Structural Responses: Single-Degree-of-Freedom (SDOF) Systems



Following the discussions of the working principle and behaviour of the various SMA elements and SMA-based members and devices, it is time to move on to understand how SMA-based structural systems respond to earthquake excitations. A good starting point is to examine the fundamental dynamic responses of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems with varying parameters that characterise the basic hysteretic behaviour of the structural systems. This chapter starts with a comprehensive seismic evaluation of SDOF systems with a wide spectrum of structural parameters. The primary objective is to quantify the structural and non-structural performances of conventional and novel self-centring systems under both near-fault (NF) and far-field (FF) earthquakes. The analysis involves 5760 different SDOF models with more than 1.45 million statistical response results being processed. According to the available data, two sets of design models that provide the predictions of the inelastic displacement demand and residual displacement response for various systems are given. The results presented in this chapter can form the basis of the performance-based seismic design of SMA-based self-centring structures.


  1. Alavi B, Krawinkler H (2004) Strengthening of moment-resisting frame structures against near-fault ground motion effects. Earthq Eng Struct D 33(6):707–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alhan C, Gazi H, Kurtuluş H (2016) Significance of stiffening of high damping rubber bearings on the response of base-isolated buildings under near-fault earthquakes. Mech Syst Signal Pr 79:297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. ASCE/SEI 41-06, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  4. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltzopoulos G, Vamvatsikos D, Iervolino I (2016) Analytical modelling of near-source pulse-like seismic demand for multi-linear backbone oscillators. Earthq Eng Struct D 45(11):1797–1815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bray JD, Rodriguez-Marek A (2004) Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24(11):815–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christopoulos C, Pampanin S, Priestley MJN (2003) Performance-based seismic response of frame structures including residual deformations—part I: single-degree of freedom system. J Earthq Eng 7(1):97–118Google Scholar
  8. Dimakopoulou V, Fragiadakis M, Constantine S (2013) Influence of modeling parameters on the response of degrading systems to near-field ground motions. Eng Struct 53:10–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Durucan C, Durucan AR (2016) Ap/Vp specific inelastic displacement ratio for the seismic response estimation of SDOF structures subjected to sequential near fault pulse type ground motion records. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 89:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eatherton MR, Hajjar JF (2011) Residual drifts of self-centering systems including effects of ambient building resistance. Earthq Spectra 27(3):719–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erochko J, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Choi H (2011) Residual drift response of SMRFs and BRB frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7-05. J Struct Eng-ASCE 137(5):589–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2004) EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Belgium, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Fang C, Zhong QM, Wang W, Hu SL, Qiu CX (2018) Peak and residual responses of steel moment-resisting and braced frames under pulse-like near-fault earthquakes. Eng Struct 177:579–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fang C, Qiu CX, Huang LT (2019) Performance-based evaluation of seismic resilient systems under near-fault and far-field earthquakes. Eng Struct Under RevGoogle Scholar
  15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings: rehabilitation requirements. FEMA 356, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. FEMA 440, prepared by Applied Technology Council for FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. FEMA P695, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings, volume 1—methodology. FEMA P-58-1, prepared by the SAC Joint Venture for FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerami M, Abdollahzadeh D (2015) Vulnerability of steel moment-resisting frames under effects of forward directivity. Struct Des Tall Spec 24(2):97–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2009) Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 31(11):2744–2755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hou HT, Qu B (2015) Duration effect of spectrally matched ground motions on seismic demands of elastic perfectly plastic SDOFS. Eng Struct 90:48–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karavasilis TL, Ricles JM, Sause R, Chen C (2011) Experimental evaluation of the seismic performance of steel MRFs with compressed elastomer dampers using large-scale real-time hybrid simulation. Eng Struct 33(6):1859–1869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karavasilis TL, Seo CY (2011) Seismic structural and non-structural performance evaluation of highly damped self-centering and conventional systems. Eng Struct 33(8):2248–2258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kawashima K, Macrae R, Hoshikuma JI, Nagaya K (1998) Residual displacement response spectrum. J Struct Eng-ASCE 124(5):523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krawinkler H, Alavi B (1998) Development of improved design procedures for near-fault ground motions. In: SMIP 98: seminar on utilization of strong motion data, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. Loh CH, Wan S, Liao WI (2002) Effects of hysteretic model on seismic demands: consideration of near-fault ground motions. Struct Des Tall Buil 11(3):155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacRae GA, Kawashima K (1997) Post-earthquake residual displacements of bilinear oscillators. Earthq Eng Struct D 26(7):701–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MathWorks (2010) MATLAB 7.10.0. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MAGoogle Scholar
  29. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2006) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees), OpenSees Command Language Manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  30. McCormick J, Aburano H, Ikenaga M, Nakashima M (2008) Permissible residual deformation levels for building structures considering both safety and human elements. In: Proceedings of 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Seismological Press of China, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  31. Moradi S, Alam MS, Asgarian B (2014) Incremental dynamic analysis of steel frames equipped with NiTi shape memory alloy braces. Struct Des Tall Spec 23:1406–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Perry C, PhippsM, Hortacsu A (1994) Reducing the risks of nonstructural earthquake damage—a practical guide. In: ATC and SEI conference on improving the seismic performance of existing buildings and other structuresGoogle Scholar
  33. Ray-Chaudhuri S, Hutchinson TC (2011) Effect of nonlinearity of frame buildings on peak horizontal floor acceleration. J Earthq Eng 15(1):124–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodriguez-Marek A (2000) Near-fault seismic site response. PhD dissertation, University of California at BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  35. Tremblay R, Lacerte M, Christopoulos C (2008) Seismic response of multistory buildings with self-centering energy dissipative steel braces. J Struct Eng-ASCE 134(1):108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yadav KK, Gupta VK (2017) Near-fault fling-step ground motions: characteristics and simulation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 101:90–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations