Over the past few decades, earthquake resistant design of structures has been largely based on a ductility design concept worldwide. Looking at the Indian code specifically, the design philosophy evolve around the intensity of the earthquake: moderate earthquake or design basis earthquake (DBE) which has a 10% chance in a return period of 250 years, and most credible earthquake (MCE) which has a 2% chance in a return period of 250 years. The seismic philosophy in the Indian code expects the structure to possess a minimum strength to protect structural and non-structural contents for intensities less than DBE. For intensity equal to DBE, it should withstand without much structural damage, however, some non-structural damage is allowed, and for major earthquakes, it must not collapse suddenly. The ductility helps to dissipate energy while undergoing large permanent deformations causing damage that can incur heavy repair costs, as much as building the structure itself. It is apparent from this approach that more emphasis is laid on life safety, and not much importance is given to protect the non-structural contents. Non-structural damage sometime costs more than the structure itself, for example, telecommunication data centers, nuclear facilities, laboratories etc. Hence, ductility arising from inelastic material behavior and detailing is relied upon in this philosophy.
      Indian code follows the seismic coefficient method in determining the lateral design forces to build the structure. It is important to understand how the ductility is procedurally inculcated in this method. Seismic coefficient method helps to determine base shear considering only the fundamental mode of the structure. The performances of the intended ductile structures during major earthquake, however, have been proved to be unsatisfactory, and indeed far below expectation (Wang, 2002). High uncertainty of the ductility design strategy is primarily attributed to:

1. The desired strong-column weak-beam mechanism may not form in reality, due to existence of walls.
2. Shear failure of columns due to inappropriate geometrical proportions of short-column effect.
3. Construction difficulty in grouting, especially at beam-column joints, due to complexity of steel reinforcement required by ductility design.

Thus, it necessitates finding a method that is devoid of the shortcomings of the ductility approach. We shall see how the uncertainty in ductility design and the performance levels are increased in following section by an alternative and innovative approach.