155

EVALUATION OF DUCTILITY OF STRUCTURES AND

STRUCTURAL ASSEMBLAGES FROM LABORATORY TESTING

R. Park*

ABSTRACT

Definitions for the required and available ductility used in seismic design are
discussed. Methods for estimating the yield deformation and the maximum available
deformation are described and suggestions are made for appropriate definitions. Examples
are given of different imposed histories of inelastic displacement which have been used in
the experimental testing of structures and structural assemblages in which cycles of
quasi-static loading are applied. A quasi-static procedure for establishing the available
ductility factor of a subassemblage by laboratory testing is recommended.

1. INTRODUCTIO~ corresponding deformation when yielding

occurs. The use of ductility factors
The term "ductility" in seismic design is permits the maximum deformations to be
used to mean the ability of a structure to expressed in nondimensional terms as
undergo large amplitude cyclic deformations indices of inelastic deformation for
in the inelastic range without a seismic design and analysis. Ductility
substantial reduction in strength. Ductile factors have been commonly expressed in
structures are generally able to dissipate terms of the various response parameters
significant amounts of energy during those related to deformations, namely the
cyclic deformations. The required displacements, rotations and curvatures.
ductility of a structure responding to a
severe earthquake can be estimated The displacement ductility factor,
analytically by nonlinear time-history I'= A / b. , where A is the maximum
dynamic analysis or more approximately by displ~~mE!'nt and A flsa>the displacement at
the consideration of static mechanisms of yield, is the valte normally determined in
inelastic deformations. Alternatively the inelastic time-history dynamic analyses.
required ductility of a structure The displacement ductility factor µ is
responding to a severe earthquake can be shown defined for ideal elasto-plastic
estimated experimentally by shaking table behaviour in Fig.1.
tests or pseudodynamic tests. The
ductility of a structure should be such as The displacement ductility factor required
to ensure that the available ductility is of typical code-designed structures may
at least equal to the required ductility. vary between 1 for elastically responding
structures to 6 for ductile structures,
This paper considers definitions which depending on the level of seismic design
enable the determination of the required force used to determine the required
and available ductility, and methods for strength of the structure.
evaluating the available ductility of
structures and structural assemblages from Analytical approaches also commonly
laboratory tests. determine the rotation ductility factor
required of members 0 /0 , where 0 is
the maximum rotation 1ll~? the plasticm'1-i~nge
2. THE REQUIRED DUCTILITY FACTOR and 0 is the rotation in the plastic hinge
regiofl at yield.
In the nonlinear time-history dynamic
analysis of structures responding to a The information most needed by structural
severe earthquake in the inelastic range it designers is the required curvature
is usual to express the maximum behaviour of the critical sections of
deformations in terms of ductility factors, members in plastic hinge regions, expressed
where the ductility factor is defined as by the curvature ductility factor~ /~ ,
the maximum deformation divided by the where 1, is the maximum curvaturemgf t'fie
sectionm%~d ~ is the curvature there at
- ----------- -------------~·--------- -~
yield. y
* Professor and Head of Department of For structures in which ductility is
Civil Engineering, University of controlled by flexural plastic hinging of
Canterbury, New Zealand members the available displacement

BULLETIN OF THE NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, Vol. 22, No.3, September 1989
156

7~
H,,.t1
l Deflected
shape ::c
Ideal elasto-plastic
behaviour
Plastic -c;j
hinge g
..J

/
Displacement,
t

---- Real behaviour

Fig.l DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY FACTOR

ductility factor will be limited by the stiffness, and more complex stiffness
available (ultimate) curvature ductility degrading idealizations which closely
factor. The relationship between the follow the actual loop shapes. Several
displacement ductility factor of a investigators have studied the influence of
reinforced concrete structure and the the shape of the hysteresis loops on the
curvature ductility factors at the plastic response of structures to severe
hinges can be determined considering the earthquakes.
geometry of the deformation of the
structure, providing that the equivalent Of particular interest is the effect on the
plastic hinge length, over which the response of significant stiffness
ultimate curvature can be considered degradation when the structure is cycled in
constant [1,2], is known. In recent the inelastic range. On average, the
reinforced concrete column tests [2] the difference between the ductility demands
equivalent plastic hinge length, taking for elasto-perfectly plastic single-degree-
into account the spread of plasticity due of-freedom systems and stiffness degrading
to bond deterioration and diagonal tension systems with the same initial strength,
cracking, was found experimentally to be on initial stiffness and viscous damping, when
average close to i = 0.5h, where his the responding to severe earthquakes found by
column depth. T~ plastic hinge rotation Mahin and Bertero [8] ahd Moss, et al [9]
is given by BP= (¢u - ¢y)2p. were small, except perhaps for short period
structures where the ductility demand of
It is evident that there can be significant the degrading stiffness system may be
numerical differences between the larger. Degrading stiffness systems were
magnitudes of the required displacement, found to dissipate hysteretically about the
rotation and curvature ductility factors. same amount of energy as elasto-perfectly
This is because once yielding has commenced plastic systems, even though they do not
in a structure the deformations concentrate reach their full strength as often [8].
in the yielding regions. For example, for This is because energy is dissipated
reinforced concrete moment resisting frames hysteretically by the elasto-perfectly
the required¢ /¢ at the plastic hinges plastic system only when the full strength
may be severalma{i~s the required 6 /~ is reached, but for the stiffness degrading
for the structure [l]. max Y system (for example, shown as real
behaviour in Fig.l) energy is dissipated
3. EFFECT OF HYSTERESIS LOOP SHAPE due to non-linear behaviour in almost all
ON RESPONSE cycles after first yield.

Fig.l illustrates that the load-deformation However Mahin and Bertero [8] have found
behaviour of real members can vary that bilinear hysteretic loops with even a
significantly from ideal elasto-perfectly small negative post-yield slope (-5%) can
plastic behaviour. Fig.2 shows a range of substantially increase the ductility
typical measured experimental lateral load- demand, particularly for short period
displacement loops for subassemblages of structures and long duration earthquakes.
structural concrete, masonry, steel and It should be noted though that the bilinear
timber. A number of shapes of hysteresis model is not typical of real behaviour of
loops have been used to model the cyclic structural members. Stiffness degrading
load-deformation behaviour of structures of models are more typical and the reduction
different materials to be utilized in of strength seen in hysteresis loops
inelastic time-history dynamic analyses, generally occurs as an overall reduction in
such as bilinear with variable post-yield strength (as in Fiq.2) or only at the end
 157

( a J Reinforced Concrete Beam- Column

Assemblage Controlled by_ Ductile (b) Reinforced Concrete Beam- Column Assemblag!t_
Flexural Plastic HingiJJg in the Beams [31 Eventually_ Controlled by_ Bond SliP.. of Longitudinal
Beam Bars through Joint Core [31

LATERAL
DISPLACEMENT

(cl Post-Tensioned Prestressed Concrete

Portal Frame Confrolfed by_ Flexural
( d I Reinforced Masonry_ Shear Wall
Plastic Hingj_[ig...Jil
Controlled by Masonry Crushingm

( f) Structural Steel Bolted Beam- Column

Assemblage Controlled by_ Flexural
Plastic Hingk!_g in Beams {7 J

(e) Ply_wood Sheathed Timber Shear Wall

Controlled br._ Slip_ of Sheathing Nails {6/

Fig.2 TYPICAL MEASURED LATERAL-LOAD DISPLACEMENT HYSTERESIS LOOPS FOR SUBASSEMBLAGES

OF STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, MASONRY, STEEL AND TIMBER
158

~~s!?eetp~1t-y~~ldh!~:d-~:~~~m~~l~~ ~I:~~~:
It is co:1cluded that the important property
required in seismi.c design is ''adequate
perfectly plastic hysteresis loops that ductility", which means the ability of the
strength degradation to 80% of the initial structure to undergo large amplitude cyclic
stren~th dur~ng se~ere seismic excitacior1 deformations to the required maximum
in the inelastic range did not displacement in the inelastic range without
significantly influence the displacement a substantial reduction in strength.
response.
4, DEFINI'l"IONS OF /.\VAIL.ABLE DUCTILITJ
Pre.stressed concrete members have
significantly narrower moment-curvature The ductility required ot a structure
hysteresis loops (see Fig.2c), and hence during response to a severe earthquake
very much lo;•ler hysteretic energy needs to be matched by the available
dissipation, than reinforced concrete or ductility of tl1e structure. Definitions
structural steel menbers. 'l'he ma2Uffcm: which can be used to estimate the available
displacements reached by code-designed ductility factor are considered below.
prestressed concrete single-degree-of-
freedom systems has been found to be on 4.1 Definition of the Yield Deformation
average approximately 30% greater than
reinforced concrete systems of similar When calculating ductility factors the
initial strength, initial stiffness and definition of the yield deformation
viscous ::lamping, when responding to severe (displacement, rotation or curvature) often
earthquakes [10]. causes difficulty since the load-
deformation relation may not have a well
For reinforced concrete structures defined yield point~ This may o6cur, for
siqnificant inelastic deforrn.ations due to example, due to nonlinear behaviour of the
sh~ar or bond mechanisms lead to severe materials or due to yielding in different
dearadation of strength and. stiffness a.nd parts of a structure commencing at
to_, pinched hysteresis loops \-,ri th reduced different load levels9
enei:uv di.ss ioation" Pig,, 2a and 21:1 .shows
typi;~l m~asured experimental load- Various alternative definitions which have
displacement hysteretic behaviour of two been used by investigators to estimate the
reinforced concrete beam-column assemblies yield displacement are illustrated in
[31 one controlled bv ductile flexural Fig.3. These are:
pl~~tichinging in the.,beams (Fig.,2a) and
the. other controlled eventually by slip of Fig.3a The displacement when yielding
lonqitudinal beam bars through the joint f Lest occurs in the sys ten.
core due to bond deterioration (Fig.2b).
Kitayama, et al [11] have investigated the Fig,,Jb The yield displacement of the
inelastic dvnamic response to severe equivalent elasto-plast:ic system
earthquake motions of 4, 7 and 16 storey with the same elastic stiffness
moment resi.sting frames \4ith the plastic and ultimate load as the real
hinqe behaviour in the beams modelled by system,,
stiifness degrading hysteresis loops with
and without pinching behaviour ca.used by F.ig,,Jc The yield displacement of the
bond deterioration. The effect of equivalent elasto-plastic system
significant pinching of the hysteresis with the same energy absorption as
loops on the response was found to be the real system [BJ.
relatively small and it was concluded that
some bond deterioration of beam bars within Fig.:;d The yield displacement of the
a beam-column joint may be tolerable. equivalent elasto-plastic system
with reduced stiffness found as
similarly, Dean et al [6] found that the the secant stiffness at either
first yield or at 0.75 of the
:t:~~~~~:::1t wf~~and r~~:tf~;~~;dinr o:ti!~~:;; ultimate lateral load Hu,
dissipating capacity, such as plywood whichever is less [2]. The non-
sheathed timber shear w~lls (see Fig~2e), linear elastic behaviour before
to .severe earthquake motions is not first yield or 0.75 H is due to
significantly greater than that for cracking in the case a¥ reinforced
structures responding elasto-plastically. concrete~
It is evident that in the past there has The definition illustrated in Fig~3d is
been excessive emphasis on the desirability considered to be the most realistic sj_nce
of achieving Jn design structures which,, it applies generally to structures of
when subjected to cyclic deformations in concrete, masonry, steel and timber.
the. inelastic range dtie to severe
earth.quake 1oadingf displ2(/ load~ 4.2 Definition of the Maximum
deformation hystereis loops. It liv11,,i.J_able (Ultimate) Deformation
realized that some variation in hvstersis
1.oop shape will not have a major i;fluence The maxrnmm available (ultimate)
on the inelastic dynamic response cf deformation has also been estimated using
structures when subjected to severe various assumptions by i.nvesti.gators in the
earthquake excitation. That is, hysteresis past. Some possible definitions for the
loops showing some pi.nching or stiffness maximum available displacement are shown i.n
degradation will not lead to significantly Fig.4. These are :
larger :inelastic displacements, providing
that the structure has so1ne damping of Fig«4a The disolacement corresponding to
viscous type and is capable of some further a partlcular limiting value for
damping by hysteretic energy dissipation. tlle compressive strain. (For
 159

_ __L Ultimate load

7
I
First yielding ;, I
I
I
I

DISPLACEMENT !iy
DISPLACEMENT
(a) Based on First Yield ( b) Based on Equivalent
Elasto-P..fastic Yield

Equal
areas

6 Y DISPLACEMENT tiy DISPLACEMENT

( cl Based on Equivalent (d)Based on Reduced
Elasto-R_/astic Energy Stiffness E_quivalent
Absoqz_fion £/asto-{:?_lastic Yield

Fig.3 ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS FOR YIELD DISPLACEMENT

Limiting
compression strain
Hmax - - - ---:::.:--=----4r---=:.::::.:::::::-_

c:::i a
6
...J
6...J

DISPLACEMENT 6u DISPLACEMENT flu

(a) Based on a Limiting ( b) Based on Peak Load

Com12.ression Strain First fracture or buckling

Hmax -
I A small reduction
in load
- - - :;:::.:::=--------
of an element

T-- ---------
c:::i
6
...J

DISPLACEMENT DISPLACEMENT 6u

( c J Based on a Significant Load ( d J Based on Fracture or Buckling

Ca12.acity_ after Peak load

Fig.4 ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS FOR MAXIMUM AVAILABLE (ULTIMATE) DISPLACEMENT

 160

example, the attainment of a loading histories give a cumulative

specified "ultimate" compressive displacement ductility factor of B11 = 32.
strain in the case of concrete).
5. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR DUCTILITY
Fig.4b The displacement corresponding to EVALUATION
the peak of the load-carrying
capacity. The experimental testing of structures and
structural assemblages in laboratories, to
Fig.4c The post-peak displacement when assess performance and available ductility
the load carrying capacity has during severe earthquakes, requires
undergone a small reduction (For decisions concerning the appropriate
example, a 20% reduction in load). displacement history to be imposed to
simulate seismic loading. The three types
Fig. 4d The displacement when the material of seismic load testing used in
fractures or elements buckle. experimental studies are briefly described
(For example, in the case of below.
reinforced concrete when the
transverse or longitudinal 5.1 Shake Table Testi!!9
reinforcing steel fractures or the
longitudinal compression Shake table testing, with the table
reinforcement buckles. following the motions of a recorded
earthquake at dynamic strain rates, is a
When considering the most appropriate realistic experimental method for assessing
definition it should be recognized that the performance and the required and
most structures have some capacity for available ductility of structural systems.
deformation beyond the peak of the load- A major limiting factor is the mass, size
displacement relation without a significant and strength of structure that can be
reduction in strength. It would be tested since these will depend on the
reasonable to recognize at least part of capacity of the shake table. Often only
this post-peak deformation capacity. Also, scale models can be tested and scaling of
it is evident that for reinforced concrete the earthquake record may also be
the maximum available deformation does not necessary. Also the equipment and
necessarily correspond to a specified instrumentation required for realistic
extreme fibre concrete compresssive strain shake table testing may be unavailable in
[1 J. many laboratories.

Hence the most realistic definition for the

maximum available displacement is
considered to be that given by the criteria Pseudodynamic testing is an alternative
shown in Figs. 4c and 4d, whichever occurs which retains the realism of shake table
first. testing but has the convenience of
conventional quasi-static loading tests
The definition for the maximum available [12). In pseudodynamic testing
deformation could also include a cyclic experimental measurements are made of the
loading parameter, such as the maximum restoring forces of the structure at each
deformation when after a specified number step during the testing, and this direct
of cycles of loading to that deformation experimental feedback is used to calculate
the load carrying capacity has reduced by a by inelastic dynamic computer analysis the
small specified amount or the material has displacements to be imposed on the
fractured or elements have buckled. structure in the next step by hydraulic
actuators to closely resemble those that
4.3 Definition of Available Ductility would occur if the structure was subjected
Factor to the ground shaking of a particular
earthquake.
The available displacement ductility
factor, rotation ductility factor and 5.3 Quasi-Static Cyclic Load Testing
curvature ductility factor can be written
as il /il, 8 /0 and ¢ /¢, respectively, Most experimental testing of structures and
wheri the ma~iium avai~abfe (ultimate) and structural assemblages has used quasi-
yield quantitites are defined as in Figs.3 static cyclic loading, applied by hydraulic
and 4. actuators, which has not attempted to
follow the strain rate or the specific
4.4 cumulative Ductility Factor displacement history imposed by a
particular earthquake. Instead the
The cumulative ductility factor undergone structure is subjected to predetermined
by a structure during cycles of loading is numbers of displacement controlled quasi-
also of interest when assessing the effects static loading cycles to predetermined
of several cycles of loading. For example, displacement ductility factors. The slow
a structure subjected to 4 cycles of strain rate means that the test may take
loading to displacement ductility factors several days to conduct.
of 4 in each direction would undergo a
cumulative displacement ductility factor of Time-history dynamic analyses of code-
Eµ = 32. Care should be taken when designed structures responding
assessing the effects on the structure of inelastically to major earthquakes can be
cumulative ductility factors. For example, used to obtain a guide as to the quasi-
16 cycles of loading to µ = 1 in each static loading history to be applied. For
direction can result in significantly less example, Mahin and Bertero [13) have found
damage to the structure than 2 cycles to that the number ur yield excursions tends
µ = 8 in each direction, although both to increase with decreasing period of
 161

vibration, except in the very short period compared in terms of their application to
range. Yielding was found to occur about the design of structures for earthquake
the same number of times in each direction resistance.
but the maximum displacement was general!~
larger in one direction than in the other. 5.4 Examples of Quasi-Static Cyclic
For stiffness degrading single-degree-of- Loading in Terms of Displacement
freedom-systems, designed tor a seismic !)u_c::_t:i l i t_y
force level corresponding to a displacement
ductility factor of 4, responding to severe As an example of a quasi-static loading
earthquake ground motions recorded on firm history, the Commentary of the current
ground at moderate epicentral distances, (1984) SANZ Code for general design and
such as the 1940 El Centro earthquake, the loadings for buildings (15] recommends, as
number of yield reversals in each direction an approximate criterion for the adequate
did not generally exceed 4. For the ductility of moment resisting frames, that
unrealistic elasto-perfectly plastic the structure should be able to undergo 4
systems the number of yield excursions in loading cycles to a displacement ductility
each direction varied from about 15 for a factor of 4 in each direction without the
period of 0.2 seconds to about 3 for a horizontal load carrying capacity reducing
period of about 2 seconds. It is to be by more than 20%.
noted that the destructive earthquake which
occurred in Mexico City in September 1985 A quasi-static loading pattern which has
had most of its energy in relatively long been used for tests at the Construction
period ground motions and the duration of Technology Laboratories, Skokie, USA [16]
the strong earthquake shaking was and at the Public Works Research Institute
exceptionally long. Hence the number of Ministry of Construction, Japan [14], and
yield excursions for that Mexico City at several other organizations, is shown in
earthquake would be expected to be several Fig.5a. The displacement 6 has been taken
times that of the 1940 El Centro as the displacement cor~sponding first
earthquake. yield of the outer longitudinal reinforcing
bars. The ductility level is increased
Quasi-static load testing gives step-wise and the number of symmetrical
conservative estimates of the real strength loading cycles at each ductility level has
of the structure or structural assemblage, been n = 2 to 10, typically n = 2 in the
since real earthquake loads are dynamic and United States [16], and n = 10 in Japan
an increase in the strain rate results in [ 14] .
an increase in the strength of the
materials. However significant differences A quasi-static loading pattern which has
between the shapes of the hysteresis loops been used for many years at the University
obtained from quasi-static and dynamic of Canterbury [2] is shown in Fig.5b. The
loading tests may not be observed. For yield displacement is found using the mean
example Iwasaki, et al (14) concluded that measured secant stiffness at either 0.75 of
the effect of loading velocity on the the theoretical ultimate load or at first
energy dissipation of reinforced concrete yielding of steel, whichever is least, as
columns was not significant for illustrated in Fig.Jct. Again the
displacements of 4 times that at first ductility level is increased step-wise and
yield of the longitudinal reinforcement, normally two symmetrical loading cycles
but at higher displacements the energy have been applied at each level. Sometimes
dissipation capability was appreciably the ductility levels have been increased
larger when the loading velocity was 100 in steps of 2 cycles toµ= ±1, ±2, ±3
cm/sec than when the loading velocity was etc., if limited ductility is expected. In
10 cm/sec. New Zealand the commonly used strength
criterion is that the reduction in strength
In quasi-static load testing the should not exceed 20% of the initial
displacement history does not follow in strength.
detail the complex response of a structure
to an actual earthquake. Instead a more A more detailed quasi-static loading
simple displacement history is applied to history used for seismic load tests
enable an assessment to be made as to involving bi-directional earthquake loading
whether the structure is tough enough to be is that agreed to by the principal
likely to perform satisfactorily during a investigators of the United States-New
severe earthquake. Unfortunately, Zealand-Japan-China collaborative research
investigators in the past have used a range project on the seismic design of reinforced
of displacement histories, and various concrete beam-column joints [17). Again
definitions of yield and ultimate the yield displacement is determined from
deformation, which have made the comparison the secant stiffness measured at 0.75 of
of results of different investigations the theoretical ultimate load. The
difficult. As a result, values for displacement controlled loading history
ductility factor obtained from experimental imposed is illustrated in Fig.6 for the
tests have sometimes been misused in first 12 cycles. Obtaining that
judging the likely performance of international agreement was a major step
structures during severe earthquakes. forward and will permit proper comparison
or the performance of the structures tested
Agreement is needed for appropriate in the four countries.
definitions of the main parameters
describing inelastic behaviour for quasi- The above quasi-static loading histories
static load testing, so that performance used in New Zealand and in the US-NZ-Japan-
obtaine~ from analytical and experimental China collaborative research project are
investigations can be properly assessed and suitable for earthquakes of typical
162

(a J Tests at the Construction Technology_ Laboratories. Skokie, USA

and at the Public Works Research Institute of the Ministry
of Construction, Tsukuba, Jap_an.

8 ·--------
:::1.
[jj
:::,.;
6
lu
...J 4
::,...
'-
:::; 2 DISPLACEMENT
i::: CYCLES
tJ 0.75
5.._ 0.75
<: -2
~
~ -I.
':( Fig.5 EXAMPLES OF DISPLACEMENT HISTORIES
it -6 USED FOR QUASI-STATIC CYCLIC
~
LOADING TESTS OF COLUMNS AND
STRUCTURAL ASSEMBLAGES
-8 ----------
( bl Tests at the University of Canterbury

N N N
b c b c

s s s
£y_cles 1 and 2 J;y_cle 4 [;_y_cles 5 and 6
NS loading to 0.SHu EW loading NS loading to 2/J.y
<;y_cle 3 to liy
NS loading to liy
N N N
b c c_ _""'d

w E w a d E w E
h b g b h
g
g
s
t;'{.cles 7 and 8 ~y_cles 9 and 10 ~y_cles 11 and 12
Bidirectional NS direction to Bidirectional loading
loading to 2/J.y 4/J.y or 0,02drift to 4/J.y or 0.02 drift

Fig.6 BIDIRECTIONAL DISPLACEMENT HISTORY USED FOR QUASI-STATIC CYCLIC

LOADING TESTS OF THE US-NEW ZEALAND-JAPAN-CHINA COLLABORATIVE
RESEARCH PROJECT ON REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS [17]
 163

duration. For a long duration earthquake, {). A RECOMMENDED QUASI-STATIC LOADING

such as the September 1985 Mexico City TEST PROCEDURE TO ESTABLISH A
event, more loading cycles at each DUCT;J:LI_'l'_Y E_J\.C~R . FOR A SlJBASSEMBLAGE
ductility level would be necessary.
6.1 The Need for a Test Procedure
In quasi-static loading tests, care should
be taken to ensure that the test structure one of the important variables used in
or structural subassemblage is adequately establishing the level of design seismic
stiff to satisfy the code limitations for loading is the available ductility of the
interstorey displacements. If the test structure. The recent draft SANZ code for
structure or assemblage is overly flexible general design and design loadings for
the level of interstorey displacement buildings [19] uses structure
required to achieve a given displacement (displacement) ductility factors for
ductility level may be unrealistically assessing the appropriate response spectrum
large. to use with the equivalent static or modal
response methods of analysis. Structure
5.5 Quasi-Static Cyclic Loading in ductility factors are recommended in the
Te!:Jll::;__ of Interstor~~ Dr_ift: draft code [19] for conventional materials
and structural forms.
It has been suggested by some investigators
that the imposed deformation history should In the development of new design or
be based on the level of interstorey drift construction procedures, or materials, or
rather than on the level of displacement structural forms, it will be necessary to
ductility factor. The interstorey drift is determine appropriate structure
obtained by dividing the interstorey (displacement) ductility factors.
horizontal displacement by the storey
height. The appropriate structure (displacement)
ductility factor for a particular
Interstorey drift, rather than displacement structural subassemblage can be found by a
ductility factor level, is commonly used in test which establishes that the
quasi-static loading tests in the United subassemblage can sustain not less than SO%
States and Japan. For example, in the of the measured maximum strength when
United States, Zhu and Jirsa (18] have subjected to four cycles of loading to a
suggested that if the test structure or selected ductility level. Such a test has
structural subassemblage can withstand
imposed displacement cycles with the disadvantage that the subassemblage
interstorey drifts of up to ±3% without either passes or fails the criterion at
substantial loss in strength, the structure that particular ductility level. To
is satisfactory. In Japan interstorey establish the actual available
drifts of up to ±2% are commonly imposed in (displacement) ductility factor by this
tests. method a large number of tests are
required.
The concept of using interstorey drift as a
test criterion has considerable merit since 6.2 A Recommended Test Procedure
it avoids the difficulty of the definition
of the yield displacement. However care The procedure given below is presented as
should be taken in the use of interstorey an alternative. It has the advantage that
drift as a test criterion since the level each test yields a structure (displacement)
of imposed interstorey drift should depend ductility factor value for the
on the stiffness of the structure and the subassemblage. It is based on test
level of displacement ductility factor to criteria (Fig.3d and 5b) which have
be imposed, as found from dynamic analysis. commonly been used at the University of
For example, the code specified limitation Canterbury.
for interstorey drift, for a structure The test is carried out in two parts:
behaving elastically when subjected to the
code designed lateral force, may be 0.35%. Part l Load controlled test cycles.
If a structural assemblage has this
limiting elastic stiffness and a The lateral load levels required to cause
displacement ductility factor ofµ= 6 is first yield in the subassemblage, and to
imposed, the resulting interstorey drift cause the the ideal strength of the
will be 0.35 x 6 = 2.1%. However, if the subassemblage to be reached, in each
structural assemblage is stiffer than the direction, are calculated. These values
code minimum, a 2.1% imposed interstorey are based on the measured material
drift will result in an imposed properties, a strength reduction factor of
displacement ductility factor of much 1. O and the analytical procedure used in
higher than 6. Hence the imposed design.
interstorey drift should depend on the
stiffness of the structure and on the Lateral loading is applied in one direction
required ductility. to the subassemblage and increased until
reaching the calculated or measured value
Also, measured interstorey drifts do not required to initiate first yielding or
give an indication of the available three quarters of the calculated ideal
ductility factor of the structural strength, whichever is less. The lateral
assemblage. Ideally, hysteretic responses loading is then applied in the opposite
measured in quasi-static load tests when direction to first yield or three quarters
plotted should have marked on them both the of ideal strength, whichever is less.
displacenent ductility factor and the Straight lines are fitted to the load-
interstorey drift. displacement measurements in each
164

direction, passing through the origin and cumulative structure ductility factor E11 at
the displacement points at first yield or which the lateral load sustained has
three quarters of the ideal strength, reduced to 80% of the maximum applied
whichever is less. These lines are lateral load strength measured during the
extended until they intersect the load test. The available structural ductility
corresponding to the ideal strength values. factor is then taken as l'a = Eµ/8. This
The mean of the displacements corresponding procedure assumes that four load cycles to
to these intersection points in the two µa (tha~ is, eight load excurs~ons) will
directions of loading is taken as the yield result in the same reduction in applied
displacement~ (see Fig.7). This in fact load as the history of displacement cycles
is the yield ~isplacement of an equivalent shown in Fig.8 applied to the appropriate
elasto-plastic system with reduced elastic 'f:.1,, where Eµ = a1,a.
stiffness to take into account the effect
of cracking and other non-linear elastic For example, if in the test the applied
effects. lateral load in load excursion "m" (see
Fig.8) is for the first time less than 80%
of the maximum measured lateral load during
Displacement controlled test the whole load excursion, the available
cycles cumulative ductility is E1, = 36. Then the
available structure ductility factor is
In the second part of the test the imposed
structure (displacement) ductility factor I' ''a = 36/8 = 4.5.
is increased step-wise in cycles, where As a further example, if in the test the
,, = ~ /~ and L\n is the maximum applied lateral load reduces for the first
displ~~?~mEt'nt imposiJ in the loading time to 80% of the maximum measured lateral
excursion. First, two cycles toµ= ±2 are load strength atµ +3 in load excursion
applied, followed by two cycles toµ= ±4 "m" (see Fig.8), the available cumulative
and two cycles to µ = ±6. Beyond this ductility factor is Eµ = 36 + 3 = 39. Then
level further cycles toµ= ±6 or ±8 may be the available structure ductility factor is
applied. The displacement history is shown ,, a = 3 9/ a 4 •9 •
in Fig.8. In the figure the cumulative
structure ductility factor Bµ undergone
during the cycles of displacements is shown Note that in this test the main concern is
at the peak of each loading run. For the level of ductility reached before
example, a subassemblage which has been significant reduction in applied load
subjected to two cycles to I' = ±2 followed occurs, rather than the energy dissipated
by one cycle toµ= ±4 would have undergone by the assemblage as given by the area
a cumulative structure ductility factor of within the hystersis loops. This is
E1, = 16. because, as discussed in Section 3, the
energy dissipated by the structure is a
The measured load-displacement record of less important factor in seismic design
the subassemblage is then assessed to than the displacement capacity.
determine the available structure
(displacement) ductility factor µ . 'rhis
is carried out by determiniig the

LATERAL
LOAD
Ideal Strength
L --,.---- 8
Stage 1-Load control to establish 6.y
Stage 2- ·
Displacement Control
___________ ----'---Lµ at
q peak of

First yielding or 0.75

a
. I
I
DISPLACEMENT
DUCTILITY 6
I
------- 30 1.2 loading
- t- k m cycles
of Ideal Strength, i 12 20
I FACTOR,µ I, 1
whichever is less I g- i
I
I 2 DISPLACEMENT
I CYCLES
6.y2 DISPLACEMENT

-2

-I. ---- h j
16 21.
I n
-6 --------
r
-8 ~--------_36 ~8- p

Fig.7 DEFINITION OF YIELD DISPLACEMENT Fig.a IMPOSED DISPLACEMENT HISTORY USED

TO ESTABLISH THE AVAILABLE
STRUCTURE (DISPLACEMENT) DUCTILITY
FACTOR
 165

7. CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1. Ductility factors of structures, Informative discussions with
expressed as the maximum deformation colleagues, particularly Professor T.
divided by the corresponding deformation at Paulay of the University of Canterbury,
yield, are useful nondimensional indices of Professor M.J.N. Priestley of the
inelastic deformations. Ductility factors University of California at San Diego and
can be defined in terms of the required Dr R.C. Fenwick of the University of
ductility during severe earthquakes and the Auckland, are gratefully acknowledged.
available ductility, and can be expressed
in terms of displacements, rotations and
curvatures. REFERENCES
----- -------

2. Values of ductility factor have l. R. Park, and T. Paulay, "Reinforced

sometimes been misused in the past due to Concrete Structures", John Wiley, New
the various current definitions for the York, 1975, p.769.
yield deformation and the maximum available
(ultimate) deformation for structural 2. M.J.N. Priestley, and R. Park,
subassemblages when the shapes of the load- "Strength and Ductility of Concrete
deformation hysteresis loops are not Bridge Columns Under Seismic Loading",
elasto-perfectly plastic. Agreement is Structural Journal, American Concrete
needed as to the definitions of "yield" and Institute, Vol.84, No.l, Jan-Feb.1987,
"maximum available (ultimate)". It is pp. 61-76.
suggested that the yield deformation should
be estimated from an equivalent elasto- 3. R. Park and Dai Ruitong, "A Comparison
perfectly plastic system with elastic of the Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
stiffness which includes the effects of Beam-Column Joints Designed for
cracking, and other nonlinear elastic Ductility and Limited Ductility",
effects, and with the same ultimate load as Bulletin of the New Zealand National
the real system. The maximum available Society for Earthquake Engineering,
(ultimate) deformation should be estimated Vol.21, No.4, December 1988,
as that post-peak deformation when the pp.255-278.
load-carrying capacity has reduced by a
small specified amount, or when fracture of 4. K. Nakano, "Experiments on the
material or buckling of elements occurs, Behaviour Under Lateral Force of
whichever is least. Prestressed Concrete Portal Frames",
Transactions of the Japan Architectural
3. In the past experimental testing Institute, No.102, September 1964. (In
of structures and structural assemblages in Japanese).
which cycles of quasi-static loading are
applied, has involved the use of many 5. M.J.N. Priestley and D. McG. Elder,
different inelastic displacement histories. "Cyclic Loading Tests on Slender
The quasi-static loading history agreed to Concrete Masonry Shear Walls", Bulletin
by the principal investigators of the US- of the New Zealand National Society for
NZ-Japan-China collaborative research Earthquake Engineering, Vol.15, No.l,
project on the seismic design of reinforced March 1972, pp.3-21.
concrete beam-column joints, for testing
involving bidirection earthquake actions. 6. J.A. Dean, W.G. Stewart and A.J. Carr,
represents a substantial step forward in "The Seismic Behaviour of Plywood
agreement. Sheathed Shear Walls", Bulletin of the
New Zealand National Society for
4. Experimental testing using imposed Earthquake Engineering, Vol.19, No.l,
displacements, based on the percentage of March 1986, pp.48-63.
the storey height (that is, the interstorey
drift) rather than displacement ductility 7. N.D. Johnson and W.R. Walpole,
factor, has considerable merit since it "Behaviour of Steel Beam-Column
avoids the difficulty of defining the yield Connections with Bolted End Plates",
deformation. However the interstorey drift Bulletin of the New Zealand National
does not give an indication of the Society for Earthquake Engineering,
available ductility of the system since the Vol.15, No.2, June 1982, pp.82-92.
available ductility will also depend on the
elastic stiffness of the system. 8. S.A. Mahin, and V.V. Bertero, "Problems
in Establishing and Predicting
5. A quasi-static loading procedure Ductility in Structural Design",
is recommended for laboratory tests. The Proceedings of the International
test procedure can be used to determine an symposium on Earthquake structural
appropriate structure (displacement) Engineering, St. Louis, Mo., Vol.l,
ductility factor for subassemblages when 1976, pp.613-628.
new design or construction procedures, or
materials, or structural forms, are being 9. P.J. Moss, A.J. Carr, and A.H.
investigated. In the test procedure the Buchanan, "Seismic Response of Low
imposed structure (displacement) ductility Rise Buildings", Bulletin of the New
factor is increased step-wise in cycles. Zealand National Society for Earthquake
The measured cummulative ductility factor, Engineering, Vol.19, No.3, September
up to the stage when the lateral load 1986, pp. 180-199.
sustained has decreased to soi of the
maximum measured lateral load strength, is 10. K.J. Thompson, and R. Park, "Seismic
used to calculate the available structure Response of Partially Prestressed
(displacement) ductility factor.
166

Concrete systems", Journal of NOTATION

Structural Division, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Vo.106, ST6, 1980, h overall depth of a member
pp.1755-1775.
equivalent length of a plastic
11. K. Kitayama, s. Otani, and H. Aoyama, hinge in a flexural member
"Earthquake Resistant Design Criteria
for Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam- A
max maximum displacement
Column Joints", Proceedings of Pacific
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, A
y yield displacement
Vol.l, Wairakei, 1987, pp.315-326.
u
max maximum rotation at a plastic
12. R.D. Hanson, and N.H. McClamroch, hinge
"Pseudodynamic Test Method for
Inelastic Building Response", (I
y
rotation in the plastic hinge at
Proceedings of 8th World Conference on yield
Earthquake Engineering, Vol.6, San
Francisco, 1984, pp. 127-134. maximum curvature at a section

13. S. Mahin, and V.V. Bertero, "An curvature at a section at yield

Evaluation of Inelastic Seismic Design
Spectra", Journal of Structural JL displacement ductility factor
Division, American Society of Civil Amax/Ay
Engineers, vo1.1oj, ST9, 1981,
pp.1777-1795. /L available displacement ductility
a
factor
14. T. Iwasaki, K. Kawashima, K. Hasegawa,
T. Koyama, and T. Yoshida, "Effect of
Number of Loading cycles and Loading
Velocity on Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Piers", 19th Joint Meeting US-Japan
Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects,
UJNR, Tsukuba, 1987.
15. "Code of Practice for General
Structural Design and Design Loadings
for Buildings (NZS 4203:1984)",
Standards Association of New Zealand,
1984.
16. L.S. Johal, D.W. Musser, and W.G.
Corley, "Influence of Transverse
Reinforcement on Seismic Performance of
Columns", Proceedings of 3rd us
National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vol.2, Charleston, 1976,
pp.1227-1237.
17. Minutes of the Second US-New Zealand-
Japan-China Seminar on Earthquake
Resistant Design of Ductile Reinforced
Concrete Frames with Emphasis on
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Connections, Tokyo, 1985.
18. Songchao Zhu and J.O. Jirsa, "A Study
of Bond Deterioration in Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints," PMFSEL
Report No. 83-1, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Texas at
Austin, 1983.

19. Draft "General Structural Design and

Design Loadings for Buildings (DZ
4203) I I , Standards Association of New
Zealand, draft currently under
consideration.