PSI - Issue 78

Giacomo Iovane et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 528–535

532

et al., 2023a, b, 2025; Faggiano et al., 2019). The following lateral load resisting systems are examined: Moment Resisting Frame (MRF), Concentric (CBF) with V, D and X braces and Eccentric (EBF) Braced Frames. All Timber (T), all Steel (S) and hybrid frames (Timber or Steel beam and columns, Steel or Timber braces, TS or ST) are considered. A CLT floor with a dead load equal to 0.53kN/m 2 is assumed. The case studies are shown in Figure 5.

MRF

D-CBF

X-CBF

V-CBF

EBF

T

TT

SS

TT

SS

TT

SS

TT

SS

S

TS

ST

TS

ST

TS

ST

TS

ST

Fig. 5. Hybrid framed structural types.

The seismic action was defined with reference to the seismic zone 1, according to OPCM 3274 (03/20/2003), corresponding to the peak ground acceleration a g = 0.35g and a “category B” soil. Structures are designed as both Non Dissipative (ND) and Dissipative (D) by using, respectively, a behaviour factor q d =1 and the value indicated in Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-1-1, 2005, Faggiano et al., 2022) for Medium Dissipative Capacity (DCM) for the same structural types made of steel. As for the materials, GL24h grade is generally used for timber members, S235 steel grade is used for links in all-timber braced structures (TT) and for braces in hybrid structures with timber frames and steel braces (TS), S275 steel grade is used for links in all-timber MRF (T) and for column and beam in all-steel MRF (S) and braced frames (SS) and in hybrid structures with steel frame and timber braces (ST). Dissipative structures are designed by applying the capacity design criteria. In particular, all-steel MRF (S) and braced frames (SS), as well as hybrid structures with timber frames and steel braces (TS) are designed according to Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-1-1: 2005). All-timber MRF (T) and braced frames (TT) and hybrid structures with steel frames and timber braces (ST) involve the use of dissipative steel links and are designed according to the criteria defined in Faggiano et al. (2016) and Iovane et al. (2023a, b). For these structures, the dissipative capacity is concentrated into the steel links placed at the beam ends and column bases for MRFs, at the ends of the braces for CBFs and in the timber beam for EBFs, while the non-dissipative elements are designed with an adequate overstrength as respect to the steel links to remain in the elastic field. Static linear analyses are carried out through the structural calculation program SAP2000 (v18) aiming at the design. Results are shown in Figure 6 in terms of structural mass (M) and Mass variation Δ M between Dissipative (D) and Non-Dissipative (ND) structures, it being quantified as Δ M= (M ND -M D )/M ND .

Fig. 6. Structural mass [kg] of the case studies.

It is noted that dissipative structures generally have reduced mass compared to non-dissipative ones, highlighting