International Journal of Steel Structures 15(1): 51-62 (2015)

DOI 10.1007/s13296-015-3004-6

www.springer.com/journal/13296

Development of the Performance Based Plastic Design for

Steel Moment Resistant Frame
M. Reza Banihashemi*, A. R Mirzagoltabar, and H. R Tavakoli
Department of Civil Engineering, Babol University of Technology, Iran

Abstract

This paper presents the development of performance based plastic design (PBPD) method for steel moment frames with
considering the gravity loads and P-∆ effects. In this method the design lateral forces are obtained from energy-work balance
equation by using pre-selected target drift and yield mechanism. For further improvement of PBPD method, some solutions are
represented to precisely obtain the required moment of columns in order to prevent their yielding that leads to form undesirable
mechanisms in the structure. In order to show more validity of PBPD method, two model frames, 5 and 10story, are designed
based on PBPD as well as elastic design method. The mentioned frames are evaluated by extensive nonlinear static pushover
analysis and dynamic analysis. The results show that the frames designed by PBPD method reach the intended performance
objectives in terms of yield mechanism and target drift levels. In contrast, the frame designed by Ed method experience large
story drifts due to flexural yielding of the columns. Since PBPD method is a direct design method, little or no evaluation are
needed after the initial design because the nonlinear behavior is built into the design process from the start.

Keywords: performance based plastic design, P-∆ effect, nonlinear dynamic analysis, yield mechanism

1. Introduction
It is well recognized that current seismic design codes
are based on elastic structural behavior and account for
the inelastic behavior indirectly. However, the structures
designed by such procedures have been shown to undergo
large inelastic deformations in a rather uncontrolled manner
when subjected to major earthquakes. The inelastic activities
which may include sever yielding and buckling of structural
members; can be unevenly and widely distributed in the
structure (Gupta and Krawinkler, 1999; Krawinkler and
Miranda, 2004). This may lead to somewhat undesirable
and unpredictable responses including total collapse and
costly repair work at best. In order to solve this problem
and obtain more predictable structural performance,
Leelataviwat et al. (1999) developed a complete design
methodology which directly accounts for structural inelastic
behavior and practically eliminates the need for any
assessment or iteration after initial design. This method is
called performance based plastic design method (PBPD
method) (Lee and Goel, 2001; Chao and Goel, 2005,
Received July 24, 2013; accepted August 3, 2014;
published online March 31, 2015
© KSSC and Springer 2015
*Corresponding author
Tel: +989113274843
E-mail: Reza_niaki@yahoo.com
2006; Goel and Chao, 2008; Sahoo and Chao, 2010;
Mohammad, 2010; Liao and Goel, 2012). According to
this method, pre-selected target drift and yield mechanism
are used as design criteria that are directly related to
degree and distribution of structural damage respectively.
PBPD method calculates the design base shear for
specified hazard level by equating the work needed to
push the structure monotonically up to the target drift to
the energy needed by an equivalent elastic-plastic single
degree of freedom system (EP-SDOF) in order to obtain
the same state. Also a new distribution of lateral design
force based on the relative distribution maximum story
shears obtained from extensive nonlinear dynamic
analyses results are used in this method. Then in order to
achieve the expected yield mechanism and behavior, plastic
design is applied to detail the frame members and
connections. It should be noted that the main purpose of
this paper is to apply a more development PBPD method
to design steel moment frames. In order to achieve the
objective, at first this method is modified for steel moment
frames with different dimensions and bays. Also the effects
of gravity load and P-delta are taken in this method
whereas they were ignored in previous studies. P-∆ effect
is included in the determination of required moment
capacity of beams to provide necessary strength to
counter the overturning of the structures due to gravity
loads. The other point mentioned in this paper is to
determine the required moment of columns. Many studies
52 M. Reza Banihashemi et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 15(1), 51-62, 2015
have shown that it is often impossible to estimate the
column moment demand because they undergo large
moments not only from those delivered from beams but
also from their own deformation. It causes yielding in
columns and also an undesirable mechanism in the
structure. In PBPD method the columns must be designed
as Non-Designated Yielding Members (Non-DYM) in
order to achieve the pre-selected yield mechanism that is
one of the mentioned key performance limit states. Therefore,
in this paper some undesirable mechanisms have been
recognized and also some solutions are represented to
obtain the moment of columns precisely in order to prevent
their yielding that leads to undesirable mechanisms in the
structure. Finally the significant results obtained from the
nonlinear dynamic analyses show the validity of the
represented equation in this study.
2. Modified Performance Based Plastic
Design for Different Numbers of
Stories and Bays
In current seismic codes; design base shears are calculated
by decreasing the elastic strength demands to the inelastic
strength demands using the response modification factors
(R-Factor). According to the importance of specific structures,
the inelastic strength demands are more increased using
the occupancy important factor. The design base shear is
generally obtained from the code proposed design
acceleration spectrum and given in following equation:
I is pushed up to the target drift; M is the total mass of the
V = Ce⎛ ---⎞ W (1)
⎝ R⎠
In Eq. (1); Ce is the normalized design pseudo-
acceleration; I is the occupancy importance factor; R is
the response modification factor; and W is the total
seismic weight. After selecting the member sizes for
required strengths (that is basically performed by elastic
analysis) the calculated drift using elastic analysis is
Figure 1. Structural idealized response and energy balance concept.
multiplied by deflection amplification factor, such as Cd
given in the codes, and kept within specified drift limits
(in the order of 2%).
It should be noticed that the R-Factor for different
structural systems in design codes, are mainly determined
on the bases of engineering judgment. Furthermore, as
pointed out earlier, the conventional design procedures in
the codes are according to the elastic force-based analysis
approaches, not displacement-based approaches. Therefore,
it leads to the problem that the inelastic response beyond
the elastic limit cannot be predicted precisely for a
structure. A more rational design approach to overcome
the shortcomings in the conventional approach was
represented by (Leelataviwat, 1998) and modified by Lee
and Goel, that uses energy balance equation as the design
basis with the structure pushed monotonically up to a
target drift after the formation of a selected yield
mechanism. The required amount of external work to do
that is calculated as a factor γ times the elastic input
1 2
energy E = --- MSν . The modification factor γ is dependent
2
on the natural period of the structure that has significant
influence on the earthquake input energy, as found out by
many researchers (Uang and Bertero, 1988). Thus, the
modified energy balances equation as can be represented
as follow:
(Ee+Ep)=γ E (2)
In Eq. (2); Ee and Ep are respectively the elastic and
plastic components of the energy needed as the structure
system, Sν is the design pseudo-velocity. The modification
factor, γ, depends on the structural ductility factor (µs)
and the ductility reduction factor (Rµ), which is related to
the period of the structure. Figure 1 gives the relationship
between the base shear (CW) and the corresponding drift
(∆) of an elastic system and an elastic-plastic system as
well. Eq. (2) can be written as follow:
 Development of the Performance Based Plastic Design for Steel Moment Resistant Frame 53

Figure 2. Ductility reduction factors Proposed by Newmark Figure 3. Modification factors for energy equation versus
and Hall (1982). period (Lee and Goel, 2001).

In Eq. (6); Sa is the design pseudo-acceleration, g is the

γ --- Ceu W∆e = ⎛ --- Cy W ( 2∆max – ∆y )⎞
1 1
(3) acceleration due to gravity, and Ce is the normalized
2 ⎝2 ⎠
design pseudo-acceleration as defined in Eq. (1). It should
be noticed that in the design pseudo-acceleration, no
By using the expression for drifts (∆), Eq. (3) can be
occupancy importance factor is involved for the suggested
rewritten as follow:
approach. The occupancy importance factor, I, increases
the design force level in order to reduce the drift and
∆ 2∆max – ∆y⎞
γ -----e = ⎛ -----------------------
- (4) ductility demand of the structure for a given level of
∆y ⎝ ∆e ⎠
ground motion. Nevertheless this factor (I) cannot be
taken as a direct method to control the damage. Therefore,
In which ∆e and ∆max in Fig. 1 are respectively equal to
it’s better to be reduced and controlled by applying proper
(Rµ ∆y) and (µs∆y). Substituting these terms into Eq. (4),
drift limitation. In respect to the point, the proposed
the energy modification factor γ can be determined as:
calculation of the design base shear in this paper uses
target drift as an important parameter with the assumption
2µs – 1⎞
γ = ⎛ ---------------
- (5) of having the occupancy importance factor built into it.
⎝ R2 ⎠
µ The energy balance equation can be rewritten as:
In Eq. (5); γ is a function of the ductility reduction
T- S g⎞ 2
( Ee + Ep ) = γ E = 1 --- γ M ⎛ -----
--- γ MSv = 1
2
factor and the structural ductility factor. Many researchers (7)
2 2 ⎝ 2π a ⎠
have studied the relationship between ductility reduction
factor (Rµ) and structural ductility factor (µs) (Miranda
Akyama (1985) showed that the elastic vibration
and Bertero, 1994). In this paper, the relationship proposed
energy for the structure can be calculated by considering
by Newmark and Hall (1982), as given in Fig. 2, because
that the whole structure is reduced into a single-degree-
of its simplicity is used to show the relationship between
of-freedom system. It can be written as following
the ductility reduction factor Ru, and the structural
equation:
ductility factor, µs, for Ep-SDOF system. Figure 3 presents
Plots of energy modification factor, γ, obtained from Eq.
T V ⎞
(5). --- M ⎛ -------
Ee = 1 - ⋅ ----- ⋅ g (8)
Determining the exact amount of the earthquake input 2 ⎝ 2π2 W ⎠
energy demand depends on the structural specification
In Eq. (8); V=Vy is the design yield base shear. T=
and the selection of the earthquakes that is hard work and
(.08*H.75) is the period of structure that is obtained by
takes a long time to be obtained. But by using the above
seismic design code (BHRC, 2005), and W is the total
simple Eq. (2), determining the amount of input energy
seismic weight of the structure (W=Mg).
for structure is desirable. Hosner showed that the design
Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (7) the total plastic energy
pseudo-velocity of the structure in most earthquakes is
that the structure has to dissipate during the earthquake is
constant in a wide range of periods. Also, he stated that
equal to:
the maximum input energy of multi degree of freedom
system can be equal to the amount of Eq. (2). Therefore, 2
Ep = WT g ⎛ 2 ⎛ ----V-⎞ 2⎞
the design input energy can be determined from the ------------- gS – (9)
8π ⎝ ⎝ W⎠ ⎠
2 a
elastic design pseudo-acceleration spectra as given in the
building codes. In this paper the design is based on the
By using a pre-selected yield mechanism as shown in
seismic design code, BHRC (2005) design spectrum that
Fig. 4 and equating the plastic energy term Ep to the
is specified as follow for elastic systems:
external work done by the design lateral forces, the
Sa=Ceg (6) following equation can be given as:
54 M. Reza Banihashemi et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 15(1), 51-62, 2015
Figure 4. Desirable Yield Mechanisms of moment frame.
m n
E p = ( ( M + 1 )Mpc + 2Σ j = 1 µ jΣ i = 1 βi Mpbr )θp (10)
In Eq. (10); Mpbr is the reference plastic moment of
beams, Mpc is the plastic moment of the columns at the
base, µj βi Mpbr is the plastic moment capacity of beams
at each level, n is the number of the stories, θp is the
plastic drift ratio, and βi is the shear distribution factor at
level i. Lr is the length of the reference bay (e.g in this
paper, Lr is the maximum length of bay). Lj is the length
L Substituting equations 9 and 10 into Eq. (12a) and
of the bay at level j. µ j = ----r is the ratio of length of bays.
Lj
Moreover, after yielding of the structure, by equating
the internal work performed by plastic energy to the
external work done by design lateral forces and gravity
loads, the following equation can be produced as:
m n
( M + 1 )Mpc + 2Σj = 1 µ j Σi = 1 βi Mpbr
n n
= Σi = 1 Fi hi + Σi = 1 Wi hi θu
n
= Σi = 1 ( F i + Wi θu )hi (11)
In which Fi is the design lateral force applied at level
i, hi is the height of level i from the base.
3. Lateral Force Distribution for PBPD
It is recognized that a linear distribution of lateral design
forces has been generally used in the current seismic design
codes, assuming that the structures behave elastically and
primarily in the first mode of vibration (Clough and
Penzien, 1993; Chopra, 2000; BSSC, 2006). However,
many studies have shown that this distribution may not be
applicable in the inelastic range and does not satisfactory
recognize the higher mode effects for high-rise buildings.
Therefore, building structures designed according to
current codes experience lateral forces that are different
from those given by the code formula when struck by
earthquake ground motions. It is required to account for
inelastic behavior of structures directly in the design
process in order to reach the main objective of
performance-based seismic design, i.e., a desirable and
predictable structural response (Choi and Park, 2008).
Therefore, PBPD method uses a new lateral force
distribution based on maximum story shears obtained by
nonlinear dynamic analyses that fulfills the mentioned
objective in a realistic manner (Chao and Goel, 2007). It
has also been suitable for all of the structural systems.
The lateral force distribution is expressed as follow:
Fi =CviV (12a)
–.2
Wn hn ⎞ 0.75T
Cvi = ( βi – β i + 1 ) ⎛ --------------------
-
⎝Σ W h ⎠
n
j=1 j j
When i =n, βn+1 =0 (12b)
–.2
V n
Σj = 1 Wj hj⎞ 0.75T
βi = -----i = ⎛ --------------------
- (12c)
Vn ⎝ Wnhn ⎠
In the above equations, βi shows the shear distribution
factor at level i; Vi and Vn are respectively the story shear
forces at level i, and at the top story level; Wj is the
seismic weight at level j; T is the fundamental period; Fi
is the lateral force at level i; and V is the total design base
shear.
V
solving for ----- gives:
W
2 2
V – α + ( α + 4γSa )
----- = ------------------------------------------
- (13)
W 2
where v is design base shear and α is a dimensionless
parameter which depends on the stiffness of the structure,
the modal properties, and the design plastic drift level;
and is given by
2
Wn hn ⎞ .75T ⎛ θ p 8π ⎞
–.2
α = ( Σi = 1 ( βi – βi + 1 )hi ) ⋅ ⎛ --------------------
n
- ⋅ ⎜ -------------
-⎟ (14)
⎝ Σn W h ⎠ ⎝ T2 g ⎠
j=1 j j
The required design base shear given by Eq. (13), is
related to the lateral force distribution (modal properties),
the design plastic drift ratio, θp, and the selected yield
mechanism. In Eq. (14), βn+1 =0, when i=n.
The design target drift is built into Eq. (13). Therefore,
the drift control is taken care at the beginning of the
design process. It should be mentioned that the value of
plastic drift ratio is the deference between the preselected
target drift ratio (θu) and yield drift ratio (θy). For steel
moment frame, θu is considered 2% in according to
seismic design code, BHRC (2005). The yield drift ratio
for some structures were considered to be constant as
shown in table1 (Goel and Chao, 2009). After assuming
a constant yield drift ratio, although it works well for MF
 Development of the Performance Based Plastic Design for Steel Moment Resistant Frame
Table 1. Assumed design yield drift ratios
Frame type MF CBF STMF EBF
Yield drift ratio, θy (%) 1 0.3 0.75 0.5
systems due to their mainly shear mode of deformation,
it should be modified for other structures by nonlinear
dynamic and static analyses. It is because the other
systems may have the flexural mode of deformations that
increase the yield drift ratio when the height of structures
increases. This issue leads to varying yield drift ratio for
other systems. In this paper the yield drift ratio, θy=1%,
is considered according to Table 1.
3.1. Considering P-∆ effect in the lateral forces
It is noted that the P-∆ effect is not represented in
former studies. P-delta effect has great influence on
seismic performance and stability of structures especially
when the height of building increases. Therefore in order
to provide necessary strength to counter the overturning
due to gravity loads, p-delta effect is considered to determine
the required moment capacity of beams. It is performed
by adding P-∆ lateral force, Fi-PD, to the basic design
force, Fi, in Eq. (12a), as seen in Fig. 5. The force Fi-PD
is determined equal to Piθy, where Pi represents the
gravity load at story level i and θu presents the target
design drift ratio.
4. Design of Designated Yielding Members
(Design of Beams)
It is well recognized that the designated yielding members
in moment frames include plastic hinge formation at the
beam ends and column basis. In order to design these
members, plastic design method is used to provide the
desirable strength, ductility and desired yield mechanism.
Figure 5. Additional lateral forces due to P- effect.
55
In order to meet the objective, the required distribution of
beam strength along the height should closely follow the
distribution of design story shears, i.e., the shear distribution
factor, βi, which was obtained and calibrated by nonlinear
dynamic time-history analysis results. This guarantees
that the input energy will dissipate and will prevent the
concentration damage in a story.
Therefore, the required strength for designated yielding
members (DYM) at each level can be determined by
equating the external work to the internal work due to a
small mechanism deformation, θ, according to Eq. (11).
m n
( M + 1 )Mpc + 2Σ j = 1 µj Σ i = 1 βi Mpbr
n n
= Σi = 1 F i hi + Σ i = 1 Wi hi θu
n
= Σi = 1 ( Fi + Wi θu )hi (11)
To solve Eq. (11), it is essential to obtain the plastic
moment of columns at the base, Mpc, properly. This
suitable value is obtained by the assumption of the
prevention of soft story mechanism in the first story when
the suitable factor (say 1.1) times the design lateral forces
Fi are applied on the frame, as shown in Fig. 6. For this
purpose, the plastic hinges form at the top and base of the
columns of the first story (Goel and Chao, 2008). The
corresponding work equation for a small mechanism
deformation, θ, can be represented as:
2
Wh1 θu⎞
1.1 ⎛ V 1 h1 θp + --------------
- = 4Mpc θp (15)
⎝ 2 ⎠
Therefore, Mpc is equal to:
1.1 ( V1 h1 + Wh1 θu )
Mpc = -------------------------------------------
- (16)
4
In which V1 is the base shear (for an equivalent one bay
56 M. Reza Banihashemi et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 15(1), 51-62, 2015

Figure 6. One bay frame with soft story mechanism.

model), which may be taken as V divided by the number

of bays; and h1 is the height of the first story; also W is
the total seismic weight of the structure and the factor 1.1
accounts for overstrength above the design force.
By determining the values of Bi, Mpc, Fi, hi, µi, θp, Wi, Figure 7. strong column-weak beam.
the only unknown parameter Mpbr in Eq. 11, can be
calculated, and consequently the nominal strength required
for beam at each level, Mpbij is determined as follow: order to prevent undesirable mechanisms in the structures.
The formation of undesirable mechanisms and the
ϕMpbij ≥ µj βi Mpbr (17)
solutions in order to prevent them are as follow:
In Eq. (17); ϕ is the resistance factor according to the
AISC (2005). 5.1. Formation of Plastic hinge in columns before
beams
5. Design of Non Designated Yielding In order to overcome this shortcoming, the formation of
Members (Design of Columns) strong column-weak beam mechanism has been suggested
to design the columns with the maximum applied forces.
The columns are taken as non designated yielding It is possible by involving gravity loads on beams and
members. They are intended to remain elastic and are columns, and also by assuming a proper amount of strain
designed based on capacity approach according to AISC- hardening and material overstrength in the beam plastic
LRFD CODE (2005). These members should have the hinges. It is required to obtain the moment at a strain-
design strength to resist combination of factored gravity hardened beam plastic hinge by multiplying its nominal
loads and maximum expected strength of the designated plastic moment (Mpb) by a proper overstrength factor (ξ).
yielding members accounting for reasonable strain hardening Assuming the suitable quantity ξ (equal to 1.05), the
and material overstrength. When a structure is subjected design moment of beams are obtained at each level
to seismic loading, it undergoes large moments in columns (Bayat and Goel, 2010). When all of the beams reach the
that can be significantly larger than the design moments strain hardening, the values of lateral forces should be
obtained from static analysis. Since the moment of columns recalculated. At this stage with the assumption that the
are underestimated in the elastic design approach, this distribution of lateral forces maintain the same as Eq.
shortcoming causes the yielding in columns and consequently (12a), their magnitude is obtained using the equilibrium
undesirable mechanism in the structure, so that the of free- body diagram as shown in Fig. 7. For example
structure fails before reaching the pre-selected target drift. the sum of required balancing lateral forces, Fl, applied
Therefore, in this paper some undesirable mechanisms on the free-body of an interior column tree can be
have been recognized and also some solutions are obtained as follow:
represented to obtain the moment of columns precisely in

⎛ Σn ( ξM + ξM n ⎛ ⎛ L j + Lj + 1⎞ 2ξM pbi( j – 1) 2ξMpbij⎞ ⎞

⎝ i=1 pbi ( j – 1 ) ) + 2M pc – Σ i = 1 ⎝ W i ⎝ -------------------⎠ + -------------------------- – ------------------⎠ θ u h i⎠
pbij
2 Lj – 1 Lj
F L = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (18)
Σi = 1 αi hi

( βi – βi + 1 ) are respectively the plastic moment of beams at level i

αi = ---------------------------------
- (19)
n
Σi = 1 ( βi – βi + 1 ) and bay j and j−1.
Having the value of αiFl from Eq. (18), the moment
In accordance with Fig. 7 and Eq. (18), Pei is the axial distribution in columns at each level is as follow:
load on the column due to gravity loads, Mpbij and Mpbi(j−1)
 Development of the Performance Based Plastic Design for Steel Moment Resistant Frame
Figure 8. soft story mechanism.
n n
Mc ( h ) = Σi = 1 δ i ( ξMpbij + ξMpbi(j – 1) ) – Σi = 1 δ i αi Fi ( hi – h )
L j – 1 + Lj⎞ 2ξMpbi( j – 1) 2ξMpbij⎞
–Σ i = 1 ⎛ Wi ⎛ ------------------
n
- + -------------------------- – ------------------ θu ( hi – h )
⎝ ⎝ 2 ⎠ Lj – 1
δi =1 if h ≤hi
δi =0 if h >hi
where Mc(h) is the moment of columns with the distance
from the base level.
Soft story mechanism in columns of a story before the
formation of plastic hinge in beams of upper stories.
As it is known another type of shortcomings, therefore
in order to overcome, Fig. 8 presents a column tree
diagram in which the soft story has been formed. At this
stage the moment of columns is determined by the
following equation as:
1.05∗ ⎛ Σi = 1 δ i αi Fl ( hc ) + Σi = 1 δ i Wi ⎛ ---------------------
n n
⎝ ⎝
Mc ( h ) = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
In which hc is the expected story height.
The maximum moment of columns obtained by
equations 20 and 21 at each level should be taken as
required plastic moment of columns (Mp req) in order to
design the columns.
5.2. The formation of plastic hinge in columns of
structure from up to down
In order to overcome this shortcoming, it is required to
form the plastic hinges of columns at each story earlier
than the upper story. Therefore, it is suggested to make
relationship between the maximum required plastic
moment of columns, Mp req, and the designed plastic
moment of columns, Mp design, that is as follow:
57
⎛M p design⎞ Mp design⎞
- ≤ 1.01⎛ -------------------
------------------- - (22)
⎝ Mp req ⎠ i ⎝ Mp req ⎠ i + 1
By obtaining the moment of columns from the above
mentioned equations and determining the value of axial
force from the following equation, each column is designed
based on capacity approach by using the AISC-LRFD
code. The axial force of columns is determined as follow:
2ξMpbij 2ξMpbi (j – 1) L j + L ( j – 1 )⎞
Pe ( h ) = Σi = 1 δ i ⎛ -----------------
n
- – -------------------------- + wi ---------------------
-
⎝ Lj L(j – 1) 2 ⎠
(23)
In Eq. (23); wi is the gravity load applied on the beams.
It should be noticed that the equations represented in
this paper determine the moment of columns with good
precision. It prevents the yielding in columns that finally
leads to more desirable results, so that the structure can
better achieve the desired performance. The results obtained
by extensive nonlinear analyses show the validity of the
Lj ⎠
mentioned techniques as given in continues.
(20)
(20a) 6. Verification by Nonlinear Analysis
(20b) 6.1. Frames designed by elastic and PBPD method
Two model frames including 5 and 10 story with 3 bays
have been designed based on both PBPD and ED
methods in order to evaluate their seismic performance.
The story height and bay length of the models are
respectively 3.2 and 6 m. The live and dead loads
distributed on beams are taken respectively 1,000 kg/m
and 2,500 kg/m. In this paper, according to seismic design
code, BHRC (2005), the pre-selected target drift ratio is
considered to be 2% for the earthquake hazard level with
10% probability of exceedence in 50 years. Assuming the
L j + L ( j – 1 )⎞ yield drift ratio as 1% according to Table 1, all of the
- θp hc⎞
⎠ ⎠ parameters related to PBPD method can be calculated.
2
The results are represented in Table 2. It has to be
mentioned that the frames designed by ED method start
(21)
with selecting the member sizes for required strengths
obtained by elastic analysis. Then the calculated drift due
to design lateral forces using elastic analysis is multiplied
by a deflection amplification factor, Cd, given in the
building codes and kept within specified limits (2%). As
is usual for steel moment frames, the member sizes were
governed by drift limit at design forces. The frames
designed by ED and PBPD method are shown in Figs. 9
and 10. The European standard profiles (IPB and IPE) are
respectively used for the columns and beam sections.
Also the weight comparison between PBPD and ED
frames are shown in Table 3. Although the weight of
PBPD frames and ED frames are almost equal, the merit
of PBPD method is justified by its performance as shown
by nonlinear analysis.
58 M. Reza Banihashemi et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 15(1), 51-62, 2015

Figure 9. Member sizes of 5 and 10 story moment frame designed by elastic method

Table 2. Design parameters for PBPD method

Number of story Period (T) Sa Yield drift (θ y) Plastic drift (θ p) γ Á V/W
5 .64 (sec) 0.742 0.01 0.01 0.75 2.41 0.154
10 1.076 (sec) 0.53 0.01 0.01 0.75 1.68 0.112

Table 3. Material weight for steel moment resistant frames for the mentioned frames by using PERFORM-3D program
(CSI, 2007). This program is a highly focused nonlinear
5 story steel moment resistant frame
software tool for earthquake resistant design. For modeling
Weight calculation PBPD (kg) ED (kg) PBPD/ED of the members in this software, all frame members,
Beam 4460 4860 0.92 beams and columns are considered as rigid-ended. Also
Column 6485 6080 1.067 the nonlinear behavior of members is suggested by
Total 10945 10940 1.0004 FEMA-356 (2000). A lumped “P-Delta column” with pin
connections at the floor levels was added which enabled
10 story steel moment resistant frame
the model to capture the P-Delta effect.
Weight calculation PBPD (kg) ED (kg) PBPD/ED The results of pushover analyses for the 5 and 10 story
Beam 11300 12400 0.91 frames designed by PBPD and ED methods are shown in
Column 17100 15300 1.12 Figs. 11 and 12. It can be seen from these pushover
Total 28400 27700 1.025 curves, the yield drift ratio, θ y, for steel moment frames
is quite close to 1% that was considered in the design
process from the start. Also the PBPD frames show much
6.2. Nonlinear analysis results higher ductility about 2 times compared to the ED
Structures generally deform far beyond the elastic range frames. This significant difference can be attributed to the
when struck by strong ground motions. In order to give a deformed shapes and the location/distribution of plastic
proper description of nonlinear behavior of structures, a hinges in all of the structure. It should be noted that
more sophisticated analysis is required. Nonlinear analyses compared to 5 and 10 story ED frames, the 5-story ED
can offer greater insight into the behavior of the structure frame was performed in a more ductile manner, i.e.,
and determine if the structures satisfy performance larger drift capacity before loss of lateral strength. This is
requirements. Two types of nonlinear analyses, static quite reasonable because P-delta effect has less influence
pushover and dynamic time history analyses are performed in shorter frames than in taller ones. Also pushover curves
 Development of the Performance Based Plastic Design for Steel Moment Resistant Frame 59

Figure 10. Member sizes of 5 and 10 story moment frame designed by PBPD method.

Figure 11. Comparison pushover curve for 5 story frame Figure 12. Comparison pushover curve for 10 story frame
designed by PBPD and ED method. designed by PBPD and ED method.

show that although the design base shear for ED frames
is smaller than the design base shear for PBPD frames,
the ultimate strength of the ED frames is a little higher
than that of the PBPD frames. It is due to the fact that the
design of ED frames is governed by drift control which
needs major revision of the member sizes after having
been designed for strength. That iteration step is not
required in the PBPD method.
Nonlinear time history analyses using ten earthquake
ground motions as seen in Table 3 are performed for both
frames designed by ED and PBPD method. It should be
noted that these earthquakes are match well with the
design spectrum in accordance with BHRC (2005). For
clarity and simplicity only the mean value of maximum
inter story drift, as shown in Fig. 13 are considered in
order to compare the results. The results show that the
mean maximum inter story drifts of the PBPD frames are
well within the corresponding target drift value, i.e., 2%
as pointed out by BHRC (2005) code while the ED
frames show that the mean maximum inter story drifts are
higher than the target drift value. Also the formation of
plastic hinges in columns and story mechanism in the
60 M. Reza Banihashemi et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 15(1), 51-62, 2015

Table 3. Earthquake ground motion data lower part of the ED frames under some ground motion
PGA Moment Duration
can be clearly noticed in Fig. 14 (e.g., 10 story Ed frame
Earthquake year under coalinga ground motion). On the contrary, by using
(g) Magnitude (sec)
some equations that are represented to prevent the
Morgan Hill 1984 0.051 6.2 31.985
formation of the plastic hinges in the columns, the PBPD
Morgan Hill 0469 1984 0.048 6.2 23.99 frames result in more desirable deformed shape and yield
Landers 1992 0.043 7.3 49.96 mechanism under all of the earthquake ground motions.
Landers 1992 0.115 7.3 49.94 As given in Fig. 14, there are no plastic hinges in the
Loma Prieta 1989 0.171 6.9 39.935 columns of the PBPD frame.
Loma Prieta 1989 0.26 6.9 39.195
Imperial Vally 1979 0.115 6.5 28.515 7. Summary and Conclusion
Kocaeli 1999 0.105 7.4 133.105
Coalinga 1983 0.098 6.4 31.98 Performance based plastic design is a direct design
Hector Mine 1986 0.095 7.1 59.98 method which uses target drift and yield mechanism as

Figure 13. comparison of maximum inter story drifts for 5 and 10 story moment frame designed by PBPD and ED
method by nonlinear dynamic analysis.
 Development of the Performance Based Plastic Design for Steel Moment Resistant Frame
Figure 14. Plastic hinge distributions for 10-story (a) ED frame (b) PBPD frames under Coalinga ground motion
key performance criteria in design process from the
beginning. Therefore, the frames designed by PBPD method
require no evaluation and iteration work after the initial
design. On the contrary, elastic design method is generally
based on elastic structural behavior and accounts for the
inelastic behavior in a somewhat implicit manner. It’s
worth mentioned that the drift limit generally governs the
design of steel moment frames, therefore, after selecting
the initial member sizes based on required strength, the
frame designed by ED method need major revision to
control the drift limitation and other requirements such as
strong column-weak beam. Following main conclusions
are drawn from this study.
(1) In elastic method, the only condition of strong
column-weak beam can not merely guarantee the
prevention of yielding in columns that leads to larger
story drift and undesirable mechanism in the structure. In
comparison, by using some solutions represented in this
paper to precisely obtain the moment of columns, the
frame designed by PBPD method gave excellent results
as expected i.e., the formation of plastic hinges in columns
and undesirable mechanisms were not observed.
(2) By increasing the number of stories, the P-∆ effect
in the determination of required plastic moment of beams
is required in order to provide necessary strength to
counter the overturning of the structures due to gravity
loads.
(3) The results of both nonlinear static pushover and
dynamic analyses showed that the PBPD frames responded
as intended in design with much improved performances
over those of the corresponding ED frames.
References
AISC (2005). ANSI/AISC 341-05, Seismic provisions for
61
structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, Illinois.
Akiyama, H. (1985). Earthquake-resistant limit-state design
of buildings. University of Tokyo Press, Japan.
BHRC (2005). Iranian code of practice for seismic
resistance design of buildings: Standard no. 2800. 3rd ed.,
Building and Housing Research Center (in Persian).
BSSC (2006). NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design
Examples (FEMA 451). Building Seismic Safety Council,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
D. C.
Choi, I.-R. and Park, H.-G. (2008). “Ductility and energy
dissipation capacity of shear-dominated steel plate walls.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 134(9), pp.
1495-1507.
Chao, S.-H. and Goel, S. C. (2005). Performance-based
seismic design of EBF using target drift and yield
mechanism as performance criteria. Report No. UMCEE
05-05, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Chao, S.-H. and Goel, S. C. (2006). Performance-based
plastic design of seismic resistant special truss moment
frames (STMF). Report No. UMCEE 06-03, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Chao, S.-H., Goel, S. C., and Lee, S.-S. (2007). “A seismic
design lateral force distribution based on inelastic state of
structures.” Earthquake Spectra, 23(3), pp. 547- 569.
Chopra, A. K. (2000), Dynamics of Structures- Theory and
Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 2nd edition,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 844 pp.
Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993), Dynamics of
Structures, 2nd edition., McGraw- Hill, Inc., New York,
739 pp.
CSI (2007). PERFORM-3D v.4.0 User Manual. Computers
& Structures Inc.
FEMA-356 (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the
62 M. Reza Banihashemi et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 15(1), 51-62, 2015
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Report No. FEMA-
356, Washington, DC.
Goel, S. C. and Chao, S.-H. (2009). Performance-based
plastic design-Earthquake resistant steel structures.
International Code Council, pp. 261.
Gupta, A. and Krawinkler, H. (1999). Seismic demands for
performance evaluation steel moment resisting frame
structures. Report No. 132, John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Dept. of Civil and Env Eng.,
Stanford University.
Krawinkler, H. and Miranda, E. (2004). Performance-Based
Earthquake Engineering. CRC Press.
Lee, S.-S. and Goel, S. C. (2001). Performance-based design
of steel moment frames using target drift and yield
mechanism. Report No. UMCEE 01-17, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Leelataviwat, S. (1998). Drift and yield mechanism based
seismic design and upgrading of steel moment frames.
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civ. & Env. Engrg,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Leelataviwat, S., Goel, S. C., and Stojadinoviæ, B. (1999).
“Toward performance-based seismic design of structures.”
Earthquake Spectra, 15(3), pp. 435- 461.
Liao, W.-C. and Goel S. C. (2012). “Performance-based
plastic design and energy-based evaluation of seismic
resistant RC moment frame.” Journal of Marine Science
and Technology, 20(3), pp. 304-310.
Miranda, E. and Bertero, V. V. (1994). “Evaluation of
strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant
design.” Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 10(2), pp. 357-380.
Mohammad, R. B. and Chao, S.-H., Goel, S. C., and Liao,
W.-C. (2010). Performance-based plastic design (PBPD)
method for earthquake-resistant structures: an overview.
The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,
CTBUH.
Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W. J. (1982). Earthquake Spectra
and Design. Earthquake Engrg. Res. Inst., El Cerrito,
California.
Sahoo, D.-R. and Chao, S. H. (2010). “Performance-based
plastic design method for buckling-restrained braced
frames.” Engineering Structures, pp. 2950-2958.
Uang, C.-M. and Bertero, V. V. (1988). Use of energy as a
design criterion in earthquake-reistant design. Report No.
UCB/EERC-88/18, Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., University
of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.