308

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

Leuven, Belgium, 4-6 July 2011
G. De Roeck, G. Degrande, G. Lombaert, G. Muller (eds.)
ISBN 978-90-760-1931-4

Seismic response of steel moment resisting frames designed using a Direct DBD
procedure
Timothy Sullivan1, Tim Maley2, Gian Michele Calvi1 & 2
European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering, EUCENTRE, Via Ferrata 1, Pavia 27100, Italy
2
ROSE School, IUSS Pavia, Pavia 27100, Italy
email: tim.sullivan@eucentre.it, tmaley@roseschool.it, gm.calvi@eucentre.it

ABSTRACT: Recent research in the field of earthquake engineering has seen the development of a number of different
displacement-based seismic design (DBD) methods. Such methods aim to overcome limitations with the force-based design
methods incorporated in current codes, and the most developed DBD method currently available is the Direct DBD approach,
described in a text and more recently in draft model code format. While the guidelines in the draft model code have been
relatively well tested for RC structures, further verification is required for steel frame systems. As such, the objectives of this
work are to investigate the performance of the Direct DBD design procedure for steel moment-resisting frame structures. The
work proceeds by designing a series of regular steel MRF structures, varying from 4 to 20 storeys in height, according to the
model code provisions. The performance of the design approach is then gauged by running non-linear time-history (NLTH)
analyses of accurate models of the designed structures, subject to a suite of spectrum-compatible accelerograms. The peak
displacements and storey drifts recorded in the NLTH analyses indicate that the new design approach can provide accurate
control of deformations and therefore damage, but that further research is required to better account for the effects of different
beam-column joint typologies on the dynamic response.
KEY WORDS: Displacement-Based Design; Seismic Design; Steel Moment Resisting Frame.
1

INTRODUCTION

Recent research in the field of earthquake engineering has

seen the development of a number of different displacementbased seismic design (DBD) methods. Such methods aim to
overcome limitations with the force-based design methods
incorporated in current codes, as explained by Priestley et al.
[1]. The most developed DBD method currently available is
the Direct DBD approach, described in a text by Priestley et
al. [1] and recently released in draft model code format (Calvi
and Sullivan [2]). While the guidelines in the draft model code
have been relatively well tested for RC structures [3], further
verification and development is required for steel frame
systems. As such, the objectives of this work are to investigate
the performance of the Direct DBD design procedure for steel
moment-resisting frame structures.
The paper proceeds by first highlighting some important
seismic design considerations for steel moment-resisting
frame (MRF) structures. This will be followed by a succinct
description of the fundamentals of Direct DBD together with a
review of the current recommendations for Direct DBD of
steel MRF structures. The work will then proceed to illustrate
the design results obtained using the draft model code
provisions for a series of regular steel MRF structures. The
performance of the design approach will then be gauged by
running non-linear time-history (NLTH) analyses of accurate
models of the designed structures, subject to a suite of
spectrum-compatible accelerograms.

SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR STEEL

MOMENT RESISTING FRAME STRUCTURES

As this paper focuses on the DBD of steel MRF structures,

some brief comments on important seismic design
considerations for steel MRFs are made in this section.
2.1

Performance Requirements

Traditional seismic design concepts tend to place high

importance on the strength of a structure. However, more
modern performance-based design (PBD) approaches (see
[4]), give more importance to other criteria, such as the
control of deformations, in recognition of the fact that the
forces that develop in a ductile structure do not correlate well
with damage, which is instead rather well gauged by storey
drifts, material strain demands and also, possibly, residual
deformations.
Considering steel moment resisting frames, provided that
reliable joint details are adopted, the plastic deformation
capacity of a steel frame is likely to be large, with storey drifts
in excess of 2.5% being able to develop before local strain
demands become problematic. With this in mind, the seismic
design of modern steel MRFs is likely to be governed by
storey drift limits for non-structural elements which are
usually not permitted to exceed 2.5% for the damage-control
limit state. The Eurocode 8 [5] does not appear to set specific
storey drift limits for rare seismic events and instead sets a
series of serviceability drift limits for more frequent events.
Code storey drift limits do vary internationally, however, and
since they are likely to be critical for the seismic design of
steel MRFs, more research is required to identify drift limits
that will effectively satisfy modern performance objectives.

309

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

2.2

Seismic Design Response Spectra

Recognizing that deformation control is likely to be critical

for the seismic design of a steel MRF structure, it is worth
reflecting on the characteristics of the design spectra currently
incorporated in Eurocode 8 [5]. Figure 1(a) presents the
Eurocode 8 elastic and design acceleration spectra for a site
with ground acceleration of 0.25g and soil type C. Note that
the design spectrum is constructed assuming a behavior factor
of q=6.5, appropriate for ductile multi-bay multi-storey steel
MRF systems. Figure 1(b) presents the corresponding elastic
and design displacement spectra. Note that the design
displacement spectrum shown in Figure 1(b) is an equivalent
spectrum, found by plotting the displacements one would
obtain using the EC8 recommendation (Cl.4.3.4) to amplify,
by the behaviour factor qd, the displacement, de, given by
structural analyses under the design forces.

Acceleration (g)

0.80
0.70

EC8 type 1 soil C

Elastic Spectrum

0.60

Design Spectrum,
q = 6.5

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0

Period (s)

(a)

2.3

2.5
EC8 type 1 soil C
Elastic Spectrum

Displacement (m)

2.0

Design Spectrum
(ds
= q.de)
(d
s = qd.de)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0

spectrum from periods of less than 2s, and at longer periods

the design displacements are more than five times the elastic
spectral displacement demands. To this extent, note that the
EC8 actually states that expected displacement demand need
not be larger than the value derived from the elastic spectrum.
Whilst this clause is reassuring, since it recognizes that
displacement demands do not increase drastically at long
periods as Figure 1(b) might suggest, the code does not
indicate how practitioners can apply this requirement in their
analyses and hence it is sometimes ignored. Upon reflection, it
would appear that the code could simply reword the sections
for calculating displacements and advise practitioners to
utilize the elastic spectrum for the calculation of
displacements (with the design spectrum used only for the
calculation of required strengths). This would be relatively
simple to implement and would reduce the likelihood that
practitioners grossly overestimate the displacement demands
on steel MRF structures.
Considering the elastic spectra in more detail, there is
actually some concern that the spectral displacement demands
associated with the elastic spectrum may be too low at long
periods (see [1]). In particular, the value of the spectral
displacement corner period (TD =2.0s) is considered to be
dangerously low and other international standards, such as the
ASCE7-05, specify corner periods as large as 16s. Faccioli et
al. [6] have indicated that corner periods in Italy can be much
greater than 2s. Clearly, if larger corner periods are to be
expected, then larger displacement demands should result and
this further reinforces the idea that designers of medium and
tall steel MRF buildings should set the characteristics of their
design spectra with care.

Period (s)

(b)
Figure 1. Eurocode 8 type 1 (a) acceleration and (b)
displacement spectra for soil type C (ag = 0.4g and =0.2).
Reviewing the acceleration spectra of Figure 1(a), one notes
that the lower bound found factor, , for the horizontal design
spectrum (taken here as 0.2 in line with the EC8
recommendations) governs the spectral shape upwards of a
period around 1.3s. Considering the displacement spectra of
Figure 1(b), it is apparent that the equivalent design
displacement spectrum exceeds the elastic displacement

Beam-Column Joints

An important design decision for moment-resisting frame

structures regards the connection typology. According to the
eurocodes, three types of beam-column joints are permitted
for steel MRF structures: (i) full-strength rigid, (ii) fullstrength semi-rigid, and (iii) partial strength joints. Analysis
requirements are simpler for full-strength rigid joints, but
realizing such joints in practice can be difficult and costly.
Full strength semi-rigid joints are likely to be more
economical, but the analysis requirements are more onerous
and the added flexibility that characterizes such joints may
make it even more difficult to satisfy the deformation limits
discussed in section 2.1. Partial strength joints will probably
be the most economical to construct, but little guidance is
given for the seismic design, analysis and verification of such
joints, making them less common in regions of high
seismicity.
A comprehensive set of guidelines for the Direct DBD of
steel MRF structures would include recommendations that
account for different joint typologies. Currently, however, the
Direct DBD method that will be presented in the following
sections has only been proposed for full strength rigid-joints
that exhibit Ramberg-Osgood hysteretic properties. Future
research will aim to identify how the procedure can best be
adapted to consider other joint typologies and hysteretic types.

310

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

DIRECT DBD OF SDOF SYSTEMS

The fundamentals of the Direct DBD procedure, developed

principally by Priestley et al. [1], are illustrated in Figure 2.
The first two important aspects of the procedure, presented in
Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b), is that the approach uses an equivalent
SDOF system to represent non-linear MDOF systems. The
equivalent SDOF effective mass, (me), height (he) and design
displacement (d) are defined for a selected deformation limit,
set to satisfy intended performance criteria.
me

he

(a) SDOF representation of MDOF system

Force

As indicated in Figure 2(c), the ductility demand associated

with the design deformation limit is then used to identify an
equivalent viscous damping value for the equivalent SDOF
system. This equivalent viscous damping value accounts for
the effects of energy dissipation and non-linear response, and
therefore the damping values depend on the hysteretic
properties of the structural system being considered.
The fourth important part of the procedure involves
identification of a required effective period from an elastic
response spectrum. To account for the non-linear effects on
the response (i.e. energy dissipation), the design displacement
spectrum is scaled down to the expected equivalent viscous
damping level. As shown in Figure 2(d), the design
displacement is then used to enter the highly-damped
spectrum and read off the effective period, Te, that will ensure
the design displacement is not exceeded. The required
effective period can be used to find the required equivalent
SDOF effective stiffness, Keff, through Equation 1.
K eff = 4

Fd

rKi
Keff

Ki
y

Damping Ratio,

0.25
Elasto-Plastic
Steel Frame

0.2

Concrete Frame

0.15

(1)

V =K
b
eff d

(2)

As such, the method is fairly simple and the main challenge

in extending the approach to steel MRF structures is to
establish the equivalent SDOF system properties of design
displacement, effective mass and equivalent viscous damping.

Concrete Bridge

0.1

Hybrid Prestress

0.05

0
0

2
4
Displacement Ductility

(c) Equivalent Viscous Damping.

0.6
Spectral Displacement (m)

e
2
T
e

where me is the effective mass of the equivalent SDOF system

(established in phases a & b of the design procedure). Finally,
the design base-shear, Vb, is obtained by multiplying the
design displacement by the required effective stiffness, as per
Equation 2.

Displacement
(b) Effective Stiffness, Keff, at design displacement d.

=5%

0.5
0.4

=17%

0.3
0.2
0.1

Teff

0
0

Period (s)

(d) Effective Stiffness, Keff, at design displacement d.

Figure 2. Fundamentals of Direct DBD (adapted from [1]).

DIRECT DBD OF STEEL MRF STRUCTURES

Guidelines for the Direct DBD of MDOF steel MRF

structures with rigid full strength joints are provided by
Priestley et al. [1] and Calvi and Sullivan [2]. However, as
mentioned in the introduction, only limited verification of the
guidelines has been undertaken and further development of
the approach for steel MRF structures is envisaged. In this
section the current design guidelines are reviewed, and aspects
that could be developed as part of future research are
highlighted.
In order to design a steel MRF structure, the first step
requires selection of performance criteria. In the draft model
code [2] both non-structural storey drift limits and steel
section strain limits are specified. For the damage control
limit state the storey drift limit of 2.5% is specified whereas
for systems with well detailed non-structural elements the
serviceability drift limit is 1.0%. As explained in section 2 of
this paper, non-structural drift limits are likely to be critical
for design.
4.1

Design displacement profile

The design displacement profile for the MRF building at the

performance limit state is then found. For the damage control

311

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

limit state, for which the building is expected to respond nonlinearly, Equation 3 can be used for this purpose:

i ,ls = c hi .

(4 H n hi )
(4 H n h1 )

(3)

4.2

Where i,ls is the displacement of level i at the development

of the performance limit state, c is the storey drift limit
(associated with the performance limit state), hi is the height
of level i above the base, Hn is the total height of the frame
building and h1 is the height of the 1st storey. If the frame is
being designed for a limit state in which elastic response is
expected (e.g. serviceability), then the elastic 1st mode shape
should be used instead of Equation 3.
Direct DBD is a method based on the response of the
fundamental mode of vibration. Given that higher mode
effects will tend to increase storey drifts for taller buildings,
the design displacement profile of the fundamental mode
should be set lower than that given by Equation 3, as per
Equation 4:

i = i ,ls

= 1.15 0.0034H n 1.0

(5)

in which Hn is the total building height in metres. The idea

of setting a reduced 1st mode design displacement profile to
account for higher modes is illustrated in Figure 3. Thus,
despite the fact that the design approach utilises only the
fundamental mode of vibration for design, it is intended to be
able to account for higher mode effects on the deformations,
and for this reason Priestley et al. [1] argue that it should
perform acceptably for buildings of up to 20-storeys in height.
storey drift
limit, c

n,1
Total
deformation
profile
1st mode
profile
Displacement
Profiles

0.0

(m )
n

d =

2
i

i =1
n

(6)

(m )
i

i =1

me =

(m )
i

i =1

(7)

(m h )
=
(m )
n

he

i =1
n

i =1

i i

(8)

(4)

where i is first mode design displacement of level i and the

higher mode drift reduction factor, , (empirically derived
for RC MRF structures by Pettinga and Priestley [3]) is given
by:

n,total

Equivalent SDOF characteristics

Having established the design displacement profile of the

fundamental mode, equations 6 to 8 are used to identify the
equivalent SDOF system design displacement, d, effective
mass, me, and effective height, he, respectively.

.c

Storey Drift Profiles

Figure 3. Use of higher mode factor, , to set reduced 1st

mode displacement levels.

where mi is the mass and hi the height of level i. Such

calculations can clearly be done quickly and simply in a
computer spreadsheet.
At this stage of the design process only the equivalent
viscous damping remains to be set in order to be able to fully
characterise the equivalent SDOF system and proceed with
the standard Direct DBD approach described in Section 3.
4.3

Equivalent viscous damping

The equivalent viscous damping is used to account for the

effects of the non-linear hysteretic response of the structure on
the seismic demands. For steel MRF structures that exhibit
Ramberg-Osgood hysteretic properties (typical of frames with
compact sections and well detailed full-strength rigid joints)
the equivalent viscous damping, eq, is found as:

eq = 0.05 + 0.577

(9)

where is the displacement ductility demand on the

structure for the design deformation. Equation 9 is an
empirical expression from [1] that was calibrated using the
results of non-linear time-history (NLTH) analyses of SDOF
systems modelled with plastic hinges characterised by the
Ramberg-Osgood hysteretic model and with 5% tangent
stiffness-based elastic damping. As steel MRF structures may
be characterised by lower levels of elastic damping, future
research could aim to calibrate a new expression based on the
results of NLTH analyses with 3% elastic damping. Priestley
et al. [1] do provide an approximate means of modifying
equivalent viscous damping values to account for elastic
damping values lower than 5%, but they are quite involved
and so are not reported here. Also note that clearly, if the
MRF joint details are such that the hysteretic response differs
significantly from the Ramberg-Osgood model, then
alternative expressions should be used and this is an important
area for future research.

312

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

There are different means of estimating the ductility

demand to insert into Equation 9. The simplest but arguably
most approximate approach is to estimate the frame yield
displacement, y, from Equations 10 and 11, and then divide
this into the design displacement as shown in Equation 12.

y = y .he

y = 0.65

y Lb

y ,i =

p, j

M
j =1

i
y ,i

(15)

eq =

(11)

Where y is the yield strain of the steel, Lb is the beam

length (between column centres) and hb is the beam section
depth. In the event that the MRF has bays of different length,
the yield drift, y, should first be obtained for each bay using
Equation 11 and then a weighted average value for the storey
yield drift should be determined using Equation 13, in line
with the recommendations of [1].

j =1
nb

(14)

(10)

(12)

nb

i i 1
hi hi 1

i =

hb

= d
y

i =

y, j
(13)

p, j

where y,i is the yield drift of storey i, y,j is the yield drift
and Mp,j the beam plastic hinge strengths of bay j of a the
frame possessing a total of nb bays.
It is clear from Equation 11 that in order to estimate the
yield drift of the frame one requires a reasonably good idea of
the likely section sizes. Since the design process actually aims
to establish the required member strengths so that beam and
column sections can be sized, it is apparent that the yield drift
expression given by Equation 11 requires designers to adopt
an iterative design process. That is, a designer should first
estimate the likely section sizes they intend to use, then
calculate the yield drift, ductility, equivalent viscous damping
and from that the base shear which can be used to establish
the required member strengths (as we will see in the next
section). If the sections initially selected do not provide the
required resistance then larger section sizes must be selected
and the design process repeated.
Another question in estimating the MRF system yield
displacement according to Equation 10 is what beam section
depth value should be used in Equation 11, since it is likely
that for steel MRF structures the beam section depth is lower
over the upper levels where storey shear demands reduce. A
simple approach, that is expected to be conservative, is to use
the average beam depth value. If more refined estimates of the
equivalent viscous damping are desired, then the yield drift
can first be calculated for each storey using Equation 13 and a
storey drift demand from Equation 14. The storey ductility
demand can then be calculated in accordance with Equation
15, and subsequently the storey equivalent viscous damping
can be found by substituting the storey ductility into Equation
9. The MRF system damping can then be found using
Equation 16.

V
i =1
n

V
i =1

(16)

Where i and i-1 are the design displacements of level i and

level i-1 respectively (obtained from Equation 4), hi and hi-1
are the heights of level i and level i-1 respectively, i is the
damping for level i, and Vi is the storey shear between levels i
and i-1. Note that only the relative proportions of storey shear
are required and as such, values of Vi can be obtained
substituting a unit base shear into Equation 20.
Clearly, the calculation of the equivalent viscous damping
on a storey-by-storey basis requires considerably more effort
than when the system ductility is directly estimated using to
Equations 10 to 12. To this extent, significant differences are
only expected for low ductility demands (e.g for design storey
drifts of around 1.5%) and so often designers will prefer to
use Equations 10 to 12.
4.4

Design base shear

With all the equivalent SDOF characteristics now defined, the

design base shear may now be determined. In line with the
procedure described in Section 3, the design displacement
spectrum is first scaled down to the expected equivalent
viscous damping level. To do this, Priestley et al. [1]
recommend scaling the spectral displacement demands by:

7
=
2 + eq

0.5

(17)

As shown in Figure 2(d), the design displacement is then

used to enter the highly-damped spectrum and read off the
effective period that will ensure the design displacement is not
exceeded. The effective period, Te, is then used to find the
equivalent SDOF effective stiffness, Keff, through Equation 1
and the design base-shear, Vb, is obtained by multiplying the
design displacement by the required effective stiffness, as per
Equation 2.
4.5

Structural analysis to find required member strengths

To find required member strengths, the design base shear may

then be distributed to each level as a set of equivalent lateral
forces using:
n

Fi = 0.9Vb (mi i ) / (mi i )

(18)

i =1

Fn = 0.10Vb + 0.9Vb (mi i ) / (mi i )

i =1

(19)

313

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

Where Equation 18 should be used for all storeys except the

roof level, and Equation 19 should be used at roof level only.
Note, following the work of [3], the expressions lump 10% of
the design base shear at roof level in order to provide a
distribution of beam strengths that limit higher mode effects
on storey drifts in the upper levels.
Required member strengths can either be found by applying
the equivalent lateral forces to an analytical model in which
the effective stiffness of plastic hinge regions is provided (see
[1]) or alternatively, by an equilibrium approach (also in [1]).
In the equilibrium approach, the storey shear, Vi, between
levels i and i-1, is first found by summing the equivalent
lateral forces (Equations 18 & 19) acting at and above level i,
as per Equation 20:
j =n

Vi = F j

(20)

j =i

The required beam design strengths at level i or at the roof

level n, can then be found from Equations 21 and 22
respectively.

M beam ,i =

Vi hs ,i
4 nb

M beam,n =

Vi +1 hs ,i 1

V n hs , n
4nb

(21)

4nb

5.1

Case study description and design inputs

The case study structures consider regular steel MRF

buildings, illustrated in Figure 4, ranging from 4- to 20storeys in height. For space reasons, only the results of the 12and 20-storey case study structures are presented here. The
frame buildings have a basement level, but for simplicity soilstructure interaction effects are ignored and the ground level
(above the basement) is taken as being the base level for this
work. A uniform storey height of 3.5m is considered and only
the seismic response in the E-W direction is examined. Floors
are assumed to behave as rigid diaphragms in-plane, fully
flexible out of plane, and p-delta effects are ignored (but note
that guidelines to account for P-delta effects are provided in
[1] and [2]). This work considers only the seismic design for
the damage control limit state, for which a target storey drift
limit of 2.5% is utilised, in line with the recommendations of
the draft model code for DBD [2]. A tangent-stiffness
proportional elastic damping value of 3% is assumed.
European steel sections are selected with a steel grade of S355
(assumed to have an expected strength of 380MPa) and the
design is based on the use of full strength rigid joints.
Steel MRF

(22)

Where hs,i and hs,i-1 are the inter-storey heights at storeys i

and i-1 respectively, hsn is the inter-storey height at the top
level of the building and nb is the total number of bays in the
frame. Note that the values given by Equations 21 and 22
correspond to the column centerline moment and therefore
can be reduced when sizing the plastic hinge to form at the
column face. Also note that the expressions assume, for
design purposes, that a mid-height point of contraflexure
develops in the columns and that moment redistribution is
permitted.
Design actions for columns and connections are typically
then found following capacity design requirements that
amplify the beam plastic hinge strengths and account for
higher mode effects. For modern capacity design
recommendations see [1]. In the case of partial strength
joints, then the connections would be designed to resist the
actions given by Equations 21 and 22, whereas the beams
would be capacity designed to ensure that the intended
hinging occurs in the joints. However, the authors are not
aware of detailed guidance for capacity design of steel MRFs
with partial strength connections.

Excitation Direction

Steel MRF

(a) Plan View

(b) Elevation
5

CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS OF THE APPROACH

In order to gauge the performance of the existing DDBD

guidelines for steel MRF structures, a series of case study
structures have been designed. Models of the designed
structures were then developed and subject to NLTH analyses
so that the likely performance of the structures could be
compared with the performance objectives. A summary of the
approach and findings are provided here but interested readers
should refer to [7] for complete details.

Figure 4. Case study MRF buildings (a) plan and (b) elevation
(from [7]).
The seismic hazard for the damage control limit state is
characterised by the Eurocode 8 type 1 design spectrum with a
ground acceleration (ag) of 0.4g. The acceleration and
displacement response spectra are shown in Figure 5, together
with the spectra of ten spectrum-compatible accelerograms
selected for the non-linear time history analyses.

314

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

designed and one would need to verify that full-strength rigid

joints could in fact be realised. Whilst detailed verifications
might lead to small changes in the member sizes, such
changes are not expected to affect the main findings of this
research that relate to the non-linear dynamic response of steel
MRF systems designed by the DDBD approach.

Acceleration [g]

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5

Table 2. Summary of preliminary beam and column section

sizes for the steel MRF case study buildings.

0
0

Period [s]

Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

(a) Acceleration spectra

180

Displacement [cm]

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

4
Period [s]

(b) Displacement spectra

Figure 5. Elastic 5% damped (a) design acceleration spectrum
and (b) design displacement spectrum, together with set of
spectrum compatible records (see [7] for record details).

5.2

Design results

5.3

Following the design procedure outlined in section 4, the

design results reported in Table 1 were obtained. Note that the
design base shear varies little between the 12- and 20-storey
structures despite the much greater mass associated with the
20-storey building. This result can be somewhat expected
given the similar proportions, storey masses and material
properties of the frames, as discussed by Priestley et al. [1].
Table 1. Summary of Direct DBD results for the 12- and 20storey steel MRF buildings.
Parameter
d (m)
Me (t)
He (m)
sys
Te (s)
Ke (KN/m)
Vb (kN)

12-storey
0.586
2761
28.4
9.57%
4.39
5655
3315

20-storey
0.873
4530
46.6
9.33%
6.47
4272
3728

The equilibrium approach was used to identify design

actions for members and European section sizes were selected
to provide the required design strengths. Table 2 lists the
preliminary section sizes identified. The section sizes are large
owing to the high seismicity of the site and the use of S355
grade steel. The sections should be considered as preliminary
since column design actions were set using a simplified
capacity design approach and approximate stability checks
were carried out. Furthermore, the connections were not

12-storey
IPE
HE M
750x137
550
750x137
500
750x137
500
750x137
500
600
450
600
450
600
400
550
360
550
300
500
300
500
280
400
280

20-storey
IPE
HE M
750x161
700
750x161
650
750x147
600
750x147
550
750x147
550
750x147
550
750x137
550
750x137
500
750x137
500
750x137
450
600
450
600
400
600
400
600
360
600
340
550
320
550
300
550
280
500
280
450
260

Non-linear time-history analyses

The frame structures were modelled using a lumped plasticity

approach in Ruaumoko [8] with plastic hinges given strengths
to match the required design strengths and bi-linear hysteretic
characteristics with a post-yield moment-curvature stiffness
ratio of 0.02. A tangent-stiffness based Rayleigh damping
model was used in line with [1], with 3% on the first mode.
Members not intended to yield as part of the design plastic
mechanism were modelled elastically (see [7] for details).
Each frame was analysed using ten spectrum compatible
accelerograms, the spectra of which were presented earlier in
Figure 5. The peak displacements and drifts recorded from the
NLTH analyses are presented in Figures 6 and 7 for the 12and 20-storey structures respectively.
Reviewing the displacements and drifts presented in Figures
6 and 7 it is apparent that the design methodology was able to
satisfy the performance criteria quite effectively. Both the 12storey and 20-storey displacement demands were typically
around 80-85% the design displacement values but this
conservatism proved quite useful for the control of storey
drifts where, because of higher mode effects (and in particular
what appears to be a 2nd mode of vibration) the storey drifts in
upper storeys were very close to the design drift limits set for
the design. These results indicate that, even though these
tallish case study buildings have significant participating mass
in the higher modes, the basic Direct DBD approach (which is
based on finding the strength required to control the
fundamental mode response) was able to control the nonlinear dynamic seismic response acceptably.

315

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

12

20
18

10

16
14

12
6

10
8

Indiv. NLTH
Mean
Design

Indiv. NLTH
Mean
Design

4
2

0
0

0.2
0.4
0.6
Displacement (m)

0.8

(a) Maximum recorded displacements

0.4
0.8
Displacement (m)

1.2

(a) Maximum recorded displacements

12

20
10

18
16
14
6

Indiv. NLTH
Mean
Design
2.5% Limit

12
Storey

Storey

10
8

Indiv. NLTH
Mean
Design
2.5% Limit

6
0

4
0

2
3
Drift (%)

(b) Maximum recorded storey drifts

Figure 6. (a) Peak storey displacements, and (b) peak storey

drifts from NLTH analyses of the 12-storey MRFs [7].

2
3
Drift (%)

(b) Maximum recorded storey drifts

6

CONCLUSIONS

This work has presented a Direct DBD design procedure for

steel moment-resisting frame structures with full-strength
rigid joints. Results of case-study application of the approach
to 12- and 20-storey steel MRF structures, designed for a
damage-control limit state, indicates that the approach may be
able to provide effective seismic control of such systems.
However, additional research is required to better verify the
approach for a wider range of MRF configurations and for
other design limit states. In addition, since this work only
considered frames with full-strength rigid joints characterised
by Ramberg-Osgood hysteretic behaviour, additional research
is required to develop guidelines for the design of steel MRF
structures with other joint typologies.

Figure 7. (a) Peak storey displacements, and (b) peak storey

drifts from NLTH analyses of the 20-storey MRFs [7].

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]

[4]
[5]

[6]

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge that the research leading
to these results has received funding from the European
Community's Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) under
grant agreement n [RFSR-CT-2010-00029].

[7]
[8]

M.J.N. Priestley, G.M. Calvi and M.J. Kowalsky., Displacement-Based

Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 721pp, 2007.
G.M. Calvi and T.J. Sullivan. A Model Code for the DisplacementBased Seismic Design of Structures Draft Subject to Public Enquiry,
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 70pp, 2009.
J.D. Pettinga, and M.J.N. Priestley, Dynamic Behaviour of Reinforced
Concrete Frames Designed with Direct Displacement-Based Design
Report No. ROSE 2005/02, IUSS press: www.iusspress.it, 154pp. 2005.
M.N. Fardis editor, Advances in Performance-Based Earthquake
Engineering, Springer, 486pp, 2010.
CEN EC8, Eurocode 8 Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistant
Structures, EN-1998-1:2004:E, Comite Europeen de Normalization,
Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
Faccioli E, Cauzzi C, Paolucci R, Vanini M, Villani M, Finazzi D Long
period strong ground motion and its use as input to displacement based
design, In K. Pitilakis (Editor), Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering:
4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering
Invited Lectures, pp23-52, 2007.
T.J Maley., Seismic Design of Mixed MRF Systems, ROSE School PhD
thesis, IUSS, Pavia, Italy, in preparation, 2011.
A.J. Carr, Ruaumoko 3D Users Manual University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand, 2007.