Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Atc-19 Structural Response Modification PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ivhonne Blanco
    22 views69 pages

    Original Title

    Atc-19_structural_response_modification.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    22 views69 pages

    Atc-19 Structural Response Modification PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ivhonne Blanco

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 69
    ATC Structural response modification factors ATC. 3.06 elastic response spectrum for a ‘rock sita and 5% damping z Normalized spectral acceleration (g) Period (seconds) aTC Applied Technology Council Funded by National Science Foundation National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Applied Technology Council The Applied Technology Council (ATC) is a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation established in 1971 through the efforts of the Structural Engineers Association of California. ATC is guided by a Board of Directors consisting of representatives appointed by the American Society of Civil Engi- neers, the Structural Engineers Association of California, the Western States Council of Structural Engineers Associations, and two at-large representatives concerned with the practice of structural engineering. Each director serves a three-year term, The purpose of ATC is to assist the design practitioner in structural engineering (and related de- sign specialty fields such as soils, wind, and earthquake) in the task of keeping abreast of and ef fectively using technological developments. ATC also identifies and encourages needed research and develops consensus opinions on structural engineering issues in a nonproprietary format. ATC thereby fulfills a unique role in funded information transfer. Project management and administration are carried out by a full-time Executive Director and sup- ort staff. Project work is conducted by a wide range of highly qualified consulting professionals, thus incorporating the experience of many individuals from academia, research, and professional practice who would not be available from any single organi tained from government agencies and from the private sector in the form of tax-deductible contri- butions. 1994-1995 Board of Directors Edwin T. Huston, President James A. Hill John C. Theiss, Vice President James R. Libby C. Mark Saunders, Secretary/Treasucer Kenneth A. Luttrell John M. Coil, Past President Bijan Mohraz Nicholas F. Forell Ronald &, Nelson Douglas A. Foutch Charles H. Thornton Disclaimer This report was prepared by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) with funding provided by the ‘National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER). NSF, NCEER, ATC or any person acting on their behaif does not: |. make any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information, meth- 04, or process disclosed in this report or that such use may not infringe upon privately owned rights; oF 2. assume any liabilities of whatsoever kind with respect to the use of, or for damages result- ing from the use of, any information, method, or process disclosed in this report. ‘Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of ATC or the sponsoring organiza- tions. The material presented in this publication should not be used of relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and appli- ability by qualified professionals, Cover Illustration: Figure 2.1, this report (see page 6) Copyright 1995 Applied Technology Council PO Cpaunac ATC-19 Structural Response Modification Factors by APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 550 Redwood City, California 94065 Funded by NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Grant No. ECE-8600721 and NATIONAL CENTER FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH NCEER Project No. 92-4601 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Christopher Rojahn PROJECT CONSULTANTS ‘Andrew Whittaker Gary Hart PROJECT ENGINEERING PANEL Vitelmo Bertero Gregg Brandow Sigmund Freeman ‘William Hall Lawrence Reaveley* “ATC Board Representative 1995 Preface In 1986, the Applied Technology Council (ATC) was awarded a grant from the National Science Founda- tion (NSF) to evaluate structural response modifica- tion factors (R factors). R factors are used in current seismic building codes to reduce ground motions as- sociated with design level earthquakes to design force levels. The initial objectives of the project (known as ATC-19) were to: (1) document the basis for the val- ues assigned to R factors in model seismic codes in the United States, (2) review the role played by R fac- tors in seismic design practice throughout the United States; (3) present state-of-knowledge on R factors; and (4) propose procedures for improving the reliabil- ity of values assigned to R. In 1991, the scope of the effort was expanded with funding from the National Center for Earthquake En- gineering Research (NCEER) to address and/or docu- ‘ment (1) how response modification factors are used for seismic design in other countries; (2) a rational ‘means for decomposing R into key components using state-of-the-knowledge information; (3) a framework (and methods) for evaluating the key components of R; and (4) the research necessary to improve the reli- ability of engineered construction designed using R factors. The results from the original and expanded objectives described above are documented in this fe- port. The primary ATC-19 project consultants, who pre- pared the major portions of this report, were Gary Hart and Andrew Whittaker, senior-level earthquake engineering researchers from southern and northern California, respectively. Their work was overviewed and guided by an advisory “blue-ribbon” Project En- gineering Panel (PEP) consisting of Vitelmo Bertero, Gregg Brandow, Sigmund Freeman, William Hall, and Lawrence Reaveley (ATC Board Representa- tive). Nancy Sauer and Peter Mork provi and publication preparation assistance. The affilia- tions of these individuals are provided in the Project Participants list. ATC gratefully acknowledges the valuable support and patience of the NSF Project Officer, S. C. Liu. ATC also gratefully acknowledges the valuable input of participants in the companion NCEER-funded ATC-34 Project: The late Peter Gergely (Comell University), who served on the NCEER Research ‘Committee and played a key role in acquiring NCEER support for this investigation; Project Direo- tor Andrew Whittaker (University of California at Berkeley); PEP members Vitelmo Bertero (Universi- ty of California at Berkeley), Ian Buckle (NCEER), Sigmund Freeman (Wiss, Janney, Elster Assoc., Inc.), Gary Hart (University of California at Los An- geles), Helmut Krawinkler (Stanford University), Ronald Mayes (Dynamic Isolation Systems), Andrew Merovich (Andrew Merovich & Assoc.), Joseph Nicoletti (URS/Blume), Guy Nordenson (Ove Arup & Partners), Masanobu Shinozuka (University of Southern California), and John Theiss (ATC Board Representative); and consultants Howard Hwang (Memphis State University), Onder Kusta (OAK En- gineering), and Yi-Kwei Wen (University of Mincis). Christopher Rojahn ATC Executive Director & ATC-19 Principal Investigator ATC-19 Preface i Table of Contents Preface 1. Introduction, 11 Background... . 1.2. Objectives of the Repo 1.3 Organization of the Repo 2. History of Response Modification Factors 2.1 Introduction 2.2. R Factor Development 23 Rw Factor Development . 2.4 Comparison of K, R, and Rw.. 3. Use of Response Modification Factors... 3.1. Introduction. 3.2. R Factors in Seismic Building Code: 3.2.4 Summary... 3.3. Use of R Factor Equivalents for Bridge Desigi 4. Components of Response Modification Factors 4.1 Introductio 4.2. Impact of the R Factor on Design 43 Force-Displacement Response of Buildings. 4.4 Experimental Evaluation of Force-Displacement Relationships 4.5 Key Components of R. 4.5.1 Strength Factor 4.5.2. Duetility Factor. 4.5.3 Redundancy Factor. 45.4 Damping Factor. 4.6 Systematic Evaluation of R Factors 47 Reliability of Values for R 5. Conclusions and Recommendations... 5.1 Summary and Concluding Remarks. 5.2. Recommendations . Appendix A: Evaluation of Building Strength and Duetility Appendix B: Glossary of Terms. References. Project Participants Applied Technology Council Projects and Report Information. ATC-19 Table of Contents v Figure Number Figure 2.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 43 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 Figure 4.10 Figure 4.11 Figure 4.12 Figure 4.13 Figure A-l Figure A-2 Figure A-3 Figure Ad Figure A-5 Figure A-6 Figure A-7 Figure A-8 List of Figures Title Page Use of R factors to reduce elastic spectral demands to the desiga force level Caltrans Z factors. Single degree of freedom system. ‘Sample elastic pseudo-acceleration spectra for 5% damping. ‘Sample base shear force versus roof displacement relationship. Bilinear approximations to a force displacement relationship... Experimental evaluation of strength and ductility factors, 21 Definition of terms for two example one-story frames... Newmark and Hall R, — } -T relationship. Krawinkier and Nassar R,, ~ }.-T relationship. MDOF modification factors. Duetility factor comparison. Redundancy in moment frame systems. Redundancy in shear wall systems. Force-displacement relationships for a dual system. Typical floor plan of sample building (DOC, 1973, p. 363)... Transverse section and typical details of sample building (DOC, 1973, p. 365). ‘Mathematical model of the sample building longitudinal framing. ‘Mode shapes of sample building in the longitudinal direction. Base shear versus roof displacement relations for sample building analyses 1 and 2. Plastic hinge locations, roof displacement of 20 inches, sample building analysis 1 and 2... Base shear versus roof displacement relations for analyses 1 and 3. Base shear versus roof displacement relation for analysis 1.. ATC-19 List of Figures vil Table Number Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table A-1 Table A-2 ATCA9 List of Tables Title Page Relationship of K and Rw... Tabulated Values for K, R and Rw... Coefficient Ds for Steel Framed Buildings in Japan's 1981 Building Standard Law... 12 Coefficient Ds for Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings in Japan's 1981 Building Standard Law. Response Modification Factor Comparison for Rock Sites... wld Bridge Response Modification Factors. Experimental Reduction Factors for Steel Frames... Seismic Response Parameters for Two Example One-Story Frames. Draft Redundancy Factors... Damping Factor as a Function of Viscous Damping... ‘Sample Building Reactive Weights Dynamic Characteristics in the Longitudinal Direction, Sample Building Ust of Tables G3 Introduction 1. 1.1 Background The seismic design of buildings in the United States is based on proportioning members of the seismic framing system for actions determined from a linear analysis using prescribed lateral forces. Lateral force values are prescribed at either the allowable (work- ing) stress or the strength level. The Uniform Build- ing Code (ICBO, 1991) prescribes forces at the allowable stress level and the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regula tions for New Buildings, hereafter denoted as the NEHRP Provisions (BSSC, 1991) prescribes forces at the strength level, The seismic force values used in the design of buildings are calculated by dividing forces that would be associated with elastic response by a response modification factor, often symbolized aR. Response modification factors were first proposed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) in the ATC- 3-06 report published in 1978. The NEHRP Prov: sions, frst published in 1985, are based on the seis- mic design provisions set forth in ATC-3-06, Similar factors, modified to reflect the aflowable stress design approach, were adopted in the Uniform Build- ing Code (UBC) a decade later in 1988. The concept of a response modification factor was proposed based on the premise that well-detailed seismic framing systems could sustain large inelastic deformations without collapse (ductile behavior) and develop lateral strengths in excess of their design strength (often termed reserve strength). The R factor was assumed to represent the ratio of the forces that would develop under the specified ground motion if the framing system were to behave entirely elasti- cally (termed hereafter as elastic design) to the pre- setibed design forces at the strength level (assumed equal to the significant yield level). In the UBC, gravity (dead, live, and snow) and envi- ronmental (wind, seismic) loads are prescribed at the service level. Until the recent advent of Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), an ultimate strength approach that is just beginning to be used in practice, steel framing systems have typically been designed for service-level actions using allowable stresses, Reinforced concrete framing systems are designed for ultimate strength-level actions, which are calculated by multiplying the service-level actions by load factors. Prescribed seismic forces are calculated in che UBC by dividing the elastic spectral forces by a response modification factor (R,): values for R, range between 4 and 12. Inthe NEHRP Provisions, loads are prescribed at the strength level. In practice, steel framing systems are designed for ultimate-level actions by using allow- able stress values multiplied by 1.7; reinforced con- crete framing systems are designed at the strength level for ultimate actions. Prescribed seismic forces are calculated in the NEHRP Provisions by dividing the elastic spectral forces by a response modification factor, R. Values for R range between 1.25 and 8. The relationship between the response modification fac- tors in the NEHRP Provisions (R) and the UBC (R,) is presented later in this report. ‘When using response modification factors substan- tially greater than one, the designer makes a signifi- ‘cant assumption; that i, that linear analysis tools can be used to obtain reasonable estimates of nonlinear response quantities. This assumption has recently ‘been questioned and is discussed in detail in ATC-34 (ATC, 1995). Use of large response modification factors underties a second common assumption of seismic design; that is, that significant nonlinear response and hence sig nificant damage is expected if the design earthquake occurs. This assumption is of course a direct result of using design forces that are significantly less than the elastic spectral forces. The consequences of this assumption are considered in detail in this report, ‘The R factors for the various framing systems included in the ATC-3-06 report were selected through committee consensus on the basis of (a) the general observed performance of like buildings dur- ing past earthquakes, (b) estimates of general system, toughness, and (c) estimates of the amount of damp- ing present during inelastic response. Thus, there is little technical basis for the values of R proposed in aTcA9 4: Introduction ATC-3-06. The commentary to ATC-3-06 notes that“... values of R must be chosen and used with judgement” and that “... lower values must be used for structures possessing a low degree of redundancy wherein all the plastic hinges required for the forma- tion of a mechanism may be formed essentially simultaneously and at a force level close to the speci- fied design strength.” To further underscore the uncertainties associated with the values assigned to R for different seismic framing systems, a footnote to the table listing the response modification coeffi- cients states, “These (values for R) are based on best judgment and data available at time of writing and need to be reviewed periodically.’ Given the fiscal and social consequences of wide- spread building failure that could occur in an earth- quake if poor choices for values of R are used in design, itis evident to enlightened design profession- als that the values assigned to R in current seismic regulations should reflect the most current know!- edge in earthquake engineering and construction practice in the United States. Nearly twenty years have passed since R factors were first introduced in the United States. In this space of time, much has been leaned about the likely performance of seismic framing systems in moderate-to-severe earthquakes, especially following the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquakes. This new knowledge, com- bined with changing public expectations of accept- able levels of earthquake-induced damage and ‘changes in construction practice, makes 1995 an appropriate year in which to publish a formal review of response modification factors and the ways in which the factors are used (and misused) in current design practice. 1.2 Objectives of the Report This report has several key objectives. 1. Todocument the basis for the values assigned to Rin current seismic codes in the United States. 2. To review the role played by R factors in seismic design practice in the United States. 3. To describe how response modification fac- tors are used for seismic design in other countries. 4, To present up-to-date information on R fac- tors. 5. To develop a rational means of decomposing, Rinto key components. 6. To propose a framework (and methods) for evaluating the key components of R. 7. To recommend research necessary to improve the reliability of engineered con- struction designed using R factors. ‘The primary audience for this report is licensed pro- fessional engineers familiar with both current build- ing seismic design criteria and structural dynamics. However, the report has been written to be under- standable to a broad audience, with the intent of hav- ing a strong impact on the design professionals and the code-change process. The secondary audience for the report is the academic/research community. 1.3. Organization of the Report Chapter 2 provides an historical perspective on how the values of R in use today were developed. The relationship between K factors introduced in the late 1950 s, R factors introduced in ATC-3-06, and R,, factors introduced into the 1988 UBC (ICBO, 1988) is established, and the shortcomings of seismic design using R factors are enumerated. Chapter 3 discusses the use of response modification factors for the seismic design of new buildings out- side the United States and for the seismic design of new bridges in the United States, to provide perspec- tive on the conclusions drawn in this report. The fac- tors used in three common framing systems, the European, Japanese, and Mexican codes, are com- pared with the corresponding values in the 1991 NEHRP Provisions (BSSC, 1991). This chapter includes some conclusions about the likely behavior of code-compliant buildings in the United States dur- ing severe earthquake shaking. Chapter 4 discusses the impact of R factors on the seismic design process in the United States, experi- mental estimates of R for two steel-braced framing systems, and proposes a new formulation for R. Unresolved issues associated with the proposed for- mulation for R are described, and strategies for resolving these issues are proposed, In Chapter 5, the significant issues raised in this report are summarized, and key conclusions are drawn. Recommendations for further study complete this chapter. A list of references follows Chapter 5. 2 4: Introduction ATC-19 Reliable values for R will likely be proposed on the basis of the statistical evaluation of reserve strengths and system ductility values. Reserve strength and ductility can be estimated using nonlinear static anal- ysis. Appendix A provides an overview of nonlinear static analysis and presents the results of such an analysis of a nonductile reinforced concrete moment frame building. This analysis was performed as part of the ongoing FEMA-funded Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) project to develop guidelines and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (ATC’s portion of this project is known as ATC-33). The results of the nonlinear static analysis presented in Appendix A are used to calculate draft strength and ductility factors. Appendix B contains a comprehensive glossary of terms used in this report. Following Appendix B are references, a list of the individuals who have contrib- uted to the preparation of this report, and information on other available ATC reports, including companion reports and other resource documents. ATC-49 ‘:intreduction 2. 2.1 Introduction In 1957, a committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAQC) began develop- ment of a seismic code for California. This effort resulted in the SEAOC Recommended Lateral Force Requirements (also known as the SEAOC Blue Book) being published in 1959 (SEAOC, 1959). Commen- tary to the requirements was first issued in 1960. ‘These recommendations represented the profession’s state-of-the-art knowledge in the field of earthquake engineering; the seismic design requirements in the 1959 Blue Book were significantly different from previous seismic codes in the United States. For the first time the calculation of the minimum design base shear explicitly considered the structural system type. The equation given for base shear was v= KcW (2) where K was a horizontal force factor (the predeces- sor of R and R,,); C was a function of the fundamen- tal period of the building; and W was the total dead load. The K factor was assigned values of 1.33 fora bearing wall building, 0.80 for dual systems, 0.67 for moment-resisting frames, and 1.00 for framing sys- tems not previously classified. The term C defined the shape of the design response spectrum, and was calculated as follows: c (2-2) a where T was the fundamental period of vibration in the direction under consideration. The Blue Book was developed as a seismic design code for California alone. California was assumed to have uniform seis- micity, and a seismic zone factor was not required in Equation 2-1. The intent of the Blue Book was provide minimum standards to assure public safety. Requirements contained in such codes are intended to safeguard against major structural failures and to provide protection against loss of life and personal injury... The “Recom- History of Response Modification Factors mended Lateral Force Requirements” are intended to provide this protection in the event of an earthquake of intensity or severity of the strongest of those which California has recorded ... The code does not assure protection against non-struc- tural damage ... Neither does it assure protection against structural damage ...” The seismic provisions in the 1961 UBC (ICBO, 1961) were adopted from the 1959 Bluebook. Seis mic zonation was considered through the use of a Z factor which was set equal to 1.0 in zone 3 (the region of highest seismicity), 0.50 in zone 2, and 0.25 in zone 1. The minimum design base shear in the 1961 UBC was calculated as: v= ZKCW (2:3) where all terms were defined as above. 2.2 R Factor Development ‘The development of response modification (R) fac- tors, first introduced in ATC-3-06 (ATC, 1978), can be traced back to the horizontal force factor (Rojahn, 1988, and Rojahn and Hart, 1988). This section sum- marizes the development process. The publication of ATC-3-06 defined a benchmark in seismic engineering in the United States. ATC-3-06 constituted a significant departure from previous seismic codes and embodied several new concepts that included: (a) classification of building use-group categories into seismic hazard exposure groups, (b) national seismic hazard maps, (c) tools for elastic dynamic analysis, (d) use of response modification (Ry) factors in lieu of K factors, (e) explicit drift lim- its, (8) discussion of the influence of orthogonal exci- tation effects, (g) materials design based on strength methods instead of allowable stress, (h) provisions for soil-structure interaction, and (i) detailed seismic design requirements for architectural electrical, and mechanical systems and components. In regard to response modification factors, ATC-3-06 noted that: ATC-19 2: History of Response Modification Factors 1. °R factors were intended to reflect reductions in design force values that were justified on the basis of risk assessment, economics, and nontin- ear behavior. 2. The intent was to develop R factors that could be used to reduce expected ground motions pre- sented in the form of elastic response spectra to lower design levels by bringing modern struc tural dynamics into the design process. Figure 2.1 illustrates the use of R factors to reduce elas- tic spectral demands to design force levels. Given that R was to be a response reduction factor, it ‘was decided to place R in the denominator of the base shear equation. The end result was that R factors were inversely proportional to the K factors used in previous codes. The base shear equation for struc- tures for which the period of vibration of the building Twas not calculated took the following form: oy eo In th expression, V is the seismic base shear force, Normalized spectral acceleration (9) ‘Ag is the effective peak acceleration of the design ground motion (expressed as a fraction of g), R is the response modification factor, and I the total reactive weight. The factor of 2.5 is a dynamic amplification factor that represents the tendency for a building to ‘amplify accelerations applied atthe base, Only horizontal seismic forces were considered in ATC-3-06 for two reasons. First, buildings had always been designed to withstand vertical forces greater than those produced by mean (unfactored) gravity loads, thereby providing assumed reserve capacity for vertical seismic motions, and second, because the analysis and design tools needed to account for vertical ground motion effects were not routinely available in the 1970s, Furthermore, ground ‘motion data available at the time suggested that peak vertical motions were normally less than 2/3 of, peak horizontal motions, leading to the conclusion that the responses caused by vertical motions should be less severe than those caused by horizontal motions. For structures for which the fundamental building period was calculated, the base shear equation in ATC 3-06 elastic response spectrum for a rock site and 5% damping Design spectrum for a special moment-resisting space frame Period (seconds) Figure 2.1: Use of R factors to reduce elastic spectral demands to the design force levei, Each point on the elastic response spectrum for a rock site (top curve) is divided by R to produce the design spec trum (bottom curve} fora given structure type, in this case a special moment-resisting space frame, where R= 8, 6 2: History of Response Modification Factors ATC-19 ATC-3-06 was given as: 124,58, v= goa @5) In this expression, A, is the effective peak velocity- related acceleration, Sis a soil profile coefficient, and is the fundamental period of the building. The soil profile coefficient is used to account for soil proper- ties that could amplify the bedrock motion; its val- ues, as defined in ATC-3-06, range from 1.0 to 1.5. ‘The base shear of Equation 2-4 provides an upper limit on the base shear calculated using Equation 2-5. Individuals who participated in the ATC-3-06 R fac- tor development process (ATC, 1978, page 8, Struc tural Design, Details, and Quality Assurance Committee) have indicated that committee members first independently developed R values for each structural system type based on their own experience. The values of R selected for inclusion in ATC-3-06 represented the consensus opinion of the experts invoived in the development effort. ‘The first step in assigning consensus R values was to set a maximum value of R for the structure types con- sidered to provide the best seismic performance; that is, those with the highest reserve strength or ductility. This category included special moment frames and dual systems composed of reinforced concrete shear wall structures with special moment frames capable of resisting at least 25 percent of the prescribed seis- mic forces. C.W. Pinkham (personal communication), a member of the team that developed R factors, described the procedure used to calculate R for special ste! moment frames. ‘The maximum value of R was determined by equat- ing V,, computed for allowable stress design per the 1976 UBC (equivalent to the 1974 Blue Book (SEAOC, 1974)) to V computed for strength design in ATC-3-06. Implicit in this undertaking was the decision not to increase the design base shear to improve seismic performance, but rather to achieve improved seismic performance by requiring better detailing. For special steel moment frames, the maximum value of R was computed at a fundamental period equal to 1.0 second: (2-6) where V,, was the allowable-stress design lateral seismic base shear (1976 UBC) and V was the strength- design lateral seismic base sheat (ATC 3- 06). The numerical factors in Equation 2-6 accounted for differences between the allowable-stress design and strength design methods: 1.67 represented the margin of safety in allowable-stress design, 1.33 rep- resented the permissible increase in allowable-stress design, and 0.9 was the capacity reduction factor for flexure in strength design. Using the expression for V, as specified in the 1976 UBC (ICBO, 1976), it followed that: 4ST) _ (1245) ZIKCS; 133) = aw en where Z was a zone factor, [was an importance fac- tor, K was a horizontal force factor, C defined the spectral shape ( 1/(15VT) , and S; was site coefficient. Substituting Z=1= T= 1.0, 5; = 1.5, Ay = 0.4, and S = 12 in Equation 2~ 1.0)(1.0)«(0067)(1.)( 754) (2-8) (120.4 1.2) = ““Q9RCLD) resulted in (0.1256)K = cs es) yielding 5a Roe 2-10) In the 1976 UBC, K was set equal to 0.67 for ‘moment resisting frame systems. The corresponding value of R in ATC-3-06 was thus computed as: Su Re 58. 11) oO ‘The response modification factor for reinforced con- crete shear-wall structures with special moment frames was also assigned the maximum value of eight. Values of R for other framing systems were ATC-19 2: History of Response Modification Factors generally assigned on the basis of Equation 2-10, then adjusted in accordance with the consensus opin- ion of the committee. Framing systems not consid- ered in the 1976 UBC were assigned R values by consensus opinion of the committee. 2.3 Ry Factor Development ‘Values for structural response modification factors for allowable-stress design (Ry) were determined by the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engi- neers Association of California (SEAOC) and pub- lished in the 1988 Blue Book (SEAOC, 1988). SEAOC elected to introduce Ry, rather than R, to ease the eventual transition from allowable-stress design to strength design. Similar to R, Ry is inversely proportional to K. The relationship between values of X in the 1985 UBC and values of R,, in the 1988 UBC can be demon- strated as follows. ‘The equation given in the 1985 UBC (ICBO, 1985) for calculating the design base shear at the allowable stress level (Vp) is: Vp = ZIKCS)W (2-12) ‘The parameters Z and / are used to quantify the seis- ‘mic zone and the importance of the building occu- pancy, respectively. The parameter S is used to account for site characteristics, and C is a numerical coefficient that isa function of the fundamental period of vibration of the building and the defined spectral shape. The maximum value of C is set equal to 0.12; the maximum value of CS is set at 0.14. Kis a numerical coefficient referred to as the horizontal force factor. ‘The 1988 Blue Book (SEAQC, 1988) and 1994 UBC (ICBO, 1994) use an alternative equation for caleu- lating Vp, namely: = ZICw Rw where Z and / are the seismic zone and importance factors, respectively. For this example, let = 1 in Equations 2-12 and 2-13. The factor C in Equation 2- 13 has a maximum value of 2.75 and is defined as: YD (213) ~ L2ss C= eT (2-14) where Sis a site coefficient and 7'is the fundamental period of vibration. Ifit is assumed that CS = 0.14 and Z= 1 in Equation 2-12, and that C= 2.75 and Z= 0.4 in Equation 2-13, it follows that (2.75)0.4 K(0.14)C = (215) and that (2-16) Equation 2-10 into Equation 2-16 yields the following relationship between R,, and R. 18 = 154k . 17 Table 2.1 displays the values of K (1985 UBC) and R,, (1988 UBC) for several framing systems. Table 2.1 Relationship of K and R,, Framing System 1985 UBC 1988 UBC Bearing wall K=133 Ry=6 Dualsteel and . aoe K= 0280 Ry = 10 Ductile steel - and concrete Ne Other 2.4 Comparison of KR, and Ry ‘With few exceptions, the R factors tabulated in ATC- 3-06 are the same as those in the 1991 NEHRP Pro- visions. The exceptions include an increased value of Rin the NEHRP Provisions for special concrete moment-resisting space frames, and the addition of R factors for concrete intermediate moment-resisting space ftames. The values assigned to Ry, in the 1994 UBC are the seme as those listed in the 1988 Blue Book. Forreference, values of R in ATC-3-06 and the 1991 NEHRP Provisions, and Ry in the 1994 UBC ted in Table 2-2, for framing systems grouped according to K value. ‘The link between K, R, and R,, was established in the previous section. Values of the horizontal force fac- 8 2: History of Response Modification Factors ATC-19 tor K represented the consensus opinion of expert design professionals and academicians in the late 1950s. Despite a many-fold increase in knowledge and the advent of powerful analysis tools, no sub- stantive review of, or changes ta, response reduction factors have been made since the 1950s. Recent studies by researchers (¢.g., Bertero, 1986) and design professionals, including Project ATC-34, have identified major shortcomings in the values and formolation of the response modification factors used in seismic codes in the United States. These short- comings include the following: 1. A single value of R for all buildings of a given framing type, irrespective of building height, plan geometry, and framing layout, cannot be justified. 2. The use of the values assigned to R for some framing systems will likely not produce the desired performance in the design earthquake. 3. The response modification factor is intended, in pant, to account for the ductility of the framing system. Recognizing that a constant ductility ratio cannot be used 10 uniformly reduce elastic spectral demands to design (inelastic) spectral demands (measured typically as base shear), R must be period-dependent, This dependence is recognized in the Eurocode and the Mexican Code (see Chapter 3 for further discussion). . The reserve strength (strength in excess of the design strength) of buildings designed in differ- ent seismic regions will likely vary substantially. Given that reserve strength is a key component of R (see Chapter 4), R should be dependent on either the seismic zone or some ratio of gravity loads to seismic loads, Seismic design using the response modification factors listed in seismic codes and guidelines in the United States will most probably not result in a uniform level of risk for all seismic framing systems. ‘These shortcomings and other related issues are addressed in the remainder of this report. ATC-19 History of Response Modification Factors. Table 2.2 Tabulated Values for K, Rand Ry Basic Structural System (K factor) R R Ry ATC, 1978) _@SSC, 1991) (1CBO,71994) Bearing Wall System (K=1.33) 1, Light Framed Walls with Shear Panels 65 65 : Plywood walls, 3 stories or less 5 : 8 b. All other light framed walls : a 6 2. Shear wall a. Conerete 45 4S 60 b. Masonry 35 35 60 3. Braced Frames Carrying Gravity Loads 40 40 : a. Steel : : 6 b. Conerete : : 4 Building Frame System (k=1.00) 1. Steel Eccentric Braced Frames (EBF) : 7.0-8.0 10.0 2. Concentric Braced Frames : 70 - 3. Shear Walls a. Concrete 55 55 80 b. Masonry 45 45 80 Dual system (k=0.80) 1. Shear Walls 2. Concrete wth Special Moment Resting Space aa mn no b. Concrete with Concrete Intermediate Moment . ea a Resisting Space Frame (IMRSF) cc. Masonry with Concrete SMRSF 65 65 80 d. Masonry with Concrete IMRSF : 5.0 7.0 2. Steel EBF with Steel SMRSF : 70-80 120 3. Concentric Braced Frames a. Steel with SMRSF 60 60 100 b. Concrete with Concrete SMRSF 60 60 20 ©. Concrete with Concrete IMRSF : 5.0 60 ‘Moment Resisting Frame System (K=0.67) 1. Special Moment Resisting Space Frames (SMRSF) a. Steel 80 8.0 120 b. Concrete 70 20 12.0 2. Concrete Intermediate Moment Resisting Space Z ea aa Frames (IMRSF) 3. Ordinary Moment Resisting Space Frames a. Steet a2 45 60 b. Concrete 20 20 5.0 10 2: History of Response Modification Factors ATCA 3. 3.1 Introduction The use of response modification factors is not restricted to the seismic design of buildings in the United States. R factors, or their equivalents, are used for the seismic design of buildings in Europe, Japan, Mexico, and other countries, and for the seismic design of bridges in the United States. This chapter reviews the use of R factors in seismic building codes in Europe, Japan, and Mexico, and seismic bridge codes in the United States, in order to place seismic design practice for buildings in the United States in perspective. 3.2. R Factors in Seismic Building Codes 3.2.1 Europe The seismic design procedure in the 1988 Eurocode (CEC, 1988) is a single-level design procedure that reduces elastic spectral demands to the strength design level through the use of a period-dependent, response reduction factor (q) as follows: for TTy = a=4 G2) where T'is the fundamental period ofthe building; 7 isa characteristic period of the design spectrum. (lower-bound period to the constant-acceleration por~ fion of the spectrum); 1, is a factor related to the sys- tem equivalent viscous damping & and equal to 1.0 for & equal to five percent of critical; Bo is a pseudo-acceleration spectrum amplification factor (Get equal to 2.5); and q is a system behavior factor that varies as a function of material type, building strength and stiffness regularity. Values for g range between one and five for reinforced conerete framing systems. Recognizing that ductility cannot be used to Use of Response Modification Factors reduce substantially elastic force demands in the short-period range from 0 to T; , equation 3.1 shows how q varies from q=q at T= Tj, to g=1.0 at T= Inelastic displacement values (d, ) are estimated in the 1988 Eurocode as the product of the displacement values (d, ) computed using the reduced (design) seismic forces and the behavior factor g. For T less than 7}, the ratio g/g exceeds 1.0 and the inelastic displacement values exceed the elastic displacement values; for T greater than Tj, the ratio g/q equals 1.0, and the inelastic displacement values equal the elastic displacement values. 3.2.2 Japan ‘The Japanese 1981 Building Standard Law (IAEE, 1992) includes a two-phase or two-level procedure for the seismic design of buildings. The first phase (Level 1) design follows an approach similar to that adopted in the NEHRP Provisions (BSSC, 1991). Steel structures are designed at the strength level, based on allowable stress design procedures with the steel allowable stress equal to the yield stress. Strength design is used for reinforced concrete struc- tures. The second phase (Level I design is a direct and explicit evaluation of strength and ductility, and may be regarded as a check of whether these are suf- ficient for severe ground motions. Timber structures and low-rise structures satisfying rigidity, eccentric- ity, and detailing limitations do not require Level II design. Other structures, including all structures between 31 and 60 meters high, are subject to both Level I and Level Il design. Normative practice is for the seismic framing system to be designed using the Level I procedure and for the Level I design to be ‘checked (and modified as necessary) using the Level Il procedure. Structures over 60 meters high are sub- ject to special approval by the Ministry of Construc- tion. In the Level I design, the seismic coefficient at each story (C;) is determined as the product of four vai- ables: = ZRAC 63) ATC-19 3: Use of Response Modification Factors " where Z represents the seismic zone, R, defines the spectral shape that varies as a function of soil type, A; defines the vertical distribution of seismic force in the building, and Co represents the peak ground acceleration. In regions of high seismicity, Z is equal to 1.0. Except for wood structures on soft subsoil, Cp is set equal to 0.2. The seismic design shear force in the i-th story (Qj) is calculated as: a= GW G-4) where W is the reactive weight above the i-th story. For Level I design, seismic actions are computed using unreduced seismic forces. Interstory drift is limited to 0.5 percent of the story height for the pre- scribed seismic forces unless it can be demonstrated that greater drift can be tolerated by the nonstructural components, in which case the drift limit can be increased to 0.8 percent of the story height. In Level Il design, the engineer checks plan eccen- tricity, distribution of lateral stiffness, minimum code requirements (in some cases), and ultimate lateral- load-carrying capacity of each story. The ultimate lateral load capacity is computed using plastic analy- sis and ultimate seismic demands are estimated as: Qu = DsFes Qua 5) where Qud is the lateral seismic shear for severe earthquake motions, calculated according to Equa- tion 3-4 using Co equal to 1.0, D, is framing sys- tem-dependent ductility factor (less than 1.0), and Fey is a measure of the regularity of the building. There is no displacement check in the Level II design. The regularity factor (Fes ) is calculated as: Fes = FeFs G-6) where F, is a measure of the plan irregularity of the building, and F, reflects the uniformity of the dist bution of lateral stiffness over the height of the build- ing. For reference, F, and F, range in value between 1.0 (regular) and 1.5 (most irregular). The design penalties associated with selecting a highly irregular seismic framing system are clearly evident. The ductility factor (D,) varies as a function of struc- tural material, type of framing system, and key response parameters. Materials are identified as either steel or reinforced concrete; steel-reinforced concrete is included under the heading of reinforced concrete, Table 3-1 displays values of D, for steel seismic framing systems from the 1981 Building Standard Law (BSL). These values range between 0.25 and 0.50. The “behavior of members” rating in the first column is based on the proportioning of the structural members. For example, members in ductile moment frames with excellent ductility have smaller idth-to-ihiekness (or depth-to-thickness) ratios than ‘members in ductile moment frames with fair ductility or poor ductility. Stocky bracing members in braced frames ate associated with excellent ductility and slender braces are associated with fair ductility. Table 3.1 Coefficient D, for Steet Framed Buildings in Japan’s 1981 Building Standard Law Type of Frame Behavior of Members (1) Ductile moment {2)Concentrically (3) Frames other than frame braced frame ‘and (2) ‘A Members with 0.25 035 030 excellent ductility B. Members with 030 0.40 035 good ductility C. Members with fair 035 0.45 0.40 ductility . D. Members with 0.40 050 045 poor ductility 2 |: Use of Response Modification Factors ATC-18 Table 3.2 Coefficient D, far Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings in Japan’s 1981 Building Standard Law Type of Frame Behavior of Members _(1) Ductile moment. frame ‘A. Members with excellent ductility 030 B. Members with ood ductity C. Members with fair ductility D. Members with poor ductility 0.35 0.40 0.45 For reinforced concrete construction, values for Dy vary between 0.3 and 0.55, as shown below in Table 3.2. For steel-reinforced concrete construction (termed composite construction in the United States), values for D, are reduced from those in the table by 0.05. For a reinforced concrete ductile moment frame to be assigned excellent ductility, columns have to be designed to be flexure-critical, have a longitudinal reinforcement ratio less than 0.8 percent, and have low axial (<0.35f.") and shear (<0.1/,') stresses at the formation of the mechanism. The limiting shear stress in beams in an excellent ductility frame is 0.15f,; . Paar ductility would be assigned to a moment frame in which the axiat and shear stress values in the columns are much higher than the limits noted above, and for frames incorporating shear-crit- ical beams or columns. For a shear wall to posses excellent ductility, the wall has to be flexure-critical and have a low shear stress (<0.1)at the formation of the mechanism. The reader is referred to the Tables C1 through C4 (reinforced concrete construc- tion), and DI through Dé (steel construction) in the 1981 Building Standard Law for more detailed infor- ‘mation on frame and ductility classifications. 3.2.3 Mexico The 1987 Mexico City Building Code uses a reduc- tion factor to reduce elastic spectral demands to a strength design level. The response reduction factor (Q') is period-dependent and is calculated as fol- lows: (3) Frames other than (2) Shear walls ado 0.40 0.35 0.45 0.40 050 0.45 0.55 0.50 for T Introduction ‘The two common methods of nonlinear analysis are nonlinear static analysis and nonlinear response-his- tory analysis. For both methods of analys! ing system is modeled and analyzed as an assembly of elements and components. The data output from either analysis procedure includes force and defor- ‘mation demands on elements and components. ‘Nonlinear static analysis is less demanding in a com- putational sense than nonlinear response-history analysis, but more rigorous than linear methods of analysis. in noalinear response-history analysis, a mathematical model of a building is subjected to dig- itized records of earthquake ground motions. The analysis is generally terminated at the end of the ‘earthquake ground motion record — often after more than 2000 time steps. In nonlinear static analysis, increasing inertial forces (0r displacements) are imposed on a mathematical model ofa building. The analysis is terminated once a target displacement is reached — often after fewer than 50 load steps. The target displacement repre- sents a maximum building displacement during earthquake shaking; brief comments on the selection of the target displacement are provided in Section AQT. ‘The remainder of Section A.2 is devoted to nonlinear static analysis. The following sections provide the reader with an introduction to the subject. Much additional information is available in the literarure. 2.2 Basics of Nonlinear Static Analysis For the purposes of seismic analysis, a building should be modeled and analyzed as 8 three-dimen- sional assembly of elements and components, Two- dimensional modeling and analysis of a building will generally be acceptable if either the torsional effects are small oF the three-dimensional effects can be ATC-19 Appendix A: Evaluation of Bullding Strength and Ductility accounted for separately. The mathematical model of a building should include the following: (a) all elements and components of the seismic and gravity framing systems, (b) nonstruc- ‘ural components in the building likely to possess significant stiffness and strength, and (c) elements of the foundation system (footings, piles, etc.) that are sufficiently flexible and/or weak to contribute to the response of the building, The distribution of the equivalent lateral static loads (see Section A.2.6) in the mathematical model should be adequate to cap- ture all key dynamic effects on the seismic and grav- ity framing system, the nonstructural components, and the foundation. Gravity loads should be imposed on the mathemati- cal model to reflect those loads likely to be present during earthquake shaking. The initial gravity load- ing conditions (Og ) can be described by one of the following two equations (ATC, in progress): Oc -M(Qp + Or + Os) al 0G = 090 A2) where Qp , Qr ,and Qs are the dead, live, and snow loads, respectively. Equations A-1 and A-2 are intended to provide upper- and lower-bound esti- ‘mates, respectively, on the likely gravity loads on an element or component. Other load combinations (BSSC, 1991) can also be considered. 2.3 Modeling Elements, Components, and Connections ‘The mechanical characteristics (Le., force-deforma- tion) of each element and component of the building should be modeled in sufficient detail that their important effects on the response of the building are reasonably represented. In most instances, the mechanical characteristics estimated for the analysis will be elastic stiffness, inelastic stiffness, and yield strength. Failure modes (e.g., shear) that may occur at deformations smaller than those anticipated in the analysis should be accounted for in the element or component model. Elements and components of buildings should be modeled using actual rather than nominal geometries and mechanical properties. For example, the mechan- ical characteristics of a beam in a reinforced concrete frame should account for the likely presence of a reinforced concrete floor slab. Similarly, the yield strength of a wide-flange steel beam should be based on the likely yield stress rather than the nominal yield stress. Connections between framing members should be modeled unless the connection is sufficiently stiff to prevent relative deformation between the connected elements or components and the connection is stron- ger than the connected elements or components. A24 Nonlinear Static Procedure The nonlinear static procedure requires an a priori estimate of the target displacement. The target dis- placement serves as an estimate of the maximum dis- placement of a selected point (node) in the subject building during the design earthquake. The node associated with the center of mass at the roof level is often the target point or target node selected for com- parison with the target displacement. Nonlinear static analysis is integrated into the four- step nonlinear static procedure as follows: 1, Develop a two- or three-dimensional mathe- matical model of the building, as described in Section A.2.2. 2, Impose constant gravity loads, and then apply static lateral loads (or displacements) in pat- tems that approximately capture the relative inertial forces developed at locations of sub- stantial mass. 3. Push the structure using the load patterns of Step 2 to displacements larger than those associated with the target displacement (ie., the displacement of the target node exceeds the target displacement). 4, Estimate the forces and deformations in each element at the level of displacement corre- sponding to the target displacement (Step 4). ‘The element force and deformation demands of Step 4 are then compared with the element capacities in a manner similar to that demonstrated in Section A.3. 2.8 DRAIN Computer Code DRAIN-2DX (Prakash et a., 1992) is a two-dimen- sional, general-purpose, nonlirear, finite-element analysis program developed at the University of Cal- ifornia at Berkeley. The modeling and analysis pro- cedures incorporated in DRAIN-2DX are 36 Appendix A: Evaluation of Building Strength and Ductility ATC-19 summarized below. The DRAIN-2DX computer code could be used for Steps 2, 3, and 4 of the non linear static procedure described above. Building framing systems are modeled as two- dimensional (X-Y) assemblages of nonlinear ele- ‘ments connected at nodes. Unless a node is restrained or slaved to another node, each node has three degrees of freedom. Elements (and components) are divided into groups, although all elements of a given type (¢.g., beam-column) need not be assigned toa single group. Masses are lumped at nodes, so the nodal points should be selected to adequately capture the inertial response of the building. By lumping the masses at nodes, the mass matrix is diagonal. The damping matrix can be made proportional to the ele- ‘ment stiffness values and nodal masses. ‘Numerous analysis types are available with DRAIN- 2DX, including (a) static gravity analysis for com- bined element and nodal loads, (b) nonlinear static analysis for nodal loads, (c) eigen analysis for the evaluation of mode shapes and periods, (d) response- spectrum analysis, (e) nonlinear dynamic analysis for ground motions defined by acceleration records, (f) nonlinear dynamic analysis for ground motions defined by displacement records, and (g) nonlinear ‘dynamic analysis for specified initial nodal velocities (for shock analysis). The program is sufficiently flex- ible to allow a building (or structure) to be analyzed for several analysis segments (or types), thus favili- tating sequential static and dynamic analysis. Loads are input as either patterns for static loads or as records for dynamic loads. Seven different load types are available with DRAIN-2DX, including (2) static element load pattems — typically used for ‘gravity loads, (b) static nodal load patterns consisting of vertical, lateral, and rotational loads applied on nodes for gravity and static analysis segments, (c) ground acceleration records, (4) ground displacement records, including an allowance for multiple support excitation, and (¢) response spectra. DRAIN-2DX can perform both static and dynamic analysis. In static analysis, the load is typically applied in a number of steps. The program selects load substep sizes within each step by projecting the next stiffness change (known as an event) and termi- nating the substep at that event. The structure sti ness is then changed at the end of each substep, and the analysis is continued for the following substep. ‘The static analysis segment is complete once either the entire load has been applied or a target displace ment value is reached. In dynamic analysis, the time step can be selected to be constant or variable. Fur- ther options for dynamic analysis include event cal- culations within time steps and corrections at the end of each time step to improve the energy balance or equilibrium. Second-order (or P - A) effects can be modeled in DRAIN-2DX by considering geometric stiffness for each element, and including second-order forces in the calculation of the resisting forces. For static anal- -ysis, the geometric stiffness is modified at each event, For dynamic analysis, the geometric stiffness can be kept constant of allowed to vary. Six element types are currently available in the DRAIN-2DX element library: (1) a truss element, Type 01; (2)abeam-column element, Type 02; (3) a connection element, Type 04; (4) a panel element, Type 06; (5) alink element, Type 09; and (6) a fiber ‘beam-column element, Type 15. Of these six ele- ments, the most commonly used are the truss, the ‘beam-column and the connection elements. Some introductory remarks on these three elements follow. The reader is referred to Prakash et al. (1992) for additional information. Truss elements transmit axial loads only and can be arbitrarily oriented in the XY plane. The inelastic response of these elements can be specified as either yielding in tension and elastic buckling in compres- sion or yielding in both tension and compression. A ‘two-component parallel model (an element consist- ing of elastic and inelastic componemts in parallel) is used to capture strain-hardening effects. Beam-column elements possess axial and flexural stiffness and can be arbitrarily oriented in the AY plane. Shear deformations and rigid-end offsets can be accounted for in the beam-column element. Yield- ing is concentrated in the plastic hinges at the ele- ‘ment ends, and strain-hardening is approximated by a ‘two-component parallel model. Different yield moments can be specified at the two element ends as well as for positive and negative flexure — two fea- tures necessary to model reinforced concrete col- umns and beams. Gravity and other static loads applied to an element can be captured by specifying ‘end clamping or fixed-end forces. Second-order effects can be included by introducing equilibrium ATC-19 Appendix A: Evaluation of Building Strength and Ductility 37 correction and geometric stiffness as noted above. Three modes of deformation are available to beam- column elements — axial deformation, flexural rota- tion at element end 1, and flexural deformation at element end 2. A plastic hinge forms when the moment in the element reaches the yield moment. Inelastic axial deformations are assumed not to ‘occur; that is, a beam-column cannot yield in axial tension or compression. ‘The connection element connects two nodes with identical coordinates in the XY plane. This element can connect either rotational displacements of the ‘nodes or the translational displacements of the nodes, and it can be specified to achieve complex inelastic behaviors. A common application for this element is the modeling of beam-column panel zones in steel frames. A2.6 Lateral Load Profiles for Analysis Lateral loads should be applied in patterns that both approximately capture the vertical distribution of inertial forces expected in the design earthquake and account for the horizontal distribution of inertial forces in the plane of each floor diaphragm. Load patterns that bound the plausible distributions of iner- tial force should be considered for design. Two vertical distributions of inertial force commonly used for nonlinear static analysis are the distribution defined by the first-mode shape ordinates of the building and the constant acceleration distribution, which corresponds to the formation of a weak first story. For flexible buildings, a vertical distribution of seismic force that reflects the likely contributions of higher modes should be considered. A27 Target Displacement Calculation ‘The method most commonly used to evaluate the tar- get displacement is based on the assumption that elastic and inelastic displacements are equal; that is, the inelastic displacement of a SDOF oscillator with al (elastic) period T'is equal to the elastic spectral displacement calculated using period 7. This assumption is based primarily on the work of “Miranda and Bertero (1994) who demonstrated by exhaustive analysis that for periods greater than 0.5 second (for a rock site), mean elastic displacements ‘were approximately equal to mean inelastic displace- ments. This assumption should be carefully reviewed by the design professional calculating a target di placement, because the scatter in the ratio of elastic to inelastic displacements is large — for any given ground motion the ratio of elastic to inelastic dis- placements could range between 0.5 and 2.0. A con- servative approach to calculating the target displacement, in the absence of additional informa- tion, would be to increase the target displacement by between 50 percent and 100 percent; that is, to assume that the inelastic displacement is equal to 1.5 to 2.0 times the elastic displacement. Nonlinear static analysis makes use of force-defor- mation relationships for beams and columns that are generally based on monotonic force-deformation analysis. This assumption will likely be adequate for buildings designed to experience less than three dis- placement cycles to between 80 percent and 100 per- cent of the target displacement. On the other hand, consider a building in the near-source zone with a fundamental period of 0.5 second subject to a Richer ‘magnitude 7.5 event — this building may be sub- Jected to 10 to 20 displacement cycles to between 80 percent and 100 percent of the target displacement. ‘The strength and stiffness of the structural compo- nents and elements in this building will most likely degrade substantially over the course of the 10 to 20 displacement cycles. The question thus arises as to how the design professional should account for the effects of cumulative damage. At present, there are no definitive answers for building framing systems (Reinhorn, privase communication). In the absence of definitive data, the design professional should reduce the monotonic deformation capacity of structural framing elements and components to indirectly account for the deleterious effects of prolonged strong ground shaking, 3 Seismic Evaluation of an Example Building A3.1_ Description of Bullding ‘The building selected for sample analysis is a seven- story reinforced concrete building located in Los Angeles, approximately 13 miles south of the epicen- ter of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. This build- ing was damaged in both the 1971 earthquake and the 1994 Northridge earthquake. ‘This building was the subject of detailed analysis fol- lowing both the 1971 earthquake (DOC, 1973) and the 1994 earthquake (Lynn, private communication). ‘The latter analysis effort was funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to verify the non- 38 Appendix A: Evaluation of Building Strength and Ductility ATC-19 linear static analysis procedures being developed for the ATC-33 project (in progress). The analysis, results presented below are an extension of the FEMA study. The results of this study are contained in a background report to ATC-33 Guidelines and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Build- ings. The 63,000-square-foot building, designed in 1965, is approximately 62 feet by 160 feet in plan, The typ- ical framing consists of columns on a 20-foot (trans- verse) by 19-foot (longitudinal) grid. Spandrel beams are located on the perimeter frames. The floor system is a reinforced concrete flat slab, 10 inches thick at the second floor, 8.5 inches thick at the third to sev- enth floors, and 8 inches thick at the roof, The ‘ground floor is a four inch thick slab-on-grade, and the foundation is piled. A typical floor framing plan is presented in Figure A-1. Atypical transverse see- tion and typical beam and column details are pre- sented in Figure A-2. Interior columns are 18 inches square and exterior columns are 14 inches by 20 inches in plan. Spandrel beam sizes are shown in Fig- ure A-2. The seismic framing system is composed of interior slab-column moment frames and perimeter beam- ‘column moment frames. The design base shear force at the working stress level was (DOC, 1973): V = ZKCW = 1.0x0.67 x0.057 x W = 0.04 : 3) ‘The north face of the building, along column tine D, has four bays of masonry infill between the ground and second floor level. all at the eastem end of the structure, between column lines 5 and 9, For simplic~ ity, these infill walls were not included in the mathe- matical model described below. (Were this evaluation to be used for the purpose of seismic reha- bilitation, the infill walls would have been included in the mathematical model.) ‘The reader is referred to the Department of Com- merce report (DOC, 1973, pp. 359-393) for addi- al information regarding, the design and construction of this sample building. A432 Modeling of the Bullding ‘The first question confronting the engineer charged with evaluating the building is what to include in the ‘mathematical model of the building. Although some design professionals would choose to exclude the interior slab-column framing from the mathematical model ofthis framing system, itis inappropriate to do so in this instance, as is demonstrated below. The second question to be answered is whether the building can be represented using two-dimensional mathematical models; that is, uncoupling the three- dimensional independent framing systems along each principal axis of the building, In the sample building, the torsional response is small — especially so after the infill masonry walls are removed. As such, Lynn (private communication) modeled the three-dimen- sional building with two two-dimensional framing systems — one per building axis. Since the purpose of this appendix is to demonstrate the use of nonlinear static analysis, only the results of the analysis of the longitudinal framing are summa- rized. The reader is referred to the aforementioned background report for additional information. ‘Two exterior frames and two interior frames were included in the mathematical mode! of the longitudi nal framing. The mathematical model of one-half of the framing system is presented in Figure A-3. The mathematical models of the interior and exterior frames were linked together with rigid struts to simu- late the assumed tigid floor diaphragm. The reactive ‘weights assigned to the seven suspended floors are presented in Table A-1. 3.3 Modeling of Key Elements ‘The mathematical model of the frames was com- posed of columns and beams. Beam-column joints were not included in the model. ‘The reinforced concrete columns were modeled using their gross-section stiffvess. The axial force- moment yield surfaces were established using stan- dard interaction curves, with capacity reduction fac- tors (¢) set equal 10 1. A strain-hardening ratio of five percent was assumed for all columns. “The exterior reinforced concrete beams were mod- eled as L-beams. The slab width assumed to cont ute to the strength and stiffness of the edge beams ‘was set equal to 30 percent of the perpendicular span (often termed f ). The strength and stiffness values of the inferior slab-beams were calculated using a slab width equal to 60 percent of the perpendicular span, Beam and slab beam stiffness values were esti- ATCAS ‘Appendix A: Evaluation of Building Strength and Ductility Figure A-1_ Typical floor plan of sample building (DOC, 1973, p. 363). 40 Appendix A: Evaluation of Building Strength and Ductility ATCA © er ~ Se List Hema | ee i ca dH Figure A-2 Transverse section and typical details of sample building (DOC, 1973, p. 365). ATC-19 ‘Appendix A: Evaluation of Building Strength and Ductility a C Exterior Frame Rigid Links C Interior Frame \ a lo Figure A-3 Table A-1 Sample Building Reactive Weights Floor level Weight ips) Roo? 7185 7th 1350 6th 1350 sth 1350 ath 1350 3rd 1350 2nd 1548 mated as one-half of gross stiffness; flexure yield surfaces were established using nominal material Properties. A strain-hardening ratio of five percent ‘was assumed for all beams and slab-beams. A34 Eigen Analysis Results ‘The modal periods and shapes of the building frame ‘were established using the eigen solver in DRAIN- 2DX. The first three modal periods and the percent- ages of the total mass in each of these three modes are presented in Table A-2. The first thtee mode TableA-2 Dynamic Characteristics in the Longitudinal Direction, Sample Building Mode Period % of Total secs.) Mass 1 1.33 84 2 0.45 n 3 0.26 3 Mathematical model of the sample building longitudinal framing. shapes are shown in Figure A-4. A3.5 Nonlinear Static Analysis Results The key results of three analyses of the sample build ing are presented below. The data from the first two analyses are presented to demonstrate differences in response resulting from the use of different load pro- files; Analysis 1 uses a triangular load profile, and Analysis 2 a rectangular profile. The results of the third analysis are presented to demonstrate the importance of including the interior frame in the ‘mathematical model. Analysis 3 uses a triangular joad profile but considers only the response of the perimeter (exterior) frame. ‘The base shear versus roof displacement relations for Analysis 1 and Analysis 2 are presented in Figure A- 5. The strength of the framing system, calculated using a rectangular force profile, at a roof displace- ment of 20 inches (2.5 percent roof drift), is approxi- mately 10 percent larger than that calculated with a triangular profile. Using the triangular profile response data, and the equal energy method (see Sec- tion 4.3), the yield displacement was calculated to be approximately equal to 4.5 inches, and the yield force to be approximately equal to 16 percent of the reac- tive weight of the building. ‘The locations of plastic hinges in the exterior frames at a roof displacement of 20 inches are presented in Figure A-6 for Analysis 1 and Analysis 2. The mech- anisms associated with the two force profiles are dif- ferent — the triangular profile results in a sway mechanism involving the lower four stories and the rectangular profile results in concomitant mecha- nisms (ie., a lower four-story sway mechanism and a fourth story sway mechanism). Although the exist- 42 Appendix A: Evaluation of Building Strength and Ductility ATC-19 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Figure A+ ‘Mode shapes of sample building in the longitudinal direction. 0.25 = 0.2 = 5 015 3 3 Boot ben vee & ——— Analysis 1: Triangular pattern 8 {== - Analysis 2: Rectangular pattern 0.05: sees we we wee 4 A oO 5 10 15 20 Displacement (inches) Figure A-5 Base shear versus roof displacement relations for sample building analyses 1 and 2. ATC-A9 Appendix A: Evaluation of Building Strength and Ouctility rt LT (a) Analysis 1 _— denotes plastic ( hinge (©) Analysis 2 Figure A-6 ence of two mechanisms may seem counterintuitive, it should be noted that only the hinges in the perime- ter frame are shown in Figure A-6 and the force- deformation relationship for the interior frames plays a key role in the force-deformation response of the building. A typical column and beam in the second story of the perimeter frame (denoted C and B in Figure A-3, respectively) were each analyzed for the purpose of demonstrating part of a typical seismic evaluation procedure. For the sample column, the maximum rotation capac- ity of the subject column was calculated to be 0.005 Plastic hinge locations, roof displacement of 20 inches, sample building analysis 1 and 2. radian. This calculation was based on a plastic hinge length of 0.5¢ (8 inches) and an axial load equal to the sum of the plastic beam shear forces and dead loads above the second story. This maximum rotation of 0.005 radian was realized at roof displacement values of 12 inches and 10 inches, for Analysis 1 and Analysis 2, respectively. ‘The maximum rotation capacity of the sample beam ‘was estimated to be 0.03 radian, assuming a plastic ‘hinge length of 0.5¢ (14 inches). This maximum beam rotation was reached at roof displacement val- ues of 19 inches and 16 inches, for Analysis 1 and Analysis 2, respectively. Appendix A: Evaluation of Building Strength and Ductility ATC-19 0.25) aie S ico 5 B oape---7 3 a © & 10 18 20 Displacement (inches) Figure A-7, This demand-capacity evaluation is simply intended to demonstrate the nonlinear static procedure, The sample evaluation is by no means sufficiently rigor- ous for the seismic evaluation of existing construc- tion. In a full evaluation, all beams, columns, joints, and components should be examined closely. In this example, the sample column was assumed to be flex- ure-critical; this column is actually shear-critical, and it could not accommodate the shear forces associated with a plastic hinge rotation of 0.005 radian. To demonstrate the importance of considering all of the structural framing in the mathematical model, consider the base sheaf versus roof displacement relationships for Analysis 1 and Analysis 3 presented in Figure A-7. The data presented in this figure dem- onstrate that the stiffiess of the exterior frames and interior frames is similar — that is, the stiffness of the interior slab-colusnn frame approaches that of the exterior beam-column frame. It also shows that the strength of the interior frames and exterior frames is similar. If a designer Were to ignore the stiffness and strength of the interior frames, the fundamental period of the building would be overestimated by 40% and the target displacement overestimated by a factor approaching Wo. Such an error in judgment might mean the difference between a seismic retrofit involving jacketing and/or strengthening of a limited Base shear versus roof displacement relations for analyses 1 and 3. umber of columns and a seismic retrofit requiring the provision of a new seismic framing system. Fur- ther, a decision to exclude the interior frame from the analysis model could result in a flexible retrofit solu- tion incapable of protecting the existing framing sys- tem. A4 — Estimation of Strength, Ductility, and R Factors A41 General The calculation of strength and ductility factors is demonstrated in this section by use of a force-

    You might also like