Impact of Force‐Based, Performance‐Based, and Performance‐Based Plastic Design and Ground Motion Records on Deviation of Engineering Demand Parameters in Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures

Performance‐based design (PBD) is widely seen as a superior alternative to force‐based design (FBD), yet no standard procedure exists for its implementation. In contrast, performance‐based plastic design (PBPD) has emerged as a theoretically robust and user‐friendly design method. This study examines how varying design methods and ground motion (GM) selections impact engineering demand parameters (EDPs). The analysis includes 5, 10, 15, and 20‐story model structures designed using FBD, PBD, and PBPD approaches. Nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA) confirms that all designs meet ASCE 7‐22 standards. However, economic costs increase significantly with the number of stories, especially for PBPD. Changing the GM set used in NRHA results in notable deviations in EDPs, with larger variability observed in FBD and PBD compared to PBPD. Despite the theoretical advantages of PBD, it shows no consistent improvement in performance indicators over FBD. The study highlights that the absence of a standardized PBD procedure can compromise structural performance. Although PBPD offers a promising design framework, it requires further calibration to be effectively applied to high‐rise buildings.