Tom Paulay Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand

E-mail: tom.paulay@canterbury.ac.nz Seismic design of concrete structures

My memorable association with UNAM goes back to the time when the renown icon of earthquake engineering, Emilio Rosenbueth, dazzled us with his immense visions. With irresistible persuasion he recruited Luis Esteva and, among others, my long time colleagues, the late Bob Park, Nigel Priestley, and myself, to contribute to a book (Rosenblueth 1980) addressing the application of the state of the art of earthquake engineering in structural design. With subsequent visits to Mexico and numerous encounters with Luis during our seismic missionary globe trotting, our friendship progressed. My great respect for him and his work, motivated me to look up to him in spite of the fact that he is quite a bit shorter than I am. I was fortunate to work with him within the world wide fraternity of the International Association for Earthquake Engineering. It is pleasing to note that Luis is now completing his term as president of this fraternity. I recall with joy our last encounter with each other, when, while strolling over the colorful streets of Taipei, without comparing our views, we firmly declined to accept the eager offer of a street vendor to sample his steaming snake stew. My good wishes shall accompany him during the coming, undoubtedly very active, years.

THE SEISMIC DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY OF DUAL SYSTEMS Tom Paulay ABSTRACT To enable acceptable seismic displacement demands imposed by earthquakes to be estimated, the displacement capacity of a structure needs to be known. This is controlled by specific performance criteria. It is postulated that, within sensible limits, the assignment of fractions of the required seismic strength to elements of a system may be arbitrary. This enables the displacement capacity of a structural system to be evaluated without the knowledge of its strength. A redefinition of some traditionally accepted structural properties is a prerequisite of applications. A study of a prototype reinforced concrete mixed frame-wall system was chosen to illustrate rationale, acceptable extents of inevitable approximations and extreme simplicity of application. INTRODUCTION Traditional techniques, adopted in early seismic code provisions, attempted to provide adequate strength, in terms of lateral force resistance, largely based on the dynamic response of elastic systems. Subsequently it was recognized that for significant but relatively rare seismic events, magnitudes of lateral design forces can be significantly reduced if proper allowance is made for hysteretic damping. Some associated damage was considered inevitable. This presented a major challenges to researchers to identify sources of large deformations in a composite structure, comprising brittle concrete and adequately ductile steel. Astute choices of potential kinematically admissible plastic mechanisms needed to be made. To ensure that only the chosen suitable mechanism could be mobilized during a large earthquake, a quantified hierarchy in the relative strengths of elements and components became imperative. These concepts were embodied in the philosophy of "capacity design" (Park and Paulay 1975, Paulay and Priestley 1992). More recently emphasize in seismic design strategies was placed world wide on satisfying identifiable performance criteria. Beside providing adequate seismic strength, the paramount importance of realistic estimates of displacement capacities of structural systems, related to specific performance criteria, is presently more widely recognized. To aid simplifications, without which adoption by structural designers of new concepts in seismic design can hardly be expected, deliberate approximations need to be made. These are considered to be compatible with the inevitable crudeness of the prediction of magnitudes of probable earthquake-induced displacement demands. Certain redefinitions of structural properties, for example the relationship between strength and stiffness, may be viewed by some readers as being controversial. TERMINOLOGY USED In this study of earthquake-imposed displacements on buildings, frequent reference is made to the structural system. A structural system comprises lateral force-resisting elements, generally arranged in orthogonal directions. Typical elements are bents of ductile frames or interconnected walls in the same plane. Due to torsional effects, elements of the system may be subjected to different displacements.

A lateral force-resisting element may comprise several components. Components of elements are assumed to be subjected to compatible displacements associated with the lateral displacement of the element. Typical components are beams, columns, beam-column-joint subassemblages or walls. The latter may be full height cantilevers or coupled walls.

Figure 1. Constituents of a structural system. Figure 1 attempts to clarify these definitions. In the technical literature the terms component and element are often used to describe the same part of the system. To clarify compatibility requirements relevant to lateral displacements, distinct differentiation in the treatment of components and elements needs to be made. DISPLACEMENT LIMITATIONS Following currently accepted seismic design aims, maximum displacements imposed on ductile reinforced concrete systems are deemed to be limited by: The displacement capacity of critical components of the system corresponding with the adopted, i.e., codified, quality of detailing for construction. The magnitude of the story drift, (the angle corresponding with the lateral displacement of a level relative to that of an adjacent level) satisfying the specific performance criterion, distinctly chosen for the building system. The more severe limit may then establish the target displacement capacity of the ductile system eventually to be related to the anticipated maximum seismic displacement demand. THE TOOLS OF DISPLACEMENT ESTIMATES Traditionally the structural design process starts with experience-based estimates of component dimensions. Once this information, based on architectural and engineering perspectives, is available, with the knowledge of material properties, such as strain limits, displacement estimates, adequate for purposes of seismic design, can be readily made. Nominal yield curvature A fundamental property of a structural component is the nominal yield curvature at its critical section or sections. This will characterize its response in the elastic and post-elastic domain of behavior when the element is subjected to monotonically increasing

displacements. In reinforced concrete members, it is more realistic to base curvature estimates on quantifiable section properties, rather than on assumed or recommended (Paulay and Priestley 1992) values of flexural rigidity, EcIe, where Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete and Ie is the second moment of effective area of the cracked section. In seismic design it may be assumed that extensive cracking will occur over the full length of components. Associated errors are likely to be smaller than those originating from routine neglect of displacements due to causes other than flexure. Figure 2 shows familiar flexural strength-curvature relationships for a typical structural wall section. With little experience the neutral axis depth associated with the development of steel yield strain at the extreme tension fiber can be readily estimated. As stated, for purposes of seismic design a high degree of precision in the estimation of component properties is not warranted. If necessary, this estimate can be subsequently reviewed, once details of the flexural reinforcement provided are known. For a given steel tensile yield strain, y, and the location of the neutral axis depth, Dw, the curvature at the onset of yielding is established as 'y = y/(Dw), where Dw is the overall depth of a section, or the length, w, of a wall. When details of the reinforcement are subsequently known, the associated moment at the onset of yielding at the extreme tension fiber, My, may also be evaluated. The need for this will, however, seldom arise. The designer will primarily address the nominal flexural strength, Mn, at a critical section, as constructed, when strength requirements for the components are known.

Figure 2. Flexural strength-curvature relationships for a wall section. For seismic design purposes a bilinear simulation of the nonlinear moment-curvature relationship, as shown in Fig. 2(b), is convenient and adequate. With linear extrapolation this leads to the definition of the nominal yield curvature

y = (Mn/My) 'y = y/Dw

(1)

where the coefficient = (Mn/My)/ recognizes the ratio of the nominal to yield strength in flexure and the relative position of the neutral axis. It enables a benchmark, i.e., reference or nominal, value in bilinear simulation of relationships to be identified. If desired, effects of strain hardening with increasing curvature ductility (Fig. 2(b)) may also be included. These are not considered here.

Extensive studies of a variety of sections, conducted at the University of Canterbury, confirmed previous finding (Priestley-Kowalsky 1998) that for specific types of members, such as walls and beams, the variation of the value of the parameter is relatively small. The amount of reinforcement used at a section hardly affects nominal yield curvature. As expected, neither do moderate axial compression loads, commonly encountered in structural walls, affect nominal yield curvature to any significance. However, the effect on flexural resistance is significant. Fig. 2(b), where the (cylinder) compression strength of the concrete is denoted as f 'c , illustrates this feature.

Nominal yield curvature may be considered like a material property. It is insensitive to, and for design purposes essentially independent of, section flexural strength. The definition presented here contradicts with the widely used terminology, whereby 'y = My/EcIe. The expression implies that, with a commonly assumed constant value of the flexural rigidity, the yield curvature would proportionally increase with the yield moment, My. These relationships are familiar from the study of the behavior of structural members comprising homogeneous isotropic materials, such as steel. For example the nominal yield curvature of a flanged steel section with constant depth, is essentially independent of its strength. The latter is controlled by the width and thickness of the flanges.
Nominal yield displacement

An approach, based on bilinear simulation, similar to that used in defining the nominal yield curvature of a cracked reinforced concrete section, may be utilized. This is illustrated in Fig. 3. The strongly nonlinear response of a component i from the onset of cracking till the development of its nominal strength, Vin, is of little interest with respect to estimations of displacements in the elastic range of behavior. The shaded area in Fig. 3 indicates essentially linear response after the occurrence of repeated displacements not ' exceeding that associated with the yield strength, Viy, and the yield curvature, iy , of the component. Hence the nominal yield displacement, iy, an important reference value, may be based on the nominal yield curvature, iy , at the critical section. The nominal yield displacement, iy , is also strength-independent!

Figure 3. Bilinear simulation of force-displacement relationship.

In this study, only conservatively estimated flexural deformations were considered. If refinements appear to be necessary, other sources of distortions, such as due shear and at anchorages, may be readily included.
Element stiffness

An important conclusion, drawn from the bilinear simulation of the forcedisplacement relationship for an element, is the definition of its stiffness, ki, stated in Fig. 3. Because the nominal yield displacement, iy, is not affected by strength, the stiffness of a reinforced concrete element with given dimensions and material properties (y) is proportional to the strength which the designer will eventually assign to it (Paulay, 2001a). This interpretation of stiffness reveals weaknesses, for example, in the traditional approach to seismic torsional phenomena. These arise from definitions of eccentricities with respect to the center of mass of a system. Perceived detrimental effects of stiffness eccentricities are routinely remedied by redistributing design strengths of elastic elements to eliminate strength eccentricities. The fact that the redistribution of strengths by the designer has altered element stiffness, and hence stiffness eccentricity, is overlooked. Figure 3 clearly shows the range of strengths, i.e., when Viy<Vi<Vin, over which stiffness so defined would significantly underestimate displacements. In terms of ductile structural response this transitional range of behavior is in general of little interest. The bilinear simulation shown in Fig. 3 allows the displacement ductility, applicable to element i, to be more realistically quantified as i = m/iy (2)

The displacement ductility of a system, s, to be defined subsequently, is an essential parameter of current strength- and displacement-based seismic design procedures.
FREEDOM IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF STRENGTHS

As stated previously, the nominal yield curvature at the critical section of an element with given dimensions, iy , and hence its nominal yield displacement, iy, may be considered in seismic design to be independent of its nominal strength. Therefore, the displacement capacity of any element, being a specified multiple of its nominal yield displacement, and hence that of the system, can be estimated with sufficient accuracy already at the preliminary stage of the design. As stated earlier, fractions of the total required nominal strength of a system, to be established subsequently, may be assigned arbitrarily to its elements (Paulay, 2000). Implications of this freedom in assigning element strengths, are thus:

Irrespective of the strengths assigned to an element, it will commence yielding when the imposed system displacement approaches the nominal yield displacement of that element. Simultaneous onset of yielding of geometrically differing elements of a system, such as walls, with different overall depths, is not possible. Lateral force-resisting elements of a system with different nominal yield displacements, when subjected to identical translational displacements, will necessarily be subjected to different displacement ductility demands.

A structural system, comprising elements with different nominal yield displacements, does not exhibit a distinct yield displacement. Existing definitions of the yield displacement of systems are often ambiguous. Hence a redefinition is required. To ensure that all elements of a ductile system will perform satisfactorily, the displacement capacity of the system should, in general, be restricted to that of its component with the smallest displacement capacity.

Arbitrariness in strength assignment imparts to the astute designer the ability to chose from a number of possible, viable and appealing solutions. For example, to eliminate possibly detrimental torsional effects (Paulay 2001b), strengths should be assigned to elements so that an acceptably small or no strength eccentricity will result. To illustrate the relevance of the structural features listed above, a somewhat idealized frame-wall system, deliberately made simple, is studied here briefly.
AN EXAMPLE FRAME-WALL SYSTEM

An attractive mode of seismic resistance in medium to high rise buildings may be achieved with the use of interacting cantilever walls and rigid jointed frames, i.e., dual systems, extending over the full height. Before the arrival of computers, these systems represented formidable challenges to the analytical skills of structural engineers. Deformation compatibility in elastic systems necessitates significant changes, via diaphragms, in the lateral force patterns applicable to the walls and the frames. With the appreciation of limitations of the uses of bilinear modeling, generally insignificant within a nonlinear seismic scenario, both required relative strength and real displacement capacity can be readily predicted for each type of element. This selected example intends to demonstrate how, already at the preliminary stage of the design, such simple, yet rather important, behavior-based predictions can be made, even for such a relatively complex structure. The strategy used exemplifies a deterministic design philosophy, whereby the designer simply 'tells the structure' what it should do in the event of a major earthquake. Displacement compatibility under lateral force is assumed to be assured by infinitely rigid floor diaphragms. The traditional design approach employing the distribution of seismic strength to different elements of a dual system, based on elastic behavior and still widely used, was extensively studied (Paulay and Priestley 1992). However, issues of displacement estimates, relevant to this type of ductile structures, received then relatively little attention.
The prototype structure

A prototype structure, shown in Fig. 4(b), intends to illustrate several postulated, yet unconventional, design concepts. A symmetrical 12 story reinforced concrete building comprises seven identical frames and two cantilever walls, each with a height, h, to length, Dw, aspect ratio of Awr = 7.1. Dimensions are expressed in terms of the total height, h, of the structure. For modeling purposes the 9 lateral force-resisting elements are condensed into two elements, one comprising 7 frames and the other 2 walls, respectively, as seen in Fig. 4(b). A typical seismic design force pattern, corresponding with a system base shear if Vb = 1.0, is shown in Fig. 4(a). These equivalent static forces lead to moment and shear force patterns, applicable to the system, as presented in Figs. 4(c) and (d), respectively.

Possibilities for the assignment of lateral forces to the two very different elements, and associated displacement limits, are of prime interest. It is restated that, within rational limits, fractions of the overturning moments, M, and consequently associated story shear forces, Vs, to be sustained by the chosen ductile mechanism of the system, may be assigned to the wall and frame elements in an arbitrary, but sensible, manner.
Chosen mechanisms

The mechanism deliberately chosen for this structure, comprises plastic hinges only at the base of the walls and the columns and at each end of the beams. In accordance with the philosophy of capacity design, other regions of the components will be provided with sufficient reserve strength to ensure that under dynamic actions no inelastic deformations of significance would occur while anticipated target displacements are being developed.

Figure 4. A ductile frame-wall system. To illustrate principal steps of displacement estimates, familiar simple expressions, reflecting component behavior, will be used. Benchmark deformations are influenced by the pattern of lateral forces, but are independent of strength eventually to be provided. Displacement estimates are based on component dimensions, given here in terms of the height of the building, h, as shown in Fig. 4(b). To design practitioners these are likely to be more meaningful quantities. The symbols Db, Dc and Dw define overall depths of beams, columns and walls, respectively.

Wall deformations

Capacity designed wall elements, which, with the exception of a plastic hinge at the base, are expected to respond in the elastic domain, will control deformation capacities in dual systems. Therefore, it is best to consider wall deformations first. The displacement limitations, described earlier, require the assessment of both the displacement ductility capacity of the wall element, w, and the restrictions imposed by specified drift limits. The latter is relevant to the maximum slope of the wall, w,max, at some level above the base. Displacement capacities of frame elements will always be larger than those of wall elements. Consequently, displacement demands on the frames can be expected to be moderate. Designers may wish to exploit this feature by relaxing some of the detailing requirements in

potential plastic regions of frames. For reasons that will become evident subsequently, the behavior of cantilever walls with a single applied lateral force at the effective height, he, are considered in this study. Estimation of the nominal yield curvature at the wall base, wy , with Eq.(1), enables the corresponding nominal yield displacement, wy, and the maximum nominal wall yield rotation (slope), wy , at the effective height, he, to be estimated thus
2 wy = wy h e /3

(3) (4)

wy = wy h e / 2 where the effective height, he, eventually selected, is defined in Fig. 4(c).

With appropriate detailing of the potential plastic region at the base of walls, a displacement ductility capacity of w = 5 can be readily achieved. However, this may need to be reduced to satisfy a more restrictive drift criterion. The maximum drift, w,max , at the effective height, including effects of plastic hinge rotations at the base, wp, associated with the development of the displacement ductility capacity of the wall element, w , is w,max = wy + wp = wy + (w 1) wy /(he 0.5p) (5)

where the length of the equivalent plastic hinge is p. The relevant term in Eq.(5) is usually rather small relatively to he, and thus it can be ignored. With substitutions from Eq.(1) this expression can then be simplified to w,max = (w + 0.5) yAwr /3 (6)

Equation (6) relates the chosen drift limit, the wall's displacement capacity and the aspect ratio of the wall element, Awr = he/Dw, to each other. It enables the contribution to the unit system strength by the two types of elements, satisfying displacement criteria, to be determined. A typical value of the parameter (Paulay 2002), applicable to rectangular walls with some concentration of the vertical reinforcement in boundary elements, used in subsequent examples, is 1.8. The yield strain of the steel will be taken as y = 0.002.
Assignment of relative element strengths

Consequent to the previously made claim of freedom in the assignment of lateral strength to different elements, an appealing choice may be followed, whereby dimensions of the beams and those of columns of the frames are made identical at all levels. With gravity load being generally the same at all levels the strength and detailing of the beams can also be made identical. Therefore, with identical story shear and story moment capacities, the resistance of the frame element to overturning moments will vary linearly to its maximum at the base. This is shown in Fig. 4(c). The nominal strength of such a frame element is consistent with the application of a single lateral force at level 13. The remainder of the total overturning moments, shown by the shaded area in Fig. 4(c), is then assigned to the wall element.

A few choices of the parameters contained in Eq.(6) are made to enable illustration of applications. The constraints on acceptable system displacements may be a wall's displacement capacity corresponding with w = 4, while limiting the expected maximum drift to w,max = 2.5%. Eq.(6) indicates that this can be achieved if the aspect ratio of the wall element, Awr, does not exceed 4.63. Hence the effective wall length chosen should not be more than he = 4.63 x 0.14h = 0.65h. With the assignment of 35% of the system base shear to all stories the frame element (Fig.4(d)) and consequent resistance by the frames of approximately 50% of the total overturning moment at the base, the location of zero wall moment will be in the vicinity of he = 0.63h < 0.65h. Features of interest in this approach to strength assignment are: Each of the 7 frames needs to resist 5% of the system base shear in every story. The assignment of element strengths, shown in Figs. 4(c) and (d), could also be used if the maximum acceptable drift is to be reduced to 2%. However, as Eq.(6) dictates, the displacement capacity of the walls would reduce to correspond with w = 3.2. Employing reinforcing steel with say 25% increase of its yield strain, would allow strength assignment, discussed above, also to be used. However, the usable displacement capacity of the walls would need to correspond to a reduction of w to 2.5. The corresponding diminishing of energy dissipation capacity of the system would negate the possible economic advantages commensurate with the increase of the yield strength of the steel by some 25%. A reduction of the target drift limit to say 1.5% and the ductility demand on the walls to 3, would, according to Eq.(6), require an effective height of 0.5h. The story shear strength of the frame element would need to be increased to about 47% of the system base shear, while resisting some 67% of the total base moment. Moment patterns applicable to wall elements, seen in Fig. 4(c), enable behavioral modeling with simple cantilevers subjected at the effective height to a single lateral force. However, in accord with capacity deign principles (Paulay and Priestley 1992) appropriate allowances need to be made in the form of design shear magnifications and modified bending moment envelopes to cater for modal effects at the development of the overstrength of such wall elements.
Story deformations of frames

Nominal interstory yield deformations of frames in which the yielding of columns is suppressed by appropriate capacity design procedures, referred to in the introduction, originate primarily from nominal yield curvatures in the potential plastic hinges of beams. Additional elastic deformations will occur due to shear effects in beams, columns and joints, and flexural rotations of columns. Because, compared with nominal yield rotations of beams, the contribution of elastic deformations, listed above, are relatively small, these may be estimated. Details are not given here. It has been shown (Priestley 1998) that a reasonable estimate, particularly for seismic assessments, of the nominal yield drifts, fy, of stories in frames, is fy = 0.5yAbr (7)

where Abr is the aspect (span/depth) ratio of the beams, in this example taken as 12.3. Hence with y = 0.002, fy = 0.0123 rad.
Displacement profiles of elements

Benchmark displacements, relevant to the example structure, are recorded as fractions of the total height, h, in Fig. 4(e). Wall deformation profiles, consistent with the development of the nominal yield displacement and the maximum drift of 2.5% at the effective height, are shown by the full line curves. The nominal yield displacement of the frame elements, associated with the previously estimated identical yield drifts in all stories, is closely approximated by the dashed straight line. Based on bilinear modeling of element behavior, the force displacement responses of the elements and that of the system are presented in Fig. 5. The displacement capacity of the system, at the level of the effective height, u = 0.0137h, is that of the wall elements. This is associated with the assumed simultaneous attainment of 2.5% drift and a wall displacement ductility of 4. The corresponding ductility demand imposed on the frames is only in the order of 1.8. Fig. 5, aiding a simple mental pushover exercise, should be sufficient to indicate benchmark displacement magnitudes and ductility relationships. For example the displacement capacity at the effective height of a building with a total height of say 40 m will be, irrespective of its lateral strength, in the order of u = 13.7 x 40 = 548 mm. The likely nonlinear monotonic response of the elements and the system is, with neglecting effects of strain hardening, shown by dashed lines in Fig. 5.

Figure 5. Bilinear modeling of force-displacement relationships in a wall-frame system The next challenge to the designer, not addressed in this presentation, is to determine the nominal strength which will ensure that, for the local seismic scenario, the imposed displacement demands will not exceed the displacement capacity estimated with this simple procedure.
Required system strength

In routine design the required lateral strength of a single degree of freedom system, based on its expected dynamic response, is estimated. The basic information required, apart from the total mass, is system stiffness and energy dissipation capacity. The latter may be

suitably characterized by the magnitude of the displacement ductility capacity of the system. The final task is thus to estimate for this dual system these two important quantities. The strength-dependent relative stiffness of the two types of elements of the example structure are obtained, for example from Fig. 5, thus: kwall = 0.65Vb/(3.4x10-3h) = 191Vb/h and kframe = 0.35Vb/(7.8x10-3h) = 45Vb/h. Hence the stiffness of the equivalent single degree of freedom system is ksystem = ki = 236Vb/h. A bilinear simulation of the behavior of the equivalent dual system enables its benchmark displacement, that is, nominal yield displacement, to be estimated as sy = Vb/ki = 1.0/(236/h) = 4.2x10-3h. Hence, as Fig. 5 shows, the displacement ductility capacity of the equivalent single degree of freedom system is s = 13.7/4.2 = 3.2. In traditional strength-based seismic design procedures, the two key quantities, ksystem and s, allow thus the required seismic strength to be established. Using relevant acceleration spectra, a simple trial and error exercise is involved when reconciling the required strength of the system with its strength-dependent stiffness. In displacement-based design approaches (Priestley 2003) the equivalent displacement capacity-related stiffness (see Fig. 5) of ksystem = Vb/ u = 1.0/(13.7x10-3/h) = 73Vb/h (i.e., 31% of the stiffness of the elastic system) and damping corresponding with a ductility capacity of 3.2 can be used to establish the required system strength.
SPECIAL FEATURES OF FRAME-WALL SYSTEMS

When only cantilever walls provide lateral force resistance their displacement ductility capacity need to be significantly curtailed when aspect ratios, Awr = h/Dw, exceed approximately 5. In ductile frames, exceeding approximately 3 stories, displacement capacities are generally governed by limits on interstory drift, rather then component deformation capacities. Moreover, during the elasto-plastic dynamic response, frame deformations may become sensitive to effects of higher modes of vibrations. To a large extent these shortcomings of deformation behavior of both walls and frames, may be eliminated when they are coupled within the building by rigid floor diaphragms (Paulay, 2002). As stated, system deformations are controlled by those of the walls. The nominal flexural strength of the walls provided at levels above the base should be, in accordance with the principles of capacity design, significantly in excess of that indicated in Fig. 4(c). This procedure should ensure that wall sections above the potential plastic region at the base will be subjected, at worse, to very small curvature ductility demands. When walls, more slender than those shown in Fig. 4(b), are used, for the sake of drift control, the approximate location of zero wall moment must be lowered. This can be achieved by assigning a greater share of the base shear, Vb, to the ductile frames. The designer may thus assign strength to elements to control critical story drift. The restriction of plastic hinge formation to the base of a wall element should ensure that storey displacements, i.e., story drifts, imposed on frames will be similar over the height, h. However, significant dynamic effects on the elastic portion of the walls should be expected

to increase considerably local flexural and shear strength demands, such as recorded in Figs. 4(c) and (d).
CONCLUDING REMARKS

This review attempted to highlight some findings relevant to the seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings. To satisfy the intents of performance-based seismic structural design, the recognized importance of realistic predictions of target displacement capacities is re-emphasized. For reinforced concrete structures, addressed in this study, such displacement limits can be readily estimated, before any attention is given to required seismic strength. Displacement estimates made during stages of the preliminary design, can immediately draw attention to undesirable seismic features of the contemplated structural system. The use of some simple principles, often overlooked or ignored in the design exercise, was demonstrated. These include: (a) The stiffness of a reinforced concrete element should be considered to depend on the strength assigned to it. Therefore, element or system stiffness should not be a priori assumed, as in traditional practice. (b) The nominal yield curvature of a reinforced concrete section, which represents a characteristic strain pattern, and displacements associated with it, are insensitive to the flexural strength of that section. (c) Because deformation limits applicable to elements of a ductile system, subjected to typical seismic moment patterns, are insensitive to element strength, the latter may be arbitrarily assigned to them. This enables the astute designer to distribute the total required seismic strength among elements so that more economical and practical solutions, satisfying stipulated displacement limits, could be obtained. In the process of evaluating the displacement capacities of elements of a system, the critical one, that with the smallest displacement capacity, needs to be identified. Instead of assuming a global value of the displacement ductility capacity of a system, it should be made dependent on that of its critical element. This criterion can also be established before addressing strength requirements. The approach, illustrated with the aid of an example frame-wall structure, can be readily incorporated into existing strength-based seismic design methods. Its major appeal relates, however, to displacement-based seismic design strategies. For purposes of the seismic design of ductile systems, bilinear modeling of forcedisplacement relationships, for both elements and the system, my be considered adequate. No attempt was made in this presentation to address displacement demands. It is the designer's responsibility to establish, with the use of force-based or displacement-based design strategies, the level of seismic strength that will ensure that, for a chosen seismic scenario, the established displacement capacity of the system is not likely to be exceeded.

The concepts presented are design rather than analysis oriented. They are based on very simple principles and are useful tools in the hands of the designer. They enable, even for mixed structural systems considered in this study, more realistic, efficient, practical and simple displacement focused design solutions to be obtained.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Information provided in this review has been extracted from previous publications of the author, such as listed in the references.
REFERENCES

Park, R., and T. Paulay, (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Paulay, T., and M.J.N. Priestley (1992). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
and

Paulay, T. (2000). A simple displacement compatibility-based design strategy for reinforced concrete buildings, Proceedings of the 12 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Paper No. 0062. Paulay, T. (2001a). A redefinition of stiffness of reinforced concrete elements and its implications in seismic design, Structural Engineering International 11 (1), 36-41. Paulay, T. (2001b). Some design principles relevant to torsional phenomena in ductile buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 5 (3), 273-300. Paulay, T. (2002). An estimation of displacement limits for ductile systems, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31, 583-599. Priestley, M.J.N., and M.J. Kowalsky (1998). Aspects of drift and ductility capacity of rectangular structural walls, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 31 (2), 73-85. Priestley, M.J.N. (1988). Brief comments on elastic flexibility of reinforced concrete frames and significance to seismic design, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 31 (4), 246- 259. Priestely, M.J.N. (2003). Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited, The Mollet Milne Lecture, IUSS Press, Pavia. Rosenblueth, E. (1980). Design of earthquake resistant structures, Pentech Press, London.