Seismic Design Based on the Yield

Displacement

Mark Aschheim,a) M.EERI

Although seismic design traditionally has focused on period as a primary

design parameter, relatively simple arguments, examples, and observations
discussed herein suggest that the yield displacement is a more stable and
more useful parameter for seismic design. The stability of the yield displace-
ment is illustrated with four detailed examples, consisting of moment-
resistant frame buildings. Each frame is designed to limit roof drift for a spe-
cific ground motion using an ‘‘equivalent’’ SDOF model in conjunction with
Yield Point Spectra. The effectiveness of the simple design method is estab-
lished by nonlinear dynamic analysis. Yield displacements were stable and
consistent while the fundamental periods of vibration (and lateral stiffness)
required to meet the performance objective differed substantially.
[DOI: 10.1193/1.1516754]

INTRODUCTION
Since the introduction of the response spectrum by Benioff (1934) and Biot (1941) it
has become second nature to think of the seismic design task in terms of the fundamen-
tal period of vibration of a structure. Contemporary and traditional design approaches
rely upon the fundamental period of vibration of the structure to determine the required
strength (or stiffness) for the design level seismic actions. This use of the fundamental
period of vibration is based on the premise that it may be estimated given the initial
structural concept and dimensions of the structure. This paper develops the idea that the
yield displacement is a more natural and more useful parameter to use in the seismic
design of structures responding nonlinearly.
The use of period as a fundamental design parameter draws directly from the equa-
tion of motion for linear elastic response, for which the peak displacement, Sd , is a func-
tion of the period of vibration, T. Because T⫽2␲(m/k)0.5, structures of varied heights
(Figure 1) having the same ratio of mass, m, and stiffness, k, all have the same peak
displacement. The period of vibration is useful for characterizing the peak response of
an infinite variety of systems (such as those in Figure 1) whose response is linear elastic.
Although many formulas and design procedures are based on the idea that the period
of vibration of the structure can be estimated early in the design process, the reality is
that the period of vibration may vary significantly as the initial design concept is refined
into the final product, particularly if the lateral strength and stiffness must be adjusted to

a)
Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois, 2118 Newmark Laboratory, 205 N. Mathews, Urbana,
IL 61801

581
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 18, No. 4, pages 581–600, November 2002; © 2002, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
582 M. ASCHHEIM

Figure 1. The systems above all have the same period. Their response histories and peak dis-
placement responses are identical, provided that response is linear elastic.

satisfy precisely defined performance objectives. The difficulty of accurately estimating

the period of vibration of the final design is apparent in the work of Chopra and Goel
(2000), who examined a large number of buildings in California.
Alternatives to the period of vibration are available for proportioning structures for
seismic actions. This paper describes a technique in which the yield displacement of the
structure is used to determine the base shear strength required to satisfy one or more
performance objectives. In this design approach, the period of the structure is seen to be
a consequence of decisions made in the design process to achieve a desired seismic per-
formance; its value is unknown at the beginning of the design process and is not needed.
In principle, either period or yield displacement may be used for design. Demands
can be represented as a function of either parameter, using traditional (period-based) re-
sponse spectra or Yield Point Spectra. The yield displacement can be estimated accu-
rately early in the design process and is relatively stable. While period-based approaches
were adequate in the past, the stability of the yield displacement is noteworthy now that
seismic performance expectations are being defined with greater precision (e.g., FEMA
273, ATC 1997; SEAOC 1999).

DESIGN AND THE KINEMATICS OF YIELD

While analysis often is necessary for design, the design process is fundamentally dif-
ferent from analysis. A structural system must be conceived before its properties may be
assessed. In the usual case, the geometry of the structure is established by other design
professionals and is not easily modified. The structural engineer may have one or several
structural systems in mind. Materials to be used (e.g., steel and concrete) are largely
determined by market forces, which dictate what may be obtained economically. Ap-
proximate member depths can be established early in the design process. Most of the
subsequent effort is directed at proportioning the members of the structural system to
have sufficient strength to satisfy the load combinations specified in the building code,
sufficient stiffness to satisfy code provisions for interstory drifts, and appropriate details
SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT 583

Figure 2. An axially excited bar has the force, strain, and displacement distributions shown.
Increasing the cross-sectional area of the bar increases its strength and stiffness; the yield dis-
placement of the bar depend on the yield strain of the material.

for structural integrity and ductile behavior. Member depths and spans usually deviate
little throughout the design effort from the values initially assumed, even as member
strengths and stiffnesses are adjusted to satisfy code requirements. The design context is
such that the layout of the structure, member depths, and material properties envisioned
at the start of the design process typically will change little in the development of the
final design. The choices available to designers operating in this context are illustrated in
the following examples.

EXAMPLE 1: AXIAL RESPONSE OF A BAR

The first example illustrates the essence of the seismic design problem in a very
simple form, although the physical form may be unfamiliar. A member having a prede-
termined length is to be designed to resist an earthquake, with the earthquake causing
only axial loads to develop over the length of the member (Figure 2). Mass is located
only at the top of the structure. Grade 50 steel (fy⫽345 MPa) is to be used. The strains
that result from inertial forces are uniform over the length of the member, resulting in
the displacements shown. This displacement profile is the only mode of deformation that
may develop and thus is the predominant mode of response. A capacity curve may be
determined by nonlinear static analysis. Forces are applied proportional to the mass and
the displacement at the top of the member, resulting in the capacity curves shown in
Figure 2 for different cross-sectional areas. The cross-sectional area of the member de-
termines its strength and stiffness, but the yield displacement (⌬y) is constant because
the steel yield strain and predominant mode shape are independent of the strength pro-
vided to the system. Note that the yield strain, yield displacement, and predominant
mode shape are easily determined at the start of the design. The engineer’s latitude is in
selecting the cross-sectional area of the member to achieve acceptable performance. If
the engineer should choose to limit the peak ductility (␮) and peak displacement (⌬u
⫽␮⌬y) responses, the required strength is easily determined using the Yield Point Spec-
tra representation of demand, described later in this paper.
584 M. ASCHHEIM

Figure 3. Idealized moment-curvature response of (a) steel and (b) reinforced concrete sec-
tions, illustrating the relative stability of the yield curvature with changes in steel area, for con-
stant section depth.

EXAMPLE 2: FLEXURAL RESPONSE OF CANTILEVER BEAMS AND WALLS

The second example considers the flexural response of cantilevered steel and rein-
forced concrete beams. Mass is assumed to be located only at the tips of the cantilevers.
Based on the moment diagram, overall yielding of the beams will commence when the
sections closest to the support yield. For the steel beam, the yield curvature (Figure 3a)
is given by ␾y⫽␧y /(d/2), where ␧y=the yield strain of the steel and d=the depth of the
section. For the concrete beam (Figure 3b), ␾y⫽␧y /(d⫺kd), where d=the depth to the
tension steel and kd=the depth to the neutral axis. For both beams, the yield displace-
ment is governed by yielding of the steel, and its value is given by ⌬y⫽␾yL2/3, where
L=cantilever span. It is apparent that the yield displacement is a function of the beam
geometry and the yield strain of the steel. For a steel beam of a given depth and grade of
steel, the yield displacement is independent of the strength of the beam. For the concrete
beam, changes in longitudinal reinforcement have a small effect on the depth of the
compression zone, and this has a minor influence on the yield curvature and yield dis-
placement. These observations are fundamental and have been reported by others (e.g.,
Priestley 2000).
The previous discussion relating to the reinforced concrete beam also applies to a
cantilevered structural wall, shown in Figure 4. A lateral force applied to the top of the
SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT 585

Figure 4. Idealized response of a slender reinforced concrete structural wall.

wall is associated with inertial forces that develop when the mass at the top of the wall
is excited. To calculate the displacement at the top of the wall when the reinforcement at
the base of the wall yields requires knowledge of the geometry of the wall and grade of
reinforcement. As for the reinforced concrete beam, a cantilever wall loaded at its tip has
yield displacement given by ⌬y⫽␾yH2/3, where H⫽the height of the wall. The curvature
of the wall at first yielding of the extreme longitudinal reinforcement is given by ␾y
⫽␧y /(Lw⫺kd), where Lw⫽the length of the wall and kd⫽the depth of the neutral axis.
For relatively light axial loads and low longitudinal steel ratios, the denominator often
may be estimated as about 0.8Lw . As the curvature increases, yielding spreads to inter-
mediate reinforcing bars. A curvature representing this state may be estimated as ␾y
⫽(1.8 to 2)␧y /Lw according to Priestley and Kowalsky (1998) and Paulay (2002) for
walls of rectangular cross section with axial loads less than about 0.15Ag f ⬘c , where Ag
⫽the gross cross-sectional area of the wall and f c⬘⫽the concrete compressive strength.
Both expressions for ␾y indicate that the yield curvature is a function of the overall di-
mensions of the wall and the yield strain of the steel, and is largely independent of the
flexural strength provided to the wall.
Idealized capacity curves (plotting the shear force developed at the base of the wall
versus the displacement at the top of the wall) are presented in Figure 4 for different
longitudinal reinforcement contents. As in the previous examples, changing the strength
of the wall by changing the steel content has a significant effect on the strength and
stiffness of the wall. Given the wall geometry and grade of reinforcing steel, the only
option available to the engineer is to determine the amount of longitudinal steel neces-
sary to provide sufficient strength to the wall so that its seismic performance is accept-
able. Yield Point Spectra are useful for this task if performance is indexed by the duc-
tility and drift responses of the wall. The wall reinforcement and wall thickness may then
be determined. Minor changes in yield displacement associated with the final detailing
of the wall usually are not of significance.
The example of Figure 4 may be extended to include multiple floors. Now, the pre-
dominant mode shape should reflect the development of lateral forces at multiple floor
levels. A Rayleigh approach may be used to identify the first mode shape. This mode
shape depends on the distribution of strength (and stiffness) throughout the wall height,
586 M. ASCHHEIM

but is independent of the absolute strength of the wall. Experience suggests that approxi-
mate mode shapes are adequate for design purposes, and the elastic deflected shape ob-
tained by applying a typical code distribution of lateral force over the height of the
building often will suffice. Applying this approach with a triangular distribution of lat-
eral forces (following the Uniform Building Code [ICBO 1997]) for cases in which mass
is uniformly distributed results in an estimate of the roof displacement at yield of

11
⌬y ⫽ ␾y H 2 (1)
40
where H⫽the height of the wall. Using established procedures (e.g., ATC 40, ATC
1996), the yield displacement of an ‘‘equivalent’’ single-degree-of-freedom (ESDOF)
structure may be determined based on the deflected shape and mass distribution. The
yield curvature of the wall, the deflected shape, and the distribution of mass in the struc-
ture can be estimated accurately at the start of the design and are insensitive to the
strength provided to the wall. This assumes that the distribution of strength and stiffness
provided to the structure results in a predominant mode of response that is consistent
with the deflected shape assumed in design. This requirement is not onerous; rather, it is
naturally satisfied if the engineer prescribes the way the structure will respond to an
earthquake by making intelligent choices in the design of the structure.
As in the previous examples, the engineer may seek to determine the lateral strength
required to limit system ductility and drift responses to acceptable values. The required
strength may be determined using Yield Point Spectra based on an estimate of the yield
displacement, as described by Tjhin et al. (2002). This estimate is based on quantities
established at the start of the design (the height of the structure, the length (Lw) of the
wall, the yield strain of the material, the distribution of mass, and the deflected shape
associated with the predominant mode of response); the yield displacement will vary
little as the initial structural concept is refined into the final design.

EXAMPLE 3: MOMENT-RESISTANT FRAMES

A typical perimeter moment-resistant frame building will have relatively small tribu-
tary gravity loads if located in a relatively high seismic region. This results in antisym-
metric beam moment diagrams that place the largest flexural demands on the beams
nearest the columns, similar to the cantilever beams of Example 2. The elastic mode
shape depends on the distribution of stiffness and mass throughout the structure. If the
column strengths are proportioned such that a predominantly beam-hinging mechanism
develops, then the displacement response usually is represented adequately by the first
elastic mode shape. The elastic mode shape is independent of the absolute values of
strength and stiffness provided to the structure; only the relative distributions of strength
and stiffness matter, and these are the province of the engineer.
The yield displacement of the system is largely determined by yielding of the beams.
The yield displacement of the beams depends on their spans, member depths, and ma-
terial properties. The displacement of the roof when the beams yield depends on the pre-
dominant mode shape and is affected by the stiffness of the columns. As for the case of
structural walls, sufficient precision may be obtained by assuming the predominant
SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT 587

mode to be equal to the first elastic mode shape and then estimating this shape. Based
on fairly simple assumptions, one may derive an approximate expression for estimating
the yield displacement of regular steel moment-resistant frames:

⌬y ␧y
⫽ 冉
h
⫹
2L
H 6 dcolCOF dbm 冊 (2)

where ⌬y=the estimated roof displacement at yield, H=the height of the building, ␧y=the
yield strain of the steel, L=the beam span, h=story height, dbm=the beam depth, dcol=the
column depth, and COF=the column overstrength factor. In general, the member and
story properties to be used in Equation 2 should be representative of the frame. The col-
umn overstrength factor (COF) should be selected to ensure that a first-mode response is
dominant; that is, weak story mechanisms must be precluded. For typical configurations,
the term associated with the beam flexibility is dominant, and variations of COF within
reasonable limits (perhaps 1.2 to 1.5) have little effect on the yield displacement esti-
mate. Even if experience should suggest refinements to Equation 2, its position here
serves to emphasize that the yield displacement may be estimated based only on geom-
etry, material properties, and simple parameters relating the strengths or stiffnesses of
the beams and columns.
The remainder of the paper draws on empirical data focusing on the response of
moment-resistant frames, although the underlying logic is fundamental and is more gen-
erally applicable, as suggested by the previous discussion.

THE STABILITY OF FRAME YIELD DISPLACEMENTS

Figure 5 shows the capacity curves obtained for two moment-resistant frames, each
four stories in height with three bays and having the same nominal geometry and mem-
ber depths. The weights of the member cross sections were varied between the two
frames in order to change the lateral strength. The nonlinear static analysis was con-
ducted by applying lateral forces proportional to the mode shape amplitude and mass at
each floor level. Bilinear curves were fitted to the resulting capacity curves to identify
the yield displacement of each structure. The yield displacements are seen to be nearly
invariant (about 0.75% of the height), although the strengths and stiffnesses of the two
frames differ considerably. Given that A36 steel was used for the frames, the yield dis-
placement estimated with Equation 2 is 0.74% of the height. (Had Grade 50 steel been
used, a yield drift of 0.75% (50/36)=1.04% would be expected for this frame. This value
lies in the range of 1 to 1.2% that often brackets the yield drifts observed in nonlinear
static analyses of steel moment-resistant frames.)
The preceding example illustrates the stability of the yield displacement as the lat-
eral strength was changed for a frame having a fixed geometry. Frames of varied heights
are now considered. Gupta and Kunnath (2000) report the capacity curves obtained us-
ing three pushover techniques applied to 4-, 8-, 12-, and 20-story buildings having re-
inforced concrete moment-resistant frames along each column line. Each building has
the same nominal floor plan, with 12-ft. (3.7 m) story heights and 24-ft (7.3 m) column
spacings. The designs were based on the 1988 Uniform Building Code, with Rw⫽12 and
Z⫽0.4, but using the effective stiffnesses (corresponding to first yield) recommended by
588 M. ASCHHEIM

Figure 5. Capacity curves determined by nonlinear static (pushover) analysis for two four-story
moment-resistant steel frames, each having three bays. The frames have the same nominal sec-
tion depths; the weights of the sections were changed to change the lateral strength. The yield
displacement is nearly constant even though the strengths, stiffnesses, and periods of vibration
of the frames differed substantially. (From Black and Aschheim, 2000.)

FEMA 273 (ATC 1997). The fundamental periods of vibration computed for the build-
ings, after design, were 0.90, 1.75, 2.21, and 3.31 sec, respectively. The capacity curves
obtained using different pushover techniques are plotted in Figure 6. The thick dashed
line represents a bilinear approximation to the capacity curves obtained using the FEMA
273 pushover technique, in which lateral forces are determined as a function of the
period-dependent exponent, k, given by Equation 3-8 of that document. The yield drifts
corresponding to the bilinear curves of Figure 6 are approximately 0.6, 0.6, 0.5, and
0.5%, respectively, for the four frames. It would be feasible to design any of these struc-
tures assuming the yield displacement to be about 0.5 or 0.6% of the building height.
Given the apparent stability of the yield drift (with changes in strength and changes
in the number of stories) and the claim that it may be estimated accurately early in the
design process, one may wonder if it even is necessary to determine the period of vi-
bration in order to carry out a seismic design. The design of four moment-resistant
frames to limit peak drift and ductility responses is described later in the paper. The pro-
cedure used for their design and the representation of ground motion demands using
Yield Point Spectra are described next.

YIELD POINT SPECTRA

A designer wishing to determine the strength required to limit the peak ductility and
drift responses of the structure may do so using Yield Point Spectra (YPS). In essence,
YPS are constant ductility spectra plotted on the axes of yield strength coefficient and
yield displacement, for a range of oscillator periods and for a specified load-deformation
relationship. The yield strength of the SDOF system, Vy , is normalized by its weight, W,
to obtain the yield strength coefficient, Cy . Figure 7 plots values of Cy versus the yield
SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT 589

Figure 6. Capacity curves presented by Gupta and Kunnath (2000) for 4-, 8-, 12-, and 20-story
reinforced concrete frames designed to satisfy the 1988 Uniform Building Code. Dashed lines
indicate response computed using the FEMA 273/274 procedure for nonlinear static analysis.
Yield drifts were inferred, and range between 0.5 and 0.6% regardless of the number of stories.
Fundamental periods of vibration vary between 0.90 and 3.31 sec.

displacement ⌬y for displacement ductilities ␮=1, 2, 4, and 8, for a bilinear load-

deformation response having post-yield stiffness equal to 5% of the initial stiffness
and viscous damping equal to 5% of critical damping. The classic 1940 NS El Centro
record is used in this example. When YPS are plotted using linear scales, periods are
constant along radial lines that emanate from the origin; values are indicated (in sec-
onds). Peak displacements ⌬u of the SDOF systems relative to the ground are given by
␮⌬y , where the value of ␮ may be estimated by interpolating between the curves of con-
stant ductility.
Superimposed on the YPS of Figure 7 is a capacity curve for a SDOF system. The
yield displacement is equal to about 4 cm and the yield coefficient is about 0.18, result-
ing in the yield point being located on the ␮=2 curve. This indicates that the peak dis-
placement will be twice the yield displacement, or about 8 cm. If either the drift or duc-
tility responses exceed limiting values associated with a performance objective, the
lateral strength may be increased. If the yield displacement is constant, additional
strength will reduce the ductility demand and the associated peak displacement response
of the structure.
The curves shown in Figure 7 are computed for a specific ground motion record.
Alternately, smoothed YPS may be used for design purposes. For example, a smoothed
590 M. ASCHHEIM

Figure 7. Yield Point Spectra computed for the 1940 NS El Centro record. The response of a
system with yield displacement equal to approximately 4 cm, yield strength coefficient equal to
about 0.18, and period equal to 1 s is shown. The yield point falls on the ␮⫽2 curve, indicating
that the peak displacement is twice the yield displacement.

elastic design spectrum may be coupled with a smoothed R-␮-T relationship to deter-
mine the strengths required for constant ductility responses. This follows the same idea
expressed by Chopra and Goel (1999) and Fajfar (1999) for improving the seminal Ca-
pacity Spectrum Method (Freeman 1978), from which all of these representations are
derived. In the case of Yield Point Spectra, the yield displacement is plotted on the ab-
scissa, while the other representations explicitly plot the peak displacement. The author’s
preference for YPS derives in part from the directness with which the strength required
to limit drift and ductility responses to acceptable values may be determined. In short,
the yield displacement is a property of the structure; the ductility demands (and peak
displacement response) associated with a yield strength coefficient are properties of the
hazard. The computation of YPS for specific ground motion records can be made using
the computer program USEE 2001 (Inel et al. 2001). A more complete description of
this representation is given by Aschheim and Black (2000).

SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON YIELD DISPLACEMENT

Black and Aschheim (2000) developed and implemented a simple seismic design
procedure for determining the strength required to limit peak ductility and drift de-
mands. One begins with an estimated value of the yield displacement. This estimate may
be made based on experience, a previous nonlinear static analysis, or explicit formulas
that consider the framing system, geometry, yield strain, and an approximate mode
shape. The design base shear strength may be determined using this procedure in place
of the code base shear strength provisions, and the remainder of the design can follow
the provisions of a building code. In the present implementation, design and response
are computed at design strength levels; any service level gravity loads present in the
nonlinear static and dynamic analyses are therefore used for determining the moments
used for the design of the beams. The sequence of steps is as follows:
SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT 591

Step 1: Estimate the yield displacement that would be observed in a nonlinear static
(pushover) analysis of the building when responding in its predominant mode. In the
four examples that follow, the yield displacement is estimated to be 0.75% of the height,
based on a yield strength f y⫽36 ksi (250 MPa).
Step 2: Based on the performance objectives, determine the allowable ductility for
the system. This is the minimum of (1) the system ductility limit associated with limiting
structural damage at the performance level, and (2) the ratio of the drift limit associated
with limiting nonstructural damage at the performance level and the yield drift estimated
in Step 1.
Step 3: Estimate values of the terms ⌫1 (modal participation factor) and ␣1 (mass
participation factor) based on an assumed mode shape and distribution of mass. The
mode shape is normalized to have unit amplitude at the roof. Estimate the yield displace-
ment of the equivalent SDOF system as ⌬y /⌫1 . Experience indicates that reasonable ap-
proximations of the mode shape are adequate for design purposes. Values of these modal
parameters can be calculated for various mode shapes; tabulated results are available for
the case of uniform mass in Abrams (1985) and Black and Aschheim (2000).
Step 4: Enter the YPS with the estimated ESDOF yield displacement and the allow-
able ductility (determined in Steps 2 and 3); read off the required yield strength coeffi-
cient, Cy . The required base shear coefficient for the building is ␣1Cy .
Step 5: Distribute the base shear over the height of the building and design the build-
ing according to the equivalent static lateral force procedure of a modern building code.
Black and Aschheim (2000) used the UBC (ICBO 1997) lateral force distribution for
design of the beams and employed additional criteria for sizing the columns to ensure
that weak story mechanisms did not result.
If multiple performance objectives are to be considered, Steps 2 and 4 are repeated
for each performance objective, and design of the members (Step 5) continues with the
largest of the base shear coefficients determined in Step 4.
The most direct approach to verify the adequacy of a design is to compute the elastic
mode shapes and the capacity curve (by nonlinear static analysis) to verify that the yield
displacement and yield coefficient of the equivalent SDOF structure are consistent with
those assumed in design. If they should differ and it appears that the performance ob-
jective will not be satisfied, a more accurate value of the required base shear coefficient
can be determined by repeating Step 4, with the computed yield displacement and modal
parameters used in place of the estimated values.
In the work by Black and Aschheim (2000) an alternate approach was used, which
did away with the need for nonlinear static analysis. The determination of an Admissible
Design Region (Aschheim and Black 2000) identifies families of equivalent SDOF sys-
tems (having different periods of vibration) that just satisfy the performance objectives.
The yield point of an equivalent SDOF system is defined by three quantities (of which
only two are independent): yield displacement, yield strength, and elastic stiffness. The
procedure outlined in Steps 1 through 5 identifies one of the many equivalent SDOF
systems that satisfies the performance objective. The structure may be designed to con-
form to the properties of this particular equivalent SDOF system (identified in Steps 1
592 M. ASCHHEIM

through 5) using elastic analysis alone, by focusing on the period of the MDOF system
designed using the design base shear obtained from Step 5. If the fundamental period
should deviate from the period of the equivalent SDOF system, member sizes are then
refined to shift the period to match that of the equivalent SDOF system, without reduc-
ing member strengths. As a final check, the mass participation factor (␣1) is recomputed
for the current elastic mode shape to verify that the beam strengths are adequate for the
base shear computed using the current value of ␣1 .
This alternate procedure was employed in the design of the four frames reported in
Black and Aschheim (2000). Nonlinear static (pushover) analyses were done only after
the design of the frames was complete, as part of the documentation and validation of
the design method. Nonlinear dynamic analyses were then conducted to determine the
peak roof drifts so that the adequacy of design based on an equivalent SDOF system
could be assessed.

DESIGN EXAMPLES
Four regular moment-resistant steel frame buildings were designed based on an es-
timated yield displacement using the design method described above. Steel was chosen
for simplicity to permit bilinear load-deformation models to be used, although the find-
ings are equally applicable to reinforced concrete frames (for which stiffness-degrading
responses ideally should be embodied in the Yield Point Spectra). The frames were de-
signed and analyzed only for lateral load to exercise the design method without intro-
ducing complications resulting from gravity loads. Details are provided in Black and
Aschheim (2000).
Pairs of 4- and 12-story frames were designed. Each frame was designed to limit
roof drift to 1.5% of the building height when subjected to a specific earthquake ground
motion, with the understanding that this relatively severe drift limit may result in inter-
story drifts on the order of 1.7 (1.5%)=2.5%. The designs were made for specific ground
motions so that nonlinear dynamic analyses could be used to validate the design proce-
dure; it is understood that real designs would be based on smoothed design spectra or a
larger number of individual ground motions. Each building in a pair was designed for
either a relatively weak or a relatively strong earthquake ground motion. The buildings
designed for the weaker records were more flexible, and are designated by the identifiers
‘‘Flexible-4’’ and ‘‘Flexible-12.’’ The buildings designed for the stronger motions were
stiffer, and hence were designated as ‘‘Rigid-4’’ or ‘‘Rigid-12.’’ A diverse set of motions
was used, including near field and nearly harmonic motions (Table 1), to illustrate the
robustness of the design approach.
For design purposes, yield displacements were estimated to be 0.75% of the height
based on the assumption that f y⫽36 ksi (250 MPa). This corresponds to an estimated
yield displacement of 0.128 and 0.368 m for the 4- and 12-story frames, respectively.
Because peak roof displacements were limited to 1.5% of the height, control of drift re-
quired that the ductility response of the frames (in the first mode) not exceed a target
value of 1.5/0.75=2. The relatively low ductility associated with this drift limit indicates
that structural damage will be relatively light, provided that the structure is proportioned
to develop beam hinging over its height.
SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT 593

Table 1. Frame design parameters

Estimated Modal Mass

Design Yield Allowable Participation Participation Required
Ground Displacement, System Factor, Factor, Base Shear
Designation Motion m Ductility ⌫1 ␣1 Coefficient
Flexible-4 1992 Landers- 0.128 2 1.33 0.86 0.258
Lucerne 250
Rigid-4 1994 0.128 2 1.33 0.86 0.688
Northridge-
Newhall 360
Flexible-12 1985 0.368 2 1.44 0.79 0.174
Michoacan-
SCT 270
Rigid-12 1995 Kobe- 0.368 2 1.44 0.79 0.474
Takatori 360

The design method was tested using a relatively imprecise estimate of the predomi-
nant mode shape, given by a simple straight-line deflected shape. Lumped masses were
uniformly distributed over the height of the frames. For this mode shape and mass dis-
tribution, ⌫1⫽1.33 and 1.44 and ␣1⫽0.86 and 0.79 for the 4- and 12-story frames, re-
spectively. These values may be computed from standard formulas for these quantities or
can be obtained from tables provided by Abrams (1985) and reproduced by Black and
Aschheim (2000). These values are based on mode shapes normalized to unit amplitude
at the roof. The estimated yield displacements of the equivalent SDOF system are given
by 0.128/1.33=0.096 m and 0.368/1.44=0.26 m (Table 2). The required yield strength
coefficient was determined to obtain a displacement ductility of 2 for the estimated
SDOF yield displacements using Yield Point Spectra prepared for each ground motion
(Figure 8), resulting in the yield strength coefficients given in Table 2. The required base
shear coefficients of Table 1 were obtained as the product of the yield strength coeffi-
cients and the mass participation factors of Table 1. The frames were designed for these
base shear coefficients using the lateral force distribution of the Uniform Building Code
(ICBO 1997) to obtain the frames shown in Figure 9. The periods of the equivalent
SDOF systems were not required for design, but were employed to ensure that the stiff-

Table 2. Equivalent SDOF parameters

Estimated SDOF Yield Allowable Required Yield ESDOF

Designation Displacement, m Ductility Strength Coefficient Period, sec
Flexible-4 0.096 2 0.30 1.13
Rigid-4 0.096 2 0.80 0.70
Flexible-12 0.26 2 0.22 2.18
Rigid-12 0.26 2 0.60 1.32
594 M. ASCHHEIM

Figure 8. Yield Point Spectra used for the design of the four frames: (a) Lucerne, (b) Newhall,
(c) SCT, and (d) Takatori design ground motions. The YPS shown were computed for ␮=1, 2, 4,
and 8, for a bilinear load-deformation model with post-yield stiffness equal to 10% of the initial
stiffness and viscous damping equal to 5% of critical damping. Lines of constant period are
parallel to one another when YPS are plotted on logarithmic axes.

ness and strength of each frame were consistent with the estimated properties of the
equivalent SDOF systems. All columns were nominally 14 in. (0.36 m) in depth; nomi-
nal beam depths ranged from 18 to 27 in. (0.46 to 0.69 m).
Nonlinear static (pushover) analyses were done using Drain-2DX (Prakash et al.
1993) with forces applied proportional to the amplitude of the actual elastic mode shape
and the mass at each floor (Figure 10). Bilinear curves were fitted to the resulting ca-
pacity curves, leading to the values of base shear coefficient and yield displacement
shown in Table 3. The yield drifts of the 4-story frames were slightly larger than the
estimate of 0.75%, and those of the 12-story frames were slightly lower than the estimate
of 0.75%; in the worst case the actual value differed by just 9% from the estimate. Thus,
the yield drifts were stable even as the base shear coefficient changed from 0.265 to
0.680 for the 4-story frames and from 0.173 to 0.469 for the 12-story frames, as the
SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT 595

Figure 9. Framing designed for the (a) Flexible-4, (b) Rigid-4, (c) Flexible-12, and (d) Rigid-
12 frames.

periods changed from 0.71 to 1.16 s for the 4-story frames and from 1.25 to 2.17 sec-
onds for the 12-story frames, and even as the number of stories changed from four to
twelve.
Nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted to determine the peak roof displace-
ment response of the frames under the design ground motions (Figure 11). Peak roof
596 M. ASCHHEIM

Figure 10. Capacity curves obtained by nonlinear static analysis of the four frames, for lateral
forces applied proportional to the first mode amplitude and mass at each floor: (a) Flexible-4;
(b) Rigid-4; (c) Flexible-12; and (d) Rigid-12. Bilinear curves fitted to the capacity curves are
shown with yield displacements and yield strengths indicated.

displacements (Table 3) were within 87 to 95% of the 1.5% drift target (given by 0.255
and 0.735 m for the 4- and 12-story frames, respectively). Cuesta and Aschheim (2001)
observed a tendency for peak roof displacements to be slightly smaller than the esti-
mates made using ESDOF systems, for a varied set of ground motions. This observation
suggests that this design method has a slightly conservative bias.

Table 3. Frame characteristics and performance from nonlinear static and dynamic analysis.

Yield Base Shear Peak Roof

Displacement, Yield Coefficient Fundamental Displacement,
Designation m Drift, % (at Yield) Period, s m
Flexible-4 0.129 0.759 0.265 1.16 0.241
Rigid-4 0.133 0.782 0.680 0.71 0.223
Flexible-12 0.353 0.720 0.173 2.17 0.666
Rigid-12 0.335 0.684 0.469 1.25 0.650
SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT 597

Figure 11. Roof displacement histories of the frames subjected to the design ground motions,
determined by nonlinear dynamic analysis: (a) Flexible-4; (b) Rigid-4; (c) Flexible-12; and (d)
Rigid-12. Peak displacements are indicated.

The present examples demonstrate that drift and ductility demands can be controlled
for a range of building heights and earthquake intensities using a simple design method
that is based on the stability of the yield displacement. Extremely simple assumptions
were employed and no nonlinear analyses were done to refine the designs. The strengths
required to satisfy the performance objective, and the resulting periods, differed substan-
tially, but the yield displacements of the buildings were nearly constant. Assuming that a
period-based design approach would result in buildings of similar proportions, such an
approach would have to ‘‘find’’ the periods of the resulting designs. This implies that
period-based procedures would require some number of iterations. Convergence using a
yield displacement estimate was rapid enough that no iteration was necessary.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper focuses on the yield displacement of a structure responding in its pre-
dominant mode to a seismic excitation. The yield displacement is defined with respect to
598 M. ASCHHEIM

a capacity curve which is determined by nonlinear static analysis for applied forces that
are consistent with the predominant mode of response. Logical arguments and empirical
data were employed to demonstrate that:
1. The yield displacement of a structure dominated by flexural response is a func-
tion of the yield strain of the material, the height of the structure, the depth of
the yielding members, the shape of the predominant mode of response, and the
distribution of mass and stiffness throughout the structure. (The depth of the
yielding members does not affect the yield displacement of a structure domi-
nated by axial response.)
2. The parameters (above) that determine the yield displacement are known early
in the design process, allowing accurate estimates of the yield displacement to
be made prior to the detailed design of the structure.
3. The yield displacement is nearly independent of the strength of the system, al-
lowing the strength to be selected to achieve a desired performance, based on an
initial estimate of the yield displacement.
4. Seismic design approaches are available that rely on an estimate of the yield
displacement. The period of vibration is not an essential ingredient of a seismic
design procedure.
5. Estimates of the yield displacement may be made assuming that the drift at
yield (⌬y /H) depends on the structural configuration and materials, and is
largely independent of the number of stories and lateral strength of the struc-
ture.
Given a structural configuration, the strength required to limit the ductility and peak
displacement responses of a system determines the stiffness and vibration characteristics
of the system. The fundamental period of vibration is seen to be a consequence of
choices made in design to control performance. While the influence of strength on the
period(s) of vibration has been overlooked in the past, it is significant now that
performance-based design objectives are being specified with greater precision. Conven-
tional design approaches can be modified to consider the influence of strength on the
period of vibration, but such modifications introduce iterations into the design process.
The examples presented herein show that design approaches based on the stability of the
yield displacement can converge rapidly upon a solution, entirely eliminating the need
for iteration if reasonable assumptions are made in design.
These conclusions, drawn from fundamentals and illustrated for structures having a
sharply defined yield point, are also applicable to structures in which the progression of
yielding results in a less sharply defined yield displacement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Interaction with a number of people aided the development of this paper. Discus-
sions with Craig Comartin, Steve Mahin, and Jack Moehle were particularly valuable.
Support provided by a CAREER Award from the National Science Foundation (Grant
No. CMS-9984830) is gratefully acknowledged. This work made use of Earthquake En-
SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT 599

gineering Research Centers Shared Facilities supported by the National Science Foun-
dation under Award Number EEC-9701785. Figure 6 was reproduced with the permis-
sion of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

REFERENCES
Abrams, D. A., 1985. Nonlinear Earthquake Analysis of Concrete Building Structures, final re-
port on a study to the American Society for Engineering Education.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Build-
ings, Volumes 1 and 2, Report No. ATC-40, Redwood City, CA, November.
ATC, 1997. NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,
prepared for the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, FEMA 274, Washington, DC, October.
ATC, 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared for the
Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
FEMA 273, Washington, DC, October.
Aschheim, M., and Black, E., 2000. Yield Point Spectra for seismic design and rehabilitation,
Earthquake Spectra 16 (2), 17–336.
Benioff, H., 1934. The physical evaluation of seismic destructiveness, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
24 (2), 398–403.
Biot, M. A., 1941. A mechanical analyzer for the prediction of earthquake stresses, Bull. Seis-
mol. Soc. Am. 31 (2), 151–171.
Black, E., and Aschheim, M., 2000. Seismic Design and Evaluation of Multistory Buildings Us-
ing Yield Point Spectra, CD Release 00-04, Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of
Illinois, Urbana, July.
Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K., 1999. Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic
design spectrum, Earthquake Spectra 15 (4), 637–656.
Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K., 2000. Building period formulas for estimating seismic dis-
placements, Earthquake Spectra 16 (2), 533–536.
Cuesta, I., and Aschheim, M., 2001. Using Pulse R-Factors to Estimate the Structural Response
to Earthquake Ground Motions, CD Release 01-03, Mid-America Earthquake Center, Uni-
versity of Illinois, March.
Fajfar, P., 1999. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra, Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 28, 979–993.
Freeman, S. A., 1978. Prediction of response of concrete buildings to severe earthquake motion,
Douglas McHenry International Symposium on Concrete and Concrete Structures, ACI Spe-
cial Publication 55, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 589–605.
Gupta, B., and Kunnath, S. K., 2000. Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic
evaluation of structures, Earthquake Spectra 16 (2), 367–391.
Inel, M., Black, E. F., Aschheim, M. A, and Abrams, D. P., 2001. USEE 2001—Utility Software
for Earthquake Engineering Program, Report, and Documentation, CD Release 01-05, Mid-
America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois. Software available for download from
http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu/
International Conference of Buildings Officials (ICBO), 1988. Uniform Building Code, Whit-
tier, CA.
ICBO, 1997. Uniform Building Code, Whittier, CA.
600 M. ASCHHEIM

Paulay, T., 2002. An estimation of displacement limits for ductile systems, Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 31, 583–599.
Prakash, V., Powell, G. H., and Campbell, S., 1993. Drain-2DX Base Program Description and
User Guide, Version 1.10, Report No. UCB/SEMM-93/17, Structural Engineering, Mechan-
ics, and Materials, University of California, Berkeley, Nov.
Priestley, M. J. N., and Kowalsky, M. J., 1998. Aspects of drift and ductility capacity of rect-
angular cantilever structural walls, Bull. N. Z. Natl. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 31 (2), 73–85.
Priestley, M. J. N., 2000. Performance based seismic design, Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Jan. 30–Feb. 4.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Seismology Committee, 1999. Rec-
ommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Sacramento, CA.
Tjhin, T., Aschheim, M., and Wallace, J., 2002. Displacement-based seismic design of rein-
forced concrete structural walls, Proceedings of the 7th U.S. National Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Boston, MA, July 21–25.
(Received 2 January 2001; accepted 14 August 2002)