Comparative performance evaluation of RC frame structures using direct displacement-based design method and force-based design method

  • Anurag SharmaEmail author
  • R. K Tripathi
  • Govardhan Bhat
Original Paper


Force-based design (FBD) method has been practiced for a long time which focuses on the seismic force over the structure. Problems associated with FBD are assumed stiffness of structural elements, inappropriate R factors and others. Thus, a new alternative method is required to overcome these differences. Direct displacement-based design method (DDBD) provides an efficient alternative. It is more straightforward which aims to achieve a specified acceptable level of damage under the design earthquake. The main aim of DDBD is to define the target displacement profile for the structures. In this study, the performance of low- and medium-rise building is evaluated using FBD and DDBD method and results have been compared. Both structures are designed according to Indian standard loading in compliance with IS 1893 (part 1) 2016. Non-linear analyses have been carried out for evaluating structural performance like base shear, maximum displacement and inter-storey drift ratio (IDR%). From the study, it can be concluded that DDBD method is more effective than FBD method.


Displacement-based design Force-based design Non-linear analysis Base shear Inter-storey drift 



The authors warmly acknowledge the support of Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD), India and N.I.T Raipur for providing continuous support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Al-Atik, L., & Abrahamson, N. A. (2010). An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching. Earthquake Spectra, 26(6), 601–6017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arslan, G., Borekci, M., Sahin, B., Denizer, M. I., & Duman, K. S. (2018). Performance evaluation of in-plan irregular RC frame buildings based on Turkish seismic code. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 16(3), 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardone, D., Dolce, M., & Palermo, G. (2008, October). Force-based vs. direct displacement-based design of buildings with seismic isolation. In The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Vol. 1)Google Scholar
  4. Cardone, D., Palermo, G., & Dolce, M. (2010). Direct displacement-based design of buildings with different seismic isolation systems. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 14(2), 163–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choudhury, S., & Singh, S. M. (2013). A unified approach to performance-based design of RC frame buildings. Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India): Series A94(2), 73-82.Google Scholar
  6. EN 1998–1. (2004). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance (1st ed.). Brussels: BSi.Google Scholar
  7. FEMA (2000). NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program), NEHRP, Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report No. 356. Washington: Building Seismic Safety CouncilGoogle Scholar
  8. FEMA (2006). Next-generation performance-based seismic design guidelines program plan for new and existing buildings. 445. Washington D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
  9. Freeman, S. A. (2004). Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 41(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  10. Ghobarah, A. (2001). Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: State of development. Engineering Structures, 23(8), 878–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamburger, R., Rojahn, C., Moehle, J., Bachman, R., Comartin, C., & Whittaker, A. (2004). The ATC-58 project: Development of next-generation performance-based earthquake engineering design criteria for buildings. In 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (pp. 1–15).Google Scholar
  12. Inel, M., Cayci, B. T., & Meral, E. (2018). Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analyses of RC Buildings. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 16(9), 1241–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IS: 1893-Part 1. (2016). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part-1 general provisions and building sixth revision. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian standards.Google Scholar
  14. IS: 456. (2000). Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian standards.Google Scholar
  15. Loeding, S., Kowalsky, M. J., & Priestley, M. J. N. (1998). Direct Displacement-Based Design of Concrete Buildings. Structural Systems Research Report No. SSRP 98/08, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  16. Malekpour, S., Ghaffarzadeh, H., & Dashti, F. (2011). Direct displacement based design of regular steel moment resisting frames. Procedia engineering, 14, 3354–3361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muljati, I., Asisi, F., & Willyanto, K. (2015a). Performance of force based design versus direct displacement based design in predicting seismic demands of regular concrete special moment resisting frames. Procedia Engineering, 125, 1050–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muljati, I., Kusuma, A., & Hindarto, F. (2015b). Direct displacement based design on moment resisting frame with out-of-plane offset of frame. Procedia Engineering, 125, 1057–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Paulay, T., & Priestley, M. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pettinga, J. D., & Priestley, M. N. (2005). Dynamic behaviour of reinforced concrete frames designed with direct displacement-based design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 9(2), 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Priestley, M. N. (1993). Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering-conflicts between design and reality. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 26(3), 329–341.Google Scholar
  22. Priestley, M. J. N. (1998). Brief comments on elastic flexibility of reinforced concrete frames and significance to seismic design. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 31(4), 246–259.Google Scholar
  23. Priestley, M. J. N. (2003). Does capacity design do the job?: An examination of higher mode effects in cantilever walls. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 36(4), 276–292.Google Scholar
  24. Priestley, M. J. N. & Amaris, A. D. (2002) Dynamic amplification of seismic moments and shear forces in cantilever walls, Report No. ROSE 2002/01. In European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, Pavia, 86 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., & Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Displacement-based seismic design of structures. Pavia: IUSS Press.Google Scholar
  26. Priestley, M. J. N., & Kowalsky, M. J. (2000). Direct displacement-based design of concrete buildings. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 33(4), 421–444.Google Scholar
  27. Raju, K. R., Cinitha, A., & Iyer, N. R. (2012). Seismic performance evaluation of existing RC buildings designed as per past codes of practice. Sadhana, 37(2), 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. SAP. (2000). Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design. California: Computer and Structures.Google Scholar
  29. Seismosoft (2018). Seismomatch (version 2018), Available from URL: Accessed 29 Oct 2018.
  30. Seneviratna, G. D. P. K., & Krawinkler, H. (1996). Modifications of seismic demands for MDOF systems. In Proc. 11th WCEE. Acapulco: IAEEGoogle Scholar
  31. Shibata, A., & Sozen, M. A. (1976). Substitute-structure method for seismic design in R/C. Journal of the structural division, ASCE, 102(12), 3548–3566.Google Scholar
  32. Sil, A., Das, G., & Hait, P. (2019). Characteristics of FBD and DDBD techniques for SMRF buildings designed for seismic zone-V in India. Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation, 4(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. UBC. (2000). Uniform Building Code, USA. Falls Church: International Code Council, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Varughese, J. A., Menon, D., & Prasad, A. M. (2015). Displacement-based seismic design of open ground storey buildings. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 54(1), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vidot-Vega, A. L., & Kowalsky, M. J. (2013). Drift, strain limits and ductility demands for RC moment frames designed with displacement-based and force-based design methods. Engineering Structures, 51, 128–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zameeruddin, M., & Sangle, K. K. (2016). Review on Recent developments in the performance-based seismic design of reinforced concrete structures. Structures Elsevier, 6, 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNational Institute of Technology RaipurRaipurIndia

Personalised recommendations