Abstract
This paper investigates the non-linear seismic behavior of structures such as slender unreinforced masonry shear walls or precast post-tensioned reinforced concrete elements, which have little hysteretic energy dissipation capacity. Even if this type of seismic response may be associated with significant deformation capacity, it is usually not considered as an efficient mechanism to withstand strong earthquakes. The objective of the investigations is to propose values of strength reduction factors for seismic analysis of such structures. The first part of the study is focused on non-linear single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems. A parametric study is performed by computing the displacement ductility demand of non-linear SDOF systems for a set of 164 recorded ground motions selected from the European Strong Motion Database. The parameters investigated are the natural frequency, the strength reduction factor, the post-yield stiffness ratio, the hysteretic energy dissipation capacity and the hysteretic behavior model (four different hysteretic models: bilinear self-centring, with limited or without energy dissipation capacity, modified Takeda and Elastoplastic). Results confirm that the natural frequency has little influence on the displacement ductility demand if it is below a frequency limit and vice versa. The frequency limit is found to be around 2 Hz for all hysteretic models. Moreover, they show that the other parameters, especially the hysteretic behavior model, have little influence on the displacement ductility demand. New relationships between the displacement ductility demand and the strength reduction factor for structures having little hysteretic energy dissipation capacity are proposed. These relationships are an improvement of the equal displacement rule for the considered hysteretic models. In the second part of the investigation, the parametric study is extended to multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems. The investigation shows that the results obtained for SDOF systems are also valid for MDOF systems. However, the SDOF system overestimates the displacement ductility demand in comparison to the corresponding MDOF system by approximately 15%.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allahabadi R, Powell GH (1988) Drain-2DX user guide. Report No. UCB/EERC-88/06. College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Ambraseys N, Smit P, Sigbjornsson R, Suhadolc P, Margaris B (2002) Internet-site for European strong-motion data, European Commission, Research-Directorate General, Environment and Climate Programme
Bruneau M, Chia-Ming U and Whittaker A (1998). Ductile design of steel structures. McGraw-Hill, New York
Christopoulos C, Filiatrault A and Folz B (2002). Seismic response of self-centring hysteretic SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31: 1131–1150
Christopoulos C, Pampanin S and Priestley MJN (2003). Performance-based seismic response of frame structures including residual deformations. Part I: single-degree-of-freedom systems. J Earthq Eng 7(1): 97–118
ElGawady MA, Lestuzzi P and Badoux M (2006). Aseismic retrofitting of unreinforced masonry walls using FRP. Composites B 37: 148–162
Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: general rules, seimic actions and rules for buildings, EN 1998-1; 2004; European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussel
Lestuzzi P and Bachmann H (2007). Displacement ductility and energy assessment from shaking table tests on RC structural walls. Eng Struct 29(8): 1708–1721
Lestuzzi P, Schwab P, Koller M, Lacave C (2004) How to choose earthquake recordings for non-linear seismic analysis of structures. In: Proceedings of 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver
Litton RW (1975) A contribution to the analysis of concrete structures under cyclic loading. Ph.D. Thesis, Civil Engineering Dept., University of California, Berkeley
Miranda E and Bertero V (1994). Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthq Spectra 10(2): 357–379
Nassar AA, Krawinkler H (1991) Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems. Research Report No. 95, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford
Otani A (1974) Inelastic analysis of R/C frame structures. J Struct Div, ASCE 100 ST7, pp. 1433–1449
Paulay T and Priestley MJN (1992). Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. John Wiley & Sons, New York
Saatcioglu M (1991) Modeling hysteretic force deformation relationships for R/C elements. Earthquake-resistant concrete structures: inelastic response and design. Special publication SP-127 of the American Concrete Institute (ACI). Detroit, Michigan
Schwab P and Lestuzzi P (2007). Assessment of the seismic non-linear behavior of ductile wall structures due to synthetic earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 5(1): 67–84
Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NN (1970) Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes. J Struct Div 96(ST12). Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Trueb M (2005) Seismic behaviour of non-linear elements with little energy dissipation. Master thesis, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lestuzzi, P., Belmouden, Y. & Trueb, M. Non-linear seismic behavior of structures with limited hysteretic energy dissipation capacity. Bull Earthquake Eng 5, 549–569 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9050-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9050-5