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

net/publication/222738896

Effects of semi-rigid behavior of connections in the reliability of steel

frames

Article in Structural Safety · April 2003

DOI: 10.1016/S0167-4730(02)00046-2

CITATIONS READS
54 1,718

2 authors:

Mohammad Ali Hadianfard Reza Razani

Shiraz University of Technology Shiraz University
57 PUBLICATIONS 228 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 164 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Connections of steel structures under progressive collapse (experimental and finite element methods) View project

Structural Engineering Optimization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Reza Razani on 03 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138
www.elsevier.com/locate/strusafe

Effects of semi-rigid behavior of connections in the reliability

of steel frames
M.A. Hadianfard*, R. Razani
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engeering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Received 2 February 2001; received in revised form 17 August 2001; accepted 22 October 2001

Abstract
The actual behavior of beam to column connections in steel frames is seldom fully rigid or fully pinned.
The true behavior of the connections is usually semi-rigid. Neglecting the real behavior of the connection in
the analysis may lead to unrealistic predictions of the response and reliability of steel frames. This paper
considers the effects of semi-rigid behavior of the connections in the finite element analysis and in the reliability
analysis of steel frames. Assuming that the loads and the resistance of members are random variables, then the
Monte Carlo simulation technique is used for the best estimation of the probability of failure of the frame sys-
tem. Some examples are presented, which illustrate the importance of the effect of the semi-rigid behavior of the
connections in the calculation of the overall reliability of the total system of the steel frames.
# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reliability; Safety; Failure; Steel-frames; Semi-rigid connection; Monte-Carlo-simulation

1. Introduction

Conventional analysis and design of steel frames are usually carried out under the assumption
that the beams to column connections are either fully rigid or ideally pinned. Although the
adoption of such idealized joint behavior greatly simplifies the analysis and design processes, the
predicted response of the idealized structure may be quite unrealistic compared to the response of
the actual structure. Any structural connections deform to some extent and will resist a certain
amount of bending moment. The relationship between beam end moment, M, and the relative
change in angle,
r, can be described by means of a typical moment-rotation diagram.
Overestimating the connection restraint may result in underestimating the lateral sway, story
drift, and the probability of failure, while underestimating the connection restraint can lead to
underestimating forces developed in the beams and columns.

* Corresponding author. Fax: +98-711-628-7294.

E-mail address: razani@shirazu.ac.ir; mahadianfard@yahoo.com (M.A. Hadianfard).

0167-4730/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0167-4730(02)00046-2
124 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138

In the past three decades, considerable research has been carried out to assess the actual behavior
of steel frame connections; a few notable examples are as follows:
Romstad and Subramanian [1] used a bilinear model to predict the behavior of web angle
connections in the static analysis of steel frames. Moncarz and Gerstle [2] used a nonlinear model
for connection behavior in steel frames. Barakat and Chen [3] proposed a procedure for analysis
and design of semi-rigid frames. Kishi and Chen [4] proposed a power model with three para-
meters to define the M–
r curve. Faris et al. [5] used nonlinear elastoplastic behavior of semi-rigid
connections in the analysis of space frames. Kishi et al. [6] developed a three-parameter power
model for modeling the connection behavior in analysis and design. Xu and Grierson [7] devel-
oped an efficient computer automated method for the optimum design of steel frameworks with
semi-rigid connections. Bhatti and Hingtgen [8] modeled the connections as elastic–perfectly
plastic and evaluated the effects of connection stiffness on the service load behavior of unbraced
steel frames. Hadianfard and Seyyedian [9] used nonlinear behavior of semi-rigid frames in static
and dynamic analysis of steel frames.
However, much of the past research has been limited to the deterministic analysis and design
problems without due attention to the reliability analysis of the structures. Also during the last two
decades, considerable progress has been made in the field of structural reliability, to name a few:
Rubinstein [10] has described the Monte Carlo simulation method, and this method with some
modifications has been used by many researchers in structural reliability analysis [11]. Gao and
Haldar [12] evaluated the safety of frames with partially restrained connections. Nakib [13] used
reliability analysis in the optimization of truss bridges. Recent progress in this field is given in the
proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, edited by
Shirashi et al. [14]. Song and Ellingwood [15] evaluated seismic reliability of special moment
resisting steel frames with welded connections. Also many methods of structural system reliability
analysis are given by Thoft-Christensen and Murotsu [16].
Most of the recent research has concentrated on methods to identify the reliability of the
structural systems. Seldom have the effects of the semi-rigid connections been considered in the
reliability of the structural systems. The objective of this paper is the introduction of the semi-
rigid behavior of the beam to column connections in the finite element and in reliability analysis
of steel frames so as to show the importance of the modeling of the connection behavior in the
calculation of the probability of failure.

2. Modeling of semi-rigid connections

In the analysis of the semi-rigid frame, one assumes that the connections can transfer the entire
vertical shear and also have the capacity to transfer some moment. When a moment M is applied
to a beam-column connection, the connected beam and column rotate relative to each other by an
amount of
r. The relationship between M and
r, can be shown by the use of a M–
r diagram.
This diagram is usually derived by fitting suitable curves to the experimental data. Various types
of M–
r models have been developed as described by Chen and Lui [17]. For example, linear
models, polynomial models, power models, exponential models, etc. are among popular models.
For practical purposes, in the selection of a connection model, the accuracy, simplicity and
versatility of the chosen model are among important guiding parameters.
 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138 125

In this paper the effects of connection flexibility are modeled by attaching rotational springs
with stiffness moduli Ri and Rj at the ends i and j of a beam. These springs have elasto-plastic
behavior with ultimate moment capacity UMi and UMj, respectively. The degrees of freedom for
column and beam elements are shown in Fig. 1.

3. Finite element analysis of semi-rigid frames

The stiffness matrix of a beam, kbeam with rotational springs at the ends is shown by the
following matrix [9,17]:
EI
kbeam ¼
L
2A A 3
0 0  0 0
6I

 I

7

6 Sii þ 2Sij þ Sjj Sii þ Sij  Sii þ 2Sij þ Sjj Sij þ Sjj 7
6 7
6 0 7
6 L2 L
L2  L 7
6  Sii þ Sij 7
6 7
6 Sii 0 Sij 7
6 L 7
6 A 7
6 0 0 7
6 I 7
6

7
4 Sii þ 2Sij þ Sjj  Sij þ Sjj 5
Sym
L2 SLjj
ð1Þ

Where

12EI 
Sii ¼ 4 þ =R ð2Þ
LRj

12EI 
Sjj ¼ 4 þ =R ð3Þ
LRi

Sij ¼ Sji ¼ 2=R ð4Þ

2
 4EI 4EI EI 4
R ¼ 1þ 1þ  ð5Þ
LRi LRj L Ri Rj

Ri=Stiffness of rotational spring at end i.

Rj=Stiffness of rotational spring at end j.
E is the modulus of elasticity and A, I, L, are the cross-sectional area, moment of inertia and
the length of the member respectively.
126 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138

Fig. 1. Degrees of freedom for elements. (a) Column element; (b) beam element.

For columns, the stiffness matrix, kcolumn takes the usual form as given in references [17,18].
The beam stiffness matrix and the column stiffness matrix can be assembled in the usual manner
[18] to form the structure stiffness matrix K for a given structure. Then the general equilibrium
Eq. (6) at the nodes is formed:

KU ¼ F ð6Þ

This equation can be solved by the Gauss elimination or other well-known methods and con-
sequently the nodes displacement vector U can be calculated. F is a vector representing external
forces acting at the nodes.
For the beam with rotational springs at the ends, it must be considered that the fixed end forces
are different from the quantities given in conventional beam elements. These new fixed end forces
can be calculated by using slope deflection relations and superposition techniques. The details of
these techniques and the results are given by Hadianfard and Seyyedian [9].
At the end of the structural analysis, after the internal forces in members are calculated, then
the resistance of each member in bending, tension and compression are compared with internal
forces, and the formation of plastic hinges within the structure are checked. In the formation of
plastic hinges in the column ends, interaction of axial force and bending moment can be
considered by the interaction formulae (7) and (8) as shown now:
 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138 127

P M
þ 41 ð7Þ
PU MU

or
P MU
M4 1 ð8Þ
PU 

Where P and M are the axial force and bending moment in the column end, PU and MU are
axial and bending capacities of column member, a is the magnification factor as proposed in the
AISC Manual. In this manner the existence of the axial force in any column reduces the plastic
moment of that column by a factor of

1 P
1
 PU

as shown in Eq. (8)

When a plastic hinge forms at the left-hand end of a beam, the original stiffness matrix of the
beam, Eq. (1), is replaced by a reduced matrix kLbeam . This matrix can be obtained from Eq. (1) by
replacing Ri=0 as shown by Eq. (9):
2 3
A A
6 I 0 0 0 0 7
6 
I   7
6 Sjj SJJ Sjj 7
6 0 0 7
6 L2 L2 L 7
6 7
6 7
EI 6 0 0 0 0 7
kLbeam ¼ 6 7 ð9Þ
L6 6 A 7
6 0 0 7 7
6 I 7
6 
Sjj Sjj 7
 7
6
6 Sym: 7
4 L2 L 5
Sjj

where
 3
Sjj ¼ ð10Þ
3EI
1þ
LRj

Similarly when the right-hand end is turned into a plastic hinge, the beam stiffness matrix can
be obtained from Eq. (1) by replacing Rj ¼ 0 in a similar manner as was shown above.
Finally, when both ends are transformed into plastic hinges, the reduced stiffness matrix of the
beam reduces to Eq. (11):
128 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138
2 3
EA EA
0 0 0 0
6 L L 7
6 7
6 0 0 0 0 07
6 7
6 7
6 0 0 0 07
kLR
beam ¼6
6
7
7 ð11Þ
6 EA 7
6 0 07
6 L 7
6 7
4 0 05
Sym: 0

In a similar manner for column elements, as for beam elements, the formation of plastic hinges
reduces the original stiffness matrix of the column as given in Section 5.3 of Ref. [16].
When at both ends of a column, plastic hinges are formed, then the reduced stiffness matrix is
given by Eq. (11). If the axial force in a member exceeds the resistance of that member in tension
or compression, then the reduced stiffness matrix can be computed by replacing the area of that
member by zero. After replacing the original member stiffness matrix of the members by the
reduced stiffness matrix of these members, the revised stiffness matrix of the entire structure can
be assembled. Then a pair of equivalent fictitious loads (normal forces or moments) will be added
for the failed elements, and the analysis is repeated. At each iteration the total stiffness matrix is
checked for singularity, which indicates the formation of a mechanism in the structure. This is
determined by the investigation of the singularity of the revised total stiffness matrix of the
structure (K). Thus, the criterion of the structural failure is given by Eq. (12):

jKj ¼ 0 ð12Þ

where j j is the determinant of a matrix.

When the total stiffness matrix, K, is not singular but in any beam element three plastic hinges
are formed which indicates local beam failure, then, it is assumed that structural failure occurred.
Also for the control of the serviceability limit state, the relative drift of floors are compared
with Dh, where; D is the allowable limit relative drift coefficient that is prescribed by the user of
the computer program (in this paper it is assumed that: D=0.008), and h is the story height under
consideration. (If the story drift becomes grater than Dh, then it is assumed that serviceability
failure has accrued).

4. Reliability analysis of the semi-rigid frames

There are numerous sources of uncertainties in structural design, for example, uncertainties in
loads, strength capacities and material properties. These uncertainties affect the structural safety
and must be considered in the design process.
The reliability of a structure is denoted by the factor g which is defined by Eq. (13) as:

 ¼ 1  Pf ð13Þ
 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138 129

where Pf is the probability that the structure will fail during the specified reference period. Several
methods of system reliability evaluation have been developed for different classes of structural
systems, many of these methods are described in references [11,16]. One of the simplest and rela-
tively accurate methods that can be used to estimate the reliability (or probability of failure) of a
general system is the Monte Carlo simulation technique [10,11]. In this method, samples of the
independent basic variables are generated according to their probability density functions.
Structural analysis is performed for each sample, and each sample is tested for failure. The
proportion of samples leading to system failure is an estimator of Pf.
Because the goal of this paper is the evaluation of the effects of semi-rigid behavior of connec-
tions on the reliability of the total structural system, and also to show the comparative impor-
tance of this factor in reliability of structure, therefore the simple and relatively accurate method
of the Monte Carlo simulation is used.
In this research, external loading, resistance capacities of members in tension, compression and
bending and also bending resistance and stiffness of semi-rigid connections are independent basic
random variables, which are assumed to have a normal distribution. For each random sample, at
first the internal forces are calculated by using an elastic stiffness matrix, then each member or
connection is checked for failure and the reduced stiffness matrix and equivalent fictitious loads
are computed, and the analysis is repeated. This process is stopped when, nowhere in the struc-
ture the internal forces exceed the randomly obtained limits. If the stiffness matrix in each stage is
found to be singular, then it is assumed that failure has occurred for this random sample. At the
end, the probability of failure is calculated from Eq. (14).
Nf
Pf ¼ ð14Þ
N
where Nf is the number of simulation cycles when the structure failed, and N is the total number
of simulation cycles which is carried out.

5. Numerical examples and discussions

In this section some examples, which show the importance of consideration of the semi-rigid
behavior in reliability analysis are presented:

Example 1. A two-bay, two-story steel frame, as shown in Fig. 2, is assumed to be under uniform
vertical loads. Geometrical properties of columns and beams are given in Table 1. All of the
beam-to-column connections are made of top and seat angles with double web angles as shown in
Fig. 3. In conventional analysis and design of steel frames, this type of connection is assumed to
behave as a fully pinned connection, but the real behavior of this connection is semi-rigid, which
can be shown by means of a suitable M–
r curve. For example, Kishi and Chen’s power model
[6], as shown by Eq. (26) below, can be used for the M–
r relation.
M

r ¼ 1 ð15Þ
n
M n
Rki 1
MU
130 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138

Fig. 2. Example 1—two-bay, two-storey steel frame.

Table 1
Example 1—section properties of columns and beams

Member type Depth (in) Area (in2) Moment of Plastic

inertia (in4) modulus (in3)

C1 7.87 8.41 92 29.3

B1 7.08 4.41 46.6 13.4

Fig. 3. Example 1—beam to column connections.

 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138 131

In which Rki is the initial connection stiffness, Mu is the ultimate moment capacity of the con-
nection, and n is a shape parameter of the M–
r curve. The two parameters, Rki and Mu are
evaluated analytically based on the size and geometry of the connection, while the shape parameter
n is obtained by a curve-fitting technique. Here these parameters are Rki =0.0848106 k.in/rad,
Mu =387 k.in, and n=1.35 as given by Hadianfard and Seyyedian [9].
This frame has been analyzed before in Ref. [9] with modeling the semi-rigid connections as
nonlinear springs attached to the ends of the beams. The nonlinear behavior of these connections,
defined by the M–
r curve, is given by Eq. (15). For the sake of simplicity and for reducing the
time of analysis in this paper, it is assumed that the semi-rigid connections consist of linear
rotational springs with the stiffness modulus equal to 0.5 Rki. Then by using the secant modulus
approximation the need for time consuming incremental analysis is eliminated. Internal forces of
this frame at three states of nonlinear semi-rigid connections, linear semi-rigid connections and
fully pinned connections are compared in Table 2. This table shows that, the difference between
bending moments at nonlinear analysis and linear analysis with spring modulus 0.5 Rki is about
6.5%. However, the difference between fully pinned and semi-rigid is very large. Therefor, the
linear elasto-plastic semi-rigid connections can be used with sufficient accuracy (using the average
connection stiffness 0.5 Rki also was assumed in reference [19]).
For reliability analysis of this frame, the random variables are loading, axial, and bending
resistance of the members and moment capacities and stiffness of the connections. The expected
value of uniform vertical loading is equal to 0.085 k/in, the expected values of the resistance of the
members are given in Table 3, and the expected value of moment capacity and stiffness of the

Table 2
Example 1—comparison of bending moment (k/in) in three states

Member No. Node No. Nonlinear Linear Fully

semi-rigid semi-rigid pinned

Column No. 1 1 27.38 25.63 0

4 53.24 49.83 0
Column No. 4 4 111.79 104.37 0
7 149.78 139.64 0
Beam No. 7 4 165.03 154.21 0
Mid. 162.63 173.49 333.47
5 176.62 165.75 0
Beam No. 9 7 149.77 139.64 0
Mid. 168.09 178.59 333.47
8 180.96 170.1 0

Table 3
Example 1—expected value of member strength

Member type Plastic moment (k/in) Tension capacity (kips) Compression capacity (kips)

C1 1054 302 241

B1 482 158 127
132 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138

connections is assumed to be equal to 387 k.in and 0.0424106 k.in/rad, respectively. It is

assumed that the coefficient of variation for the loading is 0.2, for the resistance of the members is
0.1, and for the connection capacity and stiffness is variable between 0.05 and 0.25 . The first
reliability analysis was done for this frame with the assumption of fully pinned connections
(conventional model). The result of this analysis with 20,000 Monte Carlo simulations is
Pf=0.02795, where Pf is the probability of failure of the entire steel frame. The second reliability
analysis was done for the model of the same frame with semi-rigid connections (more realistic
behavior), and the analysis with 20,000 Monte Carlo simulations for all of the connection’s
coefficient of variations resulted in Pf=0. It can be seen from this example, that a large difference
exists in the probability of failure, between the two cases of fully pinned and semi-rigid modeling
of the connections. In other words, assumption of fully pinned connections in reliability analysis
of steel frames seems to be a rather conservative estimate for the estimation of the probability of
failure. Also it can be seen that, the sensitivity of the reliability analysis with respect to the
coefficient of variation of the connection characteristics is very small.

Example 2. A one-bay, two-story steel frame, as shown in Fig. 4, was assumed to be under uni-
form vertical loads and lateral loads. All of the members are AISC sections with properties as
given in Table 4. Also the expected values of the member’s resistance are shown in Table 4, and
can be calculated as follows:

Mp ¼ Z:Fy ð16Þ

TU ¼ A:Fy ð17Þ

Fig. 4. Example 2—one-bay, two-storey steel frame.

 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138 133

Table 4
Example 2—expected value of member strength

Member type AISC Plastic Tension Compression

sections moment (k.in) capacity (kips) capacity (kips)

C1 W1453 3135 561 460

C2 W1443 2505 453 370
B1 W2150 3960 529 502
B2 W1840 2822 424 402

8 9
>
> >
>
< =
A½1ðKL=rÞ2 =2Cc2 Fy ......... KL=r Cc
PU ¼ 2 ð18Þ
>
>  EI >
:Pe ¼ 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KL=r Cc >
;
ðKLÞ

where Mp, TU, PU are plastic moment, tension capacity and compression capacity of the mem-
bers, Z and A are plastic modulus and area of the sections, r is the radius of gyration, Fy is the
yield stress of steel, which is assumed to be equal to 36 ksi. Pe is the Euler buckling load and KL is
the effective length of the member and Cc is as follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
22 E
Cc ¼ ð19Þ
Fy

where E is the modulus of elasticity of steel, which is assumed to be equal to 29,000 Ksi.
The loads and also the resistance of the members and the connection’s resistance and stiffness
are assumed to be random variables with normal density function and coefficient of variation
equal to 0.10. All connections of beams to columns are end-plate connections with moment
capacity equal to the plastic moment of the beams. In conventional analysis and design of steel
structures, this type of connection is assumed to be a fully rigid connection. However, the actual
behavior of this connection is semi-rigid and can be shown by the M–
r curve. For example for
this purpose the Frye and Morris polynomial model [17] can be used as given by Eq. (20):

r ¼ C1 ðK0 MÞ þ C2 ðK0 MÞ3 þC3 ðK0 MÞ5 ð20Þ

where K0 is a standardization parameter dependent upon the connection type and for the end-
plate connection with column stiffeners. This parameter can be evaluated by Eq. (21):

K0 ¼ dg2:4 t0:6
p ð21Þ

While dg and tp are dimensions as shown schematically in Fig. 5. (All dimensions are in inches.)
The parameters C1, C2, C3 are curve-fitting constants as:
134 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138

Fig. 5. Example 2—beam to column connections.

C1 ¼ 1:79  103
C2 ¼ 1:76  104
C3 ¼ 2:04  104 ð22Þ

The slope of the M–
r curve at each point gives the stiffness modulus of connection, which shall
be named: tangential stiffness, and for this model it can be calculated from Eq. (23) below:

dM 1
Rkt ¼ ¼ ð23Þ
d
r C1 K0 þ 3C2 K0 M 2 þ 5C3 K05 M 4
3

The initial stiffness of the connection can be obtained from Eq. (23) by replacing M=0 as is
shown by Eq. (24) below:
1
Rki ¼ ð24Þ
C1 K0

As in Example 1, it is assumed that the beam to column connections are linear elasto-plastic,
the rotational springs have the modulus Ri=Rj=0.5Rki. Therefore, the connection stiffness at
each end of the beams, B1 and B2, are calculated as follows:
For B1: d=20.83 in, dg=23.83 in, tp=1 in and K0 ¼ 4:953  104 ; therefore, the expected value
of Ri and Rj is Ri =Rj=0.564106 k.in/rad.
For B2: d=17.90 in, dg=20.90 in, tp=1 in and K0 ¼ 6:786  104 ; therefore, the expected value
of Ri and Rj is Ri=Rj=0.412106 k.in/rad.
Reliability analysis was carried out for a rigid frame based on conventional assumptions. This
analysis, which used 20,000 Monte Carlo simulations, resulted in; Pf=0.00175 for when only
strength limit is considered and Pf=0.0039 for when both strength and serviceability limit (drift
 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138 135

control) are considered. However, the reliability analysis for the similar semi-rigid frame based on
the actual behavior of connections, using the Fry and Morris model, and the 20,000 Monte Carlo
simulations resulted in; Pf=0.00350 for when only strength limit is considered and Pf=0.0052 for
when both strength and serviceability limits are considered. It can be seen from the results of
these two analyses that, in using semi-rigid connection modeling, the probability of failure for
strength and also for excessive relative drift of floors is greater than rigid connection modeling. In
this example the importance of consideration of semi-rigid behavior of the connections in the
evaluation of the probability of failure and reliability of the structural system is quite evident. In
other words, assumption of fully rigid connections in the reliability analysis is quite unsafe and
can lead to underestimating the probability of failure.

Example 3. The steel frame, described in Example 2 and analyzed under vertical and lateral loads,
is considered once again. However, it was loaded with only uniform vertical loads; W1=0.40 k/in
and W2=0.30 k/in. At first this frame is analyzed with the assumption of fully rigid connections.
The probability of failure is calculated and is found to be Pf=0.00525. This frame again is ana-
lyzed with the assumption of semi-rigid connections. In this case the calculated probability of
failure is found to be Pf=0.00175. In this example also the sensitivity of reliability analysis with
respect to the assumption of semi-rigid behavior of connections is evident. It can be seen also
that, the probability of failure for this special frame with conventionally assumed fully-rigid
connections is greater than the probability of failure of the same frame with more realistic semi-
rigid behavior of connections. In this special case, most of the failure modes are local failure
modes related to beams B1 and B2 (the formation of three plastic hinges in a beam), and in the
semi-rigid case new redistribution of the moment in the beams cause later formation of plastic
hinges than in the fully-rigid case. Thus, the probability of failure of the semi-rigid case is less
than the fully-rigid case. Also by comparing Examples 2 and 3, it appears that removing the lat-
eral loads change the global failure mode (singularity of stiffness matrix) to local failure mode of
the beams. Also in the case of rigid frames, it causes an increase in the failure probability, while in
the case of semi-rigid frames it causes a decrease in the failure probability.

Example 4. Consider again the steel frame described in Example 2 with braced members and fully
pinned connections, which is loaded as shown in Fig. 6. All of the bracing members are double
angles (2Ls221/8 in), each angle has the area of A=0.96 in2. The expected values of tension
and compression strength are calculated to be Tu=34.5 kips and Pu=27.6 kips, respectively. First
it is assumed that the beams to column connections are made up of the top and seat angle con-
nection as shown in Fig. 7. This connection is conventionally assumed to behave as a fully-pinned
connection. However, the more realistic semi-rigid behavior of this type of connection can be
modeled by the Kishi and Chen relation as shown by Eq. (15). The main parameters of the con-
nection angle and values of Rki, MU, n for the end connections of beams B1 and B2 to columns
are summarized in Table 5.
Reliability analysis for this frame with the two assumptions of fully pinned connections (springs
with stiffness modulus Ri=Rj=0) and semi-rigid connections (springs with stiffness modulus
Ri=Rj=0.5 Rki) are carried out. The loads on the frame, the member’s strength and the moment
capacity and stiffness of the connections are independent random variables with a normal dis-
tribution and coefficient of variation equal to 0.1. The result of the reliability analysis (with
136 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138

Fig. 6. Example 4—geometry and loading of braced frame.

Fig. 7. Example 4—beam to column connections. (a) Connection shape; (b) main parameters for an angle.

Table 5
Example 4—top and seat angle connection parameters

Beam type Depth of Angle type Angle Rki (k.in/rad) Mu (k.in) n

beam (in) length (in)

B1 20.83 L443/8 6.5 0.675106 679.1 0.302

B2 17.9 L443/8 6 0.451106 544.3 0.302
 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138 137

20,000 Monte Carlo simulations) for fully pinned connections is Pf=0.8875 and for semi-rigid
connections is Pf=0.3802. So it can be seen that the assumption of fully-pinned connections
overestimates the probability of the failure of the steel frames. Therefore, ignoring the semi-rigid
behavior of the connections can lead to the unrealistic probability of failure in the braced steel
frames.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, the semi-rigid behavior of beam to column connections is considered in the
reliability analysis of the steel frames. The numerical examples indicate the importance of the
assumption of semi-rigid behavior of connections in the analysis and evaluation of the probability
of failure of the system of steel frames. In all cases studied there are substantial differences in the
result of reliability analysis between the more realistic semi-rigid connections and the cases in
which extreme assumptions of fully-rigid or fully pinned connections are used.
Therefore, the more realistic semi-rigid behavior modeling of connections should be considered
in the reliability analysis of steel-framed structures if more reliable results are desired.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the partial support provided by Iranian National Research Council
under national Grant No. 5100 and the respected reviewers for their valuable comments.

References

[1] Romstad KM, Subramanian CV. Analysis of frame with partial connection rigidity. Journal of the Structural
Division, Proceedings of the ASCE 1970;96(ST11):2283–300.
[2] Moncarz PD, Gerstle KH. Steel frames with nonlinear connections. Journal of the Structural Division, Proceed-
ings of the ASCE 1981;107(ST8):1427–41.
[3] Barakat M, Chen WF. Practical analysis of semi-rigid frames. Eng J AISC 1990;27(2):54–68.
[4] Kishi N, Chen WF. Moment-rotation relations of semi-rigid connections with angles. J Structural Eng, ASCE
1990;116(7):1813–34.
[5] Faris GA, Kitipornchai S. Elastoplastic nonlinear analysis of flexibly jointed space frames. J Structural Eng 1992;
118(1):108–27.
[6] Kishi N, Chen WF, Goto Y, Matsuoka KG. Design aid of semi-rigid connections for frame analysis. Eng J, AISC
1993;30(3):90–107.
[7] Xu L, Grierson DE. Computer-automated design of semi-rigid steel frameworks. J Structural Eng 1993;119(6):
1740–60.
[8] Bhatti MA, Hingtgen JD. Effects of connection stiffness and plasticity on the service load behavior of unbraced
steel frames. Eng J, AISC 1995;32(1):21–33.
[9] Hadianfard MA. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of steel frames with flexible connections. MSc dissertation, under
the direction of Seyyedian H., Civil Eng. Dept., Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran, 1995.
[10] Rubinstein RY. Simulation and Monte Carlo method. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1981.
[11] Melchers RE. Structural reliability (analysis and prediction). Ellis Horwood Limited, 1987.
[12] Gao L, Haldar A. Safety evaluation of frames with PR connections. J Structural Eng 1995;121(7):1101–9.
138 M.A. Hadianfard, R. Razani / Structural Safety 25 (2003) 123–138

[13] Nakib R. Deterministic and reliability-based optimum of truss bridges. Computers and Structures 1997;65(5):767–
75.
[14] Shiraishi N, Shinozuka M, Wen YK, editors. Structural safety and reliability. Proceeding of 7th international
conference on structural safety and reliability/Kyoto 1997. Netherlands, 1998.
[15] Song J, Ellingwood BR. Seismic reliability of special moment steel frames with welded connections: I and II. J
Structural Eng 1999;125(4):357–71 and 372–384.
[16] Thoft-Christensen P, Murotsu Y. Application of structural system reliability theory. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-
Verlag; 1986.
[17] Chen WF, Lui EM. Stability design of steel frames. CRC Press Inc., 1991.
[18] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1982.
[19] King WS, Chen WF. LRFD analysis for semi-rigid frame design. Eng J, AISC 1993;30(4):130–40.

View publication stats