Sie sind auf Seite 1von 105

# Structural Design For Earthquake

Murat Saatcioglu PhD,P.Eng.
Professor and University Research Chair
Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Ottawa
Ottawa, ON

Seismic Response
Earthquake forces are different than gravity and wind
loads. They are internally generated inertia forces
caused by the acceleration of ground motion and the
building mass.
A c ce le ra tio n (cm /s 2 )

400
300
200
100
0
-100 0
-200
-300
-400

8
Time (sec)

Performance Criterion
Buildings will be designed to maintain their
structural integrity and ensure life-safety in the event
of a strong earthquake, even though they may be
damaged substantially beyond repair.
Buildings will be designed to survive a medium
seismic event with some repairable damage.
Buildings will be designed to survive a low level
seismic event without damage.
Post-disaster buildings are expected to remain
operational after a strong earthquake.

## General Design Requirements

The structures shall have a clearly defined Seismic
Force Resisting Systems (SFRS) which will be
designed for 100% of the earthquake loads and their
effects.
All structural framing systems not part of SFRS must
be designed to behave either elastically or with
sufficient ductility to maintain their gravity load
carrying capacities during the earthquake (as they go
for the ride).
Non-structural elements shall be either isolated or
integrated.

Provides

## maximum spectral acceleration for

a 5% damped SDOF system of selected
periods, Sa(T)

Spectral

## values derived for a uniform

probability of exceedance, 2% in 50 years

Uniform

## Design Spectral Values

For T 0.2 sec

S(T) = Fa Sa(0.2)
S(T) = Fv Sa(0.5) or

## For T = 0.5 sec

.

S(T) = Fa Sa(0.2)
whichever is smaller

## For T = 1.0 sec

S(T) = Fv Sa(1.0)

## For T = 2.0 sec

S(T) = Fv Sa(2.0)

## For T 4.0 sec

S(T) = Fv Sa(2.0)/2

Table 4.1.8.4.A.
Site Classification for Seismic Site Response
Forming Part of Sentences 4.1.8.4.(2) and (3)

Site
Class

A
B
C
D
E
E

## Average Properties in Top 30 m as per Appendix A

Soil Profile Name

Hard Rock
Rock
Very Dense Soil
and Soft Rock
Stiff Soil
Soft Soil

(1) Others

## Soil Shear Wave

Average Velocity, V
(m/s)

V s > 1500
760 < V s .1500
360 < V s < 760

Standard
Penetration
Resistance, N

Soil Undrained
Shear Strength, su
60

Not applicable
Not applicable
N 60 > 50

Not applicable
Not applicable
su > 100kPa

## 50 < su < 100kPa

15 < N 60 < 50
180 < V s < 360
su < 50kPa
V s <180
N 60 < 15
Any profile with more than 3 m of soil with the following
characteristics:

## Undrained shear strength su < 25 kPa

Site Specific Evaluation Required

## Notes to Table 4.1.8.4.A

(1) Other soils include:
a) Liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented soils, and other soils susceptible to
b) Peat and/or highly organic clays greater than 3 m in thickness.
c) Highly plastic clays (PI > 75) with thickness greater than 8 m.
d) Soft to medium stiff clays with thickness greater than 30 m.

## Acceleration-Based Site Coefficients

Values of Fa as a Function of Site Class and T = 0.2 s Spectral Acceleration.
Site
Class
A
B
C
D
E
F

Sa(0.2)
0.25
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.3
2.1

Values of Fa
Sa(0.2)
Sa(0.2) =
Sa(0.2) =
0.75
=1.00
0.50
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.1
0.9
Site specific investigation required

Sa(0.2) =
1.25
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9

## Velocity-Based Site Coefficients

Values of Fv as a Function of Site Class and T = 1.0 s Spectral Acceleration.
Site
Class
A
B
C
D
E
F

Sa(1.0) <
0.1
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.4
2.1

Values of Fv
Sa(1.0) =
Sa(1.0) =
Sa(1.0)
0.2
0.3
=0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.1
2.0
1.9
1.7
Site specific investigation required

Sa(1.0) >
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.7

Importance Factor
Ie = 0.8

Low occupancy

Ie = 1.3

## Buildings used as post disaster shelters,

such as, schools and community centres,
and manufacturing facilities containing
toxic, explosive or hazardous substances

Ie = 1.5

## Buildings used for post-disaster recovery,

such as, hospitals, telephone exchanges,
generating stations, fire and police
stations, water and sewage treatment
facilities
All other buildings

Ie = 1.0

## Design Spectral Values as

Importance
Modification Factor
for Building
Importance

Ie Fa Sa(T)

Modification Factor
for Site Soil
Conditions

5% Damped Spectral
Acceleration for
Reference Soil
Conditions

Method of Analysis
Dynamic Analysis (Preferred Method)
Elastic Spectral Analysis
Elastic Time History Analysis
Inelastic Time History Analysis
Equivalent Static Force Procedure

## Equivalent Static Force Procedure

May be used for:
Structures located in zones of low seismicity,
Ie Fa Sa(0.2) < 0.35, or
Regular structures that are less than 60 m in
height and have Ta < 2 s, where Ta is the
fundamental period, or
Irregular structures that are less than 20 m in
height, have Ta < 0.5 s and are not torsionally
sensitive

Modes of Vibration

3-Storey Frame

Mode 1

Mode 2

Mode 3

Procedure
Ft

## Although seismic action

is dynamic in nature,
building codes often
recommend Equivalent
for simplicity, based on
first mode response, as
modified empirically for
higher mode effects.

S(Ta )M v I E W
V=
R dR o

## W: Weight of the structure

contributing to inertia
forces (D+0.25L+06LS)
Ta: Fundamental Period

Ve

## Mv: Higher mode factor

IE: Importance Factor
Rd: Ductility related force
modification factor

Ve /Rd
Ve /Rd Ro

## Ro: Oversterngth related force

modification factor

Cut-off Values
Because of uncertainties associated with UHS
values for Ta > 2.0 sec, V is not reduced beyond
the value at S(2.0)

S(2.0)I E W
V
R dR o
For Rd 1.5, V need not exceed:

2 S(0.2)I E W
V
3 R dR o

## Fundamental Period (Ta)

For Steel Moment Frames: Ta = 0.085 (hn)3/4
For Concrete Moment Frames: Ta = 0.075 (hn)3/4
For other Moment Frames: Ta = 0.1 N
For Braced Frames: Ta = 0.025 (hn)
For Shear Wall Buildings: Ta = 0.05 (hn)3/4

## Measured Versus NBCC-05 (Ta)

R/C MRF Buildings

3.5

Period T, sec

3.0
2.5
2.0
3/4

T= 0.075 (hn )

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

Height hn, m

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

## Measured Versus NBCC-05 (Ta)

R/C Shear Wall Buildings
2.50

Period, T (sec)

2.00
1.50
T = 0.05 hn

3/4

1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

Height, hn (m)

50.00

60.00

70.00

## Measured Versus NBCC-95 (Ta)

R/C Shear Wall Buildings
2.5

Period, T (sec)

2
1.5
1

T = 0.09 hn / D

1/2

0.5
0
0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

H/D

1/2

10.0

12.0

14.0

## The use of more accurate methods of mechanics is

permitted by NBCC 2005 (Ex: Rayleighs Method)
provided the values do not exceed 1.5 times those
obtained by the empirical expressions
The above limit can be justified because of:
Uncertainties associated with the participation of
non-structural elements
Possible inaccuracies in analytical modelling
Differences between design and as-built conditions

30 .0 m
6.0 m

6. 0 m

6. 0 m

6. 0 m

6. 0 m

3 @ 6 m = 18 m

3 @ 6 m = 18 m

3 @ 6 m = 18 m

## Effect of Participating Infill Masonry Walls

6
5-storey building
10-storey building

Period, T (sec)

15 storey building
NBCC (5 storeys)

## NBCC (10 storeys)

NBCC (15 storeys)

3
2
1
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

## Fundamental Period (Ta)

For braced frames and shear-wall structures:
The use of more accurate methods of mechanics is
permitted by NBCC 2005 (Ex: Rayleighs Method)
provided the values do not exceed 2.0 times those
obtained by the empirical expressions .
The above can be justified because of:
Improved accuracy of analytical models for braced
frames and shear walls, which dominate the
structural response
Improved correlation of computed and measured
period values

## Fundamental Period (Ta)

Measured Period (sec)

2.5

## Shear Wall Buildings

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0
1.5
Computed Period (sec)

2.0

2.5

Rd Ductility Related
Force Modification Factor
1.0 Rd 5.0
Established by tests, non-linear analysis of structural
systems and field assessment of actual structural
behaviour.
Indicates the ability of structure to undergo
deformations beyond yielding without a significant
loss of strength, while dissipating energy under

Rd Ductility Related
Force Modification Factor
Park and Paulay (1975) and Paulay and Priestley
(1992) found that Rd 5 in multi-degree-of-freedom
structures.
Because of the field observations after the 1985
Mexico City E.Q., the Mexico Code (1987) reduced
Q factor (Rd) from 6.0 to 4.0.
2001 draft of Eurocode 8 (ECS 1998) recommends a
q factor (Rd) to vary between 1.0 and 5.0

Rd Ductility Related
Force Modification Factor
In order for the structure to have sufficient
ductility and energy absorption capacity,
consistent with the Rd used in design, the
structure must conform to:
Relevant CSA Standard
The Capacity Design requirements

Deformability

## Building that suffered failure

due to lack of deformability

Ro Overstrength Related
Force Modification Factor
Structures, particularly the more ductile ones can
have considerable reserve strength not explicitly
considered in NBCC - 1995
Old Codes have attempted to calibrate seismic
design force levels to historical levels deemed
appropriate (i.e., U factor)

Ro Overstrength Related
Force Modification Factor
NBCC 2005 Explicitly accounts for overstrength in
structures
Only dependable or minimum overstrength is
considered

## Ro = Rsize R Ryield Rsh Rmech

Rsize Overstrength
Related to Member Size
Standard member sizes used in practice result in
overstrength, i.e., restricted sizes of steel shapes,
plates, re-bars, timber and masonry elements.
Practical design considerations often lead to
conservative rounding of elements, such as spacing of
connectors and reinforcing elements.
Rsize = 1.05 for R/C structures
1.05 to 1.10 for structural steel
1.05 to 1.15 for timber and masonry

R Overstrength Related to
Material Resistance () Factors
It is appropriate to use nominal resistances when
designing for an extremely rare event, such as an
earthquake with a return period of 2500 years.

R = 1/

R/C and RM

0.85

1.18

Structural Steel

0.90

1.11

Timber

0.70

1.43

URM

1.00

1.00

## Ryield Overstrength Related

to Actual Yield Strength
Ryield reflects the ratio of actual steel yield strength to
specified design yield strength.
Ryield = 1.05 for re-bars (Mirza and MacGregor 1979)
1.10 for structural steel (Schmidt and Bartlett 2002)
1.00 for timber

## Rsh Overstrength Related to

Strain Hardening of Steel
Rsh reflects the effect of steel strain hardening in postyield region. Therefore, it depends on the degree of
inelasticity expected (Rd).
Rsh = 1.10 to 1.25 for R/C structures
1.05 to 1.30 for structural steel
1.05 for timber
1.00 for reinforced masonry

## Rmech Overstrength Caused

by Continuity and Redundancy
Rmech accounts for the additional resistance that can be
developed before a collapse mechanism forms in the
structure.
Rmech increases with the degree of indeterminacy and
redundancy. It can be high in R/C structures where
continuity is more prevalent as opposed to steel
structures where pin-ended members are common.

Elastic Behaviour

bf

bf

cf

cf

Beam Yielding

2
1
by

by

3
2
1

bu

bu

cu

cu

## Rmech Overstrength Caused

by Continuity and Redundancy
A value of 1.0 or a value close to 1.0 may be used as a
conservative estimate for Rmech

Rmech = 1.00

Except for;
Rmech

1.10

1.05

1.05

R/C Structures

## Ductile moment-resisting frames

Moderately ductile momentresisting frames
Ductile coupled walls
Ductile partially coupled walls
Ductile shear walls
Moderately ductile shear walls
Conventional construction
Moment-resisting frames
Shear walls
Other concrete SFRS(s) not listed
above

Rd

Ro

4.0
2.5

1.7
1.4

4.0
3.5
3.5
2.0
1.5
1.5

1.7
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.3

1.0

1.0

Wi h i
(V Ft )
Fi =
Wi h i
Ft = 0

for

Ta 0.7

Ft = 0.07Ta V

## for 0.7 < Ta < 3.6

Ft = 0.25V

for

Ta 3.6

Overturning Moments

Overturning Moments

## First mode distribution gives the highest overturning

moments. The equivalent force approach is based on
first mode behaviour.
Moments become smaller when higher mode effects
are considered. Therefore, the adjustment factor J is
applied to the base overturning moment to account
for higher mode effects.
n

M x = J x Fi (h i h x )
i =1

J x = 1.0

for hx 0.6hn

hx
J x = J + (1 J )
hn

## for hx < 0.6hn

Torsional Effects

Torsional Effects
Torsion will be considered when:
Torsional moments are introduced by the
eccentricity between the centres of mass and
resistance.
Torsional moments are generated due to
accidental eccentricities.
Torsional sensitivity is established by computing
Bx for each level x when equivalent static forces
are acting at 0.10 Dnx from the centre of mass.
Bx = max / ave

Torsional Effects

Torsional Effects
For buildings with B 1.7; apply torsional
moments about a vertical axis at each level
cases:
i. Tx = Fx (ex + 0.10 Dnx)
ii. Tx = Fx (ex - 0.10 Dnx)
For buildings with B > 1.7 in cases where
IEFaSa(0.2) 0.35 by Dynamic Analysis

Structural Irregularities
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

## Vertical stiffness irregularity

Weight (mass) irregularity
Vertical geometric irregularity
In-plane discontinuity
Out-of-plane offsets
Discontinuity in capacity (weak storey)
Torsional sensitivity
Non-orthogonal systems

Irregularity trigger
When:
IEFaSa(0.2) 0.35
+ any one of the 8 irregularity types,
the special design provisions for
irregular structures apply. However, post
disaster buildings should never have
irregularity type 6 (weak storey)

Types of Irregularities
1. Vertical Stiffness
Lateral stiffness of the SFRS in a storey:
< 70% of that in any adjacent storey, or
< 80% of the average stiffness of the 3
storeys above or below.

Types of Irregularities
2. Weight (Mass)
weight of a storey > 150% of weight of an
(a roof lighter than a floor below is excluded)

Types of Irregularities
3.

Vertical Geometric
horizontal dimension of the SFRS in a storey
> 130% of that in any adjacent storey.
(one-storey penthouse excluded)

Types of Irregularities
4. In-Plane Discontinuity
in-plane offset of an element of the SFRS,
or
reduction in lateral stiffness of an element in
the storey below.

Types of Irregularities
5. Out-of-Plane Offsets
discontinuity of lateral force path
e.g., out-of-plane offsets
of the elements of the SFRS.

Bottom Floors

Top Floors

Types of Irregularities
6. Discontinuity in Capacity - Weak Storey
storey shear strength less than
that in the storey above.
(Storey shear strength = total of all elements of the
SFRS in the direction considered)

Types of Irregularities
7. Torsional sensitivity
if the ratio B > 1.7.
B = max / avg
calculated for static loads applied at 0.10 Dn

Plan

Types of Irregularities
8. Non-orthogonal systems
SFRS not oriented along a set of orthogonal axes.

Plan

Irregular SFRS
Stiffness of non-structural components
shall not be included to make an irregular
SFRS regular.

Irregular SFRS
For sites with IEFaSa(0.2) 0.35 dynamic
analysis is required if h 20 m, T 0.5 s or
Type 7 (Torsion) irregularity.
For fundamental period equal to or greater
than 1.0 s and IEFvSa(1.0) > 0.25, walls
forming parts of SFRS shall be continuous
from ground to top levels and shall not
have irregularity types 4 (in-plane
discont.), 5 (out-of-plane offsets)

Irregular SFRS
Irregularity type 6 (weak storey) not permitted except
if IEFaSa(0.2) < 0.2 and the design base shear = RdRoV.
Post-disaster buildings shall not have any
irregularity of:
types 1 (vert. stiffness), 3 (vert. geom.), 4 (in-plane
discont.), 5 (out-of-plane offsets) or 7 (torsion) if
IEFaSa(0.2) > 0.35;
type 6 (weak storey).

2005 NBCC

IEFaSa(0.2)

2005 NBCC

## Dynamic Analysis for

Seismic Design
m a + c v + k u = m ag
A c ce le ra tio n (cm /s 2 )

400
300
200
100
0
-100 0
-200
-300
-400

8
Time (sec)

Modes of Vibration

3-Storey Frame

Mode 1

Mode 2

Mode 3

Dynamic Analysis
Linear (Elastic) Dynamic Analysis
Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Numerical Integration Time History Analysis
Non-linear (Inelastic) Dynamic Analysis
Numerical Integration Time History Analysis

100

200

300

Time, t

## If site-specific record is available

Otherwise use site-specific
design response spectra (UHS)

SPECTRAL ANALYSIS

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

0.5

Period, T

1.5

## Modal Spectrum Analysis

1. Determine periods (Ti) and mode shapes (i)
2. Determine the design spectral acceleration value for
each mode S(Ti) from the UHS values specified in
NBCC-2005
3. Compute modal participation factor (i) for each
n

i =

m
j1
n

i, j

m j i, j
j=1

## Modal Spectrum Analysis

4. Compute elastic modal forces and displacements at
each floor level

Fi, j = i, j i S(Ti )m j

i, j = i, j i

Ti 2
4

S(Ti )

base shear (Vi).
n

Vi, x = Fi, j
j= x

Vi = Fi, j
j=1

## Modal Spectrum Analysis

6. Combine the effects of each mode by using
an appropriate modal combination rule (like

Fx =

Ve =

Fi , x

i =1

V
i =1

Vx =

x =

V
i =1

i,x

i =1

2
i,x

## Modal Spectrum Analysis

7. Determine the design base shear Vd

Ve
Vd =
IE
R oR d
8. If Vd < 0.8 V (by Eq. Static Load)
Then Vd = 0.8V, except for irregular
structures requiring dynamic analysis
in which case Vd is taken as the larger of
Vd and 100% of V

## Example Modal Superposition

A 5-storey ductile moment resisting concrete frame is to
be designed for a Vancouver condominium. The soil
condition can be classified as soft rock (Class C) as per
NBCC-2005.
T1 = 1.56 sec; T2 = 0.54 sec; T3 = 0.34 sec
Storey mass; m = 600,000 kg
Total column stiffness; k=120 x 106 N/mm
Rd = 4.0; Ro = 1.7; Ie = 1.0

## Example Modal Superposition

Fi, j = i, j i S(Ti )m j
3

T1=1.56 s

T2=0.56 s

T3=0.34 s

1=1.25

2=0.39

3=0.21

S1=0.24g

S2=0.59g

S3=0.77g

1765

-1247

726

2280

1623

-386

-518

1747

1347

764

-872

1777

964

1399

270

1720

503
6202

1067
1597

949
555

1514
6428

Floor

F
j=1

i, j

Fx =

Fi , x
i =1

Ve = 6428 kN

Ve
6428
Vd =
IE =
(1.0) = 945 kN
R oR d
(4.0)(1.7)

## Linear Time History Analysis

Employed when the entire time history of elastic
response is required during the ground motion of
interest
Time history analysis should be conducted for an
ensemble of ground motion records that represent
magnitudes, fault distances and source mechanisms
that are consistent with those of the design
earthquakes used to generate design response spectra

## Linear Time History Analysis

Ve
Vd =
IE
R oR d
If Vd < 0.8 V (by Eq. Static Load)
Then Vd = 0.8V, except for irregular
structures requiring dynamic analysis
in which case Vd is taken as the larger of
Vd and 100% of V

## Inelastic Time History Analysis

Involves the computation of dynamic response at each
time increment with due considerations given to the
inelasticity in members
Nonlinear analysis allows for flexural yielding (or
other inelastic actions) and accounts for subsequent
changes in strength and stiffness. This is done by
incorporating
Hysteretic Models

## Inelastic Time History Analysis

When non-linear time history analysis is used to justify a
structural design, a special study is required, consisting
of a complete design review by a qualified independent
engineering team. The review is to include ground
motion time histories and the entire design of the
building with emphasis placed on the design of lateral
force resisting system and all the supporting analyses

## Inelastic Time History Analysis

The results of non-linear time history analysis directly
account for reductions in elastic forces due to
inelasticity. The structural overstrength can also be
accounted for directly through appropriate modelling
assumptions. The analysis results need not therefore be
modified by Rd and Ro. The importance factor IE can be
accounted for either by scaling up the design ground
motion histories or by reducing the acceptable
deflection and ductility capacities

Structural Modelling

Structural Modelling

Structural Modelling

Structural Modelling

Member Modelling

## 1/12 Span length (simle beams)

1/10 Span length (cont. beams)

Lo

12
t

Member Modelling

m
h

Member Modelling
Mi

Mj
l
l

Flexural Springs

and GA

in Flexure

## R/C Member in Flexure

n
y

cr

Bilinear Idealization
n

Formation
of a Plastic
Hinge

## Hysteretic Behaviour (R/C Structures)

Drift (%)
Moment, M (kN.m)

400

-6

-4

-2

200
0
-200
M = F l + P

-400
-120 -80 -40
0
40 80
Displacement, (mm)

120

By Clough (1966)

By Takeda (1970)

Strength
decay

Anchorage Slip

s
s
h

## Anchorage Slip Model for R/C

By Alsiwat & Saatcioglu (1992)

## Axial Force Flexure Interaction Model

By Saatcioglu, Derecho and Corley (1983)

Hysteretic Modelling
In spite of all the complications of hysteretic
behaviour of structural elements and subassemblages, it is possible to select reasonably
simple hysteretic models for inelastic seismic
analysis of structures.

Thank You