KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1733–1746 | Cite as

Seismic Fragility Assessment of SMRFs with Drilled Flange Connections using Ground Motion Variability

  • Mehdi Maleki
  • Roohollah Ahmady Jazany
  • Mohammad Soheil GhobadiEmail author
Structural Engineering


Seismic behavior of Steel Moment Resisting Frames (SMRFs) with Drilled Flange (DF) connections as well as Reduced Beam Section (RBS) and Welded Unreinforced Flange-Bolted web (WUF-B) as a Pre-Northridge connection have been compared analytically considering Far-field earthquake-induced. The backbone curves of RBS and WUF connections are extracted from available studies and the backbone curve of DF connection is presented in this study in order to simulating the buildings models. DF, RBS, WUF connections and Panel Zone (PZ) are numerically modeled based on the proposed models provided by the prior researches and these models are applied to analyze low- and high-rise buildings designed in accordance with the relevant standards. Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) process is utilized to evaluate the effects of DF connection on structural seismic response of SMRFs. Afterwards, the structures’ performance in different response levels is probabilistically assessed by means of IDA and fragility curves. The results show that the seismic demand of SMRFs with DF and RBS connections are so similar, specifically for low-rise buildings. Likewise, SMRFs with DF connection provide up to 43% higher seismic demand in high-rise buildings compared to RBS connection. Eventually, DF connection can be used as an authentic option in SMRFs.


Drilled Flange (DF) connections Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) Pre-Northridge Welded Unreinforced Flange (WUF) Reduced Beam Section (RBS) fragility curves 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AISC (2005). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 341, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  2. AISC (2010a). Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames for seismic applications, ANSI/AISC 358, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  3. AISC (2010b). Specification for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 360, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  4. ANSYS (1998). User’s manual, Version 5.4, ANSYS Inc., Houston, TX, USA.Google Scholar
  5. ASCE (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ASCE (2013). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings, ASCE/SEI 41, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Atashzaban, A., Hajirasouliha, I., Jazany, R. A., and Izadinia, M. (2015). “Optimum drilled flange moment resisting connections for seismic regions.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 112, pp. 325–338, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.05.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deylami, A. and Tabar, A. M. (2013). “Promotion of cyclic behavior of reduced beam section connections restraining beam web to local buckling.” Thin–Walled Structures, vol. 73, pp. 112–120, DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2013.07.013.Google Scholar
  9. FEMA (2000a). Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment–frame buildings, FEMA 350, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  10. FEMA (2000b). State of the art report on connection performance, FEMA 355D, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  11. FEMA (2009). Quantification of building seismic performance factors, FEMA P–695, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Han, S. W., Kwon, G. U., and Moon, K. H. (2007). “Cyclic behavior of post–Northridge WUF–B connections.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 365–374, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haselton, C. B., Liel, A. B., and Deierlein, G. G. (2009). “Simulating structural collapse due to earthquakes: model idealization, model calibration, and numerical solution algorithms.” Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COMPDYN).Google Scholar
  14. Ibarra, L. F. and Krawinkler, H. (2005). “Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations.” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Ibarra, L. F., Medina, R. A., and Krawinkler, H. (2005). “Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 1489–1511, DOI: 10.1002/eqe.495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IBC (2006). International building code, International Code Council, Birmingham, AL, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Jalali, S. A., Banazadeh, M., Tafakori, E., and Abolmaali, A. (2011). “Seismic performance assessment of steel moment frames with generic Locally Reinforced connections.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 1261–1271, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jazany, R. A. (2018). “Improved design of Drilled Flange (DF) moment resisting connection for seismic regions.” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1987–2020, DOI: 10.1007/s10518–017–0265–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krawinkler, H. (2000). State of the art report on systems performance of moment steel frame buildings in earthquakes, FEMA 355C, FEMA, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, S. J., Han, S. E., Noh, S. Y., and Shin, S. W. (2007). “Deformation capacity of reduced beam section moment connection by staggered holes.” International Conference on Sustainable Building, Seoul, Korea, June.Google Scholar
  21. Liel, A. B., Haselton, C. B., Deierlein, G. G., and Baker, J. W. (2009). “Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings.” Structural Safety, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 197–211, DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lignos, D. (2008). Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations, PhD Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  23. McKenna, F., Fenves, G. L., and Scott, M. H. (2000). Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Moon, K. H., Han, S. W., Santini, A., and Moraci, N. (2008). “Seismic performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frames with WUF–B connections.” AIP Conference Proceedings, Japan.Google Scholar
  25. Park, H. S., Choi, B. H., Kim, J. J., and Lee, T. H. (2016). “Seismic performance evaluation of high voltage transmission towers in South Korea.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 2499–2505, DOI: 10.1007/s12205–015–0723–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Petrone, C., Di Sarno, L., Magliulo, G., and Cosenza, E. (2017). “Numerical modelling and fragility assessment of typical freestanding building contents.” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1609–1633, DOI: 10.1007/s10518–016–0034–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Porter, K., Hamburger, R., and Kennedy, R. (2007). “Practical development and application of fragility functions.” Proc. of SEI Structures Congress, Long Beach, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  28. SAC (1996). Experimental investigations of beam column sub–assemblages, Report SAC–96–01, Part 1 and 2, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Shaikh, A. F. (1978). “Proposed revision to shear–friction provision.” PCI Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 12–21.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. Simon, J. and Vigh, L. G. (2016). “Seismic fragility assessment of integral precast multi–span bridges in areas of moderate seismicity.” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 3125–3150, DOI: 10.1007/s10518–016–9947–y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tsai, K. C. and Chen, C. Y. (1996). “Performance of ductile steel beamcolumn moment connections.” 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.Google Scholar
  32. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C. A. (2002). “Incremental dynamic analysis.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 491–514. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vetr, M. and Haddad, A. (2010). Study of drilled flange connection in moment resisting frames, Report No. 3732, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran, Iran.Google Scholar
  34. Vetr, M., Miri, M., and Haddad, A. (2012). “Seismic behavior of a new reduced beam section connection by drilled holes arrangement (RBS_DHA) on the beam flanges through experimental studies.” 15 th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehdi Maleki
    • 1
  • Roohollah Ahmady Jazany
    • 2
  • Mohammad Soheil Ghobadi
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Dept. of Civil Engineering, West Tehran BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Dept. of Civil Engineering, East Tehran BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  3. 3.Dept. of Civil EngineeringImam Khomeini International UniversityQazvinIran

Personalised recommendations