1.2.2.

4 Ultimate limit state The no-collapse performance level is considered as the Ultimate Limit State in t he framework of the Eurocode design system , namely in accordance with EN 1990 Basis of Design. Satisfaction of this limit state asks for the verification that the structural s ystem has simultaneously lateral resistance and energy-dissipation capacity. This recognises that the fulfilment of the no-collapse requirement does not requ ire that the structure remains elastic under the design seismic action. On the contrary it allows/accep ts the development of significant inelastic deformations in the structural members, provided that inte grity of the structure is kept. It also relies on the (stable) energy dissipation capacity of the structure to c ontrol the build up of energy in the structure resulting from the seismic energy input that, otherwise, would result in much larger response amplitudes of the structure. The basic concept is the possible trade-off between resistance and ductility tha t is at the base of the introduction of Ductility Classes and the use of behaviour factors that is a mai n feature of EN 1998-1. This is explained in the code as follows: The resistance and energy-dissipation capacity to be assigned to the structure a re related to the extent to which its non-linear response is to be exploited. In operational t erms such balance between resistance and energy-dissipation capacity is characterised by the value s of the behaviour factor q and the associated ductility classification, which are given in the relevant Parts of EN 1998. As a limiting case, for the design of structures classified as low-dissipative, no account is taken of any hysteretic energy dissipation and the behaviour facto r may not be taken, in general, as being greater than the value of 1,5 considered to account for overstrengths. For steel or composite steel concrete buildings, this limiting va lue of the q factor may be taken as being between 1,5 and 2 (see Note 1 of Table 6.1 or Note 1 of Ta ble 7.1, respectively). For dissipative structures the behaviour factor is taken as being greater than these limiting values accounting for the hysteretic energy dissipation that main ly occurs in specifically designed zones, called dissipative zones or critical regions. In spite of such basic concepts, the operational verifications required in EN 19 98-1 to check the satisfaction of this limit state by the structure are force-based, essentially i n line with all the other Eurocodes. It should be noted that, exactly to the contrary, the physical character of the seismic action corresponds to the application of (rapidly changing) displacements at the base o f the structures and not to the application of forces. In fully linear systems there would be equivalence in representing the action as imposed forces or imposed displacements. However, in nonlinear systems, the application of force c

ontrolled or displacement controlled actions may result in quite different response of the st ructure. Accordingly, the ability of structures to withstand earthquakes depends essentially on its ab ility to sustain lateral deformations in response to the earthquake, keeping its load bearing capacity (a nd not on the simple ability to support lateral forces). Notwithstanding all this, the use of force-based design is well established and, as mentioned above, is adopted in EN 1998-1 as the reference method, because most of other actions with which structural designers have to cope are forces imposed to the structures. Hence within the overall design process the use of a force based approach, even for seismic actions, is very practical and attractive. Furthermore, analytical methods for a displace ment based approach in seismic design are not fully developed and not familiar to the ordinary designer .