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

net/publication/277990091

Effect of Interstorey Drift Limits on High Ductility in Seismic Design of Steel

Moment Resisting Frames

Article · February 2015

CITATION READS

1 542

1 author:

Muhammad Tayyab Naqash

Islamic University of Medina
36 PUBLICATIONS   117 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

DoR 11/50 IUM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Tayyab Naqash on 10 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Pak. J. Engg. & Appl. Sci. Vol. 16, Jan., 2015 (p. 133–142)

Effect of Interstorey Drift Limits on High Ductility in Seismic

Design of Steel Moment Resisting Frames
Muhammad Tayyab Naqash1
Civil Engineering Department, IQRA National University,
Phase-II, Hayatabad, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhawa, Pakistan.
Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract
The current research activity deals with the seismic design of perimeter steel moment resisting
frames of 9, 7and 5 storeys with several span lengths(9.15m, 7.63m, 6.54m and 5.08m) using
Eurocode 8. In total 24 cases are designed and analysed using Ductility Class High(DCH) having
behaviour factor equals 6.5. In order to shed light on the drift limitations of Eurocode 8, the designed
frames are then checked by means of iteration to investigate the optimal behaviour factor. The
evaluated behaviour factor is then compared with the code provided behaviour factor and with the
evaluated ductility factor of frames, obtained through the use of static nonlinear analysis. Hence the
influence of drift criteria on the capacity design rules of Eurocode 8 is investigated. The frame
performances are measured in terms of over strength and redundancy factors, strength demand to
capacity and drift demand to capacity ratios allowing to the point highlighted conclusions.
Key Words: Moment Resisting Frames, High Ductility Class, Drift Limits, Eurocode

and non-dissipative zones are generally defined by

1. Introduction the codes; while non-dissipative zones should remain
Moment resisting frames are designed to resist in the elastic field, the dissipative ones should
seismic forces on the hypothesis that they are capable experience large inelastic deformation. To control
of extensive yielding without significant loss of such a global structural behaviour, codes give the so-
strength. In order to check performance of structures, called criterion of capacity design, firstly initiated in
various types of analyses can be performed. In this 1980’s in New Zealand. In particular, Paulay and
regard the actual structural response can be attained Priestley[4] proposed “Strong Column and Weak
with the use of time history analyses, which are Beam” concept in the design of moment resisting
generally are practical for design purpose. Since they frames thereby suggesting of providing reduce
are found cumbersome with numerous outcomes, stiffness of beams compared to columns. In capacity
nevertheless such practices are useful for analyses design then on-dissipative members are designed for
and research purposes. Contrarily, the code specified comparatively higher seismic forces than the
method “force based design” which is based on static dissipative members. Further, dissipative members
linear analysis is simplified approach but it is quite are kept at such locations to oblige them to fail before
conservative. In this context the use of non-linear the brittle members and subsequently protect non-
static, the so-called pushover analyses, are quite ductile elements by overstressing. The selection and
widespread among the designers to check the therefore, the design of dissipative zones are of prime
performance of the structure at the end of the design importance for assurance a suitable collapse
and therefore are widely adopted by the technical mechanism. However, the code procedures are quite
community[1-3]. conventional where limit states (Ultimate and
Serviceability) need to be fulfilled, thus mixing each
One of the prime tasks in designing structures in other and causing unpredictable mechanisms [5]. The
seismic zones is to assure ductility such that un- present research work, which is a continuation of [3,
reliable failures may not occur. For achieving global 6]aims to better recognise the influence of such limit
ductility and avoiding soft story mechanisms “weak states on the capacity design and therefore on the
energy dissipation” of a structural system, dissipative failure mechanisms of steel moment resisting frames.

133
Pak. J. Engg. & Appl. Sci. Vol.16, Jan., 2015

2. The Case Study 2.2 Design Criteria

2.1 Building Description Vertical loads acting on frames are evaluated
according to EC0 [8] and EC1 [9], providing as a
In order to check the applicability of the
result of, a total gravity loading (structural and non-
proposed high ductility class of Eurocode 8 [7], 9, 7
structural) equal to 4.6 kN/m2 for roof and 7.8 kN/m2
and 5-storeys steel moment resisting frames are
for typical floor; these includes imposed load of 0.4
designed using different span configuration (9.15m,
kN/m2 and 3.0 kN/m2 for non-accessible roof and
7.63m, 6.54m and 5.08m). The typical floor plans of
typical floor, respectively. The secondary beams are
the perimeter frames for different bays are shown in
assumed to be simply supported with a bay width of
Figure1a, and elevation of 5-bays frame in
2.29m, oriented in such a way to have an optimized
Figure1b. The inter-storey height is 4.0m, thereby
structural grid. All the secondary beams are designed
giving rise to an overall height of 36.0m, 28.0mand
using S-275 grade steel; these are HEB-220 for roof
20.0m for 9, 7 and 5 storeys frames, respectively. For
and HEB-280 for typical floor. The flooring system is
design purposes, the building is considered to be
composed of COMFLOR-46 [10], using A252 mesh
composed of moment resisting frames as lateral load
and is comprised of 145mm thick concrete slab with
resisting system along the perimeter (perimeter
0.9mm steel sheeting. The masses according to EC8
configuration), therefore a torsional amplification
for perimeter frames at typical floor level are 60061
factor of 1.6 as proposed by EC8 is considered. It is
kg-sec2/m while 50068 kg-sec2/mfor roof.
because; the analysis is performed by using two
planner models and therefore the torsional affect is Based on the provisions of EC3 and EC8, the
determined by doubling the accidental eccentricity. primary beams are designed in order to satisfy both
the ultimate and serviceability limit states using steel
Table 1 Geometrical Parameters for the Analysed grade S-275. In particular primary beams are initially
cases for 9, 7 and 5 Storey Frames designed for gravity loads and then checked with
Description Length reference to the seismic loading condition. The
Label Limit reference frames are designed according to EC8 with
of frame of
5B- 5 Bays Span
9.15 DCH (q=6.5), assuming type C soil stratigraphic
L1
6B- 6 Bays Ls [m]
7.63 profile (dense sand or gravel or stiff soil), important
0.01h class II (γI=1.0), type 1 elastic response spectrum and
L1
7B- 7 Bays 6.55
9B-
L1 9 Bays 5.08 0.25g peak ground acceleration (see Figure 2).
L1
5B- 5 Bays 9.15 2.3 Analysis and Design of Fames
L2
6B- 6 Bays 7.63
L2 0.0075h Firstly, a linear modal dynamic analysis is
7B- 7 Bays 6.55
L2 developed using SAP 2000 [11] for the purpose of
9B- 9 Bays 5.08
seismic design of the frames; then pushover analysis
L2
45.75 - Rigid beam to column connection
9.15 9.15 9.15 9.15 9.15 - Pinned beam to column connection
1 2 3 4 5 6 9
4

8
4

45.75
7
7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63
4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6
4

5
36

45.77 4
6.55 6.54 6.54 6.54 6.54 6.54 6.54
4

3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4

2
4

45.75 1
4

5.08 5.08 5.08 5.08 5.08 5.08 5.08 5.08 5.08

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 1 (left) Typical Floor plan Of Perimeter MRFs

(a) and (right) Perimeter Frame Elevation (b)

134
 Effect of Interstorey Drift Limits on High Ductility in Seismic Design of Steel Moment Resisting Frames

isperformedin order to check the performance of the designed using EN 10025-2 S275 grade structural
frames.The fundamental period of vibration from the steel with the following properties: Adopted steel
codified formulation is found 1.3secfor 9-storeys, grade: EN 10025-2 S275 having unit density (ρ) =
1.03sec for 7-storeys and 0.8 sec for 5-storeys, which 76.9 kN/m3, poissons ratio (ν) = 0.3, modulus of
is lower than the period obtained from the modal elasticity (E in MPa) = 2.10E+05, yield stress (fy in
response spectrum analysis (see Table2). MPa) = 275, ultimate stress (fu in MPa) = 275,
expected yield stress (fye in MPa) = 302.5 and
1.0 Sd [g] Sae [g] expected ultimate stress (fu in MPa) = 473.

0.8 q_1 q-2 3. Non-Linear Analysis

q_3 q_4

0.6
q_5 q_6.5
3.1 General
Static pushover analysis has been carried out
0.4 using FEMA-356[12] recommendations for
evaluating the lateral load resisting performance of
0.2
the frames. For this reason triangular distribution
0.0
T [s] (unit load at roof level) of static incremental loads
0 1 2 3 4
has been applied and the displacement at the roof
level has been controlled. For the ultimate rotation
Fig. 2 Eurocode 8 Design Spectra for Various q capacity of an element, acceptance criteria is defined,
Factors this is represented as IO (Immediate Occupancy), LS
(Life Safety) and CP (Collapse Prevention).FEMA
This is due to the fact that simplified formulae 356 acceptance criteria for non-linear procedure are
given by seismic codes tend to underestimate the adopted here. Mechanical non-linearity of the
fundamental period of vibration, as they are based on members has been assumed to be concentrated in
empirical evaluation, therefore globally accounting plastic hinges at the ends (lumped plasticity) of the
for the stiffening effects of non-structural elements elements. Furthermore, as steel moment resisting
too, e.g. partition walls and in-fills etc. The frames own relatively long period therefore the
connections of the examined frames are assumed “equal displacement rule” is employed to evaluate the
fully rigid, therefore the detail discussions and their so-called common parameters like “over-strength
influences are assumed beyond the scope of the factor”, “ductility factor”, “elastic over-strength” and
current research. All the framing members are “redundancy factor”.

Table 2. Fundamental Period and Design Base Shear

9 storeys 7 storeys 5 storeys
Label T Vd-static T Vd-static T Vd-static
Vd[kN] Vd[kN] Vd[kN]
[sec] [kN] [sec] [kN] [sec] [kN]
5B-L1 2.26 3499 1.84 2719 1.32 2022.0
6B-L1 2.29 3459 1.83 2773 1.28 2286
7B-L1 2.29 3248 1.86 2713 1.23 2323
9B-L1 2.00 3260 1.69 2666 1.30 2250
2654 2576 2448
5B-L2 1.86 3639 1.50 2708 1.05 2302
6B-L2 1.84 3742 1.46 2882 1.05 2509
7B-L2 1.90 3628 1.41 3686 1.02 3819
9B-L2 1.84 3462 1.46 3150 1.00 3243

135
Pak. J. Engg. & Appl. Sci. Vol.16, Jan., 2015

3.2 Pushover Curves displacement (Dt) of the frames. Additionally, in

Figure 3(a, d), Figure 4(a, d) and Figure 5(a, d),Vb is
The obtained structural capacity curves are normalised with respect to Vy(the lateral load
plotted in Figure 3(b, e), Figure4 (b, e) and producing the first plastic hinge) giving rise to
Figure5(b, e)for 9, 7 and 5 storey frames using DCH redundancy factors (  p ) for 9, 7 and 5 storey
in terms of total base shear (Vb) versus top
frames, respectively.

Fig.3 Pushover Curves and Normalised Pushover Curves for 9 Storeys Frames: (a, d) Redundancy Factor, (b, e)
Pushover Curve and (c, f) Global over-strength

Fig.4 Pushover Curves and Normalized Pushover Curves for 7 Storeys Frames: (a, d) Redundancy factor, (b, e)
Pushover Curve and (c, f) Global over-strength

136
 Effect of Interstorey Drift Limits on High Ductility in Seismic Design of Steel Moment Resisting Frames

Finally, in these graphs the total base shear (Vb) The effect of the drift limits L1 (0.01h) andL2
is normalised with respect to Vd(the design base (0.0075h) can also be observed, for instance, the
shear), therefore giving rise to global over strength redundancy factors are in the same range
factors (  EP ) as shown by Figure 3(c, f), Figure 4(c, approximately as expected, the base shear increases
f) and Figure 5(c, f). when drift limit L2 is employed for a corresponding
frame (see Figure 3b for L1 and Figure 3e for L2)
In the normalised graphs the top displacement
and the global over-strength also increases[13, 14].
(Dt) is normalised with 1 (the displacement
corresponding to the first plastic hinge) therefore 3.3 Stiffness and Over-stiffness of the
showing the corresponding ductility of the frames. In Analysed Frames
all these graphs the top row shows graphs for the In this section, stiffness and overstiffness of the
frames when drift limit L1 (0.01h) is employed in the designed frames are reported. It is normal that as the
design with high ductility, whereas the bottom row earthquake forces pushes the structure, the
shows graphs when drift limit L2 (0.0075h) is
redistribution of the seismic forces take place due to
employed in the design. It is evident that as the
the formation of plastic hinges. This redistribution
number of storey increases:
causes the reduction of stiffness of the structures
 The global over-strength decreases, for thereby the ductility of the structure increases. The
example see Figure3c (9 storeys) and Figure reduction in stiffness due the increase in fundamental
4c (7 storeys) in which global over-strength period that accompanies ductile behaviour tends to
is high for 7 storey frame, increase the amount of displacement the structure
 The base shear increases, for example see will experience as it is pushed by earthquake forces.
Figure3b (9 storeys) and Figure 4b (7 The over-stiffness (k) is given by eq (1):
storeys) where slightly high base shear can


be observed in the case of 9 storeys.
k 
 
Vb

 
The redundancy factors remain Velastic
approximately in the same range, for  Limit
example see Figure3a (9 storeys) and Figure (1)
4a (7 storeys).

Fig. 5 Pushover Curves and Normalized Pushover Curves for 5 Storeys Frames: (a, d)
Redundancy Factor, (b, e) Pushover Curve and (c, f) Global over-strength

137
Pak. J. Engg. & Appl. Sci. Vol.16, Jan., 2015

Where Vb is the base shear obtained from related to the damageability limit state) and ∆Limit is
pushover analyses, ∆ is the corresponding the Inter-storey drift limit.
displacement in the push-over, Velastic is the base The stiffness and the over-stiffness of the
shear obtained from modal analyses using the elastic designed frames are shown in Table 3 and are
spectrum reduced by a factor equals 2.0 (that allow illustrated by Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 for 9, 7
for the lower return period of the seismic event and 5 storey frames, respectively.

Table 3 Stiffness and Overstiffness of 9, 7 and 5 Storeys Frames

9 storeys 7 storeys 5 storeys
Label Kelastic Kobtained Kelastic Kobtained Kelastic Kobtained
k k k
[kN/m] [kN/m] [kN/m] [kN/m] [kN/m] [kN/m]
5B-L1 24828.6 27295.4 1.10 23096.4 25565.5 1.11 21410.7 25274.5 1.18
6B-L1 25590.2 28813.7 1.13 24383.5 27385.4 1.12 23526.3 29403.2 1.25
7B-L1 28178.4 31642.8 1.12 26622.4 29285.2 1.10 25033.2 29023.9 1.16
9B-L1 35167.4 45626.2 1.30 32958.1 38410.7 1.17 29809.3 38662.9 1.30
5B-L2 29271.4 30097.7 1.03 27378.6 28264.5 1.03 26589.3 31186.0 1.17
6B-L2 31289.5 33080.1 1.06 29672.9 32881.6 1.11 28150.4 33449.1 1.19
7B-L2 33215.8 34358.5 1.03 33576.8 39202.2 1.17 31634.9 39629.2 1.25
9B-L2 38437.2 41290.9 1.07 36595.3 40454.8 1.11 37674.4 49478.7 1.31

Fig.6. Over-stiffness Factors for 9 Storeys frames: (a)  Limit = 0.01h and (b)  Limit = 0.0075h

Fig. 7. Over-stiffness Factors for 7 Storeys Frames: (a)  Limit = 0.01h and (b)  Limit = 0.0075h

138
 Effect of Interstorey Drift Limits on High Ductility in Seismic Design of Steel Moment Resisting Frames

Fig. 8 Over-stiffness Factors for 5 Storeys Frames: (a)  Limit = 0.01h and (b)  Limit = 0.0075h

The overstiffness for a given frame when its 3.4 Ductility, Redundancy and
around 1.0 shows that the design of the frame is Overstrength Factor
dictated by damageability (drift criteria), instead
In Figure 9, the calculated overstrength from the
when it is greater than 1.0 means that strength
codified formulations (  calc) is shown for all the 24
controls the design. It is clear in the case of 9 story
designed frames. From these graphs, an increasing
frame when sized for drift limit L2 (0.0075h), the
trend can be observed as the No. of storeys of frame
drift governed the design of the frames (see Figure
6b) and hence the assumed ductility (q equals 6.5) is decreases from 9 to 5. Furthermore, overstiffness of
not utilised completely. In order, to see the influences the frames (  k) are also reported which were
of drift limits in the forthcoming sections, the mentioned in the previous section. In addition, elastic
ductility factors are evaluated in this section. Further overstrength (  E ), global overstrength (  EP )
the optimum behaviour factor is evaluated for each demonstrate an increasing trend whereas redundancy
frame by iterations. factor (  P ) for each frame is always constant.
Limit = 0.0075h
6  6  6 Bays
Limit = 0.0075h
5 Bays
Limit = 0.01h
5 5 Limit = 0.01h

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
Ns Ns
0 0
9 7 5 - 9 7 5 9 7 5 - 9 7 5
calc  E E,  (a) calc  E E,  (b)

6  7 Bays 6  9 Bays
Limit = 0.01h Limit = 0.0075h
5 5 Limit = 0.01h Limit = 0.0075h

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
Ns Ns
0 0
9 7 5 - 9 7 5 9 7 5 - 9 7 5
calc  E E,  (c) calc  E E,  (d)

Fig. 9 Over-strength Factors for the Analysed Frames: (a) 5 Bays (b) 6 Bays (c) 7 Bays and (d) 9 Bays

139
Pak. J. Engg. & Appl. Sci. Vol.16, Jan., 2015

From all these parameters the effect of drift These are strictly related to the span of the
limit can be easily observed as all such parameters frames as well as to the drift limitations. From the
except overstiffness of frames increases when the design and analysis of 9 storeys frames, Eq (2) can be
drift limit changes from L1 (0.01h) to L2 (0.0075h). used to illustrate the case.
3.5 Optimum Versus Code Prescribed u
Behaviour Factors qcode  qoptimum and qoptimum  (2)
y
In Figure 10, Figure11 and Figure 12 the
behaviour factors are plotted but it is observed that Therefore, leads to declare that these frames will
the obtained behaviour factor from pushover analysis be suitable if designed with medium ductility (q =
are high from the code specified factor for short span 4.0) rather than 6.5.Similarly for 7 and 5 storey
frames in the cases of both drift limits (L1 and L2). It frames the relation as shown by Eq (3) holds,
has to be mentioned here that the ultimate base share representing that the ductility of the frames increases
is defined as the maximum obtained from the as the number of storeys decreases.
pushover analysis. The optimum q factors are
u
obtained by iterative procedure from response qcode  qcalculated and qoptimum  (3)
spectrum analysis. y

12 Limit = 0.01h 12
q Limit = 0.0075h
q
10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2
LS / Nb LS / Nb
0 0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
u/y q_code q_optimum (a) u/y q_code q_optimum (b)
10 q
Fig. 10 Ductility andbehaviour
= 0.01h Factors for Storeys Frames: (a)  Limit = 0.01h and (b)  Limit = 0.0075h
9= 0.0075h
Limit Limit
8

6
Limit = 0.01h Limit = 0.0075h
12 q 12 q
4
10 10

8 2 8
Nb
6 0 6
5 6 7 9 -- 5 6 7 9
4 q_obtained q_code q_optimum 4

2 2
L S / Nb L S / Nb
0 0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
u/y q_code q_optimum (a) u/y q_code q_optimum (b)
10 q
Fig. 11 Ductility and behaviour Factors for 7 Storeys Frames: (a)  Limit = 0.01h and (b)  Limit = 0.0075h
8

4
Limit = 0.01h Limit = 0.0075h
140
2

Nb
0
5 6 7 9 -- 5 6 7 9
q_obtained q_code q_optimum
 Effect of Interstorey Drift Limits on High Ductility in Seismic Design of Steel Moment Resisting Frames

q Limit = 0.01h Limit = 0.0075h

12 12 q
10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2
LS / Nb LS / Nb
0 0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 (b)
u/y q_code q_optimum (a) u/y q_code q_optimum

Fig. 12 Ductility and behaviour Factors for 5 Storeys Frames: (a)  Limit = 0.01h and (b)  Limit = 0.0075h
10

In the above
6 designed frames the calculated The behaviour factor specified by the code for
behaviour factor from pushover analysis are strictly high ductility is not completely utilised due to the
4
related to the period of = 0.01h  the
Limitthe structures, as Limit
= 0.0075h
period of high Interstorey drift limits given by the code, this
the frame increases the ductility and thus the needs either to design such frames with Medium
2
corresponding behaviour factor decreases. For Ductility or relaxing the capacity design rule.
N
instance for the0
analysed cases, the fundamental b

period (T) for 9-story

5 6 frames
7 9 are
-- in5 the
6 7range
9 of When drift limitation is stringent will lead to
q_obtained
1.7sec to 2.4sec and the ductility q_codefactors
q_optimum
range from govern the design, thereby the behaviour factor
5.0 to 7.0, similarly periods for 7 and 5 story frames especially for high ductility cannot be optimally used
are (1.4 to 2.0 sec) and (0.9 to 1.4 sec), respectively and therefore leads to uneconomical design situation
and the ductility factors ranges from (7.0 to 9.0) and as the targeted ductility cannot be achieved at the end
(7.0 to 10.0), respectively. of the design.

At the end it is found that if these frames are It is therefore required to propose the design of
designed with medium ductility (q equals 4.0) it frames in a more sophisticated way as it gives high
might result in optimum use of behaviour factor and performance and completely avoiding or relaxing the
therefore shall lead to more economical solution. capacity design rules.
Furthermore, in these cases if a frame is designed The code specified ductility class (high) is not
with high ductility (q equals 6.5) the capacity design compatible with the code proposed drift limits;
rules could be relaxed by redefining the over-strength instead it is strictly important to limit the ductility
factor or at least could limit the elastic over-strength. when the design is govern by drift.

4. Conclusions In view of the above, it is aimed to follow and

proceed with the current research activity for
From the presented paper it is concluded that as presenting optimised rules to allow the technicians to
the number of storey increases: design steel Moment Resisting Frames more easily,
The global overstrength decreases, the base efficiently and economically.
shear increases and the redundancy factor remains Acknowledgement
approximately in the same range.
The Author high acknowledges the kind
Furthermore, the main outcomes of the case cooperation of Prof. G De Matteis and Prof. A. De
study may be synthesised as follows: Luca during the Ph.D. studies.

141
 Pak. J. Engg. & Appl. Sci. Vol.16, Jan., 2015

References [8] EN-1990, (2002) "Eurocode 0, Basis of

structural design," in European Committee for
[1] G. De Matteis, (2005). "Effect of lightweight
cladding panels on the seismic performance of Standardization, CEN, ed. 36 B-1050, Brussels.
moment resisting steel frames," Engineering
structures, vol. 27, pp. 1662-1676. [9] EN-1991-1-1, (2004) "Eurocode 1, Actions on
structures - Part 1-1: General actions - Densities,
[2] S. Paul, et al., (2000) "State-of-the-art Review self-weight, imposed loads for buildings," in
of Seismic Design of Steel Moment Resisting European Committee for Standardization, CEN,
Frames–Part I: General Considerations and ed. 36 B-1050, Brussels.
Stability Provisions," Journal of Structural
Engineering, vol. 27, pp. 23-32. [10] COMFLOR 46. (2012). Composite floor
[3] M. T. Naqash, et al., (2012) "Effects of capacity decking. Available: http://www.comflor-uk.com
design rules on seismic performance of steel
moment resisting frames," presented at the 15 [11] Computer and Structures Incorporation (CSI),
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (1978). "SAP 2000 Users Manual," ed.
(WCEE), Lisbon Portugal. Berkeley, California, USA: Computer and
[4] T. Paulay and M. J. N. Priestley, (1992) Seismic Structures, Inc.,1978-2011.
design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings: Wiley Online Library. [12] P. FEMA-356, (2000) "Commentary for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-356,"
[5] V. Piluso, (1996) Theory and design of seismic in Federal Emergency Management Agency, ed.
resistant steel frames: Taylor & Francis. Washington, DC.
[6] M. T. Naqash, et al., (2012) "Seismic design of
Steel Moment Resisting frames-European [13] M. T. Naqash, (2012) "Optimum design of Steel
Versus American Practice," NED University Moment Resisting Frames using Eurocode 8,"
Journal of Research, vol. Thematic Issue on Doctorate PhD Thesis, Department of
Earthquake, pp. 45-59. Engineering and Geology (Ph.D. Thesis),
[7] EN-1998-1, (2005) "Eurocode 8, Design of University of Chiete and Pescara, Pescara.
Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1:
General rules, seismic actions and rules for [14] M. T. Naqash, (2914) "Study on the fundamental
buildings," in European Committee for period of vibration of steel moment resisting
Standardization, CEN, ed. 36 B-1050, Brussels. frames," BRCORP.

142

View publication stats