This article was downloaded by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] On: 27 March 2014, At: 12:09 Publisher: Taylor

& Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

A Modified Capacity Spectrum Method with Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity of Points on Capacity Curve
Wu Jing
a a b

, Liang Renjie , Wang Chunlin

a b

& Zhou Zhen

a b

The Key Laboratory on Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures of Ministry of Education of China , Southeast University , Nanjing, China
b

International Institute for Urban Systems Engineering , Southeast University , Nanjing, China Published online: 29 Apr 2011.

To cite this article: Wu Jing , Liang Renjie , Wang Chunlin & Zhou Zhen (2011) A Modified Capacity Spectrum Method with Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity of Points on Capacity Curve, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15:4, 664-683 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2010.505274

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15:664683, 2011 Copyright A. S. Elnashai & N. N. Ambraseys ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2010.505274

A Modied Capacity Spectrum Method with Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity of Points on Capacity Curve
WU JING1,2 , LIANG RENJIE1 , WANG CHUNLIN1,2 , and ZHOU ZHEN1,2
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014
1 The Key Laboratory on Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures of Ministry of Education of China, Southeast University, Nanjing, China 2 International Institute for Urban Systems Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China

A direct methodology for solving the seismic intensity of each point on the capacity curve is proposed. By utilizing the procedure, a continuous curve between the structural response and the seismic intensity, the structural response function, can be easily generated. Unlike previous procedures that search for the performance point of a determined seismic intensity, the proposed methodology easily draws the full curve without iterations. The procedure is applicable to both a smooth design spectrum and an actual response spectrum. Examples indicate the methodology is accurate and fast, and convenient to be combined with existing procedures, such as Modal Pushover Analysis. Keywords Nonlinear Static Procedure; Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design; Seismic Intensity; Structural Response Function; Performance Point; Capacity Spectrum Method

1. Introduction
In order to help engineers and designers work better with stakeholders to identify the probable seismic loss of new and existing buildings as well as to select an appropriate performance level during the design stage, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) contracted with ATC (Applied Technology Council) to initiate a research program to develop Next-generation Performance-based Seismic Design procedures and guidelines [ATC, 2009; FEMA, 2006]. The main concept of this program is to divide the whole performance evaluation process into four independent but closely related functions: the hazard function, response function, damage function, and loss function. The response function, which establishes the relationship between the structural response and increasing seismic intensity using a reasonable methodology, plays an important role in this evaluation. In general, there are two methods to investigate the structural response during seismic excitation: nonlinear response history analysis (NL-RHA) and a nonlinear static procedure (NSP). Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) [Vamvasikos, 2002] is a typical nonlinear dynamic analysis method. The procedure involves exciting a structure with one (or more) ground motions, each of which is scaled to multiple levels of intensity. Thus, the structural responses at different levels of intensity that produce one (or more) curves of input-output

Received 12 January 2010; accepted 20 June 2010. Address correspondence to Wu Jing, The Key Laboratory on Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures of Ministry of Education of China, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China; E-mail: seuwj@seu.edu.cn

664

Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity

665

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

measurements are obtained, where the input uses parameters that describe the ground motion intensity measure (IM), and the output represents the structural damage measure (DM). The IDA curve reects the structural response rule at different levels of seismic intensity, but each point in the curve requires a nonlinear response history analysis of the structure. In such an analysis, convergence problems are often encountered when structure demonstrates strongly nonlinear behavior. Although it has been adopted by FEMA350 [FEMA, 2000a] and other standards as the latest method to evaluate the global collapse capacity of steel frames, this method is difcult to extend because of the calculation conditions and the computing cost. Relatively, the nonlinear static procedure, which is also called static pushover analysis (SPO), is easier to practice and can take into account the major nonlinear characteristics of structure. When combined with the capacity spectrum evaluation approach, it yields a better understanding of the structural characteristics at a determined seismic intensity by searching for the performance point and extracting the response index. Based on these features, NSP is widely applied in the practice of Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) and has also been adopted by some standards and codes. Based on the results of the nonlinear static procedure, this article derives a direct method for calculating the seismic intensity of each point on the capacity curve by establishing the relationship between the dynamic factor of the pseudo- (spectral-) acceleration and the ductility factor of the elasto-plastic system to determine the structural response function curve.

2. Nonlinear Static Procedure and Seismic Intensity

The nonlinear static procedure involves subjecting a structure with vertical loads to monotonically increasing equivalent lateral forces that represent the inertia forces and adjusting the stiffness of the calculation model as the structure enters the inelastic state until a predetermined target displacement is reached. The equivalent lateral forces are dened by a shape vector: {F } = [M ] { }, (1)

where {F } is the equivalent lateral forces vector, is the loading scale factor, [M ] is the mass matrix of structure, and {} is the selected shape vector. Based on the NSP results, a pushover curve of structure is plotted with the total base shear V as ordinate against the lateral roof displacement r as abscissa. In general, a pushover curve describes the nonlinear behavior of a structure as it gradually changes from elastic to inelastic, but it cannot determine the structural response at certain seismic intensities. To achieve this, the performance point corresponding to the certain seismic intensity must be determined from the pushover curve. In the FEMA356 method [FEMA, 2000b], the target displacement under a certain intensity is determined by multiplying the elastic response by a number of modication factors based on the statistical analysis, and then the performance point is determined in the pushover curve. However, ATC-40 [ATC, 1996] suggested combining the capacity curve converted from the pushover curve with the demand curve to reach the performance point iteratively. According to Akkars research [Akkar, 2007], the former tends to overestimate the deformation. While, in the ATC-40 capacity spectrum method (CSM), the inelastic hysteretic characteristic of the structure is regarded as an additional damping of the equivalent linear structure system; thus, the elastic response spectrum, which is typically assumed to have a 5% damping ratio, is modied by the equivalent damping. The base shear and roof displacement are converted to the spectral

666

W. Jing et al.

acceleration and spectral displacement (Sa -Sd format) as follows, which is called capacity curve: Vi (2) Sa,i = m M Sd,i =
r ,i

(3)

where Sa,i and Sd,i are the spectral (or pseudo pseudo will be used in the following text) acceleration and spectral displacement, respectively, at point i; am is the mass participation factor of the shape vector; M is the total mass of the structure; is the modal participation factor of the shape vector; and r is the amplitude of the shape vector at the roof level. It is evident that the shape vector is an important factor that inuences the calculation precision of the CSM. The traditional pushover analysis is based on the assumption that the response is controlled by the fundamental mode and that the mode shape remains unchanged after the structure yields. A satisfactory prediction can be obtained for low- or medium-rise structures in which higher modes contribute less and plastic development has a diminished inuence on mode changes [Krawinkler, 1998]. Chopra and Goel proposed modal pushover analysis (MPA) [Chopra, 2002], which has greatly inuenced subsequent researches. In this method, pushover analyses are carried out separately for each signicant mode, and the contributions from individual modes to the engineering demand parameters (EDPs) are combined using an appropriate combination rule (e.g., SRSS or CQC). The upper-bound pushover analysis, proposed by Jan et al. [2004], is based on a single shape vector, which is a combination of the rst mode shape and a scaled second mode shape. Kunnath [2004] used a modal-combination-based lateral force pattern to envelop the displacement demand. On the other hand, researchers have proposed several adaptive loading patterns to consider the change in the dynamic characteristics after the structure enters the inelastic range. Eberhard [1993] used the mode shape based on the secant stiffness of each stage. Gupta proposed an adaptive pushover procedure in which the conventional response spectrum analysis is applied at each pushover step [Gupta, 2000]. Mori [2006] utilized the deected shape that corresponded to the maximum drift of the pushover analysis to approximate the post-elastic rst mode shape, and Kim [2008] suggested that the loading pattern be proportional to the total seismic masses at the oor and roof levels to estimate the peak lateral displacement demand. The adaptive modal combination (AMC) procedure [Kalkan, 2006] and the improved MPA procedure [Mao, 2008] improved the MPA procedure in which the mode shapes remain invariant. FEMA356 suggested that at least two lateral force distribution patterns should be applied [FEMA, 2000b]. These two force patterns are selected from two groups separately. The rst group includes an inverted triangle, the fundamental modal shape to determine the force pattern, and the shear distribution derived from the modal combination. They mainly approximate the distribution pattern in the elastic range. The second group includes a lateral force distribution that is proportional to mass and an adaptive loading pattern. This group mainly considers the mode shift characteristic after yielding. On the other hand, the demand curve of the ground motion is dened by the overdamping elastic response spectrum. The pseudo acceleration-spectral displacement format is used as follows and is plotted with the capacity curve in one graph: Sd,i = T2 Sa,i . 4 2 (4)

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity

667

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

Note that, in general, the intersection of the capacity curve and the demand curve by arbitrary damping is physically meaningless. This is because the damping represented by the demand curve may not represent the actual damping of the intersection. Only when an appropriate point is selected on the capacity curve, and the demand curve intersected in the determined point with the capacity curve behaves the same equivalent damping as the point, that the particular point can be regarded as a performance point. ATC-40 suggests an iterative calculating method to search for the performance point for a given seismic intensity, as shown in Fig. 1. The estimated performance point (EPP), (Sd,es ,Sa,es ), can be determined by equal displacement approximation. That is, the inelastic spectral displacement is taken as that of the elastic displacement. Then, the hysteretic damping represented by the EPP is calculated to develop a reduced demand spectrum, which intersects with the capacity curve at the trial performance point (TPP), (Sd,tr ,Sa,tr ). If the distance between EPP and TPP exceeds the acceptable tolerance, iteration is required to obtain a convergence solution. The iteration procedure presented in ATC-40 provides an illustration of how the capacity matches the seismic demand. However, existing researches pointed out that there is no direct physical relationship between the hysteretic energy dissipation of the maximum excursion and equivalent damping, particularly for highly inelastic systems, and that the period associated with the secant stiffness may have little to do with the dynamic response of the inelastic system [Krawinkler, 1995; Fajfar, 1999]. Fragiacomo investigated the errors caused by a demand curve based on the single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system [Fragiacomo, 2006]. The research indicated that the smaller hysteretic loop has a lower seismic response for the short period system and demonstrated that the concept of demand curve dened by an equivalent linear system and additional damping is inconsistent with the actual situation. Some other researches included similar conclusions [Gencturk,

Sa

reduction

with trum spec ing p dam

iteration Sa,es Sa,tr TPP (trial performance point)
spec

capacity curve EPP (estimated performance point)

5%
trum with 5% dam + hy ping stere tic of E PP

Sd,tr

Sd,es

Sd

FIGURE 1 Illustration of the iterative procedure suggested by ATC-40 to search for the performance point.

668

W. Jing et al.

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

2008; Akkar, 2007]. Therefore, Fajfar [1999] and Chopra [1999] suggested using the inelastic response spectrum to determine the demand curve; Chen et al. [2007] used the demand curve generated by an inelastic response spectrum to design steel bridge piers and arch bridges with hysteretic dampers. Based on this consideration, the inelastic response spectrum is used in the procedure proposed in this article. The inelastic pseudo-acceleration response spectrum is dened as the maximum pseudo-acceleration response of a series of SDOF systems with the same ductility factor but different elastic periods excited with a selected ground motion. This response spectrum is referred to as an actual response spectrum, which depends on the conguration and magnitude of the ground motion wave, inherent damping, the ductility factor and the post-yield stiffness of the structure. This actual spectrum can be quickly generated by many commercial programs, such as Bispec [Hachem] and SeismoSignal [SeismoSoft]. Another type of spectrum, which is referred to as a design spectrum, is based on the statistical analysis and smooth simplication of the inelastic response spectrums of a group of ground motions with similar soil conditions and is commonly regarded to represent the ground motion that may occur in the future on the site. In the PBSD process, the former is used to evaluate the response of a structure with a determined ground motion, and the latter is usually used for design purposes. Independent of the selected shape function and response spectrum, an appropriate method should be adopted to obtain the response of a given seismic intensity of the equivalent SDOF system that is converted from the structure: the performance point on the capacity curve. The performance point should have the same ductility factor as the demand curve, which intersects the capacity curve; on the other hand, the demand curve is deduced from the elastic response spectrum with the specic ductility factor. It should be mentioned that the ductility factor is undetermined before the performance point is solved out. Thus, an iteration process similar to the ATC-40 method is necessary to determine the position of the performance point accurately. Another method is to prepare a family of demand curves with different ductility factors and then investigate every intersection of the demand curve with the capacity curve to choose a minimum-error point. Kalkan [2006] suggested that the interval of the ductility factors in this family should be about 0.25.

3. Seismic Intensity of Each Point on the Capacity Curve

In the frame of the Next-generation Performance-based Seismic Design, the structural response function establishes the continuous relationship between the seismic intensity and the structural response. The spectral displacement under a certain shape function is the most fundamental response index and is also the basic index in existing methods. After the performance points of the interested modes at a given seismic intensity are determined, the EDPs of the structure can be obtained by extracting them from the analysis results and combined according to a combination rule. The structural response function is plotted by connecting the structural response at different intensities. As mentioned above, the traditional methods require iteration or choosing one curve from several demand curves with different ductility factors to determine the performance point, which results in a tedious and complex procedure. If we start from a point on the capacity curve to calculate the corresponding seismic intensity, the calculation procedure is direct and convenient . Based on the inelastic spectrum reduced from the smooth elastic spectrum with simplied formulations, Dolsek expanded the N2 procedure [Fajfar, 1988] to generate the structural response function of a structure [Dolsek, 2005, 2007]. However, the methodology proposed in this article deals with an actual spectrum respect to a determined ground motion as well as a smooth spectrum.

Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity

669

For a point on the capacity curve (Sd,i ,Sa,i ), the ductility factor i is dened as follows: i = Sd,i , Sdy (5)

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

where Sdy is the spectral displacement of the global yield point of the structure. To determine the global yield point, the capacity curve is usually simplied as a bilinear curve that has the same area with respect to the axis of spectral displacement, which is referred to as the equal energy rule. The post-yield stiffness can be obtained from the simplied bilinear curve simultaneously. Now, given the ductility factor i , which seismic intensity will produce the spectral displacement Sd,i ? Commonly, the magnitude of the seismic intensity can be measured by the peak of the ground motion acceleration Apg,i . Obviously, Apg,i is the only unknown quantity in the calculation. For an elastic SDOF system with an initial period T and damping ratio , the pseudoacceleration is dened as the following: Sae =
0 t

xg ( ) e (t ) sin (t ) d
max

(6)

; and x g ( ) is the accelwhere is the angular frequency of the structure and = 2T g1 ( ) , where x g1 ( ) is the eration record of the ground motion. In addition x g ( ) = Apg x normalized ground acceleration record for which the peak acceleration is 1, and Apg is the peak acceleration of the ground motion; thus,

Sae = Apg ,

(7)

where is the dynamic factor of pseudo-acceleration for the elastic system, which is related to the period T , the damping ratio and the conguration of the ground motion: =
0 t

xg1 ( ) e (t ) sin (t ) d
max

(8)

Correspondingly, for a similar elasto-plastic structural system with ductility factor and post-yield stiffness ratio , the inelastic pseudo-acceleration can be expressed as follows: Sa = (T , ) Sae = Apg , R (T , , ) R (T , , ) (9)

where R is the reduction factor of the inelastic pseudo-acceleration with respect to the elastic pseudo-acceleration, which is related to the ductility factor , the period T and the post-yield stiffness ratio . Note that the period T in Eq. (9) is the elastic period of the structure. Dene p as the dynamic factor of pseudo-acceleration for the elasto-plastic system, that is p = which yields (T , ) R (T , , ) (10)

670

W. Jing et al. Sa = Apg p (T , , , ).

(11)

In Eq. (11), p is related to the conguration of the ground motion, the period, the ductility factor, the post-yield stiffness and the damping ratio. However, it is independent of the peak value of ground acceleration. Equation (11) implies the rule that the inelastic pseudo-acceleration response is proportional to the seismic intensity for one ground motion. Therefore, the seismic intensity corresponding to the point (Sd,i ,Sa,i ) on the capacity curve can be derived according to the following formula: Apg,i = Sa,i . p,i

(12)

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

According to Eq. (10), p is essentially the inelastic pseudo-acceleration of the structure at the scaled ground motion with unit peak acceleration and can be easily generated from commercial programs. The damping ratio , period T , and post-yield stiffness ratio are only related to structure characteristics, and the ductility factor and the conguration of the ground motion are known. The Apg Sd curve can then be plotted by repeating this process for each point on the capacity curve.

4. Dynamic Factor of Pseudo-Acceleration for Elasto-Plastic System

In the process stated above, the dynamic factor of pseudo-acceleration for an elasto-plastic SDOF system with different ductility factors should be prepared; this can be accomplished in two ways. The rst is applicable to an actual response spectrum that corresponds to a specied ground motion. This is essentially to calculate the pseudo-acceleration response of the equivalent SDOF system subjected to the scaled motion at unit peak acceleration with different ductility factors. Using the initial period T , post-yield stiffness ratio , damping ratio of the SDOF system with an equivalent bilinear curve and the conguration of the ground motion, the p curve can be obtained with the following steps. 1. Scale the amplitude of the specied ground motion to obtain x g1 ( ), which is with unit peak acceleration. 2. Construct a SDOF system with unit mass and then determine the stiffness to match its initial period to T . The damping ratio of the system is , and the post-yield stiffness ratio is . Here, the use of unit mass results in that the maximum base shear V of the system is just the pseudo-acceleration response Sa . And because the ground motion is with unit peak acceleration, this value is also the dynamic factor of the pseudo-acceleration p . 3. Choose a pair of yield displacement and yield force (Sdy,i ,Say,i ) and then subject the system to x g1 ( ) for nonlinear response history analysis to calculate the maximum displacement response Sd,i and maximum base shear response Sa,i (which is also p,i ). According to Eq. (5), the ductility factor i can be determined using Sd,i and Sdy,i . The resulting pair of ( p,i ,i ) is one point on the p - curve. 4. Repeat step 3 with different yield forces and then connect the resulting points to draw the p curve.

Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity

p 1.5 1 a 2 b 0.5 3 c

671

1.0

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

FIGURE 2 Relationship between p and for a SDOF system with a period of 1 s that is subjected to El-Centro motion. The system has a damping of 5% and a post-yield stiffness ratio of 0. In general, p decreases as the ductility factor increases. However, it is interesting that their relationship is not always monotonic. This result is primarily caused by the randomness of the frequency components of the ground motion. Figure 2 shows a segment of the curve between the two parameters for a SDOF system with a period of 1 s when excited by the 1940 El-Centro ground motion. The system has a damping of 5% and a post-yield stiffness ratio of 0. The motion is the north-south component of the motion recorded in ElCentro during the Imperial Valley, California earthquake of May 18, 1940 [Chopra, 2001] and is used in the examples in this paper as a typical ground motion. It can be observed that there are three values of p,i, when i is 1.5, which are marked by 1, 2, and 3. In particular, for point 2 in the gure, the increase of p,i , which means a decrease in the seismic intensity (according to Eq. (12)), leads to an increase of the ductility factor and the structural displacement response. This indicates that the solution is unstable. For design purposes, the conservative larger value of p,i , (point 1) should be used to obtain a relatively minor seismic intensity. Thus, the curve can be generated by connecting points a and c. Therefore, there is a signicant step in the p curve where the step distance depends on the interval of . The step is shown as the dashed line in the gure. Note that the points interpolated in the step region do not agree with the actual conditions but are relatively conservative. The use of an exact p curve can improve the calculation precision, while the simplied stepped curve will give approximate one to one relationship between seismic capacity and spectral displacement. In the numerical examples in this article, the former, which is shown as the solid line in the gure, is used. However, the latter can be easily generated using commercial programs, such as Bispec mentioned above. Another way to generate the p curve is applicable to the design spectrum. Under this condition, the dynamic factor of pseudo-acceleration for an elastic SDOF system, , is dened by the elastic design spectrum as follows: = Sae Apg (13)

and the reduction factor R, which is the ratio of the inelastic pseudo-acceleration relative to the elastic pseudo-acceleration, is a function of the ductility factor , initial period T and post-yield stiffness ratio . Many proposals suggested a reduction factor R [Newmark,

672

W. Jing et al.

1982; Vidic, 1994]. Then the p relationship may be calculated directly for the SDOF system with the specied initial period and post-yield stiffness ratio according to Eq. (10). For example, given the elastic design spectrum generated by the ground motions with a peak acceleration of 1 g and 84.1% guarantee (i.e., mean plus one standard deviation spectrum) [Chopra, 2001], the pseudo-acceleration is dened as follows, with an initial period that varies from 0.66to 4.12 s: Sae = then, in this period range, 1.8 ; (g) T (14)

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

1.8 . T

(15)

Moreover, the reduction factor function proposed by Newmark and Hall [1982] is used with a post-yield stiffness ratio of 0; thusz, R= 1 T < Ta 2 1 Tb < T < Tc T > Tc , (16)

where Ta , Tb , and Tc are the period parameters related to the site soil characteristics; Tc is also related to the ductility factor [Chopra, 1999]. For rigid site soil, Tc = 0.66 s. Based on the above assumptions, the relationship between the dynamic factor of pseudoacceleration p and the ductility factor is dened as follows for a SDOF system with an initial period of 1 s (Fig. 3a): p = 1.8 . (17)

The p relationship is period dependent. For example, Fig. 3b gives the smooth curve respect to a structural system with period of 0.5 s. A suite of 20 ground motions are also used to generate the p curves, and in company with the curve of mean plus one standard deviation from the 20 curves, they are superimposed in Fig. 3. From the gure we can see that in most occasions the smooth design spectrum is relative conservative compared with the actual situations.

5. Calculating Process
By combining the methodology proposed by this article and the existing nonlinear static procedure, we can establish the structural response function quickly and visually. The detailed steps are as follows. 1. A pushover analysis is performed by subjecting a structure with vertical loads to monotonically increasing lateral forces based on a selected shape vector. Individual pushover analysis is performed separately according to the structural modes if the inuence of higher modes is taken into account; moreover, for adaptive loading patterns, the loading shape vector changes according to the stiffness of the structure. 2. For each mode shape, record the base shear and top displacement during pushover analysis to plot the V - r curve as well as those EDPs concerned.

Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity

p 3.0
Single acc. Mean + Design spec.

673

2.0

1.0

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

1.0

1.5 2.0 2.5 a. a system with initial period of 1s

3.0

p 3.0
Single acc. Mean + Design spec.

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.5 2.0 2.5 b. a system with initial period of 0.5s

3.0

FIGURE 3 Relationship between p and for a SDOF system with period of 1 s and 0.5 s for 20 ground motion records, the median plus one standard deviation, and a smooth design spectrum. 3. Convert the V r curve to the Sa Sd format using Eqs. (2) and (3) and plot it in the rst quadrant. For adaptive loading patterns, different shape vectors as well as the corresponding mass participation factors, the modal participation factors and the amplitudes of the roof are used in different controlling ranges while the multidegree-of-freedom (MDOF) system is converted to a SDOF system. The EDP-Sd curve is determined simultaneously. 4. According to the capacity curve Sa Sd , determine the Sa curve and plot it in the second quadrant (Fig. 4), where the ductility factor is taken as 1 before the structure yields and is calculated according to Eq. (5) after the structure yields. 5. Determine the p curve according to the initial period, damping ratio and postyield stiffness ratio, and plot them in the same coordinate system of the second quadrant.

674

W. Jing et al.
T= 2 Sa,i Sa,y Sdy Say

Sa(p)

Sa
S i = d,i Sdy Apg,i= Sai

simplified capacity curve actual capacity curve de ma Sa ( n A d cu pg rve ,i , i ,, ) Sd

p,i
)

Sai

p,i(T,,

p,i i =1
Sdy Sd,i Sd

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

FIGURE 4 Illustration of the calculation of the peak acceleration that corresponds to a point on the capacity curve. 6. For each point on the capacity curve, calculate the seismic intensity Apg,i with equation (12) given Sa,i and p,i in i . 7. Repeat step 6 and plot the basic structural response curve Apg Sd . 8. For each point, using the Sd as an index, extract the seismic intensity from the Apg Sd curve and the structural response from the EDP-Sd curve. Then, the Apg -EDP curve for this mode may be plotted. 9. For pushover analysis procedures involving several modes, repeat steps 28 for each mode and determine the structural response curve for each one. 10. Combine the structural response of each mode by combination rules, such as SRSS or CQC, to obtain the total response with different seismic intensities.

6. Numerical Examples
Two examples are carried out in this article to describe and demonstrate the methodology stated above. The rst example utilizes a SDOF system to describe the calculation process of the seismic intensity and spectral displacement response curve according to the capacity curve and the inelastic response spectrum; furthermore, the results from the nonlinear response history analysis and existing example are used as exact solutions for comparison. The second example is a multi-story frame structure that is used to establish the structural storey drift function curve by combining the methodology proposed in this paper with MPA proposed by Chopra. This example demonstrates how the methodology can be combined with the available NSPs, which account for higher modes and the mode shift due to structural plasticity. 6.1. Example 1 This is a SDOF system, with a mass of 3105 kg, initial elastic period of 1 s, a yield displacement of 0.1116 m, a post-yield stiffness ratio of 0 (i.e., ideal elasto-plastic system) and a damping ratio of 5%, as shown in the insert of Fig. 5. In Fig. 5, the Sa Sd curve is plotted in the rst quadrant. The system is subjected to the El-Centro ground motion mentioned above, and the displacement response curve with different seismic intensities is required.

Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity

Sa m=3105 kg T = 1s = 5% Sdy=0.1116m =0 4 3 Sa,i p1 p,i p2 2 1 Sa(m/s2) (p)

675
(0.4464,4.406) [Chopra, 1999]

SaSd

3 Apg,i

1 5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6 Sd(m)

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

A pg2 A pg1

10 1g 15 Apg(m/s2) subscript : 1 : actual response spectrum 2 : design spectrum

A
pg1

A Sd

pg2

Sd

NL-RHA results, El-Centro(NS) point i, El-Centro(NS) design spectrum, 1g

FIGURE 5 Procedure used to calculate the basic structural response curve. First, the mentioned ground motion is scaled to a unit peak acceleration of 1 m/s2 to establish the curve between the dynamic factor of pseudo-acceleration and the ductility factor according to the structural initial period, damping ratio and post-yield stiffness, which is shown as the p curve in the second quadrant in Fig. 5. Simultaneously, the Sa Sd curve is converted to a Sa curve and is also plotted in the second quadrant. For each ductility factor i , capture the values of Sa,i and p,i from the curves separately. In addition, the peak ground acceleration Apg,i that corresponds to point i may be calculated by Eq. (12). In order to express the results, the graph is expanded to four quadrants, as shown in Fig. 5, where the downward axis represents the seismic intensity (peak ground acceleration Apg is used), and the Apg Sd and Apg curves can be plotted in the fourth and third quadrants, respectively. The above curves are represented by subscript 1 in Fig. 5. To demonstrate the accuracy of this method, several waves with different peak accelerations for the same ground motion record are used to conduct NL-RHA procedures, and the results are marked in the fourth quadrant in Fig. 5 with solid triangles. In addition, the Apg Sd curve calculated by the smooth p curve mentioned above is simultaneously plotted in Fig. 5 and is represented by subscript 2. In Fig. 5, the rst quadrant is the standard capacity curve; the second quadrant is used to calculate the seismic intensity of each point; and the third and fourth quadrants are used to express the relationship of the ductility factor and spectral displacement Sd with increasing seismic intensity, respectively. From the Apg Sd curve in the fourth quadrant, the structural response behavior with different seismic intensities can be investigated visually. Note that the methodology proposed by this article is completely explicit and direct, without iterations or trial calculations. At the same time, the structural response function, which is fundamental in Next-generation Performance-based Seismic Design, can also be generated directly or conveniently derived

676

W. Jing et al.

from the plotted Apg Sd curve. Moreover, the performance point with a given seismic intensity can be obtained by interpolating the Sa Sd curve or other curves according to the given Apg quickly and conveniently. In Fig. 5, the resulting points dened by Apg which is equal to 1 g from the smooth design spectrum are marked with circles, which shows that they are identical as [Chopra, 1999] (this example is equivalent to system 5 in the reference). In Fig. 5, the Apg Sd curve calculated with the design spectrum in the fourth quadrant looks like a straight line with a constant slope. In fact, this phenomenon agrees with the actual situation. The ductility factor is 1 before the system yields; thus, Apg = Sa 4 2 Sd = . p 1.8T 2

(18)

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

After the system yields, we obtain Apg =

S
2

Say Sd Say Sa = = . p 1.8 1.8Sdy

(19)

Because Say = 4T 2 , it can be concluded that the Apg Sd curves before and after yielding dy have the same slope. This result indicates that the seismic intensity is directly proportional to the spectral displacement response in this example. Thus, the inelastic displacement response of this structure is equal to the response of the equivalent elastic structure subjected to the same ground motion, which is consistent with the well-known equal displacement rule for long period structures.

6.2. Example 2 A simplied SAC-9 frame, with the analysis model and parameters shown in Fig. 6, is used as an example. The frame is similar to that used by Chopra [2002] except for the following: (1) the splices of columns are at the storey level; and (2) P- effect is not considered. The structure is subjected to the El-Centro ground motion of 1940. The natural vibration periods, amplitudes in each story, mass participation factors, and modal participation factors of the rst three modes are shown in Table 1. These mode shapes are used in pushover analyses as separate loading shape functions. The story drifts, roof displacements, and base shear forces are obtained from the results, and then the base shear-top displacement curves are converted to the Sa Sd curves and plotted in the rst quadrant in Fig. 7, with each plot corresponding to a specic mode. The story drifts are plotted as well (the story drift of the rst oor, which is denoted as d1 , is adopted in this example). The capacity curves are simplied to bilinear lines and the Sa curves are plotted. The key parameters of the simplied capacity curves are also shown in Table 2. According to the natural periods, damping ratios (5% in this example) and post-yield stiffness ratios of these modes, the curves between the dynamic factor of pseudoacceleration and the ductility factor are established and plotted in the second quadrant separately, as well as the Sa curves. Utilizing Eq. (12), the Apg and Apg Sd curves can be generated and plotted in the third and fourth quadrants using the same steps as in Example 1. Note that the curves in the rst and fourth quadrants in Fig. 7 share the same Sd axis. This feature indicates that when the curves are cut by a vertical line, the intersection points

Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity

Seismic Mass Beams
5.35 10 kg
W14 257 W14 257 W14 257 W14 257 W14 257 W14 257 5

677

9th 8th 7th

W14 283 W14 283 W14 283

W24 68

4.945 105 kg

W27 84

4.945 10 kg
W14 283 W14 283 W14 283

W30 99

6th 5th

4.945 10 kg

W36 135

4.945 105 kg
W14 370 W14 370 W14 370 W14 370 W14 370 W14 370

W36 135

4th

4.945 10 kg

W36 135

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

3rd
W14 455 W14 455 W14 455 W14 455 W14 455

4.945 10 kg
W14 455

W36 135

2nd 1st

4.945 105 kg

W36 160

5.05 105 kg
W14 500 W14 500 W14 500 W14 500 W14 500 W14 500

W36 160

Ground B-1

4.825 105 kg

W36 160

9.15m

9.15m

9.15m

9.15m

9.15m

Connections : indicates a moment resisting connection. indicates a simple(hinged) connection.

Materials: Columns: 345MPa Beams: 248MPa

FIGURE 6 Nine-story building. represent the values of different parameters with the same seismic intensity. Thus, the relationship between the seismic intensity and the structural response (story drift of the rst oor in this example) of the rst three modes can be easily drawn, as shown in Fig. 8. Combine the responses of the rst three modes by SRSS as follows:
N 1/2 2 rno n=1

ro

3.65m

5.49m

3.96m 3.96m 3.96m 3.96m 3.96m 3.96m 3.96m 3.96m

20

where ro is the total structural response, rno is the response of the n th mode, and N is the number of modes considered. The total response is also plotted in Fig. 8. Figures 9 and 10 summarize the relationships between the story drift of each oor and the seismic intensity under the rst mode and SRSS combined results, where di represents the story drift of the ith oor. These results can be used to formulate the storey drift conguration of any seismic intensity, as shown in Fig. 11 for the 2.5 El-Centro intensity. The design spectrums, which use the elastic spectrum [Chopra, 2001] and reduction expression

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

678 Amplitudes of shape vector at oor level 2nd 0.861 1.855 3.171 1.196 2.241 2.585 1.556 2.318 0.748 1.885 1.997 1.479 2.213 1.209 3.217 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 2.525 0.044 2.974 8th 2.825 1.651 0.393 9th 3.05 3.05 3.05 Participation factors m 0.4475 0.1744 0.077 0.8302 0.1122 0.0358

TABLE 1 The parameters of the rst three modes

Period

Mode number

T (s)

1st

1 2 3

2.3568 0.8314 0.4359

0.516 1.202 2.445

Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity

Sa(m/s2) (p) d1(m)

679
Sa(m/s2) (p) d1(m)
0.4

1.6 Sa 1.2 0.8

10 Sa 8

SaSd
S d

0.12

SaSd

d1

0.08

6 4

0.4

d1,i

0.04

d 1S d
d1,i
0.1 0.2 0.3 Apg,i

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0 0.5 2 4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6 S (m) d

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5

Apg,i
A
pg

1.0 5

Sd (m)

pg -

2.5x El Centro
8

A pg

10

2.5x El Centro

pg

Sd

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

(a) 1st mode

30
Sa(m/s2) (p)

Apg(m/s2)

(b) 2nd mode

d1(m)

Sa
20

S a

Sd

10

d 1S d

d1,i
1.0 10 0.1 0.2 Apg,i 0.3 Sd (m)

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5

A pg

20

2.5x El Centro
Apg(m/s2)

pg

30

Sd

(c) 3rd mode

FIGURE 7 Procedure used to calculate the structural response curves of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd modes, respectively.

TABLE 2 The key parameters of the simplied bilinear capacity curves of the rst three modes Yield point Mode number 1 2 3 Say (m/s2 ) 1.4252 7.3757 21.0022 Sdy (m) 0.2005 0.1291 0.1011 Post-elastic stiffness ratio 0.0426 0.0745 0.1296

recommended by Vidic et al. [1994], are utilized to generate the corresponding smooth spectrum results, and in company with the result calculated by NL-RHA, they are also plotted in this gure. The SRSS combination results respect to the actual ground motion differs slightly with the NL-RHA result. This may be caused by the simplication of bilinear model of the capacity curve and the MPA procedure. However, it is relative accurate against that from design spectrum, which is conservative in most situation.

Apg(m/s2)

15

680

W. Jing et al.

1st mod e
0.06

Apg(m/s2)

10

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

3rd mode

0.03

2nd mode

0.09

SRS S
0.12

d1(m)

FIGURE 8 Relationship between the seismic intensity and the story drift of the rst oor.
9 Apg(m/s2) 8 7 6 5 21 4 3

10

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.12

d1(m)

FIGURE 9 Relationship between the story drift of each oor and seismic intensity for mode 1. The continuous curves shown in Fig. 10 can be easily applied in the Next-generation Performance-based Seismic Design procedure as one series of structural response functions.

7. Conclusions
This article proposes a methodology to formulate the continuous structural response function by establishing the inelastic pseudo-acceleration spectrum of unit peak acceleration seismic wave respect to ductility factor. The results lead to the following conclusions. 1. During seismic capacity evaluation based on NSP, an appropriate method should be adopted to generate the structural response function. The structural response

Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity

Apg(m/s2)
9 78 6 5 213 4

681

10

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.12

di(m)

FIGURE 10 Relationship between the storey drift of each oor and seismic intensity by SRSS.
9th 8th 7th 6th Floor level 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st
1st mode by the design spectrum SRSS by the design spectrum 1st mode by El-Centro(NS) SRSS by El-Centro (NS) NL-RHA

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12 d (m)
i

FIGURE 11 Distribution of storey drift from 1st mode, SRSS mode combination, and NL-RHA result for 2.5 El-Centro ground motion, and from the design spectrum by Chopra [2001]. function also plays an important role in the Next-generation Performance-based Seismic Design. 2. Unlike the traditional procedures that search for the performance point at a determined intensity, the proposed procedure starts from a point on the capacity curve. This method leads to an explicit calculation with only one unknown parameter and thus avoids iterations or trial calculations. 3. According to the methodology proposed in this article, the structural response function respect to different intensities can be drawn easily, which is benecial for determining the changing trends and structural response rule; in addition, it

682

W. Jing et al. can be used directly in the Next-generation Performance-based Seismic Design framework. 4. The performance point at a determined seismic intensity can be traced from the response curve quickly and conveniently. 5. The proposed methodology is applicable to both a smooth design spectrum and an actual response spectrum that corresponds to a determined ground motion. 6. The numerical examples indicate that the proposed procedure is accurate in the SDOF domain and can be combined easily with the existing NSP calculating procedures to consider the higher modes and mode shape alteration as a result of structural inelastic development.

Acknowledgments
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014
The authors would like to acknowledge nancial supports from the National Basic Research Program of China -973 Program (No.2007CB714200), the National Natural Science Foundation (50878055), the National Key Technologies R&D Program of China (2008BAJ12B04, 2008BAJ12B05), and Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK2008313).

References
Akkar S. and Metin A. [2007] Assessment of Improved Nonlinear Static Procedures in FEMA-440, Journal of Structural Engineering 133(9), 12371246. ATC [1996] ATC-40: Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. ATC [2009] Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. ATC-58 50% Draft, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. Chen, Z.Y., Ge, H. B., and Usami, T. [2007] Simplied seismic design approach for steel portal frame piers with hysteretic dampers, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 36(4), 541562. Chopra, A. K. [2001] Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. Chopra, A. K. and Goel, R. K. [1999] Capacity Demand Diagram Method for Estimating Seismic Deformation of Inelastic Structures: SDOF System. Berkeley, California: Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Chopra, A. K. and Goel, R. K. [2002] A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31(3), 561582. Dolsek, M. and Fajfar, P. [2005] Simplied non-linear seismic analysis of inlled reinforced concrete frames, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(1), 4966. Dolsek, M. and FAJFAR. P. [2007] Simplied probabilistic seismic performance assessment of planasymmetric buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 36(13),20212041. Eberhard, M. O. and Sozen, M. A. [1993] Behavior-based method to determine design shear in earthquake-resistant walls, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 119(2), 619640. Fajfar, P. [1999] Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra, Earthquake Engineering and Structual Dynamics 28(9), 979993. Fajfar, P. and Fischinger, M. [1988] N2-A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular structures, Proc. of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5, Tokyo-Kyoto, pp.111116. FEMA [2000a] Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, FEMA Publication 350, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. FEMA [2000b] Prestandard and Commentary for The Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA Publication 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

Direct Calculation of Seismic Intensity

683

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 12:09 27 March 2014

FEMA [2006] Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines, Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings, FEMA Publication 445, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. Fragiacomo, M., Amadio, C., and Rajgelj, S. [2006] Evaluation of the structural response under seismic actions using n-Linear static methods, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 35(12), 15111531. Gencturk, B. and Elnashai, A. S. [2008] Development and application of an advanced capacity spectrum method, Engineering Structures 30(11), 33453354. Gupta, B. and Kunnath. S. K. [2000] Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures, Earthquake Spectra 16(2), 367391. Hachem, H. [2009] Bispec [online]. Available from URL:http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~hachem/ bispec.html Jan, T., Liu, M., and Kao, Y. [2004] An upper-bound pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands of high-rise buildings, Engineering Structures 26(1), 117128. Kalkan, E. and Kunnath, S. K. [2006] Adaptive modal combination procedure for nonlinear static analysis of building structures, Journal of Structural Engineering 132(11), 17211731. Kim, S..P. and Kurama. Y. C. [2008] An alternative pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic displacement demands, Engineering Structures 30(12), 37933807. Krawinkler, H. [1995] New trends in seismic design methodology, Proc. of 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rotterdam, pp. 821830. Krawinlkler, H. and Senevirata G. D. P. K. [1998] Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation, Engineering Structures 20(46), 452464. Kunnath, S. K. [2004] Identication of modal combinations for nonlinear static analysis of building structures, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 19(4), 246259. Mao, J. M., Zai, C. H., and Xie, L. L. [2008] An Improved Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure for Estimating Seismic Demands of Structures, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 7(1), 2531. Mori, Y. and Yamanaka, T. [2006] A Ssatic predictor of seismic demand on frames based on a post-elastic deected shape, Earthquake Engineering ad Structural Dynamic 35(10), 12951318. Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W. J. [1982] Earthquake Spectra and Design. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California. SeismoSoft. [2009] SeismoSignal - A Computer Program for Signal Processing of Strong-motion Data [online]. Available from URL: http://www.seismosoft.com. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C. A. [2002] Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake engineering and structural Dynamic 31(3), 491514. Vidic, T., Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M. [1994] Consistent Inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 23(5), 507521.