Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Direct displacement-based design for building with passive energy

dissipation systems
Y.Y. Lin a, M.H. Tsai b, J.S. Hwang c, K.C. Chang b,
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Lan-Yang Institute of Technology, I-Lan, Taiwan
b
Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
c
Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science & Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

Received 26 November 2001; received in revised form 22 June 2002; accepted 28 June 2002

Abstract

This paper presents a seismic displacement-based design method for new and regular buildings equipped with passive energy
dissipation systems (EDS). Using the substitute structure approach for the building structure and simulating the mechanical properties
of the passive energy dissipation devices (EDD) by the effective stiffness and effective viscous damping ratio, a rational linear
iteration method is proposed. A target displacement is at first specified and then the corresponding design force, strength and
stiffness are obtained. Comprehensive procedures for displacement-based design of several buildings with passive energy dissipation
systems are presented. The results are verified by dynamic inelastic time history analysis. Based on the study, it is found that the
proposed displacement-based design method is straightforward and can accurately predict the nonlinear behavior of buildings
equipped with passive energy dissipation systems.
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Displacement-based design; Substitute structure; Target displacement; Equivalent damping; Energy dissipation systems

1. Introduction satisfy the force requirement. As the force-based design

Passive energy dissipation is an emerging new tech-
nology that may be used to enhance the seismic perform-
ance of buildings by adding extra damping (and in some
cases strength and/or stiffness) to the structure [1,2,3].
According to the current design practice [4,5], the seis-
mic design of structures with energy dissipation devices
may be as follows. Given an elastic design acceleration
spectrum and an estimate of the structural natural period,
the elastic acceleration response is determined. This
force is then reduced by a response modification factor
(R, Rw, etc.) and a damping reduction factor to obtain a
modified design acceleration. Using the reduced design
acceleration, the design base shear force is then determ-
ined based on Newtons second law. A displacement
check is usually made after the structural members
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 2363 8608; fax: +886 2
2362 2975.
E-mail address: ciekuo@ccms.ntu.edu.tw (K.C. Chang).
procedure used in conventional buildings, the above pro-
cedure may produce the following problems. (1) it uses
a force reduction factor that is controversial; (2) it does
not directly address the inelastic nature of a structure
during an earthquake; (3) the displacement is only
checked near the end of the design process to satisfy the
service criteria. In addition, it is also known that both
structural and nonstructural damage experienced during
an earthquake are due primarily to lateral displacements.
Therefore, the force-based design procedure may not
provide a reliable indication of damage potential.
These aforementioned problems involved with the tra-
ditional force-based design method may not be encoun-
tered by using the displacement-based seismic design
method (DBD). In recent years, there have been two
well-known displacement-based seismic retrofit
methods, the coefficient method proposed by FEMA273
[6] and the capacity-spectrum method proposed by ATC-
40 [7]. For both methods, monotonically increasing lat-
eral forces are applied to a nonlinear mathematical
model of the building until the displacement of the con-

0141-0296/03/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 9 9 - 8
26 Y.Y. Lin et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537
Fig. 1. Fundamentals of displacement-based design for building with
energy dissipation devices.
trol node at the roof of the building exceeds a target
value. The lateral forces should be applied to the build-
ing using distributions or profiles that bound the likely
distribution of inertial forces in the design earthquake.
The target displacement is a mean estimate of the likely
displacement of the yielding building under the design
earthquake excitation. Although the coefficient method
and the capacity-spectrum method do not adopt any
force reduction factor and can directly address the inelas-
tic nature of a structure during an earthquake, they are
applied only to the seismic evaluation and rehabilitation
of existing buildings. Besides, the two methods need a
nonlinear mathematical model to perform the static non-
linear analysis (i.e. pushover analysis). Furthermore, the
target displacement of the coefficient method is obtained
Fig. 2. Substitute structure approach.
from empirical formulas. This may results into a lack of
accuracy especially for those buildings with shorter per-
iods.
Recently, a so-called direct displacement-based design
procedure was developed for SDOF and MDOF bridges
and buildings [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16] in which the
nonlinear system is replaced by an equivalent linear sys-
tem. In 1994, Kowalsky et al. [9] developed a direct
displacement-based design procedure to design a single
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) bridge pier. Using the pro-
cedure, the seismic design of a bridge column can be
carried out by specifying a target displacement. It is
interesting to note that the strength and stiffness are not
the design variables in the procedure. Instead, they are
the end results. It was illustrated by Kowalsky that this
method can be applied to the design of new construction
using a static equivalent linear analysis. Extending this
displacement-based design procedure, Lin et al. [17,18]
have also proposed a seismic design procedure for mul-
tiple degree-of-freedom (MDOF) conventional build-
ings, in which procedure only the static linear analysis
was needed. The ductility ratio, ultimate displacement,
yield displacement and yield moment of the designed
buildings can be obtained from the design procedure. In
this paper, the displacement-based design procedure pro-
posed by Lin et al. is extended to the analysis of the
buildings with passive energy dissipation systems. The
applicable structures are regular structures that are first-
mode dominant.
2. Fundamentals of buildings with energy
dissipation systems
A structure equipped with energy dissipation system is
illustrated in Fig. 1. In the figure, the energy dissipation
characteristics of the structure are divided into the
energy dissipated by the inelastic (or nonlinear) defor-
mation of the primary structure, and by the energy dissi-
pation devices.
The displacement-based seismic design procedure
presented in this paper adopts the substitute structure
concept [8,9,12,19,20] to include inelastic behavior of
the primary frame in the design. The inelastic system is
modeled as an equivalent linear system which is com-
posed of an equivalent stiffness (Kh) and an equivalent
hysteretic damping ratio (xh) as shown in Fig. 2. The
substitute structure has the same ultimate force (Vu) and
displacement (u) characteristics as the inelastic struc-
ture. Since the equivalent properties of the substitute
structure are elastic, a set of elastic displacement
response spectrum can be used for design. Therefore, the
substitute structure approach allows an inelastic system
to be designed and analyzed by an elastic displacement
response spectrum. For practicability, the equivalent
hysteretic damping ratio (xh) may be derived based on
 Y.Y. Lin et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537 27

Fig. 3. Viscous response-periodic excitation.

the dissipated energy by the inelastic hysteresis defor-

mations [21,22]. The relation used in this study is
expressed in Eq. (1) which is based on the Takeda hys-
teretic model with a bilinear stiffness ratio of a and a
ductility ratio of m [9].
1 1a
xh [1( a)]. (1)
p m Fig. 4. Modeling of energy dissipation devices: viscous, friction, met-
allic yielding and viscoelastic devices.
Moreover, in order to incorporate various energy dis-
sipation systems, the effects of the energy dissipation
devices are represented by the effective viscous damping
ratio (xEDS) and the effective stiffness (KEDS) in this dampers. According to Eq. (2) and Fig. 4, the effective
paper. The viscous damping is defined as the energy dis- viscous damping ratio (xEDS) provided by these dampers
sipation mechanism where the damping force (Fd) is pro- and the effective stiffness of the j-th energy dissipation
portional to velocity. The linearized form is written as devices (KEDS,j) can be derived as [17]:Viscous Devices:
Fd cu, where c is the damping coefficient and u is the
relative velocity. Fig. 3 shows the force-displacement 1 Wviscous 1
pcju2o,j
1
cju2o,j


j j

relationship of the linear viscous damper under periodic xEDS (3)
4p Ws 4p 1 2
excitation. The enclosed elliptic area W pcu2o is the Fu Fiui
energy dissipated by the added linear damping device i
2 i i i

that undergoes a cycle of periodic motion (u KEDS,j 0 (4)

uosint) of amplitude uo and frequency .
For nonlinear energy dissipation devices, it is con- Friction Devices:
venient to obtain the effective viscous damping ratio
(xEDS) by equating the energy dissipated per cycle of a
1 Wfriction 1
4Fo,juo,j
2
Fo,juo,j


j j

periodic excitation to the corresponding value of linear xEDS (5)
viscous damping. This is given by Chopra [23] as: 4p Ws 4p 1 p Fiui
Fu
2 i i i
c c W 1 1 W i
xEDS (2)
ccr 2mw 2pmwu2o 4p / wWs Fo,j
KEDS,j (6)
where ccr, m, w and Ws are the critical damping coef- uo,j
ficient, mass, natural circular frequency and the Metallic Yielding Devices:
maximum strain energy of the system, respectively. For
structures subjected to earthquake loading, / w 1 1 Whysteretic
xEDS (7)
1 W 4p Ws
and therefore xEDS

. In this paper, the passive
4pWs
energy dissipation devices considered include the vis-
2
Fy,juo,j(1aj) 1
1
mj

cous dampers, friction dampers, metallic yielding dam-
j

pers and viscoelastic (VE) dampers. Fig. 4 shows the p Fiui

force-displacement relationships of various types of i
28 Y.Y. Lin et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537

Fy,j[1 aj(mj1)]
KEDS,j (8)
uo,j
Viscoelastic Devices:

1 Wviscoelastic 1
phkju2o,j
xEDS
j

(9)
4p Ws 4p 1
Fu
i
2 i i

1
hkju2o,j


j
2 Fiui
i

nGjAj
KEDS,j kj (10)
tj
where cj is the damping coefficient of the viscous device
j; uo, j is the relative axial displacement between the ends
of device j; 2p / T; T is the fundamental period of the
damped structure; Fi is the laterally distributed force at
floor level i; ui is the horizontal displacement at floor
level i under the laterally distributed force; Fo, j is the
maximum static friction force of the friction device j;
Fy, j, aj and mj are respectively yield force, strain harden-
ing ratio and ductility ratio of the metallic yielding
devices j; h, kj , n, Gj , Aj and tj are correspondingly the
loss factor, storage stiffness, number of viscoelastic slab,
storage modulus, cross-section area and thickness of the
viscoelastic devices j.
Combining the primary frame with the energy dissi-
pation devices, the total equivalent stiffness (Keq) and
the total equivalent damping ratio (xeq) of the substitute
structure equipped with energy dissipation devices
(EDDs) are
Keq Kh KEDS (11)
xeq xI xh xEDS (12)
where Kh and xh are the equivalent stiffness and the equi-
valent hysteretic damping ratio provided by primary
frame, respectively; KEDS and xEDS are the effective stiff-
ness and the effective viscous damping ratio provided
by EDDs, correspondingly; xI is the inherent damping
ratio (2% for steel buildings and 5% for reinforced con-
crete, RC, buildings).

3. Direct displacement-based design procedure

Fig. 5. Displacement-based design flowchart for building with energy
The step-by-step procedure of the displacement-based dissipation devices.
design method for structures with added energy dissi-
pation devices is proposed as follows (Fig. 5).

1. Determine the target roof displacement (u) and

assume a yield roof displacement (y) for the
 Y.Y. Lin et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537
Fig. 6. SDOF simulation.
designed building. The initial ductility can then be
calculated as m u / y. The value of target roof dis-
placement (i.e., maximum or ultimate displacement,
u) depends on the design limit state. For example,
as for a building structure, a drift ratio of 1.5% would
be reasonable for the damageability limit state or col-
lapse limit state. For the serviceability limit state, a
lower drift ratio may be assigned. At the first iteration
cycle, the yield displacement may be assumed arbi-
trarily. It will converge to a fixed point no matter what
value of the yield displacement was used at the first
iteration cycle.
2. Determine the type of energy dissipation device and
estimate the effective viscous damping ratio
(xEDS).For economic consideration, it is suggested
that xEDS be designed to be within the range of 10
20%.
3. Determine the total equivalent damping ratio.Based
on Eq. (12), the total equivalent damping ratio of the
substitute structure combined with energy dissipation
systems can be determined as
xeq xI xh xEDS. (12)
4. Convert the target roof displacement and the mass of
the MDOF building to the equivalent target displace-
ment(u)eq and the equivalent mass Meq of a SDOF
substitute structure.In order to use the displacement
response spectrum, the target roof displacement and
the mass of the MDOF structure with dampers must
be equivalent to a SDOF system (Fig. 6). Considering
only the fundamental mode and assuming a uniform
storey height with a uniform mass distribution and a
triangular (i.e., linear) displacement shape, the equiv-
alent target displacement for the equivalent SDOF
system may be expressed as Eq. (13) [24]. In a similar
manner, by considering the mass participation in the
fundamental mode, the equivalent mass for the equiv-
alent SDOF system is given in Eq. (14) [25] in which
N is the number of storeys in the building, mi is the
29
Fig. 7. Elastic displacement response spectrum for soil type II of
TWA building code, PGA 0.33 g.
mass of i-th storey and hi is the height from the base
to the i-th storey.
2N 1
(u)eq u , (13)
3N
N
Meq ( mihi) / hN. (14)
i1
5. Determine the equivalent period (Teq) and equivalent
stiffness (Keq) of the SDOF substitute structure.With
the values of (u)eq and xeq determined, the equivalent
period of the SDOF system can be determined from
the displacement response spectrum, as shown in Fig.
7. The total equivalent stiffness at maximum response
displacement can then be obtained by
Meq (15)
Keq
2p 2
Teq
.
6. Obtain the ultimate force capacity (Vu) and the design
force (Vd).Since the SDOF substitute structure is elas-
tic, Vu can be calculated according to Eq. (16) as illus-
trated in Fig. 2. Based on a bilinear force-displace-
ment model (Fig. 2), the design force (i.e., yield force,
Vy) can then be obtained by Eq. (17)
Vu Keq (u)eq, (16)
Vu
Vd Vy . (17)
1 a(m1)
7. Design the structure based on Vd and y. Because the
design force (Vd or Vy) still falls in the elastic range,
the structure can be designed and analysed in an
identical way to the conventional approach. For
example, the design force shall be distributed over the
height of the building according to Eq. (18), in which
wx is the mass of x-th storey. The structural members
30 Y.Y. Lin et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537

can then be proportioned, based on the design man-
uals [4,26], such that the building produces a roof dis-
placement of y as assumed in Step 1 when subjected
to the laterally distributed force. Notices that the
effective stiffness of EDDs (KEDS) should be included
in the analytical model of the damped structure.
wxhx
Fx Vd . (18)
N
wihi
i1
In this study, the strong-column-and-weak-beam
design criteria represented briefly as Eq. (19) are
adopted to determine the sizes of the structural mem-
bers [4,26].
where, M, S and Fy are moment capacity, section
modulus and yield stress, respectively. The subscript
c and b represent the columns and beams, respect-
ively.
8. Calculate the effective stiffness of EDDs
(KEDS)According to Eq. (3) through Eq. (10), the
effective stiffness of each energy dissipation device
can be determined.
9. Repeat Step 7Step 8 until the convergence of the
iteration procedure.
10.Check the end moment against the yield moment of
each member.Although the damped structure will
deflect y at the roof as assumed in Step 1 under the
laterally distributed force, it may not be a real yield

point of the damped structures (Fig. 9). In order to
Mc g M b, (19) make sure that the roof displacement obtained from

Step 9 is really a yield point, the end moment of each
where, Mc and Md are the summations of the member must be checked against its yield moment
moment capacity of columns and beams for a speci- capacity. If it is not the case, an iteration procedure
fied beam-column joint, respectively. g is a constant. according to Eq. (19) will be imposed. M and My of
For instance, based on Eqs. (20) and (21) which are Eq. (19) are the end moment and the yield moment
resulted from Eq. (19), the cross-sections of the col- of the member, respectively.
umns shown in Fig. 8 can be obtained by assuming My
the cross-sections of the beams.For joint 2 of Fig. 8, y+1 y . (19a)
M
a single-bay two-storey steel structure,:
Mc2 gMb2
Sc2 Fy gSb2 Fy (20) 4. Design example
Sc2 gSb2 4.1. Single-bay two storey steel building
For joint 1 of Fig. 8:
Mc1 Mc2 gMb1 The design parameters of a single-bay two storey steel
structure with energy dissipation devices (Fig. 10a) are
Sc1 Fy Sc2 Fy gSb1 Fy summarized in the following. The structural dimensions
Sc1 Sc2 gSb1 (21) are 9 m 9 m in plane and 3 m in height for each storey.
Sc1 gSb1Sc2 The design dead load and live load are respectively
7.8KN / m2(0.8tonf / m2) and 2.9KN / m2(0.3tonf / m2) for each
Sc1 g(Sb1Sb2) floor. The design spectrum is given in Fig. 7 which is

Fig. 8. Determination of structural members (2-storey example). Fig. 9. Check yield point.
 Y.Y. Lin et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537 31

lus of elasticity of steel is E 2.08E8KN / m2

(2.04E7tonf / m2) Viscoelastic energy dissipation devices
will be used to provide an effective viscous damping
ratio of 15%.

1. Since a drift ratio of 1.5% is chosen, the target roof

displacement is computed as u
1.5%3 m2F 0.09 m. Assume a yield displace-
ment (y) of 0.045 m, thus the initial ductility ratio
m u / y 0.09 / 0.045 2.0.
2. Viscoelastic devices are adopted as the energy dissi-
pation system for a desired damping ratio of
xEDS 15%.
3. For steel structures, an inherent damping ratio of 0.02
and a strain hardening ratio of 0.05 are assumed.
According to Eq. (1), the equivalent hysteretic damp-
ing ratio is obtained as xh 0.1512. Therefore, the
total equivalent damping xeq xI xh xEDS
0.02 0.1512 0.15 0.3212where

xh
1
p
1
1a
m
a

1
p
1
10.05
2
(12A)

0.05 0.1512

4. Based on Eqs. (13) and (14), the equivalent target dis-

placement (u)eq and equivalent mass Meq of the
SDOF substitute structure can be obtained as
2N 1
(u)eq u (13A)
3N
22 1
Fig. 10. (a) Single-bay two storey steel building with viscous, friction 0.09 m 0.075 m
and viscoelastic dampers, respectively, (b) Single-bay two storey steel 32

building with metallic yielding dampers.
635.7 3 6
N

Meq ( mihi) / hN (14A)

the displacement response spectrum derived from an i1
9.81 6
artificial earthquake whose acceleration spectrum is
compatible with the Taiwan design spectrum for Soil 97.2 kNsec2 / m
Type II with the peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.33 5. The equivalent period Teq is determined to be equal
g. The maximum story drift ratio is assumed to be 1.5% to 1.08 sec corresponding to (u)eq 0.075 m and
under the design earthquake. The yield stress of the steel xeq 0.3212 as can be read from the displacement
material is Fy 247000KN / m2(25200tonf / m2). The modu- response spectrum shown in Fig. 7.

Table 1
Results of one-bay two storey building with various EDDs

EDD Type u (m) y (m) m xh xeq Teq (sec) Vd (kN) To (sec) Beam Column
(mm mm, thickness 22 mm)

Viscous 0.09 0.066 1.36 0.081 0.251 1.030 267 0.956 H234 117 186 186
Friction 0.09 0.066 1.36 0.081 0.251 1.030 267 0.967 H214 107 171 171
Yielding 0.09 0.069 1.30 0.071 0.241 1.024 270 0.985 H198 99 171 171
VE 0.09 0.067 1.34 0.077 0.247 1.028 268 0.969 H208 104 166 166
Viscous c 165 kN sec / m, KEDS, 1F KEDS, 2F 0
Friction Fo 23.6 kN, KEDS, 1F 1248, KEDS, 2F 959 kN / m
Yielding Fy 33.1 kN, a 0.05, mEDS 6, KEDS, 1F 1291, KEDS, 2F 1116 kN/ m
VE k KEDS,1F KEDS,2F 1088 kN / m;
32 Y.Y. Lin et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537

Fig. 11. (a) Three-bay five storey steel building, (b) Three-bay twenty storey steel building.
Table 2
Results for three-bay five storey building with various EDDs

EDD Type u (m) y (m) m xh xeq Teq (sec) Keq (kN/m) Vu (kN) Vd (kN) To (sec)

Viscous 0.20 0.115 1.74 0.1285 0.2985 1.869 6719 985 950 1.706
Friction 0.20 0.118 1.69 0.1240 0.2940 1.870 6712 984 951 1.704
Yielding 0.20 0.126 1.59 0.1119 0.2819 1.862 6769 992 964 1.762
VE 0.20 0.124 1.61 0.1149 0.2849 1.864 6755 990 961 1.739
Member Size (mm mm, thickness 20 mm)
Viscous Friction Yielding VE
Beam 1F-2F H468 234 H446 223 H414 207 H430 215
3F-5F H386 193 H346 173 H314 157 H330 165
Column 1F-5F 538 538 481 481 436 43 458 458
Viscous c 1273 kN sec / m for all viscous EDDs
Friction Fo=87.0 kN; KEDS=6801 kN/m (1F), 3662 kN/m (2F), 3175 kN/m (3F), 3401 kN/m (4F), 4534 kN/m (5F)
Yielding Fy 105 kN; a 0.05; mEDS 6; KEDS 8588 kN / m (1F), 4601 kN / m (2F), 4155 kN / m (3F), 4601 kN / m (4F), 7156 kN / m (5F)
VE KEDS=4743 kN/m, h=1.0 for all VE EDDs
Y.Y. Lin et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537
33
 34

Table 3
Results for three-bay twenty storey building with various EDDs

EDD Type u (m) y (m) m xh xeq Teq (sec) Keq (kN/m) Vu (kN) Vd (kN) To (sec)

Viscous 0.50 0.290 1.72 0.1270 0.2970 1.889 9655 3299 3183 2.702
Friction 0.50 0.283 1.77 0.1312 0.3012 2.898 9595 3279 3157 2.684
Yielding 0.50 0.278 1.80 0.1343 0.3043 2.905 9549 3263 3137 2.680
VE 0.50 0.285 1.75 0.1300 0.3000 2.895 9615 3285 3166 2.702
Member Size (mm mm, thickness 25 mm)
Viscous Friction Yielding VE
Beam 1F-6F H922 461 H880 440 H858 429 H868 434
7F-12F H822 411 H780 390 H758 379 H768 384
13-20F H622 311 H580 290 H558 279 H568 284
Column 1F-6F 972 972 945 945 930 930 937 937
7F-20F 869 869 810 810 779 779 793 793
c 10712 kN sec/ m Fo 278 kN Fy 320 kN, a 0.05,mEDS 6 KEDS 25820 kN / m, h 1.0
Y.Y. Lin et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537
 Y.Y. Lin et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537
6. The equivalent stiffness, shear capacity and design
shear force are calculated as
2p 2 2p 2
Keq Meq 97.2 3290 KN
/ m,
Teq 1.08
Vu Keq (u)eq 3290 0.075 (16A)
246.7 KN,
Vu 246.7
Vd Vy (17A)
1 a(m1) 1 0.05(21)
235.0 KN0.185W.
7. Using Eq. (18), the lateral forces Fx distributed to the
1st and 2nd storeys are respectively 78.3 KN and
156.6 KN. Assuming Mc 1.2 Mb (Fig. 8a) for
the strong-column-and-weak-beam design, the cross-
sections of the beams and columns are proportioned
with respect to a roof displacement of 0.045 m under
the lateral force Fx. As a consequence, H250 mm125
mm22 mm22 mm is selected for beams while
198 mm198 mm22 mm22 mm is employed for
columns. With these sections designed, the horizontal
displacements are 0.020 m at the 1st storey and 0.046
m at the 2nd storey under the lateral force Fx.
8. The designated locations of the viscoelastic devices
are shown in Fig. 10a. Assuming that all adopted vis-
coelastic devices have the same storage stiffness (k)
and loss factor (h 1.0), the effective stiffness of
each energy dissipation device can be determined
according to Eqs. (9) and (10).
0.15
121.0k[0.0202 (0.0460.020)2]cos218.43o
k (9A)
2 78.30.020 156.60.046
1360KN / m
KEDS,1F KEDS,2F k 1360KN / m (10A)
9. Using the effective stiffness calculated from Step 8,
Step 7 and Step 8 are repeated until the convergence
of the effective stiffness. In this example, the viscoel-
astic devices are modeled as truss elements.
10.Using the effective stiffness calculated from Step 8
(i.e., KEDS,1F KEDS,2F k 1360KN / m), the cross-
section of beams and columns is redetermined by an
iterate procedure until the building produces a roof
displacement of 0.045 m under the lateral force Fx.
As a result, H224 mm 112 mm 22 mm 22 mm
is chosen for beams and 178 mm 178 mm 22
mm 22 mm is used for columns. The horizontal
displacements are 0.022 m at the 1st storey and 0.046
m at the 2nd storey.
11.According to Eqs. (9) and (10), the effective stiffness
of each energy dissipation device can be redetermined
as KEDS,1F KEDS,2F k 1380KN / m. Because the
35
value is close enough to the previous value of
1360 KN / m, the iteration for determining KEDS is
then terminated.
12.In order to warrant that the roof displacement
(15A)
obtained from the above step is really a yield point
(Fig. 9), the end moment of each member must be
checked against its yield moment. After the checks
for each member, the beam located at the 1st storey
has a minimum capacity/demand ratio of 1.41
(My / M 96.1 / 68.1 1.41). Because the ratio is not
close to 1.0, the iteration procedure is repeated from
Step 1 by replacing y with y 1 y(My / M)
0.045(96.1 / 68.1) 0.064 m until My/M is close
to 1.0.
13.The final results are: y 0.067 m, m 1.34, xh
0.077, xeq 0.247, Teq 1.028 sec, Keq
3631kN / m, Vu 272 KN, Vd 268 KN.(0.211W),
beam section: H208 mm 104 mm 22 mm 22
mm, box column section: 166 mm 166 mm 22
mm 22 mm, fundamental period of the designed
building To 0.969 sec; stiffness of viscoelastic
dampers k KEDS,1F KEDS,2F 1088kN / m; and the
first plastic hinge of the building will occur at the
fixed-end of the column located at the first storey.
14.In addition, Table 1 summarizes the designed results
if viscous dampers (Fig. 10a), friction dampers (Fig.
10a) and metallic yielding dampers (Fig. 10b) are
adopted.
4.2. Three-bay five storey and three-bay 20 store steel
buildings
The design of a three-bay five storey and a three-bay
20 storey steel building (Fig. 11a, b) are also performed
with a similar procedure to that of the single-bay two
storey example. The results are summarized in Tables 2
and 3 for the two structures with various types of energy
dissipation devices.
5. Verification of DBD using dynamic inelastic
analysis
In order to assess the performance of the displace-
ment-based design (DBD), a dynamic inelastic time his-
tory analysis using Drain 2D [27] was carried out.
The correlation between the results from the DBD and
the inelastic dynamic analysis is summarized in Table
4a,b and c. From the tables, it is clear that the maximum
displacement and yield displacement can be reliably pre-
dicted by the proposed method.
6. Conclusions
A procedure for direct displacement-based design was
proposed for buildings equipped with passive energy dis-
36 Y.Y. Lin et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537

Table 4
Verification of DBD using dynamic inelastic analysis

EDD Type (m) Design value Dynamic nonlinear analysis (xI=2%, xEDS=15%)

One bay two storey Viscous u 0.09 0.091 0.33 g

building
y 0.066 0.063 0.226 g
Friction u 0.09 0.090 0.33 g
y 0.066 0.064 0.234 g
Yielding u 0.09 0.091 0.33 g
y 0.069 0.067 0.234 g
VE u 0.09 0.090 0.33 g
y 0.067 0.065 0.235 g
Three bay five storey Viscous u 0.20 0.225 0.33 g
building
y 0.115 0.113 0.187 g
Friction u 0.20 0.212 0.33 g
y 0.118 0.116 0.189 g
Yielding u 0.20 0.204 0.33 g
y 0.162 0.123 0.202 g
VE u 0.20 0.210 0.33 g
y 0.124 0.128 0.205 g
Three bay twenty storey Viscous u 0.50 0.472 0.33 g
building
y 0.290 0.292 0.177 g
Friction u 0.50 0.483 0.33 g
y 0.276 0.280 0.173 g
Yielding u 0.50 0.486 0.33 g
y 0.276 0.275 0.170 g
VE u 0.50 0.485 0.33 g
y 0.285 0.280 0.172 g

sipation systems. It can be applied to design new and
regular buildings, and has been shown from this paper
that the design can be carried out by just a static linear
analysis procedure. The ductility, maximum displace-
ment and yield displacement of the building can be
reliably predicted by the proposed method. This pro-
cedure eliminates the need for the use of a force
reduction factor and an estimate of the structural period
that are needed in the force-based design method. In this
proposed method, the mechanical properties of the pri-
mary frame and the energy dissipation devices are simu-
lated by the equivalent/effective stiffness and
equivalent/effective damping ratio. The only initial
design parameters of the displacement-based design are
the target displacement (u) and the effective viscous
damping ratio (xEDS). Strengths and stiffness of the pri-
mary frame and the energy dissipation devices are results
of the design procedure and are dependent on the target
displacement designated.
References
[1] ATC-17-1. Proceeding of seminar on seismic isolation, passive
energy dissipation, and active control. Redwood City, California:
Applied Technology Council, 1993.
[2] EERI., 1993. Theme Issue: Passive energy dissipation. Earth-
quake Spectra, 9(3).
[3] Soong TT, Dargush GF. Passive energy dissipation systems in
structural engineering. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons,
1997.
[4] UBC. Uniform Building Code. Whittier, CA: International Con-
ference of Building officials, 1997.
[5] NEHRP. Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for
new buildings and other structures. Washington, DC: Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 1997.
[6] FEMA. NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 1997.
[7] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete building.
Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council, 1996.
[8] Moehle JP. Displacement-based design of R/C structures sub-
jected to earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 1992;8(3):40327.
[9] Kowalsky, M.J., Priestley, M.J.N., MacRae, G.A., Displacement-
based design, a methodology for seismic design applied to sdof
reinforced concrete structures. Report No. SSRP-94/16, Structural
System Research Project, University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, 1994.
[10] Calvi GM, Kingsley GR. Displacement-based seismic design of
MDOF bridge structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1995;24(9):124766.
[11] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic design and retrofit
of bridges. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
[12] Priestley, M.J.N, Kowasky M. J., Ranzo G., 1996. Preliminary
development of direct displacement-based design for MDOF sys-
tems. Proceedings of the 65th Annual Convention, SEAOC,
Maui, Hawaii.
[13] Priestley MJN. Displacement-based seismic assessment of
reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering
1997;1(1):15792.
 Y.Y. Lin et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 2537
[14] Priestley MJN, Calvi GM. In: Fajfar, Krawinkler, editors. Con-
cepts and procures for direct displacement-base design, seismic
design methodologies for the next generation of codes. Rotter-
dam: Balkema; 1997. p. 17181.
[15] Loeding, S., Kowaski, M.J., Priestley, M.J.N., 1998. Displace-
ment-based design methodology applied to RC building frames.
Report No. SSRP 98/06, Structural Research Project, Structures
Division, UC San Diego, CA.
[16] Xue Q. A direct displacement-based seismic design procedure of
inelastic structures. Journal of Engineering Structures
2001;23(11):145360.
[17] Lin, Y.Y., 2000. Performance-based design: displacement-based
design for buildings with and without energy dissipation systems.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, National
Taiwan University, Taiwan.
[18] Lin, Y.Y., Tsai, M.H., Chang, K.C., 2002. Displacement-based
seismic design for buildings. Journal of the Chinese Institute of
Engineers, in press, scheduled to appear in Vol. 25.
[19] Gulkan P, Sozen M. Inelastic response of reinforced concrete
structures to earthquake motions. ACI Journal
1974;71(12):60410.
[20] Shibata A, Sozen M. Substitute structure method for seismic
design in reinforced concrete. Journal of the Structural Division
ASCE 1976;102(ST1):118.
37
[21] Jennings PC. Equivalent viscous damping for yielding structures.
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division ASCE
1968;94(EM1):10316.
[22] Iwan WD, Gates NC. Estimating earthquake response of simple
hysteretic structures. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics
Division ASCE 1979;105(EM3):391405.
[23] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures, theory and applications to
earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1995.
[24] Miranda E. Approximate seismic lateral deformation demands in
multistory buildings. Journal of the Structural Engineering ASCE
1999;125(4):41725.
[25] Tsai, M.H., Chang, K.C., 1999. A preliminary study on displace-
ment-based design of RC structures with viscoelastic dampers.
Proceedings of the Eighth KU-KAIST-NTU Tri-Lateral
Seminar/Workshop on Civil Engineerintg, Taejon, Korea.
[26] ACI., 1995. Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACI 318-95) and commentary (ACI 318R-95). ACI Committee
318, American Concrete Institute, Farmingoton Hills, MI.
[27] Tsai, K.C., Li, J.W., 1994. A general purpose computer program
for static and dynamic analysis of inelastic 2D structures sup-
plemented with a graphic processor. Report No. CEER/R83-03,
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, National Taiwan
University.