Fifth Edition: Earthquake Response of Inelastic Systems

Dynamics of Structures: Theory and
Applications to Earthquake Engineering

Fifth Edition
Chapter 7
Earthquake Response of
Inelastic Systems
Copyright © 2017, 2012, 2007 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Figure 7.1 Comparison of Base Shear Coefficients
from Elastic Design Spectrum and International
Building Code
Figure 7.2 The Six-Story Imperial County Services
Building Was Overstrained by the Imperial Valley,
California, Earthquake of October 15, 1979 (1 of 2)
The building is located in El Centro, California, 9 km from the causative fault of the
Magnitude 6.5 earthquake; the peak ground acceleration near the building was 0.23g.
The first-story reinforced-concrete columns were overstrained top and bottom with partial
hinging. The four columns at the right end were shattered at ground level, which dropped
the end of the building about 6 in.; see detail. The building was demolished. (From K. V.
Steinbrugge Collection, Courtesy of P EER–National Information Service for Earthquake
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.)
Figure 7.2 The Six-Story Imperial County Services
Building Was Overstrained by the Imperial Valley,
California, Earthquake of October 15, 1979 (2 of 2)
The building is located in El Centro, California, 9 km from the causative fault of the
Magnitude 6.5 earthquake; the peak ground acceleration near the building was 0.23g.
The first-story reinforced-concrete columns were overstrained top and bottom with partial
hinging. The four columns at the right end were shattered at ground level, which dropped
the end of the building about 6 in.; see detail. The building was demolished. (From K. V.
Steinbrugge Collection, Courtesy of P EER–National Information Service for Earthquake
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.)
Figure 7.3 The O’Higgin’s Tower, Built in 2009,
Is a 21-Story Reinforced-Concrete (1 of 4)
building with an unsymmetric (in plan) shear wall and column-resisting system that is
discontinuous and highly irregular over height. Located in Concepcion, 65 miles from the
point of the initial rupture of the fault causing the Magnitude 8.8 Offshore Maule Region,
Chile, earthquake of February 27, 2010, the building experienced very strong shaking.
The damage was so extensive—including collapse of its 12th floor—that the building is
slated to be demolished: (a) east face; (b) southeast face; (c) south face; and (d)
southeast face: three upper floors and machine room. (Courtesy of Francisco Medina.)
Figure 7.4 Psychiatric Day Care Center (1 of 2)
(a) before and (b) after the San Fernando, California, earthquake, Magnitude 6.4,
February 9, 1971. The structural system for this two-story reinforced-concrete building
was a moment-resisting frame. However, the masonry walls added in the second story
increased significantly the stiffness and strength of this story. The first story of the
building collapsed completely. (Photograph by V. V. Bertero in W. G. Godden Collection,
Courtesy of PEER–National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering, University
of California, Berkeley.)
Figure 7.4 Psychiatric Day Care Center (2 of 2)
(a) before and (b) after the San Fernando, California, earthquake, Magnitude 6.4,
February 9, 1971. The structural system for this two-story reinforced-concrete building
was a moment-resisting frame. However, the masonry walls added in the second story
increased significantly the stiffness and strength of this story. The first story of the
building collapsed completely. (Photograph by V. V. Bertero in W. G. Godden Collection,
Courtesy of PEER–National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering, University
of California, Berkeley.)
Figure 7.1.1 Force–Deformation Relations for
Structural Components in Different
Materials (1 of 2)
(a) structural steel (from H. Krawinkler, V. V. Bertero, and E. P. Popov, “Inelastic Behavior
of Steel Beam to Column Subassemblages,” Report No. EERC 71-7, University of
California, Berkeley, 1971)
Figure 7.1.1 Force–Deformation Relations for
Structural Components in Different
Materials (2 of 2)
(b) reinforced concrete [from E. P. Popov and V. V. Bertero, “On Seismic Behavior of Two
R/C Structural Systems for Tall Buildings,” in Structural and Geotechnical Mechanics
(ed. W. J. Hall), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1977]; (c) masonry [from M. J. N.
Priestley, “Masonry,” in Design of Earthquake Resistant Structures
(ed. E. Rosenblueth), Pentech Press, Plymouth, U.K., 1980].
Figure 7.1.2 Force–Deformation Curve During
Initial Loading: Actual and Elastoplastic
Idealization
Figure 7.1.3 Elastoplastic Force–Deformation
Relation
Figure 7.1.4 Elastoplastic System and Its
Corresponding Linear System
Figure 7.3.1 Force–Deformation Relations
in Normalized Form
Figure 7.4.1 Response of Linear System with T sub n
Tn0.5
= = second
0.5 Secand
and ζ == 00 to El Centro Ground Motion
zeta
Figure 7.4.2 Response of Elastoplastic System
with T =n0.5
T nsub = 0.5sec, ζ =zeta
second, 0,=and
0, andƒfysub
= y0.125
= 0.125
To El Centro ground motion: (a) deformation; (b) resisting force and acceleration; (c) time
intervals of yielding; (d) force-deformation relation.
Figure 7.4.3 Deformation Response and Yielding of
Four Systems Due to El Centro Ground Motion; T sub
nT= =
0.50.5
second,
Sec, zeta
ζ = =5%;
5 %;and
andƒf sub y =0.5,
= 1, 1, 0.5, 0.25and
0.25, and 0.125
0.125
n y
Figure 7.4.4 (a) Peak Deformations Um and Uo of
Elastoplastic Systems and Corresponding Linear
System Due to El Centro Ground Motion; (b) ratio start
um
fraction. T n is
u sub varied;
m over u sub o end ζ = 5%
fraction and
times T sub ƒ y zeta
n is varied; = 1,
= 5 0.5,
% and f0.25,
sub y = 1,and
0.5, 0.25,0.125
and 0.125 (1 of 2)
uo
Figure 7.4.4 (a) Peak Deformations Um and Uo of
Elastoplastic Systems and Corresponding Linear
System Due to E l Centro Ground Motion; (b) ratio
um
. Tn uissubvaried;
start fraction ζ=
m over u sub o end 5%
fraction timesand
T sub n isƒ y =zeta
varied; 1, =0.5, 0.25,
5 % and f sub y = and 0.125
1, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.125 (2 of 2)
uo
Figure 7.4.5 Ductility Demand for Elastoplastic
System Due to El Centro Ground Motion; zeta = 5 %
ζand f sub
= 5% y =ƒ1,
and 0.5, 0.25, and 0.125, or R sub y 4, and
y = 1, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.125, or R y = 1, 2, 4, and 8
Figure 7.5.1 Relationship Between Normalized
Strength (or Reduction Factor) and Ductility Factor
Due to El Centro Ground Motion; ζ = 5%
Figure 7.5.2 Constant-Ductility Response Spectrum
for Elastoplastic Systems and El Centro Ground
Motion; μ = 1, 1.5, 2, 4, and 8; ζ = 5%
Figure 7.5.3 Constant-Ductility Response Spectrum
for Elastoplastic Systems and El Centro Ground
Motion; muμ ==1,
1,1.5,
1.5, 2, 44,and
and8;8;zeta
ζ ==5%
5%
Figure 7.7.1 Normalized strength of ƒ y f sub y
elastoplastic systems as a function of natural

vibration period TTnsub
forn for
μ =mu1,=1.5, 2, 2,4,4,and
1, 1.5, and 8;
8; ζ = =5%;
zeta 5
%; El Centro ground motion
Figure 7.8.1 Response Spectra for Elastoplastic
Systems and El Centro Ground Motion; zeta = 2, 5,
ζand
= 2,105,%
and 10%
and muand
= 1,μ 4,
= 1, 4, and
and 8 8
Figure 7.9.1 Time Variation of Energy Dissipated by
Viscous Damping and Yielding, and of Kinetic plus
Strain Energy; (a) Linear System Tn = 0.5 Sec, ζ = 5%; T sub n = 0.5 second, zeta = 5 %; T sub n = 0.5 second, zeta = 5 %
(b) Elastoplastic System Tn = 0.5 sec, ζ = 5%, ƒ y = 0.25

T sub n = 0.5 second, zeta = 5 %; T sub n = 0.5 second, zeta = 5 %, f sub y = 0.25
Figure 7.10.1 (a) Fluid Viscous Damper: Schematic
Drawing; (b) Force–Displacement Relation; and (c)
Diagonal Bracing with Fluid Viscous Damper
[Credits: (a) Cameron Black; (b) Cameron Black; and (c) Taylor Devices, Inc.]
Figure 7.10.2 (a) Buckling Restrained Brace (BRB):
Schematic Drawings; (b) Force–Displacement
Relation; and (c) Diagonal Bracing with BRB
[Credits: (a) Ian Aiken; (b) Cameron Black; and (c) Ian Aiken.]
Figure 7.10.3a, b (a) Schematic Diagram of Slotted
Bolted Connection (SBC); (b) Force–Displacement
Diagram of An SBC
(Adapted from C. E. Grigorian and E. P. Popov, 1994)

Figure 7.10.3c, d (c) SBC at Top of Chevron Brace in
Test Structure; (d) Test Structure with 12 SBCs on
the Shaking Table at the University of California at
Berkeley
(Courtesy of K. V. Steinbrugge Collection, Courtesy of PEER – National Information

Service for Earthquake Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.)
Figure 7.11.1 Yield-Strength Reduction Factor Ry for
Elastoplastic Systems as a Function of T sub n for mu = 1, 1.5, 2, 4, and 8; zeta
Tn for μ = 1, 1.5, 2, 4, and 8; ζ = 5%

=5%
(a) El Centro Ground Motion; (b) LMSR Ensemble of Ground Motions (Median Values Are
Presented)
Figure 7.11.2 Design Values of Yield-Strength
Reduction Factor
Figure 7.11.3 Construction of Inelastic Design
Spectrum
Figure 7.11.4 Inelastic design spectrum (84.1th
percentile) for ground motions with u trema = 1 gram, u dot sub g o = 48 inches per
second, and u sub g o = 36 inches; mu = 1.5, 2, 4, 6, and 8; zeta = 5%
ügo = 1g, u go = 48 in. / sec, and ugo = 36 in.; μ = 1.5, 2, 4, 6, and 8; ζ = 5%
Figure 7.11.5 Inelastic (Pseudo-Acceleration) Design
Spectrum (84.1th Percentile) for Ground Motions with
u trema = 1 gram, u dot sub g o = 48 inches per second, and u sub g o = 36 inches; mu = 1.5, 2, 4, 6, and 8; zeta = 5%
ügo = 1g, u go = 48 in. / Sec, and ugo = 36 in; μ = 1.5, 2, 4, 6, and 8; ζ = 5%
Figure 7.11.6 Inelastic (Pseudo-Acceleration) Design
Spectrum (84.1th Percentile) for Ground Motions with
u trema = 1 gram, u dot sub g o = 48 inches per second, and u sub g o = 36 inches; mu = 1.5, 2, 4, 6, and 8; zeta = 5% u trema = 1 gram, u dot sub g o = 48
inches per second, and u sub g o = 36 inches; mu = 1.5, 2, 4, 6, and 8; zeta = 5%
Figure 7.11.7 Inelastic (Deformation) Design Spectrum
(84.1th Percentile) for Ground Motions with u trema = 1 gram, u dot sub
g o = 48 inches per second, and u sub g o = 36 inches; mu = 1.5, 2, 4, 6, and 8; zeta = 5%
um
Figure 7.11.8 Ratio of Peak Deformations u sub
uo
ummand uoo
and u sub
start fraction u sub m over u sub o
of Elastoplastic System and Corresponding Linear

System Plotted against Tn ; mu
μ ==1,1,1.5,
1.5,2,2,4,4,6,6 and
and 88
Figure 7.12.1 Idealized SDF System
Figure 7.13.1 Lateral Force Versus Displacement
Curves for an SDF System Determined
Experimentally by Vian and Bruneau (2003); Based
on Data by D. Lignos
Figure 7.13.2 Force-Deformation Relations
with and Without P – Δ Effects
Figure 7.13.3 Deformation Response of Four Systems
Due to El Centro Ground Motion for Two Cases:
Gravity Loads Excluded (Thicker Curve) and
Gravity Loads Included (Thinner Curve); T sub a = 0.5
Tn = 0.5zeta
second, Sec,
= 5ζ %
= 5%;
theta θS
s == 0.25,
0.25, andandƒ
f subyy==1,
1, 0.5, 0.25,and
0.5, 0.25, and0.125
0.125
Figure 7.13.4 Force-Deformation Relations for Two
Cases: (a, c) Gravity Loads Excluded, and (b, d)
Gravity Loads Included; fƒbar
y =y =0.25 and
0.25 and f barƒsub
y =y 0.125
= 0.125
Copyright

Fifth Edition: Earthquake Response of Inelastic Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fifth Edition: Earthquake Response of Inelastic Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamics of Structures: Theory and

Applications to Earthquake Engineering

elastoplastic systems as a function of natural

(b) Elastoplastic System Tn = 0.5 sec, ζ = 5%, ƒ y = 0.25

(Adapted from C. E. Grigorian and E. P. Popov, 1994)

(Courtesy of K. V. Steinbrugge Collection, Courtesy of PEER – National Information

Tn for μ = 1, 1.5, 2, 4, and 8; ζ = 5%

of Elastoplastic System and Corresponding Linear

You might also like