See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230531532

Comparison of nonlinear behavior of steel

moment frames accompanied with RC shear
walls or steel bracings

Article in The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings October 2013
DOI: 10.1002/tal.751

CITATIONS READS

3 332

4 authors, including:

Hamed Esmaeili Ali Kheyroddin

Semnan University Semnan University
6 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS 148 PUBLICATIONS 273 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hamed Nikbakht
Pennsylvania State University
2 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Partially Encased Composite Column View project

Seismic Performance of Innovative Fuse for Concentric Braced Frames. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamed Nikbakht on 27 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.751

Comparison of nonlinear behavior of steel moment frames

accompanied with RC shear walls or steel bracings

Hamed Esmaeili1*,, Ali Kheyroddin1, Mohammad Ali Ka1 and Hamed Nikbakht2
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

SUMMARY
In this paper, the seismic behavior of dual structural systems in forms of steel moment-resisting frames accom-
panied with reinforced concrete shear walls and steel moment-resisting frames accompanied with concentrically
braced frames, have been studied. The nonlinear behavior of the mentioned structural systems has been evaluated
as, in earthquakes, structures usually enter into an inelastic behavior stage and, hence, the applied energy to the
structures will be dissipated. As a result, some parameters such as ductility factor of structure (m), over-strength
factor (Rs) and response modication factor (R) for the mentioned structures have been under assessment. To
achieve these objectives, 30-story buildings containing such structural systems were used to perform the
pushover analyses having different load patterns. Analytical results show that the steel moment-resisting frames
accompanied with reinforced concrete shear walls system has higher ductility and response modication factor
than the other one, and so, it is observed to achieve suitable seismic performance; using the rst system can have
more advantages than the second one. Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 2 August 2011; Accepted 3 November 2011

KEYWORDS: dual system; steel moment-resisting frame; shear wall; steel bracing; reinforced concrete; seismic behavior

1. INTRODUCTION

As extensive areas in Iran, especially the populated cities, are located on the critical seismic zones and
they have high vulnerability to destruction, the study of seismic behavior of structural systems is of great
importance. Today, reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls or steel bracings are used widespread as a main
load-carrying system in tall buildings, for different reasons such as increase of energy dissipation and its
ability to resist lateral displacements of tall buildings that have moment-resisting frames. Therefore, the
recognition of the seismic behavior of the dual structural systems and guring out their advantages can
be helpful to structural engineers in selecting a proper system for structures that are being designed.
Studying the behavior of building structures as subjected to severe earthquake ground motions
reveals that this type of structures can exhibit enough strength, due to the nonlinear behavior of materials
and possibility of sufcient deformations of the structures. These structures absorb the applied energy and
will dissipate it via tolerating great displacements in nonlinear seismic behavior.
Nonlinear time history analysis of a detailed analytical model is perhaps the best option for the
estimation of deformation demands. However, because of many uncertainties associated with the
site-specic excitation as well as uncertainties in the parameters of analytical models, in many cases,
the effort associated with detailed modeling and analysis may not be justied and feasible (Hajirasouliha
and Doostan, 2010).
In current years, nonlinear static analyses have earned a great deal of research attention within the
earthquake engineering community. Their main purpose is to demonstrate the nonlinear capacity of
a structure when subjected to horizontal loading with a reduced computational attempt with respect

*Correspondence to: Hamed Esmaeili, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.

E-mail: H_Esmaeili@sun.semnan.ac.ir

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 H. ESMAEILI ET AL.

to nonlinear dynamic analyses. Pushover methods are particularly shown for assessing existing structures
(frequently not originally designed with seismic criteria in mind), when the employment of linear elastic
methods, typical in new design situations, tends to be unsuitable. For these goals, many codes and guidelines
(e.g. Eurocode 8, 2005; ATC-40, 1996; FEMA-356, 2000) propose the use of nonlinear static methodolo-
gies to evaluate structural behavior under seismic movement (Ferracuti et al., 2009). To assess the seismic
performance of the structures, three various nonlinear static analyses are used, each of which contains a
constant load pattern. These approaches are pushover analyses with load patterns proportionate to uniform
and reverse triangular displacements of structures, and modal pushover analysis (MPA).

2. REVIEW OF THE LATEST RESEARCHES

In general, numerous studies in forms of analytical and experimental works have been implemented on
the mentioned structural systems. Most important results of which are as follows:
A series of experimental programs including two-story specimens was developed to recognize the
cyclic behavior of the composite structural systems. This study shows that the lateral shear force tolerate
via compressive strut of wall and shear studs (Tong, 2001).
Tong et al. (2005) presented an experimental study on the cyclic behavior of a composite structural
system consisting of partially restrained steel frames with RC inll walls. The one-bay, two-story test
specimen was built at one-third scale. The study shows that this system has the potential to offer
strength appropriate for resisting the forces from earthquakes and stiffness adequate for controlling
drift for low-rise to moderate-rise buildings located in earthquake-prone regions.
As a basis of many studies, structural frames with inll panels are typically providing an efcient
method for bracing buildings (Jung and Aref, 2005). The presence of inlls can also have a signicant
effect on the energy dissipation capacity (Decanini et al., 2002).
In common practice, steel bracing system is used to increase the lateral load resistance of steel struc-
tures. Steel moment-resisting frame structures possess high strength and signicant ductility, thus are
effective structural forms for earthquake-resistant designs. However, the load-carrying efciency of
such designs is limited when an earthquake induces large story drift because of the lower structural
stiffness of the steel frames (Hsu et al., 2011).
Over-strength, ductility and response modication factors of buckling-restrained braced frames
were evaluated by Asgarian and Shokrgozar (2009). To do so, buildings with various stories and
different bracing congurations including diagonal, split X and chevron (V and inverted V) bracings
were considered. In this article, seismic response modication factor for each of bracing systems has
been determined separately, and tentative values of 8.35 and 12 has been suggested for ultimate limit
state and allowable stress design methods, respectively.
The over-strength, ductility and response modication factors of special concentric braced frames
and ordinary concentric braced frames were evaluated by performing pushover analysis of model
structures with various stories and span lengths (Kim and Choi, 2005). The results were compared with
those from nonlinear incremental dynamic analyses. The results of incremental dynamic analysis
generally matched well with those obtained from pushover analysis.
A signicant aspect in the design of steel braced RC frames is the level of interaction between the
strength capacities of the RC frame and the bracing system. Maheri and Ghaffarzadeh (2008)
conducted an experimental and numerical investigation to evaluate the level of capacity interaction
between the two systems. It was found that the capacity interaction is primarily due to the connections
over-strength and also the number of braced bays and the number of frame stories recognized.

3. SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF STRUCTURES

3.1. The ductility of structures

As a general rule, it is possible to replace the ideal bilinear elasto-plastic diagrams with the base
sheardisplacement curves of structures (Figure 1). The ductility factor in single degree-of-freedom

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 COMPARISON OF NONLINEAR BEHAVIOR OF STEEL MOMENT FRAMES

(SDOF) systems is a proportion of maximum lateral displacement to the yielding lateral displacement
of structures.
max
m (1)
y

In fact, the ductility factor explains to what extent the structure enters when in nonlinear state. There is
no accurate denition for the ductility factor of multiple degrees-of-freedom structures. In some provi-
sions, yielding is assumed to have been simultaneous, although not precise (Wakabayashi, 1986). Mean-
while, the relation between the base shear and displacement is not an elasticperfectly plastic equation.
With consideration to Figure 1, an idealization in denition of the ductility factor is accepted.

3.2. Response modication factor

Seismic codes consider a reduction in design loads, taking advantage of the fact that the structures
possess signicant reserve strength (over-strength) and capacity to dissipate energy (ductility). The
over-strength and the ductility are incorporated in structural design through a force reduction or a
response modication factor. This factor represents ratio of maximum seismic force on a structure
during specied ground motion if it was to remain elastic to the design seismic force. Thus, actual
seismic forces are reduced by the factor R to obtain design forces. The basic aw in code procedures
is that they use linear methods but rely on nonlinear behavior (Kim and Choi, 2005).
As it is shown in Figure 1, usually, real nonlinear behavior is idealized by a bilinear elastoperfectly
plastic relation. The yield force of structure is shown by Vy and the yield displacement is y. In this
gure Ve or Vmax correspond to the elastic response strength of the structure. The maximum base shear
in an elasto perfectly behavior is Vy (Uang, 1991). The ratio of maximum base shear considering elastic
behavior Ve to maximum base shear in elasto perfectly behavior Vy is called force reduction factor,
Ve
Rm (2)
Vy

The over-strength factor is dened as the ratio of maximum base shear in actual behavior Vy to the rst
signicant yield strength in structure Vs,
Vy
RS (3)
Vs

To design for allowable stress method, the design codes decrease design loads from Vs to Vw. This
decrease is done by allowable stress factor, which is dened as (Asgarian and Shokrgozar, 2009):

Figure 1. General structure response (Uang, 1991).

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 H. ESMAEILI ET AL.

VS
Y (4)
VW

The response modication factor, therefore, accounts for the ductility and over-strength of the structure
and for the difference in the level of stresses considered in its design. It is generally expressed in the
following form, taking into accounts the aforementioned conceptions (Asgarian and Shokrgozar, 2009),

Ve Ve Vy VS
R   Rm  RS  Y (5)
VW Vy VS VW

3.3. The relation between the force reduction factor, the ductility factor and the period of structure
The force reduction factor (Rm) is related to many parameters of which many are correlated to character-
istics of the structural system and some of them are independent from the structure and are related to the
other parameters such as respected loading (the time history of earthquake). Rm will be correlated to a set
of factors, especially the ductility factor of structure and its performance characteristics in the nonlinear
state, if we consider a specic earthquake for a particular place. Therefore, the rst step in determining
force reduction factor is specifying the relation between it and the capacity of the ductility of structure.
Multiple factors are known that afuence on the relation between Rm and m, such as materials, period of
system, damping, P  effects, the loaddeformation model in the hysteresis loops and type of the soil
that exists in the site. If we consider this assumption that the ductility in the structures with short period is
the same as those that have longer periods, then smaller Rm is obtained. Also, New Mark and Hall (1982)
suggested the following equations for calculation of the force reduction factor of structures:

(6)
Rm 1 T < 0:125 s

p
Rm 2m  1 0:125 s < T < 0:5 s (7)

Rm m 0:5 s < T
(8)

3.4. The conversion coefcient of linear to nonlinear displacement (Cd)

Its clear that the structural damages are normally originated from excessive deformations of the
structure. Therefore, with regard to the effective parameters on seismic design of a structure, the
discussion about assessment and accurate prediction of displacement and monitoring of them are the
most important aims in seismic design of a structure. The Cd coefcient can be calculated as follows:

max max y
Cd  m  Rs (9)
S y s

4. DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURAL MODELS IN THIS STUDY

In this study, two structural models are used for specifying the trend of this research, denes
as follows:

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 COMPARISON OF NONLINEAR BEHAVIOR OF STEEL MOMENT FRAMES

(1) Model A: A 30-story building in the form of special steel moment-resisting frame accompanied
with special RC shear wall.
(2) Model B: A 30-story building in the form of special steel moment-resisting frame accompanied
with concentrically steel braced frames (X-braces).
The height of the all stories is 3.5 m. Both of them have a residential application. Therefore, a oor
dead load, an equivalent partition load and a live load for each story of values 200 kg/m2, 650 kg/m2
and 150 kg/m2 (1961 N/m2, 6374 N/m2 and 1471 N/m2), respectively, are applied. Also, the structural
system of the oor is composite of RC slabs and steel secondary beams. The steel material used in the
sections of the structural members is of ST37 type with yielding strength of 2400 kg/cm2
(235 359 600 N/m2) and ultimate strength of 3700 kg/cm2 (362 846 050 N/m2). The compressive
strength of concrete material, f c , used in the shear walls is 300 kg/cm2 (29 419 950 N/m2). American
Institute of Steel Construction Specication (AISC, 2005) and American Concrete Institute Requirements
(ACI Committee 318, 2008) were used to design steel members and shear wall, respectively. Also, in
order to calculate earthquake load, the spectrum dynamic method was used. The equation suggested by
Kheyroddin (2006) was used to determine the thickness and the number of required shear walls.
 2
hw
lw
r min (10)
835 205 hlww

In which, rmin is the minimum wall-area-to-story-area ratio, hW is the total wall height and lW is the wall
length (average shear wall lengths present in building plan).
The plans of the structures, the direction of the girders and secondary beams, and the location of
shear walls and bracings are shown in Figures 2 and 3. In the design process of these structures, it
has been tried that moment frame members tolerate 25% of earthquake forces in addition to bearing
gravity load. The thicknesses of the shear walls for each story are shown in Table 1, and the sizes
of the steel braces for each story are shown in Table 2. With regard to the design of the structures,
box-shaped and I-shaped sections are obtained for section area of columns and beams, respectively.

5. NONLINEAR ANALYSIS

5.1. Existing pushover analysis methods

During a pushover analysis, a frame structure is subjected to gravitational loads and horizontal loads
applied at each story, with the latter being incremented up to failure. Ideally, the distribution of horizon-
tal loads should approximate the inertia forces that are generated in the structure during an earthquake.
Conventional pushover procedures adopt an invariant load pattern during the analysis, and according to
a number of codes and guidelines, at least two different force distributions must be considered, uniform
and proportional to the rst modal shape. The invariant load pattern is one of the most signicant
limitations of traditional methods because the actual inertia force distribution changes continuously
during seismic events as a result of higher mode contribution and structural degradation, which modies
the stiffness of individual structural elements and, consequently, of the structure as a whole.
A procedure that proposed by Chopra and Goel (2003) is MPA, whereby a series of independent
pushover analyses are carried out, considering different horizontal load patterns for each modal shape.
According to the authors, it is sufcient to consider the rst two or three modal shapes. Results in terms
of capacity curves for various modal shapes are transformed in capacity curves for equivalent SDOFs,
one for each mode. Seismic demands are separately evaluated for each SDOF and nally combined by
the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares method. A common drawback of this method is the mode
superposition of results obtained from nonlinear pushover analyses carried out separately, for various
modes. The method neglects the interaction amongst the modes, with modal superposition being
performed just as in elastic modal analysis. Accordingly, capacity curves typically overestimate base
shear values (Hernandez-Montes et al., 2004).
On the basis of an analytical work that is conducted by Mortezaei et al. (2009), it is shown that non-
linear static procedures based on invariant load vectors using elastic modal properties cannot capture

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 H. ESMAEILI ET AL.

Figure 2. The structural plan of the model A.

Figure 3. The structural plan of the model B.

Table 1. The thickness of the shear walls in the Model A.

Story 12 36 79 1012 1315 1618 1921 2224 2527 2830
Thickness (mm) 650 600 500 500 450 400 350 300 250 200

Table 2. The sizes of the steel braces in the Model B.

Story 12 36 79 1012 1315 1621 2224 2527 2830
Sizes of braces 2UNP300 2UNP280 2UNP260 2UNP240 2UNP220 2UNP200 2UNP180 2UNP160 2UNP140

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 COMPARISON OF NONLINEAR BEHAVIOR OF STEEL MOMENT FRAMES

the changes to the dynamic modes resulting from inelastic action. The variation of inertial forces must
be considered in static procedures that attempt to reproduce inelastic dynamic response.

5.2. Nonlinear modeling of the structures

In order to assess the seismic behavior of selected buildings, we have conducted a series of nonlinear
static analysis. The designed structures have been used by importing into PERFORM-3D (Computers and
Structures Inc., 2006a) software to create a nonlinear model. After a preliminary design of the struc-
tures, the nonlinear model of the following elements, forcedeformation relationship and deformation
capacities in PERFORM-3D has been developed. There are a number of different ways to model inelastic
beams and columns in PERFORM. At one extreme are nite element models using ber sections. At the
other extreme are chord rotation models that consider the member as a whole and essentially requires
one to specify only the relationship between end moment and end rotation. In between these extremes
are a number of other models. In this study, the chord rotation model for beams and columns has been
selected. The basic model is shown in Figure 4. This is a symmetrical beam with equal and opposite
end moments and no loads along the beam length. To use this model, one has to specify the nonlinear
relationship between the end moment and end rotation. An advantage of this model is that FEMA-356
gives specic properties, including end rotation capacities (Mohammadjafari and Jalali, 2009).
Figure 5 shows a PERFORM frame compound component for the chord rotation model. The key parts of
this model are the FEMA beam components. These are nite length components with nonlinear proper-
ties. The model has two of these components for cases where the strengths are different at the two ends of
element. PERFORM allows user to specify different strength for two components and also different lengths
to consider cases where the inection point is not at mid-span (Mohammadjafari and Jalali, 2009).
For modeling the braces, the Simplr Bar element is used, and parameters in Tab. 56 of FEMA-356 are
implemented to model this element in the software. An example of the FD relationship of Simplr Bar
element is shown in Figure 6.
To make the RC shear wall sections, dening the linear and nonlinear characteristics of its materials
(concrete and steel bar) are necessary.
As it is shown in Figure 7, the stressstrain curve of concrete is selected in the form of trilinear with
strain hardening; and its tension strength is ignored. The modulus of elasticity, EC is assumed to be

Figure 4. Chord rotation model.

Figure 5. Basic components for chord rotation. FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Figure 6. Modeling of the behavior of bracing in PERFORM.

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 H. ESMAEILI ET AL.

Figure 7. Nonlinear properties of concrete.

261 540 kg/cm2 (2.56*1010 N/m2). The strain of ultimate strength of concrete, eL, is taken 0.003
(Kheyroddin, 2008), and the strain of crushing limit of concrete, eCU, is taken 0.005. As it is seen in
Figure 7, the strain of yielding strength of concrete, eY, is taken 0.002; then, the ratio of initial modulus
of elasticity to secondary modulus of elasticity is specied to 0.402.
The stressstrain relationship of steel bar is supposed to be bilinear (elasticperfectly plastic). The
modulus of elasticity, ES, is taken 2 100 000 kg/cm2 (2.06*1011 N/m2), and the ultimate strain, eSU,
is taken 0.05 (Kheyroddin, 2008). Also, its yielding strength, FY, is 4000 kg/cm2 (392 266 000 N/m2).

5.3. Nonlinear analysis of the models

In this study, three nonlinear static analysis approaches are used for each model, which are described in
the following. So, six pushover analyses have been performed. The center of mass at the roof level is
selected as a control point of the displacement of structure in all analysis. Thus, the relative lateral
displacement (drift) of the roof is used as a reference relative to lateral displacement, for plotting the
capacity curves of the structures and for interpretation of the results obtained from these analyses.
During application of these analyses, two approaches have been used to regulate the drift of structure.
The rst criterion is the limitation of reference drift and inter-story drift for the structure, which is 2% on
the basis of Tab. C1-3 of FEMA-356 and Standard No.2800 (2007) (Table 3). Consequently, the analysis
will be stopped when these drifts exceed from the mentioned limit. The second criterion for nishing the
analysis is when the deformation capacity of each element is reached.

5.3.1. Uniform nonlinear static procedure

To perform a static pushover analysis, you must specify the distribution of horizontal loads over the
structure height. The current version of PERFORM-3D (Computers and Structures Inc., 2006b) allows
xed distributions only (i.e. you cannot consider adaptive load distributions that depend on the
deected shape). As will be explained later, you can specify load distributions using nodal load
patterns, or you can specify loads on the basis of the structure mass and a deected shape.
One of the most difcult issues for pushover analysis is choosing the pushover load distribution.
During an actual earthquake, the effective loads on a structure change continuously in magnitude,
distribution and direction. The distribution of story shears over the height of a building can thus change
substantially with time, especially for taller buildings where higher modes of vibration can have
signicant effects. In a static pushover analysis, the distribution and direction of the loads are xed,
and only the magnitude varies. Hence, the distribution of story shears stays constant. To account for

Table 3. The structural properties of model A and model B in linear design stage.
Type of model T1 (s) R V (kN) x (mm) y (mm) Max drift X Max drift Y
Model A 2.84 11 11 576 200 193.1 0.0027 0.0026
Model B 3.066 9 10 791 229.6 212.6 0.003 0.0028
T1 is the natural period of the structure.
R is the response modication factor of the structure.
V is the base shear of the structure.
x and y are the displacements at roof level of the structure in the X and Y directions, respectively.
Max drift X and max drift Y are the maximum drifts of the structure in the X and Y directions, respectively.

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 COMPARISON OF NONLINEAR BEHAVIOR OF STEEL MOMENT FRAMES

different story shear distributions, to consider a number of different pushover load distributions is
necessary. One option in FEMA-356 is to use uniform and triangular distributions over the building
height. Note that a uniform distribution usually corresponds to a uniform acceleration over the building
height so that the load at any oor level is proportional to the mass at the oor.
In fact, to access this load pattern in the software, a procedure is performed for loading on the basis
of uniform displacement pattern over the building height. Then, in loading step, the software calculates
the necessary force proportioned to the created displacement.

5.3.2. Triangular nonlinear static procedure

The difference between this procedure and the previous one is in their load pattern: in this procedure,
the inverted triangular prole is used for displacement-based load pattern of story masses, based on
FEMA-356. Therefore, the imposed displacement and, hence, the acceleration will not be uniform over
the building height.

5.3.3. Modal pushover analysis

Load distributions can be based on the structure mode shapes. For a low-rise structure that is
dominated by its rst mode response, a load distribution based on the rst mode may be reasonable.
Also, considering the higher modes is important for a structure with signicant higher mode responses
(medium-rise and high-rise buildings).
In this study, the three rst mode shapes in the X-direction of structural plan (see Figures 2 and 3)
are selected to perform of modal pushover analyses.
The capacity curves of models A and B, which are acquired from the aforementioned pushover
procedures, are converted to the ideal bilinear diagrams, which are shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively.
Also, the values of VS, VY, VU, Y and U, which are obtained from the analyses, and the value of VW,

Figure 8. The ideal bilinear diagrams of the pushover analyses for model A. UNSP, uniform nonlinear
static procedure; TNSP, triangular nonlinear static procedure; MPA, modal pushover analysis.

Figure 9. The ideal bilinear diagrams of the pushover analyses for model B. UNSP, uniform nonlinear
static procedure; TNSP, triangular nonlinear static procedure; MPA, modal pushover analysis.

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 H. ESMAEILI ET AL.

which is specied in preliminary design stage, are represented in Table 4. Therefore, seismic parameters
have been calculated by using the equations, which are dened in Section 3, as indicated in Table 5. Also,
the averages of the aforementioned values are determined that are shown in following tables. At the end,
the mean of capacity curves of models A and B are shown in Figure 10.
As it observed from analytical results, the parameters obtained from MPA such as ductility factor
(m), force reduction factor (Rm) and response modication factor (R) for the mentioned structures will
be larger than the same parameters gained from other pushover approaches. This behavior can reveal
the importance and, hence, the effect of higher mode shapes of the structure in tall buildings.
Considering the capacity curves in Figure 10, it is clear that the energy dissipation of the structural
system in model A is greater than that of model B. Also, the mean value of response modication
factor (R) for model A is bigger than the same parameter of model B. Therefore, structures with shear
walls have better seismic behavior rather than structures with steel X-bracings.
To evaluate combined behavior and interaction of RC shear wall with steel moment-resisting frame
and comparison of that with concentrically braced frame system, the percent of shear absorption of

Table 4. The structural properties of models A and B in nonlinear analysis stage.

Type of model Type of analysis VW (kN) VS (kN) VY (kN) VU (kN) Y U

Model A UNSP 11 576 27 125 44 047 47 628 0.00463 0.01768
TNSP 18 080 31 294 35 551 0.00468 0.01678
MPA 30 784 49 737 52 660 0.00430 0.01757
Mean 25 329 41 692 45 283 0.00454 0.01734

Model B UNSP 10 791 26 301 37 719 38 416 0.00486 0.01759

TNSP 19 443 26 291 29 734 0.00513 0.01800
MPA 27 939 40 417 42 585 0.00426 0.01540
Mean 24 564 35 385 36 915 0.00475 0.01700
UNSP, uniform nonlinear static procedure; TNSP, triangular nonlinear static procedure; MPA, modal pushover analysis.

Table 5. The seismic parameters of models A and B.

Type of model Type of analysis m, Rm RS Y R Cd

Model A UNSP 3.82 1.62 2.34 14.53 6.20
TNSP 3.58 1.73 1.56 9.68 6.20
MPA 4.08 1.62 2.66 17.58 6.60
Mean 3.82 1.65 2.19 13.78 6.29

Model B UNSP 3.62 1.43 2.44 12.65 5.19

TNSP 3.50 1.44 1.80 9.10 5.05
MPA 3.61 1.45 2.59 13.52 5.22
Mean 3.58 1.44 2.28 11.74 5.15
UNSP, uniform nonlinear static procedure; TNSP, triangular nonlinear static procedure; MPA, modal pushover analysis.

Figure 10. The mean of capacity curves of the Model A and Model B.

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 COMPARISON OF NONLINEAR BEHAVIOR OF STEEL MOMENT FRAMES

these models has been studied in this paper. The meaning of the percent of shear absorption is the ratio
of shear quantity that is endured by the columns of frame or brace in each story to the total shear
absorbed in that story. Figures 11 and 12 indicate the quantity of shear absorbed by moment-resisting
frames and RC shear walls in model A and quantity of shear absorbed by moment-resisting frames
with steel bracing in model B in terms of the average of various analytical methods applied in this
study in levels of yield and ultimate strength of structure.
As it is observed in these gures, in system with shear wall, major part of transferring lateral force in
the middle and lower stories is tolerated by RC shear wall, and contribution of shear absorbed by

Figure 11. The interaction curves of the Model A and Model B for mean state of different analysis
methods in level of yield strength of structure.

Figure 12. The interaction curves of the Model A and Model B for mean state of different analysis
methods in level of ultimate strength of structure.

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 H. ESMAEILI ET AL.

moment-resisting frames gradually has increased in higher stories. In addition, in both levels of yield
and ultimate strength, negative shear has been created in the last story, indicating that shear wall relies
to the steel moment-resisting frame, but in braced systems, a main part of this process in lower stories
is carried by steel bracings, and in the middle and higher stories, contribution of shear absorbed by
moment-resisting frames has increased considerably as levels of yield and ultimate strength of the
structure has generated negative shear in the top two and ve stories. This issue has demonstrated high
lateral stiffness for structures with shear wall system than that with braced system.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Some of the key results obtained from the present analytical work are as follows:
In the studied structures, the capacity curves have larger values of lateral strength in the uniform
nonlinear static procedure than that in the triangular nonlinear static procedure. However, the peak
value is in the MPA. The difference can show the effect of load pattern and importance of considering
the higher mode shapes in pushover analysis.
The mean value of m and Rm factors for special steel moment-resisting frame accompanied with
special RC shear wall system (model A) is 3.82, whereas the value of mentioned factors is 3.58 for
special steel moment-resisting frame accompanied with concentrically steel braced frames (X-braces)
system (model B).
The mean value of the over-strength factor, RS, for model A and model B are 1.65 and 1.44,
respectively.
The mean value of the response modication factor, R, for model A and model B in allowable stress
design method are evaluated as 13.78 and 11.74, respectively.
The mean value of the increasing coefcient of linear to nonlinear displacement, Cd, for model A
and model B are evaluated as 6.29 and 5.15, respectively.
The ductility and response modication factors are larger for model A than model B. Therefore, it
seems that the use of special steel moment-resisting frame accompanied with special RC shear wall
system is more effective than the use of special steel moment-resisting frame accompanied with
concentrically steel braced frames (X-brace) system.
In regard to the results, it seems that the Cd factor for the mentioned structural systems is less than
the values that are in Standard No. 2800 (2007). The Cd factor is suggested as 0.7 times of the
response modication factor, R, in this code.

REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318. 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary. American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, Michigan.
AISC. 2005. Specication for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago.
Applied Technology Council, (ATC-40). 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings. ATC: Redwood City, USA.
Asgarian B, Shokrgozar HR. 2009. BRBF response modication factor. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65: 290298.
BHRC (Building and Housing Research Center). 2007. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings
Standard No. 280007. BHRC: Tehran.
Chopra AK, Goel RK. 2003. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31: 561582.
Comit Europeen de Normalization. 2005. Eurocode 8Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 3: Assessment
and Retrotting of Buildings, EN 1998-3. CEN: Brussels, Belgium.
Computers and Structures Inc. 2006a. Perform Components and Elements for PERFORM-3D and PERFORM-COLLAPSE. CSI:
Berkeley, CA.
Computers and Structures Inc. 2006b. PERFORM-3D, nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures,
components and elements, version4. CSI: Berkeley, CA.
Decanini LD, Liberatore L, Mollaioli F. 2002. Response of bare and inlled RC frames under the effect of horizontal and vertical
seismic excitation. In 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.
Report No. FEMA 356, Washington, USA.
Ferracuti B, Pinho R, Savoia M, Francia, R. 2009. Verication of displacement-based adaptive pushover through multi-ground
motion incremental dynamic analyses. Engineering Structures 31: 17891799.

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 COMPARISON OF NONLINEAR BEHAVIOR OF STEEL MOMENT FRAMES

Hajirasouliha I, Doostan A. 2010. A simplied model for seismic response prediction of concentrically braced frames. Advances
in Engineering Software 41: 497505.
Hernandez-Montes E, Kwon OS, Aschheim MA. 2004. An energy-based formulation for rst- and multiple-mode nonlinear
static (pushover) analyses. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8(1): 6988.
Hsu HL, Juang JL, Chou CH. 2011. Experimental evaluation on the seismic performance of steel knee braced frame structures
with energy dissipation mechanism. Steel and Composite Structures 11(1): 7791.
Jung WY, Aref AJ. 2005. Analytical and numerical studies of polymer matrix composite sandwich inll panels. Journal of
Composite Structures 68: 359370.
Kheyroddin A. 2006. Analyses and Design of Shear Walls. Semnan University Press: Iran.
Kheyroddin A. 2008. Investigation of nonlinear behavior of RC frames strengthened with steel bracing. International Journal of
Engineering Sciences, Iran University of Science and Technology 2(19): 2535.
Kim J, Choi H. 2005. Response modication factors of chevron-braced frames. Engineering Structures 27: 285300.
Maheri MR, Ghaffarzadeh H. 2008. Connection overstrength in steel-braced RC frames. Engineering Structures 30: 19381948.
Mohammadjafari A, Jalali A. 2009. Assessment of performance based parameters in near fault tall buildings. Journal of Applied
Sciences 9(22): 40444049.
Mortezaei A, Ronagh HR, Kheyroddin A, Ghodrati Amiri G. 2009. Effectiveness of modied pushover analysis procedure for
the estimation of seismic demands of buildings subjected to near-fault earthquakes having forward directivity. Structural
Design of Tall and Special Buildings. DOI: 10.1002/tal.553
New Mark NM, Hall WJ. 1982. Earthquake Spectra and Design. Engineering Monograph Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute: Berkeley, CA.
Tong X. 2001. Seismic behavior of composite steel frame-reinforced concrete inll wall structural system. Ph.D. Thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering. University of Minnesota.
Tong X, Hajjar JF, Schultz AE, Shield CK. 2005. Cyclic behavior of steel frame structures with composite reinforced concrete
inll walls and partially-restrained connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61: 531552.
Uang C. 1991. Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors for building seismic provisions. Jornal of Structural Engineering ASCE
117(1): 1928.
Wakabayashi M. 1986. Design of Earthquake-resistant Buildings. Mc Graw-Hill: New York.

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/tal

View publication stats