Buildings 2012, 2, 107-125; doi:10.

3390/buildings2020107
OPEN ACCESS

buildings
ISSN 2075-5309
www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings/

Article

An Introduction to the Methodology of Earthquake Resistant

Structures of Uniform Response
Mark Grigorian 1,* and Carl E. Grigorian 2
1
MGA Structural Engineering Inc., 111 N. Jackson Street Glendale, CA 91206, USA
2
URS Corporation, 915 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90017, USA;
E-Mail: [email protected]

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected].

Received: 9 December 2011; in revised form: 22 March 2012 / Accepted: 24 April 2012 /
Published: 2 May 2012

Abstract: Structures of Uniform Response are special earthquake resistant frames in which
members of similar groups such as beams, columns and braces of similar nature share the
same demand-capacity ratios regardless of their location within the group. The fundamental
idea behind this presentation is that seismic structural response is largely a function of design
and construction, rather than analysis. Both strength and stiffness are induced rather
than investigated. Failure mechanisms and stability conditions are enforced rather than
tested. Structures of Uniform Response are expected to sustain relatively large inelastic
displacements during major earthquakes. A simple technique has been proposed to control
and address the gradual softening of such structures due to local/partial instabilities and
formation of plastic hinges. In structures of uniform response, the magnitude and shape of
distribution of lateral forces affects the distribution of story stiffness in proportion with
story moments, therefore affecting the dynamic behavior of the system as a whole. Simple
closed form formulae describing the nonlinear behavior of moment frames of uniform
response have been proposed. While the scope of this contribution is limited to moment
frames, the proposed method can successfully be extended to all types of recognized
earthquake resisting systems.

Keywords: earthquake resistant frames; structural instability; plastic analysis; stiffness

degradation; sequential hinging; energy equivalency; drift control; period analysis
Buildings 2012, 2 108

Notation
f magnification factor H total building height T period of vibration
i, j integer coordinates I beam moment of inertia U internal energy
h story height J column moment of inertia V shear force
h height from base K sub frame stiffness W sub frame weight
m number of stories L span length Q total weight
n number of bays M beam moment  local displacement
s order of occurrence N column moment  total displacement
C numerical constant P joint load  drift ratio
E modulus of elasticity MP beam plastic moment  joint rotation
F external force NP column plastic moment
Indexes, superscripts and the remaining symbols are defined, as they first appear in
the text.

1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the performance of Structures of Uniform Response (SUR)
under lateral loading. SUR are special frameworks in which members of similar groups such as beams,
columns and braces of similar physical characteristics e.g., length, end conditions etc., share the same
demand-capacity ratios regardless of their location and numbers within the group. In other words,
selected groups of members develop identical levels of stress and strain under similar loading conditions.
Results of inelastic static, push-over and dynamic time-history analyses [1,2], have shown that
Performance Based Plastic Design methods can successfully be applied to almost all types of code
recognized earthquake resisting systems. The performance of SUR as earthquake resisting systems is
directly supported by these findings. In introducing SUR the paper also presents a new analytic
Performance-Based Elastic-Plastic Design method for earthquake resisting moment frames, with the
ability to control their response during all phases of seismic loading, starting from zero to first yield,
followed by progressive plasticity up to and including incipient collapse [3,4].
As far as it can be ascertained, the proposed drift increment and moment redistribution Equations
are the only ones of their kind that can analytically estimate lateral displacements and element moments
of such frames throughout both elastic as well as plastic ranges of loading. The step-by-step procedure
presented in this work is particularly suitable for manual as well as spreadsheet computations. Most
importantly, the proposed formulations help engineers gain insight into structural behavior of earthquake
resistant SUR. All SUR formulations yield mathematically admissible initial designs within which
member sizes can be modified for any reason, especially for meeting target objectives, optimizing
material and construction costs without violating the prescribed performance conditions. The
performance of SUR in the elastic and elastic–partially plastic stages satisfy all conditions of lower
bound solutions and tends towards uniqueness as plasticity propagates through selected groups of
members of the framework. SUR are generally more economical in the elastic range; and become
lighter in total weight as the number of plastic hinges increase within the framework. Uniqueness
Buildings 2012, 2 109

implies that any upgrading of any member property can only enhance the performance of the structure
beyond its targeted projections.
The methodology leading to SUR also provides a wealth of technical information that may not be
readily available through traditional methods of approach. SUR in general and Moment Frames of
Uniform Response (MFUR) in particular can be formulated to address the following target objectives:
 A prescribed drift ratio at any given loading or performance stage.
 A prescribed carrying capacity corresponding to any drift ratio or performance stage, including
maximum allowable lateral displacement at incipient collapse.
 Predetermined sequences of formations of plastic hinges before collapse.
 Damage control in terms of the number of plastic hinges at any loading or response stage
compared with number of plastic hinges at zero loading, at first yield or at incipient collapse.
 Reduction of the total weight of the structure to a theoretical minimum.
 The possibility to further enhance or the performance of the structure using moment control
technologies such as brackets, haunches, end flange plates and/or proprietary devices.

1.1. Basic Design Objectives

The mathematical formulation of MFUR is based on the implementation of the following design
objectives that:
1. The ideal inter-story drift ratio remains constant along the height of the structure, and that
lateral displacements remain a linear function of the height during all phases of loading.
2. The plastic hinges are prevented from forming within columns, except at base line. Whenever
possible, base line plastic hinges should form within the grade beams. Global mechanism is
reached if the concept of strong-column weak-beam is considered.
3. For minimum weight MFUR, the demand-capacity ratios of all members are as close to unity
as possible.

1.2. Basic Design Assumptions

The methodology expounded in this presentation is based on the following design assumptions:
1. Axial, shear and panel zone deformations are not coupled with flexural displacements and can
be temporarily ignored for the purposes of this study.
2. Groups of similar members simultaneously resist similar types of loading or combinations of
loading, e.g., flexural, axial, torsional, etc.
3. The shape of code specified distribution of earthquake forces remains constant during all
loading phases. The shape could be triangular or determined by any rational analysis.
4. Initial design is based on the fundamental period of vibration of the un-degraded structure.
5. The effects of plastic hinge offsets from column center lines can be ignored.
6. The possible benefits of strain hardening and yield over-strength can be ignored.
7. Code level gravity loads have little or no effect on the ultimate carrying capacity of moment
frames designed for moderate to severe earthquakes. However the columns should be designed in
Buildings 2012, 2 110

such a way as to resist gravity forces together with effects induced by plastic hinging of
the beams.
8. The design earthquake loads act monotonically throughout the history of loading of
the structure.
9. The frames are two dimensional and are constructed out of ductile materials and connection
failure is prevented under all loading conditions.
10. The columns remain effectively elastic during all phases of loading.
Traditional design methods for earthquake resistant moment frames begin with approximate
member Properties for initial sizing, and entail several cycles of analysis before a satisfactory solution is
established. The proposed procedure begins with an optimized Performance-Based Elastic-Plastic design
approach that already has the code prescribed criteria built into its basic algorithm. Optimization in this
context implies providing as much capacity as demand imposed on or attracted by each member of
the frame. Several simple examples have been provided to illustrate the applications of the proposed
procedures. While the scope of the present work is limited to moment frames, the proposed method
can successfully be extended to all types of recognized lateral load resisting systems.

2. Methodology

In MFUR selected groups of beams and columns share the same drift and demand-capacity ratios.
The most fundamental step in generating a MFUR is to select the properties of its constituent
elements in such a way as to achieve geometrically similar inter story drift profiles prescribed for the
entire structure during all phases of loading. In other words, the most ideal lateral deformation profile
for any frame is that in which the code prescribed story level displacements fall along the same straight
line i.e.,
 s  i , s   si , s  hi   ss  hi (1a)

where, i , s  s   m, s / H .  m, s is the maximum roof or mth level lateral displacement at s th

response stage. Symbol  s signifies increment at s th consecutive iteration.
Equation (1a) indicates that points of inflexion should occur at column mid-heights. By the same
token, the most ideal design drift function is that where the code prescribed inter story rotations remain
the same, i.e.,

 si , s   ss  (hi / H )   m, s (1b)
hi
Theoretically there can be as many loading or response stages as there are beams, i.e., smax .  m  n .
However, smax .  n or smax .  m offer more practical options for design purposes. Rotation m, s 1  Y
may be construed as the initial target drift corresponding to initial target displacement  m, s 1  Y at
first yield. The line diagram of a regular MFUR together with its idealized design displacement
profiles, subjected to a generalized distribution of lateral forces, is presented in Figure 1. The design
conditions (1a) and (1b) imply equal incremental joint rotations for all members of the frame i.e.,
 sG.i , s   sG.s (1c)
Buildings 2012, 2 111

Figure 1. Laterally Loaded Moment Frames of Uniform Response (MFUR) with Linearly Varying
Drift Profiles.

F Lj Y  P

Ii1, j MiP1. j H
i
I i , j NiP. j MiP. j hi

 s
hi

0 j n
(1a) (1b) (1c)

The global equilibrium of the structure in terms of beam stiffness and global frame rotation G, s at
any stage “s” can be expressed as:
m m m n m n
  sVi , s hi    s Fi , s hi    2 s M B.i , j , s  12 E sG , s   ki , j (2a)
i 1 i 1 i  0 j 1 i  0 j 1

Where, Vi , s , ki , j  ( I / L)i , j , M B.i , j , s and I i , s are the story level shear force, relative stiffness, end
moments and moment of inertia of beam “i,j” respectively. Equation (2a) directly yields the global
rotation of the structure as;
m m n
 sG.s    sVi , s hi / 12 E   ki , j (2b)
i 1 i  0 j 1

Similarly, the racking equilibrium Equation of any representative floor in terms of its beam
stifnesses may be expressed as:
n n
 s M iA, s   2 s M B.i , j , s  12 E s B , s  ki , j (2c)
j 1 j 1

The quantities M iA, s  ( M iR, s  M iR1, s ) / 2  (Vi , s hi  Vi 1, s hi 1 ) / 2 and 2M iA, s are defined as the average
and total racking moment acting on i th level beams at s th response stage respectively.
M 1A, s  M 1R, s  V1, s h1 / 2 , and M mA, s  M mR, s  Vm, s hm / 2 correspond to average racking moments of grade
and roof level beams respectively. M iR, s  Vi , s hi is defined as the i th story raking moment at
s th response stage. Equation (2c) in turn directly yields the floor level rotations as:
n
 s B , s   s M iA, s / 12 E  ki , j (2d)
j 1

However, since  sG.i , s   s B.i , s , then equating the global rotation Equation (2b), and floor level
rotation, Equation (2d), gives:
n m m n
 s M iA, s /  ki , j    sVi , s hi /   ki , j (3a)
j 1 i 1 i  0 j 1
Buildings 2012, 2 112

m m
Substituting for   sVi , s hi    s M iA, s and expanding the right hand side of Equation (3a), it gives:
i 1 i 0

 s M iA, s  s M 1A, s   s M 2A, s  ..... s M iA, s  .... s M mA, s

n
 n n n n
(3b)
 ki , j  k1, j   k2, j  .......  ki , j ........   km, j
j 1 j 1 j 1 j 1 j 1

Equation (3b) can be satisfied only if the following mathematical conditions are met:
n n n n
 s M iA, s /  ki , j   s M 1A, s /  k1, j .. …   s M 2iA, s /  k2, j …   s M mA, s /  km, j (3c)
j 1 j 1 j 1 j 1

In physical terms, the condition of uniform drift requires that the sum of the stiffnesses of beams of
each floor be selected in proportion with the average racking moments of that floor, i.e.,
n  s M 1A, s n n  s M iA, s n
 k1, j   km, j ….  ki, j   km, j (3d)
j 1  s M mA, s j 1 j 1  s M mA, s j 1

Equation (3d) also describes a state of uniform demand-capacity for the beams of the structure.
In practical terms, uniform demand-capacity implies providing as much capacity as demand imposed
on or attracted by each member of the frame. Since equal joint rotations also imply zero moments at
column mid-points, then the racking equilibrium of the frame in terms of column moments of any
representative floor “m” or “i” may be expressed as;
n n
 sVm, s hm   s M mR, s   2 s M C .m, j , s  12 E sC .s  km, j (4a)
j 0 j 0

or
n n
 sVi , s hi   s M iR, s   2 s M C .i , j , s  12 E sC .s  ki , j (4b)
j 0 j 0

Where, ki , j  ( J / h)i , j , M C .i , j , s , and J i , j are the relative stiffness, end moments and moment of inertia
of column “i,j” respectively. Equation (4b) yields the floor level rotations as:
n
 sC , s   s M iR, s / 12 E  ki , j (4c)
j 0

C.s is the drift component of the i th level floor, due to deformations of the columns of the same level.
Comparing the two sides of Equations (4a) and (4c) yields the conditions of uniform response or
demand-capacity for the columns of the subject frame as:
n  s M 1R, s n n  s M iR, s n
 k1, j   km, j ……  ki , j   k m, j (4d)
j 0  s M mR, s j 1 j 0  s M mR, s j 1

Equations (3d) and (4d) together fulfill the condition of compatible drift angles along the height of
the frame and verify the statement of the methodology of MFUR presented at the beginning of this
section. The applications of the proposed approach are elaborated through parametric examples in the
forthcoming sections.
Buildings 2012, 2 113

3. Story Level Elastic-Plastic Displacement Response

The total drift of any story in terms of its racking moments at any response stage may be
computed as;
 si , s   sC .i , s   s B.i , s (5a)
or
n n
 si ,s   s M iR,s / 12 E  ki , j   s M iA, s / 12 E  ki , j (5b)
j 0 j 1

In the absence of gravity loads, the force-deformation relationship or the drift increment Equation
(5b) may be expanded to include the effects of member plasticity and story level axial forces, [5,6] i.e.,
   
 sVi , s hi  1 1   sVi 1, s hi 1  1 
 si , s    n    (5c)
12 EfCR.i , s  n k  12 EfCR.i , s  n k 
 j  i, j   
k
0
i, j
j 1  j 1
i, j


However, since drift increment is a function of stiffness degradation as well as sequence of

formation of plastic hinges, it becomes necessary to relate beam stiffness factors ki , j to their sequence
of formation of plastic hinges or response stage “s”, by means of subscript ”r”, rather than their
n n
location “j”. This is achieved by replacing ki , j with ki , s and  k i , j with  k i , r and incorporating the
j 1 r 1

symbol  rs 1 and  j in Equation (5c) in order to include the effects of formation or prevention of
formation of plastic hinges at the ends of beams “ i, s ”.i.e.,
   
 sVi , s hi  1 1  V h  1 
s i 1, s i 1
 ss ,i   n  n   n  (5d)
12 EfCR.i , s   k  s 1  12 EfCR.i , s   s 1k 
 j  r i,r   r i,r
j i, j k
0 r 1   r 1 

Equation (5d) now represents both the elastic as well as plastic deformations of the subject moment
frame within a single, seamless expression, where by definition, the smaller the subscript “s” the
stiffer the beam it represents.  rs 1  0 for M B.i , s  M BP.i , s and implies structural damage and/or loss of
stiffness with respect to beam "i, s".  rs 1  1 for M B.i , s  M BP.i , s . In mathematical terms,  rs 1  1 for
r  s  1, and  rs 1  0 for r  s  1. Similarly the symbol  j has been introduced to relate column
stifnesses ki , j to effects of formation of plastic hinges in the adjoining beams “i,j” and “i,j-1.  j  0
n
for M B.i , j  M BP.i , j and M B.i, j 1  M BP.i, j 1 , otherwise  j  1. fCR.i , s  [1  (  Pi , j ) / PCR.i , s ] is the force
j 0
n
magnification function.  Pi , j and PCR.i,s  Ki, shi are the total axial load and the critical axial load of
j 0
th
level “i” at s response stage respectively. In reality, since the drift ratio is constant, it would be
sufficient to compute  ss,i   ss for the simplest representative level, i.e., the roof, where,
Vm1,s  hm1  0 . Equation (5d) reduces to:
Buildings 2012, 2 114

 
 sVm, s hm  1 1  V
 sm, s   ss   n  n   s m, s (5e)
12 EfCR , m, s   k  rs 1km, r  K m, s hm
 j  0 j m, j r
1 

K m, s is the stiffness of the mth level framework at s th response stage.

3.1. Demonstrative Example I

Consider the lateral displacements of the four bay (n = 4), three story (m = 3) moment frame of
Figure (2a), subjected to a uniform distribution of lateral forces Fi  F and axial joint forces
Pi,0  Pi,4  P/ 2 for all “i” and Pi , j  P for all other “i,j”.

Figure 2. Example I, Moment Frame Loading and Racking Moment.

Pi . j I
F m
3.5I J h Fh
F
2.5 J 1.25h 2.5Fh
F i
7I
4 .5 J 1.5h 4.5Fh
4. 5 I
0 j n
1 . 25 L L 1 .5 L 1 . 75 L M O  Vh  8Fh
s2 s 1 s3 s4

(2a) (2b)

The cross section and moment of resistance of beams and columns of each level are required to be
constant, e.g., I3, j  I and M 3P, j  M P for all “j”. J3,0  J3,4  J and J i , j  2 J i for all other “j”. The
primary purpose of this exercise is to generate a MFUR by computing the quantities I i , J i and M iP in
terms of their corresponding values I 3 , and M 3P (at roof level) respectively. The distribution of story
level racking moments M iR, s is shown in Figure (2b). The total racking moments 2M iA, s can now be
computed as 4.5 Fs h , 7.0 Fs h , 3.5 Fs h and 1.0 Fs h for the grade, 1st, 2nd and roof level beams
4
respectively. Since I i is uniform for each level and the quantity  (1 / L)i , r 3.0381 / L is constant for
r 1
n n 4
the entire frame, then for s  1;   j (1 / h)i , j  8 J i / h and   rs 1ki , r  I i  (1 / L)i , r 3.0381I i / L . And,
j 0 r 1 r 1

as a result, Equation (3d) reduces to Ii  (M iA,s1 / M 3A,s1 ) I3 , i.e., I 0  (4.5F1h / F1h) I  4.5 I ,
I1  [(4.5F1h  2.5F1h) / F1h]I  7 I , I 2  [(2.5 F1h  1.0 F1h) / F1h]I  3.5 I , and I 3  I . By the same token,
n
since  ki 3, j 2nJ / h simplifies Equation (4d) to J i  ( M iR, s 1 / M mR, s 1 ) J m then:
j 0

J1  (4.5 F1h / F1h) J  4.5 J , J 2  (2.5F1h / F1h) J  2.5J J 3  J . The third level (roof) drift of the newly
generated MFUR at s = 1 can now be expressed as:
V3, s 1h  h L  V3, s 1
3, s 1  s 1   
12 EfCR.3, s 1  8 J 3.0381I  K 3, s 1h
 (6a)
Buildings 2012, 2 115

Assuming that the design decisions; N iP,1  N iP, 4  M iP,1 , NiP, j  2M iP, j for all other “j” an J i  1.2 I i d
satisfy the Strong column-weak beam requirements, then for fCR.3, j  0.80, L = h, rs10 1 and
V3 , s 1  F1 , Equation (6a) becomes;

F1h 2  1 1  0.0451F1h 2 F1
s 1   9.6 3.0381 
  (6b)
12  0.8EI EI K s 1h

Therefore;  i 1, s 1  s 11.5h  0.0677 Fs 1h3 / EI ,  i  2, s 1  s 1 2.75h  0.1241Fs 1h3 / EI and

 i 3, s 1  s 1 3.75h  0.1693Fs 1h3 / EI . Finally, if the target drift s 1 is not to exceed Y , where
the subscript Y signifies first yield, i.e., F1  FY then, the design representative moment of inertia
becomes I  IY  0.0451FY h 2 / Y E.

4. Story Level Elastic-Plastic Moment Response

The elastic-plastic displacement response of the moment frame, Equation (5c), is directly
influenced by the redistribution of forces in the members of the structure. For instance, if the
magnitude of the end moments of beam “i,j” at s th response stage is given by;  s M B.i , s  6 Eki , s  s B.s ,
then by substituting for  s B.s from Equation (2d) gives:

 s M iA, s  ki , s
 s M B.i , s  n (7a)
2 fCR.i , s   rs 1ki , r
r 1

and
 r N C .i , j , s   s M B.i , j 1, s   s M B.i , j , s (7b)
as the Moment Redistribution or Plasticity Progression equations of the beams and columns of the
subject frame at any given response stage respectively. At ultimate loading or incipient collapse the
quantities i , s , Fi , s ,Vi , s , M iA, s and M B.i , s become iP , FiP ,Vi P , M iAP and M iP, s respectively.
The ultimate carrying capacity of regular moment frames is usually computed using the virtual
work method of plastic analysis, [7] which eventually results in static equilibrium Equations that
involve the global overturning moments M O of the system at incipient collapse, e.g., considering the
plastic collapse of the moment frame of Figure (3d), through formation of plastic hinges at beam ends
only, and conforming to a uniform virtual side sway of inclination θ = 1, it gives:
m m m m n
 M iRP  Vi P hi   Fi P hi  M OP    2M iP, j (8a)
i 0 i 1 i 1 i  0 j 1

For the particular conditions of Example I, the long hand solution of Equation (8a) gives;
[3.75 + 2.75 + 1.5] F P h = 2[1.0 + 3.5 + 7.0 + 4.5] nM P or F P  4nM P / h as the ultimate load
carrying capacity of the subject moment frame. However in case of MFUR, the racking equilibrium
Equation of any story, Equation (2c), can also be used to achieve the same results, i.e.,
n
M iAP   2 M iP, j  2 M iP (ui ,1  ...  1  ...ui , j  ...ui , m ) (8b)
j 1
Buildings 2012, 2 116

n
M mAP   2M mP, j  2M mP (ui ,1  ...  1  ...ui , j  ...ui , m ) (8c)
j 1

Where, M iP is the plastic moment of resistance of the stiffest beam of the i th level framing. Since the
pre-assigned uniformity ratios u0, j  ...  ui , j ...  um, j are constant for all “i”, then dividing Equations (8a)
and (8b) by each other, reaffirms the condition of uniform strength at incipient collapse, i.e.,
M iP  ( M iAP / M mAP ) M mP (8d)

Figure 3. Progression of Plasticity in Moment Frame of Uniform Response.

1 2 1

1 2 1
1 2 1

(3a ) Stage  1 ( 3a ) Stage  2

2 1 3 2 1 3 4

2 1 3 2 1 3 4

2 1 3 2 1 3 4

( 3 a ) Stage  3 ( 3 a ) Stage  4

Equation (8d) can be used to compute the plastic moments of resistance of beams of any level “i” in
terms of plastic moments of resistance of the uppermost level beams. For the MFUR of the preceding
example this gives; M 0P  4.5M P , M 1P  7 M P , M 2P  3.5M P and M 3P  M P . Substituting
n
M mAP  F P h / 2 and  (ui , j  1)  n in Equation (8c) yields; F P h / 2  2nM P or F P  4nM P / h, a
j 1

result already established using Equation (8a) above. This result implies that:
The ultimate load carrying capacity of an ( m  n) MFUR with moment resisting grade beams
under lateral loading of apex value F P is M P  F P h / 4n.
In physical terms, the plastic failure load of MFUR with moment resisting grade beams is
independent of the number of stories and the distribution profile of the lateral forces. Equation (7a) can
now be used to establish the first, r = 1, increment of loading that causes formation of the first set of
plastic hinges in the beams of the stiffest bay of the structure. Since the plastic hinges of the beams of
any bay “j” form simultaneously, it would suffice to first study the distribution of moments of any
level “i” and then extend the results to beams of other bays by simple proportioning as indicated by
Equation (8d), i.e.,
1M mA,1km, s 1
1M B.m, s 1  n (9a)
2 fCR.m,1   rs 1km, r
r 1
Buildings 2012, 2 117

Substituting for 1MmA,s 1  1Vm,s1hm / 2  1Fm,s 1hm  1Fm,1h , 1M B.m, s 1  M P and  rs 1   r11 0  1
in Equation (9a) after some rearrangement, it gives the amount of force needed to produce the first set
of plastic hinges in the stiffest beam of the mth level:
4M p n
1Fm,1  f CR.m,1  km, r (9b)
km,1hm r 1

Now bearing in mind that by virtue of Equation (7a) moments generated in the x th beam (x > s) of
any level can be expressed in terms of the maximum moments of the stiffest beam of that level i.e.,
 s M B.m, s  x  (km, s  x / km, s ) M iP and that the sequence of formation of the plastic hinges of any level is
the same as the sequence of decreasing values of stiffnesses of the beams of the same floor, then the
plastic moment of resistance of the stiffest element s = 1 and moment of resistance of the next stiffest
element s = 2 can be computed as M P and (km, s  2 / km, s 1 ) M p  M P respectively. Therefore, the
balance of bending moment needed to elevate the moment of resistance of beam s = 2 to M p can be
computed as [1  (km, s  2 / km, s 1 )]M p , whence the amount of additional force required to generate
plastic hinges at the ends of the next stiffest beam may be generalized as:
4M p k n
 s Fm, s  fCR.m, s (1  m, s )   rs 1km, r (9c)
km, s hm km, s 1 r 1

Since the sum of the incremental forces  s Fm, s should add up to the ultimate load FmP  F P ,then
summing both sides of Equation (9c) over all “n” iterations gives:
n n 4M P k n
  s Fm, s   fCR.m, s (1  m, s )   rs 1km, r (9d)
s 1 s 1 km , s hm km, s 1 r 1
n 1 1 n n
Substituting for  (  )   rs 1km, r  n,   s Fm, s  FmP  F P and fCR.m, s  1 in Equation
s 1 km, s km, s 1 r 1 s 1

(9d) leads to the previously established solution; F P  4nM P / h .

Equations (5e) and (9c) indicate that each stage of propagation of plastic hinges characterized by
s = 1, 2…, n may be construed as a target design point or a state of stable damage with respect to fully
elastic or fully plastic conditions of the structure. The final stage also represents a minimum weight,
unique [8] state of plastic design since it satisfies the prescribed yield criteria, and static equilibrium as
well as the selected boundary support conditions at incipient collapse. This implies that the proposed
scheme also provides an envelope of several initial designs within which member sizes could be
rearranged for any purpose while observing the prescribed performance conditions.

4.1. Demonstrative Example II

Use Equations (9c) and (5e) to study the nonlinear behavior of the MFUR of the previous example
and compute the total internal energy of the system in terms of the drift function  . Given;
k3, s 1  I / L, k3, s  2  0.8I / L, k3, s 3  0.6667 I / L, k3, s  4  0.5714 I / L, J = 1.2I, smax .  n  4 ,
V3, s  F3, s , h = L and Pi , j  0. Hence from Equation (9c):
Buildings 2012, 2 118

4M p k n4
 s F3, s  (1  3, s )   rs 1k3, r (10a)
k3, s h3 k3, s 1 r 1

In other words:
1F3,1  (4M P / h)1.00  (1  0.0000)[1.0  0.8  0.6667  0.5714]  12.1524M P / h.

 2 F3, 2  (4M P / h)1.25  (1  0.8000)[0.0  0.8  0.6667  0.5714]  2.0381M P / h.

(10b)
 3 F3,3  (4M P / h)1.50  (1  0.8334)[0.0  0.0  0.6667  0.5714]  1.2376M P / h.

 4 F3, 4  (4M P / h)1.75  (1  0.8571)[0.0  0.0  0.0000  0.5714]  0.5717 M P / h.

Therefore, F1  12.1524M p / h, F2  14.1905M p / h, F3  15.4281M p / h , and as expected

n
F4    s F3, s  F P  16M P / h , reconfirms the validity of the failure load formula F P  4nM P / h.
s 1

It is instructive to note that because of the particular sequence of formation of plastic hinges, all
columns remain intact up to and including completion of stage two, i.e.,  j  1 for s = 1 and s = 2.
After culmination of stage two, first columns j = 0 and j = 1 together at the beginning of s = 3, next
columns j = 2 at the end of s = 3, then columns j = 3 and j = 4 after culmination of s = 4 lose their
stiffness, due to formation of plastic hinges at their adjoining beam ends. Equation (5e) for drift
increment becomes:
 
F h  1 1 
 s3,s  3, s  n  n4  (11a)
12 E 
 j (9.6 I / L)   r k m, s 
s 1
 j
0 r 1


Or in numerical terms:
F3,1hL  1 1  12.1524  0.0361M P L M PL
13,1   =  0 . 4388
12 EI  9.6 3.0381 EI EI
P
F hL  1 1  2.0381  0.0496M L M PL
 23, 2  3, 2   =  0 .1010
12 EI  9.6 2.0381 EI EI
(11b)
F hL  1 1  1.2376  0.0812M P L M PL
 33,3  3,3   =  0.1005
12 EI  6.0 1.2381 EI EI
F3, 4 hL  1 1  0.5714  0.1632M P L M PL
 43, 4   =  0.0933
12 EI  4.8 0.5714  EI EI

Therefore; 1  Y  0.4388( M P L / EI ), 2  0.5398( M P L / EI ), 3  0.6403( M P L / EI ) and

4    0.7336( M L / EI ). The combined numerical results of groups of Equations (10b) and (11b),
P P

are presented in Figure (4) as the nonlinear load-displacement relationship of the subject MFUR.
Equations (5c) and (9e) together provide useful design information that neither elastic nor plastic
methods of analysis can offer on their own, for instance the maximum lateral displacement of the
example frame at first yield and incipient collapse can be estimated as:
Y .  3,1  0.4388( FhL/16EI )  3.75h  Fh2 L / 9.72EI
Buildings 2012, 2 119

and
P  3,4  0.7336( FhL/16EI )  3.75h  Fh2 L / 5.82EI

respectively. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the sequences of formations of plastic hinges could
be controlled by selecting the relative stiffness of groups of similar beams in accordance with certain
target decisions.

Figure 4. Load-Displacement relationship, Demonstrative Example II.

16
F  MP /h

12 Incipient
Collapse
8 U
4
m,s  M PhL/ EI
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

5. Energy Computations For MFUR

The total accumulative internal energy of any stable structural system due to elastic-plastic
deformations of its constituent elements at any response stage can be computed as:
m s
U s    (Fi , r 1  Fi , r ) ri , r / 2 (12a)
i 1 r 1

However, since in MFUR the drift ratio s is constant, it would suffice to compute the internal
energy of any representative level, such as that of the mth level, and then compute the rest by simple
proportioning. The energy Equation corresponding to level “m” may be computed as:
s s
U m, s  U m, r   (Fm, r 1  Fm, r ) rm, r / 2 (12b)
r 1 r 1

Furthermore, since the ratio of internal energies of any two stories is the same as the ratio of
average racking moments of the same two stories, i.e., U i , s  ( M iA, s / M mA, s )U m, s , then the total energy
of the system may be expressed as:
m n
U s   (U m, s / M mA, s ) M iA, s  (U m, s / M mA, s )  M iR, s (12c)
i 1 i 1

Recalling that the sum of the average racking moments is equal to the sum of the story racking
m n
moments as well as the global overturning moment, i.e.,  M iA, s   M iR, s  M O , s , then Equation (12c)
i 1 i 1

reduces to its most practical form:

U s  (U m, s / M mR, a ) M O , s (12d)

Equation (12d) implies that:

Buildings 2012, 2 120

The ratio of total internal energy of MFUR to that of anyone of its levels, such as the roof, is
equal to the ratio of the global overturning moment to the overturning moment of that (roof) Level.
A proof of the validity of this statement is presented in Appendix I. The energy quantity U m, 4
for the preceding example can be worked out via Equation (12b) or as the total area under the
force-displacement (push-over) curve of Figure 4, i.e., U m, 4  6.9512 [(M P ) 2 L / EI ] . Equation (12d)
can then be used to compute the total internal energy of the entire system as;
U 4  (8Fh / Fh)U m  55.6096 [(M P ) 2 L / EI ] , or in terms of ultimate values; 4   P and F4  F P at
incipient collapse as; U 4  (55.6096 / 0.7386  16) F P h P  4.7057 F P h P . U 4 can also be looked upon
as an indication of the capacity of the structure to absorb external energy.

5.1.1. Stiffness Degradation

An understanding of the rate and sequence of degradation of story level stiffnesses  s K i , s , is a priori
to estimating the momentary periods,  sTs , of vibrations of the system at any response stage “s”.
Progressive plasticity tends to degrade the global stiffness and modify the dynamic characteristics of
statically indeterminate structures under monotonically increasing lateral forces. The effects of
stiffness degradation are more pronounced in MFUR since many members of similar characteristics
either, fail, become inactive or develop plastic hinges simultaneously. The natural period of vibration
of each stage of global loss of stiffness increases with advancing stages of loading until the structure
ceases to resist external forces. As the rate of degradation of global stiffness is a function of increasing
number of plastic hinges, Equations (5d) and (5e) may be rearranged to assess the gradual loss of
global stiffness in terms of sequential formation of plastic hinges.
To demonstrate the use of Equations (5d) and (5e), consider the long hand stiffness analysis of the
3rd story of the MFUR of example I for all four stages of response. The results of this rather
cumbersome exercise for fCR.m, s  1 may be summarized as; K 3,1  27.70 K 0 , K 3, 2  20.17 K 0 ,
K 3,3  12.31 K 0 and K 3, 4  7.80 K 0 , where K 0  EI / Lh 2 . However, since in MFUR the distribution of
story level stiffness is also a function of the story level shears, it would be reasonable to seek a simpler
method of computing for the story level stiffnesses in terms of shear force ratios at different stages of
loading, i.e.,
( s K i , s / K m, s )  ( sVs ,i /  sVm, s )  (hm / hi ) (13a)
A derivation of Equation (13a) is presented in the Appendix II. This Equation implies that:
The ratio of stiffness of any two floors of an MFUR is proportional to the ratio of shear forces of
the two levels multiplied by the inverse ratio of their heights.
The use of Equation (13) can be demonstrated by the following simple computations:
K1,1  (3F / F )(h / 1.5h) K m,1  55.40 K 0 , K 2,1  (2 F / F )(h / 1.25h) K m  44.32 K 0 , etc.

To further illustrate the applications of the proposed solutions consider the deterioration of the story
level stiffnesses of the example frame at all four stages of loading. Since changes in the global drift
angle are influenced directly by degradation of story level stiffnesses, then the story level stiffness of
Buildings 2012, 2 121

any response stage can be associated with the drift angle of the same stage. Therefore, the results of
group of Equations (11b) can be used to compute all K i , s by simple, numerical proportioning e.g.,

K 3,1  27.70 K 0 K 3, 2  20.17 K 0 K 3,3  12.31K 0 K 3, 4  7.80 K 0

K 2,1  44.32 K 0 K 2, 2  32.27 K 0 K 2,3  19.70 K 0 K 2, 4  12.48K 0 (13b)
K1,1  55.40 K 0 K1, 2  40.34 K 0 K1,3  24.62 K 0 K1, 4  15.60 K 0

This set of numbers complete the stiffness degradation matrix of the subject example frame.

5.1.2. Period Analysis

The dynamically induced seismic forces of MFUR are highly sensitive to variations in the
fundamental period of vibrations as well as the shape and magnitude of the pre-assigned drift profile.
Both of these issues are briefly discussed in this section. The period analysis presented herein is based
on the following basic assumptions:
1. The normalized displacement function  i , s  hi / H remains unchanged throughout the loading
history of the structure. In other words, loss of stiffness changes only the magnitude of lateral
displacements, but not the deformed shape  ss  hi of the system.
2. The lateral displacement profile of the frame is a function of the single variable s for all stages
of loading, i.e., all displacement profiles  s i , s   ss  hi follow the same linear shape function as
their normalized displacement function  i , s   s  hi / H .
3. Dominant mode shapes remain unchanged during formation of plastic hinges and that the
coupling of modes in the inelastic range can be neglected.
4. The first mode of the first un-degraded stage is the most dominant mode of all response stages and
that the first mode of each stage is the dominant mode of that stage.
The fundamental period of vibrations of any stable MFUR corresponding to any particular response
stage can be expressed as:  sTs  Ts  2 M s /  s K s  , where, the generalized stiffness and mass of
the s th response stage are defined as:
m  m
 s K s    s K i , s  (  i ) 2 and M    M i  i2 respectively (14a)
i 1 h i i 1

m m
Assuming Mi  M  W / g and substituting   s Ki , s ( s K m, s hm /  sVm, s )  ( sVi , s / hi ) and
i 1 i 1

(  i ) 2  (hi  hi 1 / H ) 2  (hi / H ) 2 in Equation (14a) gives;
hi
1/ 2
 m    K m  V h  
Ts  2   M i  hi 2  / ( s m,s )  ( s i ,s )( i ) 2   (14b)
i 1    sVm,s i 1 hi H  

Observing that the normalized displacement function is independent of sequence of formation of

m m
plastic hinges, and that the term M    M  hi 2 and the ratio (hm /  sVm, s )  ( sVi , s / hi ) are constant
i 1 i 1
for all “s”, then Ts can be expressed in terms of the single variable, K m, s , i.e.,
 Buildings 2012, 2 122

Ts  C M / K m, s (14c)

Where, C is a numerical constant. Equation (14c) indicates that MFUR can be treated as single degree
of freedom (SDOF) systems for all “s”, and all practical purposes. Since both C and M are
independent of “s”, once the fundamental period of vibrations of the un-degraded structure, T1 , is
determined the corresponding values for each degraded stage can be worked out through
simple proportioning,
Ts  T1 ( K m,1 / K m, s ) (14d)

To demonstrate the applications of Equations (14b) and (14d), consider the variations of
fundamental period of vibrations of the example frame with respect to changes in the global stiffness
of the structure. Equation (14b) gives:
1
 (1.52  2.752  3.752 )M   27.07K0 11  2 1.25  3 1.5)   2
T1  2  /
  ( )( )12.1524  , or T1  2.06 M / K0 .
 3.752   12.1524 3.752

Equation (14d) can now be used to determine T2, T3 and T4 as:

T2  T1 27.70 / 20.17  1.17T1 , T3  T1 27.70 / 12.31  1.50T1

and
T4  T1 27.70 / 7.80  1.89T1.

The elongation of the natural period of vibrations is associated with the loss of global stiffness.
Degradation of the stiffness reduces the rate of change of demand as well as the reserve capacity of the
remaining (intact) structure. As the reserve capacity and the rate of change of demand diminish, the
structure becomes softer until it fails through a collapse mechanism.

5.1.3. Energy Equivalency

Since by virtue of (  m /  m  H / hm ), the global stiffness of the structure is in direct proportion

with each story level stiffness, and that by definition, Equation (1a), the lateral displacements are a
function of the single variable s for all “s” then MFUR may be looked upon as SDOF systems for all
practical purposes.
In short; MFUR may be treated as statically determinate, SDOF structures.
This implies that Equation (12d) can be used in conjunction with Housner’s [9] equal energy
concept for SDOF structures in order to formulate the demand-capacity relationship of the subject
frame in terms of its seismic shears and the corresponding internal energy generated within the
structure at any response stage “s”, i.e.,
2
  Q  Ts 
  S a g   U s  (U m, s / M mR, s ) M O , s (15)
2  g  2 
Buildings 2012, 2 123

S a and   (2S  1) / R2 are the spectral acceleration and the energy equivalency factors
respectively [10].  S   m, s /  m, s 1 and Rμ are defined as the period dependant ductility and ductility
reduction factors respectively. If the quantity U s is interpreted as the seismic capacity of the structure,
then the right hand side of Equation (15), may be looked upon as the seismic demand or equivalent
total dynamic input energy of the system.

5.2. Demonstrative Example III

Compute the base shear of the moment frame of example I subjected to seismically induced lateral
forces of uniform intensity F at first yield, s = 1, and at incipient collapse, s = 4, in terms of the
following design data;
Prescribed design drift ratios Y  0.01 and  p  0.02 radians, total structural self weigh Q = 3W
and un- medium degraded range fundamental period of vibrations, Ts 1  S D1 / S a , where, S D1 is the
site specific design spectral response acceleration parameter. Substituting for the corresponding
quantities and the total internal energies U1  U Y  4.00 FY hY at first yield and
U 4  U P  4.7057 F P h P at incipient collapse in Equation (15), and bearing in mind that V  3F ,
it gives:
 gS D2 1  9W
VY   
2 
 2.85gS D2 1W
 0.01h 4  8.00
and
2
 gS D2 1  9W
V P
  
2 
 1.21gS D2 1W
 0 . 02 h 4  9 . 415
respectively.

6. Conclusions

It was shown that SUR in general and MFUR in particular are ideally suited for Performance Based
Elastic-Plastic Design. A number of new, closed form formulae for understanding the response of
MFUR were presented. The proposed methodology lends itself well to controlling the sequential
response of MFUR due to monotonically increasing lateral forces. MFUR approach results in Unique
Minimum Weight solutions for lateral force resisting moment frames designed to perform as intended
at any prescribed response stage. Because of their predetermined characteristics, MFUR can be treated
as statically determinate, SDOF structures ideally suited for energy equivalency analysis. It was
demonstrated through simple parametric examples that the proposed procedures provide useful design
information that neither elastic nor plastic methods of analysis can offer on their own. Furthermore, it
was shown that the sequences of formations of plastic hinges could be controlled by selecting the
relative stiffness of groups of similar beams in accordance with predetermined performance objectives.
The more significant theoretical aspects of MFUR were summarized in the following statements:
 In MFUR selected groups of beams and columns share the same drift and Demand-capacity
ratios.
Buildings 2012, 2 124

 The ultimate load carrying capacity of an ( m  n) MFUR with moment resisting grade beams
under lateral loading of apex value F P is M P  F P h / 4n.
 The ratio of total internal energy of MFUR to that of anyone of its levels, such as the roof, is
equal to the ratio of the global overturning moment to the overturning moment of that (roof) level.
 The ratio of stiffness of any two floors of an MFUR is proportional to the ratio of shear forces
of the two levels multiplied by the inverse ratio of their heights.
 MFUR may be treated as statically determinate, SDOF structures.
Most importantly, the proposed formulations may help engineers gain insight into structural
behavior of lateral load resisting SUR and lend themselves well to manual as well as
spreadsheet computations.
In closing it should be emphasized that the presented approach may be used for the preliminary
economical performance based design of lateral force resisting moment frames. The final design may
need to be checked and verified using an appropriate inelastic dynamic or static analysis.

References

1. Goel, S.C.; Liao, W.; Bayat, M.R.; Chao, S. Performance-based plastic design method for earthquake
resistant structures. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2010, 19, 115–137.
2. Mazzolani, F.; Pilosu, V. Theory and Design of Seismic Resisting Moment Frames; Taylor &
Francis: Oxford, UK, 1996.
3. Grigorian, M.; Grigorian, C. Performance control for seismic design of moment frames.
J. Construct. Steel Res. 2011, 67, 1106–1114.
4. Grigorian, M.; Grigorian, C. Recent developments in plastic design analysis of steel moment
frames. J. Construct. Steel Res. 2012, in press.
5. Grigorian, M. On the lateral response of regular high-rise frames. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build.
1993, 2, 233–252.
6. Grigorian, M.; Grigorian, C. Preliminary minimum weight design of moment frames under lateral
loading. AISC Eng. J. 1988, 25, 129-136.
7. Beedle, L.S. Plastic Design of Steel Frames; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1985.
8. Neal, B.G. The Plastic Methods of Structural Analysis; Chapman & Hall Ltd.: London, UK, 1963.
9. Housner, G.W. Limit Design of Structures to Resist Earthquakes. In Proceedings of the 1st World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1956; Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute (EERI): Berkeley, CA, USA, 1956.
10. Chopra, A.K.; Goel, R.K. Capacity-demand diagram methods for estimating seismic deformations
of inelastic structures. Earthq. Spectra 1999, 15, 637–655.

Appendix I

In order to verify the validity of the total internal energy expression, U  (U m / M mR ) M O , consider
the ratio of internal energy of any level “i” to that of the roof level “m”, i.e.,
(U i / U m )  (Vi / Vm ) 2 ( K m / K i ) (16a)
Buildings 2012, 2 125

However, since the drift ratio is constant, i.e., i  m , then ( K m / K i )  (Vm / Vi )(hi / hm ). Substituting
for ( K m / K i ) in Equation (16a), it gives (U i / U m )  (Vi hi / Fm hm )  ( M iR / M mR ). The total internal
energy of the system may also be computed as the sum of internal energies of the “m” individual
levels, i.e.,
m m
U   U i  (U m / M mR )  M iR  (U m / M mR ) M O (16b)
i 1 i 1

Appendix II

The local Force- displacement relationship of any story level “i” can be expressed in terms of its local
drift angle as  i , s  i , s hi  Vi , s / K i , s , and for the roof level as  m, s  m, s hi  Vm, s / K m, s . Observing that
by definition, i , s  m, s , then the division (  i , s /  m, s ) gives; ( K i / K m )  (Vi  hm / Vm  hi ).

© 2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).