See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263980806

Reliability analysis of steel braced reinforced

concrete frames with semi-rigid connections

Article in International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics · January 2013

DOI: 10.1142/S021945541250037X

CITATION READS

1 58

3 authors:

Hasan Basri Başağa Murat Emre Kartal

Karadeniz Technical University İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi
15 PUBLICATIONS 97 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 282 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alemdar BAYRAKTAR
Karadeniz Technical University
178 PUBLICATIONS 1,544 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Murat Emre Kartal on 14 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics
Vol. 12, No. 5 (2012) 1250037 (20 pages)
#.c World Scienti¯c Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S021945541250037X

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF STEEL BRACED

REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES WITH SEMI-RIGID
CONNECTIONS

H. B. BASAGA*, M. E. KARTAL†,‡ and A. BAYRAKTAR*

*Faculty of Engineering (Civil), Karadeniz Technical University
Trabzon, Turkey
†
Faculty of Engineering (Civil), Zonguldak Karaelmas University
Zonguldak, Turkey
‡murat_emre_kartal@hotmail.com

Received 10 January 2011

Accepted 16 May 2011
Published 17 December 2012

This paper presents the reliability analysis of the frame structures with semi-rigid connections.
For this purpose, the SEMIFEM ¯nite element program that is capable of dealing with the semi-
rigid connections is coded in FORTRAN. Then, this program is connected to the reliability
algorithm. The direct coupling method, which is a combination of the reliability method and
¯nite element method, is utilized to determine the reliability indexes and probabilities of failure
for the structure. The ¯rst order reliability method (FORM) is the one favored in the present
reliability analysis. Two sets of steel framed structures are analyzed; each of four and eight
stories, consisting of a portal frame and three types of concentrically braced frames. Concrete
compression strength limit state in reinforced concrete (RC) columns, steel strength limit state
in steel braces and inter-story drift limit state are considered in reliability evaluation. According
to the limit states, X braced frames are determined as the safest structures, while the portal
frames are regarded as the most unsafe structures. As the connection percentage increases, the
safety of the structure increases in terms of inter-story drift and steel strength limit states, but
decreases for concrete compression strength limit states.

Keywords: Reliability analysis; semi-rigid connection; ¯rst order reliability method; Monte
Carlo simulation; steel braced RC frames.

1. Introduction
Reinforced concrete (RC) structures constructed traditionally may have insu±cient
resistance to earthquake forces. These structures are often strengthened with steel
braces of various types as part of the reinforced concrete frames. Di®erent types of
steel braces have di®erent capabilities for resisting lateral forces, in the sense that
they are e®ective for limiting the lateral displacements, internal forces and also
stresses. As far as the analysis techniques are concerned, most previous analyses have
been restricted to framed structures with ¯xed connections and sometimes hinge

1250037-1
H. B. Basaga, M. E. Kartal & A. Bayraktar

connections. In reality, it is likely that some of connections of the framed structures

may be semi-rigid connected (partially ¯xed), especially at the places where members
are connected to the foundation. Such a condition should be included in the ¯nite
element analysis. Besides, many sources of uncertainty, either from geometrical or
material aspects, are inherent in structural design. For this reason, the parameters of
the loading and load-carrying capacities of structural members are not deterministic
quantities, and should be regarded as random variables. Thus, no absolute safety can
be obtained for the framed structures. The variations of the parameters that a®ect
the response of the structure should be considered in the structural design and
analysis. This will require the reliability analysis to be performed.
Reliability analyses of steel frames were performed by some researchers. The
design of steel frame structures was examined using an e±cient nonlinear stochastic
¯nite-element method by Gao and Haldar.5 In their study, material properties,
geometry, connection parameters and external loads were considered as random
variables. Strength and serviceability limit states were selected as functions of the
frame response. Huh and Haldar8 used an algorithm to evaluate the reliability of a
real steel building su®ering from an earthquake. Their study revealed that according
to serviceability limit states, maximum inter-story drift appeared to be more critical
than the overall lateral displacement of structures under the seismic excitations.
Sakurai et al.21 used the stochastic ¯nite element analysis to examine the con-
tribution of variability of the moment
rotation characteristics on the uncertainty in
frame deformations. Horizontal displacement, maximum inter-story drift ratio and
elastic bending moment capacity limit states were considered as the criteria. They
declared that the e®ect of the variability of the initial connection sti®ness on the
frame response was su±ciently important to the performance-based design. A
parametric study of the T-stub component to verify the importance of the geome-
trical T-stub properties for deformability, resistance and sti®ness was presented by
Neves et al.16 It was found that °ange thickness and bolt thread diameter were the
most signi¯cant parameters to describe the T-stub behavior. Huh and Haldar9
proposed a reliability algorithm for nonlinear structures under the earthquake forces.
Geometrically and materially nonlinearity and partially restrained connections in
steel frame structures were taken into consideration. In their study, the algorithms
used include the response surface method, ¯nite element method, ¯rst order reliability
method and an iterative linear interpolation scheme. The four parameters of the
Richard model were selected as the random variables. Hadianfard and Razani6 pre-
sented a study for semi-rigid connections of steel frames using the ¯nite element ana-
lysis and reliability analysis. The loads and resistance of members were selected as the
random variables. The Monte Carlo simulation technique was used to calculate the
probability of failure of the steel frame. It was concluded that semi-rigid connections
should be considered for steel frames for more realistic and reliable results.
There is a relative lack of study on the reliability evaluation of framed structures
with semi-rigid connections and steel braced RC structures. In this study, the

1250037-2
 Reliability Analysis of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections

reliability analysis of conventional and steel braced reinforced concrete frames with
semi-rigid boundary conditions subjected to earthquake forces will be carried out.

2. Semi-Rigid Connections (Partial Fixity) in Finite Element Analysis

Structural elements and joints are usually modelled with some idealizations. The
joints of framed structures are assumed to be ideally rigid connections. The other
extreme is the assumption of pinned connections for joints in steel trusses. In reality,
structural connections fall in the two extreme of rigid connections and pinned con-
nections. They should be modelled according to their moment
rotation curves.
These curves are usually derived by ¯tting suitable curves to the experimental data
of structural joints. Various M

r models have been developed in the book by Chen
and Lui.3 As can be seen from the M

r curves given in Fig. 1, the moment (M) is a
function of the relative rotation between the structural members connected to the
same joint.
Connection °exibility can be de¯ned by various approaches. To obtain an initial
estimate on the sti®ness of rotational springs, using the modulus of elasticity (E),
moment of inertia (I) and length (L) of related members with constant cross-sections
is an e®ective and understandable approach. The sti®ness matrix of a beam in the
local coordinates can be written using these attributes of this beam as follows13:
2 3
12EI 6EI 12EI 6EI
6 L3





6
1
L2 2 L3 1
L2 3 7 7
6 6EI 7
6 4EI


6EI 2EI 7
6
2
4
2
5 7
6 L2 L L2 L 7
½k ¼ 6 7; ð1Þ
6 12EI 6EI 12EI 6EI 7
6






7
6 L 3 1
L 2 2
L 3 1
L 2 37
6 7
4 6EI 2EI 6EI 4EI 5






L2 3 L 5
L2 3 L 6

M kj km
Ideally Rigid θ i θ
.

Initial θ ki kn
θ θr
Stiffness kk kl
k = constant
1
k (M,θr) ki i EI j kj
L
EI
L

EI
L

Semi-Rigid
Connection i j
ki kj

Ideally Pinned θr

Fig. 1. Structural connections.

1250037-3
H. B. Basaga, M. E. Kartal & A. Bayraktar

where the coe±cients
1

6 are given as follows:

i þ j þ i j

1 ¼ ; ð2aÞ
4ð3 þ j Þ þ i ð4 þ j Þ
i ð2 þ j Þ

2 ¼ ; ð2bÞ
4ð3 þ j Þ þ i ð4 þ j Þ
j ð2 þ i Þ

3 ¼ ; ð2cÞ
4ð3 þ j Þ þ i ð4 þ j Þ
i ð3 þ j Þ

4 ¼ ; ð2dÞ
4ð3 þ i Þ þ j ð4 þ i Þ
i j

5 ¼ ; ð2eÞ
4ð3 þ i Þ þ j ð4 þ i Þ
j ð3 þ i Þ

6 ¼ : ð2fÞ
4ð3 þ i Þ þ j ð4 þ i Þ

Here, i and j are the sti®ness indexes and can be used to obtain rotational spring
sti®ness as follows:
EI
ki ¼ i ; ð3aÞ
L
EI
kj ¼ j ; ð3bÞ
L
where ki and kj are the rotational spring sti®ness at ends i and j of the beam,
respectively and their values change in the 0 to 1 range.
Semi-rigid connections may also be represented by connection percentage. In this
case, the parameters of
i can be written as follows3,4,10,11:
ri þ rj þ rij

1 ¼ ; ð4aÞ
3
2ri þ rij

2 ¼ ; ð4bÞ
3
2rj þ rij

3 ¼ ; ð4cÞ
3

4 ¼ ri ; ð4dÞ

5 ¼ rij ; ð4eÞ

6 ¼ rj ; ð4fÞ

where ri , rj and rij are the correction factors given as follows:

3 i
ri ¼ ; ð5aÞ
4
i j

1250037-4
 Reliability Analysis of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections

3 j
rj ¼ ; ð5bÞ
4
i j
3 i  j
rij ¼ : ð5cÞ
4
i j
Here,  i and  j are the ¯xity factors, which represent the semi-rigid connection as a
percentage. By equating Eqs. (2) with (4), a set of equations that provide a direct
relation between the initial spring sti®ness and connection percentage can be
obtained,22
3EI i;j
ki;j ¼ ; ð6Þ
ð1
 i;j ÞL
where  i;j is the ¯xity factor, which represents the connection percentage, obtained as
follows15:
ki;j L
 i;j ¼ : ð7Þ
3EI þ ki;j L
After the sti®ness matrix [K ] and force vector fF g of the system is formed, the
displacement vector fU g can be solved from the following equation:
fF g ¼ ½K fUg: ð8Þ
Then the internal forces and moments of each element of the structure with the semi-
rigid connections taken into account can be computed.

3. Structural Reliability Analysis

There are many uncertainties in structural design, for instance, the uncertainties in
loads, strength capacities, section properties and material properties. These uncer-
tainties have an important in°uence on the structural safety and must be considered
in the design process. The reliability analysis of structures deals with the calculation
of the failure probability under a de¯ned limit state condition. Let R represent the
resistance (capacity) and Q represent the load e®ect (demand), a performance
function or limit state function can be de¯ned for this mode of failure as17,19:
gðR; QÞ ¼ R
Q: ð9Þ
According to the limit state function, the situation of the structure can be described
as follows:
gðX1 ; X2 ; X3 ; . . . ; Xn Þ > 0; ! for a safe structure
gðX1 ; X2 ; X3 ; . . . ; Xn Þ ¼ 0; ! border or boundary between safe and unsafe
gðX1 ; X2 ; X3 ; . . . ; Xn Þ < 0; ! for failure
where X1 ; X2 ; X3 ; . . . ; Xn , are the load and resistance parameters such as dead load,
live load, length, depth, compressive strength, yield stress, moment of inertia, …etc.
and gðX1 ; X2 ; X3 ; . . . ; Xn Þ is the limit state function.

1250037-5
H. B. Basaga, M. E. Kartal & A. Bayraktar

The failure probability of a structural component with respect to a single failure

mode can be calculated from the following,
Z
Pf ¼ fX ðXÞdx; ð10Þ
gðXÞ0

where X is the vector of basic random variables and gðXÞ is the limit state (or failure)
function for the considered failure mode, fX ðXÞ is the joint probability density
function of the vector X. The reliability index is de¯ned as the shortest distance from
the origin of reduced variables to the line based on these variables and may be
obtained from the inverse transformation,
 ¼

1 ðPf Þ; ð11Þ
where 
1 is the inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution function
(CDF).17
In this study, the reliability analyses of the framed structures with semi-rigid
connections are carried out by the FORM algorithm. Also, the random data for each
parameter are generated by the Monte Carlo simulation. Both of these are brie°y
summarized below for the completeness of the paper.

3.1. First order reliability method (FORM)

The essence of the FORM algorithm is to use the tangent hyperplanes at the design
points on the failure surface. The reliability index is calculated by an iterative
approach12,14 and nonnormal variables are transformed to standard normal variables
space by using the equivalent probability18 or Rosenblatt transformation,20 which is
appropriate if the design variables are jointly distributed. The reliability index, ,
and the vector of sensitivity factors,   , at a design point, u  , in the U-space
[transformed design variables space, standardization of basic random variables (X)],
are calculated as
 ¼  u ; ð12Þ
rgðu  Þ
 ¼ ; ð13Þ
½rgðu  Þ rgðu  Þ 1=2
T

where rgðu  Þ is the gradient vector of the failure function at the design point. For
the next iteration cycle, a new design point is obtained from,
u  ¼
  : ð14Þ
The iteration continues until a required convergence is achieved.

3.2. Monte Carlo simulation

The Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) is a special technique to generate some random
samples numerically without actually doing any physical testing. It involves
\sampling" at a \random" manner to simulate arti¯cially a large number of

1250037-6
 Reliability Analysis of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections

experiments and to generate the samples of random nature. In the Monte Carlo
simulation technique, N independent samples of the vector X of random variables
are generated from the joint PDF fX ðxÞ. For each sample, x ðiÞ , the limit state
function gðXÞ is evaluated. The probability of failure can be calculated as14:

1 XN
pf ¼ I½gðXÞ  0; ð15Þ
N j¼1

where N is the number of vectors of simulated samples and I½  is an indicator de¯ned

as;


1 if gðXÞ  0
I½  ¼ ð16Þ
0 if gðXÞ > 0
Let pfðtrueÞ be the theoretically correct probability. It can be shown that the expected
value, variance and coe±cient of variation of the estimated probability pf are as
follows2,7,17:
E½pf  ¼ pfðtrueÞ ;
1
 2pf ¼ ½p ð1
pfðtrueÞ Þ;
N fðtrueÞ ð17Þ
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð1
pfðtrueÞ Þ
Vpf ¼ ;
NðpfðtrueÞ Þ

where, the number of vectors of simulated samples obtained from Eq. (12) is
de¯ned as;
ð1
pfðtrueÞ Þ
N¼ : ð18Þ
V p2f pfðtrueÞ

4. Numerical Applications
4.1. Finite element models
In this study, the reliability analyses of frame systems are performed using the ¯nite
element method. Two sets of framed structures are considered, each of four and eight
stories. To investigate the e®ect of semi-rigid connections on the reliability of
structures, nine di®erent percentages are considered for the connections, i.e., simply
supported, 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 95%, 99% and ¯xed, in the ¯nite
element analyses. In this study, semi-rigid connections are considered at the column
to foundation connection and at the end of the steel bars.
Steel braces have been extensively used in earthquake regions to provide resis-
tance to frame systems against the lateral loads. In this study, portal and con-
centrically braced frame structures, i.e. inverted V braced, inverted K braced and X
braced frames, are considered in ¯nite element analyses. Thus, it can be determined
which type of braced structures can provide the highest safety margin. All frame

1250037-7
H. B. Basaga, M. E. Kartal & A. Bayraktar

q q q q q q
P4’ P4’

2.8m
2.8m
U30
q q q q q q
P3’ P3’

2.8m
2.8m
q q q q U30
q q
P2’ 9 P2’ 10
36
U30

2.8m
2.8m
35

11

10

11
q q 10
q q q q

12
9
8

P1’ 5 P1’ 5
cm
25x50cm

30x60cm
25x50
30x60cm

2.8m
m
U30

2.8

1
1

4
2

4
33 34
1 1

4m 4m 4m 4m 4m 4m

(a) Portal Frame (b) Inverted V-Braced Frame

q q q q q q
P4’ P4’
m

2.8m
U30
2.8

q q U30 q q q q
P3’ P3’
m

2.8m
U30
2.8

q q U30 q q q q
P2’ 9 P2’ 9
12

2.8m
36 U30
2.8
10

q q U30 q 31
9

13

10

11
q q q
8

32
P1’ 35
P1’
11

5 5
cm
30x60cm

25x50 25x50cm
30x60cm
m
4

34 U30

2.8m
2.8
2
1

U30
2

4
1

33
3

1 1 29 30

4m 4m 4m 4m 4m 4m

(c) Inverted K-Braced Frame (d) X-Braced Frame

Fig. 2. Four-story structures.

structures used in the ¯nite element analyses are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The general
properties of the structural systems are listed in Table 1. U30 handmade steel pro¯le
is used for all braces, with its outside depth, outside °ange width, °ange thickness
and web thickness selected as 30, 10, 2 and 2 cm, respectively.

4.2. Veri¯cation of the SEMIFEM

Finite element analysis is performed using the SEMIFEM program coded in FOR-
TRAN. With this program, the semi-rigid connections can be modeled by the con-
nection percentage for use in the ¯nite element analysis. The numerical results of the
deterministic ¯nite element analyses obtained from SEMIFEM are compared with
ANSYS1 for veri¯cation. The displacements and internal forces of some selected
nodes and elements, respectively, are presented in Tables 2 and 3 for the 8-story X
braced frame with 50 percent ¯xity for the connections. As can be seen from Tables 2
and 3, the numerical results obtained from the SEMIFEM are in good consistency
with those by ANSYS.

1250037-8
 Reliability Analysis of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections

q q q q q q
P8” P8”
U30

2.8m

2.8m
q q q q q q
P7” P7”
U30

2.8m

2.8m
q q q q q q
P6” P6”
U30

2.8m

2.8m
q q q q q q
P5” P5”
U30

2.8m

2.8m
q q q q q q
P4” P4”

2.8m

2.8m
U30
q q q q q q
P3” 2.8m P3”

2.8m
U30

17

18
15

19

20
16

17

18

q q q q q q
P2” P2”
U30 68
m

m
11
10

12
9
10

11
8

2.8

67

2.8
q q q q q q
P1” P1”
30x55cm 30x55cm
40x70cm

40x70cm
m

m
U30
2.8

2.8
1

4
2

1 1 65 66

4m 4m 4m 4m 4m 4m

(a) Portal Frame (b) Inverted V-Braced Frame

q q q q q q
P8” P8”
33 36
U30

m
m

U30 q

2.8
q q q q q
2.8

P7” P7”
U30 q U30
m
m

q q q q q
2.8
2.8

” ”
P6 P 6

U30
m
m

q U30 q q q q q
2.8
2.8

” ”
P 5 P 5

U30
m
m

q U30 q q q 66
q
2.8
2.8

65
” ” q
P 4 P 4
17 20
U30
m
m

U30 q
2.8
2.8

q q q q q
P3” P3”
20

U30
m
m

15

U30 q
17

16

17

18
18

21

2.8
2.8

q q q q q
P2” P2”
12 19

U30
m

68
m

U30
10

59
9

13

10

11
9
8

2.8

q q q q q q
2.8

60
P1” 67 P1”
11

30x55cm 30x55cm
40x70cm

40x70cm

5 6 58 7 8
4

m
m

66
2.8
2.8

U30
1

4
2

57
65 2 U30 3
3

1 1 4

4m 4m 4m 4m 4m 4m

(c) Inverted K-Braced Frame (d) X-Braced Frame

Fig. 3. Eight-story structures.

1250037-9
H. B. Basaga, M. E. Kartal & A. Bayraktar

Table 1. General properties of the framed structures.

Four-story structures Eight-story structures

Young Modulus of Concrete (kN/m 2 ) 2.8E7 3.2E7

Young Modulus of Steel (kN/m 2 ) 2.1E8 2.1E8
Compression Strength of Concrete (MPa) 20 30
Strength of Steel (MPa) 144 144
Cross-section Area of Beams (m 2 ) 0.125 0.165
Cross-section Area of Columns (m 2 ) 0.18 0.28
Cross-section Area of Braces (m 2 ) 0.0092 0.0092
Moment of Inertia of Beams (m 4 ) 0.002604 0.0041594
Moment of Inertia of Columns (m 4 ) 0.0054 0.0114333
Moment of Inertia of Braces (m 4 ) 0.0001078 0.0001078
Equivalent Earthquake Load (Pi , kN) aP , P , P , P bP , P , P , P , P , P , P , P
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Uniform Distribution Load (q, kN/m) 8 8
aP
1 ¼ 46:58, P2 ¼ 146:14, P3 ¼ 219:21, P4 ¼ 303:14
bP
1¼ 21:77, P2 ¼ 68:32, P3 ¼ 102:48, P4 ¼ 136:64, P5 ¼ 170:80, P6 ¼ 204:96, P7 ¼ 239:12,
P8 ¼ 263:37

4.3. Reliability analysis

Three types of limit states, namely, inter-story drift limit state, concrete compression
strength limit state, steel strength limit state, are considered in the reliability analysis.
The reliability index of each frame system is computed and shown in the ¯gures. In the
study, the material properties of the concrete, equivalent earthquake loads and uni-
form distribution loads are selected as the random parameters for the reliability ana-
lysis. The properties of steel are considered as deterministic. Thus, the limit states
become functions of 10 variables for the four-story structures and of 14 variables for the
eight-story structures. The means of the variables are taken from Table 1. In addition,
the coe±cients of variations (COV) and the distribution types are listed in Table 4.

4.3.1. Veri¯cation of the FORM method

The MCS method gives exact solution for the reliability analysis. The e±ciency of
the MCS method depends on the magnitude of the failure probability. For structures
with low failure probability, a large sample size — say one million — is required in
the simulation. This means that one million individual ¯nite element analyses are
required and this is unlikely to be acceptable in practical applications. The FORM
can provide a reasonably accurate result for the failure probability, and that is what
will be done in this study. But, the limit state function is required either to be linear
in normal space or to be closely approximated as linear. First of all, the FORM
results are checked for its suitability to be used in this study. In this regard, the
results obtained for three models including three limit state functions by the FORM
and MCS methods are compared, as given in Table 5. According to this table, the
MCS results and FORM results appear to be reasonably close to each other. Hence,
the FORM is considered as an acceptable method in this study, and all the analysis
will be carried out by this program.

1250037-10
 Table 2. Comparison of the displacements.

Ux (m) Uy (m) Rz
Node SEMIFEM ANSYS Di®erence (%) SEMIFEM ANSYS Di®erence (%) SEMIFEM ANSYS Di®erence (%)
17 0.01123499 0.0112350 0.0000890076 0.000665599 0.000665595 0.000525843
0.001014239
0.001014230 0.000887373
20 0.01110308 0.0111031 0.0001801299
0.000948446
0.00094844 0.000242502
0.000984123
0.000984118 0.000477585
33 0.02224701 0.0222470 0.0000449499 0.000877091 0.000877087 0.000456053
0.000546751
0.000546746 0.000969372
36 0.02194709 0.0219471 0.0000455641
0.001269634
0.00126963 0.000315052
0.000483241
0.000483234 0.001489961

Table 3. Comparison of the internal forces.

Axial force (kN) Shear force (kN) Moment (kNm)

El.-Node SEMIFEM ANSYS Di®erence (%) SEMIFEM ANSYS Di®erence (%) SEMIFEM ANSYS Di®erence (%)

1250037-11
11 691.736 691.742 0.000867375 85.796 85.796 0 190.772 190.773 0.000524183
15 691.736 691.742 0.000867375 85.796 85.796 0
49.456
49.4559 0.0002022
33
2074.329
2074.34 0.000530292 107.127 107.127 0 202.675 202.676 0.000493398
37
2074.329
2074.34 0.000530292 107.127 107.127 0
97.28
97.2806 0.000616776
65 280.624 280.62871 0.001679659 — — — — — —
66
319.237
319.2375 0.000148967 — — — — — —
Reliability Analysis of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections
H. B. Basaga, M. E. Kartal & A. Bayraktar

Table 4. Distributional assumptions for the variables.

Variables COV Distribution

Young Modulus of Concrete (kN/m 2 ) 0.06 LogNormal

Cross-sectional Area of Beams (m 2 ) 0.05 LogNormal
Cross-sectional Area of Columns (m 2 ) 0.05 LogNormal
Moment of Inertia of Beams (m 4 ) 0.05 LogNormal
Moment of Inertia of Columns (m 4 ) 0.05 LogNormal
Equivalent Earthquake Loads 0.20 LogNormal
Uniform Distribution Load (q, kN/m) 0.10 LogNormal

4.3.2. Inter-story drift limit state

The limit state function for inter-story drift used in the reliability analysis of four and
eight-story portal and steel braced frame structures is given as
gðR; QÞ ¼ 0:025
max ð19Þ
where max is the ratio of maximum relative displacement to story height for vertical
structural members.
The maximum relative displacements of the column members crucial to aseismic
design are considered in the deterministic ¯nite element analyses. Because they are
a®ected by the connection °exibility of the structure, their values for the ¯rst and
second story of each of the four-story structures are evaluated individually. The
variation of reliability indexes are shown in Figs. 4 and 5 for the ¯rst- (Column 1)
and second-story (Column 8 for portal and X braced frames and Column 9 for
inverted V and K braced frames), respectively.
Steel braces are very e®ective in restricting story drifts. As can be seen from
Figs. 4 and 5, very high reliability indexes are obtained, indicating that the prob-
ability of failure of these structural members seems as zero. But for low connection
percentages, the ¯rst- and second-story columns of the portal frame structures are
not safe according to the limit state, which is more pronounced for the ¯rst story.
However, the safety of the second-story column of the X braced and inverted V

Table 5. Comparison of FORM and MCS results.

Limit State Model: Story Number, Boundary FORM MCS

Condition, Frame Type
Beta Beta Cov. Number of Sim.
Inter-Story Drift Limit State Model: 8-Story, 1.9841 1.7975 0.016 10,0000
Fixed, Portal Frame
Concrete Compression Strength Limit State 0.2848 0.1248 0.01 5,0000
Model: 8-Story, Fixed, Portal Frame
Steel Strength Limit State Model: 8-Story, 2.7896 2.5789 0.028 25,0000
Simply Supported, Inverted K braced
Frame

1250037-12
 Reliability Analysis of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections

Fig. 4. Reliability indexes for story 1 of four-story structures.

braced structures decreases as compared to that of the ¯rst-story column. If the

connection percentage is taken into account, the ¯rst-story column for the percen-
tage in 0
25 percent range and the second story column in the 0
1 percent range
seem to be unsafe. In these ranges, structural members have high failure probability
as judged from the point of view of the inter-story drift limit state.
Steel braces provide high resistance to earthquake loads. The ¯rst and second-
story columns for the frames with semi-rigid connections are absolutely safe thanks
to steel braces. Particularly, the braces of the inverted V and X types are more
e®ective for resisting the lateral drifts. In addition, the safety of these structures is
very close to each other as can be observed from Figs. 4 and 5.
As the building becomes higher, earthquake forces increase depending on the mass
of structure. Therefore, the quality of concrete used in structures is improved and the
cross-sections of the beams and columns are enlarged for the eight-story structures
compared to the four-story structures.

Fig. 5. Reliability indexes for story 2 of four-story structures.

1250037-13
H. B. Basaga, M. E. Kartal & A. Bayraktar

Fig. 6. Reliability indexes for story 1 of eight-story structures.

First, the second and third stories of the eight-story structures are evaluated
individually for each frame. The variation of reliability indexes is shown in Figs. 6
8
for ¯rst- (Column 1), second- (Column 8 for portal and X braced frames and Column
9 for inverted V and K braced frames) and third-story (Column 15 for portal and X
braced frames and Column 17 for inverted V and K braced frames), respectively.
The connection percentage of the structures is very e®ective to the safety of the
structural members as can be seen from Fig. 6. If the connection percentage of the
columns to foundation is smaller than or equal to 10%, the ¯rst-story columns
become unsafe. However, selected structural members at the second- and third-story
are su±ciently safe as judged by the limit state. It should be clari¯ed that higher
connection percentages of the base columns provide more reliability to the structural
members of the portal frame. But, while the second- and third-story columns are
safe for low percentages of the connections compared to the ¯rst-story, the safety of
these structural members is lower than the ¯rst-story columns for higher connection
percentages.

Fig. 7. Reliability indexes for story 2 of eight-story structures.

1250037-14
 Reliability Analysis of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections

Fig. 8. Reliability indexes for story 3 of eight-story structures.

Eight-story steel braced structures are extremely safe in terms of inter-story drift
compared with four-story structures. The analyses conducted reveal that the X
braced frames are the safest structures and the inverted V braced structures are as
safe as the X braced and safer than the inverted K braced ones. While the reliability
indexes of the steel braced structures increase for increasing connection percentages
at the ¯rst-story columns, they are stable for the second- and third-story columns.
This study shows that any type of concentrically steel braced frame structure pro-
vides great safety to the vertical structural members in terms of inter-story drift.

4.3.3. Concrete compression strength limit state

Earthquakes cause additional forces and moments to structural members. Therefore,
the critical structural members for a structure under the earthquake loads may
be di®erent from those under static loads. In other words, the compression and
tensile stresses of the structural members can increase or decrease when coupled
with the earthquake forces. The additional stresses may result in the cracks of
concrete. The stresses occurring in the columns can be computed using the following
expression:
N M
¼ þ y ; ð20Þ
A I max;min
where N is the axial force, M is the bending moment, A is the area of the cross-
section, I is the moment of inertia, and y is the distance from the neutral axis of the
cross-section. For reinforced concrete structures, it is assumed that concrete can
resist only compression stresses, while steel reinforcements can resist either tensile or
compressive stresses. As such, the most critical structural members under earthquake
forces according to the compressive stress occur in the exterior columns of the four-
and eight-story portal and steel braced frame structures, which are considered in the
reliability analysis. The limit state functions for concrete compression strength are

1250037-15
H. B. Basaga, M. E. Kartal & A. Bayraktar

Fig. 9. Reliability indexes due to concrete compression strength for four-story structures.

given in Eqs. (21) and (22) for the four- and eight-story structures, respectively, 23
gðR; QÞ ¼ 20000
max ; ð21Þ
gðR; QÞ ¼ 30000
max ; ð22Þ

where max is the maximum compression stress (kPa) occurring in selected structural
members. The column members used in the reliability analysis are determined by
the deterministic ¯nite element analysis as stated in Sec. 4.3.2. Column number 2 for
the portal frame and column number 3 for all steel braced frames are employed in the
reliability analysis. The variation of reliability indexes is shown in Fig. 9 for the four-
story structures.
Deterministic ¯nite element analyses are also performed to determine the most
critical structural member in terms of the compressive stress of concrete for the eight-
story frames. The columns selected are numbers 3, 4 and 10 for the portal frame, numbers
3 and 4 for the inverted K braced frame, numbers 3 and 11 for the inverted V braced
frame and numbers 3 and 4 for the X braced frame. The reliability indexes obtained
for the eight-story frames for various connection percentages are shown in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10. Reliability indexes due to concrete compression strength for eight-story structures.

1250037-16
 Reliability Analysis of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections

Nearly all types of steel braced structures can improve the safety of the columns
selected with regard to the concrete compression strength limit state compared to
portal framed structures. But the structural members of inverted K braced framed
structures will probably fail for connection percentages greater than 50. It should be
noted that the inverted V braced framed structure is safer than the X braced
structure for the same connection percentage and both structures are safer than the
inverted K braced frame structure. The reliability of the structural members of
portal frames shows a di®erent variation. Although the safety of the column mem-
bers selected is the highest for connection percentage of 50, it will also fail.
The most critical structural member of the portal frame system in terms of the
concrete compression strength limit state appears to be generally safe for connection
percentages in the range of 10
65 as revealed by Fig. 10. Out of this range, some of
the members of concern may probably fail. At this point, it is evident that steel
braces are su±ciently advantageous to provide safety to structural members.
Although the reliability indexes of all the steel braced structures decrease as the
connection percentage of the base columns increases, each type of the steel braced
frames considered is safe under both the vertical and lateral loads. The safety levels
are similar for the structural members of the X braced and inverted V braced frames.
However, the reliability analyses conducted indicate that the inverted V braced type
of frames provide the most reliable column members against the earthquake forces.

4.3.4. Steel strength limit state

Steel braces have been widely used to provide earthquake resistance to portal frames.
But, the designer should be careful in deciding the cross-sectional sizes for the steel
braces. Because, as the steel braces resist the story drifts, they can be exposed to high
stresses under the earthquake forces. In this study, one type of steel brace is adopted
for each of the four- and eight-story steel braced frames. The stresses at the end cross-
sections of the steel braces are computed according to Eq. (23). The limit state
function for steel strength is presented as follows24:
gðR; QÞ ¼ 144000
max ð23Þ

where max represents the maximum tensile or compression stress (kPa) occurring in
the structural member of concern under simultaneous actions.
As indicated in the previous sections, the most critical steel braces designated by
deterministic ¯nite element analyses with regard to steel strength for the four- and
eight-story steel braced frame structures are considered in the reliability analysis.
The steel members considered for various connection percentages include braces of
numbers 33, 34 and 36 for the inverted K braced frame, numbers 34 and 36 for the
inverted V braced frame, and numbers 30 and 32 for the X braced frames. The
variation of reliability indexes for the four-story frames is shown in Fig. 11.
The safety of the structural members selected increases as the connection per-
centage increases, as can be seen from Fig. 11. Steel braces designed as the X Type

1250037-17
H. B. Basaga, M. E. Kartal & A. Bayraktar

Fig. 11. Reliability indexes due to steel strength for four-story structures.

acquire the highest reliability indexes. In spite of the fact that the structural mem-
bers of the inverted K braced frames are more unsafe than other braced frames, they
are still su±ciently safe in terms of the limit state and no structural members will fail.
The steel members considered in the reliability analysis for various connection
°exibilities include braces of numbers 65, 67, 68 and 69 for the inverted K braced
frame, numbers 66 and 68 for the inverted V braced frame and numbers 58 and 60 for
the X braced frame. The reliability indexes computed for the eight-story X braced
frames considering several connection percentages are shown in Fig. 12.
For higher steel braced frames, it is expected that the steel braces will be exposed
to higher stress intensity. According to this study, the safety of the steel members
selected is lessened by the low connection percentages, as can be seen from Fig. 12.
The safety levels of the steel braces of the inverted K braced and the inverted V
braced frames are close to each other. But if simply supported or semi-rigid con-
nections with very low connection percentages are considered, some structural

Fig. 12. Reliability indexes due to steel strength for eight-story structures.

1250037-18
 Reliability Analysis of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections

members of the inverted K braced frame may fail. In addition, it should be stated
that the reliability of the eight-story frames for low connection percentages is lower
than that for the four-story frames.

5. Conclusions
The e®ect of semi-rigid connections on the reliability of multi-story frames is studied.
Portal frames and three types of concentrically steel braced frames are employed in
the reliability analysis considering various connection percentages. The limit states
considered include the inter-story drift limit state, concrete compression strength
limit state and steel strength limit state.
The reliability analyses conducted reveal that the probability of failure for col-
umns members of the portal frame may be high under the earthquake forces. If the
portal frames are strengthened by concentrically steel braces, they will be adequately
safe with regard to the inter-story drift and steel strength limit states. However, the
inverted K braced frames may fail as concrete compression strength and steel
strength limit states are concerned. As the connection percentage increases, the
safety of the structural members increases with regard to the inter-story drift and
steel strength criteria, but decreases with regard to the concrete compression
strength criterion. The X braced and inverted V braced frames are safer than the
inverted K braced frames for the limit states of concern. Especially for steel strength
limit state, the X braced frames are more reliable than the others. The range of the
reliability indexes of steel braces for the eight-story braced structures is wider than
that of the four-story braced structures.
In this study, it is demonstrated that connection percentages can be e®ectively
used in enhancing the safety of framed structures. Besides, steel braces and their type
of design are also in°uential in reducing the probability of failure for the structural
members of concern. In general, the X braced frames appear to be safer structures.
However, the inverted V braced frames can still be favored by designers, because
they cover less vertical areas, while involving shorter members within the frame span.

References
1. ANSYS 11.0 (Swanson Analysis Systems Inc., Houston PA, USA, 2008).
2. M. Ayyup and A. Haldar, Improved simulation techniques as structural reliability
models, Fourth Int. Conf. Structural Safety and Reliability, ICOSSAR'85 1 (1985)
1
26.
3. W. F. Chen and E. M. Lui, Stability Design of Steel Frames (CRC Press, 1991).
4. M. S. Filho, M. J. R. Guimarães, C. L. Sahlit and J. L. V. Brito, Wind pressures in framed
structures with semi-rigid connections, J. Brazil. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 26(2) (2004)
180
189.
5. L. Gao and A. Haldar, Safety evaluation of frames with PR connections, J. Struct. Eng.
ASCE 121(7) (1995) 1101
1118.
6. M. A. Hadianfard and R. Razani, E®ects of semi-rigid behavior of connections in the
reliability of steel frames, Struct. Saf. 25(2) (2003) 123
138.

1250037-19
H. B. Basaga, M. E. Kartal & A. Bayraktar

7. W. W. Hines and D. C. Montgomery, Probability and Statistics in Engineering and

Management Science (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980).
8. J. Huh and A. Haldar, Reliability estimation of buildings subjected to seismic excitation,
in Proc. 8th ASCE Specialty Conf. on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability
(PMC2000-085, 2000).
9. J. Huh and A. Haldar, Seismic reliability of non-linear frames with PR connections using
systematic RSM, Probabilist. Eng. Mech. 17(2) (2002) 177
190.
10. M. E. Kartal, The e®ect of partial ¯xity at nodal points on the behavior of the truss and
prefabricated structures, M.Sc. thesis, Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Turkey (2004)
(In Turkish).
11. M. E. Kartal, H. B. Başağa, A. Bayraktar and M. Muvafık, E®ects of semi-rigid con-
nection on structural responses, Electron. J. Struct. Eng. 10(10) (2010) 22
35.
12. H. O. Madsen, S. Krenk and N. C. Lind, Methods of Structural Safety (Prentice-Hall,
Eaglewood Cli®s, NJ, 1986).
13. W. McGuire, R. H. Gallagher and R. D. Ziemian, Matrix Structural Analysis, 2nd edn.
(John Wiley & Sons, USA, 1999).
14. E. Melchers, Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, 2nd edn. (Ellis Horwood,
Chichester, 1999).
15. G. R. Monforton and T. S. Wu, Matrix analysis of semi-rigidly connected frames,
J. Struct. Div. ASCE 89 (1963) 13
42.
16. L. A. C. Neves, P. J. S. Cruz and A. A. R. Henriques, Reliability analysis of steel con-
nection components based on FEM, Eng. Fail. Anal. 8(1) (2001) 29
48.
17. A. S. Nowak and K. R. Collins, Reliability of Structures (McGraw-Hill Higher Education,
USA, 2000).
18. R. Rackwitz, First order reliability theories and stochastic models, in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf.
on Structural Safety and Reliability, ICOSSAR (Technical University of Munich,
München, 1977).
19. R. Ranganathan, Reliability Analysis and Design of Structures (McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company, USA, 2000).
20. M. Rosenblatt, Remarks on a multivariate transformation, Ann. I. Stat. Math. 23 (1952)
470
472.
21. S. Sakurai, B. R. Ellingwood and S. Kushiyama, Probabilistic study of the behavior of
steel frames with partially restrained connections, Eng. Struct. 23(11) (2001) 1410
1417.
22. M. Sekulovic and R. Salatic, Nonlinear analyses of frames with °exible connections,
Comput. Struct. 79(11) (2001) 1097
1107.
23. TS 500, Requirements for Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Structures,
Turkish Standard (2000).
24. TS 648, Building Code for Steel Structures, Turkish Standard, (1980).

1250037-20

View publication stats