Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Earthquake retrofitting of R/C frames with soft first story using

hysteretic dampers: Energy-based design method and evaluation
A. Benavent-Climent ⇑, S. Mota-Páez
Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Industrial Engineering, Technical University of Madrid, Jose Gutierrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Soft stories constitute a major reason for building collapses during severe earthquakes. This paper inves-
Received 24 May 2016 tigates a solution for the seismic upgrade of existing reinforced concrete frames with open first story and
Revised 31 December 2016 masonry infills at the upper stories. It combines the addition of hysteretic dampers with the strengthen-
Accepted 23 January 2017
ing (if necessary) of the columns of the first story. The energy-based design procedure put forth provides
the strength, stiffness and energy dissipation capacity required for the dampers so that the overall struc-
ture can endure the design earthquake without exceeding a prescribed maximum drift at the first story.
Keywords:
The strength required for the dampers depends on the strength of the columns of the first story therefore
Soft story
Hysteretic damper
multiple solutions are possible. The proposed method takes into account the contribution of the elastic
Energy-based method deformation of the upper stories to the elastic vibrational energy, using simple formulae to determine
Earthquake retrofitting the strength for these stories that will guarantee they remain elastic. Finally, non-linear dynamic analyses
are carried out to evaluate the seismic performance of the retrofitted structures and to validate the pro-
posed procedure.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Focusing on RC frames, one conventional solution to retrofit

Frame structures with open first stories and masonry infills at
the upper stories are common in earthquake-prone areas all
around the world. It is a very attractive solution from the architec-
tural point of view because it allows for large openings to harbor
commercial activities, or space for parking. However, it introduces
a sudden discontinuity in the lateral strength and stiffness along
the height that can result in severe damage concentration. Since
most of the energy input by an earthquake is concentrated in the
first story, the plastic deformation demands on its structural ele-
ments (mainly columns) may easily exceed their ultimate capaci-
ties, leading to the collapse of the building. Major damage to
many reinforced concrete (RC) and steel frame structures was
attributed to the soft first story during the Northridge earthquake
of 1994 [1] or the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake in Japan [2].
Indeed, this configuration is acknowledged as a main cause of the
most dangerous collapses provoked by earthquakes. Although
most structures with a soft first story are RC frames, wood-frame
buildings with this configuration are also prevalent in regions such
as the San Francisco Bay Area in California [3,4]. The deficient seis-
mic performance of this type of buildings has been investigated
and documented in the past [5].
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: amadeo.benavent@upm.es (A. Benavent-Climent).
without sacrificing the architectural advantages of a diaphanous
space consists of applying local modification techniques. The con-
ventional means of enhancing the lateral strength, stiffness and
plastic deformation capacity of the structural members (commonly
the columns) of the first story would be concrete jacketing, steel
jacketing, steel caging or FRP jacketing. Yet increasing the column’s
section may cause construction problems due to the discontinuous
longitudinal reinforcement of the columns. Such solutions would
therefore not change the tendency of the building to concentrate
damage in the first story. Moreover, accommodating the large plas-
tic deformation and energy dissipation demands on the columns
with member-level techniques might not be economically viable.
This is often the case when existing frames were not conceived
for seismic resistance.
Still, one may take advantage of the tendency for a building to
concentrate damage in the first story, and use it positively by
applying a seismic upgrading strategy that approaches the behav-
ior of the retrofitted structure from a different standpoint—that of
a base-isolated building. This is the basic idea that this paper
explores, and it materializes with the proposal of a design proce-
dure. According to the strategy presented, existing columns
(strengthened if necessary with conventional solutions) play the
role of isolating devices and are endorsed with sustaining the
gravity loads (and second order effects) while moving laterally.
Dampers are added in the first story to dissipate most of the energy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.053
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
20 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32

input by the earthquake. The addition of dampers can reduce the as a standpoint and it is intended to approach the behavior of
required level (if any) of strengthening the columns to economi- the retrofitted structure to that of a base-isolated system. Second,
cally viable limits. Further, by appropriately tuning the increase the method allows tuning the strength in columns with the
of strength in columns with the strength of the added dampers, strength of the dampers, thus allowing for multiple solutions and
optimum solutions can be obtained in terms of: minimum story for optimization. Third, the amount of energy that can be stored
shear transferred to the foundations, total cost etc. The advantages at the upper stories in the form of elastic vibrational energy is
of the solution investigated in this paper are supported by real sce- taken into account and predicted with a new formula. Fourth,
narios. Parducci et al. [6] and Mezzi and Parducci [7] studied three cumulative damage effects are directly accounted for and the
options for seismic retrofitting a residential plant in the town of amount of plastic strain energy that the dampers must be able to
Modena, Italy (traditional strengthening; base isolation and using dissipate is quantitatively evaluated. Fifth, the method provides
energy dissipators); they concluded that the combination of partial the required lateral strength in the upper stories to avoid damage.
strengthening with the addition of dampers was the most interest- The proposal is intended to be used for seismic upgrading low and
ing option from any point of view, including cost and avoiding mid-rise buildings, in which the overall flexural deformations are
evacuation of the inhabitants. negligible in comparison to shear deformations.
Among the different types of energy dissipating devices avail-
able, hysteretic dampers are the most widely used due to their rel-
3. Energy-based design method
atively low cost and lack of maintenance. Hysteretic dampers
dissipate energy through the plastic deformations of metals. Their
3.1. Modelization of the structure
characteristics, working principles and behavior can be found else-
where [8]. Several types of hysteretic dampers have been devel-
Fig. 1a shows a typical RC frame with a soft first story and
oped in the last decades [9–14]. Various numerical and
masonry infills in the upper stories. In the Figure, hi denotes the
experimental studies address the design and demonstrate the
height of each story, mi the mass of each floor and N the total num-
enhanced seismic performance of frames with hysteretic dampers
ber of stories. To study the lateral response under a horizontal
in all stories [15–17]. However, little research has looked into the
component of the ground motion, the existing structure is ideal-
application of hysteretic dampers to the retrofit of existing RC
ized as a shear beam, connected to the foundation with two trans-
frames with a soft first story. Sahoo and Rai [18] developed a tech-
lational horizontal springs, as shown in Fig. 1b. One translational
nique that uses aluminum shear links as hysteretic dampers in
spring represents the columns of the first story; its elastic stiffness,
addition to strengthened first story columns, and proposed a plas-
yield strength and inter-story drift at yielding are respectively
tic design methodology to proportion the elements of the strength-
denoted as fk1, fQy1 and fdy1. The second translational spring repre-
ening system for a target drift and yield mechanism. In Sahoo and
sents the hysteretic dampers installed in the first story; its elastic
Rai’s methodology, the upper part of the structure (i.e. above the
stiffness, yield strength and inter-story drift at yielding are sk1, sQy1
first story) is assumed infinitely rigid and the amount of energy
and sdy1. The upper stories are assumed to remain elastic with uni-
that can be stored in the form of elastic vibrational energy is
form shear stiffness Gupper (=Q/c; where Q is the shear force c is the
neglected, which may imply an overly conservative design. Nakano
slope at a section). Plastic deformations are assumed to occur only
et al. [19] investigated experimentally, through quasi-static cyclic
in the first story and the restoring force characteristics of both
tests, a retrofitting scheme consisting of strengthening the soft
translational springs are assumed to exhibit elastic-perfectly-
story RC frame with buckling restrained braces. Kanno et al. [20]
plastic behavior.
proposed a similar scheme using low-yield-strength-steel devices
The estimation of Gupper, fk1 and fQy1 calls for developing a
as elasto-plastic dampers, and confirmed the efficiency of the solu-
numerical model to represent the beams, columns and infill walls
tion in reducing damage to the RC columns through pseudo-
of the existing structure (without dampers), and to perform a
dynamic tests. With few exceptions, past studies have focused on
pushover analysis. A uniform distribution of forces along the
providing valuable experimental evidence, but do not develop a
height of the building can be adopted as the lateral load pattern.
general method for designing and optimizing the retrofitting
The pushover analysis provides the relationship between the story
scheme.
shear force fQi and the corresponding inter-story drift di of each
story. Fig. 2a shows, with a bold dash line, a typical fQi-di curve.
2. Objective and scope
This curve can be replaced by a bilinear idealization that allows
one to estimate, fQyi, fki and fdyi (=fQyi/fki). In Fig. 2a the idealization
This paper investigates a strengthening technique and proposes
proposed in FEMA 356 [21] is used. Fig. 2b shows the total base
an energy-based design method to seismic retrofit existing non-
shear force-displacement curve, Q1–d1, of the first story under lat-
ductile RC frames with soft first story and masonry infill walls in
eral loads. Here Qy1(=sQy1 + fk1sdy1) denotes the total base shear
the upper stories. The technique, which intervenes only in the first
force at yielding, and Qmax1 (=sQy1 + f Qy1), the maximum base shear
story, consists of installing hysteretic dampers and, if necessary,
force. The elastic shear stiffness of the upper stories Gupper is esti-
strengthening the columns. Under the design earthquake charac-
mated as follows. The elastic shear stiffness of a given upper story
terized in terms of input energy, the target performance is: (i) to
i, Gi, is defined as Gi = fQi/ci, where ci is the distortion angle associ-
limit the plastic deformations to the hysteretic dampers; (ii) to
ated with fQi given by ci = di/hi. Here, hi is the height of the i-th
keep the columns of the first story basically within the elastic
story. Noting that fki = fQi/di, the shear stiffness Gi can be rewritten
range; and (iii) to limit the maximum lateral displacements to pre-
as Gi = fQi/ci = fkidi/(di/hi) = fkihi. Next, in the data set constituted by
scribed values. Strengthening the columns becomes necessary
the shear stiffness Gi of the upper stories (i.e. from i = 2 to N), Gi is
when they do not have the minimum elastic lateral deformation
weighted by hi in order to give influence according to the height of
capacity that is required to mobilize and use the dampers effec-
the story as follows Gihi = fkihi2. Finally, Gupper is calculated as the
tively. Beyond this minimum, multiple combinations of strengths
weighted average of the shear stiffness in the upper stories as
in columns and in dampers are possible, and the optimal one can
follows:
be chosen in view of cost, base shear force transferred to founda-
tions, etc. Pi¼N 2
i¼2 f ki hi
The original contributions of the proposed methodology can be Gupper ¼ P i¼N
ð1Þ
summarized as follows. First, it takes the base-isolated structures i¼2 hi
 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32 21

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1. Building with soft first story (a); model of structure, (b) idealization for estimating We; (c) model with first story columns represented by a shear beam.

Qi Q1
f Entire system
Capacity curve Qmax1
Idealized curve
Qy1 k1=sk1+f k1 Frame
f
Qyi Q
f Qmax1=f f Qy1
y1
Dampers
ssQ
Qy1y
0.6f Qyi sk1
k
f i
δi f k1 δ1
(a) δ
f yi (b) δ
s y1 f δy1

Fig. 2. Force-displacement relationships: (a) at the upper i-th story; (b) at the first story.

3.2. Energy balance of the structure MV 2D

The energy equation for an inelastic system is [22,23]:
Wk þ Wn þ Ws ¼ E ð2Þ
where Wk is the kinetic energy, Wn is the energy dissipated by the
inherent damping of the structure, Ws is the absorbed energy, and
E is by definition the input energy. E represents the work done by
the seismic forces acting on the system in their relative
displacements with respect to the base. Past studies have
shown numerically [23] and experimentally [24] that in damped
inelastic multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems, E coincides
approximately with that of an equivalent elastic single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) system, with mass M equal to the total mass of
the building, and period T equal to that of the fundamental mode T1.
Furthermore, E is a very stable quantity that depends basically
on M and T1. The extent of plastic deformations can affect E,
increasing its value in the short period range and decreasing it in
the medium and long period range [25]. However, in most cases
the effect of the level of plastic deformations on E is relatively
small in comparison with M and T1 and, for the sake of simplicity,
it is not necessary to address it explicitly. A more refined character-
ization of the input energy that depends explicitly on the extent of
plastic deformations is also possible within the framework of
energy-based design methodology as suggested in [25]. Mean-
while, Ws comprises the recoverable elastic strain energy, Wse, as
well as the irrecoverable plastic energy, Wp, i.e. Ws = Wse + Wp.
The sum Wk + Wse is the elastic vibrational energy We (=Wse + Wk).
The difference E  Wn is what Housner [22] called the energy that
contributes to damage ED (=E  Wn), and it can be expressed in the
form of equivalent velocity VD by:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2ED
VD ¼ : ð3Þ
M as m = Rmi/H. Here xi designates the distance from the ground to
Using We, Wp and VD, Eq. (2) is rewritten as:
We þ Wp ¼ : ð4Þ
2
Past studies [22,23] showed that VD is close to the spectral
velocity Sv and it can be taken as equal for the purposes of
earthquake-resistant design, hence VD = Sv. Further, the Sv–T spec-
trum can be obtained from the acceleration spectrum Sa–T by sim-
ply dividing Sa by 2p/T. The value of the second term of Eq. (4)
depends on the seismicity of the area and on the fraction of damp-
ing of the structure n. The design of the strengthening solution
investigated in this paper on the basis of Eq. (4) requires estimating
We and Wp.
3.3. Elastic vibrational energy We
To evaluate We for a RC frame with soft first story equipped
with hysteretic dampers and masonry infill walls in the upper sto-
ries, the structural model shown in Fig. 1b is further simplified and
substituted by that of Fig. 1c, replacing the spring of stiffness fk1
that represents the columns of the first story with an elastic shear
beam of length h1 and shear stiffness G1st:
G1st ¼ f k1 h1 : ð5Þ
The contribution of the spring that represents the dampers to
G1st, and hence to We, is neglected because typically sk1 needs to
be much larger than fk1 to prevent plastic deformations in the
frame members prior to damper yielding. As a result, the amount
of energy that the hysteretic dampers can store in the form of elas-
tic strain energy is very small in comparison to that of the rest of
the structure. Therefore, the model used for estimating We is a can-
tilever elastic shear beam with shear stiffness G equal to G1st from
x = 0 to x = h1, and equal to Gupper from x = h1 to x = H, as shown in
Fig.1c. The mass per unit length m is assumed constant and taken
the i-th floor, H denotes the total height of the building, and mi is
22 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32

the mass of each story. The dynamic equilibrium of the cantilever making V constant and equal to the maximum spectral velocity
undamped elastic shear beam under a ground motion acceleration in the long period range.
€zg ðtÞ is governed by: In this study, to evaluate We, all bilinear spectra used have the
  same Vmax (=2.5 m/s) and different periods TG (=0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and
@2y @ @y 1 s). For convenience in the following discussion, the ratio e/a2 is
m  G ¼ m€zg ð6Þ
@t2 @x @x called ratio f hereafter. The parametric study mentioned above pro-
vided different values of variable f (=e/a2) for several realistic com-
where t is the time and y(x, t) the horizontal displacement. The
binations of parameters G1st, Gupper/G1st, m, H and TG. The values of f
ground motion €zg ðtÞ can be further characterized by its VD–T spec-
obtained in this way are plot with symbols in Fig. 3 against Gupper/
trum, and the elastic response of this undamped cantilever elastic
G1st. Using these pairs of values (f, Gupper/G1st) a nonlinear curve fit-
shear beam can be obtained using the mode superposition method
ting procedure was applied using exponential decay functions that
(see Appendix A). The solution provides the following expression
gave the following Eq. (9). A detailed description of the nonlinear
for the elastic vibrational energy:
curve fitting procedure can be found in [27].
Mg 2 T 21  e  f a2max;1 e ðGupper =G1st Þ
We ¼ ð7Þ f ¼ ¼ ½0:35  0:33ðh1 =HÞe1:751:5ðh1 =HÞ þ ½1:04 þ 0:25ðh1 =HÞ: ð9Þ
4p2 a2 2 a 2

where T1 is the fundamental period of the structure without the The estimation provided by Eq. (9) is shown with bold lines in
dampers, M is the total mass of the system, g is the gravity acceler- Fig. 3. Replacing e/a2 with f, the equation for the vibrational energy
ation, f amax;1 (=fQmax,1/Mg) is the maximum shear force developed We is rewritten as follows:
by the columns of the first story, fQmax,1, normalized by the total
weight of the building, and e, a are two parameters defined by: Mg 2 T 21 f a2max;1
We ¼ f: ð10Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 4p2 2
P 2 P RH
ðxj V 1j D2j Þ ðV 1j Dj Þ2 m/s dx
a¼ ; e¼ ; Ds ¼ o
ð8Þ
x1 V 1;1 V 21;1 M 3.4. Plastic strain energy Wp

Here xi and /i(x) are the natural frequencies and the associated Plastic strain energy is dissipated only by the dampers installed
modal shape functions, respectively, and V1j is the energy input E1j in the first story, for which reason Wp can be formally expressed as
in an undamped SDOF system of mass M and frequency xj sub- follows:
jected to the ground motion acceleration €zg ðtÞ, E1j, expressed in 2
terms of equivalent velocity by V1j = (2E1j/M)1/2. s Q y1 1
W p ¼ gs Q y1s dy1 ¼ g ¼ gs a21 M 2 g 2 ð11Þ
In order to estimate the ratio e/a2 in structures with a first soft s k1 s k1
story, a parametric study was conducted with prototype buildings
where sa1 is the base shear force coefficient accounting only for the
of 3, 6 and 9 stories, having representative values of G1st (=200 MN,
dampers and g is the cumulative plastic deformation ratio of the
808 MN, 1000 MN), mass per unit length m (=117,670 kg/m,
dampers, defined by:
137,040 kg/m and 114,660 kg/m) and total height H (=10.5 m,
19.5 m, 28.5 m), respectively. In all cases, the height of the first Q y1 Wp
a ¼s
s 1 ; g¼ : ð12Þ
story was h1 = 4.5 m. For each prototype building, eleven ratios Mg s Q y1s dy1
Gupper/G1st ranging between 1 and 5 were investigated. The fre-
quencies xi and associated mode shapes /i(x) of each model were For convenience, the following additional coefficients are
readily obtained by solving the differential Eq. (6) with the second introduced:
member equal to zero. The ratio e/a2 was obtained for different k1 s k1 dy1 f Q max1
ground motions characterized by bilinear input energy spectra in v1 ¼ f ; K1 ¼ ; m1 ¼ s ; r q1 ¼ ð13Þ
keq f k1 f dy1 s Q y1
terms of pseudo-velocity V–T. The bilinear V–T spectra have a seg-
ment passing through the origin up to point (T = TG, V = Vmax), and where T1 is the fundamental period of the structure without the
remain constant at V = Vmax for T > TG. Here, TG represents the tran- dampers and keq represents the stiffness of an equivalent SDOF
sition period from the constant acceleration region to the constant system of mass equal to the total mass M and period T1, given
velocity region in the acceleration spectrum, and Vmax the maxi- by keq = 4p2M/T21. rq1 can be enlarged by increasing the lateral
mum spectral velocity. strength of the existing frame at the first story, using for example
Bilinear design energy input spectra were proposed by Akiyama
TG=0.4
[23] and have been adopted more recently by the current Japanese
TG=0.6
2 3 story
Seismic Code [26] for use with energy-based seismic design meth- 1.250 e/a TG=0.8
TG=1
ods. Akiyama [23] proposed to obtain the bilinear design energy
TG=0.4
input spectrum from individual elastic energy input spectra 1.225 Proposed equation TG=0.6
6 story TG=0.8
(expressed in terms of equivalent velocity V–T) of a set of ground
1.200 TG=1
motions as follows. First the elastic energy input spectra in terms TG=0.4
of V–T of the individual ground motions is enveloped by two seg- TG=0.6
1.175 9 story TG=0.8
ments. One is a line that represents the energy input in the range TG=1
of shorter periods, which must go through the origin of the V–T 1.150 3 story
diagram. The other is the line for the greater periods, which is par-
allel to the T-axis. Next, the slope of the first line segment is revised 1.125
by multiplying by a factor of 1.2, to recognize that the input energy 6 story
in an inelastic system becomes larger than that of the elastic sys- 1.100
G /G
tem in the shorter period range [23,25]. The current Japanese Seis- upper 1st 9 story
1.075
mic Code [26] prescribes a basically bilinear design energy input 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
spectrum in terms of equivalent velocity V–T that is obtained: (i)
dividing the design acceleration spectrum Sa–T by 2p/T, and (ii) Fig. 3. Values of f (=e/a ). 2
 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32 23

fiber-reinforced plastic FRP. Parameterm1 must always be less than 1
so that the damper starts to dissipate energy before the main frame
attains the yield displacement. Oviedo et al. [28] showed that if the
value of m1 is low, the performance of the overall structure is scar-
cely affected by uncertainties such as on-site installation practices
or material strength reliability. Oviedo et al. recommended adopt-
ing m1 6 0.4. Furthermore, a too smallm1 can lead to yield displace-
ment of the dampers sdy1 that can hardly be materialized in real
structures. For these reasons, the proposed procedure imposes that
m1 must be in the range 0.15 6 m1 6 0.40.
On the one hand, in order to keep the columns of the first story
basically within the elastic range, the dampers must be designed so
that the maximum inter-story drift of the first story, dmax,1, remains
below fdy,1. On the other hand, in order to reduce the size of the
dampers, full advantage must be taken of the elastic deformation
capacity of the columns. Based on these considerations, the follow-
ing condition is imposed for design purposes:
dmax;1 ¼ f dy1 :
Since Eq. (14) implies that fQmax1 = fQy1, parameter K1 can be
rewritten as follows:
1 computed by distributing the design base shear over the height
K1 ¼ : ð15Þ
rq1 m1
The maximum plastic deformation on the dampers, dmax1sdy1,
can be expressed in non-dimensional form in terms of the maxi-
mum plastic deformation ratio l defined by:
dmax1  s dy1
l¼ : ð16Þ
s dy1
The ratio g/l is called in the literature ‘‘equivalent number of
plastic cycles” neq (=g/l) and several expressions have been pro-
posed in the past for its estimation [23,29]. In this research, the fol-
lowing equation proposed by Akiyama [23] that depends on rq1 is
adopted:
For r q1 < 1 : neq ¼ 4 þ 4r q1 ð17aÞ
For r q1  1 : neq ¼ 8: ð17bÞ
As seen in Eq. (17), the larger rq1 is, the more efficiently the
mixed system (i.e. main frame + dampers) dissipates energy.
Akiyama [23] also showed that increasing rq1 reduces the residual
plastic deformation on the structure. For these reasons, in the pro-
posed procedure a minimum value rq1 P 0.10 is imposed. Using K1
and v1 defined in Eq. (13), the plastic strain energy of Eq. (11) can
be expressed as:
Substituting Eq. (20) in Eq. (19), recalling that l = g/neq, solving
for l, using Eq. (16) and expressing sdy1 in terms of the coefficients
sa1, K1, v1 defined above, the following expression for the maxi-
mum displacement on the first story is obtained:
8vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 9
u
a1 gT 21 <u
s
2 2 2
t neq þ 2neq þ 4p V D  neq :
=
dmax1 ¼ ð21Þ
4p v1
2 : v1 f v1 K 1 f g T 1 s a1 f v1 f ;
2 2 2 2 2
3.6. Estimation of the maximum shear force in the upper stories
The proposed strengthening solution tries to align the behavior
of the retrofitted building to that of a base-isolated structure,
ensuring that the upper stories remain basically elastic. To this
end, it is necessary to predict the maximum shear forces in the
upper stories and check that they remain below the yield story
shear force fQyi (for i P 2). For base-isolated structures, several
ð14Þ expressions have been proposed in the literature and in seismic
codes to estimate the distribution of lateral forces over the height
of the building. The European Seismic Code [30] assumes a uniform
acceleration profile and equivalent static seismic forces Fxi are
proportionally to the story masses. Under this approach the effects
of higher modes are not considered and the results may be non-
conservative results. To take into account higher mode effects,
ASCE-SEI-41-13 code [31] computes Fxi by distributing the base
shear force over the height of the structure proportionally to the
product of masses and story heights raised to a power. In this
study, the latter approach is adopted and it is proposed to estimate
the force Fxi at a given level i located at a height xi above the ground
by:
mi x4
F xi ¼ Q max1 PN i ð22Þ
4
k¼1 mk xk
where Qmax1 = sQy1 + sdy1fk1 = sQy1 + m1fQy1. The exponent of four
used in Eq. (22) is the upper bound value established by ASCE-
SEI-41-13 [31] for base isolated structures. Once the forces Fxi are
determined, the shear forces in a given story j, Qmax,j (for j P 2),
are simply:
X
N
f Q max;j ¼ F xi : ð23Þ
i¼j
3.7. Procedure

Mg 2 T 21 s a21 g This section describes a procedure to determine the required

Wp ¼ : ð18Þ strength, stiffness and energy dissipation capacity to be provided
4p2 K 1 v1
by the dampers of the first story, so that the main frame (with
strengthening, if needed, of the columns of the first story) does
3.5. Prediction of the maximum displacement of the first story not exceed its elastic deformation capacity fdyi, under a given
ground motion characterized by a bilinear energy input spectrum
Replacing We and Wp given by Eqs. (10) and (18) in the energy VD–T. The procedure may call for an iterative process involving sev-
balance Eq. (4) gives: eral steps. The first iteration tests the possibility of seismically
a2max1 f a21 g 2p2 V 2D upgrading the first story with dampers only (i.e. without strength-
f s
þ ¼ : ð19Þ ening the columns). If it is not possible, or if the strength/stiffness
2 K 1 v1 g 2 T 21
of the dampers needs to be reduced/minimized, in subsequent iter-
On the other hand, recalling Eq. (14) and using sa1, K1 and l ations the strength/stiffness of the columns of the first story are
defined by Eqs. (12), (13) and (16), famax1 can be rewritten as increased until a satisfactory (or optimum) combination of column
follows: strengthening and level of strength of the dampers is found.

Q y1 f k1f dy1 f k1 dmax1 f k1s dy1 ðl þ 1Þ

f amax1 ¼ f ¼ ¼ ¼ Step 1: Characterize the design earthquake with a bilinear VD–T
Mg Mg Mg Mg spectrum defined by the maximum demand VDmax and the
k d
s 1s y1 ð l þ 1Þ a
s 1 ð l þ 1Þ predominant period TG—i.e. VD = TVDmax/TG for T < TG, VD = VDmax
¼ ¼ : ð20Þ
MgK 1 K1 for T P TG.
24 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32

Step 2: Develop a numerical model of the existing main frame
(without strengthening) that includes the masonry infill walls
and perform a pushover analysis. For this analysis, a uniform
pattern of lateral forces that are proportional to mass regardless
of elevation (uniform response acceleration) can be used.
Obtain the shear force-displacement curve of each story fQi  di
and approximate this curve with a bilinear elastic-perfectly
plastic model as shown in Fig. 2a. From this bilinear curve
determine fQyi, fdyi and fki (=fQyi/fdyi). From the mass of each floor
mi and fki determine the fundamental period T1 by conducting
an eigenvalue analysis or by using approximate methods. Cal-
culate v1 with Eq. (13), f with Eqs. (1), (5), (9), and the VD cor-
responding to T1 from the energy input spectra defined in
step 1.
Step 3: Fix a tentative value for m1 in the range 0.15 6 m1 6 0.40
starting from the lower bound m1 = 0.15.
Step 4: Starting from sa1 = 0, increase sa1 and try to find a solu-
tion that satisfies Eq. (21) (with dmax1 = fdy1) within acceptable
tolerance (5% is recommended). Note that once sa1 is fixed, rq1
(=fQmax1/sQy1 = fQy1/sQy1) is determined, and K1, neq are readily
obtained with Eqs. (15) and (17), respectively. If it is not possi-
ble to find a solution for sa1 that also satisfies the imposed con-
dition rq1 P 0.10, go to step 3 and repeat the process with a
larger value for m1. If m1 is increased to the upper limit
m1 = 0.40 without finding a solution for sa1, then increase the
yield displacement of the first story by strengthening the col-
umns. With some strengthening techniques, increasing the col-
umn strength implies an increment of stiffness (i.e. concrete or
steel jacketing), in which case the process must be repeated
from step 2 with the new fQyi, fdyi and fki. Other strengthening
techniques (i.e. fiber-reinforced plastic FRP) increase the
strength without altering the stiffness (thus v1, f, T1 and VD
remain the same); in this case the process can be repeated from
step 4 onward with the new values of fdy1 and fQy1(=fdy1fk1).
Step 5: Once sa1 is determined, estimate the maximum story
shear forces in the upper stories fQmax,i (for i > 1) with Eq. (23)
and check the condition fQmax,i 6 fQyi. If this condition is not sat-
isfied in some stories, they must be strengthened by adding
new masonry infill walls and/or increasing the size of the exist-
ing ones, and the process must be repeated from step 2. If the
condition is satisfied, the process ends and the strength and
stiffness to be provided by the dampers in the first story are s-
Qy1 = sa1Mg and sk1 = K1 fk1. As for the amount of energy that
the dampers must be able to dissipate, Wp, it can be obtained
simply using Eqs. (4) and (10) as follows:
"  2 #
MV 2D MV 2D Mg 2 T 21 f a2max;1 M 2 gT 1f amax1
Wp ¼  We ¼  f¼ VD  f :
2 2 4p2 2 2 2p
ð24Þ
Fig. 4 summarizes the proposed procedure. It gives the solution
that requires minimum (or no) strengthening of the columns of the
first story. Nevertheless, many other solutions are possible. That is,
there are multiple combinations of levels of strengthening the col-
umns of the first story (characterized by fdy1, fQy1) with levels of
strength/stiffness for the dampers (in terms of sdy1, sQy1) that sat-
isfy the basic condition given by (14). For a given level of strength-
ening on the columns of the first story characterized by fdy1, fQy1,

START

SEISMIC HAZARD
Define in terms VD-T

STRUCTURE (WITHOUT DAMPERS)

Strengthen the first story
From a pushover analysis obtain, f Qy,i , f δy,i, f ki, and calculate T1,VD(T1), χ1, f

No
Choose initial value ν1 (≥ 0.15)

Choose initial s α1 Yes Is ν1 ≤ 0.40?

Calculate rq1, ηeq, K1 and compute

Increase sα1
δmax ,1 with equation (21)
Yes Increase ν1

Is δmax ,1=( f δy,1 ± No

No Is rq1 ≥ 0.10?
tolerance)?

Yes
Calculate f Qmax,i

Strengthen the
No Are f Qmax,i ≤ f Qy,i?
upper stories
( for i≠1)

Yes
END

Fig. 4. Step-by-step procedure for designing the strengthening of the existing structure.
 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32 25

the required mechanical properties of the dampers (sdy1, sQy1) can
be readily determined by using fdy1, fQy1 in step 2. The larger fdy1,
fQy1 are, the lesser the required strength/stiffness to be provided
by the dampers. This allows for optimizing the seismic retrofit
solution in terms of minimum cost, minimum forces transmitted
to the foundation, etc. Take for instance two frame structures,
one with three stories (prototype N3) and the other with six stories
(prototype N6), both having four spans and three bays. These pro-
totypes were designed only for gravity loads and must be seismi-
cally upgraded to endure a design ground motion characterized
by VDmax = 0.973 m/s and TG = 1.13 s. A detailed description of these
frames is provided later in Section 4.1. The properties of the origi-
nal structures (without any strengthening) are: T1 = 0.94 s,
M = 1235 kN s2/m, fQy1 = 1186 kN, fdy1 = 0.021 m for prototype N3,
and T1 = 0.85 s, M = 2672 kN s2/m, fQy1 = 2863 kN, fdy1 = 0.018 m
for prototype N6. Several levels of strengthening of the columns
of the first story are considered. It is assumed that the strengthen-
ing technique used does not alter the lateral stiffness fk1 of the
main frame. For characterizing each level of column strengthening,
the original value fQy1 was multiplied by a factor Finc. The strength
required on the dampers for each value of Finc was calculated for
several values of m1 by applying the proposed procedure. Results
are shown in Fig. 5 for each structure, where the abscissa repre-
sents Finc and the ordinate the maximum total base shear force
transmitted to the foundation, i.e. sa1 + fa1. As seen in Fig. 5, the
optimum level of strengthening from the standpoint of the mini-
mum (sa1 + fa1) is obtained by incrementing the strength of the
columns of the original frame between 1.8 and 2.2 times. From
other points of view, such as total cost, it could however be prefer-
able to reduce the level of strengthening of the columns and
increase the capacity of the dampers.
4. Description of study buildings
4.1. Existing buildings with soft first story
Two prototype RC frame structures with open first stories
and all upper stories filled with 0.15 m thick masonry walls
were considered. Both prototypes have four spans in the X
direction and three spans in the Y direction, as shown in the
plan view of Fig. 6a. Beams are arranged in both X and Y
directions to support two-way slabs 0.16 m thick. For the pur-
poses of this study, the prototypes are analyzed for ground
motions acting only in the X direction. Hence information on
the perpendicular Y direction is not included hereafter. One
prototype (N3) has three stories and the other one (N6) has
six stories, as shown in the elevations of Fig. 6b and c. They
represent existing structures designed only for gravity loads
and located in the highest seismic region of the Dominican
Republic, where the peak ground acceleration is 0.41g (where
g is the acceleration of gravity). The design live loads are
assumed as 2 kPa and 1 kPa, respectively in floors and roof.
Elastic moduli for concrete, masonry and steel are 21.5 GPa,
2.1 GPa and 206 GPa. The Poisson ratio for concrete and
masonry is 0.2. The most common material strengths in the
Dominican Republic are used. The compressive strengths of
concrete and masonry are 20.6 MPa and 2.3 MPa, and the yield
strength of longitudinal and transverse reinforcing steel is
274 MPa. All members are designed according to ACI 318-99
[32] as is the common practice in the Dominican Republic.
The floor masses and the dimensions for beams and columns
are shown in Table 1 (the names used to designate the frames
are shown in Fig. 6a).

(a) 1.2 (b) 1.2 =0.15

s f =0.15
1.1 1.1 s f =0.20
=0.20 1.0
1.0 =0.25
=0.25
0.9 0.9 =0.30
=0.30
0.8 0.8 =0.35
=0.35
0.7 =0.40
0.7 =0.40
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 Finc 0.4 Finc
0.3 0.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fig. 5. Variation of total base shear force with column strengthening; prototypes: (a) N3 and (b) N6.

Y
P4X
3
6.5
3
P3X
3
6
C3 C4 C4 C4 C3 3 3
P2X
3 3
6.5
C1 C2 C2 C2 C1 P1X 4.5 4.5
x
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 6. Prototype buildings (m): (a) plan; (b) elevation prototype N3; (c) elevation prototype N6.
26 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32

Table 1
Element sections of the prototypes (dimensions in meters).

Story/floor N3 N6
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6
mi (kN s2/m) 477.1 470.7 287.7 486.2 477.5 474.9 473.9 471.8 288.1
P1 Beam 0.3  0.6 0.3  0.6 0.25  0.5 0.3  0.6 0.3  0.6 0.3  0.6 0.3  0.6 0.3  0.6 0.25  0.5
P4 Column C1 0.3  0.3 0.3  0.3 0.25  0.25 0.3  0.3 0.3  0.3 0.3  0.3 0.3  0.3 0.3  0.3 0.25  0.25
C2 0.3  0.3 0.3  0.3 0.25  0.25 0.35  0.35 0.35  0.35 0.35  0.35 0.3  0.3 0.3  0.3 0.25  0.25
P2 Beam 0.3  0.6 0.3  0.6 0.25  0.5 0.3  0.6 0.3  0.6 0.3  0.6 0.3  0.6 0.3  0.6 0.25  0.5
P3 Column C3 0.3  0.3 0.3  0.3 0.25  0.25 0.4  0.4 0.35  0.35 0.3  0.3 0.3  0.3 0.3  0.3 0.25  0.25
C4 0.35  0.35 0.3  0.3 0.25  0.25 0.5  0.5 0.45  0.45 0.4  0.4 0.35  0.35 0.35  0.35 0.3  0.3

4.2. Numerical model
A numerical model representing each prototype structure in the
X direction is developed using the IDARC-2D code [33]. Each model
includes all the frames parallel to the X direction. Beams and col-
umns are modeled as 2-node frame elements with plastic hinges
that concentrate the non-linear behavior located at both ends. Hys-
teretic behavior is described by a polygonal hysteretic model that
uses a non-symmetric monotonic moment-curvature envelope,
and four parameters that control effects of stiffness degradation
(HC), strength degradation (HBE, HBD) and pinching (HS) under
cyclic loadings. A graphical representation of the plastic hinges
hysteretic rule is shown in Fig. 7; more detailed information can
be found in [33]. The values adopted for these parameters are:
HC = 10, HBE = 0.01 and HS = 0.25 for beams and columns;
HBD = 0.45 for beams and HBD = 0.50 for columns. The monotonic
moment-curvature envelope is determined from the constitutive
laws of the materials and the cross-section properties by using a
fiber model. The uniaxial constitutive laws adopted are bilinear
without strain hardening for steel, and parabola-rectangle for con-
crete. Further, to capture the variation of section flexibility when
an element experiences inelastic deformations and cracks spread
from the joint interface, the spread plasticity formulation imple-
mented in IDARC-2D is used. The masonry infill walls are modeled
using compression struts joining adjacent floors. The infill lateral
yield force and lateral stiffness are determined using the equations
of FEMA 356 [21]. The hysteretic behavior of the infill is repre-
sented by the Bouc-Wen model [34], using the default values for
the parameters recommended by IDARC-2D. A more detailed
description of the modelling implemented in IDARC-2D can be
found in [33].
4.3. Design of the seismic upgrading solution

Using the numerical models described above, non-linear push-

over analyses were conducted to determine the curves that relate
the shear force and the corresponding inter-story drift of each
story. Fig. 8 shows the curves obtained for the first story of proto-
types N3 and N6. Each curve was idealized with the bilinear
approximation shown in Fig. 2a, giving fQyi, fdyi and fki (=fQyi/fdyi);
the values corresponding to the first story, i.e. fQy1, fdy1 and fk1,
are summarized in Table 2, together with the total mass of the
buildings M, the ultimate lateral displacement fdu,1, the fundamen-
tal period T1 obtained with an eigenvalue analysis, and the ratio f
obtained with Eq. (9). It was assumed that the ultimate lateral dis-
placement fdu1 is attained when the first plastic hinge in the frame
reaches its ultimate rotation capacity. The ultimate rotation capac-
ity is expressed through the ultimate curvature of the section as
determined from the fiber model analysis of the cross-section.
The incremental curvature that is applied to the section is contin-
ued until one of the following conditions is reached: (i) the con-
crete reaches the specified ultimate compressive strain; or (ii)
Fig. 7. Hysteretic rule of the plastic hinges.
one of the rebars reaches the specified ultimate strength. The

(a) 0.12 f (b)

0.12 f
0.10
0.10
0.08 Pushover curve
0.08 Capacity Curve
Idealization
0.06 Idealization
0.06
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
Inter-story drift (%) Inter-story drift (%)
f f u1 f f u1
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Fig. 8. Shear force versus inter-story drift curve for the first story: (a) N3; (b) N6.
 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32 27

Table 2
Properties of the existing structure and of the hysteretic dampers.

Existing structure Dampers

2
Prototype M (kN s /m) fk1 (kN/m) fQy,1 (kN) fdy,1 (m) fdu,1 (m) T1 (s) f m1 a
s 1 rq1 sdy1 (m) sk1 (kN/m) sQy,1 (kN)
N3 1235.5 55700 1186 0.021 0.072 0.94 1.15 0.15 0.70 0.14 0.0032 2661400 8494
N6 2672.4 161500 2863 0.018 0.060 0.85 1.10 0.15 0.67 0.16 0.0027 6621500 17611

attained curvature of the section when either of the two conditions Double Springs-EW
Morgan Hill
is reached is taken as the ultimate curvature [33]. 3000 2 Tabas Double Springs-NS
Sa (cm/s ) Dursunbey
The dampers were designed for the VD–T spectrum implicit in Friuli
Northridge Kozani
the current seismic code of the Dominican Republic [35] for the 2500 Kobe Mammoth lake
design earthquake associated with a return period of 475 years Victoria Manjil
and soft soil conditions. The VD–T spectrum can be obtained from Chalfant Valley Spitak
2000 Loma Prieta Alajuella PCC-NS
the conventional acceleration spectrum Sa–T taking into account N. Palm Springs Alajuela CH-NS
that the spectral velocity Sv is related with Sa by Sv = Sa(T/2p) and Whittier Narrows Alajuela-EW
1500 Coalinga Alajuela UCRSR-NS
that VD is approximately equal to Sv [22,23]. The VD–T spectrum
Gazli USSR Alajuela UCRSR-EW
obtained in this way gives VD(0.94) = 1.08 m/s for prototype N3 Nahanni Cobano CA
and VD(0.85) = 0.97 m/s for prototype N6. The required strength 1000 Sierra Madre Pejibaye
Erzincan Mean
sQy,1 and stiffness sk1 of the dampers was obtained with the itera-
Dinar
tive procedure proposed in Section 3.7. A solution was found with 500
the initial value m1 = 0.15 adopted for m1, with no need to
T (s)
strengthen either the columns of the first story or the infill walls 0
of the upper stories. The required sQy,1 and sk1 are shown in Table 2. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Among the different possible strengthening solutions represented
Fig. 9. Elastic response spectra of the ground motions.
by the line with square symbols in Fig. 5, it was intentionally
selected the one that requires the largest strength for the dampers,
that is, the solution corresponding to Finc = 1 in Fig.5. Strengthening response parameters were fitted with a log-normal distribution
the existing frame would reduce drastically the required strength and plotted as a cumulative distribution function. The cumulative
of the dampers. In the 3 story building for example, increasing distribution function indicates the probability that the response
the strength of the existing structure by 2 times (i.e. Finc = 2) would parameter is less than or equal to a given value.
reduce the required strength of the dampers 2.5 times, that is, s-
Qy1 = sa1Mg = [(fa1 + sa1)  fa1]Mg = [(0.38)  0.1] 5.1. Modelization of the dampers
1235  9.8 = 3389 kN. In this case, the required strength of the
dampers would be 3389/(2  1186) = 1.4 times that of the existing Among the different types of hysteretic dampers available,
frame. With buckling restrained braces or TTD dampers [13] it is devices that can be installed in the frame as conventional diagonal
easy to attain very large lateral strengths. On the other hand it elements were used. Two examples of such devices are the buck-
has been shown experimentally that having damper strengths ling restrained brace and the tube-in-tube damper (TTD) [13];
quite higher than the strength of the exiting frame does not jeop- the latter is used in this study. The TTD device exhibits stable
ardize the behavior of the whole system. Benavent-Climent et al. quasi-rectangular loops under cyclic deformations. Its hysteretic
[36] conducted dynamic shaking table tests on a RC frame struc- behavior is idealized using the Bouc-Wen model and included in
ture designed only for gravity loads equipped with hysteretic dam- the numerical models that represent the existing structures
pers. The nominal yield strength of the dampers was 3.1 times that explained in Section 4.2. The axial stiffness and strength of the
of the existing frame, and the actual strength exhibited by the dampers installed in the first story are determined to ensure they
dampers during the tests reached 5.3 times that of the existing provide the lateral stiffness sk1 and strength sQy,1 shown in Table 2.
frame, due to strain hardening and strain-rate effects. The overall
response of the RC frame with dampers was satisfactory and the 5.2. Ground motions
RC frame remained basically elastic with light or very light dam-
age, even for the severest seismic simulation. Table 3 shows the recorded ground motions considered for the
time-history analyses with their relevant data: component (Comp),
5. Numerical investigation. Validation through nonlinear time- magnitude moment Mw, closest horizontal distance to rupture
history analyses plane Rjb, peak ground acceleration PGA, peak ground velocity
PGV and soil type. Soil was classified according to shear wave
Non-linear time-history analyses were conducted to evaluate velocity vs (in m/s) in: rock (760 6 vs 6 1500), very dense
the seismic performance of RC frames with a first soft story (360 6 vs 6 760), stiff (180 6 vs 6 360) and soft soil (vs 6 180).
strengthened with hysteretic dampers and masonry walls in the The records are scaled so that the total energy input contributable
upper stories, and to validate the proposed procedure. Thirty to damage expressed in terms of equivalent velocity VD coincides
recorded ground motions were considered in this study. Their 5% (with a tolerance of ±2%) with the value used for designing the
damped elastic response acceleration spectra are shown in Fig. 9. dampers—that is, VD = 1.08 m/s for prototype N3 and VD = 0.97 m/
The inherent damping assumed was 5% of the critical value. The s for prototype N6—corresponding to the design earthquake asso-
response parameters investigated are: (i) the story drift response; ciated with a return period of 475 years in the Dominican Republic.
(ii) the maximum shear forces in the upper stories; and (iii) the The scaling factors used for prototypes N3, kN3, and N6, kN6, are
residual drift. The large number of records used made it possible shown in Table 3. The ground motions are selected from the PEER
to carry out statistical analyses to evaluate the mean and standard [37] data base and from the Costa Rica ground motion data-base
deviation of the response parameters. Furthermore, the data of the [38].
28 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32

Table 3
Earthquake data of selected ground motions.

Name of the earthquake Station Comp Mw Rjb (km) Soil PGA (cm/s)2 PGV (cm/s) kN3 kN6 Source
Morgan Hill-1984 Gilroy Array #3 0 6.19 13.01 Very dense 191 11 3.49 3.34 PEER
Tabas Iran-1978 Ferdows 90 7.35 89.76 Stiff 91 5 4.83 5.16 PEER
Friuli Italy 01-1976 Conegliano 270 6.50 80.37 Stiff 68 4 7.08 4.63 PEER
Northridge 01-1994 Beverly Hills 35 6.69 12.39 Very dense 609 29 1.01 0.97 PEER
Kobe-1995 Kobe Univ. 90 6.90 0.90 Rock 306 31 3.11 1.92 PEER
Victoria Mexico-1980 SAHOP 280 6.33 39.10 Stiff 68 9 8.70 5.65 PEER
Chalfant Valley 02-1986 Long Valley D. 0 6.19 18.30 Very dense 94 5 7.71 6.88 PEER
Loma Prieta-1989 BRAN 90 6.93 3.85 Very dense 493 44 1.02 0.82 PEER
N. Palm Springs-1986 Anza–Red M. 270 6.06 38.22 Very dense 95 6 5.68 9.30 PEER
Whittier Narrows 01-1987 Anaheim-W B. 0 5.99 28.81 Stiff 57 4 9.07 5.31 PEER
Coalinga 01-1983 Parkfield–C. 90 6.36 46.73 Stiff 68 8 10.83 6.36 PEER
Gazli USSR-1976 Karakyr 0 6.80 3.92 Stiff 688 66 1.11 0.87 PEER
Nahanni Canada-1985 Site 1 280 6.76 2.48 Very dense 1177 41 1.06 0.91 PEER
Sierra Madre-1991 Pasadena USGS 270 5.61 13.91 Stiff 172 14 3.59 2.28 PEER
Erzican Turkey-1992 Erzincan 90 6.69 0.00 Stiff 487 78 1.71 1.25 PEER
Dinar Turkey-1995 Dinar 180 6.40 0.00 Stiff 273 30 2.05 1.26 PEER
Double Springs-1994 Woodfords 90 5.90 12.48 Stiff 85 8 7.58 4.13 PEER
Woodfords 0 5.90 12.48 Stiff 60 6 8.35 5.56 PEER
Dursunbey Turkey-1979 Dursunbey 90 5.34 5.57 Very dense 282 9 3.93 3.79 PEER
Kozani Greece 4-1995 Karpero 90 5.10 9.40 Very dense 185 15 3.18 2.81 PEER
Mammoth Lakes 6-1980 Fish & Game 0 5.94 6.45 Very dense 369 18 2.26 3.05 PEER
Manjil Iran-1990 Abhar 33 7.37 75.58 Stiff 205 55 2.20 1.05 PEER
Spitak Armenia-1988 Gukasian 90 6.77 23.99 Stiff 171 15 4.36 2.53 PEER
Alajuela PCC-1990 Parque C.C. 0 6 48.51 Soft 234 13 4.40 2.98 LIS
Alajuela CH 1990 Clínica Hatillo 0 6 48.51 Soft 174 10 4.51 4.11 LIS
Clínica Hatillo 90 6 26.03 Soft 220 8 4.28 4.10 LIS
Alajuela UCRSR- 1990 Recinto UCR 0 6 27.97 Soft 165 11 4.22 6.12 LIS
Recinto UCR 90 6 27.99 Soft 177 16 3.93 3.71 LIS
Cobano CA-1990 Cipet en Alajuela 90 7 89.62 Soft 169 14 4.82 2.32 LIS
Pejibaye-1993 Parque C.C. 0 6 26.59 Soft 201 20 3.32 3.02 LIS

PEER: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research; LIS: Costa Rica Ground Motion Data Base.

5.3. Story drift response
Fig. 10a and b shows the maximum inter-story drift ratios
exhibited by prototypes N3 and N6, respectively. Also plotted in
the figures (vertical dot line) are the maximum inter-story drifts
allowed in the first story dmax1/h1 (=0.47%), the mean, the mean-
plus-standard deviation and the mean-minus-standard deviation
values of maximum inter-story drift ratios. For prototype N3 and
at the first story, the maximum inter-story drift ratios are below
dmax1/h1 for 90% of the ground motions, and in the remaining 10%
the design limit is exceeded by at most 20%. The mean value
(0.32%) is about 30% smaller than the design value (0.47%). The
mean-plus-standard deviation (0.43%) nearly coincides with the
design value (0.47%). In the two upper stories, the mean values
of the maximum inter-story drift ratios are 0.1% and 0.07% for
the second and third stories respectively, and reach at most 0.13%.
Similar results are seen for prototype N6. In the first story the
maximum inter-story drift ratios are below the design value dmax1/
h1 (=0.4%) for 87% of the ground motions, and in the remaining 13%
the design limit is exceeded by at most 17%. The mean value
(0.32%) is about 20% smaller than the design limit. The mean-
plus-standard deviation (0.41%) is very close to the design limit
(0.4%). The mean of the maximum inter-story drift ratios in the
upper stories ranges from 0.1% to 0.2%, and 0.3% is reached in
one ground motion.
Fig. 11a and b shows with symbols the cumulative frequency
(normalized by the total number of ground motions used) of the
maximum inter-story drift ratio at the first story, as obtained from
the non-linear dynamic analyses. Also shown, with solid lines in
the figures, are the cumulative frequency functions obtained by
assuming a log-normal distribution of the maximum inter-story
drift ratio. It can be seen that for both prototypes the probability

(a) 3 Story
Sierra Madre Design limit 1st story
Mean-SD
(b) 6 Dinar Design limit 1st story
Nahanni Mean-SD
Erzincan
Gazli USSR Mean+SD
Mean
Story Sierra Madre
Mean+SD
Coalinga Mean
Whittier Narrows Pejibaye Nahanni Pejibaye
Cobano CA Gazli USSR
N. Palm Springs
Alajuela UCRSR-EW
5 Cobano CA
Loma Prieta Coalinga Alajuela UCRSR-EW
Chalfant Valley Alajuela UCRSR-NS Whittier Narrows Alajuela UCRSR-NS
Victoria Alajuela-EW Alajuela-EW
N. Palm Springs
Kobe Alajuela CH-NS Alajuela CH-NS
Loma Prieta
Northridge Alajuella PCC-NS 4 Chalfant Valley Alajuella PCC-NS
Friuli Spitak Spitak
Manjil Victoria
2 Tabas
Kobe
Manjil
Morgan Hill Mammoth lake Mammoth lake
Kozani Northridge Kozani
Dursunbey 3 Friuli Dursunbey
Double Springs-NS Tabas Double Springs-NS
Double Springs-EW Morgan Hill Double Springs-EW
Dinar
Erzincan
2
drift ratio (%) drift ratio (%)
1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Fig. 10. Maximum inter-story drift ratios.

 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32 29

(a) 1.0 (b) 1.0

P[drift ratio =x] P[drift ratio =x]

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
drift ratio (%
max1 drift ratio (% max1
0.0 0.0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Fig. 11. Cumulative distributions: (a) prototype N3; (b) prototype N6.

of maximum inter-story drift ratios at the first story being smaller
than the design value (indicated with vertical dot lines in Fig. 11) is
about 91% for prototype N3 and 83% for prototype N6. From these
results it can be concluded that drifts are well controlled by the
inelastic behavior of the dampers, and that the proposed procedure
affords satisfactory dimensioning of the dampers.
5.4. Maximum shear forces in the upper stories
Fig. 12a and b shows the maximum story shear forces endured
by prototypes N3 and N6, respectively. Also shown in the figures is
the prediction of shear forces calculated with Eqs. (22) and (23). It
can be seen that Eq. (22) provides a safe-side estimation of
maximum shear forces in the upper stories that is near the upper
bound of all responses. Existing structures designed according to
old codes and often without seismic considerations can have a very
limited overstrength. In this case, overestimating the shear forces
to be sustained by the existing building is acceptable.
5.5. Residual drift
Fig. 13a and b displays the residual inter-story drift ratios
exhibited by prototypes N3 and N6, respectively. It is defined as
the ratio of the residual inter-story drift to the corresponding story
height. For most ground motions (about 83%) the residual inter-
story drift ratio at the first story is seen to be small, below 0.05%.

Morgan Hill Morgan Hill

(a) Tabas (b) Tabas
Friuli
3 Friuli
Northridge 6 Northridge
Kobe Kobe
Story Victoria
Chalfant Valley Story
Victoria
Chalfant Valley
Loma Prieta Loma Prieta
N. Palm Springs 5 N. Palm Springs
Whittier Narrows Whittier Narrows
Coalinga Coalinga
Gazli USSR Gazli USSR
Nahanni Nahanni
Sierra Madre 4 Sierra Madre
2 Erzincan Erzincan
Dinar
Dinar
Double Springs-EW Double Springs-EW
Double Springs-NS Double Springs-NS
Dursunbey 3 Dursunbey
Kozani Kozani
Mammoth lake Mammoth lake
Manjil Manjil
Spitak Spitak
Alajuela PCC-NS 2 Alajuela PCC-NS
Alajuela CH-NS Alajuela CH-NS
Alajuela-EW Alajuela-EW
1 Maximum story shear force (kN) Alajuela UCRSR-NS
Alajuela UCRSR-NS Maximum story shear force (kN) Alajuela UCRSR-EW
Alajuela UCRSR-EW
4000 6000 8000 10000 Cobano CA
1 Cobano CA
Pejibaye
Pejibaye
Prediction
4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 Prediction

Fig. 12. Maximum story shear forces.

(a) Morgan Hill Dinar

Double Springs-EW
(b) 6 Story Morgan Hill Dinar
3 Story Tabas Tabas Double Springs-EW
Friuli Double Springs-NS Double Springs-NS
Friuli
Northridge Dursunbey Northridge Dursunbey
Kobe Kozani 5 Kobe Kozani
Victoria Mammoth lake Victoria Mammoth lake
Chalfant Valley Manjil Chalfant Valley Manjil
Spitak Loma Prieta Spitak
Loma Prieta
Alajuella PCC-NS N. Palm Springs Alajuella PCC-NS
N. Palm Springs 4 Whittier Narrows Alajuela CH-NS
Whittier Narrows Alajuela CH-NS
Coalinga Alajuela-EW
2 Coalinga Alajuela-EW Alajuela UCRSR-NS
Gazli USSR
Gazli USSR Alajuela UCRSR-NS Nahanni Alajuela UCRSR-EW
Nahanni Alajuela UCRSR-EW 3 Sierra Madre Cobano CA
Sierra Madre Cobano CA Erzincan Pejibaye
Erzincan Pejibaye

2 Residual
Residual
inter-story drift (%)
inter-story drift (%)
1 1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Fig. 13. Residual inter-story drift ratio.

30 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32

In the upper stories, the residual inter-story drift ratios are The amplitude aj, frequency xj and phase-angle aj are constant
negligible. for each mode j. The shape function /j(x) has orthogonal proper-
ties, that is, it satisfies:
6. Conclusions Z H
m/i /j dx ¼ 0 if i – j: ðA:5Þ
o
This study investigates a solution for the seismic retrofitting of
existing RC frames with a first soft story and masonry walls in the The mode functions /j(x) can be normalized so that
upper stories. The approach consists of adding hysteretic dampers Z H
and strengthening (if necessary) the columns of the first story. An m/2i dx ¼ M; ðA:6Þ
energy-based procedure is proposed to determine the strength, o

stiffness and energy dissipation capacity that must be provided RH

where M ¼ o mdx. Substituting Eqs. (A.3) and (A.4) in Eq. (A.2)
by the dampers so that the main structure remains basically in gives the equation
the elastic range. A simple expression is also proposed to predict
the maximum shear forces in the upper stories. X  d

d/j

qj mx2j /j þ G ¼ 0; ðA:7Þ
Multiple combinations of strengths in columns and in dampers dx dx
are possible, and the optimal one can be chosen in view of cost,
which must be satisfied for arbitrary values of qj and therefore:
base shear force transferred to foundations, etc. For conventional
 
existing frames designed only for gravity loads subjected to levels d d/j
G ¼ mx2j /j : ðA:8Þ
of input energy—in terms of equivalent velocity—of about 1 m/s, dx dx
the optimum solution from the standpoint of minimum total base
shear requires increasing the strength of the columns of the first When the system is subjected to the ground motion accelera-
story between 1.8 and 2.2 times. tion, €zg ðtÞ, the solution of Eq. (A.1) also takes the form of Eq.
Non-linear time history analyses conducted on two prototype (A.3). Substituting Eq. (A.3) in Eq. (A.1) and taking into account
structures subjected to thirty ground motions showed that the per- Eq. (A.8) gives:
X X
formance of the retrofitted structures is satisfactory, and the pro- m €j þ m
/j q x2j /j qj ¼ m€zg : ðA:9Þ
posed procedure provides for a safe-side and not excessively
conservative dimensioning of the dampers. The mean-plus- Both sides of Eq. (A.9) are now multiplied by a mode function /s
standard deviation of the first story drift obtained from the analy- and the resulting expressions are integrated over the height H.
ses roughly coincides (about 8% lower) with the target drift used Recalling Eqs. (A.5) and (A.6), the equation that governs the vibra-
for designing the dampers. The probability of having first story tion in the s-th mode is:
drifts larger that the target drift is very low (13%), and in no case Z H
the target drift was exceeded by more than 20%. The maximum €s þ M x2s qs ¼ €zg
Mq m/s dx: ðA:10Þ
shear forces in the upper stories predicted with the proposed for- o

mulae coincides approximately with the upper bound of the Next the second member of Eq. (A.9) is multiplied by
P
responses obtained from the time history analyses. The residual _ ¼
ydt /j q_ j dt and integrated over the height H and over the total
drift at the first story is less than 0.05% for 83% of the ground duration of the ground motion t0. The total energy input E results:
motions. Z Z  Z 
H t0 X XZ t0 H
E¼ m€zg /j q_ j dt dx ¼  €zg q_ j m/j dx dt:
Acknowledgements o o o o
ðA:11Þ
This work received financial support from the Spanish Govern- Since Eq. (A.10) has been already multiplied by /s, now multi-
ment under project BIA2014-60093-R and from the European plying the second member of Eq. (A.10) by q_ s dt and integrating
Union (Feder). over 0-t0 gives the energy input Es in a single mode of vibration
/s, that is:
Appendix A Z t0 Z H 
Es ¼  €zg q_ s m/s dx dt: ðA:12Þ
The undamped response of the cantilever shear beam model o o
subjected to the ground motion acceleration €zg ðtÞ given by Eq. (6) It is obvious from Eqs. (A.11) and (A.12) that
is rewritten here for convenience: X
2   E¼ Ej : ðA:13Þ
@ y @ @y
m 2 G ¼ m€zg ðA:1Þ
@t @x @x A new parameter E1j is now introduced. E1j is defined as the
energy input in a fictitious undamped SDOF system of mass M
Setting the right-hand side of Eq. (A.1) to zero yields the free and frequency xj subjected to the ground motion acceleration
vibration equation: €zg ðtÞ. The equation of motion of this fictitious SDOF system is
  € þ M x2j y ¼ M€zg , where y indicates the fictitious displacement,
@2y @ @y My
m  G ¼ 0: ðA:2Þ Rt
@t 2 @x @x and the corresponding input energy would be E1j ¼  o o M€zg ydt. _ If
The solution of Eq. (A.2) takes the form: j = s, the force represented by the second member of Eq. (A.10) is
RH
X 0
m/s dx=M times larger than the force on the fictitious SDOF sys-
y¼ qj /j ; ðA:3Þ hR i2
tem (i.e. M€zg ). As a result, Es given by Eq. (A.12) is o m/s dx=M
H

where qj(t) and /j(x) are the time function and the mode function
times larger than E1j, and recalling Eq. (A.13):
for the j-th mode of vibration. The summatory extends from j = 1
RH !2
to 1. qj(t) is expressed by X m/j dx
E¼ E1j o
: ðA:14Þ
qj ðtÞ ¼ aj sinðxj t þ aj Þ: ðA:4Þ M
 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32 31

For convenience the energy E is now expressed in terms of new In an undamped elastic system, from the instant that the
coefficients Dj that satisfy: ground motion stops (i.e. for t P t0), E coincides with the elastic
X vibration energy We. Therefore, making x1 = 2p/T1 and using E
Dj /j ¼ 1: ðA:15Þ ^ ð0Þ given by Eq. (A.24), We (=E) can be expressed as follows:
and a
Multiplying both sides of Eq. (A.15) by m/s and integrating over
o–H yields: Mg 2 T 21  e  a
^ ð0Þ2
We ¼ : ðA:26Þ
RH 4p 2 a 2 2
m/s dx
Ds ¼ o
: ðA:16Þ Note from (A.16) and (A.25) that coefficients a and e can be
M readily calculated once the dynamic properties of the system xj,
Let us now raise both sides of Eq. (A.15) to the second power, /j are known and the V–T spectrum that characterizes the ground
multiply by m and integrate over o–H; recalling Eqs. (A.5), (A.6), motion is defined to determine V1j.
which gives:
X
D2j ¼ 1: ðA:17Þ References

Substituting Eq. (A.16) in Eq. (A.14), E can be written as follows: [1] Hall JF. Northridge earthquake January 17, 1994. Preliminary reconnaissance
X report. Oakland (USA): Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; 1994.
E¼ E1j D2j : ðA:18Þ [2] Architectural Institute of Japan, 1995. Preliminary reconnaissance report of the
1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, Tokyo, Japan; 1995.
On the other hand E1j can be expressed in form of an equivalent [3] Bahmani P, Van de Lindt JW, Gershfeld M, Mochizuki GL, Pryor SE, Rammer D.
Experimental seismic behavior of a full-scale four-story soft-story wood-frame
velocity V1j(xj) by building with retrofits. I: Building design, retrofit methodology, and numerical
validation. J Struct Eng ASCE 2014.
MV 21j [4] Van de Lindt JW, Bahmani P, Mochizuki G, Pryor SE, Gershfeld M, Tian J, et al.
E1j ¼ : ðA:19Þ
2 Experimental seismic behavior of a full-scale four-story soft-story wood-frame
building with retrofits. II: Shake table test results. J Struct Eng ASCE 2014;142
Thus, E given by Eq. (A.18) can be written as: (4):1–14.
P [5] Dohare D, Maru S. Seismic behavior of soft storey buildings: a critical review.
M ðV 1j Dj Þ2 Int J Eng Res Gen Sci 2014;2(6):35–9.
E¼ : ðA:20Þ [6] Parducci A, Comodini F, Lucarelli M. A synergy dissipation approach to retrofit
2
framed structures with a soft first storey. In: 9th World seminar on seismic
Once the ground motion fades away, i.e. for t > t0, the system isolation, energy dissipation and active vibration control of structures, Kobe;
remains in an undamped free oscillation and V 1j Dj represents the 2005.
[7] Mezzi M, Parducci A. Preservation of existing soft-first-story configurations by
maximum velocity of the system vibrating in mode j. On the other improving the seismic performance. In: 3rd International specialty conference
hand, the maximum absolute acceleration equals the maximum on the conceptual approach to structural design, Singapore; 2005.
velocity multiplied by the frequency xj. As a result, the maximum [8] Soong TT, Dargush GF. Passive energy dissipation systems in structural
engineering. England: John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 1997. p. 368.
force at height x is xjV1jDjm/jdx and the corresponding shear for-
[9] Chan RWK, Albermani F. Experimental study of steel slit damper for passive
ceQ^ j is: energy dissipation. Eng Struct 2008;30(4):105866.
Z H
[10] Oh SH, Kim YJ, Ryuet HS. Seismic performance of steel structures with slit
dampers. Eng Struct 2009;31(9):1997–2008.
^ j ðxÞ ¼ xj V 1j Dj
Q m/j dx: ðA:21Þ [11] Nakashima M, Iwai S, Iwata M, Takeuchi T, Konomi S, Akazawa T, et al. Energy
x dissipation behaviors of shear panels made of low yield steel. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 1994;23:1299–313.
The rule of the square root of sum of the squares is now used to
[12] Iwata M, Murai M. Buckling-restrained brace using steel mortar planks:
combine the Q ^ j of each vibration mode to estimate the maximum Performance evaluation as a hysteretic damper. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
total shear force at height x normalized by the weight over height x 2006;35(14):1807–26.
[13] Benavent-Climent A. A brace-type seismic damper based on yielding the walls
and expressed in terms of a shear-force coefficient a^ ðxÞ by: of hollow structural sections. Eng Struct 2010;2010(32):1113–22.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi [14] Benavent-Climent A, Morillas L, Vico JM. A study on using wide-flange section
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P ^2 P R 2
web under out-of-plane flexure for passive energy dissipation. Earthq Eng
Q j ðxÞ xj V 1j Dj xH m/j dx Struct Dyn 2011;40:473–90.
^
aðxÞ ¼ R H ¼ RH : ðA:22Þ [15] de la Llera J, Esguerra C, Almazan JL. Earthquake behavior of structures with
g x mdx g x mdx cooper energy dissipaters. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2004;33(3):329–58.
[16] Boardman PR, Wood BJ, Carr AJ. Union House: a cross braced structure with
Then, making x = 0 in Eq. (A.22) and recalling Eq. (A.16), the energy dissipaters. Bull N Zeal Nat Soc Earthq Eng 1983;16(2):63–75.
base shear force coefficient is: [17] Martinez-Romero E. Experiences on the use of supplemental energy
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi dissipaters on building structures. Earthq Spect 1993;9(3):581–625.
P 2 [18] Sahoo DR, Rai DC. Design and evaluation of seismic strengthening techniques
xj V 1j D2j for reinforced concrete frames with soft ground story. Eng Struct 2013;2013
a^ ð0Þ ¼ : ðA:23Þ (56):1933–44.
g [19] Nakano T, Khampanit A, Leelataviwat S, Njamsanjeim C. A study on soft story
RC frame strengthened with bucking restrained brace. Nagoya (Japan): JCI
^ ð0Þ can be expressed in terms of the correspond-
Further, E and a Annual Convention in Nagoya; 2013.
ing values in a fictitious SDOF system of mass M and frequency [20] Kanno H, Nishida T, Kobayashi J. Substructure pseudo-dynamic tests on
seismic response control of soft-first-story buildings. In: Ilki A, Fardis MN,
equal to that of the first mode x1 of the real system, subjected to editors. Seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of structures. Geotech Geolog
the ground motion €zg ðtÞ by two new coefficients e and a defined Earthq Eng, 26. p. 341–53.
as follows: [21] FEMA-356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.
x1 V 1;1 MV 21;1 [22] Housner GW. Limit design of structures to resist earthquakes. In: Proceedings
a^ ð0Þ ¼ a ; E¼e ðA:24Þ of 1st world conf. earthquake engineering, EERI, California; 1956.
g 2 [23] Akiyama H. Earthquake-resistant design method for buildings based on energy
balance. Tokyo: Gihodo Shuppan; 1999. p. 254.
where V1,1 is the value of V1j for j = 1. Comparing Eq. (A.24) with [24] Uang CM, Bertero VV. Use of energy as a design criterion in earthquake-
(A.20) and (A.23), it follows that: resistant design. Report No. UBC/EERC-88/18. California (USA): University of
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi California at Berkeley; 1990.
P 2 P [25] Decanini LD, Mollaioli F. An energy-based methodology for the assessment of
ðxj V 1j D2j Þ ðV 1j Dj Þ2 seismic demand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2001;21:113–37.
a¼ ; e¼ ðA:25Þ [26] Building Center of Japan. Building Standard Law. Tokyo; 2009.
x1 V 1;1 V 21;1 [27] OriginLab Corporation. Tutorials for Origin 8.5. Northampton (MA); 2010.
32 A. Benavent-Climent, S. Mota-Páez / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 19–32
[28] Oviedo JA, Midorikawa M, Asari T. Earthquake response of ten-story story-
drift-controlled reinforced concrete frames with hysteretic dampers. Eng
Struct 2010;32:1735–46.
[29] Manfredi G, Polese M, Cosenza E. Cumulative demand of the earthquake
ground motions in the near source. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2003;32:1853–65.
[30] CEN. Eurocode 8. Design of structures of earthquake resistance, Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Standard, EN
1998-1; 2004.
[31] ASCE-SEI-41-13. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. Reston
(VA): American Society of Civil Engineers; 2013.
[32] ACI 318-99: Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-99)
and commentary (ACI 318r-99). Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute
(ACI Committee 318); 1999.
[33] Reinhorn AM, Roh H, Sivaselvan M, Kunnath SK, Valles RE, Madan A, Li C, Lobo
R, Park YJ. IDARC2D Version 7.0: a program for the inelastic damage analysis of
structures. Report NCEER-96-0010. New York (USA): MCEER; 2009.
[34] Baber TT, Noori MN. Random vibration of degrading pinching systems. J Eng
Mech 1985;111(8):1010–26.
[35] MOPC-R-001. Reglamento para el análisis y diseño sísmico de estructuras.
Santo Domingo: Dirección General de Reglamentos y Sistemas; 2011.
[36] Benavent-Climent A, Morillas L, Escolano-Margarit D. Seismic performance
and damage evaluation of a reinforced concrete frame with hysteretic
dampers through shake-table tests. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2014;43:2399–417.
[37] PEER Ground Motion Database. NGA-West2. http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/.
[38] Laboratorio de Ingeniería Sísmica (LIS). http://www.lis.ucr.ac.cr/index.php?id=
Inicio#.