Influence of site effects on inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF and MDOF systems. (English) Zbl 1334.70041

Summary: Lateral displacements’ control of structures subjected to earthquake ground motion has now been recognized as a key factor in the assessment of system performance, leading to design approaches that use displacements rather than forces as the starting point for the seismic evaluation of structures. In fact performance-based approaches offer significant advantages in comparison with traditional force-based approaches, since the former are capable of focusing on nonlinear behaviour and consequent damage to the structure, in contrast to the latter.
Lateral displacement demand, particularly in structures that exhibit nonlinear behaviour, can be significantly affected by the features of strong ground motion, i.e., amplitude, frequency content and duration. Such characteristics are in turn profoundly influenced by the irregularity and changeability in earthquake ground motions, which should therefore be taken into account appropriately. The great number of strong motion records gathered throughout the last decades in the most widely varying soil-site conditions has made accounting for soil-site effects in the characterization of elastic and inelastic displacement demands feasible.
The aim of this paper is to present the results of numerical investigations on the response of both single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) and multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems, through nonlinear time-history analyses performed on the basis of a wide data set of strong motion records. Constant ductility spectra of the ratios of the maximum inelastic displacement to the corresponding maximum elastic demand were derived for this purpose. In particular, the influences of earthquake magnitude, source-to-site distance, local soil-site conditions, ductility and hysteretic behaviour were quantified. Finally, simplified expressions for the ratio of the maximum inelastic to the maximum elastic displacement were established, in order to allow the evaluation of inelastic displacements for new or rehabilitated structures for which the global displacement ductility can be estimated, directly from the knowledge of the corresponding elastic demands.


70K99 Nonlinear dynamics in mechanics
74L05 Geophysical solid mechanics


Full Text: DOI


[1] X. Qi, J.P. Moehle, Displacements design approach for reinforced concrete structures subjected to earthquake, Report No. UCB/EERC- 91/02 Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkley, 1991
[2] Priestley, M.J.N., Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings, Journal of earthquake engineering, 1, 1, 157-192, (1997)
[3] Priestley, M.J.N.; Calvi, G.M., Concepts and procedures for direct displacement-based design and assessment, (), 171-181
[4] Whittaker, A.; Constantinou, M.; Tsopelas, P., Displacement estimates for performance-based seismic design, ASCE journal of structural engineering, 124, 8, 905-912, (1998)
[5] Miranda, E., Approximate seismic lateral deformation demands in multistory buildings, ASCE journal of structural engineering, 125, 4, 417-425, (1999)
[6] Gupta, A.; Krawinkler, H., Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame structures, Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, 29, 1287-1305, (2000)
[7] Miranda, E., Estimation of inelastic deformation demands of SDOF systems, ASCE journal of structural engineering, 127, 9, 1005-1012, (2001)
[8] Chopra, A.K.; Goel, R.K., Direct displacement-based design: use of inelastic vs. elastic design spectra, Earthquake spectra, 17, 1, (2001)
[9] Borzi, B.; Calvi, G.M.; Elnashai, A.S.; Faccioli, E.; Bommer, J.J., Inelastic spectra for displacement-based seismic design, Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 21, 47-61, (2001)
[10] Miranda, E.; Reyes, C.J., Approximate lateral drift demands in multistory buildings with nonuniform stiffness, ASCE journal of structural engineering, 128, 7, 840-849, (2002)
[11] Miranda, E.; Ruiz-Garcia, J., Evaluation of approximate methods to estimate maximum inelastic displacement demands, Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, 31, 539-560, (2002)
[12] Decanini, L.; Liberatore, L.; Mollaioli, F., Characterization of displacement demand for elastic and inelastic SDOF systems, Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 23, 455-471, (2003)
[13] Krawinkler, H.; Medina, R.; Alavi, B., Seismic drift and ductility demands and their dependence on ground motions, Engineering structures, 25, 637-653, (2003)
[14] A.S. Veletsos, N.M. Newmark, Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions, in: Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Japan, vol. 2, 1960, pp. 895-912
[15] A.S. Veletsos, N.M. Newmark, C.V. Chelapati, Deformation spectra for elastic and elastoplastic systems subjected to ground shock and earthquake motions. in: Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, vol. 2, 1965, pp. 663-682
[16] Miranda, E., Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm sites, ASCE journal of structural engineering, 126, 10, 1150-1159, (2000)
[17] Ruiz-Garcia, J.; Miranda, E., Inelastic displacement ratios for design of structures on soft soil sites, ASCE journal of structural engineering, 130, 12, 2051-2061, (2004)
[18] Chopra, A.K.; Chintanapakdee, C., Inelastic deformation ratios for design and evaluation of structures: single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems, Journal of structural engineering, 130, 9, (2004)
[19] Archuleta, R.J.; Hartzell, S.H., Effects of fault finiteness on near-source ground motion, Bulletin of the seismological society of America, 71, 4, 939-957, (1981)
[20] Abrahamson, N.A.; Somerville, P.G., Effects of the hanging wall and footwall on ground motions recorded during the northridge earthquake, Bulletin of the seismological society of America, 86, 1B, S93-S99, (1996)
[21] Somerville, P.G.; Smith, N.F.; Graves, R.W.; Abrahamson, N.A., Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity, Seismological research letters, 68, 199-222, (1997)
[22] Stewart, J.P.; Chiou, S.-J.; Bray, J.D.; Graves, R.W.; Somerville, P.G.; Abrahamson, N.A., Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design, Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 22, 765-772, (2002)
[23] G.F. Panza, F. Romanelli, F. Vaccari, L. Decanini, F. Mollaioli, Seismic ground motion modelling and damage earthquake scenarios: A bridge between seismologist and seismic engineers. in: OECD/NEA Workshop on The Relation between Seismological Data and Seismic Engineering, 16-18 October 2002, Istanbul Turkey, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)18, 2003, pp. 241-266
[24] Somerville, P.G.; Graves, R.W., Characterization of earthquake strong ground motion, (), 1811-1828
[25] Bray, J.D.; Rodriguez-Marek, A., Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region, Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 24, 815-828, (2004)
[26] Boore, D.M.; Joyner, W.B., Site amplifications for generic rock sites, Bulletin of seismological society of America, 87, 327-341, (1997)
[27] Baturay, M.B.; Stewart, J.P., Uncertainty and bias in ground-motion estimates from ground response analyses, Bulletin of seismological society of America, 93, 2025-2042, (2003)
[28] Panza, G.F.; Romanelli, F.; Vaccari, F., Realistic modelling of waveforms in laterally heterogeneous anelastic media by modal summation, Geophysical journal international, 143, 1-20, (2000)
[29] A.A. Nassar, H. Krawinkler, Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No. 95, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, 1991
[30] Miranda, E.; Bertero, V.V., Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design, Earthquake spectra, 10, 2, 357-379, (1994)
[31] Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings pren 1998-1, (2001)
[32] L. Decanini, F. Mollaioli, A. Mura, Simplified shear-type model for the evaluation of the influence of ductility and stiffness distribution patterns on multi-story structures, in: Proceedings of the 11th Italian National Conference: L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia, Genova, Italy, January 25-29, 2004. CD ref. D1-01 (2004)
[33] S.K. Kunnath, A.M. Reinhorn, R.F. Lobo, IDARC 3.0: A Program for the Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Technical Report NCEER-92-0022, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1992
[34] Park, Y.J.; Ang, A.H.-S., Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings, ASCE journal of structural engineering, 111, 4, 740-757, (1985)
[35] R.W. Clough, S.B. Johnston, Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake ductility requirements, in: Proceedings of the Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, 1966, pp. 227-332
[36] Takeda, T.; Sozen, M.A.; Nielsen, N.N., Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes, ASCE journal of the structural division, 96, ST12, 2557-2573, (1970)
[37] L. Decanini, F. Mollaioli, A. Mura, Shear-beam model for the prediction of the response of MDOF systems subjected to severe earthquake ground shaking, in: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper 55, London, 2002
[38] Darragh, R.B.; Shakal, A.F., The site response of two rock and soil stations pairs to strong and weak ground motion, Bulletin of seismological society of America, 81, 1885-1899, (1991)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.