Comparative performance evaluation of RC frame structures using direct displacement-based design method and force-based design method
- 1 Downloads
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.
KeywordsDisplacement-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.
- 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
- 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 A, 94(2), 73-82.Google Scholar
- EN 1998–1. (2004). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance (1st ed.). Brussels: BSi.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Freeman, S. A. (2004). Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 41(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- IS: 456. (2000). Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian standards.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., & Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Displacement-based seismic design of structures. Pavia: IUSS Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- SAP. (2000). Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design. California: Computer and Structures.Google Scholar
- Seismosoft (2018). Seismomatch (version 2018), Available from URL: www.seismosoft.com. Accessed 29 Oct 2018.
- Seneviratna, G. D. P. K., & Krawinkler, H. (1996). Modifications of seismic demands for MDOF systems. In Proc. 11th WCEE. Acapulco: IAEEGoogle Scholar
- 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
- UBC. (2000). Uniform Building Code, USA. Falls Church: International Code Council, Inc.Google Scholar