Seismic Design Based on the Yield Displacement

Mark Aschheim,a) M.EERI

Although seismic design traditionally has focused on period as a primary design parameter, relatively simple arguments, examples, and observations discussed herein suggest that the yield displacement is a more stable and more useful parameter for seismic design. The stability of the yield displacement is illustrated with four detailed examples, consisting of momentresistant frame buildings. Each frame is designed to limit roof drift for a specific ground motion using an equivalent SDOF model in conjunction with Yield Point Spectra. The effectiveness of the simple design method is established by nonlinear dynamic analysis. Yield displacements were stable and consistent while the fundamental periods of vibration (and lateral stiffness) required to meet the performance objective differed substantially. [DOI: 10.1193/1.1516754] INTRODUCTION Since the introduction of the response spectrum by Benioff (1934) and Biot (1941) it has become second nature to think of the seismic design task in terms of the fundamental period of vibration of a structure. Contemporary and traditional design approaches rely upon the fundamental period of vibration of the structure to determine the required strength (or stiffness) for the design level seismic actions. This use of the fundamental period of vibration is based on the premise that it may be estimated given the initial structural concept and dimensions of the structure. This paper develops the idea that the yield displacement is a more natural and more useful parameter to use in the seismic design of structures responding nonlinearly. The use of period as a fundamental design parameter draws directly from the equation of motion for linear elastic response, for which the peak displacement, Sd , is a function of the period of vibration, T. Because T2(m/k)0.5, structures of varied heights (Figure 1) having the same ratio of mass, m, and stiffness, k, all have the same peak displacement. The period of vibration is useful for characterizing the peak response of an infinite variety of systems (such as those in Figure 1) whose response is linear elastic. Although many formulas and design procedures are based on the idea that the period of vibration of the structure can be estimated early in the design process, the reality is that the period of vibration may vary significantly as the initial design concept is refined into the final product, particularly if the lateral strength and stiffness must be adjusted to

a)

Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois, 2118 Newmark Laboratory, 205 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801

581

Earthquake Spectra, Volume 18, No. 4, pages 581600, November 2002; 2002, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

582

M. ASCHHEIM

Figure 1. The systems above all have the same period. Their response histories and peak displacement responses are identical, provided that response is linear elastic.

satisfy precisely defined performance objectives. The difficulty of accurately estimating the period of vibration of the final design is apparent in the work of Chopra and Goel (2000), who examined a large number of buildings in California. Alternatives to the period of vibration are available for proportioning structures for seismic actions. This paper describes a technique in which the yield displacement of the structure is used to determine the base shear strength required to satisfy one or more performance objectives. In this design approach, the period of the structure is seen to be a consequence of decisions made in the design process to achieve a desired seismic performance; its value is unknown at the beginning of the design process and is not needed. In principle, either period or yield displacement may be used for design. Demands can be represented as a function of either parameter, using traditional (period-based) response spectra or Yield Point Spectra. The yield displacement can be estimated accurately early in the design process and is relatively stable. While period-based approaches were adequate in the past, the stability of the yield displacement is noteworthy now that seismic performance expectations are being defined with greater precision (e.g., FEMA 273, ATC 1997; SEAOC 1999). DESIGN AND THE KINEMATICS OF YIELD While analysis often is necessary for design, the design process is fundamentally different from analysis. A structural system must be conceived before its properties may be assessed. In the usual case, the geometry of the structure is established by other design professionals and is not easily modified. The structural engineer may have one or several structural systems in mind. Materials to be used (e.g., steel and concrete) are largely determined by market forces, which dictate what may be obtained economically. Approximate member depths can be established early in the design process. Most of the subsequent effort is directed at proportioning the members of the structural system to have sufficient strength to satisfy the load combinations specified in the building code, sufficient stiffness to satisfy code provisions for interstory drifts, and appropriate details

SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT

583

Figure 2. An axially excited bar has the force, strain, and displacement distributions shown. Increasing the cross-sectional area of the bar increases its strength and stiffness; the yield displacement of the bar depend on the yield strain of the material.

for structural integrity and ductile behavior. Member depths and spans usually deviate little throughout the design effort from the values initially assumed, even as member strengths and stiffnesses are adjusted to satisfy code requirements. The design context is such that the layout of the structure, member depths, and material properties envisioned at the start of the design process typically will change little in the development of the final design. The choices available to designers operating in this context are illustrated in the following examples.
EXAMPLE 1: AXIAL RESPONSE OF A BAR

The first example illustrates the essence of the seismic design problem in a very simple form, although the physical form may be unfamiliar. A member having a predetermined length is to be designed to resist an earthquake, with the earthquake causing only axial loads to develop over the length of the member (Figure 2). Mass is located only at the top of the structure. Grade 50 steel (fy345 MPa) is to be used. The strains that result from inertial forces are uniform over the length of the member, resulting in the displacements shown. This displacement profile is the only mode of deformation that may develop and thus is the predominant mode of response. A capacity curve may be determined by nonlinear static analysis. Forces are applied proportional to the mass and the displacement at the top of the member, resulting in the capacity curves shown in Figure 2 for different cross-sectional areas. The cross-sectional area of the member determines its strength and stiffness, but the yield displacement (y) is constant because the steel yield strain and predominant mode shape are independent of the strength provided to the system. Note that the yield strain, yield displacement, and predominant mode shape are easily determined at the start of the design. The engineers latitude is in selecting the cross-sectional area of the member to achieve acceptable performance. If the engineer should choose to limit the peak ductility () and peak displacement (u y) responses, the required strength is easily determined using the Yield Point Spectra representation of demand, described later in this paper.

584

M. ASCHHEIM

Figure 3. Idealized moment-curvature response of (a) steel and (b) reinforced concrete sections, illustrating the relative stability of the yield curvature with changes in steel area, for constant section depth. EXAMPLE 2: FLEXURAL RESPONSE OF CANTILEVER BEAMS AND WALLS

The second example considers the flexural response of cantilevered steel and reinforced concrete beams. Mass is assumed to be located only at the tips of the cantilevers. Based on the moment diagram, overall yielding of the beams will commence when the sections closest to the support yield. For the steel beam, the yield curvature (Figure 3a) is given by yy /(d/2), where y=the yield strain of the steel and d=the depth of the section. For the concrete beam (Figure 3b), yy /(dkd), where d=the depth to the tension steel and kd=the depth to the neutral axis. For both beams, the yield displacement is governed by yielding of the steel, and its value is given by yyL2/3, where L=cantilever span. It is apparent that the yield displacement is a function of the beam geometry and the yield strain of the steel. For a steel beam of a given depth and grade of steel, the yield displacement is independent of the strength of the beam. For the concrete beam, changes in longitudinal reinforcement have a small effect on the depth of the compression zone, and this has a minor influence on the yield curvature and yield displacement. These observations are fundamental and have been reported by others (e.g., Priestley 2000). The previous discussion relating to the reinforced concrete beam also applies to a cantilevered structural wall, shown in Figure 4. A lateral force applied to the top of the

SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT

585

Figure 4. Idealized response of a slender reinforced concrete structural wall.

wall is associated with inertial forces that develop when the mass at the top of the wall is excited. To calculate the displacement at the top of the wall when the reinforcement at the base of the wall yields requires knowledge of the geometry of the wall and grade of reinforcement. As for the reinforced concrete beam, a cantilever wall loaded at its tip has yield displacement given by yyH2/3, where Hthe height of the wall. The curvature of the wall at first yielding of the extreme longitudinal reinforcement is given by y y /(Lwkd), where Lwthe length of the wall and kdthe depth of the neutral axis. For relatively light axial loads and low longitudinal steel ratios, the denominator often may be estimated as about 0.8Lw . As the curvature increases, yielding spreads to intermediate reinforcing bars. A curvature representing this state may be estimated as y (1.8 to 2)y /Lw according to Priestley and Kowalsky (1998) and Paulay (2002) for walls of rectangular cross section with axial loads less than about 0.15Ag f c , where Ag the concrete compressive strength. the gross cross-sectional area of the wall and f c Both expressions for y indicate that the yield curvature is a function of the overall dimensions of the wall and the yield strain of the steel, and is largely independent of the flexural strength provided to the wall. Idealized capacity curves (plotting the shear force developed at the base of the wall versus the displacement at the top of the wall) are presented in Figure 4 for different longitudinal reinforcement contents. As in the previous examples, changing the strength of the wall by changing the steel content has a significant effect on the strength and stiffness of the wall. Given the wall geometry and grade of reinforcing steel, the only option available to the engineer is to determine the amount of longitudinal steel necessary to provide sufficient strength to the wall so that its seismic performance is acceptable. Yield Point Spectra are useful for this task if performance is indexed by the ductility and drift responses of the wall. The wall reinforcement and wall thickness may then be determined. Minor changes in yield displacement associated with the final detailing of the wall usually are not of significance. The example of Figure 4 may be extended to include multiple floors. Now, the predominant mode shape should reflect the development of lateral forces at multiple floor levels. A Rayleigh approach may be used to identify the first mode shape. This mode shape depends on the distribution of strength (and stiffness) throughout the wall height,

586

M. ASCHHEIM

but is independent of the absolute strength of the wall. Experience suggests that approximate mode shapes are adequate for design purposes, and the elastic deflected shape obtained by applying a typical code distribution of lateral force over the height of the building often will suffice. Applying this approach with a triangular distribution of lateral forces (following the Uniform Building Code [ICBO 1997]) for cases in which mass is uniformly distributed results in an estimate of the roof displacement at yield of

11 y y H 2 40

(1)

where Hthe height of the wall. Using established procedures (e.g., ATC 40, ATC 1996), the yield displacement of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (ESDOF) structure may be determined based on the deflected shape and mass distribution. The yield curvature of the wall, the deflected shape, and the distribution of mass in the structure can be estimated accurately at the start of the design and are insensitive to the strength provided to the wall. This assumes that the distribution of strength and stiffness provided to the structure results in a predominant mode of response that is consistent with the deflected shape assumed in design. This requirement is not onerous; rather, it is naturally satisfied if the engineer prescribes the way the structure will respond to an earthquake by making intelligent choices in the design of the structure. As in the previous examples, the engineer may seek to determine the lateral strength required to limit system ductility and drift responses to acceptable values. The required strength may be determined using Yield Point Spectra based on an estimate of the yield displacement, as described by Tjhin et al. (2002). This estimate is based on quantities established at the start of the design (the height of the structure, the length (Lw) of the wall, the yield strain of the material, the distribution of mass, and the deflected shape associated with the predominant mode of response); the yield displacement will vary little as the initial structural concept is refined into the final design.
EXAMPLE 3: MOMENT-RESISTANT FRAMES

A typical perimeter moment-resistant frame building will have relatively small tributary gravity loads if located in a relatively high seismic region. This results in antisymmetric beam moment diagrams that place the largest flexural demands on the beams nearest the columns, similar to the cantilever beams of Example 2. The elastic mode shape depends on the distribution of stiffness and mass throughout the structure. If the column strengths are proportioned such that a predominantly beam-hinging mechanism develops, then the displacement response usually is represented adequately by the first elastic mode shape. The elastic mode shape is independent of the absolute values of strength and stiffness provided to the structure; only the relative distributions of strength and stiffness matter, and these are the province of the engineer. The yield displacement of the system is largely determined by yielding of the beams. The yield displacement of the beams depends on their spans, member depths, and material properties. The displacement of the roof when the beams yield depends on the predominant mode shape and is affected by the stiffness of the columns. As for the case of structural walls, sufficient precision may be obtained by assuming the predominant

SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT

587

mode to be equal to the first elastic mode shape and then estimating this shape. Based on fairly simple assumptions, one may derive an approximate expression for estimating the yield displacement of regular steel moment-resistant frames:

y y h 2L H 6 dcolCOF dbm

(2)

where y=the estimated roof displacement at yield, H=the height of the building, y=the yield strain of the steel, L=the beam span, h=story height, dbm=the beam depth, dcol=the column depth, and COF=the column overstrength factor. In general, the member and story properties to be used in Equation 2 should be representative of the frame. The column overstrength factor (COF) should be selected to ensure that a first-mode response is dominant; that is, weak story mechanisms must be precluded. For typical configurations, the term associated with the beam flexibility is dominant, and variations of COF within reasonable limits (perhaps 1.2 to 1.5) have little effect on the yield displacement estimate. Even if experience should suggest refinements to Equation 2, its position here serves to emphasize that the yield displacement may be estimated based only on geometry, material properties, and simple parameters relating the strengths or stiffnesses of the beams and columns. The remainder of the paper draws on empirical data focusing on the response of moment-resistant frames, although the underlying logic is fundamental and is more generally applicable, as suggested by the previous discussion. THE STABILITY OF FRAME YIELD DISPLACEMENTS Figure 5 shows the capacity curves obtained for two moment-resistant frames, each four stories in height with three bays and having the same nominal geometry and member depths. The weights of the member cross sections were varied between the two frames in order to change the lateral strength. The nonlinear static analysis was conducted by applying lateral forces proportional to the mode shape amplitude and mass at each floor level. Bilinear curves were fitted to the resulting capacity curves to identify the yield displacement of each structure. The yield displacements are seen to be nearly invariant (about 0.75% of the height), although the strengths and stiffnesses of the two frames differ considerably. Given that A36 steel was used for the frames, the yield displacement estimated with Equation 2 is 0.74% of the height. (Had Grade 50 steel been used, a yield drift of 0.75% (50/36)=1.04% would be expected for this frame. This value lies in the range of 1 to 1.2% that often brackets the yield drifts observed in nonlinear static analyses of steel moment-resistant frames.) The preceding example illustrates the stability of the yield displacement as the lateral strength was changed for a frame having a fixed geometry. Frames of varied heights are now considered. Gupta and Kunnath (2000) report the capacity curves obtained using three pushover techniques applied to 4-, 8-, 12-, and 20-story buildings having reinforced concrete moment-resistant frames along each column line. Each building has the same nominal floor plan, with 12-ft. (3.7 m) story heights and 24-ft (7.3 m) column spacings. The designs were based on the 1988 Uniform Building Code, with Rw12 and Z0.4, but using the effective stiffnesses (corresponding to first yield) recommended by

588

M. ASCHHEIM

Figure 5. Capacity curves determined by nonlinear static (pushover) analysis for two four-story moment-resistant steel frames, each having three bays. The frames have the same nominal section depths; the weights of the sections were changed to change the lateral strength. The yield displacement is nearly constant even though the strengths, stiffnesses, and periods of vibration of the frames differed substantially. (From Black and Aschheim, 2000.)

FEMA 273 (ATC 1997). The fundamental periods of vibration computed for the buildings, after design, were 0.90, 1.75, 2.21, and 3.31 sec, respectively. The capacity curves obtained using different pushover techniques are plotted in Figure 6. The thick dashed line represents a bilinear approximation to the capacity curves obtained using the FEMA 273 pushover technique, in which lateral forces are determined as a function of the period-dependent exponent, k, given by Equation 3-8 of that document. The yield drifts corresponding to the bilinear curves of Figure 6 are approximately 0.6, 0.6, 0.5, and 0.5%, respectively, for the four frames. It would be feasible to design any of these structures assuming the yield displacement to be about 0.5 or 0.6% of the building height. Given the apparent stability of the yield drift (with changes in strength and changes in the number of stories) and the claim that it may be estimated accurately early in the design process, one may wonder if it even is necessary to determine the period of vibration in order to carry out a seismic design. The design of four moment-resistant frames to limit peak drift and ductility responses is described later in the paper. The procedure used for their design and the representation of ground motion demands using Yield Point Spectra are described next. YIELD POINT SPECTRA A designer wishing to determine the strength required to limit the peak ductility and drift responses of the structure may do so using Yield Point Spectra (YPS). In essence, YPS are constant ductility spectra plotted on the axes of yield strength coefficient and yield displacement, for a range of oscillator periods and for a specified load-deformation relationship. The yield strength of the SDOF system, Vy , is normalized by its weight, W, to obtain the yield strength coefficient, Cy . Figure 7 plots values of Cy versus the yield

SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT

589

Figure 6. Capacity curves presented by Gupta and Kunnath (2000) for 4-, 8-, 12-, and 20-story reinforced concrete frames designed to satisfy the 1988 Uniform Building Code. Dashed lines indicate response computed using the FEMA 273/274 procedure for nonlinear static analysis. Yield drifts were inferred, and range between 0.5 and 0.6% regardless of the number of stories. Fundamental periods of vibration vary between 0.90 and 3.31 sec.

displacement y for displacement ductilities =1, 2, 4, and 8, for a bilinear loaddeformation response having post-yield stiffness equal to 5% of the initial stiffness and viscous damping equal to 5% of critical damping. The classic 1940 NS El Centro record is used in this example. When YPS are plotted using linear scales, periods are constant along radial lines that emanate from the origin; values are indicated (in seconds). Peak displacements u of the SDOF systems relative to the ground are given by y , where the value of may be estimated by interpolating between the curves of constant ductility. Superimposed on the YPS of Figure 7 is a capacity curve for a SDOF system. The yield displacement is equal to about 4 cm and the yield coefficient is about 0.18, resulting in the yield point being located on the =2 curve. This indicates that the peak displacement will be twice the yield displacement, or about 8 cm. If either the drift or ductility responses exceed limiting values associated with a performance objective, the lateral strength may be increased. If the yield displacement is constant, additional strength will reduce the ductility demand and the associated peak displacement response of the structure. The curves shown in Figure 7 are computed for a specific ground motion record. Alternately, smoothed YPS may be used for design purposes. For example, a smoothed

590

M. ASCHHEIM

Figure 7. Yield Point Spectra computed for the 1940 NS El Centro record. The response of a system with yield displacement equal to approximately 4 cm, yield strength coefficient equal to about 0.18, and period equal to 1 s is shown. The yield point falls on the 2 curve, indicating that the peak displacement is twice the yield displacement.

elastic design spectrum may be coupled with a smoothed R--T relationship to determine the strengths required for constant ductility responses. This follows the same idea expressed by Chopra and Goel (1999) and Fajfar (1999) for improving the seminal Capacity Spectrum Method (Freeman 1978), from which all of these representations are derived. In the case of Yield Point Spectra, the yield displacement is plotted on the abscissa, while the other representations explicitly plot the peak displacement. The authors preference for YPS derives in part from the directness with which the strength required to limit drift and ductility responses to acceptable values may be determined. In short, the yield displacement is a property of the structure; the ductility demands (and peak displacement response) associated with a yield strength coefficient are properties of the hazard. The computation of YPS for specific ground motion records can be made using the computer program USEE 2001 (Inel et al. 2001). A more complete description of this representation is given by Aschheim and Black (2000). SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON YIELD DISPLACEMENT Black and Aschheim (2000) developed and implemented a simple seismic design procedure for determining the strength required to limit peak ductility and drift demands. One begins with an estimated value of the yield displacement. This estimate may be made based on experience, a previous nonlinear static analysis, or explicit formulas that consider the framing system, geometry, yield strain, and an approximate mode shape. The design base shear strength may be determined using this procedure in place of the code base shear strength provisions, and the remainder of the design can follow the provisions of a building code. In the present implementation, design and response are computed at design strength levels; any service level gravity loads present in the nonlinear static and dynamic analyses are therefore used for determining the moments used for the design of the beams. The sequence of steps is as follows:

SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT

591

Step 1: Estimate the yield displacement that would be observed in a nonlinear static (pushover) analysis of the building when responding in its predominant mode. In the four examples that follow, the yield displacement is estimated to be 0.75% of the height, based on a yield strength f y36 ksi (250 MPa). Step 2: Based on the performance objectives, determine the allowable ductility for the system. This is the minimum of (1) the system ductility limit associated with limiting structural damage at the performance level, and (2) the ratio of the drift limit associated with limiting nonstructural damage at the performance level and the yield drift estimated in Step 1. Step 3: Estimate values of the terms 1 (modal participation factor) and 1 (mass participation factor) based on an assumed mode shape and distribution of mass. The mode shape is normalized to have unit amplitude at the roof. Estimate the yield displacement of the equivalent SDOF system as y /1 . Experience indicates that reasonable approximations of the mode shape are adequate for design purposes. Values of these modal parameters can be calculated for various mode shapes; tabulated results are available for the case of uniform mass in Abrams (1985) and Black and Aschheim (2000). Step 4: Enter the YPS with the estimated ESDOF yield displacement and the allowable ductility (determined in Steps 2 and 3); read off the required yield strength coefficient, Cy . The required base shear coefficient for the building is 1Cy . Step 5: Distribute the base shear over the height of the building and design the building according to the equivalent static lateral force procedure of a modern building code. Black and Aschheim (2000) used the UBC (ICBO 1997) lateral force distribution for design of the beams and employed additional criteria for sizing the columns to ensure that weak story mechanisms did not result. If multiple performance objectives are to be considered, Steps 2 and 4 are repeated for each performance objective, and design of the members (Step 5) continues with the largest of the base shear coefficients determined in Step 4. The most direct approach to verify the adequacy of a design is to compute the elastic mode shapes and the capacity curve (by nonlinear static analysis) to verify that the yield displacement and yield coefficient of the equivalent SDOF structure are consistent with those assumed in design. If they should differ and it appears that the performance objective will not be satisfied, a more accurate value of the required base shear coefficient can be determined by repeating Step 4, with the computed yield displacement and modal parameters used in place of the estimated values. In the work by Black and Aschheim (2000) an alternate approach was used, which did away with the need for nonlinear static analysis. The determination of an Admissible Design Region (Aschheim and Black 2000) identifies families of equivalent SDOF systems (having different periods of vibration) that just satisfy the performance objectives. The yield point of an equivalent SDOF system is defined by three quantities (of which only two are independent): yield displacement, yield strength, and elastic stiffness. The procedure outlined in Steps 1 through 5 identifies one of the many equivalent SDOF systems that satisfies the performance objective. The structure may be designed to conform to the properties of this particular equivalent SDOF system (identified in Steps 1

592

M. ASCHHEIM

through 5) using elastic analysis alone, by focusing on the period of the MDOF system designed using the design base shear obtained from Step 5. If the fundamental period should deviate from the period of the equivalent SDOF system, member sizes are then refined to shift the period to match that of the equivalent SDOF system, without reducing member strengths. As a final check, the mass participation factor (1) is recomputed for the current elastic mode shape to verify that the beam strengths are adequate for the base shear computed using the current value of 1 . This alternate procedure was employed in the design of the four frames reported in Black and Aschheim (2000). Nonlinear static (pushover) analyses were done only after the design of the frames was complete, as part of the documentation and validation of the design method. Nonlinear dynamic analyses were then conducted to determine the peak roof drifts so that the adequacy of design based on an equivalent SDOF system could be assessed. DESIGN EXAMPLES Four regular moment-resistant steel frame buildings were designed based on an estimated yield displacement using the design method described above. Steel was chosen for simplicity to permit bilinear load-deformation models to be used, although the findings are equally applicable to reinforced concrete frames (for which stiffness-degrading responses ideally should be embodied in the Yield Point Spectra). The frames were designed and analyzed only for lateral load to exercise the design method without introducing complications resulting from gravity loads. Details are provided in Black and Aschheim (2000). Pairs of 4- and 12-story frames were designed. Each frame was designed to limit roof drift to 1.5% of the building height when subjected to a specific earthquake ground motion, with the understanding that this relatively severe drift limit may result in interstory drifts on the order of 1.7 (1.5%)=2.5%. The designs were made for specific ground motions so that nonlinear dynamic analyses could be used to validate the design procedure; it is understood that real designs would be based on smoothed design spectra or a larger number of individual ground motions. Each building in a pair was designed for either a relatively weak or a relatively strong earthquake ground motion. The buildings designed for the weaker records were more flexible, and are designated by the identifiers Flexible-4 and Flexible-12. The buildings designed for the stronger motions were stiffer, and hence were designated as Rigid-4 or Rigid-12. A diverse set of motions was used, including near field and nearly harmonic motions (Table 1), to illustrate the robustness of the design approach. For design purposes, yield displacements were estimated to be 0.75% of the height based on the assumption that f y36 ksi (250 MPa). This corresponds to an estimated yield displacement of 0.128 and 0.368 m for the 4- and 12-story frames, respectively. Because peak roof displacements were limited to 1.5% of the height, control of drift required that the ductility response of the frames (in the first mode) not exceed a target value of 1.5/0.75=2. The relatively low ductility associated with this drift limit indicates that structural damage will be relatively light, provided that the structure is proportioned to develop beam hinging over its height.

SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT

593

Table 1. Frame design parameters

Design Ground Motion 1992 LandersLucerne 250 1994 NorthridgeNewhall 360 1985 MichoacanSCT 270 1995 KobeTakatori 360 Mass Modal Estimated Yield Allowable Participation Participation Required Factor, Factor, Base Shear Displacement, System 1 1 Coefficient m Ductility 0.128 0.128 2 2 1.33 1.33 0.86 0.86 0.258 0.688

Designation Flexible-4 Rigid-4

Flexible-12

0.368

1.44

0.79

0.174

Rigid-12

0.368

1.44

0.79

0.474

The design method was tested using a relatively imprecise estimate of the predominant mode shape, given by a simple straight-line deflected shape. Lumped masses were uniformly distributed over the height of the frames. For this mode shape and mass distribution, 11.33 and 1.44 and 10.86 and 0.79 for the 4- and 12-story frames, respectively. These values may be computed from standard formulas for these quantities or can be obtained from tables provided by Abrams (1985) and reproduced by Black and Aschheim (2000). These values are based on mode shapes normalized to unit amplitude at the roof. The estimated yield displacements of the equivalent SDOF system are given by 0.128/1.33=0.096 m and 0.368/1.44=0.26 m (Table 2). The required yield strength coefficient was determined to obtain a displacement ductility of 2 for the estimated SDOF yield displacements using Yield Point Spectra prepared for each ground motion (Figure 8), resulting in the yield strength coefficients given in Table 2. The required base shear coefficients of Table 1 were obtained as the product of the yield strength coefficients and the mass participation factors of Table 1. The frames were designed for these base shear coefficients using the lateral force distribution of the Uniform Building Code (ICBO 1997) to obtain the frames shown in Figure 9. The periods of the equivalent SDOF systems were not required for design, but were employed to ensure that the stiff-

Table 2. Equivalent SDOF parameters

Designation Flexible-4 Rigid-4 Flexible-12 Rigid-12 Estimated SDOF Yield Displacement, m 0.096 0.096 0.26 0.26 Allowable Ductility 2 2 2 2 Required Yield Strength Coefficient 0.30 0.80 0.22 0.60 ESDOF Period, sec 1.13 0.70 2.18 1.32

594

M. ASCHHEIM

Figure 8. Yield Point Spectra used for the design of the four frames: (a) Lucerne, (b) Newhall, (c) SCT, and (d) Takatori design ground motions. The YPS shown were computed for =1, 2, 4, and 8, for a bilinear load-deformation model with post-yield stiffness equal to 10% of the initial stiffness and viscous damping equal to 5% of critical damping. Lines of constant period are parallel to one another when YPS are plotted on logarithmic axes.

ness and strength of each frame were consistent with the estimated properties of the equivalent SDOF systems. All columns were nominally 14 in. (0.36 m) in depth; nominal beam depths ranged from 18 to 27 in. (0.46 to 0.69 m). Nonlinear static (pushover) analyses were done using Drain-2DX (Prakash et al. 1993) with forces applied proportional to the amplitude of the actual elastic mode shape and the mass at each floor (Figure 10). Bilinear curves were fitted to the resulting capacity curves, leading to the values of base shear coefficient and yield displacement shown in Table 3. The yield drifts of the 4-story frames were slightly larger than the estimate of 0.75%, and those of the 12-story frames were slightly lower than the estimate of 0.75%; in the worst case the actual value differed by just 9% from the estimate. Thus, the yield drifts were stable even as the base shear coefficient changed from 0.265 to 0.680 for the 4-story frames and from 0.173 to 0.469 for the 12-story frames, as the

SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT

595

Figure 9. Framing designed for the (a) Flexible-4, (b) Rigid-4, (c) Flexible-12, and (d) Rigid12 frames.

periods changed from 0.71 to 1.16 s for the 4-story frames and from 1.25 to 2.17 seconds for the 12-story frames, and even as the number of stories changed from four to twelve. Nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted to determine the peak roof displacement response of the frames under the design ground motions (Figure 11). Peak roof

596

M. ASCHHEIM

Figure 10. Capacity curves obtained by nonlinear static analysis of the four frames, for lateral forces applied proportional to the first mode amplitude and mass at each floor: (a) Flexible-4; (b) Rigid-4; (c) Flexible-12; and (d) Rigid-12. Bilinear curves fitted to the capacity curves are shown with yield displacements and yield strengths indicated.

displacements (Table 3) were within 87 to 95% of the 1.5% drift target (given by 0.255 and 0.735 m for the 4- and 12-story frames, respectively). Cuesta and Aschheim (2001) observed a tendency for peak roof displacements to be slightly smaller than the estimates made using ESDOF systems, for a varied set of ground motions. This observation suggests that this design method has a slightly conservative bias.
Table 3. Frame characteristics and performance from nonlinear static and dynamic analysis.
Yield Displacement, m 0.129 0.133 0.353 0.335 Yield Drift, % 0.759 0.782 0.720 0.684 Base Shear Coefficient (at Yield) 0.265 0.680 0.173 0.469 Fundamental Period, s 1.16 0.71 2.17 1.25 Peak Roof Displacement, m 0.241 0.223 0.666 0.650

Designation Flexible-4 Rigid-4 Flexible-12 Rigid-12

SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT

597

Figure 11. Roof displacement histories of the frames subjected to the design ground motions, determined by nonlinear dynamic analysis: (a) Flexible-4; (b) Rigid-4; (c) Flexible-12; and (d) Rigid-12. Peak displacements are indicated.

The present examples demonstrate that drift and ductility demands can be controlled for a range of building heights and earthquake intensities using a simple design method that is based on the stability of the yield displacement. Extremely simple assumptions were employed and no nonlinear analyses were done to refine the designs. The strengths required to satisfy the performance objective, and the resulting periods, differed substantially, but the yield displacements of the buildings were nearly constant. Assuming that a period-based design approach would result in buildings of similar proportions, such an approach would have to find the periods of the resulting designs. This implies that period-based procedures would require some number of iterations. Convergence using a yield displacement estimate was rapid enough that no iteration was necessary. CONCLUSIONS This paper focuses on the yield displacement of a structure responding in its predominant mode to a seismic excitation. The yield displacement is defined with respect to

598

M. ASCHHEIM

a capacity curve which is determined by nonlinear static analysis for applied forces that are consistent with the predominant mode of response. Logical arguments and empirical data were employed to demonstrate that: 1. The yield displacement of a structure dominated by flexural response is a function of the yield strain of the material, the height of the structure, the depth of the yielding members, the shape of the predominant mode of response, and the distribution of mass and stiffness throughout the structure. (The depth of the yielding members does not affect the yield displacement of a structure dominated by axial response.) The parameters (above) that determine the yield displacement are known early in the design process, allowing accurate estimates of the yield displacement to be made prior to the detailed design of the structure. The yield displacement is nearly independent of the strength of the system, allowing the strength to be selected to achieve a desired performance, based on an initial estimate of the yield displacement. Seismic design approaches are available that rely on an estimate of the yield displacement. The period of vibration is not an essential ingredient of a seismic design procedure. Estimates of the yield displacement may be made assuming that the drift at yield (y /H) depends on the structural configuration and materials, and is largely independent of the number of stories and lateral strength of the structure.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Given a structural configuration, the strength required to limit the ductility and peak displacement responses of a system determines the stiffness and vibration characteristics of the system. The fundamental period of vibration is seen to be a consequence of choices made in design to control performance. While the influence of strength on the period(s) of vibration has been overlooked in the past, it is significant now that performance-based design objectives are being specified with greater precision. Conventional design approaches can be modified to consider the influence of strength on the period of vibration, but such modifications introduce iterations into the design process. The examples presented herein show that design approaches based on the stability of the yield displacement can converge rapidly upon a solution, entirely eliminating the need for iteration if reasonable assumptions are made in design. These conclusions, drawn from fundamentals and illustrated for structures having a sharply defined yield point, are also applicable to structures in which the progression of yielding results in a less sharply defined yield displacement. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Interaction with a number of people aided the development of this paper. Discussions with Craig Comartin, Steve Mahin, and Jack Moehle were particularly valuable. Support provided by a CAREER Award from the National Science Foundation (Grant No. CMS-9984830) is gratefully acknowledged. This work made use of Earthquake En-

SEISMIC DESIGN BASED ON THE YIELD DISPLACEMENT

599

gineering Research Centers Shared Facilities supported by the National Science Foundation under Award Number EEC-9701785. Figure 6 was reproduced with the permission of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. REFERENCES
Abrams, D. A., 1985. Nonlinear Earthquake Analysis of Concrete Building Structures, final report on a study to the American Society for Engineering Education. Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Volumes 1 and 2, Report No. ATC-40, Redwood City, CA, November. ATC, 1997. NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared for the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 274, Washington, DC, October. ATC, 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared for the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 273, Washington, DC, October. Aschheim, M., and Black, E., 2000. Yield Point Spectra for seismic design and rehabilitation, Earthquake Spectra 16 (2), 17336. Benioff, H., 1934. The physical evaluation of seismic destructiveness, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 24 (2), 398403. Biot, M. A., 1941. A mechanical analyzer for the prediction of earthquake stresses, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 31 (2), 151171. Black, E., and Aschheim, M., 2000. Seismic Design and Evaluation of Multistory Buildings Using Yield Point Spectra, CD Release 00-04, Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois, Urbana, July. Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K., 1999. Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum, Earthquake Spectra 15 (4), 637656. Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K., 2000. Building period formulas for estimating seismic displacements, Earthquake Spectra 16 (2), 533536. Cuesta, I., and Aschheim, M., 2001. Using Pulse R-Factors to Estimate the Structural Response to Earthquake Ground Motions, CD Release 01-03, Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois, March. Fajfar, P., 1999. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 28, 979993. Freeman, S. A., 1978. Prediction of response of concrete buildings to severe earthquake motion, Douglas McHenry International Symposium on Concrete and Concrete Structures, ACI Special Publication 55, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 589605. Gupta, B., and Kunnath, S. K., 2000. Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures, Earthquake Spectra 16 (2), 367391. Inel, M., Black, E. F., Aschheim, M. A, and Abrams, D. P., 2001. USEE 2001Utility Software for Earthquake Engineering Program, Report, and Documentation, CD Release 01-05, MidAmerica Earthquake Center, University of Illinois. Software available for download from http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu/ International Conference of Buildings Officials (ICBO), 1988. Uniform Building Code, Whittier, CA. ICBO, 1997. Uniform Building Code, Whittier, CA.

600

M. ASCHHEIM

Paulay, T., 2002. An estimation of displacement limits for ductile systems, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31, 583599. Prakash, V., Powell, G. H., and Campbell, S., 1993. Drain-2DX Base Program Description and User Guide, Version 1.10, Report No. UCB/SEMM-93/17, Structural Engineering, Mechanics, and Materials, University of California, Berkeley, Nov. Priestley, M. J. N., and Kowalsky, M. J., 1998. Aspects of drift and ductility capacity of rectangular cantilever structural walls, Bull. N. Z. Natl. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 31 (2), 7385. Priestley, M. J. N., 2000. Performance based seismic design, Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Jan. 30Feb. 4. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Seismology Committee, 1999. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Sacramento, CA. Tjhin, T., Aschheim, M., and Wallace, J., 2002. Displacement-based seismic design of reinforced concrete structural walls, Proceedings of the 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, MA, July 2125.

(Received 2 January 2001; accepted 14 August 2002)