6 views

Uploaded by Adesara AlpeshKumar J

save

You are on page 1of 16

**Gakuho Watanabe and Kazuhiko Kawashima
**

Tokyo Institute of Technology, O-Okayama, Meguro, Tokyo, Japan, 152-8552

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an analysis of the force

reduction factors used in the force-based seismic

design of structures. The force reduction factors

are evaluated based on 70 free-field ground

motions. Scattering of the force reduction factors

depending on ground motions and the effect of

damping rations assumed in linear and nonlinear

responses are clarified. A new formulation of the

force reduction factors is presented.

KEY WORDS

Seismic design, Forced-based design, Response

modification factor, Force modification factor,

Seismic response

1. INTRODUCTION

In the force based seismic design, it is usual to

estimate the demand from a linear response of a

structure by dividing it by the force reduction

factor. The force reduction factor or response

modification factor, which is often called q-factor

or R-factor, has an important role in the estimation

of design force of a structure. An early study by

Newmark and Hall (1973) revealed the fact that

the equal displacement assumption and the equal

energy assumption provide a good estimation of

the force reduction factors at long and short

periods, respectively. This affected an important

effect to seismic design criteria worldwide.

Various researches such as Nassar and Krawinkler

(1991) and Miranda and Bertero (1994) have been

conducted on the force reduction factors. In

particular, Miranda and Bertero provided a

detailed review on the force reduction factors.

However, in spite of the importance in seismic

design, less attention has been paid to large

scattering of the force reduction factors depending

on ground motions. Since the scattering is so large,

only the mean values of the force reduction factor

is not sufficient to evaluate a force reduction

factor for design. Assumption of damping ratio for

evaluating the linear and nonlinear responses is

another important point. Although it has been

general to assume the same damping ratio for the

linear and nonlinear responses, it depends on how

the force reduction factors are used.

This paper present an analysis on the force

reduction factors based on 70 free-field ground

motions. The scattering of the force reduction

factors depending on ground motions and the

effect of assumption of damping ratios in linear

and nonlinear responses are clarified.

2. DEFINITION OF FORCE REDUCTION

FACTOR

If one idealizes a structure in terms of a

single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) oscillator with

an elastic perfect plastic bilinear hysteretic

behavior as shown in Fig. 1, the force reduction

factor

µ

R may be defined as

) , , (

) , (

) , , , (

NL T

NL

Y

EL

EL

R

NL EL T

T F

T F

T R

ξ µ

ξ

ξ ξ µ

µ

(1)

in which T : natural period,

EL

R

F and

NL

Y

F :

maximum restoring force in an oscillator with a

linear and a bilinear hysteresis, respectively,

T

µ :

target ductility factor, and

EL

ξ and

NL

ξ :

damping ratio assumed in the evaluation of linear

and bilinear responses, respectively. The natural

period T may be evaluated based on the cracked

stiffness of columns. Representing

y

u the yield

displacement where the stiffness changes from the

cracked stiffness to the post-yield stiffness, a

target ductility factor

T

µ may be defined based

on the yielding displacement

y

u as

y

T

T

u

u

max

µ (2)

in which

T

u

max

is a target maximum

displacement of an oscillator. The post-yield

stiffness is assumed to be 0 in the present study.

Since the damping controls structural response,

it has to be clarified carefully. A structure under a

strong excitation generally exhibits strong

hysteretic behavior, and this results in an energy

dissipation in a structure. For example, the

flexural inelastic deformation of columns

contributes to energy dissipation in a bridge.

Hence, the evaluation of damping ratio depends

on the idealization of such an energy dissipation.

If one idealizes the energy dissipation in nonlinear

structural components by incorporating nonlinear

elements that represent the hysteretic behavior, the

energy dissipation in the nonlinear structural

components is automatically included in the

analysis. On the other hand, if one idealizes the

nonlinear structural components by elastic linear

elements, the energy dissipation in the nonlinear

structural components has to be included in the

analysis by other means. The equivalent viscous

damping ratio

h

ξ is generally used for such a

purpose as

W

W

h

∆

⋅

π

ξ

4

1

(3)

in which W ∆ and W represent an energy

dissipation in a hysteretic excursion and the

elastic energy, respectively. For example, in an

oscillator with an elastic perfect-plastic bilinear

hysteresis, the equivalent damping ratio

h

ξ is

µ

µ

π

ξ

1 2 −

h

(4)

Fig. 2 shows the equivalent damping ratio by

Eq. (4). It is generally very large such as 0.4 at the

target ductility factor of 3-5.

In addition to such hysteretic energy

dissipation, there must be some other sources of

energy dissipation (for example, Kawashima,

Unjoh, Tsunomoto 1993). The radiation of energy

from a foundation to surround ground contributes

to energy dissipation. Structural damping such as

friction at connections may be important in many

structures (for example, Kawashima and Unjoh

1989). Viscous damping due to friction with air is

generally predominant in a structure with a long

natural period. It is general to idealize those

sources of energy dissipation in terms of the

equivalent viscous damping.

If one considers a structure in which the

flexural hysteretic energy dissipation is

predominant with other sources of energy

dissipation being a secondary importance, the

total damping ratio

eq

ξ of a SDOF oscillator

δ δ

NL

δ

EL

δ

F

F

EL

F

NL

O

Fig. 1 Definition of Force reduction Factor

may be provided as

oth h eq

ξ ξ ξ + (5)

in which

h

ξ is the damping ratio that accounts

the hysteretic energy dissipation by Eq. (3), and

oth

ξ is the damping ratio that accounts the energy

dissipation other than the hysteretic energy

dissipation.

In the evaluation of the force reduction factor

µ

R based on Eq. (1), how damping ratios are

assumed in the evaluation of the linear and the

nonlinear responses is important. If one assumes

the damping ratios as

eq EL

ξ ξ and

oth NL

ξ ξ (6)

the energy dissipation is essentially the same

between the linear and the nonlinear responses.

Hence, the force reduction factor by Eq. (1)

represents the difference of restoring force

between the linear and nonlinear responses. Thus,

Eq. (1) reflects the effect of nonlinear response of

an oscillator.

On the other hand, if one assumes the damping

ratios as

eq NL EL

ξ ξ ξ (7)

or,

oth NL EL

ξ ξ ξ (8)

the force reduction factor by Eq. (1) includes the

effect of different energy dissipation between the

linear and nonlinear responses, in addition to the

effect of nonlinear response. By assuming Eq. (7)

in the evaluation of nonlinear response, the

hysteretic energy dissipation in the nonlinear

structural components is counted by the

equivalent viscous damping in addition to the

inelastic excursion in the nonlinear elements. As a

consequence, the hysteretic energy dissipation in

the nonlinear structural components is counted

twice in the evaluation of nonlinear response. On

the other hand, if one assumes Eq. (8), the

hysteretic energy dissipation is not taken into

account in the evaluation of linear response.

It should be noted here that which is

appropriate among Eqs. (6), (7) and (8) depends

on how the force reduction factor is used. Based

on the original definition inherent to the force

reduction factor, it seems that Eq. (6) is the most

appropriate. Eq. (8) generally provides

conservative estimation for the force reduction

factors. If 0 ≈

oth

ξ , the difference of the force

reduction factors among Eqs. (6), (7) and (8) is

limited. It should be noted that

h

ξ ,

oth

ξ and

eq

ξ

depend on the type of a structure, mode shape,

hysteresis and the target ductility factor.

Although the equivalent damping ratio

h

ξ is

very high as shown in Fig. 2, it is not general to

assume such a high damping ratio in seismic

design of a bridge structure. It is because a bridge

structure is generally more complex than a SDOF

oscillator, and this makes the relative contribution

of the hysteretic energy dissipation of columns

less significant. Since it is general practice in a

standard bridge structure to assume about 0.05 for

the damping ratio including hysteretic energy

dissipation of columns,

eq

ξ is assumed to be 0.05

in the present study based on Eq. (6). Hence, it is

assumed here that

h

ξ and

oth

ξ is 0.03 and 0.02,

respectively.

Using those damping ratios, the force

reduction factors are evaluated in this study based

on Eq. (6). However, an analysis assuming Eqs.

(7) and (8) is also conducted for comparison with

the previous studies.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 2 4 6 8

E

q

u

i

v

a

l

e

n

t

D

a

m

p

i

n

g

R

a

t

i

o

ξ

Ductility Factor

h

Fig.2 Equivalent Damping Ratio

h

ξ by Eq. (4)

3. REVIEW OF THE PAST

INVESTIGATIONS

An early study for the force reduction factor was

conducted by Newmark and Hall (Newmark and

Hall 1973). They used 10 ground motions

recorded in the 1940 Imperial Valley Earthquake.

They assumed

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.05, and proposed a

force reduction factor as

( )

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

≤ ≤ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

≤ ≤

′

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

′

≤ ≤ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ −

≤ ≤ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

−

≤ ≤ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

−

) (

) ( /

) 4 / ( 1 2

) 4 / 10 / (

4

1 2

) 10 / 0 ( 1

2 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 2 / 1 log 513 . 2

1

1

T T T

T T T T T

T T T

T T T

T

T

T T

R

µ

µ

µ

µ

µ

µ

(9)

where,

A

V

T

ea

ev

φ

φ

π 2

1

1 2

1 1

−

′

µ

µ

T T (10)

V

D

T

ev

ed

φ

φ

π 2

1

in which, A, V and D represent peak ground

acceleration, velocity and displacement,

respectively, and

ea

φ ,

ev

φ and

ed

φ represent

the amplification for acceleration, velocity and

displacement, respectively.

Nassar and Krawinkler proposed a force

reduction factor, assuming

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.05,

based on an analysis for 15 ground motions as

(Nassar and Krawinkler 1991)

¦ ¦

c

c R

/ 1

1 ) 1 ( + − µ

µ

(11)

where

T

b

T

T

T c +

+

α

α

α

1

) , ( (12)

in which α represents a ratio of the post-yield

stiffness to the initial elastic stiffness, and a and

b are coefficients depending on α . Nassar and

Krawinkler precisely analyzed the effect of

stiffness deterioration, and provided the

coefficients a and b depending on α .

Miranda and Bertero proposed a force

reduction factor, assuming

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.05,

based on an analysis for 124 ground motions as

(Miranda and Bertero 1994)

1 1

) , (

1

> +

Φ

−

g

T T

R

µ

µ

(13)

where,

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

− − − +

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

(

,

\

,

(

j

− − −

−

+

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

(

,

\

,

(

j

− − −

−

+

Φ

(soft)

4

1

ln 3 exp

4

3

3

1

(alluvium)

5

1

ln 2 exp

5

2

12

1

1

(rock)

5

3

ln

2

3

exp

2

1

10

1

1

2

2

2

g

g g

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T T T

T

T T T

µ

µ

(14)

in which

g

T represents a most predominant

period.

It has been known that the equal energy

assumption provides a good estimation for the

force reduction factor at short periods while the

equal displacement assumption at long periods.

The force reduction factor provided by the equal

energy and the equal displacement assumptions

are given as

1 2 − µ

µ

R (equal energy) (15)

µ

µ

R (equal displacement) (16)

Application of Eqs. (15) and (16) and a

comparison of the present study to the previous

models will be described later.

4. FORCE REDUCTION FACTOR FOR

BILINEAR OSCILLATORS

Force reduction factors were evaluated for target

ductility factor

T

µ of 2, 4, 6 and 8 assuming an

elastic perfect-plastic bilinear hysteresis. Damping

ratio in the linear and nonlinear analyses is

assumed as

EL

ξ =0.05 and

NL

ξ =0.02 based on

Eq. (6). Seventy free field ground accelerations by

64 shallow earthquakes with depth less that 60 km

were used for analysis. They are classified into

three soil conditions depending on the

fundamental natural period of subsurface ground

g

T ; stiff ( 2 . 0 <

g

T s), moderate ( 6 . 0 2 . 0 < ≤

g

T s)

and soft ( ≥

g

T 0.6 s) (Japan Road Association

2002). Number of records in the stiff, moderate

and soft categories is 16, 39 and 15, respectively.

Distribution of peak ground accelerations on the

earthquake magnitudes and epicentral distances is

shown in Fig. 3. The peak accelerations are in the

range of 0.1-8m/s

2

, and the epicentral distances

are in the range of 10-500 km.

Fig. 4 shows the force reduction factors for the

70 ground motions. Only the results for

T

µ =4

and 6 are presented here since the results for other

target ductility factors show the similar

characteristics. It is seen in Fig. 4 that scattering

of the force reduction factors depending on

ground motions is significant. For example at

natural period of 1 second, the force reduction

factors varies from 1.9 to 10.3 depending on

ground motions for

T

µ =4 at the moderate soil

sites. It is apparent that such a large scattering of

the force reduction factors result in a large change

of sizing of a structure in seismic design.

Obviously smaller force reduction factors should

be assumed in design to provide conservative

design. It is observed in Fig. 4 that the

dependence of force reduction factors on the soil

condition is less significant. This will be discussed

later.

Since the scattering of the force reduction

factors depending on ground motions is so large

that the means +/- one standard deviations of the

force reduction factors were obtained for each

target ductility factor, natural period and soil

condition. Fig. 5 shows the mean values and the

mean values +/- one standard deviations of the

force reduction factors presented in Fig. 4. The

force reduction factors predicted by Eqs. (15) and

(16) based on the equal displacement and the

equal energy assumptions are also presented here

for comparison. The mean values of force

reduction factors increase as the natural periods

increase, and then they approach to

T

µ at long

period. It has been pointed out in the previous

researches that the Eq. (15) provides a good

estimation to the force reduction factor. However,

it is noted that Eq. (15) provides a good estimation

to the mean values, but it considerably

underestimates the force reduction factors

corresponding to the mean values minus one

standard deviations. On the other hand, Eq. (16)

0.1

1

10

10 100 1000 P

e

a

k

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

m

/

s

e

c

2

)

Epicentral Distance (km)

Stiff (Type-I)

Moderate (Type-II)

Soft (Type-IIII)

(a) Soil Condition

0.1

1

10

10 100 1000 P

e

a

k

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

m

/

s

e

c

2

)

Epicentral Distance (km)

6.5 - 7.0

7.0 - 7.5

7.5 - 8.0

(b) Earthquake Magnitude

Fig. 3 Classification of Ground Accelerations in

Terms of Soil Conditions and Earthquake

Magnitudes

provides better estimation to the mean values

minus one standard deviations. Taking account of

the force reduction factors having considerable

scattering depending on ground motions, it seems

reasonable to consider a certain redundancy in the

estimation of the force reduction factor in design.

0

4

8

12

16

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(a) Stiff (Type-I) (a) Stiff (Type-I)

0

4

8

12

16

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(b) Moderate (Type-II) (b) Moderate (Type-II)

0

4

8

12

16

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(c) Soft (Type-III) (c) Soft (Type-III)

(1)

T

µ =4 (2)

T

µ =6

Fig. 4 Force Reduction Factors

Based on such a consideration, it is more

conservative to assume Eq. (16) instead of Eq.

(15) for a design purpose.

Fig. 6 shows the dependence of the standard

deviations of force reduction factors ) (

µ

σ R on

the natural periods T and the soil condition.

Similar to the mean values, the standard

deviations ) (

µ

σ R increase as the natural periods

increase, and decrease after taking peak values at

natural period of 1-2 second. Fig. 7 shows the

dependence of the standard deviations ) (

µ

σ R on

the target ductility factors

T

µ . The standard

deviations ) (

µ

σ R increase as the target ductility

factors increase. The relation may be

approximated by a least square fit as

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

⋅ + −

⋅ + −

⋅ + −

**(soft) 409 . 0 354 . 0
**

(moderate) 0.378 0.292

(stiff) 379 . 0 328 . 0

) (

T

T

T

R

µ

µ

µ

σ

µ

(17)

As the soil condition dependence of ) (

µ

σ R

is less significant as shown in Fig. 7, Eq. (17) may

be approximated as

T

R µ σ

µ

⋅ + − ≈ 4 . 0 3 . 0 ) ( (18)

Average + 1σ

Average - 1σ

Average

R

µ

= 2µ-1

R

µ

= µ

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(a) Stiff (Type-I) (a) Stiff (Type-I)

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(b) Moderate (Type-II) (b) Moderate (Type-II)

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(c) Soft (Type-III) (c) Soft (Type-III)

(1)

T

µ =4 (2)

T

µ =6

Fig. 5 Mean and Mean +/- One Standard Deviation of the Force Reduction Factors

for 70 Ground Motions

0 1 2 3 4 5

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

Natural Period (s)

µ

1 a

(µ−1)

1/b

P

c

Q

0

Fig. 8 Idealization of Force Reduction Factors

5. FORMULATION OF FORCE

REDUCTION FACTORS

To idealize the mean values of the force reduction

factors in Fig. 5, they are represented as

1 ) ( ) 1 ( + Ψ ⋅ − T R µ

µ

(19)

where,

1 ) (

) (

+

−

⋅ Ψ

− ⋅ a T b

e

a T

c T (20)

in which a , b and c are parameters to be

determined.

Since µ

µ

R at a T in Eq. (20), the

parameter a represents the period where

µ

R is

equal to µ (Point P) as shown in Fig. 8. Because

the gradient of

µ

R is

) (

) ( 1

) 1 (

a T b

e

a T b

c

dT

dR

−

− −

⋅ − µ

µ

(21)

it is ) 1 ( − ⋅ µ c at Point P. Consequently, the

parameter c represents the gradient at Point c

divided by 1 − µ . Representing Q as the point

where

µ

R takes the peak value, b / 1 represents

the period between Points P and Q.

Based on the definition, the following

condition has to be satisfied in

µ

R

0

lim

0

→

µ

R

T

(22)

Hence, the coefficient c can be eliminated as

ab

ae c / 1 (23)

Substitution of Eq. (23) makes Eq. (20) as

1 ) ( +

−

Ψ

bT

ae

a T

T (24)

It is noted that Eq. (19) automatically satisfies

the following condition

µ

µ

∞ →

R

T

lim (25)

0

2

4

6

8

0 1 2 3 4

Stiff (Type-I)

Moderate (Type-II)

Soft (Type-III)

Natural Period (s)

σ

(

R

µ

)

(a)

T

µ =4

0

2

4

6

8

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

σ

(

R

µ

)

(b)

T

µ =6

Fig. 6 Natural Period Dependence of Standard

Deviations of the Force Reduction

Factors

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 2 4 6 8 10

Stiff (Type-I)

Moderate (Type-II)

Soft (Type-III)

Target Ductility

µ

T

σ

(

R

µ

)

Fig. 7 Target Ductility Factor Dependence of

the Standard Deviations of Force

reduction Factors

It is a feature of the above formulation that the

equation is simpler and the physical meaning of

the parameters a and b is clearer than the

previous studies.

The mean values of force reduction factors in

Fig. 5 were fitted by Eq. (19) using a nonlinear

least square method (Press et al 1996). Table 1

represents the a and b as well as the

regression coefficients. Although the regression

coefficient is not high enough for some

combinations such as

T

µ =2 and stiff sites, it may

be accepted in other conditions. As shown later,

the fitting is not necessarily poor for a

combination of

T

µ =2 and stiff sites.

Fig. 9 shows parameters a , b / 1 and b a / 1 + .

Parameter a is in the range of 1.0-1.4 second at

stiff and moderate sites, and 1.5-2.4 second at soft

sites. They are less sensitive to the target ductility

factor

T

µ between 2 and 8. As described before,

a represents the period where µ

µ

R , which

implies that the equal displacement assumption by

Eq. (16) provides the best estimation at period a .

Consequently, the accuracy of equal displacement

assumption is high at 1.0-1.4 second at stiff and

moderate sites, and 1.5-2.4 second at soft site.

As shown in Fig. 8, b a / 1 + represents the

natural period where

µ

R takes the peak value. It

is 1.5-2 second at stiff and moderate sites, and

0

1

2

3

4

0 2 4 6 8 10

a

(

s

)

Target Ductility µ

Τ

Stiff (Type-I)

Moderate (Type-II)

Soft (Type-III)

(a) Parameter a

0

1

2

0 2 4 6 8 10

1

/

b

(

s

)

Target Ductility µ

Τ

(b) Parameter b 1

0

1

2

3

4

0 2 4 6 8 10

a

+

1

/

b

(

s

)

Target Ductility µ

Τ

(c) Parameter b a 1 +

Fig. 9 Parameters a and a+1/b in Eqs. (20)

Table 1 Parameters a and b and Regression

Coefficients R (

NL

ξ =0.02 and

EL

ξ =

0.05)

Soil Conditions

T

η a, b

and R Type-I Type-II Type-III

a 1.29 1.12 2.35

b 2.77 2.18 1.69 2

R 0.379 0.701 0.851

a 1.24 0.989 1.52

b 2.39 1.62 1.05 4

R 0.673 0.842 0.886

a 1.34 1.03 1.85

b 2.15 1.24 0.821 6

R 0.717 0.869 0.878

a 1.36 1.20 1.74

b 1.67 1.11 0.611 8

R 0.776 0.899 0.895

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0 2 4 6 8 10

P

e

r

i

o

d

(

s

)

Target Ductility µ

Τ

Stiff (Type-I)

Moderate (Type-II)

Soft (Type-III)

Fig. 10 Natural Periods where Force Reduction

Factors Take Values Predicted by the

Equal Energy Assumption (Eq. (15))

2.5-3.5 second at soft site. It slightly increases as

target ductility

T

µ increases.

The natural periods where

µ

R take the values

predicted by Eq. (15) based on the equal energy

assumption are obtained as shown in Fig. 10.

They are in the range of 0.2-0.36 second, 0.26-0.4

second and 0.4-0.6 second at stiff, moderate and

soft sites, respectively. They are much shorter than

the natural periods where the equal displacement

assumption provides the best approximation.

Fig. 11 compares the mean force reduction

factors presented in Fig. 5 to the values predicted

by Eq. (19). Although some discrepancies are

observed at larger target ductility factors, Eq. (19)

µ

T

= 2

µ

T

= 4

µ

T

= 6

µ

T

= 8

Empirical Model Mean

0

4

8

12

16

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(a) Stiff (Type-I)

0

4

8

12

16

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(b) Moderate (Type-II)

0

4

8

12

16

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(c) Soft (Type-III)

Fig. 11 Application of Eq. (19) to the Mean

Force Reduction Factors Presented in

Fig. 5

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

Stiff (Type-I)

Moderate (Type-II)

Soft (Type-III)

(a)

T

µ =2

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(b)

T

µ =4

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(c)

T

µ =6

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(d)

T

µ =8

Fig. 12 Effect of Soil Condition on the Force

Reduction Factors Predicted by Eq.

(19)

provides a good estimation for the mean force

reduction factors.

Fig. 12 shows the effect of soil condition on the

mean force reduction factors estimated by Eq.

(19). The effect of soil condition is less significant

on the force reduction factors, in particular at

small target ductility factors.

As shown in Fig. 4, scattering of the force

reduction factors around the mean values is

extensive. Hence, the force reduction factors

corresponding to the mean values m substituted

by a standard deviation ) (

µ

σ R are evaluated as

shown in Fig. 13. The mean and the standard

deviation of force reduction factors were

evaluated by by Eq. (19) and Eq. (18),

respectively, in this estimation. They are of course

close to the force reduction factors of the mean

minus one standard deviation directly computed

from the 70 ground motions (refer to Fig. 5). The

force reduction factors predicted by Eq. (15)

based on the equal energy assumption are

presented here for comparison. From Fig. 13, it is

seen that at

T

µ =4, the equal energy assumption

provides a good estimation at natural periods

longer than 0.5 second at stiff and moderate sites

and 1.2 second at soft sites, while it provides

underestimation at natural periods shorter than

those values. On the other hand, at

T

µ =8, the

equal energy assumption provides a good

estimation at 0.6 second at stiff and moderate sites

and 1 second at soft sites. It underestimates and

overestimates the force reduction factors

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

=3.87

R

µ

=2.65

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

µ

Τ

= 8

µ

Τ

= 4

(a) Stiff (Type-I)

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

=3.87

R

µ

=2.65

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

µ

Τ

= 8

µ

Τ

= 4

(b) Moderate (Type-II)

0

4

8

12

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

=3.87

R

µ

=2.65

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

µ

Τ

= 8

µ

Τ

= 4

(c) Soft (Type-III)

Fig.13 Force Reduction Factors Corresponding to

Means minus One Standard Deviations

Table 2 Parameters a and b (

NL

ξ =

EL

ξ =

0.02)

Soil Conditions

T

µ

a and

b Type-I Type-II Type-III

a 0.152 0.225 0.361 2

b 0.289 1.60 1.12

a 0.289 0.348 0.600 4

b 2.46 1.28 0.902

a 0.397 0.432 0.800 6

b 1.81 1.14 0.768

a 0.507 0.513 0.916 8

b 1.14 1.04 0.632

Table 3 Parameters a and b (

NL

ξ =

EL

ξ =

0.05)

Soil Conditions

T

µ

a and

b Type-I Type-II Type-III

a 0.226 0.344 0.521 2

b 4.14 1.94 1.34

a 0.778 0.572 0.976 4

b 3.50 1.35 0.994

a 0.981 0.725 1.23 6

b 2.93 1.15 0.757

a 1.23 0.807 1.28 8

b 2.57 0.983 0.569

corresponding to the mean minus one standard

deviation at natural periods shorter and longer,

respectively, than the above natural periods.

6. EFFECT OF DAMPING RATIOS

In the preceding analysis, the force reduction

factors were evaluated based on Eq. (1) assuming

EL

ξ =0.05 and

NL

ξ =0.02. However in the past

researches, damping ratios were usually assumed

as

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.05. Consequently, the same

analysis presented in the preceding chapters was

conducted by assuming

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.05 based

on Eq. (7) using the same ground motion data set.

For comparison, an analysis was also conducted

assuming

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.02 based on Eq. (8).

Tables 2 and 3 show the parameters a and b

determined for a combination of

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.02

and

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.05, respectively. Fig. 14

compares a and b a / 1 + thus determined. Also

presented in Fig. 14 are a and b a / 1 + used in

the preceding chapter (

EL

ξ =0.05 and

NL

ξ =0.02,

refer to Fig. 9). It is seen in Fig. 14 that both a

and b a / 1 + at the same target ductility factors

are the shortest for a combination of

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.02 and the longest for a

combination of

EL

ξ =0.05 and

NL

ξ =0.02.

Parameters a and b a / 1 + for a combination of

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.05 are between the two cases.

ξ

NL

= ξ

EL

= 0.02

ξ

NL

= 0.02, ξ

EL

= 0.05

ξ

NL

= ξ

EL

= 0.5

0

1

2

3

0 2 4 6 8 10

µ

Τ

Target Ductility

a

(

s

)

0

1

2

3

0 2 4 6 8 10

µ

Τ

Target Ductility

a

+

1

/

b

(

s

)

(a) Stiff (Type-I) (a) Stiff (Type-I)

0

1

2

3

0 2 4 6 8 10

µ

Τ

Target Ductility

a

(

s

)

0

1

2

3

0 2 4 6 8 10

µ

Τ

Target Ductility

a

+

1

/

b

(

s

)

(b) Moderate (Type-II) (b) Moderate (Type-II)

0

1

2

3

0 2 4 6 8 10

µ

Τ

Target Ductility

a

(

s

)

0

1

2

3

0 2 4 6 8 10

µ

Τ

Target Ductility

a

+

1

/

b

(

s

)

(c) Soft (Type-III) (c) Soft (Type-III)

(1) Parameter a (2) Parameter a+1/b

Fig. 14 Dependence of Parameters a and a+1/b on the Assumption of Damping Ratios

Fig. 15 compares the mean values of the force

reduction factors based on the three assumptions

of damping ratios. Original force reduction factors

computed from the 70 ground motions are also

presented here for comparison. A systematic

difference of the force reduction factors is

observed reflecting the dependence of a and

b a / 1 + on the damping rations. The combination

of

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.02 provides the largest

estimation for the force reduction factors, while

the combination of

EL

ξ =0.05 and

NL

ξ =0.02

provides the smallest estimation. The combination

of

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.05 provides the estimation

between the two cases.

ξ

NL

= ξ

EL

= 0.02

ξ

NL

= 0.02, ξ

EL

= 0.05

ξ

NL

= ξ

EL

= 0.5

Present Study

Means

0

5

10

15

20

0 1 2 3 4

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

Natural Period (s)

0

5

10

15

20

0 1 2 3 4

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

Natural Period (s)

(a) Stiff (Type-I) (a) Stiff (Type-I)

0

5

10

15

20

0 1 2 3 4

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

Natural Period (s)

0

5

10

15

20

0 1 2 3 4

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

Natural Period (s)

(b) Moderate (Type-II) (b) Moderate (Type-II)

0

5

10

15

20

0 1 2 3 4

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

Natural Period (s)

0

5

10

15

20

0 1 2 3 4

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

Natural Period (s)

(c) Soft (Type-III) (c) Soft (Type-III)

(1)

T

µ =4 (2)

T

µ =8

Fig. 15 Dependence of Force Reduction Factors on the Assumption of Damping Ratios

7. COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS

STUDIES

Fig. 16 shows a comparison of the force reduction

factor in the present study by Eq. (19) to Nassar

and Krawinkler by Eq. (11) and Miranda and

Bertero by Eq. (13). Since it is assumed in Eqs.

(11) and (13) that

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.05, the same

damping ratios are assumed in the present study

for comparison. The original mean values of the

force reduction factors computed from the 70

ground motions are also presented here for

comparison. It is noted that definition of soil

conditions is not the same among three researches.

Hence they are classified into stiff, moderate and

soft. In the Miranda and Bertero formulation,

g

T

Present Study

Means Miranda et al.

Nassar et al.

0

4

8

12

16

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

0

4

8

12

16

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(a) Stiff (Type-I) (a) Stiff (Type-I)

0

4

8

12

16

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

0

4

8

12

16

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(b) Moderate (Type-II) (b) Moderate (Type-II)

0

4

8

12

16

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

0

4

8

12

16

0 1 2 3 4

Natural Period (s)

R

µ

f

a

c

t

o

r

(c) Soft (Type-III) (c) Soft (Type-III)

(1)

T

µ =4 (2)

T

µ =8

Fig. 16 Comparison with Previous Studies

was assumed 1.5 second at soft (alluvial) site in

Eq. (14).

From Fig. 16, it is seen that the present study

provides a quite similar result to the formulations

by Miranda & Mertero and Nassar & Krawinkler

if the same damping ratios are assumed in the

evaluation of linear and nonlinear responses.

8. CONCLUSIONS

An analysis was conducted for the force reduction

factor based on response of SDOF oscillator using

70 free-field ground motions. Based on the

analysis presented herein, the following

conclusions may be deduced:

1) A new formulation as shown in Eqs. (19) and

(24) was developed. The formulation is simpler

than the past formulations. Parameters a and

a +1/ b express the natural period where

µ

R is

equal to µ and

µ

R takes a peak value,

respectively.

2) Difference of the damping ratios assumed in

the evaluation of linear and nonlinear responses

(

EL

ξ and

NL

ξ ) provides a systematic difference

in the force reduction factors. The combination of

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.02 provides the largest estimation

for the force reduction factors, while the

combination of

EL

ξ =0.05 and

NL

ξ =0.02

provides the smallest estimation. The combination

of

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.05 provides the estimation

between the two cases. Hence, the damping ratios

have to be carefully assumed keeping how the

force reduction factors are used in mind.

3) Scattering of the force reduction factors

depending on ground motions is significant.

Although it has been pointed out that the equal

displacement assumption by Eq. (15) provides a

good estimation to the force reduction factors, it

provides a good estimation only to the mean

values; however, it considerably underestimates

the mean minus one standard deviation. On the

other hand, the equal energy assumption by Eq.

(16) provides a better estimation to the force

reduction factors corresponding to the mean

minus one standard deviation, although it provides

too conservative estimation to the mean values.

Taking account of the considerable scattering of

the force reduction factors depending on ground

motions, it is conservative to assume the equal

energy assumption instead of the equal

displacement assumption.

4) The response modification factors in the

present study by Eqs. (19) and (24) provides quite

close force reduction factors proposed by Nassar

and Krawinkler, and Miranda and Betero, if the

damping ratios are assumed as

EL

ξ =

NL

ξ =0.05.

REFERENCES

Japan Road association (2002), Part V Seismic

design, Design specifications of highway

bridges,” Maruzen, Tokyo, Japan.

Kawashima, K, MacRae, G. A., Hoshikuma, J.

and Nagaya, K. (1998). “Residual displacement

response spectra,” Journal of Structural

Engineering, 124(5), 513-530, ASCE

Kawashima, K. and Unjoh, S. (1989). “Damping

characteristics of cable-stayed bridges

associated with energy dissipation at movable

support,” Structural Engineering and

Earthquake Engineering, Proc. Japan Society of

Civil Engineers, 404/I-11, 123-130.

Kawashima, K., Unjoh, S. and Tsunomoto, M.

(1993). “Estimation of damping ratio of

cable-stayed bridges for seismic design,”

Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(4),

1015-1031, ASCE.

Miranda, E. and Bertero, V. (1994). “Evaluation

of strength reduction factors for earthquake

resistant design,” Earthquake Spectra, 10(2),

357-379.

Nassar, A. A. and Krawinkler, H. (1991).

“Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF

systems,” Report No. 95, The John A. Blume

Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford

University, California, USA.

Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W. J. (1973). “Seismic

design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities,”

Report No. 46, Building Practices for Disaster

Mitigation, National Bureau of Standards, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 209-236.

Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T. and

Flannery, B.P. (1996). “Numerical recipes in

Fortran 77,” Second Edition, The Art of

Scientific Computing, Cambridge University

Press, 678-683.

Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F. and Calvi, G. M.

(1996). “Seismic design and retrofit of bridges,”

John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.

Takeda, T., Sozen, M. A. and Nielsen, N. N.

(1970). “Reinforced concrete response to

simulated earthquake,” Journal of Structural

Engineering, 96(12), 2557-2573, ASCE

Representing u y the yield displacement where the stiffness changes from the cracked stiffness to the post-yield stiffness. and this results in an energy dissipation in a structure. It is generally very large such as 0. Unjoh. The natural period T may be evaluated based on the cracked stiffness of columns. Kawashima. If one considers a structure in which the flexural hysteretic energy dissipation is predominant with other sources of energy dissipation being a secondary importance. 2 shows the equivalent damping ratio by Eq. there must be some other sources of energy dissipation (for example.4 at the target ductility factor of 3-5. it has to be clarified carefully. On the other hand. respectively. a target ductility factor µT may be defined based on the yielding displacement u y as u µ T = max T (2) uy in which ∆W and W represent an energy dissipation in a hysteretic excursion and the elastic energy. µ T . Hence. The radiation of energy from a foundation to surround ground contributes to energy dissipation. Since the damping controls structural response. the energy dissipation in the nonlinear structural components has to be included in the analysis by other means. µT : target ductility factor. Structural damping such as friction at connections may be important in many structures (for example. It is general to idealize those sources of energy dissipation in terms of the equivalent viscous damping. Tsunomoto 1993). Kawashima and Unjoh 1989). respectively. In addition to such hysteretic energy dissipation. The equivalent viscous damping ratio ξ h is generally used for such a purpose as (1) ξh = FYNL (T . Viscous damping due to friction with air is generally predominant in a structure with a long natural period. the evaluation of damping ratio depends on the idealization of such an energy dissipation. 1 Definition of Force reduction Factor factor Rµ may be defined as R µ (T . ξ EL ) If one idealizes the energy dissipation in nonlinear structural components by incorporating nonlinear elements that represent the hysteretic behavior. ξ NL ) = EL FR (T . the flexural inelastic deformation of columns contributes to energy dissipation in a bridge. if one idealizes the nonlinear structural components by elastic linear elements. For example. FR and FYNL : maximum restoring force in an oscillator with a linear and a bilinear hysteresis. ξ EL . ξ NL ) 1 ∆W ⋅ 4π W (3) EL in which T : natural period. and ξ EL and ξ NL : damping ratio assumed in the evaluation of linear and bilinear responses. µ T . respectively. the equivalent damping ratio ξ h is 2 µ −1 (4) ξh = π µ Fig. . The post-yield stiffness is assumed to be 0 in the present study.F FEL FNL O δ δEL δNL δ Fig. in an oscillator with an elastic perfect-plastic bilinear hysteresis. A structure under a strong excitation generally exhibits strong hysteretic behavior. (4). the energy dissipation in the nonlinear structural components is automatically included in the analysis. the total damping ratio ξ eq of a SDOF oscillator in which u max T is a target maximum displacement of an oscillator. For example.

In the evaluation of the force reduction factor Rµ based on Eq.0. As a consequence. mode shape. Based on the original definition inherent to the force reduction factor. Using those damping ratios. (6).05 for the damping ratio including hysteretic energy dissipation of columns. (8) generally provides conservative estimation for the force reduction factors. (3).3 0. (6). it seems that Eq. (8). how damping ratios are assumed in the evaluation of the linear and the nonlinear responses is important. the hysteretic energy dissipation in the nonlinear structural components is counted twice in the evaluation of nonlinear response. It should be noted here that which is appropriate among Eqs. Although the equivalent damping ratio ξ h is very high as shown in Fig. the force reduction factor by Eq.02. if one assumes the damping ratios as ξ EL = ξ NL = ξ eq (7) or. ξ eq is assumed to be 0. On the other hand.05 in the present study based on Eq. if one assumes Eq. it is not general to assume such a high damping ratio in seismic design of a bridge structure. Hence. (8) ξ EL = ξ NL = ξ oth the force reduction factor by Eq. the hysteretic energy dissipation in the nonlinear structural components is counted by the equivalent viscous damping in addition to the inelastic excursion in the nonlinear elements. in addition to the effect of nonlinear response. (7) and (8) is also conducted for comparison with the previous studies. respectively. (7) and (8) is limited. However.1 00 2 4 6 Ductility Factor 8 Fig. (6). hysteresis and the target ductility factor. It should be noted that ξ h . On the other hand. If ξ oth ≈ 0 . (7) in the evaluation of nonlinear response. (1) includes the effect of different energy dissipation between the linear and nonlinear responses. Thus. If one assumes the damping ratios as ξ EL = ξ eq and ξ NL = ξ oth (6) the energy dissipation is essentially the same between the linear and the nonlinear responses.03 and 0.5 0. (6).6 Equivalent Damping Ratio ξ h 0. it is assumed here that ξ h and ξ oth is 0. the hysteretic energy dissipation is not taken into account in the evaluation of linear response. It is because a bridge structure is generally more complex than a SDOF oscillator. (1) reflects the effect of nonlinear response of an oscillator. the force reduction factors are evaluated in this study based on Eq. 2. Eq. (1) represents the difference of restoring force between the linear and nonlinear responses. ξ oth and ξ eq depend on the type of a structure. and this makes the relative contribution of the hysteretic energy dissipation of columns less significant.2 0. an analysis assuming Eqs. (7) and (8) depends on how the force reduction factor is used. the difference of the force reduction factors among Eqs. and ξ oth is the damping ratio that accounts the energy dissipation other than the hysteretic energy dissipation. (6) is the most appropriate. Since it is general practice in a standard bridge structure to assume about 0.4 0. Eq. . (4) may be provided as ξ eq = ξ h + ξ oth (5) in which ξ h is the damping ratio that accounts the hysteretic energy dissipation by Eq. By assuming Eq. (1).2 Equivalent Damping Ratio ξ h by Eq. Hence.

and proposed a force reduction factor as 1 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (0 ≤ T ≤ T1 / 10) 2.05.513 log ( / 2 µ −1 ) 1 T 2 µ − 1 4T 1 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (T1 / 10 ≤ T ≤ T1 / 4) Rµ = ′ 2 µ − 1 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (T1 / 4 ≤ T ≤ T1 ) ′ Tµ / T1 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (T1 ≤ T ≤ T1 ) µ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (T ≤ T ≤ T ) 1 2 (9) where. stiffness to the initial elastic stiffness. velocity and displacement. It has been known that the equal energy assumption provides a good estimation for the force reduction factor at short periods while the equal displacement assumption at long periods. Nassar and Krawinkler proposed a force reduction factor. and φea . (15) and (16) and a comparison of the present study to the previous models will be described later. A . based on an analysis for 15 ground motions as (Nassar and Krawinkler 1991) Rµ = {c( µ − 1) + 1}1 / c (11) where 1+ T in which α represents a ratio of the post-yield c(T . 2 3 1 1 3 − 1+ exp− ln T − 5 2 10T − µT 2T ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (rock) 2 1 2 1 exp− 2 ln T − − 1+ Φ= 12T − µT 5T 5 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (alluvium) 2 T g 3T g 1 T 1 + 3T − 4T exp− 3 ln T − 4 g ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (soft) (14) in which Tg represents a most predominant period. α ) = Tα α + b T (12) Application of Eqs.05. velocity and displacement. based on an analysis for 124 ground motions as (Miranda and Bertero 1994) µ −1 +1 > 1 Rµ = (13) Φ (T . and a and b are coefficients depending on α . respectively. Nassar and Krawinkler precisely analyzed the effect of stiffness deterioration. They used 10 ground motions recorded in the 1940 Imperial Valley Earthquake. They assumed ξ EL = ξ NL =0. V and D represent peak ground acceleration. The force reduction factor provided by the equal energy and the equal displacement assumptions are given as Rµ = 2 µ − 1 (equal energy) Rµ = µ (equal displacement) (15) (16) φ V T1 = 2π ev φ ea A T1′ = T1 µ 2µ − 1 (10) φ D T1 = 2π ed φ evV in which. respectively. . REVIEW OF INVESTIGATIONS THE PAST An early study for the force reduction factor was conducted by Newmark and Hall (Newmark and Hall 1973). Miranda and Bertero proposed a force reduction factor. assuming ξ EL = ξ NL =0. assuming ξ EL = ξ NL =0. Tg ) where. φev and φed represent the amplification for acceleration.05. and provided the coefficients a and b depending on α .3.

They are classified into three soil conditions depending on the fundamental natural period of subsurface ground Tg .02 based on Eq.1 10 Stiff (Type-I) Moderate (Type-II) Soft (Type-IIII) 100 1000 Epicentral Distance (km) (a) Soil Condition Peak Acceleration (m/sec2) 10 1 0. This will be discussed later. Obviously smaller force reduction factors should be assumed in design to provide conservative design. It is observed in Fig. and then they approach to µT at long period.5 .2 s). natural period and soil condition. stiff ( Tg < 0. Distribution of peak ground accelerations on the earthquake magnitudes and epicentral distances is shown in Fig. (15) provides a good estimation to the force reduction factor.0 100 1000 Epicentral Distance (km) (b) Earthquake Magnitude Fig. and the epicentral distances are in the range of 10-500 km. the force reduction factors varies from 1. 3. (6). Only the results for µT =4 and 6 are presented here since the results for other target ductility factors show the similar characteristics.7. It is seen in Fig. moderate and soft categories is 16.one standard deviations of the force reduction factors were obtained for each target ductility factor. On the other hand. (15) provides a good estimation to the mean values. 4 that scattering of the force reduction factors depending on ground motions is significant. The peak accelerations are in the range of 0. respectively. The force reduction factors predicted by Eqs.3 depending on ground motions for µ T =4 at the moderate soil sites.9 to 10. Fig.6 s) (Japan Road Association 2002).2 ≤ Tg < 0. 3 Classification of Ground Accelerations in Terms of Soil Conditions and Earthquake Magnitudes factors depending on ground motions is so large that the means +/. It has been pointed out in the previous researches that the Eq. 4. 6 and 8 assuming an elastic perfect-plastic bilinear hysteresis. moderate ( 0.4.5 .0 . 4. Damping ratio in the linear and nonlinear analyses is assumed as ξ EL =0. However. FORCE REDUCTION FACTOR FOR BILINEAR OSCILLATORS Force reduction factors were evaluated for target ductility factor µ T of 2. 4 shows the force reduction factors for the 70 ground motions.7. 4 that the dependence of force reduction factors on the soil condition is less significant. Fig. Eq. For example at natural period of 1 second.0 7. Since the scattering of the force reduction Peak Acceleration (m/sec2) 10 1 0.1-8m/s2. It is apparent that such a large scattering of the force reduction factors result in a large change of sizing of a structure in seismic design. Seventy free field ground accelerations by 64 shallow earthquakes with depth less that 60 km were used for analysis. but it considerably underestimates the force reduction factors corresponding to the mean values minus one standard deviations. 5 shows the mean values and the mean values +/. The mean values of force reduction factors increase as the natural periods increase.8.5 7.05 and ξ NL =0.one standard deviations of the force reduction factors presented in Fig. (16) . Number of records in the stiff. (15) and (16) based on the equal displacement and the equal energy assumptions are also presented here for comparison.1 10 6. it is noted that Eq. 39 and 15.6 s) and soft ( Tg ≥ 0.

4 Force Reduction Factors (c) Soft (Type-III) (1) µ T =4 (2) µ T =6 provides better estimation to the mean values minus one standard deviations. . Taking account of the force reduction factors having considerable scattering depending on ground motions. it seems reasonable to consider a certain redundancy in the estimation of the force reduction factor in design.24 20 16 12 Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 Rµ factor 16 12 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 Natural Period (s) Natural Period (s) (a) Stiff (Type-I) 24 20 (a) Stiff (Type-I) 16 Rµ factor 16 12 8 4 12 Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 0 1 Natural Period (s) Natural Period (s) 2 3 4 (b) Moderate (Type-II) 24 20 (b) Moderate (Type-II) 16 Rµ factor 16 12 8 4 12 Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 1 (c) Soft 2 3 4 0 0 1 Natural Period (s) Natural Period (s) 2 3 4 (Type-III) Fig.

and decrease after taking peak values at natural period of 1-2 second.1σ 12 Rµ factor Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 12 8 4 00 Rµ = 2µ-1 Rµ = µ 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 (a) Stiff (Type-I) 12 Rµ factor Rµ factor 8 4 00 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 12 8 4 00 (a) Stiff (Type-I) 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 (b) Moderate (Type-II) 12 Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 Rµ factor 12 8 4 0 0 (b) Moderate (Type-II) 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 (c) Soft (Type-III) (1) µ T =4 (c) Soft (Type-III) (2) µ T =6 Fig. 7.Average + 1σ Average Average .One Standard Deviation of the Force Reduction Factors for 70 Ground Motions Based on such a consideration.328 + 0. 6 shows the dependence of the standard deviations of force reduction factors σ ( Rµ ) on the natural periods T and the soil condition. Similar to the mean values.379 ⋅ µ T σ ( R µ ) = − 0. Fig. The relation may be approximated by a least square fit as (stiff) − 0. it is more conservative to assume Eq.378 ⋅ µ T (moderate) (17) − 0.3 + 0.292 + 0. the standard deviations σ ( Rµ ) increase as the natural periods increase. Fig. Eq. 7 shows the dependence of the standard deviations σ ( Rµ ) on the target ductility factors µT . 5 Mean and Mean +/. (16) instead of Eq. (15) for a design purpose.4 ⋅ µT (18) .409 ⋅ µ (soft) T As the soil condition dependence of σ ( Rµ ) is less significant as shown in Fig. (17) may be approximated as σ ( Rµ ) ≈ −0. The standard deviations σ ( Rµ ) increase as the target ductility factors increase.354 + 0.

(20). the coefficient c can be eliminated as c = 1 / ae ab (23) Substitution of Eq. 6 Natural Period Dependence of Standard Deviations of the Force Reduction Factors 10 8 σ (Rµ) 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 Target Ductility µT 10 Stiff (Type-I) Moderate (Type-II) Soft (Type-III) in which a . 8 Idealization of Force Reduction Factors where. 1 / b represents the period between Points P and Q. FORMULATION OF REDUCTION FACTORS FORCE To idealize the mean values of the force reduction factors in Fig. the following condition has to be satisfied in Rµ T →0 Fig. 7 Target Ductility Factor Dependence of the Standard Deviations of Force reduction Factors lim Rµ = 0 (22) Hence. Representing Q as the point where Rµ takes the peak value. 5. b and c are parameters to be determined. Based on the definition. (20) as Ψ (T ) = T −a ae bT +1 (24) 5. 8. Ψ (T ) = c ⋅ T −a e b⋅(T −a ) +1 (20) 8 6 σ ( Rµ ) 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) (b) 4 µ T =6 Fig. Because the gradient of Rµ is dRµ 1 − b(T − a ) = c( µ − 1) ⋅ (21) dT e b (T −a ) it is c ⋅ ( µ − 1) at Point P. (19) automatically satisfies the following condition lim R µ = µ T →∞ (25) . the parameter c represents the gradient at Point c divided by µ − 1 . Since Rµ = µ at T = a in Eq. they are represented as (19) Rµ = ( µ − 1) ⋅ Ψ (T ) + 1 It is noted that Eq.8 Rµ factor 6 σ ( Rµ ) 4 2 0 0 1 Stiff (Type-I) Moderate (Type-II) Soft (Type-III) µ c (µ−1) P Q 1 a 0 1 1/b 2 3 4 Natural Period (s) 5 2 3 Natural Period (s) (a) 4 0 µ T =4 Fig. Consequently. the parameter a represents the period where Rµ is equal to µ (Point P) as shown in Fig. (23) makes Eq.

611 R 0.379 0.989 1.2 0 0 2 4 6 8 Target Ductility µΤ 10 Stiff (Type-I) Moderate (Type-II) Soft (Type-III) Fig.05) 4 3 a (s) 2 1 0 0 2 4 Stiff (Type-I) Moderate (Type-II) Soft (Type-III) ηT 2 4 6 8 a.701 0.0-1.Table 1 Parameters a and b and Regression Coefficients R ( ξ NL =0. 8.4 second at stiff and Target Ductility µΤ (c) Parameter a + 1 b Fig. As described before.869 0. Consequently.717 0.12 2.886 a 1.4 0.0-1.776 0.74 b 1. a + 1 / b represents the natural period where Rµ takes the peak value.03 1. (15)) moderate sites. it may be accepted in other conditions.24 0.24 0.5-2.02 and ξ EL = 0. 9 Parameters a and a+1/b in Eqs.895 (a) Parameter a 2 1/b (s) 1 0 0 2 4 6 Target Ductility µΤ 6 8 10 Target Ductility µΤ (b) Parameter 1 b 8 10 4 3 a+1/b (s) 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 It is a feature of the above formulation that the equation is simpler and the physical meaning of the parameters a and b is clearer than the previous studies. The mean values of force reduction factors in Fig.05 R 0. b Soil Conditions and R Type-I Type-II Type-III a 1.35 b 2.4 second at stiff and moderate sites. and 1.4 second at soft sites.5-2 second at stiff and moderate sites.77 2. (19) using a nonlinear least square method (Press et al 1996).52 b 2.4 second at soft site.6 0. which implies that the equal displacement assumption by Eq.29 1.39 1. 1 / b and a + 1 / b .18 1.899 0. the accuracy of equal displacement assumption is high at 1. They are less sensitive to the target ductility factor µT between 2 and 8.34 1.11 0.85 b 2. Table 1 represents the a and b as well as the regression coefficients. a represents the period where Rµ = µ . As shown in Fig. Although the regression coefficient is not high enough for some combinations such as µT =2 and stiff sites.673 0.5-2.8 Period (s) 0.36 1.15 1. 5 were fitted by Eq.62 1. (16) provides the best estimation at period a . 9 shows parameters a . (20) 0.842 0. It is 1.67 1. the fitting is not necessarily poor for a combination of µT =2 and stiff sites. and 1.851 a 1.69 R 0. Fig.878 a 1. 10 Natural Periods where Force Reduction Factors Take Values Predicted by the Equal Energy Assumption (Eq.821 R 0.20 1. As shown later. Parameter a is in the range of 1. and .

respectively.2-0. 10.6 second at stiff.µT = 2 µT = 4 µT = 6 µT = 8 16 12 Rµ factor 8 Empirical Model Mean Rµ factor 12 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 Stiff (Type-I) Moderate (Type-II) Soft (Type-III) Natural Period (s) (a) µ T =2 12 Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 Natural Period (s) (a) Stiff (Type-I) 16 12 Rµ factor Natural Period (s) (b) µ T =4 12 Rµ factor 1 2 3 4 Natural Period (s) 8 4 0 0 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 (b) Moderate (Type-II) 16 12 Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 Rµ factor 12 8 4 0 Natural Period (s) Natural Period (s) (c) µ T =6 0 1 Natural Period (s) 2 3 4 (c) Soft (Type-III) Fig.4-0. It slightly increases as target ductility µT increases. 11 compares the mean force reduction factors presented in Fig. (15) based on the equal energy assumption are obtained as shown in Fig.5-3. (19) . (19) to the Mean Force Reduction Factors Presented in Fig. They are much shorter than the natural periods where the equal displacement assumption provides the best approximation. (19). They are in the range of 0. 5 2. Although some discrepancies are observed at larger target ductility factors. Fig. 11 Application of Eq. moderate and (d) µ T =8 Fig.26-0. Eq.5 second at soft site. 12 Effect of Soil Condition on the Force Reduction Factors Predicted by Eq. 0. The natural periods where R µ take the values predicted by Eq. 5 to the values predicted by Eq. (19) soft sites.4 second and 0.36 second.

507 1. The force reduction factors predicted by Eq. The mean and the standard deviation of force reduction factors were evaluated by by Eq.289 2. Fig.65 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 Rµ =3.14 1.28 0. (19). On the other hand. As shown in Fig. the equal energy assumption provides a good estimation at natural periods longer than 0. while it provides underestimation at natural periods shorter than those values.569 close to the force reduction factors of the mean minus one standard deviation directly computed from the 70 ground motions (refer to Fig. 5). in particular at small target ductility factors. at µT =8.725 1.6 second at stiff and moderate sites and 1 second at soft sites.87 µΤ = 8 µT 2 4 6 8 (c) Soft (Type-III) Fig.778 0.397 1.13 Force Reduction Factors Corresponding to Means minus One Standard Deviations provides a good estimation for the mean force reduction factors.23 0. 4. in this estimation.35 0. the equal energy assumption provides a good estimation at 0.14 0. (19) and Eq.981 0.93 1.60 1.976 3. 12 shows the effect of soil condition on the mean force reduction factors estimated by Eq.344 0.768 0.65 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 Rµ =3.632 Table 3 Parameters a and b ( ξ NL = ξ EL = 0. From Fig. 13. respectively.65 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 Rµ =3.2 second at soft sites.02) µT a and 2 4 6 b a b a b a b a b Type-I 0.94 1.23 2.521 4. the force reduction factors corresponding to the mean values m substituted by a standard deviation σ ( Rµ ) are evaluated as shown in Fig.994 0.14 (a) Stiff (Type-I) 12 Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 µΤ = 4 Rµ =2.348 0.04 0.87 µΤ = 8 Table 2 Parameters a and b ( ξ NL = ξ EL = 0.757 1.800 1. The effect of soil condition is less significant on the force reduction factors.05) (b) Moderate (Type-II) 12 Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 µΤ = 4 Rµ =2.807 1.81 0.57 0.600 1.361 1. scattering of the force reduction factors around the mean values is extensive.34 0. (18).50 1.46 0.12 0.152 0.902 0.5 second at stiff and moderate sites and 1.12 Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 µΤ = 4 Rµ =2. it is seen that at µT =4. It underestimates and overestimates the force reduction factors . (15) based on the equal energy assumption are presented here for comparison.28 2. They are of course a and b a b a b a b a b Soil Conditions Type-I Type-II Type-III 0.572 0.15 0.513 0.225 0. Hence.983 0. 13.289 0.226 0.916 1.87 µΤ = 8 8 Soil Conditions Type-II Type-III 0.432 0.

ξNL = ξEL = 0.02. Consequently. ξEL = 0. EFFECT OF DAMPING RATIOS In the preceding analysis.02 and the longest for a combination of ξ EL =0.5 3 a (s) 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Target Ductility µΤ 10 a+1/b (s) 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Target Ductility µΤ 10 (a) Stiff (Type-I) (a) Stiff (Type-I) 3 a (s) 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Target Ductility µΤ 10 a+1/b (s) 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Target Ductility µΤ 10 (b) Moderate (Type-II) 3 a (s) 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Target Ductility µΤ 10 a+1/b (s) 3 2 1 0 0 (b) Moderate (Type-II) 2 (c) Soft (Type-III) (1) Parameter a 4 6 8 Target Ductility µΤ 10 (c) Soft (Type-III) (2) Parameter a+1/b Fig. respectively.02 ξNL = 0.05 and ξ NL =0. 14 compares a and a + 1 / b thus determined. respectively. .02.02. Fig. refer to Fig.02. the same analysis presented in the preceding chapters was conducted by assuming ξ EL = ξ NL =0. However in the past researches.05. (1) assuming ξ EL =0.05.02 and ξ EL = ξ NL =0. than the above natural periods. the force reduction factors were evaluated based on Eq. 9). Tables 2 and 3 show the parameters a and b determined for a combination of ξ EL = ξ NL =0. Parameters a and a + 1 / b for a combination of ξ EL = ξ NL =0. an analysis was also conducted assuming ξ EL = ξ NL =0.05 and ξ NL =0. (8).05 are between the two cases.05 based on Eq. 6.02 based on Eq. 14 are a and a + 1 / b used in the preceding chapter ( ξ EL =0. Also presented in Fig.05 ξNL = ξEL = 0. 14 Dependence of Parameters a and a+1/b on the Assumption of Damping Ratios corresponding to the mean minus one standard deviation at natural periods shorter and longer. It is seen in Fig. 14 that both a and a + 1 / b at the same target ductility factors are the shortest for a combination of ξ EL = ξ NL =0. For comparison.05 and ξ NL =0. (7) using the same ground motion data set. damping ratios were usually assumed as ξ EL = ξ NL =0.

02 provides the largest estimation for the force reduction factors.02 ξNL = 0.05 and ξ NL =0. The combination of ξ EL = ξ NL =0.05 ξNL = ξEL = 0. A systematic difference of the force reduction factors is observed reflecting the dependence of a and a + 1 / b on the damping rations. The combination of ξ EL = ξ NL =0. Original force reduction factors computed from the 70 ground motions are also presented here for comparison.Present Study ξNL = ξEL = 0.02 provides the smallest estimation. 15 Dependence of Force Reduction Factors on the Assumption of Damping Ratios Fig.02.5 20 Rµ factor Rµ factor 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 20 15 10 5 0 0 Means 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 (a) Stiff (Type-I) 20 Rµ factor Rµ factor 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 20 15 10 5 0 0 (a) Stiff (Type-I) 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 (b) Moderate (Type-II) 20 Rµ factor Rµ factor 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 20 15 10 5 0 0 (b) Moderate (Type-II) 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 (c) Soft (Type-III) (1) µ T =4 (c) Soft (Type-III) (2) µ T =8 Fig. while the combination of ξ EL =0. . ξEL = 0. 15 compares the mean values of the force reduction factors based on the three assumptions of damping ratios.05 provides the estimation between the two cases.

16 shows a comparison of the force reduction factor in the present study by Eq. (13). The original mean values of the force reduction factors computed from the 70 ground motions are also presented here for comparison. (19) to Nassar and Krawinkler by Eq.Present Study Miranda et al. COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS STUDIES Fig. 16 Comparison with Previous Studies 7. moderate and soft. In the Miranda and Bertero formulation. (11) and (13) that ξ EL = ξ NL =0. (11) and Miranda and Bertero by Eq. Hence they are classified into stiff. Since it is assumed in Eqs. Tg . 16 12 Nassar et al. Means 16 12 Rµ factor Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 (a) Stiff (Type-I) 16 12 16 12 (a) Stiff (Type-I) Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 (b) Moderate (Type-II) 16 12 16 12 (b) Moderate (Type-II) Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 Rµ factor 8 4 0 0 1 2 3 Natural Period (s) 4 (c) Soft (Type-III) (1) µ T =4 (c) Soft (Type-III) (2) µ T =8 Fig.05. It is noted that definition of soil conditions is not the same among three researches. the same damping ratios are assumed in the present study for comparison.

while the combination of ξ EL =0. 404/I-11. S. the damping ratios have to be carefully assumed keeping how the force reduction factors are used in mind. K. Hoshikuma. (19) and (24) provides quite close force reduction factors proposed by Nassar and Krawinkler.02 provides the smallest estimation.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Kawashima.. REFERENCES Japan Road association (2002).05 provides the estimation between the two cases. Tokyo. G. Kawashima.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Parameters a and a +1/ b express the natural period where R µ is equal to µ and Rµ takes a peak value. 119(4). Hence. V. The combination of ξ EL = ξ NL =0. 1015-1031. 10(2). (19) and (24) was developed. and Bertero. “Estimation of damping ratio of cable-stayed bridges for seismic design.05 and ξ NL =0. ASCE. 124(5). and Unjoh. if the damping ratios are assumed as ξ EL = ξ NL =0. Japan. Miranda. Design specifications of highway bridges. the equal energy assumption by Eq. K. 16. ASCE Kawashima.was assumed 1. 3) Scattering of the force reduction factors depending on ground motions is significant. (1994). . Taking account of the considerable scattering of the force reduction factors depending on ground motions. Based on the analysis presented herein. Although it has been pointed out that the equal displacement assumption by Eq. From Fig. Unjoh. and Nagaya. the following conclusions may be deduced: 1) A new formulation as shown in Eqs. “Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake resistant design.02 provides the largest estimation for the force reduction factors. A. (15) provides a good estimation to the force reduction factors.” Structural Engineering and Earthquake Engineering.” Maruzen. it considerably underestimates the mean minus one standard deviation. 8. although it provides too conservative estimation to the mean values. 357-379. CONCLUSIONS An analysis was conducted for the force reduction factor based on response of SDOF oscillator using 70 free-field ground motions. S. (16) provides a better estimation to the force reduction factors corresponding to the mean minus one standard deviation. (1989). Proc. “Residual displacement response spectra.05. 2) Difference of the damping ratios assumed in the evaluation of linear and nonlinear responses ( ξ EL and ξ NL ) provides a systematic difference in the force reduction factors. (1993). The formulation is simpler than the past formulations. and Tsunomoto. (14). (1998). The combination of ξ EL = ξ NL =0.5 second at soft (alluvial) site in Eq. K. K. 123-130. however. J. 4) The response modification factors in the present study by Eqs. 513-530. MacRae. E..” Earthquake Spectra. M. it provides a good estimation only to the mean values. “Damping characteristics of cable-stayed bridges associated with energy dissipation at movable support. Japan Society of Civil Engineers. and Miranda and Betero. Part V Seismic design. it is seen that the present study provides a quite similar result to the formulations by Miranda & Mertero and Nassar & Krawinkler if the same damping ratios are assumed in the evaluation of linear and nonlinear responses. On the other hand. it is conservative to assume the equal energy assumption instead of the equal displacement assumption. respectively.

T. W. 678-683.. Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation. 46. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center. New York. (1991).” Journal of Structural Engineering. The John A.H. A.” John Wiley & Sons. ASCE . Newmark. (1996). S. M. W. A. 209-236. N. USA. “Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems. M. and Flannery. N.” Report No. (1970). Press. J. U. W.” Second Edition. and Hall. 95. 96(12). J. A. B. Takeda. California. Seible. and Nielsen. and Krawinkler. Cambridge University Press. (1973). F. G. Vetterling. H.. N.Nassar.. “Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Stanford University. Department of Commerce.” Report No. “Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquake. “Numerical recipes in Fortran 77. Sozen. Teukolsky.S. (1996). T. M.. “Seismic design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities.A.P. The Art of Scientific Computing. 2557-2573. Priestley. M. USA. N. National Bureau of Standards. and Calvi.

- Adams_2013_V1Uploaded byLidija
- final project of math 1060Uploaded byapi-253307919
- Control System and Automationmae345lecture7Uploaded byJOHN
- Pushover Pp tUploaded byJuan José Ricaldi Miranda
- Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of RC Bridge –A ReviewUploaded byAnonymous kw8Yrp0R5r
- Residual DeformationUploaded byrajarajathan
- Bx Refinement ManualUploaded byMitchel
- اسئلة امتحان تنافسيUploaded byمهندس حامد
- Free & Damped Vibration ApparatusUploaded byRaja Rajandra
- sid and waseem.pdfUploaded bySiddhartha Lakkaraju
- NZSEE Method for Response Spectrum AnalysisUploaded bydockstok
- Savoia M., Ferracuti B., Pinho R., Serpieri Maurizio - Force/Torque Pushover Method for Plan Irregular StructuresUploaded byIng. Maurizio Serpieri
- transient response.pdfUploaded byBhakti Mahbubani
- Section3_9Uploaded bysonti11
- Vibrations Solutions Section2 7Uploaded byMani Kumar
- Application of PushUploaded by123123azxc
- A Practical Proposal for Seismic Isolation Design AgainstUploaded byArifsalim
- Non Linear Damping Real SocietyUploaded byRoger Rodriguez
- Time-History With SAP2000Uploaded byhafiz zain saeed
- 10.1.1.458.4442.pdfUploaded byNguyễn Nhân
- chapter19_oscillationsUploaded byChloyee Lky
- Mechanical VibrationsUploaded byguptaranjeet40
- oscillatUploaded byVinay Gupta
- home_assignment1_2015 (1)Uploaded byvenkat
- Lab5B-Guideline for VibrationUploaded bykostas.sierros9374
- Seismic Design of Nonbuilding Structures & Nonstructural Components.pdfUploaded byHyunkyoun Jin
- JRC45107 consolidariUploaded bysergiuardelean
- Differential Equations Midterm 1 v1 SolutionsUploaded byRodney Hughes
- Harmonic Oscillator SummaryUploaded byrazvan.curtean5992
- Non Linear Analysis PushoverUploaded byrajanciviltneb