SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF STEEL FRAMES WITH DEFORMABLE PANEL ZONES By Stephen P. Schneider,’ Associate Member, ASCE, and Ala Amidi? ApsrRACT: This paper presents an analytical study on the effect of panel zone (PZ) distortions on moment- resisting stel frame behavior. Analytical frame models were developed to study the influence of PZ distortions ‘on frames with hinging beam and hinging column joints. A simple, trilinear analytical model was developed ‘based on the mechanics of the column web and the flanges at the beam-column joint. Two bilinear rotational springs were needed at each joint to accurately simulate PZ istorions. Results suggest that simple analytical ‘models that do not include PZ distortions underestimate the elastic drift and overestimate the base shear capacity for moment-es ing stel frames. Further, simple analytical models used to determine inelastic seismic behavior may underestimate the rotational ductility for beam-column joints INTRODUCTION ‘Momentresisting steel frames are common structural sys tems for low to midrise buildings in intense seismic regions. ‘Analytical models of such frames, in most structural design offices, are often generated using line elements at the center- Tine dimension of the structure, with little regard to the panel zone (PZ) deformations atthe beam-columa joint. Many struc- tural analysis programs have the ability to include rigid ec- centricities at the ends of beam-column elements, thereby al- Towing designers to include a finite dimension’ of the PZ. However, the use of rigid eccentricities may exacerbate the inaccuracies of an analytical model, and results from such ‘models may overpredict the strength and stiffness of the struc- tural frame, This paper presents an analytical study on the influence of PZ deformations on the strength, stiffness, and drift of moment-esisting stel frames, as well asthe rotational ‘ductility of the beam-columa joint. “The current design philosophy in most structural engineer- ing offices is to use strong-column, weak-beam (SCWB) joints at every beam-column intersection to prevent inelastic distor- tions from occurring in the column. In some cases, however, the design ofthe beam may be governed by gai loud, of serviceability requirements, resulting ina stiff, strong girder Under such conditions may be impreccl, or we ‘economical, to satisfy the SCWB criteria at the joint. Conse- ‘quently, provisions permitting the use of weak-column, srong- beam (WCSB) joints in ductile moment-resisting steel frames were included in model codes such as the Uniform Building Code (UBC) (1991) and seismic code recommendations such as NEHRP (1991), ‘Other than the column and beam ends, the PZ is the third location to absorb inelastic energy at the beam-column joint in a moment-resisting frame. PZs have been shown (Bertero et al, 1972, 1973; Krawinkler et al. 1971, 1975; Krawinkler 1978; Osman et al. 1995) to provide stable strength and stff- ness characteristics well into the inelastic range, even after several cycles of inelastic deformation. PZs also have a greater slope of strain-hardening compared to the plastic hinge char- ‘acteristics of a wide flange shape and are less prone to local buckling. Therefore, due to their stable hysteretic behavior, “Asst Pro, Dept of Civ. Engr, Univ of Minis st Uriana Chane paign 208 N. Mathews Ave Urtuna IL 61801-2352, "Res, Asx. Univ. of inois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N, Mathews ‘Ave, Uibana IL ‘Note Awocate Editor: Nicholas P. ones, Discussion open unt une 1998, To extend the cloning date one monty writen request mart fled withthe ASCE Manager of Journals. The manascpt fortis paper was submited for review and possible publicauon on Februcy 15, 1396, This paper i part ofthe Journal of Sorucaral Engineering, Vo 124, No. 1, January, 1998. GASCE, ISSN 0733-9448/90/0001-0035~ (154 00+ 50 per page. Ps PZs are considered to be a very good source of energy dissi- pation. Seismic provisions in the UBC, for instance, require the minimum PZ strength to satisfy the smaller of the follow- ing two conditions: (1) Gravity plus 1.85 times the calculated snie forces; ot (2) 80% of the total plastic flexural capacity Of the beams at the joint. The second condition accounts for the effect of the gravity loads at most beam-column joints: however, it allows inelastic deformations to occur in the PZ before a plastic hinge develops in either the beam or the col- ‘Proportioning the PZ for a shear strength that is less than the girder strength at the joint may shift a hinging girder de- sign toward behavior representing a hinging column system, ‘This shift occurs when the joints are detailed, which is gen crally after all elements in the moment-esisting frame have bbeen sized. Consequently, a well proportioned, hinging beam system may exhibit hinging column-type frame behavior after the joints have been properly detailed. It is generally per- ceived, however, that the hinging column systems may lead to undesirable structural instabilities not generally associated ‘with hinging beam systems. Therefore, the object of this study was to investigate analytically the full implications of PZ: de~ formations on both SCWB and WCSB frame types. ‘A simple, tilinear analytical model was developed to in- vestigate the influence of PZ deformations on frame behavior in the elastic and inelastic ranges. Several analytical models, Were generated for previously designed SCWB and WCSB prototype frames, and the inelastic Seismic behavior was in- Vestigated for several seismic records, Analytical models ranged from a simple model, neglecting PZ deformations, to ‘models that included deformable PZs with tilinear behavior. Comparisons of these analytical results ilustrate the limita- tions and inaccuracies of some analytical models used in de- sign to predict the response of moment-resisting steel frames. ‘OVERVIEW OF PZ BEHAVIOR Experiments on beam-column subassemblies were per- formed (Bertero et al. 1972, 1973; Krawinkler et al. 1971, 1975; Krawinkler and Popov 1982) to investigate plastic hinge ‘mechanisms in beams, columns, and shear deformations in PZs, Cruciform beam-coluran subassemblies were subjected to predetermined cyclic deformation histories. These studies Semonstrated that PZs have the capacity to absorb a large amount of seismic energy and that the post-yeld strength and stiffness remained stable at deformations as large as 42 times the yield strain, Further, test data illustrated that neither strength nor stiffness deteriorated upon load reversal, even af- ter several deformation cycles were imposed. ‘Although previous tests on beam-column subassemblies, under a variety of load conditions, found that the inelast behavior of PZs is favorable for seismic conditions, some ad- JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1998/95,verse effects were noted. Several reports (Bertero et al. 1972; Krawinkler et al. 1971, 1975; Schneider et al. 1991) suggest that high shear distortions experienced by some PZs may have ‘a detrimental effect on the beam-to-column connection. Severe shear distortion of the PZ caused high strain concentrations near the beam flange welds. This high strain concentration led to fracture similar to that of the beam flange rupture observed in steel connections after the 1994 Northridge earthquake (SAC 1995). Therefore, it was concluded that PZs should not bbe too weak such that excessive shear distortion may be pre- vented. ANALYTICAL MODELING OF PZ DEFORMATIONS. To investigate the full implications of PZ deformations on frame behavior and the inaccuracy of various analytical frame models 10 predict true behavior, a reliable PZ model was needed. Since the object of this research was to develop a simple analytical PZ model that can be used in design and to study elastic and inelastic frame behavior, it was important 10 use a widely available analytical tool. Therefore, DRAIN-2DX (Allahabadi and Powell 1988) was used to suudy both the static and the nonlinear dynamic frame response. The beam-column element was used for the beams and columns in the frame, land the semirigid connection element was used to model the Pz. ‘Analytical PZ. behavior must reflect the inelastic character- istics observed from previous experimental research. In gen- eral, Krawinkler and Mohasseb (1987) summarized that at Teast two observations were common to most test programs on the inelastic behavior of PZs: (1) The shear resistance in the PZ was shared by the column web and to a smaller extent by the column flanges; and (2) the shear force-displacement be- havior was characterized by distinct elastic, decreased post- yield stiffness, and stable strain-hardening regions. Clearly, ex- perimental behavior demonstrated that once the column web yielded, the flanges accounted for the secondary stiffness and Added to the overall strength of the PZ. Therefore, it was nec- essary for the PZ model to include the contribution of the column flanges to the strength and stiffaess of the column web. Consequently, the shear resistance of a joint was simulated by two rotational springs: one corresponded to the strength ofthe column web, and the second for strength of the column flanges surrounding the PZ. Combining two bilinear rotational springs FIG. 1. Tillingar Moment-Rotation Behavior of PZ moon rw esr (ice FIG. 2 Wdealization of @ Deformable PZ '96/JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1998 in parallel at each joint, as shown in Fig. 1, adequately rep- resented the trilinear PZ behavior noted in previous research, Frame models to include PZ. deformations were developed using two nodes with identical coordinates at each joint. Beam clements were connected through one layer of nodes, whereas the columns were connected through the second layer of nodes. Beams and columns were modeled as continuous through the connection. To include deformable PZs in the frame model, rigid eccentricities were applied to each beam and column end to represent the finite dimension of the ele- rent depths. Nodes at each joint were required to have the same vertical and lateral translation, but joint rotations were not constrained. Two rotational springs were placed between the beams and columns at each joint, The differential rotation between the girders and columns at the joint was the shear distortion ofthe PZ. An idealized schematic of this joint model is shown in Fig. 2. ‘The strength and stiffness of the column web and flange components were essential to proper PZ modeling. Histoti- cally, PZ strength and stiffness models were primarily based ‘on mechanical behavior of the column web; however, a portion of the inelastic behavior relied on experimental observations to describe the wilinear characteristics of PZ behavior. In this study, the contribution of the flanges to the PZ. strength and stifness was developed using structural mechanics. Modeling the Column Web “The mode! for the column web deformation was similar to that used in previous research, except the panel dimensions in this study were based on the beam and column flange center- lines. This was consistent with the modeling of the strength and stiffness of the column flanges and was consistent with ‘current specifications controlling the design of PZs. The dis- tortion of the column web is shown in Fig. 3. The strain energy per unit volume of the panel was defined as 74/2G, where + and G are the shear stress and shear modulus, respectively. ‘Therefore, the total strain energy ofthe column web panel was oe [Be-Bue-me-o where dy and d, = beam and column depth; and ty and ty = thickness ofthe beam and column flange, respectively. Equat- ing this energy to the strain energy of a rotational spring, and assuming the shear distortion, , a Z4/G, the rotational stiff ness, K., for the column web panel was obtained as, K=O, ~ Nd ty) 059% — @ It should be noted thatthe PZ stiffness in (2) was not mod- ifed to include the beneficial effects of the shear force in the column, Krawinkler etal. (1975) discussed the significance of PZ stiffness when reduced to an equivalent rotational spring stiffness. This resulted in a modification factor for (2) that increases the web stiffness depending on the column shear, the My 2 FIG, 3, PZ Distortions and Propertiesirder depth, and the girder bending, moments. Calculations on the sensitivity of this effect, forthe frames used later inthis analytical study, illustrated that lateral frame stiffness in- creased less than 2% when the column shear was included in the PZ model, ‘The strength of the column web component assumed the entire effective web yielded in shear. Based on von Mises yield criteria the shear strength for the column web became v. (a ~ (-%) — @ f Sanosne, a Which was related to the rotational spring strength by mult plying by the depth of the girder atthe joint ‘Modeling the Column Flanges. Fig. 4 illustrates assumed behavior of the column flanges. Krawinkler and Mohasseb (1987) discussed the contribution of the flanges to the overall strength and stiffness as rotational springs at the four PZ. corners. This same basic concept was Used here, Ieassumed that the column flanges were completely rigid except for a localized region around the four corners in the PZ and that the web stiffeners were completely rigid. The portion of the column flange in a region projected at a 45° angle from the beam flange, as shown in Fig. 4, was consid- tered to be the column flange length most affected by the shear distortions of the PZ, Therefore, it was assumed that all of the curvature, and the plastic hinge, occurred within this length. Complete rigidity of the center length of the column flange ‘was due primarily to the column and beam webs that pre- Vented curvature. ‘The stiffness of the surrounding column flanges was then ‘modeled as a bending clement with fixed ends. The lateral stiffness of a flexural element with characteristics shown in Fig. 4(b) became ede TEE + WL AL + SIS Since there were two flanges per PZ, the total flexural sift ness Was Ky = 2K. The energy associated with the flexural stiffness of the flanges, Kay, Was equivalent to the energy ® rm | 1G, 4. (a) Column Flange Portion Participating In PZ Shear Rasictance;(b) Flexural Behavior of Column Flange associated with a rotational spring stiffness, Kj, with distor- tions of y. Therefore o By the geometry of the PZ distortions, yL_was equal t 4. Substituting this into (5) produced K,= Kun. Thus, the con- tribution of the column flange t the PZ stiffness was deter mined as 2AEN LL S°TET+ DLLs + EL) 2 Since the center portion of the column flange was consid- ered rigid, the limit of K, occurred when I; —> = WELL? mn "Tau + 303 Substituting the appropriate values for the column flange dimensions, L = (dy — ty), La = ty, La = L ~ 2h = (dy ~ by = 2iy)y and J, = byfy/12 into (7), the resulting elastic rotational stifiness of the column flange, K,, became o Eights = to) Fe ee {AREF Mids = WX y= Bg = YW ‘This stiffness was simplified by neglecting fy which was considered tobe small for many column flanges cctaive othe oer terms inthe denominator. Therefore, the ange silfass seas expresed a8 Kya Beale b= ge 3 nwa ty YS OO Eq, (9) described a simplified expression forthe equivalent rotational spring resistance of the column flanges for PZ. dis tortions used in this study. In previous research, Krawinkler (1978) modeled the shear resistance of the column flanges by four concentrated springs at each corner of the panel. The spring stiffness was then approximated by a finite element analysis, and a general equation forthe rotational stiffness was ‘expressed as Bb,f3/10. To compare this derivation with Kra- ‘winkler’s expression, (9) was reduced 10 Kw Kea Beaty oD ay te in which K;, would approach Ebt/12 if the column flange was very thin, "AS a comparison, K, was calculated for the frst floor in- terior joints for the SCWB and WCSB frames used later in this study. Values of Ky,_ a8 calculated by (10), were Eb_ey/112 and Bbyr/1120 for the SCWB and WCSB joints, respectively. These resulis were comparable with the Krawinklr's approximation of #t2/10. Elastic, perfectly plastic behavior was assumed foreach col- ump flange, and this the plastic strength of each flange was FZ, whore Z,= byjn/6 was used as the plastic section mod. ulus Since there were four ofthese plastic hinges per PZ, the total equivalent strength conubution due to the flanges be- came M,= bgtF,- Thus, the plastic rotation. for column flanges was writen as yn Men ote ey ap KOE hwy ‘The contribution ofthe flanges tothe lateral strength of the PZ. was expressed as 0) Fe, any JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1008/37 a2Which combined with the column web to provide the total shear strength of the PZ +e ress be by approximating the column depth as d. — ty ~ 0.9Sd.. A eee a eae 2 range ee wich compared well with the curet UBC specication of = Yano 05st ud, (1 + 3 Ae) a5 (1 ds bad ‘The difference between (14) and (15) was the factor on the flange component of shear strength. The strength specified by the UBC (15) was developed partly by observations of avail- able test data. Experimental results for tested specimens ex- hibited a secondary stiffness behavior over a range of four times the column web yield distortion, jy. Therefore, the strength contribution of the flanges was obtained by multiply ing an estimated flange stiffness by 3y,q. While the ultimate strength ofthis analytical PZ model differed slightly from cur- rent design specification, it was consistent with presumed be- havior of the components of the PZ. Therefore, (13) best rep- resented the shear strength of the PZs used in these analytical frame models. ANALYTICAL FRAME MODELING ‘This simple, tilinear analytical PZ model was developed for use when reasonably accurate seismic responses of mo- ee ees sone flan |p fm Hee mp E Ba Hae Fae Sh eset | z fess fem ly “fet tet S ¢ FIG, §, Element Sizee for Prototype Framea TABLE 1. PZDoubler Plates Neoded for he Prototype Frame Modole ‘ment-resisting stel frames might be needed. Therefore, among ‘other things this PZ model was used to compare the accuracy of other, more simplistic, analytical frame models. Many de~ signers tend to ignore PZ deformations in frame models, and this study provided an indication ofthe differences that should be expected compared to more accurate results. ‘Two S.story, 3-bay prototype frames, one using SCWB joints and the other using WCSB joints, were investigated by ' previous analytical and experimental program (Schneider et al. 1993). The purpose of those studies was to investigate the differences between the hinging column and the binging girder structural systems. This analytical investigation considered hinging anywhere at the joint. Fig. 5 shows the dimensions ‘and member sizes for each frame type. Each frame was de- signed for a dead load of 4.8 kPa, alive load of 2.4 KPa, and a roof load of 1.2 kPa. Seismic loads were computed for seis ‘mic zone 4, a soil condition of 1.2 and an importance factor ‘of 1.0. Loads in the frame were increased to account for ac- cidental torsional effects on the building. A modal analysis was performed for each frame, and the design forces computed from the base shear using the approximate code period was reduced. For both frames, the maximum reduction of 80% of the original design base shear was used to determine member forces needed for strength design. Story drifts for each frame ‘were satisfied forthe lateral forces associated with the actual period of vibration obtained from the modal analysis, as al- lowed by the UBC, Four different analytical models were developed for each SCWB and WCSB frame, In each of the four models, the ‘beam and column sizes were identical. Only the idealization of the PZ was different between frame models. Model 1 was, ‘based on member centerline dimensions, which neglects the finite dimension of the joint. Model 2 was the same as Model 1, but the finite dimension of the PZ was considered using rigid ends for the beams and columns (no PZ deformations and members with rigid eccentricities). These two models are ppethaps the most common frame models used in structural design offices. ‘Beam-columns in Model 3 were identical to that of Model 2 except that the joints were modeled using deformable PZs. In all comparisons, Model 3 was considered to best represent ‘actual frame behavior. Each beam-column PZ. was designed to satisfy the minimum UBC strength requirements. Doubler plate thickness used in Model 3 for each frame type is listed in Table 1. To design the PZs based on the UBC, the gravity loads plus 1.85 times the seismic loads were applied to Model 1 Itis of interest to note that all joints in the WCSB frame needed strengthening and thatthe load combination controlled the design. On the other hand, only 25% ofthe joints in the SCWB frame needed strengthening, and the design of these Zs was controlled by the bending strength of the girders at the joint. Thus, although the SCWB criteria may not result in the lightest weight beams and columns at a joint under some ‘conditions, the cost of fabrication may be less than what might Doster Pate Titres (rm) cpt PZ OPS (OPE «DPS (PSO OPB ce 8 8 § fn ‘ROOF ae, nae ia na ARS wess a om, swe s + Based oo OSI) lhe pos aing io re coun Manges ath '38/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1908be needed for a comparable WCSB joint if a significant num- ber of additional doubler plates are needed. "The characteristics of Model 4 were similar to that of Model 3, except that no attempt was made to satisfy the UBC require- ments for the minimum PZ strength. In this model, no doubler plates were added. Models 2 and 4 represented the extreme Conditions of PZ. behavior; Model 2 indicated the performance fof a frame with PZs designed as completely rigid, whereas “Model 4 suggested behavior with the PZs not strengthened. ‘A strain-hardening of 2% was used for all elements. The ultimate strength of all members were computed according to the AISC/LRED Specifications (Manual 1994), and the P-& ‘effect was included in both static and dynamic analyses. The stiffening and strengthening effect of the PZ, due to the con- crete floor slab, was not included in these analytical models. ‘Composite behavior increases the strength of both the PZ and the beam; however, Lee and Lu (1989) suggested thatthe ben- ficial effects of composite behavior diminish under repeated inelastic loads. ‘Ground motion records from four major earthquakes were used to study the inelastic dynamic response: (1) 1940 El Cen- to (SOE); (2) Array 7 (N230E) from the 1979 Imperial Valley; (3) Holister Airport (E90W) from the 1989 Loma Prieta; and (4) City Hall Grounds (E90W) from the 1994 Northridge earthquakes. However, the seismic response re- sulting from the 1989 Loma Prieta exhibited minimal inelastic behavior, and, therefore, results for this seismic record were ‘ot presented in this paper. ELASTIC ANALYSIS Guidelines are currently not available to assist designers in developing accurate analytical models, regardless of the com- plexity of the structural system. This includes a basic plane frame moment-resisting structure. Previous research indicated ‘that improper modeling and neglect of the joint condition may result in unconservative element and component design. ‘An elastic response spectra for each earthquake record and the first two fundamental mode of vibration for each SCWB and WCSB model are shown in Fig. 6. Each response spectra ‘was generated assuming 2% of critical damping forthe single- egree-of-freedom oscillator. In general, the WCSB scheme produced a stiffer structural system compared to the SCWB system. Further, the mode separation between analytical mod- cls was larger for the SCWB frames than for the WCSB frames. However, the fundamental fist mode of vibration for all models appeared to be in a reasonably low gradient range in the response spectrum. "To investigate drift each frame was subjected to a unit load nse Spectra for Ground Motion Records; 2% FIG. 6. Respor Equivalent Viscous Damping | J ‘act Ea ey Dt FIG. 7. Elastic Story Drift Obtained for Each Analytical Model at the roof level. This unit load subjected each story in the frame to a unit shear, and, therefore, drift was inversely pro- portional tothe stiffness of each story. Figure 7 illustrates the Story drift of each frame divided by the drift obtained from Model 3. Consequently, these values indicated the ratio by Which the simple analytical models under- or overestimated presumed frame behavior. Results indicated that Model 1 consistently underestimated the story drift of the SCWB frame by atleast 5%, and drift at two floors were underestimated approximately 10%. For the WCSB frame, Model 1 estimated drift reasonably wel for six of the eight floors, yet underestimated drift by as much as 11% in the lower floors. For these floors, however, serviceability ‘may control design. Therefore, an underestimate of the actual drift by 11% may be critical, Predicted results from Model 2, with the rigid PZs, suggest that story drift for this frame was consistently underestimated by 25% or more. “The elastic behavior, including PZ deformations, can be ob- tained from a more simplistic model of the moment-ressting frame. While the method presented by Tsai and Popov (1990) corrects behavior using each joint, this method averages PZ deformation at each floor. To modify a frame analysis for PZ sécformations, itis necessary thatthe results from the reference frame analysis not include PZ: deformations. Therefore, these ‘corrections must be applied to the results oblained from an analytical model like that of Model 2. The collective stiffness of all PZs atthe ith floor can be expressed as (Kor > + a6) in which n = number of columns in that story. In this analysis it is assumed thatthe ith story is below the ith flor. The total tffeive moment Me), applied tthe PZs a th or ean Be spproximated 33 Yaad + Wadashes (yy = Ce Woden oo in which (Van), and hy = story shear and height, respectively. Therefore, the average rotation of the PZs for the joints atthe ith floor Mad ae ‘which leads to an increased drift at the ith floor due to PZ distortions p= a9 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1998 /39|FIG. 8. Comparison of Corrected Elastle Story Drift for Rigid PZ Mode! For the fist story of a fixed-base frame 6, = 0. Floor drifis given by (19) must be added to the results obtained from the rigid joint frame analysis. Figure 8 shows the modified story drifts of Model 2 for the SCWB and WCSB frames subjected to UBC seismic loads. Results from this analysis are in ree sonably close agreement with the more accurate analysis of ‘Model 3. In almost all cases, this modified behavior produced conservative results ‘STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS. Determining the strength of a structural system for seismic ‘evaluation may be needed and can be accomplished by static pushover analysis, The ultimate strength obtained from each analytical model for both frame types is shown in Fig. 9, Lat- eral forces were distributed along the height of the structure according to the UBC seismic design provisions. The force ‘was gradually increased until the collapse load was reached, Reported drift isthe roof displacement obtained from the anal- ysis divided by the structure height. To be consistent, strain- aes se) ‘te (net) FIG. 8, Inelastic Push-Over Analyste 40/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1908 hardening was not changed, and, therefore, these curves clearly exhibited strain-hardening characteristics. Since no true peak Value in strength was observed, the initial elastic stiffness ‘was projected forward, and a linear slope of strain-hardening was projected backward. The intersection of the elastic and strain-hardening slopes was considered to be the strength of the frame. ‘The pushover analysis obtained from Model 1 for the ‘SCWB frame overestimated the strength ofthe frame by 30%. Most ofthis overestimate was due to the minimum allowable design strength of the PZs in the frame. As shown earlier, the condition that controlled the PZ strength for most SCWB Joints was the provision allowing the PZ moment to be 80% ‘of the sum of the beam strengths atthe joint. Since the SCWB. frame relied on beam hinges for the lateral strength of the frame, it should be expected that this minimum PZ strength provision produced at least a 20% reduction of the overall lateral strength of the frame. For a frame with WCSB joints, results from analytical Model 1 exhibited much closer predictions of strength com- pared to Model 3. This is due to the fact that all of the joints in the WCSB were strengthened according to the load com- bination requirement of the UBC. Therefore, the strength of the WCSB frame was not as dependent on the joint strength ‘as was the SCWB frame. In both SCWB and WCSB cases, the analytical model with the rigid eccentricities at the beam-column ends predicted ex- cessively high values of lateral frame strength. INELASTIC DYNAMIC ANALYSIS Figure 10 illustrates the inelastic story drift of the SCWB and WCSB frames for the major seismic events. For the o pat Soy Om PaCS Fas (nPwt) FIG. 10._ inelastic Story Drift Envelope for: (a) SCW Frame; (@)WCSB Frameaoe ussee Mere (K8-m) seus Tet Potion Duty (2, oye) Monert ke) aebouge a See eee tee FotonOctly (8, 05.) FIG. 11. Maximum Ductlity Demand on Beam-Columne and Pze SCWB frame, analytical results from Model 1 overestimated the maximum story drift by about 10% with some earthquakes. For the Imperial Valley earthquake, however, the maximum story drift was underestimated by only 2%, but the inelastic drift at other floors was underestimated by up to 48% For the WCSB frame, the drift predicted by Model 1 ex- hibited erratic behavior. Results exhibited a significant differ tence inthe story drift at every other floor in the WCSB frame. ‘This corresponded to the change in column sizes, and, there- fore, the column strength was overdesigned at every other story. Yielding ofthe PZ, however, distributed inelastic energy dissipation throughout the frame, which was not evident by the Model 1 predictions. It should be recalled that Model 1 is enerally the type of model used to predict behavior such as that approximated by Model 3. Predicted values from Model ranged from 17 to 171% of the presumed actual drift. Figure 11 illustrates a sample of the inelastic moment-0- tation behavior of the clements that had the largest inelastic energy demands from Models 1 and 3. According to Model 1 the largest predicted inelastic demand occurted at the column bases for the SCWB and WCSB frames, Predicted rotational ductility demands for the column ends in the SCWB and WCSB frames were j= 7.3 and 12.3, respectively. These were fairly large ductility demands for the plastic bending hinge- type mechanism, which are likely to be unacceptable for most ‘ructural shapes. Predicted ductlities for P2s were also quite large, where the maximum distortions were approximately jx = 27, respectively, for both the SCWB and WCSB frames with ‘minimum strength PZ. SIGNIFICANCE OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‘This study illustrates that simple analytical models neglect ing PZ deformations can overestimate the strength and stiff- ness of a ductile steel frame. Perhaps the most common need for a practitioner is to model the elastic behavior of a moment- resisting frame with SCWB joints. Consequently, accurately ‘modeling the PZ stiffness becomes a critical issue. PZs are usually ignored in the design process, and the need to strengthen the PZ is not considered until the beam-column joint is detailed. Results from the static analysis suggest that PZ deformations should not be ignored in the design process ‘when checking drift criteria for a moment-esistng stel frame design. Results for these frames indicated that actual story rifts can be as much as 10% larger than predicted by a simple ‘analytical model. This must be considered when using sim- plified analytical frame models in which element sizes are con- trolled by serviceability requirements Pushover analyses are becoming prevalent in seismic eval- vation to determine the base shear strength of a frame. Results in this study suggest that simple analytical models overesti- mate the lateral strength of the frame by as much as 30%. Allowing the PZ strength to be 80% of the beam strength reduces the lateral strength of the SCWB frame by at least 20%, which is not considered in simple analytical models. ‘Thus, since simple analytical models result in highly uncon- servative estimates of the lateral strength of a frame, these types of models should not be used in the seismic evaluation of the base shear capacity ‘The inelastic dynamic behavior predicted by the simple an- lytical model was somewhat erratic relative to presumed ac- tual behavior. The maximum story drift envelope, for instance, was underestimated for some earthquakes and overestimated for other ground motion records. Results were highly suscep- tible to the seismic ground motion input and to the relative strength of the beams and columns at the joint. Although accounting for the finite dimension ofthe PZ with rigid eccentricities at the beam and column ends appears to be ‘8 sophisticated analytical model ofthe joint, Model 2 produced ‘unreliable results, Elastic story drifts were underestimated 254% ‘or more by modeling PZs with rigid eccentricities, and the base shear strength was 42% larger than the available pre- dicted for the SCWB frame. Further, inelastic dynamic behav- for predicted by this analytical model was quite unreliable. ‘Consequently, rigid eccentricities at the beam and column ends to model the finite dimension of the PZ, without correcting for PZ. deformations, should not be used in practice. While rigid PZs should not be used to model behavior, the elastic results from this analysis may be corrected to estimate the elastic story drift in the frame. ‘These analytical results combined with previous experi- ‘mental work illustrate that allowing PZ deformations in mo- rment-resisting frames can benefit the inelastic dynamic re- sponse of the structural system under certain conditions. However, itis unclear if the current provisions are adequate. ‘The moment-rotation behavior shown in Fig. 11 illustrates that, Zs designed to current minimum strength conditions may ‘produce joint ductility demands as much as w= 27. Although previous tests indicated PZ, behavior might be acceptable at high ductlities, these tests also exhibited a potential for lange fracture under such high shear distortions. Increasing the PZ. strength exhibited much less shear distortion, and in many ceases a more rigid PZ was beneficial to the inelastic dynamic response of the frame. The joint can be strengthened by in- creasing the limiting shear strength ofthe PZ to be more than ‘80% of the shear induced by the sum of the flexural strength Of the girders at the joint. In the extreme conditions used in this study for completely rigid PZs, Model 2, all of the in- elastic deformation was removed from the joint, This extreme Condition is not desirable for design. However, the 1991 NEHRP provisions required the PZ strength to be greater than ‘90% of the beam strengths atthe joint. These analytical results suggest thatthe ductility demand will decrease, and the base shear strength of the frame will increase compared to what is JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1998 /41expected in a frame with current minimum PZ. design require- ments. This will clearly reduce the ductility demand on the joint, creating less potential for lange fracture. CONCLUSIONS. A trilinear analytical mode! was developed to simulate the strength and stiffness of the PZ in moment-esisting steel frames. This model was needed to investigate the effects of PZ distortions on elastic and inelastic frame behavior. Several conclusions can be inferred fom this study: 1. Simple analytical models that do not include PZ. defor- ‘mations reslt in unconservative estimates of drift and the lateral strength of the frame. Neglecting PZ distor tions underestimated drift by as much as 10% and ove estimated the base shear strength by 30% forthe frames Used inthis study. 2 Analytical models that include the finite dimension of ‘the PZ by using vigid eccentricities atte beam and col- lumn ends, without including PZ. distortions, should not be used in practice. This model, without modification, is inadequate to predict elastic def, lateral strength, othe inelastic dynamic behavior of a frame. 3. Elastic story drift computed from a rigid PZ model can be corrected using the collective PZ. sifness ata floor, the story shears, and story heights. Corrected drift est mates ae generally conservauve compared tothe pre- sumed actual behavior. 4, Inelastic dynamic results obtained fom simple analytical ‘models that do not include PZ deformations are erratic compared to presumed actual behavior. For drift enve- Topes, the tends of maximum story drift were approxi- rately conect for the SCWB frame, although the mag- nitudes were in error by as much as 20%, Predictions of the inelastic story drift envelopes for frames with WCSB, joints can be unteliable, in which magnitudes as much 48 70% in error were found for frames in this study. 5. Current provisions governing the minimum strength de- sign of PZs might result in joins with high shear dis- tortion, which increases the potential for flange fracture ofthe gitder framing into the joint. These results suggest {hat the 1991 NEHRP provision requiring the PZ strength to be greater than 90% of the sum of the beam strengths a the joint appears to be @ minimum. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘This material is based on work supported bythe American Insitute of ‘steel Construction (AISC) and by the University of lols (UD) Research Board. Tas support is gratefully acknowledged. Opinions expressed in this paper are those ofthe wrtere and do not necessary elec the opi lon of AISC othe Ut Research Boas APPENDIX|. REFERENCES Allahabad, R., and Powel, G, H, (1988), “DRAIN-2DX user guide" ‘Rep. UCB/EERC 8876, Univ. of California, Berkley, Cali Bert, V.V. Popov, EP, and Krawinkler H. (1972). "Beam-column ‘barsemblages under repested lading" Siruet Din, ASCE, 983), ti37139, Bertero, VV, Keawiakler, Hand Popoy, EP (1973). “Farber studies ‘on scinmic behavior of sec beametocolua subasiembages.” Rep [BERC 73-27, Univ. of California, Berkey, Cait Krawinklr, H., enero, V.V, and Popov, E.P. (197). “Inelastic be- ‘bivior of cel beam io-colunn subunembiages” Rep. EERC 71-7, Univ of California, Bessey. Calf. Krawinker,H., Bere, VV, and Popo EP. (1978). “Shear behavior (of stoe fame jms J. Sint. Div, ASCE, 101(11), 2317-2336, {42 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1998, [Kawinkler H. (1978) “Shear in bear-coluin joints in sexi design ‘of sel frames.” Engr. J AISC, 150), #2~21. Kavinle, H, and Popov, EP (1982) "Seismic behavior of momeat ‘Connections and jolts" J. Siract. Dik ASCE, 1082), 373381 ravine, Hand Mobasse, 5. (1987. "Efect of panel zone defer: ‘on selmi response" J. Conte Stel Re, B, 233-250, Lee, 5, J, and Lu, L. W. (1989), “Cyeli ests of fullscale compose int subasemblages." J. Struct, Engrg, ASCE, 115(), 1977-1998 Manual of ste! contruction: Toad and resistant factor design, (1998) ‘American Instat of Ste! Constocion (ASO), Chicago, [NEHRP recommended provisions for selon regulation for new buld- ings. (1991). Building. Seismic Safety Counel, Pedeal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, D.C. Onman, A, Ghobarah, A, and Korl, Re M. (1995). “implications of sn ploules fr semi repose of eal monet fame.” Earhquake Engrg. and Suc. Dynamics, 21), 127-13. Sehnlder, 8, Roeder, C. W. and Caspenter, J. & (1991). “Same ‘performance of weak-olumn strong beam siel momenteising frames" Final! Rep Dep of Civ. Bagg. Univ. of Washington, Se aie, WA, Schneider, §. P, Roeder, C. W. and Carpenter, J.B (193). “Selamle ‘ehavior of moment-esisting sce! frames: experimental study." J Siract Engra ASCE, 1196), 18851902 SAC Joint Vente (1985), "Stel Moment Frame Connec- ‘done Advtaory Rep. No. © SAC 95-0, Sacrament, Calf Tal, KC, and Popov, E.P (1990), "Seismic panel zone design effect, ‘on clas etry df in ie frames." J Sra Engr. ASCE, 162), Shas-s301 Uniform building code. (191). Interational Conference of Building OF- eas, Whiter, Cali APPENDIX!I. NOTATION The following symbols are used inthis paper: bog = column flange width; ‘beam depth; column depth; ‘modulus of elasticity for ste! yield stress of steel, Shear modulus of steel; story height below ith floor; ‘moment of inertia, Contribution of column flanges to rotational stifness of PZ; K,, = equivalent spring stiffness at each comer of column flanges of PZ; += collective stiffness ofall PZs st oor: K. = contribution of column web pane! to rotational stiffness of PZ; ‘beam moment at join; column moment at joint; plastic bending stength of column flange; {otal effective moment on joints at floor, plastic bending strength of column panel webs Influence of gravity loads on lateral displacement; beam flange thickness, column flange thickness: column web thickness: {otal shear srength of PZ; fange contibation to shear strength of PZ: total column shear in story; column web contribution to shear strength of PZ: plastic section modulus: Angle of pane! shear distortion; Yield distortion of column flanges; Yield distortion of column web panel; Iateral displacement of PZ; correction for the elastic drift from rigid PZ. condition; rotation of beam-column end: ‘average rotation of joints at ith Noor: Yield rotation ofthe beam-column end; fotational ductility, and average shear stress in PZ.