Effect of connection rotation capacities on seismic performance of IMF systems

  • Han, Sang Whan ;
  • Moon, Ki-Hoon ;
  • Ha, Sung Jin
  • Received : 2014.11.25
  • Accepted : 2015.10.22
  • Published : 2016.01.25


The seismic performance of moment frames could vary according to the rotation capacity of their connections. The minimum rotation capacity of moment connections for steel intermediate moment frames (IMF) was defined as 0.02 radian in AISC 341-10. This study evaluated the seismic performance of IMF frames with connections having a rotation capacity of 0.02 radian. For this purpose, thirty IMFs were designed according to current seismic design provisions considering different design parameters such as the number of stories, span length, and seismic design categories. The procedure specified in FEMA P695 was used for conducting seismic performance evaluation. It was observed that the rotation capacity of 0.02 radian could not guarantee the satisfactory seismic performance of IMFs. This study also conducted seismic performance evaluation for IMFs with connections having the rotation capacity of 3% and ductile connections for proposing the minimum rotation capacity of IMF connections.


rotation capacity;connections;intermediate moment frame;seismic performance;seismic design


  1. Adam, C. and Jager, C. (2012), "Simplified collapse capacity assessment of earthquake excited regular frame structures vulnerable to P-delta", Eng. Struct., 44, 159-173.
  2. American Institute of Steel Construction (2010), Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames for seismic applications, ANSI/AISC 358-10, Chicago, IL.
  3. American Institute of Steel Construction (2010), Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-10, Chicago, IL.
  4. American Institute of Steel Construction (2010), Specification for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-10, Chicago, IL.
  5. American Institute of Steel Construction (2005), Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05, Reston, VA.
  6. American Institute of Steel Construction (2010), Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA.
  7. Anderson, J. and Duan, X. (1998), Repair/Upgrade Procedures for Welded Beam to Column Connections, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research center, Report No. PEER-98/03.
  8. Chen, S.J., Yeh, C.H. and Chu J.M. (1996), "Ductile steel beam-to-column connections for seismic resistance", J. Struct. Eng., 122(11), 1292-1299.
  9. Eads, L., Miranda, E., Krawinkler, H. and Lignos D.G. (2013), "An efficient method for estimating the collapse risk of structures in seismic regions", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 42(1), 25-41.
  10. Engelhardt M.D., Fry, G., Jones, S., Venti, M. and Holliday, S. (2000), Behavior and Design of Radius-Cut Reduced Beam Section Connections, Report No. SAC/BD-00/17, SAC Joint Venture. Sacramento, CA.
  11. Elkady, A. and Lignos D.G. (2015), "Effect of gravity framing on the overstrength and collapse capacity of steel frame buildings with perimeter special moment frames", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 44(8), 1289-1307.
  12. FEMA, (2009), Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, FEMA P695, SAC Joint Venture and FEMA, Washington, DC.
  13. FEMA, (2000), Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, FEMA 350, SAC Joint Venture and FEMA, Washington, DC.
  14. FEMA, (2000), State of the Art Report on Connection Performance, FEMA 355D, SAC Joint Venture and FEMA, Washington, DC.
  15. FEMA, (2000), State of the Art Report on Performance Prediction and Evaluation of Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, FEMA 355F, SAC Joint Venture and FEMA, Washington, DC.
  16. FEMA, (2000), State of the Art Report on Systems Performance of Steel Moment Frames Subject to Earthquake Ground Shaking, FEMA 355C, SAC Joint Venture and FEMA, Washington, DC.
  17. Gupta, A. and Krawinkler, H. (1999), "Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures (SAC Task 5.4.3)", John A, Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Rep. No. 132, Dept. Civil Engineering, Stanford University.
  18. Hamidia, M., Filiatrault, A. and Aref, A. (2014), "Simplified seismic sidesway collapse analysis of frame buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 43(3), 429-448.
  19. Han, S.W., Kwon, G. and Moon, K.H. (2007), "Cyclic behavior of post-Northridge WUF-B connections", J. Constr. Steel Res., 63(3), 365-374.
  20. Han, S.W., Moon, K.H. and Stojadinovic, B. (2009), "Design equations for moment strength of RBS-B connections", J. Constr. Steel Res., 65(5), 1087-1095.
  21. Han, S.W., Moon, K.H., Hwang, S.H. and Stojadinovic, B. (2013), "Seismic performance evaluation of intermediate moment frames with reduced beam section and bolted web connections", Earthq. Spectra, 31(2), 895-919.
  22. Iwankiw, N.R. and Carter, C. (1996), "Dogbone: a new idea to chew on", Modern. Steel Constr., 36(1), 18-23.
  23. Jeong, S.H, Kwon, O.S. and Lee, K. (2015), "Effective periods and seismic performance of steel moment resisting frames designed for risk categories I and IV according to IBC 2009", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 44, 1427-1447.
  24. Lee, C.H., Jeon, S.W., Kim, J.H. and Uang, C.M. (2005), "Effects of panel zone strength and beam web connection method on seismic performance of reduced beam section steel moment connections", J. Struct Eng., 131(12), 1854-1865.
  25. Lee, K. and Foutch, D.A. (2002), "Seismic Performance Evaluation of Pre-Northridge Steel Frame Buildings with Brittle Connections", J. Struct. Eng., 128(4), 546-555.
  26. Lignos, D.G. (2014), "Modeling of the composite action in fully restrained beam-to-column connections: implications in the seismic design and collapse capacity of steel special moment frames", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 43(13), 1935-1954. (Lignos 2008 neglect)
  27. Luco, N. and Cornell, C.A. (2000), "Effects of connection fractures on SMRF seismic drift demands", J. Struct. Eng., 126(1), 127-136.
  28. Luco, N. and Cornell, C.A. (1998a), "Effects of random connection fractures on the demands and reliability for a 3-story pre-Northridge SMRF structure", Proceedings of the Sixth US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington, DC.
  29. Luco, N. and Cornell, C.A. (1998b), "Seismic drift demands for two SMRF structures with brittle connections", First International Congress of Structural Engineers, San Francisco, California, Washington, DC.
  30. Maison, B. and Kasai, K. (1997), "Analysis of Northridge damaged thirteen-story WSMF building", Earthq. Spectra, 13(3), 451-473.
  31. Malley, J. (1998), "SAC steel project: Summary of phase 1 testing investigation results", Eng. Struct., 20(4), 300-309.
  32. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M.H. and Fenves, G.L. (2007), "OpenSees command language manual", The University of California, Berkeley, USA. Available from:
  33. Sotirov, P., Rangelov, N., Ganchev, O., Georgiev, T., Milev, J. and Petkov, Z. (2000), Influence of haunching, Moment resisting connections of steel frames in seismic area, design and reliability, E& FN SPON. [Chapter 3.3].
  34. Stojadinovic, B., Goel, S.C. and Lee, K.H. (2000), "Parametric test on unreinforced steel moment connections", J. Struct. Eng., 126(1), 40-49.
  35. Tsai, K.C. and Chen, C.Y. (1996), "Performance of Ductile Steel Beam-Column Moment Connections", Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.
  36. Tremblay, R., Tchebotarev, N. and Filiatrault, A. (1997), "Seismic performance of RBS connections for steel moment resisting frames: Influence of loading rate and floor slab", Proceedings STESSA '97, Kyoto, Japan.
  37. Qi, Y., Gu, Q. and Li, D. (2012), "Efficient and automated method of collapse assessment", Steel Compos. Struct., 13(6), 561-570.


Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea