This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 1512
AN EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR DISPLACEMENT-BASED EARTHQUAKE DESIGN OF BUILDINGS
Jorge GUTIERREZ1 and Mauricio ALPIZAR2
SUMMARY The Displacement-Based Plastic Design (DBPD) method, an effective and rational design procedure for the design of buildings, is presented. The seismic demand is represented by constant ductility inelastic design spectra rather than the elastic spectrum with increased damping to account for inelastic behavior, proposed by ATC-40 and FEMA 273 Nonlinear Static Procedure. The constant ductility inelastic spectra are represented in a Sa-Sd plot, with Sa accounting for the pseudo-acceleration spectra and Sd for the corresponding inelastic (or peak) displacement spectra. For the design process the target ductility of the structure is selected in terms of a particular Performance Objective defined for the building, the type of structural configuration and the local ductility capacity of its structural components. Concurrently, the target structural displacements are chosen and the corresponding structure seismic lateral forces are determined from the constant ductility inelastic design spectra corresponding to the target ductility. Subsequently, the element strengths required for a selected plastic mechanism are calculated using Plastic Theory and capacity design principles. The structural design is finally verified by Capacity-DemandDiagram Methods. An illustrative example shows excellent agreement between the selected and calculated target ductility and displacements. INTRODUCTION Most current seismic codes (IAEE ) use force-based design procedures. In the definition of the seismic lateral forces, these codes accept that buildings will deform beyond the limit of linear elastic behavior (inelastic response) and use elastic analysis, with forces derived from an elastic design spectrum reduced by a force reduction factor, to account for inelastic behavior. The main contributors for the force reduction factors are the expected ductility and overstrength of the structure. The ductility accounts for the capacity of the building to deform in the inelastic range without sensible loss of strength, dissipating hysteretic energy in the process. The structure overstrength represents the ratio of the actual strength to lateral loads and the design loads defined by the code. It accounts for a number of factors including internal force
Professor and Chair, Structural Engineering Department, School of Civil Engineering, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica. Email: email@example.com. 2 Senior Structural Engineer, Research & Development Department, ESCOSA, San José, Costa Rica. Formerly, Graduate Student, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
This idea is conceptually weak and leads to wrong results as demonstrated by Chopra [7. the corresponding inelastic deformations of all elements and components can be evaluated and the performance objectives verified. To overcome these limitations it is possible to perform a Response History Analysis (RHA) involving a time step solution of the multi-degree-of freedom equations of motion that represent the multi-storey building (Chopra ). it requires a previously designed structure. can be known for the entire structure. as well as their corresponding external and internal forces. It is only a verification (analysis) procedure. It is a displacement-based design approach. the structure is designed to obtain a specific target displacement associated to the corresponding seismic demand. c. ATC . It is explicitly a design procedure rather than an analysis of a previously designed structure. b. to comply with a Performance Objective previously selected. this analysis presents some problems: a. To estimate the inelastic displacements. b. The results obtained with this procedure omit important information necessary to evaluate the seismic performance of the structure. In this paper. individual analyses for a related family of accelerograms is required. The seismic demand is expressed in terms of the design spectra represented on a Sa-Sd plot with pseudo-acceleration Sa on the vertical axis. followed by a statistical analysis of their response. It is a verification procedure (analysis). actual member overstrength due to size and material overstrength. This point identifies the peak lateral displacements of the building (relative to the ground) and the corresponding base shear associated with the design earthquake. It uses an elastic spectrum with an increased viscous damping to account for non linear behaviour instead of a constant-ductility design spectra. FEMA ). 8]. minimum code requirements. The capacity curve is then expressed in the same Sa-Sd plot by simple scale factors determined from dynamics of structures (Chopra ) and the Performance Point is calculated. The design is based in Plastic Theory and capacity design concepts to induce a previously defined lateral collapse mechanism under the design load. The method has the following characteristics: a. c. b. This is a non-linear static method that performs a pushover analysis to determine the capacity curve representing lateral base force versus a selected representative lateral displacement. As an intermediate alternative between the simple but incomplete Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) and the cumbersome RHA. Hence. therefore it requires a previous design of the structure including definition of strengths and force-deformation relationships of the potential plastic hinge sections as input data. For each significant point in the capacity curve. For this state. the state of absolute and relative displacements and internal deformations. Although very sophisticated. It is cumbersome and time consuming. an effective method for earthquake design of buildings. To represent the seismic demand it uses a constant-ductility design spectra conveniently represented in a Sa-Sd plot. required global ductility and corresponding inelastic deformations of structural elements and components. these codes increase the values resulting from the elastic analysis by an amplification factor that considers both ductility and overstrength. If the inelastic displacements exceed specified limits. like failure modes.redistributions. the Capacity Spectrum Method has been proposed (Freeman . and displacement Sd on the horizontal. As the direct use of design spectra is not possible. The required strength of each element is the result of the design procedure. the structure must be modified and recalculated. called Displacement-Based Plastic Design (DBPD) is presented. The method just described contains two serious drawbacks: a. . hence. d. The proposed Capacity-Demand-Diagram Methods (CDDM) overcome this limitation (Chopra ). This standard procedure is summarized in Naeim .
To explain the DBPD method a brief summary of Plastic Theory will be presented. represented in a Sa-Sd plot. obtaining the strength of all the structural elements. In DBPD. illustrated with a numerical example. the design drift limits and the global ductility of the structure are the starting points. the target inelastic displacement Sd tar for an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system is calculated and the pseudo-acceleration Sa is obtained from the constant-ductility design spectra for the selected global ductility. as it is usually the case under severe earthquake shaking.e. Bruneau ) for the analysis and design of structures that deform in the inelastic range. Moy . such as soft-stories. PLASTIC THEORY IN A NUTSHELL One of the major differences between the DBPD and other displacement based methods like the Direct Displacement-Based Design Method (Priestley ) is the use of Plastic Theory instead of elastic analysis for the design. When the process is completed. the strengths of all the elements of the structure have been defined and they should be able to induce the desired collapse mechanism under the combined gravitational and applied lateral loads. The CDDM is used to verify the design and the fulfilment of the Performance Objective. This must be verified through a pushover analysis to discard the occurrence of any unexpected undesirable mechanism. Next.e. it proceeds from top to bottom considering partial lateral collapse mechanisms. and the final result is the required strength of all the elements of the structure as well as its necessary stiffness. Pushover analyses use Plastic Theory. The main innovation in DBPD is precisely the use of Plastic Theory for the design of the structure.0 (i. the design base shear and the lateral forces can be calculated and a design process using Plastic Theory is carried out to obtain the strength of each structural element related with a selected collapse mechanism. The upper line indicates virtual work. Plastic Theory is a conceptually sound theory (Massonet . which initiates with the definition of the strength of the beams required to sustain the gravitational loads. The external virtual work is due to the vertical gravitational loads and lateral seismic forces: F G WE = W E F G + WE (2) where WE and WE . followed by a step-bystep description of the procedure. Neal . The process concludes with a desired complete lateral collapse mechanism which should have a safety factor for lateral loads equal to 1. This theorem is central to the DBPD procedure. Subsequently. should be checked as well. the design is verified with CDDM.05) for the combined loads. but for a structure previously designed via elastic analysis. Finally. Then. represent respectively the virtual work done by the lateral forces Fi and the gravity loads. increasing the element strengths if necessary to assure a safety factor for lateral loads greater than unity (say 1. In the case of lateral collapse mechanisms: . For application of the Upper Bound Theorem the principle of virtual work is used: WE = WI (1) where WE is the external virtual work done by the actual external loads on the virtual displacements of the assumed collapse mechanism and WI is the internal work produced by the plastic moments on the corresponding virtual internal rotations. Hodge . this should be the true collapse mechanism in a pushover analysis). The process begins with the selection of a lateral displacement shape in which the maximum relative drift (∆i /∆hi)max equals the defined target value (∆/h)tar. Other undesirable collapse mechanisms. According to the Upper Bound Theorem of Plastic Theory: “A load computed on the basis of an assumed collapse mechanism will always be greater than or equal to the true collapse load” (Bruneau ).
STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD In this section. a safety factor λc should always be greater than or equal to one. and θ j are the corresponding virtual rotations. If not. there is no virtual work contribution from the gravity loads of that particular element. thus: WI = j #hinges ∑ j =1 My θ j j (6) where M y is the plastic moment of the assumed plastic hinges in beams and columns. From equation 1: λc W E F + W E G = W I λc = W I −W E WE F G (7) (8) Obviously.WE WE F = ∑ Fi u i i =1 N N (3) (4) (5) G =∑ i =1 wu l 2 αθ 2 ui = θ hi Where u i are the lateral virtual displacements and α defines the relative location of the possible interior beam plastic hinge (Fig. Obviously. if there is no interior plastic hinge in the beams (α = 0). 2): . Application of the principle of Virtual Work with internal plastic hinges in beams The internal virtual work W I is the work done by the plastic moments of the assumed hinges. the strengths of beams and columns on the assumed plastic hinges should be increased accordingly. w u2 u2 max λ c F2 λ c F2 tar αL u2 λ F2 w u1 λ F1 hi λ c F1 tar u1 max λ c F1 θ (c) Virtual Displacements u1 (a) Real Structure (b) Real Displacements and Plastic Moments Figure 1. The safety factor λc is a scalar factor on the lateral loads necessary to produce the assumed mechanism. the DBPD method is presented in six steps (Fig. 1).
the displacement shape may be obtained from general equations like the ones proposed by Loeding et al. ∆hi where: u= φ Ytar ∆ = =θd max. a displacement shape is selected that satisfies a target drift θd=(∆/h)tar choose according to a particular Performance Objective and the structural configuration. are the beam positive (at the center) and negative (at both ends) moments. At each structural joint.4D or 1. the minimum strength of the beams should be able to withstand the critical gravity load combination. the beam static equation is: Mv + Mv = + − ωul 2 8 (9) where Mv+.1) Initial element strength and corresponding preliminary dimensions are first estimated from gravity loads following simple Plastic Theory principles. negative and positive moments should be properly assigned. for example 1. Accordingly.Step 1: Initial dimensions and displacement shape (Fig.5hi (N − 4) u i = θ d hi 1 − 16hN h u i = θ d hi 1 − 0. The target drift may be based on nonstructural considerations or limit deformations of critical members.6L for most American codes. 2. Mv-. ωu is the distributed load corresponding to the critical gravity load combination an l is the beam length.2 M v + M v ( + − ) (10) These values represent minimum beam and column strengths necessary to support the gravity loads. If equal negative moments are assumed at both ends of the beam. Next. as referred by Priestley : for N ≤ 4: 4 ≤ N ≤ 20: N ≥ 20: u i = θ d hi 0. One possibility is to select a displacement shape proportional to the first mode of the structure φ scaled by a factor Ytar to satisfy the target design drift θd according to the following equation: ui − ui −1 ∆ = i h −h i i −1 max. ∑M c ≥ 1. . minimum code requirements must be considered. In addition.5 i hN (12a) (12b) (12c) where N is the number of stories. h tar (11) Alternatively.2D+1. the capacity design principle of “strong columns-weak beams” defines the minimum column strength: where ΣMc is the strength of the top and bottom columns at the joint. To prevent early plastic hinges.
Capacity λi λi FN Fi λ 1 FN λ 1 Fi θ µ GR λ 1 F1 θ λ N > λi > λ 1 > 1 Sdy SdGR < Sdtar.1 Initial Data φ MN (EI)Column Mi (EI)Beam ui Mi Ui -Ui-1 hi -hi-1 M1 u N= Y φ N uN MN 2 Target Displacement SDOF system Sd tar. Vbase 4 Distribution of Base Shear Force FN µG tar. Sd Figure 2. M* hi = max ∆ h = max ∆ h tar K * M1 u1 Geometry Displacement Shape Limit Displacement Shape Sd tar. Steps of Displacement-Based Plastic Design Method (DBPD) . Vbase = Sa M* F = Sa L M M* 5 Plastic Design FN Fi F1 λ N FN θ 6 Verification: Capacity-Demand-Diagram Method Sa Demand µG tar. L M* 3 Inelastic Spectrum (Sa-Sd) Sa Tel = 2 π Sdtar. Sa µ G tar. Fi F1 Tel Tsec L 2 Sa Sd Sd tar. = un L φN M* = Ytar.
There are numerous recommendations for the reduction factors.3) The seismic demand is obtained from the constant-ductility inelastic design spectrum corresponding to the structure global target ductility µG tar . the corresponding pseudo-acceleration Sa is obtained for the target displacement Sd tar previously defined. Step 3: Seismic demand (Fig. the expected elastic period of the structure Tel can also be calculated with the following expression: Tel = 2π S d tar S a µG tar (17) If the calculated elastic period Tn . 17] to the more recent ones cited by Chopra . 2. Furthermore. it would not be possible to fully reach its global target ductility µG tar without exceeding its target displacements Sd tar . 2. Step 4: Distribution of base shear force (Fig. Generalized Mass i =1 (14) (15) L = ∑ miφ i . from the early ones by Newmark [16. In this case. to satisfy both targets in the Performance Point. to obtain the forces at each level: . 2. the stiffness of the structure should be suitably increased. the target displacement Sd tar for the corresponding SDOF system is calculated from principles of dynamics (Chopra ): S d tar = u N Ytar . = Γφ N Γ N 2 Γ= L M* (13) For a system with lumped-masses mi at each level: M * = ∑ miφi .4) Once Sa is obtained.2) Once the displacement shape is defined. is greater than the calculated by equation 17. the base shear force can be calculated from simple principles of dynamics (Chopra ): L2 Vb = * S a M (18) This force is then vertically distributed in proportion to the masses and the selected displacement shape. corresponding to the stiffness of the structure defined in Step 1. This value is selected considering the Performance Objective as well as the building structural configuration and the local ductility of the structural elements and components.Step 2: Target design displacement for an equivalent SDOF system (Fig. The constant-ductility spectrum for an elasto-plastic system is traditionally presented as a plot of pseudoacceleration Sa versus the initial elastic period Tn for selected values of ductility µ. It can be obtained by dividing the elastic design spectrum by appropriate ductility-dependent reduction factors that also depend on Tn (Chopra ). Participation factor i =1 N where N is the number of stories. The inelastic design spectrum is then represented in a Sa-Sd plot where Sd corresponds to the inelastic peak displacement given by: Sd = µ T2 Sa 4π 2 (16) With the Sa-Sd plot.
0.0 to guarantee that it will precede the undesired partial collapse mechanisms (Fig. 3b) is calculated and if it is less than a minimum value of 1. In contrast. When calculating the external and internal virtual work for a lateral collapse mechanism.F = Sa L Mφ → M* Fi = Vb mi φ i ∑ mi φ i k (19) Step 5: Plastic design (Fig. for example 1. 4).2D+0. say 1.05. the strengths of beams and columns are increased to obtain at least that minimum value. they should have a safety factor λc greater than 1.3).05D+0. the desired complete collapse mechanism (with plastic hinges forming at the base columns) should be λc = 1. Partial and complete lateral collapse mechanisms for plastic design For load combinations involving seismic loads the corresponding gravitational loads are reduced from maximum values to expected average values. F3 λ 3F 3 λ 2F 3 λ 1F 3 F2 θ λ 2F 2 λ 1F 2 F1 θ λ 1F 1 θ (a) Load and Geometry (b) Partial collapse Mechanism 1 (c) Partial collapse Mechanism 2 (d) Complete collapse Mechanism Figure 3. 3c).05. The safety factor for lateral loads λc corresponding to the top partial collapse mechanism (Fig. . a series of partial collapse mechanisms starting from the top story to the lower levels must be considered for the design process. 2.5) As already explained in the previous section. To prevent the possibility of these undesirable partial lateral collapse mechanisms. each particular beam may form either a panel mechanism with plastic hinges at both ends or a combined mechanism with an interior plastic hinge at a relative distance αl from the end (Fig.5L in some American codes or 1.5L in Costa Rica (CFIA ). These increased strengths are considered for the analysis of the next partial lateral mechanism (Fig.
θ + Mv − ωu − Mv θ θ − − ωu Mv + θ1 Mv − − l (a) Panel mechanism αl (1. WE F = Vi ∆hi θ . according to the Upper Bound Theorem of Plastic Theory. Possible plastic hinge formation at beams Which mechanism will prevail depends exclusively on the distributed gravity load of the beam and its bending strengths. 5). It can be shown that the combined mechanism prevails if the following relation is satisfied: wu l 2 (1 − α ) + − ≥ ∑ (M v + M v ) ∑ 2 (20) Once all the lateral collapse mechanisms have been considered and the required strengths of the structural elements have been defined it is convenient to check for possible soft-story mechanisms (Fig. Possible soft-story collapse mechanisms The external virtual work for these partial collapse mechanisms would be: (21) where Vi is the shear force at the considered level.α )l (b) Combined mechanism Figure 4. precedes the desired collapse mechanism. with a lower than unity safety factor. There will be a combined mechanism if the virtual external work due to gravity loads exceeds the increment on virtual internal work between both possible mechanisms. the calculated safety factor may be on the unsafe side if an unforeseen mechanism. Indeed. In the event of any of these mechanisms controlling the design the strength of the corresponding columns should be increased accordingly. ∆2 F3 V1 V2 F2 V2 ∆h F1 V3 ∆h 1 2 ∆3 V3 (a) Structure (b) Shear Forces (c) Soft Story Mechanism 1 (d) Soft Story Mechanism 2 Figure 5.
The displacement shape is assumed as proportional to the first mode and the scale factor Ytar is calculated to satisfy the target design drift (∆/h)tar= . The structure initial stiffness corresponds to these preliminary dimensions of beams and column.1 kN-m. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE The described DBPD procedure will be illustrated with the design of a five-story. The example follows the described step-by-step procedure: 5 4.00 m M2 4.5 kN-m). This will prevent the possibility of unforeseen undesirable collapse mechanisms and will verify the fulfilment of the Performance Objective in terms of the target displacements and the required global ductility. 6) considered as typical for a particular building. φ T = [.1917 .81 3 M 1.6) To validate the design procedure the CDDM must be applied.5 = 53 kN s /m 2 M4 4. For this acceleration the selected target drift is (∆/h)tar = . which may correspond to a Performance Objective of life safety. Initial dimensions and displacement shape The initial bending strength of beams and columns is calculated for gravitational loads using Plastic Theory (Mv5+/-=37.00 m Figure 6..3 kN-m.0617 .1304 . Mc5i=44.00 m 6.2379 .2665] Step 2.Step 6: Verification procedure: Capacity-Demand-Diagram Method (Fig.00 m ( EI )beam ( EI )column M1 5. The peak ground acceleration is defined as 0.125 s and its corresponding mode shape are calculated..00 m 6. = 189140 kN m 2 M3 4. two-bay special moment frame (Fig.452 .6g.00 m Design Loads (kN/m) Gravity Loads DL LL 9.00 m ( EI )beam = 86030 kN m ( EI )col.024. Mc5e=22. Design example Step 1. For this stiffness a fundamental natural period of 1. 2. Target design displacement for an equivalent SDOF system The Sd tar is found from equation 13: Ytar =1.024.
125s). with the initial bending moment strengths of beams and columns necessary for gravitational loads calculated in Step 1 (Mv5+/-=37. the safety factor is λ5 = 0. Seismic Demand For this type of building. The corresponding constant ductility inelastic design spectrum is calculated following Newmark  and transformed to a Sa-Sd plot using Equation 16.3 kN Fi = [24.3 kN-m. a structure global target ductility µG tar = 6 is selected.56 a 1 0 0 0. as the first trial.1 kN-m. and the corresponding floor lateral forces are calculated from Equation 19: Vb = 352. 8a. Distribution of base shear force The design base shear force is obtained from Equation 18.303 0. Mc5i=44. as shown in Fig.amax= 0. necessary to produce the desired complete lateral collapse mechanism for the defined lateral forces is calculated using Plastic Theory.5 kN-m).13 s.5 51.8]kN Step 5. As this period is practically identical to the initial period (1. Mc5e=22.796 M* S d tar = Ytar = 0. Calculation of Sa Step 4. hence the bending strength of columns and beams must be incremented to the values shown of Fig.0 94.6 0.05.303 m.303 m Γ Step 3. .39 (<1. Mechanism 5.4 0. Sa (m/s2) 7 6 5 4 3 2 S =1. and considering the Performance Objective and the special moment frame characteristics.2 Inelastic Design Spectrum Newmark & Hall Firm soil .33 105. For the selected Sd tar= 0.Γ= L = 4. the required strength of beams and columns.60 g (ζ = 5%. 7.7 76. the corresponding pseudo-acceleration is calculated as Sa=1.2 Sd tar=0. µ= 6) Sd (m) Figure 7. corresponding to the top story partial lateral collapse mechanism (fifth story) is considered first (Fig. The elastic period of the structure is calculated from Equation 17 as T = 1. corresponding to a safety factor λ5 = 1.05).56 m/s2. Plastic design In this Step.8 1 1. From Equation 8. This is the necessary period for the structure to be able to develop its global target ductility µG tar=6 without exceeding the calculated Sd tar =0. 8a). it is not necessary to modify the stiffness of the structure.303 m.
The next partial lateral collapse mechanism.05.8 λ 5 +/ M v5 = 60. it can be verified that the panel mechanism prevails over the combined mechanism for the beams in this floor.3 λ 4 M C5 = 50.05) and consequently the bending strengths are incremented to the values shown is Fig.8 λ 1 M v5 = 60. Fig. corresponding to the desired mechanism of collapse under the combined loads.8 +/ − 76.8 (e) (a) (b) Figure 8. 8b). hence.5 +/ − θ M C5 = 100.5 − 105.91 (<1. Mechanism 2. Following a similar procedure. has a safety factor λ2=1.4 (i) M C2 =242.8 +/ − θ M C4 =287. Again. these values are increased to the bending strengths shown in Fig.8 (i) − 94.2 +/ − (e) M C2 =485.8 +/ − M C3 = 210.4 − (e) M v4 = 161.5 λ 1 M v2 =366.05). Partial lateral collapse Mechanisms 5 (a) and 4 (b) (kN-m) The calculated bending strengths will be used as the initial data for the next mechanism (Mechanism 4.8 24. Therefore.8 λ 3 M v5 =60. The safety factor λ4 for this partial lateral collapse mechanism is equal to 0. the safety factor for the complete lateral collapse mechanism is λ1=0.8 λ 4 M v5 = 60.8 +/ − 76. for this case the panel mechanism prevails over the combined mechanism.8 +/ − 94.105.3 λ 3 M v4 =161. for a λ4=18.104.22.168 +/ − 94. the initial safety factor for Mechanism 3 is λ3=0. it is not necessary to increment the corresponding bending strengths.8 +/ − θ M C3 = 393.3 λ 1 M v4 = 161.5 (i) − 51.0 λ 1 M v3 =283.7 (e) (a) (b) Figure 9. and the corresponding bending strengths must be incremented to the values of Fig. From equation 20.09 (>1.5 +/ − 105. 9b for a safety factor of λ1 = 1.5 (i) M C4 =143.7 λ 1 M v2 =283. 8b. Partial collapse mechanism 3 (a) and complete collapse mechanism (b) (kN-m) .0 λ 3 M v3 =283. Finally. 105. 9a.
00 0. For this purpose the capacity curve is first idealized as bilinear and the corresponding yield displacement Sdy =0. it is not necessary to increment the strength of the columns. the required SDOF displacement at the Performance Point Sd GR is determined using CDDM. 1. Possible soft-story mechanisms For this particular example the corresponding safety factors λ are greater than one ( 1. .8 − V base (kN) 400 365.053 is obtained (Fig. The calculated lateral strength is 365.2 +/ − 50 0 0. may result from the analysis.8 (i) + M v4 = 161.88 kN 350 300 M C4 =143. 12). Hence.0 λ 51.5 (i) M v3 =283.7 λ 24.20 0.5 (i) M v2 =283. with similar lateral strengths. In this example.20. 11b presents the capacity curve for base lateral force Vbase vs top displacement δ. These design values must be verified using CDDM.44 respectively).5λ ∆2 ∆3 ∆4 Soft Story 1 Soft Story 2 Soft Story 3 Soft Story 4 Figure 10. and the collapse mechanism was the expected mechanism (Fig. as some unforeseen but acceptable collapse mechanisms.9 kN. the pushover analysis was carried out with the Non Linear SAP2000 software program and Fig.3 λ 76.8 (e) M C4 =287.5 M v1 =366.The possibility of any undesirable soft-story mechanism must be checked now (Fig.7 (i) M C1 =485.40 δ (m) 0.8 λ 94.8 +/ − 150 100 (e) M C2 =210.80 1. 12). Design strengths (a) and pushover Capacity Diagram (b) To calculate the structure lateral displacements. 10). However.8 (e) M C3 =393.00 (e) M C1 =242.8 +/ − 250 200 M C3 =210.8 (i) M C2 =393.4 (a) (b) Figure 11.10.60 0. ∆1 105. 11a presents all the computed beam and column bending strengths. Step 6. this is not an essential requirement.5 +/ − M C5 =50.4 (e) M C5 =100. Verification procedure Fig. M v5 =60. 1.43 and 1.
053 Sd GR =0. element internal deformations and forces.40 0. overstrength of structural elements and rigid-finite-joint dimensions (Alpízar ).20 0.306/0.60 0. Hence. In this method Plastic Theory is used to determine the required strength of each structural element.024.80 1. is interpolated from the graph (Fig.02 2.20 Sd (m) Figure 12 Capacity-Demand-Diagram Method for Design Example The Performance Point is graphically determined as the point of the capacity curve whose global ductility µG = SdGR / Sdy intersects a constant ductility design spectra with the same ductility. it can be applied with the new Costa Rican Seismic Code (CFIA ). In our example. all the subsequent information necessary to verify the performance of the building. Once the Performance Point is known. The DBPD method has been extended to consider additional features as P-∆ effects.00 Complete Collapse Mechanism 3.00 0.00 5. as this code includes constant ductility design spectra for the definition of the seismic demand and offers CDDM as an alternative analytical tool for the verification process.Sa (m/s2) 7. such as lateral displacements and drifts.00 µ =4 6.306 m. may be interpolated from the pushover analysis. corresponding to a required global ductility of µG = 0.020.00 1. 12). the DBPD method is an explicit design procedure and Capacity-Demand-Diagram Methods (CDDM) are used as analytical tools to verify the design. necessary to produce a desired collapse mechanism and to reach a selected Performance Point under a design earthquake defined by constant ductility design spectra. With small modifications the DBPD method can be incorporated into existing seismic codes as a tool for Performance-Based Design. For instance.8.00 0.00 1.00 µ GR =5.80 ( ∆ /H) GR =0. which have been omitted from this paper due to space limitations.306 0.00 Sd y =0. remarkably close to the initially selected value µG tar = 6. In this particular example. deformation of non-structural components. the maximum drift at the Performance Point was 0. floor shears and over-turning moments. close to the target drift of 0.053 = 5. FINAL REMARKS The Displacement-Based Plastic Design (DBPD) method is a very effective tool for Performance-Based design as it allows for the selection of a target global ductility and drift limits associated with the desired performance of the building. a value of SdGR=0.00 µ =6 4. .
Blaisdell Publishing Company. 1985. 15. 11. Priestley MJN. “Plastic Analysis and Design-Volume 1 Beams and Frames”. 2002. Proc. Bulletin of The New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 2000.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the Materials and Structural Models National Laboratory (LANAMME) of the School of Civil Engineering. “Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering”. Earthquake Spectra 1999. IAEE. 5. 16. Civil Engineering Graduate Program. Journal of Structural Engineering. Freeman SA. Neal BG. 2. 2 volumes. Chopra AK. Whittaker A. “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”. McGraw Hill. Science Paperback. Bruneau M. “Código Sísmico de Costa Rica – 2002”. Thesis. 19. “Plastic Analysis of Structures”. University of Costa Rica. 7th WCEE. 17(1): 47-64. Kowalsky MJ. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y de Arquitectos de Costa Rica. “Direct Displacement-Based Seismic Design of concrete buildings”. Moy SSJ. “Evaluation of NSP to Estimate Seismic Deformation: SDF Systems”. Riddell R. Massonnet CE. Costa Rica. Report Nº FEMA 273. 1998. Goel RK. “Regulations for Seismic Design . 3. 14. The first author thanks his colleagues in the Costa Rican Seismic Code Committee and his students in the Graduate Program on Civil Engineering of the University of Costa Rica for the fruitful discussions. 2001. Redwood City. 6th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. “Development and Use of Capacity Spectrum Method”. Goel RK. “Ductile Design of Steel Structures”. 2nd Edition. FEMA. Applied Technology Council. 126(4): 482-90. 8. Earthquake Spectra 2001. Istanbul. Great Britain: Macmillan Press Ltd. D. (In Spanish) 6. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. CFIA. 2nd Edition. 1987. Newmark NM. Naeim F. 2001. 1980. ATC. CA. “The Seismic Design Handbook”. 18. Goel RK. Seattle. (In Spanish) Alpízar M. “Inelastic Spectra for Seismic Design”. USA. Elastic Design Spectra”. ASCE 2000. International Association for Earthquake Engineering. “Earthquake Spectra and Design”. 1996. . “ATC-40: The Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings”. 15(4): 637-56. The second author thanks ESCOSA for their confidence and support during his graduate studies. “Plastic Methods for Steel and Concrete Structures”. Hall WJ. 10. Chopra AK.. California. Editor. Chopra AK. “Capacity-Demand-Diagram Methods Based on Inelastic Design Spectrum”. Chopra AK.Sc. 7. Uang C. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 13. 1981. Hodge PG. 2003. 1996. Proc. 9. “Direct Displacement-Based Design: Use of Inelastic vs. 4. Save MA. 17.. “Idoneidad sísmica de Edificios Prefabricados con Juntas Secas Tipo Híbrida. 3rd Edition. San José.A World List – 1996” and “Supplement – 2000”. Turkey. Editorial Tecnológica de Costa Rica. University of Costa Rica. feedback and numerical results necessary to test this method. 1965. “The Plastic Methods of Structural Analysis”. (4): 129-36.” M. REFERENCES 1. which provided the necessary conditions for the research reported in this paper. 1998: 12 pp. Newmark NM. 1997.C. 2000. Developed by the Buildings Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. McGraw-Hill. 1996. 2nd Edition. 33(4): 421-44. Washington. 12.