Abstract
The global ductility parameter \((\mu _{G})\), commonly used to represent the capacity of a structure to dissipate energy, and its effects, considered through the ductility reduction factor \((R_{\upmu })\), are studied for buildings with moment resisting steel frames (MRSF) which are modeled as complex multi degree of freedom systems. Results indicate that the \(\mu _{G}\) value of 4, commonly assumed, cannot be justified, a value between 2.5 and 3 is suggested. The ductility reduction factors associated to global response parameters may be quite different than those of local response parameters, showing the limitation of the commonly used equivalent lateral force procedure (ELFP). The ratio \((Q)\) of \(R_{\upmu }\) to \(\mu _{G}\) is larger for the models with spatial MRSF than for the models with perimeter MRSF since their ductility demands are smaller and/or their ductility reduction factors larger. According to the simplified Newmark and Hall procedure, the \(Q\) ratio should be equal to unity for the structural models under consideration. Based on the results of this study, this ratio cannot be justified. The reason for this is that single degree of freedom systems were used to derive the mentioned simplified procedure, where higher mode and energy dissipation effects cannot be explicitly considered. A value of 0.5 is suggested for \(Q\) for steel buildings with perimeter MRSF in the intermediate and long period regions. The findings of this paper are for the particular structural systems and models used in the study. Much more research is needed to reach more general conclusions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ayoub A, Chenouda M (2009) Response spectra of degrading structural systems. Eng Struc 31:1393–1402
Annan CD, Youssef MA, El Naggar MH (2009) Seismic vulnerability assessment of modular steel buildings. J Earthq Eng 105:1065–1088
Arroyo-Espinoza D, Teran-Gilmore A (2003) Strength reduction factors for ductile structures with passive energy dissipating devices. J Earthq Eng 7(2):297–325
BOCA (1993) 12th Edition Building Officials & Code Administration International Inc., National Building Code
Bojorquez E, Reyes-Salazar A, Terán-Gilmore A, Ruiz SE (2010) Energy-based damage index for steel structures. Steel Compos Struct Int J 10(4):331–348
Borzi B, Elnashai AS (2000) Refined force reduction factors for seismic design. Eng Struct 22:1244–1260
Chopra AK (2007) Dyn Struct. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Ceylan M, Arslan MH, Ceylan R, Kaltakci MY, Ozbay Y (2010) A new application area of ANN and ANFIS: determination of earthquake load reduction factor of prefabricated industrial buildings. Civ Eng Environ Syst 27(1):53–69
Cai J, Zhou J, Fang X (2006) Seismic ductility reduction factors for multi-degree-of-freedom systems. Adv Struct Eng 9(5):591–601
Elnashai AS, Mwafy AM (2002) Overstrength and force reduction factors of multistorey reinforced-concrete buildings. Struct Des Tall Build 11:329–351
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000) State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subjected to earthquake ground shaking. SAC Steel Project, Report 355C
Gao L, Haldar A (1995) Nonlinear seismic analysis of space structures with PR connections. Int J Microcomput Civ Eng 10:27–37
Gillie J, Rodriguez-Marek A, McDaniel C (2010) Strength reductions factors for near-fault forward-directivity ground motions. Eng Struct 32:273–285
Ganjavi B, Hao H (2012) Effect of structural characteristics distribution of strength demand and ductility reduction factor of MDOF systems considering soil-structure interaction. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 11:205–220
Hong HP, Jiang J (2004) Ratio between Peak inelastic and elastic responses with uncertain structural properties. Can J Civ Eng 31(4):703–711
Hadjian AH (1989) An evaluation of the ductility reduction factor Q in the 1976 regulations for the Federal District of Mexico. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 18:217–231
International Code Council (2006) International Building Code. Falls Church, VA
Karavasilis TL, Bazeos N, Beskos DE (2007) Behavior factor for performance-based seismic design of plane steel moment resisting frames. J Earthq Eng 11(4):531–559
Karavasilis TL, Bazeos N, Beskos DE (2008) Drift and ductility estimates in regular steel MRF subjected to ordinary ground motions: a design-oriented approach. Earthq Spectra 24(2):431–451
Kumar M, Stafford PJ, Elghazouli AY (2013) Seismic shear demands in multi-storey steel frames designed according to Eurocode 8. Eng Struct 52:69–87
Kumar M, Stafford PJ, Elghazouli AY (2013) Influence of ground motions characteristics on drift demands in steel moment frames designed according to Eurocode 8. Eng Struct 52:502–517
Karmakar D, Gupta VK (2006) A parametric study of strength reduction factors for elasto-plastic oscillators. Sādhanā 31(4):343–357
Leon RT, Shin K J (1995) Performance of semi-rigid frames. In: Proceedings of structure congress, pp 1020–1035
Levy R, Rutenberg A, Qadi Kh (2006) Equivalent linearization applied to earthquake excitations and the \(\text{ R }-{\upmu }-\text{ T }_{0 }\) relationships. Eng Struct 28(2):216–228
Medina R, Krawinkler H (2005a) Evaluation of drift demands for the seismic performance assessment of frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 1003–1013
Medina R, Krawinkler H (2005b) Strength demand issues relevant for the seismic design of moment-resisting frames. Earthq Spectra 21(2):415–439
Miranda E, Bertero V (1994) Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant desing. Earthq Spectra 10(2):357–379
Mollaioli F, Bruno S (2008) Influence of side effects on inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF and MDOF systems. Comput Math Appl 55:184–207
Moghaddam H, Mohammadi RK (2001) Ductility reduction factor of MDOF shear, building structures. J Earthq Eng 5(3):425–440
Nassar A, Krawinkler H (1991) Seismic demands of SDOF and MDOF systems. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Report No. 95, Stanford University
Nader MN, Astaneh A (1991) Dynamic behavior of flexible, semi-rigid and rigid frames. J Constr Steel Res 18:179–192
Newmark NM, Hall WJ (1982) Earthquake spectra and design monograph series. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Berkeley, California
Osman A, Ghobarah A, Korol RM (1995) Implications of design philosophies of seismic response of steel moments frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24:143–1237
Reyes-Salazar A (1997) Inelastic seismic response and ductility evaluation of steel frames with fully, partially restrained and composite connections. PhD Thesis Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Reyes-Salazar A, Haldar A (1999) Nonlinear seismic response of steel structures with semi-rigid and composite connections. J Constr Steel Res 51:37–59
Reyes-Salazar A, Haldar A (2000) Dissipation of energy in steel frames with PR connections. Struct Eng Mech Int J 9(3):241–256
Reyes-Salazar A, Haldar A, Romero-Lopez M R (2000) Force Reduction Factor For SDOF and MDOF. Joint Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, ASCE Paper PMC2000-063
Reyes-Salazar A, Haldar A (2001a) Energy dissipation at PR frames under seismic loading. J Struct Eng ASCE 127(5):588–593
Reyes-Salazar A, Haldar A (2001b) Seismic response and energy dissipation in partially restrained and fully restrained steel frames: an analytical study. Steel Compos Struct Int J 1(4):459–480
Reyes-Salazar A (2002) Ductility and ductility reduction factors. Struct Eng Mech Int J 13(4):369–385
Roeder CW, Scheiner SP, Carpenter JE (1993a) Seismic behavior of moment-resisting steel frames: analytical study. J Struct Eng ASCE 119(6):1866–1884
Reyes-Salazar A, Bojórquez E, López-Barraza A, De Leon-Escobedo D, Haldar A (2009) Some issues regarding the structural idealization of perimeter moment resisting steel frames. ISET J Earthq Technol 46(3–4):133–146
Roeder CW, Scheiner SP, Carpenter JE (1993b) Seismic behavior of moment-resisting steel frames: experimental study. J Struct Eng ASCE 119(6):1885–1902
Rupakhety R, Sigbjörnsson R (2009) Ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for inelastic displacement and ductility demands of constant-strength SDOF systems. Bull Earthq Eng 7:661–679
SAC (1995). Steel Moment Frame Connections, Advisory No. 3, D-146. Structural Engineers Associated of California, Applied Technology Council and California University for Research in Earthquake Engineering
Santa-Ana P, Miranda E (2000) Strength reduction factors of multi-degree-of-freedom systems. In: 12th World conference on earthquake engineering paper 1446, Auckland, New Zealand
Sanchez-Ricart L (2010) Assessment and management of risk for engineered systems and geohazards. Georisk 4(4):208–229
Sanchez-Ricart L, Plumier A (2008) Parametric study of ductile moment-resisting steel frames: a first step towards Eurocode 8 calibration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(7):1135–1155
Uang CM (1991a) Establishing \(R\) (or \(R_{w})\) and \(C_{d}\) factors for building seismic provisions. J Struct Eng ASCE 117(1):19–28
Uang C M (1991b) Structural overstrength and limit state philosophy in seismic design provisions. Report No CE-91-03 Department of Civil Engineering, Northeastern University
Uniform Building Code (1997) International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Whittier, California
Zahrah TF, Hall WJ (1984) Earthquake energy absorption in SDOF structures. J Struct Eng 110(8):1757–1772
Zhai C, Xie L (2006) Study on strength reduction factors considering the effect of classification of design earthquake. Acta Seismol Sin 19(3):299–310
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on work supported by El Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) under grant 50298-J and by La Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa (UAS) under Grant PROFAPI-2013/157. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reyes-Salazar, A., Bojórquez, E., Velazquez-Dimas, J.I. et al. Ductility reduction factors for steel buildings considering different structural representations. Bull Earthquake Eng 13, 1749–1771 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9676-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9676-z