See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304069739

Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings with Hysteretic Dampers,

using Best Combinations of Stiffness and Strength Ratios

Article in Journal of Earthquake Engineering · June 2016

DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1185054

CITATIONS READS

20 628

2 authors, including:

Sonia E. Ruiz
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
137 PUBLICATIONS 1,380 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sonia E. Ruiz on 11 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings

with Hysteretic Dampers, using Best Combinations
of Stiffness and Strength Ratios

Vanessa A. Segovia & Sonia E. Ruiz

To cite this article: Vanessa A. Segovia & Sonia E. Ruiz (2016): Direct Displacement-Based
Design for Buildings with Hysteretic Dampers, using Best Combinations of Stiffness and
Strength Ratios, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1185054

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1185054

Accepted author version posted online: 17

Jun 2016.
Published online: 17 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 46

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20

Download by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria], [Sonia E. Ruiz] Date: 22 September 2016, At: 16:21
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 00:1–24, 2016
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1185054

Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings

with Hysteretic Dampers, using Best Combinations
of Stiffness and Strength Ratios

VANESSA A. SEGOVIA and SONIA E. RUIZ

Structural Engineering Department, Institute of Engineering, Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México, México City, Mexico

A direct displacement-based design approach for damage-controlled structures using the best com-
bination of stiffness and strength ratios between the main structure and added hysteretic energy
dissipation systems is proposed. Choosing optimal values of the design parameters is an important
step toward an efficient structural design; therefore, a parametric study using different combinations
of design parameters is performed, from which a simple methodology to calculate a cost-efficiency
index based on a cost-benefit analysis is developed. The DDBD methodology is verified and recom-
mendations about adequate combinations of design parameters are given for an 8-story steel building
with buckling restrained braces.

Keywords Direct Displacement-Based Seismic Design; Damage-Controlled Structures; Hysteretic

Energy Dissipation System; Best Design Parameters; Cost-Efficiency Index

1. Introduction
The study focuses on establishing a seismic design methodology based on the damage-
controlled structure concept [Connor et al., 1997] using a displacement-based approach.
The damage-controlled structure design philosophy can be found in several analytical stud-
ies [Wada et al., 1992; Vargas and Bruneau, 2009a], as well as in experimental studies
[Huang and Wada, 2000; Yamaguchi et al., 2000; Vargas and Bruneau, 2009b].
The displacement-based approach follows the work done by Priestely [2003]. Several
efforts have been made in previous studies in order to adapt the displacement-based
design methodology for different types of structures including buildings with passive
dissipating devices [Lin et al., 2003; Pennuci et al., 2009], structures with base isolation
systems [Cardone et al., 2010], and concrete buildings with steel braces [Malekpour et al.,
2012]. Some of the studies oriented to design structures with hysteretic dampers using the
displacement-based approach were developed by Kim and Seo [2004]. These authors pro-
posed a seismic design method for low-rise steel buildings with buckling restrained braces
(BRB) as hysteretic energy dissipation systems (HEDS). Additionally, Teran-Gilmore and
Virto [2009] introduced a displacement-based methodology for the preliminary design of
low-rise concrete buildings with BRB; however, these methodologies do not make use of
the best combination of the strength and stiffness ratios between the main system and the
HEDS, which are critical design parameters due to their effects on the seismic structural

Received 13 October 2015; accepted 28 April 2016.

Address correspondence to Sonia E. Ruiz, Structural Engineering Department, Institute of Engineering,
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México City, 04510, Mexico. E-mail: sruizg@iingen.unam.mx
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueqe.

1
2 V. A. Segovia and S. E. Ruiz

response, as discussed by Fleming [2004], Vargas and Bruneau [2009a], and Maley et al.
[2010].
Fleming [2004] proposed a design methodology for HEDS in buildings using the
design philosophy of structural motion [Connor, 2003], as well as a design algorithm
that calibrates stiffness and yield force level of the damper for a single-degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) system. Vargas and Bruneau [2009a] developed a parametric study oriented to
establish the key parameters in the behavior of nonlinear SDOF structures with HEDS,
which are designed considering the “structural fuse” concept. The authors proposed a gen-
eral force-based seismic design procedure that is systematic and simple, and takes into
account the key parameters that relate both the frame and the damper. Maley et al. [2010]
introduced a Direct Displacement-Based Design (DDBD) approach for steel buildings with
a dual system of moment resisting frame and BRB using strength distribution between the
systems as the main design parameter.
In the studies mentioned above, important aspects such as the efficiency of the HEDS
linked to the stiffness contribution and ductility, and the selection of pre-design parame-
ters based on a cost-benefit basis are not considered. To the best knowledge of the authors,
no report in the relevant literature exists regarding design algorithms for choosing opti-
mal combinations of design parameters considering both the effectiveness of the hysteretic
energy dissipation systems and the total initial cost of the damage-controlled structure
according to specific performance objectives, especially when considering the real con-
figuration of multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) buildings. Therefore, this study proposes
a seismic displacement-based design for medium-rise steel buildings with HEDS applying
the best combination of strength ratios and stiffness ratios between the structural systems.
First, a DDBD procedure is described in order to develop a methodology based on the
stiffness and strength ratios considered as main design parameters. The effect of different
combinations of design parameters is analyzed, and recommendations are given regarding
the best values based on a cost-efficiency index, which relates the initial costs of the system
with the efficiency of the HEDS. Finally, the proposed methodology is verified using two
different combinations of the design parameters.

2. MDOF DDBD Background

The Direct Displacement-Based Design (DDBD) approach proposed by Priestley [2007]
characterizes the MDOF inelastic structure by an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom
structure (ESDOF) (see Fig. 1a). This is done by establishing a displacement profile
di , employed to transform the peak story level displacements into the ESDOF design
displacement dmax , given by:

dmax ESDOF = mi di2 /mi di . (1)

The peak story level displacements is set in accordance with the deformation limits of the
desired performance level, which can be related to structural or nonstructural compliances.
The design procedure characterizes the ESDOF structure with the secant stiffness Ke at
maximum displacement dmax (see Fig. 1b), and the inelastic response related to the ductility
and energy dissipation capacity is represented by means of Equivalent Viscous Damping
(EVD). This characterizes the structure by a SDOF representation at peak displacement
response [Priestley, 2007]. This model is based on the substitute structure approach devel-
oped by Shibata and Sozen [1976]. The design ductility μ is calculated knowing the yield
displacement dy of the ESDOF structure (see Fig. 1b) as:
 Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings 3

FIGURE 1 Key steps of DDBD for MDOF systems: (a) ESDOF, (b) Effective stiffness
and ductility, (c) Equivalent viscous damping vs ductility, (d) Design displacement spectra
[Priestley et al., 2007].

μ = dmax /dy . (2)

For a given level of ductility, the EVD is estimated according to the damping-ductility
relation (see Fig. 1c). The EVD is used to calculate a damping modification factor which
reduces the design displacement spectrum. Once the design displacement dmax has been
determined, the effective period Te is obtained from the reduced displacement spectrum
(see Fig. 1d). The effective stiffness Ke of the ESDOF structure is found as follows:

Ke = 4πme /Te 2 , (3)

where me is the equivalent mass of the ESDOF structure, given by:


n
me = (mi di )/dmax . (4)
i=1

The corresponding design lateral force is obtained as:

V = Ke dmax . (5)

Finally, the design base shear force V is distributed over the height of the building as a set of
equivalent lateral forces in each level, proportional to the mass and the displacement profile:
4 V. A. Segovia and S. E. Ruiz


n
Fi = V(mi di )/ mi di (6)
i=1

3. Proposed DDBD Approach for MDOF Systems with Hysteretic Dampers

3.1. Proposed DDBD General Steps

The core structure of the DDBD mentioned above is adapted here for the design of struc-
tures with hysteretic dampers using the best combination of stiffness and strength ratios.
For this purpose, the following methodology (see Fig. 2) is proposed (each step is described
in Secs. 3.2.1–3.2.7).
1. Select the performance objectives based on the limit inter-story drift related to each
system; see Sec. 3.2.1.
2. Choose the best design parameters for the damage-controlled structure based on
HEDS efficiency and cost-benefit considerations; see Sec. 3.2.2.

θIO = NSD θs
IO
SD θyd
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES Response
(STEP 1) indicator Select preliminary
LS θLS = SD θyf
section group

DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR

DAMAGE CONTROLLED Design Stiffness ratio α = Kf/Kt
STRUCTURES parameters
(STEP 2) Strength ratio γ = Vyd/Vt

Displacement IO Code Sd IO
DISPLACEMENT DEMAND AND demand LS Code Sd LS
DAMPING MODIFICATION
FACTOR
Damping modification IO βh =1
(STEP 3)
factor βh [Castillo, 2014]
LS βh = f (α, γ, To, Tg)

MULTIPLE-LEVEL
Determine IO Ts
PERFORMANCE DESIGN PERIOD
(STEP 4) Tdesign LS Ti
Kf = α Kt
Main System
STIFFNESS AND STRENGTH Vyd =dmax Kf
Transform Tdesign to
DISTRIBUTION
global total stiffnessKt Secondary System Kd = (1-α) Kt
(STEP 5)
(HEDS) Vyd =dyd Kd

STIFFNESS-BASED PROCEDURE Transform global Main System Ic and Ib= f (Kf,Nc, Nb,L,ρ)
FOR SIZING THE STRUCTURAL stiffness to story
MEMBERS stiffness [Bozorgnia and
Bertero, 2004] Calculate stiffness
(STEP 6) Secondary System
properties according to
(HEDS)
the type of HEDS
Perform elastic design of
MULTIPLE-LEVEL IO Using initial stiffness
the total system for the
PERFORMANCE DESIGN
DDBD Vt shear demand
VERIFICATION
and verify performance
(STEP 7) LS Using secant stiffness
objectives

FIGURE 2 Flowchart of the proposed DBDD procedure.

 Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings 5

3. Select the seismic demand for each performance level and adjust for the presence of
HEDS by means of a hysteretic damping reduction factor according to the chosen
design parameters; see Sec. 3.2.3.
4. Calculate the design period to accomplish the multiple-level performance objec-
tives; see Sec. 3.2.4.
5. Utilize the design parameters to determine the strength and stiffness requirement of
each system; see Sec. 3.2.5.
6. Use the stiffness-based procedure for sizing the structural members of each system;
see Sec. 3.2.6.
7. Design the total system for the DDBD base shear force demand, and verify the per-
formance objective employing stiffness modification factors for each performance
level; see Sec. 3.2.7. Next, verify the structural seismic performance.

3.2. Description of the Concepts Involved in the Proposed DDBD Procedure

3.2.1. Performance Objectives (Step 1). In this study, two seismic performance levels are
considered: immediate occupancy (IO) and life safety (LS). The multiple-level perfor-
mance objectives adopted here are shown in Table 1, where θs is the allowable design
interstory drift for non-structural damage (NSD) for the IO performance level, θyd is the
design yield drift of the HEDS, and θyf is the design yield drift of the main system.
For the IO performance level, during low intensity seismic events, none of the total
system elements should exhibit structural damage (SD); furthermore, nonstructural damage
(NSD) must not occur. Thus, the maximum displacement state should not generate yielding
of the HEDS and the nonstructural components must remain undamaged, considering the
code drift limit for this condition. For the LS performance level, during high intensity
seismic events, the HEDS should develop large inelastic behavior to dissipate the seismic
energy in the system. However, in order to comply with the damage-controlled structure
design concept, the main system must present linear elastic behavior.
The design yield drift θyf of the main system can be obtained using the expressions
proposed by Priestley et al. [2007] for steel frames. For this purpose, prior knowledge of
the depth of the design sections is required. By using this approach, the DBDD would
become an iterative process. Therefore, the recommendations given by Priestley et al.
[2007], and the expressions proposed by Sullivan et al. [2006] are used here. According
to these authors, the yielding curvature φy of a group of standard W-sections is a function
of the ratio between the plastic section modulus Z and the cross–sectional inertia I. From
this point of view, it is possible to choose a preliminary design section group, and calculate

TABLE 1 Multiple-level performance criteria

Structural system
Main System: Frame
Secondary System: HEDS
Total system
Performance level
Response indicator IO LS
Yielding of structural members Not allowed Not allowed
Maximum ductility 1 1
Yielding of the HEDS Not allowed Allowed
Maximum ductility 1 25
Maximum interstory drift θyd or θs θyf
6 V. A. Segovia and S. E. Ruiz

the design yield drift of the main system θyf as follows [Priestley et al., 2007; Sullivan,
2006]:

θyf = 0.30 εy L Z/I, (7)

where εy is the steel yield strain. Here, the maximum displacement profile proposed by
Priestley et al. [2007] is applied. Thus, a related-mode shape is adopted to define the max-
imum displacement profile. The first inelastic mode shape of response [Priestley et al.,
2007] is used for the analyzed buildings.
The yield displacement of the HEDS dyd is calculated in accordance with the type of
HEDS utilized, such as buckling-restrained braces (BRB), triangular added damping and
stiffness (T-ADAS) systems, shear panel (SP), etc., for which mathematical closed form
expressions of dyd can be obtained based on the geometric and mechanical properties of
the HEDS elements [Tsai et al., 1993]. From this, the frame inter-story drift that causes
the HEDS yielding θyd can be calculated. Considering a design hypothesis where the build-
ing follows a global shear deformation profile, a linear displacement profile is used as an
approximation of the yielding mechanism of the HEDS. This implies that all hysteretic
dampers yield simultaneously. Hence, the yield displacement profile follows a linear mode
shape, and the yielding displacement profile can be found combining the yield drift of the
HEDS and the linear mode shape [Segovia, 2015].

3.2.2. Design Parameters for Damage-Controlled Structures (Step 2). “Damage-

controlled structures are defined as the combination of structural systems and energy
transformation devices that are integrated in such a way that damage due to a major loading
is restricted to a specific set of elements that can be easily repaired” [Connor et al., 1997].
Here, the combination of structural systems consists of: (a) a main system which corre-
sponds to the frame with elastic behavior, and supports the vertical loads, but also provides
some of the lateral stiffness; and (b) a secondary system which corresponds to the HEDS,
which are designed to yield and absorb seismic energy before the frame yields. A graphical
representation of the damage-controlled structure is portrayed in Fig. 3.

Primary (Frame) Secondary (HEDS) Total

(a)

F F F

D D D

Elastic Inelastic Inelastic

(b)

FIGURE 3 Concept of a damage-controlled building: (a) systems definition (b) systems

idealized behavior.
 Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings 7

V
Total System

Vy (Ω -1)
Vt

α Kt=Kf
Vy
Kt Ke
Vyd Secondary System

Vyf Kd Kde Main System

Kf

dyd dyf D
dyd (µmax -1)

FIGURE 4 General base shear- displacement curve of the SDOF model [adapted from
Vargas and Bruneau, 2009a].

The general shape of the base shear-displacement curve for the SDOF model of the
combined system is described in Fig. 4. In this figure the main and secondary systems
work in parallel and are assumed to follow an elastoplastic behavior. The curve for the
total system shows a tri-lineal behavior characterized by three slopes: the initial slope is
proportional to the initial stiffness of the total system Kt ; the second section possesses a
slope proportional to the frame initial stiffness Kf ; the change between slopes is set by the
HEDS yielding displacement dyd ; finally, once the frame reaches its yielding displacement
dyf , the curve becomes horizontal [Vargas and Bruneau, 2009a].
The design parameters that relate the main and the secondary systems are the follow-
ing: the stiffness ratio α (see Eq. (8)), which is the ratio between the frame stiffness Kf and
the initial stiffness Kt of the total system; the strength ratio γ (see Eq. (9)) corresponding to
the ratio between the damper yield force Vyd and the maximum force of the total system Vt ;
the over-strength ratio (see Eq. (10)), a parameter that associates the total system shear Vt
to the total system yield force Vy ; and the maximum design ductility μmax (see Eq. (11)) as
the ratio between the frame yield displacement dyf and the damper yield displacement dyd :

α = Kf /Kt (8)

γ = Vyd /Vt (9)

Ω = Vt /Vy = α (μmax − 1) + 1 (10)

μmax = dyf /dyd (11)

3.2.3. Displacement Demand and Damping Modification Factor (Step 3). As briefly dis-
cussed in section 1, DDBD traditionally applies EVD to represent the energy dissipation of
the nonlinear system during seismic loading. Having the EVD, the damping is affected by
a factor to reduce the seismic design spectra; however, in the present study the hysteretic
damping modification factor (βh ) proposed by Castillo [2014] for elastic structural systems
with HEDS is used.
8 V. A. Segovia and S. E. Ruiz

The mathematical expression of the hysteretic damping modification factor has been
explicitly estimated from soil conditions and ground motions typical of the valley of
Mexico. The expression depends on the dominant ground period Tg , the fundamental
period of the main structure To (frame period), the stiffness ratio α, and the strength
ratio γ . The general expression was obtained from the ratio between uniform failure rate
pseudo-acceleration spectra corresponding to systems with HEDS, Sa (T, α, γ ) and uni-
form failure rate pseudo-acceleration spectra corresponding to systems with damping ratio
of 5%, Sa (T, ξ = 5%), as shown in Eq. (12). The methodology was similar to the one intro-
duced by Castillo and Ruiz [2014], with the exception that in the latter a viscous dissipating
system was employed:

Sa (T, α, γ )
βh = (12)
Sa (T, ξ = 5%)

For the LS performance level, the damping modification factor βh is computed using the
design parameters α and γ , as well as Tg and To , following the expressions given by Castillo
[2014]. For the IO performance level, the damping modification factor βh is taken as unitary
since no inelastic behavior of the HEDS is developed. The procedure followed to obtain the
mathematical expression for βh is given in Appendix A.

3.2.4. Multiple-Level Performance Design Period (Step 4). The design period used to cal-
culate the design stiffness requirement of the systems must comply with the multiple-level
performance objectives discussed in Sec. 3.2.1; therefore, the design period for each per-
formance level is determined first, and subsequently compared against each other to choose
the most critical value which rules the stiffness requirement.
It is not adequate to compare the required effective period Te of the LS performance
level with the corresponding design period Ts of the IO performance level, because the
effective period Te is related to an inelastic behavior in which an elongation of the period
is involved due to the stiffness reduction of the HEDS. Therefore, this study associates
the required effective period Te corresponding to the LS performance level with the initial
period Ti of the total system, with the purpose of comparing the required design period
for each performance level. The relation between Ti and Te is given by Eq. (13), and it is
deduced from the base shear-displacement curve of the total system shown in Fig. 4. The
design stiffness requirement of the total system Kt is calculated using the most critical value
between Ti and Ts :

Ti = Te /μmax . (13)

In order to determine the design period for the LS performance level, the following
procedure is proposed.
a. Use the design parameters chosen according to step (2) of the proposed DDBD
procedure.
b. Establish the related DDBD properties following the general DDBD steps in
Sec. 11. For this purpose, use the related displacement profile and design drift for
each system to transform the MDOF system to its ESDOF system.
c. Determine the effective design period that satisfies the design parameters by varying
key properties of the HEDS. Because the damping modification factor βh depends
on the chosen design parameters, the effective design period must be iterated
following the steps of the flowchart shown in Fig. 5.
 Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings 9

USE CHOSEN DESIGN

PARAMETERS

Calculate approximate
strength ratio γc from the Use the displacement profile to
geometric properties of the transform MDOF ESDOF
HEDS

DETERMINE DDBD Use θyd obtained according Use θmax = θyf of the
PROPERTIES to the type of HEDS preliminary section group

Use the yielding Use the maximum displacement

CALCULATE displacement profile: linear profile [Priestley, 2007]
EFFECTIVE PERIOD
ESDOF dyd ESDOF dmax ESDOF me
Assume βh = 1

Calculate preliminary µ max =dmax/dyd

effective period Te1
Tranform effective period Te
to effective stiffness Ke

Calculate initial stiffness Kt

Calculate frame period To based on Kf = α Kt

Calculate βh = f (α, γ, To, Tg)

Obtain effective period Te2

No Te1 = Te2

No γc = γdesign

Ti =Te √Ω /µ max

FIGURE 5 Flowchart to obtain the effective design period.

The design period Ts for the IO performance level is determined for the most critical
design drift (θs or θyd ). The ESDOF displacement ds for this performance level is esti-
mated with the yield displacement profile and the selected design drift. Finally, by using
the corresponding displacement demand, the design period Ts is obtained for the ESDOF
displacement ds (see Fig. 1d).

3.2.5. Stiffness and Strength Distribution (Step 5). The value of the stiffness ratio α is
necessary to calculate the stiffness of both independent systems using Eqs. (14) and (15):

Kd = (1 − α) Kt (14)

Kf = αKt . (15)

The strength requirement for both systems can be computed using Eqs. (14) and (17):

Vyd = Kd dyd (16)

10 V. A. Segovia and S. E. Ruiz

Vyf = Kf dmax . (17)

The shear force that acts in each level for each system is obtained by distributing the main
system shear force Vyf or the HEDS shear force Vyd , using Eq.(6).

3.2.6. Stiffness-based Procedure for Sizing the Structural Members (Step 6). Once the
required stiffness for each system has been estimated, a general stiffness-based procedure
is followed for sizing the structural members, instead of the traditional trial-error approach.
The procedure allows the designer to find the preliminary size of the structural members
of both systems. Moreover, it is based on the approach by Bozorgnia and Bertero [2004]
where the required stiffness of each story can be obtained, by using the required global
stiffness (Kd or Kf ) and an expected fundamental modal shape.
The required stiffness of each story is necessary to calculate design sections of the
structural members of each system, according to the following considerations.

● Main system (frame). Several studies [Chopra, 2001; Bozorgnia and Bertero, 2004;
Muto, 1974; Schultz, 1992] have proposed approximate lateral stiffness calculations
for frame buildings, which are often used for the development of approaches to
estimate an approximate structural response such as drift, lateral displacement, etc.
In this article, an adapted procedure of the expression proposed by Schultz [1992]
is used to obtain the preliminary size of beams and columns of the main system
which satisfies the required initial stiffness Kt of the total system. Schultz [1992]
expression is hinged upon an approximation of the lateral story stiffness by adding
the lateral stiffnesses of all the columns in that story. Considering that all beams and
columns are grouped per story, the general expression for the lateral stiffness Ki of
the i-th story is:

⎛ ⎞
 
24 ⎜ 1 + Ci ⎟
Ki = ⎝ ⎠, (18)
Lc 2 2
+ 1
+ 1
Nc EIc /Lc κa Nb EIb /L above κb Nb EIb /L below

where Nc is the number of columns per story, Nb the number of beams per story, E the
modulus of elasticity of the material, Ic the moment of inertia of the column section, Ib
the moment of inertia of the beam section, Lc the free column length between stories, and
L the beam span. The term Cj considers the boundary effects in the top, second and first
story. The term κ stipulates the height difference between adjacent stories.
In order to use the expressions of Schultz [1992], an assumption of the relation between
the properties of beams and columns must be made. For this purpose, the flexural stiffness
ratio between beams and columns (ρ defined in Eq. (19) is defined to relate the inertias of
beams and columns, and Eq. (18) is utilized to iterate either the beam or the column sections
in order to find the required lateral story stiffness. A brief study was performed to evaluate
the influence of ρ in the preliminary size design of the structural members [Segovia, 2015],
from where ρ = 0.25 was chosen as the preliminary design ratio:

Ib Lc
ρ= (19)
L Ic
 Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings 11

● Secondary system (HEDS). HEDS design properties are related to the lateral stiff-
ness that they provide to the combined system, and can be used to calculate the
required lateral stiffness of the damper.

3.2.7. Multiple-Level Performance Design Verification (Step 7). This section refers to the
structural analysis and design verification, for each performance level.
For the design of the total system corresponding to the LS performance level, the
DDBD base shear force demand is employed (see Eq. (6)), and the performance objec-
tive is verified using a stiffness modification factor that considers the inelastic behavior
of the HEDS. The HEDS must be modeled using a stiffness modification factor KA (see
Eq. (20)) that relates the initial stiffness with the secant stiffness. KA is found from the
displacement-shear force curve of the HEDS shown in Fig. 4. In this way, using an elas-
tic design with secant stiffness considerations, the expected behavior for the maximum
displacement condition can be represented:

1
Kde = Kd = (KA) Kd . (20)
μmax

For the IO performance level, the equivalent lateral forces are obtained in a similar way to
that used for the LS performance level using Eq. (6); however, in this case the base shear
demand is calculated using the ESDOF displacement ds for the IO performance level and
the initial stiffness Kt , following Eq. (5).

4. Application of the Proposed DDBD Procedure

4.1. Case Study Example

The case study example is an 8-story steel frame with buckling restrained braces (BRB)
as HEDS. The structure is located in a soft-soil zone of Mexico City. The bays are equally
spaced at 8 m (Fig. 6a). The stories have a height of 3.5 m, except for the first level, which
has a height of 4 m. Seismic gravity loads equal to 6.05 kPa were considered for the inter-
stories, and of 4.95 kPa for the roof. The yield strength for the BRB is 245 MPa, and for
the beams and columns 345 MPa. The displacement demand corresponds to the design
displacement spectra recommended by the Mexico City Building Code 2004 (MCBC) for

FIGURE 6 Case study model: (a) Elevation of frame with BRB, and (b) BRB variables.
12 V. A. Segovia and S. E. Ruiz

TABLE 2 Yield design drift of the preliminary design section groups

Section group Beam span (m) Z/I (m−1 ) Yield curvature φyf Design yield drift θyf
W18 8 4.67 0.008 0.018
W21 8 4.04 0.007 0.016
W24 8 3.44 0.006 0.014
W27 8 3.04 0.005 0.012

soft soil zone which has a dominant ground period Tg = 1.5 s. The design inter-story drift
for non-structural damage is θs = 0.2% according to Appendix A of the MCBC.
The yield drift θyd of the HEDS depends on the type of HEDS existing in the structure,
for BRB; the yield design drift depends on the configuration within the frame, and its geo-
metric properties. For a given stiffness ratio, it is possible to vary the strength contribution
of the BRB to the total system by means of the parameter η, which is the ratio between the
core length Lc and the total length Lt of the BRB. The variation of η is limited in the market
between 0.5 and 0.8.
The core-section area for a BRB that satisfies the required lateral stiffness K is given
by [Segovia, 2015]:

KηL
Ac = , (21)
Ecos3 (θ)

where it was assumed that the total equivalent stiffness of the BRB is given by the stiffness
of the section where the energy dissipation takes place.
The yield drift θyf of the main system is calculated based on the considerations
explained in Sec. 3.2.1. In order to use this approach, preliminary design section groups are
chosen. For the design sections of the building under analysis, the yield drifts are shown in
Table 2, where Z is the plastic section modulus and I is the moment of inertia of the beam
cross-section.

4.2. Selection of the Design Parameters α and γ

In this section, different combinations of the design parameters are analyzed so as to deter-
mine the best combination values in terms of HEDS efficiency, frame structural demand,
and initial cost-benefit basis. Several preliminary designs were carried out by analyzing
the influence of the following design parameters values: α from 0.25–0.60, and γ from
0.2– 0 .40. These values were chosen in agreement with preliminary calculations of the
BRB properties. The range for the stiffness ratio considers that values of α < 0.25 yield
in a BRB core area that is inefficient and expensive; values of α > 0.60, results in a total
system where the BRB provide very little stiffness contribution, therefore, in this case the
addition of BRB would not be justified from a cost-benefit point of view. The values of
the strength ratio γ are based on the maximum and minimum strength contribution that the
BRB can achieve given the limits of the parameter η mentioned above.

4.2.1. Combinations of alpha; and γ . Figure 7a depicts solutions of the preliminary design
alternatives for different combinations of α and γ values. According to Fig. 7a, each stiff-
ness ratio α has a maximum and a minimum strength ratio γ that can be achieved. This
is because the strength contribution of the damper is related to its yield displacement.
 Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings 13

0.45 7.50
α=0.25 α=0.30 α=0.35
0.40 α=0.40 α=0.45 α=0.50
0.35 α=0.55 α=0.60
6.50
0.30
0.25
5.50

µ max
0.20
γ

0.15
0.10 4.50
0.05
0.00
3.50
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
α γ
(a) (b)

FIGURE 7 (a) Possible combinations of α and γ (b) Maximum design ductility for the
possible combinations of α and γ .

Figure 7a shows that as the stiffness ratio grows, the strength contribution of the damper
decreases.

4.2.2. Maximum Design Ductility for the Possible Combinations of α and γ . The maxi-
mum design ductility μmax against the strength ratio γ for different values of α is shown
in Fig. 7b. The results demonstrate that when employing lower values of α, larger values
of μmax can be obtained. Also, for a given value of α, the ductility capacity is higher when
a lower strength ratio is used. In conclusion, if μmax is the only consideration, the use of a
low stiffness ratio α combined with a low strength ratio γ is recommended. The ductility
of the BRB can be increased using a smaller yield displacement and varying its geometric
properties or configuration within the frame; however, such increase is limited by the yield
displacement of the frame.

4.2.3. Base Shear Force Distribution. In conformity with the proposed DDBD approach,
the required base shear force for each system can be obtained for the LS performance
demand using Eqs. (16) and (17). The design base shear for each system is shown in
Figs. 8a, 8b, and 8c. According to Fig. 8c, the shear force of the total system Vt increases
significantly for higher values of α; when compared to Figs. 8a and 8b, it is concluded that
this is due to the increase of the shear force Vyf of the main system (frame). An increment
of Vt directly affects the design sections of the frame, which will result in larger sections in
comparison to other combinations of α and γ . From Fig. 8c it can be seen that for a given
value of α, the variation of γ results in a very low variation of Vt . Because of the small
effect of γ in the most favorable design section, it is concluded that the stiffness ratio is the
most important design parameter.

4.2.4. Initial Costs for the Possible Combinations of α and γ . In this section each system
is analyzed independently in order to identify the variables involved in the total initial cost.
The general total cost function of each system includes: the direct cost and the indirect cost.
The direct cost includes the material cost of structural members, and fabrication, erection
and transportation costs. The indirect costs encompass overhead costs and constructor fee,
and are considered equal to 15% of the direct cost. The erection and transportation costs
are assumed as 40% of the material cost of the structural members.
The material cost of the main system is proportional to the weight of the structure and
to the cost per unit weight of steel. Moreover, 10% of the total weight of the structure is
14 V. A. Segovia and S. E. Ruiz

FIGURE 8 Base shear distribution in the structural systems for the possible combinations
of α and γ : (a) main system, (b) HEDS, and (c) total system.

considered as an approximation of the fabrication cost (including connections elements and

waste). Because only preliminary seismic design is done during this stage, the properties
that can be obtained directly from the DDBD proposed procedure are the cross-sectional
inertia of beams (Ic ) and columns (Ib ) which satisfy the required lateral stiffness. Therefore,
two expressions that relate cross-sectional inertia and cross-sectional area were developed
for the preliminary design sections mentioned in Table 2. The relation between cross-
sectional area and inertia for the preliminary design sections is shown in Fig. 9. Using
the approach described in Sec. 3.2.6 the required lateral stiffness of each story was trans-
formed into the cross-sectional inertia of the structural members. Subsequently, using the
expression shown in Fig. 9 for each type of member, the material cost of the main sys-
tem was obtained for each combination of α and γ . The results are presented in Fig. 10a.
For the main system, the initial cost increases for higher values of α. The same result was
previously deduced from the base shear distribution, and it is verified here in terms of cost.
With the collaboration of CoreBrace® of Mexico several BRB options were quoted
with the required design properties. From the values provided (G. Coeto, personal
communication), a curve that relates the cost per unit length of the BRB and the BRB
core area was developed. From this curve an expression that fits the cost data was obtained
for a value of η = 0.8 (see Fig. 11). The expression was used to approximate the cost of
the BRB for each combination of α and γ . The results are shown in Fig. 10b. The results
shown in Fig. 10b indicated that for a given stiffness ratio α the initial costs increase for
lower values of the strength ratio γ , which is due to the effect of the parameter η used to
modify the strength contribution of the BRB. The data shows that the cost of this type of
BRB is higher, because the connection and transition sections are more expensive than
using a larger core yielding length.
The results of Fig. 10b show that for a given stiffness ratio α, the initial costs increase
for lower values of the strength ratio γ , which is due to the effect of the parameter η used
to modify the strength contribution of the BRB. Low values of the strength ratio are related
to low values of the parameter η, the data shows that the cost of this type of BRB is higher,
because the connection and transition sections are more expensive than using a larger core
yielding length.
Combining the results for each system (main and HEDS), the outcome of the total
system is presented in Fig. 10c. The results of the total system show a very similar tendency
to those of the main system cost, so it is concluded that the best combinations of α and γ
 Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings 15

0.2
Ic
Ac(m2) = 11.10 Ic (m4) 0.834 Iv
0.15

Area (m2)
0.1

0.05 Av (m2) = 1.13 Iv (m4)0.5991

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Cross-sectional inertia (m4)

FIGURE 9 Relationships between the cross-sectional area and the cross-sectional inertia
for preliminary design sections groups.

400 100 400

α=0.25

x1000
x1000

x1000

α=0.30
350 α=0.35 350
80
α=0.40
300 α=0.45 300
α=0.50
CBRB( $ USD )

60
Cf ( $ USD )

Ct ( $ USD )
α=0.55
250 α=0.60 250
40
200 200
α=0.25 α=0.30 α=0.25 α=0.30
20 α=0.35 α=0.40 α=0.35 α=0.40
150 150 α=0.45 α=0.50
α=0.45 α=0.50
α=0.55 α=0.60 α=0.55 α=0.60
100 0 100
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
γ γ γ
(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 10 Initial cost of the structural systems for the possible combinations of α and
γ : (a) main system cost, (b) HEDS cost, and (c) total system cost.

405
η=0.8
( $ USD) / Length (m)
BRB cost per length

305

205

105
Cost ($) = 42739Ac (m2) + 212.87
5
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
BRB core area (m2)

FIGURE 11 Initial cost per length as a function of the BRB core area.

considering initial costs are those that involve lower values of α, corresponding to higher
stiffness contribution of the HEDS. Figure 10c also shows that for a given value of α, the
initial cost of the total system decreases as the strength ratio grows.

4.2.5. Cost-efficiency Index. A cost efficiency-index that relates initial cost with the
maximum design ductility was defined, and applied to the possible combinations of
α and γ .
16 V. A. Segovia and S. E. Ruiz

FIGURE 12 Cost-efficiency index for the possible combinations of α and γ .

Here, the cost-efficiency index is defined as the ratio of the initial cost of the total
system and the maximum design ductility; and then, normalized to unity (dividing all the
values by the minimum index value). Thus, low values of the cost-efficiency index represent
low cost of the total system associated with a high design ductility of the HEDS. Figure 12
shows that the best combination of α and γ values is as follows: the best values of α are
between 0.25 and 0.33, and for γ the best values are between 0.28 and 0.35. It can be seen
in Fig. 12 that the equal cost lines have a horizontal trend, which implies that the variation
of the cost-efficiency index depends more directly on the strength ratio.

4.3. Multiple-Level Performance Design

In the previous section, it was found that the best design parameters for the building under
study must be 0.25 ≤ α ≤ 0.33 and 0.28 ≤ γ ≤ 0.30; in this section, the building is ana-
lyzed with two different combinations of α and γ (S1 and S2). The models are associated
with the values of α and γ shown in Table 3. Note that the model S1 corresponds to best
option within the best values shown in Fig. 12.
The proposed DDBD procedure shown in Fig. 2 is applied to each of the study
cases. Table 3 summarizes the ESDOF design properties of the models using steps
(1) and (2) of the DDBD procedure. Table 4 presents the estimated design sections of the
structural members of each system, following the stiffness-based procedure described in
Sec. 3.2.6.
Using the design sections in Table 4, the systems were modeled to verify that the
required lateral stiffness is obtained for each model. The program ETABS Version 15.0.0
(Computers and Structures CSI, 2015) was used for all structural analyses, and the total
system and main system were modeled separately to estimate the main system story stiff-
ness and total system story stiffness, Kf and Kt , respectively. The secondary system story
stiffness Kd is found from Kt minus Kf . These values are estimated considering initial stiff-
ness properties; therefore, the stiffness modification factor KA is not used. The results are
shown in Fig. 13, where also the required story stiffness Kr of the total system is shown.
Note that the design parameters do not cause significant variations in the required stiffness
of the total system, and that all models comply with the required stiffness.

4.3.1. Performance Level: Immediate Occupancy. Next, the base shear demand is
obtained, and the models are analyzed for the lateral forces mentioned in Sec. 3.2.7. The
stiffness modification factor KA is not used since it is not expected to develop inelastic
 Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings 17

TABLE 3 Summary of the design DBDD ESDOF of the model buildings

Parameter S1 S2
Stiffness ratio, α 0.25 0.40
Strength ratio, γ 0.32 0.28
Ratio between core length and total length, η 0.50 0.80
ESDOF Maximum displacement, dmax (m) 0.205 0.205
ESDOF Yield displacement, dyd (m) 0.033 0.052
Maximum design ductility, μ 6.28 3.92
Effective period, Te (s) 1.36 1.17
Initial period, Ti (s) 0.82 0.87
Frame period, To (s) 1.65 1.37
Total system design base shear, Vt (t) 2816.45 3816.78
Frame design base shear, Vyf (t) 1935.22 2761.22
HEDS design base shear, Vyd (t) 910.66 1055.56
Initial stiffness of the total system, Kt (t/m) 37234.93 33717.75
Frame stiffness, Kf (t/m) 9308.71 13487.08
HEDS stiffness, Kd (t/m) 27926.23 20230.67

TABLE 4 Design sections

Model S1 S2
Story Frame Sections BRB Frame Sections BRB
2
Beams Columns Ac (m ) Beams Columns Ac (m2 )
8 W18x50 W14x90 8.00E-04 W18x55 W14x132 8.00E-04
7 W18x50 W14x90 1.80E-03 W18x55 W14x132 1.80E-03
6 W21x62 W14x145 2.50E-03 W21x62 W14x211 2.50E-03
5 W21x62 W14x145 2.50E-03 W21x62 W14x211 2.50E-03
4 W21x68 W14x159 3.00E-03 W21x83 W14x233 3.00E-03
3 W21x68 W14x159 3.00E-03 W21x83 W14x233 3.00E-03
2 W21x73 W14x176 3.50E-03 W24x84 W14x257 3.50E-03
1 W21x73 W14x176 3.50E-03 W24x84 W14x257 3.50E-03

behavior in the BRB. Figure 14a presents the design base shear profile of each system. For
the IO performance level, it can be seen that the HEDS must resist most of the total shear
demand.
The results of the lateral displacement demand are shown in Fig. 14b, and they are
compared to the expected DDBD displacement profile. It can be seen in Fig. 14b that the
approximation by DDBD displacement profile overestimates the displacement values for
the S2 model; however, for the S1 model it fits very well. The inter-story drift results are
shown in Fig. 14c, where the limit drifts θs and θyd are presented with vertical lines. For this
performance level, the results show that θs governs the design, with the exception of model
S1; it can also be noticed that the intermediate levels have the highest demand, and that the
performance objective is achieved because none of the models exceeds the limit inter-story
drift.
18 V. A. Segovia and S. E. Ruiz

8 8
7 Kt 7 Kt
6 6
Kf Kf

Story
5
Story
5
4 4
Kd Kd
3 3
2 Kr 2 Kr
1 1
0 100 200 300 x1000 0 100 200 x1000
Lateral stiffness (kN/m) Lateral stiffness (kN/m)
S1 S2

FIGURE 13 Lateral stiffness distribution.

8 8 8
Vf IO
6 Vd 6 6 θs
Vt θyd
Story

Story

Story
4 4 4

2 2 IO 2
DBDD
0 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Shear force (kN) Lateral displacement (m) Interstory drift (%)
S1 S1 S1
8 8 8
Vf
6 Vd 6 6
Vt
Story

Story
Story

4 4 4 IO
θs
2 2 IO 2 θyd
DBDD
0 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Shear force (kN) Lateral displacement (m) Interstory drift (%)
S2 S2 S2
(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 14 IO performance level verification: (a) shear demand profile (b) lateral
displacement demand, and (c) interstory drift profile.

4.3.2. Performance Level: Life Safety. The base shear demand is calculated for the LS
performance level, and the models are analyzed for the design lateral forces. The stiff-
ness modification factor KA is used here to represent the expected inelastic behavior of
the BRB. Figure 15a shows the design base shear profile of each system for the LS per-
formance level. Contrary to the IO performance level, the main system resists most of the
total shear demand. It is verified that the primary objective of the HEDS for this perfor-
mance level is to provide the required lateral stiffness to satisfy the design displacement,
and to concentrate the structural damage from high intensity seismic motions. As it can
be seen in Fig. 15b, the results indicate that the selected DDBD displacement profile is a
good approximation of the displacement values. The inter-story drift results are shown in
Fig.15c, where the limit drift θyf related to maximum design displacement is presented.
From the drift distribution over the height, it is observed that the intermediate levels have
the highest demand. In conclusion, the performance objective is achieved because none of
the models exceeds the limit inter-story drift.
 Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings 19

8 8 8
Vf
6 Vd 6
Vt 6

Story

Story
Story

4 4 4 LS
2 2 LS 2 θyf
DBDD
0 0
0
0 1000 2000 3000 0.00 0.20 0.40
Lateral displacement (m) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Shear force (kN) Interstory drift (%)
S1 S1 S1

8 8 8
Vf
6 Vd 6 6
Vt

Story
Story

Story

4 4 4 LS
θyf
2 2 LS 2
DBDD
0 0 0
0 2500 5000 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Shear force (kN) Lateral displacement (m) Interstory drift (%)
S2 S2 S2
(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 15 LS performance level verification: (a) shear demand profile (b) lateral
displacement demand, and (c) interstory drift profile.

5. Nonlinear Dynamic Performance Verification

For the nonlinear MDOF model, the inelastic behavior of the main system was modeled
using plastic hinges with kinematic hardening behavior; and the BRB inelastic behavior
was modeled using plastic hinges with kinematic and isotropic hardening behavior. The
nonlinear MDOF models were subjected to seven spectra compatible motions to the LS
seismic demand. The ground motion records were matched to the standard MCBC design
spectrum for 5% damping using the time domain method for matching response spectra
of recorded earthquake ground motion [Abrahamson, 1998; and Hancock et al., 2006].
Nonlinear time-history analyses (NLTHA) were carried out using the program ETABS
Version 15.0.0 [Computers and Structures CSI, 2015]. The Hilber-Hughes-Taylor inte-
gration method was used, with an alpha value of 0, for which the method becomes the
Newmark constant average acceleration method [CSI Analysis Reference Manual, 2015].
Tangent stiffness Rayleigh damping was used with 5% of elastic damping.
Results are compared using the mean response from the NLTHA and the estimated
value from the DDBD approach corresponding to the LS performance level. The maximum
displacement response of the models from the NLTHA is shown in Fig. 16a. This shows
that the maximum displacements correspond adequately with the DDBD displacements,
which demonstrates that the DDBD elastic analysis using the secant stiffness approach
results in a good approximation of the nonlinear dynamic response of the structure.
The maximum interstory drift results including the NLTHA mean, the DDBD esti-
mated profile and the design drift limits are shown in Fig. 16b. It can be seen in this figure
that the inter-story drift distribution over the height corresponds well in the upper levels;
however, for the intermediate levels (2, 3, and 4) the procedure underestimates the inter-
story drift demand. Nevertheless, when compared with the limit inter-story drift (vertical
line), the response of all the models is below the maximum value. Thus, it is considered
that the LS performance objective is accomplished.
The results of the maximum brace ductility demand from the NLTHA are shown in
Fig. 16c. For all the analyzed models, the ductility demand at the upper levels is very low;
20 V. A. Segovia and S. E. Ruiz

8 8 8

6 6 6

Story
Story
Story

4 4 NLTH 4
Mean NLTH
NLTH DBDD Mean
2 2 2 DBDD
Mean θyf
DBDD
0 0 0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 2 4 6 8
Lateral displacement (m) Interstory drift (%) BRB ductility demand
S1 S1 S1
8 8 8

6 6 6

Story
Story
Story

4 4 NLTH 4
Mean NLTH
DBDD Mean
NLTH 2 DBDD
2
Mean
2 θyf
DBDD
0 0 0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 2 4 6
Lateral displacement (m) Interstory drift (%) BRB ductility demand
S2 S2 S2
(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 16 Response from the NLTHA: (a) displacement profile (b) interstory drift (c)
brace ductility.

this is due to the consideration of minimum design sections, which represent a common
consideration made in the structural engineering practice. In order to obtain a more constant
ductility distribution over the height of the structure, smaller BRB core area must be used
to match the expected displacement and shear demand.

6. Conclusions
Based on the developed cost-efficiency index study, the best values of the stiffness ratio for
an 8-story building located in soft soil of Mexico City are from 0.25–0.33, which means
that the HEDS takes 65–70% of the total stiffness; and for the strength ratio it was found
that the best values are between 0.28 and 0.35, which implies that the HEDS contributes
with 28–35% of the strength of the total system. The study shows that the best design
options for the building studied are represented by the solutions that involve higher stiffness
contribution of the HEDS.
The DBDD procedure was applied to two structural models using different combina-
tions of design parameters α and γ . The seismic performance of the method was verified
by means of linear and non-linear structural analyses of the models. The displacement
and inter-story drift results of the examples show that multiple performance objectives can
be accomplished using DDBD in combination with a procedure that takes into account
adequate combinations of stiffness and strength ratios for damage controlled structures.

ORCID
Sonia E. Ruiz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2731-6780
 Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings 21

Funding
The first author thanks the Mexican National Council for Science and Technology
(CONACYT) for the scholarship provided to pursue her graduate studies at UNAM. This
research had financial support from DGAPA-UNAM under project PAPIIT-IN102114.
Thanks are given to Mr. G. Coeto for providing the BRBs costs.

References
Abrahamson, N. A. [1998] Non Stationary Spectral Matching Program RSPMATCH, PG&E.
Bozorgnia, Y. and Bertero, V. [2004] Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to
Performance-Based Engineering, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Castillo, T. [2014] “Métodos de análisis sísmico para estructuras con disipadores de energía” (Seismic
analysis methods for buildings with hysteretic dampers),” Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México, Mexico D.F.
Castillo, T. and Ruiz, S. E. [2014] “Reduction factor for seismic design spectra with viscous
dampers,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 18(3), 323–349.
Cardone, D., Palermo, G., and Dolce, M. [2010] “Direct displacement-based design of buildings with
different seismic isolation systems,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14(2), 163–191.
Chopra, A. [2001] Dynamics of Structures, Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 2nd
ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Computers and Structures CSI [2015] ETABS 2015 Integrated Building Design Software Version
15.0.0. E.E.U.U., Berkeley, California,
Connor, J. [2003] Introduction to Structural Motion Control, MIT-Prentice Hall Pearson Education
Series, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Connor, J., Wada, A., Iwata, M., and Huang, Y. H. [1997] “Damage-controlled structures
I: Preliminary design methodology for seismically active regions,” Journal of Structural
Engineering 123(4), 423–431.
CSI [2015] CSI Analysis Reference Manual for ETABS 2015, Computers and Structures, Berkeley
California.
Esteva, L. [1976] “Seismicity,” in Seismic Risk and Engineering Decisions, eds. C. Lomnitz and E.
Rosenblueth, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Fleming, C. [2004] “A design methodology for hysteretic dampers in buildings under extreme
earthquakes,” Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Massachusetts.
Hancock, J., Watson-Lamprey, J., Abrahamson, A. N., Bommer, J. J., Markatis, A., McCory, E., and
Mendis, R. [2006] “An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake
ground motion using wavelet,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 10(SP1), 1–23.
Huang, Y. and Wada, A. [2000] “Seismic perfomance of moment resistant steel frame with hysteretic
damper,” STESSA Conference Proceedings: Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas,
Montreal, Canada, CRC PRESS, pp. 403–409.
Kim, J. and Seo, Y. [2004] “Seismic design of low-rise steel frames with buckling-restrained braces,”
Engineering Structures 26, 543–551.
Lin, Y. Y., Tsai, M. H., Hwang, J. S., and Chang, K. C. [2003] “Direct displacement-based design for
buildings with passive energy dissipation systems,” Engineering Structures 25(1), 25–37.
Malekpour, S., Ghaffarzadeh, H., and Dashi, F. [2012] “Direct displacement-based design of steel-
braced reinforced concrete frames,” Journal of Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings
Doi:10.1002/tal.1028
Maley, T., Sullivan, T., and Della Corte, G. [2010] “Development of a displacement-based design
method for steel dual systems with buckling-restrained braces and moment-resisting frames,”
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14(S1), 106–140.
Muto, K. [1974] Aseismic Design Analysis of Buildings, Maruzen Company Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.
Pennuci, D., Calvi, G. M., and Sullivan, T. J. [2009] “Displacement-based design of precast walls
with additional dampers,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 13(1), 40–65.
22 V. A. Segovia and S. E. Ruiz

Priestley, M. J. N. [2003] Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited, The Mallet
Milne Lecture,. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley M, J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalkski, M. J. [2007] Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Schultz, A. E. [1992] “Approximating lateral stiffness of stories in elastic frames,” Journal of
Structural Engineering 118(1), 243–263.
Segovia, V. [2015] “Criterio de diseno sismico optimo para edificios con disipadores histereticos”
(Optimal seismic design criteria for buildings with hysteretic dampers), Master thesis, Universidad
Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico, D.F.
Shibata, A. and Sozen, M. [1976] “Substitute-structure method for seismic design in R/C,” Journal
of the Structural Division 102(1), 1–18.
Sullivan, T. J., Priestley M, J. N., and Calvi, G. M. [2006] Seismic Design of Frame-Wall Structures,
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Teran-Gilmore, A. and Virto, N. [2009] “Preliminary design of low-rise buildings stiffened with
buckling-restrained braces by a displacement-based approach,” Earthquake Spectra 25(1),
185–211.
Tsai, K. C., Chen, H. W., Hong, C. P., and Su, Y. F. [1993] “Design of steel triangular plate energy
absorbers for seismic-resistant construction,” Earthquake Spectra 9(3) 505–528.
Vargas, R. and Bruneau, M. [2009a] “Analytical response and design of buildings with metallic
structural fuses,” I, Journal of Structural Engineering 135(4), 386–393.
Vargas, R. and Bruneau, M. [2009b] “Experimental response of buildings designed with metallic
structural fuses,” II, Journal of Structural Engineering 135(4), 394–403.
Wada, A., Connor, J., Kawai, H., Iwata, M., and Watanabe, A. [1992] “Damage Tolerant Structure,”
ATC-15-4. Proceedings of Fifth U.S.-Jc1pctn Workshop on the Improvement of Building
Structural Design and Construction Practices, pp. 27–39.
Yamaguchi, M., Yamada, S., Wada, A., Ogihara, M., Narikawa, M., Takeuchi, T., and Maeda, Y.
[2000] “Earthquake resistant perfomance of moment resistant steel frames with damper,” STESSA
Conference Proceedings: Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, Naples, Italy, CRC
Press.

Appendix A. Hysteretic Damping Modification Factor β h

The damping factor mathematical expression (βh ) is based on ratios between Uniform
Exceedance Rate Spectra (UERS) corresponding to structures with dissipating elements
and UERS corresponding to structural systems without dissipating devices (conventional
structures with 5% of critical damping), both associated with a given return period (see
Eq. (12)). A similar methodology has been used by the authors for finding seismic haz-
ard curves corresponding to combined systems with viscous dampers [Castillo and Ruiz,
2013]. The UERS contain the maximum ordinates that can take place in a particular site.
Such ordinates present similar probability of exceedance per unit of time. In this paper, it
is considered that the base structural system works within a linear elastic interval, whereas
the damper presents elasto-plastic behavior, which is related to the stiffness ratio (α) and to
the strength ratio (γ ) defined in Eqs. (8) and (9), respectively.
In order to calculate the seismic hazard curves for the different zones of the valley
of Mexico (zones A, B, C, D, E, F and G, see Table A.1) [Castillo and Ruiz, 2013] cor-
responding to systems without energy dissipating devices, the formulation proposed by
Esteva [1976] was used. The formulation indicates that if the seismic hazard curves and the
corresponding seismic records at a certain site are available, then it is possible to calculate
the hazard curves corresponding to a different site, by means of statistical parameters of
the spectral ordinates ratios of both sites, using the following expression:
 Direct Displacement-Based Design for Buildings 23

TABLE A.1 Values for the parameter 

Zone TS (s) 
A TS < 0.5 0.7
B 0.5 < TS ≤ 1.0 0.3
C 1.0 < TS ≤ 1.5 0.7
D 1.5 < TS ≤ 2.0 0.7
E 2.0 < TS ≤ 2.5 0.5
F 2.5 < TS ≤ 3.0 2.0
G 3.0 < TS ≤ 4.0 1.6

    
∞ y y
νY = (y) = ∫ νx fz (z) dz = Ez νx , (A.1)
0 z z

where X is the intensity at the site corresponding to the known seismic hazard curve; Y is
the intensity corresponding to the unknown hazard curve; and y is a specific value that the
intensity can take; Z is the random variable Y/X, and z is a specific value that the ratio can
take; Ez is the expected value with respect to the random variable Z, and Vy (y) is the annual
exceedance rate of the intensity.
Equation (A1) indicates that hazard curves of any given site (“destiny”) can be calcu-
lated using the available information of a different site (“origin”). Ground motions obtained
in both sites during the same seismic event should be used, thus obtaining an empirical
transfer function by means of the ratio of the response spectra of every motion recorded.
Equation (A1) was also used to find the demand hazard curves corresponding to systems
with hysteretic energy dissipating devices (HEDD’s). For this case the point of “origin” was
the spectral pseudo-acceleration of the conventional system for a given period, whereas
the “destiny” was the response of the same structure with HEDD’s. The seismic hazard
curves for systems with HEDD’s were calculated using the ratio of spectral ordinates cor-
responding to conventional structural systems with 5% damping and the spectral ordinates
corresponding to combined structural systems with different values of parameters α and
γ . As examples, Figs. A1a and A1b show seismic demand hazard curves corresponding to
pairs of values a) γ = 0.3 and α = 5, and b) γ = 0.4 and α = 5 for the zone of the valley
of Mexico with dominant ground period Tg =1.5 s (zone C).
The seismic hazard curves were used to graph the UERS for each zone, selecting a
constant failure rate and obtaining the corresponding seismic intensity from each hazard
curve. A mean annual failure rate ν= 0.008 (which is equivalent to an expected return
period of 125 years) was selected. Then, spectral ratios for each zone were obtained from
the ratios of UERS for systems with hysteretic dampers and UERS for conventional systems
without dissipating devices (see Eq. (12)). Finally, the ratios were fitted by means of the
least squares method to the following equation:
⎧ −(γ α)1/λ
⎨ 1 − Fa Ta 1 − e if To ≤ Fa Ta
To
⎪
βh = e−(γ α)
1/λ
if Fa Ta < To < Fb Tb , (A.2)
⎪
⎩ 1  ψ
1 + e−(γ α) λ − 1 FbTTb if To > Fb Tb

where λ = 0.47TS2 − 2.3TS + 4.7; Fa = 3γ ; Fb = 2.5 if Ts < 1 s and Fb = 1.0 if Ts ≥ 1 s.

The values of ψ are given in Table A.1.
 24 V. A. Segovia and S. E. Ruiz

10 10

1 1

0.1 0.1
ν

ν
0.01 0.01

a) γ = 0.3 and α = 5.0 b) γ = 0.4 and α = 5.0

0.001 0.001
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Sa [cm/s2] Sa [cm/s2]

T=0.0 T=0.4 T=0.8 T=1.2 T=1.6 T=2.0 T=2.4

T=2.8 T=3.2 T=3.6 T=4.0 T=4.4 T=4.6 T=5.0

FIGURE A.1 Demand hazard curves for the soil zone with Ts = 1.5s.

View publication stats