Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Maximum displacement profiles for the performance based seismic

design of plane steel moment resisting frames
T.L. Karavasilis, N. Bazeos, D.E. Beskos∗
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, GR-26500 Patras, Greece

Received 7 April 2005; accepted 1 June 2005

Available online 8 September 2005

Abstract

New relations to estimate maximum seismic displacement profiles of plane steel moment resisting frames are proposed. These expressions
associate maximum floor displacements with local member deformation seismic demands and are based on statistical analysis of the results
of several hundred nonlinear dynamic analyses of steel frames. The influence of specific parameters, such as the number of stories, the
number of bays, the joint capacity design factor and the level of inelastic deformation induced by the seismic excitation, is studied in detail.
It is concluded that the main structural characteristic that affects the shape of the displacement pattern is the number of stories. Furthermore,
the present study reveals that a differentiation between the profile of a frame in the elastic and the inelastic range of response is necessary. A
comparison between the proposed displacement patterns and other existing ones is also made to demonstrate the merits of the former.
© 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Maximum displacement profile; Interstory drift ratio; Performance based seismic design; Steel frames

1. Introduction explicitly control the calculation of the required strength

The basic procedure for seismic design of building
structures adopted in everyday earthquake-resistant design
practice is what has been generally termed force-based
design (FBD). In terms of the FBD method, forces
enjoy a primary role, while displacements are checked
near the end of the design process [1]. In recent years,
however, the need for a performance-based design approach
has been recognized [2]. According to the performance-
based philosophy, a structure should satisfy requirements
which are directly related to the damage of structural
and non-structural elements for different levels of seismic
intensity. Damage is directly related to displacements,
thus an unavoidable limitation exists in adjusting FBD
methods to the multi-level design framework. The latest
and most effective tool for performance-based design is
the displacement-based design (DBD) approach [3,4]. In
the DBD method, displacements play a major role as they
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2610 996559; fax: +30 2610 996579.
E-mail address: d.e.beskos@upatras.gr (D.E. Beskos).
of the building in terms of the base shear. Actually, each
limit state in DBD is defined by converting damage levels
to displacement levels. This is achieved by utilizing a simple
relation that correlates a damage index, such as the interstory
drift ratio (IDR), with the maximum floor displacements of
the building. Those displacements constitute the maximum
displacement profile, which has a significant impact on the
final result of the DBD method.
In general, the research efforts for estimating maximum
displacements of multi degree of freedom (MDOF) building
structures have focused on procedures which use equivalent
single degree of freedom systems (SDOF). The mechanical
characteristics of the SDOF system are established by using
the results of a pushover analysis of the corresponding
MDOF system in the form of a plot of base shear versus top
displacement. With the properties of the SDOF known, two
methods for obtaining its maximum inelastic displacement
can be utilized in terms of the design elastic spectrum.
The first method calculates the maximum inelastic SDOF
displacement, either by multiplying the yield displacement
by a displacement ductility ratio computed from existing

0141-0296/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.06.021
10 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22
relations dealing with the strength reduction factor, the
ductility and the period of vibration of SDOF systems [5–8],
or by using directly the results of a statistical analysis on the
ratio of the maximum inelastic over the maximum elastic
displacement [9–13]. The second method is based on the
concept of equivalent linearization in which the maximum
deformation of an inelastic SDOF system is approximated
by the maximum deformation of an elastic SDOF system
with stiffness smaller than the initial stiffness of the inelastic
SDOF system and with a damping ratio larger than that
of the inelastic system. Many research works have been
devoted in the past to the study of equivalent linearization,
as is evident in Iwan and Gates [14] and Miranda and
Ruiz-Garcia [15]. The translation of the maximum SDOF
displacement to maximum floor displacements of the
building structure can be achieved by using appropriate
conversion factors which are based, either on statistical
analysis of a large number of dynamic analyses [16], or on
the concept of the constant deformed shape of the structure
during the seismic excitation [8].
Well known procedures adopted by seismic codes
and provisions, which follow the abovementioned general
three-stage approach (pushover analysis of the MDOF —
substitute SDOF — maximum floor displacements of the
MDOF) for the estimation of maximum floor displacements,
are the capacity spectrum method [17], the NSP FEMA-273
method [18] and the N2 method of Fajfar [8,1]. Maximum
floor displacements of building frames can also be computed
by utilizing methods which are different than the usual three-
stage approach [19,20]. The common characteristic of all
the abovementioned methods is that a pre-designed structure
is needed in order to perform a pushover or a dynamic
analysis. Thus, these procedures are suitable for the seismic
evaluation of existing structures or for the iterative design of
new structures.
In order to use maximum displacements as the starting
design variables of a design methodology, a simple relation
for the maximum floor displacement pattern is needed. This
relation should be independent of the sections of the frame
and moreover, should correlate displacements with damage
in order to be applicable to various limit states. According
to the authors’ knowledge, the only relations that describe
the maximum displacement profile of plane frames are those
proposed by Loeding et al. [21]. These profiles relate the
maximum story displacements with the maximum interstory
drift ratio (IDR) and their derivation is based on the
results of linear multi-modal dynamic analyses of concrete
frames. It should be emphasized that displacement profiles
of this kind do not describe real deformed shapes, since the
maximum story displacements are in general asynchronous
during seismic excitation. Furthermore, the story where the
maximum IDR will be first reached is not known. The use
of the maximum displacement profile has been adopted
by the SEAOC seismic design manual (blue book) [22] in
connection with the first step of the direct displacement
based design procedure (DBD) proposed therein. Recently, a
new hybrid methodology for the performance-based seismic
design of plane steel moment resisting frames (MRF)
has been developed by the authors [23]. Although this is
an adaptation of force-based design in the sense that a
strength reduction factor is used, it focuses on damage
and displacements rather than forces. The first step of this
displacement/force hybrid (DFH) method needs a fairly
accurate estimation of the maximum floor displacements of
the frame.
The abovementioned expressions for maximum displace-
ment profiles are somewhat limited in that they have been
derived for concrete frames in the linear elastic range and
are functions of only one parameter, the number of frame
stories. In this work expressions for maximum displacement
profiles of plane steel MRF undergoing elastic and inelas-
tic deformation are provided as functions of geometrical pa-
rameters of the frame. This was achieved by an extensive in-
vestigation involving several hundreds of nonlinear dynamic
analyses of steel frames. The results of these analyses were
post-processed in order to identify the main parameters that
affect the displacement profile of these frames. These pa-
rameters consist of basic structural characteristics of a plane
steel frame, such as the number of stories, the number of
bays and the joint capacity design factor used during the
phase of the selection of sections. Furthermore, the shape
of the displacement profile was checked at different levels
of damage of the structure and this checking showed that a
differentiation between the shape of the profile in the linear
and nonlinear range of the response is necessary. The pro-
posed relations directly relate the maximum floor displace-
ments with the maximum IDR and are given as functions
of the abovementioned structural characteristics. Thus, they
are suitable for explicitly performance based design meth-
ods, such as the DBD or the DFH methods.
2. Computational foundation of the present work
In this section, the computational methodology for the
derivation of the new maximum displacement patterns of
plane steel moment resisting frames is described, in detail.
In order to identify the structural parameters of a steel frame
that significantly affect the shape of the profile, a set of forty-
two plane steel moment resisting frames was employed for
the parametric studies of this work. A typical such frame
with two bays and three stories is shown in Fig. 1. These
frames have the following characteristics: number of stories
(n s ) with values 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20; number of bays (n b )
with values 3, 6; joint capacity factor (acd ) used in the design
phase with values 1.1, 1.3, 1.5. The joint capacity factor acd
is defined as


M Rc
acd =
(1)
M Rb


where M Rc is the sum of the plastic
moment of resistance
of columns framing a joint and M Rb is the sum of
the plastic moment of resistance of beams framing the
 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22
Fig. 1. Typical frame considered in the parametric studies.
Fig. 2. Response spectra of the ground motions used in the parametric
studies (thick line: mean spectrum).
same joint. The bay width and the story height of the
frames are equal to 5 and 3 m, respectively. Gravity load
on the beams acting along with the ground movement is
assumed to be equal to 27.5 kN/m. A change in sections
of columns and beams every three stories has been adopted
as a representative choice of steel design practice. The yield
stress of the material was set equal to 235 MPa and the post-
yield stiffness ratio was assumed equal to 0.03. Data of the
frames, including values for n s , n b , acd , beam and column
sections and first and second natural periods, are presented
in Table 1. Please note that, e.g., (260–360) + (240–330)
means that the first three stories have columns with HEB260
sections and beams with IPE360 sections whereas the next
three stories have columns with HEB240 sections and beams
with IPE330 sections. For the inelastic dynamic analysis
of these frames a set of thirteen physical accelerograms
was employed. This set contains both far-field and near-
field motions. The magnitude and peak ground acceleration
(PGA) of those thirteen ground motions are presented in
Table 2, while their elastic response spectra are portrayed
in Fig. 2.
11
In order to investigate the influence of the level of the
inelastic deformation of the structure on the shape of the
maximum displacement pattern, for each pair of steel frame
and accelerograms described in the previous paragraph,
various levels of inelastic deformation expressed through
the IDR damage index were identified and post-processed
in terms of the maximum floor displacements. The well
known DRAIN-2DX [24] code was used for the nonlinear
dynamic analyses. The maximum floor displacements were
post-processed at the following performance levels: (1)
Occurrence of the first plastic hinge in the structure —
end of elastic behavior, (2) IDR = 0.025 — limit state
associated with the protection of human life according to
SEAOC [22] and (3) IDR = 0.04 — limit state near collapse
of the structure according to SEAOC [22]. An automated
procedure consisting of various executables combined in
a batch mode has been developed in order to find the
maximum floor displacement patterns which correspond to
the abovementioned performance levels. This procedure,
for one of the steel frames and the set of the thirteen
accelerograms involves the following steps:
1. Select accelerogram.
2. Find a scale factor (SF) of the accelerogram in order for
the response of the frame to be in the linear range.
3. Multiply accelerogram with SF and run nonlinear
dynamic analysis.
4. Extract the maximum IDR and the maximum plastic
hinge rotation θ pl .
5. Compute SFnew = SFprevious + SF, where SF has been
found in step 2.
6. Repeat steps 3 to 5 until the maximum IDR to be larger
than 4%.
7. Calculate the scale factors, SF1 , SF2 , SF3 that
correspond to the three performance levels through linear
interpolation on the data points (SF, IDR) and (SF, θ pl ).
8. Multiply accelerogram with SF1 , SF2 and SF3 , run
the three nonlinear dynamic analyses and obtain
the corresponding three maximum floor displacements
profiles.
9. Repeat steps 1 to 8 for each of the thirteen accelero-
grams.
The number of the runs for each accelerogram, in order to
identify the three performance levels, was more or less equal
to 10. Therefore, the whole computational volume for the
present parametric studies is estimated to be of the order of
(42 frames)∗ (13 accelerograms) ∗ (10 runs + 3 performance
levels) = 7000 nonlinear dynamic analyses. The generated
data-bank which is used for statistical analysis consists of
(42 frames) ∗ (13 accelerograms) ∗ (3 performance levels)
= 1638 maximum floor displacement profiles.
3. Results of parametric studies
The maximum displacement profiles obtained via the
procedure described in Section 2 of the paper can be
12 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22

Table 1
Steel moment resisting frames considered in the parametric studies

General data Sections Periods

Reference ns nb acd Sections: change every 3 stories T1 (s) T2 (s)
number Columns: (HEB) and Beams: (IPE)

1 3 3 1.3 (240–330) 0.73 0.23

2 6 3 1.3 (260–360) + (240–330) 1.31 0.44
3 9 3 1.3 (300–400) + (260–360) + (240–330) 1.75 0.62
4 12 3 1.3 (340–450) + (300–400) + (260–360) + (240–330) 2.11 0.77
5 15 3 1.3 (400–500) + (340–450) + (300–400) + (260–360) + (240–330) 2.4 0.9
6 18 3 1.3 (450–550) + (400–500) + (340–450) + (300–400) + (260–360) + (240–330) 2.67 1
7 20 3 1.3 (500–600) + (450–550) + (400–500) + (340–450) + (300–400) + (260–360) + (240–330) 2.71 1
8 3 6 1.3 (240–330) 0.75 0.23
9 6 6 1.3 (260–360) + (240–330) 1.34 0.46
10 9 6 1.3 (300–400) + (260–360) + (240–330) 1.78 0.63
11 12 6 1.3 (340–450) + (300–400) + (260–360) + (240–330) 2.13 0.78
12 15 6 1.3 (400–500) + (340–450) + (300–400) + (260–360) + (240–330) 2.4 0.9
13 18 6 1.3 (450–550) + (400–500) + (340–450) + (300–400) + (260–360) + (240–330) 2.63 1
14 20 6 1.3 (500–600) + (450–550) + (400–500) + (340–450) + (300–400) + (260–360) + (240–330) 2.63 1
15 3 3 1.1 220–330 0.79 0.25
16 6 3 1.1 (240–360) + (220–330) 1.4 0.48
17 9 3 1.1 (280–400) + (240–360) + (220–330) 1.85 0.66
18 12 3 1.1 (300–450) + (280–400) + (240–360) + (220–330) 2.24 0.82
19 15 3 1.1 (340–500) + (300–450) + (280–400) + (240–360) + (220–330) 2.56 0.95
20 18 3 1.1 (400–550) + (340–500) + (300–450) + (280–400) + (240–360) + (220–330) 2.84 1
21 20 3 1.1 (450–600) + (400–550) + (340–500) + (300–450) + (280–400) + (240–360) + (220–330) 2.87 1.05
22 3 6 1.1 220–330 0.82 0.26
23 6 6 1.1 (240–360) + (220–330) 1.43 0.50
24 9 6 1.1 (280–400) + (240–360) + (220–330) 1.88 0.68
25 12 6 1.1 (300–450) + (280–400) + (240–360) + (220–330) 2.26 0.84
26 15 6 1.1 (340–500) + (300–450) + (280–400) + (240–360) + (220–330) 2.57 0.97
27 18 6 1.1 (400–550) + (340–500) + (300–450) + (280–400) + (240–360) + (220–330) 2.81 1.1
28 20 6 1.1 (450–600) + (400–550) + (340–500) + (300–450) + (280–400) + (240–360) + (220–330) 2.8 1
29 3 3 1.5 260–330 0.68 0.2
30 6 3 1.5 (280–360) + (260–330) 1.25 0.42
31 9 3 1.5 (320–400) + (280–360) + (260–330) 1.68 0.59
32 12 3 1.5 (360–450) + (320–400) + (280–360) + (260–330) 2 0.74
33 15 3 1.5 (400–500) + (360–450) + (320–400) + (280–360) + (260–330) 2.35 0.86
34 18 3 1.5 (450–550) + (400–500) + (360–450) + (320–400) + (280–360) + (260–330) 2.62 0.97
35 20 3 1.5 (550–600) + (450–550) + (400–500) + (360–450) + (320–400) + (280–360) + (260–330) 2.66 0.98
36 3 6 1.5 260–330 0.7 0.22
37 6 6 1.5 (280–360) + (260–330) 1.27 0.43
38 9 6 1.5 (320–400) + (280–360) + (260–330) 1.7 0.6
39 12 6 1.5 (360–450) + (320–400) + (280–360) + (260–330) 2 0.75
40 15 6 1.5 (400–500) + (360–450) + (320–400) + (280–360) + (260–330) 2.3 0.87
41 18 6 1.5 (450–550) + (400–500) + (360–450) + (320–400) + (280–360) + (260–330) 2.57 0.98
42 20 6 1.5 (550–600) + (450–550) + (400–500) + (360–450) + (320–400) + (280–360) + (260–330) 2.57 0.98

presented in various forms, depending on the selection of values is the same. The second one calculates the central
the statistical central value, e.g., mean or median and on the value by using the formula
method that this central value is calculated with. The median  n 
is the central value of the log-normal distribution, which

 j =1 ln U j,i 
is an appropriate description for earthquake response [25].  
Um,i = exp   (2)
Thus, if one assumes that one’s data are sampled from  n 
a population that follows the log-normal distribution,
the central value can be calculated by employing two
different procedures which belong to the theory of statistical where Um,i is the central value of the maximum
inference [26]. The first procedure calculates the median as displacement of the floor i of a frame and n is the number
the number below and above of which the number of sample of seismic excitations. The results of the nonlinear dynamic
 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22 13

Table 2
Information pertinent to the ground motions used in the parametric studies

Station Name Magnitude PGA (g)

Lakewood October 1, 1987, Whittier Narrows, California Mw = 6.1 0.18

Big Bear Lake June 28, 1992, Big Bear, California Mw = 6.4 0.54
Gukacian December 7, 1988, Spitak, Armenia Mw = 7.1 0.18
Century City January 17, 1994, Northridge, California Mw = 6.7 0.22
Corralitos October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta, California Mw = 7.0 0.48
El Centro May 19, 1940, Imperial Valley, California Ms = 7.2 0.3
Joshua Tree June 28, 1992, Landers, California Ms = 7.4 0.27
Lucerne Valley June 28, 1992, Landers, California Ms = 7.4 0.72
Bucharest March 4, 1977, Bucharest, Romania Mw = 7.5 0.2
Lefkada November 4, 1973, Ionian, Greece Mw = 5.8 0.52
Korinthos February 2, 1981, Alkion, Greece Mw = 6.3 0.12
Kalamata September 15, 1986, Kalamata, Greece Mw = 4.9 0.24
Aigion May 17, 1990, Aigion, Greece Mw = 4.7 0.2

analyses showed small differences between the values of the
median calculated by the two abovementioned procedures.
Moreover, a measure of dispersion is needed in order
to complete the descriptive statistics of the maximum
displacement profile of steel MRF. The measure of
dispersion adopted with respect to the central value of Eq.
(2) is the standard deviation of the logarithm of the n sample
values, defined as
 6. An increase in the number of bays produces a small


n reduction on the maximum floor displacement. This
(ln U j,i − ln Um,i )
i=1
σm,i = . (3)
n−1
It can be proved [26] that for a log-normal distribution, Eq.
(3) takes the form
σm,i = ln(1 + COV 2 ) (4)
where COV is the coefficient of variation, defined as the ratio
of the standard deviation over the mean. Thus, according to
Eq. (4), σm,i is almost identical to COV for small values
of dispersion, e.g., COV < 30%. In Figs. 3–16, central and
dispersion values, as defined by Eqs. (2) and (3) respectively,
are illustrated for the maximum floor displacements of the
frames considered in the parametric studies.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the results
influence is obvious at the upper stories in the case of the
nonlinear range of the response.
4. The number of stories is the main structural characteristic
that affects the shape of the displacement profile. Tall
frames show a parabolic profile, while short ones show
an almost linear profile.
5. The shape of the profile is different in the linear and the
nonlinear range of the response.
influence is lost in the linear range of the response.
4. Proposed relations for the maximum displacement
profile of steel moment resisting frames
Based on the general conclusions presented in Section 3
of the paper, the whole data-bank is separated into two parts.
The first part consists of central value profiles associated
with the linear range up to the first plastic hinge limit
state, while the second consists of central value profiles
associated with the nonlinear range of the response. The
equation for the mathematical representation of the physical
relationship between damage, e.g. IDR, and maximum floor
displacements Ui at floor i was selected to have the form:

(Figs. 3–16) of the present study:
1. Frames of lower than six stories show a small dispersion
on maximum displacements, while frames of more than
six stories show large values of dispersion.
2. The heightwise variation of the dispersion depends upon
the level of inelastic deformation. In the linear range of
the response, the larger value of dispersion appears at
the upper stories, while in the nonlinear range of the
response, the larger value of dispersion is located at the
lower stories.
3. The joint capacity design factor used in the design
of the frame affects the value of the maximum floor
displacement, especially for tall frames. Larger values of
acd produce larger maximum floor displacements. This
hi
Ui = P1 · IDR · h i · 1 − P2 · . (5)
H
The calculation of the parameters P1 and P2 is done
with the aid of Table 3 as a function of the number
of stories of the frame and the desired response range
(elastic or inelastic). Please note that the three values of P1
separated by a comma in the first column of the inelastic
response case of Table 3 correspond to the three values
of the joint capacity design factor, namely 1.1, 1.3 and
1.5. This influence of the joint capacity design factor on
the value of maximum floor displacements comes as a
physical consequence. Thus, for example, a structure with
a high value of acd , which distributes inelasticity uniformly
along its height, can achieve higher values of maximum
14 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22
Fig. 3. Central values of the maximum floor displacements of 3 story frames
associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift ratio
equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
upper story displacements than another structure with a
low value of acd , which, in general, distributes inelastic
deformation in a non-uniform heightwise manner, provided
that the displacements of both structures correspond to
the same level of local deformation. The values of the
P1 and P2 parameters of Table 3 were computed on the
basis of the maximum floor displacement profile data-bank
through multiple regression analysis. It must be mentioned
that the regression analysis produces the values of these
Fig. 4. Dispersion values of the maximum floor displacements of 3 story
frames associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift
ratio equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
parameters in order to achieve the minimum error between
the real and the theoretical displacement profile. This may
lead, in a few cases, to values of P1 and P2 that produce
an unrealistic maximum displacement profile, i.e., to a
profile that violates the expected heightwise increase of the
displacements. In such cases, a correction on the values of
P1 and P2 was made. The proposed relations for maximum
floor displacements are portrayed in Figs. 17 and 18 for
 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22
Fig. 5. Central values of the maximum floor displacements of 6 story frames
associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift ratio
equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
steel frames of various stories, for the cases of linear and
nonlinear ranges of the response, respectively.
5. Comparison of methods for the estimation of
maximum displacements
In this section, the accuracy of two existing methods
for predicting maximum floor displacements of multistory
steel MRF buildings is compared with that of the method
15
Fig. 6. Dispersion values of the maximum floor displacements of 6 story
frames associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift
ratio equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
proposed herein. The two existing methods are the N2
method of Fajfar [8,1] and that of Loeding et al. [21].
Consider the S235 plane steel moment resisting frame of
Fig. 19. The bay width is equal to 6 m and the story
height equal to 3 m. The value of dead load of the beams
is taken equal to 24.5 kN/m, whereas the live load is
equal to 10 kN/m. The first three stories have columns
with HEB340 sections and beams with IPE450 sections,
whereas the last three (upper) stories have columns with
16 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22
Fig. 7. Central values of the maximum floor displacements of 9 story frames
associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift ratio
equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
HEB280 sections and beams with IPE360 sections. The
fundamental period of vibration of the frame is equal to
1.1 s. The expected ground motion is defined by the elastic
acceleration design spectrum of the EC8 seismic code [1]
with peak ground acceleration equal to 0.60g and soil class
C. Three semi-artificial accelerograms compatible with the
EC8 design spectrum were generated via a deterministic
approach [27], in order to effectively compare the estimated
floor displacements with those derived from the rigorous
Fig. 8. Dispersion values of the maximum floor displacements of 9 story
frames associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift
ratio equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
nonlinear time history analysis. The response spectra of
these motions, in comparison with the design spectrum, are
depicted in Fig. 20.
According to the N2 method [1,8], the following
procedure is employed in order to compute the maximum
floor displacements of the steel frame of Fig. 19: a linear
displacement shape (inverted triangle), unchanged during
the action of the ground motion, is assumed of the form
Φ T = [0.166, 0.333, 0.5, 0.666, 0.833, 1]. The lateral force
 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22
Fig. 9. Central values of the maximum floor displacements of 12 story
frames associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift
ratio equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
Pi at each floor i with mass m i can then be directly obtained
as Pi = m i Φi . Because the masses concentrated at each
floor are equal, the load pattern has a constant inverted
triangular shape. With this force pattern, the DRAIN-2DX
program [24] performs a pushover analysis and produces
the base shear V — top displacement Ut curve which is
depicted in Fig. 21. The force–displacement curve (shown
in Fig. 22 by the solid line) of the equivalent SDOF system
is then determined by dividing the base shear and top-
17
Fig. 10. Dispersion values of the maximum floor displacements of 12 story
frames associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift
ratio equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
displacement of the curve of Fig. 21 by a transformation
factor Γ equal to (Σ m i Φi )/(Σ m i Φi2 ), which in this example
is equal to 1.38. Afterwards, the idealized elastic–perfectly
plastic force–displacement curve (shown in Fig. 22 by the
broken line) is determined by assuming that the yield force
Fy is equal to the force that results in the formation of the
plastic collapse mechanism of the building and the yield
displacement d y is such that the areas under the actual
and the idealized curves of Fig. 22 are equal. Thus, for the
18 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22
Fig. 11. Central values of the maximum floor displacements of 15 story
frames associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift
ratio equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
SDOF one has Fy = 774 kN and d y = 0.14 m. The
mass of the SDOF system is calculated as m = Σ m i Φi =
176.5 kN m−1 s2 . The elastic period of the SDOF system
is calculated as T = 2π(md y /Fy )0.5 = 1.12 s. Because
this period is larger than the characteristic period Tc of
the design spectrum, the equal displacement rule applies.
This assumption leads to a target displacement equal to
0.32 m, calculated as the design spectral ordinate that
corresponds to a period equal to 1.12 s. The initial SDOF
Fig. 12. Dispersion values of the maximum floor displacements of 15 story
frames associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift
ratio equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
displacement, which was used for the calculation of the
area under the actual force–displacement curve, was almost
equal to 0.32 m, thus no iteration is needed. The seismic
demands are then transformed back to the MDOF system
by performing a pushover analysis up to a top displacement
equal to 0.32Γ = 0.44 m.
According to Loeding et al. [21], the maximum floor
displacements of a six story frame are calculated through
the expression Ui = IDRh i (1 − 0.0625h i /H ), where
 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22
Fig. 13. Central values of the maximum floor displacements of 18 story
frames associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift
ratio equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
h i and H are the height of floor i and the height of
the roof from the base, respectively. The maximum floor
displacement profile of the test steel frame proposed in
the present work is expressed as Ui = 0.9IDRh i (1 −
0.2h i /H ). The results of the three dynamic analyses in terms
of the maximum IDR are 0.024, 0.019 and 0.025. These
values are used in the abovementioned two relations for
the prediction of maximum floor displacements. It should
also be mentioned that the prediction of the N2 method
19
Fig. 14. Dispersion values of the maximum floor displacements of 18 story
frames associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift
ratio equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
for the maximum IDR is 0.0343, calculated at the step
of the pushover analysis which corresponds to the target
displacement. A graphical comparison of the maximum floor
displacements is presented in Fig. 23. This graph shows that
the displacement profiles proposed by Loeding et al. [21]
and the N2 method [8,1] overestimate floor displacements.
On the other hand, the proposed relations seem to predict
fairly accurately the maximum floor displacements at
various levels of inelastic local deformation.
20 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22
Fig. 15. Central values of the maximum floor displacements of 20 story
frames associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift
ratio equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
6. Conclusions
On the basis of the preceding discussion the following
conclusions can be stated:
(1) New relations for the calculation of the maximum floor
displacements of plane steel moment resisting frames
have been proposed. These expressions are extracted via
a statistical analysis on the results of many hundreds of
nonlinear dynamic analyses.
Fig. 16. Dispersion values of the maximum floor displacements of 20 story
frames associated with (a) first plastic hinge; (b) maximum interstory drift
ratio equal to 2.5%; (c) maximum interstory drift ratio equal to 4%.
(2) The influence of the number of stories of a steel frame
and the joint capacity design factor used at the stage of
the selection of sections was recognized as important.
This influence was directly implemented in the proposed
equations.
(3) The difference in shape between the maximum
displacement profiles in the linear and the nonlinear
range of the response was recognized as important. This
difference is expressed by proposing different shapes for
the linear and the nonlinear response.
 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22 21

Table 3
Values of the parameters of the proposed maximum displacement profile

Stories Elastic response Inelastic response

P1 P2 P1 P2

1 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

3 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.10
6 0.85 0.20 0.90 0.20
9 0.70 0.21 0.75, 0.80, 0.85 0.30
12 0.62 0.22 0.70, 0.75, 0.80 0.35
15 0.55 0.24 0.65, 0.70, 0.75 0.40
18 0.52 0.25 0.60, 0.65, 0.70 0.40
20 0.50 0.25 0.55, 0.60, 0.65 0.40

Fig. 19. Test steel building structure.

Fig. 17. Proposed maximum floor displacement profile of steel MRF —

linear response.

Fig. 20. Response spectra of the ground motions used in the test example.

Fig. 18. Proposed maximum floor displacement profile of steel MRF —

nonlinear response.

(4) The new profiles are section independent and reflect the
physical relation between damage, expressed through the
maximum interstory drift ratio, and the maximum floor
displacements. Thus, they can be directly used at the
first step of performance based design methods such as
the DBD or the HFD, where the sections are not known
as yet.
(5) The maximum floor displacements of plane steel
moment resisting frames obtained by utilizing the
proposed relations are found to be close to those obtained
Fig. 21. Pushover curve of the test example steel frame.
via a rigorous nonlinear dynamic analysis. On the other
hand, other proposed procedures or relations are found
to overestimate the true displacements.
(6) The proposed relations are valid for regular plane steel
moment resisting frames. The authors are currently
extending the proposed equations to the case of irregular
steel frames.
22 T.L. Karavasilis et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 9–22
Fig. 22. Actual and idealized force–displacement relationship of the
equivalent SDOF system.
Fig. 23. Comparison of maximum floor displacement patterns.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was supported by the
“K. Karatheodoris” research program of the University of
Patras, Greece. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] CEN, European Standard EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8: Design of
structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings. Stage 51 Draft, Brussels: Comite
Europeen de Normalization; 2004.
[2] Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV. Earthquake engineering. From engineering
seismology to performance-based engineering. CRC Press; 2004.
[3] Calvi GM, Pavese A. Displacement based design of building
structures. In: Elnashai A, editor. European seismic design practice.
Rotterdam: Balkema; 1995. p. 127–32.
[4] Priestley MJN. Displacement based design approaches to rational
limit states design of new structures. In: Proceedings of the 11th
European conference on earthquake engineering. 1999, p. 317–35.
[5] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacity-demand-diagram methods based
on inelastic design spectrum. Earthquake Spectra 1999;15(4):
637–656.
[6] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Evaluation of NSP to estimate seismic
deformations: SDF systems. ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering
2000;126:482–90.
[7] Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand
spectra. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1999;28:
979–93.
[8] Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic
design. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16:573–92.
[9] Veletsos AS, Vann WP. Response of ground excited elastoplastic
systems. ASCE, Journal of Structural Division 1971;97:1257–81.
[10] Whittaker AS, Constantinou M, Tsopelas P. Displacement estimates
for performance-based seismic design. ASCE, Journal of Structural
Engineering 1998;124:855–981.
[11] Miranda E. Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm sites.
ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering 2000;126:1150–9.
[12] Ruiz-Garcia J, Miranda E. Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation
of existing structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2003;32:1237–58.
[13] Miranda E. Estimation of inelastic deformation demands of SDOF
systems. ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering 2001;127:1005–12.
[14] Iwan WD, Gates NC. Estimating earthquake response of simple
hysteretic structures. ASCE, Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Division 1979;105:391–405.
[15] Miranda E, Ruiz-Garcia J. Evaluation of approximate methods
to estimate maximum inelastic displacement demands. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002;31:539–60.
[16] Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame
structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2000;29:
1287–305.
[17] Applied Technology Council (ATC). Seismic evaluation and retrofit
of concrete buildings, vol. 1. ATC40, Redwood City (CA);
1996.
[18] Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-273 and Commentary FEMA-
274. Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Management Agency;
1997.
[19] Dinh TV, Ichinose T. Probabilistic estimation of seismic story
drift in reinforced concrete buildings. ASCE, Journal of Structural
Engineering 2005;131:416–27.
[20] Panagiotakos DB, Fardis MN. Estimation of inelastic deformation
demands in multistorey rc frame buildings. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1999;28:501–28.
[21] Loeding S, Kowalsky MJ, Priestley MJN. Direct displacement-based
design of reinforced concrete building frames. Report No. SSRP-
98/08. San Diego, (La Jolla, CA): Division of Structural Engineering,
University of California; 1998.
[22] SEAOC: Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary,
7th ed. 1999.
[23] Karavasilis TL, Bazeos N, Beskos DE. A new seismic design method
for plane steel moment resisting frames. In: Proceedings of the 5th
national conference on steel structures. 2005.
[24] Prakash V, Powell GH, Cambell S. DRAIN-2DX, Base program
description and user guide, version 1.10. University of California at
Berkeley; 1993.
[25] Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA. Probabilistic basis
for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment
frame guidelines. ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering 2002;128:
526–33.
[26] Ang AH-S, Tang WH. Probability concepts in engineering planning
and design, volume I—basic principles. John Wiley & Sons; 1975.
[27] Karabalis DL, Cokkinides GJ, Rizos DC. SRP, Seismic record
processing program, ver. 1.03. Columbia: College of Engineering,
University of South Carolina; 1992.