Influence of seismic design rules on the robustness of steel moment resisting frames

Finite Element Analyses on Seismic Response of Partial Strength Extended Stiffened Joints

“…The seismic design of steel structures, in accordance with the EN1998-1-1 [7] philosophy, is based on the concept of dissipative structures that are designed to develop plastic deformations in specific zones, while the non-dissipative parts should resist elastically the seismic action in order to avoid brittle collapse [10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. This behaviour can be obtained imposing that the dissipative zones are the weaker and the non-dissipative are designed to resist the ultimate strength developed by the dissipative elements.…”

Robustness Assessment of Steel Moment Resisting Frames

“…The parametric variables were selected in order to cover a wide range of realistic structures [25]. The list of parameters and relevant values is presented in Table 1.…”

“…The beams that were designed for gravity loads only were considered as pinned at both ends, whereas full-strength rigid connections were considered at the ends of the MRF beams [25,33]. The beams of MRF spans are all-steel members without any composite interaction with the slab.…”

“…The topic of the efficacy of seismic detailing according to recent codes [1] in arresting a progressive collapse and on improving structural robustness is still under discussion, and although it can be argued that seismic detailing generally contributes to improving robustness, quantification of this effect is still required [25]. Adopting Capacity Design principles alone as a prescriptive measure for improving robustness presents shortcomings similar to prescriptions given by other codes [26,27] for addressing robustness such as the "Tie Force Method" or the "Key Element Design", which aim at assuring structural continuity and robustness.…”

Finite Element Analyses on Free From Damage Seismic Resisting Beam-to-Column Joints

“…The current seismic design procedures are based on the philosophy of hierarchy of resistances that aims at achieving ductile and dissipative plastic mechanisms with relatively low constructional costs [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Although effective and economically advantageous at the construction stage, the capacity design philosophy applied to traditional structural systems requires structural damages after seismic events, thus leading to significant economic losses [9][10][11][12][13].…”