See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230636119

THE RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR IN SEISMIC DESIGN CODES FOR

STEEL MRF

Conference Paper · December 2009

CITATIONS READS

3 6,369

3 authors, including:

Sherif Mourad Maha Moddather Hassan

Cairo University Cairo University
110 PUBLICATIONS   667 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   187 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural Assessment of Old Metallic Bridges View project

Restoration of Historic Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maha Moddather Hassan on 03 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 13th ICSGE Ain Shams University
27-29 Dec. 2009 Faculty of Engineering
Cairo - Egypt Department of Structural Engineering

Therteenth International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

THE RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR IN SEISMIC DESIGN

CODES FOR STEEL MRF

SHERIF A. MOURAD
Department of Civil Engineering, Cairo University
Gamaa Street, Giza, Egypt
E-mail: smourad_2006@hotmail.com
M. Hassanein SERROR
Department of Civil Engineering, Cairo University
Gamaa Street, Giza, Egypt
E-mail: mhassanein@cosmos-eng.com
M. M. HASSAN
Department of Civil Engineering, Cairo University
Gamaa Street, Giza, Egypt
E-mail: maha8507@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
This paper compares seismic provisions in the Egyptian code for loads, 2008
(ECP2008); Euro Code 8 (EC8); and Uniform Building Code (UBC 97) to highlight the
differences in dealing with seismic design of steel moment resisting frames. These
codes are compared by focusing on the calculation of lateral forces, member ductility
requirements, force reduction factor, and the relevant design accelerations. UBC 97 and
EC8 are selected as they are the fundamental base for the Egyptian code. Increased
interest is given to the values of the force reduction factor in the three codes. This factor
is used to consider the range within which the system may go beyond the elastic range
due to an expected peak ground motion; the consequence of failure or partial failure of
vertical elements; and the redundancy of the system. Despite the fact that it serves the
same function in all seismic codes; it is denoted different terms and numerical values. In
Egypt, there are not enough studies that interpret the force reduction factor values of
different structural systems that ensure different levels of ductility. Further, the force
reduction factor in the Egyptian code is taken as the average of those given in EC8 and
UBC 97. Hence, the results of a parametric study are used to assess the force reduction
factor values with respect to the concerned codes. Moreover, recommendations are
given along the way to define clear boundary between ordinary and special steel
moment resisting frames to ensure the proper assignment of ductility required by the
code.
KEYWORDS
Seismic design codes, moment resisting frame, steel building, response modification
factor, inelastic seismic responses, Egyptian Code.

1 INTRODUCTION
In past decades, structures were mainly designed in Egypt to withstand gravity loads,
and in some cases wind loads were considered. However, lateral loads due to
earthquake motion may cause severe damage if they were not taken into consideration
during design.
The earthquake load is uncertain with respect to its amplitude, duration and frequency
content. Moreover, the dynamic effect requires the designated structure to have
considerable energy dissipation capacity. Such nature of earthquake load affects the
design criteria to be of a main concern for earthquake resistant design. If a structure is to
be designed to withstand the earthquake loads and to remain in the elastic zone, heavy
and costly design criteria will be followed. Hence, different design codes allow
structures to deform beyond the yield limit during moderate to large ground shaking
within a controllable and acceptable level of damage. This is implemented by adopting
the use of response modification factor to reflect the capability of a structure to dissipate
energy through inelastic response.
Prior to Northridge earthquake, the seismic resistance and behavior of steel buildings
were overestimated. Despite the fact that steel is a ductile material, the significant and
unexpected damage that occurred during this earthquake event highlighted the need to
thoroughly investigate the seismic performance of steel structures. Moreover, it was
observed that most of the damage started at the connection level. Since then, increased
emphasis has been placed on ensuring ductile and inelastic behavior through different
connection geometry and configurations that reduce demands on critical zones. [8]
It is worth noting that any major change in seismic design codes is usually introduced
upon earthquake event that leads to damage in property or loss of life. This is due to the
fact that seismic design is based upon observations of real buildings behavior during
real earthquakes rather than the theoretical background.
In Egypt, seismic design has gained much attention in the last few years. Since 1992
earthquake, it was found that many buildings in Egypt are vulnerable to damage under
lateral loads.
Most of the codes estimate earthquake forces as equivalent static lateral load based on
structure dynamic properties and the seismicity of the region. In this paper, formulas for
base shear, lateral force distribution and reduction factor are represented for three
design codes: ECP2008 [3], EC8 [2], and UBC 97 [11]. In addition, comparison
between these codes is represented to highlight the concepts adopted concerning seismic
design.

2 RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR

Comparison between values of force reduction factors in different codes without taking
into account other seismic provisions will not reflect the real situation. The shape of
demand response spectra must also be considered. In the following, a review is
introduced for the studies that compare seismic design provisions in different codes.
Studies have been implemented to justify the differences between UBC97 [11] and EC8
[2], where different values of the behavior factor are specified for the same type of
structure. Kappos [4] observed that these differences become smaller if adjustments are
made to take into account the different partial safety factors used in each code. Uang
[10] and Miranda and Bertero [6] reported that the R factors given by UBC97 and
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) are too high. Maheri and
Akbari [5] also noticed that UBC97 and NEHRP slightly overestimate the R factor for
taller frames. The authors argue that these codes do not consider the T-dependence of
the ductility component of the behavior factor. In addition, Riddell et al. [9] mentioned
that using a constant value for the reduction factor in design codes is unconservative for
structures with periods less than 0.4 seconds. Similarly, Miranda and Bertero [6]
concluded that using a constant value for the reduction factor does not provide a
uniform degree of protection for buildings with different periods of vibration. On the
other hand, Borzi and Elnashai [1] argued that European and U.S. standards are too
conservative concerning the behavior factor due to overstrength. Unlike UBC97 [11],
EC8 [2] specifies period-dependent values for the R factor. The code provides a bilinear
curve that relates the behavior factor to the period of the structure. However, Mwafy
and Elnashai [7] and Maheri and Akbari [5] found that the R-values recommended by
EC8 underestimate the reserve strength in regular, ductile buildings especially for
shorter frames.
It is worth noting that different codes specify different ductility classes for moment
resisting frames. These classes determine the level of ductility that the frames can
provide, and in turn the value of the reduction factor. However, the local ductility of
members should be consistent with the assigned ductility class, where most of the codes
specify limits for the width-to-thickness ratio of flanges and webs which differ
according to the ductility class.

3 COMPARISON OF SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS

Table 1 summarizes the major seismic design provisions for UBC 97 [11], EC8 [2], and
ECP2008 [3]. These codes employ the seismic load reductions to account for the
structural ductility.
Line 1 of Table 1 shows the expressions for reduced shear in the three codes. It is worth
mentioning that the ECP2008 [3] uses the same relation as in EC8 [2]. However, the
ordinates of the response spectrum are adjusted to be suitable to the level of seismicity
in Egypt. Generally, the maximum ground acceleration in ECP2008 [3] is lower than
UBC97 [11] and EC8 [2]. This may be attributed to the fact that these codes cover a
wide range of seismic zones that vary over a huge area.
Line 2 lists the design peak ground accelerations recommended by different codes. Each
code provides maps to determine the design peak ground acceleration according to the
seismicity of a region.
Line 3 shows the soil effects on the ground acceleration at the building site. The
concerned three codes specify the soil type based upon soil shear wave velocity.
ECP2008 [3] uses two types of response spectrum as in EC8 [2]. However, type (1)
response spectrum in ECP2008 [3] is equivalent to type (2) response spectrum in EC8
[2] and vice versa.
Table 1: Comparison of major UBC 97, EC8, and ECP2008 seismic design provisions
Action UBC 97 EC8 ECP2008
1. Base Shear Smaller of V= Sd(T) λ W/g V= Sd(T) λ W/g
C I
V= v W and
RT
CI a
V= W but not
RT
less than
0.8ZN v I
V= W
R
2. Ground Acceleration is: Acceleration is: Acceleration ranges
accelerations 0.4g for seismically 0.4g for ordinary from 0.1g to 0.3g
active regions but is buildings according to five
multiplied by soil-site 0.5g for buildings different zones
factor to obtain Ca with crowd and
and Cv. strategic buildings
3. Local soil Tabular data varies Tabular data varies Tabular data varies
maximum design design ground design ground
ground acceleration acceleration by ratio acceleration by ratio
by ratio between 0.8 between 1.0 and 1.4 between 1.0 and 1.8
and 3.5 for long and between 1.0 and and between 1.0 and
period and between 1.6 for type(1) and 1.4 for type(1) and
0.8 and 2.4 for short type(2) response type(2) response
period structures spectra, respectively spectra, respectively
4. Period Method A: Method A: Method A:
T=0.0853H3/4 T=0.05H3/4 H<40m T=0.085H3/4
Method B: Method B: Method B:
n T=2 d n

∑Wi u i2
i =1
∑W u
i =1
i
2
i

T=2Π n
T=2Π n
g ∑ Fi u i g ∑ Fi u i
i =1 i =1

Method C:
Using computer
modelling
5. Force R= 4.5 for ordinary q=1.5-2 (Low class) R= 5.0 for ordinary
reduction moment resisting q=4 (Medium class) moment resisting
factor frames αu frames
R= 8.5 for special q=5 (High class) R= 7.0 for special
αy
moment resisting moment resisting
frames frames
6. Vertical wjhj mjhj wjhj
distribution of Fj= N (V-Ft) Fj= N V Fj= N V
seismic force ∑ wi hi ∑ mi hi ∑ wi hi
i =1 i =1 i =1
Ft=0.07VT
if T>0.7sec
Table 1: Comparison of major UBC 97, EC8, and ECP2008 seismic design provisions
(Cont.)
7. Drift limits At factored reduced At factored reduced At factored reduced
loads: loads: loads:
0.7 R∆ s v∆ s v∆ s
≤0.025 ≤0.005 ≤0.005
hs hs hs
if T<0.7sec for buildings with for buildings with
0.7 R∆ s non-structural brittle non-structural brittle
≤0.02 elements elements
hs
v∆ s v∆ s
if T>0.7sec ≤0.0075 ≤0.0075
hs hs
for buildings with for buildings with
non-structural ductile non-structural ductile
element elements
8. Detail For special moment For special moment No provisions are
requirements resisting frames: resisting frames: available for steel
• Bracing for lateral • Slenderness for moment resisting
torsional buckling: flange buckling: frames.
Lb≤2500ry/Fy bf/2tf≤c 235 / Fy
• Slenderness for
Where c depend on
flange buckling:
the ductility class and
bf/2tf≤52/ Fy type of stress
• Slenderness • Slenderness
requirements for requirements for
web buckling: web buckling:
dw/tw≤520/ Fy [1- dw/tw≤c 235 / Fy
1.54(Pu/φPy)] for Where c depend on
Pu/φPy≤0.125 the ductility class and
d /t ≤191/ F [2.33 type of stress
w w y

-1.54(Pu/φPy)]
for Pu/φPy>0.125

Line 4 deals with approximate methods proposed by different codes to approximate the
structural period. This is because at preliminary design phases, modal analysis may not
be feasible. Hence, design codes provide these simple ways to estimate the fundamental
period of the structure. These ways depend mainly on the number of storeys and the
height of the structure as can be seen from Table 1.
Line 5 compares the different reduction factors proposed by concerned codes. This
comparison is also shown in Fig. 1. ECP2008 [3] specifies two values for the force
reduction factor for steel moment resisting frames, which are 5 and 7 for ordinary and
special moment resisting frames, respectively. As for UBC 97 [11], the force reduction
factor is equal to 4.5 and 8.5 for ordinary and special steel moment resisting frames,
respectively. It is worth noting that these values are independent of the fundamental
vibration period of the structure. EC8 [2] classifies structures into three different
ductility classes: low, medium and high. The value of the behavior factor depends on
these classes. For low ductility class, the behavior factor values must be less than 1.5.
This value takes into consideration only the overstrength of the structure. In other
words, the structure is expected to behave elastically during ground motions. For
medium and high classes; however, the structure is expected to undergo inelastic
deformations. For medium ductility class, the behavior factor is equal to 4 for steel
moment resisting frames. For high ductility class, the behavior factor is equal to 5αu/αy,
where αu is the strength at the development of a plastic collapse mechanism; and αy is
the strength corresponding to first yielding in the structure. Hence, the ratio αu/αy
accounts for the redundancy of the structure and is equal to 1.3 for steel moment
resisting frames with more than one story and more than one span. Hence, the behavior
factor will be equal to 6.5 for moment resisting frames categorized as high ductility
class.

Fig. 1: Comparison of reduction factor values in different codes

Line 6 demonstrates that the horizontal distribution of base shear in the three codes is
based upon linear distribution in proportion to story mass and height. However, UBC97
[10] applies a concentrated force at the top level to account for higher mode effects.
Line 7 lists drift limits that usually determine the design of steel moment frames. The
three codes determine the actual drift using elastic analysis then multiplies this value by
a factor to account for inelastic deformations. ECP2008 [3] uses the same expressions
and limits proposed by EC8 [2].
Line 8 shows the provisions needed by the three codes to ensure that the local ductility
of members will provide the expected level of ductility demand. UBC97 [11] and EC8
[2] specify slenderness limits on flanges and webs for beams and columns.
Nevertheless, EC8 provides different limits corresponding to the three main ductility
classes (high, medium, and low). These limits classify members with respect to local
ductility into four classes: 1, 2, 3, and 4. These cross-sectional classes which depend on
width-to-thickness ratio requirements of flanges and web determines the overall
ductility class of the structure which consequently determines the value of the allowed
reduction factor. For example, specifying a structure in the high ductility class means
that its members should adhere to class 1 requirements; while specifying a structure in
the medium ductility class means that using members up to class 3 is permitted.
Consequently, in low ductility class structures, members up to class 4 may be used. In
addition, EC8 [2] specifies connection detailing provisions to ensure that bolted or
welded connections are stronger than the connected members.
On the other hand, ECP2008 [3] specifies two ductility classes with respect to moment
resisting frames: ordinary and special moment resisting frames (OMRF and SMRF).
However, the Egyptian code does not put clear boundary between these two classes to
ensure the proper assignment of ductility required by the code.
Figures 2 and 3 compare the width-to-thickness ratio requirements for beam flange and
webs, respectively, given by UBC 97 [10], EC8 [2], and the Egyptian code for practice
and design (ECP 205). It is worth noting that the compact sections in the Egyptian code
are equivalent to class 1 and 2 in EC8 [2]. Moreover, it can be inferred that EC8 [2]
limits are stricter than UBC 97 [11] limits. However, UBC 97 [11] does not use
compact and non-compact section categories to differentiate between ordinary and
special moment resisting frames. For example, the limit for flange buckling by UBC 97
[11], given in Table 1, is equal to 18.9/ Fy (using Fy in t/cm2) which may be compact
or non-compact section.

Fig. 2: Width-to-thickness ratio requirements for beam flanges

 Fig. 3: Width-to-thickness ratio requirements for beam webs
Moreover, it is worth noting that unlike UBC 97 [11] and EC8 [2], the Egyptian code
does not differentiate between steel and concrete moment resisting frames with respect
to the value of the force reduction factor as shown in Fig. 4. However, it is
recommended to define different values for each structural material as they are not
expected to provide the same level of ductility.

Fig. 4: Comparison of reduction factor values in different codes for steel and concrete
structures
4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The main thrust of this paper is to compare between ECP2008 [3], UBC97 [11], and
EC8 [2]. Focus is given to the value of response modification factor in these three
codes. The Egyptian code considers average values for the response modification factor
between those proposed by UBC97 and EC8.
As for the detailing practices, it is found that limiting the use of non-compact and
slender sections to the ordinary moment resisting frames in the Egyptian code may be a
good practice to ensure the required ductility supply in special moment resisting frames.
In other words, it might be recommended to include provisions that limit the use of
compact sections in special moment resisting frames. Consequently, these limitations
for the class of cross sections in dissipative zones will ensure that the local ductility of
members will be consistent with the expected demand. Moreover, it is recommended to
use different response modification factors for concrete and steel buildings in the
Egyptian code.

5 NOTATIONS
Ca seismic coefficient
Cv seismic coefficient
Ft the portion of base shear, V, considered concentrated at the top of the structure
in addition to FN
Fy the steel yield strength
H the height of the building, in m, from the foundation or from the top of a
rigid basement.
I importance factor
N number of stories
Nv near-source factor
Py the nominal axial strength of a member
Pu the required axial strength on a column
R force reduction factor
Sd(T) the elastic response spectrum value at period T
T elastic fundamental period of vibration, in seconds, of the structure in the
direction under consideration
W the total dead load and applicable portions of other loads
Z seismic zone factor
c the breadth of the flange of section
d the lateral elastic displacement of the top of the building, in m, due to the
gravity loads applied in the horizontal direction; the height of the web of
section
hj height above the base to level j
hs the storey height
tf the thickness of the flange of section
tw the thickness of the web of section
u the story horizontal displacement
wj the portion of W located at level j
∆s the design interstorey drift
αu the strength at the development of a plastic collapse mechanism
αy the force corresponding to first yielding in the structure
 λ a correction factor
v the reduction factor which takes into account the lower return period of the
seismic action associated with the damage limitation requirement.
φ the resistance factor.

6 REFERENCES
[1] Borzi, B., and Elnashai, A.S. Engineering Structures (1999) 1244-1260.
[2] CEN. EuroCode 3: Design of steel structures. Bruxelles: European Committee
for Standarization (1993).
[3] Egyptian Code for Calculation of Loads and Forces for Structural and Building.
Research Center for Housing, Building and Physical Planning, Giza, Egypt
(1993).
[4] Kappos, A.J. Engineering Structures (1998) 823-835.
[5] Maheri, M.R., and Akbari, R. Engineering Structures (2003) 1505-1513.
[6] Miranda, E., and Bertero, V.V. Earthquake Spectra (1994) 357-379.
[7] Mwafy, A.M., and Elnashai, A.S. Earthquake Engineering (2002) 239-273.
[8] Nakashima, M., Reoder, C.W., and Maruoka, Y. Structural Engineering (2000)
861-868.
[9] Riddell, R., Hidalgo, P., and Cruz, E. Earthquake Spectra (1989) 571-590.
[10] Uang, C.M. Structural Engineering (117) (1991).
[11] Uniform Building Code. International Conference of Building Officials,
Whittier, Calif. (1997).

View publication stats