Arroyo y Ordaz 2007 Energía Histerética EESD

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

Published online 27 July 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.736
On the estimation of hysteretic energy demands
for SDOF systems
Danny Arroyo
1, 2, ,
and Mario Ordaz
2
1
Departamento de Materiales, Universidad Aut onoma Metropolitana, Azcapotzalco Avenida San Pablo 180,
Colonia Reynosa Tamaulipas, M exico DF 02200, Mexico
2
Instituto de Ingeniera, Universidad Nacional Aut onoma de M exico, Avenida Universidad 300, Ciudad
Universitaria, Coyoac an, M exico DF 04510, Mexico
SUMMARY
Based on a statistical study of the dynamic response of single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems subjected
to earthquake ground motions, a rule to estimate hysteretic energy demands is proposed. Expressions for
elasticperfectly plastic, stiffness degrading and pinching SDOF systems were obtained. The proposed
rule does not explicitly depend on the period of the system; instead, it depends on the elastic pseudo-
acceleration and elastic velocity spectra. It is shown that the proposed rule can be applied to compute
hysteretic energy demands for systems located at different soil conditions. In addition, information about
scatter and bias of the proposed rule is also presented. Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 8 November 2006; Revised 12 April 2007; Accepted 17 June 2007
KEY WORDS: hysteretic energy; strong ground motion duration; constant ductility spectra; stiffness
degrading system
INTRODUCTION
Several researchers have included the effect of ground motion duration on the seismic design of
structures through the use of the energy approach [115]. Most of these studies have considered
that the damage on a structure subjected to earthquake ground motions can be related to the peak
displacement that the system undergoes and to the amount of hysteretic energy that the system
dissipates during a seismic event. Usually, these seismic demands are compared with the structural
supplies through the use of seismic damage indexes to assess the seismic behavior of structures.
In order to apply these methods in the seismic design of structures, it is necessary to have accurate
estimations of seismic demands and also of structural supplies.
Correspondence to: Danny Arroyo, Departamento de Materiales, Universidad Aut onoma Metropolitana, Azcapotzalco
Avenida San Pablo 180, Colonia Reynosa Tamaulipas, M exico DF 02200, Mexico.
E-mail: aresda@correo.azc.uam.mx
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2366 D. ARROYO AND M. ORDAZ
Abundant research has been aimed at developing expressions to compute hysteretic energy
demands. In the following paragraphs, we discuss some of the related previous studies.
Fajfar and Vidic
Fajfar and Vidic [10] proposed the following expression to compute hysteretic energy demands
per unit of mass (E
Hj
) for bilinear single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems with 10% of strain
hardening:
E
Hj
=
_
j SA(T)
cR
j
(T)
_
2
(1)
where SA(T) is the pseudo-acceleration spectrum valued at the period of the system, T; j is the
maximum ductility demand; c is the circular frequency of the oscillator; R
j
(T) is the corresponding
strength-reduction factor and is given in the following equation:
=z
T
z
j
z
g
(2)
where
z
T
=
_
_
0.9 if TT
1
0.9 0.25
T T
1
T
2
T
if T
1
TT
2
0.65 if TT
2
(3)
T
1
=2
c
v
PGV
c
a
PGA
(4)
T
2
=2
c
d
PGD
c
v
PGV
(5)
z
j
=
(j 1)
c
j
j
(6)
z
g
=
_
_
a
2
dt
PGAPGV
_
c
g
(7)
where PGA, PGV and PGD are the peak ground acceleration, velocity and displacement, respec-
tively. T
1
and T
2
are the limits between the short and medium period range and between the medium
and large period range of the NewmarkHall spectrum, respectively. For bilinear non-degrading sys-
tems with damping proportional to the instantaneous stiffness, c
j
=0.67, c
g
=0.4, c
a
=2.4, c
v
=1.9
and c
d
=1.7.
Fajfar and Vidic [10] stated that Equation (1) could not be applied in the case of narrow-band
ground motions, such as the motions recorded at very soft soil sites.
The basic shape of Equation (1) is given by the pseudo-velocity spectrum (SV(T) =SA(T)/c)
normalized by the R
j
spectrum. Hence, the effect of ground motion duration comes indirectly
through SV(T) and the parameter z
g
. In addition, note that Equation (1) depends on response
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
ESTIMATION OF HYSTERETIC ENERGY DEMANDS FOR SDOF SYSTEMS 2367
parameters (SV(T) and R
j
(T)) and explicitly (although weakly) depends on the period of the
system, through the parameter z
T
.
Manfredi
Manfredi [13] proposed the following equation to compute E
Hj
for elasticperfectly plastic SDOF
systems:
E
Hj
=(j
c
1) n
eq
_
SA(T)
c
_
2
_
1
R
j
(T)
_
2
(8)
where j
c
is the maximum cyclic ductility demand and n
eq
is the number of equivalent cycles,
given by
n
eq
=1 + 0.18(R
j
(T) 1)
3/5
I
D
o
1/6
t
1/2
(9)
I
D
=
_
t
E
0
a(t )
2
dt
PGAPGV
(10)
t =
_
T/T
1
if TT
1
1 if T>T
1
(11)
o =
_
/
0
if
0
1 if =
0
(12)
In Equations (10)(12), t
E
is the earthquake duration,
0
=0.05, and T
1
is the limit between the
short and medium period range of the NewmarkHall spectrum for each record, computed with
Equation (4), according to Fajfar and Vidic [10].
As in Fajfar and Vidics rule, the basic shape of Equation (8) is given by the SV(T) spectrum
normalized by the R
j
spectrum. The effect of ground motion duration comes indirectly through
SV(T) and the parameter I
D
. Note that Equation (8) also depends on response parameters (SV(T)
and R
j
(T)) and explicitly, but weakly, depends on the period of the system, through the parameter t.
Manfredi stated that since a large number of records were used, Equation (8) could be applied
to compute hysteretic energy demands for different types of ground motions. However, he acknow-
ledged that Equation (8) could overestimate hysteretic energy demands. In addition, he observed
that Equation (8) was not able to t the shift of the period of the peak value between the SV(T)
spectrum and the hysteretic energy spectrum, shown by some earthquakes.
Riddell and Garcia
Riddell and Garcia [14] proposed the following expression to construct tri-linear logarithmic
spectra of the square root of E
Hj
for elasticperfectly plastic, bilinear and stiffness degrading
SDOF systems:
v
j
=o
j
f
c
j
(13)
where v
j
is the square root of E
Hj
normalized by certain ground motion parameters depending
on the spectral region considered (i.e. acceleration, velocity or displacement region), f is the
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
frequency of the system and o
j
and c
j
are the coefcients that depend on the type of hysteretic
model, maximum ductility demand and on the spectral region considered.
Conversely to the rules listed before, the equations proposed by Riddell and Garcia do not
depend on response parameters. They depend on PGA, PGV, PGD, T and ground motion duration.
They used a set of 52 ground motions, most of them recorded at rm soil sites. They reported
coefcients of variation of the square root of E
Hj
in the range of 0.30.49.
Kunnath and Chai
Kunnath and Chai [15] proposed to compute hysteretic energy demands as a fraction of the elastic
input energy demand per unit of mass (E
I
), as follows:
E
Hj
=cE
I
(14)
with
c =1.13
(j 1)
0.82
j
(15)
E
I
=0.5v
2
e
=0.5(
v
PGV)
2
(16)
v
=
_
v
(2T/T
c
(T/T
c
)
2
) if T<T
c
v
(T/T
c
)
z
if T>T
c
(17)
v
=
0.25 PGA
PGV
_
t
d
T
c
_
z + 0.5
2z + 2
(18)
where T
c
is equal to T
1
in Fajfar and Vidics model (Equation (4)), t
d
is the ground motion duration
according to Trifunac and Brady [16] and z is a parameter that depends on the type of ground
motion. They used z =0.5 for the type of ground motions considered in their study (they mainly
used ground motions recorded at rm soil sites). They stated that Equation (15) was obtained from
stiffness degrading SDOF systems considering only four ground motions. As Riddell and Garcias
rule, this method does not depend on the response parameters, but explicitly depends on T.
As it can be observed, most of the methods available to compute E
Hj
were developed for rm
soil ground motions. Only the model proposed by Manfredi was developed to be applied on systems
located at different soil conditions. Nevertheless, this model is useful only for elasticperfectly
plastic systems, although it has been demonstrated [11] that the type of hysteretic behavior can
have an important effect on the hysteretic energy demands, especially for ground motions with
large duration, as those recorded at very soft soils.
In view of this situation, the objective of this study was to obtain empirical rules to compute
hysteretic energy demands for SDOF systems with different hysteretic behavior. The presented
model was developed to be applied to systems located at various soil conditions. In addition,
measures of the bias and variability of the model are presented.
HYSTERETIC MODELS CONSIDERED
Four hysteretic models were used: elasticperfectly plastic plus three strength- and stiffness-
degrading models. The degrading models were obtained from the model proposed by Kunnath
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 1. Hysteretic models considered.
et al. [17], which requires the denition of three parameters that control the level of stiffness
degradation (:
k
), strength degradation ([
k
) and pinching (
k
). Although Kunnaths model can
consider a tri-linear envelope of the forcedisplacement relationship, in this paper we decided to
use a bi-linear envelope with zero strain hardening.
Figure 1 shows a sketch of the different models considered and in the following paragraphs, the
three degrading hysteretic models are described.
The rst degrading model utilized is the modied non-degrading Clough model. According
to Kunnath et al. [17] setting :
k
=
k
= and [
k
=0.0, their model reduces to a modi-
ed non-degrading Clough model. For the numerical analyses, the following values were
adopted: :
k
=20, [
k
=0.0 and
k
=2.0. As it can be observed in Figure 1(b), this model
resembles the behavior of well-detailed reinforced concrete structures, where the response
is primarily exural. Note that in this model, only the stiffness of reloading branches is
degraded.
The second degrading model used is Takedas model [18]. According to Kunnath et al. [17]
setting :
k
=2, [
k
=0.1 and
k
=2, their model reduces to Takedas. Note that in this model,
the stiffness of the unloading and reloading branches is degraded each time a maximum dis-
placement occurs. Also, the strength deteriorates depending on the hysteretic energy dissipated
for the system. As it can be observed in Figure 1(c), this model resembles the behavior of
reinforced concrete structures with strength and stiffness degradation, but without signicant
degradation of energy capacity dissipation.
The third degrading model used is the modied Takedas model. According to Kunnath
et al. [17] setting :
k
=2, [
k
=0.1 and
k
=0.5, their model reduces to modied Takedas
model. This model is similar to Takedas model, but the energy capacity dissipation is highly
deteriorated due to pinching of hysteretic loops. As it can be observed in Figure 1(d), this
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
model resembles the behavior of reinforced concrete structures with degradation caused by
high shear stresses and slippage of steel bars.
PROPOSED ESTIMATION RULE
The form of the proposed rule is dened in Equation (19). It depends on two response parameters
and on one duration parameter. In early studies it was considered that under certain hypothesis,
hysteretic energy demands could be estimated from elastic spectral velocity [1]; hence, the elastic
velocity spectrum normalized by PGV was adopted as the basic shape of Equation (19). For long
period systems the ratio between elastic spectral velocity and PGV tend to unity; however, for
this range of periods, E
Hj
must tend to zero. Then, the term SA/PGA was included in order to
attain the correct limit for long period systems. Finally, the effect of duration on E
Hj
was included
through the parameter t. Thus, the proposed rule is the following:
_
E
Hj
PGV
=
_
SA(:T)
PGA
_
a
0
_
V(:T)
PGV
_
a
1
t
a
2
s
f
(19)
where SA(:T) and V(:T) are the pseudo-acceleration spectrum and the elastic velocity spectrum
valued at a period equal to :T, respectively; t is the normalized duration of the ground motion
dened in Equation (20); s
f
is a scale factor and a
0
, a
1
and a
2
are the free parameters that account
for the effect of j on E
Hj
. In turn,
t =
t
d
V
max
2SD
max
(20)
where V
max
and SD
max
are the maxima of the elastic velocity and displacement spectra, respectively,
and t
d
is the ground motion duration dened according to Trifunac and Brady [16].
In Equation (20) the ground motion duration is normalized by a measure of its predominant
period; hence, t is a measure of the number of cycles of ground motion. Several ways to normalize
t
d
to obtain the number of cycles of ground motion were studied; the approach presented in
Equation (20) was selected because it yielded the best t in the regression analysis. However, it
must be acknowledged that for each spectral region, a different normalization of t
d
produces the
best correlation with E
Hj
, as Riddell and Garcia [14] have observed.
One special difference between Equation (19) and the available rules is the parameter :, which
takes into account the shift of the period of the peak value between the elastic spectra and the
hysteretic energy spectrum, shown by some earthquakes. In order to exemplify this observation,
V and constant ductility E
Hj
spectra for El Centro 1940 N-S record and SCT 1985 E-W record
are shown in Figure 2. The former accelerogram was recorded at a rm soil station in California,
while the latter was recorded at a soft soil station in Mexico City during the great 1985 Michoacan
earthquake. As it can be observed, especially for the recording at soft soil, the shapes of the E
Hj
spectra tend to depart from that of the velocity spectrum. For SCT record, the peak of V spectrum
is observed at a period of 2.4 s, while the peak of E
Hj
spectra is observed at periods ranging
between 2 s for elasticperfectly plastic systems and 1.6 s for the modied Takeda systems. For
El Centro record, the peak value of the V spectrum is observed at a period of 5 s, while the peak
of E
Hj
spectra is observed at periods ranging between 3.8 s for elasticperfectly plastic systems
and 3.2 s for the modied Takeda systems.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 2. V and E
Hj
spectra for El Centro 1940 N-S record and SCT 1985
E-W record, j =4 and =0.05.
Another difference between the rule proposed and the existing ones is that the formulation
presented does not depend explicitly on the value of T. As shown in Figure 2, the relationship
between E
Hj
and T depends on the soil type. For soft soil ground motions, which in general are
narrow banded, greater values of E
Hj
are observed for systems with values of T near to resonance.
On the other hand, for rm soil ground motions, which in general are wide-band signals, such
effect is not observed. Therefore, it was decided to select a model that does not depend explicitly
on T. Hence, it could be applied for systems located at different soil conditions.
Finally, note that Equation (19) has theoretically correct limits: as T approaches zero, Equation
(19) approaches zero, while as T approaches innity, Equation (19) approaches zero at a rate that
depends on SA(T). Finally, for j =1, Equation (19) yields zero.
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
A set of 47 strong ground motion records was used in the regression analysis. The records consid-
ered are listed in Table I. The set comprises accelerograms recorded at different soil conditions.
PGA is in the range of 2.61470 cm/s
2
, PGV is in the range of 0.1125 cm/s, t
d
is in the range
of 1.1192 s and t is in the range of 2.162.9. As it can be observed, the set is composed of 24
accelerograms recorded at rock and rm soil sites and 23 accelerograms recorded at very soft soil
sites, in order to attain the same level of accuracy at different soil conditions.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Table I. Strong ground motions records utilized in the regression analysis.
Station Date PGA (cm/s)
2
PGV (cm/s) t
d
(s) t Soil
Caleta 09/19/85 127.0 12.5 27.5 13.0 Rock
Caleta 02/08/99 3.5 0.1 7.0 24.2 Rock
SCT 09/19/85 160.0 58.0 36.8 15.0 Very soft soil
SCT 09/30/99 20.6 6.4 79.6 35.4 Very soft soil
Cerro de piedra 09/19/85 15.1 2.8 17.2 5.2 Rock
Cerro de piedra 01/13/90 138.0 3.4 1.1 3.4 Rock
Sector popular 09/14/95 40.4 13.8 92.5 46.0 Very soft soil
Villa del mar 09/30/99 38.3 12.5 101.0 38.5 Very soft soil
Aeropuerto 09/30/99 24.6 10.6 147.0 32.1 Very soft soil
CU 09/19/85 32.5 8.3 56.5 23.3 Firm soil
Caleta 12/29/99 4.9 0.5 22.0 16.3 Rock
Tlahuac 09/19/85 117.0 34.2 57.7 23.5 Soft soil
Tacubaya 09/19/85 31.8 8.6 61.8 19.2 Firm soil
Filo de Caballo 09/19/85 64.0 8.3 26.6 11.2 Rock
Central del Abastos 09/19/85 76.5 38.5 128.0 32.3 Very soft soil
Xochimilco 09/30/99 38.9 16.7 150.0 42.8 Very soft soil
Xochimilco 12/10/94 11.8 4.7 128.0 39.9 Very soft soil
Viveros 09/19/85 40.1 10.7 46.2 16.4 Firm soil
Roma A 12/10/94 19.4 6.3 80.2 36.1 Very soft soil
El Centro 05/18/40 350.0 67.6 14.2 3.1 Rock
Cordoba 09/30/99 30.5 9.7 116.0 52.7 Very soft soil
Ibero 09/30/99 30.4 7.7 76.6 49.1 Very soft soil
El Centro 12/16/55 11.6 1.8 22.9 4.6 Rock
Apeel2 Redwood City 17/10/89 268.8 53.7 9.3 8.4 Soft soil
Foster City 17/10/89 277.0 46.1 14.5 5.8 Soft soil
Treasure Island 17/10/89 155.0 34.0 4.5 2.1 Soft soil
San Francisco Airport 17/10/89 328.0 29.1 11.3 11.9 Soft soil
Northwestern Balkan/P 13/08/81 2.6 0.1 5.4 5.3 Soft soil
Cibeles 04/25/89 54.5 19.6 66.2 29.2 Very soft soil
Cenapred 01/11/97 5.6 1.8 66.6 14.4 Firm soil
Aeropuerto Zihuatanejo 09/19/85 155.0 17.7 19.1 10.9 Rock
Acapulco 10/24/93 58.3 2.1 9.5 12.6 Rock
Cayaco 09/30/99 4.8 0.5 55.3 12.4 Rock
Filo de Caballo 04/25/89 15.3 2.5 19.5 8.0 Rock
Autodromo 04/25/89 19.2 9.1 141.0 31.3 Very soft soil
TCU046 09/20/99 105.0 11.0 16.1 5.7 Rock
Cape Mendocino 04/25/92 1470.0 125.0 6.2 2.2 Rock
Llolleo 03/03/85 698.0 41.5 35.7 25.5 Firm soil
Tecamachalco 09/14/95 8.3 2.5 168.0 62.9 Firm soil
Campo Libre 09/14/95 13.8 4.5 63.8 21.0 Firm soil
Fremont mission 17/10/89 121.6 11.5 33.1 9.9 Firm soil
Parkeld, Stone corral 05/02/83 148.1 8.7 10.7 5.4 Rock
San Bernardino 06/28/92 90.4 13.7 26.2 14.9 Firm soil
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
The size of the set used in the regression analysis is quite arbitrary. However, as it will be shown
later in the paper, when the proposed rule was applied to a second set of ground motions, the
measures of accuracy of the proposed rule were very similar than those observed in the rst set.
Hence, it was considered that the size of the set of ground motions used in the regression analysis
was acceptable.
In order to t Equation (19) to E
Hj
spectra obtained from SDOF systems subjected to the set
of accelerograms considered, the following modied version of Equation (19) was utilized:
y =a
0
x
1
+ a
1
x
2
+ a
2
x
3
+ b (21)
where y, x
1
, x
2
, x
3
and x
4
are the natural logarithms of
_
E
Hj
/PGV, SV(:T)/PGA, V(:T)/PGV,
t and s
f
, respectively.
Thus, for a given value of :, the coefcients a
0
, a
1
, a
2
and b can be obtained by multiple
linear regression analysis. The values of j =1.5, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were considered and the values of
T between 0.1 and 5 s were used, while a damping value of =0.05 was considered.
Then, for each ductility demand and each hysteretic model, the value of : that yielded the
minimum error was computed by an iterative procedure. The measure of error used is dened in
the following equation
o =
_
1
N
N
i =1
_
ln
_
E
Hji
E
Hji
__
2
(22)
where E
Hj
is the observed value of the hysteretic energy and

E
Hj
is the estimated value of E
Hj
,
while N is the number of data points considered in the analysis; for each value of j, N is equal
to the product between the number of periods and the number of records considered.
Since the values of a
0
, a
1
, a
2
and b are tted by multiple linear regression analysis, the esti-
mations obtained with the proposed model, on average, tend to be unbiased. However, in order
to show this feature, the bias of the estimation was also computed, according to the following
equation:
E =
1
N
N
i =1
ln
_
E
Hji
E
Hji
_
(23)
Note that the positive values of E imply that on average the model underestimates the observed
values, while the negative values of E mean that on average the observed values are overestimated.
The obtained results are summarized in Table II. As expected, : increases with ductility and
with the level of degradation of the hysteretic behavior. Also, for a given hysteretic model, a
0
tends to be fairly independent of j, while a
1
tends to decrease as j increases. The parameter a
2
has more inuence on elasticperfectly plastic and Clough systems than on Takedas and modied
Takedas models; for the former models, a
2
increases as ductility increases. Finally, s
f
= exp(b)
increases as ductility increases and is in the range of 0.6873 to nearly 1.
For given T and j, the proposed rule can be applied by the interpolation of values given in
Table II, which might be impractical. Therefore, it was decided to t some mathematical functions
to the coefcients of Table II. In all the cases, the simplest function was used. In addition, a
0
, a
1
and a
2
were constrained to positive values in order to avoid problems with the limit of the model
as T approaches to innity.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Table II. Coefcients obtained from regression analysis, =0.05.
j : a
0
a
1
a
2
exp(b) Hysteretic model
1.5 1.0200 0.3328 0.7450 0.0229 0.6873 EPP
2.0 1.0333 0.3413 0.7016 0.0700 0.7589 EPP
3.0 1.0733 0.3423 0.6462 0.1185 0.7788 EPP
4.0 1.0967 0.3463 0.6006 0.1427 0.7767 EPP
6.0 1.1400 0.3518 0.5378 0.1676 0.7591 EPP
1.5 1.0845 0.3693 0.6320 0.0895 0.8354 Clough
2.0 1.1575 0.3690 0.5773 0.1174 0.8822 Clough
3.0 1.3100 0.3640 0.5222 0.1416 0.8865 Clough
4.0 1.4333 0.3663 0.4833 0.1446 0.8994 Clough
6.0 1.7000 0.3593 0.4573 0.1594 0.8791 Clough
1.5 1.1125 0.3714 0.6370 0.0836 0.7919 Takeda
2.0 1.2000 0.3712 0.5811 0.0965 0.8628 Takeda
3.0 1.3900 0.3645 0.5367 0.1014 0.9056 Takeda
4.0 1.5500 0.3645 0.5112 0.0966 0.9331 Takeda
6.0 1.8500 0.3607 0.4903 0.0987 0.9356 Takeda
1.5 1.1426 0.3624 0.6375 0.0840 0.7872 mod-Takeda
2.0 1.2394 0.3635 0.5669 0.0958 0.8623 mod-Takeda

3.0 1.4353 0.3612 0.5084 0.0901 0.9262 mod-Takeda
4.0 1.6348 0.3564 0.4888 0.0885 0.9411 mod-Takeda
6.0 1.9000 0.3645 0.4468 0.0779 0.9684 mod-Takeda
mod-Takeda, modied Takeda model.

Based on these considerations, the following expressions to compute a
0
, a
1
, a
2
and s
f
= exp(b)
are proposed:
: =1 + (j 1)m (24)
a
0
=k
0
(25)
a
1
=
1
k
1
+ k
2
ln(j)
(26)
a
2
=k
3
k
4
/j (27)
s
f
= F
0
(1 e
z(j1)
) (28)
The values of parameters m, k
0
, k
1
, k
2
, k
3
, k
4
, F
0
and z are given in Table III. Although some dif-
ferences were observed, it was considered that Equations (24)(28) yielded acceptable estimations
of :, a
0
, a
1
, a
2
and s
f
.
The values of o obtained with Equation (21) and Equations (24)(28), for a given ductility
demand, are listed in Table IV. We observe a slight increment in o as j increases. The values in
the range between 0.526 and 0.627 were obtained.
The value of o is comparable to the coefcient of variation of E
Hj
; thus, the results presented in
Table IV can be compared with the coefcients of variation presented by Riddell and Garcia [14].
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Table III. Parameters of equations (24)(28).
Hysteretic model m k
0
k
1
k
2
k
3
k
4
F
0
z
EPP 0.03 0.3428 1.1716 0.3685 0.2152 0.2892 0.7708 4.4301
Clough 0.14 0.3655 1.4195 0.4441 0.1825 0.1356 0.8876 5.6537
Takeda 0.17 0.3664 1.4678 0.3368 0.1058 0.0273 0.9167 3.8306
mod-Takeda
0.19 0.3616 1.4143 0.4637 0.0872 0.0 0.9355 3.4811

Table IV. The values of o and E obtained with the proposed rule.
o E
Hysteretic model j=1.5 j=2 j=3 j=4 j=6 j=1.5 j=2 j=3 j=4 j=6
EPP 0.583 0.567 0.577 0.593 0.627 0.004 0.010 0.020 0.011 0.035
Clough 0.525 0.543 0.569 0.580 0.590 0.021 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.007
Takeda 0.534 0.554 0.569 0.571 0.582 0.007 0.078 0.027 0.008 0.070
mod-Takeda
0.526 0.555 0.574 0.576 0.583 0.004 0.093 0.045 0.009 0.056

They obtained values of the coefcient of variation of the square root of E
Hj
in the range between
0.31 and 0.6, that is, between 0.62 and 1.2 for the coefcient of variation of E
Hj
. Note that the peak
coefcient of variation obtained with the proposed method is almost half of the peak coefcient
of variation reported by Riddell and Garcia [13]. In addition, Fajfar and Vidic [10] identied that
coefcients of variation of energy are larger than the coefcients of variation of displacement
parameters. Therefore, the accuracy of the proposed method can be considered acceptable.
The values of E obtained with the proposed model are also given in Table IV. As expected, the
estimations are almost unbiased. The maximum and minimum values of 0.07 and 0.093 were
obtained, respectively. This means that, on average, the largest bias of the models is about 9%.
It is important to recall that none of the rules previously derived to compute E
Hj
demands have
discussed the size of their corresponding biases.
The information presented in Table IV can be considered as a global measure of the accuracy of
the proposed model. However, it is also important to study the accuracy of the model for given Tj
combinations. Figures 3 and 4 show o and E spectra for estimations obtained with the proposed
model.
In general, all hysteretic models have very similar values of o. The largest values of o are
observed for systems with T<0.4 s. Although large values of o are observed at this region, it must
be acknowledged that as T approaches zero E
Hj
also tends to zero; hence, the larger errors of the
model are expected at systems with small energy demands. For systems with T>0.4 s, o tends to
be fairly independent of T.
As in the case of the o spectra, the largest values of bias E are observed at the short period region.
Here, the negative values of E are observed, except for the case of elasticperfectly plastic systems
with j =1.5 and 2. Thus, at this period range, the proposed model systematically overestimates
the observed values of E
Hj
, except for elasticperfectly plastic systems undergoing small ductility
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 3. o spectra for the proposed rule.
demands, where underestimations were systematically observed. For systems with T>1 s, the E
spectra uctuate around zero. That is, the estimations tend to be unbiased. At this period range,
E spectra are fairly independent from T.
From the results presented in this section it can be concluded that the accuracy of the proposed
models is satisfactory.
In order to qualitatively illustrate the ability of the proposed rule to estimate E
Hj
demands for
ground motions recorded at different soil conditions, Figure 5 compares the estimated values of
_
E
Hj
/PGV obtained with the proposed rule for the Cape Mendocino and C ordoba records. The
Cape Mendocino record is a very impulsive ground motion recorded at a rock soil site; on the
other hand, the C ordoba record is a very long, nearly harmonic ground motion recorded at
the lake bed zone of Mexico City. As it can be observed, the proposed rule is able to capture
the differences between spectral shapes of
_
E
Hj
/PGV spectra observed in ground motions
recorded at rm and very soft soil sites.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER FORMULATIONS
In this section, the accuracy of the proposed method is compared with the accuracy of the one
proposed by Manfredi. Only this rule was considered because it was the only method that can be
applied at various soil conditions [13].
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 4. E spectra for the proposed rule.
Figure 5. Estimations of
_
E
Hj
/PGV obtained with the proposed rule for ground motions recorded at
rock sites and very soft soil sites, =0.05.
The comparisons shown in this section were obtained from elasticperfectly plastic SDOF
systems subjected to a second set of ground motions, comprising 46 accelerograms recorded at
different soil conditions during several seismic events, which were not used in the regression
analysis of this paper, nor in Manfredis study. These ground motions are listed in Table V;
as shown, there are accelerograms recorded at four different soil conditions. According to the
USGS site classication, Type A ground motions were recorded at sites with shear wave velocities
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Table V. Second set of ground motions utilized.
Station Date Comp PGA (cm/s
2
) PGV (cm/s) t
d
(s) t Soil
Lamont 11/12/99 N-S 27.8 11.0 19.1 4.0 A
Lamont 11/12/99 E-W 52.2 5.3 18.5 3.8 A
Gilroy array no. 1 10/18/89 0 403.0 31.6 6.5 4.7 A
Gilroy array no. 1 10/18/89 90 464.0 33.9 3.7 5.8 A
Lucerne 6/28/92 275 707.0 97.7 13.1 2.9 A
Lucerne 6/28/92 0 770.0 31.9 13.8 4.8 A
MT Wilson-CIT 1/17/94 0 229.0 7.3 9.9 19.7 A
MT Wilson-CIT 1/17/94 90 132.0 5.7 13.8 17.6 A
Lake Hughes no. 9 02/09/71 21 154.0 4.5 9.4 10.5 A
Lake Hughes no. 9 02/09/71 291 131.0 3.9 11.8 7.3 A
LA-Wonderland Ave 10/01/87 75 38.4 1.7 6.7 8.6 A
LA-Wonderland Ave 10/01/87 165 46.5 1.5 7.1 14.0 A
Duzce 11/12/99 180 341.0 60.0 10.9 2.3 C
Duzce 11/12/99 270 525.0 83.5 10.8 2.2 C
Erzikan 03/13/92 N-S 505.0 84.0 7.5 3.3 C
Erzikan 03/13/92 E-W 486.0 64.3 7.4 2.6 C
Hollywood Storage 10/01/87 0 217.0 9.0 11.5 12.3 C
Hollywood Storage 10/01/87 90 122.0 6.9 13.8 12.8 C
Petrolia 04/25/92 0 578.0 48.1 17.7 14.2 C
Petrolia 04/25/92 90 650.0 89.7 16.1 9.9 C
San Bernardino 06/28/92 90 90.4 13.8 23.2 13.1 C
San Bernardino 06/28/92 180 98.8 11.8 23.6 14.1 C
Takatori 01/16/95 0 600.0 127.0 11.4 6.1 E
Takatori 01/16/95 90 604.0 121.0 9.9 6.2 E
Takarazu 01/16/95 0 680.0 68.3 4.6 2.7 E
Takarazu 01/16/95 90 680.0 85.3 3.7 2.7 E
Salton Sea 04/26/81 225 195.0 16.3 8.4 5.3 E
Salton Sea 04/26/81 315 173.0 12.3 9.2 6.2 E
Apeel 1 Redwood City 04/24/84 40 44.9 3.4 21.3 18.5 E
Apeel 1 Redwood City 04/24/84 310 66.6 4.0 19.0 21.8 E
Montebello, Bluff 01/17/94 206 176.0 9.4 10.6 13.9 E
Montebello, Bluff 01/17/94 296 126.0 5.9 13.8 7.7 E
Ambarli 08/17/99 N-S 244.0 40.0 36.6 8.8 E
Ambarli 08/17/99 E-W 181.0 33.2 37.2 13.7 E
Alameda 09/30/99 N-S 26.8 8.0 99.6 46.3 Very soft soil
Alameda 09/30/99 E-W 22.6 4.8 91.9 49.8 Very soft soil
Buenos Aires 04/25/89 N-S 54.4 23.5 107.0 36.0 Very soft soil
Buenos Aires 04/25/89 E-W 58.9 22.5 87.7 28.7 Very soft soil
Garibaldi 09/30/99 N-S 27.2 8.3 92.5 43.5 Very soft soil
Garibaldi 09/30/99 E-W 18.3 5.9 108.0 54.4 Very soft soil
Hospital Juarez 12/29/99 N-S 4.9 1.5 72.5 34.1 Very soft soil
Hospital Juarez 12/29/99 E-W 6.1 1.4 58.9 26.6 Very soft soil
Liverpool 09/30/99 N-S 31.1 11.1 109.0 50.1 Very soft soil
Liverpool 09/30/99 E-W 26.1 7.7 99.6 46.1 Very soft soil
Tlatelolco 04/25/89 N-S 44.8 12.0 49.7 24.7 Very soft soil
Tlatelolco 04/25/89 E-W 30.7 9.6 64.2 30.4 Very soft soil
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Table VI. The values of o and E for the second set of ground motions.
o E
j=1.5 j=2 j=3 j=4 j=6 j=1.5 j=2 j=3 j=4 j=6
This study 0.561 0.521 0.514 0.515 0.530 0.008 0.012 0.042 0.045 0.029
Manfredi 1.335 0.942 0.694 0.611 0.557 1.222 0.757 0.415 0.292 0.196
greater than 750 m/s, Type C ground motions were recorded at sites with shear wave velocities
between 180 and 360 m/s and Type D ground motions were recorded at sites with shear wave
velocities lower than 180 m/s. The very soft soil ground motions were recorded at sites with
shear wave velocities lower than 100 m/s. PGA is in the range of 4.9770 cm/s
2
, PGV is in
the range of 1.489.7 cm/s, t
d
is in the range of 3.7108 s and t is in the range of 2.254.4.
As it can be observed, almost the same number of accelerograms for each type of ground mo-
tion was included in order to assess the accuracy of the rules considered under different soil
conditions.
The values of o and E obtained with the proposed model and Manfredis rule are given in
Table VI. Although the set ground motions listed in Table V were not used in the regression
analysis, the values of o given in Table VI related to the proposed rule are very similar to
the values presented in Table IV. Hence, it can be considered that the regression analysis was
satisfactory.
As it can be observed, the proposed method yields smaller values of o than Manfredis rule,
especially for j<4. The greatest differences are observed for systems undergoing small ductility
demands, where the values of o obtained with Manfredis model are nearly double than those
obtained with the proposed rule. On the other hand, for systems with j =6, the accuracy of the
two methods becomes similar.
As expected, according to the results given in Table VI, the estimations obtained with the
proposed rule tend to be unbiased, although slight underestimations are observed for all ductility
demands, especially for j =3 and 4. Conversely, the expression proposed by Manfredi yields
biased estimations. On average, as he stated [13], Manfredis rule overestimates hysteretic energy
demands. The greater overestimations are observed at systems undergoing small ductility demands.
Figure 6 compares o and E spectra obtained with the proposed rule and Manfredis method for
some values of j. With the proposed rule, for systems with T<4 s the value of o tends to increase
as T approaches zero, while for systems with T>4 s the value of o tends to be independent of T.
In Figure 6 it can be observed that Manfredis rule yields biased estimations of hysteretic energy
demands, that is, it systematically overestimates E
Hj
, except for systems in the short period range
with j =6. Conversely, the estimations obtained with the expression proposed in this study tend
to be unbiased. In the short period range, the method proposed systematically overestimates E
Hj
,
while in the medium and large period range, the proposed method slightly underestimates E
Hj
demands.
Finally, Figure 7 compares o values as a function of j for different soil types. Also, a comparison
between values of o associated to peak hysteretic energy demand is included. As it can be observed,
on average, the level of accuracy of the proposed model is similar for all soil types considered,
the greater differences being about 20% for j =2. Slightly smaller values of o are observed for
Type C ground motions and larger values are observed for Type A ground motions. In the case of
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 6. Comparison between and o and E spectra for different estimations of E
Hj
.
the Manfredis rule, the greater differences between o are about 25% for j =3, with the smallest
values observed also for Type C ground motions; larger errors are observed for very soft soil
ground motions.
For the proposed model, the values of o related to peak energy demand are similar to the values
of o considering all period range, except for very soft ground motions where larger errors are
observed in peak energy demand for values j =4 and 6. For the values of j =1.5, 2, the smallest
values of o are observed for very soft soil ground motions, while the largest values are observed for
the Type A ground motions. On the other hand, for j =36 the smallest values of o are observed
for Type E ground motions, while the largest values are observed for very soft soil ground motions.
For a given j, the largest difference between o values related to peak energy demand is about 40%
for j =1.5. In the case of Manfredis rule, it can be observed that the values of o related to peak
energy demand are smaller than those observed considering the whole period range. The smallest
values of o are observed for very soft soil ground motions, while the largest values are observed
for the Type A ground motions. For a given j, the largest difference between o values related to
peak energy demand is about 45% for j =2.
In this section it has been shown that, in general, the estimations obtained with the proposed
rule are more accurate than the estimations obtained with the other rule available to compute E
Hj
demands for systems located at various soil conditions. The proposed model has the advantage
that it can be applied for SDOF systems with different hysteretic models. One special feature of
the proposed model is that it tends to yield unbiased estimations of E
Hj
, a feature that can be
important particularly in the context of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, where estimations of
median values of response parameters are often needed.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 7. Comparison between o values for different soil types.
CONCLUSIONS
Expressions to compute hysteretic energy demands for SDOF systems have been presented. The
proposed equations were developed for four types of hysteretic behavior: elasticperfectly plastic,
Clough, Takedas and modied Takedas models. The proposed method depends on elastic pseudo-
acceleration and velocity spectra and on a measure of the number of cycles of ground motion. It
accounts for the shift of the period of the peak value between elastic spectra and the hysteretic
energy spectrum.
It has been shown that the proposed rules can be applied to compute hysteretic energy demands
for systems located at different soil conditions and that the accuracy of the proposed model is
better than that of the other comparable available rule. In addition, it is shown that the proposed
method tends to yield unbiased estimations of hysteretic energy demands.
REFERENCES
1. Housner GW. Limit design of structures to resist earthquakes. Proceedings of the 1st World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. EERI: Berkeley, CA, 1956.
2. Iemura H. Earthquake failure criteria of deteriorating hysteretic structures. Seventh World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, vol. 5, Istanbul, Turkey, 1980; 8188.
3. Zarah T, Hall W. Earthquake energy absorption in SDOF systems. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1984;
110(8):17571772.
4. Park YJ, Ang AH, Wen YK. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering 1985; 111(4):722739.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
5. Park YJ, Ang AH. Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering 1985; 111(4):740757.
6. Uang CM, Bertero VV. Evaluation of seismic energy in structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1990; 19:7790.
7. Fajfar P. Equivalent ductility factors taking into account low-cycle fatigue. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1992; 21:837848.
8. Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Ramasco R. The use of damage functionals in earthquake engineering: a comparison
between different methods. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993; 22:868885.
9. Rodriguez M. A measure of the capacity of earthquake ground motions to damage structures. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1994; 23:627643.
10. Fajfar P, Vidic T. Consistent inelastic design spectra: hysteretic and input energy. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1994; 23:523537.
11. Teran A. Performance-based earthquake-resistant design of framed buildings using energy concepts. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1996.
12. Akiyama H. Earthquake-resistant Design Method for Buildings Based on Energy Balance. Gihodo Shuppan Co.:
Japan, 1999.
13. Manfredi G. Evaluation of seismic energy demand. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2001;
30:485499.
14. Riddell R, Garcia JE. Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2001; 30:17911816.
15. Kunnath SK, Chai YH. Cumulative damage-based inelastic cyclic demand spectrum. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33:499520. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.363
16. Trifunac MD, Brady AG. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 1975; 65(3):581626.
17. Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM, Park YJ. Analytical modeling of inelastic seismic response of R/C structures. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering 1990; 116(4):9961017.
18. Takeda T, Sozen MA. Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering 1970; 96:25572573.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Arroyo y Ordaz 2007 Energía Histerética EESD

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Arroyo y Ordaz 2007 Energía Histerética EESD

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

2.0 1.2394 0.3635 0.5669 0.0958 0.8623 mod-Takeda

mod-Takeda, modied Takeda model.

0.19 0.3616 1.4143 0.4637 0.0872 0.0 0.9355 3.4811

mod-Takeda, modied Takeda model.

mod-Takeda, modied Takeda model.

Você também pode gostar