DAÑO SISMICO

© All Rights Reserved

7 views

DAÑO SISMICO

© All Rights Reserved

- 2009 IBC Section 160482 Walls
- Bpsure Paper 2002
- A Synthesizer
- Smart antenna
- 1465
- 4. Kha DC02 Baseband Transmission
- openciviljournalsoftstorypaper
- Cover Letter
- 47948988 04 Breakwater
- Assessment of concrete by using incremental dynamic analysis method
- 13_3296
- 307_95
- Webpeer 801 Holmes Tbi
- Exploiting Historical Spectrum Occupancy
- Seismic Performance Evaluation of Existing RC Buildings
- 05 01 0412 SCGoel Further Refinement of PBPD
- unit-4-16marks.pdf
- Offshore wind turbine foundation design issues
- 12645234 Bradley OpinionPaperACriticalExaminationOfSeismicResponseUncertaintyInEarthquakeEngineering EESD 2013 Inpress
- Model-based Data Aggregation for Structural Monitoring Employing Smart Sensors

You are on page 1of 26

Rafael Riddell1;; and Jaime E. Garcia2

1 Department

2 Department of Civil Engineering; Universidad de Cuenca; Azuay; Ecuador

SUMMARY

The inelastic response of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems subjected to earthquake motions

is studied and a method to derive hysteretic energy dissipation spectra is proposed. The amount of

energy dissipated through inelastic deformation combined with other response parameters allow the estimation of the required deformation capacity to avoid collapse for a given design earthquake. In the

=rst part of the study, a detailed analysis of correlation between energy and ground motion intensity

indices is carried out to identify the indices to be used as scaling parameters and base line of the

energy dissipation spectrum. The response of elastoplastic, bilinear, and sti?ness degrading systems

with 5 per cent damping, subjected to a world-wide ensemble of 52 earthquake records is considered.

The statistical analysis of the response data provides the factors for constructing the energy dissipation spectrum as well as the NewmarkHall inelastic spectra. The combination of these spectra allows

the estimation of the ultimate deformation capacity required to survive the design earthquake, capacity that can also be presented in spectral form as an example shows. Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley

& Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS:

deformation; structural damage

INTRODUCTION

Over the last 10 or 15 years the concern in seismic design has been progressively shifting

to performance. Damage observed during earthquakes seems to have called the attention of

the earthquake design community, including developed countries, in the sense that a code

designed building may not necessarily ful=ll the earthquake design philosophy [1] that if an

unusual earthquake, somewhat greater than the most severe probable earthquake that is likely

within the expected life of the building, should occur, the structure may undergo larger deformations and have serious permanent displacements and possibly require major repair, but it

Correspondence to: Rafael Riddell, Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Universidad CatGolica

de Chile, Casilla 306-Correo 22, Santiago, Chile.

E-mail: riddell@ing.puc.cl

Contract=grant sponsor: National Science and Technology Foundation of Chile (FONDECYT); contract=grant number: 1990112

Revised 2 November 2000 and 12 February 2001

Accepted 14 March 2001

1792

will not collapse. The reason is that the seismic code emphasis is on strength, while toughness should result from compliance with the material design code, but no accurate veri=cation

of the seismic performance of the designed structure is ever made. Although there is possible

agreement that non-linear 3-D history analyses for veri=cation ground motions is the answer,

signi=cant improvement and standardization of these procedures is still necessary for general

use in the profession. But the problem is not only one of veri=cation against collapse. The

number of deaths and the important economic losses induced by recent earthquakes suggest

that the acceptable level of damage also needs to be revised. It is therefore expected that

damage assessment will become a central issue in the years to come. Until the aforementioned sophisticated analysis procedures become generally available, simpler approaches are

necessary. The development of simple techniques also permits one to gain insight into the

fundamental principles governing a problem. With the previous objectives in mind, hysteretic

energy dissipation was studied, starting from a thorough consideration of the correlation between energy and intensity indices and ending with the rules to construct energy spectra. The

energy spectrum is necessary to asses seismic structural damage, since recent approaches consider structural damage as a combination of maximum deformation (or ductility) and the e?ect

of repeated cyclic response in the inelastic range or cumulative damage. Available damage

models can be directly applied from the energy spectrum and standard NewmarkHall spectra,

establishing a direct relationship between strength, ductility, deformation, energy dissipation

and damage.

STRUCTURAL MODELS AND GROUND MOTIONS CONSIDERED

A simple SDOF system was used in this study, with the forcedisplacement relationship given

by three non-linear models: elastoplastic, bilinear, and sti?ness degrading (Figure 1). These

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1793

models cover a broad range of structural behaviour; they are intended to represent overall

generic behaviour, rather than speci=c characteristics of individual systems [2; 3]. Strength

deterioration was not considered, mainly because in a well-detailed structure it should only

occur at extreme deformations near the failure state. A damping factor = 0:05 (5 per cent

of critical) was used.

Fifty-two earthquake records were used as input ground motion (Table I). These records

represent moderate-to-large intensities of motion. Damage was observed near the recording

site of all these motions. Most of them satisfy the following intensity condition: peak ground

acceleration larger than 0:25 g and=or peak ground velocity larger than 25 cm=sec. It was not

attempted to group the records according to similar characteristics regarding soil conditions,

tectonic environment, Mercalli Intensity, distance to fault, or others; the reason was in part

the lack of dataon geotechnical information for exampleand the diOculty to form groups

of statistical signi=cance. Indeed, if families of similar characteristics could be arranged in

future studies, the scatter of results should decrease so that energy estimates could be made

more accurately. It must be pointed out, however, that the =ndings of the study may not be

directly extrapolated to soft soils since most of the ground motion data considered is on =rm

ground.

EQUATION OF MOTION AND ENERGY EXPRESSIONS

The equation of motion of the system shown in Figure 1 can be written as

u(t)

Q + 2!u(t)

+

R(u)

= y(t)

Q

m

(1)

where u is the relative displacement of mass m with respect to its base, ! = k=m is the

undamped elastic circular frequency, R(u) is the hysteretic restoring force with sti?ness parameter k (Figure 1), = c=2!m is the damping factor as a fraction of the critical value,

and y(t)

Q

is the base acceleration. Integrating Equation (1) with respect to u leads to the

well-known energy balance equation [4; 5] which must hold at any time during motion:

E K + E D + E H + ES = EI

where, using du = u dt,

EK =

1

2 u(0)

u(t)

Q u(t)

dt = [u(t)

2]

2

(2)

(3)

represents the kinetic energy per unit of mass, which becomes null if the initial velocity is

zero and the integration is carried out long enough until the system comes to rest;

t

u 2 (t) dt

(4)

ED = 2!

0

1 t

E H + ES =

R(u)u(t)

dt

m 0

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(5)

1794

Station, component, date

El Centro, U.S.A. S00E (18=5=1940)

Olympia, U.S.A. N86E (13=4=1949)

Eureka, U.S.A. N79E (21=12=1954)

Ferndale, U.S.A. N44E (21=12=1954)

Kushiro Kisyo-Dai, Japan, N90E (23=4=1962)

Ochiai Bridge, Japan, N00E (5=4=1966)

Temblor, U.S.A. S25W (27=6=1966)

Cholame 2, U.S.A. N65E (27=6=1966)

Cholame 5, U.S.A. N85E (27=6=1966)

Lima, Peru, N08E (17=10=1966)

El Centro, U.S.A. S00W (8=4=1968)

Hachinohe, Japan, N00E (16=5=1968)

Aomori, Japan, N00E (16=5=1968)

Muroran, Japan, N00E (16=5=1968)

Itajima Bridge, Japan, Long. (6=8=1968)

Itajima Bridge, Japan, Long. (21=9=1968)

Toyohama Bridge, Japan, Long. (5=1=1971)

Pacoima, U.S.A. S16E (9=2=1971)

Orion LA, U.S.A. N00W (9=2=1971)

Castaic, U.S.A. N21E (9=2=1971)

Bucarest, Romania, S00E (4=3=1977)

San Juan, Argentina, S90E (23=11=1977)

Ventanas, Chile, Trans. (7=11=1981)

Papudo, Chile, Long. (7=11=1981)

La Ligua, Chile, Long. (7=11=1981)

Rapel, Chile, N00E (3=3=1985)

Zapallar, Chile, N90E (3=3=1985)

Llo-Lleo, Chile, N10E (3=3=1985)

Vina del Mar, Chile, S20W (3=3=1985)

UTFSM, Chile, N70E (3=3=1985)

Papudo, Chile, S40E (3=3=1985)

Llay Llay, Chile, S10W (3=3=1985)

San Felipe, Chile, N80E (3=3=1985)

El Almendral, Chile, N50E (3=3=1985)

Melipilla, Chile, N00E (3=3=1985)

Pichilemu, Chile, N00E (3=3=1985)

Iloca, Chile, N90E (3=3=1985)

SCT, Mexico, N90E (19=9=1985)

Corralitos, U.S.A. N00E (18=10=1985)

KSR Kushiro, Japan, N63E (15=1=1993)

Pacoima DAM, U.S.A. S05E (17=1=1994)

Newhall, U.S.A. N00E (17=1=1994)

Pacoima-Kagel, U.S.A. N00E (17=1=1994)

Sylmar, U.S.A. N00E (17=1=1994)

Santa Monica, U.S.A. N90E (17=1=1994)

Maximum

acceleration

(g)

Maximum

velocity

(cm=sec)

Maximum

displacement

(cm)

0:133

0:348

29:03

33:45

19:50

12:36

9:38

12:55

0.280

0.258

0:159

0.478

0:276

0.348

0.489

0.434

0.409

0.130

0.269

0:257

0:220

0.612

0:261

0.450

1.171

0.255

0.316

0.206

0.193

0.268

0:603

0:469

0.467

0.304

0:712

0.363

0.176

0.231

0:352

0.434

0.297

0:686

0.259

0.278

0:171

0.630

0.725

0:415

0.591

0.433

0.843

0:883

17.09

29:38

35:65

20:01

23.66

22:52

78.08

25.44

15:20

25:81

35:43

39:12

30.28

22:56

12:93

15.90

113.23

30.00

17.16

75.12

20:60

17:87

18:93

18:83

21:64

13.46

40:29

30.74

14.60

12.41

41:79

17:77

28:58

34.25

11:68

15.09

60:61

55:20

33.59

44.68

94:73

50:88

128:88

41.75

14.72

5.22

8.36

5:55

26:27

6:89

11:67

12.96

9:68

19:97

7.90

4:59

2:80

3.38

41:92

16.53

5:05

19:93

6.33

8:04

7:43

4.49

6:54

1:69

10:49

5:42

3.11

1.60

8.43

3:50

5:78

12.02

3.73

1.39

21.16

12.03

4.73

4.65

28.81

6:64

30:67

15:09

Continued

1795

Table I. Continued

Station, component, date

Maximum

acceleration

(g)

Castaic, U.S.A. N90E (17=1=1994)

Arleta, U.S.A. N90E (17=1=1994)

Century City-LA, U.S.A. N90E (17=1=1994)

Obregon Park-LA, U.S.A. N00E (17=1=1994)

Hollywood-LA, U.S.A. N00E (17=1=1994)

0.292

0.568

0.344

0.256

0:408

0:389

Maximum

velocity

(cm=sec)

20.28

51:51

40:37

21.36

30:86

22.26

Maximum

displacement

(cm)

4.67

9:19

8.36

6:51

2:65

4.27

is a term that composes the hysteretic energy EH , or energy dissipated per unit of mass by

inelastic behaviour, and the stored elastic-strain energy per unit mass ES , which also vanishes

when the system comes to rest; and

u

t

y(t)

Q du =

y(t)

Q u(t)

dt

(6)

EI =

0

is the energy input per unit of mass, or energy supplied to the system by the moving base.

Then, at the end of the motion, Equation (2) becomes

E H + ED = EI

(7)

i.e. the total energy imparted to the structure by the earthquake must be dissipated by damping

and inelastic deformations.

CORRELATION BETWEEN ENERGY AND GROUND MOTION INTENSITY INDICES

The correlation between EI and EH and various indices that have been proposed to characterize

the intensity of earthquake motions was studied with the purpose of identifying appropriate

normalization or scaling parameters to derive energy spectra. It is well known that the intensity of motion cannot be satisfactorily characterized by a single parameter. Consequently, as

in the case of response spectra, it was expected that di?erent intensity measures would be suitable in the three characteristic spectral regions: short period (acceleration sensitive systems),

intermediate period (velocity controlled responses) and long period (displacement sensitive

systems). Thus, a number of indices were considered as described next.

Arias [6; 7] proposed a measure of earthquake intensity that relates to the sum of the

energies dissipated, per unit of mass, by a population of damped oscillators of all natural

frequencies (0!):

tf

cos1

IA () =

yQ 2 (t) dt

(8)

g 1 2 0

where tf is the total duration of the ground motion and g is the acceleration of gravity. Housner

[8] argued that a measure of seismic destructiveness could be given by the average rate of

buildup of the total energy per unit mass input to structures; considering that the integral of

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1796

the squared ground acceleration was proportional to the total input energy, he proposed the

earthquake power index

t2

1

yQ 2 (t) dt

(9)

P=

t1 t2 t1

where t1 and t2 are the limits of the strong portion of motion. Mathematically, Equation (9)

is the average value of the squared acceleration over the interval between t1 and t2 . The

popular de=nition of signi=cant duration of motion after Trifunac and Brady [9] was adopted

in this study, i.e. the interval between instants t5 and t95 at which 5 and 95 per cent of the

integral in Equation (8) is attained, respectively. Then the earthquake power, or mean-square

acceleration, is given by Equation (10), and similarly the indices mean-square velocity Pv and

mean-square displacement Pd can be de=ned as given by Equations (11) and (12):

t95

1

Pa =

yQ 2 (t) dt

(10)

t95 t5 t5

t95

1

y 2 (t) dt

(11)

Pv =

t95 t5 t5

t95

1

y2 (t) dt

(12)

Pd =

t95 t5 t5

where y(t)

and y(t) are the ground velocity and displacement histories, respectively. Hereafter,

the signi=cant duration will be designated as td = t95 t5 . For simplicity, without regard to

duration or to the constants involved in Equation (8), the integrals of the squared ground

motions have been used [10] as indices in the form:

tf

Ea =

yQ 2 (t) dt

(13)

Ev =

tf

Ed =

y 2 (t) dt

(14)

y2 (t) dt

(15)

tf

The root-mean-square

values of the ground motions, or e?ective values arms = Pa , vrms = Pv ,

[1113]

and drms = Pd have also been considered as potential measures of earthquake intensity

as well asthe square root of the integral of the squared ground motions: ars = Ea , vrs = Ev ,

and drs = Ed .

Other indices, which are based on the previously discussed quantities and include new

parameters, have been proposed as descriptors of earthquake intensity. Araya and Saragoni

[14] de=ned the potential destructiveness of an earthquake as

PD =

IA

02

(16)

where IA is given by Equation (8) and 0 is the number of zero-crossings per unit of time

of the accelerogram; the signi=cance of this parameter is the incorporation of the frequency

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1797

content of the ground motion through 0 . Park et al. [15] found that the characteristic intensity

0:5

IC = a1:5

rms td

(17)

well with structural damage expressed in terms of their damage index (Equation (37)). Fajfar

et al. [16] proposed the expression

IF = vmax td0:25

(18)

as a measure of the ground motion capacity to damage structures with fundamental periods

in the intermediate period range, wherein vmax is the peak ground velocity.

All the above indices depend only on the ground motions. They were used together with the

peak values of ground acceleration amax , ground velocity vmax , and ground displacement dmax to

test their correlation with the input and hysteretic energies. Only one response-related parameter, Housners spectral intensity, was used as well. Since the pseudo-velocity response Sv and

the maximum strain energy stored in a linearly elastic system are related by ES max = mSv2 =2,

Housner [17] argued that the spectrum itself was a measure of the severity of the earthquake,

and de=ned the spectral intensity

2:5

Sv (; T ) dT

(19)

SI () =

0:1

Systems associated to three control frequencies 0.2, 1 and 5 cps were chosen as representative

of the three characteristic spectral regions. Two types of energy were computed for each control frequency: input energy for an elastic system, or energy dissipated by damping (EI = ED ),

and hysteretic energy EH dissipated by an inelastic system for a response associated to a

ductility factor = 3. Use of other values of led to the same conclusions. To visualize the

correlation among energy and the intensity indices, plots like Figure 2 were made for all the

indices. In particular, Figure 2 shows the relation between index Ev (Equation (14)) and EH ,

where each asterisk corresponds to each of the 52 earthquake records; it can be seen that Ev

and EH correlate well for intermediate and low-frequency systems (1 and 0:2 cps), but they

show no relation at all for 5 cps. To have an objective measure of the correlation, a curve of

the form

E = Q

(20)

was =tted to the data, where E is the energy, Q is the intensity index and and are the

non-linear regression parameters (or linear regression between the logarithms of the variables);

the goodness of the =t is quanti=ed by the correlation coeOcient given by

n (n Q n E) n Q n E

(21)

=

(n (n Q)2 ( n Q)2 )(n (n E)2 ( n E)2 )

The correlation coeOcients for energy vs intensity, for all the indices, and for the three control

frequencies, are summarized in Tables II and III; the indices ranked top-=ve for each frequency

are noted. The correlation coeOcient is the same for indices that di?er only by a constant or

by the exponent. Several observations can be made from the results presented in these tables:

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1798

Figure 2. Hysteretic energy per unit of mass EH vs ground motion intensity index Ev for

control frequencies of 0.2, 1 and 5 cps.

(a) as expected, no index shows satisfactory correlation with energy in the three spectral

regions simultaneously, indeed, acceleration related indices (amax ; ars ; arms ; IC ) are better for

rigid systems (5 cps), velocity related indices (vmax ; vrs ; vrms ; IF ; SI ) are better for intermediate

frequency systems (1 cps), and displacement related indices are better for Yexible systems

(dmax ; drs ) although some velocity related indices also do well in the displacement region;

(b) the peak ground motion parameters (amax ; vmax ; dmax ) show good correlation, specially in

the displacement and acceleration regions where dmax and amax are the best, or nearly the

best indices; (c) considering the previous observation, and recalling that Nau and Hall [10]

tested the same indices used herein (except PD ; IC and IF ) and found that none of them

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1799

systems and various intensity indices.

Index

dmax

vmax

amax

Ed and drs

Ev and vrs

IA and Ea and ars

Pd and drms

Pv and vrms

Pa and arms

PD

IC

IF

SI

td

f = 0:2 cps

f = 1 cps

Rank

0.862

0.736

0.127

0.811

0.905

0.341

0.748

0.761

0.139

0.685

0.289

0.817

0.842

0.201

0.469

0.657

0.353

0.403

0.785

0.612

0.323

0.574

0.294

0.553

0.536

0.772

0.792

0.301

5

1

4

3

f = 5 cps

Rank

4

2

5

3

1

Rank

0.244

0.083

0.664

0.216

0.029

0.713

0.309

0.091

0.514

0.156

0.693

0.039

0.012

0.122

3

1

4

2

Table III. Correlation coeOcient between hysteretic energy EH for elastoplastic systems with response

ductility = 3 and various intensity indices.

Index

dmax

vmax

amax

Ed and drs

Ev and vrs

IA and Ea and ars

Pd and drms

Pv and vrms

Pa and arms

PD

IC

IF

SI

td

f = 0:2 cps

f = 1 cps

Rank

0.918

0.750

0.027

0.886

0.871

0.175

0.839

0.766

0.052

0.669

0.140

0.804

0.826

0.129

0.629

0.781

0.276

0.531

0.901

0.549

0.478

0.723

0.281

0.478

0.488

0.878

0.917

0.245

2

3

4

6

5

f = 5 cps

Rank

4

2

5

3

1

0.163

0.108

0.817

0.249

0.050

0.786

0.201

0.140

0.751

0.044

0.839

0.069

0.133

0.110

Rank

2

3

4

1

provided noteworthy advantage over the peak ground motions to predict elastic and inelastic

spectral ordinates, amax ; vmax and dmax must be regarded as signi=cant intensity parameters to

characterize the earthquake demand, and especially because they can be estimated for future

earthquakes with relative ease; (d) Housners intensity is the best index for f = 1 cps, ranks

well for f = 0:2 cps, but does poorly for rigid systems; it should also be noted that SI is a

response variable, hence, it is less desirable as a predictor variable; (e) similarly, Nau and

Hall [10] found that using Housners intensity as scaling parameter, but computed over three

di?erent ranges of frequency, provided less dispersion in the ordinates of normalized elastic

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1800

spectra than that which resulted from normalization to the peak ground motion parameters;

however, the advantage faded away for inelastic systems with response ductilities larger than

3; (f) although the duration of motion itself does not correlate well with input energy, nor

dissipated energy, it provides a signi=cant improvement of correlation when combined with

other indices (Parks index presents better correlation with energy than arms , and Fajfars index

improves the correlation of vmax ).

The previously discussed study permitted the narrowing down of the possibilities to a few

indices. Then two further analyses were carried out. First, examining the scatter of energy

spectra (EH ) computed for numerous frequencies, it was con=rmed that the above trends

were not limited to the particular control frequencies used, but actually extended to the entire

frequency range they were meant to represent. And second, considering the convenience of

incorporating td , new compound intensity indices of the form

I = Q 1 td 2

(22)

were evaluated. The exponents 1 and 2 were determined by means of an optimization scheme.

The objective was to minimize, over the three relevant spectral regions, the average coeOcient

of variation COV of energy spectra (EH ) for the 52 records normalized using I as scaling

parameter. The de=nition of COV will be presented in the next section. Exponents were

calculated for numerous cases: using the most promising intensity indices Q in the three

spectral regions, for the three types of forcedeformation relationships, and for =ve levels of

the response ductility factor (1.5, 2, 3, 5 and 10). For each case, the optimization procedure

consisted of varying 1 and 2 in 0.1 increments starting from 1 = 2 = 0, computing COV

for each pair ( 1 ; 2 ) and plotting contour curves of COV. A typical example of such plots

is presented in Figure 3, where the optimum pair is approximately 1 = 0:75 and 2 = 0:35,

for a minimum COV = 0:43. It can be seen in Figure 3 that COV is not very sensitive to

1 and 2 since the surface COV( 1 ; 2 ) has small curvature in the vicinity of its minimum

value. It was found that the indices Q in Equation (22) that led to smaller COVs were dmax

in the displacement region, vrms in the velocity region and amax and arms in the acceleration

region; however, using vrms instead of vmax produced less than 9 per cent reduction on COV,

while using arms instead of amax resulted in negligible variation of COV for elastoplastic

and bilinear systems and 13.6 per cent reduction for sti?ness degrading systems. Considering

that recommendations to estimate the root-mean-square values of future ground motions are

not available, compound intensity indices including only the peak ground motion parameters

dmax ; vmax and amax are proposed. On the other hand, since COV is not very sensitive to 1

and 2 , and the optimum pairs ( 1 ; 2 ) are not signi=cantly di?erent when di?erent ductility

levels and di?erent loaddeformation relationships are considered, values 1 and 2 that can

be approximately applied for all cases were selected. Thus, the following compound intensity

indices are recommended to normalize ground motions to predict energy dissipation during

earthquakes:

Id = dmax td1=3

(23)

2=3 1=3

td

Iv = vmax

(24)

Ia =

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

amax td1=3

(25a)

amax

(25b)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1801

Figure 3. Contours of the average coeOcient of variation in the velocity region for

1

energy spectra normalized to vmax

td 2 . Sti?ness degrading systems with 5 per cent

damping and response ductility = 3.

where Id applies in the displacement region of the spectrum for any loaddeformation model,

Iv applies in the velocity region for any model too, and Ia applies in the acceleration region,

with Equation (25a) being suitable for sti?ness degrading models and Equation (25b) for

elastoplastic or bilinear systems.

Spectra of energy dissipated by inelastic behaviour EH were computed for the 52 records

listed in Table I. An example is shown in Figure 4. It was found convenient to present

the energy spectrum in terms of EH , because this quantity is linearly proportional to the

ground motion amplitude, i.e. if the ground acceleration is ampli=ed by a factor ! the energy

spectrum is ampli=ed by the same factor. At the same time, since the yield levels of the

inelastic systems are taken as a fraction of the elastic response displacement, when a record

is ampli=ed by a factor ! and the yield level is ampli=ed by the same factor, the response

ductility factor is the same as that of a system with the non-ampli=ed loaddeformation

relationship subjected to

the non-ampli=ed motion. In turn, since EH corresponds to dissipated

energy per unit of mass, EH has velocity units and the three axes of the tri-partite logarithmic

plot have the same units of the conventional response spectrum. Therefore, it is appropriate to

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1802

Figure 4. Dissipated energy spectrum for the Sylmar N00E record of 17 January 1994. Sti?ness

degrading systems with 5 per cent damping.

refer to the three regions of the energy spectrum as displacement, velocity, and acceleration

regions.

As a =rst step, average spectra are computed. Designating the energy spectrum as

(26)

SH = EH = SH (f; ; ; R(u))

the normalized average spectrum is given by

1 SHi (f)

SZH (f) =

n i=1 Ii

n

(27)

where f is the frequency (f = !=2#), Ii is the normalization factor for the ith record, n

is the number of records and SHi is the ith spectrum for given values of and and for

a given restoring-force model. Average energy spectra for sti?ness degrading systems are

2=3

and amax ,

presented in Figures 5, 6 and 7, for spectra normalized to the indices dmax ; vmax

respectively; each =gure is pertinent only in the frequency range that corresponds to the

scaling index used. The shapes of the average spectra for elastoplastic and bilinear systems

are similar to those shown inthese =gures. It can be observed that: (a) for low frequencies,

and for a given value of , EH =! slightly increases with !, it does not vary signi=cantly

with , and it is approximately equal to the peak ground displacement dmax (Figure 5); (b)

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1803

Figure 5. Average energy spectra for records normalized to peak ground displacement (dmax ). Sti?ness

degrading systems with 5 per cent damping.

with either, but

increases as ! increases; and (c) for high frequencies (Figure 7), ! EH decreases as !

increases, but increases with . The average spectra suggest an energy spectrum shaped as

shown in Figure 8. Note that the trilinear spectrum is not parallel to the three axes of the

tripartite logarithmic plot.

The next step is to compute the corner frequencies fdv and fva (Figure 8) that de=ne the

three spectral regions. Lower and upper limits of 0.05 and 20 cps were arbitrarily chosen as

boundaries of the frequency range of practical interest. The trilinear spectrum is de=ned in

the logarithmic space by exponential curves

$ d = % d f &d

(28a)

$ v = % v f &v

(28b)

&a

(28c)

$a = % a f

where the six regression coeOcients % and & are determined by minimizing the square error

between the trilinear spectrum $ and the average energy spectrum SZH (Equation (27)) in each

spectral region:

[2 =

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

nf

j=1

(29)

1804

2=3

Figure 6. Average energy spectra for records normalized to vmax

. Sti?ness degrading

systems with 5 per cent damping.

account for unequally spaced frequencies, and f and fu are the lower and upper frequencies

of the corresponding spectral region. The iterative procedure begins with assumed values of

the corner frequencies, and new values are computed in each cycle. The conditions $v = !dv $d

and $a = !va $v hold at the corner frequencies fdv and fva ; respectively (with !dv = 2#fdv and

!va = 2#fva ). Thus, using Equations (28), the corner frequencies are

fdv(i) =

fva(i) =

%(i)

v

2#%d(i)

%(i)

a

2#%(i)

v

1+&d(i) &v(i)

1+&v(i) &a(i)

(30a)

(30b)

where i denotes the ith cycle. The procedure converges rapidly until f(i+1) is as close to

f(i) as desired at each corner. The =nal step is to compute statistics in each spectral region,

for each ductility factor, and for each restoring force model. The variance and the standard

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1805

Figure 7. Average energy spectra for records normalized to peak ground acceleration (amax ). Sti?ness

degrading systems with 5 per cent damping.

1806

n

1

VAR($) =

n i=1

)($) =

fu

f

fu f

VAR($)

(31)

(32)

where i denotes the ith record, and n is the number of records. In turn, as mentioned in the

previous section, for the evaluation of the compound intensity indices, the average coeOcient

of variation over a spectral region was computed as

COV($) =

j

wj COV[$(fj )]

(33)

where COV[$(fj )] is the discrete coeOcient of variation for each frequency in the region

given by

1

1

[SHi (fj )=Ii $(fj )]2

(34)

COV[$(fj )] =

$(fj ) n i

The =nal results of the method outlined above are summarized in Tables IV, V and VI for

the elastoplastic, bilinear and sti?ness degrading models, respectively. These tables give the

coeOcients % and & (Equation (28)) and statistics according to Equations (32) and (33); in

addition to the results associated with normalization to the indices given by Equations (23)

(25), which produce the least dispersion, the results related to normalization by the peak

ground motion parameters with no regard to td are also provided.

The calculated statistics arebased on the assumption that the square root of the energy

dissipated per unit of mass ( EH ) is normally distributed. The assumption is sound if the

derived probability distribution for EH ; the variable of interest, presents good =t with the actual

response data. The =tness was checked applying the KolmogorovSmirnov test at three control

frequencies that presented the most scatter; it was found that the test satis=ed a signi=cance

level of 5 per cent by an ample margin.

As a part of the study, factors for constructing elastic and inelastic design spectra were also

obtained. The procedure due to VeletsosNewmarkHall-Mohraz [1823] and later revised by

RiddellNewmark [3; 24] is well known. Indeed, the method is simpler than the extension

to energy spectra presented above, because the ordinates of the trilinear design spectrum, in

the region response ampli=cation, are parallel to the corresponding axes of the tripartite grid.

Factors for elastoplastic systems with 5 per cent damping are presented in Table VII. These

factors can be conservatively used for bilinear and sti?ness degrading systems, since on the

average the ductility demand on them is less than that imposed on elastoplastic systems, as

earlier reported [3; 25] and con=rmed in this work. The ordinates of the design spectrum S

for given ductility factor are obtained applying the ampli=cation factors (Table VII) to

the corresponding peak ground motion parameters pg :

S =

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

pg

(35)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1807

Table IV. Factors for constructing energy dissipation spectra (EH ) for elastoplastic

systems with 5 per cent damping.

Spectral region and

normalization index

$ = % f&

Ductility

Standard deviation

COV

%

&

)

1.5

2

3

5

10

0.58

0.60

0.59

0.53

0.44

0.18

0.11

0.04

0:14

0:05

0.17

0.18

0.17

0.17

0.16

0.38

0.34

0.31

0.31

0.34

Displacement dmax

1.5

2

3

5

10

1.49

1.58

1.53

1.38

1.15

0.20

0.13

0.06

0:01

0:04

0.44

0.50

0.55

0.59

0.57

0.38

0.37

0.38

0.42

0.48

2=3 1=3

td

Velocity vmax

1.5

2

3

5

10

1.28

1.55

1.75

1.85

1.88

0.15

0.17

0.18

0.17

0.14

0.82

0.94

0.99

0.99

0.93

0.57

0.53

0.48

0.45

0.42

2:3

Velocity vmax

1.5

2

3

5

10

3.20

3.88

4.42

4.74

4.86

0.13

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.13

2.13

2.50

2.78

2.90

2.83

0.60

0.57

0.55

0.53

0.51

Acceleration amax

1.5

2

3

5

10

3.56

4.40

5.16

5.50

5.73

0:48

0:44

0:39

0:29

0:18

0.49

0.65

0.84

1.06

1.31

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.35

Displacement

dmax td1=3

where pg represents dmax , vmax , or amax depending on the spectral region of interest. The elastic

spectrum Se is given by Equation (35) for the particular case = 1; wherefrom the inelastic

spectrum can be alternatively obtained as

S = , Se

(36)

where , is also given in Table VII. It is worth commenting here that Equation (36) is often misunderstood as equivalent to deriving inelastic spectra from elastic response analyses.

This is certainly not the case because actual inelastic responses directly lead to the factors

(average ampli=cation with respect to the peak ground motion parameters). Simple approximations

for , are well known: the ratios 1= for the displacement and velocity regions,

and 1= 2 1 for the acceleration region (which were shown [3] to be unconservative for

high ductility and high damping, as also apparent in this study). Table VII also provides

the standard deviation ) and the coeOcient of variation COV = ) = calculated over the

corresponding spectral regions.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1808

Table V. Factors for constructing energy dissipation spectra (EH ) for bilinear

systems with 5 per cent damping.

Spectral region and

normalization index

$ = % f&

Ductility

Standard deviation

COV

%

&

)

1.5

2

3

5

10

0.59

0.62

0.59

0.51

0.41

0.19

0.12

0.04

0:03

0:08

0.17

0.18

0.17

0.17

0.14

0.38

0.33

0.31

0.31

0.34

Displacement dmax

1.5

2

3

5

10

1.52

1.61

1.53

1.33

1.05

0.21

0.14

0.06

0:02

0:08

0.44

0.50

0.56

0.58

0.53

0.38

0.37

0.39

0.43

0.48

2=3 1=3

td

Velocity vmax

1.5

2

3

5

10

1.29

1.56

1.77

1.89

1.88

0.16

0.18

0.18

0.15

0.14

0.84

0.96

1.01

0.98

0.89

0.58

0.54

0.48

0.44

0.40

2=3

Velocity vmax

1.5

2

3

5

10

3.22

3.93

4.51

4.85

4.86

0.14

0.16

0.16

0.13

0.12

2.22

2.63

2.88

2.91

2.76

0.62

0.59

0.56

0.53

0.50

Acceleration amax

1.5

2

3

5

10

3.64

4.67

5.39

5.85

5.95

0:49

0:46

0:37

0:27

0:13

0.51

0.71

0.95

1.24

1.59

0.39

0.40

0.41

0.40

0.37

The COV values in Table VII are consistent with previous studies. Riddell and Newmark

[3] found COVs in the range 0.180.22 in the acceleration region of the spectrum, 0.310.39

in the velocity region and 0.410.49 in the displacement region, for between 1 and 10, while

Riddell [25] obtained COVs between 0.190.31, 0.250.4, and 0.330.44 in the mentioned

regions respectively, for the same damping and range of . Miranda [26] and Riddell [25] have

reported COV values for the response modi=cation factor R (R , the ratio between elastic

and inelastic response, is a close relative of , , the former being calculated for individual

frequencies while the latter is a frequency-band ratio). Miranda [26] found COV(R ) varying

between about 0.25 and 0.45 for groups of records on rock and alluvial soils, for between

2 to 6, with COV increasing as ductility increased; Riddell [25] obtained practically the same

COVs for R . It is worth recalling that Miranda [26] and Riddell [25] considered earthquake

records grouped according to soil conditions and thus the dispersion should decrease due to

the similar frequency content of the motions, whereas in this study a wide variety of ground

motions regarding soil conditions and tectonic settings were used. In a recent study, Ordaz

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1809

Table VI. Factors for constructing energy dissipation spectra (EH ) for sti?ness degrading

systems with 5 per cent damping.

Spectral region and

normalization index

$ = % f&

Ductility

Standard deviation

COV

%

&

)

1.5

2

3

5

10

0.69

0.66

0.56

0.46

0.34

0.21

0.14

0.06

0.01

0:04

0.18

0.17

0.16

0.13

0.10

0.34

0.30

0.29

0.29

0.30

Displacement dmax

1.5

2

3

5

10

1.78

1.69

1.44

1.17

0.88

0.22

0.15

0.07

0.01

0:03

0.50

0.52

0.50

0.45

0.36

0.37

0.36

0.37

0.39

0.40

2=3 1=3

td

Velocity vmax

1.5

2

3

5

10

1.67

1.85

1.91

1.87

1.75

0.17

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.18

1.00

1.04

1.00

0.92

0.83

0.52

0.48

0.44

0.40

0.37

2=3

Velocity vmax

1.5

2

3

5

10

4.24

4.70

4.88

4.81

4.54

0.15

0.16

0.16

0.16

0.17

2.84

3.02

2.97

2.83

2.61

0.59

0.55

0.52

0.49

0.47

1.5

2

3

5

10

2.18

2.39

2.37

2.27

2.12

0:41

0:33

0:21

0:08

0:06

0.41

0.50

0.60

0.71

0.83

0.49

0.46

0.42

0.38

0.34

Acceleration amax

1.5

2

3

5

10

5.49

6.05

6.10

5.88

5.54

0:41

0:33

0:22

0:09

1.10

1.39

1.71

2.10

2.62

0.53

0.50

0.47

0.45

0.42

Displacement

dmax td1=3

0.05

and Perez [27] proposed rules to predict R that featured better accuracy than other available

relationships; it should be noted, though, that they predicted R on the basis of response

quantities: the relative velocity spectrum and=or the displacement response spectrum. The

factors in Tables IVVII, however, are predicted on the basis of a priori parameters: the peak

ground motion parameters or other ground motion intensity indices. COV (average COV) of

hysteretic energy spectra in the displacement and acceleration regions can be held in the range

0.30.5 if the appropriate normalization index is used (indices including td ). The larger COV

in the velocity region could be reduced if vrs o vrms were used instead of vmax ; as mentioned

above; however, estimates of the former indices for future earthquakes are not available and

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1810

Table VII. Factors for constructing elastic and inelastic design spectra for systems with 5 per cent

damping.

Spectral region and

normalization index

Ductility

Displacement dmax

1

1.5

2

3

5

10

Velocity vmax

Acceleration amax

)

COV

,

1.76

1.07

0.76

0.50

0.30

0.15

0.77

0.45

0.32

0.23

0.14

0.07

0.44

0.42

0.42

0.45

0.46

0.48

1.00

0.61

0.43

0.29

0.17

0.08

1

1.5

2

3

5

10

1.67

1.05

0.78

0.54

0.36

0.22

0.78

0.42

0.31

0.21

0.14

0.08

0.46

0.40

0.40

0.39

0.37

0.36

1.00

0.62

0.47

0.32

0.22

0.13

1

1.5

2

3

5

10

2.09

1.46

1.23

1.02

0.84

0.67

0.71

0.38

0.28

0.22

0.18

0.16

0.34

0.26

0.23

0.21

0.21

0.24

1.00

0.70

0.59

0.49

0.40

0.32

2=3 1=3

so the latter was preferred. If vmax

td is used as recommended (Equation (24)), COV in the

velocity region ranges between 0.37 and 0.58. Such a range denotes large uncertainty but it

is not extraordinarily larger than the above-commented values.

DAMAGE CONTROL

The =rst step in the construction of energy and design spectra involves the de=nition of the

earthquake hazard in terms of estimates of the expected peak ground motion parameters at

the site under consideration. A discussion of this subject is beyond the scope of this paper.

The spectra presented in this section will be anchored to a peak ground acceleration of 1g;

which is only a referential value selected for illustrative purposes and has no e?ect on the

observations to be made. The design peak ground velocity and displacement will be de=ned

2

. In this study, mean

on the basis of average values of the ratios vmax =amax and amax dmax =vmax

values of 98:5cm=sec=g and 4 were obtained for the previously mentioned ratios, while Riddell

and Newmark [3] found averages of 89 and 6, respectively. Assuming vmax =amax = 85 and

2

= 6; vmax = 85 cm=sec and dmax = 44 cm are obtained. Next, energy dissipation

amax dmax =vmax

spectra and inelastic spectra required for damage assessment will be constructed. Spectra for

elastoplastic systems with 5 per cent damping and response ductility = 5 will be considered.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1811

Energy spectrum

Assuming that no estimate of the ground motion duration td is available, the design ground

motion (Figure 8) for constructing the energy spectrum (ES) is simply taken as dmax = 44 cm,

2=3

vmax

= 852=3 = 19 cm=sec; and amax = 1g. The factors to determine the spectral ordinates are

given in Table IV. Supposing that some degree of conservatism is desired, factors associated with the mean plus one standard deviation level will be used (15.9 per cent probability of exceedance). Thus, the spectral ampli=cation factors for = 5 are $d = (1:38 +

0:59)f0:01 = 1:97f0:01 in the displacement region, $v = (4:74+2:9)f0:15 = 7:64f0:15 in the velocity region, and $a = (5:5 + 1:06)f0:29 = 6:56f0:29 in the acceleration region. For f = 0:05;

the lowest frequency

of the spectrum (Figure 8), the ampli=cation factor $d = 2:03 is ob

tained; then EH =! = dmax $d = 89 cmdetermines point J of the spectrum (Figure 8). Similarly, for f = 20; $a = 2:75 gives ! EH = 2:75amax = 2:75g which corresponds to point M

2=3

(Figure 8). The corner frequency fdv is calculated from the condition dmax $d ! = vmax

$v i.e.,

2=3

0:01

0:15

! = 145:2f

86:7f

which yields fdv = 0:207 and

EH = vmax $v = 145:2(0:207)0:15 =

2=3

$v ! = amax $a ;

115 cm=sec (point K in Figure 8). The corner frequency fva results from vmax

2=3

0:15

0:29

i.e. 145:2f ! = 6433f

; wherefrom fva = 3:882cps and EH = vmax $v = 145:2(3:882)0:15 =

178 cm=sec (point L in Figure 8). The completed trilinear energy spectrum

is plotted in

Fig

ure 9, for which the relevant labels of the tripartite grid axes are EH =!, EH ; and ! EH

in the displacement, velocity, and acceleration regions, respectively. It can be seen in Figure 9 that the energy dissipation demand varies considerably with frequency. At the peak of

the smoothed energy spectrum (f = 3:88 cps) EH = 31684 cm2 =sec2 while at the ends of the

spectrum EH is 780 and 460 cm2 =sec2 ; respectively, i.e. ratios of the order of 40 and 70,

respectively.

Inelastic spectra

As selected above, the design ground motion parameters are dmax = 44 cm; vmax = 85 cm=sec;

and amax = 1g. In this case, the spectrum to be constructed =rst is the inelastic yield spectrum

[3] (IYS), also known as constant-ductility spectrum [28], which corresponds to a plot of

the yield deformation uy necessary to limit the maximum deformation of the system to a

speci=ed multiple of the yield deformation itself (umax = uy ). Since the factors given in

Table VII synthesize the characteristics of a family of 52 earthquake records, the spectrum

corresponds to a smoothed design spectrum, in opposition to a response spectrum that refers

to the response to one speci=c excitation. In this case, the spectral quantities of interest

are uy in the displacement axis and !2 uy in the acceleration axis; the latter multiplied by

the mass gives the yield resistance Fy of the system, which in the case of an elastoplastic

system is also its maximum strength. In the ampli=ed region of the spectrum, between 0.15

and 10 cps; the spectral ordinates are obtained using the mean-plus-one-standard-deviation

( +) ) factors given in Table VII for = 5: 0.44, 0.5 and 1.02 for the displacement, velocity,

and acceleration regions, respectively. Thus, the spectral ordinates are: 44 0:44 = 19 cm;

85 0:5 = 43 cm=sec and 1g 1:02 = 1:02g. The spectrum is completed with transition zones:

in the lowest frequency (0:05cps) the spectral ordinate is dmax = = 44=5 = 8:8cm; in the highest

frequency (33cps) the spectral ordinate is [3] amax 0:07 = 0:89g. The complete inelastic design

spectrum is presented in Figure 9. The second spectrum of interest is the total deformation

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1812

Figure 9. Inelastic design spectrum, dissipated energy spectrum, and required deformation capacity spectrum, for design ductility = 5 and design ground motion speci=ed

by amax = 1g; vmax = 85 cm=sec, and dmax = 44 cm.

spectrum (TDS), which simply gives the maximum deformation of the system umax = uy . It

is easily obtained by multiplying the IYS or constant ductility spectrum by . In this case

the relevant axis of the tripartite logarithmic plot is the displacement axis which corresponds

to umax . Although this type of presentation has been available for around 40 years, it is less

known; it should become more popular as the need to estimate maximum deformations arises

in connection with displacement based design. This spectrum is not included in Figure 9, to

avoid confusion.

Damage considerations

A great deal of e?ort has been taken to gain insight into the factors controlling damage and

collapse during earthquakes. A detailed presentation and discussion of this subject exceeds

the scope of this paper, instead several key references which contain numerous entries to

the literature on the subject are given [2936]. There seems to be agreement on the fact

that earthquake damage occurs not only due to maximum deformation or maximum ductility

attained, but is associated with the hysteretic energy dissipated by the structure as well. Park

and Ang [30] proposed a simple index for seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1813

structures:

DPA =

umax

mEH

+

uu

Fy uu

(37)

where umax is the maximum deformation under earthquake excitation (as de=ned above), uu is

the ultimate deformation capacity under monotonic loading, Fy is yield resistance (as de=ned

above), mEH is the total hysteretic energy dissipation, is a parameter that weights the e?ect

of cyclic loading on structural damage and DPA 1 means complete collapse or total damage.

Note that umax =uu would be equal to 1 if umax was measured in a monotonic loading test, in

turn mEH =Fy uu would also equal 1 under such a test. The clear implication of Equation (37)

is that, under earthquake loading, when energy dissipation takes place, umax cannot reach uu .

Values of based on experimental data [30] varied between 0:3 and 1.2, with a median

[35] of 0.15. Since the latter value has been also used by other authors [30; 3436], = 0:15

will be taken for the following example. Further elaboration on appropriate values of for

di?erent structural materials and con=gurations is probably needed.

Using the energy spectra presented herein combined with NewmarkHall spectra, a simple

estimation of the required deformation capacity of a structure can be made. Indeed, taking

DPA = 1; the ultimate deformation capacity supplied to the structure must comply with

uu umax +

mEH

Fy

(38)

recalling that uu is the design capacity based on monotonic testing data and monotonic behaviour knowledge, while the second member of Equation (38) corresponds to earthquake

response quantities. The latter quantities are directly read from the spectra presented above;

in fact, umax is the TDS, Fy =m is the IYS but read in the acceleration axis (or IYS !2 if read

in the displacement axis), and EH is the ES squared. In symbolic form, for each frequency,

Equation (38) can be written as

UDCSTDS +

ES2

IYS

(39)

where UDCS is the ultimate deformation capacity spectrum. In other words, UDCS gives the

required monotonic deformation capacity for the structure to survive the design earthquake

without collapse. The UDCS is plotted in Figure 9 according to Equation (39); naturally

it is read in the displacement axis. Note also that di?erent levels of acceptable damage,

i.e. performance, may be established by taking di?erent values of DPA ; for example taking

DPA = 0:5 the design condition given by Equation (38) becomes

mEH

uu 2 umax +

(40)

Fy

The appeal of this expression is that the quantity in parenthesis in the second member does

not change, i.e. it is obtained from the same design spectra based on the same design ground

motion, but certainly the structure should be provided more displacement capacity if better

performance is desired. The implication is that performance based design need not be speci=ed

through a set of ground motions of di?erent intensities, but through one design motion with

performance controlled by the design parameters selected (Fy or ) and deformation capacity

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1814

supplied (uu ). Finally, it is worth mentioning that an alternative approach to damage control

has been proposed [33] in terms of equivalent ductility, which corresponds to a ductility limit

that cannot be exceeded in order to satisfy a given performance level (permissible damage).

As a consequence of the deterioration resulting from cyclic inelastic behaviour, the equivalent

ductility max is smaller than the ultimate ductility capacity u determined under monotonic

loading. The method requires estimation of a parameter that depends on EH and umax ; which

can be readily determined with the energy spectra and total deformation spectra presented in

this paper.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study has attempted to contribute to a better understanding of hysteretic energy dissipation in single-degree-of-freedom systems, since it has been recognized for some time that

energy dissipation is a form of structural damage, and thereby plays an important role in the

assessment of seismic performance. A basic investigation was carried out to identify ground

motion intensity indices that correlated well with input and dissipated energy. It was found

that: (a) no index shows satisfactory correlation with energy in the three spectral regions

simultaneously; (b) peak ground motions parameters present good correlation with energy,

specially in the displacement and acceleration regions, while Housners intensity is the best

in the intermediate region; and (c) compound indices of the form I = Q 1 td2 ; where Q is a

peak ground motion parameter and td is the signi=cant duration of motion, are recommended

as most appropriate to normalize hysteretic energy spectra, since incorporating td provides

less dispersion of the spectral ordinates, and because design ground motion parameters can

be selected with relative ease.

The next step was the statistical analysis of hysteretic energy spectra computed for 52

earthquake records, to produce rules for constructing energy dissipation spectra applying ampli=cation factors to a selected design ground motion, in much the similar fashion as the

NewmarkHall method, although somewhat more elaborated in this case because the spectral

ordinates are not parallel to the axes of the tripartite logarithmic plot. Factors to construct energy spectra for elastoplastic, bilinear and sti?ness degrading systems are presented, including

statistics to account for spectral ordinates associated to di?erent probabilities of exceedance.

Finally, on the basis of the damage model due to Park and Ang, and using the proposed

hysteretic energy spectra combined with NewmarkHall spectra, estimates of the required

deformation capacity of a structure associated with di?erent performance levels can be made.

With the energy spectrum the response information for single-degree-of-freedom systems is

complete, and relationships between strength, deformation, ductility, energy dissipation, and

damage become established. Now, the reliability of the damage prediction or assessment will

mostly depend on the adequacy of the damage model.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was carried out in the Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering at the Universidad CatGolica de Chile with =nancial assistance from the National Science and Technology Foundation

of Chile (FONDECYT) under grant No. 1990112.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1815

REFERENCES

1. Blume JA, Newmark NM, Corning LH. Design of multistory reinforced concrete buildings for earthquake

motions. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1961.

2. Riddell R, Newmark NM. Forcedeformation models for nonlinear analysis. Journal of the Structural Division,

ASCE 1979; 105(ST12):27732778.

3. Riddell R, Newmark NM. Statistical analysis of the response of nonlinear systems subjected to earthquakes.

Structural Research Series No. 468, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1979.

4. Kato B, Akiyama H. Energy input and damages in structures subjected to severe earthquakes. A.I.J, No. 235,

1975.

5. Zahrah T, Hall WJ. Seismic energy absorption in simple structures, Structural Research Series No. 501,

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1982.

6. Lange JG. Una medida de intensidad sG\smica. Departamento de Obras Civiles, Universidad de Chile, Santiago,

Chile, 1968.

7. Arias A. A measure of earthquake intensity. Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants. MIT Press: Cambridge,

1970.

8. Housner GW. Measures of severity of earthquake ground shaking. Proceedings of the U.S. National Conference

on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Ann Arbor, MI, 1975.

9. Trifunac MD, Brady AG. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the

Seismological Society of America 1975; 65(3):581626.

10. Nau JM, Hall WJ. An evaluation of scaling methods for earthquake response spectra. Structural Research

Series No. 499, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1982.

11. Housner GW, Jennings PC. Generation of arti=cial earthquakes. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division,

ASCE 1964; 90(EM1):113150.

12. Housner GW. Strong ground motion. In Earthquake Engineering, chapter 4. Wiegel RL (ed.). Prentice-Hall

Inc.: Engelwood Cli?s, NJ, 1970.

13. Housner GW. Design spectrum. In Earthquake Engineering, chapter 5. Wiegel RL (ed.). Prentice-Hall Inc.:

Engelwood Cli?s, NJ, 1970.

14. Araya R, Saragoni R. Capacidad de los movimientos sG\smicos de producir dano estructural. SES I 7=80 (156),

Universidad de Chile, Santiago.

15. Park Y-J, Ang AH-S, Wen YK. Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE 1985; 111(4):740757.

16. Fajfar P, Vidic T, Fischinger M. A measure of earthquake motion capacity to damage medium-period structures.

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1990; 9(5).

17. Housner GW. Spectrum intensities of strong motion earthquakes. Proceedings of the Symposium on Earthquake

and Blast E/ects on Structures, EERI, California, 1952.

18. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM. E?ect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake

motions. Proceedings of the 2WCEE, vol. 2, Japan, 1960.

19. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM. Response spectra for single-degree-of-freedom elastic and inelastic systems. Report

No. RTD-TDR-63-3096, vol. III, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, 1964.

20. Veletsos AS. Maximum deformation of certain nonlinear systems. Proceedings of the Fourth WCEE, vol. I,

Chile, 1969.

21. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Seismic design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities. Proceedings of the Fourth WCEE,

vol. 3, Chile, 1969.

22. Newmark NM, Hall WJ, Mohraz B. A study of vertical and horizontal earthquake spectra. U.S. Atomic Energy

Commission Report WASH-1225, Washington D.C., 1973.

23. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Procedures and criteria for earthquake resistant design. Building Practices for Disaster

Mitigation, National Bureau of Standards, Building Science Series No. 46, 1973.

24. Riddell R. E?ect of damping and type of material nonlinearity on earthquake response. Proceedings of the

Seventh WCEE, vol. 4, Turkey, 1980.

25. Riddell R. Inelastic design spectra accounting for soil conditions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics 1995; 24(11):14911510.

26. Miranda E. Site-dependent strength-reduction factors. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1993;

119(12):35033519.

27. Ordaz M, Perez-Rocha L. Estimation of strength-reduction factors for elastoplastic systems: a new approach.

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1998; 27(9):889901.

28. Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures. Prentice-Hall Inc.: Engelwood Cli?s, NJ, 1995.

29. Banon H, Veneziano D. Seismic safety of reinforced concrete members and structures. Earthquake Engineering

and Structural Dynamics 1982; 10:179193.

30. Park Y-J, Ang AH-S. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE 1985; 111(4):722739.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1816

31. Zhu TJ, Tso WK, Heidebrecht AC. E?ect of peak ground a=v ratio on structural damage. Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE 1988; 114(5):10191037.

32. McCabe SL, Hall WJ. Assessment of seismic structural damage. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE

1989; 115(9):21662183.

33. Fajfar P. Equivalent ductility factors taking into account low-cycle fatigue. Earthquake Engineering and

Structural Dynamics 1992; 21:837848.

34. Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Ramasco R. The use of damage functions in earthquake engineering: a comparison

between di?erent methods. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993; 22:855868.

35. Chai YH, Romstad KM, Bird SM. Energy-based linear damage model for high intensity seismic loading. Journal

of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1995; 121(5):857864.

36. Krawinkler H. Performance assessment of steel components. Earthquake Spectra 1987; 3:2241.

- 2009 IBC Section 160482 WallsUploaded bySherwin Sr Macaraeg Sarmiento
- Bpsure Paper 2002Uploaded by440grafix
- A SynthesizerUploaded byAnil Tandon
- Smart antennaUploaded byparthhsarathi
- 1465Uploaded byHectoreRodriguezl
- 4. Kha DC02 Baseband TransmissionUploaded byHuynh Viet Phi
- openciviljournalsoftstorypaperUploaded byPranali Prabhukhanolkar
- Cover LetterUploaded byMuhammad Tabish Niaz
- 47948988 04 BreakwaterUploaded byMd Izzuddin Omar
- Assessment of concrete by using incremental dynamic analysis methodUploaded byAJER JOURNAL
- 13_3296Uploaded bycaptain_tam
- 307_95Uploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- Webpeer 801 Holmes TbiUploaded bySatish Manal
- Exploiting Historical Spectrum OccupancyUploaded bylaerciomos
- Seismic Performance Evaluation of Existing RC BuildingsUploaded byDemçe Florjan
- 05 01 0412 SCGoel Further Refinement of PBPDUploaded bym4004
- unit-4-16marks.pdfUploaded byபுருஷோத்தமன் சரவணன்
- Offshore wind turbine foundation design issuesUploaded byLászló Arany
- 12645234 Bradley OpinionPaperACriticalExaminationOfSeismicResponseUncertaintyInEarthquakeEngineering EESD 2013 InpressUploaded byMohinuddin Ahmed
- Model-based Data Aggregation for Structural Monitoring Employing Smart SensorsUploaded byshereenkhan120
- Structural Dynamics UpdatedUploaded byatif
- Influencing Parameters on the Seismic Behavior of Steel Frames from Pushover AnalysisUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- Dissertation2003-Lopez.pdfUploaded byEngDbt
- Kim 2005Uploaded byGiulio Palamà
- Performance Levels of RC Structures by Non-Linear Pushover AnalysisUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Sound and HearingUploaded byphsieh007
- Ghosh 2014Uploaded byShalihan Mustafa
- Seismic Design Procedure for Metal Building SystemsUploaded byclam2014
- Seismic Analysis of High-Rise Building-convertedUploaded bylefratodri
- Damping Ratio in Tall StructuresUploaded byArnel Aguel

- Hspice TutorialUploaded byRalph Johnson
- The Richard P. Feynman Prize for Excellence in Teaching at CaltechUploaded byAlisa Rivera
- MATE1000 Lecture 11 Mechanical Properties of MetalsUploaded byclearcasting
- Mixing (industrial Pharmacy)Uploaded byHaroon Rahim
- CYCLO DRIVE.pdfUploaded bymourinho2
- Design and Analysis of Propeller Shaft by using Finite Element Analysis MethodUploaded byantonytechno
- SS-HPC500Uploaded bynavajo10
- Sahu 2008Uploaded bybabak
- Industrial Tour.pdfUploaded byAmit Bairwa
- tjmnamesUploaded byFarid Benhamida
- Canal FallsUploaded byyasir_mushtaq786
- 2004 Ganz FriedUploaded byBảo Huy
- Wartsila o e w 32gd TrUploaded byMartin Kratky
- SPE-139222 Selection Methodology for Screening Evaluation of Enhanced Oil Recovery MethodsUploaded byFabricetoussaint
- Trackmaster Oh.desbloqueadoUploaded byGabriela Pao
- Revised 032 Final Result Cse Dec14Uploaded bySachin
- Hyspin HVI 2011-5-2Uploaded byteamegi
- ManualUploaded byGiuseppe Varriale
- Home Automation System based on PLCUploaded bymahderina_218241157
- Elongational Flow Induces the Unfolding of Von Willebrand Factor at Physiological Flow RatesUploaded byRocky Tran
- Lesson 9 (Projectile Motion - Projection at an Angle 2)Uploaded byRaquel Lizardo
- DIFFERENTIAL-EQUATIONS_2.pdfUploaded byPhani Kumar
- Advanced Metallurgical Concepts for DP Steels With Improved Formability and Damage ResistanceUploaded byMartin
- Modelado matemático de un servomotor trifásicoUploaded bySebastian Luna
- Mass Flow CatalogUploaded byandi
- Lesson 4 - Simple StrainUploaded byPatrick John Mondarte
- Pressure Effect on Al-Si Alloy 413 and Colour MetallographyUploaded byAbu Ahmad
- Momentum and Impulse.docxUploaded byAlexis Eldredge
- USP 203 HIGH-PERFORMANCE THIN-LAYER CHROMATOGRAPHY ￼￼￼￼￼￼PROCEDURE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ARTICLES OF BOTANICAL ￼ORIGINUploaded byLexxie85
- letvin_ieee_1959.pdfUploaded byBeethente Raja Galian

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.