Characteristics of FBD and DDBD techniques for SMRF buildings designed for seismic zone-V in India

  • Arjun SilEmail author
  • Gourab Das
  • Pritam Hait
Research Article


This paper presents the results of the nonlinear time history analysis of six different reinforced concrete moment frames. The frames were designed using two major seismic design methods as Force Based Design (FBD) and Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) in which former is a conventional method while later one is a performance based approach of design. However, in this study, 4, 8 and 12 stories RC framed building with two × three bays were designed according to Indian standard and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) considering two design approaches (FBD and DDBD) studied. Analysis and design for this study performed using SAP2000 v15.1 tool. Both design approaches performed using nonlinear time history analysis for five different real recorded ground motions of north-eastern region, India. The parameters such as inter-storey drift, displacement, material strain, and ductility demand obtained from the analyses of the frames designed using both design methods are noted and compared. This study examined, discussed and shown about the applicability of existing methods adopted considering the FBD and DDBD in a cost-effective manner to achieve desired level of performance.


Force based design Direct displacement based design Inter storey drift Nonlinear time history analysis Performance based design 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors do not have conflict of interest in publishing of the paper as specified in this journal.


  1. 1.
    Calvi GM, Priestley MJN, Kowalsky MJ (2008) Displacement based seismic design of structures. Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori Press (IUSS), PaviaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang Lu, Hajirasouliha Iman, Marshall Alec M (2018) Direct displacement based seismic design of flexible-base structures subjected to pulse-like ground motions. Eng Struct 168:276–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Loss C, Thomas T, Tesfamariam S (2018) State-of-the-art review of displacement based seismic design of timber buildings. Constr Build Mater 191:481–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alhaddad MS, Wazira KM, Al-Salloum YA, Abbas H (2015) Ductility damage indices based on seismic performance of RC frames. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 77:226–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Malekpour S, Dashti F (2013) Application of the DDBD methodology for different types of RC structural systems. Int J Concr Struct Mater 7:135–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Massena B, Bento R, Degée H (2012) Assessment of direct displacement –based seismic design of reinforced concrete frames, 15th WCEE, 2012, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Priestley MJN, Kawalsky MJ (2000) Direct displacement based seismic design of concrete building. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 33:421–444Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garcia R, Sullivan TJ, Corte GD (2010) Development of a DBD method for steel frame RC wall buildings. J Earthq Eng 14:252–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van de Lindt JW, Rosowsky DV (2013) Performance-based seismic design of mid-rise wood frame buildings. J Struct Eng ASCE 139:1294–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sullivan TJ, Calvi GM, Priestley MJN (2009) The limitations and performances of different displacement based design methods. J Earthq Eng 7:201–241Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferraioli Massimiliano (2015) Case study of seismic performance assessment of irregular RC buildings: hospital structure of Avezzano (L’Aquila, Italy). Earthq Eng Eng Vib 14:141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sullivan TJ, Priestley MJN, Calvi GM (2010) Development of an innovative seismic design procedure for frame-wall structures. J Earthq Eng 9:279–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Džakić D, Kraus I, Morić D (2012) DDBD of regular concrete frames in compliance with Euro code-8. Tehnicki vjesnik/Technical Gazette 19:973–982Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Macedo L, Castro JM (2012) Direct displacement based seismic design of steel moment frames, 15th WCEE, 2012, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sheth RK, Sheth DP, Soni KN (2014) DDBD for fifteen storey reinforced concrete moment resisting frame as per IS codes. Int J Adv Eng Res Dev 1:179–184Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    El Attar A, Zaghw AH, Elansary A (2014) Comparison between the direct displacement based design and the force based design methods in reinforced concrete framed structures. In: Second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, pp 25–29Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dohadwala AT, Sheth RK, Dr Patel IN (2014) Comparison of base shear for forced based design method and DDBD Method’. Int J Adv Eng Res Dev (IJAERD) 1:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sil A, Longmailai T (2017) Drift reliability assessment of a four storey residential building under seismic loading considering multiple factors. J Inst of Eng (India) Ser-A 8:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Plain and Reinforced Concrete—Code of practice, IS 456 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures IS 1893 (part 2) (2002) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pettinga JD, Priestley M (2005) Dynamic behavior of reinforced concrete frames designed with DDBD. J Earthq Eng 9:309–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Calvi GM, Sullivan TJ (2009) A model code for the displacement based seismic design of Structures”. IUSS Press, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    FEMA 356 (2000) in Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. US Federal Emergency Management AgencyGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    FEMA 445 (2006) Next-generation performance-based seismic design guidelines. Program plan for new and existing buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agemcy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    SAP2000 (2006) v. 14 Nonlinear. Educational version, Computer and structures Inc., BerkleyGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Code of Practice for Design Loads (1997) (Other Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures. Public Work IS: 875Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vidot-Vega AL, Kowalsky MJ (2013) Drift, strain limits and ductility demands for RC moment frames designed with displacement-based and force-based design methods. Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Engineering Structures 51:128–140Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNIT SilcharSilcharIndia

Personalised recommendations