Você está na página 1de 10

CAPACITY-DEMAND INDEX RELATIONSHIPS FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN

K. T. Farrow 1 and Y. C. Kurama 2

ABSTRACT

Seismic design procedures in current building provisions are based on linear and nonlinear static approaches that use capacity-demand index relationships such as the relationship between the lateral strength and the maximum lateral displacement. Previous research on the development of these relationships is based on linear-elastic ground motion acceleration response spectra, whereas the current design procedures are based on “smooth” design response spectra. For the design procedures to be consistent, new capacity-demand index relationships are proposed based on smooth design response spectra from existing design provisions. It is shown that, for survival-level, soft-soil, and near-field ground motion records, the capacity-demand index relationships developed using linear- elastic ground motion response spectra are significantly different than those developed using smooth design spectra and can lead to unconservative designs.

Introduction

Seismic design and evaluation/rehabilitation approaches in current building provisions (e.g., International Building Code 2000 (IBC) (ICC 2000), Uniform Building Code (UBC) (ICBO 1997), FEMA 356 (ASCE 2000)) depend on capacity-demand index relationships such as the relationship between the lateral strength and the maximum lateral displacement. Design approaches that use these relationships include the conventional “equivalent lateral force” procedure (ICC 2000; ICBO 1997) and the more elaborate “capacity spectrum” procedure based on inelastic acceleration and displacement spectra (Reinhorn 1997; Chopra and Goel 1999).

In current practice, the design lateral strength, F des , is determined by dividing the design force required to keep the structure linear-elastic during an earthquake, F elas , by a response modification coefficient, R = R des , as shown in Fig. 1a. This force reduction is allowed provided that the resulting maximum nonlinear displacement demand, nlin , can be accommodated. nlin depends on the R coefficient and can be estimated based on capacity-demand index relationships.

Regardless of the design approach used, previous research on the development of seismic capacity-demand index relationships is based on linear-elastic acceleration response spectra from an ensemble of ground motion records. While these relationships may be appropriate for the ground motion ensembles that were used, the seismic design of most building structures is based on “smooth” response spectra as specified by model building design provisions.

1 Doctoral Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Geological Sci., Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 2 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Geological Sci., Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556

W

1

F elas

R

=

F des

W

F elas CHANGE IN LATERAL DISPLACEMENT 1 2 FORCE REDUCTION 1 F (1 - )
F
elas
CHANGE IN LATERAL
DISPLACEMENT
1
2 FORCE REDUCTION
1
F
(1 -
)
elas
K
R
F
nlin
F
F
αK
=
elas
y
R
"significant yield"
3 Linear-Elastic Behavior
1
F
elas
F
=
des
2
Nonlinear Behavior
R des
3
Idealized Bilinear Behavior
∆ = µ∆
0 ∆ des ∆ y
∆ elas
nlin
y
lateral force, F

lateral displacement,

.

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

BOSTON DESIGN-LEVEL SOFT SOIL Ground motion response spectrum (ξ = 5%) Design response spectrum, IBC
BOSTON DESIGN-LEVEL SOFT SOIL
Ground motion response
spectrum (ξ = 5%)
Design response spectrum,
IBC 2000 (ξ = 5%)
R = 1 (linear-elastic)
unconservative inconsistency
R = 2
in determining F.
des

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

1.2

period, T (sec)

1

0.8

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

For the design

procedures

to

be

consistent,

there

is

a

need

capacity-demand index

develop

to

relationships

using

smooth

response

spectra

from

existing

design provisions. This is particularly important for near- field ground motions

and for sites with soft soil profiles where the characteristics of the ground motion spectra may be significantly different

from the characteristics of the smooth design response spectra, as shown in Fig. 1b (where W is the total seismic weight). This inconsistency may result in different values for the design force, F des , for the same value of R and may result in an unconservative design force as illustrated in Fig. 1b. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, previous research on the effect of using smooth response spectra instead of linear-elastic ground motion response spectra to calculate F des in the development of capacity-demand index relationships has not been published in the literature. The paper focuses on this issue.

(a)

(b)

Figure 1.

(a) Lateral force-displacement relationships; (b) Ground motion response spectra versus smooth design response spectra.

The objectives of the research described in the paper are: (1) to develop new nonlinear inelastic seismic capacity-demand index relationships based on smooth response spectra; and (2) to investigate the effects of site soil characteristics, seismic demand level, and epicentral distance on these relationships. The results presented in the paper are limited to: (1) ground motions representative of regions with high seismicity (e.g., Los Angeles); (2) the bilinear elasto-plastic (EP) hysteresis type; and (3) the displacement ductility demand, µ = nlin / y , based on an idealized bilinear lateral force-displacement relationship as shown in Fig. 1a. Results for other seismicities, hysteresis types, and demand indices (e.g., for cumulative damage, residual displacement, etc.) are provided elsewhere (Farrow and Kurama 2001a, 2001b; Farrow 2001).

Previous Research on Displacement Ductility Demand

Investigations formulating displacement ductility demand relationships have been conducted by several researchers (e.g., Newmark and Hall 1973; Nassar and Krawinkler 1991; Miranda 1993). Nassar and Krawinkler (1991) investigated both single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) and multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems using an ensemble of 15 ground motion records representative of records on soil profile S 1 (stiff) from the western United States. Through a statistical evaluation of the dynamic response of SDOF systems with idealized bilinear elasto-plastic (EP) behavior, the R coefficient was determined as a function of the µ demand, the post-yield stiffness ratio, α (see Fig. 1a), and period of vibration, T, as:

R

(µ,

T

,α) = [ (µ 1) +1]

c

1/ c

,

R = F

elas

/ F

y

,

µ = ∆

nlin

/

y

(1)

c T

(

,α) =

a

T b

+

T

a

+ 1

T

Table 1.

Values for a and b coefficients.

α (%)

a

b

0

1.00

0.42

2

1.01

0.37

10

0.80

0.29

(2)

Values for a and b in Eq. 2 can be found in Table 1 (Nassar and Krawinkler 1991). In the development of Eqs. 1-2, the lateral strength, F y = F elas /R, was

determined from the 5%-damped linear-elastic acceleration response spectrum for each ground motion. As mentioned earlier, this is different from current provisions, where the lateral strength is calculated using a smooth design response spectrum.

The effects of site soil characteristics on the R-µ-T relationship have been investigated by researchers such as Krawinkler and Rahnama (1992) and Miranda (1993). The effects of near- field ground motions on seismic demands have been examined by several researchers (e.g., Hall et al. 1995; Naeim 1995), however R-µ-T relationships have not been developed. It is noted that a large scatter in the results from Nassar and Krawinkler’s study was observed, particularly for large values of R. The implications of this large scatter in the demand estimates are discussed in depth elsewhere (Farrow and Kurama 2001c).

Description of the Research Program

A range of SDOF systems are subjected to ground motion ensembles to investigate the effect of the reference response spectra on the R-µ-T relationships. This section describes the study as follows: (1) analytical models; (2) ground motion records; (3) reference response spectra; (4) nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses; and (5) statistical evaluation of results.

Analytical Models

The linear-elastic period of the SDOF systems, T, is varied by varying the mass, m. The linear-elastic stiffness, k, is set constant at 175,000 kN/m. The viscous damping ratio is assumed to be equal to ξ = 5%. The bilinear elasto-plastic (EP) hysteresis type with a post-yield stiffness ratio, α = 10%, is considered.

Ground Motion Records

Ground motions compiled by the SAC steel project (Somerville et al. 1997) are used. These ground motions, representative of the Los Angeles area (a total of 100 records), are categorized by: (1) site soil characteristics (stiff soil and soft soil, i.e., S D and S E soil profiles in IBC 2000); (2) seismic demand level (design-level and survival-level); and (3) epicentral distance (near-field, NF, and far-field). The 5%-damped linear-elastic acceleration response spectra of the SAC ground motions are shown in Figs. 2a-e. More detailed information on the ground motions is provided by Somerville et al. (1997) and Farrow (2001).

a

S

a S (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure 2. Acceleration response spectra (SAC Los Angeles): (a-b)

(a)

a S (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure 2. Acceleration response spectra (SAC Los Angeles): (a-b)

(b)

a S (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure 2. Acceleration response spectra (SAC Los Angeles): (a-b)

(c)

a S (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure 2. Acceleration response spectra (SAC Los Angeles): (a-b)

(d)

a S (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure 2. Acceleration response spectra (SAC Los Angeles): (a-b)

(e)

Figure 2.

Acceleration response spectra (SAC Los Angeles): (a-b) S D soil; (c-d) S E soil; (e) NF.

Reference Response Spectra

In order to investigate the effect of reference response spectra on the R-µ-T relationships, three types of linear-elastic acceleration response spectra were used to calculate F y : (1) response spectra based on the individual ground motion records (IND); (2) average response spectra based on the ground motion ensembles (AVG); and (3) smooth design response spectra (DES).

In the case of the AVG spectra, F y is calculated as the mass, m, times the average linear- elastic spectral acceleration (at the structure period) of the ground motion ensemble divided by R. The AVG spectra for the ground motion ensembles used in the paper are shown by the thick dashed lines in Fig. 2. In the case of the DES spectra, F y is calculated as m, times the spectral acceleration (at the structure period) from the design response spectrum divided by R. The general shape of the design response spectra in IBC 2000 and UBC 1997 is shown in Fig. 3a. The

seismic coefficients S d1 , S ds , C v ,

and C a are mapped or tabulated

based on site seismicity, seismic

demand level, site soil

characteristics, and epicentral

2.5 ξ = 5% ξ = 5% Los Angeles (IBC 2000) S ds 2.5C a
2.5
ξ = 5%
ξ = 5%
Los Angeles
(IBC 2000)
S ds
2.5C
a (UBC 1997)
2
S D
Design-Level
S E
1.5
S D
S
/T
(IBC 2000)
Survival-Level
d1
S E
C /T
(UBC 1997)
v
1
0.5
0
T
= S
/S
(IBC 2000)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
T
= 0.2T
s
d1
ds
o
s
T
= 0.4C /C
(UBC 1997)
T (sec)
s
v
a
T
(a)
(b)
S a (g)

Design spectra: (a) definition; (b) design-level and survival-level spectra for Los Angeles.

0.4S

ds

(IBC 2000)

C a (UBC 1997)

distance.

The seismic coefficients S d1 and S ds in IBC 2000 have been determined to provide a uniform margin of safety (across the United States) against

Figure 3.

structural collapse under a “maximum considered earthquake” which has a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (corresponding to a return period of approximately 2500 years). The maximum considered earthquake ground motion is referred to as the “survival-level” ground motion herein.

A second seismic demand level is defined using a “design-level” ground motion. The

smooth response spectrum for the design-level ground motion is determined by multiplying the smooth response spectrum for the survival-level ground motion by a factor of 2/3 (referred to as the “seismic margin” (BSSC 1998)). This roughly corresponds to an earthquake with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (a return period of approximately 500 years) for coastal California and a lower probability of occurrence (a return period of approximately 1400 years) for the eastern United States (BSSC 1998). Note that S d1 and S ds for the survival- level ground motion correspond to S M1 and S MS for the “maximum considered earthquake” in IBC 2000, and S d1 and S ds for the design-level ground motion correspond to S D1 and S DS for the

“design earthquake” in IBC 2000. Additionally, it is noted that the coefficients C v and C a in UBC 1997 are specified for the design-

Table 2.

Coefficients for the smooth design response spectra.

level ground motion.

Site Seismicity

Demand Level

Site Soil

S

ds

S

d1

 

Design

S

D

1.37

0.81

Los Angeles

S

E

0.90

a

0.96

a

 

S

D

2.05

1.22

 

Survival

S

E

1.35

b

1.44

b

Fig. 3b shows the smooth

design response spectra used in

this paper for Los Angeles. The

seismic coefficients that define the response spectra for stiff (S D ) soil are obtained from the IBC 2000 provisions and are given in Table 2. The IBC 2000 provisions do not

provide design spectra for soft (S E ) soil sites in regions with high seismicity. Thus, the S E soil

design spectra are based on the UBC 1997 (ICBO 1997) provisions instead.

b The seismic coefficients for survival-level are determined by multiplying the coefficients for design-level by 3/2

a 2.5C a and C v from UBC 1997 are used for S E soil design response spectra for Los Angeles (ICBO 1997)

Nonlinear Dynamic Time-History Analyses

A Matlab (2000) algorithm, CDSPEC (Capacity-Demand SPECtra), was developed to

conduct nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses of the SDOF models described previously. An incremental step-by-step formulation is used assuming that the response acceleration varies

linearly between the time discretization points (Chopra 1995). Time step, t s , and error tolerance

and 1% error in displacement,

are defined by the user (defaults are set for t

respectively). Analytical verification of the CDSPEC program is provided by Farrow (2001).

s /T 1/ 50

The nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted for the following: (1) five ground motion ensembles for Los Angeles (a total of 100 records); (2) five response modification coefficients, R = 1(linear-elastic), 2, 4, 6, and 8; (3) one hysteresis type (EP); (4) one post-yield stiffness ratio, α = 10%; (5) thirty structure periods, exponentially spaced, between T = 0.1 to 3.0 seconds; and (6) three linear-elastic acceleration reference response spectra for calculating F y .

In the development of R-µ-T relationships, there are two approaches that can be adopted:

(1) the “constant-µ” approach; and (2) the “constant-R” approach. In the constant-µ approach,

R

the objective is to determine the R coefficients that are required to limit the µ demand to preselected values. The smallest R coefficient corresponding to a µ demand is calculated from nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses, which are conducted iteratively based on an initial value of R, until the desired µ demand is obtained. As an example, the dashed lines in Fig. 4 show the mean R-µ relationships obtained by Farrow and Kurama (2001b) using the constant-µ approach (for µ = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8) for the EP hysteresis type with post-yield stiffness α = 0.0, structure periods T = 0.2 sec. and 0.92 sec., and the ground motion ensemble used by Nassar and Krawinkler (N&K) (1991). The thin solid lines represent the R-µ relationships for the individual ground motions. The diamond markers represent results obtained by Nassar and Krawinkler (1991), which are in good agreement with results from Farrow and Kurama (2001b).

Previous research on

the development of R-µ-T relationships has often used

6 6 mean, constant-µ T = 0.92 sec. mean, constant-R 5 N&K 1991 5 4
6
6
mean, constant-µ
T = 0.92 sec.
mean, constant-R
5
N&K 1991
5
4
4
T = 0.20 sec.
1
2
3
3
mean, constant-µ
2
2
mean, constant-R
N&K 1991
1
1
N&K Ground Motion Ensemble
N&K Ground Motion Ensemble
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
µ
µ
(a)
(b)
R

Figure 4.

R- µ relationships (EP hysteresis type, α = 0.0) for:

(a) T = 0.20 sec.; (b) T = 0.92 sec.

the constant-µ approach.

However, Farrow and

Kurama (2001b) demonstrated that the constant-R approach results

in more conservative µ

demands than the constant-µ approach. In the constant-R approach, the objective is to determine the µ demands

corresponding to preselected R coefficients. Unlike the constant-µ approach, the dynamic analyses in the constant-R approach are conducted without iteration. Sample results are represented by the thick solid lines in Fig. 4 using 25 linearly-spaced R coefficients ranging from 1 to 6. The constant-µ approach is consistently unconservative when compared to the constant-R approach. For example, the constant-µ approach would predict an R coefficient of approximately 3.4 for a period of T = 0.2 sec. and a target displacement ductility demand of µ = 7 (point 1 in Fig. 4a). However, if R is set to a value of 3.4 and the structure is subjected to the same ground motion ensemble, clearly, a larger displacement ductility demand of approximately µ = 9 would be observed (point 2 in Fig. 4a). It is for this reason that the constant-R approach is adopted in this paper.

Statistical Evaluation of Results

Results are presented as mean µ-spectra corresponding to different R coefficients. A two- step nonlinear regression analysis, similar to the procedure used by Nassar and Krawinkler (1991), is performed to provide R-µ-T relationships as given by Eqs. 1-2. Further details on the regression analyses are provided elsewhere (Farrow and Kurama 2001b; Farrow 2001).

Results

This section presents the results from the nonlinear dynamic analyses described earlier as follows: (1) mean R-µ spectra; and (2) nonlinear regression curves to describe the R-µ spectra.

Stiff Soil Profile (S D )

µ

µ

Figs. 5a-b show the mean R-µ spectra for sites with a stiff soil profile under design-level and survival-level ground motions. The solid and dashed lines represent results obtained using the IND and AVG spectra, respectively. On average, the differences between the results obtained using the IND and AVG spectra are small, particularly for the design-level ground motions. For long period structures (i.e., T > 1 sec.) under survival-level ground motions, the µ demands estimated using the AVG spectrum are consistently larger than the demands estimated using the IND spectra.

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14 R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin → thick lines) 12 IND spectra
14
R = 1,
2, 4, 6, 8 (thin
→ thick
lines)
12
IND spectra
AVG spectrum
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
µ

T

(sec)

(a) design-level 14 R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin → thick lines) 12
(a) design-level
14
R = 1,
2, 4, 6, 8 (thin
→ thick
lines)
12
IND spectra
AVG spectrum
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
µ

T

(sec)

(e) design-level

14 R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin → thick lines) 12 IND spectra
14
R = 1,
2, 4, 6, 8 (thin
→ thick
lines)
12
IND spectra
AVG spectrum
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
µ

T

(sec)

(b) survival-level 14 R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin → thick lines) 12
(b) survival-level
14
R = 1,
2, 4, 6, 8 (thin
→ thick
lines)
12
IND spectra
AVG spectrum
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
µ

T

(sec)

(f) survival-level

14 R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin → thick lines) 12 IND spectra
14
R = 1,
2, 4, 6, 8 (thin
→ thick
lines)
12
IND spectra
DES spectrum
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
µ

T

(sec)

(c) design-level 14 R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin → thick lines) 12
(c) design-level
14
R = 1,
2, 4, 6, 8 (thin
→ thick
lines)
12
IND spectra
DES spectrum
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
µ

T

(sec)

(g) design-level

R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin → thick lines) IND spectra DES spectrum
R = 1,
2, 4, 6, 8 (thin
→ thick
lines)
IND spectra
DES spectrum
0 0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5

T

(sec)

(d) survival-level R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin → thick lines) IND spectra
(d) survival-level
R = 1,
2, 4, 6, 8 (thin
→ thick
lines)
IND spectra
DES spectrum
0 0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5

T

(sec)

(h) survival-level

Figure 5.

R- µ spectra: (a-d) stiff soil profile, S D ; (e-h) soft soil profile, S E .

Similarly, Figs. 5c-d show comparisons between the R-µ spectra obtained using the IND and DES spectra. Contrary to the AVG spectrum, the µ demands under design-level ground motions decrease when using the DES spectrum. Thus, R-µ-T relationships developed using the IND spectra would result in more conservative designs for design-level ground motions than relationships developed using the DES spectrum. Under survival-level ground motions, the µ demands obtained using the DES spectrum can be significantly larger than the demands obtained using the IND spectra, particularly T > 0.8 sec. and regardless of R. From this important observation, it can be concluded that R-µ-T relationships developed using the IND spectra can lead to significantly underestimated seismic demands under survival-level ground motions.

Soft Soil Profile ( S E )

Figs. 5e-h show the mean R-µ spectra for sites with a soft soil profile under design-level and survival-level ground motions. Similar to the stiff soil profile, the differences in the µ demands for the IND and AVG spectra are small (Figs. 5e and f), however there is a significant increase in the demands when using the DES spectrum, especially for the survival-level ground motions (e.g., the µ demand from the DES spectrum can be about 2.5 times the µ demand from the IND spectra as shown in Fig. 5h). These large increases occur for almost the entire period range (i.e., T > 0.25 sec.) and are especially severe for 1.0 < T < 2.5 sec. where the predominant period of the soil resides (see Fig. 2d). It is obvious from these results that using IND spectra

µ

µ

instead of the DES spectrum to develop R-µ-T relationships can lead to significantly unconservative designs for soft soil profiles, especially for medium- to long-period structures.

Near-Field ( NF), Stiff Soil Profile ( S D )

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin → thick lines) IND spectra AVG spectrum
R = 1,
2, 4, 6, 8 (thin → thick lines)
IND spectra
AVG spectrum
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
T
(sec)

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin → thick lines) IND spectra DES spectrum
R = 1, 2, 4, 6,
8 (thin →
thick lines)
IND spectra
DES spectrum
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
T
(sec)

Figure 6.

(a)

(b)

R- µ spectra for near-field ground motions: (a) AVG versus IND spectra; (b) DES versus IND spectra.

Fig. 6 shows the mean R-µ spectra for sites with a stiff soil profile under near-field ground motions. The differences between the results obtained using the IND and AVG spectra are small (Fig. 6a). However, the increase in the µ demands when using

the DES spectrum is dramatic (the µ demand from the DES spectrum can be almost 3 times the demand from the IND spectra as shown in Fig. 6b). The large amplification factors using the DES spectrum occur for almost the entire period range and are especially severe for T > 0.5 sec. The pulse-like (large amplitude, long period) characteristics of the NF ground motions result in these large µ demands. From these observations, it is concluded that R-µ-T relationships developed using the IND spectra can lead to significantly unconservative designs for structures within close proximity of an active fault.

Regression Analysis

In the previous sections, R-µ-T relationships are investigated in terms of mean R-µ spectra. Based on these spectra, closed-form R-µ-T relationships are developed: (1) to quantify the effect of the different parameters evaluated on the R-µ-T relationships; and (2) to provide relationships that can be integrated into current and future design provisions. The nonlinear regression analysis scheme and the regression equations developed by Nassar and Krawinkler (Eqs. 1-2) are used for this purpose.

Table 3 shows the a and b regression coefficients developed in this study. These regression coefficients reinforce the previous observations from the mean R-µ spectra (Farrow

Table 3.

Regression coefficients for the EP hysteresis type, α = 0.10 with the SAC Los Angeles ground motion ensemble.

     

IND spectra

AVG spectrum

DES spectrum

Site Seismicity

Demand Level

Site Soil/Distance

a

b

a

b

a

b

   

S

D

1.89

0.68

1.92

0.66

1.71

0.59

Design

S

E

0.15

0.85

0.41

0.86

0.80

0.88

Los Angeles

S D , NF

0.35

0.89

0.67

0.92

6.23

1.34

 

S

D

0.40

0.72

1.01

0.73

2.04

0.79

Survival

S

E

-0.71

0.94

-0.07

1.00

2.32

1.31

and Kurama 2001b). The dramatic increase in µ demand when using smooth design response spectra to determine the design lateral force capacity can be inferred by comparing the relative values for the a and b coefficients, especially for survival-level, soft soil, and near-field ground motions. The R coefficients specified in current seismic design provisions may be very unconservative under these conditions.

Conclusions

The main objective of the paper is to develop R-µ-T relationships that are consistent with the linear-elastic smooth design response spectra used in current seismic code provisions. The effects of the structure period, seismic demand level, site soil characteristics, and epicentral distance on the R-µ-T relationships are investigated. The major conclusions are as follows:

1. Using individual (IND) ground motion acceleration response spectra for the basis of F y in developing R-µ-T relationships can lead to unconservative designs, especially for survival-level, soft soil, and near-field ground motion records. Using smooth design (DES) response spectra provides demand estimates that are more consistent with current design procedures.

2. The differences between the µ demands for the IND spectra and the µ demands for the average (AVG) spectra are small.

3. The dramatic effect of using DES spectra results in µ demands that are extreme and possibly uncontrollable under survival-level, soft soil, and near-field conditions. Thus, either the smooth design response spectra in current codes need to be modified (e.g., using AVG spectra instead) or the R coefficients used in current provisions should be reduced under these conditions.

4. The regression curves defined by Eqs. 1-2 and the coefficients listed in Table 3, which take into account a variety of seismic, structural, and site parameters, can be integrated into current and future seismic design approaches. As an example, a “capacity spectrum procedure” can be implemented using these regression equations and smooth design response spectra from current seismic design provisions. A design example that demonstrates this procedure is provided elsewhere (Farrow and Kurama 2001b).

Acknowledgements

The research is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as part of the CAREER Program (NSF/CMS 98-74872). The support of the NSF Program Director Dr. S.C. Liu is gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank Prof. Richard Sause of Lehigh University for his comments and suggestions. The findings and conclusions expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the individuals and organizations acknowledged above.

American

Society

of

Civil

Engineers

References

(ASCE)

(2000).

Prestandard

and

commentary

for

the

seismic

rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D. C.

Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, ATC 40.

Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (1998). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings, FEMA 302, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D. C.

Chopra, A. K. (1995). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey.

Chopra, A. K. and R. K. Goel (1999). Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic demand spectrum, Earthquake Spectra, 15, 637-656.

Farrow, K. T. (2001). Capacity-demand index relationships for performance-based seismic design, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame.

Farrow, K. T. and Y. C. Kurama (2001a). Capacity-demand index relationships for performance-based seismic design, submitted for publication in the Journal of Earthquake Engineering.

Farrow, K. T. and Y. C. Kurama (2001b). Displacement ductility demands based on smooth design response spectra, submitted for publication in Earthquake Spectra.

Farrow, K. T. and Y. C. Kurama (2001c). Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics, submitted for publication in Earthquake Eng. and Structural Dynamics.

Hall, J. F., T. H. Heaton, M. W. Halling, and D. J. Wald (1995). Near-source ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings, Earthquake Spectra, 11, 569-605.

International Code Council (ICC) (2000). International Building Code (IBC), Falls Church, Virginia.

International Council of Building Officials (ICBO) (1997). Uniform Building Code (UBC), Whittier, CA.

Krawinkler, H. and M. Rahnama (1992). Effects of soft soil on design spectra, Proceedings, 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 5841-5846.

Matlab (2000). The Math Works, Inc., Natick, MA.

Miranda, E. (1993). Site-dependent strength-reduction factors, Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 119, 3503-3519.

Naeim, F. (1995). On seismic design implications of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake records, Earthquake Spectra, 11, 91-109.

Nassar, A. and H. Krawinkler (1991). Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Report 95, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford University.

Newmark, N. M. and W. J. Hall (1973). Procedures and criteria for earthquake resistant design, Building Sci. Series No. 46, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Reinhorn, A. M. (1997). Inelastic analysis techniques in seismic evaluations, Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Balkema, Rotterdam, 277-287.

Somerville, P., N. Smith, S. Punyamurthula, and J. Sun (1997). Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project, Report SAC/BD-97/04, SAC, Sacramento.