Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
M.J.N.Priestley
Co-Director
Rose School,
Collegio Alessandro Volta,
Via Ferrata, 27100, Pavia Italy
May 2003
as they were told to. The issue of expected and actual behaviour of buildings and
bridges was revisited in the Sixth Mallet Milne Lecture in 1997. Professor Roy Severn of
the University of Bristol presented Structural Response Prediction Using Experimental
Data drawing on his life-time experience in the dynamic testing of large structures
around the world and the application of the results to earthquake engineering. In the
Seventh Mallet Milne Lecture The Road to Total Earthquake Safety Professor Cinna
Lomnitz of the National Autonomous University of Mexico addressed the dynamics of
seismic wave propagation, the response of soft soils and the coupling of ground response
with structural response. In an eclectic presentation Professor Lomnitz stressed the need
to understand the interfaces between the many technical disciplines to determine what
kind of structure would survive the next earthquake regardless of the precise location of
the fault break.
In the Ninth Mallet Milne Lecture Nigel Priestley of the Rose School, Italy, presents
Revisiting Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering. Nigel has been a leading
critic of current seismic design methods. Over ten years ago he thoroughly examined a
number of the fundamental principles for the seismic design of structures and concluded
that in many cases current practices, particularly as entrenched in design codes, are based
on unrealistic concepts and approximations. A number of these concepts are revisited
and re-examined in the light of ten years research and development. The practice of
allocating strength of reinforced concrete elements in proportion to stiffness is shown to
be inappropriate. Use of 3D multi-modal elastic analyses is shown to be inadequate to
describe higher mode or torsional effects of inelastic systems, despite these being the
rationale for the use of this design approach. The superiority of performance of inelastic
structural systems with high inherent damping is shown to be a fallacy. Finally, Nigel
outlines the progress to develop a simple and rational seismic design procedure based on
displacement rather than strength considerations. Overall the paper is a challenge to the
many researchers and engineers working on structural analysis and design ~ a timely
reminder that there is still room for a considerable improvement in our understanding of
the seismic performance of structures.
Nigel Priestley is well known throughout the seismic community ~ having worked in
New Zealand, the USA and lately in Italy. Nigel Priestley is Emeritus Professor of
Structural Engineering of the University of California at San Diego, and is co-director of
the Rose School, and is a practicing structural consultant. His research is focused on the
seismic design of concrete and masonry structures, and on seismic design philosophy. He
has published more than 650 books, technical papers and reports, mainly related to
seismic design, and has received more than 30 international awards for his research. He
is a fellow of the ACI, the IPENZ, NZ Society for Earthquake Engineering, NZ
Concrete Society, and is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand.
SECED are delighted that the IUSS Press have agreed to publish the Ninth Mallet
Lecture in its entirety in this special issue. This will ensure that the many interested
individuals who could not attend the formal presentation will also be able to benefit.
Together with the previous Mallet Milne Lectures we are confident that this will be a
valuable resource to earthquake engineers for years to come.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION: A 1993 VIEWPOINT .1
1.1 The Fallacy of Design to Elastic Acceleration Spectra ...1
1.2 The Refined Analysis Myth ...4
1.3 The Strength = Safety Fallacy 5
1.4 The Myth of Maximized Energy Absorption .5
1.5 Myths and Fallacies Related to Reinforced Concrete Design and Detailing ...6
1.6 Scope of the Report ..8
CHAPTER 2. THE ELASTIC STIFFNESS OF CONCRETE MEMBERS ..9
2.1 Introduction .9
2.2 Elastic Stiffness of Circular Columns ..12
2.3 Elastic Stiffness of Rectangular Columns 16
2.4 Elastic Stiffness of Rectangular Walls ..19
2.5 Elastic Stiffness of Flanged Beams ..21
2.6 Yield Drift of Frames ..24
2.7 Conclusions 30
CHAPTER 3. MORE PROBLEMS WITH MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS ..32
3.1 Introduction 32
3.1.1 Higher Mode Effects in Equivalent Lateral Force Design ...32
3.1.2 Torsional Effects in Equivalent Lateral Force design ..34
3.2 Design Higher Mode Effects by Multi-Modal Analysis ...34
3.2.1 Higher Mode Effects in Cantilever Walls from Time-History Analyses ..36
3.2.2 Modified Modal Superposition for Design Forces in Cantilever Walls 44
3.2.3 Consequences for Capacity Design .48
3.2.4 Higher Mode Effects in Frame Buildings from Time-History Analyses ..48
3.3 Torsional Response of Building Structures .53
3.3.1 Torsionally Unrestrained Systems .. 54
3.3.2 Torsionally Restrained Buildings 56
3.4 Conclusions 58
CHAPTER 4. THE ENERGY MYTH SEISMIC RESPONSE OF PRECAST
PRESTRESSED STRUCTURES .60
4.1 Introduction ...60
4.2 Seismic Design Philosophy for Precast Concrete 61
4.2.1 Force-Based Design Recommendations for Strong-Connection Frames .63
4.2.2 Force-Based Design Recommendations for Ductile-Connection Frames 66
4.3 Unbonded Prestressing in Precast Design ...68
4.3.1 Theoretical Considerations ..68
4.3.2 Cyclic Tests of Precast Beam-to-Column Units with Unbonded Tendons .. 73
max,duct = max,elastic =
T2
a(T ) g
4 2
(1.1)
R2 + 1
R2 + 1 T 2
max,duct = max,elastic
a
g
T
(
)
2
2R
2 R 4
(1.2)
max,duct = y
3R
8
(1.3)
y = max,elastic / R
Hence the design displacement is given by
max,duct = max,elastic
3
8
(1.4)
C
Moment
B
A
B
(a) Structure
C
Curvature
(b) Column Stiffness
forcement, as a result of the axial force variation caused by seismic axial load
under first mode lateral response (see Fig. 1.2(b)). Because this influence does
not extend to higher modes, where the compression column from first mode
response now has equal probability of tension from any of the higher modes, it
would seem to be impossible to allocate different stiffnesses to the columns
when multi-modal analysis is considered. It must thus be expected that forces
predicted in the columns by elastic modal analysis will be grossly in error.
1.3
It was shown that for many structures, including most reinforced concrete and
masonry buildings and bridges, increasing the strength does not automatically improve
safety at the design level of seismic response. If the strength increase is obtained merely
by increasing the flexural reinforcement ratios while keeping member dimensions
constant, then the displacement capacity of the structure will actually decrease as the
strength increases, as a result of reduced ultimate curvature capacity. Since displacement
capacity is more fundamental to damage control than is strength, it was argued that safety
may well be improved by reducing, rather than increasing strength.
1.4
As mentioned earlier, it has long been felt by designers and researchers that superior
seismic performance will be obtained when the hysteretic force-displacement response of
a structure absorbs the maximum possible energy. Thus emulating elastic/perfectlyplastic response as closely as possible has been seen as the ideal structural solution. In
the original Myths and Fallacies paper[1], this attitude was disputed, noting that there are
many cases where better response can be obtained with apparently less desirable loop
shapes.
Figure 1.3 compares three idealized hysteresis loop shapes elastic/perfectly-plastic, a
degrading stiffness model typical of reinforced concrete, and a non-linear elastic response
appropriate for a plastic hinge with unbonded prestressing tendons. Response is shown
both with, and without P- effects. It was shown that for different loop shapes, but
equal initial stiffness, the maximum response displacements were likely to quite similar,
though the displacements of the elastic/perfectly-plastic would generally be smallest, and
those of the non-linear elastic would generally be largest.
However, when residual
displacements were considered, the non-linear elastic was clearly the best solution, since it
had zero residual displacement, and the elastic/perfectly plastic was the worst, since
residual displacements for this hysteretic rule could be as much as 80% of the peak
displacement. Residual displacements with the Takeda degrading stiffness model were
less than those with the elastic/perfectly-plastic rule, as a consequence of the reduced
unloading stiffness.
(a) Conventional
Reinforcement
10
0.35 is applied to the gross-section stiffness of beams, while a value between 0.4 and 0.7
is specified for columns. This is clearly an improvement on the use of gross-section
values, but is still inadequate to represent stiffness to a degree of precision adequate to
justify modal analysis, since the influence of flexural reinforcement ratio is not included.
Regardless of what assumption is made, the member stiffnesses are assumed to be
independent of flexural strength.
The section stiffness can be assessed from the
moment-curvature relationship in accordance with the beam equation:
MN
y
EI =
(2.1)
where MN is the nominal moment capacity of the section, and y is the yield curvature of
the equivalent bilinear representation of the moment-curvature curve. This can be
explained with reference to Fig. 2.1, which shows a typical moment-curvature relationship
50000
Mu
Moment (kNm)
40000
MN
30000
My
20000
10000
'y y
0
u
0.02
0.04
0.06
Curvature (1/m)
11
together with a bilinear approximation. The curve in Fig. 2.1 is the moment-curvature
response of a square 1.6m x 1.6m column, with moderate axial load and reinforcement
content, and might be appropriate for a bridge column, or the base of a tall building.
It has become accepted by the research community that the most appropriate
linearization of moment-curvature relationships is by an initial elastic segment passing
through first yield, and extrapolated to the nominal flexural strength, MN, and a postyield segment connected to the ultimate strength and curvature. First yield of the
section is defined as the moment, My and curvature y when the section first attains the
reinforcement tensile yield strain of y = fy/Es , or the concrete extreme compression
fibre attains a strain of 0.002, whichever occurs first. The nominal flexural strength MN
develops when the extreme compression fibre strain reaches 0.004, or the reinforcement
tension strain reaches 0.015, whichever occurs first. Thus the yield curvature is given by
y = ' y (M N / M y )
(2.2)
Member stiffness depends on the distribution of curvature along the entire member
length not just at the critical section where yield will occur. However, experimental
evidence indicates that basing the member stiffness on the assumption that curvature
varies linearly with moment along the member is adequately accurate. This is partly
because slight reductions in curvature, below the linear assumption, for sections with
reduced moment are balanced by increased deformation due to shear effects and strain
penetration into supporting members. Also, after one or two cycles at or close to yield,
the moment-curvature response of all cracked sections up to yield approaches linearity.
Examination of Eq (2.1) reveals that the common design assumption that member
stiffness is independent of strength implies that the yield curvature is directly
proportional to flexural strength:
y = M N / EI
(2.3)
12
M1
M1
M
M
M2
M2
M3
M3
y2 y1
y3
(a) Design Assumption
(constant stiffness)
y
(b) Realistic Conditions
(constant yield curvature)
13
50000
Nu/f'cAg = 0.4
Nu/f'cAg = 0.3
Nu/f'cAg = 0.2
40000
40000
Nu/f'cAg = 0.1
Moment (kNm)
30000
Nu/f'cAg = 0.3
Nu/f'cAg = 0.2
20000
Nu/f'cAg = 0.1
Moment (kNm)
Nu/f'cAg = 0
Nu/f'cAg = 0.4
30000
20000
Nu/f'cAg = 0
10000
10000
0
0
0.002
0.004
Curvature (1/m)
(a) Reinforcement Ratio = 1%
0.006
0.002
0.004
Curvature (1/m)
(b) Reinforcement Ratio = 3%
0.006
14
M DN =
MN
f 'c D 3
(2.4)
Dy = y D / y
(2.5)
0.2
l= 0.04
0.16
l = 0.03
l = 0.02
0.12
l = 0.01
l = 0.005
0.08
0.04
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Ave. +10%
2.5
l = 0.04
Ave. -10%
l = 0.005
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
15
forcement ratio coupled with very high axial load ratio fall within the +/- 10% limits.
It should be noted that though the data were generated from a specific column size
and material strengths, the dimensionless results can be expected to apply, with only
insignificant errors, to other column sizes and material strengths within the normal range
expected for standard design. The results would not, however apply to very high material
strengths (say fc>50MPa, or fy>600MPa) due to variations in stress-strain characteristics.
The data in Figs. 2.3 and 2.4 can be used to determine the effective stiffness of the
columns as a function of axial load ratio and reinforcement ratio, using Eq. (2.1). The
ratio of effective stiffness to initial un-cracked section stiffness is thus given by
EI / EI gross =
MN
y EI gross
(2.6)
Results are shown in Fig. 2.5 for the ranges of axial load and reinforcement ratio
considered. It will be seen that the effective stiffness ratio varies between 0.13 and 0.91.
1
0.8
l = 0.04
l = 0.03
0.6
l = 0.02
l = 0.01
0.4
l = 0.005
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
16
It should be noted that for convenience in computing the stiffness ratios of Fig 2.5, the
gross stiffness of the un-cracked stiffness has been calculated without including the
stiffening effect of the flexural reinforcing steel. That is
I gross =
D 4
64
(2.7)
E = 5000 f ' c
(MPa)
(2.8)
17
30000
25000
Moment (kNm)
20000
15000
10000
Nu/f 'cAg = 0
Moment (kNm)
0.1
Nu/f'cAg = 0.4
Nu/f 'cAg = 0
20000
10000
5000
0
0
0
Curvature (1/m)
(a) Reinforcement Ratio = 1`%
0.002
0.004
0.006
Curvature (1/m)
(b) Reinforcement Ratio = 3%
M DN =
MN
f ' c bh 2
Dy = y h / y
(2.9)
The dimensionless
(2.10)
Trends for the rectangular columns, apparent in Fig. 2.7, are similar to those displayed in
18
l = 0.04
l = 0.03
0.2
l = 0.02
l = 0.01
0.1
l = 0.005
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
2.5
Ave. + 10%
l = 0.04
Average
Ave. - 10%
l = 0.005
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
I gross =
bh 3
12
(2.11)
19
0.8
l = 0.04
l = 0.03
0.6
l = 0.02
0.4
l = 0.01
l = 0.005
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
20
though the latter is the more common case, this is largely because of the misconception
that concentrating the flexural reinforcement at the wall ends increases the flexural
capacity when compared with the same total amount of reinforcement distributed
uniformly along the wall length. In fact, the flexural strength of the two distributions
will be almost identical, as simple trial calculations will show. As with the distribution of
flexural reinforcement in beams of frame buildings, discussed in Section 1.5, shear
performance will be enhanced by uniform distribution of reinforcement, which should
thus be preferred over concentration at the wall ends.
Results are presented in Fig.2.9 for the dimensionless yield curvature for walls with
different axial load ratios and reinforcement ratios, in similar fashion to the above
analyses for columns. However, lower ranges of axial load ratio (with a maximum of
Nu/fcAg= 0.12), and reinforcement ratio ( with a maximum of l = 0.02) were adopted
since these were considered to be practical upper limits for structural walls. A
reinforcement ratio of 0.005 was considered to be uniformly distributed along the wall
length, with the remainder concentrated near the wall ends. In Fig.2.9 the yield curvature
has been made dimensionless by multiplying by the wall length lw, and dividing by the
yield strain y of the flexural reinforcement, in similar fashion to columns in Eqs.(2.5) and
(2.10).
21
An average value of
Dy = y l w / y = 2.0
(2.12)
is plotted on Fig.2.9, together with lines at average +5% and average 5%. It is seen that
except for the case of l = 0.005 (which in this case means uniformly distributed
reinforcement without additional end reinforcement), coupled with low axial load, all data
conform to the average +/- 5%.
Analyses where all the flexural reinforcement was distributed uniformly along the wall
length resulted in an average dimensionless curvature approximately 10% higher than
given by Eq.(2.12), with about twice the scatter of Fig. 2.9[6]. The effective stiffness for
rectangular walls can thus be calculated, as a fraction of gross wall stiffness as
EI / EI gross =
MN
1
3
( Dy y / lw ) E (tlw / 12)
(2.13)
where t is the wall width, and MN is the calculated nominal flexural strength. In Eq.
(2.13), Dy is given by Eq. (2.12) for walls with most of the flexural reinforcement
concentrated at the wall ends, or by 1.1 times the value from Eq. (2.12) when all the
reinforcement is uniformly distributed along the wall length.
2.5 ELASTIC STIFFNESS OF FLANGED BEAMS
In order to investigate the influence of flexural reinforcement content on the yield
curvature and effective stiffness of beams incorporated in ductile building frames, the
typical beam section of Fig. 2.10 was considered in an earlier study[7]. Top and bottom
24
effective stiffness ratio is highly dependent on the reinforcement ratio, though axial load
is not considered relevant for beams in frame design.
2.6 YIELD DRIFTS OF FRAMES
The information provided in the previous sections is sufficient to enable realistic
estimates of frame member elastic stiffnesses to be made, provided reinforcement
content and axial load ratios are known. It will be noted that since dimensionless yield
curvatures can be considered to be constant for a given section type, the effective
stiffness can be directly estimated, with considerable accuracy, once the nominal flexural
strength is determined, using Eq.(2.1). This would enable refinement of the analysis
process for seismic design, when force-based procedures are used.
The comparative invariance of dimensionless yield curvature indicates that yield drift of
frames might similarly be essentially independent of reinforcement ratio and strength.
Fig.2.11(a) shows a typical beam/column subassemblage extending half a bay width either
side of the joint, and half a storey height above and below the joint. This can be
considered a characteristic element of a frame building. Since bay width will normally
exceed storey height, and column curvatures will typically be less than beam curvatures as
a consequence of capacity design procedures[8], beam flexibility is likely to be the major
contributor to the deformation.
The deflected shape is shown in Fig.2.11(b). The yield drift y can be expressed as
y = by + jy + 2 c / lc + 2 s / lc
(2.15)
where by and jy are the rotations of the joint center due to beam flexure and joint shear
deformation respectively, c is the flexural deformation of the column top relative to the
tangent rotation at the joint center, and s is the additional deformation of the column
top due to shear deformation of beams and columns. To allow for strain penetration of
longitudinal reinforcement into the joint region, it is assumed that the yield curvature in
the beam develops at the joint centroid, and reduces linearly to zero at the beam midspan,
as shown in Fig.2.11(c).
The yield drift due to beam flexure is thus:
by =
y (0.5lb ) y lb
=
3
6
(2.16)
l
by = 0.283 y b
hb
(2.17)
25
26
Typical calculations based on a storey height/bay length ratio of 0.533 (storey height =
3.2m, bay length =6m) and a maximum column curvature of 0.75y indicate column
displacement c will add about 40% to the yield drift in Eq. (2.15). It is further assumed,
based on experience, that the joint deformation and member shear deformation add 25%
and 10% respectively to the yield drift. As a consequence, the yield drift is predicted to
be
l
y = (1.0 + 0.4 + 0.25 + 0.1) * 0.283 y b
hb
l
= 0.5 y b
hb
(2.18)
Equation (2.18) is compared in Fig.2.12 with the results from 46 beam/column test
assemblages which included a wide range of possibly relevant parameters[7], including
: 0.4 0.86
: 22.5MPa 88MPa
: 276MPa 611MPa
: 0.53% 3.9%
: 0 0.483
: 5.4 12.6
27
Test units with equal, and with unequal top and bottom reinforcement ratios were
considered, as were units with and without slabs and/or transverse beams framing into
the joint. Note that Eq.(2.18) only includes two of these parameters (beam reinforcement yield strength (which dictates the yield strain y = fy/Es), and beam aspect
ratio), on the assumption that the other parameters are not significant variables. Clearly
this is an approximation, and some error is expected. It should also be noted that a few
test results were discarded because of lack of joint reinforcement and premature joint
failure, resulting in excessive yield drifts. Also, a few units with unacceptably high ratios
of beam bar diameter to joint depth (db/hc), resulting in slip of beam bars through the
joint prior to yield were also discarded. Full details of the test units are available in [7].
As is apparent from Fig.2.12, the agreement between experimental drifts and
predictions of Eq.2.18 is reasonable over the full, and rather wide range of yield drifts.
The average ratio of experiment to theory is 1.03 with a standard deviation of 0.16.
Considering the wide range of parameters considered, the comparatively narrow scatter is
rather satisfactory.
In order to examine the sensitivity of the ratio of experimental drift to theoretical drift
(/T) to different potentially significant parameters, it is plotted against reinforcement
yield strength, maximum beam reinforcement ratio, beam aspect ratio, and test unit
aspect ratio in Figs. 2.13(a), 2.13(b), 2.13(c), and 2.13(d) respectively. In no figure is a
strong trend apparent, though there appears to be a trend for E/T to increase with
increasing test unit aspect ratio, and to decrease with increasing beam aspect ratio and
reinforcement yield strength. Most of these trends are expected: increasing column
height relative to beam length will increase the contribution of column deformation to
yield drift, and shear deformation will increase for low beam aspect ratio. The extent of
the influence is, however, not sufficient to justify increasing the complexity of the very
simple Eq.(2.18). Sensitivity to concrete compression strength and column axial load
was similarly low[7].
It is of interest to investigate the probable levels of yield drift to be expected in
modern design. Examination of Fig.2.12 indicates a range from 0.44% to 1.5%. These
are generally much larger than assumed for seismic design. However, many of the test
units investigated in Figs. 2.12 and 2.13 have proportions that would be considered
unusual for current design practice. If we consider a minimum probable bay length of
6.0m, and a typical beam depth of 600mm, then Eq.(2.18) will predict yield drifts of
1.03% and 1.25% for frames with beam reinforcement of 414MPa (North American
practice) and 500MPa (European practice) respectively. Since it is common to specify
maximum allowable drifts of between 2.0% and 2.5% under the design level earthquake,
the realistic maximum storey drift ductility demand must be in the range of = 1.6 to
2.5. Since structural displacement ductility demand will always be less than the drift
ductility demand of the critical storey, design ductility levels should be less than these
values. As a consequence it will almost never be possible to make full use of the
behaviour factors (displacement ductility limits) specified in most seismic design codes, if
the drift limits are to be maintained, and realistic estimates of elastic stiffness used.
28
29
31
Circular column:
y = 2.25 y / D
(2.19a)
Rectangular column:
y = 2.10 y / hc
(2.19b)
y = 2.00 y / l w
(2.19c)
T-Section Beams:
y = 1.70 y / hb
(2.19d)
For reinforced concrete frames, the yield drift can be expressed, with adequate
accuracy as
y = 0.5 y
lb
hb
(2.20)
It is noted that the analyses reported in this chapter identify a fundamental problem
with current force-based design:
Design: Strength is allocated in proportion to stiffness
Analysis: Stiffness is proportional to strength
S R = oS E
(3.1)
33
For the required moment capacity of cantilever walls, the base moment is amplified to
account for material overstrength, and a linear distribution of moments is generally
adopted up the wall height to account for higher mode effects. As is apparent from Fig.
3.1(a), this implies higher amplification of moments at midheight than at the base or top
of the wall. Reinforcement cut-off is determined by consideration of tension shift
effects. This is achieved by vertical offset of the moment profile. The design moments
thus do not exactly follow the form of Eq. (3.1).
Shear forces corresponding to the Equivalent Lateral Force distribution are amplified
by the flexural overstrength factor, and the dynamic amplification factor v directly in
accordance with Eq. (3.1), as shown in Fig. 3.1(b). This factor has been obtained from
previous research, and is presented elsewhere[8] in the following form:
V = 0.9 + n / 10
V = 1.3 + n / 30
for n 6
(3.2)
where n is the number of stories in the wall, and need not be taken greater than 15.
For frame structures, beam shear forces, and moments at locations other than potential
plastic hinges are amplified by the flexural overstrength factor. Since higher modes are
not normally considered for beam design, the dynamic amplification factor is not
normally included. However, it should be noted that vertical response is essentially a
1
0.8
0.8
Tension
Shift
0.6
Dimensionless height
Dimensionless Height
Linear +
Overstrength
0.4
Design
Forces
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0
0.4
0.8
Dimensionless Moment
1.2
+ Dynamic
Amplification
Design
Forces
Overstrength
0.5
1
1.5
2
Dimensionless Shear Force
2.5
34
higher mode, and may amplify the gravity moments considerable. A strict formulation
of capacity design would take this into account.
Column end moments and shear forces are amplified for both beam plastic hinge
overstrength and dynamic amplification. For one-way frames, upper limits for the
dynamic amplification of column moments of 1.80 have been recommended, with 1.3 for
column shear forces. Further amplification for beam flexural overstrength is required[8].
3.1.2 Torsional Effects in Equivalent Lateral Force Design
The consideration of torsion in the design of building structures is well established[8],
and is only briefly summarized here for design to the equivalent lateral force method.
The steps in the design process are as follows:
1. Determine the direct storey force to be distributed at each floor level, between
the different lateral-force resisting elements.
2. Determine relative elastic stiffnesses of all lateral-force resisting elements, and
allocate the storey force to the elements in proportion to their stiffnesses.
3. Determine the plan location of the center of elastic stiffness.
4. Determine the torsional polar moment of inertia, considering all parallel and
orthogonal lateral-force resisting elements.
5. Determine the calculated eccentricity e between the centers of mass and stiffness
for the storey under consideration. Consider variations in e to account for
accidental torsion.
6. From 1 and 5, determine the maximum and minimum torsional moments.
7. Determine the lateral forces in the lateral-force resisting elements to resist the
maximum and minimum torsional moments.
8. For each lateral-force resisting element determine the worst possible
combination of direct and torsional lateral force, and design the element for this.
3.2 DESIGN HIGHER MODE EFFECTS BY MULTI-MODE ANALYSIS
When multi-modal analysis forms the basis of seismic design, the higher mode effects
are directly considered in the analysis, since all significant elastic modes, rather than just
the fundamental mode, are included when determining the design forces.
The
individual response of each significant mode, in terms of lateral forces, element bending
moments or shear forces, and displacements are found from direct modal combination of
the relevant action or displacement. The procedure may be outlined as follows:
The mode shapes im and periods Tm of each significant mode m are calculated,
where i are the individual floors or mass locations.
The portion of the total structural mass m participating in each significant mode
is calculated as
35
im mi
i ,m =1
m = N
2
im mi
(3.3)
i ,m =1
i =1
VBm = Sa m g m mi
i =1
(3.4)
where Sam is the acceleration coefficient corresponding to mode m, and g is the acceleration
of gravity. Then, the modal base shear is distributed up the structure following
Fim = V Bm
im mi
(3.5)
im
mi
i , m =1
The modal displacements may be found using Equation (3.6), where Tm is the period
of vibration of mode m:
m = Sa m g
Tm2
4 2
(3.6)
im = im
im
i , m =1
N
mi m
2
im
(3.7)
mi
i , m =1
Elastic-response modal moments and shear forces are calculated from the modal
forces given by Eq. (3.5), and are then combined in accordance with established modal
Adopting the SRSS combination for
combination rules such as SRSS or CQC[9].
simplicity, the elastic forces and displacements are thus given by
N
Fie =
Fim2 , M ie =
i ,m =1
M im2 , Vie =
i ,m =1
Vim2 , and ie =
i ,m =1
i ,m =1
2
im
(3.8)
36
In Eqs. (3.4), (3.7), and (3.8), N is the number of significant modes considered.
The design forces are then determined by dividing the elastic forces by the behaviour
(force-reduction) factor, R, and the design displacements are taken as equal to the elastic
displacements. Thus:
FiD =
Fie
M
V
, M iD = ie , ViD = ie , and iD = ie
R
R
R
(3.9)
The assumption inherent in the above formulation is that the behaviour factor R
applies equally to all modes. A corollary of this is that design forces of a designed
structure are unaffected by the seismic intensity, provided that the intensity is sufficient to
induce inelastic response. This is because (say) doubling the seismic intensity will be
equivalent to doubling the behaviour factor. Although the elastic response forces,
moments and shears will all double, the strengths of the plastic hinges will remain as
designed, and hence the effective behaviour factor for the increased intensity must
increase proportionately. Since the increased behaviour factor applies to all modes, the
design forces, given by Eq. (3.9) are unchanged. Since the displacements are equal to
the elastic displacements, however, the displacement response (and hence the
displacement ductility demand) will be increased in direct proportion to the increase in
seismic intensity.
3.2.1 Higher Mode Effects in Cantilever Walls from Time-History Analyses
An analytical research project was recently carried out[10] to investigate the influence of
seismic intensity on the higher mode response of cantilever structural walls, and hence to
investigate, indirectly, the validity of design forces determined by multi-mode analysis.
Six walls, from 2 storeys to 20 stories were designed to the Eurocode 8 elastic
acceleration response spectrum of Fig.3.2, which is compatible with a peak ground
acceleration of 0.4g, and a medium soil condition (subsoil class B, characterized by deep
deposits of medium dense sand, gravel, or medium stiff clays with thickness from several
tens to many hundreds of metres).
The walls (see Fig.3.3) all had the same tributary floor mass of 60 tonnes, and gravity
load of 200 kN at each level, and were designed in accordance with direct-displacement
based design principles[11] to achieve maximum drifts (interstorey displacement divided by
interstorey height) of approximately 0.02 at the critical top storey, under the design levels
of seismic intensity. Wall lengths (lw), widths (b), reinforcement contents (l) and bar
sizes (db) varied from wall to wall in order to satisfy the design displacement criteria.
Details are listed in Table 3.1, which also includes the calculated plastic hinge length (lp),
the expected displacement and curvature ductility demands (, ), the effective period
at maximum displacement (Teff, approximately equal to
shear force and bending moment (Vb, and Mb).
37
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
Period (sec)
WALL E
WALL D
P
P
WALL C
P
P
WALL B
P
P
m
m
4@3m
P
P
P
P
8@3m
WALL A
P
P
P
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
P
12@3m
P
P
P
P
P
P
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
P
16@3m
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
m
m
m
m
P
20@3m
2@3m
0.8
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
WALL F
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
39
12
Height (m)
Height (m)
20
DBD
SRSS
15
SRSS/
10
ELF
DBD
ELF
0
0
2000
4000
Moment (kNm)
(a) 4-Storey Wall
6000
40
Height (m)
30
Height (m)
SRSS
20
30
20
10
SRSS
DBD
10
ELF
DBD
SRSS
ELF
SRSS/
SRSS/
0
0
10000
20000
Moment (kNm)
(c) 12-Storey Wall
30000
40
12
Height (m)
Height (m)
20
DBD SRSS
15
10
SRSS DBD
ELF
SRSS/
ELF
5
SRSS/
0
0
200
400
600
40
Height (m)
30
Height (m)
20
30
20
10
SRSS DBD
SRSS/
ELF
SRSS/
10
SRSS
ELF
DBD
0
0
400
800
Shear Force (kN)
(c) 12-Storey Wall
1200
400
800
1200
Shear Force (kN)
(d) 16-Storey Wall
1600
Fig. 3.5 Comparison of Wall Design Shear Forces for Different Design
Procedures
41
indicated by DBD. Results from the multi-mode analysis are indicated as SRSS, and
the equivalent lateral force procedure by ELF. In both SRSS and ELF designs, a
behaviour (force-reduction) factor of R=4 was adopted to reduce the elastic response.
The ELF procedure always produces higher design moments and shear forces than the
other two methods, and except for short-period structures, the multi-mode procedure
results in lower forces than the DBD procedure.
In this study, the aspect of greatest interest was the shape of the moment and shear
force envelopes, as compared with inelastic time-history results. Since the walls analyzed
were the displacement-based designs, the multi-mode designs were factored to produce
the same design base moment as the displacement-based designs, thus ensuring
approximately equal displacement ductility demand. This implies a reduction in the
design ductility for the multi-modal analysis from the design value of R=4. The resulting
modified design forces for the multi-mode analyses are indicated in Figs. 3.4 and 3.5 as
SRSS/. Note that, as required, the base moments for this design set in Fig 3.4 are
the same as the displacement-based designs, but the SRSS/ base shear forces are
significantly higher than the displacement-based shear forces. This is because the multimode analyses provide at least some direct consideration of higher mode effects. For
displacement-based design, a dynamic amplification factor would be applied to determine
the design shears, in accordance with the approach outlined in connection with Fig. 3.1.
The influence of higher mode effects are also apparent in the shapes of the SRSS/
moment profiles above the base, particularly for the taller walls, and similarly in the upper
levels of the wall shear force distributions.
The DBD wall designs (and hence also the SSRS/ designs) were analyzed using a
suite of five spectrum compatible earthquake records, scaled to different multiples of the
design intensity, from 0.5 to 2.0. The computer code Ruaumoko[12], was used for the
analyses, with hysteretic behaviour of potential plastic hinge regions represented by a
realistic modified Takeda hysteresis rule. Note that higher mode effects are rather
sensitive to the hysteretic model assumed, and earlier work carried out on the less realistic
simplified elasto-plastic hysteresis provide somewhat different results.
Moment and shear force envelopes from the time-history analyses at different seismic
intensities are compared with the SRSS/ design values in Figs. 3.6 and 3.7 respectively.
In these figures, IR indicates intensity ratio, or the multiple of the design seismic
intensity. Thus IR = 1 indicates the design intensity, IR = 0.5 indicates 50% of
design intensity, and so on.
Referring first to Fig.3.6, we see that the time-history analysis results indicate only
small increases in base bending moment with increasing intensity, as expected, since the
increase, once the nominal moment capacity has been reached is only the result of the
post-yield stiffness of the moment-curvature characteristic at the wall base. However, at
levels above the base, and particularly at wall mid-height, moments increase very
significantly with increasing intensity, especially for the eight and sixteen storey walls.
Note that as multi-modal analysis is currently formulated, in accordance with Eq.(3.9), the
only increase in moments with increasing intensity would be in proportion to
42
12
Height (m)
Height (m)
20
15
IR=
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
10
SRSS/
SRSS/
0
0
4000
30
40
20
IR= 0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
10
SRSS/
Height (m)
Height (m)
30
IR=0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
20
10
SRSS/
0
0
10000
20000
Moment (kNm)
(d) 16-Storey Wall
30000
43
12
Height (m)
Height (m)
20
15
10
4
5
SRSS/
IR=
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
IR=
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0
0
40
Height (m)
30
Height (m)
SRSS/
20
30
20
10
IR=0.5
1.0
1.5 2.0
10
IR=0.5
SRSS/
0
0
1.0 1.5
2.0
SRSS/
0
0
1000
2000
Shear Force (kN)
3000
44
the strain-hardening increase at the wall base. It is also apparent that the multi-modal
analysis (SRSS/), is non-conservative at the design intensity, and increasingly so at
higher intensities. For the four and eight storey walls, where the design displacement
ductilities exceed 2 (see Table 3.1), the multi-modal moment envelope is nonconservative even at 50% of the design intensity.
In Fig. 3.7, the multi-modal and IR=1 time-history shear force envelopes are indicated
by solid lines, with time-history results for other intensities indicated by dashed lines.
Again it is seen that the shear force envelopes are strongly influenced by seismic intensity,
and that the multi-modal design envelope is significantly non-conservative. For the four
and eight storey walls, the time-history base shear force at IR=1 is almost twice the multimodal value, and for these two walls, the shear profiles at IR=0.5 exceed the design
profile at all heights. At intensity ratios of IR=2, base shear force is between 2.5 and 3.7
times the multi-modal design envelope.
The discrepancies between the multi-modal and time-history shear forces are more
problematic than the corresponding moment discrepancies of Fig. 3.6. Although
unintentional plastic hinging (which would be the consequence of designing to the multimodal moment envelopes) at levels above the base is undesirable, some limited ductility
demand should be sustainable without failure. However, the consequences of the
imposed shear demand exceeding the shear capacity could be catastrophic shear failure.
3.2.2 Modified Modal Superposition for Design Forces in Cantilever Walls
Examination of Fig. 3.7 indicates that at an intensity ratio of IR=0.5, where ductility
demand is low, or non-existent for all walls, the shape of the shear force envelope is well
predicted by the modal analysis procedure. This suggests that it might be possible to
predict the shear force and moment envelopes by simple modification of the modal
superposition (multi-mode) approach.
A basic and simple modification to the modal superposition method is available by
recognizing that ductility primarily acts to limit first mode response, but has
comparatively little effect in modifying the response in higher modes. If this were to in
fact be the case, then first mode response would be independent of intensity, provided
that the intensity was sufficient to develop the base moment capacity, while higher modes
would be directly proportional to intensity. This approach is very similar to that
proposed by Eibl and Keintzel[13] as a means for predicting shear demand at the base of
the wall.
This modified modal superposition approach is clearly an approximation to response.
Although the first mode inelastic shape is very similar to the elastic shape, and hence the
approximation should be reasonably valid for the first mode, it is clear that the higher
modes will be modified to some extent by the first mode ductility, since a basic feature of
the modified higher modes will be that, when acting together with ductility in the first
mode, they cannot increase the base moment demand, which will be anchored by the
moment capacity of the base plastic hinge. The approach suggested below attempts to
extend the basic method of Eibl and Keintzel for shear forces to the full height of the
45
wall, and also to provide a method for determining the appropriate capacity design
moment envelope.
Shear Force Profiles: To investigate the appropriateness of a simple approach based on
the above arguments, shear force profiles were calculated based on the following assumptions.
First mode shear force was equal to the shear profile corresponding to development
of the base moment capacity, using the displacement-based design force vector.
However, for low seismic intensity, where plastic hinging was not anticipated in the
wall, simple elastic first mode response, in accordance with the elastic response
spectrum was assumed.
Higher mode response was based on elastic response to the acceleration spectrum
appropriate to the level of seismic intensity assumed. In other words, the forcereduction factor normally applied to higher mode response was not adopted.
The basic equation to determine the shear profile was thus:
Vi = (V12i + V22Ei + V32Ei + ...) 0.5
(3.10)
where Vi is the shear at level i, V1i is the lesser of elastic first mode, or ductile first
mode response at level i, and V2Ei , and V3Ei etc are the elastic modal shears at level i
for modes 2, 3 etc.
Moment Profiles: It is clear that the simple modal combination used for shear forces
cannot be directly used for moments. This is because such an approach would predict
increasing base moment with increasing intensity ratio, whereas the base moment is
anchored to the capacity of the wall. As a consequence, the higher mode moment
patterns are likely to deviate significantly from the elastic mode shapes, particularly in the
lower regions of the wall.
A number of trial combinations were considered. The most successful adopts a simple
modal combination, similar to that of Eq. (3.10), but multiplied by a factor of 1.1, over
the top half of the wall, with a linear profile from mid-height to the moment capacity at
the base of the wall. The combination equation over the top half of the wall is thus:
M i = 1.1 ( M 12i + M 22Ei + M 32Ei + ...) 0.5
(3.11)
where Mi is the moment at level i, M1i is the lesser of the elastic first mode moment and
the ductile design moment, and M2Ei and M3Ei etc are the elastic modal shears at level i for
modes 2, 3, etc.
Comparison with Time-history Results: The predictions of this Modified Modal
Superposition (MMS) approach are compared in Figs. 3.8 and 3.9 with time history
results for moment profiles and shear force respectively for the four, eight, twelve and
sixteen storey walls. For clarity, comparisons are only provided for IR=1 and IR=2.
Full comparisons for all six walls considered, and all four levels of seismic intensity are
provided in reference [10].
Also included in Figs. 3.8 and 3.9 are the shear force or
46
12
MMS
MMS
1.0
Height (m)
Height (m)
20
2.0 = IR
SRSS/
THA
15
SRSS/
2.0=IR
1.0
10
THA
0
0
4000
30
40
20
IR=1.0
2.0
THA
10
Height (m)
MMS
Height (m)
30
IR=1.0
20
SRSS/
MMS
2.0
THA
SRSS/
10
0
0
10000
20000
Moment (kNm)
(d) 16-Storey Wall
30000
47
12
Height (m)
Height (m)
20
SRSS/
15
10
SRSS/
MMS
THA
1.0
IR=
0
0
2.0
40
2.0=IR
Height (m)
Height (m)
1.0
20
10
2.0=IR
20
SRSS/
MMS
MMS
THA
2.0
30
10
1.0
SRSS/
THA
IR=1.0
30
MMS
THA
0
4000
4000
48
4.0m
7.5m
7.5m
Building 2: 8-storey frame: 2000kN/floor/frame
Beams 750x400, Columns 750x750
Ec =25GPa, fy = 420MPa
7@3.5m
4.0m
7.5m
7.5m
Building3: 3-storey tube frame
Beams: Level2: 1000x400
Level 3: 900x400
3@
Level 4: 800x400
3.5m Columns:
600x600
Weights:Levels 2,3: 3500kN/floor/frame
Level 4:
2500kN/frame
Ec = 25GPa, fy = 420MPa
3@6m
49
50
the lowest storey. The first two frames (4-storey and 8-storey) were comparatively
flexible, with yield drifts of 0.0105, calculated using Eq. (2.18), meaning that the design
ductility was only 2.38 significantly less than force-reduction factors used in most frame
designs. To investigate a stiffer structure, a 3-storey building with shorter beam spans
and deeper beams was adopted for the third example, to ensure a design ductility level
close to 4 was achieved. Note that the third building had different masses at the
different levels, and also different beam depths at different levels, to introduce additional
complexity to the response.
The structures were each designed for a peak ground acceleration of 0.533g, using the
EC8 spectral shape for medium ground (essentially Fig. 3.2 scaled up by 33%). The
designed structures were then subjected to a suite of five spectrum-compatible
earthquake records.
The 4-storey frame was analyzed at three different levels of seismic intensity,
corresponding to 50%, 100% and 150% of the design intensity. Results for the envelopes
of storey column shear force (i.e. the sum of the shears in the columns at a particular
level) are shown in Fig. 3.11. Note that despite the low design ductility level of 2.38 for
this frame, it still developed a plastic hinge mechanism at 50% of design intensity (IR =
0.5). It will be seen that the storey shears, as with the cantilever walls, are dependent on
Height (m)
12
8
IR=0.5
1.0 1.5
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
51
the seismic intensity, though the dependency does not seem to be as pronounced as was
the case for the cantilever walls.
Results for the time-history analysis (THA) storey shear forces at the design intensity
levels are shown in Fig.3.12, and compared with conventional multi-modal analysis
(designated in Fig.3.12 as SRSS/), and the modified modal analysis (MMS) approach
advanced in the previous section for predicting shear force envelopes in cantilever walls.
It will be recalled that this involved combining the shears from the design inelastic first
mode with the elastic shears of the higher modes, using a SRSS combination.
It is apparent from the results presented in Fig. 3.12 that the MMS approach, while
working well for wall structures, provides inconsistent, and generally excessively
conservative predictions of storey shear forces for these frames.
Agreement is
reasonably good for the three storey frame, but poor for the four and eight storey frames.
On the other hand, the traditional elastic modal superposition approach is also
inconsistent, and generally non-conservative.
It is initially puzzling why the MMS approach should work so well for cantilevers but
not for frames. It would appear that the answer to this may lie in the effect of ductility
on the higher mode characteristics particularly the periods. A series of analyses on the
wall and frame structures considered in this study was carried out where the stiffnesses
for members with plastic hinges were reduced to 0.1 times their initial elastic values,
implying member ductility factors of about 10. For the wall structures the second mode
period was increased by less than 35%, while for the frame structures the second mode
period was increased by at least 125%. It will also be recalled that the ratio of first to
second mode periods is approximately 1:5 for cantilever walls, and approximately 1:3 for
frames. As a consequence of these two effects, the response of the critical second mode
tends to stay on, or rise to, the peak plateau of the response spectrum for cantilever walls
as the wall responds inelastically, and hence the initial elastic response provides a good
estimate of the higher mode effects. With frames, the higher mode periods lengthen to
the extent that their response slides down the constant velocity slope of the response
spectrum, reducing the higher mode significance as the structure develops ductility.
Note that the behaviour of both walls and frames analysed in these studies support this
explanation. For stiff short-period walls, it was found that the MMS approach was
slightly non-conservative. This would be expected as the higher mode periods lengthen
slightly and rise to the constant acceleration plateau. For the very long period walls, the
MMS approach was slightly conservative, as higher modes exceeded the constant
acceleration plateau. Response of the three-storey tube frame, which was shorter and
stiffer than the other two frames was quite well predicted by the MMS approach, which
gave worst representation of the most flexible eight-storey frame.
Additional work is required to formulate useable design methods based on these
findings. Initial indications are that the MMS approach is acceptable for wall structures,
but that a more simple approach, based on the traditional dynamic amplification factor
proposed in [8] modified for the level of ductility would be more appropriate.
52
SRSS/
SRSS/
12
THA
THA
20
Height (m)
Height (m)
MMS
MMS
10
0
0
1000
2000
Shear Force (kN)
3000
SRSS/
THA
Height (m)
MMS
0
0
1000
2000
Shear Force (kN)
3000
53
Current capacity design recommendations[8] for frame column design also include
dynamic amplification to avoid unintended column hinging. Results from the frame
dynamic analyses, where the columns were modeled as elastic elements except at the
potential base hinge, did indicate significant amplification, by up to 70%, of column
moments above the design level, due to higher mode effects. To check the significance of
this, the eight-storey frame was reanalyzed with ductile columns for the bottom four
storeys. The strength was put equal to the column base design strength.
The concern with ductile columns is that a soft storey mechanism might develop with
simultaneous hinging at the base and at some higher level. Such behaviour results in
excessive ductility demand in the columns. In fact the analyses with the ductile columns
indicated that
Lateral displacements were increased by only a few percent.
Column ductilities, except at the column base, were extremely low.
Beam ductilities were slightly increased in the lower storeys, but were reduced in
the upper stories.
Column shear forces were almost unaffected.
It thus seems that a simple design rule would be appropriate, such as requiring the sum
of the column moment capacities at a beam/column intersections to exceed the sum of
the beam moment capacities by a fixed percentage, say 20%, as is commonly adopted in
the United States.
3.3 TORIONAL RESPONSE OF BUILDING STRUCTURES
In Section 3.1, the ability of multi-modal analyses to incorporate torsional effects by
full 3-D elastic modelling of building structures was mentioned as a perceived reason for
adopting the method. While it is undoubtedly true that this a valid advantage when
elastic response is considered, it is less obvious that elastic modal analysis provides
accurate simulation of inelastic torsional response. Recent work by Paulay[14,15], is used as
a basis for the following arguments.
There are two basic criticisms that can be directed at elastic multi-modal analysis for
torsional response of inelastic systems. The first is that it relies on stiffness estimates of
the various lateral force resisting elements. As was established in Chapter 2, these will
not be known until design strengths, as well as member dimensions have been allocated.
Also, the member stiffnesses are generally substantially in error in conventional design.
As a consequence, any increase in accuracy resulting from increased sophistication of
analysis technique is likely to be illusory.
More important is the second criticism. Paulay[14,15] has shown that once inelastic
action develops in the major lateral force resisting elements, the eccentricity due to elastic
stiffness distribution is largely irrelevant, and strength eccentricity is of fundamental
importance.
Paulay differentiated between torsionally restrained and torsionally
unrestrained systems, and we consider each type of system separately in the following
discussions.
54
C.M
C.R
V1, k1
V1, k1
55
sidered, seismic resistance is provided by two nominally identical structural walls one at
each end of the building. In the long direction of the building two identical walls on the
building centerline provide seismic resistance. As a consequence of the symmetrical
location of nominally identical walls, the center of mass (C.M.) and center of stiffness
(C.R.) are both nominally at the center of the building.
Accidental eccentricity could occur due to unintended variations in material properties
between the two end walls, in terms of stiffness, k1, or strength, V1, (see Fig. 3.13(b)) or
due to mass eccentricity. For the sake of example, we consider only mass eccentricity,
and assume that the center of mass is displaced to the right of the central position
indicated in Fig. 3.13(a). It is further assumed, to simplify the argument, that the lateral
force-displacement response of the end two walls can be characterized by the elastoplastic response of Fig. 3.13(b).
The structural system for this building may be represented, in plan, by the four-spring
model shown in Fig. 3.14(a). It will be recognized that the two longitudinal springs
perpendicular to the applied shear force V have no influence on response, and the shears
induced in the two end walls may be found from simple statics, as shown in Fig. 3.14(a).
The stiffnesses of the end walls are irrelevant in calculating the shear forces, which must
V(B-x)/B
Vx/B
(B-x)
V
(a) Torsionally Unrestrained
k3
C.V.
k1
C.R
C.M.
k2
e
V
k4
(b) Torsionally Restrained
Fig. 3.14: Spring Plan models of Building Stiffness
56
always be in the proportion x:(B-x). Since the maximum force that can be developed in
the right-hand wall is V1, it follows that the maximum force that can be developed in the
left-hand wall is V1(B-x)/x. Since x>(B-x), it follows that the left-hand wall will never
yield.
Elastic analysis, based on multi-modal or hand methods will predict an elastic lateral
displacement profile indicated by the dashed line in Fig. 3.13(c), when the accidental mass
eccentricity is included in the analysis. When reduced down by the behaviour, or forcereduction factor, the structural yield displacement profile is as indicated by the solid line
marked yield. The structural yield and design displacements at the center-of-mass are
ys, and sys, respectively.
As indicated by the argument presented above, and as illustrated in Fig. 3.13(c), the left
wall cannot yield, and hence the maximum displacement for this wall is y.(B-x)/x. The
inelastic displacement profile at design intensity is thus as shown by the solid line marked
inelastic. Since the center-of-mass displacements at maximum response will still be
essentially the same as predicted by the elastic analysis, the displacement at the right-hand
wall, at 2y, will be much greater than predicted by the elastic analysis.
Thus the comparatively sophisticated multi-modal analysis produces displacements
grossly in error, and has the potential for producing an unsafe design. However,
although the argument presented is generally correct, it is a little simplistic, as it does not
consider the influence of mass rotational inertia, which has been found in inelastic timehistory analyses to slightly modify the results from the simple predictions presented here.
3.3.2 Torsionally Restrained Buildings
The second example considered is shown in Fig.3.15. In this example, wall 1, in the Y
direction, at the left side of the plan view shown in Fig.3.15(a) is stronger and stiffer than
wall 2, at the right-hand side. In the x direction strong walls of stiffness kx1 and kx2 are
located on the plan perimeter. In addition to the centers of mass and stiffness (C.M. and
C.R. respectively in Figs 3.15(a) and 3.14(b)), a center of strength (C.V.) is defined based
on the position of the resultant of the wall yield strengths Vy1 and Vy2. The center of
strength could be, but will generally not be, at the same location as the center of stiffness.
In Fig. 3.15(c) the elastic displacement profile, based on multi-modal analysis at the
design seismic intensity, and the yield profile, factored down from the elastic profile by
the force-reduction factor, are indicated by dashed and solid lines respectively.
Regardless of how carefully the seismic design is carried out, inevitable variations in
material properties, or mass distribution will mean that one of the two end walls will yield
first, as was posited for the unrestrained case. In this case, however, the stiffness and
location of the x-direction longitudinal walls (see Fig. 3.14(b)) will ensure that the lateral
force can continue to rise until both end walls yield. The total building forcedisplacement response is then as suggested in Fig. 3.15(b). Note that once both walls
have yielded, the effective stiffness in the direction considered is zero.
57
kx1
C.R.
C.M.
Vy1, ky1
Vy2, ky2
C.V.
kx2
(a) Plan View of Building
Vy1+Vy2
elastic
inelastic
1y1
sy1
(s-1)ys
yield
y1
ys
(c) Lateral Displacement Profiles
Fig. 3.15 Response of a Torsionally Restrained Building
When both walls have yielded, the center of the resisting force has moved from the
center of elastic stiffness (C.R.) to the center of shear strength (C.V.) (though as men-
58
M T = Ve = (V y1 + V y 2 )e
(3.12)
where e is the eccentricity between the centre of strength and the mass centre. Since
neither of the end walls have incremental stiffness as this stage, this torsional moment is
resisted entirely by the x-direction walls, which are assumed to remain elastic, and which
therefore dictate the torsional rotation (twist) shown in the yield profile of Fig.3.15.
As the structure continues to displace laterally under increasing seismic excitation, the
force in the two end walls remains constant. The torsional moment therefore remains at
the level given by Eq.(3.12), and the twist remains unchanged. That is, after full yield is
achieved, the structure translates without additional rotation, and thus the final inelastic
displacement profile, shown in Fig. 3.15(c) by the solid line, is parallel to the yield profile.
In this case, it is seen that the elastic estimate of the final displacement profile
overestimates the twist. Since the displacements of the center of mass should be
essentially independent of the twist, the elastic multi-modal analysis will underestimate
the ductility demand on the critical stiffer wall 1. That is, 1 >s. Again it is seen that
multi-modal elastic analysis is unable to capture the inelastic response of the structure,
and is unsuitable for representing torsional response.
3.4 CONCLUSIONS
Multi-modal (elastic dynamic) analysis depends on accurate assessment of the elastic
stiffness of members providing the lateral-force resisting mechanisms. In Chapter 2 it
was established that member stiffness depends on strength, and hence accurate elastic
analyses could not be carried out until final member dimensions and strengths had been
decided.
In this chapter, we investigated some of the deficiencies inherent in the multi-modal
approach when used to estimate the inelastic response of structures. It was found that,
as currently implemented in design practice, multi-modal analysis seriously underestimates
higher mode effects in structures that respond inelastically to seismic excitation. For
cantilever walls, a comparatively simple modification can be adopted, based on applying
the design behaviour factor only to the first mode moments and shears. However, for
frame structures (where, fortunately, higher mode influences are less severe than with
cantilever walls), correct simulation of higher mode effects is less straightforward.
The time-history analyses presented in this chapter also indicated that structures are
more susceptible to higher mode effects from earthquakes of higher intensity than the
design level. It had previously been felt that capacity design procedures desensitised
structures to intensity effects, except insofar as displacement ductility level is concerned.
It was also shown that inelastic torsional response of structures is poorly represented
by elastic analysis methods, including multi-modal analysis. Torsional response of
59
Displacement (mm)
EP 171.8 mm
FS 175.7 mm
100 TK 162.6 mm
EP 44.4 mm
TK 17.6 mm
0
FS 0.0 mm
100
200
10
15
20
ELASTOPLASTIC
25
Time (s)
30
35
TAKEDA
500
500
-500
-1000
-200
Force (kN)
500
Force (kN)
1000
Force (kN)
1000
44.4 mm
-500
17.6 mm
200
-200
-500
-1000
0
Displacement (mm)
45
FLAG SHAPED
1000
40
0.0 mm
-1000
0
Displacement (mm)
200
-200
0
Displacement (mm)
200
61
provides a typical comparison of three SDOF hysteretic systems to 1.5 times the Capitola
record of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake[16]. The Takeda (TK) hysteresis rule is a good
approximation to reinforced concrete, while the flag-shaped (FS) rule is characteristic of
un-bonded prestressed sections with additional damping, which will be discussed in more
detail later. In all cases, a mild P- influence was included.
It will be seen that the maximum displacement response of the three different systems
is similar, at about 170mm, but the residual deformation remaining at the end of the
record shows marked differences, with the elasto-plastic rule, at 44.4mm, having the
largest residual deformation. Pampanin et al [16], from which Fig. 4.1 is taken, investigated
the practicality of including residual deformation as an alternative type of damage index
to the more commonly used indices based on maximum displacement or energy
absorbed.
Precast concrete, and particularly prestressed precast concrete structures have a poor
reputation for seismic response. In part this results from poor performance in a number
of earthquakes (e.g. [17,18]), but also because it is perceived that the low energy
absorption capacity of prestressed concrete structures results in higher response
displacements, even if severe damage or collapse does not occur. In this chapter we
discuss research results relevant to precast concrete seismic response that have become
available since the original Myths and Fallacies paper.
4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PHILOSOPHY FOR PRECAST CONCRETE
It is comparatively straightforward to design precast concrete structures to satisfy a
reinforced concrete emulation requirement. A precast frame or wall structure whose
connections have been designed to have sufficient strength to remain elastic under
seismic response, with plastic hinges forming elsewhere in the structure, should perform
in an identical fashion to an equivalent reinforced concrete structure. Various design
details involving the placement of in-situ concrete in precast frame connections have also
been shown by test to provide reinforced concrete emulation, even when the plastic
hinges form in the connection region[19]. This approach is widely accepted in New
Zealand, where precast reinforced concrete is the structural material of choice in most
multi-story buildings, and has recently gained favour in Japan[20].
Recent research in the U.S.A. under the auspices of the Precast Seismic Structural
Systems (PRESSS) Program[21] has been directed towards the development of design
recommendations for precast structures that do not satisfy the reinforced concrete
emulation requirement of current building codes, and which would permit the
construction in seismic zones of precast structures which utilize connection details that
take advantage of the potential efficiencies of precast construction. In these designs,
ductility is deliberately intended to occur in the connection. Many of these connection
details utilize un-bonded prestressing.
A fundamental difference in philosophy exists between the two approaches:
reinforced-concrete emulation (which is sometimes termed strong joint precast) and
62
ductile joint design. In conventional strong-joint design, capacity design measures are
used to protect the joint from inelastic action, ensuring that the plastic hinges occur in the
reinforced concrete members, away from the joints. In ductile-joint design, the capacity
protection is reversed: the members are protected by capacity design measures to ensure
that they remain essentially undamaged during the design level of seismic response,
ensuring that the inelastic action occurs only in the connections. It will be seen that this
approach has the potential for reducing damage under design seismic attack.
When ductile-connection precast concrete is used, a revision of the design approach is
necessary. Ideally this should involve the adoption of drift-based seismic design rather
than the more traditional force-based design approach, and the use of expected-value and
structural reliability concepts for determination of appropriate estimates of member
strength and deformation capacity. This approach, which is developed in some detail in
Chapter 5, appears to be particularly attractive for ductile-connection precast concrete
construction for the following reasons:
Hysteretic characteristics for ductile-connection systems will often be very
different from the elasto-plastic characteristics which have typically been
assumed in the development of current force-reduction or behaviour factors.
The principles of drift-based design, outlined in Chapter 5, permit the energy
absorption characteristics of different hysteretic responses to be directly and
simply incorporated into the design process. In many cases, it is found that
reduced energy dissipation, if it exists, is not a significant factor in seismic
response. Figure 4.2 illustrates four basic categories of ductile-connection
hysteretic response: linear elastic (LE), nonlinear-elastic (NLE),
tension/compression yield (TCY) and coulomb friction (CF) which have been
investigated in the PRESSS program [21]. Two further categories (NLE+TCY,
LE+CF) are formed by combination of two basic classes. Note that the
NLE+TCY category has the zero residual displacement of the NLE system, with
significant damping provided by the TCY elements. This will be discussed in
more detail shortly.
The emphasis on displacements, or drift, rather than on force, recognizes that
displacement is more fundamental to damage limit states than is strength. This
is obvious, since most damage models for steel or concrete relate to strain limits
which can be directly related to displacement by geometric relationships. Thus,
(e.g.), if a damage-control limit state is to be defined, it is much more meaningful
to relate this to strain, and hence displacement, than to behaviour factors.
The use of expected-value estimates of member capacity should be beneficial to
competitiveness of precast construction, because of tighter control of material
properties and dimensional tolerances, particularly for factory constructed
precast. Thus strength reduction and overstrength factors, both of which are
needed for capacity design, should show less variation from the expected
value, than for, say, equivalent monolithic reinforced concrete structures. This
means that capacity protected elements of a precast structure could be designed
for lower strengths, with economic benefits.
63
64
Column-to-footing
Column-to-column
Figure 4.3 illustrates the different possible connection categories.
Plastic hinge locations: Locations of plastic hinges in PF-SC frames should be chosen
to ensure the development of a strong-column/weak-beam deformation mechanism
when inelastic response is expected under seismic attack. For the different connection
categories defined in Fig. 4.3, hinge locations should be further limited in accordance
with the following criteria:
65
d S DN o D
(4.1)
66
d =0.9
o =1.4
=1.4
Column-to-beam:
d =0.9
o =1.4
=1.0
Beam-to-beam:
d =0.9
o =1.4
=1.4
Column-to-column:
o
Column-to-footing:
d =0.9
=1.4
=1.0
As was discussed in Chapter 3, the overstrength factor o is dependent on the ductility
factor, and hence the values above are approximate only. Also, different values should
strictly be provided for moment and shear. However, for frame structures the values
listed are considered to be reasonably conservative. Note that higher mode effects do
not significantly affect beam actions (unless vertical acceleration response is considered),
and hence =1.0 for these. For columns, higher mode effects can considerably
influence the distribution of beam moment input between the column moments
immediately above and below the joint. With European reinforcing steels (e.g. temcore),
which have rather low strain hardening, and a tight control over yield strength, lower
overstrength factors than listed above may be appropriate.
For column-to-column connections made in the central 50% of clear column height,
the connection strength should also satisfy Eq. (4.2):
d S 0.4 o De
(4.2)
where De is the larger of the appropriate design actions (flexure or shear) at the top or
bottom of the column. Equation (4.2) is intended to cope with higher mode effects at a
midheight column connection, where Eq.(4.1) might indicate near-to-zero moment, based
on structural analysis.
Note that a deliberately simple approach has been adopted. More precise procedures
are possible, as, for example, suggested for wall buildings in Chapter 3. For frames,
moments should strictly be related to equilibrium at the joint centroid, with reductions
occurring at the critical column section according to distance from the joint centroid, as
suggested in [8]. Considering the approximations in and o suggested in this simplified
approach, this is not felt to be necessary for regular frames.
Behaviour (Strength-reduction) Factors for Strong-connection design: The
connection requirements provided above are intended to ensure monolithic reinforced
concrete emulation. Consequently, behaviour factors for reinforced concrete design in
existing design codes would be directly applicable. It should be noted, however, that
very significant differences in behaviour factors (up to a factor of 2 or more) exist
between design codes of different countries for the same structural and occupancy type.
This is a consequence of the basic inadequacy of force-based design, for which clear
relationships between behaviour factor and damage potential cannot be defined.
4.2.2 Force-Based Design Recommendations for Ductile-Connection Frames
With a ductile-connection system, the intention is to provide inelastic deformation
67
within the connection, and to inhibit the development of inelastic deformation elsewhere
by the use of capacity design procedures. The most direct and frequently utilized
expression of this approach is where in-situ wet joints are provided at the ends of
beams, often extending into the beam-column joint region. This procedure has been
widely implemented in New Zealand, based on experimental work by Park and others[19].
Since the construction procedure essentially ensures that the structural system will
perform as a monolithic reinforced concrete system, no special design rules are needed,
and in New Zealand, such structures are designed without special constraints.
Connection (Plastic hinge) Locations: Except for structures of three stories or less,
ductile connectors for frames should only be placed in the following locations:
In beams: at any location
At column bases: to complete an inelastic mechanism
Ductile connectors should not be located in columns of frames of more than three stories
height, except at the column base, because the inelastic deformation mode will involve
soft-story response, with unacceptably high local ductility demand. No restriction is
placed on the location of ductile connections in beams. However, when connections
providing inelastic response by rotation are used, these should be located as close to the
columns as practicable to minimize the connector plastic rotation demand. Connectors
placed at midspan would normally be designed to provide inelastic frame deformation by
inelastic shear deformation of the connector.
Ductile connections in columns may provide inelastic rotation or shear displacement.
Note that the special case of shear-ductile connectors at the base of columns, with an
entirely elastic structure (strong connection) at higher levels is a description of a baseisolated structure.
Required Member Strength: Member strength in flexure and shear should comply
with the basic capacity design approach described by Eq.(4.1), where in this case D is the
design action in the member corresponding to nominal strength of the plastic hinge
mechanisms involving the ductile connectors. Values for ductile connector overstrength
factors and dynamic amplification factors will depend on individual system design.
Behaviour Factors for Ductile Connection Design: One of the problems in adopting
force-based philosophy for ductile-connection design is that lack of reinforced concrete
emulation makes it difficult to set appropriate behaviour factors. Many systems do not
have definable yield displacements, and hence displacement ductility factors, on which
behaviour, or force-reduction factors are based, are not readily defined. Because of this
difficulty, drift-based design is more appropriate for ductile-connection design. Where
force-based design is adopted, it is advisable to base behaviour factors directly on
experimental results, and to verify performance by inelastic time-history analyses, using
hysteretic characteristics appropriate for the connection system utilized.
68
69
70
M cr = Ti hb / 6
71
(4.3)
for a rectangular section, where Ti is the initial total prestress force, and hb is the beam
depth. For the dimensions shown in Fig. 4.6(b), the corresponding lateral force F will be:
F=
2 M cr lb
(lb hc )lc
(4.4)
where hc is the column depth and lc is the column height between contraflexure points.
The corresponding displacement can be found from simple linear elastic analysis based
on uncracked section properties.
When the crack has propagated to the centroidal axis, corresponding to point 2 in
Fig.4.6(b), the moment will be:
M 2 Ti hb / 3
(4.5)
Deviation from the initial elastic stiffness between points 1 and 2 will be minimal,
unless the average prestress level is fairly high (fpc > 0.25fc).
Above point 2 the precise force-displacement relationship is less simple to determine,
since steel and concrete strains are not linearly related. However, since the aim will be to
develop a bi-linear approximation to the force-displacement response (see Fig. 4.5(c)), it
is sufficient to compute the conditions at maximum displacement. In terms of design
requirements, this may be taken as corresponding to the limit of proportionality of the
prestressing steel (point 3, Fig.4.6(b)). At this point, the tendon force, and also the
tendon elastic extension above the initial condition are known. Assuming confined
conditions for the concrete in the plastic hinge region the corresponding moment
capacity M3 can thus be found from standard section analysis. Further, assuming that the
opening of the crack at the beam-column interface is directly related to the tendon
extension by simple geometry, the displacement at point 3 can be shown[25] to be:
3 = 2
(0.5hc + x )
M 3 lc
+ ( f slp f si )
M 2 Es
(0.5hb c )
(4.6)
where fslp is the steel stress at the limit of proportionality, x is the unbonded length of
tendon on one side of the joint (see Fig. 4.5(a)), and c is the depth from the extreme
compression fibre to the neutral axis in the beam plastic hinge region (found from the
known confined concrete stress-strain parameters). More complete details are provided
in [25].
The increased displacement demand resulting from the use of a bilinear elastic
hysteresis rule was also investigated in [25]. Five different natural accelerograms were
scaled to the same peak ground acceleration, and used to investigate response of SDOF
72
Bilinear elastic
2
Bilinear degrading
1.5
1
Bilinear elasto-plastic
0.5
0
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Period T (seconds)
73
plastic and bilinear degrading results, implying displacement amplifications of less than
20% for medium and long period structures. Second, precast prestressed structures of
the same physical dimensions as reinforced concrete structures of identical strength will
have much higher initial stiffness than the reinforced concrete equivalent, and hence
reduced elastic and inelastic displacement response. It is thus inappropriate to compare
reinforced and prestressed concrete systems with the same initial stiffness and strength.
The combined influence of these two effects is that very little, if any, displacement
amplification can be expected from precast prestressed structures with unbonded
tendons, compared with equivalent reinforced concrete structures. See (e.g.) Fig.4.1
4.3.2. Cyclic Tests of Precast Beam-to-Column Units with Unbonded Tendons
In order to test the apparent advantages of precast frames connected with unbonded
prestressing, a preliminary test program consisting of two large-scale beam-column subassemblages was carried out. The units represented interior and exterior beam-to-column
joints of a perimeter seismic frame. Figure 4.9 shows reinforcement details for the
interior unit. Full details are available elsewhere[26].
The test units modeled the region from midcolumn height below the joint to
midcolumn height above the joint, and from midspan to midspan of beams on either side
of the joint. The unit dimensions, shown in Fig.4.9 are intended to represent prototype
74
75
76
It is obvious that the concept of unbonded prestressing can also be applied to precast
wall buildings. Fig. 4.12 shows two possible applications. In the first (Fig.4.12(a)), wall
elements are stacked vertically and post-tensioned to a foundation.
This essentially
creates a structural system that behaves in the same way as a prestressed beam-to-column
connection, discussed in the previous section. A single crack can be expected to form at
the critical section at the wall base, and will have non-linear elastic force-deformation
characteristics. Note, however, that the footing must be of sufficient size and weight to
ensure that rocking does not develop at the soil/footing interface. Although this can be
an acceptable seismic mechanism very similar to unbonded prestressing, special measures
are needed to ensure that plastic deformation to the soil at the corners of the footing is
not excessive. Note also that the gravity weight contributes to the flexural resistance of
the wall base in exactly the same way as the prestressing.
Figure 4.12(a) also shows additional mild steel bars running through the wall/footing
interface. The normal way this would be achieved would be with bars cast into, and
protruding below the lowest precast wall element, grouted into preformed holes in the
77
Post-tensioning
foundation. These mild steel bars are expected to yield in tension and compression as
the base crack forms in much the same fashion as conventional reinforcement. Since the
gap opening at the wall base can be large, it is normal to de-bond the mild steel bars for
some length into the precast panel, to ensure strains at maximum displacement response
are kept to acceptable limits normally less than 3%.
Provided that the combined axial force at the wall base provided by gravity weight and
prestressing exceeds the compression yield force of all the mild steel bars crossing the
base interface, the residual displacements at zero lateral force will always be zero. In this
case the mild steel bars provide additional damping to the bilinear elastic response,
resulting in the flag-shaped hysteresis loops of Figs.4.1 and 4.2(d).
An alternative configuration, also providing additional damping, is illustrated in
Fig.4.12(b). Two parallel in-line precast walls are separately prestressed to the same
foundation structure, and are linked by ductile shear links. Under lateral force, each wall
rocks about its compression toe, resulting in relative vertical deformation across the shear
links. If these are designed to have low yield displacements, considerable energy can be
dissipated, and at the same time the overturning capacity of the complete system of two
walls is enhanced above the sum of the capacities of the individual walls. This system
was adopted for the PRESSS five-story test described in the next section.
It should be noted that the concept of additional damping, in the form of yielding
elements crossing the critical interface, can also be applied to beam-to-column
connections in precast frame design.
The yielding forces contribute to both yield
moment and damping, and are thus beneficial to structural performance. It is a matter
of economics whether it is better to limit structural response by increased levels of
78
4.4.1
As the key element of the final phase of the PRESSS research program[21] a 60% scale
five-story precast concrete building was constructed and tested under simulated seismic
loading at the University of California, San Diego. The design of the building was based
on concepts developed and tested in the earlier two phases of the program[21], and is
described in detail by Nakaki et al[28].
A general view of the building under test, and the layout of the floor plan in the upper
two floors are shown in Fig. 4.13. The purpose of the experiment was to test as many as
possible of the ductile connection systems that had been developed in the early phases of
the PRESSS program, in an environment which represented the full complexities of
real structural interaction between lateral-force resisting elements and floor systems,
and between orthogonal lateral-force resisting systems. As shown in Fig.4.13(b), the
lateral-force system in one direction was provided by frames, while in the orthogonal
direction, a combination of structural walls and gravity frames was used.
15 - 0
15 - 0
15 - 0
PreTensioned Frame
TCY Frame
15 - 0
Gravity Frame
Gravity Frame
79
The floor system for the lower three floors consisted of precast prestressed pretopped
double-tees spanning between the two seismic frames, and connected to the centre of
each of the two in-plane wall panels comprising the structural wall. In the upper two
floors, topped hollow-core slabs spanning between the gravity frames and the central wall
provided the floor system. The hollow-core slabs were connected to each other, and to
the seismic frames with a cast-in-place topping.
Although the plan dimensions of the test building were comparatively modest, it
should be realized that the tributary floor area contributing inertia mass to the lateral
force resisting systems in the prototype building on which the test building was based,
was substantially larger than shown in Fig.4.13(b).
Seismic Frames: The two seismic frames were different in concept, one being based
principally on prestressed connections, and the other based principally on tension/
compression yield systems (see section 4.2).
As shown in Fig.4.14(a), the lower three floors of the prestressed frame consisted of
hybrid connections (see Fig.4.15(a)), with single-bay beams connected between
continuous multi-floor columns by unbonded post-tensioning.
Additional flexural
strength and damping was provided by mild steel reinforcing bars slid through corrugated
ducts in the beams and columns and grouted solid, with short unbonded lengths in the
beams to reduce peak strains under seismic response. Behaviour of these connection
was thus a combination of Nonlinear elastic and tension/compression yield, leading to
flag-shaped hysteretic response as explained in Section 4.3.3, and shown in Fig.4.2(d).
Hybrid Connection
TCY Connection
15 ft (4.57 m)
15 ft (4.57 m)
15 ft (4.57 m)
PreTensioned Connection
15 ft (4.57 m)
80
81
connections the beams were clamped to the columns with unbonded post-tensioning
threaded bars reacting through fibre grout pads over the lower partr of the connection
only. Over the top two-thirds of the connection a 25 mm gap was provided. Mild steel
reinforcement slid through corrugated ducts and was grouted solid in the upper part of
the beams and in the columns. This reinforcement was designed to yield alternately in
tension and compression under negative and positive moments respectively, without
unloading the precompression across the bottom grout pad. As a consequence, all
inelastic deformation in these connections occurred by opening and closing of the gap at
the top of the connection.
Over the top two floors of this frame, moment capacity was provided by the TCY
connection using mild steel reinforcing in grout ducts at both top and bottom of the
connection (see Fig.4.15(d)).
Structural Wall: In the orthogonal direction, the structural wall consisted of four
precast panels, each two and a half stories tall (see Fig.4.16). The panels were vertically
connected to each other and to the foundation by unbonded vertical post-tensioning,
using threaded bars. A horizontal connection across the vertical joint between the
parallel and in-plane panels was provided by stainless-steel energy dissipating U-shaped
flexure plates (UFP connectors), welded to embedded plates in both adjacent wall panels,
thus acting as shear connectors, as discussed in relation to Fig.4.12(b).
The two gravity frames on the periphery of the test building parallel to the structural
wall were designed with hinged connections between the beams and columns, and thus
did not contribute significantly to seismic resistance in the wall direction.
Precast Column Bases: The precast column bases for the seismic and gravity frames
were connected to the foundations by post-tensioning. The columns were thus capable
of acting as vertical cantilevers in the out-of-plane direction, with a small, but significant
contribution to seismic resistance. This was discounted in the design phase.
Structural Design: Structural design was carried out in accordance with Direct
Displacement-Based Design (DDBD) principles, which are discussed in more detail in
the next chapter. The chosen design criterion was that the structure should achieve a
maximum drift of 2% in either principal direction (frames or walls), under seismic
excitation corresponding to a peak ground acceleration of 0.4g, on an intermediate soil.
Erection of the test building was carried out inside the Charles Lee Powell Structural
Laboratory at UCSD. Despite the restricted space and special constraints resulting from
instrumentation requirements, erection of the building was carried out within 12 working
days. A photograph of the test building during construction is provided in Fig.4.17. The
four wall panels have been placed, and behind them, the double-tee floor beams for the
lower three floors are visible. The double-tees for the front bay of the building have not
yet been placed, nor have the hollow core slabs for the upper two floors. The frame to
the left of the photo is the non-prestressed frame (TCY frame), and that on the right is
the prestressed frame. At the back of the photo the upper two beams of the back gravity
frame are visible, and behind that, we see the strong wall used for reacting seismic forces
in the frame direction of loading. Note that in the prototype building the seismic frames
do not extend to the corners of the building, and hence the beam stubs of the prestressed
82
TCY Frame
18 - 9
UFP Connectors
Open
Open
Wall
Panel 3
Wall
Panel 4
18 - 9
Open
Open
Wall
Panel 1
Wall
Panel 2
Open
Open
15 - 0
15 - 0
83
EQ-IV
1.4
Acceleration (g)
1.2
EQ-III
1
0.8
0.6
EQ-II
0.4
0.2
EQ-I
0
0
Period T (s)
Fig. 4.18 Earthquake Excitation Levels for Five-Storey Precast Building Test
84
85
86
87
88
sustained by the structure during the wall direction loading. This consisted of minor
spalling of cover concrete in the vicinity of the wall toes, even at 150% of the design
seismic intensity. The condition of the structure at this level of response would have
satisfied a serviceability limit state performance criterion, in that all damage was cosmetic,
and could be repaired without disruption to the normal usage of the building.
The condition of the structure when tested in the direction parallel to the seismic
frames was also excellent. Figure 4.23 shows the condition of connections representative
of the four connection categories comprising the two seismic frames, after testing to
more than twice the design drift limit of 2%. The hybrid connections behaved in similar
fashion to the unbonded beam/column subassemblages described in Section 4.3.2, with
controlled joint cracking and only minor spalling of beam cover concrete adjacent to the
89
columns. Thus, inclusion of the mild steel reinforcing bar energy dissipators did not
result in increased damage.
The pretensioned beams in the upper two floors of the prestressed frame also
performed extremely well, with minimal damage, as illustrated by Fig.4.23(b). The critical
cracks formed naturally in preformed rebates in the beams in line with the column faces.
More damage was experienced by connections of the non-prestressed frame, and
particularly those with TCY-gap connection details, as may be seen in Figs.4.23 (a) and
(b). The level of damage, at twice the design intensity, however, was less than would be
expected from a conventional reinforced concrete frame at 100% of design intensity.
4.4.4 Modelling Structural Performance
It is clearly of considerable importance to be able to accurately model the response of
precast structures. As has already been mentioned, we see this importance as being
related to design verification, rather than as a tool to be used for driving design. We have
also pointed out, in Chapters 1 and 2, that conventional analysis tools have in the recent
past been more complex than accurate in modeling reinforced concrete behaviour. It
was thus a key part of the PRESSS program in general, and the five-story test in particular
to develop simple, yet adequately accurate analytical models for the five-story building
response. In order to give a fair test to these models, they were developed prior to the
experiment, and all predictions of response were carried out prior to the relevant
experiment being run.
90.0
78.1
91.0
UFP Spring
Lumped Nodal
Mass
90.0
Rigid Link
80.0
Base Rigid Link
49.6
Compression
Only Spring
PT Spring
53.0
Gravity Weight
& PT Forces
49.6
53.0
90
The analytical model used for wall direction response is represented in Fig. 4.24. The
two walls were separately represented by elements at their vertical centerlines, and given
structural properties based on the uncracked section. The walls were supported at the
base on rigid horizontal beams supported at each end by stiff, compression-only springs
located at the calculated position of the centre of compression at each wall end under
rocking response.
As shown in Fig. 4.24, these springs were preloaded by forces
representing the gravity weight and unbonded prestressing force. As the wall rocks, the
unbonded prestressing threaded bars extend, resulting in an increased clamping force at
the wall base. This was modeled by an additional spring under the wall element, as
shown in Fig.4.24.
The two wall elements were connected by vertical springs acting between rigid
horizontal links extending at each floor level. These inelastic springs represented the
characteristics of the U-shaped flexural yielding energy dissipators (UFPs). The
properties for these springs were determined by analyses, and confirmed by tests on spare
dissipators, prior to the building test. It should be mentioned that additional lateral
resistance of the building in the wall direction resulting from the strength and stiffness of
the frame columns acting as vertical cantilevers in the out-of-plane direction was ignored
in the initial design-confirmation analyses.
An example of the comparison between predicted and experimental response, using
the model of Fig.4.24, is shown in Fig.4.25 for the maximum excitation level EQ IV,
corresponding to 150% of design excitation. The results show that the agreement
between the predicted and experimental values is gratifyingly close for the displacement
time-history shown in Fig.4.25(a). This is especially true when correction is made for the
initial experiment offset displacement, indicating that the model accurately captured the
fundamentals of the first mode, including inelastic action, and was capable of excellent
prediction of peak displacement response.
The agreement for base shear force (see Fig.4.25(b)) is also very good, with the level of
base shear contributed by the first mode being predicted with an accuracy equivalent to
that for the displacements. The component of base shear due to higher modes was also
well predicted.
A comparison between experimental and predicted values for the base moment timehistory (see Fig.4.25(c)) is also satisfactory. Note that the base moment is less affected by
higher mode effects than is the base shear force. It is clear, however, that the strength
was underestimated by about 20%, due to reasons previously discussed.
Similar methods were used to predict the response in the frame direction, with a similar
level of success as obtained for the wall direction. More complete information is
available in [29,30,31].
4.5
The Northridge earthquake of 1994[17] revealed steel frames with welded beam-tocolumn connections to be suspect under inelastic seismic response. More than 100 steel
frame buildings were found to have weld fractures, or parent metal fractures adjacent to
91
92
welds. Christopoulos and Filiatraut[32] have recently investigated applying the concept of
unbonded post-tensioning which was developed for concrete frames, to steel frames.
Extensive analytical and experimental work, including shake table testing, has shown that
the concept is economical, results in zero residual displacement, and avoids problems of
flange buckling which is almost inevitable when plastic hinges form in the beams. Their
work clearly indicates that much better performance can be guaranteed when the fat
hysteresis loops of steel frames, which most closely resemble the ideal elasto-plastic
response, are replaced by nonlinear elastic hysteretic loops with minimal energy
absorption.
4.6
CONCLUSIONS
The work described in this chapter was initiated because of a suspicion, expressed in
the earlier Myths and Fallacies paper, that elasto-plastic hysteretic response was not the
holy grail that earthquake engineers should seek. This work has indeed confirmed that
suspicion. It has been found, largely based on analyses and experiments involving precast
prestressed concrete structures that
Structures with high hysteretic energy absorption tend to have larger residual
deformations than structures with less desirable hysteretic characteristics.
Structures with nonlinear elastic hysteretic characteristics, such as provided by
unbonded prestressing, and/or gravity loads (in walls) have zero residual
deformation, and generally peak displacement response is similar to that of
systems with higher energy dissipation characteristics. This is particular the case
when the increase in elastic stiffness of the prestressed structures is considered in
the analyses.
Precast (or conventionally constructed) structures with unbonded reinforcement
need less transverse reinforcement for shear strength, and less special joint
reinforcement in beam/column joint regions of frames than is required for
conventionally reinforced concrete structures.
Experiments on subassemblages, and on a near full-size test building have
established that the level of damage to be expected with structures utilizing the
unbonded prestressing concept is much less than with conventionally reinforced
structures. This conclusion applies to steel frames as well as to precast concrete
frames and wall structures.
The performance of precast structures connected with unbonded prestressing
can be enhanced by including special energy dissipating elements in the design.
When properly designed these contribute to the lateral strength of the seismic
system as well as increasing the effective damping (thus reducing, generally, the
peak displacement response), without sacrificing the highly desirable
characteristic of residual displacement, inherent in the unbonded prestressing
concept.