Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Framed structures. Ductility and seismic

response
General Report
*
V. Gioncu
Department of Architecture, Politehnica University Timisoara, 1900 Timisoara, Romania

Abstract

The purpose of this general report is to review the state-of-the art research works for ductility
related to seismic response of framed structures. The required ductility is determined at the
level of full structure behaviour, while the available ductility is obtained as local behaviour
of node (joint panel, connections or member ends). The checking for ductility may be perfor-
med for monotonic or seismic loads. For monotonic loads, the push-over method is developed
in simplified form proposed by Mazzolani and Piluso, on the basis of a rigid plastic global
mechanism. The result is the required ductility. In the same way, a local plastic mechanism
is used for determining the available ductility. For seismic loads, the differences between near-
source and far-source earthquakes are emphasized, which induces some important modification
on required ductility. The factors regarding seismic actions, such as velocity and cycling load-
ing, reduce the available ductility. Finally using these results, the designer is able to verify if
the available ductility is greater than the required ductility.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.

Keywords: Available ductility; Required ductility; Push-over method; Time-history method; Standard
beam; Component method

1. Introduction

In the design of framed structures for static and seismic actions engineers have
recognized the need to account for different purposes the plastic design. The static
analysis is accounted with the inelastic force redistribution in the calculations of load
effects. For the seismic analysis, the interest is intended on dissipation of input seis-

* Tel.: +40-56-203125; fax: +40-56-203125, 192998.

0143-974X/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 9 7 4 X ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 8 1 - 4
126 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

mic energy. The basic design parameter in both approaches is the ductility, con-
sidered as the ability of the structure to undergo large plastic deformations without
losing strength. In the design practice it is generally accepted that steel is an excellent
material for these due to performance in terms of ductility. But in the last decades
specialists have recognized that so-called good ductility of steel structures may be,
in some particular conditions, only a dogma, which is derived by the reality. In fact,
the recent earthquakes of Mexico City (1985) Loma Prieta (1989) Northridge (1994)
and Kobe (1995) have seriously compromised this idyllic image of steel as a perfect
material for seismic areas. In some cases the performance of steel joints and members
was very bad and large damage was produced, showing that in special conditions,
the present design concepts are not sufficiently, being too vague for a proper design:
“When plastic global analysis is used, the members shall be capable of forming
plastic hinges with sufficient rotation capacity to enable the required redistribution
of bending moment to develop” (EUROCODE 3, Section 5.3.1). “Sufficient local
ductility of members or parts of members in compression shall be assured”
(EUROCODE 8, Section 3.5.3.1). These two examples show some very indefinite
provisions of codes, for the structural designer it is essential to have a clear definition
of what “sufficient rotation capacity” or “sufficient local ductility” means. Aiming
to supply these lacks, the codes contain some constructional rules, considering that
the fulfill of them assures a good ductility. But the above mentioned bad behaviours
of steel structures have shown that this conception is not proper and the verification
of structure ductility must be quantified at the same level as the strength and stiffness.
In the past, a great amount of research works were devoted to the development
of a transparent methodology that takes into account the required ductility, in func-
tion on the main characteristics of ground motions and full structure behaviour, and
the available ductility, given by the local behaviour of the nodes (joint panels, con-
nections and member ends). The design objective for ductility is to verify if the
available ductility is greater than the required ductility.

2. Basic design philosophy for ductility

Before the 1960s the ductility notion has been used only for characterizing the
material behaviour, after Baker’s studies in plastic design and Housner’s research
works in earthquake problems, this concept has been extended at the level of structure
and is associated with the notions of strength and stiffness of the whole structure.
But after years of using this concept today it continues to be an ambiguous parameter.
In the practice of plastic design of structures, ductility defines the ability of a struc-
ture to undergo deformations after its initial yield without any significant reduction
in ultimate strength. The ductility of a structure allows prediction of the ultimate
capacity of a structure, which is the most important criterion for designing structures
under conventional loads. In the practice of earthquake resistant design, the term
ductility is used for evaluating the seismic performance of structures, by indicating
the quantity of seismic energy which may be dissipated through plastic deformations.
The use of ductility concept gives the possibility to reduce seismic design forces
 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 127

and allows the production of some controlled damage in the structure, also in case
of strong earthquakes.
The following ductility types are widely used in literature (Fig. 1):

앫 material ductility, or axial ductility, which characterizes the material plastic defor-
mations;
앫 cross-section ductility, or curvature ductility, which refers to the plastic defor-
mations of cross-section, considering the interaction between the parts composing
the cross-section itself;
앫 member ductility, or rotation ductility, when the properties of member are con-
sidered;
앫 structure ductility, or displacement ductility, which considers the behaviour of the
whole structure.

In Fig. 1 the subscript u refers to the ultimate deformation (strain, curvature, rotation

Fig. 1. Ductility types.

128 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

or displacement), while subscript y indicates the corresponding deformation for first

yielding. Referring to the ultimate deformation, the collapse of an element can be
reached by plastic deformations limited by buckling (Fig. 2(a)) or by fracture (Fig.
2(b)) of some components. So, the ductility can be:

앫 deformation ductility, when the collapse is due to buckling of a compressed

element;
앫 fracture ductility, when the collapse is the result of the fracture of a tensioned
element.

There are many disputable problems in the above definitions, due to the fact that
they have precise definition and quantitative meaning only for the case of monotone
and linear elasto-perfectly plastic behaviour. Their use in actual cases, where the
structural behaviour significantly differs from the idealized ones, leads to much ambi-
guity and confusion [1]. One of the most significant confusions is to judge the steel
structure ductility according to the material ductility, obtained by an uniaxial tension
test for monotoning loading. One must be aware of the fact that the result obtained
from axial tests never represents the actual behaviour of steel in a structure. For
non-normal conditions, as uncontrolled random variability of yield stress, reduced
temperatures, shock-loading, earthquake attack, many of the good performance of
steel may be lost by an erosion of the native properties (Fig. 3). The factors influenc-
ing this erosion are presented in Fig. 4, being divided in element factors (material,
cross-section, members) and joint factors (panel zones, column flanges,
connections) [2].
For assessment of required ductility it is necessary to gather information on
characteristics of possible earthquake on the site of the structure. Due to the coinci-
dence or near-coincidence of the natural periods of ground motions and fundamental
periods of structure, an amplification of required ductility occurs (Fig. 5). A signifi-
cant progress has recently been made in the development and application of innov-

Fig. 2. Deformation and fracture ductilities.

 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 129

Fig. 3. Erosion of native steel properties.

Fig. 4. Factors influencing the available ductility.

ative systems for seismic protection, reducing this amplification. The factors influ-
encing the amplification of ground motions are presented in Fig. 6. The required
ductility is directly influenced by ground motions (source, distance from source, site
conditions) and structural systems (foundations, structure types, non-structural
elements).
130 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

Fig. 5. Amplification of required ductility.

Fig. 6. Factors influencing the required ductility.

Ductility of a structure is provided by satisfying the limit state criterion:

Da
ⱖg D (1)
gm F r
where Da is the available ductility determined from the local plastic deformation and
Dr, is the required ductility obtained from the global plastic behaviour of structure.
The partial safety factors gm for available ductility and gF for required ductility must
 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 131

be determined considering the scatter of data with a mean plus one standard variation
and the uncertainties in available and required capacities. Values of gm=1.3 and
gF=1.2 are proposed for this verification, if the ductility is obtained by deformation
ductility. If the available ductility results from fracture, a greater value for gF must
be used (i.e. gF=1.5).
In an effort to develop methods based on ductility it is clear that the evaluation
of the inelastic response is required. For moment resisting frames (MRFs) inelastic
deformations correspond to the formation of plastic hinges at localized positions.
Available ductility is therefore associated with the rotation capacity of plastic hinges.
This one may be localized in one of the node components: panel zone, connections
or member ends. Due to the multitude of influencing parameters a macroscopic view
of the node by subdividing it into individual basic components has proved to be
most appropriate. This approach for determining the local ductility is known as the
component method [3]. The assumption considered in this method allows us to deter-
mine the overall rotation as the sum of the all components and the node ductility
by the ductility of the weaker component (Fig. 7).
Required ductility on the other hand is associated with the global behaviour which
is a function of the member of plastic hinges as well as the amount of plastic rotation
they undergo. For plastic analysis of a moment resisting frame, the methods available
to the designer are either monotonic static nonlinear analyses (push-over type) or
dynamic time-history analyses (Fig. 8). Of course the last ones are more effective,
but they require special computer programs which are not available for all design
offices. At the same time the time-history methods are large computation time con-
sumer and they are very expensive. The push-over methods, if the conditions of
loads and local behaviour are proper designed, may provide sufficient information
in the expected behaviour for design purposes.

Fig. 7. Component methodology.

132 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

Fig. 8. Push-over and time-history analyses.

3. Ductility under monotonic loading

Checking the structure ductility, there are three problems which must be solved:
(i) the global behaviour determined by push-over analysis, in which the required
ductilities of components are obtained; (ii) the calculation of available ductilities of
components; (iii) evaluation of required/available ductility ratios for all components.

3.1. Required ductility

For determining the required ductility push-over analysis is used. The structure is
subjected to incremental lateral loads, using one or more predetermined load patterns
of horizontal forces. These load patterns are supposed to bind the lateral load distri-
butions that will occur when the structure is subjected to earthquakes that cause
significant inelastic deformations. The determining of this pattern is a very difficult
task, because it depends on the influence of superior vibration modes and the pro-
gressive plastic hinge formation. For any given distribution the static behaviour is
defined by the pattern of loading, a, which increases monotonically, and the top
sway displacement, d [4]. The response of structure under monotonic horizontal is
completely described by the behavioural curve a–d (Fig. 9). The behavioural curve
comprises four branches. The first part represents the phase of elastic behaviour,
extended from the origin until the point of first yielding is reached, for the parameters
ay, and dy. The second part is a nonlinear one due to the process of plastic hinge
formation and the plastic redistribution capacity until the maximum multiplier amax
and the corresponding displacement dmax are reached. The third part is a softening
 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 133

Fig. 9. Structure behaviour under monotonic loading.

branch and it is characterized by the fact that the structure is still indeterminate and
the process of plastic hinge formation is in progress until a kinematic mechanism is
formed, corresponding to the displacement dmax. This part is strictly related to the
type of collapse mechanism and the magnitude of vertical loads. The ultimate part
describes the collapse of structure. After reaching first yielding, a plastic rotation of
successively formed plastic hinges is developed. All these plastic hinges must be
supervised because in many cases other than the first one develops the maximum
value.
A simplified methodology for push-over analysis based on the rigid plastic collapse
134 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

mechanism is developed by Mazzolani and Piluso [5], by substituting the actual

curve with a tri-linear one (Fig. 10). The first part is an elastic one and corresponds
to linear behaviour. The equilibrium curve of collapse mechanism is determined by
second-order rigid-plastic analyses and can be described by the following relation-
ship:
a⫽a0⫺gsd (2)
in which a0, is the collapse multiplier of the seismic horizontal forces, obtained by
a rigid-plastic analysis and gs is the slope of the liniarized mechanism equilibrium
curve, determined in function of mechanism type. The cusp produced by the intersec-
tion of elastic curve and mechanism equilibrium curve is cut by a horizontal straight
line, corresponding to a point of the mechanism equilibrium curve with a sway dis-
placement equal to 2.5 times the elastic displacement. The required rotation of plastic
hinges can be determined by the relationship:
1
qpr⫽ (d ⫺d ) (3)
H0 u y
where H0 is the sum of the interstory heights of stroreys involved in the collapse
mechanism. The ultimate displacement value can be determined at same level of
ultimate loads, corresponding to different performance criteria (operational, life safe,
near collapse).
Concerning the collapse mechanisms of frames under horizontal forces Mazzolani

Fig. 10. Tri-linear simplified force-displacement curve.

 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 135

Fig. 11. Plastic mechanism types.

and Piluso [6] have established three main types (Fig. 11), the global plastic mech-
anism being a particular case of second type mechanism. In this figure is also shown
the active height part of structure. In the aim to obtain one of the three plastic
mechanisms the design philosophy must consider that inelastic deformations occur
in beams or columns. In function, the position of plastic hinges results in the cases
of strong column–weak beam design (SC–WB, the beam being detailed to be weaker
than the adjoining columns) and weak column–strong beam design (WC–SB, the
column being considered the members to undergo plastic deformation). For a distri-
bution of seismic loads corresponding to the first vibration mode, the required duc-
tilities for the two mechanism types are plotted in Fig. 12 (after Bertero and Bertero

Fig. 12. Required ductilities for SC–WI3 and WC–SB.

136 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

[7]). One can see that the WC–SB system gives very large required ductilities,
especially for structures with large vibration periods.
The push-over method is relatively simple to implement, but contains a great num-
ber of assumptions and approximations that may be reasonable in some cases and
unreasonable in others. Especially, in the case where superior vibration modes have
important effects, the obtained results can be very far from the actual behaviour of
structures. Thus, the interpretation of results must be done within the context of used
assumptions [8].

3.2. Available ductility

For available ductility, obtained as a local ductility, the design philosophy must
consider that the inelastic deformations occur in one or more of the three components
of a node i.e. beam or column ends, connections and panel zones (Fig. 13). Modern
codes impose that plastic deformation must occur only at the beam ends and the
column bases, without considering the joint panels, even if it is well-known that
these show a stable behaviour under plastic shear deformations. But in reality the
required conditions (the joint capacity must be 20% stronger than the adjacent
members) do not assure the elastic behaviour of joints and as a consequence, the
panel zone can be in some cases the weakest component of joint. Results of so called
weak panel zone–strong column system (WP–SC), in which the panel zones are
designed to be the weakest element of the node and the inelastic deformations are
expected to occur in panel zones. Fig. 14 shows the developing process of plastic
hinge in a frame in the function of the panel joint and members moment ratios [9].
The white circles indicate that the the yields occur at joint panels and blank circles
the development of plastic hinges in members. Taking into account the variability
of material qualities the case of reduced plastic moment of joint panels is expected.

Fig. 13. Components of frame nodes.

 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 137

Fig. 14. Plastic hinges in joint panels and member ends.

So, one can see that the neglection of plastic deformations of joint panels in the
frame analysis is a miscalculation.
The ductility of members is an other dispute between the code provisions and
researchers, concerning the use of ductility determined at the level of cross-section
(as in EUROCODE 3) or it is necessary to use the ductility of members as proposed
by Mazzolani and Piluso [10] and Gioncu and Mazzolani [11]. The code provisions
are particularly qualitative, so this procedure is inadequate for a methodology in
which the available ductility is compared with the required one. A proper available
ductility must be determined taking into account that the members and joints belong
to a structure with a complex behaviour. But this is a very difficult task due to the
great number of factors influencing the behaviour of the actual member and joint.
Thus it is important to simplify the analysis by using for actual elements a simple
substitute with a similar behaviour [12]. For a member, this is the standard beam,
determined in a structure by the position of inflection points (Fig. 15). Thus, actual
structure can be replaced by a combination of standard beams for which the ductility
can be separately determined. There are two standard beam types, the first, SB1,
with a central concentrated load for the beams under moment gradient, and the
second, SB2, with the distributed load for quasi-uniform moment. The member duc-
tility is determined by the rotation capacity of a standard beam using the moment
rotation curve (Fig. 16(a)). The formulae to calculate the available rotation capacity
is given by:
qrp qr
Ra⫽ ⫽ ⫺1 (4)
qp qp
where qrp is the ultimate plastic rotation; qp is the rotation corresponding to the first
plastic hinge and qr is the total ultimate rotation. The problem of evaluating the
rotation capacity has recently been of primary interest, as testified by the numerous
published papers, presenting different methods which can be classified into the theor-
etical methods (based on using FEM, or integrating the moment-curvature
138 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

Fig. 15. Standard beams.

Fig. 16. Rotation capacity of standard beam.

 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 139

relationship), approximate methods (based on the use of the collapse plastic

mechanism), and empirical methods (based on statistical analysis of experimental
tests). Between these methods, the method of collapse of the plastic mechanism
seems to be the most adequate one for design purposes. Based on this methodology a
computer program DUCTROT (DUCTility of ROTation) was developed at INCERC
Timisoara [13]. Fig. 16(b) shows two of the plastic mechanisms used for determining
the rotation capacities. The comparison of theoretical and experimental data shows
a good correspondence [12]. The use of this computer program allows framing the
members in the member ductility classes as the proposals of Mazzolani and Piluso
[10]; high ductility Rⱖ7.50, medium ductility 4.5⬍R⬍7.50, low ductility
1.5ⱕR⬍4.5. Fig. 17 shows the classification of an I-profile in function on cross-
section classes and member classes. It is very clear that a good correspondence does
not exist between these two classifications.
The joint ductility depends on the importance of all component behaviours (Fig.
18). For welded joints the ductility is given by the plastic shear deformation, by
crushing of web of joint panel or weld fracture, while for bolted joints the ductility
results from plastic deformations until fracture of the column flanges, connection
elements (i.e., end plates) or by fracture of bolts or welds. The ductility of joints
can also be determined using the local plastic mechanisms (Fig. 19). An extension
of DUCTROT computer program, to include the ductility of joints, is now working.

Fig. 17. Influence of geometrical parameters on rotation capacity.

140 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

Fig. 18. Joint collapse types.

Fig. 19. Local plastic mechanism for joint collapse.

The node ductility results from the comparison of member and joint components.
The weakest of them decides the node ductility. A comparison between moment
capacities of the joint panel and beam is shown in Fig. 20. The beam is realized of
IPE profiles, the columns, of HEB profiles. The figure gives the possibility to decide
which one, the beam or the panel, is the weakest component and characterizes the
node ductility.
 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 141

Fig. 20. Node collapse.

The last great seismic events have shown that the concentration of plastic hinges
into joints leads to a brittle fracture of welds or bolts. Therefore, great efforts in the
last period are devoted to define adequate different detailing of joints able to provide
a more satisfactory behaviour [14]. Fig. 21(a) shows the new type of joint in which
two solutions are proposed, both of them based on the idea to move the plastic hinge
away from the column-beam interface, in the field where the weldings or bolts do
not determine the node behaviour. This solution can be obtained by weakening the
specific beam near to connection by trimming the beam flanges (dog–bone solution,
[15]) or by strengthening the specific beam near to the connection by adding vertical
ribs or cover plates. The increasing ductility in these two solutions are presented in
Fig. 21(b). The weakening of the beam gives the possibility to reduce the dimensions
of columns, while strengthening requires the increase of these dimensions [16], (Fig.
21(c)), showing the superiority of the dog–bone solution.

3.3. Required/available ductility ratios

For evaluation of required/available ductility ratios the frames analysed by Maz-

zolani and Piluso [5] are used. The plastic rotation of plastic hinges for beams and
columns are determined. Two required ductilities are determined for live safe and
near collapse, on the basis of the design philosophy of performance based earthquake
design. The analysed frames are: G–MRF which has been demonstrated by means
of second order plastic design to form global mechanism, and S–MRP, which has
been sized on the basis of member hierarchy criterion. One can see, (Fig. 22) that
the required ductilities for beams are smaller in all cases than the available ductilities.
142 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

Fig. 21. Weakening and strengthening the beam ends.

V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 143

Fig. 21. (continued)

144 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

Fig. 22. Required and available ductilities.

In exchange for columns, in the case of G–MRF the condition (1) is satisfied only
for life safe and in case of S–MRF the available ductility is smaller than the required
ductility for both levels of verification.

4. Ductility under seismic loading

For the checking of relationship (1) in the conditions of seismic loading some
important modifications for the required and available ductilities must be considered.
For the required ductility, an amplification of static determined values may occur
while for static available ductility an erosion must be determined in function of
ground motion characteristics.
 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 145

4.1. Required ductility

For required ductility, some very important new information was obtained during
the last few years. Due to the development of a large network of instrumentation
all over the world, especially in the seismic affected countries and due to some
earthquakes that occurred near very dense populated areas (Imperial Valley, 1979,
Wittier Narrows, 1987, Loma Prieta, 1989, Northridge, 1994, Kobe, 1995) there are
a large amount of measurements of ground motion for different distances from the
sources and for different site conditions. This new situation offers a possibility to
reveal a new concept in structural design, which was neglected in the current concept:
the differences in ground motion and in behaviour of the structures between near-
source and far-source fields [17], (Fig. 23(a)). For Europe’s earthquakes, over 60
percent are situated in the range of 4–14 km and the actions of near-source earth-
quake type is of first importance for structural design. Unfortunately the ground
motions and the design methods adopted in codes are mainly based on acceleration
records obtained from the far-source field, being incapable to describe in a proper
manner the earthquake action in the near-source field. So, in this respect, a structure
may be situated in three different positions, which produced different amplification
of ductilities, near-site, intermediate-site or far-site, (Fig. 23(b)). The differences in

Fig. 23. Earthquake types and required ductilities.

146 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

main characteristics of near-source and far-source are presented in Fig. 24: direction
of fault rupture propagation vs site stratification, velocity pulse vs cyclic loading,
important vertical components vs moderate ones, high velocity of ground motions
vs moderate ones.
As a consequence of these differences in the ground motions, then are some
important modifications in the required ductilities for near and far field earthquakes,
(Fig. 25) [17]: influence of higher vibration modes vs first vibration mode, increasing
of axial forces due to vertical components vs negligible increasing, higher ductility

Fig. 24. Near and far-source earthquake, main characteristics.

 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 147

Fig. 25. Near and far-source structure behaviour.

demands for the upper part of structure vs ductility demands in the lower part,
increasing of storey drifts due to high velocities vs normal values.
The influence of velocity pulse type of near-source earthquakes is studied using
an artificial generated accelerogram characterized by the accelerations, pulse period
and number of pulses [18]. Fig. 26 shows the spectra for horizontal motion, compared
with an EC8 spectrum. One can see that the EC8 values do not cover the high
amplification in the range of reduced structure periods. In exchange, these values
are too large for medium and high structure periods as the one of steel structures.
Influence of impulse period on the ductility demands is studied in Fig. 27, [18].
148 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

Fig. 26. Spectra for velocity impulse earthquakes.

Fig. 27. Influence of velocity impulse periods.

 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 149

The natural period periods of analysed structures is: T1=1.72 s, T2=0.61 s, T3=0.35
s. The structure was analysed for a level of acceleration of ag=0.35 g with the
DRAIN–2D computer program. One can see very clearly the influence of different
vibration modes: for the pulse periods near to second vibration mode, the required
ductility is concentrated at the top of structure, while for pulse periods near to first
vibration mode, the maximum ductility demands occurs at the first level. The required
ductilities resulting from the second vibration mode are more reduced than the ones
obtained from the first vibration mode. Taking into account that the pulse ground
motions in near-source regions are generally between 0.3…0.6 s, results are that, for
the flexible frames, the second vibration modes may have a very great influence on
the structure behaviour. This consideration is confirmed by the results obtained using
recorded accelerogrames in near and far-field [18].
For near-source earthquakes a very important factor affecting the required ductility
is the increasing of axial forces in columns due to the vertical components of ground
motions, which can be grater than the horizontal components. The increasing of axial
forces in the first level columns is presented in Fig. 28, in function of a number of
storeys, after Papaleontiou and Roesset [19] and Papazoglou and Elnashai [20], for
Loma Prieta Capitola records with av/aH=1.11.

4.2. Available ductility

For available ductility it is possible to use the values determined for monotonic
loading, but introducing some corrections which consider the erosion due to seismic

Fig. 28. Influence of vertical components.

150 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

loading characteristics, (Fig. 29). The main factors which may reduce the monotonic
ductility are presented in Fig. 30. One of the main factors is the velocity of ground
motions, which can be very high in a near-source zone. The high velocities produce
an increasing of strain-rate, with the effect of increasing of yield ratio [21]:
fy
r y⫽ (5)
fu

For very high strain-rates this ratio is close to 1 and the elements have no condition

Fig. 29. Erosion of available ductility.

 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 151

Fig. 30. Factors of ductility erosion.

to develop plastic hinges. Thus, brittle fractures may occur in a members or joints.
One other important factor influencing the ductility is the seismic cycling loading.
In comparison with the monotonic loads the envelope of cyclic loads shows a
decrease of rotation capacity as the effect of accumulation of plastic deformations
[12]. The number of plastic excursions plays an important role in the erosion of
monotonic determined ductility. It is very well known that in the case of a near-
source area the first or second cycle is the most devastating one [22] while for far-
source areas, especially for soft soils, there are 5–10 cycles with plastic deformations
in structures, producing an accumulation of plastic deformations or residual stresses,
phenomenon which induces an important reduction of local ductility.

4.3. Comparison of required and available ductilities

The checking for ductility of beams is generally an ordinary operation without

special problems. Difficulties occur at the checking for ductility of the columns. For
an ordinary moment-resisting frames in case that the effect of first vibration mode
is determinant, the variation of bending moment is presented in Fig. 31(a), with a
double-curvature variation on the height of the storeys. The available ductility
increases at each level, due to decreasing the effect of axial forces, while the required
ductility has the maximum value at the first storey, due to the shear type deformation.
So, the disagreement between required and available ductilities may occur at the
Frame first storeys. For special moment-resisting frames, the dimensions of columns
are increased to obtain a global mechanism. This over-strength of the column may
introduce some adversary effects, by reducing the available ductility of columns due
152 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

Fig. 31. Required and available ductilities.

to the one curvature moment variation, Fig. 31(b). So, if due some differences
between design and actual hypothesis, (i.e. about the distribution of horizontal forces
which produces the global mechanism) the plastic hinges may occur in the columns,
and they are less ductile than ordinary frames, being a potential source of structure
collapse. In these cases, the second vibration interacts with the first mode (the case
of near-source earthquakes) the diagram of bending moment shows irregularities of
variation at the middle frame height [23], which induce a dramatic reduction of
available ductility in this region. Because just in this place the required ductility has
a maximum, the collapse of the building may occur due to lack of sufficient ductility.
This was a common phenomenon during the Kobe earthquake, where, many build-
ings were damaged on the storeys situated at the middle height of structure.
 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154 153

5. Conclusions

Today code provisions for ensuring a sufficient structure ductility are based on
the compliance of some constructive rules. So, the level of ductility achieved is not
formally calculated and the inherent ductility is not recognized. Due to this fact,
during the last severe earthquakes many steel structures were damaged, the detailing
rule being insufficient to ensure a general good ductility.
Recent development of advanced design concept is based on the objective to pro-
vide a structure with sufficient ductility, in the same way as for strength and stiffness
using a quantitative methodology. The developed method is based on the checking
that the available ductility, determined from the local ductility, is greater than the
required ductility, obtained from the global behaviour of structure.
This paper presents the main problems of this checking, showing the factors influ-
encing the required and available ductilities, defined for monotonic and seismic load-
ings.

References

[1] Bertero VV. Ductility structural design. State-of-the art report. Ninth World Conf Earthquake Engng,
1988;3:673–86.
[2] Gioncu V. Ductility demands: General report In: Mazzolani FM, Akiyama H, editors. Behaviour of
steel structures in seismic areas, STESSA’97. 3–8 August, Kyoto, 101.17, Salerno, 1997:279–302.
[3] Jaspart JP, Steenhuis M, Anderson D. Characterization of the joint properties by means of the compo-
nent method. In: Control of semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structures connections. COST
Conference, Liege, 17–19 September 1998:115–24.
[4] Mazzolani FM, Piluso V. Theory and design of seismic resistant steel frames. London: E&FN
Spon, 1996.
[5] Mazzolani FM, Piluso V. A simple approach for evaluating performance levels of moment-resisting
steel frames. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, editors. Seismic design methodologies for the next gener-
ation of codes. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1997:241–52.
[6] Mazzolani FM, Piluso V. Plastic design of seismic resistant steel frames. Earthquake Engng Struct
Dynamics 1997;26:167–91.
[7] Bertero RD, Bertero VV. Tall reinforced concrete structures: Conceptual earthquake resistant design
methodology. Report UCB/EERC-92/16, 1992.
[8] Krawinkler H. New trends in seismic design methodology. In: Duma G, editor. Tenth European
conference on earthquake engineering. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1995:821–30.
[9] Tabuchi M, Kanatani H, Kamba T, Yamanari M, Uemori H. Effect of joint panels on elastic-plastic
behaviour of moment resisting frames. In: Tenth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Madrid 19–24 July, Rotterdam: Balkema, 1992:4491–4494.
[10] Mazzolani FM, Piluso V. Member behavioural classes of steel beams and beam-columns, In: Proc.
of First State of the Art Workshop, COSTI, Strassbourg 1992:517–29.
[11] Gioncu V, Mazzolani FM. Alternative methods for assessing local ductility. In: Mazzolani FM,
Gioncu V, editors. Behaviour of steel structures in seismic areas, STESSA’94. London: E&FN Spon,
1995:182–90.
[12] Gioncu V, Petcu D. Available rotation capacity of wide-flange beams and beams-columns Part I:
Theoretical approaches, Part II. Experimental and numerical tests. J Const Steel Res
1997;43:161–217.
[13] Petcu D, Gioncu V. DUCTROT’97. Plastic rotation capacity of steel beams and beam-columns.
Guide for user. Timisoara: INCERC, 1997.
154 V. Gioncu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 125–154

[14] Anastasiadis A, Gioncu V. Influence of joint details on the local ductility of steel MR frames. In:
Third Greek National Conference on Steel Structures, 30–31 October, Thessaloniki, 1998:311–9.
[15] Plumier A. Behaviour of connections. J Const Steel Res 1994;38:95–123.
[16] Anastasiadis A, Gioncu V, Mazzolani FM. New conforming procedures to improve the ductility of
MR frames. In: XVII Italian Congress of Steel Structures, 3–5 October, Naples 1999:193–204.
[17] Tirca L, Gioncu V. Effects of horizontal and vertical ground motion near and far field region In
Second Int. Ph.D. Symposium in Civil Engineering, Budapest 1998.
[18] Gioncu V, Mateescu G, Tirca L. Influence of type of seismic motions and vertical components.
RECOS Intermediate report, INCERC Timisoara, May, 1999.
[19] Papaleontiou C, Roesset JM. Effect of vertical accelerations on the seismic response of frames. In:
Moan et al, editor. Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 93. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1993:19–26.
[20] Papazoglou AJ, Elnashai AS. Analytical and field evidence of damaging effect of vertical earthquake
ground motion. Earthquake Engng Struct Dynamics 1996;25:1109–37.
[21] Soroushian P, Choi KB. Steel mechanical properties at different strain rate. J Struct Engng
1987;113:863–72.
[22] Kohzu I, Suita K. Single or few excursion failure of steel structural joints due to impulsive shocks
in the 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu earthquake. In Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
23–28 June, Acapulco, 1996, CD-ROM, paper 412.
[23] Paulay T, Bachmann H, Mosser K. Erdbebenbemessung von Stahlbetonhochbauten. Basel: Bir-
khausen Verlag, 1990.