Advertisement

New approach to evaluate the response modification factors for steel moment resisting frames

  • Cheol-Kyu Kang
  • Byong-Jeong ChoiEmail author
Article

Abstract

The design force levels currently specified by most seismic codes are calculated by dividing the base shear for elastic response by the response modification factor (R). This is based on the fact that the structures possess significant reserve strength, redundancy, damping and capacity to dissipate energy. This paper proposed the evaluation methodology and procedure of the response modification factors for steel moment resisting frames. The response modification factors are evaluated by multiplying ductility factor (R µ) for SDOF systems, MDOF modification factor (R M ) and strength factor (R S ) together. The proposed rules were applied to existing steel moment resisting frames. The nonlinear static pushover analysis was performed to estimate the ductility (R µ), MDOF modification (R M ) and strength factors (R S ). The results showed that the response modification factors (R) have different values with various design parameters such as design base shear coefficient (V/W), failure mechanism, framing system and number of stories.

Keywords

response modification factor pushover analysis MDOF modification factor steel moment resisting frame 

References

  1. AISC (2002). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  2. ASCE/SEI 7-05 (2007). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Asgarian, B. and Shokrgozar, H. R. (2009). “BRBF response modification factor.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(2), pp. 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ATC (1978). Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for buildings. ATC Report 3-06, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.Google Scholar
  5. ATC-19 (1995). Structural Response Modification Factors. ATC Report 19, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.Google Scholar
  6. ATC-34 (1995). A Critical Review of Current Approaches to Earthquake-resistant Design. ATC Report 34, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.Google Scholar
  7. Balendra T. and Huang, X. (2003). “Overstrength and ductility factors for steel frames designed according to BS 5950.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 120, pp. 1019–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FEMA 302 (1997). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. FEMA 274 (1997). NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Buildings. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Freeman, S. A. (1990). “On the correlation of code forces to earthquake demands.” Proc. 4 th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building Structural Design and Construction Practices, ATC-15-3 Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.Google Scholar
  11. Galíndez, N. and Thomson, P. (2007). “Performance of steel moment-frame buildings designed according to the Colombian code NSR-98.” Engineering Structures, 29(9), pp. 2274–2281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hwang, H. and Shinozuka, M. (1994). “Effects of large earthquake on the design of buildings in eastern united states.” Proc. Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  13. ICBO (1997). Uniform Building Code. International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California.Google Scholar
  14. ICC (2000). International Building Code 2000. International Code Council, Falls Church, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Kang, C. K. (2003). Evaluation of Response Modification Factors for Special Steel Moment Resisting Frames. Ph. D. Dissertation, Kyonggi University, Seoul, Korea (in Korean).Google Scholar
  16. Kang, C. K. and Choi, B. J. (2002). “Empirical estimation of ductility factors for elasto-plastic SDOF systems in alluvium sites.” Proc. 2 nd International Symposium on Steel Structures, Korean Society of Steel Construction, Korea, pp. 533–542.Google Scholar
  17. Kang, C. K. and Choi, B. J. (2004). “Statistical study and evaluation of ductility factors for elastic perfectly plastic SDOF systems in stiff soils.” International Journal of Steel Structures, 4(1), pp. 15–24.Google Scholar
  18. Kang, C. K. and Choi, B. J. (2010). “Empirical evaluation of ductility factors for the special steel moment-resisting frames in view of soil condition.” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 19(5). pp. 551–572.Google Scholar
  19. Kim, J. K. and Choi, H. H. (2005). “Response modification factors of chevron-braced frames.” Engineering Structures, 27, pp. 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kurban, C. O. and Topkaya, C. (2009). “A numerical study on response modification, overstrength, and displacement amplification factors for steel plate shear wall systems.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 38, pp. 497–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maheri, M. R. and Akbari, R. (2003). “Seismic behavior factor, R, for steel X-braced and knee-braced RC buildings.” Engineering Structures, 25, pp. 1505–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mahmoudi, M. and Zaree, M. (2010). “Evaluating response modification factors of concentrically braced steel frames.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 66(10), pp. 1196–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MIDAS/Gen program (2001). MIDAS/Gen-General structural design system. Analysis and design manual, MIDAS Information Technology, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  24. Miranda, E. (1997). “Strength Reduction Factors in Performance-based Design.” Proc. EERC-CURE Symposium in Honor of V. V. Bertero, Report No. UCB/ EERC 97/05, University of California, Berkeley, California, pp. 125–132.Google Scholar
  25. Nassar, A. A. and Krawinkler, H. (1991). Seismic Demands of SDOF and MDOF Systems. Report No. 95, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, California.Google Scholar
  26. Osteraas, J. D. (1990). Strength and Ductility Considerations in Seismic Design. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  27. Sudhir, K. J. and Navin, R. (1995). “Seismic Overstrength in Reinforced Concrete Frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 121(3), pp. 580–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tsai, K. C. and Li, J. W. (1994). DRAIN 2D +: A Generalpurpose Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Analyses of Inelastic 2D Structures Supplemented with a Graphic Processor. Report No. CEER/R83 03, National Taiwan University.Google Scholar
  29. Uang, C. M. and Maarouf, A. (1993). “Safety and Economy Considerations of UBC Seismic Force Reduction Factors.” Proc. the 1993 National Earthquake Conference, Memphis, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  30. Uang, C. M. and Bertero, V. V. (1986). Earthquake Simulation Tests and Associated Studies of a 0.3-Scale Model of Six-story Concentrically Braced Steel Structures. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. UCB/EERC 86/10, University of California, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  31. Uang, C. M. (1991). “Establishing R(or Rw) and Cd factor for Building Seismic provisions.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 117(1), pp. 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Whittaker, A. S., Uang, C. M., and Bertero, V. V. (1987). Earthquake Simulation Tests and Associated Studies of a 0.3-Scale Model of Six-story Eccentrically Braced Steel Structures. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. UCB/EERC 87/02, University of California, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architectural EngineeringKyonggi UniversityGyeonggi-doKorea

Personalised recommendations