You are on page 1of 68

# 1

CHAPTER 3
DIRECT DISPLACEMENT-BASED
DESIGN
FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
15-UET/PhD-civ-78

3.1 INTRODUCTION
DDBD (Direct Displacement Based Design)
developed recently
Aim: mitigating deficiencies in force-based
design (explained by Dr. Syed Saqib already)
Fundamental Philosophy: To design a
structure which would achieve a given
performance limit state under given seismic
intensity
The Design Procedure determines the strength
required at designated plastic hinges locations to
achieve the design aims in terms of defined
displacement objectives

## 3.2 BASIC FORMULATION OF THE

METHOD
The design method is
explained with figure,
which considers SDOF
representation of frame
building
Ki = Initial Elastic
Stiffness
rKi= Post Yield
Stiffness
Ke= Secant stiffness at
maximum displacement
d

## Force based Design characterizes a structure in

terms of Elastic, Pre-Yield properties (Initial
stiffness Ki, Elastic Damping)
DDBD characterizes the structure by secant
stiffness Ke at maximum displacement d, and
viscous damping (zeta).
Thus representative of the combined elastic
damping and hysteretic energy absorbed during
inelastic response.

## The effective stiffness Ke of equivalent SDOF

system at maximum displacement can be found
by inverting the normal equation:
Ke = 4 ^
2 me / Te^2
Where me is effective mass Te is effective period
Design base shear force
Vbase =Ke d

## 3.3 DESIGN LIMIT STATES AND

PERFORMANCE LEVELS
In recent years there has been increased interest
in defining seismic performance objectives for
structures.
In vision 2000 document, four performance levels
and four levels of seismic excitation are
considered.
The performance levels are designated as:
1. Fully Operational 2. Operational
3. Life Safe
3. Near Collapse

## In California, the following levels of Earthquake

are defined:
EQ-I: 87% probability in 50 years
EQ-II:
50% probability in 50 years
EQ-III: 10% probability in 50 years
EQ-IV:
2% probability in 50 years

## 3.3.1 SECTION LIMIT STATES

A) Cracking Limit State: For Concrete & Masonry
members the onset of cracking generally marks the point
for a significant change in stiffness
B) First-Yield Limit State: A second significant change
in stiffness of concrete and masonry members occurs at
onset of yield in the extreme tension reinforcement
C) Spalling Limit State: Associated with onset of
negative incremental stiffness and possibly sudden
strength loss
D) Buckling Limit State: Beyond this state, removal
and replacement of member is required
E) Ultimate Limit State: inability to carry imposed

10

11

## 3.3.2 STRUCTURE LIMIT STATES

A) Serviceability limit state: This corresponds
to the fully functional seismic performance level
B) Damage Control limit state: At this limit
state, a certain amount of repairable damage is
acceptable, but the cost should be significantly
less than the cost of replacement
C) Survival limit state: Extensive damage may
have to be accepted, to the extent that it may not
be economically or technically feasible to repair
the structure after the earthquake

12

3.4 SINGLE-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM
STRUCTURES

13

## It is comparatively straight forward to compute design

displacement from strain limits
Consequently there are two possible limit state curvatures,
based on concrete compression and reinforcement tension
respectively

14

## 3.4.2 YIELD DISPLACEMENT

The yield displacement is required for two reasons:
1: If structural considerations define limit
displacement
2: In order to calculate viscous damping

15

16

## 3.4.3 EQUIVALENT VISCOUS

DAMPING
The design procedure requires relationships
between displacement ductility and equivalent
viscous damping. Figure 3.1 (c)
The damping is sum of Elastic damping and
hysteretic damping

## Hysteretic Damping depends upon hysteresis

rule
Normally elastic damping used for:
Concrete structures: 0.05
Steel Structures:
0.02

17

## Initial work on hysteretic damping was done by

Jacobsen who formulated the following equation:

## Ah = Area of one complete cycle of force

displacement response
Fm and m are maximum force and displacement
achieved in stabilized loop
The above equation is related to Ke (Secant
stiffness) to maximum response. figure 3.8

18

19

A) characteristics
of some isolation
system,
incorporating
frictional sliders,
B) various
isolation systems
C) Ductile
Reinforced
concrete wall of
column
D) ductile
reinforced
concrete frame
structures
E) Ductile steel
structure
F) unbounded
Post tensioned
with little
damping

20

## The Dwairi & Kowalsky study represented the

hysteretic component of response in the form:

## Grant et al. considered a wider range of

hysteretic rules and used complex formulation
between ductility and viscous damping:

21

22

B) ELASTIC DAMPING

## For SDOF systems, elastic damping is used in the

dynamic equation of equilibrium

## Grant et al., compared results of elastic

substitute structure analysis with inelastic time
history results to determine the correction factor
to be applied to the elastic damping coefficient for
assumptions of either initial- stiffness elastic
damping. The equation 3.9 is thus slightly
changed to:
where

23

24

C) DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

## Example: If a reinforced concrete wall was to be designed for a

displacement ductility of = 5 and effective period Te = 2.0 sec.,
and an elastic damping ratio of 0.05 (5%) related to tangent
stiffness elastic damping. Calculate the appropriate equivalent
viscous damping
Solution: from table 3.1: for TT, a= 0.215, b= 0.642, c= 0.824, d=
6.444
Hence from equation 3.12

25

## We list down equations for tangent stiffness elastic

damping only, since this is felt to be the correct structural
simulation, further these equations are for coefficient of
damping 0.05. for different coefficients, complex equation
(like equation 3.12) are used

26

E) GENERATION OF INELASTIC
DISPLACEMENT SPECTRA

## Te = Secant Period, Ti = Elastic period, Ru = response

modification factor

## Substituting the reduction factor for elastic damping values

greater than 0.05 from eq. (2.8) into the damping ductility
equations eq.(3.17), spectral displacement reduction factors in the
form:

27

EQUATION

## It will be clear that the above approach described can be

simplified to a single equation, once the design displacement and
damping have been determined

28

## 3.4.5 DESIGN EXAMPLE 3.3: DESIGN

OF A SIMPLE BRIDGE PIER

29

3.5 MULTI-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM
STRUCTURES
For Multi Degree of Freedom (MDOF) structures, the
initial part of design process requires the
determination of the characteristics of the
Equivalent SDOF Substitute structures
The required characteristics are Equivalent Mass,
the Design Displacement, and the Effective Damping
When these have been determined, the design base
shear for the substitute structure can be determined
The base shear is then distributed between mass
elements of real structure as inertia forces, and
structure analyzed under these forces to determine
the design moments at locations of potential plastic
hinges

30

## 3.5.1 DESIGN DISPLACEMENT

The characteristic design displacement of the
substitute structure depends on the:
Limit State of Displacement or Drift of the most
critical members of real structure
and an assumed displacement shape
This displacement shape is that which corresponds to
the in-elastic first mode at the design level of seismic
excitation

## Where mi and i are masses and displacements of n

significant mass locations respectively

31

by:

## Where i is the inelastic mode shape and c is the

design displacement at the critical mass c, c is
the value of the mode shape at mass c

32

## 3.5.2 DISPLACEMENT SHAPES

A) FRAME BUILDINGS

## For regular frame buildings, the following

equations, through approximation have been
shown to be adequate for design purposes:

## Hi and Hn are the heights of level i and roof

(level n) respectively
33

B) CANTILEVER WALL
For cantilever wall buildings the maximum drift
will occur in the top storey
The value of this drift may be limited by code
maximum drift limit, or by plastic rotation
capacity of the base plastic hinge

34

35

36

## B) MULTI SPAN BRIDGES

With bridges it is less easy to determine the design
displacement profile, particularly for transverse
seismic response
The transverse displacement profile will depend
strongly on relative column stiffness, and more
significantly on relative displacement restraint
provided at the abutment, and super structure lateral
stiffness
For each bridge type three possible displacement
profiles are shown in fig. 3.19 corresponding to
abutment fully restrained against displacement, a
completely unrestrained abutment and one where
abutment is restrained, but has significant transverse
flexibility

37

38

39

## 3.5.4 EQUIVALENT VISCOUS

DAMPING
A) VISCOUS DAMPING
This requires determination of displacement
ductility demand of the structure.
Since the design displacement d has already
been determined, from (eq. 3.26). The effective
yield displacement y needs to be interpolated
from the profile displacements at yield

40

41

B) INFLUENCE OF FOUNDATION
FLEXIBILITY ON EFFECTIVE
DAMPING

42

## Area based equivalent viscous damping for

foundation for foundation and for the structure
can be expressed as

43

## EXAMPLE 3.5 EFFECTIVE DAMPING

FOR A CANTILEVER WALL
BUILDING

44

45

46

47

## 3.5.8 DESIGN EXAMPLE 3.6: DESIGN MOMENTS

FOR A CANTILEVER WALL BUILDING

48

49

50

51

3.6 P- EFFECT
3.6.1: CURRENT DESIGN
APPROACHES

## When a model is loaded, it deflects. The deflections in the

members of the model may induce secondary moments due
to the fact that the ends of the member may no longer be
vertical in the deflected position. These secondary effects
for members can be accurately approximated through the
use of P-Delta analysis
This type of analysis is called P-Delta because the
magnitude of the secondary moment is equal to P, the
axial force in the member, times Delta, the distance one
end of the member is offset from the other end

52

Llk\

53

## It is apparent from the figure that P- effect not

only reduces the lateral force, but also modifies
the entire lateral force-displacement
characteristics. The effective initial stiffness is
reduced, and the post yield stiffness may be
negative
P- effect is typically quantified by some form of
stability index, which compares the
magnitude of P- effect at either nominal yield or
at expected maximum displacement, to the
design base moment capacity of the structure.

54

3.6.2 THEORETICAL
CONSIDERATION

## Inelastic time history analysis indicate that the

significance of P- effects depends on the shape of
the hysteretic response.

55

## 3.6.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

OF DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED
DESIGN
There are significant difficulties in rationally
considering P- effects in forced based design
In chapter 1, estimation of maximum expected
displacement from different codified force-based
designs is subject to wide variability
Furthermore, most force-based design codes seriously
underestimate the elastic and inelastic displacements,
and hence underestimate the severity of P- effects
The treatment of P- effects in DDBD is comparatively
straight forward
Unlike FBD, the design displacement is known at the
start of the design process and hence the P- moment is
also known before the required strength is determined

56

## DDBD is based on the effective stiffness at

maximum design displacement
The initial strength corresponding to zero
displacement is thus given by:

## For consistency with DDBD philosophy, we should

take C=1
Steel structures are likely to be more critically
affected than will concrete structures

57

## Steel Structures: when the structural stability index

defined by Eq. 4.45 exceeds 0.05, the design base moment
capacity should be amplified for P- considerations as
indicated in Eq. 3.49, taking C=1
Concrete Structures: when the structural stability index
defined by Eq. 4.45 exceeds 0.10, the design base moment
capacity should be amplified for P- considerations as
indicated in Eq. 3.49, taking C=0.5

58

## 3.7 COMBINATION OF SEISMIC AND GRAVITY

ACTIONS
3.7.1: A COMBINATION OF CURRENT FORCE-BASED
DESIGN APPROACHES

59

## The great differences in effective stiffness used to

determine gravity moments (gross section
stiffness) and seismic moments (cracked-section
stiffness reduced by ductility factors), resulting
the moment combination would be meaningless
Therefore, the gravity moments should be
determined using the same effective stiffness as
appropriate for seismic design
In DDBD the effects of gravity moments are very
small in comparison with the seismic moments

60

## 3.8 CONSIDERATION OF TORSIONAL RESPONSE

IN DIRECT DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN

## Structures with asymmetry in plan are subjected

to Torsional rotations as well as direct
translation under seismic response

61

CM = Centre of Mass
CR = Centre of Rigidity or Stiffness
CV = Centre of Shear Strength
In traditional elastic analysis of torsional effects
in buildings only the first two are considered, and
a structure is considered to have plan eccentricity
when CM and CR do not Coincide
But it has recently become apparent that for
structures responding in-elastically to seismic
excitation, the centre of strength is at least as
important as the centre of rigidity

62

## 3.8.3 DESIGN TO INCLUDE

TORSIONAL EFFECTS
A) Design to avoid Strength Eccentricity
B) Design to Minimize Strength Eccentricity
C) Modification of Design Displacement to
Account for Torsion

63

## 3.9 CAPACITY DESIGN FOR DIRECT

DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN
Special measures are required to ensure that
unintended plastic hinges do not occur at other
locations up the wall height, where adequate
detailing for ductility has not been provided
Unlike FBD in which only fundamental mode of
vibration is considered, actual structure will include
effects of higher modes
A further factor to be considered is that conservative
estimates of material strengths will normally be
adopted when determining the size of members and
the amount of reinforcing steel.
Amplification factors to be used in designing
(dynamic amplification factors, design strength etc)

64

## 3.10 SOME IMPLICATIONS OF DDBD

3.10.1 INFLUENCE OF SEISMIC INTENSITY ON
DESIGN BASE SHEAR STRENGTH

## DDBD implies significantly different structural

sensitivity than found from current codified force
based design procedures

65

## 3.10.2 INFLUENCE OF BUILDING HEIGHT ON

REQUIRED FRAME BASE SHEAR STRENGTH

66

PIER HEIGHT

67

WALL LENGTHS

68