Residual Displacement Demand Evaluation from Spectral Displacement

Year 2019, Volume: 30 Issue: 2, 8913 - 8935, 01.03.2019

Müberra Eser Aydemir , Cem Aydemir

https://doi.org/10.18400/tekderg.344597

Cited By: 7

Abstract

 In this study,
residual displacement demands are investigated for SDOF systems with period
range of 0.1-3.0 s for near-field and far-field ground motions. The effects of
stiffness degradation and post yield stiffness ratio on residual displacements
are investigated. The modified-Clough model is used to represent structures
that exhibit significant stiffness degradation when subjected to reverse cyclic
loading. The elastoplastic model is used to represent non-degrading structures.
For inelastic time history analyses, Newmark’s step by step time integration method
was adapted in an in-house computer program. Based on time history analyses, a
new simple equation is proposed for residual displacement demand of a system as
a function of structural period (T), ductility (µ), strain hardening ratio (α)
and spectral displacement (S_d).  

Keywords

Residual displacement, stiffness degradation, ductility demand, spectral displacement

Residual Displacement Demand Evaluation from Spectral Displacement

Abstract

 In
this study, residual displacement demands are investigated for SDOF systems
with period range of 0.1-3.0 s for near-field and far-field ground motions. The
effects of stiffness degradation and post yield stiffness ratio on residual
displacements are investigated. The modified-Clough model is used to represent
structures that exhibit significant stiffness degradation when subjected to
reverse cyclic loading. An elastoplastic model is used to represent
non-degrading structures. For inelastic time history analyses, Newmark’s step
by step time integration method was adapted in an in-house computer program. Based
on time history analyses, a new simple equation is proposed for residual
displacement demand of a system as a function of structural period (T),
ductility (µ), strain hardening ratio (α) and spectral displacement (S_d).

Keywords

Residual displacement, stiffness degradation, ductility demand, spectral displacement

References

• Applied Technology Council (1996). ATC 40: The Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. 2 volumes. Redwood City, California.
• Applied Technology Council (2007). ATC 63: Recommended Methodology for Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters - 75% Interim Draft Report, Redwood City, California.
• Ayoub A, Chenouda M (2009). Response spectra of degrading structural systems. Engineering Structures, 31, 1393-1402.
• Bates DM, Watts DG (1988). Nonlinear regression analysis and its applications. Wiley: New York.
• Borzi B, Calvi GM, Elnashai AS, Faccioli E, Bommer JJ (2011). Inelastic spectra for displacement-based seismic design. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21(1), 47–61.
• Christidis AA, Dimitroudi EG, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2013). Maximum seismic displacements evaluation of steel frames from their post-earthquake residual deformation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 11(6) : 2233–2248.
• Clough RW, Johnston SB (1966). Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake ductility requirements. In: Proc of the Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, 227–232.
• D’Ambrisi A, Mezzi M (2015). Design value estimate of the residuals of the seismic response parameters of RC frames. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13(5), 1491-1511.
• Farrow KT, Kurama YT (2003). SDOF demand index relationships for performance-based design. Earthquake Spectra, 19(4):799–838.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000). NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. ReportFEMA356:, Washington, DC. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009), Effects of Strength and Stiffness Degradation on Seismic Response FEMA P440A, Washington, DC.
• Gupta A, Krawinkler H (1998). Effect of stiffness degradation on deformation demands for SDOF and MDOF structures. Proc., 6th Natl. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California.
• Gupta B, Kunnath SK (1998). Effect of hysteretic model parameters on inelastic seismic demands. Proc., 6th Natl. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California.
• Hatzigeorgiou GD, Papagiannopoulos GA, Beskos DE (2011). Evaluation of maximum seismic displacements of SDOF systems from their residual deformation. Engineering Structures, 33 : 3422–3431.
• Liossatou E, Fardis MN (2014). Residual displacements of RC structures as SDOF systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, doi: 10.1002/eqe.2483.
• MacRae GA, Kawashima K (1997). Post-earthquake residual displacements of bilinear oscillators. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 26(7):701–716.
• Mahin SA, Bertero VV (1981). An evaluation of inelastic seismic design spectra. Journal of The Structural Division, ASCE, 107(9):1777–1795.
• Miranda E, Ruiz-Garcia J (2002). Influence of stiffness degradation on strength demands of structures built on soft soil sites, Engineering Structures, 24:(10), 1271-1281.
• Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. PEER Strong motion database. http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat. Last access: 2015/05/15.
• Pampanin S, Christopoulos C, Priestley MJN (2002). Residual deformations in the performance-based seismic assessment of frame structures, No. ROSE-2002/02. Technical report, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, University of Pavia, Italy.
• Rahnama M, Krawinkler H (1993). Effects of soft soil and hysteresis model on seismic demands. Rep. No. 108, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford Univ., Stanford, California. Riddell R, Newmark NM (1979). Statistical analysis of the response of nonlinear systems subjected to earthquakes. Research Report 468. Un. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, ILL, 291pp.
• Riddell R, Newmark NM (1979). Force-deformation models for nonlinear analysis. Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, 105(12):2773–2778.
• Ruiz-Garcia J (2004). Performance-based assessment of existing structures accounting for residual displacements. Dissertation, Stanford University, California.
• Ruiz-Garcia J, Miranda E (2005). Performance-based assessment of existing structures accounting for residual displacements, No. 153. Technical report, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, California.
• Ruiz-Garcia J, Miranda E (2006). Evaluation of residual drift demands in regular multistorey frames for performance-based seismic assessment. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(13):679–694.
• Ruiz-Garcia J, Miranda E (2006). Residual displacement ratios of SDOF systems subjected to near-fault ground motions. Proceedings of the 8th. US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Paper No. 380, San Francisco, California.
• Ruiz-Garcia J, Miranda E (2008). Probabilistic seismic assessment of residual drift demands in existing buildings. In The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
• Ruiz-Garcia J, Guerrero H (2017). Estimation of residual displacement ratios for simple structures built on soft soil sites. Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, 100: 555-558. SEAOC (1995). Vision 2000: Performance based seismic engineering of buildings, Volume I. Technical report, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
• StatSoft Inc (1995). STATISTICA V.12.0 for Windows. Tulsa, OK, USA.
• Yazgan U, Dazio A (2011). Simulating Maximum and Residual Displacements of RC Structures: II. Sensitivity. Earthquake Spectra, 27(4): 1203–1218.