Concrete Frames Designed With The Colombian Seismic Code (Nsr-98) From A Displacement Perspective

CONCRETE FRAMES DESIGNED WITH THE
COLOMBIAN SEISMIC CODE (NSR-98) FROM A

DISPLACEMENT PERSPECTIVE
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Master Degree in
Earthquake Engineering
By
JUAN CARLOS RESTREPO RESTREPO
Supervisor: Prof. Nigel Priestley
August, 2008
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia

Università degli Studi di Pavia
The dissertation entitled “CONCRETE FRAMES DESIGNED WITH THE COLOMBIAN
CODE (NSR-98) FROM A DISPLACEMENT PERSPECTIVE”, by Juan Carlos Restrepo
Restrepo, has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master Degree
in Earthquake Engineering.
Name of Reviewer …… … ………
Name of Reviewer …… … ………

Abstract
ABSTRACT
The aim of this work is to provide evidence about the performance of concrete frames designed using
Colombian seismic code NSR-98. In order to make this comparison a five storey-three bays frame
was designed according to NSR-98 for Armenia city, which is a city located in a high seismicity area
in Colombia. Once this design was completed THAs were performed using compatible spectrum
earthquakes for the two most important seismic sources in the studied area, besides a DDBD
assessment for the designed frame was performed using the same sources. As a result from DDBD
assessment analysis a value of moment magnitude Mw is related for each limit state considered; these
values were compared with hazard analysis results of the seismic sources finding big differences
between them. THA results confirmed findings with DDBD with an almost elastic behavior of the
structure when subjected to design earthquakes.
Discussion about NSR-98 seismic code is carried out based on the results of this work and some
recommendations are given for the new version that is actually under revision.
Keywords: NSR-98, DDBD, THA, DDBD Assessment
i
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank MEEES program for giving me the great opportunity of being part of this
excellent school, and for the financial support during the year of my master.
Thanks to all my MEEES family, I will always remember you; you made life far from home easier.
Finally, the most important thanks to my family. You have been a great support and a perfect example
to follow in everything I have done.
ii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. vi
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Motivation and objectives of the dissertation ............................................................................. 1
1.2 Thesis outline.............................................................................................................................. 2
2 INITIAL DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Performance based seismic design .................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Performance concept ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Limit states and performance level................................................................................ 3
2.2 Force Based Design .................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Analysis and earthquake seismic design bases ............................................................. 4
2.2.2 Capacity design principles ............................................................................................ 6
2.3 Displacement Based Design ....................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Response and design spectra ...................................................................................................... 7
2.4.1 Elastic acceleration spectra........................................................................................... 8
2.4.2 Elastic displacement spectra ......................................................................................... 9
3 COLOMBIAN SEISMIC DESIGN CODE NSR-98 ........................................................................ 14
3.1 Seismic environment of Colombia ........................................................................................... 14
3.2 History of Colombian Seismic Code ........................................................................................ 16
3.3 Seismic Design with the Colombian Seismic Code NSR-98 ................................................... 18
3.3.1 Hazard Maps and Design Spectra .............................................................................. 18
3.3.2 Structural systems....................................................................................................... 21
iii
Index
3.3.3 Reduction Factors ....................................................................................................... 21

3.3.4 Drift limits .................................................................................................................. 22
3.3.5 Recommendations for ductile design of concrete frames ........................................... 22
3.4 Comparisons between NSR-98 and some international seismic codes .................................... 22
4 DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN ............................................................................... 25
4.1 Fundamentals of Direct Displacement Based Design............................................................... 25
4.2 Additional Requirements for Concrete Frames ........................................................................ 32
4.2.1 Beam Flexural Design ............................................................................................... 32
4.2.2 Beam Shear Design .................................................................................................... 33
4.2.3 Column Flexural Design............................................................................................. 33
4.2.4 Column Shear Design ................................................................................................. 33
4.3 Displacement Based Design Assessment ................................................................................. 34
4.3.1 Displacement Based Design Assessment for frame Buildings .................................. 34
5 FBD USING NSR-98 IN A REGULAR CONCRETE FRAME...................................................... 38
5.1 NSR-98 Applied in a Regular Concrete Frame ...................................................................... 38
5.1.1 Description of the Structure under Analysis .............................................................. 38
5.1.2 Definition of Seismic Forces ...................................................................................... 38
5.1.3 Lateral Drift ................................................................................................................ 40
5.1.4 Design of Elements .................................................................................................... 40
5.2 Results of Time History Analyses in Frame Designed with NSR-98....................................... 42
6 ASSESSMENT USING DDBD IN FRAME DESIGNED WITH NSR-98..................................... 45
6.1 Limit States in the Assessment ................................................................................................. 45
6.2 Assessment Procedure .............................................................................................................. 46
7 CONCLUSIONS
8 REFERENCES
iv
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 Relationship between Earthquake Design Level and Performance Level
(After Vision 2000).................................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2.2 Design Elastic Acceleration and Displacement Spectra (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky,
2007) ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 2.3 Relation Between Corner Period, Tc of Displacement Spectrum and Moment Magnitude
Mw.Taken from (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007) .............................................................. 12
Fig. 3.1 Elastic Acceleration Spectra in NSR-98 ................................................................................... 20
Figure 4.1 General Direct Displacement-Based Design. Taken from (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky,
2007) ............................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 4.2 Structural model to represent peak displacement in conventional frame analysis. .............. 28
Figure 4.3 Seismic Moments from DDBD Lateral Forces. Taken from (Priestley, Calvi and
Kowalsky, 2007) ........................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4.4 Determination of Column Moments from Consideration of Joint Equilibrium. Taken from
(Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007) ......................................................................................... 32
Figure 4.5 Influence of Hoop Spacing on Damage-Control Curvature. Taken from (Priestley, Calvi
and Kowalsky, 2007) .................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 4.6 Determining Limit-State Displacement Profile from Mechanism and Critical Drift. Taken
from (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007) ................................................................................. 37
Figure 5.1 Structure under analysis and design parameters. .................................................................. 39
Figure 5.2 Elastic Spectra for Armenia and Forces on Frame .............................................................. 39
Figure 5.3 General Reinforcement Distribution .................................................................................... 41
Figure 5.4 Response Spectra for Earthquake Input. .............................................................................. 43
Figure 5.5 THA displacements profiles. ................................................................................................ 43
v
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1 Major Earthquakes in Colombia (Abstracted from Acevedo (2005)) ......................16
Table 3.2 Site Coefficient in NSR-98 .......................................................................................19
Table 3.3 Importance factor in NSR-98 ....................................................................................19
Table 3.4 Spectral Coefficient for microzonation Spectra for Armenia ...................................20
Table 3.5 Drift Limits in Ecuadorian Seismic Code .................................................................23
Table 5.1 Lateral Drifts Obtained in the Analysis ....................................................................40
Table 5.2 Beam Reinforcement ................................................................................................41
Table 5.3 Maximum Drift Values in THA................................................................................44
Table 5.4 Maximum Curvature Ductilities in THA ..................................................................44
Table 6.1 Deformation limit states criteria ...............................................................................45
Table 6.2 Flexural Strength Assessment ..................................................................................46
Table 6.3 Rotation Capacity .....................................................................................................46
Table 6.4 Deflected Shapes.......................................................................................................47
Table 6.5 Beam Shears .............................................................................................................47
Table 6.6 Base Shear.................................................................................................................48
Table 6.7 DDBD Parameters ....................................................................................................48
Table 6.8 Final results from the assessment .............................................................................49
vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation and objectives of the dissertation
Colombia is a country located in one of the most seismically active zones of the earth. There
is evidence dating before the end of the nineteenth century of a lot of earthquakes that have
struck the country, some of them causing destruction and lots of lives. The seismic
environment is very complex, as it depends on the interaction of three plates: Nazca, South
American and Caribbean and with a strong shallow seismicity that has been interpreted as the
result of the collision, on the east-southeast direction, of the Panama block with the northern
Andes (Kellogg and Vega, 1995). In order to prevent damage caused by earthquakes
Colombian engineering has used seismic codes since 1984, after an earthquake that destroyed
the city of Popayan, the code was updated in 1998 and currently is under revision for a new
version of it. The codes in Colombia have adapted the American codes without further
changes in the part of concrete, structural systems, analysis methods and hazard analysis, but
there is a major change in the analysis methodology since the Colombian code uses only one
scenario for the design of both structural and non-structural elements. This change to only a
single design scenario comes with a drift limit that has not consistency neither with
serviceability nor with ultimate limit state. The drift limit is θ=0.01 that placed together with
a reduction factor of R=7.0 for seismic frames create an inconsistency that must be analyzed
carefully. In order to understand the problems generated by using this high reduction factors
with such a restrictive limit in deformations Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) is
going to be used. DDBD (Priestley and Kowalsky, 2000) is a methodology developed with
the aim to mitigate the deficiencies in current force-based design and makes part of the
growing amount of methodologies in the so called performance based engineering. (Priestley,
2000)
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The principal aim of this work is to provide evidence about the problems that are being
generated by using the Colombian seismic code in the way is used nowadays. This evidence is
going to be used in the discussions for the new seismic code that is going to be released in
2009.
1.2 Thesis outline
The second chapter of this dissertation is composed by definitions of performance based

seismic design making emphasis in the different limit states, this chapter also refers to force
based design and displacement based design without going into many details. There is also
one part of this chapter dedicated to design spectra making emphasis in the displacement
spectra and its relationship to the magnitude of the earthquake.
Chapter three is about the Colombian seismic code starting from its origin and referring about
some aspects like: structural types, reduction factors, displacement limitations, and some
other considerations. At the end of this chapter comparison between some codes concerning
to drifts limits and reduction factors will be presented.
The fourth chapter is related to Displacement Based Design showing its background,
fundamentals and some particular items for MDOF frames. An important topic in this chapter
refers to the assessment analysis that can be performance using DDBD since this last is going
to be a milestone in the evaluation of the Colombian code with the methodology that is going
to be applied.
In the fifth chapter the design of a regular concrete frame is performance using the Colombian
seismic code. In the final part of this chapter some results of THA of the frame designed give
some inside of the problems and incompatibilities between design and performance.
Chapter sixth is reserved to the assessment of the structure designed using the Colombian
seismic code. In this chapter the aim is to determine based on specific limit states and the
DDBD method, the earthquake intensity required to fulfill the design expectation.
2
CHAPTER 2: INITIAL DEFINITIONS
2 INITIAL DEFINITIONS
2.1 Performance based seismic design
2.1.1 Performance Concept
Most of the seismic codes are directed to obtain structures with suitable levels of integrity and
resistance in order to avoid damage and casualties during high intensity earthquakes.
Unfortunately using current seismic design methodologies is very difficult to predict what the
damage will be under specific characteristics of an earthquake creating sometimes lots of
economic losses.
The basic concept of performance based seismic design is to provide engineers with the
capability to design buildings that have a predictable and reliable performance in
earthquakes.(FEMA 349, 2000) This performance is given by a performance objective that is
defined as the combination between expected behavior and expected intensity.
2.1.2 Limit states and performance levels
The use of different performance with specific earthquake intensities generates the already
mentioned performance objectives whose main objective is to control and to minimize losses
after an earthquake. The vision 2000 (SEAOC, 1995) document defined four performance
levels and four earthquake design levels. These mentioned levels are designated like:
• Fully operational: The installation continues in operation with insignificant damage.

• Operational: The installation continues in operation with smaller damage and smaller
interruption in dispensable services. It is also known as serviceability limit state.
3
• Life safe: The safety of life is essentially protected; the damage is from moderate to
extensive. It is also known as the damage limitation limit state.
• Near collapse: The safety of life is in danger, the damage is serious, and the structural
failure is prevented.
The levels of design earthquake are taken from the annual probabilities of exceedence or
return period, and they vary from agreement with local seismicity. The four levels of
design earthquake of the vision 2000 document are:
• Frequent. That makes reference to the earthquakes with a return period approximated to
40 years usually.
• Occasional. With a return period approximated to 70 years.
• Rare. This is the one that is usually used in the design with a return period of 475 years.
• Very rare. With the return periods ranging within 1000 years.
Figure 2.1 Relationship between Earthquake Design Level and Performance Level
(After Vision 2000)
The relationship between these performance levels and earthquake design levels is
summarized in Fig. 2.1. In Fig 2.1 there are three lines that can be observed to make
reference to three different performance objectives being “Basic Objective “the first one
4
required for normal structures and the other ones required for more important structures like
lifeline structures and hospitals (Priestley, Calvi and kowalsky, 2007)
2.2 Force Based Design
2.2.1 Analysis and Earthquake Seismic Design Bases
Seismic forces are generated by the dynamic response of the structure under a seismic
excitation. This makes seismic forces different from any other type of loading now that these
are function of the inelastic characteristics during the motion. It makes very important the
work of the structural designer in selecting an appropriate lateral resistant system and
avoiding undesirable irregularities. The magnitudes of the seismic forces are assigned usually
as the product of the seismic mass and the seismic acceleration in each storey. Design process
requires strength in each storey to be able to support in a suitable way the sum of the shear
forces generated above that storey.
Force based design requires the following steps:
i. Selection of the structural shape and material, i.e. seismic concrete frame. Once this
decision has been taken, the code gives a modification factor (R) to be use in the
analysis.
ii. The stiffness of the elements is calculated. These values will be used in the elastic
analysis of the structure in order to obtain element forces and expected displacement
for a specific seismic movement. Cracking in concrete section affects the value of
stiffness and so the specific value to use is very difficult to assess accurately. Seismic
codes prescribe values to be used in the analysis, but there is a lot of discussion on the
topic.
iii. Structural period is calculated. For regular structures can be obtained with simplified
equations based on Rayleigh formulations and for more complex structures using
modal analysis. This step is based only in the geometry of the building without taking
into account the amount of reinforcement in the sections because is not known up to
this stage.
5
iv. The base shear is calculated.
. . Eq. (2.1)
Where Sa is the acceleration as a fraction of gravity taken from an elastic acceleration

spectra defined for a damping of 5% whose value is a function of the type of structure,
soil condition and structural period. M is the mass of the structure.
v. Distribution of the base shear force is performed and a linear analysis is carried out.
The base shear is distributed up the height based in the expected displacement shape
and mass distribution. This set of forces is used in a linear model with the geometry
and properties of the building. When modal analysis is performed the distribution up
the height is not required because it is already incorporated in the method.
vi. The displacements obtained in the linear analysis must be compared with the
allowable displacements from the seismic code. This values of displacements varies
from country to country and also depends on the limit state that is been analyzed. If
the displacements are greater than those allowable values, the structure must be
stiffened and analysis must be repeated until convergence is reached.
vii. The internal forces obtained in the previous step in reduced by the modification factor
R that is define in the code for the structural system used in the analysis. The reduced
forces are the ones used to design the strength of the members.
viii. Additional checks are required in order to supply a desirable mechanism of collapse.
These checks are based on capacity design.
2.2.2 Capacity design principles
Capacity design philosophy involves the following procedures:
i. Definition of the mechanism of collapse of the structure. For concrete frames has
been adopted the principle of strong column-weak beam to ensure that capacity to
transmit verticals loads will not be lost after an earthquake.
ii. Define plastic hinge locations and the mechanism of those. Normally is flexure
mechanism at the end of the beams, at the base of shear walls and in coupling beams.
6
iii. Detail plastic hinge zones in such a way that any other undesirable mechanism is
avoided. Some of these mechanisms are: anchorage slippage, shear failure, buckling of
compression steel, etc.
2.3 Displacement Based Design
As shown previously, conventional seismic design is based completely on forces with a final
check at the displacements. Reasons for that are more historical than scientific as seismic
design was developed as an extension of vertical loads design with the application of some
factors and coefficients to make them compatible. One of these factors is the modification
factor R to accounts for the combine effect of over strength, ductility, and moment
redistribution. This factor is a function only of the structural type but the performance is not
taken into account.
It is well known that structural displacements generated by earthquakes are the principal cause
of damage. Simple techniques to estimate expected displacements allow the development of
methodologies based directly on them.
There is one of these methodologies that has been amply developed covering walls, frames,
dual systems, bridges and can be used in design as well as for assessment. The method called
Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) (Priestley and Kowalsky, 2000) uses
displacement as a starting point in the design. Details about the method can be obtained in
reference (Priestley, Calvi and kowalsky, 2007); a brief summary will be addressed in chapter
4.
2.4 Response and Design Spectra
Response spectra concept was proposed by Biot in 1932 and after that, developed by Housner,
Newmark among others. Nowadays response spectra concept is a very important tool in
structural dynamics and is widely used in seismic design. In general terms a spectrum can be
defined as a maximum response plot (expressed in terms of displacement, velocity,
acceleration, or any other parameter of interest) of a series of oscillators under a dynamic
action. These oscillators represent the structure as a SDOF system using the natural period or
7
the natural frequency. In these plots natural period or frequency are used in the x-axis and
maximum response for different values of damping in the y-axis.
The importance of spectra in seismic design lies in the fact that these plots condense the
complex dynamic response of a structure in a key parameter: maximum response; that in the
end is usually the required information to design. Although it must be pointed out that spectra
omits important information like strong motion duration and number of cycles with high
values of response.
There are different types of spectra with special characteristics and specific objectives, the
most common ones are: Elastic response spectra, inelastic response spectra, elastic design
spectra and inelastic design spectra.
Design spectrum is required as structures cannot be designed for a particular earthquake in a

specific place because very likely next earthquake will have different characteristics. Design
spectra are based on the envelope of response for typical earthquakes in a specific region;
these envelopes are generally obtained through statistical procedures. The most common
format these spectra are presented are acceleration vs. period and displacement vs. period,
there are some other ways to present spectra for specific uses like ADRS used in capacity
methods. Codes around the world use acceleration spectra as principal way to represent
seismic hazard. Some countries also include velocity and displacement design spectra like
Euro code 8(CEN, 2003) which presents displacement design spectra. T
In the development of this work some emphasis will be made in elastic acceleration spectra
and elastic displacement spectra as they are going to be used later on.
2.4.1 Elastic Acceleration Spectra
The typical form of elastic acceleration response spectra is smoothed, reflecting the average
of many accelerograms, these accelerograms must reflect seismic environment, and must be
scaled to match with the design earthquake which is probabilistic determined for a specific
return period.
8
The spectrum rises from PGA at T=0 to a maximum value at period TA. For soft soils, codes
typically amplify the PGA above the value applicable for firm ground or rock. The plateau
typically has a response acceleration of about 2.5 to 2.75 times the PGA. The acceleration
plateau continues to a period of TB, the value of which depends on the ground conditions in
the near surface layers, with larger values applying to soft soils. For periods greater than TB
the response acceleration reduces, typically in proportion to T, implying a constant-velocity
response. In many codes this constant-velocity part of the structure continues indefinitely.
More advanced codes specify an upper limit of T=TC for the constant velocity range, above
which the acceleration decreases in proportion of T2. A completely opposite trend is apparent
in some less advanced codes, where a constant plateau corresponding to minimum specified
response acceleration is sometimes defined. (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007)
2.4.2 Elastic displacement spectra
Elastic displacement spectra are not very common in seismic codes, although nowadays they
are reaching popularity because of its importance in performance based engineering.
There are different ways to obtain these spectra, deriving it from acceleration spectra is one of
them; this derivation is based on the pseudo-spectral relationship w2 this type of derivation
has a problem because earthquake catalog required for a acceleration spectra can be different
from the one required for a displacement spectra.(Bommer and Elnashai, 1999)
Another way to derive displacement spectra is by using strong motion input, the problem with
this method is that displacement spectra is very sensitive to data processing and special
attention must be paid in the signal filtering.(Bommer and Elnashai, 1999)
In Fig 2.2 it is possible to see some particularities between the acceleration and displacement
spectra:
• The displacement spectra are essentially linear with period up to the period Tc. For
this obvious reason this is term the corner period. The nonlinearity at low periods,
corresponding T < TB, will be found to have little relationship to most displacement based
designs (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007)
9
• The displacement spectrum that corresponds to minimum design acceleration has

displacement demands totally unrealistic for the long period structures. (Priestley, Calvi and
Kowalsky, 2007)
Figure 2.2 Design Elastic Acceleration and Displacement Spectra (Priestley, Calvi and
Kowalsky, 2007)
Recent work by Faccioli and others (Faccioli, Paolucci and Rey, 2004) which analyzes a big
number of recent digital records of good quality, has given the new information about the
factor influencing in the form of displacement spectra. The records investigated included the
very large established data of the 1999 Chi-chi earthquake of Taiwan, (Magnitude Mw=7.6),
and a number of moderate European and Japanese earthquakes in the magnitude range 4 < Mw
< 6.9 of magnitude.
Their findings include the following points:
• 5% damped displacement spectra tend to increase essentially linearly with period up

to a "Corner period." Beyond this, the response displacement is continuous (for large
earthquakes), or it tends to diminish (for the moderate earthquakes). It is therefore,
conservative to assume a continuous displacement for higher periods than the corner
period.
• The 10-second spectral displacement for 5% damping can be considered to be a
measure of the peak ground displacement.
10
• The amplification of soil of the displacement happens during the whole period range,
up to 10 seconds. There is a light tendency for the corner period to increase for soft
soil with large earthquakes, but this is less obvious for the moderate earthquakes.
• The amplification of soft soil is more marked at longer distances (30-50 km) for
earthquakes either moderate or large.
• The corner period seems to increase almost in straight line with the magnitude. For
the earthquakes with moment magnitude bigger than Mw = 5.7, the following
relationship seems conservative:
1.0 2.5 5.7 Eq. (2.2)
• The maximum response displacement, dmax,, depends on the magnitude, the epicentral
distance r km (or nearest distance to the fault plane for a large earthquake), and the
stress drop during rupture (in general in the range of 1-10 MPa). Based on analytical
considerations and assuming some mean values; Faccioli and others obtained the
following relationship for the maximum response displacement, dmax, in mm for
different soil conditions:
.
. Eq. (2.3)
Where Cs = 1.0 for firm ground. The response displacements resulting from Eq. (2.3) should
be modified for other soil conditions rather than firm ground. The hesitant suggestions are the
following:
Rock: Cs= 0.7
Firm Ground: Cs= 1.0
Intermediate Soil: Cs= 1.4
Very soft Soil Cs= 1.8
These tentative coefficients for Cs have been interpreted from typical acceleration modifiers
for PGA and period TB. Most refined calculations can be expected when the additional
analysis of the digital registrations become available.
11
Some other studies have been carried out to determine the corner period, NEHRP (FEMA
274, 1997) included a relationship between corner period and moment magnitude based on
seismology theory:
1.25 0.3 Eq. (2.4)
As consequence of the interest in course in the displacement-based design, the new data are
being developed by seismologists, related to the displacement spectra continually. Using this
new data, preliminary results from a study shows that the correct values for corner period and
moment magnitude may lie somewhere between Eq. (2.2) and Eq. (2.4). Figure 2.2 presents
results obtained using Eq. (2.2), Eq. (2.4), constant value prescribed in Euro code 8 EC8
(CEN, 2003) and results obtained in latest study presented by three dots.
Further information regarding the relationship between corner period and moment magnitude
can be found in (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007)
Figure 2.3 Relation Between Corner Period, Tc of Displacement Spectrum and Moment
Magnitude Mw. Taken from (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007))
In displacement based design methodology the displacement spectra is the key tool to
proportion the required strength to a structure for a specific performance level. The
displacement spectra to use in displacement based design should include a wide variety of
damping up to 60% and must cover long periods as the method is based in substitute structure
concept.
12
Displacement-based seismic design uses a secant stiffness representation of the structural

response requires a modification to the elastic displacement spectrum response to account for
ductile behavior. The ductility influence can either be represented by the equivalent viscous
damping or directly by inelastic displacement spectra for different ductility levels. The use of
spectra modified by different levels of damping requires that the relationship between
ductility and damping to be developed for different structural hysteretic characteristics, but it
allows a single spectrum to be used for all structures. The use of spectra modified by
different levels of ductility is more direct, but it requires the ductility modifiers to be
determined for each hysteretic rule considered. (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007)
Due to these reasons equivalent viscous damping is the best choice, since codified
specification is simpler. However, there appears to be still some uncertainty amongst
seismologists regarding the appropriate form of the damping modifier Rξ to be applied to the
elastic displacement spectrum for different levels of dampingξ.
Taking into account that displacement spectra and also modification factor are in a
developmental stage two equations have been proposed, one for normal conditions and the
second one for velocity pulse conditions (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007):
. .
Normal conditions Eq. (2.5)
.
. .
Near field with forward directivity Eq. (2.6)
.
13
CHAPTER 3:COLOMBIAN SEISMIC CODE NSR/98
3 COLOMBIAN SEISMIC DESIGN CODE NSR-98
3.1 Seismic environment of Colombia
Colombia is located in one of the most seismically active areas of the earth that is a belt
around the circumference of Pacific Ocean where the majority of the world seismicity takes
place. This area is also affected by many active volcanoes and it is frequently labeled like
"Ring of the fire." (Acevedo, 2005)
Colombia is located in the northwest part of South America. The topographical most
important characteristic in the country are the mountains of Andes, located in the central and
western part of the country; they run through the territory of Colombia from North to south,
they are divided in three chains: Western Mountain Range, Central Mountain Range and
Eastern Mountain Range. There are also some special ones topographic features separated
from the system of mountain of main Andes that include Sierra Nevada of Santa Marta, part
of Guajira mountains, and the “Serrania de la Macarena” (Cano et al., 2000).
The part of the county that fences the mountains of Andes and the valleys among them, well-
known as "Zona Andina", covers approximately one third of the territory, and it corresponds
to the most inhabited and developed area in Colombia. In this area that is characterized by a
seismic medium-high danger, approximately 75% of the population dwells here.
Colombia is located in the crossing of three of the tectonic mentioned plates (Nazca, South
American and Caribbean). The deformation of this crossing is controlled mainly by the
interaction between Nazca and South American plates.
The deformation intra - continental in Northern Andes is of the result of the complicated
interaction among the South American, Nazca and Caribbean plates. In relation to the fixed
14
South American plate, Nazca oceanic plate is converging toward the east in 6
centimeters/year, and the Caribbean plate is moving at 1-2 centimeters/year to the east -
southeast (Kellogg and Vega, 1995). GPS data also indicates that the micro plate of north
Andes goes toward the northeast (Corredor, 2003).
The region of Central Colombia is characterized mainly by thrust fault earthquakes in the
northeast direction and some strike-slip fault earthquakes in the southeast direction (Corredor,
2003). The shallow seismicity that takes place in this region has been interpreted as the result
of the collision, on the direction of the east - southeast, of the block of Panama with the
northern Andes (Kellogg and Vega, 1995)
Table 3.1 Major Earthquakes in Colombia (Abstracted from Acevedo (2005))

DATE Magnitude Location Type
31st January 1906 Ms = 8.2 Tumaco Subduction
31st August 1917 Ms = 7.3 Bogota Eastern Frontal fault system
5th February 1938 Ms = 7.0 Coffee zone Subduction
9th July 1950 Ms = 7.0 North of Santander Local deep seismicity
19th January 1958 Ms =7.8 Limits with Ecuador Subduction
20th December 1961 Ms = 6.7 Coffee zone Subduction
30th July 1962 Ms = 6.7 Coffee zone Subduction
9th February 1967 Ms = 6.8 Huila Local deep seismicity
26th September 1970 Ms = 7.0 Chocó Subduction
13th July 1974 mb = 6.4 Juradó Shallow activity
23rd November 1979 Ms = 6.7 Coffee zone Local deep seismicity
12th December 1979 Ms = 7.7 Pacific coast Subduction
31st March 1983 Ms = 5.0 Popayan Shallow activity
19th November 1991 Ms = 7.1 Buenaventura subduction
17th and 18th October 1992 Ms = 6.8 Murindó
Ms = 7.3
22nd July 1993 Ms = 5.9 Arauca Shallow activity
6th June 1994 Ms = 6.6 Paez
19th January 1995 Ms = 6.6 Tauramena
8th February 1995 Ms = 6.8 Calima Local deep seismicity
25th January 1999 mb = 5.9 Coffee zone Shallow activity
15th November 2004 Mw = 7.2 Chocó Subduction
As consequence of this complicated interaction between plates and micro plates, the
seismicity of Colombia is controlled by several geo-tectonic processes; the most important are
the subduction throughout Pacific Coast, the superficial activity in the geologic fault and the
local deep activity (Blandón et al., 2002). From the earthquake distribution three areas have
been observed where there is an important concentration of hypocenters. These areas are the
15
border of Colombia and Panama, with a concentration of shallow activity that could be
indicated to coincide with the micro plate of Panama; the region of the "Eje Caferero" coffee
zone; and the Bucaramanga seismicity nest. The two last areas named before correspond to
local deep seismicity.
Evidence of seismic activity of major earthquakes is presented in Table 3.1
3.2 History of Colombian Seismic Code
In 1975 the National Association of Earthquake Engineering (Asociación Colombiana de

Ingenieria Sísmica AIS) was created. A non-governmental association whose aim was to
create a seismic code for Colombia.
The historical development of seismic code specifications in Colombia was prepared by AIS
in preparation for current actualization of the seismic code and presented next:
• 1976 - AIS published the translation of the recommended lateral force requirements of
SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California) it was spread rapidly and
2500 copies were sold out.
• 1979 - AIS published the translation of ATC-3-06(Applied Technology Council) of
1978, document and its commentary.
• 1980 - An adaptation of ATC-3 was performance for the national environment. After
discussions inside AIS, document AIS 100-81 “Requisitos Sísmicos para Edificios”
Seismic Requirements for Buildings were released. This code was not law and its use
was voluntary.
• 1983 - After the earthquake of 31st March in Popayan was evident the need to extend
the amplitude of the code to cover one and two storey buildings and masonry
buildings because most of the damages were in those types of structures. National
Government funded the project “Estudio General del Riesgo Sísmico en Colombia”
which generated the seismic hazard maps that were included in “Requisitos Sismicos
para Edificaciones – Norma AIS 100-83” Seismic Requirements for Structures, the
change from Buildings to Structure was given because of its new amplitude.
16
• 1983 – Colombian Congress wrote law 11 of 1983 for the reconstruction of Popayan.
One of the articles in this law was the authorization to set a construction code. In this
way and based on the document AIS 100-83 the first seismic code was created in
Colombia. Decree 1400 of June 7th, 1984 “Codigo Colombiano de Construcciones
Sismo Resistententes” Colombian Earthquake Resistant Seismic Code.
• 1993-1997 - AIS kept track on changes in the forming documents of the Colombian
code and other documents like:
o United states – ANSI/ASCE 7-95, NEHRP-94, UBC-97 and SEAOC-96
o Euro code 8
o France – AFPS-90
o Japan – AIJ-90
o Mexico – “Reglamento del Distrito Federal”
o New Zeland – NZS-4203
As a result of this study AIS wrote and put into consideration to the structural
community the document named “Norma AIS 100-97” which was based mostly from
American standards.
• 1997 – It was time to up-date national seismic code to match new tendencies and
science. AIS proposed to the national authorities the creation of a permanent
committee to up-date seismic code through decrees. This law was approved and
recognized as “law 400” of 19th of august, 1997.
• 1998 – Through Decree “Reglamento de Construcciones Sismo Resistentes – NSR-
98” is released based on document AIS 100-7, this code is current now, mandatory in
all the country implemented in universities and demanded by official authorities.
• 2008 – AIS is working on the code NSR-09 that will be released at the beginning of
2009. This new code will be based mainly on FEMA 450 and ASCE-97.
3.3 Seismic Design with the Colombian Seismic Code NSR-98
Features regarding seismic design incorporated into NSR-98 required for the comparison with
displacement based design like, structural types, reduction factors, drift limits, design spectra,
analysis methods among others.
17
3.3.1 Hazard Maps and Design Spectra
The maps included in the Colombian Code of 1998 (Figure 4.8) were produced by the general
study of the seismic hazard of Colombia made by AIS in 1996, in which the country was
divided into three seismic areas of hazard: low, intermediate and high. The study of AIS (AIS,
1996) also produced two maps for peak ground acceleration: a map for probability of
exceedance of 10% .In 50 years and a map for a probability of exceedance of 80% in 15
years, the last one of being used for the design of essential facilities.
The elastic design spectrum for Colombia is presented in (fig. 3.1) and can be defined by the
following equations:
0 < T < 0.3s: . . 1.0 5.0 Eq. (3.1)
This branch in the spectra can only be used if modal analysis is going to be perform, and for
modes different from the first natural period.
0 < T < 0.48S 2.5 Eq. (3.2)
The site coefficient, S, is used to include the local effects. In this version of the code four
types of soils are considered: rock, S1; the softest type of soil, S4; and two intermediate types
of soils, S2 and S3. The variable that corresponds to the importance of the building, values are
presented in Table 3.3. Figure 3.1 shows acceleration spectra presented in NSR-98. For range
period between 0.48S and TL is defined as:
. . .
0.48S < T < TL Eq. (3.3)
where TL is defined as 2.4S.
T> TL Eq. (3.4)
Table 3.2 Site Coefficient in NSR-98
Soil classification Site coefficient, S

S1 1.0
S2 1.2
S3 1.5
S4 2.0
18
NSR-98 presents in addition to the spectrum described previously, a spectrum of 2% damping

for a probability of exceedance of 80% in 15 years (Tr = 10 years), which is defined by the
parameter Ad (damage threshold acceleration). This spectrum is specified for structures of
importance category IV. The earthquake level specified by this spectrum ensures that the
structure (including non-structural elements) remains in the elastic range.
Table 3.3 Importance factor in NSR-98
Structural Importance Type of structure

category Factor, I
IV 1.3 Essential facilities required during and after an earthquake. Includes
hospitals and health centers with surgery and first aids facilities,
telephonic operational centers, among others.
III 1.2 Facilities required after an earthquake and not included in structural
category IV. Includes fire stations, police stations, and garages of
emergency vehicles, among others.
II 1.1 Any structure where more than 200 people can gather in the same room,
open air tiered seats suitable for more than 2000 people, schools,
universities, markets with more than 500 m2 per floor, structures where more
than 3000 people live or work and governmental buildings.
I 1.0 Structures that do not belong to categories II, III and IV.
Fig. 3.1 Elastic Acceleration Spectra in NSR-98
Microzonations studies have been carried out in many regions in Colombia. Results of these
studies show higher values than those obtained with the national spectra. Later in this work
microzonation spectra of Armenia city, located in the “coffee zone” will be use and so, is
presented here.
19
Three zones were identified in Armenia’s microzonation: Zone A, Zone B and Zone C. Zone
A corresponds to volcanic ashes, zone B corresponds to anthropic fills and zone C for stiff
soils. Spectral coefficient have been defined for each zone, the values are presented in table
3.4.
Table 3.4 Spectral Coefficient for microzonation Spectra for Armenia
Zone A Zone B Zone C

TO 0.10 0.10 0.05
TC 0.80 0.70 0.40
TL 2.34 2.05 2.00
Aa 0.25 0.25 0.25
Fa 1.76 1.60 1.44
Fv 2.63 1.95 1.20
For values of periods less than TO, Sa can be determined with Eq. (3.5):
.
. . 1 Eq. (3.5)
For periods between TO and TC the value of Sa is determined by Eq. (3.6):
2.5 Eq. (3.6)
For periods between TC and TL the value of Sa is determined by equations Eq. (3.7) and Eq.
(3.8) depending on the zone the construction is going to be built:
. .
1.2 . (Zone A, B) Eq. (3.7)
. .
1.2 (Zone C) Eq. (3.8)
For periods longer than TL the value of Sa must be equal to Eq. (3.9):
. .
Eq. (3.9)
3.3.2 Structural systems
Four structural systems are recognized in NSR-98, each of these groups is subdivide to
include the kind of elements used and the seismic capacity. The four structural types are:
shear walls. Combined, frames and dual system. The subdivision is used to define in a clear
way uses, limitations in height and reduction factor.
20
3.3.3 Reduction Factors
Reduction factors in NSR-98 have the same purpose than American codes, to account for
inelastic response, moment redistribution and structural redundancy among others. This factor
is defined as R “Coeficiente de capacidad de disipación de energía”. R is calculated as:
. . Eq. (3.10)
R0 is the basic coefficient of energy dissipation capacity and is defined for every subgroup of
structural systems, φa and φp account for any irregularity in the structure. These irregularities
are well defined within NSR-98.
The values of Ro defined in NSR-98 for concrete frame systems are:
• R0 = 7.0 for Sway special concrete frames, (DES in NSR-98)
• R0 = 5.0 for Intermediate concrete frames, (DOM in NSR-98)
• R0 = 2.5 for Ordinary concrete frames, (DMI inNSR-98)
3.3.4 Drift limits
Drift limits prescribed in NSR-98 are very different from values prescribed in the forming
codes. This difference is one of the reasons of the present work because it does not seem
logical to use the value of drift prescribed in NSR-98 with some of the considerations for
ductile structures within the code.
The inter storey drift limit in NSR-98 is 1.0% in comparison with the value of 2.0% and 2.5%
for the damage limitation limit state, this limit seems to be more related to serviceability limit
state but the text within the code refers to this scenario as a damage limitation limit state.
1984 Seismic Code had a drift limit of 1.5% and this value was reduced to 1.0% in NSR-98,
the reason for this reduction was to prevent nonstructural damage and to encourage the use of
shear walls due to the good performance achieved during Mw=7.8 earthquake in Chile in
1985. Some studies were carried out to do this change but they were based mostly on
economic losses (Garcia, 1996-1994) without paying attention to changes on reduction factors
this modification will create. Trying to protect nonstructural elements is a very important
issue in a country like Colombia with limited economic means as it was pointed in those
21
studies. The root of the problem is trying to prevent nonstructural damage and conceive a
ductile structure under the same scenario.
1% drift is required when gross section stiffness is used in the analysis, if cracked sections are
used in the analysis calculated drifts must be reduce in 30% before comparison is made.
Cracked sections for concrete frames in NSR-98 are defined as: 0.35Ig for beams and 0.70Ig
for columns.
3.3.5 Recommendations for Ductile Design of Concrete Frames
For concrete design NSR-98 used ACI 318-95 draft document as forming code with some
modifications to match with constructive practice in Colombia. Access to document drafts of
ACI-318 was possible because of relationship of this committee which has many Colombian
members.
3.4 Comparisons of NSR-98 with some international seismic codes
In this section comments and comparisons will be made about drift limits and reduction
factors found in seismic codes from around the world. These comments will not be going into
further details and will be quoted as references. The information was obtained from
“Regulations for Seismic Design a World List” [2004] compiled by the International
Association for Earthquake Engineering.
The first code to be considered is the Chilean seismic code [1996], in this code drift limit is
θ=0.002 and the reduction factor associated with frames is R=7.0, displacements to be used in
the drift check correspond to the displacements obtained with the reduced seismic forces. It is
worthy to mention that concrete frames systems are not used as much as shear walls. These
provisions are focused mainly on shear walls.
Seismic code in Peru defines a drift limit of θ=0.01 in the case there are elements that will be
damaged by relative deformations and a value of θ=0.015 for all other cases. A reduction
factor of R=6.0 is also defined.
22
Mexican seismic code defines a drift value of θ=0.006 if there is presence of brittle elements
attached and a value of θ=0.012 when brittle elements are not attached. Reduction factors
depend on the fulfillment of several requirements, the maximum value of R is R=4.0.
Ecuadorian seismic code also defines two limit states: serviceability and ultimate,
serviceability is defined by a 50 year return period earthquake and ultimate for 475 years.
Different drift limits are defined by each limit state and are function of use conditions, Table
3.5 summarizes the drift values defined within Ecuadorian seismic code.
Table 3.5 Drift Limits in Ecuadorian Seismic Code
Serviceability Ultimate
Type of structure
Limit State Limit State
Essential facilities (SE) required during and after an
earthquake. Includes hospitals and health centers with
surgery and first aids facilities, telephonic operational 0.15% 0.5%
centers, among others.
Facilities required after an earthquake(SC) and not
included in structural category (SE) 0.25% 1.0%
Ordinary (O) 0.35% 1.5%
Reduction factor for concrete frames is R=5.0, in this code an overstrength factor, as the one
used in FEMA 430, of Ω=2.8 is also implemented.
Next, we have the Chinese seismic code [1898], which uses a serviceability limit state to
check drift. This serviceability limit state is defined by a frequent earthquake with a drift
limit of θ=[1/550]=0.0018. An extra drift limit of θ=[1/50]=0.02 is required for the
maximum credible earthquake to satisfy elastoplastic displacement rotation.
Eurocode 8 also uses different limit states with a direct association with return period through
a ν factor included in Eq. 3.11. Value dr in this equation corresponds to the design interstorey
drift, ν is equal to 2.5 for categories I and II as defined in EC8 (CEN, 2003). Equation 3.11a
corresponds to buildings having non-structural elements of brittle materials attached to the
structure and Eq. 3.11b corresponds to buildings having non-structural elements fixed in a
way as not to interfere with structural deformations.
0.004 Eq. (3.11a)
23
0.006 Eq. (3.11b)
Therefore, for a type I structure with brittle materials attached to the structure serviceability
limit state is defined as dr = 0.01h. Behavior factor associated to concrete frame systems
within EC8 is equal to q = 5.0.
In “Technical rules for constructions in seismic zones” in Italy drift check is required for
serviceability earthquake with a value θ=0.002. The calculation of strains and deflections for
strong-intensity earthquakes is not required, unless their evaluation is essential.
New Zealand seismic code defines a drift limit of θ=0.025 for ultimate limit state and for
serviceability limit state a mention appears saying “The interstorey deflection shall be limited
so as not to adversely affect the required performance of other structure components”.
Another important thing to be remarked is the direct use of ductility values within the code
that makes design more explicit.
24
CHAPTER 4:DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN
4 DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN
4.1 Fundamentals of Direct Displacement Based Design
General DDBD method is given in the detail by (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky 2007) and it
is summarized shortly here with the reference to Figure. 4.1.
DDBD method is founded in the use of an equivalent linearised " substitute structure"
(Shibata and Sozen, 1976), where a single degree of freedom (SDOF) approximation of the
structure (Figure 4.1a) is represented by the rigidity of equivalent secant stiffness at maximum
displacement response, as shown in (Figure 4.1b). An equivalent viscous damping is related
to the hysteretic pattern and the ductility level (Figure 4.1c). For a known design
displacement and corresponding ductility (and hence equivalent viscous damping), the
effective period Te at the maximum displacement response can be found for a design
displacement spectra set (Figure 4.1d). Since the natural period of SDOF is given by:
2 Eq (4.1)
The effective stiffness Ke at the design displacement can be calculated from:
4 Eq. (4.2)
Where me is the effective mass of the structure, subsequently defined in Eq.(4.10).
Referring to Figure 2.1b, the corresponding design base shear is thus:
∆ Eq. (4.3)
25
Figure 4.1 General Direct Displacement-Based Design procedures (a) MDOF to SDOF (b) Effective stiffness
(c) Equivalent viscous damping (d) displacement demand. From Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky (2007)
Where ΔD represents the displacement of design of the substitute structure in the maximum
response Eq.(4.9).
The characteristics of yield displacement for reinforced concrete frames are defined using the
equation of simplified yield drift presented by Priestley [1998], where it was shown that the
frame yield drift θy could be calculated with the enough accuracy for design purposes that use
the relationship:
0.5 Eq. (4.4a)
When multiplied by the effective height He, this gives:
∆ 0.5 Eq. (4.4b)
26
Thus the substitute structure yield displacement can be used to calculate the system
displacement ductility, where lb is the beam length and hb the beam depth.
To incorporate the effects of inelastic action in the real structure, hysteretic damping is
combined with elastic viscous damping to give an equivalent viscous damping of the form:
0.05 0.444
Eq. (4.5)
Where µ is defined as the displacement ductility of the equivalent SDOF system at the design
displacement.
∆
∆ Eq. (4.6)
A presumed inelastic first-mode displacement profile for the structure is used to represent the
maximum displacement response, so that the design ductility can be determined. Developed
studies of obtaining the exact equation for the displacement shape have given in the following
equations (Pettinga and Priestley, 2005):
for n ≤ 4: Eq. (4.7a)
for n ≥ 4: . 1 Eq. (4.7b)
Where Hn is the total height of the structure, and Hi is the height to each storey i.
The storey displacement Δi is found to use the form vector φI, magnified in proportion to the
critical storey displacement Δc that is defined using the design inter-storey drift limit θΔ ,
typically determined from code specifications.
∆ . Eq. (4.8)
With these values of Δi the design displacement of the substitute structure is given by:
∑
Δ ∑
Eq. (4.9)
Where mi are the masses at each significant level i. The effective mass me is calculated in a
similar fashion:
27
∑ ∑
∑
Eq. (4.10)
Further, the effective height of the substitute structure is found from:

∑
∑
Eq. (4.11)
The effective period is established by entering the displacement spectra set (Figure 4.1.d) with
the design displacement ΔD (Eq.(4.9)) and the equivalent viscous damping (Eq.(4.5)). The
displacement spectra for values of damping different from 5% can be obtained using in
Eq.(2.5) and Eq. (2.6) as discussed in chapter 2.
Using Eq.(4.2) and Eq.(4.3) the base shear can be defined. This base shear must be
distributed up the height according to the displacement shape vector:
for n ≤ 10: ∑
Eq. (4.13a)
for n ≥ 10: 0.9 ∑

Eq. (4.13b)
Where Fi is the equivalent lateral force at each level i and Ft equal to 0.1VB at the roof level,
and equals to zero at all other levels.
There are two possibilities to determine moment capacities at potential plastic hinges one is to
use conventional frame analysis considering relative stiffnesses of members the second choice
is based on equilibrium considerations.
In order to use the first of the two options the set of forces obtained in Eq. (4.13) must be
applied in a model according to the condition of maximum displacement in the structure.
This condition can be according to Figure (4.2) where beams stiffnesses are based in cracked
sections stiffness reduced in proportion to the expected stiffness demand and columns
stiffnesses are based on cracked section stiffness due to the strong column-weak beam
philosophy that guarantees elastic behavior.
To represent plastic hinges at the ground floor level pinned connections are used instead of
fixed with a moment applied in the opposite direction with a value equal to 0.6h1VC
28
distributed in the supports. The major problem with the respective stiffness approach is that
the member stiffness depends on the flexural strength that will not be known until the
structural analysis is finished.
Figure 4.2 Structural model to represent peak displacement in conventional frame analysis.
This insinuates that an interactive process will be needed to determine that required beam
moment directs capacity at the moment, modifying the rigidity to reflect the required sources
of strength of an earlier repetition of the analysis. Further details can be found in (Priestley,
Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007)
The procedure is based on equilibrium because of its simplicity results in a very attractive
option; this procedure is widely developed in (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007) and will
be brought here for convenience. Assuming equilibrium in figure 4.3 which represents
seismic moments from DDBD analysis and knowing that lateral seismic forces induce
column-base moments, and axial forces in the columns; the total overturning moment (OTM)
at the base of the building is
∑ Eq. (4.14)
The OTM induced by external forces must be equilibrated by the internal forces. Thus
∑ . Eq. (4.15)
29
Where MCj are the column base moments (m columns) T=C are the axial seismic force in the
exterior columns, and Lbase is the distance between T and C. The tension force T is the sum of
the beam shear forces, VBi up the building.
∑ Eq. (4.16)
Figure 4.3 Seismic Moments from DDBD Lateral Forces. (From Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky (2007)
Equations (4.14) to (4.16) can be combined to find the required sum of the beam shears in a
bay:
∑ ∑ ∑ / Eq. (4.17)
Any distribution of total beam shear force up the building that satisfies Eq (4.15) will result in
a statically admissible equilibrium solution for the DDBD. In the same way as in the election
of column – base moment capacity, it is a designer’s choice how the total beam shear force is
distributed. Once the individual beam shears have been decided in such a way that Eq. (4.17)
is satisfied, the lateral force- induced beam for which the column centerlines are given by
, . . Eq. (4.18)
30
Where LBi is the beam span between columns centerlines, and MBi,l, and MBi,r are the beam
moments at the column centerlines at the left and the right end of the beam, respectively.
The seismic design moments at the column faces will be reduced of this value depending on
the column width hc:
, /2 Eq. (4.19)
Vertical distribution of beam shears should follows the seismic demand; this can best be
achieved by allocating the total beam shear from Eq. (4.17) to the beams in proportion to the
storey shears in the level below the beam under consideration. This can be expressed as:
,
.∑ Eq. (4.20)
,
Where
, ∑ Eq. (4.21)
Columns can also be calculated directly. The force of shear of storey total given by Eq. (4.21)
is divided among the columns, usually in the proportion of 1: 2 for external/internal columns,
like it was pointed out above. Then, since the moment input of the beams in each level is
known above about the analysis, the column moments can be found, working up from the
level 1 joints.
The contra flexure point in the column between levels 0 and 1 has been chosen in 0.6H1, and
the beam moments in levels 1 and 2 have been founded as is describing in the previous
section. The moment at the top of column 1 will be
, 0.4 . Eq. (4.22)
Beam moments at Level 1 joint centroid are MB1,l and MB1,r for the beams to the left and to the
right of the joint centroid respectively. Hence, for equilibrium of moments at the top of
column 1-f2 will be
, , , , Eq. (4.23)
Since the shear force, VC12 in column 1-2 is known, as discussed above, the moment at the top
of the column 1-2 can also be directly calculated:
31
, . , Eq. (4.24)
The procedure continues with consideration of equilibrium at the level 2 joints, working this
way up the building until the top level is reached. It should be noticed, however, that this
procedure will result in column contra flexure points that are near columns mid-heights, and
that the actual design values will be modified from the values calculated above to allow beam
flexural overstrength, higher mode effects, and biaxial actions. As such, a focus of simpler
design approach of assuming central points of contra flexure in each column is acceptable,
thus resulting in equal moments at top and bottom of each column similar to MCi=0.5VCiHi is
acceptable. It should be noticed that it is the sum of moment capacities at top and bottom of a
column rather than individual values at top or bottom that is important in protecting the
formation of column-sway mechanism.
4.2 Additional Requirements for Concrete Frames
As mentioned before final column strength is modified to allow the inclusion of beam
overstrength, higher mode effects, biaxial attack and general conditions for capacity design.
Each of these effects is considered in detail in (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007) and will be
briefly discussed here.
Figure 4.4 Determination of Column Moments from Consideration of

Joint Equilibrium. From Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky (2007)
32
4.2.1 Beam Flexural Design
It is recommended that beams are designed for the larger of the factored gravity moments and
seismic moments ignoring gravity moments. This is because the gravity moments increase
the total moment at one end of the beam, and reduce it at the other end.
4.2.2 Beam Shear Design
As with beam flexural design, it will be prudent to consider the effects of beam vertical
response on design shear force. This is more important for shear design than for flexural
design.
4.2.3 Column Flexural Design
In order to include dynamic amplification created by higher modes the required column
flexural strength is determined by:
Eq. (4.25)
Where φo corresponds to over strength factor and can be established as in 1.25 is strain
hardening included in the section analysis and 1.6 if it is ignored.
wf is the dynamic amplification factor and is height and ductility dependent, where from the
first storey to the ¾ point of the structure height is defined:
, 1.15 0.13 1 Eq. (4.26)
φf is the dependable and is based on nominal material strength, normally 0.9. And µo is the
ductility reduced by the over strength factor
1 Eq. (4.27)
4.2.4 Column Shear Design
In recognition of the potentially catastrophic consequences of column shear failure seismic

codes have included more restrictive provisions for capacity design in these elements. After
33
some studies (Pettinga and Priestley, 2005) involving THA dynamic amplification factor for
column shear were proposed (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007)
0.1 , Eq. (4.28)
The shear demands VE corresponds to the design lateral force distribution found from DDBD
process. VE,base is the value of VE at the base of the column.
The upper limit of column shear corresponds to development of plastic hinging at over
strength capacity at the top and bottom of the column, separated by the clear column height,
Hc.
4.3 Displacement Based Design Assessment
DDBD is a methodology that can be used not only for new structures but also to analyze
existing ones. Theoretical bases are the same used in the design of new structures with some
modifications inherent in the assessment of structures. The very important difficulty is the
determination of which element of the structure will first reach the specific performance limit,
and what the corresponding displacement profile throughout the structure will be. In the
design of a new structure the characteristic displacement profiles can be used, supposing that
capacity - design principles have been adopted ensuring beam- way mechanism.
The definition of the displacement profile for a column-sway profile is more difficult, as it
depends on the structural displacement ductility capacity, changing from an almost lineal
profile at yield to a nearly bilinear profile with the high drift in the storey or the stories
subjected to balance.
4.3.1 Displacement Based Design Assessment for Frame Buildings
Two different approaches are considered in order to perform seismic assessment of structures
using DDBD methodology, the first of them requires an iterative process and the second one
is direct. Steps required in order to perform seismic assessment with the two approaches are
presented in (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007) for this work focus will be paid in the
direct one which steps are describe below:
34
Step 1: Assess the moment-curvature response of potentionally critical members to

determine flexural strength and limit state curvatures. In this assessment shear must be
included to see if this force affects the limit-state curvature.
An issue in step 1 will be the limit-state curvature when the spacing of transverse
reinforcement does not satisfy the maximum spacing limits which restrain reinforcement
buckling in damage-control limit state but will not affect serviceability curvature.
Figure 4.5 summarizes ductility recommendations for damage control curvatures.
Figure 4.5 Influence of Hoop Spacing on Damage-Control Curvature (From (REference 1)
Smax is defined through Eq. (4.29) where fu and fy are the ultimate and yield strength of the
longitudinal rebar, of diameter dbl.
3 6 1 6 Eq. (4.29)
From figure 4.5 two aspects can be highlighted
• For s < smax. The damage-control curvature corresponds to the volumetric ratio of
transverse reinforcement.
• For smax ≤ s ≤ 16dbl the damage-control curvature should be taken as the lesser of the
values corresponding to the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement and
. 12 Eq. (4.30)
35
Where is the serviceability limit-state curvature.
Step 2: Determine the plastic rotation capacity of plastic hinges.
Eq. (4.31)
and Lp is the plastic hinge length and is defined by Eq. (4.32).
2 Eq. (4.32a)
0.2 1 0.08 Eq. (4.32b)
0.022 Eq. (4.32c)
Step 3: Determine whether a beam-sway or column-sway inelastic mechanism is to be

expected. The best way to define this is by performing an adaptive non-linear static
(pushover) analysis. This can also be assessed calculating a sway potential index Si. The
procedure is explained in detail in (Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007). As the work will
be based on new structures designed according to capacity design principles beam-sway
mechanisms is expected and no additional information is required in this step.
Step 4: Having determined the sway mechanism, the limit state deflected shape can be
defined. The yield displacement profile may be assumed to be liner, defined by the yield drift
of Eq. (4.4). It is assumed that the plastic rotation capacity of the beams at level 1 is critical
for example of figure Fig. (4.6) and hence the plastic displacement at level 1 is ∆ ,
. , where is the plastic rotation calculated for level 1, and is the storey height
from the ground floor to level 1. The full displacement profile can now be calculated from
the characteristic shape defined by Eq. (4.7).
Step 5: Determine the base-shear capacity. If a beam-sway mode of inelastic deformation has
been predicted, the base overturning moment OTM can be determine from Fig. (4.3) as the
sum of the column-base moment capacities and the moment provided by the axial forces
resulting from beam seismic shears. As presented in section 4.1 with equations Eq. (4.15) to
Eq. (4.20).
36
The effective height he is then found from the displaced shape and mass distribution, using
Eq. (4.11), and the base shear determined from:
Eq. (4.33)
Step 6: With the limit-state displacement profile defined, the equivalent SDOF displacement
(Eq. (4.9)), mass (Eq. (4.10)), effective height (Eq. (4.11)), displacement ductility (Eq. (4.6)),
and equivalent viscous damping (Eq. (4.5)) can be calculated.
Figure 4.6 Determining Limit-State Displacement Profile from Mechanism and Critical Drift (From
(Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007))
Step 7: Calculate the spectral reduction factor Rξ corresponding to ξ from Eq. (4.5).
Step 8: Calculate the equivalent elastic spectral displacement capacity: ∆ , ∆ ⁄ .

This value is compared with the equivalent elastic “code” displacement demand ΔDem,el which
can be obtain intersecting the spectrum at the effective period. The capacity demand
displacement ratio ∆ , ⁄∆ , can then be used to determine the risk.
37
CHAPTER 5: FBD USING NSR-98 IN A REGULAR CONCRETE FRAME
5 FBD USING NSR-98 IN A REGULAR CONCRETE FRAME
As mentioned in chapter 3, NSR-98 is the current seismic design code in Colombia; this code
has been used in the last 10 years and is currently under revision to be updated and released at
the beginning of 2009. NSR-98 code will be used in this chapter to present how a regular
concrete frame is designed following the procedures described in this. The importance lies on
determining how structures that have been designed and built during the past 10 years behave
when compare with DDBD methodologies.
5.1 NSR-98 Applied in a Regular Concrete Frame
5.1.1 Description of the Structure under Analysis
In order to compare a structure designed using NSR-98 with DDBD or another methodology
it is necessary to avoid any type of irregularity that can cause unpredictable behaviors. For
this reason, a regular concrete frame, 5 storeys – 3 bays will be use in the study. Distance
perpendicular between frames is 5m. In the analysis an inner frame will be used. Figure 5.1
shows the geometry of the structure and the parameters used in the analysis.
5.1.2 Definition of Seismic Forces
The structure will be located in Armenia, which is a city located in a high seismicity zone
whose microzonation has been already performed and presented in section 3.3.1. The type of
soil chosen in the study is Zone A and the factors are define in table 3.4.
38
7.0 Dead Load
1.8 Live Load
f'c= 21 MPa Concrete resistance
Fy= 410 MPa Reinforcement yield strength
Figure 5.1 Structure under analysis and design parameters.
Equivalent static force method was selected to perform the analysis. Using Eq. 5.1 that is a
function of the height and the structural system produce a value of 0.61s.
0.08 Eq. (5.1)
This period lies in the constant acceleration zone with a value of 1.1g generating an elastic
base shear of 2887 kN. The forces are distributed up the height of the building based on the
Eq. (5.2). Using the reduction factor R for concrete frames without any irregularity of 7.0
presented on section 3.3.3 the reduced seismic forces required for design are presented in Fig
(5.2).
. .
Eq. (5.2)
∑
STOREY ELASTIC FORCE REDUCED FORCE

kN kN
5 983.095 140.442
4 776.904 110.986
3 573.551 81.936
2 373.953 53.422
1 179.997 25.714
Figure 5.2 Elastic Spectra for Armenia and Forces on Frame
39
5.1.3 Lateral Drift
As mentioned in section 3.3.4 drift limit in NSR-98 is equal to θ=0.01 for ultimate limit state.
In order to fulfill this severe deformation limit, cross sections of member are usually very
large. In this case trial and error was required until displacement limit was satisfied. Final
sections required were: Columns <65x65cm> and Beams <55x50cm>, this sections kept
constant up the height as is normally done in the country. Displacement profile obtained is
presented in Table 5.1. Gross sections were used instead of cracked sections meaning that
increment of 30% in the drift limit is not allowed.
Table 5.1 Lateral Drifts Obtained in the Analysis
STOREY DRIFT
5 0.49%
4 0.76%
3 0.96%
2 1.01%
1 0.60%
As can be observed in Table 5.1, storey 2 is the critical. The values obtained for 4th and 5ft
storey are much lower that drift limit.
5.1.4 Design of Elements
Concrete design in NSR-98 is basically a copy of ACI-318. As it is out of the scope of this
work no further details will be given.
Results are summarized in table 5.2 and presented also in Fig. 5.3. In this table reinforcement
in top and bottom in each end are presented, bottom reinforcement is ruled by minimum
permitted by the code. In the right side of the table a figure with the stirrups is shown. In
Figure 5.3 all the reinforcement present in the frame is displayed, it is clear from this figure
how capacity design procedures are presented with the amount of transversal reinforcement in
the columns and the end of the beams.
Column reinforcement is composed by 12#5 rebar with #3 stirup spaced at 13cm in the
confined zone. It worthy to mention that rebar sizes correspond to American standards an #5
refers to a rebar with a diameter of 5/8 inches and so on.
40
Table 5.2 Beam Reinforcement
12#5
Figure 5.3 General Reinforcement Distribution
41
5.2 Results of Time History Analyses in Frame Designed with NSR-98
Non-linear time-history analysis has been carried out using Ruaumoko (Carr, 2004) to assess
the performance of the structure designed using NSR-98. Beams were modeled using 2-hinge
Giberson beam elements and columns using yield surface element to account for axial load
effect. The hysteretic behavior of the concrete was presented using Takeda model [Otani,
1981] with α=0.5 and β=0.2 for columns and α=0.4 and β=0.2 for beams. Rayleigh damping
was used with a value of 1% for the first mode and 1% for second mode. The plastic lengths
associated with the yielding elements were calculated using the recommendations from
Paulay and Priestley [1992]. Two synthetic spectrum compatible earthquakes, three near field
and three subduction earthquakes were used in the analysis. The synthetic earthquakes were
obtained using simqk (Carr, 2004) to match design spectra for microzonation in Armenia city
in the ashes zone. Near field and subduction earthquakes are parts of the splitting process
carried out for the city of Armenia, using curve inversion method and equating to uniform
hazard spectrum, the couples M-d that contribute the most to the hazard of each of the
selected sources were defined; for the Romeral fault the compatible seismic scenario will be
an event of magnitude 6.3± 0.1Mw at a hypocentral distance of 15.4km and for the
subduction area an event of magnitude 7.7±0.1 Mw at a hypocentral distance of 170.30km
[Ramos, 2006]. The earthquakes were defined at rock; in order to obtain the response in the
soil the program EERA was used. Soil properties used in the analysis were obtained from the
Quindio University and those are the same used in microzonation studies. Figure 5.4 presents
the spectrum obtained with the signals used in the time history analysis.
Displacement profiles obtained in THA are presented in Fig. 5.5. It can be observed in this
figure that displacements obtained in THA were lower than displacements predicted by FBD
analysis. Table 5.3 presents drifts values obtained in each THA.
42
Figure 5.4 Response Spectra for Earthquake Input.
Figure 5.5 THA displacements profiles.
43
Table 5.3 Maximum Drift Values in THA

STOREY FBD ROME1 ROME2 ROME3 SUBDU1 SUBDU2 SUBDU3 SYNTH1 SYNTH2
5 0.49% 0.11% 0.41% 0.18% 0.21% 0.13% 0.16% 0.17% 0.28%
4 0.76% 0.30% 0.79% 0.43% 0.48% 0.30% 0.36% 0.35% 0.59%
3 0.96% 0.59% 0.90% 0.65% 0.72% 0.49% 0.58% 0.45% 0.96%
2 1.01% 0.79% 0.76% 0.77% 0.79% 0.60% 0.67% 0.50% 1.11%
1 0.60% 0.47% 0.42% 0.46% 0.44% 0.35% 0.38% 0.33% 0.62%
Behavior of plastic hinges in the Giberson beams defined within the model showed minor to
none plastic behavior. Table 5.4 presents the values of curvature ductility obtained in THA
compare with ductilities assessed with moment curvature analysis performance with
CUMBIA (Montejo and Kowalsky, 2007).
Table 5.4 Maximum Curvature Ductilities in THA
BEAM TYPE 1 BEAM TYPE 2
SERVICIABILITY 4.61 3.26
DAMAGE LIMITATION 10.4 13.84
ROME 1 3.87 4.18
ROME 2 4.84 5.73
ROME 3 3.6 4.6
SUBDU 1 3.28 4.8
SUBDU 2 2.71 3.38
SUBDU 3 2.94 3.75
SYNTHE 1 4.93 6.19
SYNTHE 2 5.02 6.45
Loading histories of the hinges are presented in Annex A.
44
CHAPTER 6: ASSESSMENT USING DDBD IN FRAME DESIGNED WITH NSR-98
6 ASSESSMENT USING DDBD IN FRAME DESIGNED WITH

NSR-98
The aim of this chapter is to determine how the structure is designed according to NSR-98 in
chapter 5 performs from a displacement point of view. This performance concept will be
obtained using DDBD assessment presented in chapter 4 with a small variation in the final
step in order to determine the magnitude of seismic moment Mw required to achieve the limit
state under consideration.
6.1 Limit States in the Assessment
In order to perform the analysis it is necessary to define the limits states to be considered.
Some parts in NSR-98 make reference to the fact that structures can obtain extensive damage
without collapse when subjected to the design earthquake; this implies that damage control
limit state is adopted. On the other hand, drift limits of θ=0.01 presented in the code are more
related to serviceability than damage limitation limit state. For this reason assessment
performed to the structure designed in chapter 5 will consider the two limit states;
serviceability limit state to be coherent with the drift limits prescribed within the code and
damage limitation limit state to be coherent with reduction factors (R) suggested in the code.
Deformation limit states criteria used in the assessment is presented in Table 6.1 and are
based on material characteristics. Damage control limit state for concrete is based in Mander’s
model with the modification proposed by King in 1986. (Montejo and Kowalsky; 2007).
Buckling model of Eberhard is also used and controlled damage limitation limit state in all
cases.
45
Table 6.1 Deformation limit states criteria

serviceability concrete strain: ‐0.0040
serviceability steel strain 0.0150
damage control concrete strain ‐0.0231
damage control steel strain 0.0600
6.2 Assessment Procedure
Steps presented in section 4.3 will be followed by the two limit states simultaneously for
comparisons.
STEP 1: Assess the moment-curvature response of potentionally critical members to
determine flexural strength and limit state curvatures. To perform this step the program
CUMBIA (Montejo and Kowaslky, 2007) was used, results are summarized in Table 6.2.
Only beams and base columns were analyzed since those are the sections required to perform
the assessment.
Table 6.2 Flexural Strength Assessment
Mserviceability (kN.m) Mserviceability (kN.m) Mdamage (kN.m) Mdamage (kN.m)
SECTION
positive negative positive negative
BEAM 1 418 754 487 852
BEAM 2 418 907 489 1065
BASE COLUMN EXTERIOR 1730 1730 1988 1987
BASE COLUMN INTERIOR 1840 1840 2039 2039
STEP 2: Determination of plastic rotation capacity of plastic hinges. In this step Eq. (4.31) is
used. In the determination of the curvature for serviceability limit state Eq. (4.30) is used to
see if a reduction factor is required due to minimum spacing, as the spacing in plastic hinges
is 10cm, there is no need of reduction factors. Table 6.3 shows results obtained for the beams.
Base columns hinges have a serviceability curvature of 0.016 1/m and a damage limitation
curvature of 0.077 1/m defined by buckling.
STEP 3: Determination of inelastic mechanism. As mentioned in chapter 4, when capacity
design principles are followed beam-sway mechanism is expected.
STEP 4: Determination of deflected shape. As expected for a regular concrete frame
designed following capacity design principles critical displacement occurs in the first storey.
The deflected shape is obtained using Eq. (4.7) and Eq. (4.8); results are presented in Table
6.4.
46
Table 6.3 Rotation Capacity
φy φls θp
SECTION 1
(1/m) (1/m) (rad)
serviceability 0.007 0.038 0.014
damage limitation 0.007 0.115 0.048
φy φls θp
SECTION 2
(1/m) (1/m) (rad)
serviceability 0.007 0.027 0.009
damage limitation 0.007 0.115 0.048
Table 6.4 Deflected Shapes
δi Δi serviceability (m) Δi damage control (m)

STOREY HEIGTH (m)
(Eq. 4.7b) (Eq. 4.8) (Eq. 4.8)
5TH 15 1.000 0.26 0.67
TH
4 12 0.853 0.22 0.57
RD
3 9 0.680 0.18 0.46
2ND 6 0.480 0.12 0.32
1ST 3 0.253 0.06 0.17
STEP 5: Determination of the base shear capacity. It is important in order to determine the
base shear capacity to determine the overturning moment OTM. This value can be calculated
as presented in Fig. (4.3). Because of the reinforcement is the same in each storey tension and
compression forces are located only in the exterior columns. Shear forces in each span are
presented in table 6.5.
Table 6.5 Beam Shears
STOREY VB (kN) Serviceability VB (kN) Damage
5TH 269 308

TH
4 269 308
3RD 269 308
ND
2 304 308
1ST 269 308
SUM
1382 1589
OTM of 27870 kN-m and 31880 kN-m were therefore calculated for serviceability and
damage limitation limit state.
47
In order to determine the base shear (Eq. (4.33)), it is necessary to calculate the effective
height from Eq. (4.11). Table 6.6 presents the results obtained for the base shear.
Table 6.6 Base Shear
SERVICEABILITY (kN) DAMAGE LIMITATION (kN)

2601 2979
STEP 6 & 7: Determination of DDBD parameter required for the assessment. Calculations
of these parameters are based on equations presented in chapter 4.
Table 6.7 DDBD Parameters

PARAMETER SERVICEABILITY DAMAGE LIMITATION
ΔD (Displacement design) [m] Eq.(4.9) 0.202 0.513

5
Me (Equivalent mass) [kg] Eq.(4.10) 2.299x10 2.299x105
Δy (Yield displacement) [m] Eq.(4.4) 0.10 0.10
µ (Displacement ductility) Eq.(4.6) 2.014 5.114
ξ (Equivalent viscous damping) [%] Eq.(4.5) 12.11 16.37
Te (Equivalent period) [s] Eq.(4.1) 0.84 1.25
Rξ (Spectral reduction factor) Eq.(2.5) 0.704 0.617
Rξ (Spectral reduction factor, near field) Eq.(2.6) 0.839 0.786
Taking into consideration that the region where the structure was designed is also affected by
near field seismicity, the two scenarios were considered.
STEP 8: Determination of seismic moment required to achieve limit states. In order to

determine the value of seismic moment that could make the structure to reach each limit state
it is necessary to used Eq. (2.2) which defines the corner period of displacement spectra as a
function of Mw and Eq. (2.3) that predicts the maximum value of displacement for the corner
period also in terms of Mw. this second equation also involves the variable r which is the
epicentral distance. These distances will be used according to the source that will include
near fault seismicity and normal conditions, these values are consistent with the results of
hazard analysis carried out in Armenia (Ramos, 2006) and before mentioned in section 5.2.
48
Once these values are determined, advantages from the linearity between the corner period
and maximum displacement, and equivalent period with unreduced design displacement are
taken and the following expression is developed:
. .
∆ . Eq. (6.1)
Using a value of Cs=1.4 as recommended in section 2.4.2 for intermediate soil and solving Eq.
(6.1) seismic moment can be determined. Results are summarized in Table 6.8.
Table 6.8 Final results from the assessment
CASE r [km] Mw
Serviceability limit state – Normal conditions 100 9.08
Damage control limit state – Normal conditions 100 9.39
Serviceability limit state – Near fault conditions 40 7.87
Damage control limit state – Near fault conditions 40 8.15
49
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS
7 CONCLUSIONS
Moment resistant concrete frames designed with NSR-98 performed almost elastically when
subjected to spectrum compatible earthquakes. This is consistent with the values obtained in
the assessment with DDBD, and presented in Table 6.8. As mentioned in chapter 5 in the
section of THA, hazard analysis performed in the area of the study predicted a couple M-d for
two sources: 6.3±0.1 for near fault conditions and 7.7±0.1 for subduction. It can be observed
that 475 return period earthquake is not able to force the structure to reach damage limitation
limit state and serviceability limit state is achieved only for the most critical element in almost
all cases. From the performance obtained in THA and DDBD assessment it can be concluded
that the concrete frame designed using NSR-98 has achieved a performance objective
corresponding to “Essential objective” as define in section 2.1.2.
The way that seismic design is currently used in NSR-98, seems to be inappropriate as it leads
not only to very expensive structures but also to structures whose performance is quite beyond
requirements. The main reason takes root in the single scenario that NSR-98 uses to perform
structural analysis. Sections required to satisfy drift limits are immense, making minimum
steel requirements given by the code very important, as it imposes high ductility detailing to a
structure that will perform almost elastically.
The almost elastic behavior found with THA will set a big doubt in the reduction factors used
in the design which are based mainly on the supposed inelastic movements the structure will
undergo when subjected to the design earthquake. Although in the design a factor R=7.0 was
used, this unreal reduction factor was covered by minimum requirements for concrete frames
50
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS
within the code. These minimum requirements which are a function of the geometry of the
structure were able to supply the required strength to withstand seismic design loads.
It is recommended to change the way seismic analysis is performed in NSR-98 for the new
edition of the seismic code to be released in 2009. This code should include at least two limit
states based on specific return periods, each limit state should include specific drift limits
considering the type of non-structural elements attached to the structure and the structural
system used.
It must be pointed out that values of Mw found in DDBD assessment are far beyond from
probable values for the region, it is probably that value of Cs used in Eq. (6.1) is not adequate
for ashes soils and should be checked.
Takeda hysteresis rule used in THA doesn’t take into account contribution of concrete in
tension. As THAs results were almost elastic this contribution could have been important.
Although it is considered conservative the fact of not have used use it.
51
REFERENCES
8 REFERENCES
Acevedo, A. [2005] “A Critical Review of Seismic Hazard Assessments and Seismic Design Codes for
Colombia,” Individual Study, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk
(ROSE School), University of Pavia, Italy.
AIS [1996] “Norma AIS 100-97”, Asociacion Colombian de Ingenieria Sismica, Bogota, Colombia
American Concrete Institute, ACI 318-05 Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430pp
Bommer, J.J, Elnashai, A. S.[1999], “Displacement design spectra for seismic design”, Journal of
earthquake engineering, Vol. 3, No 1,1-32
Blandón, C. A., J. Farbiaz, J. D. Jaramillo and M. R. Villaraga [2002] “Evaluación de la amenaza sísmica
en roca para el valle de Aburrá,” Memorias Primer Simposio Colombiano de Sismología, Bogotá,
Colombia.
Cano, L., H. Monsalve, A. Espinosa, D. Rubiano, G. París and J. Guzmán [1999] “Estudio de la amenaza
sísmica del eje cafetero,” Universidad del Quindio,Armenia, Quindio.
Carr, A.J. [2002] “Ruaumoko – a program for inelastic time-hystory analysis”,Tech. rep., Department of
civil engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) [2003], “Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance, Draft 6”, Brussels
A1
REFERENCES
Corredor, F. [2003] “Seismic strain rates and distributed continental deformation in the northern Andes
and three-dimensional seismotectonics of northwestern South America,” Tectonophysics 372, 147-266.
Faccioli, E., Paolucci, R., and Rey, J., “Displacement Spectra for Long Periods,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol.
20(2), 2004, pp 347-376
Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Building: FEMA 274, Washington, 1997, 492 pp
Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP Action plan for performance based seismic design:
FEMA 349, Washington, 2000, 66 pp
Garcia, L.E [1994] “El control de la deriva y sus implicaciones economicas”, Asociación Combiana de
Ingeneira Sismica, Bogota.
Garcia, L.E [1996] “Economic considerations of displacement-based seismic design of structural concrete
buildings,” Structural Engineering International, Vol. 6, No. 4, International Association for Bridge
and Structural Engineering, IABSE, Zurich, Switzerland.
Kellogg, J. N. and V. Vega [1995] “Tectonic development of Panama, Costa Rica, and the Colombian
Andes: constrains from global positioning system geodetic studies and gravity,” Mann, P. (Ed.).
Geologic and Tectonic Development of the Caribbean plate Boundary in Southern Central America.
GSA Special Paper, 295, 75-90.
Kowalsky, M.J.N and Priestley, M.N J [2000] “Direct displacement based seismic design of concrete
buildings”, Bull of NZSEE, Vol 33, No 4, pp 403-420
Montejo, L.A., Kowalsky, M.J., CUMBIA –Set of codes for the analysis of reinforced concrete members,
Report No. IS-07-01, Constructed Facilities Laboratory, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,
2007, 41pp
A2
REFERENCES
Pettinga, J.D and Priestley, M.J.N, Dynamic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Frames Designed with
Direct Displacement-Based Design, ROSE Research Report No. 2005/02, IUSS Press, Pavia, 2005,
154 pp
Priestley, M.J.N [2000] “Performance based seismic design”, Proceedings of 12th World conference on
earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
Priestley, M.J.N, Calvi, G.M, Kowalsky, M.J.[2007] ¨Displacement based seismic design of structures¨,
IUS Press, Pavia, Italy, 720pp
Ramos, T., Monsalve, H. [2006] ¨Selección de señales sísmicas para microzonificación de ciudades, caso
Armenia¨, Universidad del Quindio, August 2006
SEAOC [1995] “VISION 2000: Performance based seismic engineering of buildings”, Structural
engineering association of California, Sacramento, California
Shibata, A., Sozen, M., [1976] “Substitute structure method for seismic design in reinforced concrete”,
Journal of the structural division, ASCE, 102,6.
International Association for Earthquake Engineering. [2004] “Regulations for Seismic Design a World
List”, July
A3
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
LOADING HISTORIES OF THE HINGES FOR THA
Hinge behavior obtained during THA is presented for central element in each storey of the frame at both
ends. Element 2 corresponds to the first storey, 5 to the second storey, 8 to the third, 11 in the fourth and
14 in the top storey. The moment curvature monotonic envelopes are presented with blue and brown lines
and the extend up to ultimate limit state, green line represents THA results.
ROME 1: Near field type
A1
APPENDIX
A2
APPENDIX
A3
APPENDIX
A4
APPENDIX
A5
APPENDIX
A6
APPENDIX
SUBDU 1: Subdction type
A7
APPENDIX
A8
APPENDIX
A9
APPENDIX
A10
APPENDIX
A11
APPENDIX
A12
APPENDIX
SYNTHE 1: Synthetic earthquake
A13
APPENDIX
A14
APPENDIX
SYNTHE 2: Synthetic earthquake
A15
APPENDIX
A16

Concrete Frames Designed With The Colombian Seismic Code (Nsr-98) From A Displacement Perspective

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Concrete Frames Designed With The Colombian Seismic Code (Nsr-98) From A Displacement Perspective

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CONCRETE FRAMES DESIGNED WITH THE

COLOMBIAN SEISMIC CODE (NSR-98) FROM A

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

JUAN CARLOS RESTREPO RESTREPO

Supervisor: Prof. Nigel Priestley

Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia

Name of Reviewer …… … ………

Name of Reviewer …… … ………

Keywords: NSR-98, DDBD, THA, DDBD Assessment

3.3.3 Reduction Factors ....................................................................................................... 21

1.1 Motivation and objectives of the dissertation

1.2 Thesis outline

The second chapter of this dissertation is composed by definitions of performance based

2.1 Performance based seismic design

2.1.1 Performance Concept

2.1.2 Limit states and performance levels

• Fully operational: The installation continues in operation with insignificant damage.

2.2 Force Based Design

2.2.1 Analysis and Earthquake Seismic Design Bases

Force based design requires the following steps:

iv. The base shear is calculated.

Where Sa is the acceleration as a fraction of gravity taken from an elastic acceleration

2.2.2 Capacity design principles

Capacity design philosophy involves the following procedures:

2.3 Displacement Based Design

2.4 Response and Design Spectra

Design spectrum is required as structures cannot be designed for a particular earthquake in a

2.4.1 Elastic Acceleration Spectra

2.4.2 Elastic displacement spectra

• The displacement spectrum that corresponds to minimum design acceleration has

Their findings include the following points:

• 5% damped displacement spectra tend to increase essentially linearly with period up

1.0 2.5 5.7 Eq. (2.2)

Displacement-based seismic design uses a secant stiffness representation of the structural

3 COLOMBIAN SEISMIC DESIGN CODE NSR-98

3.1 Seismic environment of Colombia

Table 3.1 Major Earthquakes in Colombia (Abstracted from Acevedo (2005))

Evidence of seismic activity of major earthquakes is presented in Table 3.1

3.2 History of Colombian Seismic Code

In 1975 the National Association of Earthquake Engineering (Asociación Colombiana de

3.3 Seismic Design with the Colombian Seismic Code NSR-98

3.3.1 Hazard Maps and Design Spectra

0 < T < 0.3s: . . 1.0 5.0 Eq. (3.1)

0 < T < 0.48S 2.5 Eq. (3.2)

where TL is defined as 2.4S.

T> TL Eq. (3.4)

Table 3.2 Site Coefficient in NSR-98

Soil classification Site coefficient, S

NSR-98 presents in addition to the spectrum described previously, a spectrum of 2% damping

Table 3.3 Importance factor in NSR-98

Structural Importance Type of structure

Fig. 3.1 Elastic Acceleration Spectra in NSR-98

Table 3.4 Spectral Coefficient for microzonation Spectra for Armenia

Zone A Zone B Zone C

For periods between TO and TC the value of Sa is determined by Eq. (3.6):

2.5 Eq. (3.6)

3.3.2 Structural systems

3.3.3 Reduction Factors

3.3.4 Drift limits

3.3.5 Recommendations for Ductile Design of Concrete Frames

3.4 Comparisons of NSR-98 with some international seismic codes

Table 3.5 Drift Limits in Ecuadorian Seismic Code

0.004 Eq. (3.11a)