BASIC CONCEPTS

Under the action of a strong earthquake, an MRF will be driven well into the inelastic
range of response. The fundamental goal of the designer is to understand and control this
inelastic response to permit the development of a plastic mechanism under lateral load
that is capable of sustaining large inelastic deformations, i.e., possessing large ductility.
Effective seismic-resistant design requires an understanding of inelastic frame behavior.
To this end, an understanding of classical methods of plastic analysis and design is highly
beneficial.
Ductile response of a steel MRF is achieved by yielding of steel. Nonductile response of
steel systems is the result of fracture or instability. Consequently, a key design objective
is to maximize the yielding of steel frame elements, while at the same time delaying the
onset of fracture or instability until large inelastic deformations are achieved. To achieve
this objective, the designer must first choose the frame locations where yielding is
intended to occur, i.e., the locations of plastic hinges. In a steel MRF, the designer
generally has the choice of three possible hinge locations: 1) plastic flexural hinges at the
beam ends; 2) plastic shear hinges in the joint panel zones; or 3) plastic flexural hinges at
the clear span ends of columns. Most building code regulations discourage the third
option, i.e., hinge formation in the columns, as this may lead to the formation of a soft
story. The prohibition of column hinges is generally implemented through strong column
weak girder design requirements. Consequently, plastic hinge formation in steel MRFs
is typically restricted to the beam ends (flexural yielding), or the joint panel zone (shear
yielding), or to a combination of these two.
The designer can control the location of plastic hinges in the MRF by assuring that the
element where the hinge is intended to form is the weakest element in the frame.
Conversely, this can be achieved by assuring that all other frame elements (i.e. elements
where inelastic action should not occur) are stronger, through the application of capacity
design concepts. For example, the most common design philosophy for MRFs is to
develop a plastic mechanism with plastic hinges at the beam ends. To assure that the
hinges actually form in the beam ends, all other frame elements (columns, joints and
connections) are designed to develop the capacity of the beams. In this approach, the
maximum moment that can be generated at the end of a fully yielded and strain hardened
beam is first estimated. This can be taken as the plastic moment of the beam, computed
using an estimate of the actual yield stress of the beam (as opposed to the minimum
specified yield stress), with an additional allowance for strain hardening. This provides a
reasonable upper bound estimate of the maximum moment that can be developed at the
beam ends regardless of the intensity of the earthquake loading on the frame. Next, the
shear at the beam ends that is in equilibrium with the maximum end moments is then
computed. These maximum beam end moments and shear forces are then used as the
loads for which the beam-to-column connections are designed, for which the joint panel
is designed, and for which the columns are designed. Thus, the connections, joints and
columns are not designed for code specified lateral forces, but rather are designed to
resist the maximum forces that can be imparted on them by the yielded and strain
hardened beams, i.e., they are designed to develop the capacity of the beams. This design