See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305568003

INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS AND

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF AN
ALUMINUM FRAMED...

Conference Paper December 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 157

5 authors, including:

Vahid Meimand Shahabeddin Torabian

Johns Hopkins University Johns Hopkins University
10 PUBLICATIONS 59 CITATIONS 50 PUBLICATIONS 126 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Benjamin Schafer Cristopher Dennis Moen

Johns Hopkins University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ
235 PUBLICATIONS 3,355 CITATIONS 74 PUBLICATIONS 480 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Steel Diaphragm Innovation Initiative (SDII) View project

Cross-sectional Stability of Structural Steel View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shahabeddin Torabian on 23 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Eighth International Conference on
STEEL AND ALUMINIUM STRUCTURES
Edited by B. Young
Hong Kong, China, December 7 9, 2016

INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS AND SEISMIC

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF
AN ALUMINUM FRAMED BUILDING COMPARED WITH STEEL

Vahid MEIMAND a, Shahab TORABIAN a,b, Benjamin W. SCHAFERa,b,

Randy KISSELLc, and Cristopher D. MOEN a
a
NBM Technologies, Inc., Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA
Emails: vahidzm@nbmtech.com, shtorabian@nbmtech.com, schafer@nbmtech.com,
cris.moen@nbmtech.com
b
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA
Email: schafer@jhu.edu
c
TGB Partnership, Hillsborough, NC 27278, USA
Email: randy.kissel@tgbpartnership.com

Keywords: Aluminum, Steel, Seismic evaluation, FEMA P695, Finite element analysis.

Abstract. This paper summarizes a study performed to evaluate the seismic performance of aluminum
structures. The effect of different stress-strain behavior between aluminum and steel material on the
seismic performance of two functionally similar structures is the focus of this study. A one-story
building archetype was chosen and the FEMAP695 approach was employed to study seismic
performance factors for the building designed either from aluminum or steel. A geometric and
material nonlinear model employing shell and beam finite elements, but excluding fracture, was
developed to analyze the behavior of both buildings under earthquake ground motions. Incremental
dynamic analysis was performed on the two archetypes and a fragility curve describing the probability
of collapse versus the earthquake intensity was derived for each building. Finally, the performance of
the two buildings was evaluated, showing that the aluminum building performed comparably to the
steel building. It was observed in the models that the hysteresis behavior for the aluminum building
develops primarily through interaction between buckling and yielding of the flanges at beam-column
connections and at column supports.

1 INTRODUCTION
Seismic design of regularly-framed buildings is moving from lateral systems prequalified
with full-scale cyclic experiments to computer-based studies where the actual response of a
building, including the probability of collapse, is documented under realistic earthquake
ground motions. This shift from prescriptive design to direct analysis is a result of a societal-
wide emphasis on urban resiliency to natural hazards, and the need for new systems and
combinations of materials that can meet performance-based requirements dictated region-by-
region that minimizes economic losses. The goal of the study described herein is to document
how aluminum, well known for its low unit weight, high strength, ductility, and corrosion
resistance, performs in a low rise building system in an earthquake compared to an equivalent
steel-framed building.
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

Seismic evaluations of new building systems require a comprehensive computational study

that demonstrates that the probability of collapse under a suite of ground motions is below a
specified threshold. In the United States the procedure for this type of study is defined by the
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) document Quantification of Building
Seismic Performance Factors, i.e., FEMA P695 [1]. The building archetype is modeled in
structural analysis software as accurately as possible, including geometric nonlinearity (small
and large P-delta effects), plasticity, and plastic hinging. The building frame members are
designed and sized in the model according to the appropriate design code, including the
consideration of the seismic response modification factor (R) that accounts for the influence
of ductility on seismic demands that the frame experiences during an earthquake. The
building system dynamic performance is evaluated for 44 ground motions specified in FEMA
P695, with each ground motion acceleration amplitude scaled as a proportion of the maximum
credible earthquake (MCE). For each time history simulation, the maximum spectral
acceleration at which building collapse occurs is recorded, which is used to construct a
cumulative distribution function (CDF) with earthquake intensity on the x-axis, also known as
a fragility curve. If the collapse margin ratio (CMR), i.e., the ratio of the earthquake
intensities at the median collapse probability to the maximum considered earthquake intensity
for the archetype, is greater than an acceptable CMR defined in FEMA P695, the building
performance is deemed acceptable.

Research on seismic-resistant building systems constructed with aluminum has focused

primarily on using aluminum as an energy-dissipating element placed in series with steel
lateral force resisting systems, for example, a chevron frame [2]. Some aluminum alloy-
tempers have a gradually yielding stress-strain curve with the ability to reach 30% or more
elongation at fracture, which means they have the potential to dissipate significant energy.
Shake table tests [2] with aluminum shear links and also tests of steel lateral systems with
aluminum shear panels [3] confirmed that base shear demand can be reduced and energy
dissipation increased when inelasticity is carefully focused in selected aluminum elements.

The energy-dissipating characteristics of aluminum in earthquake applications are

evaluated in this paper. Instead of using aluminum as fuses, the entire primary framing system
is constructed with aluminum. A one-story, three-span archetype building is defined and
modeled including plasticity and geometric nonlinearity. Collapse criteria defined by a
pushover analysis define limits in incremental dynamic analyses scaled against the maximum
credible earthquake. Fragility curves are constructed with the FEMA P695 procedure to
compare collapse margin ratios. The work begins in the next section by defining the building
archetype geometry and sizing the structural members, setting the stage for incremental
dynamic analysis of equivalent aluminum and steel framing, and culminating in an informed
evaluation of aluminum as a viable construction material in seismic-prone regions.

2 ARCHETYPE
Designing archetype buildings in accordance with the current design specifications (e.g.,
the Specification for Aluminum Structures [4]) and evaluating the structural performance via
high fidelity finite element models (i.e. per FEMA P695) can shed light on the seismic
performance of buildings with aluminum Lateral Force Resisting Systems (LFRS).
An archetype building should be representative of a construction method. However,
different architectural forms and performance requirements for structures can result in
complicated shapes that may not be suitable for an archetype. For this reason, archetypes

2
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

typically have simple geometrical shapes, but still represent a large number of construction
methods.
Aluminum frames are common in light shelters, greenhouses, carports, and reservoir
covers; therefore, a simple one-story, three-span archetype structure that has moment frames
for the LFRS was selected as an archetype in this study, as shown in Fig. 1.

10#$# 10#$# 10#$#

Gravity
framing

10#$#
Moment
frames

10#$#
10#$#

(a) (b)

Figure 1: Archetype building, 1-story, 3-span

(a) isometric view; (b) plan view with moment and gravity frames designated

Moment frames are placed along the perimeter of the building and all other frames are
gravity frames, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The size of the archetype is 30 ft 30 ft (9.14 m x 9.14
m) in plan with a story height of 10 ft (3.05 m) (all dimensions are on center). The structures
designed in this study are sited in Los Angles, CA (site class D). To design the buildings, the
following parameters were presumed in accordance with ASCE 7 (ASCE 2010)[5]:
Importance Factor, Ie = 1, Acceleration Parameter at short periods, Ss = 1.5, Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter at a period of 1 sec, Sl = 0.6, Short Period Site-Coefficient Fa = 1.0,
Long-Period Site Coefficient Fv = 1.5, and Seismic Design Category D.

The effective seismic weight was based on the roof having a 10 psf (479 Pa) dead load and
50 psf (2400 Pa) live load, and the dead load of nonstructural walls on the perimeter. The
structures were designed for 18 load combinations per ASCE 7 as follows:

Table 1: Load combinations for design of the archetype building

Number Load combination
1 1.4D
2 1.2D + 1.6L
3-6 1.2D 1.0Ex 0.3Ey+ 0.5L+ 0.2D
7-10 1.2D 1.0Ey 0.3Ex + 0.5L+ 0.2D
11-14 0.9D 1.0Ex 0.3Ey + 0.2D
15-18 0.9D 1.0Ex 0.3Ey + 0.2D
D: Dead load; L: Live load; Ex: Earthquake load in x direction; Ey: Earthquake load
in y direction; where E=QE + 0.2SDSD, =1, SDS=1.0

To compare the seismic behavior of aluminum and steel frames, two archetype buildings
were designed, one using aluminum members and one using steel members. All members

3
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

including both gravity and seismic framing were designed using LRFD load combinations in
ASCE 7 (see Table 1) and LRFD design methods in the Specification for Aluminum
Structures [4]for aluminum design and AISC-360 [6] for steel design. The 5% accidental
eccentricity was included in the archetype designs as mandated in ASCE 7. Table 2
summarizes the seismic forces considered in designing both aluminum and steel frames.

Table 2: Seismic forces for designing the aluminum and steel archetypes
Seismic parameters Aluminum structure Steel structure
Effective seismic weighta 18 k 18 k
b
Approximate fundamental Period, Ta 0.17 sec 0.17 sec
Response Modification Factor, R 3e 3.5c
d
Seismic Response Coefficient, Cs 0.33 0.286
Base Shear, Vd 6k 5.14 k
e
Over-Strength Factor, o 3 3c
Deflection Amplification, Cd 2.5e 3c
a
ASCE 7, Sec. 12.7.2; bASCE 7, Sec. 12.8.2.1; cASCE 7, Table 12.2-1 as Steel ordinary moment frame;
d
ASCE 7, Sec. 12.8.1; e Estimate to be evaluated via FEMA P695 (see Section 4.4 for more details)

2.1 Aluminum building: Design summary

The aluminum archetype building was designed per the Specification for Aluminum
Structures [4]. All beams and columns were selected to be either I or S standard
aluminum profiles. The member connectivity and fixity assumptions are illustrated in Fig. 2.
All perimeter columns have fixed connections at their ends and all interior columns are
pinned at their ends. Fig. 3 summarizes the member names, sizes, and demand-to-capacity
ratios. Demand-to-capacity ratios are kept close to 1.0 to avoid excessive over-strength. The
maximum lateral story drift of the aluminum structure is 2.4%, which is less than the 2.5%
drift limit of ASCE 7.

Figure 2: Connection fixity assumptions: filled circles: fixed, clear circles: pinned

4
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

Design
Group # Sec+on
Ra+o

Corner SS beams I4x2.31 0.81

Mid beams S5x5.1 1.02

Moment beam I4x2.31 1.00

Corner cols I6x4.82 0.93

Mid cols S6x4.3 0.95

0.87
Moment cols I6x4.69

Figure 3: Member sizes and demand-to-capacity ratios for the aluminum building

2.2 Steel building: Design summary

The steel building was designed per AISC-360: Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings. All members were selected from U.S. S standard steel profiles. The member
connectivity and fixity assumptions are illustrated in Fig. 2, and match the aluminum
structure. Fig. 4 provides the member names, sizes, and demand-to-capacity ratios For this
small structure the demand-to-capacity ratios are less than 1.0, even for the smallest available
profile. The member sizes were dictated by the lateral drift limitations in ASCE 7. The
maximum lateral drift of the steel structure is 2.5%, which satisfies the 2.5% drift limit of
ASCE 7.

Design
Group # Sec+on
Ra+o

Corner SS beams S3x5.7 0.73

Mid beams S4x7.7 0.83

Moment beam S3x7.5 0.60

Corner cols S4x9.5 0.63

Mid cols S4x7.7 0.81

0.78
Moment cols S4x9.5

Figure 4: Member sizes and demand-to-capacity ratios for the steel building

3 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

ABAQUS [7] is used to develop and analyze the finite element model employed in this
study. In this section, the details of the model are discussed.

3.1 Element choice

The FEMA P695 approach requires numerous nonlinear time history models to be
analyzed. The biggest challenge in developing a finite element model for this protocol is to
balance the need to capture the correct nonlinear hysteresis behavior, including the strength
degradation for the elements, with required efficiency in the model such that the full building
can be analyzed numerous times. For the chosen building archetype, major nonlinearities are
expected to occur at the beam column connections or at the base of columns where the
moment demands are the greatest. Therefore, the model used in this study for each member

5
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

uses a relatively fine shell finite element mesh at the last 12 in.(3.05 m) of each end of the
members and uses fiber-based beam elements elsewhere (Figure 5). This approach ensures the
local and global nonlinearities are captured at the member ends while in the members middle
portion only global nonlinearities are captured.

Figure 5: combinations of shell and solid elements for each member

To verify the accuracy of the combined beam-shell finite element model for each member,
its cyclic behavior were compared against a full shell finite element 3D model of the same
member. The two models were exercised as cantilevers under a simple cyclic load protocol to
an 8% deflection, and as seen in Figure 6, the results agree to acceptable accuracy.

400

shell model
300 beam-shell model

200

100
M (kip.in)

-100

-200

-300

-400
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
(rad)

Figure 6: verification of the selected model for each member using a full shell element model (1 kip
in=0.11 kN.m)

3.2 Connections
There are two connection types in the archetype: pinned and fixed. For fixed connections,
for each connection member, first, a rigid surface is defined at the connecting end of the
member with a reference point at the mid-web of the section. Then all the displacement and
rotation degrees of freedom at the two connections reference point are tied together. In the

6
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

case of a fixed connection at the column base, all degrees of freedom at the reference point
are constrained. For the pinned connections only the webs are connected: a rigid surface is
defined at the connection end of the member that only includes the nodes in the web and
excludes the flange nodes. Similar to the fixed connections, all the degrees of freedom at the
two reference points are tied together. This approach to modeling the pinned connections
approximates shear tab style pinned connections found in actual structures.

3.3 Geometric Imperfections

Cross-sectional geometric imperfections in the shape of a sinusoidal curve with a half-
wave length equal to the depth of the web and a magnitude of 1/200 of the web depth, as
shown in Figure 7, are considered at the ends of each member where shell elements are used.
Global initial imperfections were ignored in this model for simplicity.

Figure 7: Cross-sectional geometric imperfections

3.4 Boundary Conditions

Columns that are a part of the moment frames (12 columns on the sides) are fixed at the
base by restraining all degrees of freedom (DOFs) at the reference node at the cross section on
the base. For gravity columns (4 columns in the middle), the reference node in the base is
pinned by restraining only the displacement degrees of freedom. In time history analyses, the
earthquake acceleration record is applied at the base of all columns in the x-direction and the
displacement DOF in the x-direction is determined by the input acceleration.

3.5 Diaphragm
A rigid diaphragm is modeled for this building by connecting all column ends at the roof
level to a node defined at the middle of the roof by rigid links using a multi-point constraint
definition (Figure 8). In a rigid link the distance between the two nodes remains constant and
rotational DOFs are free.

7
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

Figure 8: diaphragm model at the roof level

3.6 Material properties

Multi-linear material properties are used for both steel and aluminum. Figure 9 shows the
stress-strain behavior used in the model. The aluminum curve is based on a Ramberg-Osgood
model [8] with n = 44.27, yield stress of 35 ksi (240 MPa), ultimate stress of 38 ksi (260
MPa), and Youngs modulus of 10,100 ksi (70 GPa). A multi-linear stress-strain behavior as
shown in Figure 9 is used for steel with a yield stress of 55 ksi (380 MPa), an ultimate stress
of 70 ksi (480 MPa), and Young modulus of 29000 ksi (200 GPa).
70

60

Aluminum
Steel
50
Stress (ksi)

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Strain
Figure 9: Material properties for aluminum and steel.

8
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

4 FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS FOR THE ALUMINUM BUILDING

Three types of analyses are performed on the building: modal analysis, pushover analysis,
and time history analysis in the form of incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). In this section
the results for these analyses for the aluminum building are discussed.

4.1 Modal Analysis

Figure 10 provides the shape of the first mode from the modal analysis. The period of the
building corresponding to this mode is 0.48 sec. The curvature of the beams and columns
clearly indicates which members are part of the moment frames and which are part of the
gravity frames and indicates successful connection modeling.

Figure 10: Aluminum building first dynamic mode shape

4.2 Pushover analysis

The FEMA P695 protocol requires a pushover analysis on the archetype to calculate the
over-strength as well as the period-based ductility, which is used in determining the
acceptable collapse margin ratio. Pushover analysis results also help in understanding the
building behavior at higher drift values, and provide additional insight in choosing the
collapse criteria for the IDA results. For pushover analysis the base of the building is fixed
against displacement and the center node at the roof level is pushed in the x-direction. Figure
11 shows the base shear vs. drift plot resulting from the pushover analysis. The over-strength,
, is defined as:
V
= max (1)
V

where Vmax is the base shear at the peak and V is the design base shear. The period based
ductility, T, is defined as:

T = u (2)
y,eff
where u and y,eff are derived form the pushover curve as shown in figure 11. The over-
strength and period-based ductility for the aluminum building are 6.4 and 5.65, respectively.

9
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

40
Vmax=38.49
35

0.8Vmax=30.79 30

Base Shear (kip)

25

20

15

10

V=6 5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Roof Disp. (in)
y,eff=5.08 u=28.7 in
Figure 11: Pushover analysis results for the aluminum building (1 kip=4.45 kN and 1 in.=0.025 m)

4.3 Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)

The most computationally intensive step in the FEMA P695 protocol is the incremental
dynamic analysis (IDA) that is done for each of the 44 earthquake records (22 earthquakes x 2
horizontal directions). For this study every building is analyzed for each earthquake 13 times
at different earthquake intensities ranging from 0.5 to 5.0. Each star (*) in Figure 12
corresponds to one time history analysis and each line corresponds to one earthquake record.
5

4.5

3.5

3
Eq Intensity

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Max drift %

Figure 12: IDA results for the aluminum building and the collapse criteria

The most common approach for defining the collapse criteria is by indicating a maximum
drift level for collapse initiation. In this study 7% is chosen as the collapse drift level. This is
based on the wood light frame example in FEMA P695 and supported by the fact that 7%
drift is well before the peak of the pushover curve which is at 9.5% drift. If we construct a
vertical line at 7% drift (Figure 12), the intersection with each earthquake IDA curve
represents the collapse intensity for that earthquake record. The resultant is a set of 44 points
that represent the intensity for each of the 44 earthquake records that causes collapse.

10
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

4.4 Performance evaluation

Based on the FEMA P695 protocol, to evaluate the performance the collapse margin ratio
must be obtained from the fragility curve. The fragility curve obtained from the IDA analyses
for the aluminum building and assuming a 7% drift limit is shown in Figure 13. The Collapse
Margin Ratio (CMR) is defined as:
S
CMR = CT (3)
SMT
where SCT is the median earthquake intensity (it is suggested to choose the median of a
lognormal distribution fit to the fragility curve as shown in Figure 13). SMT is the intensity of
the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) based on the design code (ASCE 7) for the
building. The CMR for this building is 1.76.
The Adjusted CMR is found by multiplying the CMR by a spectral shape factor. The
spectral shape factor includes the variability of the earthquake records shape based on the
period and ductility of the building archetype. From P695 Table 7-1b the spectral shape factor
for this building with a ductility of 5.6 and period of 0.48 sec is 1.27. Therefore, the adjusted
collapse margin ratio is 2.24 for the archetype.

0.9

0.8

0.7
Collapse probability

0.6
IDA results
0.5
Lognormal fit

0.4

0.3

0.2 SMT = 1.5g SCT = 2.64g

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Eq intensity (g)

Figure 13: fragility curve for the aluminum building archetype

Finally, to complete the performance evaluation, the acceptable collapse margin ratio is
calculated based on the uncertainties in the system (including the modeling uncertainties,
quality of test results, and quality of design requirements) and the acceptable probability of
collapse. For this archetype, considering good quality of design requirements, fair quality of
test results, good quality of model, and 10% acceptable probability of collapse, the acceptable
collapse margin ratio is found to be 2.16 based on the tables available in FEMA P695.
Comparing the acceptable collapse margin ratio (2.16) to the adjusted collapse margin ratio
(2.24) indicates that this archetype and the design procedure pass the evaluation process.
Thus, the selected seismic performance modification coefficients are validated for this
archetype.

11
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

5 FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS FOR THE STEEL BUILDING

5.1 Modal Analysis

Figure 14 illustrates the first shape resulting from modal analysis of the steel building
archetype. The first mode period for this building is 0.52 sec, which is slightly greater than
the period of the aluminum building archetype.

Figure 14: first dynamic mode shape for the steel building

5.2 Pushover analysis

Similar to the aluminum building a pushover analysis is performed on the steel building
and the results (Figure 15) are used to calculate the over-strength and the period-based
ductility of this building. The over-strength is found to be 4.5, which is smaller than the over-
strength found for the aluminum building. The period-based ductility is 8.13, which is higher
than the period-based ductility of the aluminum building.
30

Vmax=27.03
25

0.8Vmax=21.62
20
Base Shear (kip)

15

10

V=6
5

u=35.67 in
y,eff=4.39
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Roof Disp. (in)

Figure 15: Pushover analysis results for the steel building (1 kip=4.45 kN and 1 in.=0.025 m)

5.3 Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)

Incremental dynamic analysis is performed for the steel building at 11 earthquake
intensities ranging from one to four for all earthquake records (Figure 16). Similar to the
aluminum archetype, a 7% drift is chosen as the collapse drift limit for the steel building. This
is conservative when compared with the pushover analysis.

12
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

3.5

2.5

Eq Intensity 2

1.5

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Max drift %

Figure 16: IDA results and collapse criteria for steel building

5.4 Performance evaluation

The fragility curve is obtained for the collapse earthquake intensities for all 44 records and
shown in Figure 17. The CMR for the steel building is 1.67. The spectral shape factor for this
archetype is 1.33 (FEMA P695, Table 7-1b) and the adjusted CMR is 2.23, similar to the
value found for the aluminum archetype.
1

0.9
IDA results
Lognormal fit
0.8

0.7
Collapse probability

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
SMT = 1.5g SCT = 2.51g
0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Eq intensity (g)
Figure 17: fragility curve for the steel building

The acceptable CMR is established in a manner similar to the aluminum archetype.

Assumptions for the uncertainties in the system include: good quality of design requirements,
fair quality of tests, good quality of model, and a probability of collapse of 10%. The
acceptable CMR is 2.16, which is slightly lower than the adjusted CMR for the steel
archetype. This result indicates that the steel building and design approach including the
seismic performance factors satisfy FEMA P695 requirements.

13
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

6 DISCUSSION
In the United States no specific seismic provisions exist for aluminum building or
building-like structures. This limited study suggests that as long as yielding and buckling limit
states are incurred then aluminum structures likely may follow seismic procedures similar to
steel design. Specifically, a one-story building frame with a simple LFRS based on moment
connections was found to be adequate for aluminum design with an R = 3 using the FEMA
P695 protocol and the American aluminum design specification. The procedure was validated
by showing that a similar steel design also met FEMA P695 requirements with R = 3.5. The
study is limited to one archetype and ignores fracture limit states. However, the models
properly include local buckling of the cross-section, local-global buckling interaction, and
yielding throughout. Further, the P695 protocol emphasizes consideration of the earthquake
record, which is fully considered here.
Seismic design and the P695 evaluation considers system response. Nowhere is this more
evident than in comparing the demand-to-capacity ratios from the strength-based component
level checks with the overall system over-strength. For the aluminum building archetype the
members demand-to-capacity ratio is near 1.0; however, the building system still has a lateral
capacity over-strength of 6.4. This system over-strength is an important portion of the system
R-factor. Simpler systems may have less over-strength.
The modeling assumptions were selected to balance efficiency with accuracy. More refined
models for connections and end boundary conditions are possible. In addition, the diaphragm
model was greatly simplified/idealized and is potentially worth additional study. Further, it is
possible to monitor criteria associated with fracture, and this could also be done in the future
to expand the study. Also, the uncertainty assumptions in the acceptable collapse margin ratio
for the FEMA P695 protocol are subject to significant judgment and additional sensitivity
studies are warranted. This work provides the beginnings of aluminum seismic design for
building or building-like structures; future work including testing is needed.

7 CONCLUSIONS
Seismic design of building structures often relies on the use of equivalent lateral force
procedures and seismic response modification coefficients, such as R-factors, to perform these
procedures. Aluminum structures have no codified seismic design method in the United
States. To explore the potential for aluminum seismic design a one-story moment frame
example was analyzed using incremental dynamic analysis and the evaluation protocol
established in publication P695 of the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The FEMA P695 analysis indicates that the aluminum moment frame has an acceptable
collapse margin for a design performed with R = 3. This acceptable collapse margin derives
from the moment frame connection cyclic response and the system over-strength. Fracture or
other connection-based limit states are not included in the evaluation. A companion steel
model completed with R = 3.5 was also found acceptable. Additional work is needed to
advance aluminum seismic design, but this work shows the potential that exists for success.

8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This material presented herein is based on work supported by the Aluminum Association,
Arlington, VA. 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 Aluminum
Association.

14
 Vahid MEIMAND et al.

REFERENCES

[1] Applied Technology Council, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance

Factors FEMA P695, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington,
D.C., 2009.

[2] Rai, D.C., Annam, P.K., and Pradhan, T., Seismic testing of steel braced frames with
aluminium shear yielding dampers, Engineering Structures, 46, 737-747, 2013.

[3] Matteis, G.D., Mazzolani, S., and Panico, S., Pure aluminum shear panels as
dissipative devices in moment resisting steel frames, J. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam,
36(7), 841-859, 2007.

[4] Aluminum Association (2015). Specification for Aluminum Structures. Arlington, VA.

[5] ASCE (2010). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE/SEI
Standard 7-10

[6] AISC/ANSI 360-10 (2010). Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago, IL.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.

[7] Simulia (2009). ABAQUS/Standard Users Manual, Version 6.9EF1. Pawtucket, RI.

[8] Ramberg, W., & Osgood, W. R. (1943). Description of stressstrain curves by three
parameters, Technical Note No. 902, National Advisory Committee For Aeronautics,
Washington, DC.

15

View publication stats