applied

sciences
Article
Application and Validation of a Simplified Approach to Evaluate
the Seismic Performances of Steel MR-Frames
Rosario Montuori 1 , Elide Nastri 2 , Vincenzo Piluso 2 , Alessandro Pisapia 2 and Paolo Todisco 2, *

1 Department of Pharmacy, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy; [email protected]

2 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy; [email protected] (E.N.);
[email protected] (V.P.); [email protected] (A.P.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The main aim of this work is to validate the application of a simplified performance-
based method for assessing the seismic performance of steel buildings, focusing particularly on
Moment Resisting Frames (MRFs) through nonlinear analyses. This simplified method defines the
capacity curve of a structure through elastic and rigid-plastic analyses, calibrated by regression
analyses conducted on 420 structures. To assess its accuracy, the method was compared with other
analytical approaches, including incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) provided by existing codes.
These analyses were performed on both real structures and simulated designs, considering recent
and older codes. The comparison of capacity results derived from code-based approaches and IDA,
aligned with the limit states outlined in current codes, showcased the high reliability of the proposed
simplified assessment approach.

Keywords: moment resisting frames; structural capacity; performance-based assessment; simplified

methods; IDA analysis

1. Introduction
Citation: Montuori, R.; Nastri, E.; In order to prevent significant structural damage by guaranteeing adequate ductility
Piluso, V.; Pisapia, A.; Todisco, P. and energy dissipation capacity, Mazzolani and Piluso [1] proposed the well-known design
Application and Validation of a methodology called “Theory of Plastic Mechanism Control (TPMC)” in 1997. The original
Simplified Approach to Evaluate the version of this method is based on the extension of the kinematic theorem of plastic collapse
Seismic Performances of Steel to the concept of mechanism equilibrium curve, and, recently, a closed-form solution has
MR-Frames. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037. been developed and applied to different steel structural typologies [2,3]. This approach has
https://doi.org/10.3390/ been applied only to new buildings in order to avoid partial failure mechanisms, such as the
app14031037 well-known soft-storey mechanism, by ensuring the achievement of the global mechanism
Academic Editor: Marek Krawczuk type under severe seismic actions. However, recently, a new performance design method,
also based on the TPMC approach, has been developed to evaluate the behaviour of the
Received: 5 December 2023 existing buildings. In fact, the assessment of the seismic vulnerability of existing structures
Revised: 22 January 2024
has become, in recent years, a topic of increasing importance among those developed by
Accepted: 23 January 2024
structural engineering [4–11]. Infrastructures, but also simple buildings, need to be checked
Published: 25 January 2024
and verified against seismic loading to design any intervention in seismic enhancement or
retrofitting. The planning of seismic risk mitigation has shown that it is of fundamental
importance to carry out a rapid classification of the existing building heritage in terms of
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
seismic performance [12–18].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. The performance of a building is evaluated by comparing its ability to dissipate
This article is an open access article incoming seismic energy due to structural ductility and seismic demand. If the demand
distributed under the terms and for ductility is lower than the capacity, the structure, even if damaged, does not collapse,
conditions of the Creative Commons ensuring, in this case, the primary requirement of performance from the point of view of the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Ultimate Limit States (ULS), namely the protection of human lives. Otherwise, i.e., when
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the demand for ductility is higher than the capacity, the structure collapses because it is not
4.0/). able to dissipate the incoming seismic energy satisfactorily and, therefore, to develop an

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14031037 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 2 of 19

adequate collapse mechanism [19–21]. The main difficulties in creating a satisfactory model
for the prediction of seismic damage concern the quantitative definition of the degree of
damage corresponding to each expected performance level. The complete knowledge of the
seismic performance of a structure is the result of sophisticated numerical procedures such
as static or nonlinear dynamic analysis [22–26]. Such analyses require the structural model
to be adequately accurate to capture nonlinear behaviour. However, especially for large-
scale assessments and the planning of seismic risk mitigation interventions, a simplified
methodology able to describe the capacity curve analytically and quickly without resorting
to more complex analyses could be extremely useful, given a code implementation. As
a result, a simplified methodology for different structural types has been developed to
evaluate the capacity of an existing building without resorting to static or dynamic nonlinear
analysis [27–30]. To calibrate this model, a wide parametric analysis was carried out on
420 frames designed according to three different approaches [27]. The non-dimensional
pushover curve has been simplified by defining three branches: an elastic response branch,
a plateau branch corresponding to the maximum bearing capacity, and a descending branch
corresponding to the mechanism equilibrium curve. The result is a simplified trilinear
model. In addition, this model allows the definition of four characteristic points (A, B, C, D)
corresponding to specific performance levels, associated with the limit states provided by
the existing codes. (“Fully Operational” (FO), “Operational” (O), “Life Safety” (LS), “Near
Collapse” (NC)).
This paper validates the proposed method by applying it to 420 steel MRFs designed
using three distinct approaches. A pushover analysis is conducted for each MRF, and the
obtained results are compared with those obtained from the simplified method. Addi-
tionally, the methodology is employed in two case studies involving simulated designs
based on outdated code provisions. The accuracy of the proposed method is evaluated
through incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) performed on a collection of seven recorded
accelerograms using the OpenSees computer program. Furthermore, the results in terms of
spectral acceleration coming from the IDA analyses have been compared with those pro-
vided by the application of the proposed assessment procedure and the current European
code provisions.

2. Simplified Trilinear Non-Dimensional Pushover Curve

In this section, the simplified performance-based methodology defined and calibrated
in [25] is reported as the basis of the work herein presented. In particular, the fundamental
equations of the model are summarised and, consequently, validated through pushover
analyses.

2.1. Theory Remarks

The simplified performance-based methodology herein investigated is based on a
simplified trilinear non-dimensional pushover curve, derived as the envelope of three
branches [27]: (1) elastic branch; (2) maximum bearing capacity branch, obtained through
the calibrated Merchant-Rankine formula; and (3) mechanism equilibrium curve.
The user can reproduce a pushover or a non-dimensional pushover curve, as depicted
in Figure 1, with target points identified through mathematical relationships. The identifi-
cation of the most-prone collapse mechanism can be attained through rigid-plastic analysis.
By considering column sections and the distribution of static forces, this method yields the
determination of the first-order collapse multipliers α0 and, regarding the second-order
effects, the slopes γs of the collapse mechanism equilibrium curve for each type of potential
collapse mechanism [19,27] (Figure 2). The mechanism that will be more prone to develop
is the one corresponding to the curve characterised by the lower values of α, in the range of
displacements compatible with the local ductility resources.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19

Below
Belowareare
thethe
main equations
main of the
equations proposed
of the model,
proposed whose
model, complete
whose discussion
complete cancan
discussion
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 be be
found in [25–29]. In In
Figure 1, the most prone collapse mechanisms affecting seismic-
3 of 19
found in [25–29]. Figure 1, the most prone collapse mechanisms affecting seismic-
resistant structures
resistant areare
structures reported.
reported.

Figure
Figure 1. Trilinear
1. Trilinear approximation
approximation of of
thethe non-dimensional
non-dimensional pushover
pushover curve.
curve.
Figure 1. Trilinear approximation of the non-dimensional pushover curve.

Figure 2. Collapse
Figure mechanism
2. Collapse
Collapse of MR-Frames.
mechanism of MR-Frames.
MR-Frames.
Figure 2. mechanism of
TheThe
equations
Belowequations of the
are the main
three
of the branches
three
equations branches in the − −model,
in the
of the proposed
plane (horizontal
plane (horizontal
whose
force
complete
multiplier—
force multiplier—
discussion can
toptop
sway displacement)
sway indisplacement) are as follows:
are as follows:
be found [25–29]. In Figure 1, the most prone collapse mechanisms affecting seismic-
resistant structures are reported. 1
ℎ →ℎ → = = 1 (1)(1)
The equations of the three branches in the α − δ plane (horizontal force multiplier—top
sway displacement) are as follows:
where
where is the toptop
is the swayswaydisplacement
displacement corresponding
corresponding to the design
to the horizontal
design horizontalforces. TheThe
forces.
horizontal branch can be expressed by the
horizontal branch can be expressed by the following: 1following:
Elastic branch → α = δ (1)
ℎ →ℎ →= = = = δ1 (2)(2)
1 +1 +
where δ1 is the top sway displacement corresponding to the design horizontal forces. The
where:
where:
horizontal branch can be expressed by the following:
= =+ + =∑ = ∑ / ∑/ ∑ (3)(3)
α0
is Young’s modulus, Horizontal branch → α = moduli = of the beams and columns, re-(2)
modulus, andand areare thethe
inertia α
is Young’s inertiamax
moduli 1 +ofΨα
the
0 γbeams
s δ1 and columns, re-
spectively,
spectively,while
while andand represent represent thethelengths
lengthsof of
thethe
beams
beams andand columns,
columns, respec-
respec-
where:
tively. For the coefficient , the following relation is provided:
tively. For the coefficient , the following relation is provided: EI EIc
Ψ = a + bξ ξ = ∑ b /∑ (3)
= 0.28488 − 0.14042
= 0.28488 − 0.14042 Lb Lc (4)(4)
E is Young’s
Finally, in modulus,
accordance Ib with
and Ithe
c are the inertia analysis,
rigid-plastic moduli ofthe thefinal
beams and is
branch columns,
given byrespec-
thethe
Finally, in accordance with the rigid-plastic analysis, the final branch is given by
tively,
following: while L b and L c represent the lengths of the beams and columns, respectively. For
following:
the coefficient Ψ, the following relation is provided:

Ψ = 0.28488 − 0.14042ξ (4)

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 4 of 19

Finally, in accordance with the rigid-plastic analysis, the final branch is given by the
following:

So f tening branch → α = α0 − γs δ − δy (5)
where δy is the top sway displacement corresponding to the formation of the first plastic
hinge.
The specific performance points (A, B, C, D, see Figure 1) associated with pre-defined
limit states [30], identifying a target performance level, can be derived as follows:
• Point A—Fully Operational :

1
αA = δ (6)
δ1 A
where δA is the displacement corresponding to the minimum between the displacement in
the service conditions, and the formation of the first plastic hinge.
• Point B—Operational :

α B = αmax δB = αmax δy (7)

where αmax is the maximum multiplier [25].
• Point C—Life Safety :

α0 − αmax
αC = αmax δC = δmecc = + δy (8)
γs

• Point D—Near Collapse :

α D = αmax − γs (δD − δC ) δD = δC + ϑ p.u − ϑ p.mec H0 (9)
where ϑ p.u is the plastic hinge rotation capacity, equal 8.0 ϑy according to EN 1988-1-3 [31],
ϑy represents the chord rotation at yielding and it is defined with reference to the property
of the members [25], H0 is the collapse mechanism height. Finally, ϑ p.mec is the plastic hinge
rotation demand to attain the collapse mechanism.
An analytical formulation is reported for assessing plastic rotations in the critical
structural elements [25]. This formulation is based on a “shear-type” single-storey portal
with varying plastic moments at the column tops and bases. The derived relationships
aim to estimate the plastic rotation demand associated with the formation of the collapse
mechanism: Ψ4
ϑ p.mec H0 1 − Ψ5 γs

Ψ αmax
= 1 Ψ3 −1 (10)
ns δy Ψ2 αy 1 − Ψ6 γs
and: Ψ ′ 4
ϑ p.mec H0 Ψ′ 1 − Ψ ′ 5 γs

αmax
= ′ 1 Ψ3 −1 (11)
ns δy Ψ2 αy 1 − Ψ ′ 6 γs
In particular, the coefficient with the apex refers to the element achieving the collapse
(i.e., the critical element), with those without the apex to the element developing the
first yield. The Ψi coefficients to be used in Equations (10) and (11), are given by the
following relations:

Ψ1 = a1 + b1 nb Ψ ′ 1 = a′ 1 + b′ 1 nb
Ψ2 = a2 + b2 ns Ψ ′ 2 = a′ 2 + b′ 2 ns (12)
Ψi = ai + bi ξ i = 3, . . . , 6 Ψ i = a′ i + b′ i ξ i = 3, . . . , 6
′

where nb is the number of bays, ns is the number of storeys, while the coefficient ξ is
defined in Equation (3). The values of the parameters ai , bi a′ i , b′ i are reported in [25]
with reference to Global Moment Resisting Frames (GMRFs) designed according to TPMC,
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 5 of 19

Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRFs) designed according to EN 1998-1-1 [32], and
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames (OMRFs) designed without any requirement
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
aimed at
5 of 19
the control of collapse mechanism.

2.2. Validation
2.2. Validation
A wide comparative analysis has been performed with reference to G-, S-, and O-
A
Moment wide comparative
Resisting Frames.analysis has been
The analysis performed with
encompassed reference
140 distinct to G-, S-,configurations
geometric and O-
Moment Resisting Frames. The analysis encompassed 140 distinct geometric configura-
of low-rise frames. These variations involved adjusting the number of bays, nb from 2 to 6,
tions of low-rise frames. These variations involved adjusting the number of bays, from
the number of storeys, ns from 2 to 8, and the bay span at 3.00 m, 4.50 m, 6.00 m, and 7.50 m.
2 to 6, the number of storeys, from 2 to 8, and the bay span at 3.00 m, 4.50 m, 6.00 m,
Additionally, three different design approaches were considered for a total of 420 designed
and 7.50 m. Additionally, three different design approaches were considered for a total of 2
structures. All configurations were evaluated with dead loads (Gk ) set at 3.50 kN/m , live
420 designed structures. All configurations were evaluated with dead loads ( ) set at
loads (Q
3.50
) at 3.00 kN/m2 and an inter-storey
/ k , live loads ( ) at 3.00 /
height of 3.50 m [27].
and an inter-storey height of 3.50 m [27].
Pushovers have been carried out using
Pushovers have been carried out using the SAP2000 the SAP2000 computer
computer programprogram (v.24) [33]
(v.24) [33]
withaaload
with loadpapattern distribution
ern distribution compliant
compliant withwith the first
the first vibration
vibration mode.mode.
Beams(Figure
Beams (Figure 3) 3)
andand columns
columns (Figure
(Figure 4) have
4) have been been modelled
modelled as beam-column
as beam-column ele- el-
ements
ments with
with plastic
plastic hinges
hinges (“P-hinge”
(“P-hinge” elements)
elements) locatedlocated
at theiratends.
theirPlastic
ends.hinges
Plasticac-hinges
accounting
counting for interaction
for the the interaction
betweenbetween axialand
axial force force and bending
bending moment havemomentbeen have
defined been de-
fined
for for columns,
columns, while forwhile
beamsforthebeams the interaction
axial force axial forcehasinteraction has been
been neglected. neglected. The
The pushover
pushover
analysis hasanalysis
been ledhas beendisplacement
under led under displacement controlboth
control considering considering
geometrical both
andgeometrical
me-
chanical non-linearities.
and mechanical non-linearities.

Moment/rotation
Figure3.3.Moment/rotation
Figure model
model for beams.
for beams.

Figure
Figure4.4.Moment/rotation
Moment/rotationmodel for columns.
model for columns.
Appl.
Appl.Sci.
Sci.2024, 14, x FOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW 6 6ofof1919
Appl. Sci. 2024,
2024, 14,
14, x
1037 REVIEW
6 of 19

The
Theaccuracy
accuracyofof
accuracy the
oftheproposed
the proposed
proposed trilinear
trilinearmodel
model
trilinear modelisisdepicted
depicted ininFigures
is depicted Figures 55and
in Figures 5 6.
and 6.InIn6.
and par-
par-
In
ticular,
ticular,a comparison
a comparison
particular, between
a comparisonbetween
betweenthe results
thetheresults of the
ofofthe
results pushover
thepushover analysis
pushoveranalysis and
analysisand those
andthose derived
derivedby
those derived by
by
the
thesimplified
simplifiedapproach
simplified approachisis
approach isprovided
providedwith
provided withreference
with referencetoto
reference tothe
theprediction
the predictionofof
prediction ofdisplacements
displacements
displacements δc
and
and δD. .The
Thex-axis
x-axisdenotes
denotesthethetheoretical
theoreticalvalues
valuesobtained
obtainedby byEquations
Equations(8) (8)and
and(9),
(9),while
while
the
they-axis
y-axisrepresents
representsthe
thevalues
valuesderived
derivedby bySAP
SAP2000.
2000.

Figure
Figure5.5.Accuracy
Accuracyofofsimplified
simplifiedapproach
simplified approachininthe
theprediction
predictionofof δc.. .

Figure6.6.
Figure
Figure Accuracyofof
6.Accuracy
Accuracy ofsimplified
simplifiedapproach
simplified approachinin
approach inthe
theprediction
the predictionofof
prediction of δD. ..
By observing Figures 5 and 6, it is immediately evident that the accuracy of the
By
Byobserving
observingFigures
Figures55and
and6,6,ititisisimmediately
immediatelyevident
evidentthat
thatthe
theaccuracy
accuracyofofthe
thesim-
sim-
simplified approach is very high. In fact, in the case of δc , the mean value of the ratio
plified approach is very high. In fact, in the
plified approach is very high. In fact, in the case of case of , the mean value of the
, the mean value of the ratioratio
δC.SAP /δC.th is 0.96 with a standard deviation equal to 0.14, while, in the prediction of δD ,
. . // . . isis0.96
0.96with
withaastandard
standarddeviation
deviationequal
equaltoto0.14,
0.14,while,
while,ininthe
theprediction
predictionofof , ,
the mean value is about 0.93 with a standard deviation of 0.16.
the
themean
meanvalue
valueisisabout
about0.93
0.93with
withaastandard
standarddeviation
deviationofof0.16.
0.16.
3. Case Studies
In this section, two case studies have been analysed to evaluate the accuracy of the
simplified approach with reference to the existing buildings.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19

3. Case Studies
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 7 of 19
In this section, two case studies have been analysed to evaluate the accuracy of the
simplified approach with reference to the existing buildings.
The
Thefirst
firstbuilding
buildingisisaaMomentMomentResisting
ResistingFrame
Framebelonging
belongingtotoaafive-storey
five-storeybuilding
building
consisting
consisting of five symmetrical bays of 4.00 m in each direction. The buildingwas
of five symmetrical bays of 4.00 m in each direction. The building wasdesigned
designed
according
accordingtotoaapre-1970
pre-1970design
designcode.code.TheThereference
referencesite
sitehas
hasbeen
beenhypothesised
hypothesisedininL’Aquila
L’Aquila
(high seismic risk area in Italy ⁄ = 0.261 for
(high seismic risk area in Italy a g /g = 0.261 for a return period a return period of of
475475years), andand
years), it isit
characterised by a type B soil and a topographic category T1.
is characterised by a type B soil and a topographic category T1. The floors have been The floors have been de-
signed
designed to withstand
to withstand a variable
a variable load
load 2.00
of of kN/m
2.00 kN/mand 2 anda permanent
a permanentnon-structural
non-structuralloadload
ofof2.00 kN/m . 2The inter-storey height is 3.00 m, the thickness of
2.00 kN/m . The inter-storey height is 3.00 m, the thickness of the floors is 140 mm, the floors is 140 mm,
and
andthethetotal
totalheight
heightofofthe buildingisis15.00
thebuilding 15.00m.m.The
Theweight
weightper perunit
unitvolume
volumeofofconcrete
concreteisis
assumed to be 24.00 kN/m 3 . The beams are IPE300 sections,
assumed to be 24.00 kN/m . The beams are IPE300 sections, while the columns are HEA400 while the columns are
HEA400
sections,sections,
both of S355both of( f yS355
= 355 = 355Figure
( MPa). MPa). Figure 7a depicts
7a depicts the planimetric
the planimetric configu-of
configuration
ration of the building
the building and the and the tributary
tributary areaanalysed
area of the of the analysed frame,Figure
frame, while while Figure 7b indi-
7b indicates the
cates the designed
designed cross-sections
cross-sections and the forces.
and the seismic seismic forces.

(a)

(b)

Figure 7. Plan configuration with tributary area (a); frontal view of the frame (b).
Appl.
Appl.Sci. 2024,
Sci. 14,14,
2024, x FOR PEER
x FOR REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 8 8ofof1919

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 8 of 19

Figure 7.7.
Figure Plan configuration
Plan with
configuration tributary
with area
tributary (a);
area frontal
(a); view
frontal ofof
view the frame
the (b).
frame (b).

The
The
The secondcase
second
second case study
studyisisisananMR
casestudy MR
MRFrame
Frame
Framebelonging
belonging totoatothree-storey
belonging building,
a athree-storey as reported
building,
three-storey building, asasre-
re-
in Figure
ported in 8,
Figurewhose
8, plan
whose configuration
plan is
configurationdepicted
is in Figure
depicted in
ported in Figure 8, whose plan configuration is depicted in Figure 9a. 9a.
Figure 9a.

Figure 8. Pictures
Figure of the second case study.
Figure8.8.Pictures
Picturesofofthe
thesecond
secondcase
casestudy.
study.

(a)(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure 9.9.
Figure
Figure Plan configuration
Plan
9.Plan configuration (a);
configuration Transversal
(a);
(a); section
Transversal
Transversal ofof
section
section the
of structure
the
the (b).
structure
structure (b).
(b).

The
The
The building,
building,
building, located
located
located inAmatrice,
Amatrice,
ininAmatrice, Italy,Italy,
Italy,was was
wasbuiltbuilt
some
built some some decades
decades
decades ago, ago,
ago,beforebefore
before the
thein-the
in-
introduction
troduction of
troductionofofmodern modern
modernseismic seismic
seismicdesign design standards.
designstandards.
standards.The The building
Thebuilding
buildingwas was damaged
wasdamaged
damagedduringduring
duringthe the
the
Central
Central
Central Italy
Italy
Italy earthquakes
earthquakes
earthquakes (24 (24
(24 August
August
August 2016
2016
2016 andand
and 30
3030 October
October
October 2016).
2016).
2016). The The
The building
building
building lies
lies on
onon
lies type
type
type
B BB soil
soil in in the
the topographic
topographic category
category T1T1 [18].
[18]. TheThe building
building plan plan is is trapezoidal,
trapezoidal,
soil in the topographic category T1 [18]. The building plan is trapezoidal, measuring measuring
measuring
6.60
6.60
6.60mm m in
ininthethe
the smaller
smaller
smaller front
front
front and and
and 8.50
8.50
8.50mmm
ininin
thethe
the larger
larger
larger one.
one.
one. Itisapproximately
It Itis isapproximately
approximately 22.5
22.5
22.5mm m long.
long.
long.
TheThe inter-storey
inter-storey height
height is is variable
variable (about
(about 3.60
3.60 m),
m), asas reported
reported
The inter-storey height is variable (about 3.60 m), as reported in Figure 10. inin Figure
Figure 10.
10.
The floors have been designed to withstand a variable load of 2.00 kN/m2 and a
permanent non-structural load of 1.76 kN/m2 .
The flooring systems consist of concrete slabs on a corrugated sheet of steel with a
thickness of 10 mm. The cross-sections of the outer and inner beams are HEA160 and
HEA300, respectively, and all columns are HEA200 (Figure 9b).
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 9 of 19

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Comparison
Comparison between
between the
the Pushover
Pushover curve
curveand
andthose
thoseobtained
obtainedby
bythe
thetrilinear
trilinearmodel
modelfor
for
case study
case study 1.1.

The floors
4. Nonlinear been designed to withstand a variable load of 2.00 kN/m and a per-
haveAnalysis
Static
manent non-structural
The collapse mechanism 1.76 kN/m .curve [27] can be obtained by a rigid-plastic
load of equilibrium
Theextended
analysis flooring to systems consist effects.
second-order of concrete slabs on a corrugated sheet of steel with a
thickness ofis10necessary
First, it mm. Thetocross-sections
evaluate, for each of the outer collapse
possible and inner beams arethe
mechanism, HEA160 and
first-order
HEA300, respectively, and all columns are HEA200 (Figure 9b).
collapse multiplier α0 and the corresponding slope of the mechanism equilibrium curve γs .
The mechanism that will be activated in a field of displacements compatible with the local
4. Nonlinear
ductility Staticwill
supplies Analysis
be the one characterised by the equilibrium curve located below
the others.
The collapse mechanism equilibrium curve [27] can be obtained by a rigid-plastic
(t)
Tables
analysis 1 and 2 show
extended the results of
to second-order the first kinematic multiplier α0.im and the slope of the
effects.
First, it curve (t)
is necessary
equilibrium γim fortoeachevaluate,
failurefor each possible
mechanism collapse
according mechanism,
to the TPMC methodthe first-order
[27–30]
collapse
and multiplier
for case and the corresponding
1 and 2, respectively. In particular,slope of the
in case mechanism
study equilibrium
1, the collapse curve
mechanism
. Theaccording
occurs mechanism thatpartial
to the will befailure
activated in a fieldtype-2,
mechanism of displacements
according tocompatible with the
Figure 2, while the
local ductility supplies will be the one characterised
soft-storey mechanism, i.e., type-3 mechanism, occurs in case study 2. by the equilibrium curve located be-
low the others.
Starting from the trilinear approximation of the push-over curve, the four charac-
( )
teristic points
Tables of the
1 and structural
2 show behaviour
the results of thecurve have beenmultiplier
first kinematic identified, and .
each
and theof these
slope
points is associated with a ( )
specific limit state. They have been determined according to
of the equilibrium curve for each failure mechanism according to the TPMC method
Equations (6)–(9), and their values are reported in Table 3 with reference to
[27–30] and for case 1 and 2, respectively. In particular, in case study 1, the collapse mech-both case studies.
anism occurs according to the partial failure mechanism type-2, according to Figure 2,
Table
while1.theFirst-order
soft-storey collapse multiplier
mechanism, and
i.e., slopes
type-3 of the mechanism
mechanism, occursequilibrium
in case studycurves
2. for case
study 1.
Table 1. First-order collapse multiplier and slopes of the mechanism equilibrium curves for case
Failure Mechanisms According to TPMC
study 1.
Type-1 Type-2 Type-3
Storey im
(1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3)
α0.im γim α0.im γim α0.im
Type-1−
Type-2 −
Type-3 γim
[-] ( ) 1
[m ] ( ) [-] ( ) 1
[m (] ) [-]( ) [m−(1 ])
1 10.96 . 3.02 −1 5.04 . 0.49 −1 10.96. 3.02−1
2 6.81 [-] 1.41 [m ] 7.41 [-] [m ]
0.59 [-]
11.74 [m ]
2.59
3 1 5.6210.96 0.88 3.02 10.135.04 0.49
0.72 10.96
13.70 3.02
2.26
4 2 5.276.81 0.63 1.41 16.467.41 0.99
0.59 18.26
11.74 2.01
2.59
5 3 5.395.62 0.49 0.88 32.87
10.13 1.81
0.72 32.87
13.70 1.81
2.26
4 5.27 0.63 16.46 0.99 18.26 2.01
5 5.39 0.49 32.87 1.81 32.87 1.81
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19

Table 2. First-order collapse multiplier and slopes of the mechanism equilibrium curves for the
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 10 of 19
case study 2.

Type-1 and slopes of theType-2

Table 2. First-order collapse multiplier Type-3
mechanism equilibrium curves for the case
study 2. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
. . .
[-] [m−1] [-] [m−1]
Failure Mechanisms According to TPMC
[-] [m−1]
1 0.66 1.64 1.17 0.48 0.66 1.64
Type-1 Type-2 Type-3
Storey2im 1.27 0.77 1.80 0.61 0.96 1.43
(1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3)
3 α0.im1.33 γim 0.48 α0.im3.00 γim
1.07 α0.im
1.58 γ1.07
im
[-] [m−1 ] [-] [m−1 ] [-] [m−1 ]
1
Starting from0.66
the trilinear1.64 1.17 of the push-over
approximation 0.48 0.66the four character-
curve, 1.64
2 1.27 0.77 1.80 0.61 0.96
istic points of the structural behaviour curve have been identified, and each of these 1.43
points
3 1.33 0.48 3.00 1.07 1.58 1.07
is associated with a specific limit state. They have been determined according to Equations
(6)–(9), and their values are reported in Table 3 with reference to both case studies.
Table 3. Values of α and δ according to the simplified approach.
Table 3. Values of and according to the simplified approach.
Point A Point B Point C Point D
Case
Study αA δA αB δB αC δC αD δD
[-] [m] [-] [m] [-] [m] [-] [m]
[-] [m] [-] [m] [-] [m] [-] [m]
1 2.27 0.086 4.81 0.181 4.81 0.554 4.66 0.858
1 2.27 0.086 4.81 0.181 4.81 0.554 4.66 0.858
2 0.42 0.096 0.53 0.124 0.53 0.188 0.40 0.254
2 0.42 0.096 0.53 0.124 0.53 0.188 0.40 0.254

In
In order
order to
to evaluate
evaluate the
the accuracy
accuracy of of the
the trilinear
trilinear model
model obtained,
obtained, aa static
static nonlinear
nonlinear
analysis, or push-over, was carried out using the SAP2000 computer program
analysis, or push-over, was carried out using the SAP2000 computer program [33]. [33].
In
In Figures
Figures 10
10 and
and 11,
11, the
the non-dimensional
non-dimensional pushover
pushover curves
curves obtained
obtained by
by SAP2000
SAP2000 are
are
compared
compared with
with those
those obtained
obtained byby the
the trilinear
trilinearmodel
modeldescribed
describedin
inSection
Section3.3.

Figure 11.
Figure 11. Comparison between
between Pushover
Pushover curve
curveand
andthose
thoseobtained
obtainedby
bythe
thetrilinear
trilinearmodel
modelfor
forthe
the
case study 2.
case study 2.

5.
5. Incremental
Incremental Dynamic
Dynamic Analysis
Analysis (IDA)
(IDA)
In
In order
order to
to evaluate
evaluate the
the accuracy
accuracy of
of the
the proposed
proposed method
method in
in the
the estimation
estimation of
of the
the
spectral acceleration capacity for the presented case studies, a comparison with the results
spectral acceleration capacity for the presented case studies, a comparison with the results
obtained
obtained byby Incremental
Incremental Dynamic
Dynamic Analyses
Analyses has
has been
been reported.
reported.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 11 of 19

5.1. Evaluation of the Capacity in Terms of Spectral Acceleration by Simplified Method

After defining the trilinear model and the performance points, the transformation pro-
cedure of the multiple degrees of freedom (MDOF) system into an equivalent single degree
of freedom (SDOF) system was applied through the modal participation coefficient Γ.
Subsequently, the dynamic properties of the SDOF system, the simplified curve, and
the performance points were represented in the ADRS plan. In this way, the capacity in
terms of spectral displacements and accelerations was defined according to the “ADRS
spectrum” and Nassar and Krawinkler models [34–36].
It was, therefore, necessary to define the nondimensional eigenvectors:

ϕ = {ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 , ϕ4 , ϕ5 } ϕ = { ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 }
(13)
(Case Study1) (Case Study2)

where:
ϕk = Fk /Fns (14)
where Fk is equal to seismic force at k − th storey and Fns is the seismic force at top storey
according to EN 1998-1-1 [32]. The ϕi values are reported in Table 4 for each case study.

Table 4. Values of ϕi for each case study.

Case ϕ1 ϕ2 ϕ3 ϕ4 ϕ5
Study [-] [-] [-] [-] [-]
1 0.206 0.402 0.608 0.788 1.00
2 0.262 0.519 1.00 - -

The modal participation factor Γ is given by:

n
∑k=
s
1 m k ϕk
Γ= ns (15)
∑k=1 mk ϕ2k

where the Γ and mk values are reported in Table 5. While the dynamic parameters of the
equivalent SDOF system are shown in Table 6 according to EN 1998-1-1 [32].

Table 5. Values of Γ and mk for each case study.

Case Γ m1 m2 m3 m4 m5
Study [-] [kg·103 ] [kg·103 ] [kg·103 ] [kg·103 ] [kg·103 ]
1 1.364 60.346 60.346 60.346 60.346 60.346
2 1.331 54.234 54.234 54.234 - -

Table 6. Dynamic parameters of the equivalent SDOF systems.

Case m* k* ω* T*
Study [kg·103 ] [kN/m] [rad/s] [s]
1 181.04 8668.21 6.920 0.91
2 96.63 1152.32 3.443 1.82

Therefore, the characteristic points of the capacity curve are defined in the planes
α − δ, Fb − dc , F ∗ − D ∗ , Sa − SD assessing the capacity in terms of accelerations for Nassar
and Krawinkler approach and ADRS spectrum approach. The results based on the use of
the ADRS spectrum and the Nassar and Krawinkler formulations are reported in Tables 7
and 8 for different structural levels [33–35]. In particular, the following results are indicated:
α LS is the multiplier of seismic forces for a specific limit state (LS); FLS is base shear force
corresponding to the specific LS; δLS is the maximum displacement of the top storey
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 12 of 19

corresponding to FLS ; F ∗ is the base shear force of the equivalent SDOF system; δ∗ is
the displacement of the equivalent SDOF corresponding to F ∗ ; Sa ( T ∗ ) is the spectral
acceleration obtained by using the ADRS spectrum and for Nassar and Krawinkler approach.

Table 7. Capacity in terms of spectral acceleration and displacements according to ADRS Spectrum
and Nassar and Krawinkler approach for the case study 1.

ADRS Nassar and

MDOF Equivalent SDOF
Spectrum Krawinkler
αLS δLS FLS δ* F* Sa (T* ) Sa (T* )
Limit State
[-] [m] [kN] [m] [kN] [g] [g]
Fully operational
2.27 0.086 742.99 0.063 544.86 0.307 0.307
[FO]
Operational
4.81 0.181 1572.21 0.133 1152.96 0.649 0.649
[O]
Life Safety
4.81 0.554 1572.21 0.406 1152.96 1.983 2.040
[LS]
Near Collapse
4.66 0.858 1523.57 0.629 1117.28 3.071 3.151
[NC]

Table 8. Capacity in terms of spectral acceleration and displacements according to ADRS Spectrum
and Nassar and Krawinkler approach for the case study 2.

ADRS Nassar and

MDOF Equivalent SDOF
Spectrum Krawinkler
αLS δLS FLS δ* F* Sa (T* ) Sa (T* )
Limit State
[-] [m] [kN] [m] [kN] [g] [g]
Fully operational
0.42 0.096 115.48 0.072 86.77 0.087 0.087
[FO]
Operational
0.53 0.124 145.73 0.093 109.49 0.112 0.112
[O]
Life Safety
0.53 0.188 145.73 0.141 109.49 0.171 0.182
[LS]
Near Collapse
0.40 0.245 109.98 0.184 82.63 0.224 0.236
[NC]

5.2. Modelling in OpenSees

The numerical dynamic analyses have been performed through OpenSees (Python
version 3.5.1) [37] (Supplementary Materials File S1).
Each tcl or Python file is characterised by a precise syntax, and the structural system
model must follow the following order:
- Geometric Data: Defines the basic model and problem size for analysis, specifying
the degrees of freedom for each node.
- Nodal Coordinates: Specifies the coordinates of all nodes in the x-y-z reference system,
with the x-y plane as the working plane.
- Constraints: Establishes boundary conditions using the fix command for free or
constrained degrees of freedom. Internal constraints, such as real hinges, are inserted
using the EqualDof command.
- Materials: Defines the system’s materials utilizing constitutive laws from the uniaxial-
Material library [37].
- Sections: Defines model sections using a fibre modelling approach, creating rectangu-
lar models with discretised fibres, often with specific commands like patch rect and
wide flange.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 13 of 19

- Transformation: Defines the transformation of the reference system to account for

- Transformation:
stiffness and stresses,Defines
such as the transformation
a P-delta of the reference
transformation system effects
for second-order to account for
in cer-
stiffness and stresses,
tain structural types. such as a P-delta transformation for second-order effects in
- certain structural types.
Elements: Defines individual elements of the system, associating end nodes, sections,
- and Elements:
geometric Defines individualusing
transformations elements of the
default system, associating
commands end nodes,
like dispBeamColumn, sec-
non-
tions, and geometric transformations
LinearBeamColumn, and elasticBeam. using default commands like dispBeamColumn,
- nonLinearBeamColumn,
Loads: Specifies loads atand elasticBeam.
nodes or previously defined elements. Often includes de-
- Loads: Specifies loads at nodes or previously defined elements. Often includes
tailed steps on applying loads incrementally for nonlinear analysis, like the propor-
detailed steps on applying loads incrementally for nonlinear analysis, like the propor-
tional application of gravitational loads in multiple steps.
tional application of gravitational loads in multiple steps.
- Recorders: Defines the outputs to be saved for analysis, commonly including element
- Recorders: Defines the outputs to be saved for analysis, commonly including element
stresses and structural node displacements for data interpretation.
stresses and structural node displacements for data interpretation.
- Analysis: Sets up the solver for the system of equations, defines boundary conditions,
- Analysis: Sets up the solver for the system of equations, defines boundary conditions,
numbering of equations, degrees of freedom, convergence tests, and algorithms used
numbering of equations, degrees of freedom, convergence tests, and algorithms used
for solving nonlinear systems.
for solving nonlinear systems.
OpenSees allows performing a fibre modelling of the sections of the structural ele-
OpenSees allows performing a fibre modelling of the sections of the structural elements.
ments. It facilitates fibre modelling of structural element sections, allowing for nonlinear
It facilitates fibre modelling of structural element sections, allowing for nonlinear analyses
analyses by assigning constitutive properties to each fibre. This approach enables non-
by assigning constitutive properties to each fibre. This approach enables non-elastic be-
elastic
haviour behaviour
within thewithin the materials,
materials, as each
as each fibre fibre represents
represents a uniaxiala behaviour.
uniaxial behaviour. The
The structural
structural element is divided into control sections, employing distributed
element is divided into control sections, employing distributed plasticity, contrasting with plasticity, con-
trasting with concentrated
concentrated plasticity, whichplasticity,
focuseswhich focuses
on plastic on plastic hinges.
hinges.
Significant
Significant variations in element response occurbased
variations in element response occur basedononthe
thetype
typeofofelement
elementmod-
mod-
elling
elling used, but the effective approximation of structural behaviour is achievablewith
used, but the effective approximation of structural behaviour is achievable with
proper mesh handling.
proper mesh handling.
The
Thefibre
fibresection
sectionisisdefined
definedusing
usingthethewide
wideflange
flangecommand,
command,directly
directlyassigning
assigningthe
the
main section dimensions (Figure 12a). Elements are considered
main section dimensions (Figure 12a). Elements are considered force-based. force-based.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure12.
12.HEM
HEM300
300fibre
fibresection
section(a).
(a).Comparison
Comparisonbetween
betweenOpenSees
OpenSeesand
andSAP2000
SAP2000(b).
(b).

AA‘Steel
‘Steel02’
02’Giuffrè–Menego o–Pinto uniaxial
Giuffrè–Menegotto–Pinto uniaxialmaterial,
material,representative
representativeofofS355
S355steel
steel
grade,
grade,was
wasutilised
utilised[38,39].
[38,39].
Figure
Figure12b
12bdepicts
depictsthe
thecomparison
comparisonbetween
betweenthethestatic
staticpushover
pushovercurves
curvesobtained
obtainedfrom
from
SAP2000and
SAP2000 andOpenSees
OpenSeesforforCase
CaseStudy
Study1.1.Notably,
Notably,the
theSAP2000
SAP2000model
modelemploys
employslumped
lumped
plasticity,utilizing
plasticity, utilizingP-Hinge
P-Hinge properties.
properties. In contrast,
In contrast, Opensees
Opensees replicates
replicates the structure’s
the structure’s be-
behaviour using distributed plasticity without incorporating any material
haviour using distributed plasticity without incorporating any material hardening. hardening.

5.3.Definition
5.3. Definitionofofthe
theSet
SetReal
RealEarthquakes
Earthquakes
Thestructures,
The structures,previously
previouslydescribed,
described,have
havebeen
beensubjected
subjectedtotoseven
sevenaccelerograms,
accelerograms,
which have been opportunely chosen to assure that their average value was
which have been opportunely chosen to assure that their average value was compatible compatible
with the design response spectra provided by the Italian seismic code [40] for soil type B
and a PGA equal to 0.261 g.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 14 of 19

with the design response spectra provided by the Italian seismic code [40] for soil type B
and a PGA equal to 0.261 g.
The main features of the selected seven earthquakes are reported in Table 9, where
The main
the scaling features
factors of the selected
are selected seven
to let the earthquakes
average spectrumare
notreported
exceed ±in Table
10% 9, where
of the design
the scaling factors are
spectrum (Figure 13). selected to let the average spectrum not exceed ±10% of the design
spectrum (Figure 13).
Table 9. Selected set of earthquakes.
Table 9. Selected set of earthquakes.
PGA Length Npt ScaleFactor
Event ID
[cm/s2 ] [s] [-] [-]
Event ID
S1 GR-1995-0047 [cm/s2]
510.615 6.18 [s] [-]
7958 1.50
[-]
S7
S1 IT-2009-0009
GR-1995-0047 355.460
510.615 11.756.18 20000
7958 1.28
1.50
S7
S9 IT-2009-0009
IT-1976-0030 355.460
341.508 4.79511.75 20000
4919 1.28
0.50
S9
S13 IT-1976-0030
IT-2009-0009 341.508
644.247 7.6954.795 4919
20001 0.50
0.75
S13
S21 IT-2009-0009
EMSC-20161030 644.247
476.428 10.3957.695 20001
10000 0.75
0.63
S21 EMSC-20161030 476.428 10.395 10000 0.63
S25 IT-1980-0012 314.302 39.005 14152 0.80
S25 IT-1980-0012 314.302 39.005 14152 0.80
S26 IT-1980-0012 58.702 35.200 10602 1.50
S26 IT-1980-0012 58.702 35.200 10602 1.50

Figure
Figure13.
13.Selected
Selectedaccelerograms.
accelerograms.

5.4.Results
5.4. Results
Themaximum
The maximuminter-storey
inter-storeydrift,
drift,i.e.,
i.e.,the
theratio
ratiobetween
betweenthe
themaximum
maximumrelative
relativeinter-
inter-
storey displacement and the inter-storey height, has been evaluated as a function
storey displacement and the inter-storey height, has been evaluated as a function of the of the
peak ground acceleration (PGA) for each earthquake and intensity level.
peak ground acceleration (PGA) for each earthquake and intensity level. The rotation ca-The rotation
capacity has been set according to EN 1998-1-3 [31], and the results are reported in Table 10
pacity has been set according to EN 1998-1-3 [31], and the results are reported in Table 10
with reference to each case study and in accordance with the specific limit state.
with reference to each case study and in accordance with the specific limit state.
The MIDR provides an estimate of the maximum rotation exhibited by the members
(columns) of thecapacity
Table 10. Rotation structure. to EN 1998-1-3S[31].
The corresponding
according a /g value was evaluated for each rotation
as reported in Figure 14.
For each earthquake, the PGA/g corresponding to the achievement of the four limit
states considered was derived,Damage Limitation
and the average [DL]
value was determined. 0.0078
Given the average
PGA/g, the1corresponding spectral Significant Damagewas
acceleration [SD]derived by constructing
0.047 a specific
response spectrum in terms of accelerations.
Near Collapse [NC] 0.063
2 Damage Limitation [DL] 0.0088
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 15 of 19

Table 10. Rotation capacity according to EN 1998-1-3 [31].

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19
Case Study Limit State Rotation Capacity θc
Damage Limitation [DL] 0.0078
1 Significant
Significant Damage[SD]
Damage [SD] 0.047
0.053
Near
Near Collapse[NC]
Collapse [NC] 0.063
0.070
Damage Limitation [DL] 0.0088
The MIDR2provides an estimate of the maximum
Significant rotation exhibited 0.053
Damage [SD] by the members
(columns) of the structure. The corresponding / value was evaluated for each rotation
Near Collapse [NC] 0.070
as reported in Figure 14.

3.5

3 S1

S7
2.5
S9

2 S13
Sa/g

S21
1.5
S25

1 S26

E[MIDR-
0.5 PGA/g]

0
0 DL 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 SD 0.05 0.06 NC
MIDR

(a)

0.3

0.25 S1
S7
Rotazione plastica ultima cerniere delle travi 8ϑy 0.088225 rad 6ϑy 0.066169 rad
0.2
Rotazione plastica ultima cerniere dei pilastri 8ϑy 0.070483 rad 6ϑy 0.052862 rad
S9
Sa/g

S13
0.15
S21
0.1 S25

S26
0.05
E[MIDR-
Sa/g]
0
0 DL 0.02 0.04 SD 0.06 NC 0.08
MIDR
(b)
Figure
Figure14.
14. Sa/g
Sa/gvalue
valueevaluated
evaluatedfor
foreach
eachMIDR
MIDRlimit
limitprovided
providedby
byEN1998-1-3
EN1998-1-3[31]:
[31]:Case
Casestudy
study11 (a);
(a); Case study 2 (b).
Case study 2 (b).

For
Theeach earthquake,
accelerations theobtained
thus PGA/g corresponding
were compared to the
withachievement of the
those obtained four limit
through the
states
application of the verification procedures described in the proposed simplified average
considered was derived, and the average value was determined. Given the method,
PGA/g,
and thethe corresponding
results are shown inspectral
Tablesacceleration
11 and 12. was derived by constructing a specific re-
sponse spectrum in terms of accelerations.
The accelerations thus obtained were compared with those obtained through the ap-
plication of the verification procedures described in the proposed simplified method, and
the results are shown in Tables 11 and 12.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 16 of 19

Table 11. Comparison between IDA results and Simplified Method in terms of spectral accelerations
for case study 1.

Sa (T* )/g
θc
Limit State [rad] ADRS Nassar and
IDA
Spectrum Krawinkler
Fully operational
- 0.293 0.307 0.307
[FO]—Point A
Operational
0.0078 0.618 0.649 0.649
[O]—Point B
Life Safety
0.047 2.180 1.983 2.040
[LS]—Point C
Near Collapse
0.063 3.010 3.071 3.151
[NC]—Point D

Table 12. Comparison between IDA results and Simplified Method in terms of spectral accelerations
for case study 2.

Sa (T* )/g
θc
Limit State [rad] ADRS Nassar and
IDA
spectrum Krawinkler
Fully operational
- 0.078 0.087 0.087
[FO]—Point A
Operational
0.009 0.0892 0.112 0.112
[O]—Point B
Life Safety
0.053 0.201 0.171 0.182
[LS]—Point C
Near Collapse
0.070 0.230 0.224 0.236
[NC]—Point D

In particular, for case study 1, i.e., Table 11, there is a percentage error in the evaluation
of capacity in terms of spectral acceleration between the simplified approach and IDA
equal to +4.50% for the “Fully Operational” limit state, −3.30% for the “Operational” limit
state, −14.00% for the “Life Safety” limit state, and +2.00% for the “Near Collapse” limit
state. The simplified method, in this case, underestimates the actual capacity of the MRF
for the “Life Safety” limit state while slightly overestimating the one at the “Near Collapse”
limit state.
In case study 2, i.e., Table 12, it can be observed that the percentage error in the
evaluation of capacity in terms of spectral acceleration between the Simplified Method
and IDA is equal to +10.30% for the “Fully Operational” limit state, +19.70% for the
“Operational” limit state, −9.40% for the “Life Safety” limit state, and −2.50% for the “Near
Collapse” limit state. In other words, the simplified method underestimates the capacity in
terms of spectral acceleration for both the “Life Safety” and “Near Collapse” limits states
resulting on the safe side.

6. Conclusions
The simplified performance-based approach herein applied and validated has the
aim of assessing the seismic vulnerability of existing steel Moment Resisting Frames
(MRFs) subjected to seismic actions. The proposed methodology consists of a trilinear
approximation of the structural-behavioural curve, whose first branch is obtained through
elastic analysis, while rigid-plastic analysis, considering second-order effects, helps define
the second and third branches.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 17 of 19

In this work, the validation of the method through pushover analysis and Incremental
Dynamic Analysis (IDA), applied to a simulated design structure and a real building
whose data are available in the literature, is carried out. The pushover analyses have been
developed by the SAP2000 computer program. From the analysis of Figures 5 and 6, it is
possible to notice the high levels of precision achieved, as evidenced by the mean value of
the δSAP /δth ratios close to the unit and by the presence of points leaning against the trend
line, which is very close to the bisector.
The IDAs were executed using the OpenSees software, employing a highly accurate
fibre model that accurately reflects the behaviour of the analysed structures. This allowed
for evaluating the actual percentage error between the seismic capacity defined by the
simplified methodology and that obtained through the IDAs for each considered limit state.
The final part of the article is focused on the definition of the MIDR—Sa/g curves for
each of the 7 earthquakes considered. The comparison in terms of spectral acceleration
capacities between the simplified method and IDAs provided consistent results, with a
maximum error of +2.00% for case study 1 and −2.50% for case study 2, both for the Near
Collapse limit state.
Future developments may involve extending the methodology to medium- and high-
rise buildings or to other structural types [41] to ensure an even wider applicability of the
developed method.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14031037/s1.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.P. and R.M.; Methodology, P.T. and R.M.; Software, P.T.;
Validation, E.N., A.P. and P.T.; Formal analysis, P.T.; Investigation, E.N. and P.T.; Writing—original
draft, A.P. and P.T.; Writing—review & editing, A.P. and P.T.; Supervision, V.P. and R.M. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available in Supplementary
Materials.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mazzolani, F.M.; Piluso, V. Plastic design of seismic steel frames. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1997, 26, 167–191. [CrossRef]
2. Piluso, V.; Pisapia, A.; Castaldo, C.; Nastri, E. Probabilistic theory of plastic mechanism control for steel moment resisting frames.
Struct. Saf. 2019, 76, 95–177. [CrossRef]
3. Montuori, R.; Nastri, E.; Piluso, V.; Pisapia, A. Design procedure for failure mode control of linked column frames. Eng. Struct.
2023, 296, 116937. [CrossRef]
4. Suzuki, A.; Iervolino, I. Seismic Fragility of Code-conforming Italian Buildings Based on SDoF Approximation. J. Earthq. Eng.
2021, 25, 2873–2907. [CrossRef]
5. Yamada, S.; Miyazawa, H.; Iyama, J. Seismic performance of weak-beam-type steel low-to-middle-rise moment-resisting frame
determined by local buckling of square hollow section columns. Thin-Walled Struct. 2024, 195, 111359. [CrossRef]
6. Hou, J.; Lu, J.; Chen, S.; Li, N. Study of seismic vulnerability of steel frame structures on soft ground considering group effect.
Structures 2023, 56, 104934. [CrossRef]
7. Ruggieri, S.; Chatzidaki, A.; Vamvatsikos, D.; Uva, G. Reduced-order models for the seismic assessment of plan-irregular low-rise
frame buildings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2022, 51, 3327–3346. [CrossRef]
8. van der Burg, L.; Kohrangi, M.; Vamvatsikos, D.; Bazzurro, P. A risk-based evaluation of direct displacement-based design. Bull.
Earthq. Eng. 2022, 20, 6611–6633. [CrossRef]
9. Tsarpalis, D.; Vamvatsikos, D.; Vayas, I. Seismic assessment approaches for mass-dominant sliding contents: The case of storage
racks. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2022, 51, 812–831. [CrossRef]
10. Liguori, F.S.; Madeo, A.; Formisano, A. Seismic vulnerability of industrial steel structures with masonry infills using a numerical
approach. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2023. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 18 of 19

11. Landolfo, R.; Formisano, A.; Di Lorenzo, G.; Di Filippo, A. Classification of European building stock in technological and
typological classes. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 45, 103482. [CrossRef]
12. Silva, A.; Macedo, L.; Monteiro, R.; Castro, J.M. Earthquake-induced loss assessment of steel buildings designed to Eurocode 8.
Eng. Struct. 2020, 208, 110244. [CrossRef]
13. Cheng, S.; He, H.; Sun, H.; Cheng, Y. Rapid recovery strategy for seismic performance of seismic-damaged structures considering
imperfect repair and seismic resilience. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 82, 108422. [CrossRef]
14. Hickey, J.; Broderick, B. Loss impact factors for lifetime seismic loss assessment of steel concentrically braced frames designed to
EC8. J. Struct. Int. Maint. 2019, 4, 110–122. [CrossRef]
15. Yang, K.; Tan, P.; Chen, H.; Li, J.; Tan, J. Prediction of nonlinear seismic demand of inter-story isolated systems using improved
multi-modal pushover analysis procedures. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 82, 108322. [CrossRef]
16. Prota, A.; Tartaglia, R.; Di Lorenzo, G.; Landolfo, R. Seismic strengthening of isolated RC framed structures through orthogonal
steel exoskeleton: Bidirectional non-linear analyses. Eng. Struct. 2024, 302, 117496. [CrossRef]
17. Mohammadgholipour, A.; Billah, A.M. Performance-based plastic design and seismic fragility assessment for chevron braced
steel frames considering aftershock effects. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2024, 178, 108440. [CrossRef]
18. Macedo, L.; Castro, J.M. Collapse performance assessment of steel moment frames designed to Eurocode 8. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2020,
126, 105445. [CrossRef]
19. Montuori, R.; Nastri, E.; Piluso, V. Theory of plastic mechanism control: A new approach for the optimization of seismic resistant
steel frames. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2022, 51, 3598–3619. [CrossRef]
20. Kalapodis, N.A.; Muho, E.V.; Qian, J.; Zhou, Y. Assessment of seismic inelastic displacement profiles of steel MRFs by means of
modal behavior factors. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2023, 175, 108218. [CrossRef]
21. Kim, J.; Sause, R. Design concepts for avoiding story mechanism in steel MRFs under seismic loading. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.
2023, 52, 750–775. [CrossRef]
22. Huang, Z.; Cai, L.; Pandey, Y.; Tao, Y.; Telone, W. Hysteresis effect on earthquake risk assessment of moment resisting frame
structures. Eng. Struct. 2021, 242, 112532. [CrossRef]
23. Maddah, M.M.; Eshghi, S.; Garakaninezhad, A. A new optimized performance-based methodology for seismic collapse capacity
assessment of moment resisting frames. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2022, 82, 667–678.
24. Baltzopoulos, G.; Grella, A.; Iervolino, I. Seismic reliability implied by behavior-factor-based design. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.
2021, 50, 4076–4096. [CrossRef]
25. Petruzzelli, F.; Iervolino, I. NODE: A large-scale seismic risk prioritization tool for Italy based on nominal structural performance.
Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 19, 2763–2796. [CrossRef]
26. El Jisir, H.; Kohrangi, M.; Lignos, D.G. Proposed nonlinear macro-model for seismic risk assessment of composite-steel moment
resisting frames. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2022, 51, 1180–1200. [CrossRef]
27. Montuori, R.; Nastri, E.; Piluso, V.; Todisco, P. A simplified performance based approach for the evaluation of seismic performances
of steel frames. Eng. Struct. 2020, 224, 111222. [CrossRef]
28. Montuori, R.; Nastri, E.; Piluso, V.; Todisco, P. Evaluation of the seismic capacity of existing moment resisting frames by a
simplified approach: Examples and numerical application. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2594. [CrossRef]
29. Montuori, R.; Nastri, E.; Piluso, V.; Todisco, P. Simplified approach for the seismic assessment of Existing X shaped CBFs: Example
and numerical applications. J. Comp. Sci. 2022, 6, 62. [CrossRef]
30. Montuori, R.; Nastri, E.; Piluso, V.; Todisco, P. Performance-based rules for the simplified assessment of steel CBFs. J. Constr. Steel
Res. 2022, 191, 107167. [CrossRef]
31. EN 1998-1-3; Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings. European
Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
32. EN 1998-1-1; Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
33. SAP2000, version 24; Structural and Earthquake Engineering Software; Computer & Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2024.
Available online: https://www.csi-italia.eu/(accessed on 22 January 2024).
34. Nassar, A.A.; Krawinkler, H. Seismic Demands for SDOF and MDOF Systems; Technical Report 95; John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Stanford Digital Repository: Stanford, CA, USA, 1991.
35. Gupta, A.; Krawinkler, H. Seismic Demands for Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frames Structures; Technical Report
132; John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford Digital Repository: Stanford, CA, USA, 1999.
36. Fajfar, P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq. Spec. 2000, 16, 573–592. [CrossRef]
37. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre; University of
Berkeley: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1999; Available online: https://opensees.berkeley.edu/ (accessed on 22 January 2024).
38. Filippou, F.C.; Popov, E.P.; Bertero, V.V. Effects of Bond Deterioration on Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Joints; Report EERC
83-19; Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1983.
39. Nguyen, V.T.; Nguyen, X.D. Optimal Procedure for Determining Constitutive Parameters of Giuffrè–Menegotto–Pinto Model for
Steel Based on Experimental Results. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2022, 22, 851–863. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1037 19 of 19

40. European Commission. DM 17.01.2018: New Technical Code for Constructions; Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports: Rome,
Italy, 2018.
41. Meng, B.; Xiong, Y.; Zhong, W.; Duan, S.; Li, H. Progressive collapse behaviour of composite substructure with large rectangular
beam-web openings. Eng. Struct. 2023, 295, 116861. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.