Structures 34 (2021) 1364–1372

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Evaluation of nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of steel braced frame

buildings subjected to near-field earthquakes using FBD and DBD
Amin Tahmasebi a, *, Mostafa Rahimi b
a
Earthquake Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
b
Materials, Mechatronics and Systems Engineering, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

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

Keywords: Near-field earthquake is one of the primary sources of ground motions that significantly affecting the structure’s
Near-field earthquake seismic response in its surrounding area containing pulse-long periods. The two popular and reliable approaches
Braced frame for the seismic investigation of structures are known as the force and displacement-based seismic design (FBD
Displacement-based design
and DBD), extensively developed in the literature. In the present study, three types of steel buildings were
Force-based design
Nonlinear dynamic analysis
defined for the seismic analysis, including five, eight, and fifteen-story steel buildings as the representatives of
Nonlinear static analysis the multi-story, middle-rise, and small high-rise buildings, respectively. Steel structure designs and nonlinear
analysis were done by implementing SAP2000 and Opensees software, respectively. The designed buildings were
analyzed statistically and dynamically by performing the criteria determined in the FEMA-P750, Standard Code
2800, FEMA 356, and FEMA-P695, and then, FBD and DBD results were compared. The nonlinear static analysis
results showed the acceptable displacements corresponding to the displacement criteria suggested by FEMA 356,
showing the desirable performance of the designed structures. Also, the dynamic analysis results confirmed the
reliability of the FEMA 356′ s design criteria for the five and 8-story steel structures. However, the small high-rise
building design has not met the regulations suggested by FEMA 356.

1. Introduction earthquakes. The effects of near-field ground motions on the nonlinear

After the occurrence of the Northridge (1994, United States) and
Kobe (1995, Japan) earthquakes, many modern structures were severely
damaged or completely destroyed. The occurrence of such natural di­
sasters prompted researchers to take a closer look at the parameters
influencing the extent of failure. By scrutinizing all the factors related to
the earthquake magnitude, most of the damages were attributed to the
particular properties of near-field earthquakes caused the construction
design codes to be revised by considering the effects of proximity to the
seismic source [27,49].
In 2003, a pulse model was proposed by Mavroeidis and Papa­
georgiou [29] to investigate the near-field strong ground motions. The
model was known as a powerful tool to investigate elastic and inelastic
responses of structures located near the seismic source. The model was
utilized by Alonso-Rodríguez and Miranda [1] to assess the drift accel­
eration and response of buildings subjected to near-fault ground mo­
tions. In 2018, Bhandari et al. compared the inelastic behavior of base-
isolated building frames under far and near-field earthquakes [5]. Their
results proved the unreliability of base isolation subjected to near-field
seismic response of base-isolated structures are not negligible. In 2017,
Mazza et al. [32] investigated the nonlinear response of the r.c. framed
buildings retrofitted by three cases of base-isolation systems subjected to
near-fault earthquakes. In this research, the near-field ground motions
were assessed effective on the nonlinear dynamic response of a six-
storey frame building. The great impacts of near-field ground motions
were also shown in the base-isolated frames with curved surface sliding
(CSS) [30]. Therefore, it is necessary to consider these influential im­
pacts on the seismic analysis of steel buildings, especially in public
buildings like hospitals [31].
In comparison to far-field temblors, near-field earthquakes show
higher acceleration and more limited frequency content [10]. The
seismic data are recorded in short distances from the fault not exceeding
20 km. Moreover, in near-field earthquakes, in a shorter period, a
massive amount of energy, especially in the form of impact motion, can
be released. Pulse also refers to a wave with a strong amplitude and a
specific period that can appear in various forms such as triangular,
semicircular, and the other forms in the time history of records [50].
Thus, the behavior of structures in nearby areas will be strongly affected

* Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Jalal Ale Ahmad Blvd. Nasr, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail address: tahmasebi032@gmail.com (A. Tahmasebi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.08.082
Received 24 April 2021; Received in revised form 29 July 2021; Accepted 20 August 2021
Available online 30 August 2021
2352-0124/© 2021 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Tahmasebi and M. Rahimi
Fig. 1. The elevation of the proposed structure.
by these characteristics.
There are two types of near-field earthquakes: directivity and fling-
step earthquakes [49]. The seismogram for these earthquakes shows
long period pulses with strong domains, often seen at the beginning of an
earthquake record, especially when affected by forward directory pulses
[51]. In long-period pulses, the behavior of the structure leads to the
intensification phenomenon causing large displacements in the struc­
ture. This is especially vital in the case of tall buildings due to their
higher natural oscillation periods regarding the P-Δ effect [19]. Many
investigations were done on this powerful ground vibration model’s
characteristics based on two-dimensional and three-dimensional fault
motions [3,37,60]. These studies confirmed the existence of these long-
term pulses and also emphasized that the type of pulses and their
characteristics were directly related to the direction of wave propaga­
tion relative to the seismograph station, the seismic fault mechanism,
and soil conditions in the site.
Through the literature, three separated methods were introduced for
seismic design of structures: Force-Based Design (FBD), Displacement-
Based Design (DBD), and Energy-Based (EB) approaches [24]. In defi­
nition, the seismic design of structures based on the DBD is shaped
regarding the anticipated earthquake-induced displacements on the
considered structure [36]. In contrast, the FBD approach focuses on the
forces applying to the structure during an earthquake. Although the
traditional FBD approach was implemented in many studies known as a
reliable approach in seismic design of structures [14,61], the DBD
approach is preferable among the scholars for its convenience and direct
calculation feature [7,11,15,25,41,47,57]. There is no doubt that the
1365
Structures 34 (2021) 1364–1372
displacement is more responsible for the damages occurring in yielding
structure than the applied force shown in [36].
In the FBD, the force demand is determined by assuming the elastic
behavior of the structure and estimating its mechanical properties. In
1998, Krawinkler & Seneviratna showed that for structures that vibrate
according to the first mode (in which the first mode determines the
response), pushover analysis makes a reasonable estimation of the total
and partial displacement demand [22]. In addition, the weakness of the
floor mechanism, the demand for additional deformation, the irregu­
larity of the resistance, and the increased load on brittle bearings such as
joints and columns, which remain hidden in the elastic analysis, can be
better detected by the pushover analysis. However, the pushover anal­
ysis is defined based on static loading. Thus, by implementing this
analysis, the dynamic properties of the structure will not be well eval­
uated. On the other hand, the investigations showed that the pushover
analysis might not be reliable for the structures in which the effects of
higher modes are critical [28].
In a research conducted by Sozen [52], the scholars defined the DBD
as the relation of structure displacement in different amplitude and
structural and non-structural damage in yielding systems. Moreover,
Moehle directly considered the anticipated displacement to select the
details of the structure after performing the basic structural system [35].
However, Priestley used the target displacement for the structural
design [42]. Furthermore, as shown in [36], the displacement approach
can be simpler and more convenient than the FBD when the target is the
seismic assessment of the existing buildings rehabilitating with the
combination of old and new components.
A. Tahmasebi and M. Rahimi Structures 34 (2021) 1364–1372

Table 1
Cross-section assignment of the steel structures with 5, 8, and 15 stories.
Force-based approach Displacement-based approach

Five-story Eight-story Fifteen-story Five-story Eight-story Fifteen-story

1st-story Columns W12 × 50 W14 × 99 W24 × 146 W12 × 40 W12 × 65 W33 × 141
Beams W14 × 22 W14 × 22 W18 × 40 W14 × 22 W10 × 22 W24 × 76
Braces W12 × 30 W8 × 31 W10 × 49 W12 × 26 W8 × 31 W8 × 35
2nd-story Columns W12 × 50 W14 × 99 W24 × 146 W12 × 40 W12 × 65 W33 × 141
Beams W14 × 22 W14 × 22 W18 × 40 W14 × 22 W10 × 22 W24 × 76
Braces W12 × 30 W8 × 31 W10 × 49 W12 × 26 W8 × 31 W8 × 35
3rd-story Columns W12 × 30 W14 × 74 W24 × 146 W12 × 30 W12 × 45 W33 × 141
Beams W14 × 22 W14 × 22 W18 × 40 W14 × 22 W10 × 22 W24 × 76
Braces W12 × 26 W8 × 31 W10 × 49 W12 × 26 W8 × 31 W8 × 35
4th-story Columns W12 × 30 W14 × 74 W24 × 103 W12 × 30 W12 × 45 W33 × 118
Beams W14 × 22 W14 × 22 W18 × 40 W14 × 22 W10 × 22 W24 × 62
Braces W12 × 26 W8 × 31 W10 × 45 W12 × 26 W8 × 31 W8 × 31
5th-story Columns W12 × 30 W14 × 53 W24 × 103 W12 × 30 W12 × 30 W33 × 118
Beams W14 × 22 W12 × 26 W18 × 40 W14 × 22 W8 × 21 W24 × 62
Braces W12 × 26 W8 × 28 W10 × 45 W12 × 26 W8 × 28 W8 × 31
6th-story Columns – W14 × 53 W24 × 103 – W12 × 30 W33 × 118
Beams – W12 × 26 W18 × 40 – W8 × 21 W24 × 62
Braces – W8 × 28 W10 × 45 – W8 × 28 W8 × 31
7th-story Columns – W14 × 30 W24 × 68 – W12 × 26 W21 × 83
Beams – W12 × 26 W18 × 36 – W8 × 21 W24 × 55
Braces – W8 × 24 W10 × 33 – W8 × 24 W8 × 28
8th-story Columns – W14 × 30 W24 × 68 – W12 × 26 W21 × 83
Beams – W12 × 26 W18 × 36 – W8 × 21 W24 × 55
Braces – W8 × 24 W10 × 33 – W8 × 24 W8 × 28
9th-story Columns – – W24 × 68 – – W21 × 83
Beams – – W18 × 36 – – W24 × 55
Braces – – W10 × 33 – – W8 × 28
10th-story Columns – – W24 × 55 – – W21 × 48
Beams – – W18 × 36 – – W18 × 40
Braces – – W10 × 30 – – W8 × 24
11th-story Columns – – W24 × 55 – – W21 × 48
Beams – – W18 × 36 – – W18 × 40
Braces – – W10 × 30 – – W8 × 24
12th-story Columns – – W24 × 55 – – W21 × 48
Beams – – W18 × 36 – – W18 × 40
Braces – – W10 × 30 – – W8 × 24
13th-story Columns – – W21 × 48 – – W12 × 26
Beams – – W16 × 36 – – W18 × 35
Braces – – W10 × 26 – – W8 × 21
14th-story Columns – – W21 × 48 – – W12 × 26
Beams – – W16 × 36 – – W18 × 35
Braces – – W10 × 26 – – W8 × 21
15th-story Columns – – W21 × 48 – – W12 × 26
Beams – – W16 × 36 – – W18 × 35
Braces – – W10 × 26 – – W8 × 21

Table 2
Selected near-field record sets [2].
ID No. Selected Earthquake Recording Station Site-Source Distance (km) Recorded Motion PEER-NGA Record Information

Year Name Name Epicentral PGAmax (g) Record Seq. No. Lowest Freq (Hz.)

1 1979 Imperial Valley-06 El Centro Array #6 27.5 0.44 181 0.13

2 1979 Imperial Valley-06 El Centro Array #7 27.6 0.46 182 0.13
3 1980 Irpinia, Italy-01 Sturno 30.4 0.31 292 0.16
4 1987 Superstition Hills-02 Parachute Test Site 16.0 0.42 723 0.15
5 1989 Loma Prieta Saratoga – Aloha 27.2 0.38 802 0.13
6 1992 Erzican, Turkey Erzincan 9.0 0.49 821 0.13
7 1992 Cape Mendocino Petrolia 4.5 0.63 828 0.07
8 1992 Landers Lucerne 44.0 0.79 879 0.10
9 1992 Northridge-01 Rinaldi Receiving Sta 10.9 0.87 1063 0.11
10 1994 Northridge-01 Sylmar – Olive View 16.8 0.73 1086 0.12
11 1994 Kocaeli, Turkey Izmit 5.3 0.22 1165 0.13
12 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU065 26.7 0.82 1503 0.08
13 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU102 45.6 0.29 1529 0.06
14 1999 Duzce, Turkey Duzce 1.6 0.52 1605 0.10

In sum, past research has employed FBD and DBD approaches to literature, especially for braced steel buildings. While many in­
investigate the steel structures’ behavior either statically or dynami­ vestigations focused on optimum building designs, finding a new
cally. The possible impact of considering both static and dynamic ana­ approach considering both FBD and DBD at the same time can provide
lyses simultaneously, however, has not been investigated in the an ambiance to discover any gaps of building design codes and

1366
A. Tahmasebi and M. Rahimi Structures 34 (2021) 1364–1372

Table 3 all the specifications of the proposed models will be comprehensively

Coefficient of lateral loads, total and effective masses, and the base shears of the presented in the following parts. In the result section, all the results
braced structures. obtained by the buildings’ analysis using the nonlinear static and dy­
Model Coefficient of lateral Total Mass Effective Mass Base Shear namic methods will be presented. Finally, the results will be discussed
load (ton) (ton) (ton) and concluded.
B5F 0.146 474 382.8 55.89
B8F 0.138 762 613.2 84.62 2. Methodology
B15F 0.1 1434 1150.8 115.08
B5D 0.148 474 382.8 56.65
To achieve the capacity of the structure above the elastic range, it is
B8D 0.115 762 613.2 70.52
B15D 0.086 1434 1150.8 98.97 necessary to implement the nonlinear analysis. Also, the nonlinear

standards. Nevertheless, various past research falls short to address Table 4

these imperfections as well. To address the identified gap, this research Fundamental periods of the first three modes of braced structures.
aims to employ both FBD and DBD methods in order to investigate their Proposed Model T1 (sec) T2 (sec) T3 (sec)
differences in designing steel structures and probable imperfections of
B5F 0.46 0.14 0.08
codes.
B5D 0.49 0.15 0.07
In the present research, firstly, the methodology used for the analysis B8F 0.73 0.22 0.11
of the proposed structures is presented. In the next part, the static and B8D 0.91 0.25 0.12
dynamic methods, which were implemented as the main strategy of the B15F 1.35 0.39 0.19
building design, and the related design codes will be introduced. Then, B15D 1.45 0.43 0.21

Fig. 2. Stories’ seismic loads in the proposed structures obtained by using FBD and DBD.

1367
A. Tahmasebi and M. Rahimi Structures 34 (2021) 1364–1372

Table 5
Target displacement of the different structures with various number of stories designed based on the FBD and DBD.
Model Te C0 C1 C2 C3 Ag B Sa δt 1.5δt

B5F 0.46 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.35 2.5 0.88 6.48 9.72
B5D 0.49 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.35 2.5 0.88 7.35 11.03
B8F 0.73 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.35 1.94 0.68 13.51 20.26
B8D 0.91 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.35 1.68 0.59 18.21 27.32
B15F 1.35 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.35 1.29 0.45 30.57 48.85
B15D 1.45 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.35 1.23 0.43 35.27 52.90

0.05–0.1% of the brace length at brace midspan [54]. In addition, the

Table 6 displacement at midspan of total length (L)/350 was considered as the
Maximum base shear and rood displacement values resulting from nonlinear initial imperfection specified by a sinusoidal deformed shape by [58].
static analysis using various loading patterns. Besides, the initial imperfection was considered L/1000 with a parabolic
Loading Pattern Model Max Base Shear (ton) Roof Displacement (cm) distribution in research done by Hu [20]. However, for a better under­
1.1(D +L) + E1 B5F 111 9.72 standing of differences between the FBD and DBD approaches, ideal
B8F 139 20.26 conditions, i.e., no initial imperfection, were considered in the present
B15F 96 48.85 research.
B5D 90 11.03
The nonlinear beam-column element used in this study considers the
B8D 88 27.32
B15D 103 52.90 interaction of axial and flexural force integrating the uniaxial model and
1.1(D +L) + E2 B5F 148 9.72 hysteresis of materials in the brace’s cross-section. However, the shear
B8F 186 20.26 displacements were ignored. To introduce the materials in this study, the
B15F 147 48.85 Menegotto-Pinto hysteresis model [34] with isotropic and kinematic
B5D 117 11.03
B8D 123 27.32
hardening considerations for steel fibers was considered.
B15D 153 52.90 In the proposed model, the rigid region was assumed from the brace
fold-line on the connection plate to the beam-column connection line
center. The fold-line connection’s representative cross-section was
analysis can be an effective approach for the estimation of the seismic modeled by considering eight fibers in-depth and eight fibers in the
requirements at high-performance levels, such as life safety and pre­ connection plate’s width. This approach allowed the brace to buckle in
vention of the failure of the whole structure. Generally, nonlinear the plate and avoid bucking out of the plate. Simulating the fatigue
analysis means structural analysis considering its components’ behavior of braces was neglected in this study due to the lack of various
nonlinear behavior due to the nonlinear behavior of materials, cracking, prerequisites [46].
and nonlinear geometric effects. In the present study, the nonlinear In this research, all bending frames included three spans with a
static and dynamic analyses were performed on steel braced frames length of five meters. Also, the height of all floors is three meters. Fig. 1
subjected to the near-field earthquake by implementing the displace­ presents the schematic of the structures determined in this research.
ment and force-based seismic design. Steel braced frames were conducted, including a series of structures with
5, 8, and 15 stories.
2.1. Model specifications In Fig. 1, the letters “C”, “B”, and “BR” are related to the column,
beam, and converging brace, respectively. Furthermore, the corre­
The modeling and computational simulation part of the research sponding number indicates the story of the proposed structure. All the
were implemented using Opensees (Open System for Earthquake Engi­ determined steel cross-sections assigned to the columns, beams, and
neering Simulation) version 2.5.0, known as a reliable tool for Finite braced at each story were presented in Table 1.
Element Analysis (FEA) and the analysis of frame structures [33].
Regarding the research conducted by Uriz and Mahin [55], Opensees 2.1.1. Selected earthquakes
can accurately simulate steel braces’ general behavior with a compacted The near-field record sets were taken from the 14 pair records (pulse
cross-section. In the present research, material properties are obtained subset) introduced in FEMA P695 [2]. All the information regarding the
by comparing the Opensees model with laboratory results. The cali­ chosen near-field earthquake records are presented in Table 2.
brated cross-section for the brace used in this study was the Menegotto-
Pinto type with an elastic modulus of 199,948 MPa, the yield stress of 2.1.2. Loading considerations
248 MPa, and a kinematic stiffening ratio of 0.3%. Regarding [55], the Regarding the code regulation, 600kg.m− 2 was considered for the
number of elements affects the predicted force for the brace’s post- dead loads of the stories and roofs in all the proposed structures. Also,
buckling strength. The more numbers of elements, the less predicted the live loads of the stories and roof were considered 200kg.m− 2 and
force. In the present study, by comparing the results of a laboratory 150kg.m− 2 , respectively. The coefficient of lateral loads, total and
sample with different combinations of the parameters mentioned by effective masses, and the base shears in all the structures are presented
Uriz and Mahin [55], two elements were considered to classify the in Table 3.
braces. Moreover, the W compacted cross-section was used for the brace In Table 3, the letters “F” and “D” indicated the force and displace­
design. The number of fiber elements required to simulate the hysteresis ment approaches for the structure design, respectively. The corre­
behavior and buckling force varies according to the cross-sectional sponding number shows the number of the stories of the determined
shape. Generally, previous studies showed that a small number of steel structure.
fiber elements lead to a decrease in flexural stiffness and increased The stories’ seismic loads of the proposed structures in both FBD and
sensitivity to flexural force interaction with axial force [48]. DBD approaches are shown in Fig. 2.
The selection of initial camber, buckling, and the effects of end re­
straints, as design imperfections originated during the construction of 2.1.3. Determined periods
steel buildings, can be counted as controversial discussions [59] ob­ In this research, steel structure design and nonlinear analysis were
tained by comparing the results of numerical and experimental models. done by implementing SAP2000 [13] and Opensees [33], respectively.
In 2008, Uriz et al. considered the initial camber displacement of

1368
A. Tahmasebi and M. Rahimi Structures 34 (2021) 1364–1372

Loading Pattern : Loading Pattern :

0.4 0.5
Five-storey Structure 0.35 0.45

Vmax / Seismic Weight

Vmax / Seismic Weight
0.4
0.3
0.35
0.25 0.3
0.2 0.25
0.15 0.2
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
D / Total Height D / Total Height

0.3 0.4
Eight-storey Structure

0.35
0.25

Vmax / Seismic Weight

Vmax / Seismic Weight

0.3
0.2
0.25

0.15 0.2

0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05

0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
D / Total Height D / Total Height

0.14
0.14
Fifteen-storey Structure

0.12
0.12
Vmax / Seismic Weight
Vmax / Seismic Weight

0.1 0.1

0.08 0.08

0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
D / Total Height D / Total Height

Displacement-based approach Force-based approach

Fig. 3. Pushover diagram of 5, 8, and 15-story structures.

Table 7
Average values of base shear and roof displacement for 5, 8, and 15-story braced
structures using different approaches.
Model
Five-story structure
Eight-story structure
Fifteen-story structure
After analyzing and designing the structure, the drift of the floors was
controlled by computational lateral forces. At the end of the frame
design process, the structure’s fundamental periods were calculated for
the modes resulting in more than 90% total effective masses, presented
in Table 4.
3. Results
In nonlinear static analysis, the earthquake’s lateral load is applied
statically and gradually to the structure until the displacement at a
certain point (control point) reaches a certain value (target displace­
ment). However, the structure may become unstable before these dis­
placements meet each other. In this analysis, the center of mass of the
roof (not dome roof) is selected as the control point. Although this
method has remarkable similarities with linear static analysis, the
nonlinear behavior of all the elements and structural components are
included in the analysis. As shown in [38], the structural elements may
Displacement-based Force-based Approach show nonlinear behavior in the seismic analysis causing the occurrence
Approach
of uncertainties. This issue may happen not only in steel structures, but
VAvg, (ton) DAvg, (cm) VAvg, (ton) DAvg, (cm) also in reinforced concrete frame structures [39]. Moreover, the earth­
128.18 10.92 145.54 8.97 quake effect is estimated in terms of displacement instead of applying a
136.29 24.24 181.39 18.92 specific load. In general, in this method, the use of three-dimensional
187.29 58.31 196.54 57.79 models is preferred to two-dimensional models. However, due to soft­
ware limitations, the use of two-dimensional models is also allowed for
regular structures.
For the nonlinear static analysis, the DBD and FBD procedures were
carried out based on the FEMA-P750 [16] and the Standard Code
2800Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistance Design of Buildings:
Standard No. [6], 2014, respectively. For pushover analysis, the pro­
posed load patterns were derived from FEMA 356 [4].
In order to consider the real effect of the earthquake on the steel
structures with braces, the nonlinear dynamic analysis was also imple­
mented. The Rayleigh damping, firstly introduced by W. L. Rayleigh
[56], was used by considering the scale of earthquakes affecting the
pulse effects. The Rayleigh damping is known as one of the most popular
models which can be helpful in assessing the damping effects in struc­
tures and their seismic response simultaneously [12,45]. In nonlinear

1369
A. Tahmasebi and M. Rahimi Structures 34 (2021) 1364–1372

Fig. 4. Maximum base shear, roof displacement, and drift for records with speed and displacement pulse for the 5, 8, and 15-story structures.

Fig. 5. Story drifts of the 5, 8, and 15-story structures.

time history, the maximum displacement is viewed as the demand

Table 8 displacement resulting from near-field earthquakes applied to the
Comparison between the average displacements results obtained by imple­ structure. For dynamic analysis, 28 pairs of near-field accelerometers
menting FBD and DBD approaches and determined displacements in the FEMA related to FEMA-P695 [2] were conducted.
356.
Model DAvg, (cm) Suggested displacements in FEMA 356 3.1. Nonlinear static analysis
δt 1.5δt

B5D 10.92 7.35 11.03

For the nonlinear static analysis of the steel structures, firstly, it is
B5F 8.97 6.48 9.72 necessary to calculate the target displacement. Table 5 shows the results
B8D 24.24 18.21 27.32 of the target displacement calculation in all structures designed based on
B8F 18.92 13.51 20.26 the FBD and DBD. All the coefficients presented in Table 5 were calcu­
B15D 58.31 35.27 52.90
lated based on the FEMA 356′ s criteria.
B15F 57.79 30.57 48.85

1370
A. Tahmasebi and M. Rahimi
3.1.1. Pushover analysis
Pushover analysis is a lucrative method for evaluating the design
imperfections of the steel structure and specifying the inelastic strength
and deformation demands [21,44]. In the literature, numerous multi-
mode pushover analysis methods were introduced by scholars. Chopra
et al. and Chopra and Goel presented a modal pushover analysis (MPA)
to estimate the seismic demand [9,8]. Moreover, generalized pushover
analysis methods [53], consecutive modal pushover analysis (CMP)
methods [40], extended N2 methods [23], adaptive pushover analysis
method [18,43], spectrum-based pushover analysis (SPA) method [26],
and other multimode pushover analysis methods [17] are some methods
introduced by previous studies.
For the pushover analysis, the distribution of mode shape analysis
and mass-based uniform distribution (type II distribution), retrieved
from FEMA 356, were considered as the load patterns I and II, respec­
tively. In both vertical distributions, the loading combination was
considered on the basis of live and dead critical loads. i.e., the combi­
nation of dead load plus the first and second type distributions was
neglected. The maximum values of base shear and roof displacement are
presented in Table 6.
As shown in Table 6, all the determined structures designed based on
the FBD and DBD approaches met the corresponding target displace­
ment. Therefore, the performance of both structures is evaluated as
desirable. Comparing the FBD and DBD results, the increase in ductility
due to the capacity reduction of the performance-based designed
structure is observed. Fig. 3 shows the pushover curves for the frames
designed by the FBD and DBD methods.
By examining the results obtained by the structures’ static analysis, it
was found that the elements’ performance did not exceed the level of
safety performance required by the codes. As a result, the designed
structures are evaluated desirable in both FBD and DBD approaches
(Table 7).
3.2. Nonlinear dynamic analysis
Nonlinear dynamic analysis was performed on two series of struc­
tures designed based on the FBD and DBD under 14 pairs of pulsed ac­
celeration mapping in the near-field earthquake. All the results were
presented in Fig. 4, including the maximum values of base shear, roof
displacement, and drift of the structures with five, eight, and fifteen
stories. The maximum values of each graph in both FBD and DBD ap­
proaches were written on each graph in Fig. 4.
As shown in Fig. 4, all drift results for the 5-story braced structure did
not exceed the allowable drift values interpreted in FEMA 356. Thus, the
performance of the designed structure is evaluated as desirable in both
FBD and DBD approaches. For 8-story structure, only six records out of a
total of 28 records with pulse exceeded the allowable drift value
determined in FEMA 356, i.e., 2%. Therefore, the performance of the
designed 8-story structure is evaluated in desirable in both approaches.
Also, the increase in story’s drift is obvious in the structures subjected to
near-field earthquakes, especially by increasing the structure’s height.
Both FBD and DBD approaches resulted in unacceptable values for the
15-story structure as 11 out of 28 records exceeded the 2% allowable
drift of FEMA 356 (Fig. 5).
As shown in Table 8, for 5, 8, and 15-story structures, the value of
target displacement suggested in FEMA 356 is not a good approximation
to determine the displacement, and the need for this increase is felt even
more than 1.5 times.
4. Conclusions and discussions
The present research argues the behavior of the multi-story, middle-
rise, and small high-rise buildings subjected to near-field earthquakes.
Nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of 5, 8, and 15-story braced steel
frames subjected to near-field earthquakes is performed using the FBD,
and DBD approaches. The designed buildings were analyzed statistically
1371
Structures 34 (2021) 1364–1372
and dynamically by implementing the criteria suggested in the FEMA-
P750, Standard Code 2800, FEMA 356, and FEMA-P695. In static
analysis, all buildings’ performance was acceptable for both FBD and
DBD approaches regarding the desirable results of structures’ displace­
ment compared to the target displacement. The target displacements
regarded in FEMA 356 cause a considerable increase in steel buildings’
height, especially in the buildings with a not high number of stories. For
improving this imperfection, it is suggested to multiple the determined
target displacements to 1.5.
The distributions provided in FEMA 356 in order to achieve the real
capability of the structures are practically not appropriate. Since the
regulations estimated the structure capacity too much or too low which
cannot provide the real capacity. As a result, it is necessary to provide
some appropriate distributions helping the FEMA 356 present a more
accurate estimation of building real capacity. Moreover, the results
obtained by pushover analysis were also acceptable due to the safety
criteria suggested in the codes.
By considering the story displacement as the seismic demand, the
braced frames subjected to near-field earthquake showed an admissible
performance, especially in multi-story buildings. In the condition that
the drift of 0.5% is determined as the threshold of replacing the brace,
practically, these structures can be used after the occurrence of near-
field earthquakes with the least reconstruction.
As it can be found through the nonlinear dynamic results, the values
of drift in the multi-story (5-story) and middle-rise (8-story) buildings
did not exceed the allowable drift values designated in FEMA 356 (2%),
i.e., the results met FEMA 356 criteria. However, the FEMA 356′ s drift
criteria were not met for the small high-rise building (15-story) as 11 out
of 28 records exceeded the 2% allowable drift. As a result, accurate
nonlinear dynamic analysis is necessary for this high-height building
with convergent braced frames. Considering the effects of initial im­
perfections rather than ideal conditions can significantly improve the
results of this research, which can be suggested for similar future works.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
We are immensely grateful to Prof. Mohsen Tehranizadeh, the pro­
fessor of the Department of Civil Engineering at AmirKabir University of
Technology (Tehran Polytechnique) for his helpful and valuable super­
vision of the research.
Funding sources
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
[1] Alonso-Rodríguez A, Miranda E. Assessment of building behavior under near-fault
pulse-like ground motions through simplified models. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2015;79:47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.08.009.
[2] Applied Technology Council. FEMA P695: quantification of building seismic
performance factors. Fema P695 (Issue June). 2009.
[3] Archila M, Ventura CE, Liam Finn WD. New insights on effects of directionality and
duration of near-field ground motions on seismic response of tall buildings. Struct
Des Tall Special Build 2017;26(11):e1363. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1363.
[4] ASCE. (2000). American Society of Civil Engineers, FEMA 356 Prestandard and
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Building. Rehabilitation, November.
[5] Bhandari M, Bharti SD, Shrimali MK, Datta TK. The numerical study of base-
isolated buildings under near-field and far-field earthquakes. J Earthquake Eng
2018;22(6):989–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1269698.
[6] Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistance Design of Buildings: Standard No.
2800, (2014).
A. Tahmasebi and M. Rahimi
[7] Calvi, G., & Pavese, A. (1995). Displacement based design of building structures.
SECED Conference, 127–132.
[8] Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic
demands for buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2002;31(3):561–82. https://
doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-984510.1002/eqe.v31:310.1002/eqe.144.
[9] Chopra AK, Goel RK, Chintanapakdee C. Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure
assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands. Earthquake Spectra
2004;20(3):757–78. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1775237.
[10] Corigliano M, Scandella L, Lai CG, Paolucci R. Seismic analysis of deep tunnels in
near fault conditions: a case study in Southern Italy. Bull Earthq Eng 2011;9(4):
975–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9249-3.
[11] Correia Lopes G, Vicente R, Ferreira TM, Azenha M, Estêvão J. Displacement-based
seismic performance evaluation and vulnerability assessment of buildings: the N2
method revisited. Structures 2020;24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
istruc.2019.12.028.
[12] Cruz C, Miranda E. Evaluation of the Rayleigh damping model for buildings. Eng
Struct 2017;138:324–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.02.001.
[13] Csi C. Analysis reference manual for SAP2000, ETABS, and SAFE. Berkeley,
California, USA: Computers and Structures; 2016.
[14] D’ayala DF. Force and displacement based vulnerability assessment for traditional
buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2005;3(3):235–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-
005-1239-x.
[15] Edwards M, Wilson JL, Lam NTK, Hutchinson GL. The displacement based
approach from an intraplate perspective. In: Proceedings of the Australasian
Structural Engineering Conference; 1998. p. 713–20.
[16] FEMA P. NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other
structures. Washington, DC: Building Seismic Safety Council of the National
Institute of Building Sciences; 2009.
[17] Ferraioli M. Multi-mode pushover procedure for deformation demand estimates of
steel moment-resisting frames. Int J Steel Struct 2017;17(2):653–76. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13296-017-6022-8.
[18] Ferraioli M, Lavino A, Mandara A. An adaptive capacity spectrum method for
estimating seismic response of steel moment-resisting frames. Ingegneria Sismica
2016;33(1–2).
[19] Guidotti R, Castellani A, Stupazzini M. Near-field earthquake strong ground motion
rotations and their relevance on tall buildings. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2018;108(3).
https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170140.
[20] Hu JW. Seismic analysis and evaluation of several recentering braced frame
structures. Proc Instit Mech Eng, Part C: J Mech Eng Sci 2014;228(5):781–98.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406213490600.
[21] Kovela P Rao. Nonlinear pushover analysis for performance based engineering
design – a review. Int J Res Appl Sci Eng Technol, V(III) (2017). 10.22214/
ijraset.2017.3239.
[22] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic
performance evaluation. Eng Struct 1998;20(4-6):452–64. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00092-8.
[23] Kreslin M, Fajfar P. The extended N2 method taking into account higher mode
effects in elevation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2011;40(14):1571–89. https://doi.
org/10.1002/eqe.v40.1410.1002/eqe.1104.
[24] Lam NTK, Chandler AM, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Response spectrum predictions
for potential near-field and far-field earthquakes affecting Hong Kong: Rock sites.
Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2002;22(1):47–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261
(01)00051-3.
[25] Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. The modelling of intraplate seismic hazard
based on displacement. Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper, 1933; 2000.
[26] Liu Y, Kuang JS. Spectrum-based pushover analysis for estimating seismic demand
of tall buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2017;15(10):4193–214. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10518-017-0132-8.
[27] Luo Q, Dai F, Liu Y, Gao M. Numerical modelling of the near-field velocity pulse-
like ground motions of the Northridge earthquake. Acta Geophys 2020;68(4):
993–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-020-00459-4.
[28] Mao J, Zhai C, Xie L. An improved modal pushover analysis procedure for
estimating seismic demands of structures. Earthquake Eng Eng Vibrat 2008;7(1):
25–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-008-0786-y.
[29] Mavroeidis GP, Papageorgiou AS. A mathematical representation of near-fault
ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2003;93(3). https://doi.org/10.1785/
0120020100.
[30] Mazza F. Lateral-torsional response of base-isolated buildings with curved surface
sliding system subjected to near-fault earthquakes. Mech Syst Sig Process 2017;92:
64–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.01.025.
[31] Mazza F. Base-isolation of a hospital pavilion against in-plane-out-of-plane seismic
collapse of masonry infills. Eng Struct 2021;228:111504. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.engstruct.2020.111504.
[32] Mazza F, Mazza M, Vulcano A. Nonlinear response of rc framed buildings
retrofitted by different base-isolation systems under horizontal and vertical
components of near-fault earthquakes. Earthq Struct 2017;12(1):135–44.
[33] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Open System for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (OpenSEES) user command-language manual. Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2006.
1372
Structures 34 (2021) 1364–1372
[34] Menegotto M. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane frames including
changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal
force and bending. In: Proc. of IABSE Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate
Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads; 1973.
p. 15–22.
[35] Moehle JP. Displacement-based design of RC structures subjected to earthquakes.
Earthquake Spectra 1992;8(3):403–28. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585688.
[36] Moehle JP. Displacement-based seismic design criteria. Proceedings of 11th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 1996.
[37] Mwafy A, Khalifa S. Effect of vertical structural irregularity on seismic design of
tall buildings. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2017;26(18):e1399. https://doi.org/
10.1002/tal.v26.1810.1002/tal.1399.
[38] Nascimbene R. Numerical model of a reinforced concrete building: Earthquake
analysis and experimental validation. Periodica Polytechnica Civ Eng 2015;59(4):
521–30. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.8247.
[39] Pavese A, Lanese I, Nascimbene R. Seismic vulnerability assessment of an infilled
reinforced concrete frame structure designed for gravity loads. J Earthquake Eng
2017;21(2):267–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1172372.
[40] Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F, Moghadam AS. A consecutive modal pushover
procedure for estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings. Eng Struct 2009;31
(2):591–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.10.009.
[41] Priestley MJN. Displacement-based seismic assessment of existing reinforced
concrete buildings. Bull New Zealand Natl Soc Earthquake Eng 1996;29(4):256–72.
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.29.4.256-272.
[42] Priestley MJN. Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering. Concr Int 1997;19
(2). https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.26.3.329-341.
[43] Rahmani AY, Bourahla N, Bento R, Badaoui M. Adaptive upper-bound pushover
analysis for high-rise moment steel frames. Structures 2019;20:912–23. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.07.006.
[44] Rana N, Rana S. Non-linear static analysis (pushover analysis) a review. Meerut
(UP), India: IJETR; 2015. p. 3.
[45] Salehi M, Sideris P. Enhanced rayleigh damping model for dynamic analysis of
inelastic structures. J Struct Eng 2020;146(10):04020216. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002732.
[46] Santagati S, Bolognini D, Nascimbene R. Strain life analysis at low-cycle fatigue on
concentrically braced steel structures with RHS shape braces. J Earthquake Eng
2012;16(sup1):107–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2012.675840.
[47] Sejal DP, Vasanwala SA, Desai AK. Performance based seismic design of structure: a
review. Int J Civil Struct Eng 2011;1(4):795.
[48] Seleem MH, Sharaky IA, Sallam HEM. Flexural behavior of steel beams
strengthened by carbon fiber reinforced polymer plates – three dimensional finite
element simulation. Mater Des 2010;31(3):1317–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2009.09.010.
[49] Sharma V, Shrimali MK, Bharti SD, Datta TK. Seismic fragility evaluation of semi-
rigid frames subjected to near-field earthquakes. J Constr Steel Res 2021;176:
106384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106384.
[50] Somerville P. Seismic hazard evaluation. Bull New Zealand Soc Earthquake Eng
2000;33(3):371–86.
[51] Somerville P, Graves R. Conditions that give rise to unusually large long period
ground motions. Struct Des Tall Build 1993;2(3):211–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tal.4320020304.
[52] Sozen MA. Review of earthquake response of reinforced concrete buildings with a
view to drift control. State-of-the-Art in Earthquake Eng 1981:383–418.
[53] Sucuoğlu H, Günay MS. Generalized force vectors for multi-mode pushover
analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2011;40(1):55–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/
eqe.v40.110.1002/eqe.1020.
[54] Uriz P, Filippou FC, Mahin SA. Model for cyclic inelastic buckling of steel braces.
J Struct Eng 2008;134(4):619–28.
[55] Uriz P, Mahin SA. Toward Earthquake-Resistant Design of Concentrically Braced
Steel-Frame Structures. In Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (Issue
November); 2008.
[56] LRW. The theory of sound. Nature 1898;58(1493):121–2. https://doi.org/
10.1038/058121a0.
[57] Wijaya U, Soegiarso R, Tavio. Evaluation of seismic performance based on a direct
displacementbased method. Int J Adv Sci, Eng Inf Technol, 9(5) (2019). 10.18517/
ijaseit.9.5.7932.
[58] Wijesundara KK, Bolognini D, Nascimbene R, Calvi GM. Review of design
parameters of concentrically braced frames with rhs shape braces. J Earthquake
Eng 2009;13(sup1):109–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460902813331.
[59] Yoo J-H, Lehman DE, Roeder CW. Influence of connection design parameters on
the seismic performance of braced frames. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64(6):607–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2007.11.005.
[60] Zhang Y, Iwan WD. Active interaction control of tall buildings subjected to near-
field ground motions. J Struct Eng 2002;128(1):69–79. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:1(69).
[61] Žižmond J, Dolšek M. Formulation of risk-targeted seismic action for the force-
based seismic design of structures. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2019;48(12):
1406–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3206.