Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
A direct displacement-based seismic design procedure of inelastic
structures
Qiang Xue
*
Civil and Hydraulic Engineering Research Center, Sinotech Engineering Consultants Inc., 171 Nanking East Road, Sec. 5, Taipei 105, Taiwan,
ROC
Received 18 September 2000; received in revised form 26 April 2001; accepted 27 April 2001
Abstract
This paper presents a simple but efcient displacement-based seismic design procedure, which does not involve a substitute
structure assuming a linear behavior and a viscous damping equivalent to the non-linear response. It is based on the formulations
derived from the capacity-spectrum method using NewmarkHall reduction factors for the inelastic demand spectrum. When apply-
ing such approach for a new design, no spectrum is needed to plot. From the derived formulations, the close relationship between
the target displacement and the stiffness, ductility and strength demands of the structures are clearly shown. Multiple performance
objectives can be considered easily in such a preliminary design procedure and it can be extended to MDOF systems adopting the
idea of effective SDOF systems. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Displacement-based seismic design; Capacity-spectrum method; Performance-based design
1. Introduction
In the development of performance-based earthquake
engineering [1], which stresses the inelastic behavior of
structural systems under severe earthquake ground
motions, displacement rather than force has been recog-
nized as the most suitable and direct performance or
damage indicator. Deformation controlled design [2] can
be achieved either by using the traditional force/strength
based design procedure together with a check on the
displacement/drift limit or by employing a direct dis-
placement based design procedure.
The idea of displacement based design was introduced
about 40 years ago. Gulkan and Sozen [3] developed the
concept of substitute structure to estimate the nonlinear
structural response through an equivalent elastic model
assuming a linear behavior and a viscous damping equi-
valent to the non-linear response. This idea has been
adopted recently by Kowalsky et al. [4] for a direct dis-
placement design of SDOF reinforced concrete struc-
tures and by Priestley et al. [5] for both SDOF and
* Tel.: +886-2-2769-2131 ext. 20208; fax: +886-2-2765-5010.
E-mail address: qxue@sinotech.org.tw (Q. Xue).
0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0141- 0296( 01) 00048- 7
MDOF bridges and buildings starting from a target peak
displacement. Another displacement-based procedure for
MDOF bridge structures, particularly suitable for sym-
metric bridges, has also been proposed by Calvi and
Kingsley [6]. An equal displacement based design
(EBD) procedure was introduced by Court and Kowal-
sky [7] for buildings with longer periods based on the
equal displacement rule noted by Newmark and Hall [8].
Qi and Moehle [9] proposed a displacement-based pro-
cedure for MDOF systems with the requirement of pre-
liminary design and further modication of the design
according to the displacement or drift limit. While Wal-
lace [10], Sasani and Anderson [11], Bachman and
Dazio [12] focus on wall systems, Panagiotakos and
Fardis [13] implemented an overall performance-based
deformation controlled design of MDOF RC structures
subjected to both seismic and non-seismic actions.
Another direct displacement-based design approach was
proposed by Fajfar [14] based on the capacity spectrum
method [1518]. This approach is a reversing procedure
of the so-called N2 method to determine the seismic
demand.
In all of the above references, seismic demand is
specied as either a displacement spectrum (DT format)
or an acceleration displacement response spectrum (A
1454 Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460
D format). For a general purpose spectrum, nonlinear
inelastic behavior of a structural system can be
accounted for either by an equivalent elastic response
spectrum [19] or an inelastic response spectrum [2,20
22]. The former is associated with effective viscous
damping x
eff
and the latter is directly constructed based
on relations between reduction factors and ductility.
Although the elastic acceleration design spectrum is
available from codes, it is not appropriate to be a basis
for the determination of the elastic displacement design
spectrum because the resulted displacement increases
with the period even at longer periods. The reasonable
feature of the elastic displacement design spectra is
under investigation [23,24] and is not the focus of this
paper.
In this paper, the equivalent elastic model of the sub-
stitute structure is not employed. The proposed pro-
cedure for SDOF system is based on some simplied
formulations derived from the ADRS format spectrum
employing NewmarkHall reduction factors based on
the capacity spectrum method. The close relationship
between the target displacement under certain ground
motion and the stiffness, ductility and strength demands
of the structure is clearly highlighted. This procedure can
be applied to MDOF systems employing the idea of
effective SDOF systems [5,14,25].
2. A non-iterative capacity-spectrum method
The iterative capacity-spectrum procedure has been
discussed in detail in ATC-40 [19] and by Freeman [17].
Such iterative procedure may be unnecessary in
determining the seismic response when using the
numerical version of inelastic response spectrum [16] or
other methods. In this section, a non-iterative procedure
regardless of the type of response spectrum (equivalent
elastic or inelastic) is also formulated.
2.1. Formulation of the diagram reduction factors
Based on Newmark and Hall [8] studies, response
spectra can be enveloped by a plot with three distinct
ranges: a constant peak spectral acceleration (PSA), con-
stant peak spectral velocity (PSV) and constant peak
spectral displacement (PSD). The response spectra can
be plotted in various formats such as spectral acceler-
ation versus period (AT) format, spectral velocity ver-
sus period (VT) format, spectral displacement versus
period (DT) format and spectral acceleration versus
spectral displacement (AD) format. The AD format is
termed ADRS by Maheney et al. [15] or capacity-
demand-diagram by Chopra and Goel [16]. For elastic
systems, the transformation among these formats can be
easily obtained through the relationship
A

2
T

2
D

2
T

V.
For inelastic systems, the constant-ductility design
diagram (AD format) is established by multiplying the
elastic design spectrum (AT format) by appropriate
reduction factors to obtain the inelastic [8] or equivalent
elastic [19] design spectrum (AT format) and transform
to AD format [16]. We dene that such reduction fac-
tors are spectral reduction factors (SR
A
, SR
V
and SR
D
).
The subscriptions A, V and D indicate the constant spec-
tral acceleration, velocity and displacement range. Revis-
ing the procedure, in this paper, the inelastic constant-
ductility design diagram (AD format) is constructed by
transforming the elastic design spectrum (AT format)
to elastic design diagram (AD format) and multiplied
by the corresponding diagram reduction factors (SR
AD
,
SR
VD
and SR
DD
). Notice that in building code or guide-
lines such as ATC-40, only the constant acceleration and
velocity ranges are indicated and no spectrum reduction
is suggested in the constant displacement range for a
better evaluation of the displacement response based on
the equal displacement rule. It is easy to nd that the
diagram reduction factors and spectral reduction factors
are identical for the (equivalent) elastic system (Fig. 1).
In this section, the diagram reduction factors for the
inelastic system are formulated.
Considering an elastic SDOF system, the reduced or
equivalent elastic design diagrams with various damping
can be constructed based on a basic elastic design dia-
gram (e.g. 5% damped elastic design diagram) using
reduction factors SR
AD
, SR
VD
and SR
DD
as shown in Fig.
1. Notice that the diagram and spectral reduction factors
are identical for elastic systems. From Fig. 1, we have
T
c

SR
VD
SR
AD
T
c

SR
V
SR
A
T
c
(1)
T
d

SR
DD
SR
VD
T
d

SR
D
SR
V
T
d
(2)
Fig. 1. (Reduced) equivalent elastic design diagram.
1455 Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460
with c and c are the intersection points where constant
spectral acceleration region meets the constant spectral
velocity region in the basic and reduced elastic design
diagrams, respectively. We also obtain
A
c
A
c
SR
AD
A
c
SR
A
(3)
D
c

T
c
2p
PSVSR
VD

T
c
2
PSV
SR
VD
2
SR
AD
D
c
(4)

SR
VD
2
SR
AD
D
c

SR
V
2
SR
A
D
d
SR
DD
PSDSR
D
PSD (5)
where PSA, PSV and PSD are the constant peak spectral
acceleration, velocity and displacement of the 5%
damped elastic design spectrum, respectively.
For an inelastic SDOF system, with the denition of
D
y
and A
y
in Ref. [26, section 7.5], the A
y
D
y
diagram
(dashed segments b*cde in Fig. 2) of the inelastic
system is consistent with the AD diagram of the equiv-
alent elastic system as shown in Fig. 1. Notice that
T
c
T
c
in Fig. 1 since SR
V
SR
A
for the equivalent elas-
tic system in ATC-40 while T
c
T
c
in Fig. 2 since the
NewmarkHall inelastic spectrum reduction factor
1/m=SR
V
SR
A
=1/2m1 for m1. The A
y
D
y
diagram
is thus established based on the 5% damped elastic
design diagram and the diagram reduction factors, which
are the same as the spectral reduction factors. Finally,
the corresponding A
y
D diagram (D=mD
y
) is plotted in
the same gure as segments b*c*d*e*. From this
gure and substituting Eqs. (3)(5), we get
A
c

A
c
A
c
SR
A
(6)
D
c

mD
c
m
SR
V
2
SR
A
D
c
(7)
D
d

mD
d
mSR
D
PSD (8)
Mapping the segments b*c*d*e* in Fig. 2 with seg-
Fig. 2. Inelastic design diagram.
ments bcde in Fig. 1 using the new reduction
factors SR
AD
, SR
VD
and SR
DD
accordingly, and referring
to Eqs. (3)(5), we obtain that
A
c

A
c
SR
AD
(9)
D
c

D
c

SR
VD
2
SR
AD
(10)
D
d
SR
DD
PSD (11)
Comparing Eqs. (6)(8) with Eqs. (9)(11), respect-
ively, yields
SR
AD
SR
A
(12)
SR
VD
mSR
V
(13)
SR
DD
mSR
D
(14)
Thus, inelastic design diagram in Fig. 2 can be con-
structed in one step as the reduced equivalent elastic
design diagram in Fig. 1. In another words, the inelastic
design diagram and the equivalent elastic design diagram
can be constructed in the same way by using the
developed diagram reduction factor (Eqs. (12)(14)) for
the inelastic design diagram and the spectrum reduction
factor for the equivalent elastic spectra (Fig. 1).
Next, we try to dene the intersection points b*, c*
and d* in Fig. 2. According to Ref. [26],
T
b

T
b
(15)
Consider that c* in Fig. 2 is consistent with c in Fig.
1, we rewrite Eq. (1) by using the diagram reduction
factor SR
VD
instead of SR
V
and substituting Eq. (13).
Thus,
T
c

SR
VD
SR
A
T
c

mSR
V
SR
A
T
c
(16)
Eq. (8) leads to

T
d

2
A
yFd

T
d
2

2
A
yFd
(17)
From Fig. 2 and by substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (17),
we have
T
d

mT
d
m
SR
D
SR
V
T
d
(18)
Thus, the inelastic design diagram in Fig. 2 can now
be established in the same way as the equivalent elastic
design diagram (Fig. 1) using the developed diagram
reduction factors (Eqs. (12)(14)) instead.
2.2. The non-iterative procedure
In the capacity-spectrum procedure, the capacity curve
of an inelastic system is usually obtained from a non-
1456 Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460
linear static pushover analysis and represented by a bi-
linear force-displacement model (base-shear versus top
displacement for MDOF systems) and also transformed
to AD format (Fig. 3(a)). The post-yield stiffness ratio
is r. The yielding point is denoted as (A
ye
, D
ye
). The
displacement ductility ratio at the nal performance
point P is m
P
. Thus, the displacement at the performance
point is given.
D
P
m
P
D
ye
(19)
And the spectral acceleration at the performance point
A
P
A
ye
(rm
P
r1) (20)
The demand diagram for the inelastic system passing the
performance point is assumed constructed directly from
the elastic design diagram with the diagram reduction
Fig. 3. The performance point from a non-iterative capacity-spec-
trum method.
factors SR
AD
, SR
VD
, and SR
DD
as discussed above. We
have,
A
P
SR
VD

2
T
P

PSV (21)
D
P

T
P
2

2
SR
VD

2
T
P

PSV

T
P
2

SR
VD
(22)
PSV
From Eqs. (19) and (22), the ductility ratio at the per-
formance point is derived as
m
P

T
P
2

SR
VD
PSV/D
ye
(23)
From Eqs. (20) and (21)
T
P

SR
VD
2PSV
A
ye
(rm
P
r+1)
(24)
Substituting Eq. (24) in Eq. (23) leads to
m
P

SR
VD
2
PSV
2
D
ye
A
ye
(rm
P
r+1)
(25)
Based on Eq. (13) and NewmarkHall spectrum
reduction factor that SR
VD
=m
P
SR
V
=m
P
/m
P
, Eq. (25) is
re-written as
m
2
P
(rm
P
r1)
PSV
2
D
ye
A
ye
(26)
from which the displacement at the performance point
D
P
is evaluated through Eq. (19). For an elasto-plastic
system (r=0), Eq. (26) becomes even simpler as
m
P

PSV
D
ye
A
ye
(27)
Substituting this equation to Eq. (19) gives
D
P
PSV

D
ye
A
ye
(28)
Based on the concept of equivalent static force employed
in earthquake engineering, for SDOF systems, Eq. (28)
can be re-written as
D
P
PSV

D
ye
M
V
ye
PSV

M
K
0
PSV
T
0
2
(29)
where V
ye
, M, K
0
and T
0
are the yielding strength (design
base-shear), lumped mass, initial stiffness and natural
period of the structure.
For the case shown in Fig. 3(b)
PSASR
AD
A
P
A
ye
(rm
P
r1) (30)
Based on NewmarkHall spectrum reduction factors
SR
AD
=SR
A
=1/2m
P
1, we have
1457 Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460
(rm
P
r1)2m
P
1
PSA
A
ye
(31)
For an elasto-plastic system (r=0), Eq. (31) is further
simplied as
m
P

(PSA/A
ye
)
2
+1
2
(32)
Substituting this equation in Eq. (19) gives
D
P

(PSA/A
ye
)
2
+1
2
D
ye
(33)
Eqs. (26) and (31) suggested that the performance/target
displacement, the yielding strength and the yielding dis-
placement be closely related. In another word, the target
displacement is closely related to the yielding strength,
the displacement ductility and stiffness of the structures
and the elastic design spectra for the design seismic
ground motions on site.
3. A simple displacement-based design procedure
for SDOF systems
In the direct displacement-based design, revising the
above procedure, we start with the target displacement
to provide adequate stiffness, strength and ductility of
a structure. The procedure presented here is for SDOF
systems and can be implemented to MDOF systems
adopting the idea of effective SDOF systems [5,14,25].
Step 1: Specifying the target displacement D
P
, the
constant peak spectral acceleration PSA, constant
peak spectral velocity PSV and T
c
shown in Fig. 1 or
Fig. 2 of the elastic design spectrum.
Step 2: Assuming the post-yield stiffness ratio r, usu-
ally taken as 0.05 and either the ductility ratio m
P
or
the yield displacement D
ye
.
Step 3: Calculate the yield displacement D
ye
(if m
P
is
assumed in step 2) or the ductility ratio m
P
(if D
ye
is
assumed in step 2) from Eq. (19).
Step 4: Calculate the spectral acceleration at yielding
A
ye
from Eqs. (26) and (31)) denoted as A
1
ye
and A
2
ye
, respectively.
Step 5: Calculate T
c*
according to Eq. (16). In
addition, calculate T
P
1
according to Eq. (24) with A
ye
being equal to A
1
ye
in step 4.
Step 6: If T
1
P
T
c

, A
ye
=A
1
ye
; otherwise A
ye
=A
2
ye
.
Step 7: The design base-shear or required yielding
strength of the system V
ye
=A
ye
M, where M is the
lumped mass.
Step 8: The required structural stiffness or period of
the structure can be estimated easily through
K
0

V
ye
D
ye
and T
0
2

M
K
0
.
Step 9: Calculate the member force, e.g. for SDOF
systems, design moment M
ye
=V
ye
L, where L is the
column height.
Step 10: Design the member size and reinforcement
based on the required stiffness and strengths.
Notice that Step 5 is necessary to distinguish the case
shown in Fig. 3(a) from that in Fig. 3(b) to determine
the yielding strength in Step 6.
It is interesting to see easily from Eq. (29) that for an
elastic-perfect plastic SDOF system, the required initial
stiffness or period of the structure can be estimated
directly based on the selected target displacement. Then
assuming various displacement ductility ratio would
results in different required design strength. This means
that for a given target displacement limit, multiple
design results exists. In the proposed procedure, the
assumption of the m
P
can be based either on the structural
system and material used or on the life time
cost/benet studies.
The application of the proposed procedure is veried
through the 6 systems in Chopra and Goel [16] and the
short-period structure in Fajfar [14]. The results are
presented in Table 1.
4. A simple displacement-based design procedure
for MDOF systems
The procedure can be implemented to MDOF systems
adopting the idea of equivalent SDOF systems [5,14,25].
Detailed transformation between the response of MDOF
systems and that of equivalent SDOF systems can be
found in these references and is thus not provided here-
with. Nevertheless, the present procedure is also veried
in Table 2 through the MDOF system examined in Fajfar
[14]. In Table 2, the calculated equivalent mass
m

=217.44(t) and participating factor PF=1.336.

After the yielding force V
ye
has been determined, the
level of seismic-equivalent static lateral force for which
members have to be designed is calculated by the
expression
F
i

m
i

m
i

i
V
ye
The member forces can be evaluated by conventional
structural analysis and members can be designed accord-
ingly.
The proposed procedure can be easily implemented
into an overall performance-based design procedure with
multiple performance objectives quantitatively described
as various target displacements under different intensity
of ground motions represented by their corresponding
elastic spectra. The required stiffness and strength for
each objective can be easily calculated through the pro-
1458 Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460
T
a
b
l
e
1
D
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
b
y
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
(
n
o
t
e
:
T
P
1

T
c
*
,
A
y
e
=
A
y
e
2
;
T
P
1

T
c
*
,
A
y
e
=
A
y
e
1
)
R
e
f
.
[
1
6
]
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
m
o
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
i
o
d
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
S
y
s
.
n
o
.
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
t
y
i
e
l
d
i
n
g
s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l
a
c
c
.
v
a
l
u
e
D
t
(
c
m
)
D
y
e
(
c
m
)
r
P
S
A
(
g
)
P
S
V
(
c
m
/
s
)
T
c
(
s
)
m
A
y
e
2
(
m
/
s
2
)
A
y
e
1
(
m
/
s
2
)
T
P
1
(
s
)
T
c
*
(
s
)
A
y
e
(
g
)
A
y
e
(
g
)
1
2
2
.
2
9
3
.
7
2
0
2
.
7
1
2
8
0
.
4
2
0
.
6
6
5
.
9
9
8
0
1
.
3
7
5
8
8
.
7
8
1
.
2
2
0
.
8
9
0
.
6
0
0
.
6
0
2
2
2
.
2
9
5
.
5
8
0
2
.
7
1
2
8
0
.
4
2
0
.
6
6
3
.
9
9
1
0
0
4
.
6
0
8
8
3
.
1
7
1
.
0
0
0
.
8
7
0
.
9
0
0
.
9
0
3
1
9
.
3
9
9
.
7
0
0
2
.
7
1
2
8
0
.
4
2
0
.
6
6
2
.
0
0
1
5
3
3
.
4
5
2
0
2
7
.
9
2
0
.
6
1
0
.
8
1
1
.
5
6
1
.
5
6
4
4
4
.
6
4
7
.
4
4
0
2
.
7
1
2
8
0
.
4
2
0
.
6
6
6
.
0
0
8
0
0
.
7
7
2
9
3
.
5
9
2
.
4
5
0
.
8
9
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
0
5
4
4
.
6
4
1
1
.
1
6
0
2
.
7
1
2
8
0
.
4
2
0
.
6
6
4
.
0
0
1
0
0
3
.
8
0
4
4
0
.
3
7
2
.
0
0
0
.
8
7
0
.
4
5
0
.
4
5
6
4
4
.
6
4
2
2
.
3
2
0
2
.
7
1
2
8
0
.
4
2
0
.
6
6
2
.
0
0
1
5
3
3
.
3
7
8
8
0
.
7
9
1
.
4
1
0
.
8
1
0
.
9
0
0
.
9
0
D
t
(
c
m
)
m
r
P
S
A
(
g
)
P
S
V
(
m
/
s
)
T
c
(
s
)
D
y
e
(
c
m
)
A
y
e
2
(
m
/
s
2
)
A
y
e
1
(
m
/
s
2
)
T
P
1
(
s
)
T
c
*
(
s
)
A
y
e
(
g
)
A
y
e
(
g
)
R
e
f
.
[
1
4
]
0
.
0
5
6
5
0
1
.
5
1
.
4
0
4
0
.
6
1
.
1
2
4
.
9
0
7
.
0
4
0
.
5
6
0
.
8
1
0
.
5
0
0
.
5
0
1459 Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460
T
a
b
l
e
2
D
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
a
f
o
u
r
-
s
t
o
r
y
R
C
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
F
a
j
f
a
r
[
1
4
]
y
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
m
e
t
h
o
d
(
n
o
t
e
:
T
P
1

T
c
*
,
A
*
y
e
=
A
*
y
e
1
;
x
*
t
=
x
t
,
t
/
P
F
,
Q
*
y
=
m
*

A
*
y
e
,
V
y
=
P
F

Q
*
y
)
T
a
r
g
e
t
(
t
o
p
)
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
Y
i
e
l
d
i
n
g
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l
P
e
r
i
o
d
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
E
S
D
O
F
)
g
r
o
u
n
d
m
o
t
i
o
n
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
t
(
E
S
D
O
F
)
a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
(
E
S
D
O
F
)
y
i
e
l
d
i
n
g
(
E
S
D
O
F
)
a
t
y
i
e
l
d
i
n
g
(
M
D
O
F
)
(
E
S
D
O
F
)
(
M
D
O
F
)
(
E
S
D
O
F
)
(
E
S
D
O
F
)
(
M
D
O
F
)
A
*
y
e
2
A
*
y
e
1
x
t
,
t
(
m
)
x
*
t
(
m
)
m
r
P
S
A
(
g
)
P
S
V
(
m
/
s
)
T
c
(
s
)
x
*
y
(
m
)
T
P
1
(
s
)
T
c
*
(
s
)
A
*
y
e
(
g
)
Q
*
y
e
(
K
N
)
V
y
e
(
K
N
)
V
y
e
(
k
N
)
(
m
/
s
2
)
(
m
/
s
2
)
0
.
2
3
7
0
.
1
7
7
2
.
9
0
9
0
1
.
5
1
.
4
0
4
0
.
6
0
.
0
6
6
.
7
0
3
.
8
3
1
.
3
5
0
.
7
7
2
0
.
3
9
8
3
2
.
8
1
1
1
2
.
6
5
1
1
1
2
1460 Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460
posed procedure. The objective with the largest stiffness
and strength requirements is the most critical and the
corresponding section and reinforcement can be adopted
for further design verications. Thus, multiple perform-
ance objectives can be considered in a simple manner
during the preliminary design.
5. Conclusions
A direct displacement-based design procedure has
been formulated based on a non-iterative capacity-spec-
trum method without the linear approximation of hyster-
etic behavior as in the substitute structure method. In the
non-iterative capacity-method, a close relationship
between the target displacement and the stiffness, duc-
tility and strength demand of the structure is found based
on the diagram reduction factors derived from the New-
markHall inelastic spectrum. In the application of the
displacement-based design procedure, given the target
displacement and the elastic design spectrum, the
required stiffness and strength of a structure can be
evaluated numerically with the assumption of ductility
ratio and post-yielding stiffness ratio. The inuence of
strain hardening of the structural system is considered.
No spectrum is needed to plot. This procedure can be
easily implemented to consider multiple performance
objectives in the preliminary design phase of the per-
formance-based seismic design procedures.
References
[1] Krawinkler H. Advancing performance-based earthquake engin-
eering. http://peer.berkeley.edu/news/1999jan/advance.html,
1999.
[2] Fajfar P, Krawinkler H. Seismic design methodologies for the
next generation of codes. In: Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Seismic Design Methodologies for The Next Gen-
eration of Codes, Balkema (Rotterdam), 1997.
[3] Gulkan P, Sozen M. Inelastic response of reinforced concrete
structures to earthquake motions. ACI J 1974;71(12):60410.
[4] Kowalsky MJ, Priestley MJN, MacRae GA. Displacement-based
design, a methodology for seismic design applied to single degree
of freedom reinforced concrete structures. Report No. SSRP-
94/16. Structural Systems Research, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, California, 1994.
[5] Priestley MJN, Kowalsky MJ, Ranzo G, Benzoni G. Preliminary
development of direct displacement-based design for multi-
degree of freedom systems. In: Proceedings of the 65th Annual
Convention, SEAOC, Maui, Hawaii, 1996.
[6] Calvi GM, Kingsley GR. Displacement-based seismic design of
multi-degree-of-freedom bridge structures. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dynamics 1995;24(9):124766.
[7] Court AB, Kowalsky MJ. Performance-based engineering of
buildings a displacement design approach. Structural Engin-
eering World Wide, SEAOC, Paper No. T109-1, 1998.
[8] Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Earthquake spectra and design. Berke-
ley: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1982.
[9] Qi X, Moehle JP. Displacement design approach for reinforced
concrete structures subjected to earthquakes. Report No.
UCB/EERC-91/02. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, 1991.
[10] Wallace JW. Seismic design of RC structural walls. Part I: new
code format, Part II: applications. J Struct Eng ASCE
1995;121(1):75100.
[11] Sasani M, Anderson JG. Displacement-based design versus force-
based design for structural walls. In: Proceedings of the 11th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mex-
ico, 1996.
[12] Bachmann H, Dazio A. A deformation-based seismic design pro-
cedure for structural wall buildings. Seismic Design Method-
ologies for the Next Generation of Codes. In: Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Seismic Design Methodologies for the
Next Generation of Codes, 1997:15970.
[13] Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Deformation-controlled earth-
quake-resistant design of RC buildings. J Earthquake Eng
1999;3(4):495518.
[14] Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand
spectra. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynamics 1999;28:97993.
[15] Mahaney JA, Paret TF, Kehoe BE, Freeman SA. The capacity
spectrum method for evaluating structural response during the
Loma Prieta earthquake. National Earthquake Conference,
Memphis, 1993.
[16] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacity-demand-diagram methods for
estimating seismic deformation of inelastic structures: SDF sys-
tems. Report No. PEER-1999/02. Pacic Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, April 1999.
[17] Freeman SA. Development and use of capacity spectrum method.
In: Proceedings of the 6th US National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Seattle, EERI, Oakland, California, 1998.
[18] Reinhorn AM. Inelastic analysis techniques in seismic evalu-
ations. In: Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Gener-
ation of Codes, Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes,
Balkema, Rotterdam, 1997, p. 27787.
[19] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrot of concrete buildings,
vol. 1. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City
(California), 1996.
[20] Krawinkler H, Nassar AA. Seismic design based on ductility and
cumulative damage demands and capacities. In: Fajfar P, Kraw-
inkler H, editors. Nonlinear seismic analysis and deisgn of
reinforced concrete buildings. New York: Elsevier Applied
Science, 1992.
[21] Miranda E, Bertero VV. Evaluation of strength reduction factors
for earthquake-resistant design. Earthquake Spectra
1994;10:35779.
[22] Vidic T, Fajfar P, Fischinger M. Consistent inelastic design spec-
tra: strength and displacement. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynamics
1994;23:50721.
[23] Bommer JJ, Elnashai AS. Displacement spectra for seismic
design. J Earthquake Eng 1999;3(1):132.
[24] Tolis SV, Faccioli E. Displacement design spectra. J Earthquake
Eng 1999;3(1):10725.
[25] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and conc of a pushover
analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Eng Struct
1998;20(4-6):45264.
[26] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures, theory and application to
earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1995.