Comparative Seismic Assessment of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames Using Real and Artificial Spectrum-Matched Records under Multiple Soil Conditions

Abstract

This study investigates the seismic response of steel moment-resisting frames (MRFs) using linear time-history analysis (LTHA) to evaluate the influence of real and artificial spectrum-matched ground-motion records under multiple soil conditions. Three archetype buildings—3-, 9-, and 20-story—were modeled according to the SAC Steel Project (FEMA 355-C Appendix B) and analyzed using SAP2000® to assess their comparative performance under different spectral inputs. The analysis employed three types of seismic spectra: The Elastic Spectrum (ES), Reduced Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC-2018) Spectrum, and Reduced ASCE Spectrum across four local soil classes (ZA–ZD). A total of 252 earthquake ground motions, including real and artificial records, were used. The results revealed that artificial records achieved smoother spectral compatibility and more stable base shear predictions, whereas real records induced higher variability owing to their natural frequency content and phase characteristics. This divergence was most significant in softer soils (ZC and ZD), with base shear variations of up to ±35%. The findings highlight the need to integrate both record types into seismic assessments and contribute to the advancement of performance-based earthquake engineering approaches.

Keywords

• Steel MRFs
• Seismic performance
• Spectrum matching
• Time-history analysis
• Soil classification

References

1. Z. Celep, Introduction to Earthquake Engineering and Earthquake-Resistant Structural Design, Istanbul, Turkey: Beta Publishing, 2022.
2. Specifications for Buildings to be Built in Seismic Areas (Turkish Earthquake Code), TEC-2007, Ankara, Turkey, 2007.
3. Turkish Building Earthquake Code, TEC-2018, Ankara, Turkey, 2018.
4. B. Borzi, G. M. Calvi, A. S. Elnashai, E. Faccioli, and J. J. Bommer, "Inelastic spectra for displacement-based seismic design," Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 47–61, Jan. 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0267-7261(00)00075-0. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(00)00075-0
5. A. K. Chopra and R. K. Goel, "A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings," Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 561–582, Mar. 2002, doi: 10.1002/eqe.144. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.144
6. A. K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson Education, 2007.
7. A. K. Chopra, "Elastic response spectrum: a historical note, " Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3–20, Jan. 2007, doi: 10.1002/eqe.609. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.609
8. R. Riddell, "Inelastic response spectrum: Early history," Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1175–1187, Jul. 2008, doi: 10.1002/eqe.810. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.810

9. M. Safar and A. Ghobarah, "Inelastic response spectrum for simplified deformation-based seismic vulnerability assessment," J. Earthq. Eng., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 222–248, Mar. 2008, doi: 10.1080/13632460701457272. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460701457272
10. M. Zamora and R. Riddell, "Elastic and inelastic response spectra considering near-fault effects," J. Earthq. Eng., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 775–808, May 2011. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2011.555058. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2011.555058
11. A. K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2012.
12. D. Ozturk and K. B. Bozdogan, "Nonlinear analysis of structures using inelastic spectrum," Int. J. Technol. Sci., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 49–55, Sep. 2013. [Online]. Available: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/utbd/article/273657
13. Specifications for Buildings to be Built in Seismic Areas (Turkish Earthquake Code), TEC-1975, Ankara, Turkey, 1975.
14. Specifications for Buildings to be Built in Seismic Areas (Turkish Earthquake Code), TEC-1998, Ankara, Turkey, 1998.
15. Istanbul Seismic Design Code for Tall Buildings, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Istanbul, Turkey, 2008.
16. Handbook to the Uniform Building Code: An Illustrative Commentary, Whittier, CA, USA: International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1994.
17. Uniform Building Code, vol. 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Int. Conf. of Building Officials (ICBO), Whittier, CA, USA, 1997.
18. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, EN 1998-1, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
19. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Part 1: Provisions, FEMA 222A, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
20. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Part 2: Commentary, FEMA 223A, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
21. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Part 1: Provisions, FEMA 302, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
22. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Part 2: Commentary, FEMA 303, Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
23. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-98, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, USA, 1998.
24. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-02, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, USA, 2003.
25. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, USA, 2006.
26. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, USA, 2010.
27. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, USA, 2017.
28. International Building Code, International Code Council (ICC), Falls Church, VA, USA, 2000.
29. An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region, Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008.
30. S. Etli and E. M. Güneysi, "Assessment of seismic behavior factor of code-designed steel–concrete composite buildings," Arab. J. Sci. Eng., vol. 46, pp. 4271–4292, May 2021, doi: 10.1007/s13369-020-04913-9. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-04913-9
31. S. Etli and M. Akgül, "Comparative analysis of composite buildings produced in national and international standards," Gazi J. Eng. Sci., GJES, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 183–199, Aug. 2023. doi: 10.30855/gmbd.0705063. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.30855/gmbd.0705063
32. S. Etli, "Performance evaluation of steel–concrete composite structures designed in poorly graded soils," Rev. Constr., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 259–270, Aug. 2023. doi: 10.7764/RDLC.22.2.259. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.7764/RDLC.22.2.259
33. Computers and Structures, Inc., SAP2000—Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures: Basic Analysis Reference Manual, Version 14, Berkeley, CA, USA, Aug. 2010.
34. N. M. Newmark, "A method of computation for structural dynamics," J. Eng. Mech. Div., vol. 85, no. EM3, pp. 67–94, July 1959.
35. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-22, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, USA, 2022.
36. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-23, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, USA, 2023.
37. M. S. Beauregard and A. S. Budge, Eds., Geotechnical Frontiers 2025: Geotechnical Infrastructure, GSP No. 363. Reston, VA, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2025.
38. D. T. Cook, A. B. Liel, and A. Safiey, "Earthquake functional recovery in modern reinforced concrete buildings," J. Struct. Eng., vol. 150, no. 9, Jul. 2024. doi: 10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-12904. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-12904
39. G. Xu, T. Guo, A.-Q. Li, T. Zhou, and C. Shuang, "Seismic performance of steel frame structures with novel self-centering beams: Shaking-table tests and numerical analysis," J. Struct. Eng., vol. 151, no. 3, Jan. 2025. doi: 10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-13516. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-13516
40. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), Turkey Earthquake Hazard Map, Ankara, Türkiye, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.afad.gov.tr
41. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), Turkey Earthquake Hazard Map Update, Ankara, Türkiye, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.afad.gov.tr
42. R. P. Dhakal, “Structural design for earthquake resistance: Past, present and future,” in Structural Engineering and Geomechanics, vol. II. Oxford, UK: EOLSS Publishers, 2010.
43. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), State-of-the-Art Report on Systems Performance of Steel Moment Frames Subject to Earthquake Ground Shaking, FEMA 355C, Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
44. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-16, Chicago, IL, USA, 2016.
45. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), PEER Ground Motion Database, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu
46. E. Kalkan and A. K. Chopra, “Practical guidelines to select and scale earthquake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures,” U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Rep. 2010–1068, Reston, VA, USA, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1068/
47. J. Hancock and J. J. Bommer, “Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 291–299, Apr. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.09.004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.09.004
48. J. Hancock, J. Watson-Lamprey, N. A. Abrahamson, J. J. Bommer, A. Markatis, E. McCoyh, and R. Mendis, "An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets," J. Earthq. Eng., vol. 10, no. sup001, pp. 67–89, Sep. 2006. doi: 10.1080/13632460609350629. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460609350629
49. D. N. Grant, "Response spectral matching of two horizontal ground-motion components," J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, vol. 137, no. 3, pp. 289–298, Mar. 2011, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000227. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000227
50. L. Al Atik and N. A. Abrahamson, “An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 601–617, Aug. 2010. doi: 10.1193/1.3459159. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3459159
51. NIST, Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses, NIST GCR 11-917-15, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2011.
52. M. Kulak, "Linear time-history analysis of steel structures and the effect of spectrum-matching parameters," M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., Eskisehir Technical Univ., Eskisehir, Türkiye, 2019.
53. C. Goulet, Y. Bozorgnia, N. Abrahamson, N. Kuehn, L. Al Atik, R. Youngs, and R. Graves, "NGA-East Final Report: Central and Eastern North America Ground-Motion Characterization," PEER Rep. 2018/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://peer.berkeley.edu/news/new-peer-report-201808-central-and-eastern-north-america-ground-motion-characterization-nga
54. Seismosoft, "SeismoArtif v2023, Release 1: Build 1," Seismosoft Srl, Pavia, Italy, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.seismosoft.com
55. V. Manfredi, A. Masi, A. G. Özcebe, et al., "Selection and spectral matching of recorded ground motions for seismic fragility analyses," Bull. Earthquake Eng., vol. 20, pp. 4961–4987, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s10518-022-01393-0. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01393-0
56. A. V. Papageorgiou and C. J. Gantes, “Equivalent uniform damping ratios for linear irregularly damped concrete/steel mixed structures,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 418–430, Mar. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.09.010. Online. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.09.010