Impact of Force‐Based, Performance‐Based, and Performance‐Based Plastic Design and Ground Motion Records on Deviation of Engineering Demand Parameters in Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures.
Saved in:
| Title: | Impact of Force‐Based, Performance‐Based, and Performance‐Based Plastic Design and Ground Motion Records on Deviation of Engineering Demand Parameters in Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | ShokriSoltanabadi, Reza1 (AUTHOR), KhodabandehLou, Ashkan1 (AUTHOR) a.khodabandehlou@iau.ac.ir, Tariverdilo, Saeed2 (AUTHOR), Rezaei, Rahim1 (AUTHOR), Gao, Meng (AUTHOR) gmxyz@sdust.edu.cn |
| Source: | Advances in Civil Engineering. 2/10/2026, Vol. 2026, p1-22. 22p. |
| Subjects: | Performance-based design, Plastic analysis (Engineering), Nonlinear analysis, Reinforced concrete buildings, Structural design |
| Abstract: | Performance‐based design (PBD) is widely seen as a superior alternative to force‐based design (FBD), yet no standard procedure exists for its implementation. In contrast, performance‐based plastic design (PBPD) has emerged as a theoretically robust and user‐friendly design method. This study examines how varying design methods and ground motion (GM) selections impact engineering demand parameters (EDPs). The analysis includes 5, 10, 15, and 20‐story model structures designed using FBD, PBD, and PBPD approaches. Nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA) confirms that all designs meet ASCE 7‐22 standards. However, economic costs increase significantly with the number of stories, especially for PBPD. Changing the GM set used in NRHA results in notable deviations in EDPs, with larger variability observed in FBD and PBD compared to PBPD. Despite the theoretical advantages of PBD, it shows no consistent improvement in performance indicators over FBD. The study highlights that the absence of a standardized PBD procedure can compromise structural performance. Although PBPD offers a promising design framework, it requires further calibration to be effectively applied to high‐rise buildings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Advances in Civil Engineering is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Performance‐based design (PBD) is widely seen as a superior alternative to force‐based design (FBD), yet no standard procedure exists for its implementation. In contrast, performance‐based plastic design (PBPD) has emerged as a theoretically robust and user‐friendly design method. This study examines how varying design methods and ground motion (GM) selections impact engineering demand parameters (EDPs). The analysis includes 5, 10, 15, and 20‐story model structures designed using FBD, PBD, and PBPD approaches. Nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA) confirms that all designs meet ASCE 7‐22 standards. However, economic costs increase significantly with the number of stories, especially for PBPD. Changing the GM set used in NRHA results in notable deviations in EDPs, with larger variability observed in FBD and PBD compared to PBPD. Despite the theoretical advantages of PBD, it shows no consistent improvement in performance indicators over FBD. The study highlights that the absence of a standardized PBD procedure can compromise structural performance. Although PBPD offers a promising design framework, it requires further calibration to be effectively applied to high‐rise buildings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 16878086 |
| DOI: | 10.1155/adce/2786288 |
