Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764 DOI 10.

1007/s10518-009-9126-5 ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

A methodology for the probabilistic assessment of behaviour factors

Anbal Costa Xavier Romo Carlos Sousa Oliveira

Received: 8 August 2008 / Accepted: 10 May 2009 / Published online: 28 May 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Given the importance that traditional force-based seismic design still currently exhibits, studies addressing issues related to the definition of the behaviour factor values are considered to be of most interest. A probabilistic methodology is proposed for the calibration of the q-factor relating its value with two fundamental parameters, the displacement ductility capacity measured at a relevant location of the structure and the failure probability P f . The general foundation of this procedure is based on the probabilistic quantication of the seismic action and, by applying a transformation procedure, of the structural seismic demand in terms of displacement ductility. By recalling well established structural reliability procedures and by making use of nonlinear analysis methods, both static and dynamic, a general probabilistic framework, which is able to relate the ductility capacity, the failure probability P f and the behaviour factor, is dened. In order to illustrate some of the potentialities of the methodology, an application example is presented, addressing the q-factor assessment for a set of regular and irregular reinforced concrete frame structures, enforcing a given P f and two different ductility levels. Keywords Behaviour factor Ductility Probabilistic analysis Seismic design

A. Costa Civil Engineering Department, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitrio de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal X. Romo (B ) Civil Engineering Department, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal e-mail: xnr@fe.up.pt C. S. Oliveira Civil Engineering and Architecture Department, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

123

48

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

1 Introduction Although the development of seismic design methodologies based on deformations is a concept that has been gaining considerable interest over the past few years (Priestley et al. 2007), seismic design methodologies of current codes still follow the traditional force-based design approach. The essential feature of force-based seismic design is the behaviour factor q , hereon simply termed q-factor. Fundamentally, the q-factor is, according to Eurocode 8 Part 1 (EC8-1) (CEN 2004), a factor used in design to reduce forces obtained from a linear analysis in order to account for the nonlinear response of the structure associated with the material, the structural system and the design procedures. Hence, structures are designed for equivalent seismic lateral forces that are smaller than those of an elastic structure, assuming that the structure possesses adequate ductility in order to dissipate energy through inelastic deformations. In more practical terms, the force-based seismic design procedure currently set by EC8-1 denes lateral design forces based on an inelastic design spectrum that is obtained from the elastic design spectrum scaled by the selected q-factor. For the purpose of the study presented herein, it is considered that scaling elastic forces based on an elastic response spectrum with the q-factor, and obtaining design forces based on an inelastic design spectrum as set in EC8-1, are equivalent approaches. Since seismic design forces have a direct relation to the value adopted for this parameter, research issues related to the q-factor are of great interest and have been the focus of considerable attention over the years. Comprehensive reviews of research on the q-factor can be found, for example, in Miranda and Bertero (1994), CEB (1997), Kappos (1999), Mwafy and Elnashai (2002), or Maheri and Akbari (2003). Furthermore, research studies focusing on the inuence that structural parameters, such as strain-hardening, strength or stiffness degradation, pinching effects or other hysteretic characteristics, have on the q-factor can be found in Lee et al. (1999), Borzi and Elnashai (2000) or Miranda and Ruiz-Garcia (2002). The effects of structural regularity and of the ductility class were also addressed in Zeris et al. (1992) and in Salvitti and Elnashai (1996). Moreover, it has been also seen that estimating q-factors based on simplied empirical relationships accounting for aspects such as structural regularity and the expected ductility demand may lead to significantly different outcomes depending on the design codes (Booth et al. 1998). Although the referred studies address the q-factor issue deterministically, probabilistic studies have also been carried out. Examples of such q-factor calibration studies can be found in Colangelo et al. (1995), where concepts of stochastic linearization were applied, in Bento and Azevedo (2000), where the vulnerability function methodology (Duarte 1991) was considered, in Chryssanthopoulos et al. (2000), where a simulation study accounting for material variability, connement uncertainty, and local and global failure criteria uncertainty was carried out for several limit states, and in Thomos and Trezos (2005), where a simulation study based on pushover analysis and accounting for material variability was developed. Following the line of the referred probabilistic studies, the present work proposes a probabilistic methodology to calibrate the value of the q-factor that includes two fundamental parameters: the displacement ductility capacity measured at a relevant location (e.g. at the roof level) and the failure probability P f .

2 Brief review of general concepts Before presenting the proposed q-factor calibration methodology, a short review of some of the concepts entering the referred methodology is exposed in the following. Aspects such

123

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

49

as the definition of the q-factor and its relation with other relevant parameters, the relation between earthquake demand and structural demand in the considered method and the selected approach to characterize structural safety are addressed herein. 2.1 The q-factor and its relation with other important parameters For the purpose of the proposed methodology, the q-factor is considered to be generally dened by the following expression, similar to the EC8-1 proposal: q=q (1)

where q represents a basic value of the q-factor, dependent on the type of structural system and on its regularity, and represents a general overstrength factor. In a design situation governed by seismic strength demand, the considered overstrength is equivalent to the u /1 factor dened by EC8-1, in which 1 is the multiplicative factor of the seismic design action leading to the rst yield in any structural member, Fy ,1 , with all other design actions remaining constant, and u is the multiplicative factor of the seismic design action leading to the failure mechanism of the structure, FN L , with all other design actions remaining constant. Hence, for this design situation, Fy ,1 corresponds to the design action Fd , which is obtained by scaling the elastic base shear FL , obtained from the elastic response spectrum, by the q-factor. However, design is in many cases governed by other considerations like gravity loading scenarios or other deformation-related criteria such as 2nd order effects or serviceability drift limits. In these cases the value of Fy ,1 is usually larger than the seismic design action Fd (Elnashai and Mwafy 2002; Elghazouli et al. 2008). Within the proposed methodology, it is considered that Fig. 1a represents the global lateral response curves of a structure exhibiting linear elastic and nonlinear behaviour. In this schematic representation d L represents the elastic control displacement corresponding to the elastic base shear FL , considering that the structure possesses an elastic stiffness K L . Furthermore, d y ,1 represents the control displacement corresponding to the rst yield base shear Fy ,1 , d N L represents the expected nonlinear control displacement demand for the design seismic action, considering that the structure possesses an equivalent secant post-rst-yield stiffness K N L . The referred nonlinear curve is purely conventional for the purpose of the proposed method and must not be confused with the possible bi-linearization of the capacity curve obtained from pushover analysis. Figure 1b presents the curves of Fig. 1a overlapped with a capacity curve obtained from pushover analysis and the corresponding idealized bilinearization. It must be emphasized that the referred bi-linearized capacity curve is that of the original structure and is not assumed to correspond to the behaviour of an equivalent single of degree of freedom system as in the Capacity Spectrum method (ATC 2005) or in the N2 method (CEN 2004). Observation of Fig. 1b shows that a conventional yield displacement d y is now introduced as a result of the pushover curve bi-linearization. The setting of d y is fundamental as it will be the basis for the definition of the ductility capacity of the structure. In the example of Fig. 1b, the selected bi-linearization approach is that of EC8-1 (CEN 2004), i.e. considering the criterion of equal energy at maximum displacement with a zero post-yield stiffness. Nonetheless, other codes might suggest different approaches, e.g. (ATC 1996, 2005; FEMA 2000), hence leading to different definitions of d y . By observation of Fig. 1, and considering the q-factor definition set by Eq. 1, it is possible to relate the several relevant parameters according to the following relations FL =q Fd (2)

123

50

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

(a) F
FL

KL KNL

FNL Fy,1 Fd

d y,1

dL

d NL

(b) F
FL

KL

bi-linearized capacity curve original capacity curve KNL

FNL Fy,1 Fd

d y,1

d y dL

d NL

Fig. 1 a Global lateral response curves of a structure considering linear elastic and nonlinear behaviour with b the capacity curve obtained from pushover and its bi-linearization

FN L = Fd FL =q FN L dN L = dy

(3) (4) (5)

2.2 The relation between earthquake demand and structural demand The adequate definition of the evolution of the average chosen structural demand parameter, i.e. the displacement ductility D at the level of the control displacement, for increasing values of the seismic intensity measure (IM) is an important feature of the proposed method. In the past, this functional relation has been termed vulnerability function (Duarte 1991; Bento and Azevedo 2000), while, in the course of more recent research carried out on seismic risk assessment, the term incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) curve (Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002) has been extensively used and is also considered hereon.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764 Fig. 2 Graphical interpretation of the transformation of f I M into fD

IDA curve

51

fD ( )

Shaded areas are equal

im f (im)
IM

Assuming that the probability density distribution (PDF) of the earthquake action f I M in terms of a given earthquake IM is known and considering also that the average IDA curve relating the IM and the control displacement ductility D obtained from structural analysis can be dened, the PDF of D , f D , can then be derived by standard probability transformation. Figure 2 presents a graphical interpretation of the referred probability transformation while details can be found e.g. in Benjamin and Cornell (1970). The reader is referred to Cornell et al. (2000) and Romo et al. (2008) for further applications of this procedure for the characterization of the probabilistic distribution of a chosen demand parameter. Furthermore, Romo et al. (2008) present a study on the adequate mathematical forms of the IDA curve suitable for analytical treatment of the probability transformation, according to the type of demand parameter. 2.3 The selected structural safety approach As previously referred, one of the central parameters within the proposed methodology is the failure probability P f . Given that the probabilistic distribution of the displacement ductility D at the level of the control displacement f D , representing the structural demand, can be obtained by the procedure previously outlined, and assuming that the probabilistic distribution representing the capacity C in terms of that ductility can be estimated, the value of P f can then be obtained by the classical reliability formulation expression:
0

Pf =

(1 FD ()) f C () d

(6)

in which FD () is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the maxima of the ductility D , f C () is the PDF of C , assuming that the ductility demand and C can be considered independent variables (a commonly considered assumption though sometimes approximate (Pinto et al. 2004)).

123

52

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

3 Description of the proposed methodology for q-factor calibration A detailed description of the proposed probabilistic methodology for calibration of the q-factor is presented in the following. As previously referred, the two fundamental parameters of the methodology are the displacement ductility capacity at the level of the control displacement and the failure probability P f . The proposed methodology comprises a total of six steps that are generally described in the following. Next, a discussion is presented concerning the different analyses that can be performed with the proposed approach, depending on the type of assessment that is chosen. 3.1 General steps of the proposed methodology The rst step corresponds to a standard force-based design of the structure, based on linear analysis values and considering a q-factor selected on the basis of code prescriptions. This design must dene all the necessary data in terms of structural member dimensions and detailing in order to be able to develop a numerical nonlinear model of the structure. In the second step, the pushover analysis of the structure is carried out, using the previously referred nonlinear model. The fundamental objective of this analysis is to dene the capacity curve of the structure at the selected control level that will lead to an estimate of its conventional yield displacement d y . It is emphasized that the control level is not necessarily located at the roof level of the structure since the role of pushover analysis within the proposed framework does not include the application of methods such as the Capacity Spectrum method (ATC 2005) or the N2 method (CEN 2004) where this requirement is enforced. In the proposed framework, the control level is that which leads to the largest displacement ductility demand. Since the location of such level may not be known beforehand, capacity curves must, therefore, be dened for all the possible levels. Moreover, according to most codes that allow the use of this type of analysis, there is the need to perform it for different lateral load patterns. Namely, EC8-1 enforces the use of the uniform and of the modal loading patterns, each one applied for both positive and negative loading directions, which leads to the computation of four capacity curves. An idealized bi-linearization of each capacity curve is then computed according to a chosen approach and a value of d y is extracted from each curve. Since the proposed procedure requires a single value of d y for a given control level i , d y ,i , and given that large variations between the several values are not expected, the average of the four values is therefore considered. The third step corresponds to the computation of the IDA curve of the average structural demand dened in terms of the control displacement ductility. To obtain this curve, a nonlinear model of the structure that is able to represent with sufcient detail the dynamic characteristics of the structural response must be dened. Then, a collection of adequate accelerograms must be set, either selected from an existing ground motion database or based on an articial generation procedure. For the case where the seismic action is dened according to EC8-1, the number of accelerograms must be at least seven and these must full a number of restrictions in terms of spectral matching (CEN 2004). Nonlinear dynamic analyses are then carried out to determine the structures peak response in terms of the control displacement for increasing scaled intensities of those accelerograms. Again, since the location of the relevant control displacement level may not be known beforehand, displacement demand must be considered at all the possible levels. For each IM level, the average of the absolute maxima of the displacements at the control levels resulting from each accelerogram must be recorded. To obtain the ductility demand at each level i , the referred average displacements must then be divided by the corresponding value of d y ,i . At this point, the relevant control level, i.e.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

53

that which exhibits the highest average peak displacement ductility demand D , is able to be identied. This step ends with the tting of a mathematical expression to the evolution of D for increasing values of the ground motion IM, which yields the required IDA curve. The fourth step corresponds to the characterization of the probability distribution representing the displacement ductility capacity. Several approaches can be selected to dene such distribution ranging from more comprehensive and detailed methods to more simplied ones. For an example of a more comprehensive methodology that can be extended to the present framework, the reader is referred to Thomos and Trezos (2006) where a simulation study on the probabilistic response of reinforced concrete (RC) frames carried out using pushover analysis is presented. Alternatively, a more simplied approach such as the one proposed next can also be considered. Following the indications of Ferry Borges and Castanheta (1985), it is assumed that, from the capacity side, the main contribution to the computation of P f comes from the lower tail of the probabilistic distribution of the capacity, and that such lower tail can be well represented by the tail of a Normal distribution with a relatively small coefcient of variation. Therefore, for a chosen ductility level C , the corresponding Normal probability distribution f C representing the capacity in terms of ductility is assumed to be dened by the lower characteristic value C ,5% considered to be equal to C and by a standard deviation C equal to 0.5 according to studies found in (Costa 1989). Such approach leads to coefcients of variation ranging between 10 and 6% for values of C ,5% between 4 and 7. The fth step corresponds to the computation of P f by solving Eq. 6. To perform this calculation, the PDF of the earthquake action f I M must be transformed into the PDF of the control ductility f D using the IDA curve, as previously referred. On the capacity side, the probabilistic distribution f C is dened as in the previous step. Finally, the sixth step is a general result assessment step based on which a revision of the design might be required or not. Figure 3 exhibits a general summary of the proposed methodology in which the more relevant parameters are represented, where the ductility value of 1 represents the conventional yield and where S E , L stands for the elastic earthquake intensity level for which a certain return period is prescribed by the design code. Furthermore, an assessment of the basic q-factor value q and of the overstrength factor (see Eq. 1) may also be carried out in order calibrate the design code proposals. A more detailed analysis of this last step is presented in the following where the different analyses that can be performed with the proposed approach are addressed. 3.2 Assessment analyses that can be performed with the proposed methodology Three different q-factor assessment approaches that can be carried out with the proposed methodology are addressed in the following. These approaches involve the same variables but differ in the parameters that are set and in those that are results of the approach. In the rst approach, the ductility level C , which is required for the definition of the probability distribution f C representing the capacity, is not dened as a single ductility level but as a family of levels. Hence, in this approach, a family of probability distributions f C ,i representing different levels i of capacity in terms of displacement ductility values C ,i is characterized. Then, P f is obtained for each ductility level by considering the different f C ,i distributions and solving Eq. 6 for each case. Having obtained the P f values for the whole range of ductility values, the most adequate ductility level can be dened as that which leads to an acceptable value of P f . If is too high when compared to the design ductility class, this means that the structure is too exible and the design should be based on a lower value of the q-factor. When observing Fig. 3, this redesign situation is equivalent to a shift of f D towards the origin of the graph.

123

54

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

fC ()

f ()
D

F FL FNL q Fy,1 Fd
f
IM

SE,L im
(im)

Fig. 3 Graphical sketch of the proposed methodology

Instead of simulating a family of probabilistic distributions representing different levels of ductility, a variant of this rst approach can be dened by computing the ductility level directly leading to the desired P f by solving a nonlinear equation. This equation is represented by Eq. 6 where the value of P f is set to a desired value and the terms 1 FD (.) and f C (.) must be dened analytically, the latter being a function of the objective ductility level . Eq. 6 is then solved using a standard Newton-Raphson method to obtain the ductility level . For details on analytical forms of the term 1 FD (.) the reader is referred to Romo et al. (2008). In the second approach, the ductility level C is dened according to the probability of the design seismic action. More precisely, the considered design code sets a return period for the design level of the seismic action which corresponds to a certain probability of exceedance PC that can be associated to a life safety limit state. By integrating the PDF of the earthquake action f I M up to the value of 1 PC , one is able to dene the ground motion IM value, I MC , corresponding to this exceedance probability. Next, by entering the IDA curve with I MC , the resultant displacement ductility capacity C is obtained. By calculating the value of P f for this ductility capacity, one obtains a failure probability associated to the life safety performance level which should be compared to an adequate limit value. Following a similar line of reasoning, a further renement of this approach can be developed, for example, to address a ductility level which corresponds to an ultimate displacement dult associated to a near collapse limit state. By considering the proposal found in EC8-1 (CEN 2004) associated to the capacity curve obtained from pushover analysis, it is possible to see that an

123

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

55

estimate of dult can be seen to correspond to what is dened as the mechanism point of the capacity curve, where the mechanism point is expected to represent a state of incipient collapse of the structure. Alternatively, in a situation where 2nd order effects are important and the capacity curve starts to exhibit a negative slope, the estimate of dult can be set to correspond to an admissible drop of the maximum strength, e.g. 15%. In any case, once dult is set, the corresponding value of P f can be obtained and compared to an adequate limit value. In any of these two situations, if the computed P f is too high, this means that the structure is too exible and the design should be based on a lower value of the q-factor. The third approach is an optimization variant of the second one where a selected ductility , based on a design criterion other than the one related to the probability of the ground motion is enforced and must lead to a specied P f . Based on the initial design of the structure with a chosen q-factor and considering the selected ductility , the value of P f is computed. If P f does not match the required value, the structure is redesigned for a new value of the q-factor (lower or higher than the initial one) and the process is restarted. The process stops when P f matches the desired value, hence leading to the corresponding q-factor. In any of the approaches, the end results are a ductility level that leads to an acceptable or specied value of P f and a corresponding value of the q-factor. Based on this resultant q-factor and on the ductility level , a further assessment can also be performed. By entering the previously obtained capacity curves resulting from the pushover analysis with the displacement associated to , the nonlinear force level FN L can be obtained. Based on Eq. 3 and on the design base shear Fd , the apparent overstrength can be obtained. The term apparent is considered herein assuming that the rst yield base shear Fy ,1 does not coincide with Fd , hence the real overstrength r would be FN L Fy ,1

(7)

and the term Fy ,1 / Fd would represent a measure quantifying the amount of design strength that is not a direct result of seismic strength demand. Moreover, based on the value of FN L and on the value of the elastic base shear FL , an estimate of q , the basic value of the q-factor, can also be obtained (see Eq. 4). For the case of structures designed according to EC8-1, this assessment is of considerable importance since this component is usually dened based on simplied rules.

4 Example application of the proposed methodology In order to illustrate some of the potentialities of the proposed methodology, an example application is presented herein for a set of regular and irregular RC frame structures. For conciseness sake, only a sample of the results is presented herein. Hence, based on previous analyses developed for buildings similar to those considered herein (Pinto 1994), only one of the main directions of the buildings is analysed. In terms of the referred q-factor assessment approaches that can be performed with the proposed methodology, the present application corresponds to the third one, where two ductility levels of 4 and 7 are enforced and must lead to a P f with a value of 105 . This P f value is seen to be adequate for ordinary buildings, considering the structures lifetime to be 50 years (Costa 1993).

123

56 Fig. 4 Plan view of the considered frame buildings

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

3 x 5.0 = 15.0m

5 x 4.0 = 20.0m

4.1 General description of the structures The considered set of structures comprises ten different RC frame structures with four and eight storeys. Three of these structures correspond to building typologies that are regular in elevation and that served as the basis for the definition of the structures having irregular proles in elevation. All regular cases have the same in-plan dimensions according to the plan view showed in Fig. 4 and have a constant inter-storey height of 3.0 m. The several building types considered are identied according to the following terminology, which is set based on their height and rst mode period: ED4F1building with four storeys and with a rst mode period corresponding to the constant acceleration branch of the response spectrum; ED4F2building with four storeys and with a rst mode period corresponding to the constant velocity branch of the response spectrum; ED8building with height storeys.

The irregular structures were dened so as to represent commonly found irregular elevation proles. A schematic view of their proles is presented in Fig. 5 for the longitudinal direction (the longer of the two in-plan dimensions identied as direction X in Fig. 4), which is the direction of analysis considered for the present application example, along with the regular building proles. Although some of the lateral proles are termed irregular, it should be noted that their geometry still complies with the criteria for regularity in elevation set by EC8-1 (CEN 2004). The identication of the type of lateral prole is dened according to the following terminology: Rbuilding with a regular prole, Fig. 5a, for the case of the four-storey structure, and Fig. 5d, for the case of the eight-storey structure; I1building with an irregular prole according to Fig. 5b, for the case of the four-storey structure, and Fig. 5e, for the case of the eight-storey structure; I2building with an irregular prole according to Fig. 5c, for the case of the four-storey structure, and Fig. 5f, for the case of the eight-storey structure; I3building with an irregular prole according to Fig. 5g for the case of the eight-storey structure only.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

57

I1

I2

(a)
R I1

(b)
I2

(c)
I3

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

Fig. 5 Side view of the regular and irregular proles of the considered buildings Table 1 Structural member cross sections for the considered buildings Building Column cross section by storey h b (cm cm) 04 (storey levels) ED4F1 ED4F2 ED8 80 80 30 30 80 80 48 (storey levels) 60 60 Beam cross sections h b (cm cm) 25 60 25 60 25 60

In terms of materials, a concrete of class C20/25 and a steel of class S400 were selected. For the nonlinear analysis cases, mean values of material strength are considered rather than the values used in the design. With respect to the loading, outside vertical loads corresponding to the self-weight of the structural members, vertical loads were considered to simulate the weight of a slab with a thickness of 15 cm, the weight of the nishes and of the masonry inlls ( 2.5 kN/m2 ), and a live load of 2.0 kN/m2 considered with its quasi-permanent value. A summary of the cross section dimensions of the several structural members of the whole set of buildings is presented in Table 1 while Table 2 presents the rst mode period of the considered buildings for the longitudinal direction. With respect to the data presented in Table 1, it should be emphasized that the columns of structure ED4F1 were considered with larger cross section dimensions than required for this type of structure in order to obtain a rst mode period that falls in the constant acceleration branch of the response spectrum. 4.2 Structural modelling assumptions In terms of numerical modelling, an equivalent planar structural model for the direction of interest of the considered buildings was developed. The several frame components of each building were lined up in a two-dimensional plane with consecutive components linked by

123

58 Table 2 First mode period of the considered buildings for the longitudinal direction Building ED4F1R ED4F1I1 ED4F1I2 ED4F2R ED4F2I1 ED4F2I2 ED8F1R ED8F1I1 ED8F1I2 ED8F1I3

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764 Period (s) 0.313 0.282 0.278 0.764 0.676 0.662 0.699 0.662 0.649 0.641

rigid members at each storey level. The horizontal displacements of each oor are, thus, slaved so as to have only one horizontal degree of freedom per oor, which accounts for the assumed rigid slab behaviour of the oors. Nonlinear response analysis of the numerical models under earthquake loading was carried out using an analysis programme developed during previous research studies, (Varum 1997; Rodrigues 2005). The programme is a two-dimensional analysis platform for the study of the nonlinear response of multi-storey buildings. Beam-column elements are modelled as member-type nonlinear macro-models with three zones: one internal zone with linear elastic behaviour and two plastic hinges, located at the member ends, where inelastic exural behaviour is considered. Nonlinear dynamic analyses are carried out using the standard Newmark integration method and considering an event-to-event strategy with modication of the structures stiffness matrix at each event. Prior to the dynamic analysis, a static analysis is carried out for the vertical loads corresponding to the gravity loads acting on the structure, the results of which become the initial conditions for the dynamic analysis. Damping was assumed to be of Rayleigh type with parameters computed for the rst and second mode periods of the structures and a fraction of critical damping equal to 3% for both periods. Inelastic behaviour of the beam-column elements is represented at the member level by momentcurvature relations. Trilinear skeleton curves associated with monotonic loading, considering asymmetric bending for beams and axial load effects for columns, were obtained following the work presented in Arde and Pinto (1996). Hysteretic exural behaviour of the members was modelled by the piecewise linear hysteretic Costa-Costa model, (CEB 1996), which is a generalized Takeda-type model. Plastic hinge length values were considered equal to the depth of the member cross section for beams and equal to half of the depth of the member cross section for columns. 4.3 Seismic scenario Both the current Portuguese code (RSA 1983) and the upcoming National Application Document of EC8 enforce the consideration of intraplate and interplate earthquake scenarios. The intraplate scenario is characterized by earthquakes having a smaller epicentral distance, a higher intensity and a shorter duration, while the interplate scenario is dened by earthquakes having a larger epicentral distance, a moderate intensity and a longer duration. For conciseness sake, the current application only refers to the intraplate scenario, considering

123

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

59

a soil of type B and a seismic intensity level for the city of Lisbon which corresponds to a peak ground acceleration of 0.17 g. A set of seven articial spectrum-compatible accelerograms with 10 s each was dened to evaluate seismic demand using nonlinear dynamic analysis and to compute the IDA curves of the several structures. The articial accelerograms were computed in order to meet the several spectral-matching requirements dened by EC8-1. In terms of probabilistic characterization, the PDF of the earthquake action f I M can be seen to be well dened by an Extreme type probabilistic distribution (Costa 1993; Bento and Azevedo 2000; Romo et al. 2008). For the present case, f I M was considered to be well represented by a Gumbel distribution with a PDF dened by f I M (x ) = e
e(x u ) (x u )

(8)

where and u are the parameters of the distribution taken with values of 0.02249 and 87.36, respectively, based on hazard studies for the Lisbon area (Costa 1993). 4.4 Seismic demand results and IDA curves For completeness, the general behaviour of the considered structures under earthquake loading and the resulting IDA curves are briey addressed herein. In terms of seismic response, ductility demand was generally observed to be more concentrated at the lower storeys. Hence, for the generality of the considered cases structures, the control displacement was dened as being located at the rst storey level of each building. An example of this ductility concentration at the lower storeys can be observed in Fig. 6 where the distribution of the average of the maximum lateral displacements, Fig. 6a, and the average of the maximum displacement ductility demand, Fig. 6b, over the height of the ED8R structure are represented for several values of the q-factor. Furthermore, in buildings of similar rst mode periods but different heights, the larger ductility demand is usually observed on the taller structure. With respect to the behaviour of irregular structures in comparison to that of the corresponding regular ones, the effects of the vertical irregularities was found to be more relevant for the four-storey structures. In these structures, ductility demand is larger than for the corresponding regular structure and a concentration of ductility demand is usually present in the vicinity of the irregularity. With respect to the eight-storey structures, the considered cases were found to be less sensitive to the effects of regularity. With respect to the computation of the IDA curves, it is referred that the selected ground motion IM was the PGA and that these curves were obtained for IM levels up to a value for which the exceedance probability is less than 0.1%, according to the considered f I M . As an example of the type of IDA curves that were obtained, Fig. 7 presents the IDA curves for all the considered structures, for the case where the q-factor was set to 2.5 and up to an IM level that is ve times the design PGA, a level in agreement with the previously set exceedance probability limit. It can be seen from these sample curves that the behaviour of the two sets of four-storey structures is quite different. While the ED4F1 structures appear to have reached a maximum ductility limit for the maximum represented IM level, the ductility demand of the ED4F2 structures still appears to be increasing linearly. For the case of the eight-storey structures, it is also interesting to note the noticeable difference in ductility demand from the more regular structures (ED8R and ED8I3) to the more irregular ones (ED8I1 and ED8I2). For the maximum represented IM level, ductility demand appears to be still increasing linearly for the latter, while for the former, the behaviour of the curve appears to indicate the existence of a maximum ductility limit near that IM level.

123

60

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

(a)

(b)

q q q q q q q q q

q q q q q q q q q

Fig. 6 a Average of the maximum lateral displacements over the height of the ED8R structure and b average of the maximum displacement ductility demand over the height of the ED8R structure, for several values of the q-factor

4.5 Behaviour factor calibration results According to the q-factor assessment approach selected for the current application, ductility levels of 4 and 7, and a P f with a value of 105 are enforced, hence leading to a certain value of the q-factor for each building structure under analysis. Given the optimization nature of the selected approach, a large amount of analyses and results was therefore produced. It is also noted that, for simplicity, q-factor steps of 0.5 were considered for the optimization process of its value. For conciseness sake, only nal results are presented herein. The results obtained by the proposed methodology in terms of q-factors leading to the desired levels of and P f value are presented in Table 3 for the considered building structures. Moreover, results of the basic value of the q-factor q and of the apparent overstrength , computed according to the previously dened proposals, are also presented. As can be seen from the results, there is a general consistent trend for the values of the computed parameters. Observation of these results with more detail shows that the four-storey buildings with larger rst mode periods require larger q-factor values to full the required and P f values. Moreover, for buildings with different heights but exhibiting similar rst mode periods, it is seen that taller structures require smaller q-factor values. With respect to the irregularity effects, it can be seen that, on average, for a given regular structure, the values of q , q and obtained for the corresponding irregular structures are not considerably different than those obtained for the regular structure. Such result reects the fact that both regular and irregular structures exhibit maximum demand at the same level, which indicates that their global behaviour is not much different and that the EC8-1 regularity in elevation

123

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764 Fig. 7 IDA curves for the average of the maximum ductility demand for the a ED4F1 structures; b the ED4F2 structures and c the ED8 structures

61

(a)
14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
ED4F1I2 ED4F1I1 ED4F1R

PGA/PGA design

(b)
14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0
ED4F2R

2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

ED4F2I1 ED4F2I2

4.0

5.0

PGA/PGA design

(c)
14.0 12.0 ED8I3 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 ED8R 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 ED8I1 ED8I2

PGA/PGA design

123

62 Table 3 Results obtained for q , q and for the considered structures and ductility levels Building q ED4F1R ED4F1I1 ED4F1I2 ED4F2R ED4F2I1 ED4F2I2 ED8R ED8I1 ED8I2 ED8I3 3. 5 3.5 3.5 4 .0 4 .5 4 .5 3. 5 3.0 3.0 3.5 = 4 q 2.92 2.93 2.94 3.46 3.98 3.98 2.93 2.32 2.29 2.93

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764 = 7 q 1.20 1.19 1.19 1.16 1.13 1.13 1.19 1.29 1.31 1.19 5. 0 5. 0 5. 0 5. 5 6. 5 6. 5 5. 5 4 .5 5. 5 5. 5 q 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.34 5.89 5.89 4.82 3.86 4.91 4.87 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.27 1.10 1.10 1.14 1.17 1.12 1.13

criteria appear to be adequate. Nonetheless, the importance of the irregularity appears to be more relevant when the value of the required is larger.

5 Final remarks Given the importance that traditional force-based seismic design still currently exhibits, studies addressing issues related to the definition of the behaviour factor (q-factor) values are considered to be of most interest. Towards this purpose, a probabilistic methodology for the calibration of the q-factor value was proposed, which relates its value with the displacement ductility capacity measured at a relevant location of the structure and the failure probability P f . The general basis of the proposed procedure is the probabilistic quantication of the seismic action and, by applying a transformation procedure, of the structural seismic demand in terms of displacement ductility. The procedure makes use of nonlinear analysis methods, both static and dynamic, relating, within a general probabilistic framework, the ductility capacity , the failure probability P f and the q-factor. Moreover, the proposed methodology provides three different analysis approaches, depending on the parameters that are enforced. Furthermore, since the q-factor is considered to be dened by the product of two other parameters (the basic q-factor value q and the overstrength factor ), the methodology is also able to address the assessment of these parameters, hence providing an additional source of calibration for the values proposed in design codes such as the Eurocode 8. In order to illustrate some of the potentialities of the proposed methodology, an application example was presented that addresses the q-factor assessment for a set of regular and irregular RC frame structures, enforcing a given P f and two different ductility levels . Results of this application indicated a general consistent trend for the values of the computed parameters. Observation of the results also showed that structures of the same height with larger rst mode periods require larger q-factor values to full the required and P f values. Moreover, for buildings with different heights, but exhibiting similar rst mode periods, results also showed that taller structures require smaller q-factor values. With respect to the irregularity effects, it was seen that results obtained for the irregular structures were not signicantly different than those obtained for the corresponding regular one.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

63

Acknowledgments Financial support of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, through the PhD grant of the second author (SFRH/BD/32820/2007) is gratefully acknowledged.

References
Arde A, Pinto AV (1996) Reinforced concrete global section modelling: definition of skeleton curves. Special Publication No.I.96.36. Institute for Systems, Informatics and Safety, Joint Research Center, Ispra, Italy ATC (1996) ATC 40Seismic evaluation and retrot of concrete buildings. Applied Technology Council, CA, USA ATC (2005) FEMA 440Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Applied Technology Council, Washington DC, USA Benjamin JR, Cornell CA (1970) Probability, statistics and decision for civil engineers. McGraw-Hill Inc., NY, USA Bento R, Azevedo J (2000) Methodology for the probabilistic assessment of q-factors. A damage index approach. J Earthq Eng 4(1):115139. doi:10.1142/S1363246900000072 Booth ED, Kappos AJ, Park R (1998) A critical review of international practice on seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings. Struct Engineer 76(11): 213220 Borzi B, Elnashai AS (2000) Rened force reduction factor for seismic design. Eng Struct 22(10):12441260. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(99)00075-9 CEB (1996) RC frames under earthquake loading. Bulletin no.231, Comit Euro-International du Bton. CEB (1997) Seismic design of RC structures for controlled inelastic response. Bulletin no.236, Comit EuroInternational du Bton. CEN (2004), EN 1998-1 eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization. Colangelo F, Giannini R, Pinto PE (1995) Seismic reliability analysis of R/C structures with stochastic properties. Struct Saf 18(2/3): 151168 Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger R, Foutch D (2000) Probabilistic basis for the 2000 SAC/FEMA steel moment frame guidelines. J Eng Mech 128(4):526533 Costa AG (1989) Seismic analysis of irregular structures. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (in Portuguese). Costa AC (1993) Seismic actions and the behaviour of structures. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (in Portuguese). Chryssanthopoulos MK, Dymiotis C, Kappos AJ (2000) Probabilistic evaluation of behaviour factors in EC8designed R/C frames. Eng Struct 22(8):10281041. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(99)00026-7 Duarte RT (1991) The use of analytical methods in structural design for earthquake resistance. In: Donea J, Jones PM (eds) Experimental and numerical methods in earthquake engineering. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Ispra, Italy Elghazouli AY, Castro JM, Izzuddin BA (2008) Seismic performance of composite moment-resisting frames. Eng Struct 30(7):18021819. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.12.004 Elnashai AS, Mwafy AM (2002) Overstrength and force reduction factors of multi-storey RC buildings. Struct Des Tall Build 11(5):329351. doi:10.1002/tal.204 FEMA (2000) FEMA 356Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USA Ferry Borges J, Castanheta M (1985) Structural safety, Publication 101, 2nd ed. Laboratrio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal Kappos AJ (1999) Evaluation of behaviour factors on the basis of ductility and overstrength studies. Eng Struct 21(9):823835. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(98)00050-9 Maheri MR, Akbari R (2003) Seismic behaviour factor, R, for steel X-braced and knee braced RC buildings. Eng Struct 25(12):15051513. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00117-2 Miranda E, Bertero VV (1994) Evaluation of strength reduction factors. Earthq Spectra 10(2):357379. doi:10. 1193/1.1585778 Miranda E, Ruiz-Garcia J (2002) Inuence of stiffness degradation on strength demands of structures built on soft soil sites. Eng Struct 24(10):12711281. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00052-4 Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2002) Calibration of force reduction factors for RC buildings. J Earthq Eng 6(2):239 273. doi:10.1142/S1363246902000723 Lee LH, Han SW, Oh YH (1999) Determination of ductility factor considering different hysteretic models. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 28(9):957977. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199909)28:9<957:: AID-EQE849>3.0.CO;2-K

123

64

Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:4764

Romo X, Guedes J, Costa A, Delgado R (2008) Analytical evaluation of structural component limit state probabilities. Bull Earthq Eng 6(2):309333. doi:10.1007/s10518-007-9056-z Pinto D (1994) Behaviour coefcients in reinforced concrete frames. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (in Portuguese). Pinto PE, Giannini R, Franchin P (2004) Seismic reliability analysis of structures. IUSS Press, Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia, Pavia, Italy Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia, Pavia, Italy RSA (1983) Safety and action regulation for structures of buildings and bridges. Dirio da Repblica no. 238/83, Casa da Moeda (in Portuguese). Rodrigues H (2005) Development and calibration of numerical models for the seismic analysis of buildings. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (in Portuguese). Salvitti LM, Elnashai AS (1996) Evaluation of behaviour factors for RC buildings by nonlinear dynamic analysis. Proceedings of the Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico. Thomos GC, Trezos CG (2005) Behaviour factor of RC structures: a probabilistic approach. Proceedings of the fth international Conference on earthquake resistant engineering structures, Skiathos, Greece. Thomos GC, Trezos CG (2006) Examination of the probabilistic response of reinforced concrete structures under static non-linear analysis. Eng Struct 28(1):120133. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.08.003 Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 31(3):491514 Varum H (1997) Numerical model for the seismic analysis of reinforced concrete plane frames. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (in Portuguese). Zeris CA, Tassios TP, Lu Y, Zhang GF (1992) Inuence of irregularity on the q factor of RC frames. Proceedings of the tenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Madrid, Spain.

123