Ductility Detailing of Structures

[1] What is Ductility Detailing?

For a given seismic demand (dynamic forces generated by a given ground motion),
if your structure (or your design) does not remain elastic, i.e., it undergoes
plasticity/fracture/damage, then stiffness could drop dramatically, deformations will
increase significantly. Under these increased deformations, you should ensure that
your structure remains stable without collapsing, i.e., it should not loose vertical
load carrying capacity; you have to detail it in such a way that it can undergo large
deformations without collapsing. The ability of a structure to undergo large
deformations without collapsing is called ductility, and the detailing of the structure
that enables the structure to have large ductility is called ductile or ductility
detailing. The word ductility has a strict definition in material science where it is
defined as the ratio of ultimate strain to yield strain of the material. The term is
loosely used in earthquake engineering to indicate the degree to which an
assembled structure that is damaged can undergo large deformations without
collapsing.

[2] When do you need Ductility Detailing?

If you can design your structure to remain elastic under the maximum expected
level of earthquake shaking, then there is no need for ductility detailing. However,
engineers recognized long ago that it was not practically possible to come up with
economically or architecturally viable designs if the structures were to remain
elastic during maximum considered earthquake motions (every structure would look
like a Fort Knox). So, the next best option was to allow the structure to undergo
damage (plasticity, fracture, crushing, etc.), but make sure that the structure does
not loose its vertical load carrying capacity as it is undergoing large deformations
when damaged. For example, if you want concrete columns to continue carrying
vertical loads even when there is significant cracking, concrete crushing and/or
steel yielding, you would want to confine the concrete (keep chunks of concrete
from falling out of the steel cage) and you would want to prevent buckling of the
longitudinal bars. You can achieve both of these characteristics by providing very
closely spaced closed ties with 135 degree hooks to sturdily anchor them against a
longitudinal bar.

Because the material has now become compliant the stiffness forces in the
components and structure will drop. In other words, if the structure were to remain
elastic the internal forces (and the total base shear which is the sum of the internal
shear forces in all the vertical load carrying elements) would be far higher than if
the structure were to be damaged. This reduction in base shear arising out of the
fact that we have allowed the structure to get damaged is embodied in the
"Dynamic Response Modification" factor or the "Ductility" factor, Rd, in building
codes worldwide. Rd is specific to each type of lateral force resisting system. Rd is
higher for systems where ductility detailing can enable the system to undergo
larger deformations without collapsing when damaged, it is lower for systems where
ductility detailing enables the system to undergo only smaller deformations before
collapsing. Rd is NOT the same as the more familiar R factor in building codes. It is
one of two factors that go into the computation of the "R" factor.

[3] R factor

The R factor is the product of the "ductility" factor, Rd, and the "overstrength" factor
or "total system resistance capacity" factor, Ro (i.e., R = Rd*Ro). Ro is the ratio of
the true structural strength of individual elements to the design strength. It
accounts for load factors in load combinations, extra system design provisions,
contribution from the gravity system (nonlateral force-resisting system) and
nonstructural elements, as well as the as-built sizes and materials strength. If you
are not doing ductile detailing of any portion of your structure (say the basement),
you can still take advantage of the overstrength factor (i.e., R = Ro) when you are
designing the basement walls for the maximum considered earthquake forces.

[4] Do you need ductile detailing in the basements?

From the above discussion, it can be concluded that if basement walls can be
designed to remain elastic during maximum considered earthquake motions, i.e.,
design for R=Ro alone with no allowance for ductility (Rd=1), then there is no need
for any ductility detailing. However, there is one very important uncertainty, and
that is "the actual earthquake ground motion". What if the maximum considered
motions in the design are exceeded? This happens all the time (the most recent
Christchurch, New Zealand, event and the Tohoku, Japan event are examples). Will
there not be brittle failures possibly leading to collapse? To address this and to
balance it with economy of construction, the ACI requires ductility detailing for

shear wall systems in regions of "high seismic risk", but not in regions of "moderate
seismic risk". This in itself may not be a good criterion. Even in regions categorized
as regions of moderate risk, the ground motions can be quite intense, as was the
case in Tohoku and Christchurch which were considered as regions of moderate risk.
The classification of moderate or high seismic risk is based on the frequency and
size of events as gauged from the historical record, which is unfortunately is far too
short. When an earthquake occurs in a region classified as moderate risk, it could
still result in very intense motions (far greater than what has been observed in
recorded history); ductility detailing would be needed for satisfactory performance.
The codes, however, do not require ductility detailing in shear walls, and I feel this is
something that may need to be revisited. Nevertheless, that is the criterion as of
now. Note: ACI requires ductility detailing for RC frames even in regions with
moderate seismic risk.

[4.1] What are these requirements as applicable to basement shear wall systems?

Typically, basement walls are thick and continuous around the perimeter of the
basement, designed as retaining walls for out-of-plane cantilever bending to resist
soil-pressures during excavation. Their shear capacity (with overstrength included,
i.e., R=Ro) in the longitudinal direction is usually so large that it far exceeds the
stiffness force demand from the super-structure, i.e., the deformation demand on
these walls will be small. As a result, even in high seismicity regions, only certain
basic, but very important, ductility requirements need to be satified {two curtains of
horizontal and vertical reinforcement if shear stress exceeds 2*sqrt(fc') [fc' and
sqrt(fc') are in psi units] with certain minimum levels in either direction}. Boundary
elements typically will not be necessary (as the maximum extreme fiber stress
corresponding to factored forces including earthquake effect will typically not
exceed 0.2fc'). However, the boundary elements in the first story of the superstructure walls should be continued down through the basement to the foundations.
These should NOT be terminated at the top basement level or other lower basement
levels. This is because the axial forces resulting from super-structure cantilever
bending have to be transmitted safely to the foundation. Unlike shear forces which
can be redistributed to the basement walls by the floor diaphragm, there is no
mechanism for redistributing these axial forces to the basement walls.

You would check the basement walls for the following base shear:

Vdb = (Vb + Vs*Rsuper)/Rbasement

Vdb = basement design base shear;

Vb = unreduced basement base shear;

Vs = shear forces from the super-structure;

Rsuper = R factor of the super-structure;

Rbasement = R factor for the basement (corresponding to a "bearing wall" system);

note that because you are providing basic ductility detailing, you are allowed to use
Rd greater than 1, i.e., R=Ro*Rd.

Note that when combinations of structural systems are employed (as in this case,
for example, different structural systems for the superstructure and the basement),
the flexible upper portion should be designed as a separate structure, supported
laterally by the rigid lower portion. The rigid lower portion should be designed as a
separate structure with the appropriate value of R. The reactions from the upper
portion determined from the analysis of the super structure should be amplified by
the ratio of the R of the upper structure to that of the lower structure (basement). In
the above equation, Rsuper/Rbasement represents this amplification.

You would still need to combine the seismic shear forces with the shear forces from
soils (if there is a difference in soil heights at two opposite faces of the building).

[4.2] What about IS13920:1993 and its revisions?

The above procedure would be consistent with the intent of IS13920 (originally
drafted by Profs. Murty and Jain when they were at IIT Kanpur) which draws heavily
from the ACI. In Indian seismic zones III, IV, and V, the ductility detailing
requirements are similar to the ACI requirements described above. You may
typically require two curtains of reinforcement, from either seismic and/or soil

retention during excavation considerations. My own opinion is that confinement of

wall concrete is best achieved by two curtains, and I would design basement walls
that way, even if it is not strictly required by code.

[5] Underground structures

Underground structures such as tunnels being confined by the surrounding soil

medium tend to be pulled, pushed, twisted, and sheared by the surrounding
medium as seismic waves travel through the medium. They are more susceptible to
ground deformation (in the longitudinal and transverse directions) along their
length, as opposed to accelerations. Axial deformations, curvature changes, racking
deformation of rectangular cross-sections, and/or ovaling of circular cross-sections
can result. Past performance indicates that tunnels built with shallow soil
overburden cover tend to be more vulnerable to earthquakes than deep ones. Soilstructure interaction is central to the response (beam on elastic foundation
modeling is appropriate). On the other hand, basements in buildings, unless they
are very deep, for the most part, interact with the ground through the foundations
(and the slab on ground). The confining soils on the sides (no over-burden) and SSI
play a less important role. From the behavioral and geometric proportioning
perspectives, basements in buildings cannot be equated with other typical
underground structures.

Having said this, if the deformation demands could cause the underground structure
to go inelastic, ductility detailing is warranted, be it a basement or a tunnel.

[6] Differences between foundation design/detailing and basement design/detailing

The key difference between foundations and basement walls is that foundations are
"confined" by the surrounding soils. Even if extensive cracking occurs in the
foundations (say footings or rafts), the concrete will remain more or less in place
and be able to transfer the gravity loads safely to the soils because of the
confinement offered by the surrounding soils, i.e., foundations seldom lose gravity
load carrying capacity even when damaged. Concrete in basement walls, on the
other hand, can crack or get crushed and spall off in chunks, if not properly
confined. In the process, the walls may loose gravity load carrying capacity. This is
especially true for the down-going superstructure walls, but also for the perimeter
walls.

Here is an article describing the issues associated with large axial stresses in
basement walls of Chilean buildings during the 2010 earthquake. Something to
think about:

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/chiles-concrete-code-buildings-calledquestion?page=0,1

Here is an image of extensive cracking in transverse walls in the basement of a

Chilean building. These walls will lose their gravity load carrying capacity if the
concrete is not properly confined.

http://degenkolb.com/images/uploads/2010/04/eeri_3.jpg

Having suggested that foundations may not require ductility detailing unlike
basement walls, I would like to offer some qualifying statements:

i. Soils prone to liquefaction may not be able to offer the necessary degree of
confinement. In this case ductility design will be necessary.

ii. Piles: Piles can develop plastic hinges during an earthquake. Concrete in this
region must be confined. Since piles are usually used in soils with low bearing/shear
capacities (or where very large axial forces exist as in tall buildings), the degree of
confinement offered cannot generally be counted upon. Closely spaced ties or
spirals with small pitch will be required in the plastic hinge region to confine the
concrete.

iii. Since it is hard to determine the degree of damage to foundations and/or

undertake repairs following an earthquake, the safest bet is to perform capacity
design of the foundations; i.e., ensure that the foundation remains elastic under the
axial and lateral forces that can be transmitted by the columns/braces/walls above
(elastic strength of foundation > plastic capacity of elements being supported by
the foundation). If we take this approach, obviously, ductility design is no longer
necessary. The Euro code takes this approach.

iv. Capacity design is recommended for pile design, i.e., design pile structural
(elastic) strength to be larger than the pile-slip capacity.

v. Capacity design is also recommended for the anchorage of a pile to the pile-cap
or grade beam, i.e., design the pilecap/grade beam for the tensile capacity and
moment capacity of the pile.

vi. Grade beams supporting moment frame columns are designed to ensure that no
plastic hinges can form in them, i.e., design the grade beams to have an elastic
strength greater than the column plastic moment capacity. This requirement is
similar to the design of transfer girders in the super structure where a column is
being terminated in an upper story and its loads are transmitted to the adjacent
columns/walls through the transfer girder.

In summary, while we do not explicitly require ductility detailing in foundations

(except in the case of piles and/or liquifiable soils), we would still like to avoid
premature foundation failure by adopting capacity design principles to make the
foundation stronger than the basement/super-structure.

[7] Deformation compatibility

It should be noted that ductility detailing cannot be limited to the lateral forceresisting system only. It is important that elements not part of the lateral system be
designed and detailed for deformation compatibility. If these elements are not
capable of sustaining their gravity loads under the deformations induced by the
earthquake (the deformations that the lateral system is going through), then
collapse will occur. In determining the deformation demands, proper care must be
given to flexural, shear, and axial deformations, P-Delta effects, diaphragm
deformations, foundation deformations (rotations, differential settlement, etc.),
cracked section properties for concrete elements, torsional and orthogonal effects,
etc. For example, gravity columns must be able to sustain their gravity loads at
peak lateral deformation experienced by the lateral force-resisting system during
the maximum considered earthquake. Ductile detailing will generally be necessary
to achieve proper deformation compatibility.

[8] A good reference for understanding all the seismic provisions in the American
codes is the SEAOC Blue Book.