Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441

Seismic analysis and response of multistory semirigid frames

J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui *
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA

Received 12 August 1997; received in revised form 17 October 1997

Abstract

The responses of multistory flexibly connected frames subjected to earthquake excitations are studied using a computer model.
The model incorporates connection flexibility as well as geometrical and material nonlinearities in the analyses. Connections are
modeled as rotational springs with bilinear hysteretic moment–rotation relationships. Geometrical nonlinearities in the form of
member and frame P-delta effects are considered by the use of stability functions in a stiffness formulation. Material nonlinearity
in the form of column inelasticity is accounted for by the use of the tangent modulus concept. Response characteristics of two
multistory frames with three connection types (rigid, semirigid and flexible) subjected to two earthquakes are studied with reference
to their modal response attributes. The study indicates that connection flexibility tends to increase upper stories’ interstory drifts
but reduce base shears and base overturning moments for multistory frames. Connection flexibility also causes the frame periods
to spread over a wider spectrum and increases the importance of higher mode contributions to structural response. When the
Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) rule of spectral analysis is applied to flexibly connected frames, it is found that noticeable
errors may be produced.  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flexibly connected frames; Modal responses; Seismic analysis; Semirigid connections

1. Introduction stiffness moment connections may not be the best option

When properly designed, steel frames are very
efficient in resisting forces generated from ground
motion because of their ability to dissipate seismic
energy through large inelastic deformation and damping.
For this reason, steel is often used for buildings in seis-
mically active regions.
The dynamic behavior of multistory steel frames
under earthquake excitations has been the subject of
intense research for decades. The results of these studies
have been assimilated into various codified analysis and
design procedures [1,2]. One assumption that was used
quite often in these studies was that the beam-to-column
connections were rigid. The rigid connection assumption
is merely an idealization of actual behavior. Most con-
nections, including the so-called fully restrained (FR) or
moment connections, exhibit some degrees of flexibility
that, if ignored, may incur noticeable errors in frame
response. More importantly, the use of full strength high
* Corresponding author. Tel: 001 315 443 3394; Fax: 001 315
443 1243.
in seismic application. This is evident in the Northridge
earthquake, in which a number of moment connections
failed (mostly by fracture at or near the tension
flange/column face region).
In recent years, tremendous interest has been gener-
ated in the study of the dynamic behavior of frames with
nonrigid connections. Such frames, often referred to as
partially restrained (PR), semirigid, or flexible frames,
have been shown to exhibit behavior that is quite differ-
ent from that of their rigid counterparts. Over the years,
analytical and experimental studies have been reported
in the literature on the dynamic behavior of flexibly con-
nected steel frames. The analytical studies [3–10] have
demonstrated that connection flexibility tends to reduce
frame stiffness and thus increase the vibration period of
the frame. Because the dynamic properties of the frame
are altered when the flexibility effect of the connections
is considered in the analysis, the dynamic behavior of
the frame will be different from that of a rigid frame.
Flexibly connected frames often experience larger
interstory drifts but smaller base shears when subjected
to dynamic loadings, although this behavior has been
demonstrated to be frequency dependent [9,10]. Flexibly

0141-0296/99/$—see front matter  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 2 1 0 - 1
426 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441

connected frames have also been shown [10] to be more
sensitive to P-delta effect. Experimental studies [11–15]
on flexibly connected frames have demonstrated that
properly designed semirigid connections can exhibit
reliable hysterectic responses, thus making flexibly con-
nected frames suitable candidates for use in seismic
application.
In this paper, the results of a numerical study on the
responses of multistory flexibly connected frames sub-
jected to earthquake excitations will be presented. A
modal analysis procedure will be used for the study, and
the responses of the frames will be assessed by examin-
ing their modal responses. In a modal analysis, the total
response of a system is obtained by a linear combination
of the system modal responses. Modal analysis will yield
accurate results if the system behaves in a linearly elastic
fashion and when sufficient number of modes are
included in the analysis. While modal analysis has suc-
cessfully been applied to obtain responses for classically
damped multidegree of freedom (MDOF) linear systems
under various forms of excitations, the applicability of
the method to evaluating the seismic responses of multi-
2. Structure model
The structures used in the present study are single bay
multistory flexibly connected frames. The structure stiff-
ness matrix is obtained by assembling column and beam
element stiffness matrices to be discussed in the follow-
ing sections. The effects of member/frame instability
(i.e. the P-delta effects) and column inelasticity are
incorporated in the column stiffness matrix through the
use of stability functions and the tangent modulus con-
cept, respectively. The effect of connection flexibility is
incorporated in the beam stiffness matrix through the use
of spring elements located at the beam’s ends.
2.1. Column model
The column model is shown in Fig. 1. It is a 4-DOF
prismatic beam–column element. The stiffness matrix
that relates the nodal displacements dc = {d1d2d3d4}T to
the nodal forces rc = {r1r2r3r4}T is given by [17]
 12 6 12 6 

 
story flexibly connected steel frames, which often exhibit 2
⌽1 − ⌽2 − 2 ⌽1 − ⌽2
Lc Lc Lc Lc
nonlinear behavior, has not been demonstrated. In the
6
present study, a modified form of the modal analysis pro- ␶EIc 4⌽3 ⌽ 2⌽4
cedure is introduced for evaluating the seismic responses Kc =  Lc 2  (1)

 
Lc
of two multistory frames considering connection flexi- 12 6
bility. The connections are modeled as rotational springs ⌽ ⌽
L2c 1 Lc 2
that exhibit a bilinear moment–rotation behavior. The
flexibility effect of the connection is incorporated in the  Sym. 4⌽3 
analysis by introducing a fictitious force vector to the
equations of motion. where E is the elastic modulus, Ic and Lc are the moment
In addition to accounting for connection flexibility, the of inertia and length of the column, respectively. ⌽1, ⌽2,
⌽3, and ⌽4 are stability functions that account for the
analysis takes into consideration geometrical and
presence of an axial force (and thus the P-delta effects)
material nonlinearities. Geometrical nonlinearities in the
in the member. For a compressive axial force P these
form of P-delta effects are accounted for by the use of
functions are given by
stability functions in a stiffness formulation, and material
nonlinearity in the form of column inelasticity is con-
sidered through the use of the tangent modulus concept.
A Mathcad [16] computer program has been
developed to perform the aforementioned modal analy-
sis. The program generates the responses in all modes for
different response quantities (roof displacements, base
shear, base overturning moment, etc.). One objective of
the present study is to determine the minimum number
of modes that is needed to yield accurate responses for
flexibly connected frames. Another objective of the
study is to investigate the degree to which higher modes
contribute to the responses. A third objective is to inves-
tigate the applicability of the Complete Quadratic Com-
bination (CQC) rule of spectral analysis to flexibly con-
nected frames.

Fig. 1. Four degrees of freedom column model.

 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441 427

(kLc)3sinkLc elements. The stiffness matrix that relates the nodal dis-
⌽1 = (2) placements db = {d1d2}T to the nodal forces rb = {r1r2}T
12⌽c
is given by [17]
(kLc)2(1 − coskLc)

冋 册
⌽2 = (3)
6⌽c EIb s*ii s*ij
Kb = (9)
Lb s*ij s*jj
kLc(sinkLc − kLccoskLc)
⌽3 = (4)
4⌽c
where
kLc(kLc − sinkLc)
⌽4 = (5) 12EIb
2⌽c 4+
LbRBk
s*ii =
冉 冊冉 冊 冉 冊
in which 2
(10)
4EIb 4EIb EIb 4
1+ 1+ −
⌽c = 2 − 2coskLc − kLcsinkLc LbRAk B A B
(6) LbRk Lb Rk Rk

冪␶EI
P 2
s*ij =
冉 冊冉 冊 冉 冊
k= (7) 2
(11)
c 4EIb 4EIb EIb 4
1+ 1+ −
LbRAk LbRBk Lb RAkRBk
The stability functions take a slightly different form if
the column axial force is tensile. However, these func-
tions are not shown here because no column in the 12EIb
4+
present study experiences a tensile axial force. LbRAk
s*jj =
冉 冊冉 冊 冉 冊
(12)
The quantity ␶ in Eqs. (1) and (7) accounts for inelas- 4EIb 4EIb EIb 2
4
ticity in the column. It is taken as the ratio of the tangent 1+ 1+ −
LbRAk LbRkB
Lb A B
Rk Rk
modulus Et to the elastic modulus E obtained by dividing
the AISC-LRFD [18] inelastic column curve by the elas- where E is the elastic modulus, Ib and Lb are the moment
tic column curve of inertia and length of the beam, respectively. RAk and
RBk are the instantaneous stiffness of the connections at

冦
P the A and B ends of the beam, respectively. Values of
1, if ⱕ 0.39
Et Py RAk and RBk are to be obtained from the hysterectic con-
␶= =
冉冊
(8) nection model to be discussed in the following section.
E P P P
− 2.724 ln , if > 0.39 For the present study, axial deformations in the col-
Py Py Py
umns and beams are neglected because these defor-
mations are small compared to the bending defor-
where Py is the yield load of the column. The tangent mations. As a result, the column model consists of only
modulus concept is a simple method to account for lateral translational and rotational degrees of freedom,
yielding in the column. The method works well, pro- and the beam model consists of only rotational degrees
vided that no plastic hinge forms in the column. From a of freedom.
physical standpoint, the term ␶EIc represents the inelastic
flexural rigidity of the column that is available to carry
2.3. Connection model
moment generated by any lateral load, following the full
application of the gravity loads.
Despite the usual assumption of fully rigid or ideally
2.2. Beam model pinned, connections in reality are neither rigid nor
pinned. All connections experience some types of defor-
The beam model is shown in Fig. 2. It is a hybrid mations when subjected to forces and moments. In gen-
element consisting of a flexural element and two spring eral, most connections can transfer axial forces, shears
and moments. However, for practical purposes only
bending deformation is considered because it is the pre-
dominant deformation for ordinary beam-to-column con-
nections.
Connection moment–rotation curves that relate bend-
ing moments to rotations are usually obtained from
experiments. Numerous curves have been generated and
documented [19–21]. These curves are nonlinear from
Fig. 2. Two degrees of freedom beam model. the beginning of the loading to the end. In order to incor-
428 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441

porate the effect of connection flexibility in the analysis,

the connection is modeled as a rotational spring. The
stiffness of the spring is equal to the slope of the
moment–rotation curve of the particular connection. In
the present study, a bilinear hysterectic relationship is
assumed for the spring.
This bilinear connection model requires three para-
meters to define its moment–rotation behavior: the elas-
tic connection stiffness Rki, the strain hardening connec-
tion stiffness Rkp, and the bound slope moment Mbound.
The connection model is shown in Fig. 3.
Due to the dynamic nature of the applied forces, the
moment and rotation experienced by the spring change
constantly. When the moment is within the envelope—
shown as the dotted lines—the connection stiffness Rki
is used. If the moment goes beyond the envelope, the Fig. 4. Multistory flexibly connected frame model.
stiffness Rkp is used. The slope of the moment envelope

冋 册 冋 册冋 册
is equal to Rkp and it intersects the ordinate at Mbound.
F(t) ktt ktr ut
= (13)
2.4. Structure stiffness and static condensation 0 krt krr ur

The structure stiffness matrix is obtained by assemb- where ut is an N ⫻ 1 vector containing the translational
ling the column and beam stiffness matrices described DOFs and ur is a 2N ⫻ 1 vector containing the rotational
above according to conventional stiffness matrix analy- DOFs; one obtains after expanding Eq. (13) the follow-
sis procedure. For an N-story one-bay frame, the system ing two equations:
stiffness matrix so assembled is of size 3N ⫻ 3N as
shown in Fig. 4. F(t) = kttut + ktrur (14)
To simplify the analysis, the number of degrees of
freedom (DOF) of the frame is to be reduced by stati- 0 = krtut + krrur (15)
cally condensing out the rotational DOFs and retaining
only the translational DOFs. This can be done readily in Solving Eq. (15) for ur and substituting the result into
the context of a dynamic analysis if a lumped mass Eq. (14), one obtains
model is used and the inertia forces associated with the
rotational DOFs are neglected. With reference to Fig. 4, F(t) = kut (16)
if the translational DOF and rotational DOF are separ-
ated and partitioned as follows where

k = ktt − ktrk−1
rr krt (17)

is the N ⫻ N condensed structure stiffness matrix relat-

ing the translational displacements to the applied story
lateral forces. Once the story translational displacements
ut are calculated, Eq. (15) can be used to recover the
rotational DOFs ur, and the member forces (shear and
moments) can then be evaluated.

3. Method of analysis

The dynamic response of the multistory frame shown

in Fig. 4 assuming viscous damping is governed by the
following matrix equation of motion:

mü + cu̇ + ku = F(t) (18)

Fig. 3. Bilinear hysterectic connection model. in which m, c, and k are the N ⫻ N mass, damping and
 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441
(statically condensed) stiffness matrices, respectively,
and ü, u̇ , and u are the N ⫻ 1 acceleration, velocity,
and displacement vectors, respectively. The vector F(t)
contains the N ⫻ 1 vector of excitation forces expressed
as a function of time. If the excitation is due to ground
motion, F(t) = − m␫üg , where ␫ is an N ⫻ 1 unit vector
and üg is the ground acceleration.
Although the mass matrix in Eq. (18) is a diagonal
matrix in accordance with the lumped mass model used
in the present analysis, both the damping and stiffness
matrices include off-diagonal terms. This means Eq. (18)
is a set of N coupled equations for the N-story frame.
Eq. (18) can be solved using various explicit and implicit
numerical integration schemes [22,23]. Nevertheless, the
method of modal analysis is used here. Modal analysis
allows us to gain better insight into the system response
by examining the system’s modal responses. Further-
more, modal analysis facilitates the application of codi-
fied spectral analysis and design techniques to the prob-
lem at hand. Because modal analysis makes use of the
principle of superposition, in a strict sense it is appli-
cable only to linearly elastic systems. Since the system
to be analyzed is nonlinear, a modified form of modal
analysis is employed here. In this modified form, the
effect of nonlinearity is accounted for by subjecting the
system to a set of fictitious forces. This method of modal
analysis has been successfully applied to solve dynamic
problems involving geometrical nonlinearity [24] and
material nonlinearity [25,26]. The method is now
extended to cover the effect of connection flexibility.
Because of the presence of nonlinearities and connec-
tion flexibility, the stiffness matrix k in Eq. (18) is not
a constant. To incorporate this change of frame stiffness
into the analysis, Eq. (18) is rewritten as
mü + cu̇ + kinitu = F(t) + (kinit − kinst)u (19)
where kinit = initial stiffness formulated using the initial
stiffness properties of the frame, and kinst = instan-
taneous stiffness incorporating any nonlinear and con-
nection flexibility effects. In Eq. (19), the last term (kinit
− kinst)u represents the fictitious force vector. This vector
vanishes if the frame remains linearly elastic resulting
in no change in frame stiffness, i.e. if kinit = kinst. The
advantage of using a fictitious force vector to handle
nonlinear effects is apparent when one applies the usual
modal transformation technique to Eq. (19). Because m,
c and kinit on the left side of the equation are all con-
stants, the analysis can be carried out by using the initial
dynamic properties of the frame.
It should be noted that the fictitious force vector in
Eq. (19) is not known a priori because u is an unknown
and kinst is a function of u. One approach is to formulate
the fictitious force vector based on information obtained
from a previous cycle of analysis, and iterate until con-
vergence. Also, Eq. (19) is often solved in an incremen-
429
tal form. For each time step, incremental displacements
⌬u are solved and cumulate to obtain the total displace-
ments.
If we express the incremental displacements as
⌬u = ⌽⌬q (20)
where ⌽ is an N ⫻ N modal matrix and ⌬q is an N ⫻
1 vector of incremental generalized displacements, Eq.
(19) can be transformed to a set of N modal equations
of the form
⌽Tn
⌬q̈n + 2␰n␻n⌬q̇n + ␻2n⌬qn = ⌬Feff(t)
M
n = 1,2,…,N (21)
where ␰n and ␻n are the damping ratio and natural fre-
quency of mode n, M = ⌽Tm⌽ is the modal mass matrix,
and ⌬Feff(t) = ⌬F(t) + (kinit − kinst)⌬u is the effective
excitation force vector.
The above transformation is made possible by the
orthogonality property of the modes and by assuming
classical damping for the system. Eq. (21) can now be
solved as N single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems,
each with a damping ratio of ␰n and a natural frequency
of ␻n. For the present study, a fourth order Runge–Kutta
method is used to solve Eq. (21). Once all the modal
equations are solved, the incremental displacements can
be calculated from Eq. (20) and the total displacements
obtained from
u = Σ⌬u (22)
4. Verification studies
A Mathcad [16] computer program has been
developed to perform the above analysis. To verify the
program, two example flexibly connected frames will be
analyzed and the results compared with those in the pub-
lished literature. The first example is a portal frame
shown in Fig. 5. The frame was used by Lui and Lopes
[10] to study the dynamic and seismic responses of
frames with flexible connections. In Fig. 6 the displace-
ment response curves (Rd = umax/ustatic versus forcing fre-
quency ␻) generated using the above fictitious force pro-
cedure are compared to those reported in Ref. [10]
generated using a step-by-step nonlinear direct inte-
gration scheme. The forcing function used was F(t) =
(0.2 mg)sin␻t and the damping ratio used was ␨ = 0.05.
Three different connection types with connection para-
meters given in Table 1 were used for the comparison.
As can be seen, the results compared well with each
other.
The second example is a three-story frame shown in
430 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441

Fig. 5. Flexibly connected portal frame.

Fig. 7. The frame was used by Al-Bermani et al. [5] to

study the dynamic behavior of multistory frames sub-
jected to sinusoidal ground motions. In Fig. 8 the time–
history response of the lateral deflection for the top right
node of the frame generated using the present procedure
for a ground acceleration of üg = (0.2 g)sin␻t, a damping
ratio of ␨ = 0, and a connection with Rki = 225 ⫻
103 kNm/rad, Rkp = 0.001Rki, Mbound = 750 kNm, is com-

Fig. 6. Result comparison for the portal frame.

Table 1
Connection parameters

Connection Rigid Semirigid Flexible

Rki (kNm/rad) ⬁ 17,000 3390

Rkp (kNm/rad) ⬁ 1700 170
Mbound (kNm) 90.4 34.0
Fig. 7. Three-story flexibly connected frame.
 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441
Fig. 8. Result comparison for three-story frame.
pared to that reported in Ref. [5] using a direct inte-
gration scheme. Again, good correlation is observed.
5. Numerical studies
5.1. Dynamic properties of the study frames
Two multistory frames—a five-story and an eight-
story—will be used for the present study. For each
frame, three connection types—rigid, semirigid and
flexible—are used. The geometric properties and other
pertinent information of the frames are given in Figs. 9
and 10. The connection parameters for the three connec-
tions are listed in Table 1. A damping ratio of ␨ = 0.05
is used throughout. Two earthquake records—the San
Fernando Pacoima Dam S74W and the El Centro
S00E—are used as ground motion input. These two
earthquakes, as shown in Fig. 11, have acceleration
peaks of 1.076 g and 0.319 g, respectively. Aside from
the difference in peak ground accelerations, the two
earthquakes have noticeable differences in excitation
levels over time. As a result, more general (i.e. less
earthquake specific) observations can be made from
the study.
From an eigenvalue analysis, one obtains the frames’
natural periods and vibration modes. The natural periods
and mode shapes for the rigid, semirigid and flexible
frames are compared in Tables 2 and 3, and in Figs. 12
and 13 for the five- and eight-story frames, respectively.
For the eight-story frames, only the first six modes are
shown and compared in the figure because no noticeable
differences are observed for the last two modes. Connec-
tion flexibility noticeably increases the natural periods
of the lower modes; however, its effect on higher modes
is negligible. The net result is that the natural periods of
the flexibly connected frames are spread further apart
than their rigid counterparts. This behavior has signifi-
cant implications from a spectral analysis and design
standpoint. A wider spread of natural periods means that
the response quantities will likely be obtained from dif-
ferent regions of the response spectrum, with the higher
431
periods harnessing responses from the displacement
sensitive region of the spectrum, and the lower periods
harnessing responses from the velocity and acceleration
sensitive regions of the spectrum.
5.2. Story drifts
Fig. 14 shows the interstory drift envelopes for the
five- and eight-story frames subjected to the San Fer-
nando and El Centro quakes. It can be seen readily from
the plots that regardless of frame height and earthquake,
flexibly connected frames experience more interstory
drifts in the top stories than their rigid counterparts.
However, no definitive conclusion can be made for the
middle and lower stories. Depending on frame height,
connection type and earthquake, connection flexibility
may or may not increase interstory drifts for these sto-
ries. Nevertheless, by examining the shape of the drift
envelopes one can conclude that there is a change of
overall frame deflection from a shear mode to a bending
mode as the stiffness of the connection decreases. This
observation is consistent with the mode shapes plotted
in Figs. 12 and 13.
Although interstory drifts are higher in the upper sto-
ries for the more flexible frames, the total drifts are not
necessarily higher. This is evident in Fig. 15 in which
time–history responses of the horizontal roof displace-
ments for the five-story frame with the three connection
types subjected to the San Fernando earthquake are
shown. The maximum roof displacement, as measured
by the peak point of each curve, is higher for the rigid
frame than for the flexible frame. Unlike a static problem
in which deflection is inversely proportional to structural
stiffness, the relationship between deflection and stiff-
ness is more complex for a dynamic problem. In a
dynamic problem, the excitation force is resisted not
only by force associated with structural stiffness, but
forces associated with damping and inertia as well. A
response may be in phase or out of phase with the exci-
tation depending on the specific combination of mass,
damping, stiffness of the system and frequency of the
excitation force. At a given instant the displacement will
be exasperated if the excitation force and response are
in phase; the reverse is true if the excitation force and
response are out of phase.
5.3. Base shear
Base shear is an important parameter in seismic
design. Many seismic codes utilize the equivalent lateral
force procedure for design wherein design forces and
moments are obtained from a static analysis of the frame
subjected to a set of lateral forces expressed as a function
of the base shear. The magnitude of the design forces
and moments is in proportion to the magnitude of the
base shear. Therefore, a system with small base shear
432 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441
Fig. 9. Frame parameters for five-story frame.
can be designed more economically than a system with
large base shear.
Figs. 16 and 17 show the base shear time–history
response curves for the five-story frames subjected to the
San Fernando and the El Centro earthquakes, respect-
ively. It is clear from the figures that there is a reduction
in the maximum base shear for the flexibly connected
frames. Similar results are observed for the eight-story
frames [27]. It is important to note that base shear is not
always proportional to structural stiffness. Rather, it is
frequency dependent [5,10]. As a rough estimate, if the
frequency of the excitation force is higher than the aver-
age natural frequencies of two given systems, the
maximum base shear will be higher for the system with
the higher stiffness [10]. The opposite is true if the forc-
ing frequency is lower than the average natural fre-
quencies of the two systems. Because the excitation fre-
quencies of the earthquakes are quite high compared to
the natural frequencies of the frames, a reduction in base
shear occurs for the more flexible frames. Since base
shears (hence the design forces and moments) are lower
for the flexibly connected frames under earthquake exci-
tations, the potential for a more economical design
exists.
5.4. Modal responses and modal contributions
One objective of the present study is to examine the
seismic responses of flexibly connected frames through
their modal responses. By examining the modal
responses, one can gain important insight into the
response characteristics of the frames. Furthermore,
modal analysis is an important basis for applying many
codified spectral analysis and design techniques to seis-
mic problems.
Figs. 18–21 show the time–history modal responses
for the roof displacement, top story shear, base shear,
and base overturning moment for the eight-story semiri-
gid frame subjected to the San Fernando quake. From
these figures it can be seen that depending on the
response function, the first mode is not necessarily the
predominant mode. Also, to obtain reasonably good
results for shear and moment, often more than two
modes must be used. These observations are not earth-
 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441 433

Fig. 10. Frame parameters for eight-story frame.

quake specific. Similar observations are noted if the El
Centro quake is used as the ground excitation [27].
To further demonstrate the effect higher modes have
on the total response of flexibly connected frames, the
percent contributions from modes 2–8 for the story
shears of the rigid, semirigid and flexible eight-story
frames are plotted in Fig. 22. Two observations are
noted. First, regardless of the earthquake, higher mode
contributions become more important as the flexibility
of the frames increases. The degree to which connection
flexibility affects this contribution is, however, earth-
quake dependent. For instance, higher mode contri-
butions for the frame with semirigid connections are
more pronounced for the San Fernando quake than for
the El Centro quake. This can be explained by the fact
that the peak acceleration of the San Fernando quake is
much higher than that of El Centro, resulting in the
‘yielding’ of more connections in the frame. The semiri-
gid frame under the San Fernando quake is therefore
more flexible when compared to the frame under the El
Centro quake. Second, regardless of connection flexi-
bility, higher mode contributions to story shear are more
434 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441

Fig. 11. Earthquake records.

Fig. 12. Comparison of mode shapes for five-story frames.

 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441 435

Table 2 important for the lower and especially the upper stories
Natural periods of the five-story frames than for the middle stories. Nevertheless, this phenom-
Natural periods (sec) enon is less noticeable for the frame with flexible con-
nections. For the flexible frame, the contribution from
Mode Rigid Semirigid Flexible the first mode is very small, primarily because the
response is well into the displacement sensitive region
1 1.101 2.216 3.992 of the response spectrum (the region where the response
2 0.329 0.495 0.593
3 0.163 0.202 0.214 diminishes as the frame’s period increases).
4 0.100 0.108 0.110
5 0.067 0.069 0.069 5.5. Use of modal combination for flexibly connected
frames

In spectral analysis and design using modal combi-

Table 3 nation, the maximum response from each mode is com-
Natural periods of the eight-story frames bined using some forms of the combination rule to obtain
Natural periods (sec)
the peak response. The two most commonly used modal
combination rules are the Square Root of the Sum of
Mode Rigid Semirigid Flexible Squares (SRSS) rule and the Complete Quadratic Com-
bination (CQC) rule. Details of these rules are well docu-
1 1.370 3.109 12.365 mented in the literature [23,28,29] and will not be dis-
2 0.454 0.804 1.186
3 0.251 0.365 0.441 cussed here. The CQC rule is adopted in this study
4 0.157 0.202 0.221 because it gives better results for systems with closely
5 0.110 0.129 0.136 spaced periods. The natural periods of the higher modes
6 0.0834 0.0904 0.0927 for the study frames are spaced rather closely, as shown
7 0.0655 0.0677 0.0683 in Tables 2 and 3.
8 0.0493 0.0500 0.0503
Using the CQC rule and the Der Kiureghian corre-
lation coefficient, the peak responses obtained from

Fig. 13. Comparison of first six mode shapes for eight-story frames.
436 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441

Fig. 14. Comparison of interstory drifts for two multistory frames.

modal combination for the top story deflection (u8), top
story shear (V8), base shear (Vb), and base overturning
moment (Mb) of the eight-story frames with the three
connection types (rigid, semirigid and flexible) are com-
pared to those obtained from the time–history analyses
in Tables 4 and 5 for the San Fernando and the El Centro
quakes, respectively. Also shown in the tables are the
percent errors incurred and the maximum responses for
each mode. From the tables, it can be seen that while
the CQC method produces rather good results for the
rigid frame, relatively large errors can occur for the
semirigid and the flexible frames. The error seems to
increase with connection flexibility. The larger error for
the flexibly connected frames can be attributed to the
application of a linear combination process to a nonlin-
ear problem and that the modal equations shown in Eq.
(21) are not exactly uncoupled. The coupling occurs in
the fictitious force term. Although the errors are within
the expected errors for any modal combination method,
care must be exercised in applying the modal combi-
nation method for spectral analysis and design of flexibly
connected frames.
6. Summary and conclusions
The seismic responses of flexibly connected multi-
story frames were studied using a modified modal analy-
sis procedure wherein the nonlinear effects were incor-
porated in a fictitious force vector. The numerical
analysis procedure was implemented in a Mathcad pro-
gram and two multistory frames with three connection
 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441 437

Fig. 15. Roof displacement responses of five-story frames under San Fernando earthquake.

Fig. 16. Base shear responses for five-story frames under San Fernando earthquake.
438 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441

Fig. 17. Base shear responses for five-story frames under El Centro earthquake.

Fig. 18. Roof displacement modal contributions for eight-story semirigid frame.
 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441 439

Fig. 20. Base shear modal contributions for eight-story semirigid

frame.
Fig. 19. Top story shear modal contributions for eight-story semiri-
gid frame.

Table 4
Comparison of peak responses for the eight-story frames under San Fernando earthquake

Rigid Semirigid Flexible

Mode u8 (m) V8 (105 N) Vb (105 N) Mb u8 (m) V8 (105 N) Vb (105 N) Mb u8 (m) V8 (105 N) Vb (105 N) Mb
(MNm) (MNm) (MNm)

1 0.3281 1.830 8.816 15.33 0.1993 0.216 0.972 1.733 0.3498 0.024 0.093 0.172
2 0.0538 2.730 4.834 0.261 0.0836 1.355 2.547 0.378 0.1548 1.153 2.605 1.243
3 0.0099 1.647 2.280 0.869 0.0254 1.993 2.776 1.246 0.0363 1.958 3.096 1.342
4 0.0018 0.775 1.042 0.144 0.0036 0.928 1.611 0.348 0.0035 0.744 1.539 0.400
5 0.0005 0.424 0.599 0.128 0.0007 0.470 0.918 0.207 0.0007 0.392 0.904 0.199
6 0.0001 0.167 0.425 0.040 0.0002 0.283 0.762 0.120 0.0002 0.192 0.566 0.099
7 ⬇0 0.043 0.224 0.033 ⬇0 0.065 0.356 0.0571 ⬇0 0.043 0.257 0.041
8 ⬇0 0.003 0.213 0.031 ⬇0 0.004 0.247 0.0348 ⬇0 0.004 0.226 0.032
CQC 0.333 3.86 10.5 15.4 0.218 2.70 4.50 2.22 0.385 2.46 4.54 1.91
Actual 0.317 3.91 10.6 15.2 0.227 3.05 4.88 2.37 0.408 2.91 5.41 1.68
% error 5 −1.3 −1 1.3 −4 −11 −7.8 −6.3 −5.6 −15 −16 14
440 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441

types subjected to two earthquakes were used in the

Fig. 21. Base overturning moment modal contributions for eight-
story semirigid frame.
study. Based on the results of this study, the following
observations can be made.
The dynamic behavior of flexibly connected frames is
different from their rigid counterparts because connec-
tion flexibility tends to increase the lower mode’s
(especially the fundamental mode’s) periods, while it has
very little effect on the higher mode’s periods. The net
result is a wider spread of periods for the more flex-
ible frames.
When compared with rigidly connected frames, flexi-
bly connected frames often experience larger interstory
drifts in the upper stories. This is due to a change in the
frame deflection mode from one of shear to one of bend-
ing. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the total frame
drifts of flexibly connected frames may or may not be
larger than those of their rigid counterparts.
Under earthquake excitations, base shears are lower
for the more flexible frames. As a result, a more econ-
omical design may be possible if the effect of connection
flexibility is considered in the analysis.
If the fundamental period of a flexibly connected
frame falls well into the displacement sensitive region
of the response, there is a high likelihood that the funda-
mental mode will not be the predominant mode that gov-
erns the response of the structure. In the context of spec-
tral analysis and design this means more modes are
needed to obtain reasonably good results.
Because flexibly connected frames are likely to
experience more nonlinearity due to the presence of con-
nection flexibility and hence increased sensitivity to P-
delta effects, the application of a modal combination rule
like the CQC method which is based on linear behavior
may produce noticeable errors. Consequently, care must
be exercised in applying any linear combination method
to obtain responses for flexibly connected frames.

Fig. 22. Higher mode responses in story shear for eight-story frames.
 J.C. Awkar, E.M. Lui / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 425–441 441

Table 5
Comparison of peak responses for the eight-story semirigid frames under El Centro earthquake

Rigid Semirigid Flexible

Mode u8 (m) V8 (105 N) Vb (105 N) Mb u8 (m) V8 (105 N) Vb (105 N) Mb u8 (m) V8 (105 N) Vb (105 N) Mb
(MNm) (MNm) (MNm)

1 0.1149 0.641 3.087 5.368 0.3810 0.413 1.858 3.312 0.2797 0.019 0.074 0.139
2 0.0218 1.105 1.957 0.106 0.0605 0.981 1.844 0.273 0.0610 0.454 1.026 0.490
3 0.0039 0.643 0.889 0.339 0.0093 0.732 1.019 0.458 0.0139 0.750 1.186 0.514
4 0.0008 0.320 0.431 0.060 0.0015 0.373 0.648 0.140 0.0015 0.318 0.658 0.171
5 0.0002 0.181 0.256 0.055 0.0004 0.228 0.445 0.100 0.0003 0.193 0.444 0.098
6 ⬇0 0.0404 0.103 0.010 0.0001 0.179 0.484 0.076 0.0001 0.068 0.201 0.035
7 ⬇0 0.0106 0.068 0.009 ⬇0 0.030 0.168 0.027 ⬇0 0.013 0.096 0.014
8 ⬇0 0.0008 0.052 0.008 ⬇0 0.003 0.167 0.024 ⬇0 0.002 0.080 0.013
CQC 0.117 1.51 3.83 5.38 0.386 1.40 3.00 3.36 0.287 0.968 1.80 0.758
Actual 0.121 1.46 3.65 5.36 0.363 1.60 2.65 3.35 0.265 1.26 1.81 0.626
% error −3.3 3.4 5 0.4 6.3 −13 13 0.3 8.3 −23 −0.6 21

Acknowledgement [13] Nader MN, Astaneh A. Dynamic behavior of flexible, semirigid

The work reported in this paper was initiated by a
grant provided by Mr. Daniel P. K. Tam, whose finan-
cial, technical and administrative support is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, CA, 1997.
[2] Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings—Load and
Resistance Factor Design. American Institute of Steel Construc-
tion, Chicago, IL, 1992.
[3] Sivakumaran KS. Seismic response of multistorey steel buildings
with flexible connections. Engng Struct. 1988;10:239–48.
[4] Al-Bermani FGA, Kitipornchai S. Elastoplastic nonlinear analy-
sis of flexibly jointed space frames. J. Struct. Engng
1992;118(1):108–27.
[5] Al-Bermani FGA, Li B, Zhu K, Kitipornchai S. Cyclic and seis-
mic response of flexibly jointed frames. Engng Struct.
1994;16(9):249–55.
[6] Chan SL. Nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of space frames
with semi-rigid connections. Int. J. of Space Struct.
1993;8(4):261–9.
[7] Chan SL. Vibration and modal analysis of steel frames with semi-
rigid connections. Engng Struct. 1994;16(1):25–31.
[8] Zhu K, Al-Bermani FGA, Kitipornchai S, Li B. Dynamic
response of flexibly jointed frames. Engng Struct.
1995;17(8):575–80.
[9] Lui EM, Shao Y, Liang H. Stability analysis of semi-rigid frames
under seismic excitation. Proceedings of the 5th International
Colloquium on Stability of Metal Structures, SSRC, Bethlehem,
PA, 1996: pp. 395–404.
[10] Lui EM, Lopes A. Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid
frames. Engng Struct. 1997;19(8):644–54.
[11] Guh TJ, Astaneh A, Harriott JD, Youssef N. A comparative study
of the seismic performance of steel structures with semi-rigid
joints. Proceedings, Structures Congress ’91. Structures Con-
gress, Indianapolis, IN, 1991: pp. 271–274.
[12] Harsoyo KH, Shing PB. Earthquake safety of flexibly-connected
steel frames, Proceedings, Structures Congress ’91, Structures
Congress, Indianapolis, IN, 1991: pp. 275–278.
and rigid steel frames. J. Construct. Steel Research
1991;18:179–92.
[14] Nader MN, Astaneh A. Shaking table tests of rigid, semirigid and
flexible steel frames. J. Struct. Engng 1996;122(6):589–96.
[15] Leon RT, Shin K-J. Performance of semi-rigid frames, Proceed-
ings of Structures Congress XIII. ASCE, New York, NY, 1995:
pp. 1020–1035.
[16] Mathcad User’s Guide Mathcad 6.0 Mathcad PLUS 6.0.
Mathsoft, Cambridge, MA, 1995.
[17] Chen WF, Lui EM. Stability Design of Steel Frames. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, 1991.
[18] Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural
Steel Buildings. 2nd ed., American Institute of Steel Construc-
tion, Chicago, IL, 1993.
[19] Goverdhan AV. A collection of experimental moment–rotation
curves and evaluation of prediction equations for semi-rigid con-
nections, M.S. thesis, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 1983.
[20] Nethercot DA. Steel beam-to-column connections—a review of
test data and its applicability to the evaluation of joint behavior
in the performance of steel frames, CIRIA Project Record, RP
338, 1985.
[21] Kishi N, Chen WF. Data base of steel beam-to-column connec-
tions, Structural Engineering Report No. CE-STR-86-26, School
of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,
1986.
[22] Berg GV. Elements of Structural Dynamics. Prentice Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ, 1989.
[23] Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to
Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1995.
[24] Geschwindner LF. Nonlinear dynamic analysis by modal super-
position. J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1981;107(12):2325–36.
[25] Dungar R. An imposed force summation method for non-linear
dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1982;10:165–70.
[26] Villaverde R. Modal superposition method for seismic design of
non-linear multistorey structures. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
1988;16:691–704.
[27] Awkar JC. Seismic response analysis of multistory semi-rigid
steel frames, M.S. thesis, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY,
1997.
[28] Gupta AK. Response Spectrum Method in Seismic Analysis and
Design of Structures. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1992.
[29] Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of Structures. 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1993.