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

net/publication/259145427

Seismic Design of Steel Moment Resisting Frames

Article · January 2014

CITATIONS READS
2 897

1 author:

Muhammad Tayyab Naqash

Islamic University of Medina
27 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Tayyab Naqash on 12 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SEISMIC DESIGN OF STEEL MOMENT RESISTING FRAMES-EUROPEAN
VERSUS AMERICAN PRACTICE

Muhammad Tayyab Naqash1, Gianfranco De Matteis2, Antonio De Luca3

ABSTRACT

This paper provides an overview on the design philosophy of moment resisting frames (MRF)
according to the seismic provisions of Eurocode 8 and American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC). A synopsis of the main recommendations of the two codes is briefly described. Then in
order to examine the structural efficiency of the design principles of MRF according to the
aforementioned codes, a case study is developed in which spatial and perimeter moment resisting
frames of 12, 6 and 3 storeys residential building are considered. In the case of EC8, Ductility Class
Medium (DCM) with behaviour factor of 4 and Ductility Class High (DCH) with behaviour factor
of 6.5 for 6-storey frames are used, while only DCH is employed in the design of 12 and 3 storey
frames. When dealing with AISC/American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) code, special moment
resisting frame (SMF) with response modification factor of 8 is employed in the design. The outcomes
from the design are illustrated in terms of frame performance, section profiles, strength-demand to
capacity ratios, drift-demand to capacity ratios and structural weight, thus allowing the understanding
of pros and cons of the design criteria and the capacity design rules of the two codes. The main
purpose of the current paper is to compare the seismic design rules of the two codes with a parametric
analysis developed by a case study in order to let the technician knows about the importance and
influence of some important parameters which are given in the capacity design rules of the two
codes. This study will be a benchmark for further analysis on the two codes for seismic design of
steel structures.

Keywords: moment resisting frames; seismic resistance; behaviour factor; overstrength factor;
seismic codes; pushover analysis.

1. INTRODUCTION

The design methods given by the modern building codes endeavour at guaranteeing the acceptable
safety level that depends on the probability of occurrence of the event to be taken into account. For
the seismic design of steel structures, in European practices Eurocode 8 (EC8) [1] is used together
with the rules and regulations of Eurocode 3 (EC3) [2], whereas in American practices, American
National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 341-10 [3]
is referred in concert with both ANSI/AISC 360-10 [4] (specification for structural steel buildings)
and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE/SE1 7-10) [5].The structural requirements by the
1
PhD student, Department of Engineering, University of “G. d’Annunzio” Chieti-Pescara, Viale Pindaro 42 - 65127, Pescara, Italy. Ph.
+390817682449, Fax: +39 0815934792, Email t.naquash@unich.it.
2
Professor, Department of Engineering, University of “G. d’Annunzio” Chieti-Pescara, Viale Pindaro 42 - 65127, Pescara, Italy. Ph.
+390854537261, Fax: +390854537255, Email demattei@unina.it.
3
Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, University of Naples “Federico II”, P.le Tecchio, 80 - 80125, Naples, Italy. Ph. +39
0817682442, Fax: +39 0815934792, Email adeluca@unina.it.

Manuscript received on 22nd November 2011, reviewed and accepted on 25th February 2012 as per publication
policies of NED University Journal of Research.
NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012 00
 M. T. Naqash et al.
Muhammad Tayyab Naqash is a PhD student in 25th Cycle in Structural Engineering at the
University of Chiete Pescara, Italy. He completed his Masters in the Design of Steel Structures
in 2009 from the University of Naples “Federico II”, Italy. His PhD research is related to the
design of seismic resistance of steel structures following European and American design
approaches and aluminium and steel connections.

Gianfranco de Matties is an Associate Professor of Structural Engineering at the University

of Chieti/Pescara, Italy. He is a member of many national and international committees. He
coordinated and participated to a number of research projects mainly dealing with steel
structures and aluminium structures, earthquake design structural behaviour of monumental
buildings. He is an author of about 250 papers which are published in national and international
scientific journals and conference proceedings. He is a referee of several highly rated international
Journals.
Antonio de Luca is a Professor of Structural Engineering and Director of second level Master
in the Design of Steel Structures. He is author of more than 250 scientific papers, mostly on
the subject of seismic engineering, masonry structures and metallic structures. He is a referee
of several international journals such as Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Engineering Structures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, International Journal of Architectural
Heritage, etc. He has coordinated important research projects in the area of seismic behaviour
of masonry structures.

codes are associated to the way in which the structure resists and transfers the acting forces. Normally,
for the building design in such codes two limit states are considered: (i) the ultimate limit state
(ULS) for strength purpose and (ii) the serviceability limit state (SLS) for excessive deflection,
vibration and comfort to the occupants under service loads. Further, most importantly, for structures
to face strong or moderate seismic events, building codes intend to allow inelastic deformations of
the structure nevertheless limiting the development of unreliable mechanisms that could impair the
global behaviour of the structure. For obtaining global ductility of a structural system, dissipative
and non dissipative zones are generally defined by the codes; while non dissipative zones should
remain in the elastic field, the dissipative ones should undergo large inelastic deformations. To
control such a global structural behaviour, seismic codes give the so called capacity design rules
by means of which non-dissipative members are designed for comparatively higher seismic forces
than dissipative members. In addition dissipative members are kept at such locations in order to
undergo damage before the non-dissipative elements and subsequently will protect non-ductile
elements by overstressing.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Moment resisting frames are designed to resist seismic forces on the assumption that they are capable
of extensive yielding and plastic deformation, without loss of strength. Many researches presented
in journals and books have been devoted to enhance the knowledge on the design of steel frames,
on the basis of experimental, analytical and numerical analyses with critics and comparisons of the
most advance seismic building codes. For instance the studies of Marino and Nakashima et al. [6-
8] on the comparison of American, European and Japanese codes for the design of steel structures
are worthy of reference here. Rand et al. [9] compared the AISC design code, German design code
and the British design code and provide brief description of the major aspects of these design codes
and its effects on design. Elghazouli et al. [10] extensively contributed in the assessment of European
seismic design procedures and philosophies for several lateral load resisting systems with emphasises
on moment resisting frames due to their paramount inelastic behaviour. Loorits et al. [11] addressed
comparative study of the buckling of steel beams in Eurocode 3 and the Russian code. The presented
paper is aimed to provide useful information and suggestions for readers and technicians who are
involved in the design of moment resisting frames according to the European and American codes.

3. PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

The fundamental building performance levels provided by modern building codes are: (i) fully
operational; (ii) immediate occupancy; (iii) safety of life; (iv) collapse prevention, as shown in
Table 1.

In EC8 two basic seismic design levels namely no-collapse and damage-limitation are considered.
For the no collapse design level, seismic actions are based on a recommended probability of
exceedance of 10% in 50 years (return period of 475 years) that corresponds to a rare earthquake,
on the contrary damage-limitation relates to a recommended probability of 10% in 10 years (return
period of 95 years).
00 NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012
 Table 1. Matrix of performance objectives

AISC takes into account the FEMA recommendations [12], where performance levels are defined
as: (i) Immediate Occupancy (IO), where only minor structural damage may occur and corresponds
to a recommended probability of exceedance of 50% in 50 years; (ii) Life Safety (LS), where
probable structural damage is allowed with no collapse and with minimal falling hazards, with a
recommended probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years; (iii) Collapse Prevention (CP), that
is a post-earthquake state where complete or near complete collapse of the structure takes place,
corresponding to a recommended probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years. An additional limit
state is referred to as (iv) Operational Limit state where yielding of members is not allowed.

4. MAIN FEATURES OF THE RELEVANT CODES

In order to simplify the comparison between Eurocodes and AISC/ASCE for the design of MRF,
the prominent features provided by the relevant codes [13-25] are illustrated briefly in the following
with reference to the synoptic comparative scheme given in Table 2.

As for load combination and evaluation of seismic masses according to points 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Table
2, in Eurocode, Gk,j denotes the characteristic dead load, Qk,i is the characteristic live or variable
load. The coefficient ψ2,i takes into account the reduced likelihood of the variable loads to be
simultaneously present on the structure with its entire characteristic value during the design
earthquake. The value of ψ2,i ranges from 0 to 0.8, while ϕ accounts for reduced participation of
masses in the motion of the structure, and its value ranges between 0 to 1.0. In the ASCE load
combinations, D is the dead load, S is the snow load, L is the live load and QE is the seismic load.
P denotes the redundancy factor and is used to prevent progressive collapse of the structure, Ωo
is the overstrength factor and SDS is the design spectral response acceleration parameter at 1.0sec
period. Ss is the mapped spectral response acceleration parameter at short period and S1 is the
mapped spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of 1.0sec. Ss and S1 are determined
from maps given in International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE depending on the earthquake
intensity for the specified site with the probability of occurrence of 2% in 50 years (y2,500 year
return period).

In EC8 as mentioned in point 8 of Table 2, the multiplier au/a1 with behaviour factor (q) stands for
redundancy factor. This ratio represents the structure capable lateral force to the lateral force when
the first element of the structure reaches its resistant capacity. It can be obtained by means of
pushover analysis and should not exceed 1.6.
According to Point 10 in Table 2, DCL is Ductility Class Low, DCM is Ductility Class Medium
and DCH is Ductility Class High, SMF is Special Moment resisting Frames, IMF is Intermediate
Moment resisting Frames and OMF is Ordinary Moment resisting Frames. These abbreviations are
henceforth used in the current paper.
Point 13 of Table 2 addresses the overstrength factor (reserve strength) which is the ratio of apparent
strength to the design member strength. In EC8 overstrength factor is denoted by Ω with the given
formulation in which MEd,i is the design value of the bending moment in beam i in the seismic design
situation and Mpl,Rd,i is the corresponding plastic moment, instead in ASCE overstrength factor is
denoted by Ωo and is defined with fixed values for a corresponding seismic resistance system.

In Strong Column Weak Beam (SCWB) criteria as mentioned in point 16 of Table 2 of EC8, ΣMRc
and ΣMRb are the sum of the design values of moments of resistance framing the joint of the joint
For checking second order criteria, described in point 19 of Table 2 in the European formulation,
NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012 00
 M. T. Naqash et al.
Table 2. Synthetic comparison scheme for EC8/EC3 and AISC/ASCE provisions

00 NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012

Table 2. (Continued)

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012 00

 M. T. Naqash et al.
Table 2. (Continued)

Ptot is the total vertical load acting on the level under consideration; dr is the design story drift
resulting from Vtot, where Vtot is the total seismic storey shear force, h is the interstorey height. In
AISC/ASCE the Cd factor is introduced, and is called deflection amplification factor, while ∆ is the
storey drift resulting from Vx, Vx is seismic shear acting between levels x and x-1 and hsx is the story
height below level x, Px is the total gravity load at and the above storey in the seismic design
situation.

5. THE CASE STUDY

5.1 General

In order to investigate the design criteria and efficiency of the capacity design rules on spatial and
perimeter moment resisting frames according to the two codes, a case study is conducted on 12, 6
and 3 storeys residential building. The building has a rectangular plan measuring 33.0 m (108 ft)
by 19.8 m (65 ft) in longitudinal and transversal direction, respectively. Spatial and perimeter frames
hereafter are named as S and P, respectively. The typical floor plan of the building with the indication
of spatial and perimeter frame is shown in Figure 1a, and, the elevation of 6 storey frame is given
in Figure 1b, where the outer columns are named as col1 and the inner columns as col2.
In the case of 12 storey frame configuration, the columns are designed considering four blocks each
one of 3 storeys; for 6 storeys the column are designed considering three blocks each one including
two storeys, while for 3 storey building a single block is used. The interstorey height of each storey
is 3.5m and therefore the overall height for 12, 6 and 3 storey buildings is 42 m (138 ft), 21 m (69
ft) and 10.5 m (34 ft), respectively.

Figure 1. (a) Typical floor plan of the building; (b) frame elevation.
00 NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012
5.2 Design Criteria
Vertical loads acting on the structure are evaluated according to Eurocode 1 (EC1) [14], providing
as a result a total gravity loading (structural and non structural) equal to 6.0 kN/m2 (125 psf), with
an imposed load of 2.0 kN/m2 (42 psf). The secondary beams are assumed to be simply supported
with a bay width of 2.2 m (7.2 ft) and are oriented along the longitudinal direction of the building.
The masses at each floor level according to Eurocodes for spatial and perimeter frames are 86 and
215 kN-sec2/m (63 and 159 kip-sec2/ft), respectively, and in the case of AISC/ASCE, they correspond
to 85 and 212 kN-sec2/m (63 and 156 kip-sec2/ft), respectively.
Based on the provisions of Eurocodes, the primary beams are designed in order to satisfy both the
ultimate and serviceability limit states. In particular, primary beams are initially designed for gravity
loading and then checked with reference to the seismic loading condition.

Accordingly, for the sake of comparison, when considering the provisions of AISC/ASCE for the
combination of gravity loads, (in order to have the same effects on the beams) the same loads are
assumed as defined by EC1 and using the same grade of steel S-275 with 275 MPa (39 psi) minimum
yield strength, this corresponds to A529 in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
The obtained beam profiles for both spatial and perimeter frame configurations using the prescribed
codes are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
The reference frames (6-storeys) are designed according to EC8 in the case of both DCH (q=6.5)
and DCM (q=4), while the frames for 12 and 3-storeys are designed only for DCH, assuming type
C soil stratigraphic profile, important class II (γI =1.0), type 1 elastic response spectrum and 0.25g
peak ground acceleration. In order to allow an apparent comparison and to have the same seismic
intensity, an equivalent response spectrum as shown in Figure 2 for AISC/ASCE is adopted, using
importance factor 1.0, and considering soil type B with Ss and S1 as 1.07g and 0.57g, respectively.
Table 3. Obtained primary beams profiles for spatial frames
Type of EC8/EC3 ASIC/ASCE
frame Ductility Floor Profile Type Floor Profile
12- 5~12 IPE400 IPE500
High IPE450 SMF 1~12
Spatial 1~5
Medium 1~6 IPE400 IMF Not permitted
6-Spatial IPE400 SMF
High 1~6 1~6 IPE500
3-Spatial High 1~3 IPE400 SMF 1~3 IPE500
Table 4. Obtained primary beams profiles for perimeter frames
Type of EC8/EC3 ASIC/ASCE
frame Ductility Floor Profile Type Floor Profile
12- 8~12 IPE400 1~12 IPE500
High IPE500 SMF
Perimeter 1~8
5,6 IPE400
Medium IPE450 IMF Not permitted
1~4
6-Perimeter 4~6 PE400
High 3 IPE450 SMF 1~6 IPE500
1,2 IPE500
3-Perimeter High 1~3 IPE360 SMF 1~3 IPE450

Figure 2. Response spectra for: (a) EC8; (b) ASCE.

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012 00
 M. T. Naqash et al.

According to ASCE, a seismic category needs to be assigned for the structure, which is found to
be in category D (high seismic category) from SDS (0.713) and SD1 (0.38) with the assumed site
class. This code limits the use of multi-storey IMFs in seismic category D up to 10 m (33 ft) height,
therefore for all 12, 6 and 3 storey frames, the design is carried out considering only SMF (R=8).
In total, 14 cases are analysed as listed in Table 5.

6. DESIGN RESULTS
A linear modal dynamic analysis has been developed for the seismic design of the frames. Preliminarily,
it has to be observed that the fundamental period of vibration from the codified formulation (1.40
sec, 0.83 sec and 0.49 sec for 12, 6 and 3 storeys respectively) is almost 50% lower than the one
determined by modal response spectrum analysis as shown in Table 6. The difference in the
fundamental period is due to the fact that simplified formulae given by seismic codes underestimate
the fundamental period of vibration, as they are based on empirical evaluation, therefore globally
accounting also for the stiffening effects of non structural elements e.g. partition walls and infills
etc. These effects are obviously of major importance for steel frames that exhibit relatively low
horizontal stiffness. The underestimation of the natural period (considering only short branch of
spectrum) leads to conservative design assumptions e.g. higher design acceleration (consequently
high seismic base shear) and in turn larger interstorey drifts.

When using the AISC/ASCE code, the fundamental period obtained from the codified formulation
for 12, 6 and 3 storeys are found to be 1.44 sec, 0.83 sec and 0.47 sec, respectively. These are also
definitely lower than the one obtained by modal analysis, but in such circumstances ASCE code
specifies that scaling factors for the design forces and drift have to be applied, as shown in Table
7. Both scaling factors (forces and drifts) are 85% of the ratio of the static base shear (Vstatic) to
the modal base shear (Vb).

Table 5. The analysed cases

Case No Eurocode Case No AISC/ASCE
1 12-Storeys –Spatial frame with DCH 9 12-Storeys –Spatial frame with SMF
2 12-Storeys –Perimeter frame with DCH 10 12-Storeys –Perimeter frame with SMF
3 6-Storeys –Spatial frame with DCH 11 6-Storeys –Spatial frame with SMF
4 6-Storeys –Spatial frame with DCM
5 6-Storeys –Perimeter frame with DCH 12 6-Storeys –Perimeter frame with SMF
6 6-Storeys –Perimeter frame with DCM
7 3-Storeys –Spatial frame with DCH 13 3-Storeys –Spatial frame with SMF
8 3-Storeys –Perimeter frame with DCH 14 3-Storeys –Perimeter frame with SMF
Table 6: Fundamental period and design base shear according to EC8
Mass T Vd
Frame Storeys Ductility kN-sec2/m (modal) kN (kip)
(kip-sec2/ft) sec
12 High 1032 (761) 2.92 404 (91)
Medium 516 (381) 1.92 258 (58)
Spatial 6 516 (381)
High 1.92 217 (49)
3 High 258 (190) 0.99 157 (35)
12 High 2580 (1904) 3.68 977 (220)
Medium 1290 (952) 2.26 645 (145)
Perimeter 6 1290 (952)
High 2.26 540 (121)
3 High 645 (476) 1.14 326 (73)

Table 7. Fundamental period and base shears according to AISC/ASCE for SMF
T Vb Vstatic Scaling
Type Storeys Mass (modal) (modal) kN factors Vd
kN-sec2/m sec kN Force Drift kN
12 1020 2.33 182 337 1.57 1.57 286
Spatial 6 510 1.33 163 291 1.52 1.52 248
3 255 0.69 161 227 1.20 1.20 193
12 2544 3.34 329 840 2.16 2.16 713
Perimeter 6 1272 1.62 327 725 1.89 1.89 619
3 636 0.96 232 566 2.07 2.07 480
Note: 1 kN = 225 kip; 1 kN-sec2 /m = 0.738 kip-sec2 /ft.

00 NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012

Design static base shear (Vd) is calculated using ASCE criteria, for which the minimum seismic
response coefficient (Cs) for 12, 6 and 3 storeys is found equal to 0.033, 0.057 and 0.089, respectively.
Due to the scaling factors, the resulting design base shear in AISC/ASCE is greater than the one
of EC8 except 12 storey frames, even though the q factor (6.5) is smaller than the R factor (8). By
applying AISC/ASCE code, in the case of 12 storey frame configurations, the overstrength factor
(Ω) is 1.04 for DCH with spatial frame and 1.08 for DCH with perimeter frame. For 6 storey frames,
Ω is 1.24 for DCM and 1.31 for DCH with spatial frame; instead it is 1.09 for DCM and 1.12 for
DCH with perimeter frame. In the case of 3 storeys (designed only for DCH) Ω is 1.5 and 1.38
using spatial and perimeter frame, respectively. In EC8, Ω depends on the plastic resistance of beams
and on the applied seismic forces. The obtained “Ω” values from EC8 design are further increased
with 1.10 and γov. Minimum values of Ω are used according to EC8 that are quite smaller than those
recommended by AISC/ASCE, where Ωo is 3.

The obtained column cross sections using S-275 steel grade for 12, 6 and 3 storeys, in case of spatial
and perimeter frame following Eurocodes and AISC/ASCE prescriptions, are shown in Table 8.
When dealing with AISC/ASCE as well with Eurocodes for comparison purpose European profiles
are adopted in the design and therefore sometimes heavy profiles like HE1000M (depth 1008 mm
(3.3 ft), width 302 mm (12 in), web thickness 21 mm (0.8 in), flange thickness 40.0 mm (1.6 in),
section area 444.2 cm2 (69 in2)) have been considered. It should be noted that while for EC8 the
serviceability limit state governs the design, for the AISC/ASCE provisions strength criterion is
more stringent, especially due to the fact that the seismic forces are increased by an overstrength
factor equal to 3. In addition, in order to assure the SCWB criteria, both codes provide a supplementary
check for structural members, this check having some influences on the column profiles, and are
normally not satisfied for the top storey of the structure.
For 12 storey perimeter frame designed according to AISC/ASCE, the drift criteria at some storeys
govern the design, as shown in Figure 3h where drift D/C ratios are close to the limit. In the case
of 6 storeys, ductility class of EC8 has insignificant influence on the cross section dimensions of
the members; in fact in case of spatial frame, ULS governs the design of beams that further causes
the increase of column profiles due to SCWB-criteria, whereas in the case of perimeter frame (due
to higher seismic forces) drift controls the design.

An elastic analysis with DCL (q=1.5) for EC8 and R=3 for AISC/ASCE would allow more consistent
and lighter frame configurations by avoiding the capacity design and SCWB criteria; but both codes
are not of the opinion to allow the use of this criterion (elastic analysis) for the assumed seismic
zone (PGA=0.25g for EC8 and seismic category D for AISC/ASCE).
In order to allow an assessment between the analysed frames configurations, Figure 3 shows the
demand to capacity ratios (D/C) of columns strength for both perimeter and spatial frame configurations
designed according to EC8 and AISC/ASCE. Nominally, an optimal design should provide D/C
ratios just less than unity; however, this is not possible due to limited number of available profiles
and also because these frames are designed considering strong column blocks (each of several
storeys) therefore causing over-sizing of the profiles at the next storeys. In addition, drift criteria
and capacity design rules produce overstrength of the members, reflecting on the D/C ratios as well.
Table 8. The obtained column profiles
Storeys Perimeter frame Spatial frame
Col Block AISC/ASCE EC8 AISC/ASCE EC8
1 HE1000M HE700M HE550B HE600B
1
2 HE800B HE600B HE450B HE450B
3 HE650B HE450B HE400B HE400B
4 HE550B HE400B HE280B HE240B
12
1 HE1000M HE700M HE800M HE600B
2 HE800B HE600B HE450M HE450B
2
3 HE650B HE450B HE300M HE400B
4 HE550B HE400B HE280MSCWB HE300B
1 HE650M HE340B HE400B HE280B
1 2 HE550B HE320B HE340B HE280A
3 HE450A HE320A HE300A HE240B
6
1 HE700M HE450B HE400M HE320B
2 2 HE600B HE400B HE280MSCWB HE300BSCWB
3 HE600A HE400A HE280MSCWB HE300BSCWB
1 HE400M HE450B HE360BSCWB HE240BSCWB
3 1
2 HE400M HE450B HE360BSCWB HE300BSCWB

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012 00

 M. T. Naqash et al.

Figure 3. Design requests according to strength (a-f) and design requests according to drift
(g-n).
For the interstorey drifts as per EC8 limit 0.0075h for buildings having ductile non structural
elements is considered, while according to AISC/ASCE a limit of 0.02h is used. The drift criterion
is more stringent for perimeter frame as the check is closer to the limit at certain storeys, especially
in the case of EC8; generally, the drift limits are quite far for spatial frames in the case of ASCE,
evidencing that drift controls the design especially in the case of perimeter frame when designed
according to EC8. This is proved by the comparison of results given in Figure 3 where D/C ratios
in terms of drift for 12, 6 and 3 storey spatial and perimeter frames designed according to EC8 and
AISC/ASCE are provided.
7. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

In order to check the lateral load resisting performance of the frames, static pushover analysis has
been carried out using FEMA-350 recommendations. Triangular distribution (unit load at roof level)
of static incremental loads (continues from the gravity load case) has been applied and the displacement
at the roof level has been controlled. Mechanical non-linearities of the members have been assumed
to be concentrated in plastic hinges at the ends

The obtained structural capacity curves are plotted in Figures 4-6 for all the main analysed frame
configurations in terms of total base shear (Vb) versus top displacement (Dt). In addition in these
figures, Vb is normalised with respect to Vy (the lateral load producing the first plastic hinge) and
Vd (the design base shear), while Dt is normalised with δ1 (the lateral displacement corresponding
to the first initial yielding).
All the relevant values of the above parameters are provided in Table 9 and in Figure 7, where Vu
represents the lateral load and δu represents the corresponding displacement at failure. From Figures
4-6, it is apparent that AISC gives higher base shear compared to EC8, as the structure is much
stiffer, mainly due to the introduction of force and drift scaling factors into the design procedure.

00 NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012

Figure 4. Pushover curves-12 storeys: (a and b) pushover curves normalised to Vy; (c and d)
pushover curves normalised to Vd; (e and f) AISC/ASCE-SMF and EC8-DCH frame
configurations.

Figure 5. Pushover curves-6 storeys: (a and b) pushover curves normalised to Vy; (c and d)
pushover curves normalised to Vd; (e and f) AISC/ASCE-SMF and EC8-DCH frame
configurations.
From Table 9, it is evidenced that spatial frames designed with EC8 are more redundant than
perimeter frames, whereas from the same Table 9, it is clear that perimeter frames designed with
AISC/ASCE give higher redundancy than spatial frames, proving the influence of beam strength
on the performance of the frames.
The overstrength factors obtained by the pushover analysis are very high especially in the case of
spatial frames, and for frames designed according to AISC/ASCE the ductility ratios measured in
terms of displacement are higher for perimeter frames, except in the case of 3 storeys frames when
designed according to EC8.
NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012 00
 M. T. Naqash et al.

Figure 6. Pushover curves-3 storeys: (a and b) pushover curves normalised to Vy; (c amd d)
pushover curves normalised to Vd; (e and f) AISC/ASCE-SMF and EC8-DCH frame
configurations.
Table 9. EC8 and AISC redundancy and overstrength factors
Vd Vu Vy δu δ1
Storeys Parameters kN kN kN mm mm δu/δ1 Vu/Vy Vu/Vd
P-EC8 977 2224 1487 918 182 5.0 1.5 2.3
S-EC8 404 1274 797 670 163 4.1 1.6 3.2
12 P-AISC 713 3160 1891 630 160 3.9 1.7 4.4
S-AISC 286 2300 1580 590 180 3.3 1.5 8.0
P-EC8 540 1796 1334 1000 245 4.1 1.3 3.3
S-EC8 217 985 622 625 185 3.4 1.6 4.5
6 P-AISC 619 3064 1827 1100 190 5.8 1.7 4.9
S-AISC 248 1922 1492 700 210 3.3 1.3 7.8
P-EC8 326 1904 1699 350 150 2.3 1.1 5.8
S-EC8 157 1111 820 322 122 2.6 1.4 7.1
3 P-AISC 480 2597 1733 470 100 4.7 1.5 5.4
S-AISC 193 2005 1651 350 120 2.9 1.2 10.4
Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 mm = 0.04 in.

The high overstrength factor in spite of the material overstrength factor in both codes (Figure 7e),
demonstrates the increase of member dimensions due to flexibility of the frames (drift control and
period control) as well as to the application of the SCWB criteria.
All the above aspects are also reflected in the structural weight of the adopted profiles, and for the
sake of comparison are provided in Figure 8, considering separately the weight of columns (Wc),
the weight of beams (Wb) and the total structural weight (Wt).

The AISC/ASCE for all 12, 6 and 3-storeys gives a stronger frame configurations compared to EC8;
this is due to the influence of high Ω, with the main effect on the weight of the columns. The overall
difference in the weight of beams and columns of the two codes is also due to the scaling factors
adopted in AISC/ASCE, as the initial period obtained from response spectrum modal analysis is
strongly connected by such a factor. As a result, from the analysed case study it can be highlighted
that AISC/ASCE gives costlier and more conservative structural configurations.
8. CONCLUSIONS

A comparative study between European and American codes for seismic design of moment resisting
steel frames has been carried out in the current paper. By the examination of the codes together with

00 NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012

Figure 7. Pushover results: (a) design base shear; (b) base shear at first plastic hinge; (c) roof
displacement at ultimate base shear; (d) redundancy factors; (e) overstrength factors; (f) roof
displacement at first plastic hinge.

Figure 8. Structural weight for the analysed frame configurations.

the developed case study it has been revealed that the load combinations of EC8 are lighter than
the analogous ones in the American code. Also, the Ω factor in EC8 is smaller compared to
AISC/ASCE, therefore giving rise to lighter seismic combinations for non dissipative elements.
These aspects on one hand resulted in a reasonable design (because of smaller cross sections of
structural elements) but on the other hand produced that the damage limit state played a more
important role, therefore generally governs the design of the structural elements, provoking the
increase of beam profiles. This is a reason of larger complexity for the structural designer as SCWB
criterion generally needs to be rechecked and, in order to accomplish with the capacity design
criteria, compels the designer to increase the columns profiles as well.
It has to be mentioned as an outcome of the above considerations, and from the examined case
study, that the ductility class of EC8 for 6 storeys MRF had insignificant influence on the cross
section dimensions especially for perimeter frames. In fact, in the case of analysed spatial frames,
ULS governed the design of beams that further caused to increase the column profiles due to SCWB
criteria, while in the case of perimeter frame (as the seismic forces are higher), drift condition
controlled the design. Contrarily, with AISC/ASCE the load combinations for seismic analysis are
more conservative, the Ω factor is fixed, and comparing to EC8 the drift criterion is not so stringent
especially for low-rise frames. On the other hand ASCE introduces scaling factors for design forces
and drift calculations which produce further increase the member dimensions.
By the above remarks it can be concluded as a whole that the design of MR frames with AISC/ASCE
appeared to be more consistent due to the simple application of capacity rules, even though it resulted
in a heavy structure compared to EC8.
NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012 00
 M. T. Naqash et al.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study is carried out within the PhD thesis work of the first author at the University of “G.
d’Annunzio” Chieti-Pescara, as well as in the frame of the activities related to the Masters in Design
of Steel Structures at the University of Naples “Federico II”.

REFERENCES
[1] Eurocode 8. Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings (EN 1998-1:2005). 36 B-1050, Brussels , 2005.
[2] Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures, Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings (EN 1993-
1-1:2005). Brussels, 2005.
[3] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings
(ANSI/AISC 341-10). Chicago, Illinois, 2010.
[4] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Specification for structural steel buildings
(ANSI/AISC 360-10). Chicago, Illinois, 2010.
[5] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Minimum design loads for buildings and other
structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10). Reston, VA, 2010.
[6] Marino ME, Nakashima M, Mosalam MK. Comparison of European and Japanese Seismic
Design of Steel Building Structures. J Eng Struc 2005;27(??):827-840.
[7] Nakashima M, Roeder WC, Maruoka Y. Steel Moment frames for Earthquakes in United States
and Japan. J Struc Eng 2000;126(8):861-868.
[8] Nakashima M, Chusilp P. A Partial View of Japanese Post-Kobe Seismic Design and Construction
Practices Earthquake. J Eng and Eng Seis ????;4(1):3-13.
[9] Rand ML. A Comparative Parametric Study of the AISC 1978, DIN 18-800 (1) and BS5950
steel design codes. J Fin Elem in Ana and Des 1988;4(1):91-114.
[10] Elghazouli AY. Assessment of European Seismic Design Procedures for Steel Frames Structures.
J of Bull Earth Eng 2010;8(1):65-89.
[11] Loorits K, Talvik I. Comparative Study of the Buckling of Steel Beams in Eurocode 3 and the
Russian Code. J Const Steel Res 2006;62(12):1290-1294.
[12] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Recommended seismic design criteria for
new steel moment frame buildings (FEMA-350). USA, 2000.
[13] Eurocode 0. Basis of structural design (EN 1990:2002). Brussels, 2002.
[14] Eurocode 1. Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions - Densities, self-weight, imposed
loads for buildings (EN 1991-1-1:2004). Brussels, 2004.
[15] International Code Council. International Building Code (IBC). Illinois, 2009.
[16] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting
of buildings (EN 1998-3:2005). Brussels, 2005.
[17] De Matteis G. Effect of Light Weight Cladding Panels on the Seismic Performance of Moment
Resisting Steel Frames. J Eng Struc 2005;27(11):1662-1676.
[18] De Matteis G, Landolfo R, Mazzolani FM. Seismic Response of MR Frames with Low-Yield
Steel Shear Panels. J Eng Struc 2003;25(2):155-168.
[19] Mele E, De Luca A, Di Sarno L. Design Aspects Affecting the Seismic Behaviour of Steel
MRF Buildings: Analysis of Three Case Studies. In: Proceedings of 12WCEE. New Zealand: 2000.
p. 1-7.
[20] Brandonisio G, De Luca A, Mele E. Shear Instability of Panel Zone in Beam-to-Column
Connections. J Cons and Steel Res 2011;67(????):891-903.
[21] Malley JO. Introduction to the AISC seismic provisions. Steelwise, Steel Solutioncenter, ????,
2006. p. 1-4.
[22] Sanchez-Ricart L, Plumier A. Parametric Study of Ductile Moment-resisting Steel Frames: A
First Step towards Eurocode 8 Calibration. J Earth Eng and Struc Dyn 2008;37(7):1135-1155.
[23] Trahair NS, Bradford MA. The behaviour and design of steel structures to EC3. Taylor and
Francis, ????????, 2009. p. ???-???.
[24] Roger BL, Merritt FS. Structural steel designer’s handbook. McGraw-Hill, ????????, 1999.
p. ???-???.
[25] Naqash T, De Matteis G, De Luca A. European versus American practice for seismic design
of steel Moment Resisting Frames (MRFs). In: XXIII Congresso C.T.A. XXIII Italian steel conference.
Lacco Ameno, Ischia, Naples: 2011. p. 599-610.
[26] Computers & Structures, Inc. Integrated software for structural analysis & design (SAP2000):
Technical reference manual. Berkeley, California, USA, 2006. p. ???-???.

00 NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKE, 2012

View publication stats