KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2011) 15(3):507-516

DOI 10.1007/s12205-011-1009-z
507
www.springer.com/12205
Structural Engineering
A Displacement-Based Seismic Design for Reinforced Concrete Structures
Abderrachid Boulaouad* and Ahmed Amour**
Received September 27, 2009/Revised March 1, 2010/Accepted July 11, 2010

Abstract
The Displacement-Based Design method is presented for linear and non linear systems with some numerical applications on one
storey and multistory buildings using the spectra and formulae provided by the Algerian seismic code. Fundamentals and design
procedure of this method are given with implications and inherent problems. A brief review of the classic (force-based) method is
also given. Comparison between the two methods is made and the limits and advantages of each one are discussed. Furthermore, the
importance of target displacement and ductility level are outlined and more investigation is recommended to determine an accurate
relation between damping and ductility. The results of the analysis show that the Displacement-Based method is simple and efficient
with enough accuracy and confirm the idea, developed by many authors, that this method may be, in future, a good alternative to the
Force-Based one providing that some problems can be resolved by further work such as the elaboration of appropriate design spectra.
Keywords: force-based method, displacement-based method, target displacement, ductility, algerian seismic code

1. Introduction
In countries subjected to frequent severe earthquakes, such as
Algeria, attention must be focused on seismic design, and
seismic codes must be frequently revised to be more improved.
The Algerian seismic code (R.P.A.), amongst others, is based on
the conventional method known as force-based method (F.B.D.)
which uses the acceleration spectra. Nevertheless, in many cases,
the effect of externally applied loads is directly felt as defor-
mation of structure members which may be easily related to
damage. The relation is well illustrated by damage that occurred
in the Olive View Hospital during the 1971 San Francisco
earthquake. It is known that deformation controlled design can
be achieved either by using the traditional force/strength based
design procedure together with a check on the displacement/drift
limit or by employing a direct displacement design procedure;
but it seems to be rational to examine a seismic design method
wherein displacements are considered at the start of the design
process with attention focused on deformations to provide a
structure that meets the requirements for the several limit states
(Medekhar and Kennedy, 1998). Such a procedure that designs
the structure for a given displacement profile, can control the
potential damages. Furthermore, recent seismic activities worl-
dwide clearly proved that the seismic codes were generally
successful in achieving live safety goals, but there is still a lack in
economical considerations. For this reason, deformation-based
design approaches have been developed to create a structure with
controlled and predictable performance.
The Displacement Based Design (D.B.D.) is one of a number
of seismic design procedures recently developed and jointly
termed Performance Based Seismic Design. This alternative
seismic design philosophy differs in significant details from the
conventional method (Priestley et al., 2007).
A performance objective consists of two major components: a
stated maximum level of expected damage (sometimes called
performance level or limit state) and a level of seismic hazard. In
general, performance objectives can be defined quantitatively or
qualitatively. They may be expressed in a deterministic manner
(FEMA-237) or in a reliability-based probabilistic approach
(FEMA-350). Examples from FEMA-350 are:
2 probability of poorer performance than collapse preven-
tion level in 50 years, or
50 probability of poorer performance than immediate occu-
pancy level in 50 years.
Therefore, the design process involves association of a limit
states to a level of seismic hazard at a site for a given period of
time. The advantage of incorporating the performance objectives
in the design is that the owner of the building can request
different levels of damage/functionality of the property.
Many researchers recommended the use of this new method in
seismic codes instead of the conventional one. All the applica-
tions made were conducted on steel structures only or on R.C.
(i.e., reinforced concrete) structures but without any comparison
between the two methods (Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2001;
Williams and Albermann, 2003) or without considering both
linear and non linear cases (Borzi and Elnashai, 2000).
*Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, M.A.C.C., University of Batna, 500, Algeria (Corresponding Author, E-mail: abd1_elwal@yahoo.fr)
**Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of M'sila, 2800, Algeria (E-mail: Amourahmed @yahoo.fr)



Abderrachid Boulaouad and Ahmed Amour
508 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
This paper gives fundamentals of both conventional and
D.B.D. method on the one hand and outlines the advantages and
limitations of each one on the other hand, with numerical
examples based on the formulae and spectra provided by the
Algerian seismic code.
2. Historical Considerations
The reason that seismic design is currently based on force (or
acceleration) rather than displacement is based largely on
historical considerations. The occurrence of the 1994 Northridge
earthquake (Mw 6.7) was a keystone in development of seismic
regulations. Prior to this event, building structures were designed
primarily with one performance objective in mind: prevention of
loss of lives.
The idea of displacement based design was introduced about
40 years ago. Gulkan and Sozen (1974) developed the concept of
substitute structure to estimate the non linear structure response
through an equivalent elastic model assuming a linear behavior
and a viscous damping equivalent to the non-linear response.
This idea has been adopted recently by Kowalsky et al. (1994)
for a direct displacement design of SDOF (i.e., single degree of
freedom) R.C. structures and by Priestley et al. (1996) for both
SDOF and MDOF (i.e., multi degree of freedom) bridges and
buildings starting from a target peak displacement. Another
displacement-based procedure for MDOF bridge structures,
particularly suitable for symmetric bridges has been proposed by
Calvi and Kingsley (1995). Qi and Moehle (1991) proposed a
displacement-based procedure for MDOF systems with the
requirement of preliminary design and further modification of
the design according to the displacement or drift limit. While
Wallace (1995), Sasani and Anderson (1996) and Bachman and
Dazio (1997) focus on wall systems, Panagiotakos and Fardis
(1999) implemented an overall performance-based deformation
controlled design of MDOF R.C. structures subjected to both
seismic and non seismic actions. Another direct displacement-
based design approach was proposed by Fajfar (1999) based on
the capacity spectrum method, where the capacity curve is ob-
tained from a non linear static pushover analysis and represented
by a bilinear force-displacement model. Qiang (2001), amongst
others, presented a D.B.D. procedure derived from the capacity
spectrum method using Newmark-Hall reduction factors for the
inelastic demand spectrum.
3. A Brief Review of Force-Based Seismic Design
(F.B.D.)
According to Priestley et al. (2007), the sequence of operations
required in F.B.D. can be summarized as follows:
1. The structural geometry, including member sizes, is estimated.
2. Member elastic stiffnesses are estimated, based on preliminary
estimates of member sizes.
3. Based on the assumed member stiffnesses, the fundamental
period T is calculated, for a SDOF representation, by:
(1)
where M
e
is the effective seismic mass (normally taken as the
total mass) and K the stiffness of the structure.
In some building codes, a height-dependent fundamental
period is specified, given by Eq. (2):
(2)
where C
t
depends on the structural system and H
n
is the
building height.
4. The elastic design base shear V
BE
for the structure is given by
an equation of the form:
(3)
where C
T
is the basic seismic coefficient dependent on seismic
intensity, soil conditions and period T, and I is a factor reflect-
ing different levels of acceptable risk for different structures,
and g is the acceleration of gravity.
5. After selecting the appropriate force-reduction factor R, the
design base shear force (V
BR
) is found from:
(4)
The base shear force is then distributed to different parts of the
structure. For building structures, the distribution is typically
proportional to the product of the height and mass at different
levels; and the total seismic force is distributed between dif-
ferent lateral force-resisting elements in proportion to their
elastic stiffness.
6. The structure is then analyzed under the vector of lateral
seismic design forces, and the required moment capacities at
potential locations of inelastic action (plastic hinges) is deter-
mined.
7. Structural design of the member sections at plastic hinge loca-
tions is carried out, and the displacements under the seismic
action are estimated and then, compared with code-specified
displacement limits
8. If the calculated displacements exceed the code limits, re-
design is required
9. If the displacements are satisfactory, the final step of the
design is to determine the required strength.
4. Limitations of Force-based Seismic Design
Method
Medekhar and Kennedy (1998) and Priestley et al. (2007)
pointed out the following problems with F.B.D. method:
The fundamental period required to start the design is deter-
mined using empirical expressions
The values specified for the modification factor, R, by seismic
codes, appear to be somewhat arbitrary
Displacements are checked at the end of the design process
only. There appears to be a lack of concern about the implied
T 2
M
e
K
------ =
T C
t
H
n
( )
3 4
=
V
BE
C
T
I gM
e
( ) =
V
BR
V
BE
R
-------- =



A Displacement-Based Seismic Design for Reinforced Concrete Structures
Vol. 15, No. 3 / March 2011 509
inelastic displacements which may be excessive and contri-
bute to the instability of the structure.
5. Fundamentals of Displacement-Based Design
Method (D.B.D.)
5.1 Introduction
The D.B.D method is based on the Substitute Structure ap-
proach pioneered by Sozen and co-workers (Gulkan and Sozen,
1974; Shibata and Sozen, 1976) and developed into a design
approach in Priestley et al. (2007).
According to this latter, the design approach attempts to
design a structure which would achieve, rather than be bounded
by, a given performance limit state under a given seismic in-
tensity, essentially resulting in uniform-risk structures, which is
philosophically compatible with the uniform-risk seismic spectra
incorporated in most design codes.
5.2 Basic Formulation of the Method
The design method is illustrated with reference to Fig. 1, which
considers a SDOF representation of a frame building (Fig. 1(a)).
The bilinear envelope of the lateral force-displacement response
of the SDOF representation is shown in Fig. 1(b). An initial
elastic stiffness K
i
is followed by a post yield stiffness of rK
i
.
While F.B.D. characterizes a structure in terms of elastic, pre-
yield properties, D.B.D. characterizes it by secant stiffness K
e
at
maximum displacement d (Fig. 1(b)), and a level of equivalent
viscous damping .
In Fig. 1(d), the displacement is, actually, the spectral displace-
ment. In Fig. 1(c), the displacement ductility, or structure ductility
(), considers the behavior of the whole structure and is defined
as the ratio of the maximum structure displacement in the
inelastic range to the displacement corresponding to the yielding
point. The quantity of displacement ductility is selected on the
basis of many parameters (type of material and earthquake,
distance from source, site conditions, etc.); the methods available
to the designer are either monotonic static nonlinear analyses
(push-over type) or dynamic time history analyses.
With the design displacement at maximum response determin-
ed and the corresponding damping estimated from the selected
ductility demand (Fig. 1(c)), the effective period T
e
at maximum
displacement response can be read from a set of displacement
spectra for different levels of damping, as shown in Fig. 1(d).
The effective stiffness K
e
of the equivalent SDOF system at
maximum displacement can be found by Eq. (5a):
(5a)
where m
e
is the effective mass of the structure participating in the
fundamental mode of vibration.
From Fig. 2(b), the design lateral force, which is also the
design base shear force, is thus:
(5b)
6. Some Implications of D.B.D.
Priestley et al. (2007) showed that:
K
e
4
2
m
e
T
e
2
-------------- =
F V
b
K
e

d
= =
Fig. 1. Fundamentals of Displacement-Based Design: (a) SDOF Simulation, (b) Effective Stiffness K
e
, (c) Equivalent Damping vs Ductil-
ity, (d) Design Displacement Spectra



Abderrachid Boulaouad and Ahmed Amour
510 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
The required base-shear design force is not sensitive to the
seismic intensity, under F.B.D. procedure, whereas it is pro-
portional to the square of the seismic intensity, under D.B.D.
procedure.
The design base shear strength is independent of the number
of storey under D.B.D. procedure, whereas it is dependent
under F.B.D. procedure.
7. Problems with D.B.D.
According to Medekhar and Kennedy (1998), the use of
D.B.D. introduces the following issues:
Selection of an appropriate maximum displacement of the
SDOF
Effect of axial column deformations on the displaced shape
Greater cumulative P- effect on the building
Influence of higher modes on inter storey drift
8. Design Procedure of D.B.D.
8.1 Single Degree of Freedom System
The central concept of the method is that the structure is
designed for a specified target displacement.
The method is illustrated by reference to a single storey, single
bay building that may be modeled as a SDOF shear building
(Fig. 2). According to Paz (1985), a shear building may be
defined as a structure with no rotation of a horizontal section at
the level of the floors. In this respect, the deflect building will
have many of the features of a cantilever beam that is deflected
by shear forces only; hence the name shear building. For this, it
must be assumed that:
1. The total mass of the structure is concentrated at the levels of
the floors
2. The girders on the floors are infinitely rigid as compared to the
columns.
3. The deformation of the structure is independent of the axial
forces present in the columns.
A set of elastic displacement spectra for different levels of
equivalent viscous damping is required (Fig. 1d).
The design procedure is as follows:
1. Estimate the yield displacement of the structure
y
as a
function of the geometry and the material properties.
2. Select an appropriate maximum inelastic displacement
in
which depends on the ductility level of the elements
3. Calculate the maximum displacement
max
as the sum of the
two previous displacements.
4. Select an appropriate value of effective structural damping
eff
according to the ductility level implied in step 2.
5. The effective period (T
eff
) corresponding to
max
and
eff
is
obtained from spectrum
6. The effective stiffness of the system is:
(6)
7. The base shear capacity required is:

(7)

The structure is dimensioned to give an effective period.
8. If the effective period is not sufficiently close to the required
period, repeat the process.
8.2 Multi Degree of Freedom System
The D.B.D. method is applied to the 3 degrees of freedom
system as shown in Fig. 3, by transforming it into an equivalent
SDOF system in exchange for some assumptions, and applying
the method described previously for a SDOF system. Then we
return to the MDOF system.
According to Medekhar and Kennedy (1998), the design
procedure is as follows:
1. Select an initial desired displaced share for the structure,
i
2. Select the effective damping,
eff
, which depends on the ducti-
lity implied with
i
3. Determine the effective displacement:
(8)
4. Obtain the normalized profile:
(9)
5. Obtain the effective mass:

(10)

6. Determine the effective period T
eff
from spectrum, correspond-
ing to
eff
and
eff.
7. Obtain K
eff
from Eq. (6)
8. Obtain:

(11)

9. Obtain the lateral forces acting on MDOF system:
(12)
9. Numerical Application
As all the applications are based on the Algerian seismic code,
K
eff
4
2
M
eff
T
eff
2
----------------- =
V
b
K
eff

max
=

eff
m
i

i
2

m
i

i
---------------- =
C
i

i

eff
------- =
M
eff
m
i
C
i
=
V
b
K
eff

eff
=
F
i
m
i

i
m
j

j
---------------V
b
=
Fig. 2. Structure Modeled as a SDOF System



A Displacement-Based Seismic Design for Reinforced Concrete Structures
Vol. 15, No. 3 / March 2011 511
it may be appropriate to state briefly the most important informa-
tion about this code, with a focus on the seismic design spectra
and the seismic map.
9.1 About the Algerian Seismic Code (R.P.A.)
9.1.1 Seismic Design Spectra
The Algerian seismic code proposes three approaches to
calculate the seismic forces The first, known as equivalent static
method, consists to replace the real dynamic forces acting on
the structure by a system of fictive static forces which are
supposed to have the same effects. In the second method, known
as spectral modal analysis method, the seismic forces are
calculated for the most important vibration modes and combined
to obtain the maximum structure response using one of the
known combinations such as the square root of the sum of the
squares. The third method calculates the response by integrating
the equation of movement using seismic records as input.
Although the last method is the most accurate, it is rarely used
because it is relatively complex as it requires adequate analysis
and appropriate real or simulated earthquakes. The first and
second methods are based on the concept of seismic design
spectrum.
In the equivalent static method, the base shear V
b
is given by
Eq. (13a).
(13a)
where A, D, Q, R and W are, respectively, the acceleration
coefficient of zone, the dynamic factor of amplification, the
quality factor, the global behavior factor and the total structure
weight. All these factors are given by appropriate tables accord-
ing to some parameters as: the seismic zone, the site, the geo-
metry, the lateral loading resisting system.
In the spectral modal analysis method, the base shear V
b
is
given by Eq. (13b).
(13b)
where M is the total mass and g the acceleration of gravity (S
a
/g)
which stands for the normalized acceleration spectrum, is given
by the following equations:
(14a)
(14b)
(14c)
(14d)
where T is the fundamental period of the structure given by the
empirical equation:
(15)
C
t
is a coefficient depending on the type of lateral loading
resisting system and the filling type, T
1
and T
2
are the charac-
teristic periods depending on site type (i.e., rock, firm, soft or
very soft soil).
is a correction factor of the damping, given, in terms of the
damping ratio , by Eq. (16):
(16)
9.1.2 Seismic Map
At the beginning, the Algerian territory was subdivided into
four zones on the seismic map:
Zone 0 (i.e., of neglected seismicity) covering the great South
of the country called Sahara
Zone I (i.e., of low seismicity) covering a strip beyond the
previous zone of about 400 kilometers of width
Zone II (i.e., of medium seismicity) situated between the
previous zone and the Mediterranean Sea
Zone III (i.e., of high seismicity) covering some regions of the
V
b
ADQW
R
----------------- =
V
b
M.g.
S
a
g
---- =
S
g
g
----
1.25A 1
T
T
1
----- 2.5
Q
R
---- 1


+ if 0 T T
1

3.125A
Q
R
---- if T
1
T T
2

3.125A
Q
R
----


T
2
T
-----


2
3
---
if T
2
T 3.0s
3.125A
Q
R
----


T
2
3
-----


2
3
---
3
T
---


5
3
---
if T 3.0s

=
T C
t
H
n
( )
3 4
=
7 2 + ( ) 0.7 =
Fig. 3. System with 3 Degrees of Freedom and Equivalent SDOF System



Abderrachid Boulaouad and Ahmed Amour
512 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
previous zone such as Chlef and Boumerdes
Recently, the zone II has also been subdivided into two zones
namely zone IIa and zone IIb with seismicity in zone IIb higher
than in zone IIa. Thus, there are now five zones on the Algerian
seismic map (Fig. 4).
9.2 Applied Models
Since the aim of this paper is to make comparison between two
analytical procedures, the geometrical and mechanical models
applied have been taken as simple as possible. The simplest model
available in structural dynamics is the shear building defined
above which is based on the assumption of lumped masses at the
floor levels. Furthermore, the model of the curve giving the load-
deformation relationship has been idealized to the elastic-per-
fectly plastic model. Other models may be used to describe the
behavior of the structure which is really with distributed mass
and an infinite number of degrees of freedom. These models
which are often based on finite element method or derived methods
are more realistic and, consequently, more accurate but they are
more complex and may be required only in special cases as high
dynamic loading (blast for example) and large deformations.
Among these recent and sophistical models, those based on the
so called mesh-free methods are well suited to give explicit
representation of the crack evolution in 2 and 3 dimensions for
both cases of static
9.3 Numerical Data
For simplicity, numerical applications have been conducted on
regular reinforced concrete shear buildings (Fig. 5) with a Lateral
Load Resisting System (L.L.R.S.) which consists of 4 frames in
each direction and a maximum number of storey taken equal to
three, following the R.P.A. advices for zone IIa. The mass per
floor has been taken constant and equal to 20 t and the flexibility
of the roof diaphragm neglected. Although the spectra based on a
set of specifically selected records are more convenient, the
displacement spectra used are those derived from the accelera-
tion spectra given by the R.P.A. for firm soil and zone of medium
seismicity. The design procedure is similar to that used by
Medekhar (1998).
Ductility demand: the greatest value that may be agreed for a
R.C. structure is =2. (Edjtemai, 1981).
Drift to yield: Referring to the R.P.A., inter storey drift is limit-
ed to 1 of the building height. It should be noted that this limit
corresponds to the immediate occupancy performance level
(Djebbar et al., 2007) and dynamic loading (Oller et al., 1990;
Rabczuk and Belytschko, 2007 and 2008; Rabczuk and Eibl,
2006; Belytschko et al., 2000; Saatci and Vecchio, 2009).
9.4 Force Based Method
9.4.1 One-storey Building (SDOF system)
a) Base shear: It is obtained using Eq. (13b) with the following
data: T
1
=0.15 s, T
2
=0.40 s, C
t
=0.05, H
n
= 3 m; then T=0.11 s;
=7, =0.88, A= 0.15, Q=1.1 and R=5
As: 0 < T < T
1
, substituting in Eq. (14a) leads to: S
a
/g=0.076;
then, from Eq. (13b), V
b
=14.9 kN.
If =5, =1 and S
a
/g=0.083; then: V
b
=16.3 kN, and if
=10 : S
a
/g=0.07, then V
b
=13.14 kN
b) Check of displacement: It is done for the displacement
corresponding to the greatest value of V
b
(i.e., 16.3 kN):
The force acting upon a column is 1.06 kN and the minimum
column cross section is 25 cm25 cm. The corresponding
stiffness and displacement are, respectively, K=1249.28 kN/
m and = 0.84 mm.
The maximum displacement is
max
=R. =4.2 mm.
This latter must be less or equal to 1 of the building height
(11). Indeed, 1 of 3 m equals 3 cm.
c) P- effect: According to the R.P.A., the P- effect is not
taken into account if: P
k

k
/H
k
0.1 V
k
, where:
P
k
is the total structure weight over level k; H
k
and V
k
are
respectively the height and force shear at level k.
M.g.
max
/H=200009.810.001/3 < 0.113700 N. So the P-
effect is not taken into account.
9.4.2 Two-storey Building
a) Base shear: T=0.19 s. For =5, V
b
=39 kN; for =7, V
b
=35
Fig. 4. Algerian Earthquake Map
Fig. 5. Symmetric Layout of 3-storey Building



A Displacement-Based Seismic Design for Reinforced Concrete Structures
Vol. 15, No. 3 / March 2011 513
kN and for =10, V
b
=31. kN
b) Distribution of strength over height: V
b
=F
t
+ F
i
, but since
T< 0.7 s, then F
t
=0. and V
b
=F
i
F
i
=V
b
.W
i
.H
i
/ W
j
H
j
, with: W
i
: portion of weight allocated to
floor (i) and H
i
: height to floor (i)
F
1
=13.1 kN and F
2
=26.16 kN
c) Horizontal distribution of strength: it is done proportionally to
the stiffness
The force acting upon a column is: F
1i
=F
1
/16=818.7 N (first
storey) and F
2i
=F
2
/16=1635. N (second storey)
d) Check of displacements: According to the R.P.A. the inter
storey drift
k
=
k
-
k-1
must be 0.01 H
k

with:
k
=R.
ek
, where
ek
is the floor displacement due to
seismic forces and R the behavior factor.

e1
=0.65 mm and
e2
=1.31 mm. Then:
1
=3.25 mm,
2
=6.56
mm and
1
=3.25 mm,
2
=3.31 mm
1 of H
k
=30. mm. So, the condition is verified.
e) P- effect: P
1
.
1
/H
1
=17.33 N < 1047 N (= 0.1 F
1
) and P
2
.

2
/H
2
=17.67 N< 2093 N (= 0.1 F
2
).
So the P- effect is not taken into account.
9.4.3 Three-storey Building
a) Base shear: T=0.05(9)
3/4
=0.26 s.
For =5, V
b
=59. kN; for =7, V
b
=53. kN and for =10,
V
b
=47. kN
b) Distribution of strength over height: F
1
=9.81 kN, F
2
=19.62
kN and F
3
=29.43 kN
c) Horizontal distribution of strength: F
1i
=F
1
/16=613.12 N,
F
2i
=1226.25 N and F
3i
=1839.37 N
d) Check of displacements: condition of R.P.A. satisfied
e) P- effect: it is not important enough to be taken into account.
9.5 Displacement Method
9.5.1 One-storey Building (SDOF system)
a) Ductility Level =2. with
y
=1 cm

y
=1 cm and
in
=1.
y
=1 cm; thus:
max
=
y
+
in
=2.
y
=2
cm
According to Qiang (2001), the damping model presented by
Iwan and Gates (Eq. (17)) gives the most accurate results for
structures with ductility factor 4:
(17)
For =2, Eq. (17) gives
eff
=0.108, then
eff
=10 (common
value used for damping).
T
eff
=1.55 s, for
eff
=0.1 and
max
=2 cm. K
eff
=328.33 kN/m
(Eq. (6)). Then, V
b
=6.57 kN (Eq. (7)).
The portion of base shear on a frame is V
b1
=V
b
/4=1642 N
and on a column V
b2
=V
b1
/4=411 N.
The deflection at the free end of a cantilever beam acted
upon by a static force F at the free end is given by:
(18)
where, l, E and I are respectively the length, modulus of
elasticity and modulus of inertia of the beam.
Consequently, the corresponding stiffness coefficient is:
(19)
Then, the required stiffness is K
r
=19250 N/m; and conse-
quently, the required period is T
r
=2.13 s.
The required period is not close enough to the effective one.
Then, the process is repeated from the beginning with a new
value of the yield displacement
y
=3.5 mm. Then,
max
=7
mm and V
b
=11.3 kN.
b) Ductility level =1.1 with
y
=5 mm

max
=1.1
y
=5.5 mm, then:
eff
=0.07 and T
eff
=0.55 s. Thus:
V
b
=14.34 kN; T
r
=0.73 s and T
1
=0.18 s.
c) Ductility level =1. with
y
=5 mm

max
=
y
=5 mm, then:
eff
=0.05 and T
eff
=0.5 s.
Thus: V
b
=15.8 kN; T
r
=0.67 s and T
1
=0.17 s.
9.5.2 Two-storey Building
a) =2. in the first storey and 1. in the second storey, with

r1
=3.5 mm and
r2
=5 mm

eff
=10.16 mm and M
eff
=37.4 t =93 M
t
, with M
t
=total mass.
So, T
eff
=0.92 s for
eff
=0.1 and
eff
=10.16 cm Then:
K
eff
=1743. kN/m and V
b
=18. kN=base shear without
including P- effect.
Lateral force at each level, F
i
: F
1
=14018/380=6.63 kN and
F
2
=24018/380=11.37 kN
Lateral forces equivalent to P- effect: F
1
=M
1
.g
1
/H
1
=0.46
kN and F
2
=M
2
.g.
2
/H
2
=0.40 kN
Total lateral forces including P- effect: F
1t
=F
1
+ F
1
=7.10
kN and F
2t
=F
2
+ F
2
=11.77 kN
T
r
=1.19 s and T
1
=0.27 s. Table 1 summarizes the most im-
portant data and results.
b) =1.1 over height with
r1
=3.5 mm and
r2
=5 mm

eff
=7.75 mm,
eff
=7%, T
eff
=0.7 s, V
b
=21.2

kN

eff
0.05 0.0587 1 ( )
0.371
+ =

Fl
3
3EI
--------- =
K
F

---
3EI
l
3
--------- = =
Table 1. Lateral Forces Including P- Effect, for =2. and 1, with
r1
=3.5 mm and
r2
=10 mm
Floor
Height
to floor
H
i
(m)
Mass
M
i
(t)
Ductility
level

Drift to
yield

ri
(mm)
Assumed
shape

i
(mm)
M
i

i
(tmm)
M
i
(
i
)
2

(tmm
2
)
Profile of
shape
C
i
M
i
C
i
(t)
F
i
(kN)
F
i
(kN)
F
it
(kN)
1 3. 20. 2. 3.5 7. 140. 980. 0.69 13.8 6.63 0.46 7.1
2 6. 20. 1. 5. 12. 240. 2880. 1.18 23.6 11.37 0.4 11.77
40. 380. 3860. 37.4 18. 18.87



Abderrachid Boulaouad and Ahmed Amour
514 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
c) =1. over height, with:
r1
=5 mm=
r2

eff
=8.33 mm,
eff
=5%, T
eff
=0.63 s, V
b
=30
.
kN
9.5.3 Three-storey Building
a) =1.5 over height, with
r1
=
r2
=
r3
=3.5 mm

eff
=12.25 mm,
eff
=10, T
eff
=1.05 s, V
b
=23.

kN
b) =1.1 over height, with
r1
=
r2
=
r3
=3.5 mm

eff
=8.98 mm and
eff
=7, T
eff
=0.78 s, V
b
=30 kN
c) =1. over height, with
r1
=
r2
=
r3
=3.5 mm

eff
=0.05 and
eff
=9.12 mm, T
eff
=0.7 s, V
b
=36.3 kN
9.5.4 Summary of the Main Results
In order to make comparison between the two methods, the
main results are grouped in a single table and the values of the
difference between both the base shear forces and the periods are
plotted in different charts.
Table 2. Main Results of the Two Methods
Damping
ratio (%)
Number of
storey
Floor
F.B.D. method D.B.D. method
Ratio
V
bF
/F
t
T
(kN)
Base shear
V
bF
(kN)
Ductility
level
T
eff
(s)
Base shear
V
bD
(kN)
Total force
F
t
(kN)
Required
period T
r
(s)
5
1 1 0.11 16.3 1. 0.50 15.8 16.13 0.67 1.01
2
1
0.19 39.
1.
0.63 30. 30.66 0.83 1.3
2 1.
3
1
0.26 59.
1.
0.71 36.3 37.15 0.92 1.59 2 1.
3 1.
7
1 1 0.11 14.9 1.1 0.55 14.3 14.70 0.73 1.02
2
1
0.19 35.
1.1
0.7 21.2 21.75 0.96 1.61
2 1.1
3
1
0.26 53.
1.1
0.78 30. 30.75 1.03 1.72 2 1.1
3 1.1
10
1 1 0.11 13.14 2. 0.70 11.3 11.3 0.93 1.16
2
1
0.19 31.
2.
0.92 18. 18.87 1.19 1.64
2 1.
3
1
0.26 47.
1.5
1.05 23. 24.02 1.35 1.96 2 1.5
3 1.5
Fig. 6. Effect of the Storey Number and the Rate M
eff
/M
t
on the Base Shear Forces: (a) Effect of the Storey Number, (b) Effect of the Rate
M
eff/
M
t




A Displacement-Based Seismic Design for Reinforced Concrete Structures
Vol. 15, No. 3 / March 2011 515
10. Analysis of the Results, Comparison and Com-
mentaries
This study, based on the Algerian seismic code, has been
achieved on R.C. regular buildings with one, two and three
storey. More complex structures can be studied with the same
procedures.
The following results can be outlined:
The base shear under the F.B.D. method is greater than that
under the D.B.D. one (1-2 times). The difference between the
results of the two methods increases with the number of
storey and with the value of the damping ratio. This may be
attributed to the deficiency in defining the substitute structure
parameters, especially the maximum displacement and the
equivalent viscous damping.
The effective mass used in the D.B.D. method compared to
the total mass may give an idea of the accuracy of this
method: more the rate M
eff
/M
tot
is near from 100 , more the
result is realistic.
In the D.B.D. method, the values of base shear corresponding
to a damping ratio of 5 seem to be more realistic. This
accounts for the fact that this value is commonly used in
seismic design.
This method is an efficient design procedure with no need to
empirical equation or arbitrary coefficient.
It enables to take directly into account the P- effect, which
may be important for slender structures.
It also enables to take into consideration the deformations of
secondary elements.
It is simpler to apply and better suited to incorporation in
design codes.
System-level ductility is an essential factor for earthquake
resistant design of structures.
The target displacement is a main factor in the D.B.D method.
Some authors proposed its estimation by the Pushover
method (Williams and Albermann, 2003).
More investigation must be done to determine an accurate
relation between damping and ductility.
11. Conclusions
This analysis confirms the idea, developed by many authors,
that the Displacement-based method may be, in future, a good
alternative to the Force-based method providing that some
problems can be resolved by further work in a number of areas to
assess the following issues:
Estimation of the target displacement and the effective damp-
ing
System ductility and its relation to the damping
Damage thresholds for common non structural elements
Appropriate displacement spectra for design purposes
Application of this method to other systems such as: asym-
metric structures, systems with shear walls
Acknowledgments
The work on this paper is based on research work supported by
the Algerian Ministry of High Education and Scientific Research
with the contribution of both University of M'sila and University
of Batna. The valuable orientations of Dr Mohamed Benchikh
from M'sila University and Dr Kamel Abdelkader Tayebi, Pre-
sident of Novel Technologies Solutions, Ontario, are also grate-
fully acknowledged.
References
Algerian Ministry of Inhabitants (2003). Rgles parasismiques algri-
ennes, C.G.S., Algiers, Algeria.
Bachmann, E. and Dazio, A. (1997). A deformation-based seismic
design procedure for structural wall buildings. Seismic Design
Methodologies for the next generation of codes. Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Seismic Design Methodologies for the
Fig. 7. Difference between Periods versus Number of Storey: (a) Required Period Effective Period, (b) D.B.D. Period F.B.D. Period



Abderrachid Boulaouad and Ahmed Amour
516 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
Next Generation of Codes, pp. 59-70.
Belytschko, T., Organ, D., and Gerlach, C. (2000). Element-free
Galerkin methods for dynamic fracture in concrete. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 187, Nos. 3-4,
pp. 385-399.
Borzi, B. and Elnashai, A. S. (2000). Assessment of the inelastic
response of buildings using force-and displacement-based approaches.
Str. Design Tall Build., Vol. 9, pp. 251-277.
Calvi, G. M. and Kingsley, G. R. (1995). Displacement-based seismic
design of multi-degree-of-freedom bridge structures. Earthquake
Engine. Structural Dynamics, Vol. 24, Issue 9, pp. 1247-1266.
Djebbar, N. and Chikh, N. (2007). Limit period based on approximate
analytical methods estimating inelastic displacement demands of
buildings. Journal of Civil Engrg. and Management, Vol. 13, No. 4,
pp. 283-289.
Edjtemai, N. (1981). Modles de calcul de la rponse lasto-plastique
d'une structure une action sismique, E.N.P.C. de Paris, pp. 55-57.
Fajfar, P. (1999). Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand
spectra. Earthquake Engine. Structural Dynamics, Vol. 28, Issue 9,
pp. 979-993.
Gulkan, P. and Sozen, M. (1974). Inelastic response of reinforced
concrete structures to earthquake motions. ACIJ, Vol. 71, No. 12,
pp. 604-610.
Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N., and Mac Rae, G. A. (1994).
Displacement-based design, a methodology for seismic design
applied to single degree of freedom RC structures, Report No.
SSRP-94/16, Structural Systems Research, University of California,
San Diego, California.
Lee, D.-G., Song, J.-K., and Yun, C.-B. (1997). Estimation of system-
level ductility demands for multistory structures. Engineering
Structures, Vol. 19, No. 12, pp. 1025-1035.
Medekhar, M. S. and Kennedy, D. J. L. (1998). Displacement-based
seismic design of buildings, theory and application. Engrg. Struc-
tures, Vol. 22, pp. 201-221.
Nelson, L., Wilson, J., and Hutchinson, G. (1998). The ductility
reduction factor in the seismic design of buildings. Earthquake
Engrg. Structural Dynamics, Vol. 27, Issue 7, pp. 749-769.
Oller, S., Onate, E., and Oliver J. (1990). Finite-element nonlinear
analysis of concrete structures using a Plastic-Damage model.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 35, Issues 1-3, pp. 219-231.
Panagiotakos, T. B. and Fardis, M. N. (1999). Estimation of inelastic
deformation demands in multistorey RC frame buildings. Earth-
quake Engng. and Struct. Dynamics, Vol. 28, Issue 5, pp. 491-518.
Panagiotakos, T. B. and Fardis, M. N. (2001). A Displacement-based
seismic design procedure for RC buildings and comparison with
EC8. Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dynamics, Vol. 30, Issue 10,
pp. 1439-1462.
Paz, M. (1985). Structural dynamics, theory and computation, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, N. Y.
Priestley, M. J. N. and Calvi, G. M. (1976). Substitute structure method
for seismic design in R.C.. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
102, No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Displace-
ment-based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy,
pp. 121-132.
Priestley, M. J. N., Kowalsky, M. J., Ranzo, G., and Benzoni, G. (1996).
Preliminary development of displacement-based design for multi
degree of freedom systems. Proceedings of the 65
th
Annual
Convention , SEAOC, Maui, Hawai.
Qiang, X. (2001). A direct displacement-based seismic design pro-
cedure of inelastic structures. Engineering Structures, Vol. 23, pp.
1453-1461.
Qiang, X. and Moehle, J. P. (1991). Displacement design approach for
RC structures subjected to earthquakes, Report No. UCB/EERC-01/
02, Berkeley Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California.
Rabczuk, T. and Belytschko, T. (2007). A three dimensional large
deformation meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engrg., Vol. 196,
Nos. 29-30, pp. 2777-2799.
Rabczuk, T. and Belytschko, T. (2008). Application of particle
methods to static fracture of reinforced concrete structures.
International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 137, Nos. 1-4, pp. 19-44.
Rabczuk, T. and Eibl, J. (2006). Modelling dynamic failure of concrete
with meshfree methods. International Journal for Impact
Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 1878-1897.
Saatci, S. and Vecchio, F. J. (2009). Non linear finite element modeling
of RC structures under impact loads. ACI Structural Journal, Sept-
Oct, pp. 716-725.
Sasani, M. and Anderson, J. G. (1996). Displacement-based Design
versus Force-based Design for structural walls. Proceedings of
the11
th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco,
Mexico.
Wallace, J. W. (1995). Seismic design of RC structural walls. Journal
of Structural Engrg., Vol. 121, No. 1, pp. 75-100.
Williams, M. S. and Albermann, F. (2003). Evaluation of displace-
ment-based analysis and design methods for steel frames with
passive energy dissipaters. Civil Engineering Bulletin, No. 24, pp.
3-53.