# Seismic Design and Performance Assessment of Frame Buildings Reinforced by Dual-Phase Steel
## 5 Conclusions  
The seismic performance of frame buildings designed by Eurocode 8 and reinforced by recently developed dual-phase reinforcing steel DPD2 and by conventional Tempcore  
Figure 12: Target conditional acceleration spectra (median, 16 th and 84 th percentile), corresponding spectra of selected ground motions for an earthquake scenario based on \(S_{e,2475}\), and acceleration spectra of each ground motion used for assessment of (a) 4-, (b) 8- and (c) 11-storey buildings.  
Figure 13: Median IDA curve of (a) 4-, (b) 8- and (c) 11-storey buildings.  
reinforcing steel B500B was investigated. The seismic performance of buildings was assessed using the improved numerical model of columns with concentrated plasticity. The developed model of columns, which account for four linear moment-rotation relationships, was validated by the results of the cyclic test. The conclusions are as follows:  
1. Only the yield rotation of Eurocode empirical regression models had to be calibrated to adequately simulate the moment-rotation relationship from the cyclic tests of particular columns. However, it is suggested that the modelling uncertainty is investigated further at the level of DPD2 buildings, for example, by performing a pseudo-dynamic test using the full-scale building;
2. For the majority of DPD2 buildings, the maximum lateral strength (6-10%), deformation capacity (up to 15%) and seismic intensity causing a near-collapse limit state (up to 13%) were observed to be improved in comparison to B500B buildings;
3. Because the seismic performance of DPD2 buildings is better than that of B500B buildings if they are designed by Eurocode 8, it can be concluded that the DPD2 reinforcing steel can be used for the construction of DPD2 buildings designed by Eurocode 8;
4. The reinforcement quantity of DPD2 buildings is increased in the design primarily because of the smaller yield strength of DPD2 steel. However, this is not a prevailing source of the improved lateral strength of DPD2 buildings;
5. The improved performance of the DPD2 building in terms of strength is attributed to substantial strain hardening of the DPD2 steel after the yielding point, which is not the case for the Tempcore steel with a typical yielding plateau;
6. DPD2 reinforcing steel improves seismic resistance and resistance against corrosion, but also increases the amount of reinforcement required. However, some modifications to the existing design rules may also be introduced in the future, aiming to decrease the required amount of reinforcement and to modify the minimum required amount of reinforcement.  
Conceptualization, J.Z. and M.D.; methodology, J.Z.; software, J.Z. and M.D.; formal analysis, J.Z.; investigation, J.Z.; writing--original draft preparation, J.Z. and M.D.; writing--review and editing, J.Z. and M.D.; supervision, M.D.; project administration, J.Z. and M.D.; funding acquisition, M.D. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by Research Fund for Coal and Steel, grant number RFSR-CT-2015-00023 and by the research program Earthquake Engineering (P2-0185), funded by the Slovenian Research Agency. The APC was funded by the research program Earthquake Engineering, funded by the Slovenian Research Agency.  
Not applicable.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.