Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.
304-310 (2012)
304
PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC DESIGN AND
ENERGY-BASED EVALUATION OF SEISMIC
RESISTANT RC MOMENT FRAME
Wen-Cheng Liao1 and Subhash C. Goel2
Key words: performance-based plastic design, reinforced concrete
moment frames, earthquake resistant design, seismic
demand evaluation.
ABSTRACT
This paper presents first time application of the Performance-Based Plastic Design (PBPD) approach to seismic resistant reinforced concrete special moment frames (RC SMF).
Four baseline RC SMF (4, 8, 12 and 20-story) as used in the
FEMA P695 were selected for this study. Those frames were
redesigned by the PBPD approach. The baseline code designed frames and the PBPD frames were subjected to extensive inelastic pushover and time-history analyses. It turns out
that the work-energy equation in PBPD to determine design
base shear can also be used to estimate seismic demands,
herein called the energy spectrum method. In summary, this
study shows that the PBPD approach can be successfully
applied for seismic design of RC structures as well. The
seismic responses of the study frames met the targeted performance criteria with dramatic improvement over the corresponding baseline code designed frames. In addition, the drift
demands of all study frames as computed by the energy spectrum method were in excellent agreement with those obtained
from detailed inelastic dynamic analyses.
I. INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete special moment frames (RC SMF)
comprise of horizontal framing components (beams and slabs),
vertical framing components (columns) and joints connecting
horizontal and vertical framing components that are designed
to meet the special requirements given in seismic codes [1, 2].
In seismic provisions, certain requirements such as special
proportioning and detailing requirements result in a frame
capable of resisting strong earthquake shaking without sigPaper submitted 03/25/11; revised 12/13/11; accepted 04/11/12. Author for
correspondence: Wen-Cheng Liao (e-mail: [email protected]).
1
Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.
nificant loss of strength. Nevertheless, structural and nonstructural damage observed in code compliant RC buildings
due to undesired failure modes [12] have shown the need to
develop alternative methodologies to better ensure the desired
performance. Since RC SMF has been widely used as part of
seismic force-resisting systems, design methodologies and
systematic procedures are needed which require no or little
iteration after initial design in order to meet the targeted design
objectives.
Performance-Based Plastic Design (PBPD) method has
been recently developed to achieve enhanced performance of
earthquake resistant steel structures. This paper presents first
time application of the PBPD approach to seismic resistant RC
SMF [11]. RC structures present special challenge because of
their complex and degrading (pinched) hysteretic behavior.
In order to account for the degrading hysteretic behavior the
FEMA 440 C2 factor concept [7] was used in developing the
process of determining the design base shear for targeted drift
and yield mechanism in the PBPD methodology. Four baseline RC SMF (4, 8, 12 and 20-story) as used in the FEMA
P695 [6] were selected for this study. Those frames were redesigned by the PBPD approach. The baseline code designed
frames and the PBPD frames were subjected to extensive
inelastic pushover and time-history analyses.
It turns out that the work-energy equation to determine design base shear can also be used to estimate seismic demands,
herein called the energy spectrum method. In this approach
the skeleton force-displacement (capacity) curve of the structure is converted into energy capacity-displacement plot (Ec)
which is superimposed over the corresponding energy demand
plot (Ed) for the specified hazard level to determine the expected peak displacement demands
II. PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC
DESIGN (PBPD) METHOD
1. Background
Performance-Based Plastic Design (PBPD) method, which
accounts for inelastic structural behavior directly, and practically requires no or little iteration after initial design, has been
developed by Goel et al. [8]. By using the concept of energy
balance applied to a pre-selected yield mechanism with proper
W.-C. Liao and S. C. Goel: Performance-Based Plastic Design of RC Moment Frame
Ve
hi
(a)
Vy
E-P
s = 5
1
MSv2
2
s = 4
4
R
C
TI
AS
iVy
EL
Lateral Force, V
Vy
s = 6
s = 3
s = 2
2
1
EE + EP = MSv2
2
y
(b)
eu u Drift,
305
1
0
0
Period (sec)
Fig. 1. The energy equating concept for deriving design base shear of
PBPD method.
Fig. 2. Idealized inelastic spectra by Newmark and Hall for EP-SDOF
(1982).
strength and ductility, structures designed by the PBPD
method can achieve more predictable structural performance
under strong earthquake ground motions. It is important to
select a desirable yield mechanism and target drift as key
performance limit states for given hazard levels right from the
beginning of the design process. The distribution and degree
of structural damage are greatly dependent on these two limit
states. In addition, the design base shear for a given hazard
level is derived corresponding to a target drift limit of the
selected yield mechanism by using the input energy from the
design pseudo-velocity spectrum: that is, by equating the work
needed to push the structure monotonically up to the target
drift (Fig. 1(a)) to the energy required by an equivalent elastic-plastic single-degree-of-freedom (EP-SDOF) system to
achieve the same state (Fig. 1(b)). Furthermore, a better representative distribution of lateral design forces is also used in
this study, which is based on inelastic dynamic response results [3]. This lateral design force distribution accounts for
higher mode effects and inelastic behavior better than the
distribution prescribed by the current codes.
Mechanism based plastic analysis is used to determine the
required of the designated yielding frame members, such as
beams in RC SMF, to achieve the selected yield mechanism.
Design of non-yielding members, such as columns, is then
performed by considering the equilibrium of an entire column tree in the ultimate limit state to ensure formation of the
selected yield mechanism. It is also worth mentioning that the
PBPD method has been successfully applied to steel moment
frames, concentrically braced frames, buckling restrained
braced frames, eccentrically braced frames and special truss
moment frames. The theoretical background and detailed
design procedures of the PBPD method can be found in several publications [8].
achieve the same state. Assuming an idealized E-P forcedeformation behavior of the system (Fig. 1), the work-energy
equation can be written as:
2. Determination of Design Base Shear
Determination of the design base shear for a given hazard
level is a key element in the PBPD method. It is calculated by
equating the work needed to push the structure monotonically
up to the target drift to that required by an equivalent elastic-plastic single degree of freedom (EP-SDOF) system to
1
1
T
Sa g
( Ee + E p ) = M Sv 2 = M
2
2
2
(1)
where Ee and Ep are, respectively, the elastic and plastic
components of the energy (work) needed to push the structure
up to the target drift. Sv is the design pseudo-spectral velocity;
Sa is the pseudo spectral acceleration; T is the natural period;
and M is the total mass of the system. Using the geometric
relationship between the two areas representing work and
energy in Fig. 1(b), Eq. (1) can be written as:
1
1
Vy (2 u y ) = Ve eu
2
2
(2)
Eq. (2) can be further reduced into the following form:
eu (2u y )
=
y
eu
(3)
The energy modification factor, , depends on the structural
ductility factor (s) and the ductility reduction factor (R), and
can be obtained by the following relationship:
2s 1
R 2
(4)
Because of its simplicity, spectra proposed by Newmark
and Hall [13] as shown in Fig. 2 were used to relate R and s,
for EP-SDOF. Plots of energy modification factor as obtained from Eq. (4) are shown in Fig. 3.
The work-energy equation can be re-written in the following form:
Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 20, No. 3 (2012)
306
i, SSD
1.2
4.0
0.8
s = 2
0.6
s = 3
s = 4
0.4
0.2 Accln.
Region
0
0
0.5
1.5
Period (sec)
R = 6.0
R = 5.0
R = 4.0
R = 3.0
R = 2.0
R = 1.5
3.0
2.0
Velocity,
Displacement Regions
1
i, EPP
s = 5
s = 6
2
2.5
1.0
Mean of 240 ground motions for site classes B, C, D
Fig. 3. Energy modification factor, , versus period.
0.5
1W
2 g
T Vy
N
1 W
g
V
y i hi p =
2 g
2 W
i =1
Sa g
(5)
or
2
Vy Vy * p 8
+ h 2
T g
W W
2
2
p Sa = 0
(6)
where Vy, i and p present the yielding base shear (can be also
used as the design base shear), shear distribution factor for
each floor i, and the global inelastic drift ratio of the structure,
respectively. The admissible solution of Eq. (6) gives the required design base shear coefficient, Vy /W:
Vy
W
+ 2 + 4 Sa2
2
(7)
where is a dimensionless parameter given by
= h*
p 8 2
T 2 g
(8)
and
N
h* = ( i hi )
i =1
III. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR RC
SMF IN PBPD METHOD
RC structures present special challenge due to their complex and degrading (pinched) hysteretic behavior. While development of the PBPD method for RC structures is currently
in progress, results from the study so far have been most
promising.
1.0
1.5
2.0
Period (sec)
2.5
3.0
Fig. 4. Mean displacement ratio of SSD to EPP models (C2) computed
with ground motions recorded on site classes B, C, and D [7].
The design base shear was determined for two level performance criteria: (1) a 2% maximum story drift ratio (u) for a
ground motion hazard with a 10% probability of exceedance
in 50 years (10/50 and 2/3 MCE), and (2) a 3% maximum
story drift ratio (u) for a 2/50 event (maximum credible
earthquake, MCE). Design of RC SMF with PBPD method
basically follows the same procedure as that of steel frames
with the following two modifications for determination of
design base shear to account for pinched hysteretic behavior
and P-Delta effect.
1. Pinched Hysteretic Behavior
Investigators have studied the effect of degrading hysteretic
behavior of SDOF systems on resulting peak displacements.
The results show that the peak displacements are larger than
those of systems with non-degrading hysteretic behavior in the
short period range, but are about equal for longer periods.
Approximate expressions have been proposed for modification factors to account for this effect, e.g., C2 factor in FEMA
440 [7], Fig. 4. C2 factor is the modification factor to represent
the effects of pinched hysteresis shape, stiffness deterioration
and strength deterioration on maximum displacement response. Thus, the target design drift for a given structural
system with degrading hysteretic behavior can be divided by
the C2 factor that would give design target drift for an
equivalent non-degrading system. The design base shear can
then be calculated by using this modified target drift.
2. P-Delta Consideration
Due to stiffness and strength degradation at beam plastic
hinges it was found necessary to include P-Delta effect in the
determination of required moment capacity of beams for the
RC SMF. That was accomplished by adding P-Delta lateral
force, Fi-PD, to the basic design force, Fi. The force Fi-PD can
be taken equal to Pi u, where Pi represents the tributary gravity load at floor level i and u the target design drift ratio which
W.-C. Liao and S. C. Goel: Performance-Based Plastic Design of RC Moment Frame
307
Table 1. Design parameters for PBPD RC SMF.
Design
Parameters
Sa
T (sec.)
C2
Yield Drift
Target Drift
Modified Target
Drift
V/W
V w/o PD (kips)
Fi-PD (kips)
Design Base
Shear w/ P-D
4-story
2/3 MCE
0.74g
0.81
1.1
0.5%
2%
MCE
1.11g
0.81
1.1
0.5%
3%
8-story
2/3 MCE
0.40g
1.49
1.07
0.5%
2%
MCE
0.60g
1.49
1.07
0.5%
3%
12-story
2/3 MCE
MCE
0.30 g
0.45 g
2.13
2.13
1.04
1.04
0.5%
0.5%
2%
3%
20-story
2/3 MCE
MCE
0.30 g
0.45 g
3.36
3.36
1
1
0.5%
0.5%
2%
3%
1.82%
2.73%
1.87%
2.81%
1.92%
2.89%
2%
3%
3.64
3.64
0.47
2.103
0.117
242.2
41.5
5.46
5.46
0.33
3.552
0.112
231.8
62.2
3.74
3.74
0.46
1.243
0.0577
107.1
36.9
5.61
5.61
0.32
2.092
0.0552
102.5
55.3
3.85
3.85
0.45
0.937
0.0416
116.3
55.9
5.77
5.77
0.32
1.570
0.0398
111.3
83.7
4
4
0.44
0.662
0.055
255.0
92.0
6
6
0.31
1.103
0.054
248.0
138.0
283.7
294.0
144.0
157.8
172.2
195.0
347.0
386.0
is assumed constant over height of the structure for simplicity
of design purposes. The values of Fi-PD and all design parameters for the PBPD frames are shown in Table 1. Their
influence on the total lateral design force can be clearly noticed as it has significant effect on the required frame strength.
IV. REDESIGN OF RC SMF IN FEMA P695
BY PBPD METHOD
Four examples of 4, 8, 12 and 20-story RC special moment
frame structures are briefly presented in this section. All of
them were space frames. The baseline space frames were
designed to comply with the requirements of ASCE 7-05 and
ACI 318-05 in FEMA P695 by Haselton [9]. The frames were
then redesigned by the modified PBPD method by using the
FEMA 440 C2 factor approach and considering P-Delta effect
as discussed earlier. Typical floor plan is shown in Fig. 5, and
important design parameters are given in Table 1. For response
evaluation purposes the baseline code compliant frames and
the PBPD frames were subjected to inelastic pushover and
time-history analyses.
V. COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCES
OF THE BASELINE AND PBPD SMF
Nonlinear static (pushover) and dynamic (time-history)
analyses were carried out for the baseline and PBPD frames by
using Perform-3D program [4]. A lumped P-Delta column
with pin connections at the floor levels was added which enables the model to capture the P-Delta effect. Stiffness,
strength and cyclic degradation of moment-rotation behavior
of plastic hinges were also modeled to account for the pinched
hysteretic behavior.
3 bays @ 30' = 90' for 4-story frame
3 bays @ 20' = 60' for else
Fig. 5. Floor plan of RC space moment frame building.
The pushover curves for the eight frames in Fig. 6 show that,
even though the design base shear for the baseline frame is
smaller than that of the corresponding PBPD frame, the ultimate strength of the baseline frame is higher than that of the
corresponding PBPD frame. That is mainly due to the fact that
the design of the baseline frame was governed by drift which
required major revision of the member sizes after having been
designed for strength. That iteration step is not needed in the
PBPD method. Calculated values of Rmax for the baseline and
PBPD frames according to the recommended equation in
FEMA P440A [5] are 12.5/15.4, 5.0/17.5, 3.2/14.6 and 5.3/10.8,
for the 4, 8, 12, 20-story frames respectively. That reflects
much enhanced margin against dynamic instability (collapse)
of the PBPD frame over that of the baseline frames.
Fig. 7 shows comparison of maximum interstory drifts of
Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 20, No. 3 (2012)
308
250
700
Code Compliant Frame
600
Rmax (FEMA P440A, 2008)
Code Compliant: 12.5
PBPD: 15.4
Rmax (FEMA P440A, 2008)
Code Compliant: 5.0
PBPD: 17.5
Code Compliant Frame
200
ur
V Pushover
Curve
E
Ec
Base shear (kips)
Base shear (kips)
500
PBPD Frame
400
300
PBPD Frame Design Base Shear
w/ P-Delta = 283.7 kips
200
150
PBPD Frame Design Base Shear
w/ P-Delta = 144 kips
Code Compliant Frame Design Base
Shear = 93.4 kips
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
450
Code Compliant Frame
250
Rmax (FEMA P440A, 2008)
Code Compliant: 3.2
PBPD: 14.6
Rmax (FEMA P440A, 2008)
PBPD Frame Code Compliant: 5.3
PBPD: 10.8
400
PBPD Frame
150
PBPD Frame Design Base Shear
w/ P-Delta = 172.2 kips
100
Code Compliant Frame Design Base
Shear = 123 kips
Base shear (kips)
350
200
PBPD Frame Design Base Shear
w/ P-Delta = 347 kips
300
(b)
ur
ur
Ed
ur-max
(d)
Ec
ur
(c)
Roof drift
(b)
300
ur
1
Ed = MSv2
2
50
Roof drift
(a)
Base shear (kips)
(a)
100
Code Compliant Frame Design
Base Shear = 193 kips
100
PBPD Frame
250
Fig. 8. Proposed energy-based evaluation method for MDOF systems:
(a) Push-over curve, (b) Energy-displacement capacity diagram,
(c) Energy demand diagram, and (d) Determination of displacement demand.
Code Compliant Frame
200
Code Compliant Frame Design Base
Shear = 204 kips
150
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
Roof drift
(c)
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.03
Roof drift
(d)
0.04
0.05
Fig. 6. Pushover curves for (a) 4-story, (b) 8-story, (c) 12-story and (d)
20-story baseline and PBPD frames.
Code Compliant
(2/3 MCE)
Code Compliant
(2/3 MCE)
PBPD (2/3 MCE)
PBPD (2/3 MCE)
Code Compliant
(MCE)
Code Compliant
(MCE)
PBPD (MCE)
Story
Story
PBPD (MCE)
VI. ENERGY-BASED EVALUATION
4
3
2
1
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Maximum interstory drift ratio
(a)
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0.05
Code Compliant
(2/3 MCE)
PBPD (2/3 MCE)
Code Compliant
(MCE)
PBPD (MCE)
Story
Story
MCE. Moreover, the story drifts of the PBPD frames are more
evenly distributed over the height as compared with those of
the baseline frame where undesirable softness in the lower
stories is evident, which is caused mainly by plastic hinges in
the columns. Formation of plastic hinges in the columns and
story mechanism in the lower part of the baseline frames can
be clearly noticed. In contrast, there are no unintended plastic
hinges in the columns of the PBPD frame, resulting in more
favorable deformed shape and yield pattern as intended in the
design process.
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Maximum interstory drift ratio
(c)
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Maximum interstory drift ratio
(b)
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0.05
Code Compliant
(2/3 MCE)
PBPD (2/3 MCE)
Code Compliant
(MCE)
PBPD (MCE)
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Maximum interstory drift ratio
(d)
Fig. 7. Comparison of maximum interstory drifts by time-history analyses of code complaint and PBPD frames for 2/3 MCE and MCE
hazard levels (a) 4-story, (b) 8-story, (c) 12-story, and (d) 20-story.
the baseline and PBPD frames obtained from time-history
analyses using appropriately scaled ground motion records
representative of 2/3 MCE and MCE hazard levels. For clarity
and brevity only the mean values of maximum interstory
drifts are shown here. The results show that the mean maximum interstory drifts of the PBPD frames are well within the
corresponding target values, i.e., 2% for 2/3 MCE and 3% for
1. Energy Balance Concept
In the previous section the energy-based PBPD method
was presented and discussed in the context of design of
new structures for a target maximum drift. Therefore, with
other terms being known, the design base shear is determined
by solving the work-energy Eq. (1). It turns out that the same
energy equation can also be used for evaluation purposes,
where the structure is defined, including its force-displacement
characteristics, and the goal is to predict the expected maximum displacements for a given seismic hazard [10]. Other
response quantities, such as component forces and deformation demands, can then be easily calculated from the maximum reference displacement.
Fig. 8 presents a graphical illustration of the evaluation
process. Lateral force-displacement plot for the given structure is shown in Fig. 8(a), where V represents the total force
(base shear), and ur the roof displacement, used as reference
displacement. This plot can be obtained by a static pushover
analysis by applying either an appropriately selected force or
displacement pattern. It is common to plot total force versus
roof displacement, but it can be done for any other floor or
story level from which the force or displacement at other levels can be determined. The energy capacity curve, Ec-ur, can
be generated as a function of ur, by calculating the work done
by lateral forces up to the displacement at each level corresponding to ur, Fig. 8(b). Next, the energy demand, Ed, can be
calculated for varying values of ur, and plotted as shown in
W.-C. Liao and S. C. Goel: Performance-Based Plastic Design of RC Moment Frame
40000
Ed 2/3 MCE
Ed MCE
Ec
20000
10000
0
0
0.02
0.04
roof drift
(a)
0.06
0.08
Story
energy (kip-in)
30000
energy (kip-in)
40000
Ed 2/3 MCE
Ed MCE
Ec
30000
20000
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
PEER No. 953
PEER No. 169
PEER No. 1116
PEER No. 1158
PEER No. 1148
PEER No. 900
PEER No. 848
PEER No. 752
PEER No. 725
PEER No. 1244
PEER No. 125
Time History
Analyses (Mean)
Energy Spectrum
Method
0
10000
0
0
0.02
0.04
roof drift
(b)
0.06
0.08
Fig. 8(c). The point of intersection of the two curves, where
the energy demand and capacity become equal, gives the desired maximum roof displacement, as shown in Fig. 8(d).
2. Example: 20-Story RC SMF
Two 20-story frames are briefly presented in this section.
One is the baseline space frame from FEMA P695 Project
which was designed to comply with current building code
provisions. The other frame was redesigned by the PBPD
method. In terms of energy spectrum method for evaluation
purpose, the energy capacity and demand curves of these two
frames are shown in Fig. 9. For each frame, the capacity curve
was obtained by calculating the work done by the applied
forces in the pushover analysis. The energy capacity corresponding to each roof drift was calculated by numerically
integrating the lateral load-deflection values at the floor levels.
The energy demand curve was obtained by using the total
mass of the frame. The peak roof drift demand was determined from the intersection point of the corresponding demand and capacity curves.
Fig. 10 shows comparison of maximum interstory drifts of
the two frames as calculated by the energy spectrum method
with those obtained from the time-history analyses using appropriately scaled ground motion records representative of
2/3 MCE hazard levels. It is worth noting that the interstory
drifts predicted by the energy spectrum method are in excel-
Story
Fig. 9. Energy spectrum evaluation methods for 20-story RC (a) Baseline and (b) PBPD frame.
309
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Maximum interstory drift ratio
(a)
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0.05
PEER No. 953
PEER No. 169
PEER No. 1116
PEER No. 1158
PEER No. 1148
PEER No. 900
PEER No. 848
PEER No. 752
PEER No. 725
PEER No. 1244
PEER No. 125
Time History
Analyses (Mean)
Energy Spectrum
Method
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Maximum interstory drift ratio
(b)
0.05
Fig. 10. Comparison of maximum interstory drifts by the energy spectrum method and time-history analyses under 2/3 MCE for
20-story RC (a) baseline frame and (b) PBPD frame.
lent agreement with those obtained from the dynamic analyses
for both frames, but more so for the PBPD frame.
VII. CONCLUSION
The PBPD method is a direct design method which uses
pre-selected target drift and yield mechanism as key performance objectives, which determine the degree and distri-
310
Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 20, No. 3 (2012)
bution of expected structural damage. By modifying the determination of design base shear due to pinched hysteretic
behavior and P-Delta effect, the PBPD method was successfully applied to the design of RC moment frames. The 4, 8, 12
and 20-story baseline frames used in FEMA P695 Project were
redesigned by the modified PBPD method. The PBPD frames
responded as intended in design with dramatic improvement in
their performances over those of the corresponding baseline
frames. In addition, the basic work-energy equation can also
be used for seismic evaluation purposes where the goal is to
determine expected displacement demand for a given structure
and earthquake hazard. The results as presented in this paper
showed excellent agreement with those obtained from more
elaborate inelastic time-history analyses.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete and commentary (ACI318-08/ACI318R-08), American Concrete
Institute, Detroit (2008).
2. ASCE 7-05, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia (2005).
3. Chao, S.-H., Goel, S. C., and Lee, S.-S., A seismic design lateral force
distribution based on inelastic state of structures, Earthquake Spectra,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 547-569
(2007).
4. Computers & Structures Inc., PERFORM-3D v.4.0 user manual, CSI,
Berkeley, CA (2007).
5. FEMA P440A, Effects of strength and stiffness degradation on seismic
response (ATC-62 Project), Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C. (2009).
6. FEMA P695, Quantification of building seismic performance factors
(ATC-63 Project), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. (2009).
7. FEMA 440, Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
(2006).
8. Goel, S. C. and Chao, S.-H., Performance-Based Plastic Design: Earthquake-Resistant Steel Structures, ICC, USA (2009).
9. Haselton, C. B. and Deierlein, G. G., Assessing seismic collapse safety of
modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings, Report No. 156,
The John, A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University (2007).
10. Leelataviwat, S., Saewon, W., and Goel, S. C., An energy based method
for seismic evaluation of structures, Proceedings of Structural Engineers
Association of California Convention SEAOC, Lake Tahoe, California,
pp. 21-31 (2007).
11. Liao, W.-C. and Goel, S. C., Performance-based plastic design of earthquake resistant reinforced concrete moment frames, Technical Report
No. UMCEE 10-01, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (2010)
12. Moehle, J. P. and Mahin, S. A., Observations on the behavior of reinforced concrete buildings during earthquakes, in: Ghosh, S. K. (Ed.),
Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures - Inelastic Response and Design, ACI SP-127, American Concrete Institute, Detroit (1991).
13. Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W. J., Earthquake spectra and design,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, El Cerrito, California (1982).
