A.J. Kappos, A. Manafpour / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 319–332
Some key features of the proposed method are:
Use of a reduced (or partial) inelastic model, which,although departing from standard approaches (at leastfor ﬁxed base structures), is nevertheless feasible,even in the case of 3D structures, and can be used ina design ofﬁce environment.
Explicit treatment of two limit states (or performancelevels), with corresponding performance criteria atglobal, as well as local, level.
Depending on the conﬁguration of the structural sys-tem, simple (equivalent static) or more reﬁned (set of input accelerograms) loading patterns can be used.
3.1. Outline of the method
The various steps in the suggested methodology aresummarised below; it is assumed that the structure hasalready been designed to satisfy code requirements undernormal (gravity, wind, environmental) loading.1. Flexural design of the beams of the structure for theseismic action under which the structure is requiredto remain essentially in the elastic range, combinedwith the appropriate (“quasi-permanent”) gravityloading. For usual buildings this action can be takenas a fraction
(varying from about 2/3 to 3/4) of the“serviceability” earthquake having a 50% probabilityof exceedance in 50 years; lower probabilities areappropriate for critical facilities. The
factor isintended to provide (in combination with the mini-mum reinforcement requirements) a level of strengthto the structure adequate for satisfying the ser-viceability criteria of step 5.Design moments are calculated from an elastic analy-sis based on the fundamental mode or multiple modes,depending on the structural system, and stiffnesses of members are estimated assuming moderate amount of cracking. If required, some moment redistribution iscarried out with a view to optimising beam design.If structural walls are present, their critical regions(typically including the ﬁrst one or two storeys) arealso designed for ﬂexure, using moments (and axialloads) calculated from the foregoing analysis.2. Detailing of the ﬂexural reinforcement of beams (andwall critical regions), taking into account minimumrequirements and convenience of construction. Thisstep establishes a basic strength level for the structure,as the strength of the remaining members stronglydepends on that of beams (see following steps).3. Selection of an appropriate set of input accelerog-rams, using techniques similar to those described inmodern seismic codes [2,4,6]. Either artiﬁcial, spec-trum-compatible, or (preferably) actually recorded,motions, can be used, and a minimum of three recordsis recommended.4. Construction of a model of the structure whereinbeams are modelled as yielding elements, with theirstrength based on the reinforcement actually present(including that in the adjacent slab), and with dueconsideration of factors such as stiffness degradation;for beams designed according to modern seismicdesign practice strength degradation is normally notan issue, at least for the limit states considered herein.In the same model, columns, as well as portions of walls (when present) intended to remain elastic, aremodelled as elastic members. With regard to initialstiffness assumptions, ﬁxed percentages of the grosssection rigidity
for each member type may be usedfor convenience, but somewhat more sophisticationcan be justiﬁed in selecting the stiffness of beams,whose reinforcement is already known. In practice,the same model can also be used for the ﬁrst set of analyses (step 1), with beams assumed to be of “inﬁ-nite” strength (i.e. to respond elastically).5. Time–history analysis of the model described in theprevious step for the selected set of input motionsscaled to the intensity of the “serviceability” or“immediate occupancy”  earthquake; this earth-quake is normally associated with a probability of exceedance of 50% in 50 years.Checking of the following performance criteria:—Max drifts do not exceed the limits correspondingto damage requiring repair in the non-structuralelements (speciﬁc values for normal buildings arerecommended later in the paper). If the drift criterionis not satisﬁed at any storey, stiffening of the struc-ture is necessary; this can be done by increasing thecross-section dimensions and/or reinforcement (inthe second case the effective stiffness of the beamsshould be calculated using expressions involving thereinforcement ratio).—Plastic rotations in beam critical regions do notexceed the value corresponding to “non-tolerable”cracking (typically that requiring repair). If thespeciﬁed ductility limits are exceeded in some mem-bers, the corresponding reinforcement is increased.It is emphasised that both criteria have to be satis-ﬁed, as their role is complementary, the one mainlyreferring to damage in the “non-structural” elementsand the other to damage in R/C members. It is alsonoted that care is required in deﬁning this ser-viceability limit state which is not the same as thecorresponding one under gravity loading; the latterrefers primarily to durability requirements, whereasthe former involves some visible damage in bothstructural and non-structural elements, but the struc-ture generally does not require structural repair andalso can be occupied immediately after the earth-quake.