Efficient Seismic Design of 3D Asymmetric and Setback

RC Frame Buildings for Drift and Strain Limitation

Oren Lavan, Ph.D., S.E., M.ASCE 1; and Philip J. Wilkinson, Ph.D. 2

Abstract: This paper presents an analysis–redesign-type approach for the efficient seismic design of three-dimensional (3D) irregular RC
frame structures for bidirectional ground motions. The designs obtained using the approach satisfy interstory drift and ductility limits while
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 11/01/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

having the minimum total moment capacity of all seismic members. This leads to cost-efficient designs because the total amount of steel as
well as the base shear and overturning moments are relatively low. While doing that, the approach is very intuitive and is relatively simple to
implement in practice because it only requires analysis tools, not background knowledge or tools related to optimization theory. The examples
show that the proposed methodology requires only a few analyses and converges to designs that exactly satisfy the design objectives with
limited amounts of steel assigned only where required. This makes the design approach feasible for practice in terms of computational effort
and time. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001689. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Seismic effects; Irregular frame structures; Optimal seismic design; Efficient seismic design; Analysis–redesign.

Introduction quakes (e.g., BCJ 1981). Consequently, the performance matrix

Irregular buildings are popular among architects and society in
general. Moreover, in some cases (e.g., public buildings such as
hospitals, hotels, museums, and theaters), functional demands dic-
tate their irregular shapes. Hence, irregular buildings are a common
sight in many cities around the world. It is often their irregular
shape that is the reason for their higher seismic vulnerability
compared with their regular counterparts (Stathopoulos and
Anagnostopoulos 2005; Kyrkos and Anagnostopoulos 2011). This
is due to the large deformation demands typically expected in
regions of irregularity. In addition to their relative vulnerability,
the behavior of irregular buildings is harder to predict using the
toolbox of analysis types readily available to most engineering
practitioners (Moehle and Alarcon 1986; Valmundsson and Nau
1997; Anagnostopoulos et al. 2015). This is due to the fact that
many simplified analysis techniques are based on assumptions that
are reasonable only for regular buildings. Hence, the prediction of
the behavior of irregular buildings often requires more advanced
analysis tools (e.g., nonlinear dynamic analyses) (ASCE 2014).
Those methods, if performed appropriately, are expected to reason-
ably predict the behavior of irregular buildings and could be used
for verification purposes. Nonetheless, even with these tools avail-
able for verification, the development of relatively simple methods
for design is still beneficial. Preferably, such methods would lead to
optimal, or at least efficient and economic, designs.
The goal of structural engineers is to find design solutions that
are as economic as possible and that perform as desired. For seis-
mic loadings, it has long been required (for more than 30 years in
some codes) that structures sustain no damage under frequent
earthquakes and not collapse under less frequent stronger earth-
1
Associate Professor, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa
3200003, Israel (corresponding author). E-mail: lavan@tx.technion.ac.il
2
Former Ph.D. Student, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa
3200003, Israel.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 19, 2016; approved
on September 8, 2016; published online on October 31, 2016. Discussion
period open until March 31, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural En-
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
was introduced and the concept of performance-based seismic
design (PBD) has emerged (Bertero 1997; Priestley 2000). In
PBD, different deformation and strain limits are assigned for
various levels of seismicity, thus limiting structural and nonstruc-
tural damage. Again, while satisfying these limits, the structure is
desired to be as economic as possible.
To accommodate the PBD requirements economically, formal
performance-based optimal seismic design methods for regular frame
structures have been developed and reported in the literature (Balling
et al. 1983; Tzan and Pantelides 1996; Ganzerli et al. 2000; Zou
and Chan 2005a, b; Fragiadakis and Papadrakakis 2008; Liu et al.
2010). Some of these works adopt heuristic optimization approaches
(e.g., simulated annealing or genetic algorithms). While these meth-
ods have a good chance of converging to good and robust solutions,
they require a very large number of function evaluations. In the
problems considered, this implies a very large number of nonlinear
time-history analyses. Because the analyses themselves are computa-
tionally expensive, this implies that a very large computational
effort is required to solve the design problem. This may make the
use of these approaches unrealistic for large three-dimensional
(3D) structures with a large number of design variables.
Another group of these works adopt first- or even second-
order optimization approaches. As such, these usually converge to
local optimum points. In problems that are convex, or close to being
convex, there is only one local optimum, which is also the global one.
However, the optimization problem formulation considered in the
present work is nonconvex. This is because the design variables affect
the natural period of the structure. Because realistic earthquakes are
considered, this may result in major difficulties to converge to the
global optimum, or close to that. This could be explained by the
shape of response spectra of realistic ground motions, which is
not smooth. In addition, first-order optimization methods require
gradient information of the objective function and constraints. The
evaluation of those is far from being straightforward or simple. In
the case that those are evaluated using the finite-difference approach,
again, the computational effort becomes very large, especially with a
growing number of design variables.
In addition to the computational effort issue, optimization meth-
ods in general are not intuitive to structural engineers and therefore

© ASCE 04016205-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016205

 their use in the structural engineering community is not wide-
spread. It is the authors’ opinion that analysis tools should be used
carefully, and only by those educated in the relevant underlying
theory. Optimization methods and software for design such as
the ones listed previously, on the other hand, could be used by prac-
titioners as a black box design tool without fear. This is because the
designs obtained using these tools could be easily verified using
standard analysis. Hence, misuse of such a black box is unlikely
to result in unsafe structures. Nonetheless, such tools are much
more difficult to promote to practitioners. This makes the use of
simple design methods that do not necessarily lead to efficient
designs widespread. Hence, there is still a strong need for more
intuitive methods for efficient design with which engineers would
feel comfortable. These should also lead to the final designs with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 11/01/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
manageable computational effort. This is expected to enable the
achievement of efficient designs by engineers familiar with the
corresponding analysis tools.
One of the most famous and simple methods for efficient design
of structures is of the analysis–redesign (AR) type. Using this iter-
ative method, the engineer analyzes the current design and modifies
it based on the analysis results and a given recurrence relation. Be-
cause this intuitive method only requires analysis tools and usually
converges very quickly, it is well liked by practicing engineers. In
static problems, the recurrence relation of the AR method targets a
fully stressed design (FSD) in which all elements reach their allow-
able stress in at least one loading condition. Intuitively, a design
that is fully stressed is considered an efficient one. In some cases,
FSD is actually a formal optimality criterion. That is, the optimal
solution of certain optimization problems possesses fully stressed
characteristics. In those cases, use of the AR method would lead
to the optimal design of the associated optimization problem. Such
FSD characteristics have been proposed as optimality criteria for
the problem of truss of minimum weight as early as 1900 (Cilley
1900).
Characteristics of the FSD type have been identified as optimality
criteria in formal optimal seismic retrofitting of regular [Lavan
and Levy (2010) and references therein] and irregular [Lavan and
Levy (2006) and references therein] buildings using viscous
dampers as well. The total added damping was minimized while
constraints on story damage indices (e.g., peak interstory drifts,
hysteretic energy demand) were assigned. Those FSD-type character-
istics were then followed by AR schemes to attain designs
possessing such characteristics (Lavan and Levy 2005, 2009; Levy
and Lavan 2006). In other seismic design problems, characteristics of
the FSD type were intuitively proposed and corresponding
AR methods were formulated (Lavan and Daniel 2013; Daniel
and Lavan 2015; Lavan 2015). Those were compared with formal
optimal designs obtained elsewhere (Daniel and Lavan 2014; Lavan
and Dargush 2009) and were shown to lead to near-optimal designs.
An AR-type algorithm was also adopted in the seismic design
of regular plane RC frames (Hajirasouliha et al. 2012). It targeted
the minimization of steel volume while constraining deformation
demands throughout the height of the frame. Thus, a uniform
distribution of deformations was targeted. It was compared with
code designs to reveal its efficiency.
This paper presents a simple iterative approach of the AR type
for the seismic design of 3D irregular RC frame structures for bidi-
rectional ground motions. The aim is to obtain an efficient design
while satisfying interstory drifts and strain (or ductility) limits.
The approach is similar in nature to ones proposed in the past
for the seismic retrofitting of 3D irregular frames using viscous
dampers (Lavan and Levy 2005) and for the design of new regular
plane frames (Hajirasouliha et al. 2012). An attempt to associate
the proposed approach to an optimality criterion was made, and the
© ASCE 04016205-2
J. Struct. Eng., 04016205
corresponding optimization problem was identified. This revealed
that the procedure leads to a minimum or close to minimum steel
volume (strength) while satisfying the limits stated previously.
The procedure involves two steps within each iteration. In the
first step, a specified design is analyzed. In the second step,
the design is modified by adjusting the distribution of strength
and stiffness according to the performance evaluation. This AR
procedure is carried out until convergence. Because the approach
is intuitive and transparent and only makes use of analysis tools
without requiring any optimization tools or knowledge, it is
more likely to be utilized by the practicing community. Further-
more, as the examples reveal, only a few analyses are required
for convergence. This makes the computational effort, although
nonlinear time-history analysis is adopted, manageable and
practical.
The efficiency of the proposed approach is examined using
two asymmetric plan setback structures. The proposed analysis–
redesign approach is first used to obtain a design for each
structure. Standard code designs are then obtained utilizing the
force-based design approach for various force response modifica-
tion coefficients [termed behavior factors in Eurocode 8 (CEN
2004)]. With the analysis–redesign and code designs at hand, a
comparison of their performance is made by means of nonlinear
time-history analyses.
Optimization Problem Formulation: Seismic Design
of 3D Irregular RC Moment Resisting Frames
Structures
Design Variables
When designing RC frames, the engineer has the freedom of choos-
ing the dimensions of beams and columns as well as their reinforce-
ment. In general, initial dimensions of elements are presized based
on architectural constraints, gravity design and initial seismic de-
sign. In many cases, a minimal deviation from these dimensions is
desired. Hence, if a feasible solution could be achieved while
adopting these initial dimensions, these will be the final dimensions
of the elements. In some cases, a feasible solution could not be
achieved while adopting the initial dimensions. In other cases,
reducing the sizes of the elements could lead to a more efficient
design, as will be elaborated on subsequently. In these cases, min-
imal changes to these dimensions are made. The nominal flexural
yield strengths in the various elements are therefore the sole design
variables. For given element dimensions, the yield strengths corre-
late to the amount of steel. With these parameters set, the element
flexural stiffnesses are also known.
Objective Function
The objective to be minimized reflects a reasonable measure of
the cost of construction. As will be discussed subsequently, this
objective function also, indirectly, leads to a better response of the
building in terms of absolute accelerations.
With the dimensions of the elements assumed, the main com-
ponents to affect the cost of construction (excluding labor) are the
total volume of steel and size of foundation members. Element
nominal flexural strengths are directly proportional to steel
reinforcing volume. Herein, the sum of the nominal flexural
strengths of all seismic elements (beams and columns) is mini-
mized, while satisfying the constraints described in the next
section. Based on capacity design concepts, this is also expected
to lead to reductions in base shear and overturning moments,
and hence cost of foundations. Because the strength of the building
J. Struct. Eng.
 achieves a low value, overall, absolute accelerations are also
expected to be low (e.g., Lavan 2015).
Constraints
To comply with the performance-based design framework, damage
is limited to allowable values for the various seismicity levels
considered. Structural damage in frame structures correlates very
well to the peak interstory drifts. Hence, interstory drifts are to
be constrained by a number of limits, each corresponding to a
different level of seismicity considered in the PBD framework
[e.g., design basis earthquake (DBE), maximum credible earth-
quake (MCE)]. The damage to some nonstructural components
(e.g., partition walls, facades) also correlates well to peak interstory
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 11/01/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
drifts. Similarly, constraints are assigned on seismic beam and col-
umn base ductility demands.
The behavior of irregular structures is often characterized
by highly concentrated local deformation demands in regions of
irregularity (both heightwise and planwise). Asymmetric and gen-
erally irregular 3D buildings, for example, often experience the
largest deformation demands in their peripheries. Thus, local
damage measures in these locations are to be constrained so as
to regularize the response of the building. In this paper, the peak
interstory drift of each story of each peripheral frame is limited to
an allowable value. This value is adjusted for each level of seismic-
ity considered. Suites of realistic ground motions are adopted to
describe the various levels of seismic hazard. For each level of
seismic hazard, the mean peak interstory drift at each location is
constrained. Alternatively, the mean plus standard deviation or
the envelope interstory drift from all ground motions for a
selected seismic hazard level could be adopted. If the latter is
chosen, the active set of ground motions approach (Lavan and Levy
2006) could be used to appreciably reduce the computational
effort.
According to the capacity design philosophy, elastic response is
desired in the columns above their bases. Thus, additional con-
straints in the form of minimum column-to-beam strength ratios
are assigned to minimize column yielding above their bases.
As mentioned previously, the elements are presized, with the
option of changing their sizes in very limited and specific cases.
Nonetheless, limits on their minimum and maximum values are
also assigned. In addition, modern seismic codes assign limits
on the minimum and maximum reinforcement ratios allowed in
the beams and columns. These limits are set so as to ensure a ductile
behavior. Such limits are adopted in this work too. Because the
frames are also part of the gravity load–resisting system, a limit
on the minimum stiffness and strength that is required to carry
the gravity loads is assigned as well.
Optimization Problem
The optimization problem to follow is based on the previous sec-
tions. The nominal flexural strengths in the various elements serve
as the primary design variables while some changes in elements
dimensions are allowed under some circumstances. The total flexu-
ral strength is to be minimized. Constraints are added on the inter-
story drift of each story and each peripheral frame, as well as beam
strains, under each of the seismic levels considered (e.g., DBE,
MCE). The columns are intended to yield at their bases only, by
virtue of predefined column-to-beam strength ratios. Side con-
straints are assigned to the sizes of the elements and the reinforce-
ment ratios. In addition, constraints are added so as to ensure
acceptable behavior under gravity loads.
© ASCE 04016205-3
J. Struct. Eng., 04016205
Formally, this optimization problem could be stated as follows:
X
min Myi
i ¼ all
seismic
elements
subject to PIθj ≤ 1.0 ∀ j ¼ seismic bent for all intensities
PIμb ≤ 1.0 ∀ b ¼ seismic beam for all intensities
PIμc ≤ 1.0 ∀ c ¼ seismic column base for all intensities
ρmin
i ≤ ρi ≤ ρmax
i ∀ i ¼ seismic element
bmin
i ≤ bi ≤ bmax
i ∀ i ¼ seismic element
dmin ≤ di ≤ dmax
i i ∀ i ¼ seismic element
grav
M yb ≤ M yb ∀ b ¼ seismic beam
M grav ∀ c1 ¼ seismic column bending axis 1
yc1 ≤ M yc1
M grav
yc2 ≤ M yc2 ∀ c2 ¼ seismic column bending axis 2 ð1Þ
Here, M yi = nominal flexural yield strength of seismic element
(beam or column) i considering its gravity axial force. When i re-
fers to a column, Myi equals the sum of M yc1 and M yc2 , which are
the nominal flexural yield strengths of column c about Bending
Axes 1 and 2, respectively. The interstory drift performance index,
PIθj ¼ maxk ðθjk =θLIMk Þ = maximum over all intensities k, where
θjk is the selected peak interstory drift response in bent j for inten-
sity k, and θLIMk is the interstory drift limit for intensity k. The se-
lected interstory drift response could be, for example, the mean
peak drift response to all ground motions considered for that inten-
sity, the maximum peak drift response, or the mean plus standard
deviation. A bent refers in this paper to one story of a plane
frame including columns and the beams connected to the top of
the columns, for example, all ground-story columns and first-
floor beams of a peripheral frame (e.g., Fig. 2 in “Examples”).
The local seismic beam ductility response performance index,
PIμb ¼ maxk ðμbk =μLIMk Þ, is the maximum over all intensities k,
where μbk is the maximum (of the two potential plastic hinges,
one at each beam end) selected peak plastic hinge ductility response
of seismic beam b for intensity k, and μLIMk is the maximum
allowable beam plastic hinge ductility for intensity k. The local
seismic column base ductility response performance index, PIμc ¼
maxk ðμck =μcLIMk Þ, is the maximum over all intensities k, where μck
is the maximum selected peak plastic hinge ductility response of
seismic column base c for intensity k, and μcLIMk is the maximum
allowable column base plastic hinge ductility for intensity k. The
selected peak ductility could be the mean to all ground motions
considered for that intensity, the maximum, or the mean plus stan-
dard deviation. Additionally, ρi is the steel reinforcing ratio of
seismic element i; bi and di are the cross section width and depth,
respectively, of seismic element i; the superscripts min i and max
i
denote minimum and maximum allowable values for the particular
parameter (ρi , bi , and di ) for seismic element i; M grav
yb is the nominal
flexural yield strength of seismic beam b required by the gravity
load case(s); and M grav grav
yc1 and M yc2 are the nominal flexural yield
strengths about Bending Axes 1 and 2 of seismic column c required
by the gravity load case(s).
As the problem formulation implies, shear capacity of the col-
umns and beams is assumed to be sufficient. Thus, once the flexural
strengths are obtained, the shear capacity of the columns and beams
is to be designed to prevent shear failure. This also implies that the
problem formulation and the proposed solution scheme are not
applicable to geometries in which shear failure is expected to con-
trol the behavior of elements (e.g., short beams or columns).
J. Struct. Eng.
 Proposed Scheme: Seismic AR of 3D Irregular
RC MRF Structures
Optimality Criterion
In view of the AR approach and the FSD criteria–related works
discussed previously and the strong relation of the story damage
(or interstory drifts) to its stiffness and strength, it seems that
the solution to the optimization problem of the previous section,
i.e., the optimal design, would satisfy the following FSD type
optimality criterion: for 3D framed structures, the optimal design
will attain a flexural strength in beams of peripheral frames larger
than the minimum gauge only in floors for which the performance
measure has reached the allowable.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 11/01/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Here, the minimum gauge for beam flexural strength is deter-
mined either by reinforcement ratio and size limitations or by
gravity (or other) load cases. The performance measure is the maxi-
mum of PIθj of the peripheral frame in the story below the floor
and the maximum PIμb in the beams of that bent. For the first floor,
the maximum PIμc in the direction of the bent, of all column bases
in that bent, is also considered in the performance measure. This
optimality criterion could be achieved by a generalization of the AR
procedure as presented in the next section.
In the preceding discussion, interstory drifts were taken as the
damaging deformations and were assumed to be strongly related
to the story stiffnesses and strengths. In general, this is more ap-
parent in low-rise to midrise buildings. These deform mainly
due to the total story shear. In high-rise buildings, on the other
hand, the axial contraction of columns leads to nonnegligible
deformations due to the external overturning moment. Thus, the
interstory drifts (the relative horizontal displacement of two ad-
jacent floors) are comprised of two contributors: a rigid body dis-
placement and a racking (shear) deformation (CTBUH 2008).
Here, racking is the main contributor to damage. It is also the one
strongly related to the story stiffness and strength. Thus, it seems
reasonable to use the racking deformation rather than the inter-
story drift in tall buildings. This, however, was not verified as part
of the study.
Analysis–Redesign Scheme
As per the optimality criterion stated previously, strength and stiff-
ness are concentrated in the peripheral frames. Hence, inner frames
are considered as gravity frames and are designed to sustain gravity
loads only. The gravity columns typically have smaller sections
and, in practice, would be detailed for ductilities congruent with
the expected peak deformations. Appropriate details are to be de-
signed for the columns of these frames so as to ensure their ability
to sustain the gravity loads while experiencing displacements due
to the seismic action. Because the yield displacements of these col-
umns depend mainly on their geometry and material yield strains
(Paulay 2002), their ductility demands do not, in general, depend
on their strength. Hence, the addition of longitudinal reinforcement
would not directly reduce their ductility demands. Steel reinforcing
details that provide sufficient ductility capacity should be adopted.
The last statement, in the authors’ opinion, holds regardless of the
method of design adopted.
An overview of the proposed AR method is presented in Fig. 1.
The various steps will now be elaborated.
Step 1: Initial Design
In this step, the seismic intensities as well as corresponding accep-
tance criteria should be defined. The seismic hazard is modeled in
the examples to follow using a suite of ground motion histories to
describe each seismicity level. Nonetheless, the methodology could
© ASCE 04016205-4
J. Struct. Eng., 04016205
work with other types of input to model the ground motion hazard,
depending on the analysis tool adopted.
As can be seen from Fig. 1, the procedure starts with an initial
design that satisfies gravity carrying capacity requirements and
qualifies some minimum seismic design demands. This allows
smoother convergence of the algorithm and minimizes unreason-
able responses during the analyses. The peripheral frames in each
direction in each story are designated as seismic and only their
strengths are changed in the AR procedure. Elements in peripheral
bents located on setback grid lines above the setback and columns
in the story immediately below the setback level are designated
as seismic. The other beams and columns of that frame below
the setback level are not designated as seismic. Nevertheless,
column cross section dimensions are not permitted to increase with
height.
For the initial seismic design of the examples presented in this
paper, minimum section flexural strengths were set by applying
typical factors to moment demands obtained from a linear elastic
static analysis of a structural model. Initial section sizes were set by
relating story shears to drifts using Wilbur’s formula (Stafford
Smith and Coull 1991, section 7.4.1), attributing half the allowed
drift to beam deformations and half to column deformations. The
story shears were derived from a preliminary equivalent lateral load
assessment similar to that found in most current design codes. For
this purpose, cracked cross sections were assumed to have second
moments of area equal to half the gross section second moments
of area.
Step 2: Analysis
With a given design at hand, the structure is subjected to seismic
analysis for the various ground motion intensities considered. Be-
cause the methodology is tailored for the design of nonlinear 3D
generally irregular RC MRF buildings, an analysis method captur-
ing the unique behavior of such structures, as elaborated in the “In-
troduction,” should be adopted. Specifically, the analysis method
should reasonably predict the interstory drifts at the peripheries.
The ductility demands in the beams, and column bases of the seis-
mic frames, are also required, although strains very rarely govern
the design (Priestley et al. 2007).
In the examples presented in this work the authors adopted a
3D nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA) to predict the
responses of interest. This analysis approach is becoming more
widespread for the purpose of design verification when it comes
to nonlinear 3D generally irregular buildings. Because this analysis
type is required by some codes for design verification of the type of
structure considered, such a model has to be built in any case. The
analysis–redesign procedure does not usually require more that
10–15 iterations for practical convergence. Thus, it is the authors’
opinion that adopting NRHA for the design as well would not
require excessive additional effort. With the proposed design
approach, the engineer can use any analysis tool the engineer be-
lieves would lead to reasonable response prediction. However, it
should be kept in mind that the designs generated using the pro-
posed methodology satisfy the acceptance criteria when verified
using the same analysis tool that was used for design. Hence, the
quality of the designs is as good as the quality of the structural
model, seismic hazard modeling, and analysis tools used.
Step 3: Stopping Criteria
If the stopping criteria are met, the process ends. If not, the process
continues until convergence. Three criteria were employed simul-
taneously. The first checked the seismic performance against the
target performance. The second two checked convergence. The first
criterion was that the performance indices (PIs) (responses or
limits of all seismic frame interstory drifts and all seismic beam
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 11/01/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Proposed analysis–redesign procedure
and column base plastic hinge ductilities) must all be less than 1
(plus tolerance). The second criterion was that the objective
function value (the total volume of steel reinforcing) must have
stabilized (converged) to a tolerable change per iteration for two
consecutive iterations. The third criterion was similar to the second,
being that all the performance indices must have stabilized
(converged). This was checked for each location by comparing
the change of each PI during each of the last two iterations against
the selected change tolerance. These criteria allowed drifts to be
less than allowable but not greater. This was necessary to allow
gravity considerations to govern elements where appropriate.
Step 4: Redesign Beams
The beams in each seismic frame in each story are redesigned using
the following recurrence relation:
ðpþ1Þ ðpÞ

ðpÞ

ðpÞ Q
Myb ¼ M yb max PIθj ; PIμb ð2Þ
ðpþ1Þ ðpÞ
where M yb and M yb = nominal flexural yield strengths of
ðpÞ
seismic beam b for iterations p þ 1 and p, respectively; PIθj and
ðpÞ
PIμb = parameters PIθj and PIμb defined in “Optimization Problem”
computed for iteration p, respectively. The new flexural stiffness is
ðpþ1Þ
computed from the new flexural strength M yb and corresponding
© ASCE 04016205-5
J. Struct. Eng., 04016205
yield curvature [as per Paulay (2002), φyi ¼ 2.1εsy =di for bending
about axis parallel to bi dimension and φyi ¼ 2.1εsy =bi for bending
about axis parallel to di dimension; εsy = longitudinal reinforcing
steel design yield strain].
Strength distribution within a bent (all columns and beams in
one story of a frame) using this recurrence relation may depend
on the initial design. Various relative beam strength distributions
depending on relative beam lengths were investigated (results
not shown). However, the total volume of reinforcing steel was
found to be insensitive to variations of such distributions. Priestley
et al. (2007) suggested that constant beam cross section within
bents may be a rational solution considering the dependence of
ductility demand and capacity ratios on relative beam length and
ease of construction. However, other rational distributions may
be used.
Ductility capacities rarely govern the design (Priestley et al.
2007, p. 226, section 5.3.1). Hence, interstory drifts are the leading
criteria for design. If the ductility limit in a single beam governs,
there are two possible redesign approaches. The first decreases the
depth of that beam. This would increase the yield curvature and
decrease the ductility demand for a given maximum curvature
(Priestley et al. 2007). Alternatively, increasing the total strength
[and stiffness, which is proportional to strength (Priestley et al.
2007)] of all beams in that bent by adding reinforcement would
J. Struct. Eng.
 decrease the neighboring interstory drifts and hence the ductility
demands of all beams in that bent. Because an attempt was made
for the examples presented in this paper to keep the original depth
of all elements with minimal change, the latter approach is adopted.
Increasing the strength (and stiffness) of the specific beam whose
ductility demands govern by adding reinforcement is not expected
to appreciably affect its ductility demands. This is because the
peak curvatures strongly correlate to the interstory drifts and the
yield curvature is insensitive to the reinforcement ratio (Priestley
et al. 2007).
At this point, the required reinforcement ratio for each beam is
determined by section analysis. If the required reinforcement ratio
is smaller than the minimum code reinforcement ratios or larger
than the maximum code reinforcement ratio, decrease or increase
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 11/01/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
be used in the analysis (EIcr ¼ M y =φy ) does depend on their di-
mensions, reinforcement ratios, and axial loads. Thus, it should
be properly modeled and updated in each iteration.
No column section size or strength was allowed to increase with
height. This resulted in gravity columns under seismic columns at
setbacks being larger than required for gravity loads for the sake of
regularity and continuity of capacity down columns. Both cross
section dimensions of all seismic columns were allowed to change
according to the target capacities for each column bending axis
based on the capacity design procedure.
At the end of this step, the redesign of all beams and columns
is complete. At this point the process continues by repeating
Steps 2–5 until convergence is achieved at Step 3.

(respectively) the section depth and recalculate the required rein-

forcement ratio. An alternative approach could redistribute the Examples
strength of beams within the bent, i.e., if the minimum code
reinforcement ratio leads to strength larger than required beam Example 1: 3-Story Generally Irregular
strength, reduce the required strength of other beams in the bent, RC MRF Structure
and vice versa. If all beams in a story of a peripheral frame reach
their minimum limit strengths, gravity considerations govern the Six designs for the 3-story generally irregular RC frame structure
design of that bent. That story of that frame may not achieve its shown in Fig. 2 were carried out. The structure has a total of 21
target drift. If all beams in a story of a peripheral frame reach beam segments and 19 column segments, or 40 design variables.
their maximum limit strengths, the closest parallel frame could One design was generated using the proposed analysis–redesign
be identified as seismic and its strength increased to further reduce method, and five designs were generated following a typical force-
drifts at the peripheral frame. based design approach, each for a different response modification
coefficient, R. The seismic performance of the designs is compared
Step 5: Redesign Columns subsequently in this section.
Ideally, columns could be designed to remain elastic above their A 25-MPa concrete strength was used with 300-MPa design
bases. Initially an attempt was made to develop an algorithm aimed reinforcing steel strength with a Young’s modulus of 200 GPa.
at achieving elastic response in all columns above their bases. This A 7.2-kPa uniformly distributed floor weight was assumed to in-
algorithm designed each column individually to a common target clude the seismic gravity floor load.
value (maximum and mean peaks were investigated) of the biaxial
bending moment–axial force (MN) interaction equation defining Design Limit States
the column section yield surfaces. However, it proved impossible Two limit states were simultaneously designed for. The first repre-
to completely eliminate column yielding above bases regardless sented a serviceability limit state. The second represented a life
of the column-beam strength ratio. The authors reasoned that this safety (ultimate) limit state. All column bases and beams were as-
was due to the irregularity of the structures considered, leading to signed the same curvature ductility limits of 5 and 7.3 for Limit
higher mode response which sometimes produced single curvature States 1 and 2, respectively. Interstory drift limits for the two limit
in columns extending over one or more stories. In such cases, states were 1 and 2%, respectively.
column moment demands are not limited by the beam capacities,
Ground Motions and Scaling
and the columns act more like walls. Not surprisingly, this algo-
The 5% damped elastic design acceleration and displacement re-
rithm tended toward designs resembling coupled wall systems
sponse spectra for the second limit state are presented in Fig. 3
rather than MRFs.
(thickest lines). The medium thickness lines are the mean spectra
After extensive experimentation by the authors, they concluded
of 10 modified ground motion records (from five bidirectional
that some column yielding above the base was unavoidable. There-
ground motions) used for design and verification. These historic
fore a much simpler capacity design approach for the columns was
ground motion records were selected from the LA10/50 set
settled on. A single column-to-beam strength ratio was used for all
(Somerville et al. 1997) downloaded from NISEE (2016) and were
joints. A range of column-to-beam strength ratios were investi-
gated. A value of 2.0 was deemed to limit mean peak column
ductility responses to reasonable levels. This value is also proposed
in Dooley and Bracci (2001) and Zaghi et al. (2015).
During the first few iterations (10 at most), the analysis consid-
ered possible column yielding only at their bases in the ground
story. Once all seismic column peak MN (biaxial moment–axial
force interaction equation defining the yield surface) response
values reduced to below 2, all ends of all columns were allowed
to potentially yield about both bending axes. This minimized
collapses during NRHAs in the first AR iterations and hastened
convergence. Values of MN responses were computed at each
analysis time step according to the Ruaumoko 3D manual [Carr
2006, section 15j, RC Beam/Column (Type 1)].
Although the columns are modeled as linear above their bases
Fig. 2. Example 1: 3-story generally irregular RC frame structure
during the first 10 (at most) iterations, their cracked stiffness to

© ASCE 04016205-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016205


Fig. 3. Design response spectra and spectra and mean spectrum of
ground motions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 11/01/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
modified using the program SeismoMatch to match the design re-
sponse spectrum. This was used as the seismicity for Limit State 2.
The period range of interest for scaling purposes was 0.6–3 s. As
will be shown subsequently, the fundamental periods of the final
designs obtained using both the AR designs and force-based
designs in this example and in the next example fall in the range
of 0.63–1.68 s. The thin gray lines are the response spectra of the
individual scaled ground motions. The final design is expected to
be well into the constant velocity region, thus the matched spectra
agree well with the design spectra for the relevant period range.
For simplicity, the same ground motion records were simply
factored by 0.5 to model the seismicity for the serviceability limit
state.
Modeling and Analysis
The modeling and analysis was done in Ruaumoko 3D (Carr 2006).
Finite-element models were built using one (Giberson beam) line
element for each beam–column member. These elements have one
potential plastic hinge of a specified constant length at each end.
Uniformly distributed line loads were applied to the beams
assuming reasonable gravity loads. Moment–axial force interaction
was modeled using the Reinforced Concrete Type 1 (IBEAM = 2)
option. The modified Takeda hysteresis model (Otani 1974) was
employed (α ¼ 0.25, β ¼ 0.3, NF ¼ 1, and KKK ¼ 1), as well
as strength degradation (ILOS ¼ 6) considering peak ductility
demand and number of inelastic cycles. Column plastic hinges
were assigned post-yield and elastic moment-curvature stiffness
of 5%, whereas 2% was assigned to the beam plastic hinges.
Rotational fixity of column bases was modeled by moment-
resisting connections to elastic foundation beams of relatively
low flexural rigidity connecting the column bases. If desired, the
foundation beams could also be designed in the AR procedure.
However, for these examples, they were assumed to be designed as
floor slab edge beams and ties between columns, so their constant
properties were preselected. Column uplift was modeled using
compression-only springs having axial stiffnesses resulting in
approximately 5-mm settlement under gravity loads at each
ground-story column base. As recommended by Carr (2006),
5% damping was assigned to all modes using the Wilson and
Penzien (1972) damping model (ICTYPE ¼ 2). This damping
model uses the initial elastic modal properties and so is constant
throughout the NRHA.
Because all seismic and gravity beams and columns were mod-
eled, no P-delta leaning columns were required to account for
P-delta effects in the analyses. Reasonable vertical and rotational
inertias were assigned to column end nodes. An analysis time step
of 0.0025 s was used. The Newmark (Carr 2006) constant average
© ASCE 04016205-7
J. Struct. Eng., 04016205
acceleration numerical integration scheme was used with
Newton–Raphson iteration for computation of nonlinear response
within each time step.
Initial Seismic Design
Minimum section flexural strengths were set considering gravity
loads. Initial section sizes were set proportional to story shear de-
mands from a typical equivalent lateral force vector by relating
story shears to drifts using Wilbur’s formula (Stafford Smith and
Coull 1991). Half the allowed drift was attributed to beam defor-
mations and half to column deformations. The story shears were
derived from a preliminary equivalent lateral load assessment
similar to that found in most current design codes. For this purpose,
cracked cross sections were assumed to have second moments of
area equal to half the gross section second moments of area. The
better the initial seismic design, the fewer the iterations required to
achieve convergence.
Discussion of AR Design Performance
The analysis–redesign procedure leads to a fully stressed design
solution within the constraints on flexural strengths. Minimum
strengths are based on the gravity load design. Maximum flexural
strengths were based on reasonable beam–column dimension
limits and allowable steel reinforcing ratios. The analysis–redesign
algorithm was then executed. Fig. 4 shows the convergence of the
objective function (total steel volume) and the maximum constraint
violation (MCV) in percent for a Q value of 0.7 [Eq. (2) in “Step 4:
Redesign Beams”]. It can be seen that after approximately 10
iterations, the MCV reaches approximately 10%, which is probably
acceptable for most design purposes considering the uncertainty
usually inherent in the input data (e.g., characteristics of materials
and seismicity).
Fig. 2 shows the final component dimensions and relative
flexural strengths (darker is stronger). The AR design verification
results (interstory drifts and beam and column ductility demands
normalized by allowable values) are shown in Fig. 5.
In general, most of the peripheral frames achieved the interstory
drift limit in most stories for one or both of the limit states
considered. The black drift bars show the serviceability mean peak
demands and the gray bars the ultimate limit state (ULS) demands.
The vertical lines in the interstory drift figures show the drift limits
(tolerance of 2% shown each side).
In Figs. 5(e and f), one horizontal bar is shown for each seismic
column story element and beam element. Only results for seismic
columns and beams are shown, hence the number of columns
shown (18) is less than the total number of columns (19), and the
same for the beams. The column ductility performance indices
(demand and limit) show that most of the eight base plastic hinges
in the ground-story seismic columns achieved more than half their
ductility capacities. The curvature ductility limits of the column
Fig. 4. Convergence: objective function and maximum constraint
violation
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 11/01/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Analysis–redesign design verification results (black drift bars show the serviceability mean peak demands and the gray bars the ULS demands)
bases were set equal to the beam ductility limits [5 for serviceability
limit state (SLS) and 7.3 for ULS]. The above-base column
ductility limit was 1. It can be seen that some yielding occurred
above the column bases. However, these ductility demands were
limited to less than 1.25 in all columns but one, and to less than
2 in all columns. Overall, the capacity design approach succeeded
in distributing plasticity at the column bases and beam ends in
accordance with the intended ductile collapse mechanism targeted
and in limiting column ductility demand above bases to acceptable
values.
The absolute beam ductility limit is also shown as a vertical line
in the bottom right beam ductility bar chart in Fig. 5(f). As can be
seen in this bar chart, the AR design was relatively efficient, uti-
lizing on average more than half the ductility capacity of the beams.
The design of the beams in the peripheral frames that did not
achieve the drift limit were governed by gravity loads. In Fig. 2
it can be seen that some of these beams (e.g., x-direction Frame
Edge 2 Story 1) had final depths greater than the minimum allowed
values. This could be due to the analysis–redesign algorithm
converging to the expected gravity resistance capacities at slightly
larger beam depths. Although the depths of these beams did not
reach the expected minimum gravity design values, the flexural
strengths at these locations reached the expected gravity design
values.
Force-Based Designs
The force-based designs used the same minimum gravity load
capacities and the same initial seismic design. Element dimensions
were set so as to achieve the allowable interstory drifts in linear
response history analysis. These analyses used large displacement
© ASCE 04016205-8
J. Struct. Eng., 04016205
formulation and therefore considered geometrical nonlinearity
(P-delta effects) directly. Sections were determined using the AR
approach to increase element dimensions when drifts were larger
than the limits and vice versa. Here, as per code requirements
(e.g., Eurocode 8) the cracked flexural stiffnesses were taken as
0.5EIg (where EIg is the gross cross section bending stiffness).
Therefore, these designs represent the best designs achievable using
typical force-based design assumptions about section stiffnesses
and linear analysis with the equal displacements assumption. Final
plastic hinge region nominal flexural yield strengths were taken as
the maximum responses recorded during the last AR linear re-
sponse history analysis divided by the reduced response modifica-
tion coefficient. Five values for response modification coefficient
were selected to result in five different force-based designs. These
are R ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Because interstory drifts usually govern
the designs, the use of different R values allows the comparison of
the AR method with the best possible design that could be achieved
using force-based design. The response modification coefficients
were reduced according to Eurocode 8 by 20% due to irregularity
(setbacks) in elevation. The interstory drift sensitivity index, which
aims to consider geometric nonlinearity, was computed for each
story, and the strengths of all seismic elements were increased ac-
cording to code requirements where necessary. Only the 6-story
force-based designs (next example) for R ¼ 4 and 5 were affected
by this index.
Capacity design principles as were applied in the AR procedure
were applied to the force-based designs to ensure monotonic
column strength and size reduction with height and a minimum
column–beam strength ratio of 2. Element dimensions were also
J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 1. Comparison of KPIs of AR Design with Those of Force-Based Designs
Design T (s) Vs (m3 ) Vc (m3 ) Maximum PIθ Maximum PIμc Maximum PIμb BSx=Wt BSz=Wt OTMx (kN · m) OTMz (kN · m)
AR 0.82 1.05 75.9 1.01 1.84 0.891 0.296 0.286 5,960 5,570
R¼1 0.63 2.04 76.9 1.13 1.72 0.882 0.510 0.438 17,366 11,839
R¼2 (1.6) 0.78 1.47 69.2 1.18 1.52 0.864 0.402 0.338 9,072 7,132
R¼3 (2.4) 0.90 1.09 65.4 1.41 1.81 1.21 0.321 0.282 6,475 5,223
R¼4 (3.2) 0.97 0.90 63.8 2.24 3.95 1.55 0.282 0.245 5,252 4,215
R¼5 (4) 1.03 0.77 63.4 3.74 7.07 2.18 0.254 0.223 4,374 3,607

volume Vs, the total concrete volume Vc, the maximum PIθ of
all stories of all peripheral frames, the maximum PIμc of all seismic
columns, the maximum PIμb of all seismic beams, mean peak
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 11/01/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

base shears normalized by the total seismic weight BSx=Wt

Fig. 6. Absolute total floor accelerations and demand-limit ratios of
interstory drifts: (a and c) x-direction; (b and d) z-direction
modified where necessary to achieve steel reinforcing ratios within
the selected limits. As can be seen in Table 1, this resulted in
significantly larger total concrete volumes for the force-based de-
signs for smaller response modification coefficients than those for
larger response modification coefficients.
Comparison of AR Design Performance with That of Force-
Based Designs
Key performance indicators (KPIs) of the six designs are compared
in Table 1. These are the fundamental period T, the total steel
and BSz=Wt in the x- and z-directions, respectively, and mean
peak base overturning moment OTMx and OTMz in the x- and
z-directions, respectively. Two values of R are given for each force-
based design. One is the basic response modification coefficient,
while the other (in parentheses) is the reduced value accounting
for irregularity and P-delta effects (where applicable).
Although one would expect that the maximum interstory drifts
for the R ¼ 1 force-based design (R being the response modifica-
tion coefficient) would be smaller or equal to the limits, this is
not the case. This is because in the force-based design process,
although the elements were dimensioned based on this criterion,
an assumption was made that the cracked cross section flexural
stiffness is half of that of the gross cross section. In the verification,
the true cracked cross section stiffness (EIcr ¼ My =φy ) was taken.
Additionally, because stiffness is proportional to strength, one
would expect the periods of the force-based designs to scale
with the square root of the actual reduction factor. Nonetheless,
it should be kept in mind that not all elements’ strength is reduced
by the actual reduction factor (e.g., gravity frames, beams that reach
the minimum strength due to gravity)
As can be seen from Table 1, the AR design had a total reinforc-
ing steel volume between those of the force-based designs for R ¼
3 and 4. The R ¼ 4 force-based design had 14% less steel but its
peak drift was 124% over the limit, whereas the AR design’s peak
drift was only 1% over. The force-based designs violated the drift
limits by between 13 and 274% while requiring between 84% more
to 26% less total longitudinal reinforcing steel than the AR design,
respectively. The force-based design for R ¼ 3 was closest to the

Fig. 7. Example 2: 6-story generally irregular RC frame structure

© ASCE 04016205-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016205


Fig. 8. Convergence: objective function and maximum constraint
violation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 11/01/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
AR design in terms of total steel volume, column ductility, base
shears, and overturning moments. However, beam ductility demands
exceeded capacities by 20% and the drift limits were exceeded by
40%. This essentially represents the best possible design achievable
using assumptions typically accepted by design codes regarding
section stiffness and the equal displacements approximation.
While the AR designs had the second to highest total concrete
volume, this parameter was not targeted for minimization in the AR
algorithm because steel reinforcing is generally significantly more
expensive than concrete. The concrete volume varied less than 20%
from the AR design at the most.
As can be seen in Fig. 6, the top two stories experienced very
high peak interstory drift response, reaching values of 3.74 times
the allowable in the top story for R ¼ 5, verging on collapse.
The final response modification coefficient values used in the
force-based designs are shown in parentheses in Table 1. Mean
peak interstory drift demands divided by target response limits,
and maximum (of the four corners of the building plan) absolute
values of mean peak floor total accelerations in each horizontal
Fig. 9. Analysis–redesign design verification results
© ASCE 04016205-10
J. Struct. Eng., 04016205
direction are compared in Fig. 6. From Fig. 6 it can be seen that
the AR design achieved maximum peak floor total accelerations
generally between those of the R ¼ 2 and R ¼ 3 force-based de-
signs. It can be seen that the maximum mean peak drift responses of
the AR design in each direction in each story were very close to the
target limit response. Such a result is satisfactory and demonstrates
the utility of the analysis–redesign approach presented in this paper
as a performance-based seismic design method for low-rise gener-
ally irregular RC frame structures.
Example 2: 6-Story Generally Irregular
RC MRF Structure
The 6-story generally irregular RC frame structure shown in Fig. 7
was designed using the proposed analysis–redesign method and us-
ing a typical force-based design approach for a range of response
modification coefficients. The structure has a total of 142 beam
segments and 96 column segments, or 238 design variables. The
performance of the designs is discussed and compared in this sec-
tion. The same material properties and floor unit masses were used
as in the 3-story example. The same procedure for generating the
initial seismic designed was also utilized.
The same two limit states that were considered in the design of
the preceding 3-story example were adopted in this example as
well: a SLS and a ULS. Also, the same seismic action, modeling
and AR algorithm as for the 3-story example was used. Fig. 8
shows the convergence of the objective function (total steel
volume) and the MCV in percent for a recursion exponent value
of Q ¼ 0.7 [Eq. (1) in “Step 4: Redesign Beams”]. It can be
seen that, as for the 3-story example, after approximately 10 iter-
ations, the MCV decreases to below 10%. All the selected conver-
gence criteria were satisfied within 20 iterations for this 6-story
case.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 2. Comparison of KPIs of AR Design with Those of Force-Based Designs
Design T (s) Vs (m3 ) Vc ðm3 Þ Maximum PIθ Maximum PIμc Maximum PIμb BSx=Wt BSz=Wt OTMx (kN · m) OTMz (kN · m)
AR 1.49 2.74 336 1.02 1.62 0.759 0.161 0.135 31,134 25,157
R¼1 1.19 6.19 357 1.45 1.87 0.864 0.227 0.225 52,016 51,392
R¼2 (1.6) 1.40 4.57 323 1.72 1.34 1.00 0.183 0.179 37,481 39,298
R¼3 (2.4) 1.56 3.33 307 1.77 1.83 0.98 0.160 0.152 28,212 29,587
R¼4 (2.8) 1.62 2.96 304 1.80 1.65 1.05 0.151 0.145 26,494 26,251
R¼5 (3.4) 1.68 2.54 301 3.41 4.06 1.15 0.144 0.133 28,161 23,430

concrete volumes were fairly constant, varying less than 11% from
the AR design value.
The base shear and overturning moment KPIs of the AR design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 11/01/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

solution were mostly between those of the force-based designs for

Fig. 10. Absolute total floor accelerations and interstory drift demand–
limit ratios: (a and c) x-direction; (b and d) z-direction
Fig. 7 shows the final component dimensions and relative flexu-
ral strengths (darker is stronger). Figs. 9(a–d) show that most
peripheral frames of the AR design achieved the target drift limits
in most of their stories for at least one of the two seismic intensities
designed for. All peripheral frames in the top story were governed
by gravity considerations. Apart from that, only two other locations
failed to achieve the target drift limits: the third story on Edge 1 and
the fourth story on Edge 2 of the x-direction frames. These loca-
tions were also governed by gravity considerations. As noted for
the 3-story case, the beam depths of these bents shown in Fig. 7
are not necessarily the minimum depths because the minimum
gravity strengths may have been achieved with deeper beams hav-
ing a smaller reinforcing steel ratio than used in the gravity design.
The large variance of the seismic column ductility demands
shows how inefficient traditional capacity design can sometimes
be when prescribing the same column-to-beam strength ratio for
all joints. The column mean peak ductility demands above their
bases are relatively low (all < 1.75) and are considered acceptable
in light of how well the drifts are controlled.
The column base and beam ductility demands are similar to the
3-story case, averaging just over half the ductility capacities. This
indicates a fairly efficient design overall, which achieved the de-
sired strong column weak beam ductile failure mechanism.
Force-based designs were generated using the same procedure
as for the 3-story example. Table 2 and Fig. 10 summarize the
results. For this 6-story case, the AR design had a steel volume
between those of the R ¼ 4 and R ¼ 5 force-based designs. Total
R ¼ 2 and 3 for the x-direction, and between R ¼ 4 and 5 for the
z-direction. These results support the claim that minimizing
strength reduces base shear and overturning moment demands
on foundations. The force-based design for R ¼ 5 collapsed during
one of the verification analyses. This explains the high (average)
PIθ values for this design. Collapse was defined as an average in-
terstory drift (over all stories) of 5%.
The maximum over all stories of the stability coefficient [θ in
ASCE 7 (ASCE 2010)] was larger than 0.1 only for the force-based
designs for R ¼ 4 and 5. The strengths of all seismic beams were
increased by a factor equal to 1=ð1 − θÞ. The parenthetical values in
Table 2 include this modification for P-delta effects. The final
response modification coefficient values used in the force-based
designs are shown in parentheses in Table 2.
Although the AR design had a steel volume very similar to the
R ¼ 3 force-based design, all of the force-based designs (except
R ¼ 1) exceeded the drift limits by more than 70% (Fig. 10).
The maximum (of all four corners of the building plan) absolute
values of mean peak floor total accelerations in each horizontal di-
rection are compared in Figs. 10(a and b) in units of gravity. From
these figures it can be seen that the AR design experienced maxi-
mum peak floor total accelerations similar to the R ¼ 5 force-based
design. This is congruent with the similarity between the total steel
volumes (and fundamental periods) of these two designs. However,
the drift response of the AR design achieves the target drifts for
many more stories than the force-based designs.
Summary and Conclusions
A methodology of the analysis–redesign type for the efficient seis-
mic design of 3D generally irregular frame structures was pre-
sented. The methodology aims at minimizing the total moment
capacity of all members within interstory drift and ductility demand
constraints. Because the methodology is very intuitive and requires
analysis tools only, it is intended for practical use in design offices.
The methodology was applied to two setback structures to dem-
onstrate its utility. In both examples, the final design was achieved
with less than 20 iterations, which is manageable even though non-
linear time-history analyses are adopted. This further highlights
the applicability of the method to design offices. Considering the
fact that the number of design variables was as high as 238 in the
second example, the number of analyses is much smaller than what
would be required with other zero-order optimization methods
(e.g., genetic algorithms, tabu search). As intended, the final de-
signs achieved flexural strengths in beams larger than the minimum
gauge only in floors for which the performance measure reached
the allowable. Thus, strength was assigned only where required.
The example setback structures were further designed using a
typical force-based approach for a range of response modification

© ASCE 04016205-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016205

 coefficients. It was found that the analysis–redesign designs had
total steel volumes between those of the force-based designs for
response modification coefficients of 3 and 4 for the first structure,
and 4 and 5 for the second structure. This was also true for the base
shear, overturning moment and total accelerations. In addition, it
was found that all force-based designs exceeded the drift limits,
in most cases by more than 70%. The force-based designs that
were comparable with the analysis–redesign designs in terms of
total steel exceeded the drift demands by 40–124% in the 3-story
example and by 80–240% in the 6-story example.
References
Anagnostopoulos, S. A., Kyrkos, M. T., and Stathopoulos, K. G. (2015).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 11/01/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
“Earthquake induced torsion in buildings: Critical review and state of
the art.” Earthquake Struct., 8(2), 305–377.
ASCE. (2010). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.”
ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA.
ASCE. (2014). “Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings.” ASCE/SEI
41-13, Reston, VA.
Balling, R. J., Pister, K. S., and Ciampi, V. (1983). “Optimal seismic-
resistant design of a planar steel frame.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn., 11(4), 541–556.
BCJ (Building Center of Japan). (1981). “Structural provisions for building
structures.” Tokyo (in Japanese).
Bertero, V. V. (1997). “Performance-based seismic engineering: A critical
review of proposed guidelines.” P. Fajfar and H. Krawinkler, eds.,
Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes, A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1–31.
Carr, A. J. (2006). “RUAUMOKO—Program for inelastic dynamic analy-
sis.” Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2004). “Design of struc-
tures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions
and rules for buildings.” EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8, Brussels, Belgium,
222.
Cilley, F. H. (1900). “The exact design of statically indeterminate frame-
works: An exposition of its possibility but futility.” Transactions, 43(1),
353–407.
CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat). (2008). “Recom-
mendations for the seismic design of high-rise buildings.” Chicago.
Daniel, Y., and Lavan, O. (2014). “Gradient based optimal seismic retro-
fitting of 3D irregular buildings using multiple tuned mass dampers.”
Comput. Struct., 139(1), 84–97.
Daniel, Y., and Lavan, O. (2015). “Optimality criteria based seismic design
of multiple tuned-mass-dampers for the control of 3D irregular
buildings.” Earthquakes Struct., 8(1), 77–100.
Dooley, K. L., and Bracci, J. M. (2001). “Seismic evaluation of column-to-
beam strength ratios in reinforced concrete frames.” ACI Struct. J.,
98(6), 843–851.
Fragiadakis, M., and Papadrakakis, M. (2008). “Performance-based opti-
mum seismic design of reinforced concrete structures.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn., 37(6), 825–844.
Ganzerli, S., Pantelides, C. P., and Reaveley, L. D. (2000). “Performance-
based design using structural optimization.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn., 29(11), 1677–1690.
Hajirasouliha, I., Asadi, P., and Pilakoutas, K. (2012). “An efficient perfor-
mance-based seismic design method for reinforced concrete frames.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 41(4), 663–679.
Kyrkos, M. T., and Anagnostopoulos, S. A. (2011). “An assessment of code
designed, torsionally stiff, asymmetric steel buildings under strong
earthquake excitations.” Earthquake Struct., 2(2), 109–126.
Lavan, O. (2015). “A methodology for the integrated seismic design of
nonlinear buildings with supplemental damping.” Struct. Control
Health Monitor., 22(3), 484–499.
Lavan, O., and Daniel, Y. (2013). “Full resources utilization seismic
design of irregular structures using multiple tuned mass dampers.”
Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim., 48(3), 517–532.
© ASCE 04016205-12
J. Struct. Eng., 04016205
Lavan, O., and Dargush, G. F. (2009). “Multi-objective optimal seismic
retrofitting of structures.” J. Earthquake Eng., 13(6), 758–790.
Lavan, O., and Levy, R. (2005). “Optimal seismic retrofit of irregular 3D
framed structures using supplemental viscous dampers.” Proc., 4th
European Workshop on the Seismic Behavior of Irregular and Complex
Structures. Thessaionica, Greece
Lavan, O., and Levy, R. (2006). “Optimal peripheral drift control of 3D
irregular framed structures using supplemental viscous dampers.”
J. Earthquake Eng., 10(6), 903–923.
Lavan, O., and Levy, R. (2009). “Simple iterative use of Lyapunov’s
solution for the linear optimal seismic design of passive devices in
framed buildings.” J. Earthquake Eng., 13(5), 650–666.
Lavan, O., and Levy, R. (2010). “Performance based optimal seismic
retrofitting of yielding plane frames using added viscous damping.”
Earthquakes Struct., 1(3), 307–326.
Levy, R., and Lavan, O. (2006). “Fully stressed design of passive control-
lers in framed structures for seismic loadings.” J. Struct. Multidiscipl.
Optim., 32(6), 485–498.
Liu, Q., Zhang, J., and Yan, L. (2010). “An optimal method for seismic
drift design of concrete buildings using gradient and Hessian matrix
calculations.” Archiv. Appl. Mech., 80(11), 1225–1242.
Moehle, J. P., and Alarcon, L. F. (1986). “Modeling and analysis
methods for vertically irregular buildings.” Proc., 8th European Conf.
on Earthquake Engineering.
NISEE. (2016). “Suites of earthquake ground motions for analysis of steel
moment frame structures.” 〈https://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/files
/documents/data/strong_motion/sacsteel/ground_motions.html〉 (Sep.
26, 2016).
Otani, S. (1974). “Inelastic analysis of R/C frame structures.” J. Struct.
Div., 100(7), 1433–1449.
Paulay, T. (2002). “An estimation of displacement limits for ductile
systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 583–599.
Priestley, M. J. N. (2000). “Performance based seismic design.” Proc., 12th
World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, M. C., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007).
Displacement-based seismic design of structures, IUSS Press, Pavia,
Italy.
Ruaumoko 3D [Computer software]. Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
SeismoMatch [Computer software]. Seismosoft, Pavia, Italy.
Somerville, P., Smith, N., Punyamurthula, S., and Sun, J. (1997). “Develop-
ment of ground motion time histories for Phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC
steel project.” Rep. No. SAC/BD-97/04, Sacramento, CA.
Stafford Smith, B., and Coull, A. (1991). Tall building structures: Analysis
and design, Wiley, New York.
Stathopoulos, K. G., and Anagnostopoulos, S. A. (2005). “Inelastic torsion
of multistorey buildings under earthquake excitations.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn., 34(12), 1449–1465.
Tzan, S. R., and Pantelides, C. P. (1996). “Convex model for seismic
design of structures—II: Design of conventional and active structures.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 25(9), 945–963.
Valmundsson, V. E., and Nau, J. M. (1997). “Seismic response of building
frames with vertical structural irregularities.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:1(30), 30–41.
Wilson, E. L., and Penzien, J. (1972) “Evaluation of orthogonal damping
matrices.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 4(1), 5–10.
Zaghi, A. E., Soroushian, S., Itani, A., Maragakis, E. M., Pekcan, G., and
Mehrraoufi, M. (2015). “Impact of column-to-beam strength ratio on
the seismic response of steel MRFs.” Bull. Earthquake Eng., 13(2),
635–652.
Zou, X. K., and Chan, C. M. (2005a). “An optimal resizing technique
for seismic drift design of concrete buildings subjected to response
spectrum and time history loadings.” Comput. Struct., 83(19),
1689–1704.
Zou, X. K., and Chan, C. M. (2005b). “Optimal seismic performance-
based design of reinforced concrete buildings using nonlinear pushover
analysis.” Eng. Struct., 27(8), 1289–1302.
J. Struct. Eng.