A New Approach for the

Performance Based Seismic

Design of Structures
U.N.A.M.
A Gustavo Ayala
September 2003
Instituto de Ingeniera
Performance Based Seismic Design
Conjunction of the design, construction and
maintenance procedures necessary to reach,
through engineering means, predictable
performances for multiple design objectives.

Its purpose is to minimize the economic losses
after a seismic event during the useful life of the
structures.
Is it really new? NO

Is it really good? YES
NOVEL or NOBLE?
Performance Based Seismic Design
Background
PBSD is not a new concept, however, with the
current procedures of seismic design it is not
possible to guarantee that the objectives of the
design philosophy are satisfied.
The application of the PBSD implies the use of
methods and tools which emphasize a precise
characterization of the structures and lead to
predictions using a level of technology higher than
that currently used.
The Computational Mechanics group of the Institute
of Engineering at UNAM has developed various
procedures for the evaluation and design of
structures using the philosophy of PBSD.

Needs
Procedures for the PBSD of structures validated
with realistic performance indexes which
guarantee for a given design level a better
control of the performance objectives.

Till now the design philosophy and the theoretical
basis which regulate the PBSD of structure have
been established. However, more work on the
development of the procedures to implement the
PBSD is required.

Objective
To develop a simplified method for the PBSD which
implicitly involves in its formulation the non linear
behaviour and be directly applicable to different criteria
for the objectives of PBSD.

Develop a methodology to determine design spectra
based on the concepts of PBSD and the control of
damage.

Validate the simplified method of PBSD in plane frames,
asymmetric buildings and bridges.

Performance Based Seismic Design
Seismic performance level.

Seismic design level.

Seismic design objectives.


Expression the maximum acceptable damage in a structure
subjected to earthquake action.

Seismic demand representing the hazard of a site where
the structure would be located.

Union of a performance level and a level of seismic design.
Performance Based Seismic Design
ATC-33
FEMA 273, ATC 40
SEAOC- Vision 2000
Euro Code 8
Japanese code

EC8: Conventional Criterion
Explicitly satisfy the level of performance Life
safety under a design level rare

Limit the economic losses through a check of the
damage limits for a frequent demand

Prevent the collapse under any imaginable demand
through a Capacity Design

Performance Level
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

D
e
s
i
g
n

L
e
v
e
l

Frequent (43 years)
50% in 30 years
Ocassional (72 years)
50% in 50 years

Rare (475 years)
10% in 50 years

Very Rare (970 years)
10% en 100 years

Fully
operational


Life safety
Operational
Collapse
prevention
Performance Level
SEAOC- Vision 2000
Fully
operational

Life
Safety
Operational
Collapse
prevention

Life
Safety
operational
Collapse
prevention
SEAOC- Vision 2000
Fully functional
Performance level where essentially no
damage occurs
General damage
Vertical Elems.
Horizontal Elems.
Non structural Elems.
Sanitary, electrical and
mechanical systems
Contents
Performance Level
Fully Operational
Life
safety
Operational
Collapse
prevention
SEAOC- Vision 2000
Performance level where essentially no
damage occurs
D max.
Distortions 0.002-0.005
Floor Accel. 0.10g
Strength Rel. <1
Non structural behaviour
Performance Level
Fully
Operational

Life
safety
Operational
SEAOC- Vision 2000
Collapse prevention
Extreme state of damage in which
the capacity of the structure to
sustain vertical loads is significantly
diminished.
Performance Level
General damage
Vertical Elems.
Horizontal Elems.
Non structural Elems.
Sanitary, electrical and
mechanical systems
Contents
Fully
Operational

Life
Safety
Operational
SEAOC- Vision 2000
D max
Distortions 0.02-0.04
Rotactions 0.02-0.05
Floor Accel 1.5g
Strength Rel. f(|,)
Ductility and dissipation of
energy (Damage indexes)

Performance Level
Collapse prevention
Extreme state of damage in which
the capacity of the structure to
sustain vertical loads is significantly
diminished.
Frequent (43 years)
50% in 30 years
Ocassional (72 years)
50% in 50 years

Rare (475 years)
10% in 50 years

Very Rare (970 years)
10% in 100 years

Fully
Operational

Seguridad
de
vidas
Operational
Colapso
incipiente
Location of epicentres and
identification of seismic sources
Frequency of events at each source
Distribution of the magnitude of the
events and their number
Attenuation of seismic waves
Effects of local soil conditions
Determination of the seismic hazard
Design Level
Frequent (43 years)
50% in 30 years
Ocassional (72 years)
50% in 50 years

Rare (475 years)
10% in 50 years

Very Rare (970 years)
10% in 100 years

Completamente
Funcional

Seguridad
de
vidas
Funcional
Colapso
incipiente
10
100
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Periodo de exposicin (vida til aos)
P
e
r
i
o
d
o

d
e

R
e
t
o
r
n
o

(
a

o
s
)
Pe(50%)
Pe(20%)
Pe(10%)
Pe(5%)
Pe(2%)
Design Level
Frequent (43 years)
50% in 30 years
Ocassional (72 years)
50% in 50 years

Rare (475 years)
10% in 50 years

Very Rare (970 years)
10% in years

Completamente
Funcional

Seguridad
de
vidas
Funcional
Colapso
incipiente
0.001
0.01
0.1
0 100 200 300 400
Aceleracin (gal)
T
a
s
a

d
e

e
x
c
e
d
e
n
c
i
a

(
1
/
y
r
)
T=0.15 s
T=0.3 s
T=0.5 s
T=1.0 s
T=2.0 s
T=3.0 s
A max
Design Level
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
T sec
A
c
e
l
e
r
a
c
i

n

g
a
l
.
43 aos
72 aos
475 aos
970 aos
Frequent (43 years)
50% in 30 years
Ocassional (72 years)
50% in 50 years

Rare (475 years)
10% in 50 years

Very Rare (970 years)
10% in 100 years

Fully
Operational

Seguridad
de
vidas
Funcional
Colapso
incipiente
Design Level
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
T sec
A
c
e
l
e
r
a
c
i

n

g
a
l
.
43 aos
72 aos
475 aos
970 aos
Frequent (43 years)
50% in 30 years
Ocassional (72 years)
50% in 50 years

Rare (475 years)
10% in 50 years

Very Rare (970
years)
10% in 100 years

Fully
Opertional

Seguridad
de
vidas
Funcional
Colapso
incipiente
Design Level
Design process that relates a performance level
with a seismic design level.
Procedures of PBSD
Moehle 1992; Priestley 1998, 2000;
Kowalsky 1994, 1997; Paulay 2000;
Fajfar 1999, Calvi
a) Displacements
b) Energy
c) Distortions
a),b) o c) +
d) Damage distribution
Mander 1996
Heidebrecht 2000
Ayala, Sandoval, Vidaud, Basilio,
Torres and Avelar 1999->2002
Work Assumptions
Based on concepts of structural dynamics
extended to systems with non linear
behaviour it is possible to transform the
capacity curve in the behaviour curve of an
equivalent SDFS.

The behaviour curve of an equivalent SDFS
can be idealized as bilinear.
Procedure for the Performance
Based Seismic Design.
Determine the elastic stiffness of the structure and
transform it to the space Sa vs Sd

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Sd (cm)
S
a


(
g
)
T=0.5s T=1.0s T=1.5s T=2.0s
T=3.0s
T=4.0s
For an assumed damage distribution calculate the slope of
the second branch of the behaviour curve
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Sd (cm)
S
a


(
g
)
T=0.5s T=1.0s T=1.5s T=2.0s
T=3.0s
T=4.0s
Based on the stiffnesses for the elastic and ultimate
state, calculate the strength spectrum corresponding to
the chosen performance index.
Relationship of the demand with the required state of
functionality.
Define the demand spectrum for the target
performance index
2
2
2
2 1
2 2
1 2
1
2
2
m
T
k T
k T
m
T
t
o
t
| |
|
\ .
= = =
| |
|
\ .
Define the strength spectrum for the target
performance index

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T seg
R
/
m

(
g
)

=1
=2
=3
=4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Sd (cm)
R
/
m


(
g
)
=1
=2
=3
=4

T=0.5s T=1.0s T=1.5s T=2.0s
T=3.0s
T=4.0s
Uniqueness of the solution
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0 5 10 15
Sd (cm)
R
/
m

(
g
)
Superpose the elastic and inelastic branches in
the space of the demand spectrum
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0 5 10 15
Sd (cm)
R
/
m

(
g
)
Superpose the elastic and inelastic branches in
the space of the demand spectrum
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0 5 10 15
Sd (cm)
R
/
m

(
g
)
Superpose the elastic and inelastic branches in
the space of the demand spectrum
Ductility Performance Index
Locus of the performance points which satisfy
the target ductility
Uniqueness of the solution
( )
2 2
1 2
2
2
2
1 1
1
2
T T
Sa Sd
T
t

= +
(
(
(
(

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0 5 10 15
Sd (cm)
R
/
m

(
g
)
=4
=4
Translate the second branch to the point the demand spectrum
satisfies the target performance index
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0 5 10 15
Sd (cm)
S
a

(
g
)
T1
T2
Behaviour curve for a design satisfying several
performance levels
Carry out a static analysis with a distribution of lateral
forces equivalent to those acting on the structure under
seismic conditions
Strength and corresponding displacement
spectra
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T (s)
R
/
m

g
a
l
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
S
d

(
c
m
)
Sdy
R/m
y

f (o,)
Sdy=(R/my)/e
2

Acceleration and corresponding displacement
spectra
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T (s)
R
/
m

g
a
l
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
S
d

(
c
m
)
u y
Sd Sd =
Sdy
R/m
y

Sdu
1
T
Sa
Sd

1
T
Sa
Sd
2
T
2
2
2 2 1
2
1 2
1
2
2
m
T k T
k T
m
T
t
o
t
| |
|
| |
\ .
= = =
|
| | \ .
|
\ .

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
T (seg)
R
/m (gals)
[T
1,
(
R
/
m
)
1
]
, , o

, , , o
1
/ R m
( )
2 1
1 1
R R
m m
o
| | | |
= + (
| |
\ . \ .

Sd
1
/ R m
2
/ R m
o
y
Sd
u
Sd
Sa
Sd
1
/ R m
Sa
PBSD Procedure - Fundamental Mode
1
T
Sa
Sd

1
T
Sa
Sd
2
T
2
2
2 2 1
2
1 2
1
2
2
m
T k T
k T
m
T
t
o
t
| |
|
| |
\ .
= = =
|
| | \ .
|
\ .

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
T (seg)
R
/m (gals)
[T
1,
(
R
/
m
)
1
]
, , o

, , , o
1
/ R m
( )
2 1
1 1
R R
m m
o
| | | |
= + (
| |
\ . \ .

PBSD Procedure - Modal Spectral Analysis
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
T (s)
Sa (m/s
2
)
SCT-EW (erep1)
SCT-EW (ereo)
Sao / Sa1
Sa1 = (
R
/m)1
(T1, Sa1)
(T1, Sao)

0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
T (s)
Sa (m/s
2
)
SCT-EW (erep2)
SCT-EW (ereo)
(T
2
, S
ao
)
(T
2
, S
a2
)
S
ao
/ S
a2
S
a2
= (
R
/
m
)
2
-

(
R
/
m
)
1

dy du
desplazamiento
Vy
Vu
V
Capacity curve
Fundamental Mode PBSD Procedure
Sd
1
/ R m
2
/ R m
o
y
Sd
u
Sd
Sa
Behaviour curve
Behaviour Curve
Capacity Curves for
1 mode and for
many modes

V
A
azotea
T
1
T
2
V
1
V
N
V
y N
Curva de mgdl
Curva de 1gdl
V
uN
Curva de comportamiento
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
220.0
240.0
260.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
desplazamiento (cm)
R
/m (gals)
Many Modes PBSD Procedure
Determinaton of PBSD Spectra
Existing Approaches for the Design Level
To use as seismic design level demands corresponding to intensities
with a given probability of exceedence. It does not give information on
the rate of exceedence of the performance level.
To use seismic design objectives consisting in pairs of performance level
versus seismic design level corresponding to an exceedence rate of the
performance level.
Vision 2000:
This work:
0 0.31 0.63 0. 94 1.25 1.56 1.88 2.19 2.5 2.81 3.13 3.44 3.75 4. 06 4.38 4.69 5
17.22
34.44
51.67
68.89
86.11
103.33
120.56
137.78
155
T (seg.)
R / m

For an chosed design
objective, spectra with a
uniform rate of
exceedence of the
proposed performance
level
Design Objective:
Performance Based Design Spectra
Rate of exceedence of a performance level
Expected number of times per unit time in which the performance of the structure exceeds certain
performance level when subjected to earthquakes of different magnitudes and seismic sources
defining the seismic hazard of the site.
( )
( )
( )
, lim
1
,
i
Mu
N
i
r i i
i
Mo
d M
r P r r M L dM
dM

v
=
= >

}
Seismicity.
Probability of exceedence of a performance level.
PBSD Spectra
The only source that contributes to the seismic hazards of Mexico City is the Guerrero gap.
The probability that the structural system develops a ductility > 4 is equal to the probability that
the system has a strength less than that required to reach such ductility.
( )
( )
( )
Mu
r
Mo
d M
R P Re R M dM
dM

v = >
}
Considerations:
Observation: It is necessary to check the uniqueness of the relationship strength-ductility.
Region under study, the lake zone of Mexico City
PBSD Spectra
Identifify the earthquake generating zones that affect an specific site.
Evaluate the rate of seismic activity of the sourcers generators of earthquakes (rate of
exceedence of magnitudes).
Evaluation of the seismic hazard
Probability of exceedence of a performance level
Response of a SDFS to a set of seismic events.
PBSD Spectra
Performance level: Near to collapse, performance index = 4.
Design level: Very rare, rate of exceedence of the performance level of 1/1000.
0 0.31 0.63 0. 94 1.25 1.56 1.88 2.19 2.5 2.81 3.13 3.44 3.75 4. 06 4.38 4.69 5
17.22
34.44
51.67
68.89
86.11
103.33
120.56
137.78
155
T (seg.)
R
/ m

Basic Design Objective
D
i
s
e

o
n
o
a
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
p
a
r
a
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
c
i
o
n
e
s
n
u
e
v
a
s

O
b
j
e
t
i
v
o

B

s
i
c
o
O
b
j
e
t
i
v
o

E
s
e
n
c
i
a
l

/

R
i
e
s
g
o
O
b
j
e
t
i
v
o

d
e

S
e
g
u
r
i
d
a
d

C
r

t
i
c
a
Nivel de Desempeo Ssmico
N
i
v
e
l

d
e

D
i
s
e

o

S

s
m
i
c
o
Completamente
Funcional
Funcional
Seguridad de
Vidas
Cercano a
Colapso
Frecuente
Ocasional
Raro
Muy Raro
Seismicity parameters for the subduction zone of Guerrero
T00 = 80 years (Elapsed time in years since the last occurrence of an earthquake with magnitude M > M0)
M0 = 7.0 (Threshold magnitude)
Mu = 8.4 (Maximum magnitude)
D = 7.5
F = 0.0 (D, F, Parameter defining the variation od expected magnitude with time)

M
= 0.27 (Standard deviation of magnitudes)
To = 39.7 years (Median of the time between events of magnitude M > M0)
( )
80 7.5 E M =
Expected magnitude value:
7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5
1
.
10
4
1
.
10
3
0.01
0.1
TASA DE EXCEDENCIA DE MAGNITUDES
Magnitud
T
a
s
a

d
e

e
x
c
e
d
e
n
c
i
a

(
1
/
a

o
)

l
o
g

Exceedence rate of an earhquake of magnitude M or higher (M), for the seismic source of Guerrero
Exceedence rate of magnitudes (M)
( ) ( ) ( )
00 max 0, * 00 E M T M D F Ln T = +
Relationship of magnitude recurrence
In the model of a characteristic earthquake the rate of exceedence of the magnitude changes as a function of tme
and it is given by:
( )
( )
0
00
1
M
M E M T
M k
o
(
| |

= u ( |
|
(
\ .


0 U
M M M > >
( )
0 M =
u
M M >
0
0
1
T
=
Characteristic earthquake model
Probability of exceedence of a performance level
( )
r
P Re R M >
Earthquake
simulations
Green
Functions
Earthquake
M = 6.9
Registered 25 April
1989 at the SCT station
in Mexico City
Simulated
earthquakes
7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6,7.7,
7.8, 7.9, 8.0, 8.1, 8.2
1000 simulations
for each
magnitude
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
o
1 T
2 T
y Sd
u Sd
Sd
/ R m
/ y R m
/ u R m
4 =
5% , =
23% o =
Probability of exceedence of a performance level
Probability density functions of strengths obtained for periods of 0.05 to 5 s and a M = 8.1 demand
4 =
5% , =
23% o =
8.1 M =
Strengths PDF
Distribucin de probabilidad
R / m
f

(
R

/
m
)


0 40 80 120 160 200
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
f (Re)
Re
f

(
R
e
)
R_

Probability of exceedence of a performance level
( )
P Re R >
4 >
( ) ( )
1 P Re R F R > =
0 40 80 120 160 200
0
0.5
1
P (Re > R)
R
1

-

F
(
R
)
R_

8.1 M =
2 . T seg =
( ) ( )
1 P Re R P Re R > = <
Re
R
Uniform Hazard Spectra
( )
( )
( )
8.4
7.0
r
d M
R P Re R M dM
dM

v = >
}
Seismic design objective: performance level ( = 4) and design level very rare (rate of exceedence
1/1000).
0.05 0.43 0.81 1.19 1.57 1.95 2.33 2.72 3.1 3.48 3.86 4.24 4.62 5
16.5
33
49.5
66
82.5
99
115.5
132
148.5
165
Tasa de excedencia = 0.001 / ao, Tr = 1000 aos
ESPECTRO DE PELIGRO UNIFORME
T (seg.)
R

/

m

4 =
5% , =
23% o =
Uniform Hazard Spectrum
0.05 0.43 0.81 1.19 1.57 1.95 2.33 2.72 3.1 3.48 3.86 4.24 4.62 5
16.5
33
49.5
66
82.5
99
115.5
132
148.5
165
Tasa de excedencia = 0.001 / ao, Tr = 1000 aos
Tasa de excedencia = 0.002 / ao, Tr = 500 aos
Tasa de excedencia = 0.005 / ao, Tr = 200 aos
Tasa de excedencia = 0.01 / ao, Tr = 100 aos
ESPECTROS DE PELIGRO UNIFORME
T (seg.)
R

/

m

4 =
5% , =
23% o =

Uniform Hazards Spectra
4 =
5% , =
23% o =
Exceedence curves for different vibration periods.

R/mductility 4 (cm/sec
2
)
E
x
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e

r
a
t
e
(
1
/
y
e
a
r
)
Illustrative Examples
Medium Height Plane Frame
Plan
Elevation
Rare (475 years)
10% in 50 years

Life safety
-200
-100
0
100
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
t (Seg.)
A
c
e
l
.

(
g
a
l
s
)
SCT-EW
Force-Desplacements Spectra
(Constant Ductility)
Curva de
Comportamiento
Ilustrative Example
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T (s)
R
/
m

g
a
l
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
S
d

(
c
m
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Sd cm
R
/
m

g
a
l
SCT-EW, =4, o=0.24
arg C a gravitacional
Vy Vu Vy
Strength demand in structural elements
Gravitational Loading Lateral elastic
Lateral - elastic
Fy
i
Fu
i
- Fy
i
Table of Resisting Moments (t-m)
Level
Columns
Beams
Left Central Right
I J I j I J
M+ M- M+ M- M+ M- M+ M- M+ M- M+ M- M+ M-
1 200 200 100 150 100 150 90 140 90 140 100 150 100 150
2 200 200 30 85 30 80 30 80 30 80 30 80 30 85
3 120 120 30 85 30 80 30 80 30 80 30 80 30 85
4 120 120 125 180 25 70 25 75 25 75 25 70 125 180
5 100 100 15 70 20 60 15 70 15 70 20 60 15 70
6 150 150 50 105 10 50 90 140 90 140 10 50 50 105
7 100 100 30 80 30 80 30 80 30 80 30 80 30 80
8 50 50 20 50 20 50 20 50 20 50 20 50 20 50
Illustrative Example
Proposed Damage
Distribution
Obtained Damage
Distibution
Evaluation Method
Obtained Damage
Distibution
Step by Step Analysis
17 storey RC Frame
8.0 m 8.0 m 8.0 m
8.0 m
8.0 m
8.0 m

17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
110x110
90x90
75x75
60x60
@3.20 m
4.0 m

Design Forces (stage 2)
Level Force
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2.62
4.29
6.52
9.01
11.59
14.06
15.79
17.34
19.43
21.78
23.81
25.88
27.59
28.36
28.49
28.77
28.24

Design Forces


Gravitational
Loading
Stage 1
O
roof
= 5.44
ton
/
m
e
floors
=

6.33

ton
/
m
Base shear
V = 408.64 ton
Base shear
V = 313.57 ton
Stage 2

Asymmetric Building

8.0 8.0
8.00 8.00
7.0
7.0
7.0
A
B
C
D
CM
8.4
1 2 3 4 5
12.8
Secondary beams (0.6 X 0.25 m
2
)
Columns (0.8 X 0.8 m
2
)
Principal beams (0.8 X 0.4 m
2
)
Intersorey Drifts
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Drifts
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
y
A
B
C
D
1
2
3
4
5
Design A, Dynamic Analysis with
30% in X and 100% in Y of SCT-EW
Evaluation II
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Drifts (%)
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
y
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Drifts (%)
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
y
Frame
Design A, Dynamic Analysis with
100% in X and 30% in Y of SCT-EW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Drifts
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
y
A
B
C
D
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Drifts (%)
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
y
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Drifts (%)
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
y
Design B, Dynamic Analysis with 100%
in X of SCT-NS and 100% in Y of SCT-
EW
Design B, Dynamic Analysis with 100%
in X of SCT-EW and 100% in Y of SCT-
NS
Interstorey Drifts
Analized Bridge
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
T (seg)
R

/

mID = 0
ID = 0.1
ID= 0.2
ID = 0.3
ID = 0.4
Strength Spectra
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
T (seg)
R

/

m
ID = 0
ID = 0.4
1.87
0.4153
Strength Spectra
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015
D (m)
R

/

m
1.87
0.0084 0.0114
2.12
=1.36
Behaviour Curve
Conclusions
With this method it is possible to know if a given
performance index can be reached for a structure and a
seismic demand.

With this method it is possible to control displacements and
interstorey drifts and thus satisfy the design objectives.

In general the method does not directly guarantee local
performances e.g. it is not possible to control in a direct
manner the magnitude of plastic rotations in elements,
only their distribution within the structure.
The results obtained with this method suggest the
need to consider in the definition of design spectra
the pos-yielding strength ratio of the capacity
curve of the structure.

As the nominal strengths obtained with this
method need to be modified to standardize the
design of a structure, it is necessary to check that
the modified design satisfies the performance
levels under these new conditions.

Conclusions
The proposed method has the advantage to be able to control
the damage in the structure. This characteristic makes it possible
that a single design may satisfy different performance levels.
The modal spectral version of the method can be applied to more
general cases in which the contribution of higher modes is
important.
The recursive application of this method allows to control the
economic implications of seismic design when varying the
intensity and distribution of damage, balancing the initial costs
with those of repairing the damage and colateral losses due to
the lack of functionality after a design earthquake occurs.
Conclusions
It is shown that it is possible to reach sismic design objectives
considering as design level the corresponding to a rate of
exceedence of a proposed performance level.
Different damage configurations correspond to different
slopes of the secon (inelastic) branchof the behaviour curve
and, as a consequence, different design spectra.
From a practical point of view it is not possible to exactly
satisfy with a single design more than two design levels.
Conclusions
Validate this method for other performance indexes, for which
it is necessary to develop the design spectra for these
performance indexes.

Investigate further the definition and validation of the
performance levels.

Investigate seismic design levels with different probabilities of
exceedence of other design levels.

Considered the assumed relationship of the | parameter in the
Park y Ang damage index with the stiffness degradation of the
structure evaluate the range of values of this parameter in real
structures.
Recommendations
Recommendations
Investigate the relationship strength ductility as it is
possible that a given ductility is reached with more than one
strength.

Develop and validate a methodology which allows to
satisfy with a single design different performance levels.

Calculate design spectra for other ductilities and for other
performance indexes.

Obtain design spectra for different o values and from
them reduction factors, funtion of o, to difine design
spectra based on a reference nominal spectrum.
Consider for the calculation of nominal design
strengths for the elements realistic behaviour
models for the concrete and steel.

Whenever it is impossible to reach a
performance index associated to the global
behaviour of the structure, it is necessary to
modify the structure accordingly and repeat the
procedure.
Practical Considerations