16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Paper N° XXXX (4984)
Registration Code: S-L1464880321

ANALYTICAL STUDY ON COLLAPSE-RESISTING CAPACITY OF

VERTICALLY IRREGULAR STEEL MOMENT FRAMES
M. Shahini(1), R. Mirghaderi(2), P. Davidson(3)
(1)
Post graduate researcher, University of Aberdeen, r01ms16@abdn.ac.uk
(2)
Professor, University of Tehran, rmirghaderi@ut.ac.ir
(3)
Senior Lecturer, University of Aberdeen, p.c.davidson@abdn.ac.uk

Abstract
The present study investigates the collapse potential of vertical irregular moment-frame system based
on the performance based plastic design methodology (PBPD). The well-known method uses the
input energy as well as the plastic energy capacity of a building to design the yielding members so
that the favorable yield mechanisms reach.

Various low-rise to high-rise steel framing are considered as case study. Steel beam–column members
of these case studies are proportioned by the plastic energy based method and by the current elastic
design method. In order to evaluate the capability of the PBPD to collapse prevention, key structural
performance parameters for detailed steel moment framings in terms of maximum/mean inter-story
drift ratios, residual drift ratios, and plastic hinge rotations are computed by nonlinear history analysis
and then results are compared to the acceptance criteria recommended by the TBI Guidelines as well
as the methodology reported in FEMA P695.

The comparison show that Performance based plastic design methodology is able to meet collapse
margin which is a highest favorable mechanism of the tall vertical geometric irregular building
whereas the current code-specified requirements are not practically fully adequate to satisfy the
expected seismic behavior of high irregular buildings specifically under the maximum considered
earthquake hazard level.

In addition, according the controlling criteria reported in TBI, two steel frames that proportioned by
the PBPD method, is subjected to a set of ground motions with incremental intensities from maximum
considered earthquake hazard level to the early collapse level to estimate a safety margin against life-
threatening collapse.

The results exhibit that structural performance for each ground motion favorably shows safe margin
against collapse as the maximum IDRs obtained from each records do not exceed 4.5%. In other
words, Structural acceptance criteria based on the requirements of TBI Guidelines, for MCE hazard
level, in terms of maximum/mean IDRs, RDRs and plastic rotations as local parameters are
reasonably satisfied.

Keywords: Performance Based Plastic Design; high-rise moment resisting setback frame; collapse assessments,
the energy balance concept, vertical irregularity.
 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

1. Introduction
Many novel architectural designs cause complexities and irregularities in building structures
which need to be thoroughly addressed by structural professionals.

Intensive research in restricting inelastic damage in irregular buildings has been done, but there is
no codified procure to ensure the greatest possible yield of displacement control members and also
prevent uneven structural collapse due to concentration of elastic deformation near the weak area for
certain structures.

The so-called ‘setback’ is referred to one of the most common type of vertical irregularities
partially leading to elimination of the structural bending resistance and discontinuity of the load
transfer in the lateral bearing system. Additionally, setbacks cause abrupt shrinking of adjacent story
plans which have detrimental effect on the response to seismic loadings as a result of dissimilar mass
distribution in these stories [1].

This extra damage has been a concern in seismic building codes as well as the subject of many
researches to improving seismic performance of irregular frames. An experimental study on a six
story irregular moment resisting frame which subjected to earthquake simulations of varying intensity
in order to identify the seismic performance of setback structures have been performed. The study
focused on the influence of vertical irregularities on seismic response of the building. They indicated
that there are several uncertainties associated with the nature of setback that using both the
conventional dynamic and conventional static design methods are not sufficient to identify the
damage concentration around the setback area. A modification of present design criteria may
be necessary so that complies with the actual behavior of the irregular frames to be able prevent
unfavorable failure mechanism [2].

In another study, the effects of varying degrees of setbacks including strength and stiffness
irregularity on dynamic response of multi-story framed were investigated by nonlinear response
history analysis (NL-RHA) and the results were compared by modal pushover analysis (MPA).
Vertical irregularities specifically stiffness irregularity significantly affects the distribution of inter
story drift on the height as well as roof displacements. It was concluded that vertical irregularities
significantly affect the drift demand in the upper stories which can influence the response of lower
stories. Even though the use of MPA provided more accurate demands than using the current modal
analysis, the seismic demands for vertical irregular frames should be determined by NL-RHA [3].

Modern design codes to overcome these problems impose some limitations upon uncommon
building shapes, complex structural systems, and especially structural heights. These limitations
unfortunately restrict recent trends in modern high-rise architectural designs to provide adequate
sunlight and ventilation for the bottom stories. Recently, researchers put performance-based analytical
methods in practice to reliably estimate the seismic performance of tall building structural systems
with irregular shapes [4], irrespective of the restrictions placed by design codes in order to reach a
compromise between structural engineers and architects.

AISC341-10 [5] requires capacity design procedures of force-controlled actions in beams,

columns, and panel zones to assure that system can withstand these large inelastic deformations
without premature brittle failure. Since both structural stiffness/strength degradation and destabilizing
p-delta effects are responsible for lateral instability in MRFs owing to severe earthquakes, FEMA
P695 [6] provides a technique to measure potential safety against collapse for buildings by
considering these effects.
In recent years, researchers have outlined new plastic design approaches in conjunction with the
energy-based method for seismic design of new buildings and have recommended these requirements
instead of using current elastic procedures. The well-known energy-based design first proposed by

2
 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Housner [7] who introduced the parametric equation for total input energy
dissipated through elastic as well as inelastic behavior. Leelataviwat [8] employed the
proposed input energy equation to extract design base shear by equating the total input energy to work
which need to push the structure up to a preselected target drift.
Unlike elastic design procedures which use reduced seismic demands according to response
modification coefficient to ensure inelastic behaviors, in the proposed design base shear by
Leelataviwat [9], the inelastic behavior directly account on the determination of design base shear
with assuming preselected yield mechanism.
Many other study were performed to extract a modification of the energy-based plastic design
procedure which are named Performance based Plastic Design (PBPD) to create a procedure to design
the structural member sizes aim to identify the unfavorable mechanism and prevent excessive damage
[10,11].

Performance based Plastic Design (PBPD) concepts assume a target drifts and probable yield
mechanism as key structural design parameters. General framework in this technique is based on the
implementation of energy concept method which earlier proposed by Houser [7]. The design base
shear for the specific hazard levels are extracted by equating the assumed input energy propose by
Houser with the work required by the structure to achieve a desirable yield mechanism. The work-
energy equation can be considered equation (1):
1 1 𝑇 2
�𝐸𝑒 + 𝐸𝑝 � = 𝛾 �2 𝑀𝑆𝑣2 � = 2 𝛾𝑀 �2𝜋 𝑆𝑎 𝑔� (1)
At the above equation E e and E p are, the elastic and plastic components of the energy needed to
push the structure up to the maximum drift, respectively; S v is the design pseudo-spectral velocity; S a
is the pseudo spectral acceleration; T is the natural period; and M is the total mass of the system.
The parameter γ, are defined as the energy modification factor which its amount depends on the
structural ductility factor (μ s ) and the ductility reduction factor (R μ ), and can be calculated using the
below formula:

2𝜇𝑠 −1
𝛾= 2
𝑅𝜇
(2)

Unlike the current elastic design approach which despite of various type of buildings
irregularity, consider the same reduction factor value to accounts for inelastic behavior in the design
base shear equation, the plastic energy based method take in to accounts the intended yield
mechanism behavior for calculating the design base shear. As the design control requirements like as
drift control are accounts into the base shear equation of the direct plastic method, analysis of
complex structural will need to be iterated to proper design section to be reached. In order to extract
design base shear, the work-energy equation proposed by equation (1) can be rewritten in the
following form:
𝑁
1 𝑊 𝑇 𝑉𝑦 2 1 𝑊 𝑇 2
� � � × 𝑔� + 𝑉𝑦 �� 𝜆𝑖 ℎ𝑖 � 𝜃𝑝 = 𝛾 � � × � 𝑆𝑎 𝑔� (3)
2 𝑔 2𝜋 𝑊 2 𝑔 2𝜋
𝑖=1

The required design base shear coefficient V y /W can be reached by the admissible solution of
Equation (3) as the following equation:

𝑉𝑦 −𝛼 + �𝛼 2 + 4𝛾𝑆𝑎2
= (4)
𝑊 2

Where a dimensionless parameter (α) is given by

𝜃𝑝 8𝜋 2
𝛼 = �ℎ∗ × � (5)
𝑇 2𝑔

3
 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

At the above equation, θ p is named the plastic component of the target drift
ratio and h* are defined as the following form [12]:

𝑁
∗
ℎ = �(𝜆𝑖 ℎ𝑖 ) (6)
𝑖=1

In the present study, the plastic design approach (PBPD) were used to investigates the collapse
potential of various moment-frame setback which currently lacking a modified design criterion.

At the first step, the size of frame components comprising beams and columns are calculated
using
Both elastic (current design codes) and plastic design procedure so that designed members meet
the requirement design criteria are explained as follow. Seismic behavior of the case study frames is
evaluated both according the performance-based acceptance criteria reported in FEMA P695 [6].
Nonlinear simulations include all sources of nonlinearities in terms of stiffness and strength
deterioration as well as destabilizing p-delta effects related to the seismic mass. Additionally, input
ground motion sets representative of site-specific seismic hazard characteristics were fully
determined.

In addition to obtaining code-specified parameters such as deflection amplification factor,

collapse margin which is required for performance evaluation of the building were achieved. The
obtained results by the two design methods were compared and results showed that the PBDP are
more capable to predict the unfavorable mechanism in setback area which can eventually yield to
entire collapse.

Finally, fragility functions as a tool to estimate probability of collapse for irregular steel MRFs
were obtained by using wavelet-based damage sensitive features according in Ref. [13].

The elastic design procedure is based on ASCE7-10[14] as minimum requirements for structural
loadings and AISC360-10 [15] and AISC 341-10[5] for design proportioning and seismic detailing,
respectively. Key structural components such as beams; columns are designed based on the building
located in regions with high seismicity. Moreover, other requirements such as strong column weak
beam are satisfied during design process.

Equation (4) for V y was determined with the assumption that plastic hinges will form at the
beams before any collapse mechanism specifically around the setback area happen and also columns
were considered as non-yielding members. In the following section, design parameters for both
described design method are presented.

2. Case study definition and design parameters

The case studies are comprised of various irregular frames with different story from 10 to 50
stories to account the frame height on the seismic performance of the frames. All frames have a
typical story height of 4 meter, while 3 basement stories have level height of 6 meter. Indeed, two
main type of irregularity including geometric irregularity and stiffness irregularity were considered.
The stiffness irregularity by defining structural walls through first five stories of high rise frames was
modified.

The frames were considered as a special steel MRFs and beams and columns of the original
frames were proportioned with I-shape and H-shape built-up sections using elastic design method in
accordance with Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) of ANSI/AISC360-10 [15]. The frames were
redesigned by the plastic design methodology as described earlier in section 4. A brief description of
design parameters for 50 stories frames is presented in Table 1.

4
 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Table 1.Seismic demands and requirements for elastic and plastic design based on
ASCE7-10 and AISC341-10
Parameter Value
Site class (ASCE7-10, Table 20.3-1) Class D
Response modification factor (ASCE7-10, Table 12.2-1-C.1) R=8
Over strength factor (ASCE7-10, Table 12.2-1-C.1) Ω0 = 3
Deflection amplification factor (ASCE7-10, Table 12.2-1-C.1) 𝐶𝑑 = 5.5
Importance factor (ASCE7-10, Section 11.5.1) 𝐼𝑒 = 1
Spectral response acceleration parameter at short period 𝑆𝑑𝑠 = 0.95
Yield drift ratio θy 1%
Target drift ratio θu 3%
Inelastic drift ratio θp = θu − θy 2%
α 2.534
γ 0.685
Rµ 3

2.1. Materials
ASTM-A36, Grade 36 and ASTM-A572, Grade 50 steel is used for the beams and columns in the
building, respectively. It is assumed that the nominal yield stress is 248.21 Mpa and 344.73 Mpa for
A36 and A572, respectively. Additionally, the nominal ultimate stress is 399.90 Mpa and 448.15 Mpa
for A36 and A572, respectively. The compressive strength of concrete is set to 30 Mpa for structural
walls and floor slabs.

3. Description of the analytical model for NLRHA

The analytical model for nonlinear dynamic analyses is simulated using computer software CSI-
SAP2000 [16], a general purpose finite element program. Nonlinear dynamic analyses for both
original frames and PBPD frames are conducted according to the incremental intensity procedure of a
collection of spectral-matched ground motions to achieve collapse intensities with different
probability of occurrence.

Fixed-based boundary conditions are supposed for columns of the frames. P-delta effects are
reflected in the model by applying gravity loads. Load combinations for p-delta effects are considered
by 1.05 times dead loads plus 0.25 live loads according to FEMA P695[6]. Fiber-hinge elements are
employed to capture flexural hinging in beams and axial-flexural hinging in columns and an inelastic
joint model. Similar to nonlinear modeling of steel beams and columns, fiber models based on layered
shell concept are employed to model concrete walls in which wall sections are subdivided into
reasonable steel and concrete fibers.
The design-based spectrum (DBE) for RSA technique is obtained from the site-specific hazard
investigation for 475-year return period (10% probability of exceedance in 50 year).Plastic hinging in
beams, columns, and panel zones are considered by recommendations in ATC72 [17] and FEMA
P440A [18] for monotonic and hysteretic behavior.

4. Ground motion records sets

Ground motions for nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA) are selected from PEER NGA
record [19]. These records, as stated in Table 2, include categories from moderate earthquakes
(Mw=6.5) to very large earthquakes (Mw=7.9). As a consequence, inherent variability of ground
motion features at structure site is taken into account. Ground motion record sets included in FEMA
P695 are appropriate for buildings with natural periods less than or equal to 4 seconds. Numerous

5
 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

requirements for selecting and scaling ground motions, different from those
reported in FEMA P695, in terms of controlling seismic hazard conditions, compatibility
with the site conditions, and modification to match with the target spectrum are taken into account
(Ref. [1]). Spectral-matching is utilized to adjust frequency contents of accelerograms in which the
response spectrum is within predefined limits of a MCE design spectrum, site-specific spectrum, over
the defined period band. Thus, the average of the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) 5%
damped spectrum of all horizontal acceleration history pairs are approximately matched over period
range 0.2T to 1.5T, where T is the fundamental period of vibration [1]. Spectrum-matched procedure
is recommended by TBI for tall buildings, which tends to reduce dispersion of response values
compared to results obtained from amplitude-matched procedure [4].

Table2.Selected ground motion records

Record Magnitude R rup V s (30)
Event Year Station Mechanism
Seq. No. (M w ) (km) (cm/s)

RSN143 Tabas, Iran 1978 Tabas 7.4 Reverse 2.05 767

RSN182 Imperial Valley- 1979 El Centro Array #7 6.5 Strike Slip 0.56 211
06
Saratoga - Aloha Reverse
RSN802 Loma Prieta 1989 6.9 8.50 381
Ave Oblique
RSN879 Landers 1992 Lucerne 7.3 Strike Slip 2.19 1369
RSN1114 Kobe, Japan 1995 Port Island 6.9 Strike Slip 3.31 198
RSN1176 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999 Yarmica 7.5 Strike Slip 4.83 297
Reverse
RSN1501 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 TCU063 7.6 9.78 476
Oblique
RSN1602 Duzce, Turkey 1999 Bolu 7.1 Strike Slip 12.04 294
TAPS, Pump
RSN2114 Denali, Alaska 2002 7.9 Strike Slip 2.74 329
Station #10
RSN4040 Bam, Iran 2003 Bam 6.6 Strike Slip 1.70 487

5. Evaluation
Plastic hinge formation in the original frames and PBDP frames are extracted from nonlinear
dynamic analysis and presented in the following figures. As can be seen, in the PBDP frames plastic
hinges in beams are extended from the lower story to almost top level that meant the excellent
contribution of all yield members to dissipate the earthquake input energy. In contrast, the
contributions of beam rotation along the height of the original frames are limit and elastic deformation
are concentered in the middle stories as compared with the PBPD frames.

(a) (B) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Figure1-Plastic hinge development in the low rise irregular frames, (a),(c),(e) plastic design
methodology (b),(d),(f) and elastic design method.

6
 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure2-Plastic hinge development in the mid rise irregular frames, (a),(c) plastic design methodology
(b), (d) elastic design method.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Figure3-Plastic hinge development in the mid rise irregular dual systems, (a),(c),(e) plastic design
methodology (b), (d),(f) and elastic design method.

(a) (b) (d) (f)

(c) (e)

Figure4-Plastic hinge development in the low rise irregular frames, (a),(c),(e) plastic design
methodology (b), (d),(f) and elastic design method.

7
 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

(b) (c)
(a) (d) (e) (f)

Figure5-Plastic hinge development in the low rise irregular frames, (a),(c),(e) plastic design
methodology (b), (d),(f) and elastic design method.

6. Collapse assessment of the frames

The methodology which was developed by FEMA P695 is adopted herein for collapse evaluation
of the high rise irregular frames designed by the PBPD. In this methodology two levels of ground
motion are considered as; (1) collapse level ground motion which causes median collapse (2) MCE
ground motion demand level.

For the derivation of fragility curve the IDR is used as the engineering demand parameter (EDP).
First mode spectral acceleration is also chosen as the seismic intensity parameter. Ground motion
intensities are increased for each record until dynamic instability occurs as a result of sudden increase
in EDP. TBI declares that the mean of the absolute values of the maximum transient drift ratios from
the set of analyses in each story level shall be less than 3%. Additionally, the absolute value of the
maximum story drift ratio from the set of analyses shall not exceed 4.5%.

In figure 6, critical inter-story drift histories due to set of ground motions scaled to collapse
intensities are illustrated. As can be seen in figure 6, almost all records meet the TBI criteria with
maximum drift ratios level 3%.

RSN4040-ST12
RSN1602-ST12
RSN8164-ST11
RSN1161-ST39
RSN1176-ST39
RSN182-ST11
RSN184-ST39
RSN802-ST11
RSN1114-ST39
RSN1501-ST39
RSN1510-ST39
RSN838-ST13
(a) Inter-story drift history (b) Inter-story drift history RSN143-ST39
for high-rise frames (c) for medium frames RSN2114-ST39
RSN879-ST39
Figure 6- Critical inter-story drift history for different ground motions scaled to incipient collapse
intensities

8
 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Spectral Acceleration(Sa(T1))(g)

0.50 0.50 0.50

0.40 0.40 0.40

0.30 0.30 0.30

0.20 0.20 0.20

0.10 0.10 0.10

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0%
Interstory Drift Ratio
Figure 7- Incremental dynamic analysis results (a) IDA curves for 50 stories irregular moment frames
(b) IDA curves for high rise irregular dual system (c) IDA curves for 30 stories irregular moment
frames

As can be seen in Figure 7, structural performance for each ground motion favorably indicates
safe margin against collapse as the maximum IDRs obtained from each records do not exceed 4.5%.

7. Summary and conclusions

Various steel moment-frames with the setback irregularity which assumed located at high
earthquake-prone region are designed using current elastic method in accordance with ASCE7-10 and
their results were compared with those obtained from the energy based plastic method meeting the
requirements of the energy concept based method.

The main aim of study was to assess the capability of the energy concept based method for
proportioning and detailing of irregular MRF system to withstand against collapse since irregular
buildings currently lack a codified procedure to ensure the favorable mechanism. To investigate
which approaches are more capable to dissipate the input earthquake energy through the formation of
plastic hinges at their yielding members, nonlinear dynamic analyses were carryout for the analytical
model of the original frames as well as PBDP frames and was subjected to a suite of spectral-matched
earthquake ground motions with intensities from MCE hazard level to incipient collapse level.
Monotonic and hysteretic modeling behaviors for different components including steel beams,
columns and panel zones were obtained by adopting recommendations in TBI guidelines and
PEER/ATC72 specifications.
As predicted, the desirable mechanism was developed in the PBPD frames by distribution of
plastic hinge with sufficient rotation capacity on almost all beams. Despite the original frame were
proportioned to meet the requirements of the current building code, distribution of plastic hinges in a
few members represent that just a few members reached a fully plastic deformation while more than
half remain elastic.
Thus, the effectiveness of the most yield member’s in dissipating earthquake energy as well as
concentration of inelastic deformation in a few members which might reflect lack of rotational
capacity in specific members as well as discontinuous load path distribution after yielding. In
addition, seismic response of original frames indicates that whole capacity of the frames did not
mobilize to contribute to the inelastic deformation meant the using current code-specified
requirements for high rise irregular frames, May not lead to economic structures.

As part of the study, some controlling criteria reported in TBI in terms of maximum/mean IDRs,
RDRs, and plastic rotations for MCE hazard level are compared with those obtained from NLRHA.
Consequently, Structural acceptance criteria based on the requirements of TBI Guidelines, for MCE
hazard level, in terms of maximum/mean IDRs, RDRs and plastic rotations as local parameters are
reasonably satisfied.

8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the University of Aberdeen for the Elphinstone Scholarship.

9
 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

9. References
[1] TBI, Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings. Report PEER-(2010):
prepared by the Tall Buildings Initiative Guidelines Working Group for the Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

[2] Bahrain M. Shahrooz, Jack P. Moehle (1990): seismic response and design of setback buildings,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.116, No. 5.

[3] Chatpan Chintanapakdee, Anil K. Chopra (2004): Seismic Response of Vertically Irregular Frames:
Response
History and Modal Pushover Analyses, Journal of structural engineering, 130(8): 1177-1185.

[4] ATC72 (2010): Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall
Buildings. Report No. ATC-72, prepared by Applied Technology Council 201 Redwood Shores
Pkwy, Suite 240 Redwood City, California 94065.

[5] ASCE41(2013): Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. American Society of Civil
Engineering (ASCE): Reston VA.

[6] FEMA P695 (2009): Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, prepared for Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.

[7] Housner, G. W. (1956): Limit Design of Structures to Resist Earthquakes, Proceedings of the 1st
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Oakland, California, 5, 1-13.

[8] Leelataviwat, S. (1998): Drift and yield mechanism based seismic design and upgrading of steel
moment frames, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil & Enviromental Engineering, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

[9] Leelataviwat, S., Goel, S. C., and Stojadinoviæ, B. (1999): Toward performance-based seismic design of
structures. Earthquake Spectra, 15(3), pp. 435- 461.

[10] Liao, W.-C. and Goel S. C. (2012): Performance-based plastic design and energy-based
evaluation of seismic resistant RC moment frame. Journal of Marine Science and Technology,
20(3), pp. 304-310.

[11] Yang, T., Li, Y., and Leelataviwat, S. (2014): Performance-Based Design and Optimization
of Buckling Restrained Knee braced truss moment frame, Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities.

Mohammad, R. B. and Chao, S.-H., Goel, S. C., and Liao (2010): Performance-based plastic
design (PBPD) method for earthquake-resistant structures: an overview. The Structural Design of
Tall and Special Buildings,
CTBUH.

[12] Noh HY, Lignos DG, Nair KK, Kiremidjian AS. (2012): Development of fragility functions
as a damage classification/prediction method for steel moment-resisting frames using a wavelet-
based damage sensitive feature. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 41:681-696.

[13] ASCE7 (2010): Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American
Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE): Reston VA.

10
 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

[14] ANSI/AISC 360. AISC360 (2010): Specification for Structural Steel Buildings.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC): One East Wacker Drive, Suite 700, Chicago,
Illinois.

[15] Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI). SAP2000 (2010), Integrated Software for Analysis and
Design User Guide, Version 14. Computers and Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, CA.

[16] ATC72 (2010): Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall
Buildings. Report No. ATC-72, prepared by Applied Technology Council 201 Redwood Shores
Pkwy, Suite 240 Redwood City, California 94065.

[17] FEMA P440A (2009), Effects of Strength and Stiffness Degradation on Seismic Response,
prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.

[18] PEER NGA-West2 Data Base (2014) Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER),
University of California, Berkeley.

11