Seismic Response Modification Factors
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 125, Issue 4
Abstract
The response modification factor plays a key role in the seismic design of new buildings in the United States. To date, the values assigned to this factor are based on engineering judgment and have little sound technical basis. Any improvement in the reliability of modern earthquake-resistant buildings in the United States will require the systematic evaluation of the building response characteristics that most affect the values assigned to the factor. To this end, a draft formulation that represents the response modification factor as the product of factors related to reserve strength, ductility, and redundancy is presented in the paper. Pertinent data from various analytical and experimental studies on reserve strength and ductility are also presented.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). ( 1974). “An evaluation of a response spectrum approach to the seismic design of buildings.” Rep. No. ATC-2, Redwood City, Calif.
2.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). ( 1978). “Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings.” Rep. No. ATC-3-06, Redwood City, Calif.
3.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). ( 1982). “An investigation of the correlation between earthquake ground motion and building performance.” Rep. No. ATC-10, Redwood City, Calif.
4.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). ( 1995a). “Structural response modification factors.” Rep. No. ATC-19, Redwood City, Calif.
5.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). ( 1995b). “A critical review of current approaches to earthquake-resistant design.” Rep. No. ATC-34, Redwood City, Calif.
6.
Bertero, V. V. ( 1986). “Evaluation of response reduction factors recommended by ATC and SEAOC.” Proc., 3rd U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Calif., 1663–1673.
7.
Earthquake resistant regulations: a world list. (1992). International Association for Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
8.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ( 1997a). “NEHRP provisions for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” Rep. FEMA 273 (Guidelines) and 274 (Commentary), Washington, D.C.
9.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ( 1997b). “NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings.” Rep. FEMA 302, Washington, D.C.
10.
Freeman, S. A. ( 1990). “On the correlation of code forces to earthquake demands.” Proc., 4th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Improvement of Build. Struct. Des. and Constr. Practices, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, Calif.
11.
Hwang, H., and Shinozuka, M. ( 1994). “Effect of large earthquakes on the design of buildings in eastern United States.” Proc., 5th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Calif., 223–231.
12.
Krawinkler, H., and Nassar, A. A. ( 1992). “Seismic design based on ductility and cumulative damage demands and capacities.” Nonlinear seismic analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings, P. Fajfar and H. Krawinkler, eds., Elsevier Applied Science, New York.
13.
Miranda, E., and Bertero, V. V. ( 1994). “Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design.” Earthquake Spectra, 10(2), 357–379.
14.
Moses, F. (1974). “Reliability of structural systems.”J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 100(9), 1813–1820.
15.
Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. ( 1982). Earthquake spectra and design. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Calif.
16.
Osteraas, J. D., and Krawinkler, H. ( 1990). “Strength and ductility considerations in seismic design.” Rep. 90, John A. Blume Earthquake Engrg. Ctr., Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
17.
Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary . (1996). 6th Ed., Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, Calif.
18.
Uang, C.-M. (1991). “Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors for building seismic provisions.”J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(1), 19–28.
19.
Uang, C.-M., and Bertero, V. V. ( 1986). “Earthquake simulation tests and associated studies of a 0.3-scale model of a six-story concentrically braced steel structure.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-86/10, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
20.
Uang, C. M., and Maarouf, A. ( 1993). “Safety and economy considerations of UBC seismic force reduction factors.” Proc., 1993 National Earthquake Conf., Central United States Earthquake Consortium, Memphis, 121–130.
21.
Uniform building code . (1997). International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Calif.
22.
Whittaker, A. S., Uang, C.-M., and Bertero, V. V. ( 1987). “Earthquake simulation tests and associated studies of a 0.3-scale model of a six-story eccentrically braced steel structure.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-87/02, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
23.
Whittaker, A. S., Uang, C.-M., and Bertero, V. V. ( 1990). “An experimental study of the behavior of dual steel systems.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-88/14, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 125 • Issue 4 • April 1999
Pages: 438 - 444
History
Received: Jun 4, 1997
Published online: Apr 1, 1999
Published in print: Apr 1999
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.