Evaluation of Seismic Collapse Performan20160321 30440 Dhr15h With Cover Page v2

Accelerat ing t he world's research.
Evaluation of Seismic Collapse

Performance of Steel Special
Moment Resisting Frames Using
FEMA P695 (ATC-63) Met...
Dimitrios Lignos
Structures Congress 2010
Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 
Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles
Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 
Modeling of t he composit e act ion in fully rest rained beam-t o-column connect ions: implicat io…
Dimit rios Lignos
Effect of gravit y framing on t he overst rengt h and collapse capacit y of st eel frame buildings wit h peri…
Dimit rios Lignos
A St eel Component Dat abase for Det eriorat ion Modeling of St eel Beams wit h RBS under Cyclic Loading
Dimit rios Lignos
2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1275
Evaluation of seismic collapse performance of steel special moment resisting

frames using FEMA P695 (ATC-63) methodology
F. Zareian1, D. G. Lignos 2, and H. Krawinkler 3

1
The Henry Samueli School of Engineering, University of California, Irvine, 92697,
USA; PH +1-(949) 824-9866; email: zareian@uci.edu
2
Disaster Prevention Research Institute (DPRI), Kyoto University; #S301D Gokasho,
Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, JAPAN, PH +81-77- 438-4085; email: d.lignos@kt2.ecs.kyoto-
u.ac.jp
3
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
CA, 94305, USA; PH +1-(650) 723-4129; email: krawinkler@stanford.edu
ABSTRACT
This paper summarizes a study focused on evaluating the collapse
performance of steel Special Moment Frames (SMFs) by application of the FEMA
P695 methodology. In this study, archetypes that comprise 3-bay special SMFs and
serve as lateral load resisting system of buildings ranging from 1 to 20 stories are
designed using ASCE 7-05 and AISC 341-05 provisions. Nonlinear models are
developed using recent advances in structural component modeling, with structural
component parameters extracted from a steel component database. These models are
analyzed to predict the collapse capacity of each design, and the adjusted collapse
margin ratios (ACMR) are evaluated and compared to acceptance criteria. It was
found that SMFs designed in accordance with present seismic provisions provide an
acceptable margin of safety with the exception of a performance group that contains
tall moment resisting frames designed for high seismic zones using the response
spectrum analysis procedure.
OVERVIEW
This paper summarizes a study conducted as part of the ATC 76-1 project. It is
concerned with the evaluation of the collapse performance of steel Special Moment-
Resisting Frames (SMFs) designed according to current codes and guidelines, using
the methodology outlined in FEMA P695. In particular, we are interested to
investigate whether current SMF design procedures provide an acceptable margin of
safety against collapse. The paper is organized such that the FEMA P695
methodology for collapse performance assessment is summarized first, followed by
application of that methodology for assessment of collapse performance of SMFs, and
concluding with general and specific observations on the seismic performance of
these frame structures.
COLLAPSE SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

FEMA P695 provides a methodology for quantifying building system performance in
the context of collapse safety. In particular, FEMA P695 quantifies an acceptable
safety margin against collapse of a lateral load resisting system designed with a
specific response modification coefficient (R factor). The byproducts of this process
are the structural system’s overstrength factor (Ω0) and period elongation factor (μT)
(equivalent to a ductility factor).
The FEMA P695 collapse performance assessment process is illustrated in
Figure 1 in a flowchart format. This flowchart is tailored for a type structural system
that has established design provisions defining the system’s configuration,
construction materials, expected/estimated behavior, and other related information
that can help in a robust design. A general form of the FEMA P695 collapse
performance assessment process is outlined in Deierlein et. al (2008).
Design Provisions for target Development of Archetype

structural system Configurations
Pass No pass
Performance Development of Archetype
Evaluation Structural Model
Quantification of Archetypes Characterization of

Margin of Safety Against Collapse Uncertainty
Figure 1. FEMA P695 collapse performance assessment process

The process begins with gathering design provisions, substantiated by
component testing information and professional design experience. Then structures
are designed that are representative of the current building stock and follow the
aforementioned design provisions. These designs are denoted as “Archetypes”.
According to FEMA P695 it is required that archetypes cover the expected range of
building geometrical and structural parameters such as: building heights, seismic
design categories and site classes, seismically effective weight tributary to lateral load
resisting system, number of bays and bay width, story height, etc.
In the next step analytical models are developed for these archetypes using
state-of-the-art modeling techniques that take advantage of test data in component
modeling. Such test data is used to characterize uncertainty involved in modeling as
well. By including other sources of uncertainty (e.g., uncertainty due to modeling
quality, and design requirements), and by utilizing nonlinear response history analysis
for a prescribed set of ground motions that are scaled up until collapse is predicted,
one can estimate the safety margin of each archetype model. It is essential that the
modeling technique used can incorporate all modes of collapse, or non-incorporated
collapse modes have to be accounted for in a post-processing scheme as “non-
simulated failure modes”. The acceptance criteria is two fold: 1) a minimum required
collapse margin for individual archetypes, and 2) a minimum required collapse
margin for a family of archetypes (denoted as Performance Groups) that represent a
group of archetypes with defined characteristics. If an individual system’s collapse
safety margin or the performance group collapse safety margin does not meet the
required performance, seismic response factor are modified and archetypes are
redesigned. The loop continues until the proposed seismic response factors can
provide adequate collapse safety.
DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR STEEL SPECIAL MOMENT-RESISTING

FRAMES
This study is focused on evaluating collapse safety of steel Special Moment-resisting
Frames. This application utilizes AISC 341-05 design requirements and connection
design criteria provided in AISC 358-05. Determination of member sizes is based on
strength criteria, drift criteria, and P-Delta criteria. For SMFs a very important
consideration is the selection of the seismic design procedure. Within limitations, both
the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) procedure and the Response Spectrum Analysis
(RSA) procedure may be used. The resulting designs might be very different. For one,
use of the RSA procedure will result often in a design base shear smaller than that
based on the ELF procedure (although limited to a minimum of 85% of the ELF base
shear). But more important for taller structures, the ASCE 7-05 minimum base shear
requirements must be considered in drift design if the ELF procedure is used, whereas
they do not have to be considered if the RSA procedure is employed. For taller
structures this can result in very large differences in member sizes.
It is found that subjective design decisions also may have important effects on
the structural performance. Examples are (a) selection of deep and narrow column
sections (that deteriorate more rapidly) versus stocky W14 sections (that deteriorate
slower), (b) continuation of same column size to lower stories where smaller sections
could be used, (c) panel zone doubler plate selection (d) constructability
considerations (e.g., larger column sizes versus more extensive lateral bracing or
stiffener requirements), and (e) relative size of column versus beam.
The choice of RBS connections is also believed to have an important effect on
performance. In many cases it permits the use of smaller column sections because it
reduces the beam strength capacity that has to be considered in the strong column –
weak beam strength check.
DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHETYPE CONFIGURATIONS

SMF archetype configurations used in this study cover the design space with
variations is seismic design categories (e.g., Dmax, and Dmin), and design procedure
(e.g., ELF, and RSA), and number of stories (e.g., 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 20). All archetypes
comprise 3-bay moment resisting frames that serve as the lateral load resisting system
of buildings whose plan view, which is the same for all archetypes, is shown in
Figure 2. In the design process it is assumed that:
• The archetype moment-resisting frames resist all the seismic design loads
and receive tributary gravity loads as indicated in the shaded portion of the
plan view shown in Figure 2.
• The height of the first story is 15ft., and the height of all other stories is 13ft.
• In accordance with FEMA P695 (and exception to ASCE 7-05) we
assumed Cd = R = 8 (ASCE 7-05 uses Cd = 5.5)
• The dead load is 90 psf uniformly distributed over each floor, and the
cladding load is applied as a perimeter load of 25 psf. Unreduced life load
is 50 psf on all floors and 20 psf on the roof.
• All connections are RBS connections designed in accordance with AISC
358-05, using a = 0.625bf, b = 0.75db, and c = 0.250bf.
• Column bases of the 1- and 2-story SMFs are hinged, and the column
bases of all other (taller) structures are fixed.
The list of structural design parameters consideredin this study for evaluation
of SMFs is not comprehensive. Variations in the parameters described above such as
variation in seismically effective weight tributary to SMF, gravity load tributary to
SMF, number of bays and bay width, story height, type of beam-to-column
connection can affect the member sizes of SMFs, and hence the collapse
performance. Extension of the current study is advisable.
140’
3@20’
100’
3@20’
Figure 2. Plan view of buildings used for archetype selection
Table 1 shows properties of each of the archetype designs used in this study.
Seismic demands are represented by the maximum and minimum seismic criteria of
Seismic Design Category (SDC) D, in accordance with Section 5.2.1 of FEMA P695:
SDS = 1.0g and SD1 = 0.60g for SDC Dmax, and SDS = 0.50g and SD1 = 0.20g for SDC Dmin.
The value of the fundamental period, T, is obtained from the code equation T = CuTa. The
tabulated value of first mode period, T1, is obtained from the computer analysis model.
The value V/W is the base shear coefficient for code strength design, which does not
control the design of the structures as all structures are drift or P-Delta controlled.
The exterior columns of lower stories in taller buildings are controlled often
by M-P interaction or code overstrength requirements. Since the archetype designs
are based on Cd = R = 8 rather than the code required 5.5, and because drift
considerations control many of the member sizes, the archetypes designed as part of
this study are often stiffer and stronger than required by ASCE 7-05 design
requirements.
The differences in member size between ELF and RSA designs are relatively
small for low-rise SMFs, with the RSA member sizes being slightly smaller. The
difference between member sizes of ELF and RSA designs becomes larger as the
number of stories increase. The reason is the drift design approach given in ASCE 7-
05. When the RSA procedure is employed, the minimum base shear requirements are
explicitly excluded from consideration in drift calculation, but this is not the case
when the ELF procedure is employed. Thus, when the ELF procedure is used, the
minimum base shear requirements apply, by default, also for story drift
determination. The consequence is that for long period structures the difference in the
lateral loads under which the story drifts are calculated is proportional to the ratio of
minimum base shear to design base shear at the computed T1 without consideration of
minimum base shear. For the 20-story Dmax archetypes the ratio of base shears for
drift design is about 3.0 for ELF versus RSA designs. This is reflected in a difference
in the elastic stiffness of the structures by a factor of 3.
Table 1. Steel special moment-resisting frame archetype design properties

Key Archetype Design Parameters
Archetype
No. of Seismic Design Criteria
Design ID Gravity SMT(T)
Stories
Number Loads [g]
T1 V/W
SDC R T [sec]
[sec] [g]
Performance Group No. PG-1ELF
1-Dmax-ELF 1 Typical Dmax 8 0.34 0.71 0.125 1.50
1-Dmin-ELF 1 Typical Dmin 8 0.37 1.62 0.062 0.75
Performance Group No. PG-1RSA
1-Dmax-RSA 1 Typical Dmax 8 0.34 0.71 0.106 1.50
1-Dmin-RSA 1 Typical Dmin 8 0.37 1.66 0.053 0.75
DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHETYPE STRUCTURAL MODEL
Implementation of the FEMA P695 methodology requires explicit prediction of

collapse. Only 2-dimensional behavior is modeled analytically. Components are
modeled as elastic elements, with all inelastic behavior concentrated in plastic hinge
regions at the member ends. A typical floor model is shown in Figure 3. It consists of
three elastic beam elements spanning between points of RBS connections, six elastic
beams between the RBS connections and the column faces, four parallelograms
representing the joint panel zones, and elastic column elements framing into the
parallelograms. The elements are connected with rotational springs that represent
inelastic behavior in a concentrated plasticity mode. Details of the spring models are
presented below. P-Delta effects are modeled with a leaning column with zero
flexural stiffness placed in parallel to the frame. This leaning column is loaded with a
vertical load at each floor level that represents 1.05D + 0.25L of half of the structure.
Column
RBS Spring Spring
Hinge
20’ 20’ 20’
Beam Spring Panel Zone

Springs
Figure 3. Typical floor and corresponding modeling technique

The panel zone is modeled with eight rigid elements (see Figure 3) connected
with hinges at three corners (shown with a bent black line) and with two bilinear
rotational springs at the fourth corner (shown with a rotational spring on the upper
right corner of the panel zone model). The rotational springs represent the panel zone
shear force – shear deformation behavior with a trilinear model. Details of this model
and strength and stiffness properties are given in ATC-72 (2008). Deterioration in
properties of the panel zone is not considered.
The inelastic behavior at plastic hinge regions in beams (at RBS sections) is
represented by rotational springs with appropriate strength, stiffness, and
deterioration properties (see Figure 3). These properties are determined in accordance
with the guidelines for beam deterioration modeling given in ATC-72 (2008). A
monotonic backbone curve of the type shown in Figure 4 is used in the analytical
model. A bilinear hysteresis model is used to simulate the basic cyclic characteristics
of plastic hinges in steel beams and columns. Cyclic deterioration rules developed by
Ibarra et al. (2005) and modified by Lignos and Krawinkler (2009) are used to model
cyclic deterioration in components. The rate of cyclic deterioration depends on the
deterioration parameter Λ, which defines a reference energy dissipation capacity for
the component expressed as Et = ΛMy, with Λ = λθp denoting the cumulative plastic
rotation capacity. Utilization of these cyclic deterioration rules permits modeling of

basic and post-capping strength deterioration as well as unloading stiffness
deterioration. Parameters of this deterioration model have been calibrated against
experimentally obtained moment rotation relationships assembled in a database of
about 300 steel components or assembly test (Lignos and Krawinkler, 2007; Lignos
and Krawinkler, 2009). For this specific study we used effective yield strength My =
1.1×Mp, with Mp based on expected yield strength of 55 ksi, Mc/My = 1.1, Mr/My =
0.4, θu = 0.2, θp, θpc, and Λ as obtained for RBS connections from the regression
equation derived by Lignos and Krawinkler (2009) and presented in ATC-72 (2008),
The effects of a composite floor slab on modeling parameters is not considered.
Eff. yield strength and rotation (My & θy)

M
Eff. elastic stiffness, Ke = My/θy
Mc Capping strength and rotation (Mc and θc)
My Pre-capping plastic rotation, θp
Eff. post-yield tangent stiffness, Kp = (Mc-My)/ θp
Mr Post-capping rotation range, θpc
Eff. post-capping tangent stiffness, Kpc = Mc/ θpc
Ke
θp θpc Residual strength, Mr = κMy
Ultimate rotation, θu
θy θc θu θ
Figure 4. Parameters of the monotonic backbone curve of the modified

Ibarra-Krawinkler model
In order to account, approximately, for the effect of axial force on column

bending strength, a representative axial force is estimated from the pushover analysis
as Pgrav + 0.5PE,max, where PE,max is the maximum axial force due to lateral loading.
The reduced bending strength is determined from this axial force using the AISC P-M
interaction equation, and this reduced bending strength is used in the response history
analysis. It is recognized that the bending strength will vary as a function of axial
force, but this compromise had to be made because the presently employed
deterioration models cannot account for the effect of a variable axial force on bending
strength.
CHARATERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY
Test Data. Information extracted from test data is used for two purposes: 1)
development of representative analytical models of the archetypes, and 2)
quantification of the uncertainty in the collapse assessment process rooted in
variability in component behavior. Based on the guidelines of Section 3.6 of FEMA
P695 and considering the observations described here we have categorized the test
data as “B-Good.” This rating is considered in light of shortage of available test data
on the inelastic behavior of deep columns subjected to high axial forces and cyclic
bending moments. Furthermore, additional beam-to-column subassembly tests are
needed to fully assess the effects of a composite slab on component strength and
stiffness, and more substructure tests are needed to assess the restraining effects of the
floor system on the deterioration characteristics of beams.
Modeling Quality. According to the guidelines of Section 5.7 of FEMA P695, the
modeling quality is rated as “B-Good.” Steel SMF buildings are controlled by many
detailing and capacity design requirements, which limit possible failure modes. The
primary expected failure mode is flexural hinging leading to sidesway collapse, which
the modeling approach can simulate reasonably well by capturing post-peak
degrading response (under both monotonic and cyclic loading). The modeling
approach is able to directly simulate structural response up to collapse (simulating all
expected modes of damage that could lead to collapse), and is well calibrated to
representative experimental data. Brittle connection failure a very unlikely event
because of the use of RBS connections and is not simulated in the dynamic analysis.
The structural model is not given the "A-Superior" rating because there is still room
for improvement in the model, particularly in modeling plastic hinging in columns.
Moreover the beam plastic hinge model does not account for slab effects. For a
complete assessment, the archetype design space would need to be expanded to
include a wider range of basic configurations and connection types.
Design Requirements. Design requirements are categorized as "A-Superior" since

they represent many years of development and include lessons learned from major
earthquakes.
QUANTIFICATION OF ARCHETYPES MARGIN OF SAFETY AGAINST

COLLAPSE
The structural analysis software selected for execution of nonlinear static and
dynamic analyses is a modified version of the program Drain-2DX (Prakash et al.,
1993). This program is selected because it incorporates all recent modifications to the
Ibarra-Krawinkler deterioration model and has been tested many times in various
collapse analysis studies in which component behavior is represented by deteriorating
bilinear plastic hinge springs.
Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis is performed in accordance with Section
6.3 of FEMA P695, in order to compute the system overstrength factor (Ω0) and
period-based ductility (μT). Nonlinear dynamic analysis is performed using the
structural models summarized in the previous section. Rayleigh damping of 2.5% is
assigned at the first mode period of the analytical model T1 and at T = 0.2T1.
Complete IDAs are not performed, following the suggestions of FEMA P695;
instead, target scale factors for the 44 ground motion records are selected and are
varied until 22 collapses are obtained. That scale factor, multiplied by the median Sa
at the code period CuTa of the unscaled records, provides the median collapse
intensity ( Ŝ CT ). The collapse margin ratio (CMR) is obtained as the ratio of Ŝ CT to
the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground motion spectral demand (SMT)
at the maximum permissible code period CuTa. Table 2 summarizes key response
properties for the ELF and RSA designs, respectively.
Table 2. Collapse performance evaluation of SMF archetypes

Acceptance
Design Configuration Pushover and IDA Results
Check
SMT SCT
No. of Gravity Seismic Static Accept. Pass/
Stories Loads SDC Ω
[T] [T] CMR μT SSF ACMR
ACMR Fail
(g) (g)
1 Typical Dmax 4.64 1.50 3.71 2.48 3.86 1.22 3.01 1.52 P
2 Typical Dmax 3.68 1.50 3.42 2.28 5.01 1.27 2.88 1.52 P
Mean of Performance Group: 2.95 1.9 Inc.
4 Typical Dmax 2.87 0.95 1.61 1.70 5.59 1.36 2.32 1.52 P
20 Typical Dmax 4.53 0.27 0.35 1.30 1.63 1.19 1.55 1.40 P
1 Typical Dmin 2.55 0.75 1.62 2.16 2.58 1.17 2.51 1.48 P
2 Typical Dmin 3.45 0.50 1.08 2.17 2.18 1.16 2.50 1.45 P
4 Typical Dmin 4.71 0.29 0.97 3.29 3.96 1.31 4.31 1.52 P
20 Typical Dmin 4.67 0.08 0.18 2.14 1.50 1.17 2.51 1.39 P
Mean of Performance Group: 3.10 1.77 P
1 Typical Dmax 5.48 1.50 3.71 2.48 3.86 1.22 3.01 1.52 P
2 Typical Dmax 3.93 1.50 3.46 2.31 4.34 1.24 2.87 1.52 P
4 Typical Dmax 2.19 0.95 1.36 1.44 4.98 1.34 1.93 1.52 P
8 Typical Dmax 3.26 0.55 0.78 1.43 2.83 1.31 1.87 1.51 P
12 Typical Dmax 2.65 0.40 0.52 1.29 2.40 1.27 1.65 1.46 P
20 Typical Dmax 2.23 0.27 0.32 1.19 2.05 1.24 1.47 1.43 P
Mean of Performance Group: 1.73 1.82 F
1 Typical Dmin 2.84 0.75 1.59 2.12 2.37 1.16 2.44 1.46 P
2 Typical Dmin 3.58 0.50 1.44 2.87 2.94 1.19 3.43 1.52 P
4 Typical Dmin 3.25 0.29 0.60 2.04 2.77 1.24 2.54 1.50 P
8 Typical Dmin 2.69 0.17 0.41 2.37 3.59 1.37 3.24 1.52 P
12 Typical Dmin 2.44 0.12 0.38 3.06 3.21 1.34 4.10 1.52 P
20 Typical Dmin 2.57 0.08 0.21 2.55 2.40 1.27 3.25 1.46 P
Mean of Performance Group: 3.31 1.86 P
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Performance evaluation is accomplished by comparing the adjusted collapse margin

ratio, ACMR, of the structure with an acceptable ACMR. The adjusted collapse margin
ratio accounts for the effect of the spectral shape on the median collapse capacity using
a spectral shape factor (SSF). SSF depends on the fundamental period (T), period-based
ductility (μT), and seismic design category. The adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR)
is computed by multiplying SSF and CMR values. The SSFs, together with the μT
values on which they are based, and the resulting ACMR ratios are listed in Table 2 for
ELF and RSA designs. In order to assess acceptability of performance, the composite
uncertainty (βTOT) in collapse capacity is needed. This composite uncertainty is
computed as β TOT = β RTR 2
+ β DR
2
+ β TD
2
+ β MDL
2
where βDR = 0.1 (superior design
requirements), βTD = 0.2 (good test data), βMDL = 0.2 (good modeling), and βRTR = 0.40
for systems with μT ≥3, and βRTR = 0.1 + 0.1μT for μT < 3.0.
The ACMRs do not follow regular patterns. For archetypes in the Dmax design region
they usually decrease with the number of stories, but for archetypes in the Dmin design
region they often increase with the number of stories. The reasons for irregular
patterns are many, but include dominance of different design criteria for different
structures. Member sizes of single story archetypes are usually strength controlled,
but for most other archetypes in the Dmax design region they are drift controlled,
whereas lower story member sizes in the Dmin design region are mostly P-Delta
controlled. These variations in controlling design conditions have a dominant effect
on the collapse capacity of individual archetypes.
All individual archetypes and almost all performance groups pass the
acceptability check. The exception is PG-2 RSA (long-period RSA designs in the
Dmax region), whose relatively poor performance is dominated by low ACMRs of the
12 and 20-story archetypes. For these tall structures, the amplification of story drifts
in the lower stories, which is caused by P-Delta effects, dominates response in the
highly inelastic range and leads to a mechanism that involves the bottom stories only.
Increasing the pre-capping plastic rotation θp can increase the collapse capacity but
not by much. This was confirmed by increasing θp of all components by 50%, which
increased the median collapse capacity by only 5%. It is believed that increasing the
stiffness of the structure is more effective, and that increasing the strength of the
columns relative to the strength of the beams (in order to delay or prevent lower story
collapse mechanisms) is most effective in improving collapse capacity.
A few of the performance groups have less than three archetypes (the minimum
required according to FEMA P695) and are marked as “inc.” in Table 2. However, the
collapse performance of SMFs in incomplete performance groups is quite acceptable
and additional archetypes were deemed unnecessary by the research team.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND OBSERVATIONS
This paper summarizes a study focused on evaluating the collapse performance of

steel Special Moment-resisting Frames (SMFs) by application of the FEMA P695
methodology. Archetype designs comprise 3-bay SMFs that serve as lateral load
resisting system of buildings ranging from 1 to 20 stories. The Equivalent Lateral
Force (ELF) procedure and the Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) procedure are
employed in the design of archetypes. Nonlinear models are developed to simulate

structural response and the, models are analyzed to predict the collapse capacities of each
design, and the adjusted collapse margin ratios (ACMR) are evaluated and compared to
acceptance criteria. The archetypes evaluated in this study cover the range of Dmax to Dmin
for site class D. The archetypes consider only variations in number of stories and period
and are limited to SMFs with RBS connections and with a bay width of 20 ft.
For the archetypes considered in this study, beam sizes are controlled usually by
stiffness considerations (either story drift limitation or P-Delta design requirement).
Sizes of interior columns are usually controlled usually by beam sizes because of the
strong column – weak beam criterion. Sizes of exterior columns are often controlled
often by P-M interaction or by overstrength considerations. The caveat to any general
conclusion about acceptable level of collapse safety and the adequacy of presently
employed R factors is that most member sizes are controlled by stiffness requirements
(drift limitations and P-Delta considerations) and not by strength requirements directly
related to an R-factor. Thus, the ACMRs obtained in this study are also a consequence
of stiffness and P-Delta requirements. The outcome of this study is not a test of the
adequacy of an R factor, but a test of designs based on stiffness.
Nonlinear analysis models are based on concentrated plastic hinge concepts.
The moment-rotation properties of plastic hinges are obtained from regression
equations derived from experimental data of about 300 test specimens. In line with
FEMA P695 criteria, only the perimeter SMFs are assumed to provide lateral strength
and stiffness. All contributions of the gravity system to lateral strength and stiffness
are neglected. The effects of the composite floor slab are not considered because of
the lack of information available to model these effects with confidence. Fracture at
weldments of beam-to-column connections is not considered. Such fractures are
unlikely to occur in SMFs with RBS connections.
The only collapse mode considered in the analysis is sidesway collapse in
which the structure loses its lateral load resisting capability, in either a single story or
a series of stories, because of a combination of P-Delta effects and deterioration in the
properties of structural components. Vertical collapse, due either to column buckling
or connection failure, is not considered.
All individual archetypes did pass the FEMA P695 acceptability check
(conditional collapse probability ≤ 20% at the MCE level), but taller RSA designed
archetypes in category Dmax did pass the check with only a small margin. The
performance group of “long period” archetypes designed according to the RSA
method in design category Dmax (PG-2 RSA) did not pass the acceptability check of a
conditional collapse probability ≤ 10% at the MCE level.
The FEMA P695 requirement to ignore all contributions of the gravity system to
lateral strength and stiffness penalizes steel SMFs perhaps more than any other system.
Most steel SMF structures consist of relatively flexible perimeter moment frames. A
large portion of gravity loads is supported by gravity framing consisting of beams and
columns connected to each other with so-called shear connections. These shear
connections have some moment resistance, and the gravity columns provide additional
lateral resistance because they have to follow the deformed shape of the SMFs.
Considering the flexibility of the primary lateral load resisting system, these contributions
of the gravity system to lateral strength and stiffness may have a large effect on collapse
safety because of their effectiveness in reducing the effects of deterioration and P-Delta
in the range in which the SMFs alone exhibit a negative tangent stiffness.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented here was conducted as part of the ATC-76-1 Project
“Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters,” funded
by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture (a partnership of the Applied Technology
Council and Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering),
under Contract SB134107CQ0019, Earthquake Structural and Engineering Research,
issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
REFERENCES
AISC. ANSI/AISC 358-05 (2005). ‘‘Prequalified connections for special and
intermediate steel moment frames for seismic applications.’’ American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.: Chicago, IL.
AISC. ANSI/AISC 341-05 (2005). ‘‘Seismic provisions for structural steel
buildings.’’ American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.: Chicago, IL.
ASCE 7-05 (2006). ‘‘Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,’’
American Society of Civil Engineers.
ATC-72 (2008), “Interim Guidelines on Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for
Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings,” ATC-72-1, 95% Draft,
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA..
Deierlein, G.G., A.B. Liel, C.B. Haselton, and C.A. Kircher (2008). "ATC-63
methodology for evaluating seismic collapse safety of archetype buildings,"
Proceedings of ASCE-SEI Structures Congress, Vancouver, Canada, April 24-
26, 2008, 10 pp.
FEMA P695 (2009). “Quantification of building seismic performance factors,” Rep.
FEMA P695, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Ibarra, L.F., Medina, R.A., and Krawinkler, H. (2005). “Hysteretic models that
incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 34 (12), 1489-1511
Lignos, D. G., and Krawinkler, H. (2007). “A database in support of modeling of
component deterioration for collapse prediction of steel frame structures,”
Proc. Structures Congress, ASCE., Long Beach CA, SEI institute.
Lignos D. G. and Krawinkler H. (2009). “Sidesway collapse of deteriorating
structural systems under seismic excitations,” Rep. No. TB 172. The John A.
Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Prakash, V., Powell, G. H., Campbell, S. (1993). “DRAIN-2DX: Basic program
description and user guide,” Report No. UCB/SEMM-1993/17, University of
California, Berkeley, CA.

Evaluation of Seismic Collapse Performan20160321 30440 Dhr15h With Cover Page v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Seismic Collapse Performan20160321 30440 Dhr15h With Cover Page v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Evaluation of Seismic Collapse

Structures Congress 2010

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Evaluation of seismic collapse performance of steel special moment resisting

F. Zareian1, D. G. Lignos 2, and H. Krawinkler 3

COLLAPSE SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Design Provisions for target Development of Archetype

Quantification of Archetypes Characterization of

Figure 1. FEMA P695 collapse performance assessment process

DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR STEEL SPECIAL MOMENT-RESISTING

DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHETYPE CONFIGURATIONS

Table 1. Steel special moment-resisting frame archetype design properties

DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHETYPE STRUCTURAL MODEL

Implementation of the FEMA P695 methodology requires explicit prediction of

Beam Spring Panel Zone

Figure 3. Typical floor and corresponding modeling technique

rotation capacity. Utilization of these cyclic deterioration rules permits modeling of

Eff. yield strength and rotation (My & θy)

Figure 4. Parameters of the monotonic backbone curve of the modified

In order to account, approximately, for the effect of axial force on column

Design Requirements. Design requirements are categorized as "A-Superior" since

QUANTIFICATION OF ARCHETYPES MARGIN OF SAFETY AGAINST

Table 2. Collapse performance evaluation of SMF archetypes

Performance evaluation is accomplished by comparing the adjusted collapse margin

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND OBSERVATIONS

This paper summarizes a study focused on evaluating the collapse performance of

employed in the design of archetypes. Nonlinear models are developed to simulate

You might also like