Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Column-to-beam flexural strength ratio for performance-based

design of RC moment frames
Chang-Soo Kim a, Hong-Gun Park b, Gia Toai Truong a, *
a
School of Architecture at Seoul National University of Science and Technology, 232, Gongneung-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01811, South Korea
b
Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering at Seoul National University, 1, Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 08826, South Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The concept of strong column – weak beam is frequently used in seismic design to secure the
Column-to-beam flexural strength ratio safety of framed buildings, and for RC special moment frames, current design codes require the
Strong column minimum column-to-beam flexural strength ratio at joints to reduce the likelihood of yielding in
Weak beam columns. However, the requirement for the strength ratio may not be satisfactory to prevent
Reinforced concrete moment frame column hinging due to inelastic moment distributions and higher mode effects of dynamic
Seismic design
response. In the present study, to investigate the required strength ratio, a numerical study was
Nonlinear static and dynamic analyses
performed considering various parameters (plastic rotations of beams and columns, design
earthquake loads and vertical distributions, gravity loads, stiffness ratios, design methods for
beam strength, joint locations, and frame heights). The numerical study results showed that the
strength ratio varies with the parameters and its vertical distribution is generally in a wine-glass
shape along the frame height. On the basis of the numerical investigation, a design method for the
strength ratio was developed as a function of the height ratio for performance-based design. For
verification, nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were performed for regular and irregular
frames designed by the developed method, and the results showed that the use of the developed
method can improve seismic performance in a more economical way.

1. Introduction
Generally, reinforced concrete (RC) moment-resisting frames are designed for reduced earthquake loads, considering their ductile
behaviors during earthquakes. To achieve a ductile behavior, plastic hinges need to be distributed along the frame height based on a
sound collapse mechanism and need to have adequate rotation capacities. In the case of columns, large ductility and high energy
dissipation cannot be expected due to the existence of axial forces. Furthermore, the development of plastic hinges at both ends of
columns in a story results in a soft-story mechanism (or column-sway mechanism), which is susceptible to dynamic instability due to
excessive P – Delta effects [1–3,4]. Thus, to improve the ductility and energy dissipation of an overall structure, the strong column –
weak beam concept (or beam-sway mechanism) is frequently implemented in the seismic design of RC moment frames.
For RC special moment frames that form part of the seismic-force-resisting system, ACI 318–19 [5] and KDS 14 20 00 [6] require
that the sum ΣMnc of nominal flexural strengths of columns framing into a joint exceed the sum ΣMnb of nominal flexural strengths of
beams framing into the joint by at least 20% (Eq. (1) and Fig. 1), to reduce the likelihood of yielding in columns (the nominal strength
indicates the strength calculated in accordance with the code before application of any strength reduction factors).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: toaigia@gmail.com (G.T. Truong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103645
Received 26 August 2021; Received in revised form 9 November 2021; Accepted 10 November 2021
Available online 12 November 2021
2352-7102/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

6
ΣMnc ≥ ΣMnb (1)
5

where the flexural strengths are evaluated at the faces of the joint, and the contribution of slab reinforcement for negative moment
(slab in tension) within an effective slab width should be considered in the calculation of the beam strengths.
In a similar manner, Eurocode 8 [7] specifies the requirement of ΣMRc ≥ 1.3ΣMRb (ΣMRc and ΣMRb = sums of design moment
resistances of columns and beams, which are calculated at the center of each joint), and NZS 1170.5 [3] recommends that the story
shear strength corresponding to a column-sway mode be greater than the corresponding strength in a beam-sway mode to avoid the
column-sway mechanism. Although there are some differences in factors and calculations, the underlying philosophy of the current
design codes (even for steel structures such as ANSI/AISC 341–16 [8]) is the same: the column-to-beam flexural strength ratio
(hereafter, strength ratio, defined as α = ΣMnc /ΣMnb ) at each joint should exceed 1.0 by some margin. However, many researches have
shown that the current design code requirement for the strength ratio may not guarantee the strong column – weak beam behavior
[9–23,24,25] especially in tall buildings, and the strength ratios proposed in existing studies vary widely with parameters considered
in each study (Table 1). Thus, to prevent hinging in columns or to ensure the strong column – weak beam behavior, further studies are
required considering various parameters and their practical ranges.
In the present study, to investigate the strength ratio required to ensure the strong column – weak beam behavior of RC moment
frames, a numerical parametric study was performed considering various parameters (plastic rotations of beams and columns, design
earthquake loads and vertical distributions, gravity loads, stiffness ratios, design methods for beam strength, joint locations, and frame
heights). For performance-based design, based on the numerical investigation, a design method for the strength ratio was proposed as a
function of the height ratio (ratio of the height from the base to a story level to the total frame height) covering practical ranges of the
parameters. To verify the proposed method, nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were conducted for regular and irregular frames.

2. Literature review
Design code provisions for the strength ratio are based on the assumption of an elastic moment pattern, in which the point of contra-
flexure is located close to the mid-height of columns (Fig. 1). However, under strong earthquakes, the actual (inelastic) moment pattern
of columns could be remarkably different from the assumption due to moment redistributions and higher mode effects of dynamic
response [9,12,17,21]. Thus, the strength ratio specified in the design codes may not be adequate to prevent hinging in columns or to
ensure the strong column – weak beam behavior.
Park and Paulay [9] and Paulay and Priestley [10] performed nonlinear dynamic analysis for a 12-story RC frame, and pointed out
that the contra-flexure point can occur far away from the mid-height of columns or even out of the column height (i.e., single cur­
vature) under a strong earthquake. Thus, they reported that the flexural strength of each column at a joint should be at least equal to
the sum of beam strengths if the contra-flexural point is within the column height (i.e., double curvature) or an even greater column
strength would be required if the column is subjected to single curvature bending. Lee [11] performed nonlinear static analysis for a
2-bay and 6-story steel frame, and reported that the bending moment of the lower column at a joint is approximately 3 times that of the
upper column at the onset of collapse. Thus, he suggested a three-quarter rule for the strong column – weak beam design: the flexural
strength of the lower column at a joint should be greater than 75% of the sum of beam strengths. Nakashima and Sawaizumi [12]
performed simplified model analysis for 3- to 12-story steel frames, and reported that the column over-strength (or strength ratio)
required to ensure the elastic response of columns is gradually increased as the ground motion increases and it is in the range of
1.5–2.0. Dooley and Bracci [13] evaluated the probability of failure for various strength and stiffness ratios by performing nonlinear
time-history and pushover analyses for two RC frames (3 and 6 stories with 3 bays), and proposed a minimum strength ratio of 2.0.
Kuntz and Browning [14] performed simple limit analysis to determine the controlling mechanism of various RC frames (4–16 stories
with 4 bays) by increasing column strengths or decreasing beam strengths, and reported that the strength ratio increases with the
number of stories (α was 1.8 for the 4-story frame but reached to 4.0 for the 16-story frame) and no single value is applicable to all

Fig. 1. Moment equilibrium at joint.

2
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

Table 1
Existing studies on column-to-beam flexural strength ratio.

Authors Frame Type Approacha Comments on Strength Ratiob

Park and Paulay [9]; 12-story RC NDA Mc1 > ΣMb − Mc2
Paulay and Priestley [10]
Lee [11] 6-story Steel NSA Mc,l ≥ 0.75ΣMb
Nakashima and Sawaizumi [12] 3- to 12-story Steel Simplified Model 1.5–2.0 (the greater strength ratio for the higher ground motion)
Analysis
Dooley and Bracci [13] 3- and 6-story RC NSA, NDA, FP 2.0
Kuntz and Browning [14] 4- to 16-story RC Simple Limit No single strength ratio for all frames: 1.8 for 4-story or 4.0 for 16-story
Analysis (proposed to reduce the strength of upper-story beams)
Park et al. [15] 12-story RC Direct Inelastic The greater strength ratio for the larger plastic rotation at beams
Design
Haselton et al. [16] 1- to 12-story RC NSA, NDA, FP 1.2–2.0 for 4-story, but for 12-story, a complete sway mechanism did not
form even up to 3.0 (suggested height-dependent strength ratios)
Choi et al. [17] 3- and 9-story Steel NSA, NDA 1.20–1.86 for 3-story or 1.66–1.92 for 9-story considering two objective
functions of the strength ratio and structural weight (the greater strength
ratio for the lighter structural weight)
Sudarsana et al. [18] 5- and 10-story RC NSA 1.4 for 5-story or 1.6 for 10-story, and 1.2 with the probable strength of
beams
Sunitha et al. [19] 5- and 10-story RC NSA Greater than 2.5 for 5-story, but the use of the strength ratio (even up to
4.0) alone was not sufficient for 10-story (emphasized the stiffness and
deformability of beams and columns)
Zaghi et al. [21] 3-, 9-, and 20-story NSA, NDA, FP Column yielding was probable for the strength ratio of 2.0 or even greater
Steel than 6.0 (the greater strength ratio for the larger ductility demand of
beams)
Ning et al. [22] 2-story RC Experiment, FEM 1.5–3.0 depending on the axial compression ratio of columns
Wongpakdee and Leelataviwat [20] 9-story Steel NSA, NDA Newly introduced the work ratio of 0.20–0.25, because the use of the
strength ratio alone was not sufficient.
Mistri et al. [23] 8-story RC NDA, FP A single value of the strength ratio is not adequate for consistent
performance in different seismic zones as well as performance objectives
Ghorbanzadeh and Khoshnoudian [24] 4-, 8-, and 12-story NDA Height-wise distribution of the strength ratio (1.6–2.5) significantly varies
RC with the pulse period and building height
Zuo et al. [25] 3- and 9-story RC NDA 1.8–2.4 by an 80% guarantee rate for different seismic hazard levels and
ground motion characteristics
a
NSA = nonlinear static analysis, NDA = nonlinear dynamic analysis, FP = fragility analysis or probabilistic risk assessment, and FEM = finite element method.
b
ΣMc , ΣMb = sums of column strengths and beam strengths at a joint, Mc1 , Mc2 = strengths of one column and the other column at a joint, and Mc,u , Mc,l = strengths of
the upper and lower columns at a joint (some of original expressions were slightly modified for consistency with the other expressions).

frames. Instead, they suggested to reduce beam strengths at specific story levels (upper stories) if the reduced beam strengths satisfy
strength-demands for gravity loads. On the basis of inelastic earthquake design results for a 2-bay and 12-story RC frame, Park et al.
[15] demonstrated that the moment redistribution from inelastic beams to elastic columns becomes more pronounced (i.e., a greater
strength ratio is required) as the larger plastic rotations are allowed at the beams. Haselton et al. [16] performed nonlinear static and
dynamic analyses for various RC frames (1–12 stories) to assess the probability of collapse, and found that the strength ratio of 1.2 is
roughly appropriate for a 4-story frame (α = 2.0 is sufficient to form a complete sway mechanism). However, for a 12-story frame, a
complete sway mechanism did not form even up to the strength ratio of 3.0. Thus, they suggested a further study on the
height-dependent uniform strength ratio (i.e., strength ratio having a single value for whole stories but varying with the frame height).
Choi et al. [17] performed nonlinear static and dynamic analyses for two steel frames (4-bay and 3-story, and 5-bay and 9-story)
considering two objective functions (minimizations of the strength ratio and structural weight) and founded that the strength ratio
is greater in the 9-story frame (than in the 3-story frame) and exterior columns (than in interior columns) and it is decreased as the
structural weight increases due to the increase of story shear forces. The optimized strength ratio was in the range of 1.20–1.86 for the
3-story frame and 1.66–1.92 for the 9-story frame. Sudarsana et al. [18] performed nonlinear static analysis for two RC frames (5 and
10 stories with 3 bays), and reported that a beam-sway mechanism (including local failure in beams) can be achieved by using the
strength ratio of 1.4 for the 5-story frame or 1.6 for the 10-story frame, or by using the strength ratio of 1.2 with probable flexural
strengths of beams considering strain hardening (instead of using nominal flexural strengths of beams). Sunitha et al. [19] performed
nonlinear static analysis for three RC frames (3-bay and 5-story, 6-bay and 5-story, and 6-bay and 10-story), and reported that the
strength ratio required to achieve a ductile mechanism is greater than 2.5 for the 5-story frames. However, in the 10-story frame, a
complete sway mechanism was not achieved even using the strength ratio of 4.0, and they concluded that the use of a greater strength
ratio is insufficient and the stiffness and deformability of beams and columns have also significant effects. Zaghi et al. [21] investigated
the effects of the strength ratio and stiffness ratio on member ductility-demands, maximum story drifts, and floor acceleration am­
plifications by performing nonlinear response history and pushover analyses for 3-, 9-, and 20-story steel frames. They also investi­
gated the probability of exceeding certain performance limits by fragility analysis and confirmed that, under strong ground motions,
the strength ratio of 2.0 or even greater than 6.0 may not prevent yielding in columns. Another important finding is that the
ductility-demand for beams was increased as the strength ratio increased. Ning et al. [22] performed experimental and analytical
studies on the strength ratio considering slab effects, and proposed the strength ratio at 2% story drift (α was in the range of 1.5–3.0

3
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

with regard to axial compression ratios of 0.25–0.4 in columns) with simple equations for the effective slab width based on the
strut-and-tie model. Wongpakdee and Leelataviwat [20] performed nonlinear static and dynamic analyses for a 5-bay and 9-story steel
frame, and reported that the use of the strength ratio alone may not be sufficient to ensure the strong column – weak beam behavior.
Thus, they additionally introduced a work ratio (the ratio of 1st-story column strengths to overall beam strengths) to ensure the
desirable behavior, and concluded that a work ratio of 0.20–0.25 is suitable for a target roof drift of 2%. Research on the strength ratio
has continued in recent years. From the results of nonlinear dynamic analysis and probabilistic risk assessment for a 6-bay and 8-story
RC frame, Mistri et al. [23] concluded that a single value of the strength ratio is not adequate for consistent performance in different
seismic zones as well as performance objectives. Ghorbanzadeh and Khoshnoudian [24] performed nonlinear dynamic analysis for 4-,
8-, and 12-story RC frames and observed that a uniform increase of the strength ratio is inappropriate since the height-wise distribution
of the strength ratio (1.6–2.5) significantly varies with the pulse period and frame height. Based on the nonlinear dynamic analysis
results for 3- and 9-story RC frames, Zuo et al. [25] proposed the strength ratio of 1.8–2.4 to ensure an 80% guarantee rate for different
seismic hazard levels and ground motion characteristics. Nie et al. [26] provided an extensive review for existing exper­
imental/numerical/theoretical studies and design provisions, and emphasized that since the strength ratios of existing studies are
case-dependent, more systematic studies are needed (considering the effects of number and heights of stories, number and lengths of
spans, vertical loads, etc.) to determine more reasonable and widely acceptable value of the strength ratio.
As such, the current design provisions based on the local joint equilibrium of elastic moments may not guarantee the avoidance of
hinging in columns, and the strength ratios proposed by the existing studies vary widely. This is mainly because that the strength ratio
required to ensure the strong column – weak beam behavior is dependent to parameters such as plastic rotation of beams and columns,
joint locations, and frame heights. Particularly, the use of a uniform strength ratio (or single value) for whole stories is economically
questionable.

3. Inelastic behavior under strong earthquake

To investigate the collapse behavior and moment distribution under earthquake loading, inelastic seismic design and nonlinear
static analysis were performed. To clearly show the behavior and strength ratio, a simple RC moment frame having 1 bay and 6 stories
(1B6S) was used (Fig. 2). In the frame, the story height was 4 m, and the bay length (span) was 7 m. For all columns and beams, the
√̅̅̅̅
compressive strength and elastic modulus of concrete were fc = 40 MPa and Ec = 3320 f c + 6900 = 27.9 GPa [27], and the yield
′ ′

strength and elastic modulus of steel were fy = 400 MPa and Es = 200 GPa. Every three stories had the same member sizes considering
construction practice: column sections were 600 × 600 mm for 1st-3rd stories and 550 × 550 mm for 4th-6th stories, while beam
sections were 300 × 660 mm for 1st-3rd stories (or 2nd-4th floors) and 275 × 605 mm for 4th-6th stories (or 5th-top floors) so that the
column-to-beam flexural stiffness ratio (hereafter, stiffness ratio, defined as β = EIeff,c /EIeff ,b : the subscripts c and b indicate columns
and beams) is 1.5 where the width of beams is assumed to be half the width of columns and the effective flexural stiffnesses EIeff of
columns and beams (considering the slab effect) are assumed to be 0.7(Ec Ig )column and 2 × 0.35(Ec Ig )beam [6], in which Ig = gross
moment of inertia.
Dead load of D = 45 kN/m and live load of L = 20 kN/m were applied to each floor. The earthquake load E was calculated in
accordance with the equivalent lateral force procedure specified in KDS 41 17 00 [28]. The design earthquake spectral response

Fig. 2. 1B6S frame.

4
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

acceleration parameters at short periods and a period of 1 s were assumed to be SDS = 1.67g and SD1 = 0.67g. Using the approximate
period Ta = 0.0466H0.9 = 0.81 s (H= 24 m = total frame height), response modification factor R = 8, and importance factor IE = 1.0,
the seismic response coefficient was calculated as Cs = VE /W = 0.102 (W = 2100 kN = effective seismic weight of the frame by the
gravity load effect of 1.0D + 0.25L, and VE = 215 kN = design base shear). Story shear forces (seismic forces at stories) were vertically
distributed according to the design code.
To ensure a sound collapse mechanism satisfying code requirements, the direct inelastic earthquake design method (DIED,
developed by Ref. [29]) was used. In the method, the inelastic strength- and deformation-demands of potential plastic hinges in each
member can be directly determined by linear analysis for secant stiffness, and seismic design strategies intended by engineers (such as
the strong column – weak beam concept and limited ductility of members) can be directly addressed by controlling the inelastic
performance point of each potential plastic hinge to be in an admissible zone, which is defined by allowable minimum strength and
allowable maximum deformation. This is possible because there exists only one strength for one displacement (even though the
loading paths are different), the same performance point as obtained from nonlinear analysis can be obtained by carrying out linear
analysis for the secant stiffness corresponding to the performance point. The detailed modeling techniques and design procedure are
available in the literature [29]. In the present study, assuming a RC special moment frame, the following design strategies were
implemented.
1) Plastic hinges were allowed to develop at both ends of all beams and bottom end (base) of 1st-story columns.
2) The allowable minimum strength Mmin of plastic hinges was determined by the strength-demands for load combinations of 1.2D+
1.6L and 1.2D + 1.0L ± 1.0E and by the minimum requirements of KDS 14 20 00 [6]: minimum reinforcement requirement for
beams and columns and minimum strength requirement for beams (the positive moment strength of each beam at a joint face
should be greater than 1/2 of the negative moment strength provided at the joint face).
3) The allowable maximum plastic rotation θpm of plastic hinges was assumed to be 0.02 radians for beams or 0.012 radians for
columns, based on the recommendations of FEMA 356 [2].
Fig. 3 shows the design results. As intended (i.e., strong column – weak beam design), plastic hinges were developed in all beams
along the frame height, while columns remained elastic except the bottom end of 1st-story columns (Fig. 3(a)). As shown in Fig. 3(b),
the performance points of plastic hinges are well located around M/Mmin = 1.0 (horizontal dashed line) or θp /θpm = 1.0 (vertical
dashed line), indicating the optimum design is achieved (in the figure, points on the vertical axis of θp /θpm = 0 indicate elastic col­
umns). Fig. 3(c) compares the inelastic (solid line obtained from DIED) and elastic (dashed line obtained from elastic analysis) moment
distributions, and as expected, the inelastic moment distribution was significantly different from the elastic moment distribution. It is
because that columns transferred additional moments after hinging in beams. Consequently, as shown in Fig. 3(d), the strength ratio
resulting from DIED (or for the strong column – weak beam design) was greater than the strength ratio resulting from elastic analysis:
in the figure, the strength ratios of the upper and lower columns at a joint are separately presented (the reason is described below), and
the strength ratios were extracted at the right joints because the design of columns is controlled by the larger of the two moments under
seismic forces in the positive and negative directions.
To investigate the change in moment distribution with sequential development of plastic hinges, nonlinear static analysis was
performed for the designed frame. For the analysis, PERFORM-3D [30] was used. Each plastic hinge was idealized with a lumped

Fig. 3. Direct inelastic earthquake design results.

5
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

Fig. 4. Inelastic behavior of frame.

plasticity element model (Moment Hinge Type for beams and P-M2-M3 Hinge Type for columns). The moment-rotation relationship of
each plastic hinge was modeled using the flexural strength resulting from DIED and the modeling parameters of FEMA 356 [2]: in Fig. 4
(a), the post-yield stiffness was ignored, a and b = parameters for plastic rotation capacities (0.02 and 0.04 radians for beams and 0.012
and 0.02 radians for columns, as assumed in the design step), and c = residual strength ratio (0.2 for beams and columns). The gradual
strength-loss of (a +b)/2 was assumed to avoid convergence problems [30], and the P-M interaction diagram of columns was calcu­
lated by KDS 14 20 00 [6] assuming the depth from the center of a longitudinal bar to the closest concrete surface is 60 mm. In the
analysis, premature shear failures were assumed to be prevented, rigid end zones were assumed for joints (i.e., plastic hinges were
developed at the faces of joints), and P – Delta effects were included. Fig. 4(b) shows the base shear coefficient – roof drift ratio
relationship. In the figure, hollow and solid triangles indicate the first hinging in beams and columns, and points A, B, and C indicate
considerable changes in the moment distribution (or global stiffness). Based on the considerable changes, the overall behavior can be
divided into three steps (Fig. 4(c)): 1) in the step OA, plastic hinges developed at the right end of all beams; 2) in the step AB, additional
plastic hinges developed at the left end of 1st- to 3rd-story beams; and then 3) at the point C, a complete sway mechanism was formed
by the development of plastic hinges at the left end of 4th- to 6th-story beams and at the bottom end of 1st-story columns. In the step
OA, the moment distribution of the frame was dominated by the portal frame action (all columns were subjected to double curvature
bending). However, in the steps AB and BC, the moment distributions of the frame were dominated by the cantilever action due to
hinging in lower- and mid-story beams, and some of columns were subjected to single curvature bending. Therefore, due to the
combination of the portal frame action and cantilever action, the lower-, mid-, and upper-story columns were subjected to single
curvature bending with a higher value at the bottom end, double curvature bending, and single curvature bending with a higher value
at the top end, respectively. This result indicates that, to ensure a sound collapse mechanism during strong earthquakes, the strength
ratios αu and αl of the upper and lower columns at a joint need to be defined separately (Fig. 3(d) and Eq. (2)), which vary with the

6
 C.-S. Kim et al.
7

Fig. 5. Strength ratio for the case of controlling both of beam strength and rotation.

Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

 C.-S. Kim et al.
8

Fig. 6. Strength ratio for the case of controlling beam strength only.

Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

Fig. 7. Strength ratio for other parameters.

height ratio (or story level).

/
αu = Mc,u ΣMb for the upper column at each joint (2a)
/
αl = Mc,l ΣMb for the lower column at each joint (2b)

where Mc,u and Mc,l = bending moments of the upper column (measured at its bottom end) and lower column (measured at its top end)
at a joint, and ΣMb = sum of bending moments of beams at the joint.

4. Parametric study
To investigate the effect of design parameters on the strength ratio, a parametric study was performed. In order to additionally
investigate the effects of joint locations (by comparing the strength ratios at interior and exterior joints) and frame heights (by

Table 2
Member sizes for parametric study (units: mm).

Stories 1-bay and 6-story 2-bay and 9-story 3-bay and 12-story 4-bay and 18-story 5-bay and 24-story

1–3 C600 × 600 C700 × 700 C800 × 800 C900 × 900 C1000 × 1000
B300 × 660 B350 × 770 B400 × 881 B450 × 991 B500 × 1101
4–6 C550 × 550 C650 × 650 C750 × 750 C850 × 850 C950 × 950
B275 × 605 B325 × 715 B375 × 825 B425 × 936 B475 × 1046
7–9 – C600 × 600 C700 × 700 C800 × 800 C900 × 900
B300 × 660 B350 × 770 B400 × 881 B450 × 991
10–12 – – C650 × 650 C750 × 750 C850 × 850
B325 × 715 B375 × 825 B425 × 936
13–15 – – – C700 × 700 C800 × 800
B350 × 770 B400 × 881
16–18 – – – C650 × 650 C750 × 750
B325 × 715 B375 × 825
19–21 – – – – C700 × 700
B350 × 770
22–24 – – – – C650 × 650
B325 × 715

*C = columns and B = beams.

9
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

Fig. 8. Maximum and minimum possible strength ratios and proposed curves.

comparing with the strength ratio of the 1B6S frame), another 2-bay and 9-story (2B9S) RC special moment frame was used in the
parametric study. The parameters included allowable maximum plastic rotations of beams (θpm,b = 0.015, 0.02, or 0.025 radians) and
columns (θpm,c = 0.010, 0.012, or 0.015 radians) (FEMA 356 [2]), design earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS
and SD1 = 0.33 and 0.13, 0.83 and 0.33, or 1.67 and 0.67g), vertical distributions of story shear forces (or EQ lateral profile:
code-compliant, inverted triangular, or uniform distribution), gravity load effects (D and L = 30 and 10, 45 and 20, or 60 and 30
kN/m), and stiffness ratios (β = 0.75, 1.5, or 2.5 by changing the flexural stiffness factor of beams to be EIeff /Ec Ig = 2.0, 1.0, or 0.6: β
was used as a parameter instead of Ec , because the design equation of Ec varies with design codes). Considering the fact that the
equivalent static method [28,31] is most widely used in practical seismic design, in which member deformations are not directly
controlled, the effect of design methods for beam strength was also investigated (controlling both of the allowable minimum strength
and allowable maximum plastic rotation, or controlling the allowable minimum strength only). In the case of controlling the beam
strength only, local failure (if θp ≥ θpm in any plastic hinge) is possible to occur before the formation of a complete sway mechanism. On
the other hand, in the case of controlling both of the beam strength and beam rotation, the premature local failure is prevented.
Column and beam sections were 700 × 700 mm and 350 × 770 mm for 1st-3rd stories, 650 × 650 mm and 325 × 715 mm for 4th-6th

Fig. 9. Target plastic mechanism: Complete sway mechanism.

10
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

stories, and 600 × 600 mm and 300 × 660 mm for 7th-9th stories, and the other design conditions were the same with those of the
1B6S frame shown in Fig. 2. The strength ratio was evaluated at the onset of a complete sway mechanism (when controlling both of the
beam strength and rotation) or local failure mechanism (when controlling the beam strength only).
Figs. 5, 6 and 7 show the parametric study results: the strength ratio varied with the parameters, and its vertical distribution was
generally in a wine-glass shape along the frame height. By the local joint equilibrium, the sum of the strength ratios of the upper and
lower columns is always 1.0 at every joints (αu + αl = 1.0). In the figures, the negative strength ratio indicates single curvature
bending, and the strength ratio of 0.5 indicates double curvature bending with the same moment at the upper and lower columns.
Judging from the distribution shapes of αu and αl shown in the figures, a frame designed with Eq. (1) (α = 1.2, or αu and αl =
approximately half of 1.2 = 0.6) has a high probability of a soft-story mechanism at the 1st story or an intermediate mechanism (mixed
mechanism of beam sway and column sway) over the 1st story to an upper story (approximately two-thirds of the frame height).
Fig. 5 shows the strength ratio distribution for the case of controlling both of the beam strength and rotation. As shown in Fig. 5(a),
the allowable maximum plastic rotation θpm,b of beams had a strong effect on the strength ratio: α was significantly increased as θpm,b
increased, because columns should resist large additional bending moments after hinging in beams. The allowable maximum plastic
rotation θpm,c of columns also had an effect (Fig. 5(b)), but its effect was limited to lower stories because hinging in columns was
allowed only at the bottom end of 1st-story columns. As the design earthquake load (SDS and SD1 ) increased under the same gravity load
(D and L = remained constant), α was decreased (Fig. 5(c)), because the complete sway mechanism could be formed by a small
increment of earthquake load (i.e., small plastic rotation of beams). Because the moment distribution among structural members and
the overturning moment of the whole frame are affected by the vertical distribution of story shear forces, α varied with the story shear
force distribution (Fig. 5(d)): when compared to the code-compliant and inverted triangular distributions (insignificant difference
between two), the uniform distribution resulted in the higher α in upper- and mid-stories but the lower α in lower-stories. As the gravity
load decreased under the same design earthquake load, α was increased (Fig. 5(e)), because the allowable minimum strength of beams

Fig. 10. Design examples.

11
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

is affected by the gravity load and the beams with the lower allowable minimum strength are yielded earlier and undergo the greater
plastic rotation until the formation of the complete sway mechanism. It is noted that the combined effect of the design earthquake load
and gravity load is related to the seismic response coefficient Cs = VE /W. As the stiffness ratio β increased (i.e., as the effective stiffness
of beams decreased under the same effective stiffness of columns), α was decreased (Fig. 5(f)), because the frame became more flexible
and easier to achieve the complete sway mechanism.
For the case of controlling the beam strength only, a similar tendency can be observed. However, the effects of the parameters were
more pronounced: the strength ratio distribution along the frame height was more bulged toward mid-stories (Fig. 6) due to the greater
plastic rotation of mid-story beams (since the plastic rotation of beams was not controlled in this case, the beams yielded earlier and
deformed more, compared to the case of controlling both of the beam strength and rotation). In some cases, part of upper-story beams
(above the recesses in the strength ratio distribution in Fig. 6) remained elastic at the onset of local failure (in lower- or mid-story
beams).
The intermediate mechanism (where upper-story beams remain elastic at the onset of local failure) could be more pronounced in
tall buildings, and this result indicates that, to achieve a complete sway mechanism, the deformability of members also needs to be
considered when determining the strength of the members. The suggestions of Kuntz and Browning [14] can be understood in the same
context: decreasing the strength of upper-story beams from elastic strength (if possible) or increasing the strength of lower-story beams
from elastic strength.
Meanwhile, exterior joints had the higher strength ratio than interior joints (Fig. 7(a)), and as the frame height increased, the
strength ratio was increased at the 1st story but decreased at the middle stories (Fig. 7(b)).
The major findings from the parametric study can be summarized as follows.

1) The strength ratio is affected by many parameters (plastic rotations of beams and columns, design earthquake loads and its vertical
distributions, gravity loads, stiffness ratios, joint locations, and frame heights), and it varies with the height ratio (or story level).
The parametric study results confirm that the current code requirement for the strength ratio needs a revision to ensure a sound
plastic mechanism.
2) For performance-based design and economical design, the strength ratio needs to be defined as a function of the height ratio,
covering practical ranges of the parameters.
3) Depending on the design methods of members, local failure is possible to occur before the formation of a complete sway mechanism
(showing limited ductility). In some cases, the premature local failure is practically inevitable (especially in tall buildings), and to
restrain the premature local failure, the deformability of members also needs to be considered when determining the strength of the
members.

5. Proposal of design method

On the basis of the parametric study results (inelastic moment distribution or strength-demand), a design method for the strength
ratio is proposed. In the development of the design method, it was considered that the equivalent static method is most widely used in
practice (i.e., member deformability cannot be directly addressed in design) and the requirement for the strength ratio is applied only
to special moment frames [5,6]. Thus, in the present study, the strength ratio was simply defined as a function of the height ratio only,
covering practical ranges of the other parameters (plastic rotations of beams and columns, design earthquake loads and vertical
distributions, gravity loads, and stiffness ratios). As Kuntz and Browning [14] suggested, the deformability of members might be
indirectly addressed in design by decreasing the strength of upper-story beams from elastic strength (if possible) and/or by increasing
the strength of lower-story beams from elastic strength.
Within the ranges of the parameters used in the parametric study, the combined case of θpm,b = 0.025 radians, θpm,c = 0.010 radians,
SDS and SD1 = 0.33 and 0.13g, uniform distribution, D and L = 30 and 10 kN/m, and β = 0.75 is most unfavorable for the strength ratio
(maximum possible), while the combined case of θpm,b = 0.015 radians, θpm,c = 0.015 radians, SDS and SD1 = 1.67 and 0.67g, code-
compliant distribution, D and L = 60 and 30 kN/m, and β = 2.5 is most favorable (minimum possible). For those two cases, the

Table 3
Column design results for 3B10S with minor irregularities.

Story Column Bar Ratios (ACI/D&B/P) Column-to-Beam Strength Ratio, α (ACI/D&B/P)

CL1&4 CL2&3 CL1 CL2 CL3 CL4

10 1.69 /3.20 /1.69 1.26 /2.42 /1.26 2.4 /4.0 /2.4 1.2 /2.0 /1.2 1.5 /2.6 /1.5 1.2 /2.0 /1.2
9 1.75 /3.52 /2.52 1.10 /2.43 /1.54 3.3 /5.5 /3.8 1.8 /3.0 /2.0 2.1 /3.5 /2.4 1.7 /2.8 /1.9
8 1.28 /2.85 /2.45 1.00 /2.36 /1.72 2.5 /4.3 /3.6 1.4 /2.3 /1.8 1.7 /2.8 /2.2 1.3 /2.2 /1.9
7 1.62 /3.72 /2.57 1.58 /3.70 /2.09 2.5 /4.3 /3.6 1.4 /2.4 /1.8 1.8 /2.9 /2.2 1.3 /2.3 /1.9
6 1.02 /2.67 /1.90 1.16 /2.99 /2.02 1.8 /3.1 /2.4 1.3 /2.1 /1.6 1.5 /2.4 /1.8 1.2 /2.1 /1.7
5 1.00 /2.74 /1.37 1.18 /3.23 /1.61 1.6 /2.9 /2.1 1.2 /2.1 /1.5 1.4 /2.4 /1.8 1.2 /2.0 /1.5
4 1.00 /2.94 /1.00 1.30 /3.60 /1.24 1.6 /2.8 /1.7 1.2 /2.1 /1.3 1.5 /2.4 /1.5 1.3 /2.1 /1.4
3 1.00 /2.72 /1.69 1.10 /3.24 /2.10 1.5 /2.7 /1.8 1.3 /2.2 /1.5 1.5 /2.4 /1.7 1.4 /2.2 /1.6
2 1.00 /2.56 /2.87 1.00 /3.11 /3.29 1.6 /2.7 /2.5 1.2 /2.0 /1.8 1.5 /2.3 /2.1 1.3 /2.0 /1.8
1 1.00 /2.36 /2.56 1.00 /2.76 /3.26 1.7 /2.7 /2.9 1.3 /2.0 /2.2 1.6 /2.4 /2.5 1.4 /2.0 /2.1

*ACI: ACI 318–19 (α = 1.2) /D&B: Dooley and Bracci (α = 2.0) /P: Proposed (α calculated by Eqs. (3) and (4)) /CL: column line.
**Total amount of column bars = 5.6 tons for ACI /14.1 tons for D&B /10.3 tons for P.

12
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

Table 4
Column design results for 4B8S with setback.

Sto -ry Column Bar Ratios (ACI/D&B/P) Column-to-Beam Strength Ratio, α (ACI/D&B/P)

CL1&5 CL2&4 CL3 CL1 CL2 CL3 CL4 CL5

8 – 1.05/1.98/1.05 1.15/2.25/1.15 – 2.3/3.8/2.2 1.2/2.0/1.1 1.2/2.0/1.2 –

7 – 1.46/2.97/1.75 1.56/3.31/1.91 – 3.0/5.1/3.2 1.6/2.6/1.6 1.6/2.6/1.7 –
6 – 1.27/2.76/1.47 1.45/3.31/1.62 – 2.5/4.4/3.0 1.4/2.3/1.6 1.4/2.3/1.6 –
5 – 1.21/2.86/2.40 1.48/3.70/3.07 – 2.0/3.6/2.9 1.3/2.1/1.7 1.2/2.1/1.7 –
4 – 1.25/2.97/3.18 1.24/3.53/3.41 – 1.8/3.2/3.1 1.2/2.0/1.9 1.3/2.1/2.0 –
3 2.06/3.79/2.06 1.14/2.68/1.45 1.00/2.01/1.04 2.0/3.4/1.9 1.4/2.4/2.1 1.6/2.4/2.2 1.4/2.2/2.0 1.2/2.0/1.1
2 1.13/2.43/2.49 1.00/2.36/2.19 1.00/1.82/1.92 2.6/4.5/3.5 1.3/2.0/1.8 1.6/2.0/1.9 1.4/2.1/2.0 1.4/2.3/1.8
1 1.00/1.99/2.08 1.00/1.87/1.45 1.00/1.48/1.24 2.2/3.7/4.1 1.5/2.0/2.1 1.8/2.0/2.2 1.6/2.1/2.2 1.3/2.0/2.2

*ACI: ACI 318–19 (α = 1.2) /D&B: Dooley and Bracci (α = 2.0) /P: Proposed (α calculated by Eqs. (3) and (4)) /CL: column line.
**Total amount of column bars = 4.4 tons for ACI /9.4 tons for D&B /7.2 tons for P.

Fig. 11. Nonlinear static analysis results.

maximum and minimum possible strength ratios were evaluated. To cover various joint locations and frame heights, 1-bay and 6-story,
2-bay and 9-story, 3-bay and 12-story, 4-bay and 18-story, 5-bay and 24-story frames were considered. Member sizes are presented in
Table 2, and the other design conditions remained unchanged from the parametric study.
Fig. 8 shows the maximum and minimum possible strength ratios for the frames: only the upper column strength ratio αl is pre­
sented, because the lower column strength ratio αu can be calculated from the local joint equilibrium (αu + αl = 1.0). Compared to the
minimum possible strength ratio (marked with triangles), the maximum possible strength ratio (marked with circles) were generally
scattered widely due to the combined effect of the parameters. A regression curve can be obtained by fitting to data points. In the
present study, for design purpose, the curve was fitted to the mean values of the maximum and minimum possible strength ratios, and a
simple quadratic function of the height ratio h i /H was used for the curve (Eq. (3)), adjusting the curve to pass through 1.2 at top-story
joints to be consistent with the current design codes [5,6].

αiu = 1.2(h i /H)2 − 2.8(h i /H) + 1.4 (Solid line in Fig.8) (3a)

13
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

αiℓ = 1 − αiu (Dashed line in Fig.8) (3b)

where hi = height from the base to a story level i, and H = total frame height. It is noted that since a sort of conservativeness was
already considered in the selection of the combined cases (maximum and minimum possible strength ratios within the practical ranges
of parameters) based on the parametric study results, the curve-fitting to the mean values of data points is also conservative. The R-
squared value of Eq. (3) was 0.72 to the data points.
The proposed equation of Eq. (3) cannot be applied to the bottom end of 1st-story columns, because no beams are framing into the
end. Therefore, the flexural strength M1nc,B of the bottom end of a 1st-story column was determined using the flexural strength M1nc,T of
the top end of the column (M1nc,T ≃ M1nc,ℓ = α1ℓ ΣM1nb from Eq. (2b), in which ΣM1nb = sum of beam flexural strengths at the top of the
column) and the design base shear VE . If all 1st-story columns have the same size, M1nc,T can be approximated as follows.
( )
ΩVE ΩVE h1
1
Mnc,B 1
= Mnc,T + h1 = α1ℓ + 1
ΣMnb1
(4)
n1 n1 ΣMnb

where n1 = number of 1st-story columns, h1 = 1st-story height, and Ω = system overstrength factor required for the development of
an intended collapse mechanism. If 1st-story columns are different in size, n1 = ΣEIc1 /EIc can be used (ΣEIc1 = sum of flexural stiff­
nesses of all 1st-story columns and EIc = flexural stiffness of a 1st-story column).
For the complete sway mechanism shown in Fig. 9, the system overstrength factor Ω can be computed as Eq. (6) by using Eq. (4) and
the work equation of Eq. (5) [9].
( ) ( )
1
Σ(Fi Δi ) = Σ Mnc,B θp,c + Σ Mnb θp,b (5)

( ) ′ /
Σ α1ℓ ΣMnb
1
+ ℓb ℓb × ΣMnb
Ω= [ ( ) ] (6)
VE Σ Cvx,i h i − h1

where Fi and Δi = seismic story force and lateral displacement at a story level i (Fi = ΩVE Cvx,i , Δi = θp,c h i , and Cvx,i = vertical
distribution factor of the i-th story force [28]; and θp,c and θp,b = plastic rotations of 1st-story columns and beams (θp,b = θp,c × ℓb / ℓb ,
′

ℓb = total beam length, ℓb = net beam length between plastic hinges, and ℓb = ℓb can be assumed for simplicity). For one’s infor­
′ ′

mation, the system overstrength factor Ω is recommended to be taken as 3.0 for RC moment frames in Korea [28], which can be used as
a minimum requirement in design.
The strength ratio derived from the strength-demand (or inelastic moment distribution) is applied when determining the strength-
capacity of columns. To apply the proposed method in design, first, the flexural strengths of beams and columns are determined by
elastic analysis and code requirements. Then, if the strength ratio at any joint does not satisfy Eq. (3), the flexural strengths of the upper
and lower columns at the joint are magnified by multiplying the strength ratio of Eq. (3) and the sum of beam flexural strengths at the
joint. Finally, the flexural strength of the bottom end of 1st-story columns is determined by Eq. (4).

6. Design examples and verification

For verification, the proposed method was applied to the design of a 3-bay and 10-story (3B10S) frame with minor irregularities
and a 4-bay and 8-story (4B8S) frame with a setback, and then nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were performed for the designed

Fig. 12. Spectral response acceleration of ground motions for 3B10S.

14
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

Table 5
Ground motion records.

No. Event Scaling Factor

3B10S 4B8S

1 1940, El Centro Site, 270 Deg. 1.989 2.020

2 1966, Parkfield Cholame, Shandon, 130 Deg. 5.483 5.565
3 1971, San Fernando, Pocoima Dam, 196 Deg. 0.985 0.996
4 1979, James RD., El Centro, 220 Deg. 1.104 1.099
5 1989, Loma Prieta, Oakland Outer Wharf, 270 Deg. 1.992 2.060
6 1994, Northridge, Sylmar County Hospital, 90 Deg. 1.246 1.284
7 1995, Hyougoken_South, NS 0.519 0.560

Fig. 13. Nonlinear dynamic analysis results.

frames. Fig. 10 shows the configuration, dimensions, and loading conditions: SDS = 1.67g and SD1 = 0.67g were used for design
earthquake load (Cs = 0.069 for 3B10S or 0.079 for 4B8S), member sizes were determined so that the effect of the strength ratio can be
clarified within the reinforcement limits (maximum and minimum reinforcement ratios for columns and beams) of KDS 14 20 00 [6].
The other design conditions not specified in the figure were the same with those of the 1B6S frame.
The flexural strength of beams was determined based on elastic analysis results and code requirements (minimum reinforcement
and minimum positive flexural strength). For comparison, the flexural strength of columns was determined in three different ways: by
the proposed method (Eqs. (3) and (4)), by ACI 318–19 (α = 1.2), and by Dooley and Bracci (α = 2.0). For consistent design, the
minimum system overstrength factor for design (Ω = 3.0 in Korea) was not used in the proposed method (i.e., Ω was calculated by Eq.
(6)), and the minimum strength ratios αu and αl of the upper and lower columns at a joint were set to be 0.6 (half of α = 1.2) for ACI
318–19 or 1.0 (half of α = 2.0) for Dooley and Bracci except top-story joints. It is noted that, in actual design, the strength of columns
could also be determined in consideration of continuity (or splicing), constructability, availability of bar sizes, or other practical issues.
However, in the present study, those practical issues were not considered for direct comparison.
The story height ratio hi /H for the proposed method is given in Fig. 10. It is noted that the 4B8S frame with a setback has major

15
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

vertical irregularities in strength and stiffness (between the upper and lower portions, above and below the level of the setback) and the
lower portion of the frame is subjected to the larger gravity loads. In this case, the upper portion could experience the greater plastic
deformations. Therefore, for the case, it is recommended to apply the proposed method separately to the upper portion (see hi / H
shown in Fig. 10(b)).
The flexural strength of columns was determined based on the axial force resulting from the load combinations including the design
earthquake load, and the columns were reinforced symmetrically. Table 3 and Table 4 compare the column design results for the 3B10S
and 4B8S frames, respectively. Overall, the proposed method (10.3 tons for 3B10S or 7.2 tons for 4B8S) required more column bars
than ACI 318–19 (α = 1.2: 5.6 tons for 3B10S or 4.4 tons for 4B8S) due to the higher strength ratios at upper- and lower-story joints,
but required less column bars than Dooley and Bracci (α = 2.0: 14.1 tons for 3B10S or 9.4 tons for 4B8S) due to the lower strength
ratios at upper- and middle-story joints.
For the designed frames, nonlinear static analysis was performed using PERFORM-3D [30]. To check the applicability of the
proposed method for various deformation capacities, θpm,b and θpm,c were set as 0.025 and 0.015 radians for 3B10S or 0.020 and 0.012
radians for 4B8S. All the other features of numerical modeling were the same with those of the 1B6S frame.
Fig. 11 shows the nonlinear static analysis results. In the 3B10S frame, the first hinging occurred in a beam (at the right end of 9th-
story interior beam), and at the first beam hinging point (or yield point), the base shear and roof displacement were Vy = 994 kN and
Δy = 74 mm (roof drift ratio Δ/H = 0.20%). The base shear at the yield point was greater than the design base shear VE = 791 kN due
to the code requirements (minimum reinforcement and minimum positive flexural strength). It is noted that the first beam hinging
point (or yield point) was the same regardless of the strength of columns (or regardless of the strength ratio) because the strength of
beams was the same in all the cases. However, the collapse mechanism varied with the strength ratio. The use of α = 1.2 resulted in an
intermediate mechanism along the 1st and 2nd stories, which showed a limited ductility. The first column hinging (at the bottom end
of 1st-story columns) occurred at Δ/H = 0.46%, and the mechanism was formed at Δ/H = 0.72% by hinging at the top end of 2nd-
story columns. The maximum load was Vmax = 2176 kN, which corresponds to the base shear coefficient of Vmax /W = 0.191 and the
system overstrength of Ω = Vmax /VE = 2.75. The ultimate displacement was determined as Δu = 316 mm (Δ/H = 0.86%) by the local
failure of a column (at the bottom end of the 1st-story leftmost column), and the displacement ductility was calculated as μ = Δy / Δu =
4.27. At the point of the column local failure, the left end of exterior beams in top seven stories remained elastic. On the other hand, the
use of α = 2.0 resulted in a complete sway mechanism: the first column hinging (at the bottom end of 1st-story columns) occurred at Δ/
H = 0.85%, and the mechanism was formed at Δ/H = 1.90%. Compared to the case of using α = 1.2, the seismic performance was
improved (Vmax = 2312 kN, Ω = 2.92, and μ = 9.50), but the local failure occurred in a column (at the bottom end of the 1st-story
leftmost column) at the onset of the mechanism. The use of the proposed method also resulted in a complete sway mechanism, but the
local failure occurred in a beam. The first column hinging (at the bottom end of the 1st-story leftmost column) occurred at Δ/ H =
1.00%, the mechanism was formed at Δ/H = 2.11%, accompanied by the beam local failure (at the right end of the 4th-story interior
beam). Although the proposed method required less column bars (10.3 tons: 72.8% of 14.1 tons by α = 2.0), structural performance
(Vmax = 2313 kN, Ω = 2.92, and μ = 10.57) was similar to or better than the case of using α = 2.0.
In the case of 4B8S, beams began to yield at Δ/H = 0.19%. The use of α = 1.2 resulted in a partial sway mechanism of the upper
portion only: 1) the bottom end of the 1st-story leftmost column yielded at Δ/H = 0.50%; 2) the bottom end of 4th-story columns also
began to yield at Δroof /H = 0.82%; 3) the maximum load was reached at Δ/H = 1.06% (Vmax = 2027 kN and Ω = 2.73); and 4) the
mechanism formed at Δ/H = 1.13%, followed by local failure of the 6th-story right beam (μ = 5.91). The static behaviors of the frames
designed by α = 2.0 and the proposed method were almost same: 1) no columns were yielded before the local failure of the 6th-story
right beam at Δroof /H = 1.56%; 2) the maximum load was Vmax = 2033 kN (Ω = 2.74) at Δroof /H = 1.39%; and the displacement
ductility was calculated as μ = Δy /Δu = 8.18. However, the proposed method required less column bars (7.2 tons: 76.4% of 9.4 tons by
α = 2.0).
Static procedures are appropriate only where higher mode effects are not significant. Otherwise, dynamic procedures are required
[4,31]. Thus, to investigate the higher mode effects, nonlinear time-history analysis was performed for the designed frames using seven
recorded events, which were scaled according to ASCE/SEI 7–16 [4] as shown in Fig. 12 (damping ratio = 5%) and Table 5. Fig. 13
shows the nonlinear time-history analysis results. As shown in the figure, the global responses of the 3B10S and 4B8S frames designed
by α = 1.2 (ACI 318–19), α = 2.0 (Dooley and Bracci), and the proposed method were similar to each other, and the average responses
did not exceed the story drift ratio of 1.0% in 3B10S or 1.5% in 4B8S. However, the local responses varied with the strength ratio: the
frames designed by α = 1.2 (marked with diamonds) had the highest possibility of hinging in columns (the number in the diamonds
indicates the number of ground motion records among the seven in Table 5, which caused the column hinging), which may result in a
soft-story mechanism (3B10S) or a partial sway mechanism of the upper portion (4B8S). On the other hand, the 3B10S frame designed
by α = 2.0 (marked with squares) or the proposed method (marked with circles) showed good dynamic responses similar to its static
behavior. However, the 4B8S frame designed by α = 2.0 or by the proposed method also had the possibility of hinging in some
upper-story columns, even though the possibility was not high (see the number in the squares or circles). This was mainly due to the
presence of setback (i.e., vertical mass and stiffness irregularities), since the irregularities affect the dynamic response of a building and
may lead to unexpected higher mode effects and concentrations of demand [31]. In general, the dynamic response of a building is
highly sensitive to characteristics of individual ground motions and also depends on the building’s dynamic characteristics [4,31]. For
this reason, current seismic design codes such as ASCE/SEI 7–16 [4] and KDS 41 17 00 [28] specify the permitted analytical procedures
based on the Seismic Design Category and structural characteristics (considering structural system, dynamic properties, and regu­
larity). However, the nonlinear static and time-history analysis results confirmed that the use of the proposed method can improve
seismic performance in an economical way.

16
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

7. Conclusions
To investigate the strength ratio required to ensure the strong column – weak beam behavior of RC moment frames under
earthquakes, a numerical study was performed. Based on the numerical investigation, a design method for the strength ratio was
proposed as a function of the height ratio, and nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were conducted for regular and irregular frames
to verify the proposed method. The findings of the numerical study are summarized as follows.

(1) Due to the moment redistribution with sequential development of plastic hinges under earthquakes and the higher mode effect
of dynamic response, columns could be subjected to single curvature bending with a higher value at the bottom end (lower-story
columns), double curvature bending (mid-story columns), or single curvature bending with a higher value at the top end (upper-
story columns). Thus, the current design code requirement for the strength ratio, which is based on the local joint equilibrium of
elastic moments, may not prevent hinging in columns. To ensure a sound collapse mechanism during strong earthquakes, the
inelastic behavior of frames should be considered and the strength ratios of the upper and lower columns at a joint should be
defined separately.
(2) The strength ratios proposed by existing studies vary widely. This is mainly because that the strength ratio required to ensure
the strong column – weak beam behavior is dependent to parameters such as plastic rotation of beams and columns, joint
locations, and frame heights. Particularly, the use of a uniform (or single) strength ratio for whole stories is economically
questionable.
(3) The numerical study results showed that the strength ratio varies with parameters (plastic rotations of beams and columns,
design earthquake loads and vertical distributions, gravity loads, stiffness ratios, design methods for beam strength, joint lo­
cations, and frame heights) and its vertical distribution is generally in a wine-glass shape along the frame height. On the basis of
the numerical investigation, a design method for the strength ratio was developed as a function of the height ratio for
performance-based design.
(4) For verification, the proposed method was applied to the design of a 3-bay and 10-story frame with minor irregularities and a 4-
bay and 8-story frame with a setback, and then nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were performed for the designed frames.
The analysis results confirmed that the use of the proposed method can improve seismic performance in an economical way
(reducing the likelihood of hinging in columns with a less amount of column bars).

It is noted that the conclusions are limited to the design parameters considered in the present study. Because in some exceptional
cases (for examples, with an extremely high service load level, eccentricity ratio, slenderness ratio, and/or initial imperfections), the
effects of nonlinear creep (including creep buckling and rupture) and second-order effects could be more pronounced, much concern
should be given to those effects.

Credit authorship contribution statement

Chang-Soo Kim: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - re­
view & editing. Hong-Gun Park: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Gia Toai Truong: Visualization, Su­
pervision, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) grant funded by the Ministry of
Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Grant 21CTAP-C164089-01), and the authors are grateful for the support.

References
[1] ATC, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC-40), Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, 1996.
[2] FEMA, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C, 2000.
[3] NZS 1170.5, Structural Design Actions, Part 5: Earthquake Actions - New Zealand. Standards New Zealand, Private Bag 2439, Wellington, 2004, p. 6020.
[4] ASCE Standard, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-16), American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA, 2017.
[5] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2019.
[6] Korea Concrete Institute, Design of Concrete Structures (Strength Design Method) (KDS 14 20 00), Korea Design Standard (KDS), Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
and Transport of Korea. (In Korean), 2021.
[7] CEN (European Committee for Standardization), Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules
for Buildings. Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
[8] AISC, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 341-16), American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, 2016.
[9] R. Park, T. Paulay, Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1975.
[10] T. Paulay, M.J.N. Priestley, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1992.
[11] H.S. Lee, Revised rule for concept of strong-column weak-girder design, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 122 (4) (1996) 359–364.
[12] M. Nakashima, S. Sawaizumi, Column-to-beam strength ratio required for ensuring beam-collapse mechanism in earthquake responses of steel moment frames,
in: Proceedings Of the 12th World Conference On Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000.

17
C.-S. Kim et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103645

[13] K.L. Dooley, J.M. Bracci, Seismic evaluation of column-to-beam strength ratios in reinforced concrete frames, ACI Struct. J. 98 (6) (2001) 843–851.
[14] G.L. Kuntz, J. Browning, Reduction of column yielding during earthquakes for reinforced concrete frame, ACI Struct. J. 100 (5) (2003) 573–580.
[15] H.G. Park, T.S. Eom, C.S. Kim, Direct inelastic earthquake design using secant stiffness (local deformation control design), in: Proceedings Of the 8th U.S. National
Conference On Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, California, 2006.
[16] C.B. Haselton, A.B. Liel, G.G. Deierlein, B.S. Dean, J.H. Chou, Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. I: assessment of ductile moment frames,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 137 (4) (2011) 481–491.
[17] S.W. Choi, Y.S. Kim, J.H. Lee, K.P. Hong, H.S. Park, Minimum column-to-beam strength ratios for beam-hinge mechanisms based on multi-objective seismic
design, J. Constr. Steel Res. 88 (2013) 53–62.
[18] I.K. Sudarsana, I.A.M. Budiwati, P.W. Aditya, Effect of column to beam strength ratio on performance of reinforced concrete frames, in: Proceedings Of the 1st
International Conference On Engineering Technology And Industrial Application, Surakarta, Indonesia, 2014.
[19] P. Sunitha, C.V.R. Murty, R. Goswami, Quantifying parameters that ensure large deformability of earthquake resistant RC buildings in high seismic regions. ” the
10th U.S. National Conference On Earthquake Engineering Frontiers Of Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska, 2014.
[20] N. Wongpakdee, S. Leelataviwat, Influence of column strength and stiffness on the inelastic behavior of strong-coumn-weak-beam frames, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 143 (9) (2017) 1–12, 04017124.
[21] A.E. Zaghi, S. Soroushian, A. Itani, E.M. Maragakis, G. Pekcan, M. Mehrraoufi, Impact of column-to-beam strength ratio on the seismic response of steel MRFs,
Bull. Earthq. Eng. 13 (2) (2015) 635–652.
[22] fish 0,punct]">N. Ning, W. Qu, Z.J. Ma, Design recommendations for achieving “strong column – weak beam” in RC Frames, Eng. Struct. 126 (2016) 343–352.
[23] A. Mistri, P. Sarkar, R. Davis, Column-beam moment capacity ratio and seismic risk of reinforced concrete frame building, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers-Structures and Buildings 172 (3) (2019) 189–196.
[24] M. Ghorbanzadeh, F. Khoshnoudian, The effect of strong column-weak beam ratio on the collapse behaviour of reinforced concrete moment frames subjected to
near-field earthquakes, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, AHEAD-OF-PRINT (2020) 1–24.
[25] Z. Zuo, M. Gong, J. Sun, H. Zhang, Seismic performance of RC frames with different column-to-beam flexural strength ratios under the excitation of pulse-like
and non-pulse-like ground motion, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 19 (2021) 5139–5159.
[26] X. Nie, S. Zhang, T. Jiang, T. Yu, The strong column-weak beam design philosophy in reinforced concrete frame structures: a literature review, Adv. Struct. Eng.
23 (16) (2020) 3566–3591.
[27] ACI Committee 363, Report on High-Strength Concrete (ACI 363R-10), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2010.
[28] Architectural Institute of Korea, Seismic Design Code for Buildings (KDS 41 17 00), Korea Design Standard (KDS), Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport
of Korea. (In Korean), 2019.
[29] H.G. Park, T.S. Eom, Direct inelastic earthquake design using secant stiffness, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 131 (9) (2005) 1355–1362.
[30] CSI, PERFORM-3D User Guide (Ver.5), Computers & Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA, 2011.
[31] ASCE Standard, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-17), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2017.

Notation
Cs = VE /W: seismic response coefficient
Cvx,i : vertical distribution factor of the i-th story force
D: dead load
E: earthquake load
Ec : elastic modulus of concrete
Es : elastic modulus of steel
EIeff : effective flexural stiffness of a member
ΣEIc1 : sum of flexural stiffnesses of all 1st-story columns
fc : compressive strength of concrete
′

fy : yield strength of steel

Fi : seismic story force at a story level i
h1 : 1st-story height
hi : height from the base to a story level i
H: total frame height
Ig : gross moment of inertia of a section
L: live load
Mc,l : bending moment of the lower column at a joint
Mc,u : bending moment of the upper column at a joint
Mmin : allowable minimum strength of a plastic hinge
M1nc,B : flexural strength of the bottom end of a 1st-story column
M1nc,T : flexural strength of the top end of a 1st-story column
ΣMb : sum of bending moments of beams at a joint
ΣMnb : sum of nominal flexural strengths of beams framing into a joint
ΣMnc : sum of nominal flexural strengths of columns framing into a joint
ΣM1nb : sum of beam flexural strengths at the top of a 1st-story column
n1 : number of 1st-story columns
SD1 : design earthquake spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of 1 s
SDS : design earthquake spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods
VE : design base shear
W: effective seismic weight of a frame by the gravity load effect of 1.0D + 0.25L
α = ΣMnc /ΣMnb : column-to-beam flexural strength ratio at a joint
αl = Mc,l /ΣMb : strength ratio for the lower column at a joint
αu = Mc,u /ΣMb : strength ratio for the upper column at a joint
β = EIeff,c /EIeff,b : column-to-beam flexural stiffness ratio at a joint
Δi : lateral displacement at a story level i
θpm : allowable maximum plastic rotation of a plastic hinge (θpm,b for beams, θpm,c for columns)
Ω : system overstrength factor required for the development of an intended collapse mechanism
Δ/H: roof drift ratio

18