Similar articles

Abstract: The earthquake forces used in design codes of buildings should be theoretically determinable. This work examines the seismic force modification factor R based on elastic-plastic time-history earthquake analysis of SDOF systems, wherein the hysteresis models are elastic-perfectly-plastic (EPP), elastic-linearly-hardening (ELH), shear-slipped and bilinear-elastic. The latter two models are analysed for separating the effect of the ductility and the energy-dissipating capacity. Three-hundred eighty-eight earthquake records from different site conditions are used in analysis. The ductility is taken to be 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, with the damping ratio being 0.02, 0.035 and 0.05 respectively. The post-yield stiffness ratios 0.0, 0.1 and 0.2 are used in the analysis. The R spectra are standardized by the characteristic period of the earthquake records, which leads to a much smaller scatter in averaged numerical results. It was found that the most important factor determining R is the ductility. R increases more than linearly with ductility. The energy-dissipating capacity, damping and the post-yield stiffness are the less important factors. The energy dissipating capacity is important only for structures with short period and moderate period (0.3≤T/T_g<5.0). For EPP and ELH models, R for 0.05 damping is 10% to 15% smaller than for 0.02 damping. For EPP and ELH models, greater post-yield stiffness leads to greater R, but the influence of post-yield stiffness is obvious only when the post-yield stiffness is less than 10% of the initial stiffness. By means of statistical regression analysis the relation of the seismic force modification factor R with the natural period of the system and ductility for EPP and ELH models were established for each site and soil condition.

[1] Borzi, B., Elnashai, A.S., 2000. Refined force reduction factors for seismic design. Engineering Structures, 22:1244-1260.

[2] Fajfar, P., 1995. The 10th European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, p.2969-2974.

[3] Huang, J.Q., 2005. Elastic-plastic Dynamics and Aseismic Design Theory of Steel Structures. Ph.D Thesis, Zhejiang University, p.103-147 (in Chinese).

[4] Kappos, A.J., 1999. Evaluation of behavior factors on the basis of ductility and overstrength studies. Engineering Structures, 21:823-835.

[5] Krawinkler, H., Nassar, A.A., 1992. Seismic Design Based on Ductility and Cumulative Damage Demand and Capacities. In: Fajfar, K. (Ed.), Nonlinear Seismic Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Elsevier Applied Science, New York.

[6] Li, H.L., Sang, W.H., Young, H.O., 1999. Determination of ductility factor considering different hysteretic models. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28:957-977.

[7] Miranda, E., 1993. Site-dependent strength-reduction factors. Journal of Structural Engineering, 119:3503-3519.

[8] Miranda, E., Bertero, V.V., 1994. Evaluation of strength reduction factor for earthquake-resistance design. Earthquake Spectra, 10(3):357-379.

[9] Newmark, N.M., Hall, W.J., 1982. Earthquake Spectra and Design. EERI Monograph Series, Oakland.

[10] Vidic, T., Fajfar, P., Fischinger, M., 1994. Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 23:507-521.

[11] Xu, Z.X., Yu, A.D., 1998. Discuss about seismic influence coefficient. Engineering Mechanics Supplement, p.100-107 (in Chinese).

[12] Zhuo, W.D., Fan, L.C., 2001. On strength reduction factors used for seismic design of structures. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 21(1):84-88 (in Chinese).