M.J.N. PRIESTLEY G.M. CALvI M.J. KOWALSKY Displacement-Based. Seismic Design of Structures IUSS Press Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di PaviaNessuna parte di questa pubblcseioe pu essere riprnta tasmessa in ais Fema 9 Gon qUaTsas! MEZZO cletinico, mecca «alto senaa Vautorizeszione seta dei propriate ditt edelleione No parts of this publication pues be copisd or transmitted 11 any shape or form, and by any type oF electronic. ‘mechanical or diffrent means. Withoul the priot %Hileh permission o tae eopgright holder and the publisher © Copy right 2007 - 1USS Press prodote ¢ disiribyitn ds produced and distrbyed by Tele (39) 0382.3 7RA1 = fax: (139) 0382.375899 Emit: ini iusspress.it = web: ww jusspress.it ISBN: 978-88-6198-0000-6very truth passes through three stages (before itis recognized) In the frst, itis ridiculed In the second, it is violently opposed In the third, it is regarded as sof evident” Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) “Analysis should be as simple as possible, but no simpler” Albert Einstein (1879-1955) ‘Strength is essential, but otherwise unimportant” Hardy Cross! (1885-1959) " Hardy Cross was the developer of the moment distribution method for structural calculation of statically indeterminate frames, generally used from the late thirties to the sixties, when it was superseded by structural analysis computer programs. It seems somehow prophetic that a brilliant engineer, who based the solution of structural problems on relative stiffness, wrote this aphorism shat must have sounded enigmatic in the context of elastic analysis and design.CONTENTS Preface 1 Introduction: The Need for Displacement-Based Seismic Design 1d 12 13 14 Historical Considerations Force-Based Seismic Design Problems with Force-Based Seismic Design 1.34 Interdependency of Strength and Stiffness 1.3.2. Period Calculation 1.3.3. Ductility Capacity and Force-Reduction Factors 1.3.4 Ductility of Structural Systems 1.3.5 Relationship between Strength and Ductility Demand 1.3.6 Structural Wall Buildings with Unequal Wail Lengths 1.3.7 Steuctares with Dual (Elastic and Inelastic) Load Paths 1.3.8. Relationship between Elastic and Inclastic Displacement Demand 1.3.9 Summary Development of Displacement-Based Design Methods 14.1 Force-Based/Displacement Checked 14.2. Deformation-Calculation Based Design 14.3 Deformation-Specitication Based Design 14.4 — Choice of Design Approach 2 Seismic Input for Displacement-Based Design 21 2.2 23 Introduction: Characteristics of Accelerograms Response Spectra 22.1 Response Spectra from Accelerograms 2.2.2 Design Elastic Spectra 2.23 Influence of Damping and Ductility on Spectral Displacement Response Choice of Accclerograms for Time History Analysis, 3 Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 34 3.2 Introduction Basic Formulation of the Method v 63 63 63vi Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 33 34 3.6 37 38 39 3.10 3.2.1 Example 3.1 Basic DDBD Design Limit States and Performance Levels 3.3.1 Section Limit States 3.3.2 Structure Limit States 3.3.3. Selection of Design Limit State Single-Degree-of Freedom Structures 3.4.1 Design Displacement for a SDOF seructure 3.4.2 Yield Displacement 3.4.3 Equivalent Viscous Damping 3.4.4 Design Base Shear Equation 3.4.5 Design Example 3.3: Design of a Simple Bridge Pier 3.4.6 Design When the Displacement Capacity Exceeds the Spectral Demand 3.4.7 Example 3.4: Base Shear for a Flexible Bridge Pier ‘Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Structures 3.5.1 Design Displacement 3.5.2 Displacement Shapes 3.5.3. Effective Mass 3.5.4 Equivalent Viscous Damping 3.5.5 Example 3.5: Effective Damping for a Cantilever Wall Building 3.5.6 Distribution of Design Base Shear Force 3.5.7 Analysis of Structure under Design Forces 3.5.8 Design Example 3.6: Design moments for a Cantilever Wall Building 3.5.9 Design Example 3.7: Serviceability Design for a Cantilever Wall Building P-A Effects 3.6.1 Current Design Approaches 3.6.2. Theoretical Considerations 3.6.3. Design Recommendations for Direct Displacement-based Design Combination of Seismic and Gravity Actions 3.7.1 A Discussion of Current Force-Based Design Approaches 3.7.2. Combination of Gravity and Seismic Moments in Displacement-Based Design Consideration of Torsional Response in Direct Displacement-Based Design 3.8.1 Introduction 3.8.2 Torsional Response of Inelastic Eccentric Structures 3.8.3 Design to Include Torsional Effects Capacity Design for Direct Displacement-Based Design Some Implications of DDBD 3.10.1 Influence of Seismic Intensity on Design Base Shear Strength 67 67 69 70 72 3 B 75 76 90 o1 92 93 95 96 97 99 100 103 104 105 106, 108 m1 m1 112 14 115 115 119 120 120 122 124 125 127 127Contents vii 3.10.2 Influence of Building Height on Required Frame Base Shear Strength 129 3.10.3 Bridge with Piers of Different Height 130 3.10.4 Building with Unequal Wall Lengths 132 4 Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 133 4.1. Introduction 133 4.2 Force-Displacement Response of Reinforced Concrete Members 133 4.2.1 Moment-Curvarure Analysis 134 4.2.2 Concrete Properties for Moment-Curvature Analysis 136 4.2.3. Masonry Properties for Moment-Curvature Analyses 139 4.2.4 — Reinforcing Steel Properties for Moment-Curvature Analyses 140 4.25 Strain Limits for Moment-Curvature Analysis 141 4.2.6 Material Design Strengths for Direct Displacement-Based Design 43 4.2.7 Bilinear Idealization of Concrete Moment-Curvature Curves 144 4.28 — Force-Displacement Response from Moment-Curvature 147 4.2.9 Computer Program for Moment-Curvature and Force-Displacement 151 4.3 Porce-Displacement Response of Steel Members 151 4.4 Elastic Stiffness of Cracked Concrete Sections, 151 441 Circular Concrete Columns 152 44.2 Rectangular Concrete Columns 155 4.43 Walls 157 4.4.4 Flanged Reinforced Concrete Beams 159 4.45 — Steel Beam and Column Sections 160 4.4.6 Storey Yield Drift of Frames 161 44.7 Summary of Yield Deformations 164 4.5 Analyses Related to Capacity Design Requirements 165 45.1 Design Example 4.1: Design and Overstrength of a Bridge Pier Based on Moment-Curvature Analysis 167 4.5.2 Default Overstrength Factors 170 45.3 Dynamic Amplification (Higher Mode Effects) 170 4.6 Equilibrium Considerations in Capacity Design 170 4.7 Dependable Strength of Capacity Protected Actions 173 4.7.1 Flexural Strength 173 4.7.2 Beam/Columa Joint Shear Strength 174 4.7.3 Shear Strength of Concrete Members: Modified UCSD model 174 4.7.4 Design Example 4.2: Shear Strength of a Circular Bridge Column 182 4.7.3. Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Walls 183 4.7.6 — Response to Seismic Intensity Levels Exceeding the Design Level 185viii Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures. 48 Shear Flesibility of Concrete Members 185 4.8.1 Computation of Shear Deformations 185 482 Design Example 4.3 Shear Deformation, and Failure Displacement of a Circular Column 188 4.9 Analysis Tools for Design Response Veritication 192 4.9.1 Introduction 192 49.2 Inelastic Time-History Analysis for Response Veri 192 4.9.3 Non-Linear Static (Pushover) Analysis 218 5 Frame Buildings 221 5.1 Introduction 221 52 ic DDBD Process for Prame Buildings 221 SDOF Representation of MDOF Frame 221 5.2.2 Design Actions for MDOP Structure from, SDOF Base Shear Force 224 clastic Displacement Mechanism for Frames 225 33 1 Frames 226 53.1 Influence on Design Duetility Demand 226 53.2 stically Responding Frame: 226 5.3.3 Yield Displacement of Irregular Frames 230 53.4 Design Example 5.1: Yield Displacement and Damping of an Irregular Frame 233 5.3.5 Yield Displacement and Damping when Beam Depth is Reduced with Height 237 5.3.6 Yield Displacement of Steel Frames 238 34 Controlling Higher Mode Drift Amplification 239 5.5 Structural Analysis Under Lateral Force Vector 242 Analysis Based on Relative Stiffness of Members 242 Analysis Based on Equilibrium Considerations 5.6 Section Flexural Design Considerations 251 6.1 Beam Flexural Design 251 5.6.2 Columa Flexural De: 254 5.7 Direct Displacement-Based Design of Frames for Diagonal Excitation 259 5.8 Capacity Design for Frames 263 General Requirements 263 Beam Flexure 263 5 Beam Shear 265 384 Column Plexure 266 Column Shear 271 5.9 Design Verification 274 5.9.1 Displacement Response 274 5.9.2 Columa Moments Column ShearsContents ix 5.9.4 Column Axial Forces 27 5.10 Design Example 5.2; Member Design Forces for an Irregular Two-Way Reinforced Concrete Frame 279 3.11. Precast Prestressed Frames 285 5.11.1 Seismic Behaviour of Prestressed Frames with Bonded Te 285 3.11.2 Prestressed 287 11.3 Hybrid Precast Beams 290 3.11.4 Design Example 5.3: DDBD of a Hybrid Prestressed Frame Building including P-A Effects 293 12 Masonry Infilled Frames 301 5.12.1 Structural Options 301 3.12.2. Structural Action of Infill 302 3.12.3. DDBD of Infilled Frames 303 Steel Frames 304 3.13.1. Structural Options 304 5.13.2. Concentric Braced Frames 306 3.13.3 Eccentric Braced Frames 307 5.14 Design Example 5.4: Design Verification of Design Example 5.1/5.2 310 © Scructural Wall Buildings 313 1 Introduction: Some Characteristics of Wall Buildings 313 6.11 Section Shapes 313 6.1.2 Wall Elevations 315 6.1.3. Foundations for Structural Walls 315 6.1.4 Inertia Force Transfer into Walls 317 2 Review of Basic DDBD Process for Cantilever Wall Buildings 317 6.2.1 Design Storey Displacements 317 Wall Yield Displacements: Significance to Desiga 325 63.1 Influence on Design Ductility Limits 325 63.2 Elastically Responding Walls 327 6.3.3 Multiple In-Plane Walls 328 + Torsional Response of Cantilever Wall Buildings 328 64.1 Elastic Torsional Response 328 6.4.2 Torsionally Unrestrained Systems 331 643 Torsionally Restrained Systems 334 64.4 Predicting Torsional Response 337 64.5 Recommendations for DDBD 339 64.6 Design Example 6.1: Torsionally Eccentric Building 346 6.4.7 Simplification of the Torsional Design Process 352 3 Foundation Flexibility Effects on Cantilever Walls 353 6.3.1 Influence on Damping 353 6.5.2 Foundation Rotational Stiffness 354Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. isplacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 6.6 Capacity Design for Cantilever Walls 6.6.1 Modified Modal Superposition (MMS) for Design Forces in Cantilever Walls & 66.2 Simplified Capacity Design for Canuilever Walls 6.7 Precast Prestressed Walls 68 Coupled Structural Walls 6.8.1 General Characteristics 6.8.2 Wall Yield Displacement 68.3 Coupling Beam Yield Drift 6.8.4 Wall Design Displacement 6.8.5 Equivalent Viscous Damping 6.8.6 Summary of Design Process 68.7 Design Example 6.3: Design of a Coupled—Wall Building Dual Wall-Frame Buildings 7.1 Introduction 7.2. DDBD Procedure 7.2.1 Preliminary Design Choices 7.2.2. Moment Profiles for Frames and Walls 7.2.3. Moment Profiles when Frames and Walls are Connected by Link Beams 7.24 — Displacement Profiles 7.2.5 Equivalent Viscous Damping 7.2.6 Design Base Shear Force 7.2.7 Design Results Compared with Time History Analyses 7.3 Capacity Design for Wall-Frames 7.3.1 Reduced Stiffness Model for Higher Mode Effects 7.3.2. Simplified Estimation of Higher Mode Effects for Design 7A — Design Example 7.1: Twelve Storey Wall-Frame Building 7.4.1 Design Data 4.2 Transverse Direction Design 7.4.3 Longitudinal Direction Design 7.44 Comments on the Design Masonry Buildings 8.1 Introduction: Characteristics of Masonry Buildings 8.1.1 General Considerations 8.1.2 Material Types and Properties 8.2 Typical Damage and Failure Modes 8.2.1 Walls 8.2.2 Coupling of Masonry Walls by Slabs, Beams or Masonry Spandrels, 8.3. Design Process for Masonry Buildings 357 359 363 370 372 372 376 378 379 381 382 382 387 387 388 388 389 392 304 396 397 397 399 400 401 403 403 404 410 441i 43 413, 413 415 418 418 425 429xi 3 Timb we Bridg it 33.1 Masonry Coupled Walls Response 83.2 Design of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings 8.3.3. Design of Reinforced Masonry Buildings 3D Response of Masonry Buildings 84.1 Torsional Response 84.2 Out-of-Plane Response of Walls, yer Structures Introduction: Timber Properties Ductile Timber Structures for Seismic Response 9.2.1 Ductile Moment-Resisting Connections in Frame Construction 9.2.2 Timber Framing with Plywood Shear Panels 9.2.3 Hybrid Prestressed Timber Frames DDBD Process for Timber Structures Capacity Design of ‘Timber Structures es Introduction: Special Characteristics of Bridges 10.1.1 Pier Section Shapes 10.1.2. The Choice between Single-columa and Multi-column Piers 10.1.3 Bearing-Supported vs. Monolithic Pier/Superstructure Connection 10.1.4 Soil-Structure Interaction 10,1.5 Influence of Abutment Design 10.1.6 Influence of Movement Joints 10.1.7 Multi-Span Long Bridges 10.18 P-A Effects for Bridges 10.1.9 Design Verification by Inelastic Time-History Analyses Review of Basic DDBD Equations for Bridges Design Process for Longitudinal Response 10.3.1 Pier Yield Displacement 10.3.2 Design Displacement for Footing-Supported Piers 10.3.3 Design Example 10.1; Design Displacement for a Footing Supported Column 10.34 Design Displacement for Pile /Columns 10.3.5 Design Example 10.2: Design Displacement for a Pile/Column 10.3.6 System Damping for Longitudinal Response 10.3.7 Design Example 10.3: Longitudinal Design of a Four Span Bridge Design Process for Transverse Response 10.4.1 Displacement Profiles 10.4.2 Dual Seismic Load Paths 10.4.3 System Damping 429 439 446 446 449 455 487 460 457 460 461 462 463 465 465 465 467 467 468 470 470 470 471 471 47 472 472 478 481 483 484 485 489 494 495 498 498xii Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 10.4.4 Design Example 10.4: Damping for the Bridge of Fig. 10.17 500 10.4.5. Degree of Fixity at Column Top 502 10.4.6 Design Procedure 503 " 10.4.7 Relative Importance of Transverse and Longitudinal Response 505 10.4.8 Design Example 10.5: Transverse Design of a Four-Span Bridge 507 10.5 Capacity Design Issues 512 10.5.1 Capacity Design for Piers 512 10.5.2 Capacity Design for Superstructures and Abutments 513 10.6 Design Example 10.6: Design Verification of Design Example 10.5 516 11 Structures with Isolation and Added Damping 519 11.1 Fundamental Concepts 519 11.1.1 Objectives and Motivations 519 11.1.2 Bearing Systems, Isolation and Dissipation Devices 522 11.1.3 Design Philosophy/Performance Criteria 523 11.1.4 Problems with Force — Based Design of Isolated Structures $24 11.1.5 Capacity Design Concepts Applied to Isolated Structures 526 11.16 Alternative Forms of Artificial Isolation/ Dissipation 527 11.1.7 Analysis and Safety Verification 528 11.2 Bearing Systems, Isolation and Dissipation Devices 529 11.2.1 Basic Types of Devices 529 11.22 “Non-Seismic” Sliding Bearings 530 11.2.3. Isolating Bearing Devices 531 11.2.4 Dissipative systems 544 11.25 Heat Problems 554 11.2.6 Structural Rocking as a Form of Base Isolation 557 11.3 Displacement-Based Design of Isolated Structures 559 11.3.1 Base—Isolated Rigid Structures 559 11.3.2 Base-Isolated Flexible Structures 571 11.3.3 Controlled Response of Compiex Structures 579 11.4 Design Verification of Isolated Structures 596 11.4.1 Design Example 11.7: Design Verification of Design Example 11.3 596 11.4.2 Design Example 11.8: Design Verification of Design Example 11.5 597 12 Wharves and Piers 599 12.1 Introduction 599 12.2 Structural Details 601 12.3. The Design Process 602, 12.3.1. Factors Influencing Design 602 123.2. Biaxial Excitation of Marginal Wharves 603Consens xiii 12.3.3 Sequence of Design Operations 24 Port of Los Angeles Performance Criteria 12.4.1 POLA Earthquake Levels and Performance Criteria 12.4.2 Performance Criteria for Prestressed Concrete Piles 12.4.3 Performance Criteria for Seismic Design of Steel Pipe Piles Lateral Force-Displacement Response of Prestressed Piles Prestressed Pile Details Moment-Curvature Characteristics of Pile/Deck Connection Moment-Curvature Characteristics of Prestressed Pile In-Ground Hinge 12.5.4 Inelastic Static Analysis of a Fixed Head Pile Design Verification 12.6.1 Eccentsicity 12.6.2 Inelastic Time History Analysis 27 Capacity Design and Equilibrium Considerations 12.7.1 General Capacity Design Requirements 12.7.2 Shear Key Forces Design Example 12.1: Initial Design of a Two-Segment Marginal Wharf 2.9 Aspects of Pier Response 45 _Displacement-Based Seismic Assessment Introduction: Current Approaches 13.4.1 Standard Force-Based Assessment 13.1.2 Equivalent Elastic Strength Assessment 13.1.3 Incremental Non-linear Time History Analysis Displacement-Based Assessment of SDOF Structures 13.2.1 Alternative Assessment Procedures 13.2.2 Incorporation of P-A Effects in Displacement-Based Assessment 13.2.3 Assessment Example 13.1: Simple Bridge Column under Transverse Response Displacement-Based Assessment of MDOF Structures 13.3.1 Frame Buildings 13.3.2 Assessment Example 2: Assessment of a Reinforced Concrete Frame 13.3.3. Structural Wall Buildings 13.3.4 Other Structures 24 Draft Displacement-Based Code for Seismic Design of Buildings rences Sembols List 604 608 609 609 oil 612 612 613 618 621 628 628 630 634 634 638 639 645 647 647 649 649 650 653 653 656 659 661 666 672 676 677 61 703xiv Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Abbreviations 113, indéx 15 Structural Analysis CD 721,PREFACE formance-based seismic design is a term widely used by, and extremely popular the seismic research community, but which is currently rather irrelevant in the ce of design and construction. In its purest form, it involves a large number of Dilistic considerations, relating to variability of seismic input, of material properties, Eamensions, of gravity loads, and of financial consequences associated with damage, 2 “apse or loss of usage following seismic attack, amongst other things. As such, it is a “Soult tool to use in the assessment of existing structures, and almost impossible 0 use, ' expectation of realism, in the design of new structures, where geometry becomes variable, and an almost limitless number of possible design solutions exists. srently, probability theory is used, to some extent, in determination of the seismic which is typically based on uniform-hazard spectra, However, structural engineers ‘nis information and design structures to code specified force levels which have been _steemined without any real consideration of risk of damage or collapse. Structural = s>lacements, which can be directly related to damage potential through material strains rural damage) and drifts (non-structural damage), are checked using coarse and sole methods at the end of the design process. At best, this provides designs that =stv damage-control criteria, but with widely variable risk levels. At worst, it produces segs of unknown safety, This text attempts to bridge the gap between current strucrural design, and a full (and ssibly unattainable) probabilistic design approach, by using deterministic approaches. ! on the best available information on analysis and material properties to produce sures that should achieve, rather than be bounded by, a structural or non-structural == state under a specified level of seismic input. Structures designed to these criteria at be termed “uniform-risk” structures. The approach used is very simple — ~svalent in complexity to the most simple design approach permitted in seismic design the “equivalent lateral force procedure”), but will be unfamiliar to most designers, - design displacement is the starting point. The design procedure determines the ‘hear force, and the distribution of strength in the structure, to achieve this placement. The process (displacements lead to strength) is thus the opposite of current sign, where strength leads to an estimate of displacement, Although this requires a in thinking on the part of the designer, it rapidly becomes automatic, and we ssueve, intellectually satisfying, xvxvi Priestey, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Scismic Design of Structures This book is primarily directed cowards practising structural designers, and follows from two earlier books with which the principal author has been involved (“Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures” (with T. Paulay), John Wiley, 1992, and “Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges” (with F. Scible and G.M. Calvi), John Wiley, 1996). ‘These books primarily address issues of section design and detailing, and 10 a limited extent force-distribution in the class of structures addressed, Although great emphasis is given in these books to seismic design philosopay in terms of capacity design considerations, comparatively little attention is directed towards an examination of the optimum level of strength required of the building or bridge. This text addresses this aspect specifically, but also considers the way in which we distribute the required system strength (the base-shear force) through the structure. This takes two forms: methods of structural analysis, and capacity desiga, It is shown that current analysis methods have a degree of complexity incompatible with the coarseness of assumptions of member stiffness, Frequently, equilibrium considerations rather than stiffaess considerations can lead to a simpler and more realistic distribution of strength. Recent concepts of inelastic torsional response have been extended and adapted to displacement-based design. Combination of gravity and seismic effects, and P-A effects are given special consideration. Capacity design considerations have been re-examined on the basis of a large number of recent research studies. Completely new and more realistic information is provided for a wide range of structures. Section analysis and detailing are considered only where new information, beyond that presented in the previous ewo texts mentioned above, has become available. The information provided in this book will be of value, not just to designers using displacement-based principles, but also to those using more conventional force-based design, who wish to understand the seismic response of structures in more detail, and to apply this understanding to design. Although the primary focus of this book is, as noted above, the design profession, it is also expected to be of interest to the research community, as it provides, to our knowledge, the firs attempt at a complete design approach based on performance criteria. A large amount of new information not previously published is presented in the book. We hope it will stimulate discussion and further research in the area. The book should also be of interest to graduate and upper-level undergraduate students of earthquake engineering who wish to develop a deeper understanding of how design can be used to control seismic response. ‘The book starts with a consideration in Chapter 1 as to why ie is necessary to move from force-based to displacement-based seismic design. ‘This is largely related to the guesses of initial stiffness necessary in force-based design, and the inadvisability of using these initial stiffness values to distribute seismic lateral force chrough the structure. Chapter 2 provides a state-of-the-science of seismic input for displacement-based design, particularly related to characteristics of elastic and inelastic displacement spectra. ‘The fundamental concepts behind “direct displacement-based seismic design” — so-called because no iteration is required in the design process — are developed in Chapter 3.« specially relevant to displacement-based design are discussed in Chapter sanciples of displacement-based design are then applied to different structural walls, dual wall/frames, masonry and timber buildings, bridges, seismic isolation and added damping, wharves) in the following chapters, uently adapted to seismic assessment in Chapter 13. Finally, the principles in Chapter 14 in a code format to provide a possible basis for furure The text is illustrated by design examples throughout. gn procedure outlined in this book has been under development since first ceccesi 5 the early 1990's, and is now in a rather complete form, suitable for design Much of the calibration and analytical justification for the approach has considerable number of research projects over the past five or so years, and consequently wish to particularly acknowledge the work of Juan Camillo eiandro. Amaris, Katrin Beyer, Carlos Blandon, Chiara Casarotti, Hazim 0 Grant, Pio Miranda, Juan Camillo Ortiz, Didier Pettinga, Dario Pietra, z, and Tim Sullivan, amongst others. Tas Jesign verification examples described in the book have been prepared with the = Rui Pinho, Dario Pietra, Laura Quaglini, Luis Montejo and Vinicio Suarez. T analysis software employed in such design verifications has been kindly = cof. Athol Carr, Dr. Stelios Antoniou, Dr. Rui Pinho and Mr. Luis Montejo, me LS: agreed to make these programs available in the Structural Analysis CD. seple who need special acknowledgement are Prof. Tom Paulay and Dr. Rui =5o cach read sections of the manuscript in draft form, noted errors and made for improvements. Their comments have significantly improved the final remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors alone. Advice from Bommer, Prof. Ezio Faccioli, and Dr. Paul Somerville on aspects of <= and of Prof, Guido Magenes on masonry structures is also gratefully ancial assistance of the Italian Dipartimento della Protegione Cinile, who funded 2 ject on displacement based design coordinated by two of the authors, is acknowledged. sy, Christebarch Pavia1 INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR DISPLACEMENT- BASED SEISMIC DESIGN 1 HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS “arthquakes induce forces and displacements in structures. For elastic systems these Jirectly related by the system stiffness, but for structures responding inelastically, the = conship is complex, being dependent on both the current displacement, and the Displacement Displacement (a) Structure (b) Profiles at Yield (c) Base Shear/Displacement Response Fig.19 Influence of Foundation Flexibility on Displacement Ductility Capacity18 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacemem-Based Seismic Design of Structures increase, due to strain hardening of longitudinal reinforcement, This minor effect is ignored, in the interests of simplicity, in the following, ‘The similarity t0 the case of the previous example of the portal frame is obvious. By analogy to the equations of that section, the displacement ductility of the wall, including foundation Mexibility effects can be related to the rigid-base case by — Ae ty Ho! a,+a, | (eA,/a, My =1+ (1.19) where Ay and Ay are the wall displacements at yield due to structural deformation of the wall, and foundation rotation respectively, and fla, = 1+Ay/Ay. ‘The reduction in displacement duclity capacity implied by F.q(1.19) is more eritical for squat walls than for slender walls, since the flexural component of the structural yield displacement, which normally dominates, is proportional to the square of the wall height, whereas the displacement due co foundation flexibility is directly proportional to wall height. It is not unusual, with squat walls on spread footings, to find the displacement ductility capacity reduced by a factor of two or more, as a consequence of foundation totation effects, Similar effects have been noted for bridge columns on flexible foundations. ‘To some extent, however, the effects of additional elastic displacements resulting from this cause may be mitigated by additional clastic damping provided by soil deformation and radiation damping!“"1, For simplicity, shear deformation of the wall has not been considered in this example. In the past it has been common for designers to ignore the increase in fundamental period resulting from the foundation flexibility discussed above. It may be felt that this to some extent compensates for the reduction in displacement ductility capacity, since the structure is designed for higher forces than those corresponding to its “true” fundamental period. However, the consequence may be that story drifts exceed codified limits without the designer being aware of the face. (@) Structures wich Unequal Column Heights: Marginal wharves (wharves running parallel to the shore line) typically have a transverse section characterized by a simple reinforced or prestressed concrete deck supported by concrete or stecl shell pile/columns whose free height between deck and dyke increases with distance froin the shore. An ‘example is shown in Fig.1.10(a). Conventional force-based design would sum the clastic stiffnesses of the different piles to establish 2 global scructural stiffness, calculate the corresponding fundamental period, and hence determine the clastic lateral design force, in accordance with the sequence of operations defined in Fig.1.3. A force-reduction factor, reflecting the assumed ductility capacity would then be applied to determine the seismic design lateral force, which would then be distributed between the piles in proportion to their stiffness. Implicic in this approach is the assumption of equal displacement ductility demand for all pile/columns.Chapter 1, Introduction: The Need for Displacement-Based Seismic Design » The illogical nature of this assumption is apparent when the individual pile/columa force-displacement demands, shown in Fig.1.10(b), are investigated. Design is likely to be such that only one, or at most ewo pile designs will be used, varying the amount of, prestressing or reinforcing steel, but keeping the pile diameter constant. In this case the pile/colamns will all have the same yield curvatures, and yield displacements will be proportional to the square of the effective height from the deck to the point of effective fixity for displacements, at a depth of about five pile diameters below the dyke surface. ‘This effective height is shown for piles F and C in Fig. 1.10(a) as Hy or He. Concrete Deck t ry He F rE Ip ic B ix (2) Transverse Section through Wharf : F a E D c B A Or Tr Displacemént (©) Force-Displacement Response of Individual Piles Fig.1.10 Transverse Seismic Response of a Marginal Wharf The structure lateral force displacement response can be obtained by summing the individual pile/column force-displacement curves, shown in Fig.1.10(b). Force-based20 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures design, allocating strength in proportion to the elastic stiffnesses would imply design strengths for the different pile/columns equal to the forces intersected by the line drawn in Fig.1.10(b) at Ayr, the gield displacement of pile/column F. Since the yield displacements of the fonger piles are much greater, the full strength of these piles will thus be under-utilized in the design. It is also clearly a gross error to assume that all piles will have the same ductility demand in the design-leve! earthquake. Fig. 1.10(b) includes, the full force-displacement curves, up to ultimate displacement, for pile/columns F and E. The ultimate displacements for the longer pile/columns are beyond the edge of the graph. Clearly at the ultimate ductility capacity of the shortest pile column, F, the ductility demands on the longer columns are greatly reduced. Pile/columns A, and B will still be in the elastic range wien the ultimate displacement of pile F is reached. The concept of a force-reduction factor based on equal ductility demand for ail pile/columns is thus totally inapplicable for this structure. Wharf seismic design is discussed in depth in Chapter 12. Similar conclusions (as well as a means for rationally incorporating the above within the framework of force-based design) have been reached by Paulayl%! referring to response of a rigid building on flexible piles of different lengths. The procedure suggested by Paulay requires thae the concept of a specified structural force-reduction factor, which currently is a basic tenet of codified force-based design, be abandoned, and replaced by rational analysis. A second example, that of a bridge crossing a valley, and hence having piers of different heights, is shown in Fig.1.11. Under longitudinal seismic response, the deflections at the top of the piers wili be equal. Assuming @ pinned connection berween the pier tops and the superstructure (or alternatively, fixed connections, and a rigid superstructure), force-based design will allocate the seismic design force between the columns in proportion to their elastic stiffnesses. If the columns have the same cross- section dimensions, as is likely to be the case for architectural reasons, the design shear forces in the columns, V4, Va,and Ve, will be in inverse proportion to Hi), Hy? and He respectively, since the stiffness of column 7 is given by K,=C,El,,(H} (1.20a) where Ae is the effective cracked-section stiffness of column & typically taken as 0.5 Jpros for all columns. The consequence of this design approach is that the design moment at the bases of the piers will be M,,=C,V,H, =C,C,EI,,/H?, (1.206) that is, in inverse proportion to the square of the column heights (in Fgs.(1.20), G and G are constants dependent on the degree of fixity at the pier top). Consequently the shortest piers will be allocated much higher flexural reinforcement contents than the longer piers. This has three undesirable effects. First, allocating more flexural strength to the short piers will increase their elastic flexural stiffness, Ee, even further, with respect to the mote lightly reinforced longer piers, as has been discussed in relation to Fig.1-4Chapter 1. Introduction: The Need for Displacement-Based Seismic Design 2 8 Fig.1.11 Bridge with Unequal Column Heights A redesign should strictly be carried out with revised pier stiffnesses, which, in accordance with Eq, (1.20) would result in still higher shear and moment demands on the shorter piers. Second, allocating a large proportion of the total seismic design force to the short piers increases their vulnerability to shear failure. Third, the displacement capacity of the short piers will clearly be less than that of the longer piers. As is shown in Section 1.3.5, the displacement capacity of heavily reinforced columns is reduced as the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increases, and hence the force-based design approach will tend to reduce the displacement capacity As with the marginal wharf discussed in the previous example, the ductility demands on the piers will clearly be different (inversely proportional to height squared), and the use of a force-reduction factor which does not reflect the different ductility demands will clearly result in structures of different safety. Design of bridges with unequal column heights is considered further in Chapter 10. 1.3.5. Relationship between Strength and Ductility Demand ‘A common assumption in force-based design is that increasing the strength of a structure (by reducing the force-reduction factor) improves its safety. The argument is presented by reference to Fig.1.1, of which the force-deformation graph is duplicated here as Fig:1.12{@). Using the common force-based assumption that stiffness is independent of strength, for a given section, it is seen that increasing the strength from SI to S2 reduces the ductility demand, since the final displacement remains essentially constant (the “equal displacement” approximation is assumed), while the yield displacement increases. It has already been noted, in relation to Fig.14 that this assumption is not valid. However, we continue, as it is essential to the argument that increasing strength reduces damage. The reduction in ductility demand results in the potential for damage also being decreased, since structures are perceived to have a definable ductility demand, and the lower the ratio of ductility demand to ductility capacity, the higher is the safety. We have already identified three flaws in this reasoning: 1) stiffness is not independent of strength; 2) the “equal displacement” approximation is not valid; and 3) it is not possible to define a unique ductility capacity for a structural type22 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. DisplacementsBased Seismic Design of Structures Strength, 14a isplacement Reinforcement Ratio (%) (@) Strength vs Ductility (b) Influence of Rebar % on Parameters Fig.1.12 Influence of Strength on Seismic Performance Itis of interest, however, to examine the argument by numeric example. ‘The simple bridge pier of Fig. 1.1 is assumed to have the following properties; Height = 8 m (26.2 ft), diameter = 1.8 m (70.9 in), flexural reinforcement dia. = 40 mm (1.58 in), concrete strength P, = 39 MPa (5.66 ksi), flexural reinforcement: yield strength 4 = 462 MPa (67 ksi), & = 1.54; transverse reinforcement: 20 mm (0.79 in) diameter at a pitch of 140 mm 6.3 in), fy = 420 MPa (60.9 ksi); cover to main reinforcement = 5G mm (1.97 in), axial load P= 4960 KN (1115 kips) which is an axial (oad ratio of P/Padg = 0.05. A reference design with 1.5% flexural reinforcement is chosen, and analyses carried out, using the techniques described in Chapter 4 to determine the influence of changes to the flexural strength resulting from varying the flexural reinforcement ratio between the limits of 0.5% and 4%. Results are presented for different relevant parameters in Fig.1.12(b) as ratios to the corresponding parameter for the reference design. As expected, the strength increases, almost linearly with reinforcement ratio, with ratios between 0.5 times and 2.0 times the reference strength. We can thus use these data to investigate whether safety has increased as strength has increased. First we note that the effective stiffness has not remained constant (as assumed in Fig,1.12(a)) but has increased at very nearly the same rate as the strength, More importantly, we note that the displacement capacity displays the opposite trend from that expected by the force-based argument: that is, the displacement capacity decreases as the strength increases. At a reinforcement ratio of 0.5% it is 31% higher than the reference value, while at 4% reinforcement ratio the displacement capacity is 21% lower than the reference value. “Thus, if the “equat displacement” approach was valid, as illustrated in Fig.1.12(a), we have decreased the safety by increasing the strength, and we would be better off by reducing the strength. OF course, the discussion above is incomplete, since we know that the yield displacements are not proportional to strength, since the stiffness and strength are closelyChapter 1, Introduction: The Need for Displacement-Based Seismic Design 23 related as suggested in Fig. 1.4(b), and demonstrated in Fig.1.12(b). We use this to determine the influence on displacement ductility capacity, and find that it decreases slightly faster than the displacement capacity (sce Fig.1.12(b)). However, since the clastic stiffness increases with strength, the elastic period reduces, and the displacement demand is thus also reduced. If we assume that the structural periods for all the different strength levels lie on the constant-velocity slope of the acceleration spectrum (je. the linear portion of the displacement response spectrum: see Fig1.2(b)), then since the period is proportional to the inverse of the square root of the stiffness (Eq.1.6), the displacement demand will also be related to 1/4°5, We can then relate the ratio of displacement demand to displacement capacity, and compate with the reference value. This ratio is also plotted in Fig.1.12(b). It will be seen that taking realistic assessment of stiffness into account, the displacement demand/capacity ratio is insensitive to the strength, with the ratio only reducing from 1.25 to 0.92 as the strength ratio increases by 400% (corresponding to the full range of reinforcement content). Clearly the reasoning behind the strength/safety argument is invalid. 4.3.6 Structural Wall Buildings with Unequal Wall Lengths A similar problem with force-based design to that discussed in the previous section occurs when buildings are provided with cantilever walls of different lengths providing seismic resistance in a given direction. Force-based design to requirements of existing codes will require the assumption that che design lateral forces be allocated to the walls in proportion to their elastic stiffess, with the underlying assumption that the walls will be subjected to the same displacement ductility demand. Hence the force-reduction factor is assumed to be independent of the structural configuration, It was discussed in relation to Fig.1.4(b), that the yield curvature for a given section is essentially constant, regardless of strength. It will be shown in Section 4.4.3 that the form of the equation governing section yield curvature is 9, =C-Esh (1.21) where his the section depth, and & is the yield strain of the longitudinal reinforcement. Since the yield displacement can be related to the yield curvature by Eq.(1.13) for cantilever walls, as well as for columns, it follows that the yield displacements of walls of different lengths must be in inverse proportion to the wall lengths, regardless of the wall strengths. Hence displacement ducility demands on the walls must differ, since the maximum response displacements will be the same for each wall Figure 1.13 represents 4 building braced by two short walls (A and C) and one long wall (B) in the direction considered. The form of the force-displacement curves for the walls are also shown in Fig.1.13. Force-based design mistakenly assumes that the shorter walls can be made to yield at the same displacement as the longer wall B, and allocates strength beeween the walls in proportion to 4, since the elastic stiffnesses of the wall differ only in the value of the wall effective moments of inertia, f, which are propostional24 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Force cig Le peal tlic lee Ae Det cone? Fig.1.13 Building with Unequal Length Cantilever Walls to the cube of wall length. Again stcength is unnecessarily, and unwisely concentrated in the stiffesc elements, underutilizing the more flexible members. A more rational decision would be to design the walls for equal flexural reinforcement ratios, which would resule in strengths proportional to the square of wall length. As with the previous two examples, the code force-reduction factor for the structure will not take cognizance of the fact that the different walls must have different displacement ductility demands in the design carthquake. 1.3.7, Structures with Dual (Elastic and Inelastic) Load Paths. A more serious deficiency of force-based design is apparent in structures which possess more than one seismic load path, one of which remains elastic while the others respond inelastically at the design carthquake level. A common example is the bridge of Fig.1.14(a), when subjected to transverse seismic excitation, as suggested by the double- headed arrows. Primary seismic resistance is provided by bending of the piers, which are designed for inelastic response, However, if the abutments are restrained from lateral displacement transversely, superstructure bending also develops. Current seismic desiga philosophy requires the super-structure to respond elasticallyl™l, The consequence is that a portion of the seismic inertia forces developed in che deck is transmitted to the pier footings by column bending (path 1 in Fig.1.14(b)), and the remainder is transmitted as abutment reactions by superstructure bending (path 2). Based on an elastic analysis the relative elastic stiffnesses of the two load paths are indicated by the two broken lines in Fig.1.14(b), implying that column flexure (path 1) carries most of the seismic force. A force-reduction factor is then applied, and design forces determined ‘The inelastic response of the combined resistance of the columns is now shown by the solid line (path 3, in Fig.1.14(b)), and on the basis of the equal displacement approximation it is imagined that the maximum displacement is Amas, the value predicted by the elastic analysis. If the superstructure is designed for the force developed in path 2Chapter 1. Introduction: The Need for Displacement-Based Seismic Design 25 al Column 77 | Pianig {-Stper “ “pees? 3 DH N ml Force ‘Column, Inelastic A, Displacement Amax (a) Structure (b) Load-path Characteristics Fig.1.14 Bridge with Dual Load Paths under Transverse Excitation at the column yield displacement, it will be seriously under-designed, since the forces in this path, which are required to be within the elastic range, continue to rise with increasing displacement. Thus the bending moment in the superstructure, and the abutment reactions at A and E are not reduced by column hinging, and a force-reduction factor should not be used in their design. It is also probable that the maximum response displacement will differ significantly from the initial elastic estimate, since at maximum displacement, the effective damping of the system will be less than expected, as hysteretic damping is only associated with load path 3, which carries less than 50% of the seismic force at peak displacement response in this example. This may cause an increase in displacements. On the other hand, the higher strength associated with the increased post-yield stiffness of load path 2 may result in reduced displacement demand. Elastic analysis and the force-reduction factor approach give no guidance to these considerations. A slightly different, but related problem occurs with dual wall/ frame buildings (see Fig, Displacement (@) Seructure (b) Force-displacement Response Fig.1.15 Dual Wall/Frame Building26 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 1,15). If the seismic force is distributed between the frame and the wall in proportion to their clastic stiffness, the load-carrying capacity of the frame will be unnecessarily discounted. ‘The yield displacement of the frame will inevitably be several times larger thafi that of the wall, so the proportion of seismic force carried by the frame at maximum response will be larger than at first yield of che wail (Fig, 1.14(b)). In this example both systems eventually cespond inelastically, but the frame system remains elastic to larger displacements, Note that the interaction between the frame and wall due to resolving the incompatibilities between their natural vertical displacement profiles wil! also be modified by inelastic action, and bear little resemblance to the elastic predictions. This is discussed farther in Chapter 7. 1.3.8 Relationship between Elastic and Inelastic Displacement Demand Force-based design requires assumptions to be made when determining the maximum displacement response. The most common assumption is the equal-displacement approximation, which states that the displacement of the inelastic system is the same as that of the equivalent system with the same clastic stiffness, and unlimited strength (refer to Fig,1.1). Thus, with reference to Fig.1.2, the design displacemenc is estimated as T axles BE Ark Arnaxcuctie =A (1.22) and hence # = R, Equation (1.22) is based on the approximation that peak displacements may be related to peak accelerations assuming sinusoidal response equations, which is reasonable for medium period structures. ‘The equal displacement approximation is known to be non-conservative for short- period structures. As a consequence, some design codes, notably in Central and South American, and some Asian countries, apply the equal-energy approximation when determining peak displacements. The equal energy approach equates the energy absorbed by the inelastic system, on a monotonic displacement to peak response, to the energy absorbed by the equivalent clastic system with same initial stiffness. Thus the peak displacement of the inelastic system is f 1\_ 7? A =A WAH) rmax,duct vaxelastic \ QR } 4n R41) ne SE] (1.23) where R is the design force-reduction factor. Since Amaxelasic =RAy, and the actual displacement ductility demand is = Amasauc/Ay, the ductility demand implied by Bq.(1.23) isChapter 1. Introduction: The Need for Displacement-Based Seismic Design 21 He (1.24) Where codes employ inelastic design spectra [eg. X1], design is based on specified ductility, rather than force-reduction factor, and the design spectral accelerations for short-period structures are adjusted to correct for displacement amplification. In the United States, where until recently the dominant building code for seismic regions has been the UBC [X5], design displacements were estimated as 4,38 A, mmaraer = Ay (1.25) where A, is the yield displacement corresponding to the reduced design forces, found from structural analysis. Since the structure is designed for a force-reduction factor of R, this would appear to imply that the displacement ductility is =k 8 and the displacement of the ductile system is 3/8 of the equivalent elastic system. However, the apparent reason behind this seemingly unconservative result is that the actual force-reduction factor was substantially lower than the design force-reduction factor, as a consequence of the design period being pegged to an unrealistic heighr- dependent equation of the form of Eq.(1.7). The consequences of this are explained with reference to Fig. 1.16. (1.26) 08 z 06 od 02 0 Period (sec) Fig.1.16 Influence of Under-predicted Period on Actual Force-Reduction Factor In Fig.1.26, TL and T2 are the fundamental periods corresponding to the code height- dependent equation, and rational seructural analysis respectively. The elastic response accelerations corresponding to these periods are a1 and a respectively. If the design28 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures force-reduction factor corresponding to T1 is R, then the real force-reduction factor, corresponding to T2 is R = Raz/ar. If the equal displacement approximation were valid at T2, and assuming a constant velocity range far che response spectrum, then Eq,(1.26) would be correct if 2 = 2.67 T1. Fxamination of Table 1.1 indicates that this is close to the ratio of periods calculated by rational analysis and by the period dependant code equation, Clearly there are compensatory errors involved in this approach, which should be removed by using more realistic periods, and force-reduction factors that have a close relationship to the ductility capacity, as is incorporated in other codes, Recently, USA. practice, incorporated in the IBC codel*t, has changed, with the 38/8 factor of Eq,(1.25) being replaced by 2 coefficient dependent on structural form and material. The approach is, however, still illogical, with effective ratios varying between 0.5Rand 1.2R, A compatison of the different predictions provided by Eqs (1.22), (1.24) and (1.26) is presented in Fig. 1.17, for a design force-reduction factor of R=4, The range of different possible answers is disturbingly large. Force Elastic 77 Europe,NZ, Japan, Sth IBC'06 “America je(R4N /2 ay Aa Displacement Fig.1.17 Estimates of Design Displacement from Different Force-Based Codes forR=4 Force-based seismic design does not normally take account of the different hysteretic characteristics of different materials and structural systems. Thus the fact that seismic isolation systems absorb much more hysteretic energy than reinforced concrete structures, which in turn absorb more than prestressed concrete structures is not directly considered, though different force-reduction factors may be assigned to different materials. Figure 1.18 examines the validity of the equal displacement approximation for a range of different periods, and for three different hysceresis rules: elastic, bilinear elasto- plastic (representative of isolation systems), Takedal0'l, (representative of reinforced concrete structures, and flag-shaped with B=0.35 (representative of hybrid unbonded prestressed structures - see Fig 4.33). Analyses were first carried out for a range of periods between 0.25sec and 2.5 seconds using elastic time-history analyses and a suite of seven accelerograms compatible with theChapter 1. Introduction: The Need for Displacement-Based Seismic Design 29 FC8 design spectrum for firm ground [X3], The design yield strength for the three ductile systems was found by dividing the average maximum clastic response moment by a factor of R=4, All three ductile systems adopted the same force-displacement envelope, with a post-yield stiffness of 5% of the initial stiffness, and thus only differed in terms of unloading and reloading ules. Elastic damping was taken as 5% of critical, related to the tangent stiffness (sce Section 4.9.2(g) for a discussion on modelling elastic damping). In Fig.1.18, results are expressed as the ratio ductile peak displacement for ductile response to displacement of the clastic system of equal initial period. For the equal displacement approximation to hold, al values should be 1.0. It is seen that significant differences occur, depending on the period and hysteresis rule. Differences are particularly marked in the period range T <0,75 seconds, as expected, but are also significant at other periods 25 Displacement Ratio (\/A.)) Displacement Ratio (A/c) 05 + T T T To 08 TT T 1 Cn ee 0 05 4 ass Period (seconds) Period (seconds) (a) Absolute Peak Displacement (b) Average of Positive and Negative Peaks Fig.1.18 Ratio of Ductile to Elastic Peak Displacement for different Hysteresis Rules based on EC8 Design Spectrum for Firm Ground The differences between the hysteretic mules, and also from the clastic results are particularly apparent when the average of the positive and negative peaks (Fig. 1.18(6)), rather than the absolute maximum (Fig. 1.17(a)), are considered, as suggested in Section 4.9.2(h), reflecting the larger residual displacements in the Bilinear elasto-plastic results which affects the absolute peak displacement more than the average of positive and negative peaks. ‘The results of this brief section indicate that force-based design is not ideaily suited to estimating the maximum displacements expected of structures in seismic response. Considering that it is now accepted that peak displacements are critical in determining the level of damage that can be expected, this is a serious criticism of the method.30 Priestiey, Calvi and Kowalsig, Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 13.9 Summary In this section, we have identified some of the problems associated with force-based desfgn, These can be summarized as follows: © Force-based design relies on estimates of initial stiffness 10 determine the period and the distribution of design forces between different structural elements. Since the stiffness is dependent on the strength of the elements, this cannot be known until the design pracess is complete. © Allocating scismic force between elements based on initial stiffness (even if accurately known) is illogical for many structures, because it incorrectly assumes that the different elements can be forced to yield simultaneously. © Force-based design is based on the assumption that unique force-reduction factors (based on ductility capacity) are appropriate for a given structural type and material. This is demonstrably invalid. Despite these criticisms it should be emphasized that current force-based seismic design, when combined with capacity design principles and careful detailing, generally produces safe and satisfactory designs. However, the degree of protection provided against damage under a given seismic intensity is very non-uniform from structure to structure, ‘Thus, the concept of “uniform risk” which is implicit in the formulation of current seismic design intensity, has nat been continued into the structural design. We believe that it should be. 1.4. DEVELOPMENT OF DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN METHODS 1.4.1 Force-Based/Displacement Checked Deficiencies inherent in the force-based system of seismic design, some of which have been outlined in the preceding sections, have been recognized for some time, as the importance of deformation, rather than strength, in assessing seismic performance has come to be better appreciated. Consequently a number of new design methods, or improvements to existing methods, have been recently developed. Initially the approaches were designed to fit within, and improve, existing force-based design. These can be characterized as fore-based/ displacement checked, where enhanced emphasis is placed on realistic determination of displacement demand for structures designed to force-based procedures. Such methods include the adoption of more realistic member stiffnesses for deformation (if not for required strength) determination, and possibly use of inelastic time-history analysis, or pushover analysis, to determine peak deformation and drift demand. In the event that displacements exceed the code specified limits, redesign is required, as suggested in Fig. 1.3, Many modern codes | e.g. X1, X2, X3, X4]require some version of this approach. Several recent design approaches have used this approach (e.g: F1, F2, X8}. In general, no attempt is made to achieve uniform risk of damage, or of collapse for structures designed to this approach.Chapter 1. Introduction: The Need for Displacement-Based Seismic Design 31 Paulay! has suggested that the deficiencies noted in previous sections can be eliminated within a force-based design approach. «As explained in detail in section 4.4, yield displacement Ay can be determined from section and structure geometry without a prior knowledge of strength, Displacement demand, Ag, at least for fame buildings will normally be governed by code drift limits and the building geometry. ‘The yield strength V is assumed, and hence the initial stiffness K'= V/A, is calculated. The elastic period is calculated from Eq,(1.6), and the elastic displacement demand from Eq, (1.22). This is compared with the code drift limit, and the strength adjusted incrementally until the elastic displacement equals the drift limit. Strengch is then distributed between the different lateral-force resisting elements based on experience, rather than on elastic stiffness. This has been termed a displacement facused force-based approach. There are, however, problems associated with this approach. Although the yield displacements of the lateral-force resisting elements may be known at the start of the procedure, the equivalent system yield displacement will not be known until the distribution of strength between elements is decided. The approach relies on assumptions about the equivalence between clastic and ductile displacements (eg. the equal displacement approximation), which as discussed in relation to Fig.1.18 may be invalid, and considerable experience is required of the designer. The procedure is suitable for those well versed in seismic design, but ill-suited for codification. As will be shown in subsequent chapters of this text, a design approach based directly on displacements is simpler, better suited co codification (see Chapter 14), and does not require assumptions to be made about elastic /inclastic displacement equivalence. 1.4.2, Deformation-Calculation Based Design ‘A more refined version of the force-based/ displacement-checked approach sclates the detailing of critical sections (in particular details of transverse reinforcement for reinforced concrete members) to the local deformation demand, and may hence be termed deformation-caleulation based design. Stength is related to a force-based design procedure, with specified force-reduction factors. Local deformation demands, typically in the form of member end rotations or curvatures are determined by state-of-the-art analytical tools, such as inelastic pushover analyses or inelastic time-history analyses. ‘Transverse reinforcement details are then determined from state-or-the-art relationships benveen transverse reinforcement details and local deformation demand, such as those presented in Chapter 4 Initial work on this procedure was related to bridge structures! and followed by work on reinforced concrete buildings("!, Many additional variants of the approach have recently been developed [e.g. B1, K1, P7]. In the variant suggested by Panagiatokos and Fardis!™™ the structure is initially designed for strength to requirements of direct combination of gravity load plus a serviceability level of seismic force, using elastic Per, comm. T-Paulay32 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacememt-Based Seismic Design of Structures analysis methods. The designed structure is then analysed using advanced techniques such as inclastic time-history analysis or inelastic pushover analysis to determine the required transverse reinforcement details. It is not clear that this is an efficient design approach when response to the full design-level earthquake is considered, since inelastic time- history analyses of frame buildings by Pinto et al | 51 have indicated that member inelastic rotations are rather insensitive to whether gravity loads arc incorporated in the analysis, or ignored. An alternative procedure for combination of gravity and seismic loads is suggested in Section 3.7. The approaches described in this section have the potential of producing structures with uniform risk of collapse, but not with uniform risk of damage. 1.4.3 Deformation-Specification Based Design Recently a number of design approaches have been developed where the aim is to design structures so that they achieve a specified deformation state under the design-level earthquake, rather than achieve a displacement that is less than a specified displacement limit. ‘These approaches appear more philosophically satisfying than those of the preceding two sections. This is because damage can be directly related to deformation. Hence designing structures to achieve a specified displacement limit implies designing for 4 specified risk of damage, which is compatible with the concept of uniform risk applied to determining the design level of seismic excitation. It thus means that different structures designed to this approach will (jdeally) have the same tisk of damage, rather than the variable risk associated with current design approaches, a8 discussed in Section 1.3. Using state-of-the-art detailing/deformation relationships, structures with uniform tisk of collapse, as well as of damage can theoretically be achieved. Different procedures have been developed to achieve this aim, The most basic division between them is on the basis of stiffness characterization for design. Some methods [e.g Al, C2, St], adopt the initial pre-yield elastic stiffness, as in conventional force-based design. Generally some iteration is required, modifying initial stiffness and strength, to achieve the desired displacement, as discussed in relation to the approach suggested by Paulay in Section 1.4.1, These approaches also rely on existing relationships between elastic and inelastic displacement, such as the equal-displacement, or equal- energy approximations. It is shown in Section 4,9.2(g) that these approximations have been based on invalid clastic damping assumptions. “The second approach utilizes the secant stiffness to maximum displacement, based on the Substitute Structure characterization! and an equivalent elastic representation of hysteretic damping at maximum response (e.g. P8, K2, P9|. Generally these methods require little or no iteration to design a structure to achieve the specified displacement, and are hence known as Direct Displacement-Basea Design (DDBD) methods. The different stiffness assumptions of the two approaches are illustrated for a typical maximum hysteretic force-displacement response in Fig.1.19, where Kj and K, are the initial and secant stiffness to maximum response respectively. It will be recalled that one of the principal problems with force-based seismic design is that reliance on initial stiffnessChapter 1. Introduction: The Need for Displacement-Based Seismic Design 33 results in illogical force distribution between different structural elements. It will be shown in Chapter 3 that this problem disappears when the secant stiffness is used. Displacement First cycle ‘Subsequent cycle Fig.1.19 Initial and Secant Stiffness Characterization of Hysteretic Response ‘The way in which hysteretic energy dissipation is handled also varies between the methods, Two main classes of procedure can be identified — those that use inelastic spectra, and those that use equivalent viscous damping. Inclastic spectra are generally related to acceleration, though there is no inherent reason why inelastic displacement spectra cannot be generated (sce Section 3.4.3(¢)). They are generated by single-degree-of- freedom analyses of structures of different initial elastic periods, using a specified hysteresis rule, and 2 specified maximum ductility. Since the ductility demand cannot generally be predicted prior to the analyses, the analyses are carried out using a range of specified force-reduction factors, and the spectrum for a given ductility factor is found by interpolation within the results of the analyses. Alternatively, simplified relationships between force-reduction factor and ductility that vary between equal-displacement at long periods, and equal energy at short periods are directly generated. An example based on this approach, using the basic EC8™ acceleration spectrum for firm ground and peak ground acceleration of 0.4g is shown in Fig.1.20(a). As will be apparent from the discussion related to Fig. 1.18, different inelastic spectra would need to be generated for different structural systems and materials that exhibited different hysteretic characteristics. Methods for generation of inelastic spectra are discussed in Section 3.4.3(e). The second alternative is to represent ductility and energy dissipation capacity as equivalent viscous damping, using relationships based on inelastic time-history analyses. This procedure is only appropriate when the secant stiffness to maximum response is ased in the design process. The procedure for design using displacement spectra requires little or no iteration and hence is termed Direct Dighlacement-based Seismic Design (DDBD).34 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures ‘The method is discussed in detail in Chapter 3. Aa example of a spectral displacement set for different damping levels is shown for the displacement spectrum of EC8, firm ground, 0.4g PGA, in Fig.1.20(b). It will be evident chat a single spectral set, covering the expected tange of equivalent viscous damping, will apply for all hysteretic characteristics, provided the relationships between equivalent viscous damping, ductility, and hysteretic rule have been pre-calibrated by inelastic time-history analyses. It is also possible, as discussed above, to express the displacement spectra in terms of ductility, rather than equivalent viscous damping, in a form analogous to that used for the acceleration spectra of Fig.1.20(a). It will be shows in Chapter 3 thac inclastic displacement spectra can be generated using precisely the same data and analyses used to gencrate the rvles relating ductility to damping for a given hysteresis rule, and that the approaches are then directly equivalent. The disadvantage of this approach is that inelastic spectra must be generated for each hysteresis rule, and the determination of equivalent system ductility requires careful consideration % O5 z = < 2 04 g g = § Z g 03 < a o2 i Boo a 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Period T (seconds) Period T (seconds) (a) Inelastic Acceleration Spectra (b) Damped Displacement Spectra Fig.1.20 Alternative Spectral Representations of Ductility for EC8 Firm Ground, PGA=0.4g. 1.4.4. Choice of Design Approach Comprehensive presentation and comparison of different displacement-based designs methods is available in two recent documents". 4, Apparent in these and other recent documeats is a plethora of different nomenclature to describe the new design processes. This includes the use of “Displacement-Based Design”, “Limit.states Design", Performance Based Design” and “Consequence Based Design” amongst others. In our view, all attempt generally the same goal: thar of providing satisfactory displacement solutions to seismic design problems, and so the term “Displacenent-Based Design” will be used exclusively in this book.Chapter 1. Introduction: The Need for splacement-Based Seismic Design 38 It is also our view that the Direct Displacement Based Design approach is the most intellectually satisfying, and best equipped to address the deficiencies of conventional force-based design, which were presented in some detail in Section 1.3. This approach has also been developed in rather more complete form than other methods, and has been applied to a wider category of structures. Finally, we claim that the method is simpler to apply, and better suited t0 incorporation in design codes. Because of the simplicity of generation, and wider applicability, representation of hysteretic energy absorption by equivalent viscous damping will be preferred to the use of inelastic spectra. ‘As a consequence of these considerations, the theoretical basis of the DDBD approach is developed in detail in Chapter 3. This is preceded in Chapter 2 by a short discussion of relevant aspects relating to seismicity and intensity characterisation, while Chapter 4 covers analytical tools appropriate, or necessary, for Direct Displacement- Based Design. Chapters 5 to 12 describe application of the method to different types of structural systems, while Chapter 13 discusses application of the DDBD procedures to assessment of existing structures. Finally, Chapter 14 presents the design method for buildings in a typical “Code plus Commentary” format, to be used as a possible format for future codification2 SEISMIC INPUT FOR DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN 2.1 INTRODUCTION: CHARACTERISTICS OF ACCELEROGRAMS Our understanding of the response of structures to earthquakes, and our design methodologies, either force-based or displacement-based, are critically dependent on recordings of strong ground motion by accelerographs. Accelerograms are recordings of ground acceleration made by accelerographs during earthquakes, and the earliest records date back to the 1930's. Early accelerograms were recorded in analogue form on photographic film, and required digitization to put them in a form where their characteristics could be examined. Accuracy was limited, and the dynamic characteristics of the accelerographs themselves meant that useful data for preparing response spectra could be extracted only up 10 periods of about two to three seconds. In the past twenty years, digital accelerographs, with much higher resolution and longer range of period integrity have become increasingly common, and the quality of data from recorded earthquakes is steadily improving as more digital records become available. This text will not attempt to present seismological information about source mechanisms, physical and temporal distributions of carthquakes, atterwation relationships and modern developments in source modelling. The interested reader is encouraged to read any of the many specialized seismological texts (e.g. $7, K8]. The treatment here will be limited to information of specific relevance for displacement-based seismic design. Nevertheless, a brief treatment of some of the common terms and a similarly brief discussion of the characteristics of accelerograms is warranted. ‘The vast majority of earthquakes are initiated on or adjacent to tectonic plate boundaries by the slow relative movement of the plates, These are termed interplate earthquakes. Intraplate earthquakes, occurring far away from plate boundaries are less common, but nevertheless can be significant for specific sites (for example the New Madrid region of the central USA, Charleston, South Carolina, USA and various parts of Australia), The two basic terms used to provide a measure of the importance of a particular earthquake are the magnitude and intensity. The magnitude, normally related to the Richter scalel?4l is a measure of the energy release at the fault zone, while the intensity is a measure of the local significance of ground motion at a given site, as described by locally 3738 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsiy. Digplacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures recorded accelerograms, or by subjective scales, such as che Modified Mercalli scale. The magnitude depends on the length and transverse dimension of fault that fractures during the earthquake, and on the average stress-drop in the rock immediately adjacent co the fatle, resulting from rupture. A magnitude 5.0 -5.5 earthquake may result from faulting over a length of a few km, while a magnitude 8 earthquake may involve fault slip over a length as much as 400 km. The energy release is related to magnitude in proportion to 105, implying that the energy released increases by a factor of 32 for each unit increase of magnitude, Earthquakes wich low magnitude occur frequently, and those of large magnitude accur less frequently. Averaged globally the relationship between magnitude and annual probability of occurrence agrees well with a Gumbel extreme type f distributionl"!, However, this relationship becomes less reliable as the area sampled reduces in size. The concept of a stationary value for the annual probability of occurrence of small to moderate earthquakes near a given site is generally reasonable, but for lergee earthquakes, particularly where a site is affecced predominantly by earthquakes on a single fault, this assumption may be less valid. Immediately after a major earthquake and its related aftershocks have ended, the probability of major fault movement of the same section of fault is significantly reduced, potentially reducing the major contribution to Jocal seismic hazard. An example is the stretch of plate boundary along the coast of Chile, where major carthquakes tend to occur on specific segments of the fault at rather regular time intervals, and with comparatively uniform magnitudes. This of course will not be the case with smaifer earthquakes, and even for large earthquakes where fracture of one segment of a fault may create additional stress on the adjacent section, increasing the probability of fracture of this section in the near future. An example is the Anatolian fault in Turkey, and the subduction boundary between the Nazca and South American tectonic plates where fault rupture tends to occur on successive adjacent segments of the fault in a comparatively tegular sequence. Nevertheless, it is common in seismic hazard analysis to assume that the Jocal isk is time-invariant Intensity is dependent on magnitude of the causative earthquake, distance from the fault zone, mechanism and direction of rupture propagation, and ground conditions at the site at which intensity is observed, and between the fault zone and the site. There is, ‘no exact means of measuring intensity, since it is generally assessed through the effect that the earthquake has at a given site on the built environment. This has typically been defined in the past through descriptive scales such as the modified Mercalli: scale") Attempts to relate such scales that are dependent on observations of damage to different structural types and materials, to such measurable quantities as peak ground accelesation or velocity have not been particularly successful, as different ground motion quantities have different significance to different structural types. Thus peak ground acceleration may be important to structures that have brittle failure modes, but may be of litte importance to a flexible well-confined structure. Duration of shaking may be a key parameter for a flexible structure without adequate confinement No two accelerogeams are identical, even when the earthquakes originate in the same part of a fault, with similar magnitudes, and the site where the accelerograms are recorded is the same. Some of the differences and similarities between accelerograms are illustratedChapter 2. Seismic Input for Displacement-Based Design 39 by the three examples of Fig.2.1. The first of these is from the moderate Whittier earthquake of 1987 (Mw = 6.0), recorded in analogue form at a distance of 15km from the rupture, The second is from the Mw = 6.7 Northridge earthquake of 1994, recorded at the Sylmar site, at a distance of 6km ftom the fault rupture, and the final record is from the Mw = 6.9 1995 Kobe earthquake, recorded immediately adjacent to the faul. None of the records shows the complete duration of recorded motion, but all include the section of greatest interest, including before, during and immediately after the strong ground motion. All three records are plotted to the same time and acceleration scales. The record from the smaller Whittier earthquake has a comparatively short period of strong ground motion compared with the other two records, the peak ground acceleration (PGA) is lower, and it appears that high frequency components are more dominant, On the other hand, all records show an initial period of comparatively high frequency/low amplitude acceleration before the onset of the strong-motion period of response, corresponding to the time period between acrival of the P and $ waves. Both the Sylmar and Kobe records show high amplitude/low frequency pulses in the initial stages of the strong ground motion, corresponding to a focusing effect related to the mechanism of energy release and the local geology, known as a velocity pulse. In the case of the Kobe record, this is primarily a result of forward directivity where the fault fractures over a short period of time from one end to another, focusing the energy in the downstream direction, In the Sylmar record, the reasons are apparently more complex, involving basin edge effects!. Ir is also of some interest to examine the time sequence of ground displacement, found by double integration of the acceleration records. These are shown for the same three records in Fig.2.2, and are plotted to the same time scales, but with a factor of 30 difference between the displacement scales of the Whittier and the other two records. It should be noted that integration of the acceleration records to obtain displacement records is inevitably subject to some error. Small systematic errors in the acceleration record can lead to large errors in the displacement record, causing the apparent displacement to drift in one direction. Base-line corrections are typically carried out to remove this drift, but the accuracy of such corrections is uncertain, It will be apparent from comparison of Figs.2.1 and 2.2 that the differences between the displacement records are more pronounced than between the acceleration records. Although the PGAs for the three records only vary by a factor of about 2.5, the peak ground displacements (PGD) vary by a factor of about 25. All three records exhibit much less high frequency content in displacement terms than in acceleration terms, but the Whittier record is significantly richer in high frequency components than the other nwo records. The two more intense records appear to show dominant long-period ground displacement response. In the case of the Sylmar record, this appears to correspond to a period of about 3 to 4 seconds. Intensity, for a given earthquake, decreases with distance from the fault, Attenzacion relationships are used to describe this reduction in intensity. However, there is a large spatial variation in recorded ground motions between different sites at equal distances from the epicentre of an earthquake, Attenuation relationships are averages found fromPriestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 085 oa Acceleration (xg) ; S L (2) Whittier Earthquake, My=6.0, 1987 08 pg 0 4 8 2 6 2 Time (see) 085 044 Acceleration (x8) i oa (©) Sylmar Record, Northridge Earthquake, My=6.7, 1994 08 J 4 o 4 8 2 6 2 Time (see) 085 Aceleraton() _ joi (©) Kobe Earthquake, M 084 ° 4 8 2 16 20 “Time (sec) Fig.2.1 Selected Time-Windows of Different AccelerogramsChapter 2, Seismic Input for Displacement-Based Design 4 (8) Whittier Record My6.0, 1987 10 5 Time (see) Displacement (em) oo (b) Sylmar Record, 1994 Northridge Earthquake, My “30 St oo? o 5 0 5 2» Time (see) 30 24 Displacement (em) L earthquake 1995, My=6.9 | o 5 ny 5 ™ Fig.2.2 Selected Time-Windows of Ground Displacement ftom the Accelerograms of Fig.2.142 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures recorded accelerograms, and typically do not account for many of the factors known to influence intensity. Somerville et al’; have noted that the variations in ground motion, which are particularly apparent at periods greater than one second (and hence are of particular importance to structural design — whether force-based or displacement-based) “can usually be attributed to features of the earthquake source such as the orientation of the fault plane, the style of faulting (strike-slip or dip-slip), and the evolution and distribution of slip on the faule plane”, Thus it is reasonable to assume that the current uncertainty associated with site intensity predicted by probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA) will be reduced as site and source modelling improves. A number of the factors affecting spatial variaion of ground motion from a given earthquake are discussed in [S5] in relation to the Los Angeles Basin, The folowing notes provide 2 summary of the discussion in [S5]: Near fault rupture directivity pulse: Near fault recordings from recent earthquakes indicate that ground motion is dominated by a large long-period narrow-band pulse in the fault-normal motion, whose petiod increases with magnitude! This pulse may have a dominant period of about 1 sec. for earthquakes of magnitude My = 6.7 - 7.0, and as high as 4 sec. for earthquakes of magnitude My = 7.2 - 7.6 Reverse faulting earthquakes: Ground motions from reverse faulting earthquakes are systematically stronger than ground motions from strike-slip earthquakes. The influence may be as much as 20-40%, Buried faulting earthquakes: Ground motions from shallow earthquakes that do not break the ground surface are systematically stronger than from earthquakes that result in surface faulting. Again the influence may be in the order of 20 40%, The 1989 Loma Prieta, and the 1994 Northridge earthquakes are examples of shallow earthquakes without surface faulting. Ground motion from lange surtace faulting earthquakes: Ground motions from earthquakes that produce large surface faulting (e.g, the Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan) tend to be significantly lower than predicted by current ground motion models, and substantially lower than ground motions from buried faulting earthquakes. Basin effects: Current codes modify design ground motions on the basis of the shear-wave velocity in the upper 30m of soil. This is only appropriate for rather short- period motion, as at periods greater than one second, seismic wave lengths are much longer than 30m, and response is likely to be influenced by soil properties at depths of hundreds, and perhaps thousands of metres. Basin edge effects can also be significant, with constructive interference between waves entering from the edge and from the basin below, particularly when the basin has steep fault-controlled margins. Recently developed hybrid simulation procedures‘! are capable of incorporating all of the above features in calculating broadband ground motion time-histories for prescribed earthquake scenarios. PSHAs based on these techniques are already more reliable than those based on attenuation relationships, and it can confidently be expected that improved characterization of seismicity of specific sites will continue. Ir is likely chat future developments will be less towards improved accuracy of code spectra, thanChapter 2. Seismic Input for Displacement-Based Design 43 towards improved mapping of local characteristics defining seismicity, with spectral shape as well as spectral ordinates being a mapped variable. 2.2. RESPONSE SPECTRA 2.2.1 Response Spectra from Accelerograms ‘The fundamental information extracted from accelerograms or PSHA’s for use in design is typically expressed in the form of response spectra, which represent the peak response of single-degree-of-freedom oscillators of different periods of vibration to the accelerogram. The quantities most commonly represented in response spectra are absolute acceleration (with respect to “at rest” conditions), and relative displacement (with respect to instantaneous ground displacement), though relative velocity response spectra are also sometimes computed. The procedure is represented in Fig.2.3 where five different SDOF oscillators are depicted in Fig.2.3(a) subjected to the earthquake ground motion ag, ‘The peak absolute acceleration and relative displacements recorded during response to the accelerograms are plotted against the period of the structure in Fig.2.3(b). Normally response spectra provide information on the peak elastic response for a specified elastic damping ratio (typically 5%), and are plotted against the elastic period. It is, however, also possible to plot inelastic spectra related to specified displacement ductility levels. In this case the period may represent the initial elastic period, or the efiective period at peak displacement demand, related to the effective stiffness acceleration acceleration displacement TT T2) 13) T4 OTS Period (a) SDOF Oscillators (b) Elastic Response Spectra Fig.2.3 Formation of Response Spectra Examples of elastic acceleration and displacement spectra for the chree accelerograms represented in Figs.2.1 and 2.2 are shows ia Fig,2.4, The spectra are shown for four levels of elastic damping, expressed as ratios to the critical damping. Some interesting conclusions can be drawa from examination of these figures. The Whittier accelerogram has a PGA of about 0.4g (see Fig.2.1(a)), and a peak response acceleration of more than44 Priesdey, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 085 — 3 é =0.05, ei. 2 16 0.10 g 06 3 01s a & E12 020 yo = g Fos Boa z an 5044 & B ° T TT 1 ° T TTT 4 o 12 3 5 o 203 4 8 Period (seconds) Spectral acceleration (xg) Period (seconds) (a) Whittier (My=6.0) 8 3 L Spectral displacement (cm) 8 & L 1 Period (seconds) Lit Spegtral acceleration (xg) (b) Sylmar (Northri 8 $s 8 8 botiii Spectral displacement (cm) i 2 3 Period (seconds) idge,1994; My =6.7) 4005 3 Period (secands) (©) Kobe (My= 9) Period (seconds) Fig.2.4 Acceleration and Displacement Elastic Response Spectra for Accelerograms of Figs.2.1 and 2.2Chapter 2. Seismic Input for Displacement-Based Design 45 0.8g at a period of about 0.25 sec. This might be considered to represent reasonably strong ground motion, since design PGA’s and peak response accelerations for high- seismicity regions are often in the range 0.4g and 1.g respectively. However, when we examine the displacement spectra from the same accelerogram, we find that the peak response displacement is less than 20mm (0.79in}, for a damping level of 5% of critical damping, Thus, if 2 given structure is capable of sustaining this very minor peak response displacement within the elastic range of response, no damage would be expected, despite the high peak response acceleration. To put this in perspective, information provided in Section 4.4.6 indicates that for reinforced concrete frame buildings of typical proportions, effective yield displacements for two- and four-storey buildings might be approximately 45mm (1.8 ia) and 90mm (3.6in) respectively — significantly larger than the peak displacement response for this accelerogram, It is apparent that only very stiff and brittle structures would be expected ¢o be at risk from an accelerograms similar to the Whittier record. This is in agreement with the recorded damage in the Whittier earthquake. Another point of interest is apparent from Fig. 24(a). Information from the acceleration response spectra cannot be extracted for periods of T > 1.5 sec since the response accelerations are so low. The displacement spectre provide much mare readily accessible information for the medium to long period range, but indicate surprisingly regular displacements at periods greater than about 2 seconds. In fact this is false daca, since the accelerogram was recorded by an analogue, rather than digital accelerograph, and a filter at 3 seconds was used to determine the displacement response. Bommer et all have shown that the roll-off associated with filtering makes the response spectra unreliable for periods greater than about 2/3rds of the filter period. Thus the data in the displacement spectra of Fig,2.4(a) are meaningless for periods greater chan about 2 sec The Northridge Sylmar acceleration spectra of Fig.2.4(b) show peak acceleration response for 5% damping of about 2.7g — about three times the response for the Whictier earthquake. The displacement spectra, which resuit from a digital accelerograph, and are reliable up to significantly longer periods, indicate peak displacement response of about 800mm (31.5in) ~ more than 40 times that of the Whittier record, Clearly this record would be expected to have much greater potential for damage than the Whittier record Note that after reaching a peak response at about 3 sec., displacement response decreases at higher periods. The Kobe record of Fig.2.4(0) also has high peak displacement response, and somewhat similar characteristics to the Sylmar record, though the peak displacement response appears to occur at a reduced period, 2.2.2 Design Elastic Spectra (a) Elastic Acceleration Spectra: Until recenuy, design spectra for seismic design of seructures were typically specified in design codes as a spectral shape related t0 soil conditions, modified by a design PGA, reflecting the assessed seismicity of the region where the structure was to be built. Typically only acceleration spectra were provided, and46 Priestley, Cah and Kowaisky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures mapping of the variation of PGA with location was coarse. This is still the case with many seismic design codes. Recently, more detailed information has been provided in different design codes, such asathe IBCI4 of the USA, and the new Italian scismic design codel*", where spectral acceleration ordinaces at two or three key periods are provided for a given site for different return periods. Typically this is provided through a computerized data base, enabling design data to be extracted based on site longitude and latitude. However, this is typically provided only for acceleration response spectra; peak displacement response is not yet available in many design codes. “The typical form of elastic acceleration response spectra is illustrated in Fig.2.5(a). The shape is smoothed, reflecting the average of many accelerograms, and is based on probabilistic estimates of the contribution to seismic risk of a larger number of smaller earthquakes, and a reduced number of larger earthquakes. The result is a spectrum where the acceleration ordinates have uniform probability of occurrence for a given return period (ee Section 2.2.2(c) below). The spectrum tises from the PGA at T= 0 to a maximum value ata period Ty (typically about 0.15 seconds). For soft soils, codes typically amplify the PGA above the value applicable for firm ground, or rock. ‘The plateau typically has a response acceleration of about 2.5 to 2.75 times the PGA, The acceleration plateau continues to a period of Tp, the value of which depends on the ground conditions in the near-surface layers, with larger values applying to soft soils, as indicated in Fig;2.5(a). The value of Ty also typically depends on the magnitude of the earthquake, as is apparent from Fig.2.4, with smaller values being appropriate for earthquakes of lower magnitude, For periods greater than Tp the response acceleration reduces, typically in proportion to T, implying 2 constant-velocity response. In many codes this constant-velocity part of the spectrum continues indefinitely. More advanced codes specify an upper limit of T= Te for the constant-velocicy range, above which the acceleration decreases in proportion to 7. A completely opposite trend is apparent in some less advanced codes, where a constant plateau corresponding to a minimum specified response acceleraion is sometimes defined. This is shown by che dash-dot line in Fig,2.5(a). The intent of such a provision is to ensure that the lateral strength of a structure is nor less than a code-specified minimum value. However, this is better controlled by limits on P-A moments (see Section 3.8). As discussed below, when che logic of the minimum acceleration plateau of the acceleration spectrum is translated to equivalent displacements, impossible trends result. “The general form of the clastic acceleration spectrum can be defined by che following equations: 0 2000 Mans e é J 1600 5 1200 = 800 a Mono = 400 Z M=65 & M=60 o 2 4 6 8 w Period (seconds) (@) r= 10 km rey 1600 4 § 1200 4 g Mens soo | 404 a0 MEGS o 2 4 6 8 Period (seconds) (0) c= 20 kon 52000), T1600 5 § 1200 4 z = soo a M=7s = 04 a & 4 M o 2 4 6 8 w Period (seconds) (r= 40 km Fig.2.7 Influence of Magnitude and Distance on 5% Damped Displacement Spectra for Firm Ground Using Eqs.(2.3) and (2.5) [after F6] 5152 Priestley, Calvi ancl Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures based design in a form similar to the maps of spectral accelerations at key defined periods seems likely to end up with mapped corner periods and peak response displacements in a data base related to GPS coordinates. Preliminary results from this study indicate that both the corner period and the peak elastic response period given by Eqs.(2.3) and (2.5) respectively may be revised upwards by approximately 20%. Figure 2.8 compares the different equations for corner period as a function of magnitude. It is clear that the current EC8 equation is severely non-conservative, and there are significant differences berween the NEHRP equation, and the equation determined from the work by Faccioli et alli, It appears that the work in progress in Italy, using a world-wide data-base of some 1700 digital records, and shown tentatively in Fig2.8 by chree dots interpreted from data supplied by Paccioli® may lie somewhere between Eq,(2.3) and (2.6) Figure 2.9 shows average displacement spectra interpreted by Faccioli et al from the world-wide data base of 1700 digital records for earthquakes of magnitude 6.4>~-~ £4.29) gos Tees) * 024 »f—.————-. , 0 01 02, 030d Damping Ratio Fig.2.12 Damping Modifiers to Elastic Spectral Displacements60 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures ce) | | Spectral Displacement (em) ° 1 2 3 4 Period (seconds) Fig. 2.13 Comparison of Spectral Analysis Results and Eq.(2.8) for a Suite of 14 Spectrum-Compatible Accelerograms might be appropriate. Ic will be seen that Eg.(2.11) is the same as Eq.(2.8) but with @= 0.25 instead of 0.50. The effect of this modification is to increase the value of Rg compared with the value applying for “normal” accclerograms. The seduction factor resulting from Eq.(2.11) is induded ia Fig.212 for comparison with the other expressions, and Fig.2.14 compares the dimensionless displacement modifiers for the 1998 EC8 expression (Eq.2.8) and the expression suggested for near-field forward directivity conditions (Ig,(2.11)). ‘The data in Fig.2.14 are based on the shape of the displacement spectrum for firm ground plotted in Fig. 2.5(a). Some qualified support for 5g.2.11) is available in work by Bommer and Mendis who provide additional discussion of this topic. Their work indicates that the scaling factors may be period- dependent, which is not currently considered in design It will be shown in Section 3.4.6 that use of displacement spectra for near-field forward-directivity effects results in a requirement for higher base-shear strength when compared t0 requirements for “normal” conditions. This requirement has been recognized for a number of years, in particular since the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and is incorporated empirically in recent force based codes [e.g. X4, X8}. This is an cxample of conditions where it has been recognized that existing displacement-equivalence rules are inadequate in force-based design. With displacement-based design, the influence of near-field effects are directly incorporated in the design, provided the reduced influence of damping (and ductility) in modifying displacement response is recognized by graphs such as Fig.2.14(b),Chapter 2. Seismic Input for Displacement-Based Design 61 i e S ® ° a © a ° 5 ° 5 ([email protected])) ° ° nN (Eq.(2.11)) Relative Displacement A,./A,., Relative Displacement A,./A,., a 0 a o 4 2 3 4 5 o 4.2 3 4 Period T (seconds) Period T (seconds) (a) "Normal" Conditions (b) Velocity Pulse Conditions Fig.2.14 ECS (1998) Damping Reduction Factor, and Tentative Factor for Forward Directivity Effects As discussed earlier in this chapter, displacement spectra for design are in a developmental stage, with rather rapid progress being made by scismologists. The same statement can be applied to developments in definition of acceleration spectra. It is probable that displacement spectra, and modifiers for damping, period and ductility will change from the tentative values suggested in this Chapter. However, this should not be taken to reduce the utility of the work presented in subsequent chapters. The approaches developed are independent of the displacement spectra, and several different shapes will be used in different examples, to illustrate the flexibility of the direct displacement-based design method. It should also be noted that the material presented in this chapter is at least as valid as acceleration spectra currently used for force-based design (see p53), Taken together with the extensive research described in Chapters 3 and 4 on relationships between ductility and damping, the procedures developed are significantly less susceptible to errors than resulting from current force-based design, and much better adapted to achieving specified limit states 2.3 CHOICE OF ACCELEROGRAMS FOR TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS, The most reliable method at present for determining, or verifying the response of a designed structure to the design level of intensity is by use of non-linear time-history analysis. The selection and characteristics of accelerograms to be used for this requires careful consideration, The reader is referred to Section 4.9.2(h) where this is discussed in some detail.3 DIRECT DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN: FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 3.1. INTRODUCTION ‘The design procedure known as Direct Displacement-Based Design (DDBD) has been developed over the past ten yearsiP8”7I0") wich the aim of mitigating the deficiencies in current force-based design, discussed in some detail in Chapter 1. ‘The fundamental difference from force-based design is that DDBD characterizes the structure to be designed by a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) representation of performance at peak displacement response, rather than by its initial elastic characteristics. ‘This is based on the Substitue Structure approach pioneered by others\'S2 The fundamental philosophy behind the design approach is to design a structure which would achieve, rather than be bounded by, a given performance limit state under a given seismic intensity. This would result in essentially uniform-risk structures, which is philosophically compatible with the uniform-risk seismic spectra incosporated in design codes. The design procedure determines the strength required at designated plastic hinge locations to achieve the design aims in terms of defined displacement objectives. It must then be combined with capacity design procedures to ensure that plastic hinges occur only where intended, and that non-ductile modes of inelastic deformation do not developl”!, These capacity design procedures must be calibrated 0 the displacement- based design approach. ‘This is discussed further in general terms in Sections 3.9 and 4.5, and in specific structure-related terms in the appropriate structural chapters. It will be shown that capacity design requirements are generally less onerous than those for force- based designs, resulting in more economical structures. ‘This chapter deals with fundamental aspects of the approach that are common to all materials and structural systems. Subsequent chapters deal with detailed application to different structural systems, including verification by design/analysis examples. 3.2. BASIC FORMULATION OF THE METHOD, ‘The design method is illustrated with reference to Fig.3.1, which considers a SDOF representation of a frame building (Fig-3.1(a)), though the basic fundamentals apply to all structural types, The bi-linear envelope of the lateral force-displacement response of the SDOF representation is shown in Fig.3.1(b). An initial elastic stiffness Kj is followed by a 6364 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures post yield stiffness of Kj While force-based seismic design characterizes a structure in terms of elastic, pre-yield, properties (initial stiffness Kj, clastic damping), DDBD characterizes the structure by secant stiffness K, at maximum displacement Ag (Fig3.1()), and a level of equivalent viscous damping representative of the combined elastic damping and the hysteretic energy absorbed during inelastic response. Thus, as shown in Fig. 3.1(0), for a given level of ductility demand, a structural steel frame building with compact members will be assigned a higher level of equivalent viscous damping than a reinforced concrete bridge designed for the same level of ductility demand, as a consequence of “fatter” hysteresis loops (see Fig. (a) SDOF Simulation 028 5 05 sap 2 od S £ 0.15 503 2 g Boa 3 5 e a a Displacement Duetility Period (seconds) (©) Equivalent damping vs. ductility (d) Design Displacemene Spectra Fig. 3.1 Fundamentals of Direct Displacement-Based DesignChapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 6 r ~ 3 (a) Idealized Steel (b) Reinforced Concrete _(c) Friction Slider Frame Response Frame Response Response Fores ro F 8 (d) Bridge Column with (e) Non-linear Elastic _() Unsymmetrical High Axial Load with P-A Strength Fig.3.2 Common Structural Force-Displacement Hysteresis Response Shapes Wich the design displacement at maximum response determined, as discussed in Section 3.4.1, and the corresponding damping estimated from the expected ductility demand (Section 3.4.3), the effective period J; at maximum displacement response, measured at the effective height He (Fig.3.1(a)) can be read froma set of displacement spectra for different levels of damping, as shown in the example of Fig.3.1(d). The effective stiffness K, of the equivalent SDOF system at maximum displacement can be found by inverting the normal equation for the period of a SDOF oscillator, given by Eq, (1.6), to provide K,=4n'm,/T? Gl) where me is the effective mass of the structure participating in the fundamental mode of vibration (see Section 3.5.3). From Fig.3.1(b), the design lateral force, which is also the design base shear force is thus 2)66 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures ‘The design concept is thus very simple. Such complexity that exists relates to determination of the “substitute structure” characteristics, the determination of the design displacement, and development of design displacement spectra. Careful consideration is however also necessary for the distribution of the design base shear force Vpase to the different discretized mass locations, and for the analysis of the structure under the distributed seismic force. These will be discussed later. The formulation of DDBD described above with reference to Figs 3.1(¢) and (d) has the merit of characterizing the effects of ductility on seismic demand in a way that is independent of the hysteretic characteristics, since the damping/ductility relationships are separately generated for different hysteretic rules. It is comparatively straightforward to generate the influence of different levels of damping on the displacement response spectra, (see Section 2.2.3) and hence figures similar to Fig. 3.1(d) can be generated for new seismic intensities, or new site-specific seismicity using standard techniques!6) It is also possible, however, to combine the damping/ductility relationship for a specific hysteresis rule with the seismic displacement spectral demand in a single inelastic displacement spectra set, where the different curves directly relate to displacement ductility demand, as illustrated in the example of Fig.3.3 Disp. splacement (mm), Bo © Oo 1 2 3 4 5 Period (seconds) Fig.3.3. Example of an Inelastic Displacement Spectra Set Related to Effective Period for a Specific Hysteresis Rule With the seismic demand characterized in this fashion, the design procedure is slightly simplified, as one step in the process is removed. The inelastic displacement spectra set is entered with the design displacement (to be discussed subsequently) and the design effective period is read off for the level of the design displacement ductility. Although this is a slightly simplified procedure, it requires that inclastic displacement spectra be generated for different hysteresis rules for each new seismic intensity considered. Since this is a rather lengthy process, we will use the formulation of Fig.3.1 in the examples of68 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures © Level 3: Life safe. Life safety is essentially protected, damage is moderate to extensive * Level 4: Near collapse. Life safety is at risk, damage is severe, structural collapse is prevented, ‘The relationship berween the four levels of seismic excitation, and the annual probabilities of exceedence of each level will differ according to local seismicity and structural importance, as discussed in Section 2.2.2(c). In California, the following levels are defined th © EQ: 87% probability in 50 years: 33% of EQ HI © EQ: 50% probability in 50years: 50% of EQUI © EQ-IE: approximately 10% probability in 50 years. © EQ-IV: approximately 2% probability in 50 years: 150% of EQUI, ‘The relationship between these performance levels and earthquake design levels is summarized in Fig3.4. In Fig.34 the line “Basic Objective” identifies a series of performance levels for normal structures. The lines “Essential Objective” and “Safety Critical Objective” relate performance level to seismic intensity for nwo structural classes of increased importance, such as lifeline structures, and hospitals. As is seen in Fig.3.4, with “Safety Critical Objective”, operation performance must be maintained even under the EQUIV level of seismicity Although the Vision 2000 approach is useful conceptually, it can be argued that it requires some modification, and that it provides an incomplete description of performance. The performance levels do not include a “damage control” performance level, which is clearly of economic importance. For example, it has been noted that although the performance in the 1995 Kobe earthquake of reinforced concrete frame ‘System Performance Level Fully Near Operationat OPerational Life Safe Frequent | O [ae (43 year) Unacceptable Performance 4 Occasional oe ew contraction) 2 (72 year) | Rare (475 year) Very Rare (970 year) Fig. 3.4 Relationship between Earthquake Design Level and Performance Level (after Vision 2000 |02!)Chapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 69 buildings designed in accordance with the weak-beam/strong-column philosophy satisfied the “Life safe” performance level, the cost of repairing the many locations of inelastic action, and hence of localized damage, was often excessive, and uneconomic!), ‘The performance level implicit in most current seismic design codes is, in fact, a damage control performance level. Further, it has been argued that residual drift, which is not considered in the Vision 2000 classification, should be considered an important measure of performance!” In order to better understand the relationship between structural response levels and performance levels, it is instructive to consider the relationship between member and structure limit states! 3.3.1. Section Limit States (a) Cracking limit state: For concrete and masonry members the onset of cracking generally marks the point for a significant change in stiffness, as shown in the typical moment-curvature relationship of Fig,3.5(a). For critical members expected to respond in the inelastic range to the design-level earthquake, this limit state has little significance, as itis likely to be exceeded in minor seismic excitation, even lower than that corresponding, to the EQ level of Vision 2000. The limit state may, however, be important for members that are expected to respond essentially elastically to the design-level earthquake. For example, the appropriate stiffness to be used for a prestressed bridge superstructure will depend on whether or not the cracking limit state is exceeded. (Q) First-yield limit state: second significant change in stiffness of concrete and masonry members occurs at the onset of yield ia the extreme tension reinforcement. ‘This is also the case in structural steel members. ‘This limit state is useful for defining the appropriate clastic stiffness to be used in analyses of duciile systems using simplified hysteresis rules, such as biclinear response, shown in Fig.3.5(a) by the dashed line. (c) Spalling limit state: With concrete or masonry sections, the onset of spalling of the cover concrete or masonry may be a significant limit state, particularly for unconfined sections, or sections subjected to high levels of axial compression, where spalling is typically associated with onset of negative incremental stiffness and possibly sudden strength loss. Exceedence of this limit state represents a local condition that can be expected to require remedial action. For well-confined sections, this is likely to be the only significance of onset of spalling, since the member can be expected to support much larger deformations without excessive distress. Strength may in fact continue to increase beyond this limit state, Conservatively, a compression strain of € = 0.004 may be assumed for concrete structures, and a rather lower value for masonry structures (d) Buckling limit state: With reinforced concrete or masonry members, initiation of buckling of longitudinal reinforcement is a significant limit state. Beyond this limit state, remedial action will often require removal and replacement of the member. With70 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Scismic Design of Structures structural steel members, particularly flanged beams and columns, onsct of buckling also represents a significant limit state for the same reasons as for concrete members. Spalling Moment Force Yield Cracking \ 1 i 1 | | Ay A a, A a Au Curvature Displacement (a) Section Limit States (b) Structure Limit State Fig.3.5 Member and Structure Design Limit States (©) Uhimate limie state: Definition of the ultimate limit state for members is somewhat subjective. It is sometimes taken to correspond to a critical physical event, such as fracture of confinement reinforcement in a potential plastic hinge zone of a concrete member, or weld fracture of a structural steel connection. Another common definition relates ¢o a specified strength drop (20% is often used) from the maximum. attained (or sometimes from the design) strength. Neither definition truly corresponds to an ultimate limit state, since at least some residual strength is maintained for further increase of displacement. A true ultimate limit state would refer to inability to carry imposed loads, such as gravity loads on a beam, or axial forces in a column. However, the occurrence of negative incremental stiffness of the moment-curvature characteristic, which is associated with strength drop, is cause for concern under dynamic response, since it implies redistribution of strain energy from elastically responding portions of the steuctuce into che member with negative stiffness. This has potentially explosive consequences. 3.3.2 Structure Limit States. (a) Serviceability Limit State: This corresponds to the “fully functional” seismic performance level of Vision 2000, No significant remedial action should be needed for a structure that responds at this limit state. With concrete and masonry structures, no spalling of cover concrete should occur, and though yiekd of reiaforcemeat should be acceptable at this limit state, residual crack widths should be sufficiently small so that injection grouting is not needed. As suggested by Fig.3.5(b), structural displacements at the serviceability limit state will generally exceed the nominal yield displacement. For masonry and concrete structures this limie stare can be directly related co strain limits in the extreme compression fibres of the concrete or masonry, and in the extremeChapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 1 tension reinforcement, With structural stcel buildings, the limit state is more likely to be related to non-structural elements, as discussed in the following. Potential for non-structural damage must also be considered when determining whether or not the serviceability limic state has been exceeded. Ideally, non-structural elements, such as partition walls, and glazing, should be designed so that no damage will occuz to them before the structure achieves the strain limits corresponding ro the serviceability limit state. Even with brittle partitions this can be achieved, by suitable detailing of the contact between them and the structure, normally involving the use of flexible jointing compounds. However, when the typical construction involves brittle lightweight masonry partitions built hard-up against the structure, significant damage to the partitions is likely at much lower displacement levels than would apply to the structure, For example, reinforced concrete or structural steel building frames are likely to be able to sustain drifts (lateral displacements divided by height) of more than 0.012 before sustaining damage requiring repair. In such cases, the serviceability limit state is unlikely to govern design. A very different conclusion will result if low-strength lightweight masonry infill is placed in the frames, without flexible connection. The infill i likely to reach its limit state at drift levels less than 0,005, and design to avoid non- structural damage in the infill may well govern the structural design. This is considered in more detail in Chapter 5. (6) Damage-Control Limit State: As noted above, this is not directly addressed in the Vision 2000 document, but is the basis for most current seismic design strategies. At this limit state, a certain amount of repairable damage is acceptable, but the cost should be significantly less than the cost of replacement. Damage to concrete buildings and bridges may include spalling of cover concrete requiring cover replacement, and the formation of wide residual flexural cracks requiring injection grouting to avoid later corrosion, Fracture of transverse or longitudinal reinforcement, or buckling of longitudinal reinforcement should not occur, and the core concrete in plastic hinge regions should not need replacement, With structural steel buildings, flange or shear panel buckling should not occur, and residual drifts, which tend to be larger for structural steel than concrete buildings should not be excessive. With well designed structures, this limit state normally corresponds to displacement ductility factors in the range 3 < fly <6. Again, non-structural limits must be considered to keep damage to an acceptable level This is particularly important for buildings, where the contents and services are typically worth three to five times the cost of the structure. It is difficule to avoid excessive damage when the drift levels exceed about 0.025, and hence it is common for building design codes to specify drift limits of 0.02 to 0.025. At these levels, most buildings - particularly frame buildings - will not have reached the structural damage-control limit state. It will be noted that this limitation will not normally apply to non-building structures such as bridges and wharves, and consequently structural limits will govern design to the damage- control limit state for these structures. fective drift limits for these structures are often in the range 0.03 to 0.045. This limit state is represented in Fig.3.5(b) by the displacement AaR Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacernent-Based Seismic Design of Structures (c) Survival Limit State: I is important that a reserve of capacity exists above that corresponding to the damage-control. limit state, to ensure that during the strongest ground shaking considered feasible for the site, collapse of the structure should not take place. Protection against loss of life is the prime concern here, and must be accorded high priority in the overall seismic design philosophy. Extensive damage may have to be accepted, to the extent that it may not be economically or technically feasible to repair the structure after the earthquake, In Fig.3.5(b) this limit state is represented by the ultimare displacement, Ay. Although the survival limit state is of critical importance, its determination has received comparatively little attention, Clearly this limit state is exceeded when the structure is no longer able to support its gravity loads, and collapses. This occurs when the gravity-ioad capacity is reduced below the level of existing gravity loads as a result of (say) total shear failure of a cxitical column, resulting in progressive collapse. Alternatively, collapse results failure, when the P-A moments exceed the residual capacity of the structure, as illustrated in Fig.3.6 for a bridge column. If the ultimate displacement capacity assessed from the intersection of the resistance and P-A curves exceeds the maximum expected in the survival-level earthquake, collapse should not occur. from a stabili Strength P-A Moment Base Moment M be Displacement A Fig.3.6 P-A Collapse of a Bridge under Transverse Response!!! 3.3.3. Selection of Design Limit State The discussion in the previous sections indicates that a number of different limit states or performance levels could be considered in design. Generally only one — the damage- control limit state, or at most owo (with the serviceability limit state as the second) will be considered, except for exceptional circumstances. Where more than one limit state is considered, the required strength to satisfy each limit will be determined, and the highest chosen for the final design. More information on strain and drift limits corresponding toChapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 3 different performance levels are included in Section 4.2.5, and in the relevant chapters on different structural systems. 3.4 SINGLE-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM STRUCTURES 3.4.1 Design Displacement for a SDOF structure The design displacement will depend on the limit state being considered, and whether structural oF non-structural considerations are more critical. For any given limit state (see previous section) structural performance will be governed by limiting material strains, since damage is strain-related for structural clements. Damage to non-structural elements can be generally considered drift-related. It is comparatively straightforward to compute the design displacement from strain limits. Consider the vertical cantilever structure of Fig.3.7(a). The most realistic structure conforming to the assumptions of a SDOF approximation is a regular bridge under wansverse excitation, Two possible reinforced concrete sections, one circular and one rectangular are shown in Fig.3.7(b). The strain profile at maximum displacement response is shown together with the sections. Maximum concrete compression strain & and reinforcement tensile strain & are developed. The limit-state strains are &je and Bye for concrete compression and steel tension respectively. These will not generally occur simultaneously in the same section, since the neutral axis depth ¢ is fixed by the reinforcement ratio, and the axial load on the section. Consequently there are two possible limit state curvatures, based on the concrete compression and the reinforcement tension respectively: Poe = Eg 1C (concrete compression) (33a) (reinforcement tension) (3.3b) “The lesser of @se and ys Will govern the structural design. The design displacement cart now be estimated from the approach in Section 1.3.4(a) as Ayn =A, +4, =9,(H + Ley) 3+, ~ OL, 64) where gy, is the lesser of Pee and ys , Ayis the yield displacement ( see Section 3.4.2), Hf is the column height (see Fig.3.7), Lsp is the effective additional height representing strain penetration effects (see Section 4,2.7) and Ly is the plastic hinge length. If the limit state has a code-specified non-structural drift limit @ the displacement given by Eg.(3.4) must be checked against yy =O.H 65)74 ley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures (a) Cantilever Bridge Column TF Ee * be & & 4 L (b) Column Sections and Limit State Strains Fig.3.7 Curvatures Corresponding to Limit Strains for a Bridge Pier ‘The lesser of the displacements given by Eqs. (3.4) and (3.5) is the design displacement. Note that in many cases the design approach will be to design the structure for a specified drift, and then determine the details to ensure the strain limits are achieved. For example, as is shown in Section 4.2.4(a), the limiting concrete strain for the damage-control limit state is determined from the transverse reinforcement details. Thus the concrete strain corresponding to the drift limit can be determined by inverting Egs.(3.4) and (3.3a), and the required amount of transverse reinforcement calculated. This simplifies the design process.Chapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 75 3.4.2 Yield Displacement For a SDOF vertical cantilever, the yield displacement is required for two reasons. First, if structural considerations define the limit displacement (Eq.3.4), the yield displacement and yield curvature must be known. Second, in order to calculate the equivalent viscous damping, the displacement ductility H4y=A4/Ay, which depends on the yield displacement, must be known Analytical results presented in Section 4.4 indicate that for reinforced concrete (and masonry) members, the yield curvature is essentially independent of reinforcement content and axial load level, and is a function of yield strain and section depth alone. This was discussed in relation to Fig.1.4. The form of the equation governing yield curvature was given in Eq.(1.21). Based on the more extensive results presented in Section 4.4, the following equations for yield curvature of some different section shapes provide adequate approximations: Circular concrete column: o,= (3.6a) Rectangular concrete column: , (3.66) Rectangular concrete wall: 9, (3.6c) Symmetrical steel section: g, (3.6d) Flanged concrete beam: g,= (3.66) where & is the yield strain of the flexural reinforcement (={j/E;), and Dy te, Iy he and hy are the section depths of the circular columa, rectangular column, rectangular wall, steel section and flanged concrete beam sections respectively. Note that Eq.(3.6) gives the curvature at the yield of the equivalent bi-linear approximation to the moment-curvature curve, corresponding to point 3 on the force-displacement response in Fig. 1.6. As such it is a useful reference value when using bi-linear force-displacement modelling. For a SDOF vertical cantilever, such as a bridge pier, or a low rise cantilever wall, the yield displacement can be satisfactorily approximated for design purposes by 9,(H + Lop) /3 co) Y For reinforced concrete and structural steel frames, as established in Section 4.4.6, the yield drife can be developed from the yield curvature expressions of Eqs.(3.6) as Reinforced concrete frame: 8, =0.5€,L, /h, (3.8) .65€,L, Ih, 3.86) Structural steel frame: 0, = where Le is the beam span, and hg is the concrete or steel beam depth. It will be noted that the yield drifts, and hence the yield displacements of reinforced concrete and7 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures structural steel frames with similar geometries differ only by 30%, and that concrete frames are typically stiffer. 3.4.3 Equivalent Viscous Damping ‘The design procedure requires relationships between displacement ductility and equivalent viscous damping, as shown in Fig. 3.1(¢). The damping is the sum of elastic and hysteretic damping: Seq = $01 + Sins: 69 where the hysteretic damping gis; depends on the hysteresis rule appropriate for the structure being designed. Normally, for concrete structures, the elastic damping ratio is taken as 0.05, related to critical damping. A lower value (typically 0.02) is often used for steel structures. Some discussion of both components of Eq.(3.9) is required. (4) Hysteretic Damping: initial work on substitute-structure analysis (Le. analyses using secant, rather than initial stiffness, and equivalent viscous damping to represent hysteretic damping) by Jacobsenl'l, was based on equating the energy absorbed by hysteretic steady-state cyclic response 10 a given displacement level 10 the equivalent viscous damping of the substitute structure. This resulted in the following expression for the equivalent viscous damping coefficient, Eyer A, Sips = TFA, (3.10) In Eq, (3.10), Ap is the area within one complete cycle of stabilized force-displacement response, and Fy, and A are the maximum force and displacement achieved in the stabilized loops. Note that the damping given by F.gs.(3.9) and (3.10) is expressed as the fraction of critical damping, and is related to the secant stiffness Ke to maximum response (see Fig.3.8). It is thus compatible with the assumptions of structural characterization by stiffness and damping at peak response Although this level of damping produced displacement predictions under seismic excitation that were found to be in good agreement”!!! with time-history results for systems with comparatively low energy absorption in the hysteretic response, such as the modified Takeda rule, it was found to seriously overestimate the effective equivalent viscous damping for systems with high energy absorption, such as elasto-plastic, or bilinear rules. A reason for this can be found when considering the response of two different systems with the same initial backbone curve (e.g, lines 1 and 2 in Fig.3.8) to an earthquake record with a single strong velocity pulse, which might be considered an extreme example of near-fault ground motion. Assume that one system has a bilinear8 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures analyses were separately averaged, and compared. In each case the equivalent viscous damping was varied until the clastic results of the equivalent substitute structure matched that of the real hysteretic model F F rk; (a) Elasto-plastic (EPP) (b) Bi-linear, r= 0.2 (BI) F (c) Takeda “Thin” (TT) (a) Takeda “Fat” (TF) ry (c) Ramberg-Osgood (RO) (f) Flag Shaped (FS) Fig.3.9 Hysteresis Rules Considered in Inelastic Time History Analysis'@ The hysteresis rules considered in the second study are described in Fig.3.9. The clastic-perfectly plastic rule (Fig 3.9(@)) is characteristic of some isolation systems, incorporating friction sliders. The biclinear elasto-plastic rule of Fig.3.9(b) had a second slope stiffness ratio of r= 0.2, and is also appropriate for structures incorporating various types of isolation systems, though the value of x can vary considerably. The two TakedaChapter 3. Dizect Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 79 rules: Takeda Thin (Fig 3.9(c)) and Takeda fat (Fig. 3.9(4)), represent the response of ductile reinforced concrete wall or column structures, and ductile reinforced concrete frame structures respectively. Figure 3.9(¢) shows a bounded Ramberg Osgood rule calibrated to represent ducule steel structures, and the flag-shaped rule of Fig.3.9(f) represents unbonded post-tensioned structures with a small amount of additional damping. Further information on these rules is provided in Section 4.9.2(g). The two studies identified above ©.) initially were carried out without additional clastic damping, for reasons that will become apparent in the following section. Figure 3.10 compares the resulting average relationships for an effective period of Te = 2.0 seconds for the four hysteresis rales common to both studies. It was found chat the approaches resulted in remarkably similar relationships for equivalent viscous damping for all hysteresis rules except clastic-perfectly plastic (EPP), where the discrepancy was about 20%. It is felt that the difference for the EPP rule is a consequence of the use of real records, with comparatively short durations of strong ground motion in [D1], and artificial records, with longer strong ground motion durations in [G2]. It is known that the EPP rule is sensitive to record duration, as the displacements tend to “crawl” in one direction, particularly when P-A effects are incladed!"*.. Both studies showed the scatter between results from different accelerograms to be greater for the EPP rule than for other rules investigated. It is likely that the results from the [G2] study will be somewhat conservative for shorter duration (i.e. lower magnitude earthquakes), but more realistic for longer duration (higher magnitude) earthquakes. In the following discussion, che average of the two studies has been used. “The Dwairi and KowalskyiP" study represented the hysteretic component of response in the form: un Siu = E (2) G11) where the coefficient C depended on the hysteresis rule. This has an obvious relationship to the theoretical area-based approach of Eig.(3.10) for the EPP rule, for which C= 2 Some period-dependency was found for effective periods T, < 1.0 seconds. “The study by Grant et all, which considered a wider range of hysteretic rules, used a more complex formulation of the relationship between ductility and equivalent viscous damping, the hysteretic component of which is given by: = Ly ! ) indi) aay] ee Equation (3.12) includes the period-dependency of the response, in the coefficients ¢ and d. Table 3.1 lists the coefficients for the various hysteresis rules investigated.80 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures g 02 02 2 2 woa6 Boss a & £012 Son a 3 2 0.08 200 © 0.04 5 3 a = BOP ooo o ToT 102 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 3 6 Displacement Ductility Displacement Ductility (2) Elasto-Plastic (b) Thin Takeda 02 02 z z S016 ‘0.16 5 & Bon Gon 3 z 20.08 20.08 = 5 0.04 5.0.04 2 Ea & a ° Too] ° 1 2 3 4 35 6 1 2 3 4 35 6 Displacement Ductility (©) Fat Takeda Displacement Ductilicy (2) Flag, B=0.38 Fig 3.10 Hysteretic Component of Equivalent Viscous Damping from Two Independent Studies (D.K=Dwairi and Kowalsky!", GBP=Grant et all®2l) Table 3.1 Equivalent Viscous Damping Coefficients for Hysteretic Damping Component using Eq.(3.12)!@) t Model a b c d I EPP 0.224 | 0.336_| -0.002 [0.250 Bilinear, =0.2 (BN) 0.262 | 0.655 | 0.813 | 4.890 ‘Takeda Thin (TT) 0.215 | 0.642 | 0.824 | 6.444 ‘Takeda Fat (TF) 0.305 | 0.492 | 0.790 | 4.463 Flag, B=0.35 (FS) 0251 | 0.148 | 3.015 | 0511 Ramberg-Osgood (RO) 0.289 | 0.622_| 0.856 | 6.460Chapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 81 ‘The period-dependency part of Eq.(3.12) is plotted for the various hysteretic rules of Fig.3.9 in Fig.3.11, where the hysteretic damping is related to the stable value found for long periods, estimated at T= 4 sec. As with the other studi" the period dependency was generally insignificant for periods greater than 1.0 seconds, with the EPP rule again being the only exception. Since it is conservative to use low estimates of damping, and since it will be unusual for regular structures such as frame and wall buildings, and bridges to have effective periods less than 1.0 seconds, it will generally be adequate, and conservative to ignore the period-dependency in design. <4 Sry sersis:T Enysteresissr/ Effective Period (seconds) Fig.3.\1 Period Dependency of Hysteretie Component of Equivalent Viscous Damping!@1 (b) Elastic Damping: Equation (3.9) includes an elastic component of equivalent viscous damping, Elastic damping is used in inelastic time-history analysis (see Section 4.9.2(g)) to represent damping not captured by the hysteretic model adopted for the analysis. This may be from the combination of a number of factors, of which the most important is the typical simplifying assumption in the hysteretic model of perfectly linear response in the elastic range (which therefore does not model damping associated with the actual clastic non-linearity and hysteresis). Additional damping also results from foundation compliance, foundation non-linearity and radiation damping, and additional damping from interaction between structural and non-structural elements. For single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems, clastic damping is used in the dynamic equation of equilibrium: mi + ck + kx = mit, (3.13)82 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures where xis the response relative displacement, %, is the ground acceleration, m and k are the mass and stiffiness, and the damping coefficient, cis given by c= Imag = 2EVmk (3.14) where @, = vk/m is the circular frequency, and €is the fraction of critical damping. The damping coefficient, and hence the damping force depends on what value of stiffness is adopted in Eq.(3.14). In most inelastic analyses, this has been taken as the initial stiffness. This, however, results in large and spurious damping forces when the response is inelastic, which, it is argued in Section 4.9.2@) is inappropriate, and that tangent stiffness should be used as the basis for clastic damping calculations. With tangent stiffness, che damping coefficient is proportionately changed every time the stiffness changes, associated with yield, unloading or reloading, etc. This results in a reduction in damping force as the structural stiffness softens following yield, and a reduction in the energy absorbed by the elastic damping. Since the hysteretic rules are invariably calibrated to model the full structural energy dissipation subsequent to onset of yielding, this approach to characterization of the clastic damping is clearly more appropriate than is initial-stiffness elastic damping. The significance to structural response of using tangent-stiffness rather chan initial-stiffness damping is discussed in detail in Section 4.9.2(9) However, in DDBD, the initial elastic damping adopted in Fq.(3.14) is related to the secant stiffness to maximum displacement, whereas it is normal in inelastic time-history analysis to relate the elastic damping to the initial (clastic) stiffness, or more correctly, as noted above, to a stiffness that varies as the structural stiffness degrades with inelastic action (tangent stiffness). Since the response velocities of the “teal” and “substitute” structures are expecred to be similar under seismic response, the damping forces of the “real” and “substitute” structures, which are proportional to the product of the stiffness and the velocity (Eq.(3.13)), will differ significantly, since the effective stiffness key of the substitute structure is approximately equal to key =k; /H (for low post-yield stiffness). Grant et all has determined the adjustment that would be needed to the value of the elastic damping assumed in DDBD (based on either initial-stiffness or tangent-stifiness proportional damping) to ensure compatibility between the “real” and “substitute” structures. Without such an adjustment, the verification of DDBD by inelastic time- history analysis would be based on incompatible assumptions of elastic damping, ‘The adjustments depend on whether initial-stiffness damping (conventional practice), or tangent-stiffness damping (correct procedure, we believe) is adopted for time-history analysis. If initial-stiffress damping is chosen, the elastic damping coefficient used in DDBD must be larger than the specified initial-stiffiness damping coefficient; if tangent- stiffness is chosen, it must be less than the specified tangent-stiffness coefficient. This is explained further in Fig.3.12, which examines the stabilized tesponse (.e., ignoring the initial transient response) of a bilinear hysteretic model to steady-stateChapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 83 harmonic excitation. The ¢ = constant line in Fig.3.12(b) represents the initial-stiffiness damping assumption, and the dashed line the damping associated with the substitute structure, if both aze assigned the same numeric value for damping, The energy dissipated by clastic damping in the substitute structure is less than in the “real” structure (if we accept initial-stiffness damping as correct), because key 1 sec (which will encompass most designs, see Fig.3.11), and (b) an elastic damping ratio of 0.05 may be assumed. The consequent ductility/damping relationships for the hysteretic rules considered are plotted in Fig.3.14, for both tangent-stiffness and initial-stiffness elastic damping. If we also acknowledge that the simplified Eq,(3.11) provides almost identical results to the more complete expression of E.q.(3.12), if the period-dependency of Eq-(3.12) is ignored, itis possible to include the ductility dependency of the elastic damping inside the basic form of the equivalent viscous damping equations. The coefficients Cin q.(3.11) are adjusted so that final value is correct with &, taken as 0.0586 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Steuctures Equivatent Viscous Damping Ratio 6 T T T 1 6 T T T 1 ° 2 4 6 8 ° 2 4 6 8 Displacement Ductility Pactor () Displacement Ductility Factor (i) (@) Tangent Stiffness Elastic Damping (b) Initial Stiffness Elastic Damping Fig.3.14 Design Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratios for 5% Elastic Damping We list these equations below for tangent-stiffness elastic damping only, since this is felt to be the correct structural simulation. Further, these equations cannot be altered to apply for different levels of elastic damping by replacing the coefficient 0.05 by (say) 0.02, since the coefficient C is valid only for & = 0.05. If different levels of &y are to be used, the more compleze formulation of .q.(3.12) and Table 3.1 should be adopted. Where appropriate, the corresponding structural type and material is identified in the following, equations: Conerete Wall Building, Bridges (TT): ,, = 0.05+0, “4 oa 7 ‘) (3.174) Concrete Frame Building (IF): &, =0.05+0: ses # (3.17) Steel Frame Building (RO) Sq = 0.05 sos (3.17) Hybrid Prestressed Frame (FS, 8 =0.35): &, =0.05+0.18 a @G.17d) Friction Slider (EPP): &,, = 0.05+0. oof 2) (3.17e) Bilinear Isolation System (BI, r 054019 Hab (3.178) Van Note that the equations for the hybrid prestressed frame, and the bilinear isolation system apply only for the parameters B=0.35 and r=0.2 respectively used in the analyses, and will differ for other systems, Equations (3.{7d) and (3.176) should not be usedChapter 3, Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 87 without checking that the values of B or r are appropriate. This is addressed in more detail in the relevant structural systems chapters. Ideally, when hysteretic rules whose characteristics differ from those considered in the above sections are used, an appropriate ductility/damping equation should be developed based on inelastic time-history analyses (THA), in similar fashion to that described above. It is recognized, however, that this will seldom be practical in a design environment, though new equations are expected to be developed with on-going research. Some reasonable estimates of the relationship can, however, be obtained by comparing the relationships between the area-based viscous damping, given by Fq.(3.10) which can readily be computed for any new system, provided the hysteretic response is known, with the hysteretic component of the calculated viscous damping (Fig, 3.9, or ‘Table 3.1) for specific levels of the displacement ductility. This reladonship is plotted in Fig. 3.15 for the six hysteresis rules considered above. 12 ITHA/Atea-Based EVD Damping Ratio 0 10 20 30 40 50 Area-Based Equivalent Viscous Damping(’) Fig.3.15: Correction Factors to be Applied to Area-Based Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratio (Eq.(3.10)) ‘The vertical axis in Fig.3.15 is the ratio of the hysteretic component of the equivalent viscous damping (EVD) found from time-history analysis, as reported above, to the arca- based EVD from Fq,(3.10). This can thus be considered as a correction factor to be applied to the area-based EVD. The three data points for each hysteresis rule correspond to displacement ductilities of 2, 4, and 6. It will be noted that the trends are well represented by the dashed lines for the three ductility levels, with no more scatter than might be expected from the inherent scatter of the time-history results. Fig.3.15 can thus88 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky._Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures be used to “correct” the EVD calculated from the area-based F.q.(3.10), for a known displacement ductility level. Note that the elastic damping, in accordance with Fig.3.13 or ‘Table 3.2 then needs to be added to the hysteretic damping. This approach is suggested as a suitable alternative to extensive time-history analyses for hysteretic rules that are not represented by one of the equations (3.17). (d) Example 3.2: Fig. 3.16 Steady-State Harmonic Response of Hybrid Prestressed Structure with r=0, and J=0.75 (Example 3.2) As an example of this approach, consider the flag-shaped hysteresis loop of Fig.3.16, for which r= 0, and J=0.75. ‘The area Ay of a complete cycle can be written as A, =2x0.75F,(u-A,, and hence, from Kq.3.10, the area-based EVD is = 2X02, UDA, _ 075-1) ow DAE, mm For displacement ductilities of f= 2, 4 and 6, F.q.(3.18) yields Eiree = 0.119, 0.179 and 0.199 respectively. From Fig.3.15, the corresponding correction factors are 0.65, 0.76 and 0.88 respectively. Hence the hysteretic components of the EVD to be used in design are (0.65x0.119=0,0774), (0.76x0,179=0.136), and (0.88x0.199=0.175) respectively. The appropriate elastic damping from Fig.3.13 or Table 3.2 must then be added to these values to obtain the total EVD to be used in design. (3.18)Chapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 89 (e) Generation of Inelastic Displacement Spectra In Section 3.2 it was mentioned that inelastic displacement spectra sets could be developed for different levels of displacement ductility as shown in the example of Fig.3.3, If a relationship between initial-period elastic displacement and_ inelastic displacement such as the equal-displacement approximation is assumed, the inelastic spectra can be directly computed. Assuming that the skeleton force-displacement response can be represented by a bi-linear approximation with a ratio of post-yield to clastic stiffness equal to 4, the secant period T, to maximum displacement response is related to the elastic period T; by the relationship os =7|—_“_ n (5) 49) Since the inclastic displacement at T, must equal the elastic displacement at T; for the equal displacement approximation to hold, and noting that elastic displacement response is directly proportional to period, the modification factor Ry to be applied to the clastic spectrum is R -(ere) 620) ue Different relationships thus apply for different post-yield stiffnesses, but not to different hysteretic energy absorption within the loop, provided that the equal- displacement approximation is assumed to be valid. However, as is established in Section 49.2(@), the equal displacement approximation relies on the assumption that clastic damping can be characterized by initial-stiffness proportional damping, which we have demonstrated to be invalid. Itis, however, possible to generate inelastic spectra sets directly from the data used «© generate the damping-ductility reladonships of Fqs.(3.17). Substituting the reduction factor for clastic damping values greater than 0.05 from Eq.(2.8) into the damping ductility equations (Eqg.(3.17), spectral displacement reduction factors in the form 0.07 | B=) Tact) 0.07+ f42)| un can be derived, Note that different relationships apply for different values of @ (the coefficient dependent on whether “normal” or “velocity-pulse” conditions apply), for different values of C and also, for different values of the elastic damping displacement reduction relationship. As we have discussed in Section 2.2.3 there is still some (3.21)90 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures uncertainty about the optimum form of this relationship. Consequently we believe it is better to use, at this time, the more fundamental elastic displacement spectra set with calibrated equations representing the damping/ductility relationship, than co combine these in the form of Eq.(3.21). For comparison, Fig3.17 plots the inelastic displacement spectra resulting from Eqs.(3.20) and (3.21) for the elastic-perfectly plastic (EPP) hysteretic rule (ie. r= [email protected]); € = 0.67 in Eq.(3.21). The differences between the two approaches are quite considerable. It will be noted that for displacement ductilities of # 2 3 it would be reasonable t0 use a constant reduction factor, simplifying design. We arrive at similar conclusions for inelastic displacement spectra derived for other hysteretic rules. os wl 0s wt 04 w= na 03 =| wt geo 02 oa 0 ° Oo 1 2 3 0 4 5 o 12 3 4 5 Period (seconds) Period! (seconds) (a) EPP (Equal Displacement) (b) EPP (Time-history Analysis) Fig.3.17 Inelastic Displacement Spectra for Elastic-Perfectly Plastic Hysteresis 3.4.4 Design Base Shear Equation Te will be clear that the approach described above can be simplified to a single design equation, once the design displacement and damping have been determined. As noted earlier, the displacement spectra are in many cases linear with effective period. The small non-linearity at low periods is unlikely co be significant for displacement-based designs, since it is the effective period at peak displacement response, approximately {2° times the clastic period, that is of relevance. In Figs 3.1(d) and 2.5(b) the displacements are capped at a petiod of 4 seconds, which in accordance with Eq.(2.3) might be considered appropriate for an My = 6.9 earthquake. Let Ags be the displacement at the corner period T. (e.g. Te =4 seconds in Fig. 3.1(d)) for the displacement spectrum corresponding t0 5% damping. For 2 design displacement of Ay and design damping &, the effective period is, from Fig. 3.1(d) and Eq.(2.8) As (easy 6.22) . A 0.07 )92 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures = 0.05+0.444(3.97-1)/3.97R = 0.155 (15.5%) Maximum spectral displacement for 5% damping: ‘The corer period for peak displacement response is T. = 4,0sec. Scaling to a PGA of 0.7 sec. from Fig. 3.1(d), which applies for a PGA of 0.4g, the corresponding displacement is Acs = 0.5x0.7/0.4 = 0.875m (34.4 in.) Design Strength for Normal Ground Motion: Eauation (3.24) could be used directly However, for clarity, the steps leading to Eq. (3.24) are taken sequentially. Applying che damping correction factor of Fiq.(2.8) the corner-period response displacement for 15.5% damping is {0.07 os =0.875x| ———__|_ =0.553) Beass (ots) ™ ‘Thus, by proportion, the effective response period of the bridge is T, = 4x0.35/0.553 = 2.53sec. Note that Eq.(3.22) could have been used directly for the previous ewo steps From Fq.(3.1), with the mass of (5000/g) tonnes, effective stiffness at peak response is K, =4n?m,/T, =4n°5000/(9.805x2.537) = 3145 kN/m Finally, from Eq. 3.2, the design base shear force is Voge = K,A, =3145X0.35 = 1100 KN (247 kips) Design Strength for Velocity Pulse Ground Motion: For this case, Eq. (3.24) is used directly, with @ = 0.25: ‘ose 2 7 ozs 42°5000__ 0.875 (aes) = 1741 kN. (391 kips) 9.8054 0.35 \0.02+0.155, ‘This is 58% higher than for the normal ground condition case. 3.4.6 Design When the Displacement Capacity Exceeds the Spectral Demand There will be occasions, with very tall or flexible structures, when the design displacement capacity, calculated from Eqs.(3.4) or (3.5) exceeds the maximum possible spectral displacement demand for the damping level calculated from Eq.(3.17). For example, with reference to the response spectra set of Fig.3.1(d), it will be seen thac if the design displacement Ay is calculated to be 0.35m, and the corresponding damping is 20%, there is no possible intersection between the design displacement and the 20% damping curve. At the corner period of 4 sec. the peak displacement in Fig.3.1(d) for 20% damping is 0.282m. In such cases there are two possible conditions to be considered:Chapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 93 (a) Yield Displacement Exceeds 5% Damping Value at the Corner Period: With extremely flexible structures, or when the design seismic intensity is low, it is possible that the yield displacement exceeds the 5% damping elastic response displacement (Ac,s) at the comer period T, {in Fig.3.1(d) this is Ags = 0.5 m). In this case the calculated clastic response period will be larger than 7,, the response displacement will be equai to Ags, and the design base shear force is given by Vea =Kabes (8.25) Base where Ky is the elastic stiffness. Note, however, that a unique design solution cannot be found, since the stiffness, Ke depends on the elastic period, which depends, in turn, on the strength. This is clarified in Example 3.4 below, (b) Yield Displacement is Less than the 5% Damping Value at the Corner Period: This case will be more common, Inelastic response will occur, but not at the level of ductility corresponding to the displacement or drift capacity of the structure. Note that if the yield displacement is less than Ags, this means that the elastic period is less than T. As the structure softens, a final effective period of T2T, will be achieved, with a displacement response level that is compatible with the damping implied by that displacement. ‘The following trial and error solution method is recommended: 1. Calculate the displacement capacity Ay, and the corresponding damping, &. Confirm that the two are incompatible with the displacement spectra set, as above 2. Estimate the final displacement response Ay. ‘This will be somewhere between Acgeand Aye Calculate the displacement ductility demand corresponding to Ay: (= Ay/ Ay) Calculate the damping & corresponding to the ductility demand Calculate the displacement response A at J; corresponding to & Use this value A as the new estimate for the final displacement Aye. Cycle steps 3 to 6 until a stabie solution is found. ‘Typically this requires only one or owo iterations. Again there is no unique solution, as the effective stiffness could correspond to any period T > T,. Any value of design base shear less than Vaase = 47?m-Ay//T,’ will satisfy the design assumptions. A higher value will imply a response at an effective period less HO ae than Ts, and hence the response displacement will be incompatible with the effective damping. In both cases discussed above the provided strength will nor affect the displacement response. Minimum strength requirements for P-A effects (Section 3.6) or gravity loads will govern the required strength, 3.4.7 Example 3.4: Base Shear for a Flexible Bridge Pier Example 3.3 is redesigned for somewhat different conditions. First, (case (a)), the 10m (32.8f) high bridge pier is designed for normal ground motion with a reduced peak94 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures ground acceleration of 0.35g, and a spectral displacement spectra set proportional to Fig.3.1(d). Second, (case (b)), the physical dimensions of the column cross section are maintained, but the effective height is increased co 25m (82f). Case (a): Design Displacement: Limi state conditions have not changed from Example 3.3, so the design displacement capacity is still 0.35m (13.8 in.), and the corresponding displacement ductility capacity is f =3.97. The corresponding equivalent viscous damping at the design displacement capacity is again 15.5%. Maximum spectral displacement for 5% damping: With a corner period of 4.0 sec., and 0.35g PGA, the corner-period elastic displacement is scaled from Fig.3.1(d) which applies for a PGA of 0.4g to give Acs = 0.5x0.35/0.4 = 0.438 m (17.2 in.). This exceeds the yield displacement of 0.0881, so the pier will respond inelastically. Maximum spectral displacement for 15.5% damping: By proportion from Example 3.3, the corner displacement for 15.5% damping is: Agyes = 0.533x0.38 /0.7 = 0.277m ‘This is less than the displacement capacity of 0.35m, and hence the response displacement will be less than the displacement capacity. We use the itetative approach outlined in Section 3.4.7(b): 2. The final displacement will be somewhere between the corner displacement, 0.277 m and the displacement capacity, 0,35 m. We make an initial estimate of Ay = 0.30 m. 3. With the yield displacement at A, = 0.0881 m (see Example 3.3) the displacement ductility is = 0.30/0.0881 = 3.41 4, From Fiq.(3.17a) the corresponding equivalent viscous damping ratio is GA4l- = 0.05 + 0.444 $=0.05+ Sar 0.150 (15%) 5. The corresponding displacement at the corner period 7; is again found from Eq.2.8): (0.07 Ay, =0.438-| — 0.02+ 0.15 Use this as the new estimate of Aa. 6. Cycling once more through the sequence yields: f= 3.19, & = 0.147, and Axg = 0.284 m (11.2in.). The result has stabilized. ‘The reference effective stiffness is thus found, using T= T.= 4.0 sec. in Eq.3.1) as: K, = 427 -(5000/9.805)/4? = 1258 kN/m , os ] = 0.28) and the maximum design base shear force, from Eq.(3.2) as Vesose = 1258X0.284 = 357.3KN. (80.3 kips) Gravity load or P-A requirements will govern the choice of the actual design strength.Chapte: 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 95 Case (b): Design Displacement: The yield curvature is unchanged, and the yield displacement is calculated, ftom Eq.(3.7), as Ay = BHP /3 = 0.00264x252/3 = 0.55 m (21.7 in). Note that this is independent of the final strength. This displacement exceeds the elastic displacement at the corner period, Ays = 0.438 m. Hence there is no point in further calculating the displacement capacity, as the pier will respond elastically to the design level of intensity, with a response displacement of 0.438 m. Now, since the structure responds elastically, with a known displacement, the allocated strength is in fact arbitrary, as noted above. For example, if we allocated a yield strength of 500 kN, the stiffness would be Ky = 500/0.55 =909 kN/m. ‘The calculated elastic period would be: T,, = 2J(5000(9.805x909)) = 4.71 seconds. ‘The response displacement would be 0.438 m, and the maximum response force would be Veave = 909X0.438 = 398 KN (89.5 kips). However, if we arbitrarily allocated a yield strength of 350KN, the stiffness would be Kq =350/0.55 = 636 KN/m, and the elastic period would be 5.63 seconds. ‘The response displacement, (see Fig.3.1(d)), would still be 0.438 m, and the maximum response force would be 278 KN (62.5 kips). P-A moments for this case would be 36% of the base moment from the horizontal inertia force, and, in accordance with Section 3.6, would need to be carefully considered, Nore that if the strength was arbitrarily set higher than 692 kN, (say 800 kN), then the elastic period would be found to be less than 4 sec. (in this case, Ka =1455 KN/m, and Tey = 3.72 sec, and the structure would respond with a displacement less than 0.438 m, (in this case 0.407 m (16.0 in)), in accordance with the clastic 5% displacement spectrum for the calculated period. In fact, the example is probably artificial. The base moment would be very high, in cither case, and redesign with a larger column diameter (and hence smaller yield displacement) would be advisable. The pier would also be excessively flexible for gravity loads. 3.5 MULTI-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM STRUCTURES For multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) structures the initial part of the design process requires the determination of the characteristics of the equivalent SDOF substitute siructurd\, The required characteristics are the equivalent mass, the design displacement, and the effective damping, When these have been determined, the design base shear for she substitute structure can be determined, The base shear is then distributed between the mass elements of the real structure as inertia forces, and the structure analyzed under these forces to determine the design moments at locations of potential plastic hinges.96 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 3.5.1 Design Displacement ‘The characteristic design displacement of the substitute structure depends on the limit state displacement or drift of the most critical member of the real structure, and an assumed displacement shape for the structure. This displacement shape is that which corresponds to the inelastic first-mode at the design level of seismic excitation. Thus the changes to the elastic first-mode shape resulting from local changes to member stiffness caused by inelastic action in plastic hinges are taken into account at the beginning of the design. Representing the displacement by the inelastic rather than the elastic first-mode shape is consistent with characterizing the structure by its secant stiffness to maximum response. In fact, the inelastic and elastic first-mode shapes are often very similar. ‘The design displacement (generalized displacement coordinate) is thus given by Awe Thay T oma) 3.26) where m; and A; are the masses and displacements of the 1 significant mass locations respectively. For multi-storey buildings, these will normally be at the # floors of the building. For bridges, the mass locations will normally be at the centre of the mass of the superstructure above each columa, but the superstructure mass may be discretized to more than one mass per span to improve validity of simulation (see Section 4.9.2(¢) ii). With tall columns, such as may occur in deep valley crossings, the column may also be discretized into multiple elements and masses. Where strain limits govern, the design displacement of the critical member can be determined using the approach outlined in Section 3.4.1. Similar conclusions apply when code drift limits apply. For example, the design displacement for frame buildings will normally be governed by drift limits in the lower storeys of the building. For a bridge, the design displacement will normally be governed by the plastic rotation capacity of the shortest column. With a knowledge of the displacement of the critical element and the design displacement shape (discussed further in the following section), the displacements of the individual masses are given by A. A, =6, {#] (3.27) (Oc. where gis the inelastic mode shape, and Ae is the design displacement at the critical mass, 6 and 6s the value of the mode shape at mass & Note that the influence of higher modes on the displacement and drift envelopes is generally small, and is not considered at this stage in the design. However, for buildings higher than (say) ten storeys, dynamic amplification of drift may be important, and the98. Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Syn Gin Height Ratio (H\/H,) be = 265 /, (@) Curvature 0 02 04 06 08 1 (6) Displacement Ratio Fig.3.18 Yield and Design Displacements for Cantilever Walls If the roof drift from Hq (3.30) is less than the code drift limit ®., chen the design displacement profile is given by H, 2e, ) }}1-—+ |+| ¢, -— |L,H, 32: (1-2) +0. a ce) / A, =A, +4,, = If the code drift limit governs the roef drift, the design displacement profile is given by H, A,=A,+(0-6,,)H, oH (! # (2, 32) Although Eq, (3.32) can be manipulated to provide a generalized displacement shape & to be compatible with Eq. (3.27), there is little value in so doing, since the full displacement profile must first be found. Further information on displacement profiles for cantilever walls is provided in Chapter 6. (©) Multi-Span Bridges: With bridges it is less easy to initially determine a design displacement profile, particularly for transverse seismic response. Figure 3.19 illustrates two possible bridge configurations out of a limitless potential range. The example of Fig. 3.19(a) has piers of uniform height, while those in Fig. 3.19(b) vary in height. The transverse displacement profiles will depend strongly on the relative column stiffnesses, and more significantly, on the degree of lateral displacement restraint provided at the abutment, and the superstructure lateral stiffness. For each bridge type, three possible transverse displacement profiles are shown, corresponding to an abutment fully restrained against transverse displacement, a completely unrestrained abutment, and one where the abutment is restrained, but has significant transverse flexibility.Chapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 99 x Lay por lt Structure Structure 12 apes sl 208 = a6 boa estained 20.2 fresiaines TTT ° TT TT 0 02 04 06 08 1 0 02 04 06 08 1 Dimensionless Distance Dimensionless Distance () Uniform Height Piers (b) Irregular Height Piers Fig.3.19 Design Transverse Displacement Profiles for Bridges For the case of Fig, 3.19(a), the critical pier will be the central one, and with the appropriate displacement profile chosen, Eq, (3.27 and 3.26) can be applied directly. For the irregular bridge of Fig. 3.19(b) the critical pier may not be immediately apparent, and some iteration may be required. Iteration may also be required for the case of finite translational flexibility of the abutments for both the regular and irregular bridges +o determine the relative displacements of abutment and the critical pier. Generally a parabolic displacement shape between abutments and piers can be assumed for initial design. Further information on displacement profiles for bridges is given in Chapter 10. 3.5.3 Effective Mass From consideration of the mass participating in the first inelastic mode of vibration, the effective system mass for the substitute structure is m, =D (mA,)iA, (333) ai where Ay is the design displacement given by Eq.(3.26). Typically, the effective mass will range from about 70% of the total mass for multi-storey cantilever walls to more than 85% for frame buildings of more than 20 storeys. For simple multi-span bridges the effective mass will often exceed 95% of the total mass. The remainder of the mass participates in the higher modes of vibration, Although modal combination rules, such as100 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures the square-root-sunvof squares (RSS) ot complete quadratic combination (CQC)rules: may indicate a significant increase in the elastic base shear force over that from the first inelastic mode, there is much less influence on the design base overturning moment. The effects of higher modes are inadequately represented by elastic analyses, as will be shown in the chapters devoted to specific structural forms, and are better accommodated in the capacity design phase, rather than the preliminary phase of design 3.5.4. Equivalent Viscous Damping (a) System Damping: The effective damping depends on the structural system and displacement ductility demand, as illustrated in Fig.3.1(0) and Eqs.3.17. This requires determination of the displacement ductility demand of the substitute structure, This poses few problems, since the design displacement Ay has already been determined, from Eq,(3.26). The effective yield displacement A, needs to be interpolated from the profile of displacements at yield (¢.g, Eq.(3.31) for cantilever walls, or Eq.(3.8) for frames). For frames it is adequate to assume that the yield drift is constant with height (i.e. the yield displacement profile is linear with height), and hence the yield displacement is A, =6,.H, (G34) where 6, is given by Eq.3.8). For walls, the yield displacement is found from Eq.(3.31) with H; = He. In both cases this requires knowledge of the effective height of the substitute structure, which may be taken as: H= DY (mA) (mA) (3.35) ia 7 The design ductility factor, for use in Eq.(3.17) is then u=A,/A, 3.36) in the usual fashion. Note that provided reasonable ductility is implied by the design displacement Ag, Fig.3.1(@) and [email protected]) indicate that the damping is not strongly dependent on the ductility, and average values may be adopted. This is also implied in Fig.3.17(b). Note also, that concrete and masonry structures are much more flexible than normally assumed by designers, and hence code drift limits, rather than displacement ductility capacity tends to govern design (sce Section 5.3.1, eg,). As a consequence, the design ductility, and the effective damping are known at the start of the design process, and ao iteration is needed in determining the design base shear force. When the lateral resistance of a building in a given direction is provided by 2 number of walls of different length, the ductility demand of each wall will differ, since the yield displacements of the walls will be inversely proportional to the wall lengths (see Eq.(3.6c)), while the maximum displacements at design-level response will be essentiallyChapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 101 equal, subject only 1 small variations resulting from torsional response and floor diaphragm flexibility. ‘This was discussed in Section 1.3.6, with reference 10 Fig, 1.13 Hence the system damping will need to consider the different effective damping in each wall In the general case, where different structural elements with different strengths and damping factors contribute to the seismic resistance, the global damping may be found by rhe weighted average based on the energy dissipated by the different structural elements. That is, é La, é, von, 637 where Vj, Aj and & are the design strength at the design displacement, displacement at height of centre of seismic force, and damping, respectively, of the # structural element. Alternatively, the energy dissipated may be related to the moment and rotation of different plastic hinges (VjA; =MjQ). This form may be more appropriate for frame structures. With multiple in-plane walls, the displacements of the different walls will all be the same, and hence Eq,(3.37) can be simplified to é. xe! Ly, 638) where Vj and are the base shear force and damping of the m walls in a given direction Some modification of Eg.(3.38) may be required when torsional response of a building containing more than one plane of walls in a given direction is considered. In this case, F-q.(3.37) applies. However, the error involved in using Eq.(3.38) is small, even when torsional response is expected. A tational decision will be to apportion the total base shear force requirement derween the walls in proportion to the square of the length. This will result in essentially constant reinforcement ratios between the walls. With wall strength proportional to length squared, Fq.(3.38) may be rewritten 2s: b= Zlte P NE 3.39) (8) Influence of Foundation Flexibility on Effective Damping: Although the influence of foundation flexibility on seismic design can be incorporated into force-based design, albeit with some difficulty, it is rarely considered. Foundation flexibility will increase the initial elastic period, and reduce the ductility capacity corresponding to the strain or drift limic statesl*!, It is comparatively straightforward, however, to incorporate the influence of elastic foundation compliance into Direct Displacement Based Design. li the limit state being considered is strain-limited, then the design displacement will be increased by the elastic displacement corresponding to foundation compliance (this102 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Jacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures requires a knowledge of the design base moment and shear force, and hence some iteration may be required). If, however, the limit state is defined by code drift limits, there will be no change in the design displacement, thus implying reduced permissible structural deformation, Vine (a) Foundation (b) Structure (c) Foundation + Structure Fig.3.20 Damping Contributions of Foundation and Structure The second influence relates to the effective damping. Both foundation and structure will contribute to the damping. Consider the force-displacement hysteresis loops of Fig.3.20, where foundation (A) and structure (A) components of the peak response displacement Ay = 4s + Ay have been separated for a cantilever wall building. Assuming sinusoidal displacement response, the area-based equivalent viscous damping for the fonndation and for the structure can be separately expressed as A i -_ 4 Foundation: ere 3.408) Sree 2aW,,.A, (3.402) A Structure: buna = 5 (3.40b) OV ah, where Ay and A, are hysteretic areas within the loops (Le. energy absorbed per cycle) for foundation and structure respectively. As shown in Fig,3.20, the hysteretic area of the combined structure/foundation system will be the sum of the two components, and hence the system equivalent viscous damping will be A+4, SA +E, System: (3.406) ~ AV gal, +A, A, +A,104 Priestey, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Table 3.3 Calculations for Example 3.5 Height Hi (m) a aa HA, | 3.2. 0.0482 0.00232 0.1542 6.4 0.1041 0.01084 0.6662 Cae 0.1651 0.02726, 1.5850 Rs 0.2287 0.05230 2.9270 Sum = 0.5461 0.09272 5.332 From Eq.(3.26), noting that the masses are all equal, the design displacement of the SDOF substitute structure is A, = D(mai vee (m,A,) = 0.09272/0.5461 = 0.1698m (6.68 in.) a Yield displacements: by E435): he effective height of the SDOF substitute structure is given H, xt m.A,H, Dx 'm,A, )=5.332/0.5461 =9.765m (=0.763.H,) mT Yield displacements of the 4 m and 2 m walls are given by Eq.(3.31). For the 4 m wall: ) f é, wr) 000 x9.765° 1— ae) = 0.0355m (1.40 in.) 4 3H, 3x128 ‘The yield displacement of the 2m wall will be twice this, ic. 0.0710m (2.80in). Wall displacement ductility factors: From §q.(3.36), the displacement ductility factors for the walls are: 4-m wall: = 0.1698/0.0355 = 4.78 2m wall: {£= 0.1698/0.0710 = 2.39 Wall damping factors: From Eq.(3.17a), the individual wall damping factors are: 4m wall: , = 0.05+0.444(4.78 - 1)/(4.78m) = 0.162 2 m wall: & = 0.05+0.444(2.39 - 1)/(2.39m) = 0.132 Structure equivalent viscous damping: Finally, assuming a distribution of base shear force in proportion to (wall length)?, as discussed in section 3.5.4, then, from Eq.(3.39), the effective damping, to be used in design is: ((222)x0.132 +42x0.162)/(2x2? + 42) = 0.152 (15.2%) 3.5.6 Distribution of Design Base Shear Force The principles outlined i the previous sections enable the design base shear to be established for a MDOF system. This base shear force must be distributed as designChapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 105 forces to the various discretized masses of the structure, in order that the design moments for potential plastic hinges can be established. Assuming essentially sinusoidal response at peak response, the base shear should be distributed in proportion to mass and displacement a¢ the discretized mass locations. Thus the design force at mass /is: F,=VyaelmA,) SA.) oan Similarity with force-based design for multi-storey buildings will immediately be apparent. The difference is that the design inelastic displacement profile, rather than a height-proportional displacement is used, and the form of Eq,(3.41) is generalized co all structures (including, eg. bridges and wharves), not just buildings. It will be shown in Chapter 5 that minor modification of Hq,(3.41) is advisable for taller frame buildings to avoid excessive drift in upper storeys. ‘The distribution of the design base shear force between different parallel lateral force- resisting elements (walls, and frames) is, to some extent, a design choice, as will be discussed in more detail in individual chapters relating to different structural systems. 3.8.7 Analysis of Structure under Design Forces Analysis of the structure under the lateral force vector represented by Eq.3.41) to determine the design moments at potential plastic hinge locations is analytically straightforward, but nevertheless needs some conceptual consideration, In order to be compatible with the substitute structure concept that forms the basis of DDBD, member stiffness should be representative of effective secant stiffnesses at design displacement response For cantilever wall buildings, this can be simplified to a distribution of the vertical force vector between walls in proportion to J,’, as suggested above, with the walls then analysed separately. The designer should not, however, feel unduly constrained by this, suggested strength distribution, as there will be cases where the adoption of other distributions is more rational. This is discussed further in Chapter 6. For reinforced concrete frame and dual (wall/frame) system buildings, more care is needed. With weak-beam/strong-column frame designs, beam members will be subjected 10 inelastic actions, and the appropriate beam stiffness will be: (ED) pean = EL, | My (3.42) where Edler is the cracked-section stiffness, found in accordance with the methods developed in Chapter 4, and ff is the expected beam displacement ductility demand \nalyses have shown that the member forces are not particularly sensitive to the level of stiffness assumed, and thus it is acceptable to assume that flp=Hh, the frame design ductility. Since the columns will be protected against inelastic action by capacity design procedures, thelr stiffness should be taken as Exley with no reduction for ductility. NoteChapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 1 Note chat this is 36% higher than required for the damage-control limit state of Design Example 3.6, and 256% higher than required for Case 1, when the drift limit was effectively 0.01. This illustrates the very non-linear nature of the strength/displacement requirement noted subsequently in Section 3.10.1. Since the 2m walls will only develop about 50% of their nominal flexural strength at the serviceability design drift limit, the total nominal base shear capacity will need to be larger than 677KN (in fact, about 810KN). It should also be noted, however, that the low drift limit of 0.005 has been imposed because of the requirement to limit damage 10 masonry infill panels. In the initial stages of response, the infill will provide substantial additional lateral resistance to the building, which should be considered when determining the required strength of the cantilever walls. Since the infill walls are expected to be severely damaged at the damage control limit state, their contribution to lateral resistance at this level of response would be discounted. It is thus quite possible that the structure would also satisfy the required strength for this rather stringent serviceability limit state if designed to the damage- control limit state. Design considering masonsy infill is discussed in Section 5.12, 3.6 P-A EFFECTS 3.6.1. Current Design Approaches As structures displace laterally, as suggested, for example, in the single-degree-of- freedom approximation of Fig.3.23(a), gravity loads induce overturning moments in addition to those resulting from lateral inertia forces, Using the nomenclature of Fig.3.23, the base moment Mis M=FH+PA (3.43) P Ay? Strength Enhanced for PA > F F| 2 2 5 H z | PA -FH| Ay Displacement Ay (a) Structure (b) Moments (c) Force-Displacement Response Fig.3.23 P-A Effects on Design Moments and Response12 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structutes If the base moment capacity Mp is developed in inelastic response, then the lateral inertia force that can be resisted reduces as the displacement increases, according to the relationship Mp-PA H F= 3.44) This effect is illustrated in Fig.3.23(c), where it is apparent that the P-A effect not only reduces the lateral force, but also modifies the entire lateral force-displacement characteristic. ‘The effective initial stiffness is reduced, and the post-yield stiffness may become negative. The significance of P-A effects is recognized in most seismic design codes, and is gypically quantified by some form of “stability index”, 8, which compares the magnitude of the P-A effect at either nominal yield, or at expected maximum displacement, to the design base moment capacity of the structure. Since the P-A effect is of maximum significance at the design level of seismic response, we relate the stability index to conditions at maximum response, as recommended in [PI]: PA nx 5) % M, (3.45) In conventional force-based design, one of two different approaches is typically adopted to account for P-A effects. One approach is to increase the expected design displacement to A* mux Mad, a, 1-8 ‘The alternate approach is to increase the strength in an attempt to avoid an increase in the expected design displacement. Paulay and Priestleyi", discussing the design of reinforced concrete frame buildings, recommend that when the stability index is less than )=0.085, P-A effects may be ignored. For higher values of the stability index, an equal- energy approach is adopted to determine the required strength increase, as suggested in Fig, 3.23(©). This implies that the required nominal strength increase, ignoring P-A effects is somewhat greater than 50% of the calculated P-A effect. 3.46) 3.6.2. Theoretical Considerations Inelastic time-history analyses(®29I indicate that the significance of P-A effects depends on the shape of the hysteretic response. With the adoption of an elasto-plastic characteristic it can be shown™' that if the earthquake record is long enough, instability13 Chapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Consider: i.e, an increase in displacements until PA=Mp) will eventually occur, when P-A effects are included in the dynamic analysis. This can be explained with reference to Fig. 3.24(a), After an initial inelastic pulse resulting in a maximum displacement corresponding to point A, the structure unloads down a line of stiffness equal to the initial elastic stiffness co point B. In further response cycles it is more probable that the strength envelope will be reached at point A rather than point C on the opposite yield boundary, since a higher ievel of elastic response is needed to attain point C. Consequently, once the first inelastic pulse occurs, it creates a tendency for continued displacement in the same sense, and response continues incrementally to D and E, and if the earthquake record is long enough, failure eventually occurs, Although elasto-plastic hysteretic characteristics may be a reasonable approximation to steel structure response, concrete structures are better represented by the modified Takeda hysteretic rulel|, illustrated in Fig. 3.24(b), which has a positive post-yield stiffness, an unloading stiffness that is significantly less than the initial loading stiffness, and subsequent re-loading stiffness greatly reduced from the initial stiffness. ‘The positive post-yield stiffness compensates, to some extent for the strength loss associated with P-A. moments. Furthermore, unloading from the same displacement (point A) as for the elasto-plastic case results in much lower residual displacement at point B, because of the reduced unloading stiffness. Subsequent elastic cycles result in gradual reduction of the residual displacement (shake-down, lines B-F-G in Fig. 3.24(b)) due co the reduced stiffness in the reverse direction, and no preferential direction for cumulative displacement develops. (a) Elasto-plastic Hysteresis (b) Takeda Degrading Stiffness Hysteresis Fig 3.24 Influence of Hysteresis Rule on P-A Response114 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Analyses have shown! that provided the second slope stiffness K", of the stabilized loop shape, including P-A effects is positive, as in Fig. 3.24(b), structural response is stable, with only minor increase in displacement compared with response where P-4 effects are ignored. it has been shown!" that for Takeda response, a positive stabilized second slope stiffness of at least 5% of the initial elastic stiffness is assured provided the stability index satisfies: 4, 50.3 G47) where the stability index is defined by Eq.(3.45).. 3.6.3. Design Recommendations for Direct Displacement-Based Design It will be recognized that there are significant difficulties in rationally considering P-A effects in force based design. As was noted in Section 1.3.7, estimation of maximum expected displacement from different codified force-based designs is subject to wide variability, Hence large ertors in calculated P-A moments can be expected, depending on which design code is used. Further, most force-hased codes seriously underestimate the clastic and inelastic displacements, and hence underestimate the severity of P-A effects. The treatment of P-A effects in DDBD is comparatively straightforward, and is illustrated in Fig, 3.23(€), Unlike conditions for force-based design, the design displacement is known at the start of the design process, and hence the P-A moment is also known before the required strength is determined. DDBD is based on the effective stiffness at maximum design displacement, When P-A moments ate significant, it is the stiffness corresponding to the degraded strength and the design displacement (see Ke in Fig.3.23(¢)) that must match the required stiffness. Hence, Eq.(3.2) defines the required residual strength. The initial strength, corresponding to zero displacement, is thus given by PA, F=KA,+C- 48) and hence the requited base-moment capacity is M,=KA,H+C-PA, (3.49) Note that it is more consistent to define the P-A effect in terms of the base moment, than the equivalent lateral force. In Eq,(3.49), for consistency with the design philosophy of DDBD, we should take C=1. However, examination of the hysteretic loops indicates that more energy will be absorbed, for a given final design displacement and degraded strength, than for a design when P-A design is not required, particularly for conceete-like response. It is also apparent from time-history analyses that for small values of the stability index, displacements ate only slightly increased when P-A moments are ignored,Chapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 5 as noted above, It is also clear that steel structures are likely to be more critically affected than will concrete structures. Consideration of these points leads to the following design recommendations, which have recently been confirmed by time-history analyses!” (4) Steel structures: When the structural stability index defined by Eq. 3.45 exceeds 0.05, the design base moment capacity should be amplified for P-A considerations as indicated in F.9.3.49), taking C=1. This is represented by line 1 in Fig 3.25. Note that this implies greater strength enhancement than indicated by the upper line in Fig.3.23(c) For lesser values of the stability index, P-A effects may be ignored (b) Concrete structures: When the structural stability index defined by F9.(3.45) exceeds 0.10, the design base moment capacity should be amplified for P-A effects as indicated in Bq.(3.49), taking C=0.5. This is represented by line 2 in Fig.3.25. This ” in Fig. 3.200) corresponds to the upper line, marked “strength enhancement for P- For lesser values of the stability index, P-A effects may be ignored For both steel and concrete structures, it is recommended that the Stability Index, given by Eq.(3.45) should not exceed 0.33. Force (Ke + P/H)Ag (K. + 0.5P/H)Ay Keds Steet Concrete Displacement Aa Fig. 3.25 Required P-A Strength enhancement in Displacement-Based Design 3.7 COMBINATION OF SEISMIC AND GRAVITY ACTIONS 3.7.1 A Discussion of Current Force-Based Design Approaches Force-based seismic design codes normally require that actions (moments and shears) resulting from seismic design forces (reduced from the elastic level by specified force-116 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seissnic Design of Simmecures reduction factors) be directly added to gravity moments and shears to determine the required design strength. Since this can result in very unbalanced moment demands at different critical locations of a structure, limited moment redistribution is advocated in some design texts (e.g;[PI]), and permitted in some design codes to improve structural efficiency. There are a number of illogical aspects related to the current philosophy for combination of gravity and seismic actions, and these will be examined before making design recommendations. Consider the bridge bent subjected to gravity loads (G) from owo bridge girders, and seismic lateral forces (B), illustrated in Fig, 3.26. The columns are circular, and under seismic response, che normal design philosophy is adopted, that plastic hinges should form only in the columns and not in the cap beam. Gravity load moments will often be determined from an analysis assuming gross (un-cracked) section stiffness. The results from such an analysis are shown by the solid line in Fig, 3.26(b), with key relative magnitudes included in parentheses. Seismic moments may well be calculated using different stiffness assumptions — typically the column stiffnesses will be reduced to take some allowance for the effects of cracking, at moments corresponding to the yield moment (see Section 4.4). It should be noted, however, that combining results from different analyses using different stiffness values violates compatibility requirements. The results of such an analysis, shown in Fig, 3.26(c), corresponding to the elastic moments (Mg) from a response-spectrum analysis, reduced by the design force-reduction factor, R, (1.e., Meseduces =Me/R) are significantly larger than the gravity moments, as would be expected from a region of moderate seismicity. Relative moment magnitudes are again shown in parentheses in Fig.3.26(C). In the following discussion, it is assumed that the “equal displacements” approximation is reasonably valid (but see Section 4.9,2(g) for a discussion of this assumption), and hence the displacement ductility factor ly = R. The gravity and reduced seismic moments are combined in Fig. 3.26(d). It is seen that very different moment demands are created in the two columns, and thar the critical locations are the top (A) and bottom (B) of the right columa, with moments of 15 and 13 units respectively. In the following, the influence of seismic axial load, which will affect the moment capacity of the nwo columns by different amounts will be ignored. The first consideration to be made is that designing for these combined magnitudes will result in an inefficient structure. Under reversal of the direction of the seismic force JB, the left hand column will become critical, and hence both columns will have to be designed for the same flexural strength. We assume that the columns are cizcular, and that the moment capacities of the potential plastic hinges are equal in both directions of loading. Under seismic response, the pattern of moments shown in Fig. 3.26(d) by the solid line may be a reasonable approximation at first yield of the bent, but as the structure continues to deform to maximum displacement response, the left hand column wil! quickly develop plastic hinges at top and bottom, at che design strength of 15 units, assuming the reinforcement is the same at top and bottom of the columns. The pattern of moments throughout the118 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures structure when a full plastic hinge mechanism has formed is shown in Fig, 3.26(a) by the dashed line. At first vield, for the direction of seismic force indicated in Fig.3.26(d), the right-hand column carries a shear force of (15+13)/H, where His the column height, while the left- hand column carries a shear of only (3+7)/#L The total seismic force is thus 38/1. Note that this is also the value obtained directly from the design seismic moments of Fig.3.26(c), without consideration of the gravity loads. However, when the full mechanism forms, each column carries (15+15)/Ff, for a total of 60/H. The actual lateral strength developed will thus be 60/38 = 1.58 times the design lateral force used to determine the design seismic moments. If section strength reduction factors are adopted and conservative estimates are made of material strengths, then the probable lateral strength may well exceed nwo times the design lateral force. Strain hardening will increase the overstrength even further. Moments induced in the cap-beam are also greatly influenced by the difference between the moment pattems at first yield and full mechanism (solid and dashed lines in Fig.3.25(d)), with the peak design moment increasing from 7.5 units to 16.5 units. Since the cap-beam is designed to remain elastic, it is essential that this moment increase be accounted for in design. ‘The second consideration relates to the column stiffness assumed for the gravity load analysis, which as noted above will probably be the gross-section stiffness. During design- level seismic response, the effective stiffness of the columns will reduce to about 30-30% of the gross stiffness (see Section 4.4) when the column reaches first yield, and to perhaps 10% or less of the gross-section stiffness at maximum displacement response. As a consequence of the reduced column stiffness, the gravity load moments in the columns will almost entirely dissipate during the seismic response, as suggested by the dashed line in Fig, 3.26(b). The question should be asked as to whether the values of gravity moments are more relevant at the start of the seismic response than at the maximum response displacement. Certainly the increase in positive gravity load bending moment in the cap beam from 3 to 9, which can be expected to remain after seismic response must be considered in design ‘The enhanced lateral strength of the structure indicates that the overall displacement ductility demand will be proportionately less than intended. Although it may be argued that this is necessary to avoid excessive curvature ductility demand, at the critical section A.at the top of the column, it is in fact easy to show that this is a fallacy. As noted above, we assume that the “equal displacement” approximation holds, and hence the expected displacement ductility is 4 = R. The curvature ductility demand at A corresponding to Hs is Hy The combination of moments and of curvatures is shown in Fig.3.26(e), which relates to the moment-curvature response of section A, with a maximum design curvature Of Omar = fg» The moment corresponding to the reduced seismic force is less than the nominal moment capacity (60% of capacity, in the above example), and hence, assuming a bilinear moment-curvature response, as shown ia Fig.3.26(¢), the seismic curvature is less than the yield curvature by an equal amount, This is indicated in Fig.3.26(e) as Peyeduced. The curvature demand will thus not be Qnas, since only the seismic componentChapter 3. Direct Dispiacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 119 of the yield curvature will be increased by the expected curvature ductility factor to give Ho Grretuced, 100 Hy.Gy, a8 shown in Fig.3.26(@). The curvature corresponding to the gravity moment will be added to this, giving the final curvature as Pus Fig.3.26(€). Thus the full expected design curvature at A has not been used, Ic is best to illustrate this numerically. We assume that the design force reduction factor and displacement ductility are R = fly = 5, and the corresponding design curvature ductility demand is 44 = 10. Using the numerical values for gravity and seismic moment in Fig. 3.26, the scismic curvature corresponding to the reduced seismic force iS Preduced 0.69. The plastic seismic curvature will be (4g - 1) Przreduced =90.6 9 =5.49,. The total curvature will thus be ¢ + 5.4@, = 6.4@, and the curvature ductility demand, at 6.4, is 64% of the design value. Thus even the most critical of the sections is subjected 10a much lower ductility demand than intended in che design. On the basis of the above arguments, it is clear that direct addition of gravity and seduced seismic moments is illogical, and unnecessarily conservative. A logical improvement for force-based design would be to recognize that it is the sum of the gzavity and unreduced seismic curvatures which should equate to the design curvature mit, It follows from this thar the gravity and seismic moments should be combined according to: as shown in (Mg + M,)/RS My (3.50) where My is the nominal moment capacity of the section. The gravity moments should be calculated using stiffness values that are compatible with those used for the seismic analyses. This approach greatly reduces the influence of gravity moments in seismic design, and in many cases gravity moments will become insignificant. 3.7.2 Combination of Gravity and Seismic Moments in Displacement-Based Design The arguments developed above become more critical when related to direct displacement-based design. Because of the great differences in effective stiffness used to determine gravity moments (gross section stiffness) and seismic moments (eracked- section stiffness reduced by ductility factor — see Section 4.4) resulting moment combinations would be meaningless. The appropriate combination must be consistent with the design philosophy that we are concerned with conditions at maximum displacement response, not in the clastic state. Therefore, the gravity moments should be determined using the same effective stiffness as appropriate for the seismic design. In the example above, this would mean using greatly reduced elastic stiffness for the columns, swith the end results that gravity moments would become almost insignificant, It should be noted, however, that the reason that the above approach is valid, is that she gravity moments in the columns are based on compatibility, rather than equilibrium requirements, Care is needed to ensure that structures, or parts of structures where etavity moments are based on equilibrium considerations, do not have thet moments121 Chapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considera ne = has Dk : re = Dkyz, hy ( ) stiffness in the Z and X directions where ky and ky are element (ie. walls or fram. respectively, and x; and 4 are measured from the centre of ma hee Cu watt Zz Wat Was (a) Structural Wall Building (©) Frame with Eccentric Service Core Fig.3.27 Examples of Structures Asymmetric in PlanChapter 3. Dicect Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 123 Fig.3.28 Torsional Response of an Asymmetsic Wall Building (Plan View) Note thar the strength eccentricity is used in Eq.(3.53). ‘The vwist angle @ to be considered in Eq(3.53) is found from the total building strength in the direction considered, Vgz, and the effective rotational stiffness Jeg as ORV gz Cay IS, (3.55) taf where Jag =F Mikal env) + Dhawles eee (3.56) Note that the stiffhess eccentricity is used in Eq.(3.56), and the elastic stiffness of clements responding in the Z direction is reduced by the design system ductility, ys Since the transverse (K direction) elements are expected to remain clastic, or nearly clastic, theie elastic stiffness is not reduced. Thus, with reference again to Fig.3.28 under Z direction excitation: Jroy = Ko s(O5Ly —eal) +h aa(0-5Ly +egl) Velen +2has(O5Lz¥ G57) Note that the stiffness eccentricity egy in Fig.(3.55) can be based on ether elastic or effective stiffness. Since the latter are each taken as ket/ flys, identical values are obtained. In Eq.(3.57), itis assumed that the elastic stiffness of walls 3 and 4 is the same. Since torsional eccentricity is most common in wall buildings the justification for the above approach, and further discussion of torsional effects, is presented in Chapter 6,124 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 3.8.3 Design to Include Torsional Effects (a) Design to Avoid Strength Eccentricity: The first objective in consideration of torsion will be to investigate the possibility of eliminating the problem. With a building whose plan layout is symmetrical in location and in dimensions of lateral force-resisting elements this is of course no problem. Even when the plan layout of lateral force resisting elements is unsymmetrical, it may be possible to eliminate strength eccentricity. With respect to Fig.3.28, it may be possible to assign equal strengths to the two end walls (1 and 2) despite their different lengths by increasing the flexural reinforcement content of wall 2 in comparison with that of wall 1. This would occur during allocation of the total base shear between the different elements (Section 3.5.6). Note that the approach outlined in the previous section indicates that there will stil be a torsional component of response despite the zero strength eccentricity, which needs to be considered in the design process outlined in (c) below. Torsional response of systems with stiffness eccentricity, but no strength eccentricity is confirmed by inelastic time-history results (b) Design to Minimize Strength Eccentricity: When the plan layout of lateral force- resisting elements is such that strength eccentricity is unavoidable, the design objective will generally be to minimize the strength eccentricity, so that the inelastic twist will be minimized. This will be the case when the drift of the most flexible element governs displacement-based design, but may not be the optimum solution when ductility capacity of the stiffest element governs (see Section 6.4.5). (©) Modification of Design Displacement to Account for Torsion: ‘the most common design situation, particularly for frame buildings, bat also for many wall buildings of more than four storeys, will be that design displacements are governed by code drift limits. In these cases, the code drift will apply to the element with greatest displacement, including torsional effects, meaning that the design displacement at the building centre of mass, used in the SDOF design, will need to be reduced in proportion to the torsional displacements. The design displacement for the centre of mass will thus be found, reorganizing Eq.(3.53) to give: Boy = Ai ~ 8, — ev) (3.58) where Aj is the drift-controlled displacement of the critical element. With reference again to Fig.3.28, and assuming that drift limits apply to wall 2, the design displacement for the SDOF substitute structure will be Key = Az — A(0-SLy + ey) (3.59)Chapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 125 Icis also possible, particularly for low-rise wall buildings, or buildings containing walls with low height/length aspect ratios, that the displacement capacity of the stiffest wall corresponding to material strain limits may govern design. In this case the design displacement at the centre of mass will be larger than the displacement of the critical element, Equation (3.56) still applies, with due consideration of signs, and with reference to Fig,3.28, the design displacement for the substitute structure will be Bey =A, + (0.5L, —le,x|) (3.60) In general it will be necessary to adopt an iterative approach to determine the design displacement when torsional effects are significant, since @ depends on Je, eg and ev which in turn depend on the relative strengths assigned to the lateral force-resisting clements in both orthogonal directions, and the system ductility. However, adequate simplifying assumptions can often be made to avoid the necessity for iteration. Since this, is mainly relevant to the behaviour of wall structures, it is discussed in further detail in Chapter 6. 3.9 CAPACITY DESIGN FOR DIRECT DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN Direct displacement-based design is a procedure for determining the required strength of different structural systems to ensure that a given performance state, defined by flexural strain or drift limits, is achieved under a specified level of seismic intensity, From this design strength, the required moment capacity at intended locations of plastic hinges or shear capacity of seismic isolation devices, with seismic isolated structures) can be determined. As with force-based design, it is essential to ensure that inelastic action occurs only in these intended locations, and only in the desired inelastic mode. For example, a cantilever wall building will have intended plastic hinges at the bases of the various walls, where inelastic action will be required to occur by inelastic flexural rotation. Special measures are required to ensure that unintended plastic hinges do not occur at other locations up che wall height, where adequate detailing for ductility has not been provided, and to ensure that inelastic shear displacements, which are accompanied by rapid strength degradation, do not occur. Moments and shears throughout the structure resulting from the distribution of the base shear in accordance with Sections 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 inchude only the effects of the first inelastic mode of vibration. This is adequate for determining the required strength at plastic hinge locations. However, actual response of the structure will include effects of higher modes, These will not affect the moments at the plastic hinge locations, as these are defined by, and limited to, the first inelastic mode values, but will influence moments and shears at other locations. A further factor to be considered is that conservative estimates of material strengths will normally be adopted when determining the size of members, and (for reinforced concrete design) the amount of reinforcing steel. If the material strengths exceed the design values, as will normally be the case, then the moments developed at the plasticChapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 127 higher mode, and may amplify the gravity moments considerably. A strict formulation of capacity design would take this into account. Column end moments and shear forces are amplified for both beam plastic hinge overstrength and dynamic amplification. For one-way frames, upper limits for dynamic amplification of column moments of 1.80 have been recommended, with 1.3 for column shear forces. Further amplification for beam flexural overstrength is required", In this section we have discussed conventional capacity design, as currently applied to force-based design of structures. We show in Section 4,5 and the design chapters related 10 specific structural types that modifications to the capacity factors for both flexural overstrength, and dynamic amplification are appropriate for direct displacement-based design. 1 _ 08 & & = o6 5 “S._+ Dynamic 4 3 *Ampifiation 5 g 2 04 z z z a a 02 0 i oO 04 08 1.2 0 0.5 1 15 2 25 Dimensionless Moment Dimensionless Shear Force (a) Moment Profiles (b) Shear Force Profiles Fig. 3.29 Recent Recommendations for Dynamic Amplification of Design Forces for Equivalent Lateral Force Design of Cantilever Walls!”!1 3.10 SOME IMPLICATIONS OF DDBD. 3.10.1 Influence of Seismic Intensity on Design Base Shear Strength Direct displacement-based seismic design implies significantly different structural sensitivity to seismic intensity than found from current codified force-based design procedures. This can be illustrated with reference to Fig.3.30, where acceleration spectra (Fi.3.30(@)), and displacement spectra (Fig.3.30(b)) are shown for two seismic zones. It128 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures is assumed that the spectral shapes for the two zones are identical, and each are found by multiplying a base-leve! spectrum by the zone factors Z1 or Z2. Consider the design of two reinfoxced concrete buildings, one designed for each of the seismic zones, where the structural geometry, including member sizes (but not reinforcement contents) are identical for the two buildings, We assume that structures are designed to exactly satisfy the strength requirements for the two zones. If the buildings are designed by conventional force-based procedures, the fundamental periods of the two buildings will be assumed to be the same, since the same allowance for reduction of gtoss-section stiffness will be made. Assuming the same force-reduction factor is used for each design it is thus clear (see Fig.3.30(a)) that the required base-shear design forces Vs and V2 for the two buildings are related by: Z, (3.63) "Z, (a) Acceleration Spectra (b) Displacement Spectra Fig.3.30 Influence of Seismic Intensity on Design Base Shear Force Under direct displacement-based design, the assumption of equal geometry ensures that the yield displacements, and the limit-state design displacements, based on drift limits, for the two buildings are the same. Hence the ductility, and also the effective damping will also be the same for the two buildings, As may be seen from Fig.3.30(b), with equal design displacements and damping, the effective periods at design displacement response will be related to the zone intensity byChapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 129 From Eq,G.1) the required effective stiffness is inversely proportional to the period squared, hence: (3.65) Further, since the design displacements are equal, F.q.(3.2) yields the ratio of base shear forces as: Vioses = 2 (3.66) 1) ‘Thus the required base shear strength is proportional to the square of the seismic intensity. This is a fundamentally important difference between the two approaches, particularly for regions of low (or very high) seismicity. It should be noted however, that the difference between the conclusions resulting from force-based or displacement-based considerations is largely a consequence of the assumption in the force-based approach that stiffness may be assumed to be equal to a constant fraction of the gross-section stiffness. As has been pointed out in relation to Fig.1.4, and is discussed in some detail in Section 4.4, stiffness of a member is directly proportional to strength. Thus the elastic stiffness of the members of the structure in the lower seismic zone will be less than for the structure in the higher seismic zone, An iterative force-based solution, correcting the stiffness of the structural members based on the strength found from the previcus iteration would eventually come to a similat conclusion to that resulting from DDBD. 3.10.2. Influence of Building Height on Required Frame Base Shear Strength A further finding of some interest can be obtained by examining the sensitivity of required base shear strength of buildings with identical plan geometry and storey mass, but with different numbers of storeys. We assume for simplicity that the section dimensions of structural members are not affected by building height, and that the design deflected shape is also independent of building height. Clearly this latter assumption will become increasingly crude when large variations in building height are considered, but is reasonable for frame buildings up to about 10 storeys, and for dual wall/frame buildings up to 20 storeys. Figure 3.31 compares two frames of different heights. Let 2 = number reys, with constant mass m per storey. In the following, C; to Cs are constants. Effective mass: (3.672) Design Displacement: (3.676)130 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Tw _———— (a) Building 1 (b) Building 2 (c) Design Displacements Fig.3.31 Design Displacement Profiles of Buildings Differing only in Height With the above assumptions, both the yield displacement, and the design displacement will be proportional to height. Hence the design displacement ductility and thus the effective damping will be independent of height, and the design displacement response of the buildings will lie on the same damping curve (see Fig,3.1(d)). Provided that the design displacement given by Eq,(3.67b) is less than the displacement at peak period (e.g. Te =4 sec, in Fig.3.1(d)), and that the design displacement spectrum is linear with period, the effective period can thus be expressed as: T= OAg=O,C,n G.67¢) From Eq.(3.1), the effective stiffness will be: om 6.67) (CC)? From Eqs.(3.2), (3.67b) and (3.674) the design base shear will be Vie =A, =C.™ Cyn = C, 7 Voae = kg = Cs Cn = Cam (3.676) n Recalling that mis the mass of one storey, it is seen that the design base shear strength is independeat of the number of storeys. This might seem to point the way towards further possibie design simplifications 3.10.3 Bridge with Piers of Different Height ‘We return to the example of a bridge crossing a valley, with piers of different heights, first discussed in Section 1.3.4, and subjected to longitudinal seismic excitation. Figure 1.11 from Section 1.3.4 is reproduced below as Fig,3,32(a).Chapter 3. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Fundamental Considerations 131 Displacement (@) Structure (b) Force-Displacement Response Fig.3.32 Bridge with Unequal Pier Heights under Longitudinal Excitation As was discussed in Section 1.3.4, designing in strict accordance with force-based design would require allocating sheat between the piers in proportion to the elastic stiffnesses of the piers. This is based on the assumption that yield displacements, and ductility demands for the piers can be equalized by distributing strength in proportion to stiffness, We have showa this to be invalid, since the yield curvature, and hence the yield displacement is essentially independent of strength. The consequences, as noted in Table 3.6 are that flexural reinforcement ratios for the piers should be approximately in proportion to the inverse of pier height squared. ‘The sequence of design operations follows the arrow in the second column of Table 3.6 With DDBD, the initial stiffness is largely irrelevant, and the relationship berween flexural reinforcement ratios ia the piers is the designer’s choice. Normally equal reinforcement ratios will be chosen, and the moment capacities of the flexural plastic hinges will be essentially equal. This implies distributing the total seismic force benween the piers in inverse proportion to height, as indicated in Table 3.6, Column 3, which also shows that the sequence of design operations, indicated by the arrow, is the exact reverse of that for force-based design. Of course it would be possible to use a rational reinforcement distribution for force-based design, but only if the concept of the importance of initial stiffness is abandoned. ‘Table 3.6 Difference between Force-based and Displacement-Based Design Parameters for Bridge under Longitudinal Excitation fr 1TEM Force-Based DDBD Design Yield Displacement Equal a Ductility Demand Equal o.1/FP Stiffness aif | at/H Design Shear Force 1/HP aij [Design Moment oe [Equal Reinforcement Ratio Equal132 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 3.10.4 Building with Unequal Wall Lengths The structural wall building shown in Fig.3.33, also considered in Chapter 1, and in Design Examples 3.5 to 3,7 is now considered. Force-based design, relying on initial stiffness distributes the design base shear force berween the different length walls in proportion to wall length cubed on the invalid assumption that the walls can be made to yield at the same displacement. Since the yield curvature is inversely proportional to wall length, so will the yield displacements be. ‘Table 3.7 compares the proportions of the design parameters based on initial-stiffness force-based design, and direct displacement- based design. A B c Force — > > > Co 1 Anos Ay Aaa lek be heh lc Aye” Displacement Fig.3.33 Building with Unequal Length Cantilever Walls Table 3.7 Comparison of Design Parameters for Force-Based and DDBD Designs of a Cantilever Wall Building ITEM Force-Based | DDBD Design Yield Displacement Equal Duetility Demand Equal Stiffness ody” Design Shear Force ole Design Moment ale ‘Reinforcement Ratio Oh4 ANALYSIS TOOLS FOR DIRECT DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN 41 INTRODUCTION It is beyond the scope of this book to include a detailed treatment of material properties, methods of analysis for determining section strengths, and general global structural analysis methods, There are, however, a number of aspects of these topics which are of special relevance for direct displacement based design (DDBD), particularly related to the strength and deformation characteristics of reinforced concrete and masonry sections. Hence this chapter provides a detailed examination of selected topics. More general treatments are available in other sources (?1."4 to which the interested reader 1s referred. 4.2. FORCE-DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBERS (a) Structure (b) Deflection (ce) Moment-Curvature (A) Force-Displacement Fig.4.1 Lateral Deformation of a Bridge Column One of the most basic tools for DDBD is she moment-curvature analysis of reinforced concrete and masonry sections. This is used to define section strengths, limir state curvatures, and also the elastic stiffness. From these data, member and structure force- 133134 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures displacement characteristics can be directly generated, as discussed in Section 4.2.8, and suggested in Fig.4.1 for a simple bridge pier. The treatment in the following relates specifically to reinforced concrete sections, though the principles are identical for reinforced masonry. In general, moment-curvature analysis of steel sections is un- necessary, since the elastic stiffness is directly known. Generation of force-displacement response of steel sections is briefly covered in Section 4.3 4.2.1. Moment-Curvature Analysis centroidal (a) Symmetrical section _(b) Strains (©) Stresses n layers of rebar Fig.4.2. Strains and Stresses in an Arbitrary Symmetrical R.C. Section Figure 4.2 shows ao arbitrary symmetrical reinforced concrete section subjected to bending, with the top of the section in compression. The normal assumptions for flexural analysis are made: © The strain profile is linear at all stages of loading up to ultimate (ie. the Navier- Bernoulli “plane-sections” hypothesis holds). © Steel strain and concrete strain at a given distance from the neutral axis (see Fig. 4.2) are identical (ie. perfect bond between steel and concrete exists) © Concrete and reinforcement non-linear stress-strain relationships are known: Sees = P (Egy) = PE ny) (4.1@) Savy =P Egy) = PE) (410) Concrete tension strength is ignored in the analysis. © Axial force (if any) is applied at the section centroid.Chapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 135 As discussed subsequently, different concrete stress-strain relationships will apply to core and cover concrete. Note that the reason that concrete tension strength is ignored in the analysis is that the section will be subjected to reversed loading under seismic attack. Since the neutral axis will generally be on the compression side of the section centroid, cracks under reversed loading will extend through the entire section. ‘That is, the compression zone will occur in a location previously cracked under moment of the opposite sign, and no tension capacity will exist after application of service loads, or preliminary low-level seismic response. Further, the contribution of concrete tension strength to flexural strength is normally negligible. Let the axial force on the section be denoted by N. Then for axial force equilibrium at any level of response, using the nomenclature of Fig 4.2: N= [fo nd tS fod, = JO. (6) +L, (€y,)4, 42) where Ay is the total area of all reinforcing bars at layer J, distance y; from the centroidal tically, the position of the neutral axis is adjusted by trial and error until Eq.(4.2) is satisfied ‘Taking moments of the stress resultants about the section centroid: M= JOE vd LOE IVA, (43) 7 “The corresponding curvature is given by =fe5_fu 4.4) oe G-o a where & and & respectively are the extreme-fibre compression strain, and strain at the level of the reinforcing bars at maximum distance from the neutral axis (see Fig.4.2).. Moment-curvature analysis is normally organized in accordance with the following steps: 1. Divide the section into a number of stices perpendicular to the loading axis, Determine the area of unconfined cover concrete, confined core concrete, and reinforcing steel in each layer. 2. Select an extreme fibre compression strain, starting with the lowest value. 3. Assume a neutral axis location. 4. Calculate concrete and steel stresses at the centre of each layer, and hence the concrete and steel forces in each layer 5. Check axial force equilibrium in accordance with Eq.(4.2). 6. Modify the neutral axis position to improve agreement in Eq.(4.2).136 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 7. Cycle steps 3 to 6 until satisfactory agreement is obtained between external and internal forces. Iculate the moment (Fg/4.3)) and curvature (Eq.(4.4)). 9. Increment the extreme fibre compression strain, and repeat steps 3 to 8. 10. Continue incrementing the extreme fibre compression strain until the ultimate compression strain (discussed subsequently) is reached. ‘ 4.2.2. Concrete Properties for Moment-Curvature Analysis : confined coneréte hoop fracture” Compressive Stress f. > ungonfined concrete rs Exp Exe Compressive Strain, & Fig.4.3 Stress-Strain Model for Concrete in Compression M41 As noted above, separate stress-strain relationships should be used for the compression response of unconfined cover concrete and confined core concrete. As shown in Fig. 4.3, confined concrete has increased compression strength, and more importantly, increased compression strain capacity. The enhancement of compression stress- strain characteristics of the core concrete is a result of the action of well-detailed transverse reinforcement in the form of hoops or spirals. In conjunction with longitudinal reinforcement, close-spaced transverse reinforcement acts to restrain the lateral expansion of the concrete that accompanies the onset of crushing, maintaining the integrity of the core concrete. Figure 4.4 shows four column sections confined by different configurations of transverse reinforcement. In Fig.4.4(a), the confinement is provided by circular spirals ot hoops. As the concrete attempts to expand, it bears uniformly against the hoop or spiral, placing it in tension, resulting in a uniform radial compression on the concrete.Chapter 4, Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 137 (a) Circular hoops —_(b) Rectangular hoops __(c) Rectangular octagonal or spirals with cross-ties hoops unconfined concrete Wl () Overlapping rectangular (e) Confinement by _(f) Confinement by hoops transverse rebar longitudinal rebar Fig.4.4 Confinement of Column Sections by Transverse Hoops and Spirals! In Fig4.4 the unconfined cover concrete is shown shaded. It is normally assumed that the maximum effective radial confining pressure, fj that can be exerted on the core concrete occurs when the spirals or hoops are stressed to their yield stress fry. ‘Taking a free body across the column diameter, and noting that this exposes two bar forces fry where Ap is the spiral or hoop cross-sectional area, the confining stress in the core is: 2huds D's =05—Son (45) where sis the spacing of the hoop or spiral along the column longitudinal axis, D’is the diameter of the confined core, measured to the centreline of the hoop or spiral, and p, 4A,/D"s is the volumetric ratio of transverse hoops or spirals. Note that the longitudinal spacing s of the hoops or spiral also affects confinement efficiency, as shown in Fig, 4.4(¢), since the confining effect is concentrated as a line load at the level of the spiral. However, this load is partially distributed to the longitudinal reinforcement which tends to make the confining effect more uniform (see Fig.4.4(6), illustrating the importance of the longitudinal reinforcement to confinement of concrete.138 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures The hoops or spirals also act to restrain the longitudinal reinforcement from buckling when in compression. Buckling may occur after longitudinal reinforcement is. first subjected to inelastic tension strain under one direction of seismic loading. When the loading direction is reversed, the bars initially transfer all the compression force on the section, and must yield in compression before previously formed cracks close. It is during this stage of response that the bars are susceptible to buckling. Once the cracks close, the compression stiffness of the concrete can be expected to restrain the tendency for bar buckling, It will thus be seen that bar buckling is more dependent on the inelastic tensile strain developed in a previous yield excursion, than on pure compression characteristics To ensure inelastic buckling does not occur, the maximum spacing of transverse hoops or spirals must be related to the bar diameter, as discussed further in Section 4.2.5(c) With rectangular sections, it is possible to develop different levels of lateral confining stress in orthogonal directions. If Ayu is the total amount of lateral reinforcement in a hoop layer crossing a section perpendicular t0 Ay4x, then the maximum confining stress that can be developed in that direction is CAatcbri hys ty Sic = = OP aS, (4.6) where Pax is the area ratio of transverse reinforcement in the x direction, is again the spacing of hoop sets along the member axis, and €, is a confinement effectiveness coefficient, relating the minimum area of the effectively confined core (see Fig.4.4) to the nominal core area bounded by the centreline of the peripheral hoop, and fy is the core width perpendicular to the direction considered, measured to the centreline of the petipheral hoop. Clearly a similar expression can be developed in the orthogonal direction. Ideally, rectangular sections should be designed to have equal area ratios of confining reinforcement in the orthogonal directions, in which case the volumetric confinement ratio is: P. Px + Pay =2Po (4.7) and the lateral confining stress is given by f= 95CP.fy 48) The similarity to Eq is obvious. Note that a confining effectiveness coefficient C. is sometimes also assigned to circular sections, but since it will normally be higher than 0.95 for typical designs, itis generally taken as 1.0. For rectangular sections, values of between 0.75 and 0.85 are appropriate, depending on the ratio s/fe, and the number of longitudinal bars in the section. For walls, C, = 0.5 is generally appropriate.140 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 4.2.4 Reinforcing Steel Properties for Moment-Curvature Analyses compression strain tension strain Fig. 4.5 Reinforcing Steel Stress-Strain Characteristics In conventional seismic design the rcinforcing steel design strength is often taken as the yield strength. That is, the increase in stress due to strain-hardening is generally ignored. When carrying out moment-curvature analyses however, it is important that the most realistic representation of the full stress-strain characteristic be utilized, including the strain-hardening portion. ‘This is particularly important for DDBD, because the design attempts to match the strength at the expected design displacement to the required strength, rather than to use an artificially low nominal “yield” strength. Figure 4.3 illustrates che characteristics of typical monotonic and cyclic stress-strain response of reinforcing steel, The monotonic response can be represented by three phases: Elastic: 056, $6: S.=E£,81f, (4.16) Yield plateau: 65656, f, = f, (4.17) Strain-hardening: &45656.: f,~ f,)1-(f,-f, fé é ] (4.18) \ Em ~ Eh In Fg(4.16) to (4.18), & and f, and the reinforcing steel strain and stress, Ey is the clastic modulus, and the other symbols are defined in Fig.4.4. Note that the curve only continues up to Ew, the strain at ultimare stress, as behaviour past this point isChapter 4, Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 141 characterized by local necking of the reinforcement, with reduction of stress elsewhere, and cannot be relied on in design, Typical values for the characteristic stresses and strains depend on the type, and grade of reinforcement used. In seismic applications in the American continent, ASTM 7068 grade 60 reinforcement (f, minimum = 414MPa) is normally used. Strain-hardening usually starts at about &» = 0.008, the ultimate strain is about &y = 0.10 to 0.12, and the ratio of ultimate to yield stress is typically f/f, = 1.35 to 1.50. In Europe tempcore reinforcement is almost always used, with a higher yield stress (typically f, = 500MPa (72.5ksi)), an ulkimate strain of about 0.09, a ratio of ultimate to yield stress of about fulfy = 1.2, and essentially no pronounced yield plateau. Asis illustrated in Fig. 4.5, the cyclic characteristics of the reinforcing steel differ from the monotonic curve, On unloading and reloading, the stress-strain curve softens early, due 0 the Bauschinger effect, and no pronounced yield plateau is apparent. However, it is found that force-displacement response predicted from moment-curvature characteristic based on the monotonic stress-strain curves for both concrete and reinforcement provide a good envelope to measured cyclic response, Where full cyclic moment-curvature response is required (this is more normally the case for research applications rather than for design), more complete equations are appropriate, and the reader is referred elsewhere!'I, 4.2.5 Strain Limits for Moment-Curvature Analysis (2) Damage-Control Compression Strain: The useful limit to confined concrete compression strain is usually taken to occur when fracture of the transverse zeinforcement confining the core occurs. This may be estimated by equating the increase in strain-energy absorbed by the concrete, above the value appropriate for unconfined concrete to the strain-energy capacity of the confining steel. Considering a unit volume of core concrete under uniform axial compression, the increase in strain-energy absorbed can be expressed as: SEcone = OS ce Een (4.19) where Cy is a coefficient dependent on the shape of the unconfined and confined stress strain curves. Similarly, the strain-energy capacity of the transverse reinforcement, related £0 the same unit volume of core concrete can be expressed as SE tar = CoP SE wn (4.20) where Cz depends on the shape of the reinforcing steel stress-strain cufve, ‘Thus equating 4.19) and (4,20), and assuming that the unconfined ultimate strain of the concrete is 0,004, the following expression for the ultimate compression strain for confined concrete can be derived:142 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures ahh fre = 0.004 +1 (4.21) In Eq.(4.21) an average value of G/G=1.4 is adopted, based on typical steel and concrete stress-strain shapes. Equation (4.21) is approximate for a number of reasons: ‘Iris based on pure axial compression of the core concrete. Under combined axial compression and flexure, the equation will predict conservatively low estimates for Eu © Ir does not take into account the additional confinement of the critical section by the adjacent member. If the member is a column supported on a foundation, then the foundation will act to restrain lateral expansion of the critical lower part of the column plastic hinge, thus adding to the confining effect. Similarly, the end portion of the plastic hinge of a beam framing into a column will be confined to some extent by the column, provided the column remains elastic. Although experimentsil have shown the equation to provide good estimates of ultimate compression strain, the logic (energy balance) does not appear « apply at reduced levels of extreme fibre compression strain. At these levels, inverting Eq.(4.21) to provide estimates of transverse reinforcement strain (6, rather than &,) over-predicts the measured strains The combined effects of these approximations results in effective ultimate compression strains under combined axial force and flexure that exceed the predicted values by a factor of about 1.3 10 1.6. The influence on ultimate displacement is similar. Our view is that this degree of conservatism is appropriate for structures designed t0 a “damage control” limit state (see Section 3.3.2). (®) Serviceability Limit Compression Strain: The limit compression strain for concrete corresponding to the serviceability limic state should he a conservative estimate of the strain at which spalling initiates, Below this strain-limit repair should not be needed which is compatible with performance criteria for the serviceability limit state. In seismic response, maximum compression strains almost always occur adjacent to a supporting, member (c.g, a foundation beam, for a concrete column or wall), which provide an additional restraint against initiation of spalling. Experiments!” have indicated that a compression strain of Es = 0,004 is a conservative lower limit to initiation of spalling, and this value will be used for concrete structures in this text. For masonry structures a somewhat more conservative estimate is appropriate, and we recommend &. = 0.003. (©) Damage-Control Tension Strain Limit: \t is inappropriate to use Em , the strain at _maximum stress of the reinforcing steel found from monotonic testing, as the maximum permissible tension strain for moment-curvature analysis for several reasons. First, under cyclic loading, the effective ultimate tensile strain is reduced by the peak compressive strain, &, achieved under a previous reversal of loading direction, asChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 143 suggested in Fig. 4.419, Second, once high tensile strains have been developed, the longitudinal reinforcement becomes susceptible to buckling when subjected to reversed ioading that puts the reinforcement ir. compression. This buckling typically occurs before the previously developed flexural cracks are closed, and while the bars are still subject t© rensile strain (but compressive stress). This engenders low-cycle fatigue of the reinforcing bar at levels of tensile strain significantly below &,. The level of strain will depend on the volumetric ratio and longitudinal spacing of the transverse reinforcement. Finally, slip between reinforcing steel and concrete at the critical section, and tension-shift effects result in reinforcement strain levels being lower than predicted by a “planc-sections” hypothesis. Based oo these considerations, the ultimate curvature of the section analysed should be based on a steel tension strain limit of & = 0.6€s», if this occurs before the concrete ultimate compression strain £4, is developed. To ensure this level of strain is attainable without the reinforcement buckling, the spacing of transverse reinforcement hoops or layers should not exceed s = (3 + 6(f/fy-1)) dyy (dy = longitudinal bar diameter) (d) Serviceability Limit Tension Strain: \t has bees common in the past to require “elastic” or “near-elastic” response at the serviceability limit state, This is generally taken to mean that the displacement ductility demand should be /£ © 1, implying reinforcement tension strains that are at, or only slightly above yield strain. ‘This ‘s, in our view excessively conservative, as strains of several times the yield strain can be sustained without creating damage requiring repair. The critical aspect is likely t0 be the crack widths developed by the seismic response, Moreover, it is not the instantaneous maximum value occurring during seismic response, but the residual crack width that will be of concern, since potential corrosion is the issue here. Analyses ceported elsewhere! indicate that for structural elements with compression gravity loading (walls, columns), a maximum tension strain of 0.015 during seismic response will correspond to residual crack widths of about 1.0 mm (0.04in), and for members without axial compression (e.g, beams) a peak strain of about 0,010 is appropriate. A residual ctack width of 1.0mm should not need remedial action in normal environments. In aggressively corrosive environments, lower residual crack widths may be appropriate, with correspondingly reduced serviceability tensile steain limits. 4.2.6 Material Design Strengths for Direct Displacement-Based Design In gravity-load design of structures, it is common practice t0 assume minimum, or characteristic lower bound values for material strengths when determining the nominal strength of sections. This is typically combined with a strength reduction factor (or with partial material factors) to ensure a conservative estimate of the section strength. Thus, the design flexural strength requirement may be expressed as: o,My>M, (4.22)144 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Susetures where @ is the flexural strength reduction factor (typically gy $0.9), and My and Mp are the nominal (designed) and required moment capacities. ‘This conservative approach has obvious relevance for gravity-load design, where the consequences of the dependable strength (gy My) being less than the moment demand could be catastrophic failure. However, in seismic design, it is expected that under design seismic attack, the moment capacity will be considerably less than the demand resulting from fully clastic response. Consequently, incorporation of extreme conservatism in estimates of matetial strengths, and use of strength reduction factors will not result in “protecting” the section against inelastic action. All that will happen is that the section strength will be higher than needed, but will still be developed, with considerable ductility demand, under design seismic attack. A small reduction in displacement demand might result, buc this is best directly incorporated into the specified design displacement. Consequently it is recommended that flexural strength reduction factors not be used when designing locations of intended plastic hinging. Based on recommendations for seismic design of bridges(4l ir is also recommended that the following design material strengths be adopted: Concrete: fee = N.3f. (4.232) Steel fe = Af, (4.23b) In Fq.(4.23) free and fre are low estimates of expected strength. The value for fre is felt to be appropriate for both zeinforcing and structural steel. The concrete strength acknowledges the influence of conservative batching practice (average 28-day compression strength is typically 20% above the specified value), and the increase in strength after 28 days before the structure is subjected to the design loading, which will certainly occur later than 28 days. Asis discussed in Section 4.5, it will also be necessary to obtain estimates of maximum feasible strength in plastic hinges, for capacity design calculations, using upper-bound material strengths. The following values are recommended: Concrete: freo= \.1fc (4.24a) Steel: fy =13fy (4.24b) 4.2.7. Bilinear Idealization of Concrete Moment-Curvature Curves For design purposes, it is generally of sufficient accuracy to use a bilinear approximation to che moment-curvature response, consisting of an initial “elastic” branch, and a post-yield “plastic” branch. For reinforced concrete and masonry sections, it is important that the elastic branch not be based on the initial uncracked section stiffness, as this value is only appropriate for very low levels of seismic response. The normal procedure is to use the secant stiffness from the origin through first yield as the effective elastic stiffness. First yield is defined as the point on the moment-curvatureChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Dicect Displacement-Based Design. 145 response when the extreme tension reinforcement (ic. the rebar furthest from the neutral axis) first attains yield strain, or when the extreme concrete compression fibre (again, at ‘maximum distance from the neutral axis) attains a strain of 0.002, which ever occurs first. The moment and curvature at first yield are denoted M, and 9, respectively. This line defining the elastic stiffness is extrapolated up to the nominal moment capacity, which is defined by an extreme fibre compression strain of 0.004 or an extreme tensiva reinforcing bar strain of 0.015, which ever occurs first. The corresponding curvature is termed the nominal yield curvature 4, The plastic branch is defined by connecting the nominal yield point (My, @) to the ultimate condition: Mu, Gy. This procedure is illustrated for a rectangular column section in Fig. 4.6, where the full moment-curvature relationship is shown in Fig-4.6(a), and the initial portion is shown in Fig.4.6(b) to expand the elastic branch, From Fig. 4.6(b) it is seen that the nominal yield curvature is defined as: (4.25) The elastic stiffness is the slope of the initial branch. That is: M, M. EL, == (4.26) go, and the stiffness of the plastic branch is given by: El, = aM (427 9-9, The column represented in Fig, 4.6 had a square section, 800x800mm (31.5x31.5 in), had a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 1.88%, and a transverse reinforcement area ratio of 0.436% (equivalent to a volumetric ratio of 0.872%). Material properties were f'e = 30MPa (4350 psi), f= fon = 425 MPa (61,600 psi, and axial load = 2MN (450 kips).. In Fig. 4.6(b), the cracking moment Mg, and curvature $,, have also been identified. For reasons elaborated above in section 4.2.1 these have been based on the assumption of zeto tension strength for the concrete, Note that the elastic stiffness defined by Eg.(4.26) is only about 40% of the initial stiffness of the un-cracked section.146 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 3000 5 MyF> 2000 | & & z : ' z i i 1000 + El ' } ' i tore 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 “oa Curvature (en) (2) Full Moment-curvature response 2500 4 My 1500 4 Moment (kN) g L 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 Curvature (mi) (6) Initial section Of Moment-Curvature Response Fig.4.6 Example Moment-Curvature Curve for an 800x800 mm (31.5%31.5 in) Column SectionChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Dircet Displacement-Based Design 147 4.2.8 Force-Displacement Response from Moment-Curvature A Fr, wee a H May An) 1 _ - a erertnaaccelan (a) Structure (b) Moments (c) Curvature (4) Displacement Fig.4.7. Obtaining Displacements from Curvature Distributions Figure 4.7 illustrates what might appear to be the obvious method for obtaining the placement at the top of a simple bridge pier subjected to a specified lateral force F, ‘om the moment-curvature relationship, and to hence build the force-displacement ponse. The procedure, though related to a bridge pier for simplicity, is general for slumns and walls, and can be easily adapted to develop force-rotation response, which ay be more general for (say) beam members, Using the nomenclature of Fig4.7, and measuring the distance ft down from the line of application of the inertia force, the cnoment at h and at the base ( =H) will be given by: My, =F-h; and M,=F-H (4.28) The curvatures at all heights # could then be read from the moment-curvature -elationship to produce the curvature distribution gj) shown in Fig. 4.7(¢), which could be integrated to provide the top displacement, A, as: H, A= [Ohh (4.29) a Repeating this process for values of 0S FE M,/H would then be expected to provide he full force-displacement response. Unfortunately this process does not produce force-displacement predictions that agree well with experimental results. These are a number of reasons for this:148 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Tension shift is ignored. As shown in Fig-4,7(a), the influence of shear force is likely to incline the flexural cracks from the horizontal orientation appropriate for pure flexure. The result is that the “plane-sections” hypothesis is incorrect, and reinforcement tension strains at a given level will be higher than predicted from the moment at that sectionl"'l, Thus a simple integration of the theoretical curvature distribution is an approximation The approach ignores shear deformation, though this can be separately added to the displacement response (see Section 4.8, e.g.) Anchorage deformation (strain-penetration) is ignored. Equation (4.29) implies that the curvature drops to zero immediately below the column base (or, for a beam, at the column face). In fact, strains of the tension reinforcement will only drop to zero at a depth equal to the true development length of the reinforcement. This implies a partial pullout of the bar at the column base section, which can be estimated by integrating the reinforcement strain profile below the base. On the other side of the column, the concrete compression strains will also not immediately drop to zero at the base, but will gradually dissipate with depth. The reinforcement tension strain effect is more important, and it is useful to define a “strain penetration” length Lsp, over which the curvature may be considered constant and equal to the column base curvature, In some cases the moment-curvature response will exhibit negative stiffness; that is, the moment will decrease as the curvature increases. This will generally be the result of reduced effective section size caused by spalling of cover concrete. Attempting to integrate the curvature distribution in accordance with Eq(4.29) will result in only one section (the base) of infinitesimal length, being subjected to increased curvature as the moment drops. All other sections will not have reached the peak moment, and hence will presumably have a reduction of curvature. Strict application of Eq,(4.29) would then result in the ultimate displacement being obtained as soon as the critical section reached the peak moment. This does not accord with observations thar che displacement continues to increase as the moment decreases The solution to these problems is to use a simplified approach based on the concept of a “plastic hinge”, of length Lp, over which strain and curvature are considered to be equal to the maximum value at the column base. The plastic hinge length incorporates the strain penetration length Lsp as shown in Fig.4.8. Further, the curvature distribution higher up the column is assumed to be linear, in accordance with the bilinear approximation to the moment-curvatute response. This tends to compensate for the increase in displacement resulting from tension shift, and, at least partially, for shear deformation ‘The strain penetration length, Lsp may be taken as: Lp = 0.022 f,.d; (fre in MPa); 15 feds) Gye in ksi) (4.30)Chapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 149 linear to yield I Atego Fig.4.8 Idealizarion of Cusvature Distribution where fre and dy are the yield strength and diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement, nd the plastic hinge length, Lp, for beams and columns, is given by: Ly = ke + Lop 2 2Lgp (4.312) where ff ] £0.08 (4.31b) Uy and where Lc is the length from. the critical section to the point of contraflexure in the member. Equation (4.31b) emphasises the importance of the ratio of ultimate tensile strength to yield strength of the flexural reinforcement. If this value is high, plastic Geformations spread away from the critical section as the feinforcement at the critical section strain-hardens, increasing the plastic hinge length. If the reinforcing steel has a ‘ow ratio of ultimate to yield strength, plasticity concentrates close to the critical section, zesulting in a short plastic hinge length. A modification of Eq(4.31) for walls is suggested ‘a Section 6.2.1(b).. In Figs. 4.7 and 4.8, Le = H. The lower limit of Lp = 2Esp implies strain penetration soth down into the foundation, and also up into the column, and applies when Le is short. The force displacement response, for the cantilever column of Fig.4.7 can then be mbled from the moment-curvatute response using the following equations:150 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures F=M/IH (4.32) A, =9,(H +L) /3 (4.33) A, =A, +A, =A, +0,LpH =A, +(9,-$, Lol 434) Equation (4.34) implies that the centre of plastic rotation occurs at the member end. This will be exact when Lp =2Lsp, and is an acceptable approximation in all cases. However, when 0.08L¢ > Lsp, an improved estimate of the plastic displacement can be obtained by replacing Hin Eq.(4.34) by the distance from the centre of the plastic hinge to the point of contraflexure for members in single bending, and by the centre to centre distance of plastic hinges at member ends for members in double bending. bilinear Displacement Ae Fig.4.9 Force-Displacement Response The resulting bilinear force-displacement response is shown as the dash-dot line in Fig.4.9. This is normally adequate for design purposes. However, a more accurate representation is possible, as shown by the solid line in Fig4.9. In this “refined” approach, suitable for prediction of experimental response, the clastic portion is represented by a bilinear characteristic, with the cracking force and displacement at the corner, joined to the force and displacement at first yield, Above first yield, the displacement is based on the effective plastic curvature related to the first-yield curvature, and taking into account the increased strength. “Thus:Chapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 151 Cracking: A, =$,H?/3, F,=M.,/H (4.35) First Yield: A',=6',(H+Lsp) (3; F,=M,/H (4.36) After Yield: aaa, Mal gg, L,H; F=M/H 437 M, \ M, Again the accuracy can be improved by replacing Hin Eq,(4.37) by the distance from the centre of the plastic hinge length to the point of contraflexure, In both bilinear and refined representations, the displacement ductility capacity is related to the nominal yield displacement (Eq,(4.33): Hy=A,/A, 438) 4.2.9 Computer Program for Moment-Curvature and Force-Displacement The CD provided with this book includes a computer program, CUMBIAM™), for ‘moment-cervature and force-displacement analysis of reinforced concrete members of circular or square section, based on the principles and equations outlined in the previous sections. A manual for operating the program is also provided, 4.3 FORCE-DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE OF STEEL MEMBERS As noted earlier, it will rarely be necessary to carry out moment-curvature analyses of ceel sections, since the elastic stiffness is unaffected by cracking, and the yield moment and plastic moment can be readily calculated, However, it should be emphasised that in calculating the plastic moment capacity, strain-hardening should be considered, and the ‘evel of maximum useable compression strain should be restricted to about 0.02 to avoid ‘ocal buckling of flanges etc. The principles developed above for moment-curvature and force-displacement analysis of concrete sections can of course be equally applied to steel sections. This may be advisable when unsymmetrical sections are considered, 4.4. ELASTIC STIFFNESS OF CRACKED CONCRETE SECTIONS Ir was mentioned in Chapter 1 that, contrary to common assumptions made in force- based seismic design, the elastic stiffness of cracked concrete sections is essentially proportional to strength, and the concept of a constant yield curvature independent of serength is both valid, and important in terms of direct displacement-base design. A summary of the research leading to these statements, and to Fig.1.4 is included below. A more complete presentation is available in [P3]. The research is based on moment- curvature analysis of different concrete sections, and the bilinear representation described 1n Section 4.2.7. It has been verified in numerous experiments!152, Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 4.4.1 Circular Concrete Columns Circular reinforced concrete columns are the most common lateral force-resisting elements for bridges in seismic regions, In order to investigate the effective stiffness of circular columns, a parameter analysis was carried out varying the axial load ratio and flexural reinforcement ratio for a typical bridge column, ‘The following basic data were assumed: © Column diameter D = 2m (78.7 in) * Cover to flexural reinforcement = 50: mm (2in) * Concrete compression strength f'ze = 35 MPa (5.08 ksi) © Flexural reinforcement diameter dy = 40 mm_ (1.575 in) * Transverse reinforcement: spirals = 20mm (0.79in) ac 100mm (din) spacing # Steel yield strength Sre = 450 MPa (65.3 ksi * Axial load ratio Neorg = 0100.4 (9 levels) © Flexural reinforcement Ratio py/Ag = 0.005 to 0.04 (5 levels) A selection of the moment-curvature curves resulting from analysis with the program CUMBIA provided on the attached CD is shown in Fig.4.10 for two levels of flexural reinforcement ratio, and a range of axial load ratios. Only the initial part of the moment- curvature curves has been included, to enable the region up to, and immediately after yield to be clearly differentiated. Also shown in Fig. 4.10 are the calculated bilinear approximations for each of the curves. Note that the apparent over-estimation by the bilinear representations of the actual curves is a function of the restricted range of curvature plotted, and is resolved when the full curve is plotted. It will be seen that the moment capacity is strongly influence by the axial load ratio, and also by the amount of reinforcement. However, the yield curvature of the equivalent bilinear representation of the moment-curvature curves does not appear to vary much between the curves. Data from the full set of analyses for nominal moment capacity, and equivalent bilinear yield curvature are plotted in dimensionless form in Fig.4.11. The dimensionless nominal moment capacity and dimensionless yield curvature are respectively defined as My ov Dp (4.39) and . py = 9,DI€, (4.40) where & = fylEs is the flexural reinforcing steet yield strain ‘The influence of both axial load ratio and reinforcement ratio on the nominal moment capacity is, as expected, substantial in Fig. 4.11(2), with an cight-fold range berween maximum and minimum values. On the other hand, it is scen that the dimensionless yield curvature is comparatively insensitive to variations in axial load or reinforcement ratio.Chapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 153 Dimensionless Moment (My/(eD!) 40000 10000 0 0.002 0.004 Curvature (1/m) 0.006 (a) Reinforcement Ratio = 1% 50000 40000 30000 Moment (kNm) 8 8 40000 0 0.002 0.004 Curvature (I/m) 0.006 (b) Reinforcement Ratio = 3% Fig.4.10 Selected Moment-Curvature Curves for Circular Bridge Columns (D = 2m; Pee = 35 MP2; fe =450 MPa)|P3) 0.6 0.2 0.08 0.04 0 of 02 03 Axial Load Ratio (N,/f'eA,) 4 (2) Nominal Moment Ave. H0% Average 0,D/e,= 2.25 0s Dimensionless Curvature (9,D/e,) 0 o1 02 03 Axial Load Ratio (N,/FA,) os (b) Yield Curvature Fig.4.11 Dimensionless Nominal Moment and Yield Curvature for Circular Bridge Columnst51154 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Thus the yield curvature is insensitive to the moment capacity. The average value of dimensionless curvature of @py = 2.25 is plotted on Fig 4.11(b), together with lines at 10% above and 10% below the average. It is seen that all data except those for low reinforcement ratio coupled with very high axial load ratio fall within the +10% limits. It should be noted that though the data were generated from a specific column size and material strengths, the dimensionless results can be expected to apply, with only insignificant errors, to other column sizes and material strengths within the normal range expected for standard design. The results would not, however apply to very high material strengths (say f->SOMPa (7,25ksi), or f;>600MPa (87ksi)) due to variations in stress- steain characteristics, ‘The data in Figs. 4.10 and 4.11 can be used to determine the effective stiffness of the columns as a function of axial load ratio and reinforcement ratio, using Eq, (4,26). The ratio of effective stiffness to initial uncracked section stiffness is thus given by Elg _ Elin, GEL, ‘goss (4.41) Results are shown in Fig. 4.12 for the ranges of axial load and reinforcement ratio considered. It will be scen that the effective clastic stiffness ratio varies between 0.13 and 0.91. For the most common values of the variables, however, the ratio will be between 0.3 and 0.7. g & ® L L L Stiffness Ratio (EI/Elgross) °F 0 out 02 93 o4 Axial Load Ratio (Ny/f"cAg) Fig.4.12 Effective Stiffness Ratio for Circular Bridge Coiumns|?3Chapter, Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 155 It should be noted thar for convenience in computing the stiffness ratios of Fig 4.12, the gross stiffness of the uncracked section has been calculated without including the stiffening effect of the flexural reinforcing steel. That is aD T prose = (4.42) sos Gy 4.42) Since the reinforcement increases the uncracked section moment of inertia by as much as 60% for the maximum steel ratio of 4%, the stiffness ratios related to true un-cracked sections would be lower, particularly for the higher reinforcement ratios. ‘The value of the concrete modulus of elasticity used in computing Fig, 4.12 was S000) 7". (MPa) ; E E 606007". (psi) (4.43) 4.4.2. Rectangular Concrete Columns Ductile rectangular columns can occur in bridge design, and at the base level of multi- storey frame buildings. For the purposes of this study the special case of a square column with flexural reinforcement evenly distributed around the perimeser was investigated. The following basic data were assumed: © Column dimensions b=h=16m (635 in) © Cover to flexural reinforcement mm (2in) © Concrete compression strength free = 35 MPa (5.08 ksi) Flexural reinforcement diameter 2 mm (1.26 in) © Transverse reinforcement: hoops 20mm dia. (0.79in) /5 legs per layer © Steel yield strength Je = 450 MPa (65.3 ksi) © Axial load ratio NAP Ag = 010 0.4 (9 levels) © Flexural reinforcement ratio py/Ag = 0.005 to 0.04 5 levels) Moment-curvature trends predicted by CUMBIA for the rectangular sections followed the same trends apparent for circular columns? Data from the full set of analyses for nominal moment capacity, and equivalent bilinear yield curvature are plotted in dimensionless form in Fig.4.13, ‘The dimensionless nominal moment capacity, and dimensionless yield curvature are respectively defined as: (4.44) and (4.45)56 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Ave. +10% Dimensionless Curvature (9,h/€,) Dimensionless Moment (My/{".bh?) 1 Average o)h/e, = 210 oa ss 05 oF T T T 1 oF T T T 1 0 01 02 03 04 0. of 02 03 ot Axial Load Ratio (N,/f'A,) Axial Load Ratio (N,/f',A,) (a) Nominal Moment (b) Yield Curvature Fig. 4.13 Dimensionless Nominal Moment and Yield Curvature for Large Rectangular Columns!"! where b and ft are the column width and depth respectively. ‘Trends for the rectangular columns, apparent in Fig.4.13, are similar to those displayed in Fig.4.11 for circular columns. Nominal moment capacity is strongly dependent on both axial load ratio and reinforcement ratio, with approximately an eight-fold increase in moment capacity from minimum axial load and reinforcement ratio to maximum axial load and reinforcement ratio. Dimensionless yield curvature is only weakly dependent on axial load ratio and reinforcement ratio, thus implying that the yield curvature is insensitive to the nominal moment capacity. The average value of dimensionless curvature of py =2.10 is plotted on Fig.4.13(b), together with lines at 10% above and 10% below the average. It is seen that all data except those for P; =0,005 at both low and high axial load ratio fall within che +/- 10% limits of the average value. As with the circular columns, the dimensionless results of Fig.4.13 can be expected to apply to other column sizes and material strengths within the normal range of material strengths. Small errors can be expected for small column dimensions, where the ratio of cover to core dimensions will be significantly larger than for the data presented here. As with the circular column data, results should not be applied to rectangular columns with very high strength concrete or reinforcing steel. ‘The data of Figs.4.13 have been used to develop curves for the effective section stiffness ratio, based on Eq.(4.41). Results are presented in Fig.4.14, For ease of application of the resulks, che stiffness of the gross uncracked section was computed ignoring the stiffening cffect of flexural reinforcement as, Igross = bh'/12, with the modulus of elasticity given by Eq.(4.43).Chapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 187 Stiffness Ratio (EI/Elgross) 04 04 02 03 Axial Load Ratio (Nu/f'cAg) Fig.4.14 Effective Stiffness Ratio for Large Rectangular Columns|51 “The range of effective stiffness calculated in accordance with Eq,(4.41) is from 0.12 t0 9.86 times the gross section stiffness, indicating the strong dependence of effective stiffness on axial load ratio and reinforcement ratio. Clearly the common assumption of a constant section stiffness independent of flexural strength is entirely inappropriate. Results from Fig.4.14 can be applied to other column sizes than those used to generate the graph by appropriate substitution of section dimensions into Eq,(4.41) 4.4.3 Walls (®) Rectangular Concrete Walls: Similar calculations to those reported in the previous two sections can also be carried out for rectangular structural walls, and have been fully presented elsewhere for both concrete and masonry walls(’2"47l. Analyses for concrete walls considered two separate cases — one where the flexural reinforcement was distributed uniformly along the wall length, and the second, more common case where most of the flexural reinforcement was concentrated at the wall ends, with a comparatively light amount of reinforcement distributed along the wall length. It is emphasized that though the latter is the more common case, this is largely because of the misconception that concentrating the flexural reinforcement at the wall ends increases the flexural capacicy when compared with the same total amount of reinforcement distributed uniformly along the wall length. In fact, the flexural strength associated with the two distributions will be very similar, as simple trial calculations will show.158 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Results are presented in Fig-4.15 for the dimensionless yield curvature for walls with different axial load ratios and reinforcement ratios, in similar fashion to the above analyses for columns. However, lower ranges of axial load ratio (with a maximum of N,/PeoAg= 0.125), and reinforcement ratio (with a maximum of pj = 0.02) were adopted since these were considered to be practical upper limits for structural walls. Two different conditions were considered, In the first, a reinforcement ratio of 0,005 was considered to be uniformly distributed along the wall length, with the remainder concentrated near the wall ends. In the second case the full amount of reinforcement was uniformly distributed. In Fig.4.15 the yield curvature has been made dimensionless by multiplying by the wall length 4, and dividing by the yield strain & of the flexural reinforcement, in similar fashion to columns “Average values of dimensioniess curvature of Op, distributed rebar are plotted in Fi 85 and 2.15 for concentrated and 15 (a) and (b) respectively. An average value of Poy = Ol (E, =2.0 15% (4.46) essentially covers all data from the concentrated and distributed analyses. We recommend that this is sufficiently accurate to be used for design of all rectangular walls. px=0.005 22 Pio 22 0018 >| 9020 2 2 Dimensionless Curvature (@yl4/E,) Dimensionless Curvature (ylu/ey) hea 18 * 18 16 r 1 1 1.6 +f ——— T 0 0.04 0.08 0.2 o 0.04 0.08, a2 Axial Load Ratio (N/f'eAg) Axial Load Ratio (N/f'eAg) (a) Rebar Concenteated at Wall Ends (b) Rebar Distributed along Wall Fig.4.15 Dimensionless Yield Curvature for Rectangular Walls Analyses where all the flexural reinforcement was distributed uniformly along the wall length resulted in an average dimensionless curvature approximately 10% higher than given by Eg,(4.46), with about twice the scatter of Fig.4.15IP2", The effective stiffness for rectangular walls can thus be calculated, as a fraction of gross wall stiffness asChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 159 M, 1 EL El gas = v (4.47) BS bey (Uy) EUS 12, aa where ¢is the wall width, and My is the calculated nominal flexural strength. ‘Typical values are about 0.2 to 0.3. In Eq, (4.47), py may be taken from Eq, (4.46) for all wails or the more accurate averages from the analyses of the walls with concentrated or distributed reinforcement may be adopted. (b) Rectangular Masonry Walls: Similar analyses to those described above have been carried out for masonry walls!*"l The coefficient for the dimensionless curvature defined by Eq.(4.46) was found to vary between 2.06 for unconfined concrete masonry with uniformly distributed flexural reinforcement to 2.17 for confined clay or concrete masonry, also with distributed flexural reinforcement. It is recommended that an average value of 2.10 be used in all cases. (c) Flanged Walls: Paulay?® has investigated the dimensionless yield curvature for different sections, including flanged concrete structural walls. For I-section and T-section walls with the flange in compression, he recommends dimensionless curvature coefficients (Eq.(4.46)) of 1.4. Paulay’s values for rectangular walls are on average about 10% below the values established above. The main reason for this difference appears to be some simplifying assumptions made by Paulay, including ignoring the effects of strain- hardening of the flexural reinforcement, which is included in our analyses. Spot comparisons for flanged walls indicate a similar influence of strain-hardening, and we therefore recommend a coefficient of 1.5 for flanged walls where the flange is in compression. Note that for T-section walls with the flange in tension, or I-section walls loaded perpendicular to the web, the higher values defined in Section 4.4.3(a) above are recommended. 4.4.4 Flanged Reinforced Concrete Beams Similar studies have been carried out to investigate the influence of flexural reinforcement ratio on the stiffness of flanged beams. These were based on the section shown in Fig. 4.16, and have been fully reported elsewhere"231, The appropriate value for the stiffness of a beam in a building frame under seismic action will be the average of the values applicable for positive and negative bending, as a result of the moment reversal along the beam length. As with columns and walls, it was found that the flexural strength and stiffness increased essentially proportionately as the reinforcement content increased, and that effective stiffness ratios (related to the gross section stiffness) varied between 0.17 and 0.44. If strain-hardening is ignored, and based on the average of positive and negative bending, it was found that the dimensionless curvature could be written as160 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 1560 4 legged R10 @ dors Fig.4.16 Reinforced Concrete Beam Section Analysed for Yield Curvature!) bo, = 0h, /€, =1.7£10% (4.482) Including the effects of strain-hardening incteased the dimensionless yield curvature to Op, = O,hy /€, = 1.910% (4.480) For rectangular-section beams rather than flanged beams, average values for dimensionless curvature were about 10% higher than given by Bq (4.48), and with somewhat increased scatter. It is thus clear that the concept of a constant dimensionless yield curvature fox concrete beam sections is an adequate approximation. 4.4.5. Steel Beam and Column Sections ‘There is less need for studies on steel sections, of the type teported in the previous sections for concrete and masonry members, since the elastic section stiffness can be directly computed from the known section dimensions. However, at the start of the design process, the overall depth of the section may be approximately known, but the flange thickness, and hence the strength and stiffness of the section will be chosen after strength requirements have been computed. In force-based design, a trial and error approximation should be carried out to ensure assumed stiffness and final flexural strength are compatible. For direct displacement-based design, however, the initial yield curvature is of greater interest, as it defines the yield displacement, and hence the ductility demand, enabling the effective damping to be computed It will be readily appreciated that for a symmetrical structural steel section, of overall depth hr the first-yield curvature will be given by:Chapter 4, Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 161 (4.49) This curvature applies at the first-yield moment. For typical steel beam and column sections the nominal flexural strength will be only slightly higher than the yield moment say My = 1.1 Mj), and hence the effective yield curvature can be written as: &y 6, =2.25% (4.50) Icis of interest to note that this value is almost identical to concrete column sections reinforced with steel of the same yield strength. 44.6 Storey Yield Drift of Frames ‘The comparative invariance of dimensionless yield curvature of beams and columns indicates that storey yield drift of frames might similarly be essentially independent of reinforcement ratio and strength. Fig.4.17(a) shows a typical concrete beam/column subassemblage extending half a bay width either side of the joint, and half a storey height above and below the joint. ‘This can be considered a characteristic element of a frame building, Since bay width will normally exceed storey height, and column curvatures will wypically be less than beam curvatures as a consequence of capacity design procedures see Section 5.8), beam flexibility is likely to be the major contributor to the deformation. ‘The deflected shape is shown in Fig.4.17(b). The yield drift 8,can be expressed as 6, =8,, +0, +2A,/L, +2A,/L, (451) where Oy and G are the rotations of the joint centre due to beam flexure and joint shear deformation respectively, Ac is the flexural deformation of the column top relative to the cangent rotation at the joint centre, and A, is the additional deformation of the column cop due to shear deformation of beams and columns. To allow for strain penetration of longitudinal reinforcement into the joint region, it is assumed that the yield curvature in the beam develops at the joint centroid, and reduces linearly to zero at the beam midspan, as shown in Fig.4.17(¢). The yield drift due to beam flexure is thus: G(0-5L,) _ Oly * 3 6 For a concrete frame, ignoring strain-hardening, and thus substituting from Bq (4.48(@)): 6, (4.52)162 Priestley; Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 8, =0.283e, [2] (4.53) ly ‘Typical calculations based on 2 storey height/bay length ratio of 0.533 (storey height = 3.2m, bay length =6m) and a maximum column curvature of 0.754, indicate column displacement de will add about 40% to the yield drift in Eq, (4.51). Itis further assumed, based on experience, that the joint deformation and member shear deformation add 25% and 10% respectively to the yield drift. As a consequence, the yield drift for a reinforced concrete frame may be estimated as 8, =(1.0+0.4+0.25 +0.1)x name, | 5 L, .5é,| —* 4.54) 2] (4.54) Equation (4.54) is compared in Fig4.18 with the results from 46 beam/column test assemblages which included a wide range of possibly relevant parameters”, including * Column height/beam length aspect ratio (H_/Ls) : 0.4 ~ 0.86 © Concrete compression strength (Pr) 122.5 — 88MPa (3.3 — 12.8ksi) * Beam reinforcing steel yield strength (fre) 276 ~ 611MPa (40 — 89 ksi © Maximum beam reinforcement ratio (A’/bu)—: 0.53% — © Column axial load ratio (NAP ey) 20 - 0.483 © Beam aspect ratio (Li/ly) 44-126 Test units with equal, and with unequal top and bottom reinforcement ratios were considered, as were units with and without slabs and/or transverse beams framing into the joint. Note that Eq.(4.54) only includes two of these parameters (beam reinforcement yield strength (which dictates the yield strain & =/,/E,), and beam aspect ratio), on the assumption that the other parameters are not significant variables. As is apparent from Fig.4.18, the agreement between experimental drifts and predictions of Eq.(4.54) is reasonable over the full, and rather wide range of yield drifts. The average ratio of experiment to theory is 1.03 with a standard deviation of 0.16, Considering the wide range of parameters considered, the comparatively narrow scatter is rather satisfactory. Note that the wo test units with experimental drifts of about 1.5% are thought to have suffered beam slip through the column joint region, resulting in excessive yield drift, but have been included in the averaging, The significance of different experimental parameters included in the list of variables noted above, to the theoretical/experimental drift ratio has been examined elsewhe-ei®."™, In no case was the significance of any of the parameters not included in Eq.(4.54) found to be high enough to warrant inclusion in the design equation.Chapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 163 (c) Assumed Beam Curvature Distribution Fig. 4.17 Elastic Deformation Components to Drift of a Beam Column Subassemblage!™164 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. isplacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Experimental Drift Ratio (%) 0 05 1 15 Theoretical Drift Ratio (%) Fig. 4.18 Experimental Yield Drifts of Reinforced Concrete Beam/Column Test Units Compared with Predictions of Eq.(4.54)("23 cis evident that the procedure adopted above to estimate the yield drift of reinforced concrete frames can also be adapted to predict the yield drift of structural steel frames. Substituting from Eq.(4.50) into Eq.(4.52), the drift due to beam flexure will bet 6, = once) | (4.55) 5 and making the same assumptions about the percentage increase of yield drift from joint rotation, column flexure, and shear deformation, the following drift predictor results L 5, O, =0.65e, (4.56) hy That is, the yield drift for a structural steel frame is expected to about 30% higher than for a reinforced concrete frame with the same gross dimensions, and the same steel yield Stress. This equation has not, however, been checked against experimental results. 4.4.7 Summary of Yield Deformations. From the moment-curvature analyses reported in the previous sections, it was found that stiffness and strength are effectively proportional, for a given structural member type and size, or structure type. The independent parameter, for stiffness caleulations, is thusChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 165 yield curvature, or yield displacement. The following yield curvatures are applicable for the “corner” of the equivalent bilinear approximation of force/ deformation response: © Circular column: 6, =2.25e,/D (4.578) Rectangular column: 9, = 2.10, /h, (4.57) * Rectangular concrete walls: 9, = 2.00E, /1, (4.570) * = T-Section Beams: @, =1.70e, /h, (4.574) © Flanged concrete walls: @, =1.50e, /1, (4.57e) © Rectangular masonry walls: @, =2.10E, /I, (4.578, The equation for flanged walls applies for I-section walls and for T-section walls when the flange is in compression. For reinforced concrete and structural steel frames, the yield drift can be expressed, with adequate accuracy as L, Concrete frames: 8, =0.5€,— (4.58a) ts Structural steel frames: y 0.65e, [ ~. ] (4.58b) 45 ANALYSES RELATED TO CAPACITY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS |. In Section 3.9, capacity design was introduced. The basic philosophy is that DDBD is used as a means to determine the required strength of locations where inelastic rotations ‘plastic hinges) are intended. To ensure that plastic hinges do not occur at other parts of the structure, and to ensure that undesirable modes of inclastic deformation, such as shear failure do not develop, the dependable strength of these locations and actions is set to be higher than the force levels at these locations, corresponding 10 the maximum feasible strength being developed at the plastic hinges. This is in recognition that in ductile design, it is the actual strength, rather than the conservative design strength, that will be developed in the design-level earthquake. This premise is illustrated in Fig. 4.19, which examines the force-displacement response of a simple bridge pier under lateral seismic response. If the pier had very high strength, it could respond clastically to the inertia forces, and have the maximum displacement and force corresponding to point A in Fig.4.19(c). The design strength is however much lower, and if the actual strength exactly equalled the required strength, the expected maximum response is defined by point B. If the actual stsength exceeds the design strength, thea it will be this strength that is developed, unless the actual strength166 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures exceeds that corresponding to point A. The cesponse corresponding to actual strength is defined by point C. Note chat the different strengths of A and B imply different stiffness. F La} — > (a) Structure _(b) Deflection (c) Force-Displacement Profile Response Fig.4.19 Strength Developed in Design Earthquake by a Simple SDOF Pier ‘There are a number of reasons why the actual flexural strength may exceed the design strength: * Material strengths (c.g. concrete compression strength, steel yield strength) may exceed the nominal or characteristic values used in design. * Dependable flexural strength may incorporate a strength reduction factor (or partial material factors) * Suainchardening of reinforcement or structural steel may not have been considered in determining the flexural capacity of the section. * The section size or reinforcement content may exceed the exact values required to equal the required strength. A section or action being capacity-protected would need to take these possible increases of the plastic hinge flexural strength into account, and be designed for che appropriate action in equilibrium with the enhanced strength of the plastic hinge, In addition to this, the basic design for the plastic hinges may be based on a SDOF estimate of response, as is the case with DDBD. Amplification of che action requiring capacity protection due to higher mode effects must also be taken into account. ‘The general requirement for capacity protection is defined by Eq.(3.61), which is reproduced here as E.q.(4.59) for convenience: OsSp 2Sp =P OS, (459) where § is the value of the design action being capacity protected, corresponding to the design lateral force distribution found from the DDBD process, ff is the ratio of overstrength moment capecity to required capacity of the plastic hinges, @ is theChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 169 Design Verification and Capacity Design Factors: \ moment-curvature analysis is now run with the design longitudinal reinforcement of 52D40 bars (65,300mm?), and the transverse hoops of D20@120 crs. using the expected material strengths. The results are shown in Fig4.20 by the line identified as “Design”. At the design curvature of 11,0274/m the moment capacity is Mp = 27,200kNm (241,000 kip.in). This is 1.2% above the required design value. Also shown in Fig.4.20 are qvo moment-curvature curves designated “Overstrength” A and B. Curve A corresponds to maximum feasible overstrength. For this case, fo =1.7f. = SIMPa (7.4ksi); fp = 1.3; = 546MPa (79.1ksi); and fyio = 1.3fon = 546MPa ~9.1ksi), in accordance with the recommendations of Section 4.2.4. At the design curvature of 0.0274, the moment capacity is 31,900kNm (283,000 kip.in), which is 18.7% higher than the design requirement. Thus the appropriate value of @ to use in Eq, 4.59) is @ = 1.187, This would be appropriate if it were used to determine required strength in other members of the bridge (say the superstructure). It would, however, be inconsistent to use this value of overstrength for determining the required shear strength of the column, since it is based on maximum feasible strengths of concrete and transverse xeinforcement, whereas the shear capacity will use lower values. It is clear that the same values should be used for concrete strength and transverse reinforcement yield strength for both overstrength demand, and shear capacity since they apply to the same region of the structure. 30000 20000 Moment (kNm) 10000 ° 0.01 0.02 0.03 Curvature (m=!) Fig.4.20 Moment-Curvature Response for Example 4.1170 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Accordingly, Fig, 4.20 shows a second overstrength curve (B), which is based on Pe» See = 39MPa, and fyio = fon =420 MPa, since these values should be used in estimating the shear capacity (see Section 4,7). It will be seen that this results in a rather small reduction in the overstrength moment capacity, and little inefficiency would result from using curve A. At the design curvature, the moment capacity of curve B is 30,840kNm (272,900 kip.in), which implies g = 1.146. An additional curve, labelled “(Force-Based)” is included in Fig, 4.20. This is based on conventional force-based design assumptions that the minimum specified material strengths (P'o fp fys) should be used in design, and that strain-hardening of the flexural reinforcement should be ignored. The nominal capacity would be estimated at an extreme fibre compression strain of 0.003. For the material properties and reinforcement details used in the final design above, this would result in a nominal flexural strength of My = 20,400kNm (180,500 kip.in), which is well below the required design strength. Using the same assumptions about material strengths, it would be necessary to increase the longitudinal reinforcement to 93,650 mm? (a 48% increase) to match the required strength. The resulting overstrength demand can be estimated by the ratio of the capacity of curve A to the nominal strength of the (Force-Based) curve, resulting in & = 31,943/20,800 = 1.536. Ifa flexural strength reduction factor of gy = 0.9 were incorporated in the design, as is common practice in many codes, the overstrength factor would increase to @ = 1.706. ‘The extreme and unnecessary conservatism of current force-based design procedures is thus apparent in this example, 4.5.2 Default Overstrength Factors For some simple structures the design effort involved in determining the required flexural overstrength factors for capacity design may be excessive. In these cases it would be permissible to use conservative default values for the overstrength factor @*, Provided the design is based on a strain-hardening model for the flexural reinforcement, it is recommended that the default value should be g = 1.25. If strainchardening is ignored in determining required section properties, it is recommended that g = 1.6 be assumed 4.5.3, Dynamic Amplification (Higher Mode Effects) Dynamic Amplification due to higher mode response is dependent on the type of structure being designed. As such, it is separately dealt with in each of the special chapters devoted to different structural types. Note that in Ex. 4.1 there were no higher modes, 4.6 EQUILIBRIUM CONSIDERATIONS IN CAPACITY DESIGN Equilibrium must be satisfied at all stages of design, whether design level or overstrength is considered. This is illustrated in Fig4.21 for a simple portal frameChaprer 4, Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 171 subjected to both gravity and seismic loading, at design and overstrength levels. It is ssumed that the columns are ductile, and reach their capacity in both design and iverstrength response, as discussed in Section 4.5. For simplicity the moment capacities cop and bottom of the columns are assumed to be identical (a) Design Moments and Forces (b) Overstrength Moments and Forces Fig.4.21 Equilibrium of Moments and Forces in a Portal Frame (moments drawn relative to member centrelines on tension side of member) (a) Design-Level Response: The design lateral force Fp is in equilibrium with the sum of the shears in the two columns. ‘The design moments in the columns form at the column base and at the Soffit of the beam, Since the shear in the columns is the slope of the bending moment, the following equilibrium equation applies: 2My, +2M yy A Fy (4.61) where His the clear height to the soffit of the beam, and Mp, and Mpp are the design moment capacities in the left and right columns respectively. Note that Mp, # Mor, since the axial forces in the two columns are different. Note also that gravity moments have no influence on the validity of Eq,(4.61), since the column capacity is developed regardless of the ratio of seismic and gravity moments in the columns. To determine the moment capacities of the two columns, it is thus necessary to determine the axial forces in the columns. Vertical force equilibrium requires that the axial forces in the columns must equal the beam shears at the keam/column joint centroids. To find the beam shears we first note that the beam and column moments must also be in equilibrium at the joint centroids,12 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures and that the column moments at the joint centroids exceed the moments at the beam soffit (0.5H +0.5h,) OSH My = Mp (H +4,)( (4.62b) My, =My, = Mp (H+h,)/H (4.62a) Note that the gravity load moments resulting from the load Wagain have no influence on the moments at the joint, which are torally defined by the column moment capacities, ‘The shear in the beam can be separated into the gravity load and seismic force ‘components: Gravity: V,=W/2 (4.632) (My, + Mop) L ‘The sign of the gravity-load shear changes at the evo ends of the beam, while the seismic shear is constant, ‘The reactions at the base of the columns (ignoring the column weights) are thus: a Mn My 2 L Seismic: V, = (4.63b) Rog = (4.64) W (My + May) 2 L The moment capacities of the column hinges must be calculated with the appropriate value of the axial force, given by Fq,(4.64). This may involve iteration, though normally one or two cycles arc sufficient. In the initial design phase, when the design force Fp is known, and the column design moments are required, it is useful to recall that the moment-axial force relationship is likely to be nearly linear over the range of axial force expected, and hence the required flexural reinforcement content (for a reinforced concrete design), can be found from the approximate combination: N=R,. =W/2 (4.65) This should then be checked with a detailed analysis, using the selationships of Eq.(4.62) and (4.64). (b) Overstrength Response: The principles utilised in the previous section indicate that when the overstrength moment capacity is estimated at plastic hinge locations, the axial force should be adjusted to reflect the increased beam seismic shear resulting from the increased plastic hinge moment capacity of the columns. With respect to Fig. 4.21(b), the following relationships apply for seismic response force and seismic beam shear respectively:Chapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 173 2(m?+M2) H o (M2 +Me)-(1+h,/H) a The seismic overstrength moment capacities, and the overstrength column shear demands for capacity design thus need to be determined in conjunction with the revised column axial forces: Fe= (4.66) (4.67) RO =W/2-VP; Ro=W/24+V2 (4.68) Required shear strength for the columns is given directly from the overstrength moment distribution as: V2 =2M?P/H; Ve =2Me/H (4.69) and the beam maximum required shear strength, at the right end of the beam is Vg=Ve+Wws2 (4.70) ‘The principles applied in this section are simple fundamental requirements of equilibrium, and should be self-evident to all designers. Unfortunately we find that equilibrium is not afforded the same emphasis as (Say) matrix analysis methods in engineering curricula, and have hence provided this rather basic treatment of the subject. 4.7 DEPENDABLE STRENGTH OF CAPACITY PROTECTED ACTIONS ‘The discussion on capacity protection has thus far concentrated on demand. Equation (4.59) requires that the dependable capacity of the capacity protected action, @sSp is at least equal to the demand. Note that in this case the use of a strength reduction factor, ds is justified, since the consequence of the strength of the required action being less than chat of che demand may be catastrophic. An example is the shear strength of a building or bridge column, Insufficient shear strength to cope with shears associated with flexural overstrength in plastic hinges could result in shear failure followed by reduction in capacity to support gravity loads to the extent that failure occurs. 4.7.1. Flexural Strength Members where plastic hinges are not prescribed must have adequate flexural strength to ensure that unexpected plastic hinges do not occur. ‘This is to ensure that undesirable174 Pricstley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Sinsctares deformation modes such as soft-storey mechanisms in building frames do not develop. Aspects related to this are fully covered in (P1] and Section 5.2.3, Determination of nominal flexural strength My is straightforward, and basic to all aspects of structural design, and again will not be further elaborated. However, we recommend that advanced section analyses, based on moment-curvature analyses, and including the effects of reinforcement strain-hardening be included in the design. Capacity should be based on nominal, or characteristic material strengths, rather than the enhanced values used for determining strength of plastic hinges, defined in Section 4.2.5. For concrete sections, nominal capacity should be determined at an extreme fibre compression strain of 0.004, or a reinforcement strain of 0.015, whichever occurs first. A flexural strength reduction factor of g = 0.9 should he adequate to cope with possible material understrength, though the value will depend on local code requirements for material strengths, and expected construction quality. 4.7.2, Beam/Column Joint Shear Strength Integrity of beam/column joints is essential to the successful performance of building, bridge, wharf and industrial frames, and requires careful consideration of the force transfer through the joint region. This has been extensively covered for buildings in (PI) and for bridges in [P4]. Since an adequate coverage of this important topic requires considerable length, it is not repeated here, and the interested reader is referred to the above texts. 4.7.3. Shear Strength of Concrete Members: Modified UCSD Model ‘There is also a great body of information relating to the shear strength of concrete members in the research literature (e.g. P4, K4, AD etc}, with a significant divergence becween design approaches and design equations required by different national codes. Many of these do not recognise that flexural ductility affects the shear strength in plastic hinge regions, and the influence of axial force resulting from gravity and from prestress is often treated quite differently. In [P4] a new approach for determining the shear strength of concrete columns was outlined that considers most of the critical parameters, and since this has subsequently been upgraded to improve agreement with experimental resultsik*l, the modified approach, generally referred to as the modified UCSD model is outlined here. Independent studies have indicated that this approach provides a better agreement with experimental results than other methods. In the modified UCSD model, the shear strength of concrete sections is found from the additive equation: “es = WV eey =O, We +V 5 + Vp) 4.71)Chapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 175 where Vo, Vs, and Vp are shear strengths provided by concrete mechanisms, transverse reinforcement truss mechanisms, and axial force mechanisms respectively. These are described separately in the following sections. (a) Concrete Shear-Resisting Mechanisms, (Vc): The key component of the strength of concrete shear-resisting mechanisms in flexurally cracked members is provided by aggregate interlock on the rough flexure/shear cracks. In plastic hinge regions, the strength of aggregate interlock reduces as the flexure/shear crack widens under ductility The strength is also dependent on the aspect ratio of the member, defined as the distance tom the critical section to the point of contraflexure, divided by the section depth, (ie. M/(VD), where Mand Ware the moment and shear at the critical section and Dis the oral section depth) and on the volumetric ratio of longitudinal reinforcement, P=Ae/Ag The strength is thus given by: KPA = OBS. 084) 472) where 10sa=3-Me1s (4.72a) VD B=0.5+20p, <1.0 (4.72b) and Yis given by Fig, 4.22, for concrete columns. Note that in Fig.4.22, the prime variable < the curvature ductility demand, which is directly related to the width of flexure/shear cracks in the plastic hinge region. .\ secondary variable is the mode of ductility. tt has deen found!s? that the strength of concrete shear-resisting mechanisms of members subjected co ductility demands in nwo orthogonal directions (biaxial ductility) degrades nore rapidly than sections subjected to uniaxial ductility. This is reflected in Fig 4.22. 0.25 03 92 Fo2 01s : oa g z Sa Biaxiat 0.05 0 ° o 4 8 on woo 0 4 8 wn Curvature Doetilty Curvature Ducility (a) Design of New Members (b) Assessment of Existing Members Fig.4.22 Ductility Component of Concrete Shear-Resisting Mechanism for Columns (Modified UCSD Model)176 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Figure 4.22 also distinguishes between design of new members, and assessment of existing members. A less conservative approach is approptiate for the latter, since the consequences of excessive conservatism is assessment may be unnecessary strengthening, For concrete beam sections, it is suggested that the strength given by Eq.(4.72) be reduced by 20% to compensate for the conditions of concrete confinement which are less satisfactory than for columns, and that the tension, rather the total reinforcement area be used to determine B. Note that the reduction in shear strength with ductility only applies to the plastic hinge regions of members designed for ductility. In parts of members between plastic hinges, and in members protected against plastic hinging by a capacity design approach, the value of ¥ used in Eq,(4.72) will be the value at a curvature ductility of 1.0. (b) Axial Load Component, Vp: In many design equations for concrete shear strength the axial load on the section is combined in a composite equation with the concrete shear-resisting mechanisms. This would imply that the well-known enhancement of shear strength with increased axial compression would reduce with flexural ductility. This is not supported by experimenis, In the UCSD model, the shear strength enhancement resulting from axial compression is considered as an independent component (see H4,(4.71)), resulting from a diagonal compression strut, as illustrated in Fig. 4.23 for columns, and in Fig.4.24 for the beam of a portal frame (the extension to other beams with seismic moment-reversal along the length is obvious). It will be noted that the axial force in beams will often be low, and it is traditional to ignore its influence on shear strength, Nevertheless, in some structures, particularly bridge bents, the influence can be substantial. ‘This will particularly be the case if the beam is prestressed. P| (Axial Load) P| (Axial Load) (cracks) Ve 8 MW (a) Double Bending (b) Single Bending Fig. 4.23 Contribution of Axial Force to Column Shear StrengthChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 177 Inertia force (cracks) Fr (prestress) Fo (prestress) Fig. 4.24 Contribution of Axial Force to Shear strength of a Portal Framel?4) In Figs.4.23 and 4.24, the average inclination of the strut involving the axial force is shown at an angle £ to the member axis. For the column of Fig. 4.23(a) which is restrained from rotation at top and bottom, the axial force is effectively applied to the column through the centre of the flexural compression zone at the beam top, and exits through the centre of flexural compression at the bottom. The horizontal component of this strut acts to resist the applied shear force, thus enhancing the column shear strength. For the cantilever column of Fig4.23(b), the axial Joad is applied at the centre of the column at the top, but again exits through the centre of Alexusal compression at the bottom. The angle of the strut to the column axis is less than in Fig. 4.23(a), and hence the resistance to lateral shear is less. In Fig.4.24, due to the uniformly distributed inertia force, the axial force varies along the length of the beam, which will be subjected to axial tension at one end, and axial compression at the other, unless prestressed, as suggested in Fig4.24, The vertical component of the inclined strut either adds to, or resists the applied shear force, depending on whether the axial force is tensile or compressive. In assessment of existing structures the fall axial force component should be relied on. For new structures @ more conservative approach, where the axial force component is reduced by 15% has been proposed", ‘The following equations thus apply for Vp Design: V, =0.85P.tan (4.73a) Assessment: V, = P.tang (4.73b) where Fis the angle between the strut and the member axis. (c) Transverse Reinforcement Truss Shear-Resisting Mechanism. ‘the strength of transverse reinforcement truss mechanisms is illustrated in Fig.4.25 for rectangular and circular columns, The rectangular column illustration (Fig.4.25(a)) is also relevant for rectangular or T-section beams. The critical flexure-shear crack crosses the section at an178 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Hased Seismic Design of Structures ©@o (9) Rectangular column (b) Cireular columa Fig.4.25 Effectiveness of Transverse Reinforcement for Shear Resistance of Columns'?4! average angle of @ to the vertical axis. The layers of transverse reinforcement crossed by the crack act to transfer some of the shear force across the crack. The maximum force that can be transferred by a layer of area Ay depends on the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement, and the orientation of the bars of the layer with respect to the axis along which the shear is applied. For example, at the vertical sections denoted 1 in Fig4.25), the octagonal hoop, which forms part of the layer will provide resistance at 45° to the direction of applied shear, and the effective area of this hoop at this section will be Ay/V2, where Ay is the area of the hoop bar, whereas the outer peripheral rectangular hoop will be fully effective at both sections 1 and 2. It can be shown! that for the case of one peripheral and one octagonal hoop, the average effective area is Ay = 3.614), If however, the transverse reinforcement consists of a peripheral hoop and two overlapping internal hoops (shown by dashed lines in Fig. 4.25(a)), the average effective area is Ay = 4.67Ay, With a circular column (Fig4.25(b)), the orientation of the hoop forces restraining a flexure shear crack depends on the position of the individual hoop where the crackChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 179 intersects it. At the column centreline, the hoop force Ayfys is parallel to the applied shear force, but as the distance from the column centreline increases, the inclination arto the direction of applied force also increases, and the effective force restraining the crack, i Avfyutan at decreases. Given that there are two forces restraining the crack (Fig.4.25(b)), the average restraining force, taking all possibie locations of the hoop or spiral with respect to the intersecting crack, can be shown to be Aw (474) If the angle of the flexure-shear crack to the member axis is @ for either the rectangular or circular column, che depth from the extreme compression fibre x0 the neutral axis is €, and the cover to the centre of the peripheral hoop is ¢», then the number of layers of hoop crossed by the inclined crack is (D-c-c,) n cot(A) (4.75) where sis the spacing of hoops or spirals along the member axis, The total shear resistance provided by the transverse reinforcement for the rectangular column can thus be estimated as: AJfyy(D-¢-¢,)-cot(8) s Rectangular column: (4.76a) where A, is the effective area of hoops in a single layer, as discussed above, and for a circular column with circular hoops or spirals: _t Afy(D=e~€,)-cot(8) 2 Circular column: V (4.76b) Equation (4.76a) may be considered “exact”, but Eq.(4.76b) is approximate since the average effective force given by Eq,(4.74) is exact only if the crack penetrates the full width of the column, However, it has been shown that the error is small, and conservativelK4l, Although standard practice in the United States adopts an angle of 8 = 45°, this has been found to be unnecessarily conservative, provided longitudinal reinforcement is not prematurely terminated. European practice is based on plasticity theory and a variable angle @. It has been found that sufficiently conservative designs can be obtained taking 6 = 35°. For assessment of existing structures the less conservative value of @ = 30° is appropriatel""l, The principles and equations outlined in this section can also be applied to concrete beam sections.180 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures (d) Strength Reduction Factor for Shear Capacity: For design it is appropriate 10 include a strength reduction factor in addition co the conservatism applied in the equations for the individual shear-resisting components described above. It is recommended that this be taken as Js = 0.85 (see Fg.(4.71)). For assessment of existing structures, where the required shear strength has been determined in accordance with the capacity-protection measures of Section 4,5, no shear strength reduction factor need be applied, since a “best estimate” of performance will be required. (©) Comparison of Assessment Equations with Circular Column Test Data: Figure 4.26 compares shear strength predictions of Eg,(4.71) using the assessment values of the component strengths, and a streagth reduction factor $s =1.0, with experimental data for a wide range of circular columns. Brittle and ductile shear failures are those for which che initial shear strength (curvature ductility =1) was iess than or more than, respectively, the shear corresponding to flexural strength. Measured, rather than nominal, material propetties were used in the predictions which are very satisfactory, regardiess of what variable is used to organize the cest results. Note that the columns failing in flexure have strengths below the predicted shear strength. This does not indicate unsatisfactory bebaviour, since the strength was dictated by the flexural capacity which was less than the shear strength. Design shear strength, including the @s =0,85 factor, is shown by the dashed line, and is a lower bound to all shear failures. @ Prediction of Ductility Capacity for Flexure-Shear Failure of Existing Columns: With new designs, the design procedure should ensure that shear failure does aot occur. With existing columns, however, ic may be found that shear failure is predicted. When this occurs at less than the flexural strength of the column, brittle failure is expected, though the displacements will be larger than assessed from a simple bilinear approximation based on flexure alonel™, This is explained in relation to Fig.4.27. Figure 4.27 shows the force-displacement response of bridge columns roughly based on Example 4.1, The bilinear flexusal response is indicated by the solid line, and the “refined” response, including onset of cracking and non-lineatity of the post-first yield behaviour in shown by the dashed line labelled “A”. The second dashed line, labelled “B” includes shear deformation calculated in accordance with recommendations made in Section 4.8, Three possible shear strength envelopes are shown, each corresponding to 2 different spacing of the transverse reinforcement. Scrength envelope 1 corresponds to close spacing of the transverse reinforcement, and shear failure is not expected before the full displacement capacity is reached, whether shear deformation is included or not. Shear strength envelope 2 degrades to intersect the predicted force-displacement response. The failure displacement (and force) depends on whether shear displacement is included or ignored, The values are 284mm and 297mm (11.2in and [1.Tin) respectively In terms of displacement-based design the differences are nor significant, particularly when the slight reduction in strength resulting from the increased displacement associated with the response including shear deformation is considered. ‘The bilinear and refined displacement curves are identical in this region.Chapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 181 + Ductile Shear Fares + uw Brite Shear Failures wa | 4 Fleer (oo shear aire) gi . gl : z oy ty te z £ te taast 00 tte B a + 2, Les £35054 07, ao £, ait * * = = oF wae ae = Foe, Fos & * * 4. ey 06 06 4 : To] t T T 1 o 4 8 2 6 2% ° 4 8 n (@)Test Number (&) Displacement Duct a¢ Failure 324 ge a é 21 gi | e Fos 4 08 “4 ve 4 oo 4 . 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 0 om 002 003m 01 oo 0.03 (©) Longitodinal Reinforcement Ratio. (a Teanovese Reinforcement Ratio 1 L ge qi st a eit 4 +4 ea Fos 8 ‘ Soa b L 01 0 Of 0203 Od 120146 2 ngs (6) Axial Load Ratio (N/t"AQ) (0) Aspect Ratio (M/VD) Fig.4.26 Shear Strength Comparison: Circular Column Data vs Assessment Prediction Organized by Significant Variables (Design Strength Shown Dashed) With shear strength envelope 3, corresponding to wide-spaced transverse reinforcement, there is a significant difference in the predicted failure displacements depending on which force-displacement curve is used, with the values being 100mm, 135mm and 149mm (3.9in, 4.3in, and 4.9in) for the bilinear, refined, and refined+shear182 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures deformation respectively. In displacement based assessment of an existing structure the higher displacements would translate into a significant increase in seismic intensity able to be accommodated by the structure, particularly when the enhanced damping associated with the implied ductility is included in the analysis. Note that shear deformation has conservatively not been applied to the strength envelopes in the above discussion = Strength 1 Shear Force (MN) ° 100 200 300 400 500 Displacement (mm) Fig.4.27 Force-Displacement Response of Columns with Different Shear Strengths 4.7.4 Design Example 4.2: Shear Strength of a Circular Bridge Column, The bridge column of Design Example 4.1, presented in Section 4.5.1, is analysed 0 see if i¢ has adequate shear strength to satisfy the design requirements of Sec. 4.7.3. Additional information required is that the column is expected to have similar ductility demands in orthogonal directions, and hence the biaxial data of Fig.4.22 apply for determining the strength of the concrete shear-resisting mechanisms Design shear force: Curve B of Fig.4.20, which is based on overstrength flexural reinforcement properties, but expected concrete strength, applies. Thus, as noted in Section 4.4.1, the overstrength moment capacity is 30.8 MNm (273,000 kip.in), With a colums height of 10m (32.8%), the overstrength shear force is thus: V" = 3.08MN (693kips). A shear strength reduction factor af gy = 0,85 is specified. There is no dynamic amplification to be applied, and hence the capacity-design Eq.(4.71) can be expressed as: +V,4V,2— , v, 63 MN (8 1 Skips)Chaptee 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based D: 183, Concrete shear-resisting mechanisms: From Ex.4.1, the curvature ductility is: p/G, = 0.0274/0.00289 = 9.48. Interpolating from the biaxial line of Fig. 4.22, the concrete strength coefficient is Y= 0.101. Since the column aspect ratio exceeds 2, and rie longitudinal reinforcement ratio is 0.025, both a@ and B =1.0. The strength of the concrete shear-resisting mechanisms, with "ce = 39 MPa, is thus, from Eq.(4.72): Vo =a. fF, (O8A,) = 0.101V39(0.8% 2.543) = 1.283MN(289kips) Axial Load component: The axial load is 3.82MN, and the depth of the compression zone, 6, is 460mm. The angle of the axial load strut is thus given by tang =(0.9-0.23)/10 =0.067. From Fg.(4.73a), the shear strength resulting from the axial load component is: V,, = 0.85P.tan ¢ =0.85%3.82x 0.067 = 0.218MN(49kips) Transverse reinforcement component. Equation (4.76b) applies, with @= 35°. The pitch of the hoops is s= 120mm, and hence the available strength is Ay f(D -¢~c,)cou9) _ _314x420(1800— 460-40) cot 35 5 2 120 * = 3.214MN(723kips) ‘The total shear strength is thus: Vy Vo 405 4Vp =1.28340.218+3.214 =4.71SMN >3.628MN (OK). In fact, a spacing of 180mm (7.1in) would be adequate for required shear strength, but che more critical confinemem requirement of 120mm governs, and is thus specified. Note that the shear requirement is not added to the confinement requirement — the same reinforcement can simultaneously provide confinement and shear strength. If the reinforcement is stressed by shear strength requirements, it will bear against the core concrete, providing effective confinement to the concrete. On the other hand, if the transverse reinforcement is in tension duc to confinement, this stress can be used to ansfer shear force across open cracks. If it is further considered that the peak shear and confinement demands occur in orthogonal directions, it is clear that the column need only be designed for the more critical of shear and confinement. 4.7.5. Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Walls (a) Shear Demand: The design sheat force for reinforced concrete or masonry walls is strongly influence by capacity design influences ~ particularly higher mode effects. This is discussed in some detail in Section 6.6, and is only briefly considered here. Figure 4.28 shows two profiles of moment up the height of a cantilever wall, with Fig.4.28(a) corresponding to the design distribution of lateral forces, resulting from the DDBD procedure, and Fig.4.28(b) including a possible distribution resulting in maximum feasible base shear. In Fig.4.28(b) the base moment M” exceeds the design moment Mp, as a result of material strengths exceeding expected values (see Sections 4.2.4 and 4.5).184 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 10 8 z | \ Design profile £6 z Ba = He 2- o Moment Mp Moment Mp M® (a) Design Forces (b) Maximum Shear Response Fig.4.28 Moment Profiles for a Cantilever Structural Wall Critical higher mode effects result in a much more rapid decrease in moments with height than for the design profile, and hence the overstrength base shear force, given by the slope of the moment profile at the wall base (V’=M°/H") is significantly larger than the design base shear force (Vp =Mp/H,). In the example shown in Fig.4.28, with M? = Mp, the overstrength shear is V’ = 2.2Vp. (®) Concrete Shear-Resisting Mechanisms: ‘The strength of the concrete shear- resisting mechanisms can be determined from Section 4.7.3(a) as for columns. However, it could be noted that at maximum shear response, the ductility demand is unlikely to be as high as the design level, since the desiga level for displacement and ductility demand is dominated by first mode response, while peak shear demand will be strongly influenced by second, and perhaps third-mode response, which are unlikely to occur simultaneously with peak first mode response. ‘The aspect ratio for the wall to be used when determining, the factor @in Eq,(4.72a) should be based on the overstrength effective height; that is, MVD = Hlly. With Hanged walls, it is recommended that the effective shear area be based on the web dimensions (in the direction considered) and that the area of any flanges be conservatively ignored. (©) Axial Force Component: The concepts outlined in Section 4.7.3(b) for the contribution of axial force in shear resistance were related to a single axial force component. In multi-storey walls, axial force, and its influence on shear strength will be composed of a number of components; one for each floor level. Thus Eq.(4.73) shouldChapter 4. Analysis Toots for Direct Displacement-Based Design 185 be replaced by a surnmation of the effects from each floor considered separately. The load at each floor should be considered to be applied through the geometric centroid of the wall, and the resulting angle of the compression strut calculated separately for each floor. (d) Transverse Reinforcement Mechanisms: Again the recommendations of Section 4.7.3(0) can be directly used. When the wall flexural reinforcement is uniformly distributed along the wall length, as we recommend, it will help to control the diagonal flexural-shear cracking, and hence enhance the concrete shear-resisting mechanisms. Also, with longer walls, the critical 35° angle of diagonal cracking is likely to intersect a floor slab, potentially mobilizing additional shear resistance. With typical storey heights of 3m (l0fi) this can be expected for walls longer than about 2.5m (8.2f). Although this may not be relied upon in design, it provides additional security against shear failure. 4.7.6 Response to Seismic Intensity Levels Exceeding the Design Level When structures are designed to the damage-control limit state under a level 2 carthquake, there remains the possibility that they may be subjected to higher intensity levels, pethaps corresponding to level 3 (see Section 2.2.2.(c)). It is clearly important that to satisfy the life-safety performance criterion required for a Level 3 earthquake, shear failure must not occur. The influence of increased seismic excitation on shear strength is expressed in the proposed design approach by an increase in curvature ductility, which results in a decrease in the steength of the concrete shear-resisting mechanisms (see Fig4.22). Generally the inherent conservatism of the proposed shear design approach will be sufficient to ensure safe performance under a Level 3 earthquake. However, if the concrete shear-tesisting mechanisms provide a large portion of the total shear strength, added conservatism in the shear design would be appropriate. This could be effected, for example, by using the minimum levels for the parameter 2 in Fig.4.22(a). 4.8 SHEAR FLEXIBILITY OF CONCRETE MEMBERS 48.1 Computation of Shear Deformations For slender members, with aspect ratios M/ VD > 3, shear deformation will be small, and can be ignored. It will be recalled that in Section 4.2.7 the use of a linear elastic curvature distribution in predicting force-displacement response was. partly to compensate for shear deformation, It should also be noted that ignoring shear deformation is not necessarily unconservative in a displaccment-based design environment, since shear deformation will increase the displacement capacity corresponding to strain-based flexural limit states. For members of low aspect ratio, and particularly when assessing the force- displacement characteristics of existing structures, it may be advisable to consider shear deformation. In this context it should be pointed out chat only approximate methods for186 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures predicting shear deformations of concrete members are available, though compression- field theory! provides a means for predicting total deformation, including shear components, for monotonic response of members with positive stiffness. The following simplified approach is modified from an approach developed by Miranda et all, and assumes a bilinear flexural force-displacement approximation is utilized. Adaptation 10 the “refined” approach of Fig.4.9 is obviovs. Calculation of shear deformation is divided into three phases of the force- displacement response: (a) Elastic, Prior to Shear Cracking: With the bilinear approximation to response, it is assumed that the clastic phase is represented by constant flexural section stiffness of Eleg = My, a7) In the elastic range, prior to the formation of diagonal shear cracks, flexural cracking, reduces the shear stiffness approximately in proportion to the reduction in flexural stiffness, Thus, the shear stiffness in this phase may be approximated by: Loe Ely sa = ks Bp (4.78) ross where the shear stiffness for an uncracked cantilever column of shear area Ax, shear modulus Gand length His given by: GA, k, gross i For solid sections, the shear area may be taken as Ay = O.87Agms, with adequate accuracy, and the shear modulus as G = 0.43 E, for concrete and masonry structures. Shear cracking may conservatively be assumed to occur when V=Ve, given by Eq.(4.72), with 7= 0.29 (MPa units; 7= 3.5, psi units). Note that this corresponds to the initial strength for the assessment model, which is used here in preference to the design model, since a best escimate of deformation is required. ‘The displacement at onset of diagonal cracking is thus: Ay Volk oy (4.80) (4.79) (b) Elastic, After Shear Cracking: The shear stiffness for incremental displacements after onset of diagonal shear cracking is based! on a model developed originally by Paulayi?3"l, ‘This considers the shear Aexibitity of an equivalent strut-and-tie model, incorporating both the compression of the diagonal strut, and the extension of the tie representing the transverse reinforcement. The unitary shear stiffness (ie. shear stiffness of a unit length of member) for members with transverse reinforcement perpendicular to the axis is given byChapter 4, Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 187 _ p, sin’ @.cot” sin’ @+np, E.bd (4.81) where Bis the angle the diagonal strut makes with the member axis, py is the area ratio of sransverse reinforcement, m = E,/Ez is the steel/concrete modular ratio, by is the effective width of the section, and dis the effective depth of the section. rhere are some problems associated with the use of Eq.(4.81), particularly in applying. it to circular sections. One general problem, however, is that for typical values of and Pa it implies that the shear stiffness inoreases as the angle 8 reduces from 45° to 30°, This pears counter-intuitive, as members suffering shear distress typically exhibit a decreasing angle @as shear force increases to maximize shear strength (see Eq.(4.76),e.g) ‘That this should be accompanied by decreasing shear deformation is unlikely, and is not supported by experimental results, so far as we are aware. Nevertheless, Eiq,(4.81) gives reasonable prediction of shear deformation of rectangular columns when @ = 45°. With this approximation, Eq.(4.81) can be simplified to = OP. epg us) 0.25+np, A further problem with Eqs(4.81 and 4,82) is the evaluation of the modular ratio. This will increase as the flexural strength of the column is approached, resulting in a decrease in effective shear stiffness. ‘This occurs as a result of softening of the diagonal compression strut, Consequently, the value for m should reflect this. An average value of n= 10 is recommended. For circular columns, as mentioned earlier, additional problems are associated with definition of Py by and d. The following approximate values are suggested: AL 2°D's =0.39p, and b, (4.83) where Py is the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement (see Sec.4.2.2). ‘The shear stiffness defined by Eq.(4.82) applies for shear forces between diagonal cracking, and nominal flexural strength. At nominal flexural strength the shear deformation is thus: Ay =A, + Vy Ve Wk, (4.84) where Vy_ is the shear force corresponding to flexural strength. (6) Ductile phase: \n the post-yield phase the concrete compression struts within the plastic hinge region will continue to soften, and thus shear deformation will continue to increase, Experiments on columns where shear failure does nor occur have indicated that the shear deformation, as a fraction of total deformation remains essentially constant, or188 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures reduces slightly, as the ductility increases. Since rational computation of the shear deformation in this phase of response is difficult, and the significance to total deformation is typically small, it is eecommended that the shear deformation be increased in proportion to the flexural deformation after yield, That is: A. A, arg (4.85) If the “tefined” force-displacement representation of Section 4.2.7 is adopted, Eq.(4.85) should be applied after the member has attained its nominal flexural strength. 48.2 Design Example 4.3: Shear Deformation, and Failure Displacement of a Circular Column ‘The column of Design Examples 4.1 (Section 4.5.1) and 4.2 (Section 4.7.4) is now re~ analysed with the effective column height reduced from 10m (32.8{t) to 5m (16.46%) to make it more shear-critical. Note that the column aspect ratio is now 5/18 = 2.8, indicating that shear deformation probably should be considered. Longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, and axial load remain as in the previous examples. First the force-displacement response needs to be reassessed. Table 4.1 Force-Displacement Data for Example 4.3 (IMN=225kips, 1m=39.37in) Row | Moment | Curvature Shear Flexural | Shear Disp | Total Disp QviNm) (axt)__| Force(Mtn) | Disp. (mm) | (mm) (mm) 7 00 00 00 00 0.00 0.00 2 18.87 (0100242 3.774 24.23 181 26.04 ES 19.88 0.00260 3.976 24.75, 2.95 28.70 4 2131 (0.00298 4.262 28.55, 456 33.11 5 22.36 0.00339 4472, 31.22 475 36.98 6 24.08 0.00450 4816 3.70 7.70 44.40 7 24.13 0.00571 4.826 44.24 "8.88 53.12 & 0.00695 4.946 5057 9.56 60.14 9 26.21 0.00814 5.242 56.59 10.10 66.70 10 26.72. (0.00928) 5344 (2.42 T7144 73.55 vy 27.14 (0.01038 5.428 68.00 12. 80.10 a 27.85 (0.01250 5.570 78.66 14.04 92.70 B 28.39 (0.01453 5.678 88.78 i484 104.62 14 28.89 0.01651 5.778 98.62 17.60 116.22 15 29.34, 0.01849 5.868 108.44 19.35 im 16 29.72 0.02044 5.944 118.06 21.07 139.13 i7 30.36 0.02421 6.072 136.60 24.38 160.58 8 30.84 0.03533, 6.168 142.31 24.39 167.70,Chapter 4, Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 189 ‘Table 4.1 includes data necessary to construct the force-displacement response. The moment and curvature are values found from moment-curvature analysis of the cokumn, using the procedures outlined in Section 4.2, and the overstrength data corresponding to curve B in Fig.4.20. The data in Row 2 correspond to first yield of the extreme longitudinal reinforcement. Because the axial compression stress is low, flexural cracking occurs at a very low moment, if the recommendation to take tension strength as zero is adopted. Consequently, the moment-curvature response is essentially linear up to first vield, and intermediate values have been omitted, for simplicity. The “refined” force- displacement approach of Section 4.2.7 can thus also be assumed to be linear before first yield. Shear force is simply found from V=M/5. Flexural displacement: Since the yield strength for this assessment is taken as 1.34 = 546MPa (79.1ksi), the strain penetration length needs to be recalculated from the value used in Example 4.1: Lsp = 0.022%fyedy) = 0.022%546x40 = 480.5mm (18.9in) Plastic hinge lengur, From E.q,(4.31), Lp = 0.08x5000+480.5 = 880.5 >2x480.5 i.e. Lp =961mm (37.8in) First yield displacement. Ftom Table 4.1, Row 2, the first yield curvature is @’y = 0.00242, ‘Thus, A’, = 0.00242x(5+0.481)2/3 m = 24.23mm (0.95in). Subsequent flexural displacement. From Eq.(4.37), the flexural displacement for moments higher than first yield are given by A= wy theloo ha The displacements resulting from Eq,(4.86) are listed in Table 4.1 in Column 5 (Flexural Disp. (mm)), and the force vs. flexural displacement is plotted in Fig.4.29 by the dashed line labelled Flex. Disp. ) = +{¢- 0.00242 - 0.961x5000mm (4.56) 18.87) Shear displacements prior to shear cracking: Following, the recommendations of Sec. 4.8.1, the shear stiffness in the elastic range of flexural response is given by Eq.(4.79). This requires the ratio of effective to gross flexural stiffness to be calculated. The effective stiffness can be calculated from the moment-curvature data at first yield as = M,/9', =18.87/0,00242 = 7798MNm? Now: Togs = AD! 164 = mi 8)" 164 = E, = 5000V39 =31.2GPa- .515m*, and from Eq.(4.43)190 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Assessment strength Shear Force (MN) 0 50 100 150 206 250 Displacement (mm) Fig.4.29 Force-Displacement Response, and Shear Strength, for Example 4.3 (IMN = 224.8kips; Imm = 0.0394in) Hence: El.eg | El yy, = 7798 ((3 1,200 0.515) = 0.485 ‘The shear force at diagonal cracking is, from Eq.(4.72) with a= B= 1.0: 0.29/39 x 0.8% 2.543 = 3.68MN(827kips) The clastic shear displacement at diagonal cracking is thus, with G=0.43x31.2 =13.42GPa and Ay = 0.87%2.543=2.21 2m VH El goose 3.68 5000 GA, Elg — 13,420*2.2120.485 = 1.28mm(0.05in) Note that in this case diagonal shear cracking and flexural yield occur almost at the same shear force. Shear displacement after diagonal cracking: Using the recommendations of Eq.(4.81) for circular columns, the effective area ratio of transverse reinforcement is taken as py = 0.39p, = 0.39X0.006=0.00234, and b, = d= 0.8x1.8 =1.44m. Substituting into Eq.(4.82):Chapter 4, Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 191 = 0.250, gp g = 0.25%0.00234 = bd =. 200,000 1.44? = 885 MN 0.25 +np, 0.25-+10%0.00234 This is the unitary stiffness (stiffness for a unit column height). ‘The column shear stiffness is thus Koster = Bge | H = 885/5 = 177 MN Im ‘The incremental shear displacement for shear forces higher then the diagonal cracking shear force Ve is thus: Displacements resulting from this equation are added to the elastic shear displacement at diagonal cracking (see Eq.(4.84)), and listed in Column 6 of Table 4.1. These apply only up to the nominal flexural strength. In accordance with Eq.(4.85) the shear displacements have been increased pro-rata with the flexural displacements from Row 9 (which corresponds to nominal flexural capacity based on the enhanced yield strength) onwards. Ic will be seen that shear displacements are about 18% of the flexural displacements. Column 7 of Table 4.1 lists the total (flexural-+shear) displacements, which are plotted by the solid line, marked “Tota! Disp.” in Fig4.29. Shear strength. Again, it is assessed that the column could be subjected to ductile response in orthogonal directions, and thus the biaxial data of Fig. 4.22(b) apply. Initial shear strength: At a displacement corresponding to fly = 1, the assessed shear strength will be as follows Ve = 0.29V390.8%2.543 82(0,9-0.23)/5 Vs = 3.887MN (from Ex. 4.2, but with 630°) Total o8MN 1512MN 3.887MN .083MN (1817kips) Shear strength at full ductility: \t curvature ductilities of ly > 13, the assessed strength of the concrete shear-resisting mechanisms decreases to: Ve = 0,05V39x0.8%2.543 = 0.635MN (143kips), and the total shear strength is thus 4.034MN (1832kips). The displacements at which these to limits apply have been calculated from the biaxial approximation to the force- displacement response, conservatively ignoring shear displacement. ‘The assessment shear strength envelope is plotted in Fig.4.29 by the solid line. It will be seen that it intersects with the total displacement curve at 162mm (6.4in), which is very close to the assessed flexural displacement limit. Thus the assessment is that shear failure192 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Sei jic Design of Structures is unlikely to occur before the displacement capacity is reached (since the force~ displacement response is based on maximum feasible flexural reinforcement strength). Note that for a new design, however, a more conservative approach is required, using the design strength components of Sec.4.7.3 and a shear strength reduction factor of 0.85, ‘The design strength envelope based on this approach is also shown in Fig.4.28 (by the dash-dot line), and indicates a safe design displacement of only 76mm (3.0in), about 50% of the displacement that would be permitted in an assessment situation. Note that satisfying the conservatism of the design approach would be easy to provide (the hoop spacing in the potential plastic hinge would be reduced to 75mm (2.95 in)) but the consequence of excessive conservatism in assessment of an existing column could mean expensive retrofit measures. 4.9 ANALYSIS TOOLS FOR DESIGN RESPONSE VERIFICATION 4.9.1 Introduction Direct displacement-based design (DDBD) is a simple method for determining the required strength of plastic hinges to satisfy a specified performance limit state, defined by strain or drift limits. Combined with capacity-design requirements defined in the structure-related sections of this book, it provides a complete seismic design approach for comparatively simple and regular structures. It may also be used to provide preliminary estimates for member strengths for structures which do not fir the “simple and regular” criteria, In these latter cases, and in cases where the structure has special importance, due to function, or cost, design verification by additional analysis will be required. It has already been established (sce Section 1,3), that clastic modal analysis should be considered unsuitable as a design tool, for @ number of reasons. Similarly, elastic modal analysis will generally be considered unsuitable for design verification, though the deficiencies cited related to determination of initial stiffness no longer apply, since it will be possible to use reasonable estimates of stiffness based on actual provided strength (sce Section 4.4). However, the inability of elastic modal analysis methods to model the variation of flexural stiffness with axial force remains. ‘This leaves two candidates for acceptable analysis methods: time history analysis, and static inelastic (pushover) analysis. Aspects relating to these methods are discussed in the following sections. 4.9.2 Inelastic Time-History Analysis for Response Verification (@) Elastic or Inelastic Time History Analysis? Although some design procedures accept elastic time-history analysis (ETHA) as an analysis approach, our view is thar there is little value in its use for design verification. Ic suffers from most of the deficiencies apparent in clastic modal analysis, and cannot represent the differences resviting from structural systems with different hysteretic characteristics. With one-dimensional (line) element modelling, computational times are generally not large, even with inclastic timeChapter 4, Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 193, history analysis (THA), and current lap-top computers are capable of analysing complex structures under three-dimensional response. As a consequence of these considerations, the following discussion is limited to ITHA. Inelastic time-history analysis provides the most accurate method for verifying that inelastic deformations and rotations satisfy the design limits, and also for determining the higher mode effects, which are needed for defining the required design strengths of capacity-protected members. Despite the above comments relating to the suitability of lap top computers for analysis, and by inference, the viability of ITHA in the design office environment, i¢ must bbe recognized thar a large number of subjective modelling decisions will generally be needed, and itis essential that the importance of these choices be properly understood by the analyst, who should have appropriate experience in ITHA, and knowledge of material behaviour before using it for design verification. ‘The following attempts to provide some guidance in these choices. (&) Degree of Sophistication in Element Modelling. The degrce of sophistication in modelling, and the computational time, will largely be dictated by the choice of elements used in member modelling: line, fibre or solid elements. The choice should be dictated by Einstein’s maxim, that analysis should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. In general this will result in a decision to use line elements. (i) Line elements: Beams and columns in stractural frames, bridge piers, wharf piles and other members whose connection to adjacent members can be idealized as a point connection are normally represented by line members. With suitable moment-rotation hysteresis characteristics, the non-linear flexural response characteristics can be modelled with considerable accuracy, and simplified representations of axial and shear deformations can also be incheded. Non-linear axial force /moment interaction envelopes enable the strength characteristics of columns to be represented with adequate accuracy, Normally, bilinear moment rotation properties will be used to represent the strength envelope, with a lumped-plasticity representation. For conerete and masonry members, elastic and post-yield stiffness characteristics should be based on moment-curvature analysis of the member (sce Section 4.2.1), with the elastic stiffness represented by the secant stiffness to the “first yield” point of the response (Fig.4.6). Thus, using the formulation of Section 4.2.6, the effective moment of inertia will be: 1,-fe "Eb, Eg, (4.87) ‘The post-yield stiffness will also be found from the moment-curvature response of the member considered, and a hysteretic rule will be chosen characteristic of the member type and material used. Hysteretic rules are discussed in more detail in Section 4.9.2(0194 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures In Section 4.4 it was noted that the clastic stiffness of reinforced concrete and (by analogy) reinforced masonry columns and walls is a function of the axial force. Thus in a frame, where the column axial force varies as a result of seismic response (¢.g. columns A and C in Fig4.30(a)), the elastic stiffness should also vary. Although many inelastic analysis computer codes can model the axial force/moment strength interaction, few have the capability of modelling the axial force/stiffness interaction. An exception is the 2D/3D code “Ruaumoko"e", A “student” version of Ruaumoko, with restricted capabilities is included on the CD provided with this book. Lack of ability to model the axial force/stiffness relationship can result in significant errors in columa member forces, particularly in the elastic range of response, but is unlikely to result in significant errors in displacements and inelastic rotations, nor in significant errors in steel frame member forces. With frame analysis, careful consideration of modelling the beam-column joint stiffness is needed. A common error is to model the joint as effectively rigid. However, due to strain penetration, and joint shear deformation, the joint region is far from rigid, and may contribute as much as 30% to total lateral deformation|"!, As illustrated in Fig. 4.30(b), 2 minimum acceptable representation of the joint region will be to use lumped- plasticity line members to. represent the beam beoween the column faces, with a linear clastic portion of clastic stiffness equal to the beam clastic stiffness, from the joint centroid to the column face. If the column is to be modelled by an inelastic element, a Location of lumped plasticity plasticity line element elastic (a) Column Seismic Axial Forces (b) Joint Representation Fig. 4.30 Modelling a Regular Frame with Line ElementsChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 195 similar treatment will be provided. However, if the design philosophy is to keep the column elastic, it may be adequate to use a simple column element from joint centroid to joint centroid, and eliminate the nodes at the top and bottom of the beam, Elastic members will not be appropriate for ground-floor columns, where column-base plastic ‘hinges are expected to form, Some time-history analysis codes (e.g. Ruaumokol") enable special joint deformation elements to be located between the nodes at the joint boundaries. This will normally only be appropriate when it is desired to model joint failure, The effects of strain penetration from critical sections into supporting members, briefly discussed above in relation to beam/column joints, must also be considered at the base of frame columns, and at top and bottom of bridge piers by additional elastic members. Numerical simulation of this is discussed in detail in Section 4.2.7. It is also important that the effects of foundation flexibility, including the foundation structure and she supporting soil be adequately modelled. There is little point in carrying out a sophisticated ITHA if a flexible foundation is unrealistically modelled as rigid. Vertical, wanslational and rotational stiffness may be modelled by elastic of inelastic springs. Specific advice is provided in chapters dealing with specific structural types. (i) Fibre elements: \ number of ITHA codes (e.g, SeismoStruct!*t!) for concrete structures are based on representing the cross-section of linear members by a number of fibres, separately representing the concrete and reinforcing steel, as illustrated in Fig.4.31. The length of the member is divided into a number of segments, with each segment represented by fibre elements, and with the sections delimiting the segments following che Navier-Bernoulli approximation that plane sections remain plane. Each of the fibres represents an area of concrete, or a longitudinal reinforcing bat, and is given appropriate material properties to model reversed loading (ic. arbitrary tension/compression histories). Typically, separate material rules are used for the unconfined cover concrete, and the confined core concrete, and in advanced formulations (e.g. SeismoStruct), the stress-strain properties of the confined concrete are automatically generated. Material stress is normally assumed constant between integration points along the fibre segment. The advantages of this mose sophisticated representation of linear members are: * No prio: moment-curvature analysis of members is needed. * The hysteretic response is defined by the material properties, and hence does not need to be defined. * The influence of varying axial force on strength and stiffiness is directly modelled. Simulation of biaxial loading, is as straightforward as uniaxial loading, with interaction between flexural strength in orthogonal directions being directly computed. * Member post-peak strength reduction resulting from material strain-softening or failure can be directly modelled. ‘There are, however, also draw-backs to modelling using fibre-elements. With current formulations:196 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Reinforcement fibres ele a Cover fibres Core fibres Fig.4.31 Section Modelling with Fibres Fibre elements model only flexural response. Shear strength and shear deformation are generally not modelled, The interaction between flexural ductility and shear strength (see Section 4.7.3) is not modelled Shear deformation in joint regions must be modelled by special non-fibre elements. Integration of the segment curvatures to obtain rotations and displacements suffers from the same problems identified in Section 4.2.6 for direct integration of curvature from linear-member analysis. Ta some extent this can be obviated by adopting a critical segmene fength equal to the plastic hinge length computed in accordance with Eq.(4.30). If the moment in a segment is determined at the segment centroid, then the capacity of the structure may be over-estimated, since the moment at the critical section will exceed that at the segment centroid, which is the location where strength will be determined. Again this can be corrected in the analysis, by adjusting the location of critical segment boundaries (e.g. the beam-end at a beam-column interface) such that the integration gauss points coincide with the true boundary Strain-penetration into foundations etc, requires special treatment. Properties for the confined core concrete may have to be manually defined However, in some fibre analysis programs, as with some moment-curvature programs, the stress-strain characteristics of the core concrete are directly determined from the transverse reinforcement. Because of the large number of fibre elements needed to fully model a complex structure, computer time for ITHA can be very large with current computing power ~ as much as 24 hours for a single run. This makes design verificationChapter 4, Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 197 impractical if (say) seven records are to be run, ‘The problem may be particularly severe if 3-D response is needed. Ir should be emphasised that in fibre analysis it is not essential, nor even desirable that all members (or even all segments of a member) be modelled by fibres. Joint rotations and foundation flexibility effects can be modelled by elastic or inelastic springs, with the appropriate degrees of freedom, and members expected to remain clastic with essentially constant stiffness may be modelled by clastic line elements. In fact, given the major current drawback of excessive computational time, this simplification should be adopted wherever possible. The fibre program “SeismoStruct” is provided on the attached CD. 1it) Three-dimensional solid elements: Taree-dimensional solid elements are used rather infrequently in ITHA, are of value only when modelling of complex intersections between members is required, and should only be attempted by highly specialized organizations, Computational effort is considerable, and in our view, existing formulations do not adequately represent bond-slip and anchorage of reinforcement, confinement effects, and the behaviour of unconfined or confined concrete under reversed flexure and shear loading where separate patterns of intersecting cracks may develop. The cost of ITHA using inelastic 3-D elements is typically high, and the accuracy of the results is difficult to assess. For these reasons, we believe design verification should be confined to line and fibre elements at the current state of the att. (c) Two-dimensional or Three-dimensional Structural Representation?: Ail structures are three-dimensional, However, in many cases it will be reasonable to independently consider the seismic response in the principal directions, and hence to provide simpler two-dimensional representations of the structure, Examples are straight bridges, and symmetrical buildings where response in the orthogonal directions are likely ro be essentially independent. Two-dimensional structural representation is generally significantly easier to develop and to interpret the results from than is the case with 3-D representation, Further, when columns are expected to respond inelastically in orthogonal directions (bridges, building column bases), 3-D analyses will require special hysteretic rules modelling the interaction of strength and ductility in orthogonal directions, unless Abre elements are used, Such rules are not readily available, and the current state-of-the- art is to model the ductility effects independently, though a biaxial strength envelope may ‘be available, depending on the computer program used. When significant torsional response is possible, as in wharves (see Chapter 12), and some buildings (Chapters 5, 6 and 7), then 3-D representation of the structural response ‘is necessary. However, as, for example, discussed in Chapter 12 for wharves, it is sometimes possible t capture the salient features of the 31D response with 2-D structural modelling. (d) Strength Interaction Modelling: \s discussed in Section 4.9.2(b) above, many ITHA programs provide means for modelling the axial-force/flexural-strength interaction, either ditectly, as in the case of fibre elements, or as specified input, as in the198 stley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures case of line elements. However, as was discussed in Section 4.7.3 there is also an interaction between flexural ductility and shear strength with concrete structures. ‘This is much more difficult to represent in ITHA, and we are not aware of any general-purpose ITHA program currently capable of modelling this interaction. For design verification this is not generally a problem, as the design philosophy will be to avoid shear failure, and the results from the ITHA in terms of member ductility and shear demand can be used in conjunction with the shear strength model of Section 4.7.3 to design the transverse reinforcement. Where ITHA js used to assess the safety of an existing structure, the inability «0 model the shear-strength/flexural-ductility interaction envelope, and the subsequent rapid reduction in shear strength once the envelope has been reached is of more serious concern, Although it may be possible to identify the level of seismic intensity corresponding to just reaching the envelope, the increment of intensity required to cause collapse is currently beyond the capabilities of existing commercially available programs. (¢) Mass Discreeization: Masses will normally be lamped at nodes, implying a degree of mass discretization, In some computer programs the discretization will be carried out automatically from values of element mass per unit length provided as input; in orher programs the nodal masses will be directly input. (i) Frame buildings: Referring again to Fig, 4.30(a), nodal masses in 2-D representations will normally be provided at the intersections of all beams and columns. ‘This will enable realistic values for seismic axial forces in the beams to be determined. In some cases these axial forces can have a significant effect on beam moment capacities. However, in most cases it will be admissible ro lump the entire floor mass at one representative node. In the case represented in Fig.4,30(a), this would clearly be the node defined by the central column. Note that tributary column mass is generally lumped at the floor levels above and below the column considered. Note also that increasing the number of nodal masses will increase the number of significant elastic modes, some of which will have very low periods. This can result in computational problems, and so excessive refinement of the mass distribution should be avoided. When 3-D modelling and 2-D or 3-D seismic input is adopted, it is important that the mass torsional inertia is correctly represented. Referring to the plan simulation of a rectangular floor slab shown in Fig.4.32, a minimum of four nodes is required to fully represent the mass torsional inertia, Assuming that the mass is uniformly distributed, the distances of the mass node points are at the torsional radii of gyration respectively (L/N12) and (B/V12) from the floor centroid in the longitudinal and transverse directions. (ii) Wall buildings: Similar considerations apply for wall buildings. Generally floor masses will be concentrated at the centreline of the wall or walls. Again, excessive refinement in the assumptions of the mass distribution should be avoidedChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 199 i L/NI2—ke— B12 Fig.4.32 Plan Distribution of Mass for To: Floor Slab nal Inertia Modelling of a Building (a) Multi-span Bridge ky m ky Deflection Pier Geometry Mass and Stiffness (b) Bearing-supported Superstructure Fig.4.33 Mass Discretization for Bridge Inelastic Time-History AnalysisChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 201 shown with the elastic and initial inelastic cycles shown by dotted lines, and subsequent cycles shown by solid lines. Where the initial and subsequent cycles coincide they are shown by solid lines. ‘The elasto-plastic rule of Fig.4.34(a) has been widely used in ITHA in the past, but is of comparatively restricted applicability. It can be considered an approximation to the flexural response of steel beams and columns, provided the critical sections can be considered compact (no flange buckling) under inelastic response. However, the reduction of stiffness on unloading, (the Bauschinger effect) which causes rounding of the hysteretic response and 2 reduction of energy absorption of about 20% compared with elasto-plastic response, is not modelled. Elasto-plastic response is appropriate for seismic isolation systems using planar coulomb friction isolation sliders ‘eg. PTFE/stainless stcel flat bearings). For these elements the initial stiffness normally results from the structural elements, with the inelastic portion defined by essentially rigid/ perfectly plastic behaviour of the slider The bilinear hysteretic response of Fig, 4.33(b) has a post-yield stiffness of 20% of the initial stiffness (ic. r = 0.2), though the actual value of the post-yield stiffness will vary depending on the specific application, Compact steel sections are better represented by bilinear response with 0.02<1<0.05 than by elasto-plastic response, which is a special case of bilinear response with r= 0. The high value of r= 0.2 in Fig 4.34(b) is representative of seismic isolation provided by elastomeric bearings or friction-pendulum systems, with the value of r depending on the initial structural stiffness, and the isolation system characteristics. Figures 4.34(¢) and 4,34(d) are based on the modified Takeda hysteresis rulel™, and represent a range of hysteresis shapes appropriate for reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry structures. The modified Takeda rules are characterised by unloading and loading stiffnesses thar are significantly lower than the initial “elastic” stiffnesses. The “thin” hysteretic response of Pig. 4.34(0) is appropriate for inelastic members with significant axial load, such as building columns, bridge piers, walls and piles, and is a special case of the more general “fat” Takeda rule shown in Fig.4.34(d). For the thin Takeda role the unloading stiffness is defined as: k, =k, (4.88) where Lis the displicement ductility at the initiation of unloading, On the initial cycle the rule reloads to the elastic yield point in the reversed direction, but on subsequent cycles it reloads to the previous maximum force-displacement point, This is a special case of the “fae” rule, with B= 0. The “fat” Takeda rule of Fig.4.34(d) incorporates the “thin” rule as a special case, as noted above, and has an unloading stiffness defined by k, =k (4.89)202 Priestley, Cal ind Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Scructures (©) “Thin” Modified Takeda (r.c.column) (4) “Fat” Modified Takeda (rc. beam) () Flag (Hybrid prestressed concrete) ( Gapping (soit) Fig. 4.34 A Selection of Hysteresis Rules Appropriate for Inelastic Time-History Analysis where 0<@<0,5, and [1 is again the displacement ductility. A value of @=0 implies unloading with the initial stiffness. The rule reloads 10 a point defined by BAp (see Fig 4.34(@)) from the previous peak displacement in the direction of loading considered, where Ap is the plastic displacement. For well-detailed reinforc of @=0.3, and B=0.6 are generally considered to be appropriate. Note that with the Takeda rules, the initial stiffness should be the value applying at first yield, taking into account the reduction in effective stiffness resulting from flexural and shear cracking (Eq.(4.86)) Figure 4.34(e) describes a flag-shaped hysteresis rule suitable for modelling the response of hybrid prestressed members. In hybrid members (see Section 5.11.2) the prestressing steel is unbonded, resulting in a non-linear clastic force-displacement d concrete beams, valuesChapter 4, Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 208 characteristic. The energy dissipation in hybrid systems, shown in Fig.4.53(e) results from vield of special mild-steel bars which contribute to both flexural strength and energy dissipation, Further details are given in Chapter 5. Finally, Fig. 4.34(6) shows a hysteresis rule appropriate for a spring representing non- linear soil response, such as might occur in the soil near the top of a laterally loaded pile. After an initial cycle involving inelastic response of the soil spring, the soil separates from the pile, leaving a gap. On reloading in the same direction there will be no soil reaction unl this gap is closed. Typically inelastic soil response has a comparatively high post- sield stiffness, as illustrated in Fig.4.34(6. (g) Elastic Damping Modelling: It is common to specify a level of elastic damping, in ITHA to represent damping in the initial stages of response, before hysteretic damping is activated. This is normally specified as a percentage, typically 5%, of critical damping, ‘There are a number of ways this damping could be defined, as discussed subsequently, but the principal difference is whether the damping force is related to the initial or cangent stiffness, In the hysteresis rules of Fig.4.34, the initial stiffness is ky in all cases, bur the tangent stiffness, rh; (see Fig 4.34) reduces to a lower value once the displacements exceed yield. ‘Typically research papers reporting results on single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) ITHA state that 5% clastic damping was used, without clarifying whether this has been related to the initial or tangent stiffness, With mult-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) analyses, the situation is often further confused by the adoption of Rayleigh damping, which is a combination of mass-proportional and stiffness-propostional damping. It is our understanding that many analysts consider the choice of the initial clastic damping model to be rather insignificant for either SDOF or MDOF inelastic analyses, as the effects are expected to be masked by the much greater energy dissipation associated with hysteretic response. This is despite evidence by others (e.g. {O4]) that the choice of initial damping model between a constant damping matrix and tangent-stiffness proportional damping maurix could be significant, particularly for short=period structures, The difference between initial-stiffness and tangent stiffness damping is discussed with reference to Fig. 4.34(d). For SDOF systems, the constant value of the damping coefficient is determined with respect to the initial vibration frequency, @= {k,/m , the initial loading stiffness kj and a specified fraction of critical damping, ¢ c= 2magg =2E Jk, (4.90) ‘The damping force at any instant is thus Fy =x (4.91) where 4 is the instantaneous relative velocity.204 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky.Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures With tangent-stiffness damping the damping coefficient is proportional to the instantaneous value of the stiffness and it is updated whenever the stiffness changes. ‘Thus the damping coefficient given by Eq.(4.90) is multiplied by Vkd/Ai, where hy is the instantaneous tangent stiffness. With reference to Fig4.34(d), the damping coefficient will equal that associated with the initial-stiffness value only in the initial elastic response. After first yield, the damping coefficient will be referenced to the post-yield, the unloading or the reloading stiffness, With the case of elasto-plastic response, the damping force will be zero while the structure deforms along a yield plateau. ‘There are three main reasons for incorporating elastic damping in ITHA: The assumption of linear elastic response at force-levels less than yield: Many hysteretic rules, including all those shown in Fig.4.34 make this assumption, and. therefore do not represent the nonlinearity, and hence hysteretic damping within the elastic range for concrete and masonry structures, unless additional elastic damping is provided. ¢ Foundation damping: Soil flexibility, nonlinearity and radiation damping are not normally incorporated in structural time-history analyses, and may provide additional damping to the structural response. © Non-structural damping: Hysteretic response of non-structural elements, and relative movement between structural and non-structural elements in a building may result in an effective additional damping force. Discussing these reasons in turn, it is noed that hysteretic rules are generally calibrated to experimental strucrural data in the inelastic phase of response. Therefore additional elastic damping should not be used in the post-yield state to represent structural response except when the structure is unloading and reloading elastically. If the hysteretic rule models the elastic range nonlinearly (as is the case for fibre-element modelling) then no additional damping should be used in ITHA for structural representation, It is thus clear that the elastic damping of hysteretic models which have a linear representation of the elastic range, and which hence do not dissipate energy by hysteretic action at low force levels would be best modelled with tangent-stiffness proportional damping, since the elastic damping force will greatly reduce when the stiffness drops to the post-yield level. It should, however, be noted that when the post- yield stiffness is significant, the elastic damping will still be overestimated. This is particularly important for hysteretic rules such as the modified Takeda degrading stiffness rule which has comparatively high stiffness in post-yield cycles. If the structure deforms with perfect plasticity, then foundation forces will remain constant in the structural post-yield stage, and foundation damping will cease, It is thus clear that the effects of foundation damping in SDOF analysis are best represented by tangent stiffness related to the structural response, unless the foundation response is separately modelled by springs and dashpots. It is conceivable, though unlikely, that the non-structural damping force is velocity- dependent rather than strength-limited, and hence a constant damping coefficient may bea reasonable approximation for the portion of “elastic” damping that is attributable toChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 205 non-structural forces. There are two possible contributions to non-structural damping that should be considered separately: ‘Energy dissipation due to hysteretic response of the non-structural elements * Energy dissipation due to sliding (relative movement) between non-structural and structural elements. For a modern frame building, separation between structural and non-structural elements is required, and hence they should not contribute significantly to damping, Further, even if not separated, the lateral strength of all non-structural elements is likely to be less than 5% of the structural lateral strength (unless the non-structural elements are masonry infill), If we assume 10% viscous damping in these elements, an upper bound of about 0.5% equivalent viscous damping related to the structural response seems reasonable. Non-structural elements are unlikely to play a significant role in the response of bridges. Sliding will normally involve a frictional force, with the value dependent on the friction coefficient, and the weight of the non-structural element. Unless the non- structural elements are masonry, the friction force is likely to be negligible. It should be noted that it is probable that so-called non-structural masonry infill initially contsibutes, more significantly to strength, stiffness, and damping than is the case with (eg) lightweight panitions. However, it is known thar the strength degrades rapidly for drift levels > 0.5% (which is generally less than structural yield drift), The damping force is also likely to degrade rapidly. Ieis thus recommended that for modern buildings with separated or lightweight non- structural elements, clastic damping should be modelled by tangent stiffness proportional damping. The effects of non-structural masonry infill should be modelled by separate structural elements with severely degrading strength and stiffness - not by increased viscous damping, Te is instructive in determining the influence of alternative clastic damping models t0 consider the steady-state, harmonic response of an inelastic SDOF oscillator subjected to constant sinusoidal excitation. This enables direct comparison between hysteretic and dastic damping energy, and also between clastic damping energy using @ constant damping coefficient and tangent-stifiness proportional damping models. To this ead, Fig4.35 shows response of a simple SDOF oscillaror with inital period of 0.5 sec and a “thin” modified Takeda hysteresis rule (Fig.4.34(0)) subjected 10 10 seconds of a 1.0 Hz forcing function. The steady-state response of the pier corresponded to # displacement ductility of about 7.7 — at the upper limit of reasonable ductile response. Results for the stabilised loops, ignoring the transitory first three seconds of response are plotted in Fig. 4.35(a) (initial-stiffness proportional damping) and Fig, 4.35(b) (tangent-stiffness proportional damping). In each case the hysteretic response associated with nonlinear structural response is plotted on the lef, and the elastic damping force- displacement response is plotted to the right. The areas inside the loops indicate the relative energy absorption. For the case with initial-stiffness proportional damping, the206 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures energy absorbed by elastic damping is approximately 83% of the structural hysteretic energy dissipation, despite the high ductility level. This might be surprising when it is considered that the elastic damping corresponds to 5% of critical damping, while the hysteretic damping is equivalent to about 20% of critical damping, ‘This apparent anomaly is due to the different reference stiffness used. The elastic damping is related to oo a 5 sw 4 =m g g 3 g Boo Eo : ® 1000 4 & .1000 4 aio + am |, : a1 ° a a ° oa Displacetent én) Displacetnent x) (a) Analysis with Initial Stiffness Damping ot 5 200 = | =o g zg ee 5° = 000 9 1000 ane : 20 1, : a ° a an ° Mi Displacement m) Displacement () (b) Analysis with Tangent Stiffness Damping Fig.4.35 Steady-state Inelastic response of an SDOF oscillator with “Thin” Modified Takeda hysteresisChapter 4. Analysis Toots for Direct Displacement-Based Design 207 the initial stiffness, whereas the hysteretic damping is related to the secant stifiness to maximum response. When the elastic damping is tangent-stiffness proportional, as we believe to be most appropriate for structural response, the clastic damping energy is greatly reduced, as can be seen by comparing the upper and lower right-hand plots of Fig. 435. In the lower plot, the reduction in damping force corresponding to the stiffness change is clearly visible, In this case, the area of the elastic damping loop is only about 15% of the sxeuctural hysteretic energy dissipation Analyses of SDOF systems subjected to real earthquake records show that the significance of the elastic damping model is not just limited to steady-state response Figure 4.36 shows a typical comparison of the displacement response for SDOF oscillators with initial stiffness and tangent stiffness elastic damping, in this example the El Centro 1940 NS record (amplimde scaled by 1.5) has been used, the initial period was 0.5 seconds, a Takeda hysteretic rule with second slope stiffness of 5% was adopted, and the force-reduction factor was approximately 4. The peak displacement for the tangent stiffness elastic damping case is 44% larger than for the initial-stiffness damping case, indicating a very significant influence. A selection of results from a series of analyses of oscillators with different initial periods between 0.25 sec and 2.0 sec, subjected to NTC32MI spectrum-compatible 0s oa 4 0.05 5 Displacement (m) i 0.05 5 -o 4 0 4 8 2 6 2» ‘Time (seconds) Fig 4.36 Response of an SDOF Oscillator to 1.5xEl Centro 1940,NS (T:208 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures accelerograms is shown in Figure 4.37, which plots the ratio of peak inelastic displacement response to peak clastic displacement response. Elastic analyses, using 5% damping (note that the choice of damping model js irrelevant for efastic analysis) were first carried out, then inelastic analyses where either initial-stiffness or tangent-stiffness 5% damping were specified, with yield strengths based on force-reduction factors of R=2, 4 and 6 based on the average elastic response peak force. Modified Takeda (representing concrete response), Bilinear (approximating steel) and Flag (representing hybrid prestressed precast concrete) hysteresis rules were considered. The second-slope stiffness ratio for the “Thin” Takeda (Fig.4.34(c)) and bilinear rules for these analyses was r= 0.002 (the minimum value considered), but similar results were obtained for r= 0.05 (the maximum considered). The flag hysteresis results in Fig.4.36 were based on the minimum additional damping considered in the hybrid precast modelling (8 =0.35, sce Fig.4.34(e)). Note that in some cases the displacement ratios a T 25 sec. have not been plotted as they exceed the range included by the graph axes. From examination of Figure 4.37 it will be noted that there is a significant difference between the response of the initial-stiffness and tangent-stiffness (identified as IS and TS respectively) models, that this difference is rather independent of initial period, for T>0.5 seconds, that the difference increases with force-reduction factor, and is dependent on the hysteretic rule assumed. It will also be aoted that though the “equal displacement” approximation (represented by a displacement ratio of 1.0 in Figure 4.37) is reasonable for initial stiffness damping and initial periods greater chan "= 1,0 seconds, it is significantly non-conservative for tangent-stiffness clastic damping. It is thus recommended that for modern buildings with separated or lightweight non- structural elements, elastic damping should be modelled by tangent-stiffness proportional damping, Note, however, that the specification of tangent-stiffness Rayleigh proportional damping for MDOF, multi-storey buildings will not have the desired effect, since most of the clastic damping in the critical first mode will be mass-proportional, which is constant with inelastic action. Consider the basic form for the fraction of critical damping in the Rayleigh damping model: (4.92) where @ and B are the coefficients associated with mass proportional and stiffness proportional damping respectively, and @, is the circular frequency. If we specify the same value (say 5%) for & at two different frequencies, where the higher one is times the lower (fundamental) frequency, then: (4.90) and° 2 3 g = Displacement Ratio (AAtastic) Displacement Ratio (A/Actastic) Displacement Ratio (A/Actassc) os a 16 12 08 2a 16 os “Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 209 0 of 08 12 16 2 0 94 08 12 16 2 0 o4 08 12 16 2 Period (seconds) Period (seconds) ‘Period (seconds) (a) Takeda (concrete) hysteresis STEELE nn nan RE LR een i a een 0 of 08 12 16 2 G 04 o8 12 16 2 o 04 08 12 16 2 Period (seconds) ‘Period (seconds) Period (seconds) (b) Bilinear hysteresis T m4 TT 9 TIT 0 04 08 12 36 2 0 of 08 12 16 2 0 O84 08 12 16 2 Period (seconds) Period (seconds) Period (seconds) ()Fiag Hysteresis Figure 4.37 Response of SDOF Oscillators to ATC32 Spectrum-Compatible Accelerograms210 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures f ) iat (4.91) eo! 2 Subtracting lig. (4.91) from xtimes Eq (4.90): }. 4.92) and hence the damping @/20 associated with mass proportional damping in the first mode is x/(k-+1), while the damping attributed to stiffness proportional damping in the first mode is €(x+1) Consider the case where we specify 5% damping at 7; = 1.5 sec and T= 0.3 sec. Hence = 5. Then, even if we specify tangent-stiffness proportional Rayleigh damping, only 0.83% is stiffness proportional in the critical first mode, while 4.17% is mass proportional, and hence acts én an identical manner to initial-stiffness damping when the structure responds inelastically It is clear from the above discussion that it will be difficule to obtain the correct simulation of tangent-stiffness clastic damping, when Rayleigh damping is specified. It will always be preferable to specify pure tangent-stiffness damping, at least for the fundamental mode. This option may not be available with commercially available ITHA codes, and an acceptable alternative is to specify an artificially low damping coefficient, &*in the fundamental mode. Based on the discussion on significance of elastic damping, t0 DDBD, presented in Section 3.4.3, this value should be approximately: eal » 0.10 uid +ru-r) A more complete discussion of the issues related to elastic damping is available in (P16, and G2| (4.93) (h) Choice, Number, and Character of Accelerograms for Design Verification: () Number of records: Two alternatives are generally defined by codes (c.g; X3,X4) for the number of accelerograms to be used in design verification. The first involves using three spectrum-compatible records, with the design response being caken as the maximum from the three records, for the given response parameter (displacement, shear force etc) investigated. The second uses a minimum of seven spectrum compatible records, with the average value being adopted for the response parameter considered. Because of the simplicity of ITHA with modern computing power, the latter approach is now almost always adopted, and there appears to be a tendency to increase the number of records above the minimum of seven, to ensure a more representative average.Chapter 4, Analysis Tools for Disect Displacement-Based Design 2M (ii) Seketion of records: There are three basic choices for the means of obtaining spectrum- compatible accelerograms: * Amplitude scaling of acceleration records from real earthquakes to provide a “best fit” to the design spectrum over the period range of interest. © Generating artificial spectrum-compatible records using special purpose programs. ‘* Manipulating existing “real” records to march the design spectrum over the full range of periods. When the records are obtained by amplitude scaling of existing records, the scatter between records is likely to be large, and hence a larger number of records might be needed to obiain a reliable average. Care has to be exercised in selecting the period range over which the spectrum matching is obtained. In Fig. 4.38, which shows the matching referred to the 5% damping elastic displacement spectrum, the matching has been reasonably achieved over the period range encompassing the first thrce elastic periods, which might be considered adequate. However, it is seen that at periods longer than the fundamental period, displacements of the scaled spectrum are significantly lower than the desiga spectrum, It is important to match the spectrum for a period range that includes the period shift expected as the structure responds inelastically. This is shown in Fig.4.38 for a displacement ductility of ft = 3. In this example, the scaled displacement spectrum becomes increasingly deficient in displacement demand, compared with the design spectrum, as the period increases above the clastic period, resulting in an unconservative estimate of the inelastic displacement from the time-history analysis. OF course, this argument applies to a single record. Uf a large number of records are used such that the average of the displacement spectra over the full range from elastic to inelastic period matches the design spectrum, valid average results can be expected, Unfortunately this is unlikely to be the case for longer period structures, since the large majority of records used in the analyses tend to have peak spectral displacements at periods from 1.0-2.0 seconds. In this case there is likely to be a consistent deficit in displacement demand at the degraded (inelastic) fundamental period, regardless of how many records are used. Thus conclusions about structural response for structures with expected displacement ductilities of (say) [= 4 and elastic periods of T >0.75 seconds can be expected to be suspect, unless the earthquake records are very carefully chosen. Note that though the argument above has referred to code spectrum matching, it also applies to more general studies related to investigation of the relationship between clastic and inelastic displacement. ‘The second alternative involves artificially generated accelerograrns, using programs such as SIMQKEI, ‘These can be matched to the design spectrum for the full period range with comparatively small error, and can be given the general character of an initial segment of increasing intensity, a duration of essentially constant intensity, and a final segment of reducing intensity. A lesser qumber of records are required to obtain a meaningful average using artificial records. An objection commonly voiced about artificial records is that they ate too severe, in that real records are not spectrum-compatible over212 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Design : Speci 37” | ror Displacement Specteal matching Ts T, Period Fig.4.38 Displacement Spectrum Matching for Inelastic Time-History Analysis the full period range, and that artificial records typically have a longer duration than real records. The first of these arguments cannot be accepted, since the larger number of real secords needed to obtain a full spectrum matching should produce essential identical results, and the artificial records can be considered as a more efficient means of obtaining the same results. The second objection — excessive duration ~ is unlikely to be of concern when the analyses are being carried out for verification of a new design. When the analysis is carried out on an existing structure which is expected to degrade in strength under the design spectrum, then duration may be significant. However, it should be recognized that few ITHA programs based on line elements have the ability to accurately model strength degradation, though this is sometimes available with fibre elements. Recently, the third option, where existing recorded accelerograms are manipulated to obtain full spectrum matching, has become more common. This method has the advantage over pure artificial records that the essential character of the original record is preserved. Thus, records that conform to the type of source characteristics expected (e.g, strike/slip, subduction, near-field forward directivity etc.) can be selected. This is important, since the spectrum matching will normally be done at 5% damping, and the characteristics at different levels of effective damping will depend on the source characteristics and distance from the fault plane. However, to obtain the required spectrum matching, the duration of the record typically has to be extended, opening the method to the same objection as directed against artificial records. Figure 4.39 shows typical spectral matching of acceleration and displacement spectra based on manipulating seven real accelerograms. (iii) Multi-component Accelerograms: When structural response is likely to be influenced by 2- D or -D effects — that is, when the response in orthogonal directions cannot reasonablyChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design (a) Acceleration Spectra 40 (c) Displacement Spectra Fig. 4.39 5% Spectral Matching Using Manipulated Real Recordsl#!! 213214 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures be de-coupled, the accelerograms will have to include two or three orthogonal components. The generation of the characteristics of the various components needs careful consideration. Examination of recorded three-component accelerograms reveals that the two horizontal components have different spectral shapes and intensities, but it does not seem that there is a consistent difference when decomposed to fault-normal and fault-parallel directions. Thus choice of a predominant, or principal direction of attack does not seem feasible at this stage of knowledge. Consequently site-specific design spectra are generally generated using the average of faul-normal and fault-parallel actenuation relationships. In the event that a code-specified spectrum is adopted, this will almost certainly be independent of orientation. ‘The vertical component typically has lower peak spectral acceleration intensity — a value of 0.67 times the peak horizontal spectral acceleration intensity is often quoted, though this appears to depend on distance from the fault, hypocentral depth, and ground material — and a systematic difference in spectral shape, with peak acceleration intensity typically occusring at a lower period than for the horizontal components, and wid intensity reducing with period more rapidly than with the horizontal components!" Recent near-field accclerograms of shallow earthquakes have indicated vertical accelerations that have in many cases exceeded the peak horizontal components. The above discussion raises the question of how the orthogonal components of real records should be scaled, In the following it is assumed that no preferential direction for the design spectrum has been identified. There are a number of possibilities: ‘© Systematically rotate the axes of the owo horizontal records, to determine the principal direction, and generate new major and minor principal-dizection accelerograms. Scale the major principal record to the design spectrum, and use the same scaling factor for the minor horizontal and the vertical components. * Scale the larger of the records to the design spectrum, without determining the principal direction, and use this scaling factor for the other two components. * Scale both horizontal records independently to the design spectrum, and scale the vertical spectrum to the vertical design spectrum. It might appear that the first, or possibly the second alternative is the most satisfactory. However, without a knowledge of the direction in which che major component should be applied with respect to the structure axes (which is the current state of the science), multiple analyses would be required, with the direction of the horizontal components rotated by (say) 15° berween successive analyses to capture the maximum response. This approach also has the disadvantage of not recognizing how the design spectrum is obtained. As noted above, attenuation relationships used to generate site-specific design spectra normally are based on the average of faul-normal and fault- parallel response. Thus no specific principal direction is implied by the design spectrum. It thus appears that both records should be scaled to the design spectrum. Since the records will have low cross-correlation, it is expected that the elastic response displacement in any direction will be similar, when the two horizontal components are applied simultaneously in any two orthogonal directions. This is illustrated in Fig. 4.40, whete the response displacements for different bearings are compared with the designChapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 218 Dir-2 Dirt “1 1-Second Period, 1.5-Second Period, 2-Second Period, Ave.=7” vs. target=7.05” — Ave.=11.7" vs target=12.1” — Ave,=15.2” vs target=14.8” 3-Second Period 4-Second Period, 5-Second Period, Ave.=23.6" vs target=24.2” Ave.=27.2" vs target=26.6" _Ave.=25.5” vs target=27.8" Fig.4.40 Response Displacements in Different Bearings for Two-component Spectrum-Compatible Records Applied in the NS and EW directions, Compared with the Spectrum Targets!" values for different specified elastic periods, and with the two spectrum-compatible components applied in the NS and EW directions. The data, and records, relate to a study for the Port of Los Angeles(@!! and ate the average of seven spectrum-compatible accelerogram pairs. Tt will be seen that good agreement with the circular design response is obtained for all except T=Ssec, which was beyond the period range of interest. This approach appears more compatible with the way in which the design spectra are generated, and has the great advantage that a single analysis related to any chosen set of axes is sufficient, rather than the multiple analyses required by the first ovo alternatives. It should, however, be applied with some caution, When excitation in one direction produces significant displacement response in the orthogonal direction, ic would appear that use of evo spectrum-compatible records will produce higher estimates of peak displacement than use of scaled major and minor principal-direction accelerograms rotated to a series of possible orientations, as discussed above. @ Averaging Results from Multiple Analyses: \t might be considered that averaging the results from a set of (say) seven spectrum-compatible cecords or record pairs is216 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Maxima Displacements Record | A Positive | A Negative I 6.341 ~6.347 2 4.891 27.945 3 8.948 “3.179 Concrete 4 4.486 ~6.543 Reinforcement} Compression 5 6.148 4.569 strain 6 6.198 4.710, T| 4.667 77.032. Average | _ 5.954 -5.761 Fig.4.41 Bridge Pier Response Displacements from Seven Spectrum-Compatible ‘Accelerograms straightforward. In fact some careful consideration of rather simple probabilistic aspects, is required. Consider the response displacements of the simple bridge pier shown in Fig, 4.41, subjected to uniaxial seismic excitation. The table indicates the positive and negative displacement maxima obtained from each of seven spectrum-compatible accelerograms, and the averages for the positive and negative directions. The maximum of the positive and negative displacement for cach record is highlighted with bold text. What is the correct average response displacement? If the absolute value of the response displacement is of interest, then the average of the highlighted values should be used, giving a value of 7.023, which is 18% and 22% higher than the averages in the positive and negative directions respectively. However the absolute maximum. displacement, regardless of sign, is unlikely to be a significant design parameter. If longitudinal response is considered, the displacement may be required to determine whether a movement joint closes up, causing impact, or opens up sufficiently to cause unseating, In this case, since the critical displacements will be different in the different directions, the sign of the displacement is important Under transverse (or longitudinal) response, the displacements may be critical to determine whether stecl and concrete strain limits are exceeded in the plastic hinge region, The critical locations of the pier for positive displacement are indicated in Fig. 4.41, For these two locations and design parameters (concrete compression strain, and reinforcement tension strain) it would clearly be inappropriate to include the negative displacements in the averaging, since these provide strains of the incorrect signs in the cctitical region. ‘The argument supporting the inclusion of the larger negative displacements is to note that the polarity of the excitation for a given record is arbitrary, and hence the displacement signs ate arbitrary, indicating that averaging the larger of the positive andChapter 4, Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 217 negative displacements is correct. This argument is, however, invalid, as it implies considering the response for both negative and positive polarities, (which essentially implies consideration of 14 rather than 7 accelerograms), sclecting the response of the seven largest, and discarding the response of the seven smallest. From a probabilistic viewpoint it would be equally valid to select the seven smallest and discard the seven largest. In fact it is obvious that no selection can be justified, and if both positive and negative polarities are considered, the results of all 14 records should be averaged. Using, the data of Fig. 4.41, this would result in a design displacement of 5.858, 17% lower than the value from averaging the peak displacement magnitudes Averaging the positive and negative displacements would only be valid if the structure has symmetric strength and stiffness characteristics in the opposite directions. For non- symmetric structures, the positive and negative displacements should be separately averaged. Alternatively, additional analyses could be run, reversing the polarity of the records to provide 14 valid values for averaging. The illogicality of selecting the maximum of the positive and negative displacements becomes even mote apparent when 2D or 3-D excitation is considered. If the critical polarity of each component is to be adopted, then four possible combinations of the 2D components (+ve/+ve; -ve/—ve, +ve/-ve; -ve/+ve) and eight possible combinations of the 3-D components would need to be considered. ‘There are, however, additional problems with determining the correct average for response under multi-axial excitation. Consider the case of the simple wharf segment shown in plan view in Fig, 4.42 which has considerable eccentricity between the centre of mass and the centre of strength (effective stiffness), as a result of short piers on the landward edge and long piers on the seaward edge, as illustrated in Fig, 12.1(a). Because of the significant torsional response under longitudinal (X direction) excitation the teansverse and longitudinal response cannot be decoupled, and simultaneous excitation in the orthogonal (X and Y) directions must be modelled. 1 ay (Critical Pile 1 __Landward edge OF} Centre of Strength Oy cin icici {> Centre of Mass A Seaward edge Fig 4.42, Peak Corner Displacements for Critical Corner Pile of a Wharf (Plan View)218 stley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures ‘The critical design parameter will be the average displacement from the seven (or more) pairs of accelerograms (record pairs) of a corner pile. As with the previous example of the bridge pier, the average displacement is of interest because it can be directly correlated to the pile limit strains Output from the ITHA will be in the form of X and Y displacements (as well as member forces etc). Normally the peak values Amer,x and Amacy from the analysis will also be listed in a summary table. However, it is not possible to combine these vectorially to obrain che peak response displacement for the record under consideration, since Amuse and Anasy are unlikely 10 occur at the same time. Instead, at each time interval 4, the vectorial displacement A, must be calculated according to: —— A= yA, +415) (4.93) and the peak displacement for the record determined from the full range of A; thus obtained. This peak displacement will occur in a specific direction. In Fig, 4.42, che critical displacements and directions for the first four of the record pairs are indicated by vectors. It will be clear that these cannot be averaged as scalars to obtain the design response displacement, as they occur in different directions. The correct method of averaging becomes apparent when one considers the condition that defines the limit strains. Let ws first consider the peak response in a specified direction (say 15° fiom the X axis). The average displacement response in this direction will define whether the limit strains on the diagonal defined by the direction are satisfactory. ‘To obtain this average, the displacement in this direction must be obtained for cach record pait, and for each time step. The full time-history of response displacememss in this direction is searched for each record pair to obtain the maximum value, and the average of the maxima in this direction from the seven (or more) record pairs is found. This procedure must be carried out for a series of directions around the full 360 Normally directions at 15° intervals provide sufficient accuracy. The average response displacements in the different directions are then searched to find the ctitical direction, and thus the critical displacement. It is noted that this procedure represents a departure from what has been customary practice in the past, but we believe it represents the only logical interpretation of che averaging process for response under a number of accelerograms. 4.9.3. Non-Linear Static (Pushover) Analysis Pushover analysis involves an inelastic analysis of the structure considered, under a gradually increasing vector of forces or displacements, representing the expected pattern Of inertia forces or response displacements in the structure. It has the ability to track the formation, and plastic rotation of plastic hinges in the structure, and hence can be of value in design verification. There are, however, limitations to the utility of the method.Chapter 4. Analysis Tools for Direct Displacement-Based Design 219 First, it can not be directly used to determine the overall displacement demand on the seructure under the design seismic intensity. This must be obtained from some other means, such as modal analysis, since what is obtained is essentially a generalised force- displacemem cesponse of the structure, Given knowledge of the displacement demand, the pushover analysis can be carried out until the displacement at some characteristic location reaches the assessed demand, and hence the local inelastic strains and structucal cirifts can be determined. Thus assumptions made in the direct displacement-based design approach about the deflected shape can be tested, but not the absolute value of the displacements, A further limitation of the pushover method is that at the current stage of development pushover analysis in commercially available analysis codes is generally restricted to modelling response of a single mode, generally the fundamental mode. Dynamic amplification of drifts, moments and shear forces due to higher mode effects cannot be accurately modelled with single-mode pushover analysis. Considerable research effort has been expended in recent years towards developing multi-mode pushover analysis, In our view these have not yet reached maturity, and require excessive computational effort. This severely restricts the applicability of the method to design verification, A final limitation is that with a uni-directional push, the hysteretic characteristics of the structure cannot be included for straight design verification, Thus, a structure with nonlinear elastic hysteretic characteristics will have the same pushover response of a bilinear elasto-plastic system with the same backbone response. In some computer pushover approaches!*!, however, cyclic pushover analyses caa be carried out. These can be used to determine the energy dissipation characteristics of sub-assemblages of the structure, enabling them to be modelled with a reduced number of degrees of freedom in ITHA, or in the design process. ‘This is of considerable value in soil-structure interaction problems. An application to the response of wharves is presented in Chapter 12. In carrying out a pushover analysis, a decision must be made as to whether to contro the response by an imposed force-vector or by an imposed displacement-vector, Both approaches have limitations. The force approach tends to become unstable as maximum resistance is approached, and cannot follow response when strength degrades. It also results in a force vector that is generally incompatible with the generated displacements, since in a single-mode pushover, the force vector should be proportional to the product of mass and displacement at each level, In some approaches!\"), more than one shape of force vector is specified (typically corresponding +o a linear or constant displacement with height), and che results from the worst case is taken. ‘This implies considerable doubt as to the accuracy of the results. The displacement approae! response in the post-peak strength region, However, spurious local forces can develop when applied to MDOF structures, and the specification of a displacement vector can inhibit soft-storey failure mechanisms. tn both force-controlled and displacement- controlled cases, care must be taken in applying an appropriate force or displacement vector that represents the expected nse. Recently developed pushover is very suitable for SDOF systems, since it can follow modal respe20 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures algorithms, termed “adaptive pushovers” modify the applied force or displacement vector incrementally to model the changing deflecuon shape resulting from the structural analysis", and should be used where possible It is pointed out that data preparation and interpretation for a pushover analysis is very similar to that required for ITHA, and with current computing capacity, the increased time 10 execute an ITHA compared with a pushover analysis is of lite consequence, unless fibre elements are used. Considering the limitations of pushover analysis, outlined above, we see limited applications for the approach, at this stage of development of the method, in design verification studies, beyond the specific examples noted above. It should be noted however, that the increased complexity of fibre elements which creates problems in excessive time of analysis for ITHA, can enhance the accuracy of pushover analyses without involving excessive analysis time5 FRAME BUILDINGS 5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter builds on the basic material provided in Chapter 3 relating to the fundamentals of dixect displacement-based seismic design (DDBD), to provide a rather complete procedure for the seismic design of buildings whose primary lateral force- zesisting systems is comprised of frames. ‘The relevant equations from Chapter 3 are first summarized, and extended, where appropriate, Information on elastically responding frame buildings is provided, since in many regions of low to moderate seismicity frame buildings can be expected to respond elastically to the design-level seismic intensity. Simplified methods of analysis under the design seismic force-vector are presented, since it is shown that traditional elastic analyses are invalid for frames that respond inelastically. Details on the necessary strength margins of columns to satisfy capacity design requirements are considered in some detail. Design examples are used throughout «o illustrate the complete design process, for both steel and concrete frame buildings 5.2. REVIEW OF BASIC DDBD PROCESS FOR FRAME BUILDINGS 5.2.1 SDOF Representation of MDOF Frame Chapter 3 introduced the fundamentals of DDBD with respect to Fig.3.1, which is reproduced here for convenience as Fig.5.1. The first stage of the design process is the representation of the multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) structure by an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structure modelling the first inelastic mode of response (Fig.5.1(a)). The following equations were developed (a) Design Storey D. related to a normalised inelastic mode shape , where /= 1 to mare the storeys, and to he displacement A, of the critical storey by the relationship acements: ‘The design floor displacements of the frame are \ a,=6/4e J 221222 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures (a) SDOF Simulation (b) Effective Stiffness Ke 025 = 05, = Lo Damping Ratio, & 1 0.05 +} Opes Displacement Ductility Period (seconds) (c) Equivalent damping vs. ductility (A) Design Displacement Spectra Fig.5.1_ Fundamentals of Direct Displacement-Based Design where the normalized inelastic mode shape depends on the height, Hi, and roof height Ay, according to the following relationships: forn <4: (5.2b) for n >4:224 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures is generally sufficiently accurate to assume a linear yield displacement profile for the purpose of estimating ductility demand, and hence the yield displacement is given by: »=O,-H, (68) @ Equivalent Viscous Damping: From Section 3.4.3, the equivalent viscous damping of the substitute structure for frames can be conservatively related to the design displacement ductility demand (see Fig.5.1(©) as follow Reinforced Concrete Frames: &, = nas+0.ses( 4-1) (6.92) un u-l Steel Frames: oq = 9.05 + 0.577 -| —— (5.9b) un Alternatively, the distributed ductility approach of Eq,(3.37) can be used. (@@) Effective Period of Substitute Structure: ‘The eflective period at peak displacement response is found from the displacement spectra set (Fig.5.1(@)), entering with the design displacement and determining the period, Ts, corresponding to the calculated equivalent viscous damping. (h) Effective Stitiness of Substitute Structure: With reference tw Fig.5.1(b) and Section 3.2, the effective stiffness at maximum displacement response of the substitute structure, F/Ay is K, =4z°m,/ 6.10) @ Design Base Shear Force: Again with reference to Fig.5.1(b) and Section 3.2, the design base shear force for the MDOF structure is found from the substitute structure: F =Vagg = K Ay G.11) 5.2.2 Design Actions for MDOF Structure from SDOF Base Shear Force (@) Distribution of Base Shear Force to Floor Levels: ‘he base shear force from q,6.11) is distributed to the floor levels in proportion to the product of mass and displacement as: F= VruuclmA,)(omA,) (6.12) iatChapter 5. Frame Buildings 225 (6) Design Moments for Plastic Hinges: The building is then analysed under the force vector represented by Fq.(5.12) to determine the required flexural strength at the plastic hinge locations. As discussed in Section 3.7 it is unnecessarily conservative to add the full gravity-load moments to these seismic moments. So doing, as well as increasing the cost of the structure would reduce the seismic response displacements to below the intended design level. The recommendation in Section 3.7 is to detail the beam plastic hinges for the lower of (i) the seismic moments, and (ii) the factored gravity-lo: noments. This is discussed further in Section 5.6.4 Analysis of the building under the lateral force vector requires the adoption of member stiffness appropriate for the expected member ductility level, as discussed in Section 3.5.7. However, an alternative and simpler approach to determining the member forces is presented in Section 5.5.2. 5.2.3 Design Inelastic Displacement Mechanism for Frames. The desired mechanism of inelastic deformation for frames involves the formation of flexural plastic hinges at the ends of the beams, except, possibly, at roof level, combined with column-base plastic hinges, and columa-top hinges if the roof-level beams do not hinge. This mechanism, showa in Fig.5.2(a) where beam hinges, rather than column hinges form at the roof level provides the greatest possible number of locations to ismic energy, and also results in plastic hinge rorations that are very nearly ey drift. dissipate equal to the inelastic stor Ap ‘Ap (a) Beam-Sway (b) Column-Sway Fig.5.2. Mechanisms for Frame Inelastic Response226 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Stcuctutes Capacity design measures, outlined in Sections 3.10 and 4.7 are required to ensure that this, and only this, inelastic mechanism can develop. Column flexural strengths at locations other than the base or top must be set sufficiently high to ensure that column hinges rather than beam hinges do not form, since this could result in a column sway mechanism with high plastic rotation demand on the column hinges!!l, as illustrated in Fig.5.2(b). The two alternative mechanisms in Fig,5-2 have the same plastic drift Ap at the roof fevel, but it will be immediately seen that the plastic rotation of the hinges in the column sway mechanism is approximately m times that of the beam-sway mechanism, where 17 is the number of storeys. It will also be appreciated that a single column failure could result in total building collapse, whereas failure of a single beam is unlikely to be critical. Column-sway (also known as soft-storey) mechanisms have been one of the most common forms of failure of frame buildings in earthquakes!”*L Similarly, since shear failure is brittle, resulting in strength loss and potential catastrophic failure, the shear strength of both beams and columns must be set sufficiently high to ensure that shear failure cannot occur. Capacity design measures for frames are discussed further in Section 5.8. 5.3. YIELD DISPLACEMENTS OF FRAMES. 5.3.1 Influence on Design Ductility Demand Frames are inherently flexible structures. Consider Eq.(5.7a) which gives the yield drift of a reinforced concrete frame, If we take typical values for beam span and depth of Ly = 6 m (19.7 ft), and hy =600 mm (23.6 in), and a reinforcement yield strength of fre 400 MPa, (58 ksi), implying a yield strain of 6, drift of 0,002, then Eq.(5.7a) results in a yield 6.0 6, =0.5x0.002x— = 0.01 (6.13) 0.6 Note that in many countries higher yield stresses are common, and hence yield drifts would be proportionately larger. Most seismic design codes set drift limits corresponding to a damage-control limit state (see Section 3.3.2) in the range 0,02 to 0.025, to limit non-structural damage, Design ductility or behaviour factors for frames are often set as high as 5 to 8 (see Table 1.2). It is apparent, however, that if the yield drift is of the order of 0.01, then the maximum placement ductility demand at the non-structural drift limit will be in the 2 to 25, and hence the structural ductility limits will almost never govern, structural dis order of This will be apparent in examples later in this chapter, 5.3.2 Elastically Responding Frames ‘A second consequence of the high yield drift of frames is that tall frames can beChapter 5. Frame Buildings 227 expected to respond elastically if the design seismic intensity is low or moderate, since the vield displacement is likely to exceed the maximum displacement demand corresponding, ro elastic (eg, 5%) damping at the start of the constant-displacement plateau of the displacement spectrurn (see Fig.5.1(d), e.g.). Aspects which will influence this are © Yield drift (ie. frame dimensions and reinforcement yield strength) * Magnitude of earthquake * Distance from faule rupture ¢ Number of storeys. ‘The tentative information given in Section 2.2.2.(b) relating to prediction of displacement spectra can be used to gain some insight into the probability that a given building will respond elastically co an earthquake of specified magnitude occurring on a known fault, Since it is more common to express design seismicity in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA), we reformulate the information of Chapter 2 in terms of PGA as follows: We assume a typical elastic spectral acceleration shape for firm ground, with a constant velocity slope starting at Ty = 0.5 seconds, Note that the assumption of a constant velocity slope, which is implicit in most seismic codes, is compatible with the linear displacement spectra of Fig.5.1, We also make the common assumption that the plateau acceleration is 2.5 times the effective peak ground acceleration PGA. With this information, and the relationship between corner period and magnitude given by Eq.(2.3) it is possible to directly relate the clastic acceleration spectrum and the displacement spectrum (see Fig.5.3), and calculate the maximum elastic response displacement. ‘The ordinates of the acceleration spectrum for 0.5< TXTe sec are: Gy) = 2.5PGA-T, (T =1.25-PGAIT 6.14) In accordance with Fq.(2.3) the corner period Te is taken as: T. =14+2.5(M, —5.7) — seconds (5.15) Making the usual assumption of sinusoidal relationship between peak refative displacement and peak pseudo-acceleration, the corner clastic displacement is related to the PGA by: Tl. T2125 PGA an ag 6.16) c Substituting for Te from Eiq.(5.15) and simplifying: Aye = 0.031X PGA(+2.5(M,, ~5.7)) 6.17)228 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Acceleration a(r) (g) Displacement Ar) (m) i T=0. T=T, T T T T T Period 7 (seconds) Period T (seconds) (a) 5% Acceleration Spectrum (b) 5% Displacement Spectrum Fig.5.3, Design Elastic Acceleration and Displacement Response Spectra (no scale) Note that the data used co generate the elastic displacement spectra in Section 2.2.2 imply that PGA is inversely proportional to distance from the fault plane for distances greater than 10 km. As a consequence, high PGA’s are possible for moderate seismic magnitudes My, provided the distance is small enough. Equation (3.17) can be plotted as a function of PGA and My to provide the maximum displacement that can be expected at the effective height of the subst structure (Eq.(5.5)). This can be compared with the yield displacement given by Eqs and (5.8) to determine for a given structure, PGA and My, whether response is likely 10 be elastic or ductile. A typical comparison is displayed in Fig.5.4 for a reinforced concrete frame building, based on the following structural assumptions: © flexural reinforcement yield strength fe = 400 MPa (58ksi) * Storey height constant at 3.5 m (11.3 f) © Beam aspect ratio Li/hty = 10 (see 2q.5.7)) Effective height = 0.7%, (Fh, = coral building height =3.52 m (11.5 fi) Yield displacement profile is linear. ‘These assumptions are the same as used to derive Fiq.(5.13) and hence the yield drift is 0.01. ‘The yield displacement at the effective height is thus: A , = 8,.(0.7x3.5n) =0.01%0.7X3.5n=0.0245n (mm) 6.18) where mis the number of storeys.Chapter 5. Frame Buildings 29 165 24 storeys Displacement (m) 20 storeys 16 stories 22 storeys 8 storeys 4 storeys 6 64 68 7.2 16 8 Moment Magnitude, My Fig.5.4 Comparison of Peak Elastic Spectral Displacement for 5% Damping as a function of PGA and Moment Magnitude, with R.C. Frame Yield Displacements In Fig,54, the relationship between peak spectral displacement, peak ground acceleration and moment magnitude given by Eq.(5.17) is plotted as a series of sloping ines identified by PGA. The structural yield displacements for frames between 4 and 24 eys based on Eq.(5.18) are plotted as dashed lines. If the yield displacement exceeds the he peak clastic spectral displacement, then the response is expected to be elastic. ‘The results indicate that if the design PGA is 0.2g, and the causative earthquake is Mu < 6.6, then all frames of 8 storeys or higher, with similar 10, or more flexible than, the characteristics of those on which Eq.(5.18) is based, will respond elastically. Twenty-four story frames in a zone with PGA = 0.3g will respond elastically fer all My <8, and in a zone with PGA = 0.5g will still respond elastically unless My > 6.9. These results should be taken as indicative only, since they depend on the structural assumptions, and also the assumptions used co derive the displacement spectra. For the taller structures it is also possible that inelastic response could be developed in higher modes than the fundamental mode of vibration, thus requiring the consideration of capacity-design effects. With these provisos, however, it will be seen that elastic response of taller structures is probable, particularly in regions, such as Europe, where design carthquake magnitudes tend to be moderate (ic. My < 6.5). For such structures, simplified seismic design criteria would be appropriate,230 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 5.3.3. Yield Displacement of Irregular Frames Tt has long been recognized that good seismic performance is more likely 10 be achieved when the structure is “regular”. Regular, in the context of frame buildings normally means that bay widths are equal, there are no vertical offsets, and the structure has no designed torsional eccentricity. Often the criteria of regularity will not be met, and in DDBD two issues will reed consideration: the estimation of the yield displacement (so that the design ductility, and heace the equivalent viscous damping can be determined), and the distribution of the design base shear to different elements of an irregular . In this section we consider the former of these two considerations. structur Fv, ul] I Yan Bia Displacement EVa2 E Vag (@) Irregular Frame (b) Overturning Moment Fig.5.5 Seismic Response of an Irregular Frame is irregular in that it has a short central bay with longer outer ed in Section 4.4.6, it was The frame in Fig. bays. Ieis recalled that when the yield drift of frames was discu noted that Eq,(5.7) was found to apply for exterior, interior, and nvo-way beam-columa subassemablages. It thus follows that the yield drift of the different bays of Fig, 5.5 can be calculatéd, with sufficient accuracy, independently of each other. From Eq,(5.7) it is clear that the beams in the outer bays will have yield drifts that are greater than the yield drift of the central bay. This is illustrated in Fig.5.5(b), where the bay contribution 10 overturning moment is plotted against displacement at the effective height of the substitute structure. From F.q,(5.7(a)) the yield drifts are: 6, =0.5e, 2 8 . 6.19) AyChapter 5. Frame Buildings 231 ‘Thus if the beams in the different bays have the same depths, the yield drifts will be proportional to the span lengths. As is shown in Fig.5.5(b), the system yield displacement 3s found by combining the moment /displacemeat response of the individual bays to form an equivalent bilinear response. In this example, if Myand Mz are the contributions to the overturning moment from an outer and inner bay respectively, chen the total overturning moment and system yield displacement are: Moras =2M, + M, (5.202) 2M0,.+M,0,» Un (00) 2M,+M, Equation (5.20b) requires that the ratio of moment contribution to the overturning moment of the various bays, My/Mz needs co be known before the yield displacement, and hence the ductility and equivalent viscous damping can be determined. Note that the absolute values of Myand Mare not needed. As will be seen shortly, a rational decision will be to design both the short and long beams at a given level for the same moment capacity. For generality we assume different positive and negative moment capacities of Mune and Mae respectively. The seismic moments at full mechanism development are indicated in Fig.5.5(a) at the third floor. Beam seismic shears in the short and long spans will thus be in inverse proportion to the span lengths: Mye+M. Vg) = Y, Ly, ® Ly 621) For the development of a full seismic mechanism, the seismic axial forces induced in each of the columns by the beams of the oter and inner bays are & Vg) and ¥ Var respectively. Ignoring the column-base moments as a relatively small proportion of the oral overturning capacity, the contributions of the outer and inner frames to the system overturning capacity are thus: Menu: LM # Mow) (6.21a) a a DMoeit Macs) (5.2tb) a That is, the bays contribute equally co the overturning capacity, regardless of the beam: length. This simplifies calculation of the effective yield displacement.232 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Note that the decision to make the beam moment capacities of the inner and outer bays equal, though rational, is not essential; any ratio may be assumed, and the effective yield displacement calculated. Ic will be noted, however, that elastically calculated seismic moments will be higher in the short spans than the longer spans, while gravity load moments will be largest in the long spans, reinforcing the rationality of the abov approach. It should also be noted that if elastically calculated seismic moments are much larger than gravity moments, as would be the case for tube frames in regions of high seismicity, then conventional design would require the moment capacity of the short beams to be increased above that for the long span (refer to the relative stiffness in Fig.5.3(b)). ‘This is another example of the irrationality of design based on initial stiffness since increasing the strength of the inner beams, either by increasing reinforcement content or beam depth (or both) would further increase the relative stiffness of these beams, initially attracting higher seismic moments. Two examples of frame buildings with vertical irregularity provided by setbacks are shown in Fig.5.6, The symmetrical layout of Pig.5.6(a) tequites no special consideration in design, unless the storey heights vary significantly, since the ratio of storey mass to stiffness will remain essentially the same up the height of the building as for a building without setbacks. The unsymmetrical layout of Fig.5.6(b) also has no influence on the design process in the direction displayed, unless there is also a setback in the direction perpendicular to the frame displayed. In the pexpendicular direction, the eccentricity of the upper portion of the fame will result in a torsional response in the lower storeys of the building, which will need consideration using the techniques developed in Section 3.7, (a) Symmetrical layout (b) Unsymmetrical Layout Fig.5.6 Frame Buildings with Vertical Irregularity Frames with irregular storey heights also require little special consideration in the DDBD approach to determine required base shear strength, and distribution of lateral forces to the different storey levels. However, the assumed displacement profile definedChapter 5, Frame Buildings 233 by Eq.(5.2) will be increasingly inaccurate as the variation in storey heights increases, and should be checked by analyses after a preliminary design is completed, using the techniques outlined in Section 4.9. 5.3.4 Design Example 5.1: Yield Displacement and Damping of an Irregular Frame regular Building, ays: 4.5m, 7.5m, 4.5m (14.8, 24.6, 14.8 fi) First storey: 4.5m (14.8f0), others 3.5m (us Concrete: Pay = 30MPa (4.35ksi) Reinforcement: f = 4S0MPa (65.3ksi) > [email protected] | Masses: Level 1: = 65 tonnes (143 kips) = 60 tonnes (132 kips) 70 tonnes (154 kips) G + 4.5m |e 7.5m->| 4.5m Fig.5.7. Reinforced Concrete Frame fot Design Example 5.1 The twelve-storey reinforced concrete frame illustrated in Fig.5.7 is irregular in the bay lengths. It also has vertical irregularity, in that the first storey is significantly higher tha the upper storeys, as is often the case. The building consists of four identical frames, and ses contributing to inertial response of each frame are indicated in Fig.5.7. Roof mass exceeds that at lower floors due to equipment and water storage located at roof level. It is required to determine the design ductility level, and equivalent viscous damping, for a DDBD of the frame, based on a design drift limit of 0. Solution: To determine the system ductility, and hence equivalent viscous damping, it is first necessary to determine the substitute structure displacement (Eq,(5.3)) and effective height (Eq.(5.5)). ‘The necessary calculations arc summarized in Table 5.1236 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement. Based Seisinie Design of Structures 1 = 0.149 (14.99 2 Enya =0.05 + 0.565 (223 \ 23m J Option 3: hy = 500 mm; hz = 600 mm; M, = 0.6M3, From Eq.(5.19) 8, =0.5x 0.002475 “2-011 @,, =0.8x0.002475 7 0.0155 From Eq,(5.20b), the system yield displacement is: 2M.6,,+M,0,, 2M0,+MiB.r 4 1 20.6%0.011 14 + 0.0155 2M, +My +29.4=0.386m (15.2in) 2x0.6+1 ‘The system ductility is thus decreased to {4 = 0.609/0.386 = 1.58, and from Eq.(5 the equivalent viscous damping is: En = 0.05 + 0.565 (! S81) (14Mp + 1.7My)/¢ G.45a) Muex22 (1.0Mp + 1.0Mpe +Mp)x0.7 G.45b) where Mg is the seismic moment. Note that Eq.(5.45b) incorporates the 30% reduction for redistribution which would require a corresponding increase (in value, not percentage) at other locations. ‘The recommendations provided in this text are that, in addition to the conventional gravity load design (we again assume that Eq.(5.45a) applies, including the strength reduction factor), the seismic design case is given by Eg.(5.45¢): Mues = Me G.450) Substituting the calculated values for dead and live load we obtain: Mics: 2190.9 kNm (1689 kip in) Myesz 2 (16.2415.2)X0.7 + 0.7 Mp = 64.1+0.7Mg kN (567+0.7Mg kip.in) Mies = Me kNm For conventional design permitting moment redistribution, the larger of the first two values will apply. Thus for low values of seismic moment, the gravity load combination will govern, For the approach suggested herein, the larger of the first and the third values will apply. Figure 5.14 plots design moment against seismic moment for the two approaches. For low levels of seismic moment, Maes; governs for both approaches. It is seen that the seismic moment starts to govern at a very similar level of seismic input with both approaches, and that except for a very small range of seismic input, the approach suggested herein is more conservative than the approach allowing moment redistribution, This adds support to the simple recommendation that gravity loads be ignored in the seismic load combination, and that design strength be based on the larger of gravity and seismic moments. Section 4.2.5 discusses material properties for intended plastic hinge locations, and it is recommended that design values for seismic design exceed the specified, or characteristic material strengths is accordance with fre = 1.33 re = 1lfp As explained in Section 4.2.5, these values are recommended in recognition chat material strengths will normally exceed specified strengths at the building age when seismic attack occurs, and that use of artificially low material strengths does not reduce the probability that inelastic response will occur at the design level of seismic input, nor does it improve safety. The main consequence of design to artificially low material strengths is an increase in cost, particularly for capacity-protected actions. In accordance253 Chapter 5. Frame By 300 7] Seismic - edistributed z 2 & 100 4 4 ° 0 100 200 300 Seismic Moment (kNm) Fig.5.14 Beam Design Moment Incorporating Seismic Loading Based on Recommendations in this Text Compared with Conventional Design Permitting Moment Redistribution of 30%. with the recommendations of Section 4.2.5, strength enhancement of flexural reinforcement may be considered when determining required flexural reinforcement quantities, and the use of a Mlexural strength reduction factor for seismic actions of intended plastic hinges is viewed to be inappropriate. Methods for flexural design of beams are covered in all standard texts on reinforced concrete design, and need no further elaboration here, though guidance relating to material properties and use of moment-curvature analysis is given in the recommendations of Section 4.2.6. Particular reference is made to [PI] for details on contribution of slab reinforcement to flexural strength, and other matters specifically related co seismic design of frames. It is noted, however, that the conventional distribution of flexural reinforcement in beams, where negative-moment reinforcement is concentrated near the top of the section, and posiive-moment reinforcement is concentrated near the bottom of the section, as illustrated in Fig.5.15(@), can cause problems with congestion and concrete placement, particularly in two-way frames, where intersecting layers of reinforcement occur at the top of the joint region. If the same quantity of flexural reinforcement is distributed down the sides of the section, as shown in Tig.5.15(), the flexural strength of the beam will be essentially the same as for the conventional distibution, as trial calculations will show, since a larger proportion of the total reinforcement will act in tension for a given sense of moment, compensating for the reduced lever arm from the centre of tension to the centre of compression in the section, Distributing the flexural reinforcement down the sides clearly reduce congestion254 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures problems, and also improves bond conditions for beam reinforcement through the joint, reduces joint shear stresses, and improves beam shear performancel™' ee / eoc6e yf | (a) Conventional (b) Vertically Distributed Fig.5.15 Alternative Distributions of Beam Flexural Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Frames!!! 5.6.2. Column Flexural Design As with beam design, design of columns is well covered in standard texts and needs litde discussion here. However, a more conservative design approach than that for beams is appropriate since the columns should be required to remain essentially clastic, except at the column base, and possibly immediately below the roof beams. It should be noted that column moments need to be amplified above values corresponding to the desiga lateral seismic force to allow for: © Potential overstrength capacity at beam plastic hinges resulting from material strengths exceeding the values specified for design. Dynamic amplification of column moments resulting from higher mode effects, which are not considered in the structural analysis carried out in accordance with Sections 5.5.1 or 5.5.2 * Biaxial effects for columns that form part of two-way frames. Ir should also be noted that practice in the USA, requiring that the sum of column moment capacity in a given direction framing into a joint should exceed 1.2 times the sum of beam moment capacity in that direction, framing into the joint does not provide adequate protection against columns forming accidental plastic hinges, with potentially serious consequences. (2) Beam Overstrength Capacity: The consequence of overstrength flexural capacity peing developed at intended plastic hinge locations was discussed in Section 4.5. The maximum feasible flexural strength of beam hinges can be assessed by moment-curvature analysis, adopting high estimates of probable material strengths, and incorporating strain- hardening of flexural reinforcement and confinement of core concrete, as outlined inChapter 5. Frame Buildings Section 4.5, or conservative def Section 4.5.2. Since the column is required to remain elastic, column dependable fles strength should be required to satisfy Eq.(4.59). ult factors may be adopted for simplicity, as discussed in ral ‘These are discussed in some detail in Section 5.8.4. (b) Higher Mode Effect: (©) Biaxial Attack: When columns form part of a two-way seismic frame, biaxial input must be considered, There will normally be equal probability that the maximum seismic excitation will occur in any orientation (including diagonal) with respect to the principal axes, and this will be accompanied by simultaneous excitation, normally at a lesser intensity, in the orthogonal direction. Although the strength of a frame building in the diagonal direction will be larger than in the direction parallel to one of the principal axes, {see Section 5.7) it is probable that simultaneous development of beam plastic hinge mechanisms will occur in both principal frame directions, unless the design displacement ductility in the principal directions is very low. Consequently, since it is required that the columns remain essentially elastic when beam-hinge mechanisms form, the columns must be able to resist moments corresponding to simultaneous beam hinging in osthogonal directions. Fig.5.16 Plan View of Moment Input to Interior Column of a Two-way Frame ‘This is illustrated for the interior column of a two-way frame in Fig.5.16, where the beam moment vector inputs are represented with double-headed arrows, using the right- hand rule, All moments ate the values applicable at the joint centroid, and the suffixes P and N indicate positive and negative beam moments respectively. The required sum of column diagonal moment capacities of columns in the storey above and below the level considered, measured at the joint centroid is given by256 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures YM 2V Moin + Moin) +(M gap + Maan) (5.46) ar) The most usual case for two-way frames will have the moment capacity of the beams in the orthogonal directions being equal, and the columas having square cross-sections. Experiments and analyses indicate that the moment capacity of symmetrically reinforced square columns in the diagonal direction is very similar to the capacity in the principal directions. Hence the required sum of column moment capacities in the principal directions, above and below the joint centroid can be determined as DMe = Y Mey =V2 (Moye + Maw) (6.466) For an interior column, as depicted in Fig.5.16, the seismic axial force will be close to zero, and hence the required column reinforcement can be determined based on the assumption of probable gravity loads. For an exterior column, however, seismic beam shears will generate significant axial forces, cither tensile or compressiv Fig.5.10, eg) which should be considered when determining the required column flexural (set einforcement, It could be argued that permitting column hinging in the tension exterior column is justified, since this in itself will not imply development of a soft-storey mechanism, which would require all columns in a given frame to hinge, Although this might appear technically and economically justified, it should be noted that exterior columns are more susceptible to joint shear failure than are interior (cither one-way or two-way) columns, and vertical joint shear resistance in these columns is normally provided by under-utilized capacity of the flexural reinforcement in the columns, assured by the capacity design procedure. IF the columns are permitted to hinge, then this excess capacity will not be available for joint shear resistance, and special vertical joint reinforcement will be needed. Note that for diagonal attack the procedure for determining the required column capacities, outlined in Section 5.5.2(b) needs sore modification. In Eqs.(.42) and (5.44) the column shears Veqy and Vey2 must be replaced with the corresponding column shears Veoo and Veprz developed under diagonal attack, For a structure with equal beam strength and bay length in the orthogonal directions, Vepor = V2Vcor etc. The beam moment input to the joint, given in Eq.(5.43) as Mp1, + Mpz,, must be replaced by the vectorial summation of the beam input moments, given by the expression on the right hand side of the inequality of Eq.(5.46(a)). It is also suggested that the base moment capacity of the columns be increased to 0.7VcorH, where Veor is the ptincipal-direction column shear. It should be noted that the common force-based design approach of determining the required column biaxial moment capacity from consideration of simultaneous seismic input of 100% and 30% design intensity in orthogonal directions, using elastic modal analysis, with the elastic moment demands then reduced by the code-specified force- reduction factor (or behaviour factor, or ductility factor, as it is often known) will provideChapter 5. Frame Buildings 287 inadequate protection against formation of a soft-storey sway mechanism in the ground floor columns, since the procedure implies input beam moments of only 30% of capacity in one of the orthogonal directions. In fact, it is the displacement demand in the orthogonal direction that should be reduced t0 30%, not the moment. If the design ductility demand exceeds 3.3, then the full moment capacity should be expected to be simultaneously developed in the (minot) principal direction, as well as the (major) principal direction. For diagonal attack, 100%/30% is non-conservative for {>2. Corner columns require special attention, since these can be subjected to high seismic axial tensions or compressions from the response of both orthogonal frames incident in che corner columns. ‘There is comparatively little experimental information on the shear performance of corner columns when subjected to biaxial beam input and high variations in seismic axial force from tension to compression. However, it should be noted that the collapse of the newly-constructed Royal Palm Hotel in the 1993 Guam earthquake has been attributed to failure of the (admittedly poorly reinforced) joints of the corner columns, as shown in Fig. 5.17. A design option that should be considered for two-way frames is to provide separate exterior columns for the orthogonal frames, rather than a common corner column, as suggested in Fig. 5.18(b). Flexibility of the floor slab berween the orthogonal exterior columns provides continuity without excessive shear transfer. ‘This has the merit of reducing the design moments, axial force variation, and joint shear force on these corner columns. In some cases of low to moderate seismicity, the architectural appearance of full two-way structural continuity into the corner column can be achieved with an alternate design where the seismic frame consists of less bays than the full number along the side of the building, ‘The seismic frame is connected to the non- seismic columns, including the commer columns, by gravity beams without moment connection to the columns. In New Zealand, frames have been constructed with reduced beam depth adjacent to corner columns, and hence reduced moment input to the critical columns, to produce a similar reduction in corner cohimn actions. (d) Column-Base Flexural Design: Although it has been recommended above that the seismic axial force be considered when determining the required column reinforcement for capacity-protected exterior and corner columns, the same is not required when designing the intended column-base plastic hinge. If the simplified analysis procedure of Section 5.5.1 is adopted, then equal column-base design moments Mc would result for the exterior tension and compression columns. If the axial force from the tension column was used to determine the required amount of column flexural reinforcement, then the moment capacity of the compression column would exceed the design moment significantly. This is illustrated by the dashed line for the column axial-force/moment interaction diagram shown in Fig.5.19. With this option, it is seen that the flexural capacity of the tension column (with reduced axial force G-B) is matched to the required capacity Mc. The capacity of the compression column, with axial force GFE is My. The total resisting capacity of the structure, in terms of base overturning moment thus will exceed the demand corresponding to the design distribution of lateral forces.258 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Fig.5.17 Failure of Royal Palm Hotel Corner Joints in the 1993 Guam Earthquake (photo courtesy Gary Hart) | = (a) Conventional Layout (b) Alternative Layout with Corner Column No Corner column Fig.5.18 Plan View of Two-Way Frame Layout Options An alternative approach would be to determine the required columa flexural reinforcement based on the design moment and the axial gravity load G alone. This option is represented by the solid line in the interaction di ‘The reinforcement content Pz will be less than for the former alternative, and the momentChapter 5. Frame Buildings 259 capacities of the rension and compression columns will then be M; and M; respectively Txamination of Fig.5.19 indicates that the average moment capacity will be very close to he required value of Mc. Thus a mote efficient de n has been achieved. MM: Moment Fig.5.19 Axial Force/Moment Interaction Diagram for Exterior Columns Norte thar this could have been recognized at the start of the design process, where che total base shear force was allocated between the columns, and the base moment capacities were chosen (see Section 5.5.2(b)). A lower shear force and base moment could have been allocated to the tension column, with a corresponding increase in the values for the compression column, It will be noted that this is analytically a logical approach in hat it recognizes that the tension column has lower elastic stiffness than the compression column (see Section 4.4.2), and hence attracts less seismic shear and moment. It is zecommended that 2 moment of 0.3 7h., where Tis the seismic tension force in the outer column, and fie is the column depth, be subtracted from the tension column and added to che compression column. 3.7 DIRECT DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN OF FRAMES FOR DIAGONAL EXCITATION 7 In the previous section the importance of designing columns of two-way frames for diagonal excitation was discussed, A related aspect that requires consideration is the control of drift when the excitation is in the diagonal direction. Implicit in the discussion thus far ‘as been the ssumption that design for specified drift or ductility limits in the principal directions will provide a design that also satisfies drift or ductility limits in the diagonal direction. We now show that to indeed be the case by considering a two-way frame building with equal strength and stiffness in the orthogonal directions. Consider the building response illustrated in Fig.5.20. Figure $.20(a) shows the yield ign displacements in the principal (X and Y) and diagonal (D) directions in plan view. Yield displacements are Ay and Ayy in X and Y directions respectively. For and de260 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, Displace Based Seismic Design of Structures in the two simplicity we assume a square building with equal strengths and stiffnes principal directions, so Ayy = Ayy = Ayp. If the building is displaced in the diagonal Id will not occur until the displacements in the two principal directions are equal to their yield values, and hence the diagonal yield displacement is direction, Ay, =V2A,) (5.47) > Bx Dia Ax Bed Aa An T) T» (a) Design Displacements, (b) Force-Displacement (c) Displacement Principal and Diagonal Response Spectra Fig.5.20 Comparison of Displacement Response in Principal and Diagonal Directions “The relationship between design displacements in the principal and diagonal directions will depend to some extent on whether strain or non-structural drift defines the design limit. In the first case, the diagonal limit displacement corresponds to achieving the limit strains in the principal directions, and hence the diagonal limit dis- placement is Ap = V2Ajes. If the design displacement is limited by non-structural drift, then it could be argued that the maximum displacement in the diagonal direction under diagonal attack should not exceed the displacement limit applying in the principal directions. This displacement is represented in Fig. by Apr where Apr = Aas Clearly this is the more critical of the two cases, though it can be argued that a larger design displacement is appropriate in the diagonal direction, even if non-structural drift limits the design, since non-structural elements will normally be oriented parallel to one of the principal directions, and achieving the design drift in the diagonal direction will not correspond to critical non-structural displacernent. If the design response in the diagonal direction exceeds the diagonal yield displacement given by Eq.(5.47), then the strength of the frames will be developed in the principal directions. Resolving the strength of all frames in the X and ¥ directions into the diagonal direction, it is obvious that the diagonal base shear strength is V2Vsase whereChapter 5. Frame Buildings 261 View is the design strength in each of the principal directions. “The force-displacement response of the structure in principal (P) and diagonal (D) directions is represented in Fig.5.20(b), where it is assumed thar the diagonal clisplacement response is either Ap) or Apz. As explained above, we consider only the more critical case of Apy = Ayes. We first assume that the structure is designed in the principal directions, and then checked to determine whether or not response in the diagonal direction satisfies the displacement limit, It is seen thar if the structure achieves the design displacement in the diagonal direction, the stiffness Kep is greater than the stiffness Kep in the principal directions. This would appear to imply that the displacement demand in the diagonal direction will be less than in the principal direction, since the effective period will be higher (Bq.5.10). However, the ductility demand in the diagonal direction will also be less than in the principal direction, since the yield displacement is larger (Eq.5.47) and hence the effective damping will be less, and displacement will increase. The two conditions — principal and diagonal — are represented in the displacement spectra of Fig. 5.20(c). Since the effects of reduced period and reduced damping are counteractive, it is not immediately clear whether displacement response will be larger or smaller in the diagonal direction. For a given level of ductility, #/in the principal direction, this can be resolved by an iterative analysis ¢s follows, making the initial assumption that the diagonal response displacement is equal to the principal response displacement. Diagonal and principal stifinesses will thus be related by Ky= V2-Kp (5.48) Since the effective period is given by T,=2rty/m,/K, , and the mass is the same whether principal or diagonal attack is considered, the diagonal and principal effective periods will be related by Ty = Tp M2 = 8417, 6.49) Diagonal and principal direction ductilites are related by Up =Mp V2 6.50) Assuming a reinforced concrete building, the ratio of effective damping in diagonal and principal directions can be found from Eq,(5.9a) as 0.05+0.565(U, 0.05-+0.565(u, Wi pt Vey 4 (5.52) Wi up 652)264 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Moment (No Units) (a) Beam Moments E+ Ge ——_» Bt Ge 2 10 Shear (No Units) L + (b) Beam Shears Fig.5.22, Design Moments and Shears for Beams forces, and corresponding overstrength seismic moments are Z and E? respectively. In accordance with the recommendations of Section 5.6.1, flexural design of the beam plastic hinges is based on the larger of FG and E, and it is seen that the seismi governs, For the regions between the beam plastic hinges, design moments are found from the combination of reduced gravity loads applicable for the seismic design combination, and overstrength moment capacity at the beam hinges. Since the beam moments cannot exceed the overstrength values at the plastic hinge locations, the design case moments within the beam span Zg are found by adding the gravity momentsChapter 5. Frame Buildings 267 Note that for two-way frames, @ is applied to the columa moment Me resulting from design forces corresponding to one-way action. Note also chat ay is height dependent, and equal to 1,0 of 1.1 at base and top of the column for one-way and two-way frames respectively, since column base hinging is expected at the base, and permitted at the top. It will be noted that with the minimum value of g = 1.47 appropriate for the New Zealand code, the minimum required column moment capacity will be 2.48 or 2.64 times the moment corresponding to lateral design forces, for one-way and two-way designs respectively. It should also be noted that the moment amplification is independent of the level of design ductilicy demand. One-way Frame Oy Toney Frame iy Fig.5.23 Column Dynamic Moment Amplification Factor for Flexure in N.Z. Design'?! In Eurocode EC8M higher mode effects for column moments are directly considered by combination of the modal moments by either SRSS or CQC combination rules. (b) Results of Inelastic Time-History Analyses: Pewtinga and Priestley! report results of dynamic amplification of column moments in one-way frames of 2-storeys (0 in height, designed by DDBD principles for displacement ductilities of about C8 clastic modal superposition approach was 20-storey 2.7. These results indicated that the generally non-conservative, while the New Zealand approach was generally significantly over-conservative. The analyses were carried out for different levels of seismic intensity, corresponding 10 50%, 100% and 200% of the design intensity. It was found that although the base-shear strength of the buildings remained the same as the intensity was changed, the dynamic amplification of the column moments increased with intensity,268 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. ‘Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures except at the column base, where moment was controlled by the moment capacity. Results for four-storey to sixteen-storey frames are shown in Fig. In Fig.5.24, the column moments are the sum of all column moments in the different columns at a given level, and the absolute maximum values, without sign, have been plotted, Lines TH I = 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 represent the average results from five spectrum: compatible accelerograms at intensities of 50%, 100% and 200% of the design intensity. Note that the DDBD design moments for she columns, shown by dashed lines in Fig.5.24, were calculated in accordance with the suggestion of Section 5.5.2(b) that the input moment-sum from beam plastic hinging be equally divided between the columns above and below the joint. The analyses do not include material overstrength, except for the component resulting from strain-hardening, which is a smal] component of the total. Strain-hardening of column-base reinforcement is responsible for the small amount of moment increase with insensity, at the column base. Note that in the lower third of the building height, column moments at the top of each storey are significantly higher than at the bottom of the same storey, and that the difference increases as the seismic intensity increases, This is partly a result of anchoring the column-base moment in the bottom storey at the plastic hinge capacity. It is clear from these resuks that dynamic amplification of column moments is dependent on the ductility demand, since this (for a given design) increases approximately proportionately with the intensity of excitation. Ie is also apparent from examination of the plots that the amplification factor of 1,6 suggested in [P1] for the central part of the column height is excessive at the design intensity, but quite reasonable at 200% of the design intensity (©) Design Recommendations: The data in Fig,5.24 lead to the following revised approach for determining the required column flexural strength: 6M, 20°O/M, In Eq(5.60) the overstrength factor @? is calculated in accordance with the recommendations of Section 4.5 © The dynamic amplification factor @ is height and ductility dependent as shown. in Fig.5.25, where from the first storey to the ¥ point of structure height -15+0.13(u° =1) 6.612) =1.00 6.61b)Chapter 5. Frame Buildings 269 4 Storey Column Moment Sum Envelopes ay ] 1 Level 1 | me Desi maisos THI 20 ol ° 5000 10000 S000 Moment (km) 8 Storey Column Moment Sum Envelopes ay pe a Ae bee THI=05 © 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Moment (kNm) 0 ° 12 Storey Column Moment Sum Envelopes THis9s ee tai=20 x a Moment (kNm) Fig.5.24 Column Moment Envelopes from Time-History Analyses at Different Seismic Intensities, Compared with Design Envelopes!"Chapter 5. Frame Buildings 2 conservative to ensure that no incipient plastic hinging can develop in columns. tt will be recognized, however, that the suggested approach is more conservative than all except existing New Zealand provisions for column design 5.8.5 Column Shear (@) Existing Methods Accounting for Dynamic Amplification: Seismic design codes generally include more restrictive provisions for the capacity-design shear forces. in columns, in recognition of the potentially catastrophic consequences of column shear failure. The US. IBC codetl is perhaps the least conservative, as its provisions are related only to flexural overstrength issues. Dynamic amplification of column shears is not directly addressed, The basic requirement is that the design shear force shall be at least as high as the lower of the shear corresponding to overstrength beam moment input (based on a yield strength of 1.25f, and no flexural strength reduetion factor), and the shear corresponding to development of probable moment capacity (at 1.23f,) at the top and bottom of the column. New Zealand practice again follows recommendations in [P1], which were based on earlier time-history analyses. Apart from in the first-storey columns, the maximum column shear is amplified for overstrength and higher-mode effects in accordance with F.g.(3.55), where For one-way frames, @, 5.638) (6.63b) For two-way frames, Qs For first storey columns, hinging is expected at the base, and may also occur below the first-floor beams as a result of beam exterision!®!, even when protected by the design approach suggested in Section 5.5.2(b). Consequently the column shear in the critical first floor column is calculated assuming overstrength hinging at both locations: Pay =i Me (5.64) where He is the clear column height to the soffit of the Level 1 beam, Eurocode EC8! specifies that column shear force shall be determined by modal superposition, Problems with modal superposition for shear forces are discussed in some detail in Chapters 6 and 7. It is sufficient co note here that elastic modal superposition is non-conservative for ductile structures because it incorrectly assumes that the higher mode shears can be reduced by the ductility, or behaviour factor applicable to the first mode response. (b) Results of Inelastic Time-History Analyses: The analyses reported in [P17] and described above, also provide information on dynamic amplification of column shear.272 Priestley, Caivi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Results of the analyses at levels of seismic intensity between 50% and 200% of design intensity are shown in Fig.5.26 for four-storey to sixteen-storey buildings. Results for owo-storey and twenty-storey followed similar trends and are reported in [P17]. As with the column moments, the design shear envelope corresponding to the DDBD lateral forces is included as a dashed line, and values plotted correspond to the sum of all columns in the frame at a given level. Material overstrength was not modelled in the analyses, except for the fraction resulting from strain-hardening of reinforcement Results follow similar tends to, and are compatible with those noted for columa moments, in that column shear force increases with increasing seismic intensity. As discussed above, this can be interpreted to imply that dynamic shear amplification increases with ductility, since ductility increases with intensity for a given structure. ‘This influence is not included in existing design methods. It will also be seen that the shape of the time-history envelopes is generally similar to the design-force envelope, though a constant offset of shear demand above design-force envelope with height would seem more appropriate, particularly for the lower structures, than a constant multiplier as, recommended in [P1] (c) Design Recommendations: Based on the above observations, the following form of the dynamic amplification factor for column shear is propose ‘ M?+Me nom Oy 2OV 5 +0. ctue SG 6.65) ‘The following comments relate to Eq.(5.65): * The overstrength factor @ is calculated in accordance with the recommendations of Section 4.2.5. * The shear demands Vg correspond to the design from the DDBD process. Vezsase is the value of Ve at the base of the column, The system ductility {1 is not reduced by ¥ since this factor cancels with the same amplification of Ve. eral force distribution found © The upper limit of column shear corresponds to development of plastic hingi at overstrength capacity at the top and bottom of the column, clear column height, Ho * The approach suggested provides a good estimate of the shear demand up the height of two-storey to eight-storey frames. For taller frames, the shear force at roof level predicted by Eq.(5.65) becomes increasingly conservative, but is likely to be controlled by the upper limit. Generally, prescriptive confinement requirements will govern transverse reinforcement design in the upper levels As discussed in Section 5.6.2(0), and 5.8.5(a), maximum feasible column shears will be increased in two-way frames under biaxial attack. The shear force may be found from the vectorial addition of the principal direction shears. The following considerations appiy: ngs eparated by theChapter 3. Frame Buildings 273 4 Storey Shear Envelopes 12 Storey Shear Envelopes a 1 =P Py Rly Zn ae Dain ! 0 timos \ ee tiinso 3 - ° i ‘ U ——miie20 ! ; ' 2 - ‘ i ' 5 i 4 ypc : rates 2 ee} i | ‘| eH 20 ol +. L o | 200040006000 g000 suo 1000015000 Shear (kN) 8 Storey Shear Envelopes © 3000 6000 900012000 Shear (kN) Shear (kN) 16 Storey Shear Envelopes ‘i THO Hie 30006000 990912000 Shear (kN) Fig.5.26 Column Shear Envelopes from Time-History Analyses for Different Seismic Intensities Compared With DDBD Envelope!"274 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures © Shear strength of square columns is essentially the same in principal and diagonal directions, Maximum diagonal ductility demand is less than the principal direction demand by a factor of V2 (see Section 5.7) Thus, for square columns of ewo-way frames, the required nominal shear strength in a principal direction, is given by Mo sMe V29°V,, +0.14LY, og MMe (5.66) Vy te Hl, where the suffices » and 2 relate to actions for one-way and two-way response respectively. 5.9 DESIGN VERIFICATION Much of the design recommendations in the previous section have resulted from an extensive analytical study described in derail elsewhere”, though the dynamic amplification factors for shear and moment are new. In this section we briefly compare design predictions with the average results from time-history analyses reported in (P17]. 5.9.1 Displacement Response ‘The full analytical stady investigated 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 storey regular frames. We limit comparison to 4, 8, 12 and 16 storeys, in the interests of brevity. Results for the 2- storey were similar t0 the 4-storey, and results for the 20-storey were similar to the 16- storey frame, Figure 5.27 compares the average time-history response for an intensity ratio of I=1.0 with the design profile in terms of displacement envelopes. Also shown is the average time-history response for intensity ratios of I=0.5 and 2.0, for comparative purposes. In all cases the drift envelopes (see {P?7)) had peak valves within 10% of the design limit of 0.02. For the shorter frames the maximum drift was not greatly affected by higher mode effects, and peak drifts occurred at the first storey, For the 16 and 20-storey frames, higher mode drift amplification was substantial, and maximum drifis occurred at about 80% of the frame heights Comparison of the design displacement profile and the indicates excellent agreement in all cases, =1.0 time history results 5.9.2, Column Moments Figure 5.28 compares the sum of column moments at a level with the predictions based on dynamic amplification in accordance with Eq,(5.61) and Fig.5.25. Note that the time-history analyses were carried out using the design expected values for the materialChapter 5, Frame Buildings 4 Storey Displacement Envelopes r \ ~ THI-08 eee ei 0.00 0.10 920 0.30 040 050 placement (a) 8 Storey Displacement Envelopes Lave Displacement (n 060 12 Storey Displacement Ei ‘elopes Level 6 ‘ ‘| a] em bai 3 Tal=o5 2 ete r0 ee i=20 boa 02s 080 075 100 125 1.50 Displacement (m) 16 Storey Displacement Envelopes 16 t 1 7 ‘ s 7 Ae Dees 3 mHi-os 2 isto ° 0.00 025 050 075 100 125 180 1.78 Displacement (m) Fig.5.27 Design Displacement Profiles Compared with Average Time-History276 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky.Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Steuctures Results!P""1 Height Suories), 0 4000 080 12000 © 40008000 12000 0 4000 g000 12000, Momene (kN) Moment («Nm) Moment (ki (a) # Storey, F (b) 4 S:orey, I=L0 (©) 4Storey, © 4000 8000 12000 16000 0 80006000» 91000020000 Moment (kNm) ‘Moment (km) ‘Moment (kNim) (@) 12Storey, 105 (©) 12Storey (8 128rorey, 1=2.0 Height (Stories) ° a TTT © 4000 8000 12000 i600 0 800016000 = 01000020000 Moment (kNen) ‘Moment (kNm) Moment (Nm) (g) 20-Stomey, I=0.5 (@ 20-Storey, 1=2.0 Fig.5.28 Capacity Storey-Moment Envelopes Compared with Time-History Results (D = DDBD; TH= time history results; CD = Eq.(5.61))Chapter 5. Frame Buildings 27 strengths, and hence the material overstrength factor was taken as @’ = 1.0. In fact some strain hardening beyond that accounted for in design occurred for intensity ratio I=2, and aslightly higher amplification of the design moments would be appropriate. Note that the moments plotted in Fig.5.28 are the sum of the moments in all columns aca given level, and ate plotted without sign. The design moment envelope is identified by “D®. Generally peak moments at one end of a column do not occur at the same time instant as peak moments at the other end of the column, It is seen that the simple modifier suggested in Eq.(5.61) provides a good envelope for all the three frames depicted, at all three levels of intensity (and hence of ductility). It will be noted that in a few cases maximum columa moments {rom the time-history analyses exceed the capacity design envelope (identified by CD in the figures) by a small amount. ‘This should ot be of concern, since the resulting ductiiry demand on the columas will be very low. It is felt chat providing an absolute envelope to the time-history results is not economically justified, given the substantial ductility capacity of modern well-confined columns, 5.9.3. Column Shears Column storey-shears (ie. the sum of shears in all columns in a given storey) fom time-history analyses at different seismic intensities are compared in Fig.5.29 with the shear envelopes defined by Fq,(5.65). Note that the upper limit provided in Eq..65) by the shear associated with column hinge formation at top and bottom of a columa has not been considered in the time-history analysis, nor in the capacity design envelope. As with the column storey-moments, the capacity design shears envelope the time- history results except in a very few cases. The degree of conservatism is not high, though it could pethaps be considered excessive for the I = 2, 20-storey case in the upper half of the frame, At the design intensity level (1 = 1.0) the agreement between the time history and capacity design envelopes given by the simple design approach is very satisfactory. An alternative formulation of capacity design effects for columa moments and shears which involves specific consideration of higher mode contributions has been proposed in [P17]. This approach is more cumbersome 10 use, and does not give significantly improved agreement, If more accurate estimation of capacity design column moments and shears is required, it is recommended that inelastic time-history analysis of the structure be carried, based on the principles outlined in Section 4.9. 5.9.4 Column Axial Forces In determining the reinforcement requirements for flexure and shear in the columns, the axial forces also need 10 be known. These can be found from the gravity loads, plus the axial forces contributed by the beam seismic shear forces. Note that for corner columns, the beam shears from both orthogonal directions must be considered, potentially doubling the seismic contribution t column axial force. If the resulting axial forces, particularly the uplift force on the corner tension columa are too high, redesign may be appropriate, as suggested in Section 5.6.2(¢), to reduce the cokima axial force278 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures © 2090 4000 6000 ‘Shear (kNen) (8) 4Storey, 1-05 Height (Stories) 0. 4000 Storey Shear (KIN) 8000 (8) 12-Storey, 120.5 Height (tories) 0 _ 4000, 8000 Storey Shene (kN) (g) M-Storey I-05 8009 0 120000 Storey Shear (KN) (b) 4 Storey I=L0 to 40008000 12000 Storey Shear (KN) (©) Storey T=10 20 16 2 4000, 8000 Storey Shear (KN) 0 000 (1) 20-Storey 2000 4000 6000 8000. 0 opt 12000 0 2000 4000 6900 8000 Storey Shear (KN) (c) 4Storey, 1=20 — ©. 40008000 Storey Shear (kN) () RSe0rey 1-29 2000 40008000 12000 ‘Storey Shear (KN) () 20-Storey 1=2.0 Fig.5.29 Capacity Storey-Shear Envelopes Compared with Time-History Results (D = DDBD; TH = time history results; CD = Eq.(5.65))280 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Design Base Shear Force: The steps to determine the frame design base shear force are listed below. Relevant data from Table 5.1 are included io the first three columas of Table 53. From Bq.(5.4) the substitute stracture equivalent mass is (refer Table 5.3,Col.(3)) Dlm,A,)/4, =371.5/0.609 = 610 tonnes (1345 kips) The reduction factor to be applied to the 5% damping displacement spectrum for 13.1% damping is given by E.q.(2.8) as 0.07 0.02+0.131 os . ) = 0.680 ‘Thus the corner displacement at T = 5.5 see for € = 13.1% damping is 0.680x1.4 =0.953m, The corresponding displacement spectrum is shown in Fig.5.30 as a dotted line. By proportion, the effective period of the substitute structure is 0.609 T, = 55-22 =3.Sisec 0.953 Table 5.3 Calculations for Example 5.2 (1kN = 0.225 kips, 1 m =39.4 in) Tevel,i ] Height | miA; F Vs OTM | V.beam! | M.beami* Hi (m) (N) | kN) | Nm | (kN) | (Nm) @) ® (4) ) (10) (it) (12) (13) R 43.0 57.95 | 286.1 | 286.1 i) 694 138.8 tt 305 4686 1351 | 4213 | 1001.4 [1024 2043; 10 36.0 43.84 126.4 547.6 2475.7 132.8 265.6 9 325 4059 71 | 6646 [43923 [161.1 322.3, 8 29.0 37.13, 1071 | 7717] e786 | 187.1 3742. 7 255 33.45) 96.5 8682 | 94196 | 2105 421.0. 6 22.0 29.55) 85.2 953.4_| 124582 | 251.2 462.3 5 185 25.43 73.3 | 10267 | 157949 | 248.9 497.9 4 15.0 21.09 60.8 1087.5 | 193882 | 263.7 527.3 3 5 16.53 477 | 11381 | 231004 | 2753 550.4 2 80 175 339 | 1169.0 | 271672 | 2834 566.8 T a5 731 211 1190.1 | 312586 | 288.5 S77 o 0 0 00 1190.1 | 366139 | 0.0 0.0 Sum 37147 1415.0 | 101211 2454.0 * At column faceChapter 5. Frame Buildings 281 ‘The substitute structure stiffiness is found from Eq.(5.10) K, =4x°m, | 7m? x610/3.51? =1955KN /m Hence, from Ei (5.11), the design base shear force is F Voge = KA, =1955X0.609 = 190KN (16.5% of weight). Distribution of Base shear to Floor Levels: The modified form of Eq,(5.12) allowing 6.27) is used to determine the floor for an additional force at roof level, given in forces: ‘base F=(F)+0.V gue (MA,)/ DmA, where F,=0.1,,,. at the roof, and zero elsewhere, Hence F, = (119) +1071x(m,A,)/371.5 Values for Fare tabulated in Col.(9) of Table 5.3. Storey Shear Force and Overturning Momen found by summing the floor forces above the storey considered. These are listed in Col.(10) of Table 5.3. Storey overturning moments at the floor levels are also found from the lateral Storey shear forces ar fore OTM, PF (4,-1,) ‘The overturning moments at each Jevel are tabulated as Col.(11) in Table 5.3. The base overturning moment for the frame is OTMpme = 36,614 kNm. Column Base Moments: \n Section 3.5.1 it was recommended that the point of contraflexure in the ground floor columns be set at 0.64% for one-way frames. For two- way frames, Section 5.6.2(c) suggested this be modified to 0.7% In this design we adopt a compromise, at 0.654%. Note that we use this value for determining one-way response The actual point of contraflexure for biaxial response will be lower. ‘The tonal eesisting moment provided at the column base will thus be YM, =V pne X 0.65, =1190% 0,654.5 = 3481kNer This is less than 10% of the total base OTM.286 Priestley, Calvi and Ko ky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures research in precast frame construction has concentrated on prestressed beams utilizing unbonded rendons!?!%", Although prestressed concrete has not generally been favour m-column sub- for seismic resistance, tests on both i sitd®\ and precast} assemblages with fully grouted tendons have developed ductility comparable to monolithic reinforced concrete. However, after moderate ductility levels had been achieved, these subassemblages suffered excessive stiffness degradation at low displacements. This reduction was caused by a reduction in effective prestress clamping, force through the column, resulting from inelastic strain of the prestressing tendon at the ctitical section, This behaviour is shown in idealized form in Fig. 5.31(a) which refers to 8 typical prestressing steel stress-strain curve, 150 3 50 2 is F so 3 aso 450 750 273 46S O85 OSS 168 298 Displacement (in) (a) Prestress loss due to inelastic response (b) Force-displacement hysteretic response Fig.5.31 Seismic Response of a Beam-to-Column Unit Prestressed with Bonded Tendonst¢#l In Fig5.31(2), fi is the initial steel stress after prestress losses. During low-level seismic response, fluctuations of the steel stress will be within the elastic range, and no loss of prestress will result. At a ductility level of (say) ff =2, represented by point 2 in Fig.5.31(a), the maximum prestressing, steel response is expected to be on the inelastic strain curve. On unloading, the steel follows a linear descending © the initial elastic portion. Hence, when the structure returns portion of the stress branch essentially parallel to zero deformation, the effective steel stress is reduced to fy On unloading from higher ductility levels, involving larger inelastic strains as indicated by point 3 in Fig,5.31(a), the entire prestr ay be lost. This is clearly undesirable, particularly for precast connections where the surfaces beoween the beam and column are planar, rather than a rough naturally forming crack as may be the case for monolithic reinforced concrete construction, Prestress shear-friction, which would be hear forces from the heam to the column would then be relied on to transmit gravity ineffectiveChapter 5. Frame Buildings 287 The result of this behaviour is excessive pinching of the force-deflection hysteresis loops, as indicated in the typical response of a prestressed subassemblage, shown in Fig,5.31(bJ4, Response at low ducclity levels is satisfactory, and peak lateral strength is maintained at high displacement ductilities. After displacing to these high levels, however, laceral stiffness is almost completely lost at low displacement levels. ‘The test results shown in Fig.5.31(b) refer to a test unit without additional gravity load on the beams. If the gravity loads been modelled in this test, the performance would have been even less desirable. 5.11.2 Prestressed Frames with Unbonded Tendons (a) Performance Advantages: ‘The use of unbooded, or partially unbonded tendons, where the tendon is unbonded through the joint and for some distance on either side, as indicated in Fig.5.32(2) has been suggested as a means for improving performance!?24, ‘The following advantages were proposed: #1 the length of debonding is sufficient, the required ultimate displacement could be achieved without exceeding the limit of proportionality of the prestressing steel. Consequently there would be no loss of prestress on unloading from the design level of displacement. Shear friction on the beam-to-column interfaces would be maintained at all response levels, and support of gravity loads would not be jeopardized. * Design of the beam-to-column joint region would be simplified, since the joiat shear forces would largely be transferred by a diagonal strat, as shown in Fig.5.32(b). This is a consequence of the prestress forces on either side of the joint being equal for each tendon, because the tendons are debonded through the joint. ‘Thus, reduced levels of special joint reinforcement would be needed. © The response would be essentially elastic, though nonlinear, as indicated in Fig. 5.32(©). Although it is recognized that this would have possibly undesirable consequences for energy absoxption, it has the merit that, following response to the design level earthquake, the structure would return to its original position without residual displacement, and the initial stiffness would be restored. () Lateral Force-Displacement Characteristics: Force-displacement characteristics of a typical debonded precast beam-to-column prestressed concrete subassemblage are indicated in Fig.5.33(b), based on the forces and relative displacements measured at the cop of the beam-to-column subassemblage, as shown in Fig,5.33(a)- ‘Assuming no tension capacity across the beam-to-column interface, nonlinearity of response will initiate at point 1 (Fig.5.33%)), when pre-compression at the extreme fibre is lost, and a crack starts (© propagate, Assuming further that the prestress centroid is at mid-height, the corresponding moment is M,,=Th,/6 (6.67)288 1ed Seismic Design of Structures e Debonded Length t | £ - L| ney > 1 LE x Prestess ‘Tendons (©) Idealized force-deformation characteristic Fig.5.32 Beam-to-Column Connection with Debonded Tendons for a rectangular section, where T; is the initial total prestress force, and Ay is the beam depth. For the dimensions shown in Fig.5.32(a), the corresponding lateral force Fwill be: (6.68) where he is the column depth and Le is the column height between contraflexure points The corresponding displacement can be found from simple linear elastic analysis based ‘on uncracked section properties.Chapter 5. Frame Buildings 289 1 ' t 1 _f Le A (a) Subassemblage Configuration (b) Non-linear Elastic Response Fig.5.33 Force-Displacement Response for a Debonded Prestressed Beam-to-Column Subassemblage When the crack has propagated to the centroidal axis, corresponding to point 2 in Fig.3.33(), the moment will be: M, =Th,/3 6.69) Deviation from the initial elastic stif unless the average prestress level is fairly high fe > 0.25f"2) Beyond point 2 the precise force-displacement relationship is tess simple to determine, since steel and concrete strains are not linearly related, However, since the aim will be to develop a bilinear approximation to the force-displacement response (sce Fig. 5.32()), it is sufficient to compute the conditions at maximum displacement. In terms of design requirements, this may be taken as cortesponding to the limit of proportionality of the prestressing steel. At this point, the tendon force, and also the tendon elastic extension above the initial condition are known. Assuming confined conditions for the concrete in fess between points 1 and 2 will be minimal, the plastic hinge region the corresponding moment capacity Mj can thus be found from standard section analysis, Further, assuming that the opening of the crack at the beam column interface is directly related to the tendon extension by simple geometry, the displacement at point 3 can be shown!” to be: (5.70) where fp is the steel stress at the limit of proportionality, x is the unbonded length of tendon on one side of the joint (see Fig. 5.32(a)), and cis the depth from the extreme compression fibre to the neutral axis in the beam plastic hinge region (found from the290 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Bosed Seismic Design of Structures known confined concrete stress-strain parameters). Note that in all designs and experiments to date using unbonded tendons, the unbonded length x has been taken as half the beam span length. ‘That is, the tendon has been fully debonded along its length, except at the anchorage. Moze complete details are provided in [P20] Large-scale testing of interior and exterior beam-to-column subassemblages!?") has shown the expected benefits of low residual displacement, high retained elastic stiffness, and reduced need for transverse reinforcement, They have also shown thar damage levels are very much less than are obtained with equivalent reinforced concrete structures Figure 5.34 shows condition of an interior joint at the design drift of 2) joint at 4%, twice the design drift. In both cases only superficial damage had occurred. Cracks in the joint region fully closed when lateral force was removed, fo, and an exterior (a) Interior Joint at 2% drift (b) Exterior Joint at 4% drift Fig.5.34 Damage to Beam-to-Column Precast Units with Unbonded Tendons!"1 5.11.3 Hybrid Precast Beams (4) Conceptual Issues: \ disadvantage with beams using unbonded tendons is thac cis litle additional damping provided by the inelastic response, and the response is,Chapter 8, Frame Buildings 291 as noted above essentially non-linear elastic. ‘The implication is that displacements will be larger than with equivalent reinforced concrete structures, or, conversely, that the DDBD process will result in a higher required design force for a specified drift limit. Behaviour can, however, be improved by adopting a hybrid design, as illustrated in Fig.5.35. f L$ oun cowarvonae aenronene 280% uneowoen post—rensoneD SoS Wve REDE WW 2 ‘\ rf NT W/ rae O80 a 10 STRESSN. Fig.5.35 Hybrid Beam-to-Column Connection used in the UCSD 5-Storey Precast Building Test! This detail, which was one of several connection details tested in the 5-storey precast building test!S!”l carried our at the University of California, San Diego in 1999 uses a combination of central unbonded post-tensioning and conventional mild-steel rcinforcement grouted into corrugated ducts in the beams and column at the connection. ‘The mild-steel reinforcement yields sequentially in tension and compression under eyelic loading, dissipating energy, and adding to the flexural strength of the connection, but the clamping force of the unbonded tendon is sufficient to yield the reinforcement in compression when the lateral load is removed, hence removing any residual displacement. The resulting hysteresis loop is flag-shaped (see Section 4.9.2(8) and Fig.5.36) Figure 5.36 illustrates the moment-rotation characteristics for a typical hybrid design, with a central prestressing tendon of area Ap, and mild steel reinforcement areas of As at top and bottom of the section, separated by a distance d’ (see Fig.5.36(a)). ‘The response of the section based purely on the prestressing force is depicted in Fig5.36(b) by the solid line, The moment capacity Mp is found as described above, based ‘on conventional section analysis, Since the elastic portion of the moment-rotation response is governed by the uncracked stiffness of the beam section, the addition of mild292 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures steel reinforcement has negligible effect on the initial elastic branch of the response, but the moment capacity is increased by the reinforcement couple Ms = Asha? as a consequence of the reinforcement yielding in tension at the top, and compression at the bottom of the section (or vice versa, depending on the sign of the moment). The total moment-rotation response is depicted by the upper dashed line in Fig.5.36. When the loading direction is reversed, the yielded reinforcement must yield in the opposite sense (ie. tension to compression, and compression t0 tension) before open cracks can close. ‘The response on unloading is thus given by the lower dashed line on the tight side of Fig 5.36(b). To ensure that the advantages of low residual displacement are obtained, it is necessary that Ms < Mp. loment © Moment TM ’ a---7 (a) Beam Reinforcement (6) Moment-Rotacion Relationship Fig. 5.36 Moment-Rotation Response of a Hybrid Beam-Coiumn Connection (b) Yield Displacement of Hybrid Frames: "The increased stiffness of the prestressed beams, compared with equivalent conventionally reinforced sections reduces the yield drift, and hence increases the displacement ductility capacity of hybrid frames, for a given design drift. Beam flexural and shear displacements, and joint shear deformation will all be significantly less, but column flexural and shear deformations will be unaffected. Based on these considerations, yield drifts are estimated to be about 40-50% of those for a conventional concrete frame seinforced with mild steel of yield strength 400 MPa, Conservatively using the upper limit, the yield drift can thus be writven as 8, = 0.0005 671) h, Since hybrid designs will normally be incorporated in building designs as perimeter frames, with interior frames designed for gravity support only, beam span-to-depth ratiosChapter 5. Frame Buildings 293 will tend to be less than for two-way reinforced concrete frames, and yield drifts will be further reduced. In conventional force-based design this would imply increased design forces as a result of the reduced natural period, In DDBD, the reduced yield displacement results in increased ductility demand, and hence increased damping. As a consequence, the design force level is reduced. (©) Equivalent Viscous Damping of Hybrid Frames: Example 3.2 (Section 3.4.3(d)) presents a method for determining the equivalent viscous damping for a flag-shaped hysteresis rule where the height of the flag is P= 0.75xB,, (BF; is the yield force) and the post-yield stiffness is r= 0. This can be generalized for other values of Band f, giving the hysteretic component of the arca-based viscous damping as - 4A Blu!) 2aF A, ur(l+r(u-)) Sou 2 8 Note that in relation to the formulation given in the previous section (Fig.5.36) the flag height may be expressed as 2M. p= 6.73) M,+M, ‘The damping calculated from Eq.(5.72) is multiplied by the correction factor from Fig.3.15, and added to the elastic damping component from Table 3.2 or Fig.3.13 5.11.4 Design Example 5.3: DDBD of a Hybrid Prestr: including P-A Effects. d Frame Building Figure 5.37 shows details of a six-storey frame building of 25 x 25m (82 x 82{t) plan. The seismic bracing system consists of peripheral frames of precast hybrid beams and columns with internal non-seismic frames designed to carry gravity loads, and with sufficient displacement capacity to tolerate the seismic design drifts. As suggested in Fig.5.18(b), problems with corner columns, which are exacerbated in frames containing P sed beams because of the need for intersecting anchorages, are avoided by terminating the beams before the corners, and linking to the orthogonal peripheral frame with either slabs, or non-seismic beams. Dimensions, material properties and floor weights are included in Fig.5.37 The building is to be designed for a maximum drift of 0.025 when subjected to the design intensity represented by the displacement spectrum of Fig.5.38, and P-A effects are to be considered in the design.294 Priestley, Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 413.5 [= 6.0m—ae— 6.0m —4e— 6.0m—+ 3.5m fe Level 6+ “ , Sm Precast Presented Frames Level 5} Columns 750%300 mma 3.5m Material properties: Level 4 + f= 40 MPa atm fuy = 1750 MPa £ = 400MPa Level 3-f-] ; 3am Design Drift Limit = 0.025 Level 2 PGA = 0.5g. 3. Floor Weights: 400 tonnes Level 1 at each level Level 0 Fig.5.37 Structure for Example 5.3 (1m = 3.28ft; IMPa =145psi; 1¢ = 2.205kips) Displacement 4 (mn) . 55% 0.437 518.7% i» Period (sec) 40 2.77 Fig.5.38 Design Displacement Spectra for Example 5.3 (Im = 3.28ft, Solution: The initial data for calculating the substitute structure properties are listed in Table 5.5. Note that the storey height at level 1 is taken to the mid-height of the beam and hence is 3.5m, not 4.0m. The design displacements at the various levels are found from Eq.(5.1) asChapter 5. Frame Buildings 295 (OoS5 oa where the inelastic mode shape 6 is found from Eq.(5.2) with Hy = 21.0m (68.9f). Table 5.5 Substitute Structure data for Example 5.3 (m=3.28ft, 1t=2.205kips) Level,i | Height | Mass m; & A miAy mA? mAHi Hi (m) | (tonnes) (m) @ @ 6) @~ | © ©) @. 8) 6 21.0} 320.00 1.000, O.411 1315 54.05 | 2762 5 17.5 400.00 0.880. 0.362, 144.6 52.28 2531 4 14.0 400.00 0741 0.304 121.8 7 1705 tS 10.5 400.00 0,583 0.240, 95.9 22.99 1007 2 7.0 400.00 0.407 0.167, 67.0 11.21 469 + 3.5 400.00 0.213 0.088 35.0, 3.06 123 Sum 595.8 180.67 8596 Design Displacement: From Eq.(5.3), and Table 5.5, Cols (6) and (7): Ay = >i (m.&2)) > (mA, = 180.7/598.8 = 0.303m (11.9in) 7 a Effective Height: From Eq,(5.5) and Table 5.5, Cols (6) and (8): H,= Ylma,H, VS (m,A,)=8595.6/595.8 = 14.4 (69% of building height) Yield Displacement: From Eq.(5.71), the yield drift for a hybrid frame is estimated as 0.0005 x 6.00/1.00 = 0.003 6, = 0.00052 A, We assume a linear yield displacement profile with height, and hence the yield displacement at the effective height is A, = 0.003% 14.4 = 0.0432m — (1.70in) System Duetility: From £4.(5.6) the system ductility is thus 0.303 A, 0.0432Chapter 5. Frame Buildings 299 =1133V,, /6323 These seismic beam shears are listed in Table 5.6 as Col(I4). Note thar these will subsequently be amplified for flexural overstrength, and to include gravity shears. Note hat the column storey shears of Table 5.6, Col.(10) should also be increased by 7.8%, to account for P-A effects, but since it is the ratio of these to the sum of the storey shears, which is of course unaffected by the increase, the corrected column storey shears are not listed. It will, however, be necessary to implement the increase when column capacity- design shears are computed. Beam Seismic Moments: Since the seismic frames are peripheral, and precast, gravity ioads will be small in comparison with seismic moments, and slab reinforcement will not directly add to the flexural strength (though this will depend on the connection details inerween the slabs and beams. If precast prestressed floor systems with cast i sitr connections 10 dowel reinforcement in the precast beams are provided, the moment enhancement can be very significant). tis elected to have equal negative and positive moment capacity at the column faces. Assuming that the columns are 600X600 mm -23.6%23.6 in), the beam seismic moments at the column faces are given by Eq.(5.36) as M sists =V gj (Ly Ne 2 =V 5 (6.0 - 0.6/2 = 2.15, ‘The resulting beam design moments are listed in Table 5.6 as Column (15). As noted above, 60% of the required moment capacity will be provided by central prestressing, and 40% by mild steel reinforcement. Details of the design process are elementary, and are nor included here. Beam Design Shear Forces: Bear flexural design using post-tensioning is likely to result in lower overstrength factors than with conventionally reinforced sections, since the range of ultimate rensile strength of the prestressirig steel is typically low. We design the sections using advanced models for steel and concrete stress-strain curves (see Section 4.2), and assess possible overstrength for the fraction of moment capacity provided by the prestressing as 10%, and for the fraction provided by the milé steel couple as 20%. Assuming a perfect match between required and provided steel areas, the overstrength factor can thus be assessed as @ = 0.6X1.14+0,4x1.2 = 1.14, We adopt a value of 1.15, Gravity loads on beams for the seismic load case, including a 20% vertical dynamic amplification factor are 8kPa (0.167kips/sq,fi). With a 3m tributary width, the distributed load on the peripheral beams is thus 24 kN/m. (1.64kips/fi). Modifying Eq,(5.57) by using the clear span, Z_ between column faces:300 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seis Design of Structures joy = 2XLASMy 24x54 “ 54 2 —24x = 0.426M, +64.8-24x The maximum value of Vy occurs at the column face, and is listed in Table 5.7. Col-(16) ‘Table 5.7 Capacity Design Calculations for Example 5.3 [Tevet [Vee or Moa] Mon | Vous] Vom | GN) (kNm) | (Nm) | (KN) (kN) L.@ a6) 7) (is) (19) 20) 1) fees: 1345 | 1.000 | 209.2 | 4184 | 2588 | 7.6 fae 23 | i400 | 3088 | 6176 | 3312 6624 (es, 2758 | 1912 | 5729 | 1145.9 | 392.2 784.4 3 326.7 | 1.812 | m0 | 14221 | 4402 880.5 2 362.2 1.812 807.5 1614.9 | 4737 947.6 Ed 3808 | 1812 [3579 | 17158 | 4913 982.6 0 1 604.3 | 1388.6 | 491.3 982.6 Column Design Moments: Analysis for column flexure follows the suggestions at the end of Section 5.5.2(b), where beam moment input to a joint is shared equally berween the columns above and below the joint, With the overstrength factor of @ = 1.15, as, calculated above, the overstrength ductility demand, from Eq,(5.62a) is ‘The dynamic amplifications factors for the region from the first floor to the % point of height, and at roof level, are found from substitution into Eqs.(5.61a) and (5.61b) respectively as @,, =1.15+0.13{u? 1)=1.15+0.13%5,09=1,812 and @,,=10 The full list of dynamic amplification factors for column moment, following the distribution of Fig.5.25, are provided in Table 5.7 as Col.(17). Column design moments at the joint centreline are thus found from Eq,(5.60) 0,My 20°@,M, =1.150,M,Chapter 5. Frame Buildings 301 ere Mg are the column moments corresponding to the design lateral forces. In -ccordance with the recommendations of Section 5.5.2(¢) the beam moments at the joint centroid are equally distributed to the columns above and below the joint. Note again that *he beam moments listed in Table 5.6 Col.(15) apply at the columa faces, and have to be cacreased by 11.1% to obtain the joint centre beam moments. ‘The above equation for required dependable column moment capacity at the joint centre can thus be rewritten as O,My 29°, My =1.150/M, =1.150/(.11 Micon !2) vhere the input beam moment is che sum of moments from beams on opposite sides of che joint, and the denominator, 2, represents the equal subdivision of moment input to che columns above and below the joint. As with Example 5.2, the exception occurs at the zoof, where all the moment is taken by the top of the upper level column, Resulting Gesign moments at the joint centroid for the exterior and interior columns are listed in Table 5.7 as Col.(18) and (19) respectively. Note that, as is commonly the case with high ductility levels, the column reinforcement at level 1 may need to be significantly higher shan at the columa base, though it must be remembered that the design moments occur athe level of the top or bottom of the beam, and will be thus be lower than the values Listed for levels 1 t0 6 by an amount equal to 0.5 Why, where V° is the overstrength shear, calculated in accordance with the next section.. Column Design Shear Forces: Column design shear forces are determined in accordance with Section 5.8.5(¢). Equation (5.65) applies. We divide the total storey column shear between the interior and exterior columns in the proportion 1:2, and hence the exterior column shears are given by Mi +ME C The resulting shear forces for exterior and interior columns, based only om amplification of the design shears, are listed in Table 5.7 as Cols.(20) and (21). ‘These values would need to be checked against the shear corresponding to development of coverstrength moment capacity at top and bottom of the column, as indicated at the right of the above equation. OM oar 2 OV + OM 5 pope) 6 = LAM, + 01K Hp pou! OS 3.12 MASONRY INFILLED FRAMES 3.12.1 Structural Options Masonzy infill in frames is common in Europe, Asia, and Central and South America. Although it is less common in North American, New Zealand and Japanese design, it is still sometimes used in these counties to provide fire resistance between buildings on boundary frames. However, if the interaction between the frame and the infill is not302 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures properly considered in design and construction, the consequences can be disastrous when subjected to high intensity seismic action. Examples of struccural failures of infilled frames in earthquakes are common. “There are nwo different approaches to construction with masonsy infill. One approach is to place flexible material between the frame and the infill so that che ewo elements (frame and infill) can deform independently under the desiga seismic intensity, without contact, except at the base of the infill, This requires special reinforcement in the infill, and some means of providing out-of-plane support", ‘The alternative approach is to build the infill hard up againsc che frame, and to account for the structural interaction in the design, Generally when infill is built hard up against the frame, the infill is unreinforced, and susceptible to damage and failure at comparatively low drift angles, The philosophy adopted in countries where such construction is permitted is that failure of the infill is non-structural, and can be repaired after the earthquake. 5.12.2 Structural Action of Infill — (a) Full-height infill {b) Partial height infill Fig.5.39 Masonry Infill in Structural Frames The description of structural action in this section is based on the assumption of typically weak infill, using hollow tile bricks, as is common in European and South American countries. In the initial stages of seismic response, infill which is constructed in contact with the frame on all boundaries, as suggested in Fig.5.3%a), acts as a diagonal brace to resist frame action. High compression stresses develop in the infill at the ends of the brace, indicated in Fig.5.39(a) by the diagonal arrows, and separation between infill and frame occurs at the other ovo corners. Because of the high in-plane stiffness of the infill, forces induced in che frame members are modified to be primarily axial rather thanprer §. Frame Buildings 303 ral, Stiffness of the frame members (assuming reinforced concrete) is close to the _scracked value, though the axial stiffness of the column placed in tension by the truss on of response (the left column in Fig.5.39(a)) may be significantly reduced by ing, Overall stiffness of the building is very much higher than that corresponding to ure frame action, and initial periods of response are low. At comparatively low drift angles — typically 0.003 to 0.005 - initial failure of the infill urs, generally by crushing of the infill at the contact corners and severe diagonal ccking parallel to the strut. Sliding shear failures may also initiate along horizontal bed ors, Subsequent to this, the structural action modifies from a truss or braced-frame 2on to that of a pure frame action, with the infill playing no further structural part in +e response. This transition is normally complete by a drift of about 0.01 Where the infill is part height, as indicated in the ground floor of Fig.5.39(), the ser end of the infill brace bears against the column, In the region of column above the =i shown shaded in Fig, 5.39(b), the structural shear will be resisted by column flexure era short length, with a potential for soft-storey shear failure developing, particularly if +s infill has significant strength. Perhaps the most dangerous condition occurs when the infill is not distributed evenly sand the structural plan. It has been estimated that in the 1985 Mexico city earthquake, store than 40% of the building failures occurred to buildings on corner sites, where fire =-sistant infill was placed only on the two boundaries next to the adjacent buildings, ating severe torsional ecceniricity!?"l, This situation must be avoided at all costs. 3.12.3. DDBD of Infilled Frames A pwo-stage design process will be necessary when structural infill is used in - onstruction. The design philosophy will require that under a serviceability level acthquake, infill failure does not occur, while under the damage-control earthquake, same response is acceptable. Normally this will mean restricting drifis under the iceability earthquake to 0,005, and under the full design earthquake to 0.02 or 0.025, Zependent on the code drift limit. The logical procedure will be to design for the damage-control limit stare using DDBD, on the assumption that the infill has no structural significance. The frame is then Avemge — Dasign L 10009 20000 30004000 ‘Moment (kNm) Fig.5.41 Mean Peak Storey Displacements Response/Overturning Moments vs. Design Values for Design Example 5.46 STRUCTURAL WALL BUILDINGS 6.1 INTRODUCTION: SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF WALL BUILDINGS Buildings where the primary or only lateral-force resisting mechanism consists of walls are frequently called “shear wall” buildings. As has been pointed out elsewherel?", this has unfortunate connotations, as it implies that response is shear-dominated, whereas the desired response is ductile flexural action, with shear controlled by capacity design measures. Consequently we follow the lead of [Pi] and use the terminology of this chapter's ttl. The performance of structural wall buildings in recent earthquakes has generally been 200d, and complete collapse under even extreme seismic excitation is rare. Exceptions sive occutted primarily as a result of foundation inadequacies. A detailed and complete discussion of the advantages and seismic performance of structural wall buildings is available in [P1], and only a brief summary will be provided herein 6.1.1 Section Shapes @) (© @ © Fig.6.1 Common Section Shapes for Structural Walls The choice of possible section shapes for structural walls is limitless, though simple and symmetrical shapes are to be preferred. Some of the more common shapes are llustrated in Fig. 6.1. For the rectangular section of Fig.6.1(a), flexural reinforcement may 313314 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures be uniformly distributed along the length, or concentrated in end regions, with only nominal reinforcement distributed in the central region. Uniformly distributed reinforcement has the advantage of imparting improved shear resistance, particularly against sliding shear on the wall base, but results in a lower first-yicld moment than will occur when much of the flexural reiaforcemnent is concentrated at the ends. The flexural strength, however, will be lite affected by the distribution of reinforcement, provided the total area is constant, A similar conclusion was noted for distribution of beam reinforcement, in Section 5.6.1 “The section of Fig.6.1(b) has boundary elements of increased width at each end of a rectangular wall section. This shape is often used when beams frame inco the ends of the wall section, as suggested by the dotted lines. When the wall extends over the full length of one end of a building, there may also be intermediate boundary elements to accommodate beams of internal frames extending perpendicular to the wall, on one side. Ir should be noted that the structural system implied by this, of end walls providing seismic resistance in one direction, and frames in the perpendicular, and longer direction can result in undesirable seismic response. Under diagonal attack, the boundary element, which is essentially a column, at one end of the wall may be subjected to compression stresses close to the concrete compression strength from the cantilever action of the wall, while being deformed laterally by frame action in the orthogonal direction. The high compression siress in the boundary element reduces its moment capacity in the frame direction, and flexural yielding of the boundary element may result, Local P-A effects can become critical. The combined wall and frame action on this boundary element at levels 1 and 2 can result in instability and collapse of the end region of the wall, as was observed with several apartment buildings after the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Fig.6.1(6) shows a T-section wall, which is common in buildings with internal central corridors, such as hotels and apartment buildings. In these cases the flanges form part of the corridor wall between doorways, and the web divides different hotel rooms or apartments. ‘The behaviour of T-section walls in the direction parallel to the web is characterized by different strength and stiffness in the ovo possible loading directions, with the wall generally being stiffer and stronger when the flange is in tension than when it is in compression, The yield curvatures in the opposite directions, may also differ (see Section 4.4.3(c)). Frequently buildings will contain identical, but anti-symmetzical T- section walls when rooms are symmetrically placed on either side of a central corridor. ‘This simplifies the structural characterization, since the average values for strength and stiffness for flange in tension and flange in compression can be adopted, and total system strength and stiffness will be the same in both directions. Finally the C-section wall of Fig.6.1(@) is common when walls enclose a service core of lifts, stairs and possibly toilets, and is often combined with a symmettically opposed C- section, as suggested by the section shown in dotted outline, These sections will often be connected by coupling beams, shown in Fig.6.1(¢) as dashed lines, resulting in coupled- wall behaviour, discussed later in this chapter, in Section 6.8. As with the T-section walls of Fig.6.1(¢) strengths and stiffness of a C-section wall differ depending on the directionChapter 6. Structural Wall Buildings 315, of response, and when loaded parallel to the web, torsional response must be expected unless a balancing symmetrically opposed element is present, as suggested in Fig.6.1(c) 6.1.2 Wall Elevations (a) Cantilever Wall (b) Wall with Openings —_(c) Coupled Wall Fig.6.2 Categories of Structural Walls The three main categories of structural walls are illustrated in Fig.6.2. Only two are suitable for seismic resistance. The cantilever wall of Fig.6.2(a) is the simplest, and the most straightforward in terms of predicting seismic performance. Provided proper tention is paid to dynamic amplification of moment and shear, inelastic action occurs in \ flexural plastic hinge forming above the base of the wall, and extending some distance sp the wall, as indicated by the shaded area, Above this region, the wall remains elastic. The second category, shown in Fig.6.2(b) is a wall with openings, where the openings we insufficient to provide frame-like action. In the example shown, the piers beeween penings are smaller than the beams above and below the openings. With the >toportions shown it is very difficult to avoid inelastic action occurring by flexural clding or shear failure in the piers, generally below the first floor, as indicated by the shaded areas. This form of construction is unsuitable for seismic resistance unle response can be assured to be elastic, or near-elastic (displacement ductility demand less shan 1.3) Coupled walls, shown in Fig.6.2(6), are designed to form flexural plastic hinges at the all bases and in the coupling beams. These provide an efficient mechanism for resisting scismic forces, with reduced displacements. These are separately considered in Section 8 6.1.3 Foundations for Structural Walls Foundations for structural walls are generally rather massive to enable the overturning moment ta be resisted by gravity effects. This is illustrated in Fig.6.3, where the316 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures overstrength shear V® acts at an effective height of He above the wall base, The overturning moment at the base of the wall is approximated by y ME =V°H, =(A, 0 +Wy)-l, | (1) where Wy is the weight, including self weight, supported by the wall at the base. Ay is the total area of flexural reinforcement in the wall, with overserength yield stress of fy’. The criterion for stability of the wall on its foundation under ductile overstrength response is given by Mg=(Wy +W)(Lp~a)/2> Me =V°(H, + hp) (2) where any passive resistance of soil on the face of the footing is neglected, and Ly is the footing length, Wr is the footing weight, and a is the length of the footing in compression at ultimate soil bearing strength, Pay given by W, +W, a= w tte 63) Pow Be and where Bp is the footing width. Fig. 6.3 Overturning Resistance of a Cantilever Wall Equation (6.2) applies for a spread footing. ‘The size of the footing can be reduced by supporting the footing on piles with tension capacity, The modification to F.q.(6.2) for the case where some overturning resistance is provided by tension piles follows the sameChapter 6, Structural Wall Buildings 317 principles as outlined above, and is not developed further herein. Overturning tesistance, Mpg for walls is discussed further in Section 6.5. 6.1.4 Inertia Force Transfer into Walls Since there will generally be much fewer walls in a structural wall building than columns in a frame building, floor inertia forces to be transferred into the walls can be large. To ensure satisfactory force transfer, special consideration must be given to internal force transfer within the floor diaphragm, and particularly to force transfer between the floor diaphragm and the wall. This is normally effected by shear-friction action, It should be noted that floor diaphragm inertia forces are strongly influenced by higher mode action, and may be many times higher than the level predicted by the design distribution of storey force corresponding to the inelastic first-mode response, as used in the DDBD procedure. Higher-mode effects are discussed in detail in Section 6.6. 6.2. REVIEW OF BASIC DDBD PROCESS FOR CANTILEVER WALL. BUILDINGS ‘The fundamentals of DDBD were introduced in Chapter 3, with reference to Fig.3.1 and were summarized in Section 5.2.1 for frames. Most of the equations are identical for wall buildings, and hence are not repeated here. Equivalent SDOF design displacement is given by Eq.(5.3), for equivalent mass by Eq.(5.4), for effective height by Eq(5.5), for design ductility by Eq.(5.6), for effective stiffness of the SDOF structure by Eq.(5.19) and for design base shear by F.q.(5.11). The base shear is distributed to the floor levels in accordance with Eq.(5.12). Differences primarily relate to the deflection profiles and damping values to be adopted for design. ‘These are discussed further here related to cantilever walls. Coupled walls are separately considered in Section 6.8 6.2.1. Design Storey Displacements (a) Yield Displacement: in Fig.3.18, the curvature profile up the wall was represented by a straight line from the yield value at the base to zero at the top of the wall. This may appear incompatible with the moment distribution corresponding to distributed lateral seismic forces, which results in a curved moment pattern, and since curvature is essentially proportional to moment, the curvature distribution should similarly be curved. Further, in the upper regions of the wall, the moments may be less than the cracking moment, and gross-section curvatures will be much less than cracked-section curvatures. This is illustrated in Fig.6.4, where the “design forces” curvature profile at yield corresponds to an inverted triangle distribution of lateral forces, and may be compared with the suggested linear distribution. In both cases, curvatures have been put in dimensionless form, dividing by the yield curvature at the wall base. Aiso shown in Fig.6.4 is the curvature distribution where the wall is considered to be uncracked for theChapter 6, Structural Wall Buildings 324 limit strain was based on recommendations of Section 4.2.5 using the following information: Wall width 250mm (9.8in), transverse reinforcement 10mm (0.393 in) at 100mm (3.94in) centres across the wall in the end region, with 10mm bars along each side. Transverse reinforcement at $= 100mm (3.94in) vertically (see Fig.6.6) Fig.6.6 Wall- ty and Damage-Control Analyses Area ratios of confinement in both directions are equal at 4s. 785 _ 9.9975 Par = Po =H 100x100 Adopting a confinement effectiveness coefficient of C, = 0.5 for walls, as recommended in Section 4.2.2, the effective volumetric confinement ratio is thus, from E.q.(4.7) Po = Pa + Pa, = 2(0.5x0,00785)= 0.00785 From Eq.(4.21), taking the confined compression strength as 1.4f%, and the strain capacity of the transverse reinforcement as 0.12, the ultimate compression strain is 6, =0.004-41.4PLném. — 9,904 41.4 0200785%450%0.12 _ 9 o1g - 1.4x30 The strain limit for the longitudinal reinforcement is based on 0.6&, as recommended in Section 4.2.4(c), where the steel steain at maximum stress is 0.10. The results in Fig.6.7 were calculated based on expected concrete cylinder compression strength of fie = 30 MPa (4.35ksi), and reinforcement yield strength of fe = 450 MPa (65ksi), with an ultimate/yield strength ratio of ff, = 1.3. However, as the data are expressed in dimensionless form, the results will be applicable to other concrete and reinforcement strengths within reasonable variation (say 20MPa 4 6 Rt 6 6s 68 72 76 8 Aspeee Ratio (A, =H, fy) Moment Magnitude (0) SDOF Vita Displacement (6) Plateau Displacements Fig.6.9 Wall Yield Displacements for €, = 0.00225 Compared with Plateau Displacements Fig.6.9(a) plots system yield displacement for walls of different aspect ratio and height, based on Eg.(6.15) for a yield stress of 450MPa (65.3 ksi). These can be compared with the plateau displacements presented in Fig.6.9(). An example of the use of this figure is shown by the dashed line in both figures. For a 16 storey wall with uniform storey heights of 3 m, (9.84 ft) and a wall length of 8 m (26.2 fi), the total height is 48 m (157.4 ft) and the aspect ratio is 6. Figure 6.9(a) is entered at A, =6, and the system yield displacement of 0.292 m (11.3 in) is transferred across to the seismological data of Fig.6.9(b). From this328 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures it is seen that for a causative earthquake of My = 6.5, the wall will be expected to respond clastically if the design PGA is less than 0.3g. 6.3.3 Multiple In-Plane Walls Aspects related to displacements and damping when several walis of different length are in the same plane or in parallel planes have been discussed in Section 3.5.4, and illustrated in the design example of Section 3.5.5. Aspects to be considered are the different ductility demands, and hence different equivalent viscous damping values for each wall, the distribution of strength between walls, and the global (system) damping. It was pointed out that the distribution of strength between walls is purely 4 designer’s choice, uninfluenced by considerations of initial elastic stiffness, and that 4 common, logical choice will be t0 use equal flexural reinforcement ratios in all walls, leading to the base shear force being distributed to walls in inverse proportion to the square of the wall length. See also comments in Section 6.2.1(d). 6.4 TORSIONAL RESPONSE OF CANTILEVER WALL BUILDINGS 6.4.1 Elastic Torsional Response A brief summary of consideration of torsional effects in DDBD was presented in Section 3.8. However, since the topic has special relevance to structural wall buildings, as a result of the potential for torsional eccentricity with building plans containing walls of different lengths, the topic is treated in greater detail in this chapter. We start with consideration of elastic torsional response, which though not directly relevant to inelastic structural response, will be referenced and modified to develop an appropriate design approach. Until recently, torsion has been treated as an elastic pheno- menon. In the elastic approach shears resulting from distribution of the clastic base shear force between different lateral-force resisting elements are modified to include shear forces induced by twise of the building resulting from eccentricity between the centre of mass and the centre of elastic stiffness of the building. Typically this eccentricity is augmented to include “accidental” eccentricity resulting from uncertainties in distribution of mass, and in material properties, which hence result in uncertainty in the positions of the centre of mass and the centre of stiffness, The approach is illustrated by refereace to the plan representation of the wall building shown ia Fig. 6.10, which has plan dimensions Ly and Lz (¥ is the building vertical axis) Walls 1 and 2, of different lengths, resist seismic actions parallel to the Z axis, and walls 3 and 4, also of different lengths, resist seismic actions parallel co the X axis. The centre of mass, Cy is assumed to be at the centre of the floor plan. ‘The origin of the axes, raken at Caw is thus also in this case at the centre of the floor plan, The centre of rigidity, or stittiness Cr is displaced from the centre of mass by distances eax and egz in the X and Z directions respectively. Note that since stiffness of structural elements depends on strength, as established in Section 4.4, the actual stiffness330 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Vizg =Vese,2€ax (6.20) Téa base shear Vax acts concurrently in the X direction, then additional shear is induced in wall # by the additional torque Vigase,x-€rz: k(x, -e, Vox =Veoseax rz balou) (6.206) a ‘The total shear carried by the elastic wall is thus Vi Van +Vizg *Vixa (6.208) There are a number of ctiticisms chat can be levelled at this classical approach to torsional response of structures. First, as with all aspects of force-based design, it relies On initial estimates of element stiffness, to determine both the centre of stiffness, and the torsional stiffness. As has been repeatedly pointed out, element stiffness is proportional to strength, and hence significant errors can be expected unless an iterative design approach is used to modify element stiffness after initial estimates of strength have been obuined. Typically, this is not done, and also, typically, member suiffnesses are significantly in error in conventional force-based design. More importantly, the stiffness approach does not account for changes in performance once one or more of the walls yield, after which stiffness considerations become largely irrelevant, nor does it take into account the very\significant role of torsional mass inertia in modifying the torsional rotation implied by Eqs.(6.20b) and (6.20c). As a consequence, the elastic representation of torsional effects cannot be used to predict the torsional response of ductile systems. This has been recognised for some time, and early considerations of ductile response of systems including torsional effects(.2P1 distinguished between so-called torsionally restrained and torsionally unrestrained systems. The distinction between these categories is clarified in Fig.6.11. For seismic action parallel to the Z axis, the two transverse walls in Fig.6.11(a), which are in line with the centre of mass Cw, can play no part in resisting any torsional moment. Thus if one or both of the walls (1 and 2) parallel to the Z axis yield, the torsional stiffness will drop to a very low value, dependent primarily on the post-yield stiffness of the yielding walls, Consequently, in carly studies based only on static torsional mechanisms, it was expected that if one wall yielded before the other, the centre of stiffness would shift to coincide with the remaining elastic wall, and essentially unrestrained rotation would result. The system is thus classified as torsionally unrestrained, and earlier texts (e.g, [P1]) advised against such systems.Chapter 6. Structural Wall Buildings 331 1 ° Cu 1S 0 SSS 2 Cu LZ Fasc (a) Torsionally unrestrained (b) Torsionally restrained Fig.6.11 Different Wall Layout for Building Plan “The structure of Fig.6.11(b) has boundary elements on all four sides, and thus if walls 1 and/or 2 yield under seismic force parallel co the Z axis, the structure retains torsional stiffness, albeit reduced from the initial elastic value, as a result of the lever arm between the two transverse walls. The system is thus termed torsionally restrained, and was initially felt to be structurally more desirable than unrestrained systems. Recent research by Castillo and Paulay'tl, followed and extended by Beyerl*!, have shown that torsional inertia plays an important role in modifying structural response of both unrestrained and restrained systems, but is difficult to quantify accurately, since peak translational and torsional response do not occur simultaneously. Both studies carried out extensive inelastic time-history analyses to investigate ductile response including torsional effects. The initial studies by Castillo and Paulay investigated 2D plan simulations of wall buildings. Beyer extended these studies, and also carried out a number of full 3D analyses. The following two sections present a brief summary of their findings. 6.4.2. Torsionally Unrestrained Systems The studies of torsionally unrestrained (TU) systems by Castillo and Paulayl¢i showed that the modification to response resulting from torsional mass inertia was considerable. Considerations of static equilibrium would indicate that if we assume that the centre of mass Cy is at the centre of the building plan, and further assume that wall 2 in the TU system of Fig.6.12 is weaker, as well as less stiff than wall 1, then it will yield prior to wall 1, since the ratio of forces developed in the two walls is defined by geometry Thus, again assuming that Cys is at the centre of the building plan, the forces in the two walls must be equal. For example, assume that the nominal strengths of the walls are related by Vyy=1.4Vy2; then when wall 2 yields, wall 1 will have an equal force, corresponding to 0.714Vyy. Since the force in wall 2 will increase only slightly (due to post-yield stiffness of the force-displacement response) as the structure responds in the inelastic range, the force in wall 1 would never be expected to reach yield, and all system ductility would result from inelastic response of the weaker wall 2. This would imply an332 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky.Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures expected ductility demand on wall 2 close to twice the system ductility demand, measured at the centre of mass. The corresponding displacement profile is shown in Fig.6.12 by the dashed line A, Vs Maximum, ignoring, }— torsional inertia Maximum, including torsional ine! Displacement Fig.6.12. Displacement Response of a TU System ‘The inelastic time-history analyses of Castillo et al showed that this behaviour did indeed occur, but only if the torsional mass inertia was set to zero. When realistic values for torsional inertia were included in the analyses, it was found that the stronger wall would always yield, provided system ductility demand was significant, and would be subjected to considerable ductility demands, In fact the stronger wall would normally vield before the weaker wall, provided that the stronger wall was also stiffer than the weaker wall, as will usually be the case. The corresponding displacement profile is shown in Fig.6.12 by the solid line B. However, this line is a little misleading, as the peak displacements for walls 1 and 2 do not necessarily occur at the same time, nor does the peak rotational response occur simultaneously with cither peak displacement. Castillo et al recommended that minimum required strengths for elements of TU and also of TR) systems should be based on considerations of static equilibrium. Thus, with reference to Fig. 6.12 the minimum nominal strength of walls 1 and 2 would be related to the total design base shear Vpave by: Vax 2Viggce (6.21)Chapter 6. Structural Wall Buildings 333 Excess strength, above that required by Eq.(6.21), for either wall would result in strength eccentricity ey, (see Figs. 6.10 and 6.12) where V, ok, V+¥, ey x (6.22) Normally excess strength would result from the longer wall needing less than the specified minimum reinforcement ratio to provide the required flexural strength corresponding to V;, and hence actual strength would exceed required strength. Note that in accordance with capacity design principles the flexural strength will be matched to the moment corresponding to the required shear strength (see section 4.6). Castillo et all found that excess flexural strength in cither wall did not adversely affect the performance of TU systems. For the normal case where the longer wall (wall 1) had excess strength, the displacement demand on both the centre of mass and the longer wall was, as expected, found to be reduced by the strength eccentricity resulting from excess strength. The displacement demand on the shorrer, more flexible wall (wall 2) was found to be almost independent of the excess strength ‘and hence of the strength eccentricity) when the excess strength occurred in wall 1 only. Excess strength in wall 1 could thus be used to reduce the displacement demand on wall 1, without adversely affecting wall 2. Note however, that strength eccentricity is expected to increase torsional displacements as will be demonstrated shortly. Tt will be noted that it may not be immediately clear which of the walls will govern the design. Normally, with different wall lengths as suggested in Fig.6.12, the ductility demand on the longer wall will be higher than on the shorter wall, which is contrary to expectations based on static equilibrium. Hence if material strains govern design, the longer wall will be critical. On the other hand, the shorter wall will be subjected to larger displacement demands, and hence if drift governs design, the shorter wall will be the critical element. The conclusions of Castillo et all* for TU walls can be summarized as follows: ‘* Nominal strength of any element should be not less than that required by static equilibrium considering zero strength eccentricity, for the chosen base shear force, regardless of the stiffness eccentricity © Strength eccentricity does not adversely affect the performance of TU systems, provided it only results from excess strength of one or more elements. * If these guidelines are met, the displacements will not be greater than those estimated for zero strength eccentricity. © The results are rather insensitive to the magnitude of torsional inertia, provided it is within reasonable bounds. (Castillo et al investigated variations of $20% from a uniform mass distribution. Higher values, which are more probable than lower values, reduced twist).334 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 6.4.3, Torsionally Restrained Systems B N SS | ‘Wall 3 + ry = 25 m. Fig.6.13. Torsionally Restrained Building with Strength and Stiffness Eccentricity for Z direction response (after Beyer!*4)) Castillo et all€*! and Beyer"! both studied torsionally restrained (FR) systems, and, with a few exceptions, obtained generally similar results. The following comments are based on the more extensive studies by Beyer. These included 2D plan simulations of cight-storey buildings, and 3D studies of 2, 4, and 8 storey buildings with strength and stiffness eccentricities. Analyses were carried out with a suite of five avtificial accelerograms spectrum-matched to a displacement spectrum linear with period to a period of 5 seconds. It was found that the spectral reduction values for levels of damping higher than 5% agreed closely with the “old” EC8 equation given by Eq,(2.8). Beyer’s 2D analyses were based on a floor plan of 25m X 15m as shown in Fig,6.13, with the lengths of walls 1 and 2 being 8m and 4m respectively. The two transverse walls (3 and 4) cach had lengths of 5m, and similar total system strengths were provided in both X and Z ctions. A base-level design was chosen to provide an average drift of 0.02, with zero strength eccentricity, using displacement-based design procedures, Thus the strength provided to each wall in the Z direction was the same for the base-level design, despite the different wall lengths. Since the yield displacement for the walls would be in inverse proportion co wall length (see Section 4.4.3), this resulted in wall 1 having twice the elastic stiffness of wall 2. Thus, though the strength eccentricity for the base-level structure was ev = 0, the stiffness eccentricity was €g = 0.167Lx. A series of analyses was carried out increasing the strength of the long wall relative to that of the shore wall by ratios of 1.0SAS1.8 where A=Vi/V>, increasing both the stcength and stiffness eccentricity. This was effected in ewo ways. In the first, the strength of wall 1 was increased while keeping the strength of wall 2 constant. The total system strength thus increased by a maximumChapter 6, Suructural Wall Buildings 335 of 40%. In the second case, the strength of wall 2 (the short wall) was reduced as wall 1 strength was increased such that the total system strength remained constant. In both cases, the stiffness and strength eccentricities, with kz/=2Akz», are found from Fgs.(6.18) and (6.22) as: _0.5(1-24) ~ 1424 050-4) (1+) av y (@) and eyy Ly &) (6.23) Results of the analyses, averaged over the 5 accelerograms, are summarized in Fig.6.14. It will be noted that despite the zero strength eccentricity at A=1.0, some torsional response is evident, as a result of the stiffness eccentricity, with displacements of the short and long walls being about 10% larger and smaller respectively than the centre-of-mass displacement. As the strength of the long wall increases, resulting in total system overstrength (Fig.6.14(@)), displacements of the centre-of-mass decrease, but the displacement of the short wall remains almost constant. 04 E 0.3 = z z goa i 2 2 ' e & ' Zot a : ° oF t T t41 1 1.2 14 16 18 1 12 14 1.6 1.8 ‘Wall Strength Ratio (V1/V2) Wall Strength Ratio (V1/V2) (@) Total Strength Increases (b) Constant Total Strength Fig.6.14 Displacements of TR Wall Building with Strength and Stiffness Eccentricity (after Beyer!™I) ‘When the total system strength is kept constant by reducing the strength of the short wall as the long wall strength increases, the centre-of-mass displacement remains essentially constant, while short and long wall displacements increase and decrease respectively, Apart from local variations which can be attributed co inevitable scatter resulting from the time-history analyses, the displacements appear to vary iis the wall 1 overstrength factor. Note that at A = 1.8, corresponding to stiffness and strength eccentricities of 0.28Lx and 0.143.Ly respectively, the displacements of the walls differ by about +40% from the centre of mass displacement. ly with336 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures From the analyses of Beyer‘! and Castillo et alll the following conclusions can be drawn: Displacements of the centre-of-mass can be reliably estimated from a SDOF model based on the DDBD principles claborated in this text. That is, the torsional response does not affect the centre-of-mass displacement. As with TU systems, increasing the strength of an element above that required to satisfy displacement demands in the structure will not result in incteased displacements in other structural elements, provided the strength of those elements are not reduced “The results are largely insensitive to the value of rotational inertia, within typical expected variations from the value corresponding «© uniform distribution of mass. Varying the strength and stiffness of the transverse walls (Walls 3 and 4, Fig.6.13), multiplying by factors of 0.5 and 2.0 had only minor effect on the rotational displacements, with displacements increasing only slightly for softer transverse walls, Allowing the transverse walls to yield under the rotational displacements also had only minor influence on the displacements of the long and short walls. Increasing the seismic intensity while keeping the system strength constant (Le. increasing the system ductility demand) had little influence on the magnitude of twist associated with peak displacement demands when the strength eccentricity was zero. When appreciable strength eccentricity existed, the displacements of the walls increased almost in proportion to the displacement increase at the centre-of-mass. That is, the torsional component of peak displacements increased with ductility Eccentricity of mass from the geometric centre of a building plan did not significantly affect response, provided stiffness and strength eccentricities were measured from the actual centre of mass, For buildings with eccentricity about only one axis (as, for example, in Fig.6.13), seismic excitation directed at a skew angle to a principle axis resulted in reduced peak displacements in the directions of the principal axes, and hence was not critical. For buildings with strength eccentricity about both principal axes (e.g: Fig.6.10), slight increases in displacements in the direction of the principal axes were possible under skew attack compared with values resulting from excitation in the direction of the principal axis. This increase was generally small (less than 10%). When the effective secant-stiffness perind of the structure (at maximum. displacement response) was larger than the corner period of the displacement spectrum (see Section 2.2.2) response was complicated by the fact that centre-of- mass displacement did not decrease if excess strength was provided to the stiffer wall, Hence displacements of the flexible wall increased. ,Chapter 6, Structural Wall Buildings 337 6.4.4 Predicting Torsional Response As noted above, DDBD provides an excellent estimate of the displacement response of the centse of mass of a corsionally eccentric building. It remains, however, to determine the displacements at the edge of the building, as effected by torsional rotations. No exact simplified method of analysis seems possible, as the time-history analyses have clearly shown that both strength and stiffness eccentricities affect response, and that peak displacements of centre of mass and the walls st opposite ends of the building do not occur at the same instant of dynamic response. ‘The following approach, however, which is consistent with the principles of DDBD has been found ro provide displacements of the building edges in close agreement with results of time-history analyses for both TU and TR systems. The maximum displacements of a building plan can be approximated by a translation of the centre of mass, determined by DDBD principles plus a nominal rotation Ay where 8y = Vase Ce! Feu (6.24) where Vause is the design base shear force, ex is the elastic stiffness eccentricity, given by Fiq.(6.18), and the ductile rotational stiffness, Jaw is modified from the elastic rotational stiffness Jp of Eg,(6.19), dividing the wall stiffness in the direction considered by the system ductility fly: + Yiu, ~enz) (6.25) 7 Note that the elastic stiffness is used for wall elements perpendicular to the direction considered. Thus the effective stiffness of wall elements in both X and Z directions is used, since only the Z direction walls are expected to be subjected to significant ductility demand under Z ditection excitation, The displacements of the end walls (Fig.6.12 for TU systems or Fig6.13 for TR systems) are then found from A, = Bey + Oy (%; ~ ey) (6.26) Note that in Eq.(6.26) the strength eccentricity, rather than the effective stiffness eccentticity has becn used. Similarity to the procedure outlined above for elastic torsional response will be recognized; the difference being that torsional stiffness is based on effective stiffness of the elements, and torsional displacement increments are based of distances from the centre of strength, Cy. ‘The approach outlined above has been checked against analytical results from Castillo et all and Beyer"™l, and found to give generally good agreement for both TU and TR systems, For TR systems with stiffness eccentricity but no strength eccentricity it was338 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures found to accurately predict the incremental displacements resulting from torsion for levels of ductility between 1.3 and 7. Comparisons with average time-history results of the predictions for short wall and long wall displacements for TU and TR systems are shown in Figs 6.15(a) and (b) respectively. The TU systems of Fig.6.15(a) refer to the data of Castillo et all, and were designed for an initial ductility of faye = eccentricity (i 35 at zero strength V, =V2). The ratio of wall lengths was fy; = 1.4ly2. The strength of wal) 1 was then increased up 10 a maximum of 1,86V> without changing the wall lengths, or modifying the strength of wall 2. The increased system strength thus resulted in a reduction of the centre-of-mass displacement, as is apparent in Fig.6.15(a) The TR systems of Fig, 6.15(b) refer to Beyer’s data™l, and were designed for centre- of-mass system displacement ductilities of approximately flys = 3.0. Wall 1 was evice as fong as wall 2, and strength ratios up to Vj = 1.8V3 were considered, while keeping the total system strength constant. In each case the average results from the inelastic time- history analyses are plotted with data points and solid lines, and the predictions using the approach outlined above are shown as dashed lines. In both cases the centre-of-mass displacements have been used as the datum, with variations from this for the short and long walls calculated using Eqs. (6.24) to (6,26), Ir will be noted that the agreement is satisfactory over the full range of data, with the predictions tending to be slightly conservative (i. high) for both short and long walls. z E03 -s-----b---' E z 'Short Wall 1 ¢ go2 1 € a : 3 = 1 #ot ay OT 94 1 12 14 16 1.8, 2 1 1.2 14 1.6 18 Ratio of Wall strengths (V1/V2) Wall Strength Ratio (V1/V2) (a)TU system, system strength increases (b) TR system, constant strength (Castillo’s data)Is (Beyer’s data)!®41 Fig.6.15 Comparison between Predicted Displacements (dashed lines) and Average Time-History Results (solid lines+data points) for TU and TR systems Note that the TU and TR structures of Figs.6.15(a) and 6.15(b) are unrelated, with different masses, strengths and design ductilities, and no conclusions can be arrived at by comparison between the two figures.Chapter 6. Structural Wall Buildings 339 6.4.5 Recommendations for DDBD Again it is emphasised that the best design solution will be to eliminate strength eccentricity. As discussed subsequently, in such cases, the displacements due to twist are likely to be less than 10% of the system translational displacement, and thus in most practical cases could be ignored as well within the expected uncertainty of response. However, this approach may not always be feasible, and the following design approach is intended to provide a systematic approach, completely consistent with the DDBD philosophy of achieving a specified displacement limit state. A simplified approach, with additional conservatism is briefly discussed in Section 6.4.7. (4) Design when T. Tc: It was noted in the summary of Section 6.4.3 that torsional response appears to be more severe when the effective period exceeds the corner period of the displacement spectrum. In such cases, the procedure outlined above could be non-conservative, resulting in displacements of the flexible wall that exceed the limit state values. Research is on-going into this behaviour. Until definitive recommendations are available, it is conservatively suggested that the corner period be ignored, and the displacement spectrum be continued linearly up to the effective period. ‘This will mean designing for a higher base shear than would result from designing to the plateau displacement applying for Te > Te. Since there is uncertainty associated with the correct value for Te as noted in Chapter 2, such an approach is doubly prudent, (©) Consideration of Accidental Eccentricity: As noted in Section 3.8.1, design for accidental eccentricity is likely to be ineffective, since it involves increasing the strength of all structural elements, which simply results in an increase in the torsional moment. Although the overall consequence will be a reduction in displacements, the effect will be minor. Hence we do not recommend consideration of accidental eccentricity in DDBD. (d) Design for Bi-directional Eccentricity: Thus far, the discussion of torsional response has assumed that the direction of seismic attack is parallel with one of the ovo principal axes of the structure, In fact, there will normally be excitation components in both principal directions simultaneously, with the resuleant inertia force acting at an angle to the structure principal axes, as suggested in Fig.6,10 and 6.17. The example of Fig.6.17 shows a plan view of a building braced with four boundary walls of different sizes, resulting in strength eccentricity in both principal directions. The inertia force Vy acts through the centre of mass, Cx, with the centre of strength, Cy, eccentric by a distance ey measured perpendicular to the line of action of the inertia force. It is clear that there is a torsional moment acting on the building, given by Viev. It is also clear that if the seismic intensity is sufficiently high, all four walls will develop their flexural strength. In this case the inertia and resisting forces are given by: y, M4, +40) (6.39)Chapter 6, Structural Wall Buildings 345 Wall 3 Wall 2 Wall 4 Fig.6.17 Diagonal Seismic Attack, Plan View where Vi, V2, Vs, and Vy are the base shears corresponding to flexural strength of walls 1 to 4 respectively. Note that if all walls yield, the directions of the inertia and resisting forces ate fixed, and are not necessarily parallel co the resultant ground excitation direction Given that all four walls have yielded, there is no further torsional resistance available to limit rotation under the torsional moment. However, torsional mass inertia, resulting from the distributed nature of the mass across the floor plan will limit the rotation, as with the torsionally unrestrained case discussed in Section 6.4.2. It would seem that an estimate of maximum feasible oration should be available by determining the dis- placement response in the diagonal disection, and hence the ductility in the ewo orthogonal directions. The effective rotational stiffness can then be determined from a modified form of Eq.(6.25): (6.40) where fy and fiz are the average (system) displacement ductility demands in the X and Z. directions respectively. The procedure fordetermining expected displacement response for a designed structure by DDBD principles is covered in Chapter 13. In fact, it will rarely be necessary to carry out these calculations for new buildings. Since the strength in the diagonal direction will be greater than in a principal direction (rypically by about 40%), displacements in the diagonal ditection of the centre of mass will be less than the displacements in the principal directions under orthogonal excitation parallel to the principal direction considered. ‘The component of the diagonal displacement in the principal directions will be even smaller, resulting in a large reserve in displacement capacity to allow for torsional rotation. Consequently, torsional rotation under diagonal excitation will not normally be considered in the design process.346 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures 6.4.6 Design Example 6.1: Torsionally Eccentric Building = + ai belo in & 20m) Bm) im) BLO883 fe, a ‘ rr : = ng7 so >| bu 6m) Period (see) Ly 5m) ed (@) Floor Plan (b) Design Displacement Spectra Fig. 6.18 Data for Example 6.1 ‘The building shown in plan in Fig.6.18(a) has six storeys, with a uniform storey height of 2.8 m (9.2 fi), and equal floor weights of 3000kN at cach level, including the roof. The structural system consists of boundary walls, as indicated in Fig.6.18(a), with internal prop-columns and flat-slab floors which do not contribute significantly to the lateral resistance in either of the principal directions. The building dimensions are Ly = 25 m (82 ft) and Lz = 20 m (65.6 ft). The ewo walls in the Z direction have lengths fy = 8 m (26.2 ft) and typ = 4 m (13.1 fi). Wall widths of 250mm (9.8 in) are selected. The difference in wall length results from wall 1 being on a boundary adjacent t other buildings, while wall 2 is on a road frontage, where minimum disruption to access is desired. In the X direction the structure is symmetrical, wich two walls of 6 m (19.7 f) length. The building is to be designed to a damage-control limit state, for which the code drift limit is & = 0.025. Specified material strengths are f°: = 30 MPa (4.35 ksi) and f, = 420 MPa (60.9 ksi). e flexural reinforcing steel will be 20mm (0.79 in) diameter tempcore steel with a ratio of ultimate to yield strength of fi/f, = 1.25, and a strain at ultimate strength of 0.10. The structure is to be constructed in a region of high seismicity, corresponding w a PGA of 0.6g, with the displacement-spectrum for 5% damping given in Fig.6.18(b). Displacement reduction for damping conforms to Eq.(2.8). Solution: The design process follows the procedure outlined in Section 6.4.5(a)Chapter 6, Structural Wall Buildings 383 a minimum base shear force may not justify the additional design effort. In such cases a conservative design approach may be adopted. When the flexible wall governs the design (see Section 6.4.5(a) Step 2), the process is straightforward, and no simplification seems warranted. However, when the stiffer wall governs the design, then a reasonable simplification will be to design for 2 centze-of-mass displacement equal to 1.1Ascim, determined at the effective height, based on the stiff wall displacement profile. The design steps are then identical to the case when the more flexible wall governs design. 6.5 FOUNDATION FLEXIBILITY EFFECTS ON CANTILEVER WALLS 6.5.1 Influence on Damping “The influence of foundation flexibility effects ia DDBD was briefly introduced with specific reference to cantilever walls in Section 3.5.4(b), where ic was noted that foundation flexibility increases the elastic displacements, but has a lesser, or zero influence on the design displacement, depending on whether the design displacement is strain-limited or drift-limited. In both cases the design system ductility demand is reduced by foundation flexibility, and as a-consequence, the effective damping may also be reduced, ‘The topic was also introduced in Section 1.3.4(c) with reference to problems considering foudation flexibility within a force-based design environment. In Fig.6.19, the elastic displacement at the effective height resulting from foundation flexibility is Ap, increasing the yield displacement from Ay to AY. If the design displacement Ap is strain-limited, then the desiga displacement also increases by essentially the same amount to A’p. A small additidnal incréase may result from the increased base shear resulting from the post-yield stiffness of the structural response causing additional rotation on the flexible base. In this case the displacement ductility demand is found to be Ap tAy A, +A, (Ala) If the design displacement is limited by a code specified maximum drift, then foundation flexibility will increase the yield displacement, bur not the design displacement, and the design displacement ductility demand will be Ap 7 Alb wa (Ib) In both cases, the design ductility demand will be less than for the equivalent rigid- dase case, and hence the equivalent viscous damping will also generally be reduced.354 ley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Vacs g & foundation flexibility a included Displacement (a) Structure (b) Force-Displacement Fig.6.19 Influence of Foundation Flexibility on Design Displacement However, as noted in Section 3.5.4(b) foundation deformation will generally also be accompanied by additional damping, > resulting from hysteretic soil response, and radiation damping, As shown in Section 3.5.4(b), this can be included in the DDBD procedure by using a system equivalent viscous damping of ihe tabs (6.42) Ae + As $e. where & is the structural damping associated with the structural displacement ductility demand As/A, = (Ap - ‘Ar)/Ay. Limited experimental evidence? supports foundation damping ratios in the range 0.05, for foundations responding without uplift, to 0. foundations uplifting and reaching maximum overturning moment capacity. 6.5.2 Foundation Rotational Stiffness Unless very massive foundation structures or support on piles with tension uplift capacity are provided, some uplift on the tension edge on the foundation/soil interface must be expected. This has a significant influence on the effective rotational stiffness of the foundation, which must be included when estimates are made of the foundation- induced displacement at the effective height. Consider the wall foundation shown in Fig.6.20, The foundation has been sized to provide a static factor of safety against gravity loads of 6, and the soil is represented by elasto-plastic response with a soil deformation at yield of 25 mm (1 in). Under gravity loads the settlement is thus approximately 4 mm. (0.16 in), ers. comm. R. Paolucci“Chapter 6. Structural Wall Buiings 355 Rocking Displacement at He (9) 1. Gravity loads 2. Ma = PL+/6; 00 2 s. 3.M=2M5 0 jearing pressure 3 profiles at different 4M = 2.33Ms; 0 = 90 5 | stages of uplift 5.M = 2.48My; 0 = 278) Fig.6.20 Foundation Compliance Effects for an Uplifting Spread Footing The initial clastic rotational stiffness Kg can be determined by imposing a unit rotation on the footing/soil interface resulting in B,L; D =kyly (6.43) where Ay is the vertical subgrade modulus for the soil/foundation (kN/m, or kips/in’), and By and Lr are the width and length of the footing/soil interface. The foundation rotation due to a design base-shear force Vea for an clastic foundation will thus be 9p =VaayelHe * hp)! Ko (6.48) and the rotation-induced displacement at the effective height will be Ap =O-(H. the )=V,(H, the) IK, (645)356 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures However, the above formulation applies for conditions where the footing remains in contact with the soil along the full length of the footing, This is unlikely to be the case in many spread footing designs, as it would require uneconomically large spread footings. In fact, foundation rocking may be beneficial to structural response as additional damping is provided, and the displacements resulting from foundation rocking may reduce the structural displacement demand, and hence the damage potential. Figure 6.20 includes bearing pressure profiles at different stages of uplift, numbered 2 to 5. At profile 2 the footing has zero stress at the tension edge, corresponding to the limit for which Eqs.(6.43) to (6.45) apply. The peak bearing stress is twice the gravity load bearing stress. At profile 3 the footing has uplifted over 50% of the length, and the maximum beating stress is twice that for profile 2 (ic. four times gravity load bearing stress). The moment required to develop this profile is twice that for profile 2, but the foundation rotation has increased by a factor of 4. The effective stiffness is thus only 50% of that given by Eg, (6.43). ‘At profile 4, only 1/3" of the footing remains in contact with the soil, and the maximum compression stress is 6 times the gravity load value — equivalent to the ultimate bearing stress in this example. The moment is now 2.33 times that for profile 2, and the rotation is 9 times larger, indicating an effective (secant) stiffness that is only 26% of the fully elastic value. The footing can continue to rotate with small increase in moment capacity, by plastic deformation of the soil (profile 5), with continual degradation of the effective stiffness. For the conditions represented in this example, the shear force/rocking, displacement relationship has been included in the plot of Fig.6.20, which includes the bounding envelope resulting from P-A effects (see Section 3.6). Although the peak lateral\force (at approximately 0.29P) seems large, it should be recalled that structural walls geferally have substantially larger tributary areas for inertia force than for gravity load. \ ‘The recommendations for stability of cantilever walls (Section 6.1.3) suggested matching the ultimate overturning moment capacity of the foundation to the input corresponding to overstrength conditions at the base hinge. Assuming an overstrength factor of § = 1.25, this would imply that conditions at the design lateral forces would correspond almost exactly to profile 3 (uplift of 50% of the foundation length). ‘This limit condition for design of spread footings is included in many design codes. It is apparent, then, that the appropriate stiffness to use for estimating foundation compliance effects is 0.5Kawhere Kpis given by Eq.(6.43) It is of interest to investigate the significance of foundation flexibility for the typical example shown in Fig.6.20. Using standard DDBD procedures the effective height is found to be 13.8 m (45.3ft). Flexural reinforcement expected yield strength is fye = 462 MPa (67 ksi). = 0.00231 13, #1 BS ye 40.9mm (1.61 in) 3x18) Foundation displacement: We assume that at design strength, the foundation uplift corresponds to profile 3, as noted above. In this case we do not need information about Structural yield: From Eq (6.5): A,Chapter 6, Structural Wall Buildings 357 the soil stiffness or the base shear force. The maximum bearing stress is (0.67py and hence the maximum settlement is 0.67x25mm = 16.75 mm. The foundation rotation is hence 9 = 0.01675/6 =0.00279 radians, and the displacement at the effective height is A, =6,(H, +h, )=0.00279(13.8+2.5)=45.5mm (1.79 in) ‘Thus the displacement at the effective height, resulting from foundation compliance, is 10% larger than the structural component of yield displacement. The influence on design will be considerable. 6.6 CAPACITY DESIGN FOR CANTILEVER WALLS: “The need for protection of locations and actions against unintended inelastic response has been emphasised already in different parts of this text (e.g, Sections 3.9, 4.5 and 5.8) In particular, the treatment of Section 3.9 used as an example 4 current, widely accepted approach for determining the required distribution of flexural and shear strength up cantilever walls to account for flexural overstrength at the wall-base plastic hinges, and for dynamic amplification resulting from higher-mode contributions to response. Te was noted in Section 5.8, in relation to capacity design of frames, that existing methods for capacity protection did not adequately account for the influence of ductility demand. Inelastic time-history analyses (THA) showed that when the intensity of excitation (and hence the system ductility demand) was increased, the influence of higher- mode effects in amplifying the envelopes of column flexure and shear also increased. Simple design equations were presented to represent this effect. Investigations into the response of cantilever wall structures!!! using ITHA has indicated similar, though more pronounced trends. In this study, six walls, from 2 storeys co 20 storeys were designed to a linear displacement spectrum with a cornet period at 4.0 sec, and corer displacement of 0.594 m (23.4 in) for 5% damping. This corresponds to a PGA of 0.4g, and medium soil conditions. ‘The walls (see Fig.6.21) all had the same tributary floor mass of 60 tonnes, and gravity load of 200 kN at cach level, and were designed in accordance with DDBD design principles to achieve maximum drifts of about 0.02 at roof level. Wall lengths (fy), widths 8), reinforcement contents (g)) and bar sizes (dy) varied from wall to wall in order to satisfy the design displacement criteria. Details are listed in Table 6.4, which also includes the calculated plastic hinge length (Lp), the expected displacement and curvature ductility demands (dg £4), the effective period at maximum displacement (Zz, approximately equal to Ty[ddy ), and design base shear force and bending moment (Vase and Mpa) Note that limiting the drift to 0.02 results in displacement ductility demands that are Jess than typical code limits of ls = 5 in all but the two-storey wall. The six designs were subjected to time-history analysis using a suite of five spectrum-compaible earthquake records. These records were intensity-scaled tc 50%, 100%, 150% and 200% of the358 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures design intensity to investigate the sensitivity of the results to intensity, and hence to displacement ductility demand. 2 WALL T nen ‘Y i, 1 Yi Fig.6.21Idealization of Cantilever walls in Capacity Design Studyi?21 Table 6.4° Wall Details for Capacity Design Study ee b le dy Ip ws | py [Te (sec) Ve | Mp @) | & (am) | (KN) | @cNm) A 0.20 2.0 | 0.0046 14 0.58 64 20.6 1.2 242 | 1232 B_ | 020 | 25 [oooso[ 14 [oso [34 [126 [ 18 | 312 [2917 c 0.20 3.3 0.0162 20 149 19 6.0 2.6 446 8114 D 0.25 4.0 | 0.0172 28 2.22 13 27 3A 590_| 16222 E | 025 | 50 [oowi] 24 | 283 | 12 | 22 | 37 | 664 | 24372 [FT| 030756 [oor77 | a8 [352 [io | to [39830 38739 Averaged results from the ITHA are presented in Figs. 6.22 and 6.23 for moment and shear envelopes respectively, and compared with values based on two different current design approaches. The first design approach is the procedure represented in Fig.3.28, and adopted in several design codes, and the second is a modal superposition approach, also commonly specified in design codes, where the design envelopes for shear and moment are determined from an clastic modal superposition using the elastic acceleration spectrum, with the results then divided by the design displacement ductility demand. In Figs.6.22 and 6.23, these alternative approaches are identified as Cap.Des and SSRS/{« respectively. Note that the SSRS method of modalChapter 6. Structural Wall Buildings 359 combination was used in the latter case, but identical results would have been found from the more rigorous CQC method since the modes were well-separated. In these figures “IR” indicates the intensity factor applied to the standard spectrum-compatible records. Thus “IR = 1.5” indicates 150% of the design intensity, and so on. The results, for both ITHA and design methods include only the dynamic amplification, since material overstrength was not included in the analyses, except for the proportion of overstrength resulting from reinforcement strain-hardening. Referring first to Fig.6.22, we see that the time-history analysis results indicate only small increases in wall base bending moment with increasing intensity, as expected, since the increase, once the nominal moment capacity has been reached is only the result of the post-yield stiffness of the moment-curvature characteristic at the wall base. However, at levels above the base, and particularly at wall mid-height, moments increase very significantly with increasing intensity, especially for the eight- to twenty-storey walls, It is apparent that both existing design procedures are non-conservative at the design intensity, (TR = 1.0) and increasingly so at higher intensities. For the two- to cight-storey walls, where the design displacement ductility exceeds 2 (see Table 6.4), the multi-modal moment envelope is non-conservative even at 50% of the design intensity. In Fig.6.23 it is again seen that the time-history shear force envelopes are strongly influenced by seismic intensity, (and hence by ductility level), and that both the capacity design and multi-modal design envelope are significantly non-conservative. For the ewo-, four-, and cight-storey walls, the time-history base shear force at IR=1 is almost owice the multi-modal value, with a slightly smaller discrepancy for the capacity design cavelope, and for these three walls, the shear profiles at IR=0.5 exceed the design profile at all heights. At intensity ratios of IR=2, base shear force is between 2.5 and 3.7 times the multi-modal design envelope. For the taller walls the SSRS/H envelope exceeds the capacity design envelope, and thus the discrepancy from the capacity design value is even higher. ‘The discrepancies beaween the capacity design and time-history shear forces are more problematic than the corresponding moment discrepancies of Fig.6.22, Although un- intentional plastic hinging (which could be the consequence of designing to either the Cap.Des or SSRS/I capacity moment envelopes of Fig.6.22) at levels above the base is undesirable, some limited ductiliy demand should be sustainable without failure. However, the consequences of the imposed shear demand exceeding the shear capacity, by such large margins, could be catastrophic shear failure. 6.6.1 Modified Modal Superposition (MMS) for Design Forces in Cantilever Walls Examination of Fig.6.23 indicates thar at an intensity ratio of IR=0.5, where ductility demand is low, or non-existent for all walls, the shape of the shear force envelope is well predicted by the modal analysis procedure. This suggests that it might be possible to predict the shear force and moment envelopes by simple modification of the modai response spectrum (SSRS/j1) approach360 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Height (en) Height (rm) © 40000200 2 t000»—2000 000 Moment (kNen) Moment (Nm) (a) Two-Storey Wall, () Four-Storey Wall © 2000 4000 6000 6000 10000 © #000 e000 12000 18000, 20000 Moment (kim) ‘Momenc (km) (© BightStorey Wall (@) Twelve-Storey Wall Height (o») Height (om) ° 10000 20000 s0000 @ 1800 20000 080 40000 Moment (kNNm) Moment (kNm) (6) Sixteen-Storey Wall (0) Twenty Storey Wall Fig.6.22 Comparison of Capacity Design Moment Envelopes with Results of ‘Time-History Analyses for Different Seismic Intensity Ratios!”21Chapter 6, Structural Wall Buildings 361 . 2 os] sofss fw at Jsj0 is |20 oa) & € ] + susod cap they, oT a ooo © 100 200 200 40900 0200 400600. at 1000 Shear Force (KN) Shear Force kN) (@) TworStorey Wall (6) FourStorey Wall 0 = En a w4 “LO 20 swt cpoe4 4 u tL a 409 e60 1200. 1600 2009 © 00 1000 1500. 2000 2500 shear Force (kN) Shear Force (kN) (©) Bight Storey Wall Height (n) ° 000 2000 Shear Force (kN) (©) Sintcen-Storey Wall 000 Height (m) (8) Twolve-Storey Wall 2000 000 Shear Force (KN) (6 Twenty Storey Wall 4000 Fig.6.23 Comparison of Capacity Design Shear Force Envelopes with Results of ‘Time-History Analyses for Different Seismic Intensity Ratios!?21362 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures ‘A basic and simple modification to the modal superposition method is available by recognizing that ductility primarily acts to limit first-mode response, but has comparatively lite effect in modifying the response in higher modes. If this were to in fact be the case, then first-mode response would be independent of intensity, provided that the intensity was sufficient to develop the base moment capacity, while higher modes would be directly proportional to intensity. This approach is very similar to that proposed by Bibl and Keintzell™ as a means for predicting shear demand at the base of cantilever walls. This modified modal superposition approach is clearly an approximation to response. Although the first-mode inelastic shape is very similar to the elastic shape, and hence the approximation should be reasonaily valid for the first mode, it is clear that the higher ‘modes will be modified to some extent by the first-mode ductility, since a basic feature of the modified higher modes will be that, when acting together with ductility in the first mode, they cannot increase the base moment demand, which will be anchored by the moment capacity of the base plastic hinge. The approach suggested below extends the basic method of Bibl and Kreintzel for shear forces to the full height of the wall, and also provides a method for determining the appropriate capacity-desiga moment envelope. Modifications to this approach are discussed in relation to dual wall/frame structures in Chapter 7, and to bridges in Chapter 10. A brief discussion of possible further improvements in included in Section 6.6.1.(C). (a) Shear Force Profiles: To investigate the appropriateness of a simple approach based fon the above arguments, shear force profiles were calculated based on the following aesumpéons * First-mode shear force was equal to the shear profile corresponding to development of the base moment capacity, using the displacement-based design force vector. However, for low seismic intensity, where plastic hinging was not anticipated in the wall, simple elastic first mode response, in accordance with the elastic response spectrum was assumed. ‘© Higher-mode response was based on elastic response to the acceleration spectrum appropriate to the level of seismic intensity assumed, using the elastic higher-mode periods. Force-reduction factors were not applied ‘© The basic equation to determine the shear profile was thus: Vans; = Wing +Vies + Viet) (6.46) where Vays, is the shear at level 4 Vip, is the lesser of elastic first mode, ot ductile (DBD value) first-mode response at level 4 and Vagi, and V3e; etc are the elastic modal shears at level 7 for modes 2, 3 etc. Predictions for shear force profiles based on this equation are included in Fig.6.25. (b) Moment profiles: A simple modal combination, similar to that of Eq.(6.46), but multiplied by a factor of 1.1, over the top half of the wall, with a linear profile from mid-Chapter 6. Structural Wall Buildings 363 height to the moment capacity at the base of the wall was found to provide best results for moment profiles (see Fig.6.24). ‘The combination equation over the top half of the wall is thus: Myysy = 1M Miny + Mie, + Moe, Fo)? (647) where Mus; is the moment at level 4 Mypy is the lesser of the elastic first mode moment and the ductile design moment, and Mx; and Mgej ete ate the clastic modal moments at level for modes 2, 3 ete: Iris seen that the MMS approach provides a good representation of the time-history moment profiles in Fig.6.24 at the design intensity (IR=1.0), for all walls. ‘There is a tendency for the MMS predictions to be slightly unconservative for the shorter walls, and slightly conservative for the taller walls, though the discrepancies are generally small. ‘The change in shape of the moment profiles with increasing intensity is also well represented by the MMS predictions. As discussed above, slight unconservatism in the moment profiles is acceptable, as it implies only limited ductility demand, and there is a case for deleting the 1.1 factor in Eq.6.47. Similar behaviour is apparent for the shear force comparisons of Fig.6.25. At the design intensity the agreement between the MMS and THA profiles is extremely close for the four- to twenty-storey walls, and is adequate, though a little unconservative for the nwo-storey wall. Similar conclusions apply at different intensity levels, though the MMS. approach becomes increasingly conservative for the taller walls at high intensity ratios. (c) Effective Modal Superposition: \s noted in Chapter 10 with relation to capacity design of bridges, a simple and philosophically attractive (from a DDBD viewpoint) further modification to the MMS approach is to carry out the modal analyses using effective stiffness of members at maximum displacement response, as is used in the design process. Thus, for a cantilever wall, the stiffness of the first storey would be reduced in proportion to the displacement ductility demand when defining the structure for modal analysis. With this modification, the approach is identical to that presented in she previous section. 6.6.2 Simplified Capacity Design for Cantilever Walls. In many cases the additional analytical effort required to carry out modal analysis of the designed wall structure to determine the capacity design distribution of moments and shears will be unwarranted, and a simpler, conservative approach may be preferred. The following approach, based on the data presented herein, is suggested. The results for both moment and shear force envelopes indicate that dynamic amplification increases as the intensity ratio increases. ‘This would indicate that displacement ductility demand should be included in the design equation. Also, it would appear obvious that the number of storeys, which has been used in the past as a key364 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Shomen: Ne) (oy Tore Soy Wa ROS Haig cn reas omen (tomy (a) Siven Soy Wa, IR Hehe Hiden ey Mlomen qe (0) Toe Stoney Wa IRAN ‘omen fn (6) eee Sey Wal, IRL somes (my (o)Soncen Sey Wa, RL Moment Ne) (0) owen storey Waly IRL an = t & nyse sae se as Dae an" aan tan aomer ih) ‘Moment Ne) (ey Twelve ioe Wa, RLS (oy Teen Say Wa as Heighe (oy ‘omen: Gm) (Toe Sty Wa R20 Megh o ‘omen ee) (9 Been ery Wa, PR=ZO see se Fig.6.24 Comparison of Modified Modal Superposition (MMS) Moment Envelopes with ITHA results, for Different Seismic IntensitiesChapter 6, Structural Wall Buildings 365 3 2 ‘ear Fore GN) ‘Shear Fore G2 ‘Shea Fore en (on Tt Sorey Wal, ROS (op Sistensorey Wa R= (9 Teen Storey Waly IR=0S : (oy Taahve Sey Wa (ey Twenty Soney Way R10 (oy twalee Song WN IR=20 (o Sacer Sony Wal IR=20 (0) Tosh Sea DP rea Fig.6.25 Comparison of Modified Modal Superposition (MMS) Shear Force Envelopes with ITHA Results, for Different Seismic Intensities366 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky.Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Siractures parameter for capacity design (see Eq.(3.62), e.g.) should be less significant than the fundamental elastic period J; of the wall. ‘This leads co the following recommendations: (4) Moment Capacity-Design Envelope: A bilinear envelope is defined by the overstrength base moment capacity gMg, the mid-height overstrength moment Mp5, and zero moment at the wall top, as illustrated in Fig.6.26(a) for a four-storey wall. The overstrength base moment is determined from section and reinforcement properties, as suggested in Section 4.5, The mid-height moment is related to the overstrength base moment by the equation: Mosin=Cip O'My, where Cy ossoorst{ £-1]z08 (6.48) 4 TI Bo Tension 4m cin = Capacity z envelope 2 2 ‘ = q L Ye > $M; ———4 Vane= 0O/Vase —al (a) Moment Capacity Envelope _(b) Shear Force Capacity Envelope Fig. 6.26 Simplified Capacity Design Envelopes for Cantilever Walls Note that U/@ is the effective displacement ductility factor at overstrength, and thar tension shift effects should be considered when terminating flexural reinforcement Tension shift, resulting from inclined flexure/shear (diagonal tension) cracking results in flexural reinforcement stress at a given level being related to the moment at a level closer to the wall base. In effect, this “shifts” the design moment profile upwards, as suggested by the upper dashed line in Fig,6.26(a). The tension shift depends on wall length and the amount of transverse reinforcement provided, but it is reasonably conservative to assume a tension shift equal to y/2, where fy is the wall length. A complete discussion of tension shift is available in (P1] (®) Shear Force Capacity-Design Envelope: The shear force capacity envelope is defined by a straight line between the base and top of the wall, as indicated in Fig.6.26(b).Chapter 6. Structural Wall Buil ings 367 ‘The capacity-design base sheat force is related to the DDBD base shear force by: Virose =P OV pose (6.49) where @ Or and Cy =0.067+0.4(T, —0.5)< 1.15 (6.50) ‘The design shear force at the top of the wall, V’, is related to the shear at the bottom of the wall by: Vr = CV ease where C,=0.9-0.37, 203 (6.51) 2qs.(6.48), (6-50) and (6.51), Tj is the elastic fundamentai period. Predictions for the ratio of wall moment at mid-height to base moment, and dynamic amplification factor for base shear force are compared with values obtained in the ITHA for different elastic periods and ductility levels in Fig.6.27 2% 1 YT=198 zs z 0.8 34 ; a 206 23 § 2 E04 22 Eo. 2 é 02 a & ot T T T 1 oF T T T 1 ° 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 Displacement Ductility Demand, It Displacement Ductility Demand, (a) Ratio of Midheight to Base Moment _(b) Base Shear Dynamic Amplification Fig.6.27 Comparison of Capacity Design Equations (6.48) and (6.50) with Time History Results for Different Elastic Periods and Ductility Levels In Fig.6.27, the results from the ITHA are shown by solid data points, with the same symbol used for all different ductility levels (ie. different seismic intensities) for a given wall. Predictions by the equations are shown as continuous lines. Agreement is good for both mid-height moment ratio and base shear force. The slightly unconservative nature of the wall mid-height moment ratio prediction has been deliberately imposed since minor inelastic response at levels above the base is acceptable. However, it should be368 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Rased Seismic Design of Structures noted that since nominal flexural strength will be matched to the capacity envelope, and since inelastic response occurs at moments lower than the nominal moment of the bilinear moment-curvature approximation (see Fig.4.6(a), €4), the inelastic response may in some cases be significant. (6) Strength Redaction Factors for Capacity Design: When determining the required amount of sansverse reinforcement for shear strength, a strength reduction factor of v = 0.85 should be used, together with conservative estimates of material strength, as discussed in Section 4.5. However, with flexural strength this may not be practicable, nor necessary. Since moment demand may reduce only slowly up the wall, designing for conservative material strengths together with a flexural strength reduction factor can mean that flexural reinforcement content is required to increase at levels above the base, particularly when it is remembered thar axial load, which contributes to flexural strength of walls will decrease with height. Recognizing, again, thar the consequences of minor inelastic flexural action at levels above the base are acceptable, we recommend that flexural reinforcement areas at levels above the base be determined using the same expected material strengths used to design the wall base, without inclusion of a flexural strength reduction factor. This is of course reasonable, as the flexural reinforcement at the base is likely to extend, with uniform strength for a considerable height above the base (note that use of short starter bars with lapping of flexural reinforcement at the wall base is undesirable, as the strength of lap-splices ends to degrade under repeated load reversals, and the plastic hinge length is condensed below levels implied by Eq,(6.7)). (d) Overstrength factors for Capacity Design: A consequence of the argument presented in the previous section is that the flexural overstrength factor adopted in Eq,(6.48) should only inchade the component resulting from strain-hardening, and not from excess yield strength. Since strain-hardening will normally be included in the DDBD process for determining required flexural reinforcement at the wali base, this implies thac @° = 1.0 for flexural design. If strain-hardening is ignored in determining required base flexural reinforcement content, a value of g = 1.2 should be adopted, as implied by Section 4.5.2 For shear design, the value of @ should include allowance for material oversirength, strain-hardening, and excess flexural reinforcement over that required to provide the design strength, if provided, and should normally be determined by moment-curvature analysis. If not, the values recommended in Section 4.5.2 should be adopted. (©) Design Example 6.2: Capacity Design of a Wall Building: ‘Vhe capacity design moments and shear forces for the walls of Design Example 6.1 (Section 6.4.6) are to be determined using the simplified approach of Section 6.6.2. Note that moments and shear’ for the walls corresponding to the distributed base shear force are already included in Table 6.3.Chapter 6, Seructural Wall Buildings 369 Capacity Moments: Using, the recommendations in Section 6.6.2(d) the over- strength factor to be used in Eq,(6.48) is taken as $? = 1.0, From Section 6.4.7 the design system ductility was found to be pays = 5.0. Equation (6.48) requires the initial (elastic) period T; to be calculated. This can be estimated from the effective period T, using the relationship: (6.52) where ris the ratio of post-yield to elastic stiffness (refer Fig.3.1, e.g.). Taking a typical value of r= 0.05, and the effective period of T, = 1.97 sec, the initial period is found to be T= 0.975 sec. “The mid-height moments are found from Eq,(6.48) as follows: Coefticient Cy. Cp =0.4+0.075T,(4t/ 1-1) = 0.4 + 0.075 0.975x4 = 0.693 8m Wa Mocy =C,r0° My =0.693X1X25100=17400kNm (153,000 kip in) 4m Wall: Moy, =0.693X16300=11300kNm (100,000 kip.in) ‘The corresponding design overstrength moments are listed as Me in Table 6.5, together with the moments Mj corresponding to the distributed base shear force from Table 6.3. Note that when designing the reinforcement content for each wall, tension shift should be applied to the moments of Table 6.5 in accordance with the recommendations of Section 6.6.2(2). Capacity Shear Forces: Moment-curvature analyses using the maximum feasible yield strength of the reinforcement of fy’ = 1.3f = 546MPa (79.2 ksi) show that at the design curvatures (see Example 6.1) the overstrength factors for both walls are g? = 1.09. Wall Base: From Eq.(6.50): C,, = 0.067 + 0.4(T, ~0.5) = 0.067 + 0.4x0.475 = 0.257 and, =1+(u/ Cy, =1+(5/1.09)0.257 = 2.18 Hence from Eq.(6.49): Van, = 0° OV py. p = 1.09% 2.18% 2040 = 4847KN (1089 kips) COV gaury =1.09X2.18X1316 = 3127KN (703 kips) Wall Top: The wall top shear force is related to the wall base shear force by Eq.(6.51), where C, =0.9-0.37, 20.3=0.9-0.3x0.975 = 0.608. Thus: 8m Wall: Vi =C,Vg,, = 0.608 4847 = 2944kN (662 kips) 4m Wall: V2 = CV, =0.608X3127=1901KN (427 kips) “The corresponding design shear forces are listed as Ve in Table 6.5, together with the shears, Vj, from distribution of the design base shear force from Table 6.3.370 Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures Table 6.5 Capacity Moment Shears and Moments for Walls of Examples 6.1 and 6.2. Floor | Height | Wall? | Wall1 | Wall1 | Wall1 | Wall2 | Wall2 | Wall2 | Wall2 (im) Vi ve M, Me Vi ve M Me NY | GND) | Gedy | ce | GND | GND | CN | GN 0 0 168 | 606 | 2940 ce) 14 i100 | 3260 | 1700/5709 | 724 [210s [21 | 3770 112 | 1490 [3580 | 4780 [11300 | 974 | 2310 | 3150 | 7540 a4 | 1770 | 3900 | 8960 [ 17400 | 1152 | 2510 | 5880 | 11300 5.6 | 1950 | 42i0 | 13920 | 19900 [ 1264 | 2720 | 9100 | 12900 2.8 | 2040 [4530 | 19390 | 22500 | 1316 | 2920 | 12640 | 14600 Jo] }ro} es] a} ox} 0 2040 [4850 | 25100 [25100 [ 1316 [3130 [ 16330 | 16300 PRECAST PRESTRESSED WALLS In Section 5.11.3 the concept was introduced of providing flexural strength and energy dissipation to precast concrete frames by prestressing beams through the columns with unbonded post-tensioned tendons, supplemented by bonded mild-steel reinforcement grouted into ducts passing through the column and into the beams on either side (so- called “hybrid” design). It is obvious that the concept of unbonded prestressing can also be applied to precast wall buildings. Fig. 6.28 shows two possible applications. In the first (Fig.6.28(@)), wall elements are stacked vertically aad post-tensioned to a foundation, This, essentially creates a structural system that behaves in the same way as a prestressed beam- to-column connection. A single crack can be expected to form at the critical section ar the wall base, and will have non-linear clastic force-deformation characteristics, Note, however, that the footing must be of sufficient size and weight to ensure that rocking does not develop at the soil/footing interface. Note also thac the gravity weight contributes to the flexural resistance of the wall base in exactly the same way as does the prestressing, Figure 6.28(a) also shows additional mild steel bars running through the wall footing interface. ‘The normal way this would be achieved would be with bars cast into, and protruding below the lowest precast wall element, grouted into preformed holes ia the foundation. These mild-steel bars are expected to yield in tension and compression as the base crack forms, in much the same fashion as conventional reinforcement. Since the gap opening at the wall base can be large, it is normal to de-bond the mild stecl bars for some Jength into the precast panel, to ensure strains at maximum displacement response are kept to acceptable limits — normally less than 3%. Provided that the combined axial force at the wall base resulting from gravity weight and prestressing exceeds the compression yield force of all the mild steel bars crossing the base interface, the residual displacements at zero lateral force will always be zero. In this case the mild steel bars provide additional strength and damping to the bilinear clastic response, resulting in the “flag-shaped” hysteresis loops of Figs.4.33 and 5.36, Wall designs using this concept have been testedlH with excellent results.