Inelastic Displacement Ratios for Structures on Firm Sites
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 126, Issue 10
Abstract
The results of a comprehensive statistical study of inelastic displacement ratios that permit the estimation of maximum lateral inelastic displacement demands on a structure from maximum lateral elastic displacement demands are presented. These ratios were computed for single-degree-of-freedom systems undergoing different levels of inelastic deformation when subjected to a relatively large number of recorded earthquake ground motions. The study is based on 264 acceleration time histories recorded on firm sites during various earthquakes in California. Three types of soil conditions with shear-wave velocities higher than 180 m/s are considered. The influences of period of vibration, level of ductility demand, site conditions, earthquake magnitude, and epicentral distance are carefully evaluated and discussed. Inelastic displacement ratios associated with mean values are presented. Special emphasis is given to the disperson of the results. It is concluded that for sites with average shear-wave velocities higher than 180 m/s the influence of soil conditions is relatively small and can be neglected for design purposes. Finally, results from nonlinear regression analyses are presented that provide a simplified expression to be used in the design to approximate mean inelastic displacements ratios for structures on firm sites.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). ( 1996). “Improved seismic design criteria for California bridges: Provisional recommendations.” Rep. No. ATC-32, Redwood City, Calif.
2.
Báez, J. I., and Miranda, E. ( 2000). “Amplification factors to estimate inelastic displacement demands for the design of structures in the near field.” Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg.
3.
Bevington, P. R., and Robinson, D. K. ( 1992). Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York.
4.
Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M. ( 1988). “N2—a method for nonlinear seismic analysis of regular structures.” Proc., 9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 5, 111–116.
5.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ( 1997a). “NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” Rep. FEMA 273 (Guidelines) and Rep. 274 (Commentary), Washington, D.C.
6.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ( 1997b). “NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures.” Rep. FEMA 302 (Provisions) and Rep. 303 (Commentary), Washington, D.C.
7.
Gupta, B., and Kunnath, S. K. ( 1998). “Effect of hysteretic model parameters on inelastic seismic demands.” Proc., 6th Natl. Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Calif.
8.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). ( 1997). Uniform building code, Whittier, Calif.
9.
Miranda, E. ( 1991). “Seismic evaluation and upgrading of existing structures.” PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
10.
Miranda, E. (1993a). “Evaluation of site-dependent inelastic seismic design spectra.”J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 119(5), 1319–1338.
11.
Miranda, E. ( 1993b). “Evaluation of seismic design criteria for highway bridges.” Earthquake Spectra, 9(2), 233–250.
12.
Miranda, E. (1999). “Approximate seismic lateral deformation demands in multistory buildings.”J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 125(4), 417–425.
13.
Qi, X., and Moehle, J. P. ( 1991). “Displacement design approach for reinforced concrete structures subjected to earthquakes.” Rep. No. EERC 91/02, Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., University of California, Berkeley, Richmond, Calif.
14.
Rahnama, M., and Krawinkler, H. ( 1993). “Effects of soils and hysteresis models on seismic design spectra.” Rep. No. 107, John A. Blume Earthquake Engrg. Ctr., Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
15.
Saiidi, M., and Sozen, M. A. (1981). “Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures.”J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 107(5), 937–953.
16.
Seneviratna, G. D. P. K., and Krawinkler, H. ( 1997). “Evaluation of inelastic MDOF effects for seismic design.” Rep. No. 120, John A. Blume Earthquake Engrg. Ctr., Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
17.
Shimazaki, K., and Sozen, M. A. ( 1984). “Seismic drift of reinforced concrete structures.” Tech. Res. Rep. of Hazama-Gumi Ltd., Tokyo, 145–166.
18.
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. on Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 2, 895–912.
19.
Veletsos, A. S., Newmark, N. M., and Chepalati, C. V. ( 1965). “Deformation spectra for elastic and elastoplastic systems subjected to ground shock and earthquake motion.” Proc., 3rd World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Vol. II, 663–682.
20.
Whittaker, A., Constantinou, M., and Tsopelas, P. (1998). “Displacement estimates for performance-based seismic design.”J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 124(8), 905–912.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 126 • Issue 10 • October 2000
Pages: 1150 - 1159
History
Received: Sep 20, 1999
Published online: Oct 1, 2000
Published in print: Oct 2000
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.