comparison between different design criteria and
modelling options. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Steel Structures (Eurosteel), Lamas A,
da Silva LS (eds). Coimbra, Portugal, 2002; 1303–1312.
9. Tremblay R. Achieving a stable inelastic seismic response for multi-story concentrically braced steel frames.
Engineering Journal (AISC) 2003; 40(2):111–129.
10. MacRae GA, Kimura Y, Roeder C. Effect of column stiffness on braced frame seismic behavior. Journal of
Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2004; 130(3):381–391.
11. Kimura Y, MacRae GA. Effect of column flexural characteristic on seismic behavior of braced frame with
fixed column base. Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Area, Proceedings of the STESSA 2006 Conference,
Mazzolani F, Wada A (eds). Taylor & Francis: Yokohama, Japan, August 2006; 437–443.
12. Brandonisio G, De Luca A, Grande E, Mele E. Non-linear response of concentric braced frames. Behavior of
Steel Structures in Seismic Area, Proceedings of the STESSA 2006 Conference, Mazzolani F, Wada A (eds).
Taylor & Francis: Yokohama, Japan, August 2006; 399–405.
13. Longo A, Montuori R, Piluso V. Influence of design criteria on the seismic reliability of X-braced frames. Behavior
of Steel Structures in Seismic Area, Proceedings of the STESSA 2006 Conference, Mazzolani F, Wada A (eds).
Taylor & Francis: Yokohama, Japan, August 2006; 451–457.
14. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Report FEMA 356, Washington, DC, 2000.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
15. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and
Commentary, Sacramento, CA, 1999.
16. Eurocode 3 (EC3). Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.1: General Rules for Buildings, European Prestandard ENV
1993-1-1/1992, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, 1993.
17. Androic B, Dzeba I, Dujmovic D. International Structural Steel Sections: Design Tables According to Eurocode 3.
Ernst & Sohn: Berlin, 2000.
18. Tremblay R. Fundamental periods of vibration of braced steel frames for seismic design. Earthquake Spectra
2005; 21(3):833–860.
19. Tremblay R. Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2002;
28:665–701.
20. Maison BF, Popov EP. Cyclic response prediction for braced steel frames. Journal of the Structural Division
(ASCE) 1980; 106(7):1401–1416.
21. Ikeda K, Mahin SA, Dermitzakis SN. Phenomenological modeling of steel braces under cyclic loading. Report
No. UCB/EERC-84/09, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1984.
22. Maison BF. PC-ANSR. A computer program for nonlinear structural analysis. 1992.
23. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (PEER). Strong ground motion database 2006,
http://peer.berkeley.edu/
24. Riddell R, Newmark NM. Statistical analysis of the response of nonlinear systems subjected to earthquakes.
Structural Research Series No. 468, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1979.
25. MATLAB. The Language of Technical Computing, Version 5.0. The Mathworks Inc.: Natick, MA, 1997.
26. SAP2000. Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of Structures, Version 9.1.4. Computers and Structures
Inc.: Berkeley, CA, 2005.
27. Karabalis DL, Cokkinides GJ, Rizos DC. Seismic Record Processing Program, Version 1.03. Report of the
College of Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, 1992.
28. Karavasilis TL, Bazeos N, Beskos DE. Drift, ductility estimates in regular steel MRF subjected to ordinary
ground motions: a design oriented approach. Earthquake Spectra, 2007, under review.
29. Karavasilis TL, Bazeos N, Beskos DE. Seismic response of plane steel MRF with setbacks: estimation of inelastic
deformation demands. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2007, under review.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Estructuras de Acero

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Estructuras de Acero

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:2273–2289

Estimation of seismic drift and ductility demands in planar regular

Theodore L. Karavasilis, Nikitas Bazeos§ and Dimitri E. Beskos∗, †, ‡

Received 25 January 2007; Revised 10 May 2007; Accepted 10 May 2007

Contract/grant sponsor: ‘K. Karatheodoris’ research program, University of Patras, Greece.

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2. X-BRACED STEEL FRAMES USED IN THIS STUDY

2.1. Design and structural characteristics

3 1.93 0.043 0.225 0.360

20 1.30 0.670 1.500 2.400

2.2. Modelling for nonlinear dynamic analysis

3. SEISMIC ANALYSES AND RESPONSE DATABANK

Event Station Mw D (km) PGA (m/s2 ) Tc (s)

Kern country 1952/07/21 Taft 7.7 43 1.74 0.33

4. HEIGHTWISE DISTRIBUTION OF DEFORMATION DEMANDS

5. ESTIMATION OF SEISMIC DRIFT AND DUCTILITY DEMANDS

0.9 =1.93 & ␣=0.059 0.9 =1.93 & ␣=0.059

=1.30 & ␣=0.080 =1.30 & ␣=0.080

0.6 =1.30 & ␣=0.82 0.6 =1.30 & ␣=0.82

5.1. Estimation of the maximum roof displacement

Figure 3. Effect of the number of stories and brace slenderness on the

ur,max,app /ur,max,exact (dispersion value)

0.90 =1.30 0.325 =1.30

IDRmax,app /IDRmax,exact (dispersion value)

=1.30 0.35 =1.30

IDRmax,app /IDRmax,exact (dispersion value)

µcb,app /µcb,exact (dispersion value)

5.4. Range of applicability of the proposed relations

6. USE OF THE PROPOSED RELATIONS: A SIMPLE DESIGN EXAMPLE

Вам также может понравиться