Fifth Edition: Structural Dynamics in Building Codes

Dynamics of Structures: Theory and
Applications to Earthquake Engineering

Fifth Edition
Chapter 22
Structural Dynamics in
Building Codes
Copyright © 2017, 2012, 2007 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Figure 22.1.1 IBC (2006): Elastic Coefficient C e and c sub e
Pseudo-Acceleration A g for a Location in California

A over g
Coastal Regions Not in the near Field of Known Active

Faults
Figure 22.1.2 IBC Lateral Forces
Figure 22.2.1 NBCC (2015): Pseudo-Acceleration AAovergg
and Elastic  Rd RO = 1 Seismic CoefficientC e for I = 1; C e
left parenthesis R sub d times R sub o = 1 right parenthesis C sub e C sub e
Values Vary with Structural System
Moment frames, braced frames, walls, coupled walls, and wall-frame

systems.
Figure 22.2.2 NBCC Lateral Forces
Figure 22.3.1 MFDC (2004): Elastic QQprime
 = 1= 1
Seismic Coefficient C e for Zone I, and Pseudo-
C sub e
Acceleration AAovergg
Table 22.3.1 Pseudo-Acceleration Design
Spectrum Parameters
Figure 22.4.1 Eurocode 8 (2004): Elastic OS  Q = 1 left bracket left parenthesis o s right parenthesis Q prime = 1 left bracket
Seismic Coefficient CCsube e and Pseudo-Acceleration,

Both Normalized by ügo for Soil Classification C
lower u with umlaut sub g 0,
Table 22.4.1 Pseudo-Acceleration Design
Spectrum Parameters
Figure 22.5.1 Ratio of Elastic Seismic Coefficient C e C sub e
and Pseudo-Acceleration AAovergg for Four Building

Codes
NBCC plots are valid for all structures other than walls, coupled walls,
and wall-frame systems.
Figure 22.5.2 Comparison of Pseudo-Acceleration
Design Spectrum in Building Codes with the Design
Spectra Developed in Chapter 6; the Latter Are 84.1th
and 50th Percentile Spectra for 5% Damping
Figure 22.5.3 Comparison of Yield-Strength Reduction
Factors — R, rRsubd d,, qQ
prime

, and q—in Four Building Codes and
Yield-Strength Reduction Factor R y for an Elastoplastic
r sub y
SDF System; rR= rsubRdd =q prime

Q =qq ysuby μ= mu
 4= 4
Figure 22.5.4 Comparison between Inelastic Design
Spectrum and Elastic Design Spectrum Reduced by the
Period-Independent Factor μ; Results Are Presented for
μ = 2 and 8
Figure 22.6.1 Base Shear Vb (Normalized by Total
V sub b
Weight W) in Buildings with rhoρ =0, 0,1 8 ,oror

1 eighth,  , Computed
infinity
for the Design Spectrum Shown
Figure 22.6.2 Comparison of Functions αT1 β alpha T to the power of negative beta, sub 1
and “Exact” Base Shear Versus T1 Curves T sub 1
Figure 22.6.3 Comparison of C e ÷ A g in Four Building C sub e divided by start fraction a over g end fraction
*
Codes and Vb W1 ÷ A g from RSA for Three Values of rhoρ
start fraction V sub b over W star sub 1 end fraction divided by start fraction a over g end fraction
Note that IBC, NBCC, and EC do not permit the use of a static ELF procedure
for buildings with T1 exceeding 3.5Tc , 2.0 sec, and 2.0 sec, respectively.
Figure 22.6.4 Comparison of C e ÷ A g in Four Building
Codes and Vby MDF Vby SDF from Nonlinear Dynamic
C sub e divided by start fraction A over g end fraction
left parenthesis V sub by right parenthesis M D F over left parenthesis V sub by right parenthesis S D F
Analysis of Beam- and Column-Hinge Models of Frames

for Two Values of the SDF – System Ductility Factor
(Dynamic analysis data from Nassar and Krawinkler, 1991.)

Figure 22.7.1 Comparison of Story Shear Distributions
in Four Building Codes and from RSA for Three Values
ρ
of rho
Figure 22.7.2 Comparison of Static Equivalent Lateral
Force Distributions in Four Building Codes and from R S
ρ
A for Three Values of rho
Figure 22.8.1 Comparison of Floor Overturning Moment
Distributions in Three Building Codes and from R SA for
ρ
Three Values of rho
Note that IBC and EC do not permit the use of a static ELF procedure for
buildings with T1 exceeding 3.5Tc and 2.0 sec, respectively.
Figure 22.8.2 Comparison of Reduction Factors for Base
Overturning Moment in Four Building Codes and from
ρ
RSA for Three Values of rho
Note that IBC, NBCC, and EC do not 2.0permit the 2.0

sec, and usesec,
of static ELF procedure
respectively. NBCC for
buildings
plot withallTstructures
valid for 1 exceeding 3.5T
other than
c, walls, coupled walls, and wall-frame
systems.
Figure 22.8.3 Comparison of Reduction Factors for
Overturning Moments in Three Building Codes and
ρ
from RSA for Three Values of rho
Note that IBC and EC do not permit the use of static ELF procedure for
buildings with T1 exceeding 3.5Tc and 2.0 sec, respectively.
Copyright

Fifth Edition: Structural Dynamics in Building Codes

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: Structural Dynamics in Building Codes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamics of Structures: Theory and

Applications to Earthquake Engineering

Pseudo-Acceleration A g for a Location in California

Coastal Regions Not in the near Field of Known Active

Values Vary with Structural System

Moment frames, braced frames, walls, coupled walls, and wall-frame

Seismic Coefficient CCsube e and Pseudo-Acceleration,

and Pseudo-Acceleration AAovergg for Four Building

SDF System; rR= rsubRdd =q prime

Weight W) in Buildings with rhoρ =0, 0,1 8 ,oror

for the Design Spectrum Shown

and “Exact” Base Shear Versus T1 Curves T sub 1

Analysis of Beam- and Column-Hinge Models of Frames

(Dynamic analysis data from Nassar and Krawinkler, 1991.)

Note that IBC, NBCC, and EC do not 2.0permit the 2.0

You might also like