International Journal of Steel Structures

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 224–240 | Cite as

Probabilistic Seismic Assessment of SMFs with Drilled Flange Connections Subjected to Near-Field Ground Motions

  • M. Maleki
  • R. Ahmady Jazany
  • M. S. GhobadiEmail author


This paper aims to probabilistically evaluate the influences of drilled flange (DF) connection on seismic performance of steel moment frames (SMFs) incorporating near-field ground motions. Meanwhile, reduce beam section (RBS) connection as a prequalified connection and pre-Northridge welded unreinforced flange (WUF) connection were compared with DF connection. To model accurately the components of RBS and WUF connections and panel zone in SMFs, the proposed models of former researches were utilized. However, to simulate all DF connections the hinge properties were extracted from experimentally validated finite element models. Two sample low- and high-rise buildings were designed based on valid codes and simulated by OpenSees platform in order to study the nonlinear performance of aforementioned connections. Incremental dynamic analysis process was carried out to assess comprehensively the effect of DF connection on structural response and probability of structural instability for various intensity of seismic loads. Then, the seismic risk for Collapse Prevention and immediate occupancy limit states were calculated by fragility analysis. Also, seismic demand hazard curves for the sample buildings were extracted. The results of this study indicated that DF connections provided acceptable seismic performance as well as RBS connections in low- and high-rise buildings.


Drilled flange (DF) connections Near-field records sets Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) Reduced beam section (RBS) connections Pre-Northridge welded unreinforced flange (WUF) connections Seismic demand hazard curves Fragility curves 



Special thanks to Dr. S. H. Rahmati and Dr. M. S. Mehrparvar for all their sincere cooperation during this research.


  1. AISC 341. (2005). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago, Illinois: AISC.Google Scholar
  2. AISC 358. (2016). Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames for seismic applications. Chicago, Illinois: AISC.Google Scholar
  3. AISC 360. (2005). Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago, Illinois: AISC.Google Scholar
  4. ANSYS. (1998). User’s manual, version 5.4. 201. Johnson Road, Houston: ANSYS Inc.Google Scholar
  5. ASCE/SEI 7. (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  6. ASCE/SEI 41. (2013). Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  7. Atashzaban, A., Hajirasouliha, I., Jazany, R. A., & Izadinia, M. (2015). Optimum drilled flange moment resisting connections for seismic regions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 112, 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ATC 24. (1992). Guidelines for cyclic seismic testing of components of steel structures. Redwood City, California: Applied Technology Council.Google Scholar
  9. Chi, B., & Uang, C. M. (2002). Cyclic response and design recommendations of reduced beam section moment connections with deep columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(4), 464–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deylami, A., & Tabar, A. M. (2013). Promotion of cyclic behavior of reduced beam section connections restraining beam web to local buckling. Thin-Walled Structures, 73, 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engelhardt, M. D., Fry, G., Jones, S., Venti, M., & Holliday, S. (2000). Behavior and design of radius cut reduced beam section connections. Rep. No. SAC/BD-00, 17.Google Scholar
  12. Farrokhi, H., Danesh, F., & Eshghi, S. (2009). A modified moment resisting connection for ductile steel frames (Numerical and experimental investigation). Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(10), 2040–2049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FEMA 276. (1997). Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings: Example applications. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
  14. FEMA 355D. (2000). State of the art report on connection performance. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
  15. FEMA 356. (2000). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
  16. FEMA P695. (2009). recommended methodology for quantification of building system performance and response parameters. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
  17. Han, S. W., Kwon, G. U., & Moon, K. H. (2007). Cyclic behaviour of post-Northridge WUF-B connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 63(3), 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ibarra, L. F., & Krawinkler, H. (2005). Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.Google Scholar
  19. Ibarra, L. F., Medina, R. A., & Krawinkler, H. (2005). Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(12), 1489–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IBC. (2006). International building code. Birmingham, AL: International Code Council.Google Scholar
  21. Kai, R., Su, L., & Lee, C. L. (2013). Development of seismic fragility curves for low-rise masonry infilled reinforced concrete buildings by a coefficient-based method. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 12(2), 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krawinkler, H. (2000). State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subject to earthquake ground shaking. Prepared for the SAC Joint Venture, Published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-355 C, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Le-Trung, K., Lee, K., Lee, J., & Lee, D. H. (2010). Seismic demand evaluation of steel MRF buildings with simple and detailed connection models. International Journal of Steel Structures, 10(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liel, A. B., Haselton, C. B., Deierlein, G. G., & Baker, J. W. (2009). Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings. Structural Safety, 31(2), 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lignos, D. G. (2008). Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations. ProQuest.Google Scholar
  26. McKenna, F., Fenves, G. L., & Scott, M. H. (2000). Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  27. Moon, K. H., & Han, S. W. (2008). Seismic performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frames with WUF-B connections. In AIP conference proceedings (Vol. 1020, No. 1, pp. 1871–1878). AIP.Google Scholar
  28. Porter, K. A. (2003). An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In Proceedings of ninth international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering.Google Scholar
  29. Porter, K., Hamburger, R., & Kennedy, R. (2007). Practical development and application of fragility functions. In Structural engineering research frontiers (pp. 1–16).Google Scholar
  30. United States Geological Survey (USGS). US design maps. U.S. geological survey. Accessed 17 June 2018.
  31. Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Veismoradi, S., Amiri, G. G., & Darvishan, E. (2016). Probabilistic seismic assessment of buckling restrained braces and yielding brace systems. International Journal of Steel Structures, 3(16), 831–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vetr, M., & 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., & 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. In 15th world conference of earthquake engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  35. Vetr, M. G., Nouri, A. R., & Kalantari, A. (2016). Seismic evaluation of rocking structures through performance assessment and fragility analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 15(1), 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, West Tehran BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, East Tehran BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  3. 3.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and TechnologyImam Khomeini International UniversityQazvinIran

Personalised recommendations