You are on page 1of 11

Engineering Structure.s. Vnl. 19, No. 8, pp. 644 654.

1997
Co) 1997 Elsevier Science Lid
All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0141-0296(96)00143-5 0141 0296/97 $17.00 + 0.00
ELSEVIER

Dynamic analysis and response of


semirigid flames
E. M. Lui
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Syracuse UniversiO:, 220 Hinds Hall,
Syracuse, NY 13244, USA

A. Lopes

G~nie Civil POle Construction, Ecole Nationale Sup~rieure des Arts et Industries de
Strasbourg, Strasbourg-Cedex, France
(Received August 1996; revised version accepted October 1996)

The dynamic response of semirigid frames is studied using a com-


puter model. The flexibilities of the connections are modelled by
rotational springs with bilinear moment-rotation relationships.
Geometrical nonlinearities in the form of member ( P - 8) and frame
( P - A) instabilities are incorporated in the model through the use
of stability functions in the formulation of the frame stiffness
matrix. Material nonlinearity in the form of column inelasticity is
accounted for by the use of the tangent modulus concept in the
formulation of the column stiffness relationship. Response charac-
teristics of semirigid frames under free vibration, forced vibration
and earthquake excitation are studied. Response spectra are gener-
ated for frames subjected to forced vibrations and earthquake exci-
tations. The presence of connection flexibility and P-delta effects
tends to reduce frame stiffness, and hence increase the frames'
natural periods of vibration. Semirigidity and P-delta effects also
affect the magnitude of base shear and the amount of energy dissi-
pation of semirigid frames. The extent of these effects is frequency
dependent. Based on the results of this study, implications for
semirigid frame design will be discussed. 1997 Elsevier
Science Ltd.

Keywords: dynamic analysis, semirigid connections, P-delta effect,


earthquake response spectra

1. Introduction tion m o m e n t - r o t a t i o n plots to identify regions in which


joints were considered semirigid.
Semirigid frames are frames for which the beam-to-column These classification systems were developed based on
joints are neither pinned nor rigid. In reality all frames are extensive research conducted during the past six decades
semirigid in nature because truly pinned or perfectly rigid on semirigid joints and their effects on column and frame
joints do not exist. However, for design purposes if the responses. The essence of these studies has been summar-
amount of moment that can be transmitted by the joint is ized in various books and monographs 3 7, and will not be
negligibly small, the joint can be idealized as pinned, and repeated here. However, it should be noted that despite the
if the moment that can be transmitted is sufficiently large, availability of this volume of information in the literature,
the joint can be idealized as rigid. For practical purposes, most of the studies on semirigid joints and their effects
two classification systems have been proposed to demarcate on structural members and frames were based on static or
semirigid frames from rigid frames. The classification sys- quasistatic load conditions. While studies of the response
tem by Bjorhovde e t a l . t is based primarily on member of semirigid frames under dynamic loadings have gained
response whereas the classification system by Eurocode 32 momentum in recent years 8-H much remains to be done.
is based on overall frame response. Both systems classified The studies reported in References 8 - 1 4 are primarily con-
connections in terms of their stiffness and strength. Bound- cerned with the experimental investigation of semirigid
ar3; lines were established on the nondimensional connec- joint behaviour and time-history analyses of semirigid

644
Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes 645

pa ~c nodal force vector, db= {d,, d2, d3, d4, ds, d6}r is the beam

1 nodal displacement vector, and kb is the beam stiffness


matrix accounting for the present of the connections
given by ~5
F(O "-
zvA~ Nc A,
l,, 0 0
At,
0 0

{s;, + 2s~ + s;) (s. + sT,) 0 (s;, + 2, + s;} (,,;, + s;)


L~, Lh /~ L~

EI~,
,< _ {s,;+ ,~} 4
L~, (2)
Ic,Ac Lc
Ah
0 0

(s] + 2s*,, + 4 ) (s5 + s})


sym
L~, L~,
s;
A D
I'/I [41 L i
~[
1
where

Figure I Semirigid frame model


4 + 12Elbt
LbRC/
frames. The effect of forcing frequency on semirigid flame sii = (3)
behaviour expressed in terms of maximum displacement, ( 4EI"t( 4Elb t (Elbt24
base shear and energy dissipation has not been addressed 1 +LbRf] 1 +L,,RC]-\Lb] RfR c
in detail.
In this paper, the results of a numerical study of semi- (4 + 12El,,)
rigid frames under dynamic and earthquake excitations will L,,Rf /
be presented. The numerical analyses will be carried out * (4)
sjj=( 4El,, t ( 4El,, 1 (Elbt 2 4
using a simple portal semirigid flame in conjunction with l + Ld~/ 1 + L , 3 ; } - \ Lb/ R f R f
a bilinear hysteretic connection model and a fourth-order
Runge-Kutta integration scheme. The analysis results in 2
the form of time-history and frequency response graphs will
be presented to illustrate the influence of connection flexi-
s~=( 4E.lht ( 4Elh t (Elhl24 (5)
bility and geometrical nonlinearity (P-delta effects) on the
1 +Ld~f] 1 +L,,RC]-\Lh] RfR c
response of frames with semirigid joints. Based on these
results, ramifications for semirigid flame design will be in which R~ and R~ are the instantaneous stiffness of the
addressed. connections at the B and C ends of the beam, respectively
(see Section 3).
Using a beam-column formulation, the stiffness matrix
2. Semirigid frame model relating the column nodal forces rc = {rj, r2, r3, r4, rs, r6}T
The semirigid frame model used for the present study is and the column nodal displacements d, ={dl, d2, d3, d4, d5,
d6} T shown in Figure 3 is given by 15
shown in Figure 1. It consists of a beam with moment of
inertia Is, and length Lh, and two columns with moments of
inertia I, and lengths L,., joined at B and C by two semirigid
connections. The connections are modelled as rotational
springs at the beam ends. Thus, only the flexural defor-
mation (moment-rotational) mode of the connections will
be incorporated in the present study. The axial and shear r4, d 4
~ ds

r6 , d 6

i
deformation modes of the connections are ignored.
The frame is subjected to two types of loadings: a time-
dependent lateral load F(t) and two time-independent grav-
ity concentrated column loads P~ and pc. Frame analyses
under the combined effect of gravity and lateral loads are
carried "out using the stiffness matrix method. The beam It=constant Lc
stiffness relationship is given by
rb = k Jib ( 1)
where (see Figure 2), rl, = {r~, r2, r3, r4, rs, r6}r is the beam
r2,d2 rs,d5
rI ,dl
R~ Rkc ~_~
k r , d3

la ''a Lb ~ rs'd'
r2 , d 2
Figure2 Beam model Figure3 Column model
646 Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes

12 6 12 6 analyses were chosen so that their moment capacities would


o
always exceed the largest moment developed in the system.
Ac A( Assembling equations (2) and (6), one obtains a 6 x 6
0 0 - 0 stiffness matrix for the frame of Figure 1. However, to
lc L facilitate the use of spectral analysis which is commonly
6 employed in earthquake resistance design, this six-degrees-
TEL. 4~b3 L, 62 0 264
of-freedom system will be reduced to a single-degree-of-
k,=L, '
12 6 freedom system. The reduction is shown schematically in
L~ 6, 0 L, Figure 4, and mathematically in the following.
By assuming that the axial deformation in the member
A~
sym. 0 is small compared to the bending deformation, one can
1, eliminate degrees of freedom A t~, 6R and 6 c from the frame
of Figure 4a. The remaining three degrees of freedom for
(6) the frame of Figure 4b are the joint rotations at B and C
(0 ~, 0c) and the storey lateral deflection (&). The 3 x 3
where ~b~, (~2, (~3 and (~4 are stability stiffness functions stiffness matrix for the frame of Figure 4b has the form
which account for the P-delta effects in the columns. They
are given by 6B 6C
(",/fi-L~/'rEl,).s sin ~ / ~ , ~ 0C
(7)
12 (2 - 2cos 4PL~/~'EI, - " J ~ sin ~ / ' r E l , )
&B ~C , &c
(~/~/"rEl,) 2 ( 1 - cos ~/PL~/rEI,)
d92 = (8)
6 (2 - 2cos ",/~/7"EI,- ~ sin ~ )
(~/PL~I'rEI,) (sin ~L~/'rE1, "~PL~I'rEI, cos ~PL~/rEI,)
(9)
4 (2 - 2cos ~/~/'rEl, - ~IPL~/'rEI, sin ~/-'~,,2/'rEl,)
( ~fi-L~/'rEl, ) ( ~/P~,~/'rEI - sin ",[PL~/"rEI,)
q~4= - (10)
2 (2 2cos~/PL~/'rEI, ~/PL~/"rEI, sin ~ l ~ )

if the column axial force P is compressive, and


A fj ~
f/1 "T
(~IP-L~/"rEI,)3 sinhq'PL~/'rEI,)
11)
(a)
12 (2 - 2cosh 4 ~ +~ sinh ~/PL{/TEI, )
(qPL~/'rEI,~) ~ (cosh ~ ' ~ - 1)
12) ~,~0 C
6 (2 2cosh4 ~ + ~/'~ sinh "~"PL~/zEI,.)

~93 =
(~/~)
--
4 (2 2cosh~ / ~
(4-fiL~/'rEl, cosh ~ ' ~ ,
+ ~/~
- sinh~'PL~/zEI,.)
sinh ~l~/rEl,)
(13) el-
(qPL~/rEI,) (sinh4 ~ - 4-fi'L~/rEl,)
(14)

if the column axial force P is tensile.


The parameter ~- in equations ( 6 ) - ( 1 4 ) is a factor which
accounts for column inelasticity. It is defined as the ratio
of the tangent modulus E, to the elastic modulus E of the
column. In the present study, this modular ratio is approxi- T, -j I

mated by the expression " " " (b)

P
1 , if p,.--< 0.39
T (~5)
A
-2.724 P~I In , if P,. > 0.39

where p,. is the yield load of the column given by the pro-
duct of the column cross-sectional area Ac and the material
yield stress ~y. Equation (15) was obtained by dividing the
inelastic column strength equation, which was based on the
tangent modulus concept, by the elastic column strength
equation of the current AISC LRFD Specification ~6. In an
incremental analysis, the term t E l , represents the inelastic I
lJ/ "i fJ
flexural rigidity of the column that is available to resist (c)
moment. In the present analysis, formation of plastic hinge
in the column is precluded. The columns used in all the Figure 4 Degrees-of-freedom reduction
Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes 647

0 side of equation ( 19) by an inertia force term and a damp-


ing force term giving

mii + ci + ku = F(t) (22)


,L,F(r) ,
where m and c are the (lumped) system mass and system
damping coefficient, respectively. A dot () above the dis-
placement variable u represents a time derivative of the
(,6) variable. Unlike m and c, which are assumed to be constants
in equation (22), k is a variable. Since the geometrical non-
linear (P-delta) effect as well as the effects of connection
flexibility and column inelasticity are accounted for in k,
this system stiffness needs to be updated constantly to keep
track of the nonlinearities that develop throughout the
course of the analysis.

3. Connection model
A Although connections can deform in a variety of modes
L (e.g., axial, shear, flexural and torsional), only the flexural
KU
mode will be considered in the present study. The cyclic
where connection moment-rotation relationship is assumed to be
bilinear and follows the kinematic hardening rule as shown
K,, = - ( PAB+ PC) L,. + 2 (17) in Figure 5. To employ this simplified connection model
for dynamic analysis, only three parameters: the elastic con-

(44% + 2W)
1 nection stiffness R,,, the strain hardening connection stiff-
ness R, and the bound slope moment Mbourld are required.
At initial loading, the stiffness of the connection is R,,. The
superscripts AB and CD refer to column AB and col- stiffness changes from Rkrto R,, when the moment in the
umn CD, respectively. connection reaches the moment envelope as depicted by the
To reduce the number of degrees of freedom from three dotted lines in the figure. The moment envelope has a slope
for the frame of Figure 4b to one for the frame of Figure of R,, and it intersects the ordinate at the bound slope
4c, the rotational degrees of freedom eR and tF are to be moment Hound. Upon loading and reloading, the connec-
condensed out of the system stiffness relationship. To per- tion stiffness reverts to R,, (i.e., elastic shakedown) unless
form the condensation, equation (16) is partitioned as the moment in the connection due to unloading and
shown and expressed symbolically as reloading equals or exceeds that defined by the moment
envelope, in which case the connection stiffness will be R,.
Thus, the connection stiffness is equal to Rkrif the connec-
tion moment is within the moment envelope, and it is equal
to R, if the connection moment exceeds that of the
(18) moment envelope.
Moment

Solving the first of the above matrix equation for D, and


backsubstituting the result into the second equation, the
one-degree-of-freedom system stiffness relationship can
now be written as

ku =f (19)

where c1= A is the system lateral displacement (relative to


the ground), k and f are the system stiffness and forcing
function, respectively. They are given by

K
k =_AA_~- K,AK~&A
(20)
Lf

f=:=F(t) (21)

By using a lumped mass model with viscous damping


and by ignoring the rotational mass moment of inertia and
damping due to rotational effect, the equation of motion
for the system can be obtained by augmenting the left-hand Figure 5 Connection model
648 Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes

Seven connection types are used in the present study.


The values of Rk~, Rkp and Mho,,,j for the connections are - - - Single Web Angle ]
...... Top and Seat Angle[
obtained by curve-fitting of available connection m o m e n t - - - Rigid l
rotation test data from the Kishi and Chen t7 databank. The
results are summarized in Table 1.

4. Method of analysis tl.u

For a given set of loadings, type of connection, frame %/


geometry and member sizes, the equation of motion r, iilq ": ~..c,,:)

(equation 22) for the semirigid frame shown in Figure 1


is formulated in an incremental form as

mAii+ cAi~ + kAu = A F (23)

where/~u, At), Au and AF are, respectively, the incremental


acceleration, velocity, displacement and excitation force Figure 6 Free vibration responses (~" = constant - 0.05)
over a time increment of At. A computer program utilizing
the fourth-order Runge-Kutta integration scheme t8 was Table2 M e m b e r and material properties
developed to solve equation (23) numerically. The R u n g e -
Kutta method was used because of its high degree of accu- Member E (% L / A
racy. The errors in phase shift and numerical damping are (MPa) (MPa) (m) (m 4) (m 2)
practically negligible. The analyses were carried out using
a predetermined time step chosen so that it would always Beam 2 x 10s 248 6.1 5 . 5 4 x 10 4 0.012
Column 2 x 105 248 4.6 1.13 x 10 4 0.0093
be less than 10% of the initial natural period of the system
being analysed. To account for the connection flexibility
effect as well as the geometrical and material nonlinear
effects present in the frame, the system stiffness k in equ- columns are W I 0 x 49 sections. The member and material
ation (23) was updated at every time step during the analy- properties are given in Table 2. No gravity loads are applied
sis. If the column axial forces are small (IPL~/~'EI,[ < 1), on the columns (i.e., pR = pc,= 0) and so no P-delta effect
Taylor series expressions are used for the 4~ functions given is included, but damping is taken as 5% of critical. The
in equations ( 7 ) - ( 1 4 ) in formulating k to avoid numerical initial conditions used are u, = 2.54 cm and (to = 50.8 cm/s.
difficulty ~5. Once the incremental quantities are solved from As can be seen readily from the figure, connection flexi-
equation (23), they are cumulated to obtain the total bility increases the natural period of vibration of the frame.
response of the system at the end of each time step. In what Although the logarithmic decrements are the same for all
follows, the analysis results generated using different types three frames, the time required for the vibration to subside
of connections and loadings will be presented. is longer for the more flexible frames. The natural period
increases as the rigidity of the connection decreases
because flame stiffness is reduced by the presence of flex-
5. Analysis results: free vibration responses ible connections. The time required for the vibratory motion
A primary objective of the present study is to investigate to abate is longer for the more flexible frames because for
how connection flexibility and geometrical nonlinearity (P- a given damping ratio, '2 = clc, r = cl2m~o,,, the amount of
delta effects) influence the dynamic response of semirigid damping, c, is lower for the more flexible frames due to
frames. Figure 6 shows the free vibration displacement their lower natural frequencies ~o,. If the same damping
responses of the frame shown in Figure 1 with three differ- (rather than the same damping ratio) is used for all three
ent types of connections: single web angle, top and seat frames, it can be seen from Figure 7 that the number of
angle, and rigid. The beam is a W21 x 62 section and the cycles required for the vibration to cease is less lbr the
more flexible frames.
Table 1 Connection parameters
--- SingleWebAngle ]
Connection Rko Rkp Mbo.nd
(kN-m/rad) (kN-m/rad) (kN-m) 0.60-

0.40 -
Single web angle 1700 113 11.3

~
,I :t
Double web angle 3390 170 34.0 ~" 020

Header plate 7060 565 56.5 000-


Top and seat 15800 1360 79.1 0. 1.20 1.40 1.60 1 88

angle .~ 4120- Time ( = ~ )

Top and seat 17000 1700 90.4 41.40


angle with w e b
cleats 41.60

Extended end 34000 2260 170 -o.8o


plate
Rigid ~ ~ -
Figure 7 Free vibration responses (c = constant = 6.72 kN.s/m)
Dynamic analysis and response o f semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes 649

Table 3 C o m p a r i s o n o f c h a n g e in n a t u r a l p e r i o d s , Tn
0,0 ~
Frame C o l u m n load Natural % increase
o*o ~. iii p e r i o d (s) in 7-,
,: ~. ; .,'~

Semirigid 0 0.132 -
0.2 P/Pv 0.141 6.82
~ ~! ~ I; : ,~'" - 0.6 P/Pv 0.172 30.3
Rigid 0 0.084 -
0.2 P/Pv 0.086 2.38
" : ~ I .: r : V ~.': ',-' Tim* (s,c) 0.6 P/Pv 0.095 13.1
, ; , h ~;

natural period may be beneficial if the period falls within


the range of spectral periods in which the seismic coef-
ficient decreases with increasing period. Nevertheless, care
must be exercised in generalizing the beneficial effects of
Figure B Free v i b r a t i o n r e s p o n s e s o f a s e m i r i g i d f r a m e w i t h semirigidity. Because semirigid frames are more flexible,
d o u b l e w e b a n g l e c o n n e c t i o n s (~ = 0.05) they are more sensitive to the P-delta effect and may be
more susceptible to failure by dynamic instability. The
To investigate the effect of gravity load on the dynamic potential gain in member size reduction due to the use of
response of semirigid frames, axial forces equal to 0.2P~, smaller seismic design forces may be offset by the need to
and 0.6P~ are applied to the columns of the frame shown use larger member sizes to preclude instability failure under
in Figure 1, with member and material properties given in combined gravity and lateral loads.
Table 2. The connections used are double web angles. The
connection parameters are given in Table 1. The results of 6. Analysis results: forced vibration responses
the free vibration analyses using a damping ratio ~" = 0.05
are depicted in Figure 8. As can be seen, the presence of Forced vibration analyses allow us to gain insight into
gravity load increases the natural period of the frame. This semirigid frame performance in terms of their maximum
is the result of the P-delta effect which tends to decrease response characteristics, base shear attribute and energy
frame stiffness. The increase of natural period is more pro- dissipation capacity. The forcing function used in the
nounced as the magnitude of the gravity load increases. As present study is a harmonic loading given by
the load increases, the P-delta effect becomes more promi-
nent, In addition, as P increases beyond 0.39P~., column F( t ) = posincot = (0.2 mg )sincot (24)
inelasticity will set in according to equation (15), thereby
resulting in a further loss of frame stiffness when the mod- where m is the system mass, g is the acceleration due to
uli of the columns change from E to E,. gravity and w is the forcing frequency.
The influence of the P-delta effect is more pronounced Using the frame model shown in Figure 1 with the seven
for semirigid frames than for rigid frames. This can be seen connection types given in Table 1, time-history analyses
readily when one compares the semirigid frame responses were performed for different values of forcing frequency
shown in Figure 8 with the rigid frame responses shown co. Maximum response functions (displacement, velocity,
in Figure 9. The only difference between the frame used acceleration, base shear, energy, etc.) could then be
in Figure 8 and that used in Figure 9 is the connection. In obtained from each of the time-history analyses. A set of
Table 3, the natural periods of the frames are compared to maximum displacement response curves obtained for
demonstrate the degree to which gravity loads affect the P/p~. = 0 and ~" = 0.05 are plotted in Figure 10. The dis-
dynamic characteristics of the frames. placement response factor Rd used as the ordinate in the
From a design perspective, an increase in the frame's

1.00

0.80 t
! ~ llf ~ ~ l[ . . . . . . "r.,~s,...~k,,,~w.bc,,,,~,

2" I ViA/ Z /

1.C0 1.20 140 1.~ 1.80


Tirnl (sec)

q ) ~ i i i i i i
20 4o 6o ~ loAl 120 1~1 160 1~ 20o

Forcing Fmquen=y, m ( m ~ )

Figure9 Free v i b r a t i o n r e s p o n s e s o f a rigid f r a m e (~ = 0.05) Figure 10 Displacement response curves (P/Pv= 0, ,~ = 0.05)
650 Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes
10
While the effect of gravity loads on system response is
r :,,I
9
!.
!: ::t more pronounced for semirigid frames as evidenced by the
8.
wider spread of the curves, the maximum responses at res-
onances do not seem to be too sensitive to values of P/Py.
7.
;i ill
For design purposes, in addition to obtaining information
on the maximum response characteristics of the frames, it

I .il
:.r
:

is of interest to have knowledge of the magnitude of base
! :| ;
t: i -/t :
shear generated and the amount of energy dissipated by the"
E 4 ; ,,'~ : frames. Maximum base shear curves for three frames using
i:; ~ " three different connection types with two different values
,./...~/ t. ~,,
of P/Py and ~"= 0.05 are shown in Figure 13. The maximum
2
,.,...~" ,., ...:,, base shear V,,,,~, normalized by the peak amplitude of the
1
harmonic forcing function p , = 0.2 mg, is plotted against
the forcing frequency to. The dependence of the maximum
O. base shear on to is again noted. Although Vm,, always
20 4(} 60 80 100 120 140
Fomln F r e q u e n c Y , {rad/tec) attains a peak value at resonance regardless of frame stiff-
ness and the value of P/Py, the maximum base shear gener-
Figure 11 D i s p l a c e m e n t r e s p o n s e c u r v e s o f a s e m i r i g i d f r a m e
w i t h single w e b a n g l e s (,; = 0.05)
ated by the dynamic load in a semirigid frame can be
smaller or larger than that generated in a rigid frame,
depending on the range of forcing frequency This obser-
figure is defined as the ratio of the maximum displacement vation on the frequency dependence characteristic of V,......
u.... experienced by the frame to the static displacement explains why contradictory remarks were made by Nader
us, = polk = 0.2 mglk of the frame. Two observations can and Astenah 9 who indicated that the magnitude of base
be obtained from the figure: firstly, Ra is frequency depen- shear would reduce as frame stiffness decreased and Siva-
dent. Ra for a semirigid frame can be smaller or larger than kumaran 8 who indicated to the contrary. If one refers to
that of a rigid frame, depending on the range of forcing Figure 13, it can be seen that V,,,x does reduce for the more
frequency to. For instance, if to is higher than 56 rad/s, Ra flexible frames in the high frequency range, but it increases
for the semirigid frame with single web angle connections in the low frequency range.
is less than that for the rigid frame. However, the reverse To investigate the effect of damping on the forced
is true if to is lower than 56 rad/s. Secondly, at resonance, vibration response of the frames, the displacement response
the maximum Ra as shown by the peak of each curve for curves and the maximum base shear curves are generated
a semirigid frame is only slightly higher than that for a for two frames using two different values of damping ratio
rigid frame (even though the maximum displacement u ..... ~'. The results are shown in Figures 14 and 15. As expected,
for the semirigid frame can be much higher because k is the increase in damping causes the responses to be muted.
smaller). Similar observations are noted when one plots the The amount of reduction in the responses seems to be a
velocity response factor Rv = [~m~J(pSkm) and the acceler- function of ff only, and appears neither to be affected by
ation response factor R, = iimoJ(polm ) for the frames as a connection flexibility nor by P-6 effects.
function of the forcing frequency w. In Figure 16 the amount of energy dissipated by the vis-
The maximum displacement response curves generated cous dampers of the three frames used in generating the
with the presence of gravity loads are shown in Figure 11 base shear curves of Figure 13 over a period of 2 s is plot-
for a semirigid frame with single web angle connections ted as a function of the forcing frequency to. The energy
and in Figure 12 for a corresponding rigid frame. The is calculated using the equation
dependency of the response on the forcing frequency is
apparent. Depending on the frequency of the applied force,
the response may be less or more severe for a given P/p,,. E= fce,du= fca=dt- ca=at (25)

/I!
9
9- .... si~= ~ ~ (p~po)
:: I' J
.... s~g~, ~ .~ (PtP,po.e)
8 :: !1:; r
8- Ii i . : I I --- Top and Seat Ai'tgle ( p / P ~ }
. !. j
I I t , . . . . . . Top and ,Seat Angle (P/Py~0.6)
' 7 : t I 1 Rigid (P/l~f'~,O)
7.
- - Rigk~(Pmy=o.s)

6-

!i ! I/ ~ ,i/~ :'I~ / i / t
!4
m
\ 1, 4- \
i ;v ,'Yl
3-
/
, ;...~,,
! ,,,,
,. , \,,, ~
2,

i J i i i i ~ , i
.......... : ~ ~
40 tl0 80 100 120 140 180 1~ 200 I
Forcing Frequency,e (tad/No) 20 40 60 80 100 120 160

FofcJ~g Fr~lU~Cy, e (~d/n)


Figure 12 D i s p l a c e m e n t r e s p o n s e c u r v e s o f a rigid f r a m e (~ =
0.05) Figure 13 B a s e s h e a r response curves (~ = 0 . 0 5 )
Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes 651

t - - Rigid (PIP~,0. damm~g-5% o~c~lcal) amount of energy dissipated by the semirigid frames at res-
- - Rlgld {P/Pp0. dampmg-lO% ~~ ) onance increases with decreasing frame stiffness. This
'l -- - Single We~ Angle (P/Py=0.6. dampk~5% of dtCal)
increase in viscous energy dissipation is attributed to the
:! higher velocity /~ experienced by the more flexible frames
at resonance.
i:
7. Analysis results: earthquake responses
The earthquake used for the spectral analyses to be
presented in this section is the 1971 San Fernando earth-
quake in California. The quake lasted 41.73 s and measures
6.6 on the Richter scale. The ground accelerogram used is
the $74W component measured at the Pacoima Dam. The
1
peak acceleration Ugm~x, peak velocity/tg m~, and peak dis-
0
placement Ugmo~ were measured to be 1054.94 cm/s 2, -
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 20O 57.74 cm/s and -10.82 cm, respectively. Substituting AF =
Forcing Frequency,~ (nld/l~)
- mAUl, where AU~ is the incremental ground acceleration
Figure 14 Effect of damping on displacement response curves measured over a time step of At, into equation (23) and
performing a series of time-history analyses on a variety
r
of frames with varying member lengths, member sizes and
connection types, spectral response curves for maximum
displacements, maximum velocity, maximum acceleration,
maximum base shear and total energy dissipation can be
obtained. Some representative results are shown in Figures
17-21 for two values of P/Py (P/Py = 0 and P/Py = 0.6).
Because of the presence of nonlinearities, the stiffnesses of
the frames are not constants and so the natural periods T,,
change throughout the course of the analyses. The natural
periods used in the abscissas of the spectral graphs were
calculated based on the initial frame stiffnesses. Figures
17-19 show the response spectra for maximum displace-
ments, velocities and accelerations of the frames, nor-
malized by the respective measured peak displacement,
peak velocity and peak acceleration of the ground motion.
20 40 60 8O 100 120 140 160 IB0 2OO
Figure 20 shows the response spectrum for the maximum
Fon:lng Friqulncy, i (rid/tic) base shear, normalized by the peak ground excitation force
miig . . . . and Figure 21 show the response spectrum for the
Figure 15 Effect of damping o n base shear r e s p o n s e c u r v e s
energy dissipated by the frames for the entire duration of
0.7-
the quake. An interesting observation one can obtain from
these figures is that the response spectra for semirigid
' - - - S'mg~ Web ~ (Pmy,,o) frames with or without the presence of P-delta effect are
o.6 ~ .... ~r~ ~ A , ~ p~,y-o.s)
very similar to the response spectra for rigid frames with
i! - - - re, ..d s . ~ , ~ , p~po)
05 ! ,, , . ..... Topa,~ S ~ ~ (P~,-O.~)
or without the presence of the P-delta effect. The same
i; ~ Rigid(Pray-o)
I! ~ --R~I P/l~tIO.6) 2.5-
I II .;

0.4 .
: i I : iT

,z ! ii:i,t
i~ 0.3 . I : I I
2 - - Rigid (p/Py-0)

: ; i :,
0.2 : iI
I h I
: i+ :i J. !
.' :. I'
. 4{ I I i~ l.S. I i
o.1 ; I i'll',
"
i~,: : " ;
\ \
? .~ / .'" .~."
"~s ," " K " t \ , \ \
o. _.... _...... <
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Forcing Frequency, ~ (rod/No)

Figure 16 E n e r g y r e s p o n s e c u r v e s (~ = 0.05) 0.] I i


where c is the damping, ~ is the velocity and At is the
analysis time step. It should be mentioned that since a con-
stant damping ratio ~" = c/2mw,, = 0.05 is used for all the
frames, the amount of damping c is lower for the more 2 4 6 5 10

InlUal Period, T .
flexible frames because the natural frequencies ~o, are
smaller for these frames. Despite smaller damping, the Figure 17 Displacement r e s p o n s e s p e c t r a (,=r= 0.05)
652 Dynamic analysis and response o f semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes

...... Top & Seat Angle with Web Cleats (PIPy=0)

.... Top & Seat Angle with Web Cleats (PfPy=0.6)

2'T t .... ' Rigid {P/Py=0)


t I!,1, / - - - Rigid (P/Py=0.6)

I .t.I

0.5 1

0 t ~ 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Initial Period, T. Initial Period, r .

Figure 18 V e l o c i t y r e s p o n s e spectra (~ = 0.05) Figure 21 Energy response spectra (~ = 0.05)

observation was obtained when another earthquake having


...... Top & Seat Angle with Web Cleat= (P/Py=0) different frequency content, magnitude and duration was
2.5 .... Top & Seat Angle with Web Cleat= (P/Py=0.6) I used in the analyses v). This observation suggests that
- - Rigid (P/P~0) despite the presence of connection flexibility and P-delta
- - - - - - Rigid (P/Py=0.6 l
effects which unquestionably change the system character-
istics, one can still use the response spectrum method
developed for rigid frames to design semirigid frames pro-
vided that the natural periods of these semirigid frames can
i
:~" 1.5 be estimated correctly. In what follows, a simple equation
which enables a designer to estimate the natural periods of
semirigid frames shown in Figure 1 with or without P-delta
effect will be presented.

0.5 8. Natural period estimation


Consider a free body diagram of column AB shown in Fig-
ure 22, equilibrium of the column requires that
0 ' P
0 2 4 6 8 10

Initial Period, T. M~,} + M(~ - VL,.- p A = 0 (26)


Figure 19 A c c e l e r a t i o n r e s p o n s e spectra (~" = 0.05)
from which the lateral column stiffness can be written as

V M+M,U P
kl'''''''~ - - (27)
...... Top & S e a t Angle ~ V~b Cleat= (P/tin/=0) A L,.A L,
2.5
i .... Top & Seat Angle wi~ Web Cleat= (P/Py=0.6)

- - Rigid (PfPy=0)
The column end moments M 2 and M(! can be expressed
in terms of the column end displacements by extracting the
i
'Jl
- - - - - Rigid (P/Py=0,6]
third and sixth equations from the column stiffness relation-
ship given in equation (6). Using the kinematic conditions
3
=="
02,. = d3 = 0 and A = d 4 - dl, one obtains
E 1.5
!
M,a+Mff 6rEl'A (24a2 ~)
- + &4 (28)
L, \L,
J"l

An expression for the quantity ~ / A in the above equation


0.5
can be obtained by using the condition of joint equilibrium
at B. From Figure 23, it can be seen that joint equilibrium
requires that

2 4 6 8 M,(~ + M~ = 0 (29)
InlUat Period, T n

Ffgure 20 Base s h e a r r e s p o n s e spectra (~" = 0.05) Substituting the sixth equation from equation (6) for M,u
Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes 653

P Finally, upon substitution of equation (31) into equation


(28), with 4,4 ~ 1 for small axial force, and then into equ-
ation (27), the lateral column stiffness can be expressed as

V B---
k~ateral ~ 1.kshear

1 lt, Lc 2 4
"r I,. Lh 1 + 6Elh
L,,R,] +

(32)
Lc
where k~he,~r = 12EIc/L 3 is the lateral column stiffness of a
conventional shear frame (i.e., a frame with very stiff
beams and rigid connections). The term in brackets is a
stiffness reduction factor to account for the effect of beam
and connection flexibilities and the term P/L,. is a stiffness
reduction factor to account for the effect of frame insta-
bility.
V 4 By following the same procedure, a similar expression
can be obtained for the lateral stiffness of column CD. The
'-JMg I lateral frame stiffness can thus be obtained by summing
equation (32) for all columns of the storey. Once the lateral
P frame stiffness is evaluated, the frame period can be calcu-
I_ A _l lated from the equation
i - i

Figure22 Free body diagram of column AB


T. = 2 7 " g ktfaer,,t (33)

The validity of equation (33) is demonstrated in Table


4 in which initial frame periods (periods calculated based
on initial frame stiffnesses) obtained from computer analy-
ses of the frame with connection properties given in Table
1 and member and material properties given in Table 2 are
Figuro23 Free body diagram of joint B
compared to those calculated from equation (33) for P/Py
= 0, 0.3 and 0.6. Good correlations are observed. The slight
and making use of the third and sixth equations from equ-
underestimation of T,, by equation (33) is due to the
ation (2), one obtains after some rearrangements and sim-
assumption that 4)2 ~ 4)3 ~ 4)4 ~ 1. This error increases as
plifications
the column axial force P increases. However, even for the
case when P/Py is relatively high, the error is well within
-6+2rElc design limits and should not pose significant problems in
L~ design.
(30)

+ 4~3~EI,.
- -
L~. 9. Conclusions
+ L,,R~/- ~t~" A computer semirigid frame model was developed and used
to study the dynamic response of semirigid frames sub-
where MClMg is the ratio of the moments at the two ends jected to combined gravity and lateral loads. The model
of the boam. The above equation can be further simplified if incorporates connection flexibility, P-delta and column
we assume the connections have attained their shakedown inelasticity effects into the analyses. Connections were
stiffness so that R~ = Rk and that the beam bends in near modelled as springs with bilinear kinematic hardening hys-
double curvature so that M~/Mg -~ 1, and that the axial teretic characteristic. The P-delta effect was accounted for
force in the column is small enough so that q52 ~ 4,3 ~ i. by the use of stability functions in a beam-column formu-
Equation (30) can now be written as lation. Column inelasticity was incorporated through the
use of the tangent modulus concept. Dynamic analyses
-6TEIc were performed for free vibration, forced vibration and
earthquake excitation. Based on these analyses, the follow-
(31) ing conclusions can be drawn.
The effects of semirigidity, geometrical nonlinearity and
E!h 6 4rEL.
column inelasticity are to increase the natural period of
k + Lc vibration of the frame. This increase in frame period may
Lh 1 + L~J
be beneficial if the period falls within the range in the
654 Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes
Table 4 Comparison of frame periods

Connection T~ (P/Pv = O) (s) Tn (P/Pv : 0.3) (s) T. (P/Pv = 0.6) (s)

Computer Equation Computer Equation Computer Equation


(33) (33) (33)

Single web angle 0.142 0.142 0.160 0.156 0.211 0.198


Double web angle 0.132 0.132 0.146 0.143 0.182 0.174
Header plate 0.119 0.119 0.129 0.127 0.153 0.149
Top and seat angle 0.106 0.106 0.112 0.111 0.129 0.127
Top and seat angle with web cleats 0.105 0.105 0.111 0.110 0.128 0.125
Exended end plate 0.096 0.096 0.101 0.100 0.115 0.114
Rigid 0.084 0.084 0.087 0.087 0.099 0.098

design spectra in which design seismic forces decrease with References


increasing periods. Nevertheless, this potential beneficial
1 Bjorhovde, R., Colson. A. and Brozzetti, J. ~A classification system
effect can be realized only if instability failure is precluded.
for beam to column connections', ASCE, J. Struct. Engng 1990, 116,
For a given damping ratio ~', the time required for a semi- 3059-3076
rigid frame to cease vibration is longer than that of its rigid 2 Eurocode 3, 'Design of steel structures: part 1 - general rules and
counterpart. On the other hand, for a given magnitude of rules for buildings', European Community, Brussels, Belgium, 1990
damping c, the number of cycles required for a semirigid 3 Narayanan, R. (Ed.) Steel framed structures: stability and strength,
Elsevier, UK, 1985
frame to cease vibration is less than that of its rigid counter- 4 Chen, W. F. (Ed.) Joint flexibility in steel .[?ames, Elsevier, New
part. York, 1987
The presence of semirigidity, geometrical nonlinearity 5 Chen, W. F. (Ed.) Steel beam-to-column building connections, Elsev-
and column inelasticity is to shift the response curves ier, New York, 1988
6 Lorenz, R. F., Kato, B. and Chen, W. F. (Eds) Semi-rigid connections
toward the low frequency range. For a given forcing fre-
in steel frumes, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
quency, the response of a semirigid frame may or may not McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993
be more severe than that of its rigid counterpart. The 7 Chert, W. F., Goto, Y, and Liew, R. Stability design o[' semi-rigid
response is therefore frequency dependent. An increase in .fi-ames, Wiley. New York, 1996
damping ratio ~ will muffle frame response. This reduction 8 Sivakumaran, K. S.. "Seisnfic response of multi-storey steel buildings
with flexible connections ", Engng Struct. 1988, 10, 239 248
in response appears to be a function of ~"only and seems 9 Nader, M. N. and Astaneh, A. 'Dynamic behavior of flexible, semi-
to be affected neither by semirigidity nor by geometrical rigid and rigid steel frames', J. Constr. Streel Res. 1991, 18, 179-192
nonlinearity. 10 Guh, T. J., Astaneb, A., Harriott, J. D. and Youssef. N. 'A compara-
Earthquake response spectra for semirigid frames and tive study of the seismic performance of steel structures with semi-
rigid joints', Proc. ASCE Structures Congress '91, New York, 1991,
rigid frames with or without P-delta effect are quite compa-
pp 271-274
rable indicating that the response spectrum method used for 11 Harsoyo, Gerstle, K. H. and Shing, P. B. 'Earthquake safety of flexi-
the design of rigid frames can also be used for the design bly-connected steel frames', Proc. ASCE Structures Congress '91,
of semirigid frames provided that the natural periods of the New York, 1991, pp 275 278
semirigid frames can be estimated correctly. A simple for- 12 Chan, S. L. "Vibration and modal analysis of steel frames with senti-
rigid connections', Engng Struct. 1994, 16(1), 25-31
mula by which natural periods of semirigid frames can be 13 Leon, R. T. and Shin, K.-J. 'Pedbrmance of semi-rigid frames', Proc.
estimated was presented to facilitate the design of such ASCE Structures Congress XIH, New York, 1995, pp 1020-1035
frames. 14 Zhu, K. AI-Bermani, F, G. A., Kitipornchai, S. and Li, B. 'Dynamic
Investigations are currently underway to study the effects response of llexibly jointed frames', Engng Struct. 1995, 17(1),
575-580
of semirigidity, geometrical and material nonlinearities on
15 Chen, W. F. and Lui E. M. Stability design o# steel fi'umes, CRC
the response of multistorey building frames. The results of Press. Boca Raton, FL, 1991
this study will be presented in a future paper. 16 'Load and resistance factor design specification lk)r structural steel
buildings', American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL,
1993
17 Kishi, N. and Cben, W. F. ~Data base of steel beam-to-column con-
Acknowledgment nections', Structural Engineering Report STR-86-26, School of Civil
Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 1986
The work reported in this paper was made possible by the 18 Berg, G. V. Elements of structural dynamics, Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ, 1989
financial, technical and administrative support provided by 19 Lui, E. M., Shao, Y. and Liang H. 'Stability analysis of semi-rigid
Mr Daniel P. K. Tam. This generous support is much frames under seismic excitation'. Proc. SSRC 5th Int. Coll.,
appreciated. Bethlehem PA, 1996, pp 395-404