Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

A direct displacement-based seismic design procedure of inelastic structures

Qiang Xue
*

Civil and Hydraulic Engineering Research Center, Sinotech Engineering Consultants Inc., 171 Nanking East Road, Sec. 5, Taipei 105, Taiwan, ROC Received 18 September 2000; received in revised form 26 April 2001; accepted 27 April 2001

Abstract This paper presents a simple but efcient displacement-based seismic design procedure, which does not involve a substitute structure assuming a linear behavior and a viscous damping equivalent to the non-linear response. It is based on the formulations derived from the capacity-spectrum method using NewmarkHall reduction factors for the inelastic demand spectrum. When applying such approach for a new design, no spectrum is needed to plot. From the derived formulations, the close relationship between the target displacement and the stiffness, ductility and strength demands of the structures are clearly shown. Multiple performance objectives can be considered easily in such a preliminary design procedure and it can be extended to MDOF systems adopting the idea of effective SDOF systems. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Displacement-based seismic design; Capacity-spectrum method; Performance-based design

1. Introduction In the development of performance-based earthquake engineering [1], which stresses the inelastic behavior of structural systems under severe earthquake ground motions, displacement rather than force has been recognized as the most suitable and direct performance or damage indicator. Deformation controlled design [2] can be achieved either by using the traditional force/strength based design procedure together with a check on the displacement/drift limit or by employing a direct displacement based design procedure. The idea of displacement based design was introduced about 40 years ago. Gulkan and Sozen [3] developed the concept of substitute structure to estimate the nonlinear structural response through an equivalent elastic model assuming a linear behavior and a viscous damping equivalent to the non-linear response. This idea has been adopted recently by Kowalsky et al. [4] for a direct displacement design of SDOF reinforced concrete structures and by Priestley et al. [5] for both SDOF and

* Tel.: +886-2-2769-2131 ext. 20208; fax: +886-2-2765-5010. E-mail address: qxue@sinotech.org.tw (Q. Xue).

MDOF bridges and buildings starting from a target peak displacement. Another displacement-based procedure for MDOF bridge structures, particularly suitable for symmetric bridges, has also been proposed by Calvi and Kingsley [6]. An equal displacement based design (EBD) procedure was introduced by Court and Kowalsky [7] for buildings with longer periods based on the equal displacement rule noted by Newmark and Hall [8]. Qi and Moehle [9] proposed a displacement-based procedure for MDOF systems with the requirement of preliminary design and further modication of the design according to the displacement or drift limit. While Wallace [10], Sasani and Anderson [11], Bachman and Dazio [12] focus on wall systems, Panagiotakos and Fardis [13] implemented an overall performance-based deformation controlled design of MDOF RC structures subjected to both seismic and non-seismic actions. Another direct displacement-based design approach was proposed by Fajfar [14] based on the capacity spectrum method [1518]. This approach is a reversing procedure of the so-called N2 method to determine the seismic demand. In all of the above references, seismic demand is specied as either a displacement spectrum (DT format) or an acceleration displacement response spectrum (A

0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 4 8 - 7

1454

Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460

D format). For a general purpose spectrum, nonlinear inelastic behavior of a structural system can be accounted for either by an equivalent elastic response spectrum [19] or an inelastic response spectrum [2,20 22]. The former is associated with effective viscous damping xeff and the latter is directly constructed based on relations between reduction factors and ductility. Although the elastic acceleration design spectrum is available from codes, it is not appropriate to be a basis for the determination of the elastic displacement design spectrum because the resulted displacement increases with the period even at longer periods. The reasonable feature of the elastic displacement design spectra is under investigation [23,24] and is not the focus of this paper. In this paper, the equivalent elastic model of the substitute structure is not employed. The proposed procedure for SDOF system is based on some simplied formulations derived from the ADRS format spectrum employing NewmarkHall reduction factors based on the capacity spectrum method. The close relationship between the target displacement under certain ground motion and the stiffness, ductility and strength demands of the structure is clearly highlighted. This procedure can be applied to MDOF systems employing the idea of effective SDOF systems [5,14,25].

2 T
2

2 V. T

2. A non-iterative capacity-spectrum method The iterative capacity-spectrum procedure has been discussed in detail in ATC-40 [19] and by Freeman [17]. Such iterative procedure may be unnecessary in determining the seismic response when using the numerical version of inelastic response spectrum [16] or other methods. In this section, a non-iterative procedure regardless of the type of response spectrum (equivalent elastic or inelastic) is also formulated. 2.1. Formulation of the diagram reduction factors Based on Newmark and Hall [8] studies, response spectra can be enveloped by a plot with three distinct ranges: a constant peak spectral acceleration (PSA), constant peak spectral velocity (PSV) and constant peak spectral displacement (PSD). The response spectra can be plotted in various formats such as spectral acceleration versus period (AT) format, spectral velocity versus period (VT) format, spectral displacement versus period (DT) format and spectral acceleration versus spectral displacement (AD) format. The AD format is termed ADRS by Maheney et al. [15] or capacitydemand-diagram by Chopra and Goel [16]. For elastic systems, the transformation among these formats can be easily obtained through the relationship

For inelastic systems, the constant-ductility design diagram (AD format) is established by multiplying the elastic design spectrum (AT format) by appropriate reduction factors to obtain the inelastic [8] or equivalent elastic [19] design spectrum (AT format) and transform to AD format [16]. We dene that such reduction factors are spectral reduction factors (SRA, SRV and SRD). The subscriptions A, V and D indicate the constant spectral acceleration, velocity and displacement range. Revising the procedure, in this paper, the inelastic constantductility design diagram (AD format) is constructed by transforming the elastic design spectrum (AT format) to elastic design diagram (AD format) and multiplied by the corresponding diagram reduction factors (SRAD, SRVD and SRDD). Notice that in building code or guidelines such as ATC-40, only the constant acceleration and velocity ranges are indicated and no spectrum reduction is suggested in the constant displacement range for a better evaluation of the displacement response based on the equal displacement rule. It is easy to nd that the diagram reduction factors and spectral reduction factors are identical for the (equivalent) elastic system (Fig. 1). In this section, the diagram reduction factors for the inelastic system are formulated. Considering an elastic SDOF system, the reduced or equivalent elastic design diagrams with various damping can be constructed based on a basic elastic design diagram (e.g. 5% damped elastic design diagram) using reduction factors SRAD, SRVD and SRDD as shown in Fig. 1. Notice that the diagram and spectral reduction factors are identical for elastic systems. From Fig. 1, we have Tc SRVD SRV T c T SRAD SRA c (1) (2)

SRDD SRD Td T d T SRVD SRV d

Fig. 1. (Reduced) equivalent elastic design diagram.

Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460

1455

with c and c are the intersection points where constant spectral acceleration region meets the constant spectral velocity region in the basic and reduced elastic design diagrams, respectively. We also obtain AcAcSRADAcSRA Dc Tc Tc SR D c PSVSRVD PSV 2p 2 SRAD
2 VD

ments bcde in Fig. 1 using the new reduction factors SRAD, SRVD and SRDD accordingly, and referring to Eqs. (3)(5), we obtain that AcAcSRAD SRVD2 DcDc SRAD DdSRDDPSD (9) (10) (11)

(3) (4)

SRVD2 SRV2 Dc SRAD SRA DdSRDDPSDSRDPSD (5) where PSA, PSV and PSD are the constant peak spectral acceleration, velocity and displacement of the 5% damped elastic design spectrum, respectively. For an inelastic SDOF system, with the denition of Dy and Ay in Ref. [26, section 7.5], the AyDy diagram (dashed segments b*cde in Fig. 2) of the inelastic system is consistent with the AD diagram of the equivalent elastic system as shown in Fig. 1. Notice that TcTc in Fig. 1 since SRVSRA for the equivalent elastic system in ATC-40 while TcTc in Fig. 2 since the NewmarkHall inelastic spectrum reduction factor 1/m=SRVSRA=1/2m1 for m1. The AyDy diagram is thus established based on the 5% damped elastic design diagram and the diagram reduction factors, which are the same as the spectral reduction factors. Finally, the corresponding AyD diagram (D=mDy) is plotted in the same gure as segments b*c*d*e*. From this gure and substituting Eqs. (3)(5), we get AcAcAcSRA DcmDcm SRV2 Dc SRA (6) (7) (8)

Comparing Eqs. (6)(8) with Eqs. (9)(11), respectively, yields SRADSRA SRVDmSRV SRDDmSRD (12) (13) (14)

Thus, inelastic design diagram in Fig. 2 can be constructed in one step as the reduced equivalent elastic design diagram in Fig. 1. In another words, the inelastic design diagram and the equivalent elastic design diagram can be constructed in the same way by using the developed diagram reduction factor (Eqs. (12)(14)) for the inelastic design diagram and the spectrum reduction factor for the equivalent elastic spectra (Fig. 1). Next, we try to dene the intersection points b*, c* and d* in Fig. 2. According to Ref. [26], TbTb (15) Consider that c* in Fig. 2 is consistent with c in Fig. 1, we rewrite Eq. (1) by using the diagram reduction factor SRVD instead of SRV and substituting Eq. (13). Thus, Tc

DdmDdmSRDPSD

mSRV SRVD T c T c SRA SRA

(16)

Mapping the segments b*c*d*e* in Fig. 2 with seg-

Eq. (8) leads to

Td 2 Td 2 AyFdm A 2 2 yFd

(17)

From Fig. 2 and by substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (17), we have SRD T TdmTdm SRV d (18)

Thus, the inelastic design diagram in Fig. 2 can now be established in the same way as the equivalent elastic design diagram (Fig. 1) using the developed diagram reduction factors (Eqs. (12)(14)) instead. 2.2. The non-iterative procedure In the capacity-spectrum procedure, the capacity curve of an inelastic system is usually obtained from a non-

Fig. 2.

Inelastic design diagram.

1456

Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460

linear static pushover analysis and represented by a bilinear force-displacement model (base-shear versus top displacement for MDOF systems) and also transformed to AD format (Fig. 3(a)). The post-yield stiffness ratio is r. The yielding point is denoted as (Aye, Dye). The displacement ductility ratio at the nal performance point P is mP. Thus, the displacement at the performance point is given. DPmPDye APAye(rmPr1) (19)

factors SRAD, SRVD, and SRDD as discussed above. We have, APSRVD DP

2 PSV TP

(21)

TP 2 2 TP SRVD PSV SRVD 2 TP 2

(22)

PSV From Eqs. (19) and (22), the ductility ratio at the performance point is derived as mP

And the spectral acceleration at the performance point (20)

The demand diagram for the inelastic system passing the performance point is assumed constructed directly from the elastic design diagram with the diagram reduction

TP SRVDPSV/Dye 2

(23)

From Eqs. (20) and (21) TP SRVD2PSV Aye(rmPr+1) SRVD2PSV2 DyeAye(rmPr+1) (24)

Substituting Eq. (24) in Eq. (23) leads to mP (25)

Based on Eq. (13) and NewmarkHall spectrum reduction factor that SRVD=mPSRV=mP/mP, Eq. (25) is re-written as PSV2 m2 P(rmPr1) DyeAye (26)

from which the displacement at the performance point DP is evaluated through Eq. (19). For an elasto-plastic system (r=0), Eq. (26) becomes even simpler as mP

PSV
ye

Aye

(27)

Substituting this equation to Eq. (19) gives DPPSV

Dye
ye

(28)

Based on the concept of equivalent static force employed in earthquake engineering, for SDOF systems, Eq. (28) can be re-written as DPPSV DyeM PSV Vye

K PSV2
M T0
0

(29)

where Vye, M, K0 and T0 are the yielding strength (design base-shear), lumped mass, initial stiffness and natural period of the structure. For the case shown in Fig. 3(b) PSASRADAPAye(rmPr1)
Fig. 3. The performance point from a non-iterative capacity-spectrum method.

(30)

Based on NewmarkHall spectrum reduction factors SRAD=SRA=1/2mP1, we have

Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460

1457

PSA (rmPr1)2mP1 Aye

(31)

For an elasto-plastic system (r=0), Eq. (31) is further simplied as mP (PSA/Aye)2+1 2 (32)

Step 9: Calculate the member force, e.g. for SDOF systems, design moment Mye=VyeL, where L is the column height. Step 10: Design the member size and reinforcement based on the required stiffness and strengths. Notice that Step 5 is necessary to distinguish the case shown in Fig. 3(a) from that in Fig. 3(b) to determine the yielding strength in Step 6. It is interesting to see easily from Eq. (29) that for an elastic-perfect plastic SDOF system, the required initial stiffness or period of the structure can be estimated directly based on the selected target displacement. Then assuming various displacement ductility ratio would results in different required design strength. This means that for a given target displacement limit, multiple design results exists. In the proposed procedure, the assumption of the mP can be based either on the structural system and material used or on the life time cost/benet studies. The application of the proposed procedure is veried through the 6 systems in Chopra and Goel [16] and the short-period structure in Fajfar [14]. The results are presented in Table 1.

Substituting this equation in Eq. (19) gives (PSA/Aye)2+1 Dye DP 2 (33)

Eqs. (26) and (31) suggested that the performance/target displacement, the yielding strength and the yielding displacement be closely related. In another word, the target displacement is closely related to the yielding strength, the displacement ductility and stiffness of the structures and the elastic design spectra for the design seismic ground motions on site.

3. A simple displacement-based design procedure for SDOF systems In the direct displacement-based design, revising the above procedure, we start with the target displacement to provide adequate stiffness, strength and ductility of a structure. The procedure presented here is for SDOF systems and can be implemented to MDOF systems adopting the idea of effective SDOF systems [5,14,25]. Step 1: Specifying the target displacement DP, the constant peak spectral acceleration PSA, constant peak spectral velocity PSV and Tc shown in Fig. 1 or Fig. 2 of the elastic design spectrum. Step 2: Assuming the post-yield stiffness ratio r, usually taken as 0.05 and either the ductility ratio mP or the yield displacement Dye. Step 3: Calculate the yield displacement Dye (if mP is assumed in step 2) or the ductility ratio mP (if Dye is assumed in step 2) from Eq. (19). Step 4: Calculate the spectral acceleration at yielding Aye from Eqs. (26) and (31)) denoted as A1 ye and A2 ye, respectively. Step 5: Calculate Tc* according to Eq. (16). In addition, calculate TP1 according to Eq. (24) with Aye being equal to A1 ye in step 4. 1 2 T Step 6: If T 1 P c , Aye=Aye; otherwise Aye=Aye. Step 7: The design base-shear or required yielding strength of the system Vye=AyeM, where M is the lumped mass. Step 8: The required structural stiffness or period of the structure can be estimated easily through K0 Vye and T02 Dye

4. A simple displacement-based design procedure for MDOF systems The procedure can be implemented to MDOF systems adopting the idea of equivalent SDOF systems [5,14,25]. Detailed transformation between the response of MDOF systems and that of equivalent SDOF systems can be found in these references and is thus not provided herewith. Nevertheless, the present procedure is also veried in Table 2 through the MDOF system examined in Fajfar [14]. In Table 2, the calculated equivalent mass m=217.44(t) and participating factor PF=1.336. After the yielding force Vye has been determined, the level of seismic-equivalent static lateral force for which members have to be designed is calculated by the expression Fi

mii mii

Vye

K .
M
0

The member forces can be evaluated by conventional structural analysis and members can be designed accordingly. The proposed procedure can be easily implemented into an overall performance-based design procedure with multiple performance objectives quantitatively described as various target displacements under different intensity of ground motions represented by their corresponding elastic spectra. The required stiffness and strength for each objective can be easily calculated through the pro-

1458

Table 1 Design of the referenced systems by the proposed procedure (note: TP1Tc*, Aye=Aye2; TP1Tc*, Aye=Aye1) Design earthquake ground motion PSA (g) 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 PSA (g) 1.5 PSV (m/s) 1.404 Tc (s) 0.6 Dye (cm) 1.12 Aye2 (m/s2) 4.90 280.42 280.42 280.42 280.42 280.42 280.42 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 5.99 3.99 2.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 801.37 1004.60 1533.45 800.77 1003.80 1533.37 588.78 883.17 2027.92 293.59 440.37 880.79 Aye1 (m/s2) 7.04 PSV (cm/s) Tc (s) m Aye2 (m/s2) Aye1 (m/s2) Calculated property Possible spectral acceleration at yielding Period comparison TP1 (s) 1.22 1.00 0.61 2.45 2.00 1.41 TP1 (s) 0.56 Tc* (s) 0.89 0.87 0.81 0.89 0.87 0.81 Tc* (s) 0.81 Required Referenced spectral acc. value Aye (g) 0.60 0.90 1.56 0.30 0.45 0.90 Aye (g) 0.50 Aye (g) 0.60 0.90 1.56 0.30 0.45 0.90 Aye (g) 0.50

Ref. [16] Sys. no. r 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0

Target displacement

Assumed structural properties

Dt (cm)

Dye (cm)

1 2 3 4 5 6

22.29 22.29 19.39 44.64 44.64 44.64

3.72 5.58 9.70 7.44 11.16 22.32

Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460

Ref. [14]

Dt(cm) 0.056

m 5

Table 2 Design of a four-story RC building presented by Fajfar [14]y using the proposed method (note: TP1Tc*, A*ye=A*ye1; x*t=xt,t/PF, Q*y=m*A*ye, Vy=PFQ*y) Design earthquake ground motion Yielding displacement (ESDOF) Possible spectral acceleration at yielding (ESDOF) Period comparison (ESDOF) Spectral Required base shear acceleration at yielding (ESDOF) (ESDOF) PSA (g) 1.5 1.404 0.6 0.06 PSV (m/s) Tc (s) x*y (m) TP1 (s) 1.35 Tc* (s) 0.772 A*ye (g) 0.39 (MDOF) Q*ye (KN) Vye (KN) 832.8 1112.65 Vye (kN) 1112 Referenced base shear (MDOF)

Target (top) displacement

Assumed properties (ESDOF)

(MDOF)

(ESDOF)

xt,t (m)

x*t (m)

Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460

0.237

0.177

2.909

A*ye2 (m/s2) 6.70

A*ye1 (m/s2) 3.83

1459

1460

Q. Xue / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14531460

posed procedure. The objective with the largest stiffness and strength requirements is the most critical and the corresponding section and reinforcement can be adopted for further design verications. Thus, multiple performance objectives can be considered in a simple manner during the preliminary design. 5. Conclusions A direct displacement-based design procedure has been formulated based on a non-iterative capacity-spectrum method without the linear approximation of hysteretic behavior as in the substitute structure method. In the non-iterative capacity-method, a close relationship between the target displacement and the stiffness, ductility and strength demand of the structure is found based on the diagram reduction factors derived from the NewmarkHall inelastic spectrum. In the application of the displacement-based design procedure, given the target displacement and the elastic design spectrum, the required stiffness and strength of a structure can be evaluated numerically with the assumption of ductility ratio and post-yielding stiffness ratio. The inuence of strain hardening of the structural system is considered. No spectrum is needed to plot. This procedure can be easily implemented to consider multiple performance objectives in the preliminary design phase of the performance-based seismic design procedures. References
[1] Krawinkler H. Advancing performance-based earthquake engineering. http://peer.berkeley.edu/news/1999jan/advance.html, 1999. [2] Fajfar P, Krawinkler H. Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Seismic Design Methodologies for The Next Generation of Codes, Balkema (Rotterdam), 1997. [3] Gulkan P, Sozen M. Inelastic response of reinforced concrete structures to earthquake motions. ACI J 1974;71(12):60410. [4] Kowalsky MJ, Priestley MJN, MacRae GA. Displacement-based design, a methodology for seismic design applied to single degree of freedom reinforced concrete structures. Report No. SSRP94/16. Structural Systems Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, 1994. [5] Priestley MJN, Kowalsky MJ, Ranzo G, Benzoni G. Preliminary development of direct displacement-based design for multidegree of freedom systems. In: Proceedings of the 65th Annual Convention, SEAOC, Maui, Hawaii, 1996. [6] Calvi GM, Kingsley GR. Displacement-based seismic design of multi-degree-of-freedom bridge structures. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynamics 1995;24(9):124766. [7] Court AB, Kowalsky MJ. Performance-based engineering of buildings a displacement design approach. Structural Engineering World Wide, SEAOC, Paper No. T109-1, 1998.

[8] Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Earthquake spectra and design. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1982. [9] Qi X, Moehle JP. Displacement design approach for reinforced concrete structures subjected to earthquakes. Report No. UCB/EERC-91/02. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, 1991. [10] Wallace JW. Seismic design of RC structural walls. Part I: new code format, Part II: applications. J Struct Eng ASCE 1995;121(1):75100. [11] Sasani M, Anderson JG. Displacement-based design versus forcebased design for structural walls. In: Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996. [12] Bachmann H, Dazio A. A deformation-based seismic design procedure for structural wall buildings. Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, 1997:15970. [13] Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Deformation-controlled earthquake-resistant design of RC buildings. J Earthquake Eng 1999;3(4):495518. [14] Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynamics 1999;28:97993. [15] Mahaney JA, Paret TF, Kehoe BE, Freeman SA. The capacity spectrum method for evaluating structural response during the Loma Prieta earthquake. National Earthquake Conference, Memphis, 1993. [16] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacity-demand-diagram methods for estimating seismic deformation of inelastic structures: SDF systems. Report No. PEER-1999/02. Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, April 1999. [17] Freeman SA. Development and use of capacity spectrum method. In: Proceedings of the 6th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, EERI, Oakland, California, 1998. [18] Reinhorn AM. Inelastic analysis techniques in seismic evaluations. In: Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1997, p. 27787. [19] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrot of concrete buildings, vol. 1. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City (California), 1996. [20] Krawinkler H, Nassar AA. Seismic design based on ductility and cumulative damage demands and capacities. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, editors. Nonlinear seismic analysis and deisgn of reinforced concrete buildings. New York: Elsevier Applied Science, 1992. [21] Miranda E, Bertero VV. Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthquake Spectra 1994;10:35779. [22] Vidic T, Fajfar P, Fischinger M. Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynamics 1994;23:50721. [23] Bommer JJ, Elnashai AS. Displacement spectra for seismic design. J Earthquake Eng 1999;3(1):132. [24] Tolis SV, Faccioli E. Displacement design spectra. J Earthquake Eng 1999;3(1):10725. [25] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and conc of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Eng Struct 1998;20(4-6):45264. [26] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures, theory and application to earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995.