Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Effect of gravity framing on the

overstrength and collapse capacity of
steel frame buildings with perimeter
spec...
Dimitrios Lignos

Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics

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

Evaluat ion of Seismic Collapse Performance of St eel Special Moment Resist ing Frames Using FEMA …
Dimit rios Lignos

Effect of Composit e Act ion on t he Dynamic St abilit y of Special St eel Moment Resist ing Frames Desi…
Dimit rios Lignos
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2519

Effect of gravity framing on the overstrength and collapse capacity

of steel frame buildings with perimeter special moment frames

Ahmed Elkady and Dimitrios G. Lignos*,†

Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

SUMMARY
This paper investigates the effect of the gravity framing system on the overstrength and collapse risk of steel
frame buildings with perimeter special moment frames (SMFs) designed in North America. A nonlinear
analytical model that simulates the pinched hysteretic response of typical shear tab connections is calibrated
with past experimental data. The proposed modeling approach is implemented into nonlinear analytical
models of archetype steel buildings with different heights. It is found that when the gravity framing is
considered as part of the analytical model, the overall base shear strength of steel frame buildings with
perimeter SMFs could be 50% larger than that of the bare SMFs. This is attributed to the gravity framing as
well as the composite action provided by the concrete slab. The same analytical models (i) achieve a static
overstrength factor, Ωs larger than 3.0 and (ii) pass the collapse risk evaluation criteria by FEMA P695 regard-
less of the assigned total system uncertainty. However, when more precise collapse metrics are considered for
collapse risk assessment of steel frame buildings with perimeter SMFs, a tolerable probability of collapse is
only achieved in a return period of 50 years when the perimeter SMFs of mid-rise steel buildings are designed
with a strong-column/weak-beam ratio larger than 1.5. The concept of the dynamic overstrength, Ωd is
introduced that captures the inelastic force redistribution due to dynamic loading. Steel frame buildings with
perimeter SMFs achieve a Ωd > 3 regardless if the gravity framing is considered as part of the nonlinear
analytical model representation. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 6 May 2014; Revised 20 October 2014; Accepted 20 October 2014

KEY WORDS: gravity framing; dynamic overstrength; steel SMF; shear tab connections; mean annual
frequency of collapse; collapse capacity

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, it is becoming increasingly important to quantify the collapse resistance of frame
buildings under severe ground motion shaking [1–3]. To this end, the recommended methodologies
for reliably quantifying the seismic performance parameters, such as the response modification
coefficient (i.e. R factor) and the system overstrength (Ω), for use in seismic design of frame
buildings are typically concerned with the nonlinear response through collapse of the primary lateral
load resisting system of the building(s) under consideration. This is attributed to the fact that the
current seismic design practice in North America ignores the contribution of the interior gravity
framing system of a frame building on its lateral load resistance for seismic and/or wind loading [4].
For steel frame buildings, the interior gravity framing beam-to-column connections are typically
designed with shear tab connections. Such connections are idealized as pinned (i.e. zero flexural
strength) by a designer. However, laboratory cyclic quasi-static tests on shear tab connections [5–8]
demonstrated that such connections have considerable flexural strength reaching up to 20% of the
plastic flexural capacity, Mp, of the respective bare gravity beam. In the presence of a concrete slab,
*Correspondence to: Dimitrios G. Lignos, Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University,
Montreal, Canada.
†
E-mail: dimitrios.lignos@mcgill.ca

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 A. ELKADY AND D. G. LIGNOS

the flexural strength of the same connections can reach up to 50% Mp as a result of the composite
action. Considering the large number of shear tab connections of a typical steel frame building, their
contribution to its lateral load resistance may be substantially larger than what is believed. The
considerable flexural strength of shear tab connections in conjunction with the gravity columns could
potentially act as a secondary lateral force resisting system and could possibly help to better distribute
the story shear force demand on the perimeter lateral load resisting system selected by a designer.
Past analytical studies on steel frame buildings that utilized moment resisting frames (MRFs) or
concentrically braced frames (CBFs) [9–12] showed that when the gravity framing system is
considered as part of the corresponding analytical model of the steel frame building, (i) its lateral
stiffness and strength are increased and (ii) story drift concentrations along the height of a steel frame
building can be mitigated. Additionally, it was observed that the continuity of the gravity columns over
the height of a frame building influences much more its global behavior compared with the flexural
stiffness and strength of gravity connections [9, 12, 13]. In general, the aforementioned analytical
studies demonstrated the significance of the gravity framing on the overall performance of MRFs and
CBFs under design level and maximum considered earthquakes. More recently, Ramos et al. [14, 15]
showed that the gravity framing system can enhance the collapse capacity of steel frame buildings with
perimeter steel MRFs by at least 20% of that of the bare MRF. The assessment was based on large-
scale hybrid simulation tests of a four-story office building that was tested through collapse. This
indicates that there could be considerable overstrength added to a steel frame building because of its
interior gravity framing system. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there has not been any
comprehensive study that quantifies the effect of the gravity framing system on the overstrength and on
the collapse margin of steel frame buildings with perimeter MRFs from the level corresponding to the
design earthquake based on regional seismic provisions to the one associated with dynamic collapse.
In this paper, the effect of the interior gravity framing system on the global behavior of steel frame buildings
that utilize perimeter special moment frames (SMFs) is investigated. To this end, a numerical model is first
calibrated to realistically simulate the cyclic behavior of conventional shear tab connections with/without the
presence of a concrete slab. The proposed modeling approach is then incorporated in developing analytical
models of archetype steel frame buildings with perimeter SMFs ranging from 2 to 20 stories. The effect of
the gravity framing system on the steel building’s overstrength and collapse capacity is then quantified. The
assessment is based on a comparison between the FEMA P695 [2] methodology and the mean annual
frequency of collapse as discussed in ASCE 7–10 [16]. The concept of the dynamic overstrength
factor, Ωd is also introduced. This factor accounts for variations in member overstrength and the
effects of dynamic amplification of story shear forces of a MRF subjected to earthquake loading.

2. MODELING OF CONVENTIONAL SINGLE-PLATE SHEAR CONNECTIONS

This section discusses the approach used to explicitly model the cyclic behavior of bare and composite
conventional single-tab shear connections as part of a gravity frame of a steel frame building. These
connections are simply noted as shear tab connections from this point forward. A pinched moment-
rotation hysteresis typically characterizes the cyclic behavior of shear tab connections [5–8] as
shown in Figure 1. Their cyclic behavior is generally controlled by bolt slip, flexural yielding of the
shear plate, and beam binding between the beam flange and the column face. Beam binding causes
connection stiffening leading to an increase in flexural demands and eventually connection failure as
a result of bolt shearing or shear plate fracture. In the presence of a composite slab, asymmetric
cyclic behavior is typically observed in both loading directions. Flexural strength deterioration as a
result of concrete slab crushing is also evident (refer to Figure 1(b)). Section 2.1 discusses the
modeling approach for bare and composite shear tab connections, and Section 2.2 discusses the
approach used to consider the connection stiffening as a result of beam binding.

2.1. Modeling of conventional single-plate shear connections with/without the concrete slab
The ‘Pinching4’ material model [17] available in OpenSEES [18] is employed in this paper to simulate
the monotonic and cyclic behavior of shear tab connections. Figure 1(a) shows an idealized backbone

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EFFECT OF GRAVITY FRAMING ON STEEL BUILDINGS WITH PERIMETER SMF

Figure 1. Calibration examples of the Pinching4 model: (a) bare shear tab connection, specimen 2A; (b)
composite shear tab connection, specimen 6A (experimental data by [5]).

curve that bounds the cyclic behavior of a bare shear tab connection. In summary, the backbone curve
of a shear tab connection is defined by (i) the flexural strength at which bolt slip occurs, Mslip and the
corresponding chord rotation θslip; (ii) the maximum flexural strength, Mmax and the corresponding
chord rotation θmax; and (iii) the ultimate rotation θu at which the connection failure occurs (i.e. zero
flexural strength). The ultimate rotation θu is found to be related to the rotation at which binding
occurs between the steel beam and the column face [6]. Shearing of the bolts or fracture of the shear
tab plate typically follows beam binding. These lead to connection failure. Consequently, the
ultimate rotation can be calculated as θu = g / df, where g is the gap distance between the beam and
the column face and df is the distance between the center of rotation (i.e. mid-height of the shear tab
plate) to the furthest beam flange. Composite shear tab connections typically develop a higher
flexural strength in both loading directions compared with bare connections. The composite shear
tab connection experiences a drop in flexural strength (refer to Figure 1(b)) as a result of the
concrete slab crushing (θdrop, Mdrop). Figure 1(b) shows a representative backbone curve for a
composite shear tab connection based on experimental data obtained from [5]. In summary, the
backbone curves shown in Figure 1 are similar to the ones proposed by [6].
The Pinching4 model simulates a pinched load-deformation response of a structural component that
exhibits degradation in flexural strength and stiffness under cyclic loading. In the loading direction of
interest (i.e. positive and/or negative), two parameters rDisp/rForce define the ratio of the
deformation/force (in this case rotation/moment) at which reloading begins to the maximum
deformation/force demand of the previous loading cycle in the loading direction of interest. The parameter
uForce defines the ratio of flexural strength developed upon unloading from negative/positive load to the
maximum flexural strength developed under monotonic loading. The cyclic deterioration in unloading and
reloading stiffness and flexural strength are controlled with gKLim, gDLim, and gFLim, respectively.
Table I summarizes selected shear tab connection tests from [5] that are utilized to calibrate the
Pinching4 model. The same table includes the calibrated values of the corresponding input
parameters that define the backbone curve of the Pinching4 model. In summary, specimens 1A
and 2A represent bare steel shear tab connections with the steel beam connected to the column web
(i.e. the column is oriented with respect to its weak axis) and the column flange (i.e. the column is
oriented with respect to its strong axis), respectively. Specimens 3A, 4A, and 6A represent
composite shear tab connections with a lightweight concrete slab. Specimens 3A and 4A represent
a 4-bolt shear tab connection with the column oriented with respect to its weak axis while
specimen 6A represents a 6-bolt connection with the column oriented with respect to its strong
axis. Figures 1(a) and (b) show sample calibrations of the cyclic response of bare and composite
shear tab connections, respectively. Alternatively, the modified Ibarra–Medina–Krawinkler (IMK)
deterioration model with pinched hysteretic response can be utilized for the same purpose as
discussed in [19].

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A. ELKADY AND D. G. LIGNOS

Table I. Calibrated backbone curve input parameters for bare and composite shear tab connections.
Mmax Mslip Mmax Mdrop þ Mdrop
Connection type Specimen ID Beam size Mp Mmax þ Mmax þ Mmax þ Mmax θslip θmax+ θmax θdrop+ θdrop
Bare (weak axis) 1A W18x35 0.13 0.50 1.0 — — 0.004 0.050 0.050 — —
Bare (strong axis) 2A W24x55 0.15 0.50 1.0 — — 0.004 0.030 0.030 — —
Average 0.14 0.50 1.0 — — 0.004 0.040 0.040 — —
Composite (weak axis) 3A W18x35 0.35 0.25 0.60 0.55 0.48 0.004 0.020–0.040 0.012–0.035 0.040 0.070
4A W18x35 0.35 0.25 0.67 0.50 0.60 0.004 0.020–0.038 0.012–0.025 0.040 0.055
Composite (strong axis) 6A W24x55 0.40 0.25 0.60 0.43 0.52 0.004 0.020–0.030 0.010–0.025 0.040 0.055
Average 0.38 0.25 0.62 0.50 0.53 0.004 0.020–0.036 0.012–0.028 0.040 0.060
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EFFECT OF GRAVITY FRAMING ON STEEL BUILDINGS WITH PERIMETER SMF

From Table I, bare steel shear tab connections develop an average maximum flexural strength
(Mmax) equal to 14% Mp. For composite shear tab connections, the maximum positive flexural
strength (Mmax+) is in average 35 and 40% Mp for shear tab connections with columns oriented with
respect to their weak and strong axis, respectively. Alternatively, the maximum flexural strength of a
bare and composite shear tab connection can be calculated as proposed by [6] based on the observed
strain distributions and the limit states of a shear tab connection. Table I also shows that bolt
slip occurs at a rotation θslip = 0.4% rad regardless of the column orientation and the connection type
(i.e. bare/composite). For composite shear tab connections, the maximum flexural strength is
sustained for more than 1% rads before the flexural strength drops because of concrete crushing.
This is slightly different compared with the modeling recommendations by [6] where the maximum
flexural strength in the positive direction is attained at a single rotation (i.e. single data point on the
backbone curve). Furthermore, in [6], it was assumed that the flexural strength drop occurs only in
the positive loading direction. However, experimental data (refer to Figure 1(b)) and Table I show
that composite shear tab connections experience an average drop of 50% in flexural strength in both
loading directions.
Table II summarizes the cyclic deterioration parameters of the Pinching4 model for both bare and
composite shear tab connections. These values are based on calibrations of the hysteretic response of
the Pinching4 model with respect to the experimental data summarized in Table I. From this table,
unlike bare shear tab connections, the composite ones experience asymmetric cyclic deterioration in
both loading directions. Similar observations hold true for fully restrained beam-to-column moment
connections as a result of the presence of a slab [20]. Furthermore, for composite connections, the
rDisp/rForce parameters are larger in the negative loading direction compared with those in the
positive one. This indicates that the stiffness reloading initiation in the negative direction is slightly
delayed compared with the positive loading direction. The average values summarized in Tables I and
II for the calibrated backbone and cyclic deterioration parameters are employed for analytical
modeling of the shear tab connections. It should be noted that the experimental data by [5] showed
that the backbone curves for bare and composite shear tab connections follow a clear trend where the
strength and deformation parameters experience small variability regardless of the specimen geometric
characteristics. This justifies the use of limited number of experimental data for calibrating the
employed pinching material model.

2.2. Modeling of the stiffening effect as a result of beam binding

The assumption that connection failure occurs simultaneously with beam binding is discussed in [6].
However, in many cases, connection failure occurs at larger rotations than the ones at which beam
binding occurs. Figure 1(b) shows that once beam binding occurs, a ‘stiffening effect’ takes place
where a considerable increase in both the flexural strength and stiffness of a shear tab connection is
observed. Moreover, this stiffening effect is sustained for about 4% rads till connection failure
finally occurs (i.e. θu = θbind + 0.04).

Table II. Calibrated cyclic deterioration parameters for the Pinching4 hysteretic model for conventional
shear tab connections.
Specimen
Connection type ID rDisp+ rForce+ uForce+ rDisp rForce uForce gKLim gDLim gFLim
Bare (weak axis) 1A 0.45 0.35 0.10 0.45 0.35 0.10 0.40 0.15 0.00
Bare (strong axis) 2A 0.55 0.35 0.00 0.55 0.35 0.00 0.20 0.10 0.00
Average 0.50 0.35 0.05 0.50 0.35 0.05 0.30 0.125 0.00
Composite 3A 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.30 0.10 0.05
(weak axis)
4A 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.05
Composite 6A 0.40 0.25 0.20 0.50 0.25 0.05 0.30 0.10 0.05
(strong axis)
Average 0.40 0.22 0.07 0.50 0.42 0.02 0.30 0.07 0.05

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. ELKADY AND D. G. LIGNOS

This section discusses a practical way to simulate the flexural strength stiffening as a result of beam
binding for composite shear tab connections. For this purpose, two nonlinear spring elements are
combined in series as shown in Figure 2(a). The first spring incorporates the backbone curve of a
composite shear tab connection based on the modeling recommendations that were summarized in
Section 2.1. In order to simulate the flexural strength increase in the negative loading direction (i.e.
slab in tension) once beam binding occurs (i.e. θ > θbind), a gap element is incorporated in the
second spring (noted as ‘ElasticPPGap’ in OpenSEES [18]). In this case, the maximum flexural
strength, Mbind is equal to 2.35 Mmax and is reached at a beam chord rotation of 1.5% rads after
beam binding occurs. In the positive loading direction (i.e. slab in compression), there is no
modification of the backbone curve of a composite shear tab connection based on experimental test
observations from composite shear tab connections (refer to Figure 1(b)). Beam binding tends to
occur in the negative loading direction only because the neutral axis of a composite connection is
located near the top flange of the beam. This leads to a smaller binding rotation in the negative
loading direction than the one in the positive loading direction. Figure 2(b) shows the simulated
hysteretic response of the composite specimen 6A after considering beam binding as discussed in
this section. It should be noted that bare shear tab connections also experience beam binding. In this
case, the maximum flexural strength can reach 1.3 Mmax. Earlier studies by [6] associated with
design aspects of conventional shear tab connections suggest to ignore the shear tab connection
stiffening as a result of beam binding for analytical modeling purposes. This assumption is revisited
later in Section 7.

3. ARCHETYPE STEEL BUILDINGS

In order to assess the effect of the gravity framing on the seismic performance of steel frame buildings with
perimeter SMFs, five archetype office steel buildings with different heights of 2, 4, 8, 12, and 20 stories are
designed in accordance with [16, 21]. The SMFs are designed with typical reduced beam section
connections (RBS) as discussed in [22]. The response spectrum analysis procedure (refer to Section
12.9 in [16]) is used to design the archetype steel buildings. Figure 3(a) shows a typical plan view of
the archetype buildings. They are located in urban California (Seismic Design Category (SDC) = Dmax;
soil class D). The buildings have a first-story height of 4.6 m (15 ft) and a typical story height of 4 m
(13 ft). Figure 3(b) shows an elevation of the eight-story SMF along with its column and beam
sections. The steel columns are spliced at the mid-height of odd-numbered stories except for the first
story. The beams and columns are fabricated from steel ASTM A992 Gr. 50. Further details regarding
the design and geometry of these archetype buildings can be found in [20, 23, 24].

Figure 2. (a) Modified backbone curve for composite shear tab connections including flexural strength
stiffening as a result of beam binding; (b) calibration of the Pinching4 hysteretic model including the flexural
stiffening as a result of beam binding (specimen 6A from [5]).

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EFFECT OF GRAVITY FRAMING ON STEEL BUILDINGS WITH PERIMETER SMF

Figure 3. (a) Plan view of archetype office steel buildings; (b) elevation view of the eight-story SMF
including the equivalent gravity frame.

From Figure 3(a), the interior gravity framing system of a typical archetype building consists of 16
gravity columns at each story and 40 gravity beams (20 beams per each orthogonal direction) at each
floor. The gravity columns are oriented around their weak axis with respect to the east–west (EW)
loading direction. The gravity beams and columns are designed per [25]. Because the floor system is
the same for all archetype buildings, the gravity columns and beams are assigned W14x90 and
W24x55 sections, respectively. The interior gravity frame connections are designed as conventional
single-plate shear connections per [25, 26]. A gap distance g = 25 mm (1 in) is used between the
beam end and the column face. This value is commonly used in the steel design practice of
conventional shear tab connections. For both the bare and composite shear tab connection, beam
binding occurs at about 8% rads (refer to Section 2). This is based on the assumption that the beam
rotates with respect to the center of the shear tab for both cases. If a connection failure takes place
when binding occurs, then the ultimate rotation of the shear tab connection is also equal to 8% rads.
This assumption is revisited in Section 7.

4. ANALYTICAL MODELS FOR ARCHETYPE STEEL BUILDINGS

Two-dimensional analytical models of the archetype steel buildings in the EW loading direction are
developed in the open-source simulation platform OpenSEES [18]. For each archetype building,
four different analytical models are developed: (i) a model that considers the bare steel structural
components of the SMF while ignoring both the presence of the composite slab and the gravity
framing (noted as B model); (ii) a model that ignores the gravity framing but considers the presence
of the composite slab when modeling the structural components of the SMF as discussed in [20]
(noted as C model); (iii) a model, that considers the bare structural components of the SMF and that
of the gravity framing system (noted as BG model); (iv) a model that considers the presence of the
composite slab when modeling the structural components of the SMF and those of the gravity
framing system (noted as CG model).
The SMF steel beams and columns are idealized with an elastic element and two flexural springs at
their ends to represent a plastic hinge location. These springs utilize the modified IMK model
deterioration model [27–30] that is able to capture the cyclic deterioration in flexural strength and

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. ELKADY AND D. G. LIGNOS

stiffness of steel components subjected to cyclic loading. The authors have addressed the effect of the
composite action on the deterioration parameters of fully restrained beam-to-column connections (i.e.
C model) in [20]. This modeling approach is considered for all the C models. The panel zone is
modeled using the parallelogram model proposed in [9]. The hysteretic behavior of the panel zone
is bounded by a tri-linear backbone curve proposed by Krawinkler [31]. For the B and BG models
(i.e. no composite slab), the input parameters for the panel zone model are computed based on
PEER/ATC 72–1 [32]. For the C and CG models in which the composite slab is considered, the
simplified procedure summarized in [20] is used to compute the backbone parameters of a panel
zone in the presence of a slab.
P-delta effects are considered in the analytical models. For the B and C models, the P-delta effects
are simulated with a fictitious column, noted as ‘leaning column’, connected to the main SMF model
by axially rigid truss elements. At each floor, the leaning column has zero rotational stiffness. A
vertical load equal to half of the seismic gravity load of the corresponding archetype building minus
the tributary load that is directly assigned to the SMF columns is applied to the leaning column. For
the BG and CG models, in order to account for the interior gravity framing, a fictitious 1-bay frame
is attached to the main SMF using axially rigid truss links as proposed by Gupta and Krawinkler [9]
and discussed in [33, 34]. This frame is called the ‘equivalent gravity frame’, and it is illustrated in
Figure 3(b). In the case of BG and CG models, the P-delta load is divided equally and applied to the
columns of the equivalent gravity frame. At a given story, the elastic elements of the equivalent
gravity frame columns are assigned a flexural strength and stiffness properties equal to half of the
sum of those of the interior gravity and the SMFs in the orthogonal loading direction. For
simplicity, the gravity columns are considered pinned at the first-story base; hence, the flexural
springs at the base of the equivalent gravity frame are only assigned a flexural strength and stiffness
equivalent to those of the orthogonal SMF columns with a fixed base. These columns are oriented
with respect to their weak axis. Similarly, the elastic elements of the equivalent gravity frame beams
are assigned a flexural strength and stiffness equal to half of the sum of those of the gravity beams
in the EW direction (i.e. 10 gravity beams). The Pinching4 material model is assigned to the
rotational springs of the equivalent gravity frame beams. The input parameters of these springs are
based on the modeling recommendations discussed in Section 2. Two percent Rayleigh damping
ratio (ζ = 2%) is assigned at the first and third mode of all archetype SMFs following the approach
discussed in [35].

5. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF ARCHETYPE STEEL BUILDINGS

In this section, nonlinear static analysis (noted as pushover) is conducted in order to evaluate the
gravity framing effect on the static overstrength and the period-based ductility of the archetype steel
frame buildings. The first-mode periods (T1) of the four analytical models for each archetype steel
frame building are summarized in Table III based on eigenvalue analyses. From this table, when
both the composite floor slab and the gravity framing are considered as part of the analytical
models, the lateral stiffness of a steel frame building increases. For this reason, the computer-based
period of each archetype building decreases by about 14% compared with the one of the bare frame
only. Table III also summarizes the fundamental period, T, as calculated by Section 12.8 of

Table III. Dynamic characteristics and static overstrength factors for archetype steel buildings.
T1 [s] Ωs μT
No. of stories T [s] B C BG CG B C BG CG B C BG CG

2 0.56 0.88 0.81 0.82 0.76 2.98 3.48 3.51 4.66 4.10 2.73 4.90 3.64
4 0.95 1.51 1.37 1.38 1.25 1.75 2.00 2.21 2.95 4.60 4.57 5.41 4.32
8 1.64 2.00 1.82 1.89 1.72 2.63 3.13 2.89 3.71 3.30 2.91 3.49 2.80
12 2.25 2.70 2.46 2.58 2.35 2.09 2.52 2.25 2.92 2.70 2.38 2.91 2.50
20 3.37 3.44 3.17 3.35 3.08 1.89 2.27 2.02 2.59 2.61 2.21 2.65 2.23

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EFFECT OF GRAVITY FRAMING ON STEEL BUILDINGS WITH PERIMETER SMF

ASCE/SEI 7–10 [16] (i.e. T = CuTa, strength-based period). Typically, the code-based fundamental
period T is lower than the computer-based period T1. Table III shows that this is more or less the
case for all the archetype buildings, with the exception of the 20-story SMF. When the composite
slab and/or the gravity framing system is considered as part of the lateral load resisting system, T1
becomes slightly lower than the corresponding T. This observation, although inconclusive from a
single frame, suggests that more studies are needed for mid-rise to high-rise steel frame buildings
with perimeter steel SMFs to better define the strength-based period equation in [16]. However, this
is outside the scope of the present paper.
Pushover analysis is conducted using the first-mode lateral load pattern for each steel frame building
in the EW loading direction. Figures 4(a) and 4(b) show typical pushover curves for the four analytical
models of the four-story and eight-story steel frame buildings in the EW-loading direction,
respectively. In these figures, the base shear V1 is normalized with respect to the seismic weight W
of the corresponding steel frame building in the direction of loading. The roof drift ratio θr = δr / H is
the roof displacement, δr, normalized with respect to the total height, H, of the corresponding
archetype building. In Figure 4, we also superimposed the normalized design base shear, Vdesign / W
for each steel frame building. Furthermore, the maximum base shear force Vs for the CG models is
indicated. From the same figure, regardless of the height of the steel building, its lateral strength and
stiffness is increased when the gravity framing is considered as part of the analytical model
representation. Low-rise steel buildings (i.e. two and four story) experience more than 20% increase
in base shear strength compared with 8% for mid-rise and high-rise ones as a result of the
consideration of the bare gravity framing. When the gravity framing and the composite slab are
considered, the archetype steel frame buildings experience in average a 50% increase in their base
shear strength in the EW loading direction.
The impact of the gravity framing on the frame building lateral strength is further evaluated by
calculating the values of the static overstrength factor (Ωs) as summarized in Table III. The
overstrength factor is defined as the ratio of the maximum base shear strength Vs to the code-design
base shear Vdesign. Figure 5(a) shows a plot of the static overstrength, Ωs, with respect to the
analytical model representation of all the archetype buildings in the EW loading direction. In the
same figure, we have superimposed the minimum overstrength factor Ωo = 3.0 specified for steel
SMFs as per [16]. From Figure 5(a), when the bare SMF is only considered, a static overstrength
factor less than 3.0 is observed for all archetype buildings. This is consistent with earlier analytical
studies [11, 23, 24, 37, 38]. Note that wind loading was not considered as part of the design
process. However, wind only controls the design of the 20-story archetype steel building. A static
overstrength factor Ωs > 3.0 is only achieved when both the composite slab and the gravity framing
are considered in the analytical model of the steel frame building. From Figure 5(a), it is evident
that for low-rise steel frame buildings, the current overstrength requirements as per [16] may be
overconservative. This agrees with a recent study by NIST [4]. From the same figure, the period
dependence of the static overstrength is also evident. This agrees with prior studies related to the

Figure 4. Pushover curves of archetype office buildings based on different analytical model representations.

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. ELKADY AND D. G. LIGNOS

Figure 5. (a) Static overstrength, Ωs, versus the analytical model type for all the archetype steel buildings; (b)
comparison of the displacement profile of the B and CG analytical models of the eight-story steel frame
building at different roof drifts based on pushover analysis.

static overstrength factors for frame buildings [36, 38–40]. However, the overstrength factors are
re-assessed in Section 6 based on nonlinear response history analysis.
From the global pushover curves of the archetype steel buildings (refer to Figure 4), one can also
assess the building performance once global strength deterioration occurs (i.e. after reaching the
capping point at Vs) depending on the selected analytical model representation. The global strength
deterioration of the archetype steel buildings discussed herein is evaluated using the period-based
ductility factor μT as defined in FEMA P695 [2]. This factor is defined as the ratio of the global roof
drift corresponding to a 20% drop in the maximum base shear force Vs to the global yield roof drift
δy,eff = Vs / Ke, where Ke is the initial elastic lateral stiffness of the corresponding analytical model.
The values of μT are summarized in Table III for all the archetype steel buildings in the EW loading
direction. From this table, the BG models achieve higher μT values compared with the B models.
This is attributed to the smoother post-capping global stiffness of the BG models compared with the
B ones (refer to Figure 4); indicating that there is less drift concentration in the bottom stories of
steel SMFs when the bare gravity framing is considered as part of the lateral-force resistance
system. This agrees with earlier findings by Ji et al. [10]. However, when the composite slab is
considered (i.e. C and CG models), lower μT values are observed compared with the B model. The
lower μT values imply a global collapse mechanism that involves lesser number of stories. This is
demonstrated in Figure 5(b), which shows a comparison between the displacement profiles of the B
and CG models of the eight-story SMF, at various roof drift ratios. From Figure 5(b), the CG model
develops a two-story global collapse mechanism compared with a three-story mechanism for the B
model. The observed lower ductility of the CG model is attributed to the increased flexural strength
of the composite beams, which leads to plastic hinging of the columns at lower stories. This has been
discussed in detail in [20]. This can be mitigated with the consideration of higher strong-column
weak-beam (SCWB) ratios in the seismic design of steel SMFs as discussed in Section 6.2.

6. NONLINEAR RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS OF ARCHETYPE STEEL BUILDINGS—

DYNAMIC OVERSTRENGTH AND COLLAPSE RISK

This section quantifies the effect of the gravity framing on the dynamic overstrength Ωd and the
collapse capacity of the steel archetype buildings. The far-gield (FF) ground motion record set
specified in FEMA P695 [2] is employed for this purpose. This set includes 22 component pairs of
horizontal ground motions (i.e. total of 44 records). Each ground motion record is scaled
incrementally with respect to the first mode, 5% damped, spectral acceleration of the associated B
model, Sa(T1 Bare, 5%) till dynamic collapse of the corresponding steel frame building is reached.
The incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) procedure is employed for this purpose [41]. The collapse

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EFFECT OF GRAVITY FRAMING ON STEEL BUILDINGS WITH PERIMETER SMF

intensity of a steel frame building is defined as the intensity at which a story or a number of stories
displaces sufficiently (i.e. collapse mechanism), and the story shear resistance becomes zero as a
result of P-delta effects accelerated by steel component deterioration in strength and stiffness. This
definition of collapse is consistent with recent small and full-scale collapse experiments of steel
frame buildings [42–45] Figure 6(a) shows the normalized base shear versus the first-story drift ratio
of the eight-story steel building including the effect of gravity framing for the ‘LA-Hollywood Stor
FF’ record of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake scaled to collapse. In the same figure, we have
superimposed the code-based normalized design base shear (Vdesign / W) and the base shear versus
the first-story drift ratio from a static pushover analysis based on a first-mode lateral load pattern.
From Figure 6(a), the dynamic overstrength Ωd of the eight-story steel building in the EW loading
direction is about 1.5 times larger than the static one Ωs. This difference is primarily attributed to the
dynamic redistribution of story shear forces as a result of higher modes [34, 44, 46–49]. Higher modes
tend to amplify story shear forces compared with those obtained from a pre-determined lateral load
pattern that is typically employed in pushover analysis. This can be better seen from Figure 6(b) that
shows the absolute maximum story shear forces along the height of the eight-story building. These
forces are computed from a nonlinear static procedure with a first-mode lateral load pattern. In the same
figure, we have superimposed the mean values from nonlinear response history analysis based on the
set of 44 ground motions including the 16th and 84th percentile. Note that the taller the building, the
larger the difference between static and dynamic base shear.
Figures 6(c) and 6(d) show the effect of the predominant period on the static and dynamic
overstrength of the archetype steel frame buildings when the B (i.e. bare steel SMF only) and CG
(i.e. composite slab and gravity framing) models are considered, respectively. From this figure, the
taller the steel frame building, the larger the dynamic amplification of story shear forces as a result
of higher mode effects. Interestingly, the Ωd factor based on the B models is more or less constant

Figure 6. Eight-story CG model: (a) normalized base shear force versus first story drift ratio at collapse
intensity; (b) comparison of dynamic and static normalized story shear force profiles; dynamic and static
overstrength versus first mode period for (c) B models; (d) CG models.

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. ELKADY AND D. G. LIGNOS

and slightly higher than 3.0. When the composite slab and the gravity framing are considered as part of
the analytical model, Ωd is in average above 4.0. This indicates that there is practically no period
dependency of the dynamic overstrength factor for a steel frame building for the cases considered as
part of this paper. The period dependency holds true for the static overstrength, Ωs. The dynamic
overstrength, Ωd can be potentially used for evaluation of the reliability of force-sensitive
components as part of a steel frame building subjected to earthquake loading.
This section also discusses the assessment of the collapse risk of the steel archetype buildings based
on (i) FEMA P695 [2] and (ii) the mean annual frequency of collapse (λc) [1, 3, 50]. For each one of the
four analytical models representing the archetype steel buildings in the EW loading direction, the
cumulative probabilities of collapse corresponding to the 44 collapse intensities are calculated and
then fitted with a lognormal cumulative distribution (i.e. the collapse fragility curve). Figures 7(a) and
7(b) show the collapse fragility curves for the four analytical models of the four-story and eight-story
archetype steel buildings, respectively. From this figure, when the composite slab and the gravity
framing are considered as part of the analytical model of the steel frame building, its collapse
capacity is always larger than that computed with the B model.
Table IV summarizes the counted median collapse intensity ( S^CT ) and the logarithmic standard
deviation, βRTR, for the 44 ground motions considered for all four analytical model representations
of the archetype steel buildings in the EW loading direction. To put the computed values in
perspective and compare the various analytical models that one can use to quantify the collapse risk
of a given archetype building, the median collapse intensities reported in Table IV are given with
respect to the first mode, 5% damped, spectral acceleration of the associated B model, Sa(T1 Bare,
5%). Table IV shows that regardless of the number of stories of the archetype steel buildings
considered, the CG analytical models (i.e. composite action and gravity framing) typically lead to an
average increase of about 28% in the collapse capacity compared with the one computed with the B
model that represents the bare steel SMF only. From Table IV, the observed differences in the βRTR
values between the four analytical model options are insignificant for all the archetype buildings.

Figure 7. Collapse fragility curves of the four analytical model representations of the four and eight-story
archetype steel buildings in the EW loading direction.

Table IV. Median collapse capacity and standard deviation of the collapse fragility curve for all the
analytical model representations of the archetype steel buildings in the EW loading direction.
S^CT T 1; Bare ; 5% [g]


βRTR
No. of stories B C BG CG B C BG CG

2 2.360 1.735 2.047 2.762 0.40 0.30 0.39 0.34

4 1.030 1.367 1.453 1.390 0.45 0.41 0.40 0.49
8 0.784 0.859 0.819 0.919 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.37
12 0.533 0.633 0.622 0.613 0.39 0.40 0.43 0.41
20 0.388 0.566 0.425 0.614 0.43 0.40 0.43 0.39

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EFFECT OF GRAVITY FRAMING ON STEEL BUILDINGS WITH PERIMETER SMF

This implies that for a given set of ground motions, the effect of record-to-record variability on the
collapse capacity of a steel frame building with perimeter steel SMFs does not depend on the
selected analytical model representation of the building under consideration. Note that the tabulated
βRTR values are consistent with values reported in prior studies [1, 51, 52].
Figures 8(a) and (b) show the profile of the median story drift ratio (SDR) near collapse based on the
four analytical models discussed earlier for the four-story and eight-story steel frame buildings,
respectively. From this figure, when the bare gravity framing is considered as part of the analytical
model of a steel frame building, it does not significantly affect the global collapse mechanism of the
B model. However, when the composite action is considered as part of the analytical model (i.e. C
or CG models), global collapse mechanisms that involve lesser number of stories compared with the
B model are observed. This agrees with the earlier discussion based on the nonlinear static analysis
(refer to Section 5). In the following section, the seismic performance of the archetype SMFs is
evaluated based on the FEMA P695 [2] methodology.

6.1. Evaluation of the seismic performance based on FEMA P695 methodology

The FEMA P695 [2] methodology compares the adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR) for a given
analytical model with the corresponding minimum acceptable collapse margin ratio for a 10%
probability of collapse (ACMR10%). The ACMR is calculated as follows: ACMR ¼ S^CT =SMT
SSF,

where S^CT is the median collapse intensity, SMT is the spectral acceleration intensity of the
maximum considered earthquake at the fundamental period T, and SSF is the spectral shape factor
used to account for the frequency content (spectral shape) of the ground motion record set [2]. The
SSF is based on the period-based ductility factor and the fundamental period of the steel frame
building under consideration (refer to Table III). It should be noted that the computations in the
FEMA P695 [2] methodology are based on the code-based fundamental period T (i.e. T = CuTa) of a
given steel archetype building and not on the first-mode period T1 of the corresponding building in
the loading direction of interest. The ACMR10% limit specified by FEMA P695 is dependent on the
total system uncertainty (βTOT). The total system uncertainty is composed of (i) the design
requirement uncertainty βDR; (ii) the test data uncertainty βTD; (iii) numerical modeling uncertainty
βMDL; and (iv) the record-to-record uncertainty βRTR. For βDR, βTD, and βMDL, a four-level user-
subjective scale is used to rate the uncertainty ranging from ‘A-Superior’ to ‘D-Poor’ quality rating
according to [2]. The record-to-record uncertainty is calculated as βRTR = 0.1 + 0.1μT with an upper
limit of 0.4. It should be noted that the βRTR values obtained from the IDA are in average 14%
higher than the ones calculated by FEMA P695 based on the period-based ductility. The larger the
βRTR value, the larger the total uncertainty and the ACMR10% limit.
The assignment of quality ratings to the different uncertainties is somehow subjective based on
FEMA P695. Figure 9 shows the evaluation of the analytical models of all the archetype steel
buildings by assuming the following: (i) A-Superior quality rating for the design requirements

Figure 8. Comparison of the median SDR profiles near collapse of the four analytical models of the four and
eight-story archetype steel buildings in the EW loading direction.

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. ELKADY AND D. G. LIGNOS

Figure 9. ACMR and ACMR10% versus analytical model type of the archetype steel buildings with perimeter
SMFs considering different quality ratings based on FEMA P695 [2].

uncertainty (βDR = 0.1), (ii) A-Superior, (iii) ‘B-Good’, (iv) ‘C-Fair’, and (v) D-Poor quality ratings for
both the test data and numerical modeling uncertainty. Figure 9 shows that all the analytical models of
the archetype steel buildings passed the FEMA P695 requirement (i.e. ACMR > ACMR10%) when
either A-Superior or B-Good quality rating is assigned (i.e. βTD and βMDL = 0.2). For the B models
of mid-rise buildings, however, the ACMR values are slightly higher than the ACMR10% values
implying that they could fail if the evaluation is conducted and a lower quality rating is assigned. In
fact, Figure 9 shows that if the test data and numerical modeling uncertainty are both assigned
C-Fair quality rating (βTD and βMDL = 0.35), the B model of the four-story SMF fail the evaluation.
Similarly, if the test data and numerical modeling uncertainty are both assigned D-Poor quality
rating (βTD and βMDL = 0.50), the B, C, and BG models for the 2-story, 4-story, 8-story and 12-story
archetype buildings fail the FEMA P695 ACMR10% requirements (refer to Figure 9). From Figure 9,
even when a poor quality rating is used, the CG models of the archetype buildings in the EW
loading direction pass the FEMA P695 acceptance criterion by a considerable margin. This shows
the significance of the composite slab and gravity framing on the overall collapse risk evaluation of
steel frame buildings with perimeter steel SMFs. Nevertheless, one should be careful how to
interpret these results based on FEMA P695. The reason is that this methodology only takes into
consideration the seismic hazard associated with two collapse intensities; the first one is the
maximum considered earthquake (i.e. 2% probability of exceedence in 50 years), and the second one
is that of the median of the 44 ground motion records. This necessitates the use of a more precise
collapse metric to assess the collapse risk of the archetype steel buildings when the gravity framing
is considered as part of the analytical model representation. This is discussed in the following section.

6.2. Evaluation of the seismic performance based on the mean annual frequency of collapse
In this section, the seismic collapse risk of the steel archetype buildings in the EW loading direction is evaluated
by computing the mean annual frequency of collapse (λc) for a given model and the corresponding
probability of collapse over a period of 50 years (i.e. Pc(50 years)). The probability of collapse in
50 years is then compared with the 1% acceptable limit from Section 21.2.1, ASCE/SEI 7–10 [16].
The mean annual frequency of collapse is computed by numerically integrating the collapse fragility
curve of a given analytical model (e.g. Figure 7) over the corresponding hazard curve as discussed in
[3, 20, 50]. For a given λc, the probability of collapse in 50 years is calculated as Pc(50 years) = 1 exp
( 50 λc), assuming that the earthquake occurrence follows a Poisson distribution. The hazard curves
used in this paper are obtained from the USGS website (2008 update of the US national seismic
hazard maps). These curves are not presented herein because of brevity. The seismic hazard data
corresponds to the coordinates (34.000, 118.150) for a location south of downtown Los Angeles,
California. This site has a shear wave velocity Vs30 = 259 m/s equivalent to NEHRP ‘D’ site condition.
Figure 10(a) shows a dual plot that illustrates the sensitivity of the mean annual frequency of
collapse, λc, and the corresponding probability of collapse in 50 years, Pc(50 years), with respect to
the analytical model representation of the archetype steel buildings discussed in this paper. From

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EFFECT OF GRAVITY FRAMING ON STEEL BUILDINGS WITH PERIMETER SMF

Figure 10. Mean annual frequency of collapse and the corresponding probability of collapse in 50 years
versus the analytical model type of archetype office steel buildings with perimeter SMFs; (a) SCWB
>1.0; (b) SCWB >1.5; and (c) SCWB >2.0.

this figure, the collapse risk of steel frame buildings with perimeter steel SMFs is reduced when the
gravity framing system is considered as part of the lateral load resisting system of the steel frame
building regardless of the consideration of the composite action (i.e. BG and CG models). From
Figure 10(a), the low probability of collapse of the two-story steel building is because of its
relatively large collapse capacity with respect to the other ones (refer to Table IV). For the 20-story
building, the low probability of collapse is attributed to the low seismic hazard associated with
larger periods [20]. However, low to mid-rise steel frame buildings (4 to 12 stories) do not pass the
1% probability of collapse over 50 years even when both the composite slab and the gravity framing
are considered as part of the analytical model. Interestingly, the same buildings passed the
ACMR10% per FEMA P695 methodology [2] (refer to Section 5.1). This indicates that for reliable
collapse assessment of steel frame buildings under severe ground motion shaking, one should
consider collapse metrics that take into account all the ground motion intensities that contribute to
the collapse risk such as the mean annual frequency of collapse, λc.
In order to further reduce the collapse risk of steel frame buildings with perimeter steel SMFs, these
SMFs are redesigned using a SCWB ratio >1.5 and >2.0. The mean annual frequency of collapse for
the five archetype building is recomputed and plotted in Figures 10(b) and (c) for SCWB ratios >1.5
and >2.0, respectively. From Figure 10(b), once a SCWB ratio >1.5 is implemented into the seismic
design of steel SMFs, all the steel archetype buildings achieve a probability of collapse less than 1% in
50 years, when the composite slab and the gravity framing are considered as part of the analytical
model representation of the archetype steel building in the direction of earthquake loading.
Furthermore, all the archetype steel buildings with steel SMFs designed with a SCWB ratio >2.0
achieve a nearly uniform mean annual frequency of collapse λc = 5 × 10 5 corresponding to a Pc
(50 years) = 0.25% (refer to Figure 10(c)). Other indirect benefits with the use of higher SCWB
ratios in the seismic design of steel SMFs are discussed in [20].

7. EFFECT OF SHEAR TAB CONNECTION STIFFENING ON COLLAPSE RISK

This section discusses the effect of shear tab connection stiffening as a result of beam binding on the
overall performance of the steel frame buildings discussed in this paper. When beam binding occurs
(refer to Section 2.2), shear tab connections experience a considerable increase in their flexural
strength and stiffness (i.e. stiffening). This stiffening progresses in average for an additional 4% rads
chord rotation after beam binding occurs. Because of the increase of the flexural strength of the
beams in shear tab connections, there is a chance to develop unexpected story collapse mechanisms
that involve column plastic hinging. The effect of connection stiffening on the seismic performance
of the archetype steel frame buildings designed with SCWB ratio >1.0 is investigated.
Binding could occur at chord rotations lower than 8% if (i) the gap distance (g) between the beam
and the column is smaller than the 25 mm assumed in Section 2, (ii) the gravity beam is fairly deep, and
(iii) the connection’s center of rotation is not at the shear plate center. The latter can occur in composite

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. ELKADY AND D. G. LIGNOS

Figure 11. Comparison of four-story steel frame building represented by CG models with/without
considering the stiffening effect: (a) fragility curves scaled at T1 of the CG model; (b) median absolute
maximum SDR profiles at collapse intensities of the set of 44 ground motions.

shear tab connections, because the neutral axis of the composite gravity beam moves upwards. This
implies that binding could occur at lower rotations than the previously assumed 8% rads. In steel
design practice, there is no limit on how low the gap distance can be; only a range between 60 to
90 mm (2.5 to 3.5 in) is given for the distance between the bolt line and the column face for
conventional shear tab connections [26]. This is not an issue for extended shear tab configurations.
If binding occurs at relatively low rotations, the flexural strength of the gravity beams at any given
floor would increase because of the stiffening of the shear connections. This can potentially lead to
the formation of lower story mechanisms.
To evaluate the stiffening effect on the collapse capacities of the archetype steel buildings
discussed in this paper, the CG models are re-analyzed. The beam binding is considered in the
shear tab connection modeling as discussed in Section 2.2. A binding rotation θbind = 3% and an
ultimate rotation θu = 7% are incorporated in the CG model to represent a case where the binding
rotation is much smaller than θu. Figure 11(a) shows a comparison between the collapse fragility
curves of the CG model of the four-story steel building in the EW loading direction with/without
beam binding. From this figure, for all practical purposes, regardless of the rotation at which beam
binding occurs, the collapse capacity of the four-story building does not change. Figure 11(b) shows
the median of the absolute maximum SDRs along the height of the four-story building near collapse
for set of the 44 ground motions for the same two cases. From this figure, shear tab connection
stiffening as a result of beam binding has practically no effect on the SDRs of the four-story steel
building near collapse. Same observations hold true for the rest of the archetype steel buildings.
In summary, incorporating the shear tab connection stiffening as a result of beam binding does not
have a significant impact on neither the collapse capacity nor the global collapse mechanisms of steel
frame buildings with perimeter steel SMFs.

8. CONCLUSIONS

This paper investigates the effect of gravity framing on the overstrength and the collapse risk of
steel frame buildings with perimeter SMFs. A practical approach is proposed to model the
hysteretic response of conventional shear tab connections with/without the presence of the
composite slab including complex failure modes associated with large deformations. These
modeling recommendations indicate that
(1) Bare steel shear tab connections develop a maximum flexural strength, Mmax = 15% Mp. In the
presence of the composite slab, Mma = 35% Mp is achieved in the positive direction for connec-
tions with columns oriented with respect to their weak axis. These findings agree with [6].
(2) Composite shear tab connections experience a 50% drop in their maximum flexural strength in
both loading directions as a result of crushing of the concrete slab.

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EFFECT OF GRAVITY FRAMING ON STEEL BUILDINGS WITH PERIMETER SMF

(3) Beam binding typically causes a flexural strength stiffening of more than 1.3 Mmax and
2.35 Mmax for bare and composite shear tab connections, respectively. This increase in
strength may be sustained for about 4% rads after beam binding occurs and prior to con-
nection failure.

The effect of the gravity framing on the seismic performance of steel frame buildings with perimeter
SMFs is assessed through a comprehensive analytical study. This study employs archetype steel
buildings with different heights ranging from 2 to 20 stories and four main types of analytical model
building representations that a designer could employ to assess the archetype building seismic
performance through collapse. The main findings are summarized as follows:

(1) When the contribution of the gravity framing is considered as part of the lateral load resisting
system of steel frame buildings with perimeter SMFs, the total base shear strength is in average
50% larger than that of the bare frame only. This is primarily attributed to the gravity framing as
well as the composite action provided by the concrete slab.
(2) Steel frame buildings with perimeter SMFs only achieve a static overstrength factor larger than
the code-specified overstrength Ωo = 3.0 when both the gravity framing and the composite slab
effects are considered in the analytical model. For low-rise steel buildings, the current
overstrength requirements as per ASCE/SEI 7–10 [16] may be overconservative.
(3) When the overstrength factor of the archetype steel buildings is disaggregated into its dynamic
(Ωd) and static (Ωs) contributions, it is evident that taller buildings experience larger dynamic
amplification of story shear forces as a resut of higher mode effects.
(4) Steel SMFs achieve a dynamic overstrength factor, Ωd > 3.0, regardless if the gravity framing
and the composite slab effects are considered as part of the analytical model of the building
representation. If the composite gravity framing is considered as part of the analytical model
representation of the analytical model of a steel building, an average Ωd = 4.0 can be achieved
regardless of the number of stories of the steel building under consideration. The dynamic
overstrength, Ωd captures the inelastic force redistribution due to dynamic loading in steel frame
buildings. Therefore, this measure of system overstrength can be potentially used in future
studies to evaluate the reliability of force-sensitive components and their influence on collapse
risk of steel frame buildings subjected to earthquake loading.
(5) Steel frame buildings with perimeter SMFs designed with a SCWB ratio larger than 1.0 pass the
ACMR10% per FEMA P695 [2] evaluation regardless of the assigned total system uncertainty
rating, only when the composite slab and the gravity framing are considered as part of the
analytical model representation of the steel frame building. This illustrates the structural
redundancy that the gravity framing offers to a steel frame building.
(6) Mid-rise archetype steel buildings with perimeter SMFs achieved a probability of collapse in
50 years that exceeded the 1% limit specified by ASCE/SEI 7–10 [16] even when the contribution
of the gravity framing is considered as part of the analytical model building representation. When
the steel SMFs are redesigned with a SCWB >1.5, all the steel frame buildings discussed in this
paper achieve an acceptable probability of collapse over 50 years per [16]. This demonstrates that
for collapse risk mitigation, designers should be using collapse metrics that take into account all
the ground motion intensities that contribute to the collapse risk, such as the mean annual
frequency of collapse, instead of just two that FEMA P695 suggests (i.e. ACMR).
(7) Shear tab connection flexural strength stiffening as a result of beam binding has a negligible
impact on the collapse capacity and the global collapse mechanisms of archetype steel
buildings with perimeter steel SMFs. Therefore, for all practical purposes, this phenomenon
can be ignored when we are concerned with analytical modeling of conventional shear
tab connections.

It should be noted that the results presented in this paper are dependent on the geometry and details
of the gravity framing connections under consideration. It is recommended that future studies should
assess the effect of other types of gravity framing connections such as double-angle, unstiffened
seated connections on the global behavior of steel frame buildings.

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. ELKADY AND D. G. LIGNOS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study is based on work supported by the National Science and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC) under the Discovery Grant Program. Funding is also provided by the Steel Structures
Education Foundation (SSEF). This financial support is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings,
and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of sponsors.

REFERENCES
1. Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H. Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Report No. 152, The John A.
Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2005.
2. FEMA. Quantification of building seismic perofrmance factors. Report FEMA-P695, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2009.
3. Eads L, Miranda E, Krawinkler H, Lignos DG. An efficient method for estimating the collapse risk of structures in
seismic regions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2013; 42(1):25–41. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2191.
4. NIST. Tentative framework for development of advanced seismic design criteria for new buildings. NIST GCR
12-917-20, NEHRP consultants Joint Venture, 2012.
5. Liu J, Astaneh-Asl A. Cyclic testing of simple connections including effects of slab. Journal of Structural
Engineering 2000; 126(1):32–39. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:1(32).
6. Liu J, Astaneh-Asl A. Moment-rotation parameters for composite shear tab connections. Journal of Structural
Engineering 2004; 130(9):1371–1380. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:9(1371).
7. Leon R, Hajjar J, Gustafson M. Seismic response of composite moment-resisting connections, i: Performance.
Journal of Structural Engineering 1998; 124(8):868–876. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:8(868).
8. Green T, Leon R, Rassati G. Bidirectional tests on partially restrained, composite beam-to-column connections.
Journal of Structural Engineering 2004; 130(2):320–327. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:2(320).
9. Gupta, A and Krawinkler, H. Seismic demands for the performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame
structures. Report No. 132, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, CA, 1999.
10. Ji X, Kato M, Wang T, Hitaka T, Nakashima M. Effect of gravity columns on mitigation of drift concentration for
braced frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2009; 65(12):2148–2156. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.07.003.
11. Foutch DA, Yun SY. Modeling of steel moment frames for seismic loads. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2002; 58(5):529–564. DOI: 10.1016/S0143-974X(01)00078-5.
12. FEMA. State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subject to earthquake ground shaking.
Report FEMA-355C, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000.
13. Flores FX, Charney FA, Lopez-Garcia D. Influence of the gravity framing system on the collapse performance of
special steel moment frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2014; 101(0):351–362. DOI: 10.1016/j.
jcsr.2014.05.020.
14. Ramos MD, Mosqueda G, Lignos DG. Hybrid simulation of the seismic response of a steel moment frame building
structure through collapse. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Research (MCEER): University at Buffalo, NY,
2014.
15. Ramos MD, Hashemi MJ, Mosqueda G. Large-scale hybrid simulation of a steel moment frame building from the
onset of damage through collpase. Proc. of The 5th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural
Engineering. Taipei, Taiwan. 2013.
16. ASCE. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7–10. American Society of Civil Engi-
neers: Reston, VA., 2010.
17. Lowes LN, Mitra N, Altoontash A. A beam-column joint model for simulating the earthquake response of reinforced
concrete frames. Report No. 2003/10, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of Cali-
fornia, 2003.
18. Mckenna FT. Object-oriented finite element programming: Frameworks for analysis, algorithms and parallel
computing. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, CA, 1997.
19. Karamanci E, Lignos DG. Computational approach for collapse assessment of concentrically braced frames in
seismic regions. Journal of Structural Engineering 2014; 140(SPECIAL ISSUE: Computational Simulation in
Structural Engineering, A4014019). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001011.
20. Elkady A, Lignos DG. Modeling of the composite action in fully restrained beam-to-column connections:
implications in the seismic design and collapse capacity of steel special moment frames.Earthquake Engineering
& Structural Dynamic 2014; 43(13):1935–1954. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2430.
21. AISC. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 341–10. American Institute for Steel
Construction: Chicago, IL, 2010.
22. AISC. Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames for seismic applications, ANSI/
AISC 358–10. American Institute for Steel Construction: Chicago, IL, 2010.
23. Zareian F, Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Evaluation of seismic collapse performance of steel special moment resisting
frames using FEMA P695 (ATC-63) methodology. Proc. of ASCE Structures Congress. Orlando, FL, 2010. DOI:
10.1061/41130(369)116.
24. NIST. Evaluation of the FEMA P695 methadology for quantification of building seismic performance factors. NIST
GCR 10-917-8, NEHRP consultants Joint Venture, 2010.

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EFFECT OF GRAVITY FRAMING ON STEEL BUILDINGS WITH PERIMETER SMF

25. AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 360–10. American Institute for Steel Construction:
Chicago, IL, 2010.
26. AISC. Manual of steel construction, ANSI/AISC 325–11. American Institute for Steel Construction: Chicago, IL, 2011.
27. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler, H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(12):1489–1511. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.495.
28. Lignos DG, Chung Y, Nagae T, Nakashima M. Numerical and experimental evaluation of seismic capacity of
high-rise steel buildings subjected to long duration earthquakes. Computers & Structures 2011; 89(11):959–967.
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.01.017.
29. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel
moment frames under earthquake loading. Journal of Structural Engineering 2011; 137(11):1291–1302. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000376.
30. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations. Report
No. TB 177, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2012.
31. Krawinkler H. Shear in beam-column joints in seismic design of steel frames. Engineering Journal 1978; 15(3):82–91.
32. PEER/ATC. Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings, PEER/ATC 72–1.
Prepared for Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) by Applied Technology Council (ATC): Red-
wood City, CA, 2010.
33. Lignos D, Putman C, Zareian F, Krawinkler H. Seismic evaluation of steel moment frames and shear walls using
nonlinear static analysis procedures. Proc. of ASCE Structures Congress. 2011. DOI:10.1061/41171(401)191
34. Lignos DG, Putman C, Krawinkler H. Seismic assessment of steel moment frames using simplified nonlinear models.
Computational Methods in Earthquake Engineering 2013; 30(0):91–109. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-6573-3_5.
35. Zareian F, Medina RA. A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane structural
systems. Computers & Structures 2010; 88(1):45–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2009.08.001.
36. Whittaker A, Hart G, Rojahn C. Seismic response modification factors. Journal of Structural Engineering 1999;
125(4):438–444. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:4(438).
37. Jin J, El-Tawil S. Seismic performance of steel frames with reduced beam section connections. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2005; 61(4):453–471. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2004.10.006.
38. Mehanny S, Cordova P, Deierlein GS. Seismic design of composite moment frame buildings-case studies and codes
implications. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV 2002; 551–562. DOI: 10.1061/40616(281)48.
39. Balendra T, Huang X. Overstrength and ductility factors for steel frames designed according to BS 5950. Journal of
Structural Engineering 2003; 129(8):1019–1035. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:8(1019).
40. Jain S, Navin R. Seismic overstrength in reinforced concrete frames. Journal of Structural Engineering 1995;
121(3):580–585. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:3(580).
41. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2002;
31(3):491–514. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.141.
42. Lignos DG, Hikino T, Matsuoka Y, Nakashima M. Collapse assessment of steel moment frames based on E-Defense
full-scale shake table collapse tests. Journal of Structural Engineering 2013; 139(1):120–132. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0000608.
43. Suita K, Yamada S, Tada M, Kasai K, Matsuoka Y, Shimada Y. Collapse experiment on 4-story steel moment frame:
Part 2 detail of collapse behavior. Proc. of The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing, China.
2008.
44. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H, Whittaker AS. Prediction and validation of sidesway collapse of two scale models of a
4-story steel moment frame. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2011; 40(7):807–825. DOI:
10.1002/eqe.1061.
45. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H, Whittaker AS. Shaking table collapse tests of two scale models of a 4-story moment
resisting steel frame. Proc. of The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing, China. 2008.
46. Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2004; 33(6):687–706. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.369.
47. Goel RK, Chopra AK. Role of higher-“mode” pushover analyses in seismic analysis of buildings. Earthquake
Spectra 2005; 21(4):1027–1041. DOI: 10.1193/1.2085189.
48. Al-Ali AAK, Krawinkler H. Effects of vertical irregularities on seismic behavior of building structures. The John A.
Blume Earthquake Engineering Center: Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1998.
49. NIST. Applicability of nonlinear multiple-degree-of-freedom modeling for design. NIST GCR 10-917-9, NEHRP
consultants Joint Venture, 2010.
50. Ibarra L, Medina R, Krawinkler H. Collapse assessment of deteriorating SDOF systems. Proc. of The 12th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. London, UK. 2002.
51. Ibarra L, Krawinkler H. Effect of uncertainty in system deterioration parameters on the variance of collapse capacity.
Proc. of The 9th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability. Rome, Italy. 2005.
52. Zareian F, Krawinkler H. Assessment of probability of collapse and design for collapse safety. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13):1901–1914. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.702.

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe