Seismic Design and Performance Evaluation

of Long-Span Special Truss Moment Frames

Chatchai Jiansinlapadamrong 1; KyoungSub Park 2; John Hooper, M.ASCE 3;
and Shih-Ho Chao, M.ASCE 4

Abstract: The need for a very-long-span structure in sporting and industrial venues puts steel moment frames and braced frames at a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

disadvantage. In this regard, special truss moment frames (STMFs) can accommodate a large span by utilizing truss girders to provide high
lateral stiffness. However, current seismic provisions for structural steel buildings do not allow STMFs’ span and truss depth to exceed 20 and
1.8 m, respectively. Moreover, when a very long span is used, the high axial forces induced by the gravity load could cause considerable
ductility reduction of the chord members in the special segment. This paper presents a study on seismic behavior of long-span STMFs with
double-channel truss members, a span length of 27.4 m, and a truss depth of 3.05 m. Plastic hinge models of double-channel sections
considering the effect of high axial forces were developed based on experimental and nonlinear finite-element analysis (FEA) for both design
basis earthquakes (DBEs) and near-collapse earthquakes or maximum considered earthquakes (MCEs). A design procedure for long-span
STMFs using nonlinear pushover analysis is presented. The seismic performance of long-span STMFs was verified using the developed
plastic hinge models as well as DBE and MCE ground motions through nonlinear time-history (NTH) analyses. According to the FEA results,
a modification to the axial load limit in current seismic provisions for the chord members is recommended. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0002340. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Special truss moment frame; Long span; AISC; Double channel; Near collapse.

Introduction of an STMF without diagonal web members within the SS is shown

Long-span structures are commonly seen in sporting and industrial
venues due to the need for large openings, which cannot be pro-
vided by steel braced frames. Steel moment frames, although able
to provide open space, become very flexible and require large
sections to control their drifts when a long span is used. Therefore,
moment frames are impractical when a span exceeds approximately
12 m (Hamburger and Malley 2016). A special truss moment frame
(STMF) is a seismic force-resisting system (SFRS) that can provide
both a large open space between columns and a long span by using
a steel truss girder rather than a beam. Furthermore, the open web
of the trusses allows the utility and mechanical ducts to go through,
thereby providing greater architectural freedom. STMFs dissipate
earthquake energy through flexural yielding of the chord members
and intermediate vertical web members within the middle section of
the truss girder, called special segment (SS), whereas members out-
side of the SS are designed to remain elastic. When diagonal web
members are present within an SS, axial yielding and buckling of
these diagonals also help dissipate energy. The yielding mechanism
1 The goal of this study was to determine if STMFs can serve
Project Engineer, AG&E Structural Engenuity, 15280 Addison Rd.,
Addison, TX 75001.
2
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019.
3 strength-controlled situations). The span length of three prototype
Director, Earthquake Engineering, Magnusson Klemencic Associates,
Seattle, WA 98101.
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington,
Arlington, TX 76019 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0003-2679-7364. Email: shchao@uta.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 25, 2018; approved
on November 16, 2018; published online on April 26, 2019. Discussion
period open until September 26, 2019; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
in Fig. 1 (Chao and Goel 2008).
Key dimensional requirements for STMFs are as follows (AISC
2016):
1. Span length between columns cannot exceed 20 m;
2. Overall depth of the truss cannot exceed 1.8 m;
3. Length of the SS shall be between 0.1 and 0.5 times the truss
span length; and
4. Length-to-depth ratio of any panel in the special segment shall
neither exceed 1.5 nor be less than 0.67.
The upper-bound length-to-depth ratio is to control the lateral
stiffness of the truss, whereas the lower-bound length-to-depth ratio
is to limit the rotational demand of the chord members in the SS.
These requirements are based on considerations of the overall stiff-
ness of STMFs and the rotational demand of the chord members
within the SS. A shorter SS length increases the rotational demand
of the chord members, and a longer SS length decreases overall
stiffness of the STMF. However, recent research shows that the
length-to-depth ratio of the SS could be as high as 2.48 without
affecting the integrity and performance of STMFs (Chao et al.
forthcoming; Simasathien et al. 2017).
as SFRS for long-span (more than 20 m) structures. In general,
typical span-to-depth ratios for long-span trusses range from
approximately 8 (for vibration-controlled situations) to 10 (for
STMFs used in this study is 27.4 m, which violates the current
limits in AISC 341 (AISC 2016). A 27.4-m-long span is the typical
module size for convention centers, exhibit halls, and facilities that
would potentially utilize STMFs. The depth of the truss girders is
3.05 m, which is deeper than AISC’s limit (1.8 m) in order to in-
crease overall stiffness of the long-span STMFs. These dimensions
give a span-to-depth ratio of the truss equal to 9.0. The length-to-
depth ratio of the SS in one of the STMFs is 3.0, which falls outside

© ASCE 04019053-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053

 Plastic hinges and Goel (2008) suggested that the intermediate vertical mem-
F2 bers be treated as secondary members; hence, most of the truss
strength and energy dissipation capacity is provided by the
Special segment chord members. In addition, plastic hinges must be avoided
in the chord members except at chord ends; therefore, the mo-
F1 ment capacity of the intermediate vertical members must be lim-
ited so that the bending moment in the chord members at
sections adjacent to the intermediate vertical members is less
than the chord members’ moment capacity when the intermedi-
ate vertical members reach their maximum capacity. Chao and
Fig. 1. Yielding mechanism of STMF. (Adapted from Chao and Goel (2008), therefore, recommended the plastic moment capa-
Goel 2008.) city of the intermediate vertical member, M pv , be calculated as
Mpc =m, where M pc is the plastic moment capacity of the chord
member, and m is number of intermediate vertical members in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the SS. For an SS with two intermediate vertical members,

the limitation specified by AISC 341. Moreover, in a typical STMF,
axial forces in the SS chord members are negligible. In a long-span
STMF, however, the gravity load could induce high axial forces in
the SS chord members, which could have a detrimental effect on
their rotational capacity. The effect of axial force on rotational
capacity of double-channel sections was investigated in this study.
This paper presents the design procedure for long-span STMFs, and
their seismic performance evaluation was carried out by nonlinear
time-history (NTH) analyses.
Prototype Structure and Special Truss Moment
Frames
Fig. 2 shows the floor plan of a 1-story building where two
27.4-m-long STMFs are used for the SFRS along the east-west
(E-W) direction. Three STMFs with different layouts of SS are
investigated (Fig. 3):
1. STMF-1 has one Vierendeel panel within a 9.14-m-long special
segment. This layout provides a wide uninterrupted special seg-
ment for architectural usage.
2. STMF-2 has three Vierendeel panels made of two intermediate
vertical members within a 9.14-m-long special segment. Inter-
mediate vertical members are typically the first ones to yield and
can be easily replaced after a moderate earthquake (Chao et al.
forthcoming). Full-scale STMF experimental testing shows that
adding intermediate vertical members can considerably increase
the lateral stiffness of an STMF (Chao et al. forthcoming). Chao
Mpv =Mpc ¼ 0.5. A recent full-scale STMF experiment shows
that, for an SS designed with this moment capacity ratio, after
the intermediate vertical members failed, the strength of the
STMF specimen drastically dropped, and its hysteretic behavior
followed that of an STMF without intermediate vertical mem-
bers (Chao et al. forthcoming). As a result, the intermediate ver-
tical member cannot be too strong in order to avoid a drastic
drop in the strength of the STMF. In this study, member sizes
with Mpv =M pc ¼ 0.16 were selected.
3. STMF-3 has a single Vierendeel panel within a 3.05-m-long
special segment. This configuration provides very high stiff-
ness to the truss girder but could also cause high rotational de-
mands to the chord members due to the short SS (Simasathien
et al. 2017).
The dimensions and elevation of the three STMFs are shown
in Fig. 3. Note that the STMFs serve simultaneously as the gravity
load–carrying system and lateral load–resisting system. Because of
the long special segments of STMF-1 and STMF-2, lateral bracing
within the SS is needed to prevent premature buckling of the SS
due to substantial axial compressive forces induced by the gravity
and lateral loads. Fig. 2(a) shows the floor plan for STMF-1 and
STMF-2 where the majority of the gravity loads are carried by the
two STMFs along the E-W direction. A series of steel joist girders
along the north-south (N-S) direction are used to transfer the grav-
ity loads to the two STMFs at various truss joints. Additional brac-
ing members are also provided within the SS to reduce the
unbraced length [also see Figs. 3(a and b)]. Fig. 2(b) shows the
floor plan for STMF-3, which has a similar layout of steel joists

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bracing
STMF STMF
A A

Bracing Beam Bracing Bracing

3@9.14 m = 27.4 m

3@9.14 m = 27.4 m

Beam
Braced Frame

Braced Frame
Braced Frame

Braced Frame

Beam B B
Steel Joist Girder Steel Joist Girder
Beam

Beam

Beam C C

Beam N
Bracing Beam Bracing Bracing
D E W D
STMF Bracing STMF
S
9@3.05 m = 27.4 m 9@3.05 m = 27.4 m
Tributary Area for Gravity Load, P Tributary Area for Gravity Load, P
(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Floor plan of (a) STMF-1 and STMF-2; and (b) STMF-3.

© ASCE 04019053-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053

 Detail-1 Detail-2 Detail-3
3.05 3.05 3.05 9.14 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 9.14 3.05 3.05 3.05

3.05
3.05

9.14
9.14
3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05

6.1
6.1
designates the locations of lateral bracing within SS designates the locations of lateral bracing within SS
and at the ends of SS and at the ends of SS

27.4 27.4
(a) (b)

3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3.05
9.14
6.1
designates the locations of lateral bracing at the ends
of SS

27.4
(c)

Fig. 3. Dimensions and elevation (in meters): (a) STMF-1; (b) STMF-2; and (c) STMF-3.

girders. The joist girders near the ends of the SS also serve as brac-
ing members for the top chord member in the SS [Fig. 3(c)].
Lateral bracing of the bottom chord members can be done by using
steel members extending from the beams [Fig. 2(a)] or joist girders
[Fig. 2(b)]. Figs. 3(b) and 4 show typical details for truss-to-
column connection, end joint of the SS, and intermediate vertical
member–to–chord member connection within the SS. These de-
tails have been verified by recent full-scale STMF testing and
component testing (Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2018; Chao et al.
forthcoming). Detail-1 shows the truss-to-column connection,
which can be done by welding truss members to a gusset plate
and the gusset plate to a column flange. Detail-2 and Detail-3 show
the end joint of the SS and intermediate vertical member–to–chord
connection within the SS, which demonstrate some special fea-
tures that enhance the rotational capacity of the double-channel
member. One of the features is a center gusset plate with a
weld-free portion extended into the plastic hinge regions of the
chord members in the SS and the intermediate vertical web
members. This weld-free gusset plate can prevent the members
from lateral-torsional buckling, which, in turn, enhances the duc-
tility of the double-channel member (experimental results are dis-
cussed subsequently). In this region, a horizontal stitch is used to
prevent the channels from separating. In addition, the vertical
members at the end of the SS cannot be welded to the chord mem-
bers because it will prevent plastic flow and cause the chord
members to fracture early (Jiansinlapadamrong 2017; Chao et al.
forthcoming). In Detail-3, the intermediate vertical members can
be welded to the chord members because plastic hinges will not
form in the chord members at that location. The cutout is used to
increase the weld area to provide sufficient strength.
Jiansinlapadamrong (2017) tested member 2C150 × 19.3, with
the proposed details representing an intermediate vertical member
in a full-scale STMF. The member exhibited steady response and a
large rotational capacity [Fig. 5(d)]. Note that asymmetrical loading
of the last two cycles was caused by load-capacity limitations in
different directions of the hydraulic actuator.

Weld-free Horizontal stitch

gusset plate Web cutout

Not butted up
Butted up Continuity
against column
against chord plate
Weld-free
not butted up gusset plate
against chord
Horizontal stitch
Not butted up
against column

Detail-1 Detail-2 Detail-3

Fig. 4. Typical details of the connections at the end of SS and intermediate vertical members [Fig. 3(b)]. (Reprinted from Jiansinlapadamrong
2017.)

© ASCE 04019053-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

400 200
Experiment
300 FEA
100
Moment (kN-m)

200
100
0 0
-100
-200 -100
-300
-400 -200
-0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12
Member Rotation (rad)

(c) (d)

Fig. 5. (a) Symmetric loading protocol derived from AISC loading protocol and hysteretic behavior, top view; bottom views of (b) 2C310 × 30.8 with
no special connection details; (c) 2C310 × 30.8 with special connection details; and (d) 2C150 × 19.3 with special connection details.

Effect of Axial Force in Double-Channel Flexural
Members
To obtain the modeling information, a series of double-channel flexu-
ral members with no axial load were first tested (Jiansinlapadamrong
et al. 2018). These flexural members represented chord member
2C310 × 30.8 [Figs. 5(b and c)] and the intermediate vertical
member 2C150 × 19.3 [Fig. 5(d)] as part of a prototype full-scale
STMF with a typical span length of 9,698 mm. Conventional con-
nection details (i.e., no extended gusset plate with a weld-free zone)
are shown in Fig. 5(b), whereas Fig. 5(c) gives special connection
details featuring an extended gusset plate and horizontal stitches.

© ASCE 04019053-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053

 The loading protocol for chord or vertical member component tests
in this study was derived from AISC loading protocol as specified
by story drifts ratio (SDR) for testing moment frame beam-to-
column connections [AISC 341 (AISC 2016)]. The SDR history
was first applied to the prototype full-scale STMF. The tests were
done according to the corresponding member rotations at the
specified SDR of the prototype STMF. The loading protocol for
the chord member is shown in Fig. 5(a). Note that due to limitation
on the maximum stroke of the actuator, which could only reach a
displacement corresponding to 2.75% SDR, it was decided to
terminate the tests at this SDR, but two additional cycles were
added at 2.38% SDR. The new detailing of the double-channel
flexural section proved capable of effectively preventing lateral-
torsional buckling. The new detailing also enhanced the rotational
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
capacity of double-channel members as evident in Figs. 5(b–d)
(Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2018).
A series of nonlinear finite-element analyses (FEAs) were car-
ried out to investigate the effect of the axial force on the rotational
ductility of built-up double-channel sections. The finite-element
(FE) model was first calibrated using the experimental results from
the 2C310 × 30.8 specimen without axial force [Fig. 5(c)]. FE
analyses were further carried out on the double-channel sections
with various axial load demand-to-capacity ratios, α, from 0.1 to
0.3 for both compression and tension. The axial load demand in this
study is defined as the axial load induced by gravity loading on the
STMF, Pu . The axial capacity is defined as Ry Fy Ag , where Ry is the
ratio of the expected yield stress to the specified minimum yield
stress. Fy is the specified minimum yield stress, and Ag is the gross
area. Therefore, α ¼ Pu =Ry Fy Ag .
Finite-Element Model, Analyses, and Results
The finite-element model used in this study is shown in Fig. 6 using
the ABAQUS version 6.14 program. The beam area of the model
was discretized using a hexahedral solid element that includes
497 506
Stress (Mpa)
Stress (Mpa)
378 386
E=210 GPa
0.0018 0.1 0.00184
(a) Strain ( ) (b)
Fig. 7. Material stress–strain model of (a) beam flange; (b) beam web; (c) weld; and (d) gusset plate and stitch.
© ASCE
reduced integration and hourglass control techniques. The gusset
plate and stitches were modeled using an eight-node solid element.
Welds connecting the gusset plate to the specimen and horizontal
stitches to the flange of the specimen were done by combining the
hexahedral and tetrahedral solid elements. Tie constraints were
used at the contact surfaces to model weld bonding. The total num-
ber of elements used was approximately 170,000, which was suf-
ficient to produce accurate numerical results without the issue of
mesh sensitivity.
Material nonlinearities including the classical metal plasticity
theory based on the Von Mises yield criterion, associated flow rule,
and isotropic/kinematic hardening assumption were considered.
Based on uniaxial coupon tests for both the flange and web from
the C310 × 30.8 sections, their strain–stress curves were modeled
as shown in Figs. 7(a and b). To account for the Bauschinger effect
and cyclic hardening under cyclic loading, the nonlinear kinematic
and isotropic hardening components C, γ, Q∞ , and b were as-
signed, in addition to the modulus of elasticity (E) and the yield
stress (Fy ), where C is the initial kinematic hardening modulus,
γ is the rate at which C decreases with cumulative plastic deforma-
tion (εpl ), Q∞ is the maximum change in the size of the yield sur-
face, and b is the rate at which the size of the yield surface changes
as plastic deformation develops. These material parameters must
be calibrated from cyclic test data, but because no such data for
material were available, these cyclic plastic behavior parameters
were assumed through the parametric studies based on Crisan
(2016) as follows: C ¼ 2,500 MPa; γ ¼ 20; Q∞ ¼ 44 MPa; and
b ¼ 11. The strain–stress curve of weld was based on Chao et al.
(2006), and that of the gusset plate and stitches were based on
ASTM A572M, Gr. 345 (ASTM 2018), as shown in Figs. 7(c
and d), respectively. In this study, geometric nonlinearities were
also considered through a large-strain, large-deformation formu-
lation without assigning initial imperfections. Fig. 5(c) shows
the cyclic response of the calibrated FE model and experimental
results of a specimen without axial force, as well as the trilinear
Fig. 6. FE model and boundary conditions.
552 448
Stress (Mpa)
Stress (Mpa)
480 345
E=210 GPa E=200 GPa E=200 GPa
0.1 0.0024 0.1 0.00173 0.1
Strain ( ) (c) Strain ( ) (d) Strain ( )
04019053-5 J. Struct. Eng.
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Deformed shapes at 0.02-rad member rotation: (a) Model 1: 2C310 × 30.8 without axial load; and (b) Model 2∶ 2C310 × 30.8 with α ¼ 0.3.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 9. FEA results and trilinear backbone model of 2C310 × 30.8 with axial compression per capacity ratio: (a) α ¼ 0.1; (b) α ¼ 0.2; and
(c) α ¼ 0.3.

backbone model. Figs. 8(a and b) show the deformed shape of
2C310 × 30.8 flexural members without axial load (Model 1)
and with an axial compression demand-to-capacity ratio of 0.3
(Model 2), respectively. Both analyses were carried out by follow-
ing the AISC loading protocol, and both images show the defor-
mation shapes at 0.02 rad. As shown, high axial compression
force caused severe web and flange buckling, which, in turn, re-
duced ductility of the built-up double-channel section.
The analysis results of three axial compression cases are
shown in Figs. 9(a–c) along with the trilinear backbone models.
Figs. 10(a–c) show the effect of axial tension on the hysteresis be-
havior of the 2C310 × 30.8 member. As shown, axial compression
has a higher impact on the ductility of double-channel sections than
axial tension does. Moreover, in both cases, the ultimate moment
capacities of the sections also decreased when the axial load
increased.
It is worth noting that AISC 341, Section E.4.5b, requires that
the axial strength of the chord members in a special segment be
determined in accordance with ϕPn ¼ ϕFy Ag (ϕ ¼ 0.9), which
should be equal to or greater than 2.2 times the required axial
strength, Pu . In other words, Pu in the chord members shall not
exceed 0.45 times ϕFy Ag . That is
Pu ≤ 0.45ϕPn or ϕPn ≥ 2.2Pu ð1aÞ

© ASCE 04019053-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053

 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c)

Fig. 10. FEA results and trilinear backbone model of 2C310 × 30.8 with axial tension per capacity ratio: (a) α ¼ 0.1; (b) α ¼ 0.2; and (c) α ¼ 0.3.

Pu analyses were then carried out with coefficient of determination

or ¼ α ≤ 0.37 ð1bÞ
Ry Fy Ag (R2 ) ranges between 0.96 and 1, and the relationships between
a versus α and b versus α are as follows:
where Ry ¼ 1.1 for Gr. 345 steel. Axial compression case
a ¼ −0.21α þ 0.03 when 0 < α < 0.1 ð2aÞ
Plastic Hinge Models of Truss Members
¼ 0.009 when 0.1 < α < 0.2 ð2bÞ
Moment versus plastic rotation (PR) trilinear relationship in most
commercial programs only requires PRs and corresponding mo- ¼ −0.08α þ 0.025 when 0.2 < α < 0.3 ð2cÞ
ments at four points if strength degradation is considered, as shown
in Fig. 11. These moment parameters are specified as yielding mo-
b ¼ 1.1α2 − 0.42α þ 0.04 when 0 < α < 0.2 ð3aÞ
ment, M y (¼Ry Fy Z), ultimate moment, M u , and residual moment,
M r . Based on extensive experiments on various double-channel
¼ 0 when 0.2 < α < 0.3 ð3bÞ
sections, a generalized moment–rotation relationship for double-
channel sections without axial force was given in Table 1 (Chao
et al. forthcoming). To generalize the PR parameters, Du , Dl , Axial tension case
and Dr for various axial demand-to-capacity ratios, parameter a a ¼ 0.03 when 0 < α < 0.2 ð4aÞ
and b, as shown in Fig. 11, were determined from the trilinear mod-
els of hysteresis behavior of 2C310 × 30.8 in Figs. 5(c), 9(a–c), and ¼ −0.12α þ 0.05 when 0.2 < α < 0.3 ð4bÞ
10(a–c) for various axial demand-to-capacity ratios, α. Regression
b ¼ −0.08α þ 0.04 when 0 < α < 0.3 ð5Þ

Table 1. Plastic hinge modeling parameters of double-channel sections

u
without considering the effect of axial force
y
Modeling parameter Recommended value
r My Ry Fy Z
Mu 1.4M y
u l r x Mr 0.1Mu
Du (rad) 0.03
Fig. 11. Generalized moment–plastic rotation model for plastic hinge Dl (rad) 0.07
with and without strength degradation. Dr (rad) 0.09

© ASCE 04019053-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053

 Besides the rotational capacity, FEA also indicated that the
extent of the axial load-to-capacity ratio, α, affects the overstrength
factor, β, (defined as M u =M y ). β ¼ 1.4 when α ¼ 0, which was
the average value based on a series of testing on double-channel
sections (Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2018). Moreover, this ratio
decreases when axial compression (or tension) increases. The over-
strength factor, β, when the axial load-to-capacity ratio α ¼ 0.1,
0.2, and 0.3 was obtained from FEA. Thus, the relationship be-
tween β (overstrength factor) and α (axial load-to-capacity ratio)
was derived from a regression analysis, as follows:
Axial compression case
β ¼ −0.88α þ 1.4 when 0 < α < 0.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Proposed Design Procedure and Design Example
Design Procedure
Three prototype STMFs were designed based on ASCE’s Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7) (ASCE
2010) for a site in San Francisco, California. A generic Site class C
was used. Detailed design parameters are summarized in Table 3.
1. Equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure. Design of the long-
span STMF starts from determining initial member sizes. All
STMF members are designed as beam-column elements, based
on elastic analysis under lateral earthquake force specified by
ð6Þ building code and gravity loading according to standard load
combinations. The load combination for gravity loading (shown

subsequently) includes the vertical seismic load effect.

Axial tension case 2. Design of members outside of SS. The design of members
outside of the SS is then modified based on the capacity design
β ¼ −0.73α þ 1.4 when 0 < α < 0.3 ð7Þ approach. After the structure was designed using the elastic
analysis result in Step 1, a nonlinear pushover analysis was
performed until the chord members within the SS and intermedi-
Note the developed moment–rotation relationships (Fig. 9)
ate vertical members (if used) fully yielded and were strain-
based on isolated cantilever FE models can be overly conservative
hardened. To simplify the design procedure, axial load effect
because in an actual STMF the truss members, columns, and other
was not considered in the plastic hinge model of yielding truss
elements can provide restraints to prevent large local buckling as
members. In other words, the plastic hinges of the chord mem-
shown in the FE models (Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2018).
bers in the SS and intermediate vertical members are modeled
This conservative model is justified because the study STMFs
using values in Table 1 or 2 (α ¼ 0). This gives a conserva-
are the only gravity load–carrying system in the prototype building;
tive design for nonyielding members outside of the SS because
therefore, any strength degradation due to lateral loads could cause
the strength of the chord members is greatest when α ¼ 0. Non-
collapse.
yielding truss members could be modeled with elastic-perfectly-
plastic material properties. Plastic hinges of the columns are
modeled using the values in Table 2. If the pushover analysis
Plastic Hinge Models of Columns shows that any yielding occurs outside of the SS, except at the
base of the columns, such nonyielding member needs to be re-
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI
designed to ensure that it remains elastic. Although AISC 341
41 (ASCE 2017), recommends a conservative plastic rotational
(Commentary Section C2) suggests that nonyielding members
capacity model for flexural members subjected to axial compres-
sion. However, recent column experiments indicate that steel col-
umns with certain compactness ratios could sustain much larger PR Table 3. Design parameters for 1-story STMF convention hall at a site in
than that specified in ASCE/SEI 41 (Newell and Uang 2008; Zargar San Francisco, California
et al. 2014). Newell and Uang (2008) tested columns with bf =2tf
Values according Reference
and h=tw ratios less than 7.2 and 17.7, respectively. Their tests Parameter to ASCE 7 in ASCE 7
showed that steel wide-flange columns with stocky webs subject
to an axial load, ranging from 35% to 75% of nominal axial yield Risk category III Table 1.5-1
Importance factor 1.25 Table 1.5-2
strength, could achieve an interstory drift capacity of 0.07–0.09 rad
Site class C N/A
before their strength degraded below 90% of maximum bending Ss 1.5g Fig. 22-1 and
strength. On the other hand, Ozkula et al (2017) investigated the Section 12.8.1.3
effect of axial compression using a series of deep wide-flange beam S1 0.78g Fig. 22-2
columns (W610). These sections have bf =2tf and h=tw ratios of Fa 1.0 Table 11.4-1
4.81–8.5 and 28.7–54.6, respectively. The results showed that most Fv 1.3 Table 11.4-2
strong axis-bending specimens could not sustain more than 0.03- SMS ¼ Fa Ss 1.5g Eq. 11.4-1
rad PR. Conservatively, wide-flange columns used in this study had SM1 ¼ Fv S1 1.014g Eq. 11.4-2
flanges and webs with bf =2tf and h=tw ratios equal to or smaller SDS ¼ ð2=3ÞSMS 1.0g Eq. 11.4-3
than those of the lightest columns tested by Newell and Uang SD1 ¼ ð2=3ÞSM1 0.676g Eq. 11.4-4
Seismic design category E Section 11.6
(2008), thereby ensuring large rotational capacity. The plastic hinge
Building height 9.14 m N/A
model of these columns is shown in Table 2. TL 12 s Fig. 22-12
Cu 1.4 Table 12.8-1
Ta 0.256 s T a ¼ 0.0488h0.75
n
Table 2. Plastic hinge modeling parameters for yielding members consid- (Eq. 12.8-7)
ering the effect of axial force T ¼ Cu × T a 0.359 sa Sec. 12.8.2
Response modification factor, R 7 Table 12.2-1
Du Dl Dr
Total building weight, W 2,235 kN N/A
Members My Mu Mr (rad) (rad) (rad)
Cs ¼ V=W (DBE) 0.179 Eqs. 12.8-2, 12.8-3,
Truss members Ry Fy Z βM y 0.1M u a Du þ b Dl þ 0.02 12.8-5, 12.8-6
Columns Ry Fy Z 1.1M y 0.45Mu 0.06 0.061 0.08 a
Fundamental periods for STMF-1, STMF-2, and STMF-3 are 0.428,
Note: Parameters β, a, and b are determined from Eqs. (2)–(13). 0.355, and 0.179 s, respectively, based on modal analysis.

© ASCE 04019053-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053

 are forced to behave elastically to determine their required included in each member. Because gravity loads are entirely carried
strength, our analysis shows that this can lead to an unrealisti- by STMFs, no additional P-Δ columns are used. A 2% Rayleigh
cally large column. It is nearly impossible to completely prevent damping (combination of mass and stiffness proportional damping)
yielding in the columns; therefore, the column base is suggested was used for all modes in the NTH analyses.
to be allowed to yield up to a PR of approximately 0.005 rad.
Alternatively, the members outside of the SS can be designed
using a “column tree” approach (Commentary Section C2 in Design Example (STMF-1)
AISC 341) according to the expected vertical shear strength of
the special segment, V ne , given in AISC’s seismic provisions Lateral Loads
(AISC 341) or a proposed equation by Chao et al. (forthcoming). The prototype structure was assumed to be a 1-story, one-bay con-
3. Check axial compressive demand-to-capacity ratio. Due to the vention hall site in San Francisco, California. The design param-
detrimental effect of the axial compressive load on the rota- eters were obtained according to ASCE 7 (ASCE 2010) and are
tional capacity of double-channel sections in the SS shown in shown in Table 3. Based on a dead load of 2.39 kPa, a live load
Figs. 9(a–c), the ratio of axial compression demand to axial of 0.57 kPa, and a tributary area of 27.4 × 27.4 m, the resulting
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

capacity, α, of the chord member within the SS is advised to seismic weight is 2,235 kN (all live loads are conservatively in-
be 0.15 or lower. As shown in Fig. 9, the rotation before strength cluded). Since there are two STMFs sharing the design base shear,
degradation is approximately 0.025 rad for α ¼ 0.15. Based on each STMF carries 200 kN of lateral force. As shown in Fig. 12(a),
extensive NTH analyses with various lower α values (not shown the design base shear was applied discretely to the top joints of the
in this paper), α ¼ 0.15 is sufficient to provide a conservative truss according to tributary ratio of masses.
and satisfactory performance for the prototype building inves-
tigated in this study. If α is greater than 0.15, the size of the Gravity Loads
chord members within the SS should be increased and repeated The gravity load at each truss joint was determined according to
in Step 2. its respective tributary area and load path. An example of the
tributary area used for load P1 is shown in Fig. 2. The gravity
loads for STMF-1 are: dead load (DL) at column (PCD), Joints
Computer Modeling
1 and 2 (P1D and P2D), and Joint 3 (P3D) are 50, 100, and
PERFORM-3D (CSI 2006) was used for the nonlinear pushover 200 kN, respectively. Live load (LL) at column, (PCL), Joints 1 and
and NTH analyses. To simplify the analyses, a two-dimensional 2 (P1L and P2L), and Joint 3 (P3L) are 12, 24, and 48 kN,
STMF was considered to carry half of the gravity and lateral loads. respectively.
Half of the seismic masses were attributed to each STMF. Loads The critical gravity load combination of ð1.2 þ 0.2SDS ÞDL þ
and seismic masses at each joint were determined according to the 0.5LL was used according to ASCE 7 (ASCE 2010). The design
respective tributary area. Columns were modeled as a beam-column loads [Fig. 12(a)] used in the design of STMF-1 at column (PC ),
element with a lumped plastic hinge at each end. Strain hardening Joints 1 and 2 (P1 and P2 ), and Joint 3 (P3 ), are 76, 152, and
and strength loss, as well as axial force and bending moment in- 304 kN, respectively.
teraction, were included in the plastic hinge model. Due to sizeable
gusset plates and the weld connection used at each truss joints, each Initial Design of STMF-1
end of the truss members is rigid. As a result, truss members are Elastic analysis according to the ELF procedure for all study
also modeled as a beam-column element with a lumped plastic STMFs were performed using the software program RISA-3D
hinge at each end. End portions of the truss members, which are version 15. The initial design resulted in the members shown in
welded to the gusset plate, were modeled as elastic rigid elements Table 4. The small code design lateral force resulted in a light
to represent the high rigidity of the gusset plates. P-δ modeling is column and truss members.

Diagonal 3 Diagonal 3 Diagonal 3 Diagonal 3

Intermediate
Intermediate

Diagonal 2 Diagonal 2 Diagonal 2 Diagonal 2

Vertical SS
Vertical SS

Vertical SS
Vertical SS

Vertical 1

Vertical 2
Vertical 1

Vertical 2

Vertical 2

Vertical 1
Vertical 2

Vertical 1

Top SS Top SS
l1
l1

D
D

na
na

ia
ia

go
g

go
go

on

Bottom SS
na
ia
ia

al

D
D

l1
1

Chord 1 Chord 2 Chord 3 Chord 3 Chord 2 Chord 1 Chord 1 Chord 2 Chord 3 Bottom SS Chord 3 Chord 2 Chord 1

STMF-2
STMF-1
Diagonal 4 Diagonal 4
STMF-1
P3 P3 Diagonal 3 Vertical SS Diagonal 3
P1 P2 P2 P1 Diagonal 2 Diagonal 2
Pc Pc
Vertical 3

Vertical 3

Top SS
Vertical 1

Vertical 2

Vertical 2

Vertical 1
l1

11.1 22.2 22.2 44.4 44.4 22.2 22.2 11.1

D
na

ia
go
go

na
ia
D

l1
Bo

Chord 1 Chord 2 Chord 3 Chord 3 Chord 2 Chord 1

Ch

Ch
tto
o rd

ord
m
4

4
SS

STMF-1 STMF-3

(a) (b)

Fig. 12. (a) Member designation and loadings of STMF-1 (kN); and (b) member designation of STMF-2 and STMF-3.

© ASCE 04019053-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053

 Table 4. Initially designed (equivalent lateral force procedure) members of at 2.1% SDR, and the SDR when yielding occurred. Fig. 13 shows
STMF-1, STMF-2, and STMF-3 that when the first member (intermediate vertical members) of
Member STMF-1 STMF-2 STMF-3 STMF-2 yields at 0.36% SDR, the base shear is 1,215 kN, which
is much larger than the design base shear. It should be noted that
Column W310 × 143 W310 × 143 W310 × 143
Panel zone W310 × 143 W310 × 143 W310 × 143
in STMFs, intermediate vertical members yield before the chord
SS 2C310 × 45 2C250 × 45 2C250 × 37 member because of their higher rotational demands (Chao et al.
Vertical SS 2C310 × 45 2C250 × 45 2C250 × 37 forthcoming).
Chord 1-4a 2C310 × 45 2C250 × 45 2C250 × 37 Similar to STMF-1 and STMF-2, the chord member of STMF-3
Diagonal 1-4a 2C230 × 30 2C230 × 30 2C230 × 30 increased in size to keep α under 0.15. Table 5 summarizes the final
Vertical 1-3a 2C150 × 19.3 2C150 × 19.3 2C150 × 19.3 design members. The chord members in the SS were fully strain
Intermediate — 2C130 × 13 — hardened when SDR reached 1.1% (Table 8). At this SDR, none
a
STMF-1 and STMF-2 only have Chord 1-3, Diagonal 1-3, and of the members outside of the SS yielded except column bases.
Vertical 1-2. The maximum PR of the columns was 0.005 rad. First, yielding
occurred in the top and bottom chords in the SS at 0.52% SDR,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Design of Members Outside of the SS of STMF-1
The final designed members of STMF-1 are shown in Table 5. The
chord members were increased in size to reduce α to be less than
or approximately equal to 0.15. A nonlinear pushover analysis was
performed up to 2.1% SDR using the program PERFORM-3D (CSI
2006) because at this SDR, all four plastic hinges at the end of the
chord members in the SS reached 1.4My (or Mu ). The sizes of non-
yielding members outside of the SS were selected so that yielding
did not occur except at the columns. The maximum PR of the col-
umn bases at 2.1% SDR was 0.005 rad, as shown in Table 6. Fig. 13
shows the pushover curve, and Table 6 shows the yielding sequence
of STMF-1. The first yielding of STMF-1 occurred at the top and
bottom chord in the SS at 0.89% SDR. At this point, the base shear
was 2,099 kN, which was 10.5 times the code design base shear
(200 kN).
Design of STMF-2 and STMF-3
STMF-2 and STMF-3 were designed in the same manner as
STMF-1. The elastic designed members of STMF-2 as designated
in Fig. 12(b) are shown in Table 4. The details of loading used in
the design of STMF-2 and STMF-3 can be found elsewhere
(Jiansinlapadamrong 2017). The designated yielding members
(DYMs) in STMF-2 are the SS chord members and intermediate
vertical members. Similar to STMF-1, the final size of the chord
member was increased to have an α of approximately 0.15. The
final designed members are shown in Table 5. STMF-2 was
pushed to 2.1% SDR when the chord members were fully strain
hardened. At this story drift, all members outside of the SS were
elastic except the columns, which minimally yielded with a PR of
0.006 rad. Table 7 lists the PR of yielding members and columns
and the corresponding base shear was 6,637 kN (Fig. 13). The three
STMFs’ yield drift ratios (YDRs) were between that of concentri-
cally braced frames (YDR approximately 0.3%) and moment
frames (YDR approximately 1%). The elastic stiffness of STMF-1,
STMF-2, and STMF-3 was 25,697, 37,107, and 140,741 kN=m, re-
spectively. The results show that the SS layouts used in STMF-3
provide much higher lateral stiffness than that of STMF-1 and
STMF-2.
Seismic Performance Evaluation of the Studied
STMFs
Ground Motions
NTH analyses were conducted using two suites of 20 SAC ground
motions (Somerville et al. 1997) oriented in the direction of
STMFs. The first suite has a return period of 475 years (10% prob-
ability of being exceeded in 50 years) and is equivalent to design
basis earthquakes (DBEs). The second suite has a return period of
2,475 years (2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years) and is
equivalent to maximum considered earthquakes (MCEs). Typically,
for NTH analysis, the average response spectrum of a series of
ground motions is scaled over a certain period range to envelope
the code-specified DBE or MCE spectrum (Maison and Speicher
2016). The average accelerations of the 20 DBE-level and 20 MCE-
level ground motions at the design period (0.359 s, Table 3) were
1.32 and 1.97g, respectively. These values are much higher than the
code-specified DBE and MCE spectral accelerations of 1.0 and
1.5g (Table 3), respectively. In this study, however, the ground mo-
tions were not scaled down to obtain more conservative rotational
demands of the yielding members.

Table 5. Final designed members of STMF-1, STMF-2, and STMF-3

STMF-1 STMF-2 STMF-3
Member Final design α Final design α Final design α
Column W360 × 818 — W360 × 900 — W920 × 970 —
Panel zone W360 × 818 — W360 × 900 — W920 × 970 —
Top SS 2C380 × 74 0.16 2C380 × 74 0.16 2C380 × 74 0.15
Bottom SS 2C380 × 74 0.14 2C380 × 74 0.14 2C380 × 74 0.10
Vertical SS 2C380 × 74 — 2C380 × 74 — 2C380 × 74 —
Chord 1-2 2C380 × 74 — 2C380 × 74 — 2C380 × 74 þ 25 mm thick side platesa —
Chord 3-4b 2C380 × 74 — 2C380 × 74 — 2C380 × 74 —
Diagonal 1 2C250 × 30 2C230 × 45 2MC310 × 52 —
Diagonal 2-4b 2C230 × 30 — 2C230 × 45 — 2MC310 × 52 —
Vertical 1-3b 2C150 × 19.3 — 2C150 × 19.3 — 2C150 × 19.3 —
Intermediate — — 2C130 × 13 — — —
a
Side plate is 289 mm deep and welded to the web of the member.
b
STMF-1 and STMF-2 only have Chord 1-3, Diagonal 1-3, and Vertical 1-2.

© ASCE 04019053-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053

 Nonlinear Time History Analysis under Design Basis ground motions. Chord members in the SS of STMF-1 yielded
Earthquakes under three ground motions, and the average maximum PR was
Plastic hinge models of the chord members in the SS of the three 0.027 rad. One of the ground motions caused one of the four plastic
prototype STMFs were modeled after suggested values in Table 2. hinges at the ends of the chord members in the SS to reach the point
Gravity loading induced high compression and tension in the top where it lost strength. This resulted in a PR of 0.06 rad; however,
the system did not collapse. Chord members in the SS of STMF-2
and bottom chord members within the SS, respectively. As a result,
only yielded under two ground motions, and the average maximum
parameters a, b, and β needed for the plastic hinge model of the top
plastic ground motion was 0.006 rad. On the other hand, intermedi-
chord member were obtained from Eqs. (2), (3), and (6), whereas
ate vertical members yielded under 17 ground motions, and the
those for the bottom chord member were obtained from Eqs. (4),
average maximum PR was 0.01 rad. Nevertheless, the proposed
(5), and (7). The average maximum SDR of STMF-1, STMF-2,
design procedure could safely provide seismic resistance for the
STMF-3 were 0.71%, 0.53%, and 0.14%, respectively (Fig. 14).
three long-span STMFs.
Table 9 shows the average maximum PRs of DYMs. These aver-
ages were calculated based on the number of ground motions that
caused yielding in any of the members. Neither the STMF-3 mem-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Maximum Considered Earthquake

bers nor the STMF-1 and STMF-2 columns yielded under any DBE
Near-Collapse Loading Sequence
MCE-level ground motions are used for NTH analyses to check the
Table 6. Story drift ratio at yielding and plastic rotation at 2.1% story drift collapse prevention of structures. Note that nearly all component
ratio (fully strain-hardened chord members in SS) of members of STMF-1
test data are based on a symmetric cyclic loading protocol with
Story drift ratio Plastic rotation at many cycles and two to three cycles per deformation level. This is
Yielding when yielding 2.1% story drift not representative of the ratcheting effect that leads to structural
sequence Member occurs (%) ratio (rad)
1 Top chord in SS 0.89 0.034
1 Bottom chord in SS 0.89 0.032 Table 8. Story drift ratio at yielding and plastic rotation at 1.1% story drift
2 Right column 1.57 0.002 ratio (fully strain-hardened chord members in SS) of members of STMF-3
3 Left column 1.84 0.005
Story drift ratio Plastic rotation at
Yielding when yielding 1.1% story drift
sequence Member occurs (%) ratio (rad)
9000 2000 1 Top chord in SS 0.52 0.030
8000 1 Bottom chord in SS 0.52 0.031
3
2
2 Right column 0.66 0.005
7000 STMF-1 3 Left column 0.75 0.004
1500
Base Shear (kips)

STMF-2
Base Shear (kN)

6000 1
STMF-3
5000
6 1000
4000 5 2.0
3000 3 4
Maximum Story Drift Ratio (%)

2 STMF-1 Avg STMF-1

3
2 500 STMF-2 Avg STMF-2
2000
1 1.5 STMF-3 Avg STMF-3
1
1000
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 1.0
Story Drift Ratio (%)

Fig. 13. Pushover curves of STMF-1, STMF-2, and STMF-3.

0.5

Table 7. Story drift ratio at yielding and plastic rotation at 2.1% story drift 0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20
ratio (fully strain-hardened chord and intermediate vertical members in SS) DBE Ground Motion No.
of members of STMF-2
Story drift ratio Plastic rotation at Fig. 14. Maximum story drift ratio of STMF-1, STMF-2, and STMF-3
Yielding when yielding 2.1% story drift under 20 DBE ground motions.
sequence Member occurs (%) ratio (rad)
1 Left intermediate 0.36 0.090
vertical member
1 Right intermediate 0.36 0.088 Table 9. Average maximum plastic rotations under DBEs
vertical member Average maximum plastic rotation (rad)
2 Top left chord in SS 0.82 0.034
Member STMF-1 No. of DBEs STMF-2 No. of DBEs
3 Top right chord in SS 0.88 0.029
a
3 Bottom left chord in SS 0.88 0.033 Chord in SS 0.027 3 0.006 2
4 Bottom right chord in SS 0.94 0.028 Intermediate N/A N/A 0.01 17
5 Right column 1.46 0.006 a
Under one ground motion, one plastic hinge failed which had a high plastic
6 Left column 1.69 0.003
rotation of 0.06 rad.

© ASCE 04019053-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053

 0.06
Plastic Rotation (Rad)
0.04
0.02
0.00 MCE 2
-0.02
0 10 20 30
(a) Time (s)
Fig. 15. (a) Plastic rotation of chord member in SS under MCEs; and (b) near-collapse loading protocol.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
collapse. Indeed, analytical studies carried out by Maison and
Speicher (2016) confirmed that the time history response of the
building interstory drifts under MCE ground motions was better
described by single-sided cyclic and/or monotonic loading rather
than fully reversed cyclic loading. As a result, the nonlinear behav-
ior of the double-channel members obtained from the fully reversed
symmetric loading protocol with a high number of repeating cycles
such as the AISC loading protocol can be unrealistic to represent
the time history response of STMF members subject to MCEs.
Therefore, a more realistic loading protocol for a near-collapse sit-
uation needed to be developed. To develop the loading protocol, a
rainflow counting technique was first used. Krawinkler et al. (2000)
used this technique to determine excursion ranges, which are the
amplitude of the response measured from either valley to peak or
vice versa. Due to the nature of the response spectra of structures
under MCE ground motions, they created a loading protocol for a
moment frame using the three largest excursion ranges. After that,
the loading protocol has pulselike amplitudes cycling around a
residual drift. The total number of cycles is only eight. In this study,
nonlinear time history analyses of a prototype long-span STMF
with the same configurations as STMF-1 under 20 SAC MCEs
were carried out by using a plastic hinge model without considering
the loss of strength (which was obtained from fully reversed cyclic
testing) (Fig. 11) to capture the rotational demand of chord mem-
bers. Typical PR responses of the chord member in the SS are
shown in Fig. 15(a). By employing the rainflow technique used by
Krawinkler et al. (2000), the plot of a loading protocol is shown in
Fig. 15(b). Because the largest excursion of the average maximum
plastic rotational demand from the NTH analyses was 0.036 rad, a
Fig. 16. Experimental test specimen dimensions (millimeters).
© ASCE
0.15
Near Collapse
Member Rotation (rad)
0.10 Rainflow Technique
0.05
0.00
MCE 18
-0.05
40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20
(b) Cycle Number
net excursion of 0.04 rad measured from −0.01 rad to þ0.03 rad
was selected. As can be seen, this maximum PR of 0.03 rad from
the rainflow analysis is much less than the rotational capacity of
the double-channel sections under the AISC loading protocol.
Therefore, to be conservative, more rigorous amplitudes were se-
lected where the symmetric fully reversed cycles started from one
cycle each at 0.00375, 0.005, 0.0075, and 0.01 rad total member
rotation. Then, the amplitude was increased at a 0.01-rad interval to
0.06 rad, which is approximately 0.05-rad PR or 1.7 times the aver-
age maximum PR of the chord member under 20 MCE ground mo-
tions. Then, nonreversed cycles were added as shown in Fig. 15(b).
The nonreversed cycles then progressed in an ever-increasing man-
ner (Jiansinlapadamrong 2017).
Behavior of Double-Channel under Near-Collapse Loading
and Plastic Hinge Model
Double-channel member 2C310 × 30.8 was tested with the same
special connection details used in the specimen shown in Fig. 5(c),
to compare with the test results of the double-channel under the
AISC loading sequence. The specimen was 1,346 mm (53 in.)
long from the loading point to the plastic hinge location. Special
connection details featured extended gusset plate and horizon-
tal stitches. The detailed drawing of the test specimen is shown
in Fig. 16. The specimen under near-collapse loading protocol
in Fig. 17(a) was cyclically loaded until a very large rotation of
0.14 rad, at which the tip of the specimen nearly came off the lateral
bracing frame. At this point, the test was terminated. The hysteretic
behavior, shown in Fig. 17(b), was stable up to 0.14 rad, at which
the force slightly increased due to the horizontal stitch hitting the
center gusset plate.
04019053-12 J. Struct. Eng.
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053
 400 300
300
200
200

Moment (kN-m)

Moment (kip-ft)
100
100
0 0
-100
-100
-200
-300 Experiment -200
FEA
-400 -300
-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Member Rotation (rad)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 17. (a) Specimen at 0.13 rad; and (b) hysteretic behavior, FEA result, and trilinear model.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 18. FEA results under NC loading protocol and trilinear model of 2C310 × 30.8 with axial compression to axial capacity ratio: (a) α ¼ 0.1;
(b) α ¼ 0.2; and (c) α ¼ 0.3.

To consider the axial load effect on the PR under near-collapse- 2C310 × 30.8 under AISC loading sequence, the relationships be-
type loads, similar to the procedure for ground motions with multi- tween a and α, b and α, and β and α were determined by regression
ple fully reversed cycles (DBEs), FEA was carried out and the analyses as follows:
model was calibrated so that the result was in good agreement with Axial compression case
the experimental result as shown in Fig. 17(b). A trilinear backbone
model is shown using a thick line in this figure. The FE model was a ¼ −0.1α þ 0.03 when 0 < α < 0.2 ð8aÞ
then used to analyze flexural behavior of the 2C310 × 30.8 section
under combined bending and various axial compression and ten- ¼ 0.011 when 0.2 < α < 0.3 ð8bÞ
sion forces. Figs. 18(a–c) show hysteresis behavior and trilinear
backbone models of 2C310 × 30.8 with axial compression-to- b ¼ −0.7α þ 0.1 when 0 < α < 0.1 ð9aÞ
capacity ratio, α, of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3. Figs. 19(a–c) show those
of 2C310 × 30.8 with axial tension. Similar to the results of ¼ 0.03 when 0.1 < α < 0.2 ð9bÞ

© ASCE 04019053-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053

 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c)

Fig. 19. FEA results under NC loading protocol and trilinear model of 2C310 × 30.8 with axial tension per capacity ratio: (a) α ¼ 0.1; (b) α ¼ 0.2;
and (c) α ¼ 0.3.

¼ − 0.3α þ 0.09 when 0.2 < α < 0.3 ð9cÞ 3.0

Maximum Story Drift Ratio (%)

STMF-1 STMF-2 STMF-3

β ¼ −0.76α þ 1.4 when 0 < α < 0.3 ð10Þ Avg STMF-1 Avg STMF-2 Avg STMF-3

Axial tension case 2.0

a ¼ 0.03 when 0 < α < 0.3 ð11Þ

b ¼ 0.1 when 0 < α < 0.1 ð12aÞ 1.0

¼ − 0.4α þ 0.14 when 0.1 < α < 0.3 ð12bÞ

β ¼ 1.4 when 0 < α < 0.13 ð13aÞ 0.0

0 4 8 12 16 20
MCE Ground Motion No.
¼ − 0.7α þ 1.4 when 0.13 < α < 0.3 ð13bÞ
Fig. 20. Maximum story drift ratio of STMF-1, STMF-2, and STMF-3
under 20 MCE ground motion.
NTH Analyses under Maximum Considered Earthquakes
Similar to the modeling for DBEs, plastic hinge models of SS chord
members were modeled using the values listed in Table 2. Param-
eters a, b, and β needed for the plastic hinge model of the top chord Table 10. Average maximum plastic rotations under MCEs
member were obtained from Eqs. (8)–(10), whereas those for the Average maximum plastic rotation (rad)
bottom chord member were obtained from Eqs. (11)–(13). Average
maximum SDRs of STMF-1, STMF-2, and STMF-3 were 1.11%, Member STMF-1 No. of MCEs STMF-2 No. of MCEs
0.73%, and 0.16%, respectively (Fig. 20). Although the SDRs in- Column 0.004 3 0.003 1
crease by 14%–56% compared with those of STMFs under DBEs, Chord in SS 0.01 17 0.005 8
the analyses show that the structures are far from collapse. None of Intermediate N/A N/A 0.018 19
the members in STMF-3 yielded. Table 10 shows the average maxi-
mum PRs of both the DYMs and columns of STMF-1 and STMF-2.
Notably, STMF-1 and STMF-2 columns only slightly yielded members more than 0.01 rad, and the absolute maximum PR was
under three and one MCE ground motions, respectively. The chord 0.042 rad. Note that 0.01 rad PR is the maximum rotational capac-
members in the SS of STMF-1 yielded under 17 ground motions ity of a double-channel section when α ¼ 0.3 [Fig. 18(c)]. This
with the average maximum PR of 0.01 rad. Among 17 ground means, if STMF-1 had been designed based on α ¼ 0.3, it could
motions, five ground motions caused maximum PR of the chord have collapsed under several MCE events. Average maximum PR

© ASCE 04019053-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053

 of intermediate vertical members caused by 19 ground motions was
0.018 rad. Chord members of STMF-2 slightly yielded under eight
ground motions. Analyses indicated that the earthquake-induced
axial forces in the chord members did not completely cancel out
the gravity-induced axial forces.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper presents a design procedure, recommended plastic hinge
models of designated yielding members and nonlinear analyses
of the seismic performance for STMFs with a very long span of
27.4 m, approximately 40% longer than the currently allowed
span length specified in AISC seismic provisions (AISC 341).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Different SS layouts were investigated for long-span STMFs by
considering the overall lateral stiffness, rotational demand of the
DYMs, available open space in the SS, and lateral bracing require-
ments. The design was done by first determining the DYMs
(members within the SS) by conventional ELF procedure. Then,
nonyielding members outside of the SS were designed by using
a capacity design approach when DYMs are fully strain hardened.
A new detailing featuring an extended gusset plate and a weld-free
zone at the end of the double-channel sections (Jiansinlapadamrong
et al. 2018) provides high rotational capacity and prevents the truss
members from experiencing strength degradation under strong
earthquakes. The effect of axial compression and tension on the
rotational ductility of built-up double-channel sections was inves-
tigated by nonlinear finite-element analysis. Recommended plastic
hinge models for DYMs of STMFs for nonlinear analysis under
both DBE and MCE level ground motions are proposed for both
design and seismic performance analysis purposes. The following
conclusions can be drawn from this study:
1. When using nonlinear pushover analysis to design nonyielding
members, it is suggested to allow the column base to develop a
plastic rotation up to approximately 0.005 rad in order to obtain
a realistic design.
2. Under pushover analyses, the first yielding of STMF-1, STMF-2,
and STMF-3 occurred at 0.89%, 0.36% (at intermediate vertical
members), and 0.52% SDRs, respectively, which is between the
typical steel braced frames and steel moment frames. STMF-3
with a single short Vierendeel special segment provides a very
high lateral stiffness, which considerably reduces the chord
rotations under either DBE or MCE ground motions.
3. The average maximum SDRs of long-span STMFs under DBE
ground motions in this study were between 0.14% and 0.71%,
and the members outside of the SS did not yield.
4. NTH analyses according to MCE-level ground motions indi-
cate that the DYMs’ time history response is predominately
single-sided and very different from the response based on fully
reversed cyclic loading. A near-collapse loading protocol was
developed according to analytical results. Component testing
results show that members can sustain much larger plastic
rotational demands under MCE-level loading sequence.
5. Using the nonlinear models of the plastic hinge based on near-
collapse loading protocol, the three prototype STMFs’ maxi-
mum SDRs under MCE ground motions ranged between 0.16%
and 1.11%. The members outside of SS, other than the columns,
did not yield. This suggests that the design procedure and SS
layouts provide conservative and satisfactory seismic collapse
prevention performance for long-span STMFs. Note that while
SDRs obtained from NTH are small, the members outside of SS
were designed based on pushover analysis where the structure
was displaced to a lager SDR until the chord members within
the SS and intermediate vertical members (if used) fully yielded
© ASCE 04019053-15
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053
and were strain hardened. This procedure led to overdesign of
the nonyielding members. Further optimization of the design
procedure is warranted for a more economic design.
6. Based on nonlinear FEA for double-channel sections and NTH
analysis of three prototype STMFs, it is shown that if the axial
compression demand-to-capacity ratio (Pu =Ry Fy Ag ) is kept un-
der 0.15, the built-up chord members have sufficient rotational
ductility for STMFs to maintain satisfactory performance under
DBE and MCE ground motions (only 1 of 120 analyses had
chord member failure). Note the developed moment–rotation re-
lationships based on isolated cantilever FE models can be overly
conservative because in an actual STMF the truss members, col-
umns, and other elements can provide restraints to prevent large
local buckling as shown in the FE models (Jiansinlapadamrong
et al. 2018). This conservative model is justified because the
study STMFs are the only gravity load–carrying system in the
prototype building; therefore, any strength degradation due to
lateral loads could cause collapse. For a long-span STMF or an
STMF with high axial forces in chord members, to minimize
the effect of axial forces, it is suggested that the current axial
load limit in AISC 341 be changed to Pu ≤ 0.18ϕPn (or
ϕPn ≥ 5.5Pu ), assuming Ry ¼ 1.1.
7. The research results suggest that STMFs with greater dimen-
sions than those in the current AISC seismic provisions (AISC
341) can be confidently used in high seismic areas. The length
of STMFs can be extended from 20 to 27.4 m, the total depth
can be extended from 1.8 to 3.05 m, and the length-to-depth
ratio of a panel in the SS can be extended from 1.5 to 3.0 without
compromising the stiffness or strength of STMFs.
Acknowledgments
This research was partially supported by the US National Science
Foundation under Award No. CMMI-0936563 and the AISC.
References
AISC. 2016. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC
341. Chicago: AISC.
ASCE. 2010. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
ASCE/SEI 7. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASCE. 2017. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE/
SEI 41. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASTM. 2018. Standard specification for high-strength low-alloy
columbium-vanadium structural steel. A572/A572M. West Consho-
hocken, PA: ASTM.
Chao, S.-H., and S. C. Goel. 2008. “A modified equation for expected
maximum shear strength of the special segment for design of special
truss moment frames.” Eng. J. 45 (2): 117–125.
Chao, S.-H., C. Jiansinlapadamrong, S. Simasathien, and T. Okazaki.
Forthcoming. “Full-scale testing and design of steel special truss
moment frames for high seismic areas.” J. Struct. Eng., in press.
Chao, S.-H., K. Khandelwal, and S. Ei-Tawil. 2006. “Ductile web fracture
initiation in steel shear links.” J. Struct. Eng. 132 (8): 1192–1200.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:8(1192).
Crisan, A. 2016. “Material calibration for static cyclic analyses.”
Intersections/Intersectii 13 (2): 43–58.
CSI (Computers and Structures). 2006. “PERFORM-3D–Nonlinear analy-
sis and performance assessment for 3D structures.” In User guide,
Version 4. Berkeley, CA: Computers and Structures.
Hamburger, R. O., and J. Malley. 2016. “Seismic design of steel special
moment frames: A guide for practicing engineers.” NEHRP Seismic
Design Technical Brief No. 2, NIST GSR 09-917-3. Gaithersburg, MD:
NIST.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Jiansinlapadamrong, C. 2017. “Seismic performance of double-channel
and double-HSS sections special truss moment frame with
buckling-restrained braces, and long span special truss moment
frame.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas
at Arlington.
Jiansinlapadamrong, C., B. Price, and S.-H. Chao. 2018. “Cyclic behavior
of steel double-channel built-up components with a new lateral-
torsional-buckling prevention detail.” J. Struct. Eng. 144 (8): 04018127.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002125.
Krawinkler, H., A. Gupta, R. Medina, and M. Luco. 2000. Development
of loading histories for testing of steel beam-to-column assemblies.
Rep. Prepared for SAC Steel Project. Palo Alto, CA: Dept. of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Stanford Univ.
Maison, B. F., and M. S. Speicher. 2016. “Loading protocols for ASCE 41
backbone curves.” Earthquake Spectra 32 (4): 2513–2532. https://doi
.org/10.1193/010816EQS007EP.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 04/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Newell, J. D., and C.-M. Uang. 2008. “Cyclic behavior of steel wide-flange
columns subjected to large drift.” J. Struct. Eng. 134 (8): 1334–1342.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:8(1334).
Ozkula, G., J. Harris, and C.-M. Uang. 2017. “Observations from cyclic
tests on deep, wide-flange beam-columns.” Eng. J. 54 (1): 45–59.
Simasathien, S., C. Jiansinlapadamrong, and S.-H. Chao. 2017. “Seismic
behavior of special truss moment frame with double hollow structural
sections as chord members.” Eng. Struct. 131 (2017): 14–27. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.001.
Somerville, P. G., M. Smith, S. Punyamurthula, and J. Sun. 1997. Develop-
ment of ground motion time histories for Phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel
project. Rep. No. SAC/BD-97/04. Sacramento, CA: SAC Joint Venture.
Zargar, S., R. A. Medina, and E. Miranda. 2014. “Cyclic behavior of
deep steel columns subjected to large drifts, rotations, and axial loads.”
In Proc., 10th National Conf. in Earthquake Engineering. Anchorage,
AK: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

© ASCE 04019053-16 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019053