Skip to main content
Log in

Ductility reduction factors for steel buildings considering different structural representations

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayoub A, Chenouda M (2009) Response spectra of degrading structural systems. Eng Struc 31:1393–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annan CD, Youssef MA, El Naggar MH (2009) Seismic vulnerability assessment of modular steel buildings. J Earthq Eng 105:1065–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borzi B, Elnashai AS (2000) Refined force reduction factors for seismic design. Eng Struct 22:1244–1260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra AK (2007) Dyn Struct. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai J, Zhou J, Fang X (2006) Seismic ductility reduction factors for multi-degree-of-freedom systems. Adv Struct Eng 9(5):591–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elnashai AS, Mwafy AM (2002) Overstrength and force reduction factors of multistorey reinforced-concrete buildings. Struct Des Tall Build 11:329–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillie J, Rodriguez-Marek A, McDaniel C (2010) Strength reductions factors for near-fault forward-directivity ground motions. Eng Struct 32:273–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong HP, Jiang J (2004) Ratio between Peak inelastic and elastic responses with uncertain structural properties. Can J Civ Eng 31(4):703–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karmakar D, Gupta VK (2006) A parametric study of strength reduction factors for elasto-plastic oscillators. Sādhanā 31(4):343–357

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miranda E, Bertero V (1994) Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant desing. Earthq Spectra 10(2):357–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mollaioli F, Bruno S (2008) Influence of side effects on inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF and MDOF systems. Comput Math Appl 55:184–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moghaddam H, Mohammadi RK (2001) Ductility reduction factor of MDOF shear, building structures. J Earthq Eng 5(3):425–440

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newmark NM, Hall WJ (1982) Earthquake spectra and design monograph series. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Berkeley, California

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyes-Salazar A, Haldar A (2000) Dissipation of energy in steel frames with PR connections. Struct Eng Mech Int J 9(3):241–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyes-Salazar A (2002) Ductility and ductility reduction factors. Struct Eng Mech Int J 13(4):369–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roeder CW, Scheiner SP, Carpenter JE (1993a) Seismic behavior of moment-resisting steel frames: analytical study. J Struct Eng ASCE 119(6):1866–1884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeder CW, Scheiner SP, Carpenter JE (1993b) Seismic behavior of moment-resisting steel frames: experimental study. J Struct Eng ASCE 119(6):1885–1902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uang CM (1991a) Establishing \(R\) (or \(R_{w})\) and \(C_{d}\) factors for building seismic provisions. J Struct Eng ASCE 117(1):19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alfredo Reyes-Salazar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9676-z

Keywords

Navigation