SEISMIC-RESISTANT SPECIAL

TRUSS-MOMENT FRAMES

By Subhash C. Goel, I Member, ASCE,

and Ahmad M. Itani, 2 Associate Member, ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a new design concept and procedure for seismic
resistant special truss-moment frames7which have been validated by full-scale tests
on full-span truss-column subassemblages. The new design concept results in in-
creased economy and excellent inelastic response with stable hysteretic behavior
ol the special trusses in moment frames when subjected to severe earthquake
motions. The new concept also has an added advantage that the structure can be
retrofitted after a major earthquake by simplyreplacingthe damaged web members
in the special segments of floor trusses. The proposed system is an excellent and
efficient seismic resistant framing system for building structures.

INTRODUCTION

Steel open-web truss-moment frames are often used for building struc-
tures to support gravity loads and to resist lateral forces due to wind or
earthquakes. This type of framing system has a number of advantages over
moment frames that use solid web beams, the most important one being
economy, especially for long span lengths. The truss girders require rela-
tively simple detailing for moment connections to the columns. Piping and
ductwork can be placed through web openings in truss girders, resulting in
better utilization of space and smaller story heights in many cases.
Due to lack of knowledge regarding their seismic behavior, the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) (Uniform 1988) currently permits their use as ordinary
moment resisting frames ( O M R F ) with Rw = 6, or as special moment
resisting frames (SMRF) with R~ = 12, provided inelastic activity in the
event of a severe ground motion is kept out of the trusses. The latter type
can be called a weak c o l u m n - s t r o n g girder combination, which is not con-
sidered very desirable for seismic resistance by many engineers. Also, due
to lack of knowledge regarding their seismic behavior and poor observed
performance of some building structures (which used open-web floor gird-
ers) during the 1985 Mexico City earthquake (Hanson et al. 1986), engineers
have been somewhat reluctant to use this system in either category in active
seismic regions.
An experimental and analytical investigation was carried out by the writ-
ers (Itani and Goel 1991) to study the seismic behavior of truss-moment
framing system. The objective was to evaluate the present design practice
and to develop an alternate design methodology for improving their per-
formance during severe earthquakes. In the first phase of study, several
full-size subassemblages consisting of a column and half-span floor truss
taken from a four-story study building were tested under large cyclic de-

iProf., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

2Former Doctoral Student, Dept. of Ciw Engrg., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI 48109.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 1994. Separate discussions should be
submitted for the individual papers in this symposium. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
October 13, 1992. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
120, No. 6, June, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9445/94/0006-1781/$2.00 + $.25 per
page. Paper No. 4947.
1781
J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.
 formation. The frames were designed as OMRF according to the 1988 UBC
procedure. The results showed rather poor hysteretic behavior with large
abrupt drops in strength and stiffness caused by buckling and early fractures
of diagonal web members of the truss girders. The results of this phase of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

study are discussed in the companion paper (Goel and Itani 1994).
The first phase of the program led to development of a new design con-
cept. It uses a limit state design approach and ensures ductile behavior of
the truss girders with "full" and stable hysteretic loops. The flame becomes
a "strong column-weak beam" combination. This new concept is briefly
presented in this paper. For more details reference should be made to the
original report by the writers (Itani and Goel 1991).

CONCEPT OF DUCTILE TRUSS

The plan view of the four story study building is shown in Fig. 1. This
study is concerned with seismic behavior of the building in the long direction.
The lateral seismic forces in this direction are resisted by the two perimeter
moment frames (lines A and D) only. This study focuses on the behavior
of these truss-moment frames in which the trusses primarily resist the seismic
force with relatively little gravity load, which was neglected for simplicity.
Fig. 2 shows a half truss-column subassembly of one of these frames that
was tested under reversed cyclic loading. As mentioned earlier, the frames
were designed as OMRF according to the 1988 UBC. Warren trusses were
used because of their popularity. Fig. 3 shows typical load-displacement
hysteretic loops that show large drops in load and severe degradation in
strength and stiffness. Such hysteretic behavior cannot be considered very
desirable and' leads to poor seismic response, as will be discussed later.
There are three factors that contribute to the aforementioned observed
poor hysteretic behavior. First, as the seismic shear in the truss is primarily
resisted by web members, the single diagonals used in Warren trusses are
subjected to cyclic axial tension and compression forces, u n d e r increasing
shear, as a web diagonal buckles, its strength drops in the postbuckling
range. This leads to a drop in the truss shear strength and, hence, the drop
in lateral applied force. Second, as a compression diagonal buckles, the
adjacent tension diagonal creates an unbalanced force on the chord member.

5@40'=200'

.1@

:|

:|

9 IJ !! !i I I ,|
| | | | | |
FIG. 1. Plan of Four-Story Building

1782
J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 2. Test Setup for Half Truss-Column Subassemblage

80
i

40

"13
. i
0 0

=,

-40

i
-6.0 -4.0 -2:.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
LaLeral Displacement (in)
FIG. 3, Typical HystereUc Loops with Conventional Truss

1783

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 4. Fracture of Web Member

In the absence of vertical web members, this results in "squashing" of the

truss, i.e., breakdown of the truss action and consequent loss of strength
and stiffness. Thirdly, design of OMRF does not require compact sections
for structural members. As a result, the angle sections used for diagonal
web members suffered severe cracking and fractures due to local buckling
under cyclic deformations in postbuckling range. A typical failure is shown
in Fig. 4.
Therefore, the aforementioned three factors would have to be considered
in order to improve hysteretic behavior of the trusses. Thus, single diagonals
usually made of double angle sections should be replaced with X-diagonals.
This is similar to what happens in concentric braced frames where lateral
seismic forces are mainly resisted by the braces. In order to control large
drops in lateral strength due to buckling of compression braces, the UBC
(Uniform 1988) requires that along a line of bracing not more than 70% of
the design seismic force be resisted in tension or compression alone. The
X-diagonals should be made of compact sections, such as single angles, solid
rectangular bars, or other similar sections. Additionally, vertical web mem-
bers need to be provided to resist the unbalanced force on the chord mem-
bers at points where yielding and buckling diagonals meet.
The elements just noted form the basis of design concept for ductile open
web truss girders. For use in a seismic resistant frame few such panels could
be strategically placed in a portion of the truss span. A logical place is near
the midspan, where gravity load shear is generally small. The application
of this concept in a moment frame is illustrated in Fig. 5. Under increasing
lateral forces, after the X-diagonals of the middle panels buckle and yield,
plastic hinges will form in the chord members at the ends of the middle
segment. This will be the yield mechanism for the frame, with plastic hinges
also forming at the bases of the columns if they are fixed. In order for this
yield mechanism to form it is essential that outside segments of the trusses,
1784

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 5. Yield Mechanism in New Design Concept

and the columns possess strength greater than that required to resist the
ultimate strength of the middle ductile segments.
Ultimate shear strength of the middle segment is provided by tension
yield and postbuckling compression strength of the X-diagonals, and plastic
moments in the chord members. Under severe earthquake motions the
hysteretic energy dissipation will be provided by the middle ductile seg-
ments. Inelastic activity will be confined to these segments only, while the
rest of the structure would essentially behave elastically. Thus, the concept
utilizes ductile trusses in a "strong column-weak girder" combination that
is preferred by most engineers. The design procedure will be based on limit-
state philosophy.
The concept just described is similar to that used in ductile eccentric
braced frames (EBF), where the ductility and energy dissipation are pro-
vided by web yielding of the shear links. The middle ductile segment of the
trusses can be considered as a shear link in an open web girder. In solid
web girders the shear links require eccentric braces, which are not necessary
in open-web trusses because their shear strength can be varied over the span
length as desired.

DESIGN PROCEDURE
The concept of special truss moment frames as described herein is best
suited for limit-state design procedure. The method begins by calculating
1785

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.

 lateral design forces by applicable code such as the UBC. Using appropriate
load factors, the ultimate (factored) loads are then calculated. If the Manual
of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) (1986)
is used (as was done for this study), the earthquake load combination is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

given by the following equation:

1.2DL + 0.5LL + 1.5E (1)
where DL, LL, and E = specified design dead, live, and earthquake loads,
respectively. The free body diagram of one bay of the four-story frame of
the study building subjected to factored lateral loads is shown in Fig. 6. As
mentioned earlier, the gravity loads on the trusses of exterior moment frames
in the long direction are neglected in this study. The distribution of shear
strength of special segments at various floors can be suitably assumed by
the designer. Assuming equal strength of the trusses in all bays and all
stories and neglecting the contribution of column moments at the base, the
required shear capacity, V,, of the special segments can be simply calculated
by statics as

Vu

V
U

.L
V
U

I_.,- L/2 ..~ ! i .," LI2 -.=

I~ "-I

FIG. 6. Free-Body Diagram of One Bay

1786

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.

 Fih i = ~ VuLN (2)
where Fi = factored lateral force at level i; hi = height of level i above the
base; L = span length; and N = number of bays in the frame.
Since the chord members are usually made of uniform section and their
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

plastic moment strength contributes to shear strength of the special segment,

it is more convenient to design the chord members first based on their
required axial strength at the ends. In order to obtain the desired yield
mechanism, the design concept stipulates elastic behavior for all members
(including columns) except those involved in providing the desired shear
strength of the special segments. A factor of 1.5 was considered adequate
for this purpose. Thus, the required axial strength of the chord members,
Fc, at the ends can be calculated from the following equation:
Fc- 1.5V,,L
2d (3)

where d = the depth of the truss and 1,5 is the desired overstrength factor
as mentioned earlier. The chord member section should be compact so that
it can withstand expected cyclic plastic hinge rotations at the ends of the
special segment.
The ultimate shear capacity of the special segment, Vp, is given by the
following equation:
4M,
Vp = (Py + +Pcr)Sin ~ + L---~ (4)

where Py = tension yield strength of the X-diagonals; Per = buckling strength

of the X-diagonals; qb = ratio of postbuckling to initial buckling strength
of the X-diagonals; c~ = angle of inclination of the X-diagonals with the
horizontal; Mp = plastic moment capacity of the chord members; and
L, = length of the special segment.
After designing the chord members, the design of X-diagonals can follow
by using (4). Studies (Jain and Goel 1978; Itani and Goel 1991) have shown
that the postbuckling strength, +Per, under large cyclic axial deformations
may range from 0.2 to 0.5 times the first buckling load, Pcr. A value of 0.3
was used in this study.
The length of the special segment, Ls, and the number of X-panels play
an important role on ductility demand of members of the special segment.
Shorter segment length and fewer number of X-panels would tend to in-
crease the ductility demand. A parametric study showed that a range of
0.25L-0.5L for length of the special segment should be generally satisfac-
tory.
Designing the vertical members of the special segment is a straightforward
procedure. These members are divided into two groups. The first includes
the interior vertical members in the special segment while the other group
includes those at the ends. The interior verticals can be conservatively de-
signed to resist the vertical component of tension yield force in one X-
diagonal, neglecting the postbuckling force in the compression diagonal on
the other side. Thus, the design force, F~i, for an interior vertical member
can be given by the following equation:

Fvi = 1.5Py sin a (5)

The outside verticals are designed to resist the vertical component of the
1787

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.

 Joint A

1/ M~
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

_ Mp
Mp

l- Ls= 4Lp --I

Equilibrium of Joint A

0.5 ~ Mp
Lpl I Lp

PYf -I
Mp
F= Py sina + 1.5 Lp

FIG. 7. Axial Force in Outside Vertical Member

tension yield force in the X-diagonal and shear force in the chord member
due to the plastic moment, Mp, at that location. This is shown in Fig. 7.
Thus, this force, Fro, can be calculated as
1.5Mp~
F~o = 1.5 Pysin ~ + --~--p ] (6)

where Lp = the panel length, assumed uniform.

The design force (in tension or compression) for single diagonals adjacent
1788
J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.
 Mp A

. . . .
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Equilibrium of B

0.5 Mp Mp
L! !L

PY
~Pc r Fdiagonai

0.5 MpY Y Mp
0.5m
L L

F diagonal = (ey + * el-) + 2.5 Mp

L sin
FIG. 8. Axial Force in Outside Diagonals

TABLE 1. Truss Member Properties

Yield
Area kl/r b/t stress P.
Joist member Section A36 steel (mm 2) ratio ratio (MPa) (kN)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (7)
Chords 2L 88.9 x 88.9 x 12.7 4,194 60.4 7 289.6 1,023.5
Outside diagonal 2L 63.5 x 63.5 x 7.9 1,890 50.2 8 293.0 471.7
Outside vertical 2L 50.8 x 50.8 x 6.4 1,213 46.8 8 324.1 338.2
Inside vertical 2L 31.8 x 31.8 x 6.4 729 77.2 5 310.3 154.9
X-diagonal 1L25.4 x 25.4 x 6.4 282.6 77.9 4 358.54 73.4

1789
J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 9. Test Setup with Full-Span Truss Subassemblage

4.0

/
3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 AAAAA
v:vvvvv AAAtAA
-1.0

-2.0

-3.0

-4.0
VIVVVVVtlVV
4 6

10 12 14 16 18

No. of Cycles
FIG. 10. Loading History for Subassemblage 1

to the special segment, Fcl , c a n be calculated by considering vertical equi-

librium of the free body diagram B as shown in Fig. 8. Thus

Fd = 1.5
( ~
Py + ~bPcr + Lp sin c~/ (7)

The other diagonal members o f the truss can be designed for 1,5Vp plus
shear force due to any gravity loads.
The columns should be designed for axial force and moments due to 1.5 Vp
1790
J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.
 2.0

1,0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0,0

-1.0

-2.0 4

J
10
-3.0

-4.0

-5.0

-6.0
No. of Cycles

FIG, 11. Loading History for Subassemblage 2

?0.0

35.0

0,0

-35,0

-TO,O i i
-50 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0
Lateral Displacement (in)
FIG. 12. Hysteretic Loops of Subassemblage 1

and applicable gravity loads. The moment due to 1.5Vp may be equally divided
between the columns above and below the floor truss. Thus, the column design
moment, M~, may be given by
1.5Vp(L/2)
M~ = 2 (8)

It should be mentioned that members that are not part of the yield mech-
anism need not have compact sections.
1791
J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.
 70.0
i
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

35.0

OJ
o
0.0

-35.0

-?0.0 i i
-5.0 -2,5 0.0 2.5 5.0
Lateral Displacement (in)
FIG. 13. Hysteretic Loops of Subassemblage 2

EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF DESIGN CONCEPT

In order to experimentally verify the new design concept, a one-story
subassemblage consisting of a full-span truss and two columns at the ends
was tested. The columns were a half-story high above and below the truss.
Pins were used at the top and bottom of each column. The pins simulated
points of contraflexure in the columns under lateral seismic loading, assum-
ing that they occur at midstory heights. Because a 12.2-m-long subassem-
blage could not be tested in the structural laboratory, the longitudinal frames
of the study building were redesigned with seven bays of 8.5-m length instead
of five at 12.2 m. The design procedure as outlined earlier was used. The
frames were designed as SMRF using Rw = 12, since ductile and stable
hysteretic behavior was expected. AISC-LRFD load factors were used.
Compactness of X-diagonal members in the special segment needs special
attention. For 2 - 3 % story drifts expected in steel building frames during
severe ground motions, the X-diagonal members can be subjected to rather
large cyclic axial displacements. A series of tests was carried out on isolated
members using single-angle sections and solid rectangular bars. It was con-
cluded that the width-to-thickness, b/t, ratio of single-angle sections would
have to be in the range of 4 - 5 for A36 steel in order for these members to
survive the expected displacement demands without premature fractures.
Solid rectangular bars, of course, were found to be most ductile. For more
details, reference should be made to the original report by the writers (Itani
and Goel 1991). Single-angle sections 25.4 mm x 25.4 mm x 6.4 mm of
A36 steel were used for X-diagonals in the four panels of the special segment.
The diagonals were connected to each other at the intersection with a small
plate welded along its four edges to the two angles. Table 1 gives the sizes
of various truss members and the measured material strengths as determined
from coupon tests.
Lateral supports are also an important element for intended performance
1792
J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

31.0
f 4th Floor :
Legend
OrJllual O p e n Web P~sme
,,._.,,
i Moditi4d O pc 0 l e b Frame
15.6

0r 0.0
-15.5
0

-31.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Time (sec.)

-3
7.0
I 4th Story Legend
A qr~zine! Open Web Frame
3.5

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.

r 0.0 ,- II ,*'-,, A :, ,', ,., ,",-, i:',, ,, ,.,
0 l : i J , : i l :

-7.0 I I
0.0 5.0 I0.0 15.0 20.0
Time (sec.)
FIG. 14. Typical Displacement Response of Frames F1 and F2 (Miyagi Record)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

..................... ............... .................

s ..........i .......................i.....................
o
u~
....................~ . 4 .......................i ............ ~.............. i .....................

/i/
X /. / i ~" i~_o_ ~o~176
i I We.~, I
.../.~o_'....
//// .........i....................
q 2/ =~*""' :web
: ' 1F~ I
................
/

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Maximum Lateral Displacement (in.)

FIG. 15. Maximum Floor Displacements of F1, F2, and F3 (Miyagi Record)

! ! --- I ! /=

i i i i
............... , .......................i .................... .~ .............. i...;../ ..................
i i ./ /i i i
i iF2/! /~-~ ,gF~ i
i ! i -i /i i
o
............... i .......................i / { ...... ~ ........i-;" .........i.......................i ....................

i! /i A. /i .~ ~i~' I -o- " v'e " O,.n

co..,,o.=
............. -."...........~ . . . . . . . . ~ . . , m ' . . . . . . , : " ....... 4....~-.I web ~
i ~ ~ is" i/ * ou~
~ .~ ~ ' i i Web F2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

S t o r y Drift (%)
FIG. 16. Maximum Story Drifts of F1, F2, and F3 (Miyagi Record)

of the system. The special segments of the trusses serve the function anal-
ogous to that of shear links in eccentric braced frames (EBF). In order for
the special segments to maintain stable inelastic behavior under cyclic load-
ing, lateral supports are essential, especially at the location of plastic hinges
1794

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.

 ! ,,

i , _o_Co~176176
| . ~ \ web vl 9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

. . . . 9. . ~ . - 4 . . - . . . . ] ............................ ~ ......................... , o~=,,, o~ ! .........

I , i i_ I web F2 II
!
O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ - ......................
2

0 2 4 6 8 10

Column Ductility Ratio

FIG. 17. Maximum Column Ductility Ratios of F1, F2, and F3 (Miyagi Record)

TABLE 2. Column Sections of the Three Framing Systems

Column Sections
Conventional
Story level open web Modified open web Solid web
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1 W14 x 211 W14 x 120 W14 x 193
2 W14 x 211 W14 • 120 W14 x 193
3 W14 x 159 W14 x 99 W14 x 145
4 Wl4 x 159 W14 x 99 W14 x 145

TABLE 3. Weight of Longitudinal Frame (A) in Three Framing Systems

Framing system Columns (kg) Beams or joists (kg) Total weight (kg)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Conventional open web 26,171 23,600 49,771
Modified open web 15,490 18,137 33,627
Solid web 23,908 31,195 55,103

in the top and b o t t o m chords. Lateral supports were provided in the test
subassemblage for both chords at the ends of the middle special segment.
The test setup is shown in Fig. 9. The test program in this study included
two subassemblages using two different loading histories under displacement
control. Subassemblage 1 was tested under a loading history with gradually
increasing displacements up to 3% story drift as shown in Fig. 10. This
allowed study of shape and stability of hysteretic loops. The subassemblage
2 was tested under a m o r e realistic displacement history expected in a severe
1795
J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.
 earthquake. For this purpose, the analytical model of the building was
subjected to N-S component of 1978 Miyagi-Ken-Oki earthquake with peak
ground acceleration (PGA) scaled to 0.4g. The relative lateral displacements
at the midstory points of the columns above and below each floor truss were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

monitored, and the largest set was used. That was for the truss in the first
story, shown in Fig. 11.
The trusses in both tests showed excellent behavior. The yield mechanism
in the special segment formed as expected. First, the compression diagonals
in all four X-panels buckled over half lengths, followed by yielding of tension
diagonals and formation of plastic hinges in the chords at the ends of the
special segment. As expected, the X-diagonal members were subjected to
severe cyclic deformations. They survived the complete displacement history
of test 2 and began to fail (fracture) during the extra cycles of +_3% story
drift. Some diagonals failed during cycles of _ 3% story drift in test 1. The
hysteretic loops from the two tests are shown in Figs. 12 and 13. Excellent
energy dissipation and stability of hysteretic loops is evident. Failure of X-
diagonals in late cycles caused some deterioration.

SEISMIC RESPONSE EVALUATION

The longitudinal moment frames of the original four-story building, shown
in Fig. 1, were then designed by using the concept and procedure described
earlier. Because of stable hysteretic behavior of special trusses as observed
in the tests, the UBC lateral design forces were calculated by using R~ =
12, as specified for SMRF. For comparison, the two exterior longitudinal
moment frames were also designed using ordinary (conventional Warren)
trusses (as OMRF with Rw --- 6) as well as using solid web wide flange
girders (as SMRF with Rw = 12) according to 1988 UBC procedures. These
three frames are designated F2, F1, and F3, respectively.
The inelastic dynamic response of the three frames was computed for
three scaled earthquake records: E1 Centro 1940 NS component with 0.5g
PGA, Taft 1952 N21E with 0.5g PGA, and Miyagi-Ken.Oki 1978 NS with
0.4g PGA. The scaling factors were selected in order to bring their 5%
damped elastic response spectra close to the design spectra given in the 1988
UBC. Since the Miyagi record produced the maximum response in each
case, some selected response results from this ground motion only are pre-
sented ~nd discussed in this paper.
A comparison of horizontal displacement at top level and top story drift
versus time histories for frames F1 and F2 is shown in Fig. 14. It is noticed
that the frame F1 with ordinary trusses shows a drifting type response with
rather large story drifts. This poor response of frame F1 is due to widespread
yielding and buckling of truss web members and consequent poor hysteretic
behavior. In contrast, stable hysteretic behavior of special trusses of frame
F2 resulted in much better response. Moreover, buckling and yielding in
the trusses was limited to X-diagonals and chord members within the special
segments as intended. All other members including columns remained elas-
tic except for plastic hinges at the column bases, which is practically una-
voidable in a fixed base moment frame. Plastic hinging in members of frame
F3 was quite widespread.
Figs. 15, 16, and 17, respectively, show envelopes of maximum floor
displacements, story drifts, and column ductility ratios for the three frames
F1, F2, and F3. Superior response of frame F2 over that of F1 as well as
F3 is evident from these figures.
A comparison of column sections used in the three structures being corn-
1796
J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.
 pared in this study, and weight of steel used in one longitudinal frame in
each case is shown in Tables 2 and 3. Savings in steel weight provided by
the proposed system F2 over the other two systems (F1 and F3) is substantial,
approximately 30-40%.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY on 05/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CONCLUSION
A new design concept and procedure for seismic resistant special truss
moment frames have been developed and verified by testing full-span truss-
column subassemblages. The new design concept can result in increased
economy and excellent inelastic response with stable hysteretic behavior of
the special trusses in moment frames when subjected to severe earthquake
motions. The new design concept also has added advantage that the structure
can be retrofitted after a major earthquake by simply replacing the damaged
X-diagonals in the special segments of floor trusses. Thus, the proposed
system can be an excellent and efficient seismic resistant framing system for
certain classes of building structures.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research described in this paper is part of a project sponsored by
Nucor Research and Development for which the writers are most grateful.
The conclusions and opinions expressed are solely those of the writers and
do not necessarily represent the views of the sponsor.

APPENDIXI. REFERENCES
Goel, S. C., and Itani, A. M. (1994). "Seismic behavior of open web truss moment
frames." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 120(6), 1763-1780.
Hanson, R., Martin, H., and Martinez-Romero, E. (1986). "Performance of steel
structures in the September 19 and 20, 1985 Mexico City earthquakes." Proc.,
Nat. Engrg. Conf., American Institute of Steel Construction, June 12-14.
Itani, A. M., and Goel, S. C. (1991). "Earthquake resistance of open web framing
systems." Res. Report No, UMCE 91-21, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Jain, A. K., and Goel, S. C. (1978). "Hysteresis model for steel members subjected
to cyclic buckling and cyclic end moments and buckling--user's guide for EL9
and EL10 of DRAIN-2D." Res. Report No. UMCE78R6, Dept. of Civ. Engrg.,
Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Manual of steel construction, load and resistance factor design. (1986). American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Ill.
Uniform building code. (1988). International Conference of Building Officials,
Whitier, Calif.

1797
J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:1781-1797.