4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Taipei, Taiwan
October 12-13, 2006
Paper No. 068

COLLECTOR BEAM INTERACTION WITH STEEL SELF-CENTERING

MOMENT FRAMES
Maria E. M. Garlock 1 , Jie Li2 and Mary Lisbeth Blaisdell3

ABSTRACT
The behavior of a self-centering moment-resisting frame (SC-MRF) is characterized by a gap
opening and closing at the beam-column interface under earthquake loading. Energy dissipation is
provided by supplemental elements that deform under the gap opening behavior. The gap opening
behavior also causes the SC-MRF to expand, where in the deformed position the distance between
the column centerlines increases relative to the original distance. This behavior imposes new design
requirements on the floor diaphragm design. The objective of this study is to analytically evaluate
the effects of the floor diaphragm stiffness, strength, and configuration on the seismic response of a
SC-MRF and to evaluate the different components of axial force that develop in the beam. The
results show that these parameters significantly affect the seismic performance of a SC-MRF. The
axial force that develops from the floor diaphragm deformation is significant and can not be
neglected when designing these systems.
Keywords: self-centering, moment resisting frames, steel connections, floor diaphragm

INTRODUCTION
A steel self-centering moment resisting frame (SC-MRF) is an innovative structural system for
earthquake-resistant design that has the potential to reduce or eliminate structural damage and return
to its original vertical position (i.e. self-center) following a major earthquake. Ricles et al. (2001),
Garlock et al. (2005), Rojas et al. (2005), Chou et al. (2006), Jhuang et al. (2006) and Christopolous et
al. (2002) have developed such a system for steel moment resisting frames, El-Shiekh et al. (1999) for
concrete moment resisting frames, and Kurama and Shen (2004) for hybrid coupled wall systems (i.e.
concrete walls coupled by post-tensioned steel beams). The details of these systems vary, but they all
have the following in common: (1) the beams in the frames are post-tensioned (PT) by either high
strength steel strands or steel bars, which provides a restoring force to the system that results in selfcentering (see Fig. 1(a)); (2) energy dissipation is provided by supplemental elements such as top-andseat angles, steel bars, or friction devices; and (3) the beam-to-column (or beam-to-wall) connections
are characterized by horizontal gap opening (gap) and closing under earthquake loading as shown in
Fig. 1(b).
This third behavior imposes new design requirements on the floor system design, which must
accommodate such gap opening. The floor system is defined as the floor slabs, the floor beams that
carry gravity loads, and the collector elements that transmit earthquake inertial forces to the SC-MRF.
The collector elements are therefore a component of the floor diaphragm, which is defined by IBC
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544;
phone 609-258-2728; fax 609-258-1563; email mgarlock@princeton.edu
2
Graduate Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University
3
Graduate Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, U.C. Berkeley

(International 2000) as the system designed to transmit lateral forces to lateral load resisting elements.
In the present paper, a PT frame is defined as a steel MRF with post-tensioned (PT) connections, and
a PT frame system is a PT frame with the collector elements that connect it to the floor system.
This study analytically evaluates the effects of the floor diaphragm stiffness, strength, and
configuration on the seismic response of a SC-MRF. The floor diaphragm is represented by collector
beams that transmit inertial forces to the SC-MRF. Previous research (Garlock 2002, Garlock et al.
2007a, 2007b) has studied SC-MRFs designed with 3 collector beams. This study extends that work
by looking at different collector beam strengths and stiffnesses, and it compares the performance of a
floor diaphragm designed with 3 collector beams to that designed with 15 collector beams.
SC-MRF BEHAVIOR
PT strands
Connections
(a)
column
beam
In our study, bolted top-and-seat angles are used with
high strength 7-wire strands running parallel to the
beam and anchored outside the connections (see Fig.
anchorage
1(a)) based on Garlock et al. (2005). Fig. 1(b) shows a
tension angle
PT connection detail. The post-tensioned strands (b)
reinforcing plate
compress the beam flanges against the column flange
to resist moment, while the friction at the compressed
d1
gap
beam-column interface resists beam shear. The angles contact surface
P
also resist moment and beam shear, and dissipate and center of
rotation (d and
r
energy under seismic loading. Reinforcing plates are d measured from
d2
welded to the beam flanges and shim plates are placed here)
between the column and beam flanges. While the
MV
shim plate
research presented in this paper was done specifically
for steel SC-MRFs with these specific connection
details, these results can be extended to other self- Figure 1. (a) Schematic elevation of one
floor of a SC-MRF and (b) deformation
centering systems that exhibit horizontal gap as well.
of a decompressed PT connection.
The idealized moment-rotation (M-r)
behavior of a PT steel connection is described in detail in Garlock et al. (2005), where r is the
relative rotation between the beam and column (Fig. 1(b)). The M- r behavior is characterized by
gap opening (gap) at the beam-column interface (Fig. 1(b)), which begins after the decompression
moment is reached. The connection behaves as a rigid connection until decompression. With
continued loading, the tension angle of the connection yields and with even further loading, the
strands will yield. Upon unloading, the yielding angles dissipate energy until the gap closes. A
properly designed PT connection will not have the strands yield and therefore the connection will selfcenter (i.e., r equals zero) upon unloading.
A simplified analysis of a PT connection is given in Garlock et al. (2005 and 2007a). The
beam axial force (P) and the tension angle force (Va) contribute to the connection moment (M =
Pd2+Vad1). P is the sum of several components as will be explained later and d1 and d2 are shown in
Fig. 1(b). The decompression moment, Md, is equal to Pd2. Following decompression, the strands
elongate producing an increase in strand force, which, in turn, causes the beam to shorten.
1

Floor Diaphragm
Gap opening at the connections after decompression causes a PT frame to expand as shown, for
example, for a four-bay frame in Fig. 2(b). In the deformed position, the distance between the column
centerlines is larger than in the original undeformed position due to connection gap opening.
Assuming gap of each connection is unrestrained and the same in each bay, the frame expands a
distance ncgap/2 from the center of the frame to the point of reference, where nc is the number of
connections between the center of the frame and the point of reference.
In our study, the floor diaphragm is represented by collector beams. In this paper, two
collector beam layouts are evaluated: a 3 collector beam (3-CB) layout shown in Fig. 2(c) and a 15
collector beam (15-CB) layout shown in Fig. 2(d). The shaded areas in these figures indicate where

(a)
(a)
gap

2gap

gap

2gap

(b) T0

(b)

(c) T
collector beams

(d) f cb

(c)
L

15CB

PT beam

collector beams

composite slab
3CB

(e) f if
15CB

(d)

3CB

(f) f col

Figure 2. One floor of a SC-MRF: (a) undeformed

configuration; (b) deformed configuration; plan
view of (c) 3-CB design, and (d) 15-CB design.

Figure 3. Hypothetical beam force distribution in a

3-CB and 15-CB design of a SC-MRF.

the beams are restrained by composite action with the floor slab. In the 3-CB layout, the collector
beams are the three beams connected to the center PT frame columns as shown in Fig. 2(c).
Each collector beam is assumed to behave as a cantilever of length b with a backspan of length a.
More details on the 3-CB design is given in Garlock (2002) and Garlock et al. (2007a). The 15-CB
design has all the beams that frame into the SC-MRF (with the exception of the beams that frame into
the two exterior columns) act as collector beams as shown in Fig. 2(d). This design assumes that the
collector beams act as cantilevers with length b and a fixed condition is assumed at the point where
the composite action begins.
Beam Axial Forces
After post-tensioning, the axial force in the beam equals To. With lateral loading and gap opening,
additional axial forces develop in the PT beams. Fig. 3 (a) shows one floor of a SC-MRF that has 15
collector beams (represented by the small dots on the beam) Fig. 3 shows the axial force components
of SC-MRF beams (a positive sign is equal to compression), which are comprised of the five parts
discussed below (note that the sketch shown in Fig. 3 is schematic and this paper will later quantify
the relative magnitudes of each component):
1 The initial post-tensioning force, To. Fig. 3(b) shows that To remains constant across the bays.
2 The increase in post-tensioning force due to the strand elongation that develops with gap opening,
T. Fig. 3(c) shows that T also remains constant across the bays. An equation for To + T is
given in Garlock et al. (2005).
3 A force (f cb) due to the deformation of the collector beams, which develops with gap opening. Fig.
3(d) shows that f cb varies across the bays and becomes the largest at the center of the frame. As
the collector beams deform with frame expansion, they essentially clamp the SC-MRF as shown
by the arrows in Figs. 2(c) and 2(d). The arrows represent the forces induced by the collector
beam deformation (where the force equals the collector beam stiffness times the deformation).
For comparison, Fig. 3(d) also shows the distribution of f cb for the 3-CB shown in Fig. 2(c),
which is assumed to have the same collector beam stiffness as the 15-CB design. In this case, f cb

will be larger for the 15-CB design since f cb is the sum of collector beam forces. Garlock et al.
(2007a) and Li (2005) discuss this in more detail.
4 The SC-MRF beams carry a portion of the total floor inertial force, Fx, which is transferred to the
SC-MRF beams through the collector beams. Although the exterior columns of our designs are
not connected to collector beams, they do carry a portion of Fx, which is distributed to the exterior
columns via axial forces in the SC-MRF beams. This portion of Fx that is carried by the SC-MRF
beam is referred to as f if. Figure 3(e) shows that f if can be negative, i.e., create tension forces, and
therefore reduce the total amount of PT force in the beam. For comparison, f if is drawn for a 3CB design as well. It is seen that when the collector beam frames into the beam directly (as in the
15-CB design) f if varies from compression to tension in one bay, whereas in the 3-CB design, f if
remains constant in one bay since the collector beams frame into the SC-MRF column but not the
beams. Fig. 3(e) is drawn for loading to the right. If the loading is reversed, the signs in Fig. 3(f)
are reversed. Values for f if in every segment of the beam for a 15 collector beam design are given
in Li (2005), and f if equals Fx/8 for the 3-CB design (Garlock et al. 2007a).
5 Additional axial forces (f col) will develop in the beams due to relative column deformation from
floor x to floor x-1 and floor x to floor x+1. Above the first floor, this interaction between floor
levels through the columns is small since the frame expansion is similar at each floor. On the first
floor however, the first story columns can restrain expansion of the first floor beams if the SCMRF does not expand at the ground floor (El Sheikh 1999, Garlock 2002). The effect of this
column restraint is similar to the collector beam restraint where the columns essentially clamp the
PT frame and develop axial forces in the beams as shown in Fig. 3(f).
PROTOTYPE SC-MRFS
The prototype building is a 6-story 6-bay steel frame with 30 feet bay widths and 13 feet column
height except for the column between the ground level and first floor, which has a 15 feet height. One
basement level is included 12 feet below ground level. The SC-MRF frames are assumed to be on the
4 interior bays of the building perimeter. The beam and column sizes, the number of strands (Ns) and
the total initial post-tension force (To) are given in Table 1. The angles were L8x8x3/4, the
reinforcing plate was 72 inches long, 16 inches wide, and the thickness varied between one-half inch
to one inch from floor to floor. All material had a nominal yield stress of 50 ksi. More detail on the
prototype building and connection details is given in Garlock et al. (2007b).

Floor
6
5
4
3
2
1

Table 1. Prototype building design

Beam
Column
Ns
W30x90
W14x283
18
W33x118
W14x283
18
W36x135
W14x342
26
W36x170
W14x342
30
W36x182
W14x398
32
W36x194
W14x398
32

To (kips)
306
450
481
705
800
926

In this study, the SC-MRF characteristics described above remained constant while the floor
diaphragm characteristics varied as represented by the number of collector beams, the collector beam
stiffness, and the collector beam strength. Fig. 4 shows the collector beam force-deformation
behavior of the 3-CB designs and 15-CB designs. The nomenclature of each design is such that the
first number represents the number of collector beams, the second number represents the stiffness in
kips/inch, and the last number represents the strength in kips. In the 3-CB designs only, the center
collector beam is assumed to have about twice the strength and stiffness as the two adjacent collector
beams for improved performance (Garlock 2002) and Fig. 4 represents the adjacent collector beams.
Design 3CB-303-309 was the design selected by Garlock et al. (2007a), which uses a W14x109 for
the two adjacent collector beams (with its web oriented parallel to the slab) and b = 1143 mm (45
inches), and a = 381 mm (15 inches) (see Fig. 2c). The other four 3-CB designs are of a stiffness and
strength that is intended to be an order of magnitude larger or smaller than design 3CB-303-309. The

Force (kip)

800
15CB-260-300 and 15CB-35-100 designs use
700
W36x260 and W14x193 collector beams,
3CB-3000-605
600
respectively. Both have their web oriented parallel
500
to the slab and b = 4572 mm (15 feet) (see Fig. 2d).
400
The SC-MRF prototypes were modeled in
3CB-3000-309
300
DRAIN-2DX. The model included the interaction of
3CB-303-309
3CB-30-309
200
3CB-30-130
15CB-260-300
the floor diaphragm with the SC-MRF using zero
100
15CB-35-100
length spring elements that characterize the nonlinear
0
force-deformation behavior of the collector beams.
0
3
6
9
12
15
The second order P- effects are considered by
Deformation (in.)
including a lean-on column in the model, with the
Figure 4. Collector beam force - deformation
building interior gravity loads that are tributary to the
properties for the 3-CB and 15-CB designs.
SC-MRF placed on this lean-on column. At each
floor, the building mass tributary to the SC-MRF is
placed on the lean-on column. The motions of these floor masses during dynamic analyses represent
the displacements of the floor system. More details are given in Garlock et al. (2007b).

GROUND MOTIONS
To study the effects of the floor diaphragm design, the prototype models were subjected to
nonlinear time-history analyses using DRAIN-2DX. Six ground motions were used in the study and
each was scaled to two levels (therefore 12 analyses were run per design). The ground motions
presented here were selected based on their spectral characteristics at the first and second mode
periods of the prototype SC-MRFs. The following six ground motions were used in this study: (1) an
artificial earthquake that was generated to be compatible with the IBC 2000 design spectrum
(International 2000), which represents the design basis earthquake (DBE), (2) the G03090 component
of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake recorded at Gilroy Array #3, (3) the fn-45 component of the 1995
Kobe earthquake recorded at the JMA Station, (4) the CHY036-W component of the 1999 Chi-Chi
earthquake, (5) the fp-45 (SE36) component of the 1978 Miyagi-Oki earthquake, and (6) the TAR360
component of the Tarzana recording of the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The natural ground motions
were scaled to a level compatible with the 5% damped IBC 2000 design spectrum, and thus
considered to be a DBE. The DBE ground motions were multiplied by 1.5 to scale them to the
maximum considered earthquake (MCE) level (FEMA 2000).
EFFECT OF COLLECTOR BEAM STIFFNESS AND STRENGTH
In this section, we evaluate the effects of stiffness and strength by examining the 3-CB designs. In the
discussions that follow, to evaluate the effects of stiffness we compare the performance of designs
3CB-30-309, 3CB-303-309, and 3CB-3000-309. To evaluate the effects of strength, we compare the
performance of designs 3CB-30-309 to 3CB-30-130, and also we compare 3CB-3000-309 to 3CB3000-605. Tables 2(a) and 2(b) list several response quantities for each collector beam design where
Table 2(a) relates to the DBE and Table 2(b) to the MCE ground motions. The values listed are
maximums of all floor levels unless otherwise noted. The paragraphs that follow discuss each
response. The analysis nomenclature is such that Art, Chi, Gil, Kob, Miy, and Tar refer to the
artificial, Chi-Chi, Gilroy, Kobe, Miyagi-Oki, and Tarzana ground motions described previously, and
the value in parenthesis refers to the collector beam design described by Fig. 4.
Table 2 shows that there is no trend between collector beam stiffness and the maximum roof
displacement, roof, interstory drift, , nor connection relative rotation, r. A trend is seen, however,
between collector beam strength and roof, and r, where the smaller the strength the smaller the roof,
and r. The reason for this trend has to do with the collector beams yielding. Table 2 lists the
percentage of collector beams that have yielded in the frame. It is seen that the smaller the strength,
the larger the percentage of collector beam yielding. Figure 4 shows that the displacement at which
the collector beam yields is significantly smaller for design 3CB-30-130 compared to 3CB-30-309.
Table 2 shows that 0% of collector beams yield in the latter design whereas more than 50% yield in

the former design. The difference in collector beam yielding displacement is much smaller for the
3CB-3000 designs therefore the percentage of collector beam yielding is similar and the maximum
roof and are similar for the 3CB-3000-309 and 3CB-3000-605 designs.
A correlation exists between collector beam stiffness and relative displacement between the
floor system and frame (frame-floor). The frame displacement is represented by the center column of
the SC-MRF, while the floor displacement is represented by the displacement of the mass on the leanon column. Table 2 shows that the larger the stiffness, the smaller the relative displacement. Design
3CB-30-130 has the largest relative displacements due to a smaller strength and consequent yielding
of collector beams.
The residual story drift of the frame, resid, and of the floor system, resid,flr, are generally small
as seen in Table 2. resid and resid,flr are affected by the percentage of collector beams that yield, which
as described previously increases with decreasing strength. However, resid and resid,flr also increases
with increasing stiffness since a large stiffness produces large axial forces (as described previously),
which in turn causes the beams to yield and therefore leaves permanent deformations. Table 2 shows
that the maximum axial force in the beam, P (which is normalized by the yield axial force Py, i.e., the
section area times its yield strength), increases with increasing collector beam stiffness. This is
consistent with previous discussions that indicate that one component of P is f cb, which is directly
related to the collector beam stiffness. Since P is directly related to the moment in the connection, the
larger the axial force, the larger the moment. Large collector beam stiffness therefore leads to large
axial forces and moments, which, in turn, can lead to the development of beam local buckling. A
reduced collector beam strength can limit the amount of axial force and moment; however, it can also
lead to several collector beams yielding as discussed previously.
Based on test results of subassemblies with PT connections, Garlock (2002) found that beam
strains larger than about 3y (where y is the yield strain) may result in beam local buckling.
Therefore, Table 2 identifies the number of beams with strains larger than 3y. It is seen that the 3CB
designs with stiffness equal to 3000 had a large number of beams with strains greater than 3y and the
3CB designs with stiffness equal to 30 had no beams with strains greater than 3y.
EFFECT OF NUMBER OF COLLECTOR BEAMS
Of the 3-CB designs, design 3CB-303-309 had the best performance in terms of displacements, beam
axial forces and strains, and number of yielded collector beams. The results of the 3-CB study
suggests that perhaps better performance can be achieved if more redundancy is added to the system
(i.e. more collector beams) so that yielding of a few collector beams does not compromise the
building system performance. Therefore, this section compares a SC-MRF floor diaphragm designed
with 15 collector beams to that designed with 3 collector beams (specifically design 3CB-303-305).
Two 15-CB designs were studied: One design (15CB-260-300) used essentially the same stiffness and
strength as design 3CB-303-309. Another design (15CB-35-100) was selected so the maximum axial
forces that develop in the SC-MRF beams would be similar to that of design 3CB-303-309. These
designs were subject to the same ground motions as the 3-CB designs. Table 2 lists some response
quantities for all of the designs and will be used for discussion below.
Table 2 shows that there is no correlation between the number of collector beams and roof,
and r. Since design 3CB-303-309 has far fewer collector beams in the building than the 15CB
designs, a larger percentage of them yield as seen in Table 2. It is seen that no collector beams yield
in the 15CB-260-300 design under all ground motions, whereas less than 8% and 40% of the collector
beams yield for 15CB-35-100 design subject to the DBE and MCE ground motions, respectively.
The difference in displacement between the SC-MRF and the floor system (frame - floor) is
not affected by the number of collector beams in the system. The maximum frame - floor, which
generally occurs at the top floor, is typically less than 38 mm (1.5 inches) for designs 3CB-303-309
and 15CB-260-300, which have relatively large collector beam stiffness. The exceptions are design
3CB-303-309 under the Kobe-MCE, Miyagi-MCE, Tarzana-MCE ground motions since in these
cases more than 75% of the collector beams yielded. Design 15CB-260-300 design has smaller (frame
- floor) values compared to design 15CB-35-100 since the connection between the SC-MRF and the
floor system is stiffer.

Table 2(a). Response of SC-MRF designs for DBE ground motions.

Design Basis Earthquke

Analysis
Art(3CB-30-309)
Art(3CB-303-309)
Art(3CB-3000-309)
Art(3CB-30-130)
Art(3CB-3000-605)
Art(15CB-260-300)
Art(15CB-35-100)
Chi(3CB-30-309)
Chi(3CB-303-309)
Chi(3CB-3000-309)
Chi(3CB-30-130)
Chi(3CB-3000-605)
Chi(15CB-260-300)
Chi(15CB-35-100)
Gil(3CB-30-309)
Gil(3CB-303-309)
Gil(3CB-3000-309)
Gil(3CB-30-130)
Gil(3CB-3000-605)
Gil(15CB-260-300)
Gil(15CB-35-100)
Kob(3CB-30-309)
Kob(3CB-303-309)
Kob(3CB-3000-309)
Kob(3CB-30-130)
Kob(3CB-3000-605)
Kob(15CB-260-300)
Kob(15CB-35-100)
Miy(3CB-30-309)
Miy(3CB-303-309)
Miy(3CB-3000-309)
Miy(3CB-30-130)
Miy(3CB-3000-605)
Miy(15CB-260-300)
Miy(15CB-35-100)
Tar(3CB-30-309)
Tar(3CB-303-309)
Tar(3CB-3000-309)
Tar(3CB-30-130)
Tar(3CB-3000-605)
Tar(15CB-260-300)
Tar(15CB-35-100)

roof

(in)

(%hx)

23.3
19.8
18.5
16.2
18.1
18.5
20.3
9.7
14.1
15.9
9.7
16.1
15.8
12.1
22.5
25.7
24.0
16.7
23.4
22.9
25.4
17.0
16.5
19.4
13.6
19.6
19.5
13.8
12.1
18.1
19.5
12.0
20.4
20.0
16.2
16.2
19.5
19.7
14.3
20.7
20.8
19.1

2.8
2.5
2.6
2.1
2.7
2.7
2.6
1.3
2.0
2.2
1.3
2.2
2.2
1.9
2.8
3.3
3.1
2.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
2.3
3.1
2.4
1.8
2.6
2.6
3.0
1.8
3.7
3.5
1.8
3.5
3.4
3.7
2.0
2.7
2.8
2.1
3.1
3.3
2.8

r
0.024
0.021
0.024
0.018
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.010
0.016
0.018
0.010
0.018
0.020
0.015
0.024
0.029
0.029
0.018
0.030
0.031
0.032
0.019
0.028
0.020
0.014
0.022
0.024
0.029
0.016
0.033
0.030
0.016
0.031
0.033
0.035
0.017
0.023
0.024
0.018
0.027
0.032
0.025

% of
CBs
yield
0.0%
16.7%
66.7%
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
72.2%
27.8%
55.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
44.4%
66.7%
77.8%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
22.2%
72.2%
100%
61.1%
0.0%
4.4%
0.0%
16.7%
77.8%
77.8%
50.0%
0.0%
7.8%
0.0%
33.3%
94.4%
77.8%
66.7%
0.0%
7.8%

frame
floor

resid

resid,flr

(%hx)

(%hx)

(in)
5.4
0.7
0.1
9.0
0.1
0.3
1.6
4.4
0.7
0.1
5.5
0.1
0.3
1.6
6.3
0.8
0.1
15.0
0.1
0.3
1.6
6.8
1.5
0.2
8.3
0.1
0.3
2.4
7.4
1.2
0.4
11.1
0.1
0.4
2.5
5.8
0.9
0.2
8.1
0.1
0.5
2.4

0.122
0.011
0.026
0.015
0.020
0.058
0.022
0.001
0.056
0.011
0.003
0.043
0.044
0.027
0.098
0.013
0.195
0.030
0.260
0.185
0.026
0.000
0.132
0.025
0.041
0.040
0.050
0.212
0.008
0.017
0.051
0.013
0.113
0.219
0.005
0.019
0.026
0.022
0.044
0.033
0.154
0.016

0.085
0.007
0.028
0.699
0.025
0.053
0.018
0.001
0.049
0.022
0.007
0.044
0.040
0.022
0.069
0.047
0.187
0.397
0.261
0.180
0.022
0.000
0.261
0.065
0.154
0.050
0.047
0.173
0.006
0.173
0.206
0.558
0.126
0.233
0.084
0.107
0.022
0.056
0.317
0.022
0.155
0.017

P/Py

# of
Beams
/y >3

0.49
0.53
0.58
0.43
0.60
0.60
0.51
0.38
0.48
0.49
0.38
0.57
0.58
0.46
0.48
0.56
0.59
0.44
0.62
0.63
0.56
0.42
0.52
0.55
0.41
0.56
0.60
0.52
0.43
0.53
0.53
0.43
0.57
0.64
0.52
0.44
0.51
0.55
0.45
0.64
0.64
0.51

0
0
1
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
4
0
12
11
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
4
0
8
15
0
0
0
0
0
14
23
0

Table 2(b). Response of SC-MRF designs for MCE ground motions.

Maximum Considered Earthquake

Analysis
Art(3CB-30-309)
Art(3CB-303-309)
Art(3CB-3000-309)
Art(3CB-30-130)
Art(3CB-3000-605)
Art(15CB-260-300)
Art(15CB-35-100)
Chi(3CB-30-309)
Chi(3CB-303-309)
Chi(3CB-3000-309)
Chi(3CB-30-130)
Chi(3CB-3000-605)
Chi(15CB-260-300)
Chi(15CB-35-100)
Gil(3CB-30-309)
Gil(3CB-303-309)
Gil(3CB-3000-309)
Gil(3CB-30-130)
Gil(3CB-3000-605)
Gil(15CB-260-300)
Gil(15CB-35-100)
Kob(3CB-30-309)
Kob(3CB-303-309)
Kob(3CB-3000-309)
Kob(3CB-30-130)
Kob(3CB-3000-605)
Kob(15CB-260-300)
Kob(15CB-35-100)
Miy(3CB-30-309)
Miy(3CB-303-309)
Miy(3CB-3000-309)
Miy(3CB-30-130)
Miy(3CB-3000-605)
Miy(15CB-260-300)
Miy(15CB-35-100)
Tar(3CB-30-309)
Tar(3CB-303-309)
Tar(3CB-3000-309)
Tar(3CB-30-130)
Tar(3CB-3000-605)
Tar(15CB-260-300)
Tar(15CB-35-100)

roof

(in)

(%hx)

27.7
29.4
24.5
19.6
26.9
22.0
30.8
22.3
16.5
16.1
15.0
16.3
16.3
16.6
33.7
36.0
35.4
21.0
35.0
34.4
35.7
25.9
20.1
24.0
18.3
26.0
24.7
21.5
20.5
25.7
24.3
19.7
24.0
24.7
25.1
18.6
24.3
23.5
17.3
23.2
24.8
21.9

3.3
4.1
3.7
2.7
3.7
3.3
4.2
2.3
2.7
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.5
4.5
4.6
4.4
2.8
4.3
4.5
4.6
3.7
4.2
4.5
2.5
4.7
4.4
4.7
3.1
4.8
5.2
2.9
5.5
5.1
5.0
2.4
3.5
3.6
2.6
4.1
4.2
3.2

r
0.031
0.038
0.034
0.024
0.035
0.031
0.041
0.026
0.024
0.019
0.018
0.019
0.020
0.023
0.039
0.041
0.039
0.025
0.042
0.046
0.042
0.033
0.038
0.041
0.020
0.042
0.049
0.044
0.029
0.044
0.048
0.027
0.049
0.057
0.048
0.022
0.031
0.032
0.024
0.036
0.048
0.029

% of
CBs
yield
0.0%
66.7%
77.8%
77.8%
61.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
66.7%
66.7%
61.1%
0.0%
3.3%
0.0%
61.1%
100%
88.9%
66.7%
0.0%
6.7%
0.0%
88.9%
88.9%
100%
66.7%
0.0%
15.6%
0.0%
77.8%
94.4%
88.8%
72.2%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
88.9%
100%
100%
83.3%
0.0%
40.0%

frame
floor

resid

resid,flr

(%hx)

(%hx)

(in)
7.3
0.4
0.1
14.4
0.1
0.3
1.9
6.1
1.2
0.1
8.1
0.1
0.3
2.3
8.4
0.9
0.2
24.5
0.1
0.4
2.0
9.1
4.2
1.0
10.2
0.1
0.6
3.9
9.7
4.7
1.3
8.9
0.1
0.7
4.4
7.1
2.2
1.2
10.4
0.1
0.7
2.9

0.023
0.023
0.252
0.048
0.194
0.092
0.111
0.024
0.018
0.069
0.011
0.051
0.102
0.058
0.076
0.226
0.457
0.202
0.337
0.201
0.098
0.391
0.131
0.149
0.060
0.150
0.213
0.277
0.127
0.127
0.272
0.200
0.229
0.406
0.215
0.060
0.109
0.051
0.197
0.171
0.404
0.052

0.017
0.073
0.219
1.477
0.199
0.077
0.096
0.000
0.152
0.068
0.371
0.060
0.094
0.047
0.052
0.199
0.365
0.519
0.340
0.205
0.094
0.272
1.500
0.492
0.840
0.171
0.203
0.509
0.387
0.300
0.604
0.426
0.234
0.420
0.598
0.734
0.213
0.356
1.605
0.162
0.399
0.104

P/Py

# of
Beams
/y >3

0.55
0.60
0.63
0.47
0.64
0.64
0.60
0.50
0.48
0.55
0.43
0.60
0.58
0.47
0.51
0.60
0.62
0.50
0.65
0.67
0.59
0.56
0.58
0.62
0.46
0.64
0.70
0.55
0.51
0.58
0.60
0.51
0.64
0.72
0.58
0.50
0.57
0.60
0.49
0.63
0.70
0.54

0
6
6
0
7
12
6
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
7
15
0
23
31
9
0
0
7
0
18
25
1
0
4
12
0
18
28
9
0
0
10
0
20
35
0

Table 2 also shows that the maximum residual story drift of the SC-MRF remaining at the end
of the ground motion (resid) is negligible for all cases (i.e. the SC-MRF self-centers). The same
negligible quantities are observed for the maximum residual story drift of the floor system (resid,flr)
with the exception of design 3CB-303-309 under the Kobe-MCE ground motion since in this case,
nearly all of the collector beams yielded (as shown in Table 2).
Design 15CB-260-300 develops significantly larger axial forces in the SC-MRF beams than
design 3CB-303-309, since both collector beam designs have essentially the same collector beam
stiffness. The reason for this trend was discussed previously (refer to discussions of Fig. 3(d)).
Design 15CB-35-100, however, develops a similar axial force as design 3CB-303-309 since the
collector beam stiffness in the 15-CB design is smaller. Table 2 shows that design 15CB-260-300 has
a much larger number of beams that exceed a strain of 3y as compared to the other two designs. This
is due to the larger axial forces that develop in design 15CB-260-300.
COMPONENTS OF AXIAL FORCE
This section examines how much each component of axial load in the beam, P (i.e., To. T, f cb, f if and
f col), contributes to the total P, and evaluates the effects that the number of collector beams and the
collector beam stiffness has on each component. To make this evaluation we use static pushover
results of the following three designs: 3CB-303-309, 15CB-35-100, and 15CB-260-300. In the
DRAIN-2DX analyses the force in the collector beam element is comprised both of a portion of the
floor inertial force and the force that develops from the collector beam deformation. Therefore, the
DRAIN-2DX solution cannot separate f if and f cb. Li (2005) developed simplified analysis
calculations (henceforth referred to as calculations) based on equilibrium and compatibility that can
solve for each component of P. These calculations can predict both f if and f cb and are used in the
discussions that follow.
Figs. 5(a), (b), and (c) show the various components of P (for the fifth floor adjacent to the
center column) for the three designs mentioned above. The solid line represents the DRAIN-2DX
solution and the dashed line represents the calculations. Good agreement is seen between these two
solutions and therefore the calculations are validated. Figs. 5(d), (e), and (f) evaluate each component
of P as a percentage of total P. Since the DRAIN model cannot separate f if and f cb, Figs. 5(d), (e), and
(f) plot the simplified analysis calculation solution only. The following three observations are made:
First, f cb is relatively large. Designs 3CB-303-309 and 15CB-35-100, which showed adequate
seismic behavior (see Table 2), develops f cb that reaches about 20% of P. Design 15CB-260-300,
which developed large axial loads and had several SC-MRF beams yield, develops f cb that reaches
about 50% of P. Second, f if is small in all designs, where it is seen to be less than 10% of P. Also,
Figs. 5(d), (e) and (f) show that f if develops in the beam with lateral loading, even before gap opening,
whereas T, f cb, and f col all develop with gap opening. And third, designs 15CB-260-300 and 3CB303-309, which have about equal collector beam stiffness, have significantly different P. This
difference is mostly related to f cb, where a schematic representation of f cb in the frame for these
designs is represented in Fig. 3(d). However, if in the 15-CB design the stiffness is reduced (e.g.
15CB-35-100) the axial load in the beam decreases as seen in Fig 5(b). In this case Fig. 3(d) would
no longer represent a good comparison between the 3-CB and 15-CB designs.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study analytically evaluated the effects of the floor diaphragm stiffness, strength, and
configuration on the seismic response of a self-centering moment-resisting frame (SC-MRF). It also
examined in detail the different components of axial load that develop in the beams of a SC-MRF. In
this study, the floor diaphragm is represented by collector beams that transmit the floor inertial
forces to the SC-MRF. Results show that larger collector beam stiffness results in: (1) smaller relative
displacements between the SC-MRF and the floor system; and (2) larger axial forces, moments, and
strains in the SC-MRF beams. Smaller collector beam strength results in more collector beams
yielding, which in turn causes smaller roof displacements, story drifts, and relative rotations in
addition to larger residual drifts. Using a larger number of collector beams reduces the percentage of

collector beams that yield in the frame and therefore results in improved performance through added
redundancy.
It was shown that the collector beams contribute significantly to the axial load in the SC-MRF
beams (P). An important design consideration is to carefully select the number of collector beams and
the associated stiffness of each so that P does not become large enough to reach a limit state of beam
local buckling for example. Designs where the collector beams contributed up to 50% of P did not
perform as well as those designs where the collector beams contributed up to 20% of P. The portion
of P that comes from floor inertia forces traveling through these beams was shown to be relatively
small (less than 10% of P).
(d)
(a)
1500

100

3CB-303-309

Drain
Calculations

3CB-303-309

80

T 0/P

total P

P (kips)

if

f +f

if

cb

500

60

P (%)

1000

40

T/P
20

T0

if

cb

f /P

f /P
0

0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.01

Roof Drift

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Roof Drift
(e)

(b)
1500

100

15CB-35-100

Drain
Calculations

15CB-35-100

80

T 0/P

P (kips)

if

f +f

if

cb

500

P (%)

total P

1000

60
40

T/P

20

T0

if

cb

f /P

f /P

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.01

Roof Drift

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Roof Drift

(c)

(f)
100

15CB-260-300

Drain
Calculations

total P

1000

if

f +f

P (kips)

15CB-260-300

80

f
500

if

T
T0

T 0/P

cb

P (%)

1500

cb

60

f /P

40

T/P

20

if

f /P

0.01

0.02

0.03

Roof Drift

0.04

0.05

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Roof Drift

Figure 5. Component of axial force for design (a) 3CB-303-309, (b) 15CB-35-100, (c) 15CB-260-300;
Percent contribution of each component to total P (based on simplified analysis calculations) for
design (d) 3CB-303-309, (e) 15CB-35-100, (f) 15CB-260-300.

The gap opening behavior in SC-MRFs is important because this deformation results in
energy dissipation. The relationship between collector beam strength and stiffness needs to be
carefully evaluated so that a reasonable amount of gap opening can develop in the connection without
reaching the limit state of collector beam yielding. Out of the 7 collector beam designs that were
studied, design 15CB-35-100 had the best performance in terms of levels of drifts, displacements,
forces, and limit states (such as collector beam and SC-MRF beam yielding). The authors are
currently developing design guidelines for such floor diaphragm systems. Overall this study shows
that the floor diaphragm design significantly affects the seismic performance of a SC-MRF and it can
not be neglected when designing these systems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) and
the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 0420974. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
REFERENCES
Christopoulos, C., Filiatrault, A., Uang, C.-M., Folz, B. (2002). Posttensioned Energy Dissipating Connections
for Moment-Resisting Steel Frames, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 128(9), 1111-1120.
Chou, C. C., Chen, J. H., Chen, Y. C., and Tsai, K. C. (2006) Evaluating performance of post-tensioned steel
connections with high-strength strands, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (Accepted).
El-Sheikh, M.T., Sause, R., Pessiki, S., and Lu, L.-W. (1999). "Seismic Behavior and Design of Unbonded PostTensioned Precast Concrete Frames," PCI Journal, 44 (3), May/June, pp. 54-71.
FEMA (2000). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structures, Part 1-Provisions, Report No. FEMA 368, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Garlock, M. (2002). Full-Scale Testing, Seismic Analysis, and Design of Post-Tensioned Seismic Resistant
Connections for Steel Frames, Ph.D. Dissertation, Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., Lehigh
University, Bethlehem, PA.
Garlock, M, Ricles, J., and Sause, R. (2005). Experimental Studies on Full-Scale Post-Tensioned Steel
Connections, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131(3), pp. 438-448.
Garlock, M, Sause, R., and Ricles, J. (2007a) Behavior and Design of Post-Tensioned Steel Frames
(submitted for publication in Journal of Structural Engineering)
Garlock, M, Ricles, J., and Sause, R. (2007b) Seismic Response of Post-Tensioned Steel Frames (submitted for
publication in Journal of Structural Engineering)
International Building Code. (2000). International Code Council, Falls Church, Virginia.
Jhuang, S-J, Yang, W-C, Chung, C-C, Tsai, K-C (2006). Seismic Responses of Structural Systems Using Steel
Post-Tensioned Members, Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
San Francisco, CA, April.
Li, J. (2005). Analytical Modeling and Seismic Response Study of an Alternate Posttensioned Steel Moment
Resisting Frame System, CEE 510 Report, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Princeton University.
Kurama, Y.C. and Shen, Q., (200). Posttensioned Hybrid Coupled Walls Under Lateral Loads, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 130(2), 297-309.
Ricles, J., Sause, R., Garlock, M, and Zhao, C. (2001). Post-Tensioned Seismic Resistant Connections for Steel
Frames, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 127(2), 113-121.
Rojas, P., Ricles, J.M., and R. Sause (2005). Seismic Performance of Post-Tensioned Steel MRFs With
Friction Devices. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131(4).