Overstrength and Ductility Factors for Steel Frames

Designed According to BS 5950

T. Balendra1 and X. Huang2

Abstract: Buildings sited outside the seismic zones such as those in Singapore are not designed for seismic loads. However, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

buildings in these regions vibrate due to tremors caused by faults in Sumatra, Indonesia. Therefore, in order to assess the vulnerability of
these buildings under low-seismic excitation, it is important to determine the overstrength and ductility of these buildings designed for
gravity loads and wind loads or notional horizontal load. In this study, steel frames of three-, six- and ten-story three-bay moment resisting
frames 共MRFs兲, concentrically braced frames 共CBFs兲, and semirigid frames are designed according to BS 5950, which does not have any
seismic provisions. A nonlinear push-over analysis involving P-⌬ effect has been performed on these steel frames, considering the effects
of various combination of dead load 共DL兲 and imposed load 共IL兲, viz 1.0DL⫹0.4IL 共most common state兲, 1.0DL⫹1.0IL 共serviceability
state兲, and 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 共ultimate state兲. By using the N2 method, the seismic performance of the steel frames are investigated when they
are subjected to the ‘‘design earthquake’’ for Singapore. The results show that MRF, CBF, and semirigid steel frame would be subjected
to a base shear up to 4.2% of seismic gravity load, while the corresponding value for infilled frames is up to 7.8%. These values are much
less than the strength capacity of the steel frames with considerable response modification factors which are the combination of the
overstrength and ductility.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2003兲129:8共1019兲
CE Database subject headings: Ductility; Seismic design; Steel frames; Singapore.

Introduction example, selection of members from a discrete list of available

sections; 共3兲 effect of nonstructural elements, such as infill walls;
It is evident from the observations of past earthquakes that the 共4兲 effect of structural elements that are not included in the pre-
building structures are able to withstand earthquake forces con- diction of lateral load capacity, for example, contribution of rein-
siderably larger than for what they were designed. This is due to forced concrete slabs; 共5兲 effect of minimum requirements on
the fact that the structures possess significant reserve strength and member sections in order to meet the stability and serviceability
capacity to dissipate energy. As such, many seismic codes permit limits; 共6兲 architectural considerations that dictate provision of
a reduction in design loads, taking advantage of this feature. extra or larger structural members, for example, shear walls; 共7兲
Buildings sited outside the seismic zones such as those in Sin- use of single-degree-of-freedom spectra alone with assumed load
gapore are not designed for seismic loads, and BS 5950 共1990兲 distribution; and 共8兲 redistribution of internal forces in the inelas-
does not have any seismic provisions. However, the buildings in tic range 共Rahgozar and Human 1998兲. It is difficult to quantify
these regions vibrate due to tremors caused by faults in Sumatra,
Indonesia. Therefore, in order to assess the vulnerability of these
buildings under low-seismic excitation, it is important to deter-
mine the overstrength and ductility of these buildings designed
for gravity loads and wind loads or notional horizontal load.
Many researchers have attempted to identify the factors that
may have contributed to the observed overstrength. The possible
sources of overstrength are 共1兲 actual strength of the material used
in construction is higher than the strength used in calculating the
capacity in design; 共2兲 effect of using discrete member sizes, for

1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Univ. of
Singapore, NUS, 10 King Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Singapore.
E-mail: cvebalen@nus.edu.sg
2
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Univ. of
Singapore, NUS, 10 King Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Singapore.
Note. Associate Editor: Marc I. Hoit. Discussion open until January 1,
2004. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on December 19, 2001; approved on
May 23, 2002. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, Vol. 129, No. 8, August 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2003/8-
Fig. 1. Frame overstrength factor and ductility factor
1019–1035/$18.00.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 1019

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Modeling of beam and column members

the overstrength due to most of the above factors, however, the strength and ductility of the structure, as illustrated in Fig. 1 共Bal-
overstrength due to redistribution of internal forces in the inelastic endra et al. 1999兲. The design base shear V d is defined as
range, arising from simplification in design procedure, is depend- Ve
able and can be estimated reliably. V d⫽ (1)
⍀␮
A review of the seismic codes adopted in several countries
reveals that a response modification factor 共or the seismic force where V e ⫽elastic base shear; ⍀⫽overstrength factor; and ␮
reduction factor兲 is being used to reduce the elastic strength de- ⫽ductility factor defined as
mand due to the ultimate earthquake or worst credible event. In ⌬u
these seismic codes, the overstrength and ductility are incorpo- ␮⫽ (2)
rated through a response modification factor. The widely accepted ⌬y
limit state philosophy for seismic design considers at least two where ⌬ u ⫽ultimate displacement; and ⌬ y ⫽displacement at sig-
limit states associated with different levels of earthquake excita- nificant yield. Thus, the response modification factor
tion: The serviceability limit state for moderate earthquake shak-
R⫽⍀␮⫽overstrength factor⫻ductility factor (3)
ing and the ultimate limit state for severe earthquake shaking. The
modification factor is used to reduce the elastic base shear in- Osteraas and Krawinkler 共1990兲 studied structural over-
duced in a structure under the worst credible event, which is once strength of steel framing systems: distributed moment frames, pe-
in 475 years. The amount of reduction depends on the over- rimeter moment frames, and concentric braced frames designed in

1020 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Simple model of brace member

compliance with the Uniform Building Code working-stress-
design provisions. They reported overstrength factors ranging
from 1.8 to 6.5 for the three framing systems. Also they found
that the perimeter moment resisting frames have a smaller struc-
tural overstrength than do moment resisting space frames, be-
cause the gravity loads do not substantially influence the design
of perimeter moment resisting frames. Uang 共1991兲 reported
overstrength of 2 to 3 for 4- to 12-story special steel moment
resisting frames, and for steel frames located in high-seismic re-
gion, overstrength of a four-story steel frame is about 40% higher
than that of a 12-story steel frame. Rahgozar and Humar 共1998兲
obtained the overstrength factor ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 for dif-
ferent types of ten-story braced frame.
Also, Osman et al. 共1995兲 did a nonlinear push-over analysis
on six-story moment resisting frames 共MRFs兲 designed according
to the National Building Code of Canada 共NBCC兲 1990. The
predicted ductility factors are around 1.5 to 2.7. Corresponding to
the ductility factor ␮ defined in this study, the National Earth-
quake Hazards Reduction Program 共NEHRP 1994兲 gives the same
definition to a displacement amplification factor C d (C d
⫽⌬ u /⌬ y ). Values of C d for different steel framing systems are:
5.5 for special MRF, 4 for ordinary MRF, and 4.5 for concentri-
cally braced frame 共CBF兲.
The purpose of this study is to determine the overstrength and
ductility of steel frames designed according to BS 5950. The
frames considered in this investigation are three-, six- and ten-
story three-bay MRFs, CBFs, and semirigid frames. The latter has
not received much attention by researchers. The contribution of
infill wall to overstrength of frame has also been included.
Modeling of Steel Frames
In this study, the finite element system ABAQUS 共Hibbitt, Karls-
son and Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, R.I., 1996兲 has been used to
model the various steel frames. Each beam and column member is
discretized into several three-node beam elements. The cross sec-
tion of each element is subdivided into fibers, as illustrated in Fig.
2. There are 21 strips in the web and 15 strips in the flange of I
section. The finite elements used to model column and beam
members are based on Timoshenko beam theory.
In ABAQUS, the beam element is a one-dimensional line ele-
ment in three-dimensional space that has stiffness associated with
deformation of the axis of beam. The deformations consist of
axial stretch, curvature change 共bending兲, and torsion. The active

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 1021

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Model of semirigid connection for nonlinear push-over analysis
degrees of freedom of the beam element in space are depicted in
Fig. 2. The plasticity of the material of the beam element consid-
ers the strain hardening range after the plastic plateau, as illus-
trated in Fig. 2. Also, ABAQUS provides an iterative trial-and-
error process to calculate the forces and deformations in the
structure after yielding due to the nonlinearity of the load-
deformation response and the change in cross-section effective
stiffness in inelastic regions associated with the increase in the
applied loads and the change in structural geometry 共Hibbitt,
Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc. 1996兲.
The postelastic compression capacity of the brace members
plays an important role in the seismic analysis of the CBFs. In the
present study, the nonlinear analysis is based on the primary stress
redistribution in the brace members, namely, the buckling of the
compression braces and yielding of the tension braces. A sample
hysteresis curve for a brace component is presented in Fig. 3
共Bruneau et al. 1998兲. The bracing members in the CBFs have
been modeled as truss elements in the ABAQUS program. The
brace member in tension and compression is modeled by simpli-
fying the hysteresis curve, as depicted in Fig. 4. The buckling
capacity C r⬘ and the first buckling load C r are given by the fol-
lowing expressions according to CAS Standard 共CSA 1994兲
1022 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003
J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.
Cr
C r ⫽␾AF y 共 1⫹␭ 2n 兲 ⫺1/n , C r⬘ ⫽ (4)
1⫹0.35␭
where ␾⫽0.9⫽resistance factor; A⫽cross-sectional area of the
brace; F y ⫽yield strength of the steel; and
␭⫽
kL
r␲
冑 Fy
E
(5)
and n⫽2.24 for wide flange shape and hollow structural sections
共hot formed or stress-relieved兲; r⫽radius of gyration of a brace
member cross-section; k⫽effective length factor; and L⫽length
of a brace member.
In semirigid frames, the partial-strength bolted connection be-
tween beams and columns, namely, the semirigid connections re-
place the fully rigid welded connections of the MRFs. Since the
connections are an integral part of a steel frame, their behavior is
very important in the global analysis of the structure. The follow-
ing are the most significant deformable components of the semi-
rigid connection: 共1兲 connecting elements 共angles, cleats, bolts
and fasteners兲; and 共2兲 joint panel 共column flange, column web
panel zone兲. An idealization of the model is shown in Fig. 4,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Model of infilled wall

where the spring set A is to simulate the deformable connecting V

element, while the column shear panel deformation is accounted K e ⫽ ⫽0.95d c t cw G ␥⬍␥ y (7)
␥
for by the nonlinear spring set B and rigid elements C.
The nonlinear behavior of the spring set A is idealized by the 2
V 1.095b c t c f G
three-parameter power model proposed by Chen et al. 共1996兲, as K t⫽ ⫽ ␥ y ⬍␥⬍4␥ y (8)
␥ db
shown in Fig. 4. The generalized form of the three-parameter
power model is where V⫽shear force; ␥⫽shear distortion of the panel zone; G
R ki ␪ r ⫽shear modulus of the elasticity; t cw , t c f ⫽thickness of column
M⫽ (6) web flange; d c ⫽depth of the column; b c ⫽width of the column
关 1⫹ 共 ␪ r /␪ 0 兲 n 兴 1/n flange; and ␥ y ⫽shear yield distortion. The yield shear strength is
where M ⫽connection moment; ␪ r ⫽relative rotation between defined as
beam and column; ␪ 0 ⫽reference plastic rotation M u /R ki ; R ki
⫽initial connection stiffness; M u ⫽ultimate moment capacity of V y ⫽K e ␥ y ⫽0.55␴ y d c t cw (9)
the connection; and n⫽shape parameter. The three parameters for where ␴ y ⫽yield stress of steel.
determining the moment-rotation behavior of a connection are the The beneficial aspects of infill walls in contributing to lateral
initial connection stiffness R ki , ultimate moment capacity M u , load resistance is apparent. The effects of the infill walls are simi-
and shape parameter n. A computer program CONANA 共Chen lar to the action of diagonal struts bracing the frame. The formu-
et al. 1996兲 is used for the calculations in the modeling of semi- las for calculating the equivalent strut areas are taken from Main-
rigid connection. stone 共1974兲, which were derived to depend on the panel aspect
As for the spring set B, the nonlinear behavior is determined ratio and the panel stiffness ratio. The effective strut area is given
by the model of Krawinkler 共1978兲, as shown in Fig. 4. The as
elastic stiffness K e and the postyielding stiffness K t of the shear
panel are given as A i ⫽w e t (10)

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 1023

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Floor plan of the steel building

w e ⫽0.175共 ␭h 兲 ⫺0.4w ⬘ (11)

␭⫽ 冑
4 E i t sin共 2␪ 兲
4E f I c h ⬘
(12)

where E i , E f ⫽modulus of elasticity of the infill material and

frame material; I c ⫽moment of inertia of column; and t
⫽thickness of infill. The symbols h, h ⬘ , w ⬘ , and ␪ are indicated
in Fig. 5. The stress-strain curve of this model consists of three
portions: a parabolic rising curve, a linear falling branch, and a
final horizontal plateau 共constant stress兲 as shown in Fig. 5, which
is given by Priestley and Elder 共1983兲.

Design of Steel Frames

The buildings considered in this study are three-story, six-story,

and ten-story, all-steel office buildings. As shown in Fig. 6, these
buildings are symmetrical, with a plan dimension of 30
m⫻30 m for three- and six-story frames and 27.4 m⫻27.4 m for
a ten-story frame, respectively. Two different structural systems
are provided to resist lateral loads. In the east-west direction, two
identical three-bay MRFs are located along column lines A and D.
In the north-south direction, lateral resistance is provided by two
CBFs on column lines 2 and 3. Because of symmetry, in-plane
torsion is neglected in the study. Therefore, in each direction,
each MRF or CBF is assumed to resist half the horizontal loads of
the building and is designed in accordance with the BS 5950. The
vertical load on each frame is computed from the tributary area
indicated in Fig. 6. In this study, the frames are designed for the
above loads independently and as such sizes of exterior columns
of CBFs therefore differ from the size of interior columns of the
MRFs. Two CBF configurations, inverted-V-braced frames, and
split-X-braced frames 共Fig. 7兲 have been designed in this study.
For the design of three- and six-story frames, dead load of 4.5
kN/m2, and a live load of 3.5 kN/m2 are considered, whereas for
the ten-story frame, dead load of 3.0 kN/m2, and a live load of 3.6
kN/m2 are considered. For wind load, 3 s gust wind speed V w at
10 m high in an open terrain, with a return period of 50 years, is
Fig. 7. CBF configurations: 共a兲 inverted-V-braced frame and 共b兲
split-X-braced frame
taken as 32 m/s and a notional horizontal floor load, have been
considered. The notional forces among these loads may arise from
practical imperfections such as a lack of verticality and should be
taken as the greater of 共1兲 1% of factored dead load on that level,
applied horizontally and 共2兲 0.50% of factored load 共dead plus
vertical imposed load兲 on that level, applied horizontally 共BS
5950兲. The grade 43 steel whose yield stress is 275 N/mm2 has
been used to design the beam and column members. The design
of beams and columns are based on the critical moments, axial
loads, and shears obtained by considering the following load
combinations of the dead load DL, imposed load IL, wind load
WL, and notional horizontal load NHL, which are multiplied by
the load factor ␥ f 共BS 5950兲
COMB1: 1.4DL⫹1.6IL COMB2: 1.2DL⫹1.2IL⫹1.2WL
COMB3: 1.4DL⫹1.6IL⫹1.0NHL
COMB4: 1.4DL⫹1.4WL

1024 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

 Since the length of every bay of this steel building is same, the
design lateral load V d for MRF and CBF is the same, which is
greater of 1.2WL and 1.0NHL. The computed notional horizontal
load 共79 kN兲 is greater than the design ultimate wind load com-
puted according to CP3 共BS 1972兲 for the three-story frame. Also,
the notional horizontal load 共164 kN兲 is greater than the ultimate
wind load for the six-story frame. For the 10-story frame, the
design ultimate wind load 共242 kN兲 is greater than the notional
horizontal load 共181 kN兲. As the seismic gravity load W g is based
on 100% of dead load 共half of building, 1.5 bays兲, the design
lateral loads are 1.4, 1.4, and 2.2% of seismic gravity load for
three-story, six-story, and ten-story frames, respectively.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In addition to MRF and CBF, semirigid steel frames of three-,

six- and ten-story frames have been designed to resist one bay’s
tributary area gravity loads and one bay’s lateral loads. The de-
sign procedure is given as follows 共Chen et al. 1996兲:
1. Select section for columns, beams, and beam-to-column con-
nections. In a preliminary design, the beams and columns are
designed by the general rules applicable to simple design.
2. Predict moment-rotation relations for respective connections.
For this purpose, the prediction equations have been used.
3. Carry out the plastic analysis under factored load by using
finite element system ABAQUS, considering the connection
behavior. The modeling of the semi-rigid frame is described
in previous section.
4. Check the local capacity and buckling resistance of the col-
umns and beams.
5. Check the rotation capacity of the connections.
Nonlinear Push-Over Analysis
Loading
The frames designed according to BS 5950 are now subjected to
gravity and earthquake loads. In this study, the nonlinear distri-
bution of static lateral loads recommended by Standards Associa-
tion of Australia 共1993兲 has been adopted
Fig. 8. Moment-rotation relationship
Interstory Drift Limit
When the interstory drift exceeds 2% of story height, which is
based on the usual criterion determining the ultimate strength of
structure by seismic design codes.
Rotation Capacity
Local failure occurs in the steel frame when the rotation capacity
of a column or beam exceeds a limit to cause local buckling of the
cross section. Daali and Korol 共1995兲 have provided a model for
predicting the rotation capacity of plastic hinges limited by local
buckling. This model has been introduced in the present study to
check the local buckling failure of the steel members. Local buck-
ling is controlled by limiting the slenderness of the plate ele-
ments. Failure is assumed to occur when the length of the yielded
portion of the compression flange is equal to or greater than the
full wave length over which the local buckle would develop in the
flange. The definition of the rotation capacity is illustrated in Fig.
8. The expression for R m can be written as
R m⫽
␪m
␪ pl 冉
⫺1⫽l 共 2s⫺1 兲 ⫹e
l
1⫺l 冊 (14)

where e⫽E/E s , s⫽␧ h /␧ y ; symbols E and E s ⫽elastic modulus

k
G gx h x t and modulus at strain hardening; and ␧ h and ␧ y ⫽strain at strain
F x⫽ k •V b (13) hardening and yielding. Furthermore, l is the ratio between the
兺 i⫽1
n
G gi h i t
yielded length of the flange, which corresponds to the optimal
where k t ⫽exponent related to structure period T; k t ⫽1.0; wave length initiating the local buckling, and the overall length,
T⭐0.5 s; k t ⫽1.0⫹0.5(T⫺0.5); 0.5⭐T⭐2.5 s; k t ⫽2.0; T l⫽l f /L. And the value of l is given as
⭓2.5 s; T⬇0.1n; G gx ⫽total of gravity load located at story x; ␣ 2f ␣ w2

冉 冊 冉 冊
G gi ⫽total of gravity load located at storey i; h x ⫽height above l⫽0.3997⫺ ⫺ (15)
E E
the base of the structure to story x; h i ⫽height above the base of 480 5.695
the structure to story i; n⫽total number of stories in structure;
and V b ⫽total horizontal earthquake base force. Three different where
combinations of dead and imposed vertical load are defined, that
is, 1.0DL⫹0.4IL 共most common state兲, 1.0DL⫹1.0IL 共service- ␣f⫽
b
tf␨
, ␣ w⫽
h
t w␨
, and ␨⫽ 冑 300
␴y
ability state兲 and 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 共ultimate state兲.
b⫽half flange width; h⫽web depth; t f ⫽flange thickness; and
t w ⫽web thickness.
Failure Modes
Collapse Mechanism
The static push-over analysis is used in which the gravity loads When adequate number of plastic hinges form to cause a sway
are held constant while the magnitude of earthquake forces of mechanism.
assumed distribution pattern along the height of the building, are
gradually increased until the failure mode occurred. The failure Shear Capacity
mode is taken as the one of the following which ever occurs first When shear force in beam or column exceed the shear capacity
when P-⌬ effect is included. evaluated as

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 1025

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Base shear-top floor lateral displacement curve under various vertical load combinations for MRFs and CBFs.

␴y ity factors are summarized in Table 1 for different vertical load

V p ⫽t w d w ␶ y ⫽t w d w (16) combinations considered. It is seen that the overstrength increases
)
as the vertical load decreases, and the frames are stiffer under
where ␶ y ⫽shear yield stress; t w ⫽thickness of the beam and col-
most common vertical load combination (1.0DL⫹0.4IL) than
umn; and d w ⫽depth of the beam and column.
under ultimate load combination (1.2DL⫹1.2IL). For instance,
the overstrength of the three-story MRF under serviceability load
Overstrength and Ductility
is greater than that at ultimate state by 58%, and the overstrength
at the most common loading is 28% higher than that under ser-
Moment Resisting Frame viceability load. Also, it is seen from Table 1 that the overstrength
The base shear versus top displacement curves of three-, six- and of MRFs decreases as the height increases. For the three- and
ten-story MRFs are shown in Fig. 9. The overstrength and ductil- six-story frames, the base shear capacity under the common ver-

1026 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

 Table 1. Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification Factors of Moment Resisting Frames
Number of Vertical load Overstrength Ductility Response
stories combination ⍀ (V b /V d ) a V b /0.01W g b ␮ modification factor, R Failure mode

3 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 3.96 5.55 1.80 7.13 Excessive interstory drift

1.0DL⫹1.0IL 6.24 8.73 1.76 10.98 Excessive interstory drift
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 8.00 11.22 1.95 15.60 Excessive interstory drift

6 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 2.99 4.19 2.2 6.58 Excessive interstory drift

1.0DL⫹1.0IL 3.90 5.47 2.13 8.30 Excessive interstory drift
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 4.66 6.53 1.94 9.04 Excessive interstory drift

10 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 1.94 4.35 1.71 3.32 Excessive interstory drift

1.0DL⫹1.0IL 2.86 6.41 1.66 4.75 Excessive interstory drift
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.0DL⫹0.4IL 3.77 8.45 1.67 6.30 Excessive interstory drift

a
V b : Base shear capacity; V d : Design base shear, greater of 1.2W and 1.0NHL.
b
W g : 100% of dead load, DL.

Fig. 10. Sequence of developing hinge and local buckling location of ten-story frames: 共a兲 MRF and 共b兲 split-X-braced frame

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 1027

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

 Table 2. Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification Factors of Concentrically Braced Frames
Type of Number of Vertical load Overstrength Ductility Response modification
brace stories combination ⍀ (V b /V d ) V b /0.01W g ␮ factor, R Failure mode

V 3 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 4.94 6.93 1.50 7.41 Collapse mechanism

1.0DL⫹1.0IL 5.22 7.31 1.48 7.72 Collapse mechanism
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 5.57 7.81 1.53 8.52 Collapse mechanism
6 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 2.72 3.81 1.58 4.30 Collapse mechanism
1.0DL⫹1.0IL 3.00 4.21 1.56 4.68 Collapse mechanism
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 3.33 4.63 1.57 5.23 Collapse mechanism
10 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 2.09 4.69 1.44 3.01 Collapse mechanism
1.0DL⫹1.0IL 2.24 5.03 1.48 3.32 Collapse mechanism
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 2.48 5.55 1.51 3.74 Collapse mechanism
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

X 6 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 2.65 3.72 1.68 4.45 Collapse mechanism

1.0DL⫹1.0IL 3.00 4.21 1.71 5.13 Collapse mechanism
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 3.42 4.79 1.54 5.27 Collapse mechanism
10 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 2.00 4.50 1.38 2.76 Collapse mechanism
1.0DL⫹1.0IL 2.30 5.17 1.30 2.99 Collapse mechanism
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 2.60 5.83 1.40 3.64 Collapse mechanism

tical load condition, as a ratio of notional horizontal load is 8.00
and 4.66, respectively. For the ten-story frame, the base shear
capacity under common vertical load condition is about 3.8 times
the ultimate wind load 共1.2WL兲. This is equivalent to 8.5% of
seismic gravity load W g , taken to be 100% of dead load. The
corresponding values for three- and six-story frames are 11.2 and
6.5%, respectively. Since P-⌬ effects are greater for the service-
ability state and ultimate state, the ratio of base shear to seismic
gravity load declines to 5.5, 4.2, and 4.4% for three-, six- and
ten-story MRFs, respectively, under ultimate vertical load condi-
tion. One reason for a large overstrength factor is because the
choices of members were based on ultimate limit state design
philosophy with the partial safety factor for loads, and the re-
quirement of stability check for sway frames. Because the loading
combination governing the design of three- and six-story frames
共COMB 3兲 is different from that of ten-story frames 共COMB 2兲,
there is no monotonic trend in the base shear capacity.
The ductile performance of MRF depends on the rotation ca-
pacity of the plastic hinges at the beam and column ends. The
potential locations of the plastic hinges for ten-story have been
depicted in Fig. 10. For three- and six-story frames, the rotation
capacity exceeded in the end bay beams of the second floor; for
the ten-story frame, the rotation capacity exceeded at the seventh
story column. This is largely because the flange of the I section
member is slender to meet the rotation demand under large lateral
sway, which has exceeded the 2% drift limit. The local buckling
occurs before failures such as shear failure and collapse mecha-
nism. For ten-story MRF, under the ultimate vertical load combi-
nation, it is found that the local buckling occurs almost at the
same time as the excessive interstory drift.
As a consequence of the above observation, it can be con-
cluded that the rotation capacities of all the beam and column
members meet the demand of code allowable interstory drift of
2% story height. However, it should be highlighted that the local
buckling occurs close to the excessive drift point, and the lateral
resistances at the local buckling points are similar to those at the
excessive interstory drift points, especially for ten-story MRF. For
relatively tall MRFs, the columns located in higher-story levels
have slender flanges of width to thickness ratio b/t f of about nine,
and thus they have the tendency to buckle due to earthquake load.
It is seen that the ductility factor varies little with different
vertical load combinations. Under the most common vertical load
combination, the ductility factor for three-, six- and ten-story
MRFs are 1.95, 1.94, and 1.67, respectively.
Concentrically Braced Frame
The base shear versus top displacement curves of three-, six- and
ten-story CBFs are depicted in Fig. 9 including inverted-V-braced
frame and split-X-braced frame. It is observed that the failures of
all these CBFs are caused by the formation of a mechanism in the
first story of these CBFs. As for the inverted-V-braced frame, the
compression brace elastically buckles early because of initial
compression stress and large slenderness ratio which is around
160. Then, as soon as the tension brace yields, the collapse
mechanism forms in the first story of the frame. In contrast, for
the split-X-braced frame, the tension braces of a lower story such
as the second and the fourth story might yield earlier than the first
story because these braces are pulled initially by gravity load.
And since the braces in the second story carry a part of the gravity
load imposed on the first floor, the initial compression stress is
small for the first-story brace 共Fig. 10兲. Thus, the collapse mecha-
nism forms much later than the maximum lateral load resistance
point which is determined by the modified Riks method used in
ABAQUS 共Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, R.I.,
1996兲, as shown in the load versus deflection curves of split-X-
braced frames 共Fig. 9兲.
The overstrength and ductility factors are listed in Table 2 for
CBFs. Under the most common vertical load combination
(1.0DL⫹0.4IL), the overstrength factors are 5.57, 3.33, and 2.48
for three-, six- and ten-story inverted-V-braced frames, respec-
tively. It is found that the vertical load combination imposed on
the CBFs have relatively small influences on overstrength factors
of these CBFs. For instance, the overstrength factor of a ten-story
inverted-V-braced frame in ultimate loading decreases by 15.7%
from that of the most common state. The base shear capacities
under the most common vertical load combination, is equivalent
to 5.6% of seismic gravity load. The corresponding values for
three- and six-story frames are 7.8 and 4.6%, respectively. For
split-X-braced frames, the overstrength factors are similar to the
inverted-V-braced frames, which are 3.42 and 2.60 for six- and
ten-story frames, respectively, under the most common vertical
load combination. Like the MRFs, under the most common, ser-

1028 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Base shear-top floor lateral displacement curve under vari- Fig. 12. Comparison of load-displacement curves for between semi-
ous vertical load combinations for semirigid steel frames 共Type A兲 rigid frames 共Type B兲 and MRFs

Table 3. Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification Factors of Semirigid Frames 共Type A兲
Number of Vertical load Overstrength Ductility Response modification
stories combination ⍀ (V b /V d ) V b /0.01W g ␮ factor, R Failure mode

3 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 3.86 5.42 2.99 11.54 Excessive interstory drift

1.0DL⫹1.0IL 4.96 6.97 2.68 13.69 Excessive interstory drift
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 6.35 8.92 2.30 14.60 Excessive interstory drift

6 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 1.35 1.89 2.85 3.77 Excessive interstory drift

1.0DL⫹1.0IL 2.00 2.79 2.69 5.38 Excessive interstory drift
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 2.80 3.91 2.61 7.31 Excessive interstory drift

10 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 1.10 2.45 2.72 2.99 Excessive interstory drift

1.0DL⫹1.0IL 1.29 2.88 2.56 3.30 Excessive interstory drift
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 1.50 3.35 2.48 3.72 Excessive interstory drift

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 1029

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

 Table 4. Comparisons of Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification Factor Between Semirigid Frames 共Type B兲 and Moment Resisting
Frames
Number of Connection Vertical load Overstrength Ductility Response modification
stories type combination ⍀ (V b /V d ) V b /0.01W g ␮ factor, R Failure mode
3 Semirigid 1.0DL⫹0.4IL 4.37 6.14 2.50 10.93 Excessive interstory drift
Rigid 1.0DL⫹0.4IL 8.00 11.22 1.95 15.60 Excessive interstory drift
6 Semirigid 1.0DL⫹0.4IL 1.83 2.57 2.75 5.03 Excessive interstory drift
Rigid 1.0DL⫹0.4IL 4.66 6.51 1.94 9.04 Excessive interstory drift
10 Semirigid 1.0DL⫹0.4IL 1.27 2.85 2.90 3.68 Excessive interstory drift
Rigid 1.0DL⫹0.4IL 3.77 6.95 1.67 6.30 Excessive interstory drift
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

viceability, and ultimate load combination, the overstrength factor

of CBFs increases as the number of stories decrease. Also, as
shown in Table 2, the overstrength factor decreases as the mag-
nitude of the vertical load increases. However, the values are
smaller than those of the MRFs because of the poor compression
capacities of the brace members.
The ductility factors are 1.53, 1.57, and 1.51 for three-, six-,
and ten-story inverted-V-braced frames under the most common
vertical load combination. The corresponding values for six- and
ten-story split-X-braced frames are 1.54 and 1.40, respectively.

Semirigid Frame

Two different types of semirigid frames were considered:

Type A: Frames were designed as described in the section
‘‘Design of steel frames.’’
Type B: Frames were not designed and the rigid frame design
was retained, however, for push-over analysis, the rigid connec-
tion was replaced with a semirigid connection.

Semirigid Frame „Type A…

Fig. 11 illustrates the base shear versus top displacement curves
of three-, six-, and ten-story semirigid frames. The flexibility of
the semirigid connection accounted for the lower overstrength
factors of the semirigid frames. The ultimate nondimensional pa-
rameter M u /M p of different semirigid connections in the frames
varies from 0.26 to 0.32. Here, M u is the ultimate moment capac-
ity of a semirigid connection, and M p is the plastic moment of the
connecting beam. The corresponding ultimate rotation for these
connections is around 0.035 rad.
The base shear value at the point where any one of the inter-
story drifts exceeded 0.02 of the story height is taken as the ulti-
mate strength of these semirigid frames, because all the semirigid
frames failed in this failure mode under various loads combina-
tions. The rotation capacity in none of the semirigid connections
exceeded the ultimate rotation previously mentioned, before the
point of excess interstory drift. Even the shear deformation of the
panel zone did not exceed the yield point which is defined as ␥ y
in Eq. 共9兲. The overstrength factors for these semirigid frames are
listed in Table 3. In the most common loading state, the present
analysis yields a value of 6.35, 2.80, and 1.50 for three-, six-, and
ten-story semirigid frames, respectively.
Unlike MRFs and CBFs, the ductility factors of these three
semirigid frames increase as the vertical loads increase 共Table 3兲.
Under the most common vertical load combinations, the ductility
Fig. 13. Base shear-top lateral displacement under various vertical
factors are 2.30, 2.61, and 2.48 for three-, six-, and ten-story
load combinations for infilled steel frame
semirigid frames.

1030 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

 Table 5. Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification Factors of Infilled Frames
Number of Vertical load Overstrength
stories combination ⍀ (V b /V d ) V b /0.01W g
3 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 15.76
1.0DL⫹1.0IL 16.89
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 18.11
6 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 11.25
1.0DL⫹1.0IL 11.89
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 12.37
10 1.2DL⫹1.2IL 8.67
1.0DL⫹1.0IL 8.85
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1.0DL⫹0.4IL 9.16
Semirigid Frame „Type B…
In order to investigate the effects of semirigid connections on the
seismic behavior of the steel frame, the rigid connections of the
MRFs are replaced with a semirigid counterpart. Also, the non-
linear behavior of the panel zone is introduced in the push-over
analysis of the frames. The vertical loads are the same as what
were used for MRFs, and the most common vertical load combi-
nation (1.0DL⫹0.4IL) is considered for the three-, six-, and ten-
story frames to make comparison.
Fig. 12 illustrates the base shear versus top displacement
curves obtained for these two types of frames. Table 4 shows the
overstrength and ductility of the frames with a semirigid connec-
tion obtained using Eq. 共1兲, where design base shear V d is taken
to be same values as the corresponding MRF. The overstrength
factors are 4.37, 1.83, and 1.27 for three-, six-, and ten-story
frames, and the ductility factors are 2.50, 2.75, and 2.90, respec-
tively.
Although the overstrength factors of three-, six-, and ten-story
semirigid frames 共Type B兲 are less by 45.4, 60.7, and 66.3% from
the corresponding values of MRFs the ductility factors are higher
by 28.2, 41.8, and 73.7%, respectively.
Effect of Infill Walls
The MRFs were investigated with infill walls which were mod-
eled as previously described. The infill walls were added to each
story of the steel frame. The nondimensional curves shown in Fig.
13 depict the base shear versus top displacement of these three
infilled frames. All the infilled frames failed due to local shear
failure at the bottom of first-story leeward column. When the
failure occurred the maximum compression stress in the wall was
still within the permissible limits.
Table 5 lists the overstrength factors of three-, six-, and ten-
story infilled frames under different vertical load combinations.
The values decrease only slightly as the vertical load increases. In
the most common state, the corresponding values are 18.11,
12.37, and 9.16 for three-, six-, and ten-story infilled frames, re-
spectively, which are equivalent to 25.4, 17.3, and 20.5% of seis-
mic gravity load per frame.
Since the yielding occurs after the shear failure point under all
the vertical load combinations, the ductility factor of these three
infilled frames is 1 for various loading states.
Response Modification Factor
Fig. 14 and Table 6 depict the overstrength, ductility, and re-
sponse modification factors of MRFs, CBFs, semirigid frames,
J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.
Ductility Response modification
␮ factor, R Failure mode
22.13 1.00 15.76 Shear failure
23.71 1.00 16.89 Shear failure
25.44 1.00 18.11 Shear failure
15.77 1.00 11.25 Shear failure
16.66 1.00 11.89 Shear failure
17.34 1.00 12.37 Shear failure
19.43 1.00 8.67 Shear failure
19.83 1.00 8.85 Shear failure
20.52 1.00 9.16 Shear failure
and infilled frames under the most common vertical load combi-
nations. It is shown that the three- and six-story semirigid frames
共Type A兲 have greater response modification factors than the cor-
responding CBFs, and the values are about 94 and 80% of the
corresponding values of three- and six-story MRFs, respectively.
However, the response modification factor of the ten-story semi-
rigid frame 共Type A兲 is similar to that of CBF, and it is almost
60% of the corresponding MRF. Although the infilled frames have
the greatest overstrength among the different steel frames, which
is 2–3 times the values of MRFs, the response modification fac-
tors are only 1.16 –1.45 times the corresponding values of MRFs
due to the lack of ductility of infilled frames. It is interesting to
note that the response modification factors are almost the same
for both types of semirigid ten-story frames and ten-story CBF.
The semirigid frames possess the greatest ductility factors, while
the infilled frames have no apparent ductility.
Performance Evaluation
A nonlinear method, N2 method 共Fajfar 2000兲, is chosen herein to
evaluate the performance of MRFs, CBFs, semirigid frames, and
infilled frames when they are subjected to the ‘‘design earth-
quake’’ for Singapore proposed by Balendra et al. 共2002兲. The
base shear versus top displacement curves obtained in the push-
over analysis for the steel frames are transformed to the capacity
diagrams of a single-degree-of-freedom 共SDOF兲 system, and the
capacity diagrams are compared with the seismic response spectra
共demand兲. The steps of the simple version of the N2 method are
described below:
1. Seismic demand for SDOF system: The seismic demand is
traditionally defined in the form of an elastic 共pseudo兲 accel-
eration spectrum S ae 共‘‘pseudo’’ will be omitted henceforth兲,
in which spectral accelerations are given as a function of the
natural period of the structure T and specified damping coef-
ficient. To obtain the design response spectrum for Singapore,
Balendra et al. 共2002兲 used a hazard prediction model com-
ponent attenuation model to estimate the bedrock motion in
Singapore after the model has been validated by the historical
attenuation data. Since soft soil can significantly amplify the
bedrock motion, three sites in the Kallang formation on the
eastern part of Singapore are selected in the predominant pe-
riod range of the rock motion. The sites are located at Marine
Parade 共MP兲, Katong Park, and Katong area. An ensemble of
18 synthetic accelerograms which have been stochastically
simulated for the critical M-R 共where M stands for magnitude
of earthquake and R stands for source to site distance兲 com-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 1031
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Comparison of overstrength factors, ductility factors, and response odification factors of various frames under most common vertical
load combination

binations which are considered as ‘‘Design Earthquake’’ for T2

Singapore, have been used as input to the bedrock of the
selected soil sites to determine the surface motions. Conse-
quently, the ensemble average of the acceleration response
spectra of the surface response for 5% structural damping are
obtained.
The acceleration spectrum may be presented in
acceleration-displacement 共AD兲 format from Eq. 共17兲. For an
elastic SDOF system, the following relationship applies:
Sde⫽ 2 Sae (17)
4␲
where S ae and S de ⫽respectively, the elastic spectral accel-
eration and spectral displacement values, corresponding to
the period T, and for a fixed damping ratio; and
2. Capacity diagram for equivalent SDOF system: In the N2
method, the required capacity to meet the demand is deter-

1032 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

 Table 6. Overstrength, Ductility, Response Modification, R, for All frames. It is found that the intersection points of the capacity
Frames under Most Common Vertical Load Combinations diagrams with the demand spectra 共5% damping兲 for all the steel
Number of Type of frames are located in the elastic range of the capacity diagram.
stories steel frame Overstrength Ductility R Thus, the displacement demand of the SDOF system is equal to
the corresponding value of the intersection point. In the next step,
3 Moment 8.00 1.95 15.60
the displacement demand of the equivalent SDOF system is trans-
resisting
formed back to drift displacement demand of the MDOF system
frames
according to Eq. 共19兲, and the results are listed in Table 7. The
Concentrically 5.57 1.53 8.52
displacement ratio D t /H where H is the height of the structure is
braced
higher for the three-story frames as compared to six- and ten-
frames
story frames, and is around 0.3%. The corresponding value for
Semirigid 6.35 2.30 14.61
six-story MRF, CBF, and semirigid frames is 0.11%, while that
Infilled 18.11 1.00 18.11
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for ten-story frames whose values are around 0.07%. The demand
6 Moment 4.66 1.94 9.04 on strength V e /W g where V e is the base shear corresponding to
resisting displacement demand and W g is the seismic gravity load, are also
frames presented for various steel frames in Table 7. The highest demand
Concentrically 3.33 1.57 5.23 of 7.8% of seismic gravity load W g is obtained for a ten-story
braced infilled frame. As shown in Fig. 15, the intersection of the capac-
frames ity diagram with the seismic spectrum for a ten-story infilled
Semirigid 2.80 2.61 7.31 frame is very close to the peak of spectrum of the MP site, and as
Infilled 12.37 1.00 12.37 such the demand is large. Three-story frames are subjected to
10 Moment 3.77 1.67 6.30 relatively higher-strength demand than six- and ten-story MRF,
resisting CBF, and semirigid frames, which vary from 3.2 to 4.2% of W g .
frames The corresponding values for the six- and ten-story MRFs, CBFs,
Concentrically 2.48 1.51 3.74 and semirigid frames vary from 0.6 to 1.9% of the seismic gravity
braced load. The ultimate lateral resistance of these frames are obtained
frames according to Eq. 共1兲, and listed in Table 7 in terms of RV d /W g ,
Semirigid 1.50 2.48 3.72 where R is the response modification factor and V d is the design
Infilled 9.16 1.00 9.16 lateral loads. The corresponding values for these frames are much
greater than the demands, which are 17.3 to 25.4% for infilled
frames, and 7.3 to 21.8% for MRFs, CBFs, and semirigid frames.
mined for a SDOF system. Thus, the multiple-degrees-of-
freedom 共MDOF兲 system needs to be converted to an equiva-
lent SODF system. The required equations that make the Conclusion
transformation are
兺mi⌽i m* The push-over analysis of MRFs reveals that the frames possess
⌫⫽ ⫽ (18)
兺mi⌽i2 兺mi⌽i2 significant overstrength and considerable ductility. The over-
strength factors of MRFs decrease from 8 to 3.5 as the number of
Dt storys increase from 3 to 10. The ductility factors of correspond-
Sd⫽ (19)
⌫ ing MRFs are all around 2. When the rigid connections are re-
V placed with semirigid connections, the overstrength factors of
F*⫽ (20) these three frames decrease around 50%, while the ductility fac-
⌫
tors increase more than 25%. The low-rise semirigid frames are
F* found to have considerable overstrength and ductility because the
Sa⫽ (21) semirigid connections are able to resist some moment and show
m*
where m i ⫽mass assigned to story i; ⌽ i ⫽component of dis- ductile behavior. The overstrength factors for three-, six-, and
placement shape 兵⌽其 for story i; D t ⫽time-dependent top dis- ten-story frames are 6, 3, and 1.5, respectively, while the ductility
placement; V⫽base shear of the MDOF model; m * factor is about 2.5. The infill walls are found to increase the
⫽equivalent mass of the SDOF system, and F * ⫽force of the overstrength of MRFs significantly, at the expense of ductility.
equivalent SDOF system. The steel frames with rigid connections and infill wall show sig-
nificant stiffness, which give rise to the small lateral drift and
significant shear force for the first-story columns. The over-
Capacity Diagram and Demand Curves for Various strength factors for three-, six-, and ten-story infilled frames are
Steel Frames found to be 18, 12, and 9, respectively. The overstrength and
ductility factors are almost the same for two different configura-
The base shear versus top displacement curves of the steel frames, tions of CBFs considered, viz inverted-V-braced and split-X-
such as MRFs, CBFs, 共inverted-V-braced兲, semirigid 共Type A兲 braced frames. The overstrength factors are 5.5, 3, and 2.5 for
frames 共the terms ‘‘inverted-V-braced’’ and ‘‘Type A’’ will be three-, six- and ten-story frames, respectively, and the ductility
omitted hereafter兲 and infilled frames, are converted to AD format factors are about 1.5. For all the frames, the response modification
as described above, and they are bilinearlized as in Fig. 1. Then factor decreases when the number of storys increases from 3 to
these capacity diagrams are compared with the seismic demand 10. The response modification factor is found to vary from 16 to
curves, which are shown in Fig. 15 for corresponding steel 6 for MRF, from 8.5 to 3.5 for CBF, and from 15 to 3.5 for a

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 1033

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Seismic demand spectra versus capacity diagrams for 共a兲 MRFs, 共b兲 CBFs, 共c兲 semirigid frames, and 共d兲 infilled frames

Table 7. Seismic Demand for Various Steel Frames

Displacement demand of Displacement demand of Strength
Number of Type of single-degree-of-freedom multiple-degrees-of-freedom demand V e /W g Capacity
stories steel frame system D * 共cm兲 system D t 共m兲 D t /H 共%兲 RV d /W g 共%兲
3 Moment resisting frames 2.19 0.0285 0.0022 3.15 21.84
Concentrically braced frames 3.45 0.0380 0.0029 4.05 11.93
Semirigid 3.45 0.0459 0.0035 4.17 20.44
Infilled 0.07 0.0010 0.0001 1.31 25.44
6 Moment resisting frames 2.23 0.0283 0.0011 1.10 12.66
Concentrically braced frames 2.03 0.0266 0.0011 1.87 7.32
Semirigid 2.03 0.0274 0.0011 0.70 10.23
Infilled 0.22 0.0030 0.0001 2.23 17.34
10 Moment braced frames 2.05 0.0262 0.0007 0.58 13.86
Concentrically braced frames 2.02 0.0267 0.0007 1.94 8.23
Semirigid 2.08 0.0250 0.0006 0.77 8.18
Infilled 1.25 0.0174 0.0004 7.82 20.52

1034 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.

 semirigid frame. When the steel frames are subjected to the ‘‘de-
sign earthquake’’ proposed by Balendra et al. 共2002兲, the MRF,
CBF, and a semirigid steel frame would be subjected to a base
shear up to 4.2% of seismic gravity load, while the corresponding
value for infilled frames is 7.8%. These values are much less than
the strength capacity of the steel frames mentioned above. Con-
sequently, the steel frames currently being designed to BS 5950
code could resist the base shear caused by the ‘‘design earth-
quake’’ for Singapore.
References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northern Arizona University on 07/25/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Balendra, T., Lam, N. T. K., Wilson, J. L., and Kong, K. H. 共2002兲.
‘‘Analysis of long-distance earthquake tremors and base shear de-
mand for buildings in Singapore.’’ Eng. Struct., 24共1兲, 99–108.
Balendra, T., Tan, K., and Kong, S. K. 共1999兲. ‘‘Vulnerability of rein-
forced concrete frames in low seismic region, when designed accord-
ing to BS 8110.’’ Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 28, 1361–1381.
British Standards Institution 共BSI兲. 共1972兲. ‘‘CP3: Code of basic data for
the design of buildings Chapter V. Loading. Part 2. Wind loads.’’
British Standards Institution, London.
British Standards Institution 共BSI兲. 共1990兲. ‘‘BS 5950: Structural use of
steelwork in building. Part 1 1990.’’ British Standards Institution,
London.
Bruneau, M., Uang, C. M., and Whittaker, A. 共1998兲. Ductile design of
steel structures, McGraw-Hill, New York, 381– 409.
Canadian Standards Association 共CSA兲. 共1994兲. ‘‘Limit states design of
steel structures.’’ Standard CAN/CSA-S16.1-94 Canadian Standards
Association, Rexdale, Ont., Canada.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 1035
J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1019-1035.
Chen, W. F., Goto, Yoshiaki, and Liew, J. Y. R. 共1996兲. Stability design of
semi-rigid frames, Wiley, New York, 15–156.
Daali, M. L., and Korol, R. M. 共1995兲. ‘‘Prediction of local buckling and
rotation capacity at maximum moment.’’ J. Constr. Steel Res., 32,
1–13.
Fajfar, P. 共2000兲. ‘‘A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based
seismic design.’’ Earthquake Spectra, 16, 573–591.
Krawinkler, H. 共1978兲. ‘‘Shear in beam-column joints in seismic design
of steel frames.’’ Eng. J., 5共3兲, 82–91.
Mainstone, R. J. 共1974兲. ‘‘Supplementary note on the stiffness and
strengths of infilled frames.’’ Current Paper CP 13/74, Building Re-
search Station, Garston, Watford, U.K.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 共NEHRP兲. 共1991兲. Rec-
ommended provision for the development of seismic regulations for
new buildings, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
Osman, A., Ghobarah, A., and Korol, R. M. 共1995兲. ‘‘Implications of
design philosophies for seismic response of steel moment frames.’’
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 24, 127–143.
Osteraas, J. D., and Krawinkler, H. 共1990兲. ‘‘Strength and ductility con-
siderations in seismic design.’’ Rep. 90, John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif.
Priestley, M. J. N., and Elder, D. M. 共1983兲. ‘‘Stress-strain curves for
unconfined and confined concrete masonry.’’ ACI J., 192–201.
Rahgozar, M. A., and Humar, J. L. 共1998兲. ‘‘Accounting for overstrength
in seismic design of steel structures.’’ Can. J. Civ. Eng., 25, 1–5.
Standards Association of Australia 共SAA兲. 共1993兲. AS 1170.4: Minimum
design loads on structures. 4: Earthquake loads, SAA, North Sydney,
NSW 2059, Australia.
Uang, C. M. 共1991兲. ‘‘Establishing R 共or R w ) and C d factors for building
seismic provisions.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 117共1兲, 19–28.