Simplied R-Factor Relationships for Strong Ground Motions

Isabel Cuesta,a) M.EERI, Mark A. Aschheim,b) M.EERI, and Peter Fajfar,c)

M.EERI

Recent studies have demonstrated the need to consider the ground motion T relationships. Refrequency content in the development and use of R sults from two different approaches to determining these relationships are unied in the present paper. Two bilinear R T/Tg relationships are recommended for most strong ground motions and structural systems. One is more accurate, while the other, more conservative relationship is used in FEMA 273, ATC-32, and the simple version of the N2 method. Both relationships are indexed by the characteristic period of the ground motion, Tg . Simple methods to determine Tg from smoothed design spectra and recorded ground motions are provided. Neither recommended relationships are applicable to the nearly harmonic ground motions that may be generated at sites containing soft lakebed deposits. An example illustrates the application of these relationships to a code design spectrum in both the accelerationdisplacement and yield point spectra formats. [DOI: 10.1193/1.1540997] INTRODUCTION Many research investigations conducted since the 1960s have determined strength reduction (R) factors for limiting the peak ductility responses of simple single-degreeof-freedom (SDOF) systems. In general, these investigations have been carried out using one of the following two approaches: (1) estimating R factors based on the computed responses of a large number of SDOF oscillators to a number of ground motions, or (2) using pulse waveforms to establish R-factor relations to be applied to elastic spectra computed for recorded earthquake ground motions. Examples of the rst approach include Lai and Biggs (1980), Riddell et al. (1989), Hidalgo and Arias (1990), Nassar and Krawinkler (1991), Miranda (1993), Vidic et al. (1994), and Ordaz and Perez-Rocha (1998). Examples of the second approach include Newmark and Hall (1973, 1982), who formulated the equal displacement, equal energy, and preservation of force rules based on the response of elastoplastic systems to pulses; as well as Veletsos and Newmark (1964), Veletsos et al. (1965), Veletsos (1969), Veletsos and Vann (1971), and Cuesta and Aschheim (2000, 2001ac). These studies considered bilinear and stiffness-degrading SDOF systems with similar values of parameters (post-yield stiffness and damping) subjected to a wide variety of ground motions, and generally determined similar R-factor relationships (e.g., as suma)

Los Alamos National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1663, MS C926, Los Alamos, NM 87545 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 North Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801 c) Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Jamova 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
b)

25

Earthquake Spectra, Volume 19, No. 1, pages 2545, February 2003; 2003, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

26

I. CUESTA, M. A. ASCHHEIM, AND P. FAJFAR

Figure 1. Mean of the error E2 r model for 6 SDOF systems and for the 7 models presented in Table 1 (all ground motions in Table 2 were used).

marized by Miranda and Bertero, 1994). However, some distinctions have come forward recently. Miranda (1993), for example, nds that soil conditions affect the R T relationship, and proposes different R factors to use in rm, alluvium, and soft soil site conditions. For soft soil conditions, the R T relationship is made dependent on a parameter termed the predominant period of the ground motion. Another study (Vidic 1993, Vidic et al. 1994) also proposed R T relationships, applicable to motions recorded on varied soil conditions that depend on a period, T1 , which is dependent on certain characteristics of the ground motion. Recognizing the similarity of R T relationships for ground motions and for simple pulse accelerograms, Cuesta and Aschheim (2000; 2001a, c) applied R factors determined for pulse excitations to the elastic spectrum of the ground motion to obtain an estimate of the inelastic response spectrum. The optimal pulses had characteristic periods, Tp , which coincided approximately with a characteristic period of the ground motion, Tg , for the set of fteen ground motions that were investigated. These motions were selected to have a range of frequency content for different classes of duration and distance from the fault and included some near-fault records. A simple formula for estimating the characteristic period based on the elastic response spectrum was identied. Cuesta and Aschheim (2001a, c) concluded that the Vidic et al. relationship was nearly as accurate as the pulse R factors, and both were more accurate than other wellknown and commonly used models. This is illustrated in Figure 1, which compares the mean of the unsigned errors in the estimated strengths for the seven R-factor models of Table 1, the fteen ground motion records of Table 2, and different bilinear and stiffnessdegrading load-deformation models. Only the pulse and Vidic et al. relationships adjust to the frequency content of the ground motion. The pulse R factors, however, are unwieldy for use in design contexts because they are not expressed by an explicit formula,

SIMPLIFIED R-FACTOR RELATIONSHIPS FOR STRONG GROUND MOTIONS

27

Table 1. Partial history of R-factor relations1

NUMBER OF RECORDS (PULSES) (3) SYSTEMS ,% 0 (b) 0 (b) 0, 2, 10 (b, sd) 3 (b) 10 (b, sd) 0 (b) 0, 2, 10 (b, sd) ,% R-FACTOR DEPENDENCE

MODEL Newmark and Hall Riddell, Hidalgo, and Cruz Nassar and Krawinkler Miranda Vidic, Fajfar, and Fischinger Ordaz and Perez Rocha Cuesta and Aschheim
1

YEAR 1973

20

10

1989 1991 1993 1994 1998 2000

4 sets 15 124 40 445 15 (24)

5 5 5 5 5 2, 5, 10

10 8 6 10 8 8

T, , , Ta(ag,max , vg,max , dg,max , ea , ev , ed) T, T, , T, , soil, TG T, , Ta(ag,max , vg,max , T, , dg,max , D(T) T, , Tg

ea ,

ev)

b bilinear; sd stiffness degrading.

Table 2. Recorded ground motions1

IDENTIFIER WN87MWLN.090 BB92CIVC.360 SP88GUKA.360 LP89CORR.090 NR94CENT.360 CH85LLEO.010 CH85VALP.070 IV40ELCN.180 LN92JOSH.360 MX85SCT1.270 LN92LUCN.250 LP89SARA.360 NR94NWHL.360 NR94SYLH.090 KO95TTRI.360
1

EARTHQUAKE DATE

ag,max /g

MAGNITUDE

Tg1 , s
0.20 0.40 0.55 0.85 1.00 0.30 0.55 0.65 1.30 2.00 0.20 0.40 0.80 0.90 1.40

SHORT DURATION Whittier Narrows 8/1/87 0.175 Big Bear 6/28/92 0.544 Spitak 12/7/88 0.207 Loma Prieta 10/17/89 0.478 Northridge 1/17/94 0.221 LONG DURATION Central Chile 3/3/85 0.711 Central Chile 3/3/85 0.176 Imperial Valley 5/18/40 0.348 Landers 6/28/92 0.274 Michoacan 9/19/85 0.171 FORWARD DIRECTIVE Landers 6/28/92 0.733 Loma Prieta 10/17/89 0.504 Northridge 1/17/94 0.589 Northridge 1/17/94 0.604 Hyogo-ken Nanbu 1/17/95 0.617

ML ML Mw Mw Mw ML ML ML Mw Mw Mw Mw Mw Mw Mw

5.9 6.5 6.8 6.9 6.7 7.8 7.8 6.3 7.4 8.0 to 8.1 7.4 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.9

Mw Moment magnitude, ML Richter magnitude, and ag,max peak ground acceleration.

28

I. CUESTA, M. A. ASCHHEIM, AND P. FAJFAR

and while the basic trend represented by the pulse R factors is relevant, the exact signature of the pulse R Tp relationship may be overly precise for use with future unknown ground motions. The bilinear R T/Ta relationship proposed by Vidic et al. (1994) is a useful approximation of this relationship. The present paper modies the Vidic R T/Ta relationship to be a function of the characteristic period estimate used by Cuesta and Aschheim and investigates simplications associated with the use of modied coefcients. The resulting recommendation is simpler to use than the pulse R factor in practice and provides results that are more accurate than many accepted models. The formulation in terms of Tg is more useful in design contexts than the original formulation in terms of Ta . DEFINITIONS To facilitate a subsequent discussion of the results obtained from several research investigations, the strength parameter and the strength reduction factor are dened as follows: The dimensionless strength parameter, y , of a SDOF system having mass, m, period, T, and ductility demand, , subjected to a ground motion having peak ground acceleration, ag,max , is dened as the ratio
y

,T

Vy ,T , mag,max

(1)

where Vy is the yield strength of the system. The strength parameter is also related to the yield coefcient, Cy :

Cy

Vy W

ag,max g

(2)

where g is the acceleration of gravity and W mg is the weight of the system. The dimensionless strength reduction factor, R, of a SDOF system is dened as the ratio of the strength required for elastic response y( 1, T) to the strength associated with a peak ductility demand y( ,T):

,T

y y

1,T . ,T

(3)

Note that the reduction factor of Equation 3 considers only the ductility of the system. It is not equivalent to the constant reduction factors used in building codes, e.g., FEMA 302 (BSSC 1998) and International Building Code (ICBO 2000). Code reduction factors also account for both energy dissipation and overstrength of the structure. PRIOR RESEARCH RESULTS Seven of the many R-factor models developed in recent years are shown in chronological order in Table 1. For each R-factor model, the year of publication is presented as well as the number of recorded ground motions or pulses used, the types of systems studied, and the main parameters on which the R factors were found to depend on.

SIMPLIFIED R-FACTOR RELATIONSHIPS FOR STRONG GROUND MOTIONS

29

The models proposed by Newmark and Hall, Riddell et al., and Ordaz and PerezRocha were determined for elasto-plastic systems, while Miranda considered bilinear systems and Nassar and Krawinkler and Vidic et al. considered both bilinear and stiffness-degrading systems. Cuesta and Aschheim proposed an R-factor model derived from simple pulses that can be applied to different load-deformation models. Two parameters appear in all the R-factor models: the initial period of the system, T, and the ductility of the system, . Some models are a function of additional parameters such as the post-yield stiffness ratio, , damping, , or the elastic response displacement, D(T). In other models, the soil conditions or parameters related to the ground motions are required, such as the peak ground displacement, dg,max , peak ground velocity, vg,max , peak ground acceleration, ag,max , or the predominant or characteristic period (TG, Tg , or Ta) of the ground motion. Veletsos and Newmark (1960), Veletsos et al. (1965), and later, Newmark and Hall (1973) established that (1) the R factors for elasto-plastic systems subjected to ground motions are constrained to R 1 for very short period systems, (2) R can be established based on the equal energy rule for short-period systems, and (3) R for mediumand long-period systems. This latter relationship is known as the equal displacement rule. Riddell, Hidalgo, and Cruz (1989) proposed a bilinear expression for the R T relationship in which, for systems with large ductility demands ( 5) and periods T 0.4 s, the R factors are less than the corresponding ductility values, departing from the equal displacement rule. Miranda (1993) identied different R-factor relationships for different soil types. For soft soil sites, the R factor is a function of the parameter TG , termed the predominant period of the ground motion. Miranda dened this period as the period at which the maximum relative velocity is reached in a 5% damped elastic spectrum.
BILINEAR R-FACTOR MODEL

Vidic (1993) developed strength reduction factor relations for bilinear and stiffnessdegrading systems responding to ground motions recorded in California, Chile, Italy, Mexico City, Montenegro, and the former Yugoslavia. In the study, the post-yield stiffness was 10% of the initial stiffness, 10, T 2.5 s, and viscous damping was either proportional to mass or the instantaneous stiffness. The proposed bilinear R T/Ta relationships depend on a period, Ta , which depends on the ductility demand, , and a period T1 , which is intended to represent the period at the intersection of the constant acceleration and constant velocity portions of the spectrum. The period T1 is calculated based on the peak ground velocity, peak ground acceleration, and velocity and acceleration amplication factors. The relationship recommended for stiffness-degrading systems (Q-model proposed by Saiidi and Sozen, 1981) satises the equal displacement rule (R ) for long-period systems, unlike the relationship recommended for bilinear systems. The R-factor relations determined for bilinear load-deformation models having mass-proportional viscous damping equal to 5% of critical damping are given by the following bilinear curve:

30

I. CUESTA, M. A. ASCHHEIM, AND P. FAJFAR

c1 R c1
where c1 1.35, cr 0.95,

T T 1 1 Ta Ta , T cr 1 1 1 Ta
cr

(4)

Ta 0.75 T1 2

0.2

T1 , ,

(5) (6)

evvg,max eaag,max

and ag,max and vg,max are the peak ground acceleration and velocity, respectively. In the preceding, the acceleration amplication factor ea 2.5 and the velocity amplication factor ev 2.0, 1.8, 2.6, and 2.8 for Standard, U.S.A., Chilean, and soft-soil Mexico City records, respectively. Different coefcients were proposed for Equation 4 for stiffness degrading systems and for damping proportional to instantaneous stiffness. Different coefcients were also proposed for Equation 5 for stiffness-degrading systems. The above relations were used for determining the target displacement in the nonlinear method for seismic performance evaluation known as the N2 method (Fajfar 2000). In the most recent simplied version of the method, inelastic response spectra are estimated using c1 1, cr 1, and Ta T1 .
PULSE R-FACTOR MODEL

Cuesta and Aschheim (2000; 2001ac) investigated pulse R factors for the fteen recorded ground motions of Table 2. The fteen motions comprise ve motions selected to have a range of frequency content in each of three categories: short duration (SD) motions, long duration (LD) motions, and records with near-fault forward directivity effects (FD). The study applied the R T relations determined for 24 simple acceleration pulses to the elastic response spectra of the ground motions to identify the pulses that resulted in the best estimates of the inelastic response spectra of the ground motions. The study identied that good estimates of inelastic response spectra could be obtained using the qua(2) pulse (shown in Figure 2) for all motions except the nearly harmonic motion recorded on the soft lakebed deposits of Mexico City, for which a sinusoidal pulse was needed. To obtain good results, the characteristic period of the pulse, Tp , must be set equal to a characteristic period of the ground motion, Tg , where Tg is dened as the period at the transition between the constant acceleration and constant velocity portions of a 5% damped elastic spectrum. For smoothed elastic design spectra, Tg is equal to the period at the intersection of the constant acceleration and constant velocity portions of the spectrum, and corresponds to the period Ts used in the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 302) (1998) and in FEMA 356 (2000), and Tc in the N2 method (Fajfar 2000). For both smoothed design spectra and the irregular, jagged spectra computed for real ground motions, Tg , may be estimated by

SIMPLIFIED R-FACTOR RELATIONSHIPS FOR STRONG GROUND MOTIONS

31

Figure 2. Normalized acceleration, velocity, and displacement time histories of the qua(2) pulse.

Tg 2

Sv Sa

max max

(7)

where Sv and Sa are the elastic pseudo-velocity and pseudo-acceleration spectra, respectively, for linear elastic systems having 5%. Because Sa(T) mag,max y( 1,T) and Sv(T) TSa(T)/2 , Equation 7 can also be expressed in terms of the strength parameter and the period of the system:

Tg

1,T max . 1,T max

(8)

The graphical determination of the period Tg according to Equation 8 for the CH85VALP.070 record (identied in Table 2) is illustrated in the Appendix.
DISCUSSION OF VIDIC MODEL AND PULSE R FACTORS

Figure 3 shows an example in which R-factor response spectra proposed by Vidic 2, 4, and the qua(2) pulse R factor are compared for elasto-plastic systems having and 8 and 5%, based on the frequency content of the 1940 NS El Centro record. In

32

I. CUESTA, M. A. ASCHHEIM, AND P. FAJFAR

Figure 3. Comparison of pulse and Vidic et al. R factors, for elasto-plastic systems having 5% subjected to IV40ELCN.180 record.

the short-period range, both models tend to R 1. In the long-period range, the pulse tends to R while Vidics model for bilinear systems results in R greater than . Strength estimates made using the pulse R factors were compared with those obtained using the six other R T relations shown in Table 1, for bilinear and stiffnessdegrading models having 2, 4, and 8, subjected to the fteen ground motion records listed in Table 2. Cuesta and Aschheim (2001b, c) concluded that the Vidic et al. R T/Ta relationship was nearly as accurate as the pulse R factors, and both were more accurate than other well-known and commonly used models (e.g., Figure 1). The relative accuracy of the pulse and Vidic et al. models was attributed to the fact that these models explicitly consider the frequency content of the ground motion. Because both models had similar overall accuracy, the precise curve described by the pulse R factor is not of critical importance. The bilinear approximation employed by Vidic et al. appears to be well suited to the uncertainties inherent in future ground motions. The pulse R factors, however, because of their implicit denition, may be useful for systems with load-deformation responses that differ from those studied in previous investigations. The pulse R factors also satisfy R for long-period systems. The other models of Table 1 were less accurate and in some cases also require posterior knowledge of ground motion characteristics. The Vidic et al. relation requires the specication of T1 , which is based on estimates of the pseudo-velocity and pseudo-acceleration derived from peak ground velocity and peak ground acceleration. Both Tg and T1 are intended to describe similar characteristics (note that they vary together with the ground motions in Table 3) but are evaluated by different procedures. The period of the ground motion Tg1 in Table 2 was determined considering both the elastic pseudo-acceleration response spectrum and the equivalent velocity spectrum, as described in FEMA 307 (1997).

SIMPLIFIED R-FACTOR RELATIONSHIPS FOR STRONG GROUND MOTIONS

33

Table 3. Periods (in s)

GROUND MOTION WN87MWLN.090 BB92CIVC.360 SP88GUKA.360 LP89CORR.090 NR94CENT.360

Tg
0.17 0.30 0.40 0.77 0.73

T1
0.11 0.29 0.42 0.46 0.52

GROUND MOTION CH85LLEO.010 CH85VALP.070 IV40ELCN.180 LN92JOSH.360 MX85SCT1.270

Tg
0.41 0.51 0.56 0.86 2.00

T1
0.38 0.55 0.43 0.46 2.53

GROUND MOTION LN92LUCN.250 LP89SARA.360 NR94NWHL.360 NR94SYLH.090 KO95TTRI.360

Tg
0.41 0.59 0.69 0.75 1.25

T1
0.89 0.38 0.74 0.59 1.00

DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDED R FACTORS The following section develops bilinear approximations to the pulse R factors that use the analytical form of Vidics model (Equation 4) with the characteristic period, Tg , of Equation 7. The objective is to develop a simple expression that captures the main variables affecting the R factors, in accordance with the actual data.
FRAMEWORK OF STUDY

Potential simplications of the bilinear Vidic et al. model were investigated. Inelastic spectra were computed for the following parameters:

Six SDOF systems having ductility demands

1, 2, 4, and 8 were considered: elasto-plastic systems having damping, , equal to 2, 5, and 10% of critical; bilinear systems having 5% and post-yield stiffness, , equal to 2 and 10% of the initial stiffness; and, stiffness-degrading systems having 5% and 2%. The stiffness-degrading model is the same as the one described by Mahin and Lin (1983), applicable to systems that do not exhibit substantial degradation. Periods: Forty-ve periods, T, varying from 0.04 to 3 s, and spaced at 0.02 s in the range 0.04 to 0.2 s, 0.05 s in the range 0.2 to 1 s, and 0.1 s in the range 1 to 3 s. Ground Motions: Fourteen of the fteen ground motions listed in Table 2 were used. Although the nearly harmonic MX85SCT1.270 record (obtained on soft lakebed deposits in Mexico City) was considered in the development of the pulse and Vidic et al. R factors, none of the simplied candidate R-factor relationships could be recommended for these soil conditions, and hence this record was not used to evaluate the candidate relationships.

The Vidic et al. R-factor model depends on the constant parameters c1 , cr , and the period Ta . Eight candidate R T relations are considered in the following: Vidics original proposal, the pulse R factors, and six simplied variations of the Vidic et al. R factor using different values for c1 , cr , and Ta , as summarized in Table 4. Model 6 is the basis of the expression for C1 of the Nonlinear Static Procedure of FEMA 356 (2000), and is used in ATC-32 (1996) for bridge structures and the N2 method for buildings proposed by Fajfar (2000). The eight candidate R-factor models of Table 4 were applied to the elastic spectra of

34

I. CUESTA, M. A. ASCHHEIM, AND P. FAJFAR

Table 4. Candidate R-factor models

Model Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Basic Model Vidic Vidic Vidic Vidic Vidic Vidic Vidic Pulse Characteristics Period

c1

cr
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 1 1

Original 1.35 1.35 Tg instead of T1 1.35 Tg instead of Ta 1 Tg instead of Ta 1.35 Tg instead of Ta 1 Tg instead of Ta 1.3 Tg instead of Ta qua(2) pulse, with Tp Tg

the 14 ground motions to determine estimates of the inelastic spectra. The computer program PCNSPEC, a modied version of NONSPEC (Mahin and Lin 1983), was used to determine iteratively the strengths required for each oscillator to achieve the specied ductilities. For a given period, the strength-ductility relation is not necessarily monotonic since the same ductility may result for different strengths; in such cases, the largest strength required to achieve the specied ductility was retained. The accuracy of a candidate R T relationship was evaluated by comparing the estimated inelastic strength response spectra ( model) with the exact spectra computed for each ground motion ( r). The difference between the strength computed for a given ground motion and the estimated strength, for a given ductility demand and period, was calculated as:

Eijk E1
and

y r model y

1 R

(9)

Eijk E2

model

(10)

where E1 may assume positive or negative values and E2 is always positive. The mean of either error measure, computed over all ground motions, ductilities, and periods is:

1 nrndnp i

nr

nd

np

1 j 1k 1

Eijk ,

(11)

and the standard deviation, , is given by

1 nrndnp 1 i

nr

nd

np

1 j 1k 1

Eijk E

(12)

where, nr number of recorded ground motions ( 14), nd number of ductility values ( 3, corresponding to 2, 4, and 8), and np number of periods considered ( 45, between 0.04 and 3 s).

SIMPLIFIED R-FACTOR RELATIONSHIPS FOR STRONG GROUND MOTIONS

35

Figure 4. Mean and standard deviation for 6 SDOF systems of the errors (a) E1 r model , (b) E2 r model , (c) E3 ( r model)/ r , and (d) E4 Rr Rmodel , for the eight models of Table 4. RESULTS

Figures 4a and 4b show the results of the mean and standard deviation of the errors E1 (Equation 9) and E2 (Equation 10), respectively, for the six SDOF systems, and for

36

I. CUESTA, M. A. ASCHHEIM, AND P. FAJFAR

each of the eight candidate R-factor models of Table 4. The mean of E1 often is negative, indicating overestimation of the strength parameter, a safe state of affairs for design. The mean of E2 is always positive, because the absolute values of the errors are summed. The largest mean and standard deviation correspond to the systems with smallest damping ratio, 2%, while the least dispersion is for systems with the largest damping ratio, 10%. Effect of the Period Ta The periods Ta and T1 are approximately equal for 4. Comparison of the mean errors for Models 1, 2, and 3 in Figure 4a shows that the errors 1 are very similar. E Figures 4a and 4b show that the use of Tg in Model 2 in place of T1 (Model 1) reduces the mean of errors E1 and E2 , and Figure 4a shows the standard deviation is smallest for Model 2. While the further simplication of using Tg in place of Ta in Model 3 causes a slight increase in the mean of error E2 (indicating support for the use of Ta in Model 2), the additional complexity of Model 2 may not be justied. The mean of errors E1 and E2 for Model 3 are still less than those for Model 1 (Figures 4a and 4b), and the standard deviations for Model 3 are less than those for Model 1, for most of the load deformation models. Thus, the use of Tg in place of Ta , while not as accurate as using Tg in place of T1 , results in a minor improvement in accuracy and a simpler formulation. Effect of c1 and cr Figures 4a and 4b indicate that the strengths are overestimated for all types of systems when the coefcient c1 is equal to unity (Models 4 and 6), instead of c1 1.35, even though c1 1.0 satises the equal displacement rule for long-period systems. Comparison of Models 3 and 5 shows that setting the coefcient cr equal to unity (instead of cr 0.95) causes an insignicant increase in error at these ductility levels. Model 7 (c1 1.3 and cr 1) tends to be slightly more conservative than Model 1 (c1 1.35 and cr 0.95) and is a simpler formulation. Figure 4a indicates that Model 6 (c1 1 and cr 1), which satises the equal displacement rule and is used in several codes and methods, is somewhat conservative in a mean sense, particularly in comparison with its simple cousin, Model 7. Effect of the Error Metric The means of the errors E1 and E2 were used in the preceding to emphasize accurately estimating the strengths of short-period oscillators. This was intended, because differences in the strengths of short-period oscillators can have a signicant effect on the peak response amplitudes of these systems, whereas differences in the strengths of longperiod systems tend to have less effect on peak displacement response. Furthermore, drift limits often control the design of long-period systems, elevating the importance of stiffness and reducing the importance of strength (and R factors) for such structures. Nevertheless, the conclusions made using the error measures E1 and E2 were reexamined using two additional error functions, as follows. Figure 4c shows the mean and standard deviation of the normalized error

SIMPLIFIED R-FACTOR RELATIONSHIPS FOR STRONG GROUND MOTIONS

37

Eijk E3

model r

(13)

This error metric examines relative differences in strength, and therefore, does not emphasize the short-period range. Past research on strength reduction factors often has focused on estimating R factors, and not their inverses, even though it is the inverse (1/R) that is applied to determine strengths. Figure 4d presents data for the difference between the actual and estimated R factors, given by the error metric E4 :

Eijk E4 Rr Rmodel .

(14)

Review of Figure 4 indicates that the conclusions made based on E1 and E2 also hold for these error metrics. That is, Model 7 is a simple and reasonably accurate model for estimating the R factors of the six load-deformation models, and Model 6 provides somewhat conservative estimates of the R factors and associated strengths.
RECOMMENDED R FACTORS

Vidic et al. showed that there is a considerable difference between the R factors for bilinear systems and those for stiffness-degrading systems. According to Vidic et al., for mass-proportional damping, stiffness-degrading systems require c1 1.0. This implies that Model 6 should provide good estimates for systems with substantial stiffness degradation. Model 6 also complies with the equal displacement rule, and was shown to provide conservative estimates, on average, for the six load-deformation responses studied (Figures 4a, 4b, and 4c). Given the record-to-record variability in R T relations, some conservatism in the R-factor relation often is appropriate. Thus, the use of the model in FEMA 273, ATC-32, and in the simplied form of the N2 method is supported for these conditions. Model 7 is recommended for systems with limited stiffness degradation, where greater accuracy is desired, and where scatter associated with record-torecord variability is better tolerated. Thus, the analyses indicate that the original Vidic et al. R-factor model may be simplied to

c1 R c1

T T 1 1 Tg Tg 1 1 T 1 Tg

(15)

where Tg is given by Equations 7 or 8 and c1 1.3 for an accurate estimate of the R factors for systems with limited stiffness degradation or c1 1.0 for systems with substantial stiffness degradation or for a somewhat conservative estimate for systems with limited stiffness degradation. These recommendations are based on the response of SDOF systems having 8, 2 10%, 0 10%, and T 3 s to motions having a range of characteristic periods and durations. The motions include both far-fault motions and a limited number of near-fault motions, recorded at various orientations relative to the fault strike. The observation that a pulse R factor can be used with long-duration ground motions may be more intriguing than the suggestion that a pulse R factor may be

38

I. CUESTA, M. A. ASCHHEIM, AND P. FAJFAR

used with near-fault motions. Nevertheless, additional studies involving a larger number of records may identify systematic differences between the R factors for near-fault motions and far-fault motions that were not apparent in this study. Equation 15 is not recommended for use with soft soil sites that can generate nearly harmonic motions, such as were observed in Mexico City in 1985. EXAMPLE APPLICATION Equation 15 with c1 1 is the basis for the determination of target displacements in the nonlinear static procedures of FEMA 356 and the N2 method (Fajfar 2000). This relationship has also been implemented in the draft Eurocode 8 standard (ECS 2002), with Tg set equal to the corner period, located at the intersection of the constant acceleration and constant velocity portions of the design spectrum (Ts in FEMA 302 and FEMA 356 and Tc in the N2 method). This section illustrates the application of this relationship with smoothed design spectra in order to visualize more easily the quantities relevant to the seismic response of an idealized nonlinear SDOF system. Both the acceleration-displacement (AD) and yield point spectra formats are shown. These representations are discussed in greater detail by Fajfar (2000) and Aschheim and Black (2000), respectively. Both formats allow comparison of capacity curves with seismic demand curves to allow the peak displacement response of the system to be estimated. Seismic demands are expressed in terms of accelerations and displacements, using spectral curves that represent elastic or inelastic response. The capacity curve of the system is superimposed on the demand curves. The demand curves indicate the ductility demand expected for the given hazard. The graphic representation of the demand and capacity curves enables one to appreciate the inuence of strength and stiffness on peak displacement and ductility demands. This information is useful for both the design of new structures and the evaluation of existing structures. Demand curves in both the acceleration-displacement (AD) format, developed originally by Freeman (1978), and the yield point spectra (YPS) format are shown together on one plot in Figure 5. Although accelerations and displacements are represented in both formats, we continue the traditional use of AD to designate plots of ultimate displacement and use YPS to designate plots of yield displacement. Accelerations are normalized by gravity; the normalized acceleration at yield is equivalent to the yield strength coefcient, Cy , where the yield strength Vy CyW. The AD and YPS curves coincide for elastic response ( 1), for which u y y. Equation 15 with c1 1 can be used to obtain simple and instructive graphic representations of inelastic demands. The AD and YPS curves for higher ductilities are obtained by computing the R factors for a given ductility demand using Equation 15. Acceleration and displacement demands for a given ductility demand are calculated as Cy Sa /(R g) and u Sd /R or y Sd /R , where Sa and Sd are the spectral acceleration and spectral displacement of an elastic system having the same period. The period is constant along lines that radiate from the origin. The intersection of the radial line corresponding to the elastic period T of the idealized bilinear system with the elastic de-

SIMPLIFIED R-FACTOR RELATIONSHIPS FOR STRONG GROUND MOTIONS

39

Figure 5. AD and YPS curves for the case 3, determined by applying the recommended R-factor relationship (c1 1) to a smooth code design spectrum.

mand spectrum identies the normalized acceleration demand or strength required for elastic response, as well as the corresponding peak elastic displacement, Sd , given by u for 1. The intersection of the bilinear capacity curve (with normalized yield acceleration Cy Sa /R and associated yield displacements y Cyg(T/2 )2) and demand spectrum (for the given ductility) denes the demand of the inelastic system. Figure 5 illustrates that the demand can be determined equivalently using AD spectra and YPS spectra. When AD spectra are used, the displacement demand is identied by the intersection of the peak displacement of the capacity curve and the AD demand curves. When YPS spectra are used, the ductility demand is identied by the intersection of the yield displacement of the capacity curve and the YPS demand curves; the peak displacement is computed as u y . Demand spectra in AD format can be transformed to YPS format by dividing the displacements by the corresponding ductility, whereas the multiplication of the yield displacements is needed for the opposite transformation. Figure 5 illustrates the demand for a medium-period system. For medium- and longperiod systems (T Ts), Equation 15 with c1 1 expresses the equal displacement rule, which postulates that R , or the peak displacement demand ( u) is equal to the peak displacement (Sd) of an elastic system having the same initial period. For short-period systems (T Ts), Equation 15 indicates that R , resulting in peak displacements that exceed the corresponding elastic displacements. Figure 5 also illustrates that the displacements d obtained from elastic analysis using reduced seismic forces, corresponding to the design strength coefcient Cd , have to be multiplied by a displacement amplication factor given by the product of the overstrength factor, dened as Cy /Cd , and the ductility associated with the term R , where R Sa /Cyg (Sa /Cdg)/(Cy /Cd). The graphical techniques used to estimate seismic demand can be used to visualize more complex cases, in which different relations between elastic and inelastic quantities

40

I. CUESTA, M. A. ASCHHEIM, AND P. FAJFAR

and different idealizations of capacity curves may be used. However, in such cases the simplicity of relations, which is of paramount importance for practical design, is lost. The plots of Figure 5 can be used for both traditional force-based design as well as for deformation-controlled or displacement-based design. The usual force-based design typically starts by assuming the stiffness or period of vibration, given the estimated mass, and a strength reduction factor whose value is prescribed by the code for the intended structural system. The seismic forces (dening the strength) are then determined, and nally an estimate of displacement demand is determined. In a displacement-based design, the starting points are typically displacement and/or ductility limits, and the quantities to be determined are the required stiffness and strength. In the displacementbased evaluation of an existing structure (or an existing design), the strength and stiffness (or period) of the structure being analyzed are known, and the displacement and ductility demands are to be determined. For the displacement-based approaches, the strength corresponds to the actual strength and not to the design base shear given by current seismic codes, which is less than the actual strength in all practical cases. All approaches can be easily visualised using the AD or YPS formats of Figure 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Recent studies have shown that improved estimates of inelastic spectra can be obtained when the R-factor relations reect the frequency content of the ground motion. Good estimates of inelastic spectra were obtained using the bilinear model, proposed by Vidic et al., and the R factors derived from simple pulse waveforms, proposed by Cuesta and Aschheim. The present study considered possible simplications to the preceding models, consisting of restating the Vidic et al. proposal in terms of the characteristic period identied by Cuesta and Aschheim and modifying the original coefcients. The computational study compared the errors in the inelastic spectra obtained for several candidate bilinear models for a set of fourteen ground motions and for different load-deformation relationships. The ground motions consisted of ve motions in the Short Duration and Forward Directive categories, and four motions in the Long Duration category. Ground motions within a category were selected to represent different frequency contents. Bilinear and stiffness-degrading load deformation models were considered, having varied amounts of viscous damping and different values of the ratio of postyield stiffness to initial stiffness. The simplied R-factor model (Model 7, Equation 15) is found to be a good approximation for use with bilinear and stiffness degrading systems which have limited stiffness degradation for all motions except the nearly harmonic motions that may be generated at soft soil sites. The R-factor model used in FEMA 273, ATC-32, and in the simple version of the N2 method (Model 6, Equation 15) is indicated where some conservatism in the estimate of required strength is desired and for systems with more substantial degradation of stiffness. Both models are simpler than the original formulation, with Model 7 being of comparable accuracy to the Vidic et al. and pulse R-factor relationships, and therefore, an improvement over many conventional R-factor models. Additional study to conrm the nding that a single bilinear R-factor relationship is suitable for both near- and far-fault motions would be useful.

SIMPLIFIED R-FACTOR RELATIONSHIPS FOR STRONG GROUND MOTIONS

41

The increased accuracy of the strength estimates is attributed to the explicit consideration of the frequency content of the ground motions by means of a characteristic period, Tg . When the response spectrum is available, Tg can be obtained directly from the spectrum as described in the Appendix, or by Equations 7 or 8. However, if only attenuation relations are available for peak ground velocity and peak ground acceleration, Equation 6 may be preferred. The recommended relationships can be applied to a code design spectrum in the acceleration-displacement and yield point spectra formats, as illustrated in an example. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The work was supported in part by the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers Program of the National Science Foundation under Award Number EEC-9701785 and in part by an NSF CAREER Award to the second author (Award Number CMS-9984830). NOTATION

ag ag,max cr , c1 C1 Cd Cy dg,max
E

pulse acceleration peak ground acceleration coefcients used in Equation 4 coefcient used in FEMA 273 design strength coefcient yield strength coefcient peak ground displacement error errors using Equation 9, 10, 13, and 14, respectively mean of the error forward directive records acceleration of gravity long duration records mass of the system number of ductility values number of periods number of records strength reduction factor pseudo acceleration pseudo displacement pseudo velocity

E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 E
FD g LD m

nd np nr
R

Sa Sd Sv

42

I. CUESTA, M. A. ASCHHEIM, AND P. FAJFAR

SD SDOF t

short duration records single-degree-of-freedom time duration of the pulse natural period of the system period determined in Equation 5 characteristic ground motion periods characteristic period of the pulse period determined in Equation 6 peak ground velocity yield strength weight of the SDOF system post-yield stiffness viscous damping ratio displacement determined using design forces ultimate displacement yield displacement
ev

td
T

Ta Tg , Tg1 Tp T1 vg,max Vy
W

d u y ea , model r y

acceleration and velocity amplication factors used in Equation 6 estimated strength parameter strength parameter associated to a ground motion strength parameter ( Vy /m ag,max) ductility demand of the system standard deviation using Equation 12 APPENDIX: DETERMINATION OF THE PERIOD Tg

An example of the graphical determination of the period Tg according to Equation 8 is presented in Figure 6 for the CH85VALP.070 record. The curves ( 1,T) and T ( 1,T) are plotted as well as the maximum of both curves. The period T* 1.5 s denes the period at which the product of T and ( 1,T) is a maximum, and * 1.173 is the elastic strength at this period. Since the maximum of ( 1,T) is 3.482, Equation 8 provides

Tg

1.1731.5s 0.505 s. 3.482

(16)

Figure 6 also shows a graphical method for establishing Tg . The largest-valued curve proportional to 1/T that intersects ( 1,T) does so precisely at the location that

SIMPLIFIED R-FACTOR RELATIONSHIPS FOR STRONG GROUND MOTIONS

43

Figure 6. Graphical determination of the period Tg for the CH85VALP.070 record.

T ( 1,T) is a maximum. This intersection denes the period T and the strength parameter ( 1,T) at which the largest T ( 1,T) occurs. The values of T ( 1,T) max and ( 1,T) max so determined can be used in Equation 8 to determine Tg , or the intersection of the corresponding constant strength and largest valued 1/T curves can be determined graphically, with this intersection identifying Tg . This graphical intersection is seen to correspond exactly to the intersection of the constant acceleration and constant velocity portions of a smoothed design spectrum that bounds the actual spectrum.
This technique is also applicable to harmonic motion. In this case, resonance causes the peak values of T ( 1,T) and ( 1,T) to be reached at T/Tp 1; therefore, Equation 8 gives Tg Tp resulting in a denition for Tg that is consistent with the characteristic period of the motion. Thus, the denition Tg by Equations 7 and 8 accommodates a wide range of excitations. REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. ATC-32: Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional Recommendations, Redwood City, CA, June. ATC, 1999. Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall BuildingsTechnical Resources, FEMA 307, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, May.

44

I. CUESTA, M. A. ASCHHEIM, AND P. FAJFAR

Aschheim, M., and Black, E., 2000. Yield point spectra for seismic design and rehabilitation, Earthquake Spectra 16 (2), 317336. Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 1998. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Part 1Provisions, FEMA 302, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. Cuesta, I., and Aschheim, M. A., 2000. Waveform independence of R-factors, Paper No. 1246, 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Auckland, New Zealand. Cuesta, I., and Aschheim, M. A., 2001a. Using pulse R-factors to estimate structural response to earthquake ground motions, MAE Center Report Series CD Release 0103, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, March. Cuesta, I., and Aschheim, M. A., 2001b. Isoductile strengths and strength reduction factors of elasto-plastic SDOF systems subjected to simple waveforms, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 30 (7), July Cuesta, I., and Aschheim, M. A., 2001c. Inelastic response spectra using conventional and pulse R-factors, J. Struct. Eng. 127 (9), 10131020. European Committee for Standardization (ECS), 2002. Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, Draft No. 5, Eurocode 8, May. Fajfar, P., 2000. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design, Earthquake Spectra 16 (3), 573592. Freeman, S. A., 1978, Prediction of response of concrete buildings to severe earthquake motion, Douglas McHenry International Symposium on Concrete and Concrete Structures, ACI Special Publication 55, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 589605. Hidalgo, P. A., and Arias, A., 1990. New Chilean code for earthquake-resistant design of buildings, Proc. 4th U.S. Natl. Conference. Earthquake Eng., Palm Springs, CA, 2, pp. 927936. International Conference of Building Ofcials (ICBO), 2000. International Building Code, Whittier, CA. Lai, S.-P., and Biggs, J. M., 1980. Inelastic response spectra for aseismic building design, J. Struct. Div. ASCE 106, No. ST6, 12951310. Mahin, S. A., and Lin, J., 1983. Construction of Inelastic Response Spectra for SDOF Systems, Report No. UCB-EERC-83/17, Earthquake Eng. Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. Miranda, E., 1993. Site-dependent strength reduction factors, J. Struct. Eng. 119 (12), 3503 3519. Miranda, E., and Bertero, V. V., 1994. Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquakeresistant design, Earthquake Spectra 10 (2), 357379. Nassar, A. A., and Krawinkler, H., 1991. Seismic Demands for SDOF and MDOF Systems, Report No. 95, The John A. Blume Earthquake Eng. Center, Stanford University, CA. Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J., 1973. Seismic Design Criteria for Nuclear Reactor Facilities, Report No. 46, Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, 209236. Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J., 1982. Earthquake Spectra and Design, EERI Monograph Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA. Ordaz, M., and Perez-Rocha, L. E., 1998. Estimation of strength-reduction factors for elastoplastic systems: A new approach, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 27, 889901. Riddell, R., Hidalgo, P., and Cruz, E., 1989. Response modication factors for earthquake re-

SIMPLIFIED R-FACTOR RELATIONSHIPS FOR STRONG GROUND MOTIONS

45

sistant design of short period structures, Earthquake Spectra 5 (3), 571590. Saiidi, A. M., and Sozen, M., 1981. Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures, J. Struct. Div. ASCE 107, No. ST5, May. Veletsos, A. S., 1969. Maximum deformations of certain nonlinear systems, Proc. 4th World Conf. Earthquake Eng., Santiago, Chile, 2, 155170. Veletsos, A. S., and Newmark, N. M., 1960. Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions, Proc. 2nd World Conf. Earthquake Eng., Tokyo, Japan, 2, 895912. Veletsos, A. S., and Newmark, N. M., 1964. Design Procedures for Shock Isolation Systems of Underground Protective Structures, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, New Mexico, Technical Documentary Report No. RTD TDR-63-3096, III. Veletsos, A. S., Newmark, N. M., and Chelapati, C. V 1965. Deformation spectra for elastic ., and elastoplastic systems subjected to ground shock and earthquake motions, Proc. 3rd World Conf. Earthquake Eng., Wellington, New Zealand, 2, 663680. Veletsos, A. S., and Vann, W. P., 1971. Response of ground-excited elasto-plastic systems, J. Struct. Div. ASCE 97, No. ST4, 12571281. Vidic, T., 1993. Inelastic Seismic Response of SDOF Systems, Doctoral thesis, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia (in Slovenian). Vidic, T., Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M., 1994. Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 23, 507521.

(Received 7 September 2001; accepted 11 September 2002)