Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Review Article
a,*
a
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
Abstract
This paper reviews the contributions of research towards the development of the methodologies associated with PerformanceBased Seismic Engineering (PBSE). Research undertaken in various related disciplines is reviewed, under the broad section headings
of (i) Engineering Seismology and Geology (Seismic Activity Modelling), (ii) Engineering Seismology (Seismic Hazard Modelling),
(iii) Soil Dynamics, (iv) System Dynamics, and (v) Mechanics of Materials (Concrete used as example). The sequence of the
discussion is consistent with a typical seismic assessment procedure, which commences with seismic activity modelling in the
upstream end of the procedure and finishes with consideration of structural mechanics behaviour at the downstream end. Each
section provides an outline of historical research and development, leading to a review of the state-of-the-art approaches. Particular
emphasis is given to the inter-linking of the disciplines, and the paper refers to such links as Nodal Points. An example of a
nodal point is the definition of probabilistic seismic hazard coefficients that are used to define seismic hazard in terms of elastic
response spectra, for example the response spectral accelerations at key periods of 0.3 and 1.0 s. Each of the Nodal Points associated
with the various disciplines has been critically reviewed, and shortcomings have been identified. For example, the inability of a
probabilistic approach to fully represent an earthquake event as a physical process is highlighted. Also, the importance of putting
emphasis in future research on determining the Maximum Credible (or Considered) Earthquake, MCE, is emphasised.
The paper brings to light the fact that, although significant achievements have been made in each of the related disciplines and
in the connection of the Nodal Points, there has been relatively little change in substance at the Nodal Points themselves. An
important outcome of this multi-disciplinary review is the identification of some key limitations in current procedures. The source
of these limitations was traced upstream, and thence to the Nodal Points that provide the inter-disciplinary links. This process has
been referred to herein as Upstream Feedback. A review of the problems at these links sows the seeds for further development,
which would not have been possible had all the recent contributions been confined within the individual disciplines. Such an
Upstream Feedback process, enabling improvements to the multi-discipinary links, would be instrumental in enhancing the overall
effectiveness of PBSE in the future. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Earthquake; Seismic; Performance; Design; Displacement; Response Spectrum; Ground motion
1. Introduction
Abbreviations: ADRS: Acceleration displacement response spectrum;
BSZ: Broad source zone; CAM: Component attenuation model; CDD:
Capacity demand diagram; CENA: Central and Eastern North America; CM: CornellMcGuire; DB: Displacement based; DRS: Displacement response spectrum; EPGA: Effective peak ground acceleration; ERS: Elastic response spectrum; FASA: Frame analogy soil
amplification; FB: Force based; FO: Fully operational; GR: GutenbergRichter; IBC: International building code; MCE: Maximum considered earthquake; MMI: Modified Mercalli intensity; MR: Magnitudedistance; MRF: Moment resisting frame; PE: Probability of
exceedance; PGA: Peak ground acceleration; PGD: Peak ground displacement; PGV: Peak ground velocity; POA: Push-over analysis;
PSHA: Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment; PSHC: Probabilistically-defined seismic hazard coefficient; RC: Reinforced concrete;
RSA: Response spectral acceleration; RSD: Response spectral dis-
placement; SDF: Single degree of freedom; THA: Time history analysis; UHS: Uniform seismic hazard spectrum; WNA: Western North
America.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-2859-1973; fax: +852-25595337.
E-mail address: amchandl@hkucc.hku.hk (A.M. Chandler).
0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 7 0 - 0
1526
Fig. 1.
1527
Streamflow diagram showing disciplines contributing to performance based seismic engineering and their interlinking nodal points.
1528
M5[log10(2pR2Trp)7a5]/b
where Trp is the return period (yr), and a5 and b are normalised GutenbergRichter coefficients for earthquakes
exceeding magnitude 5. This simple circular source zone
model enables design earthquake scenarios (MR pairs)
of equal probability of occurrence at a site to be predicted in a single-step procedure, for any given return
period and earthquake recurrence relationship (in GR
form). The circular source zone model provides direct
determination of realistic earthquake scenarios, without
the need of a numerical aggregation (or integration) procedure and an even more complex de-aggregation procedure [11] that would have been required in the analysis
of non-uniform source zones. The de-aggregation step is
not always carried out. Thus, many seismic hazard models only present results in terms of the aggregated contributions of peak ground motion parameters (PGA or
PGV) and without identifying the earthquake scenarios
that generate the ground motions [10]. Using the direct
circular source zone model, the design earthquake scenarios for the Melbourne Metropolitan Area, as found
from Eqn.(1), are summarised in Table 1 for Trp=2500
yr mean return period (refer [20]). Table 1 shows that
(1)
Table 1
Design earthquake scenarios for Melbourne (2500 yr return period)
(after [20])
Magnitude M
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
14
23
36
57
90
1529
1530
1531
4. Soil dynamics
The mechanical and dynamical characteristics of soil
are parameterised in terms of the shear wave velocity
(Vs) of a site, along with the plasticity and damping
characteristics. Empirical models (Section 4.1) traditionally present response spectra in terms of these parameters. The ability to measure and define such characteristics, and their incorporation into response spectrum
modelling, are areas specifically addressed in this section. Future research priorities are identified (Section
4.2) in terms of the necessity for modelling procedures
that account more transparently for the influence of resonance and soil (site) depth (and hence determine the
fundamental resonance period), as well as the shear
wave velocity. These priorities form part of the recommended Upstream Feedback, associated with the
Nodal Point inter-linking Soil Dynamics and Seismic
Hazard Modelling (refer Fig. 1).
4.1. Historical developments and existing practice
The shear wave velocity Vs is the most popular parameter employed to characterise the site properties for the
purpose of seismic hazard assessment, and has been cor-
1532
5. System dynamics
5.1. Prediction of strength demand and relationship
with seismic actions
In this section, attention is drawn to the deficiencies
of the intuitive method of modelling inelastic response
behaviour based on elastic response spectra. The assessment of such approaches points to the need to address
earthquake hazard as an earthquake event, not in terms
of PSHCs and the associated response spectra.
1533
1534
for assessing seismic performance is inelastic time-history analysis, THA [52]. However, there are difficulties
in applying this method in normal practice, due to the
time and cost in developing a representative dynamic
computer model of the structure and the difficulties in
finding (or generating) representative strong-motion
accelerograms. Hence, simplified displacement demand
modelling approaches, based on intuitive considerations
or on empirical analysis, or a combination of both, are
being developed to estimate seismic actions in buildings
expressed in terms of inelastic drift demand. This saves
having to conduct costly inelastic time-history analyses.
There are two major components in the displacement
based (DB) demand modelling procedure, which is fundamental to PBSE, namely:
1. Estimating Displacement and Inter-storey Drifts;
2. Estimating the Effective Displacement.
This paper points out the usefulness as well as the important limitations of pushover analysis.
(2a)
qDe/(Hb/n)
(2b)
1535
effective way to evaluate structural performance by comparing Capacity and Demand Diagrams. These two Diagrams have the same vertical and horizontal axes, comprising
force/acceleration
and
displacement,
respectively. The Demand Diagram, presented in this
manner, is referred to as an AccelerationDisplacement
Response Spectrum or ADRS [59]. Generic forms of
ADRS for low and moderate seismicity regions have
been presented by the authors in [9].
Empirical procedures, described above, would seem
to be more reliable for determining e as they were
developed directly from inelastic THA. However, the
Empirical Approach is subject to major drawbacks comprising (i) lack of transparency, and (ii) being too prescriptive in terms of the applied excitations. In other
words, the empirical models would only be valid if the
earthquake ensembles used in developing the models are
reasonably representative of the type of earthquakes to
be considered in the study. It is unreasonable to expect
the engineer to check for such validity. This shortcoming
of the Empirical Approach is particularly relevant to low
and moderate seismicity regions, where indigenous
strong motion data are generally lacking from which to
develop a regional-specific empirical model.
The most well-known Intuitive Approach is the
Secant Stiffness SDF Substitute-Structure method,
which uses elastic displacement response spectra with
increased viscous damping to predict the inelastic displacement demand (effective displacement). Some
description of the SDF Substitute Structure method
(originated by Shibata and Sozen, [65]) is contained in
[26,56,66]. The method is a powerful way of relating the
effective displacement response (demand) predicted by
a simple SDF analysis based on the RSD, and the drift
pattern of a multi-storey building under seismic action.
In the SDF Substitute Structure, as mentioned above, the
equivalent viscous damping has accordingly been
increased to emulate hysteretic energy dissipated in the
system as a result of ductile yielding in various mechanisms when severe earthquake loading occurs [56]. The
effective stiffness of the building is found from the
Capacity Diagram (obtained by POA), taking the value
of effective inelastic displacement according to the
demand predictions. Then, the effective natural period
of the SDF Substitute Structure is determined, based on
the computed effective mass. A combination of the
effective period and effective displacement allows the
Demand Point to be plotted in ADRS format. The
Demand Point is then compared with the Capacity Diagram determined from the POA. The seismic assessment
procedures recommended by ATC-40 (refer to [58]) are
based on such principles. Such an approach has the
advantage that it offers a straightforward means of estimating and checking the overall seismic performance of
the building structure by comparing the predicted drift
against the permissible drift limits. The New Zealand
1536
(3)
Priestley [2]
Walls
Walls
Rectangular
Columns
Rectangular
Columns
n0.3
n0.3
n0.4
0.0044/lw
0.0032/lw
0.0047/hc
0.0046/lw10%
0.0049/hc10%
n0.4
0.0026/hc
(4a)
For walls with aspect ratio (Hb/lw) in the range 4 (midrise buildings) to 10 (high-rise), Eq. (4a) implies that the
yield displacement at roof level is in the order of 0.5
1.2% of the buildings total height. Eq. (2b) may be
used, taking n=2.6 for wall buildings, to determine the
following expression for the maximum inter-storey drift
angle at yield:
qyD0.0018(Hb/lw) (cantilever walls)
(4b)
1537
In conducting seismic structural assessment of buildings using PBSE or direct DB approaches, it is necessary
to distinguish between damage caused to non-structural
1538
(5a)
esu0.06
(5b)
(6a)
(6b)
(7a)
and qussqys(su/(dc)
(7b)
1539
ward. The problem is further complicated in a conventional FB design procedure, in which the so-called ultimate curvature is divided by the yield curvature to
determine the curvature ductility ratio. The difficulties
in arriving at uniform and consistent definitions of both
ultimate and yield curvatures evidently preclude any
general results from being derived from such an
approach. Often, seismic design utilising ductility factors
becomes a matter of obtaining acceptable and reasonable
results, but any precise quantification is fraught with difficulties. On the other hand, the DB approach is also
dependent on the way in which the various displacement-related factors discussed above are modelled and
incorporated into the analysis.
6.4. Final comments
Ultimately, a DB procedure involving checks on the
deformability of a structure only represents half the picture. The internal forces associated with the target deformation must be ascertained to ensure that all parts of the
structure possess sufficient strength to accommodate the
developed internal forces. An internal force check is
essential to safeguard against brittle failure mechanisms
such as member shear, failure of joints or bond failure
which can be very brittle in nature (refer [82] for a full
account). Such checks can be accomplished by a POA
that aims at bringing the structure to a targetted state of
deformation. The POA will also check that the assumed
collapse mechanism is realistic, and that no plastic hinge
is formed at unexpected locations.
A significant point is that the displacement and drift
model as described would only be valid if a definitive
collapse mechanism has been formed in the manner
determined from the POA. The concern for complications caused by the contributions of the higher modes
in high-rise buildings has been expressed in Section 5.2.
Large errors will also arise from the predictions if
additional plastic hinge(s) form somewhere at the middle
or upper levels of the building, causing significant
changes to its post-elastic displacement shape. When this
happens, the displacement of the upper part of the building (above the middle to upper plastic hinges) can be
significantly amplified by the dynamic response of the
lower part of the building. This undesirable non-ductile
system behaviour has been described as bifurcation
behaviour [85]. Bifurcation behaviour can be avoided by
providing sufficient over-strength along the height of the
lateral load resisting elements of the building, so that
major wall and column plastic hinges could only form
at the base level [86]. However, there are a lot of uncertainties associated with existing non-ductile buildings
that have not been designed in accordance with Capacity
Design or strong column-weak beam principles [5].
Note that the static POA would also not have
accounted for dynamic effects associated with the higher
1540
8. Introduction to references
The collection of papers presented in Ref. [1] form an
important contribution towards the better co-ordination
of new seismic design methodologies worldwide. It
places particular emphasis on Performance Based Seismic Engineering concepts and on Seismic Assessment
approaches for buildings and bridges. Numerous seismic
assessment procedures (either currently used or
proposed) are reviewed in Ref. [2], which demonstrates
the merits of the Direct Displacement Based Design Procedure. This subject is dealt with again in Ref. [54],
which provides a detailed account of the procedure,
accompanied by an illustration and verification of the
procedure in practical applications. For a seminal document see Ref. [61] which provides a very detailed stepby-step guidance to the seismic evaluation of concrete
buildings, based mainly on the use of the Capacity
Demand Diagram Method. A succinct and informative
description of the Capacity Spectrum Method which
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper has been funded by
the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong, China
1541
References
[1] Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, editors. Seismic design methodologies
for the next generation of codes. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1997.
[2] Priestley MJN. Performance based seismic design. Bulletin of the
New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering
2000;33(3):32546.
[3] Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ. Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Journal of Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1996;25:71400.
[4] Somerville P. Seismic hazard evaluation. Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering
2000;33(3):37186.
[5] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete
and masonry buildings. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1992.
[6] Atkinson GM. Use of the uniform hazard spectrum in characterizing expected levels of seismic ground shaking. In: Proceedings
of the 6th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Toronto, 1991:46976.
[7] Freeman SA. Development and use of capacity spectrum method.
In: Proceedings of the 6th US National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Seattle (USA), 1998.
[8] Bommer JJ, Elnashai AS. Displacement spectra for seismic
design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1999;3(1):132.
[9] Chandler AM, Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Response
spectrum modelling for regions lacking earthquake records. Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering 2001;1:6073.
[10] Bommer JJ, Scott SG, Sarma SK. Hazard-consistent earthquake
scenarios. Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
2000;19:21931.
[11] McGuire RK. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design
earthquakes: closing the loop. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 1995;85(5):127584.
[12] Yeats RS, Sieh K, Clarence RA. The geology of earthquales. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
[13] Cornell CA. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 1968;58:1583606.
[14] Pun WK, Ambraseys NN. Earthquake data review and seismic
hazard analysis for the Hong Kong region. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1992;23:43343.
[15] Scott DM, Pappin JW, Kwok MKY. Seismic design of buildings
in Hong Kong. Transactions of the Hong Kong Institution of
Engineers 1994;1(2):3750.
[16] Jacob KH. Scenario earthquakes for urban areas along the Atlantic seaboard of the United States. Report No. NCEER-SP-0001.
1542
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
1543