Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Comparative study and performance evaluation of steel moment resisting

frames design with: Force-based design and performance-based
plastic design
Bapugouda B. Biradar *, A I Shirkol, Bush Rc
Department of Civil Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur 302017, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NLRHA) and Nonlinear Static
Steel Moment Resisting Frame Pushover Analysis (NSPA) has been carried out to evaluate seismic performance of Steel Moment Resisting
Performance-Based Plastic Design Frames (SMRF). SMRF’s are used as the lateral resisting systems which consist of columns and beams joined by
Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis
welding or using high strength bolts or combination of both. The resistance offered to the lateral forces is due to
Nonlinear Response History Analysis
Incremental Dynamic Analysis
rigid frame action which develops bending moment and shear force in the frame members and joints. The 9-sto­
rey SMRF is been evaluated for two frames designed by Force Based Design (FBD) method and Performance
Based Plastic Design (PBPD) method. The FBD frame is designed by using codal provision of ASCE 7 (American
Based Seismic Code) and AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction) whereas PBPD frame is designed as per
proposed work of Lee and Goel (2001) in which energy balance equation and pre-selected yield mechanism is
considered. The evaluation study showed that the PBPD method for steel moment resisting frame is significantly
more efficient in achieving a certain inelastic displacement/ductility for given seismic hazards compared to the
existing design standards/specification for this system. By Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis (NSPA) the PBPD
method has achieved the target yield drift of 1.11% and FBD method has achieved 1.22% where the assumed
yield drift was 1%. From NLRHA the percentage difference in achieved ductility factor for frame design by FBD
method is 46.28% whereas for PBPD method it is 16.81%. From IDA inter storey drift is observed maximum in
AISC design frame compared to PBPD design frame. Therefore, PBPD method frames responded as intended in
design with much improved performances over those of the corresponding FBD method.

1. Introduction caused millions of deaths and great deal of property damage. In order to
reduce the structural damage and loss of lives, seismic design codes have
From the past earthquake’s we noticed that earthquake’s have been developed by several countries taking into account various factors

Abbreviations: Cs, Seismic response coefficient; Cv, Seismic coefficient; Cvx, Vertical distribution factor; c, Viscous damping coefficient; Fa, Fv, S, Site coefficient; Fi,
Lateral force at level i; Fiu, Lateral force at level i at ultimate response; Fn, Lateral force at the top level n of the structure; Fnu, Lateral force at the top level n at ultimate
response; Fx, Lateral force at level x; fy, Nominal yield stress; g, Acceleration due to gravity; hi, hj, Height of floor level i (or level j) of the structure above the ground;
hn, Total height of the structure (IBC-2006); hsx, Storey height below level x; I, Occupancy factor; M, Total mass of the system; Mp, Plastic moment; Qi, Design lateral
force at ith floor; R, Response modification factor; Rµ, Ductility reduction factor; Sa, Spectral response acceleration coefficient; SDS, Design spectral response accel­
eration in the short period range; SD1, Design spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 s; SMS, Maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration
for short periods; SM1, Maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at 1 s; Ss, Mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response ac­
celeration at short periods; Sv, Pseudo-velocity; S1, Mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration; T, Fundamental period of the structure;
V, Vby, Seismic design base shear; Vp, Plastic shear strength; Vi, Static storey shear at level i; W, Total seismic weight of the structure; wi, wj, Weight of the structure at
level i (or level j); wn, Weight of the structure at the top level n; Zp, Plastic section modulus; α, Design base shear parameter, Mass-proportional damping coefficient; β,
Damping ratio, Stiffness-proportional damping coefficient; βi, Shear proportioning factor; γ, Modification factor for the energy balance equation; µ, Rotational
ductility demand; µs, Structural ductility factor; µt, Target ductility ratio; θp, Plastic rotation, inelastic drift; θp, max, Maximum plastic rotation at plastic hinge; θu,
Target drift; θy, Yield rotation, Yield drift; Ωo, Structural overstrength factor; ω,ωn, Natural circular frequency of the system.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.B. Biradar), [email protected] (A.I. Shirkol), [email protected] (R. Bush).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.07.001
Received 12 May 2022; Received in revised form 15 June 2022; Accepted 1 July 2022
Available online 8 July 2022
2352-0124/© 2022 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

bending moment and shear force in the frame members and joints. Many
works have been carried on seismic performance evaluation of steel
structures which are designed using seismic codal provisions resulting
that the steel structures which are designed using current seismic codes
have a limited performance under strong earthquakes. The steel struc­
ture designed by these seismic codes cannot effectively control the
structural damage [13,16,5,1]. The structure designed on the basis of
these codes may experience an inelastic and uncontrolled deformation
during severe earthquake [18]. Steel moment-resisting frames are drift-
sensitive structures [33], and their design is influenced mainly by code
requirements to limit the lateral displacements and a comprehensive
parametric study devoted to quantifying the effectiveness of seismic
detailing [6,26]. The drift displacement is often characterized by severe
unidirectional concentration. Hence, the use of ductile energy-efficient
claddings can be beneficial to relax the drift limitations, thus allowing
for optimizing the structural design and the construction costs and
Fig. 1. Structural idealized response and energy balance concept [8]. encouraging the use of more sustainable solutions [10].
The elastic design procedure lacks in specifying the yielding hierar­
chy and specific provisions to attain selected yielding hierarchy. To
overcome this a new trend has to be set in seismic design codes to
based upon their hazard specifications. Worldwide, current seismic improve the seismic demands in terms of energy, displacement and
design practices are generally based on elastic methods despite the fact ductility. Leelataviwat et al. [20] included plastic analysis in the design
that it is well known that, structure’s designed according to current procedure by considering energy balance concept, yield mechanism and
codes experienced large inelastic deformation during strong earth­ target drift. Later a method known as Performance Based Plastic Design
quake’s. Codes for seismic design consider elastic structural behavior, (PBPD) was developed and first applied to Steel Moment Resisting
with some coefficient in design considering nonlinear behavior indi­ Frames [19]. This procedure has the ability to evaluate inelastic seismic
rectly. The current seismic design is based on strength or force based demands and energy dissipation mechanism accurately when subjected
approach where the significant ductility and inelastic deformation ca­ to sever earthquakes [14]. PBPD method considers a pre-selected yield
pacity of Steel Moment Resisting Frames cannot be fully utilized because mechanism, target drift and it is based on energy balance equation Fig. 1
in this approach the inelasticity is implicitly accounted through response [8]. It accounts the inelastic behavior of system explicitly in design
reduction factor ‘R’. Steel Moment Resisting Frames are used as the formulation hence this method seems to be more rational and gives due
lateral resisting systems which consist of columns and beams joined by consideration to damage, uncertainty which are seldom in medium to
welding or using high strength bolts or combination of both. The resis­ high intensity earthquake [7]. Later this method was successfully
tance to lateral forces is due to rigid frame action which develops applied to Concentrically Braced Frames (CBFs), Eccentrically Braced

Fig. 2. Configuration of study model (a)Plan (b)Elevation.

697
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

Table 1 known as FBD method and the other one frame using PBPD method [19].
Seismic design parameters of Steel MRF for AISC frame. Later the seismic performance evaluation is done through Nonlinear
Parameters ASCE 7 Static Pushover Analysis (NSPA), Nonlinear Response History Analysis
(NLRHA), Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA). The seismic response of
Materials Structural steel with fy =
345 Mpa the structure has to be determined for distinctive earthquake statistics
Floor Seismic Weight for Roof 3500 KN via distinctive dynamic evaluation in quantifying such uncertainties
Floor Seismic Weight for all other Floor 5000 KN [32,27]. IDA is a reliable method when all of the nonlinearity sources
Spectral acceleration, Sa 0.683 g are of concern including component deterioration due to dynamic
Time period, T 1.27 sec
Site Class D
loading [34]. It is one of the methods of structural damage simulation for
Mapped Spectral response acceleration parameter at 175% g different earthquakes and is also an appropriate method in assessing
shorter periods, SS seismic behavior of structure.
Mapped Spectral response acceleration parameter at a 87% g
period of 1 sec, S1
2. Description of study building
Site coefficient, Fa 1.0
Site coefficient, Fv 1.5
MCE spectral response for a shorter period, SMS 1.75 The frame plan layouts and elevation are shown in Fig. 2. It consists
MCE spectral response for a period of 1 sec, SM1 1.30 of five bays of 9 m each in X-direction and four bays of 9 m each in Y-
Design Spectral acceleration parameter at shorter 1.17 direction. The total height of a building is 36 m. Seismic weights of
period, SDS
Design Spectral acceleration parameter at a period of 1 0.87
5000KN has been adopted per floor excluding the roof, where it is
sec, SD1 3500KN. The frame is assumed to be located in downtown San Fran­
Seismic Response coefficient, Cs 0.146 cisco. Based on the usages of the building, soil is considered as Site Class
Total Seismic Load, W 43,500 KN D – stiff soil and the building occupancy is considered as 1. As the gravity
Design Base Shear, V 6344 KN
loading on the girders of the perimeter frames is small and has an almost
negligible effect on the seismic response, it is neglected in the analysis.
Two frames are being modeled one frame designed by Force Based
Table 2 Design method using codal provision ASCE 7 (American Based Seismic
Design Lateral Force Distribution of 9-storey Steel MRF for AISC frame. Code) [4] and AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction) [2,3],
Floor hx (m) wx (KN) wxhkx Cvx = wxhkx/Σwihki Fx = Cvx V (KN) whereas another frame is being designed by Performance Based Plastic
Roof 36 3500 4536000.00 0.217 1379.71 Design method as per proposed work of Lee and Goel [19] in which
8 32 5000 5120000.00 0.245 1557.35 energy balance equation and pre-selected yield mechanism is been
7 28 5000 3920000.00 0.188 1192.34 considered. After analyzing the frames, the structural weight obtained
6 24 5000 2880000.00 0.138 876.01
for AISC frame is 4432.8 KN and for PBPD frame is 4128.51 KN. The
5 20 5000 2000000.00 0.096 608.34
4 16 5000 1280000.00 0.061 389.34
PBPD frame has 6.86% less structural weight as compared to the AISC
3 12 5000 720000.00 0.035 219.00 frame. From Fig. 6 it can be observed that the member section obtained
2 8 5000 320000.00 0.015 97.33 for AISC frames are higher compared to PBPD frames. Since the PBPD
1 4 5000 80000.00 0.004 24.33 method consist of energy balance equation and plastic design moments
6344.00
for beams, columns the obtained member section where less and the
inelastic behavior is accounted in it. AISC member sections where higher
than of PBPD concluding uneconomical sections.
Frames (EBFs), Buckling Restrained Braced Frames (BRBFs), and Special
Truss Moment Frames (STMFs) [20,19,9,8,31,21,17,29]. Using the en­ 2.1. Force based design (Fbd) approach
ergy based design, researchers predict the drift level a structure will
undergo when subjected to a specified seismic hazard level based on The values of spectral acceleration (for 5% damping) for maximum
how the input seismic energy balances with the energy dissipated by considered earthquake (MCE) for said locations are Ss = 1.75 g at a
structures. By controlling damage at the design stage, it is possible to period of 0.2 s and S1 = 0.870 g at a period of 1.0 s. The seismic force
achieve the intended performance [28]. For the frames designed by FBD calculations are based on ASCE 7 for minimum design loads in buildings
method and PBPD method, the researchers can carry out the seismic [4], and inelasticity is only implicitly accounted for through response
evaluation from Linear static analysis, Linear dynamic analysis, modification factor, R. For the design of SMRF’s system for a high
Nonlinear static analysis and lastly Nonlinear dynamic analysis which is seismic scenario, ASCE 7 [4] specifies a response modification factor, R
the most accurate method of analysis [15]. The Performance Based = 8 and an over strength system factor, Ωo = 3. Therefore, Steel MRF is
Plastic Design has been further improved by modifying the energy implicitly designed for a target displacement ductility ratio, µt (=R/Ωo
modification factor (γl) based on the fundamental period of the structure = 2.67), which is the ratio of response reduction factor and over strength
and by recalculating ductility demand (μ) and ductility reduction factor system factor. The seismic design parameters and lateral design forces
(Rμ) [30]. Work has further extended out by combining the benefits of for nine storey Steel MRF designed by force based design are given in
the Performance-Based Plastic Design approach (PBPD) with a rigorous Tables 1 and 2. This force/strength-based design is designated as “AISC
accounting of second-order effects [11]. Further Study on application of design”. Fig. 3 shows the flow chart of FBD approach and Fig. 6 shows
Theory of Plastic Mechanism Control (TPMC) is carried out which aims the section details obtained for AISC frame.
at the design of structures assuring a collapse mechanism of global type.
The work has been carried out on steel moment resisting frames and 2.2. Performance-based plastic design approach
eccentric braced frames [22,23,24,25].
In the present paper, the comparative study and performance eval­ In this study Performance-based plastic design has been adopted and
uation of 9-storey Steel Moment Resisting Frames is carried out for two is developed by Lee and Goel [19]. In this procedure, the design base
frames, where one frame is designed according to current seismic codes shears are calculated by using the modified energy balance equation and

698
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

Fig. 3. Flow chart for Force Based Design (FBD) approach.

699
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

new lateral force distribution based on inelastic analyses. Then, the

plastic design method is employed to design the beams and columns
with the calculated design base shear and to satisfy the conditions for
strong column-weak beam mechanism which result in the pre-selected
yield mechanism, as shown in Fig. 4. The fundamental time periods
for the structures are estimated as per equation (1) proposed by Lee and
Goel [19]. For the 9-storey Steel Moment Resisting Frame, the yield
drift, θy is taken as 1% (0.01) and the displacement ductility factor, μt is
taken as 2.67 plastic rotation, θp is calculated from the displacement
ductility factor and assumed yield drift ((μt – 1) θy) is 1.7% (0.017).
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
μ
T = Tn 1
1 + αμ − α

The seismic design parameters and lateral design forces for 9-storey
Steel Moment Resisting Frame designed by performance-based plastic
design are given in Table 3 and 4. The frame designed by performance-
Fig. 4. Pre-selected yield mechanism for Steel Moment Resisting Frame (Lee based plastic design is designated as “PBPD frame”. Fig. 5 shows the flow
and Goel 2001). chart of PBPD approach and Fig. 6 shows the section details obtained for
PBPD frame.

Table 3
3. Seismic performance evaluation
Seismic design parameters of Steel MRF for PBPD frame.
PBPD The seismic performance evaluation is carried out for 9-storey Steel
Materials Structural steel Moment Resisting Frames designed by FBD method and PBPD method.
with The evaluation methods include, i) Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis
fy = 345 Mpa
(NSPA) ii) Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NLRHA) iii) Incre­
Floor Seismic Weight for Roof 3500 KN
Floor Seismic Weight for all other Floor 5000 KN mental Dynamic Analysis (IDA). A nonlinear analysis program SAP 2000
Spectral acceleration Sa 0.588 g (Computers and Structures Inc.) is used to perform inelastic static as well
Inelastic Time period T 1.48 sec as inelastic dynamic analysis in order to evaluate the study buildings.
Yield drift ratio θy 1.0%
Displacement Ductility factor µt 2.67
3.1. Non-Linear Static Pushover analysis (NSPA)
Plastic drift ratio θp = (µt – 1) θy 1.7%
Reduction factor due to ductility Rµ 2.7%
Energy Modification factor γ 0.60 Push over analysis refers to the process of formulating structural
Site Class D criteria according to the performance levels or damage state at which
Mapped Spectral response acceleration parameter at shorter 175% g
they are expected to achieve specific performance objectives. The Non
periods, SS
Mapped Spectral response acceleration parameter at a period 87% g Linear Static Procedure or Pushover Analysis is defined in the Federal
of 1 sec, S1 Emergency Management Agency document 356 [12], as the process
Site coefficient, Fa 1.0 involves incrementally applying loads or displacement in one direction
Site coefficient, Fv 1.5 until failure occurs (pushover). By increasing the loads monotonically
MCE spectral response for a shorter period, SMS 1.75
until the peak response of the structure is obtained on a base shear vs.
MCE spectral response for a period of 1 sec, SM1 1.30
Design Spectral acceleration parameter at shorter period, SDS 1.17 roof displacement plot.
Design Spectral acceleration parameter at a period of 1 sec, SD1 0.87
Vy/W 0.11 3.2. Non-Linear response history analysis (NLRHA)
Total Seismic Load W 43,500 KN
Design Base Shear Vy 4677.10 KN
To investigate the performance of SMRF in medium to high seis­
micity, NLRHA is performed under the various ground motion records.
The method consists of performing a time-history analysis in the non-
Table 4 linear domain. The seismic action is directly applied, by means of
Design Lateral Force Distribution of 9-storey Steel MRF for PBPD frame. accelerogram, at the base of the structure. For this analysis the SMRF
∑
Floor hi wi wi.hi wihi βi (βi – Fi (KN) system is assumed to be a lumped mass model with 5% Rayleigh
(m) (KN) βi+1) damping in the first two modes of vibration and is assigned through
Roof 36 3500 126,000 126,000 1.00 1 1939.10 “Damping” parameter in nonlinear time history load case using the
8 32 5000 160,000 286,000 1.46 0.46 893.60 equations (2), 3 and 4.
7 28 5000 140,000 426,000 1.76 0.30 573.03
The damping coefficient is calculated as per Rayleigh proportional
6 24 5000 120,000 546,000 1.97 0.21 414.11
5 20 5000 100,000 646,000 2.13 0.16 308.89 damping, the total damping in each structure was determined by setting
4 16 5000 80,000 726,000 2.25 0.12 229.00 the critical damping ratio to 5% at the natural period of the structure for
3 12 5000 60,000 786,000 2.33 0.08 162.97 the first two modes (ω1, ω2). The Rayleigh damping mass proportion­
2 8 5000 40,000 826,000 2.39 0.05 104.95 ality constant, α, and stiffness proportionality constant, β, were deter­
1 4 5000 20,000 846,000 2.41 0.03 51.45
mined for the entire structure are as follows:
Total 4677.10
C = αM + βK 2

700
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

Fig. 5. Flow chart of Performance Based Plastic Design (PBPD) approach.

701
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

Table 5
Damping Coefficients for AISC and PBPD frames.
AISC PBPD

Time Damping Coefficients Time Damping Coefficients

T1 = 2.357 sec α = 0.1931 T1 = 2.72 sec α = 0.1696

T2 = 0.896 sec β = 0.0103 T2 = 0.977 sec β = 0.01145

3.3. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)

Nonlinear incremental dynamic analysis provides thorough estima­

tion of structural performance under seismic loads. Given a structure
and a ground motion, single-record IDA is done by conducting a series of
nonlinear time-history analysis. It involves subjecting a structural model
to one (or more) ground motion record(s), each scaled to multiple levels
of intensity, thus producing a plot of one (or more) curve(s) of Intensity
Measure (IM) of ground motion versus Damage Measure (DM) of
structural response under scaled ground motion [34].

3.4. Non-Linear Static Pushover analysis (NSPA)

Nonlinear static pushover analysis is determined by increasing

monotonically the lateral forces for both AISC frames and PBPD frames.
Pushover load is applied with the displacement control where the target
displacement is calculated as δt = µt θy H which is 0.96 m; where, µt is the
target displacement ductility Ratio obtained as 2.67, θy is the assumed
yield drift considered as 1% and H is the total height of building that is
36 m.
Fig. 7 shows the sequences of formation of plastic hinges for AISC
and PBPD frame, respectively. It can be observed that the formation of
plastic hinges occurred at the intended locations only in case of PBPD
frames compared to AISC frames. Group 1 hinges will be failing first and
that is the final failing mechanism, followed by group 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
The design of AISC frame were all governed by strong column-weak
beam provision, even then it can be observed formation of plastic
hinges in the columns resulting in the soft storey mechanisms in the
lower part of the AISC frame due to which it resulted in complete loss of
strength than the corresponding PBPD frame even though the AISC
frame had higher sectional properties.
The responses are plotted with respect to Base Shear Vs. Roof
displacement and is known as pushover/capacity curve. Then, the curve
is bilinearized to obtain yield point (yield displacement, Dy; yield base
Fig. 6. Member Section of 9-storey Steel Moment Resisting Frames for (a)AISC shear, Vb) as shown in Fig. 8. After bilinearizing the pushover curve the
Frame (b)PBPD Frame. yield displacement obtained is 0.44 m with base shear of 10450kN for
AISC frames, whereas, for PBPD frames yield displacement obtained is
0.40 m with base shear of 7380kN. The assumed yield drift is 1% and
Mass proportional damping parameter,
Table 6 presents the achieved yield drift for both AISC and PBPD frames.
2ξω1 ω2 From Table 6 it can be observed PBPD frame has achieved 1.11% yield
α= 3
ω1 + ω2 drift with a difference of 10% and AISC frame has achieved 1.22% with a
difference of 22% where assumed yield drift, θy is 1%. Thus the PBPD
Stiffness proportional damping parameter,
frame has achieved nearly same yield drift as assumed.
2ξ
β= 4
ω1 + ω2 3.5. Non-Linear response history analysis (NLRHA)
where ξ is the damping, which is assumed to be 5% for nonlinear
By using accelogrames, the seismic action is applied at the base of the
dynamic analysis of steel structure. The values of damping coefficient
structure. Nonlinear response history analysis is performed in nonlinear
are shown in Table 5.
domain. The performance of EBF is investigated from high to medium
seismicity. The NLRHA is performed by considering the records of
various ground motion.

702
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

Fig. 7. Sequence of formation of plastic hinges for (a)AISC frames (b)PBPD frames.

4. Ground motion records implicitly accounts for μt = R/Ωo. = 8/3 = 2.67. Table 9 provides the
calculation of μa and percentage difference between μa and μt for both
The Nine storey SMRF is analyzed for six different ground motions, AISC and PBPD design against each ground motion record. From El-
(1940 El-Centro, 1989 Loma Prieta, 1992, Landers, 1994 North­ Centro ground motion the achieved displacement ductility μa for AISC
ridge,1967 Koyna and 1995 NE India earthquakes). The ground motion frame is 1.20 with a difference of 55.05% whereas for PBPD frame it is
data was gathered from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research 2.52 with a difference of 5.61%. For Northridge ground motion the
(PEER) strong motion record website (http://peer.berkeley.edu) and achieved displacement ductility μa for AISC frame is 1.36 with a dif­
Cosmos database (http://db.cosmos-eq.org). Details of these ground ference of 49.06% whereas for PBPD frame it is 2.20 with a difference of
motion record is given in Table 7 and Fig. 9. 17.60%. The nonlinear analysis is carried out for Loma prieta ground
motion where achieved displacement ductility μa for AISC frame is 1.87
5. Scaling of ground acceleration records with a difference of 29.96% whereas for PBPD frame it is 2.31 with a
difference of 13.48%. For Landers ground motion the achieved
The scaling factor was obtained by the ratios of MCE pseudo accel­ displacement ductility μa for AISC frame is 2.00 with a difference of
eration elastic spectrum to acceleration spectrum of all the six selected 25.09% whereas for PBPD frame it is 2.55 with a difference of 4.49%.
normalized ground motions. The acceleration time history of each From Koyna ground motion the achieved displacement ductility μa for
earthquake is scaled through scale factor so as to have the same design AISC frame is 1.30 with a difference of 51.31% whereas for PBPD frame
spectral acceleration at the fundamental period T1. The detailed calcu­ it is 1.935 with a difference of 27.52%. Similarly from N.E. India ground
lation is shown in Table 8. The elastic response spectra of earthquakes motion the achieved displacement ductility μa for AISC frame is 0.875
are obtained using SeismoSignal V4.3.0. for 5% damping. Then the with a difference of 67.22% whereas for PBPD frame it is 1.81 with a
elastic response spectra of earthquake for 5% damping are plotted on difference of 32.20%.
response spectra of ASCE 7 for 5% damping. The scale factor is the For all the six selected ground motion it is observed that PBPD design
difference between ASCE 7 response spectra for 5% damping and elastic is more effective in achieving the intended ductility ratio. The overall
response spectra of earthquake for 5% damping at a particular time average percentage difference in AISC frame is 46.28% whereas in PBPD
period. Fig. 10 shows the scale factor calculation for the Koyna frames it is 16.81%. Thus percentage difference for PBPD design be­
earthquake. tween μa and μt is comparatively less than that for AISC design.
From NLRHA results we obtain the ultimate roof displacement, Dm Fig. 11 shows displacement plot for the entire selected earthquake
for applied ground motions and this ultimate roof displacement, Dm is from NLRHA at peak roof displacement for both the designs. The target
used to obtain the achieved displacement ductility, μa which is the ratio displacement δt = µt θy H, which is 0.972 m, is the targeted displacement
of Dm/Dy. It should be noted that for AISC design there is no direct at the roof. The displacement plot from Fig. 11(a) for El-Centro ground
recommendation for μt however, the use R = 8 and Ωo = 3 as per ASCE 7 motion where the roof displacement for AISC frame is 0.68 m, whereas,

703
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

Table 7
Ground motion records for NLRHA.
Earthquake Date Station PGA

El-Centro 19–05-1940 Imperial Valley (USGS STATION 117) 0.215 g

Northridge 17–01-1994 Sepulveda VA (USGS STATION 0637) 0.939 g
Loma prieta 18–10-1989 Agnews 0.159 g
Landers 28–06-1992 Amboy (CDMG STATION 21081) 0.115 g
Koyna 11–12-1967 – 0.474 g
N.E. India 10–01-1990 DIPHU 0.790 g

m. Overall from Fig. 11 it is observed that displacement profile for PBPD

designed frame resembles nearly same profile as target displacement
which is assumed initially in design process. Since the inelastic behavior
and plastic mechanism is involved in the initial design stage of PBPD
method the PBPD frames thus follow the assumed plastic mechanism.

5.1. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)

In the present, a single record IDAs are obtained by subjecting both

designs of Steel MRF to all earthquake records considered in this study.
This single record IDA has peak ground acceleration as an intensity
measure and maximum inter-storey drift as a damage measure. For each
design incremental dynamic analysis is carried out till the maximum
inter-storey drift reaches to 4.5%. Both AISC and PBPD design shows the
hardening although hardening of PBPD design model is more severe
than AISC design model by observing Fig. 12 which is the plot of single
recorded IDA for all considered earthquakes. The IDA plot from Fig. 11
(a) for El-Centro ground motion, the AISC frame bare 3.6 times scaled
earthquake and PBPD can resist 3.4 times scaled earthquake. From the
IDA plot of Fig. 12(b) it is observed that, PBPD design is capable of
fulfilling this limit even the time history of Northridge earthquake is
scaled by 3.8 times where as AISC design can bear only 2.6 times of
seismic hazard of Northridge earthquake. Similarly, for Landers shown
in Fig. 12(c) the AISC frames can resist 5.4 times scaled ground motion
whereas PBPD can withstand up till 6 times earthquake. From Fig. 12(d)
for Loma prieta PBPD frame bears up to 4.10 times ground motion but
AISC frame can bear only 3.98 times scaled earthquake. Further from
Fig. 8. Bilinear curve of Pushover Curve for (a)AISC frames (b)PBPD frames. Fig. 12(e) for Koyna earthquake PBPD frames can resist 7.8 times scaled
ground motion whereas AISC frame can resist only up to 7.2 times scaled
ground motions. Furthermore, from Fig. 12(f) for N.E. India AISC frame
Table 6 resist 7 times and PBPD frame bear 6.6 times scaled ground motion
Achieved yield Drift for AISC and PBPD frames.
respectively.
Target yield drift, θy Assumed 1.00%

Yield drift achieved θy from AISC Dy 0.44 1.22% 6. Conclusions

= × 100
H 36
Yield drift achieved θy from PBPD Dy 0.4 1.11%
H
=
36
× 100 In this study a 9-storey Steel Moment Resting Frame (SMRF) is
designed by force based design method and performance based plastic
design method. Later the performance evaluation is being carried out by
nonlinear static pushover analysis, nonlinear response history analysis
for PBPD frame it is 0.89 m. From Fig. 11(b) for Northridge ground and Incremental dynamic analysis. From the study following conclusion
motion the roof displacement for AISC frame is 0.72 m whereas for PBPD have been drawn.
frame it is 0.92 m. Similarly, from Fig. 11(c) for Landers ground motion
the roof displacement for AISC frame is 0.78 m whereas for PBPD frame 1. The PBPD method needs little or no evaluation once the initial design
it is 1.05 m. For Loma prieta ground motion from Fig. 11(d) the roof is done which is due to the nonlinear behaviour and key performance
displacement for AISC frame is 0.75 m whereas for PBPD frame it is 1.04 criteria. Whereas, the conventional elastic design procedures require
m. The displacement plot from Fig. 11(e) for Koyna ground motion the iteration and its time-consuming.
roof displacement for AISC frame is 0.70 m whereas for PBPD frame it is 2. The frames designed by PBPD method is found to be much effective
0.88 m. From Fig. 11(f) for N.E. India ground motion the roof in achieving target performance criteria since the inelasticity is
displacement for AISC frame is 0.42 m whereas for PBPD frame it is 0.89 considered while designing whereas the force/strength-based
approach falls behind in adopting inelastic deformation of EBF.

704
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

Fig. 9. Ground Acceleration History.

705
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

Table 8
Scaling factors of selected ground motion set.
Earthquake Elastic response Spectral Acceleration for Response Spectra for 5% damping Scaling factors
selected ground motion

AISC PBPD AISC PBPD ASCE − 07 PBPD

For T = 1.27 s For T = 1.48 s For T = 1.27 s For T = 1.48 s

1940 El-Centro 0.3221 0.1873 0.683 0.588 2.12 3.14

1994 Northridge 0.4343 0.2657 1.57 2.21
1989 Loma Prieta 0.1308 0.1284 5.22 4.57
1992 Landers 0.1421 0.0935 4.80 6.28
1967 Koyna 0.0983 0.1070 6.94 5.49
1990 N.E. India 0.1181 0.0878 5.78 6.70

Fig. 10. Scaling of Koyna earthquake for NLRHA.

Table 9
Result summary for achieved displacement ductility ratio, μa for AISC and PBPD designs from NLRHA under different earthquakes.
Earthquake μt AISC design PBPD design

Dm (m) Dy (m) μa = Dm/Dy %Diff. Dm (m) Dy (m) μa = Dm/Dy %Diff.

El Centro 2.67 0.532 0.44 1.20 55.05 1.008 0.40 2.52 5.61
Northridge 2.67 0.599 0.44 1.36 49.06 0.877 0.40 2.20 17.60
Loma prieta 2.67 0.823 0.44 1.87 29.96 0.926 0.40 2.31 13.48
Landers 2.67 0.880 0.44 2.00 25.09 1.019 0.40 2.55 4.49
Koyna 2.67 0.574 0.44 1.30 51.31 0.774 0.40 1.935 27.52
N.E.India 2.67 0.385 0.44 0.875 67.22 0.726 0.40 1.81 32.20
Average % Diff. 46.28 16.81

3. The yield drift obtained from nonlinear push over analysis for PBPD earthquake the PBPD is scaled by 3.8 times to achieve an inter drift
frames is 1.11% which is near to the assumed target yield drift ratio ratio up till 4.5% where as AISC design can bear only 2.6 times of
(θy) of 1%. seismic hazard of Northridge earthquake
4. The average percentage ductility ratio obtained from nonlinear
response history analysis for AISC frames is 46.28 % and for PBPD
frames it is 16.81% when compared to target ductility ratio (μt) of Declaration of Competing Interest
2.67.
5. The IDA graph shows that inter storey drift is observed maximum in The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
AISC design frame compared to PBPD design frame. For Northridge interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

706
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6
Storey no.

Storey no.
5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Diplacement ( m ) Diplacement ( m )
(a)Elcentro (b)Northridge
9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6
5
Storey no.
Storey no.

5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Diplacement ( m ) Diplacement ( m )
(c)Landers (d)Loma prieta
9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6

5
Storey no.
Storey no.

4 4

3
3

2
2

1
1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Diplacement ( m )
Diplacement ( m )
(e)Koyna (f)N.E. India
Fig. 11. Displacement plot for both designs at peak roof displacement.

707
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

4 4
AISC Design AISC Design

PGA ( Sa/g ) as intensty measure

PGA ( Sa/g ) as intensty measure
PBPD Design PBPD Design

3 3

2
2

1
1

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Maximum inter-storey drift as
Maximum inter-storey drift as damage measure
damage measure
(a)Elcentro (b)Northridge
6 5
AISC Design AISC Design
PGA ( Sa/g ) as intensty measure

PGA ( Sa/g ) as intensty measure

5 PBPD Design PBPD Design
4

4
3

2
2

1
1

0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Maximum inter-storey drift as Maximum inter-storey drift as
damage measure damage measure
(c)Landers (d)Loma prieta
8 7
AISC Design AISC Design
PGA ( Sa/g ) as intensty measure

PGA ( Sa/g ) as intensty measure

7 6
PBPD Design
PBPD Design
6
5

5
4
4
3
3
2
2

1
1

0
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Maximum inter-storey drift as Maximum inter-storey drift as
damage measure damage measure
(e)Koyna (f)N.E. India

Fig. 12. Single record IDA for AISC and PBPD designs.

708
B.B. Biradar et al. Structures 43 (2022) 696–709

References [16] Hajirasouliha I, Pilakoutas K, Mohammadi RK. Effects of uncertainties on seismic

behaviour of optimum designed braced steel frames. Steel and Composite
Structures 2016;20(2):317–35.
[1] Andalib Z, Kafi MA, Kheyroddin A, Bazzaz M, Momenzadeh S. Numerical
[17] Kharmale SB, Ghosh S. Performance-based plastic design of steel plate shear walls.
evaluation of ductility and energy absorption of steel rings constructed from plates.
J Constr Steel Res 2013;90:85–97.
Eng Struct 2018;169:94–106.
[18] Krawinkler H, Miranda E. Performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthquake
[2] Aisc. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. Chicago, IL, USA: American
engineering: from engineering seismology to performance-based engineering 2004;
Institute of Steel Construction Inc.; 2005.
9:1–9.
[3] AISC (2005b). Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of
[19] Lee SS, Goel SC. Performance-based design of steel moment frames using target
Steel Construction Inc., Chicago, IL, USA.
drift and yield mechanism, Research Report UMCEE 01–07. Ann Arbor, USA:
[4] ASCE (2005), SEI/ASCE 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
University of Michigan; 2001.
Structures (including Supplement No. 1), American Society of Civil Engineers,
[20] Leelataviwat S, Goel SC, Stojadinović B. Toward performance-based seismic design
Reston, USA.
of structures. Earthquake spectra 1999;15(3):435–61.
[5] Bayat M, Zahrai SM. Seismic performance of mid-rise steel frames with semi-rigid
[21] Liao WC, Goel SC. Performance-based plastic design and energy-based evaluation
connections having different moment capacity. Steel Compos Struct 2017;25(1):
of seismic resistant RC moment frame. J Mar Sci Technol 2012;20(3):9.
1–17.
[22] Montuori R, Nastri E, Piluso V. Advances in theory of plastic mechanism control:
[6] Cassiano D, D’Aniello M, Rebelo C, Landolfo R, Da Silva LS. Influence of Seismic
Closed form solution for MR-Frames. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44(7):
design rules on the robustness of steel moment resisting frames. Steel and
1035–54.
Composite Structures 2016;21(3):479–500.
[23] Montuori R, Nastri E, Piluso V. Seismic response of EB-frames with inverted Y-
[7] Chao SH, Goel SC, Lee S-S. A seismic design lateral force distribution based on
scheme: TPMC versus eurocode provisions. Earthquake and Structures 2015;8(5):
inelastic state of structures. Earthquake Spectra 2007;23(3):547–69.
1191–214.
[8] Chao SH, Goel SC. Performance-based design of EBF using target drift and yield
[24] Montuori R, Nastri E, Todisco P. Influence of the seismic shear proportioning factor
mechanism, Research Report UMCEE 05–05. Ann Arbor, USA: University of
on steel MRFs seismic performances. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2021;141:106498.
Michigan; 2005.
[25] Nastri E, Montuori R, Piluso V. Seismic design of MRF-EBF dual systems with
[9] Dasgupta, P., Goel, S. C., Parra-Montesinos, G., and Tsai, T. C. (2004, August).
vertical links: EC8 vs plastic design. J Earthquake Eng 2015;19(3):480–504.
Performance-based seismic design and behavior of a composite buckling restrained
[26] Poursadrollah, A., Tartaglia, R., D’Aniello, M., Landolfo, R. Seismic Behaviour of
braced frame. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Steel MRFs Designed According to EN1998-1(2005) and prEN1998-1-2(2020)
Engineering, Vancouver, BC (pp. 1-6).
(2022) Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 262 LNCE, pp. 1022-1030.
[10] D’Aniello, M., Di Sarno, L., Fiorino, L., Tartaglia, R., Costanzo, S., Landolfo, R., Le
[27] Rahimi E, Estekanchi HE. Collapse assessment of steel moment frames using
Maoult, A., Rastiello, G. Behaviour of steel moment resisting frames under near
endurance time method. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 2015;
fault earthquakes: The “FuTure” project (2019) COMPDYN Proceedings, 1, pp. 56-
14(2):347–60.
63.
[28] Rai, D. C. (2000), “Future Trends in Earthquake-Resistant Design of Structures,”
[11] Dell’Aglio G, Montuori R, Nastri E, Piluso V. Consideration of second-order effects
special section: seismology, Current Science, Vol. 79, No. 9, 10 Nov. 1291-1300.
on plastic design of steel moment resisting frames. Bull Earthq Eng 2019;17(6):
[29] Reza Banihashemi M, Mirzagoltabar AR, Tavakoli HR. Development of the
3041–70.
performance based plastic design for steel moment resistant frame. International
[12] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000, Pre-standard and
Journal of Steel Structures 2015;15(1):51–62.
Commentary for the Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-356.
[30] Rouhi A, Hamidi H. Development of performance based plastic design of EBF steel
[13] Feizi MG, Mojtahedi A, Nourani V. Effect of semi-rigid connections in improvement
structures subjected to forward directivity effect. International Journal of Steel
of seismic performance of steel moment-resisting frames. Steel Compos Struct
Structures 2021;21(3):1092–107.
2015;19(2):467–84.
[31] Sahoo DR, Chao SH. Performance-based plastic design method for buckling-
[14] Ganjavi B, Gholamrezatabar A, Hajirasouliha I. Effects of soil-structure interaction
restrained braced frames. Eng Struct 2010;32(9):2950–8.
and lateral design load pattern on performance-based plastic design of steel
[32] Sistani A, Asgarian B, Jalaeefar A. Reliability analysis of braced frames subjected to
moment resisting frames. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 2019;
near field ground motions. Earthquake Structures 2013;5(6):733–51.
28(11):e1624.
[33] Tartaglia, R., D’Aniello, M., Landolfo, R. Seismic performance of Eurocode-
[15] Ghodrati, A. G., Hamidi, J. H., and Ahmadi, H. R. (2009). The effect of analysis
compliant ductile steel MRFs (2022) Earthquake Engineering and Structural
methods on the response of steel dual-system frame buildings for seismic
Dynamics.
retrofitting.
[34] Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C. A. (2002a and b). “Incremental Dynamic Analysis.”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3): 491–514.

709