STEEL STRUCTURES Steel Structures $ (2005) 465-475, rerscorkr Assessment of Capacity Design Approaches for Steel-Framed Structures A. Y. Elghazouli Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Inperial College London, South Kensington Campus. London 8) Abstract This paper examines the underlying approaches and main procedures adopted in the seismic design of steel frames, with emphasis on the provisions of Furocode 8, Code requirements in terms of seismic actions, behaviour factors, ductility considerations and capacity design verifications, are appraised. Focus is given to regular configurations of moment-resisting 28 well as concentrically-braced frames. Several desirable practices incorporated in Eurocode 8, such as those related to the explicit definitions and capacity design criteria for dissipative and non- 4 in ECS. Iti also important to note that the R factor suggested in the US provisions for regular structures with no specific ductility considerations is 3.0, which is again larger than the equivalent value of 1.5 in EC8. In this case, the structure can be designed and detailed according to the LRFD requirements (AISC, 1999), which has recently been superseded by new provisions (AISC, 2005). As discussed before, the use of the behaviour factor enables the designer to use standard elastic analysis tools forthe seismic design of regular structures, using a set of reduced forces. However, the drifts obtained from elastie analysis need 10 be amplified to account for inelastie deformations. In ECS, the same force-based behaviour factors (g) ate also proposed as displacement amplification factors (q,). This however is not the ease in other codes such as AISC where specific seismic dri amplification factors (C,) are proposed as indicated in Table 1. These values are generally lower than the corresponding foree468 ALY. Blghazoul Table 1. Force reduction factors in European and North American Provisions Eurocode 8 (2004) AISC (2002) Duetility Class. a Frame Type R Novdipane” Deaed ECF ony (DCL) 1S Detling ASCLRFD 3.0 SM 30 Mom ames bart saya INF 4 on re ew 40 sen $ ; Ce DCM 4.0, OCBF 5 45 Base shear ‘Top deformation Figure 3. Relationship between overall drift and base shear reduction factors specified for all frame types. In principle, capacity design procedures based on a selected behaviour factor imply a specific pre-determined lateral load resistance, beyond which inelastic dissipative performance is ensured through an appropriate ductility level. In practice, however, the inherent design idealisations and limitations may lead to considerably different response, A key effect influencing the actual seismic response is related to over-strength issues, as discussed in more detail in the following section 4, Lateral Capacity One of the most important characteristics influencing seismic response is the overstrength exhibited by the structure. As illustrated in Fig. 3, typical seismic design of regular buildings entails reducing the forces (V,) obtained from the elastic response spectrum by a behaviour factor (q) in European practice, or force reductiowmodification factor (R) in other codes, 0 arrive at design forces (V.). As discussed previously, the code- recommended behaviour facior depends onthe configuration and expected ductility of the structure under consideration, The actual resistance of the structure (W) can however be considerably higher than Vs. This reserve strength has significant implications on the ‘overall seismic behaviour, particularly in terms of the ductility demand on critical members as well as the design forces imposed on other structural elements. The presence of overstrength also implies the existence of two different behaviour factors. The first is the one employed in design (ie. V/V.) whilst the second represents the actual force reduction (ie, V/V), both being directly inter-related through the overstrength (i.e. ¥,IV,). Realistically, the maximum overstrength. that needs consideration should not exceed the design behaviour factor employed, since entirely elastic behaviour ‘would be implied at this level. ‘Thore are several sources that can introduce overstrength in the structure, These include material effects caused by a higher yield stress compared to the characteristic value, or size effects due to the selection of members from standard lists, sch as those used for steel sections. ‘Additional factors inelude contribution of non-structural elements, or increase in member sizes due to other load cases or architectural considerations. Most notably, oversirength is often a direct consequence of inherent assumptions or simplifications within the design approach and procedures, particularly in terms of the redistribution of internal forces in the structure. Hereafter, the main sources of overstrength in steel-tramed structures. are discussed, starting ftom material effects followed by specific considerations related to the behaviour and design of moment and braced frames. 4.1. Material effects In conventional design, the required capacity is based ‘on a nominal yield strength which is lower than the expected strength exhibited by the steel material, Whilst the nominal material strength should be used for ‘resistance determination’, it should be replaced by the expected strength for ‘capacity design checks’ which requires an evaluation of the maximum possible capacity of dissipative zones. In addition, this ‘material over- strength’ contributes to the total overstrength of the frame. Seismic codes deal with the expected over-strength in yield in an essentially similar manner. In EC8, the valuation of the upper-bound strength may be based on @ detailed examination of the material variability Alternatively, if test measurements are eartied out, theAssessment of Capacity Design Approaches for Steol-Framed Structures 469 actual material strength could be adopted in capacity design checks. In the absence of such detailed examination, the yield overstrength factor (oy) can be assumed as 1.25. in capacity design checks, yy is further amplified by a factor 1.1, to account for other material effects such as strain hardening and strain. rate, Consequently, this effectively results in a material overstrength of 1.1 Yos typically amounting to 1.375 based on the code-recommended value. A comparable approach is adopted in other codes. For ‘example, in AISC (2002), the expected yield strength is determined by enhancing the specified minimum yield strength through a parameter (R,). The recommended value of R, depends on the steel grade as well as the cross-sectional shape, and varies between 1.1 and 15. Again, similar to ECS, in specific capacity design procedures, this parameter is amplified by another factor of Ll. AS a consequence, the cumulative material overstrength implied in the design can be more than 1.4 oon average. In addition to the material effects, which would be present within dissipative zones in all frames, there are significant sources of overstrength which are characteristic of the specific structural configuration and design approach, These are discussed below in more detail for typical forms of both moment-resisting. and 4.2. Moment-resisting frames {In order to aid the discussions presented herein, and to ‘examine the observations and conclusions made, typical moment resisting frames of the form shown in Fig. 1a were considered based on the requirements of ECS. The properties and configuration of the frame were varied within practical ranges, and the response was evaluated using inelastic push-over analysis incorporating a triangular load distribution in conjunction with displacement control at the top of the frame. The analysis was carried ‘out using the finite element program Adaptic (Izzuddin, 1991), The program accounts for geometric and material non-linearities and includes a number of elements and material models. Rather than discussing specific analysis details and numerical results, for relevance and brevity this section focuses on the general behavioural trends and design implications. Consequently, the findings are presented in a normalised format to reduce their dependence on specific geometric and material properties. 4.2.1, Redistribution In addition to material over-strength, the other parameter that is explicitly recognised in EC8 is the increase in strength due to redistribution. As discussed before, this is denoted as ay/ay in ECS of, according to Fig. 2, is represented by K/Vi. In other words, it represents the ratio of the ultimate base shear to that ‘corresponding to the formation of the first plastic hinge, Clearly, this ratio depends on the frame configuration 16 ———— - 14 12 | eam % thou gravis 4 ‘th gravis 1 os. 08 ‘Normalised base shear (V/V,) Top displacement (%) Figure 4. Redistribution and plastic hinge formation in ‘moment frames. but, importantly, it also depends on the level of initial gravity loading applied. To illustrate this, Fig. 4 depicts the relationship between the displacement at the top of the frame (presented 2s a percentage of the frame height) and the base shear (normalised to ¥;), from push-over analysis. When the gravity loading is considered, The sequence of plastic hinges starts with one side of the beams at lower levels followed by the column bases before the other side of the beams as well as members at Upper storeys. With the increase in the number of storeys, further column hinging throughout the frame is lunavoidable, as discussed in the following section. As ‘expected, the extent of redistribution reduces significantly with the decrease in the level of gravity load. In general, or practical ranges, the value of 1.3 for ao, recommended by EC8 for this type of frame as well as the upper limit of 1.6 appear to capture this effect in a realistic manner. 4.2.2. Weak-beam strong-column ‘The main capacity design criterion considered in the design of moment-resisting frames is related to the desirable weak-beam strong-column behaviour. A typical application rule used in seismic codes takes the following, form EM. KEMgs ©) in which ZMg. and ¥Mzs are the sums of the design values of the moments of resistance of the columns and beams, respectively, framing at a joint. This requirement is typically waived at the top storey. ‘The above relationship is used by AISC (2002) for ‘SME, assuming k= 1 with due account of the material ‘over-strength on the beam capacity (ie. 1.1 R,) as well as the additional moment due to the shear amplification fiom the location of the plastic hinge to the column centerline, A similar approach is adopted in EC8 in which a general requirement of the form shown in Eq, (6) is employed with k= 1.3. For steel moment frames, a470 AY. Eleghazouli more specific requirement is included in the most recent version of the code, through which the design bending moment (M) of the columns is obtained from: Mus= Mecar+ V-lyo Mae © where Mea and Mg are the bending moments due to the gravity loads and seismic forces, respectively; Q is a beam over-strength factor determined as a minimum of 2. Myaci Mca, of all beams in which dissipative zones are located; where My, i the design moment in beam “i” in the seismic design situation and Myeqis is the corresponding plastic moment. If the gravity loading on the beam is ignored, and adopting the recommended value of 1.25 for Ya» Eq. (6) effectively takes the same form as Eq. (5) with k= 1.375, However, the gravity loading can have a significant effect on the actual over-strength in the beams in certain cases. In fact, a more accurate account of this effect would necessitate a modification to the code-specitied relationship of ©; to (Myinai~ Meuc Mra At this stage it is important to note that whilst seismic codes aim to achieve a ‘weak-beam strong-column’ behaviour, a degree of column hinging is unavoidable. ‘This has been clearly observed in the push-over analysis undertaken in this study, and was reported by several researchers before (e.g. Roeder, 1987). In the inelastic range, the points of contraflexure in the members change and consequently the distribution of moments vary considerably from idealised conditions assumed in design. Nevertheless, the adoption of code-recommended ‘capacity design requirements, such as Eq. (5) and (6) above, normally result in satisfactory behaviour. ‘Therefore, in terms of actual response, the benefit of meeting code requirements is to obtain relatively strong columns such that beam rather than column yielding predominates in several stories, hence achieving a desirable overall frame performance. 4.2.3. Drift considerations Drift limits are important to the serviceability and stability of a structure, particularly in the case of ‘moment-resisting frames due to their inherent flexibility. In EC8, two drfi-related requirements are specified, namely “second-order effects? and ‘inter-storey drift” limits. The former requirement is associated with ultimate state whilst the latter is included as a damage limitation (ie. serviceability) condition. ‘The second-order (i. P-A) effects ate examined in ECS through an inter-storey drift-sensitivity coefficient (0) given as: Prd, gdh o where Py and Fy ate the total cumulative gravity load ‘and scismic shear applied atthe storey under consideration; ‘ris the storey height; and d, is the design inter-storey drifi (the product of elastic inter-storey drift and the ‘Overstrength ( V,/ Va) 0 02004068 1 ‘Normalised elstic spectral acceleration (S/e) Figure 8. Overstrength in moment-resisting frames. behaviour factor, ie. qx d.). ‘Similar to other seismic codes (e.g, AISC, 2002), the structure is assumed to be unstable beyond 0 = 0.3, and this is hence considered as an upper limit, If 0 $0.1, second-order effects could be ignored. On the other hand, if 0.1 <0<02, the influence of P-A may be approximately accounted for in seismic action effects through the multiplier (1 ~8). In terms of serviceability, the inter-storey drift limits imposed by seismic regulations vary from one code to the other. In EC8, the design inter-storey drifts (d,) is limited as a proportion of the storey height (h) such that: dvswh @) where y is a value depending on the non-structural elements, given as 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0% for brittle, ductile or non-interfering components, respectively; and v is a reduction factor which accounts for the smaller rmore-frequent seismic action associated with the damage limitation requirement; the value of v is recommended as 04 or 0.5 according to the importance class of the structure 4.24, Global over-strength Based on the above discussion, itis useful to assess the slobal level of over-strength that can be exhibited by a ‘moment-resisting frame. In some codes, such as AISC (2002), the over-strength is recognised through a constant value (Q,), which is assumed as 3.0 for moment-frames. ‘This parameter, which is also referred to as the ‘seismic amplification factor’, is utilised for considering the forces on critical components such as connections. In reality, the actual frame over-strength depends on several factors including the frame configuration, seismic action, behaviour factor, code drift limits and gravity loading conditions. However, for a typical_moment-resisting fame designed according to EC8, the over-strenath (Ky! V,) is characteristic of the form shown in Fig. 5, as aAssessment of Capacity Design Approaches for Stee-Framed Structures an function of the normalised elastic response acceleration (Sig). Fig. 5 should be viewed as an indicative rather than an accurate measure of the level of over-strength exhibited by 2 typical frame, as the numerical values may vary according to the assumptions made for various design parameters. ‘A number of important observations can be made by close examination of the design process in conjunction with Fig. 5. For behaviour factors larger than 2, and with the exception of low levels of spectral acceleration, the overstrength is generally controlled by the inter-storey drift limits, This results in an essentially constant over- strength a5 a function of g, imespective of Sig. This is a consequence of the large reductions allowed in seismic forves for the ultimate limit state coupled with stringent inter-storey drift limits. For low response acceleration values, the over-strength is more significantly influenced by the limit on the second-order sensitivity coefficient or the size of the beam required for the satisfaction of the requirements of the gravity design situation, depending ‘on the frame configuration and design assumptions. In this ease the over-strength increases significantly as Sig reduces. It is worth noting, as mentioned before, that fover-strength values in excess of the q-factor adopted may not be realistic as forces higher than those associated with q= 1 would be implied. In relation to the above discussion, it is important to note that a standard process followed in design may involve the selection of a behaviour factor near or at the limit recommended by the code. This is then followed, if required, by modification of member sizes to meet storey-drift limits. Evidently, with reference to Fig. 5, the choice of a relatively high behaviour factor for moment frames results in significant levels of overstrength, particularly for low seismic action, A mote rational design process could be based on a reduction of the behaviour factor following the assessment of drift considerations. In any case, after finalising the frame design, it is desirable to assess the level of over-strength, even approximately through simplified methods. of plastic analysis. This has implications on the design of non-dissipative components as well as the foundations, The over-strength is also directly related to the ductility demand imposed on dissipative zones, as discussed in subsequent sections 4.3. Concentrically-braced frames ‘The behaviour of bracing members has been examined experimentally and analytically by several researchers (eg. Popov and Black, 1981; Ikeda and Mahin, 1986). However, in design, a significant source of over-strength arises from the simplification associated with the treatment of buckling and post-buckling in compression, This issue also represents the most noticeable difference in code provisions dealing with the seismic design of concentrically braced frames. Whereas several codes, such as AISC (2002), base the design strength on the brace buckling capacity in compression, European provisions (Burocode 8, 2004) are largely based on the brace plastic capacity in tension, It is important to note that, unlike in moment-resisting frames, redistribution beyond first yield is very limited or non-existent in braced frames. Once the tension brace in a storey yields, the fiame approaches its ultimate ‘capacity. Consequently, the formation of a mechanism in ‘one storey, typically the bottom storey under idealized loading and design conditions, controls the global strength of the structure. In the following section, the level of oversstrength exhibited in a braced frame as @ consequence of the design approach employed, is examined and discussed. 43.1. Compression design Using the compression-based philosophy, the design base shear V, corresponds to the attainment of the buckling strength (N;) in the compression braces, with the tension braces developing a similar value at this stage. Beyond this loading level, the fore in the compression brace reduces whereas that in the tension braves increases until it reaches the tensile plastic capacity (N,). Assuming that the compressive force is ‘not significantly reduced by the time the tension member yields, coupted with the influence of strain hardening of | steel, the oversttength (V/V) can be determined (Elghazouli, 2003) as: Ve NytNy TN, w This overstrength is solely due to the compression- based design idealisation, without accounting for material over-sirength considerations. Evidently, the above over-strength value depends directly on the member slenderness (2.), defined as,/Njy/NV,,. in which Ne, is the theoretical Euler buckling Toad. Assuming an appropriate buckling strength curve or formula, the relationship between V/V, and XK can be directly evaluated, as depicted in Fig. 6. The values will obviously depend on the actual buckling strength; in this case, buckling curve *b’ of FC3 (Furocode 3, 2003) is adopted, From Fig. 6, it is clear that the lateral over-strength resulting from the compression-based design approach increases with the increase of 2.. For slenderness values lower than the upper limit imposed by AISC for SBE, which corresponds to % of about 1.8, the over-strength is less than 3.0, This compares well with the seismic amplification factor (Q,) of 2.0 recommended in AISC for this type of frame. However, it should be noted that application of ©, in the design of all frame members, including the braces, would contradict the philosophy of capacity design. 43.2, Tension design As noted before, the lateral capacity in ECS is largely based on the tension braces only. tn this respect, it isan ALY. Elghazouli ‘Overstrength (V,/ Vy) 0 1 2 3 Slenderness (T) Figure 6, Influence of brace slenderness on overstrength in braced frames. adopting a tension-only philosophy, which has traditionally been employed in the wind design of relatively slender braces. This approach results in a significant difference in behaviour in comparison with the compression-based idealisation adopted by other codes. Similar to. the treatment discussed previously for compression-based design, the overstrength (H/¥,) resulting from the tension-approach can be determined as: ¥, v, Maths (19) Ny The relationship between ¥/¥ and X for a tension- based design situation is also shown in Fig. 6. In this case, the over-strength reduces with the increase in slendemess, and becomes relatively insignificant for comparatively large slendemess vals. In contrast to AISC, EC8 does not employ system amplification factors. Based on Fig. 6, this may not be necessary for concentrically braced frames from the viewpoint of the adopted tensionshased design approach, except when braces with relatively low slendemess are usilzed; this effect i also partly dealt with in recent versions of ECB by imposing « lower limit of 13 on when X-braced configurations are considered. On the other hand, unlike other codes, ECS explicitly accounts for the brace over-strength caused by the difference between the actual plastic capacity (Nye) and the design axial force in the brace due to seismic actions (Ns,). ‘Accordingly, the design forces (N,) in components other than the braces are obtained from: Nog™ fea * VLYy Next an Where Nezc and Nace are the axial forces in the member under consideration (eg. beam, column, etc.) due to the gravity loads and seismic forces, respectively; 2. is a brace overstrength factor determined as the minimum of 2;=Nyiaa/Nec: of all braces; Negs is the design axial load of diagonal brace “i in the seismic design situation and Nea is the axial tensile capacity of | the brace, Bg, (II) above, accounts for the material overstrength discussed in Section 4.1, but it clearly does not account for the design idealization effect described in Fig. 6. It should be noted nevertheless that the value of the member over-strength @ in Eq. (II) may be relatively large in practical design situations if the member size is determined by the limit of % rather than by the design forces. However, the relaxation of % limit in EC8 from 1.5 in earlier versions of the code to 2.0 in the more recent provisions has lead to a significant mitigation of this effect. 5, Ductility Demand ‘The overstrength in lateral capacity has a direct implication on the ductility demand imposed on dissipative zones within a frame. It ean be argued however that this relationship may not need to be quantified in practical design situations, since the influence is largely conservative, Furthermore, the behaviour factors as well as ductility requirements proposed in codes are mostly based on results of nonlinear dynamic analysis of realistic structural configurations, and hence implicitly incorporate inherent overstrength effects, Nonetheless, it is useful in this discussion to examine, albeit in a simplified manner, a number of code-related ductility demand issues which are specific to the performance of moment-resisting and concentrically-braced frames. 5 Moment frames Seismic codes include two main criteria related to the ductility of dissipative zones in moment-resisting frames. ‘The first is related to limits on the cross-section slenderness, as discussed in Section 3 above. The second is related to the rotation eapacity of the plastic hinge region, including any deformation within the connection. In AISC, a limit on the inter-storey drift angle of 0.04 radians is recommended for SMF; this limit reduces to 0.02 radians for IMF. On the other hand, ECS stipulates that the plastic rotation capacity of the plastic hinge region should not be less than 35 mrad for DCH and 25 mrad for DCM, Assessment of the relationship between plastic deformation in dissipative zones and drift levels requires an evaluation of yield rotation, ‘This depends on the frame configuration, yield strength and loading conditions. In general, examination of typical moment- frames indicates that first plastic hinge formation ‘corresponds to an inter-storey drift lower than 1%. As expected, this value reduces further with the inerease in the extent of gravity loading considered in the seismic design situation. Accordingly, the deformation limits proposed for DCH frames in EC8 and for SMF in AISC appear to be of a comparable levelAssessment of Capacity Design Approaches for Stcol-Framed Structures a8 5.2, Braced frames Ductiity demand is an issue that deserves particular attention in concentrically-braced frames. First, due to the asymmetry between the tensile and buckling capacity of braces, inelastic drifts may occur disproportionately in ‘one lateral ditection, depending on the characteristics of the excitation, Accordingly, codes normally. include specific rules in order to limit the discrepancy between lateral brace capacities in opposite directions. This helps in providing a closer balance in lateral resistance which reduces the accumulation of inelastic drifts that could occur unevenly in one ditection. EC8 deals with this issue through a simple rule which effectively limits the difference between the horizontal projections of the cross-sectional areas of the braces in both directions to less than 10%, More importantly, as mentioned previously, the behavioural characteristics of concentrically braced frames can lead to a concentration of inelasticity in one level over the height of a multi-storey structure. Under lateral loading conditions, the diagonal members in a concentrically braced frame typically yield in tension at an inter-storey rift of about 0.3-0.5%. The compression braces buckle at a lower dri, depending on the slenderness. Once yielding occurs ata storey, the resistance of the frame is largely detetmined by the capacity of this storey. Unless specifie measures ate considered to prevent the formation ‘of a sof-storey mechanism, the ductility demand would tend to concentrate at one storey. In this case, the ductility demand would be directly related to the over- strength exhibited by this storey. Consequently, with reference to Fig. 6, the demand increases for lower brace slendemess (7.) if compression-based design is adopted, whilst the opposite trend would occur if tension-design is ‘employed. The relationship between % and the ductility demand, within a frame storey, can be estimated (Elghazouli, 2003) for idealised configurations. ‘The tendency of concentrically-braced frames to form soft-storey mechanisms is an aspect that requires more detailed assessment. This behaviour would take place even when buckling is delayed or prevented. It could also occur when brace capacities are relatively well balanced with shear demands over the height, as introduced in the most recent version of EC8, whi recommends limiting the maximum difference in brace oversstrength (©) over all the diagonals in the frame to 25%, This rule may cause some difficulties in practical design since it necessitates a continuous reduction in brace size with height. If this requirement ean be met in practice, it normally leads to a relatively improved behaviour under realistic earthquake excitations. However, this requirement in isolation cannot. eliminate the ductility concentration effect, even if the 25% limit is considerably reduced. This is particularly the case when the actual seismic response is dominated by the first mode, or under static push-over loading simulating idealized first mode response. Although the above-mentioned requirement in ECS is 4 useful inclusion which is not explicitly dealt with in other codes, a more significant factor related to ductility distribution concems the continuity and stiffness of the column along the height. This can be illustrated by considering the inelastic push-over response of a braced- frame of the form shown in Fig, 1b, under an idealised triangular loading pattern in conjunction with displacement control at the top. Beams are considered to be relatively rigid with simple connections, and columns are assumed to be continuous along the height but pinned at the base. Storey heights and beam spans are also assumed to be constant. In terms of the variation of the area of the braces over the height, three main cases are considered: (a) constant area in all braces, (ji) variable brace areas over the height to match the capacity demand, and (ii) Variable brace areas which are 25% out-of-balance with the capacity demand, according to the limit proposed in ECR, For the above-described three cases, the main parameter examined is the relative bending stiffness of the columns, assessed through the value of ZEV/h2, in proportion to the lateral stiffness of the tension braces at the bottom storey, evaluated as E(E4/L,)cosy. Based on this treatment, an indicative measure representing the relative column-to-brace stiffness ratio (B) fered “ Ll. ers (12) Leosy3A, where Ay and Ly are the eross-sectional area and length ‘of the diagonal braces, respectively; /. is the second ‘moment of area of column cross-sections; and y is the angle between the diagonal brace and the horizontal projection. The response of the three frame configurations (Constant braces’, “balanced braces’ and *25% out-of- balance’) was assessed, in terms of ductility distribution cover the height, for various values of B. The results are summarized in Fig. 7 which dopicts the relationship between the column-to-brace stiffness ratio and a normalized drift ratio (A,), The latter represents the ratio between the maximum inter-storey drift (as a proportion of the storey-height) to the ultimate drift at the top of the frame (as @ proportion of the overall height). Evidently, values of 4, approaching unity largely signify sofi-storey behaviour, which would be expected for frames in which columns are either discontinuous or have a very low bending stifiness. On the other hand, forthe three-storey frame considered herein, an ideal distribution of ductility «demand is achieved when A, approaches 1/3, characteristic of the case of a relatively rigid column, ‘As shown in Fig. 7, for the case of nearly-balanced braces, relatively low column stiness would be: sufficient to attain favourable ductility distribution within the frame. On the other hand, for the ease of constant474 ALY. Elghazouli : Zon ; 306 seonstant braces 3 ‘athe = 2 ° 0s ou ous 02 Column-to-brace stiffness ratio (B) Figure 7. Ductility disribution in concentrically-braced frames. braces, A. reduces with the increase in B, to values below 40% for > 10%. If the requirement of EC is met (ie. less than 25% out-of-balance in the supply-to-demand ratio), B values needed to attain A, < 40% reduce to about 3%, Clearly, the stiffness ratio required to achieve an ‘optimum distribution of ductility over the height increases as the design deviates away from a balanced capacity-to- «demand ratio in the braces. Therefore, the use of constant brace area over the height may not lead to undesirable performance if adequately stiff columns are utilise. Although the actual distribution of ductility demand also depends on the dynamic characteristics of the structure ‘and the seismic excitation, a considerably more favourable performance can generally be attained through the considerations discussed above. These measures need to be explicitly incorporated within capacity design procedures in order to safeguard against adverse implications of excessive and localized ductility demands, in a similar ‘manner to the widely-adopted weak-beam-strong-column concept in moment frames. 6. Conclusions This paper assesses the main principles and procedures involved in the seismic design of moment-resisting and concentrically-braced frames, focusing on the provisions of Eurocode 8 The general philosophy of capacity design is discussed and key performance requirements and compliance criteria for both ultimate and serviceability levels are examined, It is shown that the European smie code implements capacity design concepts in a direct manner and through comprehensible procedures. ‘These involve clear identification of dissipative zones, guidance on behaviour factors alongside associated ductility classes and cross-section requirements, and provision of | ceapacity-design verifications for non-dissipaive zones. ‘An important aspect of behaviour considered in this assessment is the over-strength exhibited by a structure, as this has direct implications on the forces imposed on various members and components as well as the ductility demand entailed in dissipative zones. Several sources of over-strength, such as those related to material strength and plastic redistribution are identified, and adequately account for, in existing provisions. However, other sources of overstrength, such as those arising trom limiting criteria and design idealisations, require careful consideration and judgement, beyond that of direct implementation of ihe code provisions. In the case of moment-resisting frames, serviceability requirements for inler-storey drifts largely control the design, leading to considerable levels of over-strength if high values of behaviour factors are assumed. This over-strength increases even further for relatively low design accelerations, where requirements for second-order effects and the ‘gravity loading situation dominate. A rational application of capacity design therefore necessitates an assessment of ‘the lateral capacity, after the satisfaction of all requirements, followed by a re-assessment of the required behaviour factor and global over-strength. Although high q-factors are allowed for moment frames, in recognition of their ducilty and energy dissipation capabilites, the justification and behavioural implications of such @ choice requires careful consider For concentrically-braced frames, it is shown that the design idealisation related to the treatment of brace buckling in compressions has a direct influence on the frame over-srenuth. The level of over-strength reduces with the increase in brave slendemess when the frame capacity is based on the resistance of the braces in tension, as adopted in EC8. The opposite trend occurs ‘when the design is based on the buckling capacity of braces, as proposed in other codes. Another important issue in braced frames is related to the ductility distribution over the height. In this respect, EC8 introduces a limit of 25% on the difference between the shear demand and supply provided by the braces over all ‘the braces in the structure. Whilst this requirement can lead to improvement in behaviour, it is shown that a more significant role is played by the stiffness of the column relative to the braces. The use of continuous columns, with an appropriate level of relative stiffness, can significantly mitigate the probability of premature failures due to undesirable concentration in ductility demand, References AISC. (1999). American Institute of Steel Construction, ‘Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Siructural Steel Buildings”, AISC, Chicago, IL. AISC. (2002). American Institute of Steet Construction Ine. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings”, AISC, Chicago, IL AISC. (2005). American Institute of Steel Construction, “Specification for Structural Steel Buildings”, ANS AISC-360-05, AISC, Chicago, IL. Bertero, V.V., Anderson, J.C. and Krawinkler, H. (1994),Assessment of Capacity Design Approaches for Stel-Framed Structures 475 “Perfomance of Steel Building Structures During the Nonthridge Farthquake”, UCB/EERC-94/04, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Elghazouli, A. Y. (2003) “Seismic Design Procedures for Concentrically Braced Frames”, Proceedings of the Inst- tution of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings, 156, 381-394, Eurocode 3. (2003). “Design of Stee! Structures", Part 1. General Rules and Rules for Buildings, prEN1993 2003, European Committee for Standardization, CEN, Brussels Eurocode 8. (2004), “Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance”, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, EN1998-1-2004, European Commit- tee for Standardization, CEN, Brussels FEMA. (2000). Federal Emengency Management Agency, “Recommended seismic design provisions for new ‘moment frame buildings”, FEMA 350, Washington DC. Ikeda, K. and Mahin, S. A. (1986) “Cyclic response of steel ‘braces”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 112(2), 342- 361, Izauddin, B.A. (1991), “Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Frame Structures", PhD Thesis, Imperial College, Uni- versity of London, London, UK. Kato, B. (1989). “Rotation Capacity of H-Section Members as Determined by Local Buckling”, Journal of Construc- tional Stee! Resaerch, 13, 95-109. Popov, E. P. and Black, GR. (1981). “Steel struts under severe eyelic loadings”, Joumal of Structural Engineer ing, ASCE, 107(9), 1857-1881 Roeder, C. W. (1987) “Inelastic Dynamic Analysis of Two Eight-Story Moment Frames", Structural Engineers Association of Washington, Seattle, WA, SAC, (1995). “Survey and Assessment of Damage to Build= ings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994", SAC9S.06, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA. SAC, (1996). “Experimental Investigations of Beam-Col- ‘umn Sub-assemblages”, SAC9S-09, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA.