PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STEEL MR

FRAMES

Florea Dinu
1
, Aurel Stratan
2
, Adrian Ciutina
2
, Daniel Grecea
3
& Dan Dubina
3
ABSTRACT

The paper presents a new design methodology for MR steel frames based on three
performance levels (limit states). To illustrate the new methodology a parametrical study on
new and existing steel frames is performed. Accelerations and q-factors for the three limit
states are obtained via a non-linear incremental dynamic analysis. The influence of seismic
motion is employed by considering different types of seismic motions. The methodology is
applied for studying the seismic performance of an existing steel structure building.

Key Words: Steel structures, seismic design, partial q factor
1. PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN

The concept of performance based design and evaluation for buildings is not new. For
many years the seismic design provisions contained in the building codes have been implicitly
based on multiple performance objectives:
resist to minor earthquakes without damage;
resist to moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with non-structural damage;
resist to major earthquakes with significant structural and non-structural damage;
resist to the most severe earthquakes ever likely to affect the building without collapse.
However, most of today codes consider explicitly only one limit state, defined as
protection of occupants lives in case of a major earthquakes. Criteria for designing structures
subjected to minor or moderate earthquakes are not explicitly specified. In the recent years, a
new philosophy for building design has been developed, adopting a performance based
seismic design. In the United States, the Vision 2000 Document provides the foundation
concept for this new approach [1], [2]. Performance based seismic design is defined as a
selection of design criteria and structural systems such that at the specified levels of ground

1
PhD, Romanian Academy, Timisoara Branch
2
PhD, Politehnica University of Timisoara, Romania
3
Professor, Politehnica University of Timisoara, Romania

motion and with defined levels of reliability, the structure will not be damaged beyond certain
limit states or other useful limits [3].

2. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND LEVELS

Firstly, the performance objective of the design of a given building subject has to be
defined. It involves two steps: selection of the design hazard level and design performance
level, respectively. The design hazard level is a quantification of the severity of ground
motion that a structure has to resist, such as low, moderate or severe earthquakes. The design
performance level is a quantification of the permissible types and distribution of damage into
the structure under a certain hazard level. Unfortunately, performance specifications are quite
vague in regard to definition of both the hazard and anticipated performance, making a
reliable attainment of the desired performance problematic. In the United States, the most
important provisions, referring to performance based design were offered by [4] and [5]. In
this perspective, the SEAOC Vision 2000 Committee proposes four performance objectives:
Fully Operational, Operational, Life Safe and Near Collapse. These objectives are well known
and no need is for their description here.
As an alternative, present paper proposes a three objectives performance based
design methodology, for which the design criteria are expressed in terms of serviceability
(verification of rigidity), damageability (strength verification) and ultimate (verification for
ductility) limit states [6], [7].

3. DESIGN CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY BASED ON THREE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

The usual design criteria, in case of the design of a seismic resistant structure, are
expressed in terms of stiffness, strength and ductility. Considering these criteria, the following
performance objectives, or levels, can be suggested:
- Serviceability limit state - SLS (Stiffness criterion) corresponding to Fully operational
level will be used in case of frequent earthquakes, the building can be used without
interruption, the non-structural elements present minor damages and the structure remain in
elastic range. The limit state is defined as the situation where the interstorey drift exceeds
0.6% of the relevant storey height.
- Damageability limit state - DLS (Strength criterion) corresponding to Life operational
level for the case of rare earthquakes, the building presents important damages of non-
structural elements and moderate damages of structural elements, which may be although
repaired after earthquake without high costs or technical difficulties. Structure is responding
to the seismic motion in elasto-plastic range and the determinant criterion is the resistance of
member section. This criterion may be considered as a state index of the building after a
strong seismic motion. The limit state is defined as the situation where the residual non-
recoverable part of the interstorey drift exceeds 1% of the relevant storey height.
- Ultimate limit state - ULS (Ductility criterion) corresponding to Safe level, in case of
very rare (the strongest possible ground motion), the building presents major damages (of both
non-structural and structural elements) but safety of people is guarantied. Damages are
extended so that structure cannot be repaired and demolition is unavoidable. Structure is in the
elasto-plastic range and the determinant criterion is the local ductility (rotation capacity of
elements and connections). The limit state is defined as the situation where the plastic rotation
exceeds 0,03rad. In Table 1 the performance levels, together with the maximum characteristic
values (interstorey drift, residual interstorey drift and plastic rotation) are summarised.
Table 1 - Characteristic values associated to the performance levels for steel moment frames
Performance levels
(limit states)
Limit drift [%] Limit residual drift [%] Plastic rotations [rad]
SLS 0,6 - -
SLD - 1,0 -
SLU - - 0,03*
* The corresponding drift is approximately 3%
For the ULS the performance criteria is the plastic rotation. For a rotation capacity of
0,03 rad, the corresponding drift demand amounts approximately to 3,0%. In Table 2 the
performance criteria of FEMA 273 are presented. It should be noted the values are similar to
those used in this paper.

Table 2 - Characteristic values associated to the performance levels for steel moment frames
according to FEMA 273 (1997)
Performance levels
(limit states)
Limit drift [%] Limit residual drift [%]
IO 0,7 -
LS 2,5 1,0
CP 5,0 5,0
To be used in design, performance levels must be translated into seismic action,
represented by magnitudes or accelerations. In case of using the recurrence period, the level of
acceleration depends on it. There are different proposals to determine these periods, as a
function of the number of performance level and earthquake frequency expressed in years
(Table 3). If for rare and very rare earthquakes there are no contradictions concerning the
return periods (475 and 970 years, respectively), for frequent and occasional earthquakes there
are different proposals (ranging from 10 to 200 years), due to the difficulties in choosing a
rational criterion for non-damage limit states [8].

Table 3 - Recurrence periods (years)
Performance levels
(limit states)
Author Frequent Occasional Rare Very rare
SEAOC Vision 2000 (1995) 43 72 475 970
Bertero&Bertero (1996) 10 30 450 900 Four levels
Bertero&Bertero (2000) 30 75 475 970
Three levels Pauley et al (1990) 10-50 50-200 150-1000
Kenedy&Medhekan (1999) - 50 475 -
Two levels
Wen (1996) 10 - 475 -
If the acceleration for damageability limit state - a
d
is considered as a basic value for
ground motion acceleration, for the other periods the corresponding acceleration levels are
determined from the equation [8]:
28 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
rd
r
d
p
p
a
a
(1)
based on a proposal made by [9]. For the SLS and ULS the corresponding accelerations are:

d s
a 412 , 0 a = ,
d u
a 22 , 1 a = (2)
p
r
(years)
a.
a
d
500 1000
2
0
(
S
L
S
)
4
7
5
(
D
L
S
)
9
7
0
(
U
L
S
)
1,0
0,5
Fig.1 - Characteristic of ground motion: acceleration vs. return period

The most suitable approach for seismic design based on performance appears to be
deformation-controlled design, which can be applied using the push-over analysis.
However, today codes are based on force-controlled design or capacity design, using the base
shear concept. The most important parameter in this approach is the behaviour q factor, which
is based on the maximum capacity of structure to dissipate energy during the plastic
deformations corresponding to ULS criterion, without possibility to verify other performance
levels. Aribert & Grecea ,[10], have introduced a new definition of the q-factor, based on the
reduction of the base shear force of a structure (eqn. 3). Values for the new q factor have been
established for different types of steel structure with rigid and full strength joints or with semi-
rigid and/or partial strength joints.

( , ) ( )
( ) ( )
e th e
u
inel inel
e
V V
q
V V

= =

(3)
where:
V
(e,th)
- theoretical elastic base shear force
V
(inel)
- inelastic base shear force
V
(e)
- base shear force corresponding to first yielding

u
- acceleration multiplier for limit state

e
- acceleration multiplier for first yielding
The q factor determined with eqn. 3 accounts for the ductility of the structure, only,
and was noted with q

. In order to take into account the redundancy and overstrength of the

structure due to the plastic redistribution capacity and design overstrength, the "overstrength"
factor, q
r
, can be defined as follows:
( )
( )
=
inel
R e
V
q
V
(4)
Now, the total q factor will be calculated with the following relation:

( , )
( )
e th
u
R e
e
V
q q q
V

= = =

(5)
Using eqn.5, it is possible to evaluate partial q factors corresponding to the three
performance objectives and to implement the multiple performance design criteria in the
actual design practice.

4. PARAMETRIC STUDY

In order to exercise how the methodology can be applied, a non-linear dynamic analysis
using DRAIN 2DX [12] was conducted on three trial MR frames with different geometric
conditions (see Table 4).
Table 4 - Description of frames
Type of frame
H
L L
H H
L
1 2 3
Structure period [sec]
Frame L(m) H(m)
semirigid rigid
Beams Columns
Frame 1 5 3 0,51 0,45 IPE330 HEB220
Frame 2 5 3 0,79 0,70 IPE330 HEB320
Frame 3 5 3 0.98 0,88 IPE360 HEB400
Two different types of ground motion records were used:
- group 1: seismic motions having many acceleration pulses of similar magnitude and the
characteristic period in the short period range (< 0,7sec). The following three records were
selected:
- Kobe: Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, 17 January 1995, NS component, rec. JMA
Kobe, PGA = 0,82g, Tc=0,62sec
- Northridge: Northridge earthquake, 17 January 1994, 90deg component, rec. Newhall -
La County Fire Station, PGA = 0,579g, Tc = 0,74sec
- Aigion: Aigion earthquake, Greece, 1995, PGA = 0,53g, Tc=0,476sec
- group 2: seismic motions having a long acceleration pulse and the characteristic period in the
long period range (T
c
~1,5 sec). The following three records were selected:
- Vrancea: Vrancea earthquake, 4 March 1977, NS component, rec. INCERC BucureOti,
PGA=0,19g, Tc=1,36sec
- Muntenegru: Muntenegru earthquake, 9 April 1979, EW component, rec. Ulcinj -
Hotel Olimpic, PGA=0,23g, Tc = 1,18sec
- Northridge: Northridge earthquake, 17 ianuarie 1994, N46E component, rec. Newhall -
Pico Canyon, PGA = 0,42g, Tc = 1,39sec
Accelerograms of the two ground motions types have been scaled in order to ensure
initial forces approximately equal to the design ones, and the same seismic input into the
structures. In order to study the seismic performance of the frames, the peak ground
accelerations corresponding to the attainment of a certain limit state (drift, remanent drift and
plastic rotation) were determined.
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
1,20
1,40
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
T [sec]
S
a
[
g
]
Vrancea
Muntenegru
Pico Canyon
Newhall
Aigion
KOBE
P100/92
0,2T 1,5T

Fig. 2 - Scaled response spectra
In the first step, the maximal accelerations for which the structures meet the specified
performance criteria are determined by appropriate scaling. In Fig. 3 the variation of
accelerations for the limit states considered in the analysis is presented.

Rigid
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
SLS DLS ULS
Limit state
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
[
g
]
C3x2
C3x4
C3x6

Semirigid
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
Limit state
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
[
g
]
C3x2
C3x4
C3x6
SLU SLD SLS
a) b)
Fig. 3 - Limit accelerations: a) rigid joints; b) semirigid joints

An important problem to be overtaken in case of multi-level design is the optimisation
of solutions, to avoid the situation when one limit state dominates the design. A solution able
to satisfy simultaneously (or, at least, in a reasonable hierarchy) the three requirements
represents the optimal situation. It may be observed that in case of DLS and ULS, the input
accelerations are close, which means both requirements are simultaneously satisfied.
In the second step, in order to evaluate the global ductility of the frames under
consideration, the partial q factors were calculated.
The q

factor, determined using eqn.3, describes the dissipation given by ductility,

only. For the SLS, a value of q-factor of 1,0 was imposed, considering the structure is in
elastic range. For the DLS and ULS, it may be observed the differences between rigid and
semirigid structures are very small. Joint rigidity does not change fundamentally the ductility
of the structures (see Fig. 4).

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Limit state
Rigid
Semirigid
SLS DLS ULS
q

Fig. 4 - q

factors vs. performance criteria for rigid and semirigid structures

The q factor, determined using eqn.5, describes the dissipation given by ductility,
redundancy and plastic redistribution capacity. For the SLS, a value of q factor of 1,0 was
imposed, considering the structure is in elastic range. For DLS and ULS, the differences
between rigid and semirigid cases increase (Fig. 5).
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
SLS SLD SLU
Limit state
q
rigid
semirigid

Fig. 5 - q factors vs. performance criteria for rigid and semirigid structures

5. CASE STUDY: BANC POST BUILDING IN TIMISOARA

In the previous section the methodology based on three performance objectives was
applied to some "school" frames. It would be interesting and useful for evaluation the
feasibility of the methodology, to apply it on a real structure [13]. On this purpose, it was
chosen an existing steel building, designed according to actual Romanian codes. The building
is located in Timisoara and was completed in 2002. The very irregular in-plane shape of this
building and its view after completion are shown in Fig. 6. This building, designed by a team
which included the authors of this paper, received the ECCS Steel Design Award in 2003.

Cinema
Banc Post building
Existing buildings P+3, P+4
Street

a) b)
Fig. 6 - Banc Post building in TimiOoara: a) location of the building; b) view after
completion

The building is a medium-rise multi-storey steel structure. MR steel frames compose
the main skeletal framework. For columns, X-shaped cross-sections were used. Main beams
are of I sections, and connected to the columns by extended end plate bolted connections (Fig.
7). Composite concrete-steel sheeting slabs are used for floors.
a) b)
Fig. 7 - Steel structure: a) view of skeletal framework; b) joint configuration

The three performance objectives and the characteristic values associated to each level
are similar to those used in the previous study excepting the rotation capacity corresponding to
ultimate limit state. In order to verify the rotation capacity associated to this limit state, an
experimental program was performed (Fig. 8). The joints were similar to those used in the
steel structure of Banc Post building. The testing program comprised six joint specimens, as
follows:
- 3 joints under symmetrical loading:
- 1 joint under monotonic loads
- 2 joints under cyclic loads
- 3 joints under anti-symmetrical loading:
- 1 joint under monotonic loads
- 2 joints under cyclic loads

Rigla R1 RiglaR1
Tested joint
Loading Actuator
Loading Actuator
Tested joint
a) b)
Fig. 8 - Test set-up: a) symmetrically loaded joints; b) anti-symmetrically loaded joints

The monotonic moment-rotation curves and the envelopes of the cyclic curves, as well
as the Eurocode 3 predictions are presented in Fig. 9, for both joint series [13].
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
-0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12
Joint rotation [rad]
BX-SS-M
BX-SS-C1
BX-SS-C2
EC 3
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
-0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12
Joint rotation [ rad]
BX-SU-M
BX-SU-C1
BX-SU-C2
EC 3

Symmetrical loading Anti-symmetrical loading
Fig. 9 - Envelope and monotonic moment-rotation relationships

symmetrical anti-symmetrical
monotonic
cyclic
Fig. 10 - Joint failure modes

The experimental program has shown plastic rotation capacities over 0,04rad.
Therefore, the rotation capacity corresponding to the attainment of ultimate limit states was
fixed to 0,04rad. In Table 5 the characteristic values associated to the three performance levels
are presented.

Table 5. Characteristic values associated to the performance levels for steel moment frames
Performance level
(limit state)
Limit drift
[%]
Limit residual drift
[%]
Plastic rotations
[rad]
SLS 0.6 - -
SLD - 1.0 -
SLU - - 0.04
The seismicity of Timisoara region is characterised by near field motions, similar to
those of group 1 (see section 3). For the non-linear dynamic analysis, Banloc, 12 July 1991
ground motion record was employed (Fig. 11).

0,00
0,30
0,60
0,90
1,20
1,50
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00
T, [sec]
S
a
,
[
g
]
Banloc 1991
T0=1,38sec

Fig. 11 - Response spectra of Banloc 1991 ground motion

In Fig. 12 is presented the transversal frame with two spans and five stories selected
for the analysis.

Fig. 12 - Description of the frame

Similar to the previous study, in the first step, the maximal accelerations for which the
structures meet the specified performance criteria are determined by appropriate scaling. In the
second step, in order to evaluate the global ductility of the frames under consideration, the
partial q factors were calculated. For the SLS, a value of q factor of 1,0 was imposed,
considering the structure is in elastic range.
The values of the q factors are very closed to those obtained in the previous study for
the case of group 1 of seismic motions (characteristic period in the short period range T
c
<
0,7sec, similar to Banloc ground motion). The value of the q factor used in the structure
design (q
Sd
= 6,0) is very closed to value obtained throw non-linear dynamic analysis (q =
5,7).
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
SLS SLD SLU
Limit state
q
1
Banc Post, Banloc 1991
group 1 ground motions

Fig. 13 - q factor values for Banc Post structure

6. CONCLUSIONS

The paper presents a design methodology for MR steel frames based on three
performance levels. The following performance levels/limit states were considered:
serviceability limit state (SLS), damageability limit state (DLS) and ultimate limit state
(ULS). Methodology requires two steps:
- in the first step, the maximal accelerations for which the structures meet the specified
performance criteria are determined by appropriate scaling
- in the second step, in order to evaluate the global ductility of the frames under
consideration, the partial q factors were calculated.
To illustrate the new methodology, a parametrical study on trial frames was performed.
The procedure was also applied to an existing steel-framed structure. The authors' opinion is
that the proposed methodology would be easy to introduce in the actual seismic design codes,
in order to implement performance based design criteria.

7. REFERENCES

[1] Bertero, V.V., State-of-the-art in design criteria, 11
th
World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Acapulco, 23-28 June 1996, CD-ROM 2005, 1996.
[2] Bertero, V.V., The need for multi-level seismic design criteria, 11
th
World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, 23-28 June 1996, CD-ROM 2120, 1996.
[3] Bertero, R.D., Bertero, V.V., Application of a comprehensive approach for the
performance-based earthquake resistant design buildings, 12
th
World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, 30 Jan. - 4 Feb. 2000, CD-ROM 0847, 2000.
[4] FEMA 273, NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 1997.
[5] Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Vision 2000 a Framework
for Performance-Based Engineering, Structural Engineers Association of California,
Sacramento, California, 1995.
[6] Dinu, F., Grecea, D., Dubina, D., Partial q factor values for performance based design
of MR frames, Proc. of STESSA 2003 - Behaviour of steel structures in seismic areas,
Napoli, Italia, 9-12 June 2003.
[7] Dinu, F., Grecea, D., Dubina, D., Partial q factor values for performance based design
of MR frames, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier, Volume 60, Issues
3-5, 2004.
[8] Gioncu, V., Mazzolani, F.M., Ductility of Seismic-Resistant Steel Structures. London:
SPON PRESS. 2002
[9] ATC 1996, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Vol. 1, ATC-40,
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, 1996.
[10] Aribert, J.M., Grecea, D., A new method to evaluate the q-factor from elastic-plastic
dynamic analysis and its application to steel frames, Proceedings of the Second
International Conference STESSA 1997, Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic
Areas, Kyoto, Japan, 3-8 August 1997, Eds. F.M. Mazzolani & H. Akiyama, Napoli,
1997.
[11] Kannan, A., Powel, G., DRAIN-2D. A general-purpose computer program for dynamic
analysis of inelastic plane structures, EERC 73-6 and EERC 73-22 reports, Berkeley,
USA, 1975.
[12] Dinu, F., Contributions to the study of MR steel frames with semirigid joints, PhD
Thesis, "Politehnica" University of Timisoara, January 2004.
[13] Dubina, D., Ciutina, A., Stratan, A., Cyclic tests on bolted steel and composite double-
sided beam-to-column joints, Steel & Composite Structures, Volume 2, No. 2, 2002,
147-160.