Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
by
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCn..
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 550
Redwood City, California 94065
Funded by
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Grant No. ECE-8600721
and
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH
NCEER Project No. 92-4601
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Christopher Rojahn
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
Andrew Whittaker
Gary Hart
1995
__
---_.-. .. _ .
Preface
In 1986, the Applied Technology Council (ATC) was gineering Panel (PEP) consisting ofVitelmo Bertero,
awarded a grant from the National Science Founda- Gregg Brandow, Sigmund Freeman, William Hall,
tion (NSF) to evaluate structural response modifica- and Lawrence Reaveley (ATC Board Representa-
tion factors (R factors). R factors are used in current tive). Nancy Sauer and Peter Mork provided editorial
seismic building codes to reduce ground motions as- and publication preparation assistance. The affilia-
sociated with design level earthquakes to design force tions of these individuals are provided in the Project
levels. The initial objectives of the project (known as Participants list.
ATC-19) were to: (1) document the basis for the val-
ues assigned to R factors in model seismic codes in ATC gratefully acknowledges the valuable support
the United States, (2) review the role played by R fac- and patience of the NSF Project Officer, S. C. Liu.
tors in seismic design practice throughout the United
States; (3) present state-of-knowledge on R factors; ATC also gratefully acknowledges the valuable input
and (4) propose procedures for improving the reliabil- of participants in the companion NCEER-funded
ity of values assigned to R. ATC-34 Project: The late Peter Gergely (Cornell
University), who served on the NCEER Research
In 1991, the scope of the effort was expanded with Committee and played a key role in acquiring
funding from the National Center for Earthquake En- NCEER support for this investigation; Project Direc-
gineering Research (NCEER) to address and/or docu- tor Andrew Whittaker (University of California at
ment (1) how response modification factors are used Berkeley); PEP members Vitelmo Bertero (Universi-
for seismic design in other countries; (2) a rational ty of California at Berkeley), Ian Buckle (NCEER),
means for decomposing R into key components using Sigmund Freeman (Wiss, Janney, Elstner Assoc.,
state-of-the-knowledge information; (3) a framework Inc.), Gary Hart (University of California at Los An-
(and methods) for evaluating the key components of geles), Helmut Krawinkler (Stanford University),
R; and (4) the research necessary to improve the reli- Ronald Mayes (Dynamic Isolation Systems), Andrew
ability of engineered construction designed using R Merovich (Andrew Merovich & Assoc.), Joseph
factors. The results from the original and expanded Nicoletti (URSlBlume), Guy Nordenson (Ove Arup
objectives described above are documented in this re- & Partners), Masanobu Shinozuka (University of
port. Southern California), and John Theiss (ATC Board
Representative); and consultants Howard Hwang
The primary ATC-19 project consultants, who pre- (Memphis State University), Onder Kustu (OAK En-
pared the major portions of this report, were Gary gineering), and Yi-Kwei Wen (University ofIl1inois).
Hart and Andrew Whittaker, senior-level earthquake
engineering researchers from southern and northern Christopher Rojahn
California, respectively. Their work was overviewed ATC Executive Director &
and guided by an advisory "blue-ribbon" Project En- ATC-19 Principal Investigator
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives of the Report 2
1.3 Organization of the Report : 2
References 51
Project Participants 53
-------_.----
1. Introduction
ATC-19 1: Introduction 1
-----.---_.__ - .. .
ATC-3-06. The commentary to ATC-3-06 notes 5. To develop a rational means of decomposing
that " ... values of R must be chosen and used with R into key components.
judgement" and that " ... lower values must be used
6. To propose a framework (and methods) for
for structures possessing a low degree of redundancy
evaluating the key components of R.
wherein all the plastic hinges required for the forma-
tion of a mechanism may be formed essentially 7. To recommend research necessary to
simultaneously and at a force level close to the speci- improve the reliability of engineered con-
fied design strength." To further underscore the struction designed using R factors.
uncertainties associated with the values assigned to R
for different seismic framing systems, a footnote to The primary audience for this report is licensed pro-
fessional engineers familiar with both current build-
the table listing the response modification coeffi-
cients states, "These (values for R) are based on best ing seismic design criteria and structural dynamics.
However, the report has been written to be under-
judgment and data available at time of writing and
standable to a broad audience, with the intent ofhav-
need to be reviewed periodically."
ing a strong impact on the design professionals and
Given the fiscal and social consequences of wide- the code-change process. The secondary audience for
spread building failure that could occur in an earth- the report is the academic/research community.
quake if poor choices for values of R are used in
design, it is evident to enlightened design profession- 1.3 Organization of the Report
als that the values assigned to R in current seismic
Chapter 2 provides an historical perspective on how
regulations should reflect the most current knowl-
the values of R in use today were developed. The
edge in earthquake engineering and construction
relationship between K factors introduced in the late
practice in the United States. Nearly twenty years
1950 s, R factors introduced in ATC-3-06, and R w
have passed since R factors were first introduced in
factors introduced into the 1988 UBC (ICBO, 1988)
the United States. In this space oftime, much has
is established, and the shortcomings of seismic
been learned about the likely performance of seismic
design using R factors are enumerated.
framing systems in moderate-to-severe earthquakes,
especially following the 1989 Lorna Prieta and 1994 Chapter 3 discusses the use of response modification
Northridge earthquakes. This new knowledge, com- factors for the seismic design of new buildings out-
bined with changing public expectations of accept- side the United States and for the seismic design of
able levels of earthquake-induced damage and new bridges in the United States, to provide perspec-
changes in construction practice, makes 1995 an tive on the conclusions drawn in this report. The fac-
appropriate year in which to publish a formal review tors used in three common framing systems, the
of response modification factors and the ways in European, Japanese, and Mexican codes, are com-
which the factors are used (and misused) in current pared with the corresponding values in the 1991
design practice. NEHRP Provisions (BSSC, 1991). This chapter
includes some conclusions about the likely behavior
1.2 Objectives of the Report ofcode-compliant buildings in the United States dur-
ing severe earthquake shaking.
This report has several key objectives.
1. To document the basis for the values assigned Chapter 4 discusses the impact of R factors on the
to R in current seismic codes in the United seismic design process in the United States, experi-
mental estimates of R for two steel-braced framing
States.
systems, and proposes a new formulation for R.
2. To review the role played by R factors in Unresolved issues associated with the proposed for-
seismic design practice in the United States. mulation for R are described, and strategies for
3. To describe how response modification fac- resolving these issues are proposed.
tors are used for seismic design in other In Chapter 5, the significant issues raised in this
countries. report are summarized, and key conclusions are
4. To present up-to-date information on R fac- drawn. Recommendations for further study complete
tors. this chapter. A list of references follows Chapter 5.
2 1: Introduction ATC-19
,-----_.-._---_..........
_---------,---
.
Reliable values for R will likely be proposed on the buildings (ATC' s portion of this project is known as
basis ofthe statistical evaluation of reserve strengths ATC-33). The results of the nonlinear static analysis
and system ductility values. Reserve strength and presented in Appendix A are used to calculate draft
ductility can be estimated using nonlinear static anal- strength and ductility factors.
ysis. Appendix A provides an overview of nonlinear
static analysis and presents the results of such an Appendix B contains a comprehensive glossary of
analysis of a nonductile reinforced concrete moment tenns used in this report. Following Appendix B are
frame building. This analysis was performed as part references, a list of the individuals who have contrib-
of the ongoing FEMA-funded Building Seismic uted to the preparation of this report, and infonnation
Safety Council (BSSC) project to develop guidelines on other available ATC reports, including companion
and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of reports and other resource documents.
ATC-19 1: Introduction 3
,----_._,_.. .......
-,-r---,----------'-.----- _,
_L--
--
.....
C)
ATC 3-06 elastic response spectrum for a
c:
0 rock site and 5% damping
r<l
CD
CD
0
0
r<l
-...
Cii 1
0
CD
Q.
Design spectrum for a special
moment-resisting space frame
UI (R =8)
"tI
CD
.!:!
Cii
...0E ;-----------
Z / ------ --------------_ ..
0
Period (seconds)
Figure 2. 1: Use of R factors to reduce elastic spectral demands to the design force level. Each point on the
elastic response spectrum for a rock site (top curve) is divided by R to produce the design spec-
trum (bottom curve) for a given structure type, in this case a special moment-resisting space frame.
where R= 8.
_.-....---------_._--' ---.----r--------.-.--" .
ATC-3-06 was given as: 1.67) ( V) (2-6)
Vw ( 1.33 = 0.9
1.2A y S
V = Ry{).67 w (2-5) where Vw was the allowable-stress design lateral
seismic base shear (1976 UBC) and V was the
In this expression, A y is the effective peak velocity- strength- design lateral seismic base shear (ATC 3-
related acceleration, S is a soil profile coefficient, and 06). The numerical factors in Equation 2-6 accounted
T is the fundamental period of the building. The soil for differences between the allowable-stress design
profile coefficient is used to account for soil proper- and strength design methods: 1.67 represented the
ties that could amplify the bedrock motion; its val- margin of safety in allowable-stress design, 1.33 rep-
ues, as defined in ATC-3-06, range from 1.0 to 1.5. resented the pennissible increase in allowable-stress
The base shear of Equation 2-4 provides an upper design, and 0.9 was the capacity reduction factor for
limit on the base shear calculated using Equation 2-5. flexure in strength design.
Individuals who participated in the ATC-3-06 R fac- Using the expression for Vw as specified in the 1976
tor development process (ATC, 1978, page 8, Struc- UBC (leBO, 1976), it followed that:
tural Design, Details, and Quality Assurance
Committee) have indicated that committee members ZIKCS. w(1.67)
I 1.33
= 0.9Ry{).67
(1.2AS) W (2-7)
first independently developed R values for each
structural system type based on their own experience. where Z was a zone factor, I was an importance fac-
The values of R selected for inclusion in ATC-3-06 tor, K was a horizontal force factor, C defined the
represented the consensus opinion of the experts spectral shape ( 1/( 15 Jh
,and Si was a site
involved in the development effort. coefficient.
The first step in assigning consensus R values was to Substituting Z = 1= T= 1.0, Si = 1.5, Ay = 0.4, and S
set a maximum value of R for the structure types con- = 1.2 in Equation 2-7:
sidered to provide the best seismic perfonnance; that
is, those with the highest reserve strength or ductility.
(1.0)(1.0)K(0.067)(1.5) ( 1.67)
1.33 (2-8)
This category included special moment frames and
dual systems composed of reinforced concrete shear (1.2 x 0.4 x 1.2)
= "--~~.-:-;:~....;..
wall structures with special moment frames capable 0.9R(1.0)
of resisting at least 25 percent of the prescribed seis-
resulted in
.mic forces.
C.W. Pinkham (personal communication), a member (0.1256)K = 0~4 (2-9)
of the team that developed R factors, described the
procedure used to calculate R for special steel
yielding
moment frames.
The maximum value of R was determined by equat- R = 5.1 (2-10)
ing Vw computed for allowable stress design per the
K
1976 UBC (equivalent to the 1974 Blue Book In the 1976 UBC, K was set equal to 0.67 for
(SEAOC, 1974) to V computed for strength design moment resisting frame systems. The corresponding
in ATC-3-06. Implicit in this undertaking was the value of R in ATC-3-06 was thus computed as:
decision not to increase the design base shear to
improve seismic performance, but rather to achieve 5.1 8
R = 0.67= . (2-11)
improved seismic performance by requiring better
detailing.
The response modification factor for reinforced con-
For special steel moment frames, the maximum value crete shear-wall structures with special moment
of R was computed at a fundamental period equal to frames was also assigned the maximum value of
1.0 second: eight. Values of R for other framing systems were
-----------------------_.._._---_ -_ .. .......
generally assigned on the basis of Equation 2-10, where S is a site coefficient and T is the fundamental
then adjusted in accordance with the consensus opin- period of vibration.
ion of the committee. Framing systems not consid-
ered in the 1976 UBC were assigned R values by If it is assumed that CS = 0.14 and Z = 1 in Equation
consensus opinion of the committee. 2-12, and that C = 2.75 and Z= 0.4 in Equation 2-13,
it follows that
2.3 Rw Factor Development
K(0.14)C = (2.75)0.4 (2-15)
Values for structural response modification factors Rw
for allowable-stress design (RwJ were determined by
and that
the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engi-
neers Association of California (SEAOC) and pub-
lished in the 1988 Blue Book (SEAOC, 1988). (2-16)
SEAOC elected to introduce Rwo rather than R, to
ease the eventual transition from allowable-stress Substituting Equation 2-1 o into Equation 2-16 yields
design to strength design. the following relationship between Rw and R
Similar to R, Rw is inversely proportional to K. The
relationship between values of K in the 1985 UBC
Rw = 7.86
5.1
R = 1.54R
. . (2-17)
and values of R w in the 1988 UBC can be demon-
strated as follows. Table 2.1 displays the values of K (/985 UBCJ and
Rw (1988 UBC) for several framing systems.
The equation given in the 1985 UBC (lCBO, 1985)
for calculating the design base shear at the allowable
stress level (VD ) is: Table 2.1 Relationship of K and Rw
Framing
VD = (ZIKC5)W (2-12) System 1985 USC 1988 USC
----_.. _-----~"'-" ..
tor K represented the consensus opinion of expert ratio cannot be used to uniformly reduce elastic
design professionals and academicians in the late spectral demands to design (inelastic) spectral
1950s. Despite a many-fold increase in knowledge demands (measured typically as base shear), R
and the advent of powerful analysis tools, no sub- must be period-dependent. This dependence is
stantive review of, or changes to, response reduction recognized in the Eurocode and the Mexican
factors have been made since the 1950s. Code (see Chapter 3 for further discussion).
Recent studies by researchers (e.g., Bertero, 1986)
4. The reserve strength (strength in excess of the
and design professionals, including Project ATC-34,
design strength) of buildings designed in differ-
have identified major shortcomings in the values and
ent seismic regions will likely vary substantially.
formulation of the response modification factors used
Given that reserve strength is a key component
in seismic codes in the United States. These short-
of R (see Chapter 4), R should be dependent on
comings include the following:
either the seismic zone or some ratio of gravity
loads to seismic loads.
1. A single value of R for all buildings of a given
framing type, irrespective of building height,
5. Seismic design using the response modification
plan geometry, and framing layout, cannot be
factors listed in seismic codes and guidelines in
jus,tified.
the United States will most probably not result in
a uniform level of risk for all seismic framing
2. The use of the values assigned to R for some
systems.
framing systems will likely not produce the
desired performance in the design earthquake. These shortcomings and other related issues are
addressed in the remainder of this report.
3. The response modification factor is intended, in
part, to account for the ductility of the framing
system. Recognizing that a constant ductility
--------,-----------1----
Table 2.2 Tabulated Values for K, Rand Rw
Basic Structural System (K factor) R R Rw
V\TC, 1978) rosse, 1991) (leBO, 1994)
Bearing Wall System (K=1.33)
1. Light Framed Walls with Shear Panels 6.5 6.5
a. Plywood walls, 3 stories or less 8
b. All other light framed walls 6
2. Shear walls
a. Concrete 4.5 4.5 6.0
b. Masonry 3.5 3.5 6.0
3. Braced Frames Carrying Gravity Loads 4.0 4.0
a. Steel 6
b. Concrete 4
Building Frame System (K=1.00)
1. Steel Eccentric Braced Frames (EBF) 7.0-8.0 10.0
2. Concentric Braced Frames 7.0
3. Shear Walls
a. Concrete 5.5 5.5 8.0
b. Masonry 4.5 4.5 8.0
Dual System (K=O.80)
1. Shear Walls
a. Concrete with Special Moment Resisting Space
Frame (SMRSF) 8.0 8.0 12.0
b. Concrete with Concrete Intermediate Moment
Resisting Space Frame (IMRSF) 6.0 9.0
c. Masonry with Concrete SMRSF 6.5 6.5 8.0
d. Masonry with Concrete IMRSF 5.0 7.0
2. Steel EBF with Steel SMRSF 7.0-8.0 12.0
3. Concentric Braced Frames
a. Steel with SMRSF 6.0 6.0 10.0
b. Concrete with Concrete SMRSF 6.0 6.0 9.0
c. Concrete with Concrete IMRSF 5.0 6.0
Moment Resisting Frame System (K=O.67)
1. Special Moment Resisting Space Frames (SMRSF)
a. Steel 8.0 8.0 12.0
b. Concrete 7.0 8.0 12.0
2. Concrete Intermediate Moment Resisting Space
4.0 8.0
Frames (IMRSF)
3. Ordinary Moment Resisting Space Frames
a. Steel 4.2 4.5 6.0
b. Concrete 2.0 2.0 5.0
._----_._-_._ - .
where Z represents the seismic zone, Rt defmes the Fes is a measure of the regularity of the building.
spectral shape that varies as a function of soil type, There is no displacement check in the Level II
Ai defines the vertical distribution of seismic force design.
in the building, and Co represents the peak ground
acceleration. In regions of high seismicity, Z is equal The regularity factor (Fes ) is calculated as:
to 1.0. Except for wood structures on soft subsoil,
Co is set equal to 0.2. The seismic design shear force (3-6)
in the i-th story (Qi ) is calculated as:
where Fe is a measure of the plan irregularity of the
(3-4) building, and Fs reflects the unifonnity of the distri-
bution of lateral stiffness over the height ofthe build-
where W is the reactive weight above the i-th story. ing. For reference, Fe and Fs range in value between
For Level I design, seismic actions are computed 1.0 (regular) and 1.5 (most irregular). The design
using unreduced seismic forces. Interstory drift is penalties associated with selecting a highly irregular
limited to 0.5 percent of the story height for the pre- seismic framing system are clearly evident.
scribed seismic forces unless it can be demonstrated The ductility factor (Ds ) varies as a function ofstruc-
that greater drift can be tolerated by the nonstructural tural material, type of framing system, and key
components, in which case the drift limit can be response parameters. Materials are identified as
increased to 0.8 percent of the story height. either steel or reinforced concrete; steel-reinforced
In Level II design, the engineer checks plan eccen- concrete is included under the heading of reinforced
tricity, distribution oflateral stiffness, minimum code concrete. Table 3-1 displays values of Ds for steel
requirements (in some cases), and ultimate lateral- seismic framing systems from the 1981 Building
load-carrying capacity of each story. The ultimate Standard Law (BSL). These values range between
lateral load capacity is computed using plastic analy- 0.25 and 0.50. The "behavior of members" rating in
sis and ultimate seismic demands are estimated as: the first column is based on the proportioning of the
structural members. For example, members in ductile
moment frames with excellent ductility have smaller
(3-5)
width-to-thickness (or depth-to-thickness) ratios than
members in ductile moment frames with/air ductility
where Qud is the lateral seismic shear for severe or poor ductility. Stocky bracing members in braced
earthquake motions, calculated according to Equa- frames are associated with excellent ductility and
tion 3-4 using Co equal to 1.0, Ds is a framing sys- slender braces are associated with/air ductility.
tem-dependent ductility factor (less than 1.0), and
Table 3.1 Coefficient Ds for Steel Framed Buildings in Japan's 1981 Building Standard law
Type of Frame
Behavior of Members (1) Ductile moment (2) Concentrically (3) Frames other than
frame braced frame (1) and (2)
,-----_._-- -
Table 3.2 Coefficient D s for Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings in Japan's 1981 Building Standard Law
Type of Frame
A. Members with
0.30 0.40 0.35
excellent ductility
B. Members with
0.35 0.45 0.40
good ductility
C. Members with fair
0.40 0.50 0.45
ductility
D. Members with
0.45 0.55 0.50
poor ductility
---------------------_ __ .
the framing systems resulting from U.S. and Japa- report entitled Seismic Design Guidelines for High-
nese practice will likely be similar. way Bridges. These guidelines were developed by a
team of nationally recognized bridge engineering
Inelastic displacement values are calculated in the
experts. The format of ATC-6 paralleled that of
NEHRP Provisions as the product of the elastic dis-
ATC-3. In particular, it introduced R factors to
placement values computed using the reduced seis-
reduce elastic spectral demands to a strength design
mic forces and a displacement amplification factor
level. The ATC-6 report recommended different val-
that is numerically smaller than the response modifi-
ues of R for framing elements and connections; the
cation factor. The calculated inelastic displacement
values for R being smaller for connections to pro-
values are thus smaller than the elastic displacement
mote plastic hinging in the framing elements and to
values computed using the unreduced seismic forces.
preclude inelastic behavior in the connections. As
A different procedure is used by the European and
such, the ATC-6 design methodology for bridges dif-
Mexican codes wherein inelastic displacement values
fered from the ATC-3 design methodology for build-
are calculated as the product of the displacement val- ings in which one value for R was used for the entire
ues computed using the reduced seismic forces and a building.
displacement amplification factor equal to or larger
than the response reduction factor. The resulting The Caltrans Bridge Design Specification (Caltrans,
inelastic displacement values are equal to or greater 1990) makes use of a period-dependent response
than the elastic displacement values computed using reduction factor, which is termed an adjustment fac-
the unreduced seismic forces. The European and tor for ductility and risk assessment and denoted as Z.
Mexican procedures for computing inelastic dis- The Z factors are used to reduce elastic spectral
placements are more consistent with the results of demands to strength-design actions, so Z performs a
recent research (Miranda and Bertero, 1994) than the similar role to R. Figure 3.1 presents Caltrans Z fac-
procedure adopted in the NEHRP Provisions. The tors as a function of period and structure/component
reader is referred to Report ATC-34 (ATC, 1995) for type. The reduction in values of Z with increasing
additional information on the calculation of inelastic period is based in part on the increase in spectral dis-
displacements. placements with increasing period. For slender col-
umns, large displacements may result in significant
3.3 Use 01 R Factor Equivalents for second-order (or P-b.) effects.
Bridge Design
In 1982, ATC published the ATC-6 (ATC, 1982a)
8
"~
..... ~
...
.....
N 6 ......
r... I - Well-confined ductile multi-column bents
~t'<
0
U
..
ell
II.
c 4
............... Well-confined ductile single column bents
..
Gl
E
III "'r -
:::l Piers, abutment walls, and wingwalls
:c
c(
2
I - Hinge restrainer cables (Z=1.0)
r
\ Well-reinforced concrete shear keys (Z=O.8)
o
o 1.0 2.0 3.0
Period (seconds)
,-----_.-_..-_ .
The Z factors for single- and multi-column bents are either the Caltrans or the AASHTO procedure is
constant for periods less than 0.6 second, and intended to produce columns ofa similar size (Ian
decrease linearly between periods of 0.6 and 3.0 sec- Buckle, personal communication).
onds. The period-dependent trends for Z in the short-
period range are not supported by analytical studies Project ATC-32 is currently reviewing Caltrans' seis-
(Miranda and Bertero, 1994). In particular, although mic design procedures for bridges. Improved Z fac-
Z tends to decrease with increasing period, strength tors are being developed that depend on (a) bridge
reduction due to inelastic behavior is minimal for importance, (b) structure-to-site period ratio, and (c)
very stiff structures, and tends to increase with element type (column, pier, or connection). Values
increasing period. for Z factors for ordinary and important bridge struc-
tures are reported in Table 3.4. These improved Z
Table 3.4 shows the values of Caltrans Z factors and factors are intended to be used with elastic analysis
ATC-6 R factors (for a period of 0.3 second) for results that consider the stiffness degradation that
bridges founded on rock. Caltrans defines the seismic will occur during a major seismic event and flexural
hazard at a bridge site in terms of the maximum cred- capacities that consider probable rather than nominal
ible earthquake whereas AASHTO defines the seis- material strengths. The net result of the proposed
mic hazard using probabilistic techniques based on a ATC-32 design procedures for ductile components is
1O-percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. that most design quantities will often be only nomi-
This difference in the definition of the design earth- nally different than those for current Caltrans
quake is responsible for the larger response reduction designs. The ATC-32 recommendations have not
factors used in the Caltrans procedure, because use of been formally adopted to date by Caltrans.
------,--------- ------_._.---_ .
4. Components of Response Modification Factors
The commentary to the 1988 NEHRP Provisions The key parameters influencing the response of an
(BSSC, 1988) defines the R factor as " ... an empiri- elastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system are
cal response modification (reduction) factor intended indicated in Figure 4.1, which illustrates a single-
to account for both damping and ductility inherent in story moment frame with massless columns. The
a structural system at displacements great enough to floor mass m is attached to the ground by two elastic
approach the maxim um displacement ofthe system." columns (springs) of combined lateral stiffness k.
This definition provides some insight into the devel- Damping c is introduced by a dashpot linking the
opers' qualitative understanding of the seismic floor and the ground. The SDOF in this model is the
response of buildings and the expected behavior of a horizontal translation of the floor with respect to the
code-compliant building in the design earthquake. ground. The inertial force developed by the floor
mass during earthquake shaking is a function of the
The components of R can be dermed in several ways, properties of the SDOF system (m, k, and c) and the
each dependent on the performance level under con- characteristics of the earthquake ground motion. For
sideration. In this report, only the life-safety perfor- an elastic SDOF system, seismic actions and dis-
mance level is considered explicitly. Section 4.2 placements can be determined using an earthquake
provides a framework for a discussion on the disag- response spectrum - the envelope of the maximum
gregation of R into its primary components by dis- responses of SDOF oscillators to one earthquake
cussing how R is used to link elastic and inelastic ground motion. Response spectra vary widely in fre-
response. Section 4.3 introduces some key issues quency content and amplitude. For reference, the
associated with describing the force-displacement pseudo-acceleration spectra (Clough and Penzien,
response of a building (expanded on by example in 1993) corresponding to the 1 Centro, SCT, Sylmar,
Appendix A). Finally, sections 4.4 and 4.5 address and JMA earthquake ground motions are presented in
the disaggregation of R into its key components. Figure 4.2. These earthquake histories were recorded
during the 1940 Imperial Valley, 1985 Mexico City,
1994 Northridge, and 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earth-
quakes, respectively.
Floor mass, m
.
.Q
~ f f" \: : :
".~ : :
Q)
a;
8 1.5 I \ \
co J \:
I
o I . \: \ .
-0
~ 1 I ,J \.. ., ..\ :
t
: .
I ....: ..... :;.~._ :: :
, ,.
lI)
a.. . '~: ..... :
"
..... .', ~........ -.......... ..
.... .. - : '0_;-. ~ ...... _
I::~..~.~..L..-_~i__:=======~==.=-:::.-:.~.'~-~.~.~-;-~.-~.~-
OL
o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
. -.
4
..
Period (seconds)
The impact of R on the seismic design of buildings is 4 and 4-1 are thus identical if the response modifica-
clearly seen by comparing the equations for the tion factor R in Equation 2-4 is equal to 1.0. In prac-
design base shear for inelastic response (Equation 2- tice, the design base shear (for inelastic response) is
4) and the base shear for elastic response (Ve): calculated by dividing the base shear for elastic
response by the response modification factor R, a
(4-1) value that generally varies between 4.0 and 8.0. The
substantial difference between the ordinates of elastic
and design base shear spectra is clearly seen in Fig-
where Se,5 is the elastic 5-percent damped pseudo-
ure 2-1.
acceleration response spectral ordinate calculated at
the fundamental period of the building; and W is the 4.3 Force-Displacement Response of
reactive weight, equal to Mg for the simple structure Buildings
depicted in Figure 4.1. Note that W in Equation 4-1 is
the total reactive weight and not the reactive weight A typical force-displacement relationship for a build-
in the fundamental mode. For seismic design in the ing frame is shown in Figure 4.3. This relationship
United States, the spectrum has in the past generally describes the response of the building frame sub-
corresponded to an earthquake ground motion with a jected to monotonically increasing displacements.
10-percent probability of being exceeded in 50 For the purposes of design, this nonlinear relation-
years 1, which is often tenned the design earthquake. ship is often approximated by an idealized bilinear
The elastic spectral ordinate in Equation 4-1 is equiv- relationship. Two bilinear approximations are widely
alent to the term 2.5A a in Equation 2-4. Equations 2- used and these methods are described below. Either
of these methods can be used to estimate yield forces
1. It is anticipated that the 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provi- and yield displacements; the two methods will gener-
sions for the Seismic Regulation ofNew Buildings, under ally produce similar results for most ductile framing
development by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC),
and the NEHRP Guidelinesfor Seismic Rehabilitation of systems.
Buildings, under development by ATC (ATC-33 project) for
BSSC, will incorporate seismic hazard maps that reflect longer The first approximation, developed for characteriz-
recurrence intervals (i.e., ground motions have a 2% probabil- ing the load-displacement relation for reinforced con-
ity of being exceeded in 50 years). crete elements (pauley and Priestley, 1992), assumes
_--------_._--
.
._---_.----------------.---_._.- - _ .
Ductile response
->
' y - Brittle response
f--
, ,
1---''
r
~
""'--
v
Figure 4.3: Sample base shear force versus roof displacement relationship.
Actual response
Vy Vy
.75Vy
ti.y 6m , 6m
Displacement (~) 0 Isplacement (d)
(a) Paulay & Priestley (b) Equal Energy
a priori knowledge of the yield strength (Vy) of the approximation is illustrated in Figure 4.4b.
frame. The elastic stiffness is based on the secant
stiffness of the frame calculated from the force-dis- The nonlinear relationships presented in Figure 4.4
placement curve at the force corresponding to are described by the yield force (Vy ), yield displace-
O.75Vy The determination of the elastic stiffness (K) ment (~y), maximum force (Va), displacement corre-
is shown in Figure 4.4a. sponding to a limit state (~m)' and the displacement
immediately prior to failure (~u), Displacements ~m
The second method used to approximate the force- and d u are well beyond the yield displacement for
displacement relation of a frame is commonly termed ductile framing systems. The elastic stiffness (Ko) is
the equal-energy method. This method assumes that calculated by dividing the yield force by the yield
the area enclosed by the curve above the bilinear displacement. The post-yield stiffness (K 1) is com-
approximation is equal to the area enclosed by the monly defmed as a fraction (a) ofthe elastic stiffness
curve below the bilinear approximation. This bilinear as follows:
--en
en
ca
0.
1---7'--,.'+ ----Lj--fl---- Maximum strength
(RsVd)
Design strength( V d )
Period (seconds)
the strength and ductility factors is depicted in Figure in the literature. The function ofthis factor is to
4.5. The reader is referred to Uang and Bertero quantify the improved reliability of seismic framing
(1986) and Whittaker et al. (1987) for additional systems that use multiple lines of vertical seismic
infonnation. framing in each principal direction of a building.
4.5 Key Components of R A fourth factor, the viscous damping factor (R~), was
considered for inclusion in the new fonnulation -
Much research (ATC, 1982b; Freeman, 1990; ATC, primarily to account for response reduction provided
1995) has been completed since the first fonnulation by supplemental viscous damping devices. Such a
for R (Equation 4-4) was proposed. Recent studies, viscous damping factor could be used to reduce dis-
including those in the companion Project ATC-34, placements in a nonlinear framing system, but cannot
support a new fonnulation for R; that is, a fonnula- be used to proportionally reduce force demands,
tion in which R is expressed as the product of three especially for highly-damped frames. Recognizing
factors: that seismic design using response modification fac-
tors will remain force-based in the near tenn, the
(4-5) damping factor was excluded from the new formula-
tion.
where Rs is the period-dependent strength factor, Ril One objective of this report is to provide the reader
is the period-dependent ductility factor, and RR is the with information regarding the key components (or
redundancy factor. This formulation, with the excep- factors) that influence the numerical values assigned
tion of the redundancy factor, is similar to those pro- to R in the United States. The fonnulation of R in
posed by the Berkeley researchers (see Section 4.4) Equation 4-5 was put forth to provide a framework
and Freeman (1990). The Freeman formulation, for the rational evaluation of these parameters. Any
which was developed independently of the Berkeley evaluation of the key components of R must address
fonnulation, described the response reduction factor the fact that the components are not independent of
as the product of a strength-type factor and a ductil- one another. The background infonnation and
ity-type factor. research data presented in the following subsections
are intended to provide the reader with insight into
The redundancy factor, developed as part of Project
the four key components (i.e., reserve strength, duc-
ATC-34, is proposed in this report for the flTSt time
---------r------------.---"----------
tHity, damping, and redundancy) as well as the rela- professionals. For example, code-mandated limits on
tionships between these four components. No interstory drift may require the use of member sizes
relative importance should be inferred from the order in flexible (long-period) framing systems that are
in which the material is presented. greater than those required for strength alone - giv-
ing rise to period-dependent strength factors for drift-
The proposed formulation does not specifically
limited framing systems. Also, buildings located in
address the effects of plan and vertical irregularity in
lower seismic zones will likely have different reserve
framing systems. Irregularity could be addressed by strength values than those in higher seismic zones
reducing the response modification factor by a regu-
because the ratio of gravity loads to seismic loads
larity factor similar to that prescribed for the Level II will differ - resulting in zone-dependent values for
seismic design procedure in the Japanese 1981 Build-
the strength factor. Differences in regional construc-
ing Standard Law (see Section 3.2.2 for details). Sig-
tion practices and differences between actual and
nificant force-based penalties (higher design base nominal material strength will also affect the value of
shears) for the design of irregular framing systems the strength factor, but in less predictable ways.
would both discourage the use of irregular framing
and reduce the uncertainties associated with the non- Osteraas and Krawinkler (1990) made some qualita-
linear response of irregularly framed buildings. For tive observations regarding the likely reserve
additional information, the reader is referred to the strength of buildings as follows.
ATC-34 document. "... Small, low-rise (buildings) with non-
4.5.1 Strength Factor structural partitions and architectural
elements whose design is controlled by
The maximum lateral strength of a building will gen-
loading conditions other than seismic
erally exceed its design strength. Merovich (unpub-
will have high (reserve strength) '" The
lished) notes that:
effect of nonstructural partitions ... will
..... In general, members are designed decrease with increasing height, as the
with capacities equal to, or in excess of 'scale' of the nonstructural elements
their design loads. While the degree to becomes small compared to that of the
which their capacities exceed the design structural elements and as the seismic
requirements is a measure of the design loading condition (controls the member
efficiency, all properly executed designs proportions)..."
contain some degree of overstrength or
excess capacity as a consequence of the A method for evaluating the reserve strength of a
design procedure. In some instances, . building follows. Sample values of Rs calculated by
geometry or other detail code provisions different researchers are also included.
will dictate larger member sizes and
Evaluation of Strength Factors
hence greater capacities than those
solely based upon conformity to stress/ Nonlinear static analysis (also termed pushover anal-
strength provisions. In other instances, ysis) can be used to estimate the strength of a build-
design provisions related to displace- ing or framing system (ATC, 1982b; Bertero, 1986;
ment parameters will produce larger Freeman, 1990; Hwang and Shinozuka, 1994; Uang
member sizes than those dictated by and Bertero, 1986; Whittaker et aI., 1990). The pro-
stress/strength provisions. For members cedure used to estimate the strength of a building is
that are sized to resist significant gravity straightforward, but requires the analyst to select a
loads, a substantial percentage of the limiting state of response. Typical limiting responses
overall capacity may be available since include maximum interstory drift and maximum
actual loads are probably at levels far plastic hinge rotation. The steps in the procedure are
below the design value at the time of the as follows:
earthquake..."
1. Using nonlinear static analysis, construct the
The strength factor will likely depend on many base shear-roof displacement relationship for the
parameters not immediately obvious to many design building.
This method of evaluating the strength factor was Hwang and Shinozuka (1994) studied a four-story,
used to create the estimates of strength factors given reinforced concrete, intennediate moment frame
below. Appendix A demonstrates the use of non lin- building located in UBC seismic zone 2. The design
ear static analysis to construct the base shear-roof base shear for this building was 0.09W. The maxi-
displacement relation for a building and evaluate the mum lateral resistance of the building was calculated
strength factor for that building. to be 0.26W, resulting in a strength factor of2.2 ifno
limits are placed on the damage to the framing sys-
Estimates of Strength Factors tem. (lfthe perfonnance level selected for the design
earthquake were no damage to the structural frame,
The reserve strength in common seismic framing sys-
the strength factor would have been approximately
tems has been studied by a number of researchers
1.6).
using nonlinear static analysis. The results of some of
these studies are summarized below. The scatter in the reported values for the strength fac-
tor is significant - and too large to be of much use
Freeman (1990) reported strength factors for three
to the design professional community. It is clear that
three-story steel moment frames, two constructed in
coordinated and systematic studies are needed to
seismic zone 4 and one in seismic zone 3. The
develop strength factors of sufficient reliability to be
strength factors, after modification to reflect strength
included in seismic design codes. These studies
design, were reported as 1.9,3.6, and 3.3, respec-
ought be conducted at the national level to effectively
tively. Earlier studies by Freeman (ATC, 1982b) esti-
address the issues identified earlier in this section.
mated strength factors, after modification to reflect
strength design, of approximately 2.8 and 4.8, for 4.5.2 Ductility Factor
four-story and seven-story reinforced concrete
The seismic response parameters of displacement
moment frames, respectively.
capacity, ductility, and ductility ratio are closely
Osteraas and Krawinkler (1990) conducted a detailed inter-related, but often confused. For example, a
study of reserve strength and ductility in three struc- frame with a large displacement capacity might have
tural systems: distributed moment frames, perimeter smaH ductility and a small ductility ratio, and a frame
moment frames, and concentric braced frames. The with a small displacement capacity might have small
framing systems were designed assuming (a) seismic ductility but a large ductility ratio.
loads per UBC seismic zone 4 and soil type $2, (b) Consider the force-displacement relationships for
dead loads of 70 psf, (c) Jive loads of30 psf, (d) a 3- two one-story building frames shown in Figure 4.6.
bay by 5-bay building plan using 24 square foot bays, The nonnalized force-displacement relationships are
and (e) an elastic period computed using a simplified idealized as elastic-plastic, the yield drift ratios are
relation related to building height. Osteraas and assumed to be 0.2 percent (Frame A) and 1.0 percent
Krawinkler reported strength factors ranging from (Frame B), and the maximum interstory drift ratios
1.8 to 6.5 for the three framing systems. For distrib- are assumed to be 1.2 percent (Frame A) and 3.0 per-
uted moment frames, the strength factor ranged cent (Frame B). The key seismic response parameters
between 6.5 in the short-period range to 2.1 at a are listed in Table 4.2 below. The values of the
period of 4.0 seconds. For perimeter moment frames, response parameters are constrained by the interstory
the strength factor ranged between 3.5 in the short- drift limit of 1.5 percent, which is consistent with the
Displacement
capacity of A
CI)
Ductili of B
f:!
o
LL
._-------------_._ - .. ..
8.---.---.---,..----,---,---,..-----r--....,
... 6 ;. . . _ _;_._.:
;:-._.-: . :J.1=6.
_._:_._ :. _._
o ..
U /.
~ : /: . . : J.1=4 : .
~4 j ' ';";< - ' - ' ; -'-': - ' - ' ; -'_'; _'_'; _._._
13 i-'-:' ""
:J .-_/ :J.1=2
a 2 1...... :..
tY'
OL..--.....L-.--"""----L-_--J...._ _~_ _.l..--_--..I._ _--'
o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (seconds)
for frequencies above 33 Hz (periods below 0.03 sec- R~ = [c(Jl- 1) + 1] lie (4-10)
ond):
where:
RlJ. = 1.0 (4-7)
Ta b
c(T, a) = - - + - . (4-11)
for frequencies between 2 Hz and 8 Hz (periods 1+T a T
between 0.12 second and 0.5 second):
The regression parameters a and b were obtained for
different strain-hardening ratios (tenned a in Figure
4.9) as follows:
o
g II
., :~=2
2-V
O ' - - - - " - -..........- -.......- -.........--L.-----'----I..---..I
o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (seconds)
...
~
m 2 r-----..,....------.------r----~--------,
(J)
Q)
(J)
co
1.5 ............ : : ~ . ."" +---: . .. . .
..0
u..
oo
'.
.......
-- .
_' 0
fg 1
co
Q)
~
(J)
lIE lIE ~=4;a= 0%
ct- - -0 ~=4; a= 10%
0.5 ..........................
Q)
~ . .- +- - + ~ = 8; a = 0%
..0 CJ 0 ~ = 8; a = 10%
u..
oo 0 '-- ---' ........ ......... ..I-. ----l
SDOF system. Krawinkler and Nassar concluded that system is approximately equal to the corresponding
the strength demands for SDOF systems must gener- SDOF system strength demand, suggesting that
ally be increased to be applicable for MDOF frame higher-mode effects need not be considered in this
structures. The modification factor, defined as the period range. For buildings with fundamental periods
required base shear strength of the MDOF system exceeding 0.75 second, higher-mode effects will
divided by the inelastic strength demand of the corre- necessitate an increase in the design lateral strength if
sponding first-mode SDOF system, limits the story target ductility ratios are to be satisfied. In general,
ductility ratio in the MDOF system to the target duc- the modification factor increases with increasing tar-
tility ratio. Modification factors for target ductility get ductility ratio and decreases with increasing
ratios of four and eight, and strain hardening ratios of strain hardening. MDOF systems without strain hard-
o percent and 10 percent are presented in Figure 4.9. ening drift more than the corresponding SDOF sys-
The reader is referred to Nassar and Krawinkler tem, and increased lateral strength is required to limit
(1991) for additional information. the story ductility ratio to the target value.
~6
o
U
rn
u.
~4
;::
(.J
::s . : Il = 2 :
o ..- . - .:---- .::-. - - '- -
2
Nassar & Krawinkler
- - - - Miranda - Rock
.- .- .- Miranda - Alluvium
oL-_---1..._ _"""--_--J._ _.....L..-_----''--_--'-_ _''---_---'
o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (seconds)
Miranda and Bertero Research the differences between these relationships are rela-
tively small, they can be ignored for engineering pur-
Miranda and Bertero (1994) summarized and
poses.
reworked the RI,J. - Jl. - T relationships developed by a
number of researchers including Newmark and Hall 4.5.3 Redundancy Factor
(1982), Riddell and Newmark (1979), and Krawin-
A redundant seismic framing system should be com-
kler and Nassar (1992), in addition to developing posed of multiple vertical lines of framing, each
general RI,J. - Jl. - T equations for rock, alluviu~, and designed and detailed to transfer seismic-induced
soft soil sites. The Miranda and Bertero equatIons inertial forces to the foundation. Although redun-
presented below were developed using 124 ground dancy is encouraged for lateral force-resisting sys-
motions recorded on a wide range of soil conditions, tems designed in the United States, the trend in
and assumed five percent of critical damping. Their California in recent years has been to construct seis-
equation for the ductility factor is mic framing systems composed of only a small num-
Jl. - 1 ber of vertical lines of seismic framing; that is,
RIl =--+1 (4-12) framing systems with minimal redundancy. This
<1>
trend in California is likely a result of poor under-
where: standing by earthquake engineers of the important
role played by redundancy in the response ofseismic
for rock sites: framing systems to severe earthquake shaking.
._.._---_.....\
------l
denotes a moment
connection
(and plastic ~J
hinge)
r
- ,__
denotes an
idealized pin
Mp = 100 k'
Seismic Seismic
framing framing
Frame A Frame B
square root of the number of independent strength similar to that proposed by Moses (1974) for wind
terms (plastic hinges in the sway mechanism) in the framing systems, the ratio of the nominal moment
redundant wind framing system was proposed. As strength (Mp ) of the beams in Frame A (eight total
illustrated below, similar logic can likely be applied plastic hinges) and Frame B (sixteen total plastic
to seismic framing systems. hinges) should be:
Consider the two framing systems with identical MA In
geometry depicted in Figure 4.11.Frame A is com- -!...B = ~=1.4 (4-13)
Mp 11./16
posed of one bay of seismic framing with each beam
member capable of developing a nominal plastic To achieve a similar level of reliability, the design
moment of 200 units. Frame B is composed of two lateral strength of Frame A should be 40 percent
bays of seismic framing with each beam member higher than that of Frame B.
capable of developing a nominal plastic moment of
As another example, consider the two framing sys-
100 units. Both limit analysis and nonlinear static
tems depicted in Figure 4.12. Frame C is composed
analysis would assign both frames the same maxi-.
mum lateral strength. However, using a methodology
denotes an
I~ Id.a1~"" plo
Frame C Frame D
r--.-------,--",----
of three bays of fram ing including one flexural wall relative strength and stiffness of the lines of vertical
capable of developing a nominal plastic moment of seismic framing in a redundant framing system, con-
1000 units. Frame D is composed of three bays of sider the base shear force-roof displacement response
framing including two flexural walls, each capable of of the reinforced concrete shear wall-steel moment
developing a nominal plastic moment of 500 units. frame dual system shown in Figure 4.13. This dual
Limit analysis would assign both framing systems system was chosen because many design profession-
the same lateral strength. Using the methodology of als consider the dual system to be a redundant seis-
Moses (1974), the ratio of the design lateral strength mic framing system.
of the shear walls in Frame C(one plastic hinge - at
the base of the wall) and Frame D (two plastic hinges The 1991 NEHRP Provisions state that ..... the
- one hinge at the base of each wall) should be 1.4 moment frame (in the dual system) shall be capable
to achieve a similar level of reliability. of resisting at least 25 percent of the design forces.
The total shear force resistance is to be provided by
Four lines of strength- and defonnation-compatible the combination of the moment frame and the shear
vertical seismic framing in each principal direction of walls or braced frames in proportion to their rigidi-
a building have been recommended as the minimum ties." For the purpose of this discussion, the shear
necessary for adequate redundancy (Bertero, 1986; walls are assumed to be ten times stiffer than the
Whittaker et aI., 1990). It could be possible to penal- moment frames. The design base shear values for the
ize less redundant designs by requiring that higher walls and moment frames are therefore 91 percent
design forces be used for such framing systems. For and 25 percent of the system design base shear (V in
example, if it is assumed that four lines of strength- Figure 4.13), respectively. Assuming that the shear
and deformation-compatible vertical seismic framing walls yield at a roof-drift ratio' (calculated by divid-
should form the basis of the response reduction fac- ing the roof displacement by the building height) of
tors in the UBC and NEHRP Provisions, redundancy 0.2 percent, and fail at a roof-drift ratio of 1.0 per-
could be explicitly accounted for by modifying the R cent, it is evident from Figure 4.13 that the moment
factor in a manner similar to that suggested in Table frames (also termed the back-up frames) neither con-
4.3. tribute substantially to the force-displacement
response of the building nor dissipate significant
The values shown in Table 4.3 are proposed to dem- energy at a roof displacement corresponding to the
onstrate a likely trend, stimulate discussion among displacement capacity of the shear walls. For the
design professionals and researchers, and to promote moment fr:unes to contricute sigr.iticantly to the
research and study. These draft values for the redun- response of a dual system, their stiffness and strength
dancy factor have no technical basis and are not should be similar to that of the shear walls.
intended for implementation in seismic codes or
guidelines. The need to use elements of similar strength and
stiffness applies to all lines of vertical seismic fram-
ing in a building. It is not sufficient to provide multi-
Table 4.3 Draft Redundancy factorsa
ple lines of vertical seismic framing in a building -
Lines of Vertical Draft the multiple lines of framing must be strength- and
Seismic Framing Redundancy Factor deformation-compatible to be capable of good
response in a design earthquake. Seismic frames not
2 0.71 meeting these conditions should probably not be con-
3 0.86 sidered redundant systems.
4.5.4 Damping Factor
4 1.00
Damping is the general tenn often used to character-
a. Values not intended for use in design or
ize energy dissipation in a building frame, irrespec-
codes
tive of whether the energy is dissipated by hysteretic
behavior or by viscous damping.
The use of strength- and defonnation-compatib1e
framing was emphasized in the previous paragraph. Damping accomplished by hysteretic behavior in a
To illustrate the importance of setting limits on the building responding in the elastic range is generally
------,----_----:---_ __
.."_. .".__.. ..
",, " ......
Base Shear r Dual system
0.5V
( Back-up moment frame
1.0%
Roof Drift Index (%)
---------_.----
unit mass developed in the dashpot of the SDOF sys-
tem. The solution to the equation of motion for the Table 4.4 Damping Factor as a Function of Viscous
SDOF system is Damping
r'--'
,-----------------_.,,_.._-_ .....
component factors of R could be used for such coor- have to be established through careful research.
dinated studies.
4.7 Rel1ab111ty of Values for R
Framing systems with less than four vertical lines of
strength- and deformation-compatible seismic fram- It is of paramount importance that revised values for
ing in each principal direction ofthe building, or R and the values for the component strength, ductil-
those possessing minimal torsional redundancy, ity, and redundancy factors be reliable, in the sense
should be penalized through the use of a redundancy that buildings designed using these factors should
factor. Limits must be placed on the relative strength meet the assumed performance level in the design
and stiffness of the vertical lines of seismic framing earthquake. Values for the strength and ductility fac-
in each principal direction of a building. The numeri- tors should be evaluated using a consistent methodol-
cal values assigned to the redundancy factor must be ogy. It is also important that sufficient numbers and
established using reliability theory. types of buildings be analyzed to permit statistical
evaluation and interpretation of the responses. The
Should seismic design practice in the United States values assigned to both R and its component factors
shift to displacement-based procedures rather than should aim to provide either a uniform level of risk
force-based procedures, it may be appropriate to for all framing systems or a level of risk that is con-
include a damping component in the R factor. Before sistently less than a yet-to-be-determined threshold.
this can be done, values for the damping factor will
5.1 Summary and Concluding 5. The values currently assigned to R for different
Remarks framing system will probably not result in uni-
form levels of risk for all buildings.
The objectives of this report were three-fold: (I) to
review the role played by response modification fac- The use of response modification factors is not lim-
tors (R factors) in the seismic design of buildings in ited to the seismic design of buildings in the United
the United States, (2) to document the basis of the States. A similar response reduction factor (Z) is used
values of R (and its working-stress equivalent Rw ) by Caltrans and AASHTO for the seismic design of
utilized in seismic codes in the United States, and (3) bridges in the United States. Moreover, response
to propose a method for the systematic and rational modification factors or their equivalents are used in a
determination of values of R for seismic framing sys- number ofcountries for seismic design. In Chapter 3,
tems used in the United States, including the determi- response modification factors in use in Europe,
nation of values for the key components of R. Japan, and Mexico were studied, and the numerical
values of R for three framing systems were compared
The focus of Chapter 2 was the historical develop- with those used in the United States. The investiga-
ment of values for Rand Rw . It was reported that val- tion showed that larger values of R are used in the
ues for R and Rw could be traced directly to the United States than in Europe and Mexico. Given that
horizontal force factor K first introduced into seismic the seismic performance objectives are similar in all
codes in the United States in 1959, and that the val- cases, the conclusion drawn from the study was that
ues for K represented the consensus opinion of expert the values of R in seismic codes in the United States
structural engineers in California in the late 1950s. may not be sufficiently conservative.
The values assigned to K were based on engineering
judgement, and not on detailed analysis - not sur- Chapter 4 described the impact of R on the seismic
prising since the requisite analytical tools were not design process, introduced force-displacement rela-
available to the design professional community until tions for buildings, summarized the experimental
the mid 1970s. This investigation concluded that: evaluation of R for two steel-braced framing systems,
and proposed a new formulation for R. The results of
1. There is no mathematical basis for the response an experimental program at the University ofCalifor-
modification (R) factors tabulated in modern nia at Berkeley were reviewed. These results suggest
seismic codes in the United States. that the values of R tabulated in the NEHRP Provi-
sions for concentrically and eccentrically braced
2. A single value of R for all buildings of a given frames are not sufficiently conservative, and that fur-
framing type, irrespective of plan and vertical ther study is needed.
geometry, cannot be justified.
The new formulation for the response modification
factor splits R into factors related to reserve strength,
3. To ensure consistent levels of damage, values for
ductility, and redundancy. The implications of intro-
R should depend on both the fundamental period
ducing a damping factor into the new formulation
of the building and the soil type on which the
were also addressed. Further, procedures for evaluat-
building is founded.
ing strength and ductility factors using commercially
available analytical tools were proposed.
4. The values assigned to R for a given framing sys-
tems should vary between seismic zones because The lessons to be learned from the 1994 Northridge
the reserve strength in a framing system will and 1995 Kobe earthquakes are clear. First, moderate
probably be a function of the ratio of the gravity magnitude earthquakes can produce elastic seismic
loads to the seismic loads. Also, detailing demands substantially greater than those assumed by
requirements currently vary by zone. seismic codes in the United States. Second, moderate
,_._-.,------------- ,-------r---.------"--.----.- .
magnitude earthquakes in major urban areas can For this reason, and recognizing that there is no
result in huge social and economic losses. Although sound basis for the values assigned to R in U.S. seis-
damage and loss of older structures was expected in mic codes, it is of paramount importance to establish
these earthquakes, damage to buildings and bridges appropriate values for R through rigorous research
designed to modern seismic standards was not. The and study so that the intended perfonnance of the
degree of loss in both earthquakes was too high - building stock can be realized with a high degree of
the seismic risks can and must be mitigated. One key reliability.
step in the mitigation effort is to improve the reliabil-
This report has proposed a draft fonnulation for the
ity of new construction in a timely manner. One
obvious way to improve the reliability of new con- systematic quantification of R and its component fac-
tors and has recognized the need to quantify the
struction is to improve the reliability of the response
redundancy factor through reliability analysis. A
modification factors used in the seismic codes.
coordinated action plan is currently being developed
5.2 Recommendations (ATe, 1995) to systematically evaluate R for differ-
ent framing systems in all regions in the United
Static lateral force analysis and design procedures are States, and to improve the reliability of current seis-
key components of routine seismic design in practice mic design procedures. The execution of this action
in the United States. One key step in the procedure is plan will require significant funding from federal
the calculation of design forces. These are typically agencies. However, the rapid implementation of this
calculated by dividing the elastic spectral force by a plan will substantially reduce the exposure offederal,
response modification factor (R). Even with the state, and local agencies to substantial loss in future
advent of powerful nonlinear analysis packages, elas- earthquakes in the United States. Further, the knowl-
tic design procedures are likely to be used for much edge gained from these studies should prove useful
seismic analysis and design in the foreseeable future for the evaluation and rehabilitation of older con-
and such procedures necessarily make use of a struction.
response modification factor in one fonn or another.
------l.....--------..,-----
r-'
Appendix A: Evaluation of Building Strength and
Ductility
-~--------,,_
1-'---" .._ --
accounted for separately. reinforced concrete floor slab. Similarly, the yield
strength of a wide-flange steel beam should be based
The mathematical model of a building should include
on the likely yield stress rather than the nominal
the following: (a) all elements and components ofthe yield stress.
seismic and gravity framing systems, (b) nonstruc-
tural components in the building likely to possess Connections between framing members should be
significant stiffness and strength, and (c) elements of modeled unless the connection is sufficiently stiff to
the foundation system (footings, piles, etc.) that are prevent relative deformation between the connected
sufficiently flexible and/or weak to contribute to the elements or components and the connection is stron-
response of the building. The distribution of the ger than the connected elements or components.
equivalent lateral static loads (see Section A.2.6) in A.2.4 Nonlinear Static Procedure
the mathematical model should be adequate to cap-
ture all key dynamic effects on the seismic and grav- The nonlinear static procedure requires an a priori
ity framing system, the nonstructural components, estimate of the target displacement. The target dis-
and the foundation. placement serves as an estimate of the maximum dis-
placement of a selected point (node) in the subject
Gravity loads should be imposed on the mathemati- building during the design earthquake.The node
cal model to reflect those loads likely to be present associated with the center of mass at the roof level is
during earthquake shaking. The initial gravity load- often the target point or target node selected for com-
ing conditions (QG) can be described by one of the parison with the target displacement.
following two equations (ATC, in progress):
Nonlinear static analysis is integrated into the four-
QG = 1.1(QD + QL + Qs) (A-I) step nonlinear static procedure as follows:
1. Develop a two- or three-dimensional mathe-
QG = O.9QD (A-2) matical model of the building, as described
in Section A.2.2.
where QD , QL , and Qs are the dead, live, and snow 2. Impose constant gravity loads, and then apply
loads, respectively. Equations A-I and A-2 are static lateral loads (or displacements) in pat-
intended to provide upper- and lower-bound esti- terns that approximately capture the relative
mates, respectively, on the likely gravity loads on an inertial forces developed at locations of sub-
element or component. Other load combinations stantial mass.
(BSSC, 1991) can also be considered.
3. Push the structure using the load patterns of
A.2.3 Modeling Elements, Components, and Step 2 to displacements larger than those
Connections
associated with the target displacement (Le.,
The mechanical characteristics (i.e., force-deforma- the displacement of the target node exceeds
tion) of each element and component of the building the target displacement).
should be modeled in sufficient detail that their 4. Estimate the forces and deformations in each
important effects on the response of the building are element at the level of displacement corre-
reasonably represented. In most instances, the sponding to the target displacement (Step 4).
mechanical characteristics estimated for the analysis
will be elastic stiffness, inelastic stiffness, and yield The element force and deformation demands of Step
strength. Failure modes (e.g., shear) that may occur 4 are then compared with the element capacities in a
at deformations smaller than those anticipated in the manner similar to that demonstrated in Section A.3.
analysis should be accounted for in the element or A.2.5 DRAIN Computer Code
component model.
DRAIN-2DX (Prakash et aI., 1992) is a two-dimen-
Elements and components of buildings should be sional, general-purpose, nonlinear, finite-element
modeled using actual rather than nominal geometries analysis program developed at the University of Cal-
and mechanical properties. For example, the mechan- ifornia at Berkeley. The modeling and analysis pro-
ical characteristics of a beam in a reinforced concrete cedures incorporated in DRAIN-2DX are
frame should account for the likely presence of a
r-----------'--- ,----------
-----------_.. -._--_ - .. .,,"" '
I
summarized below. The DRAIN-2DX computer The static analysis segment is complete once either
code could be used for Steps 2,3, and 4 of the non- the entire load has been applied or a target displace-
linear static procedure described above. ment value is reached. In dynamic analysis, the time
step can be selected to be constant or variable. Fur-
Building framing systems are modeled as two-
ther options for dynamic analysis include event cal-
dimensional (X-Y) assemblages of nonlinear ele-
culations within time steps and corrections at the end
ments connected at nodes. Unless a node is restrained
of each time step to improve the energy balance or
or slaved to another node, each node has three
equilibrium.
degrees of freedom. Elements (and components) are
divided into groups, although alI elements of a given Second-order (or P - A) effects can be modeled in
type (e.g., beam-column) need not be assigned to a DRAIN-2DX by considering geometric stiffness for
single group. Masses are lumped at nodes, so the each element, and including second-order forces in
nodal points should be selected to adequately captUre the calculation ofthe resisting forces. For static anal-
the inertial response ofthe building. By lumping the ysis, the geometric stiffness is modified at each
masses at nodes, the mass matrix is diagonal.The event. For dynamic analysis, the geometric stiffness
damping matrix can be made proportional to the ele- can be kept constant or allowed to vary.
ment stiffness values and nodal masses.
Six element types are currently available in the
Numerous analysis types are available with DRAIN- DRAIN-2DX element library: (I) a truss element,
2DX, including (a) static gravity analysis for com- Type 01; (2) a beam-column element, Type 02; (3) a
bined element and nodal loads, (b) nonlinear static connection element, Type 04; (4) a panel element,
analysis for nodal loads, (c) eigen analysis for the Type 06; (5) a link element, Type 09; and (6) a fiber
evaluation of mode shapes and periods, (d) response- beam-column element, Type IS. Of these six ele-
spectrum analysis, (e) nonlinear dynamic analysis for ments, the most commonly used are the truss, the
ground motions defined by acceleration records, (f) beam-column and the connection elements. Some
nonlinear dynamic analysis for ground motions introductory remarks on these three elements folIow.
defined by displacement records, and (g) nonlinear The reader is referred to Prakash et al. (1992) for
dynamic analysis for specified initial nodal velocities additional information.
(for shock analysis). The program is sufficiently flex-
ible to allow a building (or structure) to be analyzed Truss elements transmit axial loads only and can be
for several analysis segments (or types), thus facili- arbitrarily oriented in the X-Yplane. The inelastic
tating sequential static and dynamic analysis. response of these elements can be specified as either
yielding in tension and elastic buckling in compres-
Loads are input as either patterns for static loads or sion or yielding in both tension and compression. A
as records for dynamic loads. Seven different load two-component parallel model (an element consist-
types are available with DRAIN-2DX, including (a) ing of elastic and inelastic components in parallel) is
static element load patterns - typically used for used to capture strain-hardening effects.
gravity loads, (b) static nodal load patterns consisting
of vertical, lateral. and rotational loads applied on Beam-column elements possess axial and flexural
nodes for gravity and static analysis segments, (c) stiffness and can be arbitrarily oriented in the X-Y
ground acceleration records, (d) ground displacement plane. Shear deformations and rigid-end offsets can
be accounted for in the beam-column element. Yield-
records, including an allowance for multiple support
ing is concentrated in the plastic hinges at the ele-
excitation, and (e) response spectra.
ment ends, and strain-hardening is approximated by a
DRAIN-2DX can perform both static and dynamic two-component parallel model. Different yield
analysis. In static analysis, the load is typically moments can be specified at the two element ends as
applied in a number of steps. The program selects well as for positive and negative flexure - two fea-
load substep sizes within each step by projecting the tures necessary to model reinforced concrete col-
next stiffness change (known as an event) and termi- umns and beams. Gravity and other static loads
nating the substep at that event. The structure stiff- applied to an element can be captured by specifying
ness is then changed at the end of each substep, and end clamping or fixed-end forces. Second-order
. the analysis is continued for the following substep. effects can be included by introducing equilibrium
-----------------"--_._..- .....
correction and geometric stiffness as noted above. to inelastic displacements is large - for any given
Three modes of deformation are available to beam- ground motion the ratio of elastic to inelastic dis-
column elements - axial deformation, flexural rota- placements could range between 0.5 and 2.0. A con-
tion at element end 1, and flexural deformation at servative approach to calculating the target
element end 2. A plastic hinge forms when the displacement, in the absence of additional informa-
moment in the element reaches the yield moment. tion, would be to increase the target displacement by
Inelastic axial deformations are assumed not to between 50 percent and 100 percent; that is, to
occur; that is, a beam-column cannot yield in axial assume that the inelastic displacement is equal to 1.5
tension or compression. to 2.0 times the elastic displacement.
The connection element connects two nodes with Nonlinear static analysis makes use offorce-defor-
identical coordinates in theX-Yplane. This element mation relationships for beams and columns that are
can connect either rotational displacements of the generally based on monotonic force-deformation
nodes or the translational displacements ofthe nodes, analysis. This assumption will likely be adequate for
and it can be specified to achieve complex inelastic buildings designed to experience less than three dis-
behaviors. A common applica~ion for this element is placement cycles to between 80 percent and 100 per-
the modeling of beam-column panel zones in steel cent ofthe target displacement. On the other hand,
frames. consider a building in the near-source zone with a
A.2.6 Lateral Load Profiles for Analysis fundamental period of 0.5 second subject to a Richer
magnitude 7.5 event - this building may be sub-
Lateral loads should be applied in patterns that both jected to 10 to 20 displacement cycles to between 80
approximately capture the vertical distribution of percent and 100 percent of the target displacement.
inertial forces expected in the design earthquake and The strength and stiffness of the structural compo-
account for the horizontal distribution of inertial nents and elements in this building will most likely
forces in the plane of each floor diaphragm. Load degrade substantially over the course of the 10 to 20
patterns that bound the plausible distributions ofiner- displacement cycles. The question thus arises as to
tial force should be considered for design. how the design professional should account for the
effects ofcumulative damage. At present, there are
Two vertical distributions of inertial force commonly
no definitive answers for building framing systems
used for nonlinear static analysis are the distribution
(Reinhom, private communication). In the absence of
defined by the first-mode shape ordinates ofthe
definitive data, the design professional should reduce
building and the constant acceleration distribution,
the monotonic deformation capacity of structural
which corresponds to the formation of a weak first
framing elements and components to indirectly
story. For flexible buildings, a vertical distribution of
account for the deleterious effects of prolonged
seismic force that reflects the likely contributions of
strong ground shaking.
higher modes should be considered.
A.2.7 Target Displacement Calculation A.3 Seismic Evaluation of an Example
Building
The method most commonly used to evaluate the tar-
get displacement is based on the assumption that A.3.1 Description of Building
elastic and inelastic displacements are equal; that is,
The building selected for sample analysis is a seven-
the inelastic displacement of a SDOF oscillator with
story reinforced concrete building located in Los
initial (elastic) period T is equal to the elastic spectral
Angeles, approximately 13 miles south ofthe epicen-
displacement calculated using period T. This
ter of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. This build-
assumption is based primarily on the work of
ing was damaged in both the 1971 earthquake and the
Miranda and Bertero (1994) who demonstrated by
1994 Northridge earthquake.
exhaustive analysis that for periods greater than 0.5
second (for a rock site), mean elastic displacements This building was the subject of detailed analysis fol-
were approximately equal to mean inelastic displace- lowing both the 1971 earthquake (DOC, 1973) and
ments. This assumption should be carefully reviewed the 1994 earthquake (Lynn, private communication).
by the design professional calculating a target dis- The latter analysis effort was funded by the Federal
placement, because the scatter in the ratio of elastic Emergency Management Agency to verify the non-
,_._--.------------ ._--------------_._-_..---_._ _ _ .. .
linear static analysis procedures being developed for mathematical model of the building. Although some
the ATC-33 project (in progress). The analysis design professionals would choose to exclude the
results presented below are an extension of the interior slab-column framing from the mathematical
FEMA study. The results of this study are contained model of this framing system, it is inappropriate to
in a background report to ATC-33 Guidelines and do so in this instance, as is demonstrated below.
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation ofBuild-
ings. The second question to be answered is whether the
building can be represented using two-dimensional
The 63,000-square-foot building, designed in 1965, mathematical models; that is, uncoupling the three-
is approximately 62 feet by 160 feet in plan. The typ- dimensional independent framing systems along each
ical framing consists of columns on a 20-foot (trans- principal axis of the building. In the sample building,
verse) by 19-foot (longitudinal) grid. Spandrel beams the torsional response is small- especially so after
are located on the perimeter frames. The floor system the infill masonry walls are removed. As such, Lynn
is a reinforced concrete flat slab, 10 inches thick at (private communication) modeled the three-dimen-
the second floor, 8.5 inches thick at the third to sev- sional building with two two-dimensional framing
enth floors, and 8 inches thick at the roof. The systems - one per building axis.
ground floor is a four inch thick slab-on-grade, and
the foundation is piled. A typical floor framing plan Since the purpose of this appendix is to demonstrate
is presented in Figure A-I. Atypical transverse sec- the use of nonlinear static analysis, only the results of
tion and typical beam and column details are pre- the analysis of the longitudinal framing are summa-
sented in Figure A-2. Interior columns are 18 inches rized. The reader is referred to the aforementioned
square and exterior columns are 14 inches by 20 background report for additional information.
inches in plan. Spandrel beam sizes are shown in Fig- Two exterior frames and two interior frames were
ure A-2. included in the mathematical model of the longitudi-
The seismic framing system is composed of interior nal framing. The mathematical model of one-half of
slab-column moment frames and perimeter beam- the framing system is presented in Figure A-3. The
column moment frames. The design base shear force mathematical models of the interior and exterior
at the working stress level was (DOC, 1973): frames were linked together with rigid struts to simu-
late the assumed rigid floor diaphragm. The reactive
weights assigned to the seven suspended floors are
presented in Table A-I.
v = ZKCW = 1.0xO.67xO.057xW=O.04W
(A-3) A3.3 Modeling of Key Elements
The mathematical model of the frames was com-
The north face of the building, along column line D, posed of columns and beams. Beam-column joints
has four bays of masonry infill between the ground were not included in the model.
and second floor level, all at the eastern end of the
structure, between column lines 5 and 9. For simplic- The reinforced concrete columns were modeled
ity, these infill walls were not included in the mathe- using their gross-section stiffness. The axial force-
matical model described below. (Were this moment yield surfaces were established using stan-
evaluation to be used for the purpose of seismic reha- dard interaction curves, with capacity reduction fac-
bilitation, the infill walls would have been included tors (c\> ) set equal to 1. A strain-hardening ratio of
in the mathematical model.) five percent was assumed for all columns.
The reader is referred to the Department of Com- The exterior reinforced concrete beams were mod-
merce report (DOC, 1973, pp. 359-393) for addi- eled as L-beams. The slab width assumed to contrib-
tional information regarding the design and ute to the strength and stiffuess of the edge beams
construction of this sample building. was set equal to 30 percent of the perpendicular span
(often termed 12 ), The strength and stiffness values
A3.2 Modeling of the Building of the interior slab-beams were calculated using a
The first question confronting the engineer charged slab width equal to 60 percent of the perpendicular
with evaluating the building is what to include in the span. Beam and slab beam stiffness values were esti-
,------r---.-----,.,,----.-..---...
0
r
0
:'
il
~
&
J
1
I~
o '.' '.;: .'
.. ' .'
~
ti t! ~. ~ ~. l r 1
'.
'.
o z:
.......
;
2
u
w
w
..
~
....
z:
<
..
o~... .- . . "*
<
......
~
":f,- .1- ~ ,.... ~
. .f- ~f,-
. :f- '- ~
.0, - ..
~ I-
3
-
.'.
r ~
0- '-./
");1
1'_ .-,.
~OJa"" CP18
ii!tt-1r Tr-P.: I !
':' 1
i
11 . .r
o
I
~
..., : . ;:u ..I
i,n
~
. ;1
'2
J I:
..
1 =: i!
!
I ,.~(r::1
J
]
:
!: ii
a "71
J
:a
1
.."
: n
11 :
!: ~s ..<=
: <
< ':~"1<:' "';Y<::::',.'.:-:,:.,.:: ;'(I:I~-L( ::.<:f' . Cl
"2
" : ' ' '," . ', '0 . . . . . ' _
~
" , . . '. : : .' : "
."
0
I~ ~ 4(
.....fM
_..,..
..."..........
.....
__ .... ': . .
u
..
~_~_i:_~- " '.' ' '-.t...t----~A
" <
l....,.. ~.=<t';j.:.Ao&
1.,- ....::-l'::=:;:;-;;:r. u
..
0:
....
Figure A-2 Transverse section and typical details of sample building (DOC, 1973, p. 365).
,------------------------_._._--_ _ .
\,
Extenor Frame r Rigid Links
\,
Interior Frame
....,
....,
--<- 1--.[ ....,
.....
mated as one-half of gross stiftbess; flexure yield The base shear versus roof displacement relations for
surfaces were established using nominal material Analysis 1 and Analysis 2 are presented in Figure A-
properties. A strain-hardening ratio of.five percent 5. The strength of the framing system, calculated
was assumed for all beams and slab-beams. using a rectangular force profile, at a roof displace-
ment of20 inches (2.5 percent roof drift), is approxi-
A.3.4 Eigen Analysis Results
mately 10 percent larger than that calculated with a
The modal periods and shapes of the building frame triangular profile. Using the triangular profile
were established using the eigen solver in DRAIN- response data, and the equal energy method (see Sec-
2DX. The first three modal periods and the percent- tion 4.3), the yield displacement was calculated to be
ages of the total mass in each of these three modes approximately equal to 4.5 inches, and the yield force
are presented in Table A-2. The first three mode to be approximately equal to 16 percent of the reac-
tive weight of the building.
TableA-2 Dynamic Characteristics in the The locations of plastic hinges in the exterior frames
Longitudinal Direction, Sample at a roof displacement of20 inches are presented in
Building Figure A-6 for Analysis 1 and Analysis 2. The mech-
anisms associated with the two force profiles are dif-
Mode Perbd %o(TotaJ
(sees.) Mass ferent - the triangular profile results in a sway
mechanism involving the lower four stories and the
1 1.33 84 rectangular profile results in concomitant mecha-
2 0.45 11 nisms (i.e., a lower four-story sway mechanism and a
fourth story sway mechanism). Although the exist-
3 0.26 3
._-------,----------------_ ----_ . ..
------_
------ ..
0.25...-------r------.,...-----..----------.
. .
0.2 . , . : .. ~.:.:.~ 0":" ~ "....' _. _ .~.~. ':"'": ,-:-.-:.:-:.
...
-~
-c
.~ 0.15 ...........///
f~
.... : "
~-=_~__
,
__-..... ~,:"":""':7--::::--,_ N._---:_....__.::.... ......_:=.::..;..~.~.:_.:-:::.:;;.:.:: __.~=::.. .....
, .
. .
:E
o
Q) II
I!
. . ..
...
(.)
o 5 10 15 20
Displacement (inches)
Figure A-S Base shear versus roof displacement relations for sample building analyses 1 and 2.
+
(a) Analysis 1 (
(b) Analysis 2
Figure A-6 Plastic hinge locations, roof displacement of 20 inches, sample bUilding analysis 1 and 2.
ence of two mechanisms may seem counterintuitive, radian. This calculation was based on a plastic hinge
it should be noted that only the hinges in the perime- length ofO.5d (8 inches) and an axial load equal to
ter frame are shown in Figure A-6 and the force- the sum of the plastic beam shear forces and dead
deformation relationship for the interior frames plays loads above the second story. This maximum rotation
a key role in the force-deformation response ofthe of 0.005 radian was realized at roof displacement
building. values of 12 inches and 10 inches, for Analysis 1 and
Analysis 2, respectively.
A typical column and beam in the second story of the
perimeter frame (denoted C and B in Figure A-3, The maximum rotation capacity of the sample beam
respectively) were each analyzed for the purpose of was estimated to be 0.03 radian, assuming a plastic
demonstrating part of a typical seismic evaluation hinge length ofO.5d (14 inches). This maximum
procedure. beam rotation was reached at roof displacement val-
ues of 19 inches and 16 inches, for Analysis 1 and
For the sample column, the maximum rotation capac- Analysis 2, respectively.
ity of the subject column was calculated to be 0.005
r'.- ----.....----------",----
0.25.--------r-----,--,------.-- .....,
Analysis 1: All frames
Analysis 3: Exterior frames only
0.2 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ............... '"0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
-~
f
E
.~
(,)
0.15 ....................... ,. ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... . . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
~o
...
(,)
m 0.1
or.
... .. .
' . ..'-. . - - -. - . - -
'... ~ ...
--
(/)
__ ... -- I
... ... ... ... ... ...
Q)
~ --'.
CD
0.05 . . . /'" . . . '.. .. . ..
'.' ........ . ~
5 10 15 20
Displacement (inches)
Figure A-7 Base shear versus roof displacement relations for analyses 1 and 3.
This demand-capacity evaluation is simply intended number of columns and a seismic retrofit requiring
to demonstrate the nonlinear static procedure. The the provision of a new seismic framing system. Fur-
sample evaluation is by no means sufficiently rigor- ther, a decision to exclude the interior frame from the
ous for the seismic evaluation of existing construc- analysis model could result in a flexible retrofit solu-
tion. In a full evaluation, all beams, columns, joints, tion incapable of protecting the existing framing sys-
and components should be examined closely. In this tern.
example, the sample column was assumed to be flex-
ure-critical; this column is actually shear-critical, and A.4 Estimation of Strength, Ductility,
it could not accommodate the shear forces associated and R Factors
with a plastic hinge rotation of 0.005 radian.
A4.1 General
To demonstrate the importance of considering all of
The calculation of strength and ductility factors is
the structural framing in the mathematical model,
demonstrated in this section by use of a force-dis-
consider the base shear versus roof displacement
placement relationship established in Section A.3 for
relationships for Analysis 1 and Analysis 3 presented
the seven-story nonductile reinforced concrete
in Figure A-7. The data presented in this figure dem-
moment frame. For the purpose ofthis discussion,
onstrate that the stiffness of the exterior frames and
the results ofAnalysis 1 (triangular load pattern) are
interior frames is similar - that is, the stiffness of
used to derive estimates of the strength and ductility
the interior slab-column frame approaches that ofthe
factors, and the maximum roof displacement is
exterior beam-column frame. It also shows that the
assumed to be eight inches. This roof displacement
strength of the interior frames and exterior frames is
estimate ignores both the likelihood of shear failure
similar. If a designer were to ignore the stiffness and
in the non-ductile columns and the limited deforma-
strength of the interior frames, the fundamental
tion capacity of the interior frame column-slab con-
period of the building would be overestimated by
nections. These assumptions would not be valid were
40% and the target displacement overestimated by a
this an evaluation for the purpose of assessing the
factor approaching two. Such an error in judgment
seismic vulnerability of the building. The displace-
might mean the difference between a ~eismic r~tr~fit
ment capacity of the frame is reduced from 12 inches
involving jacketing and/or strengthemng of a limited
~
' -'
Maximum base shear
C I
coefficient = 0.17
.~ 0.15 .
.2 .
:t:
Q)
o I :
o
... I . . .
~ 0.1 ......... f:::
.s:::
(fl I
~ /
~ / Design base shear coefficient = 0.06
0.05 / : ; ; .
/
'I
Figure A-8 Base shear versus roof displacement relation for analysis 1.
- - - 0 _ _- -
-------.,---_._----_.__._--_._ .." ........
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
,--------_._----_.. _--_._ .
seismic forces. greater the number of lines of vertical seismic
Load: framing of similar strength and stiffness, the
greater the redundancy (and reliability) of the
Dead Load (QD): The gravity load due to the seismic framing system.
weight of all permanent structural and nonstruc-
tural components of a building such as floors, Reserve Strength: The difference between design
roofs, and the operating weight of fixed service strength and maximum strength.
equipment. Resistance: The maximum load-carrying capacity,
Gravity Load (W): The total load and the appli- as defined by a limit state.
cable portions of other loads. Risk: Exposure to loss. Risk is defined as the proba-
Live Load (QrJ: The load superimposed by the bility of seismically-induced unacceptable per-
use and occupancy of the buildings, not includ- formance.
ing the wind load, earthquake load, or dead load. Shear-critical: The failure mode of a component or
The live load may be reduced for tributary areas element that is governed by shear response.
as permitted by the building code administered
by the regulatory agency. Story Drift Ratio: The relative displacement of two
adjacent floors, divided by the story height.
Load Factor: A factor by which a nominal load
effect is multiplied to account for the uncertainties Story Shear: The summation of design lateral force
inherent in the determination of the load effect. at the level above the story under consideration.
Strength Design: A method of proportioning struc-
Partial Safety Factor: The factor by which the ele-
tures based on the ultimate strength of critical sec-
ment safety factor should be modified to account for
tions.
its presence in the structural system, so that the over-
all failure probability is similar to that desired for the Uniform Risk: A term used to describe equallikeli-
element. hood of loss or damage.
Performance Objective: A level of seismic func- Wall: A component, usually placed vertically, used
tionality that a building owner or occupant expects of to enclose or divide space.
a structure. Sample performance objectives include
Wall System, Bearing: A structural system with
no collapse, preservation of life safety, damage con-
bearing walls providing support of all or major por-
trol, immediate occupancy, and fully functional.
tions of the vertical loads. Structural walls or braced
Redundancy: A measure of the number of lines of frames provide seismic force resistance.
vertical seismic framing in a building. The
ATC, 1982a, Seismic Design Guidelinesfor Highway Freeman, S.A., 1990, "On the correlation of code
Bridges, ATC-6 Report, Applied Technology forces to earthquake demands," Proceedings of
Council, Redwood City, California. the 4th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Improvement of
Building Structural Design and Construction
ATC, 1982b, An Investigation ofthe Correlation Practices, ATC-15-3 Report, Applied Technol-
Between Earthquake Ground Motion and Build- ogy Council, Redwood City, California.
ing Performance, ATC-IO Report, Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, California. Gomez, R. and F. Garcia-Ranz, 1988, "Complemen-
tary technical norms for earthquake resistant
ATC, 1995, A Critical Review ofCurrent design", Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 4 (3): 441-
Approaches to Earthquake Resistant Design, 460.
ATC-34 Report, Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, California. Hwang, H. and M. Shinozuka, 1994, "Effect of large
earthquakes on the design of buildings in eastern
ATC, in progress. Guidelines and Commentary for United States," Proceedings ofthe Fifth U.S.
the Seismic Rehabilitation ofBuildings, Volumes National Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
I and II, ATC-33.03 Report, Applied Technology ing, Chicago, Illinois.
Council, Redwood City, California.
lAEE, 1992, Earthquake Resistant Regulations, A
BSSC, 1985, 1988,1991, 1994, NEHRP Recom- World List, International Association for Earth-
mended Provisions for the Development ofSeis- quake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
mic Regulationsfor New Buildings, Building
Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C. ICBO, 1961, 1976,1985,1988,1991,1994, Uniform
Building Code, International Conference of
Bertero, V.V., 1986, "Evaluation of response reduc- Building Officials, Whittier, California.
tion factors recommended by ATC and
SEAOC," Proceedings ofthe Third U.S. Krawinkler, H. and A.A. Nassar, 1992, "Seismic
National Conference on Earthquake Engineer- design based on ductility and cumulative damage
ing, Charleston, North Carolina. demands and capacities," Nonlinear Seismic
Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete
Caltrans, 1990, Bridge Design Specifications Man- Buildings, Fajfar, Krawinkler, edd, Elsevier
ual, California Department of Transportation, Applied Science, New York.
Division of Structures, Sacramento, California.
Miranda, E. and V.V. Bertero, 1994, "Evaluation of
Clough, R.W. and J. Penzien, 1993. Dynamics of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resis-
Structures, McGraw Hill, New York. tant design," Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 10 (2):
357-379.
CEC, 1988, Structures in Seismic Regions - Design -
Part 1, Eurocode No.8, Commission of the Moses, F., 1974, "Reliability of structural systems,"
ATC-19 References 51
,_._-----
I
--_" - ,----_---:.._-;----------~-_ ..__._._._--_.... _...
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 100 Proceedings ofthe 3rd US-Japan Workshop on
(ST9): 1813-1820. Improvement ofStructural Design and Construc-
Nassar AA and H. Krawinkler, 1991, "Seismic tion Practices, ATC-15-2 Report, Applied Tech-
Demandsfor SDOF and MDOF Systems," John nology Council, Redwood City, California.
A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, SEAOC, 1959, 1974, 1985, 1988, 1990, Recom-
Report No. 95, Stanford University, Stanford, mended Lateral Force Requirements and Com-
California. mentary, Seismology Committee, Structural
Newmark, N.M. and W.J. Hall, 1982, Earthquake Engineers Association of California, Sacra-
mento, California.
Spectra and Design, EERI Monograph Series,
EERI, Oakland. Uang, C.M. and V.V. Bertero, 1986, Earthquake
Osteraas, J.D. and H. Krawinkler, 1990, Strength and Simulation Tests and Associated Studies ofa 0.3-
Scale Model ofa Six-Story Concentrically
Ductility Considerations in Seismic Design, John
Braced Steel Structure, Earthquake Engineering
A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center,
Research Center, Report No. UCBIEERC-86110,
Report 90, Stanford University, California.
University of California, Berkeley, California.
Paulay, T. and MJ.N. Priestley, 1992, Seismic
Uang, C.M. and A Maarouf, 1993, "Safety and econ-
Design ofReinforced Concrete and Masonry
omy considerations ofUBC seismic force reduc-
Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
tion factors," Proceedings ofthe 1993 National
Prakash, V., G.H. Powell, and F.C. Filippou, 1992, Earthquake Conference, Memphis, Tennessee.
DRAIN-2DX' Base Program User Guide,
Whittaker, AS., C.M. Uang, and V.V. Bertero, 1987,
Department of Civil Engineering, Report No.
Earthquake Simulation Tests and Associated
UCB/SEMM-92/29, University of California,
Studies of a O.3-Scale Model ofa Six-Story
Berkeley, California.
Eccentrically Braced Steel Structure, Earthquake
Riddell, R. and N.M. Newmark, 1979, Statistical Engineering Research Center, Report No. UCBI
Analysis of the Response ofNonlinear Systems EERC-87/02, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley,
Subject to Earthquakes, Civil Engineering Stud- California.
ies, Structures Research Series, 468, University
Whittaker, AS., C.M. Uang, and V.V. Bertero, 1990,
of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
An Experimental Study of the Behavior of Dual
Rojahn, C., 1988a, "An investigation of structural Steel Systems, Earthquake Engineering Research
response modification factors," Proceedings of Center, Report No. UCBIEERC-88114, Univer-
the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake sity of California, Berkeley, California
Engineering, Kyoto, Japan.
Wu,1. and R.D. Hanson, 1989, "Study of inelastic
Rojahn, C. and G.C. Hart, 1988b, "U.S. code focus- spectra with high damping," ASCE Journal of
ing on R-factor ofUBC, ATC-3, and NEHRP," Structural Engineering, 115 (6): 1412-1431.
52 References ATC-19
.----.---------_..._----