1

Fundamentals
of
Earthquake Engineering:
From Source to Fragility
by

Luigi Di Sarno, PhD, MSc, Ceng

University of Naples, Federico II, Italy (disarno@unina.it)
University of Liverpool, UK (luigi.di-sarno@liv.ac.uk)
 2
Context, Framework and Scope
 This module frames earthquake structural engineering as a balance between
Demand or imposed actions and deformations, and Supply or capacity to withstand
actions and deformations.

 The proposed systems framework is referred to as ‘From Source-to-Fragility’.

 3

Lecture 2

Response of Structures
 4

Response of Structures

Conceptual Framework

 Definitions
 Strength-based versus ductility-based response
 Member-level versus system-level consideration
 Nature of seismic effects
 Fundamental response quantities
 Social-economic limit states

Structural Response Characteristics

 Stiffness
 Strength
 Ductility
 Overstrength
 Damping
 Relationship between strength, overstrength and ductility
 5
Definitions

 The most important response parameters that describe the behaviour of structures
and their foundations when subjected to earthquake ground motion are:

• Stiffness;
• Strength (or capacity);
• Ductility.

 
F V
Vj
Vk
Total Base Shear

Vu

Vy

Vi

O i  y j k u 
Top Lateral Displacement
 6
Definitions (continued)

► Stiffness
 The ability of a component or assembly of components to resist deformations
when subjected to actions.

► Strength
 The capacity of a component or an assembly of components for load resistance
at a given response station.

► Ductility
 The ability of a component or an assembly of components to deform beyond the
elastic limit.
 7
Definitions (continued)

► Demand
 The action or deformation imposed on a component or assembly of components
when subjected to earthquake ground motion.

 It continuously varies as the structural characteristics vary during inelastic

response.

► Supply
 The action or deformation capacity of a component or assembly of components
when subjected to earthquake ground motion.

 It may continuously vary as the structural characteristics change during inelastic

response.
 8
Strength-Based versus Ductility-Based Response

 Traditional force-based seismic design has relied on force capacity to resist the
earthquake effects expressed as a set of horizontal actions defined as a
proportion of the weight of the structure.

 A ductility-designed structure is significantly less sensitive to unexpected

increase in the force demand imposed on it than its strength-designed
counterpart.

 Capacity design is achieved by identifying a failure mechanism, the members and

regions responsible for its development, and providing these members and
regions with adequate ductility.

 The opposite of ‘capacity design’ is ‘direct design’, which is the dimensioning of

individual components to resist the locally evaluated actions with no due
consideration to the action-redistribution effects in the system as a whole.
 9
Strength-Based versus Ductility-Based Response (continued)

SEISMIC DESIGN

DIRECT DESIGN CAPACITY DESIGN

Force-Based Design Ductility-Based Design

High Force High (Inelastic)

Force Capacity Deformation (Inelastic) Capacity Capacity Deformation Capacity

Different approaches to seismic design (for Capacity Design, high force and high deformation coexist)
 10
Member-Level versus System-Level Consideration
 Quantitative expressions linking local action-deformation characteristics to global
response quantities can only be derived under idealized conditions.

Stress
MATERIAL(S)
O Strain

h
LOCAL

SECTIONS
B

+
MEMBERS + CONNECTIONS
GLOBAL

H
SYSTEM

Hierarchical relationship between local and global structural response

 11
Member-Level versus System-Level Consideration (continued)

 The chain system (left) is effective as a basis for explanation, rather than
application, of the concept of weak link and capacity design.

 Networks provide a basis for conceptual and pictorial description of the seismic
behavior of structures and also prove that barriers between sub-disciplines are
artificial.

Ductile Link

F1 F1

Brittle Links Brittle Links

F2>>F1

F2>>F1

Large Inelastic Deformations

Capacity design analogy: chain (left) versus network system (right)

 12
Nature of Seismic Effects
 The figure below provides an example of two single-degree-of-freedom systems,
one stiffer than the other. The taller pier displaces less than the squat one even
though it is more flexible.
Gm2

H2 = 2H1
Gm 1
D

D
H1

1.00 4.0

Lateral Displacement Ratios (dtop/ dbase,max)

Stiff Pier FlexiblePier

2.0
Ground Acceleration (g)

0.50 2.05

0.00 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-0.50 -2.0
-2.72

0.884 g
-1.00 -4.0
Time (seconds) Time (seconds)
 13
Fundamental Response Quantities
 Stiffness and strength are not always related.

 A simple example of the decoupling of stiffness and strength is the concept of

‘selective intervention’ for seismic retrofitting.

F F F
p  p
 Fy 
 K y Ky  K eff  Keff  Keff 
Keff  Keff 
Fy

Keff

  y u  u 

Keff  K eff T  Teff

Fy  Fy  K eff
  K eff  Teff  Teff p   p     eff
K y  K y  K eff
  K eff  Teff  Teff       
  
 u  u u u u  u
 ?  ?  ?
 d  d d  d d  d

Conceptual depiction of effect of stiffness, strength and ductility variations on system response in
seismic retrofitting of structures
 14
Fundamental Response Quantities (continued)
 The strength is not constant and different failure modes may be obtained from
identical structures being subjected to different demands.

 In the figure below, two reinforced concrete (RC) walls are subjected to different
loading regimes; one is subjected to monotonic loading whilst the other is
subjected to severe cyclic loading.
 
F
V
Cracks
H

O 
B

 
F

V
H

O 

B
 15
Social-Economic Limit States
 When subjected to small earthquakes a society seeks the least disruption from
damage. This may be considered as an ‘uninterrupted use’ limit state, and is
clearly most correlated with structures having adequate stiffness to resist
deformation mainly in the elastic or near-elastic regime.

 When subjected to medium earthquakes, a society would accept to tolerate

disruption to its endeavours, but would seek to minimize repair costs. This may be
viewed as a ‘controlled economic loss’ limit state and is most related to the
structure having adequate strength so that the damage is limited.

 When subjected to large earthquakes, a society would accept interruption, high

economic loss, but would seek to minimise loss of life. This is a ‘life safety’ limit
state and is most affected by the ductility of the structure that enables it to deform
well into the inelastic range without significant loss of resistance to gravity actions.

Return Period Earthquake Structural Engineering Societal

Magnitude Characteristics Limit State Limit State
~ 75-200 years ~4.5-5.5 Stiffness Insignificant Damage Continued Operation
~ 400-500 years ~5.5-6.5 Strength Repairable Damage Limited Economic Loss
~2000-2500 years ~6.5-7.5 Ductility Collapse Prevention Life Loss Prevention
 16
Problem 2.1

What are the differences between ‘direct’ and ‘capacity’ design?

In a multi-storey reinforced concrete frame that is to be capacity-designed,

state the sequence of dimensioning of each of the components of the frame,
from the foundations to the roof.
 17
Stiffness

 Stiffness defines the relationship between actions and deformations of a structure

and its components at a specified level of action or deformation.

 
F V K0 Ks
Kt
Vj

Vi
Total Base Shear

Vy

O y i j u 
TopLateral Displacement

Definition of initial, secant and tangent structural stiffness

 18
Stiffness (continued)

 Earthquakes generate inertial forces due to vibration of masses. Horizontal

components of these inertial forces are often dominant, hence lateral stiffness is
of primary importance for structural earthquake engineers.

 The stiffness of a system is associated primarily with satisfaction of the

functionality (or serviceability) of the structure under dynamic loads.

 Large deformations drastically reduce the structural functionality.

 Adequate lateral stiffness is an essential requirement to control deformations,

prevent instability (local and global), prevent damage of non-structural
components and ensure human safety and comfort during minor-to-moderate
earthquakes.
 19
Factors Influencing Stiffness

► Material properties

 Material properties which influence the structural stiffness are Young’s modulus E
and the shear modulus G.

 The material stiffness is often evaluated through the ratio of the elastic modulus E
to the weight g (specific elasticity). Values of E/g vary between 20-30 x106 cm for
masonry and 200-300 x106 cm for metals. The specific elasticity of concrete is
about 100-150 x106 cm.

 Use of construction materials with low values of E/g lead to stiff structures.
 20
Factors Influencing Stiffness
► Section properties
 Section properties which affect the structural stiffness are the cross-sectional area A,
the flexural moment of inertia I and the torsional moment of inertia J.
Gross Section Concrete in tension
Concrete in compression
Stress lower than
tensile strength
h/2 xc
I2 < Ig < I1
PNA Stress higher than
h
xc'' < xc < xc' tensile strength
h/2
Ig
I = Flexural Moment of Inertia About Strong Axis

b PNA = Position Neutral Axis

xc'
h/2
PNA
h
Gross Section A2
h/2 I1
A3

+ =
b
h
A1
xc''
h/2 PNA

b h

h/2
I2

Definition of flexural moment of inertia I for RC members

 21
Factors Influencing Stiffness (continued)
 The stiffness of the section is significantly affected by modifications of its
geometry.

 The figure below shows the variation of area A and flexural moment of inertia about
the strong axis I obtained by increasing the size of beam and column members.

a
Original
h

Section Original
Section

h
Added
Section

a
Added
a

Section

a h a
b

10 100

I2 / I1 I2 / I1
8 80
A2 / A1 A2 / A1

6 60
3
[(a / h) + 1]
4
[2 (a / h) + 1]
4 40
[(a / h) + 1]
2
2 20 [2 (a / h) + 1]

0 0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Nondimensional height increase (a / h) Nondimensional height increase (a / h)

Variations of area A and flexural moment of inertia I for beam (left) and column (right) elements
 22
Factors Influencing Stiffness (continued)

► Member properties

 The lateral stiffness also depends on the type of structural members utilised to
resist earthquake loads.

 Structural walls are much stiffer in their strong axis than columns.

 Geometrical properties of structural components influence significantly their

horizontal shear and flexural stiffness values.

 Flexural deformations are normally higher than shear deformations for relatively
slender structural components.

 Flexural deformation dominance occurs if the aspect ratio h/b of rectangular

sections of columns is less than 3-4 and the slenderness ratios H/B and H/h are
greater than 4-5 in the case of walls.
 23
Factors Influencing Stiffness (continued)

 For slender walls the lateral displacements are mainly due to the flexural flexibility.

  5 50
F

Shear-to-Flexural Stiffness Ratio (ks/kf)

Flexural-to-Total Stiffness Ratio (kf/kt)

ks/kf kf/kt
4 40

H1

H2

H3
3 30
B B B
H

Slender Intermediate Squat

2 20
ks (1/kf)

1 10

0 0
h

1,0 3,0 5,0 7,0 9,0

B Wall Aspect Ratios (B/H)

Structural wall under horizontal loads:

wall layout (left) and variations of relative shear and flexural stiffness (right)
 24
Factors Influencing Stiffness (continued)
► Connection properties

 Connection behaviour influences significantly the lateral deformation of structural

systems.

 The lateral stiffness Ksemi-rigid of semi-rigid frames can be expressed as:

K semi  rigid m 1   

K rigid m 1     6
where m and ζ are dimensionless parameters given by:
K  con
ζ
EI L b
m
EI L b EI H c
where KΦ is the connection rotational stiffness; I, L and H are the flexural moment
of inertia, the beam span and column height, respectively; and E is Young’s
modulus of the material.

 Connections with m<5 are pinned, while rigid connections have m>18. Semi-rigid
connections are characterised by values of m ranging between 5 and 18.
 25
Factors Influencing Stiffness (continued)
 The stiffness of beam-to-column connections influences also the natural period of
vibration of framed structures.
 
F m<5 5 < m < 18 m  18
EIb

EIc EIc
H

Pinned Semi-Rigid Rigid

Lb

1.00 1.50

Ratios of Fundamental Periods (Tsemi-rigid/ Trigid)

Ratios of Lateral Stiffness (Ksemi-rigid/ Krigid)

H = 5m
H = 10m
0.75 1.25 H = 20m
 H = 40m
 H = 80m


0.50 1.00

0.25 Pinned Semi-Rigid Rigid 0.75 Semi-Rigid Rigid

0.00 0.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Nondimensional connection stiffness (m) Nondimensional connection stiffness (m)

Influence of the connection flexibility lateral flexural stiffness of framed systems: frame layout (top),
variations of lateral stiffness (bottom-left) and fundamental period of vibration (bottom-right)
 26
Factors Influencing Stiffness (continued)

► System properties

 The lateral stiffness of a structure depends on the type of system utilised to

withstand horizontal earthquake loads, the distribution of the member stiffness
and the type of horizontal diaphragms connecting vertical members.

 Uniform distribution of stiffness in plan and elevation is necessary to prevent

localisation of high seismic demand.

 Soil-structure interaction (SSI) should also be taken into account in the evaluation
of the global system stiffness. This type of interaction reduces the stiffness of the
super-structure and may alter the distribution of seismic actions and deformations
under earthquake ground motion.
 27
Effects on Action and Deformation Distribution

 The lateral deformation of structural systems is measured by the horizontal drift.

 The roof drift /H may be considered as /h averaged along the height and hence is
not suitable for quantifying variations of stiffness in the earthquake resisting
system.


6
Uniform distribution
i 5 Non uniform distribution
hi

Storey level (N.)

4

3 Roof drift (/ H)

H

Storey drift (/ h)

0
L L L -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Lateral drift (%)

Lateral drifts of multi-storey buildings under earthquake loads: definition of inter-storey and roof drift
(left) and their relationship for uniform and non-uniform lateral stiffness distribution along the frame
height (right)
 28
Effects on Action and Deformation Distribution (continued)
 In addition to the importance of absolute stiffness, the relative stiffness of
members within a structural system is of significance especially in seismic
assessment, because it influences the distribution of actions and deformations.

M1 M2 M3
H/2

H
H/2

M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3

     
F

H
H

L L L L

Effect of relative stiffness of beams and columns on the distribution of actions and deformations
in single-storey frames
 29
Effects on Action and Deformation Distribution (continued)
Strong column-weak beam (SCWB) Weak column-strong beam (WCSB)
H q2 q2

H
q1 q1
H

H
q1 q1
H

H
q1 q1
H

H
q1 q1
H

H
q1 q1
H

H
All beams equal EI EI All beams equal EI EI
> 10 > 10
All columns equal H columns L beams All columns equal L beams H columns

L L L L L L

Bending moment distributions due to gravity loads

 30
Effects on Action and Deformation Distribution (continued)
Strong column-weak beam (SCWB) Weak column-strong beam (WCSB)
F6 F6

H
H
F5 F5

H
H
F4 F4

H
H
F3 F3

H
H
F2 F2

H
H
F1 F1

H
H
All beams equal EI EI All beams equal EI EI
> 10 > 10
All columns equal H columns L beams All columns equal L beams H columns

L L L L L L

Bending moment distributions due to horizontal loads

 31
Effects on Action and Deformation Distribution (continued)
Strong column-weak beam (SCWB) Weak column-strong beam (WCSB)
F6 F6 q2
q2

H
H
F5 F5
q1 q1

H
H
F4 F4
q1 q1

H
H
F3 F3
q1 q1

H
H
F2 F2
q1 q1

H
H
F1 F1
q1 q1

H
H
All beams equal EI EI All beams equal EI EI
> 10 > 10
All columns equal H columns L beams All columns equal L beams H columns

L L L L L L

Bending moment distributions due to gravity and horizontal loads

 32
Effects on Action and Deformation Distribution (continued)

 Drifts of the WCSB frame are generally higher than those of SCWB frame,
especially at higher storeys.

6 6
Strong Column-Weak Beam
5 Weak Column-Strong Beam
5

Storey Level (No.)

4
Storey Level (No.)

4
3
3
2

1 2 Strong Column-Weak Beam

Weak Column-Strong Beam
0 1
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Normalized Lateral Displacements (i/top) Normalized Storey Drifts (i/max)

Distribution of deformations along the height in SCWB and WCSB multi-storey frames: storey
(left) and inter-storey (right) drifts
 33
Effects on Action and Deformation Distribution (continued)
 Irregularities, such as sharp variations of stiffness, may generate concentrations of
displacement demand.

6 6

Regular Frame Irregular Frame

5
5

Storey Level (No.)

Storey Level (No.)

4 Regular Frame
4 Irregular Frame
3
3
2

2
1

0 1
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Normalized Lateral Displacements (i/top) Normalized Storey Drifts ( i/ max)

Comparison between the distribution of deformations in regular and irregular frames under
horizontal loads: storey (left) and inter-storey (right) drifts
 34
Effects on Action and Deformation Distribution (continued)

 When frames are used in combination with structural walls, the latter attract the
majority of horizontal earthquake-induced forces at lower and intermediate stories.

 Horizontal earthquake accelerations induce inertial forces in structural systems

which are applied in the centre of mass of the structure (CM).

 Restoring forces are generated by the reaction of the structure. These are applied
in the centre of rigidity (CR) of the lateral resisting systems.

 Centres of mass and rigidity may or may not coincide. If there is an offset
(eccentricity, e) between CM and CR, torsional effects are generated.
 35
Non-Structural Damage Control

 Strength limits do not provide adequate drift control.

 Modern seismic codes also include stringent drift limits to ensure adequate lateral
stiffness of the structure and hence reduce the extent of non-structural damage.

 Sharp variations of stiffness in plan and elevation can cause damage

concentrations and should be avoided.

 Whilst their capacity for gravity loads may be low, infills often act as shear walls
and affect the seismic structural response in the following respects:

• Stiffening of the structure;

• Alteration of the load path;
• Premature failure at short columns.
 36
Problem 2.2
An eight-storey RC building is to be constructed to replace an existing condominium block that has
collapsed during a major earthquake. Two options are available for the building lateral resisting system.
These are provided in the figure below along with the lateral capacity of the sample structures obtained
from inelastic pushover analysis. Calculate the elastic lateral stiffness and the secant lateral stiffness
at ultimate limit states for both multi-storey structures. If the property owner decides to employ brittle
partitions which structural system is preferable and why? It may be assumed that both structures
behave linearly up to yield limit state.
Base Shear
V (kN)
3.0
3.0

Ultimate limit state

3.0

 Ultimate strength

5 x 4.0 = 20.0 m 9000
3.0

Yield limit state

3.0

Z
3 x 5.0 = 15.0 m
3.0

These columns
are removed in X
3.0

the ground storey

 mm
4.5 m

  Top Disp.

Ultimate limit state
Base Shear
3.0

V (kN)

3.0

16000
3.0

Yield limit state

5 x 4.0 = 20.0 m
3.0
3.0

Z
3 x 5.0 = 15.0 m
3.0

These columns
are removed in X
3.0

the ground storey

4.5 m

 mm
  Top Disp.

Reinforced concrete moment resisting frame (top) and dual (moment resisting frame and
structural wall) system (bottom): layout (left) and capacity curve (right)
 37
Strength

 Strength defines the capacity of a member or an assembly of members to resist

actions. This capacity is related to a limit state expressed by the stakeholder. It is
therefore not a single number and varies as a function of the use of the structure.

 
F V K0
Vmax

Vi
Total Base Shear

Vy

O y i max u 
Top Lateral Displacement

Definitions of strength
 38
Strength (continued)

 Relationships between geometry, mechanical properties and strength can be

derived through principles of engineering mechanics.

 Uncertainties in the evaluation of structural capacities are attributed to (i) the

randomness in material properties, especially strength parameters, (ii) geometric
properties and (iii) construction quality.

 Attainment of shear, axial and flexural capacities in gravity and earthquake

resistant systems can cause damage in structural components.

 Damage is related to the safety of the system but it does not necessarily lead to
structural collapse.
 39
Factor Influencing Strength

► Material properties
 The efficient use of material strength may be quantified through the ‘specific
strength’, i.e. the strength-to-weight ratio (σ/γ).

Density Young Strength Specific Specific

(kN/m3) Modulus (MPa) Elasticity Strength
(GPa) (x104 m) (x102 m)
Low strength 18 - 20 16 - 24 20 - 40 89 - 120 11 - 20
Concrete Normal Strength 23 - 24 22 - 40 20 - 55 92 - 167 8 - 22
High Strength 24 – 40 24 - 50 70 - 1000 100 - 125 29 - 250
Masonry Concrete 19 - 22 7 - 10 5 - 15 37 - 45 3 - 20
Brick Clay 16 - 19 0.8 - 3.0 0.5 - 4 5 - 16 0.3 - 2
Aramidic 14 - 16 62 - 83 2500 - 3000 443 - 519 1786 - 1875
Fibre composites Carbon 18 - 20 160 - 270 1400 - 6800 889 - 1350 778 - 3400
Glass 24 - 26 70 - 80 3500 - 4100 292 - 308 1458 - 1577
Wood 1.1-13.3 0.2 - 0.5 p 28 - 70 p 4 - 18 p 53 - 255 p
7 - 12 o 2 - 10 o 90 - 636 o 8 - 18 o
Mild 79 205 200 - 500 259 25 - 63
Metals Stainless 80 193 180 - 480 241 23 - 60
Aluminium 27 65 - 73 200 - 360 240 - 270 74 - 133
Other Alloys 40 - 90 185 800 - 1000 205 - 462 111 - 200
 40
Factors Influencing Strength (continued)

 Reinforced concrete (RC)

• Loss of both strength and stiffness takes place in concrete as the strain
increases; this is referred to as strain softening or strength and stiffness
degradation.
• The loss of bond between concrete and steel in RC structures under large
alternating loads reduces strength and stiffness.

 Structural steel
• It exhibits higher strength at large deformations beyond yield; this is referred
to as strain hardening.
• Under dynamic loads, the material strength increases with the increase in
strain rate.
 41
Factors Influencing Strength (continued)

► Section properties

 The area A of cross-sections affects both axial and shear capacity, whilst flexural
(I) and torsional (J) moments of inertia influence flexural and torsional capacity,
respectively.

 To achieve cost-effective designs the shape of cross-sections should be selected

in harmony with the applied action and lateral resisting system.

 Section capacities depend on the interaction between different types of applied

actions.

 Shear-axial and shear-flexure interactions affect the seismic response of beams

and columns in framed systems.

 The strength of cross-sections may also be reduced by local or global buckling.

 42
Factors Influencing Strength (continued)

► Member properties

 System strength is affected by the properties of structural components and their

connections.

 Columns generally possess lower flexural and shear strengths than structural
walls.

 Slender walls are frequently used to increase lateral stiffness and strength in
medium and high-rise frames.

 Confinement of compressed concrete and prevention of steel bar buckling is also

essential to reach the maximum member capacity of walls and columns.
 43
Factors Influencing Strength (continued)

► Connection properties

 Connections between horizontal diaphragms and lateral-force resisting systems,

e.g. frames and/or walls, considerably influence the global action and deformation
capacity of the structure.

   
F F
Displaced Displaced
Shear Cracks
Wall Wall
Deformed Bars
H

(Shear Deformations)

Reinforcement
Torn Bar
bars Reinforcement bars
(Close-spaced) Dowel Action

Sliding Plane Spread Footing Small Cracks Spread Footing

Sliding (Discontinued) No Sliding

Squat wall with weak (left) and strong (right) foundation connections
 44
Factors Influencing Strength (continued)

► System properties
 The overall lateral earthquake resistance of a system is not the sum of the
resistance of its components and the connections between them. It is more
closely related to the weakest part of the structure.

 Cyclic loading may cause loss of resistance in structural components and the
connections between them, which, in turn, considerably lower the global strength
of the system.

 Consistent distribution of strength in plan and elevation are fundamental

prerequisites to avoid concentration of high demand leading to concentrated
damage.

 Interaction between structural and non-structural components may lead to

localised damage in columns.

 Infill panels may also contribute significantly to the storey horizontal strength in
addition to the lateral stiffness and ductility.
 45
Effects on Load Path
 Earthquake-resistant structures should be provided with lateral and vertical force
resisting systems capable of transmitting inertial forces from the location of
masses throughout the structure to the foundations, as well as other forces, such
as from gravity and wind.

GRAVITY (vertical)

LOADS

EARTHQUAKE (horizontal & vertical)

HORIZONTAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

STRUCTURE CONNECTIONS

VERTICAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

LOADS
F C
FOUNDATIONS

GROUND

Path for vertical and horizontal loads

 46
Effects on Load Path (continued)

 Load paths depend on the structural system utilised to resist vertical and
horizontal loads.

 Side-stepping and offsetting are common vertical discontinuities which lead to

unfavourable stress concentrations.

 Openings in diaphragms may considerably weaken slab capacities.

 Load paths may also be significantly affected by masonry and concrete infills in
framed structures.

 Masonry and concrete infills are generally distributed non-uniformly in plan and
elevation.

 Irregular layouts of infills may generate considerable torsional effects and lead to
high stress concentrations.
 47
Structural Damage Control

 Failure may be caused by the accumulation of stresses beyond the capacity of

materials, members and connections in the structure.

 The occurrence of damage in structural components is also correlated with the

onset of target values of strains (materials), curvatures (sections), rotations
(elements and connections), inter-storey drifts (sub-system) and global drift
(systems).

 Shear resistance should be significantly higher than flexural capacity, an

objective that can be achieved by applying capacity design.

 Limiting damage in beam-to-column and foundation connections is essential to

achieve adequate performance of the structural system.
 48
Structural Damage Control (continued)

 Unfavourable failure of members and structures may be caused by high stiffness

and inadequate strength.

 Overturning moments caused by horizontal seismic loads tend to tip over the
super-structure with or without its foundations; this mechanism is referred to as
‘up-lift’.

 Deep foundations are often more effective in resisting overturning moments than
shallow footings because of friction activated along the lateral surface of
embedded piles.

 Overturning moments can also generate net tension and excessive compression in
columns.
 Problem 2.3 49

Consider the single-storey dual system shown in the figure below. To distribute the seismic force Fy
among lateral resisting elements, i.e. frames and structural walls, the following equation is employed:
k yi k yi  d xi
Vyi  M
 Fy  M
 Mt
ki 1
yi k j1
yj  d 2xj

where kyi are the lateral stiffness of the moment resisting systems along the y-direction.
The distances of these systems from the centre of stiffness CR are dxj; Mt is the torsional moment.
Derive the above relationship. Does the relationship hold for both elastic and inelastic systems?
30B

B B 8B 10B 8B B B

Y
2B B

Column

Column
2
Wall
7B

Column
Wall
30B

10B

O X
Column

Beam

EI 
7B

Column

Column
Wall
H

Wall
Column

Column
B 2B

A Plan Layout B 8B 10B 8B

26B

Fy Vertical Layout A

Beam Beam

EI  EI 
Column

Column

2/3H
3/4H

Column

Column
Column

Column
Wall
H

9B 10B 9B 8B 10B 8B

28B 26B

Vertical Layout 1 & 2

Vertical Layout B
 50
Ductility
 Ductility is defined as the ability of a material, component, connection or structure
to undergo inelastic deformations with acceptable stiffness and strength reduction.

 
F V K0
Brittle Ductile
Vmax
A B

Total Base Shear

Vu
Failure Failure

Vy

O y i u,A u,B 
TopLateral Displacement

 The general analytical definition of displacement ductility is as given below:

u
μ
y
where Δu and Δy are deformations at ultimate and yield points, respectively.
 51
Ductility (continued)

 Definition of ductility factor based on cyclic response:

max  max
μ
y  y

where Δ+max and Δ-max are the positive and negative ultimate deformations,
respectively; Δ+y and Δ-y the corresponding deformation at the yield point;

 Definition of ductility factor based on total hysteretic energy:

E t,H
μ
EE
where EE is the elastic energy:
1
EE  Fy δ y
2
where Fy and y are the action and deformations at first yield, respectively.
 52
Ductility (continued)

 High available ductility is essential to ensure inelastic redistribution of actions

among components of lateral resisting systems and to allow for large absorption
and dissipation of earthquake-induced energy.

 Ductile systems may withstand extensive structural damage without collapsing;

this corresponds to the ‘collapse prevention’ limit state.

 Several factors may lead to reduction of available ductility μa :

i. Strain rate effects (increase in yield strength);

ii. Overstrength (increase in yield strength);
iii. Brittle fracture (reduction in deformation at failure).
 53
Factors Influencing Ductility

► Material properties

 Earthquakes cause alternating loads, thus action-deformation relationships

generate hysteretic loops.

 Several factors influence the inelastic cyclic response of materials; the most
common include stiffness and strength degradation. The latter reduces the
energy dissipation capacity of the material.

 The amount of energy absorbed at a given deformation level corresponds to the

total area under the action-deformation curves. The dissipated energy is named
‘hysteretic energy’.

 Strain softening, which typically affects the post-peak response of plain concrete
and masonry, involves loss of strength with increasing strain.

 Strain softening may be reduced by providing adequate transverse confinement

of the material.
54
 55
Factors Influencing Ductility
 56
Factors Influencing Ductility
 57
Factors Influencing Ductility
 58
Factors Influencing Ductility (continued)

► Section properties
 The ductile response of cross-sections of structural members subjected to
bending moments is generally quantified through the curvature ductility, which is
the quotient of the maximum section rotation and the yield rotation.

 In RC structures, the curvature ductility significantly depends on the ultimate

compressive strain εcu, the compressive concrete strength fc, the yield strength of
the steel reinforcement bars fy, the stress-ratio fu/ fy of the reinforcement, the ratio
of compression-to-tension steel A’s/As and the level of axial forces n = N / Acfc.

Curvature Ductility
Parameters Increase Decrease
Ultimate concrete compressive strain (ecu) ↑ ↓
Compressive concrete strength (fc) ↑ ↓
Reinforcement steel yield strength (fy) ↓ ↑
Overstrength of steel reinforcement (fu/fy) ↑ ↓
Percentage of steel in compression (A’s/As) ↑ ↓
Level of axial load (n = N / Acfc) ↓ ↑

Qualitative relationship between components of RC members and curvature ductility

 59
Factors Influencing Ductility (continued)

 Curvature ductility in RC members is also affected by the presence of shear forces.

 Transverse confinement increases the shear strength of structural components.

 In steel structures, shear-flexure interactions do not generally affect the section

ductility. On the other hand, the presence of axial loads considerably reduces the
curvature ductility c in both steel and composite cross-sections.
25

Confined Section
20 Unconfined Section
Curvature Ductility

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Column Load: Percentage of Ultimate Axial Load Capacity

Variations of curvature ductility as a function of the level of axial loads and transverse confinement
 60
Factors Influencing Ductility (continued)

► Member properties

 An adequate metric for ductile behaviour of structural members is the rotation

ductility factor μθ given by:
θu
μθ 
θy
where θu and θy are the ultimate and yield rotations, respectively.

 Inelasticity is concentrated in flexural plastic hinges at the ends of beams and

columns. It is often assumed that curvatures within plastic hinges are constant
thus allowing plastic rotations θp to be expressed as follows:

θp  cpLp
where cp is the plastic curvature and Lp the length of the plastic hinge. The
plastic curvature may also be viewed as the average curvature in the plastic
hinge, not just a constant.
 61
Factors Influencing Ductility (continued)

 The theoretical distribution of curvature is indicated by the broken lines in the

figure below.

 Likely distributions of yield and ultimate curvatures are given by the jagged thick
lines in the figure.

 At the base, theoretical predictions provide values lower than those estimated
from the likely curvature distributions.
 62
Factors Influencing Ductility (continued)

 Plastic hinges should be located in beams rather than in columns since the
columns are responsible for the gravity load resistance, hence the stability of the
structure.

 Shear capacity of both beams and columns should always be higher than flexural
strength, to avoid brittle shear failure.

 To ensure adequate rotational ductility in flexural plastic hinges, it is necessary

to carefully detail critical regions (plastic hinges).

 In RC members, it is essential to provide closely spaced stirrups which confine

effectively the concrete and use sufficient lap splices and anchorage lengths.

 For steel and composite members, cross-sections employing plates with high
width-to-thickness ratios in plastic hinge regions are necessary in order to avoid
local buckling.
 63
Factors Influencing Ductility (continued)

► Connection properties

 The behaviour of connections affects significantly the global ductile response of

structures.

 The ductility of beam-to-column connections is controlled by yield mechanisms

and failure modes.

 Multiple yield mechanisms may contribute to plastic rotations if their resistances

are all lower than the strength of the critical failure mode of the connection.

 Multiple yield mechanisms rather than a single yield mechanism are generally
desirable to achieve adequate seismic performance.

 Connections with a controlling (single) yield mechanism significantly lower than

the critical failure mode resistance, develop considerable inelastic deformations
and therefore exhibit high plastic rotations capacity, provided these large inelastic
deformations do not cause loss of use or severe secondary damage (non-
structural, for example).
 64
Factors Influencing Ductility (continued)

► System properties

 The most convenient parameter to quantify the global ductility of structural

systems under earthquake loads is the displacement ductility μδ which was
defined early.

 Displacement ductility factors μδ should be expressed as storey drift ductility

rather than roof lateral displacements.

 Storey translational ductility is a measure of the ductility distribution along the

height in multi-storey frames and can be utilised to detect localised inelastic
demands in irregular structures.

 The evaluation of deformation quantities δu and δy from action-deformation

relationships is not always straightforward.
 65
Factors Influencing Ductility (continued)
 Definition of yield deformations

V V Maximum (Ultimate)
Load
Vmax

Total Base Shear

Total Base Shear

First Yielding

Vy

O y  O y 
Top Lateral Displacement Top Lateral Displacement
(a) Based on First Yield (b) Based on Equivalent Elasto-Plastic Yield
V Maximum (Ultimate) V Maximum (Ultimate)
Load Load
Vmax Vmax
Total Base Shear

0.75Vmax
Equal Areas
Total Base Shear

O y  O y 
Top Lateral Displacement Top Lateral Displacement
(c) Based on Equivalent Elasto-Plastic Energy Absorption (d) Based on Reduced Stiffness Equivalent Elasto-Plastic Yield
 66
Factors Influencing Ductility (continued)

 Definitions of ultimate deformations

V V Maximum (Ultimate)
Load
Limiting Compressive
Strain Vmax
V
Total Base Shear

Total Base Shear

O u  O u 
Top Lateral Displacement Top Lateral Displacement
(a) Based on a Limiting Compressive Strain (b) Based on Peak Load
V Maximum (Ultimate) V
First Fracture or Buckling
Load
Vmax
V
V
Total Base Shear

Total Base Shear

Small Reduction
in Load Capacity

O u  O u 
Top Lateral Displacement Top Lateral Displacement
(c) Based on Significant Load Capacity After Peak Load (d) Based on Fracture and/or Buckling
 67
Factors Influencing Ductility (continued)
 Large inelastic deformations and large amounts of energy dissipation require
high values of local ductility.

 Adequate inelastic behaviour of structures under strong earthquakes can only be

achieved if curvature ductility factors μc are much higher than displacement
ductility factors μδ.

 For the cantilever bridge pier shown in the figure below, the relationship between
μδ and μc can be expressed as follows:
Lp   Lp 
μδ  1  3   
 μ χ  1 1  0.5 
L   L 
tot 20,0
e p Lp/L = 0.05 Lp/L = 0.10 Lp/L = 0.15
F Gm Lp/L = 0.20 Lp/L = 0.25 Lp/L = 0.30

Displacement ductility ()

15,0

10,0 Ductile Response

L

p
5,0
Lp

0,0
cp ce
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0
Member Bending Moment Curvatures Displacements Curvature ductility ()
 68
Factors Influencing Ductility (continued)
 Inelastic storey drifts are correlated to plastic hinge rotations θp; similarly, plastic
roof drifts dp are related to θp through the following:

δp  δu  δy  p Hc
where H0 is the sum of the inter-storey height of stories involved in the
collapse mechanism as shown in the figure below.

u u u u u

Hc
Hc

Hc

Hc
Hc

L L L L L

Typical plastic mechanisms for framed systems

 Global mechanisms with plastic hinges at column base and within beams (strong
column-weak beam design) are preferred due to the higher energy dissipation
capacity.
 69
Factors Influencing Ductility (continued)

 To ensure adequate energy dissipation and prevent dynamic instability of the

system as a whole, plastic hinges at the base of multi-storey frames should
possess high rotational ductility.

 Members with large slenderness ratios should be avoided and the level of axial
loads should not exceed 25-30% of the yield force in the columns.

 Variations of axial loads in columns due to overturning moments and vertical

vibrations increase the likelihood of local and global instability.

 For a given earthquake ground motion and predominant period of vibration, the
global ductility increases as the yield level of the structural system decreases.
 70
Effects on Action Redistribution

 Inelastic response of structures subjected to earthquakes is primarily controlled

by local and global ductility.

 Failure of ductile structures does not correspond to the maximum resistance or

formation of first plastic hinge in structural components.

 Ductility allows redundant structures to dissipate energy and continue to resist

seismic actions, while successive plastic hinges are formed.

 It is highly desirable in seismic design to control the location of dissipative zones

and the type of post-elastic behaviour in these zones.
 71
Effects on Action Redistribution (continued)

 Column-sway and beam-sway modes correspond to WCSB and SCWB design

approaches, respectively.

 Global frame response is often characterised by mixed-mode mechanisms, with

hinges in beams and columns.

(a) Column-sway mechanism (b) Beam-sway mechanism (c) Mixed mechanism

Energy-dissipating mechanisms for multi-storey frames: column-sway (left), beam-sway (middle)
and mixed (right) mechanisms
 72
Effects on Action Redistribution (continued)

 The amount of seismic energy dissipated in beam-sway mechanisms is higher

than that in column-sway.

 In frames with SCWB, the total number of plastic hinges is generally higher than
in frames with WCSB.

 For the same level of roof translational ductility, a relatively high ductility factor is
required in column-sway when compared to the beam-sway mechanism.

 Systems with WCSB may experience severe damage in columns. Column failure
leads to the collapse of the entire building due to gravity.

 Ultimately, structures only fail due to gravity, but are weakened by earthquakes.
 73
Structural Collapse Prevention

 Prevention of structural collapse is a fundamental objective of seismic design.

 Structural collapse prevention can be achieved through failure mode control.

 In the capacity design approach, the designer dictates where the damage should
occur in the system. The designer imposes a ductile failure mode of the structure
as a whole.

 For MRFs designed in compliance with SCWB rules, beams are dissipative
members. The remainder of the structure is designed with the strength to ensure
that no other yielding zones are likely to occur; these are ‘non-dissipative
components’. The only exception is the bases of columns at the ground floor.

 Elements carrying vertical loads are designed with added strength.

 74
Structural Collapse Prevention (continued)

 Framed systems with WCSBs are characterised by high values of imposed

ductility, especially for flexible structures.

 Experimental and numerical investigations have demonstrated that WCSB

designs are not desirable in seismic regions.

 Failure mode control is significantly affected by material randomness, presence

of non-structural components and quality control.

 Infilled walls, claddings and internal partitions can play an important role in the
seismic response of structural systems and may alter the hierarchy in the failure
mode sequence.
 75
Structural Collapse Prevention (continued)

 To achieve an adequate control of the failure mode, non-structural components

should be accounted for in the analysis of the dynamic behaviour and in the
seismic detailing of the dissipative components.

 The following failure modes should be avoided for any type of loading:

• Those involving sudden failure;

• Those involving total collapse due to failure of vertical load-carrying members.

Material of construction Brittle Failure Modes

Buckling of reinforcement bars
Reinforced Concrete Bond or anchorage failure
Member shear failure
Out-of-plane bending failure
Masonry Global buckling of walls
Sliding shear
Fracture of welds and/or parent material
Bolt shear or tension failure
Structural Steel Member buckling
Member tension failure
Member shear failure
Typical brittle failure modes as a function of common materials of construction
 76
Problem 2.4
Compare the bending moment capacity of sections at the base of reinforced concrete
columns under monotonic and earthquake loads shown in the figure below. Assume
that stirrups may be either close-spaced or with large spacing. Is the axial load
beneficial for the shear capacity of column members? Illustrate the answer with
sketches.

Mtop Mtop
Ntop Ntop

H
H

1.00

0.75

0.50

Nbottom 0.25
Nbottom
0.00
Mbottom Mbottom
-0.25

-0.50

-0.75
 77
Problem 2.5

The structural response of the bridge pier shown in the figure below can be idealized
as an elastic-perfectly plastic relationship. Assume that the yield bending moment
(My=Vy H) and the elastic lateral stiffness (k L) of the pier are 480 kN-m and 480 kN/m,
respectively. Calculate the displacement ductility  of the pier corresponding to a top
drift of 0.5m. If the plastic hinge length Lp is equal to 0.1 L, compute the curvature
ductility factor c for the cantilever pier.

Base shear
L=10 m

D D
Vy

kL
Section
1

Top displacement
 78
Overstrength
 Overstrength is a parameter used to quantify the difference between the required
and the actual strength of a material, a component or a structural system.
Structural overstrength is generally expressed by the ‘overstrength factor’ Ωd
defined as follows:
Vy
Ωd 
Vd
where Vy and Vd are the actual and the design lateral strengths of the system,
respectively.

Wi

Relationship between strength, overstrength and ductility.

 79
Overstrength (continued)
 An additional measure relating the actual Vy to the elastic strength level Ve of
lateral resisting systems is given as:
Vy
Ωi 
Ve
and is termed ‘inherent overstrength’ to distinguish it from the ‘observed
overstrength’ Ωd commonly used in the literature.

Different levels of inherent overstrength (Ωi): ductile response, Ωi<1.0 (left),

and elastic response under design earthquake Ωi≥1.0 (right)
 80
Overstrength (continued)

 Structural overstrength results from a number of factors, such as:

i. Difference between actual and design material strengths;

ii. Effects of confinement in RC, masonry and composite members;

iii. Minimum reinforcement and member sizes exceeding design requirements;

iv. Conservatism of the design procedures;

v. Effects of structural elements not considered in predicting the lateral load

capacity;

vi. Load factors and multiple load cases adopted in seismic design including
accidental torsion;

vii. Serviceability limit state provisions;

viii. Structural redundancy;

ix. Participation of non-structural elements in the earthquake response of

structures.
 81
Damping

 Damping is utilised to characterise the ability of structures to dissipate energy

during dynamic response. Damping values depend on several factors:

i. Vibration amplitude;
ii. Material of construction;
iii. Fundamental periods of vibration;
iv. Mode shapes;
v. Structural configurations.

 Seismic energy transmitted to structures can be dissipated through different

damping mechanisms:

i. Structural damping;
ii. Supplemental damping;
iii. Foundation damping;
iv. Radiation damping.
 82
Damping (continued)
 For relatively small values of damping, hysteretic, viscous and friction damping can
be conveniently expressed by ‘equivalent viscous damping’ ceq as follows:

c eq  ξ eq  c cr
where ccr is the critical damping coefficient and ξeq the equivalent damping ratio
defined as:
 eq   0   hyst
in which 0 corresponds to the initial damping in the elastic range and hyst
indicates the equivalent viscous damping ratio that represents the dissipation
due to the inelastic hysteretic - behaviour.

 The equivalent viscous damping hyst can be computed from the following :

1 w1 E Diss 1 A hyst
ξ eq     
4π w E Sto 2π F0 u 0
where EDiss is the energy loss per cycle and ESto represents the elastic strain
energy stored in an equivalent linear elastic system. The terms w1 and w are the
natural frequency of the system and the frequency of the applied load,
respectively; while F0 is the force corresponding to the deformation parameter u0.
 83
Damping (continued)

 Viscous damping ratios eq increase in proportion to the natural frequency of

vibration in structural systems.

10 10

1st Mode 2nd Mode 3rd Mode 1st Mode 2nd Mode 3rd Mode
8 8
Damping Ratio (%)

Damping Ratio (%)

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150
Building Height (m) Building Height (m)

Structural damping ratios measured in existing buildings: steel (left) and reinforced
concrete (right) structures
 84
Damping (continued)

 Minimum, maximum and mean values of equivalent viscous damping for several
forms of structures employing different materials are summarised in the table
below.

Structural system Structural Damping (%)

(type) Minimum Maximum Mean
Buildings 0.5 5.0 2.75
Steel towers, unlined, welded construction 0.4 0.7 0.55
Steel tower, unlined, bolted construction 0.6 1.0 0.80
Steel tower, unlined welded, elevated on steel support structure 0.3 0.5 0.40
Concrete tower 0.5 1.2 0.85
Concrete tower with internal partitions 0.1 2.5 1.30
Steel bridges 0.3 1.0 0.65
Reinforced concrete bridges 0.5 2.0 1.25
Pre-stressed concrete bridges 0.3 1.0 0.65
 85
Relationship between Strength, Overstrength and Ductility

 Seismic design uses concepts of controlled damage and collapse prevention.

 The ratio between seismic design Vd and elastic Ve base shears is defined as
‘force reduction factor’ R:
Ve
R
Vd
 The values of R-factors computed from the above equation correspond to force
reduction factors ‘supply’. They express the energy absorption and dissipation
capacity of structural systems.

 Force reduction factors ‘supply’ are related to the strength, overstrength, ductility
and damping characteristics of the structures.
 86
Relationship between Strength, Overstrength and Ductility (continued)

Long period --> equal displacement Intermediate period --> equal energy

V V

Ve Ve
Elastic Elastic
Equal
Areas
Inelastic Inelastic

Vd = Vy Vd = Vy

Equal
Displacement

O y 
e 
u  O y e u 

Base shear-lateral displacement relationships for inelastic single degree of freedom

systems with long (left) and intermediate (right) periods
 87
Relationship between Strength, Overstrength and Ductility (continued)

► For long period structures

 The maximum displacement of the inelastic system is almost constant. Therefore,

criterion based on ‘equal displacements’ may be used to link the two systems:

u  e
which corresponds to the following ratios between actions and deformations at
yield and elastic:
Vy Ve

y e

 The inelastic (or design) base shear Vy of the new system is:

Ve
Vy 
μ

and lateral displacements Δu can be computed from the relationship given above.
 88
Relationship between Strength, Overstrength and Ductility (continued)

► For intermediate period structures

 The displacement Δu increases with decreasing yield action Vy.

 The inelastic (or design) base shear Vy and lateral displacement Δu of the new
system are:

Ve
Vy 
2μ - 1

μ
u  e
2μ - 1
 89
Relationship between Strength, Overstrength and Ductility (continued)

► For short period structures

 For short period structures there is no reduction in design forces which

corresponds to elastic design.

 The above expressions point towards the following relationships:

V Wd
R  e Wd R
Vy Wi

where Ωd is the observed overstrength factor, while Ve and Vy are the elastic and
the actual strength, respectively.’
 90
Problem 2.6
Rank the components circled below according to overstrength factors (Ωd) to render the
structure ductile (higher energy dissipation capacity):

• Beam, Ωd,bf;
• Column, Ωd,cf;
• Beam-column joint, Ωd,js.

Ωd,bf : Overstrength factor for beam flexural strength

Ωd,js : Overstrength factor for beam-column joint shear strength

Ωd,cf : Overstrength factor for column flexural strength

Overstrength factors employed for the design of multi-storey moment resisting frames
 91
Problem 2.7
The inelastic behaviour of two medium-rise steel MRFs is assessed by the pushover
curves provided in the figure below. Response parameters of these frames are
summarized in Table 1. Determine yield and ultimate deformations according to the
proposal by Park (1988) presented in Section 2.3.3.1, as appropriate. Compare the
computed values of Δu and Δy with those in Table 1. Determine observed Ωd and
inherent Ωi over-strength factors for the sample frames. Compute also R-factors supply
and translation ductility . Comment on the results.

Frame (label) Period (sec) Vd / W (%) Vy / W (%) Vu / W (%) Δu / Δy (-)

MRF_1 2.53 4.04 10.18 14.28 4.10
MRF_2 3.63 1.51 7.53 8.02 1.52
Table 1. - Response parameters of assessed frames.
Key: Vd = Base design shear; Vy = Base actual shear; Vu = Base shear at collapse; W
= Seismic weight; Δy = Roof drift at yield; Δu = Roof drift at collapse.
20
Yielding Ultimate

MRF_1
15
V / W (%)

10

MRF_2
5

0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
top / Htot (%)