Received: 7 May 2018 Revised: 21 March 2019 Accepted: 21 April 2019

DOI: 10.1002/tal.1624

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effects of soil‐structure interaction and lateral design load

pattern on performance‐based plastic design of steel moment
resisting frames

Behnoud Ganjavi1 | Abolfazl Gholamrezatabar2 | Iman Hajirasouliha3

1
Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Aryan
Institute of Science and Technology, Babol,
Iran
3
Department of Civil and Structural
Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield,
UK
Correspondence
Iman Hajirasouliha, Department of Civil and
Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield S1 3JD, UK.
Email: i.hajirasouliha@sheffiled.ac.uk
Summary
The effects soil‐structure interaction (SSI) and lateral design load‐pattern are investi-
gated on the seismic response of steel moment‐resisting frames (SMRFs) designed
with a performance‐based plastic design (PBPD) method through a comprehensive
analytical study on a series of 4‐, 8‐, 12‐, 14‐, and 16‐story models. The cone model
is adopted to simulate SSI effects. A set of 20 strong earthquake records are used to
examine the effects of different design parameters including fundamental period,
design load‐pattern, target ductility, and base flexibility. It is shown that the lateral
design load pattern can considerably affect the inelastic strength demands of SSI sys-
tems. The best design load patterns are then identified for the selected frames.
Although SSI effects are usually ignored in the design of conventional structures,
the results indicate that SSI can considerably influence the seismic performance of
SMRFs. By increasing the base flexibility, the ductility demand in lower story levels
decreases and the maximum demand shifts to the higher stories. The strength reduc-
tion factor of SMRFs also reduces by increasing the SSI effects, which implies the
fixed‐base assumption may lead to underestimated designs for SSI systems. To
address this issue, new ductility‐dependent strength reduction factors are proposed
for multistory SMRFs with flexible base conditions.

K E Y W OR D S

optimum design, performance‐based plastic design (PBPD), soil‐structure interaction, steel

moment resisting frames (SMRFs)

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N

Code‐compliant lateral load distribution patterns used in the conventional seismic design process seem to be implicitly based on the dynamic
response of elastic structures. Therefore, these load patterns (LP) may not provide an accurate representation of the seismic loads for inelastic
structures, which means they do not necessarily lead to the most efficient use of structural materials.[1–3]
The seismic performance of conventionally designed steel structures has been widely investigated.[4–9] The results of these studies in general
indicate that steel structures designed based on current seismic design guidelines have an acceptable seismic performance under strong
earthquakes. However, conventional force‐based design methods cannot efficiently control the structural damage during the design process,
and therefore, these methods may lead to the structures damaged beyond repair.
As a fundamental change in the conventional seismic force‐based design procedures, the new trend in the seismic design codes is to improve
the seismic assessment methods by paying more attention to the demands in terms of displacement, ductility, and energy. The new seismic design

Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2019;e1624. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 15
https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1624
2 of 15 GANJAVI ET AL.

procedures are expected to have the ability to evaluate inelastic seismic demands and energy‐dissipation mechanisms accurately under severe
earthquakes. To this end, Leelataviwat et al.[10] proposed a new seismic design procedure based on inelastic (plastic) analysis to replace the current
design procedures based on elastic analysis for moment‐resisting frames in severe seismic zones. The new design concept was based on perfor-
mance limit states using a predefined yield mechanism and target drift. In another study, Lee and Goel[11] presented a performance‐based plastic
design (PBPD) procedure using the concept of plastic design to prevent undesired collapse mechanisms and achieve the preselected yield mech-
anism and predefined ultimate state. Subsequently, Chao and Goel[12,13] utilized the energy balance principle and applied the proposed plastic
design procedure to eccentric braced and special truss steel moment frames. Chao et al.[14] conducted nonlinear dynamic analyses on a number
of frame structures under a set of strong ground motions and developed a practical method to predict the deformation and force demands more
accurately. In a follow‐up study, Goel et al.[15] applied their method successfully to a variety of common reinforced concrete (RC) frames. The
results of their study indicated that the designed RC frames could exhibit the strong column‐sway mechanism, whereas their maximum ductility
demands were within the predefined target range.
Park and Medina[16] proposed a performance‐based seismic design approach to control the maximum structural damage in steel
moment‐resisting frames (SMRFs) by obtaining a more uniform height‐wise distribution of damage. It was shown that, generally, the structures
designed based on the proposed approach exhibited a more uniform distribution of story drift ratios (and ductility) compared with those
designed with conventional seismic design guidelines. Using a similar concept, Shyanfar et al.[17] suggested a method based on the energy
balance of plastic structures to study the seismic performance of eccentrically braced frames with vertical links under earthquake loads.
Banihashemi et al.[18] compared the structural response of baseline steel concentric braced frames designed according to AISC[19] with those
designed using a PBPD method. They showed that the performance‐based design frames exhibited the preselected yield mechanism and
satisfied the target drift. However, the baseline frames suffered from premature fracture of brace elements, which led to unacceptably high
drift ratios.
Several other research studies have been conducted to develop PBPD methods for different structural systems including steel plate shear
wall,[20] buckling‐restrained braced RC moment frames,[21] and self‐centering concentrically braced frames using shape memory alloy braces.[22]
However, all of these studies idealized the structural models as fixed base by ignoring the soil flexibility effects. It should be noted that, due to
soil‐structure interaction (SSI) effects, the seismic response of a structure supported on flexible soil may be significantly different compared with
the same structure supported on a rigid base.[23–26] Therefore, the fixed‐base assumption may not be appropriate for structures founded on soft
soil profiles.
As a step forward, several studies investigated the effects of base flexibility on the seismic response of single‐degree‐of‐freedom (SDOF)[27,28]
and multi‐degree‐of‐freedom (MDOF)[29–35] systems to include the SSI effects. These investigations were mainly devoted to study the strength–
ductility relationship of soil‐structure systems. For example, Ganjavi and Hao[36] and Ganjavi et al.[33] conducted an extensive parametric nonlinear
dynamic analysis to achieve near optimum seismic design solutions for SSI multistory shear buildings using the concept of uniform distribution of
damage. In another relevant study, Lu et al.[34,37,38] investigated the seismic response of multistory shear such as structures considering SSI effects
using a wide range of design parameters. Based on the results of their study, they developed an improved SSI replacement model and proposed a
practical site and interaction‐dependent performance‐based seismic design methodology for flexible‐base structures. However, the
abovementioned studies were mainly limited to shear‐buildings, and therefore, the results may not be applicable for SMRF buildings, especially
those with strong‐column/weak‐beam elements as recommended by current seismic design guidelines.
Although there are several research studies available on the seismic performance of SSI systems (as discussed above), there is still a gap of
knowledge to develop simplified methods for more efficient design of these systems under seismic excitations. To address this issue, in this paper,
the seismic performance of a wide range of SMRF buildings with flexible foundations designed according to the newly developed PBPD proce-
dures is first investigated through nonlinear dynamic analyses subjected to a set of 20 earthquake ground motions. Subsequently, the influence
of each design parameter is discussed, and a new ductility‐dependent strength reduction factor, which is capable of taking into account the SSI

FIGURE 1 Discrete‐element sway‐rocking

model based on the cone theory
GANJAVI ET AL. 3 of 15

effects, is presented for PBPD of multistory SMRF buildings. In addition, the height‐wise distribution of story drifts and ductility demands corre-
sponding to various PBPD design LPs are compared with identify the most efficient design solutions.

2 | D E T A I L S OF S T R U C T U R E , F O U N D A T I O N, A N D S O I L C O N D I T I O N

2.1 | Substructure model description

A substructure approach is utilized to model the dynamic behavior of shallow foundation located on a homogenous half‐space soil. The introduced
method is capable to simulate the soil behavior beneath the structure as a separate system. Based on the proposed approach, the superstructure is
mounted on the provided subsystem to develop a soil‐structure system (see Figure 1). The idealized homogenous half‐space soil beneath a circular
foundation is modeled using a simplified 3‐DOF system based on the concept of cone model.[39] Previous studies showed that the cone model can
be used for evaluating the dynamic stiffness of soil with sufficient level of accuracy for common engineering practice.[40] The coefficients corre-
sponding to the sway and rocking springs and the dashpots representing the components of motions through the two transitional and rotational
DOFs are summarized as follows:

8ρV 2s r
kh ¼ ; ch ¼ ρV s Af ; (1)
2−υ

2
8ρV 2s r3 9πρr 5 Vp
kθ ¼ ; cθ ¼ ρV p If ; mθ ¼ ð1 − υÞ ; (2)
3ð1 − υÞ 128 Vs

where kh, kθ, ch, and cθ are sway stiffness, rocking stiffness, sway viscous damping, and rocking viscous damping, respectively; r is the radius of the
equivalent circular foundation; ρ and υ denote density and Poisson's ratio of soil; and Vp and Vs represent the dilatational and shear wave veloc-
ities, respectively. In this study, the area of the foundation (A f ) was assumed to be L2, where L is the total span length of the frame. The moment
of inertia I f of the foundation was calculated on the basis of the equivalent foundation. For incompressible soil conditions (1/3 < υ < 1/2), an addi-
tional tramped mass moment of inertia ΔMθ equal to ΔMθ = 0.3π(υ − 1/3)ρr5 was also added to I f to account for the vertical and rocking motions.
The additional mass moment of inertia was attached to the foundation to have a rigid body movement in the rocking degree of freedom in phase
with the foundation. Because the above coefficients are frequency independent, an internal rotational degree of freedom φ with a mass moment
of inertia mφ was also defined to take into account the soil dynamic‐stiffness frequency dependency.[31–34] For a specific earthquake, the response
of a soil‐structure system is directly affected by the dynamic characteristics of the structure as well as the soil beneath it. The key SSI parameters
can be represented using the following nondimensional design parameters[39]:

1. Nondimensional frequency defined as the structure‐to‐soil stiffness ratio a0 ¼ ωfix H=vs , where ωfix denotes the natural frequency of the struc-
ture with fixed base. H is the effective height of the MDOF building (corresponding to the fundamental mode) and can be calculated from

n

j  n
H ¼ ∑ mj φj1 ∑ hi = ∑ mj φj1 ; (3)
j¼1 i¼1 j¼1

where hi is the height of the level i from the base; and mj and φj1 represent the mass and the amplitude of the first mode at jth story, respectively.
It is shown that a0 parameter has the most significant effect on the seismic performance of a soil‐structure system.[41] In conventional building
practice, a0 takes the value between 0 and 3 for fixed‐base structures to those with severe SSI effects.[34–39]

2. The building Aspect ratio defined as H=r, which is usually considered as the second interacting parameter.[39]
3. Structure‐to‐soil mass ratio m ¼ mtot =ρr 2 H, where mtot and H are the total weight and total height of the structure, respectively.
4. Interstory ductility demand of the structure defined as μ = um/uy, where uy and um are the yield and maximum interstory displacements, respec-
tively. It should be noted that to estimate the interstory ductility demands of SSI systems, the rigid body displacements of the stories (due to
sway and rocking motions) are not taken into account.

In general, the nondimensional frequency and the aspect ratio of the building have the maximum impact on the SSI response, whereas the ductility
demand represents the level of nonlinear deformations in the structure. In this study, the foundation‐to‐structure mass ratio was assumed to be 0.5,
whereas the foundation mass ratio was considered to be 10% of the total superstructure mass.[34] Poisson's ratio (υ) was set to 0.45 and 0.4 for soft
soil and alluvium soil conditions, respectively. Also 5% damping ratio (ξg) was assumed for the soil material. Finally, as will be discussed in the upcoming
section, the super structures were designed by PBPD approach with various numbers of stories to include the effects of fundamental period.
4 of 15 GANJAVI ET AL.

2.2 | PBPD procedure for SMRFs

In this study, the PBPD method suggested by Lee and Goel[11] was adopted for seismic design of SMRFs. In this method, a predefined yield mech-
anism and interstory drift target are used as key design parameters to control the degree and distribution of structural damage directly. First, the
design base shear is calculated for a specified hazard level by assuming that the work required to push the structure up to the target drift mono-
tonically is equal to the energy dissipated by an equivalent elastic–plastic SDOF system to reach the same state. Subsequently, the height‐wise
distribution of lateral seismic design forces is identified using the relative story shear distribution obtained from the results of inelastic dynamic
response.[14] Finally, a plastic design procedure is adopted to design the structural elements to ensure the target yield mechanism. More detailed
information about the adopted PBPD procedure is provided in the following sections.

2.2.1 | Design base shear

As explained before, the design base shear is a key parameter in the adopted PBPD method and can be obtained based on the nonlinear response
of an equivalent elastic–plastic SDOF system pushed up to the selected target drift. The design base shear coefficient (Vy/W) can be calculated as
follows:

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V y −α þ α2 þ 4γS2a
¼ : (4)
W 2

In the above equation, α is a nondimensional modification factor given by


θP 8π2
α¼ h* × ; (5)
T2 g

γ is also an energy modification factor that is related to both ductility reduction factor (Rμ) and the structural ductility factor (μs) by the following
equation:

2μs − 1
γ¼ : (6)
R2μ

Using the spectra suggested by Newmark and Hall,[42] the energy modification factor (γ) can be estimated from Equation (6).
Figure 2 shows the idealized inelastic spectra for an elastic plastic SDOF system. The design base shear for MDOF systems can be calculated
by using ductility reduction factors (Rμ) developed for multistory systems as will be explained in the following sections.

2.2.2 | Lateral force distribution

Chao and Goel[13] proposed the following lateral force distribution for plastic design of multistory steel frames:

0n 1b

b ∑ w j hj
Vi Bj¼i C
βi ¼ ¼¼ B C
@ wn hn A V y ; (7)
Vn

FIGURE 2 Inelastic spectra for EP‐SDOF proposed by Newmark and Hall[42]

GANJAVI ET AL. 5 of 15

where Vi and Vn are the story shear at level i and top level, respectively. βi is the shear proportioning factor at level i. hj and wj are the height (from the
base) and the seismic weight of jth story, respectively. Also, Vy represents the design base shear and b is the exponent term which takes the value of
1.0, 0.75, 0.5, and 0.25 for various LPs from LP1 to LP4, respectively. Hence, the lateral design force at ith story, F i, is expressed as follows:

Fi ¼ ðβi − βiþ1 Þ V n : (8)

The inelastic dynamic results reported by Chao and Goel[13] indicates that the lateral force pattern obtained from Equation (8) can better represent
the maximum story shear forces along the height of the structures under strong earthquakes compared with the conventional seismic code‐specified
design LPs. It should be mentioned that using different b values in Equation (7) does not considerably affect the fundamental period of the frames
because the base shear is not changed.

2.2.3 | Plastic design procedure

The adopted design approach is capable to satisfy the required structural performance under the design earthquake by means of a predefined con-
trolled mechanism. The procedure aims to develop a strong column‐weak‐beam mechanism as well as a stable hysteretic response within the
acceptable drift limits.[10] By using the principle of virtual work theory for the beam mechanism (see Figure 3), at each level, the required beam
strength is determined as follows:

∑ni¼1 2βi Mpbr þ 2Mpc ¼ ∑ni¼1 F i hi ¼ ∑ni¼1 ðβi − βiþ1 Þhi F n ; (9)

where Mpbr and Mpc are the plastic moment of beam and column members in the first story, respectively (Figure 3). Leelataviwat et al.[10] proposed
the following minimum plastic moment capacity for the first‐story columns to avoid undesirable failure mechanism:

1:1 Vh1
MPC ¼ ; (10)
4

where V and h1 represent the total base shear and the height of the first story, respectively. The factor 1.1 in Equation (10) is the overstrength
factor, which is used to account for possible overloading due to strain hardening effects. It should be noted that this approach aims to prevent
plastic hinges form in the columns except at the column bases of the structure. To ensure that the strong column‐weak‐beam mechanism is
achieved, columns should be designed on the basis of the flexural moments greater than the sum of the nominal flexural strength of the beams
at the same joint multiplied by the overstrength factor (ξ). Also, to include the effects of beams yielding overstrength, the applied force at each
level, F i, must be updated as follows:

Fiu ¼ ðβi − βiþ1 Þ F nu : (11)

F nu is the updated force at the roof level and can be determined by the equilibrium equation for one column as follows:

∑ni¼1 ðβi − βiþ1 Þhi F nu ¼ Mpc þ ∑ni¼1 ξ i Mpbi ; (12)

FIGURE 3 One‐bay frame with (a) predefined mechanism with bilinear elastic–plastic behavior (b) frame with soft‐story mechanism
6 of 15 GANJAVI ET AL.

where Mpc is the plastic moment at the base of the frame (Equation 10), ξ and Mpbi are the overstrength factor and the nominal plastic moment of
the beam at level i, respectively. After updating the lateral forces, the design moments of the columns can be determined as follows:

Mc ðhÞ ¼ ∑ni¼1 δi ξ i Mpbi − ∑ni¼1 δi F iu ðhi − hÞ; (13)

where Mc(h) is the moment in the column at the height h above the base and δi is equal to 1 for h ≤ hi and zero elsewhere. The axial force in the
column at the height h above the base, Pc(h), can be then obtained by

2ξ i Mpbi
Pc ðhÞ ¼ ∑ni¼1 þ Pcg ðhÞ; (14)
L

where L is the span length and Pcg(h) is the gravity axial force acting at height h of the structure. By applying the explained approach, the design
values of Mc(h) and Pc(h) of each column can be easily obtained. In this study, a series of 4‐, 8‐, 12‐, 14‐, and 16‐story SMRFs are designed for
various lateral LPs (b = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1) and ductility demands (μt = 2, 4, 6, and 8) based on the prescribed PBPD approach. The size of
the beam and column elements was obtained using AISC‐LRFD[43] specifications assuming A572 GR.50 steel for all members as shown in
Figure 4 for b = 0.75 and μt = 2 design cases.

3 | N O N L I N E A R D Y NA M I C S A N A L Y S I S P R O C E D U R E A N D SE L E CT E D GR OU N D M OT I ON S

For computer modeling, beam and column members were modeled as nondegrading quasi‐elastoplastic elements in OpenSees[44] with 2% strain‐
hardening ratio. The diaphragms were assumed to be perfectly rigid. To model the hysteretic behavior of the steel columns, the interaction
between axial load and flexural bending was considered through moment‐curvature relationship. The 4‐, 8‐, 12‐, and 16‐story models were incre-
mentally subjected to a group of strong ground motions. The results of nonlinear static analyses (pushover) were used to obtain the dynamic char-
acteristics of the frames such as the yields strength (Ry) and the corresponding drift ratio (Δy) for the frames designed with LP1 to LP4 LPs using
the equivalent bilinear model proposed by ASCE/SEI 41‐17.[45] It should be noted that pushover analyses were conducted by using the
OpenSees[44] software considering a slow ramp loading function assuming a conventional triangular loading distribution as recommended in most
seismic design codes. Because the objective of this study is to achieve a prespecified constant‐ductility demand, it is necessary to assess the non-
linear maximum story drift demand for various building frames. Hence, the acceleration spectral ordinates were scaled in such a way that the

FIGURE 4 Sample of 4‐, 8‐, 12‐, 14‐, and

16‐story frames with bay width of 9.0 m and
story height of 4.0 m, designed based on
PBPD approach calibrated for b = 0.75 and
μt = 2, θy = 0.01
GANJAVI ET AL. 7 of 15

maximum interstory ductility demand among all stories reaches the specified target value.[46] For each earthquake ground motion, the height‐wise
distribution of story ductility demands was calculated using an iterative procedure to reach the target μ in the structure within a 1% error. In the
proposed iterative method, the soil‐structure system is subjected to the given earthquake record and the maximum interstory displacement duc-
tility ratio is calculated for the superstructure. If the calculated ductility ratio was not close enough to the specified target value, the acceleration
spectral ordinates are scaled in such a manner that the maximum interstory ductility demand among all stories reaches the specified target value;
otherwise, the iterative procedure is completed.[46] To do so, the authors developed a computer program using in OpenSees[44] and MATLAB[47]
software to perform nonlinear dynamic analyses of SSI SMRF systems. Rayleigh‐type damping was considered for the analysis, where a constant
damping ratio of 5% was assigned to the first two modes of the frame vibration. A flowchart of the proposed nonlinear method is illustrated in
Figure 5.
For the inelastic dynamic analysis, an ensemble of 20 earthquake ground motions with different characteristics were utilized in this study.
Because the effects are SSI are more dominant on softer soil profiles, only earthquake records on NEHRP soil class D and E were selected from

FIGURE 5 Flowchart of the general procedure proposed for nonlinear seismic analyses of SMRFs with SSI
8 of 15 GANJAVI ET AL.

the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) database.[48] The main characteristics of the strong ground motions used in this study
are listed in Table 1. All selected records correspond to the earthquakes with magnitude 6.5 to 7.6, closest distance to fault rupture over 10 km,
and no pulse type characteristics (see Table 1). For each earthquake record, the main horizontal component with larger peak ground velocity was
selected as the strong component. The elastic response spectra of the selected records with their mean values are illustrated in Figure 6.
It should be noted that in the proposed design process (see Figure 5), the fundamental period of the superstructure is obtained on the basis of
the results of a modal analyses, whereas the results of pushover analyses are used to calculate the yield drift based on the equivalent bilinear
model proposed by ASCE/SEI 41‐17[45] as mentioned before.

4 | D U C T I L I T Y R E D U C T I O N F A C T O R F O R SO I L ‐ M DO F ST R U CT UR E SY ST E M S

The ductility reduction factor Rμ for an MDOF system with SSI can be defined as the ratio of the elastic to inelastic base shear force to achieve a
target ductility demand using the following equation:

V MDOF ðT n ; a0 ; μmax ¼ 1Þ
Rμ ¼ ; (15)
V MDOF ðT n ; a0 ; μmax ¼ μt Þ

where VMDOF (T n, a0, μ = 1) and VMDOF (T n, a0, μ = μt) are, respectively, the required base shear demands for an MDOF soil‐structure system to
remain in the elastic domain and to reach the target ductility of μt under design earthquake. Note that a0 = 0 is referred to a fixed‐base condition,
whereas a0 > 0 represents an SSI condition. In general, the nondimensional frequency a0 increases by increasing the base flexibility (e.g., by chang-
ing the soil condition from dense to soft soil. The ductility reduction factor defined in Equation (15) can be used for both fixed‐base and flexible‐
base buildings, because it only considers a strength reduction due to the inelastic hysteretic behavior of the superstructure.

4.1 | Effect of lateral LP and soil flexibility

Figure 7 shows the ductility reduction factor of SMRF soil‐structure systems with different number of stories, which were designed by PBPD pro-
cedure using different lateral LPs. Results are based on the average values of 20 earthquake strong ground motions as presented in Table 1. Gen-
erally, for all ranges of fundamental periods a descending trend is observed for Rμ as the nondimensional frequency a0 increases. This general trend

TABLE 1 Characteristics of the strong ground motions used in this study

Event Record ID Station name Mag. Distance (km) Ag (g) Vg (cm/s) Dg (cm)

1 RSN68.eq LA ‐ Hollywood Stor FF 6.61 22.8 0.2 21.7 15.9

2 RSN162.eq Calexico Fire Station 6.53 10.5 0.3 22.5 9.9
3 RSN169.eq Delta 6.53 22.0 0.3 33 20.2
4 RSN174.eq El Centro Array #11 6.53 12.6 0.4 44.6 21.3
5 RSN721.eq El Centro Imp. Co. Cent 6.54 18.2 0.4 48.1 19.3
6 RSN728.eq Westmorland Fire Sta 6.54 13.0 0.2 32.3 22.3
7 RSN752.eq Capitola 6.93 15.2 0.5 38 7.1
8 RSN776.eq Hollister ‐ South & Pine 6.93 27.9 0.4 63 32.3
9 RSN777.eq Hollister City Hall 6.93 27.6 0.2 45.5 28.5
10 RSN778.eq Hollister Differential Array 6.93 24.8 0.3 44.2 19.7
11 RSN783.eq Oakland ‐ Outer Harbor Wharf 6.93 74.2 0.29 41.8 9.6
12 RSN953.eq Beverly Hills ‐ 14145 Mulhol 6.69 17.2 0.5 66.7 12.2
13 RSN960.eq Canyon Country ‐ W Lost Cany 6.69 124.0 0.4 44.4 11.3
14 RSN1003.eq LA ‐ Saturn St 6.69 27.0 0.4 41.6 5.0
15 RSN1077.eq Santa Monica City Hall 6.69 26.5 0.9 41.6 15.2
16 RSN1107.eq Kakogawa 6.9 22.5 0.3 26.9 8.8
17 RSN1116.eq Shin‐Osaka 6.9 19.2 0.2 31.3 8.4
18 RSN1158.eq Duzce 7.51 15.4 0.3 58.9 44.1
19 RSN1203.eq CHY036 7.62 16.0 0.2 44.8 34.0
20 RSN3749.eq Fortuna Fire Station 7.01 20.4 0.3 38.1 16.7
GANJAVI ET AL. 9 of 15

FIGURE 6 Individual and mean elastic acceleration response spectra of the 20 ground motions used in this study

FIGURE 7 Mean strength reduction factors for structures designed with different design load patterns considering various base flexibility
conditions, average of 20 earthquakes

can be expected because increasing the nondimensional frequency (or SSI effects) leads to higher energy dissipation and therefore a lower base
shear force for a target ductility demand. However, the SSI effects generally influence the behavior of inelastic elastic systems less than elastic
ones as plastic deformations can also dissipate a part of the input energy. Consequently, by increasing the SSI effects, the elastic to inelastic base
shear force corresponding to a target ductility demand (Rμ) decreases. The abovementioned results imply that SSI effects reduce the values of Rμ
and, therefore, using the strength reduction factors based on fixed‐base behavior for soil–structure systems results in an underestimation of seis-
mic design forces. This is especially evident for the structures on soft soil profiles (i.e., a0 > 2).
As can be seen in Figure 7, regardless of the soil flexibility, for low‐ and mid‐rise frames (i.e., N = 4 and 8) designed on the basis of PBPD
procedures the Rμ values increases as the shear proportioning factor b increases. The trend is reversed for the cases of 12‐ and 16‐story SMRFs
having longer periods such that the frames with smaller shear proportioning factors exhibit greater values of Rμ. This phenomenon is more pro-
nounced for the 16‐story fixed‐base and flexible‐based SMRF systems. It is concluded that the lateral LP can considerably affect the required
inelastic strength demands for both fixed‐base and SSI systems. This finding is in complete agreement with the results presented by Ganjavi
and Hao[49] and Lu et al.[34] for shear‐building structures considering SSI effects.
It is evident from the results in Figure 7 that the selected lateral design LP can significantly influence the ductility reduction factor, Rμ, exhibited
by the SSI systems. Higher Rμ values imply that the nonlinear structure can be designed on the basis of lower base shear demands (see Equa-
tion 15), which generally leads to less required structural weight. Therefore, the most appropriate lateral design LPs are those that result in higher
Rμ values. Based on the results, LP1 and LP2 LPs (b = 1 and 0.75) were more efficient for 4‐ and 8‐story frames (low‐ to mid‐rise buildings),
whereas LP4 LP (b = 0.25) provided the best results for 12‐ and 16‐story frames (high‐rise buildings).

4.2 | Rμ‐μ‐T equations for PBPD of flexible base SMRFs

To study the effect of SSI on ductility‐dependent strength reduction factors (Rμ) of SMRFs designed based on PBPD approach, Figure 8 is
depicted. The horizontal axes in all figures is the nondimensional frequency, a0, and the vertical axis is the average strength reduction factors
Rμ obtained from the 20 selected earthquake records. The frames used in this section are designed with the lateral LP LP2. The Rμ spectra are
provided for 2‐, 4‐, 10‐, and 16‐story SMRF structures with four values of target interstory ductility demands of 2, 4, 6, and 8. As mentioned ear-
lier, a0 = 0, 1, 2, and 3 correspond to fixed‐base system, low, moderate, and sever SSI effects, respectively. It can be seen that by increasing the
ductility demands, the Rμ value increases for both fixed‐base and SSI systems. In addition, for all ranges of periods, the value of Rμ decreases as the
10 of 15 GANJAVI ET AL.

FIGURE 8 Effect of target ductility demand on the strength reduction factor (Rμ) of soil‐MRF structures with various base flexibility condition,
average of 20 earthquakes

SSI effect (i.e., a0) increases. This phenomenon is more pronounced for the cases of higher inelastic demands and short‐period structures. Ones
again, it can be observed that any reduction in Rμ leads to an increase in the inelastic total base shear for soil‐structure systems with respect
to the corresponding fixed‐base systems.
As discussed above, using fixed‐base strength reduction factors for soil‐structure systems can lead to underestimated design seismic loads and
hence unsafe design solutions. Therefore, although there are several Rμ − μ − T relationships developed for SDOF fixed‐base systems (e.g., the
equation proposed by Newmark and Hall[42]), they cannot be directly applied for seismic design of structures with flexible base conditions. To
address this issue, in this section, simplified equations are developed for estimating ductility‐dependent strength reduction factors for soil‐
structure SMRFs designed by PBPD approach. The selected models cover multistory SMRFs with H/r = 2 to 4, T n = 0.2 to 3.0 s and μ = 1 to
8. For each structure, the structure‐to‐soil stiffness ratio a0 was changed from 0 to 3 to represent fixed‐base to very soft soil conditions.
Figure 9 shows the average strength reduction factors Rμ obtained for the 20 selected earthquake ground motions. Through nonlinear regression
analyses, the following equations are developed to estimate Rμ values for multistory SMRFs on different soil conditions:

8
< ð2:875μ − 2:5 ÞT n
> T n < 0:2
Rμ ¼ ð0:56μ − 0:5Þ T n þ ð0:463μ þ 0:6Þ 0:2 ≤ T n < 1:0 for a0 ¼ 0; (16)
>
:
4:25 þ μ 1:0 ≤ T n ≤ 3:0

FIGURE 9 Correlation between the proposed equations (Equations 16–19) and mean numerical results for Rμ of fixed‐base and soil‐structure
steel‐moment frames designed by PBPD, average of 20 earthquakes
GANJAVI ET AL. 11 of 15

8
< ð2:475μ − 2:25 ÞT n
> T n < 0:2
Rμ ¼ ð0:6125μ − 0:5625Þ T n þ ð0:3725μ þ 0:6625Þ 0:2 ≤ T n < 1:0 for a0 ¼ 1; (17)
>
:
4:0 þ μ 1:0 ≤ T n ≤ 3:0

8
< ð1:9167μ − 3:6665 ÞT n þ 1
> T n < 0:3
Rμ ¼ ð0:4839μ þ 0:0865Þ T n þ ð−0:0449μ2 þ 0:7439μ − 0:6778 0:3 ≤ T n < 1:0 for a0 ¼ 2 ; (18)
>
:
0:725μ þ 0:75 1:0 ≤ T n ≤ 3:0


ð0:61μ − 0:85ÞT n þ 1 T n < 1:0
Rμ ¼ for a0 ¼ 3: (19)
0:61μ þ 0:15 1:0 ≤ T n ≤ 3:0

The proposed equations are a function of fundamental period of fixed‐base systems, T n, ductility level, μ, and nondimensional frequency, a0. It
is observed from Figure 9 that despite their simplicity, the proposed equations show very good agreement with the numerical data, implying that
they can capture efficiently the SSI and MDOF effects on the strength reduction factors of SMRFs for all ductility levels and soil conditions. These
equations can considerably simplify the performance‐based design of SMRFs with flexible (or shallow) foundations. It should be mentioned that
the above equations are only suitable for shallow foundations and more studies are required to develop Rμ‐μ‐T equations for pile foundations.

5 | D R I F T D E M A N D D I S T R I BU T I O N F O R S M R F S D E S I G N E D B A S E D O N P B P D A P P R O A C H

Figure 10 compares the height‐wise distribution of drift demands for flexible‐base and fixed‐base buildings are compared for 8‐ and 16‐SMRF
models having target ductility demand of μ = 2. The results are average of the 20 selected earthquake ground motions and are provided for four
aforementioned LPs LP1 to LP4. As can be seen, the shear proportioning factor (b) which defines the shear force distribution pattern can consid-
erably affect the drift distribution demands along the height of the structures. This effect is more dominant for the lower story levels in fixed‐base
structures. Also, it can be seen that, in general, increasing the shear proportioning factor (b) results in an increase in the drift demands of the top
stories and reduces the drift demands in the lower stories. The results in Figure 10 also indicate that SSI is another important parameter that can
affect the height‐wise drift distribution of the structures.
Figure 11 aims to examine more precisely the effect of SSI on the drift demands distribution. The results are provided for 4‐ and 14‐story
frames with two levels of inelastic behavior (μ = 2, 6) and four nondimensional frequencies (a0 = 0, 1, 2, 3). It is shown that SSI can significantly
affect the height‐wise distribution of drift demands. Although the SSI effect is different for low‐rise and high‐rise buildings, it is always more evi-
dent for the structures on soft soil profiles (i.e., a0 = 3). It is shown that for the low‐rise (i.e., 4‐story) frame, irrespective of the level of inelastic
behavior, SSI decreases the drift demand in the first story and increases the drift demands in the other stories. However, the trend is different for
the high‐rise (i.e., 14‐story) frame, where SSI increases the drift demand in the lower stories, whereas it does not significantly change the drift
demands in the upper stories. This behavior is especially evident for the high‐rise frame with high level of, ductility demand (i.e., μ = 6). Overall,
the results in Figure 11 indicate that SSI leads to more uniform distribution of drift demands along the height of the structures when compared
with the fixed‐base systems. This is due to the fact that SSI effects can change the yield mechanism of the predefined plastic hinges in PBPD
frames when compared with their fixed‐base counterparts, which is consistent with the results reported by Ganjavi et al.[33] for SSI shear building
structures.

FIGURE 10 Effect of design load patterns on drift demands distribution of 8‐ and 16‐story fixed and SSI systems, average of 20 earthquakes
12 of 15 GANJAVI ET AL.

FIGURE 11 Effect of SSI on height‐wise drift distribution of soil‐MRF structures considering low and high levels of ductility demand, average of
20 earthquakes

6 | S E I S M I C P E R FO R M A N C E E V A L U A T I O N O F S O I L‐ S M R F S Y S T E M S D E S I G N E D WI T H P B P D
APPROACH

Interstory ductility is one of the widely accepted seismic performance parameters, which can be efficiency used to assess the level of structural
damage under earthquake loads.[50–52] This performance parameter is indirectly related to the hysteric energy dissipation capacity of the structural

FIGURE 12 Interstory ductility demand distribution for fixed‐base (a0 = 0) and flexible‐base (a0 = 2, 3) 4 and 12‐story buildings designed using
different lateral LPs, average of 20 earthquakes
GANJAVI ET AL. 13 of 15

FIGURE 13 Effect of nondimensional frequency (a0) on interstory ductility demand distribution, average of 20 earthquakes

FIGURE 14 Effect of fixed‐base fundamental period on interstory ductility demand distribution of fixed‐base and SSI systems, average of 20
earthquakes

elements through inelastic behavior and, therefore, is suitable for seismic performance evaluation of SSI systems. To evaluate the effect of SSI and
using different design LPs on the interstory ductility distribution of the SMRFs designed on the basis of the PBPD approach, 4‐ and 12‐story
models were subjected to the 20 selected earthquake ground motions. To achieve a preselected target ductility demand, an iterative analysis
was carried out to scale each design ground motion until the maximum ductility demand among all stories reached the target value. The average
results of the selected ground motions are depicted in Figures 12–14.
Figure 12 compares the interstory ductility distributions of the frames designed with LP1 to LP4 lateral LPs. It is shown that for the fixed‐base
4‐story structure, the maximum ductility demand occurs in the first stories for all LPs. However, as base becomes more flexible, the maximum
interstory ductility demand shifts to the higher stories, which is more pronounced for the cases of LPs LP1 and LP2. For the 12‐story building, increas-
ing the shear proportioning factor (b) is generally accompanied by an increase in the interstory ductility of the top two stories, whereas the interstory
ductility demands reduce in the other stories. A similar trend was observed for the maximum interstory drift distributions in Figure 10.
In general, the results shown in Figure 12 indicate that increasing the shear proportioning factor (b) led to more uniform distribution of story
ductility demands in low‐rise (i.e., 4‐story) structures, whereas this effect was opposite in high‐rise (i.e., 12‐story) frames. This behavior can be
justified because increasing the shear proportioning factor (b) results in higher design shear forces at the lower levels, which are more critical in
low‐rise buildings as explained above.
The effect of nondimensional frequency a0 (as an index of soil flexibility) on the height‐wise distribution of story ductility demands is investi-
gated in Figure 13. The results demonstrate that for the 4‐story frame increasing the SSI effect is generally accompanied by decreasing and
increasing the ductility demand in lower and upper stories, respectively. Nevertheless, for the 12‐story frame increasing the SSI effect increases
the ductility demand in lower stories, whereas the ductility demands remain nearly constant in the upper stories.
Figure 14 evaluates the effect of number of stories (or fundamental period of the fixed‐base structure) on the story ductility demand distribu-
tion of SMRFs designed based on the PBPD approach for both fixed‐base and flexible‐base systems. It is clear from the results that the fundamen-
tal period of the fixed‐base structure can significantly influence the height‐wise structural damage distribution and the critical stories for both
fixed‐base and flexible‐base structures. It is also shown that, in general, maximum interstory ductility was observed in the lower and the higher
story levels in low‐rise and high‐rise buildings, respectively. This can be attributed to the effects of higher modes in high‐rise buildings.

7 | S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I ON S

A comprehensive parametric study was conducted to investigate the influence of seismic LPs and SSI on strength reduction factor and height‐wise
distribution of drift and ductility demands (structural damage) in 4‐, 8‐, 12‐, 14‐ and 16‐story SMRFs designed based on a PBPD approach when
subjected to a set of 20 strong earthquake ground motions. The results of this investigation can be summarized as follows:
14 of 15 GANJAVI ET AL.

• The selected lateral design LP can considerably affect the inelastic strength demands for both fixed‐base and flexible‐base systems. It was
shown that LP1 and LP2 LPs are more efficient (i.e., lead to less base shear demands) for low‐ to mid‐rise buildings, whereas LP4 LP provides
the best results for high‐rise buildings.
• For all ranges of fundamental periods, a descending trend is observed for the strength reduction factor (Rμ) as the nondimensional frequency a0
increases. This implies that SSI effects can reduce the values of Rμ and, therefore, using the fixed‐base strength reduction factors for soil–
structure systems in general results in underestimated seismic design forces. This is especially evident for the structures on soft soil profiles
(i.e., a0 > 2).
• The maximum interstory ductility was observed in the lower and the higher story levels in low‐rise and high‐rise buildings, respectively. It was
shown that in the low‐rise buildings, increasing the SSI effect is accompanied by decreasing the ductility demand in the lower stories, whereas
the ductility demand in the upper stories increases. In high‐rise buildings, increasing the SSI effect generally increases the ductility demand in
the lower stories, but the ductility demand remains nearly constant in the upper stories.
• In general, considering SSI effects leads to more uniform distribution of drift and ductility demands along the height of the PBPD structures
when compared with the fixed‐base systems. This is due to the fact that SSI can change the yield mechanism of the predefined plastic hinges
in PBPD when compared with the fixed‐base counterpart models.
• The results of a parametric study on a wide range of multistory SMRFs with different SSI design parameters were used to develop new
ductility‐dependent strength reduction factors for soil‐structure SMRFs through nonlinear regression analyses. The proposed equations
showed a very good agreement with the analytical results and should prove useful in the PBPD design of SMRFs with flexible base conditions.

ORCID
Behnoud Ganjavi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4414-5063
Iman Hajirasouliha https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2597-8200

RE FE R ENC E S
[1] T.A. Gilmore, V.V. Bertero. “Seismic performance of a 30‐story building located on soft soil and designed according to UBC 1991 Berkeley”, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, UCB/EERC‐93/04 1993
[2] H. Moghaddam, I. Hajirasouliha, Int. J. Solids Struct. 2006, 43, 2631.
[3] I. Hajirasouliha, H. Moghaddam, Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2009, 135(8), 906.
[4] L. Martinelli, F. Perotti, A. Bozzi, Seismic design and response of a 14‐story concentrically braced steel building, in Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic
Areas, (Eds: F. Mazzolani, R. Tremblay), Balkema, Rotterdam 2000 327.
[5] B. Calderoni, Z. Rinaldi, Steel Composite Structure 2002, 2(2), 113.
[6] H. D. Zhang, Y. F. Wang, Steel Composite Structure. 2012, 13(6), 501.
[7] M. GholipourFeizi, A. Mojtahedi, V. Nourani, Steel Composite Structure 2015, 19(2), 467.
[8] I. Hajirasouliha, K. Pilakoutas, R. K. Mohammadi, Steel Composite Structure 2016, 20(2), 317.
[9] M. Bayat, S. M. Zahrai, Steel Composite Structure 2017, 25(1), 1.
[10] S. Leelataviwat, S. C. Goel, B. Stojadinovic, Earthqure Spectra 1999, 15(3), 435.
[11] S.S. Lee, S.C. Goel. “Performance‐based design of steel moment frames using target drift and yield mechanism”, Department of Civil and Environment
Engineering, University of Michigan 2001.
[12] S.H. Chao, S.C. Goel. “Performance‐Based Seismic Design of EBF Using Target Drift and Yield Mechanism as Performance Criteria”, Report No. UMCEE
05–05, Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 2005.
[13] S.H. Chao, S.C. Goel. “Performance‐Based Plastic Design of Seismic Resistant Special Truss Moment Frames, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering”, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Report No. UMCEE 06‐03 2006.
[14] S. H. Chao, S. C. Goel, S. S. Lee, Earthquake Spectra 2007, 23(3), 547.
[15] C. S. Goel, W. C. Liao, M. R. Bayat, S. H. Chao, Structural Design of Tall Special Building 2010, 19(1–2), 115.
[16] K. Park, R. A. Medina, Journal of Structural Engineering 2007, 133(7), 945.
[17] M. A. Shayanfar, S. A. Rezaeian, A. Zanganeh, Structural Design of Tall Special Building 2014, 23(1), 1.
[18] M. R. Banihashemi, A. R. Mirzagoltabar, H. R. Tavakoli, International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (IJASE) 2015, 7(3), 281.
[19] ASCE/SEI 7‐10. “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures”, Reston (VA), American Society of Civil Engineers 2010.
[20] S. B. Kharmale, S. Ghosh, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2013, 90, 85.
[21] J. Bai, J. Ou, Engineering Structures 2016, 107, 66.
[22] C. Qiu, H. Li, K. Ji, H. Hou, L. Tian, Engineering Structures 2017, 153, 628.
[23] A. K. Chopra, J. A. Gutierrez, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 1974, 3(1), 65.
[24] J. Bielak, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division 1976, 102(5), 771.
GANJAVI ET AL. 15 of 15

[25] M. Iguchi, J. E. Luco, Engineering Mechanics., ASCE 1982, 108(6), 1103.

[26] G. Gazetas, M. Apostolou. “Nonlinear Soil–Structure Interaction: Foundation Uplifting and Soil Yielding”, Proceedings of 3rd US–Japan workshop on soil–
structure interaction, Menlo Park, California 2004.
[27] A. S. Elnashai, D. C. McClure, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 1996, 25, 435.
[28] M. Ciampoli, P. E. Pinto, Journal of Structural Engineerin 1995, 12, 806.
[29] P. Raychowdhury, Engineering Structures 2011, 33, 958.
[30] M. E. Aydemir, I. Ekiz, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 2013, 17, 635.
[31] B. Ganjavi, H. Hao, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 2014, 23(3), 161.
[32] F. Abedi‐Nik, F. Khoshnoudian, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 2015, 14(3), 561.
[33] B. Ganjavi, I. Hajirasouliha, A. Bolourchi, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2016, 88, 356.
[34] Y. Lu, I. Hajirasouliha, A. M. Marshall, Engineering Structures 2016, 108, 90.
[35] A. Gholamrezatabar, G. GhodratiAmiri, M. A. Shayanfar, B. Ganjavi, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 2017, 26(18).
[36] B. Ganjavi, H. Hao, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2013, 42(6), 913.
[37] Y. Lu, I. Hajirasouliha, A. M. Marshall, Engineering Structures 2018, 167, 26.
[38] Y. Lu, I. Hajirasouliha, A. M. Marshall, Engineering Structures 2018, 168, 276.
[39] J. P. Wolf, Foundation Vibration Analysis Using Simple Physical Models, Prentice‐Hall, Engle‐ wood Cliffs, NJ 1994.
[40] J. P. Wolf, A. J. Deeks, Foundation Vibration Analysis: A Strength‐of‐Materials Approach, Elsevier, Burlington, MA 2004.
[41] J. P. Stewart, R. B. Seed, G. L. Fenves, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 1999, 125(1), 38.
[42] N. M. Newmark, W. J. Hall, Earthquake Spectra and Design, Earthquake Eng, Research Institute, El Cerrito, Calif 1982.
[43] AISC.AISC‐341‐10. Seismic Design Provisions for Steel Structures, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, IL 2010.
[44] S. Mazzoni, F. McKenna, M.H. Scott, GL Fenves. OPENSEES, Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, http://opensees.berkeley.edu/
2016.
[45] ASCE/SEI, 41–17. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, 1st ed., American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 2017.
[46] J. Ruiz‐García, E. J. González, Engineering Structures 2014, 59, 1.
[47] MATLAB. The Math Works, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States 2015.
[48] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). PEER Ground Motion Database. See http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/search.html, 2018.
[49] B. Ganjavi, H. Hao. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration. 2012, 11(2), 205.
[50] A. Nassar, H. Krawinkler, A. John. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Report 95, Dept. of Civil Engineering," Stanford University, 1991.
[51] I. Hajirasouliha, K. Pilakoutas, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2012, 16(4), 443.
[52] H. Moghaddam, I. Hajirasouliha, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. 2008, 17(2), 331.

AU THOR BIOG RAPH IES

Behnoud Ganjavi is an assistant professor at the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Mazandaran. He received his PhD degree in
Earthquake and Structural Engineering from the University of Western Australia in January 2013. His current research interests include
dynamic soil‐structure interaction and optimum performance‐based seismic design. He has published intensively in these areas with more than
40 refereed journal and conference papers.

Abolfazl Gholamrezatabar received his PhD degree in structural engineering from Iran University of Science and Technology in 2017. He is an
assistant professor at Civil Engineering Department of Aryan Institute of Science and Technology. His current research interests include soil‐
structure interaction and performance‐based plastic design of structures.

Iman Hajirasouliha is a senior lecturer (associate professor) and the leader of Earthquake Engineering Group (EEG) in the Department of Civil
and Structural Engineering at the University of Sheffield, UK. He has over 18 years of research experience in the field of earthquake engineer-
ing, performance‐based design, structural optimisation, soil‐structure interaction, and seismic strengthening methods, leading to over 65
refereed journal papers and 100 conference publications in these areas.

How to cite this article: Ganjavi B, Gholamrezatabar A, Hajirasouliha I. Effects of soil‐structure interaction and lateral design load pattern
on performance‐based plastic design of steel moment resisting frames. Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2019;e1624. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tal.1624