THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS, VOl.

1,25-34 (1992)

FREE SPANNING DUCTILE VIERENDEEL FRAME:

A SYSTEM FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS
IN SEISMIC AREAS
P. V. BANAVALKAR
CBM Engineers, lnc., Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

SUMMARY
The paper has described the composition and structural behavior of a free spanning ductile frame system
to be used in seismic areas. The inelastic performance, ductility, and redundancy of the system is compared
with a conventional ductile moment resisting frame. It is shown that the structural performance of the
system is equal or better than the conventional system. The paper also describes successful application of
the system to commercial high-rise buildings.

1. INTRODUCTION

In a seismic area a choice of the structural system is dictated by its ductility, energy absorption
capacity and redundancy. The vertical continuity both in the overturning and the lateral shear
resistance is a desirable feature to ensure a good structural performance of a building in a seismic
event. Modern architecture with tall slender towers exhibiting multiple step backs, mixed-use
facilities and subterranean parking under the footprint of the tower creates the necessity for
transfer girders in a conventionally designed closely spaced ductile tubular system.
The author developed a cost effective free spanning ductile vierendeel system placed within
the uninterrupted spine of the building. The ductility to the system is mainly provided by the
yielding of the vertical stubs in the vierendeel girders. The performance of this system in terms
of its energy absorption capacity, redundancy, overall safety, and the criteria of resistance versus
demand is compared here with a conventionally designed ductile moment resisting frame for an
identical structure. Along with this comparison, the paper presents the special details and the
design criteria required for the system. The application of this structural system for major
high-rise buildings is also discussed.

2. COMPOSITION, STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR A N D DETAILS

2.1. Composition

The system consists of five to six stories tall free spanning vierendeel girder (Figure l(a))
anchored by the main columns which are continuous to the foundation. The vertical stubs are
rigidly connected to the continuous horizontal beams which in turn are rigidly connected to the
main columns. Each vierendeel girder is stacked vertically in such a way that the hinge
connections between vertical stubs is capable of transmitting only horizontal shears (Figure l(b)).
1062-8002/92/010025- 10%
10.00

0 1992 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 14 June 1992

26

P. V. BANAVALKER

FREE SPANNING
WERENDEEL

_I
I

212. CLA

ELEVATIW
Figure l(a). Composition of the system

SECTION

Figure l(b). Hinge details

These hinges insure that all the vertical gravity load is accumulated in the main columns only
and the vertical stubs act only as a shear membrane. Furthermore, the location of stubs not
necessarily placed symmetrically with respect to the main columns can be reasonably adjusted
within a vierendeel girder to suit the occupancy of the floor, such as hotel, office or parking
garage.
2.2. Structural behavior

Though difficult to quantify, the lateral resistance of the system can be partitioned into two
parts (Figure 2).
(a) The resistance provided by the super-frame without the studs (frame action).
(b) The shear resistance provided by the studs and the beam assembly (vierendeel action).
The vertical load carrying capacity of the vierendeel is quite well known.
2.3. Details

achieve the desired level of ductility, the following details are required.
The vertical stubs are rigidly connected to the beam in such a way as to develop the full
plastic moment capacity of the stubs and the corresponding shear. The panel zone of the
beam is stiffened accordingly. The connection of the stubs to the foundations also follows
the same principles.
The beam to main column connection is a conventional ductile frame connection. Thc
shear connection of the beam to the main columns is designed to develop the shear due
to full plastification of the stubs as well as the plastification of the beam in addition to
the supported gravity load (Figure 3).
As discussed before, the hinge connection in the vertical stubs is designed to transmit only
horizontal forces.
All joints at the intersection of stubs and the beam should be braced laterally by floor
beams.

27

VIERENDEEL FRAMES FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS IN SEISMIC AREAS

SMAR UX TO kASTIFIC#TX)N

CK+CVs

SYSTEM

4-___,

SHEAR DUE TO UTIFlCATIOCJ

OF BEAM

I FRAME

Acnw

SHEAR DUE TO GRAVITY

vo

VIERENDEEL ACTION

Figure 2. Lateral resistance of the system

(\+vb 4 V d
I .7

VD =

DESIGN SHEAR

Figure 3. Beam shear

3. STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF THE SYSTEM

The structural performance of the ductile vierendeel frame DVF (RII)is compared with that of
a conventional DMRSF (RI) designed in accordance with the 1988 UBC code. The 17 stories
tall RI frame (Figure 4(a)) consists of 5 bay (20-0 o.c.) 100 ft long ductile frame, whereas the
DVF (RII) consists of 60-0 single span vierendeel with vertical stubs at 20-0 O.C.(Figure 4(b)).
Both frames have identical floor heights and similar base condition. It may be stated that RI is
an as-built structure for a building in California. The relevant properties of both structures, RI
and RII, are given in Table I.
The dynamic analysis of both structures was performed for the S-3 response spectra of UBC
1988.
The structural performance of both structures (RI and RII) was evaluated by the following
criteria.

28

P. V. BANAVALKER

a-RI
-

(17 STORIES TALL)

Figure 3. Original structures

Table I. Comparative properties of systems R1 and RII

Mass in kips
Fundamental period Sec/Cycle
Response for S3 spectra
Base shear in kips
Overturning moment k-dt x lo6
6 at top in inches

RI

RII

15 321
3.27

15321
3.14

3 531
0.83
36.6

3 724
0.93

35.4

(a) Inelastic response characteristics.

(b) Redundancy of the structure in vertical load carrying capacity.
4. INELASTIC RESPONSE
4.1. Ultimate shear capacity

Because of the strong column-weak beam concept, the ultimate lateral shear capacity for frame
RI is limited by the plastification of the beams, whereas in the RII structure it is limited by the
plastification of the stubs as well as the beams. As shown in Table IT, the ultimate shear capacity
Table 11. Ultimate shear capacity
Floor No.

RI in kips

RII in kips
~~

16
13
9
5
3

727
905
1142
1582
1849

Ratio RII/RI

~~~~~

1059
1 244
1370
1471
1567

1.46
1.37
1.2
0.93
0.85

29

VIERENDEEL FRAMES FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS IN SEISMIC AREAS

Table 111. Comparison of energy at plastification

Energy in ductile
elements in kip-in.
Floor No.
15
12
9
6
4

Total energies in all

elements in kip-in.

RI
beams

RII
beams + stubs

Ratio
RII/RI

RI

RII

Ratio
RII/RI

346

703
784
846
857
846

2.03
2.20
1.69
1.57
1.23

470
493
670
748
951

756
845
911
916
900

1.61
1.71
1.36
1.23
0.95

356
502
545
690

of structure RII is greater than that of the RI structure over the majority of the floors. Structure
RII is slightly softer in the lowest three floors of the building.

4.2. Elastic energy absorption capacity

The total energy stored in the RI structure is calculated at the time of plastification of the
beams, whereas the total energy stored in the RII structure is determined at the plastification
of both the vertical stubs and the beam. As anticipated, because of its higher stiffness, RII
structure indicates larger energy absorption capacity, particularly in the ductile elements, such
as the beams and the vertical stubs (see Table 111). The additional input energy from the seismic
motion will have to be absorbed by ductile beam-column joint.

4.3. Hierarchy of plastic hinge formation and load deflection curve

To establish qualitatively the hierarchy of the plastic hinge during degradation of the
structure (Figure 5), the ratios of response-generated bending moments in the flexural members

PERIOD *
5.56 SECICY.
%ax.= 336lk

INACM

8
1

b- RII

-I
PERIOD
5.84 SEUCY
~ m o =.x3994

0-RI
Figure 5. Degraded structures

TWO SlNGLE
BAY FRAMES

30

P. V. BANAVALKER

0s
6

Ib

1's

2'0

WLECTION (INCHES)

Figure 6. Load deflection for structures RI and RII

due to S-3 response spectra were compared to the plastic moment capacities of the members.
As anticipated, for the RI structure the plastification of the Sb-3 beams is immediately followed
by the plastification of the Sb-2 and Sb-1 beams.
For the structure RII, at a load level approximately 2-5 times smaller than the response
generated by the S-3 spectra the vertical stubs form plastic hinges at the junction of the beams
The onset of plastification of the stubs provides ductility along with an increase in structural
damping.
The lateral load deflection (P-A) characteristic at the 9th floor, which is representative of the
rest of the structure, is shown in Figure 6.
For the RI structure, the ultimate lateral shear capacity at the 9th floor is only 1-076
(1142/1061) times the shear capacity at the initial onset of plastification of the Sb-3 beam. As
opposed to this, the RII structure after plastification of the stubs gains approximately 32% of
its ultimate shear capacity during plastification of the beam. The energy absorption capacity,
which is represented by the area under the P-A curve for the RII structure (Figure 6), is superior
to that of the RII structure.
The overturning resistance of the structure during the process of degradation by the
plastification is also very important. After the plastification of the Sb-2 and Sb-3 beams, the
fundamental period of the RI frame increases to 5.84 s as opposed to the initial period of 3.27 s.
The R I structure reduces itself to two single bay frames of 20'-0" span with the overturning
stiffness of the building being reduced by a dramatic factor of 17-50times the original (Figure 5).
After plastification of the stubs, the fundamental period of the RII structure also increases to
5.56 s per cycle from 3.14 s per cycle initial period. However, the overturning stiffness and
resistance of the RII structure remains unaltered during this excursion, a very decisive advantage
over the conventional RI structure.
4 . 4 . Resistance uersus demand

The inelastic response of the structure is further examined by the requirement of Resistance
versus Demand, a litmus test for desirable ductile behavior (Figure 7). As shown in the figure,

VIERENDEEL FRAMES FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS IN SEISMIC AREAS

ZC

TA

TD

31

= MEASURE OF INFW OF

MAX

EXPECTED

P E W IN SEC/CrcLE
INITIAL DESIGN FRIOO
ACTUAL PERIOD W NELASTIC STRUCTURE

Figure 7. Resistance versus demand (RII)

the plastification of the stubs starts approximately at 40% of the response shear 3 724 kips
determined by the S-3 spectra, a measure of the maximum expected earthquake. After
plastification of the subs, both the ultimate lateral shear capacity and the damping of the
structure continue to increase, achieving an ultimate shear capacity of 1567 kips. The increase
in period of the building to 5.56 s along with the increased damping reduces the shear demand
of the structure to 1 141 kips, realistically represented by an equivalent spectrum for the increased
damping.
The desired performance of the structure for resistance matching or exceeding the demand is
well documented by this behavior.
5. REDUNDANCY IN VERTICAL LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY (Figure 8)

It is essential that a system can perform inelastically without jeopardizing its vertical load
carrying capacity. The performance of the conventional RI structure is very well documented.
For the RII structure, the following criteria need to be followed.
5.1. Prevention of three hinge mechanism in a girder

The continuous main beam supporting the floor with rigidly attached vertical stubs is designed
in such a way that even after full plastification of the stubs and the formation of the plastic
moment hinges at the beam column connections there is still a minimum of 1.20 factor of safety
against the support of the full gravity load. This criterion protects against the formation of the
unstable three hinge mechanism in the beam and ensures the stable vertical load carrying
capacity of the structure. Since the design of multistory structures is generally determined by
stiffness criteria, the criterion for providing safe load carrying capacity in the beam does not
impose any additional cost penalty on the RII structure over a conventionally designed strong
column-weak beam ductile frame.

32

P. V. BANAVALKER

GRAVITY

LDAD

SEISMIC UW,

PLASTIFICATIW

CF STUB

FlASTFICATlO)J OF BEAM
Mpb

M h

' 2 MGI + 4
1 MBi
PLASTIC MOMENT
CAPACITY OF B E A M

Figure 8. Rcdundancy in vertical load carrying capacity

5.3. Main column capacity

The main columns supporting the vierendeel should be checked for axial loading due to
plastification of the beam and the stubs in addition to the gravity load. This criterion is found
to be far in excess of the (3/8)Rw amplification by the present UBC code.
6. APPLICATION TO HIGH-RISE BlJILDl NGS
In high-rise buildings, columns heavily loaded by gravity loads and interlinked by a shear
membrane in the form of ductile vierendeel girder or bracing can provide very efficient cosl
effective overturning resistance to the structure.
As shown in Figure 9(a), an office building with underground parking always has a main
shear transfer diaphragm at its base. The ductile vierendeel can be devised along the perimeter
of the building with main columns providing continuity in the overturning resistance to the
foundation. The system can also be applied in the core of a tower where the multiple door
openings to the core make the application of eccentric bracing impossible (Figure 9(b)). The
system has been applied to the already-constructed 53-stories-tall Gas Company Tower in Los
Angeles and to two other major office buildings as well,
The system presents an ideal solution for multi-use complexes such as a tall slender hotel on
top of an office building with a Porte Cochere at its base, super-posed on an underground
parking garage (Figure 10).A supplemental stiffening at the Porte Cochere lcvel may be required

VIERENDEEL FRAMES FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS IN SEISMIC AREAS

33

h CORESYSTEM

a. PERIMETER SYSTEM
Figure 9. Office tower

.
607065

H O EL

PCAN OF HOTEL

STlFFENED
BEAM
OFFICE

DETAIL A
SUBTERRANEAN

ELEVATION
Figure 10. Hotel

34

P. V. BANAVALKER

to eliminate soft story. The notching of the beam to give enough head room clearance in the
corridors of the hotel requires special attention in sizing the member to prevent the formation
of the three hinge mechanism (Figure 8).
7. CONCLUSION
Designed using special criteria, it is shown that the ductile free-spanning vierendeel system is
equivalent to a conventional ductile moment resisting frame in terms of ductility, energy
absorption capaety, ultimate shear capacity, and demand versus resistance performance. Because
of this structural behavior, when designed for code level forces, RW = 12 should be used.
The proposed system is superior to a conventional system in terms of its overturning resistance
and load deflection (P A) characteristics. The proposed system has two ductile components,
namely the beam and the vertical stubs. The onset of first-yielding in the vertical stubs acting
as a fuse is a uniquc feature of the system.
The system can be applied efficiently to multi-use hotel tower and office buildings with
underground parking.
Heavily loaded columns supporting the free-spanning vierendeels provide flexibility in the
underground parking spaces and at the same time minimize the foundation and structural cost
by eliminating uplifting loads in the columns.