Kiani Ghassemieh 92 PDF

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 12481269 (2013)

Published online 17 January 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal). DOI: 10.1002/tal.1003
Seismic evaluation of reduced beam section frames considering

connection exibility
M. Ghassemieh and J. Kiani*,
School of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
SUMMARY
In the present article, the seismic performance of frames with reduced beam section (RBS) connections is
evaluated. A key purpose of this study is the inclusion of connections exibility in the seismic performance
of RBS frames. Almost in every research projects carried out on seismic performance and design of RBS
frames, the beam-to-column connection is typically assumed as fully rigid. The results of nonlinear nite
element analysis performed on investigating the local performance of RBS connection reveal that they
are within the American Institute of Steel Construction-dened semirigid connections. Three building
frames, including 4, 8 and 16 stories considering the semirigid connection as well as fully rigid connection,
are considered. A numerical study of the overall seismic response of the building frames subjected to near as
well as far eld earthquake ground motions using nonlinear static and/or nonlinear dynamic analysis is
presented. Results in terms of inter-story drifts, total drifts, story shears and shear deformation in panel zone
indicate that overlooking the exibility of beam-to-column connections may lead to erroneous conclusions
and unsafe seismic behavior that subsequently become signicant in some cases. Copyright 2012 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 25 September 2011; Revised 18 December 2011; Accepted 28 December 2011
reduced beam section connection; RBS frames; exibly connected frames; rigidly connected
frames; connection exibility
KEYWORDS:
1. INTRODUCTION
Steel moment-resisting frames (SMRFs) as conventional lateral systems are assemblage of beams and
columns in which beams and columns are connected rigidly. Lateral loads are resisted by exural
action of beam-to-column connection in moment-resisting steel frames, and therefore, beam-to-column
connection plays an important role. Before the Northridge earthquake, rigid connection with full
penetration welds attained status as an almost ideal connection in moment-resisting frames. However,
the Northridge earthquake has demonstrated that this connection is prone to brittle fracture near the
beam-to-column ange groove welds. To investigate damages that occurred in the beam-to-column
connection and to develop solutions, the SAC Joint Venture was formed, and many research on the
seismic behavior of steel moment connections were performed. Overstrength of the beam material,
stress concentration caused by the backing bar and tri-axial forces at the column face were recognized
as potential causes for the brittle fractures in pre-Northridge connections (Yang and Popov, 1995;
Kaufmann et al., 1997). Reinforcing the connection with items such as cover plate, ribs, side plates
and haunches and/or weakening the beam at the area away from column face were introduced as
remedies to improve connection performance (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
350, 2000a). All those mentioned strategies in the connection design showed suitable performance
by displacing the plastic hinge away from the column face. Weakening the beam instead of reinforcing
the connection has shown to be more economical since trimming beam anges result in reducing
*Correspondence to: Jalal Kiani, School of Civil Engineering, Tehran University.
E-mail: kiani@ut.ac.ir
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF REDUCED BEAM SECTION FRAMES
1249
the demand in panel zone and achievement of strong column and weak beam requirements.
Reduced beam section (RBS) connection is a practical approach for the latter strategy in which a
region in the beam at short distance away from the column face is intentionally weakened by
removing material from the beam anges. Removing a section of beam ange, different conguration has been proposed (constant, tapered and radius cut), among which tapered and radius cuts
display better performance since they approximately follow seismic moment gradient (Engelhardt
et al., 1996; Plumier, 1997). The results of experimental and numerical analyses on assessing the
behavior of RBS connection have shown a superb performance of this type of connection
(Engelhardt et al., 1998; Chen et al., 1996; Popov et al., 1998; Zekioglu et al., 1997). Despite
good performance of RBS connection, web and ange local buckling turn out to be demerits for
ordinary RBS connection. Accordion Web RBS (AW-RBS) connection has been introduced to
resolve these problems in which rather than removing section of beam anges, corrugated steel
plates are used in beam web (Mirghaderi et al., 2010). In addition to experimental and nite
element analyses that were conducted on assessing the micro-behavior of RBS connection, a
number of research projects were undertaken to investigate the seismic performance of SMRFs with
RBS connections. Kitjasateanphun et al. (2001) have proposed two RBS model for nonlinear
analysis of RBS frames and have shown that the seismic response of steel frames with RBS is very
sensitive to the RBS model. The overall performance of frames with RBS connections in terms of
plastic deformation, inelastic drift ratio and strength demand were examined by Shen et al. (2000).
They have shown that ange reduction is of great importance in seismic response of structure, as
inelastic drift does not increase noticeably in frames with moderate reduction in the RBS from the
unmodied SMRF. The nonlinear behavior of multi-story RBS frames for two hazard levels
(immediate occupancy and collapse prevention) was investigated by Jin (2002) and Jin and
El-Tawil (2005). They conrmed that frames with RBS connection can provide good
performance in the previously mentioned hazard levels. Kildashti and Mirghaderi (2009) evaluated
the seismic response of SMRFs with RBS connections by means of mixed-based state space
approach and have shown that the panel zone participation in the inter-story drift for frames with
RBS connections considerably declines besides that the permanent displacements of RBS frames
diminishes against frames without RBS connections.
As reported, a large number of research projects show excellent performance of frames with
RBS connections, but a full investigation of all those studies proves that the inuence of the beamto-column connection exibility on the seismic behavior of RBS frames has not been thoroughly
examined. In other words, the exibility of beam-to-column connection is not considered in the
structural analysis. From the design point of view, it is desirable to assume a connection as fully rigid,
but in reality, it is merely an idealization of precise behavior. Most connections, together with the socalled fully rigid connections, exhibit some degrees of exibility. As stated in AISC (2010) provision,
if a connection has adequate strength and stiffness, it can be assumed as a fully rigid connection, and
thus, it is not mandatory to include the connection elements as part of the structural system analysis.
Otherwise, for the semirigid connection, exibility must be estimated and included in the structural
analysis. The presence of semirigid connections in a frame produces signicant effects on the behavior
and strength of individual elements of frame as well as on the overall frame response (Ang and Morris,
1984; Maison et al., 2002). A major concern about exibly connected frames is P- loads on columns
created by undesirable drifts in these frames (McMullin and Astaneh-Asl, 2003). If the P- effects
become signicant, using partially restrained connections can trigger dynamic instability (Maison
et al., 2002). The assumption of rigid joints for frames with semirigid connections will underestimate
the drift of the frame and may leads to an inaccurate prediction of critical member forces (Ang and
Morris, 1984). Despite some of those notable shortcomings for exibly jointed frames, application
of semirigid connections as an alternative to fully rigid connections in structures against seismic force
can increase the ductility of structures. Nader and Astaneh (1991) have shown that a proper performance of exibly connected frames with well-proportioned semirigid connections can be achieved.
Awkar and Lui (1999) have shown that the connection exibility tends to reduce frame stiffness and
hence augment vibration periods, especially in lower modes. If it is appropriately designed, steel
frames with semirigid connections are very efcient against resisting forces generated from ground
motion thanks to their ability to dissipate seismic energy through large inelastic deformation and

DOI: 10.1002/tal
1250
M. GHASSEMIEH AND J. KIANI
damping. Natural period and base shear in the frames with semirigid connection can be controlled
(McMullin and Astaneh-Asl, 2003; Awkar and Lui (1999). So presence of the exibility in beamto-column connection can be efcient if the structure is properly designed; otherwise, it increases
the inter-story drift and bring about dynamic instability of structures.
This study sought to investigate the inuence of unintentional exibility of beam-to-column
connection on the macro-behavior of RBS frames. To reach the purpose, we computed the exibility
of beam-to-column connection by nite element method and beam line analysis. By comparing the
acquired stiffness with the required stiffness for a fully rigid connection, it can be suggested whether
RBS connection can be assumed as fully rigid connection or not. As previously stated, if RBS connection does not act as fully rigid connection, the exibility of beam-to-column connection must be
included in the structural analysis. In the present study, the seismic performance of three building
frames, including 4, 8 and 16 stories, are evaluated by including as well as excluding the connection
elements as part of the structural system analysis. In this direction, the nonlinear static analysis
(pushover) and nonlinear dynamic analysis are performed for two hazard levels, namely, 2% probability
of exceedance in 50 years and 50% probability in 50 years. Special purpose elements are employed for the
needs of this study, and the validity of the used element models is demonstrated through comparisons with
experimental and numerical data reported in literature. The inuence of beam-to-column exibility on the
overall performance of RBS frames is discussed by comparing the results of static and dynamic analysis in
terms of inter-story drifts, total drifts, story shears and shear deformation in panel zone.
2. MICRO-BEHAVIOR OF REDUCED BEAM SECTION CONNECTION

2.1. Connections classication
Moment
Connections are classied as rigid, semirigid and pinned with respect to their stiffness (AISC, 2010).
When it comes to strength, connections can be classied as full or partial. Concerning their rotational
capacity of the connections, they can be categorized as ductile or brittle. In order to classify beam-tocolumn connections, the stiffness, strength and rotation capacity of connection can be obtained from
momentrotation (M) curve of the connection, which is the most signicant characteristic of the
connection. As shown in Figure 1, several methods have been proposed so as to determine the connection stiffness. They are as follows: initial stiffness of the connection (Rki), secant stiffness at service
load (Rks), secant stiffness at y (Ry) in which y corresponds to the rotation at yield moment (My)
and, nally, secant stiffness that corresponds to a rotation of 0.01 rad (R10). Because many connection
types do not exhibit a reliable initial stiffness, secant stiffness at service load (Rks) has shown to be a
realistic response in regard to other methods (AISC, 2010). Here, in this study, the beam line analysis,
proposed by Batho and Lash (1936), is used to establish the secant stiffness provided by connection
R ki
Ry
Rks
R 10
Mu
My
MF
Ms
Beam line
F y
10
Rotation
Figure 1. Typical momentrotation curve and denition of stiffness and beam line method.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
1251
using the actual momentrotation curve. In this method, the beam line connects the two ends in the
momentrotation curve, being the rigidly xed end moment and the simply supported end rotation
(F) of the beam at service load as shown in Figure 1. Secant stiffness in the beam line method is
effective stiffness of the connection based on the expected moment and rotation at service load, which
is calculated from Eq. (1) as follows:
MS
Rks
(1)
S
where MS and S are the moment and rotation at service loads, respectively, as illustrated in
Figure 1. For classication of the beam-to-column connections pertaining to their stiffness, the
stiffness parameter, m, was dened as the ratio of the stiffness of the connection to the elastic
stiffness of the beam:
Rconn

El
L beam
(2)
In Eq. (2), L and (EI) are the length and exural rigidity of the beam, respectively. Rconn is the
stiffness of connection calculated, based on previously mentioned methods. AISC (2010) categorizes
connections into three groups. According to this reference, if m 20, then it is acceptable to consider
the connection to be fully restrained, and it is not necessary to include connection as an individual element
in the analysis. If m 2, it is acceptable to consider the connection to be simple. For values between these
two limits, behavior of connection is considered to be semirigid or partially restrained connection.
In this study, in order to investigate the real physical behavior of the connection and estimate the
stiffness of RBS connection, the momentrotation curve of 10 different RBS specimens are obtained
by nite element method analysis. For classication purposes, using the beam line method, their stiffness are calculated, and therefore, the category of the connection is determined.
2.2. Reduced beam section specimens used in the analytical study
The RBS specimens used in this study are beam-to-column connections that are going to be implemented in building frames with different story level in which their overall performance is evaluated. In
choosing the subframes, it is assumed that inection points are located in the middle of beams and
columns. Thus, the top and bottom of the column are pinned in the model in order to simulate the
practical conditions as depicted in Figure 2. The RBS connections used in this study with the radius
Figure 2. Schematic detail of RBS connection.


DOI: 10.1002/tal
1252
cut are designed according to the recommendations proposed by FEMA 350 (2000a). Resulting
dimensions for the RBS region and characteristics of the specimens are tabulated in Table 1. Nonlinear
nite element models are developed using the ABAQUS software (HKS, 2003), incorporating geometrical and material nonlinearities. The subassembly is modeled using four node thin shell elements with
reduced integration element (S4R). A very ne mesh is used in the RBS area, panel zone and
continuity plates, as shown in Figure 3. The yield and ultimate tensile strength are considered as
345 and 545 MPa, respectively. The modulus of elasticity of 2 105 MPa and the hardening ratio of
3% are considered in the analysis. In order to verify the validity of the numerical model, the results
of nite element analysis is compared with the measured responses from the laboratory experiments
conducted by Pachoumis et al. (2009). The results obtained numerically correspond appropriately with
the experimental results as shown in Figure 4.
Pushover analysis is performed in order to study the performance of RBS specimens as well as
for classication of the beam-to-column connections. The momentrotation relationship for two
connections (RBS7 and RBS8) in Table 1 is shown in Figure 5. The stiffness parameters for 10
RBS connections are obtained using the beam line concept, mks, as presented in Table 2. Classication
of connections is determined in line with the parameter m proposed by AISC (2010). As displayed in
Table 2, the stiffness parameter for all specimens are less than 20 (the minimum value of stiffness
parameter for assuming a connection as fully rigid connection), and according to the AISC provision
requirements, RBS connection does not act as fully rigid connection. Therefore, ignoring the exibility
of the beam-to-column connection in the overall modeling of the RBS frames is not realistic, and for
reaching the true seismic response of RBS frames, it is indispensable to include the connection elements as part of the structural analysis.
Table 1. Reduced beam section detail dimensions and characteristics of the specimens.
Specimens
RBS1
RBS2
RBS3
RBS4
RBS5
RBS6
RBS7
RBS8
RBS9
RBS10
Column
Beam
w14 132
w14 120
W14 398
W14 257
W14 109
w14 74
W14 342
W14 342
W14 74
w14 99
w30 116
w24 68
W36 160
W33 130
W27 102
w18 60
W36 160
W36 150
W24 68
w21 83
Doubler plate
thickness (mm)
8
2
8
5
2
5
8
RBS region dimensions (Figure 2)

a (cm)
b (cm)
c (cm)
17.8
15.3
20.3
17.8
17.8
14.4
20.3
20.32
15.3
12.7
58.
45.7
68.6
63.5
50.8
39.4
68.6
68.6
45.7
40.7
6.6
5.7
7.6
7.3
6.35
3.8
7.6
6
5.7
4.25
Figure 3. Finite element mesh of the RBS connection.


DOI: 10.1002/tal
1253
Applied moment (KN.m)
Rotation (rad.)
Figure 4. Experimental (Pachoumis et al., 2009) and FEM moment rotation curve.
Connection rotation vs. connection moment (RBS8)

4000
3500
3500
3000
3000
Moment (KN.m)
Moment (KN.m)
Connection rotation vs. connection moment (RBS7)
4000
2500
2000
1500
1000
2500
2000
1500
1000
M-
MR ks
R ks
500
0
500
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.01
Rotation (rad.)
0.02
0.03
0.04
Rotation (rad.)
Figure 5. Momentrotation for specimens RBS7 and RBS8.
Table 2. Values of stiffness parameter based on secant stiffness at service load.

Specimen
mks
RBS1
RBS2
RBS3
RBS4
RBS5
RBS6
RBS7
RBS8
RBS9
RBS10
8.14
9.63
8.48
8.06
8.82
8.05
8.89
8.31
8.71
10.56
3. REDUCED BEAM SECTION FRAMES MACRO-BEHAVIOR

For the purpose of evaluating the seismic performance of RBS frames considering the exibility of
beam-to-column connections, three buildings with RBS connections are selected. Four-, 8- and 16-story
buildings are considered in the case studies, and nonlinear static and dynamic responses of the
mentioned buildings are obtained. The response of two different analytical models, a model that
incorporates the beam-to-column connection as an element and a model that ignores the semirigidity
of the beam-to-column connection in the structural analysis (considered xed), is evaluated. In other
words, the assessment is carried out for a set of six analytical model (4-, 8- and 16-story buildings,
by considering the exibility of the beam-to-column connection or ignoring the aforementioned behavior). The overall response of similar structures ignoring the exibility connection has been investigated
by Jin (2002), Jin and El-Tawil (2005) and Kildashti and Mirghaderi (2009). For comparison purposes,
the results presented by Jin (2002) and Jin and El-Tawil (2005) are used as the benchmark case.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
1254
3.1. Models conguration

The structural systems of the buildings that are used in the present study have been designed according
to FEMA 302 (1997), FEMA 350 (2000a) and AISC code provision (2002). As shown in Figure 6, all
building systems have similar oor plans. The building location was assumed to be in a region near
Los Angeles (Zone 4 per UBC 97) situated on stiff soil (soil type SD as per UBC 97 and FEMA
302 (1997) denitions). Choosing of the beam and columns was based on inter-story drift
limitation. After designing the beam and column section, the RBS connections and panel zones are
designed in accordance with the requirements of FEMA 350 (2000a), which satises the strong
column and weak beam requirements. The beam and column sections are given in Figure 6.
3.2. Analytical models
In the present study, OPENSEES (Mazzoni et al. (2005)) software is employed for simulating and
performing analysis. As shown in Figure 6, interior frames just undertake gravity loads, and only
exterior frames withstand seismic loads. The building systems in two directions are similar, and
therefore, only the external frame in one direction was considered for modeling. P- effects owing
to the interior bays are modeled using the ctitious column (with only one-half of total story weight
being applied to these members). Axial stiffness of the ctitious members is very high, and their
exural stiffness is negligible, and they are connected to the structure with rigid links.
3.2.1. Connection model
Bilinear constitutive material model is used for modeling the exibility of the beam-to-column connection as shown in Figure 7. In this model, only the exural mode of connection is considered because it
is a predominant deformation for ordinary beam-to-column connection (Awkar and Lui, 1999; Lui and
Lopes, 1997). In order to apply this material model in nonlinear analysis, the elastic connection
stiffness (Rke), the strain hardening of the connection stiffness (Rkp) and the bound slope moment
(Mbound) are required. Elastic stiffness of connection (Rke) is considered as a product of the beam
stiffness (EI/L)beam and the stiffness parameter of connection. The stiffness parameter of connection
Plan
Perimeter System
(moment frames)
Gravity System
16-story building
W30x116
W14x120
W14x132
W14x132
W14x233
W30x116
3.66 m Story Height

(4.57 m first story) W14x132
W30x116
W14x233
W30x116
W14x145
W14x283
W14x176
W14x311
W14x257
W14x311
W14x257
W14x311
W14x283
W14x370
W14x283
W14x398
W14x283
W14x398
W14x283
W14x426
W14x342
W14x283
W14x455
W14x342
W14x455
W14x398
W14x455
W14x398
W14x500
W14x426
W14x550
W30x130
W30x130
W30x130
W30x130
8-story building
9.14 m typical
W18x60
W14x99
W14x99
W36x150
W21x83
W14x99
W14x109
W14x132
W14x176
W14x109
W14x211
W30x108
W24x68
W14x99
W14x132
W14x74
W14x233
W14x145
W14x176
W14x257
W14x257
W14x311
W36x160
W36x160
W30x124
W33x130
W14x233
W36x160
W30x116
W14x159
W14x311
W14x283
W14x342
W36x150
W36x150
W30x116
W27x94
W27x114
W14x193
W36x150
W27x102
4-story building
W14x74
W21x93
W36x160
Figure 6. Plan and elevation view of selected frames.


DOI: 10.1002/tal
1255
Moment
Mbound
R kp
Rke
Rotation
Figure 7. Connection model.

as usual as the Mbound and Rkp is obtained from the nite element analysis. Zero-length element is used
for modeling the exibility of the beam-to-column connection in the OPENSEES software. Prior to
assessment of the performance of RBS frames, verifying the result of connection model, two problems
taken from the literature are analyzed. A portal frame with different exibility studied by Lui and
Lopes (1997) is considered as the rst problem. The displacement response curves (Rd = umax/ustatic)
of the portal frame under harmonic loading versus forcing frequency (o), which is obtained from this
study and those reported by Lui and Lopes (1997), are displayed in Figure 8. In this example, the
forcing function is F(t) = (0.2 mg) sin ot, and the damping ratio used is x = 0.05. As shown, there is
a good correlation amongst the results of this study and those reported by Lui and Lopes (1997).
Turning to the second problem, the inter-story drifts for ve- and eight-story building frames with
two different connections subjected to El Centro earthquake are calculated, and the results are
compared with those obtained by Awkar and Lui (1999). In this case, reasonable compatibility among
the results can be seen as shown in Figure 9. This issue indicates the accuracy of connection model.
3.2.2. Panel zone model
Two methods have been proposed for the evaluation of the macro-behavior of the structural model. In
the rst model, centerline-to-centerline dimensions of beams and columns are used, whereas in the
second model, the panel zone deformation and exact lengths of beam and columns are considered.
Although the rst method is a normal routine method being practiced in designing of structures, it is
10
9 Header plate
Rd (Umax / Ustatic)
Extended End Plate

(Lui & Lopes, 1996)
(Lui & Lopes,

1996)
Rigid
(Lui & Lopes, 1996)
7
6
5
4
Present Study
3
2
1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Forcing Frequency (rad/sec)
Figure 8. Displacement response curves.


DOI: 10.1002/tal
1256
Inter story drift (8 story frame)
Inter story drift (5 story frame)
5
Fully rigid connection (Awkar and Lui, 1999)
Fully rigid connection (Present study)
Semi rigid connection ( Awkar and
4 Lui, 1999)
Semi rigid connection (Present study)
Story Level
Story Level
4
3
2
1
1
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Inter-story Drift (m)
0.08
0.1
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Inter-story Drift (m)
Figure 9. Comparison of inter-story drifts for two multistory frames.
not a good and efcient method for predicting the structural performance. That is due to the fact that a
very signicant portion of the total story drift of a moment-resisting frame occurs in the panel zone
region of the beam-to-column joint (Krawinkler, 2000; Schneider and Amidi, 1998). Therefore, in this
study, the second method is employed for modeling of structures in which the deformation of panel
zone is included in the structural analysis. In the modeling the panel zone, a nonlinear panel zone
model that was developed by Krawinkler and Mohasseb (1987) is used, in which the resistance of
panel zone is achieved with the shear resistance of column web and exural resistance of column
anges. Joint element 2-D is used to simulate this model in OPENSEES software. This element as
shown in Figure 10 contains ve nodes in which each node has four degrees of freedom including
the three standard degrees of freedom as well as one extra degree of freedom for the shear deformation
(Altoontash, 2004).
3.2.3. Reduced beam section connection model
If it is appropriately designed, placing an RBS away from the beam-to-column connection guarantees
that the beams plastic hinge forms away from the column face and thus prevents the connections from
brittle fractures. In the present study, in order to model RBS connection, a rotational spring is placed at
the center of the RBS as displayed in Figure 10. The characteristic of the spring is calculated by using
Ibarra and Krawinkler (2005) deterioration model. Predictive equations that have been developed by
Lignos and Krawinkler (2007) and Lignos (2008) for determining the deterioration parameter in
Figure 10. Model of panel zone (element joint 2-D (Altoontash, 2004)).

DOI: 10.1002/tal
1257
this model are implemented, relating deterioration modeling parameters to geometric and material
property of reduced section. Bilin material is used to simulate IbarraKrawinkler deterioration model
in OPENNESS software. To assess performance accuracy of RBS connection model, we compared the
result of the present study with the experimental result obtained by Englehardt et al. (1996) as
shown in Figure 11. As illustrated, there is a good correlation between the experimental and analytical
result.
3.3. Dynamic properties of reduced beam section frames

From an eigenvalue analysis, the natural period and mode shape of three RBS frames with both semirigid and fully rigid connections are obtained and compared with each other. The natural period and
mode shape of exibility and rigidly connected frames are presented in Table 3 and Figures 1214,
respectively. As shown in Table 3, true modeling of RBS frame (considering the intentional exibility
of beam-to-column connection in the structural analysis) increases the natural period of the lower
modes. Considering the exibility of the beam-to-column connection pose, the lower mode shapes
to change in the four- and eight-story frames (Figures 12 and 13). As presented in Figure 14, the effect
of connection exibility on the mode shape of 16-story frames is almost negligible.
5000
4000
3000
Moment (kN.m)
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
Deterioration model (Present study)

Experimental (Englhrdt- E9608- UTDB3)
-5000
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
Chord Rotation (rad)
Figure 11. Experimental versus analytical response for specimen E9608-UTDB3 (Englehardt et al., 1996).
Table 3. Natural period of reduced beam section frames.

Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4-story
8-story
Fully rigid
Semirigid
1.01
0.371
0.202
0.124
1.1745
0.41
0.213
0.124
Fully rigid
2.036
0.77
0.43
0.291
0.2092
0.1573
0.131
0.123
16-story
Semirigid
Fully rigid
Semirigid
2.487
0.917
0.497
0.327
0.227
0.166
0.131
0.127
2.86
1.03
0.6
0.427
0.315
0.25
0.204
0.169
0.142
0.122
3.43
1.23
0.709
0.498
0.362
0.283
0.227
0.186
0.155
0.125

DOI: 10.1002/tal
1258
Comparison of mode shapes for four-story frames.

4
Story Level
fully rigid
semi rigid
Mode1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Figure 12. Mode shapes of four-story frame.

3.4. Pushover analysis of the reduced beam section frame
In order to evaluate the actual strength and deformation capacity of RBS frames, nonlinear static
(pushover) analysis is performed. Modal and uniform load patterns are used for performing pushover
analysis, and structures are loaded up to the target displacement in accordance with the method
described in FEMA 356 (2000b). The result of pushover analysis in terms of normalized base shear
to weight of the structure versus roof drift angle for all buildings is presented in Figure 15. As seen,
the responses obtained for frames with fully rigid connection subjected to modal load pattern in this
study and those reported by Jin and El-Tawil (2005) show suitable compatibility, where this issue
indicates the accuracy of the employed model. Also, these gures make comparisons of pushover
curves for frames with two different connection types (frames with semirigid connection and frames
with fully rigid connection).
As seen, the initial stiffness of the RBS frames with fully rigid connections is steeper than that of the
RBS frames with semirigid connections. The strength of the RBS frames with fully rigid connections
Comparison of mode shapes for eight-story frames.
8
fully rigid
Story Level
semi rigid
Mode 1
8
Mode 2
8
Mode 3
Story Level
Mode 4
Mode 5
Mode 6
Figure 13. Mode shapes of eight-story frame.


DOI: 10.1002/tal
1259
Comparison of mode shapes for sixteen-story frames.

16
16
16
Story Level
fully rigid
semi rigid
Mode 1
16
Mode 3
16
Story Level
16
Mode 2
Mode 4
Mode 5
Mode 6
Figure 14. Mode shapes of 16-story frame.

Roof drift angle vs. normalized base shear (uniform load pattern)
0.5
Base Shear (V/W)
0.45
0.4
0.35
4story fully rigid

4story semi rigid
8story fully rigid
8story semi rigid
16story fully rigid
16story semi rigid
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Roof Drift Angle (rad.)

Roof drift angle vs. normalized base shear (modal load pattern)
0.4
Base Shear (V/W)
0.35
4story fully rigid (Present)

4story fully rigid (Jin Jun)
4story semi rigid (Present)
8story fully rigid (present)
8story semi rigid (present)
16story fully rigid (present)
16story semi rigid (present)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Roof Drift Angle (rad)
Figure 15. Pushover response curves.

generally deteriorates more rapidly than that of the RBS frames with semirigid connections after reaching the ultimate strength. In other words, the length of yield section increased by considering the exibility of the beam-to-column connection in the structural analysis. The structural overstrength factors

DOI: 10.1002/tal
1260
for 4-, 8- and 16-story frames with fully rigid and semirigid connection are obtained and presented in
Table 4. As illustrated by exerting the exibility of the beam-to-column connection in the structural
analysis, the overstrength factors decreased, and therefore, frames with rigid connection reveal higher
ultimate strength than frames with semirigid connections.
By comparing the response of structures with both semi-rigid and fully rigid connection subjected to
different load patterns, the conclusion can be drawn that structure response is dependent upon the load
pattern. All frames subjected to uniform load pattern show higher initial stiffness and ultimate strength.
The uniform load pattern emphasizes demands in lower stories over demands in upper stories; so the
demand predicted by the uniform load pattern is much higher in lower stories than those predicted by
the modal load pattern, whereas in the higher stories, the opposite is true.
3.5. Dynamic analysis of the reduced beam section frame
To determine nonlinear response of RBS frames, two sets of ground motions with 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years (assigned 2/50 hereafter) and 50% probability of exceedance in 50 years
(assigned 50/50 hereafter) that developed by SAC (Somerville et al., 1997) for the Los Angeles area
have been used. Each set of records contain 20 ground motions; 2/50 (LA21LA40) and 50/50
(LA41LA60) near and far eld record, respectively. Shome et al. (1997) have shown that by properly
scaling the ground motions, the number of nonlinear analysis can be reduced. Thus, in the present
study, earthquake records are scaled to the bin-median spectral acceleration at fundamental frequency
of structure.
According to FEMA 356 (2000b), if the number of time history data set is more than seven, the
median or mean responses can be used to assess the performance of structure rather than the maximum
responses. On account of using 20 ground motion records for each hazard level in this study, mean
responses can be used. The bias response can be removed by using the median instead of the mean
response. Therefore, in order to achieve this goal, median value is taken into account as response of
structures. Rayleigh damping factors proportional to stiffness and mass matrices are used with 5%
viscous damping in the rst two modes for four- and eight-story buildings. For the 16-story buildings,
2% damping is implemented.
As the amount of data generated in these analyses was enormous, the rst the peak responses are
calculated, and among them, the maximum, median and minimum values are selected as structural response. In the following gures, the term max, median and min referred to maximum, median
and minimum responses, respectively. To compare the behavior of RBS frames with fully rigid and
semirigid performance of the beam-to-column connection, we examined the roof displacements, inter-story drift angle, story shear and panel zone distortion. With the aim of verifying the results
obtained in this study with the available results in literature, the maximum drift angle and panel zone
distortion for all frames with fully rigid connection are compared with those presented by Jin (2002)
and Jin and El-Tawil (2005).
3.5.1. Inter-story drift angle
The maximum inter-story drift angle data for 4-, 8- and 16-story frames with semirigid and fully rigid
connection is presented in Figures 1618, respectively. The rst inter-story drift angle for all frames
with fully rigid connection are compared with those acquired by Jin (2002) and Jin and El-Tawil
(2005). As shown, there is a good agreement amongst the results in this study and those reported by
Table 4. The structural overstrength factors.

Buildings
Modal load pattern

Uniform load pattern
Four story building
Eight story building
Sixteen story building
Fully rigid
connection
Semirigid
connection
Fully rigid
connection
Semirigid
connection
Fully rigid
connection
Semirigid
connection
3.0
2.41
2.8
2.3
1.9
1.56
1.5
1.37
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.2

DOI: 10.1002/tal
50%50 Earthquake
2%50 Earthquake
4
Story Level
Story Level
1261
Max fully rigid (jin jun)

Median fully rigid (jin jun)
2
Min fully rigid (jin jun)
Max fully rigid (present)
Median fully rigid (present)
Min fully rigid (present)
Max Semi rigid (present)
Median Semi rigid (present)
Min Semi rigid (present)
1
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
Maximum Drift Angle (rad.)
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Maximum Drift Angle (rad)
Figure 16. Maximum inter-story drift angle for four-story building.

2%50 Earthquake
8
Story Level
Story Level
50%50 Earthquake
8
M in fully rigid (J in jun)

M edian fully rigid (J in jun)
M ax fully rigid (J3in jun)

M in fully rigid (P res ent )
M edian fully rigid (P res ent )
M ax fully rigid (P res ent )
M in s emi rigid (P res ent )

M edian s emi rigid (P res ent )
M ax s emi rigid (P res ent )
1
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
1
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Figure 17. Maximum inter-story drift angle for eight-story building.
them; thus, the efciency of the model that was used in this study is conrmed. Then inter-story drift
angle for RBS frames by considering the exibility of the beam-to-column connection are obtained
and compared with the inter-story drift angle of rigid frames. As reported by Jin (2002) and Jin and
El-Tawil (2005) and shown in Figures 1618, the distribution of drift in rigid frames along the height
of buildings is dependent upon the seismic hazard level. The maximum inter-story drift angle occurs in
the upper stories under 50/50 earthquakes; although subjected to 2/50 earthquakes, the maximum interstory angle occurs in the lower story because of the P- effects. This trend can be observed for 16story building with semirigid connection as well. By applying the exibility of the beam-to-column
connection in analysis of RBS frames, the distribution of inter-story drift angle along the height is
not dependent upon seismic hazard levels in 4- and 8-story buildings. Thus, the maximum inter-story

DOI: 10.1002/tal
1262
2%50 Earthquake
16
15
15
14
14
13
13
12
12
11
11
Story Level
Story Level
50%50 Earthquake
16
10
9
8
10
9
8
max fully rigid (Jin jun)7

median fully rigid (Jin jun)
6
min fully rigid (Jin jun)
max fully rigid (present)
5
median fully rigid (present)
4
min fully rigid (present)
max semi rigid (present)
3
median semi rigid (present)
min semi rigid (present)2
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
Maximum Drift Angle(rad)
0.025
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Maximum Drift Angle(rad)
Figure 18. Maximum inter-story drift angle for 16-story building.

drift angle occurs in the upper stories subjected to 2/50 and 50/50 earthquakes. The overall frame deformation in 4- and 8-story frames changed from shear type to cantilever type by employing the exibility of
the beam-to-column connection in the structural analysis. So the frames with semirigid beam-to-column
connection experience higher inter-story drifts in the upper levels than their counterparts with fully rigid
connection. The inter-story drift angle in the lower levels in some exibly connected frames is less than
rigidly connected frames. As reported by Maison et al. (2002), changing the overall behavior of semirigid
building frames is due to much larger restraining of column rotation at lower stories than upper stories.
Although the inter-story drift angle in the upper and middle levels of 4- and 8-story buildings is increased,
no signicant changes in the 16-story frame are observed. Decreasing the effect of base xity in tall
buildings is a leading cause for this trend (Maison et al., 2002). The only situation that the exibility in
the beam-to-column connection can affect the overall behavior of tall buildings is when the P- effects
become signicant, and in this condition, dynamic instability of structures may take place. With the
aim of investigating the degree of P- effects, importance in 16-story building, inter-story drift angle in
fully rigid connected frames with the P- effects as well as without P- effects are compared as depicted
in Figure 19. As seen, the median values of the inter-story drift in 16-story frame do not vary dramatically
by ignoring the P- effects; but this is not the case for the maximum values of inter-story drift. The
difference between the maximum inter-story drift shows that P- effects is only important for LA30 record
(a near fault record in 2/50 earthquake set). In this case, by exerting the exibility of the beam-to-column
connection in the structural analysis, the dynamic instability of frame occurred. In this study, in analyzing
the fully and partially restrained frames, a frame is considered as collapsed frame when the maximum
inter-story drift angel in the frame surpasses 0.25 rad.
3.5.2. Total drift
In the static analysis, displacement is inversely proportional to the structural stiffness. Thus, it is
expected that total drift or roof displacement increases by employing the beam-to-column connections
exibility in the structural analysis. This is not necessarily the case for dynamic analysis. Flexibly
connected frames do not necessarily experience higher total drift than rigidly jointed frames. In
dynamic analysis, total drift of exibly jointed frame is dependent upon the frequency of excitation force,
structure stiffness and system damping (Lui and Lopes, 1997). Thus, in some cases, exibly connected
frames can experience lower total drift than rigidly connected frames. As presented in Figures 20 and
21, total drift of exibly jointed frames is less than their corresponding frames with fully rigid connection
for some earthquake records. This outcome is more tangible for 16-story building; thus, the median of total
drift in rigidly connected frames is higher than exibly connected frames.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
1263
2%50 Earthquake
16
max fully rigid (w ith P-delta)

median fully rigid (w ith P-delta)
min fully rigid (w ith P-delta)
max fully rigid (w ithout P-delta)
14
median fully rigid (w ithout P-delta)

min fully rigid (w ithout P-delta)
Story Level
12
10
2
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure 19. The P- effects in 16-story building for fully rigid connection.
Change in maximum roof drift angle of 4 story frame with semi and fully rigid connection
0.014
Frame with fully rigid connection

Frame with semi rigid connection
Maximum roof drift angle (rad.)
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
La41 La42 La43 La44 La45 La46 La47 La48 La49 La50 La51 La52 La53 La54 La55 La56 La57 La58 La59 La60median
Earthquake
Figure 20. Total drift angle for four-story building.
x10-3
Change in maximum roof drift angle of 16 story frame with semi and fully rigid connection
Frame with semi rigid connection

Frame with fully rigid connection
Maximum Roof Drift Angle (rad.)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
La41 La42 La43 La44 La45 La46 La47 La48 La49 La50 La51 La52 La53 La54 La55 La56 La57 La58 La59 La60median
Earthquake
Figure 21. Total drift angle for 16-story building.


DOI: 10.1002/tal
1264
3.5.3. Story shears

In routine design of structures, the story shear and its distribution along the height of the structures are
signicant issues; so that structural elements are designed for forces obtained from a static analysis by
assuming a corresponding base shear. It is expected that by using semirigid connection instead of fully
rigid connection in the structural analysis, base shear decreases. However, results presented by Lui and
Lopes (1997) as well as by Al-Bermani et al. (1994) indicate that if the average natural frequency of
two exibility and rigidly connected systems is higher than the frequency of the excitation force, the base
shear of a system with lower stiffness becomes higher than the other system. On the other hand, base shear
and structural stiffness are not always proportional. Utilizing the exibility of the beam-to-column
connection in the structural analysis leads to decreasing the story shear of RBS frames, thanks to higher
excitation frequency of earthquake records in comparison with natural frequency of the frames used in this
study. As shown in Figures 2224, the maximum difference between the base shear of the two systems is
in lower stories and the minimum difference is related to the upper stories.
Story shear vs. Story level (50%50 earthquake)
4

4
max fully rigid

median fully rigid
min fully rigid
max semi rigid
median semi rigid
min semi rigid
Story Level
Story Level
1
0
Story Shear (MN)
10
Story Shear (MN)
Figure 22. Story shear for four-story building.


8
max fully rigid

median fully rigid
min fully rigid
max semi rigid
median semi rigid
min semi rigid
Story Level
Story Level
1
0
Base Shear (MN)
1
0
Base Shear (MN)
Figure 23. Story shear for eight-story building.


DOI: 10.1002/tal
16
16
15
15
14
14
13
13
12
12
11
11
10
10
Story Level
Story Level
9
8
1265
max fully rigid

median fully rigid
min fully rigid
max semi rigid
median semi rigid
min semi rigid
9
8
2
1
1
0
10
15
Base Shear (MN)
Base Shear (MN)
Figure 24. Story shear for 16-story building.

3.5.4. Shear deformation in panel zone
The developed shear force in the panel zone is approximately proportional to the bending moment in
the beam end and shear force in the column. Therefore, reduced beam exural strength leads to a
reduced shear demand for the panel zone (FEMA 350, 2000a). According to Jin and El-Tawil
(2005), using the RBS connections can prevent excessive panel zone deformation and as stated
previously, shear force in columns (shear story) in exibly connected frames is less than their
counterpart frames with fully rigid connection. Moreover, in the nonlinear analysis of RBS frames,
considering the exibility of connection, then beam end moment decreased (Figure 25). Therefore,
Moment vs. Story level-4 Story (50%50 earthquake)
4
Moment vs. Story level-8 Story (50%50 earthquake)

8
max (fully rigid)

median (fully rigid)
min (fully rigid)
max (semi rigid)
median (semi rigid)
min (semi rigid)
Story Level
Story Level
3
5
2
3
1
0
0.5
1.5
Max Moment in Beam (MN.m)
1
0
0.5
1.5
Max Moment in Beam (MN.m)
Figure 25. Moment in ends of beam for four- and eight-story buildings.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
1266
panel zones in semirigid frames experience less seismic demand in comparison with rigidly connected
frames. As shown in Figures 2628, the result obtained from this study veries this evaluation
regarding shear distortion in panel zone. Although the value of maximum panel zone distortion in fully
rigid frames under 2/50 earthquake is small (less than 0.009 rad), the presence of the exibility of the
beam-to-column connection in analysis of RBS frames can reduce this demand further, and the role of
RBS connection in decreasing the panel zone distortion will increase. The maximum and minimum
reductions in panel zone distortion are related to the lower story and the upper stories, respectively.
In exibly rigidly connected frames, the distribution of shear distortion in the panel zone along the
height of structures (unlike inter-story drift) is not dependent upon the seismic hazard levels; thus,
the contribution of panel zone in the inter-story drift of the RBS frames is not the same in all stories.
Panel zone distortion in exterior joints (50/50)
Panel zone distortion in interior joints (50/50)
max fully rigid (Jin Jun)

median fully rigid (Jin Jun)
min fully rigid (Jin Jun)
min semi rigid (present)
Story Level
Story Level
1
0
Panel zone distortion (rad.) x10-3
Figure 26. Panel zone distortion for four-story building.

8
max fully rigid (jin jun)

median fully rigid (jin jun)
min fully rigid (jin jun)
max fully rigid (Present)
median fully rigid (Present)
min fully rigid (Present)
max Semi rigid (Present)
median Semi rigid (Present)
min Semi rigid (Present)
Story Level
Story Level
1
0
1
0
Figure 27. Panel zone distortion for eight-story building.


DOI: 10.1002/tal

16
14
13
12
11
10
15
14
13
12
11
Story Level
Story Level

16
max fully rigid (Jin Jun)

median fully rigid (Jin Jun)
min fully rigid (Jin Jun)
min semi rigid (present)
15
9
8
7
10
9
8
7
1
0
1267
1
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Panel zone distortion (rad.)
Figure 28. Panel zone distortion for 16-story building.

4. CONCLUSION
In the present research, the inuence of the exibility of the beam-to-column connection on the seismic
performance of frames with RBS connection is scrutinized. First, the micro-behavior of the RBS
connection is assessed by the nite element method, and the stiffness of the beam-to-column connections are calculated in order to determinate the exibility of the beam-to-column connection. Through
numerical investigation, it can be concluded that the RBS connections actual behavior do not act
completely rigid. Stiffness parameter is used to determine the degree of rigidity of the connection.
The acquired stiffness parameters for connection are between 8 and 10, being smaller than the
minimum required value of 20 for fully rigid connection suggested by AISC. Thus, the exibility of the
beam-to-column connection is suggested to be considered in conventional design methods, and therefore,
it is compulsory to include the connection elements as part of the analysis of the structural system. Then
nonlinear static analysis and nonlinear dynamic step-by-step seismic analysis are carried out in order to
evaluate the overall response of multi-story RBS frames, frames with fully rigid connections and frames
with semirigid connections (including 4-, 8- and 16-story building). From the results of the implemented
analyses, signicant conclusions are inferred regarding the inuence of beam-to-column connection
exibility on the performance of RBS frames. In the modal analysis, the period of lower modes of the
multi-story frames substantially increases in comparison with the ones considering the beam-to-column
connections as fully rigid, although no signicant difference is observed in the periods of upper modes.
Although the period of lower modes of 16-story building increased by incorporating the exibility of connection in the structural analysis, no signicant difference between lower shape modes in two exibility
and rigidly connected frames is observed.
The results from the pushover analysis revealed that the initial stiffness and overstrength factors
of the RBS frames with exibly connected frames are less than their counterpart with semirigid
connections. The length of yield branch in the response curve of structures is increased by considering
the exibility of the beam-to-column connection. Through the enquiry with the aim of investigating
the importance of P- effects in RBS frames with fully rigid connection, it is concluded that P-
effects become more effective for 16-story frames under LA30 earthquake ground motion.
The four- and eight-story frames experience higher inter-story drift in the upper stories with exible
beam-to-column connections in comparison with simulation based on fully rigid connections. This was

DOI: 10.1002/tal
1268
not the case for the 16-story frames. The inuence of connection exibility on the seismic performance
of the examined multi-story frame structures seems to be critical when the P- effects become
very effective in 16-story frame. In this case dynamic instability of structures occurred in the one
considering the nonlinear performance of beam-to-column connections only for one earthquake record.
The nonlinear dynamic analysis showed that analysis of RBS frames, incorporating the exibility of
beam-to-column connection in the structural analysis, leads to moment redistribution in beams and
results in decreasing the demand in beams and columns. So shear force in columns in exibly
connected frames becomes less than the ones of the corresponding RBS frames with fully rigid
connection. By considering the nonlinear performance of the beam-to-column connection in analyzing
RBS frames, beam end moments decreased. The exibility of the beam-to-column connection in
analysis of RBS frames reduces the shear demand and shear distortion in the panel zone. So considering
the beam-to-column connection as an element in the structural analysis increased the role of RBS on
reducing the seismic demand in the panel zone.
REFERENCES
AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). 2002. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. AISC: Chicago, IL.
AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). 2010. Specication for Structural Steel Buildings. AISC: Chicago, IL.
Al-Bermani F et al. 1994. Cyclic and seismic response of exibly jointed frames. Engineering Structures 16(4): 249255.
Altoontash A. 2004. Simulation and damage models for performance assessment of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. Ph.
D. dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University.
Ang K, Morris G. 1984. Analysis of three-dimensional frames with exible beamcolumn connections. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering 11(2): 245254.
Awkar J, Lui E. 1999. Seismic analysis and response of multistory semirigid frames. Engineering Structures 21(5): 425442.
Batho C, Lash SD. 1936. Further investigations on beam and stanchion connections. Final Report, Steel Structures Research
Committee, Department of Scientic and Industrial Research, His Majestys Stationary Ofce, London. 276363.
Chen SJ, Yeh C, Chu J. 1996. Ductile steel beam-to-column connections for seismic resistance. Journal of Structural Engineering 122: 1292.
Engelhardt MD, Winneberger T, Zekany AJ, Potyraj TJ. 1996. The dog-bone connection: Part II. Modern Steel Construction,
AISC 36(8): 4655.
Engelhardt MD, Winneberger T, Zekany AJ, Potyraj TJ. 1998. Experimental investigations of dogbone moment connections.
Engineering Journal, AISC 35(4): 128139.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1997. FEMA-302NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations
for new buildings and other structures, part 1- provisions. (Prepared by SAC joint venture). FEMA: Washington, DC.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2000a. FEMA-350recommended seismic design criteria for new steel
moment-frame buildings (prepared by SAC joint venture). FEMA: Washington, DC.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2000b. FEMA-356rehabilitation of buildings, prepared by ASCE for
federal Emergency Management Agency (Prepared by ASCE). FEMA: Washington, DC.
HKS. 2003. ABAQUS Users Manual, Version 6.4. Hibbit, Karlson & Sorenson Inc: 1080 Main Street, Pawtucket, RI 02860.
Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H. 2005. Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center Report No. TR 152, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University and PEER Report
2005/06.
Jin J. 2002. Seismic performance of steel RBS moment frame buildings. PhD dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Central Florida.
Jin J, El-Tawil S. 2005. Seismic performance of steel frames with reduced beam section connections. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 61: 453471.
Kaufmann EJ. Fisher JW DiJulio RM, Gross JL. 1997. Failure analysis of welded steel moment frames damaged in the Northridge earthquake. In (2nd edn), NISTIR 5944, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Kildashti K, Mirghaderi R. 2009. Assessment of seismic behaviour of SMRFs with RBS connections by means of mixed-based
state-space approach. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 18(5): 485505.
Kitjasateanphun T, Shen J, Srivanich W, Hao H. 2001. Inelastic analysis of steel frames with reduced beam sections. The Structural Design of Tall Buildings 10: 231244.
Krawinkler H. 2000. State of art report on systems performance of moment-resisting steel frames subject to earthquake ground
shaking. SAC Report No. FEMA 355c., FEMA, Washington, DC.
Krawinkler H, Mohasseb S. 1987. Effects of panel zone deformations on seismic response. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 8: 233250.
Lignos D. 2008. Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations. Rep. No. TB 172, The John A.
Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. 2007. A database in support of modeling of component deterioration for collapse prediction of steel
frame structures. Proc. ASCE Structures Congress, Long Beach CA, SEI institut.
Lui E, Lopes A. 1997. Dynamic analysis and response of semi rigid frames. Engineering Structures 19(8): 644654.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
1269
Maison BF, Kasai K, Mayangarum A, Venture SA. 2002. Effects of partially restrained connection stiffness and strength on
frame seismic performance. SAC Joint Venture.
Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Fenves GL. 2005. OpenSees command language manual. Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research
(PEER) Center.
McMullin KM, Astaneh-Asl A. 2003. Steel semirigid columntree moment resisting frame seismic behavior. Journal of
Structural Engineering 129(9): 12431249.
Mirghaderi SR, Torabian S, Imanpour A. 2010. Seismic performance of the Accordion-Web RBS connection. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 66(2): 277288.
Nader M, Astaneh A. 1991. Dynamic behavior of exible, semi rigid and rigid steel frames. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 18(3): 179192.
Pachoumis D et al. 2009. Reduced beam section moment connections subjected to cyclic loading: experimental analysis and
FEM simulation. Engineering Structures 31(1): 216223.
Plumier A. 1997. The dog-bone: back to the future. Engineering Journal AISC 34(2): 6167.
Popov EP, Yang TS, Chang SP. 1998. Design of steel MRF connections before and after 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Engineering Structure 20: 10301038.
Schneider SP, Amidi A. 1998. Seismic behavior of steel frames with deformable panel zones. Journal of Structural Engineering
124(1): 3542.
Shen J, Kitjasateanphun T, Srivanich W. 2000. Seismic performance of steel moment frames with reduced beam sections.
Engineering Structures 22(8): 968983.
Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE. 1997. Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra 14(3):
469500.
Somerville P, Smith N, Punyamurthula S, Sun J. 1997. Development of ground motion time history for phase 2 of the FEMA
SAC steel project. SAX/BD-97.
Yang TS, Popov EP. 1995. Behavior of pre-Northridge moment resisting steel connections. Report no. UCB/EERC-95/08,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Zekioglu A, Mozaffarian H, Uang CM. 1997. Moment frame connection development and testing for the city of hope national
medical center. In Building to Last, Proceedings of Structures Congress XV, ASCE.
AUTHORS BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Ghassemieh is an associate professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at the Tehran
University. He received his PhD in Structural Engineering from the University of Oklahoma,
where he also earned MS and BSc degrees in the Structural and Civil Engineering, respectively.
He has experience in small-scale testing, material modeling in plasticity, nite element method of
analysis, and analysis of structures subjected to cyclic loading.
Jalal Kiani is a researcher in Prof. Ghassemiehs research group in the Tehran University Department
of Civil Engineering. Passionate about civil engineering, he is interested in improving hazard analysis
and sustainable design for structures and in evaluation of seismic performance of structures. He
completed his MS in Earthquake Engineering at the Tehran University.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

Kiani Ghassemieh 92 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Kiani Ghassemieh 92 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 12481269 (2013)

Seismic evaluation of reduced beam section frames considering

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF REDUCED BEAM SECTION FRAMES

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 12481269 (2013)

M. GHASSEMIEH AND J. KIANI

2. MICRO-BEHAVIOR OF REDUCED BEAM SECTION CONNECTION

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 12481269 (2013)

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF REDUCED BEAM SECTION FRAMES

Figure 2. Schematic detail of RBS connection.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 12481269 (2013)

M. GHASSEMIEH AND J. KIANI

RBS region dimensions (Figure 2)

Figure 3. Finite element mesh of the RBS connection.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 12481269 (2013)

Applied moment (KN.m)

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF REDUCED BEAM SECTION FRAMES

Connection rotation vs. connection moment (RBS8)

Connection rotation vs. connection moment (RBS7)

Figure 5. Momentrotation for specimens RBS7 and RBS8.

Table 2. Values of stiffness parameter based on secant stiffness at service load.

3. REDUCED BEAM SECTION FRAMES MACRO-BEHAVIOR

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 12481269 (2013)

M. GHASSEMIEH AND J. KIANI

3.1. Models conguration

3.66 m Story Height

Figure 6. Plan and elevation view of selected frames.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 12481269 (2013)

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF REDUCED BEAM SECTION FRAMES

Figure 7. Connection model.

Extended End Plate

(Lui & Lopes,

Forcing Frequency (rad/sec)

Figure 8. Displacement response curves.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 12481269 (2013)

M. GHASSEMIEH AND J. KIANI

Inter story drift (8 story frame)

Inter story drift (5 story frame)

Inter-story Drift (m)

Inter-story Drift (m)

Figure 9. Comparison of inter-story drifts for two multistory frames.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 12481269 (2013)

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF REDUCED BEAM SECTION FRAMES

3.3. Dynamic properties of reduced beam section frames

Deterioration model (Present study)

Chord Rotation (rad)

Table 3. Natural period of reduced beam section frames.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 12481269 (2013)

M. GHASSEMIEH AND J. KIANI

Comparison of mode shapes for four-story frames.

Figure 12. Mode shapes of four-story frame.

Figure 13. Mode shapes of eight-story frame.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 12481269 (2013)

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF REDUCED BEAM SECTION FRAMES

Comparison of mode shapes for sixteen-story frames.

Figure 14. Mode shapes of 16-story frame.

Base Shear (V/W)

4story fully rigid

Roof Drift Angle (rad.)

Base Shear (V/W)

4story fully rigid (Present)

Roof Drift Angle (rad)