ISRAELI STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONFERENCE

TEL AVIV, JUNE 2009

DISPLACEMENT-BASED SEISMIC
DESIGN

Nigel Priestley
European School for Advanced Studies in
Reduction of Seismic Risk, Pavia, Italy

1
Review of a 15 year research effort
culminating in the preparation of a design text
book:

DISPLACEMENT-BASED SEISMIC
DESIGN OF STRUCTURES
Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky
IUSS Press (May 2007)
Available online (www.iusspress.it)

2
WITHIN A PERFORMANCE-BASED
ENVIRONMENT:

WHAT SHOULD BE THE STRUCTURAL

STRENGTH? (BASE SHEAR FORCE)
HOW SHOULD THIS STRENGTH BE
DISTRIBUTED?
HOW CAN DESIGN BE ELEVATED
ABOVE ANALYSIS?
WHAT SHOULD BE THE STRENGTH
OF CAPACITY-PROTECTED ACTIONS?
3
 1. The Need for DDBD
(Problems with Force-based Design)

Estimating Elastic Stiffness

Distribution of Required Strength based on Elastic
Stiffness
Displacement-Equivalence Rules (equal displacement)
Specified Ductility or Force-Reduction Factors
Assumption that Increased Strength Reduces
potential for damage

Note: Damage is strain or drift (not strength)

related
4
 Concrete Bridge under Longitudinal Seismic Excitation
Stiffness:
12 EI

HC
K long = K A + K B + K C =
HA HB
3
A , B ,C H
C
Period:
A

B T = 2 m / K long
Structure
Base shear force:
Spectral Acceleration S A( T)

m g S A (T )
F=
R
Pier Shear Force:
Elastic
Ki
Fi = F
K long
Ductile
Design Displacement:
Period T (seconds) T2
Acceleration Response Spectrum long = S A (T ) g
4 2
5
T = 2 m / K long

Concrete Bridge Under Longitudinal Response

HA HB HC

B
12 EI
Stiffness: K long = K A + K B + K C =
A , B ,C H 3

Period: T = 2 m / K long
Ki
Pier Strength: Fi = F
K long
What value for EI? What force-reduction
factor? Is the strength distribution logical? 6
STIFFNESS OF CONCRETE ELEMENTS:

Stiffness is assumed to be independent of strength,

and a fixed percentage (often 100% or 50%) of gross
(uncracked) section stiffness

7
 Elastic Stiffness 50000
Nu/f'cAg = 0.4
Nu/f'cAg = 0.3

40000 EI=My/y 40000

Nu/f'cAg = 0.2
Nu/f'cAg = 0.1

Nu/f'cAg = 0
Nu/f'cAg = 0.4

Moment (kNm)
30000 Nu/f'cAg = 0.3 30000
Moment (kNm)

Nu/f'cAg = 0.2

20000 Nu/f'cAg = 0.1 20000

Nu/f'cAg = 0

10000 10000

0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0 0.002 0.004 0.006
Curvature (1/m) Curvature (1/m)
(a) Reinforcement Ratio = 1% (b) Reinforcement Ratio = 3%

SELECTED MOMENT-CURVATURE CURVES FOR

CIRCULAR COLUMNS (D=2m,fc= 35MPa, fy = 450MPa)
8
Dimensionless Moment (MN/f'cD3) Ave. +10%
0.2 2.5

Dimensionless Curvature (yD/y)

l= 0.04 l = 0.04

0.16 l = 0.03 2 Ave. -10%

l = 0.02 l = 0.005
0.12 1.5
l = 0.01
l = 0.005
0.08 1 Average yD/
Average = 2.25
D/ =y 2.25
y y

0.04 0.5

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Axial Load Ratio (Nu/f'cAg) Axial Load Ratio (Nu/f'cAg)
(a) Nominal Moment (b) Yield Curvature

DIMENSIONLESS NOMINAL MOMENT AND YIELD

CURVATURE FOR CIRCULAR COLUMNS
STRENGTH VARIES; YIELD CURVATURE IS CONSTANT9
 1

0.90
0.8 l = 0.04
EIeff = MN/y
Stiffness Ratio (EI/EIgross)

l = 0.03

0.6 EIeff /EIgross

l = 0.02

l = 0.01
=MN/yEIgross
0.4
l = 0.005

0.2

0
0 0.12 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Axial Load Ratio (Nu/f'cAg)

EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS RATIO FOR

CIRCULAR COLUMNS
10
 INTERDEPENDENCY OF STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS

Stiffness EI = M/

M M1 M M1

M2 M2

M3 M3

y3 y2 y1 y
(a) Design assumption (b) Realistic assumption
(constant stiffness) (constant yield curvature)
INFLUENCE OF STRENGTH ON MOMENT-CURVATURE RESPONSE 11
 Bridge Under Longitudinal Response: Elastic Strength
Distribution

Force-Based Design: Column Stiffness Ki = C1EI i .eff / hi3

Force-Based Design: Column Moments: M Bi = C2Vi hi = C1C2 EI i.eff / hi2

Short columns need highest long.rebar: stiffness increases: higher moment!

12
 BRIDGE WITH UNEQUAL COLUMN HEIGHTS

Shortest piers are stiffest. Shear is in proportion to 1/h3.

Therefore moments (and, approximately reinforcement ratio)
are in proportion to 1/h2. Increasing the reinforcement ratio
of the short piers relative to the long piers increases the
relative stiffness of the short piers, attracting still higher
shear in elastic response.
Allocating high shear to the short column increases its
susceptibility to shear failure.
Displacement capacity of the short pier is DECREASED by
increasing its reinforcement ratio
It doesnt make sense to have a higher reinforcement ratio for
the shorter columns than the longest columns (and in practice,
they would probably have the same reinforcement ratio, for
simplicity of construction)
13
 YIELD DRIFTS OF
CONCRETE FRAMES

ELASTIC DEFORMATION
CONTRIBUTIONS TO DRIFT
OF A BEAM/COLUMN
JOINT SUBASSEMBLAGE

Beam flexure and shear deform.

Column flexure and shear deform.
Joint shear deformation

14
 CONCRETE FRAME DRIFT EQUATION
y = 0.5y(lb/hb)

Equation Checked against test data with:

Column height/beam length aspect ratio (lc/lb) : 0.4 0.86

Concrete compression strength (fc) : 22.5MPa 88MPa
Beam Reinforcement yield strength (fy) : 276MPa 611MPa
Maximum beam reinforcement ratio (As/bwd) : 0.53% 3.9%
Column axial load ratio (Nu/fcAg) : 0 0.483
Beam aspect ratio (lb/hb) : 5.4 12.6

15
 y = 0.5y(lb/hb)

EXPERIMENTAL DRIFTS OF BEAM/COLUMN

TEST UNITS COMPARED WITH EQUATION
16
 DIMENSIONLESS YIELD CURVATURES
AND DRIFTS

Circular column: y = 2.25 y / D

Rectangular column: y = 2.10 y / hc
Rectangular cantilever walls: y = 2.00 y / lw
T-Section Beams: y = 1.70 y / hb
lb
Concrete Frames: y = 0.5 y
hb
lb
Steel Frames: y = 0.65 y
hb

17
 FORCE-REDUCTION FACTORS IN DIFFERENT
COUNTRIES

Structural Type and US West Coast Japan New** Europe

Material Zealand
Concrete Frame 8 1.8-3.3 9 5.85
Conc. Struct. Wall 5 1.8-3.3 7.5 4.4
Steel Frame 8 2.0-4.0 9 6.3
Steel EBF* 8 2.0-4.0 9 6.0
Masonry Walls 3.5 6 3.0
Timber (struct. Wall) 2.0-4.0 6 5.0
Prestressed Wall 1.5 - - -
Dual Wall/Frame 8 1.8-3.3 6 5.85
Bridges 3-4 3.0 6 3.5
* Eccentrically Braced Frame **SP factor of 0.67 incorporated.

18
 FRAME DUCTILITY LIMITS

NOTE: CODES LIMIT DRIFT TO 0.02-0.025

lb
Yield Drift: y = 0.5 y
hb

Example: lb = 6m, hb =0.6m, fy = 500MPa

y = 500/200,000 = 0.0025;
y = 0.5*0.0025*6.0/0.6 = 0.0125
Thus ductility limit is 1.6 to 2.0
Note: using high-strength reinforcement
provides no benefit in reduced steel content! 19
2. DIRECT DISPLACEMENT -
BASED SEISMIC DESIGN

A RATIONAL SEISMIC DESIGN

APPROACH

20
 FORMULATION OF THE DIRECT
DISPLACEMENT-BASED (DDBD)
APPROACH
DDBD is based on the observation that damage is directly
related to strain (structural effects) or drift (non-
structural effects), and both can be integrated to obtain
displacements. Hence damage and displacement can be
directly related. The design approach ACHIEVES a
specified damage limit state.
It is not possible to formulate an equivalent relationship
between strength (force) and damage. This is one of the
major deficiencies of current force-based seismic design).
The level of damage is uncertain
21
 ELASTIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES

1 0.5

Displacement (T) (m)

0.8 0.4
Acceleration a(T) (g)

0.6
Force-based design 0.3
DDBD
0.4 0.2

0.2 0.1

0 0
10 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Period T (seconds) Period T (seconds)
(a) Acceleration Spectrum for 5% damping (b Displacement Spectrum for 5% damping

Elastic, Force Based: F = m.a(T).g; D = F/K

Elastic, Displ. Based: F = K.D(T)
22
 COMPARISON OF ELASTIC FORCE AND
DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN

We require to know force (F) and displacement ()

FORCE BASED: F =m.a(T).g = F/K

Calculate K,T,a(T), F, (5 steps)
DISPLACEMENT BASED: F = K.(T)
Calculate K,T,(T),F (4 steps)

23
 FUNDAMENTALS OF DDBD
me
Fu
F Fn

Ke
he
Ki

y d
(a) SDOF Simulation (b) Effective Stiffness Ke
5%
0.25 0.5
Elasto-Plastic
Steel Frame
0.2 0.4 10%
Displacement (m)
Concrete Frame
15%
Damping (%)

0.15 Concrete Bridge 0.3 20%

30%
d
0.1 0.2
Hybrid Prestress

0.05 0.1

Te
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Ductility Period (seconds)
24
(c) Equivalent damping vs. ductility (d) Design Displacement Spectra
 5%
0.25 0.5
Elasto-Plastic
Steel Frame
0.2 0.4 10%

Displacement (m)
Concrete Frame
15%
Damping (%)

0.15 Concrete Bridge 0.3 20%

30%
d
0.1 0.2
Hybrid Prestress

0.05 0.1

Te
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Ductility Period (seconds)
(c) Equivalent damping vs. ductility (d) Design Displacement Spectra

Limit State Displacement; Ductility Damping

Damping+Displacement Te; K=42me/Te2
25
 me Fu
F Fn rKi

He Ki Ke

y d
Limit State Displacement; Ductility Damping
Damping+Displacement Te; K=42me/Te2
Fu = Ked
26
 ELEMENTS OF DDBD: Multi-storey Building

Effective Stiffness: K e = 4 me / T2
e
2

Base Shear Force: F = VBase = K e d

d = (mi 2i )/ (mi i )
n n
MDOF Design Displacement:
i =1 i =1

n
Effective Mass: me = (mi i ) / d
i =1

n n
Effective Height: H e = (mi i H i ) / (mi i )
i =1 i =1
27
 3. EQUIVALENT VISCOUS DAMPING

Relationships between displacement ductility and

equivalent viscous damping have been determined by
extensive inelastic time-history analyses, using two
different approaches:
Real accelerograms, matching displacement of
equivalent elastic system to inelastic displacement,
on a record-by-record approach, then averaging the
EVD over a very large number of records.
Spectrum compatible accelerograms averaging the
inelastic response, and matching average equivalent
elastic displacement.
Results were nearly identical 28
BASIC HYSTERESIS RULES CONSIDERED
F F rki
ki ki

(a) Elasto-plastic (EPP) (b) Bi-linear, r = 0.2 (BI)

F F

ki ki
ki ki

(c) Takeda Thin (TT) (d) Takeda Fat (TF)

F Fy
Fy
ki ki

29
(e) Ramberg-Osgood (RO) (f) Flag Shaped (FS)
 RELATIONSHIPS FOR TANGENT-STIFFNESS
DAMPING

1
Concrete Wall Building, Bridges (TT): eq = 0 .05 + 0 .444

1
Concrete Frame Building (TF): eq = 0 .05 + 0 .565

1
Steel Frame Building (RO): eq = 0.05 + 0 .577

Hybrid Prestressed Frame (FS, =0.35): eq = 0 .05 + 0 .186 1

1
Friction Slider (EPP): eq = 0 .05 + 0 .670

1
Bilinear Isolation System (BI, r=0.2): eq = 0 .05 + 0 .519
30
4 GENERAL FORM OF ELASTIC 5% DISPLACEMENT
SPECTRUM, FROM EC8

Plateau
max
max

Corner
Displacement

Period

Linear
PGPG

TC Period TD TE
TC Period TD TE

31
.DESIGN DISPLACEMENT SPECTRA (1)
Can be approximately generated from design
acceleration spectra (5% damping) using acceleration-
displacement relationships:

(T,5) = (T2/42).g.a(T,5)
Values for damping other than 5% can be generated
from relationships such as:
0 .5
7 Normal records, EC8 1998
T , = T ,5
2+
0.25
7 Velocity pulse records (Forward
T , = T ,5
2 + directionality) (tentative!) 32
 DESIGN DISPLACEMENT SPECTRA (4)
Based on Facciolis observations,the corner period Tc
appears to increase almost linearly with moment
magnitude. For earthquakes with MW > 5.7, the
following expression seems conservative:

Tc = 1.0 + 2.5(M w 5.7 ) seconds

Peak displacement at the corner period can be

estimated from the following expression (firm ground):
( M W 3.2 )
10 r = nearest
max = mm
distance to fault
r plane (km)
33
 M = 7.5
2000
Spectral Displacement (mm)
1600

1200

800 M = 7.0

400
M = 6.5
M = 6.0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (seconds)

5% Damped Spectra Resulting from the

Equations, at r = 10km
34
 2000
Spectral Displacement (mm)
1600

1200 M = 7.5

800

400 M = 7.0
M = 6.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (seconds)

5% Damped spectra, Resulting from the

Equations, at r = 20 km 35
 2000
Spectral Displacement (mm)
1600

1200

800
M = 7.5
400
M = 7.0
M = 6.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (seconds)

5% Damped spectra Resulting from the

Equations, at r = 40 km 36
 INFLUENCE OF DAMPING AND DUCTILITY ON
SPECTRAL DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE
0 .5
10
Current EC8: T , = T ,5
5+
0 .5
7
1998 EC8: T , = T ,5
2+
Newmark and Hall 1987: T , = T ,5 (1.31 ln . )
Independent analyses by Priestley et al, Kowalsky et al, Sullivan et
al, support the 1998 EC8, not the 2003 Eqn,nor Newmark and Hall.

Tentative Expression
0.25
7
for Forward Directivity, T , = T ,5
Near field 2+
37
Recommended Spectral correction for Damping

= 0.05 = 0.05
1 1
Relative Displacement T,/4,5%

Relative Displacement T,/4,5%

= 0.10
= 0.10 = 0.15
0.8 0.8 = 0.20
= 0.15 = 0.30

0.6 = 0.20 0.6

= 0.30
0.4 0.4

0.2 (Eq.(2.8)) 0.2 (Eq.(2.11))

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Period T (seconds) Period T (seconds)
(a) "Normal" Conditions (b) Velocity Pulse Conditions

Ke=42me/Te2 ; Vbase=Ked 38
 SCOPE OF RESEARCH AND BOOK

The research study (and the text book) considered

the following structural systems:
Frames (concrete, steel, infilled, braced, precast)
Structural walls (cantilever and coupled)
Dual Wall/Frame structures
Timber structures
Unreinforced masonry buildings
Structures with Seismic Isolation and added
damping
Bridges
Marginal wharves 39
 CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS TOOLS FOR DIRECT
DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN

Deals with a number of particularly relevant issues:

Moment-curvature analysis (Cumbia on CD)
Equilibrium considerations
Section stiffness
Shear strength
Capacity design analyses
Inelastic time-history analyses (Ruaumoko, SeismoStruct
on CD)
Pushover analyses (Ruaumoko, SeismoStruct) 40
 CHAPTER 5
FRAME BUILDINGS

Considers issues specially relevant to design of frames:

design displacement profiles
one way/two way frames
irregular frames
elastic response
combination with gravity-load effects (consider
separately!
capacity design for columns, and beams
hybrid precast frames 41
 CHAPTER 6
STRUCTURAL WALL BUILDINGS

Issues specially relevant to wall buildings considered:

Yield displacement and elastically responding walls
Torsional response
Capacity design effects
Foundation rotational stiffness
Coupled wall design (based on equilibrium, not elastic
stiffness)

42
 CHAPTER 7
DUAL WALL/FRAME BUILDINGS
(a) Plan View
(b) Long Direction Model
(c) Short Direction Model
Issues: How to distribute lateral
force between walls and frames
(a designers choice not based
on elastic stiffness)
How to distribute shear up the
frame (also a designers choice)
Analysis for design requires no
information about relative
stiffnesses, which are, in fact
irrelevant.
43
 CHAPTER 8
MASONRY BUILDINGS

This chapter essentially deals with unreinforced, or very

lightly reinforced buildings, such as are used extensively in
Europe and Central and South America. Displacement-
based design is a much more rational way of designing such
structures than current force-based approaches. Coupling
between walls by floor slabs and spandrels is rationally
considered with an innovative design approach

44
Chapter 9: DUCTILE TIMBER STRUCTURES

Framing
Joint
Shear
Panel

End View

(a) Ductile Moment-Resisting Frame (b) Timber Shear Panel Bracing

Ductile
connectors Post-tensioning

P P

(c) Post-tensioned Timber Frame

45
 CHAPTER 10
BRIDGES

Consideration of aspects specially applicable to bridges:

Longitudinal/transverse design
Elastically responding bridges
Influence of bearings and foundation flexibility
P- Effects
Different foundation conditions
Capacity design (Effective modal superposition)

46
 Isolator Braced frame
with added
Isolated rigid damping
structure

Isolated bridge Partially isolated bridge

Gravel Deck

Foundation layer
Soil
sliding on gravel Rocking bridge bent
Chapter 11
Concrete

layer Pier

ISOLATION

47
 CHAPTER 12
WHARVES AND PIERS

Design is dominated by soil/structure interaction effects

Displacement-based design, to specified limit-strains in
piles (two-level design)
Torsional response is critical
This chapter is the basis of the POLA seismic design code

48
INELASTIC FORCE-DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE
FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
FL
Wharf Deck
F E D C B A
TF TE TD TC TB TA LCl Lsp
Ground
IGF Inelastic pile
IGE members
Piles
Inelastic Soil
IGD Springs

IGC

IGB

IGA
xF
xE
xD
xC
xB
xA

49
 CHAPTER 13
DISPLACEMENT-BASED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT

The principles of displacement-based design are adapted to

assessment of existing structures. Both buildings and
bridges are considered in developing the topic, and in the
design examples

50
 MDOF PLASTIC MECHANISMS

Height
4 Yield

3 Limit state

2 P,c
1

Plastic mechanism Displacement

(a) Beam Sway, Si < 0.85, all levels (b) Beam Sway Displacement Profiles

5
Yield
4 Height Column sway
at Level 1
3
Column sway
2 at Level 2
1
P

Displacement
Plastic mechanism 51
(c) Column Sway, Si > 1, Levels 1 or 2 (d) Column Sway Displacement
 CHAPTER 14
DRAFT DISPLACEMENT-BASED CODE FOR
SEISMIC DESIGN OF BUILDINGS

Intended as a starting point for development of design

codes.

52
 DIRECT DISPLACEMEMENT-BASED DESIGN
DESIGN DISPLACEMENT
Damage is strain dependent. (e.g. onset of concrete
crushing: strain = 0.004, residual crack widths require
grouting if peak reinforcement strain exceeds 0.015).
From strains we can calculate curvature. We can
integrate curvature to find displacement.
Thus we can directly relate structural damage to
displacement
Non-structural damage can generally be related to
drift (Drift = interstorey displacement divided by
interstorey height). Drift can be integrated to find
displacement.
Thus we can relate non-structural damage to
displacement 53
EXAMPLE OF STRAIN LIMIT STATES

Curvature from concrete

compression:

mc = cm/c
Curvature from reinforcement
tension:

ms = sm/(d-c)
Chose lesser of mc and ms,
Design Displacement is:

ds = y + p
= yH2/3 + (m-y)LpH
Lp = plastic hinge length.

54
 CRITICAL DISPLACEMENTS
Frames: normally governed by structural or non-
structural drift in beams of lowest storey
Cantilever Wall buildings: normally governed by
plastic rotation at the wall base (for longest wall),
or drift in top storey
Bridges: normally governed by plastic rotation,
or drift limit, of the shortest column

55
 FRAMES

1.0
n=4: i = Hi / H n
H/Hn

4 Hi Hi
n>4: i = 1
3 H n 4H n

(Based on results of inelastic time-

history analysis. Note, in some cases
Mode displ. 1.0 it may be necessary to review the
displacement profile after initial
analysis)

56
 CANTILEVER WALL DESIGN PROFILES:
If roof drift is less than the code drift limit c, the
design displacement profile is:

y Hi 2 y
i = yi + pi = H 1
i
2
+ m L p H i
lw 3H n lw

If the code drift limit governs the roof drift, the design
displacement profile is:
y Hi yHn
i = yi + ( c yn )H i = H 1
i
2
+ c H i
lw 3H n lw

57
 BRIDGE CHARACTERISTIC MODE SHAPES
1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

(a) Symm., Free abuts. (b) Asymm., Free abuts. (c) Symm., free abuts.
Rigid SS translation Rigid SS translation+rotation Flexible SS
1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5
5 5

(d) Symm,. Restrained abuts. (e) Internal movement joint (f) Free abuts., M.joint 58
Flexible SS Rigid SS, Restrained abuts. Flexible SS
 ELASTIC RESPONSE OF FRAMES

The shape of the displacement spectrum, with a peak displacement

plateau, implies that in regions of moderate seismicity, tall frames
will respond elastically
Assuming start of the constant velocity slope of acceleration
spectrum at T = 0.5 sec, and peak spectral acceleration = 2.5
times PGA, then the plateau displacement can be written as:

TC = 0.031 PGA(1 + 2.5( M W 1))

Taking a typical frame of n storeys with beam length/depth =10,

fye = 400MPa the equivalent yield displacement can be approximated
as

y = y .(0.7 3.5n) = 0.01 0.7 3.5n = 0.0245n

59
 1.6

1.2 Peak elastic spectral

Displacement 0.7g
Displacement (m)

Yield 0.6g
displacement
0.8 0.5g

0.4g
24 storeys
0.3g 20 storeys
0.4 0.2g 16 stories
12 storeys
0.1g 8 storeys
4 storeys
0
6 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.6 8
Moment Magnitude, MW
60
DRIFT-LIMITED DUCTILITY FOR WALLS

10 10
Maximum Design Ductility ()

Maximum Design Ductility ()

8 8

6 6
c=0.02
c=0.025
4 4
c=0.02
c=0.02
2 2
Elastic Elastic

0 0
2 4 6 8 10 2 4
Wall Aspect Ratio (Ar=Hn/lw) Wall Aspec
(a) Yield Drift = yAr (b) Yield Drift =
61
 ANALYSIS OF FRAMES UNDER LATERAL FORCES
F4 VB4 VB4
Level 4
Base Overturning Moment

F3 VB3 VB3 OTM = Fi H i

Level 3
OTM = T Lb + M Cj
OTM = VBi Lbase + M Cj
VB2 VB2
F2
Level 2

H3
VB1 VB1
F1 Level 1 Lateral force distribution
n
Fi = VB (mi i ) / (mi i )
VC1 VC2 VC3
0.6H1
Level 0 i =1
MC1 MC2 MC3
T C
Lbase
62
 PLASTIC DISPLACEMENT OF CANTILEVER WALLS

lW
Plastic
Hinge He
p
p
LSP 0.5LP-LSP

LP
p y
(a) Wall (b) Curvature (c) Plastic Displacement

P = P LP (H e (0.5LP LSP )) = P (H e (0.5 LP LSP ))

P = P LP H e = P H e (acceptable approximation)
plastic hinge length: LP = k H e + 0.1lW + LSP 63
k = 0.2(fu/fy 1) =0.08
 LIMIT STATE CURVATURES FOR WALLS:

From analyses:
Serviceability curvature: s lw = 0.0175
Damage Control curvature: dc l w = 0.072
In both cases steel strain limit dominates. A general equation can be
written:

General limit curvature: ls l w = 1.2 s ,ls

Design Displacement
y H i2 H
i = yi + pi = 1 i + p H i
profile is thus: lw 3H n
64
TORSIONAL RESPONSE OF WALL BUILDINGS WITH
STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS ECCENTRICITY

Z
Wall 4

ktrans

kZ1, kZ2
Wall CR CV CM Wall 2
LZ=15m V1 X
eVX Strength V2
eRX VB eccentricity
Stiffness
ktrans
eccentricity
Wall 3
LX = 25 m

Both strength and stiffness eccentricity affect torsional response.

In DDBD the design displacement at centre of mass is reduced to
account for torsional response 65
COUPLED WALLS -TYPICAL ELEVATION

Fi

Hi
Gravity
Frame

Coupled
Walls
1 2

(a) Structure and Lateral Forces

66
 COUPLING BEAM DRIFTS

Conventional
W reinforcement

CB

0.5lW LCB 0.5lW Diagonal

reinforcement

(a) Drift Geometry (b) Coupling Beam

CB = W (1+ lW / LCB )
67
 CAPACITY DESIGN

Overstrength: Material strengths will generally

exceed dependable strengths used for design;
confinement and strain-hardening further
increase flexural strength above design strength
Higher mode effects: Either not considered
(equivalent lateral force approach), or incorrectly
considered (elastic modal superposition) in current
design.

68
STRUCTURAL WALL
FAILURE

Inadequate transverse
reinforcement in plastic
hinge region

KOBE, 1995
69
INADEQUATE CONSIDER-
ATION OF HIGHER MODE
EFFECTS

Hinge forms above base

VALPARAISO, 1985
70
 HIGHER MODE EFFECTS

Two effects in DDBD

1. Drift amplification A reduction to the design drift
is applied to frames higher than about 10 storeys
2. Moment and Shear amplification for capacity-
protected actions and members. These have been
extensively researched by inelastic time-history
analysis. Results are found to depend on the effective
structural displacement ductility demand. New design
equations and simplified design approaches have been
developed for different structural systems.

71
 EFFECTIVE MODAL SUPERPOSITION FOR
HIGHER MODE EFFECTS

A modal analysis procedure combining the inelastic

first mode and ELASTIC higher modes by a SRSS
approach provides good simulation of higher mode
effects. The agreement is improved if the stiffness
of plastic hinges is reduced to reflect the design
ductility
i.e. use EI/ for members with plastic hinges.

72
 60

30 40
MMS THA MMS THA MMS THA

40
Height (m)

Height (m)

Height (m)
30
20

20
20
10
10

0 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Shear Force (kN) Shear Force (kN) Shear Force (kN)
(m) Twelve-Storey Wall, IR=0.5 (q) Sixteen-Storey Wall, IR=0.5 (u) Twenty-Storey Wall, IR=0.5

60

30 40

MMS THA
40
Height (m)

Height (m)

30

Height (m)
20

20
THA MMS 20
10
10 THA MMS

0 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Shear Force (kN) Shear Force (kN) Shear Force (kN)
(n) Twelve-Storey Wall, IR=1.0 (r) Sixteen-Storey Wall, IR=1.0 (v) Twenty-Storey Wall, IR=1.0

MMS Shear Envelopes Compared with Time History Results

60

for Different Seismic Intensity Ratios (IR=1= Design)

30 40

83
73 40
ht (m)

ht (m)

ht (m)

30
20
 DOES DDBD MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

Determining moment demand by elastic modal

analysis is inappropriate, resulting in poor
distributions of lateral strength
Force-based design uses elastic stiffness which is
NOT KNOWN at the start of the design. DDBD uses
yield displacement or drift which IS known at the
start of the design.
DDBD achieves a specified limit state at the design
intensity; force-based design, at best, is bounded by
the limit state, and vulnerability to damage is
variable.
The design effort with DDBD is less than with
force-based design. 74
INFLUENCE OF SEISMIC INTENSITY ON DESIGN
FORCES

Force-Based Design Displacement-Based Design

Z2
Z
Te 2 = Te1 1 , but K e = 4 2me / Te2
Vb 2 = Vb1 Z2
Z
2

Z1 Hence: K e 2 = K e1 2
Z1
If Z2 = 0.5Z1, Vb2 = 0.5Vb1 Z
2
Hence: VB 2 = VB1 2 : Vb2 = 0.25V
75
b1
Z1
 BRIDGE COLUMNS OF UNEQUAL HEIGHT

`
F Hc

HA HB HC HA

C HB

B
Force-Based Design Displacement-Based Design

Stiffness: prop. to 1/H3 prop. to 1/H

Shear Force: prop. to 1/H3 prop. to 1/H
Moments: prop. to 1/H2 equal
Rebar: prop. to 1/H2 equal
Ductility: equal (!) prop. to 1/H2
76
 CONCLUSIONS

DOES DDBD MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

YES!
Thank you

77