| Elastic Approach for design (q=1.0) | Dissipative Approach for design (q=2.0) | |
|---|---|---|
| Pros | Easier prescription to be respected | Lighter structure (9.28 tons) |
| Easier construction details | ||
| Cons | Heavier structure (10,47 tons) | Complexity for the variety of construction details |
| Higher actions and requested resistance | Not full satisfaction of capacity design requirements |