RELIABILITY CONSIDERATIONS FOR

STEEL FRAMES DESIGNED WITH

ADVANCED ANALYSIS
S.G. Buonopane1, B.W. Schafer2 & T. Igusa3
INTRODUCTION
The design of steel structures by advanced analysis is emerging as a
practical design tool with the availability of non-linear analysis
software, and U.S. technical committees are presently considering the
adoption of advanced analysis techniques in upcoming specifications.
Advanced analysis captures important non-linear structural phenomena;
foremost are geometric second-order effects, frame stability and
material yielding. The existing load and resistance factor U.S. design
(LRFD) specifications (AISC 1999) approximate such effects through
moment amplification factors, effective lengths and alignment charts.
While the current approximate methods work well for a large class of
steel structures, for others their application can be ambiguous and the
results over-conservative. Advanced analysis directly captures system
behavior and can therefore simplify the design process by eliminating
the need for individual member checks. By more faithfully modeling
important structural phenomena, advanced analysis provides
predictions of frame strength with greater accuracy than LRFD
provisions. The improved accuracy of advanced analysis can result in
more efficient structures with acceptable reliability.
LRFD specifications enforce a target reliability through the use of load
and resistance factors. Existing proposals for design by advanced
analysis have used the load and resistance factors from the existing
specifications with no explicit probabilistic justification. Strength

Graduate Research Asst., 2Asst. Prof., and 3Prof., Dept. of Civil

Engrg., Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, MD 21218, USA

predictions by advanced analysis may have different means and

variances than those by LRFD, thereby requiring a different value of
to maintain the desired target reliability.
Existing advanced analysis design proposals
Ziemian et al. (1992a,b) analyzed a series of two-bay, two-story planar
frames and a 22-story, three-dimensional frame and showed that design
by advanced analysis could save about 12% steel by weight compared
to design by the 1986 LRFD specifications. These analyses captured
discrete plastic hinging and geometric non-linearities. Resistance
factors were incorporated by scaling the yield surface. A successful
design required the total load at plastic collapse (frame strength) to
equal or exceed the total factored design load.
Galambos (1988) considers methods of incorporating system reliability
into the design process, which remains a fundamental distinction
between system-based advanced analysis design techniques and the
current member-based LRFD methods. Chen and Kim (1997) also
provide guidelines for design with advanced analysis and present
several modeling approaches (e.g. notional load, reduced tangent
modulus, semi-rigid connections). No resistance factor is used, and
again the design condition requires the frame strength to exceed the
factored loads. Additional research on advanced analysis has focused
on the development of analysis techniques and tools for frames which
exhibit complex non-linear behavior. Galambos (1998) summarizes
various analysis and design techniques.
While general guidelines are available for the design of steel frames by
advanced analysis, no previous research has directly compared the
structural reliability of frames designed by advanced analysis to those
designed by LRFD methods.
STRUCURAL RELIABILITY
For a structure with random strength (R) subjected to random load (Q),
the probability of failure is

Pf =

I (r , q ) f

R (r ) f Q (q)

dr dq

(1)

where fR and fQ are probability density functions (PDFs) of strength and

load, and I (r , q ) is an indicator function which takes the value 1 when
the failure condition is satisfied and 0 otherwise. Typically, Eq. 1
cannot be solved in closed-form, but is instead estimated using
analytical or numerical techniques.
First-order LRFD format
The LRFD format enforces a target reliability through the load () and
resistance factors () in the design equation
(2)
i Qi Rn

The development of the LRFD code is presented in detail in Ravindra

and Galambos (1978) and Ellingwood et al. (1980). Using the failure
condition ln (R / Q ) 0 , and assuming independent normal distributions
and small variances for R and Q, results in the first-order reliability
index

FO = ln (Rm Qm )

V R2 + VQ2

(3)

where the subscript m indicates a mean value; VR=coefficient of

variation (COV) of R; and VQ=COV of Q. For a given target reliability,
t, the resistance factor is
(4)
= (Rm Rn )exp( 0.55 t V R )
where Rm=mean of true resistance; and Rn=nominal resistance or
code strength.
Monte Carlo and Importance sampling
The probability of failure may be estimated through direct Monte Carlo
sampling, thereby avoiding some of the assumptions of the first-order
method. However, for small Pf, a prohibitively large number of samples
may be required to achieve an estimate with sufficient accuracy.
Importance sampling can produce a satisfactory estimate with fewer
samples than nave Monte Carlo sampling. Since the integral to be

estimated here has only two dimensions, importance sampling is an

appropriate technique. Its application in higher dimensional spaces is
more difficult and may require additional refinements (Melchers 1999).
Eq. 1 may be rewritten as

Pf =

I ( x, y ) f R ( x ) f Q ( y )

hXY ( x, y )

hXY ( x, y ) dx dy

(5)

This integral may be estimated by importance sampling as

N
I ( x i , y i ) f R ( xi ) f Q ( y i )
1

P f =
(6)

N i =1
h XY ( x i , y i )

where the samples (xi,yi) are drawn from the importance sampling
density hXY. For this application we perform importance sampling over
the load dimension only, hXY=fQ*. A normal distribution is selected for
Q* with a mean equal to the average of the means of R and Q, and a
COV equal to that of Q. Figure 1 compares estimates of the probability
of failure by direct Monte Carlo sampling and importance sampling for
an increasing number of samples.

1000
SP50LA
Direct Monte Carlo
Importance Sampling

Pf x106

800
600
400
200
0

2000

4000
6000
Number of samples

8000

10000

Figure 1. Estimates of probability of failure by direct Monte Carlo and

importance sampling for frame SP50LA.

FRAME STRUCTURES
The steel frames analyzed are based on those of Ziemian (1990) typical
of low-rise industrial structures. Figure 2 shows the geometry, support
conditions and loads for the 16 frames discussed in this paper. The
frames are labeled with the following nomenclature:
S, U: symmetric or unsymmetric geometry;
P, F: pinned or fixed base;
50: 50 ksi (345 MPa) nominal yield strength steel;
H, L: heavy or light gravity load;
A, E: member sizes determined by advanced analysis or elastic LRFD.
Member sizes for frames UP50HA and UP50HE are given in Table 1;
the member sizes of all frames are listed in Ziemian (1990). The yield
strengths of beams and columns, and gravity loads are modeled as
random variables. Other potential random effects, such as residual

4.57 m

L: 16.42 kN/m H: 51.08 kN/m

C4

B3

C5

L: 32.84 kN/m

6.10 m

B1
C1

B4

C6

H: 109.45 kN/m
B2

C2

C3

P
U: 6.10 m
U: 14.63 m
S: 10.36 m
S: 10.36 m
Figure 2. Dimensions and loads of frames.

Table 1. Member sizes for frames UP50HE and UP50HA.

UP50HE
UP50HA
Member SI
U.S.
SI
U.S.
C1
W310x28.3 W12x19
W310x21
W12x14
C2
W360x196
W14x132
W360x147
W14x99
C3
W360x162
W14x109
W360x122
W14x82
C4
W250x17.9 W10x12
W250x17.9 W10x12
C5
W360x162
W14x109
W360x162
W14x109
C6
W360x162
W14x109
W360x162
W14x109
B1
W690x125
W27x84
W690x125
W27x84
B2
W920x201
W36x135
W920x201
W36x135
B3
W460x60
W18x40
W460x60
W18x40
B4
W690x140
W27x94
W690x140
W27x94

stresses and geometric imperfections, are not considered in the current

analyses.
Random yield strengths
Based on Galambos and Ravindra (1978), the yield strengths are
modeled as a normal distribution Fy~N(1.05Fyn, 0.10) where the first
parameter is the mean; the second, COV. More recent data reported in
FEMA (2000) indicates a slightly smaller mean of 1.04Fyn and COV of
0.08. For a given frame analysis, random simulations were performed
in which all members had uncorrelated Fy and perfectly correlated Fy.
Random gravity loads
The design of these frames is controlled by gravity loading, therefore
only the load combination 1.2 Dn + 1.6 Ln is considered (Ziemian et al.
1992a). Dead and live loads are assumed to be equal. The total nominal
gravity load is Qn=1021 kN for the light load case and Qn=3327 kN for
the heavy. The dead loads are normally distributed D~N(1.05Dn, 0.10).
The live loads follow an extreme type I distribution L~ExI(Ln, 0.10)
(Ellingwood et al. 1980). The total random gravity load, Q, is the sum
of four random variables, dead and live load on each of two stories. The
distribution of Q cannot be expressed in closed form but its PDF can be

computed through numerical integration. After normalizing by the total

design load Qn, both the light and heavy load cases have a mean of
1.026 and COV of 0.10.
Analysis details
Structural analyses were performed with OpenSees (McKenna &
Fenves 2001), including geometric non-linear effects and an elasticperfectly-plastic material model. Displacement-based beam-column
elements with a cubic shape function were used. Columns were
subdivided into 4 elements, and beams, 8. Cross-section yielding and
axial-moment interaction was captured with a fiber element model,
integrated at 4 points along the element length. All members have their
webs in the plane of the frame, and out-of-plane behavior was
restrained. Uniform gravity loads were applied as equal concentrated
loads at all 9 nodes along the beam lengths. Symmetric frames were
given an initial out-of-plumb imperfection of 1/400th of the building
height for numerical stability. No initial imperfection was given to the
unsymmetric frames.
SIMULATION RESULTS
For each frame, 10,000 non-linear structural analyses were performed
with random yield strengths. To determine the distribution of frame
strength, the frames were loaded with an increasing gravity load until
plastic collapse. For each simulation, the applied load at the occurrence
of the first plastic hinge was also recorded. A plastic hinge was
assumed to have occurred when the moment-curvature slope was
reduced to 15% of its elastic value. The first plastic hinge strength
provides an analog to the member-based LRFD design criteria. Figure 3
shows the histogram of the frame strength and first plastic hinge
strength, both normalized by the design load Qn, for UP50HE with
uncorrelated Fy. Figure 4 shows the strength histograms for UP50HE
with correlated Fy. Both Figures 3 and 4 include the PDF of the
normalized load. The mean and COV of the sampled strengths for all
frames are given in Table 2 for uncorrelated Fy, and Table 3 for
correlated Fy.

Frames with correlated Fy have a slightly larger mean strength but also
a significantly larger COV than the frames with uncorrelated Fy. For a
given frame, the failure mode of each sample with uncorrelated Fy
depends on the spatial distribution of the random Fy, and the effect of a
single weak member may be offset by a strong member elsewhere in
the frame. In contrast, for a given frame with correlated Fy, all samples
exhibit the same failure mode.

5
4

mean=1.927
cov= 0.062

3
2
1
0
0.5

1
1.5
2
Normalized Frame Strength

2.5

5
4

mean=1.521
cov= 0.079

3
2
1
0
0.5

1
1.5
2
Normalized Strength at 1st Plastic Hinge

2.5

Figure 3. Normalized strength distributions for frame UP50HE with

uncorrelated Fy.

Those frames designed by advanced analysis have smaller member

sizes in some locations, and therefore have smaller mean strengths than
the corresponding elastically designed frame. The advanced analysis
mean frame strengths range from about 80-90% of mean strengths of
the LRFD designed frames; the first plastic hinge strengths range from
about 70-80%. The COVs of the first plastic hinge strength are
typically greater than those of frame strength. Also the design method
of the frame does not greatly effect the COV of either strength measure.

5
4

mean=1.969
cov= 0.093

3
2
1
0
0.5

1
1.5
2
Normalized Frame Strength

2.5

5
4

mean=1.618
cov= 0.100

3
2
1
0
0.5

1
1.5
2
Normalized Strength at 1st Plastic Hinge

2.5

Figure 4. Normalized strength distributions for frame UP50HE with

correlated Fy.

Figure 5 plots frame strength against first plastic hinge strength for two
of the frames. For UP50HA no correlation exists. For UP50LE, a band
of correlated samples is apparent at the upper left of the plot; it is likely
that this subset of samples has a common failure mode. Other frames
exhibited various correlation structures between the two extremes of
Figure 5. This lack of consistent correlation between these two
performance measures suggests that there is no simple means of
relating the member-based failure criterion to the system-based
criterion.

Table 2. Parameters of strength distributions for uncorrelated Fy.

Frame
Frame strength
1st plastic hinge
Mean
COV
Mean
COV
UP50HA
1.575
0.051
1.133
0.080
UP50LA
1.679
0.059
1.189
0.079
UF50HA
1.709
0.055
1.179
0.084
UF50LA
1.739
0.050
1.178
0.077
SP50HA
1.716
0.061
1.237
0.088
SP50LA
1.673
0.069
1.178
0.086
SF50HA
1.744
0.064
1.239
0.085
SF50LA
1.654
0.064
1.136
0.077
UP50HE
1.927
0.062
1.521
0.080
UP50LE
2.011
0.066
1.620
0.075
UF50HE
1.942
0.053
1.505
0.075
UF50LE
2.075
0.065
1.560
0.077
SP50HE
2.027
0.058
1.614
0.077
SP50LE
2.653
0.071
1.892
0.078
SF50HE
1.875
0.079
1.556
0.072
SF50LE
2.219
0.062
1.578
0.075

Strength at 1st Plastic Hinge

Table 3. Parameters of strength distributions for correlated Fy.

Frame
Frame strength
1st plastic hinge
Mean
COV
Mean
COV
UP50HA
1.638
0.094
1.194
0.100
UP50LA
1.703
0.095
1.268
0.095
UF50HA
1.754
0.096
1.267
0.097
UF50LA
1.800
0.096
1.297
0.097
SP50HA
1.746
0.078
1.331
0.092
SP50LA
1.753
0.097
1.261
0.097
SF50HA
1.851
0.097
1.322
0.098
SF50LA
1.752
0.096
1.270
0.100
UP50HE
1.969
0.093
1.618
0.100
UP50LE
2.037
0.096
1.811
0.097
UF50HE
2.020
0.098
1.667
0.098
UF50LE
2.135
0.095
1.707
0.097
SP50HE
2.012
0.065
1.710
0.100
SP50LE
2.783
0.097
2.030
0.098
SF50HE
1.888
0.100
1.751
0.098
SF50LE
2.353
0.096
1.769
0.098

1.4

2
1.8

1.2

1.6
1.4

1.2
0.8

UP50HA
1.4
1.6
1.8
Frame Strength

1 UP50LE
1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Frame Strength

Figure 5. Correlation of frame strength and first plastic hinge strength.

Reliability results
Tables 4 and 5 list the reliabilities of all 16 frames for both frame
strength and first plastic hinge strength for uncorrelated and correlated
Fy. The reliability is expressed as a probability of failure and a
reliability index, =-1(Pf) where is the standard normal
cumulative distribution function. The reliability by sampling is also
compared to the first order reliability, FO, computed from Eq. 3. The
first-order approximation generally overestimates compared to the
sampling estimate, since the lower tail of the strength distributions have
a higher probability mass than the normal distribution assumed for FO.
The frames designed by advanced analysis have a lower reliability
index than those designed by LRFD.

Table 4. Frame reliability for uncorrelated Fy.

Frame strength
1st plastic hinge
FO
Frame
Pf 10-6
Pf 10-3
UP50HA 387.
3.36
3.79
200.
0.84
UP50LA
95.5 3.73
4.28
119.
1.18
UF50HA
83.9 3.76
4.48
137.
1.10
UF50LA
18.4 4.13
4.78
130.
1.13
SP50HA
52.5 3.88
4.44
83.7 1.38
SP50LA 229.
3.50
4.01
140.
1.08
SF50HA
70.8 3.81
4.42
75.1 1.44
SF50LA 214.
3.52
4.07
196.
0.86
UP50HE
2.18 4.59
5.31
2.99 2.75
UP50LE
1.56 4.66
5.66
0.70 3.20
UF50HE
1.27 4.71
5.63
2.89 2.76
UF50LE
3.63 4.49
5.98
1.97 2.88
SP50HE
0.14 5.14
5.94
0.73 3.18
SP50LE
0.00 >8
7.90
0.03 4.05
SF50HE
14.6 4.18
4.76
1.52 2.96
SF50LE
0.00 6.16
6.62
1.20 3.03

FO
0.77
1.17
1.06
1.10
1.42
1.04
1.43
0.83
3.06
3.68
3.06
3.35
3.61
4.90
3.40
3.48

Table 5. Frame reliability for correlated Fy.

Frame strength
1st plastic hinge
FO
Frame
Pf 10-6
Pf 10-3
UP50HA 1165.
3.04
3.44
139.
1.08
UP50LA 479.
3.30
3.72
64.0
1.52
UF50HA 428.
3.33
3.90
65.1
1.51
UF50LA 166.
3.59
4.08
48.9
1.66
SP50HA 527.
3.28
4.18
33.5
1.83
SP50LA 253.
3.48
3.88
71.2
1.47
SF50HA
93.5
3.74
4.24
39.1
1.76
SF50LA 331.
3.40
3.86
69.3
1.48
UP50HE
42.0
3.93
4.81
2.44 2.81
UP50LE
6.22 4.37
4.97
0.11 3.69
UF50HE
27.7
4.03
4.88
0.96 3.10
UF50LE
4.83 4.42
5.36
1.20 3.04
SP50HE
13.6
4.20
5.74
0.87 3.13
SP50LE
0.00 7.92
7.12
0.04 3.96
SF50HE
70.6
3.81
4.35
0.30 3.43
SF50LE
0.06 5.30
6.00
0.22 3.52

FO
1.09
1.56
1.54
1.69
1.91
1.49
1.81
1.51
3.23
4.09
3.49
3.69
3.66
4.85
3.85
3.90

For the LRFD designed frames, FO for first plastic hinge is greater
than 3 for all frames. The target for steel beam-columns in LRFD is
approximately 3, and thus these analyses demonstrate that the LRFD
code is effective in achieving this goal. For these frames, the sampling
estimate of is also generally near 3 as well. Examining the effect of
correlation on reliability, reveals that based on frame strength and
uncorrelated Fy is greater than the for correlated Fy. Whereas for first
plastic hinge strength, for correlated Fy is greater than that for
uncorrelated Fy. Correlation among member yield strengths tends to
decrease the probability of occurrence of the first plastic hinge but to
increase the probability of overall frame failure.
For the frames designed by advanced analysis, the reliability indices
based on frame strength are above 3 and thus could be considered

acceptable designs. The values of for first plastic hinge are generally
between 1 and 2, corresponding to probabilities of occurrence of up to
14%. This result suggests that the occurrence of a plastic hinge in a
frame designed by advanced analysis and subjected to nominal gravity
loads may not be an infrequent event. In the selection of member sizes
for these frames, Ziemian et al. (1992a) prohibited the formation of
plastic hinges under service loads. However, this deterministic design
requirement does not necessarily result in a zero probability of
occurrence of plastic hinging when random loads and strengths are
included in the analysis. The occurrence of a plastic hinge may affect
the serviceability performance, even though it does not compromise
overall strength and safety. This observation highlights the importance
of serviceability issues in frames designed by advanced analyses.
Elastic LRFD design controls the occurrence of the first plastic hinge,
while advanced analysis may allow plastic hinging at service load
levels in cases where it does not compromise frame strength. The
existence of plastic hinges may also impact structural behavior for
extreme load events, such as seismic, since the structure cannot be
assumed to begin in an elastic, undamaged state.
Resistance factors for advanced analysis
The general expression for the resistance factor has been given in Eq. 4.
The distribution of true resistance is ideally based on experimental
data, and related to nominal resistance by
R = Rn PMF
(7)
with mean and COV given by
Rm = Rn Pm M m Fm ,

V R = V P2 + VM2 + V F2

(8)

where P, M and F are the random variables of professional, material

and fabrication factors, respectively; the subscript m indicates a mean
value and VR, VP, VM and VF are COVs of the random variables. The
values used in the LRFD specifications were determined by
experimental data, analytical models and professional judgment. For
steel beam-columns, the LRFD values are Pm=1.02, Mm=1.05, Fm=1.00,
VP=0.10, VM=0.10, VF=0.05, VR=0.15 (Bjorhovde et al. 1978). Using

these values and t=3.00 in Eqs. 4 and 8, results in =0.84. The value
of =0.90 used in LRFD for beams corresponds to t=2.10.
The goal of advanced analysis methods is to provide predictions of
strength which are closer to the true strength than existing elastic-based
code methods. Since experimental data are not available for the frames
analyzed here, we assume the limiting case that the distribution of true
strength is exactly predicted by the advanced analysis with random
material properties. Practical design with advanced analysis will be
based on a single analysis with nominal yield strengths, resulting in the
nominal strength RnAA . We relate the deterministic nominal strength to
the probability distribution of strength by
R AA = RnAA B AA F
(9)
AA
where B is the random variable bias factor and F is the LRFD
fabrication factor, retained since our analyses do not consider random
geometric properties. This equation is analogous to Eq. 7. Without test
data for frame strength it is not possible determine individual bias
factors equivalent to P, M and F.
Table 6 gives values of nominal strengths and mean bias factors for
frame strength and first plastic hinge for both uncorrelated and
correlated Fy. The mean bias factor, B mAA , is the mean strength from
Table 1 or 2 divided by RnAA . The bias factors fall within the range of
0.93 to 1.08, and the mean of the bias factors is close to 1.0 indicating
that RnAA is a good predictor of RmAA with little bias. For comparison,
the combined bias factor assumed in LRFD for beam-columns is 1.07.
Also important is the observation that the bias factors appear
independent of the method by which the frame was designed.
Tables 7 and 8 present values of the variance of the advanced analysis
strength prediction (including VF =0.05) and values of for both
t =3.00 and 2.10. The COVs of the strengths are in the range of 0.07 to
0.10, somewhat less than the LRFD value of 0.15. For a target
reliability of 3.00 on frame strength, the values of range from 0.86 to
0.91 for both correlated and uncorrelated Fy. For first plastic hinge
strength, the values of for =3.00 range from 0.80 to 0.90. For a

Table 6. Nominal strengths and bias factors.

Frame
Frame strength
1st plastic hinge
Uncorr. Corr. Fy
Uncorr. Corr. Fy
RnAA
BmAA
BmAA
R nAA
B mAA
BmAA
UP50HA 1.566
1.006
1.046
1.137
0.997
1.050
UP50LA
1.625
1.033
1.048
1.185
1.004
1.070
UF50HA 1.674
1.021
1.048
1.173
1.005
1.080
UF50LA
1.717
1.013
1.049
1.211
0.973
1.071
SP50HA
1.686
1.018
1.035
1.244
0.994
1.070
SP50LA
1.671
1.001
1.049
1.202
0.980
1.049
SF50HA
1.767
0.987
1.048
1.268
0.977
1.043
SF50LA
1.672
0.989
1.048
1.220
0.931
1.041
UP50HE
1.884
1.023
1.045
1.550
0.981
1.043
UP50LE
1.945
1.034
1.047
1.708
0.948
1.060
UF50HE
1.928
1.007
1.048
1.557
0.966
1.071
UF50LE
2.041
1.016
1.046
1.594
0.979
1.071
SP50HE
1.960
1.034
1.027
1.654
0.976
1.034
SP50LE
2.654
1.000
1.049
1.937
0.977
1.048
SF50HE
1.798
1.043
1.050
1.664
0.935
1.052
SF50LE
2.244
0.989
1.049
1.697
0.930
1.042
min
0.987
1.027
0.930
1.034
mean
1.013
1.046
0.972
1.056
max
1.043
1.050
1.005
1.080
target reliability of 2.10, the values of are slightly higher, 0.84 to
0.95, including the cases of frame strength and correlated and
uncorrelated Fy.
The resistance factor is affected by the mean bias and the variance of
the strength distribution (Eq. 4). For the frames analyzed here, both the
typical COV and bias factor of strength was less than that assumed by
LRFD. These differences offset one another, resulting in values of
which are approximately equal to current LRFD values. The

Table 7. COVs and resistance factors for uncorrelated Fy.

Frame
Frame strength
1st plastic hinge

for
for
for
VRAA
VRAA
t=3.00 t=2.10
t=3.00
UP50HA 0.071
0.89
0.93
0.094
0.85
UP50LA 0.077
0.91
0.94
0.094
0.86
UF50HA 0.074
0.90
0.94
0.098
0.85
UF50LA 0.070
0.90
0.93
0.092
0.84
SP50HA 0.079
0.89
0.93
0.101
0.84
SP50LA 0.085
0.87
0.91
0.099
0.83
SF50HA 0.082
0.86
0.90
0.098
0.83
SF50LA 0.081
0.87
0.90
0.092
0.80
UP50HE 0.080
0.90
0.93
0.094
0.84
UP50LE 0.083
0.90
0.94
0.090
0.82
UF50HE 0.073
0.89
0.93
0.090
0.83
UF50LE 0.082
0.89
0.92
0.092
0.84
SP50HE 0.076
0.91
0.95
0.092
0.84
SP50LE 0.086
0.87
0.90
0.093
0.84
SF50HE 0.094
0.89
0.94
0.088
0.81
SF50LE 0.080
0.87
0.90
0.090
0.80
min
0.86
0.90
0.80
mean
0.89
0.92
0.83
max
0.91
0.95
0.86

for
t=2.10
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.87
0.88
0.87
0.87
0.84
0.88
0.85
0.87
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.87
0.90

incorporation of other random variables (e.g. residual stress,

imperfections), as well as professional judgment, might justify larger
COVs of strength, in which case smaller values of would be
necessary to maintain the same target reliability.
CONCLUSIONS
Advanced analysis is emerging as the next-generation design tool for
steel structures. This paper summarized research into the probabilistic
character of design by advanced analysis, due to randomness in
structural properties and loads. Based on a series of 16 steel frames

Table 8. COVs and resistance factors for correlated Fy.

Frame
Frame strength
1st plastic hinge

for
for
for
VRAA
VRAA
t=3.00 t=2.10
t=3.00
UP50HA 0.106
0.88
0.93
0.112
0.87
UP50LA 0.107
0.88
0.93
0.107
0.90
UF50HA 0.108
0.88
0.92
0.109
0.90
UF50LA 0.108
0.88
0.93
0.109
0.89
SP50HA 0.092
0.89
0.93
0.105
0.90
SP50LA 0.109
0.88
0.92
0.109
0.88
SF50HA 0.109
0.88
0.92
0.110
0.87
SF50LA 0.108
0.88
0.92
0.112
0.87
UP50HE 0.105
0.88
0.93
0.112
0.87
UP50LE 0.108
0.88
0.92
0.109
0.89
UF50HE 0.110
0.87
0.92
0.110
0.89
UF50LE 0.107
0.88
0.92
0.109
0.89
SP50HE 0.082
0.90
0.93
0.112
0.86
SP50LE 0.109
0.88
0.92
0.110
0.87
SF50HE 0.112
0.87
0.92
0.110
0.88
SF50LE 0.108
0.88
0.93
0.110
0.87
min
0.87
0.92
0.86
mean
0.88
0.93
0.88
max
0.90
0.93
0.90

for
t=2.10
0.92
0.95
0.95
0.94
0.95
0.92
0.92
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.93
0.95

with random yield strengths and random applied gravity loads, nonlinear structural analysis simulations were performed to calculate
distributions of frame and first plastic hinge strengths.
Frames designed by advanced analysis had a smaller mean strength
than those designed by LRFD, since they contain smaller member
sizes. However, the calculated reliability indices of the frames designed
by advanced analysis were still above 3.0 based on the failure condition
of frame strength. Because advanced analysis primarily controls frame
strength, some frames exhibit non-negligible probabilities of plastic

hinging under service load conditions. Even a deterministic design

requirement which prohibits plastic hinging at nominal loads does not
necessarily preclude the occurrence of plastic hinging when random
loads and strengths are included in the analysis. Occurrence of such
hinges may require greater attention to serviceability criteria such as
deflection and drift, as well as consideration of a frames initial state
when subjected to extreme load events.
The resistance factors determined from these simulations are generally
in the range of 0.80 to 0.90 for a target reliability of 3.00 and 0.85 to
0.95 for a target reliability of 2.10, suggesting that current resistance
factors may be acceptable for design with advanced analysis. However,
these values depend on the variability of the strength distributions,
which may increase as additional random effects are introduced into the
analysis.
Since advanced analysis is predicated on system behavior, the
probabilistic results are dependent on the peculiarities of a given
structures behavior. The results presented here are based on a group of
sixteen, closely-related steel frames, and the conclusions may not be
representative of other structures. Without requiring explicit
probabilistic analysis, one of the greatest challenges of design by
advanced analysis may be the selection of design coefficients and
resistance factors which are applicable to a wide range of structural
systems and behaviors.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research has been supported in part by a National Science
Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and Grant No. DMI0087032.
REFERENCES
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). 1999. Load and
resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings,
2nd ed. Chicago, Ill.: AISC.
Bjorhovde, R., Galambos, T.V. & Ravindra, M.K. 1978. LRFD criteria

for steel beam-columns. Journal of the Structural Division 104(9):

1371-1387.
Chen, W.F. & Kim, S-E. 1997. LRFD steel design using advanced
analysis. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.
Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T.V., MacGregor, J.G., & Cornell, C.A.
1980. Development of a probability based load criterion for
American national standard A58. National Bureau of Standards
Special Publication No. 577, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Dept. of
Commerce.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2000. State of the
art report on base metals and fracture. FEMA-355A. Washington,
DC.
Galambos, T.V. 1998. Guide to stability design criteria for metal
structures, 5th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Galambos, T.V. 1988. Reliability of Structural Steel Systems.
Structural Engineering Report No. 88-06. Univ. of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minn.
Galambos, T.V. & Ravindra, M.K. 1978. Properties of steel for use in
LRFD. Journal of the Structural Division 104(9): 1459-1468.
McKenna, F. & Fenves, G.L. 2001. The OpenSees command language
manual, version 1.2. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Univ. of California at Berkeley. http://opensees.berkeley.
edu.
Melchers, R.E. 1999. Structural reliability, 2nd ed. Chichester,
England: John Wiley & Sons.
Ravindra, M.K. & Galambos, T.V. 1978. Load and resistance factor
design for steel. Journal of the Structural Division 104(9): 13371354.
Ziemian, R.D. 1990. Advanced methods of inelastic analysis in the
limit states design of steel structures. PhD. dissertation. Cornell
Univ. Ithaca, NY.
Ziemian, R.D. McGuire, W. & Deierlein, G.G. 1992a. Inelastic limit
states design. part I: planar frame studies. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 118(9): 2532-2549.
Ziemian, R.D. McGuire, W. & Deierlein, G.G. 1992b. Inelastic limit
states design. part II: three-dimensional frame study. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 118(9): 2550-2568.