Earthquake Resistant Design

19/07/2015
Earthquake-resistant
design
Francisco Lpez Almansa
Objectives
Earthquake-resistant design of buildings and
bridges
Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona
19/07/2015
Index
Effects of seismic inputs on buildings
Effects of seismic inputs on bridges
Conceptual seismic design of buildings
Estimation of fundamental period
Types of seismic analyses
Single-mode linear static analysis
Multi-mode linear static analysis
Nonlinear static analysis
Performance-based design
Nonlinear dynamic analysis
Nonstructural components
Bibliography
Internet Sites
4
13
14
36
43
45
56
60
75
90
96
99
101
Effects of seismic inputs on buildings (1)
Effect of horizontal components is more severe; vertical analysis is only necessary

for long span-length, long cantilever, interrupted columns and prestressed concrete
xg: ground displacement (input, excitation)
y: absolute displacement
x: relative displacement with respect to the base
Relative displacement between adjoining stories is termed interstory drift
Relative displacement and interstory drift report about structural damage
Absolute acceleration report about human comfort and non-structural damage
Relative displacement and absolute acceleration cannot be minimized
simultaneously
: structural damage is
If buildings are designed very stiff, x 0 and
minimized but non-structural damage is not
0: non-structural damage
If buildings are designed very flexible, x xg and
is minimized but structural damage is not
x
xg
Normal
x
y
xg
x
xg
Stiff
xg
xg
x
Flexible
xg
4
19/07/2015

Effects of gravity forces on moment-resisting frames
Common design criteria:
Alike beams. Beam sections depend only on load and span-length

Columns are strongest in lowest floors
In lowest floors, central columns are strongest
In highest floors, alike columns in each floor
Def.

Effects of lateral forces on unbraced moment-resisting frames
Common design criteria:
Strongest beams and columns in lowest floors
Alike columns in each floor
Moment/shear inversion on beams: this effect is higher in bottom

levels, outer joints and inner frames
Moment inversion precedes shear inversion
Shear inversion can lead to tensioned columns and even to uplift
Def.
19/07/2015

Signs of moments in joints without moment inversion:
Signs of moments in joints with moment inversion:

Lateral behavior of moment-resisting frames is
awful and un-natural, with huge interstory
drift
Bending of beams and columns is an un-natural
behavior; axial behavior is much better since
strength and stiffness are higher
Strategy of avoiding bending, leads to the
concept of bracing
For building frames, there are two major types
of braces: diagonal and chevron
In both cases, interstory drift causes only axial
tension/compression in braces
Pushing forces are distributed between main
frame and bracing: since braces are much
stiffer, take most of the force
In buckling analysis, non-sway behavior is
commonly assumed if interstory drift is reduced
more than 80%
Diagonal braces perform slightly better than
chevron ones, but these are frequently preferred
for architectural reasons
No bracing
Diagonal bracing
Chevron bracing
8
19/07/2015

Gravity loads have no effect on braces
Chevron braces are connected to the beam once
most of the load is present
Separate behavior: frame for gravity loads and
bracing for lateral actions (wind and seismic)
Braces are always steel-based, but bracing can
be used both for concrete and steel buildings
In diagonal bracing, if the compressed brace
buckles, the remaining tensioned one can still
resist
In chevron bracing, if the compressed brace
buckles, the remaining tensioned one can not
resist since additional bending is generated in
beam
No bracing
Diagonal bracing
Chevron bracing

In multi-story
buildings, separation
between main frame
and bracings is not
complete, since
braces transmit axial
forces to columns
Braces in the same
bay: huge overcompression in a
given column
10
19/07/2015

If braces are
distributed among
several bays (mainly
in lower stories), axial
over-compression is
distributed among
several columns
11

In concrete buildings, structural walls (also termed shear
walls) can play a similar role than braces
Shear buildings: their lateral behavior is shear-like
Shear-wall buildings: their lateral behavior is momentlike
Shear
behavior
Both behaviors are quantitatively and qualitatively

different
Walls are better tan frames, but openings are necessary:
intermediate solutions are preferred
Flexural
behavior
12
19/07/2015
Effects of seismic inputs on bridges (1)

In seismic areas, commonly bridge deck is
continuous (hyperstatic) and is rigidly connected
to the supporting members (piles and abutments)
Deck big inertia forces are transmitted to piles
(piers) and abutments
Broadly speaking, bridges are equivalent to
single-story buildings (piles and abutments:
columns; deck: slab; no infill walls)
Spatial variation of seismic input is relevant in
long bridges
Vertical input is not more relevant than in
buildings (except in long-span bridges)
Strong deck / weak pile
Pounding between adjoining segments of deck is
relevant
13
Conceptual seismic design of buildings (1)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Lateral resistance
Plan (mechanical) symmetry
Regularity (mechanical and geometrical) along height
Compact plan configuration
Lightweight (mainly in top stories)
Torsion strength and stiffness
In-plane rigidity of slabs (rigid diaphragm effect)
Ductility
Damping
Structural redundancy
Strong column-weak beam
No short columns
Subjection and strengthening of non-structural elements
Tying of footings and pile caps
No long cantilevers, no interrupted columns
Simple structural behavior
Separation to adjoining buildings
14
19/07/2015
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Lateral resistance (2)

Buildings should be provided with bidirectional lateral strength (i.e., in two
directions)
In framed structures, lateral strength is provided both by columns and beams;
however, weak columns cannot be compensated with over-resistant beams
In framed structures, lateral strength relies on rigidity of connections; therefore,
seismic behavior of prefabricated concrete buildings is doubtful
Braces or structural walls are preferred to frames
15
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Plan symmetry (3)

Asymmetric!
RG
RG
Symmetric / asymmetric buildings: centers of mass G and rigidity R are

approximately coincident / eccentric in each floor
Symmetric buildings provide better performance
Centers of mass G of each story refer to the supported (above) weight
16
19/07/2015
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Uniformity along height (4)

Vertical
regularity
ensures that
damage is
uniformly
distributed
along height
Regular does
not mean
alike!
17

Non-uniform buildings
Weak
first floor
18
19/07/2015

Damage concentrated in one story
19
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Compact plan configuration (7)

Plan configuration close to square is preferred
Longer plan size should not exceed shorter one by more
than about four times
Seismic joints can be used; are similar to expansion joints
but should accept wider motions in two directions
Can be used for bridges and for buildings
20
10
19/07/2015
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Lightweight (8)

Since seismic forces are
proportional to mass,
lightweight buildings are less
affected by earthquakes
Conclusions:
NO
Timber better than any other

material
Steel better than concrete
Prefabricated concrete awful
Heavy masses are more

dangerous in top part of the
buildings:
No roof swimming pools!

(very romantic but hazardous)
No big-top buildings
YES
21
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Torsion strength and stiffness (9)

Even symmetric buildings can experience torsion (twist) motion,
because of both accidental eccentricities and torsion excitation
Therefore, stiffening elements (braces or structural walls) should
be located as separated as possible
Centrally-located staircases (typical of tall buildings) do not
provide usually enough torsion strength and stiffness
22
11
19/07/2015
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Rigid diaphragm (10)

Slabs and roofs should be infinitely rigid in its own plane; this
guarantees joint cooperation of all vertical resisting members
(columns, braces, walls) and provides a simple and regular structural
behavior
Light steel roofs do not posses this quality unless they contain
horizontal trusses (in-plane bracing)
Any building slab with a reasonably compact plan configuration
behaves as a rigid diaphragm
In-plane rigidity of timber slabs is controversial
ASCE 7-10 (12.10.1 Diaphragm Design) proposes design forces for
diaphragm design
23
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Ductility (11)

Ductility is the capacity of further resistance after the onset of damage (end of
linear behavior)
Ductility can be measured in terms of force, displacement or product of both
(energy)
Since earthquakes are indirect actions (imposed displacements), force ductility is
only of little interest
Ductility can be defined at sectional, member or structural level
Since earthquakes are highly unpredictable, ductility is a convenient quality
24
12
19/07/2015
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Damping (12)

Damping is always beneficial
Damping is spread along the building; therefore, it is difficult to provide
damping
A convenient strategy is to install energy dissipators; this will discussed in the
corresponding part of the course
In base isolated buildings, it is easier to provide damping
25
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Structural redundancy (13)

Statically redundant structures with high degree of
hyperstaticity are preferred
Redundant members provide additional safety
26
13
19/07/2015
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Strong column-weak beam (14)

In rigid beam-column connections, failure of beams should precede (by a given
factor) failure of columns
In other words, beams protect columns as structural fuses
This condition is based on the assumption that columns are more crucial, to
structural integrity, than beams
Conclusion: if beams are strengthened, columns should be also strengthened by,
at least, the same factor
27
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. No short columns (15)

Short columns have less capacity to absorb interstory drift than normal ones
28
14
19/07/2015
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Non-structural elements (16)

Non-structural elements (appliances, appendages, antennae, etc.) should be rigidly
connected to the main structure as to avoid detaching, falling and overturning
Infill masonry walls can be either detached from the main structure or fixed to it,
as to provide stiffness and strength; some design codes (e.g. New Zealand)
consider the cooperation of masonry walls
29
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Tying of foundation (17)

Because of the spatial variation of the seismic action, footings and pile caps
should be tied together
Foundation slabs usually fulfill this condition
Bottom basement pavement can be considered for this purpose
Usually, seismic design codes indicate the design values of axial forces
xg
xg
30
15
19/07/2015
Conceptual buildings. No long cantilevers, no interrupted columns (18)
At risk because of vertical inputs
31
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Simplicity (19)

Complex structures are difficult to comprehend
There can be hidden failure modes
Commonly, software codes are not helpful
32
16
19/07/2015
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Separation (20)

Pounding between colliding buildings
(or between several parts of a building
separated by joints) is dangerous
Risk is higher is slabs are unaligned
Solutions: separation (gap) or bumpers
Separation should be equal to the sum of
both displacements
Displacements must be calculated from
nonlinear analysis without accounting
for ductility
Torsion should be considered
33
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Wrong? (21)

Rem Koolhaas building in Beijing (CCTV Headquarters)
34
17
19/07/2015
Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Exercise (22)

Provide sketches or pictures (better) of actual buildings fulfilling the following
requirements. You can either browse on the Internet, take your own pictures or draw
or use sketches.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Buildings with low lateral strength (in one or two directions)

Buildings with plan asymmetry
Buildings with soft first story
Buildings with interrupted columns
Adjacent pounding buildings with aligned/unaligned slabs
Light steel roofs with and without in-plane bracing
Buildings with complex structural system but adequate seismic-resistant
configuration
Slabs with dubious rigid diaphragm effect
Masonry infill walls separated from the main structure
35
Estimation of fundamental period (1)

Seismic design depends on many building
characteristics, but mainly on fundamental period
(in any direction), since it influences spectral
ordinates
Therefore, design codes include empirical
expressions providing preliminary estimations of
the fundamental period
Fundamental period depends on mass and stiffness
parameters: (K 2M) = 0; stiff and light
buildings have short periods while flexible and
heavy buildings have short periods
Fundamental period depends mostly on building
height, being little correlated to horizontal size
The most simplified criterion is TF = N / 10 s (N:
number of floors)
This criterion can be only applied to modern and
regular concrete or steel frame buildings
y
designed for seismic regions
In wall or braced buildings, period is shorter
In buildings designed for non-seismic regions,
period is longer
In tall buildings, this expression yields too long
periods
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
z
TFx 1 s; TFy < 1 s
36
18
19/07/2015

Design spectrum by EC-8
Singlestory
buildings
Low-rise
buildings
High-rise
buildings
Mid-rise
buildings
Longspan,
highrise
bridges
Shortspan,
lowrise
bridges
37

EC-8. Art. 4.3.3.2.2.(3)
T1 = Ct H ; H: height (m) (H 40 m)
Ct = 0.085 in steel frames

Ct = 0.075 in concrete frames and eccentricallybraced steel frames
Ct = 0.050 elsewhere; or
Ct = 0.075 / Ac1/2; Ac = [Ai (0.2 + (lwi / H))2]
(concrete or masonry walls)
T1 = 2 d 1/2; d is the top floor lateral

displacement (m) under horizontal gravity
forces
This result arises from assuming that the
building behaves as an equivalent SDOF (1st
mode) with the period of the first mode and all
the mass of the building:
2
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
z
x
y
TFx = 0.085 (31) = 1.12 s

TFy = 0.050 (31) = 0.66 s
38
19
19/07/2015

ASCE 7-10, 12.8.2.1
Ta = Ct hnx; hn: height (m)
Ct = 0.0724, x = 0.8 in steel frames

Ct = 0.0466, x = 0.9 in concrete frames
Ct = 0.0731, x = 0.75 in steel eccentrically-braced
frames or with buckling-restrained braces
Ct = 0.0488, x = 0.75 elsewhere
10
9
8
7
6
5
TF = N / 10 s (N 12, h 3 m)
For masonry or concrete shear wall structures:
4
3
2
z
x
y
TFx = 0.0724 (31)0.8 = 1.13 s

TFy = 0.0488 (31)0.75 = 0.64 s
39

For estimating the higher mode periods: Ti = TF / (2 i 1)
Former EC-8 (part 1.3, art. 2.9.4) proposed empirical expressions for reducing TF
because of stiffening effect of non-structural infill walls (provided they are not
detached from the main structure):
T1 = (T1b + T1i) / 2
T1: effective period (to be used for design); T1b/T1i: fundamental period
without/with infill walls
Two expressions are provided:
0.065
0.080
1

16
0.075
Aw: area of walls per story, G: shear modulus of walls, H/B: building height/length
(m), W: building weight, n: number of stories
EC-6 states that G = 0.4 E; E = 1000 fk = 1000 K fb fm (MPa)
fb and fm are brick and mortar strength, coefficient K ranges between 0.25 and 0.8,
depending on the type of brick units and mortar, for ordinary situations = 0.7,
= 0.3
40
20
19/07/2015

Once the building is modelled with the usual software codes, fundamental period
is obtained from eigenvalue (or Ritz vectors) analysis; obtained values should be
similar to the preliminary estimations (15% at most); this can be used for
checking modelling errors and for calibrating the model
For severe inputs, damage progresses along the input duration and the
fundamental period of the buildings elongates significantly
This circumstance is commonly taken into consideration when generating the design
spectra
This is also relevant when evaluating the performance of damaged buildings under
expected aftershocks
Sd(T)
agS0/q
agS
TA = 0
D
A
TB
TC
TD
41

Once the building is modelled with a software code, periods can be approximately
obtained by the Rayleigh-Ritz method

. Since modal vectors are orthogonal to
Eigenvalue problem:

mass and stiffness matrices (

0, i j):

; fi is the vector that contains the forces that generate i

shape deformation
This expression can be used to estimate any natural frequency, provided that we
guess the modal shape; for the first mode (i = 1), we can assume that fi
correspond to the equivalent static forces
42
21
19/07/2015
Types of seismic analyses (1)

Linear static analysis (after absolute acceleration response spectra)
Single-mode
Multi-mode
Nonlinear static analysis (pushover)

Ordinary pushover analysis
Multimodal pushover analysis
Adaptive pushover analysis
Nonlinear dynamic analysis

Ordinary dynamic analysis
Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)
Energy-based formulations
Commercial software codes: ETABS, MIDAS, PERFORM-3D, ROBOT,
RUAUMOKO, SAP, SOFISTIK, STAAD, STRAND7, TEKLA
Advanced commercial software codes: ABAQUS, ANSYS, DIANA
These lists are non comprehensive
Scientific software codes: OPENSEES, SEISMOSOFT (several
programs), ZEUSNL, IDARC
43
Types of seismic analyses (2)

Types of seismic analysis according to EC-8:
44
22
19/07/2015
Single-mode linear static analysis (1)
W S ag S a , TF
The dynamic effect of a given
V
horizontal ground motion in each
R
direction is represented by static
equivalent forces Fk determined to
generate displacements equal to the
m z
Fk V N k k
maximum dynamic ones (actual)
V: base shear
mk z k
k 1
W: building weight
S: soil coefficient
m
m
: importance factor
Fk V N k 1k V Tk 1k
1 M r
ag: seismic acceleration
mk 1k
Sa(,TF): spectral ordinate

k 1
R: response modification
(reduction) factor
Fk
V Fk
k 1 45
Single-mode linear static analysis. Building weight (2)
Building weight corresponds to the expected occupation when V W S ag S a , TF

earthquake comes
R
European regulations consider permanent (G), variable (Q) and
accidental (A) actions; obviously, earthquakes are accidental
There are safety factors for actions (G, Q, A) and for strengths
of materials (M, c, s); there is no
Under normal conditions in ULS: G = 1.35, Q = 1.5, A = 1,
M = 1.05 (more for connections), c = 1.5, s = 1.15
There are combination coefficients for variable actions: 0, 1,
2 (0 1 2 )
Combination coefficients depend on the type of action (people
for housing, people on a pedestrian bridge, snow, wind, etc.)
For ordinary occupation buildings: 0 = 0.7, = 0.5, 2 = 0.3
(except in congregation areas)
Seismic building weight corresponds to combination G + E Q
E = 2 (art. 4.2.4 EC-8) 0.5 1
Seismic combinations: G + E Q + EX + 0.3 EY; G + E Q +
0.3 EX + EY
46
23
19/07/2015
Single-mode linear static analysis. Importance factor (3)

: importance factor depending on the use of building or bridge (also for nonstructural elements)
EC-8 classifies buildings in four importance classes: I (minor), II (ordinary), III
(crowded), IV (essential); I = 0.8, II = 1, III = 1.2, IV = 1.4
EC-8 classifies bridges in three importance classes: I (not critical), II (ordinary
road and railway), III (crowded and essential); I = 0.85, II = 1, III = 1.3
ASCE 7-10 considers four risk categories (I, II, III, IV); importance factors (Ie)
are 1, 1, 1.25, 1.5, respectively
Risk Category and seismicity determine the Seismic Design Category (A, B, C,
D)
There are also categories E and F (highest)
Importance factor can be considered linked to the return period of the seismic
action to be considered
W S ag S a , TF
V
R
47
Single-mode linear static analysis. Response modification factor (4)

If base shear is obtained as V = W S ag Sa, design forces are
enormous
We aim that building is not damaged under a severe shake (475
years return period); this objective is unreachable (too ambitious)
Being more realistic, we are forced to accept some degree of
damage
Simulating actual behavior of damaged building would be
cumbersome
Solution: to divide design forces by a factor ( 1) and recover the V W S ag S a , TF
R
original objective (linear analysis!)
R: response modification (reduction) factor
R is commonly obtained after easy empirical criteria in terms of the
type of structure (even its material), plan symmetry, vertical
uniformity and overall quality (ductility)
Using R = 1 corresponds to not accepting any damage (ambitious
objective); the greater R, the higher the accepted damage
Commonly, R ranges between 3 (low ductility) and 8 (very high
ductility)
48
24
19/07/2015
Single-mode linear static analysis. Response modification factor (5)

We should keep in mind that the use of R is merely a design strategy; in other
words, it is not real, we cannot believe our own lie
For instance, lateral displacements and other similar calculations should be
performed without R (i.e. R = 1); see art. EC-8 art. 4.3.4
EC-8 considers behavior factor q; there are three levels of quality (ductility
classes): L (low), M (medium) y H (high)
Important warning: expression V = W S ag Sa / R should not be interpreted
literally
For instance, if design spectra have an initial growing branch, initial ordinate is
usually kept
Sd(T)
agS0/q
agS
TA = 0
D
A
TB
TC
TD
49
Single-mode linear static analysis. EC-8 and ASCE 7-10 (6)

EC-8 (art. 4.3.3.2.2): Fb = Sd(T1) m
V
m: mass
Sd(T1): ordinate of the design spectrum; it includes
S, , ag, Sa and q (R)
Correction factor = 0.85 if T1 2 Tc and N > 2;
if not, = 1
accounts for the fact that in buildings with at
least three stories, the effective modal mass of the
fundamental mode is smaller, on average by 15%,
than the total building mass
ASCE 7-10: V = Cs W
Cs: seismic response coefficient; it includes S, ,
ag, Sa and R
W S ag S a , TF
R
50
25
19/07/2015
Single-mode linear static analysis. Vertical distribution (7)

Base shear has to be distributed among
all the stories:

EC-8:
W S ag S a , TF
R
; si is the
displacement of i-th story in the

fundamental mode shape
ASCE 7-10:
; hi is the
Fk V
mk 1k
N
m
k 1
1k
mk 1k
1T M r
cumulated height of i-th story and

exponent k = 1 or 2 if TF 0.5 s or TF
2.5 s. For periods in between 0.5 and
2.5, linear interpolation is suggested
Some codes (e.g. New Zealand) state
that the force in the top floor should be
bigger; this accounts, in a simplified
way, for the higher-mode effects
Fk
V Fk
k 1 51
Single-mode linear static analysis. Horizontal distribution (8)

Single-mode method can be used only for buildings with plan symmetry,
therefore, static forces are applied in the centroid of each story
However, accidental torsion effects must be taken into consideration:
If building is represented by a 3-D model, 5% accidental eccentricity between
centers of gravity and rigidity must be considered (EC-8, ASCE 7-10)
If building is represented by 2-D models, uniform distribution among equal-rigidity
frames is corrected with factor 1 + 1.2 x / Le; outer frames receive 60% more (art.
4.3.3.2.4(2) EC-8)
If most of members providing torsion rigidity (walls and bracings) are

concentrated in faades, these criteria are conservative; in the opposite case, are
under-conservative
52
26
19/07/2015
Single-mode linear static analysis. P- effects (9)

If top floor displacements are important, second
order analysis might be necessary (P- effect)
General criterion: 2nd order moments exceed 1st
order ones more than 10% (as to classify
structures sway or non-sway)

ASCE 7-10 art. 12.8.7:

EC-8 art. 4.4.2.2(2):
0.1
0.1
EC-8 art. 4.4.2.2(3): if 0.l < 0.2, second-order

effects may approximately be taken into account
by multiplying the relevant seismic action effects
by 1 / ( 1 )
EC-8 art. 4.4.2.2(4): coefficient shall not
exceed 0.3
Vtot and dr should be q free; structural analysis
would be probably nonlinear
53
Single-mode linear static analysis. Exercise (10)

Obtain equivalent static forces Fk
at each story according to EC-8
Assume that forces are
proportional to floor mass and
height
4-story building with square plan
layout 10 10 m2. Story height 3
m (H = 12 m). ag = 0.4 g
Moment-resisting concrete
frames in both directions
Soil B; damping factor = 0.05;
G = 12 kN/m2; Q = 3 kN/m2; E
= 0.5 (floors); E = 0 (roof); q = S (T)
4 (both directions)
Type 1 spectrum
a S /q
Hint: easy exercise! (be careful
aS
with units)
d
TA = 0
D
A
TB
TC
TD
54
27
19/07/2015
Single-mode linear static analysis . Exercise (11)

S = 1.2; TB = 0.15 s; TC = 0.50 s
TF = T1 = 0.075 12 = 0.48 s (art. 4.3.3.2.2); TF is in between TB and TC: Sd(T1) =
ag S 2.5 / q = 0.4 1.2 1 2.5 / 4 = 0.3 g
W1 = W2 = W3 = (12 + 0.5 3) 100 = 1350 kN; W4 = 12 100 = 1200 kN; W =
5250 kN; m = 525000 kg
= 0.85 (T1 = 2 TC and N > 2)
V = Fb = Sd(T1) m = 0.3 g 525000 0.85 = 1312.5 kN
F1
F4
0.25 1350 1312.5

137.35 kN
0.25 1350 0.50 1350 0.75 1350 11200
F3
0.50 1350 1312.5

F2
274.71 kN
0.25 1350 0.50 1350 0.75 1350 11200
F2
0.75 1350 1312.5

F3
412.06 kN
0.25 1350 0.50 1350 0.75 1350 1 1200
F4
F1
1 1200 1312.5
488.37 kN
0.25 1350 0.50 1350 0.75 1350 1 1200
Verification: F1 +F2 + F3 + F4 = Fb
Fb
55
Multi-mode linear static analysis. SRSS (1)

r: number of modes to be included in the
analysis (the sum of the equivalent modal
weights covers 90% of the total weight)
Wi*: equivalent modal weight of i-th mode
Sa(i,Ti): spectral ordinate for i-th mode
Quadratic combination (SRSS)
SRSS can be used only if modal periods are
well separated (Ti / Tj 0.90)
T
mi*
m1* mr* 0,9 mT

Wi m g
*
*
i
Fik Vi
( i M r )
iT M i
Vik FiN Fi k 1
10
10
4
3
4
3
2
1
Vi
ik
mk ik
iT M r
S
R
Vk V12k Vrk2
Fik Wk i S a i , Ti ik
10
mk ik
k 1
Wi * S ag S a i , Ti
Vi
6
5
4
3
Fk Vk 1 Vk
56
28
19/07/2015
Multi-mode linear static analysis. CQC (2)

r
If modal periods are not well separated (ratio
Vk ij VikVjk
> 0.90), the possibility of having almost
i, j1
simultaneous maxima is higher, and SSRS
might become unconservative
3
CQC (Complete Quadratic Combination)
Ti Ti 2
2
8 1
criterion results of incorporating cross
T T
j j
terms into the combination
ij
2
2
2
ij = ji
T
1 i 4 2 Ti 1 Ti
If Ti = Tj, ij = 1 (therefore, ii = 1)
T
Tj Tj
Since ij 0, VjkVik must be positive too
j
This criterion is just necessary in irregular
buildings
1
10
6
4
3
5
4
0.6
2
x
9
8
6
0.2
=0.05
0.4
2
1
10
0.8
ij
10
5
3
2
0.51
0.6
0.7
0.8
Ti /Tj
0.9
57
Multi-mode linear static analysis. EC-8 and ASCE 7-10 (3)

EC-8 (4.3.3.3 Modal response spectrum analysis): any mode with
more than 5% modal participation factor cannot be excluded
If this requirement cannot be satisfied (e.g. in buildings with a
significant contribution from torsional modes), the minimum
number k of modes to be included should satisfy k 3 N and Tk
0.2 s
ASCE 7-10 (12.9 Modal response spectrum analysis): where the
combined response for the modal base shear (Vt) is less than 85%
of the calculated base shear (V) using the equivalent lateral force
procedure, the forces shall be multiplied by 0.85 V / Vt
58
29
19/07/2015
Multi-mode linear static analysis. Asymmetric buildings (4)

Analysis of asymmetric buildings for excitation in x direction
Each mode contains components of displacement in x and y directions,
and torsion rotations
The sum of the modal masses should exceed 90% of the total mass in
each direction (x, y and )
Vector of displacement corresponding to a generic mode i:
2
xi
T
Ti
i i q y i Ti M r
q i S a Ti ,
i
i
i M i
2

i
Fx ik Wk i S a Ti , i x ik
S
R
r (1,...,1, 0
,...,0, 0,...,0)

N
Fy ik Wk i S a Ti , i y ik
S
R
S
Fxik: Force in x direction, mode i, story k
R Fyik: Force in y direction, mode i, story k
Tik: Torque, mode i, story k
a2 b2
Wk mk g I k mEarthquake-resistant
design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona
k
59
12
Tik I k i S a Ti , i g ik
Nonlinear static analysis. Definition (1)
Pushover analysis of a construction (building or bridge) consists

of investigating its behavior under constant gravity loads and
growing lateral forces
Vertical forces correspond to seismic excitation (G + E Q)
Horizontal forces grow keeping the same vertical variation pattern
Common patterns: uniform, triangular or modal (1st mode shape)
V/W
Fk
Vu / W
Capacity
curve
Vy / W
V Fk
/H
Subindexes y and u account for yielding and ultimate, respectively

Damage and displacement are clearly correlated, but force and damage are not
60
30
19/07/2015
Nonlinear static analysis. Plastic hinges (2)
Nonlinear behavior of structural

elements is commonly
represented by plastic hinges
located in their ends
There are plastic hinges of V, N,
T, M, y N + M
Nonlinear behavior of plastic
hinges is commonly described by
moment-curvature (or rotation)
or force-displacement laws
Failure
Plastification
Residual
strength
61

Design codes (e.g. FEMA 356) propose moment-curvature (or forcedisplacement) laws for the most common situations
These laws have been derived after theoretical analysis (for the initial branch)
and experimental results (for the plastic branches)
These laws are implemented in the major software codes
For unusual or new members, there are no available laws; theoretical analysis
and experiments are required
62
31
19/07/2015

Typical moment-curvature law
Q / Qy: M / My; : rotation ( / l: curvature, where l is the hinge length)
AB: linear elastic branch; BC: plastic branch; CDE: residual branches (to
be determined after testing)
Before yielding (B), rotation is zero; however, some rotation (y) is
assumed for point B
For beams: y = My L / 6 E I; for columns: y = My L / 6 E I (1 N / Ny)
M / My
My
My
Beam
63

Concentrated Plasticity. Plastic hinges can be either zero-length or a fixed
length can be assigned to them; there are a number of simple empirical
expressions
Distributed Plasticity. Fiber Models
Average values instead of characteristic ones
No safety factors!
64
32
19/07/2015
Nonlinear static analysis. Initial cracking (6)

In reinforced concrete, members are cracked form the very beginning,
i.e. for zero pushing forces
FEMA 356 indicates percentages of reduction of stiffness for beams,
columns, slabs and walls
Significate of subindexes; c: concrete, g: gross, w: web, s: steel.

65
Nonlinear static analysis. Case (7)
66
33
19/07/2015
Nonlinear static analysis. N-M (8)

N-M interaction diagram for reinforced concrete
67
Nonlinear static analysis. Example (9)

Single-bay single-story moment-resistant steel frame
Gravity load 30 kN/m (beam); steel S275 (fy = 275 MPa); beam IPE 450 (Wpl = 1702
cm3, My = 468.05 kNm); columns HEB 300 (Wpl = 1869 cm3, My = 513.96 kNm)
Structural behavior is linear, except for flexural plastic hinges at the member ends
No reduction in yielding moment in columns due to interaction with axial force
In top joints, hinges will appear earlier in beam than in columns
Simplified hinge behavior: infinite initial stiffness and horizontal plastic branch (no
strain hardening)
First-order analysis; also members are assumed to be infinitely rigid in axial direction
68
34
19/07/2015

Bending moments laws under gravity and pushing loads
First two plastic hinges appear almost simultaneously at the right top and bottom
joints
69

Combined bending moments law under gravity and pushing loads
Horizontal pushing force and displacement are 283.7 kN and 45.48 mm,
respectively
70
35
19/07/2015

Bending moments law under pushing load; to be added to the previous law
Third plastic hinge appears at the left bottom joint
Horizontal pushing force and displacement are 54.95 kN and 21.9 mm,
respectively
71

Bending moments law under pushing load; to be added to the previous law
Fourth plastic hinge appears at the left top joint
Horizontal pushing force and displacement are 57.36 kN and 113.2 mm
72
36
19/07/2015

Capacity curve
Force(kN)
400
300
and?
200
ASCE 7-10 does not

consider pushover as a
valid design strategy
100
0
0
50
100
150
Displacement(mm)
73
Nonlinear static analysis. R factor (15)
First utility of pushover analysis

Equal-displacement approach
Capacity curves provide estimations of response modification factor (R or q)
Calculated values will be higher than default ones
Fe Fe Fu Fe
Fy Fu Fy Fu
q
FEMA-356
e e u
1 u 1
EC-8
74
37
19/07/2015
Performance-based design. Definition (1)

PBD (Performance-Based Design)
American regulations (FEMA 356) propose four Performance Levels: FO
(Fully Operational), IO (Immediate Occupancy), LS (Life Safety)
and CP (Collapse Prevention)
European regulations (EC-8 Part 3) propose three Limit States: DL
(Damage Limitation), SD (Significant Damage) y NC (Near
Collapse)
DL IO, SD LS, NC CP
Performance Levels and Limit States have been proposed for retrofit but
can be also used for new construction
75
Performance-based design. FEMA 356 (2)

FEMA 356 2000 ( ... seismic rehabilitation of buildings)
FO (Fully Operational): no damage at all.
IO (Immediate Occupancy): only very limited structural damage, the
construction remains safe to occupy, the structure essentially retains the
pre-earthquake design strength and stiffness, the risk of life-threatening
injury is very low, and there is no permanent drift.
LS (Life Safety): damage to structural components but retains a
margin against partial or total collapse, the risk of life-threatening injury
is low, and it should be possible to repair the structure.
CP (Collapse Prevention): damage to structural components such that
the structure continues to support gravity loads but retains no margin
against collapse. Structural damage potentially includes significant
degradation in the stiffness and strength of the lateral-force-resisting
system, large permanent lateral deformation, and (to a more limited
extent) degradation in vertical-load-carrying capacity. The structure may
not be technically practical to repair.
76
38
19/07/2015
Performance-based design. EC-8 Part 3 (3)
77
Performance-based design. PBD vs T (4)

In EC-8, correspondence between Limit
States and return periods: DL 225 years,
SD 475 years, and NC 2475 years
In FEMA 356, three objectives are stated:
Basic Safety, Enhanced and Limited
Basic Safety Objective cares only for LS
(475 years) and CP (2475 years)
Enhanced Objectives care for LS (475
years), CP (2475 years) and FO and IO
(72, 225 or 475 years); also FO, IO or LS
alones (2475 years)
Limited Objectives care for LS (475 years)
or CP (2475 years); LS (72 or 225 years)
and CP (72, 225 or 475 years)
72
225
475
2475
78
39
19/07/2015
Performance-based design. PP (TD) (5)

Each performance point (or target drift) represents the effect on the
building or bridge (in terms of force and displacement) of a ground motion whose
severity corresponds to the return period associated with the limit state
LS
IO
CP
Performance
points
79
Performance-based design. Acceptability (6)

Research projects
HAZUS (in America)
and RISK-UE (in
Europe) have
calibrated damage in
terms of yielding (y)
and ultimate (u) levels
ND: No Damage; SD:
Slight Damage; MD:
Moderate Damage;
ED: Extensive
Damage; HD: Heavy
Damage
SD
MD
ED
HD
ND
LS
CP
IO
80
40
19/07/2015
Performance-based design. Sa Sd (7)

Absolute acceleration and relative displacement response spectra
Sd(,T) = Sa(,T) (T / 2)2
Sv(,T) = Sa(,T) (T / 2)
Sd
TB
TC
TD
TB
TC
TD
Sa
2.50
1
81 T
Performance-based design. ADRS (8)

Demand is presented as spectrum
Instead of Sa(T) and Sd(T) vs. T, Sa(T) vs. Sd(T) (ADRS, Acceleration
Displacement Response Spectrum)
Sa(T)
T < TB
T = TB
T = TC
2.50
T > TC
< 0.05
= 0.05
> 0.05
T = TD
Sd(,T) = Sa(,T) (T /
Sd(TB;0.05)
Sd(TC;0.05)
2)2
Sd(TD;0.05)
Sd(T)
82
41
19/07/2015
Performance-based design. ATC-40 (9)
Intersections between capacity curve and demand spectra are the

performance points or target drifts
Tips: (i) some conversion factors are required, and (ii) this operation must be
iterative
V /W
V /W
Sa
V/W
Capacity
curve
*
2
m1 / mT
Mr
T
/r Mr
M 1
Sd T
1 M r
1 1N 1
T
1 M 1
T
1
T
1
/H
= 0.05
= 0.08
= 0.10
Sa(T)
< 0.05
= 0.05
> 0.05
Sd(T)
83
Performance-based design. N2 (10)
N2 method (EC-8) M r
T M
f = M ; N = 1
m* = T M r
V = V* ; N = *
A: collapse point
is the area under the

curve
84
42
19/07/2015

N2 method (EC-8)

Demanding
ADRS
(short periods range):
(elastic)
If f

(anelastic)
If f
1
1
Capacity
curve
Demanding
ADRS
(long and medium

periods):
; 3
Capacity
curve
85
N2 method (EC-8)
If (the
considered input does
not generate collapse),
an iterative procedure
might be used:
In the bilinear capacity
curve is replaced by
; is accordingly
modified
86
43
19/07/2015
Performance-based design. Examples (13)

Wide-beam buildings in Spain
87

Thin-wall beam buildings in Peru
88
44
19/07/2015

Steel buildings in Colombia
89
Nonlinear dynamic analysis. Definition (1)

Seismic design based on dynamic analysis consists in representing expected
seismic inputs by accelerograms
Since actual behavior of structures under severe inputs (i.e. corresponding to large
return periods) is highly nonlinear, dynamic analysis must be also nonlinear
Apparently, this formulation is more accurate than using spectra
However, there are two major problems:
There is a big variety of expected inputs (amplitude, frequency content, pulses,
duration, etc.)
Nonlinear dynamic analyses can be extremely costly, in terms of computational effort
Design codes define the number and characteristics of the accelerograms to be

employed
Since actual seismic excitations are 3-D (or even 6-D, if we account for rotational
components of ground motion), dynamic analysis should consider, at least, the
joint excitation of both horizontal components of input ground motion
For this purpose, both accelerograms should be exactly synchronized
The same accelerogram may not be used simultaneously along both horizontal
directions (EC-8)
90
45
19/07/2015
Nonlinear dynamic analysis. Accelerograms (2)

Accelerograms can be either recorded (historical), simulated (from the known
seismogenic mechanism) or artificial (fitting design spectra)
EC-8 3.2.3.1.3. Requirements for the artificial accelerograms: (i) stationary phase
at least 10 s, (ii) minimum 3 accelerograms, (iii) the mean of the zero-period
spectral ordinates should not be smaller than ag S, and (iv) in between 0.2 T1 and 2
T1, no value should be less than 90% of design elastic response spectrum
ASCE 7-10 16.1.3. Similar than (iv) from EC-8 but with 1.5 T1 instead of 2 T1
Nowadays, nonlinear dynamic analysis is not yet widely employed, despite the
powerful computational tools that are commonly available
A good spectrum-based analysis is better than a poor dynamic analysis
Dynamic analysis is only justified: (i) in research, (ii) for highly complex or very
important structures, (iii) when required by design codes, and (iv) when results
from simplified analyses are not acceptable
91
Nonlinear dynamic analysis. Computational issues (3)
Nonlinear equation of motion:

Solution of this equation (and of the linear one) is known as time-history analysis
Same models than for pushover analysis can be used
Response should be obtained, in discrete time, by a step-by-step procedure; commonly,
time step (discretization period or sampling period: t) is constant along the whole
duration of analysis
If structural behavior is linear (Q(x) = K x), response for next instant is obtained
directly assuming an interpolation criterion in the interval; each criterion leads to a
different calculation algorithm
If structural behavior is nonlinear (Q(x) = Kt x, where is the Kt tangent stiffness
matrix), stiffness at the beginning and at the end of interval is different and, therefore,
response for next instant cannot be obtained directly (even assuming an interpolation
criterion in the interval) and calculation must be iterative
For both linear and nonlinear analysis, most employed algorithm is Newmark
Selection of time step is a crucial issue; usual criteria for linear analysis do not apply
for nonlinear analysis; significantly shorter time steps are required
The faster the excitation (high frequency) and the stiffer the structure (short period), the
shorter the required time step
The only valid rule for time step selection is to start with a coarse time discretization
(t = 0.01 s) and then refine it (lowering t) until obtaining time convergence; values
below 0.001 s are extremely frequent
92
46
19/07/2015
Nonlinear dynamic analysis. IDA (4)

IDA Incremental Dynamic Analysis can be defined as a kind of dynamic pushover
analysis; input ordinates are scaled with growing factors
There are two types of IDA analysis: for a single input or for several inputs
IDA Curves are similar to capacity curves; vertical axis refers to any parameter
characterizing input severity and horizontal axis contains top floor displacement (or
similar magnitudes)
In each dynamic analysis, structure begins from zero (undamaged)
93
Nonlinear dynamic analysis. Structural resurrection (5)
94
47
19/07/2015
Nonlinear dynamic analysis. Example (6)

100
NOWALLS
Displacement(mm)
LOWWALLDENSITY
HIGHWALLDENSITY
50
0
0
10
Time(s)
50
100
95
Nonstructural components (1)

Non structural elements
(appendages) can be
antennae, faades, cladding
panels, tanks, machinery,
furniture, etc.
Those elements must be
seismically designed
The seismic input of the
device depends on its
position in the building; the
higher the worst (seismic
excitation is progressively
amplified along building
height)
Roof is the most dangerous
location
96
48
19/07/2015
Nonstructural components. EC-8 (2)

Article 4.3.5 (EC-8 1) specifies the seismic analysis of non structural elements
Fa = Sa Wa a / qa; Fa: seismic design force
Sa: floor spectra; = ag / g; S: soil coefficient; z: height of the point the element
is attached; H: building height; Sa S; a = 1 or 1.5; qa = 1 or 2; T1 / Ta:
fundamental period of building / element
The higher the point the element is installed, the greater the seismic excitation; if
z = H (roof appendage):
Sa(Ta) = Sa(2 T1 Ta); Sa(0) = S 2.5; Sa(T1) = S 5.5; Sa(4.32 T1) = 0; Sa() = S
0.5
5
3 1 z
H
Sa S
0.5
2
1 1 Ta
T1
Floor spectrum
Sa
3
2
1
0
0
Ta / T1
97
Nonstructural components. ASCE 7-10 (3)

Chapter 13 (ASCE 7-10) specifies the seismic analysis of non structural elements
A list of nonstructural components which are exempt from verification is included
.
; 0.3
1.6
Fp: seismic design force; ap: component amplification factor (ranges between 1
and 2.5, plays the role of spectral ordinate); Wp: component operating weight; Rp:
component response modification factor (1 to 12); Ip: importance factor
Alternative:
; 0.3
1.6
Ax: torsional amplification factor; ai: acceleration at level i

In addition, the component shall be designed for a concurrent vertical force 0.2

Where the weight of a nonstructural component is greater than 25% of the

building seismic weight, it shall be classified as a non-building structure and
shall be designed (15.3.2) jointly with the building
98
49
19/07/2015
Bibliography. Books
Akiyama H. Earthquake-Resistant Design for Buildings. Tokio University Press 1988.

Ambrose J.E., Vergun D. Diseo simplificado de edificios para cargas de viento y sismo. Limusa
1986.
Bazn E., Meli R. Diseo ssmico de edificios. Limusa 2002.
Bozorgnia Y., Bertero V.V. Earthquake Engineering: from Engineering Seismology to
Performance-Base Engineering. CRC Press 2004.
Bozzo L.M., Barbat A.H. Diseo sismorresistente de edificios. Ed. Revert 2000.
Chandrasekaran S. et al. Seismic Design Aids for Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Structures. CRC Press 2010.
Datta T.K. Seismic Analysis of Structures. J. Wiley 2010.
Dowrick D.J. Earthquake Resistant Design for Engineers and Architects. J. Wiley 1977.
Fajfar P., Krawinkler H. Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes.
Balkema 1997.
Garca L.E. Dinmica Estructural Aplicada al Diseo Ssmico. Universidad de Los Andes
(Bogot) 1998.
Naeim F. The Seismic Design Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold 2002.
Newmark N.M., Rosenblueth E. Fundamentos de ingeniera ssmica. Diana 1978.
Paulay T., Priestley M.J.N. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings.
John Wiley 1992.
Priestley M.J.N., Seible F., Calvi G.M. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. John Wiley
1996.
Priestley M.J.N., Calvi G.M., M.J. Kowalski. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures. IUSS Press 2007.
Rosenblueth E. Design of Earthquake Resistant Structures. Pentech Press 1980.
Wakabayashi M. Earthquake Resistant Design for Buildings. McGraw-Hill 1986.
99
Bibliography. Codes
NCSE-02. Norma de Construccin Sismorresistente: Parte General y Edificacin.

Ministerio de Fomento 2002.
NCSP-07. Norma de construccin sismorresistente. Ministerio de Fomento 2007.
Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. AISC (American Institute on Steel
Construction) 2005.
Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic
Applications. AISC (American Institute on Steel Construction) 2005.
FEMA 356. Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 2000.
ACI 318-11. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. ACI (American
Concrete Institute ) 2011.
ASCE/SEI 7-10. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE
(American Society of Civil Engineers) 2010.
Fardis M.N., Carvalho E., Elnashai A., Faccioli, Pinto Plumier A. Designers Guide to
Eurocode 8. Thomas Telford 2005.
100
50
19/07/2015
Internet Sites
http://www.asce.org/
http://www.concrete.org/
http://www.aisc.org/
https://www.atcouncil.org/
http://www.fema.gov/
http://peer.berkeley.edu/
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/
http://eurocodes.org.ua/
http://www.roseschool.it/
http://mae.cee.illinois.edu/software_and_tools/zeus_nl.html
http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/eq/eqeng.shtml
101
51

Earthquake Resistant Design

Enviado por

Dados do documento

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

Earthquake Resistant Design

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

19/07/2015

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Effects of seismic inputs on buildings (1)

Effect of horizontal components is more severe; vertical analysis is only necessary

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Effects of seismic inputs on buildings (2)

Alike beams. Beam sections depend only on load and span-length

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Effects of seismic inputs on buildings (3)

Moment/shear inversion on beams: this effect is higher in bottom

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Effects of seismic inputs on buildings (4)

Signs of moments in joints with moment inversion:

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Effects of seismic inputs on buildings (5)

Effects of seismic inputs on buildings (6)

Effects of seismic inputs on buildings (7)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Effects of seismic inputs on buildings (8)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Effects of seismic inputs on buildings (9)

Both behaviors are quantitatively and qualitatively

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Effects of seismic inputs on bridges (1)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings (1)

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Lateral resistance (2)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Plan symmetry (3)

Symmetric / asymmetric buildings: centers of mass G and rigidity R are

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Uniformity along height (4)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Uniformity along height (5)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Uniformity along height (6)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Compact plan configuration (7)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Lightweight (8)

Timber better than any other

Heavy masses are more

No roof swimming pools!

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Torsion strength and stiffness (9)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Rigid diaphragm (10)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Ductility (11)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Damping (12)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Structural redundancy (13)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Strong column-weak beam (14)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. No short columns (15)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Non-structural elements (16)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual seismic design of buildings. Tying of foundation (17)

Earthquake-resistant design. Francesc Lpez Almansa. Barcelona

Conceptual buildings. No long cantilevers, no interrupted columns (18)