324 views

Uploaded by teodorabogdan

- Ultimate Shear Strength of Composite Welded Steel-Aluminium Beam Subjected to Shear Load
- Night School 16 Session 7
- 08 Chapter 3
- paper4009 consolidare zid
- Global Maritime Jack Up Marine and Engineering Services
- Aashbylectures
- 09_Types of Analysis
- MONORAIL.xls
- I-260 Novi study
- ACI_352R_02
- Bsd Aashto Lrfd 2012
- Magic R - Seismic Design of Water Tanks
- NIST.TN.1863-2
- Unit 1 Structural Analysis II
- Lifting Beam Calculation
- 2003-Unbonded Posttensioned Concrete Bridge Piers I Monotonic and Cyclic Analyses
- Day 2-5 Dynamic Response of Tall Buildings
- Gis&Cad Lab Manual
- Gate Structures
- 21618-MUIRWOOD-2017_BD

You are on page 1of 18

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A.Y. Elghazouli ∗ , J.M. Castro, B.A. Izzuddin

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, UK

Received 29 April 2007; received in revised form 10 September 2007; accepted 10 December 2007

Available online 11 January 2008

Abstract

This paper examines the seismic performance of composite steel–concrete moment-resisting frames. A number of studies are carried out in

order to assess the influence of key parameters, related to the structural configuration as well as design and loading considerations, on the inelastic

seismic behaviour. Several sensitivity and parametric investigations are undertaken using an advanced analysis program that accounts for material

and geometric nonlinearities. Particular emphasis is given to composite frames designed according to the provisions of the European seismic code,

Eurocode 8. The validity of employing simplified nonlinear-static loading approaches is evaluated by comparison against the results of incremental

dynamic time-history analysis. Natural earthquake acceleration records, which are specifically selected and adjusted for compatibility with the

adopted design spectrum, are utilised for this purpose. In terms of frame configuration, it is shown that the span of the composite beam, the extent

of gravity loading and the number of stories can all have significant implications on the actual inelastic response characteristics of the structure.

Moreover, several design assumptions and decisions, such as those related to the behaviour factors, drift considerations, moment redistribution

and panel zone contribution, can also have a direct impact on the resulting performance. The studies presented in this paper highlight important

behavioural observations and trends, some of which point towards the need for further consideration and refinement of current design procedures.

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Seismic response; Moment frames; Composite steel/concrete; Nonlinear analysis; Eurocode 8

that the behaviour could be largely inferred from studies

The use of moment frames incorporating composite on steel or reinforced concrete frames and, on the other

steel–concrete floor systems offers several behavioural and hand, to the complexity of some of the analysis and

practical advantages over bare steel and other alternatives. The design issues involved, as reported in previous investigations

increase of stiffness and capacity due to composite action (e.g. [1–3]). Earlier studies have dealt with several modelling

enables the use of larger beam spans under the same loading and design considerations including connections [4,5], shear

conditions. Accordingly, the demand for larger and more interaction [6], slab effects [7] and behaviour factors [8,9].

flexible usable space, coupled with the need for faster optimised Although previous studies have addressed and resolved

construction processes, has led to an increased utilisation of important behavioural aspects, there is a need for assessing

composite frames in recent years. the key parameters influencing the seismic performance of

In terms of seismic performance, composite frames composite moment frames with typical geometric and loading

exhibit favourable behaviour due to the enhanced response configurations. In particular, with the recent introduction of

characteristics including ductility properties. However, the Eurocode 8 [10], it is important to examine the performance

number of detailed studies carried out on the seismic response of composite frames designed according to the new European

of composite frames, in comparison with bare steel or seismic code. Similar to other seismic codes, the design of

reinforced concrete counter-parts, has been relatively limited. composite frames in Eurocode 8 (EC8) largely stems from

provisions for bare steel frames with some modifications.

Consequently, it is also necessary to explore specific features of

∗ Corresponding author. composite frames and their implication on the inelastic seismic

E-mail address: a.elghazouli@imperial.ac.uk (A.Y. Elghazouli). behaviour.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.12.004

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1803

Fig. 1. Structural arrangement for the reference structure: (a) Plan configuration, (b) Elevation of moment-resisting frame.

In this paper, the seismic performance of composite moment 2. Structural configuration and design procedures

frames is examined. Although emphasis is given to frames

designed according to the provisions of EC8, most of the For the studies described in this paper, a reference structure

discussions are of more general nature irrespective of the code is selected such that it can be used as a basis for parametric

employed. After introducing the structural configuration as well variations. The structure consists of a five-storey composite

as design procedures and assumptions adopted, the numerical steel–concrete office building as shown in Fig. 1. In plan,

models and response criteria utilised in this investigation columns are spaced at 9 m in both directions. Unlike ‘tube’

are described. This is followed by an assessment of the systems, in which perimeter moment frames may exhibit

nonlinear-static response of a typical composite moment frame relatively short spans, the choice of an internal composite frame

with due account of the sensitivity of the response to the arrangement would typically be associated with comparatively

loading pattern and the presence of gravity loading. The large beam spans. With due account of column inertia, lateral

validity of using nonlinear-static approaches for this type of resistance is provided by composite moment frames in one

frame is evaluated by comparison with dynamic time-history direction whilst the other plan direction is assumed to have a

analysis, using earthquake records which are carefully selected braced system. The floors consist of 120 mm thick composite

and adjusted for compatibility with the design spectrum. slabs of the re-entrant (dovetail) profile with 1 mm thick steel

A number of numerical studies are then carried out in deck supported by secondary beams spaced at 3 m.

order to assess the influence of key loading, geometric and The internal composite steel/concrete moment-resisting

design parameters on the response of composite frames. The frame, depicted in Fig. 1(b), was adopted in this study as the

main behavioural observations and trends are discussed and reference frame (CREF). The frame was designed according to

their implications on seismic performance and design are the provisions of Eurocodes 3, 4 and 8 [10–12]. European steel

highlighted. profiles were used for the columns (HE) and the beams (IPE).

1804 A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

Full shear interaction was assumed in the composite beams to where ψ depends on non-structural elements, given as

avoid undesirable behaviour in connectors as indicated in recent 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0% for brittle, ductile or non-interfering

studies [13]. The structure was initially designed according to components, respectively; and ν is a reduction factor in the

Eurocode 4 for the gravity and wind loading scenarios. The range of 0.4–0.5 to represent smaller serviceability events.

load values were obtained from Eurocode 1 [14] and comprise Apart from a number of checks to ensure ductile response

the self-weight incorporating an allowance of 2 kN/m2 for of beams, the main capacity design criterion is related to the

finishing/partitions, in addition to an imposed load of 3 kN/m2 , general concept of weak-beam/strong-column behaviour. For

with appropriate load factors. To satisfy the gravity design steel and composite moment frames, a specific application

situation, IPE500, HEB300 and HEB450 cross-sections were rule is stipulated whereby the design moments (M Ed ) for the

required for the beams, external columns and internal columns, columns can be obtained from:

respectively.

The initial frame resulting from the vertical loading scenario M Ed = M Ed,G + 1.1γov Ω M Ed,E (3)

was then checked for seismic conditions according to EC8. where M Ed,G and M Ed,E are the moments due to the gravity

The design peak ground acceleration (PGA) was assumed as loads and lateral seismic forces, respectively; γov is the

0.30g, whilst a rock soil (Ground Type A) and Spectrum Type material overstrength factor typically assumed as 1.25; Ω is a

1 were considered. Since the structure satisfies EC8 regularity beam overstrength factor determined as a minimum of Ωi =

conditions in plan and elevations, equivalent lateral seismic M pl,Rd,i /M Ed,i of beams, where M Ed,i is the design moment

loading based on an idealised first mode of response was in beam ‘i’ and M pl,Rd,i is the corresponding plastic moment.

adopted. The fundamental period of vibration (T1 ) based on the For the reference composite frame under consideration

simplified expression given by EC8 (T1 = 0.085H 3/4 , where (CREF), the member sizes selected on the basis of the gravity

H is the overall height in metres) was 0.65 s. However, T1 combination were found to satisfy all the seismic design checks

was found to be nearly 1.0 s from modal eigenvalue analysis as stipulated in EC8. However, the external columns had to be

performed in a simplified structural model assuming centreline increased to HEB 340 in order to limit (θ) to a value of 0.2 to

representation for the members. This value was deemed more avoid nonlinear analysis at the design stage. Six reinforcement

accurate and hence was used in the evaluation of the design base bars of 20 mm diameter were also provided in the slab at

shear. On the basis that use is made of Class 1 cross-sections,

the beam-to-column joints, as recommended by the detailing

which satisfy DCH (Ductility Class High) requirements, the

rules given in Annex C of EC8. The steel part of the beam-

reference behaviour factor (q) in this case is 5αu /α1 . The

to-column connections were considered to be fully welded in

recommended code value for αu /α1 for multi-bay multi-storey

order to achieve an idealised rigid response. Additionally, to

frames is 1.3 which results in a behaviour factor of 6.5. The

comply with EC8 provisions, the column panel zones had to

total mass considered for the seismic design situation was

be strengthened through the addition of sets of two doubler

about 1440 tons based on a combination of the unfactored

plates with thickness 21 mm and 29 mm to external and internal

dead load and 30% of the imposed load. The resulting design

columns respectively.

base shear was about 700 kN which was distributed linearly

over the height. It should be noted that wind loading was also

3. Analytical approaches

considered, based on the assumption of a wind pressure of

0.65 kN/m2 , but this had no influence on the resulting member 3.1. Numerical modelling

sizes.

In addition to satisfaction of the seismic strength demands The nonlinear finite element program ADAPTIC [16] which

in members, other seismic design checks include compliance accounts for material and geometric nonlinearities is used for

with stability and drift criteria as well as capacity design the analysis of the composite frames. The accuracy of the

considerations [10,15]. Second-order stability effects are program in modelling the response of steel and composite

considered through the sensitivity coefficient (θ ) given as: structures has been extensively validated in previous studies

Ptot dr (e.g. [17–22]).

θ= , (1) For the steel columns, four cubic elasto-plastic elements

Vtot h

(cbp2) [17] are utilised. The cbp2 elements account for the

where Ptot and Vtot are the total cumulative gravity load and spread of plasticity across the section, using a fibre approach, as

seismic shear applied at the storey under consideration; h is

well as along the length using Gaussian sections in conjunction

the inter-storey height; and dr is the design inter-storey drift

with a cubic shape function. The same elements are used for

(product of elastic inter-storey drift and ‘q’). For θ ≤ 0.1,

the composite beams where two parallel lines of 18 cbp2

second-order effects may be ignored. If 0.1 < θ ≤ 0.2, the

elements are considered at the centroids of the steel and

multiplier 1/(1 − θ ) may be used to account for this effect and,

concrete constituent parts, as illustrated in Fig. 2.

in any case, the value of θ should not exceed 0.3.

Composite action is developed by introducing link elements

The other drift check is related to serviceability deforma-

(lnk2) with rigid properties connecting the steel and concrete

tions, by limiting (dr ) in proportion to the storey height (h)

line elements. A rigid connection is considered on the

such that:

assumption that a sufficiently high degree of shear connection

dr ν ≤ ψh (2) is present such that the influence of slip between the steel

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1805

be noted however that the degree of shear connection may

need to be notably higher than that implied by a theoretical

full-connection (i.e. 100% shear connection) in order to

achieve these idealised conditions. In a recent study [23] in

which composite beams were modelled with nonlinear springs

representing a range between 50% and 150% shear connection,

it was observed that only with 150% or more can the inelastic

properties be reasonably represented by a rigid connection

idealisation. Analytical simulations of experimental studies

carried out on a full-scale composite frame [24] designed

to Eurocode 8 also indicated a discrepancy of less than 3%

on the response when the composite beams were modelled

using the actual shear connection or with a rigid idealisation.

Whilst low and moderate levels of shear connection are not

recommended for seismic-resisting composite systems [13], Fig. 3. Numerical models for composite joints [22].

due to the susceptibility of the connectors to low-cycle fatigue,

it is important to emphasise that the slip between the slab and permits the consideration of partial-strength connection effects

the steel beam may need to be incorporated in numerical models if necessary.

unless a very high degree of shear connection is adopted in For steel materials, a bilinear elasto-plastic cyclic model

design. with strain-hardening (stl1) is adopted for both structural and

For simplicity, the effective slab width was assumed as reinforcing steel (Fig. 4(a)). On the other hand, concrete

1.25 m based on an estimate of the contra-flexure location and nonlinear behaviour is accounted for through a uniaxial cyclic

the provisions of EC4 for the sagging moment region. Although constitutive model (con1) featuring both compressive and

the provisions vary in EC4 and EC8 for sagging/hogging tensile softening (Fig. 4(b)). In all the analyses performed

regions and for design/analysis, a sensitivity study indicated in this study, the steel elastic modulus (E) and the strain-

that these differences do not have a notable influence on the hardening coefficient (µ) are assumed as 210 × 103 N/mm2

overall frame response [23]. Further discussion dealing with and 0.5%. The yield strength values ( f y ) for structural steel

the issue of effective width in composite beams can be found and reinforcement bars are assumed as 275 and 500 N/mm2 ,

elsewhere [25]. respectively. For concrete, the values of E c1 , E c2 , f c1 , and

Special attention is given to the modelling of the panel zone f c2 are assumed as 15 × 103 , 8 × 103 , 30 and 18 N/mm2 ,

regions, for which a modified frame approach [22] is adopted respectively. It is also assumed that the residual strength in

by assembling link (lnk2) and joint (jel2) elements. Fig. 3 compression is reached at a concrete strain of 0.35%, whilst

shows the model for a typical external connection. Distinction concrete behaviour in tension is ignored.

is made between the main panel zone and the top part which For eigenvalue as well as time-history analysis, appropriate

is in contact with the slab. The contact behaviour between representation of the mass and damping characteristics of the

the composite slab and the column is also taken into account structure is required. In the case of eigenvalue analysis, only

through the introduction of joint elements. Asymmetric curves concentrated mass elements (cnm2) are incorporated in the

are employed for panel zones located at external joints, whilst model and located at the thirds of the beam spans. For dynamic

symmetric relationships are considered for internal panels. For analysis, viscous damping, assumed as 5% of the critical, is

the top panel, a linear elastic response is considered. On the also considered by inclusion of dashpot elements (cnd2) at

other hand, a plastic curve is considered for the slab-contact the same locations of mass elements. It is worth noting at

joint. Under negative bending, the capacity at the contact region this point that discrete modelling of the panel zone has an

is based on the maximum yield force that can develop in the influence on the stiffness, and in turn on the natural periods

reinforcement bars whilst, under positive moment, the joint of vibration. As noted before, for the reference frame, the

capacity is based on the maximum axial force that can be fundamental period was found to be around 1.0 s, using a

mobilised in the steel profile of the composite beam. The conventional centreline modelling approach. When the panel

inclusion of a joint element to model slab interaction also zone is realistically incorporated, with due account of the

1806 A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

Fig. 4. Constitutive models adopted for: (a) Steel and (b) Concrete.

Fig. 5. M–Φ curves for composite beam: (a) Sagging and (b) Hogging moment.

additional stiffness of the doubler plates, the period reduces to reached; this criterion is valid for ductile sections in which

0.88 s. On the other hand, if all the panel zone components the plastic neutral axis is located in the slab. The two criteria

within the discrete model are assumed to be infinitely rigid, the described above are highlighted in Fig. 5 which depicts the

period reduces further to about 0.8 s. moment-curvature relationship for the composite beam under

sagging (positive) and hogging (negative) bending. The two

3.2. Response criteria curves clearly indicate that the selected criteria are closely

related to the plastic moment (M pl ) of the composite cross-

In order to assess the inelastic seismic performance of section, and hence can be used in identifying the formation

composite frames, it is necessary to define specific criteria of a plastic hinge. For the steel columns, similar to beams in

that can be associated with the yield and ultimate response negative bending, a plastic hinge is assumed to form when both

levels. Various approaches and assumptions can be adopted to extreme cross-section fibres attain the yield strain as proposed

select comparative measures for this purpose. The notion of in previous studies [26].

‘significant yield’, which is typically associated with plastic In the case of ultimate response, global criteria related to

hinge formation in framed structures, is employed in this inter-storey drift are adopted, as in comparison with local

investigation. Due to the more detailed strategy adopted in the failure considerations (such as local buckling of lower flange

representation of the composite members, it was decided to or concrete crushing in compression), they are found to govern

establish the local yield criteria based on fundamental cross- the behaviour of the frames dealt with in this investigation.

section data that ADAPTIC is able to provide. Instead of The study frames are designed and detailed such that all steel

relating the plastic hinge formation to the achievement of members satisfy cross-section requirements for the highest

a theoretical plastic moment, plastic hinges are assumed to ductility class. Additionally, the amount of the additional slab

form in the composite beam under negative moment when reinforcement over supports reduces the extent of possible

both extreme fibres of the steel profile reach the yield strain. strain localisation in hogging moment. On the other hand, the

On the other hand, a plastic hinge is assumed to form under composite beams in sagging moment satisfy limitations on the

positive bending when the axial capacity of the steel beam is depth of the plastic neutral axis for achieving high ductility. It is

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1807

also important to note that the idealised uniaxial representation more distinct soft-storey behaviour at the first storey. The

of concrete behaviour makes the definition of a strain- inelastic distributions shown in Fig. 6(b) are closely related to

based failure criterion in the slab unrealistic. Moreover, this Fig. 6(c) which illustrates the sequence and location of plastic

investigation is concerned more with assessing the response in hinges occurring in the beam and column members up to the

terms of global capacity considerations and plastic mechanisms attainment of the defined ultimate limit.

rather than examining local failure conditions. It was therefore Apart from the difference in response for the linear and

decided to assess ultimate conditions, where necessary, based uniform patterns, a number of important observations are

on a limiting inter-storey drift which, in any case, is directly noteworthy with reference to Fig. 6. Firstly, the frame is shown

related to the ductility demand imposed on structural members. in Fig. 6(a) to possess an actual capacity which is considerably

A limiting value in the range of 2.0%–4.0% [27,28] is normally higher than that assumed in design. A degree of overstrength

adopted for framed structures, with 3.0% being commonly used is generally expected for framed structures [15], particularly

(e.g. [9,29]). when a relatively high behaviour factor is employed, since

The numerical model described above is utilised in the the member sizes are likely to be governed by the gravity

following section to assess the nonlinear-static as well as loading scenario or by deformation-related limits (from inter-

dynamic response of the reference composite frame presented storey or stability checks). This overstrength effect becomes

earlier. Subsequently, a number of parametric variations are even more pronounced in the case of composite frames. One

considered to examine key behavioural and design issues. of the reasons for this is the relatively large spans that may be

present in composite frames, hence increasing the dependence

4. Lateral seismic loading of beam sizes on the gravity loading design scenario. Moreover,

composite frames exhibit significant levels of redistribution,

4.1. Nonlinear-static response in terms of the ratio between the ultimate base shear and

that at yield (referred to as αu /α1 in EC8), which contributes

The use of nonlinear-static, or pushover, analysis for seismic significantly to the global overstrength of the frame.

assessment and design has increased significantly in recent Another important observation is related to the formation of

years. It can be employed to assess the overall capacity and plastic hinges predominately on one side of the beam spans,

stability, and to identify the likely plastic mechanisms and as illustrated in Fig. 6(c). This is caused by a combination of

associated dissipative regions. The attractiveness of pushover the influence of gravity moments (which can be significant in

analysis stems mainly from its relative simplicity, in terms of relatively large spans enabled by composite action), coupled

modelling and computational demands as well as interpretation with the difference between the plastic moment capacity of the

of results, in comparison with nonlinear dynamic analysis [30]. cross-section under positive and negative moments which is

The main purpose of this section is to examine the response characteristic of composite beams. Unless considerable levels

of the reference frame using ‘conventional’ forms of pushover of overstrength are provided to the columns to preclude the

analysis, commonly referred to as the ‘triangular’ and ‘uniform’ formation of column hinges at significant inelastic drifts, beam

distributions. The adequacy of the pushover idealisations in hinges may not form in the other side of the spans at ultimate,

representing the inelastic response of the frame is then assessed which is the case in the reference frame. This characteristic

in subsequent sections by comparison against the results of behaviour occurs even when the gravity loading is disregarded

incremental dynamic analysis. (as shown in Fig. 6(d)), thus indicating the significance of the

The nonlinear-static response of the reference frame is asymmetry in the moment capacity of the beams.

presented in Fig. 6. The analysis is conducted by increasing In relation to the above discussion, it is also important to

the displacement at the top of the frame incrementally up to a note that whilst codes aim to achieve a ‘weak-beam/strong-

global lateral drift of about 3% of the overall height. The results column’ behaviour, a degree of column hinging is unavoidable

are shown for both the linear (triangular) and uniform patterns in many cases unless large overstrength factors, well beyond

of the lateral load. Due to the regularity and simplicity of the those implied in codes, are adopted for column design. This is

structure, the triangular pattern represents closely a first mode- illustrated by the hinge patterns shown in Fig. 6(c), and was

dominated response. On the other hand, the uniform pattern is also reported in previous studies on steel frames (e.g. [31]).

expected to be important if higher modes contribute notably to In the inelastic range, the points of contra-flexure in members

the response or when significant inelastic concentrations occur. change and consequently the distribution of moments vary

As shown in Fig. 6(a), the uniform loading pattern results in considerably from the idealised conditions assumed in design.

higher stiffness and capacity in comparison with the triangular Therefore, in terms of actual response, the purpose of meeting

distribution, as expected. The inter-storey drifts in the frame code requirements can perhaps be viewed as aiming to achieve

at yield (formation of first plastic hinge) as well as at ultimate relatively strong columns such that beam rather than column

(achievement of 3% inter-storey drift) are depicted in Fig. 6(b). yielding predominates in several stories. Further discussion of

The inter-storey drift distribution is almost uniform at the these capacity design issues is presented later on in this paper.

yield stage since the behaviour is largely elastic. At ultimate, In order to examine the general validity of nonlinear-

however, lower stories exhibit significant inter-storey drifts static procedures for assessing the overall seismic response of

compared to upper levels. The inelastic concentration is more composite moment frames in further parametric and sensitivity

pronounced for the uniform load pattern which forces a studies, the pushover results of the reference frame are

1808 A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

Fig. 6. Reference structure: (a) Pushover curve, (b) Inter-storey drifts, (c) Hinge formation for different load patterns and (d) Hinge formation for case without

gravity loads.

compared with those from dynamic analysis in subsequent different criteria for record selection can be employed. One

sections. To achieve a realistic basis for this comparison, careful consists of choosing the records according to strong-motion

attention is given to the selection and scaling of the time-history parameters and the other is based on geophysical criteria.

records in relation to the code-spectrum assumed in design. The search based on strong-motion parameters consists of

finding records that have similar shape to the response

4.2. Input for time-history analysis

spectrum provided by the code, obtained for a site with

A number of difficulties arise when choosing specific similar characteristics. An efficient procedure may consist,

records for dynamic analysis, particularly in cases where for example, of calculating the average root-mean-square

seismic hazard studies are not available. In general, two deviation (Drms ) of the spectrum of the tentative record

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1809

Table 1

Selected records and scaling factors

EQ ID Earthquake Date Country Magnitude (Mw ) Distance (km) Soil type PGA (g) Scaling factor

CLUC Campano Lucano 23/11/1980 Italy 6.9 10 Rock 0.0599 6.0

MHILL Morgan Hill 24/04/1984 US 6.5 28 Stiff 0.0340 10.0

LDRS Landers 28/06/1992 US 7.3 30 Stiff 0.1351 2.3

NRDG Northridge 17/01/1994 US 6.7 31 Stiff 0.0732 5.0

CHCH Chi-Chi 20/09/1999 Taiwan 7.6 39 Stiff 0.4145 1.1

TMRN Taumaranui 05/01/1973 New Zealand 6.6 65 Rock 0.0358 10.0

HMINE Hector Mine 16/10/1999 US 7.1 61 Rock 0.0568 5.3

compatible artificial records may be generated from white

noise. This latter technique however tends to create unrealistic

records both in terms of frequency, phase content, number of

cycles and duration of motion [32]. On the other hand, for

situations where the site is well characterised in seismological

terms by either a deterministic or probabilistic seismic hazard

assessment, then one or more earthquake scenarios can be

established. Accordingly, the fault mechanisms and the ranges

of magnitudes and fault distances of the earthquakes affecting

the site are known [33]. In this case, the selection can be

conducted by searching a strong-motion database for records

that match those geophysical parameters.

The selection of records is carried out herein by combining

the two criteria discussed above. The records are selected

such that they correspond to the shape of the code-spectrum

employed (Type 1) as well satisfy the seismological criteria

inferred by this choice. Seven records, with the lowest Drms

from the target code-spectrum, were sought for this study from

the strong-motion database available at Imperial College, by

imposing the following conditions: (i) moment magnitudes

(Mw ) larger than 6 since Spectrum Type 1 corresponds to

high magnitude events [34]; (ii) records involving near-fault or

forward directivity effects are avoided; (iii) rock or stiff soil

sites, for consistency with the soil type assumed in design; (iii)

PGA larger than 0.03g, to avoid applying unrealistically high

scaling factors. The duration was not specifically considered

since the model structures do not exhibit significant degradation

effects. Records with forward directivity effects were not

considered although it should be noted that they can pose a high

damage potential to flexible structures [35]. However, these

types of records have been rarely observed in Europe with the

only relevant case recorded during the 1995 Aegion earthquake

Fig. 7. Response spectra of the selected records (all normalised to PGA) and

in Greece [36]. The seven records selected are listed in Table 1

target design spectrum (EC8-Type 1): (a) Initial records, (b) Wavelet-adjusted.

together with the scaling factors adopted in order to have a

good fit with the code-spectrum for the period range of interest,

which in this case is considered to be between 0.8 and 2.4 s. damping levels. The correction with RSPMATCH2005 is

The response spectra, for 5% damping, for all seven records as performed in two steps. In the first step, each record is modified

well as the target design spectrum are shown in Fig. 7(a). in order to match the target spectrum within the period range

The selection was then followed by another adjustment between 0 and 1 s. In the second step, wavelets are introduced

process for matching the records to the target design spectrum, in the time series in order to match the target spectrum for

based on the introduction of wavelets to the acceleration the whole period range, i.e. between 0 and 4 s. A maximum

time series [37]. For this purpose, a modified version [38] of tolerance of 5% for the mismatch between the record spectrum

the program RSPMATCH [39] was employed. The modified and the target spectrum is defined.

program incorporates new wavelet types that avoid the need The response spectra for the final adjusted records as well

for baseline corrections and permit adjustment for multiple as the target spectrum are shown in Fig. 7(b). On the other

1810 A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

hand, the acceleration time-histories for the final adjusted situation develops in cases where the wavelet modification

records are shown in Fig. 8. It is worth mentioning that the algorithm requires several iterations to adjust the record.

ground motion characteristics, as well as the acceleration and

velocity time series, are not significantly affected by the wavelet 4.3. Dynamic response

adjustment. For example, this is illustrated in Fig. 8(a) and (b)

which depict the acceleration record of CLUC before and after Using the seven modified records described in the previous

adjustment, respectively. However, some differences can occur section, incremental dynamic analysis [40] was performed for

in the displacement series in some cases, where a reduction in the reference frame. Each of the seven records was applied

the number of ground displacement cycles is observed. This with increasing ground motion intensity, resulting in over 100

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1811

Fig. 10. Inter-storey drifts for 0.15 m global drift (time-history, linear and

analyses. In this study, the intensity measure was considered uniform pushover).

as the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period and, for

each analysis, the base shears as well as global and inter-storey

drifts were examined. A large amount of data was obtained

from the dynamic analysis hence, for brevity, only results which

are considered to be of direct relevance to the issues addressed

in this paper are discussed below.

The overall dynamic response is compared in Fig. 9 to that

obtained from pushover analysis, with both linear and uniform

patterns. The response is presented in terms of base shear versus

maximum drift at the top of the frame. A special procedure is

required to extract these results from the output of the dynamic

analysis since the maximum displacement does not necessarily

coincide with the time corresponding to the peak base shear. As

suggested in previous studies [41], the maximum displacement

was matched with the peak base shear within a specified time

interval, for which a value of ±0.5 s was found to produce

consistent results.

Fig. 9 indicates relatively low dispersion between the results Fig. 11. IDA curves of maximum base shear for control structure.

from the seven earthquakes, which is clearly aided by the

record-selection and spectrum-matching procedures described analysis with triangular loading pattern is more closely related

before. More importantly, the plot reveals relatively good to the mean of the time-history analyses. On the other hand,

correlation with the pushover results, particularly for the linear the uniform pattern idealisation tends to overestimate the inter-

pattern case. As shown in the figure, the average of the time- storey drifts at lower stories and to underestimate the demand

history results is more closely related to the linear pattern for at upper levels.

most of the response range, except perhaps at significant drift The maximum base shears and top frame drift obtained

levels when inelastic deformations may tend to concentrate in from the incremental dynamic analysis are depicted in Fig. 11

lower storeys. In contrast, the uniform pattern provides more and Fig. 12, respectively. These are shown in relation to the

of an envelope of the global behaviour rather than a realistic scaled spectral acceleration corresponding to the fundamental

representation of the mean level of dynamic response. period of vibration and 5% damping, i.e. Sa (T1 , 5%).

Pushover analysis using a linear triangular pattern of loading Whilst the maximum base shears do not show considerable

also provides better correlation with time-history results in variation for the various records, the dispersion of global

terms of inter-storey drifts. For example, Fig. 10 depicts the drifts increases with higher seismic intensity as the level

distribution of the maximum inter-storey drifts corresponding of inelastic deformations becomes more significant. More

to a top displacement of about 0.15 m, as this corresponds importantly, as illustrated by Fig. 12, the peak top displacement

approximately to average inter-storey drifts in-between yield is largely proportional to the seismic intensity. This suggests the

and ultimate. The same procedure adopted for extracting the general validity of the ‘equal displacement approximation’ rule

base shear versus top drift results was also used in this case commonly adopted in several seismic codes, including EC8, for

to obtain the inter-storey drifts corresponding to the specified the structure under consideration. It should be noted however

level of global deformation. The plot shows that the pushover that if the response is assessed on the basis of individual

1812 A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

Table 2

Summary of parameters considered and section sizes adopted

Primary Secondary External Internal External Internal GC*

beams beams columns columns columns columns

Reference CREF – IPE 500 IPE 330 HEB 300 HEB 450 HEB 340 HEB 450 c

frame

CR4 q=4 IPE 500 IPE 330 HEB 300 HEB 450 HEB 500 HEB 500 a

CRED30 Redistribution IPE 400 IPE 330 HEB 300 HEB 450 HEB 300 HEB 450 c

Design

CPZ No doubler IPE 500 IPE 330 HEB 300 HEB 450 HEB 340 HEB 450 c

considerations

plates

CSI015 PGA = 0.15g IPE 500 IPE 330 HEB 300 HEB 450 HEB 340 HEB 450 c

CSI050 PGA = 0.50g IPE 500 IPE 330 HEB 300 HEB 450 HEB 550 HEB 600 d

CTB3 3 m spacing IPE 300 – HEA 220 HEA 240 HEA 320 HEA 360 c

Spacing and CTB12 12 m spacing IPE 550 IPE 400 HEB 400 HEB 650 HEB 400 HEB 650 b

geometry CPB6 6 m span IPE 330 IPE 330 HEB 260 HEB 320 HEB 450 HEB 500 c

CSTOR3 3-storey frame IPE 500 IPE 330 HEB 260 HEB 300 HEB 260 HEB 320 a

∗ Governing Criterion: a. seismic strength demand, b. gravity loading scenario, c. stability coefficient, d. serviceability drift.

before as a basis, a number of variations to several design

parameters and assumptions are considered in this section

in order to highlight important behavioural implications. The

modifications carried out to the reference frame are summarised

in Table 2, together with the resulting member sizes and

governing criteria. In all cases, only one design parameter or

assumption is varied within each specific frame. It should be

noted that, where possible, it was decided in most cases to retain

the beams sizes based on gravity design and adjust column sizes

to satisfy the various design criteria.

A significant number of parameters were varied but, for

brevity, only those which are thought to provide some insight

into key aspects of the behaviour are described herein. This

section deals with parameters related to design, for a structure

of the same geometry. In particular, focus is given to the

Fig. 12. IDA curves of maximum top displacement for control structure. behaviour factor, moment redistribution, panel zone design and

seismic intensity. On the other hand, Section 6 is concerned

records, rather than the mean or median, then significant with variations to the structural configuration.

departure from the equal-displacement approximation would be

observed. This is illustrated in Fig. 12 by noting, for example, 5.1. Behaviour factor

the drift response of the structure under the TMRN record with

increasing seismic intensity. The recommended values for the behaviour factor ‘q’ in

After examining the various approaches for applying EC8 are, in principle, intended as upper limits. However, in

the lateral seismic loading, subsequent parts of this paper practice, the recommended behaviour factor is often used as

investigate the influence of other salient geometrical and design a default with a view to exploiting available ductility and

parameters on the response. As discussed above, pushover energy dissipation capabilities. It is important to note, however,

analysis based on the linear pattern was shown to be in good that lower behaviour factors may be adopted and such a

agreement with the average results obtained from the dynamic choice could often be more rational [15] particularly in low-

analysis. Accordingly, and given the relative simplicity of to-moderate seismicity regions.

performing and interpreting pushover analysis coupled with In order to examine some of the issues involved in using

the comparative nature of parametric and sensitivity studies, it a lower behaviour factor, the design of the reference frame

was decided to limit the discussions presented in subsequent (CREF) is modified (CR4) in accordance with ‘q’ of 4 (DCM)

sections to results from pushover analysis with triangular load instead of 6.5 (DCH). This enables the use of Class 2 rather

patterns. than Class 1 cross-sections if necessary but, more importantly,

5. Design parameters and considerations the change in ‘q’ results in the need for larger column sizes,

as indicated in Table 2, in order to satisfy the higher lateral

The design process of a composite moment frame involves strength requirement. As indicated in Fig. 13(a), this leads to

several assumptions and choices that can have a direct influence an increase in the lateral capacity of the frame in comparison

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1813

Consequently, it may be beneficial to make use of the

redistribution ability of composite beams in the gravity design

situation to reduce the required beam size. The reduction

in beam size can be significant in composite beams due to

the characteristic difference between the positive and negative

moment capacity of the cross-section.

To examine the effect of gravity moment redistribution, the

design of the reference frame (CREF) is modified (CRED30).

In this case, the gravity design is based on a 30% redistribution

in accordance with the allowance in Eurocode 4 [12]. This

results in a reduction in beam size from IPE 500 to IPE 400.

However, this is also accompanied by a reduction in stiffness

and capacity which, depending on the seismic intensity and

behaviour factor as well as other design parameters, may still

be adequate. For the frame under consideration (CRED30),

although the reduced beam size enables a reduction in column

sizes from a capacity-design viewpoint, satisfaction of the

stability criterion (θ ) necessitates the use of at least the same

column sections.

Fig. 13(a) includes the pushover response of CRED30

in comparison with CREF, whilst the inter-storey drift

distributions at yield and ultimate are shown in Fig. 13(b).

On the other hand, the hinge pattern at ultimate is depicted in

Fig. 15(c). Whereas the stiffness and capacity of CRED30 are

clearly lower than the reference structure, the overall seismic

response is more favourable due to the more dominant beam

yielding as demonstrated in Figs. 13(b) and 15(c). This is

facilitated by the lower beam-to-column capacity ratio attained

in CRED30. In general, the benefits of employing gravity

moment redistribution depend on the specific case but it is an

issue that merits consideration within the design process.

Fig. 13. Influence of design considerations on lateral response: (a) Pushover

curves, (b) Inter-storey drifts. 5.3. Panel zone design

with the reference structure. Also, as depicted in Fig. 13(b),

As noted previously, the column panel zone in the reference

due to the increased column-to-beam strength in the modified

frame was designed according to the provisions of EC8 which

frame, an improved distribution of inter-storey drift is obtained,

do not imply significant yielding within this component. To

which is directly related to enhanced hinge formation and

satisfy code requirements, each web panel was strengthened

reduced second-order effects. This is also supported by the

with two doubler plates, as described before. Other seismic

hinge pattern shown in Fig. 15(b), which shows more extensive

codes (e.g. [42]) explicitly allow partial yielding in panel zones

hinge formation in upper stories at ultimate in comparison with

in recognition of their inherent ductility and in order to alleviate

the reference frame.

excessive demands on the plastic hinges in the beams. It was

In general, it should be noted that the influence of the choice

deemed of interest therefore to examine the response of a

of behaviour factor on the behaviour is inter-related to several

modified frame (CPZ) which has the same characteristics as

design parameters and criteria. A change in behaviour factor

the reference case (CREF) but without strengthening the web

can clearly lead to a modification of member sizes, and hence

panels.

directly influence the stiffness and capacity as well as the

overstrength and inelastic performance of the frame. However, The lateral response of frame CPZ is included in Fig. 13(a),

for a particular frame configuration, these effects are largely whilst the drift distributions over the height are given in

dependent on a number of other parameters including the level Fig. 13(b). On the other hand, the hinge pattern and sequence

of seismicity, and the second-order design criteria such as the for this case are shown in Fig. 15(d). In comparison with

stability coefficient in EC8. CREF, it is evident that the flexibility and yielding of the panel

zone leads to a significant reduction in the overall stiffness

5.2. Moment redistribution and capacity of the frame. The panel zones in CPZ have

an average yield capacity of about 35% of the beam which

Due to the relatively large spans often associated with results in a reduction of about 30% in the overall frame

composite floors, the beam sizes are normally governed by capacity. Importantly, this also results in a highly stable plastic

1814 A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

mechanism involving only the panel zones and the base of the

columns, as shown in Fig. 15(d), and hence more uniform inter-

storey distribution over the height (Fig. 13(b)).

Despite the stable inelastic behaviour of panel zones,

the rationale behind limiting energy dissipation within this

component in EC8 is based on merited concerns. The local

bending of column flanges associated with inelastic shear

deformations of the panel may cause excessive local strains

in the welded connection components, which can precipitate

early failure as suggested by several researchers [43,44]. On

the other hand, allowing yielding in panel zones can alleviate

inelastic demands on the beams and lead to favourable overall

inelastic frame response. Accordingly, there are also benefits

from allowing a degree of yielding of panel zones, as implied

in recent design documents [45]. More detailed examination

of this issue is beyond the scope of this investigation but it is

clearly an area that deserves further assessment.

through the design peak ground acceleration (PGA). In order

to assess the influence of seismic intensity on the design of

the reference frame (CREF), for which a PGA of 0.30g was

assumed, two variations are considered (CSI015 and CSI050)

corresponding to PGA of 0.15g and 0.50g, respectively. Other

design parameters and criteria used for the reference frame are

retained.

In the case of CSI015, the design process results in identical

member sizes to those used in CREF. This is expected since

the criterion governing the design in both cases is the stability

coefficient (θ ) which, as evident by close observation of Eq.

(1), is independent of the seismic intensity. Since the design

base shear for CSI015 is half of that in CREF, whilst the Fig. 14. Influence of seismic intensity on lateral response: (a) Pushover curves,

member sizes are identical, the direct implication is that the (b) Inter-storey drifts.

frame overstrength is doubled. Clearly, this is a consequence of

also have a direct influence on the seismic response. In this

employing a high ‘q’ factor in a case of relatively low seismic

section, a number of geometric parameters related to the frame

demand, leading to undue levels of overstrength as reported in

configuration are considered, as summarised in Table 2. These

previous studies on framed structures [15].

include the frame spacing, primary beam span and the number

For CSI050, the increase in PGA changes the governing

of stories.

criterion in design. Similar effects can also be observed when

the soil classification is changed. In CSI050, the sizes of the

6.1. Transverse spacing

columns are governed by the inter-storey serviceability drift

limit assumed as 0.75% of the storey height. The inter-storey

Depending on the structural plan arrangement of the

drift increases with PGA, unlike the stability coefficient, and

building, the frame spacing may be considerably different

becomes more critical. If the inter-storey drift limit of 0.75% is

from that assumed in the reference structure selected. This,

relaxed to 1.0%, the seismic demand on the columns becomes

in turn, would have a direct effect on the level of gravity

the governing factor. In comparison with CREF, the larger

loading imposed on the primary beam which forms part of the

column sizes lead to relatively higher stiffness and capacity

composite moment frame. In order to examine the influence of

(Fig. 14(a)), as well as improved distribution of drift and hinge

these possible variations, two additional cases are considered,

formation over height (Fig. 14(b) and Fig. 15(f), respectively).

in which the frame spacing is changed from the 9.0 m assumed

Moreover, as expected, the level of global frame overstrength is

significantly lower than that in CREF. in the reference frame (CREF) to 3.0 m (CTB3) and 12.0 m

(CTB12). In the case of CTB3, and with reference to Fig. 1(a),

6. Frame spacing and geometry the slab is assumed to span directly onto the moment frames.

As shown in Table 2, for CTB12 the sizes of beams

Apart from the design parameters and considerations and columns are larger than those for CREF, as these are

discussed in the previous section, the frame configuration can governed by the gravity loading conditions. On the other

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1815

Fig. 15. Sequence of hinge formation for: (a) CREF, (b) CR4, (c) CRED30, (d) CPZ, (e) CSI015, (f) CSI050.

hand, for CTB3 smaller member sizes are required due to the 6.2. Primary beam span

considerably lower gravity loading present, but the column

sizes are ultimately governed by the stability criterion. As In order to examine the influence of the span of the beam

shown in Fig. 16(a), the resulting response, in terms of stiffness on the seismic response of the composite frame, the beam

and capacity, reflects the difference in member sizes between span is modified from 9.0 m in the reference frame (CREF)

the three frames. Due to the high column-to-beam capacity to 6.0 m (CPB6). Due to the shorter length and reduced gravity

ratio in CTB3, it provides a favourable distribution of plasticity loading, the member sizes required to resist the gravity situation

over the height as shown in Fig. 16(b), as well dominant beam are smaller than in CREF as listed in Table 2. However,

hinging as indicated in Fig. 18(a). However, the significant the column sizes are ultimately governed by the second-order

increase in column sizes from that required for gravity loading, stability criterion. The adopted design procedure therefore leads

in order to satisfy the stability criterion rather than seismic to larger column sizes in CPB6 compared to CREF.

demands, results in relatively high frame overstrength in the The response of CPB6 in comparison with CREF is shown

case of CTB3. in Fig. 17(a). The reduction in beam size leads to lower stiffness

1816 A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

Fig. 16. Influence of frame spacing on lateral response: (a) Pushover curves,

(b) Inter-storey drifts. Fig. 17. Influence of beam span and number of stories on lateral response: (a)

Pushover curves, (b) Inter-storey drifts.

and capacity in CPB6. However, as expected, the higher

floor columns means that the stability coefficient does not

column-to-beam capacity ratio results in a more favourable

govern the size of the column and it is instead determined

inelastic distribution over the height as shown in Fig. 17(b).

by seismic strength demands. In principle, the capacity design

This is also illustrated in Fig. 18(c), indicating an ‘ideal’

rules for columns should ensure that relatively strong columns

hinge formation in the beams. It is interesting to note that,

are provided such that more dominant beam hinging occurs.

in this case, the smaller beam spans and the prevention of

However, direct implementation of the application rule of Eq.

column hinging permit the formation of hinges at both sides of

(3) in isolation can lead to unsatisfactory performance.

most members. Clearly, the lower beam span in CPB6 enables

Figs. 17(a), (b) and 18(d) depict the pushover response,

the use of smaller beam cross-section hence facilitating a

inter-storey drift and plastic hinge pattern, respectively,

weak-beam/strong-column design within practical size ranges.

obtained for CSTOR3. Clearly, the column sizes are inadequate

However, the observations made above in relation to inelastic

in this case to prevent the formation of an undesirable

response characteristics could obviously change if the designer

column mechanism. This is largely an implication of Eq.

decides to increase beam sizes, rather than column sizes only,

(3) which in its suggested form ignores the influence of

in order to satisfy the stability criterion.

gravity loading in calculating the overstrength parameter Ω .

6.3. Number of stories As a result, Ω is underestimated considerably for cases in

which the gravity moment in the beams (M Ed,G ) constitutes

Another variation of the reference frame (CREF) is a significant proportion of the total moment (M Ed ). This is

considered whereby the number of storeys is reduced to three often the case in composite configurations as these typically

(CSTOR3). This case is selected to highlight an issue which incorporate relatively large beam spans. Although this issue

becomes particularly important in the case of frames with large is not necessarily related to the number of stories, the limits

beam spans and/or low number of stories [15,46]. For CSTOR3, imposed on the stability coefficient lessen its effect on the

the relatively low overall gravity loading applied to the ground required column sizes except in low-rise frames. In fact, a more

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1817

Fig. 18. Sequence of hinge formation for (a) CTB3, (b) CTB12, (c) CPB6, (d) CSTOR3.

realistic representation of the overstrength parameter Ω would The nonlinear-static behaviour of a typical composite

necessitate a modification of the code-specified relationship frame is firstly assessed by comparing the response obtained

to (M pl,Rd − M Ed,G )/M Ed,E . Such modification results in from triangular and uniform pushover loading patterns. The

a significantly higher value of Ω for CSTOR3, leading to validity of adopting nonlinear-static approaches for this type

column sizes which are at least as large as those in CREF, of structure is evaluated by comparison against the results

hence preventing the formation of a storey mechanism. The of incremental dynamic analysis. For this purpose, seven

increase in column sizes would evidently improve the seismic natural earthquake acceleration records, which are selected

performance of the structure and, importantly, it would have and adjusted for compatibility with the design spectrum, are

an insignificant influence on the final cost of the structure. utilised. It is shown that the results of the dynamic time-

Alternatively, instead of the suggested modification, the code history analysis are closely related to the nonlinear-static

rules could be replaced by (or used in conjunction with) other response adopting triangular loading pattern, following the

capacity design measures. trends observed in other frame types of regular configurations.

The suitability of pushover analysis with triangular loading,

7. Concluding remarks in comparison with the uniform pattern, is supported by the

overall structural response as well as local inter-storey drift

This paper assesses the inelastic seismic performance of distributions.

composite steel/concrete moment-resisting frames designed A degree of global overstrength is normally expected in

according to the provisions of Eurocode 8. After discussing framed structures, particularly when relatively high behaviour

the design procedures and assumptions, the numerical models factors are adopted, since member sizes are often governed

and response criteria adopted in this investigation are described. by gravity considerations or by deformation-related criteria.

The analysis accounts for material and geometric nonlinearities This overstrength becomes even more pronounced in composite

and the models incorporate detailed representation of steel and frames, due in-part to the typically large spans which increase

concrete elements as well as the panel zone components. A the dependence of beam sizes on gravity loading conditions.

number of studies are then carried out in order to examine The frames examined in this study exhibited strength levels

the influence of several key loading, geometric and design consistently exceeding four-fold the assumed design base shear.

parameters on the performance of composite moment frames. The global overstrength is also contributed to by the significant

1818 A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

redistribution in terms of the ultimate-to-yield resistance ratio, [11] CEN. EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures — Part 1.1:

referred to as αu /α1 in EC8. This ratio was higher than 1.5 in General rules and rules for buildings, Brussels: European Committee for

all the study frames (which is well above the recommended Standardization; 2005.

[12] CEN. EN 1994-1-1, Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete

code value of 1.3) provided that local storey mechanisms are structures — Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels:

prevented and a realistic level of gravity loading is considered. European Committee for Standardization; 2004.

It is shown in this paper that several design parameters [13] Bursi OS, Sun FF, Postal S. Non-linear analysis of steel-concrete

and assumptions have direct implications on the inelastic composite frames with full and partial shear connection subjected to

behaviour of composite frames, as assessed through the overall seismic loads. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2005;61(1):

67–92.

lateral response, inter-storey drift distribution and plastic hinge

[14] CEN. EN 1991-1-1, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures — Part 1.1:

patterns. In particular, the choice of behaviour factor in General actions — Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings,

relation to the seismic intensity, the incorporation of moment Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2002.

redistribution under gravity conditions, and the panel zone [15] Elghazouli AY. Assessment of capacity design approaches for steel

effects are all issues that merit careful consideration in design. It framed structures. Journal of Steel Structures 2005;5(5):465–75.

is also shown that a number of geometric parameters, related to [16] Izzuddin BA. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of framed structures. Ph.D.

thesis. University of London; 1991.

the structural configuration, including frame spacing and beam

[17] Izzuddin BA, Elnashai AS. Adaptive space frame analysis. 2 — A

span, have a significant influence on the behaviour. distributed plasticity approach. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil

The plastic hinge patterns observed in the study frames Engineers — Structures and Buildings 1993;99(3):317–26.

provide useful insight into the behaviour. In most cases, except [18] Elnashai AS, Elghazouli AY. Seismic behaviour of semi-rigid steel

in frames with relatively short beam spans or when significant frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1994;29:149–74.

panel zone yielding is permitted, hinges form primarily [19] Song L, Izzuddin BA, Elnashai AS, Dowling PJ. An integrated adaptive

environment for fire and explosion analysis of steel frames — Part 1:

on one side of the beam spans under pushover loading. Analytical models. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2000;53(1):

This effect is particularly significant in composite frames 63–85.

due to the characteristic asymmetry in beam cross-section [20] Izzuddin BA, Song L, Elnashai AS, Dowling PJ. An integrated adaptive

capacity, coupled with the influence of gravity moments. More environment for fire and explosion analysis of steel frames — Part II:

importantly, local storey mechanisms did not occur in the Verification and application. Journal of Constructional Steel Research

2000;53(1):87–111.

study frames except in the case of the three-storey structure.

[21] Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA. Realistic modeling of composite and

This undesirable performance, to which low-rise and/or large reinforced concrete floor slabs under extreme loading: Verification and

span configurations are particularly vulnerable, highlights the application. Journal of Structural Engineering 2004;130(12):1985–96.

need for careful interpretation or modification of the suggested [22] Castro JM, Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA. Modelling of the panel zone in

capacity design provisions. steel and composite moment frames. Engineering Structures 2005;27(1):

129–44.

References [23] Castro JM. Seismic behaviour of composite moment-resisting frames.

Ph.D. thesis. University of London; 2006.

[1] Broderick BM, Elnashai AS. Seismic response of composite frames: [24] Bursi OS, Caramelli S, Fabbrocino G, Molina J, Salvatore W, Taucer F,

Response criteria and input motion. Engineering Structures 1996;18(9): Zandonini R. 3D full-scale seismic testing of a steel-concrete composite

696–706. building at ELSA, Technical report EUR 21299 EN. Joint Research

[2] Leon RT. Analysis and design problems for PR composite frames Centre; 2004.

subjected to seismic loads. Engineering Structures 1998;20(4–6):364–71. [25] Castro JM, Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA. Assessment of effective slab

[3] Spacone E, El-Tawil S. Nonlinear analysis of steel-concrete composite widths in composite beams. Journal of Constructional Steel Research

structures: State of the art. Journal of Structural Engineering 2004;130(2): 2007;63(10):1317–27.

159–68. [26] Elghazouli AY, Elnashai AS. Performance of composite steel/concrete

[4] Leon RT, Hajjar JF, Gustafson MA. Seismic response of composite members under earthquake loading: Parametric studies and design

moment-resisting connections. I: Performance. Journal of Structural considerations. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 1993;

Engineering 1998;124(8):868–76. 22(4):347–68.

[5] Hajjar JF, Leon RT, Gustafson MA, Shield CK. Seismic response [27] SEAOC. Vision 2000 — Performance based seismic engineering

of composite moment-resisting connections. II: Behaviour. Journal of of buildings. Sacramento (CA): Structural Engineers Association of

Structural Engineering 1998;124(8):877–85. California; 1995.

[6] Bursi OS, Caldara R. Composite substructures with partial shear [28] FEMA. FEMA 356 — Prestandard and commentary for the seismic

connection: Low cycle fatigue behaviour and analysis issues. In: 12th rehabilitation of buildings. Washington (DC): Federal Emergency

world conference on earthquake engineering. 2000. Management Agency; 2000.

[7] Plumier A, Doneux C, Bouwkamp JG, Plumier C. Slab design in [29] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse

connection zones of composite frames. In: Proceedings of the 11th ECEE analysis of RC buildings. Engineering Structures 2001;23(5):407–24.

conference. 1998. [30] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis

[8] Elnashai AS, Broderick BM. Seismic response of composite frames: of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures 1998;20(4-6):

Calculation of behaviour factors. Engineering Structures 1996;18(9): 452–64.

707–23. [31] Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for performance evaluation

[9] Thermou GE, Elnashai AS, Plumier A, Doneux C. Seismic design of steel moment resisting frame structures, John A. Blume earthquake

and performance of composite frames. Journal of Constructional Steel engineering Center report No. 132. Department of Civil Engineering,

Research 2004;60(1):31–57. Stanford University; 1999.

[10] CEN. EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake [32] Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB. The use of real earthquake accelerograms as

resistance of structures, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules input to dynamic analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2004;8:

for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2004. 43–91.

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1819

[33] Bommer JJ, Scott SG, Sarma SK. Hazard-consistent earthquake scenarios. [39] Abrahamson NA. Non-stationary spectral matching. Seismological

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2000;19(4):219–31. Research Letters 1992;63(1):30.

[34] Rey J, Faccioli E, Bommer JJ. Derivation of design soil coefficients (S) [40] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake

and response spectral shapes for Eurocode 8 using the European strong- Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2002;31(3):491–514.

motion database. Journal of Seismology 2002;6(4):547–55. [41] Antoniou S, Pinho R. Advantages and limitations of adaptive and

[35] Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures. Journal of Earthquake

subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthquake Engineering & Engineering 2004;8(4):497–522.

Structural Dynamics 2004;33(6):687–706. [42] AISC. ANSI/AISC 341-05 — Seismic provisions for structural steel

[36] Bouckovalas GD, Gazetas G, Papadimitriou AG. Geotechnical aspects buildings. Chicago (IL): American Institute of Steel Construction; 2005.

of the 1995 Aegion, Greece, earthquake. In: Proceedings of the second [43] El-Tawil S, Vidarsson E, Mikesell T, Kunnath SK. Inelastic behaviour

international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering. 1999. and design of steel panel zones. Journal of Structural Engineering 1999;

[37] Lilhanand K, Tseng W. Development and application of realistic 125(2):183–93.

earthquake time histories compatible with multiple-damping design [44] Krawinkler H, Bertero VV, Popov EP. Shear behavior of steel frame

spectra. In: Proceedings of the 9th world conference on earthquake joints. Journal of the Structural Division (ASCE) 1975;101(11):2317–36.

engineering, vol. II. 1988. p. 819–1324. [45] FEMA. FEMA 350 — Recommended seismic design criteria for new

[38] Hancock J, Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ, Markatis A, steel moment-frame buildings. Washington (DC): Federal Emergency

McCoy E, et al. An improved method of matching response spectra of Management Agency; 2000.

recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets. Journal of Earthquake [46] Elghazouli AY. Seismic design of steel structures to Eurocode 8. The

Engineering 2006;10(Special issue no. 1):67–89. Structural Engineer 2007;85(12):26–31.

- Ultimate Shear Strength of Composite Welded Steel-Aluminium Beam Subjected to Shear LoadUploaded byHako Khechai
- Night School 16 Session 7Uploaded byLCS
- 08 Chapter 3Uploaded byNilay Gandhi
- paper4009 consolidare zidUploaded bynegritoru87
- Global Maritime Jack Up Marine and Engineering ServicesUploaded byNavalArchitecture
- 09_Types of AnalysisUploaded byAUNGPS
- MONORAIL.xlsUploaded byDiego Andres Ramos
- ACI_352R_02Uploaded byDavid Espinal
- AashbylecturesUploaded bypetronashscribdid
- I-260 Novi studyUploaded byŽan Pjer
- Bsd Aashto Lrfd 2012Uploaded byEva Maria Aguilar Rivera
- Magic R - Seismic Design of Water TanksUploaded byWessam Nour
- NIST.TN.1863-2Uploaded byArdian E Pratama
- Unit 1 Structural Analysis IIUploaded byEaswar Kumar
- Lifting Beam CalculationUploaded byDaniel Vargas Ribeiro
- 2003-Unbonded Posttensioned Concrete Bridge Piers I Monotonic and Cyclic AnalysesUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- Day 2-5 Dynamic Response of Tall BuildingsUploaded byMIHDI PALAPUZ
- Gis&Cad Lab ManualUploaded bymahesh
- Gate StructuresUploaded bygrkvani10
- 21618-MUIRWOOD-2017_BDUploaded bySanjoy Sanyal
- To TodaiUploaded byME STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
- IES-Conventional-Civil-Engineering-2017-PAPER-1.pdfUploaded byvk522
- Review on Natural Draft Hyperbolic Cooling TowersUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Tugas Baja 2Uploaded byKevan Alfansury
- CalTrans-2010.pptUploaded byTaylor Fuentes
- Tranverse Shear Stress in Beams NotesUploaded byAzzril Hashim
- bd1682Uploaded byTommy Yap
- 181058Uploaded byahmed55
- ArcelorMittal SEISMOutputUploaded bypaul_taras19
- Chapter 5Uploaded byMarkus Klooth

- Shi 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- CIDECT-Design Guide for Concrete Filled Hollow Section ColumnsUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings - T.paulay,M.priestley (1992) +Uploaded byvuhoanghn
- User and Installation ManualUploaded bycristobal cabrera
- Daniunas 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Van Long 2008 Engineering StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- 2008 Van Long Limit Shakedown Analysis 3D Steel FramesUploaded byseln_2811
- Saito 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Nie 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Han 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Maheri 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Gil Martin 2008 Engineering StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan

- Segmentation Structure and Segmentation StrategyUploaded bysubhojit banerjee
- It Lecture 2Uploaded byMuhammad Ali Masood
- ElectUploaded byNath Boyapati
- Approvals how to OTLUploaded byaeozdogan
- 171458339 M2 2007 Electrical Body Builder Manual Rev NewUploaded byandré Guilherme
- Uiaa Warning About Climbing Anchors FailuresUploaded byAnonymous G3TLhPfP
- MP0612Uploaded byJustin Orbien
- West Virginia Transporter 2017Uploaded byKyle Langsley
- Automax Actuators & Accessories EnglishUploaded byJamesTorresPalma
- Presentation 1Uploaded bymohammad
- Bridge Bearings & Expansion JointsUploaded byjacob_arun
- Acrow Bridge 300SeriesManual.pdfUploaded byJason
- Yealink T28PUploaded byPerparim Salihu
- HVAC Analysis of the AirportUploaded byMehul Patel
- Assessment of Abrasive Wear of Nanostructured WC-Co and Fe-Based Coatings applied by HP-HVOF, Flame and Wire Arc Spray.pdfUploaded byflanil
- 8000-HE425_RevD_10-7-09Uploaded byimagenydiagnostico
- Chuvakin-Log Analysis vs. Insider AttacksUploaded byAnton Chuvakin
- GP340_UGUploaded byesitaru
- Blacklisting User In Mobile Crowd SensingUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Insurance project ModulesUploaded bybharathgora
- Trelleborg FenderUploaded by123habib123fikri
- isdntutUploaded bymilunbla
- Solubility of Alcohols in Wate1.DocxDDUploaded byDayledaniel Sorveto
- E LEAFLET for IndonesiaUploaded byapuhapuh_153349
- Solutions & Colligative Properties IITUploaded byAdiChemAdi
- MussoA1F2Uploaded byPaulo De Castro
- JIS Z 2244-2003 维氏硬度试验 试验方法 英文版Uploaded bytsengcc
- Manitou Warehousing Equipment (EN)Uploaded byManitou
- CCNA 3 Exploration Chapter-1Uploaded byanwarul islam
- FSP 150CC-GE11X R6.1 Installation and Operations ManualUploaded byHt