Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment

Resisting Frame
Mohd. Zameeruddin a,⇑, Keshav K. Sangle b
a
Civil Engineering Department, MGM’s College of Engineering, Nanded, Off-Hingoli road, Nanded 431605, India
b
Department of Structural Engineering, Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute, H. R Mahajan Road, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The performance-based seismic design has two primary concerns: (a) appropriate quantification of the
Received 30 December 2019 uncertainties associated with the performance evaluation process, and (b) satisfactory characterization
Accepted 8 April 2020 of the associated structural damage for direct incorporation into the design or performance evaluation
Available online xxxx
methodology. This study attempts to address these primary concerns by evaluating the performance of
reinforced concrete frame using nonlinear static procedures. For this, fifteen-moment resisting frames
Keywords: designed following the guidelines of Indian seismic codes were subjected to different lateral load pat-
Performance-based seismic evaluation
terns. The seismic performance is investigated in terms of fundamental periods, roof displacements,
Example building
Nonlinear static pushover analysis
interstory drift ratio, base shear, and modification factor and was compared with various performance
Seismic performance limits. The obtained results showed disagreement with Indian seismic code provisions, especially,
Modification factor towards the fundamental time period, upper and lower bound values of base shear drift ratio and mod-
ification factor.
Ó 2020 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
The current perspective seismic design philosophy for rein-
forced concrete (RC) buildings, as outlined in various codes and
guidelines, might help to construct buildings with acceptable
safety. However, these procedures are indirect, of unknown relia-
bility, and may lead to inefficient and costly construction. Strong
earthquakes induce nonlinear behaviors in RC structures, and these
perspective design philosophies do not explicitly incorporate the
inelastic response of structures. Therefore, the structural engineer-
ing community has focused on the newly developing predictive
design approach known as performance-based seismic design
(PBSD). PBSD facilitates the design and construction of buildings
with realistic and reliable understanding of the risk of loss (physi-
⇑ Corresponding author at: Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department,
MGM’s College of Engineering, nanded, Off-Hingoli Road, Nanded 431605, India,
Contact No. +919822913231.
E-mail addresses: md_zameeruddin@mgmcen.ac.in (Mohd. Zameeruddin),
kksangle@vjti.org.in (K.K. Sangle).
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
cal, direct economic, and indirect economic) that might occur as a
result of future seismic events (Al-Haddad and Siddiqui, 1995;
Ghobarah, 2001).
Several studies have been credited towards the development of
PBSD methodologies, resulting in guideline documents such as the
ATC 40 (1996), FEMA 273 (1996), FEMA 356 (2000), FEMA 440
(2005), ASCE 41 (2006) and FEMA 445 (2006). All PBSD methodolo-
gies share the following common elements: (i) definition of perfor-
mance objectives that describe the level of performance associated
with a specific seismic hazard, (ii) estimation of seismic demands
on the system and its components through detailed structural
analysis (preferably nonlinear), and (iii) assessment of the perfor-
mance (at the system and component levels) to verify that the per-
formance objectives have been met (Zameeruddin and Sangle,
2016; Ghobarah 2001). These PBSD guideline documents have pre-
sented various performance-based seismic evaluation (PBSE) pro-
cedures, including the capacity spectrum method (CSM) and
displacement coefficient method (DCM), by using nonlinear static
pushover analysis (NLSP). The acceptance criterion for nonlinear
behavior is defined in terms of an interstory drift ratio and a plastic
rotation, which reflects the deformation capabilities of the struc-
ture. Based on these deformation capabilities, various building per-
formance levels such as immediate occupancy (IO), life safety (LS),
and collapse prevention (CP) were established. Although these
measures provide information on the deformation of members

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
1018-3639/Ó 2020 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
2 Mohd. Zameeruddin, K.K. Sangle / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

and damage profiles at a critical state, they themselves are inade-
quate to provide an assessment of the state of damage (Heo and
Kunnath, 2013).
Many deterministic approaches were proposed to quantify seis-
mic damage sustained by a complete RC structure by collating the
damage at each story or component parts. These damages are
expressed in terms of a non-dimensional number known as dam-
age index (DI) (Zameeruddin and Sangle 2017a). DIs use various
demand parameters related to the strain in materials, curvature
of cross section, rotations of member ends, story displacements,
forces (such as story shear and base shear), and structural proper-
ties (such as stiffness, strength, and dissipated energy) (Borg and
Rossetto, 2010). These demand parameters are rationally evaluated
using nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA); however, the
time-consuming efforts associated with this approach have limited
its application in damage assessment. A few researchers have
attempted to use NLSP for evaluating demand parameters; how-
ever, they were unsuccessful because of the limitations of push-
over (Arjomandi et al., 2009; Sinha and Shiradhonkar, 2012;
Habibi et al., 2013; Azhdary and Shabakty, 2014; Zameeruddin
and Sangle, 2017a).
In this study, an attempt has been made to assess the perfor-
mance of example moment resisting frames (MRFs), subjected to
different lateral load patterns. These MRFs reflects the general
trends of construction in India. The performance assessment
includes parametric studies on fundamental period, roof displace-
ment, interstory drift ratio, and base shear. In addition, we focused
on the component-wise determination of response/modification
factor using various performance limits.
2. Performance-based seismic evaluation
Estimating seismic demands at various building performance
levels requires the explicit consideration of inelastic behavior of
the structure, which requires high-level analysis procedures. The
PBSD guidelines introduced a comprehensive framework for linear
and nonlinear analysis procedures. These standards recommended
four analysis procedures to estimate seismic demand. Amongst
these first two are linear static and dynamic procedures, which
are force-based, and other two are nonlinear static and dynamic
procedures, which are displacement-based (Zameeruddin and
Sangle, 2017a; Sinan and Asli, 2007; Boroujeni, 2013).
PBSD guideline documents have provided various PBSE meth-
ods using NLSP. These PBSE methods involve two key steps in esti-
mating seismic demands: (i) estimation of the target node
displacement and (ii) pushover analysis. The PBSE procedures doc-
umented in the PBSD guidelines are CSM and DCM. CSM involves
the comparison between the capacity of the structure (capacity
spectrum) and the demand on the structure (demand spectrum).
The graphical intersection of these two curves is termed as the per-
formance point, which approximates the response of the structure.
Fig. 1(a) presents the CSM procedure. DCM is a simplest method for
estimating the target displacement. Target displacement refers to
the displacement of a characteristic node, specifically on the top
of a structure. Fig. 1(b) presents the approximation of the DCM
procedure (Zameeruddin and Sangle, 2016).
Next-generation PBSD documents, FEMA 440 and ASCE 41, pro-
vided markedly improved CSM and DCM procedures. The
improved CSM involve new effective damping and period relation-
ships for a vast variety of cyclic behaviors (i.e., bilinear, stiffness
degradation, and in-cyclic strength degradation). The procedure
provided post-yield stiffness to predict the nonlinear single degree
of freedom (SDOF) demand through the equivalent linear system.
The improved DCM modifies displacement coefficients and pro-
vides a limit on lateral strength to avoid dynamic instability. All
the aforementioned PBSE methods are based on monotonically
increasing predefined lateral load patterns until some targeted dis-
placement is achieved. These efforts result in collapse mechanism;
however, these procedures are themselves insufficient to address
the damage sustained by a structure (Zameeruddin and Sangle,
2016).
3. Example buildings
In this study, we conducted a performance-based seismic
assessment of MRFs representing a general trend of constructions
adopted in India. Fifteen MRFs with various numbers of stories
and bays were subjected to displacement-controlled NLSP. These
MRFs include the low-rise and medium-rise buildings. Buildings
with height less than three times the span length are considered
as low-rise buildings and those with height more than three times
the span length is considered as high-rise buildings; buildings with
height between this range are considered as medium-rise build-
ings (Stafford and Coull, 1991).
The following story heights of MRFs were considered: four, six,
eight, ten, and twelve. These frames were divided into three groups
on the basis of the number of bays. Group 1 includes buildings with
one bay, Group 2 includes buildings with three bays, and Group 3
represents buildings with five bays. Fig. 2 depicts the typical layout
of the example MRFs. These MRFs represent a regular office build-
ing in the seismic zone V, as per IS 1893 (2002), on a medium soil
type. The height of each story of the model was assumed as 3 m,
and the beam spanned 4 m. The spacing between the frames was
4 m. The characteristics of these MRFs are presented in Table 1.
For the analysis, dead loads, live (imposed) loads, and seismic
loads were considered as per IS 875 (Parts 1 and 2) (1987) and IS
1893, respectively. These MRFs sustained a mean dead load of,
4.6 kN/m2 (inclusive of finishes) and a mean live load of 4 kN/m2
for all floors. The RC design of these MRFs was based on IS 456
(2000) guidelines. The ductile (seismic) detailing of the RC section
was based on IS 13920 (1993) provisions. The material properties
considered in the design are presented in Table 2.
The structural design of the example MRFs is presented in
Table 3. The structural design of the example MRFs is not a unique
solution available for the calculated demand. Based on the same
demand, different designers may select different solutions. The
RC member sizes were selected by following a common practice
adopted by engineers. All the columns and beams in a selected
story are identical in cross section. The column remained uniform
in cross section up to two or three stories, depending on the height
of the building.
4. Nonlinear static pushover analysis of example frames
In this study, we performed displacement-controlled NLSP on
the example MRFs by using SAP 2000 V 17.0 (Wilson and
Habibullah, 2000). The target displacement used for each MRF
was 4% of the height of the frame (ATC 40, 1996). The analysis
was conducted in two stages for the following: (i) gravity loads
and (ii) predominant lateral loads. In Stage I, gravity loads were
applied as the distributed element loads on the basis of the yield
line theory and concentrated loads from secondary beams. Gravity
analysis was performed for full gravity load in a single step (i.e.,
force-control). The state of the structure in this analysis was saved
and was subsequently recalled in Stage II.
In Stage II, lateral loads were applied monotonically in a step-
by-step nonlinear static analysis. Because the lateral force profile
in pushover analysis influences the structural response, a set of lat-
eral load patterns was used. One of these sets comprised uniform
loads, from which upper and lower bound values of inertia loads

Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
 Mohd. Zameeruddin, K.K. Sangle / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Fig. 1. PBSE procedures.

Fig. 2. Geometry and names of the studied MRFs.

Table 1
Characteristics of the studied example MRFs.

Group MRFs Width (m) Height (m) Td (S) Tm (S) Sa (g) W (kN) Vd (kN)
I S4B1 4 12 0.483 0.631 2.50 549.86 49.48
S6B1 4 18 0.655 0.893 2.09 847.29 63.33
S8B1 4 24 0.813 1.100 1.68 1169.72 70.44
S10B1 4 30 0.961 1.312 1.41 1505.52 76.70
S12B1 4 36 1.102 1.528 1.24 1854.68 88.00
II S4B3 12 12 0.483 0.558 2.50 1632.85 147.57
S6B3 12 18 0.655 0.837 2.09 2480.41 185.41
S8B3 12 24 0.813 1.085 1.68 3378.30 203.44
S10B3 12 30 0.961 1.190 1.41 4348.20 233.41
S12B3 12 36 1.102 1.408 1.24 5462.33 242.68
III S4B5 20 12 0.483 0.495 2.50 2917.02 262.53
S6B5 20 18 0.655 0.779 2.09 4322.00 323.06
S8B5 20 24 0815 0.988 1.68 5898.28 355.20
S10B5 20 30 0.961 1.189 1.41 7519.95 383.12
S12B5 20 36 1.102 1.409 1.24 9187.00 406.16

S defines the number of stories and B defines the number of bays

Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
4 Mohd. Zameeruddin, K.K. Sangle / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2 4.1. Push 1: IS 1893 lateral loads

Material properties of the design of example MRFs (IS 456; IS 1786).

Material property Concrete M 25 Steel Fe 415 The IS 1893 code lateral load pattern represents the force
grade grade obtained from the predominant mode of vibration. The empirical
Weight per unit volume (kN/m3) 25 76.97 equation used to calculate lateral loads are as follows: (a) for the
Mass per unit volume (kg/m3) 2.548 7.849 elastic base shear, Vb = AhWi, where Ah is the base shear coefficient
Modulus of elasticity (kN/m2) 25E + 06 2E + 08 and (b) the equilateral load distribution is given by,
Characteristic strength (kN/m2) 25,000 (for 28 days) 415,000 (yield) " #
Minimum tensile strength – 485,800 2
W ih
(kN/m2) Fi ¼ V b P i 2 ð1Þ
Expected yield strength (kN/m2) – 456,500 W i hi
Expected tensile strength(kN/m2) – 533,500
where F i is the equivalent lateral force, hi represents the height up
to the ith floor, n denotes the number of stories, and W i is seismic
were expected to be obtained, and the second set was composed of weight.
a predominantly lateral load pattern, as described in the codes or
elastic mode-1 pattern. The following lateral load patterns were 4.2. Push 2: uniform lateral load pattern
predominantly used in this study: (a) IS 1893 lateral load pattern
and (b) elastic first-mode lateral load pattern. Fig. 3 presents the In Push 2, the lateral force at a story is proportional to the mass
profile of the applied load pattern. P–D geometric nonlinearity of the story:
 
effects were considered for each load combination used in this mi
study.
Fi ¼ V b P ð2Þ
mi

Table 3
RC section details for the example MRFs.

Group MRFs Stories Beam Exterior column Interior column

Width (mm) Depth (mm) Width (mm) Depth (mm) Width (mm) Depth (mm)
I S4B1 1–1 300 400 450 450 – –
2–4 300 350 350 350 – –
S6B1 1–3 300 400 450 450 – –
4–6 300 350 350 350 – –
S8B1 1–2 300 450 530 530 – –
3–5 300 400 450 450 – –
6–8 300 350 350 350 – –
S10B1 1–1 300 500 600 600 – –
2–4 300 450 530 530 – –
5–7 300 400 450 450 – –
8–10 300 350 350 350 – –
S12B1 1–3 300 500 600 600 – –
4–6 300 450 530 530 – –
7–9 300 400 450 450 – –
10–12 300 350 350 350 – –
II S4B3 1–1 300 400 450 450 530 530
2–4 300 400 350 350 450 450
S6B3 1–3 300 400 450 450 530 530
4–6 300 400 350 350 450 450
S8B3 1–2 300 400 530 530 600 600
3–5 300 400 450 450 530 530
6–8 300 400 350 350 450 450
S10B3 1–1 300 450 600 600 680 680
2–4 300 450 530 530 600 600
5–7 300 450 450 450 530 530
8–10 300 450 350 350 450 450
S12B3 1–3 300 450 600 600 680 680
4–6 300 450 530 530 600 600
7–9 300 450 450 450 530 530
10–12 300 450 350 350 450 450
III S4B5 1–1 300 400 530 530 600 600
2–4 300 400 450 450 530 530
S6B5 1–3 300 400 530 530 600 600
4–6 300 400 450 450 530 530
S8B5 1–2 300 450 600 600 680 680
3–5 300 400 530 530 600 600
6–8 300 400 450 450 530 530
S10B5 1–1 300 450 680 680 750 750
2–4 300 450 600 600 680 680
5–7 300 400 530 530 600 600
8–10 300 400 450 450 530 530
S12B5 1–3 300 450 680 680 750 750
4–6 300 450 600 600 680 680
7–9 300 400 530 530 600 600
10–12 300 400 450 450 530 530

Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
 Mohd. Zameeruddin, K.K. Sangle / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

fn fn fn

f3 f3 f3

f2 f2
f2

f1 f1 f1

Vb Vb Vb
(a) IS 1893:2002 load pattern (b) Uniform load pattern (c) Elastic mode-1 pattern
(Push 1 load case) (Push 2 load case) (Push 3 load case)

Fig. 3. Applied load patterns for pushover.

where F i is the equivalent lateral force on the ith floor and mi is the
mass on the ith floor of the building.
4.3. Push 3: elastic first-mode lateral pattern
The first-mode load pattern is related to the displacement mode
shape of vibration. The lateral force of a story is proportional to the
product of the amplitude of the elastic first mode and the mass of
the story:
" #
mi £i
Fi ¼ V b P ð3Þ
mi £2i
where F i is the equivalent lateral force on the ith floor and £i is the
amplitude of the elastic first mode of the story.
For illustration purpose, among fifteen MRFs results of S4B3
MRF are discussed in detail. The lateral loads on the example
S4B3 MRF for Push 1 are presented in Table 4. The estimation
of nonlinear responses of the example MRFs highly depends on
the efficient representation of the nonlinear behavior of the
frame in the analyses (Sharma et al, 2005; Mondal et al., 2013;
Zameeruddin and Sangle, 2017b). The nonlinear behavior of the
frames primarily depends on the moment–curvature (M–£)
behavior of its members. The input required for nonlinear mod-
elling in SAP 2000 is the moment–rotation (M–hÞrelationship
instead of the moment–curvature relationship. To develop the
M–h curve of a default hinge, a stress–strain relationship corre-
sponding to FEMA 356 (2000) integrated in the software was
used. For an MRF in which lateral loads are predominant, the
contra-flexure point, typically occurs in the mid span of the
members. Many researchers suggested that for a lumped plastic-
ity model, plastic hinge formation at both ends of the member is
most suitable for pushover (Al-Haddad, 1990; Mondal et al.,
2013).

Table 4
Lateral loads acting on the example S4B3 MRF.

Story level Story height (m) Story weight (kN) 2

W i hi Qi ¼ P
2
W i hi
(kN) Obtained from SAP 2000
2
W i hi

Roof 12 392.53 59,948.35 78.94 76.20

3rd floor 9 416.30 33,720.95 44.40 45.80
2nd floor 6 416.30 14,987.90 19.74 20.35
1st floor 3 416.30 3532.77 4.65 5.21
Total – 1641.44 112,189.16 147.73 147.56

b
M3 Hinge M3 Hinge
Force

a P-M3 P-M3
Hinge Beam Hinge
C
Column

Column

B
CP
LS
IO
D E
c
P-M3 P-M3
A Hinge Hinge
Deformation
(a) Deformationcontrol (flexure failure) (b) Location of hinges
Fig. 4. Idealized inelastic force–deformation relationship.

Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
6 Mohd. Zameeruddin, K.K. Sangle / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

In this study, beams and column elements were modeled as
nonlinear frame elements by assigning concentrated M3 and P-
M3 plastic hinges, respectively, to both the ends. FEMA 356 guide-
lines related to modeling parameters and acceptance criteria were
adopted. The acceptance criteria for the ultimate rotation capacity,
labeled IO, LS, and CP, are illustrated in Fig. 4. Modeling parameters
and numerical acceptance criteria are described in Table 5 and 6.
These parameters depend on section properties such as cross-
sectional area; rebar percentage in tension and compression,
design shear strength, and design axial loads.
M–/ curve for RC beam section of S4B3 MRF is shown in Fig. 5.
Considering the presence of rigid floor diaphragms, the effect of
axial force on beam M-/ behaviour is disregarded. Fig. 6, shows a
typical P-M interaction curve for column sections. The drop in peak
value attribute towards the spalling of the concrete cover over
when the strain in concrete in that region exceeds by 0.005 (Park
and Paulay, 1975). The plastic hinge properties are evaluated by
using formulations suggested by Priestley.
5. Performance assessment
The responses of the MRFs were studied in terms of the funda-
mental period of vibration, base shear, roof displacement, story
displacement, and interstory drift ratio. The natural period of

Table 5
Modelling parameters and numerical acceptance criteria for RC beams.

Conditions Modeling Parameters Acceptance Criteria

Plastic rotation Residual strength ratio Plastic rotation angle (radians)
angle (radians) Performance level
qq Trans. Reinf. pffiffiffi
V IO Component type
qbal 0
bw d fc
Primary Secondary
A b c LS CP LS CP
0.0 C 3 0.025 0.05 0.2 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.02 0.05
0.5 C 3 0.020 0.03 0.2 0.005 0.010 0.02 0.02 0.03

Table 6
Modelling parameters and numerical acceptance criteria for RC columns.

Conditions Modeling Parameters Acceptance Criteria

Plastic rotation Residual strength ratio Plastic rotation angle (radians)
angle (radians) Performance level
P
Ag f c
Trans. Reinf. pffiffiffi
V
0
IO Component type
bw d fc
Primary Secondary
A b c LS CP LS CP
 0.1 C 3 0.02 0.03 0.2 0.005 0.015 0.02 0.02 0.03
 0.40 C 3 0.015 0.025 0.2 0.003 0.012 0.015 0.018 0.025

300 storey 1 Left

Storey 1 Mid
250 Storey 1 Right
Storey 2 Mid
Storey 2 Right
200
Moment (kNm)

Storey 2 Left
Storey 3 Mid
Storey 3 Right
150
Storey 4 Left
Storey 4 Mid
100 Storey 4 Right

50

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Curvature (radians)
Fig. 5. M-/ characterstics of beam section of S4B3 MRF under ‘hogging’ moment.

Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
 Mohd. Zameeruddin, K.K. Sangle / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

1000 obtained from the eigenvalue analysis is higher than the values
derived using the code empirical relation. The difference in the
500 time period is attributed towards the cross-sectional areas of RC
members and the span of building which is not taken care by IS
0 code empirical relationship. The difference in modal time period
0 100 200 300
Axial Force (kN)

decreases with the increase in the bay width. Therefore, we may

-500 conclude that seismic code underestimates the natural period of
vibration, leading to conservative design assumptions.
-1000 P-M interaction The result of nonlinear static (pushover) analysis is presented in
Curve the form of a capacity curve, which is typically a plot of rooftop dis-
-1500 placement versus base shear. Table 8 presents the base shear and
the rooftop displacement of MRFs for different load patterns. The
-2000 seismic behavior of these MRFs is compared with various factors
such as strength, stiffness, and ductility. For illustration purposes,
-2500
pushover results of S4B3 MRF are discussed in detail. Fig. 7 pre-
sents the pushover curve of S4B3 MRF for different load patterns.
-3000
Bending Moment (kNm) Push 2 exhibited upper bound values in which the ultimate base
shear value is approximately 333.21 kN, at a displacement of
Fig. 6. Typical P-M interaction for an external column section of S4B3 MRF. 26.6 cm. Push 1 represented lower bound values in which the ulti-
mate shear base shear is approximately 240.16 kN, at a displace-
vibration, evaluated from the empirical equation given in IS 1893 ment of 26.2 cm. Push 3 exhibited medium values. Furthermore,
for buildings without infills, is presented in Table 7. In addition, Push 2 exhibited brittle failure behavior, whereas Push 3 exhibited
modal analysis of the MRFs was performed to determine a funda- ductile behavior.
mental period of vibration by using eigenvalues; the results are Fig. 8, presents the failure mechanism of S4B3 MRF in terms
reported in Table 7. The fundamental period is the first-mode long- of the plastic hinges. For Push 2 load case, the failure was con-
est modal time period of vibration. The fundamental period centrated at the bottom-story columns. Hinge mechanisms for

Table 7
Comparison of fundamental period of vibration of example MRFs.
h i
Group MRFs Fundamental time period % Difference T m T d
 100
Td
Modal analysis T m (S) Empirical equations T d (S)
I S4B1 0.631 0.483 30.64
S6B1 0.893 0.655 36.33
S8B1 1.100 0.813 35.30
S10B1 1.312 0.961 36.52
S12B1 1.528 1.102 38.65
II S4B3 0.558 0.483 15.52
S6B3 0.837 0.655 27.78
S8B3 1.085 0.813 33.45
S10B3 1.190 0.961 23.83
S12B3 1.408 1.102 30.23
III S4B5 0.495 0.483 2.480
S6B5 0.779 0.655 18.93
S8B5 0.988 0.813 21.52
S10B5 1.189 0.961 23.72
S12B5 1.409 1.102 27.85

Table 8
Base shear and displacement of the example MRFs for different lateral load patterns.

Group MRFs Push 1 load case Push 2 load case Push 3 load case
Base shear (kN) Displ. (m) Base shear (kN) Displ. (m) Base shear (kN) Displ. (m)
I S4B1 69.87 0.121 105.20 0.094 77.66 0.114
S6B1 64.43 0.185 100.43 0.137 72.50 0.172
S8B1 64.57 0.232 103.79 0.163 72.37 0.215
S10B1 64.70 0.280 104.06 0.193 71.81 0.260
S12B1 73.45 0.291 106.26 0.224 71.79 0.304
II S4B3 241.77 0.097 333.15 0.074 264.40 0.089
S6B3 193.30 0.167 262.11 0.127 211.26 0.153
S8B3 193.87 0.220 269.01 0.164 210.70 0.202
S10B3 219.98 0.238 321.97 0.172 244.84 0.218
S12B3 213.62 0.295 301.97 0.221 233.70 0.280
III S4B5 437.25 0.089 603.00 0.069 476.54 0.083
S6B5 384.45 0.154 550.30 0.113 427.17 0.141
S8B5 394.16 0.206 581.53 0.144 440.17 0.188
S10B5 378.06 0.260 601.57 0.180 431.76 0.236
S12B5 359.15 0.325 572.24 0.225 415.01 0.292

Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
8 Mohd. Zameeruddin, K.K. Sangle / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

300 350
250 300
Base shear (kN)

Base shear (kN)

Push 1
200 250 Push 2
OP = 0.084 OP = 0.088
150 200
IO =0.093 IO = 0.093
150 LS = 0.208
100 LS =0.205
100 CP = 0.266
50 CP = 0.262 C = 0.306
50
C =0.273
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)

(a) Push 1 load case (b) Push 2 load case

300
250
Base shear (kN)

200 Push 3
OP = 0.085
150
IO = 0.090
100
LS = 0.210
50 CP = 0.263
0 C = 0.287
0 0.2
Displacement (m)

(c) Push 3 load case

Fig. 7. Pushover curve of S4B3 MRF for three distinct lateral load patterns.

Fig. 8. Mechanism of plastic hinge formation at CP, of S4B3 MRF for three distinct load patterns.

Table 9
Comparison of pushover results of S4B3 MRF for different lateral load patterns.

Lateral load Maximum base shear Displacement at maximum base shear Base shear at collapse Displacement at collapse Initial
pattern (kN) (cm) (kN) (cm) slope
Push 1 241.78 9.50 240.16 26.20 11,403.28
Push 2 333.21 6.90 330.82 26.60 16,767.93
Push 3 264.49 8.00 264.49 26.30 12,688.66

Push 1 and Push 3 load cases were almost similar because of ture. Therefore, it exhibited a higher response (base shear) than
slight variations in base shear capacity. In Push 2 load case, lat- Push 1 and Push 2 load cases at lower displacements. In Push 1
eral loads were applied uniformly along the height of the struc- and Push 3, the point of application of the resultant load lies at a

Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
 Mohd. Zameeruddin, K.K. Sangle / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx 9

higher elevation along the height of frames, and the lateral loads elastic behavior for a larger base shear value. This type of behavior
applied at upper stories are larger in magnitude, thus resulting appears due to the onset of plastic hinges formation at higher val-
in higher displacements. ues of lateral loads. By contrast, for Push 1, at lower base shear val-
By comparing the initial slopes of the pushover curves (Table 9), ues, plastic hinge formation occurs due to parabolic variation of
we may conclude that in the case of Push 2, the structure possesses lateral loads. At the collapse point for three distinct load patterns,

Push 1 Push 2 Push 3

4.0 4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0 3.0
Story No.

Story No.

Story No.
2.0 S4B1 2.0 S4B1 2.0 S4B1
1.0 S4B3 1.0 S4B3 1.0 S4B3
0.0 S4B5 0.0 S4B5 0.0 S4B5
0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4
Story displacement (m). Story displacement (m). Story displacement (m).

Push 1 Push 2 Push 3

6.0 6.0 6.0
5.0 5.0 5.0
Story No.

Story No.

Story No.
4.0 4.0 4.0
3.0 S6B1 3.0 S6B1 3.0 S6B1
2.0 S6B3 2.0 S6B3 2.0 S6B3
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.0 S6B5 S6B5 S6B5
0.0 0.0
0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5
Story displacement (m). Story displacement (m). Story displacement (m).

Push 1 Push 2 Push 3

8.0 8.0 8.0
7.0 7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0 6.0
Story No.

Story No.

Story No.
5.0 5.0 5.0
4.0 S8B1 4.0 S8B1 4.0 S8B1
3.0 3.0 3.0
2.0 S8B3 2.0 S8B3 2.0 S8B3
1.0 S8B5 1.0 S8B5 1.0 S8B5
0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
Story displacement (m). Story displacement (m). Story displacement (m).
Push 1 Push 2 Push 3
10.0 10.0 10.0
9.0 9.0 9.0
8.0 8.0 8.0
7.0 7.0 7.0
Story No.

Story No.

Story No.

6.0 6.0 6.0

5.0 S10B1 5.0 S10B1 5.0 S10B1
4.0 4.0 4.0
3.0 S10B3 3.0 S10B3 3.0 S10B3
2.0 2.0 2.0
1.0 S10B5 1.0 S10B5 1.0 S10B5
0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
Story displacement (m). Story displacement (m). Story displacement (m).
Push 1 Push 2 Push 3
12.0 12.0 12.0
11.0 11.0 11.0
10.0 10.0 10.0
9.0 9.0 9.0
8.0 8.0 8.0
Story No.

Story No.
Story No.

7.0 7.0 7.0

6.0 S12B1 6.0 S12B1 6.0 S12B1
5.0 5.0 5.0
4.0 S12B3 4.0 S12B3 4.0 S12B3
3.0 3.0 3.0
2.0 S12B5 2.0 S12B5 2.0 S12B5
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
Story displacement (m). Story displacement (m). Story displacement (m).

Fig. 9. Story displacements of example MRFs.

Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
10 Mohd. Zameeruddin, K.K. Sangle / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

the inelastic displacement was nearly equal; hence, the collapse The story drift is a useful and simple measure of the overall
mechanism depends on the adopted lateral load pattern. structural deformation that is routinely examined. Fig. 9 illustrates

Push 1 Push 2 Push 3

4 4 4
Story No.

Story No.

Story No.
3 3 3
S4B5 S4B5 S4B5
2 2 2
S4B3 S4B3 S4B3
1 1 1
S4B1 S4B1 S4B1
0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
IDR IDR IDR
Push 1 Push 2 Push 3

6 6 6
5 5 5

Story No.
Story No.

Story No.

4 4 4
S6B5 S6B5 S6B5
3 3 3
2 S6B3 2 S6B3 2 S6B3
1 S6B1 1 S6B1 1 S6B1
0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
IDR IDR IDR

Push 1 Push 2 Push 3

8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
Story No.
Story No.

Story No.

5 5 5
S8B5 S8B5 S8B5
4 4 4
3 S8B3 3 S8B3 3 S8B3
2 S8B1 2 S8B1 2 S8B1
1 1 1
0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
IDR IDR IDR
Push 1 Push 2 Push 3

9 9 9
Story No.

Story No.
Story No.

7 7 7
S10B5 S10B5 S10B5
5 5 5
S10B3 S10B3 S10B3
3 3 3
S10B1 S10B1 S10B1
1 1 1
0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
IDR IDR IDR
Push 1 Push 2 Push 3

11 11 11
9 9 9
Story No.

Story No.

Story No.

7 S12B5 7 S12B5 7 S12B5

5 S12B3 5 S12B3 5 S12B3
3 S12B1 3 S12B1 3 S12B1
1 1 1
0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
IDR IDR IDR

Fig. 10. Interstory drift ratios of example MRFs.

Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
 Mohd. Zameeruddin, K.K. Sangle / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx 11

in the number of bays, the story displacement for all push load
Base shear (kN)

cases yielded similar displacement values. Fig. 10 presents the

Elastic response spectrum interstory displacements of the example MRFs. For a ductile MRF,
the interstory drift is uniform along the height of the structure,
Idealized bilinear relation but the observed distribution of the interstory drift ratio along
the height of the building was nonuniform with the increase in
the height of the structure. This may be attributed towards an
adopted lateral load pattern.
In IS 1893, a response reduction/modification factor (R) is used
to scale down the inelastic response of the structure. IS 13920 pro-
Capacity curve vide the ductility requirements for an earthquake resistant design;
the recommended value of R is 5 for a ductile MRF. IS 1893 does
not explicitly segregate the component R in terms of ductility
and strength. The computation of R involves the product of;

R ¼ Rl  RS  RR  Rn ð4Þ

where, Rl is the ductility factor, Rs is the overstrength factor, RR is

Roof displacement (m)
Fig. 11. Sample base shear versus roof displacement relationship.
the story displacements corresponding to different load patterns in
the pushover analysis of the example MRFs. The overall interpreta-
tions of story displacements provide the following results. Push 2
load case underestimated the story displacements with the
increase in the height of the building. By contrast, with the increase
the redundancy factor (=1, in present case), and Rn is the damping
factor (=1, for undamped system).
A plot of sample base shear versus roof displacement for an RC
structure is presented in Fig. 11. This relationship describes the
global response of the frame subjected to monotonically increasing
displacements. The extent of inelastic deformation expressed by
the structural system subjected to a given ground motion or lateral
loading is termed as ductility. The global displacement ductility
demand (l) is defined as the ratio of the maximum roof displace-

Table 10
Components of R, at IO (considering P–D effects).

MRFs Rs Rl R

Push 1 Push 2 Push 3 Push 1 Push 2 Push 3 Push 1 Push 2 Push 3

S4B1 1.94 2.70 2.11 1.76 2.19 1.89 3.41 5.92 4.00
S6B1 1.38 2.01 1.51 2.19 2.51 2.24 3.03 5.03 3.40
S8B1 1.28 1.98 1.43 2.35 2.87 2.41 3.01 5.70 3.44
S10B1 1.16 1.94 1.30 3.06 2.86 2.66 3.54 5.56 3.45
S12B1 1.13 1.68 1.12 3.14 3.09 3.01 3.54 5.18 3.35
S4B3 2.05 2.82 2.24 2.01 2.13 2.04 4.13 6.00 4.56
S6B3 1.31 1.77 1.43 2.50 2.12 2.29 3.28 3.74 3.27
S8B3 1.19 1.66 1.31 2.79 2.50 2.58 3.33 4.15 3.38
S10B3 1.19 1.73 1.32 2.69 2.66 2.66 3.21 4.59 3.52
S12B3 1.12 1.59 1.24 3.58 2.84 3.11 4.00 4.50 3.85
S4B5 2.08 2.87 2.27 1.90 2.00 1.86 3.96 5.73 4.23
S6B5 1.50 2.13 1.66 2.26 2.37 2.39 3.37 5.04 3.97
S8B5 1.41 2.05 1.55 2.73 2.87 2.92 3.84 5.90 4.52
S10B5 1.29 1.97 1.45 2.98 3.36 3.04 3.84 6.61 4.40
S12B5 1.17 1.82 1.33 3.41 3.69 3.45 3.99 6.71 4.59

Table 11
Components of R, at LS (considering P–D effects).

MRFs Rs Rl R

Push 1 Push 2 Push 3 Push 1 Push 2 Push 3 Push 1 Push 2 Push 3

S4B1 1.94 2.70 2.11 2.03 2.28 2.41 3.93 6.16 5.09
S6B1 1.50 2.01 1.51 2.92 3.20 2.97 4.37 6.42 4.50
S8B1 1.28 1.92 1.43 2.97 3.81 3.15 3.82 7.32 4.50
S10B1 1.16 1.94 1.30 3.87 3.85 3.85 4.49 7.49 5.00
S12B1 1.13 1.68 1.12 4.20 4.26 3.87 4.74 7.14 4.31
S4B3 2.05 2.82 2.24 2.49 2.64 2.47 5.10 7.44 5.54
S6B3 1.31 1.77 1.43 3.21 2.69 2.93 4.20 4.76 4.18
S8B3 1.19 1.66 1.31 3.62 3.23 3.36 4.32 5.37 4.39
S10B3 1.19 1.73 1.32 3.43 3.44 3.50 4.08 5.94 4.64
S12B3 1.12 1.59 1.24 4.74 3.62 4.16 5.30 5.74 5.13
S4B5 2.08 2.87 2.27 2.33 2.43 2.28 4.86 6.99 5.18
S6B5 1.50 2.13 1.66 2.86 2.99 3.01 4.27 6.36 5.01
S8B5 1.41 2.05 1.55 3.61 3.76 3.74 5.08 7.73 5.80
S10B5 1.29 1.97 1.45 3.91 4.40 4.06 5.03 8.65 5.87
S12B5 1.17 1.82 1.33 4.74 4.93 4.76 5.55 8.97 6.34

Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
12 Mohd. Zameeruddin, K.K. Sangle / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 12
Components of R, at CP (considering P–D effects).

MRFs Rs Rl R

Push 1 Push 2 Push 3 Push 1 Push 2 Push 3 Push 1 Push 2 Push 3

S4B1 1.94 2.70 2.11 3.38 3.93 3.88 6.54 10.62 8.18
S6B1 1.50 2.01 1.51 4.73 4.04 4.27 7.09 8.12 6.46
S8B1 1.28 1.92 1.43 4.39 4.73 4.17 5.64 9.39 5.96
S10B1 1.16 1.94 1.30 4.59 4.41 4.25 5.32 8.58 5.51
S12B1 1.13 1.68 1.12 4.94 5.37 4.76 5.58 9.00 5.31
S4B3 2.05 2.82 2.24 2.58 2.99 2.67 5.29 8.44 5.99
S6B3 1.31 1.77 1.43 3.25 2.76 3.23 4.26 4.89 4.61
S8B3 1.19 1.66 1.31 3.77 3.30 3.59 4.50 5.48 4.69
S10B3 1.19 1.73 1.32 3.81 3.63 3.65 4.53 6.27 4.83
S12B3 1.12 1.59 1.24 4.78 3.62 4.21 5.35 5.74 5.21
S4B5 2.08 2.87 2.27 2.39 2.48 2.31 4.97 7.12 5.24
S6B5 1.50 2.13 1.66 2.98 3.05 3.20 4.45 6.49 5.33
S8B5 1.41 2.05 1.55 3.71 3.96 3.92 5.22 8.13 6.07
S10B5 1.29 1.97 1.45 3.92 4.52 4.06 5.05 8.89 5.87
S12B5 1.17 1.82 1.33 4.76 4.94 4.89 5.58 8.99 6.51

3.50
6. Conclusions
3.00
The development of performance-based approaches to the
Ductility (µ)

2.50 design of RC structures to withstand earthquake load demands

Push 1
effective performance assessment using PBSE procedures. In this
2.00 LS (R= 4.13) part of the study an attempt is made to assess seismic performance
CP (R=5.10) of MRFs subjected to different lateral load patterns using pushover.
1.50 The focus has been made in the parameter such as, fundamental
C (R=5.29) time period, base shear, story displacement, and component-wise
1.00 computation of response reduction/modification factor in refer-
0.70 1.70 2.70 ence to various performance levels. The conclusions from this
Drift (%) study are summarized as follows:

Fig. 12. Variation in ductility, drift, and modification factor for S4B3 MRF Push 1
load case.
ment to the roof displacement at the first yield anywhere in the
structure (i.e., Dmax =Dy) (Satishkumar and Venkateswarlu, 2008;
Mondal et al., 2013). The over strength factor accounts for the
yielding of the structure at loads, higher than the design load
due to various partial safety factors, strain hardening, oversized
members, and confinement of concrete. In addition, nonstructural
elements contribute to over strength. It is measured as the ratio of
the maximum or ultimate base shear to the limiting state of
response [i.e.,ðV u =V d Þ] [20, 33]. The ductility factor is a measure
of the global nonlinear response of a framing system and not the
components of that system. For a ductile frame, the strength
demands must relate to the maximum story displacement ductil-
ity. In this study, we studied this relationship for various perfor-
mance levels for a prescribed drift limit. The R values were
computed at three performance levels, IO, LS, and CP.
To compute the different components of R, various parameters
such as roof displacements and base shear pertaining to both the
yield and ultimate states of a structure were obtained using NLSP.
For evaluatingRl , we used the relationship given by Priestly
(1997):
8 wise calculation of R factor is done, which was not addressed
>
< 1 zeroperiod;
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rl ¼ 2l  1 0:12 < T < 0:03s
>
: an overestimate may lead to the potentially dangerous underes-
1 þ ðl  1Þ 0:70
T
ð0:70 < T < 0:30Þ
The values of the modification factor obtained for the example
MRFs at various performance levels are tabulated in Tables 10–
12. Fig. 12 depicts the relationship between ductility, drift, and
modification factor values at various performance levels for S4B3
MRF for Push 1 load case.
1. The fundamental period obtained from the eigenvalue analysis
is 15–40 %higher than the values derived from IS 1893 code
empirical equation, thus leads towards conservative design
assumptions. The difference in the time period is attributed
towards the cross-sectional areas of RC members and the span
of building which is not taken care by IS code empirical
relationship.
2. Pushover analysis depends on lateral load patterns that are
applied to represent inertia loads induced by earthquakes. The
relevant literature suggests the use of a set of lateral load pat-
terns to obtain upper and lower bounds of inertia loads. Accord-
ing to analytical studies, the IS 1893 lateral load pattern (Push
1) defines lower bound values, uniform lateral load pattern
(Push 2) yields upper bound values, and elastic first-mode lat-
eral load pattern (Push 3) yields median values.
3. The analysis of the performance of the structure in terms of
story displacement and interstory drift demonstrated that, Push
2 load case underestimates the story and interstory displace-
ments compared with Push 1 and Push 3 load cases. These
results are in contrast to the code provision of uniform inter-
story distribution along the height of the structure.
4. Response reduction/modification factor has been evaluated for
various performance levels defined in PBSD. A component-
by IS 1893. The values of R obtained at IO, LS, and CP perfor-
ð5Þ mance levels show that, IS 1893 overestimates R factor. Such
timates of elastic base shear, leading towards a conservative
design approach.
5. The nonlinear responses obtained at various performance levels
can be used to trace various damages sustained by the struc-
tures. The response parameter such as displacement, base
shear, stiffness is used to evaluate loss of ductility, strength,

Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
 Mohd. Zameeruddin, K.K. Sangle / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
and stiffness. The area under the capacity curve in the form of
spectral acceleration and spectral displacement provides the
measure of energy dissipation (Zameeruddin and Sangle,
2017c).
The conclusions of the present study are limited by the facts
that only a single plan configuration (without a plan-symmetry,
infill’s) in one single seismic zone has been considered, as a possi-
bility to extend the work for calibrating various damage indices
using nonlinear responses obtained in the output of NLSP. In addi-
tion, structural behavior is not validated by any nonlinear
response.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors of this paper acknowledge the research contribu-
tions of all the citations under reference and the support of faculty
members of Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute, Mumbai,
India and by the Chairman, MGM College of engineering, Nanded,
India.
References
Arjomandi, K., Eslekanchi, H., Vafai, A., 2009. Correlation between structural
performance levels and damage indexes in steel frame subjected to
earthquakes. Trans. A Civil Eng., Sharif Univ. 16 (2), 147–155 http://
archive.scientiairanica.com/PDF/Articles/00000849/estekanchi.pdf.
Al-haddad, M.S., Siddiqui, G.H., 1995. Seismic design recommendations for building
structures in saudia Arabia. J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 7 (1), 25–45.
Al-Haddad, M.S., 1990. Mathematical modeling for cyclic loading of RC beam with
relocatable plastic hinge. J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 2 (2), 213–228.
Akanshu Sharma, K.N., Vaity, G.R., Reddy, K.K., Vaze Ghosh, A.K., 2005. Seismic
Requalification of RLG Building, Reactor Atomic Research Center, Mumbai, India
ASCE 41, 2006. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American society of civil
engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ATC 40, 1996. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of the existing concrete building.
Applied Technical Council, Redwood City (CA).
Azhdary, F., Shabakty, N., 2014. Performance based design and damages estimation
of steel frames with consideration of uncertainties. Technical Gazette, 21, 351–
358. UDC/UDK 624.014.2.042.7:620.191.3
Borg, R.C., Rossetto, T., 2010. Performance based seismic design and assessment
methodologies: relation to damage and requirements. 8th Fib PhD Symposium
in Kgs, Lyngby, Denmark.
Boroujeni, A.R.K., 2013. Evaluation of various methods of FEMA 356 compare to
FEMA 440. J. Civil Eng. Constr. Technol. 4 (2), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.5897/
JCECT 12.082.
Please cite this article as: M. Zameeruddin and K. K. Sangle, Performance-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Jour-
nal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.04.005
13
FEMA 273, 1996. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (DC).
FEMA 356, 2000. Pre-standard and commentary for seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (DC).
FEMA 440, 2005. Improvement in nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (DC).
FEMA 445, 2006. Next-generation performance-based seismic design guideline
program for new and existing buildings. Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington (DC).
Ghobarah, A., 2001. Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of
development. Eng. Struct. 23, 878–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/s01410296 (01)
00036-0.
Habibi, A.R., Izadpanah, M., Yazdani, A., 2013. Inelastic damage analysis of RCMRFs
using pushover method. IJST Trans. Civil Eng. 37 (2), 345–352 http://ijstc.
shirazu.ac.ir/article_1623_255.html.
Heo, Y., Kunnath, S.K., 2013. Damage-based seismic performance evaluation of
reinforced concrete frames. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 7 (3), 175–182. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40069-013-0046-z.
IS 13920, 1993. Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to
seismic force-code of practice. Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
IS 1786, 2008. Indian standard for high strength deformed steel bars and wires for
concrete reinforcement. Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
IS 1893, 2002. Indian standard for earthquake resistant design of structures (part 1):
general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
IS 456, 2000. Indian standard plain and reinforced concrete – code of practice
(fourth revision). Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
IS 875, 1987. Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings
and structures: part 1 dead loads. Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
IS 875, 1987. Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings
and structures: part 2 imposed loads. Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
Mondal, A., Ghosh, S., Reddy, G.R., 2013. Performance-based evaluation of the
response reduction factor for ductile RC frames. Eng. Struct. 56, 1808–1819.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.038.
Park, R., Paulay, T., 1975. Reinforced Concrete Structures. John Wiley & Sons, New
York (USA).
Priestly, M., 1997. Displacement-based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete
buildings. J. Eathq. Eng. 1 (1), 157–192.
Satishkumar, S.R., Venkateswarlu, G., 2008. Performance based design of reinforced
concrete frames. The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering,
October 12–17, 2008, Beijing, China. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/
14_05-03-0061.PDF
Sinan, A., Asli, M., 2007. Assessment of improved nonlinear static procedures in
FEMA-440. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 133 (9), 1237–1246. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133.9(1237).
Sinha, R., Shiradhonkar, S.R., 2012. Seismic Damage Index for Classification of
Structural Damage-closing Loop. Libosa, Portugal.
Stafford, S.B., Coull, A., 1991. Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design. John
Wiley & sons Inc, New York.
Wilson, E.L., Habibullah, A., 2000. SAP 2000/NL-push version 17 software, computer
and structures, Inc, Berkeley, CA, USA
Zameeruddin, M., Sangle, K.K., 2016. Review on recent developments in
performance-based seismic design of reinforced concrete structures.
Structures 6, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruct.2016.03.001.
Zameeruddin, M., Sangle, K.K., 2017a. Seismic damage assessment of reinforced
concrete structure using nonlinear static analyses. KSCE J. Civil Eng. 21 (4),
1319–1330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-016-0541-2.
Zameeruddin, M., Sangle, K.K., 2017b. Seismic performance evaluation of reinforced
concrete frames subjected to seismic loads. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 98, 177–183.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-017-0196-0.
Zameeruddin, M., Sangle, K.K., 2017c. Energy-based damage assessment of RCMRFs
using pushover. Asian J. Civil Eng. (BHRC) 18 (7), 1077–1093.