EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.

152)

Seismic response of self-centring hysteretic SDOF systems

Constantin Christopoulos, Andre Filiatrault; and Bryan Folz
Department of Structural Engineering; University of California at San Diego; 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0085; La Jolla; CA 92093; U.S.A.

SUMMARY The seismic response of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems incorporating ag-shaped hysteretic structural behaviour, with self-centring capability, is investigated numerically. For a SDOF system with a given initial period and strength level, the ag-shaped hysteretic behaviour is fully dened by a postyielding sti ness parameter and an energy-dissipation parameter. A comprehensive parametric study was conducted to determine the in uence of these parameters on SDOF structural response, in terms of displacement ductility, absolute acceleration and absorbed energy. This parametric study was conducted using an ensemble of 20 historical earthquake records corresponding to ordinary ground motions having a probability of exceedence of 10% in 50 years, in California. The responses of the ag-shaped hysteretic SDOF systems are compared against the responses of similar bilinear elasto-plastic hysteretic SDOF systems. In this study the elasto-plastic hysteretic SDOF systems are assigned parameters representative of steel moment resisting frames (MRFs) with post-Northridge welded beam-to-column connections. In turn, the ag-shaped hysteretic SDOF systems are representative of steel MRFs with newly proposed post-tensioned energy-dissipating connections. Building structures with initial periods ranging from 0.1 to 2:0 s and having various strength levels are considered. It is shown that a ag-shaped hysteretic SDOF system of equal or lesser strength can always be found to match or better the response of an elastoplastic hysteretic SDOF system in terms of displacement ductility and without incurring any residual drift from the seismic event. Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS:

hysteretic models; SDOF systems; non-linear analysis; self-centring systems; seismic response

1. INTRODUCTION Following the unexpected failures of beam-to-column connections in more than one hundred steel moment-resisting frames (MRFs) during the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake, a comprehensive research programthe SAC Joint Venturewas initiated in the United States to investigate and remediate the causes of these failures [1]. It was concluded from the
to: Andre Filiatrault, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California at San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0085, La Jolla, CA 92093, U.S.A. E-mail: aliatrault@ucsd.edu
Correspondence

Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 23 April 2001 Revised 8 September 2001 Accepted 10 September 2001

1132

C. CHRISTOPOULOS, A. FILIATRAULT AND B. FOLZ

Figure 1. Concept of PTED steel connection: (a) steel frame with PTED connections; (b) deformed conguration of exterior PTED connection.

investigation phase of this project that the major cause of these failures was the unexpectedly low rotational capacity of beam-to-column welded connections. In the remediation phase of the SAC project, studies on new construction led to a better understanding of the cyclic behaviour of welded and bolted steel moment-resisting connections and to the development of more stringent welding practices [2]. However, even with these enhanced requirements, inelastic deformations as well as residual drifts are expected to occur in steel MRFs under seismic loading. In parallel with the post-Northridge steel research, moment-resisting connections using posttensioning concepts were developed for precast concrete construction [3]. A series of innovative beam-to-column connections [4], combining self-centring characteristics as well as energy dissipation, were proposed. It was demonstrated that the performance of these connections was excellent under simulated seismic loading. The most signicant characteristic of these connections was their capacity to ensure small residual drifts, through self-centring capabilities, even when signicant inelastic transient deformations were mobilized during the seismic response. Recently, this post-tensioning technology has been extended to steel MRFs [5; 6]. Experimental and numerical results obtained from these studies show that these post-tensioned connections are capable of achieving sti ness and strength characteristics comparable to traditional welded moment-resisting connections. In addition, these connections can be tailored to provide a specied amount of energy dissipation. This structural behaviour can be achieved without introducing inelastic deformations in the beam or column and without residual drift. The concept for the particular post-tensioned energy dissipating (PTED) connection developed by the authors [6] is illustrated in Figure 1. This PTED connection incorporates high strength steel post-tensioned (PT) bars designed to remain elastic during the seismic response, and conned energy-dissipating (ED) bars designed to yield both in tension and compression. Figure 2 shows a moment-rotation relationship obtained experimentally from a large scale PTED connection [6]. The self-centring capacity and energy dissipation characteristics of the connection are evident. Figure 3 shows an idealization of the ag-shaped hysteretic behaviour of a PTED connection, which is easily amenable to numerical modelling. The overall response
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

SELF-CENTRING HYSTERETIC SDOF SYSTEMS

1133

Figure 2. Experimental momentrotation curve of PTED connection (after Reference [6]).

Figure 3. Idealized hysteretic behaviour of the PTED beam-to-column connection: (a) contribution of PT Bars; (b) contribution of ED bars; and (c) momentrotation relationship of PTED connection.

of the connection can be decomposed into the non-linear elastic contribution from the PTbars and the bilinear elasto-plastic hysteretic contribution from the ED-bars. It is of interest to note that this ag-shaped hysteretic response has also been achieved using specialized energy dissipating dampers or materials [7; 8]. To date, there is limited information on the non-linear dynamic response of hysteretic selfcentring systems under seismic loading. The main objective of this paper is to shed some light on this issue by investigating numerically the inelastic response of single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) ag-shaped hysteretic systems, under code prescribed levels of seismic input. For this purpose, an ensemble of 20 historical records representative of ordinary ground motions having a probability of exceedence of 10% in 50 years in California was considered. Although the parametric study that is conducted focuses on structural systems that display a ag-shaped hysteretic response similar in form to that developed by a PTED framing system, the results obtained can also be applicable in part to the other self-centring hysteretic systems cited above. Finally, to assess the advantages and disadvantages of using this new type of framing system, the dynamic responses of SDOF systems exhibiting ag-shaped hysteresis are compared to the responses of SDOF systems exhibiting bilinear elasto-plastic hysteresis, typical of postNorthridge steel MRFs incorporating welded fully restrained moment-resisting connections.
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

1134

C. CHRISTOPOULOS, A. FILIATRAULT AND B. FOLZ

2. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 2.1. Hysteretic models Two hysteretic models are considered in this study: a bilinear elasto-plastic model and a agshaped model. The bilinear elasto-plastic hysteretic model is representative of the behaviour of steel MRFs incorporating post-Northridge welded beam-to-column fully restrained momentresisting connections. It is assumed that following the new recommendations on welded beamto-column connections [2; 9], a large number of plastic rotation cycles can be achieved without any fracture of the welds. A post-yielding sti ness of 0.02 of the initial sti ness is also assumed. The idealized hysteretic forcedisplacement relationship of a system incorporating these types of welded connections is shown in Figure 4(a). Note that this idealization is an upper bound of the actual response of steel MRFs considering that strength degradation is expected under cyclic loading. The ag-shaped hysteretic model considered is representative of the behaviour of steel MRFs incorporating PTED connections both at all beam-to-column connections and at the base of each column. Figure 4(b) shows the idealized hysteretic forcedisplacement relationship of a system incorporating these PTED connections. Associated with this hysteretic model are two independent response parameters and . In this study the post-yielding sti ness coe cient , expressed as a fraction of the initial sti ness, ranges in value from 0.02 to 0.35. The coe cient re ects the energy dissipation capacity of the system. A lower bound of = 0:0 produces a piecewise non-linear elastic system. An upper bound of = 1:0 is required to ensure the self-centring capability of the hysteretic model. 2.2. Normalized equations of motion The equation of motion of a SDOF system under seismic input is given by mx + cx + F (x) = mxg (1)

Figure 4. Idealized pseudo forcedisplacement relationships: (a) system incorporating welded connections; and (b) system incorporating PTED connections.
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

SELF-CENTRING HYSTERETIC SDOF SYSTEMS

1135

where m is the mass of the system, c is the viscous damping coe cient and F (x) is the non-linear restoring force dened by the hysteretic model of the system. The displacement, velocity and acceleration of the system, relative to the ground are denoted by x, x and x, respectively. The ground acceleration is designated by xg . Two key parameters that can be used in dening the dynamic response of a non-linear SDOF system are the initial period T0 and the strength ratio : T0 = 2 = Fy mg m=k 0 (2) (3)

where k 0 is the initial sti ness of the system, Fy is the yield force and g is the acceleration of gravity. Using Equation (2), Equation (1) can be rewritten as x+2 with
0 0

2 T0

x +

2 T0

(x) = xg f

(4)

denoting the initial fraction of critical damping of the system,

0

c = 2 k0m

(5)

(x) representing the non-linear pseudo-restoring of the system: and f (x) = F (x) f k0 The yield displacement xy of the system is given by xy = Fy =f y k0 (7) (6)

as shown in Figure 4. Using Equations (2) and (3), the yield displacement xy can be expressed in terms of the key parameters of the system T0 and : xy = T02 g 4 2 (8)

With this formulation, for a specied level of critical damping 0 , initial period T0 and strength level the SDOF is completely dened for the case when the restoring forcedisplacement relationship is bilinear elasto-plastic (Figure 4(a)) and requires only the additional parameters and to be assigned if the restoring forcedisplacement relationship exhibits a ag-shaped hysteresis (Figure 4(b)). For the time-history dynamic analyses performed in this study, the normalized non-linear equation of motion given by Equation (4) is integrated using the Newmark constant average acceleration scheme. The analyses were continued for 10 s of zero ground acceleration at the
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

1136

C. CHRISTOPOULOS, A. FILIATRAULT AND B. FOLZ

end of each record to allow the system to oscillate under viscously damped free vibrations in order to return to rest. 2.3. Energy balance The energy balance at time t for the normalized equation of motion can be written as Ek (t ) + Ed (t ) + Es (t ) = Ein (9)

where Ek (t ); Ed (t ), Es (t ) and Ein are the kinetic energy at time t , the energy dissipated by viscous damping up to time t , the strain energy at time t (recoverable elastic and dissipated hysteretic) and the relative seismic input energy, respectively. These energy quantities can be dened as follows: (t )2 Ek (t ) = 1 2x Ed (t ) = 2 Es (t ) =
0

2 T0
2 0 x(t ) 0

x(t ) 0 x(t )

x (t ) d x

(10)

2 T0

(t ) d x f

Ein =

xg (t ) d x

Equations (9) and (10) determine how the seismic input energy is distributed in the system over time, as well as allowing for a check on the accuracy of the time integration scheme. 2.4. System response indices The inelastic response of SDOF systems under seismic input can be characterized in part by the following normalized non-dimensional response indices: (i) The maximum displacement ductility = : (11)

max06t 6tD |x(t )| xy

where tD is the total duration of the seismic input. In performance-based earthquake engineering, the maximum inelastic displacement is one of the primary response indices to determine both the structural and non-structural damage to buildings under seismic loading [10; 11]. (ii) The normalized absolute maximum acceleration amax : amax = max06t 6tD |x(t ) + xg (t )| g (12)

Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

SELF-CENTRING HYSTERETIC SDOF SYSTEMS

1137

This index is a measure of the damage potential to acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements, as well as an indicator of potential injury to occupants during an earthquake event. In addition, this response index is a direct indicator of the force level induced into the system by the seismic input. (iii) The normalized maximum absorbed energy Eabs : Eabs = max06t 6tD |Es (t )| xy mg (13)

This index is a measure of potential structural damage including duration e ects. (iv) The normalized residual displacement xres : xres =
|x(tD )|

xy

(14)

This index is an indicator of the structural damage sustained after an earthquake and of the extent of repair costs. Residual displacements are only computed for the bilinear elasto-plastic hysteretic model (see Figure 4(a)). The ag-shaped hysteretic model (see Figure 4(b)), by virtue of its self-centring capabilities, does not have residual displacements. 2.5. Ground motions considered in parametric study An ensemble of 20 historical strong ground motion records from California representative of ordinary earthquakes having a probability of exceedence of 10% in 50 years are used in this study [12]. These records are free of any forward directivity e ects (near-fault e ects). All records were recorded on soil types C or D, and were generated by earthquakes of moment magnitude Mw ranging from 6:7 to 7:3. The hypocentral distance for these records range between 13 and 25 km. Table I gives further details on the characteristics of these earthquake records. Following the method proposed in NEHERP Provisions for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings [13], a 5% damped design elastic acceleration response spectrum for a seismic zone 4 and a soil type C or D was constructed and used as the target spectrum. Each of the 20 earthquake records was then scaled to minimize the square of the error between its 5% damped response spectrum and the target NEHERP spectrum at ve period values: T = 0:1; 0:25; 0:5; 1:0 and 2:0 s. The resulting scaling factors are listed in Table I. The mean and the envelopes of the maximum and minimum spectral values of the 20 scaled records along with the NEHERP target spectrum are shown in Figure 5. A good match is obtained between the mean spectral values and the target spectrum in the range of periods of interest (0:12:0 s). However, the envelopes of maximum and minimum spectral values indicate the large variability that exists between the records. Table I also lists the scaled peak ground accelerations (PGA), and scaled peak ground velocities (PGV). The mean value of the PGA of the 20 scaled records is 0:43 g, which is very close to the e ective peak acceleration Ca = 0:40 g specied in the NEHERP provisions for a seismic zone 4 and soil types C and D.
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

1138

Table I. Characteristics of ground motions considered (after Reference [12]). Year Station Brawley El Centro Imp. Co. Cent. Plaster City Beverly Hills 14145 Mulhol Canoga ParkTopanga Can GlendaleLas Palmas LAHollywood Stor FF LAN Faring Rd N. HollywoodColdwater Can SunlandMt Gleason Ave Capitola Gilroy Array # 3 Gilroy Array # 4 Gilroy Array # 7 Hollister Di . Array SaratogaW Valley Coll. Fortuna Fortuna Blvd Rio Dell OverpassFF Desert Hot Springs Yermo Fire Station 18.2 13.9 21.0 19.6 15.8 25.4 25.5 23.9 14.6 17.7 14.5 14.4 16.1 24.2 25.8 13.7 23.6 18.5 23.3 24.9 D D D C D D D D C C D D D D D C C C C D 22.0 40.0 22.2 30.0 25.0 30.0 40.0 30.0 21.9 30.0 40.0 39.9 40.0 40.0 39.6 40.0 44.0 36.0 50.0 44.0 2.7 1.9 2.2 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.9 2.2 1.7 2.2 0.9 0.7 1.3 2.0 1.3 1.4 3.8 1.2 2.7 2.2 Soil type (NEHRP) Duration (s) Scaling factor 1987 1987 1987 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1992 1992 1992 1992 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.3 7.3 Mw Rclosest (km) 0.313 0.490 0.409 0.374 0.427 0.393 0.439 0.601 0.461 0.345 0.476 0.386 0.542 0.452 0.363 0.465 0.441 0.462 0.416 0.334 Scaled PGA (g) Scaled PGV (cm= s) 46.44 77.71 45.32 53.10 38.52 13.53 34.77 34.76 37.74 31.90 32.85 24.99 50.44 32.80 46.28 86.10 114.00 52.68 56.43 65.34
C. CHRISTOPOULOS, A. FILIATRAULT AND B. FOLZ

Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake event

Superstition Hills Superstition Hills Superstition Hills Northridge Northridge Northridge Northridge Northridge Northridge Northridge Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Cape Mendocino Cape Mendocino Landers Landers

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

SELF-CENTRING HYSTERETIC SDOF SYSTEMS

1139

Figure 5. Elastic response spectra of 20 scaled accelerograms.

3. PARAMETRIC STUDY 3.1. Range of key system and hysteretic parameters The parametric study presented herein focuses on the seismic response of steel MRFs ranging in number of stories from one to twenty. From the seismic provisions of the 1997 edition of the uniform building code (UBC) [14], the natural period range of these structures can be estimated by the equation:
3= 4 T0 = Ct hn

(15)

where Ct = 0:0853 for steel MRFs, and where hn is the height of the building in meters. Using Equation (15) and assuming a storey height of 3:4 m, the range of periods T0 for a single storey and for a 20 storey building, respectively, is: 0:2 s6T0 62:0 s The strength factor as (16) which corresponds to the ratio Vy =W in the 1997 UBC [14] is dened = Vy Cv I = W RT0 (17)

where Vy is the design base shear, W is the weight of the structure, I , taken as 1, is the importance factor, Cv is computed as 0:64 for a Zone 4 with soil type D and R is the force reduction factor ranging from 4.5 to 8.5 for an ordinary steel MRF and a special steel MRF, respectively. A lower bound for Equation (17) for seismic Zone 4 is Vy 0:11Ca I W where Ca is computed as 0.44 for a seismic Zone 4 and soil type D. =
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(18)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

1140

C. CHRISTOPOULOS, A. FILIATRAULT AND B. FOLZ

Table II. SDOF system values used in parametric study. T0 (s) 1.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

0.00 0.30 0.60 1.00

0.05 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.50 1.00

0.02 0.10 0.20 0.35

For ag-shaped hysteretic model only.

Substituting the lower and upper period bounds into Equation (17) and verifying Equation (18), the range of strength factors is found to be 0:056 60:71 (19)

In addition, the ag-shaped hysteretic model requires the specication of the parameters and to completely dene the system. Table II lists the complete set of parameters T0 , , and considered in this parametric study. These values result in 576 di erent ag-shaped hysteretic systems. The resulting forcede ection relationships of the ag-shaped hysteretic systems are illustrated qualitatively in Table III for the specied range of values of and . Throughout this study the fraction of critical damping 0 is taken as 0.05 for all SDOF systems. 3.2. Non-linear dynamic response of ag-shaped hysteretic systems are shown Mean values over the ensemble of earthquakes of the displacement ductility in Figure 6 for all ag-shaped hysteretic systems considered. For all values of and , the mean displacement ductility generally increases for decreasing values of initial period T0 and decreasing values of strength ratio . The mean displacement ductility is reduced in all cases with increasing values of and is for increasing values of and . This reduction of more signicant for low period structures (T0 61:0 s) and for structures with lower strength are also the largest. ratios ( 60:3) where the values of Mean values over the ensemble of earthquakes of the maximum absolute acceleration amax are shown in Figure 7. Note that when = 1:0 the SDOF oscillator responds in the elastic range for most of the earthquake records considered and for all values of and . For this case, the plot of the mean maximum absolute acceleration versus period tends towards the elastic response spectrum. The mean maximum absolute acceleration is insensitive to the value of as seen in Figure 7. When is increased, the accelerations of systems with lower values of are increased. For increasing values of ; amax for all values of tends towards the elastic response spectrum. For small values of initial period (T0 60:5 s); amax remains high even when the strength ratio is reduced. This is due to the combination of non-zero post-yielding sti ness with large values of displacement ductility.
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

SELF-CENTRING HYSTERETIC SDOF SYSTEMS

1141

Table III. Qualitative forcede ection relationships of ag-shaped hysteretic systems for all values of and considered in parametric study. Energy-dissipation coe cient, Post-yielding sti ness, 0.0 0.30 0.60 1.0

0:02

0:10

0:20

0:35

Mean values over the ensemble of earthquakes of the absorbed energy Eabs are shown in Figure 8. In general, the energy absorbed increases for decreasing initial period and for decreasing strength ratios. This trend is similar to that observed for the displacement ductility (see Figure 6). However for smaller values of , the absorbed energy (Figure 8) does not increase as much as the displacement ductility (Figure 6). The mean absorbed energy Eabs is insensitive to increasing values of , but highly dependent on the value of . In general, the mean absorbed energy Eabs doubles when the value of changes from 0 to 1. This increased absorbed energy indicates a higher amount of hysteretic damping but also larger cumulative inelastic excursions in the system. 3.3. Non-linear dynamic response of bilinear elasto-plastic hysteretic systems Figure 9 collectively shows mean values, over the ensemble of earthquakes, of displacement ductility , normalized maximum absolute acceleration amax , normalized absorbed energy Eabs and normalized residual displacement xres for the bilinear elasto-plastic hysteretic systems.
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

1142

C. CHRISTOPOULOS, A. FILIATRAULT AND B. FOLZ

Figure 6. Mean displacement ductility for ag-shaped hysteretic systems.

Similar to the ag-shaped hysteretic systems, the mean displacement ductility increases for decreasing values of initial period T0 and decreasing values of the strength ratio , as shown in Figure 9(a). Mean maximum absolute accelerations amax for the case where the strength ratio is taken as 1 as shown in Figure 9(b), are similar to those of the elastic response spectrum. The maximum accelerations decrease for decreasing values of the strength ratio. Similar to the agshaped hysteretic systems, the accelerations for systems with short initial periods (T0 = 0:1s) do not decrease when the strength ratio is decreased ( 60:3). This is also due to the combination of the post-yielding sti ness of the bilinear elasto-plastic hysteretic systems, = 0:02, and large displacement ductility values for these systems. The mean absorbed energy Eabs , as shown in Figure 9(c), increases for decreasing values of initial period T0 and decreasing values of strength ratio similarly to the displacement ductility. As noted for the ag-shaped hysteretic systems, for lower strength systems, lowering
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

SELF-CENTRING HYSTERETIC SDOF SYSTEMS

1143

Figure 7. Mean normalized maximum accelerations for ag-shaped hysteretic systems.

the strength ratio causes a larger increase in the displacement ductility than in the absorbed energy. The residual displacements shown in Figure 9(d) increase for decreasing values of initial period T0 and decreasing values of strength ratio . For the highest strength ratio ( = 1:0), there are no residual displacements at the end of the earthquake. For lower strength values ( 60:3), residual displacements are more pronounced and more dependent upon the initial period. 3.4. Comparative response of the ag-shaped and elasto-plastic hysteretic systems The response of ag-shaped hysteretic and bilinear elasto-plastic hysteretic systems are qualitatively very similar as seen by comparing Figures 68 with Figure 9. The following three observations can be made on the comparative response of these two types of hysteretic
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

1144

C. CHRISTOPOULOS, A. FILIATRAULT AND B. FOLZ

Figure 8. Mean normalized absorbed energy for ag-shaped hysteretic systems.

systems: (i) For each bilinear elasto-plastic system, there is at least one ag-shaped hysteretic system of similar initial period and strength ratio that can achieve equal or smaller displacement ductility. In general, the intermediate values of and are su cient to achieve this. (ii) The maximum absolute accelerations are similar between these two hysteretic models for low values of . For larger values of , maximum accelerations are larger for the ag-shaped hysteretic systems, especially for systems with lower strength ratios. (iii) The energy absorbed is in general signicantly larger for the bilinear elasto-plastic hysteretic systems than the ag-shaped hysteretic systems, especially for low values of .
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

SELF-CENTRING HYSTERETIC SDOF SYSTEMS

1145

Figure 9. Response of bilinear elasto-plastic hysteretic systems: (a) displacement ductility; (b) normalized maximum accelerations; (c) normalized absorbed energy; and (d) normalized residual displacements.

To further compare the response of these two hysteretic models, three particular systems are considered. The rst system is characterized by an initial natural period T0 = 0:25 s and a strength ratio = 0:5, representing a one-storey steel MRF structure. The second system is characterized by an initial natural period T0 = 1:0 s and a strength ratio = 0:1, representing a 7-storey steel MRF structure. The last system considered is characterized by an initial natural period T0 = 2:0 s and a strength ratio = 0:05, representing a 20-storey steel MRF structure. For each of these structural congurations, an elasto-plastic hysteretic system (EP) and three ag-shaped hysteretic systems (FS) are dened and considered for comparative puras the correposes. The FS systems have the same initial period T0 and strength ratio sponding EP system. As listed in Table IV, each FS system has a di erent combination of post-yielding sti ness coe cient and energy dissipating coe cient . The mean response values over the ensemble of earthquakes for these systems are presented in Table IV. The maximum absolute accelerations are increased for increasing values of . The energy absorbed, also as discussed earlier, is larger for the elasto-plastic hysteretic systems and is also increased for the ag-shaped hysteretic systems for larger values of . Finally, unlike the bilinear elasto-plastic systems, the ag-shaped hysteretic systems sustain no residual displacements.
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

1146

C. CHRISTOPOULOS, A. FILIATRAULT AND B. FOLZ

Table IV. Comparative response of three systems exhibiting bilinear elasto-plastic hysteresis (EP) and ag-shaped hysteresis (FS). amax System 1: T0 = 0:25 s; EP FS ( = 0:10; = 1:0) FS ( = 0:20; = 0:6) FS ( = 0:35; = 0:3) System 2: T0 = 1:0 s; EP FS ( = 0:02; = 1:0) FS ( = 0:20; = 0:6) FS ( = 0:35; = 0:6) System 3: T0 = 2:0 s; EP FS ( = 0:02; = 1:0) FS ( = 0:20; = 0:6) FS ( = 0:35; = 1:0) = 0:50 2.28 2.10 2.26 2.27 = 0:10 6.19 6.07 6.45 6.19 = 0:05 4.41 4.78 4.50 4.21 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.83 0.70 0.55 0.69 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.22 0.29 2.71 2.27 2.00 1.98 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.56 0.64 0.73 2.39 2.46 1.92 1.48 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 Eabs xres

Figure 10. Loma Prieta record (Hollister di erential array) scaled at 130%: (a) accelerogram; and (b) elastic response spectrum for 5% damping for accelerogram and for ensemble of earthquake records.

3.5. Examples of time-history analyses To this point, results have been given in terms of non-dimensional mean value response quantities over the ensemble of 20 earthquake records. To further compare the two hysteretic models, and to provide some insight in their response over time, a series of ve structural systems were subjected to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake recorded at the Hollister Di erential Array and scaled at 130% of its amplitude (see Table I). The scaled accelerogram for this record is presented in Figure 10(a). As shown in Figure 10(b), the 5% damped elastic response spectrum of the scaled record is in good agreement with the mean spectrum for the ensemble of 20 records used in the parametric study. All systems considered have an initial period of T0 = 1:0 s and a mass of 4:0 kN s2 = mm. The resulting initial sti ness k 0 is
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

SELF-CENTRING HYSTERETIC SDOF SYSTEMS

1147

Table V. Response of SDOF systems with T0 = 1:0 s, m = 4 kN s2 = mm and k0 = 157:9 kN= mm under 130% of Loma Prieta record. System EP FS1 FS2 FS3 FS4 0.02 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.07
y

(mm) 24.85 24.85 17.40 24.85 17.40

Fy (kN) 3924 3924 2747 3924 2747

(max) (mm) 124.70 110.72 117.88 110.00 115.22

A (max) (g) 0.13 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.14

Eabs (kN mm) 2:0 106 7:4 105 8:3 105 1:1 106 1:1 106

(res) (mm) 22.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

157:9 kN= mm. The structural system so dened is a representation of a 7-storey steel MRF. As shown in Figure 10, the peak ground acceleration is 0:36 g while the spectral acceleration at a period of 1:0 s is 0:72 g. The rst system designated by EP incorporates the elasto-plastic hysteretic model. The four other systems designated by FS1 through FS4 utilize the ag-shaped hysteretic model. The yield force for systems EP, FS1 and FS3 were set equal to 3924 kN which corresponds to a strength ratio = 0:1. The yield force of systems FS2 and FS4 were set equal to 2747 kN which is equal to 70% of the yield force of systems EP, FS1 and FS3 and corresponds to a strength ratio = 0:07. As noted earlier, intermediate values of and result in displacement ductility values for the ag-shaped hysteretic model that are similar to systems with large values of combined with low values of and vice-versa. For systems FS1 and FS2, and were set to 0.25 and 0.30, respectively. For systems FS3 and FS4, and were set to 0.15 and 0.50, respectively. The dening parameters for these ve systems are summarized in Table V. Response values of maximum relative displacement max , maximum absolute acceleration Amax , absorbed energy Eabs as well as residual displacement res obtained from dynamic time-history analyses are presented in Table V. It is noted that these response values obtained for the 130% Loma Prieta earthquake record are in close agreement with the mean values obtained over the ensemble of earthquakes and follow similar trends as discussed earlier. In all cases, all four ag-shaped hysteretic systems achieve smaller maximum displacements than the elasto-plastic system. Systems FS1 and FS2 have greater maximum accelerations and lower absorbed energy than systems FS3 and FS4. Figure 11 shows the time-histories of displacement, acceleration, absorbed energy for the EP and FS4 systems along with their forcedisplacement responses. Note that the elasto-plastic system deforms inelastically primarily in one direction, while the FS4 system has a similar amount of inelastic excursions in both directions. For the elasto-plastic system, the one-sided inelastic deformations will in fact be accentuated by P-delta e ects [15] that have not been taken into account in this study. The FS4 system, with a strength ratio equal to 0.70 of the EP system achieves a smaller maximum displacement, while the maximum absolute accelerations are similar. The energy absorbed is considerably smaller for the FS4 system. Finally, unlike the EP system that sustains a residual displacement of 23 mm, the FS4 system returns to its initial zero position after the end of the earthquake.
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

1148

C. CHRISTOPOULOS, A. FILIATRAULT AND B. FOLZ

Figure 11. Comparative response of EP and FS4 systems under 130% of Loma Prieta record (Hollister di erential array): (a) displacement time-history; (b) acceleration time-history; (c) absorbed energy time-history; and (d) forcedisplacement response.

4. CONCLUSIONS The seismic response of SDOF systems incorporating either a bilinear elasto-plastic hysteretic model or a ag-shaped hysteretic model have been investigated and compared through timehistory dynamic analyses. All systems were subjected to an ensemble of 20 historical records representative of ordinary ground motions having a probability of exceedence of 10% in 50 years in California. For a SDOF system with a given initial period and strength level, the incorporated ag-shaped hysteretic model is dened through a post-yielding parameter and energy-dissipation parameter . These two independent parameters allow for exibility in tailoring the response of this type of SDOF system. A comprehensive parametric study was conducted to determine the in uence of these parameters on SDOF structural response, in terms of displacement ductility, absolute acceleration and absorbed energy. It was found that reduced displacement ductility in systems with short initial periods and low strength levels was most e ectively achieved by increasing the value of as opposed to increasing the value
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

SELF-CENTRING HYSTERETIC SDOF SYSTEMS

1149

of . The reverse is true for long period, high strength systems: increasing is more e ective than increasing . It was also shown that the seismic response of ag-shaped hysteretic systems was qualitatively similar to the elasto-plastic hysteretic systems. In addition, by adjusting the values of and , a ag-shaped hysteretic system could be made to quantitatively match or better the response of an elasto-plastic system in terms of displacement ductility. Values of and to achieve this were not unique. In general, this match in performance can be realized using intermediate values of and . Such values are physically achievable using the newly proposed post-tensioned energy-dissipating (PTED) connections. With respect to absolute acceleration, the ag-shaped hysteretic system tends to produce higher values than the comparable elasto-plastic system. The greatest di erence is seen with higher values of . Also, the absorbed energy by the ag-shape hysteretic system is always less than the comparable elasto-plastic system. However, the importance of this response index for steel structures incorporating PTED connections is minimal since cumulative damage is limited to the replaceable energy-dissipating bars within the beam-to-column and base connections. Finally, residual drifts occurred in all of the elasto-plastic hysteretic SDOF systems considered. Residual drifts were largest in systems with low strength and short periods. In all of the ag-shaped hysteretic SDOF systems there was no residual drift due to the self-centring capability of the forcedisplacement model.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The nancial assistance of the Deans o ce of the Irwin and Joan Jacobs School of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego in support of this study is greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES 1. SAC. Proceedings of the invitational workshop on steel seismic issues. SAC Report No. 94-01, Sacramento, CA, 1994. 2. FEMA. Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings. FEMA No. 350. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000. 3. Priestley MJN. Seismic design philosophy for precast concrete frames. Structural Engineering International 1996; 6(1):25 31. 4. Stanton JF, Stone WC, Cheok GS. A hybrid reinforced frame for seismic regions. PCI Journal 1997; 42(2): 20 32. 5. Ricles MJ, Sause R, Garlock MM, Zhao C. Postensioned seismic-resistant connections for steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2001; 127(2):113 121. 6. Christopoulos C, Filiatrault A, Uang C-M, Folz B. Post-tensioned energy dissipating connections for momentresisting steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2002, accepted. 7. Witting PR, Cozzarelli FA. Shape memory structural dampers: material properties, design and seismic testing. NCEER Report No. 92-0013. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Bu alo, NY, 1992. 8. Filiatrault A, Tremblay R, Kar R. Performance Evaluation of Friction Spring Seismic Damper. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2000; 123(4):491 499. 9. Gross JL, Engelhardt MD, Uang C-M, Kasai K, Iwankiw NR. Modication of Existing Welded Steel Moment Frame Connections for Seismic Resistance. American Institute of Steel Construction, 1999. 10. Moehle JP. Displacement-based design of RC structures subjected to earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 1992; 8(3):403 428. 11. Priestley MJN. Displacement-based seismic assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1996; 29(4):256 272. 12. Krawinkler H, Parisi F, Ibarra L, Ayoub A, Medina AR. Development of a testing protocol for wood frame structures. CUREE Report No. W-02, Richmond, CA, 2000. Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150

1150

C. CHRISTOPOULOS, A. FILIATRAULT AND B. FOLZ

13. Federal Emergency Management Agency. NEHERP provisions for the rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA No. 273 (Guidelines) and 274 (Commentary), Washington, DC, l997. 14. International Conference of Building O cials. Uniform Building Code, vol. 2, Whittier, CA, 1997. 15. MacRae GA, Kawashima K. Post-earthquake residual displacements of bilinear oscillators. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1997; 26:701716.

Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:11311150