Seismic Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames Using Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis

Abstract

Performance-based seismic design has emerged as a critical requirement in modern structural engineering due to the limitations of conventional force-based analysis methods in accurately predicting nonlinear structural response. Steel moment-resisting frames (SMRFs) are widely used as lateral load-resisting systems in earthquake-prone regions because of their inherent ductility, energy dissipation capacity, and structural redundancy. However, realistic evaluation of their seismic performance requires advanced nonlinear analysis techniques capable of capturing stiffness degradation, plastic hinge formation, and cyclic loading effects. This research presents a comprehensive analytical framework for evaluating the seismic performance of a multi-storey steel moment-resisting frame using nonlinear static (pushover) and nonlinear dynamic (time-history) analyses performed in ETABS software. A detailed three-dimensional model incorporating material and geometric nonlinearity along with calibrated plastic hinge properties was developed. Pushover analysis revealed a maximum base shear capacity of 43,166 kN in the X-direction and 2,452 kN in the Y-direction, highlighting directional stiffness variation. Maximum inter-storey drift of 0.0153 m was observed at the first storey. Nonlinear dynamic analysis indicated higher displacement demand due to cyclic effects and higher-mode participation. Plastic hinge formation primarily occurred at beam ends, confirming strong-column–weak-beam behavior. The study demonstrates that integrated nonlinear analysis provides reliable insight into structural capacity, deformation demand, and performance level attainment under seismic loading.

Introduction

Earthquakes pose serious risks to structures, requiring buildings to not only be strong but also capable of controlled deformation without collapse. Traditional linear design methods are limited in capturing real structural behavior under strong seismic forces, leading to the adoption of performance-based seismic design using nonlinear analysis.

Steel moment-resisting frames (SMRFs) are widely used in seismic regions due to their ductility and ability to dissipate energy through controlled plastic hinge formation, following the strong-column–weak-beam concept. However, their behavior is complex and influenced by factors like geometry, stiffness, and ground motion characteristics.

To better evaluate seismic performance, two main nonlinear methods are used:

• Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis to assess structural capacity and failure mechanisms.
• Nonlinear dynamic (time-history) analysis to simulate real earthquake effects, including cyclic loading and higher-mode responses.

Combining these methods provides a comprehensive understanding of both capacity and demand.

The study uses advanced modeling (via ETABS) to analyze a multi-storey steel frame, considering parameters such as base shear, drift, displacement, and hinge behavior. Results show variations in strength and deformation, with most structural elements remaining within safe performance limits.

Overall, the research highlights the importance of integrated nonlinear analysis for accurate seismic evaluation and supports the use of performance-based design to improve structural safety and resilience.

Conclusion

This research presented a comprehensive analytical investigation into the seismic performance of a steel moment-resisting frame using integrated nonlinear static (pushover) and nonlinear dynamic (time-history) analysis techniques. The primary motivation of the study was to address the inherent limitations associated with conventional force-based seismic design methods, which often rely on simplified linear elastic assumptions and do not adequately capture the complex nonlinear behavior exhibited by structures during strong earthquake ground motions. By adopting a performance-based evaluation framework and utilizing advanced modeling capabilities available in ETABS software, the study successfully demonstrated a realistic approach for assessing structural strength capacity, deformation demand, and damage progression. The results obtained from nonlinear static analysis clearly indicate that the steel moment-resisting frame possesses significant lateral load-carrying capacity and exhibits desirable ductile behavior. The maximum base shear capacity of approximately 43,166 kN in the X-direction confirms that the structural system has sufficient reserve strength beyond the elastic range, which is critical for ensuring collapse resistance during severe seismic events. The gradual stiffness degradation observed in the pushover capacity curve further validates the effectiveness of the structural configuration in promoting controlled inelastic deformation. In contrast, the comparatively lower strength capacity observed in the Y-direction highlights the importance of evaluating seismic response in multiple principal directions to capture the influence of stiffness distribution and geometric configuration on structural performance. Story drift analysis revealed that deformation demand was primarily concentrated at lower storeys, with a peak inter-storey drift of approximately 0.0153 m recorded at the first storey level. Although this drift demand remained within acceptable limits corresponding to Life Safety performance objectives, the observed deformation concentration suggests that lower storey behavior plays a governing role in seismic response of moment-resisting frame systems. Plastic hinge formation patterns further reinforced this observation, as yielding initiated predominantly at beam ends in lower and intermediate storeys before gradually propagating to other regions under increased displacement demand. This hinge distribution confirms adherence to the strong-column–weak-beam philosophy, ensuring that energy dissipation occurs through ductile flexural yielding rather than brittle column failure. The nonlinear dynamic analysis provided deeper insight into the realistic time-dependent response of the structure under earthquake excitation. The results demonstrated higher peak displacement and drift demand compared to pushover predictions due to cyclic loading effects and higher-mode participation. Despite these increased demands, the structural system maintained overall stability and did not exhibit significant strength degradation or collapse tendencies. This finding emphasizes the necessity of incorporating nonlinear dynamic analysis in performance-based seismic evaluation to capture cumulative damage effects and record-to-record variability. A key contribution of the study lies in the comparative assessment of nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analysis outcomes. The results confirm that while pushover analysis is highly effective for estimating global strength capacity and identifying potential failure mechanisms, dynamic analysis is essential for accurately predicting deformation demand and cyclic response characteristics. The integrated use of both methods therefore provides a balanced and reliable framework for seismic performance evaluation. From a practical design perspective, the findings highlight the importance of controlling stiffness irregularities, enhancing lower storey strength distribution, and considering supplemental damping or retrofitting measures to further improve seismic resilience. Future research may extend the analytical framework to include taller structures, plan irregularities, varying soil conditions, probabilistic performance assessment, and experimental validation of analytical results. Overall, this study contributes to advancing performance-based seismic design practices and reinforces the effectiveness of steel moment-resisting frames as robust lateral load-resisting systems in earthquake-prone regions.

References

[1] Chopra, A. K. (2017). Dynamics of Structures (5th ed.). Pearson Education. [2] Krawinkler, H. (2000). Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures. Engineering Structures, 22(7), 760–773. [3] Gupta, A., & Krawinkler, H. (2000). Behavior of ductile SMRFs at low drift levels. Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(3), 346–353. [4] Freeman, S. A. (1998). The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. [5] Chopra, A. K., & Goel, R. K. (2004). A modal pushover analysis procedure. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 33(8), 903–927. [6] Medina, R. A., & Krawinkler, H. (2005). Strength demand issues in ductile moment frames. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 34(4-5), 497–524. [7] FEMA 356. (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency. [8] FEMA P-695. (2009). Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. FEMA. [9] Lignos, D. G., & Krawinkler, H. (2011). Deterioration modeling of steel components. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(11), 1291–1302. [10] Zareian, F., & Medina, R. A. (2010). Proper modeling of structural damping. Journal of Structural Engineering, 136(3), 298–307. [11] Tremblay, R., Poncet, L., & Bruneau, M. (2008). Seismic response of steel moment frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 64(7-8), 819–832. [12] Chen, C., Wang, Z., & Li, Y. (2022). Higher-mode effects on mid-rise steel frames. Engineering Structures, 250, 113356. [13] Eatherton, M. R., & Hajjar, J. F. (2010). Residual drift considerations. Journal of Structural Engineering, 136(6), 681–691. [14] Jalayer, F., Cornell, C. A., & Deierlein, G. G. (2003). Probabilistic seismic demand assessment. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 32(12), 1993–2012. [15] Kamgar, R., Hosseini, S. M., & Ghafory-Ashtiany, M. (2022). Wavelet-based nonlinear seismic analysis. Engineering Structures, 252, 113128. [16] Safari Honar, F., Rezaei, M., & Fanaie, F. (2023). Nonlinear dynamic seismic assessment of steel frames. Buildings, 13(1), 1–18. [17] Sebaq, M. S., Bakhshi, A., & Fanaie, F. (2023). Damage indices in steel moment frames. International Journal of Steel Structures, 23(2), 455–470. [18] Haselton, C. B., Baker, J. W., & Lignos, D. G. (2011). Collapse safety of steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(12), 1438–1448. [19] Antoniou, S., & Pinho, R. (2004). Development of adaptive pushover procedures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 8(4), 491–514. [20] Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491–514. [21] Bruneau, M., Uang, C.-M., & Whittaker, A. (2011). Ductile Design of Steel Structures. McGraw-Hill. [22] Hamburger, R. O., & Moehle, J. P. (2006). Performance-based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra, 22(S2), S1–S11. [23] Lee, K., & Foutch, D. A. (2002). Performance evaluation of steel frame buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(7), 850–859. [24] Ricles, J. M., Zhang, X., & Lu, L.-W. (2004). Seismic performance of moment connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130(9), 1365–1374. [25] Popov, E. P., & Youssef, N. F. (1998). Cyclic behavior of steel connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, 124(3), 269–277.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Rahul Kumar Choudhary, Dr. Anil Kumar Saxena. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.